This article was published as McBain, R. D. (2025). Walking in promise, living in reality: Exploring the mental health implications of the Pentecostal discourse of divine calling. Salubritas, 4, 35-63.
Introduction
This article takes a Foucauldian approach to discourse, which theorizes that power, knowledge, and language shape social realities by producing and maintaining societal norms and truths through institutional and cultural mechanisms. In this framework, social institutions, power structures, and practices influence individuals’ knowledge and experiences of mental health and how they respond to these experiences in their daily lives. This article explores how the Pentecostal discourse of divine calling, a framework that Pentecostals use to understand their purpose in life, affects their mental health. The article does so by using Grounded Theory to analyze participants’ interviews. Grounded Theory is a qualitative methodology that allows patterns and themes to emerge from the data. It provides an in-depth understanding of how Pentecostals construct meaning and cope with the mental health challenges tied to their discourse of divine calling.
The article begins by defining mental health and providing an overview of the discourse of divine calling in US Pentecostalism. It continues to summarize the research methodology, research design, and implementation. The emergent theory is then presented using interview data to describe the participants’ experiences of divine calling and its impact on their mental health. The article subsequently draws upon social science and theological literature to contextualize the participants’ experiences within broader academic discussions. The discussion highlights how the discourse of divine calling reflects and shapes their mental health struggles while offering potential pathways for understanding and addressing these challenges in Pentecostal communities. In its conclusion, the article summarizes the research findings and discussion and provides practical considerations.
The Relationship between Discourse and Mental Health
The literature on mental health presents a multifaceted view, with psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology, and sociology offering unique definitions of the term (Rogers & Pilgrim, 2014). One difference between these perspectives is that psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and psychology provide clinical accounts, predominantly viewing mental health as rooted in biological and psychological processes within the body, while sociological approaches emphasize how life events, social conditions, roles, structures, and cultural systems influence an individual’s mental state (Horwitz, 2009). There is also debate about whether the concepts of illness and health are opposites (i.e., an individual is either healthy or ill, with no middle ground) or whether they exist on a continuum, with health and illness at opposite ends of a spectrum and most individuals falling somewhere in between (Scheid & Brown, 2009). The World Health Organization (WHO, 2022) defines mental health as “a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community.” The WHO attempts to capture in its definition the intricacies of the psychiatric, psychological, and sociological perspectives while moving away from conceptualizing mental health as a state of absence of mental illness (Galderisi et al., 2015). While not dismissing the extensiveness of the WHO’s definition, this article leans toward the sociological perspective, emphasizing the role of social structures, cultural systems, the life course, and life events in shaping mental health (Horwitz, 2009).
As a work of contextual theology, which acknowledges that sociocultural context shapes how people understand God and express their faith (Bevans, 2009; Pears, 2010), this article flows in the vein of social constructionism. Social constructionism posits that much of what people consider “reality,” including concepts like identity, norms, and knowledge, are not inherent or naturally occurring but constructed through human interactions, language, and shared beliefs (Burr, 2003). The role of discourse in shaping reality is an essential aspect of social constructionism. Discourse involves speaking about objects using vocabularies, norms, rules, and rhetorical techniques that are often assumed or occur without individuals being fully aware of their conventions or consequences (Crossley, 2004). Michael Foucault (1996) argues that ideologies, representing social knowledge and practices, form when those who consume the discourse regard it as having authority. These ideologies subsequently have the power to shape individuals and society (Selby, 2007; Hook, 2007; Rainbow, 1984). According to this understanding, social institutions, power structures, and practices influence people’s knowledge and experiences of mental health and how they respond to these experiences in their daily lives (Rogers & Pilgrim, 2014; Burr, 2003; Roberts, 2015; Wilson et al., 2018).
One way of thinking about how discourse affects mental health is through the sociological concept of the life course, where individuals move from the past toward the future through action and experience (Schatzki, 2022). Trajectories chart this movement by tracing the sequence of actions and experiences across different life domains, such as work, family, and education. Life events (i.e., abrupt changes) and transitions (i.e., longer adaptive processes) often tied to the acquisition or relinquishment of social roles punctuate the successive sequence of trajectories (Walther et al., 2022). Although sometimes stressful, these events and transitions are not necessarily overwhelming if they fit within the normative social script determining the life course (Walther et al., 2022). For example, when life events align with normative social scripts, individuals may experience a sense of control and well-being. However, deviations from these scripts, such as unexpected job loss, illness, or family disruptions, can lead to stress, anxiety, or depression as individuals struggle to reconcile their experiences with societal expectations (Thoits, 2009). The role of normative social script in the life course is inseparable from the discoursal forces that socially construct it (Walther et al., 2022). Following Foucault (1996), discourses function as orders of knowledge that frame social phenomena, defining what is considered normal or acceptable within specific contexts. These discourses establish situational definitions and interpretive frameworks that shape how individuals experience and interpret events and transitions within the life course (Walther et al., 2022). In this way, mental health is not only shaped by internal psychological states but also by sociocultural forces (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003).
Pentecostalism’s Discourse of Divine Calling
This article explores how the United States Pentecostal social context affects adherents’ mental health through its discourse of divine calling, which, in line with the broader sociological concept of vocation, is a socially constructed reality that individuals must navigate and negotiate (Weigert & Blasi, 2007). Pentecostalism emerged in the United States in the early 1900s because of various historical, sociological, and theological factors (Cerillo, 1997). As Pentecostalism progressed during the twentieth century, it fragmented into many groups (Jacobsen, 2003). The common denominator among these groups is that they emphasize the activity of the Spirit both phenomenologically and theologically (Anderson, 2012). Pentecostalism’s emphasis on the Spirit intertwines with the sociocultural context. Pentecostals reinterpret and re-signify elements of their immediate environment that resonate with their Pentecostal experience and use them to articulate themselves in ways they believe the Spirit inspires (Medina, 2021; Droogers, 2014). This two-way synthesis results in an understanding of the Spirit replete with human desires, projections, cultural elements, and social influences (Miller & Yamamori, 2017), expressed through an embodied spirituality that varies across contexts yet consistently maintains that the Spirit’s activity should be evident in daily life (Neumann, 2012).
Linked to the Pentecostal belief in the Spirit is that God has purposefully created everyone with a specific plan that the Spirit empowers them to fulfill (Collins, 2023). This concept of divine calling finds its fullest expression in the Full Gospel narrative that upholds Christ as Savior, Healer, Sanctifier, Spirit Baptizer, and Coming King (Faupel, 1996). The Full Gospel is a narrative from the Bible that acts as an interpretive framework disseminated within the community through preaching, testimonies, and songs that Pentecostals use to make sense of their reality (Archer, 2020). Although Pentecostalism might not readily emphasize the Full Gospel narrative as it did in the past—a shift likely driven by broader sociocultural changes and evolving theological priorities—it remains a rhetorical tool for understanding how Pentecostalism defines its identity (Coury, 2016). Through the Full Gospel narrative, Pentecostals believe that Jesus is alive and still at work in the world through the power of the Spirit who lives inside them (Archer, 2020). This belief is so ingrained in what it means to be a Pentecostal that Green (2015) argues that the believer’s identity is codependent and rooted in the life of Christ to the extent that a believer’s justification and sanctification are fulfilled by living missionary lifestyles. Likewise, Archer (2010) claims that the Pentecostal identity and purpose intertwine with the story of Jesus and the Spirit, leading Pentecostals to a life of everyday mission and daily witness.
An online search provides many examples revealing how ingrained in Pentecostalism the concept of divine calling is and gives insight into how it is disseminated and reinforced in various ways throughout Pentecostalism, such as social media, print, television, sermons, testimonies, churches, educational institutions, and personal interactions within the community. Together, these modes function as a discourse framework that describes what Pentecostals believe about divine calling, shapes their experiences, and influences their long-term commitments and a sense of purpose (Weiger & Blasi, 2007; Giordan, 2007). The upside of this discourse is that having a strong sense of purpose can give individuals direction, motivation, and strength to cope with difficulties, leading to better mental health and overall well-being (Li & Gao, 2022; González-García et al., 2021). The downside is that the pressure to align one’s actions with a predetermined purpose can lead to stress, anxiety, and inadequacy if individuals struggle to meet their or their community’s expectations (Curran & Hill, 2019; Patterson et al., 2021). The downside of the discourse is arguably more pronounced in the information age and the application of digital media used by Pentecostal churches (Coleman, 2004), where individuals may feel overwhelmed by the constant need to define and pursue their purpose (Li & Gao, 2022). Discussions about the benefits and negatives of divine calling fit into the larger conversation about religion’s potential to positively and negatively affect adherents’ mental health (Schumaker, 1992; Koenig, 2005).
Although it is not within the scope of this paper, we must note that the Pentecostal ideology of divine calling and its dissemination in contemporary culture is part of the broader United States historical and social context from which it emerged and likely correlates with the therapeutic turn towards self-management and meaning-making (c.f. Reiff, 1966).
Methodology
As we have seen, divine calling and mental health are concepts embedded in the sociocultural context, where social institutions, power structures, and cultural practices shape individuals’ understanding and experiences of both concepts. How does the Pentecostal discourse of divine calling impact the mental health of its adherents? This study seeks to answer that question by using Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method that links people’s experiences to the broader social processes that shape them and, in doing so, constructs a theory that explains this interaction (Charmaz, 2006). Grounded Theory offers a systematic and flexible framework, making it an ideal choice for exploring and understanding the nuanced relationship between Pentecostals’ experiences of mental health and their understanding of divine calling. Moreover, Grounded Theory is analytically conducive to uncovering the subtle ways discourse exerts power and influences individual experiences (Johnson, 2014). Therefore, by using Grounded Theory, this study generates a deep, empirically grounded understanding of the interplay between Pentecostal discourse and the mental health challenges of Pentecostals.
Research Design
My Ph.D. dissertation conducted in-depth interviews with Pentecostals to explore how they experience depression (Author, 2024). I utilized that original dataset for this study. To address limitations associated with reusing the same dataset, I conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of the original participants, specifically probing their perceptions of divine calling and its impact on their mental health. I additionally expanded the scope by interviewing new participants about their mental health experiences concerning their calling. Supplementing the original data set enhanced the methodological rigor while ensuring the data was sufficiently saturated and contextually relevant, thus strengthening the validity and reliability of the findings.
Both groups of participants were selected using convenience sampling, which allowed me to choose a purposive sample based on the ease of obtaining participants who fit the study’s criteria (Morse, 2007). Participants were not required to identify with any particular Pentecostal denomination or organization. This study defined Pentecostalism as those Christians who believe in the Spirit’s activity in their lives on theological and phenomenological grounds (Anderson, 2012). The study considered it sufficient that the participants lived in the United States, understood they fit the criteria, and believed that their understanding of divine calling affected their mental health.
