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!).
July 31st, 2006 at 10:18 am
So first tithing isn’t biblical and now having two wives isn’t either? man you guys are taking all the fun outta being a leader.
rev
July 31st, 2006 at 11:19 am
Lionfish - you said “My wife has aked me to do some chores. Nighty. Night.” CHORES???? What kind of Chores???
July 31st, 2006 at 11:46 am
I agree totally with Lance’s take on the money offering issue. As an Anglican we have two ways of doing this…in our formal services there is an offering taken up which forms part of the Eucharistic part of the service - ther’s no big scene - but the plate is passed around and people can see who gives and who doesn’t. I don’t like that - I think that is a suttle form of manipulation as you feel more compelled to give so noone thinks you’re a tight arse!
The other way we do it is in our informal cafe community and we started off with a box at the back then went to a bag being passed around - but I want it to go back to the box at the back.
In any of our serivces if there is a need above what has been budgeted for in the running of the ‘church’ we let it be known and always someone or several someones come up and help out!
Suttle - but letting people know about the needs of the community is the way to go.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:47 am
also…I’m glad the whole circumcissoin thing has gone out the window…so to speak
July 31st, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I dont think you should stick your circumcision out the window bro, that is illegal
Good stuff guys I appreciate the imput, especially Lance, I appreciate the time you took.
rev
July 31st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Mind you it might be possible to do self circumsion with automatic car windows.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
That’s nasty.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Sorry. In facile mood see all recent posts.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Geesh! The things that happen here! I spend a few hours away from the computer and come back to find that we’ve moved on from whether people should be giving an arm and a leg to circumcision (only for males, thank heavens!)!!!
In all seriosity, I agree with the others. There’s a world of difference between mentioning a need and /or biblical teaching on our responsibility to see the use of our money as part of our discipleship, and the manipulating people to give what they can’t afford because it’s the magic key to God’s blessing. There’s a world of difference between presenting your ministry as part of the spectrum of possibilities for people’s giving, and telling them it’s the only one they should be giving to ..
July 31st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Wiggy,
I think you are right about the two or three witnesses. The only orthodox doctrine that I know of that exists is that of Jesus decending into Hell.
Macadamia Nut,
unfortunately my chores were as stimulating as putting out the wheelie bin on the verge!
August 1st, 2006 at 12:19 am
Lion - Okay, I was worried for a moment. Here is an interesting article from crosswalk i thought you and the rev and a few others may like - maybe not.
http://crosswalk.com/1409173.html
August 1st, 2006 at 7:29 am
Hey lionfish -the new joyce meyer financials are out -at least I have not seen them before,so they are new to me… for your reading pleasure … http://www.joycemeyer.org/projects/2005_annualreport/cert1.html
August 1st, 2006 at 8:47 am
Macadamia Nut,
That’s a good start. Atleast people can see the total income and assets of the ministry and get an idea of the amount of money these people make.
That reporting level is far superior to Hillsongs two line opearting statements and that of other related meag churches.
I turned up to a local 80 person church last Sunday and was handed the AGM notes and about four pages of detailed financials fo all entities - including the salary details of all employed by the Church.
Its not good enough that Churches are not on the front foot demonstrating what they do with peoples money.
From Joyce this made me smile though:
“In 2005, the compensation approved by the Board of Directors and provided to Joyce Meyer as President of Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc., included salary and fringe benefits of $250,000, the benefit of living in a ministry-provided parsonage and contributions to retirement plans”.
http://www.joycemeyer.org/projects/2005_annualreport/cert1.html
Here is that humble ministry parsonage that Joyce is allowedto live in:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/meyer/meyer13.html
August 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
I don’t think you could do that if you turned up at the cave, but thats because it would take a week to figure it out and get it printed out since, our bookkeeper works full time.
But I can tell you that I get two days salary a week, and that most of that comes from the lease of the manse.
rev
August 1st, 2006 at 9:39 am
I wish I had a house the size of the garage. Take the Lexus out, sell the bmw, give away the rolls to a viable ministry - (or sow seed into the KCM branch) - move in a couch or two and walla - home sweet home. Wait a minute that’s not a garage it’s the servants quarters.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:59 am
I have come in late here.
1) what is wrong with tithing? ( I remember a while ago a person asked our previous bishop/pastor does he give a % of before tax income or after tax income? He replied something to the effect if he was worried to that extent don’t bother.
