We spend quite a bit of time pursuing, collecting and naming all of our possessions. We work hard so we can buy more things. We take vacation so we can get a break from all those things. We play hard so we can use those things. We spend an unhealthy amount of time sorting, labeling, cleaning, collecting, shopping, seeking and dreaming about our things. Our entire lives are consumed by the next thing that we get or that we want.

I’m beginning to wonder if we started to think more like this post I wrote a few months ago, that we could start to have a different perspective on material possessions all together?

I think we have a major flaw in the way we look at the world. We see everything in the world as something that we can own. So over centuries we have mined and moved around and cut down and built things so that we could use the world for what we think it should be used for. We see the world through one lens, and that lens is dominantly selfish one. If everything, everywhere is meant to be owned and possessed by someone. If that someone gets to choose the fate of whatever they own, strictly because they own it based on whatever laws in their society. Then the world has become nothing more than a large shopping mall, that instead of cash, it’s first come, first served and people can take and do whatever they want. Ownership and possession become key to the language we use when we talk about material possessions.

May I suggest an alternative? What if instead seeing material things as something to be possessed and owned primarily we look at material things as something to be shared first? What if as soon as you found yourself with the responsibility of any item, your first instinct was how do I share this rather than how do I guarantee my ownership of it? This takes a completely different shift in the way that we look at everything, but I think it is possible.

If we truly see the earth as God’s and everything in it, then it is unnecessary to see these things inside the world as ours at all. We use ideas of stewardship and responsibility to help us spend what is ours more wisely but there is one flaw in this type of thinking. It presupposes there is anything that is ours in the first place. What if material possessions could only truly be experienced when shared, not when owned? What if we can only truly experience what God has for us in this world through sharing and giving away? I think that if we can move away from a type of thinking that tells us that to enjoy something we have to own it and use it up that we might be better off. The best things in life only become a reality when they are shared with others or given away. The kingdom works this way as well. Why should it be any different with material things?

I’ve been playing around with this thought for a while.  After thinking about collections and how I think that they are in many ways anti-kingdom, James sent me this quote:

All of the computers on Ebay are mine. In fact, everything on Ebayis already mine. All of those things are just in long term storage that I pay nothing for. Storage is free.

When I want to take something out of storage, I just pay the for the storage costs for that particular thing up to that point, plus a nominal shipping fee, and my things are delivered to me so I can use them. When I am done with them, I return them to storage via Craigslist or Ebay, and I am given a fee as compensation for freeing up the storage facilities resources.

This is also the case with all of my stuff that Amazon and Walmart are holding for me. I have antiques, priceless art, cars, estates, and jewels beyond the dreams of avarice.

The world is my museum, displaying my collections on loan. The James Savages of the world are merely curators.

As I am the curator of their things, and thus together we all share the world.

While realistically this is not how we have setup the world.  Our culture and deep greed make this unthinkable, and in many ways, it makes this entire way of thinking pretty stupid.  I think however, that there is an argument for this that needs some more air time.  In fact, I think we are one of the first cultures where present leading Christian thinkers talk about this very little.  Ask a Christian leader to sell his library of books today and he will accuse you of all sorts of things and give you plenty of excuses.  However, Origen got to the point in his journey of following Jesus that lead him to sell even his books.  Why are we so afraid?  What are we really holding on to?

I’ve said things like this before to friends while playing around with this idea of common possessions for all.  Typically the response is “ok fine, give me your Ipod.”  Which only tells me that the reason we don’t like a belief system like this is because it means we have to give up the possessions we value far too much to anyone who wants it.  They think I don’t actually believe in this system because I am selfish like the rest of them.  It is true that I am selfish, but it doesn’t follow that I don’t really believe in this, or that it is not true.  If you don’t see the world with private possessions, then someone taking your Ipod wouldn’t mean much to you.  Also it would mean that you could take it back whenever because it’s not theirs either.  I realize, because of the culture we are in, that this is a highly idealistic way to see the world.  However, I don’t think that prevents it from being true or real or good.

