Money? - Is our Focus All Wrong

cpizzle

cpizzle

Member
Elect
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
441
Reaction score
11
Points
18
Location
Murfreesboro, TN
Does anyone think we spend way too much money on things that don't truly have eternal merit.

The recent thread on Church Planting had me thinking....

How much money is spent:
Raising support for so the pastor doesn't have to work
Building costs
Pastor's Full Time Salary
Promotions
Ect....

What is the end result.....another church that is "slightly" different from the 40 other churches within a 5 mile radius.

I rejoice in all souls saved and lives changed, but you don't need a separate church to do that.  Sure, if there is "no" Bible Believing churches anywhere around, then a Church MUST be started!  However, many times we just feel the need to start a church that caters to the Pastor's individual tastes.

We spend "way" too much money (my church and salary included) on corporate worship, leaving just crumbs for the poor and needy.  Everything is spent on making sure the "saints" have a comfortable and enjoyable Sunday Morning experience (specifically focused to each and everyone of their beliefs), which is not where our focus should lie.  The giving commanded in the NT is intended to be spent on the needs of our fellowman, not primarily in the upkeep of buildings, preacher pay, and/or advertising.

We have 1000's of paid for church buildings that sit 1/4 filled and we are still spending millions on new ones.  God called and Holy Spirit filled preachers spend their lives ministering to a small group of people, but we keep paying more and more folks to come up with competing messages.  Why can't we find a better way to maximize what God has already provided and spend the offerings of God's people on a homeless shelter and food pantries?
 
cpizzle said:
Does anyone think we spend way too much money on things that don't truly have eternal merit.
The recent thread on Church Planting had me thinking....
How much money is spent:
Raising support for so the pastor doesn't have to work
Building costs
Pastor's Full Time Salary
Promotions
Ect....

What is the end result.....another church that is "slightly" different from the 40 other churches within a 5 mile radius.

I rejoice in all souls saved and lives changed, but you don't need a separate church to do that.

We spend "way" too much money (my church and salary included) on corporate worship, leaving just crumbs for the poor and needy.  Everything is spent on making sure the "saints" have a comfortable and enjoyable Sunday Morning experience, which is not where our focus should lie.  The giving commanded in the NT is intended to be spent on the needs of our fellowman, not primarily in the upkeep of buildings, preacher pay, and/or advertising.

We have 1000's of paid for church buildings that sit 1/4 filled and we are still spending millions on new ones.  God called and Holy Spirit filled preachers spend their lives ministering to a small group of people, but we keep paying more and more folks to come up with competing messages.  Why can't we find a better way to maximize what God has already provided and spend the offerings of God's people on a homeless shelter and food pantries?
Click to expand...

Not sure where your from but the number of good churches per 100,000 people is very low in my area.

Many of the churches in my area don't even preach the gospel. If you map the country there are many cities & towns that don't even have a fundamental baptist church within driving distance.

I think the topic should be why are we starting "NEW" churches in areas that already have several good ones. 
 
cpizzle said:
Does anyone think we spend way too much money on things that don't truly have eternal merit.
The recent thread on Church Planting had me thinking....
How much money is spent:
Raising support for so the pastor doesn't have to work
Building costs
Pastor's Full Time Salary
Promotions
Ect....

What is the end result.....another church that is "slightly" different from the 40 other churches within a 5 mile radius.
I rejoice in all souls saved and lives changed, but you don't need a separate church to do that.
We spend "way" too much money (my church and salary included) on corporate worship, leaving just crumbs for the poor and needy.  Everything is spent on making sure the "saints" have a comfortable and enjoyable Sunday Morning experience, which is not where our focus should lie.  The giving commanded in the NT is intended to be spent on the needs of our fellowman, not primarily in the upkeep of buildings, preacher pay, and/or advertising.
We have 1000's of paid for church buildings that sit 1/4 filled and we are still spending millions on new ones.  God called and Holy Spirit filled preachers spend their lives ministering to a small group of people, but we keep paying more and more folks to come up with competing messages. Why can't we find a better way to maximize what God has already provided and spend the offerings of God's people on a homeless shelter and food pantries?
Click to expand...

Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

We have a obligation to help the poor (one that government usurped from the church) but he also reminds us that's not the principal thing. Getting the gospel to a lost and dying world and helping them grow in Christ is number one. Showing we care to reach that ends is secondary.

What do you & your church do to help the poor?
 
Sword asks, "What does your church do to help the poor."

Not nearly enough...and I am burdened by it.

We give thousands a year to a food bank, woman's shelter, health facility for low income people, and next month we start supporting a rescue mission.  However, we spent more repairing an air conditioner in the fellowship hall than all of our charitable giving for the year combined. 
 
Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

With all due respect, this verse is used too often too often to not fulfill our charitable duties.

Matthew 25:40King James Version (KJV)

40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Jesus's test on his true disciples at the last judgment focused on our treatment of "the least of these."  Did we give water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and comfort to the accused. (visit me in prison.)
 
