The Reverse Flow of Missions – Perspective On Money

For part three of The Reverse Flow of Missions (Relevant, January/February 2010, pg. 60) Jaeson Ma contrasts the Eastern church’s perspective on money with that of the West’s. Ma writes:

Most of the leadership in Asia is lay-driven. Elders/pastors/apostles/prophets are bi-vocational. Money is used to fund missions, plant churches and further the cause of mission. Very little goes into church buildings/salaries/church programs.

Not much to say here – I helped start a church and at one point my dream job was to be on staff at a church, so I don’t disagree with the idea of pastors and staff receiving a salary or some type of compensation (even if it isn’t financial), because everyone wants to be rewarded for their work. When was the last time you complained about how much doctors make? Or educators? But God forbid a pastor or other church staff member makes X amount of dollars!!! That said, I do find it disheartening when I hear about a church that is having a rough time financially, yet the pastor is driving around in an exotic sports or luxury car. Or even worse, when a church is right in the middle of an impoverished community and isn’t doing anything to help, yet the pastor is wearing expensive clothing, driving an expensive car and will only venture into that community because his/her church is in it. As one friend said to me, “I believe 100% in tithing, but when compared to New Testament churches it appears to go to those in need… now I feel like it just pays some bills for the building in which we sit.” Don’t get me wrong – I’d like to be riding around on a custom chopper and live in a mansion, but there is a line between having your needs met and having more than you need and when you’ve gone so far you don’t remember where that line is, there’s a problem.

I also don’t see anything inherently wrong with investing money into buildings, technology and infrastructure. The problem I have is not so much the WHAT but the WHY. For example, one story making the rounds on many blogs is that of the building project that First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas is undertaking. Do they need a new sanctuary – from the looks of things, yes. Is that cheap – of course not. But when I went to their website and read one of their primary reasons for this project, it definitely touched a nerve in me:

As I look around downtown Dallas, I see spectacular temples of commerce, of culture and of government – many new, some restored to former glory, and all intended to stand for generations. The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them – a spiritual oasis in the middle of downtown.

Really?

Jesus needs a temple in Dallas equal to those of commerce, culture and government?

I don’t even know where to start on that statement, so I’m going to leave that alone for fear of sinning in anger. Like I said, they probably need a new building as they are a growing church and are in an aging, outdated building. But if that statement is truly their primary purpose for the building project (and it appears that way since it’s the first thing you see on their building project website), then that is scary.

Tim Stevens wrote a two part post on his blog earlier this month contrasting local church trends in the year 2000 and currently in 2010 (Part 1 & Part 2). Just a sample of what he had to say – you should read it for yourself.

2000: Church buildings were mostly viewed as status symbols.
2010: You only build if absolutely necessary. The need to have everyone at one location has been eliminated by technology. Money spent on extravagant buildings is seen as wasteful, and the definition of what is “extravagant” is lower than it was ten years ago.

2000: “You want to meet Jesus and grow spiritually? Come to church this Sunday.” We expected people to come to us.
2010: Churches are becoming more intentional about helping people integrate their faith into their daily lives…not just for a few hours on Sunday. We are less concerned about attendance and more concerned about outcomes.

2000: We hired professionals. Pastors and directors were being hired left and right to lead or do ministry. A senior pastor was being transformed from a shepherd and teacher to a manager and CEO.
2010: The realities of a tough economy hit and more and more churches are reducing staff–not hiring. Volunteers are being called on for high capacity roles like campus pastor and children’s ministry director. Church leaders are learning new skills–like leading people who aren’t motivated by a paycheck and who are significantly more qualified in a role than the pastor is.

2000: “Come to a service. Volunteer for a ministry. Help grow the church.” None of that was bad, but it was very inward focused. The mindset was to make the church stronger and more feature-filled so that when our friends visit, it will be a great place for them to meet Christ.
2010: Added to that, here is a deep-felt sense that if we don’t make a difference in the local community, then our Christianity is in question. More churches are becoming intentional about improving the statistics in their city on crime, education, poverty, hunger and violence.

Like I said in part two of this series, while it seems the majority of American churches are clinging to the same model of decades past, there are some that are beginning to question the effectiveness of their traditions and practices and realizing that if they don’t change, they may lose their effectiveness and their influence, and eventually die.

Coming tomorrow: The Reverse Flow of Missions – Sacrifice