If we are working along side of God in the realization of the kingdom of God, I have a feeling it looks a lot more like the commonality of all things rather than everyone having their own private possessions.  Private possessions are for those who have not learned to share.  Private possessions are for those who see something they have not created as their own.

I picked up a book called Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance and Use of Money by Justo Gonzalez and I realized I am not alone.  Most early church fathers had lots to say about money, possessions and ownership.  Most of them agree that the idea of private ownership is pretty far from the gospel.  Instead of making a case for it myself, here is a bunch of quotes from different early church thinkers.  I wrote a few quotes from this book already here, but these ones are going to focus more on the commonality of goods.

According to Clement, the commonality of goods–or at least of their use–is not a strange notion taught by some philosophical schools or fanatical groups.  It is part of the original order of creation.  Clement’s argument is that whatever we own we possess only for use; that any use beyond the necessary is superfluous and a burden to the Christian life; that the only way in which we can truly possess what we do not need is by giving it away; and that therefore the best management of private property is to make it available for common use.  God created humanity for sharing and began this process by sharing the divine logos.  Is is our sharing in this logos that makes us human.  Therefore, not to share is inhuman and goes against the verykoinonia that is the basis of our creation (ouk anthropinon, oude, koinonikon).
- Clement of Alexandria

God created our race for sharing (koininia), beginning by giving out what belonged to God, God’s own Word, making is common (kinos) to all humans, and creating all things for all (panta poiesas yper panton).  Therefore all things are common (koina oun ta panta); and let not the rich claim more than the rest.  To say therefore “I have more tha nI need, why not enjoy?” is neither human nor proper to sharing (ouk anthropinon, oude koinonikon)…For I know well that God has given us the power to use; but only to the limit of that which is necessary: and that God also willed that the use be in common.
- Clement of Alexandria

To own things is to be indebted to Caesar–or, in some of the passages, to “the prince of the world”–and therefore the closer one is to being free of material possessions the less hold Caeser has on one.
- Origen

Why do you (the rich) drive out of their inheritance people whose nature is the same as yours, claiming for yourselves alone the possession of the land?  The land was made to be common to all, the poor and the rich.  Why do you, oh rich, claim for yourselves alone the right to the land?

The world has been made for all, and a few of you rich try to keep it for yourselves.  For not only the ownership of the land, but even the sky, the air and the sea, a few rich people claim for themselves…Do the angels divide the space in heaven, as you do when you set up property marks on earth?

When you give to the poor, you give not of your own, but simply return what is his, for you have usurped that which is common and has been given for the common use of all.  The land belongs to all, not to the rich; and yet those who are deprived of its use are many more than those who enjoy it.

God our Lord willed that this land be the common possession of all and give it fruit to all.  but greed distributed the right of possessions.  Therefore if you claim as your private property part of what was granted in common to all human beings and to all animals, it is only fair that you share some of this with the poor, so that you will not deny nourishment to those who are also partakers of your right (by which you hold this land).

Greed is the cause of our want.  The birds have abundant natural food because they have received in common that which is necessary for their nourishment, and they do not know how to claim private ownership.  By claiming the private we (humans) lose the common.

Why do you consider things in the world as possessions, when the world is common?  Why do you consider the fruits of the land private, when the land is common?…Birds who own nothing, lack nothing.

Nothing graces the Christian soul so much as mercy: mercy as shown chiefly towards the poor, that thou mayest treat them as sharers in common with thee in the produce of nature, which brings forth the fruit of the earth for use to all.

