Destructive Model of Church

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I would like to bring this point for your consideration, brothers and sisters.

To run a church today according to the popular model, you must use this simple algorithm:

1. There should be enough attendees in more or less good financial standing.
2. There should exist motivation for the attendees to give.
3. If not (1), then grow the church in order to collect more money.
4. If not (2), then keep motivating the attendees to give.

This model works only in places that satisfy the following conditions:

1. Sizable Christian population
2. Good stable economy
3. Lack of strong persecution of the Christian faith

Many countries do not have all of the above Conditions 1, 2 and 3. They have to operate with a different model of church.

Example 1: PR of China. Very small home churches. No paid ministers. Local ministers only. True believers filtered by strong persecution. Church growing rapidly.

Example 2: Kazakhstan The majority of churches are organized according to the popular model. A large percentage of foreign ministers. Financially supported by churches or Christian organizations from abroad. A small number of self-supported home (cell) churches that refuse any foreign or local external support. Very slow growth of church, fully dependent on presence of foreign Christian capital - much decreased since 2008.

Origins of such model of Christian church

Where are the roots of the popular model of church? Dedicated building and paid, professional ministers. I think, from the era when Christianity was strongly supported by the state in countries of Christian majority population. Examples: Roman Empire, England, Russia, Spain, France. As European colonial powers spread Christianity to the new colonies, they brought their model of church and its cultural practices to wide geographical areas, such as in the Americas, Africa, South-East Asia, Australia.

Problems with imposing a single model of church operation

1. Such model makes churches in places where conditions 1-3 are not satisfied fully dependent on foreign support. This single fact poses the biggest hindrance to spreading of the gospel, as locals resent the invasion of a foreign faith.
2. It also corrupts local church, as it is seen as source of easy money by local Christian ministers and a pathway to immigration to first world countries.
3. It corrupts foreign missionaries and ministers residing in the field because of the strong temptation of huge financial support amidst local poverty and zero control from the sending church or organization.
4. As economic conditions in the host country(ies) can vary, churches risk losing their financial support and disappearing as the result (sad reality).
5. This model proves to be unfeasible in countries with strong persecution against Christianity. Thus, such countries effectively have extremely small Christian population, and slow growth. PR of China is an example where local Christians had to devise and adopt a more Jesus-like model of church, which was found to be exceedingly successfull.

Conclusion:

Money is a very bad fuel for spreading and sustaining Christian faith. Only unpaid, volunteer, free of charge Christians are able to carry out a lasting and real impact on individual souls and society as a whole. I think the best and the right kind of fuel is human hearts with true and strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Would you agee?

 

[Dave-W]

That is a very interesting analysis. Much food for thought there.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

Where are the roots of the popular model of church? Dedicated building, paid professional ministers.

Conclusion:

Money is a very bad fuel for spreading and sustaining Christian faith. Only unpaid, volunteer, free of charge Christians are able to carry out a lasting and real impact on individual souls and society as a whole. I think the best and the right kind of fuel is human hearts with true and strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Would you agee?

Having paid, professional ministers in Christian churches is a very bad idea. It is my opinion that having paid, professional ministers has led to the rise of mega-churches and televangelists....

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

That is a very interesting analysis. Much food for thought there.

Yes. It makes me sad because I want the cause of Jesus be spread in this world wide and pure. Making churches run on money is a huge obstacle.

 

[paul1149]

I agree. Of course, the church in the West is more than being about money, but money plays far too much of a role, and not only in the big churches. There's a powerful video series on youtube called, I think, ~ The Cross in China ~ (and another called ~The Canaan Hymns ~, about the music), which details the phenomenal spiritual life and growth of the underground church there. This is the Book of Acts apostolic / local church model born anew, and though the persecution can be bitter, it still works best.

 

[Greg J.]

I think the best and the right kind of fuel is human hearts with true and strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Would you agee?

I agree, but note that it has nothing to do with whether the people have access to a small or large amount of money.

My (American) church of 600-800ish people has more than half-a-dozen pastors, and none of them are paid enough to live on. They all have to raise their own financial support to do the work they are doing. It is valuable IMO because our existence is more closely tied to the Lord's provision, and because the pastors never forget that they are employed only by the grace of God (which has a trickle-down effect).

Money is a bad motivation for most things, whether it is a small or large amount. In God's hands it is a tool for spreading the Good News and helping those in need. Unfortunately, it can make people think that the money itself is what is important so they can do God's work better.

The overarching problem, of course, is that whatever is not done by faith is not pleasing to the Lord. Conducting church and evangelizing should not a matter of money, but a matter of faith. The Lord moves very slowly by most (American) human standards. It is difficult to be patient. Money allows humans to put Godly ideas into action on a human timetable. The result is that:

Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. (Psalms 127:1, 1984 NIV)

However, God can make good use of small and large amounts of money for great good, if His servants keep their focus on the Lord himself.

 

[Dave-W]

BTW to the OP - are you familiar with a Messianic congregation in the Capital city Astana?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I agree. Of course, the church in the West is more than being about money, but money plays far too much of a role, and not only in the big churches. There's a powerful video series on youtube called, I think, ~ The Cross in China ~ (and another called ~The Canaan Hymns ~, about the music), which details the phenomenal spiritual life and growth of the underground church there. This is the Book of Acts apostolic / local church model born anew, and though the persecution can be bitter, it still works best.

Church in the West and my native Kazakhstan in the East is all about money in the sense that it won't run without sufficient funds, which are significant especially if majority of congregants are poor to very poor. They can't sustain church, and so it's run on foreign money... It creates a very bad stigma among hostile Muslim population.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

BTW to the OP - are you familiar with a Messianic congregation in the Capital city Astana?

I'm not. I only know a Jewish Messianic brother in Almaty.

 

[Mountainmike]

You certainly write thought provoking posts , C from K!

I would like to bring this point for your consideration, brothers and sisters.

To run a church today according to the popular model, you must use this simple algorithm:

1. There should be enough attendees in more or less good financial standing.
2. There should exist motivation for the attendees to give.
3. If not (1), then grow the church in order to collect more money.
4. If not (2), then keep motivating the attendees to give.

This model works only in places that satisfy the following conditions:

1. Sizable Christian population
2. Good stable economy
3. Lack of strong persecution of the Christian faith

Many countries do not have all of the above Conditions 1, 2 and 3. They have to operate with a different model of the church.

Example 1: PR of China. Very small home churches. No paid ministers. Local ministers only. True believers filtered by strong persecution. Church growing rapidly.

Example 2: Kazakhstan The majority of churches are organized according to the popular model. A large percentage of foreign ministers. Financially supported by churches or Christian organizations from abroad. A small number of self-supported home (cell) churches that refuse any foreign or local external support. Very slow growth of church, fully dependent on presence of foreign Christian capital - much decreased since 2008.

Origins of such model of the Christian church

Where are the roots of the popular model of church? Dedicated building, paid professional ministers. I think, from the era when Christianity was strongly supported by the state in countries of Christian majority population. Examples: Roman Empire, England, Russia, Spain, France. As European colonial powers spread Christianity to the new colonies, they have brought their model of the church and its cultural practices to wide geographical areas, such as in the Americas, Africa, South-East Asia, Australia.

Problems with imposing a single model of church operation

1. Such model makes churches in places where conditions 1-3 are not satisfied fully dependent on foreign support. This single fact poses the biggest hindrance to spreading of the gospel, as locals resent the invasion of a foreign faith.
2. It also corrupts local church, as it is seen as source of easy money by local Christian ministers and a pathway to immigration to first world countries.
3. It corrupts foreign missionaries and ministers residing in the field because of the strong temptation of huge financial support amidst local poverty and zero control from the sending church or organization.
4. As economic conditions in the host country(ies) can vary, churches risk losing their financial support and disappearing as the result (sad reality).
5. This model proves to be unfeasible in countries with strong persecution against Christianity. Thus, such countries effectively have extremely small Christian population, and slow growth. PR of China is an example where local Christians had to devise and adopt a more Jesus-like model of the church, which was found to be exceedingly successfull.

Conclusion:

Money is a very bad fuel for spreading and sustaining Christian faith. Only unpaid, volunteer, free of charge Christians are able to carry out a lasting and real impact on individual souls and society as a whole. I think the best and the right kind of fuel is human hearts with true and strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Would you agee?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I agree, but note that it has nothing to do with whether the people have access to a small or large amount of money.

My (American) church of 600-800ish people has more than half-a-dozen pastors, and none of them are paid enough to live on. They all have to raise their own financial support to do the work they are doing. It is valuable IMO because our existence is more closely tied to the Lord's provision, and because the pastors never forget that they are employed only by the grace of God (which has a trickle-down effect).

Money is a bad motivation for most things, whether it is a small or large amount. In God's hands it is a tool for spreading the Good News and helping those in need. Unfortunately, it can make people think that the money itself is what is important so they can do God's work better.

The overarching problem, of course, is that whatever is not done by faith is not pleasing to the Lord. Conducting church and evangelizing should not a matter of money, but a matter of faith. The Lord moves very slowly by most (American) human standards. It is difficult to be patient. Money allows humans to put Godly ideas into action on a human timetable. The result is that:

Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. (Psalms 127:1, 1984 NIV)

However, God can make good use of small and large amounts of money for great good, if His servants keep their focus on the Lord himself.

It's hard to change your thinking when you're so used to the idea of money as a necessity. I know money use is inevitable. But church should not make money as a basis on which to run.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's hard to change your thinking when you're so used to the idea of money as a necessity. I know money use is inevitable. But church should not make money as a basis on which to run.

The histories of both mother angelica of EWTN and mother teresa of calcutta are fascinating
The second most have heard of , the first set up the biggest? christian TV network in the world. EWTN
Both believed totally in divine providence.
Neither budgetted or worked out how to pay for their expansions.
They had the simple faith.
If God wills it, he will provide, they just got on with it: and in both cases they built empires, with no heed to cash and little to spare.

