Tithing and giving in the house church

This teaching is part 3 of a 3 part series on tithing and giving in the New Testament, therefore the reader must understand that the previous 2 articles are a foundation for what follows here. I say that, because the understanding of the giving of tithes and offerings as a grace, must be clearly understood.

There are two things to be addressed here: Is it scriptural to have paid leadership in house churches, and secondly, how should this be done if it is OK?

You see, there is debate within some house church circles about whether they should have paid leadership. I think some of this debate comes from those who have experienced hurt and abuse in this area in the past. There have been some who have called themselves ‘apostles’ and demanded a group pay them tithes, and others may be so afraid of resembling what they came out of they think by having everyone as a volunteer it will keep them from experiencing abuse or hurts all over again. Still others I’m sure, just want to be right and pure before the Lord on the matter.

Giving is always a grace, therefore the choice to have paid leadership or not, will in the end, be a work of grace.

The precedent set by Jesus

It should be noted that the Apostle and High Priest of our salvation, Jesus, was supported full time in the ministry. He is the Supreme example for us, and when we see him do something we can understand it as a precedent and guide to follow today.

It should also be noted that while he prepared to begin his ministry, he worked as a carpenter. This freedom to work or not work, or to work until the ministry will support oneself, is seen in the life of Jesus. He is our example and this illustrates that working or not, is a matter of free will and economics, as well as efficiency in the ministry. (I could end this teaching right here just based on that, for the question is answered in the life of our Lord)

But let me continue. We see glimpses of the flow of giving and receiving here and there in Jesus’ life in various scriptures, including Luke 8:3 where it states there was a group of women and ‘many others’ who gave to Jesus out of their resources. So it’s OK to receive offerings from the people that are served.

We also see in John 13:29 when Judas leaves the last supper at about 9pm that they thought he was going to give money to the poor. Now I ask you, how many of us are thinking that when the person holding the checkbook in the house gets up to go somewhere at 9pm we automatically assume they’re going to make a donation to the Salvation Army? Jesus was a giver.

Jesus received a lot of funds and goods, and he gave a lot. This is plain from the text. The pattern Jesus set is seen in the life of Paul, in Philippians 4: 11-13. Paul stated that he could be sufficient in whatever condition he was in, whether having abundance or suffering lack, he was content and sufficient in Christ.

The same with Jesus. Whether his till was full or he was pulling money from a fishes mouth to pay his taxes, Jesus lived a life of giving and receiving, and peace that the Father would supply.

Someone who wants to be full time in the ministry needs to learn this. There will be times of abundance and there will be times of having money supplied from the most unusual places.

The point is that Jesus, the apostle, was full time in the ministry with his little house church of 12 men.

The precedent set in the book of Acts

That the apostles were fully supported in the ministry almost goes without saying. They had given up jobs as tax collectors, fishermen and the like to start the church in Jerusalem. The fact that the church in Jerusalem was clearly a network of house churches is supported by Acts 2:46 and elsewhere.

This lasted about 2 years, until Saul persecuted the church to the point that Acts 8:1 says that everyone left Jerusalem except the apostles. But up to this point, the apostles were supported by the giving of the house churches they oversaw. Please note that historically it is understood that all 3,000 or them, or even all 5,000 of them, never went all at once to the temple.

If you look at ‘maps’ in the back of your Bible you may have a map of the temple. It was a relatively small area that was divided up into several columns where people gathered in several groups of 20-30 to hear various teachings. There was even one place where two corners met at an angle and a roof was put over the corner so the speaker could have some shade.

So when I say they oversaw house churches based on the people going ‘from house to house’, I am being historically accurate. They did not all suddenly converge on the temple, for there was no room and that was not the practice of the day. But having many small groups around the columns and in the houses all over the city, was the practice.

Thus we have seen that Jesus was supported full time in ministry over his small group, and the apostles followed in this example by being supported by the house churches they oversaw.

The apostle Paul

Paul is first seen in steady ministry in Acts 11:26, where he stayed a year in Antioch teaching the disciples. We aren’t told whether he worked or was supported by the people there.

We do see in Acts 18: 1-3 that at the founding of the church at Corinth, Paul worked his trade of tent making to support himself.

The keys to understanding the issue is are two: That the only way they did church was house church, and, Paul had the freedom to work, or live off the offerings of the people, it was his choice.

He makes the latter point in I Corinthians 9, so let’s look at what he said.

9:5-6 "don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Peter? Or is it only I and Barnabus who must work for a living?"

He clearly states that the apostles have the right to have a family and live from the offerings of the people.

In verses 7-12 he goes into detail about the right to live off the offerings of the people. Without quoting the whole text, he asks about who serves as a soldier at his own expense, what farmer doesn’t eat his own grapes or drink the milk from his own animals.

He quotes part of the Old Testament, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain’. It is important to see here how Paul used this verse to refer to the right to live off the offerings of the church, because he will use it again in the same manner when talking about bringing elders on paid staff...more on that later.

He goes on to say that it is right that he who has sown spiritual seed should reap a material harvest. He summarizes his case by saying the Lord commanded ‘that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel’.

He goes on to say in verse 15 that though he has the right to earn a living from the offerings of the people he has chosen not to do so.

This is an important point. He had the authority to decide whether to work a secular job or live off the offerings of the people. So it is today with apostles, pastors/ elders of house churches.

