"if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work"
From a total membership of over 17 million, the current numbers of Latter-day Saints serving full time 18-24 month missions or service missions (these latter of which sometimes include part-time commitments as I understand the numbers) is approaching 100,000. For generations since the command for all worthy males to serve and the encouragement for as many women as feel inspired to serve has been in place, nearly all monthly conferences and trainings feature a recitation of Section 4 in its entirety. We take it as a sort of mission motto, a statement of purpose, a reinforcement of commitment to the qualities and attitudes that promote successful service. In that context, this "missionary section" offers material for self-reflection in broad and basic form: work hard, be all in, keep your heart focused, fill it with virtuous thoughts and act on those higher-pointed impulses. And do it in the confidence that you are an instrument on God's work, which He blesses with success as long as you supply the honest effort. The main key is the harvest metaphor which must have spoken straight to the plain heart of the recipient of this revelation, lifelong farmer Joseph Smith, Sr., but which is still relevant to the committed service of every laborer in God's fields, and perhaps most directly to proselyting missionaries.
In its original context, however, there was not yet any missionary program, or even church restored. There was not a framework of authority, or authorized message to clearly argue for or direction to persuade people to. This is not to imply that the Gospel wasn't available through the Bible or that churches built up with the Biblical doctrines had no truth to offer. But from the perspective of the Christian and believing farmer who kept himself aloof for decades from formal affiliation with any of the available organized religions up until this time in 1829, and from that of his translator son who had spoken often and frankly to his family about the heavenly messages and media he had received, all pointing toward something celestial about to emerge on earth, the marvelous work had not yet sprouted. It was not yet harvest, but rather germination time.
And yet, in a general sense, while the Church itself had not yet been restored and authorities had not yet been organized and fully articulated missionaries messages had not yet been elaborated, events were unfolding that individuals in the know could and should share. Testimony should not be held back.
And father Smith didn't. The February visit he made to his son and new daughter-in-law's new home after their elopement some 80-ish miles from the patriarch's farmstead (which, by winter sleigh, may have required several days of travel) was during a school year stretch where Senior had a boarding guest at his farmhouse--a certain school teacher named Oliver Cowdery. Heartened to more direct action by this revelation from God through his son, the elder Smith went home from this visit and stopped his reticence to speak to newcomers of his son Joseph's experiences and opened up what he previously held as family secrets guarded closely by experience of persecution to the man who would later become the most important scribe for the translation work that commenced in earnest the next summer. This is according to this reputable site I consulted.
The passive voice in verse three, embedded in a hypothetical, has often given me pause. There are so many ways to take it. Does the condition of desiring to serve itself constitute "calling?" Or is this implying that if the condition of desiring is present, the serving itself can't be undertaken until there is a "calling" made and received?
Christians of various creeds and persuasions do approach the term "call" from often contrasting perspectives. Catholics, who ground liturgy and adaptation of doctrine in a principle of authority, tend to think of "callings" as a spiritual impulse to take up an office--to hold a function of service for a time, perhaps even for a lifetime--which means accepting a place carved out for such by the organization. For Protestants who argue that the only authority is the Holy Spirit, a calling is a personal spiritual impulse still, but defines more of a personal trajectory, manner, or style of service--maybe even a particular audience, as in ministries for the blind, or for the prison-bound--and so their impulse guides them to seek out institutional support rather than molding themselves to the institutional spot that's already defined. In both cases, the calling is a private and subjective perception, and while Catholic authorities do make assignments to underlings, and both Protestants and Catholics ensure institutional discipline to ratify or excommunicate individuals who feel "called" to the ministry, in neither case is the concept of calling coming through a human intermediary.
From the pattern in the Bible as well as in the revelations to the Church after 1829, a different concept presents itself in its consistency: God is the one who calls, and He extends callings through authorized servants. Callings are not subjective experiences with the Spirit, but rather assignments. The Spirit will quite personally mark the individuals called with impressions of the truth of the calling, of the truth of the Caller, and will give inspired directions on manner of service all throughout the service. But Jesus didn't wait for the Spirit to speak in a way Peter would feel moved by first to go seek out his Lord. Instead the model is that Jesus called them out of their fishing boats and then they gained spiritual witness. They committed to dropping their livelihoods before they even really understood Who they were following.
Don't get me wrong: I'm sure Peter and many of the Apostles had spent plenty of time thinking about scripture, about wisdom, about salvation, and about their place and willingness to act in furtherance of the Lord's work. I'm sure they felt inspired to follow as soon as the call was made. But the pattern was revelation first, confirmation second; the Shepherd does the calling, the sheep are called, and choose to receive the assignment out of love for the Shepherd and recognition of His voice. Other patterns are dangerous because they don't have the same inherent limiting principles, and can sometimes lead to unauthorized action that is disharmonious with the Lord's work and will.
Paul's service in Ephesus in Acts 19:1-8 provides an example. Someone claiming to be John the Baptist no matter his good intentions convinced some unbelievers that Jesus was God and that baptism was a requirement for salvation. they happily received baptism, but then demonstrated ignorance of the Holy Ghost, which the real John the Baptist never failed to speak on. Paul, on the thin suspicion that their baptism was invalid, rebaptized them and the evidence of his authority to do so was immediately manifest. It's worth thinking about this example more thoroughly. The faux John taught enough of the correct doctrines that the converts were truly convinced, heart and mind, in such a way that the Spirit could immediately indwell them after the actually authorized party re-administered the appropriate ritual. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter into the kingdom of heaven, and not everyone who claims to be called is duly authorized. Paul (and yes I'm aware that there's controversy surrounding Paul's authorship of this epistle) further spoke to this principle of calling by delegation when he cited the Old Testament example of Moses's brother in whose lineage an entire branch of new Priesthood service was to be organized by priestly caste-like inheritance in Hebrews 5:1-4:
"every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God...And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."
Even Christ Himself, the chapter goes on to say, didn't just randomly decide one day He subjectively felt compelled to take upon Himself the sins of the world. He did, but only after being called to do so by His Father.
I don't think Joseph Smith Sr. felt like this passage licensed him to devote full-time service to proselytism. I think he got bolder and widened his circle of vulnerability out of faith that the Lord would bless his efforts to work in His field through more open sharing of testimony concerning the marvelous work and wonder that was to come. I think missionaries who are called to that proselyting service are right to take the same inspiration, and thrust in their metaphorical sickles with all their heart, might, mind, and strength. But I'm also glad for the humility and hope, the faith and the power it offers to people for them to realize that the calling wasn't in their head, wasn't in their heart, and may not even have been on their radar, but was instead something some other authorized servant received as a message for them to rise to. Being an instrument in the Lord's hand, in the Lord's way, in a position specified by revelation given to external sources draws us closer to Him, makes us seek His power, gives us space to build our trust in His guidance and direction, and prevents self-aggrandizement, or conflation of self with Spirit. This structure of power favors the opposite of mega-churches in which education, popularity, and marketing talent qualify one for the work--it favors an "eye single to the glory of God" as qualification.
No comments:
Post a Comment