Ask average Presbyterians in Canada what the normal model for ministry is, and they will inevitably describe a self-supporting congregation with its own full-time paid minister. These clergy have one calling, one vocation, to the single congregation they serve.
Over the past year, I have heard of several congregations seeking part-time ministers. I e-mailed the clerks of presbytery across Canada in order to get an accurate count of the number of congregations served by part-time ministers. My question sought out congregations with a solo minister who serves that congregation part-time. I did not ask about the number of part-time youth ministers or pastoral visitors (although that too is an interesting question).
The clerks were very helpful and offered responses that made me realize I was defining “part-time” too narrowly. A number of clerks pointed out, quite accurately, that congregations which are part of two- or three-point charges in fact have part-time clergy. (Interestingly, this insight was more likely to come from clerks who were not ministers of word and sacrament.) Clergy serving more than one congregation have two or more callings, two or more vocations, and thus are bi-vocational.
Using this definition, which I find compelling, 45 per cent (429) of the congregations in The Presbyterian Church in Canada are served by bi-vocational ministers. While it is true many bi-vocational ministers are found in rural and small-town areas of Canada, this model of ministry is not exclusively rural. Large metropolitan areas like Toronto also have bi-vocational ministry. This raises questions about how “normal” the perceived normal model of ministry is.
Two studies in the late 1990s looked at Methodist congregations in the United States, asking, “Which is a more effective form of ministry:
(a) a minister serving three congregations and sharing their time among three communities and three congregations, or
(b) a minister serving one congregation in one community one-third time and doing something else in that same community with the other two-thirds of their work time?”
The studies concluded that the second model was more effective. The most important factor seems to be that a minister who serves three congregations in three communities is not rooted enough in any one community to really understand it and to minister outside of the normal flow of worship preparation, worship leading, preaching, and pastoral care within the three congregations. The minister who serves a church in the community one-third of the time and works at something else in the community the rest of their work time knows the community well enough to understand it and is present enough to reach out with the gospel. A further factor in the second model is a tendency towards longer-term pastorates, since the person's roots in one community are deeper and the work-life balance is more sustainable. In conversations with clergy who have served or who presently serve multi-point charges, the second approach is favoured.
At present, our Presbyterian polity is unclear about bi-vocational ministry. For example, John serves a congregation and also has a job outside the church, (which accounts for more than 50 per cent of his work). He cannot be called to the congregation and does not have a vote at presbytery. Yet Joanne is called to serve three congregations (none of which on its own accounts for 50 per cent of her work) and she can vote at presbytery. Both are multi-vocational clergy, but they are treated in different ways by the denominational system.
A substantive conversation about the models of ministry within The Presbyterian Church in Canada is needed. This conversation will have to develop a vocabulary that recognizes multi-vocational ministry among the normal models of ministry, since 45 per cent of the Presbyterian congregations in the country are served by multi-vocational ministers.
