Dan Phillips: "What verse in the Bible talks about a pastor's 'call'?"
I have to admit that this discussion does seem to be more about a defense of a ‘call’ than it does seem to be about the actual Bible passages, which is interesting. I do certainly agree with the portions of Mike’s post:
If the 4-point list becomes some kind of divine tea-leave configuration through which we can hear the voice of God, then there’s a problem. I’m not sure what to think of the line, “He does it convincingly…” I would like to think that those 4 factors are persuasive in discernment at least most of the time.
So let’s be honest for a moment. The NT does not appear to (at least in the ESV) use ‘call’ in any sense of a specific, individual call to leadership (although there are plenty of mentions of a general sanctifying or salvific call, as a cursory review of the Pauline epistles will demonstrate).
The requirements for a pastor/elder/deacon are these:
I Tim. 3:1-13
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-9
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
I Peter 5:1-5
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
So where, exactly, do we get this idea that there IS some kind of mystical call that appoints a person into arguably the most difficult job in the world? And why is it that we swallowed this idea whole? And why is it that when someone says ‘Hey, I want to be a Pastor’, we automatically go with the assumption that they should be one?
The more I think about this topic, the less it seems to make any sense to me.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]So where, exactly, do we get this idea that there IS some kind of mystical call that appoints a person into arguably the most difficult job in the world? And why is it that we swallowed this idea whole? And why is it that when someone says ‘Hey, I want to be a Pastor’, we automatically go with the assumption that they should be one?
In one word, Spurgeon.
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)
Some of the text from J Ng’s link….
[Spurgeon] Nor need any imagine that such calls are a mere delusion, and that none are in this age separated for the peculiar work of teaching and overseeing, the church, for the very names given to ministers in the New Testament imply a previous call to their work. The apostle says, “Now then we are ambassadors for God;” but does not the very soul of the ambassadorial office lie in the appointment which is made by the monarch represented? An ambassador unsent would be a laughing-stock. Men who dare to avow themselves ambassadors for Christ, must feel most solemnly that the Lord has “committed” to them the word of reconciliation. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. If it be said that this is restricted to the apostles, I answer that the epistle is written not in the name of Paul only, but of Timothy also, and hence includes other ministry besides apostleship. In the first epistle to the Corinthians we read, “Let a man so account of us (the us here meaning, Paul and Sosthenes, 1. Cor. i. 1), as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.” 1 Cor. iv. 1. Surely a steward must hold his office from the Master. He cannot be a steward merely because he chooses to be so, or is so regarded by others. If any of us should elect ourselves stewards to the Marquis of Westminster, and proceed to deal with his property, we should have our mistake very speedily pointed out to us in the most convincing manner. There must evidently be authority ere a man can legally become a bishop, “the steward of God.” Titus i. 7.
The Apocalyptic title of Angel (Rev. ii. 1) means a messenger; and how shall men be Christ’s heralds, unless by his election and ordination? If the reference of the word Angel to the minister be questioned, we should be glad to have it shown that it can relate to anyone else. To whom would the Spirit write in the church as its representative, but to some one in a position analogous to that of the presiding elder?
Titus was bidden to make full proof of his ministry—there was surely something to prove. Some are “vessels unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” 2 Tim. ii. 21.
It’s Lecture #2 from Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students and there is a good bit more to it.
Overall, his idea of call seems to mean chosen by God to do this work. In that sense, the call to be a pastor etc. would not be qualitatively different from the call to any other vocation. It has to do with discerning, as best we can, what God’s will is for our work.
Problems arise when we start overdefining what qualifies as a call or start applying special rules (beyond the qualifications) for the pastoral call. As an example of the latter: the idea that you can never be called to do something else temporarily or permanently. As an example of the former: some of the kind of stuff DP is reacting to in his post: an absolutely certain direct revelation of God of some kind, a mystical experience, a dramatic moment of call-consciousness. None of that is required by what we have in the NT or the old.
But Spurgeon’s reasoning is solid this far: you should not do any kind of work unless you are persuaded that God wants you to do it… but I think even 100% certainty of that is beyond what is written, since—as DP argues, pastors are not prophets.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]But Spurgeon’s reasoning is solid this far: you should not do any kind of work unless you are persuaded that God wants you to do it… but I think even 100% certainty of that is beyond what is written, since—as DP argues, pastors are not prophets.
As some of my more Reformed friends would argue, the office of the prophet is messianic but not the pastoral. Prophets, priests, and kings had a special chrism, a specially formulated anointing that confirmed their status.
Yet, while it’s true that all NT believers are prophets, priests, and kings in a sense, Christ-ians (little messiahs) even, last I checked, most of us don’t got no oil on our heads. We just have that invisible Holy Spirit unction, all of us (1 John 2).
So I’m not sure how far that specialness of a bishop’s office can be pushed beyond doubling the salary (maybe with a bonus) of those who rule well by labouring in the word and doctrine.
In my experience, there are two common reasons for preaching/believing that there is an individual, direct “call” to ministry that is distinct from the normal vocational call.
