Thread: The "committed membership" myth Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025429
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Jesus said: "Freely you have received, freely give."
Also, concerning Israel, when God called Abraham, from whom He would make a great nation, He told him that "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed".
Both these ideas contain a vision that the people of God are called to give without expecting anything in return. The Church (the "new Israel") is not called to give with strings attached, just like Israel as a nation was called to bless other nations, without those other nations having to become incorporated into it. I feel sure that there are thousands of people in our nation (UK) who are interested in Christianity (or rather Christ), but who flee from any idea of getting too involved with a religious institution. This is evidenced by the fact that cathedral congregations are growing, where people can come and go without being imposed upon - or without having a membership form thrust in their face on their first visit (as once happened to me) or indeed on any visit.
Of course, the church needs people and money, but God can lead people to become committed members when they are ready. It shouldn't require any coercion - subtle or blatant - from the leadership. Unfortunately that was my experience at Elim. The services were a tremendous blessing, but there was always the subtext: "when are you going to commit yourself?" - along with pretty strong hints about the required level of financial giving.
Some people just need space - a lot of it, in fact. I think the church would grow in this country if leaders just took the pressure off people, stopped getting so uptight and paranoid about people's motives, and just let God convict people in His own time. That requires faith on the part of the leadership. Of course, it also requires God to be real, and not merely a nice idea that we can manipulate as we see fit.
In fact, the more freedom and space is given to people, the more likely they are to want to get more involved. This has certainly been my experience.
Thoughts about this?
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Thoughts? I could tell the direct opposite story to yours. For every church that has a problem with heavy shepherding, there's your local parish church where the shepherding is very light indeed - in fact, it's so light that most people have given up attending. Neither church has the correct answer and both can be harmful. In a society that is increasingly fragmented, we need to model something closer, something better. The problem is that as humans, we tend to screw it up and people get hurt.
Did Jesus say "Come dip your to in when you feel like it"? No, he told the disciples to leave their nets on the shore and follow him.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
EE, I've also experienced situations like yours AND that of Dinghy Sailor's. Again, neither is right or helpful.
I will say though, that I've not experienced it within the Anglican or Catholic churches very often (actually not at all in the Catholic church, though that isn't to say that it never happens). Even with cathedrals with entry fees, entrance to a service is usually free - even for Westminster Abbey. The only Anglican church I've been in with anything close to heavier shepherding is a conservative evangelical one. But obviously, YMMV.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
It's something that can be just as much a problem for smaller middle of the road churches as well. I've chatted to a couple of people who have graduated from university and moved to a country town for their first job as a teacher, who have been greeted within a few days by one of the local churches asking them to take up some leadership position or become an elder. A church welcoming people new to the area is all good and well, but usually offering them a home-cooked meal or offering help with painting a house would be the first step, not asking them to take up a leadership or oversight position before they've been there long enough to go to any church even once.
I guess that the pressure of declining relevance can force church leaders of any flavour into prioritising staying afloat as an institution ahead of having some dignity in their leadership.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The Parish I currently worship in doesn't even remotely pay its way, and hasn't for decades. Part of the problem is not that people couldn't give more, but that they don't have a firm grasp of the costs or of the financial straits the wider church is in. A little nudging in this regard is, I think, both appropriate and necessary. It doesn't need to be frequent, but perhaps once a year it is worth asking people to consider how much they give and explaining how much it costs to provide the support they are used to.
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on
:
Speaking for myself, I haven't had a pay increase for three years while bills, cost of petrol etc have all increased in that time. There are many others in the same position - you can't increase your giving if your income isn't sufficient to meet all your other committments.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
Speaking for myself, I haven't had a pay increase for three years while bills, cost of petrol etc have all increased in that time. There are many others in the same position - you can't increase your giving if your income isn't sufficient to meet all your other committments.
But what are commitmments? Is it your 5 bottles of red wine a week - or sky tv packages - or eating out every weekend or simply enough food to survive?
Sometimes what we think we need isn't exactly what we need: it's always worthwhile reviewing just how we spend our money, time and resources. How do we balance necessities, relaxation, giving?
[ 23. May 2013, 06:07: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I've chatted to a couple of people who have graduated from university and moved to a country town for their first job as a teacher, who have been greeted within a few days by one of the local churches asking them to take up some leadership position or become an elder... before they've been there long enough to go to any church even once.
Oh my goodness, that's so sadly desperate! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
What state of mind must the leaders be in to feel they have to do this?
In general, I agree with those who have advised balance. There's surely error at both ends of the spectrum: it's neither good to have a membership form or offering plate thrust under your nose on first visit, nor to ignore the very concept of Christian community.
One way of handling this, I think, is to regularly give the message (e.g. on notice sheets or at the start of the service) that people are always welcome to simply drop in to a service but that further involvement and commitment is expected if you want to make this church 'your' church. Then you can encourage people to make the further commitment, hopefully without pressurising them.
The money issue is obviously a major factor but, to be blunt, if a congregation or denomination is desperately seeking new people in order to balance their books then, well, their priorities need examining, I'd say.
If local churches aren't self-sustaining (and if they don't get financial support from a wider, regional structure) then the people have just got to look at doing things differently. Have your Sunday meetings in a village hall or in someone's home. Organise lift-shares to join in with the larger, more thriving church in the next parish. But whatever, you can't chase new people and then put pressure on them to start giving lots of money straight away, out of fear for the church's survival. That's prioritising the institution over the people, IMO.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
This is an interesting and tricky topic. I married an evangelical (starring Mike Meyers..!) and while I struggled with some things, what I did like was (in that case) a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere at many of their churches. Rather than be pressed into stewarding, etc., I was nice to just to have people say 'would you like to join us in the pub to watch the footie this afternoon?'. I find that sort of evangelism amongst the most powerful—'powerful' in the sense that part of the body of the church saw an outsider and saw them as worth getting to know with no strings attached. I learned a lot from those experiences.
Whilst there are formalities, like the electoral role, that must be dealt with, I would most like a very subtle membership mentality. I would run a mile from a church with a membership form--or worse, a membership contract (I've heard of them, honest!).
K.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Sometimes we need to look after ourselves if we are to be fit for service of others. Practicably speaking there needs to be some reciprocity between the church and its individual members.
However, a tree under stress will often put all its energy into producing seeds in order to produce a new generation. Of course all this energy may weaken the stressed tree even further. But the species and the forest will continue to live. To produce new seed is the purpose of the tree.
Now, all our expressions of church (like the 7 churches in revelation) are probably doomed to die out. The question is not of its continued survival but of how generous our little part of the Church Universal can be in seeding new life. By trying to prolong life we may thwart the purpose of our existence.
Yes we need new flushes of leaves to sustain our tree for as many seasons as possible but there comes a time when we need to liberally expend our energy. Maybe that new generation of church will be fitter for surviving (a fortuitous typo/ spell check error originally had ‘serving’) and prospering in the post modern jungle than the old.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
....The money issue is obviously a major factor but, to be blunt, if a congregation or denomination is desperately seeking new people in order to balance their books then, well, their priorities need examining, I'd say.
.....
This is where one of my churches is at, and have been for a long time but age and illness make it acute now and blatant.
I like The Midge's comment
quote:
However, a tree under stress will often put all its energy into producing seeds in order to produce a new generation. Of course all this energy may weaken the stressed tree even further. But the species and the forest will continue to live. To produce new seed is the purpose of the tree.
This is what they have lost, those who are committed are committed members of a club that must be maintained as it is - and some new younger people who could take up the jobs and do it our way is what we hope for. But won't even attempt anything to recruit people even on these club terms ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I am about to send out a letter to all involved asking them to decide between hospice/chaplaincy support for the next 2 years whilst I am here, or to take risks for new things. It is a long letter as I need to say all that in simpler terms and examples.Including making it clear that new things mean committing our resources eg the budget needs to open to more than keeping roof on!
I know what I expect but they need to hear that their is a choice and its theirs.
I know this is not AS but prayers appreciated. Just glad I have other churches that do get it.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor
Did Jesus say "Come dip your to in when you feel like it"? No, he told the disciples to leave their nets on the shore and follow him.
Yes, Jesus told the disciples to follow Him. But He is a person, not an institution. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to be tremendously committed to an institution, a community, a belief system and a movement, and yet actually be a practical atheist. If God is real (which He is), then I would have thought that when we actually follow Him, He will convict us concerning our level of commitment to other believers.
