It's not sure whether our planned Connect consultation on 'financing reformation', scheduled for 10-12 November in Prague, will take place. The business guys pulled out, leaving us with just the non-profit types, while the original idea was to have a shared think-tank. You might be interested to check out our initial conversation on this topic. Today Phil Anderson mailed around his contribution, that I really like, and therefore quote integrally:
Some brief thoughts which I would have put into the discussion if I could have been there in Prague:
1) Ronald Sider's challenge that "if just the church, in just America, just tithed, global poverty could be eliminated in a decade and there would still be ample resources for global mission". In other words, God has already given all the money we need for justice and mission to the church (primarily in the affluent West), but we have spent it on new cars and new kitchens... This may mean that financing reformation is primarily a repentance issue rather than an innovation or structural issue.
2) The role of intentional, missional communities, where every member is a minister and the work of mission, mercy, prayer, home-making, hospitality, and financing is divided up among the whole. This means seeing people who go out to earn money and people who stay at home most days as equally valuable, equally called, and equally eligible for leadership recognition as those involved in traditional expressions of so-called ministry. An example is the early Moravian community in North America (Bethlehem PA etc).
3) The importance of tentmaking ministry. No other model of ministry is as simple, flexible, and repeatable, and no other model is as incarnational in being both engaged and mutually dependant on the world it seeks to serve and save. This has a big effect on how we model ministry (no more "full time supported work is the ultimate goal") and how we train leaders (we currently give them a set of skills which may be relevant for some aspects of ministry, but leave them incapable of earning a living in the marketplace or truly identifying with those who do). This causes a dysfunctional and un-Christlike power relationship between leaders and led ("I have positional authority or status over you - but I fear your power to cut off my money supply so I exercise control over you").
4) If God really calls and gifts people to be "stewards", we should leave the financial resources of the kingdom in their hands. Normally we tell the wealthy that their role is to give to ministries (and maybe to do the accounts for us). A few years down the line, there are rarely any tangible assets left to show. If those gifted with wealth and ability kept control of the assets (buildings, revenue streams, reserve funds, etc) but gave free use of them to projects and individuals for a period of time, then they could be easily redeployed across geographical and ministry boundaries as the needs changed. Also a lot of the bureaucracy and politically correct constraints that ministry charities suffer from could be eliminated!
5) Structural issues embedded deep in our economic systems. Monetary systems based on interest (ie all modern capitalist economies) have the effect of taking from the poor and concentrating wealth in the hands of the rich (this is what the english bible calls usury). The turning of more and more types of resources (buildings, land, natural resources) into own-able property has the same effect. These economic systems vastly favour top-down hierarchies rather than bottom-up reformation structures. To allow reformation structures to thrive may require (or cause) economic & political reformation too.
6) Although as God's people we do not even manage to collectively give 10%, the challenge of Jesus is far more radical even than a tithe. When I look at sayings like "love your neighbour as much as yourself" and "if you have two, give one away", I find it hard to imagine that Christ is suggesting anything less than 50% as the amount of finance that Christians should release to purposes other than self. In parts of the world not affected by genuine poverty, this is a realistic possibility for many more people than we have ever dared to admit. OK it would mean a radical move to a simpler lifestyle (and radical revelation on how to wisely use the finances released) - but it would be incredibly powerful and counter-cultural.