(An Interruption to the Series) The Call of God
by Daniel R. Brown
The call of God to the gospel ministry, apart from salvation, is the single greatest qualifying mark for anyone who is a minister of the gospel. For this reason, ordination councils examine a man in three separate areas: his conversion, his call to the ministry, and his convictions on doctrine. The call of God is widely recognized as a first order priority by virtually every book on pastoral theology. These authors, crossing every spectrum of theological position, devote a section or an entire chapter to the subject. Most churches will usually ask a potential pastoral candidate to give expression to his call to the ministry.
Even after this emphasis in both our literature and our practice, the call of God has fallen upon hard times. My experience in ordination councils, as well as discussions with pastors and teachers, indicates that a great deal of confusion and doubt surrounds the discussion of God’s call to the ministry.
I believe there are several causes for this increasing lack of clarity about God’s call to the ministry. First, while an abundance of literature addresses the call of God, authors tend to describe the call in their own terms, so that great variety exists in how the call is defined and described. Second, the call of God is confused with a subjective, existential experience equivalent to someone saying, “God spoke to me.” Third, some are openly antagonistic against the call of God to the ministry (e.g., Friesen, Decision Making and the Will of God). This is not an apologetic against that position, but if a man states that he is definitely not called by God, I am willing to take him at his word. Fourth, the call of God is a part of understanding God’s individual will for one’s life. Those who deny that God has an individual will for the life of each Christian will undoubtedly choke on accepting God’s call to the ministry.
A brief word needs to be said about what the call of God is not. The call of God is not special visitation by God to a person via a dream or vision. The call is not happening to open up the right Chinese fortune cookie or seeing an apparition of Christ.
The call of God does involve a subjective aspect, in the same way that understanding God’s individual will for a person involves some subjectivity. We are rightly unwilling to give credence to the subjective, unconfirmed speculations of some. We want believers to be grounded in the objective Word of God. Yet we do understand that there is a subjective aspect to our Christian life. For example, the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God (Rom. 8:16). This verse indicates that there is an internal, subjective aspect to our assurance of salvation in addition to knowing and claiming the explicit, objective promises of Scripture.
The call of God to the ministry fundamentally includes two aspects. First, the call entails an overwhelming desire which, in my understanding, means a desire to preach. In 1 Tim. 3:1 Paul describes this “desire” with two different words. “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” The first word (oregetai) means “to stretch oneself out in order to touch or to grasp something” (Abbott). It carries the idea of the runner who stretches for the finish line, desiring victory. In this sense, the first word involves an aspiration for the office. The second word Paul uses (epithumei) is often found in a negative context in the NT and translated as “lust” when the object of the desire is improper. The root idea of the term means a “burning upon” or a “desiring with passion.” Here the context is positive, but the strength of the term remains, “he desires (lusts or covets) a good thing.” The “desire” is not a whim or a passing fancy, but a passion that changes the course of one’s life.
The second aspect of the call of God in a man’s life includes an inescapable conviction based on the Word of God. The Scripture will grip a man’s heart and, when coupled with a passion for the ministry, will never release him. As this is an individual aspect of how God leads to His call, no two preachers will have exactly the same approach or testimony.
The call of God does not happen in a vacuum. Christ, in His active role of headship, calls men to the ministry (Eph. 4:11), the Holy Spirit directs the call (Acts 20:28), and the church verifies the call (Acts 13:2-3). The church has a major role in protecting the ministry and, therefore, the church should agree with a man’s call and qualifications prior to his entering the ministry. Thus we can say with Paul, “He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry” (1 Tim. 1:12).
Holy Sonnet VIII
John Donne (1572-1631)
If faithful souls be alike glorified
As angels, then my fathers soul doth see,
And adds this even to full felicity,
That valiantly I hells wide mouth o’erstride:
But if our minds to these souls be descried
By circumstances, and by signs that be
Apparent in us, not immediately,
How shall my mind’s white truth by them be tried?
They see idolatrous lovers weep and mourn,
And vile blasphemous conjurers to call
On Jesus name, and Pharisaical
Dissemblers feigne devotion. Then turn,
O pensive soul, to God, for he knows best
Thy true grief, for he put it in my breast.
Dr. Dan Brown is Professor of Pastoral Theology at Central Seminary. Prior to coming to Central, he served as senior pastor of Kendall Park Baptist Church, Kendall Park, NJ. He has also served at churches in Michigan and Texas and at camps in Texas and New Jersey. He is a member of the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America, the Evangelical Homiletics Society, and the Evangelical Theological Society. He and his wife, Mary Jo, have four daughters.
