In recent years, especially in Christian missions at least, there has been a transition of view regarding divine calling. Traditionally, many mission organizations and churches expected a missions candidate to describe a clear, unambiguous call to ministry.

Gary Friesen (in his book, “Decision Making and the Will of God”) spoke of the challenge of entering full-time ministry in a denomination that expected such a call. Many seasoned, ordained, ministers felt that he should not go into ministry at all as a pastor since, if lacking that calling, God clearly did not want him. Another said that Gary would eventually drift out of ministry because it is that call that will keep him faithful to his ministry.

The thing with Friesen is that he may have had as much of a “call” as the other pastors, but his theological understanding was that God did not normally give “personal calls”— but rather gave` freedom within a range of calls that apply to all the Faithful. He would say that if God speaks unambiguously (such as Moses with the burning bush experience, the vision of Heaven of Isaiah, or the Damascus Road meeting of Paul with Jesus) then one might call that a personal call. But does “having a feeling,” or “being moved by a certain verse or sermon, really constitute a Biblical call, or are we mislabeling it? Perhaps what many call a call to ministry is not one at all— at least not as it is commonly understood. The view of Friesen that a call to ministry can only be labeled such if it is clearly unambiguously and direct communication from God contrast many of the pastors whose “call” entailed (1) having a feeling that they should be a pastor, (2) interpreting some sort of event or ‘sign’ that they are called, or (3) wanting very much to be a pastor. In other words, it is quite possible that Friesen may have had the same thing happen to him as the other pastors, but there is a different theological perspective that is interpreting the similar experience.

Considering the situation that Friesen was describing, a couple of concerns come up.

First, pastors in his denomination were considering rejecting Gary Friesen due to a fairly minor theological stance. Of course, if that is enforced, it endures because only those who become ordained are ones who give some (perhaps questionable) experiences or feelings as callings, and they in turn become the ones who oversee who are ordained in the future.

Second, there is a subtle presumption that a calling is one time and permanent. Note that pastor who told Gary Friesen that without a calling, he is likely to fall away from the pastorate. That suggests that the pastor believed that a calling happens once and unambiguously places a person in the role of pastor for life. To step away from being a pastor is to fail one’s calling.

The same problem occurs in missions. Historically, many mission organizations required one to describe one’s call to missions. This is despite the shaky Biblical basis for this. Today, this is much more flexible, but this still happens.

“Doing Member Care Well” (Kelly O’Donnell ed.) on page 310 speaks of the criteria for assessing candidates. The first “C” of this assessment is Calling. However, the focus does not seem to be placed on the experience of the calling (feeling, “sign”, voice, etc.). Rather, the focus is on the object or target of that calling— whether it is a calling to “a job/profession, to a country, to a people, to the organization, to the team, spiritual “call.””

Just looking at this, it is pretty clear that there is a decided lack of consensus as to what a ministerial call is. For some it might be “a call to be a missionary.” For others, it may be a call to minister in a specific nation, or work with a people group, or more. It also seems as if there is a lack of consensus on the organizational end. Is it correct that God has a bunch of drawers full of different types of callings?j Can one person say, “I feel a call to the ministry?” while another may say, “I have a call to full-time bi-vocational ministry in Bangladesh.” Can either be challenged, or must both be seen as completely valid?

This lack of consensus can cause tension later. On page 290 of the same book (“Doing Member Care Well”) is a table of attitudes for three generations of missionaries. These are the “Busters” the “Boomers” and “Generation X.” Now my wife and I are on the line between Boomers and Gen X. Most Busters (sometimes known as the “Silent Generation” are long retired (I do know an active missionary who is presently in her 90s). When the book was published, those three groups are the main groups who were serving.

In the table, Busters are known for their deep commitment to a place, and that commitment is expressed in terms of time. As such, they are often unwilling to leave a particularly place even when their work there is (objectively) done. I saw that with a Buster missionary in Baguio, that started a very successful ministry (church and school) but then refused to fully give over the reins to local leadership. This conflict led to court battles that have extended even beyond his death.

Gen X are seen as having deep commitment to a team and ministry and that commitment is expressed in energy. However, they are more likely to “test the waters” and give short-term commmitments. Boomers are in the middle.

Busters are used to thinking of jobs as “ideally” under one employer from high school until retirement. Over the decades that has changed to the “gig economy” where people see themselves more as self-employed, working for different employers until it is time to move one. Is it possible that our understanding of callling is not so much Biblical as cultural?

Overlaying this change of understanding of vocation has been changes in the view of calling. It was very common for people to see calling as tied unchangingly to vocation and to location. To leave the mission field might be seen as “rejecting one’s calling.” For many, however, calling is seen more as a path. I think this is probably a better understanding, actually.

