First UMC Houston, Westchase Weekend Report, April 11-13, 2014 Jim Ozier Submitted, April 30, 2014 Table of Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………...................................................... Page 2 Scope & Schedule of Work…………………………………..................................................... Pages 2 & 3 Reflections on the Problems & Their History………..................................................... Pages 3 - 5 • • •
The Face of the Place Seeing Campus as an Add-On The Difference Between ‘Replicating Site’ and ‘Replicating Impact’
Possibilities & Options………........................................................................................ Page 6 Addressing the Stated Financial & Organizational Urgency....................................... Pages 6 - 9 • • •
The Capacity Question The Capability Question The Commitment Question
Mindshifts……………………………………………………….......................................................... Page 9-10 • • • •
Back to the Future Think ‘Venues’ not ‘Locations’ Executive pastor or Campus Pastor Footprint of Campus: liability or asset
Recommendations...................................................................................................... Pages 10 - 11 Concluding Observations............................................................................................ Page 11 -12 Appendix.................................................................................................................... Pages 13 - 25 • • • • •
# 1 Scope and Schedule of weekend #2 Desired Outcomes: Options and Possibilities # 3 Addressing the Stated Financial Issues # 4 Statistical Data from 1st Houston Finance Office and Texas Conference # 5 Weekend Prep Documents and Compilation of work from Campus Team workshop
1
Introduction: “On this rock I will build my church” Matthew 16:18 “I like going to church now,” Terri’s simple words got everyone in the group’s attention. “and I didn’t before I came here.” No one knew her; she had only joined Westchase two weeks prior. “I’ve been a displaced Christian for years and quit going to church. But when we moved here from California and visited here; it was so different and so great.” Tears inched down her cheeks, “This has made all the difference in my life and my daughter’s life.” Terri’s story (shared with permission) is what the church is about. But she is also a businesswoman and knows the church has to be business-responsible to remain solvent and honor God not only in all that it does, but how it goes about doing it. “That’s the hard part,” she says. The ‘rock’ is God’s metaphor for strength and being solid; but often a church—any local church—can be fragile even while doing good work. Such is the situation bubbling up around the relationship between the Downtown campus and the Westchase campus of 1st UMC in Houston: how to provide quality ministry at both campuses while securing a viable future for each campus. This is proving to be a stressed, fragile conundrum for 1st Church, Houston. In many ways the church is caught between ‘the rock’ and a hard place. Scope & Schedule Summary: In March I was asked by Dr. Steve Wende to provide coaching & consultation services related to clarifying (a) the identity of First UMC, Houston as a multi-site church, and (b) the relationship between the Downtown Campus and the Westchase Campus. In addition, (c) to explore and evaluate options available that can make both campuses financially viable to be able to continue providing excellent ministry in their respective mission fields in whatever ways prove most effective. Over the weekend of April 11-13 I led a workshop, interacted with over 100 people in focus groups and individual interviews, attended worship, and did follow up research with the help of church leaders and Texas Conference staff members. (See appendix 1) While an admittedly small sample, there were still trends that became obvious and worth noting: • •
•
Both campuses are made up of dedicated followers of Christ who want both campuses to be successful, effective, and reflective of the gospel. All those involved in workshops and interviews over the weekend acknowledged that stresses between the campuses—over perceived financial crisis, communication, relational unclarity, and missional differences—have come to a boiling point. There was repeatedly expressed a pronounced and almost universal (a) pain and anger over a variety of ‘wounds’ being experienced, (b) lack of trust, (c) low confidence level in the ability of leadership to solve the problems, and (d) and sense of paralysis in identifying and making any needed changes.
2
Throughout my weekend I heard participants bemoan that over the years the respective campuses have lost touch with their “Common Narrative” which needs to be rediscovered and celebrated – fast! In a multisite, a common narrative is an essential ingredient; it is the story that tells the story. Culture travels on words. The narrative is what spreads the story and embeds the culture. In these two campuses there appears little “shared story” or common narrative; what is there is more about antagonism and conflict. I did hear frequently the lament among older members of the fun things the two campuses used to do together….then suddenly stopped about seven years ago. Many who spoke traced the ‘stopping of doing things together’ as the turning point which has resulted in a weakened relationship between the campuses. There is a strategic way to fix this, if there is the will to fix it: Start doing things together again. Start doing things occasionally and intentionally throughout the year to build relationship, trust, and culture. Start doing the kind of things which allow for people in one campus to know the hopes and dreams of the people in the other campus. Doing this not only demands good communication but facilitates a common direction and strategy to impact the city! Jeff Olive, in the Conference office can provide great help with re-creating your common narrative and re-energizing your hopes and dreams. Whatever has gone wrong, there is more going right! Celebrate it! Share it! Build upon it! This will create “common narrative” in which the hopes and dreams of both campuses can be woven into unified fabric of mission and ministry.
Reflecting on the problems and their history
“Built upon the rock or the sand….” Matthew 7:26
There was consensus by all with whom I’ve spoken that decisions made twenty-two years ago, and subsequent decisions of the past two decades seemed to make sense at the time, but were not made on the right foundation. The result is the sandy situation today. To recover some of that history and some of the mistakes made, Steve had the team read the book, “Multisite Revolution” and this section deals with three of the ten landmines or detours to avoid found in the book: #3, #6, #9 [p174]. It seemed to me from work with the team and with the follow up focus groups and interviews, these three emerged as most reflecting the planting and subsequent development of the Westchase campus: #3. Make sure each site has a ‘face with the place’ – a campus pastor or venue director • Not an emcee....but someone other people will follow #6. Don’t view multi-site as merely an add on, since being part of multi-site will change who you are • What kind of culture change did 1st Houston experience? Is it still changing?
