Is Pastoral “Desire” a Qualification for Ministry?

More work should be focussed on ὀρέγω, which occurs just 3 times in the NT

My concern here is not with Mark’s basic thesis that the “desire” is not in the list of qualifications in Paul’s list. It has to do with the verbs orego and epithymeo and where these desires originate in context. I am happy to refer to the articles I linked to above and leave things there.

Thanks for a thoughtful article

Mark,

Your response infers strongly that whatever the strong desire is it is not of God. The point at issue is whether the “desire” in 1 Tim. 3:1 is effected by the Holy Spirit or not? I am understanding you to be answering “No.” This is because God only communicates through the Scriptures and not secondarily through what Calvin calls a “godly desire.” But how can it be godly if it is not effected by God? While I understand that Robert Leighton, Andrew Fuller, John Newton, Charles Bridges, C. H. Spurgeon and D. M. Lloyd-Jones are far from infallible, they stand against your view.

As you may know, providence includes concurrence wherein God does act directly with the agent. John Frame (The Doctrine of God) is wary of putting all God’s activities into the box of secondary causation, and I think he is right. Your comment also implies you deny special providence.

We’ll just have to disagree here. Thanks for your article.

Where does the desire come from? I came from a revivalistic, right-wing fundamentalist background where the “call to ministry” was often couched in mystical terms (“God spoke to me …”). I don’t think this is correct, but how should we accurately describe a “desire” to serve God in any capacity, whether in a volunteer capacity or as an elder? Does Scripture suggest a direct revelation, or a specific providence? I suspect some of the disagreement here is about definitions. I opt for the latter option, and this is how I define it (for what it’s worth):

• Direct revelation: What it says; a direct message from God to an individual about His desire for him to do something. I don’t think this describes the desire for pastoral ministry.
• Specific providence: God steers an individual where He wants Him to be, through a bewildering array of life experiences and circumstances. It may appear random to us, but it isn’t to Him.

I think a person’s ecclesiastical sub-culture will sometimes determine the kind of language he uses to describe from whence this pastoral desire cometh. Perhaps someone describes his own experience as a direct revelation, but I suspect what he may be referring to is a specific providence.

So, how does this impact the question “is ‘desire’ a qualification for pastoral ministry?” At my ordination, I was asked to describe my “call” to ministry, and I knew I was expected to describe a mystical experience of sorts. As I remember, I tried to use the requisite, sacramental language of IFB mysticism, while pivoting to providence as much as I could. But, it seems to me that “desire” should always be taken with a grain of salt, because the proof will be in the pudding. It doesn’t matter what a guy wants; it matters if God has gifted him to be an elder. In that sense, a question about “desire” is often a pro forma introductory question that can safely be ignored in favor of other matters.

It might be better to re-phrase the question this way:

• Bad way: Please describe your call to ministry
• Good way: Tell us how you decided you wanted to be involved in pastoral ministry

Mark, I think the crux of things is here:

I would argue that the whole of God’s revealed will is contained in the Christian Scriptures, and that in the present era he makes no normative transmissions beyond this.

This is a viewpoint with which I disagree, particularly the concept of the “whole” of God’s will. I strongly believe in Sola Scriptura as typically defined, the Bible is the final authority and the infallible authority. I do not believe there is any further revelation that can be canonical or authoritative in the sense that we all are expected to be held accountable to it.

But, in contrast to your view, I am convinced that the Scriptures teach that God leads, directs, and guides us into the will of God, and this may involve more than just exegesis. This includes creating desires or longings within us.. Our perception, however, of that leading/guidance is not always accurate for a variety of theological reasons, and so this subjective leading is not binding upon others. I am sure that this same difference comes into play when trying to discern how one is gifted spiritually.

The Scriptures themselves exemplify leadings and revelations apart from the Scripture, Paul, for example, received revelations and guidance beyond what is recorded. There were many prophets in Israel whose words were not recorded, but were directed toward individuals and specific situations. Not to mention the many acts and words of Jesus which were not recorded (John 20:30-31). If God lead people in Biblical times (both OT and NT) apart from previously written or future Scripture, it follows that He still leads people today. But, apart from Scripture telling us a revelation really is from God, we can never be absolutely sure that it is. The best we can do is make sure sure a leading/desire is not contrary to Scripture.

I have personally had only a limited amount of leadings, where God has deeply impressed something on my heart. When this has happened, I know it. I do not expect other people to yield to my leading as though it were of God, but I have known what I had to do.

So when you read of a desire to serve as an elder, you are forced to argue, by virtue of your stated proposition above, that such a desire cannot come from God. I think that is an unnatural reading.

Not every either/or creates a false dilemma of course. Besides, I did not leave you with one. Earlier, e.g., I wrote:

“Is it based on a sustained sense of unavoidable ‘nagging’ in the consciousness (e.g. Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones)? Is it a romantic inclination or a prodding of pride in the guise of serving God? Is it the result of man worship? It’s worth asking!”

You dent any direct impulses from the Holy Spirit to the saint. That is quite something to say! Not all direct communication between God and His children is revelation per Scripture. Indeed, as Van Til said, “every man is revelatory to himself.” And this includes his own thoughts and inclinations. But in this instance we are concerned with an impression (dependent upon the rule of Scripture yet to be tested) communicated by the Spirit. You deny any such thing. I wonder if you deny present-day miracles for the same reason? This, as I say, puts you into conflict with many luminaries. See John Frame, The Doctrine of God, chs. 13-14.

If I may I will insert something from my article on this subject:

“Romans 10:14-15: Preachers Are Sent

Another important text which must be studied in this connection is in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, chapter 10. In verse 14 and 15a of this chapter, the Apostle wrote:

“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?”

There are a number of matters to be settled in relation to this text. First, what does it mean to “be sent” and who does the sending? Second, what rubric, if any, is Paul drawing on? Finally, what alternatives are there to the common interpretation?

In answer to the first question, Douglas Moo observes,

“By repeating the verb from the end of one question at the beginning of the next, Paul creates a connected chain of steps that must be followed if a person is to be saved.” – The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, 663.

Further, the quotation of Isaiah 52:7 after the fourth and final question in v.15 fortifies the importance of God Himself sending out His heralds. There is then something of an official air to this section. It is worth reproducing a longish passage from F.F. Bruce in support of this:

“Men and women are urged to call on the name of the Lord and be saved; but they will not call on his name unless they have been moved to believe in him, they cannot believe in him unless they hear about him, they cannot hear about him unless someone brings them the news, and no-one can bring them the news unless he is commissioned to do so. The preacher is an ‘apostle’ in the primary sense of the word: he is a herald or ambassador conveying from someone who has commissioned him to deliver it.” – Romans, TNTC, 193-194.

The second question is also answered by the Apostle’s inclusion of the Isaiah passage. The original context is clearly kingdom-oriented and eschatological. Paul takes advantage of this context in his larger argument in chapters 9 through 11; which is that Israel still has a future in God’s plans. Thus, the heralds are appointed by God to proclaim the good news to Israel too, in line with their future expectation.”

I also wonder how one can “yield to the Spirit” and “pray in the Spirit” (not tongues!) without being led by the Spirit? You have opened a can of worms. Is the Spirit dormant within us; only playing a part in our reactions to outward circumstances? And if He is not passive, then can He not give those whom He sends a subjective inner call, to be tested against Scripture and the opinion of the Church? That is what I am getting at.

Still, we are not going to solve that here.

P.S. kudos to Ed!

[Paul Henebury]

Further, the quotation of Isaiah 52:7 after the fourth and final question in v.15 fortifies the importance of God Himself sending out His heralds. There is then something of an official air to this section. It is worth reproducing a longish passage from F.F. Bruce in support of this:

“Men and women are urged to call on the name of the Lord and be saved; but they will not call on his name unless they have been moved to believe in him, they cannot believe in him unless they hear about him, they cannot hear about him unless someone brings them the news, and no-one can bring them the news unless he is commissioned to do so. The preacher is an ‘apostle’ in the primary sense of the word: he is a herald or ambassador conveying from someone who has commissioned him to deliver it.” – Romans, TNTC, 193-194.

In this context, which has commissioning and kerugmatic language, it refers to those “sent” to preach, not to all the saints.

God bless,

PH

When this has happened, I know it. I do not expect other people to yield to my leading as though it were of God, but I have known what I had to do.

Herein is the crux of the problem as I see it between Mark and Paul. And I think Ed digs his own grave here, so to speak.

Let’s assume Paul is right, that there is some sort of extra-biblical leading from God. How would that be distinguished from some extra-biblical desire? How can one discern the difference between what is of God and what is not? Is not our flesh able to feel exactly the same about a “not from God” desire as it is about a “from God” desire? I know of no way to infallibly discern whether a desire is from God or not from God.

This, in a nutshell, is why I tend to think the conversation between Paul and Mark (with great respect for both) has no real usefulness. The usefulness is the biblical pattern of qualifications (with or without desire in it) and obedience to the biblical command to test a man who claims the desire.

The grave of Ed is found in this testing: Once you claim something is from God, how does anyone argue against it? It is unassailable, no matter how wrong it might be.

Many women these days are claiming that God has called them to preach. On what basis shall we disagree, given Ed’s sentiment (though I don’t think Ed would support a woman preacher). But how can he not since the woman claims, “I know it … I know what I have to do.”

If your answr is go back to the Scripture, then you have buried the idea that a claim of a call from God is infallible. You have submitted that claim to Scripture.

The answer to Ed’s claim is to say, “God has deeply impressed on me that he didn’t deeply impress that on you.” If Ed says, “God has called me to preach,” I say, “God told me he didn’t call you to preach.” How shall this be adjudicated? I remember ordination councils where the question was asked, “What will you do if this body does not recommend ordination?” I think some expected the answer, “God called me so I will go preach anyway,.” I think that would be a very unbilblical answer. In cases such as this, I think we must yield our personal sense of leading to the discernment of others. It is time to step back, seek counsel, and reconsider.

I am thinking of a man right now (among others) who, had he followed the advice of others, would have saved his families several years of deputation, a move across the country to plant a church, an utter failure at church planting, and a return … all because he wouldn’t listen when someone said, “You are not cut out for this.”

Anyway, all that rambling to say a call might exist, but there is no infallible way to know it, it can be mistaken, there is no evidence that it is some extrabiblical supernatural work from God, and any such callee must be tested by the scriptural qualifications.

I understand your concerns. Have you read Lecture Two of Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students? If so, do you think you have correctly represented him (or even me)?

I don’t even have one foot in the grave (that I know of), Larry.

Regarding your comment, I don’t see things as polarized as you do:

Let’s assume Paul is right, that there is some sort of extra-biblical leading from God. How would that be distinguished from some extra-biblical desire? How can one discern the difference between what is of God and what is not? Is not our flesh able to feel exactly the same about a “not from God” desire as it is about a “from God” desire? I know of no way to infallibly discern whether a desire is from God or not from God.

I don’t think you are hearing me.There is no way to be sure that a leading is infallible. You are adding that idea, not me.

I answered that under Sola Scriptura, Scripture as the final authority and the only infallible one. But most theologians acknowledge the reality of authorities (e.g., a church board) that seek to do God’s will but is fallible and sometimes mistaken. But if the board runs clearly contrary to written Scripture, the Scripture trumps the board. Same thing with leadings. They are fallible. But just as God may use a board in a church or mission organization, so God may use a leading of His Spirit. Both are fallible, sometimes frequently.

Fallible authorities are held accountable to the infallible authority. And just as a board cannot assert that it is definitely God’s will to initiate a new ministry (for example), so we cannot definitely assert that a leading is the will of God. The best we can do is say that we THINK that God is leading us in a certain direction.

Fallibility describes most of the Christian life. Jesus did not come to make us infallible. Were you infallibly certain that your wife was the right kind of person for you when you married her? You usually don’t find that out until you are married a while. You made a fallible choice (assuming you are married). You may have used some Biblical wisdom to preclude some foolish choices, but people using that same wisdom could have ended up with a miserable marriage.

Because so many people abuse the idea of “feeling led” to justify breaking up a relationship, leaving a church, or quitting a job as an evasion of personal responsibility should not move us to react in an opposite and equal direction. People who refuse to own up to their choices will always find a way to cop out, and people who are responsible won’t hide behind “God’s will” through a leading.

Discerning the leading of the Spirit is not an exact science, and its inexactitude is what is troubling you. Many Scriptures have no “neat” explanations and leave room for abuse. One principle I use is that leadings do not exalt me, but the Lord. They are usually uncomfortable for me. I will tend to do the things I want to do, so leadings generally are about things I would not normally do, or not do at the time. I have had a few very rare instances, for example, where I knew I needed to call someone — or God led me to pray for someone I don’t normally pray for. And when the conviction develops within you that God wants you to do something responsible and in harmony with the Word, that is what I call the leading of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is infallible. But we are fallible in discerning His leadings, therefore what use are they?

The Bible is infallible. But we are fallible in interpreting it (have you every changed your mind on the meaning of a verse?). Therefore, what use is it?

The obvious answer (in both cases) is that we do understand partly and will understand more as we labor in the Word or in our walk with the Lord.

There are differences, however. The Bible is black and white (or black red and white), and we can all see its text and debate it. In addition, we all make judgment calls between when a text is so obvious that someone is refusing to conform to its obvious meaning and a clear cut (to us) passage.

I believe in the clarity of Scripture, so I think the fault lies with us. I think the same is true with the Spirit’s leading.

Have you read Lecture Two of Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students? If so, do you think you have correctly represented him (or even me)?

Yes I have read it, but it has been a while. I may have been unclear and my apologies if so. My point wasn’t really to represent either of you per se, but to suggest (however awkwardly I did so), that in the end, perhaps it doesn’t matter.

Even if there is some sort of “particular effects of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of some men to equip and to bring about in them an undying desire to preach and teach the Word of God to those to whom God would send them,” I don’t see how that gets us anywhere because there is no real test of it except for meeting the biblical qualifications, which is Mark’s point I think. And that lack of a test of a call is what I think Mark, at least in part, is rejecting because of the idea that there is some extra-biblical revelation of one sort or another, however we characterize it.

My sympathies in the debate lie with you. I do tend to think there is some sort of work of the Holy Spirit that burdens a man to pastor (the work of an overseer; not just preach) in a sense that probably does not exist for bankers, builders, and circus masters. But I can’t really define that, and any such call must be tested by in terms of character qualifications and skillsets given in Scripture.

So my point is that even if you and I are correct it doesn’t really get us far. It isn’t particularly useful other than as a starting point. If a young man doesn’t desire it, there is no reason to proceed onto the (other?) qualifications. If he does desire the office, he must meet the other qualifications. If he does not meet them, it matters not how strong his desire is or how much he claims it to be from God. And his failure to meet other qualifications may indicate that the call he claims is not from God, or, at least is not ready to be acted on.

I also don’t think the call is necessary permanent, per se. I think a pastor could be a fruitful and God-called pastor for a while and then leave that calling to teach, or do something else. So perhaps I would not say it is undying.

Hopefully that clarifies somewhat.