The political perspective focuses on getting people on board with a person or plan so you can vote that person or plan into action. Once voted in, people are taxed, under penalty of law, to support the person’s salary and the plan’s funding. The length of the tenure is based upon the applicable laws, so the person stays in office and the plan stays in place until the law provides for a change. Taxes continue for the funding until the law provides for a change as well.
A political approach to Life Bridge would be to put a plan together which fully funds the staff, building, and ministries involved. Then, the politicians would go to work to sell people on the plan and the leaders needed to accomplish the plan. Once people vote the leaders and/or plan into action, usually with a >50% approval, the people are expected to support the plan financially. Certain percentages, such as a tithe, are expected with membership in the church. Additional finances are often solicited, committed, and then “enforced” to raise funds for buildings, new staff members, or other large-expense changes needed to expand the ministry.
On the surface, this can seem like a reasonable approach – especially in the United States of America. We are so used to voting on everything from President of the United States to President of our local club or organization. It only makes sense that we should vote on our pastor and even the plan for our finances. Scripture doesn’t seem to have a problem with voting, since the New Testament church was told to select seven men to run the food-distribution program. Not only that, the eleven apostles selected a twelfth, right? When it comes to funding programs, God “taxed” His people with the tithe so that makes sense. People were asked for additional funding to build the tabernacle and then the temple. This, then, seems like the logical way to approach church organization.
Life Bridge, the political approach would say, should put together a plan, present the plan to the congregation, have the members of the church vote on the plan, and then implement what the members voted into action. Funding should come from tithes from members and additional big programs should be presented to the congregation, voted upon, and then funding committed by the membership. Once the commitments are made, they need to be enforced to be fair to everyone who made commitments and to keep everyone’s “yes” as a “yes.”
You may be seeing some familiar things with this approach. You may also be seeing some problems with it as well. Let’s walk through some of the Biblical concerns.
First of all, there is no Biblical example where the congregation or people elect God’s leader. God came to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who became Israel. Moses was called by God while he was hiding out in the wilderness (Exodus 3), appointed Aaron as the first High Priest (Exodus 28:3), and passed his leadership on to Joshua (Deuteronomy 3:28). The Judges would rise up when people stopped following God’s commands and the Kings were appointed by God. Many of God’s leaders were unpopular. Most prophets would never have been voted into leadership positions. And when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, the crowds thought the Apostles were drunk. Even Matthias wasn’t voted in to replace Judas. They selected two people who were with Jesus from the beginning (Acts 1:21-22), so his statement would remain true (Matthew 19:28). Then they let God decide (Acts 1:24-26). Pastors weren’t called by a group of elders and then voted in by the congregation. Pastors were pointed to and backed by Apostles. The pastors appointed elders and deacons based upon qualifications laid out by God (1 Timothy 3:14-15; Titus 1:5). All leaders are called, appointed, equipped, and sent by God. They rebel against God (sin) when they do not live out this calling. Other leaders confirm this calling by comparing the leader to God’s requirements. Leadership is about walking with God and helping others do the same.
Secondly, plans are never voted into place. While the people in the New Testament church were told to select the first seven deacons, they were given a list of criteria for finding these men (Acts 6:2-3a). Not only that, the Apostles set them apart for the ministry, not the people (Acts 6:3b-4). There was no vote. Whenever there was a big question that needed resolved, the existing leaders gathered together to discuss it, compare the issue to the Scriptures, and to pray (Acts 14). They did not decide with a 51% vote. They only left when they were convinced that they were all on the same page with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit leads us to unity with God (Ephesians 4:3). That unity was reflected in the decision making of the leaders. While members of church congregations may all have the same Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), that does not mean they are walking by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Tough decisions were worked through by those who were bearing the fruit of walking by the Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 12:18). In other words, the decisions were made by God, but the leaders were ones who clearly knew how to hear from God, follow God, and help others do the same.
Finally, money given by God’s people is never a tax. It is an act of worship. Even when there was a set percentage that people were supposed to give (10% is a tithe), it was clear that the tithe was not only in place to support the Levites, it was an act of thanksgiving and worship (Numbers 18:26). When we try to enforce a giving system like it is a tax (Matthew 17:24-27), we run the risk of being confronted by God the same way Jesus confronted the Pharisees (Matthew 23:23). God always provided the financing for building programs if God wanted a building built. Not only that, New Covenant giving is never tied to a percentage like under the Old Covenant. Giving is led by the Spirit (Acts 4:31-37). When people tried to fight the Spirit, it didn’t work out for them (Acts 5:1-14). So, giving cannot be approached like a tax or a commitment-obligation. Giving must be lead by the Spirit of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment