| Vocation Times Two |
| Wednesday, 25 April 2007 | |
|
One of the most neglected areas of study in the church today is work. This is likely the case because of our confused distinction between 'secular' and 'sacred' vocations (According to this thinking God evidently was involved in secular work when creating the universe, but sacred work when inspiring Scripture!). Because of the growing lack of finances to fund so-called "sacred" work, there is an increasing amount of discussion about the need for pastors to be bi-vocational. It's worth noting that it's almost never suggested that people involved in "secular" work should also be bi-vocational. I've heard two main reasons why people think those involved in "sacred" work should be bi-vocational.
I've been involved bi-vocationally, or perhaps tri-vocationally, for a number of years. I've understood my main "callings" from God to be (1) pastor (2) theological college teacher and (3) missionary to new religious movements. In addition, writing has been a theme that runs through these areas. Of course, some might see these as one or two roles. But they all involve different skills and involvements. That said, I personally have mixed feelings about bi-vocational work, and I'm not sure this has been thought through thoroughly enough. I especially struggle with the automatic expectation that individuals should be involved bi-vocationally. Here are a few questions that I believe will be helpful for us to think through this further:
This is a subject that is long overdue for a serious discussion. I hope you'll role up your sleeves and start commenting. Set as favorite Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 5376 Trackback(0)
Comments (53)
 
John - I've a friend who did his PhD on a theology of work, it's hard to summaries he's thoughts in a comments section, but you could read his stuff. His name is Darrell Cosden. He has two books out, (1) A Theology of Work, Paternoster Press, 2004 (the late Stan Grenz gave it a nice commendation on the back cover). (2) The Heavenly Good of Earthly Work - I think this is also published by Paternoster - I read the manuscript so did not buy the book - hey you've got to watch those pennies (cents).
I'd also recommend interacting with Miroslav Volf's thought's in "work in the spirit" - he writes some good stuff about calling etc. I think such deeper theological reflection on the whole issue of work then gives us a better framework to answer the very important practical questions you raise. 1 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
Brodie,
Thank you for the book suggestions. 2 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
I think you are so right John ... this really does need some thinking about. My experience of doing that when i was a student worker was not very positive, and found i really got burnt out. There is a problem though, with church leaders trying to lead missional churches, but not really involved in society or other communities.
Speaking as a church leader (paid by the church): this isn't a theoretical discussion for me or others in my situation. Many of us have been out of other kinds of work for so long, that finding another kind of profession isn't easy / possible. We went into church "ministry" because we felt called by God. We might not do it the same way today. But we are where we are. It is not surprising that people react when their finances are on the line, and they a spouse / kids to support. I think we need a generous response to this situation we are in. I think probably it is an both/and situation. We need to discern what is right for an individual rather than blanket statements. I have noticed, here in the UK, that less people now want to work for a church than 15 years ago ... i wonder if this trend continues we may find ourselves re-thinking again in 15 years: how can we attract people to work for a church? 3 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
There's no one size fits all. First of all, what if God telling the pastor or minister? A couple of thoughts though.
I do simple church with the homeless. I spend probably 12-13 hours a week currently. There's no way I would consider anything but bi-vocational for this. Obviously if a church pastor is spending nearly full time working in the ministry, they shouldn't be bi-vocational. I think the workload would be too much. Something else to consider though is how the time is being spent. If a Pastor is telling me that he spends 20 hours a week on preparing "the sermon." I'll tell him he needs to re-look at what he's doing. Pastoral counseling is one thing, but that much time preparing the sermon means other approaches need to be looked at. Just my opinion. 4 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
Wow. great questions, John. We don't even have a church right now. My husband is working full time outside the church, but he still ends up taking time off of work (with no pay) for crisis, funerals and weddings. People often still want him available to counsel etc. It's hard now, and we aren't even "pastoring". I think you bring up a valid and necessary question.