3
#9. Learn difference between ‘replicating site’ and ‘replicating impact’ • DNA & Fingerprints # 3 ‘Face with the place’ I heard more lament about the “seemingly never-ending change of pastors” at Westchase than anything else. After 22 years, there is still no community-wide or mission-field known ‘face of the place’. After only 5 years with Paul, there is wide spread fear that yet another ‘face change’ may be demoralizing. I certainly saw this in my quick conversations and with the ad hoc group on Sunday morning. In this group (not arranged by either pastor) I experienced a revealing expression of anquish, frustration, suspicion, anger and pain related to the current situation within the church & campus, stemming especially from –but not limited to-- the overtures regarding the proposed merger with Covenant Glenn. These young adults (the identified target audience of 1st Church) saw every change of leadership as a change in direction; to a person they were resigned to exit if there is another change. They complained of ‘whiplash’ trying to “keep up with decisions made by those who want to control the campus yet have no idea what its ministry and mission is about.” In all interviews, members young and old from both the Westchase campus and the Downtown campus blamed the lack of hoped-for growth in attendance and membership at the Westchase campus -- and the fragmented relationship between the two campuses -- as directly related to the frequent change of ‘campus pastors’ (or also known as ‘executive pastors’). # 6 Seeing campus as merely an add-on Parent churches often suffer the land-mine or detour of not realizing how becoming multisite changes (and must change) its own culture. While it is imperative that the parent church impart its DNA, Core Values, and Vision into the daughter congregation….it must also recognize that its culture will invariably change and these changes may well bring about stress and conflict. Frequently a parent church will assume its values, vision, and mission will remain the same AFTER they’ve become multi-site as BEFORE they became multi-site. This is an assumption worth examining. For example, it is telling that on the First Church website, (as of April 30, 2014) readers can see the church’s Core Values. In the section on ‘Grace’ it highlights a “right relationship with God through Jesus” but says nothing about “right relationships with each other.” I am not suggesting changing your core values….but I did hear over and over, “I wish we had more grace in our conversations and relationships between the two campuses.” For the 18-35 age- group, it is important to highlight relationship and community. It is worth noting that in the Team discussion, the Westchase ‘dream’ was more about “community” and “relationship” because that campus is more aimed reaching a younger adult population. Relationship and Community is not only natural, it is the driver.
4
To the degree that Westchase was (and is) seen as simply an ‘add on’ ministry of the parent church it has limited the effectiveness of both campuses and caused conflict and stress. By ‘add-on’ I mean the sense that the Westchase campus is like any other long term ministry or program of the church and it is managed, operated, and evaluated like any other programmatic or missional program. Rather, a new campus is like a birth of a baby… it isn’t just an ‘addition’ to the family….it changes the family. It is messy, has growing pains, and predictable behaviors as it goes through various life-stages. A wise family recognizes this and learns how to impart its DNA into the child without inadvertently getting in the way of the child growing up into maturity. To get clear about ‘identity’ and ‘relationship’ requires ‘alignment’ between the two campuses, but also requires a willingness for the campuses together to occasionally re-examine the formative documents and underlying principles. # 9 Learning the difference between ‘replicating site’ and ‘replicating impact’ This is similar to #6 and becomes problematic when a parent church inadvertently loses touch with its own DNA and the ‘impact’ it has made through the years. The purpose of an extension campus is to replicate that ‘impact’ in culturally relevant ways...not to replicate itself (way of doing things) into a new site. As Jesus said, “old wine in new wineskins” seldom works well. It is the difference between DNA and fingerprints. I have my father’s DNA which bonds us together...but my own unique fingerprints which sets us apart from each other. The DNA of a church includes its ‘impact’ and that is what needs to be imparted into the extension or daughter campus. But the new campus must have its own unique fingerprints that its ministry leaves on the mission field. Replicating impact or DNA comes through strong relationships. These relationships for the early years of Westchase’s existence were intentionally developed. But, (as I heard lamented repeatedly), “for some reason we just stopped doing things together as campuses; fun things, inspiring things, bonding things, important things.” While no one could specifically put their finger on ‘why’ during the interviews, but consensus was the ‘stopping’ of relationship building was some years ago.
5
Options and Possibilities The following “possible desired outcomes” were lifted up during my weekend in interviews and focus groups. Each came from 1st Church members worshipping at one campus or another. My commitment to interviewees was that I would recommend in my report that all options for desired outcomes be explored further. These are not listed in priority or preference order (see appendix 2 for important details of each option and how they might be implemented.) • • • • • • • •
Strengthen relationship; allow WC time to grow into viability Sever relationship: become two churches Strengthen relationship with aggressive financial plan for solvency Merger with one or more other churches See relationship as ‘property management’ responsibly making multiple venues Keep plugging away—don’t change anything but focus on growing WC Sell campus and focus on downtown Downtown Campus to recommit financially because WC is a ministry and mission
Addressing the stated financial and Organizational Urgency: “Who among you when building a tower does not count the cost?” Luke 14: 28 “I can see why the Downtown campus folks are resentful about having to subsidize the Westchase campus,” said one Westchase leader of twelve years, and who previously worshiped at the Downtown campus. She continued, “Because they don’t know all the good things that are happening here.” Then she added, “And because nobody here has known about the financial crisis until just recently. I’ve long been in leadership here and I was surprised to learn of it! Even more, I was shocked that the leadership of the downtown campus didn’t know this was coming.” For many years the financial strength of the downtown campus has apparently had to supplement the revenue of the Westchase campus to cover a Westchase gap annually. It is perceived that suddenly, for a number of reasons, the downtown campus is not able to make up that deficit starting in 2014. Those stated reasons include (a) the aging and decrease in attendance of the downtown congregation, resulting in a giving decrease; (b) the aging of the downtown facility, resulting in more expenses and fewer discretionary dollars; (c) the changing demographics of downtown Houston, requiring more program money being directed toward young family programs to meet the needs of the re-gentrification of the city. The perceived ability of the downtown campus being able to subsidize the financial gap for repeated years -- and then not being able to subsidize at any level -- is hard to comprehend for participants at both campuses, according to what I heard in interviews. For some, it raises questions of financial
6
