Vineyard then and now...
I've been involved in the Vineyard (on and off, mostly "on") for close to twenty years. As such, many of the Vineyard values have become my own values. I know that I've tended to see ministry, ecclesiology, scripture, etc., through Vineyard lenses. At the same time, I've noticed a shift in the Vineyard over the years; from a "movement" to an "institution". To me, "institution" speaks of lack of movement; a "fixedness". From what I've read and researched about John Wimber and the early days of the Vineyard, this shift was already well underway by the time I joined up in 1984.
What prompted fresh reflection on this was that I recently received an email from the Vineyard NorthWest, which contained a link where one could read the various lecture notes from their most recent Church Planting Conference. Here's the link, if anyone's interested: http://www.providencevcf.org/cpc/indexcpc.htm
There's some good information (not just for "church planters") and, sadly, some not so good information. I guess, as with many things, one has to eat the meat and pick out the bones.
One item that really struck me was a document entitled, "Money and Budget Basics", written by the Vineyard NorthWest Regional Church Planting Coordinator. Here are a few quotes from it:
"Throughout the life of your church you will spend somewhere between 45% to 55% of your income on payroll. 30% on Facilities cost. That leaves you 25% to 15% for all other expenses, ministries and giving."
"How soon is too soon to go full time? ... A church that gives $80,000 to $100,000 a year should be able to pay a Pastor at least $30,000 to $40,000 a year."
"As soon as you begin receiving money you can begin gradually taking a housing allowance."
"You (the pastor) are the church's major asset."
What hit me was the clearly stated expectation that up to 85% of the money given by church-goers should go towards a pastor's salary and a building. It seems that "ministries and giving" is only considered deserving of the remaining 15% or so.
How different this attitude seems from that of John Wimber in the early days of the Vineyard. Here's a quote from Carol Wimber in her book "The Way it Was":
"It was such a relief to let God run his church...Right away we began to give the weekly offering away to the needy. When the offering basket went around, those who had, gave and those who needed, took. We had very few financial needs as a church. Neither John (Wimber) or Bob (Fulton) took a paycheck, having outside professions, and the Masons (they rented a Mason's Hall for their meetings) asked only for a token amount for weekly rent. I remember that when it came time to pay, they wouldn't take anything at all."
This was a church of 70 people that grew very quickly into several hundred and had to move to a Junior High School and then a High School. From the beginning, Wimber placed a great deal of emphasis on giving to those in need. Apparently, more so than on buildings or salaries.
Another thought that really struck me today was that Paul was a highly educated man (both in the Jewish and Greco-Roman realms), yet he was a manual laborer (tent-maker) with a low income. At times he allowed churches he had planted to support him during his mission trips, but most of the time he worked a job all day and taught at night, so as not to be a burden or hinder the gospel of Christ. Paul worked his "day job" in Galatia, Corinth, Thessalonica and Ephesus (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7-8; Acts 20:31-35; 1 Cor 4:12; 9:6). In 1 Cor 9, Paul explains his "support philosophy". After making a strong argument for why he could claim entitlement to donor-support, Paul says three times that he made no use of this right and never intends to do so in the future (1 Cor 9:12, 15, 18).
Paul seems to have seen being a "full-time" minister as a potential obstacle to the gospel and his credibility. Perhaps he valued his tent-making job as one more way of being "all things to all men" amongst those he desired to reach. He was one of them, not an aloof cleric. Of course, we have to remember that the closest modern-day equivalent to Paul's ministry would be a missionary, not a pastor. Yet Paul advised the churches to follow his example in this regard. Take a look at 2 Thess. 3:6-13.
Most of Paul's instructions about money had to do with giving it to those in need.
His attitude towards money, of course, echos that of Jesus. Paul acknowledged the right of teachers and Apostles to be paid, yet didn't claim this right and advised others to follow his example.
