Comments on: Is the (c)hurch a Business? http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442 Christian Education at its best! Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:03:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Marty Canaday http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442#comment-184 Marty Canaday Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:26:20 +0000 http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442#comment-184 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! 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!

]]> By: Marty Canaday http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442#comment-183 Marty Canaday Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:14:53 +0000 http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442#comment-183 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. 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.

]]> By: Israel Galindo http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442#comment-182 Israel Galindo Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:49:05 +0000 http://grace-ed.org/blog/archives/442#comment-182 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. 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.

]]>