My recent adventure with organic church has resulted in some pondering over giving.  In fact, for those who consider simple church, a frequent question is:  “Where do I give?”   
 
One of the primary reasons our family chose to go the organic church route is that it seems to acknowledge and encourage the “priesthood of the saints.”  In other words, the work of the ministry is not relegated to a paid pastor, but rather all see it as their responsibility to go and make disciples.  I realize that there are many institutional churches that would agree with my last statement, but I feel that sometimes the structure of the institution veils this responsibility.  

That being said, how does the institution use its funds to further its message?  The largest expenses for most institutional churches by far are buildings and salaries.  Other various ministry expenses include things such as websites, outreach events, discipleship materials, pastor training, coffee and donuts, ministry lunches, etc..  Usually a small percentage of church budgets are allocated to giving.  In fact, a study by Empty Tomb, Inc. showed that only about 2.5% of U.S. church budgets are given to gospel expansion efforts outside of the U.S.    
 
If an organic church has decided to meet in homes and does not pay a pastor, how would its participants go about making decisions with their funds?  I came to the realization recently that there is nothing more holy about me giving funds to an organization to have them be used for outreach, than for me to use the funds to build relationships myself.   
 
For example:
 
Scenario 1: Let’s say Pastor Smith at XYZ church was referred to Non-Believer Brown by Pew-Warmer Parker.  Brown is exploring the Christian faith and Parker doesn’t feel “qualified” to answer his questions, so he makes the referral to Pastor Smith.  To build this relationship and have an opportunity to potentially share the gospel with Non-Believer Brown, Pastor Smith suggests that they play golf (Smith and Brown’s favorite sport).  The round of golf costs $40.  Pastor Smith sees this as a ministry expense and pays for it using XYZ church credit card.  Where do the funds to pay that credit card bill come from?  The funds would come from the weekly collection on Sunday morning, of which Pew-Warmer Parker proudly contributed $40 this past week.   
 
Scenario 2: Seeing himself as a “sent one” Pew-Warmer Parker leaves his pew, and invites his friend, Non-Believer Brown to play golf with him on Sunday morning.  Since Parker is a trusted friend, they have a meaningful conversation during their round and a bridge is established for Parker to share the gospel.  If Brown becomes a follower of Christ, his first example of a disciple is Parker.  Brown would likely adopt the faith modeled to him, and would go and do likewise.  The cost of the round is $40, and since Parker wasn’t at the church service for the weekly collection, his $40 goes to pay for the golf.   
 
The next question is, “Is this really giving?”  Biblically, I would have to conclude that it is not giving.  It is a lifestyle expense.  However, assuming that we are followers of Christ, we give everything to Him, including our lifestyle choices.  If the gospel has impacted our hearts, we will look at our own lifestyles as opportunities to share the gospel.   
 
So the question remains: “Where are we to give?”  I conclude that biblically, there is a strong preference towards giving to the poor, particularly to those who are believers (Acts 11:27-30, Galatians 6:10, 2 Corinthians 8 & 9)  James instructs us to care for widows and orphans (James 1:27).  There are also some instructions on caring for our teachers (Galatians 6:6, 1 Timothy 5:17 & 18, 1 Corinthians 9:4-14).  In future blog posts, I hope to examine what the bible says about giving to each of these groups of people. 

Ultimately, believers are not bound to give a certain percentage (tithe) of their entrusted funds to an organization, the poor, or anything.  The Spirit will direct where and how much to give, so categorizing giving vs. not-giving is somewhat of a useless exercise. The scriptures seem to assume that ALL followers of Christ are ministering in their various walks of life and thus using funds to do so.  It does, however, specifically mention that we should not neglect the poor among us.     

The clip above is from the movie 300.  300 tells the story of the battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans, with the help of some conscripts from other Greek city-states stalled the Persian army’s invasion of Greece.  This stall caused the army to run out of resources, which led to starvation and disease within the massive force, and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Persian forces from Greece.

The Spartans were known for their rigorous and many times violent training regimens.  They were taught at an early age that their purpose in life was to protect Sparta.  They saw it as a privilege to die in fulfilling this purpose, so much so, that they deemed death in combat as a much sought after “glorious death.”  They saw their profession as soldiers.  They did other income earning activities to support this main purpose in their lives.

The Arcadians, on the other hand, saw their professions as what they did to earn and living and soldiering as a civic duty.  There is a big difference in these mindsets and that is what Leonidas (the Spartan leader) was making clear.

