This gives many church leaders more than a few anxious moments because they know the laity are the ones to provide the primary support for their project. The issue of lay support must be addressed before any project is started, especially the degree to which the laity of the church have embraced the project as their own.

Surveys are a popular way to determine lay interest. But there is a better way – to draw the people in on the planning early in the process. When surveys are used in lieu of information and feedback opportunities, the surveys usually reveal more of the people's hesitations than their support, and will give the leaders a negative perspective from which to make their decisions.

The problems with developing this lay support are many. It seems that the larger the church becomes, the more it is staff-led and board-controlled. In many larger churches, the laity do not have a normal format to have a direct voice in the decisions and directions of the church, including any major project that would involve capital expenditures. In addition, churches of all sizes have different governing systems and make their decisions in a multitude of ways.

Keep in mind that people will support their own ideas better than they will someone else's ideas. If a major project is presented to the congregation without the laity having a voice and an opportunity for direct involvement, they may give the leaders a nod of approval, but they will not support it financially to the same degree as if they had some direct input on both the overview and details of the project.

How do you do this? It will vary from church to church depending upon the church's structure. For some smaller churches, whole church "town hall" type of meetings may be helpful, while in larger churches, contact through their small-group system may be preferable.

Some churches take the extra effort to go to every home with their plans, while others go to group homes, while still other churches depend upon mass communication events. Whichever way works best for the church's structure, the main concern is to provide a way for both information to get to the people and a format where every individual feels free to provide input and feedback to the church leaders.

I worked with a church in two different capital campaigns about seven years apart. The church had tripled in size between the two campaigns. The way they developed their lay support was very effective in both instances, but the second varied considerably from the first.

In the first campaign, the church was still small enough to be able to communicate the needs, plans and details of the project with its people in a "town hall" type of setting, and to receive their direct input and feedback. In essence, in the first campaign, the people were unified around the project. They had a strong sense of ownership and lay buy-in, and they knew their voices were heard by the church leadership.

But in its second campaign, the channels for communication were very different because the church had long outgrown the stage when everybody knew everybody and had frequent contact with their pastor. We planned the strategy for a new style of communication. It took some convincing before the pastor realized that they could not pick up in the second campaign where the first one left off, but he finally got it. He also understood the need to change the communication channels, and determined to find appropriate ways to develop that lay ownership.

The church leadership determined the type of building needed and developed a preliminary design for their facilities, with extensive feedback and input from the various committees, departments and ministries of the church. Once they had the general ideas in hand, they prepared an informational brochure, described the project and the recommended options, and detailed the cost factors. Then they developed a small-group network within the church. Every family was assigned an option to attend one of two groups and encouraged in various ways to do so. The proper leaders were present to explain the project, answer questions and listen for feedback. Then they brought this feedback to the Building Committee, which considered all suggestions. When they presented the final draft to the congregation for their approval, it passed overwhelmingly because it was the people's idea. Both capital campaigns were very successful in that church.

Many church leaders do not understand the change in communication dynamics when a church grows larger. Some even feel that the people will support whatever plan the leadership proposes. Even worse, they feel that information equals vision and support. Keep in mind that people are not supportive because the leaders tell them what the leaders plan to do. Trust in fundraising will go only so far, and usually falls far short of the sacrificial giving required to fund new facilities.

People are supportive when they have had significant input into the project and they feel that the project is their own idea. In order for lay ownership to be fully developed, the people need to be properly informed about the church's intended project, its place in the overall mission and vision of the church, and have ample opportunity for input and feedback. When a small group of leaders make the decisions about their building plans with little or no input from the congregation, then they can expect only minimal results from their people. People need the opportunity to work through the building issues for themselves in order to develop the needed level of support.

Every church needs an approved authority structure to make their decisions. But making a decision and supporting that decision with major gifts from the lay people are two different things – there is a big difference between approval and support! People will only support what they believe in, and when they have had a chance to work through the issues. They may vote to approve what the leaders plan to build, but they will not support it financially to any significant degree unless it is their own idea.

The model and methods used by the church referred to above is one good example to follow. Other methods will work, but they must be able to develop lay ownership if the leaders ever expect to fund their building project.

Please avoid at all costs the temptation of leaders to make the decisions and simply tell their people what they plan to do. Remember, people give from the heart before they give from the checkbook.

Whatever format is used for the direct input from the congregation, there also needs to be official recommendations from the various ministries and groups of the church. The leaders would be wise to ask every department, group and ministry of the church to review the proposed plans and make any suggestions, requests and recommendations concerning it. The appropriate group of leaders would then take all these various comments into consideration in the planning for the project. They may not be able to incorporate every idea, but every idea should be considered. People will accept that their idea was not used if they are assured it was given careful consideration.

The purpose of all this extra effort is two-fold: it will help in the financial support for the facilities, and it will provide many extra eyes to make sure the project is the most appropriate one for the church. Many churches have been saved from serious missteps and mistakes by asking their people for their input, and they have provided much stronger financial support for their project's funding. Both of these make the extra effort worthwhile.

This is no time for the church leaders to be defensive about their positions of power and authority. It is much better to involve the people at this level than for the church to end up with a heavy debt on a facility that should have been designed differently. It is definitely worth the tradeoff, and it will provide a stronger foundation on which to build the Kingdom.

Robert S. Hallett is president of TLC Ministries, www.tlcministries.com.