Over at our house last Friday night, we had another ‘missional’ discussion on planting communities. I discussed the value of multiple bi-vocational ministry. I said there are three good things (among many others) that come from such an arrangement of the pastoral leadership of a community. (BTW I expanded on these in an article for Leadership published here)
First, multiple bi-vocational (MU-BI) ministry breeds congregational participation in the life of a church because it works against the passivity that can so easily set in on a congregation. Human beings tend to relax and allow someone else to do ‘the tasks’ of ministry whenever possible. They can become passive when they look to one person or a staff of persons to do the various tasks of church ministry. In other words, a professional, full-time clergy can actually encourage passivity in a congregation.
Second, MU-BI ministry guards against excessive organization and programming. By sheer necessity MU-BI leadership cultivates organic forms of life that arise from within the rhythms of the congregation and its surrounding neighborhoods. Bi-vocational pastors simply do not have time to strategize programs to meet the needs of the congregation. One of the participants in the Friday nite conversation talked about the mindset of working 40 hours for the church and finding that fulfilling. I responded “when we no longer see the Sunday morning gathering as attractional, we are not forced to spend 40 hours on music and programming, 40 hours on sermon prep etc. to make it “the Thing.” The gathering on Sunday instead must become an organic, living, liturgically driven encounter with the living God and His mission sending us outward. It must become something done out of the regaulr rythms of our lives. This kind of gathering takes less work because the ‘slick’ factor is off the table. All these gifts can now be used in the surrounding context. Think of how we can support a musician to play in local contexts and engage the community instead of perfecting a performance for the Sunday ‘event.’
Third, MU-BI ministry fosters a church culture that is outward focused. It is inherent in the very dynamic of MU-BI leadership that church ministry is pushed outward from the center of the church. The pastors, after all, spend a good chunk of their week in the workplace. This gives the pastors a different mindset. So, whereas in many institutional structures the life of the church tends to be pulled into the orbit of the professional clergy, we naturally shape ministry around what is going on “out there.” And as people working in the marketplace in some way, we model a missional lifestyle for our congregation.
There are several more positives – the blessing of collegiality and co-ownership of the ministry among a band of brothers and sisters cannot be over estimated, especially if you’re planting a new community, – the blessing of not being controlled by a few members who give a lot money for your support. No one however denies that there are many challenges and pitfalls to this kind of clergy organization. As we were listening to these challenges, one brave soul voiced about how unrealistic this all was. He said that I (David Fitch) had not reached the ability to truly do bi-vocational ministry until I’d been in the workplace 5-6-7 years (until I was an old man of 35). He said we’re in effect asking new pastors to go out and get jobs, spend several years in them, get good at them, so they become flexible and capable of earning a meaningful income sufficient to support at least half of their salary. I replied, well, yes. But look at the other option. The other option for the new seminary graduate still in his/her 20′s (this demographic is getting smaller and smaller BTW) is to get out of seminary, get your first job on the staff of an established large church, be a youth pastor, worship leader etc. earn poor wages, be worked to death, never see your family or friends, and work your way up to the senior pastor job in ten years by the time you’re 35 (OK I overstated my case 
). This is the standard route to senior pastor status in American church life. I said the toll this is taking on new pastors is stunning. (We can speculate why anther time). One seminary reports over 90% of their grads are not in the ministry after 5 years. I said I much prefer the bi-vocational bi-ministerial route. Is this therefore unrealistic or does it just require a set of adjusted expectations, a long view of the truly amazing missional life we can be a part of as pastors-leaders in missional communitues? It requires doing seminary on a longer term basis acquiring little or no debt. (The new MACM degrees are being built for this). I seriously think this is the way of the future. Thoughts, push backs?
See JR’s report on the Friday nite conversation here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Dave,
I definitely agree that on the missional edge, this is one of the most reasonable options, and one I’ve been trying to figure out how to make work myself. I’m currently in the exact position you’re talking about: a couple months away from finishing seminary (for the most part) and trying to find some way, somewhere to be engaged in God’s mission through the local church as a pastor… without abdicating my responsibilities to my family or compromising my convictions. This really is a catch-22, though, for most emerging pastors like me who are young and (1) have little pastoral experience, (2) have little secular work experience, (3) have a degree/s (e.g., communication) that is/are unmarketable outside the church or require additional education to be marketable, and (4) have a young family to nurture and provide for.