The calling of the disciples is only one side of the story. Throughout His ministry, Jesus poured out His love and compassion on the multitudes, few of whom were called to follow Him specifically, in the way the disciples were. The rich man, who was counselled to sell all, to give the money to the poor (note where the money was supposed to go!), was commanded to follow Jesus. But, by contrast, the Gadarene demoniac was told to go home and testify to his friends, even though he begged to follow Jesus.
There is no evidence that Jesus ministered to the multitudes with strings attached other than repent of their failure to obey the basic moral law of God, based on love of God and love of neighbour. (Of course, I suppose some people may define "love of God" as involving heavy commitment to a religious institution, but that is simply not supported in the gospel accounts).
After Pentecost the disciples came together because God was working among them. In other words, community was created by God, not by human imposition or mere organisational skill. For example, Peter said to Ananias concerning his property: "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" (Acts 5:4). In other words, he was free to do what he liked with his own possessions. His sin involved lying to the Holy Spirit. And this is further backed up by 2 Corinthians 9:7 - do not give out of compulsion.
Who are we to judge where people are in their relationship with God? Who are we to judge the multitudes, many of whom live undoubtedly broken lives, and who just need a touch of God with no strings attached - and perhaps for a long period of time?
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
The money issue is obviously a major factor but, to be blunt, if a congregation or denomination is desperately seeking new people in order to balance their books then, well, their priorities need examining, I'd say.
I remember discussing the issue of membership with someone from a Newfrontiers church here in Sussex, and he told me that basically it was OK for people to come to the church with no strings attached for a period, but there would come a time when they would be challenged about their commitment. He then gave me the example of a woman in this position, and she was effectively told: "we need your tithe". I was in no position to say anything (he was my boss at the time!), but I felt pretty disgusted. If that woman had decided to up and leave at that point, would the church have still "needed her tithe"? Would the church have collapsed financially? Of course not. Now, I suspect that someone may say: "But, if everyone thought like her, then the church would go down the pan." Yes, but I would respond by saying that that is a rather carnal way of thinking, because it doesn't follow that we should treat everyone as being in the same place spiritually. If the church is "going on with God" (to use a cliche), then God will move those who are able to give, to support the church financially. After all, the poor in the OT were exempt from tithing (and were actually recipients of part of the tithe), so the claim that "I cannot afford to tithe" is, if genuinely true (and reasonably pertaining to the necessities of life), a legitimate reason for not doing so.
For all anyone knows, the woman who just wanted to attend the Newfrontiers church, could have had deep personal problems, that required years of God's grace to mend. Who are we to judge? Wasn't the church commanded to "freely give"? Doesn't God (and not man) build His Church, in His way and in His time?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Totally agreed, EE.
Having Newfrontiers contacts in Sussex, I'm intrigued as to which church now! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Kings Church, Eastbourne.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
Speaking for myself, I haven't had a pay increase for three years while bills, cost of petrol etc have all increased in that time. There are many others in the same position - you can't increase your giving if your income isn't sufficient to meet all your other committments.
But what are commitmments? Is it your 5 bottles of red wine a week - or sky tv packages - or eating out every weekend or simply enough food to survive?
Sometimes what we think we need isn't exactly what we need: it's always worthwhile reviewing just how we spend our money, time and resources. How do we balance necessities, relaxation, giving?
I agree with all that in theory. However, when I hear something like the above from a church leader, there's often a bunch of unspoken assumptions:
- That when someone does review their finances, giving to the local church should come top of (or at least very high on) their financial priorities.
- Wherever it comes on the list, it should always be above any kind of social spending.
- Local church should also come above any other charitable giving.
- At the very least, everyone should be 'tithing'.
- Giving resources through time spent volunteering or using your skills do not count as much as financial giving, and they surely can't replace it.
I disagree profoundly with those assumptions. I think it's bad stewarding to give away money that you don't have (possibly getting into debt in the first place). I think that tithing is a fundamentally flawed system, and the biblical, historical, and moral support for it is weak. It's also well-known that the poorest in society already give, proportionally, much more than the rich, so if we're going to push an agenda, it should be challenging the richest in our churches. I also think it's misleading to think of money donated to local church as a 'gift' - much of the money we pay is more like a membership fee - paying for the upkeep of the church and its functions (of which we are consumers). Only part of the money we pay can be thought of as 'charitable' - much of it is just paying our own way for the heating, lighting, minister's salary, cups of tea and coffee and so on.
