# Does LBC 26.10 Forbid Bi-Vocationalism?



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 15, 2013)

A question for those who adhere to the Second London Confession, does chapter 26, paragraph 10 forbid bi-vocationalism?

Paragraph 10. The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him;19 it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability,20 so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs;21 and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others;22 and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who has ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.23


----------



## JML (Dec 15, 2013)

No. It gives the ideal.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 15, 2013)

"_t is incumbent on the churches...," is a directive toward the church, not a prohibition on pastors.

So it does not forbid bi-vocational pastors, but it does direct churches to support them so that they would not have to be bi-vocational._


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 15, 2013)

VictorBravo said:


> "_t is incumbent on the churches...," is a directive toward the church, not a prohibition on pastors.
> 
> So it does not forbid bi-vocational pastors, but it does direct churches to support them so that they would not have to be bi-vocational._


_

Yes, but if one of the reasons that churches should adequately provide for pastors is so that they would not have to become "entangled in secular affairs", does that not imply that to become such is a negative thing for a minister of the gospel?_


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 15, 2013)

It says 'according to their ability'. If a church was only able to pay a man a part time sum, he would have to work part time to get by. That makes perfect sense to me, so the answer is 'no'.

And yes, being 'entangled in secular affairs' IS a negative for a preaching elder, but that doesn't mean that it is forbidden.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 15, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes, but if one of the reasons that churches should adequately provide for pastors is so that they would not have to become "entangled in secular affairs", does that not imply that to become such is a negative thing for a minister of the gospel?





JonathanHunt said:


> And yes, being 'entangled in secular affairs' IS a negative for a preaching elder, but that doesn't mean that it is forbidden



My answer would be the same as Jonathan's.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 15, 2013)

JonathanHunt said:


> It says 'according to their ability'. If a church was only able to pay a man a part time sum, he would have to work part time to get by. That makes perfect sense to me, so the answer is 'no'.
> 
> And yes, being 'entangled in secular affairs' IS a negative for a preaching elder, but that doesn't mean that it is forbidden.



This may sound a bit harsh, but if a church can no longer afford to pay just one pastor a livable wage, the they have ceased to be a church and they should disband and join with another church.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 15, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > It says 'according to their ability'. If a church was only able to pay a man a part time sum, he would have to work part time to get by. That makes perfect sense to me, so the answer is 'no'.
> ...



Even if the nearest Reformed Baptist Church is 100 miles away?


----------



## kodos (Dec 15, 2013)

The _ability_ to pay a pastor a "living wage" is now one of the marks of a true church? Who knew.



Bill The Baptist said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > It says 'according to their ability'. If a church was only able to pay a man a part time sum, he would have to work part time to get by. That makes perfect sense to me, so the answer is 'no'.
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 15, 2013)

1 Cor. 9 shows us two things on the subject:

1. The minister ought to be paid (9:9, 14);

2. The minister does not necessarily have to be paid by a congregation (9:15 and following).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 16, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > It says 'according to their ability'. If a church was only able to pay a man a part time sum, he would have to work part time to get by. That makes perfect sense to me, so the answer is 'no'.
> ...



Both harsh and untrue. Perhaps they SHOULD disband, but they HAVE NOT ceased to be a church.


----------



## KMK (Dec 16, 2013)

> This may sound a bit harsh, but if a church can no longer afford to pay just one pastor a livable wage, the they have ceased to be a church and they should disband and join with another church.



So much for church planting and missionary work. Oh well, it was a good run.

---------------

After further review, I think this response is too snarky. I assume that you are referring to situations where a once thriving church has, for whatever reason, seen a decrease in attendance and revenue over a period of time to the point that they cannot afford to pay for even the most basic thing. If so, the confession might at least demand that closing the church be considered. However, there are too many variables to make a blanket answer. 

I would say that in the area of church planting and missionary work there isn't any other way to operate without deficit spending.


----------



## Edward (Dec 16, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This may sound a bit harsh, but if a church can no longer afford to pay just one pastor a livable wage, the they have ceased to be a church and they should disband and join with another church.



Let's carry this thought through. If your church was in that condition, what local churches would you send your members to?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 17, 2013)

All of you have made some good points, and I do believe that perhaps I was overly harsh in my assessment. Certainly there are circumstances where bi-vocationalism is necessary, but I believe these cases to be rare. The problem I see in my neck of the woods are far too many bi-vocational pastors who are unqualified and who do not preach the word. All manner of false doctrine flourishes in churches such as these where the shepherd is only present for a few hours once a week. What I find disturbing is the growing sense that bi-vocationalism is some sort of badge of honor, and the belief among many churches that being a pastor is not a full time job anyway. I know many churches that could afford to pay a full-time pastor but would rather have a part-time pastor and spend the money they save on other things. It is this attitude that I believe is unbiblical and against which this confession speaks.


----------



## JML (Dec 17, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> The problem I see in my neck of the woods are far too many bi-vocational pastors who are unqualified and who do not preach the word. All manner of false doctrine flourishes in churches such as these where the shepherd is only present for a few hours once a week.



I think this is not an issue with bi-vocational pastors but is a failure of the church to properly examine candidates for ministry or the complete lack of an examination process.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 17, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> I think this is not an issue with bi-vocational pastors but is a failure of the church to properly examine candidates for ministry or the complete lack of an examination process



That is certainly part of the problem, but in truth the low wages offered by many of these churches is unlikely to entice a man with a family to move across the country, and so these positions usually go to someone local who has had no training or preparation, but who "loves Jesus."


----------



## KMK (Dec 17, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> The problem I see in my neck of the woods are far too many bi-vocational pastors who are unqualified and who do not preach the word.



In my neck of the woods (Southern CA) that is more true of the full-time mega church pastors.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 17, 2013)

KMK said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I see in my neck of the woods are far too many bi-vocational pastors who are unqualified and who do not preach the word.
> ...



You are absolutely right, just because someone is a full-time pastor does not make them qualified, nor does being part-time make them unqualified. It is just that you are more likely to see these things with those who are part-time. Here is a link to an excellent article on the subject by Jason Dohm. http://hopebaptistchurch.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Setting-Aside-Qualified-Men-12-21-09.pdf


----------



## KMK (Dec 17, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...





> LBC 26,Paragraph 7. To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he has instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.
> 
> LBC 26, Paragraph 8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.



Whether a man is qualified to be the Pastor is up to the local church who has been 'given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline'. As a Baptist, I don't see how you can determine for other churches whether their pastor is qualified or not.

Full disclosure: I am a bivocational pastor of a true church.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 17, 2013)

KMK said:


> As a Baptist, I don't see how you can determine for other churches whether their pastor is qualified or not.



Someone who has no ability or inclination to exposit the Word of God, I would consider that person to be unqualified. It has nothing to do with education, although education is important. I am referring to many pastors that I know who became pastors simply because there was a position to be filled and they felt like God was calling them to preach. This "calling" however did not involve any preparation or oversight. I realize that this same thing certainly occurs in non bi-vocational settings, but as the article I linked points out, it is more likely in these settings.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 18, 2013)

Interestingly enough Bill, your question does raise another issue in Reformed Baptist practice: the plurality AND parity of elders/pastors.

It is worth noting that the Confession does not distinguish between differing kinds of elders such as vocational/full-time and non-vocational/lay; or like our Presbyterian/Reformed brethren would have teaching elders ("pastors" or "ministers"), and ruling elders. This does seem to pose a problem with the section you referenced regarding monetary remuneration. If this section applies to all pastors/elders in a single church, then the idea of placing a man in the office of elder with the assumption that he _will_ remain "entangled in secular affairs" and not be financially supported by the church, could be interpreted as being against the teaching of the Scriptures and the Confession. 

Some have taken this view and insisted that the church only call as many elders as it can financially support. So while they affirmed a plurality of elders in theory, in practice they were essentially a single elder church because they could only afford to support one man. 

I have noted for some time the tension of holding to both a plurality of elders while at the same time holding to a more rigid or strict parity of elders. It does present some practical problems.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 19, 2013)

A Penny for your thoughts.


----------

