Serving Others or Self-Serving?
November 19, 2009
The impact of church organizations in service to society is “too far below what is reasonable and possible with their available resources, human and material.” – Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership
“One of the ironies we’re beginning to see is that … even the world wants the church to be the church. It is the church that doesn’t want to be the church. That’s the core problem.” – Warren Cole Smith, A Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church (ht Mike Todd, Ryan Taylor)
Distribution of resources is evidence of a church’s mission. Period.
November 19, 2009 at 11:12 am
Very true Grace. Sad and true. And yet, I’m an optimist.
Even with limited material resources, we can begin by sharing ourselves with people and add to that. It’s good that we have each other tohelp keep our focus.
I believe that God is moving in people to extend His grace to people outside the walls. It would be great if this kind of life-style ‘went without sayng’, so natural… but until then I guess we just have to do what we do and keep inviting people to join us. I suspect that some people are simply distracted by religious activity and all they need is an invitation. We can’t wait for learders to ‘release’ us to be christians
November 20, 2009 at 7:54 am
Well said Deborah. Interesting that so many people are walking away from “the resources” into mission. However, I also agree that many people would join the invitation to serve if they weren’t taught that serving=religious activity.
November 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Thanks, Grace, for quoting my book! –Warren
November 20, 2009 at 7:55 am
You are welcome Warren. Thanks for stopping by.
November 20, 2009 at 7:31 am
“Distribution of resources is evidence of a church’s mission. Period.”
An interesting way of putting it. I’m reminded of the Pentecostal theology that states tongues are the evidence of Spirit baptism.
Essentially, both are using the example of Acts 2 as well. You focusing more on the end of the chapter, Pentecostals on the beginning.
Yet, I’m not sure we can limit the evidence to either. A church can distribute its resources but not be participating in God’s mission. One need not be a Christian to distribute resources… as Marx suggested.
Indeed, I’m reminded also of the Base Communities in Latin America, the small churches that arise out of Liberation Theology. The key bit of that is about God’s preferential option for the poor.
Yet, as one bishop said, liberation theology opts for the poor, while the poor opt for Pentecostalism.
Which makes me think that “distribution of resources is evidence of a church’s mission, comma.” Or maybe semi-colon, but I’ve never been too good about using those.
November 20, 2009 at 8:11 am
“Distribution of resources is evidence/a reflection of a church’s/an organization’s mission/purpose/interest.”
I need an editor. Of course it is hard to craft a well-executed generalization. I definitely wasn’t trying to say that distribution of resources is the essence or ultimate of the church’s mission.
Given the financial and human resources of the church in the US, (I’m sure Barna could provide figures), church budgets and expenditures do reflect the interest being served by the organization. I don’t believe it would be difficult to argue that service to society is mostly neglected in favor of state-of-the-art building complexes and other consumer-driven, self-serving programs. I know that is generalizing and harsh. I actually wish there weren’t so many examples that prove my generalization.
As for punctuation, I’m not a big fan of the semi-colon. Period.
November 20, 2009 at 8:41 am
“I don’t believe it would be difficult to argue that service to society is mostly neglected in favor of state-of-the-art building complexes and other consumer-driven, self-serving programs. I know that is generalizing and harsh”
Harsh and true. I think I was just a bit struck by the period–end of sentence.
I’m actually in favor of abolishing church’s tax-exempt status for property tax. I think it might radically affect how we meet, where we meet, and if it’s just plain too much to spend money on a property regularly, the money that is had might well go to other causes–with the result also decentralizing leadership.
I’ve never been the fan of the semi-colon, though I’m encouraged to try it out more by my wife. I do tend to like dashes and ellipses a lot. Probably too much.
November 21, 2009 at 9:56 am
Occasionally, a semi-colon is exactly what is needed; those occasions are often overlooked. Dashes can be interesting, and ellipses are more fun when they are suggestive rather than utilitarian.
November 20, 2009 at 11:52 am
I love the semi-colon; there’s so much of a pregnant pause to it.
Maybe we could say it like this: We should only share with the poor as much as we think God has shared with us. Period.
Also, I’ve not heard enough people make the following argument about the “necessity” of buildings and budgets to mission. If they are so necessary, why did Jesus make a point of stripping his missionaries down to nothing before he sent them (of everything but his message and power). He made a point too, about asking them later if they lacked anything, which they didn’t. Of course, today, the building and budget are essential to mission, while the power is optional.
It’s obvious to me why Pentecostal faith, however otherwise flawed, is covering the globe. If the NT has a precedent for mission, it’s that the Spirit, in power, is what’s necessary for mission.
November 21, 2009 at 9:59 am
Good point T. It is interesting reading about the bureaucratization of institutions and how limiting that can be to service. Maybe Jesus was on to something.
It’s likely that semi-colons are both overlooked and underrated.
November 20, 2009 at 1:11 pm
What a great conversation. I am wondering how quickly sixteen centuries of ‘propertied’ church tradition can be undone? It is certainly embeded in our 400 years of US tradition (imported from Western Europe).
God seems to utilize whatever His church offers Him in faith. I think the key to the discussion here is ‘motivation’. Is the church ’socially motivated’ to distribute to the poor out of pity? Our missional marketing schemes seem to capitalize on emotions. (Having been involved in cross-cultural missions for over a decade, I know for certain that the larger mission organizations have a budget for professional marketers whose job it is to package and ’sell’ their product. Does the end indeed justify the means?). Or does the church’s motivation arise out of genuine compassion through Christ’s love that has been shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit? How can we tell the difference? And who, besides God, is to judge?
As for me, I have learned to try to discern the ‘fruit’ of the organization – whether it is an institutional church body, or a mission organization. Even this is difficult. Because of all of the excesses and marketing ploys I have encountered, I am constantly battling a wall of skepticism.
If anybody out there has come up with a reliable analytical indicator of an organization’s motivation – I am all ears. Otherwise, I continue to do my best to prayerfully follow the path God has chosen for me as it intersects so many opportunities of other paths that cross it. Right or wrong, it tends to keep my focus quite narrow. Period.
November 21, 2009 at 10:05 am
ken,
I agree that there can be dangers of motivation and paternalism in service to the poor. Mike Todd had a few posts on his blog about “missional drift.” He describes the effect of the loss of identity and purpose that occur when we collectively “forget” what we’re about. Overall, the western church organizations have not been good stewards of the resources available to them.
November 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Um – I meant 300 years of North American tradition.
November 20, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Ken, I’m reading through Roger Williams these days. Four hundred years is perfectly suitable. He and the early Quakers are shockingly current in their thinking. Williams is also, quite surprisingly, entirely ‘missional’ in his attitudes towards the native Americans.
George Fox called all church buildings steeple-houses and said we should be rid of all of them, and the hireling ministers who serve there only to gain a wage.
This is the 1630s and after, so while not quite 400 years, it’s pretty close.
November 20, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Thanks for that. I hereby retract my second statement.
November 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Ditto that last sentiment for me Grace. Where your treasure there will your heart be also.
November 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Many rich people in the days of Amos and Isaiah were rich, not because of divine blessing but because of sinful oppression of the poor …
It’s not that we don’t have – it is we don’t to share … CHURCH He promised us that He will meet our daily needs, this is what He said – I’m sure He said that.
Let’s get out of the business of hoarding and building “our” Kingdoms, our towers of Babel. Use our blessings to be a blessing to others.
November 21, 2009 at 10:09 am
Amen Bob and Mark. One more quote to end with…
“What is mediocrity? Is it not anything that is substantially less in quality than what is reasonable and possible with available resources, human and material?” – Robert Greenleaf