But this is not even in accord with nature, for nature has poured forth all things for all men for common use.  God has ordered all things to be produced, so that there should be good in common to all, and that the earth should be the common possession to all.  Nature, therefore, has produced a common right for all, but greed has made it a right for a few.”
-Ambrose

Let no one regard anything as theirs, or as private.  On the contrary, to all of us were given, as gifts from the same Father, not only the same beginning of life, but also things in order that we might use them.  We must emulate God’s goodness poured upon us, following the excellent example of the Lord who has given us all these things.  Therefore, in order to be good, we must consider all things as being common to everybody, and not allow ourselves to be corrupted by the pride of luxury of the world, nor by greed after wealth, nor by seeking after vainglory.  On the contrary, we are to submit to God and remain in the love of every common life, living in communion.
- Hilary

Let us not be more beastly than the beasts.  For them, all things are common: the earth, the springs, the pastures, the mountains, the valleys.  One does not have more than another.  You, however, who call yourself human, the tamest of animals, become fiercer than the beasts and shut up in a single house the sustenance for thousands of poor people.  And even so, it is not only our nature that is common to us all, but also many other things: the sky and the sun, and the moon, and the choir of stars, and the air, and the sea, and the fire, and the water, and the earth, and life, and death, and growth, and old age, and sickness, and health, and hte need to eat and be clothed.  Also common to us all is the spirutual, the sacred table and the body of the Lord and his precious blood, and the promise of hte Kingdom….Is it not then absurd, that we who have so many great things in common….will be so greedy when it comes to riches, and rather than maintaining that commonality we become fiercer than the wild beasts.

Whence, then, does such great equality arise? It arises from the greed and the arrogance of the rich.  But I ask that in the future you act in a different manner: closely bound together in those things that are common and most needful, let us not be rent asunder by those that are earthly and lower, such as riches and poverty.”
- John Chrysostom

Any who wish to serve the Lord must not rejoice in the private, but in the common.  The earliest Christians made common property of their private good.  Did they lose what was theirs? … It is because of our private possessions that there are disagreements, enmity, dissension, wars…”
-Augustine

It’s pretty clear to me that one of the chief reasons the world is in the state it is in is because of a poor view of commonality of things.  How we determined that certain people deserve more than others is beyond me.  The only way we could get to such a massive unequal distribution that we see today is to allow a system of greed and privatization to run rampant.  If we seriously insist in following Jesus, and his most earliest followers in ushering in the Kingdom of God we should begin to uplift and support more commonality.  I don’t know what exactly this looks like in reality but I do know its a direction we must go.  We need to loosen our grip on our possessions and let them flow in and our of our lives more easily to constantly be ready to be used by anyone in need.  We need to be in more relationships with those that actually need the things that we have.  We need to remember that we all came from the same place, we all have the same destiny and none of us has earned any extra favour beyond the grace of God, and to act like we have is to forsake our humanity.  We need to remember that when we give and share, we are not sharing that which is ours, but that which is in common to all of humanity.

I’m reading the book Faith and Wealth by Justo L Gonzalez.  The book is basically a walk through history and a commentary on how people and eventually the church viewed wealth.  It’s super heavy on the history, which I’m not great at reading, but it keeps drawing me back with all its points.  I’m just fascinated that these arguments were still there thousands of years ago.  I’m fascinated all the more that deeply rooted Christ followers have been saying the same things for this long, and yet from my understanding, no sign of change.  The parts I’ve really enjoyed is reading through some of the stuff from early church father’s and theologians and their thoughts on the matter, so I thought I would type out some of the stuff that stuck out to me.   I really love some of Clement of Alexandria writings on the matter.  Here is a few quotes from the book I’ve found helpful.

In speaking of Lactanius:

“For God, who has not given wisdom to other animals, he has made them more safe from attack in danger by natural defenses.  But because He made man naked and defenseless, that He might rather furnish him with wisdom, He gave him, besides other things, this feeling of kindness; so that man should protect, love, and cherish man, and both receive and afford assistance against all dangers.  Therefore kindness (humanitas) is the greatest bond of human society; and he who has broken this is to be deemed impious.” – Lactantius

Our common humanity stems from our common ancestry, for Lactanius insists that God created a single human being from whom all the rest are descended.  Since we are all kindred being from whom all the rest are descended.  Since we are all kindred, we owe each other aid in times of distress or difficulty.  To stand aside and do nothing is to descend to the level of beasts, which are incapable of kindness (humanitas).

