Coping with Greed
Posted on March 27th, 2007 by Reformed Pope into the David Mackin Writes: categoryDavid Mackin sends in this post:
What Can Christians Do About Greedy Pastor/Leaders?
20/20 recently exposed certain ministries for not being transparent about their finances, e.g., Paul & Jan Crouch (TBN), Benny Hinn, etc. (see: ministrywatch.com). StopBuildingTheirKingoms laments:"We can't stop these [greedy] preachers unless we first stop people from having itching ears in the first place…"
What could concerned Christians really do about situations like what happened after my former church's last annual business meeting:
The last year that I remember them having an open annual church business meeting was the year that the treasurer, received some very direct and challenging questions from the congregation from men of integrity. The Senior Pastor, in my view, hated public questions because they made him feel out of control and put on the spot. From what I can remember, after that meeting, This Pastor stopped having the annual open business meeting for church members, Instead, he told the church members that if they were interested in the annual financial report, that they could obtain a copy of it from the church office. To my knowledge, the cancellation of such a meeting was and is illegal for a 501c3 non-profit corporation.
What can concerned Christians do about the many senior pastors who hide their salary/benefit packages along with their outside incomes from books, tapes and honorariums:
In my opinion, many senior pastors/preachers, esp. of large independent local churches, purposely hide the exact amounts of their salary/benefit packages from their congregations - from the very people who pay for them! - so that they can avoid potential criticism and questions. In this area, and if done correctly, this is where denomination churches are a safer place in which to invest than many large, mega-churches run by business-oriented, charismatic pastors, who run everything from behind the scenes and, in most cases, give the false impression that they are genuinely accountable to a "team" which are little more than a group of hand-picked Yes Men.
Here are a few practical ideas:
(1) Whenever Christians donate to a ministry make sure first that they only donate to one that has the seal of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (see: www.ecfa.org).
(2) Never give to a local church that is completely run by a senior pastor who can hire and fire at will; who sets his own salary, gives himself raises, creates his own benefit packages.
(3) Start a movement in local churches that are run by senior pastors to re-do their church constitutions and by-laws that presently give too much power to the senior pastor over the finances of the church or ministry.
(4) Insist in your own local church that every dollar is specifically accounted for in the church's annual financial report; and that the annual financial report does not use photos and a fancy layout to distract the people from the bare numbers of the report (like some of the Church reports I have seen!).
(5) Make sure that the annual financial report has been prepared by an independent accounting firm outside of the church or ministry (smaller churches probably won't be able to afford this).
(6) Insist that all church staff salaries are specifically mentioned in the annual financial report, esp. the senior pastor's (because his is normally the highest) and not all just lumped together under "salaries" or "overhead."
(7) Never give to a local church or ministry until they supply you an official copy of their annual financial report. If the majority of Christians would insist on this, the churches and ministries would feel the pressure to begin doing so if they wanted donations to continue! (The only para-church ministry that immediately sent me a copy of their annual financial report when I sent in a donation was Good Samaritan Ministries in Beaverton, Oregon, run by Betty Mitchell, Ph.D. This really impressed me, and I think that I only gave them $50.00!
What ideas do you have by which Christians can begin to call their pastor/leaders to financial account and begin to stop so many of them from exploiting God's people and living like kings?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I hear ya David, and for those still feeling led to remain in the IC these are excellent suggestions.
For the rest of us…don’t give to anyone who believes in having any kind of Church staff, no salaries at all…, no mortgages on buildings, a completely “non business” approach to Church. So much simpler…
I know I sound crazy radical at times, but I really do believe Jesus’ reformation will take place, both inside and outside the current IC approach to Church. For those who believe they hear the Lord telling them to stick with the IC approach, then David’s comments are terrific. There will be many called to do so. I believe we must make room for both callings.
For a while I thought the Lord was calling me to address the need for change from within the IC, and as I traveled around the US and different countries, speaking what God was showing me about a biblical concept of leadership authority that was very different from what I had been fed inside the IC, I found the only people who had an appetite for it were the “people/members” of these different Churches…certainly not the Senior Pastors. To a man, they all felt threatened, offended, and angry.
So, rather than just be labeled “divisive,” or a “sower of dischord,” I had to come out of the systems churches, and be free to teach what the Lord was showing me.
The more the Lord has shown me the things I had never seen inside the IC, I have come to realize that many principles of Christ for His Church, leadership, money, etc., just will not work inside the IC. I’m enough of a purist that I could no longer stand soft pedaling the truth, just so as to maintain “my” ministry. When they comprehended the degree of change I now espouse they, to a man, said “No Thanks!”
I miss speaking into the lives of the believers in the different Churches I used to travel among. It grieves me to be cut off from them, just because their pastors cling to unbiblical concepts of leadership and Church. The strangle hold they maintain, upon the hearts and lives of their flocks, simply amaze me. What amazes me even more is God’s grace to tolerate it. Unless I’m completely deceived, off course, and truly crazy, He has revealed many principles of life in Christ that just can’t flourish in the IC, so for Him to be sooo patient with that which sooo limits His life exposes a dimension of His grace that catches me off guard.
I love what Paul teaches us by the Spirit, but I confess it stretches me, especially in the areas we are all writing of in this blog:
I know my words haven’t always reflected the grace of these verses, but they need to…
March 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I hadn’t seen this on TV. Here’s a link for those interested:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2982424
And also the guys site:
http://www.ministrywatch.org
Funny to see Kim Clement in there. A family member is currently involved with his “ministry”. I doubt she’d appreciate this.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Maybe we could setup a chain email to expose fraud with these websites. Maybe at least get people thinking about where their money is going and do some investigating before they give. I do believe people should be responsible about the investments they make. David, do you want to write something catchy as a lead in.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Well Halleula!
See. It is possible for the scales to be lifted from the eyes of believers, if they are willing. Thruoghout Biblical history God would use the ungodly (maybe in this case the ungodly media ) to bring an end to corrupt and disobedient kingdoms. We need to pray more for the spirit of decernment
to help us to see and understand and guide us through these inclement times in modern day Church leadership behavior. By His spirit we shall know the truth.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I was a member of BT/CBC for about 10 years. I met my wife and married her there. When Frank took over and they bought into the Modesto Miracle, Brownsville Revival and the Toronto Blessing it seems to me the money issues really began. They started pushing the tithing doctrine and brow beat us with Haggai 1:6. I really tried to get in line and follow what they were saying, I so much wanted to be pleasing to God and perhaps be a part of the ministry. I remember sitting in the services, prophetic assemblies etc… and I wanted to have the blessings that I thought others were getting. In 97 we decided to move to St. Helens but we kept going to CBC, things were hard but we kept our chin up and followed what our leaders said. 2Cor. 9:6-7 was on my mind;
6 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
My attitude is that when I give I do not expect anything in return, it is up to God if He wants to give me that return on what I give. My job is just to give joyfully, give because I love Jesus. Besides, what do I have that He has not given me? Nothing! He has given me everything and I owe him everything. The leaders of CBC and any other church should faithfully teach the word of God and realize that if the church they are in is a work of God that God will move on the hearts of the people that love him and they will give. So the leaders need to trust God and they need to trust the members of the body to be obedient to God!
The winter of 97 and 98 there were two snow days about a month apart, on each snow day Frank and the leadership sent out a letter requesting that it was critical that we not forget to send in our tithes and offerings because the church had a budget to meet. The second letter was the last straw for me. It showed me that the leadership of the church did not really trust God or the 3000+ members, at the time, and so we left and never looked back.
