King Numbers: A Case for Bi-Vocational Ministry Part 2 - Mike Chipman
When I was in youth ministry, numbers reigned supreme as the goal and motivation. The goals on paper say super spiritual things like, “Growing in Christ” and “Loving Community” and my personal favorite, “Effective and Improving Ministry.” All of those things are great, but when I saw a stakeholder, they always asked, “How many did you have Sunday?” It’s definitely easier to count heads than it is figuring how effective I am. So rather than fight it, I bent the knee to King Numbers. You might now expect a story about the crowds I drew, but that never happened. We hovered around the average ratio for a church our size and I considered my ministry ineffective and unimproved. After 10 years of full-time youth ministry in two churches, I decided youth ministry was finished with me.
After planting our church (Redeemer Community Church in Murray, KY), I still have regular flashbacks to my youth ministry days. They always come in the form of someone asking, “How many did you have Sunday?” They mean well, but I always have to fight the urge to exaggerate, “We are up to 1000.” Especially in my first years, I didn’t want to be seen as ineffective or unimproved. I never lied, but I always wanted to. It took me years to be comfortable with where we were as a church and our rate of growth. Now, I have no problem with the answer to that question, but I still have problems with the question itself.
That question points to problems in our current system of planting churches. Currently, most church planters and presbyteries don’t even consider it an option about receiving denominational funds. It’s just a given. With those funds come timelines. With those timelines come hard numbers. With those numbers come stress and failure. That failure means a man is out of work, a family is moving, and a group of saints is wondering where they’ll worship next week. While I think the current system still works for some situations, I don’t think it is ideal. As church attendance is falling and churches all over the country are folding, it’s time for us to add another tool to our box. That tool is bi-vocational church planting.
Bi-vocational church planting looks like this:
A presbytery wants to plant a church in a place.
The presbytery finds a man who wants to plant a church.
The man finds employment in that place and begins the church planting process.
“Mike, that’s oversimplified!” I know. It’s also not much more complicated than that. It does take some knowledge of the area. It usually means there are connections in the area - with a few families interested in a plant. It could mean that the planter has some connections to the area. There also must be an underlying passion for the area and church planting in general. That goes for both the presbytery and the planter.
With this process, the presbytery has to be completely on board. They have to understand that it’s going to look different than their other plants. The time constraints on the planter are going to be different, and he likely won’t be able to attend mid-morning committee meetings. It may be slow going because he’ll have his secular vocation to consider - and his family. While these changes will be different, some other things happen as well. The presbytery can now consider areas thought “financially inviable.” They can take their focus away from cities and suburbs (not a bad focus) and plant gospel-centered churches in the rural areas. They also immediately increase their applicant pool to those who are interested in this sort of ministry. (Which I know is very few, sadly.) The big thing: it reduces dependency on the denomination, which nearly eliminates concerns about numbers and timelines. I’ve thought this through quite a bit from the perspective of a presbyter, and I can’t think of one reason why a qualified man shouldn't plant a church in this way.
How should future planters read this? With enthusiasm! I always had a heart for Murray and concern about the lack of gospel-centered churches. I always thought that planting churches was the right answer. I never thought I would be able to do it. I didn’t want to raise support. I didn’t want to watch the hourglass called “Synod Money” grow smaller and smaller each year. I didn’t want to have to move in 3 years if the plant failed. Being bi-vocational not only answered those concerns, but it also gave me inroads to the community that might have taken many more years otherwise. I’ve counseled several men over the last few years about church planting. In almost every situation, this model would be the best fit for them. They have a marketable skill. They have a heart for a particular place. They also have the fear of failure and not being able to provide for their families. When fear is what motivates us, we tend to walk further out on the limb than we ought. Bi-vocational church planting not only alleviates these fears but frees the minister up to do the work of ministry and focus on the task at hand. Are you considering this type of ministry? Have questions? Please, drop me a line. I’d love to talk about it.
One more thing...
Next time you have a conversation with a church planter, don’t ask them, “How many y’all up to now?” Ask them about their family. Ask them to tell you a story about their people growing in the grace of our Lord Jesus. Ask them how they’re doing. Pray with them.