Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

[arachnogeek]

I've been thinking for a long while about the way we 'do Church' here in North America, and I haven't been able to articulate my thoughts properly with the people I've discussed it with. For the last year and a bit, I've been reading Paul's epistles and the book of Acts, as a way of immersing myself in the first-century church as best I can. I am therefore choosing to open it up for discussion in this forum, as I think everyone (I certainly will) may benefit from bouncing back ideas. 

I'll lay out a few questions/concerns and perhaps people will share their 2 cents!

 

1. Observation: The first-century Church met in homes, even before they began to be persecuted. 

    Questions:

a) Why is it that we meet in church buildings, knowing full well that they have to be kept up (i.e. heating and cooling bills, electricity, lighting, technological improvements, etc.) and mortgaged out for years on the backs of the congregation's tithes?

b) Even a 'small church' of about 300 people is still quite large, given that on average, it is harder to build meaningful relationship with that many people, so why do we think that we can meet with about 2000 people on any given Sunday and think we can have proper fellowship with one other (i.e. confessing our sins to one another, praying for one another, etc.) 

 

2. Observation: Elders were appointed by the laying on of hands, by other elders or apostles, if they met the qualifications established in Titus and 1 Timothy 

 

Questions: 

a) Why is it that in today's contemporary church models in North America and even globally, we pour millions upon millions of dollars into Seminaries for the training and equipping of future church leaders? 

b) Why is it that a typical mega church of 2000 or more has at least 20 paid staff members with various administrative positions (senior pastors, youth pastors, young adult pastors, janitors/custodians, treasurers, secretaries, etc) none of which are founded or required in Scripture? 

 

3. Observation: The first-century church was extremely generous with their resources and money (i.e. selling their possessions to make sure others had what they needed, etc.), and they supported ministers of the Gospel (i.e. Missionaries like and Paul and Barnabas), but they didn't tithe (i.e. 10%) nor did they pay their elders/pastors. 

 

Questions: 

a) Why do we pay our pastors salaries and demand people to tithe 10% (at least) to the church, when we don't pay missionaries 'salaries'. If anything, isn't there more of a case to be made for missionaries having a salary rather than elders? 

b) Most Churches (the VAST majority) do not pay all their elders, but only pay a select few (i.e. senior pastor and other pastors). The New Testament uses the term elder and pastor interchangeably, so why is it that those who advocate for giving their pastors salaries are not consistent in doing so? Are some of their elders 'not worthy of double honour'? 

 

Concluding thoughts: 

 

When I think about all this in its entirety, I can't help but to be a bit skeptical. Could it be that we have set up a cycle wherein we have demanded tithes from people, only to build mini-empires? When a Church spends between 20-80% of their entire budget on staff, isn't that an indication that it has become self-centred and is in need of reformation? How can we (as protestants and evangelicals) point the finger at the Catholic Church for its extravagance and luxury, when we are just as guilty? Sure, we don't build cathedrals, we haven't sold indulgences, and most of our ministers don't wear fancy garments and robes.

Instead, we erect massive state-of-the-art facilities off the backs of people's tithes, we fund millions to seminaries where future minister are indebted with tuition and living costs. These graduates then bring their debts with them to the congregation who happens to hire them, and the cycle resumes. 

Could there be another way? Perhaps meeting in homes would be a start. Perhaps elders could train other elders locally, within their own congregations, for  the Lord's work, rather than outsourcing it to seminary grads who have a vested interest in performing their duties well (i.e. a salary, a raise, benefits package, etc.). Couldn't our ministers all be tent-makers and still fulfill the duties of an elder? 

There is a watching world out there, and it often knows the difference between counterfeit Christianity and true Christianity; let's not give it an occasion to slander the Church any longer. 

 

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts, objections, frustrations, and advice. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Chris

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by arachnogeek