Pros and cons of bivocational planting

By J. West

In working with church planters, one of the key questions is always how to provide clergy to launch a parish before it has enough resources to be self sufficient. In some cases, it’s possible to raise external funds from the province, diocese or mother church to temporarily support the planter (typically two years). But in other cases, it’s not.

Bivocational clergy are a common answer to this lack of resources. They are also increasingly used by established parishes, including in The Episcopal Church. For example, a 2013 policy document from The Episcopal Diocese of Texas says:

In the past several years, the Church has been faced with a growing need for clergy leadership in smaller congregations and in churches with unique challenges and circumstances. Studies indicate that most congregations with an average Sunday attendance of 30-75 find it difficult to fund the services of a full-time priest. Congregations with an average Sunday attendance of fewer than 30 are accustomed to utilizing supply and part-time Priests-in-Charge.
…
Begun in 2004, the Bi-Vocational Priesthood Program gives the Diocese of Texas the ability to provide for the needs of its smallest churches. Bi-Vocational Priests are called to the priesthood but have independent means of income, including retirement or other professions.

At the same time, there are disadvantages to the bivocational approach. Here’s an overview of the arguments.

Advantages

Many have noted both the prevalence and advantages of bivocational clergy.  The strongest argument is that it allows churches to be created and congregations to be served that — under conditions of limited resources — might otherwise not be served.

Others make even stronger arguments. One of the most enthusiastic advocates is Ed Stetzer, who in an Oct 15 column noted that already one-third of American clergy are bivocational:

Bivocational ministry offers a great opportunity for evangelism. Bivocational pastors are uniquely positioned to live out their pastoral calling as the lead missionary to their local community. As a well-equipped and gifted emissary of the gospel, these ministers can lead their congregations by demonstrating the power of evangelism to build the local church.

In a mission field that is moving in an increasingly secular direction, bivocational pastors are on the frontlines of gospel witness.

In focusing on how bivocational pastoring can facilitate effective evangelism, I will first argue that full-time ministry can potentially hamper cultural engagement. In light of these challenges, I will outline the role of bivocational pastors in leading the church into a season of fruitful evangelism.

Disadvantages

On the skeptical side, last week I saw a tweet of an article by Pastor John Starke, a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Seminary and lead pastor of a NYC parish. The tweet refers to a 2015 article, entitled “Cautions Against Bi-vocational Ministry,” posted to Medium.com.  His main points include

• Bivocational ministry is harder between two careers than between two churches
• The Biblical demands on a pastor are not part time — and multiple part-time pastors aren’t going to be available in most of the country
• Something will suffer, most likely the pastor’s family
• Rather plant 100 under-resourced churches, plant 10 properly resourced churches

I encourage any potential clergyman — or planting team — to read the entire article. These are serious and well-considered arguments.

Conclusion

Based on my own work with church planters — as well with secular entrepreneurs trying to launch a company in their spare time — I think there are two ways that part-time planters can actually work.

One is when the planter doesn’t have to be bivocational, but can get by long term on a part-time salary. The most common example I’ve seen is a military (or other) retiree, but there are also cases of extremely sympathetic (and gainfully employed) spouses. In this case, the pastor is not worrying about supporting his family, but on growing the parish.

The other is when the bivocational period is a temporary measure, typically 2-3 years. I’ve known lots of entrepreneurs who start companies in their spare time, hoping to sprint to creating a self-supporting organization; if they make it, they’re a hero, but if not, eventually they give up.

Short term, a bivocational church planter can leverage the enthusiasm of the launch team and other supporters: a capable part-time leader with a vision and a good team can achieve miracles. Longer term, if the church can’t support the clergy, there will be limits to how long he can sustain the push and contribute to the parish growth, and usually the momentum will stall. (Given the consumerist mentality of American church shoppers, flagging momentum also means that many volunteers will jump ship for some other church).

So in my opinion, the key is to know whether the bivocational calling is a sprint, or a marathon. If a sprint, then there must be a realistic prospect of making it to the finish line — consistent with Christ’s admonition in Luke 14:28-30.

If there is no realistic hope of achieving self-sufficiency in a reasonable amount of time, then it appears there are three alternatives: don’t launch, hold off on launching until adequate resources, or plan to create a small parish with a permanently part-time clergyman. The latter approach poses other challenges, which requires a more complete discussion another time.