January 17, 2012
Are You a Real Pastor??
It’s been interesting. I’ve been a pastor for 10 years. In all this time I’ve always been bi-vocational. You can read about that in other places on my blog. During that time I’ve come to the realization that two things are (generally) true:
- In the traditional / established church world you aren’t a “real pastor” unless you are paid full-time by the church.
- In the church planting, missional, emerging (whatever words you want to use here) world you aren’t totally legitimate unless you are bi-vocational.
Why don’t we just go ahead and say that neither of these assumptions are healthy.
There is a time and place for full-time paid pastors. There is a time and place for part-time paid pastors.
Neither one is more spiritual than the other.
That is all.
01.17.12
By: Dan B.
I would say a pastor is one who pastors/shepherds, whether he’s paid or not. A lot of paid “pastors” don’t shepherd very well. In fact, a lot of people in the professional ministry aren’t people persons at all, according to research I’ve read. They’re attracted to the ministry, instead, because they like to spend time by themselves with books. A lot of non-clergy people, on the other hand, shepherd others very well.
01.17.12
By: Ben Sternke
AMEN. So much of this ends up being about image and perception instead of calling. Well said.
01.17.12
By: Todd
Thanks guys.
01.17.12
By: dave
Good thoughts….I wonder about some of the psycho/social effects of how limited the term has typically been – to professional ministers or senior leaders or men or extroverted leaders or whatever kind of caricature/stereotype could be generally attributed to the specific role or calling of “pastor.”
Obviously the term is bigger than the many restrictions that have been placed upon it in many settings, and I’m thankful for conversations like this that help move towards a better future!
01.17.12
By: Todd
Dave, that’s an interesting point, if i’m following you correctly. I use the term pastor to describe myself because that’s what culture gets, but the fact of the matter is that I am more of an apostle if we were to use the words we find an Ephesians 4.
to me pastoring is a descriptor of a shepherd. i definitely do some of that but there are people in my congregation / leadership that are much better shepherds than i.
of course, if i called myself a bi-vocational apostle that would be kinda weird… or would it? :)
01.17.12
By: dave
thanks for the follow up – I’m totally with you on the distinction between “pastor” (broad term for Christian leader) and “pastoring” (shepherding/caring).
My initial response may have meant two things:
(1) what you said – limiting church leadership to the pastor/shepherd role has caused atrophy in the church’s “outward” muscles (evangelistic/prophetic/apostolic ministries).
I just saw a denominational pastoral evaluation that was entirely focused on shepherding/teaching as the two main areas of needed proficiency – nothing about sharing good news, nothing about birthing new expressions, nothing about hearing from God, etc. It seems needed to “reclaim” these outward roles within the broad office or description of “pastor.”
(2) that the traditional, narrow definition of pastor (meaning the paid, full-time, seminary-trained “expert”) has limited the involvement and participation of other leaders in the church, and the narrowness we’ve understood the pastoral office has done harm and damage (the “psycho/social effects” I mentioned in my initial response) to those culture deems “non-pastor Christians” that may not be recovered in this generation.
Does that make sense?
01.18.12
By: peter
I think we need to look at how we use terms. I believe Every believer is called to be a pastor of sorts; meaning that EVERY person who calls themselves christian who has been so for over a year needs to be a) sharing the gospel b) discipling someone. Now that ends the idea of the paid staffer being the one that does all the sheep birthing! Yes,the staffer should be doing the same as any other “member” of the body; and if paid full time christian (full time staffer) should be doing more ministry than the unpaid full time christian (run of the mill member)or the part time staffer. The last two have jobs that require their time and energy; the full time paid church staff has only the work of the church to deal with.
Theissue is to get the body of Christ to see the need for them reaching others for Jesus. As well as getting the clergy give up the idea of them being the “the paid, full-time, seminary-trained ‘expert’”. Oh, it is we “the seminary-trained experts” that have for the most part propogated the idea that we are the one’s who do THE MINISTRY; the rest of the church just helps out!
Bad news for the rest of the “seminary-trained expert” out there; I have had people with little education (let allow theological education) who could shepheard better I or any of my fellow “expert”! We that are or have been the “expert” need to release and empower the laity to do God’s will and bring people to relationshship with Jesus!! [/sermon]
01.18.12
By: Geoff Holsclaw
Todd, I generally agree with you, that you just can’t write off full-time paid ministry. But I’m EXTREMELY cautious about full-time ministry and thing it would emerge out of the context of a church and its needs.
A church that has always only had a full-time fully paid pastor has probably developed unhealthy dependencies (and the pastor probably has too).
So for me the ideal into full-paid ministry is that it emerges out of bi-vocational ministry.
so when you say “There is a time and place for full-time paid pastors. There is a time and place for part-time paid pastors” I agree in the abstract, but in our concrete N. American context, the time and place more often than not should begin and broadly remain bi-vocational to some degree.
01.18.12
By: Geoff Holsclaw
oh, and the idea that missional pastors should think/act/respond to having/not having “missional street cred” (legitimacy) is totally wrong (but yes it happens all the time). Just the inversion of being a successful pastor with a big church.
follow you calling and banish the comparisons!
01.19.12
By: Bob hager
Form follows function. The mission should determine such administrative details. It is not a matter how spiritual you are or how others perceive you, it is a matter of how best to make disciples in any given context.
I am a part of a tradition that looks down its nose at the thought of bi-vocational ministry and the sad reality is ou attitude has robbed us of some of the best people and best situations. Just a thought.
01.20.12
By: Rev Gus
Thanks for this post. I’m so glad we’re now using the term bivocational, and have all but done away with the phrase “non-stipendiary minister”. Only in the West could we define someone’s ministry by whether or not they get paid, and by what they are “not”!
Flexibility is key. That was Paul’s example, and we should be responsive enough to the Spirit’s leading to serve wherever we’re lead to and whoever we’re lead to and whatever the terms of payment are, whether fully funded or bivocationally.
We shouldn’t blinker ourselves either way to a particular model or office. The Spirit may lead us in ways that are beyond our limited horizons of expectations.
Self-esteem issues remain for those who are bivocational, and often for the churches they serve if they see themselves as not having a “real” pastor. However, if you are certain of a sense of call in your life and that you are doing what the Lord wants you to be doing, in his way, that’s the best foundation you can have.
Next time anyone suggests you are not a “real” pastor, pinch yourself. I’m sure you’ll feel pretty real, despite what others may think, and the effects of your ministry are pretty real too.
01.20.12
By: Martyn Link
Hi Todd,
I couldn’t agree more, how you are funded has no bearing on your calling. Full-time and part-time are both valid biblical models for ministry. It’s not about the proportion of time or money you receive from the church (or if you’ve been to bible college) that qualifies you to be a pastor, but about your gifting and godliness.
I’m enjoying reading your posts – just came across you today.
God bless,
Martyn
01.27.12
By: Matthew
I agree with Dan B. A “pastor” by definition has to do with function more than it does title. A pastor is a “shepherd-er of people”. In fact, I would go as far as saying, many that carry the title “Pastor” are no more pastors than any other ‘manager’ with secular employment. The issue is we have totally and completely downgraded the word from its Biblical weight. There is, now or can be now, a difference between an occupational pastor and a vocational pastor. The truth is, just because someone “runs” a “church” does not necessarily make him a pastor, he may be a ceo or a manager that wrongly wears the badge, ‘pastor’ – that said, a real biblical pastor can and sometimes does lead churches…