- 8 views
But I’m personally inclined to think that understandings of “the call” will continue to be multiple, diverse and confusing. And the reason is that there is just not alot of attention given to the concept in the NT.
1 Tim. 3:1 is helpful and I agree w/Dr.Brown that desire is a huge factor. But what Paul does not say is that “desire = call” or that this desire must be life-long.
In addition, it’s not clear to me what this means or where it is taught in the NT: “The Scripture will grip a man’s heart and, when coupled with a passion for the ministry, will never release him.”
I’m inclined to think that the trio of ordination concerns: “conversion, his call to the ministry, and his convictions on doctrine” should be shifted more in the direction of “conversion, why he desires the ministry, doctrinal convictions, character and skills.” The “character and skills” part would be my term for the qualifications found in the pastoral epistles, but expanded a bit in the area of application: Can he interact wisely with people and groups? Does he evidence an aptitude for understanding and communicating the Scriptures to a broad spectrum of listeners? In the character arena, it’s very hard to answer but worth asking nonetheless: Does he desire the role for the esteem of a large number of people? For the opportunities to exert power over others? For the chance to prove himself in some way? For money?
To me, a focus on “call” in the ordination process tends toward the neglect of more important issues.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m struggling a bit with a couple things. If we compare the call to ministry with the call to salvation, does that mean the call to ministry never goes away? Does that mean, perhaps, it can never be forfeited by disqualification (or is it still there, like Jonah)? Or in the case of those who once preached but no longer do, yet not by disqualification - have they dishonored Christ?
If we base the call to ministry on an “individual will of God” does that mean that a man who is not preaching but still serves as a full elder (with equal authority as all other elders) does not have the call of 1 Timothy 3:1?
It is problematic to use Acts 13:2-3 as a support that the church verifies the call of a man to ministry. All the verbs in those 2 verses do not reference the church, but the men of verse Acts 13:1 (they are all masculine plural verbs).
It also seems to me that using 1 Tim. 1:12 for a support (or conclusion) that the church verifies the call is hard to sustain.
As well, does Eph. 4:11 go as far as to teach that Christ “calls men into ministry,” or that he equips some men with gifts for the equipping of the body? In other words, does the verse teach offices, or gifts? It seems to me the latter.
However, thank you for the excellent study on 1 Tim. 3:1.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
This article was authored by Dan Brown, not Bauder.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Ephesians 4:11-14
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry (ἔργον διακονίας), for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,Seems incongruous that the Pastor is called to the ministry (1 Tim 1:12 “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry” - (θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν) in a distinct way but the saints are to do the ministry (while they are not called in the same way!). All the while the noun (“ministry” (διακονία)) is one and the same.
––— Update —
I just noticed that I basically just repeated a portion of Ted Bigelow’s comments above. While it is neither here nor there, I actually read Dr Brown’s I.T.N.O.T. Friday and formulated my response at that time (not that my objection is new!) :)
As Aaron noted, there is little scripture for the concept of a call, May I say that perhaps there is no scripture. At least not for the special call concept as set forth in this article.
The concept of “a call” is by the Clergy class for the Clergy class. It is part of the structure of a pedestal upon which the Clergy class can stand in order to gain authority not really authorized in scripture. With the Clergy call comes the title of “Reverend.” All you Reverends out there please report to the Clergy clothing store for your special collar and black suit.
There are Spiritual gifts of enablement given which includes shepherding and teaching. Such gifts are given to some and the recipients are given to the believers assembly (Eph. 4:11). Such gifts may be associated with some who desire and are qualified for assembly oversight (1Tim. 3:1). However, these gifts are not above the other gifts given and do not constitute a special call different from that received by every born again believer to serve God and other believers. If you want to use the word call then all are called. We are all called to salvation, sanctification, worship, service, and glorification.
The assembly is to give due remembrance and obedience to those they acknowledge are in their oversight and teaching the word of God but such is the assembly acknowledging value and service based upon that received (Heb. 13:7,17). The oversight does not demand such. The assembly must give such. The authority of the assembly is given to those who rule. Those who rule do not take authority based upon a call from God.
Every believer stands equally before God with full access to Him. We are all believer priests. This concept of the priesthood of believers means that the assembly of believers has its authority based on the collective authority of the genuine believers (Matt 18:17-20). The collective authority then chooses and gives authority to those appointed to oversight as elders who are to shepherd. The assembly may select one elder or multiple elders. They should not select any not genuinely qualified for such oversight. All elders must be able to teach. Preaching as declaration is in scripture. It appears to be closely related to teaching God’s word and the Gospel. It has been corrupted by philosophical concepts of rhetoric and pagan concepts of persuasion including shouting, prancing, and other attention getting devices.
What we have today in the western churches is the concept of “Clergy call” whereby some vague concept justifies all sorts of unqualified persons (including women) to claim the authority of God and impose themselves on an ignorant created “lay class” who tolerate all sorts of nonsense in the name of God and “God’s will.” This includes churches (not true assemblies) of all stripes and reference points. It includes Fundamental Baptists with the KJVO pulpit gurus, other Fundamentalists, Conservative Evangelicals, New Evangelicals, and Liberals. We in the western Christian culture suffer from a blight of truth and Biblical truth which is partly perpetuated by the concept of the clergy call.
In the midst of all the false concepts there are those accomplishing great good for the Lord.
However, if you want to receive a real call, keep your cell phone on.
I do not find todays concepts of super teachers on radio and or TV as the part of the model set forth in scripture. Such becomes the easy avenue to disseminate false doctrine or exaggerated pet doctrines outside the authority of the assembly and each assemblies chosen shepherds.
I do believe in both individual will of God (how can we believe God works all things acc. to the counsel of His will and not believe that includes individual vocation?) and call to ministry, but I think call to ministry is very similar to call to anything else. That is, yes, there is a subjective element (this is inescapable), and there are special qualifications. But is it irrevocable/permanent and does it take some form that is unique to the role of pastor/elder?
I’m open to that but I don’t see strong evidence for it in Scripture.
As for church involvement. I think the case for that is more one of practical necessity. That is, clearly gifts and desire are involved (and desire not based on a craving for power or money—this is evident in Peter’s epistles as well as Paul’s), but how is the individual going to identify whether he has the gifts? It’s difficult to see how that could happen without the feedback of a local church… or several working together.
[Bob]…claim the authority of God and impose themselves on an ignorant created “lay class” who tolerate all sorts of nonsense in the name of God and “God’s will.” This includes churches (not true assemblies) of all stripes and reference points. It includes Fundamental Baptists with the KJVO pulpit gurus, other Fundamentalists, Conservative Evangelicals, New Evangelicals, and Liberals. We in the western Christian culture suffer from a blight of truth and Biblical truth which is partly perpetuated by the concept of the clergy call.I think the solution to this is not to throw out the idea of clergy call or God’s will, but to put more emphasis on the fact that people’s sense of God’s will is plain wrong whenever it is contrary to what He has revealed His will to be in Scripture.
Most (all?) of these abuses are solved by comparing “will claims” to Scripture and following the Word… that eliminates the clearly unqualified, the power-mad, the ignorant “lay class” etc. All of these are contrary to plain teaching of Scripture.
But belief in individual will of God is not in any way incompatible with obedience to His revealed will.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Bob T.] There are Spiritual gifts of enablement given which includes shepherding and teaching. Such gifts are given to some and the recipients are given to the believers assembly (Eph. 4:11). Such gifts may be associated with some who desire and are qualified for assembly oversight (1Tim. 3:1).Bold added to the quote.
I think this is very important to remember and helps keep proper perspective on how we view our church leaders. Pastors are not the only ones who may possess any specific gift in the church. Furthermore, apart from a couple of absolutely necessary gifts for every pastor (such as teaching), no pastor will have all the gifts necessary to completely care for the church. They are to lead in the care of the flock, but they must not (nay cannot) attempt to provide all the care themselves.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Bob T.] As Aaron noted, there is little scripture for the concept of a call, May I say that perhaps there is no scripture. At least not for the special call concept as set forth in this article.I think the basic thrust of the article is correct, that there is both an objective, and subjective element to the call to leadership.
For the objective call, you might start in the O.T. with the laying on of hands for priests, and continue with the call of our Lord to the apostles. Then you have passages like Acts 13:3 and 1 Timothy 4:14. I would also include in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. For the subjective call I like what is written in the article. 1 Timothy 3:1 is pretty potent stuff.
Those who rule do not take authority based upon a call from God…Sometimes I think we get confused where authority in the church lies, and mistakenly believe it is vested in the congregation. I tend to think it can make the sense of call in a man less specific than it ought.
This concept of the priesthood of believers means that the assembly of believers has its authority based on the collective authority of the genuine believers (Matt 18:17-20)
We have a Head that speaks (Jesus!); the body does not speak. Nor does Matthew 18:17-20 teach congregational authority. The church is seen as responding to the 2 or 3 witnesses in Matthew 18:17, and the Father and the Son also testify to the 2 or 3 witnesses in Matthew 18:19-20, not the church. Perhaps its worth looking at again.
The assembly may select one elder or multiple elders.Where in Scripture is there any example or teaching that an assembly may select one elder? Or multiple elders?
- Seminary is tough (although looking back at it now it was one of most pleasurable and relatively relaxing times of my life! But it didn’t see so at the time. Remember you are called. Hang in there. Ok God got it!
- The ministry is rough … there are critics …. the church is not growing the way you had hoped (or is going “south” fast). Remember you are called! OK God … got it …
- Inflation is high. Everything is going up up up! ( http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm 13% in 1980, 10% in ‘81 ). Your raise one year = 0%. The next 2%. But I am called … that’s OK … Got it God!
How it is dangerous:
- Well it is subjective (not that there aren’t other subjective elements of the Christian life
- It’s been used to cheat people (not my case mentioned above … I wasn’t cheated!). But chronically low pay for Christian day school teachers. Or even not paying when they were contractually owed
- It’s been used to guilt people. You had better do this … you are called you know!
- It’s been used to pride people. You are better than those lay ordinary schmoes who work in the secular world where everything is vain and of which all will be burned up.
- It’s been used to confuse people. This is the Pastor’s job … stuffing envelopes is your job
- It’s been used to discourage people. (Not me … not discouraged!) Examples … the couple who spend years raising support to go to _______ country as missionaries. They don’t make it. Now laboring as painters, secretaries, etc. (has anyone done a study of the “failed” missionary appointee (the ones who start the long deputation trail but don’t make it to the field?). Same for the men “called” to go to seminary. Only to find upon graduation that more than half will not find themselves in a paying vocational ministry.
- It’s been used to build the Christian ghetto mentality. The church secretary job is serving the Lord … the secretary at Fed Ex … well less so. Working at XYX_Baptist_Bible_College is better than working at (fill in the blank … secular institution)
- It’s a little mystical. Waiting on God to tell me to go to China, build a building, go to school, etc. (you could add in there find a spouse I suppose)
- It elevates some views about others. The Pastor’s vision is to __________________. He’s the called one! Better follow that no matter what.
First, I want to thank Daniel Brown for writing on this topic. It needs to be constantly before us in these days of declension. I believe there is much truth to the old saying, “As the pulpit goes so goes the [local] church. As the church goes so goes the community…” We really are suffering from the effects of a lack of attention to the call to the ministry.
The origin of the “desire” of 1 Timothy 3:1 is certainly not to be found in the heart of the natural man. Yet some natural men feel a desire to be in the [evangelical] ministry and, sadly, find a way into it. And each one of us, though we be regenerate, would be fools to trust every impulse or longing in our own hearts. The origin of the desire of which Paul speaks must not be automatically assumed to be the regenerate heart alone. No, the desire to be an overseer/elder/pastor (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-3) must be placed there by the One who calls and sends (cf. Rom. 10:15). Thus, this kind of call to the ministry must be tested over a sustained period of time. That is what John Newton and Spurgeon and many others held to be almost axiomatic in order for the wheat, as it were, to be separated from the chaff. And that is why Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote that whenever anyone told him he thought he was called to preach, he (MLJ) would see it as his duty to try to talk him out of it.
The Puritan view of vocation-as-calling, which they got from Luther, had to do with whatever employment a person happened to be doing at any particular time (so long as it wasn’t promoting sin). It did not, therefore, really touch upon the “desire” of 1 Timothy 3:1.
For what it’s worth, I think it is most instructive to remember the limited number of disciples chosen by the Lord, and how small the number of deacons chosen in Acts 6. When one recalls that God called only a tiny handful of prophets in OT history it behooves us to give serious thought to the gravity and, let me say, relative infrequency of the “call” in our day.
God needs the ones He calls. No more no less. The state of the churches in America demonstrate that Christians have foisted upon themselves very many more ministers than God Himself has called.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
However, I gather that this thread is more about sorting through the internal and external aspects of deciding who ought to be an elder/pastor/minister in Christ’s church. The Reformed faith indeed stresses the necessity, but not sufficiency, of an internal “call” to the ministry. Wilhelmus a’ Brakel speaks thus: http://nathaneshelman.blogspot.com/2008/08/sabbath-abrakel-discerning-i…
Dabney stresses more the objective side, but I think comes to nearly the same thing: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/DabneyRLCallToMinistry.htm
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion