# House churches in the U.S. for the sake of missions -- a radical proposal



## elnwood

We are often told that our checkbook is an indicator of our priorities. The same could be said for the church. When you look at your church's budget, where is most of the money spent on? Pastor's salary? Administration? Caring for the poor? Evangelism? Missions?

I'm from California, and real estate in the Golden State is very expensive and very scarce. The older churches have very expensive properties, and the newer churches are usually paying huge amounts to lease property. Rent or mortgage, property and facilities management, utilities and other building-related costs often make up the bulk of a church budget.

So, I propose that our churches move away from needing expensive buildings, and instead meet in homes. The churches in the Bible met in homes, or outside, not in church buildings. If churches no longer spent all that money every month just to have a place to meet, then that money could be used to support their pastors better, care for the needy, and support more overseas missionaries. The Great Commission still has yet to be fulfilled; there are not disciples among every tribe, language, people and nation.

What do you think? Is the priority correct in this proposal? Is this something the church ought to do? Is it plausible or feasible? Are the American churchgoers too conditioned to having church meet in a building for this to work? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a church model?


----------



## Scott1

There certainly were house churches in the Bible.

But that's not the whole context. 

You need a reliable place to meet, that logistically meets the needs of meeting, and can accommodate present and future growth.

Often, one's house will not meet all those needs. Think of all the variables- what if the people are away traveling, don't want to host on a particular day for whatever reasons, or can't accommodate more than 25 people, is there room for a choir? etc.?

Occasional or incidental meetings, yes, but those will tend to "come and go."

Establishing a permanent work, needs a fixed place that can accommodate. Some churches have purchased a house and converted it into a sanctuary.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I completely agree that too many churches waste too much money on buildings. I like the idea of house churches, but it may not be practical for larger congregations. My church meets in a YMCA and it is perfect. They have a large gym where we have our service, a few classrooms for nursery, and a huge pool that we use for baptisms. We only get access to the building for four hours on Sunday morning, but it only costs us about $1000 a month. Compare that to what we would spend if we had a mortgage on a mulit-million dollar building.


----------



## Tim

There is also a place for having the church building occupy a visible place in the community. This would seem to be more difficult if the building were a "regular" house.


----------



## jwithnell

The Lord just doubled the size of our building w/no mortgage and no fundraising. This enables us to pursue having an intern, opens our VBS so we don't have to cap enrollment at 80, lets the congregation gather in one room outside of the sanctuary, etc., etc. 

I worry about the trend toward rented facilities and churches in houses. I fully understand that this is sometimes unavoidable and that the early church used a variety of meeting places. But I get an overtone of churches viewing themselves as less-than permanent. One can pop up today, function for a while, then slide away without anyone even knowing that it existed. 

I sometimes see buildings that were obviously once churches that are now used to sell antiques or books or something. It makes me wonder: what happened to that congregation? Are their children still following Christ somewhere? It was clear that an earlier generation wanted to permanently establish a place for God's worship; it is tragic that use has ended. But the building itself still stands as a silent witness.


----------



## Edward

Don't forget to put in a hefty line item in your budget for litigation expenses. You'll have land use issues, occupancy permits to deal with, etc. ADA exemptions and RLUIPA will help, but that won't cover all of the issues, and even items covered may have to be litigated. 

Over time, the costs may even out, but for the first few years, renting might be cheaper. 

I remember running into some of the 'home church movement' folks some years ago. (It is certainly not a new idea.) It's not something I'd with which I'd want to be associated.


----------



## Herald

Interesting. Simpler isn't always better. There are always variables to be considered (as has already been brought up). We were informed today that our lease is being terminated. Right now we don't know where we're going. We may have no alternative but to consider meeting in homes until the Lord provides another facility. However, that is not the typical church house church model. There is a difference between meeting in a house because of necessity and meeting in a house because of design.


----------



## Rufus

jwithnell said:


> I worry about the trend toward rented facilities and churches in houses. I fully understand that this is sometimes unavoidable and that the early church used a variety of meeting places. But I get an overtone of churches viewing themselves as less-than permanent. One can pop up today, function for a while, then slide away without anyone even knowing that it existed.
> 
> I sometimes see buildings that were obviously once churches that are now used to sell antiques or books or something. It makes me wonder: what happened to that congregation? Are their children still following Christ somewhere? It was clear that an earlier generation wanted to permanently establish a place for God's worship; it is tragic that use has ended. But the building itself still stands as a silent witness.



Up here I've seen a few nice old churches that are either abandoned or are "preserved" by the government but there not really used for tourism either. One is on somebodies property, a big old white church, another is abandoned and beat down it is made of stone and has stained glassed windows but it looks like it hasn't been used in eighty years, right here in my town we have Union Chapel and an old Presbyterian church that are both preserved. 
View attachment 2202


----------



## py3ak

Scott1 said:


> is there room for a choir?



This is definitely not something for which it is necessary to make provision.


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> Interesting. Simpler isn't always better. There are always variables to be considered (as has already been brought up). We were informed today that our lease is being terminated. Right now we don't know where we're going. We may have no alternative but to consider meeting in homes until the Lord provides another facility. However, that is not the typical church house church model. There is a difference between meeting in a house because of necessity and meeting in a house because of design.



Bill, I saw your post just before I was about to post mine. I certainly didn't intend to direct this post towards your church in any way. I imagine that the early church met in houses out of necessity as well, mainly because of persecution.

I have never attended a house church. My motivation for bringing this up has nothing to do with endorsing a house church "model" but simply being a diligent steward of what God has given us and using our funds as efficiently as possible to accomplish the goals that God has laid out for the church: making disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey everything that Christ has commanded. I don't think a building is all that necessary for this, and it is disproportionately expensive.



Scott1 said:


> You need a reliable place to meet, that logistically meets the needs of meeting, and can accommodate present and future growth. Often, one's house will not meet all those needs. Think of all the variables- what if the people are away traveling, don't want to host on a particular day for whatever reasons, or can't accommodate more than 25 people, is there room for a choir? etc.?



As JWithnell and Rufus alluded to, a church building gives a sense of permanence, but in many cases, this sense of permanence is often nothing but a facade.

A reliable place to meet is nice, and not having that is a major inconvenience, but is that need for convenience worth the thousands of dollars that are poured into a church building? In the age of cell phones and the internet, is it too hard to tell everyone about a location change? If a house gets too crowded, is it too difficult to worship outside? Or work towards splitting into two house churches?

Do we really need to have a choir, spend money on choir robes, or alternately, a huge sound system and electric guitars sucking up electricity? Why not just a guitar or a piano, or just a cappella worship?

A reliable location, a good sounding choir or worship band, and a large facility are all nice things to have, but I simply want to ask: is it worth the thousands of dollars when our own missionaries are being sent home because of lack of funds? When missionaries often spend several years in "partnership development" raising support before they can go overseas?


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> I don't think a building is all that necessary for this, _and it is disproportionately expensive_.



Don, it's the last part of your statement that you need to be careful of (emphasis mine). If a church's facilities expenses are to the point that missions, acts of mercy, and member care are curtailed or non-existent, then your comment has validity. However, not every church is in this situation. Many churches are good stewards of what God has entrusted to them. Not belonging to any one person, their facility is used to minister to the family of God. Church buildings are a presence of stability in a community. There is a sense of belonging. The building is a gathering place for the saints and a beacon of hope for the sinner. Local ordinances often prohibit signs or excess parking. This can be a limiting problem for a house-based church. There is much to be considered.


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a building is all that necessary for this, _and it is disproportionately expensive_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, it's the last part of your statement that you need to be careful of (emphasis mine). If a church's facilities expenses are to the point that missions, acts of mercy, and member care are curtailed or non-existent, then your comment has validity. However, not every church is in this situation. Many churches are good stewards of what God has entrusted to them. Not belonging to any one person, their facility is used to minister to the family of God. Church buildings are a presence of stability in a community. There is a sense of belonging. The building is a gathering place for the saints and a beacon of hope for the sinner. Local ordinances often prohibit signs or excess parking. This can be a limiting problem for a house-based church. There is much to be considered.
Click to expand...


Bill, fair enough. For the sake of discussion, I'm putting it in black and white terms and making broad, sweeping generalizations. I am doing so because I think it could apply to many, if not most, of our churches. I want all churches to consider whether their finances are being used best for the glory of God. If your church is already being financially efficient and distributing more money toward missions than towards a building, then this discussion is meant to encourage you.

Yes, there is a lot to consider, but I think it's better to get the ball rolling and consider the possibility of moving to house churches, rather than for us to simply dismiss the concept outright as too trendy or too difficult or inconvenient. Our churches often do things out of tradition and become too rooted in doing things the way we've always done them.

For example, yes, local ordinances may prevent signs, and parking would be difficult. But I think the benefit of not paying for a building would outweigh a lot of these things. Also, organized carpooling would reduce parking immensely and be better for the environment and traffic congestion. If you need to, you can park a couple blocks away.

Inconvenient? Yes. But I think our American desire for convenience hinders the effectiveness of the church in so many different areas.


----------



## Herald

Don, keep in mind that the same approach used in your argument can be used _against _house churches.


----------



## Pergamum

Other possibilities besides an expensive building might be renting out a hotel conference room for several hours every sunday and making the service open to the public. 

Some churches overseas even set-up in malls, like is being done much in West Java and other areas where church buildings are sometimes targetted by radicals, since areas where malls are built are often the most tolerant areas and being inside a mall offers certain protections.

With the popularity of VFW posts declining, some of these, or elks lodges, etc, might allow cheap or even free meetings.


However, a set-aside building does help convey legitimacy in our culture. To be contextual in Western culture, and remove needless barriars to the gospel in the West, a set-aside building is a plus.

Many folks think that only cults and wackos meet in basements. Plus, I would much rather go pee in a "public" place like a church building, then go to the bathroom in someone's private home and see their private articles of toiletry and what their favorite toilet reading material is, etc.

---------- Post added at 02:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 AM ----------

Here's a link to an article about shopping mall churches in West Java: http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1699/mall-church/

Also, a final note. In many places on the mission field, there are nice big church buildings. It would be ironic for a US church to forsake its own big building to send away a missionary in order to serve in places where there are big buildings for worship...but maybe it would be a good change.


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> Don, keep in mind that the same approach used in your argument can be used _against _house churches.



Could you elaborate here, Bill? As I said before, I'm not particularly attached to house churches as a model.


----------



## KMK

Having come out of the house church movement myself, I can say that one of its biggest problems, and the one that has most likely prevented the movement from gaining traction over the last 2000 years, is that no matter what you do you can never truly make someone's home a public place. No amount of explaining can reassure the unconverted or baby Christian that they are indeed welcome at some stranger's house on Sunday morning. Private homes are a great place for private meetings but not for public meetings. Once you go the house church route you become a kind of 'secret society' which is contrary to the great commission your house churching is supposed to be benefiting.

This is the main reason I left the house church movement in favor of the local church with all of its failings and blemishes and imperfections. I believe the church needs to do whatever is necessary to remain a public meeting, even if that means disproportionate spending. 

Whose to say what is disproportionate spending in the first place? The Bible does not tell us what the ideal church budget looks like.


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don, keep in mind that the same approach used in your argument can be used _against _house churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate here, Bill? As I said before, I'm not particularly attached to house churches as a model.
Click to expand...


Don, okay, let's use your argument as a model and I'll use the same tactic by refuting it:



> I think it's better to get the ball rolling and consider the possibility of moving to house churches, rather than for us to simply dismiss the concept outright as too trendy or too difficult or inconvenient.



I think it's better to get the ball rolling and consider the possibility of moving from a house church to a public facility, than for us to simply dismiss the concept outright as too stodgy or difficult or convenient. 