So how does all of this relate to the church?  In personal conversations, people have challenged me that a small, organic church cannot be as effective at fulfilling the mission we are called to as Christ followers.  Of first importance, I think it is necessary to clarify the mission that God has called us to.  In simple terms, I think scripture sums it up with three basic commands 1) Love God 2) Love Others, 3) Make Disciples.  Does accomplishing this mission depend on the size of an organization?  It seems to me it would be more beneficial to focus on the quality of the disciple rather than the size of the group.

Our institutional churches are inundated with marginally committed Christians.  I can site all of the statistics to back this up, but don’t most people already know and sense this?  I meet very few people who view the commands of Jesus as their calling in life for which they would die.  Most view these commands as something they talk about once a week without ever really doing any of it.  It becomes a civic activity at this point.  To many being a Christian is just an adornment of their life.  I realize that everyone will struggle in their walk with Christ.  There are days when our allegiances will be tempted.  But can we at least stop calling people FOLLOWERS of Christ when nothing in their life shows that they are even attempting to FOLLOW Christ?

I would contest that a small group of committed disciples is infinitely more effective than a large group of marginally committed “followers.”  The question then becomes what environment is best suited for making committed disciples?  By definition, making disciples requires relationships.  Would anyone argue that smaller gatherings are more conducive for relationship?

I think Neil Cole states it well when he says “We need to lower the bar of how we do church, and raise the bar of what it means to be a disciple.” 

Today’s post will be a guest post from Guy Muse.  Guy and his wife Linda serve as missionaries in Guayaquil, Ecuador where they are involved in various organic expressions of the church.  Guy also maintains a blog (The M Blog) at www.guymuse.blogspot.com  I would encourage all to visit his blog.  He offers a wealth of insights on organic church and other topics. 

First my thoughts:

Earlier this week, I was reviewing Acts 11:27-30

“At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.  One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.)  So the disciples, each in accordance with his financial ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea.  They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.”

As I reviewed it, I noted that each disciple gave according to his financial ability.  It was not a compulsory gift. Agabus, Peter, or Barnabus didn’t stand up and say “You are robbing God, if you don’t give 10% of your income. Now give us some money to help these in need. By the way our courier fee is 97.5% of what is collected.” This giving is so radically different that what we see today. These disciples were motivated by love for their brothers, not law.

As I was reading over some blogs I follow, I noticed Guy’s post which I thought corresponded with what I was thinking earlier this week.  So without further ado, Guy Muse’s post:

————————————

“Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. “But you ask, ‘How do we rob you?’ “In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.” -Malachi 3:8-10

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. -Jesus (Matthew 6:33)

The last book of the Old Testament is emphatic that Jews were robbing God unless they brought the “whole tithe into the storehouse.”

The very next books in the Bible, the Gospels (Matthew-John) resound with the theme of THE KINGDOM. Little is said by Jesus about the temple except, “…not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Jesus himself is introduced in the early chapters of the Gospels as traveling throughout Galilee “preaching the good news of the kingdom.” The kingdom theme is mentioned nine times in just the first six chapters of the opening book of the New Testament. Jesus himself brings the matter to the forefront with the first command he issues to his disciples, “seek first the kingdom.”

While there is no denying that Malachi 3 storehouse giving is biblical for Jews living under the Old Testament Law of Moses, Jesus came preaching the good news of the kingdom, not the superiority of the temple system. The very “storehouse” that the Jews were to bring the “whole tithe” was destroyed in 70 A.D. Since the temple no longer exists in Jerusalem, it seems strange to continue to insist from the Malachi passage that NT believers are robbing God if they no not bring their “whole tithe” into their local church offering plate.

How is it that we are able to twist the Malachi passage into saying something that it does not say?

Like many, I was brought up with the understanding that 10% of what one receives should be given back to the Lord through one’s local church as our “tithe.” Anything beyond the initial 10% is considered “offering money.” We are free to give our offerings to other kingdom causes, but the “tithe” goes intact to one’s local church.

But does “storehouse giving” align itself with Jesus command to SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM? Are local church budgets, programs, buildings, parking lots, salaries, maintenance, etc. synonymous with Kingdom interests?

To me, the Kingdom is the broader sphere of Christ’s reign. While storehouse giving can certainly be in line with Paul’s admonition to give what one purposes in his heart (2 Cor.9:7), it should not be seen as the one and only biblical way of giving. For me, kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing.

