Seminary PC6: A Theology of Calling

This post concludes the first "chapter" of this "Seminary in a Nutshell" series. This first section has been on the "Calling of a Minister." Today I wanted to feature Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim's recent book The Permanent Revolution. I do not agree with all of it, but it certainly stimulates some juices with regard to possible models for ministry in the church today, based in Ephesians 4:11.

Here are the posts in this chapter so far:

Preface

The Pastor and Context
1. The Domains of Ministry
2. The Calling of a Minister
3. Ministerial Calling in Scripture
4. Ministerial Calling in History
5. God can call anyone to ministry.

1. There is a sense in which every Christian is a minister. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul pictures a community where some share wisdom and knowledge (12:8). Some are known for their faith (12:9). Some work miracles, others bring prophetic revelation or speak in tongues (12:10). Paul was not giving an absolute list of gifts here, nor was he setting up a structure for how ministry should work in every local congregation for all time. Indeed, Paul would probably have been quite surprised to learn that two thousand years would pass before Christ returned.

This is perhaps the biggest mistake made in these sorts of discussions. There are the unexamined assumptions that 1) passages like these were setting down absolute, timeless structures and 2) that we are supposed to use the same structures today that they used then. We can build on these passages to be sure when thinking about the ideal shape of ministry. Why not? Surely the early church should be there with us in any discussion about why and how ministry should be shaped today.

But before we appropriate these sorts of passages, we should keep in mind that Paul's letters were primarily "occasional," written to address the concerns and needs of specific churches. And we should also keep in mind that the books of the Bible addressed "that time" in the first instance. The more concrete the biblical instruction was to them, the more likely it will be more indirect for us.

2. The interpretation of Ephesians 4:11-12 that has become common sees the function of apostles, prophets, and other forms of ministry as "equipping the saints for the work of the ministry." In this model, one of the main functions of ministry leaders is to train the rest of the church to do most of the ministry on the ground. [1] This interpretation builds on the 1 Corinthians 12 picture of everyone in the church using their gifts in worship, and in fact Ephesians 4:7 probably draws on this basic idea that God has given everyone in the church certain gifts.

In Romans 12:4-8, Paul presents the same model to the Romans, although the list is a little different. Everyone in the church plays his or her role. Some lead. Some serve. Some give. Some do acts of mercy. Some teach. Some prophesy. Some encourage.

3. It is essential to recognize that the forms of ministry change over time because of the contexts in which we minister. It is not wrong to have a paid position called a "youth pastor" or a "children's pastor" just because the Bible does not mention this sort of role. Nor do we need to have a hired prophet on staff. We do not have to call our church boards a "board of elders" and we don't have a position we call "deacons."

We are free to do so, but "description is not prescription." Just because the New Testament church had a certain form in an ancient Mediterranean context does not mean that form will work the best in our contexts any more than a North American form would be the best for a church in China, Africa, or Latin America today. It would be the height of foolishness to think so.

4. What then are the more timeless distinctions? First, there is a distinction between what we might call formal and informal ministry. Churches usually have "positions" that various people occupy and then there are volunteers and those who minister informally. These positions will vary from church to church, from denomination to denomination.

It seems very difficult to have a Christian assembly without any formal position, although there have certainly been such groups. For example, Quakers used to shy away from formal leadership. Church meetings often involved everyone sitting quietly until someone felt led to say something. Then when it seemed appropriate, everyone left. The house church movement also shies away from official leadership.

But these sorts of groups have always been in the minority. On the whole, a lack of clear leadership structure seems more a hindrance to the healthy functioning of a church rather than a help. Without clear leadership, dominant personalities assert themselves into the void. Chaos, rather than the Spirit, tends to rule the day. Even the apostle Paul introduced structure to the Corinthian church when its worship got out of hand because of the over-domination of charisma.

5. There are thus two-poles in play in a ministry environment. The one is official structure or institutional structure. The other is charisma. These are both important ingredients and poles of ministry, even though they can pull against each other.

Throughout history, God has steered his people between these two poles. When institution is stifling the church, he raises a Martin Luther. When the official prophets are just saying what the king wants to hear, he raises up an Elijah (1 Kings 18:17) or a Micaiah (1 Kings 22). Although preachers today often play a prophetic role, the prophetic role in general is one that usually comes outside the normal institutional structures.

For example, when Josiah wants to know what to do with the Book of the Law (probably some form of Deuteronomy), he goes to the high priest. The high priest holds the official position of power. But the high priest goes to a prophetess named Huldah. She stands on her own as someone to whom God had given "charismatic" authority outside the normal institutional structures (2 Kings 22).

There are dangers on both poles. Institution often stifles the Spirit. But charisma can burn down a house. A healthy organism needs both structure and innovation. God steers the church in either direction as needed.

6. So there should always be informal, Spirit-driven ministry in the church. There should always be "lay" ministry going on, where "lay" ministry refers to individuals who are not "ordained" by a church institution. When we get to congregational formation and congregational relationships, we will return to these informal or even formal ministries of believers in the church. Even non-ordained ministry can be either structured or charismatic.

However, at this point in the series we are concerned with formal ministry and especially with those who feel called to life-long ministry. For example, we are talking about a level of ministry where church leaders might feel led to lay hands on a person and "anoint" them for special service. The individual in question feels the call of God on his or her life, and the church recognizes and officially endorses that calling.

So Samuel was prompted to go to David and anoint him as king. The church at Antioch felt led to lay hands on Timothy for life-long service. There are many forms of ministry. One of them is formal, ordained ministry, where a group of believers official recognizes the gifts and graces of a person who senses a call to life-long ministry. [2] Sometimes it is full-time ministry. Sometimes it is not.

7. Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim have recently suggested that the five roles of Ephesians (apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, teacher) might serve in some way as a model not only for ministry leadership but for Christians in general. [3] While they have probably seen these roles as more extensive and more absolute than they were originally, they give us a recent place to start in thinking of the different kinds of callings a person might have to formal ministry.

In a previous post, we talked at least about what apostles and prophets looked like in the early church. Today, the oldest model takes the apostles to represent official authority on the highest level. [4] They defend the beliefs and practices of the church as they have been passed down throughout the ages. Their "deposit" of faith is found in most concentrated form in Scripture. Some are called to high leadership of this sort.

It is almost an oxymoron to think of prophetic ministry as something that can be institutionalized. God raises up prophets wherever and whenever he wishes, often outside ordained ministry. But God also raises up prophets among those who are the preachers and teachers of a group. The role is not limited in any way to formal position.

Today, evangelists are those who take the good news to the world outside the church. They can be local or they can be global. They face outside. They focus on mission. It is a ministerial function that was often neglected until the rise of evangelicals like John Wesley and George Whitfield in the 1700s.

Certainly local groups of believers need shepherding and teaching. These roles have historically had a place of primacy in the church. The local pastor or priest visited the sick and discipled believers. Recent centuries have seen some balancing out of this inward focus.

It would probably wrong to pigeonhole ministers into exclusive functions. Surely all those ministers who are called to life-long ministry should be witnesses to the gospel, for example. But we do see individuals with natural gifts that lean in one or another direction. Some ministers are natural born teachers. Some even become teachers of ministers on the college or seminary level. [5]

Some ministers have a gift for shepherding and caring for a local congregation. Some have a gift for discipleship. Others have a gift for mission. Some feel called to go beyond their local community to other cultures or places in the world.

We will return in later parts of this series to possible ways to structure the ministries of the church and its leadership. For the moment, we should not stereotype callings to ministry, as if ministers fit neatly in certain boxes.

8. In the end, there is no one rubric for those God calls to minister for a lifetime. It would be unwise to pigeonhole them. There are those who are more naturally suited to face inward toward the church and there are those who are naturally suited to be more outwardly facing. There are those who are more gifted for leadership and those who are more gifted to minister in the trenches. The specific positions that correspond to these gifts may vary from time to time and place to place.

Then there are those who are not called for life-time ministry. There are those that God calls for a specific season or purpose and the church commissions them for that service. All Christians are called to play a role in the church and, in that sense, all Christians are ministers.

Next Saturday: The Person of the Pastor 1

[1] This interpretation is not nearly as obvious as most assume. The roles that Ephesians 4:11 mentions all sure sound like leading roles. It could just as easily, perhaps even more easily be argued that the sentence should be translated: God gave them these leadership roles "for the development of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building of the body of Christ."

[2] I would not want to say that God never calls someone for just a season of time. God can call people for specific tasks, just as he called Amos to be a prophet on one occasion. My own church used to speak of "commissioning" people for those sorts of more specialized or seasonal tasks.

[3] Alan Hirsch and Tim Catchim, The Permanent Revolution: Apostolic Imagination and Practice for the 21st Century (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012).

[4] Hirsch and Catchim strongly disagree with this perspective on the apostles. To them, apostles reflect the most innovative and itinerant type of ministry of all. It's not necessarily wrong to apply the picture of the early apostles this way. They are simply focusing on a different aspect of the earliest apostles' ministry, while we are focusing more on the way in which the early church appropriated their ministries.

It is common, however, especially in charismatic and missional circles, to take the apostles as a model of high missional authority.

[5] I personally believe that most of those who train ordained ministers should be called to ministry as well.

Seminary PC5: God can call anyone to ministry.

My series continues, "Seminary in a Nutshell." The featured book today is Kristina LaCelle Peterson's, Liberating Tradition: Women's Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective. She discusses women in ministry from a historical perspective. Thus far in this series:

Preface

The Pastor and Context
1. The Domains of Ministry
2. The Calling of a Minister
3. Ministerial Calling in Scripture
4. Ministerial Calling in History

1. It is my conviction and the conviction of my tradition that God can and does call anybody to be a minister. That is to say, God does not just call Jews to ministry, but non-Jews as well. God does not just call people of light skin, but individuals of dark skin as well. God does not just call Europeans to ministry, but Asians and Africans and South Americans. God does not just call men to ministry but women as well.

In the age of the Holy Spirit, anyone can hear from God and anyone can speak for God. There is no genetic or biological reason why a Russian cannot minister to an American or a woman to a man. Certainly there is no gap in intelligence between women and men or someone from Papua New Guinea and someone from Germany. There is no basis in concrete reality that would keep a person of any race or gender from ministering to someone else from another.

There are only cultural barriers and barriers in prejudice. Nothing more. Unfortunately, cultural prejudices are real in themselves. At times the barriers have been so strong that it has seemed counterproductive to the larger goals of ministry for God to address them. The Bible tells us that God sometimes accommodates hard hearts, such as he did on the subject of divorce in the Old Testament (Matt. 19:7-8).

We have every reason to think that God still sometimes foregoes the ideal in some places and times to see his larger mission accomplished. It would have been ideal in the South of the United States for God to call African-Americans to minister to slave owners in the early 1800s or to whites in the early 1900s. The prejudices of culture at those times limited such ministry to indirect occasions. So for much of church history, women only informally have ministered to men.

2. One of the great privileges of Western Christianity is that the broader culture has made it easy for God to call anyone to minister to anyone. Ironically, the barriers to ministry of this sort do not come from the world, but from pockets of the "church."

God currently is calling an increasing number of non-Westerners to be ministers to Westerners. Some in the Western church might initially resist a person from Mexico being called as a missionary to the United States. [1] Someone might, hardly even realizing his or her prejudice, think it strange that God might call someone from the Philippines to be a missionary to Germany or England or Japan. "Is not missionary work for the enlightened West?" No, God can and does call anyone to minister to anyone.

An increasing number of missionaries come from the two-thirds world, the rest of the world outside the industrialized world of the West, mostly in the Global South. It may rub some American Christians wrong to think that God is currently calling believers from Latin America to be missionaries to the United States. Yet God can and does call anyone to minister to anyone. God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34; Gal. 2:6; Jas. 2:1).

3. In the United States currently, the greatest cultural resistance is to women in ministry. The culture has come a long way to be sure. Those who resist God's calling on women at least have stopped arguing that women are not smart enough to lead or be ministers. Not too long ago, such arguments would have been made, just as it was argued a hundred years ago that former slaves were not smart enough to vote.

But women are as educated as men today, and a little cross-examining will show that men have no greater innate intelligence. There is no natural reason why a woman could not lead a man or minister to a man. So those who oppose women in ministry generally do not use this argument any more. They simply will argue that it is just not God's will for women to minister to men.

If there is no natural reason, there is also no spiritual reason. The Holy Spirit has come equally on all flesh since the Day of Pentecost. Indeed, one of the predictions of the Day of Pentecost is that "your sons and daughters will prophesy" (Acts 2:17). "In Christ Jesus... there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female" (Gal. 3:26, 28).

3. Indeed, there have always been female prophets. There are female prophets and leaders in the Old Testament. Deborah was the judge of Israel for a period of time. Nothing is said about her only being judge because there was not a man available. She is simply said to be the judge of Israel in those days (Judg. 4:4-5). She is the one who commands Barak to go into battle, and she ends up leading him into battle. She is so strong a leader--both naturally and spiritually--that he will not go into battle without her in the lead (4:8).

When the Book of the Law is discovered, the high priest does not trust himself to make a judgment on its authenticity, nor does the king. These two men instead go to a woman, a prophet, Huldah, to verify its validity (2 Kings 22:13-14).

Debates over one or two verses often obscure the fact that women were full participants in the mission and ministry of the early church. The four daughters of Philip were prophets, for example (Acts 21:9). A woman named Junia may very well have been an apostle (Rom. 16:7), someone to whom the risen Jesus appeared and whom Jesus charged to go and witness to his resurrection. Phoebe was a deacon (Rom. 16:1).

The apostle Paul regularly had co-workers who were women. Lydia played a major role in founding the church at Philippi (Acts 16:15). Euodia and Syntyche would later work with Paul there (Phil. 4:2-3). Most prominent of all was Priscilla, who seems to have been the dominant ministry force in a husband-wife ministry team. She is usually mentioned first when she and her husband are mentioned. God used her to found both the churches at Corinth (Acts 18:18) and Ephesus (18:19), not least to disciple Apollos (18:26).

The ministry of women to men is exactly what we would expect. The Spirit fills all people equally, and God can and does call anyone to ministry.

4. However, there are two passages that are sometimes used to feed the hearts of those who just do not want women to minister to men. And it is not just men who sometimes resist the Spirit on this score. Sometimes women resist other women in ministry more than men do.

The first is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which instructs women to be silent in the assembly. [2] However, since wives are praying and prophesying in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11, these verses cannot be referring to spiritual speech but to disruptive speech. Indeed, 14:35 instructs these disorderly women to ask their own husbands questions at home, which indicates the problem is one of disruption, not "a woman's place."

The other is 1 Timothy 2:12-15. This verse warns Timothy about wives teaching their husbands or behaving autocratically toward them. [3] There is much that is unique and strange about this passage, not least the statement that wives are "saved" through childbearing or the suggestion that they remain in transgression because of Eve's sin. The weighty theological truth is that Christ died for all sins, including the sins of Eve and that no sin can stand in force against the power of his atonement.

Many have thus sought something in the context of 1 Timothy to explain a verse that seems uncharacteristic of Paul. For example, some suggest that the role of women at the Temple of Artemis was having a negative impact on the church. Others suggest Ephesus had a problem with widows serving as catalysts of false teaching. Still others suggest that 1 Timothy reflects the late first century church and its increased institutionalization in the light of false teaching.

It is important that we need not explain every verse. This impulse is actually dangerous, for it opens the door to what we might call the Pharisaic principle or the fundamentalist principle. The Pharisaic principle is the impulse to try to undo the weightier principles of God and Scripture with individual verses. It is rather on the level of the individual verse and passage that we are most likely to find the contextual and the unclear.

Both in terms of the weightier principles of Scripture (that the Spirit fills everyone equally, that God does not show favoritism) and in terms of the actual practice of the early church (where God used women to minister to men), 1 Timothy 2:12 is the strange verse.

5. Kristina LaCelle Peterson and others have shown that women continued to minister and play leadership roles in the church for several centuries. The pseudonymous Acts and Paul and Thecla may arguably preserve authentic memory that women ministered alongside Paul. This particular book from the second century was predictably squelched.

Perpetua was a late second century martyr who apparently served in some role of leadership. The late second century also saw a number of female leaders in the Montanist movement, a charismatic movement with an end times flavor. Women may even have been bishops in the first few centuries of the church. Inscriptions have been found referring to women as "episcopa."

