Here's an argument to consider...- First Premise... All other things being equal, spending your life in full-time ministry is more strategic in the light of where God is taking this world, than spending it in secular work. In other words, full time ministry of the word is the best way for a person to be involved in God’s kingdom growing.
- Second Premise... The criterion for selecting people for full-time ministry are giftedness, godliness and opportunity.
- Conclusion... If you have the gifts, godliness and opportunity to do full-time ministry you ought to do it. In that situation, not to take up the challenge of full-time ministry is necessarily an expression of an underlying sin, eg. materialism, cowardice or insecurity.
And so the only good reasons not to enter full-time ministry are...
- Not having the right gifts for that type of ministry
- Lack of maturity and growth in godliness
- Lack of opportunity. That could be a family situation like needing to care for aging relatives, or being married to an unsuitable person. It could be illness.
Then the objections come flooding in...
- The Individualistic objection is simply "I don't want to". But that is just code for sin. It's the choice of personal preferences over the eschatologically shaped necessities of the present age.
- The Subjective objection is "I don't feel called". But the call is given to all Christians to be involved in the work of the gospel in a way which matches their gifts and opportunities.
- The Evangelistic objection is "We need more people in the work-place, particularly good work-place evangelists." But to suggest that there is any danger of a mass abandoning of the work-place by Christian is ridiculous. Also, the best work-place evangelists are not just excellent trainers and equippers of others, they are likely to be our best church-planters.
- The Financial objection runs like this... "I will work so I can give generously". Getting beyond the fact that this is often code for sinful materialism, even if it is genuine, I would want to argue that there is always enough money to fund ministry. In our church you only need, at the most, 6 wage-earners tithing to pay for a trained full-time minister. In other words a congregation of 300 should be able to fund 50 full-time ministers. If there is vision and direction in a ministry people will always generously fund it.
- The Humility objection... "I am not gifted enough. There are others far more suitable than me." But when you think more widely than our present situation you will realise that an experienced bible-study or youth-group leader in our church has more preparedness for full-time ministry than the vast majority of people presently doing that task in other parts of the country and the world.
Some things to remember...
- If we are careful to remember 1 Corinthians 12-14 we won't end up thinking in terms of elite Christians. We are all doing ministry according to our giftedness and opportunity.
- This is not to devalue secular work. It is a good thing and an expression of who we are as creatures. However, in the light of the fact that the thing that God is doing in the world is calling people to repentance and faith (2 Peter 3), there is a priority on the ministry of the word.
- To think like this is to be a despised prophet. To challenge people in this way is to be a voice in the wilderness telling people what no one else will be saying to them. Be prepared to be hated
15 comments:
So would it be fair to say that for all Christian, we should be asking the question - why not go into 'full-time' ministry?
That's my helpful contribution for today.
Suds
P.S. Who reads these blogs? Does 645 get a look in? If so, I'd be keen to hear what you 645 BS leader or attender thinks about this controversial blog.
Hi all,
Yep, I'm on board with this thinking. Two comments though:
1. I wasn't always on board. Among other things, I had the evangelist objection - i.e. we need serious praying, Bible reading kind of people witnessing in the workplace and if you take them out, you take them out of where they're needed most. Why am I over that objection? Because if ministry is embraced logically for that person, they will be doing more of the stuff that they are good at. Of course it's possible that someone who's evangelising, encouraging other Christains, being generous, working honestly... could be taken out into ministry and find themselves in a ministry where they're just doing admin. or writing Bible studies and e-mailing... If that happened that would be a shocker of a transition to ministry. I don't think that person would let that happen though. When you go into ministry, you're conscious that you're good at evangelism for example, so you ensure that you are doing it. In my case, I'm convinced that I'm doing far more evangelism, encouraging others, being generous... now that I'm trying ministry (and those were things I thought I was doing pretty well in the workforce). I'm sure that I'm being better put to use in ministry.
2. It also worth noting though, that working out whether you do have those things (gifts, godliness, opportunity) can be a very hard thing to work out. Nevertheless, we need to weary of the cop out decision which is indeed just a sinful one.
Cheers,
Nick
hope you don't mind my comment.
A reaon I think that sometimes someone may actually be more effective in the workforce is because of the message it gives a non-christian...any witnessing/building of friendships/reading the bible with an unbeliever is therefore separated from an "occupation".
Many non-christians that I know see people in full-time ministry as just doing their "job" in sharing Christ - when this effort and care is shown not in this capacity, some people are far more open.
This on it's own is probably not a good enough reason, but I do get a bit edgy when an attempt to say one is exclusively "more effective" than another
Hey team,
Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this one.
This discussion has been going since I was there two years ago!
I look your controversial blog! Nice work.
The argument to me makes a sort of logical sense if you agree with the premises. Gav where i disagree with you is in the first premise. I think you need to explain more clearly why full-time paid ministry of the word, is necessarily more effective for God's Kingdom.
Also, I have I slight problem with arguments that are almost pure stratagy.
If had the opportunity to visit 10 closish friends in Sydney and tell them about Jesus or the opportunity to catch a plane to spend time with one isoloted friend in the country. according to this 'most effective' logic, I would never leave Sydney at all, because it would be unstrategic. Life doesn’t always work by strategic decisions, and this is not sinful. Being unstategic in your career choice is not sinful necessarily. It may just be stupid.
God's mission seems to be multi-dimensional in that it is not pure strategy.
I don't think gifts, character and opportunity cover all the valid biblical alternatives why NOT to go into full time ministry.
If you took a survey of everyone's testimony, and asked them, humanly speaking, who had the biggest impact on their conversion or their knowing the gospel - I reckon (purely speculating from anecdotal evidence) that full-time paid ministers would not feature as high as we may think. It is usually a friend or a family member. And I don’t think this is because we have less full time ministers, then full time secular workers. Because people come to know Jesus, through people who they are in relationship with telling them about it, and this can happen over one lunch time at work, or two years on MTS. Time spent on task, does not equal, efficiency for growing God’s kingdom.
Sorry these are just my thoughts at the moment. I want to get this sorted out by the time I leave college, cause I will be on task to find new recruits for MTS, but I want to know more clearly why.
Luke.
Thanks for the great comments. Here are some thoughts mostly in response to Luke. I agree entirely with you that the first premise of the argument needs to be proven. I haven't tried to do that here, although I have elsewhere (that was one of the aims of my talks at the 2005 645 houseparty).
I agree that being unstrategic can be just stupid, but I would also want to suggest that it often reflects underlying sin.
Does anyone have any more reasons they would consider valid for not going into ministry if you had the gifts, godliness and opportunity?
BTW what would a church of 300 look like if 50 of its members were freed up from 'secular work'? I've got to tell you that excites me. And remember there are still 250 in the workforce.
Hi Gav,
Nick directed me to read the blog. I read this entry a few weeks ago and have been thinking about what you have said...
‘First Premise... All other things being equal, spending your life in full-time ministry is more strategic in the light of where God is taking this world, than spending it in secular work.’
‘The Subjective objection is "I don't feel called". But the call is given to all Christians to be involved in the work of the gospel in a way which matches their gifts and opportunities.’
‘in the light of the fact that the thing that God is doing in the world is calling people to repentance and faith (2 Peter 3), there is a priority on the ministry of the word.’
Accepting the first premise, ‘if you have the gifts, godliness and opportunity to do full-time ministry you ought to do it.’ In the sections I quoted above you imply that full-time ministry is being involved in the work of the gospel/word based ministry. Is this referring only to being a minister of a congregation, or is it broader than that?
