Misappropriation or Misunderstanding?

I wonder why the idea of incarnational mission is seen as so ‘peripheral’ and even ’threatening’ by much of the ‘main-stream’ church?

I heard a news item this morning criticizing large relief charities for spending so much of their money on staff, administration and lobbying, rather than on frontline services such as food, water, clinics and so on. This opinion seemed to be based on the idea that as Mr Bloggs in the street drops a pound in the bucket, he assumes that his pound equates to a kilo of rice or the like.

As I considered this I wondered about the ‘local church’s’ charitable status. Is it reasonable to use the vast majority of its income on buildings and maintenance (which in turn are too often an inwardly facing resource) or even stadiums and mass evangelism, seen as a legitimate expense for the purposes of ‘outreach’?

In defence of the large charities, they odten find theselves with ‘an argument to win’ working hard to persuade national governments etc to put their hands increasingly deeply in to their pockets. They are also operating in a slick business savvy world and need a professional staff & administrative structure to stay alive.

The Church, on the other hand, has not been called to win an argument but simply, and in my view primarily by its actions rather than words, to live out Christ’s message of good news. In terms of relating to (or in some Christian’s minds, competing with) the highly polished world, with its consumerist expectations, we could learn a few lessons from the growing Amish communities in the US.

Salt and light are exactly that, and for as long as many within the church treat them as gentle seasoning and subtle up-lighting, we will continue to see the church marginalised with little or nothing to offer our post-modern, post-Christendom world.