5 reasons the belief that "we pay the bills at this church" is so toxic

Christian Post ^ | 01/29/2019 | Thom S. Rainer

[SeekAndFind]

In this file photo, a collection plate containing envelopes specifically for the victims of hurricane Katrina is passed during church service, at the Jersey Baptist Church in Pataskala, Ohio, Sunday Sept. 4, 2005. | (Photo: AP Images / Paul Vernon)

One of the most toxic statements a church member or group of church members can make is, “We pay the bills at this church.” Not only is it unbiblical, it is clearly divisive. It creates an “us versus them” mentality in the church.

Why is the statement so harmful? Here are five reasons.

• It makes giving more like paying country club dues than biblical stewardship. Thus, a certain level of giving by a member or a group engenders a sense of entitlement. The people who give with this attitude never really let go of the funds. They continue to hold on to them with strings of conditions.
• It is manipulative. In essence, giving becomes a controlling mechanism. If the church doesn’t do what I want it to do, I will withhold my funds. I have known church members and groups of church members that have held onto funds until they finally got their way. At that point, they released the funds to the church. They were truly holding the church hostage.
• It becomes a way of circumventing the budget. Most churches approve a budget every year. It becomes the guide for the church to steward the funds given to the congregation. On too many occasions, a malcontent in the church decides he or she doesn’t like the approved plans for spending, so they threaten to withhold their funds. One person told me smugly he knew the church was not spending funds in the best way, so his implied threat to withhold funds was necessary. I wonder what he thinks of the biblical story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44). She gave without reservation, but I doubt the Temple was the paragon of stewardship excellence.
• It creates different classes of members in the church. There are those who have and who can make such threats, and there are those who do not have and, thus, have insufficient resources to make demands. As noted earlier, this statement is both inflammatory and divisive.
• It is contrary to the servant spirit of Christ. Jesus was crystal clear on his mission. He did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). Some church members utter the toxic statement, “We pay the bills at this church” to get their own way. Jesus made the sacrificial statement that He would put others before Himself, so much so that He would die for others.

“We pay the bills at this church.”

It is a toxic statement.

It is an unbiblical statement.

It is contrary to the spirit in which the Lord Himself came to serve, to give, and to sacrifice.

[Mariner]

The preacher demands absolute control over the money, even statements and thoughts on how it should be spent.

[DesertRhino]

“In essence, giving becomes a controlling mechanism. If the church doesn’t do what I want it to do, I will withhold my funds.”

Huh...so you ARE teachable after all.

[PAR35]

Big givers should be given a voice at the table when spending priorities are being determined.

But the bottom line is clear - it is the pastor’s fault for having failed to 1) properly educate the membership about stewardship and 2) having failed to properly communicate the vision.

The old 20/80 rule doesn’t really hold any more. Now it is more likely that 10% of the membership is giving 90% of the money. Telling the 10% to shut up and keep giving is going to turn into a short term game.

[Don W]

Indeed, so when the church starts teaching non-biblical PC nonsense, I am to continue my contributions?

I don’t think so, Tim.

[alternatives?]

“The preacher demands absolute control over the money, even statements and thoughts on how it should be spent.”

In many congregations the preacher also has absolute control over staff, music, and lesson plans for small groups. If members withhold funds, short of leaving, it may be the only way they can provide input. The author doesn’t mention this possibility which is revealing.

I guess many churches are like our government.

[DesertRhino]

Sounds like “Thom” needs to review he basics of being Baptist. Everyone in that church is standing equal to the preacher in the eyes of God. They see something in their church they don’t agree with, they may decide not to pay for it.

[OrangeHoof]

I guess I’m fortunate. I’ve never been in a congregation where people say this - at least publicly. Any giving is our gift back to God, it’s not even *our money* when seen rightly. Therefore, it should come with no conditions unless perhaps towards a specific ministry (building fund, for example).

[DesertRhino]

Reading his background, I bet it steams his clams to have some geezer explain to him that he gets no check this month because “I don’t like what you said, did, published, who you supported politically...etc.”
He looks like a banker who put on a preacher hat.
He’s very used to being IN CHARGE of the money, not having to toe the line.

“Rainer was born in Union Springs, Alabama and is a 1977 graduate of the University of Alabama, majoring in corporate finance with minors in statistics and economics. He began his career as a cash management officer (1977–80) at Trust Company of Georgia, now SunTrust. By age 25, Rainer became a fifth-generation banker and the youngest vice president for corporate lending of SouthTrust Bank in Anniston, Alabama (1980–83).

