# The Rise of Bi-Vocationalism



## Bill The Baptist

Being in seminary, I am acutely aware of many of the newest trends in ministry. As church receipts continue to decline, many churches no longer employ a full-time pastor, but only a part-time pastor. Many churches in this area even have seminary professors as part-time pastors. Is this a healthy trend? I am of the believe that pastoring a church is a full-time job. A good expository sermon requires at least 20-30 hours of prep time. Beyond teaching and preaching, a pastor should also be a shepherd to his flock. How is this possible when the pastor has a full-time job outside of his church? I personally believe that if a church cannot afford to pay one pastor a living wage then they have ceased to be a church and should disband. Am I wrong in this belief?


----------



## Weston Stoler

I agree with you. Although you have to consider new churches that are started by a pastor and a few faithful men. It might be required that the pastor take on a part time or even full time job to support himself and his family until the churches tithes and offerings are enough to support him and the costs of having a church.


----------



## VictorBravo

Is it really a rising trend or is it a recent and temporary setback? And what about cases of new church plants in an area without any decent witness?

Paul was often a tent maker pastor. Some men are called to do similarly. Shall we make a rule to prevent this in all cases?


----------



## bug

I wonder what you are basing this idea that pastors not having a second job is the norm, after all Paul chose to make support himself in Corinth dispite the fact the church could afford to support him. 

Going back only a few hundred years it is amazing how many pastors had to work a second job to support themselves and their families, I think of men like William Carey working as a school teacher while pastoring. Then we look across to places like Africa where many pastors have their homefarm to manage as well so that there is food on tha table, one of them that I know well virtually supports everyone in the church with his produce and not the other way round. 

I wonder if we think pastoral life is too easy, 20-30 preparing a sermon, well I preach between 3 and 5 of those a week, I simply do not have that luxury of time to spend preparing each one, 15 hours is usually the max, and my wife has to work part time as well so that we can keep the children fed and clothed. Personnally I believe you have it the wrong way around, the blip, has been the way so many western churches have been blessed in being able to support a minister and his family fully - and I for one am not convinced the church is better off for the comfortable position we have enjoyed for so long in the west.


----------



## Pergamum

I sometimes have churches supporting me as a missionary and not supporting their own pastors in such a way as to allow them to focus full time on the congregation that is supporting me. It gives me a very uneasy feeling in those cases.


----------



## KMK

Bill The Baptist said:


> Being in seminary, I am acutely aware of many of the newest trends in ministry. As church receipts continue to decline, many churches no longer employ a full-time pastor, but only a part-time pastor. Many churches in this area even have seminary professors as part-time pastors. Is this a healthy trend? I am of the believe that pastoring a church is a full-time job. A good expository sermon requires at least 20-30 hours of prep time. Beyond teaching and preaching, a pastor should also be a shepherd to his flock. How is this possible when the pastor has a full-time job outside of his church? I personally believe that if a church cannot afford to pay one pastor a living wage then they have ceased to be a church and should disband. Am I wrong in this belief?



Speaking as a bivo-pastor, I am not sure it is on the rise. Is there data that says it is? If it is a 'trend', no it is not healthy. Sermon prep does take a good chunk of time but what is required above and beyond the sermon depends on the size of the congregation. Whether or not it takes exactly 40 hours per week depends on the situation. It is possible to have a full-time job and a part-time pastorship if it is a small congregation and you are willing to work 60+ hours per week.


----------



## Rich Koster

I think population density/ congregation size will dictate this. Several bi-vocational elders can handle a small congregation with no difficulty. If you have a large congregation, then there is enough giving to support a presiding elder (pastor) for full time service.


----------



## pianoman

VictorBravo said:


> Is it really a rising trend or is it a recent and temporary setback? And what about cases of new church plants in an area without any decent witness?
> 
> Paul was often a tent maker pastor. Some men are called to do similarly. Shall we make a rule to prevent this in all cases?



