Dr. David W. Manner is the Associate Executive Director for the Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists. He blogs at http://kncsb.org/blogs/dmanner . You can follow him on Twitter: @dwmanner.
Now that I have your undivided attention, I do believe that full-time worship ministry is indeed a worthy calling and vocation that requires preparation, education and skills. And yes, it is a real job. But what if opportunities were no longer available for you to lead worship vocationally? What if you needed to voluntarily or were asked involuntarily to step aside from full-time worship ministry for an interim or extended period of time? What if you are unable to land a worship ministry position after graduation? What would or could you do to provide for your family while still responding to God’s call? Some of us have found ourselves in that situation only to realize we are not trained or are not training to do anything else.
Statistics show that 95% of churches average 350 or less in worship and that 75-80% of those churches average 150 or less. Forced terminations as a result of corporate business modeled leadership, unhealthy staff relationships, and ageism are all on the rise. The church planting movement has amplified the need for additional volunteer and part time worship leaders. Even larger, more established congregations are no longer realizing the need for full-time worship and music staff as they try to stretch their financial resources to accommodate their various multi-generational, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-venue worship needs.
With those statistics in mind, the present and future reality is that the need for full-time music and worship ministry staff is on the decline. In other words, there are and will continue to be more prepared full-time leaders than full time places for them to serve. With that understanding, are we being poor stewards of our calling by not being prepared and willing to lead bivocationally in those smaller congregations and church plants that long for gifted worship leaders to help them with Spirit and Truth worship? Reality dictates that while preparing for worship leadership many of us should also be learning additional marketable skills.
For this to occur, we must first agree that a call to bivocational ministry is not a mediocre calling but is in fact a call to full-time ministry that just happens to occur not only when we gather at church but also when we disperse to the marketplace. We must encourage our Christian colleges and seminaries to more actively challenge students preparing for worship ministry to also learn other skills. We must agree that it is never too soon or too late to learn something new. And we must agree that learning an additional skill doesn’t compromise our calling but in fact enhances it by expanding our mission field through our communication in other languages beyond choirs and chord charts.
Why not ask the same question of pastors?
Many people love the idea of a bi-vo pastor (often – not always- for the most selfish and ungdly of reasons on the part of the church)….that is until he can’t lead your loved ones funeral because he has to work his other job…or he can’t visit Sally Sue in the hospital because he has to work….or that he has no time for children and teen ministry at all because he has to work….or that he does not have time for much pastoral counseling – because he has to work. Full time pastors already juggle all these things and more… Read more »
This is why my utmost respect and kudos go out to the pastors who do this and do it well…which many (most) of them do. I’m not saying it bi-vocational pastoring cant be done (obviously)…or am I saying it should never be done….there are circumstances where it is prudent and necessary for a time but it should IMO, should be temporary and never be the norm.
Tarheel, if 80% of the congregations nationwide average 150 or less, then statistics would show that bivocational is the norm for a large percentage of those congregations. They don’t have the option for full-time leaders so temporary is not an option for them.
Tarheel, I think you make some very important observations. Don’t be surprised if you get some push back. I’ve been both bi-vocational and vocational, with more years bi-vo. I experienced the very problems you outline and more. There is no biblical mandate to be bi-vo so I don’t think we can raise the issue to one of full Scriptural warrant. So often, the only outcome with this type of discussion is to make some really good men feel really bad about receiving a paycheck. Quite frankly, I’d work for nothing if my family and I did not have to eat… Read more »
Bob, because many of us here are pastors, so if you ask that question of pastors—we get defensive.
But if you ask it of worship leaders and get us thinking about it, then you follow-up with “and what about pastors?” and you might get a more fruitful discussion.
