A thorny issue: Paying your way!

Being totally honest is something I always regard as good and yet something that is rarely applauded! One of the issues where I often find this is regarding the expectations and the realities of a church (meaning a gathering of people who come to worship God in all that He is) 'paying its way!'

There are those who send me letters 'encouraging' to get the congregation to give more in the light of diminishing income and tough financial climates. This is often accompanied by offers of help, should I need it, to inform and encourage better giving.

When further letters of 'encouragement' came I found myself drawing this:

This upset some people because, as they rightly complained that, 'The diocese has to pay its bills and make ends meet!'

And this is, of course, true. Once the money runs out the lights go off and the churches become cold and doors are shut. This is a reality of life: Charity might begin at home but it doesn't extend to utilities and suppliers of stuff who need to be paid to pay their staff and buy in the stuff they sell and the like. It's simple grown up world stuff innit?

One notch down the diocesan food chain we find the churches and they need to pay too. So I wrote this and stuck it on the wall:

And some people were appalled that I could do such a thing because,they assumed, 'everything was free!'.
The idea was to get people to realise that it cost money to keep a little church like ours afloat and with around 20% of the congregation having an income, this is a challenge for us each and every year.

Then came down from high a memorable little motto from the grown ups in the diocese that upset some who come to church. It went like this:

'If you can't pay - you can't have!'

And people beat their breasts at the thought of no longer having a church in their own patches - after all they'd always had it! But some were resolute and maintained their position with a sad look on their faces.

Then came the complaints that we didn't charge people to use the building space. 'You're undercutting us!' complained one church and the moaned at me, 'How can we pay our way if you're charging less than us? What are we supposed to do?'

Others called me foolish and yet the same people were the first to tell us how lucky we were when those who weren't paying offered us new seating and tables and helped put in central heating and the like. 'Cast you bread upon the waters ...' says the KJV - and we did and God proved Himself to be no man's debtor - and those outside complained at that!

I got into an argument because I thought that having taken money to do a wedding or funeral in a building that any subsequent offering or giving was something to be grateful for and applauded rather than become something to be complained about because it was too little.

Then I got into another argument because I made the point that when we started a church plant or a 'fresh expression' it would be good if we worked out how long we would be fully funded and then decide how the responsibility for 'paying our way' could become ours fully. Wow! This was a real red rag (as was suggesting perhaps that it was acceptable to church to ask people to pay for messy church'). People asked whether we asked those who came to other services to pay - and of course we do, what are our tithes, gifts and offerings if they are the people paying money to ensure that the church (local) pays it's way?

Bringing all of our tithes and offerings into the storehouse ensure the bills are paid and means that those with needs in the fellowship (and let's not fight over what that means for now because I have more weird ideas here too)  go without.

So perhaps we should charge for admission?

Hmmm - discuss :-) 

What makes church valid? (post the second)

When engaged in the discussion topic 'what makes church (and church services) valid' I often find that once we've got the numbers thing out of the way the conversation turns to location.

'Look at the Roman Catholics,' they cry, 'They've got it right because they only have a few church buildings, in fact there's only one in our town and they expect those who come to travel! That's what we should do - reduce the number of church buildings and let them travel!'

As true as this might be for the faithful in our town where there is one in the centre and another which serves the towns and communities to the North. There are indeed but two for a large number of Catholic church members. Now take another place I know of where there were once seven RC church buildings and some they will have reduced this to but two!

C Peter Wagner used to say that the ideal was a flourishing Christian community (which for the sake of this consideration we will call 'church') in every community and many street corners. This idea that we need to rationalise the number of church buildings based upon proximity might be persuasive to and for some BUT  there are further considerations - spiritual, missional, sociological, practical  and human.

LOCATION
A large conurbation near to us has many church buildings and these are obviously near to one another - some only streets away from the next. The thinking is that closing one building merely results in believers having to walk a further five or ten minutes to the next and there is a logic to this But once we move on from this as a paper exercise and bring people into the equation we also need to factor in the pain too. Other parameters like churchmanship and membership, for not all churches are community churches, increase the factors that need to be considered and satisfied.

