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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?