Bye-bye Bivocational Ministry?

The Special Committee on the Nature of the Church in the 21st Century produced an interesting if somewhat vague report advocating a vision for the church today and into the future.  Most of its recommendations were suitably broad to garner widespread support from many in the church.  This was evidenced by how easily some parts were approved by the PILP and Church Growth Committee (#16) at GA. 

One surprise change did occur and it is to what I believe is the most important part of the document.  The 21st Church committee proposed a special task force to study the feasibility of bivocational ministry.  21st Church referred to this as a "viable form of ministry for the 21st century church."  For reasons not yet clear, committee 16 amended the recommendation to put that work on the staff of the GAMC. 

That the GA staff is already overworked is evident.  Through years of budget cuts and consolidation of duties, what once was manageable work is not overwhelming.  The staff at GA do an admirable job doing the work assigned, however there are reasonable limits to what they can do with the available hours in the day.  Passing on to them what may be one of the most important changes in the vocational landscape for the next century is neither fair to the already overworked staff nor in the best interest of the denomination.

There is no doubt that the GAMC staff will do a good job exploring the questions and challenges of bivocational ministry.  I question, however, whether or not they can adequately represent the breadth of wisdom and experience in the church?  Can they be expected to know the challenges facing inner-city congregations as well as rural farming community churches?  What about suburban churches saddled with debt with members who are un or underemployed and under water on their homes?  What about immigrant fellowships or non-traditional communities of faith?

By putting this work in the hands of the GAMC staff, committee 16 has necessarily limited the perspective of those who will be advising the whole church. 

As more and more churches (my own included) face economic realities that make full-time seminary trained pastoral leadership more difficult, the potential for bivocational ministry holds great possibilities.  The experience with these challenges of the 21st Century church is here in the congregations and presbyteries of the church.  And that is where the discernment process should begin.  We lose a great opportunity to tap into the wisdom of the church by not involving the whole church in the conversation.

I fear that a good idea may get lost in the ever growing "to-do" list of our denominational staff.  I hope I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.  Hopefully the Assembly will reconsider the recommendation from committee 16 and involve the breadth of the church in this vital conversation.