I was given the book, Call 2 Ministry, by Dana Matheson. I’ve just begun the read. The author states in the Introduction, “If after reading this material you realize that God is not leading you into vocational ministry, then I pray He will place an abiding peace in your life to help you understand your (in italics) personal life ministry. However, if the Lord is leading you to serve Him voacationally, then this material can give you confidence to prepare for the next step.”
Question….
….Is not every Christian called to a Christian vocation regardless of his/her life context? I’ve heard persons use these words from time to time when talking about one’s calling and Christian vocation. What is your understanding of the difference between these two words?
Here are the dictionary definitions:
Vocation:
1. a particular occupation, business, or profession; calling.
2. a strong impulse or inclination to follow a particular acticity or career.
3. a divind call to God’s service or to the Christian life.
4. a function or station in life to which one is called by God: the religious vocatin; the vocation of marriage.
Avocation:
1. something a person does in addition to a principle occupation, es. for pleasure; hobby: Our doctor’s avocation is painting.
2. a person’s regular occupation, calling, or vocation.
3. Archaic, diversion or distraction.
What are your thoughts?
Marty,
Great questions, and an important issue. We deal with these questions in my course “Developing Lay Leadership in the Congregation.” It’s a course that both challenges and helps clarify for students the issues of calling and lay ministries.
I’m fond of reminding my students that “words do not have meaning in and of themselves. They have usage.” So, depending on how you use the terms vocation and avocation, you can take your pick. At a certain point it’s not useful, I think, to try to draw too fine a distinction on those two terms. But the exercise is helpful in clarifying one’s thinking. And you can define those terms "theologically" beyond what are found in the dictionary. For myself, the lines between what is my vocation and my avocations blur on many points.
As to the question of Christian vocation I’m of the opinion that yes, every Christian is called to Christian service. But I also think that that the fundamental universal calling is that of “being Christian” and obedience. After that, I think any temporal, cultural, or parochial ideas about what constitutes answering the call to ministry are, well, just that: temporal, cultural, and parochial.
There are pragmatic issues here. Not everyone has the luxury or opportunity to answer the call related to their giftedness or vocation. Sometimes by resistance, self-imposed limitations, and sometimes by the accidents of propinquity. Not everyone has the courage or is given permission to “follow their bliss” or pursue their calling. This is tragic. So many people wind up in “jobs” (rather than careers or vocations) that stifle the spirit and break the back. Yet some of them are able to carve out a calling, work out their salvation, or respond to God’s call to obedience where they are nevertheless.
Christian vocation is not confined within the walls of the church nor even in identified church-related ministry, of course. My favorite example of this is when I worked as a hospice chaplain. This was a for-profit, corporation-sized, hospice not affiliated with any religious organization, much less being “faith-based.” Yet, I can unequivocally say that my interdisciplinary team of doctors, chaplain, social workers, nurses, and nurse-aids did more “ministry” to individuals and families than most churches do in a week. They offered more hope and helped ease physical, spiritual, and existential pain in one day than most churches are called upon to provide on any given week. Several of those persons went about their work out of their faith, Christian and Jewish, and their sense of calling—unapologetically and passionately.
I agree with most of what you say, however, I disagree that calling is a matter of permission or "following one’s bliss." I do not believe that’s what obedience is about. And, in that regard a statement that a person is limited by "accidents of propinquity"–for example, he/she is unhappy in a particular job– does not negate one’s responsibility for obedince and accountability to God. Seems to me that for the Christian, one’s vocation is where one is, regardless of the prevailing circumstances of comfort or happiness. As long as a person is using his/her gifts in productive service to others and values that reflect the Christian spirit of love and peace, one’s personal happiness is a moot point.
Vocation is not so much a place as it is a state of mind. In other words, we are to be obedient wherever we are, regardless of the context, and even when we don’t feel like it! It is not an issue of permission from an exterior source, but rather, a response to the place one is. We can choose to be who God has created us to be and use our God-given gifts in all of life’s settings.
I think we make a mistake when we assume that calling only occurs in one specific place at one time. I use to think like that but no longer do. I think God wants us to be obedient wherever we are and at all times, and that our vocation is to be "Christian" in spirit and practice even if we end up in a job, rather than a career.
But, I’m off the subject here. The question was about the difference between the language of calling that we use. However we define these two words we need to be consistent and clear about our usage, otherwise, people will not understand what we mean. So, to state that one can use both words interchangeably is OK, if that’s the theology and definition that is explained and used consistently. That being said, however, I think there is a difference between the two and I would not want people to confuse their hobbies (avocation) with their Christian vocation. My vote, therefore, would be to define these differently and be clear and consistent with that language with church folks.
My wife is ordained and has her M. Div. degree. She has worked in the church in the past, but is a nurse practitioner at MCV. She has been in the nursing profession for about 18 years. And you are right, she provides more ministry to folks than I do by far, because I stay cooped up at church. Says something about our definition of ‘church" don’t you think?
What do others of you think?
At my former church we settled on using an expression to help people get their minds about our "theology of calling." It was, "If you see a need and can fill it, that’s you’re calling." Not sophisticated, but accurate, I think. And it got past all of the baggage about whether one "feels" called or not.
I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. But I do think there is a pragmatic reality related to people’s thinking about calling. I’ve foung that some people do need to be "given permission" and "released" to follow their call or to answer their call. This has less to do about the theological nature of calling and more to do with misconceptions or stuckness people have about it ("Am I worthy?" "Can I do it?" "I’m just a (fill in the blank) and in my (family/culture/church/society) we’re not supposed to do that kind of ministry", etc).
Thoughts from others?
If there is a death in a church member’s family and on the way to minister to this need, I see a person stranded on the roadside from a car problem, what should I do? I recognize both as needs and I am able to address both. But I can’t be in two places at the same time. We recognize needs all the time.
To think that every need we recognize is a specific call from God is unrealistic and I don’t think most Christians really believe that or believe they can be held to that definition of calling. If I’m on my way to meet a need and recognize another, the fact that I don’t address one cannot be a matter of disobedience to God if I am obedient to the other.
Many of our responses to meet the needs of others have very little to do with our God-given gifts. Anyone can help a stranded motorist, for example. It’s like washing the dishes at home. I tell my wife that washing dishes is not my spiritual gift! But, there are some things we just do regardless of our gifts.
An understanding of vocation interpreted by one’s gifts is another thing altogether. The question is, "how am I using my unique, God-given gifts in obedience to my love for God and others?" And a second part of that question is, "how does this inform my life of practice everyday in the context for which I’m responsible?"
It seems to me that rather than blurring the lines of definition between vocation and avocation, what would be more helpful, is defining with clarity (if that is even possible) varying levels of calling–I’m called to be Christian, I’m called to meet needs regardless of my gifts, I’m called to use my unique gifts, I’m called to be God’s presence in the secular world, I’m called to the leadership of the church, etc. Can "callng" be narrowly defined?
Hmmm, that sounds like engaging in <i>reductio ad ubsurtum.</i> The phrase, "When you see a need and can fill it, that’s your calling," does not address such a narrow moment-to-moment response as described. It means, if I see a need, for example, in helping feed the poor, and I have the means to do so, then I am called to respond. If I see a need to educate children, and I have the gift of teaching or the time to help, then I am called to respond.
And I have no qualms about leaving people with flat tires on the side of the road. That’s not a "need" in the sense we’re talking about here. Besides, I’m the last person in America without a cell-phone, they can call for help sooner than I.
One cannot address ALL needs, and some needs are more pressing than others. The question had to do with, "What need do YOU need to address and respond to?"
That goes to your comment about spiritual gifts. I will tend to respond to those needs I can address given my gifts, values, and resources.
Washing dishes: Sometimes the actual action of what we DO is not the "gift" or the need we are addressing. If I do the dishes at home (as a trivial example) it’s not the doing of the dishes that is the gift–my spouse can do that–the gift is consideration, kindness, expression of appreciation, a gesture of acknowledgement of the 1000 other times SHE has done the dishes. Believe me, those things go farther in meeting her emotional needs than the fact that there’s a stack of clean dishes at the end of the day.
I like very much the way you phrased the questions. Well done.
Here’s a piece related to this conversation that may be of interest: <a href="http://www.practicingourfai…">Work, by Scott McAnally</a>