<i>What would be lost by using the terms ‘hunch’ and ‘conviction’?</i>

hunch sounds weird.

I agree with Andrew Barry (above) - there are scriptural examples of people being “called” into specific ministries both at a vocational level (Barnabas) and geographic level (Macedonia).
I’d be curious to see how this fits into Sandy’s proffered “theology of the call”.
. Shouldn’t the question rather be - What screening or vetting is in place for those who want/desire to enter full-time ministry?
i.e. How do you validate or discern their “calling” or “desire” to test if it is of God or driven by selfish motives of gain/glory/etc?

Surely “training” alone is not a sufficient medium?
And why would you seek to train any and all rather than those who you can, to some extent, discern a genuine qualification of God to enter full-time ministry?

I think the gist of Driscoll’s admonition is for you to re-evaluate what pre-qualifications you have in place for those you train for full-time ministry instead of simply accepting anyone who can pay the fees and sign the dotted line.

I think the problem is not so much with the word “call” as it is with our perception with HOW God calls/leads/directs people into ministry.

We hear the word “call” and assume it refers to an experience which is individual, internal, subjective and mysterious. However, biblical examples of God guiding people into ministry would suggest that His “call” is more likely to be corporate, public, objective and testable. e.g. the setting apart of Barnabas and Saul, and the appointment of Timothy (1 Tim. 1).

thanks sandy for helping to give more precision to the way we speak about the Lord moving his people in service of the gospel of Jesus.

it is is a difficult balance of theolgical precision without pedantry and word quibbling.

how should we talk about the more subjective work of God in a way that recognises its importance whilst testing it more objectively in the word of God and wisdom of the people of God.

an inner burden
an inclination
a strong desire
a heart for
a conviction
a leading
a holy ambition

it seems to me that we need to learn rightly speak subjectively and recognise the validity of that.

I wonder if one of the ways we guard against unopposable subjectivism (God told me stuff)  is to test these ‘inner conviction’ with ‘outer sending’ - the laying of hands by the elders kinda stuff.

And how much weight should inner conviction be given along other leadership indicators?

e.g

1. character qualification -
ie faithful…
this is essential non negotiable
2. competancies in ministry
ie able to ...
this necessary and assited by formal and informal training

3. conviction (ie inner desire)
i.e wants to ... feels led to?

desirable but needs testing

4. church recognition
i.e encouraged to…

importance of laying on of hands by the elders

I also note none of these necesarily entail formal theological education but can be greatly assisted by it.

Keith,

Of the preachers at the recent ministry intensive, I repent of mentioning only Mark Driscoll as speaking of the call. You are quite right that Carson speaks of it. Likewise Kent Hughes in his otherwise excellent book <i>Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome</i> (which I once reviewed for <i>The Briefing</i> also speaks of the importance of the call.)

It was unfair of me not to point out that all of them speak this way.

Ian and Phil, thanks, your posts really make a lot of sense to me. The point of Michael Bennett’s original article and my comments are especially directed at the claim of the inner, subjective feeling that “I feel God is calling me to do such and such”.

The examples of calls - even for the Apostles (and their delegates with them!) in the Scripture seem to be accompanied by external manifestations in corporate settings - a vision, the Holy Spirit speaking (audibly it seems) so that all agreed this is what he said.

Likewise looking back, like Ian said, I am a bit more comfortable with call language, although why not talk about providence?

Dave, I haven’t forgotten you. I must be weird because I use the language of ‘hunch’ quite a bit. I think I first picked it up from the Hardy Boys. I seem to recall (long time ago) that their books always talked about them getting hunches that helped them solve the mysteries and adventures they were in.

More recently, I think I saw the word being used effectively by Ian Mears. I have learned in many other arenas (apart from suitability for ministry) that there are often times when it is helpful to have a certain degree of provisionality about some view I want to advance (even if I hold to my view fairly strongly), or when I have a kite to fly.

