This is the church size that best supports our current experience of ministry within our church in all the different areas: children, youth, college, men/women, music, etc… As well as a size that allows us to be a resource church for the broader GR community and PCA community in ways that we could not as a church of 300.

There are definite present needs. We are currently overextending the use of the building in our worship space, several of our children’s rooms, and in our ability to move throughout the narthex. We do not have enough bathrooms (especially for women) in the facility. Nor do we have adequate office space for our staff. While we are willing and adept at “making do” at some point these deficiencies become problematic. When people come to worship and cannot find a seat or are asked to sit in the narthex, there is a good chance they will not come back. To exist as a large church we simply need more space.

There are several factors that went into this thinking. 600 seems to strike the balance between a sanctuary that can realistically host up to 900-1000 in worship given our two services, yet is not too large to maintain an intimate feel. In addition, architecturally, a sanctuary of 600 does not require things like a sloped floor which limit the functionality of the space. 600 is also a reasonable space in the event of Christ church ever dipping back into the 400-600 range one service could be had without swallowing up the congregation with a much larger sanctuary.

No. For over a decade, we have grown from 300 to nearly 700 attendees. Through our 2025 Vision Process, we affirmed that this is the size God is calling us to be, as it allows us to serve as a resource church for our broader community and for the denomination.

This project is about stewardship, not expansion for expansion's sake. Our current facilities (worship space, children’s areas, bathrooms, and offices) are over capacity. We must address these limitations to allow our current ministries to continue, while also being mindful of future ministries in light of the Vision directives.

The Session has explored numerous alternatives, but ultimately determined they would not be able to fully solve our primary space crisis:

After prayerfully weighing these options and incorporating feedback from ministry leaders, staff, and the broader congregation, the Session has identified a long-term master plan as our best path forward.

Yes. Over the past year we have had our antennae out, both organically and formally, for other churches that may come available. Unfortunately nothing that made sense hit the market, either they were too small, too old or the location was not great. We also looked at non-traditional sites (warehouse, office complex) but did not see a way forward. Furthermore, there are other considerations with moving, such as care for the columbarium, our history at this location and our recent acquisition of property that would need to be factored into any move.

We will absolutely continue church planting and are hopeful that we will have our church planter soon. Two primary considerations come into play when considering church planting. First, the type of organic church planting that we intend to pursue, would send out 50-100 people from Christ Church and not significantly alter our current space needs. Furthermore, healthy churches that plant churches tend to grow and replace those who were sent out. Second, a plant that hives off 200+ of our current church is more of a new church start and is not really the kind of plant that we are interested in. A church hive of this variety also comes with several downsides in that it takes both entities out of the 500-900 range, thus weakening their ability to be a resource church. It also is very dependent on having the staff necessary to pull it off, which there is no guarantee that we have. This option is not preferable.

For the broader project, with drawings needed, approvals from the congregation and the city, fundraising, etc… we would be looking at a completion sometime between fall 2027 (quite optimistic) and fall 2028. Phase 0 (classroom suite on the south side of the building) could be greenlit and started very quickly owing to the fact that the drawings are complete and approvals are already in on that project. This could be completed by fall 2026.

Clearly this is an important question. We do not want to get into a situation that is beyond our means. If that were the case, the good that we would be intending to do in extending ministry would actually be turned on its head and would prevent ministry. Additionally, we know that a project like this will take broad, sacrificial support from the congregation. Preliminary assessment by the Financial Stewardship Committee, Master Planning Committee, and the Session give us confidence in our ability to secure the required funding. However, we will use the next month or two to better understand our church’s position and seek to collectively make these decisions prayerfully and with as much information as we can.

No. We are asking the congregation to vote on key three areas:

The Session believes these three ballot measures are essential to provide the transparency and certainty we need. Because we do not yet have a finalized design, it is impossible to provide an accurate total cost without this initial work. Forming a Capital Campaign Committee will help determine our fundraising capacity, which directly informs what the final scope of this project can be.

While allocating funds for schematic drawings is a significant investment, it is a prudent one. These drawings will provide the detail necessary for the congregation to make a fully informed decision at a final vote before any construction begins. We are choosing to invest in this clarity now to avoid much costlier unknowns later.

