First Things First

By Jeffrey J. Knowles

It”s time for a compromise on compromise.

This is not the kind of wording that usually graces Christian dialogue. The words “Christ” and “compromise” are often seen as opposites. Yet, let”s face it: Christians and their churches have been compromising with (some would say capitulating to) our larger culture for a long time. Regrettably, arguments about those compromises often lead to church damage and destruction instead of resolution and redemption.

Prophetic voices have been warning the church against cultural compromises since Paul exhorted the Corinthian church. Yet, the times demand something bold””even a bold compromise.

Here”s today”s situation: Much, if not most, of the current church-culture conflict is being played out amid “seeker sensitivities” (i.e., “We have to relate to our culture so we can better evangelize it”). These sensitivities usually seem to result in the construction of large church buildings to accommodate those seekers. Since someone once suggested that hearts invariably follow treasures, I would like to suggest the compromise with compromise:

Let the first 51 cents of every new capital-cost church dollar (i.e., for church construction or renovation) be given to missions or benevolence work (i.e., persons or organizations not connected to the located church staff or properties). Then let the remaining 49 cents be used for the desired capital improvements.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

In anticipation of a couple of immediate and well-rehearsed objections:

No, the new church construction does not, in itself, qualify as a missions project. All of the church-growth rationalizations to the contrary, a new sanctuary or athletic complex is something the church gets, not gives.

And no, this is not bad stewardship of the Lord”s money””its only bad stewardship of the church”s institutional budget. There is a vast difference.

What about the objections from the other side of the aisle? Some would say even this compromise spends too much on buildings. A $10 million capital campaign, for example, would still build a $4.9 million sanctuary, and the $5.1 million given away would not likely stop Tony Campolo from gadflying to us about starving Haitian children. Others would hear all this talk and ask, aren”t we being a bit too hung up in money matters?

Well, of course, it”s too late for the second objection, since the church has been hopelessly hung up on money matters for centuries. As for the first, yes, there still would be huge amounts of money available for building state-of-the-art structures in a world where children starve and other Christians meet in mud huts. During the past 10 years new church construction in this nation has run in the billions of dollars””several times that figure if loan interest and upkeep are added in.

But the art of compromise, which in fact is rooted in the Christian tradition (1 Corinthians 9:19-22), usually demands giving up at least one point dearly held. Besides, another Christian mandate, the unity of the body, cannot be ignored. Hence, the 51 percent compromise. The point is to balance out our scripturally dubious and fiscally dominating investments in new buildings, many of which sit empty most of the time and often send the wrong signals to seekers regarding the center of their newfound faith.

The lives of Christ and the apostles were lived without any reference to Christian church buildings. The one great offering Paul collected was to relieve the starvation of the apparently capital-less church in Jerusalem.

Robert Louis Wilken (“The Church as Culture,” First Things, April 2004) notes that the second-century church had few of the marks “associated with a distinctive community.” Specifically, that church “met in the homes of the wealthier members . . . owned no land . . . had no temples (in fact, no buildings at all) . . . no cemeteries . . . and the Church, as a social entity, was invisible.”

Not much is invisible about our contemporary churches. It is hard to hide a billion dollars worth of buildings. A fair amount of theological adjusting has been necessary to explain the need for this costly visibility that the earliest Christians so carelessly neglected. None of the soul-winning in the New Testament church relied on enticing nonbelievers into centralized worship facilities where they could be wooed to the faith. That job was joyfully done by individual believers who, reflecting Christ”s own life, never dreamed that God”s work was anything less than a 24/7 proposition.

Once again, our generation did not invent this problem. The church has been fighting an often losing battle against materialism for 1,700 years. We are, however, doing a better job of losing the fight we inherited.

But if the New Testament church was marked by a total lack of emphasis on properties and buildings, it never lacked a passion for unity. Sooner or later, unity requires compromise.

And so, my compromise with compromise. The 50-plus-1 percent solution.

BENEFITS DESCRIBED

What could it do? First, it could prove a tremendous boon to missions.

One of the crueler ironies of building campaigns is that missions tends to be one of the first casualties when the heavy bills come due after the lapel pins, victory dinners, and miracle Sundays fade from memory. If, as we so dramatically insist and demonstrate, our new buildings reflect the priority of winning the world for Christ, then missions should be the last thing we cut, not the first.

Nor should we be deterred by doubling the costs for new buildings. As has sometimes been said during the passion of a building campaign, “If this new building brings even one new person to Christ it will have been worth the cost.” If a soul is worth a new building here, who among us would argue with what those kinds of resources could mean for winning souls (and bellies) in needy places near and far?

Second, but first in importance, this challenge, or something like it, might return us to the practice of connecting our behavior to our beliefs. Josh McDowell argues convincingly that evangelicals are losing their youth””the very children of believers such as us””because they no longer know what or how to believe.

Small wonder. A spate of recent, high-visibility surveys suggests that today”s Christians are little better than anyone else in managing our personal lives. We divorce our spouses, cohabitate with lovers, hoard our money, and obsess on TV in ways barely distinguishable from the broader population. This separation of behavior and belief would have been unthinkable in the first-century church we claim as a model.¹ The 51 percent commitment puts our money where our spiritual mouth is, and offers a first step in clearly showing our children that, at least monetarily, beliefs matter more than buildings, that we really believe what we say about God”s ownership of everything.

GIVE AND TAKE

A couple of rules are in order for this challenge. One would be a general amnesty for everything done up until now””no demands for divesting of properties or tearing down of buildings.

Paul clearly tells us (1 Corinthians 8) that saintliness and sinfulness lie in motives and uses, not in things themselves. If God can find a good use for a boy”s lunch he is probably capable of doing the same with a $75 million building.

We should also insist that the benevolence campaign precede the building campaign; that the body of believers get involved in and excited about the gift they are about to give away before they focus on the one they are about to give themselves. Nor should the Spirit-enhancing possibilities of such a campaign be underestimated.

Recently a nearby Columbus megachurch decided to give to foreign missions the first $2 million from an $8 million campaign to establish a Columbus community center that will provide medical, dental, and other services for the poor (hardly a self-indulgent thing in itself). The people of the congregation got so excited about this double gifting that they have already raised more than $9.5 million toward the venture.

So, what”s it to be? Taking? Giving? Or give-and-take?

________

¹See D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans), and J.B. Phillips, Through the Year with J.B. Phillips, January 16, among many others.

 

 

Jeff Knowles is a lifetime member of Restoration Movement churches who lives in Columbus, Ohio.