Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

With the slacking economy, the Prosperity Monsters will be more silent (though that didn't stop them from preaching that mess to dirt poor converts in Africa!), and large-scale, heavily-funded church projects will be fewer. A new Barna Survey says that churches will lose "billions" due to the economy.

Building programs, conferences, crusades and church staff positions will be among the many areas affected.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?P...naUpdateID=322

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Our church has leveled out in terms of drop in income. We started dropping when the economic slowdown first started happening in the summer of '07. We were projected to be down over $300,000 for this year but now looks like we'll be down about $150,000. We've cut expenses to the bare bone and are not replacing staff. That's a $300,000 shortfall for the last two years. And we're just one of 65 churches in our town. Some of the bigger ones are on the brink of losing their buildings because they cannot make the payments. It doesn't help that our local power utility doubled the electric rates last summer.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

If churches would get out of the mega building mentality and do their services in homes, the money that was given could go to the two reasons that were listed in the NT (support preachers and help the needy saints).

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

I wonder if the government will bail them out?

Would give a whole new meaning to the words "Money cometh".

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

BK that's interesting. Acts had house churches largely because of convenience (persecution, etc). Considering the freedom we have today in our democratic society, do you have a theological opinion of this or just one of practicality (you think it's the better way to go)?

There are many perks for a large church, as well as draw backs. There are also many perks of the small church, with just as many draw backs. Do you agree?

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

The church didn't have persecution for several decades after it was birthed, yet met in homes primarily and Solomon's Porch for awhile until the Jews got mad and disfellowshipped them. They met in homes by choice, in small groups. The went even more underground and secretive once persecution started.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

The Book of Acts records persecution. Paul himself was involved in this persecution, coming from the Jews at this point, and not Roman authority. Also, my point, PoMo, is that the world in the First Century church was different than today. Democracy didn't exist. Financial blessing, as we have it now, was non-existent. One could not build a huge ampitheater at that time because of 1) money, and 2) the world had fabled ideas about who the Christians were. Cesar Augusta and Nero's historical records show this.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

I attend a church building (the church has about 150) and I have attended a church of 2,000, so I obviosly don't think that it is necessarily wrong.

I formed my opinion after studying the use of money in the NT. I noticed that they always collected offerings for two reasons. They also shared a mentality of not trying to build up a life here, but building for the eternal.

After realizing this, I came to the conclusion that so much of the money that is given to churches, goes towards things that are not found in the NT. How many widows or orphans that have many needs go to churches that have big buildings?

I go to a church building now because I have 5 young kids (5,4,3,2, and 1). I want them to get Sunday School training and they limit my ability to have home fellowship meetings.

However, when they are older, if the Lord wills, I plan to start a church in my home. If it takes off and gets larger I will train other leaders to start churches in their homes and break up the original group.

I recognize that there are advantages with both ways. I just feel the home system is a way to be a better steward of the offerings of the saints.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

I can respect that. Seems to be defining the role of the pastor would be important in this too. I know many home church fans at my office, and most of them have little conviction with the role of a pastor. I like the idea. Larger churches like it too (that's why they form small groups - Lakewood for example).

I've heard good debate on the part about the primary mission of the church with regards to financially caring for orphans, widows, etc... Most of those arguments dealt with a compare/contrast the 1st Century to 21st Century.

Thanks for the comments.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

There was some minor persecution from Jews, but nothing systemic and empire wide for awhile. The local stuff isn't relevant in comparison to what came later when the Romans got upset. But, the church flourished the most under persecution.

True, the general public had pretty strange perceptions of the church; they thought they were anti-community, cannibals, a secret society, and other things. They sure did do things differently than we do today in the Western world. They seemed much more underground and less 'evangelistic' as we understand it. I think they let their actions speak louder than their words. There is some evidence now that they did have buildings dedicated to worship fairly early, but they weren't as prevalent then as now. And houses that were remodeled into large group gathering halls have been found there. But it was mainly small groups. Nothing like we have now that's for sure. Are we as apostolic as a Restorationist would like? haha.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Laodicea was a big Church with wealth & was rebuked by Jesus.
Philadelphia was a small struggling Church that was commended by God.

I wonder if we always see things the way Jesus does & yes I am also pointing the question at myself!

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Please don't take this the wrong way...but it might not be a bad thing.

I'm of the opinion that the money could be better used feeding the poor, then paying for a huge sanctuary.

But who am I to judge? I don't even go to church and the only poor I feed is myself.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Good question. I sure ask this a lot. It's hard to phathom.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

I agree MOE.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

I would beg to differ with this.

The church in Acts met in houses because part of their idea of "doctrine" was breaking of bread, going house to house, and fellowshipping.

Also, they gave their money to the needy and to evangelize instead of sinking it into structures.

The Bible does say a great number of priests were converted to the faith, and it's possible that they converted entire congregations with existing buildings.

But, I never see any reference at all to a "building" program in the book of Acts.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Yeah, I don't know of any Restorationist "Apostolics" (and most of them claim to be such) that are truly Apostolic in a Restorationist sense. It's become more of sectarian identifier of a particular culture and doctrinal scheme that it is truly and identity with the early church praxis and (I'd say) doctrine. It's a parochial code word, not true to the definition.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Acts 2:42, where distinguishes their doctrine from prayer, breaking of bread and fellowship. I think it was the true "culture" of the early church, but to equate it with doctrine would be a mistake. The church grew out of a sort of third-world poverty, suppressed environment. This has to be in mind. They had many "in need" that were literally starving, castaways of society. This is a stark contrast with the "needy" today. Not to discount doing good for the needy, but I think we can miss the point of Acts if we settle everything there.

One poster was right, the church flourished under persecution.

As far as a building program. We are using modern vernacular and trying to draw a comparison. I mean, Nehemiah had a pretty radical building program, and that goes farther back. I just don't think large edifices that advertised Christianity were possible - at least until the RCC took control.

That's not to say I think large churches are the way to go. I just see it more in terms of pragmatism that in soteriology or doctrine.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

And bear with me for playing the DA with you. This is really a topic that I'm vasillating on, and have been for some time.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Good post, and I see your point.

I agree that the temple(s) were wonderfully crafted elaborate structures wherein folks came to worship and sacrifice.

However, in the book of Acts, there is no mention of the same type of structure. There were definitely temples, because that's where Peter and John were headed to pray when they healed the lame man.

But, the focus in Acts shifted away from the edifice and on to the "going into all the world and evangelizing".

I am certainly not against church buildings, but I am against building a structure that is so costly that it takes away from the church's evangelism efforts.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Me too!:santathumb

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

They have picked up a new phrase "We are not in the worlds economy".

"We are in God's economy".

"There is no recession or Depression, In God's economy".

I see the plee for money at Church only increasing as the economy starts to slip...

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

Nothing wrong with pleas for giving. In fact, it's healthy. But if you mean the "Prosperity Monsters", I agree, they will be struggling to keep up the gas bill on their private jets. Desperation will be interesting.

Re: Churches to lose "BILLIONS"
 

I agree this just might be a blessing in disguise for the church.