5 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
John,
I had a long reply written on your previous post, but my husband accidentally erased it before I got it posted. Let my try again on this topic. I wondered about this statement from your previous post: "Missional people have to pay their bills too, and it's very likely we'll see people drop out of practical involvement because of financial pressures." What does this mean regarding practical involvement for those not in vocational ministry? Can we be practically involved in missional work when our secular vocation requires 40 hours of our week? Let me be very careful to say clearly that I am not opposed to vocational ministry. My personal perspective is that of a person pursuing missional involvement in a non-vocational avenue. Answers to your questions: 1. We own a business (which we both work in full time), I homeschool my kids (full time), and manage the home, meals, cleaning, laundry, etc.(more full time). I'm not sure which of these are secular or sacred. I am pursuing missional involvement in addition to and among my other responsibilities. However, when we think of the possibility of starting something more structured ministry related, it is usually in the context of whether we can afford to fund it (rent, organizational costs, etc). 2. I think the reality for all of us is that we work whatever jobs are necessary to feed our families. For many families this is a combination of bivocational jobs for both parents. I don't believe that bivocational is ideal for anyone, but it is sometimes necessary. As to flipping it around, involvement expected of people in the congregation is bivocational in that it is in addition to their secular vocation even though they won't be getting paid for it. Missional involvement as a lifestyle will be in addition to a secular job for most people. My focus is on finding examples of that and becoming an example of that myself. It has to be possible for everyone. Again, I'm not saying I oppose vocational ministry, it just isn't my focus. 3. I do not believe it is fair that the burdens of ministry fall solely on the shoulders of one individual. I think this model has been very damaging overall to pastors. Because of this, my feelings about vocational ministry are conflicted. While I believe that anyone working full-time in ministry should be well compensated, I also see this as an element feeding passivity among the congregation - passing off the work of ministry to the person being paid to do it. Interesting post John. I hope my thoughts are helpful to the conversation in bringing a different perspective without negating the very real concerns that you addressed. More disclaimers, these are things I am just working through, just my personal opinions, may not apply in some situations, your mileage may vary....  6 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
Now, following our conversation yesterday about negativity, I now have to choose my words carefully!!
Burnout is the first one that comes to mind! Also my thoughts immediately take me back to the post earlier in the week "The Charmed Life of Pastors." Good post, I need to think a bit before I write more. :- Grace has made some good points though, in regards to flipping the situation around. 7 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
Excellent post and discussion! Part of my hesitance to weigh in is due to my uncertainty on the meaning of "vocation" in this context. Could you clarify your meaning, John? Thanks.
When I read vocation, I tend to read it in a Catholic sense. Therefore, ones vocation is always sacred, regardless of whether you are a pastor or a plumber, given it is in response to the calling of Christ. Sorry if this is a bit off topic. Peace, Jamie 8 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
John,
I am of the firm opinion that just because Paul chose to work with his hands for an example and to avoid being a burden, it is biblically clear, I think, that persons involved in "sacred" work, such as ministering, teaching, evangelizing, etc. should be supported in whole by the church. If it means a less fancy church, less nice things that we all can agree we probably don't need, then so be it. For the beginning of my believing in Christ, I have felt that no minister of the Gospel should have to support themselves; especially in a "rich church" country like the USA. There is no excuse for pastors and ministers having to work a second job in the secular world, unless, by choice, they are involved with a independent church of small means. But, even in that case, as soon as the church is big enough, the "sacred" workers should be free to dedicate all their time to the service of God. 9 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Rupert,
How did I never come across your blog? Looks great. Added it to my feeds. I agree that there is a very real problem for people, including me as well, who have been pastors, missionaries, involved full-time in parachurch ministry, etc. when it comes to finding other work that will support our families. I've experienced this a lot recently. I can find work, but nothing that will even come close to paying our bills. This is a situation that is likely toughest for those of us caught in this transition from traditional to missional ministry. But I think this will be a problem for quite some time. We're jumping on board this transition very early in the game. 10 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
John L,
I strongly agree there isn't one-size-fits-all. As I mentioned in this post, what bothers me is the *expectation* that everyone should be bi-vocational. However, if people believe they are to be bi-vocational such as yourself, then by all means, they should be bi-vocational. Though as in your case, there needs to be a balance between how much time is spent. With the 20 hour sermon thing, I know what you're talking about. It doesn't need to take even half that time to prepare a sermon well. 11 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Jamie S,