Twenty-six participants were interviewed. Interviews occurred synchronously via Zoom and were between sixty and ninety minutes long. I conducted the interviews using Rubins and Rubins’s (2012) gentle, cooperative, and ethical interviewing technique that respects the participants as conversational partners. I then transcribed and analyzed the interviews using methods described by Charmaz (2006) and Corbin and Strauss (2015). The analysis involved an iterative and cyclical process of data collection and analysis utilizing line-by-line coding, focused coding, conceptual categorization, memoing, and axial coding to develop a theoretical framework explaining the participants’ experiences. It is worth noting that the iterative analytical process of Grounded Theory emphasizes synthesizing data to generate theory rather than quantifying the prevalence of specific experiences. As such, Grounded Theory prioritizes conceptual depth and theoretical insight, focusing on how categories and themes interact to comprehensively understand the phenomenon under study (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
The constant comparative method was central to this entire process. The technique involved simultaneous data collection and analysis, allowing me to compare the data with the data while refining and synthesizing broader conceptual categories that guided data collection (Schreiber, 2001). This iterative process clarified ambiguities and expanded categories that needed to be fully understood and pushed the analysis toward saturation, meaning that no new significant insights were emerging from additional data (Charmaz, 2006). Next, I compiled the findings into a written report that clarified and explained the data (Charmaz, 1995). Guided by my reflexive journey that occurred synchronously with the data analysis, I integrated literature from the Christian tradition, Pentecostal theology, and the social sciences into the report, forming this article’s discussion section.
Limitations
One limitation of this study is its use of convenience sampling, which may not fully represent the broader Pentecostal population, making it difficult to generalize the findings beyond the sample (Simkus, 2022). Additionally, the study’s broad characterization of Pentecostalism does not account for the diversity of denominational doctrines and practices that shape individual experiences. Given Pentecostalism’s wide array of traditions, each with distinct theological emphases and worship practices, this study’s framing may risk oversimplifying the complexities of belief and experience. Similarly, its broad definition of mental health may not capture the nuances of how specific mental health conditions manifest within Pentecostal discourse. Furthermore, while the emergent theory offers key insights into the relationship between divine calling and mental health, it does not fully account for other significant influences, such as social support networks, economic conditions, or personal coping mechanisms. These limitations highlight the context-dependent nature of the study, shaped by its specific sample, definitions, and theological and social dynamics.
However, these constraints do not necessarily limit the study’s broader relevance. Berger and Luckmann (1966) argue that human experience is socially constructed within institutional and discursive frameworks, meaning that religious belief systems do not exist in isolation but are continuously reinforced through communal practices and structures. Similarly, Foucault (1980) highlights that discourse shapes how individuals interpret their experiences, influencing the ways meaning is assigned within a given social and theological context. Pentecostalism operates at this intersection, functioning as a social structure that organizes communal religious life and as a discursive system that shapes how adherents interpret divine calling and mental health. Because these theological and social frameworks are widely shared within Pentecostal communities, the experiences analyzed in this study are not merely individual occurrences but reflect broader patterns of meaning-making within Pentecostal discourse. Grounded Theory’s constant comparative method suits this study well because it captures these recurring patterns. Rooted in social interactionism, it emphasizes the iterative refinement of conceptual categories, ensuring that findings reflect the shared theological and social dynamics shaping Pentecostal experiences rather than reducing them to isolated cases (Charmaz, 2016; Milliken & Schreiber, 2001).
Additionally, the interpretation is strengthened by the likelihood that readers may see the participants as relatable individuals or recognize similarities in their own experiences. This resonance suggests that the themes identified in the study are not confined to the sample but reflect broader Pentecostal patterns. When readers identify aspects of their own lives or those they know in the participants’ experiences, the study demonstrates what Guba and Lincoln (2002) describe as “fittingness.” Fittingness is the degree to which the findings resonate with the reader’s context (Drisko, 2024). The degree of fittingness suggests the extent to which the participants’ experiences are not isolated but reflect broader trends within the Pentecostal population, even affecting the reader’s context.
Therefore, while denominational and contextual differences introduce variation, the underlying tensions between divine calling and mental health will likely be experienced across Pentecostal communities. Thus, rather than viewing the study’s contextual boundaries as barriers to generalizability, they should be seen as illustrative of how Pentecostal theological and social structures shape religious experience (Charmaz, 2016).
Presentation of Findings
This study explored how the Pentecostal discourse of divine calling affects the mental health of adherents. The term ‘walk in’ and its variations emerged as a dominant metaphor used by participants to explain the interaction between their perception of divine calling, their lived realities, and their mental health. All the participants described how they experienced a conflict between their perception of divine calling and the practical demands of daily life, which negatively impacted their mental health. However, for some participants (not the majority), ‘walking in’ their calling evolved into a more flexible, adaptive concept as their understanding of calling adjusted to fit their real-life circumstances. The following subsections provide an overview of the participants’ experiences of ‘walking in’ their calling and its impact on their mental health. Pseudonyms are used.
Conflicting Roles and Responsibilities:
The participants’ perceptions of their divine calling varied. For instance, Steve served as a pastor for twenty years. He described his calling as a lifelong commitment to vocational ministry. Sandra, a mother of three, saw her divine calling rooted in parenthood. “It’s not always easy,” she said. “But I know that nourishing and nurturing these young lives is God’s plan for me.” Patrice viewed her role as an elementary teacher as her calling. She felt that teaching was more than just a job; it was a way to contribute to a more significant cause by instilling values and knowledge in young minds. James, a musician, expressed how artistic expression was central to his calling. He believed his creativity allowed the Spirit to work through him to glorify God. He said, “When I pick up my guitar, even just to strum, I feel a deep sense of knowing that God’s called me to share his love through music.” Likewise, Lucy, who worked in a nonprofit organization, felt God called her to serve her community by meeting practical needs and bringing compassion into everyday environments.
The common theme among all their interpretations of divine calling was that participants felt it gave them purpose and a clear direction for their lives. Daryl shared this understanding when he described his calling as “something God has created for me to walk in.” The term ‘walk-in’ and its grammatical variations emerged as a dominant metaphor all participants used. The term signified what they believed to be a predetermined, individualized pathway God tailored to their personalities, characteristics, or giftings that he intended their lives to follow. So, when participants identified parenthood, ministry, employment, artistic expression, and other roles as their divine calling, they believed these callings were unique and that ‘walking in’ them would bring glory to God and meaning to their lives. Although some participants accidentally stumbled upon their divine callings later in life, they attributed their stumbling to divine intervention. The participants did not see their callings as random, but as integral components of a purposeful life aligned with a spiritual mission that God had destined them to fulfill.
This metaphor of ‘walking in’ one’s calling gave them a clear sense of direction and meaning, shaping their identity and understanding of their place in the world. The issue for many participants was tension between their other social roles and their divine calling. This conflict disrupted their ability to ‘walk-in’ their calling as they believed they should. Steve serves as an example. He saw his work as a pastor as his true calling, but financial realities forced him to prioritize his secular job to support his family. The emotional strain of having to prioritize responsibilities outside of what he considered his divine calling left him feeling conflicted and depressed. Likewise, Sandra believed motherhood was her true calling. However, she struggled with conflicting demands from other social roles, particularly her employment.
James’ comments represented the sentiments of the other participants who struggled to ‘walk-in’ their callings while trying to fulfill other social roles. He described how the inner struggle between his desire to honor his divine calling and fulfill his everyday obligations left him disoriented, mentally strained, and feeling like he was failing at both. James said,
It feels like I’m juggling too many things. I feel my job is what I’m called for and is most important in God’s eyes because I’m supporting my family with it. But then my wife often says I don’t spend enough time with the family, yet it’s through my job that I support the family and fulfill my calling of helping people through civil litigation. I’m mentally tense because I want to figure out what’s most important in God’s eyes, but I can’t, which makes me feel like I’m not doing enough.
Steve, Sandra, and James’ experiences highlight the conflict many participants faced as they struggled to balance their sense of divine purpose with the demands of their daily lives. A coinciding issue was that, besides negotiating their calls, they felt obligated to support those under their care. This responsibility extended beyond fulfilling material needs. In James’ case, for example, he was not just meeting his family’s financial needs. However, he felt equally responsible for their emotional and spiritual well-being, which required him to spend more time away from his divine calling. The emotional toll of balancing the obligations between their divine calling and their caregiving roles left participants feeling emotionally drained, mentally strained, and spiritually conflicted.
Living with Unmet Expectations
All the participants believed God gave them a specific calling. They believed that if they were obedient to God, they would ‘walk-in’ that calling along a preset pathway. For the participants, being obedient meant, as Frank said, “Doing what I feel the Spirit is leading me to do, even when it doesn’t make sense or seems difficult, according to his plan for my life.” Despite the participants’ perceived obedience, their lives did not always follow the expected pathway. Alesha provided an example. She believed God called her to work in youth ministry. So, she pursued a relevant degree, expecting to thrive in helping teenagers through music and drama. After graduation, however, she was burdened by student loan debt and worked in an unrelated field to support herself. She said, “I thought youth ministry was what God wanted me to do, but now I feel like I’ve wasted my time and money.” Alesha admitted feeling increasingly anxious and depressed by the gap between what she expected to happen and what did happen. Likewise, Jarrod felt called to youth ministry but found himself working outside of ministry as a tradesman: “I’m just trying to support my family, but it’s not all God wanted for me. I feel like I’ve failed him or missed his direction somewhere.”
A critical aspect of the participants’ struggles with living with unmet expectations was that they also lived with unrealized expectations of the Spirit. All the participants believed the Spirit would guide, empower, and equip them to fulfill their calling—a belief consistent with their Pentecostal tradition. However, they did not experience the Spirit as a guiding and empowering force at work in their lives as expected. Alesha explained, “I always heard growing up in church, and still hear it today in the online sermons I listen to, that the Spirit is supposed to guide and empower me to fulfill my calling, but I haven’t felt that in my life. It’s like I’m missing something, or maybe I’m not good enough to deserve it.” This sense of disconnect between the participants’ expectations of the Spirit’s involvement and their lived reality deepened their feelings of disappointment and depression, which this excerpt from Sandra exemplifies.
I feel like I’m lost, like God has abandoned me. The constant silence from the Spirit has made me doubt everything: my faith, calling, and worth. It’s not just disappointment anymore; it’s this deep, lingering anxiety and depression that I can’t shake. I used to feel hopeful about the future, but now it’s hard to see past the weight of failure and uncertainty. It feels like I’m stuck in a dark place, and the longer I wait for God to show up, the harder it is to believe He ever will.
Living with Self-Doubt
Juggling conflicting roles and living within the gap between reality and expectations forced the participants into a space of inner questioning, self-doubt, and frustration. Participants questioned their level of obedience or wondered if they misunderstood God’s direction. Jarrod said, “I’ve done everything I thought I was supposed to do, but maybe I missed something. I don’t understand why things haven’t worked out.” Questions like Jarrod’s left participants wondering whether there was hidden sin in their lives. Patrice exclaimed, “Maybe there’s something I haven’t repented for or some sin I don’t even know about.” Others wondered if God was testing them or if Satan was obstructing them. This uncertainty further deepened their mental strain, leaving them questioning. They speculated whether they were experiencing a test of faith they needed to “push through” or if it was a “mountain” they should “speak to” to be removed (cf. Mk 11:23). In any case, the participants’ emotional and spiritual struggles left them feeling conflicted and disoriented in their walk with God.
Self-doubt and frustration appeared to heighten the participants’ anxiety, which made them hesitant to act because they were afraid of making choices that might lead them away from their callings. Their decision-making paralysis revealed itself in major and minor life choices, contributing to their stress. Brenda, for example, described the mental strain of constantly second-guessing herself: “I’m always worried that I’m making the wrong choices and delaying God’s plan because I haven’t figured it all out yet.” Her decision-making anxiety exhausted her as she feared that every action might lead her off course. “What does it feel like? It’s like constantly being on edge, wondering if one wrong move will throw everything off. Every decision is like a fork in the road where one path leads me closer to God’s plan and the other away from it. It’s exhausting to carry that weight with every choice I make.” Brenda’s description encapsulated the mental and emotional toll that decision-making anxiety took on many participants. The fear of ‘walking out’ of God’s calling rather than ‘walking in’ deepened their sense of failure and worsened their mental health struggles. This fear further paralyzed them as they questioned their personal decisions and felt responsible for fulfilling their perceived divine purpose.
Inability to Let Go
Sticking with the ethos of Grounded Theory, I employed an open interviewing method, which allowed participants to freely share their experiences and perspectives while enabling me to refine my questions in response to recurring themes and patterns in their narratives (Charmaz, 2006; Rubins & Rubins, 2012). This approach led me to ask why they did not give up on their callings and live according to their own ambitions and desires within the boundaries and beliefs of their Pentecostal faith. Some participants dismissed my suggestion outright, while others said they tried but could not “let go” of their calling. Alesha spoke about her inability to move on.
I wanted to let go of my calling and get on with my life. But the Spirit inside me won’t let me. When I pray, I feel God telling me I am called and have a purpose, and I feel I need to hang on. But when I look at my life, I see none of that, and I want to give up and live my life—be a mom, concentrate on my regular job, and make a career out of it. You know, make that my calling. But, God won’t let me… It would be easier if I let my calling die, but what if the day I let it die is the day that God begins bringing it to fruition?
Alesha’s response was representative of the other participants who struggled to “let go” of their divine calling. Jolene shared Alesha’s sentiments: “I’m afraid to stop believing because what if tomorrow is the day it [her calling] all happens? Aren’t we told to have faith and hold on to Jesus’ word even though everything in the natural is contrary?”
There was a present-day and an eschatological dynamic in the responses of participants who did not want to “let go” of their calling. The present-day dynamic corresponded with their desire to remain obedient to God and his calling, believing that persistence would see them through. As Jolene’s quote revealed, many felt that giving up would be a lack of faith and that she must trust God’s timing. As Alesha said, “What if the day I let it die is the day that God actually begins moving?” The eschatological dynamic stemmed from all the participants’ belief that the eternal significance of their callings extended beyond this life. As such, those participants who were afraid of letting go of their calling thought “letting go” might mean forfeiting their eternal reward and missing the moment when Jesus would say, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Mt. 25:23) upon their arrival in heaven. Beyond personal appraisal and reward, they also worried about the earthly well-being and eternal fate of the people they believed God preordained for them to encounter as they ‘walk in’ their calling. As Daryl said, “If I give up now, what happens to the people I was meant to help? What if they never hear the message or experience God’s love because I didn’t stay faithful?”
The Challenges of Adapting
While most participants felt that letting go of their divine calling was impossible or unwise, a minority appeared to adapt their calling to fit their circumstances. For these individuals, adapting meant reinterpreting or reshaping their calling to fit more realistically and sustainably with the demands of their daily lives. For example, Lucy, who initially felt her divine calling required her to be in full-time ministry, recognized that her work in a nonprofit organization was just as valuable. She shared, “I used to think my calling meant I had to be in church ministry all the time. But as I’ve gotten older, I realize God’s using me where I am, helping people, meeting needs, and showing compassion. My calling hasn’t disappeared; it’s just changed shape.” Likewise, Steve, who felt torn between the pastoral ministry and his family, described how adapting his calling helped him reduce his years of internal conflict. He said, “I used to think I was failing God by not fully devoting myself to the pastoral ministry, and I also thought I was failing God by being fully committed to my family. But now I see that being a father and husband is all part of the same thing; it’s still ministry.” These examples illustrate how a minority of participants, despite initial rigidity, adapted their understanding of divine calling by embracing new paths or balancing multiple roles in a more integrated and fulfilling way.
However, adapting was not without emotional challenges. Those participants who did adapt still feared they were compromising or lowering the expectations of the Spirit that their Pentecostal tradition urged them to uphold as a sign of faith. Alesha expressed this tension: “I’ve tried to see my calling differently, but there’s always this doubt. Am I taking the easy way out? What if God still expects me to fulfill my original vision, and I’m settling for less?” This fear of compromise created a complex emotional dynamic, where participants felt both relieved by the possibility of adapting their calling to fit their lives and anxious that it reflected a lack of faith or commitment. Lucy represented the feelings of the other participants when she said,
My pastor preached the last day about ‘holding on’ to your calling. And although I understand that my calling’s evolved, my pastor’s preaching about Abraham holding on to the promise, to his calling, until it came to fulfillment, made me doubt. Even King David had to wage war against Saul, with God’s help, to fulfill his calling to become king. Stories like that make me wonder if I haven’t watered down my calling.
Lucy’s quote reveals some participants’ tension about allowing their calling to adapt and evolve. They worried that by “watering down” their calling, they were being disobedient and would subsequently not receive God’s blessing. In contrast, others found peace in the idea that God’s plan could evolve. Ultimately, adapting their calling required participants to reconcile flexibility with faithfulness while reinterpreting what faithfulness looked like within the context of the dominant narratives of their faith communities.
Discussion
This study explored how the Pentecostal discourse of divine calling influences the mental health of adherents. The term ‘walk in’ and its variations emerged as a dominant metaphor, reflecting the complex interaction between participants’ mental health and their perception of divine calling. The findings suggest that all participants experienced a conflict between their perceived calling and the realities of daily life, which negatively impacted their mental health. Initially understood as a linear path, for some participants, the metaphor of ‘walking in’ evolved into a more adaptive journey, helping them navigate the challenges posed by these conflicting realities. The following subsections discuss these findings, putting them in dialogue with the broader literature.
‘Walking in’ to the future
Participants described their divine calling as a predetermined pathway tailored to their personalities, characteristics, and giftings that God intended for them to ‘walk in.’ This metaphor of ‘walking in’ their calling gave them a sense of purpose and direction for their lives. Schatzki (2022) defines life as a dynamic, continuous process in which personal experiences and external influences construct and shape bodily activities and psychological conditions, such as emotions, consciousness, and motivations. According to Schatzki’s definition, individuals move from past circumstances toward the future through a pattern of action and experience. Reith (2004) describes how individuals plan, set goals, and shape their present behavior based on their expectations of what is to come.
While individuals typically imagine the future as knowable and ordered, the future is often uncertain and subject to change (Järvien, 2004). Unforeseen events and unmet expectations can challenge a person’s outlook and disrupt their anticipated life path, destabilizing their sense of continuity and certainty (Giddens, 1991). The effects of such experiences are observed in studies of chronic illness (Charmaz, 1997; Bury, 1982) and infertility (Exley & Letherby, 2001), where life disruptions force individuals to rethink their imagined future and the reality of their lives. This process can lead to feelings of spiritual failure, existential uncertainty, and mental health struggles.
This study found similar patterns. At first, the participants had a certain degree of certainty about their future, and they reflexively organized their lives around it in preparation for future actions (Giddens, 1991). However, as participants experienced disruptions and unmet expectations regarding their divine calling, they began to question their future, leading to feelings of uncertainty and mental distress. For example, one participant shared, “I thought I knew exactly what God wanted me to do, but when things didn’t go as planned, I started questioning everything: my calling, purpose, and faith. Was I not living up to God’s expectations?”
Trajectories and Discoursal Forces
This disruption can be understood more clearly through the concept of trajectories. Trajectories chart the movement through life by tracing actions and experiences across different life domains, such as work, family, and education (Walther, 2022). Drawing on Foucault’s (1996) understanding of discourse, discursive scripts guide these trajectories by providing normative frameworks that shape individuals’ expectations and experiences. These discourses function as orders of knowledge, defining what is considered normal or acceptable within specific contexts (Walther, 2022). Foucault’s concept of discourse shows that scripts are not merely frameworks individuals passively follow but are constructed and maintained by broader social and discursive contexts (Grey, 2012). The discourse around trajectories establishes the situational definitions and interpretive frameworks through which individuals experience and interpret events, roles, and transitions in their lives (Walther, 2022).
Pentecostal discursive scripts shaped the participants’ divine callings, establishing normative expectations about their roles and life paths. However, when their lived realities did not align with these scripts, they experienced deep internal conflict. James, for example, was caught between his divine calling to be a pastor and his social responsibilities as a family man, creating tension between competing roles. Similarly, Alesha described her unmet expectations of being called to youth ministry, a trajectory that never came to fruition. These deviations from normative expectations created profound emotional and psychological distress, manifesting through self-doubt and anxiety. More so, the tension between conflicting trajectories, such as the pastor-provider dichotomy or balancing motherhood and ministry, made it difficult for participants to make decisions. Brenda’s account illustrates the emotional toll of this internal conflict. She described feeling “constantly on edge,” consumed by the fear that every decision could lead her astray from God’s intended path. This anxiety over ‘walking out’ of God’s calling rather than ‘walking in’ deepened her sense of inadequacy and exacerbated her mental health struggles. Like the others, fear of making the wrong decision immobilized her (Manolică & Guță, 2021).
This anxiety might relate to what Miroslav Volf (1991) calls vocational anxiety, where an individual’s belief that they must fulfill a singular, divinely ordained calling becomes a source of existential burden. Volf argues that when vocation is understood as a rigid obligation rather than a dynamic participation in God’s ongoing work, individuals may feel trapped by the fear of failure, intensifying their distress when their lived experiences do not align with their expectations. While Volf frames his discussion theologically, discourse analysis suggests that this decision-making paralysis results from the power dynamics and social constructs embedded in societal norms and institutional frameworks (Soliman, 2016), within which the quality of the discourse influences the quality of decision-making processes by either facilitating or hindering effective decision-making (Traynor et al., 2010). Volf (1991) suggests that the Protestant Ethic acts as a discourse that intensifies this paralysis, as it links divine approval with vocational success and frames work as a moral duty rather than a flexible, Spirit-led process. Within Pentecostalism, this ethic might manifest in an emphasis on certainty and obedience in calling, reinforcing the fear that any deviation is not just a personal failure but a spiritual one, further constraining decision-making.
Adapting to New Realities
While this paralysis was prevalent, it was not the participants’ final response to their challenges. To reiterate, the participants understood their calling as a unique, predetermined path—something they referred to as ‘walking in’ their calling. For them, this metaphor evoked the image of a clear, divine roadmap to follow. However, despite the struggle between ‘walking in’ rather than ‘walking out’ of their calling, some participants’ lived experiences revealed a more adaptive and dynamic journey than they may have realized. For instance, Sarah initially believed that working as a missionary overseas was her calling. When personal and financial obstacles made going to the mission field impossible, she began volunteering at a homeless shelter. Initially, it served as a “missionary outlet” for her divine calling, functioning like a “release valve” for what she believed God had called her to do (i.e., go to the mission field). Over time, however, she found fulfillment in the shelter, realizing that her calling could manifest in new and unexpected ways. Steve, who struggled to balance his pastoral calling with the need to provide for his family, also adapted. He saw that both roles could coexist; he could be both a pastor and a father. He explained, “I used to think I was failing God by not fully dedicating myself to ministry, but I’ve realized that being a good father and provider is part of my calling, too.”
The participants’ adaptive journey corresponds with a process Schlauch (2010) describes as “reconstructing experiencing.” Schlauch argues that while individuals initially learn how to experience the world in early childhood through inherited patterns of understanding and responding to their environment (i.e., discourse), later in life, they can learn to restructure how they experience and react to the world to better fit their evolving circumstances in a way that promotes emotional, psychological, and spiritual well-being. However, whereas Schlauch focuses on the subject’s intentionality in restructuring their experiences, the participants in this study appeared to adapt almost unintentionally, out of necessity, rather than deliberate action. For example, one participant said, “I thought my calling was clear, but behind the scenes, life forced me to see things differently and still try to walk in faith.”
