An interesting discussion opened up yesterday on Twitter. Gareth Russell tweeted the following:
An interesting article that suggests that a potential solution for church revitalisation is to be found in young bi-vocational pastors. https://t.co/3zjdDsTdBK
— Gareth Russell (@garethtrussell) May 1, 2018
As a young pastor with a family, I’m not sure how realistic this is:
Timewise – bivo ministry usually takes up much more than a part-time job, plus add in family pressures for a young pastor, and it looks like a recipe for burnout.
— Gareth Russell (@garethtrussell) May 1, 2018
Financially – my generation faces significant long-term pressures e.g. no home ownership, low pensions, etc. Ministers shouldn’t be pursuing ministry for money, but this puts too great a burden of risk on the minister and his family.
— Gareth Russell (@garethtrussell) May 1, 2018
This might be realistic for those in specific professional circumstances (e.g. a GP) but otherwise strikes me as a rather unattractive model of ministry. Happy to be wrong about this! But left a bit uncomfortable with it!
— Gareth Russell (@garethtrussell) May 1, 2018
There were lots of really interesting comments in response. But the discussion reached an interesting point with the following:
I seems to me that one of reasons for greater gospel impact of Brethrenism & Independency in working class communities in 19&20C was key role of lay/bi-vocational ministry, esp in plural leadership teams. This surely has some role to play in meeting our contemporary challenge?
— John Stevens (@_JohnStevens) May 1, 2018
The culture shifted long ago. Since the 50’s and the introduction of the social state. W/c no longer exist on the same way as industries have shut down. Most w/c jobs now are low/no skilled and this has had a major impact in reaching/growing local leaders too.
— mezmcconnell (@mez1972) May 1, 2018
I agree, but is there not also a need for many more gospel workers to move into socially deprived communities? If so bi-vocational is perhaps a way to fund suitably missional workers. In many needy areas public sector is the main employer, offering viable bi-vocational options.
— John Stevens (@_JohnStevens) May 1, 2018
Again that is a middle class option, what could I do, an unskilled, unqualified working class man in Middlesbrough? I was killing myself working minimum wage trying to raise a family and trying to plant and if it wasn’t for @niddriechurch supporting me and allowing me to …
— Ian Williamson (@spudgunpreacher) May 1, 2018
….go full time there would still be no @theFIEC or @Acts29 church in Middlesbrough
Bi vocational is not an option for me or my church— Ian Williamson (@spudgunpreacher) May 1, 2018
And no Christian professionals are willing to move into our communities in the first place! They’re too busy worshipping at the altar of comfort and climbing the work/social/housing ladder.
— mezmcconnell (@mez1972) May 1, 2018
Thanks Ian. I completely agree. I don’t think anyone is suggesting bi-voc is for everyone or is THE solution to a massive problem in our nation. Rather it may have some part to play in advancing the gospel, alongside much more generous giving to support ministry in needy areas.
— John Stevens (@_JohnStevens) May 1, 2018
And we are not suggesting it’s not a legitimate option. Our original point was it’s not really an option in our communities. Having W/c and m/c professionals imho is the best model but that’s a v hard ask. We are lucky to have what we have @niddriechurch
— mezmcconnell (@mez1972) May 1, 2018
I totally agree. I want to see both/and. Generous giving and more people prepared to move to needy areas. I can see it is a hard ask, but one we ought to call/encourage people to make for the sake of the gospel. It will take a work of God to change the wide evangelical culture.
— John Stevens (@_JohnStevens) May 1, 2018
We’ve been preaching this for many years bud. Largely into the wind. That’s why we have to go to the states and further afield for funding.
— mezmcconnell (@mez1972) May 1, 2018
I don’t have a vast amount to add here. The fact is, bi-vocational ministry does not work well in deprived communities. If we are relying on public sector roles we are necessarily relying on middle-class believers coming in to serve. Whilst I would love to see more of that happening, the reality is that it almost never does. You can read my extended commentary on why that is here, but Mez summed it up: ‘no Christian professionals are willing to move into our communities in the first place! They’re too busy worshipping at the altar of comfort and climbing the work/social/housing ladder’.
Few working-class people will have the skills to enter into the sort of jobs that would give them enough money to work bi-vocationally. Most working-class people have to run several jobs just to keep their head above water. Even the middle-class guys willing to come (such that they are there) will struggle. Most will end up working part-time and either doing two jobs badly or simply expanding two part-time jobs into time that simply doesn’t exist. One guy who was working part-time as a teacher whilst in ministry noted that the choice was often so time limited that it meant choosing between marking books or sharing the gospel with someone, there just wasn’t enough time to do both.
It strikes me that this form of bi-vocational working doesn’t serve anybody very well. The church they work for and the other job they take often both lose out. The only people who do well out of such a setup are those middle-class, affluent churches who want to justify not supporting workers in areas that they have no real intention of ever trying to reach.
It is my view that we need a more pointed system of partnering churches together. We need more affluent churches to commit to supporting workers in churches that couldn’t afford to have one. We need to commit to actively supporting those willing to go to deprived communities, put our hands in our pockets and – for the good of the kingdom – meet the costs of appointing pastors to full-time ministry.
That doesn’t necessarily mean only one church must bear the whole cost. If several churches could commit to supporting a proportion of a full-time salary, that would go a long way. It is amazing that we seem happy enough to appoint ever-expanding staff teams on full-time salaries but rarely seem able to support ministers working in those communities most of us aren’t willing to go to. If you have managed to appoint an assistant pastor or several members of staff, why not consider funding a minister in a deprived community who can’t be supported full-time by his church? Instead of adding more and more in-house posts, why not forego the additional staff member and commit to supporting gospel ministry in an area that might have no (or only part-time) staff without your help?
If we are serious about reaching deprived communities, we need to do better than ‘maybe your minister could do two or three jobs to support himself?’