Is the modern church known by love or glitz? Part II
(Click here for Part I)
This post is a continued discussion of my first post concerning the Church and how it focuses its (especially financial) resources. Anonymous posted a very provacative response, which I will use pieces of in this post.
Haseltine’s argument hinges on one crucial point—that the church has bought a lie.
Is preaching the gospel with financial efficiency the end goal? Or should cost be irrelevant? Or should it be somewhere in the middle? (Hmmm, Aristotle’s pesky golden mean thing.)
Is the “bait and switch” approach to ministry—“hey, come to church for pizza and xbox!”— legit? Is it honest?
My mind has swung both ways on this issue before. The thing is, there will always—always—be other valid ways to spend money. Is food for starving African children the only legitimate way for a church to spend its money? No. Is it poor stewardship to buy 50 cans of spam for a youth group game on Friday night? Well, that’s what we’re here to find out.
Haseltine writes that God is still a God of relationships, and
The danger with Haseltine’s kind of approach is that it’s too simplistic. Church leaders are not gathering together, dumping the offering plates into a pile, and saying, “OK. We’ve got 10 Gs here to spend on either SPAM for youth group games or starving orphans in Africa. What’s it gonna be?”
Haseltine comments that the dollars spent on church construction in a year is 1/7 of what it would cost to end poverty in Ethiopia. My first reaction: “ending poverty” is not solved by money alone; throwing cash at Africa’s problems has proven to be one of the least effective solutions. Second reaction: is Haseltine really saying that churches which spend money on construction aren’t following God’s will? Anonymous writes:
We discussed this in class earlier this week. My prof described five different situations from the last two years in which he and his wife were absolutely positive were the “will of God,” yet God shut the door on all five. My prof described a student he had a few years ago who was a phenomenal youth minister; this guy had multiple job offers in his senior year, but he turned them all down because he was too scared to choose wrong and “be outside of God’s will.” The point of this is that we all concluded that there is no “perfect will of God,” no specific roadmap of who to marry, what job to take, where to live, etc., which will fulfill God’s checklist before he blesses us. No matter where you are, or what you are doing, the difference between serving God and serving self is the status of one’s heart.
The most important part of Anonymous’ comment reflects my final point:
CONCLUSION – Churches, there is no perfect way to spend your money; your heart, intention, and purpose (combined with reason and at least some semblance of fiscal responsibility) are most important. Just as God has no “perfect will” for our lives, neither is there a “perfect spending plan” for such-and-such Baptist church in Podunkville, Ohio, or Super-Mega-Church in Dallas. Should the Church actively pursue all of its callings (discipleship, missions, social justice, etc.)? Yes. Is there a specific formula for that pursuit? Nope.
“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
church, discipleship, dan haseltine, social justice, evangelicalism, god, christianity, love, church spending, theology, will of god, youth ministry, stewardship
This post is a continued discussion of my first post concerning the Church and how it focuses its (especially financial) resources. Anonymous posted a very provacative response, which I will use pieces of in this post.
Haseltine’s argument hinges on one crucial point—that the church has bought a lie.
The lie is that technology, entertainment and comfort are core necessities to tell the Gospel story.True, but how many folks never would have come into the church if those things hadn’t been there? This raises a number of questions:
I have never heard a person in remembering their journey from fear to faith recall the types of screens, the light show, the fabric colors or thread counts, or even how techno savvy the sanctuary was or how the conveniences of great coffee and high-speed Internet access stirred their heart to a place where they could examine their life and soul and see that they were a wretch and that God alone could save them.
Is preaching the gospel with financial efficiency the end goal? Or should cost be irrelevant? Or should it be somewhere in the middle? (Hmmm, Aristotle’s pesky golden mean thing.)
Is the “bait and switch” approach to ministry—“hey, come to church for pizza and xbox!”— legit? Is it honest?
My mind has swung both ways on this issue before. The thing is, there will always—always—be other valid ways to spend money. Is food for starving African children the only legitimate way for a church to spend its money? No. Is it poor stewardship to buy 50 cans of spam for a youth group game on Friday night? Well, that’s what we’re here to find out.
Haseltine writes that God is still a God of relationships, and
the Gospel does not need our technological wonders and brilliant sanctuaries to enhance it or make it relevant.Very true, but are churches who invest in technology or coffee bars or youth expenses really making the argument that these things are necessary to “enhance” or “make relevant” the gospel? Or are they simply argue that they’re useful to draw people in to hear the gospel, people who wouldn’t normally come to a “typical” church? What should the Church’s theology on 'advertising' be?
The danger with Haseltine’s kind of approach is that it’s too simplistic. Church leaders are not gathering together, dumping the offering plates into a pile, and saying, “OK. We’ve got 10 Gs here to spend on either SPAM for youth group games or starving orphans in Africa. What’s it gonna be?”