oversight in general. Is this an immediate crisis? Has it been developing? If so, for how long? Was there any planning to prepare for this crisis and/or to mitigate it over a designed period of years? Regardless of the reasons, and how things have been handled, the church reports that the Downtown campus can no longer afford its historical pattern of supplementing the Westchase campus, at least at the current level. A central question: Is it possible to devise a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues at Westchase and reducing expenses so that over a period of time the deficit could be systematically reduce and then eliminated? That is, how much of a crisis is this at this time? Is the Westchase campus on the verge of foreclosure (as some feared) ….or can the situation be remedied with a sound strategy? We must look at addressing the financial issues just as any other entity—be it a family budget, a corporate entity, or a not-for-profit agency or church -- by looking at (a) increasing revenues and at the same time (b) reducing expenditures. Three questions that must be asked: 1. The Capacity Question: Where is there capacity to increase revenues? A. Increase giving at Westchase by getting current members to give more….and by getting new members to give consistently B. Increase usage fees: can tuition be raised at Wesley to add revenue to the church? If so, how much? Can usage fees be increased at Quillian? If so, how much? C. Implement and/or increase fees for such things as chapel use for worshiping congregations using it? If so, how much? D. Securing continual or new donors at either campus to give “over and above” regular giving for a designated period of time while Westchase is implementing a growth plan? If so, how much? 2. The Capability Question: Where is Westchase capable of reducing expenditures? A. The Conference Office has provided information on how Westchase compares to similar congregations (see appendix 3,4) in terms of age, worship attendance, budget, and giving. B. Westchase falls into an ‘acceptable range’ of churches approximately the same age in terms of attendance, budget, and giving. That is, for all its problems over the years, Westchase is quite acceptable when compared with other similar churches (this is a testament to 1st Church in general and Westchase in particular). C. Westchase may be significantly out of range when it comes to the % of budget directed to personnel. The accepted range nationally and in the Texas Conference is 40% - 60%. According to the finance office, Westchase currently (as of 4-30-14) directs at least 71% of its budget to personnel. Getting this % back in range—as hard and painful as that may be— would save nearly $300,000 that could be applied to the gap. [this % range may be dramatically altered as Westchase is in the process of redirecting the ‘personnel cost’ of
7
landscaping/custodial into the ‘operational cost’ of outside contracting; then the % may be listed as closer to 63%] D. Westchase is noticeably out of range when it comes to size of facility, seating capacity, and upkeep. Even with % of expenses distributed among Westchase, Wesley, and Quillian the campus footprint can be massive and burdensome. This footprint is the result of decisions made years ago….but the cost is still a factor today. (See 2 b&c in ‘desired outcomes. Is Westchase capable of doing its ministry in less space on the campus….and having balance of campus space paid for by tenants?) E. Perhaps expenditures such as “lawn maintenance” could be reduced if the needed work could be done in other ways (volunteers) or in less expensive ways? I just don’t know….is this (and are there others) an area where Westchase is capable of reducing expenditures? F. Can Downtown expenses be reduced to free up more and continual subisidy money for Westchase if the decision is made to continue to support the ministry there? What is the capacity of the Downtown to continue to free up funds to be directed to Weschase, if this is deemed a church-wide priority? 3. The Commitment Question: It is not possible to say “$800,000 gap” and “vital ministry” in the same breath without asking the commitment questions. A. How committed is Westchase to a long-term financially viable future? Committed enough to make the hard choices of reducing current expenditures? Committed enough to enter into an aggressive strategy to increase revenues through growth in attendance and growth in giving? B. How committed is 1st Church as a whole to “making an impact” in the city regarding the demographic and population(s) that Westchase is reaching? Committed enough to continue subsidizing an important ministry for a period of time sufficient to get the campus selfsufficient and viable? Committed enough to 1st Church’s long term mission that it is willing to make hard choices—even if these choices include options lifted up in the above section? C. How committed is the Downtown campus to maintaining and strengthening its relationship with Westchase? Committed enough to re-prioritize it as a mission-critical outreach? Committed enough to re-start the “extension campus” relationship through personal involvement and investment? D. How committed are the current pastors & staff to find a mutually honoring and beneficial way forward? Committed enough to the good of the campus to support hard choices, even if they might adversely affect themselves personally? Committed enough to binding up old wounds and move forward with grace? Committed enough think ‘big picture’ and ‘mission field’ over everything else? Information provided by the 1st Church finance office (see appendix 3 & 4 for specifics) and by the Texas Conference reveals interesting information: The bullet points here -- and in the appendix -- are my calculations of reasonable scenarios to increase revenue: increasing current giving amounts while adding new givers. I never assume that my calculations and math are accurate; they need to be checked and analyzed by professionals smarter than me; regardless of specific numbers, trends will hold true.
8
Trends indicate that in the best case scenario, Westchase could possibly be projected to: • •
•
Grow new giving income from between $80,000 and $120,000 within the next 12-24 months. Reduce expenditures from between $100,000 to $300,000 [most of this would have to come from reduction of personnel expenditures, which are currently 71% of the WC budget; This percentage is significantly out of range, which is more typically between 45%-60%] Generate new income (If realistic at all) from Wesley Academy by no more than $45,000 (average of $300 per year for 150 students) and from Quillian by no more than $20,000
Therefore, the best-case scenario would be to direct $485,000 from Westchase efforts to reduce the gap of $800,000. Can the Downtown campus subsidize at minimum $315,000? (The Downtown campus personnel expenditures are currently at 63%, which is not particularly high for an older, urban church. If their percentage could realistically be reduced to 55%, that could generate $229,812 that possibly could be redirected to Westchase support.) The worst-case scenario would to direct less than $200,000 from Westchase within the next 12-24 months. Can Downtown campus subsidize at minimum $600,000? NOTE: Scenarios are not intended as suggestions….just some possible ways to close the stated financial gap if both campuses had the capacity, the capability, and the willingness to commit to significant sacrifices.
Mind Shifts: “Have this mind which in Christ Jesus” Philippians 2:5 Asking people to enter into ‘mind shifts’ is as old as the bible. A mind shift goes hand-in-hand with a perspective shift. Team members will recall from our Saturday workshop, the importance of ‘perspective’: what you see depends upon your perspective. Consider the following 4 perspective shifts in looking at the current situation: 1.
Decision Drivers.... To look at the future, look back at the stated Mission of 1st Church: To make an IMPACT. Right now, decisions are driven by survivability; shift the driver to impact. Organizations operating out of retrenchment and survival seldom thrive. In looking for solutions, lean toward the course of action that not only will lead to best chance of viability….but will also make the most impact in the city in ways perhaps not yet even imagined.
