Spurgeon goes on to identify four ways by which we may assess whether we are called to ministry. First is ‘an intense, all-absorbing desire for the work’. It is in this context that Spurgeon (followed by Lloyd-Jones in the next century) urged that you should not enter the ministry if you could be content doing anything else. This is a burden which cannot be escaped—not a mere passing feeling, but a thoughtful and enduring desire. Second is an ability to teach, and other aptitudes required in ministry. It is not to be expected that a man will preach well on his first attempt, but is there growing evidence of gifts and abilities which may be developed? Thirdly, Spurgeon asks is there any ‘conversion work’ in the ministry of this man? This test needs to be understood in the context of the extraordinary fruitful days of Spurgeon’s ministry, and it is interesting that this test is not mentioned by John Newton in the letter quoted in this lecture. Finally, if someone is called to ministry their preaching ‘should be acceptable to the people of God’.

The only qualification for entry to the London Seminary Pastoral Training course is a credible call to ministry. But what does that mean? There is a sense, of course, in which all believers are called to ministry as servants of the Lord and of one another. But the term is generally used of a particular call for evangelists, pastors and teachers.
External and Internal Call?
A call to ministry is understood in two parts: the external and internal call. The external call may include the encouragement of others to consider vocational Christian ministry. A local church may give opportunities for service, and encourage towards appropriate training. Ultimately an external call is a church calling someone to be their pastor; this may look slightly different in Baptist/ congregational and Presbyterian circles, but essentially it is the affirmation that a man is called to ministry.
The internal call is more controversial. In recent times the internal call has been downplayed or even disregarded. One pastor said to me: ‘The only call I received was a telephone call’ (from church leadership inviting him to take up the pastorate). While historically the internal call was treated seriously, now it is questioned. One turning point was the publication of a book on guidance: Decision Making and the Will of God.[1] The author emphasised the importance of moving away from a mystical understanding of God’s will towards more rational decision making based on biblical principles. The book is very valuable, and helped many who were struggling to find God’s will for their lives based on feelings or circumstances. However, the pendulum then swung to the opposite extreme, and the idea of internal call tended to be discarded altogether.
We can all understand the challenges and problems associated with an ‘internal call’. We don’t want to be governed by our feelings or subjective impressions of what the Lord might or might not be directing us to do; our feelings are not a reliable guide. Sometimes we don’t make good judgements about our own gifts, and strengths and weaknesses. We might believe that we are great preachers, but we should heed godly believers in the congregation who tell us that our sermons are uninspiring or unhelpful. We might dream that we have leadership potential, but if we find that no-one is willing to follow us, we may be mistaken. Our own convictions have to be tempered by the counsel and advice of trusted brothers and sisters in the Lord, and especially by our church leaders.
On the other hand, we might be very reluctant to go forward into ministry and we need the encouragement and spur of others who recognise our gifts and calling and advise that we are allowing our natural reticence to quench the Lord’s call. Some of the great prophets of the Old Testament, including Moses and Jeremiah, were reluctant because of their own sense of inadequacy and unworthiness. An historical example is John Calvin who had no inclination to take up ministry in Geneva and had to be very severely rebuked by Guillaume Farel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Since the Enneagram is a spiritual tool from the occult and men who received their understanding of it through spirit contact and from the New Age, it should not be surprising that the true nature of God and Jesus is being distorted by it.

The distortions of God continue unchecked in the culture of the Enneagram celebrities. A recent example is Rev. Michael John Cusick, M.A., L.P.C., founder and CEO of Restoring the Soul, an organization in Colorado. IAN CRON recently promoted Michael John Cusick on his Typology podcast. In doing a bit of research on Cusick and his organization, I came across his podcast, “Episode 100 – Kelley Gray, ‘5 Ways the Enneagram Can Strengthen Your Marriage, Part II: Understanding How Your Partner Handles Conflict’” on Luminary.
We see this quote in the description by “Intensive Clinical Soul Care Specialist” Kelley Gray, M.A., L.P.C. at Restoring the Soul.
The Enneagram is the Face of God and the Body of Christ
According to the podcast description, Kelley Gray is their “resident expert on the Enneagram.” As the resident expert, she would know how the god promoted by their organization should be depicted. Apparently, it is the Enneagram.
Ian Cron is the co-author of the Enneagram book The Road Back to You and has had a parade of Christians on his Enneagram program advocating the Enneagram. The statement above is not an anomaly but one of many invading the church. It reveals the Enneagram’s effect of altering the biblical view of God and Jesus Christ with the churches that have embraced its use:

The Enneagram is “the face of God” (Richard Rohr, Suzanne Stabile, Ian Cron)
In “Seven Benefits of the Enneagram that Most People Miss” under point one, “Appreciating God’s Presence,” minister Bill Gaultiere of Soul Shepherding mentions one of the talks they give is “The Nine Faces of Christ in the Enneagram.”
In “Seven Benefits of the Enneagram that Most People Miss,” Bill Gaultiere explains that Jesus is the “center” of the Enneagram and the “perfection” of all the Types.
Are you feeling disconnected from God? No problem; in “Seven Benefits of the Enneagram that Most People Miss” Bill Gaultiere offers hope. The “Spirit of Jesus” can be found via the Enneagram: “By relying on the Spirit of Jesus through the ancient wisdom of the Enneagram, we can grow in God’s grace.”
We allegedly see the “face of Christ” in other Types: “The Enneagram also recommends a path of growth for you by identifying another type’s ‘face of Christ’ that you especially need to learn from” (Bill Gaultiere “Seven Benefits of the Enneagram that Most People Miss”)
Cartoonish and irreverent depictions of Jesus, showing him acting out each type on the webpage of Belton Church of Christ, Belton, TX. Scroll down the page to “Bonus: here’s a picture of Jesus as each Enneagram type!”
In “Introducing the Enneagram with Chris Heuertz,” one of Heueretz’s oft-repeated refrains is that the Enneagram is “nine paths to God.”
According to Enneagram teacher and author Beth McCord (Your Enneagram Coach),  being baptized into the Enneagram puts your “Core Weaknesses” “to death” and brings your “heart’s Core Longing” “to Life. Two examples are Type 7 & Type 8 on Your Enneagram Coach Facebook page. (Screenshots on file)

Read More
Related Posts:

A sense of shame is nothing of which to be ashamed. Shame and modesty are not in principle oppressive. On the contrary, they are the means by which children learn to grow up, and to handle their emergence as sexual beings with responsibility. They are the cultural codes that help keep women safe. It is shamelessness that is really shameful, and Adidas’s cynical exploitation of the female body for commercial gain is a prime example. The company should be, well, ashamed of itself.

Last week, Adidas released its new sports bra line with an ad campaign that features pictures of twenty-five pairs of naked breasts. The campaign has ignited a debate predictable in both its polarization and its content, with the focus on whether the nudity is appropriate.
The ads may be just another sad example of an attempt to grab public attention without the inconvenience of using much imagination or effort. But they also bear witness to an era in which a sports clothing company cannot rest content with doing what it has always done—selling sports clothing—but has to teach the rest of us how to think about life.
In a telling Twitter exchange, Adidas declared that “breasts are a natural part of the anatomy. It’s time to remove the stigma to allow future generations to flourish.” A follow-up tweet added that “it’s important to normalize the human body and help inspire future generations to feel confident and unashamed.” There is an odd irony here, given that a product designed in part to keep breasts private surely either indicates the importance of privacy or militates against the “normalization” the campaign claims to be promoting. And it is interesting that in our society, someone can claim with a straight face that this kind of campaign is removing some stigma rather than cynically using women’s bodies to boost profit margins. But beyond the irony, Adidas is playing to the intuitions of a culture that has lost all notion of modesty.
Modesty, in an odd inversion, is now seen as shameful, unnatural, and a stigma, no less. This makes sense at a cultural level. Performance, not formation, is now the order of the day, with YouTube and TikTok being far more important to self-image and self-understanding than families, schools, or nations.
Read More