I was checking back to see if anyone responded to your Chandler/Platt question and it appears no one has. As I alluded to earlier, churches who don’t “seem to mind doing away with that sort of thing” (ie. steeples and the like) are still spending money — and lots of it– on things other than missions. I am not as familiar with the facilities at Chandler’s church, but those at The Church at Brook Hills are first-rate. They may have been built before Platt arrived, but they are being maintained and improved during his tenure. No doubt with a wise balance and a clear priority on the Gospel. But, make no mistake, non-missional spending is taking place and it is spending that I’m sure is being done with the belief that it will help them accomplish their goals. Again, I believe if such expenses are motivated with a desire to care for what God has given you and to update technology as is necessary to fulfill your mission, I would not criticize that. How many among us would fail to replace the roof on our own homes or repair/replace our furniture when it is showing holes? Perhaps even more appropriate to the comments at hand, how many of of us are still carrying around a cell phone in a shoulder bag or using a flip phone with no texting or media capability? Indeed, life without Twitter would be an unthinkable disconnect to some. (I personally don’t use Twitter, but I know plenty who do and they use it effectively.) I suspect, if confronted with this question, both Chandler and Platt would encourage churches to care for what they have, enter into new projects prayerfully and prudently, and spend the absolute most that you can on missions. I think they would also add that when you spend money on things which can be seen or heard, purchase quality. I don’t know either man personally, so perhaps when a structural/space/technology need rises, they would say to ignore it, sell it and move the church, or if absolutely necessary, buy cheap. But I doubt it.

But, setting that aside, for me the factors would include the following:

1) Are we really talking specifically about literally adding a steeple to an existing structure? If so that seems like a move of pure ornamentation, and I would argue against it.

2) If we are not talking about a literal steeple but about adding to our physical structure in some other way: what is our sense of call and mission (ie. who and what is God calling us to be and do) in the community and how would this particular project help advance that?

3) is this the best stewardship of our resources (given #2)?

4) does this project glorify God? Does it edify people? What if we don’t do this. What wil be gained if we do.

and so on.

A very complex and difficult set of questions in other words — which will reveal to us a lot about ourselves and how we understand God and his calling.

A question about the scenario you’ve painted? In most cases pastors by themselves have much less of the kind of control over finances and building projects than you seem to believe (or at least portray here). Fact is, that if I were to conceive of a major structural addition to our church building there would have to be a consultative process that involved both a higher denominational authority, a decision by our church’s governing board, and (probably) a vote by the congregation (who would then have to be tapped for the extra money to build said project). I would say that a similar process would have to take place in most of the churches in which most of the readers of this blog worship.

The independent church with the autocratic pastor who has sole control over the spending of tens of thousands of dollars is so rare as to be vanishingly small.

Thus the factors “running through my head” have almost nothing to do with what I think would “look really sharp”.

You pray about it, but, as with many other decisions you have to make, you’re not getting any special divine guidance about this. So what factors should be running through your head? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to splurge on that steeple?

I think current architecture says more about what we (and the architects we choose to design our churches) think of God than our views on the practical use of ministry funds or space.