This is, in some ways, very challenging to me. As much as I'd like to earn my living by ministering, sharing the gospel, studying scripture and teaching, who am I to think that what was good enough for Paul isn't good enough for me? The heart of the issue (in my mind) isn't whether or not pastors should get a salary, or whether a church should have a building, but the unquestioned assumption that they should, even at the expense of "ministries and giving". Lord, help me to keep Your priorities straight and not buy into accepted assumptions or things that exalt my needs above others.
What prompted fresh reflection on this was that I recently received an email from the Vineyard NorthWest, which contained a link where one could read the various lecture notes from their most recent Church Planting Conference. Here's the link, if anyone's interested: http://www.providencevcf.org/cpc/indexcpc.htm
There's some good information (not just for "church planters") and, sadly, some not so good information. I guess, as with many things, one has to eat the meat and pick out the bones.
One item that really struck me was a document entitled, "Money and Budget Basics", written by the Vineyard NorthWest Regional Church Planting Coordinator. Here are a few quotes from it:
"Throughout the life of your church you will spend somewhere between 45% to 55% of your income on payroll. 30% on Facilities cost. That leaves you 25% to 15% for all other expenses, ministries and giving."
"How soon is too soon to go full time? ... A church that gives $80,000 to $100,000 a year should be able to pay a Pastor at least $30,000 to $40,000 a year."
"As soon as you begin receiving money you can begin gradually taking a housing allowance."
"You (the pastor) are the church's major asset."
What hit me was the clearly stated expectation that up to 85% of the money given by church-goers should go towards a pastor's salary and a building. It seems that "ministries and giving" is only considered deserving of the remaining 15% or so.
How different this attitude seems from that of John Wimber in the early days of the Vineyard. Here's a quote from Carol Wimber in her book "The Way it Was":
"It was such a relief to let God run his church...Right away we began to give the weekly offering away to the needy. When the offering basket went around, those who had, gave and those who needed, took. We had very few financial needs as a church. Neither John (Wimber) or Bob (Fulton) took a paycheck, having outside professions, and the Masons (they rented a Mason's Hall for their meetings) asked only for a token amount for weekly rent. I remember that when it came time to pay, they wouldn't take anything at all."
This was a church of 70 people that grew very quickly into several hundred and had to move to a Junior High School and then a High School. From the beginning, Wimber placed a great deal of emphasis on giving to those in need. Apparently, more so than on buildings or salaries.
Another thought that really struck me today was that Paul was a highly educated man (both in the Jewish and Greco-Roman realms), yet he was a manual laborer (tent-maker) with a low income. At times he allowed churches he had planted to support him during his mission trips, but most of the time he worked a job all day and taught at night, so as not to be a burden or hinder the gospel of Christ. Paul worked his "day job" in Galatia, Corinth, Thessalonica and Ephesus (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7-8; Acts 20:31-35; 1 Cor 4:12; 9:6). In 1 Cor 9, Paul explains his "support philosophy". After making a strong argument for why he could claim entitlement to donor-support, Paul says three times that he made no use of this right and never intends to do so in the future (1 Cor 9:12, 15, 18).
Paul seems to have seen being a "full-time" minister as a potential obstacle to the gospel and his credibility. Perhaps he valued his tent-making job as one more way of being "all things to all men" amongst those he desired to reach. He was one of them, not an aloof cleric. Of course, we have to remember that the closest modern-day equivalent to Paul's ministry would be a missionary, not a pastor. Yet Paul advised the churches to follow his example in this regard. Take a look at 2 Thess. 3:6-13.
Most of Paul's instructions about money had to do with giving it to those in need.
His attitude towards money, of course, echos that of Jesus. Paul acknowledged the right of teachers and Apostles to be paid, yet didn't claim this right and advised others to follow his example.
This is, in some ways, very challenging to me. As much as I'd like to earn my living by ministering, sharing the gospel, studying scripture and teaching, who am I to think that what was good enough for Paul isn't good enough for me? The heart of the issue (in my mind) isn't whether or not pastors should get a salary, or whether a church should have a building, but the unquestioned assumption that they should, even at the expense of "ministries and giving". Lord, help me to keep Your priorities straight and not buy into accepted assumptions or things that exalt my needs above others.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home