Who moved my calling?

I've just re-read "who moved my cheese", a change philosophy parable by Dr Spencer Johnson. My reason was in connection with introducing it the staff of my College. However, as I read, I could not but help compare the actions of its four main characters with that of Church people. Sniff - who sniffs out change early, or Scurry - Who scurries into action, or Hem - Who denies and resists change as he fears it will lead to something worse, or Haw - Who learns to adapt in time when he sees changing can lead to something better!

The notion of calling to ministry within a given context seems to have a similar effect. Let's look at how various parts of the church define 'calling'.

One such view is that of a Presbyterian within a post modern context.

1. Call is relative to one’s culture.
2. Postmodern understanding of call is rooted in vocational understanding and a longing for security.
   

Here-in lies a major issue, a division in the unfolding of the call through the praxis of applied ministry. For some, the security once enjoyed, is no longer the comfort they knew. For others, the security fit is so intertwined with a particular context that there appears to be no calling without the context.

I have a notion that much of our understanding as to the theatre of our calling depends upon our world view, where we see the relative place of the church within it and where we see our own position within both. But perhaps more important and overshadowing all of these is our understanding as to where we see locus of God at work.

Another aspect of callings is in the nature of its mission field within which it is exercised.

• If it is centred entirely within a church structure, the praxis of ministry is about getting others to come-in and join "us". Our kingdom view becomes synonymous with church and in extreme circumstance 'my Church'.
• If the mission field is seen as the church active within the world but with the express intention of 'converting' people into members, the praxis of ministry can become subversive, culturally imperialist and later cause extreme angst for those whose unfolding calling fails to resonate with the Church's anticipated ministry path.
• If our mission field is seen as the world, the praxis of our ministry is about getting alongside others and bringing Christ to their tables, regardless of their circumstances, spirituality or belief. In such circumstance, it is hard for those of the 'come-in' persuasion to recognise this as church.

It is perhaps this later view, almost diametrically set against the first that causes so much hurt and angst when some one in ministry feels the need to move into a different field, or at least, are unable to stay within the restraints of a particular Church structure.

There are perhaps three further scenarios that need to be considered in this situation. In some cases, when a minister leaves it is because the Church's view and praxis has changed, whilst the individual continues to hold their calling within a firm parametre. Such an instance would be Church of England clergy who were unable to accept the ordination of women.

For others, just like the characters in the book, their supply of cheese, or in the sense of our discussion here, their spirituality supply can no longer be found within the structure of the Church in which they serve. All to often this is because the projected view of ministry, its training system and theology of ministry fails to resonate with its structure and praxis. In other words, the contents found within is not what's written on the tin. The days of formation in ministry fails to develop into paths where that ministry can be be clearly exercised.

The third is where both the Church and the individual change, where praxis and views move along a different, widening and at times opposing trajectories.

As a former Salvation Army officer and now a Methodist minister, I have been following the stories of other 'formers' (http://fsaof.blogspot.com/) where all three scenarios can be seen.

I wonder if the locus of one's calling is dependant upon the dual kingdom/world view held by the Church and its synergy with that personally held. The notion of world view comes from the German word Weltanschauung Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and refers to a wide world perception. It refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.

As to the kingdom; what was it Jesus said about being salt of the earth?

Mark 9:50"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.

Keeping Salt in a packet with a brand name "My Church" is not fulfilling the Gospel or Calling.

Is there need for a clearer theological thinking of ministry that firmly develops a praxis that embraces God guided change within the world that truly encompasses "Your Kingdon Come"?