a personal revolution

in the past month or so, i've written 2 articles for a series at monticello live entitled "churches in transition." i was quite surprised, and rather unprepared, for the comments that one of the articles generated... in both the quantity and the forcefulness of some of the opinions that were articulated. one commenter in particular, a fellow named wade, had some serious issues, not just with the church that was featured in that particular story, but with churches in general, concerning the way money is spent. because i was the author of the article in question, i felt i needed to stay neutral in my response to wade's concerns. i had advised him in my comments to take up the invitation of a member of that church to come and visit, and judge for himself if his concerns were legitimate or not. however, i've been haunted ever since then by the issues that wade brought up, and decided that here at my personal blog would be the appropriate place to comment more specifically...

let me say right up front, as i researched this, my world was literally turned upside down. i had a general awareness of the situation, but when i looked at the specifics, i was dumbfounded... and the more i thought things through, the more i realized that i was about to undergo a huge transformation in the way i look at the local church's role in Kingdom work.

this may be comparing apples and oranges, or even watermelons and grapes, but i firmly believe this is at least a good starting point for making meaningful change in the way churches allocate their resources for ministering in the community and the world. i am involved with a ministry called Compassion International, and i am also very familiar with the ministry of World Vision, another Christian child advocacy group. these two organizations minister to children all over the world, primarily through child sponsorship, and also through emergency aid for tsunami victims, sanitary water initiatives, malaria intervention and AIDS initiatives, just to name a few. these would be tremendous burdens to take on just here in the united states, but these organizations have a huge impact here and around the globe... and they do it by spending upwards of EIGHTY PERCENT of their funds on programs that directly affect those whom they seek to minister to. compassion international spends 84% of its money ministering to children, just under 8% for administrative costs, and just over 8% for fundraising... world vision spends 87% directly on ministry to children, 5% administrative and 8% fundraising.

because of these percentages, both of these ministries are recognized for their financial integrity by such groups as the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator. these are figures i've known about for years, and reasons why i place so much trust in how these ministries go about fulfilling their mission.

now then, after being totally convicted by the issues that were raised by wade over at monticello live, i did a little figuring, and here is what i have discovered (about one individual church, which shall remain anonymous), based on receipts and expenditures from january through may of this year... these percentages will obviously vary from one local church to another, although i suspect the variances will not be all that great. 13% of money taken in went toward missions and ministry (i included money spent on sunday school and discipleship training, which is mostly spent on church members, but giving the benefit of the doubt, i figure if a church is teaching the bible to its members, that in turn should at least partially translate into ministry in the community and the world at large, ideally speaking)... and 87% went toward administrative (basically payroll, physical plant and supplies). these percentages are very similar to what i found at compassion international and world vision, except for one little difference... THEY ARE COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. "so, what is the possibility," i wondered, "that these figures were skewed, perhaps because income fell short of expectations?" i decided to look at what was actually budgeted for missions/ministry vs. administrative to get a better idea of intent. well, i was right, the figures were skewed a bit. missions and ministry-related items, again into which i included amounts budgeted for the education program, account for 16.4% of the budget. which means that the remaining 83.6% was budgeted for expenses related to payroll, building upkeep, and supplies.

i've turned this over and over in my head in the weeks since i first looked at this. i've slept on it, and i've lost sleep over it. i've processed it, i've ranted and raved about it, i've prayed about it. and i've come to one conclusion... IT IS INEXCUSABLE, AND IT IS INDEFENSIBLE. the first thing i've had to do was personally repent of this myself, because for years as a church member and as a staff member, i bought right into this system... CONTRIBUTED to this system with my tithes, and helped LEGITIMIZE this system by taking a paycheck from it for 13 years. the thing i must do now is try to be part of the SOLUTION to the problem... by SPEAKING OUT about it, and by PUTTING MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS.

this one thing i do know... any organization is going to show what its priorities are by where it puts its money. charities like compassion and world vision have made ministry to children their top priority, and they show it by spending upwards of 87% of their money on programs that directly benefit children around the world. most of their money goes directly toward what they are most passionate about. what then does it say about churches when the vast majority of their money goes toward paying their staff and keeping up their buildings? no organization, no charity, should ever exist for the sole purpose of self-maintenance. the notion is absurd and in regards to the Church, it is downright sinful. yet, the very fact that over 80% of a church's money is spent on itself, tells me that the command of Jesus to go and make disciples of all nations has taken a back seat to self-interest.

i will say that i dont believe that churches first start out with the thought in mind that their mission in this world is to build fancy buildings (especially not to go into debt to do so) and maintain a large payroll. but as time goes by, they lose focus and they become image-conscious... for all the wrong reasons. churches SHOULD be concerned about the image they convey... but that image should be one of dying to self rather than serving self. as i said earlier, i dont know if it's fair to make the comparison between the church and charities like compassion or world vision. and maybe the 80% standard is an unrealistic expectation for churches. however, just as we as individual believers know that we can never live a perfect life as Christ did, we still strive to be Christ-like, so i would venture to say that even if spending 80% or more on missions and ministry is an impossible goal for a church to achieve (and i'm nowhere near convinced that it's impossible at all), it's at least something the church should strive for. if somebody can show me where i'm going wrong here, i'd be more than happy to listen. but are there any churches out there that have even a 51-49% breakdown of missions/ministry vs. administrative? is any church spending more on being missional than they are on themselves?

