EMQ » January–March 2023 » Volume 59 Issue 1
By Richard Kronk
The task of making disciples of all nations as given to the Church by Jesus in Matthew 28:18–20, remains unfinished. This is due in part to historic misunderstandings of the gospel (such as during the Crusades) and fierce opposition to the Christian message (such as the case in many Muslim contexts today). But there is another key reason why this has not been completed: the Church – especially the Church in the West – has exchanged a simple command to go and make disciples of all nations for a complex, mystical experience commonly referred to as “calling” or more specifically, the “call to missionary service.”
What Does Calling Mean?
Discussions of calling can be found in virtually every denominational tradition and, more recently, in secular sources. The range of commentary on the topic makes it difficult to find one coherent and consistent definition. For some, calling is highly mystical and subjective. For others, it is an obvious directive towards a particular objective. Sometimes a calling is a long, sinuous journey. Other times, it is instantaneous.
Regardless, the literature suggests that the experience and the means of describing calling are influenced by the social context to which the individual belongs. And so, calling looks different for Pentecostals and others who belong to Spirit-centered denominations and retain a strong connection to divine intervention in everyday life, than for those who are part of more congregation-centered or institution-centered denominations[i] for whom direct, spiritual intervention is less expected.
Despite these variations two definitions emerge: one that appeals to divine, supernatural origin and the other, an obligation to the common good. Those who perceive that calling is rooted in the divine can agree with Richard Niebuhr who says that calling is, “that inner persuasion or experience whereby a person feels himself directly summoned or invited by God to take up the work of the ministry.”[ii]
For those who reject the divine, calling reflects the definition provided by Bryan Dik and Ryan Duffy who suggest that calling is, “a transcendent summons, experienced as originating beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation.”[iii]
If the lack of a commonly agreed to definition were not enough, it is the necessity of calling as a requisite for ministry that raises other concerns. As Richard Pitt points out, the divine call to ministry “is more than [just] a catalyst for the pursuit of a professional credential; it is an essential plank in the argument for legitimacy, especially when other more verifiable evidence is in short supply.”[iv]
In other words, the experience of a divine call is the sine qua non of ministerial legitimacy. Furthermore, a person’s capacity to provide a compelling re-telling of his or her perception of the experience is the force majeure by which the individual makes his or her case as a divinely appointed and equipped candidate.
Luther and Calvin’s Influence
This concept, which lacks a consistent definition, has handicapped the completion of the Great Commission in at least three ways. First, the necessity of calling has created a spiritual divide between the “called” and the “not-called”. Second, the necessity of calling obliges a coherent and compelling calling experience as a pre-requisite for missionary service. Third, the necessity of calling has obliged churches and mission agencies to devise means of validating these calling experiences with means that are equally reliant on mystical subjectivism.
Our current understanding of calling comes from Martin Luther and Jean Calvin. It is Luther’s emphasis on the priesthood of all believers which is rooted in 1 Peter 2:9–10 that makes one’s faith personal and not dependent on the Church (the Roman Church in his day). In so doing, Luther freed the possibility of service from the sole domain of the clergy and restored it to the laity. And it was Calvin who proposed that those who serve the Church are not primarily appointed by the Church (as in the Catholic tradition) but are rather called of God to do so. In his commentary on Acts 13:2, he says, “No man is to be counted a lawful pastor of the Church save he which is called of God.”[v]
Additionally, Calvin argues that the call of God is first received as a secret or inner call from God and then secondly as an external call from the Church. In his thoughts on Jeremiah 23:21, he says, “There is a twofold call; one is internal and the other belongs to order, and may, therefore, be called external or ecclesiastical.”[vi]
This pattern of calling established by Calvin is the pattern still used today. As noted in the surveys of Christian college students,[vii] nearly 90% of those pursuing a ministry-related major refer to a calling experience as influential in their choice of major. Furthermore, virtually all ministry-related organizations (and especially local churches) consider calling to be all but essential for potential candidates. It is unfortunate, however, that when this pattern is held up against the biblical data solid biblical support seems lacking.
What does the Bible say?
The concept of calling in the Bible is primarily used in one of three ways. The first is as an invitation or a summons to someone. One example from the Old Testament is found in Genesis 3:9, “Then the Lord God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” This idea is depicted in the New Testament in Matthew 4:21 (NASB) where we read that, “Going on from there He (Jesus) saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He (Jesus) called them.”
