Fulltime or Bi-vocational

I have a son who is in a Bible Study in his dorm at IU. One day the leader told the group he would give a dollar to the first one who could name the Apostle Paul's trade. My son was shocked that he was the only one who knew. That might say something about biblical literacy today but I actually want to write about bi-vocational ministry so I thought I would start out by bringing up Paul.

Bi-vocational ministry is getting a lot of talk lately and most of it is positive. It allows for more access for ministry because it removes a major barrier, finances, which is especially important if you want to minister anywhere other than upper-middle class suburbs. It also gets people in ministry out of their cocoon and into the "real" world where they come face to face with the problems, struggles, and pain that most people face. And since everyone is supposed to be a minister anyway what's the use in having paid full-timers? Many times I've thought about becoming bi-vocational myself because I sometimes feel a disconnect between those I minister to/with and me. Several people have suggested that bi-vocational ministry will continue to be, not just a significant avenue for ministry, but should actually be THE preferred route considering the more hostile society seems to be toward Christianity.

Big mistake. Certainly there is room for bi-vocational ministry and that will continue to be the case. There are definite advantages to it and that makes it the only feasible means in many instances. But to hold it up as the ultimate way to minister is mis-guided. I have intentionally avoided going into biblical basis for each side because I believe both are supported and encouraged. But full-time ministers are important too.

In one of his books, Eugene Peterson talks about the "poised harpooner." His metaphor is a chase boat from the whaling days where he describes the frantic rowing of the crew as they chase down a whale. The frantic rowing is contrasted by the lone harpooner who calmly waits for the moment to strike. Peterson points out that to do his job of guiding the skiff as it follows a whale and then throwing the harpoon effectively the harpooner cannot be frantically rowing too. If he was, they wouldn't know which direction to row, and if they did happen to run into a whale no one would be in condition to make an accurate throw.

I think in the rush to support bi-vocational ministry we forget this crucial aspect of the full-timers. This is especially sad when the decision is based on, not really a lack of finances, but, simply the fact that the congregation begrudges paying the pastor. That speaks more about a spiritual condition than a financial one.

Let me make clear that I hold many bi-vocational pastors in high regard. I think they are doing the right think for their context and I think that will be the case in the future. If I felt God wanted me to do it too I wouldn't hesitate for a minute. But I am perfectly at peace with being a full-time minister and I think we need to be sure that it maintains it's standing has a legitimate form of ministry too.

Evaluating Church

It is that time of year again, to fill out annual reports on my church and send them in to the denomination. Every year I wonder what all those numbers really mean. Sometimes I think whoever reads my reports (Ha Ha) will get the absolute opposite impression than I have of my church. Sometimes the numbers will look good but because I know the story behind them I know they really aren't. And sometimes the numbers will look not so good and I will be excited about how things are going.

At any rate, evaluating church is always a big topic for discussion. I don't remember who the quote is originally attributed to but it states, "What gets measured, gets done." I could rewrite the last half a number of ways, ("What gets measured, gets fudged.") but the point is that there seems to be a consensus that we must have a way of measuring our effectiveness. I think there is truth in that but I seriously question what exactly we should measure.

Reggie McNeal talks about changing the scorecard, meaning that we need to start measuring the right things. I agree but I have a tendency to not stop until I have reached the ultimate end of the means. That leaves me with the question of how we have impacted the world around us. So really we should be measuring things like crime statistics, education levels, divorce rates, and the like. Seems like that would tell us something about how we are doing as a church. Can you imagine if those were the numbers every church had to supply in their annual reports? I bet there would be a lot more collaboration.

But then I thought I should look at the Bible and see what it has to say about evaluating churches. Novel idea, huh? There are a few times when numbers are used. The 2nd chapter of Acts is a prime example. We also read quite a bit about producing fruit and the fruit of the Spirit. Of course some of that is personal and may not necessarily refer to a church. However, there is one passage where God evaluates churches so that is where I camped out.

In the book of Revelation the 2nd and 3rd chapters give us God's evaluation of 7 churches. I listed all the positive things God had to say, all the negative things he had to say, all the admonitions, and all the words of encouragement. I came up with 4 areas that God seems to really care about when evaluating a church. The first one that comes through loud and clear is love. He comes down very hard on the Ephesian church for having lost it's first love. In the book of Ephesians Paul tells us that this church had a great love for God and a great love for others (1:15,16), so it seems that must be the first love that they lost. God cares if a church has a true love for God and others.

The second is faithful perseverance. Some of the churches seem to be going through very difficult times. They were probably churches that we would be quick to write off today. God even calls one of them weak. But they are praised for their faithful perseverance. Faithfulness gets a bad rap today because it can easily be used as an excuse for laziness or ineffectiveness. But my guess is faithful perseverance will become even more difficult in the days ahead.

The third is purity/spiritual vitality. Maybe I shouldn't lump these two together but I wanted to keep the list short. Purity isn't highly regarded today as it used to be but God seems to take it very seriously. Robert Bork used the phrase "slouching towards Gomorrah" and I think that pretty accurately describes a lot of what goes on in churches today. It is incredible how much the Bible is interpreted based on what we humans want it to say. I give a lot of latitude with various interpretations of events described in the Scripture but not when there is a direct moral command regarding faith and practice. Sorry but that is too risky. God wants purity.

He also condemns churches for being dead or luke-warm. I put this one under purity but maybe it should stand on its own. It seems to go along with love. God wants people who are passionate about their love for him and for others. Passionate people seem much more likely to remain faithful and to persevere. So is our church alive?

The fourth area that God evaluates is service and hard work. Again, I threw these two together but they could easily be separated. In this day and age this seems to address the social gospel issue. There is a long history behind the social gospel story but it is really both. God cares about our purity, faithfulness, and love for him, but he also cares about our compassion and service to others. We need to work hard at our service rather than just jump in when it is convenient. We have an obligation to do so as good citizens of the Kingdom.

So there you have it. If you a really want to evaluate your church ask yourself these 4 (or 5 or 6) questions and see how you do. Now if I can just think of a way to quantify it so I can send in the numbers. Do you think my denomination will be amused if I send in Likert scores for each of these areas?