Re: the “programming” bit of your critique, I think pastors could (and possibly should) spend as much time working through organization/programming for the sake of mission as most large church pastors do for the sake of congregational need meeting. Maintaining plural eldership with all bivocational makes your leadership vision more feasible. I still, however, do not believe it is possible (much less desirable) for pastors (even on the plural model) to work full-time “secular” jobs and still be faithful to the fundamental calling of a pastor.
David.
I was reared in the bi-vocational model. I didn’t realize what a blessing it was until I took my first full time ministry position.
The limitations on time are a HUGE blessings. They force mission to the forefront. Also, since all the clergy’s money isn’t coming from the “congregation.” There is much less expectation on staff.
Adam
I’m an “old man” of 35, and after 6 years in my current church ministry (a church plant I was part of starting), I’m trying to make the shift fully into bi-vocational land.
At this stage in life, I’ve developed a passion (and “unique skill”) that’s going to enable me to work less/make more and hopefully lead to a sustainable life for my family while in ministry. Here’s a challenge I don’t know how to deal with – on our staff is a young guy (24) who doesn’t see how to make it happen. He points to the unique way I’m able to make money and says he doesn’t have this kind of skill or entrepreneurial edge. So, working enough hours in a low-wage position, while giving passion and time to the ministry, while being with his wife and new baby seems like an insurmountable task for him.
Honestly – I think it seems kind of tough, too. Any suggestions …?
Wayne,
to the 24 year old as well as to Matt’s skeptism above, I think somehow people think that instantaneously they will get a job that somehow is part time but that perfectly allows for sufficient extra hours to do ministry in a way that approximates classical clergy ministry. What I’m implying above is that one must go out to learn a skill that over five years you become good at. That it will take you that long to get to the place where full bi-vocationalism becomes possible. This should not be that big of a deal. Because many seminary grads take off simlar amounst of time to pay bills. Many who don’t but go into ministry, make paltry sums as a church staff person and get worked to death. Isn’t it possible to approach post seminary with a different imagination. It’s not for everyone … and there are still huge amounts of churches in need of entry level semianry students to fill staff jobs.
There is however a lack of imagination for what kinds of jobs one can work themselves into with the sheer ability to read well, summarize well, speak and present in front of people, communicate over the phone well. These skills are in demand in various places and happen to be the skills most seminary grads come out with.
Peace
I’m in the middle of making a change from being a full-time staff member at a church to planting a church and thinking through various ways to “pay the bills” while leading a small church plant. Sometimes necessity is the mother of good theology, eh?
I wonder what you guys think about the option of being supported as a missionary as a “part-time job.” (i.e. with monies donated by those outside the church).
Adam, thanks for contributing your positive story. It is a huge encouragement to the likes of me!
Dave, I hope you read that my skepticism is one of anguish and not of condescension. I appreciate your clarity on what exactly you’re proposing (develop a “trade” before going into the “ministry”), as well as your insights about being more creative/imaginative about the kinds of jobs people like “us” are actually qualified for. I wish I had more fodder on which to put my imagination to work. I simply am oblivious to the specific types of occupations/positions that utilize these skills and are not entry-level/minimum wage positions (e.g., admin. assistants, telemarketers, phone support). Part of this stems from my being raised on a farm in a rural Missouri town of 2,000 and attending a small, rural Missouri university. Do I need to enroll in some sort of “careers” course at a local community college in order to get a better idea of what’s out there, or perhaps seek vocational coaching? I realize I’m in the minority on this, so kudos to your encouragement to open our eyes and be creative.
On a related note, I’ve been looking very intently into church planting, and the primary solution the leaders and consultants keep giving me is “support raising,” i.e., asking people for money. For a variety of reasons (insecurity? Protestant work ethic? false humility?), this rubs me the wrong way. What’s your take on this funding method as compared to the bivocational method? Obviously churches should work together for the sake of mission, but it seems that so many are financially strapped (as a result of hanging onto Christendom paradigms) so that crossing over into a more missional church planting methodology (i.e., traditional churches planting missional churches) is like trying to force a square peg through a round hole. Thoughts?
Oh, and a big P.S.
One of the fears I have about going into a full-time secular vocation right after seminary is that I will lose or neglect many of the tools, skills, and intellectual resources that seminary has provided me. “Use it or lose it” they say (especially the exegetical skills). Have you run up against this concern much, and if so, what has been your counsel?
Again, thanks for the shepherding you provide via this blog.
Dave,
As always, you raise some great thoughts and share some profound insights. But here’s a question…..does full time ministry, i.e. “professional staff” have to lead to the patterns you suggest are almost inherent to being a full time professional staff member? My sense is that much of what has become “professional” and “programmatic” has been driven by issues related to identity and a poor theological understanding of what really qualifies as ministry. One could also argue that a person who is attempting to be bi-vocational may still miss out on some of the critical areas of our calling, i.e. prayer, reflection, meditation, confession, etc. My hunch is that there’s no guarantee that if one becomes bi-vocational that they will avoid these trappings. In fact, I’ve spoken to many bi-vocational pastors who lament that they’re now working two full time jobs. They have the “secular” work and they also serve a church that still expects slick sermons, full-scale productions, heavy duty programming, etc. You raise valid points but my thinking is that there are deeper issues involved and not simply a matter of “do I become a pro or go bi?” Miss talking to you in person! You’re a sheer joy! (I know..you’re probably thinking, “He’s sold out!)
hi david-
i wonder if seminaries and bible colleges need to pick up on this idea and perhaps offer study in degrees that would enable their graduates to get ‘real jobs’ in order to fund their calling.
hey all, I just posted some of this over at JR’s blog, but here are my thoughts.
the observations I have made over the last couple years of trying this with Dave at “Life on the Vine” and talking with many here about it:
1) i’ve noticed that bi-vocational ministry is not for everyone. Whether it is because of temperament (either too motivated or not enough) or calling. I think some vocational callings doesn’t fit being bi-vocational. Maybe this is a cop out, but some could just be more made for full-time ministry. I used to think anyone could be bi-vocational, but I’m not so sure now.
2) Bi-vocationalism can’t be forced either. If is can’t be done sustainably then it shouldn’t be done. if your work not paying the bills, or taking up too much time, then maybe God is not leading you into it right now, even if you agree with the grounds/goals of bi-vocationalism. If things aren’t lining up, then wait for God. Waiting is a potent practice of faith.
3) given the above, lastly, bi-vocationalism is unhelpfully discussed in the abstract. each individual person has to discern what it might look like, whether it fits with what God is doing in ones life, and how in faith one will move forward.
but given all this, I definitely support bi-vocationalism for all the reasons above. but it comes with its own bag of difficulties, which I hope off-set the pitfalls of full-time vocational ministry. but being more missional, having more participation, and not having too many programs is not automatic.
as one who is getting churned up now and spewed out on the other end not too long from now this has been an issue foremost in my mind.
It’s strange; not many vocations would require such a rigorous academic preparation and yet pay so little; it’s almost purifying.
Conversely I wonder about many I know who’ve gone through sem training and now are not workign in “vocational ministry” at all. Perhaps they were too quick to leave? In that sense, while I like the idea, I still wonder if bi-vocationalism causes one to be more prone to leaving the ministry whole sale.
I agree.. its “the way of the future.. the way of the future..” (The Aviator fixation here).. it is also the way I have lived for 25 years. One of the huge challenges is in multi-leader situations which hopefully means virtually every ecclesial context.. where some are uni-vocational (full time staff) and some are bi-vocational. The challenge is to work at visible equality so that we escape the clergy/professional distinctions in practice. The tendency in church culture is to see the “full time” people as the ones with real authority.
The pragmatic result of bi-vocational church leaders is the life of a church plant. I wouldn’t be surprised to see 90% of church plants NOT fail if 90% of the investment into such a plant wasn’t devoted exclusively to salary.
