One of the guiding principles that my years of involvement in church finances has taught me is that it is bad practice to sell off fixed assets (especially real estate) for the purpose of covering operating expenses, unless you in a “do or die” mode and you have to for short-term survival. Such should be sold off either to reduce debt principal or to acquire new fixed assets.

Beyond that, my business experience tells me that, as local churches and denominations, the main reason we should invest in fixed asets–real or otherwise–is to further our central purpose and mission. Businesses employ payback analyses on such aquisitions. Although the “payback” for non-profits is different, factors such as utilisation relative to building and maintenance cost should be included.

Let me say that I have seen principles such as this disregarded at both the local and denominational levels.

I am not here to go back and forth with you on past practices. Neither am I here to discuss the merit or lack of merit of the reallocation of resources. As a layman, I find myself in a decidedly reactive mode. The ministers propose and agree (hopefully) on a solution and I respond accordingly. For the most part, that’s the way it’s done in this church. I am glad to at least have this opportunity to express myself in a forum that is read, and you have helped that forum get read.

My central point is that, any time more resources come into the hands of our local churches and their pastors, it is a challenge to them–to you–to use those resources to further the mission that Jesus has put us here to do. In this case that response will be spread to the 6000+ congregations that we have in North America, and that response will be as varied as the number of congregations.

The money we receive from the laity of the church–of which I am one, and have contributed over the years–is a sacred trust. The trust for whatever resources remain at the local level need to be received with both humility and commitment to God and to the congregations to use it wisely.

That’s my main point, from the standpoint of going forward. As I like to tell liberals on this blog, it’s your–and the pastors of this church–move: make it.

Our track record of selling off properties and squandering the proceeds as well as our wholesale failure to properly administer the $13 million annually designated/mandated for church planting hardly demonstrates servant leadership from the denominational level.

It better illustrates the parable of the talents where an unproductive servant is having its talents wrenched from his hands. Very directly, I would say the lesson is not a scolding for the local church to feel badly for the denominational structure. Rather, the lesson is for the denomination to learn its lesson, that being:

“If you want a vibrant future connected to a vibrant local church, make yourself mission useful as opposed to a gigantic sandbag on the balloon…or worse: a 100 year old, diaper wearing baby who needs its mustache parted so the local church can insert the bottle into his wrinkled and weathered lips.”

When I think of leadership in a Christian setting, I think of servant leadership. Today we hear a lot about that, but servant leadership is a uniquely Christian concept. Just ask any Muslim. It was embodied in Jesus’ own words:

But Jesus called the ten to him, and said: “Those who are regarded as ruling among the Gentiles lord it over them, as you know, and their great men oppress them. But among you it is not so. No, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, And whoever wants to take the first place among you must be the servant of all; For even the Son of Man came, not be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45)

To follow this command, the denomination must be the servant of the local church, just as the pastors are the servants of their flock. If either the pastors or the denomination “lord over the Gentiles,” then it is wrong in both cases.

Beyond that, a denomination and its local church must have each other’s back. That, Travis, is what you told your flock after the Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department allowed you to be run off of your beach baptism. We should be watching each other’s back, and the tougher the times become the more important this will be for everyone.

Ultimately a denomination must take pastoral care over its ministers in the same way that pastors should do in local churches. And that leads me back to a point I made relative to finances but can be applied to all aspects of church life. It would be a tragedy for local churches to receive the benefit of additional available funds only to use these unwisely. The big difference between a denomination and a local church in this regard is that lay people will vote with their feet faster than ministers and entire churches will if they see things not to their liking. Although that makes the feedback cycle quicker at the local level, over time the result in both cases–be it positive or negative–is the same.

The Church of God, for its diversity, is one church. The denomination as a whole is a reflection (in some way at least, although I am aware this has limitations) of the local churches and the denomination’s membership at large. It is my primary desire that the reallocation of resources be done with open eyes and understanding. With more recources available comes more responsibility. “From every one to whom much has been given much will be expected, and from the man to whom much has been entrusted the more will be demanded.” (Luke 12:48b)

If the local monies go into maintenance of the local church, it is still an improvement over the maintenance of a too controlling bureaucracy.

One would have to admit that the size and power of our overly-centralized bureaucracy has led to abuse of one too many good men. Men who are on the payroll of the COG bureaucracy use the funds of the local church to travel all over the world savaging the reputations of local church pastors. If that kind of activity is defunded, that is reason enough for me.

DENOMINATION AS MOTHER
Those sentiments aside, I have found that strong, controlling parents are beneficial while the child is young. As the child grows, the parent must release the child. If the denomination is the mother and the local church is the child, we have controlled many of our children (churches) into overdependency on mom…time to trust the child to take some independent steps and enjoy the relational connection more than be under the authoritarian relationship.

DENOMINATION AS CHILD
I have come to believe that the most beneficial analogy is that the denomination is actually the child and the local church is the mother.

And, if this is the case, we have come to the place where the child has remained dependent on the mother for too long. the child is too fat, too irresponsible, too dependent on the mother.

By removing the child from the bottle, the child will be forced to grow up, be more responsible, and accept more responsibility for its own future without demanding more coddling from the ever resourcing mother (local church).

COG denominational structure, it’s time to man up and lose the comfort of your cushion and remember why you were birthed.

Your post was great!