Refer to 2 Timothy 1 blog article to get background of this last letter of Paul before he is beheaded in Rome by Nero about 65-66 AD. Remember he pretty well knows that this is his last winter. He is writing a very personal letter to his beloved son in the faith, Timothy. Instead of verse by verse, I am just giving some key texts and how they might apply to us.

2 Timothy 2:1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. ² The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” This verse means a lot to me. When I finished 2 years at the school of preaching in West Monroe, La, the Lord guided my wife and I to do 3 years of mission work in Trinidad, West Indies. The work in Trinidad had been started all over on the island, mainly due to the work of Bob Brown. “Campaigns” all over the island led to thousands of baptisms. I went on one that baptized 150 in less than 2 weeks. That led to the starting of congregations all over the island. My coworker chose the southern part of the island b/c there were no missionaries or preachers, and the churches were young. But this verse was a key in our mission. We baptized more people and we established a few more congregations, but our mission was to train leaders in those churches that could carry on the work after we left without relying of U.S. money to pay preachers. After all, that is the way it was done in the New Testament early house churches.

We had seen the paid preacher system in mission work (foreign preachers paid by U.S. congregations) and wanted no part of that. It wasn’t Biblical and it wasn’t effective in the long run. We did start a full time 2 year school of preaching in Trinidad and we missionaries taught the classes, very similar to my school of preaching in La. That might have been needed since we brought in men from other islands as well as Trinidad to train. Looking back, I’m not sure how effective that really was, however. The best thing we did was a “Saturday” mini school of preaching for a year for local leaders, men and women, members who had regular jobs, those who could preach and teach the word. We did many of the same Bible courses, just cut back. We trained a customs agent, an oil company employee, a postman, etc. These men and women led the churches over the past 50 years since we were there! They have never had a paid by the U.S. preacher in that time. In turn, after we left after 3 years, they trained other men, just as 2 Timothy 2:1 says: entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” The congregations are still doing well. Some of the men we trained have established new congregations and have done mission work in Guyana, which is just across the bay in South America.

It was kinda ironic when they would come back from a short mission trip to Guyana and tell me that there were several paid by the U.S. preachers in Guyana that were “momaguying” (deceiving, fooling, tricking) the U.S. supporting congregations by putting on a show when their representatives were in Guyana on short trips. Our Trinidadian guys saw that the Guyana paid preachers were just putting on a show while they were there, but after that weren’t working hard at all.

Such is the paid by the U.S. preacher system everywhere. Granted, short term pay of missionaries might be necessary. After all, we were supported by U.S. congregations while in Trinidad. But it was never to set up a paid preacher system in Trinidad, which we did not do. I know that system works well is some places, but only as long as the U.S. money keeps coming. Is it still viable? Maybe so if the preachers are honest, sincere men who are not preaching for money, for a job. But often that is not the case. Often those preachers will stop preaching and evangelizing if the pay stops. Also, the paid by the U.S. preacher tends to become “the pastor” who runs the show in the congregations, instead of installing elders to shepherd the flocks. I was glad to see one of our Trinidadian congregations appoint elders recently. I do know of some mission works that train leaders in some way but then expect the leaders to get jobs to support themselves; the U.S. churches give them “working funds” to their travel, etc. as they minister to the local congregations and that seems to work pretty well.

I know Paul said 1 Corinthians 9:⁶ Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? ¹¹ If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? Galatians 6:⁶ Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.” But is Paul talking about paying full time local. preachers? There was no such thing in the local church. He must have been talking about traveling evangelists like Timothy and Titus, who might not be able to support themselves with a job like Paul supported himself with tent making. That full time traveling evangelist might even end up being supported full time without supporting himself. Paul personally would never take money from the church he was establishing and working with. Paul spent 3 years working with the church in Ephesus but he told the Ephesian elders Acts 20: ³³ I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. ³⁴ You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.” Apparently he never took money from them. He made tents to support himself while working in Corinth. He did receive some help from the church at Philippi to give him more free time to preach (Philippians 4) while he was in Corinth, but he would not take money from the church in Corinth. Some elders actually received supplemental income if their shepherding took so much time from their jobs that they could not support their families. 1 Timothy 5:¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” But no full time local paid preachers.

