Is the "Church" as a group or the Church as the people more important?

[HexBomb]

Personal frustration leading to debate thread time!

What should be more important? What the church needs, as in the organization and such, or the individual members of the church? Is it okay to take advantage of someone with a strong sense of duty and faith to cater to the needs to the church, to keep it running, or is the person with the strong sense of duty and faith more important?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What should be more important? What the church needs, as in the organization and such, or the individual members of the church?

That depends entirely on the particular circumstances.

Is it okay to take advantage of someone ...

No.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The Body of Christ, the Church, is made up of its members who are all equally important.

Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

While the above passage is rarely if ever seen in a modern church, it is still an ideal that should be strived towards, one of selfless giving and mutual love.

Contributing to the organisation and running of the Church cannot be separated from the good of the individuals themselves. Helping the running of the Church is helping the individuals as a whole. Christians should be selfless, and devote themselves to Christ and to each other.

I'm not sure how someone with a strong sense of duty and faith is taken advantage of to help the Church, naturally they would be inclined to do so. I would add though that feeding a hungry church member is more important than buying a new sound system for the worship service... is that what you're getting at?

 

[HexBomb]

I'm frustrated because my father agreed to be on church council as an interim post after someone moved, until they found someone new, but once they had him in, they refused to even look for someone new, and told him that they needed his experience, and couldn't/wouldn't be able to train someone new for the council position.

So my Da, who is in his fifties, and already running a committee, and did six years on council before is now doing a three-year term, despite council meetings being scheduled so that they cut into his sleep so he can function at his industrial job the next day, and his new 'duties' on the weekends cut into his ability to stop and eat lunch when there are trees on the church property to cut down, chairs to repair, weeds to whack.

I just get really frustrated when I see my father forgoing his own needs (like food and sleep before working with metal fabrication) because the church (and therefore Jesus) asks it of him, without even being honest about it, and they know he feels as if he can't say no. I saw the full-time council position coming when he agreed to the interim, but he believed they were looking for someone else.

 

[bobhikes]

Personal frustration leading to debate thread time!

What should be more important? What the church needs, as in the organization and such, or the individual members of the church? Is it okay to take advantage of someone with a strong sense of duty and faith to cater to the needs to the church, to keep it running, or is the person with the strong sense of duty and faith more important?

Its a combination of both, if the church doesn't get what the organization needs it can't survive. If the church members don't get what they need it won't survive.

Like everything else it is compromise that makes it successful.

 

[metis]

One of my father's most used expressions was "***** or get off the pot!", and this wasn't in reference to the bathroom. IOW, what he was saying is either do the job right or don't do it at all. About 15 years ago, I had to withdraw from our synagogue board of trustees because we were taking care of my father who had Alzheimers, and he was getting too difficult for just my wife to handle when I was away.

Family should come first, imo, and stretching ourselves out too thin doesn't do anyone much good. IMO, your father should give them notice that he must leave, explain why, and set a date. If they can't find a replacement, other council members can still function and fill in the gap until an adequate replacement is found.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm frustrated because my father agreed to be on church council as an interim post after someone moved, until they found someone new, but once they had him in, they refused to even look for someone new, and told him that they needed his experience, and couldn't/wouldn't be able to train someone new for the council position.

So my Da, who is in his fifties, and already running a committee, and did six years on council before is now doing a three-year term, despite council meetings being scheduled so that they cut into his sleep so he can function at his industrial job the next day, and his new 'duties' on the weekends cut into his ability to stop and eat lunch when there are trees on the church property to cut down, chairs to repair, weeds to whack.

I just get really frustrated when I see my father forgoing his own needs (like food and sleep before working with metal fabrication) because the church (and therefore Jesus) asks it of him, without even being honest about it, and they know he feels as if he can't say no. I saw the full-time council position coming when he agreed to the interim, but he believed they were looking for someone else.

That's not just a problem with churches. All volunteer-based organizations have to watch for volunteer burnout.