Over the years I’ve heard the statement that the church is a business and needs to be treated like one. I suspect that any time money is involved there’s a tendency to think this way. Comments like this are, in my opinion, examples of an unclear theology of big “C†and little “c†church and more specifically—Christian stewardship. It’s to the latter that I would like to generate some discussion.
I have to take issue with the statement that the church is a business if we are super-imposing the secular understanding of business on the church. Yes, it is “business-like†in some ways. For example, churches have a budget and accounting procedures like most businesses do. Churches do need money to operate in the way that we practice little “c†(the local congregation) church. Many large congregations have business administrators. And, it is our “business†to carry out God’s work. But there is a clear differentiation between the business of the church and the secular understanding of “business.â€
The purpose for which a secular business exists is to make a financial profit. That intent is inherent is its purpose. The bottom line is the financial statement. The church, however, has a different purpose. It’s purpose is relational—to lead persons into a healthy and meaningful relationship with God and others. By nature, the church is not a business. It is a community of faith! Its intent is not to make a financial profit, but to encourage spiritual growth in its members. The value of the dollar for the church is not equivalent to the value of the dollar of the secular business world. The value of a dollar in secular business transactions represents a fair, measurable exchange for property and/or services. The value of the dollar for churches is immeasurable. It represents an exchange that brings about transformation and spiritual maturity in the lives of church members. Since the church is a community of faith, as opposed to a business, its success and value cannot be adequately measured by a financial statement. And church finances and finance committees should not control the life and ministries of the church. Finances are simply a resource to enable the people of God who feel called to serve effectively.
An adequate theology of stewardship recognizes that it’s not my money, the finance committee’s money, or the church’s money. It’s God’s money—God’s gift to be used to resource the community of faith in carrying out its corporate calling. We respond to God in faith, and THEN consider the financial implications of resourcing our ministries—not the reverse! How many churches do you know who first determine their financial resources before stepping out in ministry? The business world would say that’s smart! But an adequate Christian theology of stewardship and calling challenges that notion. The church isn’t a business. It is a community of faith—and faith is the operative and distinctive word that sets the church apart from the secular business world.
Very challenging thoughts, Marty, thanks. I suspect that this is a perpetual dilemma we’ll never solve as long as we choose certain models for doing “church.” Congregations (as a particular model of church) will always struggle with the pressures and dynamics of being both a community and an institution. And those two inherent natures will, at times, be in conflict with each other.
While I believe that the mission of the church should always be paramount, I also believe that congregational leaders should enter into their relationship with their church with eyes open. And that means that part of their calling is to be good stewards of the institution. There’s no excuse for not managing, supervising, budgetting, or administering well, with responsible competence. As you’ve said, those should serve the mission (purpose) as well as the institution.
I’m a bit challenged by the phrase you used: “….it’s not my money, the finance committee’s money, or the church’s money. It’s God’s money…” I think I know what you’re saying, but it strikes my ears as too close to “preacher rhetoric.” I think it will preach, but I’m just as comfortable with saying that it IS MY/OUR money—God neither needs nor wants it. But the fact that it is MY money or OUR corproately-shared money still does not negate the fact that the point you make is still valid: we are called to be good stewards of the resources and gifts we have.
I was suggesting that many churches are more concerned with protecting the “bottom line” than releasing funds for ministry. I think that’s the difference between viewing our funds as “ours” rather than as “God’s.” Preacher’s rhetoric, yes..that causes us to think about our theology of stewardship. If we think of it as God’s, we are not as inclined to feel the need to protect and hoard it, and more apt to use it for Godly purposes.
Additionally, I wasn’t critiquing the institutional nature of the church. I was questioning the practice of applying secular business principles to the operation and management of the church. Some business practices from the secular world are effective means for church management, but the PRIMARY function of church management for the church is much different from the management function in the business environment. Since the nature of the two are different, their reasons for existence are different. The church does not exist to make money and drive stock prices higher. Over the years, I’ve noticed a tendency in persons with business backgrounds to project their business principles on the institutional church with little regard given to an understanding of the nature of the church. We need them for the management practices that are congruent with the administrative needs of the church. What we often get, however, are leaders who use their positions for control, fail to step out in faith, view their function as “protecting the budget” rather than resourcing the body, instill a self-serving mentality on the church rather than a focus on those outside of the church, kill the spirit of willing and enthusiastic ministry teams who try to serve by over-stepping their functions, make it difficult for persons to minister because of bureaucratic red tape, etc., because of the secular, institutional practices that have shaped them from a competitive business world. And another dimension that does not serve the church well is the attempt to overlay secular business practices on an institution that is made up of volunteers. This is why I believe the church is not a business; why every church should think through its theology of stewardship; and why every church should ponder the thought that the nature of the church is a community of faith and not a corporate institution. Of course, I’m ranting now and may be totally wrong about all of this!