I have been putting off reading some of the standard works for doubters of institutional Christianity but I am finally getting around to reading Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna.
Near the end of the chapter on the origins of the church building was a troubling statistic. According to the authors, Christians donate 50 to 60 billion annually to local churches which is a very big but very realistic figure. That is a huge number and according to Viola & Barna, 18% of that goes to maintaining the structures and servicing the debt on church buildings. By my estimates, 18% of 60 billion is 10.8 billion. Let me write that out for effect:
$10,800,000,000
That is a huge number. A HUGE number by any standard and even more so when you consider how infrequently the church building is occupied by anyone other than the staff. At $5 each, that would buy 2 billion Bibles. At the rate of $50,000/year, that would fully support over 200,000 missionaries. How many orphans could be clothed and fed? How many widows cared for? How many who are starving could have a hot meal?
There is vast wealth tied up in small plots of real estate, little bunkers of Christendom scattered across the landscape of America that compete with one another to get their share of that $60,000,000,000 in annual giving. Worse, it is wealth that we feel justified in accumulating and holding because by golly it is God’s house after all! We somehow think that we serve God more faithfully by building and maintaining “churches” than by caring for those who are without the basic essentials. Odd that so many churches claim to be faithful to the Word of God and yet they spend their money on things that the Bible doesn’t command (buildings that sit empty all week) and not on things it does command (caring for the poor). That is not to say that traditional churches don't care for the poor but it is an afterthought in most of them when compared to paying for the building. After all, how can you have a church without a church building to meet in?
How have we gotten so far astray that we consider a “church” building to be the cost of doing business for the Gospel? Sure we may not say it that way but everyone knows that the goal of every church plant is to get their own building to prove that they have arrived. Meeting in homes is fine for starters but you have to grow up sometime and the sign that a church is all grown up is a building and a mortgage to go along with it. We find signs of God’s favor in debt!
At your next church business meeting, take a look at the budget and figure out how much of the budget goes to paying for the building: debt service, utilities, maintenance. Ask yourself if your giving is going toward the Gospel ministry or if it is going to prop up the machinery of Christendom and institutionalism. The Gospel is still the Good News whether it is delivered from a pulpit on a stage or on a street corner or over lunch. The church gathering is every bit as legitimate when it occurs in a home or a rented school as it is when it happens in a “church” with seating for 1000.
The chapter on church buildings was disturbing, even for someone like me who has no use for them. I am both looking forward to and dreading the rest of the book.
by the way I am still working my way through the biography on Bonhoeffer, it is just going kind of slowly and it is a huge book)
Near the end of the chapter on the origins of the church building was a troubling statistic. According to the authors, Christians donate 50 to 60 billion annually to local churches which is a very big but very realistic figure. That is a huge number and according to Viola & Barna, 18% of that goes to maintaining the structures and servicing the debt on church buildings. By my estimates, 18% of 60 billion is 10.8 billion. Let me write that out for effect:
$10,800,000,000
That is a huge number. A HUGE number by any standard and even more so when you consider how infrequently the church building is occupied by anyone other than the staff. At $5 each, that would buy 2 billion Bibles. At the rate of $50,000/year, that would fully support over 200,000 missionaries. How many orphans could be clothed and fed? How many widows cared for? How many who are starving could have a hot meal?
There is vast wealth tied up in small plots of real estate, little bunkers of Christendom scattered across the landscape of America that compete with one another to get their share of that $60,000,000,000 in annual giving. Worse, it is wealth that we feel justified in accumulating and holding because by golly it is God’s house after all! We somehow think that we serve God more faithfully by building and maintaining “churches” than by caring for those who are without the basic essentials. Odd that so many churches claim to be faithful to the Word of God and yet they spend their money on things that the Bible doesn’t command (buildings that sit empty all week) and not on things it does command (caring for the poor). That is not to say that traditional churches don't care for the poor but it is an afterthought in most of them when compared to paying for the building. After all, how can you have a church without a church building to meet in?
How have we gotten so far astray that we consider a “church” building to be the cost of doing business for the Gospel? Sure we may not say it that way but everyone knows that the goal of every church plant is to get their own building to prove that they have arrived. Meeting in homes is fine for starters but you have to grow up sometime and the sign that a church is all grown up is a building and a mortgage to go along with it. We find signs of God’s favor in debt!