But what amazes me is that we run the same paid preacher system here in the U.S. Usually there are several competent men leaders and elders who are “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2) , who “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Men who have jobs and are self supporting. And yet we hired preachers, often at large salaries and benefits, to preach sermons (which is the main thing they do). We build large congregations and draw new members (usually from other congregations which swap members all the time with other congregations) around the paid preacher’s ability to deliver sermons that appeal to us. The pay might include visiting the sick, which is really the work of the elders and members, or the paid preacher might insist that is not part of his work. This paid preacher system is not Biblical. I’m not saying that it is a sin. It’s just not Biblical. In house churches, elders did the shepherding. There were teachers. Evangelists were not full time local paid preachers. They traveled to different churches, stayed for different periods of time, were given food and a place to stay while they were at a church, but then moved on. They never became full time paid preachers for local congregations. The Didache (100 AD) said that if they stayed for more than 2 or 3 days that they were preaching for money and should be sent away. Again, many congregations do this system well. They hire really good preachers who can do very good sermons and draw members. Other congregations deal with the complications of this faulty system when they hire a preacher who doesn’t turn out to be a good person, or they just get tired of him and his sermons. Or he just moves on to a higher paying or better church situation. How much money is spent on this paid preacher system? Millions. (

AI) “According to available data, the average church allocates around 50% of their contributions towards staff salaries and benefits, while typically dedicating another 25-30% towards building costs, including maintenance and utilities, meaning a combined percentage of roughly 75% of contributions go towards staff and buildings combined.” About 10% of money collected goes to ministry programs for youth and adults among the members themelves. About 10% goes to mission work, printing Bibles for mission work drilling wells for clean water in Africa, supporting widows and orphans. That leaves about 5% miscellaneous. Here is a good article on how churches spend their money. https://www.churchlawandtax.com/manage-finances/budgets/how-churches-spend-their-money/ Church buildings now cost in the millions and churches have many on staff. One local church built a $1 million dollar bell tower which is impressive, but how many wells could be drilled for clean water and how many poor children overseas could be supported with that money? But could large churches with buildings and paid preachers and staff function without full time employee? Probably not. So, we just continue to do the same non Biblical system whether it is a wise use of the Lord’s money or not. I know this is just my opinion. Others would say that the system works well and, even though 75% of collections is spent on buldings and staff, there is a lot of good edification of members going on and at least 10-15% is going to missions, benevolence, etc. But in effective churches, usually that edification really happens in small groups that meet. The assembly does edify many, but the most personal one on one edifications comes from small groups that meet in houses. Sounds like the early church house churches, doesn’t it?

How would the church do if we did away with church buildings and paid staff and went to only house churches? (AI) “Due to the nature of house churches often operating underground or without official registration, it’s impossible to give a precise number of churches meeting solely in homes across foreign countries; however, estimates suggest millions of people globally participate in house churches, particularly in countries like China, where religious restrictions drive many Christians to meet in private homes; conservative estimates for China alone could reach tens of millions of house church attendees.” From https://jcgresources.com/en/resources/church_planting/en_contemporary/ “The most rapid growth in the house church movement is in restricted access areas like China, Asia, and North Africa. I attended one mission gathering and heard a missionary representative for China talk about house churches springing up like wildfire. The representative spoke of one Chinese leader who had planted 30,000 churches—all house churches. This Chinese leader trains people and within three weeks they are expected to plant a church. Well-known pollster George Barna has estimated that by the year 2025, membership in the conventional church in the U.S. will be cut by fifty percent, while alternative movements (like house churches) will potentially involve thirty to thirty-five percent of all Christians in the United States. (I wonder if that 2015 prediction has come true now that we are about to begin 2025? ). Similar movements of house churches are also rising up in other western nations like Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the U.K. House churches do not require ordained, seminary-trained professionals to function effectively. House churches point to the fact that New Testament teaching does not recognize clergy and laity distinctions. Those who are seminary or Bible school-trained can be assets to house churches, sometimes serving as catalysts who plant the first few house churches in a given area or people group. But they don’t always have to be physically present for house churches to have legitimacy or theological understanding. House churches do need godly, mature leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4). The training, however, happens primarily through an informal approach, with basic Bible knowledge and practical ministry as the main components. House church leaders are volunteers. Financial resources are normally used to support itinerant workers, missions, or meeting the practical needs of members, such as the poor, widows, and orphans. In most cases, the house church does collect an offering. And in rare cases, a house church may decide to support one of the leaders.

