I am continuing my discussion on the “Call to Ministry” where I am assuming three aspects— God, Church, and Self. My last post I talked about the Divine (God) aspect. I will move on here.

CHURCH

The seminary I teach at speaks of developing Christian leaders from those who are “God Called, Church Affirmed.” There was a time I balked at that description. One reason is that I wondered if it is better to say that it is the church that calls. Churches ordain ministers. Churches commission missionaries. Churches call pastors to locally serve. (Yes, I understand that different faith traditions can vary wildly in the language and mechanics they use.) Perhaps it is better to say that it is foremost the Church that calls a man or woman to ministry rather than God. Alternatively, even if one says that God is the one who calls, very often such a calling is revealed through the church. As such, it might be more accurate to say “God Called AS EVIDENCED BY Church Affirmed.”

But what happens if the church does not affirm the calling? Can a person say they are called if the church does not affirm? I feel like it can be looked at a couple of different ways in the Bible. Paul and Barnabas were called to be missionaries by the Holy Spirit. However, the instruction of the Spirit was really to the Church of Antioch to send them. Could they have been said to be called if the church had not responded to the Spirit? I am not sure. Paul was called by God to be an apostle (essentially, a church planter). He was presented before the church in Damascus, and eventually before the Twelve in Jerusalem. I think one can argue that his calling was not dependent on the affirmation of these churches, but it does seem, especially in Damascus, that it was important that Paul was accepted.

But, again, does one NEED to be called or affirmed by the church? I have definitely known missionaries who self-funded and went off without official church sanction. Bruce Olson, who went to serve with the Motilone people of Venezuela, is a good example of a self-sent missionary. Can a person say they are called to be a missionary without church recognition? Or is such a person like Robert Duvall, who played a man who self-baptized himself as “an apostle” in the movie “The Apostle.” In the movie I felt to me that it was an act of hubris and his behavior afterward did little to inspire confidence in his “calling.”

Jesus did not seem bothered by a man casting out demons in His name (Mark 9:38-40). He considered the man an ally even though he, apparently, was not called or sent out by Jesus.

I have seen examples of “bad missionaries” who went into ministry self-funded and went to the mission field without formal church recognition. But one might ask which was the problem. Was it a problem that they were not called/affirmed/sent by a church or denomination (or mission agency), a problem of lacking a good vetting process, or a problem of lacking accountability in the field? This latter one can happen regardless of the process the person went through. Accountability is a secondary issue.

My wife and I were sent out/commissioned by a church, and being affirmed by the senior pastor of our church really inspired our thinking. Therefore, I really want to recognize the importance of the church in the call to ministry.

Some attach calling in some sense to apostolic succession. I am from a tradition that sees apostolic succession in terms of spirit and theology. Still, those who choose to act without church recognition are starting from a questionable foundation.

In many ways, I see the church calling and divine calling as being strongly linked. We need the church to affirm divine encounters. Some faith traditions give a (possibly) unhealthy importance to personal experience. Churches need to evaluate such experiences. I have heard of stories where a pastor goes to a church and tells the leadership that God notified him that he was to lead that church. In some cases the church has actually accepted that and taken him on as senior pastor/bishop. But there are real questions as to that pastor’s (1) honesty and (2) ability to interpret personal experiences. Years ago I was a member of a church where the father there said that his teenage son was gifted and called to preach and should be put on the preaching rotation at church. The senior pastor, rightly, ignored this, and the family switched churches. Our pastor absolutely made the right decision.

I know that I have been rambling. Attempting to be a bit more direct I would say that while there may be rare situations where one might faithfully seek to serve without church recognition, generally I believe:

The calling of the church is probably more important than seeking an unambiguous message from God, because the church often is through which God speaks, and it can be the one to help a person to evaluate such a divine calling.

The next post, I will look at my rambling thoughts on the personal aspect of calling.

CHURC