Chuck,
I think there are incredible dangers to the bi-vocational bi ministerial calling. Especially if the church eccelsiology doesn’t change as you describe. Bi-vocational ministry changes by sheer force the expectations of what church is. Good to hear from you! and I am sure there is much ministry to be be carried forth within the existing structures of professional ministry/Christendom. It’s an issue of context to a degree as well as missional ecclessiology.
Blessings
Joe,
.. nonetheless, I think it is certainly a viable way to begin church planting. I still encourage some extension into everyday workplace for all the reasons above.
I think seminaries are beginning to see the writing on the wall.
Ben, talk to JR, we had a discussion on fund raising. I said I thought it is a practice still viable but dependent upon Christendom. This recieved some sneers
Geoff,
BAM! This is definitely something to look at person by person. Thanks for the words of wisdom.
Len,
I’m guessing the situation you’re conceiving of (f/t leaders exerting more influence than b/v ones) is a particular rather than general trend. In my ecclesiastical tradition (Baptist), the deacons and board of elders (or often the congregation) hold ultimate sway, and the paid “senior pastor” is a powerless pawn in their hands, contracted for the sake of preaching, marrying, and burying.
Ro,
All the church planting consultants (denom. and network directors, etc.) I’ve listened to insist that the #1 factor to the success or failure of a church plant is the leader(ship), so I can understand why salary would be such a big chunk of the funding (at least at the beginning). Of course, this is predicated on a “launch large” model, which still predominates in the overall landscape of church planting. I’ve tried planting bivocationally on a ‘missional community’ model (f/t secular, zero ministry pay), and flat out didn’t have time to do more than prepare a weekly Bible study (less than 10 hours), discuss strategic and pastoral issues with the other leaders, nurture a few relationships, and get involved in the community. That may sound like a lot, but we still felt like we were spinning our wheels after a year. Anyway, I’m still open to the possibility and may be looking this direction come January.
Blessings, all!
Ben, I am hoping to add some thoughts on support raising in a forthcoming post – stay tuned!
Thanks David and JR. The more I look into it, the more I think I may end up becoming “multi-vocational” with resource coming from more thankust two streams.
Hi, Dave. Your name was mentioned in prayer meeting Wednesday night.
Picking up on some of Chuck’s remarks–for years I have been interested in learning a trade. Perhaps there was a yearning for bi-vocational ministry, thinking that might heal the passivity of heart you mentioned. Then, 440 days ago I read in E.M. Bounds’ Purpose in Prayer: “Prayer is a trade to be learned. It is a life trade.” Practicing prayer as a trade to be learned has provided the hope that, just maybe, the local church may get beyond man’s management into God’s transformation.
One real benefit to full time ministry if you’re not just running programs in a typical suburban neighbourhood is the opportunity it (full-time/fully paid vocational work) provides to have time to interact with the community – especially if one is working with marginalized or at risk populations. In these situations ministry is much more of a daily thing because many are only subsisting – living meal to meal and day to day. In these environments relationship really is king and the more time one has to interact the better. It is also beneficial with at risk populations to develop daily opportunities (certain types of programs – community meals, drop-ins, etc.) that allow people to connect and participate with you and others in meaningful ways.
As someone leading a house church and being paid full time, I find that I must consciously look for ways to minister in the community because the congregation does not need me full time. Being full time allows me to connect with others in the community and to participate in city wide events. However, I am actively looking for ways to be bivocational and would take a full time job doing something else so as to encourage greater involvement by the entire congregation.
Michael, important point. The young man who pastors our street church could not possibly do what he does without funding from a large church that frees up time. And that is with two other paid outreach workers and with heavy involvement from another 15 people at the core.
I started my current plant as bi-vocational, and it was the best decision we could have made. It allowed me to be out among the community, and I quickly made relationships I wouldn’t have otherwise.
We’re preparing to train up an apprentice in the same vein. What’s great is that this is a family who came to faith through our church, took on leadership, and has grown in the past 3 years. They have “real” jobs, and will be able to use those skills when they are sent out.
I guess what I’m saying is that maybe we need to expand where we are looking for future planters – in the marketplaces as much as in the seminaries.
Good thoughts, Dave!
