Recently I read an article concerning new Anglican vocations. The point was made that the new Anglican world, (ACNA) would present a need for priests willing to be bi-vocational. This is a new reality that many former Episcopalians are facing. I am thankful, and really not surprised that many young men are willing to go to such extraordinary measures for the sake of the Gospel. There is a long history of such self-sacrifice in Christian Tradition, going all the way back to St. Paul. " I have become all things to all men , that I mighty by all means save some." It was my motivation almost fifteen years ago, and continues to be the driving motive to this day.
However, care must be taken to keep this zeal in its proper perspective. Bi-vocational ministry, while becoming more common, even necessary in many instances, is not normative of Christian ministry. It is the exception rather than the rule, Scripturally and traditionally. St. Paul, by his own testimony, embraced bi vocational ministry as a way of not being a burden to the fledgling congregation at Corinth, but no where does he suggest that all ministers do the same. In fact his council to Timothy, is in stark contrast to his own practice at Corinth. Furthermore, there is no evidence that St. Paul viewed his "tent making" as anything other than a temporary, extraordinary means. It was his "ground for boasting." (1 Cor.9:15)
In this light, bi vocational ministry must be viewed as a personal choice, an offering of self-sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel. For the Church to go beyond this, and to require its ministers to be bi vocational would be a violation of the Gospel. "The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Cor. 9:14)
Likewise, bi vocational ministry should be seen as a means to a specific end, not an end in itself. The goal of every bi vocational minister should always be full time vocational ministry. There are a number of reasons for this. First, and foremost, as I stated above, it is against Scripture and Tradition to do otherwise. God has His own reasons why He has always, set aside men dedicated to his service, from the Levites under the Old Covenant to the ministers, bishops priests and deacons of the New. It seems that for the sake of the missionary endeavor, God has allowed exception to this rule, but it is the rule nonetheless. The person considering bi vocational service, needs to be aware of the cost of this compromise. It will cost. We need to count this cost, and be sure that we are able to pay. Bear with me for stating what should be obvious. If bi vocational ministry was the best, most effective way to do ministry, the Lord would have told us.
After nearly fifteen years of bi-vocational ministry, I can testify that it is not "the berries." It's a lot of work, more than people who are not bi vocational can imagine. It is consistently frustrating, because of the limits of time and physical endurance. The quality of service rendered to the parish suffers. Nevertheless, bi vocational ministry enables us to take the Gospel, to plant new churches in areas, that traditional ministry cannot. So I embrace it as an extraordinary means that makes it possible for me to serve the dear people of rural Kentucky now, while reaching out in hope for the day when I will be able to serve the people of my charge without the distraction and drain of a second job.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
David and Goliath
Everybody likes the story. Little David against all odds, defeats a giant of a man, Goliath. We love it when the underdog comes out on top. Its a popular theme, in movies, sports, and yes, even politics. Perhaps the reason it is so popular is that so many of us view ourselves as "underdogs," or little guys, and it gives us hope that one day we will come out on top. Now hope is a good thing. Without it people cannot survive. However, we have missed the whole point of the story if we think this is about an underdog.
First, David was not an underdog, and he did not view himself in that way at all. When he stood before the doubtful King Saul, David was far from fearful or weak. He was more like a teenage boy, lacking proper restraint, and judgment. He had killed lions and bears with his own hands, and this Philistine would fall too. Sorry. David was no underdog in his own eyes, although others may view him as such. There were underdogs in the story though. They were the ones standing on the sidelines despairing, scoffing at young David, waiting for a real hero, and the king who sat in safety and sent a young boy to do what he was afraid to do himself. Those are the underdogs in this story.
David was different from the rest. What set him apart was not his strength, fighting skills, or even his experience defeating lions and bears. What distinguished David from the rest was his deep seated confidence in God. David was a man/boy of faith, and a model for all of us in this regard. His faith went beyond mere belief in God. David believed something about God, and this faith permeated his whole life, whether in the fields watching over sheep, or on the battlefield facing a giant. And it is this faith, what David believed about God, that set him apart from the rest of the army in his own day, and from the wannabe heroes, and arm chair quarter backs of today. Of course, David surely believed in God's power, and greatness, His holiness and righteousness, as do we. But David's extraordinary confidence, came from his belief in God's sovereignty and good will toward him and the nation of Israel. Beyond this, David understood himself to be a participant not a spectator in the economy of God's dominion. God's dominion is carried out by the hands of faithful men and women.
We pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done..." (Oh, Lord please send somebody) I doubt that David, was in the field one day tending his sheep, when God, "gave him a word " that he was to defeat Goliath. When the lion attacked his sheep, I doubt he took a moment to pray about what he should do in this situation. When he heard Goliath blaspheming the Lord, he knew what needed to be done. King Saul saw these as two entirely different genres. David saw them as one and the same. The God who helped him kill the lion and the bear, would help him defeat Goliath.
It was not an underdog that defeated a giant, it was the Lord's servant David, simply doing his duty, in concert with his Master.
Listen, we as the people of God, have got to stop reveling in our victimization. We are not victims, we are not underdogs. We are servants of the sovereign King of the universe, co-laboring with Him to achieve his Glory in the world. His power is not lessened but perfected in our weakness. Let us therefore take hold of each day, and with the confidence of David, engage our giants. Let us work in our portion of the field that God's will be done-on our watch.
First, David was not an underdog, and he did not view himself in that way at all. When he stood before the doubtful King Saul, David was far from fearful or weak. He was more like a teenage boy, lacking proper restraint, and judgment. He had killed lions and bears with his own hands, and this Philistine would fall too. Sorry. David was no underdog in his own eyes, although others may view him as such. There were underdogs in the story though. They were the ones standing on the sidelines despairing, scoffing at young David, waiting for a real hero, and the king who sat in safety and sent a young boy to do what he was afraid to do himself. Those are the underdogs in this story.
David was different from the rest. What set him apart was not his strength, fighting skills, or even his experience defeating lions and bears. What distinguished David from the rest was his deep seated confidence in God. David was a man/boy of faith, and a model for all of us in this regard. His faith went beyond mere belief in God. David believed something about God, and this faith permeated his whole life, whether in the fields watching over sheep, or on the battlefield facing a giant. And it is this faith, what David believed about God, that set him apart from the rest of the army in his own day, and from the wannabe heroes, and arm chair quarter backs of today. Of course, David surely believed in God's power, and greatness, His holiness and righteousness, as do we. But David's extraordinary confidence, came from his belief in God's sovereignty and good will toward him and the nation of Israel. Beyond this, David understood himself to be a participant not a spectator in the economy of God's dominion. God's dominion is carried out by the hands of faithful men and women.
We pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done..." (Oh, Lord please send somebody) I doubt that David, was in the field one day tending his sheep, when God, "gave him a word " that he was to defeat Goliath. When the lion attacked his sheep, I doubt he took a moment to pray about what he should do in this situation. When he heard Goliath blaspheming the Lord, he knew what needed to be done. King Saul saw these as two entirely different genres. David saw them as one and the same. The God who helped him kill the lion and the bear, would help him defeat Goliath.
It was not an underdog that defeated a giant, it was the Lord's servant David, simply doing his duty, in concert with his Master.
Listen, we as the people of God, have got to stop reveling in our victimization. We are not victims, we are not underdogs. We are servants of the sovereign King of the universe, co-laboring with Him to achieve his Glory in the world. His power is not lessened but perfected in our weakness. Let us therefore take hold of each day, and with the confidence of David, engage our giants. Let us work in our portion of the field that God's will be done-on our watch.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Economy of Ministry
This was a new one to me. A recent article on Fox News, cited the poor economy, and rocky employment environment, for a recent increase in enrollment in religious education. Pause. When I read this article I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. It could be that we are experiencing a revival of sorts. The more cynical side of me sees this as a bad omen, a sign that the gospel and ministerial vocations, have been so cheapened that they are viewed as career plan B. "If I can't make it into med school, I can always be a minister." I witnessed this first hand back in college--the student who cannot decide on a major, or cannot cut the academic rigor of his first choice, becomes a religion major.