My next question is then, what is the role of a minister? Obviously there is the role of teaching the congregation but there are also additional responsibilities (i.e. the pastoral role). Can the criterion of giftedness mean there are those who are suited to doing one of these roles but not the other? What then to do in these situations? Can a gifted Bible teacher pursue a job lecturing on the Bible and would this still qualify as the work of the gospel/ministry of the word (and conversely in relation to pastoral care)?
Jarryd
I usually don't read Blogs and I think this would be comment number 2 on a Blog for me! Allison sent me a link to this article, and I couldn't resist weighing in as a lay person.
I don't want to deal with your objections in detail, and I won't say anything about the assumptions that you have loaded into them. Suffice to say, I agree that it is possible for believers to sin by not switching to what we understand in Sydney to be "full-time ministry". However, for most believers, I suspect, it probably is not sin, not to choose that path. As an aside, there are plenty of evangelical theologians that would disagree with you on the "call" point.
Anyway, I wanted to make a comment about strategy and your first premise.
I wonder whether strategy, when over-emphasised, also reflects underlying sin - self-reliance; lack of faith or trust in God; arrogance. Partly for that reason, I have to disagree with your first premise.
The thrust of your first premise seems to be that Christians will be more effective in growing God's kingdom if they switch to preaching/teaching/speaking the word of God in a so-called "full-time" capacity.
Objections
1. God gives the growth and causes conversion, not us - we merely co-work. To assume that by preaching/teaching/speaking the word of God in a full-time capacity will generate greater growth in God's kingdom is arrogant (and I apologise if this sounds blunt), lacks sufficient respect for God and his sovereignty, and may be indicative of a humanistic, self-reliant approach to evangelism.
2. The road to conversion for most believers is not as short or simple as listening to a presentation of Two Ways To Live. People come to faith through prayer of other believers, love from other believers, good works of other believers, generosity of other believers. Often there are many conversations along the way. In reality, the full-time (Anglican) minister often competes for the $51st dollar at the 'seal the deal' moment. To say that the former steps are less important in growing the kingdom, again, is out of step with how God works.
3. The fact that God works to bring people to faith through prayers of believers, generosity of believers, good works of believers, good character of believers, believers giving an account for the hope they have in Jesus and believers preaching/teaching the word of God is not only proven by our experience, it is thoroughly rooted in Scripture. I recommend John Dickson's book "Promoting the Gospel" on this point.
If it is true that God works by his Spirit to bring people to faith through the prayers of believers, generosity of believers, the good works of believers, the good character of believers, believers giving an account for their hope in Jesus and believers preaching/teaching God's word, then it is in fact more strategic to be encouraging excellence in all of these areas. Focusing on "word ministry" alone is simplistic, and ultimately, would not be in accord with the nature of the Church as a body, with each member having a different role.
Rather than focus on churning out academically sound theologically trained "word ministers", it would be far more productive for the gospel if we focussed on encouraging all believers in prayer and holiness, and to focus on the areas for which God has gifted them (by opportunity, talent or circumstances), whether that be prayer warrior, generous doctor who is bold with his non-believing acquaintances about Jesus or full-time preacher. Imagine the effect on Sydney if all of the Christians in our churches engaged in this way - even if God didn't convert 1 person, what an amazing witess and force it would be nonetheless. Of course, in all of this, we must never lose sight of God, his sovereignty and glory, and that it is a privilege to co-work with Him.
Here's my challenge to think about: how do we encourage and motivate ALL members of the body of Christ to play their role effectively under God?
Hi there
Firstly - if you were a man who had the gifts, opportunity and godliness, but had an unbelieving and unsupportive wife I think that full time ministry may not necessarily be for you.
I also wanted to throw out there that in this days of more 'family friendly' workplaces, where men working part time is increasingly an option, that part-time christian ministry could give you the best of both worlds - great opportnities to serve, opportunities in a secular wrokplace - you guys could all be tentmakers like Paul!
Nonie
In response to Pete’s lengthy comment, let me add a few things
• I agree wholeheartedly that “it is possible for believers to sin by not switching to what we understand in Sydney to be ‘full-time ministry’.” All I am saying is that sinful reasons often do lie behind people not making the switch.
• There may be plenty of theologians who disagree with me on ‘the call’ point (many of who I respect greatly… like Martyn Lloyd-Jones), but I maintain it is an unhelpful and unbiblical idea.
• You accuse me of lacking sufficient respect for God and his sovereignty because I talk about ‘strategy’. That can be a danger we need to be aware of, but there is also the opposite danger… such an unbalanced emphasis on God’s sovereignty that we do nothing – “Let’s just open the doors, live good moral lives, and all those whom God has chosen will make their way in as God guides them.” That sounds very pious and spiritual – it’s just not true to the bible or the way that God works in the world. It’s the heresy of ‘hyper-Calvinism’. In the bible we are clearly taught that God chooses to work through our decisions, our strategies and our efforts. Both Jesus and Paul were strategic.
• I don’t think I am implying anything like what you seem to assume in your second objection. Having more people in full-time ministry does not in any way devalue the ministry and contribution of the many others not in full-time ministry.
• Your summary of John Dickson’s thesis is not relevant to a discussion of ‘full-time’ ministry. John’s point is that there are many different ways to be involved in God’s mission… a smorgasbord of options. However, that gives the impression that actually sharing the gospel message is one option amongst many. It lets people off the hook. It’s for that reason that John’s book has the effect of ‘demoting’ gospel proclamation rather than ‘promoting’ it. By the way, John’s thesis and book has been roundly critiqued on exegetical and historical grounds by many scholars including Peter O’Brien and Robert Plummer. The only way people will be saved is by a messenger (whether they are in ‘full-time’ ministry or not is irrelevant) speaking to them the message about Jesus, and God enabling them to respond to that word.
• I hear your challenge – “how do we encourage and motivate ALL members of the body of Christ to play their role effectively under God?” Wouldn’t one way be to exhort the many highly gifted and talented people in our congregations to give their 60 hours a week to God rather than to PWC et al.? And furthermore, if we had more people in ‘full-time ministry’ wouldn’t we have more people to do the training, encouraging and preparing of all God’s people for works of service?
Hi everyone,
Like Pete, I too am an inexperienced and somewhat reluctant blogger. I think this is also my no.2, so to speak.
My contribution is really limited to the sub-discussion about strategy. At the risk of sounding thoroughly Anglican, I think both perspectives have something right to say. I know that sounds like I want to have my cake and eat it too, but there you go.
I think Gav is right to speak out against the attitude that says strategy is wrong and we just need to 'let go and let God'. For what it's worth, I didn't think it actually sounded like anyone was saying this, but it is an attitude that can be sometimes heard beneath the surface of an anti-strategy position. I think Gav is right to say that such a view is not true to the biblical witness of how God works.
At the same time, though, I also think some of the hesitations about strategic thinking expressed by Luke and Pete are also valuable. From my own perspective, I think we must continually work to safeguard the way that the gospel subverts our human ideas of what is or isn't strategic. From a passage like 1 Cor 1:18-2:5, for example, it seems that we could argue God's strategy for working in the world is deliberately anti-strategic, at least from the perspective of human wisdom. On any consideration of strategy, it would surely make more sense for God to choose the 'somethings' than the 'nothings'. And yet this is not how God works, in order that we might learn salvation depends not on man's wisdom but on God.
So how do I think the two positions hold together? I presume the answer comes as we hold a biblical line on the relationship between God's complete sovereignty and our genuine human responsibility. For when we do this, we safeguard ourselves from reducing the issue to a choice between strategy and trusting God. The Bible never endorses this way of thinking. So how does it all work out? Well on one hand, once I recognise God's complete sovereignty in all things, I am free to be as purposeful and strategic as I can be, and yet never to do this in a way that is not trusting in God. Thus if my plans work out, I will give God the credit and thanks and not put it down to my brilliant strategy. On the other hand, the gospel frees me up to be involved in all sorts of ministries that from a human point of view are almost entirely unstrategic, all the while trusting God's promise that his word will do its work and not return empty-handed. Ministry to the mentally ill or to the elderly would fit this type of category.
In my experience the issue of strategy comes up time and time again in our thinking on ministry. It is an issue that I think we need to be very careful of.
Wal
G'day all,
Healthy dialogue and debate!
Gav’s last post made a concession. Whereas he originally said that failure to switch to full-time ministry (if you are Godly, gifted and with opportunity) is “necessarily an expression of underlying sin”, Gav now says: “All I am saying is that sinful reasons often do lie behind people not making the switch”. Gav is now allowing for the possibility of other reasons not to switch for persons who are Godly, gifted and with opportunity. This is a good start, but I think Gav needs to concede further on the extent of those other reasons.
As Wal correctly gleaned, my first point about strategy was not that we should not employ strategy (we wouldn’t want to be hyper-Calvinist). My position accords with Wal. If we are to be strategic about ministry and promoting the gospel (and it is logical to be strategic and to do our best, as opposed to being lazy), then our strategising and execution of that strategy must be done under God with all appropriate trust and acknowledgement of God's sovereignty. My point was that over-reliance on strategy, and suggesting that there is only one correct, or one most effective strategy, would be wrong.
My second point, which follows from the first, was that spending your time in "full-time ministry" is not necessarily more effective than spending it in "full-time secular work". My contention is that there are many strategies, roles and activities that are and can be effective in growing God’s kingdom. Some even may be more effective than simply recruiting more “full-time” ministers.
I can see the converse of Gav’s first premise in Ephesians 4. That is, if there were no Christians performing the role of pastor/teacher or evangelist, or lots of incompetent, lazy, false teaching or unsuited pastor/teachers or evangelists, that fact may explain why the Church was not built up to perform works of service or to be effective at growing God’s kingdom. That such people could be responsible for that situation would make sense given that such people will be judged more harshly. This would be partly why persons performing these roles should try to do them well – be strategic in the role perhaps (this is human responsibility).
The opposite, however, does not follow. These roles, of themselves, or the persons who perform these roles, will not necessarily be more effective at growing God’s kingdom, even if they are performed well. At best, you may be able to argue that pastor/teachers or evangelists are a necessary, as opposed to sufficient condition for growth of God’s kingdom. Even then, however, you may be on shaky ground given God’s sovereignty.
Quantity of particular “word ministry” does not necessarily increase effectiveness, and nor is it necessarily more likely to do so. Take an evangelist. There are many activity mixes that are just as strategic as conventional “full-time” ministry. Here are a few:
• working full-time as a professional (doctor, engineer, accountant, lawyer etc etc) in an “unreached” area (ie Africa, South America, Asia…perhaps even the Perth diocese…) for the purpose of reaching those people – at the very least, your job gets you the visa;
• working full-time in a job that increases your opportunity to penetrate a pagan society with cogent communication of the gospel (eg media) – this has potential to be very effective. All that’s going on here is changing the way we think about how the gospel can be spread;
• working as an evangelist on a university campus, spending 30% studying a course to gain credibility and to build relationships, 30% on planning and marketing the gospel to the campus and 40% on talks and cold turkey.
Also, increasing the number of persons in full-time ministry as pastor/teachers or evangelists will not necessarily have equally increased positive effect. There may be diminishing returns at work here. It may, for example, be better to focus on weeding out incompetent, lazy, false teaching or unsuited pastor/teachers or evangelists (to prevent their damage). Maybe we need to train ministers differently so that they are more effective? I think this is a complex issue. Whereas a bad pastor/teacher leading 10 people is tragic, and a disaster if he/she leads 1000, a good pastor/teacher may be just as effective in building up 10 or 1000 of God’s people.