The prosperity of man is money but the prosperity of God is learning His wisdom.
Jesus rejoiced in His spirit and said,”I thank you Father of Heaven and Earth that You have hid these things from the wise and prudent. Revealed them unto babes even so Father for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things are delivered to Me of My Father and no one knows who the Son is but the Father and who the Father is but the Son and to whom the Son reveals.”And He turned unto the disciples and said privately,”Blessed the eyes which see the things that you see for I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which you see and have not seen and to hear those things which you hear and have not heard.”
Luke10
Great challenge, David. I am still wrestling with how this works in a context like ours (inner city), when the degree and ratio of deeply wounded people leaves a serious leadership vacuum. Any thoughts?
Peace,
Jamie
A couple of obvious points I learned the hard way. Mu-Vo is better when the job puts you in contact with your community. Mu-Vo alone is very hard.
The more involved in a church plant, the better. Alone (1) < pastoral team (3) < core group (12) < critical mass (30-40) < small community (50+). Churches plant churches. And this message isn’t only for seminary-trained church planters… also (mostly) for missional Christians without that type of training. Seminary is dependent on Christendom.
Jamie,
As I think has been well-emphasized in several of the comments, this issue of mu-bi leadership is contextual, to the context and the persons in leadership. I know for a fact that many Christendom contexts, well established churches steeped in the habits of modernity/Christendom, simply cannot make this move. It will not work.
OTOH … I want to urge discernment in prayer and Scripture and community to see what God is calling us to …
In your own situation, I could easily see how an outside funded full time missionary might be called for. Yet I also want to stress, that where the peoples are most needy, one must give up the temptation that meeting those needs somehow falls upon the full-time clergy/missionary. The work of God’s righetouessness/reconciliation/restoration can only happen within a relational, social sphere of God’s Lordship in Christ (the community of the church/His coming Kingdom). So my concern for you is that you might actualy be tempted to think an individual (apart from leading and nurturing an alive community) can minister to the broken, lost and needy … but then again, I’m sure you’re on to this most nasty of pratfalls… we’ve e-mailed alot over the years.
DF
Dave,
If someone already has a satisfying career in the “secular” world but is interested in the idea of bivocational ministry, how would this happen? Would this person need to complete a seminary degree in order to move in this direction? I have a feeling you might mention something like “College of Preachers.” (BTW-I’m not volunteering yet…just gathering info.)
Thanks,
Jeff
Thanks David, that is a good reminder. I have been trying very hard to nurture our community into one where pastoral gifting is one among equals, with the responsibility to care for the community being shared as a whole. I get lots of nods, but few “takers”. Keeping at it!
Peace,
Jamie
In our network of church plantings (missionalive.org) there seem to be a couple ways teams are functioning. In the first, where a family or team of families move into a neighborhood/community and begin connecting with neighbors, bi-vo seems not only reasonable but advisable.
In the second, where a family or team of families consider a region (like ours in the south Fort Worth area) and attempt to connect with folks in various places, bi-vo may still be needed, but is much more difficult. Our goal in this context is similar to the Pauline model only in a smaller area. We seek out “persons of peace” and invest in them as potential church planters in their neighborhood. We share life with them as they in turn share life with their neighbors. We model, equip, watch and leave (sorta).
I am not paid by anyone in this community. Most of my support comes from fundraising (Matt, I too struggle with asking people for money). To augment this support, I’ve been substitute teaching, will be a certified life/ministry coach in a few weeks and occasionally lead retreats for established churches to earn extra money.
I have made significant connections in several different communities – great things are happening in each of those contexts, and sadly since I’ve started subbing 4 days a week those things are suffering. But the reality is that it is difficult to find support for missional life from Christendom sources.
Personally I don’t see how we’re going to avoid the bi-vocational issue in the long run. But if that is the case, if we’re going to have a new kind of minister, we need to be more intentional about a new kind of seminary. It’s hard to tell a young person that they need to go and get a seminary degree with perhaps nearly 100k in loans and then go get a job that they could have gotten several years ago with perhaps a high school diploma or 2 year tech school certificate…and no student loans.