In speaking of Cyprian:

“I used to regard it as a difficult matter, and especially as difficult in respect to my character at that time, that a man should be capable of being born again…When does he learn thrift who has been used to liberal banquet and sumptuous feasts?  And he who has been glittering in gold and purple, and has been celebrated for his costly attire, when does he reduce himself to ordinary and simple clothing ?” – Cyprian

One cannot be excused from almsgiving on the grounds that one has children for whose patrimony and inheritance one is responsible.  To do so is to forsake one’s real responsibility for one’s children and therefore to betray them: “You are unfair and traitorous father, unless you…preserve them in religion and true piety.  You who are careful rather for their earthy than for their heavenly state, rather to commend your children to the devil than to Christ, are sinning twice, both in not providing for your children the aid of God their Father, and in teaching your children to love their property more than Christ.”

In speaking of Tertullian

Christians must be ready at all times to suffer the loss of all possessions.  After all, what they have is not truly theirs, and therefore to wish to posses it absolutely is to covet.

“Let us stand ready to endure every violence, having nothing which we may fear to leave behind.  It is these things which are the bonds which retard our hope.  Let us cast away earthy ornaments if we desire the heavenly.” – Tertullian

That Tertullian found it necessary to write such words is ample proof that the church contained some who lived–or at least were tempted to live–in sort of luxury that he deplored.  As he stressed in the Apology, giving was voluntary.  In such a situation, many would be tempted to retain for themselves as much as possible.  In a sense, this was their right.  But Tertullian was not content with that response, so he made three points to help lead rich Christians to greater largesse: (1) nothing that one has is one’s own, and therefore to be overly attached to it is just as sinful as desiring what belongs to another; (2) the Lord has shown a preference for the poor, and Christians ought to do likewise; (3) excessive ease and comfort weaken the believers for the many trials they may have to face, particularly the trial of martyrdom.

In speaking of Origen

To own things is to be indebted to Caesar–or, in some of the passages, to “the prince of the world”–and therefore the closer one is to being free of material possessions the less hold Caeser has on one.

In speaking of Clement of Alexandria

Furthermore, Clement is aware that the habits of a lifetime cannot be easily changed, and that is the rich are left to determine for themselves what is their just share in giving and the proper use of their wealth, they will tend to be too lenient.  Therefore he concludes his treatise advising those amond the rich who really want to take seriously the work of their salvation to find someone to help them see the proper use of their wealth.

All would agree that it would be silly to make a pickax out of silver or a sickle out of gold; and yet, when it comes to household goods, many do not show the same wisdom as they do when making agricultural tools.  A table knife does not cut better because it has an ivory handle, and a lamp does not give more light because it comes from the goldsmith’s shop rather than the potter’s.  Yet the folly of luxury is such that some even have gold chamberpots, as if they could not set aside their price even when they relieve themselves.

Again, this does not mean that things in themselves are evil.  But there is a measure for the possession of things, and that measure is their use.  The theme of the use of things appears repeatedly in the writings of Clement, precisely when dealing with the manner in which one should deal with material goods.  In the passage quoted above about the senselessness of gold and silver utensils should be “use, not expense.”  The bowl from which the Lord ate was a common one.  He told his disciples to recline on the grass, not on an ivory bed.  he washed their feet in an earthen vessel, for he certainly did not bring a gold one down from heaven.  In short “He made use, not extravagance His aim.”  There is no need to condemn the Creator for having made these things.  But we must remember that, from the point of view of usefulness, that which is without ostentation is best.  The measure of proper use is necessity.  Just as the size of the foot determines the size of the shoe, so should the needs of the body determine what one possesses.  “All that we posses is give to us for use, and use for sufficiency.”  Anything that goes beyond this is superfluous and is therefore a burden.

Note here that riches, in order to be overcome, have to be despised.  It is not simply a matter of not allowing oneself to be ruled by them and then continuing along one’s merry way.  Clement did believe that the rich could be saved, but only by using their riches in a certain way.  This is why he suggested that rich Christians find wise mentors who could guide them both in managing their riches and in educating their souls.  To manage wealth wisely, one must give it up knowing that one is thus purchasing life eternal.