2) why is there embarrassment in giving to the church when it is a duty?
It seems to me leaving something at the end of the hall hoping people will contribute is giving people the temptation not to give.
ONLY regular people should give. Visitors should never be asked.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:05 am
I worked on a home right on the beach in Newport So. Cal. the OC incase you didn’t know. It was literally right on the beach boardwalk. The garage was a four car deal. It had flame finished granite floors, and black and white checkered marble tiles three feet up all the walls. The walls were painted custom grey with all rounded corners, built ins on two walls. In the garage were a convertable custom jeep, this was used as the dog house as they slept in it. A convertable four dour jaguar. A convertable rolls royce. And a Ferrarri Testarossa. While we were working on the house, a guy gave him a Chevy Corvette as a repayment of a loan, but he had to keep that at his other home as he didn’t have enough room in Newport for it.
Ofcourse he wasn’t a churchman, just a bank owner.
Doesn’t seem like the lifestyle of a servant though does it?
rev
August 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Not really no.
You are a regular frequenter of this blog and yet you ask that question? Shame on you EP@LP, shame, shame, shame.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pm
sorry ,missed it and now am too lazy to read it.
Another sinful gesture of mine.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:58 pm
and there are so many of them. The good thing is that you recognise your sinfulness and have not doubt repented…revieve God’s absolution in Jesus name…go, and sin no more
In nómine Patris et Fílii et Spíritus Sancti
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:16 am
Hello blokes (or is it folks) or something else?? Today I shipped out four books to an AOG pastor in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. He told his congregation that he will no longer teach tithing because it is not scriptural. Now he is buying books for his pastor friends.
In my opinion, if a church thinks that it must depend on tithing in order to pay its bills, then something is wrong with its emphasis on personal evangelism and its burden for the lost.
The church in Acts flourished while it was still paying whateveer tithes it had to the Jewish Temple (Acts 21:20). And I have a book-shelf full of History of the Christian Church seminary textbooks which ALL state that the early church leaders all worked to support themselves for about the first 200 years after Calvary. Can anybody refute that statement ffom the Ante-Nicean Fathers? They haven’t yet!
We simply must stop assuming that it is God’s will for all church leaders to be full time. If the church can afford a full-time leader, then God bless it. Otherwise the preacher needs to get a job lkike Paul did and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just do not teach the dead, week, profitless, abolished, veil-covered Old Covenant lie of tithing in order to support a Holy Spirit guided New Covenant church.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:32 am
Russell, I think that you are confusing two things there - the advisibility or need for full time ministry workers and the question of the tithe. Whether or not I think that the theological teaching relating to giving is extreme or manipulative or plain unbiblical, that doesn’t mean I necessarily think that the church should not be financially supported or that full time ministry is unsustainable.
Tithing and manipulative giving theology might be driven by the need to meet spiralling expenses, but it might also be just an expression or empire building or even just well-intentioned but misguided service.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:34 am
Someone need not support it from the ante-Nicean fathers it can be done with scripture. Paul clearly tells us that Peter and others are taken care of by the ministry, and that he has chosen not to do this, though it is his right.
I belive that tithing is not a new testement principle. I believe that most church leaders should work a part or even full time job. But it is not true that all of the church leaders did so. This is very important to me, and I do not want the message to be dismissed by casual exagerations. There is a place for full time payed ministers, I just think the place is much smaller than we would expect. And that as soon as you are dependant upon the church you are called to teach for your welfare it makes things very difficult in regards to personal integrity.
For most of my life I have worked part or full time and started churches, pastored communities and done evangelism and social work in my spare time. This while having a family. It is possible, and I think it was very good for me. So please don’t think I am disagreeing with your message, but rather a few points that are a bit dubious to me.
rev
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
If there is ‘manipulative giving’ then the teaching must be extremely suspect.
Moreover teaching is only of use if it leads to action hence a bishop must not only talk the talk but walk the walk as the Pastorals more or less put it.
I see nothing wrong with full-time ministry. This happens everywhere because we have a first world economy.
If one goes to Africa for example there are simialr experiences to the N/T.
If one is not giving then you do not believe in God!
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
EP is right - the Anglican Church in PNG and in the Philipines has Bishops who need to work at “day jobs” in order to survive. I think this says more about the level of suport the burgeoning western church shuold be giving to the less than burgeoning churches in other countries.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
All of you thus far make a lot of sense and I agree with you. I think that Paul’s mention of Peter and others being supported while on missionary ourneys best fits Matthew 10 and Luke 10. “While” they were on those missions they were most likely fully supported (unless Peter just happened to carry his fishing boat along).
Yes, the economy of affluent nations allows them to have mostly full-time pastors and that is proper. And, yes, the third-world churches need our support to help their working pastors. In my world the little churches whose pastors often work other jobs are being swallowed up by mega-churches with huge gymnasiums and elaborate youth programs. Yet my own city has three 200-300 member churches which do not teach tithing and use the “offering box at the entry” method. They do ask for pledges once a year and I do not disagree with that method as long as it uses New Covenant principles.
May I suggest a very good old book, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, by Alfred Edersheim, an Anglican which I quote often. His explanation of synagogues and self-supporting rabbis is very insightful.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Well I don’t think that is actually the case because Peter from most historical sources stayed in Jerusalem, and didn’t make many missionary journeys until he was taken to Rome for execution.
I do believe it was common in the early church to have fully payed staff. I am sure this changed, especially when times of intense persecution arose.
rev
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I’m not sure the church in Australia can be compared to that in developing countries or the early church, because the economic structures are completely different…but I’m still thinking that through.
I do, however, believe that we need to look at our institutional models. I think that in essence, that the arguments for and against paid positions vary across a spectrum of two extremes, those extremes being:
(a) a very informal, non-hierarchical grassroots community where everyone shares the work involved in sustaining the community, in which case I think it’s harder to make arguments for *full-time* paid positions; or
(b) a very traditional, institutional, hierarchical community, in which the majority of the work involved in sustaining that community is borne by people in paid positions.
My problem is that many churches choose to be a mixture of these two extremes in a manner that benefits paid staff and is to the detriment of laity. I’m not sure how much sense this is going to make, but I’m going to try…I’ve been thinking about this for some time, but haven’t tried to write about it before…I think there are churches which are a healthy mix of (a) and (b), and those which are an unhealthy mix of (a) and (b). The latter has paid staff who traditionally would have undertaken a lot of the work involved in running services, activities etc, but in actual fact members of the congregation take on much of the burden of doing this. These members are in danger of burn out because they’re working 1 full time paid job, and at least 1/2 an unpaid job. Meanwhile, the paid staff enjoy the benefits of working for a compassionate, flexible employer.
Please bear in mind that I’m talking about an extreme here!! I have no problem with full-time, paid staff, and I greatly appreciate communities where there is space for everyone to contribute to the running of services etc. However, for (a) and (b) to be combined in a healthy way, you need to the paid staff to be aware of the potential for burn out amongst the volunteers. In addition, ministers should be subject to similar employment conditions to other people - while the church should, as the church, be a model employer, this should not be abused by employees.
Interestingly, I work with a lot of organisations that grapple with these issues, as they have a minority of paid staff and a majority of volunteer staff. This isn’t just an issue for the church!
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Rev -
“(Peter) undertook a missionary journey to Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea (Acts 9:32-10:2), becoming instrumental in the decision to evangelise the Gentiles (Acts 10). He was present at the Council of Jerusalem, where Paul further argued the case for accepting Gentiles into the Christian community without circumcision”. WIKIPEDIA
My view as that we need FT, PT, Volunteer workers. there is no scriptural mandate for or against only one form of worker.
I just believe that the Church needs to be scriptural, ethical, accountable and transparent in its fundraising and financial activities.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Whats wrong with being manipulative and decieveing your congregation into handing over their hard earned cash so it can be used thoughtfully by hip and cool teenagers who have spent hours and hours studying at bible college. I am all for having offering buckets passed out every day and also at Bible study groups so people can be manipulated even more by their close friends. How about you send an sms to your congregation whilst they are eating their dinner asking them to give as well. Then you could do send out letters, then there is emails as well and periodic payments. WHy not give out credit cards or personal loans and gain interest on their tithes. The list goes on. I think that you should stop at nothing less than having each member and visitor handing over at least 80% of their untaxed wage. We must reach the world and stop at nothing to save our ……. I will let you fill in the gap