I have been deliberately obscure on the details of certain matters related to my separation from my last church. The presenting issue of my disagreement with the elders was a building project, but that was not the underlying issue–the issue was a lack of regard for church unity.

Nevertheless, in the months leading up to the confrontation over unity and direction that eventually compelled me to resign, I did a lot of research for Session discussions about building projects and fundraising. There is a lot written about the strategy of fundraising and the leadership considerations, and I would not want to reproduce that wisdom here.

As a pastor who is also a biblical scholar, I felt that there were many different passages that could be used to develop a biblical theology of fundraising, and I presented those to Session as part of our process. I’m presenting these here for the benefit of churches who are contemplating fundraising for a building project, especially a building/addition used for recreation or other ancillary ministries (i.e., not a sanctuary for worship).

Building Project and Fundraising: Initial Considerations

Projects are not a sufficient or a necessary condition for developing relationships and a lasting ministry.

Projects are not a sufficient condition. If people are not currently telling their friends and neighbors about Jesus, then they won’t do it over recreational or social activities at church. Just doing something new and different, and quickly, is not enough to make this happen.

Projects are not a necessary condition. Before going all-in on a capital campaign and a building plan, it is wise to count the cost of building (including the opportunity cost), to see if existing structures (on church property or in the community) can be suitable for the ministry plans.

Ultimately, a building or new facility is not going to rescue a local church. And it will certainly not be good for the church…

• If worship is not honoring to God
• If conflict over the decision-making process divides the leadership, elders, and the members of the congregation
• If we are not willing to sacrifice our preferences (1 Cor 6:1–8; 8:9–13; 9:13–23ff.; Rom 14)
• If we are not already reaching out to our pre-churched or previously-churched friends and neighbors
• If we are not providing discipleship “on-ramps” at the church for those who come and need to be connected
• If we don’t have the right personnel to support the ministry

Proposed Benefits of New Facilities, and Some Objections

There are three sorts of benefits to a publicly-available facility improvement on church property.

One benefit is a positive externality for the community: that just having a facility on the church property contributes to the common good. This is certainly true, but it is questionable whether that in itself is 1) the mission of the church and 2) worth the cost.

The second benefit of a facility would be as a context for personal evangelism and relationship-building. This is a possibility, but the church must have a realistic strategy or mechanism for how this will happen—especially if it’s not happening currently in other venues.

A third benefit could be as a means for fundraising—to pay for the maintenance and to raise money for missions/ministries we support. All the resources I’ve read say that you cannot rely on this (see below). It would be wise to test it out before committing to spending to build and committing to annual maintenance (money which could itself be devoted to other charities/ministries).

Process Must Be Thoroughly Biblical

The way we handle decision-making, the way we handle conflict, the way we handle fundraising, and the way we run a facility, must be distinctly biblical and Christian.

Majority acceptance of an idea among a church does not necessarily translate into buy-in such that folks are invested in this idea. Before moving forward, a project should be enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the church.

Biblical Model of Facility Uses

As we all know: the church is the people, not the building. The purposes of having a church facility are worship, discipleship, fellowship, and serving the poor and needy. Facility enhancements for those purposes (e.g., fellowship hall, food pantry, apartments for emergency housing) are a lot easier to justify.

A higher threshold of justification must be met when proposing to enhance a church facility beyond those core biblical functions of the church, to demonstrate that the enhancement will be a successful means to those fundamental ends. There are many other good uses for open land, but not all uses are appropriate for a church facility.

What is a Biblical Model of Fundraising for a Facility Like This?

When Corrie and I were beginning to raise support to go overseas as missionaries, one of our friends we supported (and still support—they’re with Cru) shared with me Henri Nouwen’s little book, The Spirituality of Fundraising, which I think is quite inspiring.

If a church decides to move ahead with a building project, and to raise funds from various individuals, business and grants in the community, there are biblical texts from which we can derive principles for fundraising. It is important to take a step back and think about what we’re attempting.

Temple Fundraising

• 1 Chr 29:1–8 — This is an important text. David is making the preparations for Solomon to build the temple. In 1 Chr 21, David initiates a census, likely with the intention of taxing the people or of undertaking another war in search of spoils. He is punished for this census, but his sin and repentance leads to the discovery of the site for the future temple (22:1), where all of Israel could repent and seek God.