Then there is the other side, that sees ministry as a lucrative opportunity in hard economic times. People give to the church, even when times are hard. Remember the widow's mite. In some peoples mind I'm sure that this makes ministry an attractive profession. I have to agree that the "opportunities" for service are endless. What ever might be your take on the situation, it seems evident that as a culture, religious careers, have displaced vocations. Compare this article with the fact of declining vocations in the Roman Catholic Church, and you will begin to see my point. What's the difference? Why is one growing and the other declining? It's the difference between "vocation," and career choice. We don't have much room for vocation in our church culture anymore. It's the idea that a person might be chosen, rather than choose. This little difference changes everything. For the person who is called, who receives a vocation, is under obligation, under orders. There is a cost, a sacrifice to be made, obedience fulfilled. It is not a simple matter to "change majors" if things don't seem to be working out. It doesn't matter how well the job pays, or what is happening in the economy. In some cases we who are under orders, have to work a second job, to fulfill our vocation. That is not an appealing proposition to many. Finally the ministerial vocation is a life long vocation, similar to marriage in that it is not to be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. But for those whom God has called it is a price we are more than willing to pay. The promises, the vows you make before God, witnessed by the congregation, and under the hand of your bishop are not a matter of convenience.
How many of these graduate students, pursing ministerial careers, would continue if they considered their vocation in this light?
Then there is the other side, that sees ministry as a lucrative opportunity in hard economic times. People give to the church, even when times are hard. Remember the widow's mite. In some peoples mind I'm sure that this makes ministry an attractive profession. I have to agree that the "opportunities" for service are endless. What ever might be your take on the situation, it seems evident that as a culture, religious careers, have displaced vocations. Compare this article with the fact of declining vocations in the Roman Catholic Church, and you will begin to see my point. What's the difference? Why is one growing and the other declining? It's the difference between "vocation," and career choice. We don't have much room for vocation in our church culture anymore. It's the idea that a person might be chosen, rather than choose. This little difference changes everything. For the person who is called, who receives a vocation, is under obligation, under orders. There is a cost, a sacrifice to be made, obedience fulfilled. It is not a simple matter to "change majors" if things don't seem to be working out. It doesn't matter how well the job pays, or what is happening in the economy. In some cases we who are under orders, have to work a second job, to fulfill our vocation. That is not an appealing proposition to many. Finally the ministerial vocation is a life long vocation, similar to marriage in that it is not to be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. But for those whom God has called it is a price we are more than willing to pay. The promises, the vows you make before God, witnessed by the congregation, and under the hand of your bishop are not a matter of convenience.
How many of these graduate students, pursing ministerial careers, would continue if they considered their vocation in this light?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Rainbows and Promises
I cannot see a rainbow and not be reminded of the promise that God made to Noah, to never again destroy the world with a flood. Everyone likes the promises of God. They encourage us and inspire us with hope for the future-- a future that is not yet. They are given to us in the time in between, the time we are living in. We have promise of everlasting life, that one day God will wipe every tear from our eyes and there will be no more death or sorrow or suffering. But that promise, is not fulfilled yet. Never the less, that promise has its desired effect when it inspires us with hope, and faith, when it encourages us and gives us strength to face the present difficulties."In this world, you will have trouble. But be of good cheer! I have overcome the world" --Jesus
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
On Relevence
It seems to be the new buzz word among church growth guru's these days. It is usually the reason given to justify innovations in the liturgy, for using contemporary music or dispensing with "formalities". It's also the other side of the criticism levied against the traditionalist--irrelevant. But the word seems to be badly misused in either case. In popular usage, no matter what it might mean really, practically it means familiar, or comfortable. Let's face it. Kneeling is uncomfortable business, so is reverence. Singing time worn hymns takes a bit of work. So nowadays, relevance translates into a cup of jo during worship where the minister wears sneakers and jeans and goes by "John." No Pastor John, or certainly not Father John. Such titles are irrelevant. I wonder though, if that is what seekers are looking for or is it what church leaders suppose they are looking for? Perhaps the most relevant question is, "Is that what we/they really need?"
I remember back in Seminary taking a class in cross cultural discipleship. We began with the premise that human beings are religious. This is not theory, its a fact. Even those who are atheists or agnostic, are none the less religious, or rather have religious behaviors. The secular person still reveres his or her weekend, vacation time, or even that one night a week when their favorite show is on TV. Mircea Eliade, Vic Turner and others point out that humans are religious because they need to be religious. Sacred time, sacred spaces serve as interruptions in the ongoing stream of the common or profane. They provide rhythm and order into what would otherwise be an endless chaotic stream of events. It makes me wonder. If a secular person, came to a church, on purpose, actually "seeking," what he or she would be looking for? More of the same? Another support group or affinity club? a coffee shop? Might they actually be looking for a sense of the sacred, the One who is wholly Other? Are they more likely to look for a place that looks like a sports arena or concert hall?
When its all said and done, we may find that the most relevant thing a church can do for the secular person, is be the Church unmixed, undiluted, and unapologetic for its "other-ness."
I remember back in Seminary taking a class in cross cultural discipleship. We began with the premise that human beings are religious. This is not theory, its a fact. Even those who are atheists or agnostic, are none the less religious, or rather have religious behaviors. The secular person still reveres his or her weekend, vacation time, or even that one night a week when their favorite show is on TV. Mircea Eliade, Vic Turner and others point out that humans are religious because they need to be religious. Sacred time, sacred spaces serve as interruptions in the ongoing stream of the common or profane. They provide rhythm and order into what would otherwise be an endless chaotic stream of events. It makes me wonder. If a secular person, came to a church, on purpose, actually "seeking," what he or she would be looking for? More of the same? Another support group or affinity club? a coffee shop? Might they actually be looking for a sense of the sacred, the One who is wholly Other? Are they more likely to look for a place that looks like a sports arena or concert hall?
When its all said and done, we may find that the most relevant thing a church can do for the secular person, is be the Church unmixed, undiluted, and unapologetic for its "other-ness."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Heart of a Missionary
As a boy growing up in an evangelical denomination, my favorite services were the missionary services. We had them periodically. You would know it was for real, because at the back of the church there would be a table set up with a fantastic display of ornaments and artifacts from the "mission" field. The missionary would be sporting some unusual clothing typical of the people group he was serving. There would be a slide projector set up in the nave, with some men working desperately to get the screen set up and the projector focused, working out all the technical difficulties before the service was to start. The service would begin normally then the pastor would turn the service over to the missionary. If he was a particularly gifted story teller, which most were, I would sit enraptured for the duration. Story after story would be told, of the harsh living conditions, the dangers from bandits or thugs, the culinary tastes of the people group. The stories would be enhanced by the slides showing real scenery, real people, beautiful people, pitiful people, and of course children- lots of children. One missionary I remember actually had mastered the use of a blow gun and stuck a dart into a wicker basket as a demonstration. The service would always close with a special offering taken up and prayer cards. I would leave the service, wishing God would call me to be a missionary. You could imagine my disappointment when He called me to be a pastor. Just a "plain ol' pastor."