The second way calling is used is to name or identify something or someone. In Genesis 1:5, we read that God called the light day and the darkness night. A New Testament example is found in Luke 1:13, “But the angel said to him: ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.’”
The third common use of calling is to cause something to become. One Old Testament example of this use is found in Isaiah 62:2 (NASB), “The nations will see your righteousness, and all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord will designate.” A New Testament example comes from John 15:15 (NASB) where Jesus says, “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.”
The use of calling in both the Old and New Testaments seems to cover most of the same ground. What is new in the New Testament is the emphasis given to calling as an aspect of salvation – which though present in the Old Testament, seems to take on a more visible role in the Church’s self-conception. This is especially so for Paul for whom calling is almost exclusively used in the context of salvation.[viii] For example, in Romans 8:30 (NASB), Paul says, “and these whom He (God) predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” For Paul calling is primarily understood as the means by which God exercises salvation or a summary of the salvation experience itself.
As one explores the biblical use of the notion of calling, what is remarkable is the almost entire absence of calling associated with a task or ministry role. Of the more than 150 times that calling is used in the New Testament, only a few refer at all to some kind of ministry role or task. And those that do, refer almost exclusively to Paul himself.[ix]
How should we understand this? If we were to re-read Matthew 28:18–20 (NASB) in light of the contemporary understanding of calling, it might read something like this (bold text added): “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. All of you who feel called, Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”
The problem with this is obvious. It’s not what Jesus said. Jesus never refers to calling as a prerequisite for ministry. Jesus looks for humility and obedience and teachableness, but he never insists on calling – and certainly not on some kind of mystical feeling.
Well, what about Paul? In both of his descriptions of criteria for the official roles of church leaders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, Paul also never refers to calling. He appeals to character, self-control, and holiness of life, but never to calling. Furthermore, when recruiting for his three missionary journeys – which included well over 20 different individuals – nowhere does Paul ever refer to calling as that which qualifies them to join him nor does a lack of calling disqualify someone from doing so.
But all of this is not to say that God has not or does not call people to extraordinary tasks. The Bible also makes it clear that sometimes he does. The lives of Abraham, David, and Paul are just a few examples. But for these individuals, the calling experience was not just a feeling or a tugging at their heart. Calling was marked by unmistakable, supernatural signs like burning bushes and voices from heaven. Furthermore, the call that these individuals received, changed their lives and the lives of entire nations.
The Bible makes it clear that God does reach down from heaven and summon individuals to do great things, but these seem to be exceptional cases. Biblically speaking, calling is not some kind of mystical, inner persuasion or experience whereby a person feels himself summoned or invited by God to take up the work of the ministry, “but rather the unmistaken supernatural intervention of God whereby he enlists an individual for a divine purpose that is guaranteed by the will of God and critical to the advancement of the purposes of God for a particular people.”[x] This biblical conception of calling is dramatic, life-changing, and history making!
So, What Are We Supposed to Do?
If calling – as we understand it today – lacks a solid biblical basis as a pre-requisite for ministry, then how can we know what God would have us do with our lives?
First, believers should give themselves to obedience to the essentials of what it means to be a disciple instead of waiting for a divine push to do so. Jesus exhorts his followers to “keep my word” (John 14:23, ESV), without condition. This idea is echoed by John who makes reference to keeping all the commandments of Christ as proof of our love for him (1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6). In none of these instances, is obedience conditioned on a particular calling experience. As noted earlier, calling[xi] as a condition of ministry just does not seem to be a biblical notion – not even for the Great Commission in Matthew 28!
Second believers need to seek the guidance of God. Though calling does not seem to factor commonly into the normal Christian life, that does not mean that God does not have his hand on his people. The Scriptures are clear that God leads (Proverbs 3:5–6), he answers prayer (1 John 5:14–15), he provides (Philippians 4:19), he protects (Psalm 46:1), he delivers (Psalm 34:17) and he fulfills his promises to his people (2 Corinthians 1:20). God oversees his creation and superintends the lives of men and women so that what he has purposed will come to pass.
In addition to individuals, churches and mission organizations also need to reconsider the place they give to calling in the vetting of candidates. Calling in the biblical record was obvious and unambiguous. Those who were called knew it – even if all the details of the calling were not disclosed at once. God’s calling was regularly accompanied by signs that could not be missed. In contrast, biblical examples of calling that rely primarily on an inward or secret call are simply not prominent, if at all present.
