by John White

(Note: this was written to introduce two men who are leading house churches in different parts of the country.)

It has been on my mind for a while now to introduce the two of you to each other. The reason is that each of you are in similar situations (one in NJ and the other in Florida). Both of you have thriving house churches that need to multiply. Both of you have families and are working in the world full time and so are probably stretched to (beyond?) the limit. As God is raising up house churches in this country, I suspect that your situation will be played out in hundreds of places in the months/years to come. What is needed is a multitude of prototypes that each reflect Biblical values.

As I see it, the problem is that you have made the huge paradigm shift into the house church model but the concepts and mechanisms are not in place to financially support the leadership needed for the movement to grow. The harvest is ripe for house churches but the laborers are few (sound familiar?). The laborers that are working in this field are only able to put in a few hours a week. I think there is danger of some/much of the harvest being lost for lack of manhours. What would any good farm owner (Lord of the harvest) do in this situation? Certainly he would send more workers but I think he would also invest more financial resources to free up those who have already demonstrated that they are gifted/skilled workers. Sounds like a smart business decision to me. 

Another aspect of the problem is that we are coming out of traditional churches where the idea of financially supporting the workers is associated with "the system". The thought is that if there are no part/full time workers then we can avoid the problems of the clergy/laity dicotomy. While I certainly understand this concern, I think we must be careful not to over react to it. (Luther said that "the church is like a drunken horseman…prop him up on one side and he falls off on the other.") We (like Jesus) must keep our eyes on the harvest.

I would urge you both to be meditating on 1 Cor. 9:1-14. I believe that this gives us a picture of normative financial practice in the NT. (We are not just committed to house churches. Aren't we really about the bigger goal of restoring NT church values?) (Some would respond that this passage shows Paul giving up his rights to financial support - v. 15. However, consider 2 Cor. 11:8-9 to see how he was able to do this.)

You guys have been pioneers regarding house churches. I urge you to continue in that spirit in developing the larger apostolic/church planting ministry and the financial structure necessary to support it. You are developing prototypes which others will learn from. You may want to email each other to talk about what you are up against. If I can be of help in thinking about the "how to" of the finances, let me know. We can talk by email or phone.

John PS. I'm going to forward this email to a number of others who are thinking about the same things.

——————————————————————————– 

More on finances

Dear friends,

This is a dialogue with a different house church leader from Florida. His email first and then my comments.

John

Subj: Re: Money and oxen

John

just to through in my two cents worth of theology. I think if God is truely calling/sending someone into the ministry he will work out the details of this problem. If we look at scripture and find examples instead of just commands we will see that not just Paul but most Apostolic workers were without families (wives & children) not because it was forbidden but because of the impracticallity of it. When they entered an area to work they at least helped support themselves. I think a lot of the problem is our American 8 hour workdays, as Paul would rise early and minister to the Brethren then go to work. He would stop working in the heat of the day like everyone else and he would minister in a home or the marketplace. Then he would go back to work until dusk then minister in homes until late in the evening/early morning. We want to be a worker during the day and then go home and spend private time with our families, we need to realize we now have a lot larger family. 

Paul and all church planting Apostles did something that kept the clergy/laity distinction from occuring, they left. They did not stay where the money was good the few times it was. They moved on and let the church function on its own. I think a true litmus test for payment to be in ministry is: are you willing to walk away from the money and the reverance?

My Comments:

1. "we need to realize we now have a lot larger family" I think you are absolutely right in seeing church as family. It is foundational to house church that we move away from our American idea of isolated families into the Biblical concept of church as an extended family.

2. "not just Paul but most Apostolic workers were without families (wives & children) not because it was forbidden but because of the impracticallity of it". I'm not sure this was true. Consider 1 Cor. 9:5. This verse might lead us to think that it was the normal practice in the NT church for apostles to have their wives (and probably children) with them.

Also, consider Wolfgang (p. 36): "Since the church was the mission, it did not so much send out special "missionaries" - it literally sent out itself, in the form of multipliable units, by sending out embryonic units of a local church of two and three, which carry within themselves the vision and virus of church, ready to infect whatever they touch." Where possible, it seems like it would have been most effective to start a church with family units (men, women, kids) rather than just a bunch of guys.

3. "When they entered an area to work they at least helped support themselves." The only place that we know for sure that Paul supported himself was in Thessalonica. (Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this.) He did this for the specific reason that some in this church had a problem with laziness and he wanted to be a model for them (2 Thes. 3:6-13). I think it is unlikely that even in Corinth Paul supported himself. Rather, churches other than the Corinthian church supported him (see 2 Cor. 11:8-9). Perhaps the principle is that apostles are supported by the churches except when the churches are made up of lazy people who need a role model.

Consider also the Biblical principle that in every line of work (whether church planting or tending sheep or selling books) "the worker deserves his wages". (see Luke 10:7 and 1 Cor. 9:7-14) By insisting that an apostle/church planter support himself, aren't we saying that his work isn't worth being paid for?

Seems to me that Jesus, as an astute business man/farmer, puts his focus on the goal (ie, the harvest - Luke 10:2). He knows that he must obtain the necessary man-hours to get the job done when the harvest is ready. Shouldn't that be our focus? Let's say that the harvest was ready in Naples and you had a gifted worker (church planter) who had the capacity to plant 5-10 healthy house churches in the next year if he could work full time at it. Wouldn't it be a good business decision to find a way to put him to work full time in the field (planting/harvesting churches) rather than insist that he only do that kind of work a few hours each evening after a day of making tents? Wouldn't that approach result in losing a significant part of the harvest? 

4. "Paul and all church planting Apostles did something that kept the clergy/laity distinction from occuring, they left. They did not stay where the money was good the few times it was. They moved on and let the church function on its own." I know this is the common understanding of how apostles functioned but I want to challenge it a bit. (So, what else is new? )

There is no question that Paul was highly itinerant. But, was this normative of all apostles? Perhaps we have placed too much emphasis on Paul as "the" model for all apostles. For instance, consider how different Paul's methods in planting churches among the Gentiles must have been from Peter's methods in planting church among the Jews (Gal. 2:8). Perhaps some (most?) apostles/church planters didn't travel like Paul. James, for instance, who was most likely an apostle (Gal. 1:19) apparently spent all of his time in Jerusalem.

I'm not sure that the apostle "leaving town" is the only way for a church to learn to function on its own and become healthy (which is the goal). Rather, I think it is a function of good parenting skills (for apostle as parent see 1 Cor 4:14; 1 Thes. 2:7, 11; etc.). (I still think that the best book on church leadership is Parenting with Love and Logic by Cline and Fay.) The first principle of good parenting is: never do anything for your child (or church) that they are capable of doing for themselves. It is not necessary (unless perhaps you have an overwhelming personality like Paul) to leave town to produce healthy and properly independent children or churches. Rather, it is necessary to be wise in knowing what to do and what not to do for your children/churches.

We should also remember that the early church hadn't heard of the clergy/laity problem. (Probably because there were no clergy.) This has been a serious problem for American Christianity. However, we must be careful not to "throw the baby out with the bath water". We probably could avoid this clergy/laity problem in the house church movement by not paying anyone. In the mean time, we might also lose a great deal of the harvest for lack of man-hours. Maybe we should think about how we can pay workers who are necessary for the harvest without developing a new kind of clergy?

John White

www.dawnministries.org/globalministries/northamerica/johnwhite

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 15th, 2005 at 1:49 pm and is filed under Reformation/ Revival, Church Structure, Evangelism / Discipleship, House to house community, Finance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.