How Moravians could Help SBC Missions tagged: , , , , , , , ,

How Moravians could Help SBC Missions

Posted by in Church & Missions

As ministry budgets wane due to economic and constituency factors, perhaps it is time to reopen the discussion on the legitimacy of tent making ministries.  Bi-vocational ministry is often a sore topic both for those who are bi-vocational ministers and those who are not.  I have been around many bi-vocational ministers who exude vibes of feeling like they are not “there” yet, that this stage in their ministry is some kind of test or warm-up.  This aversion to tent-making is not solely a stateside problem but relates to workers on the field as well as some missions agencies will not allow their personnel to tent-making as a means of support.

In many strategy, structural, and church model, discussions people are wont to take either/or approaches.  It is this kind of thinking that drives many people to simply continue to do what they have seen others do.  Do you want to pastor?  To be a pastor one must have an Mdiv (A B.A. in Biblical Studies is not sufficient in most places).  Or must they?  The question is not whether this is wise or not (I am on the pro-education side), but whether one is doing this because it is right for him or simply because there is this unspoken path we all take to get into the ministry.  This unspoken path is just as true after seminary as it is in getting to seminary.  We simply follow those who are in front of us and they either head into the pulpit or overseas with some sending agency–Mdiv in hand of course.  If one happens to land in a bi-vocational role they often feel as if apologies are in order and people encourage them that this will soon pass.  Rather than this issue being either/or, I believe it is both/and.  There is a need for institutional churches and people trained to work within those settings.  At the same time, there is just as great a need for people who are intentional about working bi-vocationally.  While I affirm the need for and validity of traditional institutions, I want to push your thoughts here on the viability of bi-vocational ministry both stateside and overseas.

The obvious fountain head of bi-vocational ministry (at least in the New Testament) is Paul who supported himself at times by his ability to make tents.  He was not the only one to follow this path.  In more modern history, the Moravians practiced tent-making as a ministry model and their missions movement was self-funded:

“Comprised of called clergy and laypeople, male and female, married and single, and expected to work to support themselves, the Moravians set out for the far corners of the world, where they formed self-supporting communities.  Their for-profit model helped the Moravians identify with the community, taught those they reached the dignity of labor, and provided the funds for the support and expansion of missions.  For-profit business found its basis in the Moravians’ philosophy that regarded “the working day as just as holy as Sunday; work is never meaningless, because Jesus works for us” (Danker 1971, 71).  For Danker, the Moravians’ most important contribution was the belief that every Christian was considered a missionary and should witness daily within his or her specific vocation (73).”

Here are some of the advantages that intentional bi-vocational ministry provides:

  1. Provides believers access to countries that do not grant religious visas. The vast majority of countries around the world, not to mention the 10/40 window do not provide religious visas.  Most governments do not recognize the category of people who are funded by religious institutions to go into their country for the purpose of talking to their citizens.  In less than democratic countries, these people are viewed with great suspicion at best as people who will facebook and tweet their country in a bad light and at worst as minions for the CIA.  In countries where a state religion is practiced these people are viewed as a direct threat to the establishment and their actions are illegal.  Even in many European countries, however, these people are still viewed as trouble makers and social pariahs.  For these reasons many governments choose not to grant religious visas.  Going into a country with a job skill and a job (Mdivs are not impressive here), opens the door for believers to go into countries through the front door.  No one expects you to be devoid of religious beliefs and practices–on the contrary, many are happy to find out that you have them–but they just don’t understand someone who in the eyes of legit businesses “does nothing” all day and is paid by some organization they know nothing about.
  2. Provides social comprehension in pre- and post-Christian cultures. Even in places where religious visas are granted, many cultures do not possess the category of a “full time Christian worker.”  For the cultures that do, that association is often a negative one and for cultures that do not the worker is often placed into an existing category (he is a shaman who serves a more powerful magic) which has negative connotations.  I have experienced this negative categorization even in The States.  When the conversation came around to what I did, it usually ended when I told them I was a pastor–at “best” it just shifted their behavior to something they thought I would not judge them for.  The times where I have worked bi-vocationally, I was able to give my new friend a understandable category for them to put me in and our conversation continued.
  3. Models sustainable, reproducible  disciple making.  It is easy to talk about giving your all for the gospel when your ticket is paid by those who are sending you.  But how does that sound to someone who works to support his family and would have to take an unpaid leave of absence to go on the same trip?  How does your average “Joe the Plummer” think about his ability to follow Jesus when the only model he sees is that of the typical clergy-laity bifurcation?  What if there was a model wherein the average “Joe” used their work as an opportunity to be kingdom focused and were led to faith and discipled by just such a Joe.
  4. Models a holistic approach which balances the cultural mandate with the great commission. The Moravians practiced the protestant work ethic which rejected the secular worldview and in turn saw all work as honorable and from God.  In dealing with questions of social ministry vs. Gospel ministry and cultural mandate vs. great commission we too often has opted for one at the expense of the other.  There is a desperate need for both mandates working in tandem.
  5. Models nonsegregated  ministry.   Who then are needed as bi-vocational ministers?  It is not simply the clergy (arguably, the clergy often make the works candidates as their preparation has been pulpit focused).  The quote about the Moravians cites that people at all social levels were participating in the ministry.  One of the problems with institutional church is that it tends to be run by “professionals” while the laity show up, watch, give money, and then go back home.  For churches that take ministry to the next step and co-opt the congregation in ministry tend to focus on ministries surrounding church.  Bi-vocational ministry, especially at the “lay” level, is community focused.  It keeps the movement outward rather than inward.

Again, this is not an either or issue.  It is possible to use both models at the same time.  There are churches which send out their people as bi-vocational workers (locally where they live or overseas) while at the same time maintaining the traditional centralization of the institutional church.  This hybrid model, at least where I have seen it, has breathed new misisonal life into the local body as the weekly service now is a time of celebration, training, and regrouping.  Perhaps it is time to reconsider our local and global models of mobilizing people?

Quote taken from: Steffen and Douglas, Encountering Missionary Life and Work, pg. 8.