Thinking about money. . . again. Met with a denominational leader for coffee the other day. He’s wrestling with the challenge of planting churches. In his system they fund plants centrally. So over just a few years we’re talking tens of thousands of dollars. If the plant doesn’t prosper they support it financially. Over a decade you’re now looking at hundreds of thousands.
Now I understand why my challenge to fuel a church planting movement is not being embraced with enthusiasm. For many parent churches and denominations it just hasn’t worked and now they are left to pick up the pieces—-financially, emotionally and spiritually.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Don’t send anyone out to plant a church with a guarantee of indefinite financial support. It’s bad for them and for you. Make sure you’ve first assessed people’s ability, readiness and calling. Don’t offer indefinite funding. Reality is a harsh but good teacher. Financial subsidies dull the pain of reality. Learn from the ducks at Jells’s Park.
2. If you want to fuel a church planting movement, the resources must come from the harvest. Central funding and control from a denominational system or parent church will not foster faith and responsibility at the edges. When your kids move out of home you want to be supportive of their efforts to stand on their own feet. You want a ongoing relationship. You want them, in their own way, to live out the values you’ve built into them. But you don’t want to be picking up the tab and making decisions for them.
My friend the denominational leader, left our time together wondering how to change his system of funding church planting. He has a kingdom heart. I’m praying he’ll come up with some answers that will work in his context and then go out and plant healthy, reproducing churches all over the place.
8 Comments
Steve, I’m wondering what essentials you think money is definitely required for? Ie, if you stripped planting from a lot of the tradional assumptions (eg must have building with good PA) and did it organically, what do you reckon the main expenses would be?
Brett, good question. Yes, a lot depends on your model of ministry. No buildings and no paid staff (or bi-vocational) etc. Equals low budget. The Methodist circuit riders lived on subsistance wages and the model was incredibly successful. George Patterson’s church planting movement in Honduras mobilized semi-literal, bivocational village pastors. Low cost again. There are a lot of examples in the developing world. Neil Cole is a great model in a western setting. They started in southern California.
Movements that need lots of money to expand, don’t.
Two more thoughts:
1. Not every ‘organic’ model is working. Some of them never will. Why?
2. Other models that require larger budgets are working well. Why?
Something to think and pray about.
A lot depends on the model being developed. If it’s a house church model, it doesn’t make much sense to invest in buildings or full time staff. But it would be worthwhile investing in the development of many leaders.
In the Uniting Church in Queensland we’re considering how we allocate the funds we do have for church planting. One factor I’m wondering about is the commitment of the local team to support the plant with their own funds. It moves them away from a sense of total dependency and helps them think about what is in reality sustainable with present resources.
Agree my kiwi friend. Whatever the model, the local team, and eventually the locals, must take responsibility to fund the plant. Your heart is where your treasure is. The team have to go in faith and expect God to provide as they go. Lk 9 and Matt 10. I’m still an old YWAMer at heart.
We are trying to see ourselves functioning as missionaries andfin that seeking to raise support external to our community.
We will accept support from our mission team, but not from new converts – unless they initiate it.
I don’t think there is ‘one way’, but I do believe Paul was onto something when he was not willing to let accepting $$$ stand in the way of his ability to preach the gospel.
So far so good…
Hamo I’d be interested to hear more on your view on not accepting support from ‘new converts.’
We have shared a journey with a couple for over 3 years, during which they have responded to the gospel, participated in our gatherings and talked about sharing the values. they’ve also happily enjoyed our hospitality and gifts. They know we all tithe, and they’ve heard teaching on generosity, but they tend to be more stingy and we haven’t forced the issue with them. but i’m wondering at what point…
It’s a question of timing. Ultimately it’s not a movement unless new believers take responsibility to own the ministry and invest their money and time. Dynamic movements spread because converts quickly come on board and get involved. It becomes theirs not just ours.
My thoughts relate to the fact that I really want to be able to disciple people in the area of money. I believe it is one of the most critical areas we need to grapple with.
But I feel I will have more clout with new Christians if I speak strongly about money and ask them to direct that money into mission activity rather than into my salary.
The level of skepticism is high amongst Aussies when it comes to churches and money, so its actually my desire to grow people in this that makes me reticent to accept $$$ from them.
It doesn’t mean I will never accept it from them – but it wouldn’t be where I would hope they would see their money going first up. I imagine they can still ‘own’ the movement, but contribute financially to different needs.
One Trackback
[...] up on Thinking about money… again, I recalled some research by Wayne Allen on the relationship between financial subsidies and the [...]