Haseltine comments that the dollars spent on church construction in a year is 1/7 of what it would cost to end poverty in Ethiopia. My first reaction: “ending poverty” is not solved by money alone; throwing cash at Africa’s problems has proven to be one of the least effective solutions. Second reaction: is Haseltine really saying that churches which spend money on construction aren’t following God’s will? Anonymous writes:
What criteria should a leader use to decide where to spend ministry dollars?This brings up the most important and basic question yet: What is God’s will concerning the Church? Or better yet, is there a specific will of God?
We discussed this in class earlier this week. My prof described five different situations from the last two years in which he and his wife were absolutely positive were the “will of God,” yet God shut the door on all five. My prof described a student he had a few years ago who was a phenomenal youth minister; this guy had multiple job offers in his senior year, but he turned them all down because he was too scared to choose wrong and “be outside of God’s will.” The point of this is that we all concluded that there is no “perfect will of God,” no specific roadmap of who to marry, what job to take, where to live, etc., which will fulfill God’s checklist before he blesses us. No matter where you are, or what you are doing, the difference between serving God and serving self is the status of one’s heart.
The most important part of Anonymous’ comment reflects my final point:
When you observe a church or an individual Christian consuming (or ministering with technology) at a certain level, how do you know what criteria they used to make their decision? If we start asking one another, we will probably uncover some waste or inefficiency. But we also just might learn something about how the Lord has led another person. That would be a win / win / win. (The third win is for those who’d benefit by the extra resources freed up for additional ministry because we asked the questions.)At a minimum, these questions illustrate how impossible it is to discern a “perfect will of God.” (By the way, even if financial frugality is established as the highest good, there are still a million different ways to be a good steward.)
CONCLUSION – Churches, there is no perfect way to spend your money; your heart, intention, and purpose (combined with reason and at least some semblance of fiscal responsibility) are most important. Just as God has no “perfect will” for our lives, neither is there a “perfect spending plan” for such-and-such Baptist church in Podunkville, Ohio, or Super-Mega-Church in Dallas. Should the Church actively pursue all of its callings (discipleship, missions, social justice, etc.)? Yes. Is there a specific formula for that pursuit? Nope.
“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
church, discipleship, dan haseltine, social justice, evangelicalism, god, christianity, love, church spending, theology, will of god, youth ministry, stewardship
posted by Seth at 1:01 AM
4 Comments:
As a youth ministry major, I often have to question the role of the church. What is the purpose of a church building and/or worship service? How much should the church as an institution be doing for salvation, and how much should individual Christians be doing? I have come to the conclusion that (in my opinion) the purpose of the worship service, with all of its glitz and glam, is for worship - that is, for those who know Christ to worship him. It is not and was not intended to be outreach focused. Yes, people who are not Christians can come and take something away from it, but the work of Christ lies more in relationships than in institutions. While some people may come to God because of a billboard they see on the side of the road, or because of a sermon they hear, the majority do so because of someone they know who professes a belief in God and lives out their beliefs in their own life, with acts of love. I think this follows the model of Jesus' own life.
You've got a good thing going here roomie. Keep it up.
Very helpful discussion. My aim with this arrow has already improved.
Here at Houghton I have heard a lot of people blast the church for focusing too much on technology and such and not enough on the people they are supposed to be reaching. It always makes me wonder because I can see how there is a place for the technological side of things. You have a good discussion of it, it helps.
Off the top of my head, it seems that there are two main priorities for the Church--one internal and one external. Externally, we are clearly called to make disciples of all nations. That doesn't mean just preaching the gospel, but actually making disciples of them. Obviously, there are a million different theological and strategic views on how to accomplish this, but the goal remains universally recognized--I think.
Internally, I believe the Church is called to grow the body and minister to it. Once again, I must be broad because, with any more specificity, denominations begin to split off the theological consensus like the onion petals of an "awesome blossom" at Chili's. (Cheesy, I know. Back off.)
So back to spending money on boxes of SPAM for youth group games, etc. The question now becomes "how do these ministry costs fit into the two main callings of the Church?" This whole thing is difficult to navigate; on one hand, I definitely don't oppose sending missionaries to an urban European city despite a living cost of $5,000 a month; cost should not be an issue when it comes to "making disciples..." But should cost be an issue with the internal calling of the Church? I'm not sure that a really nice coffee bar and surround sound system in the youth room at First Baptist in Big City, USA, should fit in the church budget under legitimate "ministry costs"--either in the "make disciples" part or the "grow and edify the body" part.
Another basic question about the role, purpose, and calling of the Church: Should social justice acts be facilitated by the church as an entity, or by individual Christians? To use political terms, what are the dynamics of the "separation of powers" within Christianity? Should the central organization known as "the Church" control and facilitate the lives and activities of its flock, or should it provide basic functions (like the bare-bones description above of the church's two callings) and leave the rest to the people (something like: "The powers not delegated to the United States [Church] by the Constitution [Bible], nor prohibited by it to the States [people], are reserved to the States [people] respectively.)
This comment may make no sense at all... :)
Post a Comment
<< Home