My internet buddy John Starke (I don’t really know John except through internet exchanges of various kind) wrote a post a couple weeks ago (see it HERE) cautioning against bi-vocational pastoring. It was a warning of sorts. Don’t go into bi-vocational ministry or any ministry for that matter without counting the costs. I’m with John on that. But I would add a different caveat. Don’t go into bi-vocational pastoring without a new imaginary for what ministry and church life can be. Don’t enter bi-vocational ministry thinking this is the same old idea of professional ministry just sliced and diced a bit differently. Bi-vocational ministry requires a whole new imaginary.
Such an imaginary might look like this:
Start by Getting a Full-Time Job First-Then Look to Minister
John says “there’s a significant difference between working two ministry jobs and having two different jobs in two different industries. The challenges are different and more severe for those coming home from a 9–5 job to do ministry.” I’m with John here as well. But for the record, when I speak of bi-vocational pastoring I am talking specifically and only about someone who gets the 9-5 regular job. For me this is the starting point for bi-vocational pastoring. Start by getting a job and/or a job skill that you can use to support yourself entirely. Get situated. Then cultivate ministry on the ground. I was that person. John says that the momentum for bi-vocationalism “is coming from those who are not bi-vocational or those who are working two ministry jobs.” For the record, I worked in financial services for 18 years. It is from this place that I planted a church. It is true that I am now a professor of theology. But I became a full time (I was adjunct prior) only 9 years ago and I am an old man in my fifties. When John talks about the difference between working 2 jobs and doing ministry from 9-5, I think this is such an important distinction. I highly recommend not doing the former – getting a job as an add-on to your ministry career. This is murder. And anybody who does this, I suggest, ends up not getting it. They risk destroying their lives and the people they are ministering to (as opposed to with). I recommend you start by getting a job, situate yourself in a community, develop a rhythm of life and then begin leading ministry.
Bi-Vocational Pastoring Abolishes the Single Lead Pastor at The Top
John says “When an individual takes on the role and office of pastor, he’s called to do many things: preach (2 Tim. 4:2), teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 2:1); the work of evangelism (2 Tim 4:5); hospitality (Titus 1:8; 2 Tim. 3:2); teaching, discipleship, counseling (2 Tim 2:2); leadership training (Titus 1:5; 2:4; Eph 4:2); and pray (Acts 6:1–6).” John gives credence to those who advocate a plurality of leaders to do all of this work, but in the end he says “that doesn’t keep a pastor from being responsible to do all these things.” For John, the pastor must be an exemplar in all these tasks. It’s here where everyone who knows John and myself must realize we are now talking about two different things when we use the words “bi-vocational pastor.” I really do believe the church is called to into a multiplicity of leadership if it wishes to engage mission. There can be no hierarchy in the church on mission because hierarchy centralizes authority and power. For a church to engage Mission we must do the opposite: disperse authority and power.
In a multiplicity of leaders, there are a group of leaders each one, leading out of their giftedness, recognized and charged to then empower the rest of the congregation into their giftedness. Hierarchy, for me, is a sign that we have entered the management of ministries and services to Christians. This smacks of Christendom (an understanding of church and culture that negates mission). Instead, in Mission, we organize the church to live empowered lives of ministry in mission among non-Christians. There will still be ministry going on among Christians and to Christians, but the dynamic and arrangement will look differently. To reiterate again, it takes a different imaginary. I urge the reader at this point to Google me, JR Woodward, Alan Hirsch, polycentric leadership, five-fold gifting etc. etc.
It is important to notice that John starts with the Pastoral Epistles to derive his architecture if leadership. I start with Romans 12, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4 and the gifting passages. I suggest we interpret all the offices referred to in the Pastoral Epistles in light of the earlier Pauline texts on the gifts. In the 50’s, German protestant (centered around post Bultmannian – Ernst Kasemann) New Testament scholars accused the pastoral epistles of Early Catholicism. They said that the pastoral epistles were post Pauline and showed signs of losing the gifted/charismatic nature of the church for a more institutionalized hierarchy. I disagree. I think you can see signs of the spiritual gifts as the driver that leads to ordination and office in the pastorals. I also think we should be careful reading hierarchy into the pastorals. I think John Starke reads the pastorals first and then the charismatic passages second. I do the reverse. When you read the charismatic passages as hermeneutically prior to the Pastorals, you end up seeing the organization as facilitating the gifts leading to a multiple pastorates. When you do the reverse, you end up seeing gifts ordered (and confined) by the institutionally installed offices. To be bi-vocational in the way I have described, you need a hermeneutic driven by the charismatic gifts. That’s a different imaginary. Personal confession: I once wrote a whole New Testament Masters Thesis on this.
Not Two Jobs, but One Life
John says bi-vocationalism “wasn’t sustainable.” John says, “My family took a hit.” I just want to say that I hear this a lot. My response is that … again …we need to reimagine ministry. For many Americans, we see family time as this isolated time just to ourselves separated away from the rest of life and ministry. Although I agree we need some time like this, I believe this idea of the nuclear family is dangerous to ministry anyway you do it. The idea that in our family we somehow have a therapeutic space that needs to be protected is peculiarly American and if dwelt in too much, is its own recipe for disaster regardless of whether you are in ministry or not. Instead, take those times when they come, recognize how much alone time is appropriate, and see everything else (like dinners on a Friday night with friends) not as something I do out of my pastoral leadership duties, but as something so life giving I would do it any way, even if I wasn’t a leader. I’m not saying ministry isn’t hard. It can be very hard. Life is hard. Most sanctification is hard. But when we learn to operate out of our giftings, and the posture of tending to the presence of Christ (as opposed to I need to make something happen), ministry can be life giving even when it is hard. And even when dying to the flesh becomes more prominent in ministerial life, it too can be not only sanctifying but life giving. The way I have termed this is “bi-vocational ministry is not two jobs, it is one life.”
In short, I think the differences between myself and John are reflective of ministry in Christendom and ministry in Mission. I think both forms of ministry are important (even though I admit I focus on the latter). I also applaud those who support themselves via other means (like raise money) and do Mission. I suggest there are many means to plant a church and do mission. But in the end, I agree with John!: under his terms, bi-vocationalism is unsustainable. But as a post-Christendom imaginary, used to implant yo
urself among others in a neighborhood, to engage neighborhoods and shape a church contextually, bi-vocationalism is the way of mission. Perhaps I just need to change the name, call it something else, so that people like John and I no longer talk past each other. Cheers John, I love that you’re continuing this discussion and dialogue!!
What do you think? Change the name from bi-vocational ministry? What about “Che Guevara revolutionary”? We talk about his stuff on our Theology On Mission podcast HERE. Blessings to everyone engaging the world for Christ and His Kingdom in both modes of ministry!
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.