"Next to God, money is important for ministry”
Is this statement right?
My Context:
I was part of the leadership team, attending committee (business) meetings of the para-church organisation I worked for more than two decades. Whenever the presiding leader stressed this statement, the ignorant, or pretending majority applauded; the silent minority nodded; but a thinking-few withheld subscribing to it. I thought over it often, discussed it with others, and still continue my conversations. Worked in two para-church organizations for 28 years, it was difficult to even think sitting at the other side of the table. The quick, safe and easy answer to the statement was big affirmative, because most of the ministries are pressed on the colonial, corporal business models imported from West. We are "colonial cousins."
My Case:
When I commented in one of my responses in the Facebook pat, stating “It is subtle,” I did not mean that “money” is subtle. I tried to shed light on the ambiguity of the statement, exposing its true colour.
Let me try to express myself from the philosophical point of view, rather than talking some pragmatic issues:
1. The phrase “Next to God,” cannot be understood otherwise, but it communicates neat the classification of hierarchies, step of priorities, ladder of choices, list of relatives. Though I acknowledge that God is “the Absolute absolute," this statement ascribes Him as “Relative absolute." Logically, when the primary premise of a statement is itself wrong – i.e. God cannot be compared with/to anything or anybody, I cannot build my argument on the secondary premise – i.e. money is next important for ministry.
2. By comparing God with money, this statement, eventually, limits the Attributes of God to perishable, worldly thing – money, the mammon. Keeping God, money, etc, in common and comparable, is deliberate offence against His separateness (Holiness). “With whom do you compare me? With what do you like me?”
3. It is shocking to look below the blanket of this statement. Whose ministry is this? Who is the Author/ Master of the ministry? Who does use who/what for the ministry? When I say, “Next to God, money is important for ministry” I am proud of communicating that God and money are MY instruments, MY equipments, MY raw-materials for MY ministry. I use money for ministry, likewise, I use God for Ministry. However, I use God first and then money. Isn’t the statement ridiculous?
Have you read about a business man who prioritised between God, Family and Business, by flip flopping the three according to the place? In the church, he puts God first, family in second and business in third; At home - Family is first, God is next, and business is third; And at his office - Business is first, family is next, and God is third.
5. Let us play “True or False” game and try to understand the subtle nature of the statement: (1) “Without God, no ministry happens" True or False? (2) “Without money, no ministry happens” True or False? My answer to the first statement is positive - if there is no God, you cannot have ministry at all. My reflection to the second statement is that if there is no money can’t you have any ministry at all? Will nothing move without money?
6. The phrase “Next to God” is euphemism, which is very close to blasphemy. We hear people saying, “God Willing” and even in shorter form, “D.V.” (without knowing the full form of it) though we don’t use it literally, and whole heartedly. Such phrases are used to smoothing the arrogance of humanness. After we have well planed and ready to executive meticulously, we insert, “God willing,” with the intent that no one should be offended or no one should blame us. Reading this statement plainly, it means, “Money is important for ministry.” And when eye brows raise with exclamations and questions, “WHAT DO YOU SAY???!!!!” the euphemism plays its role, “Oh yeah, eventually, "Next to God.” And the more frequent one uses this statement, the more emphasis is given on the important thing, that is, "money and nothing but money."
7. Even the construction/syntax of the sentence is ironic. The primary and complete sentence is “Money is important for ministry” and the auxiliary phrase is “Next to God.”
Is this statement right?
My Context:
I was part of the leadership team, attending committee (business) meetings of the para-church organisation I worked for more than two decades. Whenever the presiding leader stressed this statement, the ignorant, or pretending majority applauded; the silent minority nodded; but a thinking-few withheld subscribing to it. I thought over it often, discussed it with others, and still continue my conversations. Worked in two para-church organizations for 28 years, it was difficult to even think sitting at the other side of the table. The quick, safe and easy answer to the statement was big affirmative, because most of the ministries are pressed on the colonial, corporal business models imported from West. We are "colonial cousins."
My Case:
When I commented in one of my responses in the Facebook pat, stating “It is subtle,” I did not mean that “money” is subtle. I tried to shed light on the ambiguity of the statement, exposing its true colour.
Let me try to express myself from the philosophical point of view, rather than talking some pragmatic issues:
1. The phrase “Next to God,” cannot be understood otherwise, but it communicates neat the classification of hierarchies, step of priorities, ladder of choices, list of relatives. Though I acknowledge that God is “the Absolute absolute," this statement ascribes Him as “Relative absolute." Logically, when the primary premise of a statement is itself wrong – i.e. God cannot be compared with/to anything or anybody, I cannot build my argument on the secondary premise – i.e. money is next important for ministry.
2. By comparing God with money, this statement, eventually, limits the Attributes of God to perishable, worldly thing – money, the mammon. Keeping God, money, etc, in common and comparable, is deliberate offence against His separateness (Holiness). “With whom do you compare me? With what do you like me?”
3. It is shocking to look below the blanket of this statement. Whose ministry is this? Who is the Author/ Master of the ministry? Who does use who/what for the ministry? When I say, “Next to God, money is important for ministry” I am proud of communicating that God and money are MY instruments, MY equipments, MY raw-materials for MY ministry. I use money for ministry, likewise, I use God for Ministry. However, I use God first and then money. Isn’t the statement ridiculous?
Have you read about a business man who prioritised between God, Family and Business, by flip flopping the three according to the place? In the church, he puts God first, family in second and business in third; At home - Family is first, God is next, and business is third; And at his office - Business is first, family is next, and God is third.