> Our churches often do things out of tradition and become too rooted in doing things the way we've always done them.



House churches often do things out of tradition and become too rooted in doing things they way we've always done them.



> For example, yes, local ordinances may prevent signs, and parking would be difficult. But I think the benefit of not paying for a building would outweigh a lot of these things. Also, organized carpooling would reduce parking immensely and be better for the environment and traffic congestion. If you need to, you can park a couple blocks away.



For example, yes, there would be a higher cost of paying for a building, but the convenience would be worth it. People could park in a parking lot making it easier to access the facility. This is especially helpful for the elderly or handicapped. It would also be considerate to our neighbors by not parking in front of their homes. It will also eliminate excuses for people not to attend church because of the inconvenience of parking. 



> Inconvenient? Yes. But I think our American desire for convenience hinders the effectiveness of the church in so many different areas.



Catering to convenience? No. It would be making public worship more accessible for all who would desire to come and greatly enhance the effectiveness of the church in so many different areas.

Don, the reason your argument can be turned on its head is because it is not a biblical mandate. If the bible clearly commanded us to meet in homes then the issue is rendered moot. I understand your cost cutting comments. They make sense on the surface. But is yet to be proven that giving would increase, or remain the same, proportionally to larger churches. There is also the unintended consequence of driving the church underground. If the house church model held sway, and more and more church buildings became shuttered, the church would enter into a defacto bunker mentality. The church would virtually disappear from society. 

Again, house churches sometimes are necessary. They are necessary in oppressive governments, such as China. If my church cannot enter into a new lease we may be forced to meet in a home until we can find public accommodations. But to suggest house churches as the norm is an over reaction In my humble opinion.


----------



## Pergamum

I find that in some of the house churches I have attended, several strong personalities often ran the show. These strong personalities either started the house church (either to do it 'their way" or due to not being able to submit or work with a wider conglomeration of folks), or else these desired to untowardly control the church through hosting the fellowship meetings. 

Sometimes, a house church is merely a gathering of malcontents. 

I have found this grievous tendency among several "Uniting Church and Home" folks who could not tolerate any public meeting or public worship not of their own construction and isolated themselves due to their "convictions" (a word I have often come to dread).


----------



## jwithnell

I have wonderfully fond memories of meeting in people's homes as a church started. I think the intimacy helped us all get to know one another and knitted a core group that still provides leadership 30 years later. But there was always an eye to the future -- even before we had a pastor, the men were meeting regularly to pray for guidance and God's blessings on our tiny start. 



> I think it could apply to many, if not most, of our churches. I want all churches to consider whether their finances are being used best for the glory of God.


I don't believe this kind of broad accusation is at all appropriate. If you know this to be true of your own church, please take it up with your session.


----------



## elnwood

Thank you all for your comments. They've been helpful for my thinking.

I've called it a "radical proposal," acknowledging that this is something that was going to challenge the way we do things. In that sense, I should have been prepared for the negative reception, but I had hoped I would get more people entertaining the idea, at least for a moment, instead of pushing back so hard.

As far as the church being "driven underground" and having "no presence in society," I wonder if that is really such a bad thing after all. The underground church in China certainly has a profound impact on society. The church prior to Constantine was that way. Why is it so important for us to have presence in society? Is it because we fear persecution? Are we afraid of being thought of as strange, or mocked? (This happens anyway, by the way).

As far as "the Bible doesn't have a church budget," i am not saying any such thing. I am saying that the priority of the church is making disciples of every tribe, language, people and nation, and that if a church can cut major costs regarding a building and allocate that toward missions, this is better overall for the priority of the church.

Anyway, this was an interesting experiment in trying to be creative in getting the church to consciously self-sacrifice to support missionaries. When the SBC is not able to send out very many missionaries and pulling missionaries out of countries because the IMB is underfunded, when missionaries are spending 3+ years raising support full-time to be sent out, and when our own missionaries on PB are forced to return home because a lack of funding, I think those of us who are senders need to get our creative minds working to see how we as a church can best do our part in the Great Commission.

If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.


----------



## Scott1

py3ak said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is there room for a choir?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is definitely not something for which it is necessary to make provision.
Click to expand...


Okay, no choirs, choruses or bands.

Is there enough room for a few people in concert to sing _acapella_?

Room for any musical instruments that require amps or speakers? Electrical outlets? Is there enough room for them and a sound barrier?



elnwood said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
> You need a reliable place to meet, that logistically meets the needs of meeting, and can accommodate present and future growth. Often, one's house will not meet all those needs. Think of all the variables- what if the people are away traveling, don't want to host on a particular day for whatever reasons, or can't accommodate more than 25 people, is there room for a choir? etc.?
> As JWithnell and Rufus alluded to, a church building gives a sense of permanence, but in many cases, this sense of permanence is often nothing but a facade.
> 
> But that's a separate issue isn't it? Your church will not be a "facade."
> 
> A reliable place to meet is nice, and not having that is a major inconvenience, but is that need for convenience worth the thousands of dollars that are poured into a church building? In the age of cell phones and the internet, is it too hard to tell everyone about a location change?
> 
> Believe it or not, there are many people who still do not have cell phones, or apps, or internet- or at least do not check them regularly.
> 
> If a house gets too crowded, is it too difficult to worship outside?
> 
> Inclement weather? Allergies?
> 
> Or work towards splitting into two house churches?
> 
> Doesn't this divide the resources of an already small church- two servings of communion?
> 
> Do we really need to have a choir, spend money on choir robes, or alternately, a huge sound system and electric guitars sucking up electricity? Why not just a guitar or a piano, or just a cappella worship?
> 
> Will the house have electrical provisions for electric guitars and other instruments? Room for the sound system? Will the nonchristian neighbors appreciate the noise witness? (While I'm not against choir robes, many biblical reformed churches do not have robes or vestments.)
> 
> A reliable location, a good sounding choir or worship band, and a large facility are all nice things to have, but I simply want to ask: is it worth the thousands of dollars when our own missionaries are being sent home because of lack of funds?
> 
> Is the covenant community tithing to support God's work?
> 
> When missionaries often spend several years in "partnership development" raising support before they can go overseas?
> A separate issue.




