Trailblazing on the Broad Path

I had no intention of writing or hopefully even thinking about TD Jakes ever again. But then I saw this article in my twitter feed, and here we are.

Short version, he's OK with "gay marriage" (or at least the government backing off and allowing whatever), his views on homosexuality are "evolved and evolving", and he thinks at least some churches should openly embrace unrepentant homosexuals. In fairness, for now his Potter's House isn't yet openly gay-embracing, but these statements definitely open the possibility.

I'll let others dive into the more fun aspects here, such as his anti-inspiration description of Paul's letters and his postmodern "I'm not God, so I can't know what any of this means!" hermeneutic, and focus on why he's doing this now.

Above all else, remember that Jakes is a money-grubbing televangelist whose primary theological aim is prosperity - his personal enrichment at the expense of the gullible. This is almost certainly a trial balloon, just wanting to see what kind of reception they get from their victim/donors.

In the wake of Obergefell, it's only a matter of time until churches, even false-gospel outposts of hell like Potter's House, lose tax-exempt status if they continue to oppose homosexuality. Not only will they need to start paying taxes, their income is likely to fall, as people may not be willing/able to give as much without the accompanying write-off. It makes sense to compromise to keep that exemption.

Unless, of course, the outcry against the decision is strong enough. If a large percentage of existing donors are angry enough about the change and stop donating, it could be worse financially than losing tax exemption. In that case it would make financial sense to hold firm and suffer the consequences - and maybe even pick up new donors in the process.

We could add that a church might hold firm because of the clear teaching of God's Word, but, well, TD Jakes.

So I think this is a trial balloon. They no doubt have run numbers on what losing tax exemption will cost, and they're gathering data to project loss (or even potential gain!) from openly affirming homosexual sin. If the numbers are right, expect them to make the formal move soon enough.

And don't be naïve enough to think this stops here. How many megachurches with debts in the tens of millions and budgets that are already stretched too thin can afford to lose tax exempt status? Do you see Andy Stanley or Ed Young or your local Creek holding the line on clear biblical truth, at the potential cost of millions a year?

So give TD Jakes credit. He's nothing if not a shrewd businessman and a trailblazer. Many others will follow the path he's blazing, which is coincidentally broad and leads to destruction.

Budgeting for Adults

I want to make a few points about the current chaos from Washington, but before I do, we need to be on the same page. So this will be sort of an Economics 101 - no, it's much more remedial than that, let's call it Economics 001. This is simply how an adult sets a budget, and the basic principles apply from the personal to the multi-trillion dollar level. This is stuff everyone should know, the sort of thing anyone who wants to be considered a grownup should have down, but, well, look around.

Essentials first. If you only had $100 this month, what would you spend it on? I reckon you'd probably make sure you have food before you have the latest UFC pay-per-view. Food: essential. Entertainment: non-essential.

What do you need? Make sure you have funds allotted for those things first. If you can't afford food/shelter/clothing because you bought Legos, you're a moron, no matter how cool those Legos may be.

Add luxuries in order of importance. Once the vitals are taken care of, add on everything else (and yes, everything non-essential is a luxury). If you had another $100, what would you do with it? Another $100 after that? And so on, until all your income is accounted for. It may be adding a new item, like getting cable. It could be increasing a previous allocation - bumping the food budget so you can go to a nice restaurant. It could be something non-immediate, like savings. Whatever is next-most-important, set aside the money for that.

Note that some categories are purely luxury, but some are a mix of essential and luxury. Food, for instance. The cost of subsistence-level food is essential; everything above that is luxury. A very great luxury to have, mind you, and one you would be wise to invest in quickly. But it's still non-essential.

When all the money is allocated, there is no more. If you have $50k in income, and $65k in allocated spending, u r doin it rong. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Either re-prioritize so it's paid for (which will require eliminating or cutting funds to something else) or learn to live without it for now.

That's it. Really. No matter what plan or technique you find, they all come down to this. Prioritize your needs/wants, and allocate funds in order of importance.

Now, let's take this ultra-basic principle and look at the government quasi-shutdown. What can we observe?

They keep using the word 'essential'. I do not think it means what they think it means. It's hard to believe everything 'non-essential' has been shut down when it's running at about 83% capacity (which is still at deficit, by the way). Would you believe 5/6 of your household expenditures are so essential that you can't cut so much as a penny from them? Yet somehow we're supposed to believe this about the government - they can't cut even a penny from these areas for even a few weeks!