Same thought came to my head. I used to have your view, but I have found that especially small churches like mine a Pastor having a part-time job is good to keep the church out of a strain, and also, the church can use that money for missions, Sunday School, etc. I think as long as it doesn't interfere with Pastoral responsibilities it is all right.


----------



## VictorBravo

pianoman said:


> I used to have your view,



Sounds like we have the same view. 

To be clear, there are many circumstances that might require a pastor to be bi-vocational. If we demanded that a little flock disband in those situations, many faithful churches would disappear with no local alternative.


----------



## reformedminister

I have formerly been a full-time pastor but am currently bi-vocational. My first pastorate was also bi-vocational. I would say the ideal situation for most ministers and churches is for the pastor to be full-time. However, if this was the only standard for pastoral ministry then many churches would go without pastors and many pastors go without food and a decent place to live. The money simply isn't there for full pastoral support in many cases. Sometimes one simply has to do what they have to do.


----------



## KMK

To be honest, much of what a bivo-pastor does during the week are things he would do anyway: study hard, pray hard, lead Bible study, be involved with church leadership, visit the sick and needy etc. It may be a 70 hour work week, but it is a labor of love.

1 Cor 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I understand that many pastors in history have had other jobs, and I do realize that Paul was a tentmaker-although he was more of a missionary than a pastor. I also understand that some churches simply can't afford a full-time pastor, however I really don't want to address any of those situations. What I am more concerned with are churches who could afford to pay a pastor a full time wage, but don't due to a choice to focus on other things or because the members are simply not faithful in giving. It seems to me that many churches are purposely going down this route and my question is, how does this effect how a pastor goes about teaching and shepherding his flock?


----------



## reformedminister

Now this is a completely different subject matter. I think that churches that could afford a full-time minister who choose to spend the money in other areas is not wise, especially if the minister is struggling to do his job and would prefer to be full-time. In this case, if he get's another call that is full-time, he might want to consider it. Most of the time a church has more potential to grow if they have a full-time minister. I pastored a church several years ago that was being funded enough money by the denomination to have me full-time but the church chose to put an associate, praise band leader, and youth minister, all on paid staff. I was payed half the allowance, and the rest was split between the others. Needless to say, I didn't stay long and it dissolved within a few years afterwards.


----------



## jwithnell

> What I am more concerned with are churches who could afford to pay a pastor a full time wage, but don't due to a choice to focus on other things or because the members are simply not faithful in giving.


I have seen this situation and my husband and I fought like crazy to change it. Considering the level of education and expectations for a pastor, he should be paid full time, and paid well. I can understand when a congregation is small and/or rural where other accommodations have to be made, but as a general way of doing business? What a terrible thing to say to Christ's under-shepherd!


----------



## Herald

VictorBravo said:


> pianoman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to have your view,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we have the same view.
> 
> To be clear, there are many circumstances that might require a pastor to be bi-vocational. If we demanded that a little flock disband in those situations, many faithful churches would disappear with no local alternative.
Click to expand...


As the only Reformed Baptist church in the Baltimore-Washington corridor we would have to shut the doors and remove our witness in the community, according to the OP. You make due with what resources the Lord entrusts to you.


----------



## Edward

I'll throw in a bit of PCAism to what has been a largely Baptist discussion:

PCA BCO 20-6 deals with the form of the call. Included therein: 
"That you may be free from worldly cares and avocations, we
hereby promise and oblige ourselves to pay you the sum of $___________ a
year in regular monthly (or quarterly) payments, and other benefits, such as,
manse, retirement, insurance, vacations, moving expenses etc., during the
time of your being and continuing the regular pastor of this church."


----------



## VictorBravo

Edward said:


> I'll throw in a bit of PCAism to what has been a largely Baptist discussion:
> 
> PCA BCO 20-6 deals with the form of the call. Included therein:
> "That you may be free from worldly cares and avocations, we
> hereby promise and oblige ourselves to pay you the sum of $___________ a
> year in regular monthly (or quarterly) payments, and other benefits, such as,
> manse, retirement, insurance, vacations, moving expenses etc., during the
> time of your being and continuing the regular pastor of this church."