At your next church business meeting, take a look at the budget and figure out how much of the budget goes to paying for the building: debt service, utilities, maintenance. Ask yourself if your giving is going toward the Gospel ministry or if it is going to prop up the machinery of Christendom and institutionalism. The Gospel is still the Good News whether it is delivered from a pulpit on a stage or on a street corner or over lunch. The church gathering is every bit as legitimate when it occurs in a home or a rented school as it is when it happens in a “church” with seating for 1000.
The chapter on church buildings was disturbing, even for someone like me who has no use for them. I am both looking forward to and dreading the rest of the book.
by the way I am still working my way through the biography on Bonhoeffer, it is just going kind of slowly and it is a huge book)
7 comments:
I agree that 10.8 billion sounds like a crazy amount of money. But every time I read a post arguing against having a church building, the first thought that goes through my head is "how would we have the pantry without a place to put the food?"
Debbie,
Where did the early church keep food for the daily distribution to widows (Acts 6:1) They sure didn't have a building.
Maybe a garage? Or a school? I have a hard time justifying ten billion EVERY YEAR so we have a place to keep and distribute food. I would actually be OK with a small facility jointly supported by local Christians. Just think, if Christians weren't giving $10,000,000,000 to support buildings, how much could go right to supplying food to the needy?
Arthur,
Yeah, I know the church in Acts didn't give out the food from the temple, though they attended there daily (Acts 2:46). I highly doubt they gave out the 50,000 pounds of food we do, either. And was it to the whole community, or just to the needy in the church?
It's been suggested that we use the village hall to house the pantry. But what restrictions would come with that? Would we still be able to pray with people? Talk to them about their spiritual needs? The pantry has changed some since you were here. We are reminded weekly that while the people who come need food, that is not their most important need. We focus much more now on building relationships and sharing Christ, along with handing out food. I'm quite sure we couldn't do that if we were using a public building.
Lots more I could say, but I'll refrain.... (Don't want to get into a long drawn-out thing with this.)
Debbie,
I just don't think logistical challenges of the food pantry justify $10 billion in maintenance and debt service a year. Grace is a little different because the building is very modest abnd paid for, although you do have maintenance costs. The greater issue is the amount of money in the aggregate that the church thinks is necessary to minister to people when in fact those buildings are not necessary at all.
Arthur,
Please understand that I am saying this as gently as I can, and am not trying to be confrontational.
You state that something is a fact ("in fact those buildings are not necessary at all.") when it is simply your opinion. You say that Grace is an exception when you don't know in detail how even a fraction of church buildings are used and paid for. Please stop using such stereotypes and generalizations. Please stop stating your opinion as fact.
Blessings,
Debbie
PS To address one issue you raised (maintenance costs), no matter where we stored and distributed the food, it would have to be kept at the appropriate temperatures. It costs money to buy, transport, store, serve, and distribute food. No way around that....
Debbie,
You state that something is a fact ("in fact those buildings are not necessary at all.") when it is simply your opinion. You say that Grace is an exception when you don't know in detail how even a fraction of church buildings are used and paid for. Please stop using such stereotypes and generalizations. Please stop stating your opinion as fact.
Fact: The early church did not have church buildings
Fact: The early church distributed food daily
These are not opinions, they are facts and not in dispute. If the church in the earliest days under the direct supervision of the apostles was able to carry out the humanitarian needs we are called to, then by definition buildings are not necessary. I would point out just the opposite is true here, you are operating under the assumption that buildings are necessary as a justification for the enormous expenditure of money on facilities. Your assumption appears to be based on your experience as opposed to Scripture which gives no inkling of a need for buildings. Just because our cultural expectations tell us that church ministry requires a dedicated building doesn't make it Biblical.
Arthur,
I am not saying that a building is always neccesary for a given body of believers to meet and minister. I'm saying that it is not a fact that a building is NEVER neccesary. I can give you facts, too: No one at Grace could store and distribute the food we provide to the needy from their home. None of us has the room, not just for the food, but to accommodate the people who come to the pantry. It's also a fact that not all churches sit empty for 5 or 6 days a week. Many Christian schools are housed in church buildings, and it would be impossible for them to be housed in a house or public building.
You frequently make the distinction between whether a passage in the Bible is descriptive or prescriptive. Which are those facts you mentioned? Is that passage in Acts telling us how the early church in Jerusalem gave out food, or is it telling us to do it just like them?
Also, you said, "I would point out just the opposite is true here, you are operating under the assumption that buildings are necessary as a justification for the enormous expenditure of money on facilities." Please read my comments again. I am not trying to justify spending an enormous amount of money on facilities. (And you know me well enough to know better than to say I am.) I am asking you not to generalize and stereotype.
Post a Comment