Sorry to rant. It's a bugbear - I think that the way that most churches deal with the issue of money is really poor. There seems to be a lot of guilt-tripping out there, and an 'anything goes' attitude, so long as it's 'for the kingdom'. It's sad, because if it's done properly, it can be a wonderfully freeing thing.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...the poor in the OT were exempt from tithing (and were actually recipients of part of the tithe), so the claim that "I cannot afford to tithe" is, if genuinely true (and reasonably pertaining to the necessities of life), a legitimate reason for not doing so.
Yep, I agree with this and all the other negative comments about tithing. The imposition of tithing is, IMO, an anti-Kingdom measure that oppresses poor people and lets rich people off lightly.
Those who can, should give away far more than 10% of their income (although not necessarily just to their church, I'd say), while anyone in material need should surely be receiving financial support from within their church community.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I suppose the point about 'freely receive, freely give' is about response. We give freely because we want to respond in gratitude to what we have already been given. That is, if we consider what we receive as being blessings from God.
Jesus invited people to follow him, and there must have been different ways to do this. Some obviously remained in their own homes, doing their own thing, some being instructed to stay in their own location to spread the gospel; others seem to have been criticized for wanting to do that perhaps using family and home as a reason for inaction. And in Jesus' own personal clique, financial freedom was provided by the group of women who at times travelled with Jesus. Something I'm sure he was neither oblivious of, nor ungrateful for. There was even a treasurer (which is pretty institutional!).
However, when I think of 'committed membership', I suppose, I think of people who work together reliably to make a Christian community work and witness well to what Christ taught, however they choose to do it. There'll always be marginal members, and folks who opt in and out, and possibly even members of the Body of Christ who aren't associated with any type of community, no matter how loosely defined, but who somehow still maintain their 'memberedness' - though I don't know how that works really.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) tithing to the temple was so that they could support the poor, sick and other needy. In these days of the welfare state are my taxes part of my tithe?
In any case the tithe was what was expected and giving kicked in beyond that.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I always like the Church of Ireland Prayerbook note on giving: members of the Church should give generously, regularly and proportionately, towards the ministry and mission of the Church, and to works of charity.
It seems to fit in pretty much with Christ's teaching that from those who have much, much will be expected, the parable of the talents, the forgiven steward etc.
However, 'committed membership' surely means more than just money, and financial giving, doesn't it?
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) tithing to the temple was so that they could support the poor, sick and other needy. In these days of the welfare state are my taxes part of my tithe?
In any case the tithe was what was expected and giving kicked in beyond that.
They paid taxes in Jesus' day too.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
And Jesus was neutral, at best, about tithing. Instead he and the NT writers taught sacrificial giving on the part of those who had resources, so that 'there were no needy among them' (Acts 4: can't-remember-the-exact-verse!).
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) tithing to the temple was so that they could support the poor, sick and other needy. In these days of the welfare state are my taxes part of my tithe?
In any case the tithe was what was expected and giving kicked in beyond that.
They paid taxes in Jesus' day too.
Mainly to the Romans and their puppets. I think there may have been a temple text (IIRC) but couldn't tell you what that was for.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
Tithing from an Old Testament basis is simple really.
Firstly you tithe from your increase - assumptions are made about property ownership. So remember to knock you housing costs off your figure to tithe.
Secondly there are three tithes. 10% for the Levites. Then 10% of what is left set aside for the religious festivals of your household. The third tithe was also 10% - but only every third year replacing the festival tithe.
On the 7th year you got a year off. And don't forget the year of Jubilee either.
So doing a few sums in my head, in a modern context you should give:
8.4% of your increase to Church
5.0% of your increase to Festivals (Greenbelt / New Wine / Walsingham etc.)
2.5% of your increase to the poor of the community.
I have heard others argue for tithing from Abraham and Melchizedek. Problem is that was a one off, not a regular payment.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And Jesus was neutral, at best, about tithing. Instead he and the NT writers taught sacrificial giving on the part of those who had resources, so that 'there were no needy among them' (Acts 4: can't-remember-the-exact-verse!).
Which is raising, not lowering, the bar. Part of the problem with the notion of tithing is not so much that it puts to great a demand on us (although there are a few where that may be true) but rather that it encourages us to give 10% and then be done w/ it, when God may be calling us/me, like the early Church, to give it all.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
i guess a Good preacher so inspires and builds up their congregation, that everyone is spurred onto good works and outdoes each other in kindness and generosity?
