Why "bi-vocational" is a dirty word
In many forward-thinking church circles the term “bi-vocational” is catching on as a descriptor for the future of ordained ministry. Advocates will say thing like, “As churches decline — especially in rural areas — and as society morphs, we need more and more folks called to bi-vocational ministry.” Bi-vocational pastors work a secular job part or full time, and pastor churches on the side. In many ways, I get the term, get the need, get the description. But, when I think about it theologically, “bi-vocational” becomes a nonsense word. “Bi-vocational” should be scratched from our vocabulary. Here’s why.
The mainline church uses “vocation” to mean something like, “one’s calling to serve God in the world.” One might be called to ordained ministry (and before that be called to seminary). One might be called to work in the home without pay. One might be called to be a teacher, or doctor, or whatever. Ok, this is not new, and not too complicated.
Though we often speak of “vocation” in terms on par with “occupation,” the church tries to make a broader claim that vocation is not just what one does but how one does it. Vocation is less about what salary one makes than who one serves by doing so. Ok, so far so good, but when we speak of vocation we don’t say, “That doctor was called to heal that patient, then called separately to care for that person, then called completely unrelatedly to speak to the nurse in that way.” We don’t break up vocation to individual actions; vocational is a holistic term.
That’s the problem with “bi-vocational,” it implies that someone is called to two separate unrelated things. “Bi-vocational” splits a person up. It sets up a problematic western dualism. “Bi-vocation” says you are called to this AND this, but they are separate, and different, and maybe even at odds. Perhaps it even suggests one approaches the two vocations with a different sense of service, obligation, or understanding of God — “in this vocation I serve God, in this one I just serve burgers.” NOooo! The whole understanding of vocation that the church has been working on at least since the reformation is one that says we can serve God as we serve burgers and clean bathrooms and teach kids and stay at home, yadda, yadda. We can be called to an amazing variety of service.
So why do we limit God, split personalities up, and place one vocation over another in our continued use of the term, “bi-vocational?” I’m not certain, but I think it probably is related to a simplistic understanding of vocation in the first place. More on that later, but for now I insist: folks are not called to “bi-vocational ministry” but to serve God with their whole lives in creative, sustaining, life-giving ways that sometimes lead to being paid from multiple sources.
Connect Online
I think your point about the unity of our vocation is a solid one.
But does that particular term necessarily imply that the non-ordained ministry component of one’s vocation is less valuable? As you note, the idea of vocation applies to our calling to serve the purpose we were created for, be that within the bounds of the church or within the bounds of being an assistant manager at Dennys. If anything, it seems that the term “bivocational” validates the inherent goodness of work undertaken in the “secular” world. It doesn’t imply that you’ve got vocation on the one hand, and then the crap you have to do to pay the bills when you’d rather just be praisin’ Jesus all the day long on the other.
I’m not as familiar with this term of art, though, so I might not be aware of a negative valuation that you’ve seen.
Interesting post!
Thanks, David. You’re right, I don’t think “bi-vocational” necessarily implies that the non-ordained component is less valuable, but that’s how I’ve often seen it interpreted on the ground. Especially, I’d said, in places where ordained folks are revered or respected by virtue of their ordination, a sort of functional valuing of vocations is enacted. In both cases, then, I’d say thinking of vocation in terms of unity is a safer bet.
The PCUSA tries to use the term “tent-making pastor”, while Baptists generally speak of bi-vocational pastors.
http://www.pcusa.org/ministers/models/tentmaking.htm
There’s an officially recognized group, complete with an annual conference, known as the Association of Presbyterian Tentmakers
http://www.pcusatentmakers.org/
There are many who look down their noses at tent-making pastors, just as they might value the “senior” pastor (a really messed up term) of a 2000 member congregation more than the pastor of a 100 member congregation.
I see tentmaking as valuable – not just in freeing congregational money for mission, but in providing the minister a good grounding in reality. And, perhaps there is a little more effectiveness in reaching people with the Gospel – with examples used, and with people realizing that you aren’t their pastor for the money (as some might think – and there are some just putting in their time until they can take retirement. The largest group of pastors in the PCUSA are retired – not active pastors & co-pastors as you might think.)
I was introduced to a model which held a high ideal related to tent-making ministry – in a seminary class and discussion around “Mission”. This is actually my goal. I’ll have been ordained 5 years – next summer. At that time I anticipate becoming a “tent-maker”. It’s almost tough to keep from doing this right now, and I do keep my eye on the help-wanted section of various newspapers, so that I can know what the trends are.
I suppose I’m a little unique in that I’m a second-career type. I’ve worked in agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and ministry. With my experience and certifications, I could make much more in manufacturing, which will enable us to give more to mission work. I see this as an opportunity to live out what I believe – to show where my priorities are.
Awesome perspective, DennisS. Thanks a bunch. Yeah, the post was getting long so I didn’t go into the “tent-making” descriptor but I think that is much better. I’ve heard Lutherans say bi-vocational as well as some AME folks. I think it probably cuts across denoms.
Blessings on finding a tent-making job to live out your whole vocation. Peace.
I prefer the term tentmaker pastors. It makes sense. Like Paul you work to not be a burden but still serve the church as a pastor.