Yeah, time can add up quickly doing a little of this and a little of that. I know what he's going through. 12 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Hi Grace,
Thanks for your helpful thoughts. You asked, "Can we be practically involved in missional work when our secular vocation requires 40 hours of our week?" Sure. But I think it will need to be more along the lines of John Lunt's involvement mentioned above--10-12 hours per week--so you don't get burnt out. The difference with pastors, for example, is that they're already working (almost always) more than 40 hours a week. To have to take on another job that expects another 40-50 hours per week doesn't seem right. As a result, something will have to give, such as (1) not enough money coming in because they don't work full-time in a paying job (2) the family because they don't see each other enough (3) the pastor's health (4) the church or most likely (5) all of the above. Brief thoughts on your responses: 1. Let me stress I don't see a difference between "secular" and "sacred". I might not have been clear enough about this, but tried to show this by referring to "our confused distinction between secular and sacred work". And by putting the words in quotes to refer to how some speak of them. That said, you're busy. It wouldn't be right to think you could be involved full-time doing something else, though part-time might work--you know better than me! Though if you actually start something more structured as you raise, I would be extremely surprised if something out of what you currently do didn't have to give. 2. You wrote: "As to flipping it around, involvement expected of people in the congregation is bivocational in that it is in addition to their secular vocation even though they won't be getting paid for it. " I know, but in this situation they are likely already able to pay their bills. For people like me, this isn't the case. This is a huge difference in my mind. I'm working full-time, and trying to figure out how to either find something else full-time or give up what I believe God has called me too. At the end of the day, I think this is a practical problem revolving around the need to pay the bills and not get burnt out. But also something that involves conscience--doing what one feels called to. 3. I strongly support your thoughts that the burdens of ministry should not fall solely on one person. I've always encouraged the opposite--everyone involved. But frankly most people choose to sit on their butts and not get involved. Trying to change this will take quite some time. With our current church plant, things are quite different in terms of vision and everyone being involved from the very beginning shaping who we are together. But I have more people telling me things like "We support what you're doing but will get involved after you begin". We've already begun! But most people simply don't want to take responsibility on this level. Almost everyone else I've talked to in a missional church plant is dealing with the same thing. I hope you'll keep adding your thoughts to this! You always help and challenge me in your thinking along these lines. 13 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Lyn,
I agree that burnout is a very real risk. Though I think it goes beyond risk to reality almost always in these situations, unless one of the roles is fairly part-time. Grace did have some good thoughts as always. 14 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Thanks for you kind words John
 I think you are so right, but often it seems to me the ones calling for a change to paid "ministry" are people who either: * have a good job doing something else. * or people who make a living by writing books or speaking at conferences ... and in what way are not "living of the gospel" as church leaders do? Often it is the pastors wives (perhaps less of an issue if the church leader is a married woman?) who bear the brunt of the worry? I am actually in favour of gradual change, but done with people, not principles in mind. One quesiton i often ask myself: what decisions would i be make differently if i wasn't dependent on the church paying my salary? 15 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Jamie A-R,
As I mentioned to Grace, I probably wasn't clear enough about not believing there is an actual distinction between so-called 'sacred' and 'secular' work. But as I mentioned above see this as a "confused distinction". Though it was easier to write this post making the distinctions. Back to you question, I'm using vocation somewhat in a Catholic sense, to refer to what one does for work--regardless of whether its a pastor or painter. Hope to hear more of your thoughts. 16 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Disclaimer to add to my post:
As long as pastors and ministers don't have excessive expectations (no pastor NEEDS a new luxury sedan, HDTV, leather furniture, steak and potatoes regularly, etc. ) I think that the church, whomever it is comprised of locally, should provide the necessaries including a place to live. I think most pastors would do better as single people, as Paul the apostle suggested, since that leaves them single minded toward God and much happier with less. That doesn't mean I don't also believe a pastor can be happily married, with kids, and function quite well. It's just that the earthly day to day needs increase exponentially with a family. 17 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Heh, I'm involved in secular work and would consider myself bi-vocational with the interfaith stuff I do. Of course, the latter is purely voluntary. But the rewards have the potential to be greater than I could reasonably expect to receive renumeration for.
