c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal priest in Winston-Salem, N.C., an author and former Wall Street Journal reporter. E-mail him at journey(at)interpath.com)

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. _ When First Christian Church here announced the closing of its preschool, my first reaction was,”That’s a strange decision.” Kind of like McDonald’s dropping the Big Mac, I thought. The school is 35 years old, one of the first in the nation to be accredited. It has a strong reputation, loyal teachers and full classes. It provides great visibility to help a church reach young families.

Then I read the materials that church leaders sent home to parents. That’s when a larger lens came into focus for me.

Behind the soothing words, the core truth was: Church members wanted their space back. They were tired of sharing their Sunday classrooms with children who use the rooms hard on weekdays and don’t belong to First Christian. The needs of members come first.

On the one hand, this makes sense. What organization doesn’t feel guided by the needs of its members? But on the other hand _ well, what is the other hand?

I suddenly heard with new clarity the wrangling I’ve experienced in churches: leaders bemoaning the”wear and tear”that outside groups put on church facilities and the scheduling conflicts that arise; church councils imposing stringent building-use policies on users like 12-step recovery groups; finance committees leaving outreach spending until last in budget planning.

I know the other side of the story, too. Some faith communities do a lot. Their lights are always on, their paint chipped, their budgets tight, their hallways lined with appeals for worthy causes, their members too busy serving others to complain about last Sunday’s hymn selections.

But on the whole, religious congregations do surprisingly little for the world outside their doors. For some reason, that brought the issue of tax-exempt status to mind.

Before granting tax-exempt status to a public charity, the Internal Revenue Service insists that the venture demonstrate its focus is on the public, not on its own constituents. Foundations, for example, must give away at least 85 percent of their revenues. A charity must show that it serves others in a way that isn’t self-serving.

Religious organizations, of course, have been grandfathered into tax-exempt status. But I suddenly realized that if the average congregation were to apply now for recognition as a charitable venture, it probably would be denied.

In the typical church budget, fixed expenses such as salaries, benefits and building maintenance, require up to 80 percent of annual revenues. Giving away 5 percent is considered generous. The vast majority of staff time is devoted to serving members. The building is open when members want to use it. If finances turn sour, mission is the first to go.

Many congregations say they serve the world by making their space available to outsiders, but do they?

Safe programs like Alcoholics Anonymous are welcome, but even they face a maze of restrictions designed to protect the congregation’s investment, as well as bills for utilities and supplies, and the expectation of a donation. Risky programs, especially those that involve divergent ethnic or socio-economic groups, often find the door closed.

From time to time, congregations mount mission projects, but in my experience they rarely engage much energy beyond a committed few.

Church leaders say they serve by equipping members to be servants in the world. But is that what happens?

In my experience, church gatherings focus on the joys and duties of membership, and worship is driven by the tastes and expectations of members. The focus of conversion is getting oneself right with God.”Lay ministry”is taken to mean in-house duties, not dissimilar from serving on the greens committee. When laity are sent out, it often is to recruit new members.

I think congregations are trapped in institutional habits that leave them behaving like clubs: members come to get personal needs met, they are protective of membership privileges, and they screen out undesirables.

I think some people sense the trap and are restless in it. As I talk with people who are searching for a faith community, I hear impatience with the club mentality, and I hear a strong desire to give life away in mission.

MJP END EHRICH