Charismatic movements, because they focus so much on the Holy Spirit, frequently open the door for women to speak for God, because the Spirit is the great equalizer. This was certainly true of the holiness movement of the 1800s and early 1900s, which focused on the Holy Spirit before the Pentecostal movement even began. The sermon of the first woman ordained in the United States was preached by one of the founders of my own church in 1853.

Women often were preachers in full standing for the holiness tradition, and the holiness movement strongly participated in the women's rights movement of the late 1800s. The rights that they were fighting for then are now accepted by all today, such as the right of women to vote, own property, and so forth. At the turn of the twentieth century, no one blinked an eye for a woman to be on the pulpit preaching a revival in a holiness church.

It was only after World War 2, when men in the broader culture began to feel threatened by the inroads women were making in the workplace and public sphere, that holiness churches pulled back from women in ministry alongside conservative forces in the rest of the country. The last decade has seen a significant return to first principles here in holiness traditions.

God can and does call people of all types to ministry. Woe to those who stand in the way of someone God has called.

Next week: PC6: A Theology of Calling

[1] Traditionally, we have called people "missionaries" who are called to leave their own culture and bring the good news of Christ to a different culture or from one people to another people.

[2] Along with other scholars like Gordon Fee and Richard Hays, I do not actually believe these verses were in the original version of 1 Corinthians, but that they were added to the text at a very early point in its transmission.

[3] While there is debate, "wife" is the most natural translation of gyne when it is used in conjunction with the word aner, and the immediate mention of Adam and Eve, as well as childbearing, suggests that the husband-wife relationship is what is primarily in view in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Seminary PC4. Ministerial Calling in History

The series, "Seminary in a Nutshell," continues. My featured text today is the first volume of Justo González's The Story of Christianity. Thus far:

Preface

The Pastor and Context
1. The Domains of Ministry
2. The Calling of a Minister
3. Ministerial Calling in Scripture

1. The process of entering ministry became increasingly institutional and less charismatic as the first generation of Christian leaders began to die off. We find traces of conflict over who should lead already in 1 Clement, a letter from around the year AD96 from the "bishop" of Rome to the church at Corinth.

Some in the Corinthian church were apparently disgruntled with their leaders and so tried to remove them. In response, Clement presents an idea that has come to be known as apostolic succession. The first apostles, like Paul, appointed "overseers" and deacons in the churches they founded. These overseers may have originally have been lead elders, but by the end of the first century, their power had already increased enough for us to call them, "bishops."

Clement tells the Corinthians that they do not have the authority simply to remove such individuals from leadership (41-42). Rather, those leaders remain bishops for life, and when they are about to pass, they can appoint their own successors. Alternatively, other leaders of repute can appoint replacements "with the consent of the whole church" (42).

This "episcopal" structure would largely stay in place until modern times. Throughout the centuries, there was little thought about calling. Individuals emerged as potential leaders in various ways. They were recognized by existing leaders. Then they were appointed to ministry by ordination.

2. As a side note, apostolic succession would become an issue for some circles after the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s. Who is genuinely a minister? In America especially, with a resurgence of "charismatic" callings, you had now many "prophetic" ministers who stood outside the unbroken chain of "apostolic succession" from the earliest apostles to today.

For example, in Baptist churches, ministers are ordained by a local congregation. Even the first "Methodist" ministers were first ordained by John Wesley, who was not a bishop but only a priest in the Church of England. He thus did not have the authority to ordain. The events of the American Revolution led him to ordain Thomas Coke as a general superintendent in 1784, [1] who then returned to America and ordained Francis Asbury. The two became the first Methodist bishops in the United States. [2]

So the notion of apostolic succession, still in play in many circles, is that a person must be ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who is in an unbroken chain of ordination going back all the way to the first apostles. My own church, The Wesleyan Church, has no formal position on this issue but informally would generally reject it as an absolute. [3] Nevertheless, there is a process of ordination that requires the recognition of one's calling by the church. One does not become a minister out of the blue.

3. The institutionalization of Christian ministry did not of course eliminate charismatic and lay ministry. It squelched it to be sure. But there will always be "informal" leadership and influence no matter what official structure you put in place.

The Montanists were a charismatic group in the late 100s who believed in prophecy and stood somewhat outside the official structure of the church. They were condemned in large part for that reason. Like many peripheral groups today, some of their ideas were weird--such as the idea that some of the towns in their area of Turkey (then western Phrygia) were going to be the new Jerusalem.

In most respects, however, their beliefs were the same as mainstream Christianity. They were condemned more for their charismatic nature than their beliefs per se. Women played a prominent role, as they usually do in prophetic movements. Two women in particular, Priscilla and Maximilla were equal leaders in the movement with Montanus. They had ecstatic experiences and made prophecies.

Traces of the movement would continue for a couple centuries.

4. The rise of asceticism--individuals devoted to rigorous physical discipline--is another example of somewhat spontaneous ministry arising in the church apart from the official structure. However, the ascetics were often inwardly rather than outwardly focused.

Anthony the Great was the first great ascetic, who lived from about 250-350. He is often called the "father of all monks." [4] His life thus spanned the time from the great Christian persecutions to the first decades after Christianity became a legal religion (in 313). Born to wealthy parents, he gave all his wealth away and largely went to live a simple, disciplined life in the desert. He is thus the first of a group known as the "Desert Fathers."

Some of these "charismatic ascetics," if you would, were somewhat bizarre. Simeon Stylites (late 300s to early 400s), for example, spend some 37 years living on top of a pillar, trying to withdraw from the world vertically. Children would bring him bits of bread.

These ascetics were known for their wisdom and were sought out by those who reverenced them. Some of their sayings are collected in The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. They were also thought to have healing power.

5. Monasteries were another way in which the Spirit arguably worked to supplement the normal ministries of the church. If Anthony the Great represents a real turning point in the rise of spiritual individuals who were not priests, Benedict in the early 500s represents a real turning point for official monasticism because of the Benedictine Rule that he developed.

His origins, however, were not priestly. Like Anthony, he started off as a hermit. His calling did not come through the ordinary channels. Nevertheless, his rule indicates that there were already monasteries at the beginning of his life, and he would found a dozen. He died at the most famous one he founded at Monte Cassino in Italy.

Throughout church history, there have been several monastic orders that have arisen. These orders, like the Benedictine order, include both priests and non-priests ("laypeople"). A person feels a "calling" to them and can join upon taking vows of "poverty, chastity, and obedience" to the rules of each particular order.

6. The Protestant Reformation of the 1500s opened up the door for a return to charismatic calling to ministry on a major scale. When Martin Luther stepped outside the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, there ceased to be any common institution that could police the ordination or calling of individuals to ministry. The Lutheran movement would develop its own institutions. Then John Calvin in Switzerland would develop his own standards and institutions.

But wherever there was a space in power, there was the possibility that some individual or group would claim to be called of God outside the usual channels.

The "Radical Reformation" is where we first see this dynamic clearly. When Luther left the Roman Catholic Church, he still retained most of its theology and a good deal of its sense of structure. He and John Calvin still practiced infant baptism, for example, They still had ordination. By contrast, Radical Reformation would reject much more.

Luther, Calvin, and others claimed to be returning to the Bible as the map for Christianity. The radical reformers took this return much further. One group, the Socinians, even rejected the Trinity. This movement naturally gave rise to the "Anabaptists," a group that did not believe in baptizing infants but that only those old enough to believe should be baptized. They became known as "re-baptizers" or "ana-baptists."

Many of the leaders of this more radical movement had not been ordained as priests before the "Reformation," the split with the Roman Catholic Church. Some of those who had been ordained insisted on being re-ordained, just as they had been re-baptized. The key point is that ordination was, at least for a time, no longer a matter of an institutional church. Their later heirs, the Baptists, would ordain on the level of the local church, as we mentioned above.

7. American Christianity has especially delighted in the story of the person who is spontaneously called by God completely outside of any institutional church. This delight is often accompanied by a disdain for formal education. Sometimes even idolized is the uneducated person whom God calls out of the blue and leads to a tremendous ministry.

Dwight L. Moody, with no more than a fifth grade education, was perhaps the most influential American preacher of the 1800s. He did not have any formal ministerial training but founded three schools. Billy Sunday was a baseball player turned preacher, whose demonstrative preaching drew massive crowds in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Both of these are models of the American preacher whom God "anoints" powerfully without any formal ministerial training.

8. The twentieth century saw the rise of the charismatic movement, which then spread powerfully into Latin America. With an emphasis on the Spirit, the possibility of any individual receiving a prophetic word from the Lord has returned. The house church movement especially rejects the idea of some individuals being set aside as ministers in distinction from others in the church.

The late twentieth century also saw the rise of the idea that all Christians are ministers and should participate in the ministries of the church. The change in interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 illustrates this shift well. Previously, Christians understood the role of ministers as "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (KJV). Now the first comma is removed. The role of ministers is now "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (NIV). [5]

Now all God's people are ministers, and the distinction between minister and layperson almost disappears. The role of ministers becomes the equipping of others to do ministry, more than the job of ministry itself. Again, we will strategize about appropriating these models of ordained ministry for the church today at the end of the chapter.

Next week: PC5. God can call anyone to ordained ministry.

[1] Coke was already an ordained priest of the Church of England.

[2] Asbury insisted on the title of bishop over Wesley's opposition. Wesley wanted them to be "general superintendents." Asbury also insisted that all ordinations be ratified democratically, following the spirit of the newly formed United States.

[3] The Wesleyan Church is generally descended from those first "Methodist Episcopals," Coke and Asbury. However, the descendancy is complicated. Half of its heritage comes through the "Wesleyan Methodist Church," which separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1841 over slavery. It's other main parent body, the "Pilgrim Holiness Church" was originally composed of a number of "comeouters" from assorted churches around the turn of the twentieth century.

[4] Although there were ascetics before him. He was mentored by one, for example.

[5] Despite how popular this interpretation, adopted by all modern translations, it seems anachronistic, an almost predictable shift given American democratic culture.

Seminary PC3: Ministerial Calling in Scripture

A few weeks ago, I started a possibly multi-year series on Saturdays called, "Seminary in a Nutshell." The first of eight "books" in this series is on the pastor as a person and the contexts of ministry. Here are the posts so far.

Preface

The Pastor and Context
The Domains of Ministry
The Calling of a Minister

I'm also featuring possible resources as I move through the series. Today I want to feature a book by Will Willimon that Wesley Seminary has used, called, The Pastor. The idea was that students would read some general chapters in the first course (I'm suggesting chapters 1, 2, and 13). Then students would read the relevant chapter in each of the six domains of ministry when they had the courses in preaching, worship, leadership, etc.

I might add that there was some debate at the beginning among the Seminary faculty about whether this book is too "Methodist." Most Wesleyan churches tend to be baptistified and thus more "low church." But since seminary is supposed to stretch you...

Today's post is on "Ministerial Calling in Scripture."
___________________________
1. There are a number of roles that individuals play in Scripture that seem to overlap with the role of a minister today. In the Old Testament, there were prophets and priests. In the New Testament, there were apostles and prophets, evangelists and teachers, elders/overseers and deacons. We will look at some of these roles again in the section on leadership.

For now, we are interested in the callings of these individuals. How did these individuals come to take on the roles that they did in relation to God's people?

The calling of Old Testament priests was straightforward. The role was handed down by family. Of course the initial calling of Moses and his brother Aaron came by God's calling, "out of the blue." We might use the word charismatic in relation to this kind of calling, as opposed to the word institutional. A "charismatic" calling is one that comes outside some inherited organizational appointment, as what might seem to us as a random act of the Holy Spirit. An "institutional" calling, then, is when someone invested with authority within an organization appoints someone.

Of course, once the line of Aaronic priests was established, priesthood was passed down by birth. As Hebrews 5:4: "one does not presume to take this honor, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was." No other ministerial role in the Bible was of this sort. [1]

2. The prophetic role involved a calling like the calling of Moses, and indeed Deuteronomy considers Moses to be a prophet (18:15; 34:10). The prophetic calling was of a "charismatic" rather than "institutional" sort. You were not elected a prophet, nor was it passed down in families. Rather, God called prophets according to his will, to present his word to various people.

The earliest prophets were known for ecstatic experiences, as we see when Saul temporarily joined a company of prophets (1 Sam. 10:11-12). David also danced before the LORD when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14). Some of the visions of Ezekiel are quite extraordinary.

Some individuals were called to be prophets for a brief time, as in the case of Amos, who was both a shepherd and a "dresser of sycamore trees" (Amos 7:14). He was only a prophet for a year, it would seem. There were also professional prophets, such as those that the king of Israel calls for King Jehoshaphat in 1 Kings 22. Most of the prophets in the Old and New Testaments were known as prophets for most of their lives.

So prophets were individuals to whom God especially presented a revelation for a particular context. They could arise from anywhere. God could give a word to them anytime. There was no installation service. The word came and you spoke.

There were of course mechanisms to verify whether someone was truly called of God as a prophet or not. One way, of course, was to see if your prophecy came true. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 straightforwardly suggests that the outcome of a prophecy verifies it as true or false.

But we often need to know whether to take action on a prophecy before we know it is true or false. 1 John 4:1-3 encourages the church to "test the spirits" of prophecy to see if they are truly from God. Certainly whether the prophecy has a correct view of Christ is one measure. 1 Corinthians 14:32 suggests that other prophets are the main way by which the prophecies of others can be verified.

3. The callings of other roles in the New Testament also seem like the prophetic calling. So the twelve apostles were called directly by Jesus without any family lineage or clear resume. Similarly, the broader collection of apostles to whom the risen Jesus appeared were not distinguished by any common background. You were an apostle if the risen Jesus appeared to you and called to go and witness to his resurrection (1 Cor. 9:1).

4. The role of teacher may sometimes have been "charismatic" in origin at times. The New Testament does not give us a clear picture of how such teachers came into existence or how exactly they functioned, other than the fact that they obviously taught. They are mentioned both in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 as regular functions in the church.

It is clear enough from books like 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, and Jude that false teaching became a serious issue in the early church, perhaps especially after the apostles had died. 3 John may allude to a situation where John the elder has sent a teacher named Demetrius to the church of Gaius, only to find that he is resisted by some in the church. [2]

Intriguing is the possibility that Timothy is viewed as a deacon and teacher in 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy 4:6 refers to Timothy as a "diakonos," which is usually translated "servant" (NRSV) or "minister" (NIV). Yet since Timothy's youth is mentioned (4:12), we might fruitfully view him here as a model of a deacon/teacher in the early church. The teaching function is one of the primary ones mentioned in 1 Timothy 4, especially the teaching of Scripture (4:13).

If so, we can see that some teachers were not necessarily limited to one location. Paul himself brought Timothy to Ephesus, just as he left Titus in Crete (Tit. 1:5). 1 Timothy 4:14 also shows the origins of Timothy's function in the early church. God revealed to various individuals that Timothy was to have such a ministry. They laid hands on him and his service began.

In Timothy we may see that these roles were not always clearly demarcated in the early church. There are apostolic aspects to Timothy's ministry, it seems. He seems much more than a teacher. But teaching was clearly one of his primary functions.

5. In Acts we are introduced to Philip "the evangelist" (Acts 21:8). Timothy is also said to do the work of an evangelist in 2 Timothy 4:5, another indication that these roles sometimes overlapped. Interestingly, although Acts 6 is often taken as the key passage describing the work of a deacon, the chapter never actually uses the word. Nevertheless, we can see the origins of Philip's ministry when the apostles in Jerusalem feel led to set Philip apart for service and they lay hands on him to commission him (Acts 6:5-6).

An evangelist is simply someone who proclaims the good news. The good news is that Jesus is Lord, that he is the risen king and that he died for sins. The role of proclaiming this good news is similar to the role of an apostle, except that the apostles were specifically tasked by the risen Jesus himself. Taking Philip as an example, his evangelistic work led him to move from location to location (Acts 8).

6. There is a clear "charismatic" dimension to the calling of those in the roles we have looked at thus far. The role of elder and deacon, it would seem, leaned slightly more institutional, although we find charismatic elements even here. Similarly, Paul's recommendation of Phoebe as a deacon (Rom. 16:1) suggests that their service may not always have been limited to one location.