2. Think ‘venue’ more than ‘location’. When Westchase was planted, extension campuses were formulated in terms of location. But not so much today. Location refers to geography; venue refers to strategy. Consider shifting, “one church in two locations” to “one church in two venues” (or more). Visit Highland Park UMC in Dallas to see how they have maximized, “one church in five venues,” only one of which is off-site. To strategically reach different target
9
audiences in their mission field, they have developed identifiable ‘venues’ for worship in different settings within the campus. 3. Change ‘liability’ to ‘asset’. See the large footprint of the Westchase campus as an asset, not a liability. I heard repeatedly about the beautiful campus still being a liability handed down from the past that is hamstringing the present. After all my research and number crunching, it appears the campus may simply be too large for one congregation to support on its own right now. That doesn’t make it a liability—it may turn out to be a great asset! 4. “Little things make a big difference”... look closely at the ‘little things’ that may be either causing or reflecting polarity between the campuses. For instance, Steve and many in interviews referred to Paul as the “executive pastor” at Westchase; Paul refers to himself in the bulletin as the “campus pastor.” This small, subtle difference is quite telling about how there is inconsistency in the perceived role of the pastor….and probably the campus itself. Consistency of ‘branding’ of all aspects of Westchase is lacking. Incidentally, “Campus pastor” will probably be more appealing to today’s target audience.
Recommendations: 1. Conduct a “Service of Prayer and Preparation” to prepare the congregations at both campuses at the same time to spiritually to deal with major decisions that must be considered. (This is often done in conjunction with HCI prescriptions and Chap Temple’s office should have guidance and templates to follow.) 2. Engage both campuses in the online Readiness 360 instrument. This is tool developed by United Methodists which can be quite helpful in preparing a congregation for making significant changes. Consider bringing Paul Nixon or Christi Latonia to come in and coach the church through the use of the instrument. 3. Make the ‘strategic decisions’ within the next sixty days, then focus on the ‘tactical decisions’ for the following sixty days. The Ad Hoc Leader Group must begin to look aggressively and immediately at all the possible desired outcomes and arrive at a plan (or plans) of action to develop and present to the church. This may take some time, and updates should be given to church leadership on a regular basis. As various options are considered, it may be wise to include outside specialists.
10
4. Put together task force—not limited to finance committee—of professionals experienced in venture financial projections. This “Sustainability Task Force” will determine possible scenarios to achieve viability: Will reducing 200k over 4 years make it viable? 100k over 8 years? 300k over 3 years, etc. Because outcomes of this task force may have Conference/District implications, perhaps someone from the Conference treasurer’s office should be included. 5. The Westchase worship experience was inspiring and well done on the Sunday I attended. Clearly, most things being done (worship, printed material, hospitality, etc) were done quite well and with excellence. Still, it would be helpful to contract with a trained coach to work with Paul and the Westchase staff in strategic efforts to accelerate growth, and/or to deal with significant changes. I would suggest someone with experience in overcoming obstacles and with a compatible ministry perspective, like Mark Foster, pastor of ACTS 2 UMC in Edmond, Ok. 6. In interviews with Westchase members and staff, I heard that there is not enough messaging about stewardship and giving. Therefore, contract with Horizons’ Stewardship (Or some other comparable company) to focus on teaching stewardship and to engage in a robust financial campaign of some kind to increase giving for Westchase during the fall of 2014. 7. The Ad Hoc Leader Group should consider changing the outlook from “One church in two locations” to “one church in multiple venues.” Visit and/or contact Highland Park UMC in Dallas which is nationally known for their “One church in 5 venues” approach. It is my personal recommendation to give this Desired Outcome option (option 5, appendix 2) diligent consideration. At this time it is possible that this may be the best –and most dramatic-option to solve the perceived financial crisis in the shortest amount of time, while maintaining the integrity of the Westchase worshipping community. PLUS, it could give 1st Houston a powerful way to make a great impact on the city through hosting/partnering with/or incorporating a fast-growing United Methodist African American presence. Even if ultimately it is not the option selected, it should be studied carefully.
Concluding Observations: Souring or Soaring? …. “Jesus set his face toward Jerusalem” Luke 9:51 In a fabled long ago kingdom a king had two wives and both loved him deeply. What each loved the most about the king was his distinguished salt & pepper flowing hair. One wife loved his black hair and would secretly pluck out is white hairs as he slept. The other wife loved his white hair and would secretly pluck out his black his as he slept. Alas, because of their constant picking, soon what each loved the most was gone. Over the years (and currently) there is plenty to complain about from one campus to another. But I heard repeatedly from long-time and newer members that they didn’t want the campuses to fall into
11
the trap of “picking on each other another.” Picky behavior leads to a church members souring on each other, on the situation, and even on the future. The church must move take great care not to sour…but to soar! To soar into its future means the church must move from stewing to doing! This 22 year old problem makes it tempting for the two campuses to settle with stewing over the issues and the problems and the paralysis … instead of doing something about them. People I have spoken with want the church put the past behind them and move forward – they just don’t know how or in what direction. Solutions will not be easy. Change will not come without some pain. It will not come without some loss. But it is time to “set our face toward Jerusalem” and with grace-filled determination take the necessary steps and make the necessary changes, whatever they are discerned to be. Because the acknowledged problems are long-standing and deep-rooted, all parties should understand that any solution(s) will require a church-wide commitment to fresh vision, reignited passion, renewed energy, and a redeeming mindset. Only in this way can 1st Church reconcile the ministries of the two campuses to produce great impact, whether the campus relationship is strengthened or dissolved or significantly changed. While understandably some will desire the “quick fix” which can solve all the problems, that is not likely. If the solutions could be identified quickly and implemented speedily, it will quickly begin to make a difference.... but it will still take a matter of twenty-four to forty-eight months to fully embed the decisions into the culture of 1st Houston. Change management is hard. Often it opens old wounds; sometimes with the grafting of the future onto the past there is some messiness and pain. While the awkwardness can be muted by the employment of good culture change techniques, this should not be seen as easy or quick. A determined PLAN should be and can be agreed upon quickly….but in all likelihood the plan will take considerable time to be fully enacted. My deepest thanks goes to all who participated in this weekend process, and to the staff of 1st church Houston from both campuses. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ozier