So what makes something essential for the federal government? I would suggest several qualifications. (1) It must be a necessary function of a nation; that is, any nation which lacks it is not a nation at all. Examples include the ability to make, execute, and adjudicate laws, and the ability to repel attacks. (2) It must be necessary that this function is performed at the federal level. If state or local governments (or private entities) can do it, it's not essential for the federal government.

Which means that a whole host of programs, departments, and agencies are non-essential luxuries. Some are nice to have, but not necessary for the survival of a nation. Some could just as easily be done at lower levels of government. Even some things we like, like Defense, are a blend of essential and luxury (we may be willing to pay for the luxury of everything above survival-level military, but let's at least be honest that it is a luxury). Some programs are so utterly non-essential, they don't just need a temporary partial shutdown, they need to go away entirely.

When money is short, you cut the least important things first. If you don't have enough one month, you don't buy the Eddie Rabbit tickets while your kids go without food. The most important things are the first to get funded and the last to get cut, and the first things to get cut are the least important. At least if you're an adult, anyway.

If you want to know what politicians value, look at what they threaten to cut first if they don't get more money. Locally it's always liberals threatening to cut police, firefighters, teachers, and hospitals, which I guess means they consider them almost completely unnecessary. Now look at what Obama and his cronies have decided to cut first vs what remains instact, and tell me what he values. Many 'cuts' have been to programs that actually provide some benefit to the public, and the 'cuts' have often cost more than full operation, which would seem odd for a shutdown except that a petulant child is in charge. Which brings me to the last point.

If you are in a financial crunch, and your instinct is to spend more money to antagonize the people who pay the bills, you are despicable. Not that anyone would ever stoop so low, of course.

Churches and Debt

Should a church carry debt?

No.

Oh, you were hoping for more? Fine. Here are a few reasons it's a bad idea. I mean, besides the fact that debt is a bad idea for everyone. Here are some that apply especially to a church.

Possible damage to witness. Want to make sure someone won't hear a word you say about Jesus? Borrow a bunch of money from him and fail to pay it back. The gospel is offensive as it is; the last thing we need to do is offend someone by sinning against them before preaching it to them!

1 Peter 3:15 is the apologist/evangelist's favorite verse, and the context is applicable here: proclaiming Christ while suffering. Peter makes it plain: if you want to preach Christ through suffering, it should be suffering for doing good and not for evil (see also 4:12-19, Heb 12:12-17). If you want to minister, don't let your unrighteous behavior stand in the way (and don't dare claim the just consequences of your actions as 'persecution'). And don't ever let Romans 2:24 be accurate for you.

Want to give unbelievers an opportunity to blaspheme? Want to make sure they don't trust you? Borrow and fail to repay. They are downright giddy whenever a church files bankruptcy; why even take that chance?

Compromising the message to keep crowds large and the money flowing. So you're preaching through one of Paul's epistles and come to a passage that contains a really unpopular position. If you preach it faithfully, people might leave. A lot of people. Maybe even some rich people who give a lot of money. Enough people and money that, if they leave, you won't have enough money to pay the mortgage, or maybe even some salaries.

You can preach the Word faithfully, and take your chances. Or you can take the edge off a little, and make it more likely they'll stay (and keep giving). What do you do?

Oh, we all know how we hope we would answer this. But it doesn't take much of a look at the evangelical landscape to see how often the wrong answer prevails. Praise God when pastors stay faithful to the Word when under this pressure. It can't be easy, and far too many cave week after week. Wouldn't it be best to avoid being in this situation to begin with?

What will you do when you lose tax-exempt status? Note: not 'if'. It should be obvious by now that tax-exempt status will eventually be revoked. It may be a pure money grab (churches own a lot of property and receive a lot of gifts they don't pay taxes on), but more likely it will come as punishment for refusing to bow to Caesar on one of several issues.

Would it surprise anyone if, by the time you finish reading this paragraph, the government announces the revocation of  tax exemption for any church which refuses to (1) pay for the murder of unborn children per the HHS mandate, (2) bless serial sodomy as if it's the sacred, God-ordained institution of marriage, and/or (3) appoint female elders/pastors? It may not be as immediate as I think, but it's certain to happen eventually. Either bow on these issues (or whatever the next issue will be) and functionally cease to be a church of Christ, or pay up.

When it happens, it will affect your church's finances dramatically. Property taxes and other taxes must now be paid. Offerings are no longer tax-exempt, and will likely decrease. Expenses go up, income goes down. That's not a good dynamic when you're already in debt. It's really, really, really bad.

