Today’s ‘blast from the past’ will pick up on Mark Driscoll’s recent comments where twice he said that it’s “the Holy Spirit who calls people into ministry” (see points 8 and 11 of his critique).
In one sense, the answer is “Of course!” … in terms of the divine Spirit’s sovereignty.
But Driscoll’s words also remind me of an article from The Briefing archives written by Michael Bennett, author of Christianity Explained. It was called ‘Biblical terms evangelicals consistently misuse: The Call’, and it was published in issue #268.
(Michael’s article was also published as part of a booklet entitled I Feel God is Calling Me… Not! Four terms evangelicals consistently misuse. It also addressed the terms ‘ministry’, ‘worship’, and ‘the house of God’. You can order the booklet online.)
Here’s an extract:
The call in general
A difficult but rewarding exercise you can undertake is a word study in the New Testament, that is, finding every use of a particular word. In this case we will look at a range of words and expressions which flow from the Greek verb kalein which means ‘to call’.
We have seen that it is used of the call of the Apostles, but how else is it used? We particularly want to ask this question: how is the word ‘call’ used in relation to a church minister, pastor or missionary? The word ‘call’ is very rich in the New Testament, being used in at least nine different ways.
It is used on one occasion of the call of Jesus: “Out of Egypt have I called my Son” (Matt 2:15). In one reference it refers to the calling of the Jewish high priest: “No one takes this honour upon himself, but he must be called by God” (Heb 5:4). Most often it refers to the act of naming (there are 69 such examples): “You shall call his name Jesus” (Matt 1:21). Seventeen times it is used as a synonym for ‘known as’: “My house shall be called (i.e. known as) a house of prayer” (Matt 21:13). Often ‘call’ is used of an invitation (33 times): Jesus and his disciples had been called (i.e. invited) to the wedding (Jn 2:2).
But there are four uses of the word which have a significant reference to our salvation:
- A general invitation to salvation (13 times). e.g. “Many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14).
- Salvation as viewed from God’s side (39 times). e.g. “God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling” (2 Tim 1:9).
- Salvation as viewed from outside (11 times): e.g. “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).
- Holiness (20 times): e.g. “for God did not call us to be impure but to live holy lives” (1 Thess 4:7).
You will notice that there is not one reference to any person being called to be a pastor, minister or missionary. […]
You will also notice that the idea of an internalized or subjective felt call is again totally absent from this list. […]
Summary and conclusions
Let us sum up the positives first:
- We have seen that the Prophets and Apostles were called by God to their special ministries.
- You and I are called, first and foremost, to be Christians, followers of Jesus Christ.
- We are also called to be holy, so that our lifestyles are transformed by the Holy Spirit, and we grow to become more Christ-like.
On the negative side:
- The word ‘call’ is never used of an ordinary Christian being ‘called’ by God to a particular ministry—even in the Pastoral Epistles.
- Statements like ‘I feel God is calling me’ or ‘I think God is calling me’ are totally absent from the New Testament. […]
Yes, there are limits to word studies: the concept of subjective ‘calling’ might be present in other terms. If so, I hope someone will show me where it is.
And yes, we can be overly pedantic about words. But I agree with Michael Bennett: it’s best to use biblical words in biblical ways wherever possible.
Interestingly, on the specific issue of entering leadership ministry, Mark Driscoll (in point 11) seems to equate the Holy Spirit’s call with an innate sense of desire, and cites 1 Timothy 3:1. However, why this simple equation of God’s call and our desire should be made is not clear.
Indeed such ‘being called’ does not rate a mention when the appointing of Timothy and Titus and their own appointment of others is discussed. Desire or willingness is a feature in the lists of assessment criteria in places like 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 and 1 Peter 1. But it’s by no means the only feature.
So desire/willingness is necessary, but not sufficient. Add ‘the call’, and it complicates the assessment process and provides a bigger hurdle to overcome with someone unsuitable. For what are we who are already in leadership positions to say to the people who feel called to leadership and teaching ministries, but whom we feel are unsuitable, according to other criteria—1 Timothy 3 and so on?
I am also cautious because we hear of men and women who suffer huge guilt because they had to leave their ‘calling’ to ministry and mission, and return home, perhaps due to illness or family issues or unsuitability. This may actually be a wise decision. Yet they feel guilty because they feel like they are disobeying the call theology they have been taught. Michael Bennett mentions this in his booklet, and CMS missionary Phil Miles also wrote about it in The Briefing years ago.
I am not saying that we don’t get inner feelings; I’m not saying that God can’t work (providentially) through our inner thought processes. I am just saying that the Bible never uses the ‘call of God’ language to describe it for Christians like us, and neither should we!
As soon as you invest some intended plan of action with “I feel the Spirit calling (or leading) me”, it becomes much harder for others to test, because it’s so hard to argue with subjective experience. Those who disagree can even be painted as resisting the Spirit—or, perhaps, as being afraid of him!
In conclusion, I think a lot of trouble would be avoided if we used terms like ‘hunch’, ‘growing conviction’ or ‘desire’ for the sense we sometimes get that we ought to do such and such. I feel that using these terms is wiser than using the biblical word ‘calling’ in an unbiblical way. In using these terms, you do not smuggle in the assumption that it must be God who has placed these things inside your head, your heart, or both your head and your heart. Instead, you are taking responsibility for the fact that this idea has developed, and that you can assess it against biblical criteria, wisdom, the advice of others, and so on.
What would be lost by using the terms ‘hunch’ and ‘conviction’?
Sandy, I agree with your sentiment, but I think that some of the evidence has been hidden.
<quote> We have seen that the Prophets and Apostles were called by God to their special ministries. </quote>
The Bible is much more nuanced. The apostles were both
1. called to be apostles
AND
2. called to do particular missionary endeavours.
Furthermore at least two verses have examples of others called by God for a purpose.
<quote>Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the <b>work to which I have called them.” </b> </quote>
(Barnabas is not an apostle)
<quote> Acts 16:10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, <b>concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. </b> </quote>
(The call is plural – it includes Paul, Luke, Silas and all his other ‘ordinary Christian’ companions)
I’m not saying that Christians today will necessarily have this calling. It may have been specific to salvation history, but I think these verses shouldn’t be hidden away or dismissed too lightly.
<i>What would be lost by using the terms ‘hunch’ and ‘conviction’?</i>
hunch sounds weird.
It was interesting that in a recent seminar run by Don Carson for newbie ministers, he referred repeatedly and unashamedly to his ‘call to the ministry’.
I agree with Andrew Barry (above) – there are scriptural examples of people being “called” into specific ministries both at a vocational level (Barnabas) and geographic level (Macedonia).
I’d be curious to see how this fits into Sandy’s proffered “theology of the call”.
.
Shouldn’t the question rather be – What screening or vetting is in place for those who want/desire to enter full-time ministry?
i.e. How do you validate or discern their “calling” or “desire” to test if it is of God or driven by selfish motives of gain/glory/etc?
Surely “training” alone is not a sufficient medium?
And why would you seek to train any and all rather than those who you can, to some extent, discern a genuine qualification of God to enter full-time ministry?
I think the gist of Driscoll’s admonition is for you to re-evaluate what pre-qualifications you have in place for those you train for full-time ministry instead of simply accepting anyone who can pay the fees and sign the dotted line.
In conducting interviews for a Christian organisation (not Matthias Media), I have on quite a few occasions heard the answer “I feel a real calling to this role” or “I feel God is leading me to apply”, in response to the simple question “why are you applying for this position”.
I confess that on a couple of occasions I responded by asking: “So if we don’t give you the job, will we be disobeying God?”
Yes, I know, that was probably unkind of me in an interview context, and I’ve repented of doing that these days.
But nobody ever actually answered my question in the affirmative. So what it did demonstrate was that what people actually meant was really not much more than that they had prayed about it, they thought they were suited to the position, and that the position appealed to them—with all these assessments made using what they considered Christian, rather than worldly, criteria. They didn’t ever mean that God had given them an authoritative word that they were to have the job.
I wonder if some of the references to “calling” in the Bible are ways of speaking in hindsight. That is, once under God’s sovereignty the person is in the role, we can refer to them being called to it (though still acknowledging that the calling may be revoked under that same sovereign will). But a subjective ‘calling’ is not really the proper basis for determining in advance a person’s suitability for the role.
This is a bit like Phillip Jensen’s old guidance about a marriage partner: once you marry your spouse, you know that he/she is God’s will for you. But you normally have to use wisdom in advance to make your decision about who to marry because God doesn’t normally reveal his will for you beforehand.
Does that help us?
I think the problem is not so much with the word “call” as it is with our perception with HOW God calls/leads/directs people into ministry.
We hear the word “call” and assume it refers to an experience which is individual, internal, subjective and mysterious. However, biblical examples of God guiding people into ministry would suggest that His “call” is more likely to be corporate, public, objective and testable. e.g. the setting apart of Barnabas and Saul, and the appointment of Timothy (1 Tim. 1).
Sandy is right that an overemphasis on the subjective call can have negative effects on people.
But I think an underemphasis on the subjective can also have negative effects. This is because if we remove any room for subjective elements in determining giftedness (my preferred category), then we force people to only interpret and defend their choices with rational/practical categories:
“If I can I should.” But I really really don’t want to! Isn’t that part of determining giftedness. Shouldn’t I be able to say this with no guilt?
thanks sandy for helping to give more precision to the way we speak about the Lord moving his people in service of the gospel of Jesus.
it is is a difficult balance of theolgical precision without pedantry and word quibbling.
how should we talk about the more subjective work of God in a way that recognises its importance whilst testing it more objectively in the word of God and wisdom of the people of God.
an inner burden
an inclination
a strong desire
a heart for
a conviction
a leading
a holy ambition
it seems to me that we need to learn rightly speak subjectively and recognise the validity of that.
I wonder if one of the ways we guard against unopposable subjectivism (God told me stuff) is to test these ‘inner conviction’ with ‘outer sending’ – the laying of hands by the elders kinda stuff.
And how much weight should inner conviction be given along other leadership indicators?
e.g
1. character qualification –
ie faithful…
this is essential non negotiable
2. competancies in ministry
ie able to …
this necessary and assited by formal and informal training
3. conviction (ie inner desire)
i.e wants to … feels led to?
desirable but needs testing
4. church recognition
i.e encouraged to…
importance of laying on of hands by the elders
I also note none of these necesarily entail formal theological education but can be greatly assisted by it.
Hello, everyone. Great comments. I will try to reply as needed.
Andrew – good on you. You have picked up two references to a wider group than ‘apostles’. Michael Bennett deals with Acts 13:2 under the category of the call “To the Apostles”. Just prior to quoting the verse, he says, “There were a small number of later Apostles, such as Paul and Barnabas, but here again the call to be an Apostle was normally through some external manifestation.”
I would note that as far as I can see neither Paul nor Barnabas is called an Apostle in Acts. (I will stand corrected if needed.) Paul claims this title for himself, and Christians have not disputed it. In 1 Cor 15:7 he mentions “all the apostles” which certainly seems to be a wider group of witnesses of the resurrection than the Twelve who were mentioned separately in v5.
Bennett does not deal with Acts 16:10, where I think it fair to include Silas and Timothy and Luke, although I am not convinced they are simply other ‘ordinary Christians’.
I think there is perhaps subtlety here, that we ought to consider the existence not just of the group of original Apostles (Twelve + Paul + others?) but of apostolic associates and delegates. These are those who travelled with and assisted the Apostles and were authorised by them to act and speak – to some extent – in their place. This is where I suspect Silas, Timothy and Luke fit in.
I do not think either the role of eye-witness Apostles nor that of their delegates is repeatable or normative for today, though we may learn some things from the example.
But again, Andrew, I hear your substantial agreement, but really like that you check yourself and force me to dot my i’s as best I can.
Keith,
Of the preachers at the recent ministry intensive, I repent of mentioning only Mark Driscoll as speaking of the call. You are quite right that Carson speaks of it. Likewise Kent Hughes in his otherwise excellent book <i>Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome</i> (which I once reviewed for <i>The Briefing</i> also speaks of the importance of the call.)
It was unfair of me not to point out that all of them speak this way.
Albert, you are right that Driscoll’s big point was that simply meeting certain training criteria is not automatically sufficient to indicate someone’s suitability for ministry.
I agree, although from my knowledge the theological colleges do more than merely academic assessment. Where appropriate they provide broader assessment and advice. Likewise this is certainly true of the denominations I know about. There are quite challenging ordination candidacy processes and criteria: interviews, rigorous references, psychological testing, observation exercises, and so forth. This seems to have become even more rigorous in recent years. Whether we have the right criteria for the church planter type is another question and there seems to be work here.
Ian and Phil, thanks, your posts really make a lot of sense to me. The point of Michael Bennett’s original article and my comments are especially directed at the claim of the inner, subjective feeling that “I feel God is calling me to do such and such”.
The examples of calls – even for the Apostles (and their delegates with them!) in the Scripture seem to be accompanied by external manifestations in corporate settings – a vision, the Holy Spirit speaking (audibly it seems) so that all agreed this is what he said.
Likewise looking back, like Ian said, I am a bit more comfortable with call language, although why not talk about providence?
Mikey, Don’t want to leave you out. Good question about not under-estimating the subjective. I absolutely agree that willingness and desire are critical. But why not call them ‘willingness’ and ‘desire’ and inquire about candidates whether that’s there.
As a caveat, I would say that sometimes, we have to push through our own or others’ initial (and even on-going) reluctance or fear about ministry. All who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, but it seems there is potentially even greater suffering and sacrifice for brave pastors in some circumstances.
So I agree that we don’t be masochists about ministry. And our desires are important as a part of the process. But not the only part of course, and our desires sometimes need to be re-shaped in more godly ways. (Is that what Peter is suggesting to his fellow elders in 1 Peter 5?)
Dave, I haven’t forgotten you. I must be weird because I use the language of ‘hunch’ quite a bit. I think I first picked it up from the Hardy Boys. I seem to recall (long time ago) that their books always talked about them getting hunches that helped them solve the mysteries and adventures they were in.
More recently, I think I saw the word being used effectively by Ian Mears. I have learned in many other arenas (apart from suitability for ministry) that there are often times when it is helpful to have a certain degree of provisionality about some view I want to advance (even if I hold to my view fairly strongly), or when I have a kite to fly.
There may be more information to come to light, or another perspective, and this hunch language reminds me, and those I am talking to, that I don’t think I have the last word on the topic, and that my view can be challenged.
That humility and provisionality could certainly be helpful in this context of putting oneself forward as being suitable for a particular ministry in creating ‘space’ for others to assess you according to other biblical criteria.
And, inexplicably, Sandy begins to make ground in the ‘most commented post’ trophy hunt…
Must seem like I am trying to get comment numbers up on my posts!!! (Oh now I see Gordo has already sledged me about this!)
Shane, love your interaction… For the subjective sense of “think I should give this sort of ministry a go”, you suggested
(By the way Andrew B – use ‘blockquote’ instead of ‘quote’ inside the <…> and </…> marks when you want to quote someone else.)
Anyway, I like ‘inclination’, ‘strong desire’, ‘heart for’ and ‘holy ambition’. I might be going a bit cold on ‘conviction’ simply because on our circles (e.g. MTS), we use ‘convictions’ (plural) often to talk about one’s core theological beliefs about the gospel of Jesus and the Bible and so on. Could be a little confusing?
And I am much less keen on ‘leading’ because it immediately begins to raise the question of ‘by whom’, and whenever a Christian says, “I feel led” to do this, I know they don’t mean, ‘by my own desire’, or even simply just ‘by coincidental circumstances’ (although that may often be the reason they feel this way), let alone ‘by Satan’.
When a Christian says, “I feel led”, they almost always mean that the reckon it’s God who has been leading them, or prompting them. But once again, such language of inner subjective and even mystical feelings seems conspicuously absent from the NT.
But I would like to encourage use of the other terms, ‘desire’, ‘willingness’, ‘holy ambition’ (though it might sound pious to some), and ‘heart for’.
Sure, the testing and assessment process is the key thing, and I am advocating use of such language from the applicant that makes it as easy as possible for those charged with such heavy responsibilities to carry them out fairly without feeling like they’re battling what God has told them (when actually it was not a voice from heaven, but a subjective feeling)!
I think these are four good C’s.
As I said earlier, when speaking with candidates for those sort of ministry, I have typically reserved ‘convictions’ to refer to core doctrinal beliefs.
And I think I would place ‘desire’ (= personal conviction about wanting to do it) under the heading of character. That is character is formed by your attitudes, and I think this is an attitudinal matter.
I also like the way you add church recognition as a separate category, although presumably it’s via the previous C’s that the church and especially its leaders make their judgment.
So I would plump for
1. Convictions (theological) – which would include checking their Conversion! – I always ask about this in any ministry job interview and don’t take it for granted just because they’ve come from a good college or church.
2. Character – including desire.
3. Competencies.
4. Church recognition.
Thanks everyone.
Point of order:
In Acts 14:14 both Paul and Barnabas are called “apostles”
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd… [ESV]
To add to Sandy’s post count…
Those who mentioned Don Carson also speaking of his ‘call to ministry’ may be interested to know he explained at one of the ministry training days that his call, at least in part, involved his pastor tapping him on the shoulder and saying “I want you to join me in ministry”. Whereas Driscoll speaks often of his personal call from God to “marry his wife and start Mars Hill”.
I guess this only further shows the spectrum of meaning that various people attribute to the word.
I’m sure Ben Pfahlert would agree with me in wanting those of us in full time paid ministry to be speaking to our godly young men and women not to ask “Have you received a unique word from God?” but rather “I want you for ministry! (and have you considered coming to a MTS challenge conference?)”
Don Carson’s comment also got me thinking about who we are most likely to ask to consider full-time paid ministry.
Carson said that he wasn’t the obvious choice to be invited to intern with his church over the holidays if measured in terms of prior involvement in public ministry, rather he was simply a quiet servant who came along to church every week, read his Bible and quietly served. He turned down that first invitation but it planted a seed of thought, which in God’s sovereignty and timing has produced one of the world’s foremost Evangelical thinkers and a faithful leader.
Do we sometimes overlook those who serve faithfully yet relatively anonymously for those who are further developed or naturally gifted for ‘up-front’ roles?
Again I say, who are we tapping on the shoulder to say “I want you! (and have you considered coming along to a MTS challenge conference?)”
Can I get an ‘Amen’ from Ben Pfahlert?
David M, thanks for your point of order. It is sustained, and one might mention that Paul and Barnabas are again called apostles in the same chapter, Acts 14:14, although there is a minor textual variant.
Well done – you didwhat I suggested in my earlier posts urging people to check proof texts and investigate claims for themselves.
(The quotes that follow are for the technically minded – otherwise skip to the end for my conclusion!)
Here’s what Ben Witherington says on this matter in his commentary on Acts (pp.419-20)
Andrew C. Clark in his article, “The Role of the Apostles” in the book <i>Witness to the Gospel: The theology of Acts</i> also reviews the various possible explanations for this striking reference to Paul and Barnabas as apostles here only in Acts.
He then concludes (pp184-85)
The interesting thing is, of course, that calling Paul and Barnabas apostles – especially if it’s in the capital A sense – strengthens the claim that the subjective “call to ministry” cannot be found in the NT applying to ordinary Christians but only to the apostles and perhaps their delegates.
Just to add something small to the already extensive discussion.
Instead of the 4 C’s, Tim Keller helpfully mentions three things to consider:
1. Affinity – desire
2. Ability – skills and gifts
3. Opportunity – do doors open for you
He adds that without one of those three then you don’t have a call.
He uses the word call but as already discussed there are probably better words to use.
I found affinity, ability and opportunity a helpful framework in which to think about this issue.
Did anyone mention Article XXIII?
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the Congregation before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.
G’day Michael.
Two things in reply, before a personal note…
1. In this quote, it appears that the lawful calling comes from the men with public authority in the congregation to do the selection work. The quote may also be recognising God’s providential work through this human calling.
2. I am not calling on us to be so pedantic that we cannot communicate with those who use the word in a way different from that I am suggesting…
On a personal note, although incredibly green and naive, I started thinking about gospel ministry in my teens for three intertwining reasons:
(i) My Rector said, “You young people should consider full time Christian ministry.” So I did.
(ii) I enjoyed getting involved in leadership and teaching in the youth fellowship I belonged to, as well as some street level youth work I was doing. Related to this was that some people suggested I had some potential in this area. I noticed 1 Tim 3:1 which says he who aspires to an overseer’s task desires a noble task, and felt that it was a good desire to pursue.
(iii) I followed the logic of C.T.Studd’s famous quote (although I did not know it came from him at the time) – “If Christ be God and he died for me, then no sacrifice I could ever make in return could ever be too much.” (Or words to that effect.)
Of course, this does not mean all Christians should be in paid gospel ministry as their vocation. But it meant to me that I should serve Jesus with all I had.
After a couple of years at Moore College, some lecturers encouraged me to apply for Anglican candidacy, so I did. When I was asked if I felt called to the ordained ministry, I answered, “Yes”, not in the sense of being able to claim an inner leading, but along the lines above.
To address the ‘call’ aspect of the thought world of the man who asked me, I said that I believed God had spoken to me through his Word, especially from 1 Tim 3:1, and in weighing up what followed there, in fellowship with others. Mark 8:27-38 was also significant (the sort of place Studd’s logic comes from).
<b>Advertisement</b>: I think things like MTS Challenge conferences have a lot to offer in the sifting and weighing and enthusing for various types and possibilities of ministry, vocational or otherwise, full-time, part-time, denominational, independent, parish or network or niche based, team leader, team member etc!
I just had a great time at the first one in NSW this year. There are still two to go in Sydney. Click here
C T Studd
If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him.
And young Nathan in Zambia has lots more of Studd’s stuff at
http://www.nathan.co.za/ct_studd.asp
Here’s one that makes me wince and think:
Funds are low again, hallelujah! That means God trusts us and is willing to leave His reputation in our hands.