To be honest with you, it is quite heart breaking to see a church that I was involved in for 10 years forget the reason they are what they are 1. A faithful God and 2. Faithful people. I remember when pastor Iverson did not have to ask the people to give, it just happened. Sure, sometimes there were special projects but he did not have to pressure because the people loved God and they loved their family, giving was a joy. Pastor Iverson and Sis. Edie were always among the flock/people rubbing shoulders and loving on everyone, he was always a encouragement and so was sister Edie, even when sister Edie was in pain because of her poor hips she was always smiling and loving on everyone she could. Those were great times.
When Frank took the helm that all changed, we became a ship on a charted course, we had a mission and it was as though the people did not matter anymore, you had to take care of yourself, if you needed help then get yourself to the clinic and get fixed because the mission was the priority, what a shame!
I have long moved on since those days and am part of a great little church where the pastor faithfully exposits the word. We do not live under debt because each one of us gives according to what we have determined and that is good enough for our leadership, and apparently God too. If something needs to happen we just lift it up to God and if it is of God He somehow moves on the hearts of his people and things get done, sometimes people we don’t even know just give money for no reason and things get done. Money is not a issue because the pastor refuses to make it one, he trusts God to build his church and He does it. Perhaps I am off base, but isn’t this how it is supposed to be?
March 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Robert said:
I think you are dead on Robert. A lot of churches preach that the congregation needs to give their money and just have faith that God will provide for them, but the pastor and/or leadership has no faith that God will provide for the church. If they did, they wouldn’t have to mention giving so much and they wouldn’t have to quote the same out-of-context scriptures every Sunday. They should have faith that God will move on the hearts of his people to give and the church needs to stop spending the congregations money on luxury items like dozens of plasma TV’s and such. How about trying to get out of debt for a change? It’s simply ridiculous.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
It’s a “do as I say and not as I do” mentality. You believe God for your lives, we’ll just hound you for ours. You walk in the Spirit, we’ll use the law. What about leading by example instead of pressure, manipulation and deceit.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Robert said: It breaks my heart…
Robert: Thanks for sharing part of your journey with us! I’m sure there is a lot more in your heart. I can understand the pain and disillusionment, at least somewhat, of what it feels like to have high hopes for a church but then see those hit the rocks. When Dick Iverson asked me to leave the church and college, I felt so confused and disillusioned. Looking back, however, it was one of the greatest growth experiences that I have ever had in my walk with the Lord. But, the inner pain is real and I wish that I could sit down with each CBC member and tell them all that I know and ask them how they REALLY feel about what is going on all around them. Thanks, Robert.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:43 am
StopBuildingTheirKingdoms said: David, do you want to write something catchy as a lead in?
SBTK: I feel flattered that you would ask me something like this, but, I have to admit, I did not understand exactly what you might be referring to. Could you help me here?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Tom said: For the rest of us…don’t give to anyone who believes in having any kind of Church staff, no salaries at all…, no mortgages on buildings, a completely “non business” approach to Church. So much simpler…
Tom: Thanks for bringing a balance to what I said. You helped me to see how they did address IC local churches or IC oriented non-profits. Your perspective is always very refreshing to me.
You wrote, “no salaries at all…” I thought that when we talked a little while ago, that you ageed that some salaries would/could be appropriate. I understood us both to have agreed that the NT does teach that ministers should be, at times, financially supported by those to whom they minister.
As we already talked about, I have in mind (paraphrased) verses like: “the workman is worthy of his hire;” “take no bread…eat whatever is set before you;” “and the women’s offerings went to support Jesus” “give double honor to those who labor in the Word;” “do not those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?” “let those who are taught in the Word give to him who teaches him,” “let him who preaches the gospel live by the gospel,” “does the soldier go to war at his own expense?” “I ‘robbed’ other churches that I could minister to you,” etc.
I’m kind of wondering now what you would say about verses such as these in light of your recent post…
March 29th, 2007 at 6:39 am
What I meant was, maybe you could write a nice email that we could send out as a chain letter that had some good information in it. Catchy enough that people wouldn’t just toss it but maybe cause them to do a little investigation on their own. Some points and websites. Just a thought.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Hi David,
I think all we need here is a little further defining of “salary” on my part.
I fully agree with you, that God will touch the hearts of saints to financially bless/support those who have been taught the Word by His teachers, elders, and apostles, BUT, turning that pure ministry into a “business” and then agreeing, “as a hireling”, to be “employed” by that business/organization, for a “SET SALARY” is the point where I believe the Church got off course.
As we come out of the systems Churches, that are run like businesses, giving fancy ministerial titles, executive privileges, control, hierarchy, etc., we are best to completely flush the entire notion of “ministry as a business,” and keep a simple “I’m here to serve you…period,” sort of approach. The moment men and women come into a contractual arrangement with those they serve, whereby they either directly or indirectly say, “I will minister to you for $x per month,” we have turned the servant into a hired hand, and the whole relationship begins its journey towards something very unhealthy.
I believe the minister is always wisest to say to those whom he is ministering to “I give my ministry to you free of charge. If you choose to financially, or in other material ways, bless me for this ministry, then I will trust the Lord is putting that on your heart. I will always offer it freely, but it is good for you to honor the giver of ministry gifts to the body, for their edification and equipping, and as such I will receive those gifts, just so long as I believe you are bettered by giving it, there are no strings attached, and there is no contract commitment between yourself and me.”
If folks want to give the same amount of money each month, I see no problem with that, but I believe the minister must be very careful that he/she not allow themself to come to a place of “counting on” that money, or “expecting” it, or worse yet, implying that “they owe him/her” for their ministry.
When it is given freely, and the minister lives entirely by faith in Christ for His total provision, then the body is freer to walk in a Spirit led manner before the Lord, and systems religious stuff is breaking off of the body.
I’m convinced, when ministry became a “business” it went bad. Some seem to handle its badness better than others, and for that I’m grateful, but in all cases, when ministry becomes a business it begins its journey away from Jesus, and will encounter dangerous territory.
I hope this clarifies my position. Thank you for asking for that clarity.
Great dialogues going on here! Praise God for it!
March 29th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Hi David,
I know your question was directed at Tom, but the same has troubled me for many years and I’m still unsettled about the issue of pay in a few respects.
It was the subject of the tithe that the Lord used to begin opening my eyes about the IC - in fact, the Q&A found in my article To Tithe Or Not To Tithe is how it all began for me (being ‘deprogrammed’, that is)
A few of the scriptures you mention have troubled me - for example “the workman is worthy of his hire”. Using several translations, that verse is rendered “the workman is worthy of his meat” (KJV), “… food”, “… nourishment”, “… need(s)” … That is Matthew 10:10, as Jesus said it. Seems clear, that from the mouth of Jesus, the context is food. Compare that to Matthew 20:8 where Jesus says “give them their hire”, it is a different greek word altogether, meaning wage.
Fast forward to 1 Timothy 5:18 wherein Paul writes: “For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward” (KJV). Most other translations render “hire” as “pay”, “wage”. The greek for “reward / hire / pay / wage” here is the same as Jesus used in Matthew 20:8, not as Jesus used (for “meat”) in Matthew 10:10.