Generally speaking, the contemporary call-experience remains personal and mystical. It is even commonly described as the secret or inward call. In this form, it often lacks the supernatural elements that accompany the biblical examples held up as the pattern of those who are called, elements which make the verification of the call-experience all but obvious. Lacking such evidence, how are others supposed to validate what has taken place in secret, perhaps even in the middle of the night?
Lacking the means to confidently validate the inward or secret call of a candidate, selection committees would do well rather to turn their attention to the assessment of the individual’s qualifications relative to the particular missions role. In so doing, verifying a particular call-experience is no longer needed. Instead, selection committees can look for a life pattern of divine guidance that considers the whole-person context and suitability for ministry.
Biblically speaking, God’s primary means of enlisting us in his service is not through an extra-ordinary calling experience, but through the providence of guidance and leading. At no time did Jesus make participation in the Missio Dei contingent upon a secondary call beyond the initial call to faith. Similarly, Paul never raises the issue of calling when outlining the criteria for leadership in the church nor does he list calling as a prerequisite for accompanying him on his missionary journeys. So, how do we know what God wants of us? First, obey what he has clearly instructed and secondly, seek his leading – which he promises to his children.
Richard Kronk (rkronk@tfc.edu) has a PhD and has been a professor of Intercultural Studies at Tocca Falls University since 2016. Previously, Rick and his wife spent 16 years in Europe in ministry to Muslim immigrants. Rick is the author of the recent book, Not Called: Recovering the Framework of Divine Guidance (Wipf & Stock, 2022), from which this article has been adapted.
NOTES
[i] Barbara Brown Zikmund, Adair T. Lummis, and Patricia M. Y. Chang, Clergy Women: An Uphill Calling (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 96.
[ii] H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 64.
[iii] Bryan J. Dik and Ryan D. Duffy, “Calling and Vocation at Work: Definitions and Prospects for Research and Practice,” The Counseling Psychologist 37 (2009): 427.
[iv] Richard N. Pitt, Divine Callings: Understanding the Call to Ministry in Black Pentecostalism (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 9.
[v] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Acts, trans. John Owen, vol. 18, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1855), 354.
[vi] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and Lamentations, trans. by John Owen, vol. 3. Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1855), 179.
[vii] According to Kronk, “Nearly 90% of female students and 87% of male students pursuing a ministry-related major indicated that they had received a call of God. This contrasts with 78% of female students and 76% of male students who were not pursuing a ministry-related major but who also indicated that they had received a call of God. If nothing else, the fact that calling seems to factor into the experience of both male and female students at such a level suggests that calling is not only common but also perhaps an expected element of Christian college students’ life experience. The vast majority of college students describe calling as part of the run-up to their college experience, those without a calling experience are in the decided minority.” For more on Christian college students and calling, see Richard Kronk, Not Called: Recovering the Biblical Framework of Divine Guidance (Wipf & Stock, 2022), 48.
[viii] Possible exceptions to this can be found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (NASB) where Paul says, “… but God hath called us to peace.” This could mean that the realm of the calling is to peace between believers and this only in a temporal, horizontal-relational context. In this case, the verse could read, “… but God has asked us to act in peace towards each other.” The calling here could also refer to the call to salvation so that, or by which, peace should result between believers. In this case, the text could read, “… but God has called us to salvation through which He requires and enables us to act in peace towards each other.”
Another example can be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:7 (NASB) where Paul says, “For God has not called us for impurity, but in sanctification.” Here the calling could refer to the domain of impurity in a temporal, human context alone. In this case, the passage could read, “For God has not asked us to act impurely.” The calling here could also refer to salvation which is incompatible with impure behavior. In this case, the passage could read, “For God has not called us to salvation us so that we could act in impure ways ….” In neither case, however, is the use of calling so distinct from the realm of salvation that to read it that way would misrepresent the text.
[ix] In Romans 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 1:1, Paul refers to himself as one who was “called to be an apostle”. In Acts 13:2 and Acts 16:10, Luke records references to Paul’s call of God to particular missionary tasks. The only other clear reference to calling and ministry role in the New Testament is found in Hebrews 5:4 with reference to Aaron and his priestly function.
[x] H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 64.
[xi] Calling as referred to here is not the calling to salvation which is a biblical essential for a ministry role. The calling referred to here is some sort of supplemental divine encounter which endows an individual with a special directive or empowerment for ministry.
EMQ, Volume 59, Issue 1. Copyright © 2023 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
