I am using the term Voyeurism to describe something we do in the local church. There are several forms of voyeurism yet the type I am attempting to describe is nothing in sexual nature. The definition that I'm working from is this:
Voyeurism is the act of someone who habitually observes others without their knowledge. Voyeurism (from the French voyeur, "one who looks") can take several forms, but its principal characteristic is that the voyeur does not normally relate directly with the subject of their interest, who is often unaware of being observed.
I got into a conversation with a member of our church the other day regarding our church's tithing habits. Now, I'm not talking about the individuals who make up our church and their spiritual discipline and obedient tithe to our local church but the amount of money that our church turns around and gives out to other mission organizations, missionaries, and other evangelistic efforts that are more or less disconnected from our local efforts. We are indirectly related to these missions. And the notion shared with me by this member was that we were breaking some biblical mandated law if we as a church organization did not give to SOME other mission. "We've gotta give to something or someone. We can't just not give to someone and keep all the money for our church." AND hidden beneath this comment lies an issue within the local church. Buried beneath its innocent, good willed, and moral notions, lies a mentality that has been affecting the local church like cancer.
There has been a mentality that has creeped into the local church that if you aren't giving to another mission that you aren't doing what's right. Now don't misunderstand what I'm getting at here. I do support the local church allocating money's out of the budget to support other missions but I'm afraid that out of a social obligation to give, many churches are doing what many Americans have done over the past few decades and that is tithe off of their credit cards. I wonder how many struggling churches continue to tithe to "other" missions while they continually struggle financially and slowly die; only to meet a social obligation. I'm perplexed why these churches do not cut their giving down and focus on their own mission. Its as if we REALLY AREN'T A "REAL" MISSION. But that's the issue. Have we forgotten that we too are a mission?
I do believe that the local church abroad has forgotten that we ARE A MISSION. That we don't need to send out money to others to do what we're supposed to be doing. I wonder if people will feel guilty that NOTHING is being done to spread the gospel message through their church's efforts if we don't pay someone else to do it. I think this is a fair question given the statistics of growth in the North American churches. This idea of hired mercenaries has been around for quite some time but not necessarily in the church.
What I'm beginning to notice is that we depend on their stories of faith in hard times, conversions happening weekly, the holy spirit moving, and the mission growing. We are like individuals who depend on reading the latest hot gossip in People Magazine. I watch people feed off of others' lives and live through their drama, stories, and excitement; simply put, they have no lives of there own to get excited about.
SO we commit CHRISTIAN VOYEURISM, peering into others' lives to feed our appetite to be a part of something important. The people we associate ourselves with really don't know who we are, what we're about; we never meet any of the people who are affected by our money donations but it's enough to keep our pseudo evangelistic efforts going and let us sleep at night. It's a trade off of sorts. They send us neat stories so that we can feel good and they get money to live another day and do the real evangelistic work. What is sad is that this TRUE. Not many people would look at it this way, however, as a pastor, I can see the big picture and the long-term spiritual consequences of people feeding their Christian Voyeurism. And really, I absolutely cannot say with certainty which individuals struggle with this, however, I can say with certainty that it does happen. I see the spiritual consequences of this everyday in the American church.
Churches connect to other missions so that we can at least guarantee that SOMETHING good is happening. And if we aren't living out our mission, the fact that the mission around the world that we're financially supporting is doing positive things will take the pressure off my conscience knowing that my money is at least converting some people.
Now I am not advocating that we do away with supporting other missions. I'm all for supporting those who quite frankly do what I CANNOT do. I'm called to a particular people group and society to minister to and so are the individuals who are ministering around the globe. I understand that there are times in the Kingdom where every church is in need of other church's support. BUT what I am against is the church giving when it cannot financially afford it as if they are not a mission in need; giving out of a heart that abdicates their personal responsibility and calling as a Christ follower to evangelize the lost; and individuals not realizing that the local church is indeed a MISSION.
I believe God is calling the local church to a new understanding of Christianity and their views of the church's relationship to it's community. We are to become missional people who belong to a mission. We each are partners in that mission (not members of a societal club with benefits of inclusion) and have a shared investment in the outcome (hardships and victories) because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ who live for for His glory.
I will continue to wonder what would happen if today's people in the local church realized that WE ARE A MISSION. My prayer is that we might experience that in our church. I AM heartened to know there are people who are beginning to see the big Kingdom picture of what God is doing. My hope is that we will take a hard look at what God has called us to do specifically where we are. I hope that we will not overlook what God is doing right now and attempting to involve us in.
We are called to give not only out of our abundance but also out of our poverty if that is where we are.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your calling America's many churches to mission, but encouraging them to keep all of their money to use it locally isn't going to make an inward focused church more missional.
I'm guessing I might have again, like I sometimes do, helped someone misunderstand my point. The point and goal of what I was articulating was not for people to keep there money. This seems to be a polarizing comment you have made to make sure I'm not going crazy. But if you read the article closely, I said, "Now I am not advocating that we do away with supporting other missions." So, since I got that out of the way, i went ahead a went forward with making my assertion that people give to cover up the need to personally evangelize. I know its a hard truth to swallow. I'm not willing to point out who, but I am willing to say IT DOES HAPPEN. And the reason I brought this up was that we are facing an instance where we just might have to pull back the mission funding that our new church adopted through the dying church. The plan we would then take is to hit the restart button and rebuild our mission giving. The only point I was making was that you are no more of a missional person if you give a tithe to a distant mission than if you don't. Giving to distant missions is not what makes you missional, however if you are missional, that CAN include giving to distant missions along with local. What is happening is that people can give to someone they DO NOT KNOW across the continent yet keep the most important thing they have, A relationship to Jesus, a secret from those they see every day. Hopefully you understand my point and are willing to talk about the point at hand. I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE STOPPAGE OF GIVING TO DISTANT MISSIONS. I'M ADVOCATING THE REVIVAL OF OUR OWN MISSION IN AMERICA.
ReplyDelete