I agree. Actually all us Christians not trained (ordained or degree) at a school of the Bible should be labeled “bi-vocational” if we were committed to the great commandment and the great commission. May God Bless you!!
I thank you for your insights, which are certainly valid. I’m a pastor and a lawyer, and refer to myself as “bi-vocational”, but am not too bothered about the term or the label. I see my life of worship in a holistic way. As soon as you think of yourself as having two lives, or juggling, or spinning plates, you’ve lost something about that holisitc integrity. I’ve written a brief paper on that if anyone’s interested and I can e-mail it. Incidentally, because bi-vocational pastors/tent-makers have to free up the gifts of all the people to make it work, it doesn’t necessarily limit itself to a declining situation. Our place has grown three times in size in four years, but of course that’s down to God, rather than our set-up!
Some good insights. I’m currently the solo pastor at a church. We’re not in financial distress (our bills are paid, I’ve never missed a paycheck), but all of our money is wrapped up in paying me and paying for this building. We give as a church a great deal to foreign mission, but have few resources to do anything creative here. I haven’t been here long, and the pastor before me was not interested in branching out and being creative in that way.
So I’m considering tent-making (I like that much better) in order to free up some budget money. So I’m wondering, if we do that, and the church grows, how will I adjust so that I’m not working two full-time jobs.
Gus, I’d love to read your article. I know this thread is a little old, so I hope it gets to someone.
Hello I’m a solo pastor too in the Philippines. I’m working as a pediatric physiotherapist and a clinical manager. I am in the ministry since I was a teenager and was ordained last year.All of our church staff are tent makers.Our predecessors have been workers such as a lawyer , farmer,and a soldier.So far all our church needs are met.And we dont put all financial burdens to the church either. The bottom line is you as a pastor should prepare your people well to do the work of the ministry, so that they will their time, talent and treasure. Ministry is for all. We as pastors are here to prepare them to serve and work in the house Relationship is very important
Hey Adam… You said, “So why do we limit God, split personalities up, and place one vocation over another in our continued use of the term, “bi-vocational?””
I hear your heart on this. And I’m with you. My question, though, is a practical one: What do pastors do when they can’t pay the bills at the end of the month?
I know more than one pastor who has had to take another job, thus becoming bi-vocational, because they can’t afford to be a full-time pastor!
How would you counsel a pastor in that place?
Thanks for the comment, Justin. In the post, I’m trying not to say that it’s totally cool — and needed these days — for pastors to have to sources of income. But, if they do, that doesn’t make them “bi-vocational,” it just means their ONE vocation of service to God leads to two incomes.
I’m a 3/4 time pastor (incidentally, I wasn’t yet when I originally wrote this post). But I hate being described as “bi-vocatonal,” even though I do have at least one other source of income. Instead, my vocation is inclusive of my pastoral work and my writing work and other jobs. I’m not a dual personality, but one person living out my vocation at all times. I guess I’m saying it’s more than semantics.
maybe this ‘terminology’ deviation issue is a smokescreen and really more rooted in a desire to try justify the ‘vocation’ of the ‘office’ of a ‘full time’ worker? is there any justification scriptural or otherwise, for the ‘official’ status of the institutionalised church and the institutionalised leaders who control it? we are all ‘full time’ but to elevate any individuals into more than this by means of an official title or duty is to my mind questionable and at its base political and not spiritual in terms of kingdom activity. perhaps it is best that the debate rages on and the real issues are exposed. perhaps it’s the best that the whole question of the sustainability of the present church leadership system is exhumed (after all, to my mind it is a corpse-like deviation from Christ’s demonstrated way anyway)
It’s great to read something that’s both enjoyable and prviodes pragmatisdc solutions.
Thank you for your post. I think using the term bi-vocational or tent making doesn’t have to be a stigma. You are right, just like everyone that goes to church we are to minister everywhere we go. Recently my husband became a (wait for it…) bi-vocational minister.
I don’t use that word lightly. I am proud of him. Whether you use the word bi-vocational or not our family is working twice as hard to be right where God would have us. Working twice as hard is being bi-vocational. It is working twice (bi) as hard, but for the ONE reason; to honor God. It is tough, but it is pretty cool to see God at work in all of this. I offered some thoughts about this on my blog. You can catch it at
http://marriedtoministers.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-being-bi-vocational-peek-behind.html
It is meant to be funny, but also heartfelt and practical for anyone in ministry. The truth is the older I get the more I believe pastors should have other incomes as well. This is a tough economy and having another income can free pastors up in many ways. Thanks again for the post.
Thank you all for your reflections. I pray Gods blessing on each one of you. I am a surgeon and also volunteer some time to my local church. I see the need to help people who are sick and vulnerable, and want to offer something of eternal value to each person that I touch. I also love the local church and wish to see it in full health! Sometimes I feel torn between the two outward expressions of faith – time seems short, and resources so few. Perhaps there is only one vocation, that is to follow Jesus, but many expressions of that calling? Maybe it is up to each individual to ensure they are following their call, and we refrain from judgement as to the validity of their calling? We must trust that God has the bigger picture, and faithfully play out our small part. All for Christ, and Christ for all!