According to Clement, the commonality of goods–or at least of their use–is not a strange notion taught by some philosophical schools or fanatical groups.  It is part of the original order of creation.  Clement’s argument is that whatever we own we possess only for use; that any use beyond the necessary is superfluous and a burden to the Christian life; that the only way in which we can truly possess what we do not need is by giving it away; and that therefore the best management of private property is to make it available for common use.  God created humanity for sharing and began this process by sharing the divine logos.  Is is our sharing in this logos that makes us human.  Therefore, not to share is inhuman and goes against the very koinonia that is the basis of our creation (ouk anthropinon, oude, koinonikon)

In speaking of Irenaues

Thus Christians are to be ready to share their goods, first with the poor, but also with any who would take them away by force.  In the latter case, Christians should “not grieve as those who are unwilling to be defrauded, but may rejoice as those who have given willingly.”

I’ve been finding myself getting more and more frustrated lately with how people spend their money. When I hear stories of 2 million dollar church building projects, 50 thousand dollar pothole fundraising campaigns, the 40 billion or so Americans spends on their pets or just watching the local Wal Mart parking lot fill up with people before the sun has crawled its way to our side of the hemisphere I cringe. The typical responses are evoked from me like there are people in third world countries that would be much better off if only you weren’t so selfish. The local homeless shelter needs food before your potholes need to be filled and the list goes on.

The stories are endless. The outrage we all felt when we found out about the AIG bonuses spread quickly and we couldn’t believe anyone would do such a horrendous thing. We all feel ripped off when the government is bailing out major corporations. How dare they waste such a sacred, spiritual, valuable and important part of our lives. And in saying that previous sentence, is where I got the hint that we may have a problem.

If I truely want to hold the view that money cannot impart true and eternal value then how did money all of sudden earn titles such as valuable, sacred, spiritual and important? In our world, money is nothing more than a number on your screen or paper. There is no real value whatsoever in money. We give it all it’s value in how we treat it, how we use it and how we look at it. In looking at it that way, I’m fascinated that money holds such a power in our lives. Somehow all of our value and security comes from numbers and paper.

If this isn’t where our value comes from, if this shouldn’t be where our security, purpose and love comes from then why do I get so angry when its spent improperly? I am learning not to care about the numbers and paper like I used to. By getting angry and vocal about how poorly someone spends their money, I feel like I am only perpetuating a system that puts money on a pedestal as something that should be held with utmost respect and honour. Something I don’t think money deserves.

I have a feeling that this story and this story of Jesus pulling the coin from the fish’s mouth and him talking about paying taxes has a lot to do with how our theology around money should be shaped. Jesus is asked if it is right to pay taxes to Caesar or not and he said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. My understanding of this statement is that he could care less about what you do with your money, it’s just inanimate objects that’s only value is the value that we impart to it. However, what you do with yourself is what he is concerned with. Give it to God who cares about all these loose coins and what happens to them.

So I’ve decided (at least for now) that all the injustices that I cry out about over the bad spending of money aren’t as important as I always thought they were. My cry for injustice is more sounding like cries against disrespecting the God of money, a cry I can’t allow be muttered from my lips anymore. If anything, maybe I’ll just be concerned with how we are giving to God’s what is God’s and allow what is Caesars to hang out in the world of Caesar. It sounds better to me than trying to give what is Ceasar’s to God, cause apparently God doesn’t care all that much with what happens to it.

Giving, therefore–dumb, no-reason-for-it unloading of money–remains the only hope of a cure for the disease of money.
Robert Farrar Capon

Len linked to this article, which sent me off on a whole bunch of other reading along this topic and it has hit pretty close to home. I wrote a post a few months back on some thoughts I was having on paying pastors. This article has convinced me that we really need to think about this a lot more, especially because its not just happening in churches but its happening in all organizations that started off because of a cause.

This article entitled The Revolution will Not Be Funded took a bunch of excerpts from the book with the same title. Paying pastors has some serious side affects that needs to be addressed and dealt with in communities. Here is a few quotes.

When you start paying people to do activism, you can start to attract people to the work who are not primarily motivated by or dedicated to the struggle. In addition, getting paid to do the work can also change those of us who are dedicated. Before we know it, we start to expect to be paid and do less unpaid work than we would have before. This way of organizing benefits the system, of course, because people start seeing organizing as a career rather than as involvement in a social movement that requires sacrifice.

If nonprofit jobs are the only spaces where our communities are engaged in fighting for social justice and creating alternatives to oppressive systems, then we will never be able to engage in radical social change. Would the Zapatistas in Chiapas or the Landless Workers Movement members in Brazil have been able to develop their radical autonomous societies if they had been paid to attend meetings and to occupy land? If these mass movements had been their jobs, it would have been very easy to stop them by merely threatening to pull their paychecks.

Now for this next quote, replace foundations with “tithers” and replace activists as “pastors” and replace members with “God.”

We as activists are no longer accountable to our constituents or members because we don’t depend on them for our existence. Instead, we’ve become primarily accountable to public and private foundations as we try to prove to them that we are still relevant and efficient and thus worthy of continued funding.

Pastors end up becoming nothing more than paid pawns of their congregations. Pastors are the ones who are paid to be Christians for everyone else all the while meeting all the administrative and pastoral and teaching expectations put on them. The pastoral role has become like any other salary driven job and it needs to change. The church has become a slow moving, half-hearted administrative force in the world accomplishing not a whole lot in terms of their mission but some interesting studies, lots of debt for our great buildings and wonderfully programmed events on Sunday mornings.

Today you can get a federal grant to work on diabetes prevention, but rather than get the community to organize around the politics of diabetes, people just sit in an office all day and design pamphlets. Activism is relegated to events. Many people will get involved for an event, but avoid rocking the boat on an ongoing basis because if they do, they might lose their funding. For instance, if the government is funding the pamphlet, then an organization is not going to address the impact of U.S. colonialism on Native diets because they don’t want to lose funding.

The true church will not need funding behind them to accomplish the mission that God has called us to. We will really need to get back to our hearts and not our bank balances to determine if we will actually do something or now. I pray that God gives us the strength to do so.

Activism is tough; it is not for people interested in building a career.

The Church is tough; it is not for people interested in building a career.

I wrote this post after which gives some more thoughts on the matter.

The Revolution (Church/Body of Christ) Will Not Be Funded

Since starting theStory Joe, Darryl and I have wrestled a lot with the idea of salary and if a church should pay its pastor, go bi-vocational or make an income completely separate from the faith community. What does that look like? I found myself wavering a lot on the issue. I personally don’t take a pay check from the church and this point in time I don’t want to. Right now we pay Joe a part time salary ($12000 a year, up to $20000 for next year) and pay a part time kids experience designer a small wage ($5200 a year).

The list of reasons why churches should pay their pastors is endless. It’s great to have someone dedicated to the task full time in cultivating the community. It’s awesome to have someone able to spend the time needed to bring together good messages and do the proper study. It’s great to have someone there to walk and journey with people through hard times; someone at the church who is designated teacher, pastor, and caregiver. If someone’s gifts lie in being a pastor, well they may not have other gifts or trades that they can make a living anywhere else. It’s nice to have someone responsible for the administrative side, visionary side and organizational side of things. I’d much rather see money go into someone’s pocket than into a building project.

I think my reasons for not being paid are more though. With my idealistic thinking, I would hope that a community would together fulfill the role of what we have created the “senior pastor” into. The church would be dedicated to cultivating the community and growing together. When someone is in need, the community responds. The community learns to teach each other and build up their teachers. I hate the idea of the communal responsibility being passed off onto one individual for a pay check, or at least this is what happens in many circumstances.