Bob, not to nit-pick, but would you not agree that there is biblical warrant for the office of the pastor, but little or none for the office of the music director. There is of course such a thing as the “music director” especially in the O.T., but it does not seem to be the same thing as the office of the pastor in the N.T. I was a minister of music, both bi-vocational and full-time (with part time pay of course). So, I’m not slamming anybody’s call. I just don’t know how to read the N.T. and get the sense… Read more »
Frank, this is a good point. I have wondered how most churches can afford to pay the contemporary worship leader and the tradition music director. In our church they are different individuals but we have the size to and budget to pay them both. I am not certain either position has the equivalent work load of a Pastor who does his job well; thus I am would have a hard time making a case for a full-time salary for music leaders. I have known many small to medium sized churches that have done quite well with the volunteer music director/worship… Read more »
Wishing I had an edit button for my response above. 8-/
You make some good points about “calling” and biblical models thereof Frank.
Many (out of both choice and necessity) these days are discussing if not reevaluating the terminology of “calling” as it relates to Christian enterprise, vocation, and mission.
I wonder sometimes if we ought not to consider the possibility that God “calls” each one of us, first and foremost, to Himself. We apply and live out that calling within the context of vocation.
Over the course of a human lifetime, vocational settings often change.
Is there a Biblical warrant for ministry assistants, custodians, financial secretaries, and the like?
I can assure you our worship leader has a full-time job handling her duties. And even more…
Bob, I think we put too much emphasis on titles sometimes. We are only given two titles to use for leadership in the Bible, elders and deacons (Phil. 1). But, this is not to say that there are many expressions of these gifts. There is also a third group that is often overlooked, “Ye!” That covers everyone else. I think as long as we see titles as terms of convenience, I think we are well within our bounds to engage and empower anybody with a gift or talent which covers all of God’s children. We should not make too much… Read more »
I believe all Pastors should be bi-vocational, after all Paul was. I believe churches should take care of their Pastor, but let their salary be adjusted
to a bi-vocational position, and then when it comes to spending money they will be very conservative, their priorities will be in order.
It is worth noting that Paul pointed to himself as an example which should be an exception. He wanted churches to support those who gave themselves to the special work of ministry.
Chris, I agree with support, but it does not do away with bi-vo ministers.
Sure, and in the future we will see more and more pastors move to bi-vo as the church in America continues to decline. But my point is that Paul’s encouragement was for churches to provide a living for their pastors. He saw his bi-vocational role as an exception, not a norm.
Chris,
I’m not sure there was a norm in the early church.
Jesus wasn’t bi-vocational.
Bob, good observation. So often we miss the obvious.
Bob, Jesus didn’t receive a salary either.
No, he took a vow of poverty and lived off the good-will of God’s people and the work of the disciples. Judas was a keeper of the treasury for the disciples so there was income.
I have no problem with ministers who take a vow of poverty. I have a bit of a problem with congregations that mandate a vow of poverty through their selfishness.
Why Frank? The Government will take care of them.
Bob, you are right, he wasn’t bi, he was tri-vocational.
Paul wasn’t a pastor.
And there were many times in his ministry that he was supported by his comrades so that he could focus his full attention on the task at hand.
As a bi-vocational pastor I can assure you that the only thing bi-vo about it is the pay. Furthermore, I don’t know of any bi-vo pastor who doesn’t pray that someday there will be a way to no longer be bi-vo so that I can pour myself into my ministry and into other’s lives more readily.
Nate, The only thing a bi-vo is about is the pay. Sir, you have lost your mind. I would suggest that you get out of the ministry if you are in it for the pay. I have said some crazy things here on voices, but nothing that even comes close to your remark. God called into bi-vo ministry to fix broken congregations, I have done this for 35 years. I have to say many of the churches are going strong today. There are hazards to my calling, I think this is the reason God wanted me to remain bi-vo. I… Read more »
Jess, comments like “sir, you have lost your mind” go beyond the boundaries of Christian conversation. Please govern yourself, okay?
Dave, I’m sorry, I should have reacted differently.
“the only thing bi-vo about it is the pay.” Nate
“The only thing a bi-vo is about is the pay.” Jess
Please read the two statements carefully. They are not the same.
Bill Mac,
They mean the same.