The first reason (acknowledged or not) is to maintain the unbiblical distinction between the sacred and the secular. Perhaps the distinction has become less and less explicit in other areas, but it has retained vitality when it comes to vocation. I remember a revival service in our otherwise generally well-grounded IFB church in which the evangelist conducted an alter call for parents to come forward to pray that their children would be called into full-time ministry, because that was the highest calling. Nearly alone, I remained in my pew and grieved both the unbiblical preaching/manipulation and the gullibility of the congregation. The call to ministry and the elevation of full-time ministry as more sacred, special, important, etc. than “secular” vocations go hand in hand, intentionally or unintentionally, to justify “holy pride” in being a pastor.
The second, as has been alluded to in some previous comments, is to justify the planting and pastoring of churches by men who are not really qualified to do so, as those qualifications are set out in the NT. As an example, my former father-in-law, saved around age 30 in the KJVO stripe of fundamentalism, became convinced that he had been called to be a pastor. His wife, who may or may not have been saved shortly before he was, disagreed. Because of his “call,” he believed he was justified in leaving his wife and children to attend Bible college. When he did, his wife divorced him for desertion (this was before no-fault divorce). Their children spent the time in her custody being exposed to drunkenness and promiscuity. After a year or so of Bible college, he returned to his family, was temporarily reconciled with his wife, and they remarried, only to divorce again about a year later. Not long after, the pastor of the church plant he was assisting moved on to another city. Despite his divorces and, perhaps more importantly, despite the lack of any real training or education and the lack of the temperament, character, or personal spiritual maturity called for in the NT, he took over the pastorate of that church and continued to pastor it for several years, without much success. Once he finally gave up his efforts to pastor and became a regular member, he moved from church to church for decades, searching for one that would allow him to serve in a role to which he believed himself entitled because of his direct call, which trumped any local church’s assessment of his suitability for the role.
The belief in a special call to ministry is both unbiblical and pernicious.
[dmyers]In my experience…
[snip]
Despite his divorces and, perhaps more importantly, despite the lack of any real training or education and the lack of the temperament, character, or personal spiritual maturity called for in the NT, he took over the pastorate of that church and continued to pastor it for several years, without much success. Once he finally gave up his efforts to pastor and became a regular member, he moved from church to church for decades, searching for one that would allow him to serve in a role to which he believed himself entitled because of his direct call, which trumped any local church’s assessment of his suitability for the role.
The belief in a special call to ministry is both unbiblical and pernicious.
Really? Sad story, but it doesn’t prove your point. Those who hold to a call would hear your story and say, “It’s quite obvious that your father-in-law wasn’t called.”
I am not arguing for a call, I don’t happen to think it is absolutely universal for every pastor, I think it is possible, given the passages usually cited, but that’s about it. I am merely pointing out that your sad account doesn’t prove your point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I wasn’t trying to present the biblical case against the special call. I think many others have done that adequately in comments above. There isn’t “any Bible” that teaches the special call for pastors, so there isn’t “any Bible” for my anecdote to trump.
My point is that one of the pernicious effects of falsely teaching that there is a special, subjective call from God to the ministry is that it lends itself to these kinds of sad stories. And there can be no effective rebuttal to the unqualified man who claims to have experienced the subjective call of God — of course only he knows whether he experienced such a call, and having experienced it, any argument that he is not qualified can be rebutted conclusively as far as he is concerned: he has been specially called, so ipso facto anyone who concludes that he doesn’t meet the NT qualifications is mistaken. God wouldn’t have called him if God didn’t mean for him to follow the call, regardless of others’ opposition. The one potentially effective response is to try to show him that his premise is wrong: there is no such thing as a special, direct-from-God appointment to the ministry.
I hope that helps. I would never argue that any anecdote trumps the Bible.
[Alex Guggenheim] Most people who hold to a special inner call do not hold to the view one does not need special training. Some maybe, but in the circles of Protestants, Baptist / Evangelicals, Fundamentalist your description of how a special call was viewed by this man is something I have rarely come across.
I don’t think there is any way to know how prevalent this view is. I’ve personally seen it dozens of times, and know many young people who have been taught to ‘wait on the Lord’ to ‘reveal His will’, so they pretty much sit around and do nothing until they receive some sort of ‘message’ from God about what vocation they should pursue, who they should marry, whether or not to buy a Ford or a Chevy…
Also, the term ‘special training’ is relative. For some, ‘special training’ means that they’ve been involved in church ministries (teaching Sunday School, going on visitation) and received some sort of stamp of approval from other preachers, who also believe in a mystical call from God. This is especially common in circles that elevate ‘ignorance’ above education. (Acts 4:13) They are mighty suspicious of anyone who has too much of that there book learnin’. (Eccl. 12:12)
The very nature of a special, supernatural call means that it cannot be questioned, regardless of the person’s qualifications, or lack thereof, and is usually proof-texted with passages from the OT. Saul, David, Jonah, Amos, Hosea… oft used examples. Which is, IMO, a huge problem when one must use the OT to define NT church polity.
[dmyers]…the unbiblical distinction between the sacred and the secular.
I always find the language of rejection of “secular vs. sacred” a bit confusing. (OT clearly distinguishes between the holy and common. Where does the NT nullify that?) But I see how you’re using it here and couldn’t agree more.