Since the 1st half of 1 Timothy 5:18 is a food reference “do not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn”, why does Paul introduce the notion of a wage (money?), especially when the original command from the mouth of Christ is “worker deserves his meat / food / nourishment”? Clearly, Paul misquoted Jesus here or mixed his metaphors, so to speak.
There are a few clues in the NT that suggest to me that Paul got tangled up in money matters because of the church hierarchy that was developing in Jerusalem. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:1-3.
1 Corinthians 16:1-3 KJV
(1) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
(3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
Offerings taken IN Galatia which are said to be FOR THE SAINTS (aren’t the Galatians “saints”?) but are sent by courier to Jerusalem. So offerings are being taken from one group of saints for another? Sounds like the beginning of a church / franchise tax to me.
There is also the following scripture:
Acts 11:27-30 KJV
(27) And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
(28) And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
(29) Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:
(30) Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
I’m kind of struck by the Acts scripture above, wherein the famine is said to be throughout all the world, but the assistance is sent to Jerusalem. Seems a bit strange, to me. Antioch takes up an offering and Paul and Barnabas transport it to Jerusalem. Wouldn’t Antioch / Galatia be suffering from famine as well, and their offerings be just as legitimate if taken and used locally, as if taken and sent to Jerusalem? I don’t know - I just smell the beginning of a systematic church tax from the outlaying churches to Church HQ in Jerusalem.
At any rate, the original context of the one scripture, from the mouth of Jesus is “food”. Paul turned it into “wage”. Perhaps Paul was wrong? Or perhaps he was just carrying out the orders from Jerusalem / other apostles?
Concerning “let him who preaches the gospel live by the gospel”, I have some thoughts about that one … 1 Corinthians 9:14 says:
14. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. (KJV)
14. In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. (NIV)
Based on the Strong’s Literal Bible translation below, neither the KJV or NIV translations capture the real meaning. The underlying meaning, according to Strong’s, seems to be “practice what you preach”
14. |3779| So |2532| also |3588| the |2962| Lord |1299| ordained |3588| those |3588| of the |2098| Good News |2605| announcing, |1537| of |3588| the |2098| Good News |2198| to live.
In other words, if you preach ’set the captives free’, then set them free; don’t tie them up with religion and doctrine. If you preach ’share what you have with the poor’, then share with the poor. If you preach abstain from sexual immorality, then do so!
Part of the gospel message is sharing. To the person who is preaching the gospel, he must MODEL the gospel, in other words, share freely with everyone. Then those who receive the gospel and begin to live it, will share with the one who announced the gospel in the first place, thereby providing him with what he needs to live. It does not mean “money for preaching”.
One of the other things that really bothers me, is an apparent twisting / mistranslation of the greek. Strong’s Literal Bible says |2198| TO LIVE - is a VERB. Yet when it’s translated as ‘receive their LIVING from the gospel’, “TO LIVE” (a VERB) is made into a NOUN (”A LIVING”). That seems like an error in the translation to me - likely influenced by the ‘institutional church’ mentality of the translators who have buildings to pay for, and the salaries of pastor and staff. Our cultures understanding of “making a living” simply doesn’t fit the context of the scripture. Jesus sent out the Apostles in Matthew 10 and Luke 10 with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, and sandals on their feet, and told them to expect nothing more than food and a place to sleep.
The word ANNOUNCING is key too… to ‘announce’ means (as I understand Paul’s use of the word) the first to proclaim the gospel in a new territory, or to a people who have never heard it before. The closest we have these days to that function is a MISSIONARY. There really are very few in the western culture who are “announcing” the gospel in that fashion. There are many who are ‘repeating’ the gospel, in church buildings, over and over and over again to those who have long ago heard the gospel announced - but those who ‘go out’ and who are spearheading the gospel to new cultures are very few. In reality, the gospel is announced only once - thereafter the gospel should be put into practice by the people who have heard and received the gospel.
In regard to “ANNOUNCING” the gospel, Jesus instructed His disciples: “…Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8). If that was Jesus command to the apostles, and it is apparent Paul understood Jesus command where in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul sought only food and shelter, how is it pastors expect a full time salary for preaching the gospel?
I think what is meant by 1 Corinthians 9:14, is that the person who announces the gospel lives it by example, and then as the Lord grows a community of selfless / sharing followers, everyone benefits from it.
The context of 1 Cor. 9 is Paul defending his apostleship, by letter, from afar, because false apostles and circumcisors have infiltrated the church in Corinth. Potentially, the false apostles and circumcisors have been preaching for money. If that is a correct assessment of the situation, then 1 Cor. 9 is a defense of how workers of the gospel are to be compensated (food) and a sort of rebuke of the false apostles / circumcisors that real / genuine workers of the gospel will actually LIVE / PRACTICE / MODEL the gospel, not just talk it and take a paycheck.
1 Corinthians 9 seems to be all about food in my view. How is it then that ministers use that very chapter to get people to pay, when Paul refuses payment so as not to hinder the gospel?
Jack
March 29th, 2007 at 7:44 am
John444 has made some great points here!
I may not be as convinced that Paul was padding the “good old boys” in Jerusalem, as John444 indicates, but then I wouldn’t be sure he wasn’t.
Paul did say, “I have become all things to all men, that I might save some.” It wouldn’t surprise to find him applying this to the leadership in Jerusalem, given that he seems to almost always to have been in trouble with them for his Gospel of grace and his refusal to put the new Gentile believers under the Law.
Certainly, in the book of Acts, he seems overly concerned with placating the concerns of the Jews and the legalistic Jewish Christians, by going through the purification rights, entering the Temple, probably providing animals for animal sacrifice, etc. When it came to buckling to their pressure on him personally he seemed to give in. When it came to putting Law on the Gentiles he resisted vehemently.
Absolutely nothing of this story makes me comfortable. With all the Lord has shown me, I know me well enough, if I had been standing by Paul’s side, when they put this “crap” on him, I’d have said, “Paul, surely you aren’t going to succumb to this stuff are you?” Likely, he would have said, “If we give them this small concession, it will take the pressure off the new Gentile believers…we will allow this for now.” I would have bristled, groaned, watched him do it, but I would not have liked it.
I’d like to come back to the 1 Timothy 5:18 passage. I don’t really have any problem with Paul’s use of the word “wage” here. Because at this time, and throughout the entire apostolic period, there is absolutely no indication of the apostles supporting anything like a regular wage/salary, I feel very certain all Paul meant here is “pay for services rendered.” This is in line with his other teachings on appropriate support for ministries.
It is one thing to pay/bless a minister, who does not require it, for a ministry of teaching and edifying in the midst of the body, but it is entirely different when he requires it, and waaaaay different when he requires some kind of contractual relationship whereby he requires/requests it be done on a consistent monthly amount basis. It is this I feel certain Paul would not have approved.
Oh, by the way, John444, your struggle with the phrase “famine throughout the earth,” in Acts…that is fairly easily resolved by a Hebrew translation “famine throughout the land.” To the Jews in this period, “the land” is a euphemism for Israel. There was apparently a famine in the Palestinian region, and Paul had compassion on the saints there. Giving the money to the elders in Jerusalem seems to be little more than a means of fascillitating the monies getting to the people in a manner that avoided waste and corruption.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Thanks, Tom.
That 1 Cor. 9:14 passage is a hard one to explain for me and I have never felt like my explanation of “practice what you preach” has been adequate.
