Troublesome Topic: MONEY IN A MODERN HOUSE CHURCH

The way the early church used the tithes and offerings of the believers to help those in need was one of the things that made it very attractive to those outside the group. It proved that God had changed these people from being self-centered to being focused on glorifying God with everything because everything belonged to Him, not to them. I believe we do well to imitate these attitudes and practices. With that in mind I give the following recommendations:

1. Encourage everyone in the house church that has an income to give generously. Encourage them to give beyond 10%. For some that will be a big jump, but it will also be very rewarding. Remember, we cannot out-give God.

2. Choose a treasurer and assistant treasurer from those in the group that are regularly present and are trustworthy. Experience with keeping track of funds in a written or printable form is also good. It is best if these two people are not a married couple, and not closely related; this will discourage embezzlement.

3. I see two ways to handle the money – open a new bank account or use only cash.

For the first option you will need to open a new checking account. Opening a bank account presents a problem for house churches – whose name should the account be in? The house church itself is not a legally recognized entity so it cannot have its own account. The bank account must be in the name of an individual. Can we trust someone to have the money in an account that is in their name? To avoid problems I suggest a new account be opened by the treasurer exclusively for this purpose and the assistant treasurer must cosign on everything of importance. This would allow the house church to do things that a commitment to only use cash would not allow. But even this may seem dangerous to you, however I think it is a necessary risk. In my mind, looking at the big picture reveals bigger risks by becoming institutionalized than by being a house church. A house church faces a rare risk of a small amount of money being stolen whereas the institutionalized “church” runs a very real risk of giving the world the wrong impression about what God desires and how He works. This wrong impression is given unintentionally through church membership, codified doctrine and using money for the organization rather than for others.

For the second option you should encourage the believers in your house church to give whatever they set aside beyond the 10% to national or international organizations that are doing a good job of helping the needy. You can share with each other the names of the organizations you trust, but that part of their giving they would do on their own. In contrast, the money that comes into the offerings of the house church would be all cash, which is a bit inconvenient because it requires a trip to the bank by everyone every week. This money would only be used for local needs, making it possible to be handled in cash without the need of a bank account. If something does come up that requires giving at a distance, a cashier’s check could be used. See # 5 below for more about local and far-away needs. In my opinion the new bank account is better. Either way you will need to trust two people with the distribution of this money, and using only cash is limiting and cumbersome.

4. A written report should be provided every week to everyone present indicating clearly how the money that was given has been used. Verification of its use should also be made available in the form of receipts, photos, etc. Everything should be done with absolute openness. We don’t want to talk about transparency, we want to practice it at the most complete level that is humanly possible.

5. The leaders of all the households present should decide together how to use the money that is given. I suggest that they consider the following guidelines:

            – Give some locally and some to world-wide needs. It is easier to give toward needs around the world but helping people locally will have a greater impact on your community. Both are important so we should find a balance between the two. (if only cash is used by the house church, the national and international giving will be done by individuals, not the group.)

            – Follow the principle of giving the money away as soon as possible. Don’t hold on to it unless there is a reason.

            – For some things you may want to let it build up a bit before giving those funds away. For other needs the money should be sent away weekly. Only hold the money for a specific reason that was decided on by the group of leaders. For example, if you want to be able to help local people by making a rent payment or a mortgage payment for them, but your group is small and the tithes are small enough that you cannot reach that goal with what comes in for one week, then save up for 2 or 3 weeks in order to make it happen. If you want to have enough accumulated for that type of thing before a need is made known to you, go ahead and hold some for that purpose. The key is to be purposeful, clear, and generous in the use of all the money that comes in.

6. There should be a healthy balance between a leader being willing to serve without receiving a regular salary, and members of a house church showing respect and gratitude toward their leader. The New Testament teaches that a leader should be compensated in some way as a sign of appreciation (back then it was usually food or clothing), but the actions of the Apostles show that there were situations in which they did not receive gifts, or they even refused them (especially Paul) in order to avoid any hindrance to the Gospel.

To study this issue yourself see Luke 10:7, Acts 18:1-3, Acts 20:34-35, First Corinthians 9:4-6 & 9:9-18, Second Corinthians 2:17, and 11:7-9, Galatians 6:6, Philippians 4:16-19, First Thessalonians 2:9, Second Thessalonians 3:7-12, and First Timothy 5:17-18. In these passages you will see both sides of this issue revealed – the house church should give to its leader but the leader should not allow their gifts to hinder the reputation of the Gospel.

Please note that I am talking specifically about house churches here, not institutionalized “churches.” The situation in an institutionalized “church” is different and there are valid arguments that can be made on either side of the issue. In the house church setting it looks different in part because, in my opinion, the leader should only receive gifts of appreciation, not a regular salary. In the early church the leaders all worked a day job and did not rely on the gifts from the church to be their sole means of support. This model still works well in a modern house church, and I believe it is a way to avoid criticism of the Gospel.

Do we live in a time in which accepting a salary is sometimes a hindrance to the Gospel? I believe we do. The way most Christian congregations use almost all their money on themselves and give away only a small portion of it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many skeptics, critics and even some believers. An institutionalized “church” falls somewhere between a secular business and a ministry; it is a marriage of those two things. The beauty of the house church is that it can avoid the criticism of the use of money by pouring all the tithes and offerings it receives into helping the needy. 

For this reason I recommend that gifts to the leader of the house church do not come from the tithes and offerings given to the house church. They should be separate. I also believe they should be gifts of appreciation from individuals, not a regular salary.

7. While helping people in need is a powerful demonstration of the love of God, it is also very difficult. There will be times when you get burned. It is hard in countries like America because the government carries so many people, and it is hard in developing countries because there are so many needs everywhere. Whatever situation you find yourself in, this principle remains the same – focus on relationships with people, not on money or things. The next lesson deals specifically with the situation in America.

(Some would argue that an organized “church” can accomplish things that a house church cannot and can reach more people at at any given time in part because its leadership is full time. I must concede that there is some truth to that, however, I also believe that an institutionalized “church” causes more problems than a house church does and those problems are bigger and stay around longer. That is my opinion; you are free to agree or disagree with it.)