______________________________________________
The question, “What is the individual’s role and the church’s role in calling and sending?” is difficult to answer due to the sheer multifaceted nature of the topic. When one begins asking such questions, more immediately arise, such as the legitimacy of various models of church polity, the role of the Spirit in subjective experience vs. the role of Scripture in objective instruction, the very hermeneutical quandary of “descriptive” versus “prescriptive,” and scores more. Therefore, I will only endeavor to present my convictions on the subject while openly admitting that they will be narrowly presented, largely out of context, and grossly underdeveloped. Throughout this paper, I will be assuming my roles in calling/sending in the description of the responsibilities of both a man desirous of ministry and of a member of a congregation.
The most important question to answer before any others can begin to be addressed is, “What is meant by the term ‘calling?’” I submit that this term is largely used in an unbiblical manner. The idea of “calling” to a vocational ministry smacks of Old Testament patterns and practices, in which the Levitical Priesthood, Davidic Monarchy, and the Prophets were Divinely called out from among their brethren to mediate, rule, and speak God’s Words to the people.
In the New Testament, the word “call,” from the Greek kaleo rarely refers to God “calling” a man to do ministry on His behalf. The word, when used of God calling men, almost always refers to the call to salvation (Rom. 8.30ff). Paul speaks of himself as being “called to be an apostle” (note that Paul’s call to apostleship was simultaneous with his call to salvation) (Rom 1.1; 1 Cor. 1.1; Acts 9.3ff; 1 Cor 15.8) and of his readers as “called to belong to Jesus Christ,” and “called as Saints,” or more simply just as the “called.” (Rom 1.6, 7; et. al.) Thus, it is my conviction that the term “call” ought to be only used to refer to the call to salvation and that we ought to dismiss with the terminology “call to ministry.”
The closest thing we see in the New Testament to the idea of an inward, subjective “call to ministry” is seen in 1 Tim 3.1, “The saying is trustworthy: if anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.” I feel that much of what young men talk about today as “God’s call on my life” would be better described as “what I want to do.” I am in no way seeking to undercut the role of God’s sovereignty in influencing circumstances and situations in order to produce such desires. I am simply saying that there is a great deal of mysticism and not a great deal of biblical wisdom present today. What is Paul’s assessment of a man’s desire of the office of overseer? He states plainly, “He desires a noble task.” How then does Paul instruct those who feel such desires? He immediately lists certain character qualifications they must possess if they are to make their desire a reality. Therefore, the best course of action would be to begin cultivating the character traits listed in 1 Tim 3.2ff.
As an aspiring man begins to develop the necessary character traits, those in the local church to which he has joined himself will begin to take notice. As he matures in Christ, he will naturally begin to exercise his gifting for the edification of the body, which will also be noticed. It then becomes the local church’s responsibility to recognize him as one who may possess the character traits and the gifting required of an overseer or deacon. If the church congregation is so large that they cannot get to know him in the course of regular body life and pastors must step in to make the identification, so be it. However, I believe this necessity speaks more to the need for smaller congregations than it does for elder oversight during the identification process. In the selection of the proto-deacons in Acts 6, the congregation was exhorted to pick men “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” These men must have been well known to the congregation in Jerusalem, else they would have been breaking the Apostle’s instructions by appointing men of questionable (that is, unknown) character.
Once the man has been recognized as a potential leader, a time of testing must then ensue. The length ought not be set in stone, as no passage of Scripture mentions this time, though practicality demands it. During this time of testing, the congregation ought to examine the man’s life more carefully than they did before. Simultaneous to the time of testing, the potential elder should begin (or hopefully continue) his theological training. It is the church’s responsibility to train its upcoming elders well (Acts 18.26; 2 Ti 2.2). It is unfortunate that this responsibility has been passed on to para-church organizations such as seminaries and Bible colleges. After the time of testing is completed, if he is found to be without any disqualifying character defects and if he is still desirous of the task, he ought to be appointed officially by the leaders of his local church. Robert Reymond notes an interesting nuance in the Greek of Acts 14:23, “they had appointed cheirotoneo) elders for them in every church…” cheirotoneo literally means “choose, elect by raising hands,” thus implying that though Paul and Barnabas appointed the elders, they did not do so without the input (show of hands) of the congregation. Thus, it is up to the man to seek to qualify himself through character development, and it is the responsibility of the church to recognize him as a potential elder.
Once the man is appointed as an elder, he and his fellow elders must determine whether he will stay at the local church or whether he will be sent out to do national or international church planting. The congregation ought to be involved in this process as well, still identifying gifting and making recommendations, though this is not as essential as before. If it is determined that the brother should be sent out, the main role of the congregation during this time is “fasting and praying” for the work, and then sending him off (Acts 13.3).
If the elder does go, the local church should partner with him by committing to pray for him and his family, the new church plant, and to support him financially and administratively (Phil 4.16; Acts 8.14ff, 11.22ff, 15.1-35). This partnering may continue indefinitely, and should not be shunned as infringing upon the autonomy of the local church.
I have not dealt with the issue of “calling” and “sending” of missionaries specifically because I believe that missionaries, unless they are joining a church that has already been established, will in effect be church planters, and thus ought to be sent out as elders; in which case, the above process applies to them as well.
