https://www.facebook.com/groups/136853737786/permalink/10162870973042787
Summary of the above Facebook discussion, giving the different perspectives and giving pros and cons of each perspective.
Main Differences in the Facebook Thread
The thread discusses financial giving (tithes and offerings) in house churches, contrasting it with traditional institutional churches. The core debate revolves around whether tithing (typically 10% mandatory giving) is biblically required under the New Testament, how offerings should be handled, and where funds should go. Participants draw from scripture (e.g., Old Testament laws vs. New Testament principles like 2 Corinthians 9:7 on cheerful giving) and personal experiences with house fellowships.
Two primary positions emerge:
- Anti-Tithing Position: Tithing is an Old Testament practice (for Israel, Levites, and temple support) that’s not mandated in the New Testament. Instead, emphasize freewill, cheerful giving directly to needs without mandatory collections, salaries, or buildings. (Dominant view, supported by ~70% of comments, e.g., Lizzy Lee, Jake Fox, Daniel Prox, Ken Petty, Doc Brash, DK Viss.)
- Pro-Structured Giving Position: While tithing may not be strictly required, collect voluntary offerings or use the tithe as a principle to fund ministries, missions, community needs, and basic operations. Structure (e.g., elders, nonprofits) ensures sustainability and kingdom-building. (Minority view, but detailed, e.g., Garrett Peterson, Howard W. Everett, Yolanda Ayala Huber, Natalie Larson, Tim Tremaine.)
A few comments blend ideas (e.g., Joseph Foreman on reinterpreting tithing radically, John Manning on decentralized support), but most align with one side. No one strongly defends mandatory tithing like in mega-churches; criticism of “corporate” churches (e.g., salaries, buildings) is common across both.
Pros and Cons for Each Position
| Position | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-Tithing: Give Freely to Needs (No mandatory tithes; direct, Spirit-led giving to poor, widows, orphans, missions, or group needs without central funds or salaries.) | – Aligns with New Testament emphasis on cheerful, non-grudging giving (e.g., 2 Cor. 9:7), avoiding legalism. – Reduces abuse risks seen in institutional churches (e.g., no salaries or mortgages lead to misuse). – Fosters relational, community-focused help (e.g., paying debts, building homes, supporting homeless), building spiritual maturity through sacrifice. – Low overhead; funds go “right back out” to real needs, promoting equality (“none shall do what the least among us could not do”). | – May lack sustainability for long-term efforts (e.g., Garrett Peterson notes house churches often dissolve without structured support for leaders or vision). – Relies on individual initiative, which could lead to uneven giving or unmet needs in larger groups or poverty-stricken areas (e.g., Reuben Otieno’s village challenges). – Potential “poverty mindset” if people hoard instead of committing (as critiqued by some). – Harder to scale for global missions or community projects without pooled resources. |
| Pro-Structured Giving: Collect Offerings or Use Tithe Principle (Voluntary collections managed by elders/groups/nonprofits for operations, missions, benevolence, and kingdom-building.) | – Enables practical sustainability (e.g., utilities, supplies, missions in places like Pakistan; helps house churches last beyond 2 years per Garrett Peterson). – Supports mature leadership and discipleship (e.g., elders for encouragement/discipline; teaching generosity transforms lives). – Facilitates larger impact (e.g., building homes, funding missionaries, community outreach), fulfilling calls to win souls and care for the body of Christ. – Tax benefits via nonprofits (e.g., 501c3 for reporting/dispersal), addressing legal concerns like Austin Cain’s tax questions. | – Risks resembling “corporate” church abuses (e.g., central funds could tempt misuse, even if no salaries). – May pressure people subtly (e.g., teaching the “principle of the tithe” could feel like obligation, contradicting cheerful giving). – Overhead (e.g., admin, even minimal) diverts from direct needs; some see it as unbiblical “business” in church. – Requires trust in leaders (e.g., multiple handlers as Todd Wilburn suggests), which could fail without maturity. |
Leave a Reply