While the participants may not have consciously engaged in restructuring their experiences, they demonstrated adaptive resilience that reveals them as social actors, rejecting, adopting, and modifying different social discourses as they experience them within their various social roles (Walther, 2022). This capacity to navigate competing discourses speaks to their ability to position themselves in different ways relative to the discursive formations they encounter, even if unconsciously (cf. Hall, 1985). This process aligns with the concept of biographical articulation, where individuals continuously interpret and reframe their experiences as they move through life (Nberle et al., 2022). This adaptive flexibility reveals the transformative potential of reconstructing one’s understanding of divine purpose, allowing participants to maintain their spiritual identity while managing the demands of everyday life. In some respects, we might claim that this adaptability brought some semblance of control back into their life and a feeling of agency, which are essential to mental health (Walther, 2022). However, such was the strength of the discourse of divine calling that, even when participants adapted, the community’s discourse of success and failure still operated as ideological forces they had to negotiate, shaping the interaction between their lived realities, their divine calling, and mental health (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003). The influence of the community’s discourse of success and failure operating as ideological forces may be why participants persistently struggled to ‘let go’ or modify their divine calling to suit their circumstances better as they grappled with the community’s definitions of what it looks like to live a divinely guided life.
As a final thought, considering that healing and health are closely related to how individuals respond to life circumstances and events (Louw, 2008), the participants’ adaptive resilience may be understood as a form of healing. Pentecostal beliefs about healing emphasize divine intervention in physical and mental health through the power of the Spirit (Warrington, 2008), traditionally expressed through practices like altar calls and deliverance (Dobbins, 2014). Belcher and Hall (2001) observe that Pentecostal healing is not always straightforward or immediate and argue that healing in Pentecostalism is often an ongoing emotional struggle rather than a definitive resolution, with some individuals experiencing partial relief while others face relapses. The adaptive process the participants underwent in negotiating their divine calling might reflect Belcher and Hall’s broader view of healing, where healing is not a clear-cut resolution but a continuous negotiation of discourses marked by emotional and spiritual resilience in the face of ongoing challenges.
Conclusion
This study used Grounded Theory to answer the research question about how the Pentecostal discourse of divine calling impacts the mental health of adherents living in the United States. This study revealed the complex interplay between participants’ expectations of divine calling and the realities of their daily lives. The term ‘walk in’ and its variations emerged as a dominant metaphor used by participants to explain the interaction between their divine calling, their lived realities, and their mental health. Initially, there was a conflict between their perception of divine calling and the practical demands of daily life, which negatively impacted their mental health. However, the metaphor of ‘walking in’ their calling evolved into a more flexible, adaptive concept, allowing some participants to adjust their view of their calling to fit their real-life circumstances.
The broader significance of this research lies in its contribution to discussions about the intersection of faith and mental health. It demonstrates that while Pentecostal discourse about divine calling can offer a sense of purpose, it also risks imposing unrealistic expectations, particularly when these callings remain unfulfilled. The imposition of unrealistic expectations underscores the need for more flexible theological frameworks within Pentecostal communities. Such frameworks should allow for a dynamic and evolving understanding of divine calling, recognizing that individuals’ spiritual journeys must shift and adapt to life’s challenges. Churches and faith leaders play a crucial role in disseminating these more adaptive theological perspectives, which can alleviate the mental health burden that rigid expectations of calling may place on believers. The participants’ adaptive resilience presents a valuable avenue for counselors and mental health professionals. Recognizing that participants were undergoing their own internal adaptation process allows practitioners to intervene more effectively and work with that process, helping individuals reframe their understanding of divine calling in ways that promote mental stability. This holistic approach respects the spiritual and emotional dimensions of their experiences, empowering individuals to navigate their calling with less anxiety and more flexibility.
This research also calls attention to the importance of understanding divine calling through a sociohistorical lens. The discourse of divine calling is not simply a personal or isolated experience but deeply embedded in Pentecostalism’s broader theological and historical context. Over time, the development of Pentecostal beliefs, the influence of digital media, and shifts in modern religious practice have shaped how adherents perceive their life purpose. This understanding highlights the need for churches and faith leaders to reflect on how these theological narratives have evolved and how they can communicate in ways that support rather than exacerbate mental health. Theological education and pastoral care must incorporate an awareness of these historical shifts, offering believers a theology responsive to contemporary life pressures while staying rooted in core Pentecostal values.
Further investigation is necessary to explore how Pentecostal communities can better support individuals in managing the mental health challenges related to divine calling. Approaches could include examining the role of community and peer support in alleviating the stress of unmet expectations or understanding how digital media shapes modern perceptions of divine purpose. By addressing these questions, future research can provide practical insights for creating healthier, more supportive environments within faith communities. Moreover, equipping church leaders and mental health practitioners with the tools to foster resilience and adaptability in their congregants will enhance spiritual and emotional well-being.
Ultimately, this study contributes to academic discussions about faith and mental health and also offers practical pathways for intervention, highlighting the significance of integrating theological flexibility with mental health care. By promoting a more adaptable understanding of divine calling and recognizing the sociohistorical context in which it resides, Pentecostal communities can better support their members in living fulfilling, balanced, and mentally healthy lives.
Bibliography
Anderson, A. H. (2012). Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge University Press.
Archer, K. (2010). The Fivefold Gospel and the mission of the church. In J. C. Thomas (Ed.), Toward a Pentecostal ecclesiology (pp. 7–43). CPT Press.
Archer, K. (2020). Pentecostal theology as a story. In W. Vondey (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Pentecostal theology (pp. 40–49). Routledge.
Bevans, S. B. (2009). Models of contextual theology (2nd ed.). Orbis Books.
