At a time when many churches around the country are defaulting on their current mortgage, most churches probably do not want to hear that one way to redeem their buildings for missional purposes is to double their church mortgage.
However, this recommendation is not really about past debt, but about future debt and budgeting. Many churches, if they had followed the recommendation in this post, would not find themselves in the debt dilemma they now face.
The recommendation is that whenever a church seeks to spend money, they double the cost. The extra money would then go toward missional work and service in the community and around the world.
In essence, this recommendation asks churches to put 50% of their budget toward missions.
Church buildings are usually the biggest expense, but this principle could be applied to anything the church spends money on, from pastoral salaries to office supplies. The end result of this is not really that the budget doubles, but that the budget stays the same, and how the money is spent undergoes careful examination. Some churches already give away 50% of their annual budgets toward missions. I congratulate them, but even these churches might be helped by doubling the cost of items they wish to purchase to help them determine if the purchase is important or not.
Such an approach keeps the church priorities in their proper perspective. It guarantees that missional involvement will always be a top priority. It also helps church boards determine which items are really worth buying.
So, for example, if the new stained glass windows, which usually cost $20,000, will now cost $40,000 because an additional $20,000 is required for outreach, evangelism, and missions, are the stained glass windows really worth it? If some of the members of the church want a youth pastor, and they think they can get away with paying him $40,000, are they ready to pull $80,000 out of the budget so that the church can have a youth pastor and $40,000 for missions?
This approach is not really something that most churches can jump into right away. If the church budget is already tight, and the pastoral salary and church mortgage are consuming 90% of the church budget, it is impossible to double to the budget right away so that an equal amount of money can go toward missions. But future purchases with that remaining 10% can still be put to this sort of test. Would the church continue to buy those nice, pre-printed bulletins if their cost just doubled? Does the church have to buy a video projector and screen? Does the parking lot have to be repaved?
Asking these sorts of questions will help redeem the building, guaranteeing that it will not consume the missional purpose and goals of the church.
This is a great idea, not just for churches, but for the people who make up the church. We certainly don’t all have control over the church budget, but we can choose to handle our own budgets this way. Is the ice cream worth $5, instead of $2.50? Incorporating this margin of giving into our own finances is a way all of us can be generous and get involved in missional giving.
Anji!
Thanks for commenting. You are absolutely right. It is easy to point the finger at the church (or as popular these days, at the government), but all of us, myself included, can begin by looking at our own budgets. Now I’m convicted.
A great idea with one possible caveat.
Behind the scenes, some missionally minded pastors I know bemoan the difficulty they face in trying to move their congregations beyond the “it’s all about us” mentality when making spending decisions: “We need __________” (fill in the blank) – a new gymnasium, a new youth building, a new parking lot (ones I’ve heard recently). Making a plan up front that any monies spent for “us” will be matched with monies for “others” would be fantastic.
Not long ago I heard a Christian podcast that suggested that we check out the organizations to which we give money to see how they use their money and how accountable they are. The podcast suggested that “Christian” ministries range from very accountable organizations that use their funds wisely to organizations which cannot account for what happens to much of the money.
Since then I have talked to people I know who work for major missional organizations. One thing that struck me is that a high percentage of donated funds is often used to pay for real estate (here and abroad) and salaries of U.S. personnel (also here and abroad).
Someone we know suggested we donate to a “missionary” group in a third world country. A little research revealed that the organization is a school which serves primarily the children of foreign businessmen and the children of locally wealthy people. Apparently there are some (a few?) local children who do not come from well-off families. I found a website with photos of the school, grounds, classrooms and “missionary” residences. The photos we saw led us to think that this place would not be out of place in the best neighborhoods of San Diego, where we live.
I’m suggesting “due diligence” in making decisions on which “mission” organizations might be the ones to whom we give money. I’d rather buy socks, shoes and underwear and hand them out myself at a local homeless shelter than discover that I’m funding a lavish lifestyle for “missionaries” in a tropical paradise. Yes, I know that’s not always the case.
Yes, this is really the point of the article. And as Anji pointed out, for many of us this begins at home. Who are we sending our money to? How are we spending it?
For my wife and I, we have tried to start taking an active role in spending and using our money also. I think more and more people these days want to do more than just write a check. They want to actually see how their money is used.
I think you can use ECFA and Charity Navigator.org to help with this.
I read a piece a year or two ago that questioned EFCA’s reliability. The piece basically said that some groups only appear to be making a disclosure of how monies are used, but in fact are actually hiding large executive perks and other questionable expenditures in innocuous-sounding categories, such as “training”. I don’t remember where I read the article.
Now that you mention this, I seem to remember reading something similar. There is certainly a lot of waste and abuse, even in some Christian non-profit organizations.