So here, as promised, are some thoughts on “calling” and pastoral ministry.
Obviously, not all can be said on this matter in this short space. So, the main point I want to ponder is this: while we often speak of “being called to the ministry” or of “receiving a call to pastor,” the New Testament hardly, if ever, uses the theme of calling to refer to a call to ministry. Rather, “calling” refers almost exclusively to the call to salvation, to the summons to receive the gospel message of redemption. This may involve the call in the external sense (“many are called, but few are chosen,” in Jesus’ words) or the internal, effectual sense that nets salvation in the one(s) so summoned (“those whom God predestined he also called,” to paraphrase Paul).
Now, this is not to say that the themes of “calling” and of ministry are never intertwined by the New Testament authors. They are- just not in the way we normally talk of things. Think of it this way: ministry is related to calling in the New Testament because ministry is related to salvation. It is not a direct relationship, but an indirect one. The classic example is Paul. In Galatians 1, he speaks of how God “called [him] by his grace” (v. 15). A quick cross-reference with Galatians 1:6, where similar language is used, indicates that Paul is referring here to the gospel summons he had received on the Damascus road, i.e. to his salvation event. His being “called” was a call to salvation. But, this was not an end in and of itself. Paul goes on to state how he was called to salvation “in order that I might preach [Christ] among the Gentiles…” (v. 16, emphasis added). His ministry, then, was not a direct result of being called, but rather an indirect result stemming from the salvation to which he had been called. To put it another way, Paul had been called into the sphere of salvation, inside of which was the ministry God had prepared for him.
Why is this important? Well, to start, we want to use biblically appropriate categories and vocabulary in our approach to every aspect of the Christian life. If the Bible utilizes the theme of “call” or “calling” to refer primarily to salvation, as opposed to utilizing it to refer to ministry, this ought to inform our way of thinking and speaking about things. Not that we must go on a witch hunt against all who speak of being “called” to the ministry, but we strive to think biblically.
But, secondly, and more importantly, understanding that our appointment to ministry is rooted in our call to salvation will spare us so much pain in terms of misunderstanding our self-identities as pastors (or as those preparing for the role). It is easy to become absorbed in our identity as “minister” and lose sight of the fact that we are first and foremost those called by grace apart from our works. How much pastor/seminary student burnout might be avoided if we stopped putting the cart before the horse, so to speak?
As a way of wrapping up, let me say, “Don’t misunderstand me!” Deeply grasping one’s appointment to ministry, one’s identity as a pastor, is hugely necessary. It is vitally linked to our success and endurance in God’s work. Paul writes of how he was “appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Timothy 1:11) and how this self-understanding gave him reason and strength “to suffer as” he did (1:12). But, even in this context, Paul has already mentioned a few verses earlier his call to salvation (1:9). That call formed the foundation for his thinking about his appointment. Let it be the same for all of us, whether seasoned shepherds or those aspiring to the role.
Tomorrow: thoughts on spiritual gifts and pastoring...
Really appreciate your exhortation to have a biblical pattern of vocabulary and thinking!
ReplyDeleteYou probably avoided this question intentionally, perhaps for saving space or controversy, but how much weight ought to be placed on a person discerning an actual calling, as in a historical event or moment in their life? Ought calling to ministry be solely based on an experience of particular anointing, or can calling be deduced based on gifts or other circumstances?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow, Thomas, you thought the post was so nice, you expressed it twice!
ReplyDeleteAnyways, lack of space, not aversion to controversy, dictated the direction of the post. Lots of folks out there it seems have addressed the "components" of a legitimate call. Usually, I go with Spurgeon, who lists the subjective desire along with requisite gifts and church confirmation as core elements of the call. He adds fruit, circumstances, and character as well.Interestingly, he lists physical features as one aspect- a man must be able to project his voice, those with small chests he discounted right away!
Anyways, you can probably tell that I assign only a portion of significance to an "historical event or moment" in a person's life- it needs to fit in with the larger grouping of elements that go into a call/appointment. Still, though only one element, those moments can be ultra-significant to the person (Paul for instance), sort of a marker along the path that one can look back upon for confidence.
more could be said, I suppose, but those are my thoughts...
Broadening the scope beyond the New Testament, does the Divine call of OT kings, spokesmen and prophets have any bearing on the manner in which those who proclaim truth and lead people are (in my opinion) chosen by God and set apart by His people. If Timothy Laniak is accurate in his development of "Shepherds After My own Heart" that explores the shepherd metaphor historically, we may be short-sighted to only look to the NT in defining the appointment to pastoral leadership. The pastoral language in Eph. 4:11 is rooted in centuries of leadership practices.
ReplyDeleteAs a pragmatic issue, I have observed many who "do ministry" without a clear sense of divine calling are often the very ones who lose heart when things become difficult.
Absolutely Dave- the pattern is set in the OT. Certainly, for instance, Ezek. 34 is essential, not only for understanding Christ's role as Shepherd, but the role of under-shepherds as well. In my own studies recently, I've been examining the Pastoral Epistles, combing them for insights into the whole matter. Paul uses "appointment" terminology (from "tithemi") to describe the Lord's putting him into ministry (1 Tim 1:12, 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11). Jeremiah 1:10 in the Septuagint uses the same language (the passage as a whole is most illuminating). More broadly than vocabulary, however, are the accounts themselves of men in the OT specifically commissioned by God to do his work. Jeremiah 23 is instructive here too, as God lambasts the prophets that he did not "send."
DeleteThe problem I have with the kings, however, is how to square the genealogical aspect of it all: yes God chose David, but also his line. The same with the priests. So, there are some big issues to wrestle through before one can pull all the strands together to form a "whole-Bible" biblical theology of call/appointment. Something for you when you work on your doctorate someday...:
actually, I think it is Jeremiah 1:5 now that I look at it again.
DeleteGood point about the king's genealogy. When I consider the overlap between priest, prophet and king with the role of shepherd. I also see that priests were all from the line of Aaron, but not all of the line were allowed to enter the inner sections of the tabernacle or temple. Does the tearing of the curtain at the crucifixion render the priestly analogy moot? (or should that be "mute"?)
DeleteDeacons & missionaries/church planters who were "set apart", Paul's reference to Timothy's laying on of hands seems to indicate some sort of recognition by the body of Christ that God has a unique "call" or "appointment" that is distinct from the general call to all to be conformed to the image of Christ and to live as His Ambassadors. Is that appointment based solely upon gifting/personality or is there something divine or mystical to it? I still lean to the later.
Since I am serving on our district's "Board of ministerial standing" which interviews servants desiring credentials. This discussion is helpful to me to rethink why our committee exists.
Good stuff, Dave.
DeleteI'm not so sure about the priestly analogy being "moot." One of the passages that has intrigued me the last few months is Romans 15:16 where Paul speaks of his priestly role. Is that in a "priesthood of all believers" sense, or in a more narrow one?
I agree generally with the whole issue of the "divine or mystical" element to ministry appointment. But, as I wrote above, it seems like it needs to be viewed in the light of those other factors of gifting/personality/confirmation from others. There are always the exceptions I suppose, but they seem to prove the rule. Even Paul with his extra-extraordinary Damascus road experience was, as you noted, later "set apart" for his sort of "official" missionary ministry by the Holy Spirit in the context of the church gathered. Timothy, too, though there were "prophecies" made about him (sort of the mystical side), was, as you mentioned, recognized by the wider church as having been gifted and appointed.
In sum, I don't think it's an either/or but a both/and: "divine" and "earthy," subjective and objective, personal sense and corporate confirmation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete