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.

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”?

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.

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.

-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?

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.