The Lord's Work

[MusicMan826]

In all my time in the COC, perhaps the most obnoxious phrase that I always heard them say was, "The Lord's work". The elders and biddies would always throw out that line any time you would splurge a little bit or spend what they decided was too much money on any kind of entertainment. "Couldn't that money have been used to do the Lord's work?"' they would always ask. If they found out that you went to a nice expensive dinner somewhere, or went to a concert or sporting event, or took even a little vacation somewhere, they would be sure to find you and let you know that you threw away your money and that should have been spent to do "the Lord's work". What exactly was the Lord's work? I guess whatever they did with the money you threw into the collection plate. No one ever knew what was done with that money. But they sure loved discouraging people from ever going out and doing anything fun and making sure they dropped that money in the collection plate. I guess for them "the Lord's work" was trying to control not only what members did during their own time, but trying to control where their money went as well.

[Ivy]

Yep....just another hefty dose of guilt with one's morning wheaties.

[onward]

The CoC - as well as many other church groups - consider the "Lord's work" means throwing money at their pulpiteer, and maintaining the "church" building. Orphans, widows, and the poor needn't apply; there's nothing left to share.

[zeek]

.

[onward]

The CoC - as well as many other church groups - consider the "Lord's work" means throwing money at their pulpiteer, and maintaining the "church" building. Orphans, widows, and the poor needn't apply; there's nothing left to share.

One of the many things I got into trouble over was challenging how the collection was used. First there's the issue of taking something Paul said to one group of people in one place due to a special circumstance and making "lay by in store" a mandatory act of worship for every believer in every place for all time. Then there's the issue of what that collection was used for, most people today will tell you that money is only to fund "the preaching of he gospel". That's not what the money the Corinthians were collecting was used for; it was used to help needy saints in Judea. Try bringing up either of these two points in a Bible class discussion and see what it gets you.

Agreed, never have understood how churches could/would warp this example of a special collection process - except to fill their coffers with loot - into a doctrinal every Sunday morning worship event. The manner of collecting the money is irritating as well ... pushing the collection basket under our honkers in conjunction with the communion service.

[agricola]

I think this is a 'people' issue rather than a generic necessary coc issue, and it may be something more common in smaller congregations that run more informally.

I know the coc I was raised in had a transparency about the budget which was quite clear, was published annually in the bulletin and was subject to any and all questions and comments. The mortgage was this much and the electric bill was SO and the plumbing was THERE and the property tax cost THIS MUCH and the preacher's pay was X and his insurance was Y, and the church's 'charitable endeavors' cost this and the support to some missionary or other was that, and when you added it all up the church needed eleventy-thousand dollars which was thus and so hundreds per Sunday (or, later on, something in the thousands).

Then there was the account of what last year's contributions came to, which was usually right about or a bit over the expenses, and there was a church bank account where the overage was stashed.

They ran it like a business, and the contributions were the 'income'. Of course, after the first few years, that congregation was never so small that a single family or group of families could dominate it.

[KLP]

Agreed Agri, most places we attended had a guy who worried about every last penny, maybe sometimes too much worry and detail. But some places it was a mystery what anything cost...except that there was often a need for "more".

In general my issue was that the building (according to logic) was an "expedient", meaning somewhat incidental and in no way the main focus. So the commandment to "Go" includes authority for transportation and to "Sing" includes authority for a book...OK, whatever. But the transportation and books were not the overwhelming main thing. But the building (and all associated cost) often were in the 70% or more range. Which IMO doesn't sound like just some minor "expedient" item but rather the main focus of the collection. And that if the building cost prevents taking care of needy and sending to needy Christians in other places then it does not sound very "expedient". But usually congregations are already stuck with a huge mortgage so there is no need beating a dead horse because they are obligated to make that payment.

[agricola]

Yes a building is a big expense, but once you have over 30 people, the houses you can meet in are few and far between.

I wonder if that means that every individual congregation should never exceed about 30 people, and once it does, you have to 'split' and meet in two places?

I do know that the synagogue we belong to (well, technically we belong to two) require a fair bit of money to run (include in mortgage and utilities, salaried staff: rabbi, cantor, secretary, etc). But the money set up is different - a synagogue runs more like, say, a club (dues), and less like a church (donations). (Fortunately for our personal budget, such a thing as 'associate memberships' (read: heavily discounted) are available).

Lots of people object to the dues, saying they are too high (they are high - most synagogues regularly charge dues in the 1000's per family annually). But my answer to that is that if you want the facility to be there when you need it, you need to commit to supporting its continuing existence, right? anybody can attend without paying dues, but the 'facilities' and staff don't just exist on air and promises.

So yeah, a building (and a paid staff) cost money, and if you want the facility to do other things - like feed the hungry etc - then that's an expense, too.

(Figure that if you go to church weekly and toss a twenty in the plate each time, you are paying 1000 for the experience, and thank you very much say the accounting staff).

[Pitts S2C]

I once made the mistake of telling the elders that the church should be run more like a business especially regarding finances. They lost it. Specifically one elder; he yelled "the church is not a business". Thought I was going to need to find him a defibrillator.

It's ironic how they do run it like a privately held business and yet quietly sweep that under the rug.

[KLP]

...But my answer to that is that if you want the facility to be there when you need it, you need to commit to supporting its continuing existence, right? anybody can attend without paying dues, but the 'facilities' and staff don't just exist on air and promises.
....

Yep. But my answer was I didn't want the building or the pomp/pride/power about who is most important in regards the building, etc. The building itself always created a de facto clergy about who had the power. I think it is nuts to have such a facility that is used at most 5% of the time and then fight about it too. I am speaking from the perspective and notions of Non-Institutional type congregations because this is the CofC Doctrine and Practice forum.

I thought leasing space made sense if the church was off the hook for all the maintenance. But still there was a lot dead time being leased. Some sort of space rental made more sense to me, like a contracted hotel meeting room. Actually I thought it made more sense for one or more families to build a multiuse facility so that it was privately owned and there would be no problem with parties, potlucks, weddings, donation coordination, etc. So for an NI group that insists that social and religious be kept totally separate then private ownership of the facility made sense to me. Then the "elders" are not spending all their time on the building...which is what always happened in every place I was at where there were elders.

I understand that having a building is convenient and comfortable in some regards and some benefits. But there is a cost and usually it is more than just a price paid in money because people end up in some sort of fight or power struggle over the building. Or so was my experience.