My concern is not that we move away from the vocabulary of the Bible because “calling” is used consistently in Scripture. I merely desire to be more careful in how we apply it. Christians are the beloved and “called” of God (Jude 1:1; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:24–31). All Christians share certain callings in Scripture, like the calling to follow in Christ’s footsteps (1 Pet. 2:21). By all means, let’s keep this vocabulary of calling.

Growing up among Baptists, I learned a language of “calling.” People would say “I feel called to _____,” and our church would pray and send them on their way. I praise God for good desires and God’s grace to send these saints. But I’m convinced we need to expand our vocabulary of calling.

Let me point out that I applaud the faithfulness of men and women who have been sustained on the field with this concept of calling, even though I think it’s worth the effort to alter our language in order to pave a new paradigm of understanding calling. This is no critique of the genuineness of their motives or the faithfulness of their labors.

But in my view, the calling language—at least how I usually hear it applied—creates an unhealthy expectation. The language itself moves us away from clear revelation to some other necessary experience.

My concern is not that we move away from the vocabulary of the Bible because “calling” is used consistently in Scripture. I merely desire to be more careful in how we apply it. Christians are the beloved and “called” of God (Jude 1:1; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:24–31). All Christians share certain callings in Scripture, like the calling to follow in Christ’s footsteps (1 Pet. 2:21). By all means, let’s keep this vocabulary of calling.

Beyond these broad categories for all Christians, Paul refers to a unique sense of call as an apostle of the Lord Jesus (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1). The error in application I’m referring to happens when we make his experience the necessary requirement for anyone serving as a pastor or missionary. Paul’s language points in the other direction. He refrains from applying his “calling” vocabulary to other co-laborers in the New Testament (Col.1:1; 1 Cor.1:1; 2 Cor.1:1).

Three Practical Dangers

Beyond this misapplication, I see three potential dangers with making a calling experience like Paul’s the necessary requirement to serve in missions.

First, a sinful heart can use this idea of calling to neglect current areas of responsibility. Being a good neighbor can be neglected while we focus on our calling to a distant nation. We lose a sense of “place” and miss opportunities to love here and now.

Second, this idea of calling can foster an unwillingness to heed corrective influences. It’s hard to constructively criticize someone who feels a divine right to service based on an experience. A perceived call can shelter us from correction as we push others away whom we perceive to be in the way of fulfilling our “destiny.”

Third, this idea of calling can produce unnecessary stress and unwarranted guilt if someone shifts to another context for serving Christ. Using the calling language confuses our identity in Christ from our labor for Christ. Reentry is hard enough without this burden.

New Paradigm—Four Suggestions

I believe there is a better paradigm for understanding the calling to be a missionary or pastor and that we should we replace this use of “calling” with other vocabulary.

Here are four ways to think about calling that can help us pave a more helpful way forward.

1. Commanded before Called

Jesus’s words in Matthew 28:18–20 are the marching orders to all Christians. Obedience to him doesn’t wait for some additional revelation of his will. It gets to work. All Christians have been drafted. We either go or we send.

All Christians won’t engage in the same way, but the mission and scope are clear: make disciples of all nations. Period. How? Going, we baptize and we teach them to obey Jesus. Let’s not complicate what isn’t complicated. The command of the Great Commission applies now. It can’t wait for tomorrow.

Read More