Was I in for a surprise. What I did not realize then as I do now, that the United States has become a mission field, and difficult one at that. Missionary is not a term that should be limited to foreign missionaries. What makes a missionary, is not where he/she is called to serve, but rather the heart, the spirit in which that service is rendered. What is the difference between a Foreign missionary and a domestic missionary? That the domestic missionary gets to enjoy to comforts and luxuries of staying in the United States? Not hardly. The main difference is just what I related in the story above. I have yet to get invited to a church to share about the work God is doing in Casey County Kentucky. I could bring in slides. I could have a display "native" artifacts, tell good stories about the unique customs and culinary tastes of the people I serve, but it would not have the same effect. It's all too normal, too close to home. You see the real difference between home and foreign missions, is not what we do, or even why we do it. It's not the amount of sacrifice. It's not the cost, or the difficulty of the task. The real difference is how the work is perceived by the world around us and sometimes even the church at large.
As "domestic missionaries" we must not get discouraged by this. Instead let us with full resolve press on in the obscure little corner of the field where God has sent us. Know that the work that you are doing will probably not make the press, and you probably will not be invited to some larger affluent church to tell your story. That's OK though, because you don't really have time for it anyway. Remember a true missionary is characterized by selfless ambition to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those who have not yet heard. It doesn't matter if anyone notices. For our sake, it is probably better that way, lest we become puffed up with pride, or start playing to the crowd for more applause. Instead remember whom it is that you serve. Be faithful in the field you are working in. And if by chance someone does notice, remember that you are only doing what is your duty.
Was I in for a surprise. What I did not realize then as I do now, that the United States has become a mission field, and difficult one at that. Missionary is not a term that should be limited to foreign missionaries. What makes a missionary, is not where he/she is called to serve, but rather the heart, the spirit in which that service is rendered. What is the difference between a Foreign missionary and a domestic missionary? That the domestic missionary gets to enjoy to comforts and luxuries of staying in the United States? Not hardly. The main difference is just what I related in the story above. I have yet to get invited to a church to share about the work God is doing in Casey County Kentucky. I could bring in slides. I could have a display "native" artifacts, tell good stories about the unique customs and culinary tastes of the people I serve, but it would not have the same effect. It's all too normal, too close to home. You see the real difference between home and foreign missions, is not what we do, or even why we do it. It's not the amount of sacrifice. It's not the cost, or the difficulty of the task. The real difference is how the work is perceived by the world around us and sometimes even the church at large.
As "domestic missionaries" we must not get discouraged by this. Instead let us with full resolve press on in the obscure little corner of the field where God has sent us. Know that the work that you are doing will probably not make the press, and you probably will not be invited to some larger affluent church to tell your story. That's OK though, because you don't really have time for it anyway. Remember a true missionary is characterized by selfless ambition to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those who have not yet heard. It doesn't matter if anyone notices. For our sake, it is probably better that way, lest we become puffed up with pride, or start playing to the crowd for more applause. Instead remember whom it is that you serve. Be faithful in the field you are working in. And if by chance someone does notice, remember that you are only doing what is your duty.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A Two Edged Sword
This year marks my eighth year as pastor of Christ Community church, and all told my 16Th year of part-time/bi-vocational pastoral ministry, but I was a part time youth minister for a couple years, and a chaplain at a nursing home prior to that. When you add it all up it comes to nearly 20 years that I have served as a minister at a part time or volunteer level. This fact could be interpreted a number of different ways. It could mean that I am simply lazy and inept. It might mean that I just don't have enough faith to trust God to supply our needs through the ministry. But there is a third possibility, that I believe resonates within the hearts of most men who serve bi-vocationally: Devotion the Christ, and His Church. Throughout my adult life, service has always been about others. When I took my first pastorate in 1992, I was just thrilled to be able to serve the Lord in his church. I remain thrilled to serve the Lord. It is such a privilege, most of us would do it for free. It is not what we do but who we are. Ministry is what flows out of us where ever we are. We don't stop serving others if we don't get paid.
I further believe that bi vocational ministry holds a great deal of promise in the post modern milieu. It provides ministers for smaller parishes, it keeps us in touch with our world in an important way. It gives us contacts and opportunities to share the gospel with people. But as I hinted in the title it is a knife that cuts two ways.
