"After John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:14-15 NKJV
All eyes are on the Roman church this weekend because of the commemoration of the passing of John Paul II. Because of the life this man had led, there is much to be remembered for I believe that his life was one of inspiration and dedication. I believe now as much as I believed then that John Paul II was true to his calling.
I also experienced some troubling thoughts as I was watching some of the reviews on TV that showed the Vatican. I hope my Catholic friends do not take offense with what I am about to offer because my intent is not to denigrate Catholicism at all.
I was reading this passage from Mark when an image of the Vatican was displayed on TV, and I began to recall some thoughts others have had in the past about the excessiveness of the Vatican and the private residence of one who had at one time taken a vow of poverty for the sake of the gospel. Now the pope resides in a palace and is nowhere near the level of poverty we know and understand.
The worldwide church, not exclusively the Roman church, owns property and has holdings worth millions, if not billions. Because some of these holdings are so massive, the cost just to maintain these holdings must be huge. There are pastors and bishops from other denominations whose compensation packages must be worth over $200,000.00 annually, and this is not even including a paid residence. I recall once a "bean counter" from the conference who came to our church to help explain the budget of the conference, and he made mention of $40 million in holdings for a "rainy day".
Considering the magnitude of poverty and hunger in the entire world, I'm thinking that it's raining cats and dogs in some parts of this country alone, and yet the church is waiting for a "rainy day". Can anyone tell me the proportion of the world-wide church's budget that is devoted to ministry and mission vs administration? If I had to guess, I would say that we are spending an awful lot of money on day-to-day "operations" that has little to do with directly confronting hunger alone.
We church people are eager to blame the United States and the Western nations for hording too much wealth and spending too much on war, but we do little with our own cash except to wait for "rain".
It is no small wonder that many have lost faith in the church so much to the point that tithing is not the act of worship it once was or could actually be. Administrative costs are a reality, I know, but what are we "holding" out for? How bad does it actually have to be before we are collectively willing to really stick our necks out for the sake of the gospel?
It seems to be that our costs have grown so out-of-control because we are more eager and wiling to spend money "on faith" that attracting more persons to our churches will somehow change the world. And maybe it will to some extent. Or maybe it is that building bigger and nicer buildings and paying the pastors more and buying CD's (certificates of deposit, not music) and hiring professional musicians and hording our money to make more money in order to see to the "business" of the church is more along the lines of the necessary repentance to which Jesus was referring.
If we truly possess the faith which we preach as necessary for salvation, why are we so afraid of tomorrow that we would horde money and wait for "rain"? Why must hundreds of thousands of persons literally starve to death or lose their homes while we pay accountants and attorneys to protect what is "ours"?
The church has no more need to repent of its past for racism or slavery or the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the Crusades. We blame governments for not doing enough for the masses but we give the masses little reason to believe in the mission and ministry of Christ's Holy Church.
The repentance of the Church, it seems to me, is for the "here and now".
2 comments:
Well thought out and reasoned.
I've often wondered about sanctuaries as a concept. It seems horrendously wasteful to create an elaborate and, due to its structural needs, expensive building for three hours of use a week. If there was a way that we could phase them out....
Well, anyway, some churches somehow get by completely without buildings, such as Erwin McManus'.
Some of the greatest revival movements seem to have taken place in tents. I'm afraid, though, that we may have become too "comfort" and "entertainment" oriented to ever return to such simplicity. The question, then, is "where to from here?"
Post a Comment