I appreciate that post. I remember a visiting missionary at our church in Boyceville some years ago. In the process of telling the story of his decision to go into foreign missions, he spoke of a period in his life when he was running a pizza shop—and apparently really excelling in it. But as he described his thought process, he spoke of “making pizza all your life” as though it was an obviously inferior vocation for everyone—as though it was something nobody should do. That evaluation seemed to be based on the idea that everybody should see career ministry as superior.
I think it is superior in some ways. But it’s hard to articulate what those ways are if you go beneath the surface. For example, “well, you are doing something of eternal value.” OK, but if God wants you to be a pizza maker, you are also doing something of eternal value. Is it possible for God to call anyone to any kind of work He does not personally value? And given God’s immutability, if He ever values it, He values it forever.
So maybe “it’s superior because it changes lives.” Here again, drilling deeper tends to dissolve the illusion of superiority. Why is changing lives better than filling stomachs with really good pizza? Or, more basically, why is changing lives important at all? Only because it serves God’s larger agenda to bring glory to Himself. But wait—Adam could bring glory to God by gardening, of all things. Pizza guy is closer to that than missionary guy is. There are multiple routes to the glory of God, all highest when they are routes of conscious obedience. His call to one is to glorify Him by selling pizza. His call to another is to glorify Him by making disciples. (Though I do believe we all have a part in the latter).
So I think we’re really doing all our farmers, truck drivers, medial workers, postal workers, factory supervisers, etc., a disservice if we suggest to them they should not view their work as a calling from God for His glory.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]So I think we’re really doing all our farmers, truck drivers, medial workers, postal workers, factory supervisers, etc., a disservice if we suggest to them they should not view their work as a calling from God for His glory.
Quite true:
We can’t always assume our valuation of someone’s calling is absolute or objective.
David, I think you are trying to say too much and be too absolute in your denial of the special call.
[dmyers]Don, I wasn’t trying to present the biblical case against the special call. I think many others have done that adequately in comments above. There isn’t “any Bible” that teaches the special call for pastors, so there isn’t “any Bible” for my anecdote to trump.
On this point, a case is made by inference from several passages, I think notably Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor 9 and the language of Eph 4 (“God gave… pastors”). You can dismiss that interpretation if you like, but I don’t think that you can say there is no Bible related to the subject.
[dmyers] My point is that one of the pernicious effects of falsely teaching that there is a special, subjective call from God to the ministry is that it lends itself to these kinds of sad stories. And there can be no effective rebuttal to the unqualified man who claims to have experienced the subjective call of God — of course only he knows whether he experienced such a call, and having experienced it, any argument that he is not qualified can be rebutted conclusively as far as he is concerned: he has been specially called, so ipso facto anyone who concludes that he doesn’t meet the NT qualifications is mistaken. God wouldn’t have called him if God didn’t mean for him to follow the call, regardless of others’ opposition. The one potentially effective response is to try to show him that his premise is wrong: there is no such thing as a special, direct-from-God appointment to the ministry.
I think you are being too extreme here: “The one potentially effective response…” Why would that response change a guy’s mind if matters of disqualification would not? Matters of disqualification are objective tests, regardless of theology. A man can believe there is a special call, but if he is clearly disqualified by behaviour, reputation, etc, he fails the biblical test.
Of course, an arrogant, angry, stubborn man won’t listen to that either. The Bible has instructions for us if a man won’t listen… don’t walk with him, avoid him, etc. I think that even goes for family, hard as it is.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Aaron Blumer]I think it is superior in some ways. But it’s hard to articulate what those ways are if you go beneath the surface. For example, “well, you are doing something of eternal value.” OK, but if God wants you to be a pizza maker, you are also doing something of eternal value. Is it possible for God to call anyone to any kind of work He does not personally value? And given God’s immutability, if He ever values it, He values it forever.
…
So I think we’re really doing all our farmers, truck drivers, medial workers, postal workers, factory supervisers, etc., a disservice if we suggest to them they should not view their work as a calling from God for His glory.
Aaron, I think the idea that men are called to be pizza makers or work at McDonald’s or what have you is really a flaky fall out of the ‘special call’ teaching. If there is no biblical doctrine of a special call, or at best very little biblical data to base it on, there is even less for the general occupations of life. I can see a biblical call to provide for one’s self and one’s family, to be a testimony in the world, etc. But to be a pizza maker? Hardly anything I can think of makes that somehow a divine appointment.
Work is a means to an end, not the end itself. It’s not that we should view it as a calling from God, but as an opportunity or occasion through which to fulfill our calling from God.
But on the other hand, I think we can make a case for God’s involvement in putting men into the ministry (although I don’t dogmatically insist that every man serving in the ministry somehow have evidence of a personal ‘call’). The ministry is not the same as every other vocation.
That’s all I have time for today… Sunday is coming! Will pick up on this later as time permits.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
“The ministry is not the same as every other vocation.”
And there we have it. The ministry is a higher/special/more sacred calling to which men should aspire and for which parents should pray for their children before settling for second best/secular vocations. Apparently I was mistaken or optimistic in thinking this error was on the wane.
Discussion