5. Let us play “True or False” game and try to understand the subtle nature of the statement: (1) “Without God, no ministry happens" True or False? (2) “Without money, no ministry happens” True or False? My answer to the first statement is positive - if there is no God, you cannot have ministry at all. My reflection to the second statement is that if there is no money can’t you have any ministry at all? Will nothing move without money?
6. The phrase “Next to God” is euphemism, which is very close to blasphemy. We hear people saying, “God Willing” and even in shorter form, “D.V.” (without knowing the full form of it) though we don’t use it literally, and whole heartedly. Such phrases are used to smoothing the arrogance of humanness. After we have well planed and ready to executive meticulously, we insert, “God willing,” with the intent that no one should be offended or no one should blame us. Reading this statement plainly, it means, “Money is important for ministry.” And when eye brows raise with exclamations and questions, “WHAT DO YOU SAY???!!!!” the euphemism plays its role, “Oh yeah, eventually, "Next to God.” And the more frequent one uses this statement, the more emphasis is given on the important thing, that is, "money and nothing but money."
7. Even the construction/syntax of the sentence is ironic. The primary and complete sentence is “Money is important for ministry” and the auxiliary phrase is “Next to God.”
My Clarification:
Please, understand me. I do not say, money is evil and not at all needed for any ministry. My questions are: What is our philosophy/concept of ministry? The word “important” signifies that something without which nothing will work. Is money the deciding factor, the master to the ministry or a subservient, a servant to the ministry?
I heard a man of God saying: Based on money, you will start business; Depending on God (in Faith), you will start ministry.
Also, I do not buy the argument that money should be given to churches , to support the pastors and church ministries and to global ministries to support the ministers of the gospel. Giving to local churches is to support ministry of charity (please note the NT pattern that there was no NGO but the local churches took care of the widows and poor), edification, leadership development etc. Giving to global ministries for church planting, church establishing and leadership development. (Please note that there was no Para-Church Missionary Organization and Theological Seminary in the NT time, but churches and Pauline Teams were ministering).
Wherever I conduct workshop, I come across the standardizing attempts, by quoting Paul’s Tent Making, that pastors and ministers of the gospel should work and earn their living as well ministry, rather than they are being supported by believers. Reading the Scriptures without preconception, we can see that there are plenty of direct instructions and sufficient apostolic precedence for supporting the local church leaders and global ministers of the gospel, financially, besides their prayer support and supplying of work forces. Of above 100 names, there were 1/3 of Paul’s associates were benefactors, who generously supplied his needs in ministry. I love to study with those who are interested to search the word on this theme.
Wherever the churches posed issues, Paul did not hesitate to work with his own hands not only to support himself, but also to feed his entire team. So there is no rigidity but flexibility between being supported and raising one’s own support.
My Concern:
However, my great concern is that Indian believers, particularly middle and rich classes, should be discipled in biblical giving. Without which, the evil of pouring to wrong and or rich pastors and wealthy organizations and ignoring (even disgusting) the sincere, needy pastors and small ministers of the gospel will continue.
My Conclusion:
“Next to God, Money is important for ministry.” -- I do not agree with the statement for the statement is itself a flaw.
A man of God said it well, "Based on Money, you can start a business, depending on God you do ministry."
Please do not think that without money, no ministry can happen. Any thought?
Please, understand me. I do not say, money is evil and not at all needed for any ministry. My questions are: What is our philosophy/concept of ministry? The word “important” signifies that something without which nothing will work. Is money the deciding factor, the master to the ministry or a subservient, a servant to the ministry?
I heard a man of God saying: Based on money, you will start business; Depending on God (in Faith), you will start ministry.
Also, I do not buy the argument that money should be given to churches , to support the pastors and church ministries and to global ministries to support the ministers of the gospel. Giving to local churches is to support ministry of charity (please note the NT pattern that there was no NGO but the local churches took care of the widows and poor), edification, leadership development etc. Giving to global ministries for church planting, church establishing and leadership development. (Please note that there was no Para-Church Missionary Organization and Theological Seminary in the NT time, but churches and Pauline Teams were ministering).
Wherever I conduct workshop, I come across the standardizing attempts, by quoting Paul’s Tent Making, that pastors and ministers of the gospel should work and earn their living as well ministry, rather than they are being supported by believers. Reading the Scriptures without preconception, we can see that there are plenty of direct instructions and sufficient apostolic precedence for supporting the local church leaders and global ministers of the gospel, financially, besides their prayer support and supplying of work forces. Of above 100 names, there were 1/3 of Paul’s associates were benefactors, who generously supplied his needs in ministry. I love to study with those who are interested to search the word on this theme.
Wherever the churches posed issues, Paul did not hesitate to work with his own hands not only to support himself, but also to feed his entire team. So there is no rigidity but flexibility between being supported and raising one’s own support.
My Concern:
However, my great concern is that Indian believers, particularly middle and rich classes, should be discipled in biblical giving. Without which, the evil of pouring to wrong and or rich pastors and wealthy organizations and ignoring (even disgusting) the sincere, needy pastors and small ministers of the gospel will continue.
My Conclusion:
“Next to God, Money is important for ministry.” -- I do not agree with the statement for the statement is itself a flaw.
A man of God said it well, "Based on Money, you can start a business, depending on God you do ministry."
Please do not think that without money, no ministry can happen. Any thought?
No comments:
Post a Comment