If I cold just think aloud for a bit …
… what seems to happen SO often when we talk about the gospel and compensation for workers of the gospel, is our tendency as a fallen people to mix 2 systems of economy - God’s system which is “freely give” and the worlds system which is “buy and sell”. We know from Revelation 18 that the system of “buy and sell” is doomed and so it seems clear that the Father is wooing us out of that system and wholly into His system.
How can the worlds system of buy/sell/wages be compatible with God’s truth wherein is it written that He owns everything? (Psalms 24:1, Job 41:11)? If He owns everything, who are we then to afix a price/fee to the gospel which He owns? Is that not a profane idea?
The whole idea of affixing monetary value to goods and services is rooted in the worlds system of “unequal weights and measures” - a system which God finds altogether disgusting (Proverbs 20:10 and Proverbs 20:23). Realistically, what makes the lawyers time or the doctors time any more valuable than a public school teacher? All of us are given just 80 years to live - yet this culture has taught us a system of unequal measure whereby we habitually assign importance to one another by the jobs we do, the gifts we have, ALL of which are ultimately rooted in the grace and provision of God.
What makes Frank worthy of (presumably) a 6 figure income for pastoring CBC, while a missionary in a 3rd world country makes due with the clothes on his back while living in a mud hut? Is the gospel worth more in Portland than in Ethiopia?
I think the Father has intentionally required us to leave our worldly system of economy behind and embrace fully His system where we operate in the knowledge that EVERYTHING is His, given freely.
To begin equating the distribution of the gospel with a worldly task deserving of a monetary wage is to mix the 2 systems of economy, thereby treating the gospel as a commodity to which we affix a fleshly value.
How many parables are there about the vineyard for example, whereby the owner of the vineyard goes away, leaving the care for it in the hands of his servants? When the owner returns, the servants try to assert ownership, by killing the owners messengers (prophets) and son, but in the end, the owner retains ownership and the tenants are ousted …
We own nothing. How then can we affix a price to the gospel let alone sell it as if we owned it?
There is nothing you can give to regain your life. (Mark 8:37 GNB)
The LORD says, “Come, everyone who is thirsty— here is water! Come, you that have no money— buy grain and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk— it will cost you nothing! (Isaiah 55:1 GNB)
Tom, I wonder how differently we would look at the gospel, if we could be delivered from our worldly thinking and wholly embrace God’s vision for the gospel?
On the one end of human time, we have Eden - God’s provision for mankind - our needs just food, drink, a place to sleep, and companionship with God and one another … on the other end of the time-line - Revelation - the New Jerusalem - where once again our most basic needs are met and we are with God and each other … everything in between Eden and New Jerusalem is simply crap … man’s perverse corruption of God’s creation - or lame attempt to translate spiritual truth and the will of God into a carnal / selfish world. Do we pervert the gospel by worldly ways (buy and sell), or treat the gospel by God’s system (give freely)?
For certain it is a difficult subject …
Jack
March 29th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Jack,
I hear you for sure!
I can see no evidence of the apostles encouraging ministers to “afix a price/wage” to anything they did. But, I can see the Father saying to His kids, “Look, Jack is willing to give everything I have given him away, completely free…no charge, zip zingo, nada…however, I need him to be available to Me for various services to the body, and to free him for this I’d like for you to bless him with - money, or food, or clothes, or a plane ticket, etc., in other words, whatever I tell you he needs or I want him to have. Secondly, when you bless Jack, you directly honor Me, because I am the source for what Jack shares with you. I know, when you give away the natural things you have received from Me, to those whom I direct you, you are giving up a portion of your life, and this blesses me, as well as encourages my servant.”
I suspect this is the logic. I.e. honoring God and His servant, and resourcing His servant for another day’s ministry.
We live in a natural world, with natural needs, and God blesses His people with resources so they can bless others. It just works this way. We give all we have away “free of charge,” and God is then able to encourage the saints to “bless in return” whatever He tells them to. It is not so much a matter of afixing a dollar amount to the ministry received, but rather, a moment by moment walk with the Spirit, Who knows exactly what the minister needs and what He wants him to receive. In this way, it is all about Jesus, guiding His Church, and never about a set salary for any ministers.
Someone will come back with, “What if God wants a minister to have a set salary…wouldn’t that be good thing if it was God who called for it?” In theory I would say “yes” to this, but in practice I guess I doubt, given the abuses of this approach that have taken place over the centuries, that He would actually direct such a thing to take place. I couldn’t say He never would, because that would presume I knew exactly what God would do at any given point, but I will say I highly doubt it.
As I said before, even if God directs one of His people to regularly bless a minister of the Gospel, that minister would never want to expect it, and would always want to hold it lightly before the Lord. His trust is not in man’s provision, but in the Lord’s.
I think the body has much relearning to do in this area. As we come out of the systems approach to these things, let us be led by His Spirit into new patterns that more accurately reflect His heart and way. That’s my heart’s cry…
March 29th, 2007 at 10:19 am
The last church I regularly attended, the pastor counts his salary as the church giving to missions…. This is part of his “letter” in the last monthly newsletter…
Celebrating Missions
The 2007 Annual Business Meeting is now history. Once again the members of ******* Church gathered to receive a report on our collective ministry. The presenters were entertaining and challenging, our report booklet was the best we’ve ever produced and, I think, those attending would agree we had a good spirit of unity.
One of the great questions asked, “What have we given to missions?” has continued as my meditation. Think with me a few minutes. The best answer will go beyond an expenditure line.
We supported 58 missionaries and projects around the world to the amount of $274,344 – that’s what we gave to missions. Another gift to missions includes $13,086 to Light for the Lost, Boys and Girls Missionary Crusade, and Speed the Light. We should probably count the money spent to disciple these students in our program ministries ($65,738).
Would it be okay to count the $10,936 given to special people needs… rent, electric bills, etc.? Helping people seems like it would fall in the category of missions. On that topic, the primary objective of BridgeTown Ministry is to serve the needs of hurting people in Portland and challenge the church at large to do the same. We could think of this as missions. If so, that’s another $146,555.
Our young school, The ****** School, spends the week teaching 51 students and touching 40 families in a context that demonstrates the life of God. If we wanted to, we could see that $117,453 as a gift to missions.
Can we add the *****? It takes pastor/spouse couples away for R&R and seeks to speak to them (encourage them) about their lives and ministry. It has been said the average pastor’s career touches 10,000 lives. This might be considered missions, adding $49,205.
Our pastoral team spends the majority of their time teaching, preaching, and discipling … the same kinds of things done by our overseas missionaries. That should probably add $262,962 to our missions giving.
I’m also confident the people working in our offices and on our campuses think they are doing something in the Lord’s mission ($276,877) and paying for (and operating) the facilities themselves could be missions ($248,812).
March 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Thanks for the explanation; If someone could think of some way to use what I just posted to do just that, it would be fine with me. I have my plate too full right now taking on Christian Zionism (per Mike Bickle) in the local church I attend to do anything else right now; and, I need to get back to my book against the mandatory tithe…later, I am thinking of a booklet to the effect of, Exposing the Senior Pastor Cult: How Christians Can Re-claim their Local Churches: a Step-by-Step Guide.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Step 1: (In your best Donald Trump voice) “YOU’RE FIRED”!
;)
March 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
David said: 20/20 recently exposed certain ministries for not being transparent about their finances, e.g., Paul & Jan Crouch (TBN), Benny Hinn, Kim Clement, etc.
