Thoughts about Money and Church
Does God Care about how Churches use their Money?
With the overwhelming number of passages and sentiments in the Bible
concerning money, the acquisition of wealth, generosity, frugality,
greed, etc., it is abundantly clear that God cares about how
we treat the subject of money as individuals.
By extension, it seems clear that God cares about how churches
spend the money they collect.
Therefore, it is a serious subject.
Since we know that money is a
snare and trap, especially for some, we should consider
the subject carefully and not simply rely on what we are told.
In this article we take a hard look at the traditional ways churches
collect and use money and we speculate about the advantages of
adopting a different way of handling money.
Specifically, in our church, we collect no offerings.
Because we employ no staff, have no formal organizational
structure that can be legally recognized, and own no property,
we have no need of a budget.
Instead, we encourage individuals to be generous in their own
creative ways with their money.
They can join with others in various ways to advance a cause
or help those in need.
Likewise, they can simply be generous privately.
We are recommending that in our day, this is the best way for the
church to handle money.
Does the Bible Command that we Collect Money to Support a Local Church?
The simple answer to that question is, "no". But first, let us take
a look at what churches typically spend their money on.
Typically, approximately 80 percent of a traditional church's offerings
never leave the local church.
While the numbers may vary, it is reasonable to say that typically,
roughly 40 percent of it pays for the facility itself and various
chuch programs and another 40 percent pays for the staff.
Of the remaining approximately 20 percent, some goes to missionary work or perhaps
to denominational interests.
There is no example in the New Testament of the churches
collectively owning a facility, so that removes the need for approximately
40 percent of a typical church's budget.
Second, there is no example in the New Testament of churches
collecting money for special programs such as outreach, education, etc.,
so that removes the need for another approximately 10 percent of the budget.
The biggest part left of a typical church budget goes to the
payment of permanent, professional ministry staff.
There are absolutely no examples in the New Testament where
permanently residing professional ministers, with all the trappings
of being a professional, are supported.
There are multiple scriptures where the idea of some financial support
is discussed.
Most notably, the Apostle Paul discusses his right for payment but
ultimately concludes that him taking payment would hinder the gospel.
Other mention of payment was either for
penniless itenerant pastors, i.e., church planters, or elderly
men who were very busy overseeing the affairs of the church.
In all cases, there is no mention of the ministry being
an activity that is anything like a job.
Even when financial support is mentioned, there is no inclusion
of the idea of "profit".
In other words, those supported were supported in a meek
sense, for example being provided a place to live and food to eat.
Even if it could be argued by a stretch that there were examples of
permanent professionals, nowhere does the Bible ever
command every group of Christians who assemble to hire a permanent
professional.
Therefore, at best, the Bible permits the hiring of a professional
and, arguably, permits the building of a facility.
However, in no way does it command those things.
Therefore, we have a choice.
And choices require careful thought.
Disadvantages of Buildings and Church Staff
Since, at best, the construction of a facility and the hiring of a
permanent, professional minister is a choice, it is good to examine
the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.
- Expense: Approximately $60 Billion each year goes to the payment
for church facilities and staff in America. This money could be used
to help the poor, either colletively or individually. If organized
properly, it could influence public television, the media, and politics.
There was a time in our nation's history when denominations built hospitals.
Those have now been turned over to non-profits or, in some cases, profit-making
companies and, instead, the money from offerings goes to church buildings and staff.
The possibilities of relieving God's people from that $60B/year pricetag
are endless, but the point is this: Buildings and
staff are enormously expensive and so it is appropriate to consider
alternative ways of using that money.
- Pastor's Conflict of Interest: For the penniless itinerant
pastors of the New Testament, there was no conflict of interest regarding
raising churches up to the point where the pastor is no longer needed.
As soon as a church was established, the pastor could move on and start
another one.
But for today's permanent pastor who is married with children and has
a mortgage, they need their job.
While they may want the church to mature, in reality, they have a
very strong motivation to supress it.
This is a very serious problem because it not only thwarts the
type of spiritual growth that God wants in his people, but it
compromises the heart of the pastor himself.
It might not even be appropriate for a
church to put a pastor in that conflicted position,
for it can become a trap that can lead to compromise.
- Church Incorporation: For a church to own a building or
hire staff, they must have some sort of legal standing.
Thus, they must incorporate under the State in some way.
In so doing, they accept rules and regulations that bind
God's people.
One notable example is the idea of "church membership."
From a Scriptural standpoint, one is automatically a
member of the church when they become a Christian.
But because of
the business side of churches the word as a double meaning.
There is a constitution and a set of by-laws that must be
obeyed.
The direction of the church must be accomplished by people
of special standing, i.e., members.
This is a divisive aspect, for it creates two classes of Christians.
There are other problems with incorporation
including: (1) The problem
of trying to justify leadership selection models required for
by-laws using the Bible, (2) The fact that the State backs
the spiritual leadership of the church will earthly power and
authority, and (3) The necessity for impersonal rules to govern
access and use of property owned by the incorporated entity.