Jess: Sorry, but they don’t. Nate was essentially saying he was doing full-time pastoral duties. The only thing “bi-vo” was the pay he received. You misquoted him as saying that the only thing a bivocational pastor is about is the pay, meaning the only thing he is concerned about.
Wow, just got back on and didn’t realize I created such a firestorm. Thanks Bill Mac for clarifying exactly what I meant, which Jess didn’t pick up on. Just to clarify, because I have two full-time jobs (essentially, since ministry is a full-time job-no matter the pay), I long for the possibility of not have a secular job as well as my pastorate. I would then be able to throw myself even further into ministry and not experience (to the same degree) the frustration and burn-out of not being able to do all the things I would like to do.… Read more »
I’m glad that God has called you to this ministry…but please do not foist your calling onto others as if it is the only way.
Question;
– when you say “I have to say that many are going strong today”
what do you mean by that? Do they still have bi vocational pastors working another full time job and pastoring to make ends meet and provide for their family?
Tarheel,
Just a bit of a “disagreement.” Your post could be read as implying that bi-vocational churches cannot be “strong” churches or that all bi-vocational churches have starving, malcontent pastors.
I spent over half my nearly four decades as a bi-vocational pastor and neither of those two things applied to my ministry.
Bi-vocational ministry, when practiced biblically, is as much or more effective than the “one pony show” we see so often in some churches.
Just a “little bit” of disagreement. I’d suspect you would qualify and expand your statement in regard to bi-vocational ministry.
LOL…I see how you could have read it that way…but that is not what I meant. I asked the question because Jess was contending that he helped these churches as a bi-vocational pastor, then stated they are now doing well. Given that he said that ALL pastors should be bi-vo earlier and has intimated that it is the only way in the comment thread, I thought I’d ask if any of these churches he identified as “strong” were still bi-vocational. If any are full time they must be, by his standard, out of the will of God as they must… Read more »
Tarheel. I figured this is what you meant but wanted to keep a good perspective on bi-vo ministry.
It has to be a choice and a calling. Nowhere is it proscribed as the only model.
I will say I believe bi-vo could very well become the prominent model and be very healthy for the church.
So often bi-vo ministry is seen as a matter of economics and not as a calling.
Tarheel, Sorry, but I cannot foist my calling on others, Callings have to come from God. One of the churches I pastored had only 17 people the day I walked through the door. Through hard work and God blessing everything I tried to get done, the church grew to the 70’s in number. We put two buses on the road and bricked the church. We held to the BFM and the church was grounded in God’s word. We also obtained the property’s first deed. I was called to another church and the last I heard the church had 250 people… Read more »
so would you define a church with a full time salaried pastor as being a candidate for your “strong” delineation…
You seem to be contending that pastors who work full time, or all bi-vo’s who desire to be full time do so for the money.
I do not know about the other full time vocational pastors here…but I will say were I doing ministry ‘for the money’ I have picked a bad profession by which to get wealthy. I’m not complaining just saying – it appears that you think we are all raking in the bucks hand over fist.
Paul oversaw all the churches, that makes him a pastor.
Jess,
“Paul oversaw all the churches, that makes him a pastor.”
This seems like an argument for a more Presbyterian form of church polity….with regional overseers and such? 😉
Tarheel,
You may read into scripture what you want, but it still does not change what Paul was.
I’m reading into scripture? How exactly am I doing that?
You on the other hand…
Aren’t you arguing that Paul was a pastor, and that is your basis for saying that all pastors should be bi-vo.
Please explain.
Jess have you bothered reading 1 Corinthians chapter 9?
Tarheel, I’m responding to #37, I personally believe all Pastors should be Bi-Vo. I believe the scriptures teach this. The scripture can, depends on how you look at it, teach full time. I’m not saying do away with full time ministers, although Bi-Vo is full time too. I believe a church should support the Pastor, but to what extent is the question. I have never seen a need for full time preachers, if one has good support staff in place. Since we do have full time pastors I find no scripture to do away with them. I also don’t believe… Read more »
John Wylie,
I love 1st Cor. 9:15.
