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.

Always Forward looks back on church planting mistakes

The Always Forward podcast is settling into a rhythm of podcasts every 1-2 weeks, and now officially has had five episodes of about one hour each.

As with the other podcasts, Thursday’s Episode 5 — inaccurately labelled “The Top 10 Mistakes Church Planters Make” — features the ACNA’s canon for church planting Rev Canon Dan Alger and Rev Shawn McCain, who are respectively planting churches in the Diocese of the South and C4SO. One is a cradle Episcopalian and Trinity School for Ministry grad, and the other a latecomer to Anglicanism and Nashotah grad.

The “10” mistakes turn out to be about 7.5 — two of the 10 are identical, and on a third they take opposite positions. In order of presentation:

1. Planting without assessment or training (Dan). Assessment allows the planter to understand his strengths and areas where he needs additional team members. Assessment is particularly recommended for married couples, to help the spouse — typically less involved in planting and the plant — to understand planting and their roles in it.
2. Pretending you have all the answers (Shawn), i.e. an inability to say “I don’t know.” The latter turns out to be a great way to identify opportunities for others to step up to responsbilities.
3. Premature launch (both Dan and Shawn), a very common mistake (and one identified by many church planting books). The pressures to launch public worship will be high, but the church needs a critical mass to sustain public worship — and to have enough people in the pews to connect with visitors — for it to work. As an alternative, the launch team can pray and even commune privately as they prepare for launch.
4. An “over-obsession” with contextualization (Shawn) or A failure to contextualize (Dan). For the former, the church should know what it is, why and not pander to the community. For the latter, the church can make major mistakes if it doesn’t understand its community. Both agree that the church must be ready to explain what (and why and how) it is to new members from the community.
5. Handing out leadership roles too quickly (Dan and Shawn). The prospective leaders need to understand and buy into the vision, and the pastor needs to size up the prospective leader before handing over responsibility. During the pre-launch and early launch phase, the emphasis needs to be on the church and not on “leading”, power or control. (Both men also argue that early one, there should also be no vestry or formal lay control with the planter reporting to the bishop and the diocesan church planting dean/canon).
6. Not communicating expectations (Shawn). If people don't do what you want, it’s often because you didn’t tell them; if you let them down, it's often because you didn’t tell them what to expect. Or as (Dan quoting) former ACNA church planting canon Alan Hawkins says, “Unmet expectations = pain.”
7. Planting a worship service, not a church (Dan). A church can be successful in terms of ASA (average Sunday attendance) and giving, but not be accomplishing the mission of the Church. 

Who will lead 21st century church plants?

By J. West

Fr. John Linebarger, a bivocational priest in the Anglican Diocese of the Southwest (ACNA), on Friday posted a provocative essay about how Anglican clergy will raised and called in 21st century America. It resonated with those of us involved in clergy formation in my diocese.

He begins with his overall premise:

Clergy formation and ministry are undergoing a time of transition in America. Residential seminary is giving way to more diocese-based training. Full-time positions are giving way to various mixes of bivocational ministry. Larger churches with full-time staff are giving way to smaller churches with volunteer staff.

He makes four other points:

• There are less conventional full-time positions and thus clergy will have to either be bivocational or find some clever way to support themselves. Most churches will be led by a combination of bivocational clergy and volunteer staff.
• Dioceses can’t afford to sponsor clergy education, and so a full-time MDiv at a residential seminary is being replaced by local efforts at the diocese (or using residential online courses). In my own experience, everyone I’ve met in formation in the past five years has paid for his own education from the income he has from his previous job.
• Given the responsibilities of a priest are so complex, the MDiv needs to be supplemented by a multi-year curacy and continuing education.
• The ACNA is attracting more clergy from other traditions, and if it doesn’t do a better job of steeping these clergy in the Anglican tradition, “ it is inevitable that in a generation or two ACNA runs the danger of morphing into a denomination that has left its Anglican heritage behind.”

I would recommend the article for any one considering the priesthood, the dioceses and parishes involved in clergy formation, and laity who hope to someday call a priest to their church plant.

As a layman, I would only add that this raises the importance of having well-trained lay leadership. The most successful church plants that I have seen began with strong laity with a good business background, an understanding and love of the Anglican faith, and a respect (and deference to) Anglican church polity.