Cash Dog (as opposed to Cow)

Money is a interesting topic at church, yes? I'm not just referring to whether or not the church has any either. I mean the great diversity of money-centered discussions that church leaders can undertake. For example, what is a pledge or tithe? Is a tithe in the Scriptures the same then as it is for us now? How should we give to church, as a pledge or promise or tithe with no strings attached, trusting the leadership of the church to discern God's will and to put those combined resources to best use... OR... should we designate, tag, or earmark our offering so that it supports the key ministries we believe are most important, thus communicating to the leadership where to put the priorities? What about the church's support, or tithing, to higher governing bodies or denominations... should that be untethered or designated...?

I have some pretty strong opinions here. For example, I think its a mistake to let those with the ability to write the biggest checks set the direction of the church just by receiving and depositing whatever earmarked gift they offer. There's a story here at Rehoboth from some years back about a substantial gift offered to our Sanctuary remodel if and only if it the remodelling project would include gold carpet. And thus the quandary. Receive and deposit the money, and install gold carpet, even though the anointed team doesn't want gold. "Hey, who cares what color it is if it's free" attitude. Or, "Thank you, but we've decided to go with dark blue, and hope you will still give to the fund," and risk losing both the money and the member. Hmmm...

I think I am ready to call this kind of church financing the "tail wagging the dog." In our polity, we greatly distrust the masses, and leave almost nothing to a vote of the congregation, save property and pastor. We've seen how easily a mass of people can be easily swayed by hot topics at the crucifixion of Jesus. We also distrust any one individual holding too much of the power, money, or control. Our denomination flowed out of the great attempt to reform the church so that no one person, save Christ himself, would be the mediator between us and God and God's word to us. So, we fall in the middle... congregations elect smaller bodies. Those bodies discern and discuss and decide. And those bodies rotate. Pastors have pastoral authority, but little governing authority, the responsibility of leadership, but not the hiring and firing power (shall we say) necessary to get the job done no matter the cost or who gets hurt in the process. Our polity makes us go a little slower, and makes us talk it out with each other, at least when we actually understand and use our polity.

What I mean by the tail wagging the dog, is that when one big donor, or even one small group of big donors, show up with their pot of gold, the modern church is willing to drop polity to cash the check. In real Presbyterian church, the leadership of the church should set the direction, and then go find the resources to accomplish the vision. That's the dog wagging the tail. But here, the great vacuum of leadership allows those with deep pockets and decent intentions step around (or on) polity, and assume the role of leader/visionary. The tail (money) wags the dog (leadership).

Some of my peers do not agree. I've heard my peers speak of these large, generous gifts as a sign of the Spirit at work. I've heard them suggest that we Presbyterians are, once again, too stuck in our polity to let the Spirit flow when these earmarked donations arrive with all of their baggage on the Presbytery or Session floor.

But its not polity that has me stuck. Its theology. We believe that the Spirit is best discerned in community. That community is intentionally designed as one of prayer, and honesty, and commitment to one another. That community is elected and ordained and installed, all of which are significant signs of Holy Spirit. That community is tasked, primarily, with setting the vision and direction of the church, and to amassing and activating the necessary resources to participate with God in the mission given us by God. I find considerable evidence of Spirit in Session meetings, and Presbytery Coordinating Council. To suggest that a large check is "Spirit" is like saying that the whole process of nominating, electing, training, ordaining, installing, and community building is NOT Spirit. Plus, I keep going back to the widows mite being the greater gift.

All this to say, money is difficult in church. I am quite sure money should not lead the church. It seems that if the church is not willing to lead, though, money has no problem stepping in (on, over, around, right through) the church leadership in order to makes its will known. I just hope we have the guts to look for the vision, and then to rearrange the money to accomplish it. I'm afraid though that the momentum of old money habits, and new money inputs, will beat out community built vision. Pray not.