I am attaching a paper that I read at the Midwest Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003.  I wrote it because I see many worship songs which romanticize the relationship between Jesus and the individual.  This trend scares me.  So I wanted to think it through biblically.  This is my attempt.  Hope it is helpful!

 

Any comments would be appreciated!

Here is the sermon that I preached regarding "meaning" and "significance."  I steered clear of these terms, but I used the concepts.  I went about the sermon by using the temptations of Eve and Jesus.  My point was to show that there is meaning in the text, and that Satan twists the meaning of a text or better he misapplies the meaning.

I found it a bit difficult to preach on something which I had only taught.  I am more and more aware of the overlap and distinctions between preaching and teaching.  I think my home is teaching, but I still like preaching, and each time I preach I become better at it.  It truly is a joyous and serious enterprise.

I would be interested in any comments on the sermon.  Also, things have been very hectic, so I cannot always reply to comments.  But I do always read them!  So thanks for your thoughts!

A Call to Ministry?

 

I am writing this to get a few thoughts down on paper in order to have others critique this so that I am sharpened in my thinking.  This small essay deals with a discrepancy I see between what the Bible shows to be a call to ministry and what we talk about regarding “discerning a call to ministry.”  I admit that this query into call comes from my experience, for I have not experienced a “call” nor do I talk in those terms regarding my ministry.  The reason why I do not talk in these terms is related to my experience, but it is also related to what I see in the biblical text regarding the call to ministry.  Because of my experience and reading of the Bible, I think that we have confused categories regarding calling, and thus place an undo emphasis on calling, and thus cause many seeking ministry work undo effort in discerning a call, talking about calling, and maybe even excluding some because of an apparent lack of calling.  Thus, though I know I am going against the stream in this paper, and I know that I am going against one of my heroes in the faith (Spurgeon), I want to get this down so that I can see where I may be right and where I may be wrong.

 

Though I do not know fully how “discerning a call” has crept into our conversations regarding ministry work, especially the work of pastor, evangelist and missionary, I know that in some way it is related to the Old Testament calls of the prophets and judges, with some relation to the call of Saul on the road to Damascus.  How I have heard the reasoning is that since the prophets and others had calls for the work of the ministry in the past, we in the modern day work of the gospel, especially full-time ministry, must have a discernable call on our life to be in the ministry.  It is usually argued in such conversations that the sense of call helps to make decisions regarding where to go in ministry, whether or not one should be in ministry, and sense of call also aids one in the midst of ministry.  I believe it was in the book The Art of Pastoring, that the author argued that if the pastor does not have a call for pastoring, then the daily grind of the work will eventually eat away at the pastor, and thus the endurance required for pastoring on the long haul is to have a call to fall back on in times of discouragement.

 

This idea of call has been described to me by many people.  Bethel Seminary has a document that they distributed, when I was a student, which talked about a call to the ministry.  When going through ordination procedures for the BGC the candidate must describe his call to ministry.

 

Now though I can understand how we can move from the biblical testimony regarding calls to the ministry of prophet or apostle to modern day calls, I think this is an unhelpful category confusion.  For example, when reading through testimonies regarding the discerning of calls, I find it odd that the modern day calls do not look anything like biblical calls.  This experience pushes me to see that maybe because of the difference there is a biblical reason for the difference, and thus we should stop using call language all together regarding vocational ministry.

 

What I mean is this.  When you read the calls of Gideon, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Saul there are discernable patterns, and one glaring element to the pattern is that the individual sees a vision or hears a voice, and the vision is the Lord and the voice is the voice of the Lord.   There was no need to discern this call, for the call was loud and clear.  But when we hear of modern day calls to the ministry we hear of reading signs, and other such things.  Rarely if ever do we hear of God giving a vision to a modern day pastor in such that the pastor has been called in a biblical sense to plant a church in Iraq. 

 

This begs the question should we hear more stories of such calls in a biblical fashion?  My answer at this time is no, because the biblical calls were intended for specific reasons for specific individuals at specific times in salvation history, and thus we should not expect calls of a biblical nature for vocational ministry, rather something else is prescribed, and thus we should abandon the language of call to ministry when talking about modern day vocational ministry because it lessens the biblical calls, and leads to category confusion.

 

What, then, replaces the biblical call?  In my view, (and this is where I am parting company with many, and thus this is where I want to be sharpened) giftedness replaces calling.  Thus, those seeking the enter vocational ministry should not expect a call, calling for vocational ministry is a method which God used in the past for specific purposes, and thus it is no longer a method or metaphor which works for today.  Instead of an individual receiving a call to the ministry, the body should confirm that the individual is gifted by God for the task at hand.  If he is not gifted nor morally fit, then the individual should not seek the task.  The giftedness also brings an oughtness about it, that some try to get from the “discerning of a call.”  It is reasoned, if I have a call, then I must not disobey this call, or I am disobeying God.  Instead of this I see as more biblical the following reasoning.  God has gifted me to give to the body, what I am designed to give, and if I do not give it, then I am selfish, and disobedient to the God who gives me.  Thus, there is still an oughtness, but the oughtness is related to giftedness not to calling.

 

Why do I think this matters?  There are many reasons but here are a few.  One, when seeking to see what God may have me do with my life, I am not to be concerned with reading the signs to see if God is calling me to something, rather I am to see if God has gifted me for a task, and if so to do it if I desire to do it, and if it is wise to do it to the glory of God.  Two, this places an emphasis back on the body and not on the individual.  There are many both men and women, who believe they are called by God to pastor or teach, but everyone around them knows that they are not fit for the task.  Thus, the body sees the giftedness and affirms the giftedness, and the body is saved from having to endure a foot thinking and behaving as if it were an eye.  Three, in decision making one does not use “call,” instead uses giftedness, talent, skill, wisdom, etc.  Thus, some of the subjective “reading of the signs” elements are taken out.  Four, biblical calls are seen for what they are miraculous appearances of the Lord before specific individuals which mark out individuals for certain and specific salvation historical activities, which will not be repeated.  Moses was called because he would be the one to lead the people out of Egypt, give the Law, the covenant with Israel, etc.  Saul was called, because he would be a new Moses figure going into the Gentile world, an apostle of the like we will never see again.  Thus, calling is preserved for what it is certain, specific, miraculous, a highlight pointing out a specific work of God through a specific individual.

 

With all this said, then, we do not talk about sense of call for ministry, we talk about the body’s affirmation of gifting for the ministry.  We reserve call language for the biblical witness and for the preaching of the gospel, but not for sensing whether or not we should do some activity over another or whether or not we should be involved in vocational ministry.

 

Well, this ends my rant.  It is not well ordered that is following a logical sequence but I wanted to get this out there so that I could hear counter thoughts or affirmations.  Please let me know what you think!!!!

 

Tim

I have been given the responsibility of preaching on the distinction between "meaning" and "significance" in relation to biblical interpretation.  Meaning of course refers to what the text meant.  Significance refers to how the text is applied.  I have taught this distinction a great deal, but preaching it is a different matter.  I am doing some new reading on the issue.  I am reading Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text and I just finished Beale's article where he responds to Steve Moyise.  These are two helpful resources, especially regarding the articulation of how the NT authors' use of the OT would fit into categories such as meaning and significance.

How I am planning on preaching meaning and significance is by way of the two temptations, the first in Genesis 3 and the second as recorded in Luke 4.  Where I am going is to see how meaning and significance as categories of good interpretation are at play while the serpent is tempting. 

If anyone has any other ideas, I would be glad to hear them!  As I spell out more of where I am going, I will post.  Also, I have almost finished reading the Curse of the Law article.  It was promising at its beginning, but took, in my estimation, a poor turn.  I hope to spell that out soon too.

Grace to you all!