I also hate the idea that pastoral ministry is a career. It works the exact same way as any business does. There is a hierarchy. You can work your way up and down. The person at the top calls the shots. They get scheduled raises and benefits and they are all expected. In fact we get pissed when churches treat their pastors badly and don’t give them what’s due to them. We give them pension plans and pay into the RRSPs. We pay their mileage and give them book budgets. Pastoral work is a white-collar job just like all the others. It’s like a mix between a counselor, public speaker and administrator. What ever happened to tent-making, or working with our hands or suffering for the kingdom? Do we really think that pastors have the “rite” to a well paid job with benefits because they went to school and got educated or have special gifts that were realized?

We want to argue that we have to support our families, or that no one else is going to do it, or that it is in fact a profession (because we went to school for it) so we must be paid like all the others, and treated like all the others. I just don’t buy it though. I think idealistically (which I think is what we should be reaching for, not ignoring it because we think it’s impossible) there should be no such thing as paid pastors. I do not think the pastoral ministry should be used to “get ahead” in this world and should not in anyway be on the same level as other white collar jobs.

Here is my proposal. Instead of hiring pastors on and paying them a salary based on all the ridiculous things we pay them for, we create a new system that is setup to support pastors. Let me explain. This system says if you want to be a pastor of this community than you will learn to serve this community at the cost of your career advancement and weekly pay checks. (As I type this I’m starting to see this looking a lot more like how the Salvation Army sets things up). Pastors need to be supported; not paid. Communities need to sit down with their pastors or the people in their community that want to dedicate their full-time lives to the community and weigh their needs. Then the community should work together and commit to meeting those needs. Every year everyone should sit down again and re-evaluate what this person and their family needs to survive along with them, holding them accountable to their stewardship practices along the way and then determine together how the community can meet their needs.

This I think would save us a lot of hassle. We would stop instantly playing the raise/salary game thinking we deserve or need a certain amount to survive. Thoughts that come to us all alone as we justify all the things we need in our heads to survive and our lives and purchases would be laid bare before the community as together they decided what was the best way to support this person who has decided to give his/her lives over to them for the sake of the kingdom. This would in turn help each community member re-evaluate their own finances on a regular basis seeing how he is supporting this pastor to live and realizing that they could probably live simpler also. This of course puts the pastor on the spot. All of sudden the house that they live in is up for question, do they really need to live in that expensive of a house? Do they really need that many vehicles? Do they really need to vacation that often? Do they really need to have that kind of medical care? It’s transparent all of sudden because the pastor is giving these decisions over to the community and is at the mercy of their decisions. As I talked this out with a few people before I posted this, one friend says that “this would be a brutal way to live” for that pastor. It could be, but someone has got to put themselves out there and live brutally for anything to really happen.

Some may think its reinventing the wheel of boards and deacons determining the pay scale of a pastor based on whatever they base it on. What I’m proposing though isn’t a pay scale at all. It isn’t based on the size of the church, how long they’ve been a pastor, how long they’ve been at the church, what they deserve, what their responsibilities are; rather it is based on what the needs of the pastor and his family are.

I think this sets up a community to have leaders who are leading by example while still serving at the feet of the community they are serving. While the community works together to help one family survive, maybe other families will start to catch on to what is really happening and start participating with more than just their finances to pay off an extra heating bill. Things like retirement and investments become less of an issue because the community has committed to supporting this person/family and its not like there is such thing as retirement inside committed relationships. Things like medical care and surprising bills in the mailbox become the burden of the community instead of the individual.

While my hope is that entire communities would work this way, not just with the pastor, what if we started with just the leader or the servant of the community. We work together to support that person and make sure they are OK always and taken care of instead of sending him pay checks every few weeks and letting him fend for himself. What do you think? One friend says that I am speaking from a place of ignorance because I don’t get my salary from a church. In my opinion this gives me a better perspective on the issue, because I have given my life to the church but am not paid. The problem is though, I probably won’t ever get to test out this theory myself, at least anytime soon. The last thing I would want to do is push somebody else into this way of living that they weren’t comfortable with. So what do you think?