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.

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.

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.

Other Articles of Interest