We’re in the middle of a discussion about why bivocational ministry is a needed, and positive, idea for the church. To read the beginning, go here.
3. It’s messy
This isn’t a thrilling reason. But sometimes ways that are easier are only easier because they cover over problems – not because they avoid them. Working with a more flattened system of power may mean more discussion, but that discussion (or even arguing and wrestling with different opinions) means that people are more engaged and that everyone is learning and moving forward. People are going to have opinions and thoughts. The issue is whether they have enough stake in something to voice them. If church = a show, then there’s not much reason to push back on something you don’t understand. If church = life, people are more likely to care. If a conversation/discussion/argument arises, that may be beneficial.
Personally, I find that it is usually to my advantage when theological conversations devolve into a wrestling match.
So I guess that means I should be even more enthusiastic about bi-vocational ministry, right?
Correction. Bi-vocational ministry is great as long as Jim’s not a part of your church.
[…] Why bivocational? A good kind of messy […]
[…] Why Bivocational? A Good Kind of Messy: Removing the strong “staff–everyone else” divide flattens the power structure, which may usher in more conflict. But it’s conflict that would be there in any model–It’s just hidden in others. Here, people are forced to deal with problems instead of ignoring them. […]
[…] Why Bivocational? A Good Kind of Messy: Removing the strong “staff–everyone else” divide flattens the power structure, which may usher in more conflict. But it’s conflict that would be there in any model–It’s just hidden in others. Here, people are forced to deal with problems instead of ignoring them. […]