If storehouse tithing gave way to kingdom giving, the argument goes that our churches and programs would crumble overnight. The whole structure of church-as-we-know-it would collapse.

Would this be a bad thing?

Undoubtedly things would be terribly chaotic for many of us, especially for those like myself who depend upon storehouse tithing/giving to pay our bills and feed our families. But I am convinced that after the dust settles, there would be a dramatic surge forward towards the fulfillment of Kingdom purposes in all spheres of life. We would finally begin to make giant steps forward in making Christ known amongst the nations.

Yes, some people, ministries, churches, organizations would suffer and probably die off within days. I am not saying it would be pretty. Many of us would suffer the consequences of this upheaval. But others, who have long been neglected or underfunded, would flourish with fruit bearing 30,60, and 100-fold.

As a missionary, I see lots of pain, suffering, disease, violence, poverty, and hopelessness. Within the Body of Christ we have all the human and financial resources to meet the needs around us. Yet, very little gets to where it is most needed. Why? Our resources are tied up in in-house use. What would our world look like if churches held back 10% for internal use and gave 90% to Kingdom causes in the world?

The time has come for kingdom giving to become the norm for Christ followers. This doesn’t mean we neglect or turn our backs on those who serve us in the Lord, but it does mean we get serious about seeking first the kingdom, rather than seeking first the needs of our local storehouses.

As I continue this series, I feel I run the risk of being dismissed as a “right wing fundamentalist,” who is trying to use the bible to cover for his political views.  I feel that way particularly with this post, since my primary example would be considered liberal by most.  While I certainly have views on various policies, my goal is not to persuade someone to a certain political view.  While the example I will use of corruption is a Democrat, there are plenty of Republicans that have been caught in scandals.  In fact, there are probably many more, on both sides, that have yet to be caught in scandals.  

Back to the series of Big Government and Big Church.  It has been said that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  As government grows, its grasp on the lives of its people increases.  That power is given to the leaders of that government.  Because all men are fallible, pride usually comes in and a feeling of being invincible overtakes the leader.  If the leader didn’t start this way, soon enough he will see his position as a means for personal gain.  

Perhaps the most stark example of this is Rod Blagojevich.  Mr. Blagojevich was the governor of Illinois.  He had the ability to appoint who would fill President Obama’s vacated senate seat.  He was essentially charged with attempting to sell the seat to the “highest bidder.”  This is a blatant disregard of the position entrusted to him, and a textbook example of political corruption.  As mentioned, there are certainly Republicans that could serve as examples, but “Blago” paints the picture more clearly.  Where did the phrase “crooked as a politician” come from?  Why do most people generally consider politicians to be dishonest?  

I want to carefully apply this to the church.  I am hesitant to use the term corrupt.  I truly believe that most of those who seek to lead the church have motives of being used to bring people closer to God.  I do think, though, that as “success” and power increase that there is an enormous temptation for men to become prideful and use their position for personal gain.  

Unfortunately, congregations seems to be all too ready to praise the gifts of the speaker rather than the God who gave those gifts to the speaker.  When you think of a “big” institutional church, does not the senior pastor of that church come to mind?  North Point - Andy Stanley, Willow Creek - Bill Hybels, Saddlebrook - Rick Warren, Mars Hill - Mark Driscoll.  Please note that I have nothing against any of these individuals.  They have certainly been used by God to carry forth the gospel message.  My fear is that when the senior pastor is so predominant, it puts an enormous target on his back for a moral failure.  

I think of Ted Haggard.  Ted was the senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs.  Ted was accused of soliciting a male prostitute and the use of illegal drugs.  I can’t imagine the hardship this caused for those that worshipped at New Life Church.  How do you recover, when so much is resting on the shoulders of one fallible man.  

The New Testament seems to paint a different picture.  There were certainly leaders in the New Testament church, and many would know the names of some of the key apostles (Peter, John, Paul, etc.)  However, the work of the ministry was carried out by the church.  For example look at Acts 8.  Acts 8:1 states “Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem,  and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regionsof Judea and Samaria.”  So here we see that the apostles, those given the direct command to make disciples, stay in Jerusalem.  In Acts 8:4 it states “Now those who had been forced to scatter went around proclaiming the good news of the word.”  So the early church saw that the command to make disciples was not just given to the leaders.  It was the responsibility of each follower of Christ to spread the gospel message.  

Decentralizing leadership within a church body brings to life the priesthood of the saints.  It requires that each believer take on responsibility, and realize that they are a vital part of the body of Christ. Consider 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”  Central leadership teaches believers to abdicate their call to make disciples and to just settle for inviting people every once in a while to a preaching station on Sunday morning.  Instead we are called to be the very hands, feet, and mouth of the gospel to those in our natural flow of life.  

Think of it this way.  How would you live differently if you viewed yourself as a missionary sent to your very own neighborhood?  How would you spend your time?  How would you spend your resources?  Would you feel a greater responsibility to allow God to use you to impact those around you?  Now that you have considered that, realize that for now, God has, in fact, called you to be His agent of grace right where you are.        

As a continuation of our series on Big Government and Big Church, today we will examine waste.  Waste and inefficiency go hand in hand.  To be clear, and as a reminder of the clarification of my last post, when I refer to “Big Church,” I am referring to mainly institutionalization of churches.  I am not speaking directly about the number of believers that choose to worship together, although in larger groups of believers there is a tendency for larger institutions and bureaucracy.

Let me also be clear that God has used and will likely continue to use institutional churches to accomplish His purposes.  However, just because God works through it, doesn’t make it infallible or necessarily God’s design.  We see the scriptures and history filled with examples of how God accomplishes His purposes despite misguided motives and practices.

Back to the topic at hand: waste.  It is hardly difficult to come up with an example of government waste, so perhaps I will mention one that many may have heard of: The Bridge to Nowhere.  In fact, “The Bridge to Nowhere” has become one of the most prominent examples of pork barrel spending of our government.  The Bridge to Nowhere was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that connects the town of Ketchikan, Alaska (population 8,900) with with its airport on Gravina Island.  This project would cost federal tax payers over $320 million.  How can spending such a large sum of money for a tiny fraction of the state’s population be justified?

This is just one of many examples of wasteful spending by our government.  As mentioned previously, the further those making decisions are from the issues themselves, the less likely that those decisions will be the most effective method of resolving an issue.  Thus, larger government replaces those that would be most effective at solving the problem: private enterprise.  

In the same way it seems the institutional church is prone to waste.  If the direction of Christ for us is to 1) love God 2) love others, and 3) make disciples, then how do many of our resourcing decisions go to support these commands.  Do we really need state of the art facilities to accomplish this?  

As an example, a large institutional church recently announced its new building plan at an expense of $130 million.  Included in this new “campus” is an enormous water fountain shooting water some 66 feet into the air with a cross at the top.   It was stated in the “pitch” that this fountain will be an “architectural invitation to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”  Personally, I’d much rather those “pitching” this plan couch it as a means of creating something worshipful to God rather than veiling this waste in the name of “missions.”

I don’t know where the Spirit might authentically lead these believers to use these resources (assuming they actually have them), but a few initial thoughts come to mind.  Maybe they could help the poor.  Maybe every person could use a proportional amount to have a block party to get to know their neighbors and allow their words and lives to be a living invitation to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

So perhaps a solution to the waste is to channel resources to where real relationships can be developed.  Folks in the west are increasingly isolated and independent.  Many institutionalized churches are trying to figure out how to develop community within their congregations.  What if we made disciples where community already exists?  What if instead of attracting large masses to a weekly gathering, we sent them to love and share Jesus with those in their natural flow of life.  I know it sounds crazy, but what if we used the Bible as our guide instead of our traditions or devised plans?  I think we would find that this is how the early church did it and untold numbers of other believers for two millennia.  Could we then have resources freed to care for the poor?  To further expand our abilities to impact the communities where we seek to make disciples?  To spread the gospel across the world?

In continuing this series on comparing Big (institutional) Church to Big Government, this post will examine inefficiency.  Few people would intelligibly debate that government bureaucracy is efficient.  There are numerous examples of inefficiency. 

The cause of this inefficiency is in the system itself.  Generally, in order to meet a perceived need Big Government creates a program to meet that need.  The idea is that we need a central organizing group to determine how best to address the need.  What then happens is that layers of bureaucracy are added to try to address the issue.  Once these layers are added, it distances those making decisions from the information obtained on the “ground level,” which creates inefficiency.

One prime example of this is the Medicare system in the U.S.  The perceived need is health care for the elderly.  A 2008 MSNBC report alleged billions of dollars of questionable claims including special diabetic shoes for amputees, wheelchairs for sprained wrist victims, and walkers for paraplegics.  These questionable claims were due to the paying out of claims with invalid diagnoses codes.  In other words, inefficient systems.  It is estimated that these types of inefficiencies cost $20-$30 billion a year.