David then sets about preparing the materials and appointing the administration to staff the new temple that Solomon will build. He leads by contributing voluntarily, but then exhorts the people to give their own contributions willingly (29:1–5), rather than being taxed (as he had planned originally). The people give joyfully, and David rejoices that they did so (29:6–9). Even the spoils won by Saul and Abner, disgraced and deceased leaders, contribute to the new house of the Lord (26:28). [I think there’s a “tribal reconciliation” element to this apparently insignificant detail—Benjaminite leaders contributed to this temple, which is on the border between Judah and Benjamin territory. The spoils of Samuel, a Northern Ephraimite (1 Sam 1:1–3), also contribute, meaning this is a “pan-Israelite”-funded project.]

The principles here are:

1) contributions should be given voluntarily, cheerfully/joyfully as worship to God.

2) the more members of the group who contribute (great and small), the better. An individual or a small group of people should not be able to exert complete influence over what happens on church property, just because they can marshal the funds to make something happen.

3) proper administration and staffing are necessary before building.

Fundraising signifying Gospel reconciliation

Rom 15:14–33 – The Letter to the Romans was a fundraising letter! The Macedonian and Achaian Gentile churches gave to support the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, which was a sign of the racial reconciliation accomplished in Christ (15:26–28). Paul sees the Roman church’s financial support of his mission to Spain as a spiritual act of worship.

Outside contributions

What about contributions by people or organizations who don’t belong to our church? What involvement should outside funding have? What strings are attached? What do businesses expect when they give money for this project?

Legally—and morally—I think it’s OK to accept public funds that are set aside for “common good” uses like athletic facilities, to build on church property. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, it was established that churches and church-run educational facilities should not be discriminated against in such situations. If the public money is there and we qualify, I think we can take it (as long as we truly understand the stipulations).

Biblically:

• Gen 14:21–24 — Abraham refuses the spoils of war offered by the king of Sodom, so that no one besides God could say, “I made Abraham rich!”

• Luke 7:4–5 — There is a Roman centurion who has a beloved slave in need of healing; the local Jewish leaders say, “He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue.” It’s a little ambiguous, but here, it seems like outside funding was given to the Jewish community not by the centurion as a public figure, but as a “God-fearer,” a Gentile who believed in the God of Israel but hadn’t undergone full conversion. So he was in some sense “a believer,” not a complete outsider.

• Ezra 6:4 — The Persian king provides funds and resources for the building of the Jerusalem temple. Even though this is presented as a positive thing, it should be noted that this temple renewal was not particularly successful. But it was part of God’s plan, and it was OK for the Jews to accept the funding.

• Neh 5:14–19 — Nehemiah, a public official, doesn’t accept his taxpayer-funded salary, but uses his independent wealth to ease the burdens on the people and subsidize the wall-building and the community.

Profit-Making on Sacred Ground

Would we build a Dunkin Donuts or some other facility that is profitable? I think not, because it’s not what church grounds are devoted for. It’s not just about objective gain, any possible means to support the ministry of the church. The means themselves matter. There have to be principled limits on what we would do with church property and under the auspices of the church, even if there are realistic, tangible benefits.

• 1 Samuel 2:12–17, 29 — As priests, Eli’s sons weren’t content with their basic provision from the sacrifices. Instead, they used their religious authority for personal gain: raw meat for curing/resale, rather than just accepting what came from the people as God provided. Another principle here is that the leadership shouldn’t seek to gain personally from religious contributions or activities; rather, leaders benefit along with everyone else as the common good is served.

• Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46; John 2:16; Jesus tossed out the money-changers who were trying to make a profit on temple grounds.

Facility Uses

Profit-making and Multiple Purposes

Welch[1] says—and this is corroborated by others I’ve talked to—that you should never expect to pay for the maintenance of the recreational facility with fees.[2] It is my conviction that nearly everything the church does should be free (paid for by tithes), or provided at only nominal cost to the participants (see above). But practically, as Welch says, this will not be a money-maker. I don’t know of church coffeehouses or bookstores that are net profitable or even net zero for ministry (maybe they exist, but it’s difficult to stay “in the black”). This seems especially true of small congregations. Thus, a facility’s maintenance would have to be viewed as an ongoing ministry expense (indefinitely!).