Yes. The session has considered this question and determined that we would explore and place before the congregation for approval a plan for some long term (10 years?) financing. Several factors help shape this thinking. Among them is the idea that it may actually be more stewardly than waiting until all the money is in hand. Some of this is related to project costs of moving construction on and off a job site of this magnitude. Some of this takes into account the continual rise in construction costs. Our decision to not finance Phase 0 with our previous building project likely cost us several hundred thousand dollars to do the same work with construction prices rising around 42% in the intervening time.

Yes, according to Romans 13:8 we are to “owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves has fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8). While this verse certainly cautions us against entangling ourselves with obligations (financial or otherwise) that would compromise our ability to serve Christ by loving our neighbor as ourself, its application to acquiring debt must be understood in the light of what the Bible teaches us about lending and borrowing. Most immediately, Paul states in the previous verse (Rom. 8:7) that we “owe" many things to many people, including taxes, revenue, respect, and honor, and that we are to pay whatever we owe to whom it is owed. Elsewhere, Jesus instructs us to lend to those who ask and not refrain from lending to those in need, but to be all the more open-handed with them (Matt. 5:42; Lk. 6:35). Psalm 112:5 commends "the man who does well and lends.” Scripture would not speak this way if lending and borrowing were immoral acts. 

The question is not, therefore, whether lending and borrowing is morally permissible (it is), or whether we have debts of various kinds in life that we are obligated to pay (we do). The question is whether our lending and borrowing is compelled and constrained by love. Love is the one obligation we not only owe to all people—even our enemies—but the one obligation that ought to animate and order everything else we do. Love fulfills the law, and love can compel us to lend or to refrain from lending and likewise to borrow or refrain from borrowing. If we are compelled to lend by love, then we can lend openly and freely; if we are compelled to borrow by love, then we can borrow openly and freely—that is, with a clear conscience and humble confidence in the good of what we are doing. 

This verse is teaching us not to avoid acquiring obligations in life but to acquire only those obligations (financial or otherwise) that belong to love. We can fail to love others well by refusing to acquire obligations that love compels us to shoulder or by assuming obligations that compromise our ability to live fully and freely for Christ by loving and serving others. The question is not, therefore, whether to borrow or not. The question is how to fulfill the work of the ministry of faith working through love that God has set before us and what obligations we need to either acquire or shun in order to do so. That might involve borrowing some amount of money at some point in the process of building or it might not. God gives us the freedom to borrow or not, as love might compel us, and gives wisdom to those who ask in order to live ever more fully for Christ by loving others.

While the Bible does speak against the practice of charging usury (Ex. 22:25; Deut. 23:19–20) and forbids retaining someone’s cloak as collateral (Ex. 22:26–27), it is important to observe at least three things. First, these rules were intended to regulate a rather free and open practice of lending and borrowing, not prohibit it. Second, the proscription on charging interest or retaining a man’s cloak as collateral only applied to loans made to people in need within the household of God, not to people able to pay for the privilege of borrowing. Third, the principle informing this regulation is the same as we find in Romans 13:8. In this case, these rules about lending to the poor in the household of God teach us what the love of compassion compels us to do when it comes to caring for the needy brother or sister in Christ: we lend without charge and expect nothing in return and certainly do not exploit their need for selfish gain. Even in these cases, the borrower bought to repay if they are able and the loan should be aimed at enabling them to do so by helping them find their financial footing. “The wicked borrows but does not repay, but the righteous…is ever lending generously” (Ps. 37:21, 26). 

For this reason, the Reformed tradition, from at least the time of Calvin, has consistently taught that lending and borrowing at interest is both permissible and generally just and wise financial stewardship. If, in the course of living for Christ in the world, we want to buy a home or start a business or enlarge either, then we are free to borrow at interest to pursue these goods. Likewise, if, in the course of living for Christ in this world, we are in a position to lend money to another to pursue such goods, then we are free to do so and ordinarily ought to do so expecting some profit. In this way, Francis Turretin argued, we can put our money to work just as a farmer puts his field to work.

Yes. According to our by-laws any project that would “sell, convey, mortgage, or encumber any real estate of the Church or any interest therein” or “erect, construct, or enlarge any building” requires the approval of the congregation acting as a corporation. In our corporation capacity “the voters shall be the communicant members who are qualified to vote, 18 years old and older, according to the articles of incorporation and the civil law.”

A master plan is a long-term vision for how the church campus could grow over time. It 
shows how buildings, parking, outdoor spaces, and circulation might fit together in a thoughtful 
and intentional way. 

Is this a final design? 
No. This is not a final design or construction drawing. It is a framework that helps guide future decisions. 

Is everything shown in the master plan going to be built? 
Not necessarily. The plan shows possibilities, not commitments. Some elements may change, be delayed, or never be built. 

Does this lock us into specific costs or timelines? 
No. Costs and schedules come later during detailed design and budgeting. The master plan does not set final numbers or a final scope.

Can the master plan change over time? 
Yes. A master plan is a living document. It can and should evolve as ministry needs, priorities, and resources change.  

Why are some elements shown conceptually rather than precisely? 
Conceptual planning preserves flexibility and allows better solutions to be developed later, once needs, budgets, and priorities are clearer. 

How will feedback be used? 
Feedback helps identify priorities, concerns, and questions that can inform future planning and revisions. 

How does this support the church’s mission? 
The master plan is not about buildings for their own sake. It is about creating spaces that better support people, ministry, and community over time. This is meant to be a practical summation of our mission in a possible building that supports CC’s ministries.  

While there are no plans there are definitely  lots of possibilities.  In terms of our proposed CM space, schools or daycares certainly come to mind as organizations that could use the type of space that is being posited.  Of course the more that we could connect the space to ministry the better.  What would it look like to have a day care that would bless lower income families?   Or programming connected with the space designed for stay at home moms in the neighborhood?   A larger sanctuary would enable us to open to school groups, hosting concerts, etc… The people of Christ Church are very creative.  We would love to see what good use these facilities could be put to!

There are a lot of ways we can direct this project to make sure we are good stewards of our property and for all of our Grand Rapids critters. To start, the existing area we have on the new property is full of debris. We will be cleaning and restoring the area as we move forward with a building. We can also work to make sure the stormwater areas are naturally scaped to add to our effective habitat space while still fitting a building into the site. We can be thoughtful about our animals as we choose plantings.

It is definitely a part of the broader masterplan, the question is how much can we bite off at one time?   For the moment we have prioritized the sanctuary and the children’s wing as being the most needed.  Part of the thinking is that the current sanctuary would be made into a family life center that could be used for running around and light activity such as dodgeball, tag, etc…  While not a full fledged gym, it could offer an outlet of sorts.

This is a great question and only lately has been started being considered due to the late 2025 move out of the previous owners.   While there are no concrete plans on use going forward, there is a sense that restoring the property to its use as a residence is the best move for the church long term and has a multitude of potential uses short term.  The house is currently in bad repair and this will be a significant cost.  We recognize that this comes at a time when we are considering a large project and we need to think wisely about how integrate this into our stewarding our space project.

Depending on your history with Christ Church this question may or may not be meaningful to you. It is true that the original founders of Christ Church envisioned a smaller, vibrant community that would plant as it grew. It also began its ministry renting various facilities around town, as the idea to rent vs own was also part of their original vision. In time that changed and they built the building that we currently occupy.  They did build it so that it is very difficult to enlarge the sanctuary (as we have discovered) in hopes that there would be continued plants. And while Christ Church helped with plants in Holland and in Traverse City and explored a daughter church in East Hills, Gracehill was the first true daughter church planted. By recounting this history it seems that we can affirm that our founders did have a vision for how things might go. But we also recognize that situations change and unforeseen circumstances influence later generations.  For instance, did the founders imagine that it wouldn’t be until we went to 2 services and grew past the number that they had in mind that we would finally plant a true daughter church? Or could the founders have foreseen a growth in PCA works in West MI to such a degree that it is being considered to have a separate West MI presbytery with Christ Church seen as an important piece of that puzzle?  Our founders were amazing people and we are grateful for the foresight they had to plant CC and the Gospel DNA they injected from the start. It is this Gospel DNA that we want to preserve, nurture and cultivate. But like our founders as they changed from renting to building, we recognize that we are in times and circumstances that they could not have foreseen and we must lead from their foundation but not be constrained by their methods.