Should Pastors Be Bi-Vocational?

Most pastors prefer to have their ministries be their full-time vocations. Others, by choice or by forced circumstances (church is too small, not enough money in the budget, etc) work bi-vocationally. Their ministry is supplemented with part-time or some other form of full-time work. Some Christians complain that a full-time vocational pastor with full pay and benefits sucks too much money out of the church budget and encourages the laypeople just to leave real ministry to the "paid professional." Others critique bi-vocational ministry as being unrealistic and too demanding on a pastor's time, especially in a church of 100 or more. Tell me which of these models of pastoral ministry you agree with and why:

1. The Case for the Full-Time Vocational Pastor: Pastors who are called to ministry by the Lord should serve full-time if their church is large enough and if there is enough money to support him full-time. Supporting a pastor financially is a Biblical teaching, not a mere suggestion. Plus, a pastor trains for many years for this position. Keep in mind that aside from his BA degree, many of them have 3 year seminary degrees...and some even more than that! We would never expect a lawyer who invests as much time and almost as much money to seek separate employment, so why pastors? Why are pastors, who are well-trained professionals themselves, put on a different plane than all other professionals? After these pastors rack up so much education (and probably school debt!) and on the job training, is it fair to then ask them to learn some other trade on top of all this? And how do we expect a pastor to lead a church, raise children and at the same time carry on a separate career? That is too much of a burden to put onto our pastors. It's also a recipe for burnout and possible family problems.

Plus, pastors are needed on a full-time basis. There are sick people to visit, lessons and sermons to prepare, programs to organize, contacts to make, etc. Not only that, but we need pastors who are men and women of prayer. We need pastors who can split their time between study, inward ministry to the church body, and outreach ministry to the unchurched. Sure, the Apostle Paul was a "tentmaker" but he said he was entitled to full-time support if he so wanted. The situation then was also much different than the one today. There may be similar dangerous situations a pastor or missionary can be in certain parts of the world, or the church just might not be able to support a pastor full-time. But if they can, then it's best for the pastor to work full-time for the church.

Pastors who work outside their ministries are robbing their churches of their best efforts. Today’s tentmakers have tendencies to live inside their tents. It is up to the local church to take proper financial care of its pastors. If there is a situation where the pastor must take separate work because the church can’t afford a full-time minister then that is a different story. But if the pastor can be supported by the church, then there is no reason for him or her to get off track with their call and be distracted with other employment.

2. The Case for the Bi-Vocational Pastor: A pastor can be called to ministry but still have a separate means of support. Look at how much money is spent in church budgets towards salaries. If pastors had another means of income it would save the church all sorts of money that could be better spent on saving the lost. Take a look at church budgets, how much actually goes towards these efforts vs. the staff's pay package and benefits? And while the Apostle Paul didn't say everyone had to be bi-vocational, he sure set a good standard for others to follow. Not only this, but most pastors are only serving those inside their church walls. By this I mean that most of their ministry is maintenance work and directed at their own members. Many are basically babysitters. The pastor will have more unchurched acquaintances if he has other means of work and income where he more naturally encounters others and is able to form relationships. We wouldn’t have to worry about pastors being overworked because the ministry would be more evenly shared throughout the leadership and congregation, and not just left to the “paid professionals.”

And speaking of seminary, sure seminary is a good thing, but do pastors really need it if they can’t afford it? Is this God's standard or man's? Is it really Biblical for pastors to rack up all that debt just so they can go into a profession that pays average to below average wages? The lawyer and doctor at least will make up for all their debt. Some pastors are still paying off their school debts for years into their ministry and never recover from them! Seminary may not be right for all pastors. And even if they go to seminary, why not have a separate skill developed in their undergrad years or afterwards on the side (perhaps a secular under grad major followed by a graduate seminary degree)? Maybe a Protestant model of the Jesuits works best here, where you had ministers who were skilled in both secular and sacred vocations.

Also, if such was the case, pastors would be more bold to preach and teach the truth and do what needs to be done. Reason being they would not worry so much about offending those who give financially and might leave the church. When a pastor receives his primary financial support from his ministry, it is a conflict of interest and the pastor will be too concerned about his livelihood to really rock the boat if it needs to be rocked. On a similar note, if pastors were bi-vocational then when in between churches, they would not have to worry about where they would live and how they would eat. Wouldn’t this actually be better for the pastor and his family? If we are talking the best interest of the pastors, is it in their best interest to be financially beholden to their churches? Thus, it is best for a pastor to have separate employment outside of his or her local church pastoral position.
......................................................................................................

So, which of these paradigms do you generally find more persuasive? What arguments would you add or subtract to either of these approaches? Which one do you think is better for pastors, churches, and the unchurched people they are trying to reach?