Your finances will change. Make no mistake, if this isn't what causes it, something else will. Maybe the big plant in town will close and half your congregation will be out of work. Your biggest donors will die or move away. A hundred people leave to plant another church. Whatever it is, things change, and you could go through a financial dry season. If your budget absolutely needs everything to continue at current levels or better indefinitely, you're setting yourself up for disaster.

Paying interest from tithes/offerings. You know, it just feels different when it's money given to a church for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel to the ends of the earth. Someone stealing from an employer is bad, but if his employer's a church, it's outrageous. Want to waste your money on pointless junk? Whatever. Squander money given for ministry on pointless junk, and don't be surprised if there's a wee bit of outrage, and it's tough to say it's not justified. And make no mistake - interest payments are a waste.

Consider a church with $1million in debt at 4% interest. If it receives $500k in offerings annually, an entire month of giving goes to nothing except paying interest. No ministry function, just interest payments. With that $40k, you could pay much of the cost of an additional full-time staff member, or several part-timers or interns, or support a missionary family pretty well, or provide benevolence ministry to hurting families in the congregation, or... Or, you could give it to the bank, for the past favor of lending you money for a new building/media system/parking lot/whatever before you could pay for it (or you didn't really need it, but decided to get it because you could).

Yes, there are benefits to getting those things now rather than waiting for them. But there's also a cost. And I suspect the ongoing cost will always outweigh the short-term benefits.

If you build it, they won't necessarily come. Pardon my rant within a rant here, but the "Field of Dreams" attitude pervasive in evangelicalism is just absurd. It goes like this. We have an old church building with room for 500. We've grown from 200 to about 450 recently, and some weeks we're at capacity. So we should build a bigger church, with room for 5,000, and 'trust God' to keep bringing growth to fill it (and increased offerings to pay of the mortgage which we can't currently afford).

Let's say it works, and that church experiences explosive growth - it triples in size in a short time! Guess what? It's still at less than 30% capacity, and the incredibly larger church still won't be able to afford the mortgage! And that's even assuming the new attenders give at the same rate as the old faithfuls, which is far from a given.

An extreme example? Maybe. But you probably can think of a church that did something very similar, building so big and borrowing so much that they needed to quadruple or more in size (and giving) to have any chance of keeping up with the mortgage (not to mention the greatly increased operating costs). And this is always done under the banner of "faith".

You know what faith isn't? Doing something irresponsible and hoping God will bail you out. Or, trusting God to do something He hasn't specifically promised to do. You know what requires faith? Living obediently to God's commands and according to His revealed wisdom (check what Proverbs says about debt), and trusting God to provide your needs when you live according to His revealed will. And if God doesn't provide for you to have a church with a 12,000-seat sanctuary, faith is being content with what He has provided.

The upside - what a great opportunity! So what do you do if you've accumulated too much debt and want to repent and pay it off (or if you inherited it from a previous generation of church leadership)? There are all sorts of materials available for churches looking to get out of debt, and some of them are actually useful (and not the church-growth and giving-manipulation crap that got you in the predicament in the first place). I'd probably check with Crown Financial or other similar organization for help with the how-to.

But the how-to details are almost beside the point. If you're in that position, one way to work some good from it is to use it to define what your church is about, and get rid of the chaff. It's time to prioritize, to emphasize what is necessary and scale back (or eliminate outright) what is not.

When faced with a budget crisis, any serious person will do exactly that. You look at your income and expenses, and prioritize. Home? Gotta have a place to live. Food? Gotta have some - but you can scale back the cost of groceries, and eliminate restaurants entirely if needed. Cable TV? You can live without it. And so on. You wind up with a prioritized list - if we can only do one thing with our money this month, what will it be? What do we pay second? If some unexpected money comes in, what will we pay next? Providing food, shelter, and clothing for your children is more important than tickets to sporting events. Pay for necessities first, and only then can you put money on luxuries.

As a church, is there any reason you shouldn't do the same thing? (And while this is about church debt, it would be a pretty good thing for non-indebted churches to do as well.) What are the things that every church absolutely must do? Having someone devoted to studying and teaching God's Word is absolutely necessary; having a full-time ventriloquist for puppet shows in the children's ministry is just a luxury. A really creepy luxury.

So if you're in debt, don't resist the opportunity it's trying to force on you. Search the scriptures to find what the church is to be about. Teach that to your people. Then cut out the unnecessary fluff, and go and do what is best.