Church as a Co-op: 3rd Principle

3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.

The third co-operative principle seems timely to address considering the current economic situation. Our community, the Hawthorn House, has been taking a serious look at economics for months now. This is a subject that is often taboo within churches. But in times such as these where the systems we assumed would always work no longer do the Church has a duty to talk about economics.

In the introduction to the Church as a Co-op series I wrote:

Recently, I’ve had a couple conversations with pastors that have confided that beginning a discussion of personal finances with their congregations would be virtually impossible. Why? It would seem that the Early Church set a precedent for sharing personal economic information. Just read the Book of Acts. We live in a culture in which we find much of our identity through economics. We find identity through what we purchases with money. We have social status based upon our perceived income level. We receive favor from others by the amount of money we spend on them. We buy things to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

If we read some of Jesus’ last words to his disciples in what is known as the Great Commission, this segment of Scripture can be understood to say that Jesus is encouraging his closest friends to initiate people into a community in which their primary identity is a Trinitarian identity. In a culture in which the almighty dollar is a primary identifier it seems only appropriate that discipleship would start here: re-ordering the place of money in our lives.

We live in a culture that has an idolatrous relationship with money. Money maddens us. The fervor for a good deal actually led to a Wal-Mart employee being trampled on Black Friday. As Shane Claiborne wrote in his recent post on Sojourner‘s God’s Politics blog, “It seems like a good time to say: ENOUGH.”

Claiborne goes on to write:

“Enough to the myth that happiness must be purchased. Enough to an economy that is awarding CEOs salaries 500 times that of their workers and still manages to seduce people in poverty and wealth alike to give more money to these predatorial corporations. Enough to the American dream that now consumes over 40 percent of the world’s stuff with less than 6 percent of the world’s resources. Enough to a dream that would need four more planets if the world pursued it … a dream the world cannot afford. Enough to the advice of government leaders who fearfully order us to “just keep shopping” after tragedies like September 11 and November 28. ENOUGH. Maybe God has another dream.”

Of God’s other dream, our friend Lee Van Ham of Jubilee Economics Ministries discussed what that dream may look like in his two part article on Sabbath-Jubilee economics here and here on the EC blog. Our relationship to money is complex. It is not easy to demystify it nor break it’s hold on so many of us. But it needs to be done. So, many of us are taught to read the Bible as if it had no economic ramifications. But as Lee describes in his articles it is an economic text. We are at a point that in order to find our way towards a deeper Christian path, we need to approach Scriptures with pertinent questions in mind. As Ched Myers wrote in Binding the Strong Man, “… radical discipleship necessarily approaches the Bible with social, political and economic questions in mind.”

And like Claiborne, we need to say “enough” to practices in the Church that have more in common with capitalism than the cross. In his book, The Great Giveaway, David Fitch says this of the misplacement of capitalism within the Church:

” … churches take on the communal characteristics of capitalism in strange ways. In the way evangelical [and others I would add] churches organize, we curiously choose elders who are more successful as businessmen [and women] and accumulators of wealth than they are capable of giving wisdom and Christ-centered shepherding to the local congregation. We project budgets based upon how many people are actually ‘giving units’ in the church. Our people walk and look like capitalists. … We surprisingly get our identities more from our jobs than our life in a Christian community pursuing God’s kingdom on earth. And we treat money as our own. … Our imbedded individualism hurts us as we hoard our money, keep private our personal finances, and die a slow death of the soul as we never learn how to truly live, rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep, (Rom. 12:15).”

The fact that many of us tend to think that giving is about it’s results exposes the impact of capitalism on our thinking over and above a biblical worldview. The stories of Zaccheus, the rich young ruler, Ananias and Sapphira have more to do with willingness to let go of personal control of money than about the return on money given. “God asks us to give,” is a complete statement and isn’t to be ended with, “and if we do this we will get [fill in the blank] in return.” Whether the second portion is attributed to God’s blessing, a clear conscience or shrewd investment is not the emphasis. As I said in my second post, “… intent rather than content takes precedence, which seems to line up with Jesus’ statements about the woman who washed his feet, or the widow’s coin.”