PEOPLE & CHURCHMANSHIP
As much as I can understand the location argument and 'short additional distance' caveat the reality is that those who are high church may not find the nearest church building as a venue for their style of church. The same goes for those orthodoxy versus liberal church and the choirs and central church versus worship bands and a more charismatic style.

People will gather with those who are similar to them, this is the reality (and attraction) of homogenous church. So to decide that St Blog's can close with the members moving to St Dingbat's is great on paper but will serve to lose some members from the losing church. Some will cease churchgoing completely whilst others will travel to a similar expression of church and the others, who do go to St Dingbat's will either settle or make it feel more like their own home and this in turn will cause St Dingbat's to lose members too!

Closing churches means the end of churchgoing for many and yet, as one higher placed person told me, 'This is a price that needs to be paid for sustainability!'

SOCIOLOGICAL & MISSIONAL
Now we have a real issue before us. We talk of Church as being light in dark places and yet it is in some of the very darkest places that the presence of the Church is in greatest danger of being extinguished. The mission of the Church is to take Christ into the difficult places and if doing this is costly to the whole body, then so be it.

This does not mean that a church, plant or congregation should not seek to 'pay its way' but it does mean that the sending church needs to accept the responsibility of funding (spiritually and financially) the presence of a church in the community. That said, with some of the building, perhaps the time has come to knock the blessed thing down and replace it with a modern community facility in which the Church resides alongside others (more later).

In response to the first post on this issue, Jante responded with a question relating to a small rural community with small numbers residing and 10% of that population coming to church. This is sure to be an unsustainable church in terms of finance but is quite like to be both sociologically and missionally valid. The problem is that we appear to be placing too much emphasis on money and not enough on mission and yet, as ever, bill have to be paid and we cannot be naive enough to think that money doesn't matter.

THE BUILDING
Working in West London we wanted to do some stuff to the church building we were in. The reason for this was to make it a more inviting and useful building and to render it 'fit for purpose' for the Church of today.

The result was that the Victorian Society - a bunch of people who had no interest in Church as the Bride of Christ and saw it as merely a pretty building with links to some Victorian hero of mine - pointed their toes and conservation and preservation won the day and the building remains useless to this very day! My response was to offer them the building and let them face the costs of roof repairs, masonry renovation and preservation and the like. 'Let them have the Blessed thing,' I cried, 'It's no use to us and since they want it so much, let them pay for it!' But of course whilst they wanted to dictate about the inside, they neither wanted to come into the place nor take responsibility for it.

We need to have some courage and offer what we have to the community (for along with cure of souls comes curator of the community history) and let them pay for the much loved building they want to fight for if we speak of closure. That landmarks will vanish is a sadness but those who want them most appear to also be least willing to pay for their continued existence.

SPIRITUAL (oh yeah)
Truth is that the Church is a spiritual body and the church building is merely a meeting place for it. The number of times I hear someone say, 'We don't need buildings, they're an encumbrance - let's close them and do our services in the local school, sport's hall or whatever - bin the building!" and there is something of merit in what they say. Mind you they've never planted a church or run services from building other than a proper church building have they?

They can't have for having done the school and hall church stuff I know that arriving ninety minutes before a service and lugging stuff up six flights of stairs and setting up and doing the service and then packing up and carrying everything back down six flights of stairs and loading it back in the vehicles and taking it home and unloading and storing the stuff and everything else that goes with not having your own building -IS A PAIN!

The Church is the spiritual body and it should be in a place, in a building that is the (or one of THE) focal point of the community. The doors should be open and the reason for its presence clear because of the spiritual: The calling to be Church in that place; the desire to be Church in that place; the commitment of the membership to be Church in that place and it that isn't obvious then the people need to be grounded in the Gospel and mobilised or the doors shut.

Sound harsh?

Church is not a hobby, neither it is part-time or something for us.

Church is about populating heaven and Kingdom thinking and it we don't want to live in the reality of that then we need to live in the reality that we don't need, no we can't afford, to keep lights on and buildings open.