A facility with only one purpose (used by a small fraction of the church membership) will eventually be an expense with not even a small benefit (see Welch, pp. 343, 345). A better option is to build thoughtfully with multiple uses in mind. A multipurpose facility could be used for all kinds of sports and events, throughout the year. This increases the cost but also the frequency of use—and the whole church could potentially participate in events there (see Welch, pp. 344–345).

Regarding recreational ministry and facilities, White includes some helpful information that is relevant for deciding how principles of recreational ministry could be applied outside megachurches.[3]

Recreational Ministry: Additional Considerations

I have looked at various church websites, and spoken on the phone with Judy Bowman, who runs pickleballministry.org. Judy has done cycling-based evangelism for decades (wheelpower.org), and has led trainings on recreation-based evangelism. She recently started working in a similar vein with pickleball, and has consulted with various churches. She graciously responded to my request for a call, and we spoke for nearly an hour on March 13. Here are some of the questions I asked, and a summary of her replies.

• What are the factors that make this kind of ministry succeed? —Mainly, the church members’ willingness and desire to share faith: to talk about serious things, not just about equipment or the game, but about faith.
• What sorts of courts do churches use?
  • Most of the programs at churches she’s worked with have been in gymnasiums, but a few in warmer climates like CA and FL have outdoor courts.
  • Some have rented or reserved public tennis courts and basketball courts for pickleball-based evangelistic events. Recently in her hometown of Lynchburg, VA, a church did this, and they had 20–30 people from outside the church participating.

From my web research, I discovered other churches that have an active ministry through pickleball.[4] All of them are larger churches with multiple staff members (including an executive or associate pastor or director of community life or family life, or some similar title). All of them have multi-purpose gymnasiums that they use for pickleball attractional ministry.

Another church in LA has outdoor courts, but as part of a full fitness center (membership-based).[5] As I said previously, I think that most things a church does should be free and not-for-profit.

The Opportunity Cost: Alternatives to Building

Counting the cost includes not just the funds, but what we could achieve with funds that are not used for building a new facility. Here are some alternatives that should be considered before building:

• Initiating a regular recreational or social ministry at another location, including a public space
• Invest in ministry personnel, including staff members and interns
• Mercy ministries to the people who are neediest and possibly furthest from God

Moving Forward with Wisdom and Pursuing Unity

If a church decides to move forward with building new facilities, the following conditions need to be met.

• We cannot please everybody, and a handful of naysayers should not be able to veto a major decision. But we need a process whereby those who don’t get what they want, feel heard. As part of this process, a leader needs to be permitted have some ownership of the deliberation process, in order to lead those members who disagree with the direction.

• The church should try some ministry activities at an off-site location or existing church facilities. If it goes well, then not only might it demonstrate the viability of building, we would also have a head-start on a list of future participants.

• Set a commitment: if funds are not raised to cover the whole cost of construction and, say, 5 years’ worth of maintenance, then we don’t build.

Epilogue

As we consider how to build:

“May your deeds be shown to your servants,
your splendor to their children.
May the favor of the Lord our God rest on us;
establish the work of our hands for us—
yes, establish the work of our hands.” (Ps 90:16–17)

---

[1] Robert H. Welch, Church Administration: Creating Efficiency for Effective Ministry (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 343–354. See especially the sections on ‘Family Life and Recreation,’ ‘Media Center,’ and ‘Childcare Issues.’

[2] And this would preclude raising additional funds for charities on top of costs!

[3] Matthew Brian White, “Sports ministry in America’s one hundred largest churches” , DMin thesis, Asbury Seminary, 2006.

[4] https://www.fiveoaks.church/pickleball; https://www.southdelta.org/our-blog/pickleball-ministry; https://questvineyard.org/pickleball-ministry-team

[5] https://churchleaders.com/news/441106-churches-use-pickleball-popularity-for-relationship-building-outreach-bp.html/2 ; http://bellairebaptist.org/pickleball; http://bellairebaptist.org/bellaire-fitness-center