So, in answer to question 1, I already do. '# Why does the discussion of bi-vocational work always revolve around the need for those in "sacred" work, such as pastors and those in other "ministry" roles, getting a second job? Could you imagine the response if this was flipped around--if pastors suggested that if there isn't enough finances for ministry that Jesus-followers get a second job to provide for shortcomings?' That would not be an unreasonable request. However, I wonder if it has something to do with the tangibility of beliefs. I'd say the role of a Pastor could be equated with that of a counsellor in the secular world though. So it would not be unreasonable for Pastors (or others involved in 'ministering to the community') to be paid on a par with counsellors. Pastors, at least those that I know, tend to work a darned sight harder in their 'counselling' work too. 3. whether it is just or not is a tough one to answer. Approaching it from the direction that I do- secular to fund spiritual, I feel justified in being able to dictate what I can and can't manage, timewise, with the spiritual stuff. But the Pagan community functions differently to the Christian community in that, whilst there are often great expectations made of those in some kind of leadership role, it is always with the knowledge that it is done on a voluntary basis (unless a charge is made) and it is therefore easier to say 'no'. There is also an absence of that concept of salvation and the potential guilt trip that could be played on a Pastor who said 'no' every once in a while. That is definitely unjust as far as my understanding of the Christian faith is concerned because, from what I understand, everyone is resopnsible for their own 'seeking of salvation', with the Pastor 'only' offering guidance. I don't know if any of that helps. BB Mike 18 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
NWProdigal,
Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts. I think bi-vocational ministry is going to become more and more necessary for newer forms of ministries, but we'll see. 19 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Rupert,
Thank you for your further thoughts. You wrote: "I think you are so right, but often it seems to me the ones calling for a change to paid "ministry" are people who either: * have a good job doing something else. * or people who make a living by writing books or speaking at conferences ... and in what way are not "living of the gospel" as church leaders do?" It does seem that this is often the case. It doesn't mean its wrong, but when you're dealing with huge stresses of seeking to provide for family, be involved ministry-wise in the areas you believe you're called to, seeking to spend enough time with your spouse and kids, etc. there's just so much stress and pressure going on and particularly an extra full-time job is very tough (and mostly unhealthy) in this context. 20 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Rupert,
I forgot to mention, yes, it is definitely spouses who bare much of the pressure. No wonder there is such a high rate of divorce among pastors. Also, the cost on children is so great. Again, no wonder there is so much walking away from the faith with pastor's kids. We have to take these issues very very seriously in this discussion on bi-vocational ministry. 21 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
John,
First, I understand that his will most likely not be a popular view amongst your group of readers, however in stepping out and seeking a radically different church, an opinion of one not involved in “sacred†work as a main vocation may be insightful. Isn't bi-vocational work exactly what the church asks of its members who are involved in "secular" work? When signing up for leadership or ministry (children's, women’s' means' etc.) and further missional activities within the body of the church and the larger community: the level of commitment as well as the personal and spiritual responsibility is a second vocational role. You speak of the church being an equal involvement entity, with the pastor not solely responsible for the leadership, development, and "entertainment" of the congregation. This egalitarian image of the church (fully shared responsibility and commitment for the development of the body of the church and the missional commitment to the surrounding community), inherently changes not only the role of the congregational member, but the role of the pastor as well. As to the remainder of your questions: 2.First I have a real problem with the distinction between “secularâ€, and “sacred†work. It reeks of discrimination, judgment, and class status among members of the church. As the transformation to a church as described above occurs, all are responsible for financing their own needs, and those of the church. If I as a member am to contribute financially to the church, why shouldn’t a leader contribute equally to the personal needs of their family? 3.I must admit I took slight offense to the following portion of the question “but he didn't have kids waiting for Daddy to come homeâ€. I have seen members of the church spend many hours weekly away from their families for the bi-vocational involvement in the church (unpaid). Does their family not wait for their return as well? Did they not spend 40 hours a week or more in “secular†work, and further make the commitment of time and energy to the “sacred†bi-vocation of serving the church and larger community? Commitment to what god has “called†us to always requires sacrifice of oneself and those in the extended family. I personally believe that God has called us to care for our immediate families needs first and foremost. Balance is required of all of us. As you know I have witnessed several “callings†of God on people’s lives within the past year which have created dissention and pain. Any calling which sacrifices the vital needs of your family must be questioned. Overall, I think that as the role of the church in the community radically changes and the role of those involved in the body of that local church and larger ministry changes, as I have previously heard you speak of, radical change is required for all involved. The old image of pastor as a fully supported minister in my opinion does not coincide with the images I have of this radically different egalitarian church. 22 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