Consider John. John was originally called by Jesus to follow Him… to make him a fisher of men. This was more than simply a call to salvation. Rather it included traveling with Jesus essentially as a apprentice or disciple. Later, that calling changed as he was told he would be a “Sent out one”— an apostle. And not just an apostle… he was to be identified as one of “The Twelve.” I would like to suggest that he may have gone through a transition later from apostle (church planter) to elder in the church of Ephesus. (This is uncertain, but certainly believable.)

Consider John Mark. He originally traveled with Barnabas and Paul. Giving up on this, he later joined Barnabas in his work in Cyprus. There is a period of uncertainty what he did. However, it is believed (based on various sources) that he served with Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark, worked with Paul, and then built up the church in Alexandria.

If these examples, of John and John Mark, are accurate, what does that say about a ministerial call?

1. There may be more than one call. A call may not be a one-time forever event. At this would be the implication is a call is only to one vocational position or one location. OR…
2. Perhaps it is better to think there is only one call, but that it is fluid. OR…
3. Maybe calling is more dialogic… less conative (mutual and flexible, rather than commanded and rigid).

In the Didache, there is specific note of a prophet (a traveling preacher) wanting to settle down and become an elder in a church. The document speaks of this without any exploration of “calling.” In like manner, Paul doesn’t instruct Timothy to analyze people seeking to be an overseer as to the genuineness of their calling. Peter and the other members of the Twelve did not question Justus or Matthias as to calling to be members of their group— the Twelve. Presumably, they were already part of the Seventy, and were at the Ascension of Jesus and as such were certainly already identified as apostles (sent out ones) anyway.

James 3:1 gives warning that not many should be teachers. This suggests that the early church did not see teachers as having a unique vocational calling— since the guidance would then seem to be telling some people to reject their calling. (That is so, unless calling is more from the church than from God.)

How does one reconcile this with the statement Ephesians 4:11- this seems to suggest that God uniquely calls certain vocational roles (or offices). These would be apostles (church planters), prophets (itinerant preachers), evangelists, and pastor/teachers. These last two are a little difficult to ascertain. The term evangelist does not seem to be an office elsewhere in the New Testament. In fact, the main other use of the term is Philip the Evangelist. It seems quite possible that this title is used merely to differentiate him from the Apostle Philip. Then with pastor it is linked to teacher, even though nowhere else in the New Testament is such a link maintained— beyond the basic understanding that a pastor/overseer should be competent to teach. This suggests that a pastor must be able to teach, but a teacher is not necessarily a pastor. When one adds the fact that the Didache recognizes people shifting between prophet and elder/pastor, one must wonder whether these are really offices. I suspect that St. John shifted from apostle to elder. Timothy served as a pastor (regardless of what Bible.org says), but was also identified as an evangelist and as an apostle.

I am not trying to add chaos to the conversation. Rather I am suggesting that we are misreading Ephesians 4:11. It is commonly read in terms of vocational calling. “God assigned certain specific people to certain specific offices to bless the church.” But the chaos disappears (or at least lessens) when it stops being thought of as offices or vocations and becomes functions. “God established different functions in the church to bless it— people planting churches, people visiting churches to strengthen them. People who bring others into the church, People who provide spiritual leadership in the church and disciple members.” You may feel that this is pretty much the same thing. But if it is focused on functions, then it is not really focused on people. Perhaps he (or she) is sent out by the church as a church planter or evangelist, or asked to serve as a teacher in the church or something else. These functions established by God edify the church as the church carries out these functions.

Does this suggest then that God calls the functions but the church calls the people to fit those functions/offices? Perhaps. This is an area of contention, and one I am not very sure about. In Acts, the Holy Spirit told the church to set aside Barnabas and Paul and send them out. Then the church sent them out. That could be read that the church called Barnabas and Paul, not God, or that God called them but executed it through the church.

For me, the best way to think of calling is a Path. A path is a journey with different directions and waypoints. I am called to serve him. I am doing it presently as a missionary, and as a teacher, and as a writer. These are not three separate callings— but are aspects of the path that God has for me. I have served in a missionary capacity for 20 years. If I continue for another 20, that is fine and good. But it may not be any more faithful then if I stopped in 20 days and did something else. My calling is between myself and God. It may also be that my calling is also linked to my church. However, I don’t think my calling is to a vocation or a location or to an organization. I have taught at one seminary for 15 years and another for 10 years. and a third one for 1 year. I have no interest in moving around. However, to move around is not necessarily an indication of rejecting one’s calling.

Again, this post sounds really all over the place. but summing up:

If someone came up to me and told me that they feel they are called to serve as a missionary— I would NOT ask them to describe the exact circumstances of that call to test its legitimacy. Or if I did, I would not place too much emphasis on it. Rather, I would ask about their journey— with God, family, and church. How has their life been part of the preparation for what their potential next chapter is. How do they understand that calling? Who is in control of the understanding of that calling?