Comments on: Thinking about money. . . again

By: Subsidies and growth » Steve Addison’s blog World Changers

Subsidies and growth » Steve Addison’s blog World Changers — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:22:43 +0000

[...] up on Thinking about money… again, I recalled some research by Wayne Allen on the relationship between financial subsidies and the [...]

By: hamo

hamo — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:34:48 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:41:00 +0000

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.

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:45:08 +0000

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…

By: hamo

hamo — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:30:33 +0000

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…

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:05:46 +0000

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.

By: Postkiwi

Postkiwi — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:46:49 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:10:03 +0000

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.

By: Brett

Brett — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:36:32 +0000

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?