STEWARDSHIP OF THE CHURCH

                                                             

                                                                
In meditating on the subject of stewardship, I find it is usually restricted to the responsibility of the individual church member.  Frequently, the parable of the steward in the New Testament is used to teach that we, as believers, must give account of our stewardship.

But, if we carry it a little farther, should not the body of believers in the local church be accountable for corporate stewardship?  Since the church is all about ministry, there will have to be agreement on the results of the ministry put forth by the church.  As I see it, there are only two main objectives in such ministry, with all of the church's activities working together to produce the desired results.  One of the aspects is evangelism which can be evaluated is the number won for Christ; the other is discipleship of believers that results in their maturation.

Evangelism could be termed those who are saved from sin, while the beginning of the process of discipleship is a believer's being saved from himself.  This is defined in Luke 14:27 where we read: "And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."  The sinner repents of sin and believes that Jesus died for him; the believer repents of flesh and believes he died with Jesus.  The unbeliever is saved from his sin, and the believer is saved from himself!

Just as the number of those who are born again is frequently tabulated to portray the results of evangelistic thrusts, the same may be done of those whose lives are transformed as believers-the beginning of a life-long process of discipleship.  However, the latter is ill-taught in the majority of churches with little or no discipleship being done.
If both of these avenues are assiduously pursued, there should be results which can be quantified;  if we do consistent planting, there should be some reaping in due season.   Negligible results in either category should be cause to question the stewardship of the church.  The machinery may be kept running with all of the gears properly oiled, but the lack of tangible and quantifiable results should bring stewardship into question.

In either case, something is amiss if souls are not being saved or lives of believers are not being regularly transformed.  At least, a regular report should be given to the body for praise and thanksgiving. The waters of the baptistry should be stirred regularly.  Then, the Holy Spirit would transform the lives of believers on a regular basis if scriptural discipleship were routinely practiced, which would result in greatly increased evangelism.  Why should believers desire to export what is not working at home in their own lives?

In any church, there is a good percentage of hurting believers who would be candidates for intensive discipleship which would result in transformed lives, if it were offered.  However, an unbeliever goes to a church and is given an answer by being led to our Lord; on the other hand, a believer goes for an answer and is given a referral all too frequently.  The vast majority of believers who are presently treated by mental health workers could be ministered to by the local church if credible, remedial discipleship were an option!

As far as I can read from the scriptures, these are the only two reasons (evangelism and discipleship) for the existence of the local church besides fellowship and worship.  A possible third emphasis would be to do the same in missions outreach.  Accountability for the funds invested in missions should be reflected in stewardship reports from affiliated ministries or from those who go out from the local church on short-term missions.

Rarely does any one of them report the lives of believers being transformed due to missions outreach or discipleship; just as at home, precious little is done on the mission field besides evangelism and some community projects.

The lack of tangible results in both areas should be sufficient cause to evaluate the entire ministry and make the necessary adjustments that the body of believers might be productive.  Continuing to support a ministry where lives are not being impacted regularly indicates a lack of stewardship oversight on the part of church leadership.
Of course, the whole congregation has such responsibility;  but the elected leaders bear the brunt of such breach of stewardship before God.  It is obviously easier to let a church ministry rock along until it becomes so ineffective that everyone can see that it must be addressed.

However, those who were in need during all of this process will have been neglected when many would have been open to ministry in their lives. Lacking such ministry, they drop out of church or move on to another where the same syndrome is very likely to be repeated so that such a hapless individual concludes that the church does not have an answer.

Since human need is going to multiply exponentially in the very near future, isn't it time that we examined individual and corporate stewardship to prepare for such an onslaught?  The need has been there and has gone wanting, but it will soon be impossible to ignore.  Too, those to whom referrals are made routinely could be too busy looking for answers to give any . . . .  What will the church tell them?

  -  Charles R. Solomon, Ed. D.