Whenever a church plans a building project, everybody wants to know how much money they can raise. Most church people would like to pay for their facilities so that they do not have to carry long-term debt, with the accompanying interest charges.

Church leaders instinctively know that there are no guarantees as to how much they can raise for their project, but they want to get as close to a guarantee as possible. The hardest place I have found to have corporate faith is in the church – we want to have everything nailed down so there is no risk, and a strong assurance of success.

Church leaders often try to create guarantees by using Feasibility Studies to seek an idea of what their people will give towards their building project. But financial Feasibility Studies in the church will end up reducing the amount they could have raised without the study. The reason is a simple one – at whatever point people are asked about their giving, that is the point where they stop the process of deciding what to give. So when the church prematurely asks its people to indicate an amount, the church will not raise its potential because its people have not yet worked their way through the issues and process of determining a proper gift.

Marketing and sales approaches do not work in a church setting the same as they do in a business context, because people give from a different place in the heart than where they buy things. So the dynamics and approach need to be different. The motivation to give is different than the motivation to buy. Keep in mind that people give more by their motivation to give than by their ability to give.

While there is no way to predict with any degree of accuracy what people will give, there are several factors within the church and the heart that will have a major impact upon people’s motivation to give. They can be summarized as follows:

1. Magnitude of the vision for the project, and its place in the mission of the church
People need to see the greatness of the opportunity that this project will provide. The vision should never be to build buildings, but the building should always be placed in the context of helping the church fulfill its vision and mission. People will not give to the same degree unless there are eternal consequences to the building project. The church leaders must ask themselves about what is so compelling that people will sacrifice something of value to themselves in order to give it to the church’s building project instead. The vision must be clearly cast and effectively caught.

2. Perception of the extent and urgency of the need for the project being considered
It is true that people give more to a vision than to a need, but the vision must be supported by a need that is both credible and urgent – some have called it a worthy cause. You cannot raise money in a vacuum. People will not give substantially to something they consider to be an option or a luxury – the need must be both large enough and compelling enough for people to take it seriously enough to give at this increased level.

3. Church leaders and staff who have fully committed themselves to this project
Now is no time for wavering by the leaders. People will seldom surpass their leaders, and they will take their cue from the leaders as to the extent of their own involvement and support. The leaders must be willing to give their very best to seeing this project completed, which includes dedicating the time necessary to conduct a successful campaign, giving the campaign the scheduling priority it needs, the willingness to make substantial financial commitments personally to support it, and the flexibility to make any needed adjustments both in their personal lives and in the church to see this accomplished. The leaders cannot and should not do it all, but the building project will not be successful if they abdicate their leadership positions at this time.

4. Lay confidence in the church and its leadership
People will give to something they think has the greatest potential for success, and to something they think is on the right track. That speaks to the confidence people have in the church’s leadership. People will not give to something they think is shaky at the top – they want to know that their money will accomplish something great. So they will wait until they find great leaders to follow before they invest in a church’s future.

5. Credibility of the church to plan and implement its project in a timely fashion
People need to have confidence that when the church promises its people something, it will be done as promised. Change in a church’s building plans, especially without the full input and support of the congregation, is most often seen as a betrayal of trust. When money is at stake, the church people need to have the greatest sense of confidence in how it is being handled. If a church changes its project, mishandles its funds, or does not account for the funds given, or if the financial and credibility problems have not been solved, it is just wishful thinking on the part of the leaders to think their people will give again to another project or request. Also, a church needs to have plans that are sufficiently developed before the capital campaign starts, and enough commitments made by the leaders in order for the people to have full confidence that this project will be completed as promised.

6. Extent of the commitment, involvement, and positive “feeling tones” within the congregation
People will give much better to something they feel good about than to an obligation. When people are drawn into the sense of ownership, they will support a project much better. Wise church leaders will find a way to develop that sense of ownership among their people. One major way is to encourage and provide a way for every person and every group in the church to contribute both questions and suggestions, whether the church’s governing policy provides for congregational input or not. Keep in mind that people will support their own ideas much better than they will someone else’s ideas.

7. Willingness of the people to give sacrificially
Regardless of the legal vote of approval for the building project, the real vote is with the checkbook. In order for this vote to be effective, there must be a strong “emotional attachment” between the donor and the church. When King David was considering the building of the Temple, he had such a strong passion to see it accomplished that he said in Psalm 132:3-5: “I will not enter my house or go to my bed — I will allow no sleep to my eyes, no slumber to my eyelids, till I find a place for the LORD, a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob.” Keep in mind that there is a major difference between a vote of approval and the passion of support.

8. An approach that is consistent with the church’s values
There are several different types of capital campaigns that are being used in churches today, but they vary considerably in philosophy, format, objectives and consultant support. The church really should not try to raise the funds in a secular format, because the values and motivations of church people to give are different from those in a secular context. The true Scriptural approach will have the greatest potential for success, because God honors His Word, and He gives us insights into how He works with the human heart.

9. An outside consultant giving direction, support and accountability to the fund raising effort
Most churches have people who can give able organizational leadership to a venture of this nature, but the success of the capital campaign is not found in administrative and marketing expertise. The victory for the most successful fund raising efforts is found in the heart before it appears in the checkbook. Some church leaders are overly concerned about the fee a consultant may charge, while ignoring the much greater interest money charged by the banks, because they were not able to raise the same amount of funds on their own. The most expensive thing for a church to do is to try to lead their own campaign, while the most cost-effective thing is to bring in someone to give proper leadership to their capital campaign.

10. Relationship of the consultant with the church leaders
This is the single greatest factor in the success of the church’s capital campaign. When the church is considering who to bring in as a consultant, it is essential for the church to interview in the very first meeting the actual consultant who would be working with the church. A super salesperson with a pleasing personality may win the hearts of the leaders, but it places an unnecessary strain on the campaign’s efforts when a stranger with lesser gifts and personality shows up to lead the campaign. There is too much at stake for the church to take that large of a risk. The leadership and “fit” of the consultant is that important.

So how do you know how to evaluate your church’s fund raising potential? I suggest you ask your leadership group, or those who know the heartbeat of your people very well, to rate your church honestly on a sliding scale in each of these areas. Work on resolving any weak areas, and put plans in action on how to address them.

Don’t try to raise your funds by doing averages, using today’s tech toys as a substitute for relational dynamics, or depending upon administrative skill. Understand that giving starts in the heart, not the checkbook, so be willing to address the stewardship issues of the heart.

In the last 21 years of leading hundreds of church capital campaigns, I have found that people want to do something special and significant in supporting the building project of their own church. Let your people rise to their potential – don’t try to protect them or rob them of the thrill of being a part of accomplishing God’s purposes on earth. Have faith in them, encourage them to rise to their potential and model your own commitment, and you will see their faith develop in a much stronger way in their Lord. You will also see significant funds raised for Kingdom work.

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