I hope that with the foundation of the first 2 parts, the reader can understand the grace and freedom that is available to us today. Remember the precedents and sheer volume of giving that went on ‘horizontally’, between church members and churches that we looked at. That kind of freedom is not suddenly shut down when it comes to supporting a leader(s) of a church. More on that below.

What if the leadership of my house church isn’t an apostle?

Assuming there is no argument concerning the rights of the apostles and Paul to live off the offerings of the churches if they chose, the question then gets down to ‘non-apostle’ leadership. What does the Word say about having them supported by the church?

Let’s begin by defining leadership. Acts 20:17-38 records the world’s first pastor’s conference. Paul calls the ‘elders’ of the church at Ephesus to Miletus for a meeting. In verse 28 he tells them the Holy Spirit has made them ‘overseers’ (bishops), and that they were to ‘feed’ (Gk: pastor) the flock God gave them, taking heed to themselves.

We see in this passage that the elders oversee the church and are pastors. They have a heart for the people. They ‘feed’ the people in word and action, by example and life experience. The elders are the pastors.

You can see them in every house church. They are the ones who naturally get involved with people. They naturally care for the people and do things behind the scenes and without fanfare to help various ones.

Fast forward 5 years in the life of the church at Ephesus. The pastor’s meeting in Acts 28 took place in about the year 60AD. Paul sends Timothy to Ephesus in about 65AD to help with the leadership. In his exhortation about leadership Paul lays out for Timothy the guidelines for consideration of bringing an elder on as paid staff.

I Tim 5: 17-22 "The elders who direct the affairs of the church are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching, for the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain‘, and, ‘The worker deserves his wages‘".

Let’s take this apart. First, the Bible interprets the Bible. Paul uses the same exact scripture about not muzzling the ox in I Cor 9:9 to justify his own right to live off the support of the church. Timothy traveled with Paul, he knew his beliefs, he knew the church in Corinth very well, so that issue is settled by following the rules of proper Biblical interpretation. The Bible interprets the Bible.

I know there is one house church author and speaker who says this passage doesn’t mean what it says. I would just say beware of those who are so set in their own doctrine that they break basic rules of Biblical understanding and therefore ignore the obvious to justify their own position. If they can’t be intellectually honest about what they see in the Word, watch out.

Now, what is the ‘double honor’? The first honor is being an elder. The second is getting paid for it. Note that he said ‘elders’. Plural. Paul is saying there may be a need to bring more than one elder onto the paid staff.

I should go on here and explain the rest of this passage to set the context. The subject is clearly elders, for Paul goes on to say (verses 19, 20,22):

"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning...Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others, keep yourself pure".

The context is still the elders. He is telling Timothy not to accept accusations against leadership without witnesses and proof. Those elders that are caught in sin need to have the issue told to all the people in the church so everyone knows what has happened to one of their elders/pastoral team.

"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" is NOT about laying hands on the sick. That would violate the precedent set by Jesus who set forth no such restrictions or cautions when it came to healing the sick.

No, we must remember that the other use of the laying on of hands is to ordain people to the ministry. This is seen in Acts 13: 1-5 when Paul and Barnabus are sent out by the Holy Spirit after the others laid hands on them, or even the deacons being ordained for service in Acts 6:6.

Paul is telling Timothy not to be too eager to promote leadership just because there is a need, lest by ordaining them into his leadership they fall into sin and he become partly responsible for advancing them too quickly.

These points lay out how and when leadership may be paid. When looking at I Timothy 3, where Paul lays out the qualifications for being an elder, the issue is that of character, not gifting. Paul says they need to be ‘apt to teach’, but he says nothing about actual spiritual gifts. His whole issue here to determine elders and deacons revolves around character. In chapter 5, as we’ve just seen, he mentions those that help with the ‘affairs of the church’, meaning those intimately involved with the day to day pastoring of the people.

Obviously another issue is the finances of the church. The apostles in Acts 6: 1-6 expanded the paid staff to include the deacons in food service after the need arose and the means were available.

Other than character and financial issues, it seems the matter is one of choice. Paul chose to work, the other apostles chose not to work. Some elders might want to continue working in their secular jobs, some may be available to come on staff if the opportunity arose. They must be pastors though as we saw in Acts 20:28. They must have a heart to feed the sheep, love them, protect them, while ‘taking heed to themselves’ and their own walk with God.

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs tells us that Timothy stayed in Ephesus as Bishop of Ephesus, overseeing a house church network estimated by some to be 25,000 strong, until he was killed in 97AD by a pagan mob, some 30 years after Paul sent him there. Certainly he had many paid staff to help with the churches scattered in homes throughout the region.

This third part has been just a brief study of the issue, but even this little bit should put to rest any debate about whether it is right or scriptural to pay leadership in house churches. Even the whole of the letter, III John, is about the paying of ministers of the Gospel who had passed through and sending them off in a proper way (verse 8). I might also mention Phoebe, who is mentioned in Romans 16:1 as a deaconess, is said by tradition to have been a strong teacher and traveling minister, supported by the churches.

That is the grace of the New Testament. Each person and each house church must decide with the Lord’s guidance, how they will handle these issues, but the Word definitely allows for the paying of wages to leaders of (house) churches.

Beyond that, house churches should be noted for giving between themselves. Whether babysitting or working on a car or painting a kitchen, the Bible teaches a lifestyle of giving. One in which giving isn’t measured in mere 10% increments or in only dollar amounts, but a gathering of people committed to each other 100%. This is tithing and giving in the New Testament.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3