Rainer entered Christian vocational ministry in 1982 and earned his Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He served as pastor of churches in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky and Indiana prior to joining the faculty of SBTS in 1994 as founding dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions ...Also while serving at SBTS, Rainer founded and served as president and CEO of the Rainer Group.”

In September 2005, Rainer was unanimously elected by the trustees of LifeWay Christian Resources to succeed James T. Draper as the ninth president of LifeWay, one of the world’s largest Christian resource providers. Shortly after assuming the presidency, Rainer established B&H Academic, a branch of LifeWay’s B&H Publishing Group, to provide pastors, seminary professors and students with theologically conservative commentaries, academic monographs and other biblically-based resources.”

[L,TOWM]

That’s when you find another church.

[Responsibility2nd]

I guess I’m fortunate. I’ve never been in a congregation where people say this - at least publicly.

______________________________________________

Me neither. At first glance, I saw nothing wrong with this statement. I thought; “Yes. No council or diocese or other man-made religious institution is paying the bills. This church is self sufficient. As it should be.”

I’ve never encountered an attitude as expressed in this article. Could it happen? I guess it’s possible.

[slumber1]

Summary - You peons just shut up and keep the money coming!

[Tell It Right]

I’m still a little bitter from learning that during all the years I donated money to my old United Methodist church, a portion of that money was siphoned away to support abortion lobbyists. Moloch has a foothold in that church.

[DesertRhino]

“It creates different classes of members in the church. There are those who have and who can make such threats, and there are those who do not have and, thus, have insufficient resources to make demands. As noted earlier, this statement is both inflammatory and divisive.”

Nice of him to admit that some members of the congregation have “insufficient resources to make demands”. Think about the meaning of THAT statement for a moment!!! It means there are some he can safely blow off!

Pure sophistry and class warfare. It is 100% as likely that a wealthy contributor has friends in the congregation who are struggling financially. These friends often freely discuss some direction the preacher has decided to take, and over coffee they agree it is wrong. So the heavy contributor keeping a preacher in line may likely be acting as the more powerful “voice” of his entire Sunday School class.

I’ve seen it happen.

[DesertRhino]

Sounds like he is viewed as some kind of “rainmaker” for the organization. Someone who brings cash in.
He needs to understand the paradigm flip in his world. When he left the banking industry, he no longer worked as a producer of wealth, he became a consumer of wealth.

Consumers must please their benefactors.

[DesertRhino]

Besides, in withholding funding for an errant preacher’s budget, you don’t need to be -rude- about it. Just say something like;

“Hey, very sorry the check was a little thin this month, but when I heard how much you hate Trump, and hate the wall, I knew bad times are coming to America and I really needed to buy another sack of rice and an SKS....catch ya next month....if I can”

[sphinx]

I suppose if one scratches hard enough, you can come up with a church split between rich and poor congregants. But that would be the exception. Generally the split is between an orthodox laity and clergy that has gone off the rails, or between active, contributing congregants vs. the freeriders, who may be rich or poor, who want to call the shots even though they don't put anything in the collection plate.

The split between an orthodox laity and an unsound clergy is the big enchilada. "We pay for this" doesn't even come close to: "The congregation owns the building and calls its own pastor, so an apostate hierarchy can go pound sand; we'll just affiliate elsewhere."

[CurlyDave]

You will not find any scripture where Jesus says to contribute to the Temple.

Giving money to the poor comes up often. We contribute to the Church and also directly to those in need.

[DesertRhino]

Exactly right. In my experience, that is exactly where the split is. And more often than not, the person who contributes a lot is speaking for many who agree with him but are not so able to show it as effectively with their checkbook.

And this will come as a shock to some, but often the guy with the checkbook, speaking for many others, is often well respected by those who are less well off. Maybe a Doctor who delivered your kids, a Lawyer who saved your bacon in some transaction, a Banker who financed your small business, a local Businessman who gives you a paycheck, etc. Not everyone is in conflict with those who have done well in life financially. There are actually entire regions of the country that still reject Marxism and class struggle.

[DPMD]

It’s the parishioners who actually own the churches, despite what the pastors want to think, and they should use the power of the purse - and of denial of funds - to respond to some of the stupid and political actions of the local diocese. The idiots in Covington who were so quick to condemn the kids should have seen collection plate envelopes with letters to the editor instead of money.