The elders or overseers of local congregations were probably 1) literally older and 2) at one point chosen locally. We do initially hear in Acts of local elders being appointed by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23). But we can imagine that the role became someone self-perpetuated in the late first century, with the current elders appointing new elders as the occasion arose. Then by the second century there were "bishops" of cities to do such things.

The role of deacon would normally seem to be a subsidiary role. For example, it is the second role treated in 1 Timothy 3, after that of overseer (elder). We can speculate that, much of the time, deacons in a local church were appointed by the elders of that church to do service for the local assembly. However, the discussion above suggests that such roles were not always clearly delineated or confined.

6. The sketch above suggests that calling to ministry in the Bible, at the very beginnings of the church, were heavily "charismatic" in nature. That is to say, it was Holy Spirit driven rather than institutionally directed. Apostles and prophets seem to emerge unpredictably within the church. Evangelists and teachers seemed to be recognized by these higher leaders and commissioned by the laying on of hands.

Elders also seemed appointed by apostles at first, but then perhaps quickly become self-perpetuating. Deacons then perhaps were appointed by elders. The functions of these roles were distinct but probably overlapping. Apostles might teach, prophets might evangelize. [3]

One crucial observation is that while these roles were often charismatic in origin, the calling was usually recognized by the church. The messages of prophets needed to be verified. Evangelists and others might have hands laid on them in commissioning. The local assembly presumably recognized the calling of local elders and deacons.

We are not limited in any way but the titles or structures of the early church. They were not entirely uniform themselves and, in any case, developed to suit a first century context. However, we should not throw them away either, just because they developed in a different time and place. At the end of this chapter, we will strategize the application of these models to today.

Next week: Ministerial Calling in History

[1] Kingship was of course hereditary as well. But we are not considering it a ministerial role here.

[2] So Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989).

[3] Philip, "the evangelist," had four daughters who were "prophetesses" (Acts 21:9).

Seminary: PC2 The Calling of a Minister

Preface
The Domains of Ministry

A couple weeks ago, I started a series called, "seminary in a nutshell." The first section/book is on "The Pastor and Context." Last week I overviewed the general domains of pastoral ministry. Today's post is on calling. I will often feature a book with each post.
__________________________
1. There is a movement these days to speak of everyone having a vocation, a "calling" in life. There are positive benefits to this movement. For one, it affirms that God is concerned with everyone and their life. No one is insignificant to God. Everyone has a role to play in the kingdom. We all have spiritual gifts that God uses for good in the church and in the world. So nursing could be one person's calling, teaching in the public schools another.

On the other hand, we should not think that God always has only one destiny for me as an individual, although that could be the case in some instances. But God does not necessarily have one career and only one career for me to take or one and only one spouse he has planned for me to marry. Certainly there is one theological view that sees God as determining every single thing that happens in the world. But it is not the view of my own theological tradition. [1] One view suggests that God decides and determines every single thing that happens in the world, which means that none of us would have any choice whatsoever. God becomes directly responsible for all the good and evil that happens.

Even moreso, if you believe that God has given some freedom to the universe and has a fixed plan for my life, what if someone else messes up, which they certainly will? What if the person he planned for me to marry makes the wrong choice and I am left out in the cold? There are so many people in the world--there have been so many people in the world--that, if God does not have multiple paths to the same overall plan for the world as a whole, then we are all lost. God's plan is a big, overall plan, not a plan of minute detail, if he has given some freedom to the world.

So perhaps in some instances God has a specific but "contingent" plan for an individual. [2] Given the choices of others before me, perhaps at times God "calls" people to take a certain career path. In many other cases, perhaps even most cases, God might be happy for us to serve him in any number of different careers.

Therefore, from the standpoint of "free will" [3], to view our careers as a vocation, as a calling, should mean that I view my career as one in which I am called to do all to the glory of God and in which I am called to love others as myself. It does not necessarily mean that this is the only career that God destined for me. I am called to be a certain kind of person in the world, and I should view my job, my marriage, my life as one in which I am called to be like Christ.

2. A slightly different approach to ministry, which moves in the same direction as the "everyone has a vocation" movement, is to consider all believers as ministers of the gospel. So we all become evangelists who are to share the good news with others. Like apostles, we all are sent on the mission. Pastors should not be thought or expected to be more spiritual or holy than any other believer because we are a priesthood of all believers.

Very helpful in this regard is a distinction Keith Drury makes in his book, The Call of a Lifetime. In that book he distinguishes between "ministry" in general and "the ministry." [4] The first is the kind of ministry to which we are all called as believers: "Ministry, at its most basic level, means serving others." All Christians are called to serve others, to love our neighbors and enemies as ourselves. As we will see below, he goes on to distinguish ministry of this sort from a call to the ministry.

3. You can see a pattern in the two trends I have mentioned above. The "everyone has a vocation" movement elevates everyone to the same level. We all have a calling and (by implication), being a minister is no different from any other calling. The "everyone is a minister" movement again elevates everyone to the same level and again (by implication) suggests that "professional" ministers are just ministers like anyone else.

There is a lot of good in these impulses. Certainly "professional" ministers are not more important to God than anyone else. And all Christians are called to the same standard of holiness and ethics as any other.

You can also see the cultural dimension of these trends. They fit with a certain kind of democratization of society, a flattening out that wants to consider all voices equal on any subject. They fit with the Protestant trajectory started by Luther when he emphasized the "priesthood of all believers." [5] We have no mediator between us and God but one--Jesus Christ.

But does God single out and call certain individuals to be ministers in a way that is distinct from the ministry in which all believers participate?

