Is Christian ministry a utilitarian endeavour?
I’ve been thinking over and collecting books+articles which I hope to assemble into a short paper on the nature of calling to ministry in the next little while. (sparked by recent interest since Driscoll/Carson spoke in ‘calling’ terms at some ministry training recently)
One thing that has caught my attention in what I’ve read so far (from the 1800’s at the earliest) is that the approach advocated seems to be essentially utilitarian in nature. That is, the general advice is: consider what gifts you have been endowed with then consider where you can put them to best use.
[eidt: this is in relation to ministry vs another vocation, not what kind of ministry will be of most use]
It’s the ‘best use’ thing that has got me thinking… it sounds really utilitarian to me. maximum utility is the goal…ends justifies the means and so on.
If this observation is right, is such a utilitarian approach Biblical? is it a product of our time and culture? if so, should we take it or leave it? What have others thought in other cultures and times in history?
what do you think?
September 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
been thinking a lot about this lately too.
don’t have time to comment… but want to subscribe to any discussion that happens here.
look forward to reading your paper!
September 20th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Thoughts From The Davises
Tamie reckons that faithfulness, by its very definition, requires some kind of utility.
Arthur reckons that the hallmark of utilitarianism (in its modern form) is not the appeal to a utility but making the supreme utility to be human happiness. So if calling or ministry decisions involve some kind of utility, it’s not necessarily a problem.
September 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Thanks Davises…
I think i get what you mean Tamie (you’re both driving to the same point maybe?) the existence of some kind of utility is no big deal. I agree.
And yes, modern utilitarianism (with its humanist flavour) does elevate human happiness to supreme but i’ve also noted a shift from this to include animal happiness too (see Singer etc).
What I am really trying to question is the consequentialist approach to ethics inherent in utilitarianism. The end justifies the means.
The approach advanced above is able to be expressed as:
I wish to make best use of my gifts/resources (end)
Therefore i will chooses ministry over another vocation (means)
I should have been more clear in the original post and specified that the consequentialist ethic is what caught my eye!
Now, the construct above makes good sense to me but i’m still trying to nail down whether this is due to my cultural (utilitarian?) mindset or because it is Biblical!
September 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I’m unsure about your distinction between the ‘vocational ministry’ and ‘type of ministry’ questions. Surely, if we take the principle that we are all called to ministry in some form, the question is always about ‘type of ministry’, where ‘type’ now includes the questions of quantity of time and payment.
As someone who works with ‘consequentialist’ systems on a daily basis, my comment would be that there is no problem with the ends justifying the means, provided the means are in some sense included in the ends… For example, if the end is instead stated as
‘I wish to be commended as a good and faithful servant’
then the means are so inextricably tied up with such a goal that the distinction is meaningless.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
A+T:
Are you trying to get at consequentialist ethics or the assumption that vocational ministry is a superior use of one’s gifts?
September 26th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Hi … thanks for your comments!
Sam that’s really helpful. I agree that all are called to ministry in some form but the question of vocation still stands I think. You still need to choose whether to be a minister or a mathematician. I think I want to limit this discussion to that second order question of vocation rather than music ministry or kids church questions where all christians need to make a decision about how to serve the body.
Anyway, I think you have expressed well where I’m at in my thinking currently. You’re going for a teleological ethic right? the goal is the important thing ‘pleasing Jesus’…this then orders the present or gives purpose to the present activity. If that’s right, i agree with you (if not, correct me!)
A+T: both I think. See the thing that troubles me (and I think perhaps you too?) is that often enough such a claim of superiority is made or implied. It certainly has been in some of what I’ve been reading and I can think of a number of instances where it has been implied that vocational ministry is a superior use of one’s gifts. But I just don’t think that it is true! It may be a noble desire (1 tim 3:1) but it is not superior way to use gifts. (although keeping myself open to persuasion).
In trying to untangle the ‘why’ of such thinking it seems that at least part of the problem is that a consequentialist ethic is applied to the question of best use of one’s gifts. This invariably seems to arrive at vocational ministry being the best use should you have the requisite gifts and not be disqualified.
A better approach i think would be to consider the fact that Jesus is lord who gifts his workers and expects a return (Lk 19, Mt 25). This makes trying to answer the ‘best use’ question unnecessary (and in the end you can never know, at the point of making the decision, if it will in fact be the best use of your gifts) instead recognising a goal there is now a freedom in deciding upon a vocation - do something, anything with what you have in view of that goal. You aren’t locked into rigid pragmatism or fortune telling… Be a minister, be a mathematician or whatever aiming to please and be commended by Jesus.
One more thing stands out to me: Even the ends ‘i wish to make best use of my gifts’ and ‘i wish to be commended as a good and faithful servant’ are worlds apart really. One calls us to maximise a desirable outcome now whereas the other calls us to order our affairs toward a certain future goal. perhaps just re-framing the criteria helps!