Church is more than bank balances - it is about transforming lives.

Church is more than two hours on a Sunday -  it's about coming and talking about what Christ has done in, and for, and through us during the other one hundred and sixty-six hours of the week.

So here we are - twelve minutes of mad splurge onto the screen in front of me. The telephone rang whilst typing and I was asked if I was looking for a move as a friend had a vacancy coming up near to them. Nice to know someone wants me but until God say otherwise here I stand, for I can do no more ;-)

Happy Saturday

ps. No one else's agendas here though - just my madness. Discuss it here or at cavedwellers.co.uk

Church Report (2): sets low standard - fails to achieve?

Continuing with this topic with regard to church planting and pioneer ministry:

One of the worst situations I happen across is those people who are doing pioneer ministry or church planting because, almost always, what I find is a bunch of people who complain that 'the Church' should be paying for everything and that it is unfair to expect them to raise money from the new body of believers that they are raising up.

And of course they are wrong - regardless of what or how - wrong, wrong (and once more for emphasis), wrong!

My big black book tells me that where my treasure is also where my heart will be!
Experience with church (and many other groups which people join) tells me that where people put their heart, passion and belong is the place where they put their treasure to support it.

A church plant has to have a some well-defined goals which lead them into being:

a sacramental body where bread and bath are an important part of its being,

a Bible believing, orthodox faith regardless of the setting it is in,

a Christ-centred, Trinitarian body which, in company with the Son worships the Father through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,

a place where sound, grounded and inculturated preaching, teaching and discipleship can be found,

a welcoming, inclusive* and pastorally sensitive (and able) place where all are 'family',

a body that joins with others congregations in partnership and shared mission (so many appear to want to be 'special' and remain apart from the body that planted it - it is a plant not a split!), and

a body that pays its way and supports itself (with the desire to be able to support others at some stage).

So many people tell me that they don't have enough people to pay and that asking them to cover the costs of what goes on is a deterrent when it comes to growth. Now I support this view and think that we need to accept that planting a church is indeed a costly affair. Those who send also have to fund (and some will argue that providing a paid for minister is enough evidence of that)  and this means that there has to be some casting of the sending church's bread upon the water

BUT

the goal  and (more importantly) desire has to be that the body becomes self-sustaining and mature. That the new church (that's the people) sees converts come through to maturity and become leaders and in time bring more converts - not to satisfy a desire for numbers but because they want to share the Good News and see people released into the true freedom that being a person of faith (and that faith looking to Christ and the Cross) brings.

We all have to balance our books - we all have to pay for our gas, electric, water, parish share, toilet rolls and other stuff - especially tea )which reminds me that it must be time for a final cuppa before I head out for a wonderfully full day of ministry and madness.

Happy New Year and for all those teachers out there - enjoy the new term and be of good cheer for Easter's coming!

Left footing the bill?

I rather like this because it often seems that when one is dragged out to eat, for some reason or other, it is always the same poor person who is left to tot up the bill at the end of the meal.

At one meal I went to (some time back) some bright spark worked out that, nnn, should cover the cost and as quick as you like some of those present paid that and left whilst others, claiming that they'd had but the main course paid for that and also left. As the calculations started it was obvious that those who had legged had managed to do so without paying for drinks or (perhaps conveniently forgotten) sweets and starters!

The upshot was that some poor person paid sixty pounds over the top to cover (or to use the correct term 'Pardon') their debts.

Sadly this has been something I have seen (or been) on many occasions and so I find this little piece of doggerel both fitting and fun:

When going out I often find
A circumstance that blows my mind
The way that others munch and drink
Yet when cometh the bill
Well what d'ya think?

Leaving the smallest sum they can,
The leave the bill to just one man.
The hapless fool;
Who could it be?
You've probably guessed, 
It's always me!

But now a promise I have made,
And Spongers you can be dismayed
For when the meal,
And drink, is done;
I'll pay my share
And then I'll run!

And you're the one who's left to meet,
The shortfall on the bill,
How sweet,
And to my joy and your dismay,
I have gone
And it's you who pay!