elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
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?
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?