The growth of God’s kingdom is a complex process that in some ways, is not comprehensible to the human mind. Gav’s insistence that “word ministry” or “delivering a message” is the only way that people will be saved is a bit simplistic. Of course it is true that the message about Jesus needs to be preached and that people need to hear it. What it fails to acknowledge, however, is that conversion is a process as much as it is an event through which the would-be believer hears the gospel message. Gav’s premise also fails to acknowledge that effectiveness in growing God’s kingdom is often not the result of traditional word ministry. Often it is the result of people performing other roles well, or providing other necessary conditions for growth of God’s kingdom.
(This is where John Dickson’s book would fit in: for what it’s worth, saying that his book lets people off the hook is cynical and a mis-reading of what he says. Dickson says that all Christians are responsible for being bold and answering for their faith. Also, and no disrespect to Peter O’Brien, it also not surprising that O’Brien criticised Dickson, given that Dickson first singled out his views for criticism in his PhD thesis.)
So, that leaves us with the humble PWC worker.
Let’s assume she is single, young, Godly and that she has opportunity. Let’s also assume that she is talented, earning the big bucks, working the 60 hours, that she is a gifted teacher and a gifted administrator. What should she do?
Gav says that logic tells us she should go into full-time ministry, because that is the most strategic thing to do, and therefore sinful not to. If my contention is correct, then she should first consider her strategic options, which could be countless. She should pray about this, ask God to convict her of any underlying sin involved, maybe go on Challenge conference, and seek counsel of her Christian leaders, brothers and sisters. She then needs to choose. Also, she is not locked in for life either.
One of her options might be using her 60hrs in full-time ministry. Another could be splitting her 60 hours between using her gift of administration to sought out the church’s finances so that the Church can be effective (her job at PWC becomes necessary or important to qualify her), working at PWC (if she really is that talented, she probably won’t need to work 60 hours) and using her teaching gift to lead a Bible study (her experience of doing full-time work well may give her more credibility and ability to relate to her group of full-time secular workers). Another option could be to leave PWC and work as an accountant for the Sydney diocese. Maybe she could work for PWC in Botswana and be a missionary, leading Bible study groups in a local church plant. I don’t think any of these strategies are necessarily more effective than any other. I don’t think “full-time ministry” should have a monopoly on the gifted, talented and Godly…that may be un-strategic. However, unless I'm missing something, that is what Gav’s logic seems to be demanding…
Interesting thoughts.
Mandy (Malone?) - good point. I do find people treat me differently now I "work for the church". By itself though, I don't think that will sway my decision to go into ministry post MTS or not...
Nonie - interesting thought about part-time. I guess that could apply to guys who don't feel well suited to leading a congregation but have other pastoral and/or teaching gifts...
Pete and Gav - thanks for the stimulating discussion. My thinking is grounded in this assumption: THE thing God is doing in this world is building his Church and preparing her to be his spotless bride, his inheritance on the last day. Therefore any strategy must have building his church at the centre.
If the “humble PWC worker” has all the aforementioned eligibility boxes ticked (and can I suggest that there are less eligible people around than we think), I would encourage her to go into ministry because I think she would be put to better use doing what she is gifted at full-time. I really cannot see how she would be more effective spending most of her days crunching numbers at PWC.
It will be important for her that she has a Paul type figure in her life guiding her so that she is doing what she is good at. For example, if she is especially good at evangelism, she should be doing that most of the time (either after bible college or on MTS) and not, as Nick said, stuck in a church office emailing all day.
Less talk.
More action.
Hi Gav - stumbled across your blog - glad to see you are still pushing on.
Two quick comments.
1. Couldn't agree with Luke's comments more.
2. Just for the record, it's godliness first, then giftedness.
Scott tubman
not sure whether people will read this now or not???
but read something today on this topic which discusses how too mucy focus is put on "full time" ministry workers in the traditional sense of the word.
have a look if you're ibterested
http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2007/09/commissioning-service-for-everyone-in.html
Post a Comment