All of this to say that it would still be inefficient even it was accomplishing its goal of providing health care for the elderly.  To the contrary, many seniors still cannot afford health care, and some purchase supplemental policies to cover the shortcomings of Medicare.  So in the end, we have a very costly program that doesn’t even accomplish its intended purpose.

Now, compare this to the institutional churches of the west.  One of the purposes of the church is to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8).  In order to accomplish this purpose we can do so in natural, organic ways or we can create a system or program to accomplish this.  I would argue that most western institutional churches have established programs to accomplish this.  They may not call it that, but the program generally involves the church member inviting his/her friends to a service organized by paid staff and then involving them in other “sub-programs” of the church.  These “sub-programs” are usually either led or both led and facilitated by additional layers of paid “experts” (pastors).  Very few church members see it as their responsibility to teach and disciple their friends.  To them, that is the organization’s responsibility.  They didn’t come to this conclusion on their own.  The institutional churches have either subtly or not so subtly trained them to relinquish that responsibility.

How have the results fared?  As mentioned in the last post, the underground (i.e. organic) church in China has had a sustainable growth rate of 10%+ above the population increase.  Compare this to most U.S. denominations that are actually shrinking when taking into account population growth.  One large main denomination reported recently that it took on average 49 of its members one full year of ministry to result in the baptism of one person.  This is also at a cost of over $35,000 per baptism.  So not only does the western church appear to be inefficient in the use of its money, it also wastes enormous amounts of time and energy of its members.

To compare, according to WorldServe, the average house church in China consists of 50 people and will see 312 (6 each week) come to Christ in one year.  Essentially 6 new house churches are spawned off of this one in one year’s time!  How much do you think the budget of these small, organic home based groups are?    My guess is that it is probably less than most readers of this blog will make in one hour. 

This is viral, organic growth just as we see in the book of Acts.  Let me be clear that it is the movement of the Holy Spirit that does this.  However, could our fancy institutional structures be quenching this type of movement of the Spirit in the west?

Additional Clarification:

Based on some feedback from this post, I want to limit some confusion that may arise from the terms that I am using.  When I refer to “Big Church,” I am generally speaking of institutional church.  I am not speaking about a particular size of a group of believers that choose to gather together.  I would generally define institutional church as one where there is, to a greater or lesser extent, a “clergy/laity” distinction.  I believe that this upholding this distinction usually creates passive, consumeristic disciples that believe it is the organization’s responsibility to create disciples.  

Similarly, when I refer to “Big Government” it is somewhat subjective.  I am not so much speaking about the definable size, although I believe this can be measured.  I am speaking again, about where responsibilities lie.  ”Big Government” is usually characterized by government programs taking the responsibility of what could be done by individuals (i.e. private enterprise).  It is my belief that empowerment and responsibility of individuals is preferable for reasons outlined above.  

Please feel free to email me, or comment below for additional clarification.

As a casual observation, it intrigues me that many of the folks who speak boldly about the evils of Big Government are some of the same folks who support the build up of the large institutional church.  Some of the main criticisms of Big Government are:

• Inefficiency
• Corruption
• Waste
• Being inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy

Could it be that the same problems identified with Big Government are also issues that plague the large institutional churches of the west?

It is certainly worth considering.  Especially when smaller, more nimble church structures across the world seem to be having an amazing impact in spreading the Gospel.  For example, the underground church in China started with roughly 300,000 in 1949.  It is now estimated that there are over 150 million that are a part of this growing movement.  That is an annualized growth rate of 10.07% taking into account general population growth. 

Comparing this to the growth of the western church will be the topic of a future post, but just consider whether you think we see that same growth in the western church?  When you think of this, keep in mind that the growth in China is occurring in the presence of enormous persecution for those that choose to follow Christ.  While some of the fastest growing western congregations may grow its attendance by 10%+, how many of those that make up that growth would be willing to undergo beatings, imprisonment, and perhaps death for following Christ?

While not the sole topic of discussion for this blog, a future series of entries will examine each of the criticisms of Big Government outlined above and compare it with the traditional western evangelical church.

Grace and Peace

As I was starting up PrudentChurch.com and preparing my initial post, I came across this short video which provides an excellent introductory post.  This blog will explore how we can more “prudently” and effectively GO and make disciples.  Much of the content will examine how we can effectively manage our resources (financial and non-financial) both individually and collectively to accomplish the key commandments of Christ:

-Love God

-Love Your Neighbor

-Make Disciples