The church I attend receives calls on a regular basis asking for help with power bills, water bills, etc.  We ask the person to come to church on Sunday morning and after the service we will give them some help.  One out of ten ever show up.  We have the poor as part of our church family.  We go out of our way to help these people.  If the pastor is approached by a church family in need, we help.  If it becomes a regular thing, the pastor asks them to meet with him and go over their finances.  He helps them establish a budget.  Again, even with church members, few will come in to meet. 
 
The OP has a point. Many churches have essentially become charities that exist in order to exist. Some exist in order to perpetuate themselves. Some exist in order to grow themselves. But in either case, they do little actual ministry b/c they soak up so much donor money in buildings and salaries.

By the same token, caring for the poor has never been (either scripturally or historically) the driving purpose of the church. Evangelism and edification are. Both of them practically require a building, and the latter demands a full time pastor.

It is also worth noting in this context that the USA has very few actual poor people. We have people whose standard of living is lower, we have people who live in cramped quarters in seedy parts of town, etc. etc. but we do not have poor people. They do not even come close to missing a meal. The children are fed 3x a day at school. The rent is subsidized. Healthcare is provided by the govt. The aged get subsidized rent, subsidized healthcare, and money.  Even the homeless in my city are almost completely homeless by choice, refusing the help offered to them for a variety of reasons. America has gone so far around the bend in becoming a socialistic welfare state that true poverty, the desperate poverty that is revealed in Scripture, and that is still routinely present in the slums of the third world countries is not here.

From this you can make a case, and a good one I think, that more of the church's resources ought to be poured into third world missions. But you cannot make the case American churches are neglecting the poor around them. If we are neglecting anything it is evangelism, not poverty relief.
 
Tom Brennan said:
The OP has a point. Many churches have essentially become charities that exist in order to exist. Some exist in order to perpetuate themselves. Some exist in order to grow themselves. But in either case, they do little actual ministry b/c they soak up so much donor money in buildings and salaries.

By the same token, caring for the poor has never been (either scripturally or historically) the driving purpose of the church. Evangelism and edification are. Both of them practically require a building, and the latter demands a full time pastor.

It is also worth noting in this context that the USA has very few actual poor people. We have people whose standard of living is lower, we have people who live in cramped quarters in seedy parts of town, etc. etc. but we do not have poor people. They do not even come close to missing a meal. The children are fed 3x a day at school. The rent is subsidized. Healthcare is provided by the govt. The aged get subsidized rent, subsidized healthcare, and money.  Even the homeless in my city are almost completely homeless by choice, refusing the help offered to them for a variety of reasons. America has gone so far around the bend in becoming a socialistic welfare state that true poverty, the desperate poverty that is revealed in Scripture, and that is still routinely present in the slums of the third world countries is not here.

From this you can make a case, and a good one I think, that more of the church's resources ought to be poured into third world missions. But you cannot make the case American churches are neglecting the poor around them. If we are neglecting anything it is evangelism, not poverty relief.
Click to expand...

Well stated and this is exactly how I feel.
 
I certainly agree that America's poor are most of the world's rich.  I also agree that the government has made it difficult to find true people in need.  However, the spirit of the command is to help people who have less than us...ie, be charitable with our wealth.

"If we are neglecting anything it is evangelism, not poverty relief."

I am willing to accept this statement.  So let's bring it back to the point of the thread.  What should we do to funnel more money to missions and evangelism and away from wasteful expenditures. 

Examples -
Smaller churches uniting to decrease the cost of multiple buildings and pastors.
Worship at different times so that a single building can be used more than just 4 - 5 hours per week.

I of course am not speaking about larger churches that are being used practically all the time or pastors that are leading hundreds of members.  I am speaking about 1000's of smaller churches that are using 90% of their offerings to maintain their own existence.
 
cpizzle said:
  What should we do to funnel more money to missions and evangelism and away from wasteful expenditures. 

Examples -
Smaller churches uniting to decrease the cost of multiple buildings and pastors.
Worship at different times so that a single building can be used more than just 4 - 5 hours per week.

I of course am not speaking about larger churches that are being used practically all the time or pastors that are leading hundreds of members.  I am speaking about 1000's of smaller churches that are using 90% of their offerings to maintain their own existence.
Click to expand...

That's a very good ? and one for which I do not have a very good answer. The lack of an answer lies at least somewhat in the fragmentation inherent in the IFB approach to ecclesiology. But I think your suggestion of spreading resources more widely is a good one. It is hard to do that with buildings b/c people have a traveling radius with which they are comfortable which is almost impossible to change. I think we could do a lot better of job of 1/2 and 1/4 time pastors along the model of the old circuit riders. I pastor an average sized church (granted, it is low maintenance) and if I chopped out one service and  writing I could pastor a similar church within driving distance w/o too much extra effort. So much of my work is sermon prep and that could then be used twice instead of once, for instance.

It's a thought provoking question.
 
My Dad was a Cumberland Presbyterian Preacher for 30 years.

I grew up with Church first, followed by Sunday School.  The reason....he would preach one service at 9:45 and go to another church 15 minutes away and preach another service at 11:00.

When I was younger, I did something similar.  I preached at a church at 10:00 and then I would lead singing (and my wife played piano) at a 2nd church at 11:00.

Same thing on Sunday nights....I would preach a 5:00 service and then we did song service at 6:00.
 
A church's funds have two primary purposes:  Benevolence and Evangelism.

I would say that the IFB churches spend most of their money on evangelism, while most of the denominational churches spend the majority of their money on benevolence.  Balance is the key. 

Yes, in most church budgets you can find wasteful spending.  This waste could be analyzed by a finance committee with the pastoral staff to be better utilized.  But, then again, most homes have wasteful spending also.  What if each family were to analyze their budget for waste and spend that money on benevolence and evangelism?  What if each home were to sell goods that they don't really need and use the funds for benevolence and evangelism?  Our churches might look alot more like the book of Acts.
 
Tom Brennan said:
It is also worth noting in this context that the USA has very few actual poor people. We have people whose standard of living is lower, we have people who live in cramped quarters in seedy parts of town, etc. etc. but we do not have poor people. They do not even come close to missing a meal. The children are fed 3x a day at school. The rent is subsidized. Healthcare is provided by the govt. The aged get subsidized rent, subsidized healthcare, and money.  Even the homeless in my city are almost completely homeless by choice, refusing the help offered to them for a variety of reasons. America has gone so far around the bend in becoming a socialistic welfare state that true poverty, the desperate poverty that is revealed in Scripture, and that is still routinely present in the slums of the third world countries is not here.
Click to expand...

I think your point can be easily debated.  Poverty in America is real.  Our culture looks different than the 3rd world, but poverty is still real.  The stress of wondering how you are going to pay a mortgage, get food on your table, get a ride to work, buy clothes for your family are still very real and cause real problems leading to crime and suicide.  It doesn't look the same as the emotional commercials, but the effects are just as devastating.  I am of the opinion that in the Old Testament theocracy, God instructed to rich to provide for the poor (see Ruth).  In the New Testament, Jesus instructed the church to provide for the poor.  Many decades ago, the church failed in its duty of benevolence and the government stepped in to fulfill the role.

The church membership in Acts had "all things common."  This was a willfull form of socialism motivated by compassion for the needs of others with the understanding that eternity matters most.  Socialism, of course, is a forced distribution of wealth among the nation.  The motivating factors are very different, and, thus, the result is catastrophic failure of an economy (See USSR).  However, from the outside looking in, the two systems appear to be very similar.
 
Why not follow the New Testament model of the early Church? Paul, worked full time and did not need a church paying his salary. And the churches meeting in homes took up gifts and offering for other churches/christians, maybe they need food or medical care, etc, etc.

Just a thought.

Me personally I do not think churches need padded pews, instead use that money for missionaries. Nor do I think churches should start christian schools. I have seen churches fail and the school also goes away when the church is no longer in existence.
 
I set a goal for our Church last night to work toward giving 51% of our offerings to Missions and Charity and only spend 49% on ourselves.  We are currently at 75/25.....we have a long way to go.  We took on a new foreign missionary and local homeless shelter last night!
 
I have always attended churches with 400 members or more.

A church of 400 needs a full time pastor in my opinion. Most church members expect a pastor to be available:

When You are very sink or in the hospital
When You need counseling or spiritual advice.
When You are in jail and need some counsel.
For weddings & funerals
To visit shut ins
To visit visitors and those who have missed
For evangelism & outreach.
The list goes on.
 
4everfsu said:
Me personally I do not think churches need padded pews, instead use that money for missionaries. Nor do I think churches should start christian schools. I have seen churches fail and the school also goes away when the church is no longer in existence.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for every church member. Most of us do not need 2 cars, could get by with a vacation every other year and could ditch cable tv, our smart phone and could have much cheaper internet access. We could save all that money & give it to the poor.

Luke 7 I think tells us caring for the poor is not the number one priority.

Regarding the Christian School, of course it would go away if the church ended. It is a ministry of the church. The mission support would go away and the Sunday school, and anything else the church did as an outreach.
 
Any congregation that has made the choice to start a nonprofit corporation to hold and manage its assets has already made that commitment.

It is surely up to each congregation to make that choice and is covered by Romans 13.
 
sword said:
I have always attended churches with 400 members or more.

A church of 400 needs a full time pastor in my opinion. Most church members expect a pastor to be available:

When You are very sink or in the hospital
When You need counseling or spiritual advice.
When You are in jail and need some counsel.
For weddings & funerals
To visit shut ins
To visit visitors and those who have missed
For evangelism & outreach.
The list goes on.
Click to expand...
I do think many of the support staff in a church could work a job. At what size do you think a church needs additional full time staff in addition to the pastor and maybe a secretary.

1. Under 100
2. 100 - 200
3. 200 - 400
4. 400 - 600
 
Church members can do most of what multiple assistant pastors do.  They can lead the youth, visit the sick, run bus routes, lead singing, direct choirs, develop web pages ect....

When the "paid" staff is responsible for running the church, the people are left with fewer opportunities for service.

Of course, the Pastor can't "boss around" volunteers....they can only give orders to paid staff :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top