Some people benefit greatly from being asked (even pressured in some way) to do things, while others aren't benefited by such an approach and actually can be harmed by it. In terms of church callings, there is an inherent contradiction in both extremes - always accepting assignments and never accepting assignments that aren't appreciated or wanted. Many people benefit from each approach in different situations and different times of their lives.
The real conflict occurs
when the word "should" enters the discussion - since we really should
accept callings, except when we shouldn't. We really shouldn't put
limitations on service, except when we should. We really shouldn't
dictate the terms of our service, except when we should. Sacrifice
really is a great principle, except when it isn't. We really should
give until it hurts, except when it hurts too much.
should submit to the will of God (and, to a degree, to our mortal
leaders) - but we should never stop being agents unto ourselves.
"Should" is a two-edged sword that is incredibly difficult to wield properly and helpfully, and most of our deepest disappointments are centered on expectations more than actual actions in and of themselves. (If you don't understand what I mean by that, think about it a bit - and ask in a comment, if necessary.) Thus, I generally try to avoid "should" and expectations. Rather, I try to deal strictly with trying to choose desired consequences.
Enid vs. The Balloon 3/27/2017
2 hours ago