---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

Don,

your idea of meeting in people's homes involves hospitality and building (covenant) community, which are good (biblical) ones.

Really, I would _expect_ sound biblical teaching to produce fruits of tithing (giving) enough to support a stable, neutral and sufficient place to meet for corporate worship.

Take these ideas and try to create a hospitality culture where people invite members, visitors to the church into their homes for meals after church on Sunday, and at other times. That they will network and enjoy fellowship, and help one another throughout the week. Having a duly constituted Diaconate will help with this.

That, _and_ stability are sorely needed in this generation of believers, as ever.


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.



Don, is this _really _what this thread is all about?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I think the "public church building" also serves as a ministry (for lack of a better term) to the public. Ours is used for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts, the Scout District meetings, Roundtables, "Friends of Bill W" (Alcoholics Annon), the Community Choir, and any number of community group meetings. All of the above, other than AA, have some "member connection" with the Church, but having a "building" also meets a "facility need." To be sure, the Church does not exist to provide facilities to the community, but it is part of what I consider the "general ministry" which has born fruit in new families. Its just another part of the equation.


----------



## py3ak

Scott1 said:


> Okay, no choirs, choruses or bands.
> 
> Is there enough room for a few people in concert to sing acapella?
> 
> Room for any musical instruments that require amps or speakers? Electrical outlets? Is there enough room for them and a sound barrier?



If there is room for people to be there, there is room for people to sing. And if it's a small space, it seems unlikely that amplification of any kind is required - not to mention that instruments are not necessary in the first place.


----------



## Pergamum

Don, 

So how is support raising going?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

True story:

While I was raising support, I met a member of a suburban church that bragged to me about their missions program. In fact, they could not support any more missionaries because a large part of their missions budget was dedicated to this new and innovative effort.

There effort was as follows: They spent 10 thousand dollars on a huge banner that said, "Come, let us set the table" and then, underneath was a row of picnic tables. Every Sunday they would serve free food to the community to anyone who would come. This wasn't a homeless shelter mind you, but in an upper class suburb of Saint Louis.


----------



## LawrenceU

We met in houses for three years, out of necessity. We were not a 'house church'. We now rent a facility and the Lord has used it in ways that are hard to describe. One thing to bear in mind is that houses in the first century were not houses like we know. The houses in which early Christians most likely met were laid out in a format that incorporated a large atrium and often an adjoining peristylium. Even the modest houses could accommodate a large number of people when compared to our houses today. The idea of a small group of believers huddled in a small lamp-lit room is most likely not accurate.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Off to google "peristylium."


----------



## Pergamum

Sounds like an intestinal disorder....


----------



## Herald

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Off to google "peristylium."



I think it's a strain of bacteria.


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, is this _really _what this thread is all about?
Click to expand...


You'll have to be more forthcoming, Bill. I can't read your mind -- what are you implying that this thread is really about?

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Don,
> 
> So how is support raising going?



I actually haven't started raising support yet; I've been really busy finishing seminary and with linguistics school this past month. It's still early, but I hope to get a support letter out this week regarding the vision trip to your part of the world early next year. Looking forward to seeing you, my friend.


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> Originally Posted by Herald
> Originally Posted by elnwood
> If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.
> Don, is this really what this thread is all about?
> You'll have to be more forthcoming, Bill. I can't read your mind -- what are you implying that this thread is really about?



Don, was this thread all about missions support? By that, I mean, is your main motivation for this thread to suggest that by moving to house churches missionary support will increase?


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Herald
> Originally Posted by elnwood
> If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.
> Don, is this really what this thread is all about?
> You'll have to be more forthcoming, Bill. I can't read your mind -- what are you implying that this thread is really about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, was this thread all about missions support? By that, I mean, is your main motivation for this thread to suggest that by moving to house churches missionary support will increase?
Click to expand...


Primarily missions support, but also other things that are often neglected: caring for the poor and needy, supporting pastors, etc. (I also mentioned these in the original post). The present church I am attending while I'm in the area is very small, but very self-sacrificial, has two bi-vocational pastors, and I believe they support as many missionaries as they have members. We worship in a converted home, but I wouldn't call it a "house church."

Again, I'm trying to read your tone, but I feel like you're implying that this is not my main motivation, and that I have some hidden motive for bringing this up. Is this the case? If so, are you able to be more forthright about it?


----------



## yourjewishbrother

The church building plays an important roll in the community, I am a member of a church plant in Atlantic City NJ which focuses on racial reconciliation and mercy ministries and missions. Our church building is a big part of how we reach into the poor inner-city communities and spread the word of Christ, Missions does not have to be a journey overseas, all Christians at all times are on "missions" everywhere we go, and the church building should be the beacon of this mission in the community, you bring up a good point but i also think the church in America needs to start looking at how we define missions trips, I only have to travel 2 miles from my home to find kids with not enough to eat going to sleep to the sound of gunfire and do not know the peace and grace of God, our church building is the anchor of our missions to the city


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Herald
> Originally Posted by elnwood
> If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.
> Don, is this really what this thread is all about?
> You'll have to be more forthcoming, Bill. I can't read your mind -- what are you implying that this thread is really about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, was this thread all about missions support? By that, I mean, is your main motivation for this thread to suggest that by moving to house churches missionary support will increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primarily missions support, but also other things that are often neglected: caring for the poor and needy, supporting pastors, etc. (I also mentioned these in the original post). The present church I am attending while I'm in the area is very small, but very self-sacrificial, has two bi-vocational pastors, and I believe they support as many missionaries as they have members. We worship in a converted home, but I wouldn't call it a "house church."
> 
> Again, I'm trying to read your tone, but I feel like you're implying that this is not my main motivation, and that I have some hidden motive for bringing this up. Is this the case? If so, are you able to be more forthright about it?
Click to expand...


