Endowments
Posted on December 5th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryA long time reader sent in a comment from a revival forum. (Evidently, I'm not the only person with no life, who spends all day in front of the computer.)
Here's the comment:
The strangest thing happened last Sunday. The head pastor at church had a sermon on how it was your Christian duty to make sure the church was provided for in your will. He even had a lawyer there that could help set up endowments. "You should give to God first in your life and first when you die– before you provide for your family." (The church wants to hire three more staff members and wants endowments set up to pay for them) It just floored us because never had we heard anyone go as far as saying that or bringing a lawyer for the purpose. It was so unusual.
Coincidentally, I recently read an article in the Washington Post discussing this current movement in giving. Churches are going after endowments.
Churches have begun setting up foundations or have started turning to denominational officials to help them prepare for the moment when generous members name them in a will.
"It's almost like it's a new discovery, but it's simply about stewardship," said Barry Bledsoe, president of the Baptist Foundation of Alabama, whose foundation administers more than $200 million from about 2,000 church gifts and endowments.
Wouldn't Christ be thrilled. He comes to earth, preaches a message of sacrifice and love, and subsequent ly dies on the cross for our sins, only for us to take away the message of Stewardship.
RSS feed for posts
December 5th, 2006 at 8:05 am
It’s the Death Harvest Offering.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:43 am
ROTFL
December 5th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Andrew Strom … got his start in New Zealand, now in Wisconsin - used to be involved with Robert Holmes in the ANZAC (Australia / New Zealand) prophetic e-list - somewhat affiliated with the Kansas City Prophets, but eventually distanced himself from it - I think the whole Kansas City thing was part the reason Andrew moved to the US. Was surprised he didn’t end up in KC though. I heard he came out of the institution for a season, then did a 180 and went back telling those of us who came out and stayed out that we’re wrong to leave. So much for Rev. 18:4.
The premise of Revival School is questionable to me - seems rooted somewhat in the latter reign doctrine - and the notion that God is going to pour new wine (the HS) in old wineskins (the IC).
Revival comes personally / individually. Just ask Lazarus.
Jack
December 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I guess they never saw the part about laying up their treasures on Earth…
December 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Ick.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
And they’re STILL devouring widow’s houses.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
You must see the movie ‘The Nativity’ that was directed by Miss out of the box Catherine Hardwicke –’ Lords of Dogtown’ fame.
It shows what humble circumstances that Jesus was born into. I couldn’t help but think he didn’t grow up and die so that we could have the school of ‘mega pastors’ preaching on million dollar finance- campaigns to build even bigger buildings.
She uniquely put it into perspective when they ride through Jerusalem and the
‘money changers’ are making money off of these poor people right there in the temple. Go to see how they end the movie and what is said.
It would take someone out of the box to direct this incredible movie that shows how ordinary their lives were and yet that is where He choose to be born.
By the way I never saw the Passion movie no matter what pressure I had –but this one is unique, beautifully shot by an artist for The Artist.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Too funny!
December 6th, 2006 at 10:59 am
YOU CAN’T BLAME THEM FOR BEING CREATIVE,
The IC has finally figured out how to tap into that aging baby boomer generation. And you wonder why they want to take tax exemptness away.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Here I have thought “endowment” was like a person being “well endowed” :-p
December 12th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Who is well endowed? Pastor Frank??
December 13th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Speaking of Endowments, here are a few thoughts:
Psalm 72
1 Endow the king with your justice, O God,
the royal son with your righteousness .
2 He will a judge
your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.
3 The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.
4 He will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy ;
he will crush the oppressor .
If pastors/kings (kings in their own eyes) were endowed with justice and righteousness they might not have to preach about prosperity so much, and would just be examples of it. Rather than oppress the afflicted ones they would administer justice to them.
If pastors/kings (kings in their own eyes) were endowed with justice and righteousness they would defend the afflicted that show up on this blog, instead of stay away from here like they’d get leprosy if they showed up here to comfort, heal, and apologize.
If pastors/kings (kings in their own eyes) were endowed with justice and righteousness they would see needs in far larger dimensions than the need to add another wing to their building, another projection screen across town, for another series on “Faith Harvest,” which amounts to them having faith they can harvest your money if they preach convincingly enough. They would simply let their focus be on saving the children of the needy. Here our cry oh great pastors of the land, be ye endowed with a burden for the children of the needy. Sell your buildings, drop your salaries and your titles, and give all that you have to poor and come and follow Jesus. Seems to be an echo of something I read somewhere…
If pastors/kings (kings in their own eyes) were endowed with justice and righteousness they would crush the oppressor instead of embodying him. They would download legalism and upload grace. They would crush everything that would oppress, wound, weaken, weary, and disillusion those who come to them to be defended and saved.
These are the endowments I long to see in His Church. When Jesus returns will He find faith/these endowments in the earth? I pray so.
December 16th, 2006 at 12:04 am
I am well endowed for the record!!
Give me yo money!
December 16th, 2006 at 12:28 am
We Just saw this tonight and you are absolutely right. It’s really really great to get to see an artistic rendering of the story we have heard of all our lives. And finally from someone other than the tommytennies of the christian culture sector who deliver subpar at best. This movie isn’t just artistic, though. It realistically captures the world Jesus was born into without compromising the story– there wasn’t a whole lot of blue and lilly white robes then that’s for sure. It highlights the deep insecurity of King Herod whose paranoia about the prophecy of a coming king drove him to complete obsession and ultimately to murder a townfull of 2 year old boys. Mary and Joseph and surrounding family were greatly cast and all the real-life feelings and conflicting emotions that dealing with a ‘immaculate conception’ (gaaah, what a phrase) could conjure up. It actually makes the story believeable again. Not that I didn’t believe in it, it was just so worn out and tattered and overdone in the cantata celebration settings we’ve had to endure for YEARS.
Ok, now I want to see Lords of Dogtown. Catherine Hardwicke rocks. What a progression: from LOD to the Nativity. It’d be intriguing to know how she got there and why she chose this. Fortunes, if you ever find out, let us know ok?
December 16th, 2006 at 1:33 am
I was let down by the Nativity Story. But here’s my review. I’ll title it, “Poor Research and Dorky Dialogue Give Birth to a Tacky Rendition.”
The movie wasn’t very well researched at all; for example, the wise-cracking Magi are little more than bumbling, eccentric, codependent roommates, rather than noble kings from afar. They show up in Bethlehem on the night the Savior was born–he was practically still wet–when biblically, they really came when Jesus was a toddler.
The dorky dialogue between Mary and Elizabeth made me laugh out loud. Picture this: Mary and Elizabeth are working in the field when Mary feels the baby Jesus move. “Oh, my goodness, the baby is MOVING!” she says to Elizabeth, who replies, “Mine TOO!” and the two cousins gleefully stroke each other’s fruitful orb.
And wouldn’t you know it, when Mary heads back home to Nazareth, Elizabeth gives her a baby blue head shawl, just like Mary wears in every Nativity knick-knack set I’ve ever seen.
The script was cheesey altogether. After the baby Jesus is born, Mary makes this corny statement to the shepherd guy about how “He is for all mankind.” Also, the Magi’s presentation of the gifts were painfully schmaltzy. Maybe if the whole thing was in Hebrew with English subtitles it would have come across better. Maybe.
I think Mel Gibson could have done much better, although come to think of it he probably would have cast the holy family as blond-haired Europeans. Still, it would have been more entertaining. Imagine Morgan Fairchild as Mary, James Brolin as Joseph, and Shiloh Jolie-Pitt as the baby Jesus. And as the Magi: the guys from Queer Eye.
I digress.
On a positive note, the soundtrack was very inspiring, and I sense we’ll be hearing it around the Christmas tree for many years to come. The movie also did a good job of conveying the complete misery it must have been traveling over a hundred miles on the back of a boney donkey, eight months pregnant, sleeping on rocks, eating stale flatbread and stiff, dead carp. Pass the figgy pudding, please.
The scenes where the soldiers storm into homes seizing baby boys made me so angry. Fortunately, I had a handful of Skittles to make me feel better.
Herod sported the mother of all mullets–this alone is worth seeing the movie! He looks like a cross between Billy Ray Cyrus and Vicky Lawrence from Momma’s Family.
The bottom line: When you’re telling the story of the King of Kings stepping into humanity for the redemption of man, please don’t try so hard to be poignant. Just let the message speak for itself. It’s powerful enough on its own. Catherine Hardwicke just muddies the water of an otherwise wonderful story.
IMHO, of course.
December 16th, 2006 at 2:48 am
hmmm, i’d like to hear your take on the tommy tenny esther story.
yes, we knew the magi shouldn’t have been in there, but tell me, how are you going to fast forward 2 years just so they can be in there authentically? they took creative license and did a great job with a very overdone basic story and made it far more interesting than anything else i’ve seen to date.
so are you one of those humbug i hate christmas people? reading your ‘review’ makes me so glad to be simple enough to enjoy a few things that remain to be enjoyed. not that i’m better than you or anything. in some things i’d rather be a little bit dumb and stupid but happy.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:00 am
I loved it still and nothing anyone says or reviews could change that. I think its very hard in this day and age to even attempt to do this movie let alone pull it off with some skill.. I think it will be used greatly and if some of us who are so sick of the religious of the religious movies could see it and be moved you know its got something to offer. Maybe its just where I am right now–hitting home.
I’m surprised you didn’t like it Bloggy –though I love the freedom here to state how we feel, because I think it captures what this blog is about. God chose to have Jesus born into very humble circumstance not the prosperity people of the age, visually more powerful in this movie than I’ve ever seen before. It had a feeling of humility that for right now in my life is soooo important. That is what spoke to me the most. She decided to portray the real dilema of young people having to face people’s disaproval when God calls you to do something. Not unlike the theme we’ve talked about here many times–thats why it sang to me.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Granted, it’s a swell movie; I just think it could have been better, that’s all. I had higher hopes that weren’t met.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
It occurred to me today that we all have very personal sacred images that we associate with the nativity story. It’s been with us since we were little kids. So I can see why people would beg to differ with various aspects of the movie if it doesn’t line up with or enhance the sacred memories. For instance, those who are Catholic may not appreciate Mary being so ordinary and young looking without that glow around her head. Overall, though, the movie may be depicting the kind of world that Jesus was actually born into. We also need to keep in mind that Catherine Hardwicke, not being Mr. Spielberg, hasn’t been given the huge budget that he’s privy to, thus the one british angel and bird when there should have been a host of angels.