Several months ago, I sat in on a meeting where an African-American pastor was asking his denomination to help his congregation get rid of a building that the congregation could not afford. The neighborhood that this building was within was a majority Latin American community. Two Latino leaders were present in the meeting and several Caucasian men were present as well; denominational leaders, a real estate agent from a large church and another member of that church who was quite wealthy. The goal of the meeting was to determine how the building could be acquired to make use for a Hispanic ministry. The two Spanish speaking leaders present would potentially house the building with two Hispanic congregations.

Throughout the meeting, questions were posed to the wealthy business man. Decisions hinged on his input. The pastors who would use the building were never asked for their input and in fact never spoke except to introduce themselves. Likewise, the African-American pastor who was trying to save his congregation from economic disaster was only asked about the lowest price they could afford to sell at.

The point of this story is that economics often create an unequal portion of influence within the Church. Too often people with deep pockets have more impact on the direction of churches and ministries than those without. There is often an assumption that when we give to our local church that we still control that money in some way. But that isn’t why we give to a local church. We give as a discipline, as a commitment. We give resources to this community that is an expression of the kingdom of God.

In the ICA’s third principle, the resources collected are referred to as “common property.” Within the Church we would make a different distinction. We believe the money is God’s. It is, afterall, an offering, a gift to our Creator. But if you look at many of the New Testament stories concerning giving, you will notice that often the resources are given to care for the needy. Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider our collective gifts that are given to the care of those in need are in fact a gift to God.

Valuing Equity and Relationship
What would happen if a local congregation determined together how to use their resources no matter how much or how little each person contributed? I don’t mean to assume that this means we do not attempt to be wise with how we use our money. But we start from the place of giving as a part of our covenanted commitment to God and the Body of Christ primarily. When this is the starting point the amount which is given does not determine influence.

In our community, we have found that it is often those with the least to give that know of the greatest needs to be filled. People with great resources often don’t live lives that connect with the needy, while those without, are more inclined to. Because of that, it seems important that simply because one doesn’t give in large proportion that they are automatically excluded from the decision process of where money is used.

Another thing our community has come to value through this is giving through relationship. Ryan and Holly Sharp talked with us about their involvement with Relational Tithe. It encouraged us to look within our own relationships to discover where the best opportunities existed. It also provided encouragement to those of us that did not have relationships with people in need to reconsider how we live our lives from day to day.

Who Get’s Paid?
Our community also decided to set aside a certain amount of money to ensure that we could take care of each other if there was ever an emergency. What we didn’t do, was decide to pay anyone in our community. Some people may find that surprising. Some of the community members that can afford to, have contributed to our income because they believe that our work in developing a grassroots network of faith communities and community organizing around certain causes is important. But Brooke and I are not paid to lead this community. Quite frankly, we don’t have a need for anyone to be paid to lead this community.

What would happen if we reconsider the importance of paying people within our midst. My friend, Tawd Bell, has over the years consistently challenged the ‘hire and fire’ mentality of churches and their staff. It is too easy to view those whom we pay as simply employees rather than members of a family whom we happen to supplement in order to ensure that they are able to nurture the life of the community in some way. In this light, I often wonder if what we need more than pastors are simply secretary’s. In other words, maybe we’d be better off if we were paying people who can act as a kind of “nerve center;” ensuring that communication and information moves within the local expression of the church.

I know this is a stretch for some and I’m not saying that paid leadership is always wrong. But we’ve come a long way from the times in which a group of people within a particular geographical space gave of their own harvests to ensure one person was made available to care for the well being of the community. Christian leadership has become no more than a career for some.

It seems worth asking what we are paying people for and if it enables people to be the Body of Christ or prohibits this. Over the years, Todd Hunter, along with others, has talked about Christian leadership primarily being about servanthood. If this be case, how we do lead in a manner that empowers people rather than creates dependence?

As I said before, the subject of money can be a difficult subject in many Christian circles. But this only exposes how much authority it has over us. If we intend to bring it under our control as resource we would benefit from stripping it of its taboo. We have found that transperancy and vulnerability go along way in re-ording the place of money in the life of a Christian community.

Jason Evans is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective and a member of the Hawthorn House. He is married to