That's the theory anyway!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i guess a Good preacher so inspires and builds up their congregation, that everyone is spurred onto good works and outdoes each other in kindness and generosity?
That's the theory anyway!
Probably true in actuality, but in theory I would like to think that one's discipleship is not so dependent upon one person. I would like to think that stewardship is a matter of listening to what God is calling you to do/ live.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
This thread brings to mind two vicars who had interesting opinions on the matter. The first drew a picture of an inner circle and an outer circle. The inner one was of people he considered to be the committed members of the church, who came and took part regardless, could always be depended on and who would be there to keep the church going in times of crisis. The outer circle were those who attended church but with less strong commitments, who would support and attend if they had reason to, but their attachment was less likely to withstand testing.
The second vicar had very strong ideas about how he should disturb those who were already comfortable in the church they had been attending for years (possibly equating to the inner circle, above?), while encouraging those who were not sure about their commitment because they were new to the church/faith (possibly the outer circle?).
I noticed that the older generation, who were already strong in their churchgoing habits (and therefore in the inner circle), would support the church no matter what upheavals were going on, whereas the younger generations were less attached and were more likely to leave due to changes or criticism. Which meant that the vicar who was critical and challenging was losing the very ones he wished to encourage! (The older ones being impervious of course - 'I've seen off four vicars in my time and I'll see this one off as well...')
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Castles have concentric walls to keep invaders out.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I don't think that churches should be run like businesses, in which finance is the top priority. It is a turn- off when we're constantly asked for money. Those who can't give any more feel guilty. Those who can give more feel the the more they give, the more they will be asked to increase what they give.
It is important that churches are solvent, that all they do to serve God including keeping the roof on is funded, but if top priority is given to serving God in community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the attitude is fostered that fundraising is for everyone to be involved in, and everything we have belongs to God and is for God to use as he will, the funds will come.
God doesn't always or often ask us to give all we have materially, as God knows we need to live and sometimes hold funds for his future use.
God does ask us for all our love.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think that churches should be run like businesses, in which finance is the top priority. It is a turn- off when we're constantly asked for money. Those who can't give any more feel guilty. Those who can give more feel the the more they give, the more they will be asked to increase what they give.
My experience is that simply asking for more and more money isn't what makes a church like a 'business'. A church can be very 'unbusinesslike' and still petition churchgoers regularly for increased funds. Indeed, if the money isn't used intelligently there'll never be enough of it, and so the petitions will never end!
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
Running a church like a business does not mean constantly asking for more money. Finances do not need to be the top priority, but using money intelligently does, as Svitlana says. Often, when people say "running ____ like a business" all they mean is making a budget, making it intelligently, and sticking to it. I don't think for a second that this compromises the mission of the church. Not one bit.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Running a church like a business does not mean constantly asking for more money. Finances do not need to be the top priority, but using money intelligently does, as Svitlana says. Often, when people say "running ____ like a business" all they mean is making a budget, making it intelligently, and sticking to it. I don't think for a second that this compromises the mission of the church. Not one bit.
I agree that money should be used wisely, but when a church is run like a business God doesn't come first, as finance does become top priority, as it is with a business. People are constantly asked for more and more, even if it isn't needed now, as the health of the business depends upon having funds set aside for future use. The ethos changes from 'serving God, serving people' to 'building a business, using people'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Raptor Eye
I understand what you're saying. However, my experience was of a different kind of church, where the desperation for money was still apparent. This suggests to me that a church being a 'business' has little to do with it.
Mine was a struggling, MOTR Nonconformist church. The reason why the leadership were always asking for more money was because the congregation was declining, and also because the money that was coming in wasn't being used effectively. The church's costs remained the same, but the expenditure had to be covered by fewer and fewer people. And there was no willingness to do things differently in order to reduce costs. Unsurprisingly, the church has now closed.
You don't have to be in a 'businesslike' (evangelical) church for money to become a consuming concern. The sad reality is that churches with a good income flow stay open, and those that don't, close. (I can't speak for the CoFE, though; they seem to be able to maintain small congregations in huge buildings.) I think the money problem is partly due to church structures, but since clergy and laity refuse to change these I can't see how things are going to improve. It's a big challenge.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think that churches should be run like businesses, in which finance is the top priority. It is a turn- off when we're constantly asked for money. Those who can't give any more feel guilty. Those who can give more feel the the more they give, the more they will be asked to increase what they give.
