money!

Ok, no one seems to talk on my blogs!  I know I'm somewhat of a hypocrite here...I'm pretty bad about commenting on other people's blogs!  Why are we this way?  Is it just one more thing to have to do?  Regardless, I will continue to try to promote discussion!

We interns have been discussing quite the interesting article!  It's about money, that wonderful topic we like to avoid in church discussions!

Read it HERE.

I offer you all the questions I submitted for my intern supervision group:

1. Money is rarely talked about enough in our church. We face some
radical statements such as: "sell all you have to the poor." We also
realize the importance of making a living. How do we navigate this
tension between having enough and giving away? How does toleration of
inequality fit into this model at all?! Where is the servanthood in
this if you are the rich one completely void from suffering?

2. The role of the state versus the church in addressing economic
inequality is an interesting issue. Many are of the mindset that the state, not
the church, should not focus on ensuring economic welfare. However,
this is confusing charity with justice. Scripture is quite clear, in
both testaments, that the latter is what is to be strived for. In
Israelite society and religious law, ALL people were to ensure welfare
and practice radical hospitality. I don't need to go down the road of expressing how this is present in the NT either!  How can we reconcile these ideas of justice with our
current culture?

3. To this earlier point, the church is very convinced that it must be
about "charity," which is fine in and of itself. However, the church
is rarely found pursuing justice or being prophetic about inequality.
Especially if they have guys like this speaking in their church! How
can the church maintain a posture of justice-seeking and being
prophetic without crossing sacred bounds of the delicate church-state
relationship?

If you are at all confused about why a Christian should be passionate about such things, I urge you to see what the wise Walter Bruggemann has to say about it!

That would be FANTASTIC if you could talk about this in the comment section!  Otherwise, I hope it's something to think about.

Measuring Success

"The church is a business" people say.  This is often said with some hesitancy.  Why is this?  Perhaps because they know this is not the way it is meant to be.

What does a business do?  They are built upon economic models: Money comes in - services are offered.  This is built on supply and demand.  The more the people demand services, the more the price of supply increases, forming economic equilibrium.

Putting the church into this model:  The people demand a faith community that can give them what they want.  In return they pay money for these "services." These services must be good quality so people can get what they think they paid for.  In order to increase income, a business-model church must grow its base.  Thus the number of members becomes important.  For better quality service to be provided, more members must be brought in to increase income, and thus, production.  Pastors are placed in the epicenter of this model.  They are paid by the congregation to provide services (preaching, worship leadership, pastoral care, etc.).  If these services are inadequate, the pastor can be fired.

It's disturbing and probably not completely accurate to describe the church in this way, but when you get down to the core of it, it's not that far from the truth.  American churches are an American economic business model.

Is this faithful?  Is this right?  Can it ever be different?

Our American culture is defined by numbers.  When I was youth director at Second Presbyterian Church in Richmond, I couldn't tell you how many times someone would say "how many youth do you have?" This question frustrates me to no end.  Firstly, how do you "have" youth?  It's not like we capture them and put them in a box so we can show off to people.  Secondly, what does it matter?  So what if I have 5 or 50 youth in my program.  Since when did bringing in a lot of youth for your program prove that you are effectively influencing the lives of young people and empowering them to do God's work?

Eugene Peterson in Under the Unpredictable Plant speaks of how we often measure success in churches by growth.  Growth, he says, "is biological, not an arithmetical metaphor.  Growth in biology has something to do with timing, passivity, waiting, proportion, maturity.  There is a proper size to each thing." Peterson reminds us that there must be an understanding that more is not always better.  Success, growth, in churches can never be judged by size.

I have been learning a lot from a church context that has no "members." Sure there are problems.  It's hard to keep up with people, hard to track giving, hard to appoint leadership.  However, the payoff is a system that is no longer focused on being successful.  They can look instead, to be more faithful to the gospel.  It's not a perfect system at Broad Street, there are some definite benefits to having "members," particularly for reasons of leadership and pastoral care.  However, it's refreshing to realize that, as my boss and pastor here, Bill, said, "We don't get to keep people.  We just get to hold them for a while." The church is not meant to be a country club.  The church is community.