How about 1 Corinthians 9:7-14? It’s awfully hard to make the case that Paul would be against full time pastors.
the early Church most certainly WAS an organic unit . . . when you consider that the five first centers of Christianity flowing out from Jerusalem all shared the same beliefs (before the Bible was written), and had the same forms of worship (Service of the Word, followed by Service of the Thanksgiving) . . . and then, you have to consider the SHARING among all the ‘churches’ of sacred Scripture once it was written, each ‘letter’ or ‘epistle’ being sent not only to the intended people, but also shared among the whole Church entire, and read out loud among… Read more »
I was a bi-vocational music minister. I also taught a Sunday School class. We ran 250 to 300 and I never was paid a penny. I never thought about it until I told someone that I had lead music before. They asked me if I was paid. I said no and they were amazed that the church never paid me. It was during those days that God’s grace was so heavily upon me. Looking back, I grew more spiritually during that time.
Nate, as I stated earlier…you have mega kudos and respect from me….bi-vo’s are my heroes!
I too long for that day for you when you can devote yourself completely, behind your family, to the ministry to which you are called.
Bill Mac;
“Jess: Sorry, but they don’t. Nate was essentially saying he was doing full-time pastoral duties. The only thing “bi-vo” was the pay he received. You misquoted him as saying that the only thing a bivocational pastor is about is the pay, meaning the only thing he is concerned about.”
Exactly!
Nate mentioned NOTHING about money being his goal or reason for desiring ministry…he only pointed out that that he is now doing 2 full time jobs because pastoral ministry is full time regardless of the pay.
Jess,
“Look, all I’m saying is that if you are in the ministry for the money, get out.”
Earlier you seemed quite emphatic in asserting that those who accept (or bi-vos who desire) full time salaries are in ministry for the money.
With the addition of the word “if” into your statement…..I’ll back away as we now agree. Scripture expressly teaches that pastors should not be greedy lovers of money. (1 Tim. 3:3, 1 Peter 5:2)
agreed
I read of a church this week who paid they’re soundman $60k a year. It makes me think that certainly some priorities in the church have gotten messed up somewhere along the way. On another note, Jess made an important comment when he said: “I have never seen a need for full time preachers, if one has good support staff in place.” I think in that is where the smaller churches would suffer most in having a bi-vo pastor, there’s simply not enough people many times to have any support staff. Sadly, I could not perform a funeral this week… Read more »
For the grammar watchdogs, that should have been “their soundman” Sorry, even autocorrect fails me sometimes.
David,
I think that the $60,000 salary has to have some context. If this person is in charge of audio-visual in a larger church, that is probably a bargain.
I’d also suspect he “may” (I don’t know) have other duties than to simply turn on the sound board.
Most likely that is the case Frank. While not brushing aside the value of a good soundman, it still begs the question, are churches using their resources in the best way? What happened to people volunteering to fill those kinds of positions? Could it be more of the spectator mentality we’re hearing about? Possibly. Of course we are all accountable in this area from the small church to the megachurch, but in the grand scheme, it just seems excess. Of course, it could just be me.
David,
It just needs context. I agree we often pay people to do what needs to be done by volunteers–even in a small church (most of those I’ve served over the years).
I can say, Amen, to your point of view.
If this is a large church with say a TV ministry – the sound professional may in fact be worthy of that kind of a salary…and under that assumption you can bet his job is much more than just pressing on and off on the board. The board is likely complex and he likely has some advanced training in it. To just hold a random salary up without context and explanation is not an honest way to have a discussion. “I know of a pastor who makes XYZ salary at ABC church and all he does is preach.” That errant… Read more »
““I know of a pastor who makes XYZ salary at ABC church and all he does is preach.” That errant statement sound familiar?”
Absolutely! LOL
I can certainly justify the salary for that type of position. Just seems “wow” at first reading knowing what the rest of that church’s budget must look like. But hey, I live in the sticks after all. 🙂
I think there was a related discussion on here a few months ago revolving around the addition at First Baptist Dallas.