For The Rev: Faith & Finances
“Better to light a candle than curse the darkness”
The Rev needs our help. He asks:
“Was wondering if you could help me …to figure out how to do offerings … I of course don’t believe in tithing, and won’t teach it, but I do think some of the existing people do tithe.
But I wanted to just place boxes or jars on the tables, and maybe a note of explanation that people can put their prayer requests or offerings in the boxes and they will be collected at the end of service. I may or may not mention it from the front.What do you think? I am very uncomfortable about the whole thing, especially when there are visitors. Do you think there should be a prayer, and an offering time?”
As Lionfish does not have ‘all the answers’, I will ask ‘Team Signposts’ take off your ‘Black hats’ for a while and help The Rev out … (that includes you too Lance)
So what do you think?:
-At the heart of the issue why do visitors and clergy such as the Rev feel uncomfortable talking about money in a Church environment?
-Should the Church (The Rev) ask/beg for money from the Front? If so, in what context?
-If The Rev encourages the ‘Tithers’ or mentions the ‘T’ word will he go straight to Hell?
-How should The Rev or any Church go about raising necessary funds for his needs?
(Rev - I will progressively place my own thoughts and questions in the comments section over time – even of no one else does!).
August 4th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Yep, it’s more like a para-church organisation, but it’s still a corporate entity that has legal and financial obligations. (And I definitely know what it’s aims are, having been involved for 8+ years and on the board for a couple )
My paid work is in the corporate sector, and based on my experience in corporate culture, I agree that CSBC would not receive the same support. However this is because it is called a “church” as much as anything else. For example, I’ve seen numerous pro bono policies in numerous law firms, and they would all inhibit working with churches. While organisations such as Urban Seed and the Oaktree Foundation are known as “Christian” organisations, they are careful about what that means and how that is conveyed.
However, based on my experience in corporate culture, I’m also fairly confident that if Urban Seed converted to a model where we ran meals out of our own homes, we would struggle to retain our support. Firstly, we would be regarded with some suspicion, and secondly, we wouldn’t have the paid staff necessary to build and maintain our relationships with the corporate sector. We could still do a lot, in fact most, of what we do without those corporate relationships, but we probably wouldn’t be able to do it on the same scale, or with the same resources. At a really basic level, people who are currently paid by Urban Seed would have to seek more paid outside work, and we wouldn’t get such significant donations of material resources. Further, we wouldn’t be as visible.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Hey Dan, I’d be really interested in what you think of all this, being someone who does both community stuff and corporate stuff??
August 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Rev, where does your income from? You work part-time in a cafe or something as well as get some income from individuals, Forge etc, right?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
So what does that have to do with church Bec? I am not advocating the changing of Urban Seed but showing that Godly men and women of faith can live in community, care for one another, and in a very simple way be the church. And still be able to do the more structured, corporate type things like Urban Seed does.
Urban Seed is not a church. They are what is possible when the communities of Faith put their mind to do something on a larger scale, corporately.
Neil Cole has shown in a even more consumeristic, idividualistic, unhealthy culture of SoCal, that you do not need to be visible to reach the lost, or to attract people. Initiatives like Urban Seed can come out of house churches, just as easily as traditional churches. And they will need structures commeasurate with their scope of work. But this is not the same thing.
rev
August 4th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
No Bec, I am in a situation that I personally am not comfortable with, but it is all I can do at this time. I am payed full time through FORGE, there are two churches that give donations equivalent of three days a week to FORGE towards my salary, and I have raised one day a week salary from friends in the US and here that believe in our ministry. I am not allowed to work at all in Australia for anyone besides my sponsoring agency which is FORGE, as is stipulated by my visa. So I look at FORGE as my part time job, and the churches as my part time ministry.
This was not the way I did things in America. In america I worked about two and a half days a week as an artist, and the rest of the time I did ministry, for which I was not payed.
rev
August 4th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Oh of course - I did know that, because I remember you writing about your visa issues.
I have no problem with you being paid full-time, and I don’t think you should either. I’d only have a problem if you abused that position of privilege (see my earlier posts). I might, for example, have a problem if I was in your community and I saw you leaving church really early and leaving those that worked full-time to lock up. Or if you were never available when someone needed a coffee in the middle of the day (if it’s the middle of the night that might be ok!!)
I wish everyone at US could be paid full-time, because they all work so hard. My only problems with full-time paid ministry are (a) it can create a Christian ghetto where people don’t interact with those outside the church; (b) the flexibility church employers usually offer is sometimes abused; and (c) I see paid staff forgetting that they’re paid for their involvement in a community, and they stick to their paid hours and don’t do any ‘voluntary’ hours, while other members of the community work full-time jobs elsewhere and do voluntary work for their community on top of that.
I suspect you don’t do any of this.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
No I spend as much time with the community as possible including living in shared housing. And my mobile is left on for two am situations.
But I am more talking about the need for the traditional church structure in our time and economy. It seems to me it is needed only because people want it, not because our culture has any particular barrier to a simple church idea.
rev
August 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Re: your post at #94, which I saw after #95…
I know you’re not advocating changing Urban Seed’s model. I was trying to show how financial resourcing does change things. And why I don’t necessarily have a problem with full time paid staff.
I think Urban Seed is a church. If a community of faith is a church, then we are a church.
I think you’re spot on when you say US could have come out of a house church - after all, it started with a couple of young guys moving in and inviting people home for meals. But, today we are an incorporated association, with paid staff, a couple of them full time. There’s nothing wrong with them being paid - it means they don’t have to work so many days a week in other jobs, and they have more time to hang out in Credo, run City Walks, and build relationships with corporate entities.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
BTW Rev…I think we’re saying the same thing, except using different language. When I talk about “institutionalised”, I’m referring to the fact that we have formal legal models, formal hierarchies. I’m not talking about the degree to which those in formal positions of power actually exercise it.
For example, some organisations have “hands off” boards. Some organisations have very controlling CEOs, Secretaries, Treasurers etc. On paper, both types of organisation look identical. It’s in the practice that we see the difference. So I think it’s more about values and culture than it is about the formal legal model adopted. This is what I’m referring to when I talk about “institutionalised” - I’m talking about legal models, not cultures. I think you’re talking about cultures (??)
August 4th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
SO how does the dhared housing thing work for you rev?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
btw Rev, I was trying to respond to Ogyle’s (was it Ogyle?) post about money not needing to go into buildings or staff, and make the point that at Urban Seed, money DOES go into maintaining buildings and staff, but that’s OK exactly BECAUSE those buildings and staff serve the poor, widows, orphans etc. So it’s actually not about the type of model you adopt, it’s about values, and where money flows. Ie are you maintaining a building and staff so you can put on kick-a rock concerts, or so you can run meals and build community with those on the margins?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
No I am talking about the institutional church, which means more than a church with a legal operating procedure. The “intitutional church” phrase is used to convey the idea of the traditional church model that is run by denominations of every sort. Northern would not be an institutional church, though they have legal incorporations and other institutional structures.
I am not sure that Urban Seed would call itself a church. Though I know they believe there is a church within it. I seemed to see a reluctance to define itself in that way but you are closer to it than I.
rev
August 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Greg,
We live in a house with one of the single men from our church. We are looking at ways to live even more communally, but there aren’t many fifteen room houses available.
Bec,
I agree with most of what you have said, yet I still do not see how this is a necessary function within our society. It is quite possible to have simple churches thats resource can be completely diverted to care and outreach, not “church buildings, and church staff”
I have no problem with either buildings or staff, if they are needed and a blessing to the community. But most church is made as a blessing for their attenders, and anything else is just icing.
rev
August 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I think we would not define ourselves as a church b/c of the connotations of that word “church”. But I would be surprised if there was not common agreement that we are a “community of faith”, a NT church.
