The Budget Issue
Desiring to live out the gospel through adoption, some friends of ours were burdened to welcome Russian orphans into their family. They were thrilled to find a sibling group of two boys and a girl who were waiting to be adopted. It seemed like a clear open door from the Lord.
Much to their dismay, they learned that adopting a sibling group can be exorbitantly expensive because of individual adoption fees for each child, particularly in Russia. But after praying and seeking the Lord, this family felt that God was definitely calling them to adopt these siblings. They were willing to leave their comfortable and stable lives and invite these three needy children (with unknown variables in their lives) into their family.
The biggest obstacle remaining was the money needed to complete the adoption. Our friends approached their pastor to ask if the church would consider helping them. The answer was a quick no. They were told, “We don’t give financial help to optional things like adoption.”
Optional? Placing orphans in a family is optional? In the pastor’s eyes, people adopt only because they want more children. He was not looking at adoption from the perspective of children who desperately need a family, or the perspective of Scripture, which clearly commands the church to care for orphans. There’s a big difference.
Many churches are building structures that are controlling them, and they are strangled by debt. It is virtually impossible to care for orphaned and vulnerable children if the majority of our church budgets are gobbled up with mortgage payments. When we are in over our heads in debt, no matter how “spiritual” we are, we are forced to make decisions based on survival. We have to cut the budget somewhere in order to keep the doors open.
Let’s be honest: the easiest place to cut a budget is in areas where there are few voices to protest—areas like international mission work and orphan care. If we cut our missions budget, we might get an earful from one or two people who are tied to that particular missionary or agency. In contrast, if we cut the senior adult budget, we risk a local uprising. If we cut the youth budget and stop providing doughnuts and soft drinks every Sunday morning, you can bet a lot of people will complain.
Too often, it is the “least of these” that are conveniently removed from our budgets. While our programs thrive, children starve. We minister and are ministered to in our oversized, climate-controlled auditoriums, complete with light shows and cutting-edge sound and video technology. Meanwhile, orphans around the world pray for a warm place to sleep at night, for food, for shoes, for a blanket, for clean water … for a family.
If someone were to ask your church to sponsor 10 children placed in Christian foster homes in Ethiopia, the response might be an easy no. I know this from experience because I have invited many churches to partner with Ethiopian Christians, and the vast majority of them never follow through. “You know,” a well-meaning committee member might say, “we just have to be really careful right now and not overextend ourselves with another $500 a month.” But think about it this way. If your church averages 200 people a week in worship, you probably have a budget of at least $200,000 per year. A sponsorship of $500 a month would be 3 percent of your budget.
So where are we spending our money in churches today? According to one recent study, an average of 74 percent of a church’s budget goes to cover salaries, utilities, grounds, buildings, maintenance, property insurance and administration costs. An average of 7 percent is spent on ministries and support, 3 percent goes to denominational contributions and fees, and 6 percent represents “other,” which can include anything from repairs to advertising to evangelism and missions. Of that, only 5 percent goes to international missions. In many cases, a large part of international missions offerings covers missionaries’ living expenses and overhead costs like buildings, utilities, and upkeep—which is valid and important, but costly.
What does all of this mean for orphaned and vulnerable children? It means that, for many of us, only a trivial amount of the money we put in our offering plates actually reaches the ends of the earth for the child who is starving, freezing to death, suffering from HIV/AIDS, or about to be trafficked.
For the typical church with a budget of $200,000, less than $10,000 a year goes to missions. I’d venture to say that’s less than the cumulative amount the families in that average church spend on vacation. Are we missing something? Could we be guilty of building bigger church buildings but failing to truly invest in God’s kingdom by caring for orphaned and vulnerable children?
I truly love my church that I used to serve. The people are real, the fellowship is sweet, and their love for Jesus and the gospel cannot, nor should not, be questioned. I am not against innovation, modern buildings or growing churches. But I do want to clearly communicate this: Despite our passion for the gospel, we are missing something. We must rethink our ministry strategy with orphans in mind.
Balance is critical here. We need to take an honest look at how we are spending our money and the motives behind the decisions we are making. Sometimes we will need to repent and change course. Other times we will be able to move forward knowing that we truly have God’s blessing. “Build it and they will come” should not be our strategy. Rather, we should ask, “If we build it, can we still do all that God has called us to do?”