 

[A_Thinker]

I would like to bring this point for your consideration, brothers and sisters.

To run a church today according to the popular model, you must use this simple algorithm:

1. There should be enough attendees in more or less good financial standing.
2. There should exist motivation for the attendees to give.
3. If not (1), then grow the church in order to collect more money.
4. If not (2), then keep motivating the attendees to give.

This model works only in places that satisfy the following conditions:

1. Sizable Christian population
2. Good stable economy
3. Lack of strong persecution of the Christian faith

Many countries do not have all of the above Conditions 1, 2 and 3. They have to operate with a different model of the church.

Example 1: PR of China. Very small home churches. No paid ministers. Local ministers only. True believers filtered by strong persecution. Church growing rapidly.

Example 2: Kazakhstan The majority of churches are organized according to the popular model. A large percentage of foreign ministers. Financially supported by churches or Christian organizations from abroad. A small number of self-supported home (cell) churches that refuse any foreign or local external support. Very slow growth of church, fully dependent on presence of foreign Christian capital - much decreased since 2008.

Origins of such model of the Christian church

Where are the roots of the popular model of church? Dedicated building, paid professional ministers. I think, from the era when Christianity was strongly supported by the state in countries of Christian majority population. Examples: Roman Empire, England, Russia, Spain, France. As European colonial powers spread Christianity to the new colonies, they have brought their model of the church and its cultural practices to wide geographical areas, such as in the Americas, Africa, South-East Asia, Australia.

Problems with imposing a single model of church operation

1. Such model makes churches in places where conditions 1-3 are not satisfied fully dependent on foreign support. This single fact poses the biggest hindrance to spreading of the gospel, as locals resent the invasion of a foreign faith.
2. It also corrupts local church, as it is seen as source of easy money by local Christian ministers and a pathway to immigration to first world countries.
3. It corrupts foreign missionaries and ministers residing in the field because of the strong temptation of huge financial support amidst local poverty and zero control from the sending church or organization.
4. As economic conditions in the host country(ies) can vary, churches risk losing their financial support and disappearing as the result (sad reality).
5. This model proves to be unfeasible in countries with strong persecution against Christianity. Thus, such countries effectively have extremely small Christian population, and slow growth. PR of China is an example where local Christians had to devise and adopt a more Jesus-like model of the church, which was found to be exceedingly successfull.

Conclusion:

Money is a very bad fuel for spreading and sustaining Christian faith. Only unpaid, volunteer, free of charge Christians are able to carry out a lasting and real impact on individual souls and society as a whole. I think the best and the right kind of fuel is human hearts with true and strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Would you agee?

Churches operate from different models, ... based upon their external circumstances.

Initally, the church of Acts began as a small community of believers, ... sharing their goods with one another and breaking bread together in their various homes.

Later, the New Testament church operated under persecution from Jewish leaders, ... and fled from Jerusalem, carrying the christian message with them.

Further on, when the church operated under persecution from Rome, they hid in the catacombs. It was only after Constantine made christianity the official Roman religion that participants began to practice openly again.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

My (American) church of 600-800ish people has more than half-a-dozen pastors, and none of them are paid enough to live on. They all have to raise their own financial support to do the work they are doing. It is valuable IMO because our existence is more closely tied to the Lord's provision, and because the pastors never forget that they are employed only by the grace of God (which has a trickle-down effect).

This is the way church should be run

 

[A_Thinker]

This is the way church should be run

Paul disagrees ...

1 Timothy 5

17 The elders who lead the church in a good way should receive double honor—in particular, those who do the work of counseling and teaching.18 As the Scriptures say, “When a work animal is being used to separate grain, don’t keep it from eating the grain.” And the Scriptures also say, “A worker should be given his pay.”

 

[Korean-American Christian]

Paul disagrees ...1 Timothy 5
17 The elders who lead the church in a good way should receive double honor—in particular, those who do the work of counseling and teaching.18 As the Scriptures say, “When a work animal is being used to separate grain, don’t keep it from eating the grain.” And the Scriptures also say, “A worker should be given his pay.”

You are correct in saying that the Apostle Paul disagrees. Most church pastors are paid. Why, then, are most overseas missionaries required to raise funds for financial support? Shouldn't overseas missionaries be paid as well?

 

[A_Thinker]

You are correct in saying that the Apostle Paul disagrees. Most church pastors are paid. Why, then, are most overseas missionaries required to raise funds for financial support? Shouldn't overseas missionaries be paid as well?

I agree ...

i believe that the work of the church (including overseas missionaries) should be funded by the church.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

I agree ...i believe that the work of the church (including overseas missionaries) should be funded by the church.

The C&MA (Christian and Missionary Alliance) is the only church denomination that I know of...that pays salaries to their overseas missionaries

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I agree ...

i believe that the work of the church (including overseas missionaries) should be funded by the church.

It is almost 100%. I don't think the bad consequences of such method are worth it.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

You certainly write thought provoking posts , C from K!

Guilty

But coming from heart... with sadness...