"It's a business, it's a ministry, it's both"

[Pastor Harold] For $250 I’ll send you a video and yard signs advertising that I will be doing a 13 week series in your church. There is one catch they will have to pay upfront to hear it.

Does not sound like a “Ministry” to me. Sounds like a business with the Bible sprinkled in.

If you had something that I considered to be worth $250 to hear, I’d be fine with that. Since when do we deny a laborer his hire?

Dave has good stuff, he uses biblical principles and he has helped a lot of people. A ministry is not a business! If he want s to hold these at the Elks Lodge, Fair Barn or Waffle House that is fine, NOT THE CHURCH! As a pastor I was assigned a Customer Rep who called regularly, sent packets of info and e-mails monthly. He told me the success stories that many of you have told and how good this program is (I agreed with him). Then came the pricing $$$$. There is noway a budget tracker, video lesson and work book cost that much! It’s a money making business!

If your church has yard sales, community dinners for a donation, or car washes to raise money; then you will not understand where I am coming from. A ministry is supported by tithes and free will offering, not flat rate fees. Look at my previous post, who would call an Evangelist on those terms? Those are the terms my FPU Customer Rep gave me. One of the big pitches he gave to me was how many people get saved at FPU. Then do it for free or cost and be a ministry. I don’t want to knowingly try to pull the “bait and switch” on people. (come for your finances and when you get we will slip the Gospel in with out you knowing it).

Dave can help some people, I know this. He is a good man. But he is NOT the “missionary” of FPU. He is a very successful business man. If you want to mix business and church that is your business, I can only speak for the church I pastor.

Susan,
The $250 is just the promo pack the church pays for. Those who will attend pay for 13 weeks before I come. (What preacher could make these statements?)

A church is not a business, but a church that is not supported by the tithes and offerings of its people will not exist very long, so there is always that element of a trade going on of money for goods and services- even though the people aren’t ‘charged’ a fee, there is still an expectation that the pastor, who is doing a spiritual work, will be compensated with physical things.

I don’t think the church building is a sacred place, so no- I don’t get the idea that the building can’t be used for a school, or to have a Bible Institute, or provide classes on finances. I also don’t have a problem with people who provide a service charging for that service, whether they are Christians or not. The materials cost them money, so if they charge for their books, signs, flyers, etc… and I want what they offer, I am going to pay it.

IMO it is dangerous to encourage people to ‘separate’ their lives into the sacred and secular, as if buying groceries or receiving a salary is not guided by Biblical principles of stewardship and working for one’s food, clothing, and shelter. I hope God’s people continue mix their Christianity into their business- those are exactly the kind of people I want to do business with. Those who think their Christianity is compartmentalized, and they only bring it out and dust it off on Sundays, I tend keep at the ten foot pole distance.

[Greg Linscott]

[SR] I also think it is bizarre to suggest that someone keep their business and Christianity separate- that “intermingling of faith and finances was some sort of unholy alliance”. How we think about money is a very important part of our Christian walk- separate faith and finances? I don’t believe that, for a Christian, ANY activity is ‘secular’- everything we say or do should be guided by Biblical principles at their very foundation.

The point that I believe is being made here is not whether a Christian’s faith should be separate from his business practices, but whether or not the assembled church is the place to conduct them. Would you think it a good idea for churches to give time in services for people to solicit their business services?

There are all kinds of things we do as Christians- and do them the way we do them- but that don’t happen in full view of the church. We conduct our marriages and manage our families more or less in privacy- we certainly don’t do most of our marriage and family matters on the platform, though there is specific Biblical teaching that applies to how we do those tasks.

I agree that it would be inappropriate to substitute a financial seminar for a ‘Sunday Service’, but the church is still the people, not a building. Do people who use their garages to start a church have to stop using it to store tools or park their cars, lest they drip oil or paint on ‘holy ground’?

Church people getting on the platform to try to drum up business is one thing- but having ways to let folks know that there are people in the congregation who are skilled in various trades and services is IMO fine and dandy. If you invite a preacher in to preach, is he not allowed to mention that he has written a book or recommend his website?

Teaching is a part of ministry, and if someone is qualified and skilled in some area that could be important to improving one’s Christian walk, why would it be bad for them to use the church building to have a seminar on marriage, finances, educational methods, etc… IOW, there are general principles that can be taught in a public forum that would be helpful to the congregation, but not necessarily an area that would be a topic for preaching, nor might it be something that the pastor is particularly knowledgeable about. We aren’t talking about people bringing in their bills and budgets to be perused by the whole congregation, or about explicit discussions on the physical aspects of the marriage relationship. Why wouldn’t one allow some talented ladies to teach sewing or cooking to the other ladies who need the instruction, and why shouldn’t those ladies who teach be compensated in some way for their time and materials? I do think it is usually best for folks to donate time and materials for ‘church functions’ if they can or are led to do so, but I think the demand we place on people to get something for nothing is not always a good thing. There are some very talented people in the church who end up getting used to a frazzle, because if they charge for their time or materials, then they are considered selfish or greedy, but if they answer every single call for help, they themselves will end up in the poorhouse. So they have to decide what they can afford to sacrifice to help others within reason…. and either way, a church with a welfare mentality ends up devouring the best and the brightest because no matter what they do, they feel like they lose. We need a better balance on this topic, IMO.

I think we again come to separating the sacred and secular, as if we have these compartments in our lives where we have to keep various aspects from touching each other. I think this unhealthy in general, because it leads to ‘playing church’ instead of realizing that in whatsoever we do, we should do it as unto the Lord and to bring honor to His name.

[Greg Linscott]

The point that I believe is being made here is not whether a Christian’s faith should be separate from his business practices, but whether or not the assembled church is the place to conduct them. Would you think it a good idea for churches to give time in services for people to solicit their business services?

Do we know that pastors are bringing Dave Ramsey in for a 13 week program in place of regularly scheduled worship services? That’s the comparison you seem to be making. I’d be surprised if that’s the case

As far as having to pay for Ramsey’s program, I don’t have a problem with that either. What’s wrong with “a business with the Bible sprinkled in”? I wish more businesses would sprinkle in the Bible.

I’m attending a class at church. It starts at 5:30 PM on Sunday evenings and lasts until the evening worship service starts. I had to pay for the book being used in the class. Why should the church be expected to eat the cost of everything that occurs within its walls?
And one final observation: like Susan, I applaud the idea of the church being a gathering place where Christians can fellowship and learn beyond the regularly scheduled worship times. The building itself is not sacred.

I was listening to Crown Financial Ministries radio program today and one of the speakers mentioned the cross of Christ. That made me wonder: How cross-centered is Dave Ramsey? Does he explain that debt and materialism and discontent points to the fundamental problem of not being satisfied with Christ and with not being crucified with Him to the world? To tell you the truth, I don’t know because I have never read Ramsey’s material. But if the cross and Christ are not pervasive in his teaching then he is simply encouraging people to replace one idol with another, to replace the worship of things purchased by debt with the worship of a growing savings account and mutual fund and net worth. I don’t see how the cross and Christ could be pervasive in his work and yet be able to maintain the wide following he has. Even conservative Fox channel would probably kick his show off if he counseled a caller that his core need was to be satisifed in all the Jesus is and has done for us and to, by faith in Him, be crucified with Him in order to be set free from the love of the world. I don’t think Ramsey has any altenative than to take this approach when dealing with people. If he does not then is his organization really a ministry? He might relate finances to Biblical principles, but if these Biblical principles are not related to being satisfied with Christ and with dying with Him then isn’t he stopping short of saying all that a Christian MUST SAY about why we should not be ensalved to money and material things. Perhaps he says these things when he is among Christians and speaking to Christians but is more guarded when he is on television (Fox), but as a ministry can he take two approaches?

[Norm]

I’m attending a class at church. It starts at 5:30 PM on Sunday evenings and lasts until the evening worship service starts. I had to pay for the book being used in the class. Why should the church be expected to eat the cost of everything that occurs within its walls?

Matthew 10:8 8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

The principle our Lord is presenting, here in the midst of a number of commands given to the Apostles regarding their public ministry, was that they were not to place a charge on those to whom they were ministering. The church receives freely its support from its members and its spiritual gifts from God. It is to then, in turn, take those resources and minister freely as they have received freely.

Putting a price on the teaching of God’s Word as a church violates this principle. This has nothing to do with the church having to “eat the cost” because it doesn’t cost the church anything, rather they receive everything freely and with their resources, both material and spiritual which are gained by the church freely, they are to use those resources so that they may ministry…freely as instructed.

*This, by the way has nothing to do with the validity one way or another of Dave Ramsey, it is only a comment in the direct context of the above quote.

I agree with your point as far as regular Bible study/Sunday school or worship services. Certainly we don’t expect the church to be run as a business, charging for such things as a morning worship service or Wednesday night Bible study.
The thrust of my point, besides agreeing with everything Susan posted, is that I don’t see a problem with using the physical church building for classes and activities beyond regularly scheduled services. So in my case, I don’t expect the church to pay for the book I need for a class I voluntarily signed up for, when that class is not an essential part of the church’s operation. There were several classes, on a variety of topics related to the Christian life, that were available. They were being offered as something members might be interested in, but not a requirement of any sort. The choice to attend or not attend the classes does not affect the member’s interaction with the normal church functions. For instance, my wife did not sign up for any of the classes, so she just attends the regular Bible study and worship services.
I think of the Dave Ramsey stuff in the same vein. If someone wants to pay to attend his seminar, I don’t view it as an essential ministry the church is required to provide, but rather something for which the church allows its classrooms/fellowship hall/auditorium to be used, as long as it does not contradict the Gospel and ministry of the church.

Sorry for the long winded post. My mind is kind of just jumping all over the place as I typed this, so the reply may seem convoluted.

I confess to being a bit confused about the purpose and direction of this discussion. So I will try to provide my own version of clarity, in my own humble, ridiculous opinion, of course.

Certainly Dave Ramsey runs a business; of course it is, in one sense of the term, also a ministry. Whoa — what a concept!! And this is different from, say, a publisher of Christian books or magazines — how, exactly…??

If we can’t hold FPU in our churches for a fee, then do not talk to me about housing a Christian school in your church, unless the school is free and does not award academic credentials. Youth group trips with a built-in fee are also a goner; also (this one hurts) the men’s breakfast is DOA.

And boy am I glad to hear that Ramsey’s message is not Biblical enough to be played in the church house! Can’t wait to start applying that standard to some of the preaching that occurs in fundamentalism…

Dave Ramsey is just a guy who is doing what he believes he needs to do with his life, and he just happens to be incredibly gifted at it and wildly successful. He is an imperfect sinner, and there are some things that he says and does that I may not agree with. The main thrust of his message, however, is very desperately needed both in the culture and in the church. When the house is on fire, we don’t stand around arguing about how many MPG’s the fire truck should be getting.

The bottom line is this — as I have gone through school (or for that matter any church I have been a part of) no one ever taught me the vital, Biblical truths and techniques which Ramsey teaches. Thus, please forgive me for being a little passionate about this subject.

If you don’t like Ramsey’s approach, find a better one. My first suspicion, however, of an organization which would tepidly decline the use of his program would be that it is either ignorant of or in violation of the teachings he presents.

I think if you look for definitions of the word ‘ministry’ or ‘minister’, you will have a hard time proving that someone involved in a ministry should be prohibited from receiving anything in return for their efforts, whether it is a salary, a fee, or a reimbursement. We have a problem with this because we view legitimate ministry as something for which we receive nothing in return, and that it isn’t ‘real’ ministry unless it is sacrificial. I think this adds way too much to the meaning of the word, because the disciples and apostles clearly expected some things in return, such as food and lodging. But it also doesn’t mean that some won’t attempt to take advantage of people and fill their pockets by pretending to be ministers.

Personally, I would describe Dave Ramsey as a business with ministry elements, and not a ministry with business elements.

[Norm] I agree with your point as far as regular Bible study/Sunday school or worship services. Certainly we don’t expect the church to be run as a business, charging for such things as a morning worship service or Wednesday night Bible study.
The thrust of my point, besides agreeing with everything Susan posted, is that I don’t see a problem with using the physical church building for classes and activities beyond regularly scheduled services. So in my case, I don’t expect the church to pay for the book I need for a class I voluntarily signed up for, when that class is not an essential part of the church’s operation. There were several classes, on a variety of topics related to the Christian life, that were available. They were being offered as something members might be interested in, but not a requirement of any sort. The choice to attend or not attend the classes does not affect the member’s interaction with the normal church functions.

Thanks Norm. Now, I should clarify myself a bit more regarding Dave Ramsey’s business. In no way, shape or form is there anything in the Bible that I am asserting invalidates Dave Ramsey’s business of selling financial advice or instructions. Business isn’t forbidden in Scripture. Dave is on solid ground with regard to matters of liberty in establishing and running a private business.

However, and more fundamentally are the definitions and understanding of “business” and “ministry” which give cause for evaluating the use of these terms within each context and their appropriate or inappropriate use. It is the blurring of lines and the inattentive use of their distinctions that creates opportunity for someone to erringly say they are engaged in ministry while they are structured as a business.

And the crux of the problem lies in “similarity” or certain elements being contained in both, hence people believe they can simply superimpose one model on the other and ignore certain structural differences that not only offend the observer but violate the principles of ministry, to which I have already referred, along with every other additional reference in Scripture.

Here is what I mean. From ministry people gain personal and particularly spiritual profit (at least they should). They are edified in some form or fashion. And from some businesses people also gain benefit or it may be said they are edified in some measure. Ministry people to receive recompense as do business people. So what is the difference? Well if one stands at a distance of course there appears to be little difference but upon closer look, with just these two elements, they are almost diametrically different.

The benefit you receive from someone’s business is a result of your paying for their services, the result you receive from ministry is a result of someone else being supported by others to give to you a benefit. There is a fundamental departure of ministry from business.

When someone engages in a business and then, for whatever reason calls themselves a ministry, while they are free to use such words, they are wrong because they are in direct confrontation and noncompliance with the principles that identify the biblical construct of a ministry. And the largest objection to what I am saying is, “well it ministers to me”. The word “ministers” is not a synonym for “benefit” and that is how the word “ministers” is being used and it is being used inaccurately and certainly not in a theological context regarding its definition.

Secondly, one might say further, “but it really did provide illumination”. And to that one is to say, good but how does the fact that something provides illumination fundamentally change its business construct? It is still a business when Dave Ramsey or anyone is charging for their work. Plain and simple.

“Freely you have received, freely give”.

It does not mean one has to be ashamed to call something a business but their taking license to call it a ministry to enhance its status is wrong and self-serving. It is not a ministry.

A last comment. As Susan pointed out, a ministry will engage in business but the work of the ministry itself is not a business. That is, there is no exchange of goods for services. And immediately one will protest that the Pastor gets paid, there is an exchange of money for his services. Please hold the horses, I will address that. And if one believes this is the sum total of business or the qualifier, that someone receives compensation, hence it must be called a business, then in no case ever is there a place the word “ministry” or an exact and proper definition can be ascertained and to that I would say most theologians are in great trouble.

Now to the comment. The church has received freely from God the gift of “the office of Pastor-teacher” and the specific Pastors have received their appropriate gift(s) from God, freely, and the church receives freely from its members financial offerings and with these freely given resources, it (the church) freely distributes the truth of the gospel and post-salvational doctrine freely to all interested parties to the extent the free offerings of its members and the spiritual gifts enable it to do so. That is ministry. Free.

As to the Pastor’s pay. The Pastor’s pay is not the result of a charge. That is, those who attend his teaching are not charged money as a business would charge for a seminar from Dave Ramsey or anyone else. The money the Pastor’s receives is to support him so that he may, as the representative of the church and as the Shepherd, provide without charge (freely give) Pastoral care and Shepherding without cost or charging to others.

The construct of the ministry is quite opposite of a business.

So to those engaging in anything where they “charge” money for a good or service, whether you sprinkle or heavily dose it with Christian principles, you are engaged in a business and not a ministry. It does not mean someone will not benefit or be illuminated and it does not mean you have to be ashamed (though in plenty of cases it does) but it does mean you are not the rightful owner or user of the word “ministry” to describe your business because it does not qualify.

*(I am suspecting that part of the reason this issue is not one that seems to have well established boundaries is because, as a doctrine, it seems to have had little attention and attendance by many in Evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It is a worthy scholarly issue that might warrant a series examination and marking of much more clear lines regarding definitions and the valid employment of terms that people seem to use with great liberty yet with great imprecision).

If a full-time (as in non-bi-vocational) pastor candidates for a church, and they cannot support him financially, and he decides since they can’t pay him, he can’t pastor that church, hasn’t he just by default set a ‘charge’ for his services? He’s not wearing a price tag, but he does have a price, doesn’t he?

Just a completely off-the-top-of-my-pointy-head semi-off-topic question.