For me, it’s the flows of resources that are important. Which is exactly why groups like FORGE need to work with the traditional institutional church - it’s not about whether you meet in a cafe, a home, or a church building, and it’s not about whether or not you have paid staff - it’s about where your priorities are, the directions in which your resources flow.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
ha ha…we’re writing at the same time, and saying basically the same thing. Yep, I agree with all of what you wrote.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
For the purpose of the following discussion:
IC = institutional church
HC = house church (also known as ‘early church’,
‘relational
christianity’,
‘simple church’, ‘open church’ or ‘N.T.
church’)
I can’t see how the economy of a country/region will have any bearing
on IC ‘growth’ or HC ‘growth’. The Solomon Islands example
was a good point, but I have lived in (extremely) poor countries, for
years, where the economy would be regarded as on par with the Solomons,
yet the majority of churches were IC. In China, where HC abounds, I do
not think it has anything to do with their economy, but it seems, what
has ‘fuelled’ HC growth in China, is persecution. We only need to look
at the book of Acts, to see what effect persecution had on the spread
of Christianity.
In Australia, and other developing countries, both IC and HC
exist, regardless of the economy. I believe there is ‘room’ for both.
True, about 20 years ago, I was involved in a HC, just after being born
again, it was real ‘body life’, something I thought was not possible
again, .. but, it can be done. Quite a lot of the offerings went to the
community and people in genuine need. The leaders of the HC all had
jobs, or other means of financial support, and did not rely on those
within the Body, to support them at all.
As stated before, I think there is room for both the IC and the HC.
However, the IC is a historical factor, in existance for about 1700
years, and has its’ roots in pagan culture. For an extremely
interesting look at how paganism has ‘crept’ into todays church, read
the book Pagan
Christianity , but, be warned - ”
If you are a
Christian who is content with status quo “churchianity,” then you will
not want to read this book. It is reserved for those who are ready to
embark on an eye-opening venture that challenges every aspect of their
church experience as well as offering a better alternative.”
Now, what has all this to do with finances ? Simply to restate the
earlier point, we don’t really ‘own’ anything, as it all belongs to
God, therefore the matter of stewardship is vitally important. How much
of the Lords money is spent on bricks and mortar ? Can we do without it
? Is there a better way ?
August 4th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Welcome to Signposts, Russ. I found your article Should the Church Teach Tithing ? very good and informative. Have noticed with interest, the solid arguments you put foward on the CARM Forums , in the thread Exposing
Seventh-Day Adventism .
August 5th, 2006 at 11:48 am
This has been an interesting discussion. One thing I am unclear about is how we are defining “institutional church”. It seems from the examples given above that an institutional church is a church who is using its money in ways we disagree with. Is this right? If not, how can we define institutional chuch, and do we accept that institutional churches can be positive missional influences?
August 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
It is dificult to come up with a definitive description of what the ‘institutional church’ is, but rather, it would be easier, to define what a ‘HC’ is, and if a ‘church’ is not a HC, then it is, by default, an IC. (But even then, there are not exact ‘models’ of a HC, although primarily people meet in homes only (no, this does not mean a “home fellowship” of an IC), and often have a gathering meeting occasionally, of house church folks).
The distinctive sign of an IC is that it is a denomination, stepped in tradition, or has some sort of heirarchy, or body that it is ‘under’. Whereas a HC does not have any heirarachy at all (Jesus is the High Priest and we are all ‘Priests’, in the sense of a ‘royal priesthood’), but a HC still has leadership, accountability and authority, mind you.
HC is participatory, very much in fact, it is much more relational than an IC. There are lots of other differences.
All this said, one is not better than the other, they simply “function” very differently.
From The Danger of the Institutional Church , ….
“Dave Kahle addresses the devastating impact of our current model upon believers, when he says, “The institutional church, with its reliance on paid pastors, church buildings, teaching and worship services, has created a passive, spectator form of Christianity that bleeds the power out of its adherents and siphons resources away from the building of God’s kingdom.”
BTW, a HC is NOT an “Emerging Church”, because Emerging Churches attempt change from within, to be ‘relevant’ to todays society. Remember ………
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and they will ruin the wineskins. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and they preserve both.” (Matt. 9:16-17, NIV)
The new wine cannot be ‘contained’ within the traditions of the IC, but needs to go back about 1700 years, to the simplicity and vitality of the early church. That, in essence, is what HC is ‘about’, a new wineskin, as an analogy of types.
I haven’t explained this very well (it’s lunchtime and my stomach is rumbling), I will look for some better explanations in time.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Interesting thoughts ogyle, but I am not sure that I agree with all of your definitions. For example, I don’t think that the simple fact of engagement with a denomination or institutional heirarchy necessarily means that the church engages in spectator Christianity, or that it is not on about creating new wineskins. I think that this is often true, but not always.
You say that there neither HC or IC is “better”, but go on to critique in quite strong terms the IC model (as you have earlier). So I would take from your comments that you do indeed think that HC model is better than IC. Would this be fair?
August 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Dan, I would define IC as traditional denominational churches, but I don’t believe it necessarily follows that an IC is less missional, more hierarchical and less participatory than a HC. I think that is *usually* the case, but it doesn’t necessarily follow. I know of churches which are institutional in the sense that they’re a part of a denomination, say Anglican or Baptist, but they’re very participatory and not particularly hierarchical. Equally, I am sure there are HCs which are led by extremely strong, even controlling leaders, and while their hierarchies might not be as formal as those in ICs, they nevertheless have a very strong hierarchy.
Similarly, I certainly know of HCs where financial abuse has been a massive problem, and I know of ICs where it never seems to have been, due, ironically, to the fact that there’s a bureaucracy in place to produce financial accounts and records.
August 5th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Definitely, I would not like to state that all IC’s engage in spectator
Christianity. However, let us look at one aspect of spectator
Christianity, where the clergy/laity distinction is made, in special
reference to the sermon, which is a clear trademark of most
IC’s. Is the sermon/preaching different today, from what was practised
in the early church ? Yes, it is very different, mostly
originating from pagan roots.
1. In the OT, active participation and interruptions by the audience
were common.
Ref: David C. Norrington, “To preach or not to preach ?” - p. 3
2. The Lord Jesus did not preach a regular sermon to the same audience,
but the messages He brought forth were informal and spontaneous.
Ref: David C. Norrington, “To preach or not to preach ?” - p. 5-7
3. The ‘Sermon on the Mount’ was given that name in the post-apostolic
period. Augustine was the first to give Matt. 5-7 this name in his book
“The Lords Sermon on the Mount” in AD 395.
4. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was sporadic.
Ref: David C. Norrington, “To preach or not to preach ?” - p. 7-12
5. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was extemporaneous and without
rhetorical structure.
Acts 2:14-35; Acts 7:1-52; Acts 17:22-34
6. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was most often dialogical (meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience) rather than monological (a one-way discourse).
Ref: Jeremy Thomson “Preaching as Dialogue: Is the Sermon a Sacred Cow ?” - pp 3-8
Acts 17:2,17; Acts 18:4,19; Acts 19:8,9; Acts 20:7,9; Acts 24:25
7. The NT letters show that the ministry of God’s Word came from the
entire church in their regular gatherings.
1 Cor 14:26, 31; Rom 12:4ff.; Eph: 4:11ff.; Heb 10:25.
8. This “every-member” functioning was also “conversational”.
1 Cor 14:29
9. .. and marked by interruptions.
1 Cor 14:30
10. Equally so, the exhortations of the local elders were nominally impromptu.
Ref: Alan Kreider, “Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom” - p. 37
11. Unfortunately, the ’sermon’ became a standard practice among believers by the fourth century.
Ref: Edwin Hatch, “The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the
Christian Church” - p. 109
Active participation and interruptions, … try doing that today !! The sermon is only one aspect of ’spectator Christianity’.
