Innovations in Paying Workers

Something is seriously corrupt in the lack of accountability and transparency about how church leaders distribute our money to themselves. We need a new openness not just in disclosure of what goes on with the finances, but in changing the compensation system itself. Although frequent disclosure of any and all vested interest in the status quo would be a welcome addition to most sermons!

It may not be possible to sew this patch on an old garment, or to fill this new wine into an old wineskin: such innovations belong on the frontier of missions and church starting.

But if we want to increase growth rates, we must embrace new paradigms. The old compensation system isn't growing us there; it is merely an protestant extension of papist ways. Change how the money flows, and watch hearts change.

What I'm imagining is pools of funding managed the way academics grant funds for research projects, but managed the way today's business handles telecommuters and outsourced labor. We have to get the workers beyond the four walls; there are clear models for the church in academia and business for doing so, and to think that it can be done without changing tithe distribution is stubbornness.

Spending the Tithe

Whenever someone blogs about something in which they have financial interest, and therefore are potentially biased by potential personal gain, it is customary and expected that they should disclose this fact to readers. But I cannot recall a single instance of clergy doing this from the pulpit, and something is gravely wrong there. They like to focus on the responsibility to tithe, but I have never heard even one biblical sermon about the responsibility of the tithe. Now why is that?

Ok, I have heard one sermon, from Canada, over 10 years ago. But that was like giving me one ritz cracker with peanut butter. Ah, well Tony Campolo did give some pages to it in his book The Kingdom of God is a Party; I should reread that one.

We need both greater disclosure of where the money goes, and unbiased (ha, likely? not) biblical exposition about what required giving is required to be allocated to. Probably the reason we don't hear this is that it would seriously challenge the unbiblical compensation systems in place?

Revelation is the Rock

Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. I also tell you that you are Peter (little rock), and on this (large) rock I will build my assembly." This simple truth is that Jesus lauded the ability to hear the word from God and confess it (the prophetic). Forget the stupid arguments of silly religious people motivated by their vested power interests.

For a second opinion, Ephesians 2 says "the household of God, being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." Last time I checked, Jesus is alive according to our faith, not dead; one should wonder why are churchleaders so eager to replace him as the chief. We don't need either pope or pastor; we need faith in the living Son of Man (not to totally dis human leadership: which is a precious gift He gives; but let not the gift eclipse the Giver!). Anyone who wants to be a key stone needs to 1st get close to the living Jesus and 2nd get some capability to hear like Simon Bar Jonah.

The ability to spiritually hear God, and grok Him, is the foundation of Life, true life, on earth. This air is open for you to breathe.

Over Simplification

I've observed a trait in humans that we tend to be weak-minded at times, wanting concerns to be overly simple. Example: God is good because good things happened to me; I am angry at God because bad things happened. Maybe just maybe it is more complex than that?

Nowhere is this more evident than in the two party system of the United States come general election time. I love this pre-primary time when our activism (and then actualy primary vote) actually counts. But come November, there will be a good guy and a bad guy, our hero and his archrival, and America will stay up late watching network television rooting for their one of the two. We need to get a fire lit under us to CARE NOW and PARTICIPATE NOW and vote in the primary election. But O how we prefer to be simpletons and wait until things fit the 0 or 1, black or white, hero or villain. Are we not weak?

And now you're asking me, "Monty, what relevance this has to the thread of posts you've been making on using digital technology to realize growth potential?" Ok, well I was wondering that in case you didn't! I think it fits in nicely.

We think that either the Internet is not very helpful or relevant to our mission, or that it is the end, the means of propagation of vision and mission and outreach. It is, in fact, neither of these binary options. The internet can be a cost-effective tool to supplement an effective strategy, but "there is no loyalty in a high-tech relationship" (Raffele & Hendricks, 1998, Successful Business Networking).

Most humans are just not that proactive and imaginative to think circumspectly about communications received over the Internet so as to create a sense of holistic involvement and relational commitment, even when they may to some degree identify with the goals or vision inherent. And we tend to exhibit our weak-mindedness when we equate the value of something with its cost; that which costs us little is little valued.

The Internet, even Web 2.0 Internet, can be an important tool in an effective strategy to vision-cast and enthuse people, when coupled with an intentional design to create and strengthen relational connections, apart from cyberspace.