In contrast to these serious disadvantages, one may argue that
the pastor and the facility provide great value.
Pastors visit those who are sick. They counsel those who are
hurting. They also provide teaching.
The facility is a home away from home for core members
of the church and a place of comfort for those
new to the church.
All of that may well be true, but the price tag of $60B/year
does warrant consideration.
It is legitimate to ask, "Is it worth that much money?"
Furthermore, do the advantages that the staff and building
provide overcome the serious disadvantages that come with them,
as listed above?
Our nation remains in a continual moral decline and the traditional
church, despite its bigger and better facilities, more polished
services, and more professional staff, is not reversing that trend.
A Deeper Problem: What does it mean to "Give to God"?
There is a much deeper problem associated with the collection and use
of money in a local church.
To avoid the deeper problem, one can simply view it mechanically, such
as the following: We think it is most efficient
for us to pool our money, build a building, hire staff, and financially
support a variety of church programs.
If a church were to leave it at that, it would be an honest proposition,
even if perhaps less efficient because of the arguments given above.
However, when the traditional church adds to that proposition the
notion that supporting it financially is the same as giving money
to God, a problem arises.
The problem requires some untangling to address because of the
centuries of church tradition associated with that type of co-mingling
of ideas.
In this section, we make an attempt at beginning to untangle those
ideas, which to help the reader, we break into bullet points below.
-
The Priestood: Nearly all religions have a strong tendency toward
creating and supporting a priesthood.
A priestood is supported financially by offerings that are given to God.
In other words, a priesthood does not charge people, directly, for their
daily sustanence.
Instead, the people give their money to God in the form of tithes and
offerings and the priest is paid from God.
Because of man's strong tendency for this model, regardless of the religion,
it has emerged throughout history and around the world.
In Christianity, the appropriate role of the priesthood is as
follows: (1) The Old Testament Law established a God-ordained priesthood
that was supported by offerings given by the nation of Israel, (2) The
New Testament established the one great high priest, Jesus who also serves
as the sacrificial lamb, and replaced the specially ordained Jewish priesthood
with the priesthood of all believers.
Therefore, there is supposed to be no explicit priesthood in Christianity, and this
position is one of the foundational principles of the Protestant movement
as envisioned by Martin Luther.
The problem, therefore, is in churches when they pass the offering plate
and ask a person to "give to God".
When they use that money to support the pastor, they are reestablishing
at least part of the priesthood model.
There are numerous problems with doing so, too, most notably that it
establishes an unbiblical category of Christian (the pastor-priest) and places
on them improper expectations.
-
Payment for Services: In the New Testament, the idea of giving as God wants
us to is associated always with expecting nothing in return.
Whether it be the parables and commandments of Jesus regarding generosity,
or examples of the New Testament church collecting money to send to
other cities, true giving in the New Testament generally means you
receive nothing in return.
When one contrasts that with the fact that roughly 80 percent of the money
collected at a church never leaves the church itself, a problem emerges.
Pastors provide teaching, counseling, and comfort.
Staff organizes mailing lists, distributes information, and manages
the facility.
The facility provides a place of meeting, fellowship, and belonging.
In short, most of the money given at church returns to the people
giving it in some form.
This is not a problem as long as the idea of "Giving to God" is not
attached to the offering plate.
However, sadly, that is not the case.
As a result, the world correctly sees what is happening in American
churches today.
While once viewed as highly benevolent, community minded organizations,
with pastors who lived very meager lives, they are now viewed as
organizations that are self-serving.
They have beautiful buildings, pastors that are professionals, music
that is entertaining.
The world sees it and, it seems, understands it better than the Christians
who support it.
A New Way
The alternative approach that we promote here is to do away
with expensive aspects of the institutional
church model and use that money for more generous means.
Just for sake of argument, if a family with
an annual income of $80,000 per year were to set aside 10%
to give to church, that would be $8,000.
Now, suppose instead of giving that money to support the
building, the pastor, and the staff, they instead
gave that money to people they actually know, personally,
to help them through hard times. And then
they gave that much money away again the next year, to
people that they know. It would not take long
for that family to be known as one of the most generous
families around. Now, imagine if that family
were part of a community of Christians who each did the
same thing, every year. It would not take long
for the surrounding area to recognize it. And, quickly,
"Christian" could once again be thought of as
the most generous loving people in the world.
And as a result of
that, more people would take a second look at
the Christian faith. They would want to know why we are
so generous, why we care so much.
Hearts would be opened and victories in the name of
Christ could be won.
To accomplish that for Christ, we must decide to do some
of the work, typically provided by paid
professionals, ourselves. We must do the teaching, the
organizing, the caring for each other. However,
the extra work required for that is actually good for us.
It is good for men to learn to teach and to
lead. It is good for women to nurture and show
compassion. It is, all around,
better to collectively live up to the calling of
"church" rather than paying someone to do it for us.