I believe that the manner in which the Body of Christ functioned in the
early church is best. I also believe there is no perfect IC, nor is
there a perfect HC. I have a very strong desire to “do church” like the HC, because I believe that is how the Lord wants His Body to “function”, for the simple truth that, this is what Body Life was all about, in the New Testament.
I do not alienate myself from friends in the IC, in fact keeping up fellowship with those dear fiends in the Lord is important to me, not to ‘presuade’ them at all, we just have fellowship. I believe the Lord will call some people out of the IC into a HC, and for others, they will stay, I understand that, and respect that.
August 5th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I have to agree. Having been badly burned (7-8 years ago) by a dysfunctional HC, and now involved in the local suburban Anglican church, my personal experience is that some of the bureacratic red tape that seems to get in the way of doing the real God-stuff in a denominational church. and is so frustrating, is also, at times our protection. Hcs can suffer from exactly the same problem as megachurches (how’s that for irony?), namely lack of accountability. And, at least in my experience (which I certainly don’t want to universalise) it can be all the more dangerous because the power structure is unspoken until you find that you have violated their secret rules … Then they use the claims of friendship and “love” to justify all kinds of boundary violations. One of the reasons i feel “safe” for now in a denominational setting is that the boundaries are much clearer cut. I may not always agree with the pastor in the way he runs the services etc, but at least I know where his authority ends (and yes, I have actually discussed this with him! I needed to). I don’t think ICs are the ideal solution; my own experience and anecdotal evidence from others, suggests that a lot of HCs don’t manage to live up to the idealisation. I haven’t found the answer, though I often ponder the question
August 5th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Dear Oygle, I’m sure you didn’t mean to refer to your IC acquaintances as “dear fiends” in the last para, but could this be a Freudian attempt to demonise the system?
(sorry, couldn’t help noticing)
August 5th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Oops, … no, they are definitely friends (I have some cognitive problems, well, that’s my excuse anyway).
I didn’t notice that, thanks for picking it up.
In post #113, I couldn’t help noticing the words “protection”, “accountability”, “power structure”, “authority”. This issues are of a big concern to people ‘pondering’ HC, because they feel “safe” under the “covering” of an IC. However covering teaching is spurious and has absolutely no Biblical foundation to it at all, it is used to control people. The book Who is your Covering? has been mentioned by a number of people on Signposts; it is very good.
August 5th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Ogyle, covering is a very different thing to what blestpickle is talking about. In fact, her appreciation for the institutional church comes from values that are the complete antithesis of covering - she talks about appreciating the accountability of the institutional church.
I too appreciate that accountability. I appreciate the fact that a church that is a formally registered entity has certain financial reporting obligations. I appreciate the fact that it is accountable to a wider institutional structure for its teachings. The Trinity Church in Melbourne is a prime example of the strengths of the institutional church that blestpickle is talking about.
August 5th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
An insight into the book.
August 5th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Thanks Bec, that’s exactly what I meant. I don’t think IC is the ideal way of doing church, but I do think that as long as the church is made up of sinful human beings, the moment you are fellowshipping with more than a few, well-trusted comrades-in-arms you need to have boundaries in place to protect people. What i actually want to see is the opposite of covering, it’s having a recognition that ordinary members of the church are mature adults perfectly capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives, and most of them aren’t making any more mistakes in life than the average pastor. I have said to my pastor that one of the things I appreciate is that he has no more authority to speak into my life than any other brother in Christ, ie I will listen to what he says and consider it, but in no way do I feel bound by it. This is the sort of thing I mean by safety — not safety from responsibility but safety from holy sharks, who circle in the water looking for wounds to hone in on and feed off.
August 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
You are indeed blessed, to have such a good relationship with your Pastor; many will not take to being ‘challenged’.