Thanks Edward. I was aware that most Presbyterians handled this situation in a more orderly fashion. 

But it raises another question. With regard to a church plant, does a sending church cover the tab as it becomes established, or is that a Presbytery duty? 

Also, is there a provision for churches that once were self-sustaining that later fall onto hard times?

I'll note that our church (and Bill's too) are associated with some other 1689 Confession churches. Often in this association there is help from established churches to cover the cost for new church plants. It's not a rule, but up to the particular body. But I don't think we'd ever see an actual pledge form like that.


----------



## Grimmson

Bill The Baptist said:


> I understand that many pastors in history have had other jobs, and I do realize that Paul was a tentmaker-although he was more of a missionary than a pastor. I also understand that some churches simply can't afford a full-time pastor, however I really don't want to address any of those situations. What I am more concerned with are churches who could afford to pay a pastor a full time wage, but don't due to a choice to focus on other things or because the members are simply not faithful in giving.



Such a situation is extremely rare in my experience. Most churches I have been involved in could barely afford a salary to their pastors, making church budgets more difficult. How much of a push is there towards bi-vocational pastors? By the way as a churchman, I have never been paid (unless you count a nice lunch) for a sermon that I have preached, for visitation of the sick and homebound, for teaching church history, or any other observed need in a church that I can assist in. I do not want to be accused of financial gain from the church when I know of churches that are extremely struggling in their finances; instead any money that is available to have that go towards resources and supplies for the church to carry out the mission in the discipleship of God’s people. 




Bill The Baptist said:


> It seems to me that many churches are purposely going down this route and my question is, how does this effect how a pastor goes about teaching and shepherding his flock?



I like to know how many churches that actually applies to (both in actuality and overall percentage). I know such is not the case in the SDSBA, where we are having retired pastors filling some pulpits so that a couple churches will not close their doors. One retired pastor just died a couple months ago that was doing just that.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> I'll throw in a bit of PCAism to what has been a largely Baptist discussion:
> 
> PCA BCO 20-6 deals with the form of the call. Included therein:
> "That you may be free from worldly cares and avocations, we
> hereby promise and oblige ourselves to pay you the sum of $___________ a
> year in regular monthly (or quarterly) payments, and other benefits, such as,
> manse, retirement, insurance, vacations, moving expenses etc., during the
> time of your being and continuing the regular pastor of this church."




Awesome!

Yes, I wish churches in the US formed fellowships and helped fund other pastors as well as missionaries so that none within the fellowship lacked. It seems so much better for those 70 or 80 + hours of labor to be towards souls than towards a secular employer, especially the gifted men on the PB here. 

*Here is my pledge: If I ever become rich, I will do a search on the PB here of any bi-vocational pastor and fully fund you! *

So, now I just have to work on that getting rich part now!


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I know that probably all of the men on this forum, myself included, would gladly serve the church for free. Unfortunately, we all have families to feed. The days when people had farms to feed their family are long gone. I don't think any of us went into the ministry for the money and none of us expects to get rich. I guess the issue that I have is that many churches today seem to be ok with having a pastor who is not really dedicated to the church, and that is what you will get when your pastor is working 40,50,or 60 hours a week outside the church. I guess I just see ministry as a full-time job, and not a part-time hobby.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

As a Presbyterian I reject that a congregation being unable to afford a minister should cause the congregation to disband. Rather, that congregation has a right to some support from Presbytery. 

In the Free Church for Example, a congregation is entitled to pay £x to a minister. If a congregation wants to pay a greater amount - say Y. Then the congregation must contribute to presbytery an amount equal to the difference between Y and X. So £15,000 might be the stipend just now. If a congregation decides to pay £18,000 - it must also make an additional £3,000 contribution to Presbytery. So that poorer congregations can be supported.

Congregations should give generously what they can afford in addition to their tithe. If they give a tithe, or are prepared to tithe, then the Presbytery ought to support them. We have an obligation to support one another and to do as we can for the Lord.

Moreover, as the 4th commandment is very clear - it is profitable to provide many convenient congregations to avoid public transport &c as well as fatigue on the Lord's Day. The support of small congregations can be considered one of the best things we can do for the Lord.

So, support them! Pray for them. And be prepared to help.


----------



## Edward

VictorBravo said:


> But it raises another question. With regard to a church plant, does a sending church cover the tab as it becomes established, or is that a Presbytery duty?



It depends. The historical model, and one still in use today, is for the sending church to assume responsibility for the costs until the mission becomes self-supporting. More common today is a model where a network of churches undertakes to fund the church plant. In those cases, there are generally more well defined expectations that the plant will particularize and become self supporting within a set period of time - commonly 3 years, as I recall. While the Presbytery could fund the plant, as a practical matter, most do not have funds available for that purpose in the PCA - they tend to be very lean operations. (Note that the Presbytery must approve the work, but the funding comes from elsewhere). And, on rare occasion, a group may get together to form a church on its own. The congregation of which I am a member did that - we organized as a technically self supporting body, and then joined the denomination (although the presbytery did give advice and non-financial support for the project - the contemplation was always that we would join the PCA). Our congregation does most of its planting in connection with a network, but we have planted at least 3 churches using the mother/daughter method. 




VictorBravo said:


> Also, is there a provision for churches that once were self-sustaining that later fall onto hard times?



That's a more difficult problem, and one of which I have much less knowledge. Congregations can revert to mission status; I'm familiar with cases where congregations have shared a call with another church where density made that doable (one friend had 3 tiny churches that he served at one time), a retired man might provide supply for a period of time, but churches with no prospect of viability will be allowed to fail.


----------



## jwithnell

Church planting is generally handled by presbytery. The new congregation generally has a suggested time frame for becoming self-sustaining. (I say suggested because I doubt a healthy congregation would be disbanded if it was apparently growing but hadn't gained full traction yet.) If an established church falls on hard times, help is given, including pulpit-supply. The decision to dissolve a congregation generally is based in part on what opportunity it would have to reestablish itself.



> wish churches in the US formed fellowships and helped fund other pastors as well as missionaries so that none within the fellowship lacked.


 We do. It's called denominations. I think many with a congregational interpretation of church gov't focus on the authority that is in place in presbyterian forms of gov't. It is this joint care for the regional church that is the primary concern.


----------



## Grimmson

Bill The Baptist said:


> I guess I just see ministry as a full-time job, and not a part-time hobby.


Ministry should be seen as a calling, not as a job or a hobby. Once ministry is seen as a job primarly and not a calling primarly then the minister will use a church for their own vocational purpose; not willing to stay at a church for life, but instead use smaller churches as steping stones to go to become a pastor to larger churches. Such a habit should be condemed, for ministry is not about money or furthering one's own purpose/fame, but instead it is about serving the needs of the people of God to the glory of God.


----------



## reformedminister

Grimmson said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I just see ministry as a full-time job, and not a part-time hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> Ministry should be seen as a calling, not as a job or a hobby. Once ministry is seen as a job primarly and not a calling primarly then the minister will use a church for their own vocational purpose; not willing to stay at a church for life, but instead use smaller churches as steping stones to go to become a pastor to larger churches. Such a habit should be condemed, for ministry is not about money or furthering one's own purpose/fame, but instead it is about serving the needs of the people of God to the glory of God.
Click to expand...


While I agree that ministry is a calling it is also a job. It is both Scriptural and Confessional for ministers to be supported. While I don't believe full-time ministry is the only standard, but the better one in most cases, it is ludicrous to hold to the opinion that ministers should not be supported at all. I did my share of "helps" before I became a minister and did not expect to be paid for it. However, after I committed my life to my calling and accumulated debt to pay for school, I did expect renumeration. The fact is my friend that the bills have to be paid! In my opinion being a minister is one of the greatest of jobs because if you are truly called to do it, you enjoy it and even though it is hard work you feel fulfilled. I agree with you that those who look at the small churches as merely stepping stones and only a job is wrong. However, there are some small churches out there who have no desire or vision to have a full-time pastor. In this case, perhaps one might be called for a season and then move on? Who are we to judge?


----------



## jwithnell

If I'm understanding David correctly, the concern is seeing the calling like young executives trying to climb the corporate ladder? Forget this congregation, I can be better known and make more money if I go to another? 

Many years ago I met a young pastor who was called to a place where there was a small group wanting to start a church. He made the observation that pastors always seem to be "called" to bigger, richer congregations. Thirty years later, that church is thriving and that same fella is still tending the flock.


----------



## Pergamum

jwithnell said:


> Church planting is generally handled by presbytery. The new congregation generally has a suggested time frame for becoming self-sustaining. (I say suggested because I doubt a healthy congregation would be disbanded if it was apparently growing but hadn't gained full traction yet.) If an established church falls on hard times, help is given, including pulpit-supply. The decision to dissolve a congregation generally is based in part on what opportunity it would have to reestablish itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wish churches in the US formed fellowships and helped fund other pastors as well as missionaries so that none within the fellowship lacked.
> 
> 
> 
> We do. It's called denominations. I think many with a congregational interpretation of church gov't focus on the authority that is in place in presbyterian forms of gov't. It is this joint care for the regional church that is the primary concern.
Click to expand...



I am speaking as a baptist that doesn't have those formal connectional ties that the OPC has. For us, a voluntary fund from churches that are part of the fellowship might take the place of denominational funding for new church plants.


----------



## bug

Bill The Baptist said:


> I guess I just see ministry as a full-time job, and not a part-time hobby.



Perhaps you should see it as a vocation. Regardless of the contracted hours pastoring is 24/7 care for the flock. You will be up with people in the middle of the night in Hospital as their relative dies, and you won't be able to lie in the next day because the sermon needs top done, but more relatives need to be comforted as well 

It's a dirty task in many ways, but then sheperding always has been.


----------



## jwithnell

Pergamum, I have often be very concerned for you because it seems like you have just been tossed into the missions field. You clearly love the lost and are willing to go to great lengths to reach them with the great hope of the gospel, and I believe you should be better supported. I love my congregational brethren, but believe this thread shows the weakness of that form of church government.


----------



## bug

jwithnell said:


> Pergamum, I have often be very concerned for you because it seems like you have just been tossed into the missions field. You clearly love the lost and are willing to go to great lengths to reach them with the great hope of the gospel, and I believe you should be better supported. I love my congregational brethren, but believe this thread shows the weakness of that form of church government.



One man's weakness is another man's strenght. Independency has it's benefits, for example a baptist pastor will never be tempted to toe the party line because his stipend/ house/ pension depends on it . Any system can have it's problems because it is administers by fallen human beings, the question is, though not for this thread, which is the most biblical?


----------



## KMK

jwithnell said:


> I love my congregational brethren, but believe this thread shows the weakness of that form of church government.





> 1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


----------



## Pergamum

jwithnell said:


> Pergamum, I have often be very concerned for you because it seems like you have just been tossed into the missions field. You clearly love the lost and are willing to go to great lengths to reach them with the great hope of the gospel, and I believe you should be better supported. I love my congregational brethren, but believe this thread shows the weakness of that form of church government.



Actually, I am over-supported right now. I have a monthly "budget" to try to reach and my mostly small and often country churches have always sent in MORE than my monthly budget recommends every single month.

Remember that the Modern missions movement was launched by a congregational particular baptist just like me!


----------



## Pergamum

jwithnell said:


> Pergamum, I have often be very concerned for you because it seems like you have just been tossed into the missions field. You clearly love the lost and are willing to go to great lengths to reach them with the great hope of the gospel, and I believe you should be better supported. I love my congregational brethren, but believe this thread shows the weakness of that form of church government.



Also,

Thanks for your concern.

Many presbyterian friends have pitied us congregationalist missionaries who have to go around and raise support from 2 dozen churches or so to be fully supported, whereas some denominational structures fully pay the wage of the missionary. 

However, this allows me to broadly connect and the Lord has used that to call many others into missions as well and to bless many local churches with a renewed vision for missions.


----------



## ianthompson

I am one of those who was called to Pastor. I have a full time job that takes a great deal of my time, and the rest is given to reading, bible study prayer visiting and Preaching. 30 hours to preapre. I don't know about you but I find the Lord God gives enough to preach on understanding and words the Preacher is only the conduate, when you really ask Him to guide. We are not a large congregation with many unemployed, elderly etc so just having a building that is open to worship is a big step and a lot of hard work. 

In my part of the world, that postion is not uncommon. I certinly live in an area of closing churches or churches that , were they can share a minister and then of course there are the "others"...but that is probably a point for another thread.

I believe that if a man is called to Paster, lead a church, then the Lord God will supply him with the energy and will to do the necessary...and will supply a way of funding, even if it is going out to work, i think i have given some great oppertunities to witness and join with other Christians in work. I am hoing to try to start a lunch time prayer and bible study...(pray for that please) and it could be that being in work is part of the Ministry of any Pastor?


----------



## Pilgrim

There have always been a lot of bi-vocational Baptist pastors. Our own Ivan Schoen is one. I think Lawrence Underwood is as well. Bill and Ken have given their perspectives. I'm sure there are a number of other bi-vo men on the board who don't post as often. In fact, my guess is that the more serious a Calvinist a Baptist pastor is, the more likely he is to be bi-vocational. There are a myriad of reasons for that. But there are plenty of non-Calvinist bi-vo's too. 

I'd be surprised if there are more Baptist bi-vo pastors now compared to a few decades ago. As others have noted, your subsequent clarification really touches on a different subject than what appears to be the subject of the OP. If they are not giving, the people need to be taught to give, whether one believes that the 10% is obligatory or not. The leadership needs to find out why the giving is low, especially when it is clear some earn considerable sums.

I have known of at least one church that proclaimed "We don't believe in paying a pastor." Their previous pastors were engaged in high paying professions and didn't need the money. I don't know what that church is doing now. Maybe they have a doctor or lawyer, or some other successful professional, which is about what it would take. 

It appears that it's common for SBC seminary profs to pastor a church or at least function in a prominent teaching capacity. Some here in the New Orleans area will take up interim pastorates to maybe help fix some problem or as a "bridge" for a student who is getting out of seminary soon to take up the work. Some will help with planting a church. You see a good number of students taking up pastorates while in school, sometimes to move on a few years later. These are often smaller and more rural churches. 

That being said, I agree that it's a problem if a church is sort of deliberately settling for that kind of arrangement when they could do something else. I left such a church a couple of years ago. This was a very small church start. But they had several opportunities to get sound pastors in but didn't take the initiative. They would have to have been bi-vo but they didn't make the commitment that the pastor would have needed. While I was there, through some like-minded contacts I had, I became aware of a good number of Calvinistic Baptist pastors who would have been willing to have come in, be bi-vocational and serve for at least a year or so and help get the church off the ground. But to my knowledge they were never even contacted. Another problem was unqualified elders who neither led nor really taught, but that's another discussion going on in another thread now. I didn't have anything personal against them. I'm certainly no church growth guy, but at that point I didn't want to effectively go into a hidey hole in a church that was practically invisible in the community when there were others in the community whose belief and practice wasn't that far removed from theirs.


----------

