| I have been teaching the biblical principle I call C4 for more than a decade. The principle is found in numerous texts of Scripture and is used to qualify people for specific work assignments. For example, the C4 principle was used to qualify people for construction work (Exodus 35:30—36:2), dispute resolution (Exodus 18), artistic work (1 Samuel 16:14–23), political and military leadership (Psalms 78:70–72), food distribution (Acts 6:1–7), and church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9).
C4 is an acronym for calling, character, capability, and commissioning. The first element of C4 is calling. Calling has two aspects. First, there is the external call by our Creator who calls each of us to our divinely ordained life purpose. Second, God puts in our hearts a passion to do what he created us to do. This is the internal witness or the cry of the heart, which is not to be confused with selfish, self-centered, self-serving desires of our fallen nature.
Over the years I have noted that many people see the value of passion (the second aspect of calling) as a hiring criterion. But until recently, I was not aware that anyone argued that passion could be misleading. In a recent blog, Dr. David Leonard made such an argument (http://blog.tifwe.org/should-your-passion-determine-your-profession/).
To make his case, Dr. Leonard shared some of his own journey in finding his life work. He noted that while in college trying to discover his career path he was given virtually no guidance. During his sophomore year, he felt called to vocational Christian service. But he commented that no one ever challenged his self-proclaimed, self-determined calling. Apparently he had passion for the Lord and believed, though wrongly, that the only way to follow his passion was in vocational ministry. This presupposition went unchecked by anyone in his life.
Dr. Leonard stated that following one’s passion is widely assumed as a way to enable a person to achieve his or her dreams. He then asked if someone’s dreams could be out of sync with his or her capability. Interesting question. Could this really happen? Could calling and capability be incongruent? If the sovereign Creator of the universe is truly responsible for both our calling and capability, how could such incongruence happen?
I suggest that Dr. Leonard fails to distinguish between fleshly worldly passion and true God-given passion. The former is seen in such biblical texts as 1 John 2:16:
For all that [is] in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. (NKJV)
By the phrase “lust of the flesh,” I understand Scripture to be referring to human desires that are shaped and defined by the sin nature of man. When we confuse the lust of human flesh with divinely ordained passion, we very likely could pursue a dream that is inconsistent with our capability. This probably happens more than you might expect. Anecdotally, I have seen many people make career choices based on money—even career choices they disliked and lacked the skill to perform well. In most cases, the people were unwilling to accept the customary pay for the career they truly wanted (and probably the career more aligned with the divinely ordained passion placed in them). So they chose to ignore their God-given passion and pursue a career that appeared more financially lucrative.
If God is intentional and strategic, and the C4 principle is indeed the biblical principle used to discover your vocational calling, then it follows that if you faithfully seek to discover the work that you have C4 to do, then your passion and capability will be congruent. Therefore the scenario posed by Dr. Leonard is a straw man.
Dr. Leonard’s confusion, however, may be more than just a misunderstanding about the distinction between fleshly passion and the God-given passion associated with our calling. There may also be some Greek dualism in his thinking.
Dr. Leonard acknowledged Greek dualism in his early view of vocational calling but claimed he now views all callings to licit work assignments as valid. This is commendable.
Nevertheless, for many—if not for most—today, Greek dualism impacts their view of calling. The Greeks’ view of dualism asserted the goodness of the immaterial world and disdained the physical universe. Some paradigms even posited that the physical universe was inherently evil. But biblically, the physical universe is good; however, it is impaired by sin.
One of the implications of Greek dualism is that work in the physical realm is viewed as inferior to work in the spiritual realm. This faulty assumption contributed to the development of the populist paradigm of Christianity that is common today. This view believes that spiritual work is indeed more significant than physical work.
Since God created the physical universe and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31), this implies that work in the physical world must be something God values. In fact God specifically created man in his image and charged man with the responsibility of managing and mastering his physical universe. This is known as the cultural or creation mandate (Genesis 1:26–28). Therefore God’s actions seem to clearly imply that work in the physical realm is a high calling, after all, he specifically made people for this purpose.
The original context for man to fulfill his purpose was a fully supplied garden (Genesis 2) where man also enjoyed daily fellowship with God (Genesis 3:8). Clearly, a wonderful, pleasurable environment for man to obey the creation mandate. This idyllic paradise, however, was lost because of the sin of man. One of the consequences of sin was the expulsion of man from the garden. After the fall of man, the context for obeying the creation mandate was harder; the work would be characterized by sweat, toil, and painful obstacles (Genesis 3:17–19).
Notwithstanding the fall of man, the purpose of man was and still is to rule God’s creation. To do this requires many different vocational callings, all of which are important to God because he created man to do them.
Today, we commonly think that only calling to vocational Christian work is important to God. At the end of the article, Dr. Leonard noted that not everyone is called to vocational Christian ministry but correctly commented that everyone is called to work. And all licit work assignments are important. For example, in Acts 6:1–7 the work of food distribution is viewed as having equal value to teaching the Scripture. Both are important in the Kingdom of God because God made both work assignments, and specifically, intentionally, and strategically created people to do both work assignments.
So whatever your workplace calling might be, know that if it is from the Lord, he values it because he created you to do it. A tool to help you find and fulfill that calling is the C4 principle. And because God is intentional and strategic, your true calling will never be a burden, rather it will bring you life. Jesus intimated this reality in Matthew 11:28–30:
"Come to Me, all [you] who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke [is] easy and My burden is light." (NKJV)
When we are yoked to Jesus doing the will of God according to the ways of God, the yoke is easy and the burden is light. May this become a reality for you in whatever God has called you to do. |
.png)