Sarah Hates This Idea
Last week I was with some leaders in our company discussing my favorite topic: how to help churches change and innovate. As is typical when we have conversations in our “Ministry Incubators” division (where we try to drive ministry experiments and innovation) we brainstorm a lot.
One idea that I’m absolutely convinced will become the future norm in the church is that full-time ministry positions will be much fewer and further between. Honestly, whether we want it to be true or not, it’s likely happening anyway. My idea; why don’t we do it on purpose? Why don’t we help ministry leaders pursue co-vocational ministry in a healthy way so that churches and leaders can thrive?
I actually believe this might be the best-case scenario for many (not all) ministry leaders.
Sarah disagreed. Before I could make my case, she said “I hate this idea.”
Mostly because Sarah loves ministry and believes in the vocational calling of people in ministry. Heck, there’s great biblical evidence to support the calling of full-time ministry leaders.
Jesus told the seventy-two not to provide for themselves while they were on mission.
“Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.”
— Luke 10:7
The idea here is that those doing the work of the kingdom can receive support from those they serve.
“Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple… In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”
— 1 Corinthians 9:13–14
Paul clearly says it is legitimate for ministers to be financially supported by the church.
I agree with full-time ministry as a calling and I think this will remain a model that many people and ministries use into the future. I just think it can no longer be our ONLY way of thinking about ministry leadership as the church changes.
We moved on before I could really make my case for this crazy idea… so I’ll make it now.
The Staffing Model We Inherited
Most churches today are built on a model that made perfect sense in 1955.
You hire full-time professionals.
You pay them out of the annual budget.
They do the ministry.
Everyone else supports it.
It worked when churches were growing, giving was predictable, and the cultural expectation was that pastors were full-time religious professionals.
But that world is gone.
Today, it is common for 50–60% of a church’s budget to go to staffing.
And at the same time, churches say things like:
“We’re behind budget again.”
“We can’t afford to try anything new.”
“We can’t lose this position or everything falls apart.”
“We just need giving to come through at the end of the year.”
If this sounds familiar, it’s because many churches live in constant low-grade anxiety.
Every year the same story.
Behind in the spring.
Concerned in the summer.
Tense in the fall.
Miraculously okay in December.
We’ve normalized a system that keeps everyone stressed.
And then we wonder why innovation feels impossible and ministry impact feels like it’s dwindling
What If Staffing Was Different?
What if the goal wasn’t to fund ministry positions?
What if the goal was to empower ministry leaders?
What if instead of assuming every leader needs a full-time church salary, we assume every leader has a calling that may be funded in multiple ways?
That shift sounds small, but it changes everything.
Imagine a church where staffing costs are not 60% of the budget, but 30%.
What could that church do?
Experiment without fear
Start new ministries without needing a full salary line
Take risks without worrying about payroll
Invest in mission instead of just maintaining structure
The problem is not that churches don’t want to innovate.
The problem is that the current staffing model makes innovation too expensive.
From Employees to Co-Vocational Leaders
Here’s what I mean when I say “co-vocational leaders”
Co-vocational ministry means a leader is not funded by one job, but lives out their calling through multiple streams of work, income, and service. Ministry is not the job but it is the calling that flows through the jobs.
Co-vocational leadership is not new. The apostle Paul made tents. For most of church history, pastors farmed, taught, traded, or worked other jobs.
What’s new is that we forgot how to do it.
We built a system where ministry became a profession instead of a calling and now the profession is harder to sustain.
A co-vocational pioneer might be:
A pastor who also runs an after-school nonprofit
A worship leader who teaches during the week
A church planter who owns a small business
A denominational leader who also serves a local congregation
A ministry leader who works a completely unrelated job and loves it
I’ve always said that if I weren’t in ministry, I might want to work at a movie theater because I love movies (and I love the idea of a job without the pressures of ministry!)
Turns out, that’s not as unrelated as it sounds.
Being in the community. Talking to people who would never walk into a church. Having an identity that isn’t tied to Sunday morning.
It changes the way you lead.
It changes the way you see the church.
It changes the way you see yourself.
The Identity Shift Leaders Need
Last year I left my role as a full-time pastor.
For years I worked hard to have healthy boundaries in ministry. I tried to ensure my identity wasn’t tied to my role. But what’s interesting is that, you never really know if that’s true until your paycheck stops coming from the church.
Turns out, I actually did a decent job. My work now feels like it comes out of my calling, passions, skills and identity… Just like it did when I was a pastor. But I also recognize that’s probably not the norm.
One of the hardest parts of ministry is how much of your identity gets wrapped up in it.
When your job, your calling, your community, your friendships, and your paycheck all come from the same place, it becomes very hard to be healthy.
It becomes very hard to say no.
It becomes very hard to leave when something is wrong.
It becomes very hard to know who you are apart from your role.
A co-vocational approach forces a different kind of identity.
Your ministry is not your whole life.
Your income is not tied to one institution.
Your sense of worth is not based on attendance or giving.
And that can be incredibly freeing.
It can also make leaders more resilient, more creative, and less afraid.
In a time when we see burnout after burnout, scandal after scandal, and leaders walking away exhausted, we should at least ask the question:
What if the system itself is part of the problem?
The sustainability shift churches need.
Churches everywhere are stepping into this conversation as well; not because they want to, but because they’ve been forced down this road.
Churches are shrinking (for lots of reasons). Church attendance patterns are totally different than they were 20 years ago. Older church buildings are taking up more and more of the annual budget. The way people think about generosity today is different from previous generations. Because of this, many churches enter into a pastoral transition realizing they can’t afford the full-time pastor role like they used to be able to.
So they are looking for part-time pastors.
They are sharing pastors with other churches.
They are equipping elders to take on pastoral ministry.
This change is already happening in the church. The question is not whether the staffing model of the church should change. The question is whether we will change on purpose, or only when we’re forced to.
The Changes This Would Require
This kind of innovation is not easy. It would require change at every level.
1. Seminaries would need to change
Future leaders would need to learn:
how to start side businesses
how to raise support
how to manage multiple roles
how to set healthy boundaries
how to build identity outside of ministry employment
We train pastors to preach, teach, and lead. We rarely train them to survive.
2. Churches would need to change
Congregations would need to stop thinking of ministry as something they pay for.
They would need to think of ministry as something they own.
That means:
clearer expectations about time and availability
healthier boundaries for leaders
more shared responsibility
more volunteer ownership
less dependence on staff to do everything
That shift alone would change the culture of most churches.
3. Leaders would need to change
This may be the hardest part. Instead of finding identity in ministry, leaders would need to let ministry flow from identity.
Instead of asking,
“How do I keep this job?”
they would ask,
“What is God calling me to build, wherever I am?”
That is a very different posture.
And it’s one that creates pioneers instead of employees.
A New Frontier
I often talk about the “frontiers” of ministry for the church. Landscapes in front of us that feel unfamiliar and new terrain that we are just starting to map out. This is an important frontier for the church to navigate.
Right now, many churches are producing the exact results their systems are designed to produce:
Leaders who burn out
Budgets that never feel stable
Congregations that expect staff to do everything
Fear of experimentation
Anxiety about the future
Maybe the future church will not be staffed the way the past church was.
Maybe that’s not a failure but an opportunity.
Co-vocational ministry is not perfect and Sarah has a point to not like this idea, but I also wonder if there’s an invitation here for the church to experiment in this new frontier in ways that might birth something healthy and sustainable.