After all these years I still believe in the value and virtues of bi-vocational ministry but with reserve. One of the primary reasons many cite for doing ministry in this way is the very reason perhaps we should not. In the post modern world, it is said that the professional clergyman has lost his niche. It is no longer one of the more respected careers. To the secular person he is less and less needed. We now have doctors and medicine, psychiatrists, and psychologists, we have public education. To many the role of a pastor has paled and is no longer significant, except in religious matters. Ministry is not a "real" job, but a kind of parasite that lives off needy people. In this view full-time ministers live a sheltered life, and cannot possibly have relevance for people who work 50-60 hours or more a week, who struggle to make ends meet and whose only day off is Sunday. Much that is written on bi-vocational ministry trumpets this ability to be relevant and to connect with people in the "real" world. But is this true? Does bi-vocational ministry do all that? Or does it rather concede the point that Ministry is not a real job, so much so that a person can adequately pastor and grow a church on a part time basis? And if this is true what need is there of any "full-time" ministers? It makes you think doesn't it? However the proof is in the pudding as they say and anyone considering bi vocational ministry needs to be aware of the facts. There are few, very few bi-vocational ministers who can do an adequate job of pastoral care and ministry. Through out the history of the Church, bi vocational ministers are the exception not the rule. Even in the New Testament, where the whole idea of tent making originated, it was the exception not the rule. The Apostle Paul did it himself, but counseled Timothy the very opposite. In the Apostle Paul, we have a precedent. The over-whelming weight of scripture points the other direction.
My point is simply this, bi-vocational ministry is not the panacea that will cure the ills of the modern church. It is a "stop-gap" measure today just as it was for St. Paul. It is in many instances a doorway into community. But we must not kid ourselves about the quality of our ministry at the part time level. The apostles themselves did not feel it right to give up preaching the word and prayer for the sake of "serving tables." Neither should we.
I further believe that bi vocational ministry holds a great deal of promise in the post modern milieu. It provides ministers for smaller parishes, it keeps us in touch with our world in an important way. It gives us contacts and opportunities to share the gospel with people. But as I hinted in the title it is a knife that cuts two ways.
After all these years I still believe in the value and virtues of bi-vocational ministry but with reserve. One of the primary reasons many cite for doing ministry in this way is the very reason perhaps we should not. In the post modern world, it is said that the professional clergyman has lost his niche. It is no longer one of the more respected careers. To the secular person he is less and less needed. We now have doctors and medicine, psychiatrists, and psychologists, we have public education. To many the role of a pastor has paled and is no longer significant, except in religious matters. Ministry is not a "real" job, but a kind of parasite that lives off needy people. In this view full-time ministers live a sheltered life, and cannot possibly have relevance for people who work 50-60 hours or more a week, who struggle to make ends meet and whose only day off is Sunday. Much that is written on bi-vocational ministry trumpets this ability to be relevant and to connect with people in the "real" world. But is this true? Does bi-vocational ministry do all that? Or does it rather concede the point that Ministry is not a real job, so much so that a person can adequately pastor and grow a church on a part time basis? And if this is true what need is there of any "full-time" ministers? It makes you think doesn't it? However the proof is in the pudding as they say and anyone considering bi vocational ministry needs to be aware of the facts. There are few, very few bi-vocational ministers who can do an adequate job of pastoral care and ministry. Through out the history of the Church, bi vocational ministers are the exception not the rule. Even in the New Testament, where the whole idea of tent making originated, it was the exception not the rule. The Apostle Paul did it himself, but counseled Timothy the very opposite. In the Apostle Paul, we have a precedent. The over-whelming weight of scripture points the other direction.
My point is simply this, bi-vocational ministry is not the panacea that will cure the ills of the modern church. It is a "stop-gap" measure today just as it was for St. Paul. It is in many instances a doorway into community. But we must not kid ourselves about the quality of our ministry at the part time level. The apostles themselves did not feel it right to give up preaching the word and prayer for the sake of "serving tables." Neither should we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)