Larry Kreider writes:The Chinese house church movement has made a commitment to the Lord concerning how the church will exist even when they are freed from communism in the future. They have already made a decision that they will build no buildings. They want to keep their method of training and sending intact, and not focus on constructing buildings but on building people. House churches are fully functioning churches in themselves. They partake of the Lord’s supper, baptize, marry, bury, and exercise church discipline. Many house churches, however, do network with other house churches for mutual accountability, encouragement, and cooperation. Those in the house church movement long to return to New Testament Christianity. Many in the movement are fed up with the modern day version of Christianity that emphasizes crowds, church buildings, and unnatural hierarchies. They desire to go back to the values of simplicity and the priesthood of all believers, just like the early church. And houses churches are well-positioned to meet this need. They thrive without money or traditional hierarchy to make things happen.” So if the house church system works in China and other poor or persecuted areas, why couldn’t it work in the U.S. also? It could and in some places in the U.S. does.

Another informative article: https://www.hitland.net/resources/articles/article-house-church-movement.html “Focusing only on those who attend some kind of church (which I recall is about 43 percent of us), 74 percent of themattend only a traditional church, 19 percent attend both a
traditional and a house church (i.e. small groups as part of a traditional church), and 5 percent are hard-core house church folks (house church only). Please don’t think of the house church as a new fad. For the first 300 years of Christianity, house churches were the norm. In fact, church buildings were quite rare until the fourth century, when the power-hungry Roman Emperor Constantine suddenly outlawed house church meetings, began erecting church buildings with Roman tax money, and issued a decree that all should join his Catholic Church. If you want to stick to a biblical model, the house church is your only choice. In China, the world’s largest church (120 million) is 90 percent based in homes.”

Of course, the reason that the house church only model might now work as well in the U.S might be that the average church member doesn’t really want it. He/she would rather go to a bigger, impersonal church assembly in a building, listen to a sermon, hear a band playing Christian music, and go home. That doesn’t mean he/she isn’t a sincere Christian who maybe has a Christian ministry somewhere, but many church attending members are only just “Sunday only” Christians. Also, house churches are a lot of work. My wife and I have had a Wednesday night small group (up to 25 people) every week for 30 years now. It is not a burden, but it does take commitment and work. My wife cooks for 25 people once per month (others do the same). We have to get ready for the meeting, etc. Also I’m not sure that most church members are evangelistic. Going to house churches is not just to save money. It is to try to bring in unchurched people who don’t like what they see in the modern church business system, who really would like to do simple early church Christianity. Or to bring in the unsaved and establish a close relationship with them so as to teach them the gospel. Once a house church gets to a certain size doing that (maybe 15-25), split off and start another house church. Again, a lot of church members might enjoy a house church group in someone else’s house, but they would never start another group in their own houses. Another issue might be providing for the members’ children in a house church model. But that should not be a hurdle. Parents take turns working with the children in each house church. Also, much of the meeting in a house church can be done with whole families being together for the singing, the Lord’s Supper, for encouraging words and family news, etc. Maybe the children can break off into children’s classes of some sort while the adults have a deeper Bible study.

Well, that is a lot! Sorry if you disagree and just like the current system. Enjoy it and get the most you can from it. It still has a lot of good things even if it is not Biblical.