4. Certainly the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries, both Protestant and Catholic, have thought so. There is only a small sliver even within Protestantism that has not seen a place for individuals who receive a specific calling to the ministry. Keith Drury explains this distinct ministry as an "equipping" ministry, based on Ephesians 4:12. "Equipping ministry is the job of a pastor or other minister, preparing laypeople for general ministry" (29). [6] He describes this sort of call as a lifelong call: "Ordination is the rite by which the church sets apart a priest or minister for life-long equipping ministry" (30).

I have heard people give opposite messages with regard to such a call. I have heard some people say, "Go into ministry unless God tells you not to." And I have heard people say, "Don't go into ministry unless you are absolutely sure God has told you to."

We can perhaps relate these two sentiments best to the two kinds of ministry mentioned above. In terms of ministry in general, by all means, may all Christians minister to others in any way they have opportunity. Ask God to call others to your attention. Be Christ to others. This is a call to all Christians.

Indeed, you may find yourself as the youth pastor of your church for a season. You might lead a small group or teach a Sunday School class. You might even find yourself preaching for a season when there is no one else available.

I had a friend in seminary who went through the whole ninety credit hour, three year degree program to get an MDIV. He was ordained as a minister in the United Methodist Church. I saw him several years later working at a Lowe's. "I wish someone had told me," he said, "that I could minister without becoming a lifelong, professional minister." At least in his mind, God had called him to minister, not to be a minister.

5. However, Christians throughout the centuries have always believed that God often sets aside specific individuals for the ministry, for ordained ministry. To be consistent, we probably should not think that this "ordination" was planned for all eternity. But in God's contingent will, he does call and anoint specific individuals.

We do not see God acting in this way toward every believer. "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2). This was an apostolic ministry to which only those who had witnessed the risen Jesus were called. Only a small portion of the early church was called to this sort of special ministry.

In 1 Timothy, Paul says to Timothy, "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you" (1 Tim. 4:14, NIV). Since Timothy had not seen the risen Christ, this was not an apostolic ministry. But he was singled out by God to preach and teach the Scriptures at various churches, in this case Ephesus (4:13).

Ephesians 4:11-13 seems to provide some sense of "called out" ministry of this sort when it says, "The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ."

This was not a list that applied to all believers, but to specific types of called ministry for a small percentage of the early church. Indeed, there are no more apostles of the sort they had in the early church, since Paul was the last to see the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:8; cf. 9:1). [7] This is a list of special callings that only some individuals in the early church had.

6. We should not think that the ministry must take on a specific form. There are "bi-vocational" ministers who, like Paul, are clearly called to the "equipping ministry" while they also work in other venues to support themselves materially or perhaps as a opportunity for witness. One can be called to the ministry and be in full-time ministry or in bivocational ministry.

There are "staff pastors," individuals who minister within the multiple ministries of a church. Some of these individuals may feel like they have a call to the ministry while others may feel called to ministry in a more general sense. We should not think that a call to the ministry will always look the same way.

7. Ordination is an event of recognition by a church that an individual is called to ministry in some specific way. If you would, it is a sacramental moment where the Holy Spirit fills a person to do the work of the ministry, usually accompanied by laying hands on the individuals. Church leaders usually lay hands on the person, but others who are anointed may do so as well.

There have frequently been different kinds of ordination. The early church had overseers and deacons, the first of which was more authoritative than the second. Overseers were likely elders who provided direction to a local church or churches. Deacons were likely younger individuals who performed ministry tasks for the church (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12; Rom. 16:1).

At the very beginning, such individuals were appointed by apostles (cf. Acts 14:23). They did not call themselves. It is quite possible that such individuals were only called for a particular task or for a particular season. Others clearly functioned in this role for a lifetime.

8. Some individuals have a sense of God's calling to a ministerial vocation from an early age. Some get that calling in a moment of time. For others, it may be a more gradual sense of calling. Perhaps a person gets involved with a ministry, and the more they minister, the more they sense that God is calling them to a more lasting and focused ministry. Some people grew up with obstacles in their way, especially some women, and it is only after those obstacles are cleared--not least in their minds--that they find their way clear to the ministry.

God calls some individuals to a life-long ministry focus as their vocation. He singles such individuals out and often uses the Church to ratify their calling to the ministry, the role of equipping the saints for ministry in general and for leading the church in the service of others.

Next week: Ministry in the Early Church

[1] Namely, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition.

[2] By God's "contingent will," we mean God's will interacting with human decisions. Not a fixed or absolute will, but God's will as he responds to and interacts with our decisions.

[3] The phrase, "free will," needs to be carefully explained. "Free will" for my theological tradition does not mean that I have the power in myself to make every decision I make. It means that God has empowered me to make at least some decisions without being determined to do so.

[4] Keith Drury, The Call of a Lifetime: Is the Ministry God's Plan for Your Life? (Indianapolis: Wesleyan Publishing, 2003), 17.

[5] Although Luther himself certainly believed in ordained ministry.

[6] This idea that ministers equip non-ministers to do the work of the ministry is a modern, twentieth century one. Much depends on whether we should interpret there to be a comma between "mending the saints" and "for the work of ministry." If there is a comma, then apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers both mend and do ministry. But if there is no comma, they they "equip" for the saints to do. Virtually all modern translations render it in terms of equipping the saints to do ministry, although one wonders if this is a place where modern, democratic culture has impacted an interpretive decision.

[7] Even here, however, there may be some today who have a ministry of authority that surpasses other ministers of the gospel. Some traditions play out this ministry of authority in terms of church structure--bishops and such. More charismatic traditions recognize some to have a far more significant authority from the Holy Spirit.