i know it's unrealistic to all at once go from spending 80-plus percent on yourself to spending it on reaching people for Christ, but we need to start the ball rolling now if meaningful change is ever going to occur. even in my own personal giving, it's going to take time to adjust, but my goal is to spend more on ministry and missions than i do on myself.

how will churches manage this undertaking, if they even choose to try? i honestly believe the solution lies in something that is a foreign notion to the church. i've even had to swallow hard on this one, but in order for the Kingdom to increase, churches are going to have to decrease (in size that is). to get bigger Kingdom-wise, we're going to have to get smaller beauracracy-wise. churches are going to have to deconstruct and shift the focus in the direction of empowering their small groups to initiate and take ownership of the ministries of the church. it may even mean the house church model for some. this goes against everything i ever learned in seminary. i've had classes in which i was instructed on how to manage and maneuver through layers of church administration. i've sat in youth ministry classes and had professors tell me what i should expect to be paid, and not to accept a penny less. i'm having to throw this type of thinking out the window.

this morning i broke away from writing this to transport one of our kids to his job, and on the way back i ended up being part of a bible study at dad's place. during that bible study, we talked about God interrupting our lives, and i must tell you, God used a guy named wade to interrupt mine. it's been over 3 weeks since he raised these issues, and my way of thinking about ministry and the Church has been completely upended. i suspect i'm not going to make very many friends over this, and i hope i dont lose any of the ones i have, but i'm completely sold out to this. if ministries of the scope and size of compassion and world vision are able to get a handle on this concept... the concept that the bulk of their resources must be designated to doing ministry... then i feel certain that on the local church level it can, and must, be accomplished.

just how should a church grow, anyway?

while i was busy biting off almost more than i could chew renovating the kitchen at our cottage, i had plenty of time to ruminate on a few things (btw, i'd post some pics of the new kitchen, but since i didnt bother to take any "before" shots, it's kind of pointless).

ever since reading the barna book "revolution" i've begun to take an interest in the house church movement here in america. i've had a great interest in cell groups for quite a number of years, and still lean slightly toward that method, but the house church intrigues me. as i've compared and contrasted the two, i've also been forced to re-evaluate my position on worship (or celebration) services as well.

i'm a contemporary praise and worship guy... i'll get that out right up front. there are a handful of hymns that are very meaningful to me, but by and large, contemporary praise music does it for me (please understand that i realize that hymns are sung in order to praise and worship Jesus... i'm using those labels to differentiate between the different types and styles of "church" music).

the main reason why i (so far) prefer cell groups (small groups that meet in church members' houses in various neighborhoods, but are a part of a larger church body) to house churches (small groups that meet in church members' homes that are self-contained churches) is that there are more resources available for ministry and missions in the larger corporate body.

the way it works in a cell church is that the church grows through the small groups. the intimacy and community that is fostered in small, neighborhood groups is more conducive to bringing seekers into contact with believers, and ultimately into contact with Christ Himself. usually, on sunday morning, the folks that make up the cell groups gather together corporately for a worship (celebration) service.

traditional churches also have small group meetings... most of these are known as sunday school classes, and they meet right there in the church building, most commonly right before the sunday morning worship service. in southern baptist churches, and probably in a number of other denominations as well, the sunday school is seen as the growth arm of the church (for the same reasons that cell groups are). i realize that when some folks see "church growth," they'll read "mega-church." please understand that church growth is important to me because i know each one of those numbers represents a living, breathing human being that is loved by a Heavenly Father who desires that they come to a saving knowledge of His son, Jesus Christ. honestly, i could care less about being a part of a mega-church.

now, there are a lot of opinions about how a sunday worship service should look, sound and feel. all over the country, and all over the world for that matter, there are churches that struggle with this issue. many proponents of a contemporary worship service would tell us that contemporary music and cutting edge video are necessary to attract folks to church these days. but as i listened to some folks expound on this subject, a contradiction was brought to my attention that i simply cannot ignore, thus the reason for my above-mentioned re-evaluation of how we "worship."

if we're going to buy into the idea that growth happens in the small group settings, whether they be cell groups or sunday school classes, how can we also say that the things we do or dont do in the worship service are necessary to attract the unchurched? can we have it both ways? if we're going to design worship services with the idea in mind that we're going to appeal to a media-savvy, hi-tech generation of lost people, then what's the point of having small groups? if we believe that the community and comaraderie of the small group is the thing that our lost neighbors initially find attractive about the church, then why all the fuss about the structure of the worship celebration as a means to reach the lost?

i've come (back) to the realization that the worship service is for the believers. how can our lost friends worship Someone they do not know or believe in?? they can't! so, why do we go to such great pains to design a way of worship for those who CANNOT worship? of course i know that this doesnt solve the problem of whether we worship traditionally or contemporarily, because churches still have diversity within the body of believers. but at least we can stop the charade of claiming to be trying to reach lost people by way of the style in which we choose to conduct our worship services. this is where i believe the house church may have the advantage. it isnt just an intimate setting of a small bible study group, but it is also the intimate setting of the very church body itself. and perhaps avoiding the turmoil over the style of worship in the larger setting just may be worth the trade-off of having not quite as many resources with which to do Kingdom work.

check out my new favorite website, which describes perfectly how i believe we ought to be doing church... and how we should have been doing it all along...

what is it exactly that God is supposed to have done, and how does He feel about getting blamed for it?