Belcher, J. R., & Hall, S. M. (2001). Healing and psychotherapy: The Pentecostal tradition. Pastoral Psychology, 50(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012253630417
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health and Illness, 4(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11339939
Cerillo, A. (1997). Interpretative approaches to the history of American Pentecostal origins. Pneuma, 19(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1163/157007497×00046
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (1997). Good days, bad days: The self in chronic illness and time. Rutgers University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2016). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127–191). Routledge.
Coury, D. J. (2016). What has Wittenberg to do with Azusa? Luther’s theology of the cross and Pentecostal triumphalism. Bloomsbury.
Crossley, N. (2005). Key concepts in critical theory. SAGE.
Dobbins, R. D. (2014). Psychotherapy with Pentecostal Protestants. In P. S. Richards & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 160–161). American Psychological Association.
Drisko, J. W. (2024). Transferability and generalization in qualitative research. Research on Social Work Practice, 35(1), 102–110.
Droogers, A. (2014). The cultural dimension of Pentecostalism. In C. M. Robeck Jr. & A. Yong (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Pentecostalism (pp. 206–222). Cambridge University Press.
Eberle, N., Lütgens, J., Pohling, A., Spies, T., & Bauer, P. (2022). Biographical articulation in transition. In A. Walther, B. Stauber, & R. A. Settersten Jr. (Eds.), Doing transitions in the life course: Processes and practices (pp. 45–67). Springer.
Exley, C., & Letherby, G. (2001). Managing a disrupted lifecourse: Issues of identity and emotion work. Health, 5(1), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/136345930100500106
Faupel, D. W. (1996). The everlasting gospel. Sheffield Academic Press.
Foucault, M. (1996). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. In C. Gordon (Ed.), (L. Marshall, J. Mophan, & K. Soper, Trans.). Pantheon.
Galderisi, S., Heinz, A., Kastrup, M., Beezhold, J., & Sartorius, N. (2015). Toward a new definition of mental health. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20231
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the later modern age. Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
Girodan, G. (2007). Introduction. In W. H. Swatos Jr. (Ed.), Religion and the social order (pp. 1–12). Brill.
Green, C. (2015). Sanctifying interpretation. CPT Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 363–381). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360070
Horwitz, A. V. (2009). Sociological perspectives on mental health and illness. In T. L. Scheid & T. N. Brown (Eds.), A handbook for the study of mental health (pp. 6–19). Cambridge University Press.
Jacobsen, D. (2003). Thinking in the spirit: Theologies of the early Pentecostal movement. Indiana University Press.
Järvinen, M. (2004). Life histories and the perspective of the present. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.14.1.03jar
Johnson, L. (2014). Adapting and combining constructivist grounded theory and discourse analysis: A practical guide for research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 8(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2014.8.1.100
Koenig, H. G. (2005). Faith & mental health: Religious resources for healing. Templeton Foundation Press.
Louw, D. J. (2008). Space and place in the healing of life: Towards a theology of affirmation in pastoral care and counselling. Verbum et Ecclesia, 29(2), 426–455. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v29i2.23
Manolică, A., Guță, A.-S., Roman, T., & Dragan, L. (2021). Is consumer overchoice a reason for decision paralysis? Sustainability, 11(13), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115920
Author. (2024). How Pentecostals living in the United States experience depression (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK.
Medina, N. (2021). Culture: Disruption, accommodation, and pneumatological resignification. In W. Vondey (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Pentecostal theology (pp. 106–116). Routledge.
Milliken, P. J., & Schreiber, R. S. (2001). Can you “do” grounded theory without symbolic interactionism? In R. S. Schreiber & P. N. Stern (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 177–190). Springer.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Social causes of psychological distress. De Gruyter.
Miller, D. E., & Yamamori, T. (2017). Global Pentecostalism: The new face of social engagement. University of California Press.
Morse, J. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229–244). SAGE.
Neumann, P. (2012). Pentecostal experience. Wipf & Stock.
Pears, A. (2010). Doing theology contextually. Routledge.
Rieff, P. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic. Harper & Row.
Roberts, M. (2005). The production of the psychiatric subject: Power, knowledge, and Michel Foucault. Nursing Philosophy, 6(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769x.2004.00196.x
Rogers, A., & Pilgrim, D. (2014). A sociology of mental health and illness (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Schatzki, T. R. (2022). The trajectories of life. In B. Stauber, A. Walther, & R. A. Settersten Jr. (Eds.), Doing transitions in the life course: Processes and practices (pp. 3–18). Springer.
Schlauch, C. (2010). Sketching the contours of a pastoral theology perspective: Suffering, healing, and reconstructing experiencing. In J. Woodward & S. Pattison (Eds.), The Blackwell reader in pastoral and practical theology (pp. 112–132). Blackwell.
Selby, J. (2007). Engaging Foucault: Discourse, liberal governance, and the limits of Foucauldian IR. International Relations, 21(3), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117807080199
Simkus, J. (2022). Convenience sampling: Definition, method, and examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/convenience-samplinghtml
Soliman, H. H. (2016). An ethical framework to access organization’s decision-making processes. The Malaysian Journal of Social Administration, 12(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjsa.vol12no1.1
Thoits, P. (2009). Sociological approaches to mental illness. In T. L. Scheid & T. N. Brown (Eds.), A handbook for the study of mental health (pp. 106–124). Cambridge University Press.
Traynor, M., Boland, M., & Buus, N. (2010). Autonomy, evidence, and intuition: Nurses and decision-making. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(7), 1584–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05317.x
Volf, M. (1991). Work in the Spirit: Toward a theology of work. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Warrington, K. (2008). Pentecostal theology: A theology of encounter. T&T Clark.
Weigert, A., & Blasi, A. (2007). Vocation. In W. H. Swatos Jr. (Ed.), Religion and the social order (pp. 21–33). Brill.
World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health: Strengthening our response. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response