Don, I have no hidden motivation. I surmised your primary intent was to focus on missionary giving. I simply wanted to confirm that.

There is no empirical evidence to support the belief that total dollars given to missions will increase if the American church left traditional church buildings and adopted the house church model. Common sense would dictate that just the opposite would probably happen. You cannot expect a 1:1 correlation between traditional churches and house churches. What I mean by that is a church with 500 active members will not necessarily translate into 500 house church members. Imagine the chore a missionary would have trying to canvas as many house churches as possible to raise support. Instead of adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology, it would be better to labor within existing churches to increase sensitivity to missions.


----------



## Grimmson

Herald said:


> Imagine the chore a missionary would have trying to canvas as many house churches as possible to raise support. Instead of adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology, it would be better to labor within existing churches to increase sensitivity to missions.


Bill, that shouldn’t be an issue if those house churches are linked with one another as a community or city wide association, with house church pastors working together to ordain, send out, and support in pray and financial means missionaries.


----------



## Herald

Grimmson said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the chore a missionary would have trying to canvas as many house churches as possible to raise support. Instead of adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology, it would be better to labor within existing churches to increase sensitivity to missions.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, that shouldn’t be an issue if those house churches are linked with one another as a community or city wide association, with house church pastors working together to ordain, send out, and support in pray and financial means missionaries.
Click to expand...


David, it's no secret I'm a skeptic on the success of that type of set up. Theory is great....in theory.


----------



## Grimmson

Herald said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the chore a missionary would have trying to canvas as many house churches as possible to raise support. Instead of adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology, it would be better to labor within existing churches to increase sensitivity to missions.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, that shouldn’t be an issue if those house churches are linked with one another as a community or city wide association, with house church pastors working together to ordain, send out, and support in pray and financial means missionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David, it's no secret I'm a skeptic on the success of that type of set up. Theory is great....in theory.
Click to expand...

I am not supporting a house church model (for my own reasons), but we as Baptist actually formed associations, such as the Abington Association in 1652, for the purpose of training new ministers, church planting, and accountability. Now I don’t know this, but how much of the early particular Baptist worshiped together in a home? I do not have an historical answer, because I do not know. If you do then please share. But as we can see as evidence on this board, they did grow; therefore this is more then just theory, but instead something that much be reflected on with respect to both the NT context and our own baptistic historical context.

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

On a side note, there are plenty of Baptist churches that have building bought and paid for that are shrinking and dying. But this should not be seen as being reflected by a church owning a property. The reverse of the home church theory should be applied even in this context of growing and giving, but such growth and giving is not necessarily the case with churches with established buildings in a community.


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> There is no empirical evidence to support the belief that total dollars given to missions will increase if the American church left traditional church buildings and adopted the house church model. Common sense would dictate that just the opposite would probably happen. You cannot expect a 1:1 correlation between traditional churches and house churches. What I mean by that is a church with 500 active members will not necessarily translate into 500 house church members. Imagine the chore a missionary would have trying to canvas as many house churches as possible to raise support. Instead of adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology, it would be better to labor within existing churches to increase sensitivity to missions.



In no way was I suggesting that moving to house churches would somehow make missions giving just automatically increase!

Ultimately, this type of "radical" sacrifice and giving will depend on the leaders in the church. If the elders of the church teach the importance of the Great Commission and the need to support those works, present their vision to move the church away from a burdensome and expensive property, and do this explicitly and specifically to move more funds toward missions, and model this type of sacrificial giving in their own lives, then I think it can and will happen. But it will not automatically happen. It does require purposefulness.

You'll have to explain what you mean by adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology. What have I suggested that you would consider quasi-emergent? I'm assuming you wouldn't call the NT churches meeting in homes "quasi-emergent."


----------



## KMK

yourjewishbrother said:


> The church building plays an important roll in the community, I am a member of a church plant in Atlantic City NJ which focuses on racial reconciliation and mercy ministries and missions. Our church building is a big part of how we reach into the poor inner-city communities and spread the word of Christ, Missions does not have to be a journey overseas, all Christians at all times are on "missions" everywhere we go, and the church building should be the beacon of this mission in the community, you bring up a good point but i also think the church in America needs to start looking at how we define missions trips, I only have to travel 2 miles from my home to find kids with not enough to eat going to sleep to the sound of gunfire and do not know the peace and grace of God, our church building is the anchor of our missions to the city



Welcome to the PB!

Please fix your signature as per board rules. See the link to 'Signature Requirements' below my signature.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> I'm assuming you wouldn't call the NT churches meeting in homes "quasi-emergent."



Meeting in homes out of necessity is not the same thing as meeting in homes by choice. Your repeated reference to the early church has little bearing in regards to what you propose. 

That is not to say that all of us don't share your concern that too much is being spent on unnecessary things. Does a church really need a cafe? I don't think so. But i think it is unnecessary and dangerous to throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> Ultimately, this type of "radical" sacrifice and giving will depend on the leaders in the church. If the elders of the church teach the importance of the Great Commission and the need to support those works, present their vision to move the church away from a burdensome and expensive property, and do this explicitly and specifically to move more funds toward missions, and model this type of sacrificial giving in their own lives, then I think it can and will happen. But it will not automatically happen. It does require purposefulness.



Don, but why the need for this "purposefulness"? Why not work within existing churches to increase both the sensitivity and support of missions? It seems like moving towards a house church norm is the reinvention of the wheel which serves no useful purpose.



elnwood said:


> You'll have to explain what you mean by adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology.



There is a strong counter-culture house church movement that is either in league or sympathetic to emergent ideals. Decentralization of authority, disdain for orthodoxy, privatization of worship; these are not marks of a healthy church. I realize you are not advocating this sort of abuse, but this is where these things go. Under a strong control group a house church, or a group of house churches, may thrive. But given time, and the way movements have a tendency to go off trajectory, the house church movement will become an anarchism. 

Don, you also have a dog in this hunt. You'll soon be candidating for support. As and elder in a church who has a very tight budget I know how frustrating it is to turn missionaries away. We have relatively low expenses in our church and have a high missions budget. We wouldn't have it any other way. But while missions support should be an important attribute of a local church, so is pastoral care. I know you would agree with that. To suggest a church divest its real estate holdings,_ in part_, to increase missions giving may be putting the cart in front of the horse In my humble opinion. I still think the church is best served by being faithful stewards of whatever assets are entrusted to it. If that means re-evaluating expenses and trimming the fat, so be it.


----------



## Grimmson

Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, this type of "radical" sacrifice and giving will depend on the leaders in the church. If the elders of the church teach the importance of the Great Commission and the need to support those works, present their vision to move the church away from a burdensome and expensive property, and do this explicitly and specifically to move more funds toward missions, and model this type of sacrificial giving in their own lives, then I think it can and will happen. But it will not automatically happen. It does require purposefulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, but why the need for this "purposefulness"? Why not work within existing churches to increase both the sensitivity and support of missions?
Click to expand...

I would be in agreement with Harold here, but perhaps for different reasons. If one is called to be a missionary to a foreign land then he should be called by his church to do so and then supported by his church with some help by the association. There should not be the call and the lack of financial support to go with that call from a particular church. Therefore I do have issues with the raising of support outside of the context of the local church in which the missionary in question is a member. If the missionary in question does not have the support that is needed then the fault lies not with him but with that local church and with that pastor, who should be doing exactly what Harold is promoting you to do. 



Herald said:


> There is a strong counter-culture house church movement that is either in league or sympathetic to emergent ideals. Decentralization of authority, disdain for orthodoxy, privatization of worship; these are not marks of a healthy church.


But these are all marks that we can see promoted and taught in Evangelical and Baptist churches today that have buildings, including in the SBC. I do not think it’s necessarily wise to call home churches as emergent, but instead to look at the foundational presuppositions that is being established for a home church instead of the giving of labels that may not be helpful. Like some home churches are FIC (not all), and they have authority issues, but not because they own or not own a building, but instead have boundary issues in regards to a minister and the minister role in someone’s family. Which I would say is a bigger issue then say the owning of a property for corporate worship. Perhaps, a home church could promote neighbors in a localized area to come by the house and at the same time build relationships with the Word of God being taught? Perhaps not. This is not an issue of reinventing the wheel, but considering how God has blessed the church and wisdom as stewards to use what the Lord God is given. If God has given a property to a church then it should be used for ministry, but at the same time the property should never, ever, be a burden on the church; for if it is then the elders need to reevaluate their priorities and come to a conclusion so that it is not. By the way, I am not only against churches being in debt, but also seminary students as well. The reason is so that we can be freer to serve God, his people, and proclaim the full council of God through the Scripture.


----------



## Edward

Herald said:


> They are necessary in oppressive governments, such as China.



Off topic, but I'm not sure that that is still true. I've talked to a couple of folks who have worked over there, and there do seem to be registered churches where the gospel is taught.


----------



## Pergamum

Grimmson said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, this type of "radical" sacrifice and giving will depend on the leaders in the church. If the elders of the church teach the importance of the Great Commission and the need to support those works, present their vision to move the church away from a burdensome and expensive property, and do this explicitly and specifically to move more funds toward missions, and model this type of sacrificial giving in their own lives, then I think it can and will happen. But it will not automatically happen. It does require purposefulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, but why the need for this "purposefulness"? Why not work within existing churches to increase both the sensitivity and support of missions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be in agreement with Harold here, but perhaps for different reasons. If one is called to be a missionary to a foreign land then he should be called by his church to do so and then supported by his church with some help by the association. There should not be the call and the lack of financial support to go with that call from a particular church. Therefore I do have issues with the raising of support outside of the context of the local church in which the missionary in question is a member. If the missionary in question does not have the support that is needed then the fault lies not with him but with that local church and with that pastor, who should be doing exactly what Harold is promoting you to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a strong counter-culture house church movement that is either in league or sympathetic to emergent ideals. Decentralization of authority, disdain for orthodoxy, privatization of worship; these are not marks of a healthy church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these are all marks that we can see promoted and taught in Evangelical and Baptist churches today that have buildings, including in the SBC. I do not think it’s necessarily wise to call home churches as emergent, but instead to look at the foundational presuppositions that is being established for a home church instead of the giving of labels that may not be helpful. Like some home churches are FIC (not all), and they have authority issues, but not because they own or not own a building, but instead have boundary issues in regards to a minister and the minister role in someone’s family. Which I would say is a bigger issue then say the owning of a property for corporate worship. Perhaps, a home church could promote neighbors in a localized area to come by the house and at the same time build relationships with the Word of God being taught? Perhaps not. This is not an issue of reinventing the wheel, but considering how God has blessed the church and wisdom as stewards to use what the Lord God is given. If God has given a property to a church then it should be used for ministry, but at the same time the property should never, ever, be a burden on the church; for if it is then the elders need to reevaluate their priorities and come to a conclusion so that it is not. By the way, I am not only against churches being in debt, but also seminary students as well. The reason is so that we can be freer to serve God, his people, and proclaim the full council of God through the Scripture.
Click to expand...



David, 

You wrote:



> If one is called to be a missionary to a foreign land then he should be called by his church to do so and then supported by his church with some help by the association. There should not be the call and the lack of financial support to go with that call from a particular church. Therefore I do have issues with the raising of support outside of the context of the local church in which the missionary in question is a member.



It is an extremely rare church that can cover 100% of a missionary's full support. Many small churches are good at raising up and mentoring missionaries, but some of them (most of them) cannot send the missionary alone. 