My experience is that simply asking for more and more money isn't what makes a church like a 'business'. A church can be very 'unbusinesslike' and still petition churchgoers regularly for increased funds. Indeed, if the money isn't used intelligently there'll never be enough of it, and so the petitions will never end!
Yes, it all depends on what you mean by "running the church like a business". If you simply mean things like having a budget, being wise about your spending, that sort of thing, then obviously that's a good thing. In particular, I would say a budget that is demonstrably skewed toward your vision/ priorities will serve you well-- when you are clearly investing in the things that matter to you as a community.
otoh, I, too have seen where "running the church like a business" means imposing all sorts of business paradigms onto the church that end up skewing the purpose and direction of the church. It can mean, for example, a consumerist focus on "giving people what they want"-- or worse, giving the big givers/ wealthy what they want-- in order to be profitable. It can mean using rote formulas for budgeting, staffing, etc. without consideration of your particular vision or mission. Or a reluctance to take risks, to do what is "safe", because maintaining the institution financially is the leading concern.
Discernment needs to come first-- a prayerful, committed approach to discerning where God is leading you as a community, which may involve taking some huge but calculated risks. Once you've done that, then you need to apply good sound accounting practices/ transparency to show how you are using the funds entrusted to you in line with that vision/direction.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I, too have seen where "running the church like a business" means imposing all sorts of business paradigms onto the church that end up skewing the purpose and direction of the church. It can mean, for example, a consumerist focus on "giving people what they want"-- or worse, giving the big givers/ wealthy what they want-- in order to be profitable. It can mean using rote formulas for budgeting, staffing, etc. without consideration of your particular vision or mission. Or a reluctance to take risks, to do what is "safe", because maintaining the institution financially is the leading concern.
I understand you, but again, my experience is that 'giving people what they want' is a tendency in all sorts of congregations, not simply those that consciously adhere to 'business paradigms'. The clergy often say that they have to be careful what they do or say in church, for fear or upsetting or alienating the people in the pews. Isn't this a case of 'giving people what they want'? The clergy like the idea of challenging their congregations, but in reality they fear losing members. In an age of Christian revival they don't care if people leave, but in an age of decline, the default position is caution.
Re money, a minister once told me that his members was mostly quite poor, but that the various ministries of the church were largely being paid for by a handful of well-paid professionals in the congregation. Now, he didn't suggest that he was beholden to these individuals, but surely the possibility is there!
These are structural issues.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
The ethos changes from 'serving God, serving people' to 'building a business, using people'.
I am sorry that this has been your experience; it has not been mine. I do not believe that running a church like a business -- financially speaking-- entails imposing "business paradigms" on the church model.
Stuff costs money, and there is rarely enough money for all the stuff. When that happens, we prioritize and budget, and try best as we can to stick to that. That, to me, is running the church like a business. And contrary to what some may believe, it is not (or at least, not just) large evangelical/megachurch congregations that place the focus "running the church like a business"; these places almost always have enough cash, and it is easy not to worry about budgeting and sustainability when the cash is flowing freely. When there are cashflow issues, though, is when certain business-like financial approaches become even more important to the church.
And again, I do not believe that this compromises the mission of the church. Not one bit.
[ 25. May 2013, 16:27: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And there was no willingness to do things differently in order to reduce costs. Unsurprisingly, the church has now closed.
This is so common! The unwillingness to do things differently (cost related or not). Makes one wonder just what is a church, anyway. I understand church shouldn't be just a social club catering the the latest social whims, but some seem to become a closed social club for a few long term members who really don't want newcomers.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I think most churches DO want newcomers (although I realise from previous posts, Belle Ringer, that the churches you attend might be unusual in this respect) - but they also want what would make the more established churchgoers want to continue to attend. This might necessitate different types of services (perhaps a lively one for more extrovert people and a quiet one more suited to introverts), but that is difficult in present times when the trained clergy/readers are having to stretch themselves between several churches, barely able to offer one service at each.
The ideal is that if something is working already, it's best to add a different type of service at a different time (possibly even midweek? or at a more informal venue?), rather than jeopardise it by changing the single service to something that might attract nobody.
I have heard it said that you should only have one service a week in order for there to be unity, but unity by having diversity leads to a potentially larger overall outreach.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have heard it said that you should only have one service a week in order for there to be unity, but unity by having diversity leads to a potentially larger overall outreach.
What do you mean? Is it that all the diversity should exist in one church service?
I do prefer the idea of congregations radically changing the way that they come together as church, rather than having traditional services for regular members and having separate Fresh Expressions, etc. for everyone else that they'd like to attract.
However, in a society where church culture and popular culture have diverged so hugely I think it's almost impossible for most churches to contemplate the radical changes that would be required in order to become meaningful and inspirational to people who don't already fit in.The clergy would like to think that everyone can feel at home in their churches, but as you say, most of them really don't have the time, energy, skills or, indeed, the testicular fortitude to overthrow the settled existence of their probably quite elderly, quite middle class, and quite female congregations in a painful but ultimately productive way for the benefit of people who aren't yet there. Candidates for the ministry and lay leaders aren't expected or trained to transform churches, although some manage to do it.
A Fresh Expressions approach requires a lot of work too, but only well-heeled, successful churches can afford to run programmes for two congregations at the same time. FE doesn't seem viable in areas where the churches are already very weak.
[ 26. May 2013, 00:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
The ethos changes from 'serving God, serving people' to 'building a business, using people'.
I am sorry that this has been your experience; it has not been mine. I do not believe that running a church like a business -- financially speaking-- entails imposing "business paradigms" on the church model.
Stuff costs money, and there is rarely enough money for all the stuff. When that happens, we prioritize and budget, and try best as we can to stick to that. That, to me, is running the church like a business. And contrary to what some may believe, it is not (or at least, not just) large evangelical/megachurch congregations that place the focus "running the church like a business"; these places almost always have enough cash, and it is easy not to worry about budgeting and sustainability when the cash is flowing freely. When there are cashflow issues, though, is when certain business-like financial approaches become even more important to the church.
And again, I do not believe that this compromises the mission of the church. Not one bit.
I would agree that it doesn't have to compromise the ministry of the church, and in fact, used properly, some business principles could benefit and enable the ability to meet your goals. However, it has been my experience, that that is not the usual result. More often "getting businesslike" entails a subtle but deadly shift that will eventually bring about the demise of the organization as it ceases to become anything meaningful or significant.
[ 26. May 2013, 03:54: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have heard it said that you should only have one service a week in order for there to be unity, but unity by having diversity leads to a potentially larger overall outreach.
What do you mean? Is it that all the diversity should exist in one church service?
No, I believe that is the worst kind of scenario - rather like ecumenical services they can end up being a mish-mash of the worst of every example. I mean that, if at all possible, having a range of different types of services results in be able to attract and keep old, young, quiet, and outgoing people in a way that only one service cannot possibly stretch to. But, as I said, that gets more difficult with limited resources.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Pondering on this a little more, I wonder whether what we're talking about here is the subtle but very real difference in attitude and ethos between shepherding the flock where the emphasis is on caring for and leading the sheep, and managing the farm where the emphasis is on its success, and care for the sheep is one of the boxes to be ticked but not the ultimate aim.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Pondering on this a little more, I wonder whether what we're talking about here is the subtle but very real difference in attitude and ethos between shepherding the flock where the emphasis is on caring for and leading the sheep, and managing the farm where the emphasis is on its success, and care for the sheep is one of the boxes to be ticked but not the ultimate aim.
This is probably true.
Some churches (especially the more liberal ones, so I've read) prioritise the pastoral side of things. My previous minister once said the pastoral side - specifically visiting the sick - was the most important of his roles, even more important than preaching, worship and teaching. Ministers in some other churches definitely wouldn't take this view.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Pondering on this a little more, I wonder whether what we're talking about here is the subtle but very real difference in attitude and ethos between shepherding the flock where the emphasis is on caring for and leading the sheep, and managing the farm where the emphasis is on its success, and care for the sheep is one of the boxes to be ticked but not the ultimate aim.
Good, challenging image, and perhaps more spot on than we'd care to admit.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Pondering on this a little more, I wonder whether what we're talking about here is the subtle but very real difference in attitude and ethos between shepherding the flock where the emphasis is on caring for and leading the sheep, and managing the farm where the emphasis is on its success, and care for the sheep is one of the boxes to be ticked but not the ultimate aim.
Good, challenging image, and perhaps more spot on than we'd care to admit.
Pretty much spot on, I'd say.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0