Let's play a game of "What if?" Assume your local church has in excess of $25,000 in savings. What would you do in each true-life scenario?
Scenario 1 – The current building does not suit the current needs. The facility does not accommodate physically disabled individuals and Sunday School area is tight.
Scenario 2 – The current building is bursting at the seams because of numerical growth. Soon people may need to be turned away. Nursery and Sunday School areas are tight. Adding onto the current building is impossible because of local ordinances.
You are probably thinking to yourself that plans need to be started to move into a new facility in order to allow unfettered growth and ministry. The main question now is whether to expand and upgrade, or simply build new. Difficult decisions must be made. And there is one bit of information common to both churches that may have a bearing on the final decision: they have individuals and families that are financially strapped because of job loss or reduction. Does that bear weight on the outcome? Should it?
Let me begin by saying that if you did not consider the financial state of the congregants, you are typical. When faced with the dilemma of space issues, most would expand the facilities or build new without consideration of the poor among them. That is simply the state of evangelicalism. Is it proper? I contend it is not. Why does the church spend money on a building and not ease life for any who fellowship in their midst? Why give money freely to full-time workers and ministries, yet build roadblocks for helping the needy? Why is there a large budget for children and youth programs, yet a mere pittance for benevolence? A survey of scripture yields multiple occurrences of commands, encouragements, and admonitions to care for those who deserve it because of their circumstances. The treatment of widows and orphans especially was used by the Lord as justification for holy, righteous retribution. My concern is for those who are currently under- or unemployed. Should not the local church care for its own? It was certainly true of Israel as Moses delivers the Lord's instructions.
The first command dealt with a triennial occurrence of the tithe (Deut 14:22-29). This tithe was maintained in the local city (rather than traveling to the tabernacle/temple) to assist "the Levite...and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow." While the Levites also received of the annual tithe, the others did not but relied on individuals for daily assistance (Lev 19:9-10). All that came would be filled and blessed—both giver and recipient.
The second found culmination in the sabbath year (Deut 15:1-11). Any loans between brethren were considered paid in full in the seventh year. Americans might look at this of a prime way to use the system to advantage by obtaining a loan and deliberately defaulting. While that is possible, one must remember that Israel was not a credit-driven economy. It was cash- or goods-driven. The stigma of debt was great, because no Israelite should suffer as long as he or she was obedient to the Lord's commands (Deut 15:4-5). Conversely, if the creditor sought to take advantage by not loaning because the sabbath year, Moses explains that such hardening of heart should not be, since the Lord has promised to bless abundantly. The defaulted loan will be recouped.
The last deals with someone who has sold himself to a fellow Israelite (Deut 15:12-18). Most likely this indentured servitude would be an arrangement to pay a large debt. Again, at the end of the seventh year, he or she was not only released from the original debt, but was to be lavished upon by the master presumably to start afresh and not return to poverty or debt. In the likelihood that the servant loves the master enough to stay permanently, a permanent mark of a pierced ear was given. The point here being that the servant had necessary care and sustenance.
But what about the church building?
What about it? Why have it in the first place? Stop and think for a moment. Every year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent building edifices in order to make a name for themselves, lest they be dispersed.1 Maintenance reaches into the thousands per year. Why incur the expense? The normal response is something like, "The church needs to meet somewhere. And how do we accommodate Sunday School and other programs without the space? Where do we put the praise band for worship?" All of these questions address a problem, but not the one expected. The real problem is that the church has moved away from scripture in its practice, to the point that real estate takes precedence over real people.
That just isn't practical. Every church needs a building. You need to be out of the elements. Besides, nobody will come if you don't.
I agree that people need to have some measure of comfort in order to gather together and worship. What is not required is an extra building being used a small percentage of the week and draining finances. And this is eminently practical. Howard Snyder once asked the question, "What would a denomination do that really wanted to become a church with New Testament dynamic?"2 He answered his own question this way:
Let us pray that the local church once again gets its priorities in correct order.
1 If that picture seems familiar, you are correct. Read Genesis 11:1-9 for a full account of what the Lord thought of those plans.
2 Howard A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1975), 23.
3 Ibid., 23-24.
Scenario 1 – The current building does not suit the current needs. The facility does not accommodate physically disabled individuals and Sunday School area is tight.
Scenario 2 – The current building is bursting at the seams because of numerical growth. Soon people may need to be turned away. Nursery and Sunday School areas are tight. Adding onto the current building is impossible because of local ordinances.
You are probably thinking to yourself that plans need to be started to move into a new facility in order to allow unfettered growth and ministry. The main question now is whether to expand and upgrade, or simply build new. Difficult decisions must be made. And there is one bit of information common to both churches that may have a bearing on the final decision: they have individuals and families that are financially strapped because of job loss or reduction. Does that bear weight on the outcome? Should it?
Let me begin by saying that if you did not consider the financial state of the congregants, you are typical. When faced with the dilemma of space issues, most would expand the facilities or build new without consideration of the poor among them. That is simply the state of evangelicalism. Is it proper? I contend it is not. Why does the church spend money on a building and not ease life for any who fellowship in their midst? Why give money freely to full-time workers and ministries, yet build roadblocks for helping the needy? Why is there a large budget for children and youth programs, yet a mere pittance for benevolence? A survey of scripture yields multiple occurrences of commands, encouragements, and admonitions to care for those who deserve it because of their circumstances. The treatment of widows and orphans especially was used by the Lord as justification for holy, righteous retribution. My concern is for those who are currently under- or unemployed. Should not the local church care for its own? It was certainly true of Israel as Moses delivers the Lord's instructions.
The first command dealt with a triennial occurrence of the tithe (Deut 14:22-29). This tithe was maintained in the local city (rather than traveling to the tabernacle/temple) to assist "the Levite...and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow." While the Levites also received of the annual tithe, the others did not but relied on individuals for daily assistance (Lev 19:9-10). All that came would be filled and blessed—both giver and recipient.
The second found culmination in the sabbath year (Deut 15:1-11). Any loans between brethren were considered paid in full in the seventh year. Americans might look at this of a prime way to use the system to advantage by obtaining a loan and deliberately defaulting. While that is possible, one must remember that Israel was not a credit-driven economy. It was cash- or goods-driven. The stigma of debt was great, because no Israelite should suffer as long as he or she was obedient to the Lord's commands (Deut 15:4-5). Conversely, if the creditor sought to take advantage by not loaning because the sabbath year, Moses explains that such hardening of heart should not be, since the Lord has promised to bless abundantly. The defaulted loan will be recouped.
The last deals with someone who has sold himself to a fellow Israelite (Deut 15:12-18). Most likely this indentured servitude would be an arrangement to pay a large debt. Again, at the end of the seventh year, he or she was not only released from the original debt, but was to be lavished upon by the master presumably to start afresh and not return to poverty or debt. In the likelihood that the servant loves the master enough to stay permanently, a permanent mark of a pierced ear was given. The point here being that the servant had necessary care and sustenance.
But what about the church building?
What about it? Why have it in the first place? Stop and think for a moment. Every year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent building edifices in order to make a name for themselves, lest they be dispersed.1 Maintenance reaches into the thousands per year. Why incur the expense? The normal response is something like, "The church needs to meet somewhere. And how do we accommodate Sunday School and other programs without the space? Where do we put the praise band for worship?" All of these questions address a problem, but not the one expected. The real problem is that the church has moved away from scripture in its practice, to the point that real estate takes precedence over real people.
That just isn't practical. Every church needs a building. You need to be out of the elements. Besides, nobody will come if you don't.
I agree that people need to have some measure of comfort in order to gather together and worship. What is not required is an extra building being used a small percentage of the week and draining finances. And this is eminently practical. Howard Snyder once asked the question, "What would a denomination do that really wanted to become a church with New Testament dynamic?"2 He answered his own question this way:
First, all church buildings are sold. The money is given (literally) to the poor. All congregations of more than two hundred members are divided in two. Store fronts, garages, or small halls are rented as needed. Sunday School promotion and most publicity is dropped.…There is no attempt to attract unbelievers to church services; these are primarily for believers, and perhaps are held at some other time than Sunday morning.3This quote involved more than was necessary to make the point, but it drives home the uncomfortable reality that 21st-century believers are too comfortable in their church life. Somebody needs to rattle the cage we call "doing church" to see what pops out. It might bite back, but some of us need to be bit. The early church did not have their own buildings for the first 250-300 years of existence, yet they turned the world upside-down. Today, churches have buildings and they are upside-down.
Let us pray that the local church once again gets its priorities in correct order.
1 If that picture seems familiar, you are correct. Read Genesis 11:1-9 for a full account of what the Lord thought of those plans.
2 Howard A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1975), 23.
3 Ibid., 23-24.
