5 reasons to rethink full time, paid local leadership within the simple/organic/house church context

Felicity … is it OK for the person who starts Home Churches to take a % of the tithes that come into the home churches so he can have income so he can concentrate on the ministry? Or should NO on get a % as a salary and ALL should work a secular job? Please email me the response also with commenting back so your readers can see your response 🙂

Felicity, I pastored a home church for sixteen years, most of that time working at whatever jobs I could find to keep my large family fed and educated. Our fellowship members decided to provide me with some monthly income, but kept in view a goal of giving as much as possible to missions and to persecuted believers. Ross is so right. We don’t do a system; we respond to God’s call to obedience in the things that please Him.

Jimmy, unless I am misreading your words, I am not sure how you equate this and other house church blogs with established denominations in their promotion of full time ministry or hunger for money.
I see the exact opposite of that when I read this blog, (and like you I am merely a visitor adding a comment). I find simplychurch.com a wonderful place to find encouragement for and from those who want to experience the simplicity of walking in a love relationship with Jesus, rather than a relationship with a hungry institution which needs constant feeding.
When I read this blog, to me it has always been a source for those wanting to ditch the very things you (and I) decry. This very post is a good example of that. The purpose of this post seems to be encapsulated in the central quote from Ross Rohde which is worth a reread. Ross’s comment is a precisely about serving, through following the anointing and blessing of the Holy Spirit.
I would counsel that you read a little around this blog and allow the Holy Spirit to minister encouragement to your heart.
Brother, be really blessed, and don’t give up on seeking fellowship, nobody here is after your money!
Even if I don’t agree with your view of this blog, I do agree with your stated desire for what church should be like.
P.S. My wife and I meet about once a week with a mere three other saints. We have a wonderful time together and have really grown in the Spirit since fleeing the institution. I have no interest whether anyone else thinks we are a church or not, who cares?
I simply know that we are exactly where God has called us to be, and that is enough for me.

I have really enjoyed these posts on finances within the simple church context. Thanks so much for doing this, Felicity. I get that the Bible is clear that those who minister the Gospel can be paid. I am still trying to find my way from the institutional church to a simple church, so right now I have to say that I tithe/give purely out of obedience to God. But I don’t think my giving is being used for what God truly intended (personally).
If a minister were to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke; if they were to share their food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter; if they were to see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from them (Isa 58:6-7) – I would gladly work as hard as I could to be able to give as much as I could to financially support such a minister.
But the idea of financially supporting someone so they can give a speech once a week with a smattering of counseling appointments thrown in between just doesn’t seem quite right to me.

I can see the benefits of having unpaid church leaders and why some people would see supporting them as leading to a clergy-laity divide. You may also have a valid point about some house church work not being suitable for ‘full-time’ support. But I am a bit concerned that, while some traditional church people are too concerned with full-time support, many house church people are against any kind of support for those who dedicate their lives to the ministry to which they are called. I think sometimes we can be tempted to make decisions based on problems that we see from the clergy-laity distinction rather than what the Lord has commanded. I hope you don’t mind if I use your blog post as a spring-board to address this issue.
When Jesus sent the Twelve out, He commanded that they eat what was set before them, for the laborer is worthy of his hire. They weren’t allowed to take money or a change of cloths on that particular journey.
Jesus even instructed the apostles to inquire if there was a worthy person in the town they were preaching to and then go stay with that person. If he accepted them in peace, their peace would rest upon him. Otherwise, they would be judged so severely in the day of judgment that the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah would be more severe than their judgment. (Remember how inhospitable the Sodomites were to the angelic visitors).
So the apostles had such a right to expect to be supported that Jesus told them to impose hospitality on people like this. The Lord Jesus even invited himself over to Zaccheus’ house.
Paul refers to the principle of the labor being worthy of his hire in I Timothy 5, where he writes that the elders that rule well are worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in preaching and teaching. Time (pronounce roughly similar to ‘tea May’) in Greek is translated honor, but it could refer to compensation as well. In the Illiad, Achilles ‘time’ for his work in battle included various spoils including a slave girl. When the slave girl was taken from him, and he lost his ‘honor’, he got angry and refused to fight.
In I Timothy 5, the widows who are being ‘honored’ are apparently being supported materially. Otherwise, Paul would not have instructed that their sons provide for them if possible that the church not be burdened.
Paul gives two reasons for supporting elders. One is the verse from the Old Testament that says not to muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the grain. The other is that the laborer is worthy of his hire. These are the same principles used by Christ and Paul to argue for the right for material support of those who preach the Gospel.
In I Corinthians 9, we see that Paul, Barnabas, Cephas, and the Lord’s brothers had a right to expect to be supported materially. They had a right to bring a sister or wife with them. Paul waived his right to support while among the Corinthians. It was his right, but he waived it. Paul wrote that the Lord ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
The other side of the coin is that Paul told the Ephesians elders how he had worked with his own hands to support himself, and encouraged them to follow his example. It is good for all preachers of the Gospel, like Paul, who labor in evangelism, and local church elders who focus on pastoral ministry and teaching to be willing to work to support themselves and work for free.
But we shouldn’t be teaching congregations not to materially support those who preach the Gospel and elders of the church. If those who would not support the Twelve by offering hospitality were to come under judgment, is it good if house church people have the attitude that no one should be supported for their work in the Gospel?
Paul did receive gifts to fund his work at time. He accepted a gift from the Macedonians and told the Corinthians that he had robbed other churches to serve them. Clearly, this is hyperbole, but it would seem to imply that Paul had a right to be supported by the Corinthians while he was ministering among them.
Some churches have equated pastoral/eldership ministry with being ‘on staff’ and receiving full-time support. This is not a good thing. It keeps qualified elders from being recognized in their ministry if they want to work a ‘regular job’ full-time or part-time. We need to beware of going to the opposite extreme of not teaching the saints to provide for those who evangelize and support elders who rule well.
I do not like to see many of the traditions regarding clergy-laity distinctions exported overseas to missions fields. But house church has an obvious appeal to many evangelists in foreign countries. If we aren’t careful, we can export harmful unscriptural notions of not supporting ministry which we have developed in reaction to the traditions we see around us. This can harm the work of the Lord on foreign fields just as some of the other traditions can. Ironically, on some missions fields, it seems like ICs in the west are doing more to support the growth of HCs in these countries than HCs in the west are.