NWProdigal,
Not sure of where your thoughts are fully on your disclaimer. I don't think there should be a seperation between what is right for pastors and what is right for people who aren't pastors. In my view, pastors are simply following the path God has put them on, the same as any other Jesus-follower. 23 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
In response to NWProdigal earthly day to day needs do increase with family, but, churches highly value marriage, family etc, so pastors with families should be valued as well - it goes God, wife, children, church in my opinion. God has called many married men/women to be pastors and their congregations should support the pastors family, and allow them to have quality family time, a salary that can be lived on rather than constant pressure.
24 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Hey Mike,
Helpful thoughts. Thanks 25 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Hi Angela,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Here's a few thoughts based on yours: 1. Yes, the church is asking people to be bi-vocational in a sense. Though in most churches, a relatively small percentage actually do so. Though I think there are some significant differences as I shared in my thoughts to Grace and a couple others above. 2. I also don't like the don't like the 'secular' 'sacred' distinctions. As I mentioned in comments above, I probably didn't do a good enough job of being clear about this. You wrote: "If I as a member am to contribute financially to the church, why shouldn’t a leader contribute equally to the personal needs of their family?" Can you clarify more what type of situation you're picturing here? If everyone contributed equally serving-wise, then sure, everyone has the same amount of time to work and provide for the needs of their family. But how it normally works is very different. 3. You wrote, "Did they not spend 40 hours a week or more in “secular†work, and further make the commitment of time and energy to the “sacred†bi-vocation of serving the church and larger community?" Yes, but not the same amount of time as working two full time jobs. I'm sorry I offended you, though I also have to admit it's a little hard not to be offended at how much is expected of me and my family. The radically egalitarian church you and I, I think, both long for, is a lot easier in theory than reality. There are so few people who have a desire to do what it takes to make something like this a reality. 26 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
Lyn,
Those are my thoughts on that as well. 27 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
John, and Lyn,
I did not say that I was for or against married pastors; only that supporting married vs. single present a larger burden on the supporting group. And John, I agree that a pastor has the right to own or buy anything that a layperson does. It's really matter of what is considered "necessary" when we talk of the church supporting them in a way that doesn't require them to work a secular job in addition to their "sacred" job. If the church can afford to give you only food, clothing and roof over your head, the "sacred" worker should be content, is my feeling. Otherwise, you're in it for the wrong reasons, similar to becoming like Balaam. If it's a matter of providing food for the homeless or a new HDTV for the pastor, which do you think a true Christian would pick? 28 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
Hi John,
Maybe I'm old-fashioned on this, but I believe that a laborer is worthy of his hire. Pastors and staff should be fully supported by their churches as soon as possible. This was the set up in OT worship, and is completely endorsed by Paul in his NT writings. When we as individuals feel called to venture into a new area, of necessity, we must raise some kind of background support. If this is not possible, then we must "make tents" understanding that this time-consumming second vocation will impede at least upon the time we could spend growing the new ministry. But doesn't the Lord know this? And if circumstances force us to "make tents", isn't this God's will, especially after we have tried other avenues? I have to believe that if my present undertaking ends up financially deficient, I will be called to work secularly for God's own reasons. Some special reasons. Reasons He wants me to seek out. Of course, there's nothing wrong with exploring ALL options possible for funding. I don't know how this plays out, but sometimes it seems to me that God uses a lack of funds/funding to direct us as much as supplying funds directs us. Just some thoughts. God bless you, bro. You know I'm rooting for you. Steve 29 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
I think the bottom line is
1. A lot of missional people don't like the fact that staff salaries and buildings eat up such a large chunk of the church's budget and might be a bit resentful of that, especially if they can't get any funding from the church for the ministry they're involved in - because it is somehow seen as not as important as the "pastor's" ministry or the "staff's" ministry. 2. A lot of folks in full time ministry obviously don't like the fact that most people don't "tithe" or at least give significantly into the church/ministry. How do we bridge this gap. I don't know. But for me, God has made it clear that while I do most of the supporting of our street church, I'm not supposed to quit giving into my other relationships, such as the simple church I'm part of and a couple of other ministries. Sometimes this causes me some concern because at the end of the week, my head's above water, but I'm not putting anything extra in the bank. God's had me simplify my life. If we faced the truth, certainly most American Christians could stand to simplify a lot in their lives. I think God is calling us, regardless of the type of work we do or the ministry we're in to simplify our lives and quit overspending and overconsuming. It's a little hypocritical to talk about the Pastor's SUV when the person criticizing just went out and bought a new ski boat. It's similarly wrong for Pastors to lay guilt trips on the congregations about giving when some are having a hard time, like the elderly etc, and the Pastor and leaders of the church aren't hurting nearly as much. My prescription 1. Understand that God called some to be in "full time" ministry in the sense of the Apostles, "Giving themselves to the word and to prayer." and the other things that go with it. Also understand that God has prompted others to function as tentmakers, bivocationally. 2. People in in the church have to understand that the workman is worthy of his hire. Scripture makes it clear. A pastor should not have to work 40-60 hours a week for the church and receive 20 hours or less of pay. That's criminal and it's not the love of Jesus. Folks, love and pray for your pastor even if you don't understand them. I've never understood Pastors and sometimes got madder than a wet hen at them. Just as I love the people on the streets, I love my Pastor. 3. The full time ministers may have to realize that some of their priorities (ie the current church growth program) may not be from God and does not necessarily deserve a bigger chunk of the pie than the regular folks attending that may be doing some very real and practical ministry in the community. By the way Pastors, if you don't have money in the budget for them, for crying out loud have them share what they're doing with the body -maybe someone else out there will catch the vision and help - and be sure to encourage them - like you want to be encouraged. 4. Everyone gives cheerfully as they can. I believe in tithing and giving beyond the tithe. I understand some like widows or elderly or those who have lost jobs are limited. However, we can all do something and do it cheerfully. I heard of a lady who couldn't give financially because of her husband who was an unbeliever and forbade it. So she donated some time around the church helping out. She was still a giver and gave cheerfully. Let's simplify our lives where we can and give into the Kingdom of God. 5. Pastors and leaders make sure you're being good stewards of the resources that God is giving you. It's not your church and it's not your vision. The people aren't there to serve your vision or ministry. The church belongs to Jesus and him alone. Oh well, those are my thoughts. 30 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
NWProdigal,
I largely agree with you. But think the same goes for someone who isn't a pastor. I'm not sure how we have wound up with two standards here, but along the way we have. 31 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
RCM - Steve,
Good thoughts. Though I hope it doesn't get to that place for you. 32 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
John L,
What you wrote meant a lot to me. You covered everything I'd want to say, only twenty times better, and with a lot more grace. Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. 33 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
John L,
I love your thoughts. "Pastors...it's not your church and not your vision. The people aren't there to serve your vision or ministry. The church belongs to Jesus and him alone." Territorialism is a terrible temptation to fight. So many pastors and their families I know have poured sweat and blood into their ministries and their congregations. It's not hard at some point to feel ownership over the church, the vision, and the people. But if I do this, I'm setting myself up for some major disappointment. Since I have struck out on my own last summer, the Lord continues to tell me to keep it simple, do no promoting, and let Him bring the ministry to pass. I'm pretty clear about my footwork, but there's always the compulsion to want to do more. And with the expenditure of my time and energy comes the temptation to lay some kind of ownership on the ministry. I don't mean externally, I mean internally. It's a good reminder to me to that the church and the vision all come from him. I am merely a steward. In terms of bivocational, I think that pastors who facilitate a gathering of His people for strength, worship, & instruction are indeed worthy of their hire. As a congregation, we should do everything we can to facilitate their role among us. I think a pastor being bi-vocational should be the exception, not the rule, and hopefully for just a short season. But we are all to be missional 100% of the time. And those who have "secular" jobs (bivocational so to speak) have the greatest missional field available to anybody, i.e, work. As pastors, we need to encourage, empower, & teach our congregants how to avail themselves of this biggest of opportunities that anyone of us comes in contact with in our daily lives. As a pastor in my former church for 26 years, I sometimes was aware of how out-of-touch I was with people in society around me. Working full time in the ministry meant exposure to Christians 90% of the time, and little time to engage with "outsiders". Now that I'm out on my own, my current ministry is deeply shaped by contact with non-followers of Jesus. It is tremendously exciting and fulfilling missionally. But it has also come with the sense that my own salary sources are less forthcoming. A larger question mark hangs over them. Still, it is worth it to me. Ministry is more fulfilling/less secure financially than my previous employment when it was less fulfilling/more secure financially. Would that it could be BOTH fulfilling/secure. And perhaps it will be in time. But then again, the tension between the two keeps me on my knees for both the vision of the ministry and my finances. 34 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0
RCM Steve,
I really like the balance of what you say here both for pastors and people who aren't pastors. We need to love, support, and encourage each other. You may not know how countercultural you are in the Christian world, particularly the church planting world, in not advertising starting a new ministry. 35 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
Here I am taking a vacation week and I am so busy I can't take time to get in on so much great discourse. Wish I could even read all the comments. Some great stuff in what I was able to peruse.
I believe there is a Utopian missional view we should all strive for, although I realize there are a myriad of situations which keep many of us from that sweet spot in missional ministry where it all comes together. In my Utopian dream situation (not that I have arrived at it, just getting closer), everyone in a missional community has either chosen a vocation that is conducive to the overall missional vision of the community, or else is supported by the other members of the community. Sound like church as usual? Not so fast. First of all, a missional community should have its focus on its mission, not a physical plant and accompanying attractional ministries. Therefore, those selected vocations will not be limited in support by the small percentage of earning one is able to designate to the missional church. Rather, those jobs should be an integral part of what that church is corporately doing. John , you know where I'm coming from with the missional business concept. It is 2 fold. 1. It raises financing for the mission by making profits far above what is needed for the businessman to live on. 2. The business itself is missional in that it provides a valuable service to the public by perhaps providing alternative employment for prostitutes and drug dealers, jobs for struggling single parents, or homeless people wanting to overcome their situations, for a few examples. An Amish community who may be working with us has a brilliant idea. The woman have a successful canning store. They can every kind of food imaginable and sell it to the public. They make enough money to support sending their men to 3rd world countries to do carpentry work and train the locals how construct buildings and make furniture. They don't ask for a nickel of support, plane fares or anything. The conning store subsidizes the whole mission. Meanwhile, the woman are building strong friendships in their local home community. A very brilliant and cutting-edge missional endeavor coming from a group of people whom most of us view as being 150 years behind times! Interestingly, you don't see the Amish wasting money on fancy church buildings. They meet in one another's homes for the most part. Yet, where else does such a tightly knit community exist? We emergent/missionals could learn a lot from our simple-life brethren. The problem with juggling the finances for church ministry is largely eliminated when we decide to eliminate that which we really don't need concerning church. Once we do that we typically have plenty available to take care of the need for any full-time missionaries or ministers. Like we discussed in the Charmed Life of Pastors thread, pastoral burnout stems mostly from the unrealistic and man-not-God ordained expectations the traditional, attractional church has for its leaders. In a healthy missional model, those responsibilities are disbursed throughout the community. Likewise, the inability to support leaders full-time is often a result of a church repeating these same tragic mistakes that continue to be made in the traditional institutional paradigm. Invariably we seem to make things much more difficult for ourselves than need be. 36 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 26, 2007
Votes: +0 
great thoughts John. I "struggle" with it all too...and maybe that's good, living in a place of tension. I've always been bivocational in the truest sense. Most of the time, my "paid job" has been "secular" and then I have invested at least part time to the work of the church. I have only been paid for my church work once and even then David and I were also paid outside the church. living bivocational is simply our reality - - whether our income comes from the "ministry" or outside it or both.
To think of exclusively being paid through the ministry and not doing anything outside of the ministry in terms of "work" makes me uncomfortable but I'm not sure if that's my own hangup or what. 37 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0
oh and ftr, this just came through my reader.
38 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0
Webb,
I continue to be very interested in your missional business concept. I think it requires skills that make it tough to be a universal model, but it certainly is a model that would be great to used more often. Very interesting to hear of the Amish situation! 39 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0
Mak,
It's likely a blessing in disguise that you guys have always been bi-vocational, particularly in not relying on a church for a paycheck. My involvements with church and teaching have meant that I have always relied on them. And it makes this kind of transition a real pain in the tucus. 40 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0
Mak,
Thanks for letting me know about this just coming through your reader. I'm guessing you use Google Reader? Sonja uses it and Bloglines, and said it came through fine on Bloglines but not with Google. I also use Google, and only got it today as well. Kind of annoying, but hopefully its working now. 41 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0 
I feel like there's so much I would like to say in response to this, and yet, I'm not even sure how to say what I'm thinking.
Grace, Webb, and a few others have already articulated quite a few of my thoughts. But let me try to add a couple of others that are floating around... Let's say that it appears that there are 40 hours of consistent work to do in your church, John. At this point, you see yourself as needing to do those 40 hours of work. But what if you had three partners to share the work with, and each of you put 10 hours a week into it? That's very reasonable considering the amount of work "lay people" often put into their various ministries for no pay. Maybe there are seven others who have similar giftings and abilities to share the ministry, bringing the individual need down to 5 hours a week. I guess it's just hard for me to understand why it has to be a fulltime position. I don't discount that there are situations where someone needs to be freed, at least temporarily, from working at another job to handle some aspect of the ministry. But I'm not sure why it has to be fulltime permanently. 42 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0
Steve,
I think you may be looking at a model of ministry structure-wise that is different than I'm looking at. Also, right now what I'm doing church related is very little, though this will continue to grow. As mentioned in the post, I have several areas that I'm involved in and, teaching and writing in particular, aren't delegatable (did I just make up a new word?) tasks. 43 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 27, 2007
Votes: +0 
John,
You've touched on a topic that's been really bothering me this week. In my ongoing soul-searching to try to figure out where I went wrong, I've come to realize that my mistake was not in failing to train for a second, "secular" job. My error was in not fulfilling the vocation I already received to Brazilian missions. Lord willing, I'll get a post up on my blog about this soon. It's been in the works since early last week, but my company has restricted Internet access severely. 44 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 28, 2007
Votes: +0
John, I appreciate the response. I realize that what I'm looking at is a different model. That was kind of my point, though.
If we have a model that has led to burnout, moral failure, family breakup, etc. (and it's single-income pastors who have all of these problems, too. Not just bi-vocational ones whose families suffer), then wouldn't it be worth considering other models? I'm really just asking. Maybe I don't understand what you're feeling called to do (quite possible). Maybe I don't understand the way in which you feel like you are called to do it (very possible, as well). But I think, in agreement with the concluding sentence of your post, that it's a discussion that needs to be happening. 45 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 28, 2007
Votes: +0
Adam,
So you think you need to focus on getting back to Brazil? 46 report abuse
vote down
vote up
April 28, 2007 Votes: |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed