Calling in Context

When I ask people to list names of individuals in the Bible they see as examples of people who are called by God, those lists almost always include Moses, Paul, and David. Frequently, lists also include Abraham and the disciples. Jeremiah and Isaiah may appear farther down on some lists. There are a number of other people in Scripture who are far less likely to be named as examples of “called people.” Was Nehemiah called by God to do what he did? Were Philip and Stephen called by God? Timothy? Saul? Aaron? Would a list include Miriam, Hannah, Esther, Ruth, and Mary? How about Huldah, Priscilla, Junia, and Lydia?

 

The people we name as models of a “called person” in Scripture depends on the mental map of calling we carry in our subconscious. Those people in the Bible we think of first when asked for examples of calling are the people who most closely match our mental map. Those who don’t fit the map are much farther down on the list, if they appear at all.

 

Many of the people I have worked with come from conservative theological environments where they have been taught to value the Bible as authoritative. They frequently articulate a desire to understand “the biblical model of calling.” This is a different way of asking, “What is my calling?” The assumption is that if a biblical model is identified, since the Bible is authoritative, then that model is the authoritative guide. Stories in the Bible are seen as exemplars of how we should (and should not) live. How God worked in the lives of people through the thousands of years and multiple cultural contexts covered by the span of the Bible is assumed to be the way God works to call people today. The fundamental belief is that, if we understand “the biblical model,” then we will be able to discern God’s calling in our own lives.

 

What is not included in this set of assumptions, but is a key principle of this book, is that we read the Bible through lenses of experience. People identify “timeless truths” from the perspective of their particular context. Each of us ignores some texts and focuses on others as essential. Our culturally conditioned mental models form interpretive lenses that help us understand who God is and what the Spirit calls us to as God’s children. Those same mental models also form blinders that keep us from paying attention to other elements of God’s revelation.

 

To illustrate this point, consider some common elements of a cultural model of calling in the United States. This is not to suggest that US-Americans have a monopoly on thinking about calling. My phrasing here reflects the awareness that how people in the United States (in all our diversity) think theologically about calling is distinct and different from how people in other countries think theologically about calling. While I work with international colleagues and students who contribute a great deal to challenging my context-shaped assumptions, I recognize I am located in the United States and thus write as a person who has been shaped by the perspectives and values of this context.

 

In my research, I identified five key characteristics that seem to recur in multiple theological environments. Four of these elements are seen as essential to identifying the presence of a calling: God as the caller, the task or role as the calling, the individual as the one who is called, and the centrality of knowing. In general, if any one of these elements is missing from a person’s story, they and others around them are likely to question their identity as a called person. Once these four elements are known to be present, however, the fifth element is sought as support: confirmation. This confirmation can take various forms. In some traditions, the endorsement of the individual’s pastor is essential, while in other traditions individuals seek the affirmation of the faith community of which they are a part. In some contexts, the community looks to see whether a person persists in their calling for a long period of time, particularly persevering in the face of hardship. Such perseverance is seen to be confirmation that they were indeed called as they claimed. Another point of confirmation cited is that of “fruitfulness” in ministry, particularly in terms of measurable outcomes such as the size of the church or the number of converts. The variety of types of confirmation mentioned by my research participants suggests that it isn’t the specific form the confirmation takes that is essential, it is having confirmation in some form that is part of the model.

 

Consider this model at work in the story of David. In 1 Samuel 16, God sends Samuel to Jesse, saying, “I have seen for myself a king” among Jesse’s sons. David is God’s choice; Samuel’s role is to discern which of Jesse’s sons God has chosen and to anoint him as king. In other words, God picks the king and Samuel gives the person the news that God has chosen him. Samuel’s anointing of David is a marker of that calling. All four essential elements of the cultural map of calling I identified are present in this story: God is the caller, kingship is the calling, David is the individual called, and David knows he is called because Samuel conveys the message from God to him. David’s calling is then confirmed by the ways in which God is with David through David’s early “ministry” as a commander under King Saul and David’s persistent faithfulness in the face of Saul’s mistreatment.

 

We could engage this same exercise for any number of people whose stories are recorded in the Bible. God calls Moses at the burning bush to confront Pharaoh to set Israel free. God is the caller, Moses is the called one, setting Israel free is the calling, and the entirety of the discussion in Exodus 3:1–4:17 is all about Moses coming to “know” he is assigned the task and empowered for it. God gives the confirmation: “This shall be the sign for you that it is I who sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain” (Exodus 3:12).

 

The temptation is to see this recurring pattern as the evidence that there is, indeed, a single “biblical map” and that these stories demonstrate the elements of that map. We expect that a pattern should exist, so, upon finding a pattern that fits our expectations, we move on without considering whether this is a case of confirmation bias. This leads us to ignore biblical narratives that do not fit this model and, therefore, to miss the wisdom present there for our own vocational journeys.

 

Adapted from Calling in Context: Social Location and Vocational Formation by Susan L. Maros (emphasis added by NewBreed). Copyright © 2022 by Susan L. Maros. Published by InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. www.ivpress.com.