There may be more information to come to light, or another perspective, and this hunch language reminds me, and those I am talking to, that I don’t think I have the last word on the topic, and that my view can be challenged.

That humility and provisionality could certainly be helpful in this context of putting oneself forward as being suitable for a particular ministry in creating ‘space’ for others to assess you according to other biblical criteria.

Must seem like I am trying to get comment numbers up on my posts!!! (Oh now I see Gordo has already sledged me about this!)

Shane, love your interaction… For the subjective sense of “think I should give this sort of ministry a go”, you suggested

an inner burden
an inclination
a strong desire
a heart for
a conviction
a leading
a holy ambition

(By the way Andrew B - use ‘blockquote’ instead of ‘quote’ inside the <...> and </...> marks when you want to quote someone else.)

Anyway, I like ‘inclination’, ‘strong desire’, ‘heart for’ and ‘holy ambition’. I might be going a bit cold on ‘conviction’ simply because on our circles (e.g. MTS), we use ‘convictions’ (plural) often to talk about one’s core theological beliefs about the gospel of Jesus and the Bible and so on. Could be a little confusing?

And I am much less keen on ‘leading’ because it immediately begins to raise the question of ‘by whom’, and whenever a Christian says, “I feel led” to do this, I know they don’t mean, ‘by my own desire’, or even simply just ‘by coincidental circumstances’ (although that may often be the reason they feel this way), let alone ‘by Satan’.

When a Christian says, “I feel led”, they almost always mean that the reckon it’s God who has been leading them, or prompting them. But once again, such language of inner subjective and even mystical feelings seems conspicuously absent from the NT.

But I would like to encourage use of the other terms, ‘desire’, ‘willingness’, ‘holy ambition’ (though it might sound pious to some), and ‘heart for’.

I wonder if one of the ways we guard against unopposable subjectivism (God told me stuff) is to test these ‘inner conviction’ with ‘outer sending’ - the laying of hands by the elders kinda stuff.

Sure, the testing and assessment process is the key thing, and I am advocating use of such language from the applicant that makes it as easy as possible for those charged with such heavy responsibilities to carry them out fairly without feeling like they’re battling what God has told them (when actually it was not a voice from heaven, but a subjective feeling)!

And how much weight should inner conviction be given along other leadership indicators?
e.g
1. character qualification -
ie faithful…
this is essential non negotiable
2. competancies in ministry
ie able to ...
this necessary and assited by formal and informal training
3. conviction (ie inner desire)
i.e wants to ... feels led to?
desirable but needs testing
4. church recognition
i.e encouraged to…

I think these are four good C’s.

As I said earlier, when speaking with candidates for those sort of ministry, I have typically reserved ‘convictions’ to refer to core doctrinal beliefs.

And I think I would place ‘desire’ (= personal conviction about wanting to do it) under the heading of character. That is character is formed by your attitudes, and I think this is an attitudinal matter.

I also like the way you add church recognition as a separate category, although presumably it’s via the previous C’s that the church and especially its leaders make their judgment.

So I would plump for

1. Convictions (theological) - which would include checking their Conversion! - I always ask about this in any ministry job interview and don’t take it for granted just because they’ve come from a good college or church.

2. Character - including desire.

3. Competencies.

4. Church recognition.

Thanks everyone.

To add to Sandy’s post count…

Those who mentioned Don Carson also speaking of his ‘call to ministry’ may be interested to know he explained at one of the ministry training days that his call, at least in part, involved his pastor tapping him on the shoulder and saying “I want you to join me in ministry”. Whereas Driscoll speaks often of his personal call from God to “marry his wife and start Mars Hill”.

I guess this only further shows the spectrum of meaning that various people attribute to the word.

I’m sure Ben Pfahlert would agree with me in wanting those of us in full time paid ministry to be speaking to our godly young men and women not to ask “Have you received a unique word from God?” but rather “I want you for ministry! (and have you considered coming to a MTS challenge conference?)”

David M, thanks for your point of order. It is sustained, and one might mention that Paul and Barnabas are again called apostles in the same chapter, Acts 14:14, although there is a minor textual variant.

Well done - you didwhat I suggested in my earlier posts urging people to check proof texts and investigate claims for themselves.

(The quotes that follow are for the technically minded - otherwise skip to the end for my conclusion!)

Here’s what Ben Witherington says on this matter in his commentary on Acts (pp.419-20)

The question then becomes, why is it only here in all of Acts that Luke calls Paul (and Barnabas) an apostle? On the one hand, one could argue that Luke is simply using an (Antiochene?) source and has not fully confirmed it to his usage elsewhere in this volume. The problem with this suggestion is that this passage certainly reflects Luke’s hand in various ways, indicating that whatever source he may have been using, he had made it his own. A second suggestion which makes considerably better sense of the text is that Luke is not using the term “apostle” in this chapter in the usual sense that he does (to mean someone who not only had seen the risen Lord but had traveled with him during his ministry – cf. Acts 1:21-26), but rather in the sense one finds in 2 Cor. 8:23 (cf. Phil. 2:25 and Did. 11:3-6) to refer to those commissioned and sent out by a particular local church to perform some sort of Christian service or work. This suggestion takes into account the fact that everywhere else Luke uses the term “apostle,” it always refers to a member of the Twelve (in Acts 1 the original eleven plus Matthias). This view is perhaps the correct one, and it means that “apostle” here is not used as a sort of technical and theologically loaded term as it is elsewhere in Acts (and in Paul). [...]

The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, that Luke does mean to call Paul an apostle with a capital A here, being familiar with Paul’s own usage; and perhaps the use of [apostellΩ] in 22:21 and 26:16-17 reflects this fact. The sporadic use of the term in the Pauline chapters of Acts woould perhaps reflect the fact that Luke as a historian is not concerned about Paul’s personal authority or power in these narratives but about the power and authority of the word and the Spirit. This may also be why Luke largely refrains from dealing with Paul’s personal controversies in his churches, unlike what we find in some of his letters.

Andrew C. Clark in his article, “The Role of the Apostles” in the book <i>Witness to the Gospel: The theology of Acts</i> also reviews the various possible explanations for this striking reference to Paul and Barnabas as apostles here only in Acts.

He then concludes (pp184-85)

What then did Luke expect his readers to make of Acts 14:4, 14? It is often neglected that in the immediate context Luke has shown Paul applying the words of Isaiah 49:6 to himself and Barnabas (13:47). He is thus claiming that they have a significant role to play within salvation-history. The phrase ‘to the end of the earth’ provides a clear echo of the words of the commission given to the eleven apostles in Acts 1:8. It would not, therefore, be too surprising if Luke expected his readers to understand that his use of ‘apostles’ in Acts 14:4, 14 for Barnabas and Paul that they were fulfilling with respect to the nations the commission originally given to the eleven apostles. This verdict is supported by the clear verbal parallel, generally ignored by scholars, between 14:3 (‘signs and wonders done by their hands’) and 5:12 (‘signs and wonders done…by the hands of the apostles’). Thus it is better to see the designation ‘apostles’ in 14:4, 14 as not merely denoting ‘missionaries’, or even indicating an almost grudging recognition of the fact that Paul claimed to be an apostles and was recognised as such by others, but a clear hint by Luke that he himself saw Pail and Barnabas as playing a role similar to that of the twelve apostles.

The interesting thing is, of course, that calling Paul and Barnabas apostles - especially if it’s in the capital A sense - strengthens the claim that the subjective “call to ministry” cannot be found in the NT applying to ordinary Christians but only to the apostles and perhaps their delegates.

Did anyone mention Article XXIII?

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the Congregation before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

C T Studd
If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him.

And young Nathan in Zambia has lots more of Studd’s stuff at
http://www.nathan.co.za/ct_studd.asp

Here’s one that makes me wince and think:
Funds are low again, hallelujah! That means God trusts us and is willing to leave His reputation in our hands.