The fallacy or risk in not strategically approaching the pre-campaign process is grounded in the assumption that everyone will say “yes” and support this new effort (mission project, new building, etc.). Even if you know the congregation on a whole will say “yes,” it’s common courtesy in a relationship to ask and not assume or demand anything.

Think about how weird it would be to get married without asking the other person to marry you. It doesn’t make sense in personal relationships, and it certainly doesn’t make sense when considering the relationship of the member to the church. No one…I mean no one…likes to be told what to do. A personal invitation will make all the difference.

Here are 4 things I recommend all church leaders do before you start any type of campaign:

1. Gain clarity about where your church is today. Jim Collins would say, “Face the brutal facts.” There is a HUGE chance that the perception of the person in the pulpit is SLIGHTLY different from the person in the pew. You need to know if the people in the pew (those who will execute and, ultimately, fund the effort) perceive the same need in the same way you do. The easiest way to accomplish this is through a guided discovery process that uncovers all financial, interpersonal, and ministry aspects of your church. This should be completed by an outside party because the church leader is too close to the situation to have any real perspective.

2. Meet with the people in your church who are your pillars of influence. Influencers may or may not be high-capacity givers. I would suggest that all your high-capacity givers are influencers but not all influencers are high-capacity givers. You need this group behind you. When you know you are on the same page, you have the confidence you need to move forward and you know others are ready to defend the direction you are heading when (not if) “the static” begins.

3. Examine your personal inhibitions about money. Few church leaders find it natural to address the subject of money. However, your personal objections and inhibitions don’t erase the fact that Jesus spoke more about money than he did about sin and salvation. Part of the responsibility of leading God’s church is cultivating the resources God intended to fund the Kingdom. Generosity/stewardship doesn’t just happen; it’s intentional. I’m convinced that a leader who can’t ask for financial support from his congregation is not ready to lead a campaign. Period. End of discussion.

4. Connect the campaign to Kingdom impact. There is a rising tide of what I call the hybrid campaign. All the elements of a traditional campaign exist accept the total amount raised is parsed out among international mission efforts, local mission efforts, and on-campus/multi-site improvement or expansion. Whatever the elements of the campaign are, the goal is not the work in and of itself. People don’t want to fund more busyness. Rather, the goal is to increase ministry impact, expand Kingdom initiatives, and multiply ministry opportunities. The goal should be to create a more sustainable, high-impact Kingdom footprint than the church has today.

If this sounds like a lot of work, it is! If you’re thinking about skipping over the pre-campaign process, let me caution you to do the homework necessary to be ready to ask your congregation to support the direction you are headed (that will probably cost millions of dollars) when they have plenty of alternative giving options available to them.

Are you ready to lead your church through your next campaign?

Multi-site has become a proven and effective strategy for launching new and vibrant congregations. Multi-site congregations have a high success rate because of the support and leverage of the sending church. So, what does it cost to go multi-site?
Here are some financial rules of thumb in multi-site church world:

• Multi-siting creates more seats at the optimal inviting hours for a fraction of the cost and in less time than adding on an existing church facility.
• Renting schools and theaters are the “lowest risk, lowest cost” way to multi-site.
• 50% of multi-site churches start in a school.
• $250k is the national average for start-up costs in a school or theater.
• 50% of start-up costs is for tech/media equipment; the rest is for portable equipment, marketing, and some staffing costs ramping up to launch.
• Add $1m for start-up renovation costs of a rented commercial facility.
• Church mergers or “absorptions and acquisitions” can be a low cost, fast-track, high impact way of multi-siting. Mutually-beneficial and mutually-desired church mergers are on the rise.
• Typically, churches will put multi-site funding into their operating budget and have a special fund-raising campaign to launch a multi-site campus.
• Churches will raise more money by utilizing a fund-raising, generosity specialist.
• It takes most campuses at least a year, two at the most, to become financially self-sustaining.
• It usually takes at least one year to recoup the people and financial investment at the sending campus.
• The larger the launch core, the sooner the campus can become self-sustaining functionally and financially.
• Giving tends to be higher per person at the new campus compared to the sending campus.
• The more people you launch with, the greater the overall net gain will be in attendance a year later.
• Typically, new campuses grow 25-50% in the first year. Many experience 50-100% growth!
• Multi-site was good stewardship in prosperous times, essential in tough economic times.

Yep. It’s unavoidable. Sorry. (Don’t like it. GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO!)

If we have to talk about money…and you do…

(go on..practice saying “it”…that’s right…m-o-n-e-y…it’s really not that scary…really)

then we better make sure we get a few things right.

I like what Jeff Brooks had to say in What it takes to be a fundraising writer.

Let me rewrite his ideas in the context of church. When you talk about money, remember these three things:

• Talk about money from the perspective of the person in the PEW, not the person in the PULPIT.
  
• Forget about what YOU need. It’s not about you. It never was. It never will be.
• Get over your inhibitions related to money and acknowledge they are YOUR problem.

Start talking about money. We have Kingdom impact to fund!

That one day a Foundation would exist to fund church innovation. In order for innovation to take place, church leaders, particularly church planters, must be funded at a level in which they can stay in the game long enough to push through the expected (and unexpected) failures and see results.

The current denominational and institutional funding available offer limited funding to many.

I would offer exceptional funding to a few.

What if church leaders attempting to innovate or church planters looking to create something new were put through a similar process that an entrepreneur might endure in pursuit of venture capital. In the for profit world, venture capital funding is substantial enough to give the entrepreneur the best shot at succeeding.

Sometimes the venture works. Sometimes it doesn’t. The same is true for churches and church leaders.

What if a church planter was offered $250,000 (not $25,000 as often is the case with denominational entities) after a rigorous process of evaluation? That amount of money doesn’t guarantee success, but it provides the time and capital needed to fail long enough to get it right. In other words, not simply “get by” but thrive.

The vetting process would be tough, incredibly tough.

Fewer ideas and ventures would be funded in this model.

Only those that endure get the funding they need to fulfill what God has placed on their heart. Results, not meetings, are critical and essential. (Sometimes church innovators are more inspired by the idea of change than actually creating change.)

Maybe I’m way off base, but I believe this model is possible. It means connecting those with the passion and resources to fund this type of work with those called to do the work. As denominations shrink in size, so will the funding available to underwrite and invest in church innovation. A Foundation like this could be a plausible alternative.

What do you dream about?

On Feb 1, I will join Generis, a consulting firm specializing in cultivating cultures of generosity and the practice of church funding. I’m honored they have opened this door of opportunity to me and were exceptionately patient with me as I discerned the will of God.

I am NOT leaving LifeWay because…
I’m in trouble.
About to be fired.
Frustrated.

OR any other negative reason you might come up with. (There is no conspiracy behind this decision. Just God’s hand moving me into a more specialized role.)

I am joining Generis because…
They graciously offered an invitation.
God’s direction is clear.
I want to refine my skills and passion as I specialize.

AND this is work that results in funding the Kingdom. (Does it get any better than that?)

I will always be grateful to all the people at LifeWay who have encouraged and challenged me along the way. A special thanks goes to Mark King and Ron Chandler who gave me permission to step out of the box and be creative. LifeWay will always hold a special place in my heart. I look forward to continuing to build upon the relationships that began at One LifeWay Plaza as I step forward into God’s direction.

He takes about eight minutes to share three financial mistakes that churches who launch or manage multi-sites make that could inhibit or paralyze a venture that began with great intentions.

I’ve seen exactly what he is talking about. In no way is Casey discouraging the growth of multi-site churches. However, he does offer some great insight that must be included in the planning conversation and incorporated into the overall funding strategy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWZfi0JfWyI]