I know a few churches that desired this, and several churches with strong convictions practically insisted that the missionary raise no support outside of their local assembly and that they, their sending church, needed to provide 100% of that support or else they (not the missionary but the sending church) would raise it on behalf of the missionary. Of the 3 churches with this conviction that I know of, every single missionary suffered needlessly for their church's needless conviction. 

One such missionary tried to convince his home church to allow him to go and raise support on his own (with the sending church's approval), but the sending church said, "No, this is our job...we have the duty to raise your support for you." And this sounded commendable at first...but no one will work for you as hard as you will work for yourself and having a church committee which meets weekly to be in charge of your daily needs is a recipe for disaster.

Maybe this needs its own OP, but you seem to be saying that God will not call a person as a missionary without supplying the needs for that missionary, and that this means much be his own local church - but I have not seen this. I have seen many qualified people without the physical means to go.



A missionary is served better by a broader base of support so that the loss or split of any one church is not devastating. 

also, yes, it is true that when a missionary begins to raise support, he becomes aware of just how wealthy US churches are and how misplaced many of their priorities are.

---------- Post added at 02:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 AM ----------




> There is a strong counter-culture house church movement that is either in league or sympathetic to emergent ideals.




I have never yet met one of these ememergent house churches then, and I don't think emergent traits occur any more within house churches than with "regular" church buildings.

---------- Post added at 02:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------

P.s. One way in which congregations can maximize the use and the stewardship of their buildings is to use folding chairs and use their sanctuary as a playground or basketball court or gathering area throughout the entire week (like a youth center or similar idea) during the week, so that the building is not merely used 3 or 4 times and for less than 10 hours out of every week, but could be used every day as a gathering place for believers. Or have books stocked at the building and have the doors open more than just on Sundays to allow members to come and sit quietly and read (like a church library).


----------



## Grimmson

Pergamum, maybe you missed a couple of key words, “with some help by the association.” I did not say that 100% of the support must be done by the local church. However, I do think that the association must accept the calling of the missionary before the missionary is sent forth on behalf of the church and the church’s association. This is meant to protect the message and office of the missionary to establish churches in the Gospel in accordance to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Churches, like individual Christians, are not meant to stand alone; therefore help should be given, but not necessarily outside of one’s own committed association of churches or denomination. The call of additional support should not be by a missionary walking around asked for more money and partners, but instead should be done in my option by the missionary’s local church and association to bring in more additional funds when needed to assist the missionary in his work. 

You do not and should not send yourself to the missionfield, but instead it is by the church sending out in accordance to the great commision of Christ. And the Lord will provide what is needed for his work to be done. To deny such is to deny the sovereignty in accordance to his ordained means to accomplish his purposes.


----------



## Pergamum

Grimmson said:


> Pergamum, maybe you missed a couple of key words, “with some help by the association.” I did not say that 100% of the support must be done by the local church. However, I do think that the association must accept the calling of the missionary before the missionary is sent forth on behalf of the church and the church’s association. This is meant to protect the message and office of the missionary to establish churches in the Gospel in accordance to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Churches, like individual Christians, are not meant to stand alone; therefore help should be given, but not necessarily outside of one’s own committed association of churches or denomination. The call of additional support should not be by a missionary walking around asked for more money and partners, but instead should be done in my option by the missionary’s local church and association to bring in more additional funds when needed to assist the missionary in his work.
> 
> You do not and should not send yourself to the missionfield, but instead it is by the church sending out in accordance to the great commision of Christ. And the Lord will provide what is needed for his work to be done. To deny such is to deny the sovereignty in accordance to his ordained means to accomplish his purposes.



In real-life, most home/sending churches still provide a minority of support such that, rather than saying "with a little help by the association" most missionaries are funded by a broad network of churches with a minority of financial help from one's sending church.

The platitude of "The Lord will provide" is true, but doesn't give the full picture that 20% of missionaries (each sent and attested by local churches) drop out during support raising and about 1/4th of the missionaries I know serving on the field are in a state of constant under-support.

The sovereignty of God also encompasses the disobedience, and half-hearted lack of care and attention of many sending churches as they send out their missionaries.

---------- Post added at 03:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 AM ----------




> The call of additional support should not be by a missionary walking around asked for more money and partners, but instead should be done in my option by the missionary’s local church and association to bring in more additional funds when needed to assist the missionary in his work.



This overly-strict viewpoint is what is responsibility for the chronic under-support of several men who I know (one of which had to come off the field for over 2 years because his home church just wasn't getting it done). A committee of many men who are not, themselves, impacted by a lack of support, will always be less diligent than a man needing to provide for his own family.

A better approach is for the home church to release the missionary to be free in arranging his own schedule and to be on hand to personally call and write letters of recommendation and correspond on the missionaries behalf, even as the missionary takes the lead in scheduling and setting his support-raising plans. Thus, the sendign church takes an active role, even as the individual missionary takes the lead (with the permission of the sending church).


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, this type of "radical" sacrifice and giving will depend on the leaders in the church. If the elders of the church teach the importance of the Great Commission and the need to support those works, present their vision to move the church away from a burdensome and expensive property, and do this explicitly and specifically to move more funds toward missions, and model this type of sacrificial giving in their own lives, then I think it can and will happen. But it will not automatically happen. It does require purposefulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, but why the need for this "purposefulness"? Why not work within existing churches to increase both the sensitivity and support of missions? It seems like moving towards a house church norm is the reinvention of the wheel which serves no useful purpose.
Click to expand...


Bill, I am working within existing churches to increase sensitivity and support for missions. I am also suggesting creative proposals that would help churches rethink their idea of church, be more conscious of missions, and seek to be more effective with their funds. It's not an either/or.



Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain what you mean by adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a strong counter-culture house church movement that is either in league or sympathetic to emergent ideals. Decentralization of authority, disdain for orthodoxy, privatization of worship; these are not marks of a healthy church. I realize you are not advocating this sort of abuse, but this is where these things go. Under a strong control group a house church, or a group of house churches, may thrive. But given time, and the way movements have a tendency to go off trajectory, the house church movement will become an anarchism.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that is a tendency, and one that we should be conscious of and avoid at all costs. Interestingly, those "tendencies" sound remarkably similar to Presbyterian critiques of Baptist ecclesiology, with its autonomous, congregational form of church government. Yet, I still believe that this is the most biblical form of church government, despite the potential for those tendencies.



Herald said:


> Don, you also have a dog in this hunt. You'll soon be candidating for support. As and elder in a church who has a very tight budget I know how frustrating it is to turn missionaries away. We have relatively low expenses in our church and have a high missions budget. We wouldn't have it any other way. But while missions support should be an important attribute of a local church, so is pastoral care. I know you would agree with that. To suggest a church divest its real estate holdings,_ in part_, to increase missions giving may be putting the cart in front of the horse In my humble opinion. I still think the church is best served by being faithful stewards of whatever assets are entrusted to it. If that means re-evaluating expenses and trimming the fat, so be it.



Bill, I appreciate these words. They show much pastoral wisdom and insight.

As for me having a dog in this hunt, I don't feel like this is something personal to me. I don't anticipate any major hindrances to going overseas. My church is fully supportive, with over 20% of the budget going to missions, and about 10% of the membership serving overseas. For the record, I don't think my church should sell their building. We are using our facility well, and we're doing just fine as far as supporting our missionaries financially. When we've had to cut back on our budget, missions never gets cut, and our pastors have demonstrated self-sacrifice in refusing paychecks when giving is low rather than cutting other things.

In any case, we are all Christians who belong to the church, and the church is charged with carrying out the Great Commission. We ALL have a dog in this hunt!


----------



## Grimmson

Perg, this difference I think should be further explored in another thread, not necessarily here, because it getting off topic.


----------



## jwithnell

> I am saying that the priority of the church is making disciples ... if a church can cut major costs regarding a building and allocate that toward missions, this is better overall for the priority of the church.



I'm not so sure this is the historically reformed position. The church is "for the gathering and perfecting of the saints." It equips us to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. If you have to choose _one_ priority, it is worship. Expand to the traditionally held marks of the true church: the administration of the sacraments, the discipline of the saints, and the proper preaching of God's word, and you get the idea of missions as _part_ of the work of the church.


----------



## elnwood

jwithnell said:


> I am saying that the priority of the church is making disciples ... if a church can cut major costs regarding a building and allocate that toward missions, this is better overall for the priority of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure this is the historically reformed position. The church is "for the gathering and perfecting of the saints." It equips us to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. If you have to choose _one_ priority, it is worship. Expand to the traditionally held marks of the true church: the administration of the sacraments, the discipline of the saints, and the proper preaching of God's word, and you get the idea of missions as _part_ of the work of the church.
Click to expand...


The "gathering and perfecting of the saints" is for all of the elect, and so the gospel must go out to the elect who have not yet heard the gospel. Rev. 5:9-10 says that Jesus' blood was given for people from every tribe and language and people and nation. If we take Limited Atonement seriously, it means that we need to go out to every tribe, language, people and nation and gather the elect from all of them.

Preaching IS evangelism. If you look up "preach" in the New Testament, in every (or nearly every) case, it is sharing the gospel with people who do not know the gospel.

Also, many of the Reformers did not have their missiology as developed as it should have been. Many thought that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century.


----------



## JoannaV

I think it's rather hard to discuss this outside of a specific situation. Other than to say that yes, churches should keep a close eye on their financial priorities.

My church has its own building and spends $0 on said building. (Other than, you know, electricity.) Healthcare insurance reform would be the thing that could increase our church's missions spending the most...anyone want to discuss that?


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Herald
> Originally Posted by elnwood
> If anyone else has creative ideas to support our missionaries who are constantly struggling with undersupport, I'd love to hear them.
> Don, is this really what this thread is all about?
> You'll have to be more forthcoming, Bill. I can't read your mind -- what are you implying that this thread is really about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, was this thread all about missions support? By that, I mean, is your main motivation for this thread to suggest that by moving to house churches missionary support will increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primarily missions support, but also other things that are often neglected: caring for the poor and needy, supporting pastors, etc. (I also mentioned these in the original post). The present church I am attending while I'm in the area is very small, but very self-sacrificial, has two bi-vocational pastors, and I believe they support as many missionaries as they have members. We worship in a converted home, but I wouldn't call it a "house church."
> 
> Again, I'm trying to read your tone, but I feel like you're implying that this is not my main motivation, and that I have some hidden motive for bringing this up. Is this the case? If so, are you able to be more forthright about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don, I have no hidden motivation. I surmised your primary intent was to focus on missionary giving. I simply wanted to confirm that.
> 
> There is no empirical evidence to support the belief that total dollars given to missions will increase if the American church left traditional church buildings and adopted the house church model. Common sense would dictate that just the opposite would probably happen. You cannot expect a 1:1 correlation between traditional churches and house churches. What I mean by that is a church with 500 active members will not necessarily translate into 500 house church members. Imagine the chore a missionary would have trying to canvas as many house churches as possible to raise support. Instead of adopting a quasi-emergent approach to ecclesiology, it would be better to labor within existing churches to increase sensitivity to missions.
Click to expand...


The house churches that did support me seemed to give at a disproportionately high rate, and also seemed to work harder at recommending me to their friends. One elder remarked, "We can give you more because we don't have to bother with a building fund."

Granted, this is not empirical proof and only represents a couple of churches (one of which folded last year). But I do think Don's main point is valid - if we simplify, then we can prioritize more outreach with money that would otherwise be eaten by a building. I also know several churches that possess very, very (purposely) plain buildings - no frills churches- and these have adopted an ethic of profound simplicity in order to prioritize outreach funding. No pews, old carpet, no weekly bulletins, and these have also given much towards outreach.


----------