On the other hand, there are those who’ve suggested we go the total populist route and get rid of training all together. I grew up in a church (and a denomination) that felt this was an acceptable option and it was disastrous. We need preparation for ministry, we just need to think theologically about the implications of our educational model – just as we’re doing with our ecclesial model right now.
jamie,
On the “nods, but no takers” … I thoroughly catch the frustration and pain) in that statement. I’ll pray for you as you keep “fishing” for the two or three leaders that will come alongside. In the meantime only labor for the day with what God has already given (and not try to do more than that).
Blessings
Two potential losses as we move to Mu-Bi ministry:
-There are some specific ways in which the church provides a cultural good that does not exist elsewhere. If Mu-Bi models trim church payrolls, do they also cut the ability of churches to sponsor music and art and to offer counseling? That is, if we move the activity of the people of God into the neighborhood and out of the sanctuary, don’t we lose some of those activities that are specifically cultivated in the building?
-American evangelicalism has a cultural history of anti-intellectualism, particularly in regard to the sciences. We might understandably demand less rigorous academic credentials for Mu-Bi pastors (who, after all, need schooling in some other trade or profession). How does this further contribute to “dumbed down” theology, spiritual formation, and engagement with our surrounding culture?
Bret, YES:
“if we’re going to have a new kind of minister, we need to be more intentional about a new kind of seminary. . . . We need preparation for ministry, we just need to think theologically about the implications of our educational model – just as we’re doing with our ecclesial model right now.”
We cannot think missionally in a robust way without addressing this issue (or conglomeration of issues).
Nate, AMEN on the anti-intellectualism insight. The whole idea of putting pastoral leadership into the hands of someone not adequately prepared to handle the Word of God and defend the Christian faith is popular in the missional conversations (esp. those in the vein of Cole), following from the “Populist” traditions that seem to form a significant stream in the conversation. We have to find a balance between the “Christendom” pastoral education model and the models that assume all that’s required to be a pastor is people skills, moral character, an English Bible, and perhaps some engagement with popular level ministry literature. If the church is to prevail (and we know, of course, that it will), it is going to do so only through the faithful preservation and dissemination (alongside incarnation!) of the Scriptures and the orthodox faith. Any missiology which discounts this is not a biblical missiology.
I’m part of a group of four families that have relocated over the course of the past 18 months and are now laying the foundation for a new missional community. Our team includes three bi-vocational pastors (although none of us are actually paid by the church).
In addition to the advantages that you mentioned, David, we’ve noticed several other advantages to having a plurality of bi-vocational pastors. To name a few:
1. Pastoral ministry is shared so that it is not dependent on the charismatic gifts of a single leader. No superstars required.
2. As a team, we have greater flexibility, depth, and strength than any of us would have independently.
3. It is a financially responsible way of planting a church without investing huge sums of money or going into debt.
4. It reduces the pressure to grow a crowd quickly so that we can go “self-supporting.” We’ve paid our own bills from the beginning.
5. It requires us to equip and empower others to do ministry rather than doing it all ourselves.
6. It reminds us that planting a church is not dependent on flurries of energy and activity on our part, but on the movement of God.
We’ve also noticed that people struggle to comprehend it when we tell them there is no senior pastor, only a team of pastors. So that’s fun.
As far as anti-intellectualism, we have two seminary grads and a Bible College grad among us, so I don’t think we’re cheating anyone in that department. We were drawn to the opportunity to work together as a highly committed team to develop a missional community.
We believe there will be others who will do the same, so we look forward to launching other missional communities in the future.
[...] Are we getting to the point when we need to choose bi-vocational ministry over large church ministry? [...]
[...] who live bi-vocationally so as to spend time and money in the neighborhood context (see this post here). I recommend these small urban/suburban dying congregations as places for “new” ministry [...]
Wonderful post. Sorry I am late to the conversation, but I was struck by something you wrote:
The gathering on Sunday instead must become an organic, living, liturgically driven encounter with the living God and His mission sending us outward. It must become something done out of the regular rythms of our lives. This kind of gathering takes less work because the ’slick’ factor is off the table.