12
Appendix 1: Scope and Schedule
In March I was asked by Dr. Steve Wende to provide coaching & consultation services related to clarifying (a) the identity of First UMC, Houston as a multi-site church, and (b) the relationship between the Downtown Campus and the Westchase Campus. In addition, (c) to explore and evaluate options available that can make both campuses financially viable to be able to continue providing excellent ministry in their respective mission fields in whatever ways prove most effective. Friday, April 11, 2014 I traveled to Houston where I met in the afternoon with the Central South District Superintendent, Lawrence Young, and Bishop Janice Huie. I then had dinner with Dr. Steve Wende and the Rev. Charles Thompson, to get background info from a variety of perspectives Saturday, April 12 I conducted a 9:00am – 2:00 pm training & facilitation with the Campus Team, which I understand to be a group of 12 stake-holder/influential members equally drawn from both campuses. This team was assembled a few months ago to deal with the emerging, urgent problems surrounding the stressed relationship between the two campuses. Beginning at 2:30pm, I facilitated a series of focus group interviews with laity selected by the respective pastors: The first group included veteran members of the Westchase Campus, some of whom were in on the initial planning and planting of the campus. The second group included some newer members, one of whom had joined just two weeks prior. The third group was made up of invited Westchase staff members; two showed up….a children’s director who had been a long-time church member and in her employed position for less than a year; the other was her administrative assistant, who has worked at the campus for twelve years. Sunday morning , April 13, I did a drive-thru of the mission field and property and then attended the early service to observe its beginning and get a flavor of its style and of the people who attended. By the attendee’s age and dress, and by the style of the worship, my guess is that this service reflects more of an off-site version of downtown campus. I left the service shortly after it started and walked to the Wesley building* where I randomly met with group of 5 or 6 younger couples ranging from 9 years attendance to having recently joined. I then attended the contemporary service, which proved to be an energetic, powerful worship experience in as diverse a congregation as I have ever worshipped in. Immediately before and after the service I intentionally engaged individuals in very focused conversation: (“How did you get here the first time?” “If I were a first time guest, what would you tell me you like most about this church?” “What is one thing I would need to know about the church before I made a decision about joining?”) Beginning at 1:00 I met with three selected groups. The first two were made up of Downtown campus laity, including veteran members who held positions of leadership when the Westchase Campus was conceived and planted; some were part of planning of early discussions and decisions related to 1st Houston possibly re-locating, and then with the decision to plant an extension campus … including site
13
selection, meeting in the early venues, and then construction of the current Westchase campus. I heard general agreement with the sentiment expressed by one long-time leader, “while every decision along the way made sense at the time, the campus was started at the wrong time, under the wrong reasons, for the wrong purpose in the wrong way.” Everyone who spoke shared a dismaying sadness about how Westchase had been a point of contention for over 22 years. I then met with one individual Steve asked me to visit with….an apparently successful businessman who chaired Trustees for 8 years, and who was clearly unhappy with the way the Westchase Campus relationship to the Downtown Campus had deteriorated in recent months and years. To end my weekend visit, I met with willing staff from the Westchase campus. (Margie, Dr. David, youth guy, tech guy, new band leader and his wife). Because of expressed fears and suspicions, this meeting took longer than I expected. Because of his writing skills, I asked David to write out a narrative account of what all the good things are happening at the campus. Admittedly, even though I visited with over one hundred church members over the weekend, this is small sample. However, there were clear patterns detected –and a variety of “desired outcomes” lifted up -- and I am thankful for all who were so candid in conversations with me. In full disclosure I have also received a number of unsolicited emails from members at the Downtown campus. While I don’t discount any of them, none of them are particularly helpful for my specific assignment and purposes.
Appendix 2 …. Desired Outcomes: options & possibilities The compilation of desired outcomes lifted up by church members in my interviews is not intended to be limiting, but may well stir the imagination and creativity of the Ad Hoc Leadership Team to come up with others. It should be noted as well that many ‘hybrids’ made up of combinations of aspects of each are possible. 1. Strengthen the relationship between the campuses as “one church in two locations”. IF this truly becomes a (or the) desired outcome of the current situation, THEN there are strategic ways to address it: A. Intentionally share ‘stories’ between campuses on a regular basis, using screens & personal testimonies in worship and at gatherings, meetings, etc. B. Staff commit to annual culture-building retreats which may include, but are more than calendaring, house-keeping, planning events. Rather they are to intentionally build trust and relationships between staffs of the respective campuses. C. Recreate some of the “campuses together” events of the past...and create new ones to meet the context and culture of today. D. Work continuously on the DNA/Fingerprint difference, clarifying campus roles and expectations together in non-threatening, safe settings.
14
2. Forget “One Church in Two Locations�.... become two separate churches. IF this becomes a (or the) desired outcome, THEN there are a series of legal, financial, and property issues to be determined by 1st Houston and the Texas Conference: A. The Board of Trustees would notify Conference officials of their intent to pursue this strategy, and will follow the prescribed steps as set forth by the Conference. B. A transition team would be assigned the task of coming up with a separation plan; their work would include open hearings and meetings and would result in a proposal for action. C. The entire membership of the church (both campuses) would be notified of this proposal and a date upon which it would be voted. D. The District Board of Church Property and Location would receive the plan, and would vote on it, pursuant to local church action. E. The entire membership of the church would vote on the proposal. F. The proposal may or may not include Westchase campus congregation relocating to another, more affordable venue in cooperation with the District Board of Property and Location (ie. Example: Some nearby church that could be a possibility) 3. Strengthen the relationship between campuses, while maintaining current financial & structural connection between them. IF this becomes a (the) desired outcome, THEN a series of steps and hard choices must be made to: A. Restore trust between campuses and campus leaders. B. Develop an agreed upon financial plan toward self-sustaining viability for Westchase (see next section). C. If the financial crisis is as acute as is feared, then this plan must recommend steps to close the deficit gap by increasing revenues and decreasing expenses. D. The plan may or may not call for the Westchase Campus congregation relocating to a less expensive venue, still maintaining its extension campus relationship with 1st Houston. E. Focus on all of desired outcome #1 above. 4. Merger with one or more other congregations. IF this becomes a (or the) desired outcome, then the District Superintendent and the appropriate Conference offices must be brought in immediately for exploration and planning purposes. No actions should be done without their prior knowledge and approval. A. Because mergers seldom bring the results hoped for, great care and research must be done to identify possible merger partners, risks, time-lines, and procedures. (historically, within a year after a merger the average worship attendance of the merged congregations seldom exceeds that of the dominant church involved in the merger). B. The recent hard feelings and skepticism resulting from previous overtures at merger must be addressed and overcome. C. A merger team, with representation from the Conference, would be established to come up with a proposal and plans for implementation that would be voted upon by the entire church. D. Engage the Conference through the Bishop, DS, and appropriate offices to explore any feasible ways that the Westchase campus could be involved in the Conference’s new church and growth strategy. For instance, would it be feasible to include the nearby Ashford UMC
15
in any merger possibilities? Would there be value in (a) re-opening merger conversations with Covenant Glenn and include Ashford in a 3 way merger; (b) freeing Ashford facility to relocate Westchase worshiping community into a less expensive venue? E. The District Board of Church Property and Location would receive the proposal and vote on it as a strategy for the District and Conference. 5. Change the relationship of the Downtown Campus to become one of ‘property management’. IF this was to become a (or the) desired outcome, THEN leaders of both campuses must be open to exploring new paradigms intended to solve the stated financial crisis. This option was lifted up by a young venture capitalist who acknowledged it would be logistically difficult and inconvenient....but might be worth sacrificing convenience and simplicity for the ability to survive and maintain Westchase’s unique ministry. For example, what could be the financial benefit – and the ability to increase the ministry impact-- of: A. Moving the worship services of Westchase back to its original venue in the office/youth building? In interviews, older members reminisced on the great ‘feel’ in that venue and how when the worship was moved to the new sanctuary it lost a lots of its energy. • What could seating capacity be created with a little creativity? • How could the staging be done to provide at least 2 services? • Could golf-cart shuttle help with parking across street? B. Lease sanctuary and half of SS class and remaining campus space to another congregation (perhaps Covenant Glenn…or solicit other possible church tenants). • Split SS class and parking with Westchase education programs. C. Lease any other space on Sunday mornings to smaller, start-up churches of any brand...like Quillian gymn, chapel, etc. • Split SS class and parking with other congregations. • A,B,&C would have to be analyzed to see how much revenue—combined with expense reduction—could be realized to eliminate the $800,000+ deficit. • There may be at least four possible venues available to be leased out for various worship settings both UM and non-UM: 1. The original worship location in the office/youth building which could easily be set up and taken down for excellent contemporary worship; 2. The gymnasium, which also could be leased and utilized on Sunday morning; 3. The main worship sanctuary; 4. The chapel where the Swahili service is held. There is also yet another worship venue being used by another African group. There appears to be enough parking to accommodate all the venues on a Sunday morning, making it possible to turn the campus into four income centers (perhaps even more spaces that I did not tour) instead of expense centers. The same dynamic as above could be employed, for example, in this manner: Move the WC worship services to the youth building; turn the main sanctuary over to the Covenant Glenn either as merger or simple lease arrangement. If merger, to allow for that church’s unique worship style, so that worship styles would not be forced to
16
combine into one. Encourage any in WC to participate with CG as they choose; if lease, let people worship where they will. SS classes and other venues are large enough to cover all communities. Be Kingdom minded AND community minded….where it is appropriate, strive to do ministries, fellowship, and relational ministries together with all the venues. 6. “Keep plugging away….” Which is basically to retain the current working relationship between the campuses while focusing on growth at Westchase. IF this is a (the) desired outcome, THEN both campuses must strengthen the relationship (see #1) WHILE making significant steps toward growing the Westchase Campus: A. Set clear, achievable benchmarks of growth in attendance, outreach, and giving. B. Implement specific behaviors and ministries, with the help of a coach/mentor to significantly increase all of (A). C. Design and implement a strategy to reduce expenses and increase revenues. D. Solicit and motivate donors from both campuses to financially commit to underwrite the deficit as long as and because of the progress they can see Westchase making to increase attendance and revenues while reducing expenses as a path to viability. E. This would be a slower, but manageable and agreed upon road to reduce then eliminate the subsidy needed from the Downtown campus. 7. Sell the Westchase Campus (or gift it to another church or to the Texas Conference) and focus on the Downtown Campus. IF this is a (the) desired outcome THEN a series of financial and legal steps must be followed: A. With the re-gentrification of downtown Houston area, more focus on the Downtown campus might yield more fruit and make more impact than splitting resources between two campuses. B. Given the significant investment over the years, would 1st Church Houston walk away from the campus and ‘cut their losses’? C. Would market considerations related to church properties make this a viable consideration? D. How long would a sale of the property take; how much more money would Downtown put into it while waiting to divest themselves of the campus? E. If gifted away, this might be a gesture of the ‘connectional nature’ of the United Methodist Church and help create a different, strong ministry….but could any receiving entity be able to pay for the costs of the campus? 8. Appeal to the Downtown Campus to find whatever funding is needed A. If it truly is “one church two locations” could funding be made available through the budget or special appeal to major donors to continue the work of Westchase? B. In the longer run, money used to subsidize Westchase now may come back to Downtown in the future if Westchase continues to grow.
17
C. Many in interviews reported that B above was part of the original planting strategy: that Westchase would ultimately become the stronger campus and be in a position of helping fund the ministries of the Downtown campus. D. If the relationship between the campuses is strengthened, and if Westchase continues to grow and bear fruit….would it not be an incentive for major donors to want to continue investing in the ministry?
Appendix 3 … Addressing the Stated Financial Urgency 1. The average amount per pledge is $4,584 at WC and $4580 at DT • An increase of 10% of pledging units over the current number of 243 (if the reported trends hold up) would yield $110.016 from 24 new pledgers at WC. 2. For both campuses of 1st church, per capita giving amount is $1,126.81 • An increase of 5% in membership over the current number of 1572 (if the reported trends hold up) would yield $88,391 from 79 new members at WC. 3. In 2013, prior to the restructuring of the worship services, the amount given at 8:15 WC service is $181,808; at 10:30 is $719,915 = $901,723 (not including online giving) • If the worshiping congregation at 10:30 was to move to another part of the campus or relocate to another venue, its total income and budget would need to be in the $719,915 range. 4. The average attendance at WC was 36% of membership. For DT it was 32%. • If the % could grow from 36 to 40% this would mean a weekly average of 628 over the current 565 number. If trends held up of $32 per person in worship, this 628 would yield $20,096 per week or $1,044,992 per year…. An increase of $143,269 for WC. 5. The number of pledges received at WC was 15% of the members. At DT it was 17% of the members. 6. The attendance figures include members and non-members. 7. The attendance data is for 2013. The pledge data is for 2014.
Appendix 4: Statistical Data Comparing other churches of similar age (From Conference office) Church
$Spent last year
Attendance
Membership
18
Katy Grace Fellowship
$6,371,000
2988
2671
Webster Gateway
$2,635,000
1580
483
Cypress Good Shepherd
$2,071,000
988
1760
Woodlands Christ
$2,003,000
732
2494
Richmond Faith
$1,704,000
705
1588
Westchase Houston
$1, 300,000
565
1572
Sugarland Parkway
$1, 309,000
405
784
League City Bay Harbor
$1,246,000
384
656
Statistical Data comparing campuses: (From 1st Houston Financial Office) Westchase: Membership: 1572 Average Attendance: 565 Total Pledge amount for 2014: $1,114,040.00 Total number of pledges: 243 Average per pledge: $4,584.00 % of budget directed to personnel: 71% Downtown: Membership: 2403 Average Attendance: 770 Total Pledge amount for 2014: $1,900,891.79 Total number of pledges: 415 Average per pledge: $4,580.00 % of budget directed to personnel: 63%
Calculations on possible Downtown Redirection of funds: $4,479,062 total reported 1st Church Houston budget at both campuses $1,606,413 Westchase reported campus budget $2,872,649 Downtown budget (Ozier calculation)
19
$1,809,768 DT amount for personnel (Ozier calculation @ 63%) $1,579,956 DT possible amount for personnel (Ozier calculation @55% $ 229,812 Possible savings redirected to WC campus deficit $ +300,000 Possible savings at WC redirected to deficit $ 529,812 possible redirect from personnel to deficit Per capita Giving for both campuses combined for 2013 for General Ministries fund we received $4,479,062.00 with a membership total for both campuses 3975 therefore, a per capita giving of $1,126.81. Giving by campus & service time* (Does not include online or credit card giving; church does not separate those amounts out; does not reflect worship restructuring at WestChase) Downtown 8:30 $353,697 Westchase 8:15 $181,808 Downtown 11:00 $1,381,289 Westchase 10:30 $719,915 $1,732,986 $901,723
Appendix 5 …. Summaries of Team Meeting and Information Discussed 5a (Working document which guided the Team Meeting) Relationship Between First UMC Houston & Westchase Campus – April 11-13; Jim Ozier It is obvious that 1st Houston continues to do great ministry with lively and vital worship, programming and relationships! It is equally obvious that the Westchase campus is doing the same thing! That said, it is equally obvious that there are emerging stresses and decisions that need to be made regarding clarity of identity, relationship between campuses, and future direction. “Why?” and “Why now?” must form the basis of identity clarification, before the “what” and “how” and “when” questions can be successfully answered. Considerations and Questions (based on books the 2 campus team agreed to study*) 5 Models from Multisite Revolution by Geoff Surratt (2006) [see questions on page 41] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Video Venue .... one or more campuses utilizing video messages & teaching Regional Campus .... replicating experience of original campus to make church more accessible Teaching Team .... rotating strong teaching team throughout multiple campuses Partnership .... partnering with business or non- profit for venue and resources Low-Risk .... Experimenting with new locations w/low risk factor in hopes of high rewards
*How would you characterize the model under which Westchase was planted?
20
3 Crucial Questions about timing? [p 54; complete tool p57] On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how would your rank 1st Houston when Westchase was planted? 1. How Healthy is your church? [ranking-- 7 ] 2. Is there a driving impetus behind your desire to go multisite? [ranking-- 5 ] 3. Are the key leaders behind the decision [ranking-- 7 ] The #1 identifier: What’s your rib? (ie. Sticky Fingers) Was it ever intended for Westchase? [p125?] People, music, mission minded 10 Detours to Avoid (or we wish we would have avoided) [p174] 1. Remember the multisite isn’t a vision by itself, but a vehicle to achieve the vision • What was the vision? How has it changed? Is it clear today? 2. As you look for staff, remember that multi-site leaders need strong relational skills • Doesn’t appear this has been or is now an issue? 3. Make sure each site has a ‘face with the place’ – a campus pastor or venue director • Not an emcee....but someone other people will follow 4. When experimenting, try a low-regret, high-return strategy • Going in, was land cost/building design in keeping with this strategy 5. Avoid adopting a mature organizational structure when you’re smaller • What was org structure going in? What is it now 6. Don’t view multi-site as merely an add on, since being part of multi-site will change who you are • What kind of culture change did 1st Houston experience? Is it still changing? 7. Whatever small groups did for you as a single campus still needs to happen at each new site • What is small group structure at each campus today? What was it then? 8. Avoid the term ‘main campus’ because it implies other sites are second class • What is culture casting language at each campus at today? 9. Learn difference between ‘replicating site’ and ‘replicating impact’ • DNA & Fingerprints 10. Don’t underestimate the many contexts in which a multi-site approach can significantly help fulfill your church’s mission. • Is mission of “one church two campuses” clearly understood and accepted ******************************************
Predicting What’s Next in Multi-sites, from “The Multisite Church Road Trip” by Geoff Surratt This section is not to predict about Westchase/1st Houston.... but rather some interesting predictions about the nature and role of multi-site churches in general. Surratt and his team have been pretty much on target related to multi-sites over the years, so their thinking is worth noting for Annual Conferences
21
and entrepreneurial United Methodist churches. AND might provide some direction for us going forward in Houston: 1. Campus Pastors are becoming a new widely accepted role • Has Westchase always been staffed with preachers who could excel at pastoring their own church... (not bad but not necessarily the role of a campus pastor) 2. Church Planters will play a significant role in creating new variations of multisite effectiveness • More ‘new churches’ will have started first as satellite campuses 3. Variety in multi-site location will continue to proliferate • The earliest generations of multi-sites started in fast growing suburbs; more will appear in less desirable but more needy areas; expect to see more ‘long distance’ satellites going into rural areas or communities far from the mother church. 4. International Campuses will help transform approaches to missions 5. Churches will grow bigger but will meet in smaller venues • The size of the Westchase facility is out-of-the norm for a multisite 6. New believers will view their church location like branch banking • Newer Christians will increasingly identify with a ‘church brand’ picking one campus as their base but being comfortable with an occasional stop at another branch location 7. Connections by video, from webcams to high-definition cameras, will become common place 8. Some multi-site churches will go double-digit in the number of campuses, and a few will go triple-digit. 9. Multi-site models will help smooth out two typically rough transition points: declining churches and longtime pastors facing retirement 10. Internet campuses will be accepted as legitimate 11. Multi-sites will gradually become more mainstream with denominations 12. A few multi-site churches will become mini-denominations Some Westchase/1st Houston questions: 1. Vision and Culture • Do campuses share same vision & culture? • If not, how would you describe them for each campus • Does membership perceive “one church two campuses” .... or two churches under same umbrella? Or something else? • Does greater Houston community perceive “one church two campuses” ... or two churches under same umbrella? Or something else? • Does each campus regularly and intentionally promote its relationship with other campus during weekly worship, through website & media? 2. Governance & Structure • What is relationship in governance structures between campuses? • Are Westchase members specifically on 1st Houston governance positions? • Is Westchase structured and governed on its own?
22
3. Worship Attendance • AWA for each campus? 5 year trends? • Is attendance reported to Annual Conference 1 number for both campuses reported through 1st Houston? • Seating capacity for each campus? 4. Budgeting • What is the operating budget of the Westchase campus? • How is budget and stewardship done for Westchase ... Separate budget or One budget covering both campuses? • What % is supplemented by the downtown campus, if applicable? • What annual budget amount comes from downtown campus? What has been last 10 year trend? 5. Viability/Sustainability • What % of the expense budget is currently generated within the Westchase Campus by its members and attenders? • What is the per capita giving at Westchase? At that rate, what would need to be Average Worship Attendance number to make the campus 100% self-sustaining? 85%? 6. Wesley School • What % of the expense budget is funded through the Wesley School? • Is the School a revenue stream....or does it require budget supplement by the church? • Who owns the school? What is its relationship with Westchase? With 1st Houston? 7. Community missions and outreach • Westchase specific? • Both campuses doing mission outreach together? 8. What other questions, concerns, directions should we be looking at during our time together? • Thanks: A few ‘framing questions’ to keep in mind as we bridge this weekend into future action steps: 1. Why are we at this point? Why is campus relationship an issue NOW? 2. Strategy clarification: 1 church 2 campuses? Mother/daughter? Satellite campus? 2 churches under same umbrella? (Differences between DNA & fingerprints) 3. What is our definition of fruit?); • Accelerated growth patterns and metrics? • Achieving self-sufficiency or • Growing toward it on a measurable, sustainable pace • Growing to independence or stand-alone status • Merging with another congregation in hopes of seeing quicker growth • Other?
23
4. Perspectives • have differing approaches and different perspectives • What are our differing approaches & different perspectives? • Approaches & Perspectives: not ‘right or wrong’; ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ... just different • What are realities we all can acknowledge? • What realities can all parties can agree about? 5. Possible Outcomes • Getting faster growth at Westchase to achieve viability? • Merging with another congregation to achieve financial viability? • Changing relationship with mother church to achieve financial viability? • Other? 6. What are tough choices we must make? • Why will we make them? • How will we make them? • When will we make them? Appendix 5b Compiled responses from Team work Team Meeting Responses (Common narrative and dreams) [Team divided into campuses; specific worksheets on Likes, Dreams, Concerns, Change] Downtown Like Best: Music, Sunday school Class, Sanctuary, People, Depth of Cong Three Dreams: Growth/full sanctuary; More energized, ‘on fire Christians’; become ‘the church’ for Houston Three Concerns: Aging Congregation/replacing givers; Relationship with WC/ Lack of growth One Change: Improve website & electronic communication; Reach people 25-40; more pledging and better stewardship; Address the culture/ determine focus; better relationship with WC Westchase: Like Best: Diversity, informality, SS/Dgroups/Family feel; community Three Dreams: more relevance to community; make eternal difference to people that will result in a full sanctuary; clear, unified mission/identity; Three Concerns: Leadership issue; financial deficit; communication One Change: full kitchen; grace in our discourse; sanctuary sound system; celebrate & communicate victories; organizational health
24
2c Team paired up 1 Downtown, 1 Westchase to suggest answers to these questions] A few ‘framing questions’ to keep in mind as we bridge this weekend into future action steps: (answers lifted up by team members during paired discussion time) 7. Why are we at this point? Why is campus relationship an issue NOW? Relationship unclarity/urgent money issues/conflict over proposed merger roll-out 8. Strategy clarification: 1 church 2 campuses? Mother/daughter? Satellite campus? 2 churches under same umbrella? (Differences between DNA & fingerprints) 9. What is our definition of fruit?); • Accelerated growth patterns and metrics? • Achieving self-sufficiency or • Growing toward it on a measurable, sustainable pace • Growing to independence or stand-alone status • Merging with another congregation in hopes of seeing quicker growth • Other? 10. Perspectives • have differing approaches and different perspectives • What are our differing approaches & different perspectives? • Approaches & Perspectives: not ‘right or wrong’; ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ... just different • What are realities we all can acknowledge? Money, rift between campuses, lack of trust • What realities can all parties can agree about? Solve deficit issues and tensions 11. Possible Outcomes • Getting faster growth at Westchase to achieve viability? • Merging with another congregation to achieve financial viability? • Changing relationship with mother church to achieve financial viability? • Other? 12. What are tough choices we must make? (didn’t deal with these this visit) • Why will we make them? • How will we make them? • When will we make them?
25