Bill has also picked up on this notion of numbers-success in an article he wrote for Insights from the Underside." Not to be confused with The Bible from the Underside, a popular Frances Taylor Gench class.  Bill refers to this notion of success as the "Cultural Success Index." He reminds us that we must always be cautious of falling into this worldly model as a way of running churches.  If this can happen, Bill visions a church where, "Preoccupation with membership roles may be replaced with a passionate pursuit of understanding about why certain demographics are mission from the communion's gathering...imagination would trump implementation.  Depth would trounce growth.  Disciplined discernment would be valued over efficiency and 'effectiveness'." (46)

A church needs to operate as a business in some sense.  Money.  We can't ignore that HUGE elephant in the room.  A church needs to be able to have some lights to turn on and some heat to run in the winter.  This issue is what makes things difficult.  Money always makes things difficult.  Yet, since when did we let money guide our decisions?  Didn't Christ tell us to give it all to the poor anyway?

It's a messy situation that no one has figured out yet.  However, it's a situation that calls us to be faithful to the gospel.  We MUST constantly be aware of how we view ourselves as the community of God and avoid defining ourselves according to our American economic consumerist model.

How can we break down this horrible myth that a church is a business?  How can we look at success differently?

Is our church only about supply and demand?

I leave you with a song from Amos Lee, a Philly native:

eye of the needle

17As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.'" 20He said to him, "Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth." 21Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." 22When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" 24And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were greatly astounded and said to one another, "Then who can be saved?" 27Jesus looked at them and said, "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible."

Do we cringe when we read this passage?

I imagine there may be some cringing for those who believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.  Have you sold everything you own yet?  If you haven't, you won't enter the kingdom of God!  This is what said interpretation may read...

Taking this verse contextually and metaphorically still may cause some cringing.  How far do we take this statement?  Can you have wealth and follow Christ?

Regardless, this was a VERY unique passage to study in our "no holds barred Bible study" at BSM.  Remember, we've always got a few in this who are homeless!  It's a very unique context that is beginning to rock my world.

As we gathered to discuss this difficult passage, we began to talk about what it means to "sell all you have to the poor." One key point was made by noticing Jesus "loved him" before answering, which points to the fact that Christ knew this man and what he needed to do.  This command was specific to this person.  His wealth had clouded his ability to love his neighbor, so he was thus instructed to give it to the poor - the people who need it most.

There is a popular idea about this metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle that refers to some busy gate in Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle," where camels would have to remove baggage and go on their knees to get through.  True or not, there is still sacrifice involved.  As it is for us.  there must be things we must give up, sacrifice, in order to participate in the kingdom of God that is present and not yet.

A man in our Bible study group, who happened to be homeless, spoke up in the midst of this conversation.  "What do I give up?  I don't have anything?" There was a moment where all of us of privilege had nothing to say.  The same man then broke the silence, "I guess I give up my previous ways of thoughts and doing things that hold me back" (paraphrased).  What a RADICAL concept!  This man showed us a radical faith, that commits when you truly have nothing - not by your own volition, but by the crappy reality of poverty that plagues us.  He demonstrated a commitment to serve God out of nothing.  In some ways, this appears as an ideal to live for.  I believe in that moment, we all wished we could be more like him.

The end of this passage is a reminder to us that we should not be so concerned about the reality of our salvation.  "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible." We can only place our faith in God, and move beyond this speculation into dedicated service.

So if this should not be our focus, what should?

If this passage is any indication, it should be a willingness to serve the poor at the risk of being made uncomfortable, that we may truly understand what it is like to live as they do.

Still cringing?  I hope so.

p.s. the first picture is me riding my camel through the streets of Philly.  The second picture is from the always awesome Brick Testament