I think this point needs to be reinforced, particularly in folks coming at this question from a mega-church/program church environment: a liturgically-driven encounter with the living God that takes the “slick” factor off the table. Part of the objection to bi-vo pastors seems to be that they cannot possibly do all that gets done in a “normal” (esp program-level) church. My reply is that is a good thing – not every church has to look like Saddleback et al. Why not just use a historically validated liturgy like Morning Prayer from the Book of Common Prayer, use a lectionary to guide your readings, limit your sermon to a homily, and just use the time together to worship God rather than wrestle with “program envy”?
[...] one dominant preacher. Leadership will be diffused. This pushes leadership outward. Read about it here. There will be a high percentage of people involved in various forms of [...]
I am way late here, but I love this blog, so I will weigh in on this one. I am currently a bi-vocational church planter. I must say, I hear a lot of talk about bi-vocational ministry from folks are not bi-vocational themselves. This is also true about people who critique the institution, but somewhere in their web of relationships, they are firmly embedded and benefiting from Christian institutions in a financial way. I bring this up because there needs to be some consistency here with folks who are calling for this method but are not living it out themselves. The whole notion that you go to seminary for 6 years, or even 2 or 4 years, amass huge debt, and then go out and work for minimum wage is ridiculous and those who are vying for this set up should take serious thought about what they are asling people to fall into in the name of being missional. Notice it is the folks in the seminaries that want you to come to them, get in debt, and leave with flaming glory of trying out some method that no one else in that institution is living out themselves. I hardly think professors in the seminary who are pastors qualify as bi-vocational either. Lets be real here. It is not apples and apples. Working at McDonalds and working in a seminary are two different worlds. Why not skip seminary, get a 4 year degree, enter the work force and church plant that way. Why go the route of seminary, get in debt, and then position yourself for financial hardship?
I am being a bit harsh and over generalizing here, but I think we have to look at this idea for what it is. Glamorizing the bi-vocational is not the key. I think, as had been stated by David I think, contextualization is the key. Time and resources help mobilize the mission. If bi-vocational is where you find yourself, then live into. But dont seek it out as if it is a higher calling. There is a bit of masochism going on around this discussion I think. As someone who has been bi-vocational for 4 years now, it is no walk in the park.
If anyone with a full time job who sees themselves as missionaries, they are “bi-vocational” are they not? The kink in all of this I think is the seminary peice. Lets talk about wther it is necessary for seminary, then we will be getting to the bottom of this I think.
Hi,
I am a pastor of 30 years old and got married about 3 years ago. I helped plant a church about 4 years ago as a bi-vocational minister…being single it wasn’t so bad but being married with a child now and a home it is extremely difficult.
As a single having a 40 hr job + putting another 20-30 hrs into the church isn’t bad. It’s nearly impossible to do that as a married father also with a house to maintain. It strains the marriage and family life as well…
last year i got some funding to go full time and it has made a major difference in my personal life. It’s not so much the sunday planning that takes long – as that responsibility has already been split up between people – it’s the discipleship of new believer and time spent with people answering questions, helping them, etc…
i have learned that while i totally believe in getting everyone invovled – its a process to get new believers to that point of responsibility – and there is always someone somewhere that needs to take ultimate responsibility for things…
Can both be done – yes – but there is a cost to the personal life….something i’m not willing to sacrifice. I would rather not do ministry but have a good family life than have a bad family life and do ministry.
identified this kind of on google, many thanks producing this particular, that just what We trying to!
I serve as the Director of Missions for Southern Baptists in Vermont. After 17 years of working with small churches served primarily by bivocational pastors, I have written a new book entitled Developing Leadership Teams in Bivocational Churches. It is published by Crossbooks, a division of Lifeway Christian Resources. I would love for you to share this resource with bivocational pastors in your association. There are so few current resources that have been developed just for them.
You can read all about the book and purchase as copy at:
http://www.crossbooks.com/BookStore/BookStoreBook...
or you can go to http://www.terrydorsett.com and click on the picture of the book.
Hope you find it helpful.
Dr. Terry W. Dorsett, Director
Green Mountain Baptist Association
30 Jones Brothers Way, Suite B
Barre VT 05641 http://www.vermontbaptist.org