Dan Phillips: "What verse in the Bible talks about a pastor's 'call'?"

[Susan R]

[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…

[Susan R] 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)

[Susan R] 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.

It would have to be demonstrated that merely by its supernatural claim that it cannot be questioned. Claims of supernatural prophecies, for example, we instructed to be tested. Hence, merely by something’s supernatural claim does not make it, de facto, unquestionable. It might to a person who is ignorant of the Bible’s requirement for further testing of such matters, but such ignorance does not deal with the facts of the matter.

Personally I do not believe there is a requirement for a special/experiential call. However, anecdotal stories based on ignorance and Phillips’ formula of proof-texting both are poor approaches to a comprehensive and informative treatment of the matter.

I could respond if your response was actually a response to my post which was simply a response to your earlier response.

[dmyers]

“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.

NAU 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

We don’t see this kind of statement about any other profession/vocation in the New Testament.

Anyway, saying “is not the same” is NOT the same thing as saying “is superior”.

And who said parents should pray for their children to be in the ministry? I never said that. Your presuppositions are not allowing you to have a reasonable discussion.

[Don] 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’m having trouble following your reasoning here, Don. If there is no special dog, there is even less evidence that there is a dog at all? The logic actually works the other way: If there is no such thing as vocation, there certainly cannot be such a thing as a special vocation.

But as for vocation in general, admittedly it’s an inference from many passages. I’d argue along similar lines as the Spurgeon post above—or at least part of it. Like this: God definitely has particular intentions for each life. We’re made by design (Ps139 comes to mind) and there is nothing random about it. Consequently, there is particular work God has in mind for all of us to do.

It’s not my view that “vocation” corresponds to our modern “job.” I was going to say it’s more general than “job,” but that’s not necessarily the case. It’s just a different category. Some people work jobs for years that have no relationship to their vocation other than being a means to finance it. What they live to do is not the same as what they “do for a living.” For others, multiple jobs relate in different ways to the same vocation.

But it’s really all just a way of saying “God made each of us with particular work in mind and that work is not ultimately inferior in any way to any one else’s work.” In that sense there are no “high” or “low” callings.

(1Cor.7 is a good passage to study for the vocation idea… but the chapter is a bit difficult, and I doubt it settles the question for anybody. But at any rate, we do have the idea of calling there and pastoral calling is not specifically in view)

Hi Aaron

I think we use a lot of terms that really have different meanings theologically than they do popularly. The result is a some confusion in communication.

The word ‘vocation’ is one of those words.

Anyway, you were the one who said:

if God wants you to be a pizza maker, you are also doing something of eternal value.

and

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.

What we are called to do is to live for the glory of God. How that works out is involved in any particular job that we have. That doesn’t mean “I’m called to be a pastor” or “he’s called to be a pizza maker” or what have you. I am called to live to God’s glory and please him in whatever I do.

In other posts, I have noted that while I do not think that a special call is required for the ministry, I am unwilling to say that such ‘calls’ never happen. I am also quite certain that in God’s economy the ministry (any church leadership office including deacon) is a special work that is marked out as such in the New Testament. That isn’t a value judgement, to say that it is superior to some other job/function in the world, simply to note that the Scriptures do single out pastors especially as a distinct part of the body. It is they, after all, who are called into account in Rev 2-3 for their churches, not the church itself so much as the leadership.

What part of 1 Cor 7 were you referring to in your last paragraph?

That doesn’t mean “I’m called to be a pastor” or “he’s called to be a pizza maker” or what have you. I am called to live to God’s glory and please him in whatever I do.

There is no incongruity between the call to God’s glory and the call to specific work in life. In fact the former, plus God’s sovereignty, requires the latter.

1 Cor. 7:17-24.

I’m not really claiming it as a proof text, but it is relevant evidence. “Calling” is used two ways there: one in reference to the calling to the gospel and the Christian life, the other to various conditions one is in when that call occurs.

Aaron,

I don’t see a difference in the calling here. They seem to all be pointing to the call to salvation, with an emphasis that the conditions you were experiencing (slave/free, circumcised/uncircumcised) when you received the call are irrelevant..

Where I’m seeing the other use is in 7:20

Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. (1 Co 7:20–21)

Here there is a “calling” each one was already in when “called.” NIV and NET translate the term, κλῆσις, as “situation.” ESV and NAS like “condition” but NAS footnotes “calling.”

In any case, the term is κλῆσις which does normally mean “calling.” Probably the translations have gone with alternatives there because you have the English “calling” (in the verb form, καλέω) appearing so many times in the passage already—in reference to salvation.

(NET has a note that says its mentonymy… but of course in this brief note they don’t explain why it isn’t simply the normal sense of κλῆσις )

In any case, with or without “calling,” we have our lot in life (“situation”… “condition”) that is part of God’s sovereign plan. And the kinds of work God intends for a person relate in some way to what God designed that person to “be.” In the end, it’s not the vocabulary that matters most here, though I see no reason not to use “vocation,” and there is a strong Christian tradition for the term (though I’m admittedly vague on where it’s most often found: probably Puritans or Reformation era in general)

Ok - I was reading the ESV.

dont have anything to contribute to the exact topic at hand, but i have been mulling over some related things.

I know Titus and Timothy were both young men, but elsewhere in the qualifications for the leader, the man had to have dignified relationships with his kids and the kids needed to be believers. This implies someone with older children already and someone older generally. So I don’t know, i was thinking about how we have guys go to Bible school and then go into the pastorate without even raising children first. i dont think there’s a way around it much, with the current seminary system and intensive studying is much easier before kids are on the scene. Maybe the Bible gives latitude on that?

because it also seems like at Corinth that there was no leader at all, for example.

anyway, just few things i’ve been dinking around with.

Vitaliy does also think that it is also a special role, you could say. one sign of that being that the things required of the pastor’s lifestyle are not required of every believer.

oh, a ps. we had a wonderful former mennonite preacher attend our church for years (in the States). He was chosen to be a pastor by drawing lots (actually slips of paper from a book).

[Anne Sokol]

I know Titus and Timothy were both young men, but elsewhere in the qualifications for the leader, the man had to have dignified relationships with his kids and the kids needed to be believers.

You’re dead right.

They were both young men, whose youth was not to be despised, but they were never called elders or overseers. Their job, it seems, was to carry out Paul’s directives, even including the appointing of older men than they themselves were to take charge of churches on Paul’s circuit.

Although the Pastoral Epistles are associated with them, the two young men seemed to be itinerant apostolic deputees rather than resident pastors (and deacons) for whom those lengthy prerequisites are meant.

I think Titus was older than Timothy, probably well into his 40s by the time Titus was written. He had been with Paul a good while in his ministry. Timothy was probably in his 30s when the first epistle was written. Contrary to many commentators, I don’t think he was that young or that inexperienced. Paul was writing for posterity and had a lot of confidence in Timothy.

As for not having children and being in the ministry, one has to remember that the lists in the pastorals refer to qualities, not matters of fact. A man could be a pastor without being married, for instance.

For Aaron, I’ll think that 1 Cor 7 bit over for a while. Initial thought: the calling as slave or free is not the same as vocation and it is a condition that existed prior to salvation - so certainly one couldn’t think of it as being “called to a life work” as a Christian.

Hey Aaron-

I don’t have a ton of time here, but I’m inclined to agree with Chip that I Cor. 7 isn’t really the best passage for you to use here, especially since Paul seems to be prescribing instructions on things that don’t have a lot to do with anything vocational. I Cor. 7:20 uses ‘calling’ in the sense of being married and how to live in it (which is really what that section is all about), so it seems like a reach to argue that it can be used to justify something like a quasi-mystic ‘call’ to ministry.