Correction: It was kindly pointed out to me recently that Kim Clement was not cited in the 20/20 program as I first said he was. I apologize for mentioning Kim Clement on hearsay from a friend rather than first doublechecking my sources. I intended no harm toward Kim. Please accept my sincere apologies for this error.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Technically, they did show his face briefly as well as the TBN crew etc. And on the site cited, he’s given an “F”. I wouldn’t say this is an error, so much as they didn’t say his name, only showed his face.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
WTFWJD: Thanks for that clarification! -DM
StopBuildingTheirKingdoms: I thought you might be interested in knowing that another website criticized you and me about our comments, etc. on Coping with Greed.” I just posted my response to them on their site.
Here’s the link: http://www.openfish.org/2007/03/coping_with_gre.html#comment-64931632
March 30th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Jack and Tom: You bring up some very excellent points; here are a few comments (in a rough format because of time):
Re: why “meat” and then “wage”? This would need an in-depth word study to see if the use of two or more different words in these contexts really is significant; it may not really be since the peasant class in Mediterranean societies lived only on a subsistence level and most of their trading was in-kind; they did not have the money in savings (treasure boxes), debt notes or rent/lease notes that the elite had to make their higher incomes; I’m not saying that coinage was not used in the first century, but I have just learned that it was not as widely used by the peasant class as one might imagine; the peasant economy of the first century was not comparable to the free flow of cash money in the American economy
Re: why did Paul collect money from Galatia to give to Jerusalem; was it because of the growing hierarchy there? Was Paul “padding” James? I feel that Paul collected an offering from the gentiles for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem for a combination of reasons (1) to help poor brothers and sisters in Christ (2) to communicate good will to the Jerusalem elders with whom he had some strong conflicts over the Gospel (3) to bond the Body of Christ – a believing community made up of Jews and non-Jews; Paul says that when the times comes that the non-Jews need financial help, that the Jewish Christians should supply their needs in the same way that they are receiving the help from their non-Jewish brothers and sisters; Paul described this as the presence of “equality” in the church (2 Cor 8-9); I wish we had more of it today between the churches!
Was this the beginning of a hierarchical, centralized church tax? Some have surmised this, but, from my knowledge, there is no evidence to support the idea that Paul was consciously trying to place Jerusalem as the centralized center of Christianity; the NT shows us that he had too many power struggles with them to be doing such a thing; also, there is no evidence that the “collection of the saints” was an ongoing support to James and the elders in the holy city; from the NT anyway, it was only a one-time voluntary offering; even the verse that talks about the offering being taken up weekly does not apply to weekly offerings in the modern sense! This was Paul asking the Corinthians to take up different offerings for this “collection of the saints” in Jerusalem so that when he arrived in Corinth, he would not be accused of being a money-grubber; he distanced himself as much as possible for appearing as a religious fund-raiser…
Does “live of the gospel” mean financially or more literally, practice what you preach? When we look at the entire context of I Cor. 9, I do not feel that we can spiritualize the chapter; it is talking about the practical and financial “rights” of an apostle to travel with a wife, to cease from regular labor at times (v 6), to receive offerings (vs. 7-12), etc. I find that over-spiritualization is sometimes used as a defense technique when people either do not know what a verse means or want to find a way to make it mean what they want it to say instead; Paul, however, said that with the Corinthians, he has forgone his rights as an apostle because of his special, and often tumultuous, relationship with these – some of his own spiritual kids
Esp. I Cor 9:14 = living by example here, too? No, I think that v. 14 is talking about material support and lifestyle; there is no need to spiritualize it
I Cor 9: was it just food and shelter in those days for the minister? For me, this would take more study; the book I’m reading right now may give me the information that we need (The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century by E. W. and W. Stegemann)
I Cor 9: “the false apostles and circumcisers have been preaching for money” therefore, you get only food as the basics and no more? I’m not sure whether Paul ever accused the Jerusalem elders of greed, he may have if they were the “super apostles” he goes after in Corinthians, but I do know that he did accuse other ministers of it; it was common for teachers, rabbis and sages to ask for financial support from their students in those days and, I think, from others; Paul is getting at the motive – and maybe the lifestyle, too.
How can some ministers insist on pay when Paul says he does not ask the Corinthians for pay? He did this because he was the father/founder of the church and had a very close and intimate relationship them; they were his own spiritual children; that is why he was able to say that only he was their “spiritual father” and not just another “instructor or teacher.” it would be somewhat like my situation in the natural: since my divorce, my kids and I have had an up and down sort of relationship; the most important thing to me is that this relationship be fully reconciled and restored; in order to do that, I am willing to forego certain rights as a father in order to restore the relationship; I think that hints at what Paul is talking here about his fragile relationship with his dear spiritual children; Paul did receive offerings from his other churches e.g., when he said “I robbed other churches that I might serve you!” Philippians talks about such offerings; so receive offerings was not considered inherently evil with Paul; but the question of “standard of living” is worth much discussion, isn’t’ it?
Why did Paul do purification rites in temple? It may have been in a moment of weakness when he was trying so hard to “reconcile” with the Jerusalem elders; he may have been operating, like I think tom said on the principle of “becoming a Jew to win a Jew” or he might have seen himself at a moment that would have brought on some social upheaval if he had not “proved” himself at one with the Jerusalem elders; the worst thing for the gospel in those early days was social unrest; Herod’s no. 1 priority from Caesar was to “keep the peace…”
Re: having a problem with fixing a price for the gospel because we own nothing. Right on; the NT agrees: “we have brought nothing into the world and we will carry nothing out, let us, therefore, be content” – one of my future projects is to join others in the public publishing of all the material assets, e.g., house values, etc., of certain questionable ministers so that the people can actually see for themselves what they are giving their hard-earned money to support; also to make a list of what certain popular ministries charge as a MINIMUM to make an appearance…
Why should Frank get paid more money than a missionary overseas? Good question; He gets paid over $200,000 a year just in salary alone because he can; it’s the spiritual version of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware! The mentality is one of the free market. I remember what Frank told me when I was in Eugene, OR with him before he took over Bible Temple/City Bible re: when a lady asked him why he got paid so much more than the people in the congregation earned at their jobs: He said, “I WAS THE ONE WHO TOOK THE RISK IN COMING DOWN HERE TO EUGENE TO PLANT A CHURCH!” (No, he did not yell at me, but you be the judge of what might be behind those words…)
Independent churches and ministries, as I understand them generally, are not subject to denominational controls or regulations; if their boards are comprised of Yes Men, then, that’s the way it is unfortunately; by the way, I recently learned that the SDA denomination pays each of their pastors the SAME salary no matter how large their congregations are! Wow! That would sure sort out a lot of corrupt things, wouldn’t it?
I like what Jesus says to his disciples after they had been living by faith for a while instead of depending on their fishing and tax-collecting occupations: “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered” (Luke 22:35).
March 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Please note that while this blog is about the mother church/or ship it has attracted many from all the subsidiaries or franchises such as
Church of the Harvest — Capital Christian Center of all the City churches out there.
What happened at CBC never fails to amaze us because it is identical to
what we went through at the various locations proving this mentality has got to be challenged.
It is a rare American pastor who can dodge the temptation to build
a mini-kingdom in this top-down vs. side by side style of ministy.
Christianity Today discusses this very topic this month or maybe last, using Chuck Smith as the topic but it could be any where esp. CBC. It started out on great ground but
as some of their pastors state ‘we need a new model to follow’ –success can be harder to handle than failure many times.
Is it success? Only the Lord can tell the mega church these days.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I can understand why some churches don’t display all their money things though. I go to a church where the church votes on people to do the money issues. I used to go to a church where everyone voted on the budget, the problem there was the youth wanted more money and so did the senior adult programs. That church was crazy cause everyone wanted to always have the most money for their ministry. I think its okay to not know where every single dollar goes as long as you can get the per ministry breakdown and trust the people in charge, its the second one thats hard!
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Boy, doesn’t that sound like the government. Everybody after the bucks for their projects.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Ken Storey said: I think its okay to not know where every single dollar goes as long as you can get the per ministry breakdown and trust the people in charge…
Ken: Your point of haggling is well taken. Christians can be just as immature as non-Christians (sometimes even more!) when it comes to money matters. Your logic, however, reminds me of C. Peter Wagner’s defense of his former pastor, Ted Haggard. whose church structure, before his immorality and hypocrisy was publicly exposed, was that of the Pastor-king. According to one of Wagner’s books, Ted chose all of the board and, essentially, handled all of the money with his hand-picked few.
Ted told his congregation that this kind of structure, where he was “accountable” to other senior pastors and national ministries outside of Life Church instead of his peer elders and congregation, was a “hassle-free” system of church government for the people! In essence, he was saying, “Settle back. relax and just leave the driving to me!” This “Just trust the leadership” philosophy is one of the biggest mistakes that local churches make. Trust is earned and should be able to be concretely demonstrated with a solvent and sensible monthly balance sheet that does not allow a senior pastor to be the one getting the lion’s share.
The answer to preventing people from haggling over their church’s money is not necessarily to trust a senior pastor to handle all of the money. Most local churches allow a congegationally-approved board to handle the day-to-day money matters. We attended a church for awhile in which the pastor had to be out of the pulpit and off of the platform whenever money was talked about! Part of the answer here is to teach the people how to “prefer one another,” how to communicate with kindness and patience and understand each others’ feelings and needs, and how to learn what Jesus meant when he says, “It’s better to give than to receive.” Of course, this is the narrow way.
If we refuse to take the difficult road of all of us learning how to be better Christians and stewards, then we will end up like Life Church, which, apparently, was more than willing to be relieved of personal responsibility when they, in essence, said, “Give us a pastor-king like Caesar!”
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
David,
I appreciate your continual “hope” approach for the “Church as a business” model, and pastoral staff positions, replete with predictable salaries…but…why have that approach?
As you know, I’ve spent 40 years involved in ministry in one sort or another, and I have come to the conclusion, when Jesus and the apostles in no way defined ministry as a “business” or ministers receiving “salaries,” they did this INTENTIONALLY rather than as an oversight of the good things that would one day develop in systems religion.
It mystifies me, how all of us “seem” to hear so many different things in Jesus. It makes me feel like He might just be suffering from schizophrenia. Obviously I’m sure He isn’t, but how to account for one minister hearing “ministry is not a business, no salaries, no staff positions, no titles, no Church buildings, no Church mortgages, no pastoral agendas, no hierarchical leadership, etc. etc.” and another hearing “Go for it My son…build that building, hire more staff, increase your salary…after all…you’re a King’s kid…lead that Church with an iron fist…you’re the man…etc. etc.” It is very hard for me to look up to Jesus and imagine that we are all walking in “agreement” with Him.
I know you don’t buy into some of those things, but it seems to me, if we hang on to some of the system, while we dump a small portion of it, we might just as well go back into the old systems approach entirely. One foot in and one foot out seems so cross purposed with a committed disciples profile. It smacks of taking up my cross, put then sticking it on a chain around my neck instead of being crucified on it.
So what explains such desparity of approaches? Being at different places in Him? Perhaps. Timing? Perhaps.
I don’t really know, but I know I respect you and the things you believe, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Do away with balance sheets, do away with Church as a business. Fire all the staff, get rid of the titles, and just let the whole thing be simple. Obviously this can’t be done over night, in most institutional churches, but at least move in that direction, not pausing for the flesh, and get rid of the old leaven, that we may actually become one new lump in Him.
Just one man’s rant…
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Tom Sparks said: I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one…
Tom: From my perspective, just because I share my two cents about the IC on this blog, I would not want anyone automatically to conclude that I am all pro-IC and thus always trying to give “hope” to such a system; it is true that I presently attend an IC; i have to honestly say that before that my wife and i were traveling to different IC’s as we felt led of the Spirit (discerning needs, interceding, asking questions, confronting, and giving away Transform-Nations videotapes to pastors).
Eventually, I felt that I had to land somewhere and get a “church home” - if you would - for two reasons: (1) i did not feel that i wanted to start a house church in our home (which may show some areas of need or selfishness on my part) (2) because my wife longed to have one church where she could begin making friends.
We chose to attend Calvary Temple because the people were real and the pastor was not into building a kingdom for himself and had an open microphone on Sunday mornings at which we shared the very first Sunday we came without him even knowing us! At present, I am writing up a paper questioning the pastor’s dispensationalism and “Christian Zionism.” If God wants me to correct something in his theology, then I am at the right place at the right time. If I was not here, and God still wanted to confront part of this pastor’s theology, then he would have to use someone else. (I recall that Paul regularly used the synagogues of his day as his evangelistic springboards into cities.)
I feel uncomfortable drawing a hard line in the sand on the blog on such matters because so many Christians are still in the IC. Yes, many are leaving, but many are staying. My intention is to give them information, from my limited perspective, that they can take into their local assemblies as positive leaven. Sure, if one thinks that everything from beginning to end about the IC is of “Babylon,” then one would probably have to conclude that I was trying to “polish brass on a sinking ship,” but I am trying to reach and dialogue with the people of God; the people are my focus. I do not equate the IC with Babylon in the sense of accusing the people who attend it as not knowing God (which you, if I understand you correctly, do not either).
Even though I plan on writing specifically against the IC in the future, even while I write, I will proabably visit. I feel the need to feel the atmosphere of what the Lord is doing both in the IC as well as outside of the IC. What comes to mind is Jesus teaching inside as well as outside of the IC of his day: the Jerusalem temple.
I guess my attitude toward the IC right now, and I don’t claim that it is coming directly from the Spirit of God, is one of accommodation. Like we have talked about the problem with biblical inerrantists: they do not allow the Bible to include the fact of God actually accommodating his revelation (the theology) to the science of the times, the popular thoughts of the day, even, at times, using pagan concepts and perceptions, to call a people to walk with him. In this sense, I do not want God’s people to think that I am condemning them if they still feel comfortable attending yet another form of divine accommodation.
I can’t really speak to this much more deeply, because inside of my heart, the issue of the IC is not a dividing issue with me right now but one about which I do, and will continue, to voice my concerns. I think that I’m where God wants me to be right now (hopefully being salt and light).
I want to live my life as one living in the freedom of the Spirit: free to go to intimate gatherings of disciples on the slopes of the “Mount of Olives” - but also free to go to the “Temple” - in order to minister to his lambs, and, maybe, at the same time, to turn over the tables of a few money-changers.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 am
David, you know me…I respect everything you are about, so I trust my words are not and will not be taken to construe disrespect for you. You are a man “led of God.” Of that I am sure…
However, and maybe I’m wrong in this, but when I read Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5, I’m drawn to different conclusions regarding involvement in the IC, than I hear in so many.
A couple of comments are needed, by way of interpertation. I’m aware Paul is saying this, as regards the young man having sexual relations with his father’s wife (assumed to be his step mother), and thus Paul is dealing with a hugely serious issue, yet, it seems reasonable to conclude Paul would not limit such a statement to such issues as this. As such, when we become aware of leaven it seems clear we are called to do whatever is necessary to remove it from the midst of Jesus’ Church. In this regard I believe the IC approach, and systems religion, qualifies as just such a leaven, and therefore removal is needed.
As for your comments about Jesus and Paul having involvement in the temple and synagogue, I think this approach is not a one for one comparison. Jesus was there, not in any agreement with their approach to His kingdom, and was prophesying of the complete destruction of the then standing temple, under the reign of Titus of Rome. It seems He was there, not in agreement with their practices, but as one clearly opposing their practices. He doesn’t appear to be putting any bandaids on their system, but was calling the entire system to repent, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and to be prepared to be called out of the kingdoms of man and into the kingdom of the son.
Listen to Jesus, as regards hope for “fixing the systems house,”:
Paul, once again, does not seem in any way supportive of the synagogue system of religion, but is there for one reason only…to call men and women to salvation in Yeshua their Messiah. When they rejected Him then he left their midst and helped establish small home fellowships, for the followers of Christ to draw near to Him and away from systems religion. I don’t see him attempting to fix the synagogue approach at all. I see him leaving it.
Acts 18: 5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus , one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
I’m probably wrong on this, but I firmly believe, if you or anyone, were to attempt to expose to any given pastor’s congregation, the religious systems errors of their approach to “Jesus’ Church,” they would throw you out too. As long as we soft pedal their errors, don’t confront them, and certainly don’t confront them publicly before their congregation, we will be tolerated, but the very moment we do otherwise…well…just as Samaritan…we’ll be thrown out on our ear.
Sooo, is there a place for missionary activity in these systems churches? Perhaps, but we should be prepared…if we speak up regarding the errors of systems, to be tossed out, villified, and despised.
I’m not saying there is no place for this kind of ministry, but one would certainly want to go into it with their eyes wide open. You may be the man for it. I don’t have a stomach for it. I’ve been tossed out of 4 churches in my life time…one, due to my own immature errors, and 3, due to standing for NT principles that the pastors didn’t want to walk in. I’d go back and do it again if I knew He was leading me to, but I wouldn’t do it with a “let me fix you up a bit” approach. They would know a prophet was in their midst, and they would not be happy about it.
I know some here, will say…well Tom, you are just rude, and that’s just arrogance on your part…you should be nicer to them, and respect they don’t see some of the things the Lord has shown you.” And for those who are truly “ignorant” I would want to be gentle and patient with, but when you see Paul and Jesus deliver the clear truth, and then those who opposed it, didn’t just respectfully disagree with him…they tossed him out, I’m inclined to think there are times for gentle patience and graciousness, and there are times for stern reproof.
I stand in reproof of the CBCs of this world. I suspect Jesus has actually come to each of the pastors of these places and said something of the following, “Why are you persecuting me?” Just like He came to Paul. They may be puzzled by this Word to them, and be certain it was the devil who said it to them, but when we stand before His throne, and must give an account for the Words He brought to us, that we called “of the devil,” we may be quite surprised.
Fortunately Jesus is loving, gracious, and forgiving for all of us, and the error we embrace, but God help us to respond to His Word when it comes, lest we end up experiencing:
Look, I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone here. I think we all hear the Lord on different levels, and of course, that is confusing to all of us. We know Jesus is gracious, tolerant, and forgiving, and for that we are all grateful, but this matter of a Church gone bad is such a serious matter, that it seems likely He will call some, like myself, to challenge it to the core, and perhaps some, like yourself, to take a different approach to confrontation. In the end, we are each accountable to Him, to follow Him to the best of our understanding. I respect your walk in Him, and yet I have candidly shared mine here too. Let each man be convinced in his own heart, for none of us lives to himself, but each man lives unto the Lord.
April 4th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Tom and David,
This Sunday, I will be visiting my mother in law, where my wife and I will attend the “Easter” Sunday service at mom’s church with the rest of our family. Karen and I have long been called out of the IC, while the rest of our family remains. There have been so many times where Karen and I have had highly emotional discussions about attending mom’s church. On the one hand, it’s about like attending a funeral for us, on the other, the people we love are there.
Would that someday we could all just sit down to the table, break bread and share the portion of Christ that is in each other, without the need for a religious institution in the middle of our fellowship. But until then, we’ll go with them and pray for the day they hear and heed the call to come out.
April 4th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Sam, can we get a running diary of the sermon? I’d love to hear about it.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I hear you Sam.
We do not have the luxury of doing what makes us feel the most comfortable. As disciples we are called to take up our crosses and follow Him. If such following leads us into places we know He is coming out of, then so be it.
Hopefully our times in such places will become opportunities to show forth His grace and love, and if tears of sorrow for Jesus’ displacement come, and others wonder why we cry, perhaps God will grant the grace to share the burden we carry for His gathered body to draw near to Him, and not the agendas of man.
My last visit was a deep journey into heartache for those attending. I was practically overwhelmed by it, since it had been well over a year since I had been in such places. As one ritual of man after another consumed the time together, my heart cried out from within for us to just stop, listen, invite Him to be the Lord of our gathering, and wait for Him to manifest throughout His body, but alas, man’s agenda prevailed. I caught a glimpse of Him, here and there, out of my peripheral spiritual vision, and went home sad and hungry.
I suspect you will sense similar things. I will pray for His grace to strengthen you.
Our hearts long for gathering just to Him. We hunger for the bread that comes down out of heaven, and feeds our hungry hearts. We desire to see Jesus, to hear Jesus, and embrace that which He would share, but so often we just experience a canned and choreographed imitation of what could otherwise be a wonderful time in His presence.
When Jesus walked through the temple, that fateful day of over turning tables, some just saw an angry young man, others saw the passion of God’s heart for His people to draw near to Him, and not be distracted by all the religious accouterments. Why can’t we simply come to a place, like Mary, of saying to everyone else around us, “Look friends, I haven’t come here to eat natural food. I haven’t come to be entertained. I haven’t come to hear what you have to say “about” Him. I’ve come to look into His eyes, listen to His voice, be enraptured by His love. Please don’t distract me from Him. Please don’t expect me to want your schtick when His glorious reality is available to me. I didn’t come here, first and foremost, to watch you perform, I came to see Jesus.”?
Sam, I’m convinced the body is being called to require this of the fellowships they gather in. I’m convinced we are not so much called to be tolerant of those who obscure Jesus, behind layers of religious traditions, as we are called to encourage them towards that which their hearts most long for.
In our gatherings, when I become “too religious,” or it becomes too much about my ideas, or I dominate, or I say things that lead our fellowship off course and out of His presence, I have trained those I gather with to stop me, respectfully remind me it’s becoming about me, and help me remember they came to see Jesus, not Tom’s opinions, Tom’s doctrines, Tom’s emphasis, etc. I’m so deeply grateful when this happens. Otherwise, the fellowship ends, I lay in my bed before drifting off to sleep, hurting for having distracted the fellowship from Jesus, and knowing we’ve just missed the greatest blessing we can experience in gathering, just because I pushed Jesus aside for my agenda.
These things are hard for us in our gatherings. Man is so prone to rob Him of His place. It this that causes the greatest grief. It is this we must contend to be put away, so that He becomes our all in all when we gather.
Sam, I’m sooo passionate about these things. Sometimes I feel like my heart will explode with desire for this in His body. He is sooo accessible, and yet sooo much other “stuff” occupies our time when we gather. What a waste…what a waste…
Can’t you just see Mary sitting there, waiting, anticipating, longing, for each morsel of life that would proceed from His heart? Nobody was going to distract her. Jesus was there… When you attend this Sunday, I encourage you stand up in the midst of the congregation, raise your hand, then simply say “Brethren, listen…He is here…listen, can you hear Him? He has come to meet with us. When you hear Him speak to your heart just quietly stand, wait to be acknowledged, and without embelleshing on what He tells you, just share with us what you hear…” Then sit back down…and be prepared to be drug out by the ushers for disrupting “their” service.
Enjoy yourself!
April 4th, 2007 at 7:40 am
RP - a couple years ago, during the children’s sermon, the pastor dragged out some plastic easter eggs, in which there were little Jesus’s (hmmm … how do you spell “Jesuses”?)
So I’m sure there are little kids who must think the easter bunny brought baby Jesus in an easter egg.
Another year, the minister preached the Presbyterian HQ recommended sermon concerning capital punishment when then execution of Timothy McVeigh was imminent - that was the Mother’s day sermon that year - the tie in was “Someone is Timothy McVeigh’s mother” …
It’s always a great message, RP. I’ll post it up if it’s blog-worthy.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Sam wrote: Easter eggs…
Sam, Tom, etc: I just read an advertisement of a church that has “the largest Easter Egg Hunt” in their area. They hide 15,000 eggs! Wow! Would not those eggs be put to better use, however, by making an omelette breakfast for the homeless? Indeed! - but then certain people would not like that because it would mean one less IC activity that would keep their kids occupied - and out of their hair!
Avoiding a Sectarian Spirit:
As I reflect upon being in the IC and coming out of the IC, one of my concerns with coming out and taking such a black and white stand against the IC is fostering a spirit of sectarianism. Obviously, the IC is built on the sectarian spirit; the selling of their “distinctives” and “benefits” to the local community is how they survive. But, when Paul criticized the Corinthians for such a spirit by identifying the Christian celebrities that the people were tending to follow instead of Christ himself (”I am of Peter,” “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,”), he also identified a sectarian party spirit called, “I am of Christ”. Although probably addressing the super elitist pneumatics in the assembly, taking the principle here of no celebrity being the focus as in most IC’s, how do we avoid the “I am of Christ” spirit when coming out, and, for all intents and purposes, condemning the IC altogether?
April 4th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Excellent question David…
I can only give the answer that Paul gave:
Here is the statement to which you refer…
Then Paul takes it up again, and gives the answer to your question…
So what does he appear to say is the answer to sectarian thinking? Simply, that neither the IC nor non IC is anything but God must be all things.
One is a worker in the field (IC and non IC), one is the field (the body of Christ) the other (God) is the owner of the field. All of the workers are to understand their role is not to decide which worker is the most pre-eminent worker, but that the field - the body of Christ - is the focus, as those who are relating to that field as belonging to God, as being His building.
It isn’t so much a pitting the IC folks or institutions against the non IC folks and their lack of institutions. It isn’t about IC versus house church. It is that God’s field must be worked with in agreement and as unto the Lord of the harvest, the Owner of the field, the master architect of the building. If we treat the field as if it were our own, and not His, then we are prone to mistreat it. If He is kept in focus, as the owner, then we work that field on His behalf and by His methods.
If we make Jesus just another “thing” we are “into,” and not the sum of all things, then we become sectarian. Paul is not questioning the centrality of Christ, because he says…
We are not to be followers of some “Christ thing,” but Christ Himself. Jesus cannot be divided. It is either all about Him, or it is just a Jesus schtick.
This has been my point…at least I want this to have been my point. We are not to use Jesus to accomplish our agenda. We aren’t to rubber stamp His name on our fleshly activities. We aren’t to declare “this is all about Jesus,” when in reality it smacks of our own plan and idea for His Church.
The fires of His judgement will one day reveal whether we were doing our thing and tacking His name on it, or if it was truly all about Him.
I agree with you, that we don’t want to be promoting a sectarian divide on this blog, between the “Jesus purists,” and the “ICers.” If this is what is happening then we are surely off base.
It is these things I believe we must continually bring before Him, continually embrace our crosses over, be willing and desireous of dieing to. If all we are doing with our lives is beating the IC and not actually building on Him, then we are only tearing down His building, and leaving a rubble behind us. Such would be a very serious thing indeed.
Pray for me that this not be the case with me. It is the last thing I would ever want to happen, but I’m aware my heart is as Jeremiah said of it, “deceitful and desperately evil…who can know it?” Only God can know this of any of us.
I don’t want to be connected with any movements, any camp, any “idea”, or any agenda of man. If our lives are not in Him, of Him, through Him, and to Him, then our lives have been lived in vain.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:53 am
David, you have put in words the question/issue I’ve struggled with for years. I’ve found that a hard-line position with my family only creates strife/heartache with them which naturally creates a closed spirit in them in terms of receiving anything I have to say concerning Christ. There is a sense in which “to love mom is to love her church” or at least accept it. If however I just knuckle under and attend the church with her, I feel as if somehow I’m turning my back on the Father, or at least on the revelation the Father has given me.
Tom suggests I stand and make a statement and rightly discerns my prompt expulsion from their meeting. It would also create tremendous heartache for my wife whom I would effectively be putting between me and her family.
In the larger theatre, the world is really no different than the IC, at least in terms of error and who is the reigning prince. In as much as the IC imitates the ways of the world, why is it that we are so repulsed by the IC, refusing even to enter into a service, but seemingly have no similar repulsion to the world? I am reluctant to admit the difference is spiritual pride.
Not that I am making an argument to go into the IC all the time, for indeed we are called out of the old ways (the temple system) and into the new way (following the Spirit). But I think we can go in and out at the leading of the Lord (John 10), and where there are unclean things in there, I do believe we can handle them without harm.
One of my struggles for example, is whether I sing or take any other active part in a religious service. In the past, Karen and I were often asked to sing, typically a time of ’special music’, right before or during the offering. So there is a sense in which my participation signified my approval of the goings on, which gave me a fit of conscience, especially where my revelation was the tithe doctrine is in error, and the preacher was calling for tithes and offerings while we are singing.
So I had to leave it for a time, maybe for good, while the Lord dealt with me. Sometimes I think the Lord is trying to tell me about such things that I am thinking too much - that the goings on at such places or the teaching(s) of the pastor are really their responsibilities, not mine. That my presence there to sing is just that: to sing. And where it is the voice of the Lord who is calling people out, is it any surprise that He would send some of us back in with that same message, if indeed we are mouthpieces of the Lord?
It is difficult to work it all out however. Ultimately, the hardest lesson for me is that I am powerless to open blind eyes and stopped up ears and no amount to my vain attempts to make people see and hear will work. Only the Lord can do that, and so all I can do is pray, hope and wait. I lon