Calling, vocation and a Guinness
In Christian circles, it’s not that uncommon to hear people talking about their calling -- of whether they’re called to do this or that, to go there or stay here, and so on. There’s merit to this sort of thing, I think, but I don’t always get the impression that people have given very much thought to how calling is discerned or what the pitfalls surrounding it might be. And I don’t know that I’ve given all of it enough disciplined thought either, to be honest.
My favorite quote about calling is from pastor-novelist Frederick Buechner, who wrote, “The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet.” That, in a nutshell, has provided me with a framework over the past few years for thinking and praying and acting my way through the process of discerning my calling(s).
Calling and vocation are closely related, but these days, the words have become confused. Vocation comes from the Latin word vocare, which means “to call.” So one’s vocation is what he or she has been called to. But it’s not uncommon to hear people reduce vocation to a 9-to-5-that-pays-the-bills without giving any thought to the idea that there might be a Caller and that one’s calling might have significance beyond a paycheck.
I just finished reading “The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life” by Os Guinness, a crazy smart author and social critic who is also part of the famous Guinness family of Ireland (to whom I say "cheers"). The whole way through the book he navigates through parallel errors, taking a nuanced path. Citing ancient philosophers and World War II generals, Mother Teresa and many from Scripture, he seeks to set out what it means for each of us, and all of us, to answer the Caller’s calls. Importantly, he writes, there are two levels of calling:
Our primary calling as followers of Christ is by him, to him, and for him. First and foremost we are called to Someone (God), not to something (such as motherhood, politics, or teaching) or to somewhere (such as the inner city or outer Mongolia). Our secondary calling, considering who God is as sovereign, is that everyone, everywhere, and in everything should think, speak, live, and act entirely for him. We can therefore properly say as a matter of secondary calling that we are called to homemaking or to the practice of law or to art history. But these and other things are always the secondary, never the primary calling. They are ‘callings’ rather than the ‘calling.’ They are our personal answer to God’s address, our response to God’s summons. Secondary callings matter, but only because the primary calling matters most.
That alone could go a long way in clearing up a lot of the fuzziness in the way we speak of callings. There’s neither time nor space to go through all of the different polarities he seeks to navigate; for that you just really need to read the book. But I do want to share one more quote, about the relationship between work, leisure and worship. We’re called to all three, but seldom are we sure how to make sense of them all:
Today we tend to talk of ‘work’ and ‘leisure’ as opposites. Work is serious, leisure is play, it is said. Work is drudgery, leisure is fun. Work is for pay, leisure is free. Work is what we do for someone else, leisure is for ourselves -- and so on. But a moment’s thought shows this is not so. Far closer to the mark is the observation that the modern world has scrambled things so badly that today we worship our work, we work at our play, and we play at our worship.
It is precisely this scrambling that Guinness seeks to unscramble, to sort out. Every Christian will need to think and pray these things out for themselves, in their own unique contexts, in the company of other believers, and that way to begin the process of discerning ways to act with humility and courage and joy for the common good. This book is clearly not an end-all, then; but I think it does provide a few important tools for getting started.
“Seek Social Justice” (Part Four)
[Part 4 of 6 in my review of the Seek Social Justice study from the Heritage Foundation and WORLD Magazine]
The fourth section of the study is called Restoring Dignity and Purpose: The Importance of Work, and focuses, as the title suggests, on the importance of employment in any healthy and just society. The focus in the video is on the importance of work specifically for men getting out of prison, but the principles apply broadly.
They rightly point out that according to the Bible, all of us are made in the image of God, the Creator, and that doing something creative and productive with our lives is part of what we were created to do. Work is not a curse or a punishment; it's a good thing. That's a pretty important reminder, and has profound implications if we really believe it. So the question of vocation arises: what has God designed us to do, for his glory and for the common good? This is a good question for all of us to consider from time to time - not just those who are working to get back on their feet after time in prison.
The core message in this section is that whereas welfare programs (and the prison system, for that matter) dehumanize people, strip people of their God-given dignity, and instill an attitude of passivity, work does just the opposite. It gives people meaning, it benefits families and communities, and it allows people to give back to society rather than just taking, taking, taking.
It struck me while working through the study that it's all too easy to go to one extreme or another. This study is clearly written from a certain political perspective, but no one's immune from this tendency, I don't think.
It's easy for progressives to judge anti-welfare conservatives as heartless and greedy, or for conservatives to blame progressives for pushing top-down programs that dehumanize, rob dignity, and further cement people in cycles of poverty. It gets pretty ugly, really. The Bible doesn't do that. The Bible upholds the dignity of work, of everyone doing their part, but it doesn't allow for the pursuit of wealth to go unchecked -- even motives are scrutinized.
Consider this perspective from the book of Proverbs: "[G]ive me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." Neither poverty nor riches are held up as the ideal; both can be tremendously dangerous and destructive for individuals, families, and societies. Rather, we ask God for enough: enough to provide for our families, enough to share with our neighbors, enough to care for those in need. I don't sense that many of us live from this perspective of enough, honestly. It doesn't come naturally to me, though I believe it to be biblical. And it's certainly not the principle our economy is built upon.
Okay, deep breath...
I realize I might be stepping on some toes here, but capitalism and free markets as we know them today are not held up in the Bible as examples to follow. They may be the best options we currently have and they may certainly embody important biblical principles, but they are not divinely inspired. Have I lost you yet? As Christians, the responsibility to be good stewards in all areas of life, to love our neighbor, to do justice - these must take precedence over every ideology and philosophy and system, including free markets, whenever they come into conflict. I wish the study would have gone so far as to say so explicitly.
While the authors do concede the importance of political and economic systems guarding against abuses that happen because we are fallen, greedy people (as the roots of our current economic debacle make quite clear, incidentally), it is mentioned almost as an aside and the emphasis is overwhelmingly placed on free markets remaining free. Free markets create jobs, which create wealth, which creates dignity, which allows people to help others. I agree that markets have a lot of potential and in some cases, they do actually produce these desirable results.
Free market capitalism has created wealth with remarkable success and efficiency. No doubt about that. But social justice has by no means been its strong point. It wasn't designed to be.
The maximization of profit, for instance, is one of capitalism's foundational principles. But if you follow the principle to its logical conclusion, it undermines precisely the positive things that this study claims work creates. Do you see what I mean? Would it be too much for someone to challenge the dehumanization that government welfare programs cause AND challenge the dehumanizing and unjust ramifications on large segments of society by the principle of the maximization of profit?
It's rare to hear such a consistent argument, though, perhaps because neither side of the dominant political debate finds such consistency convenient. But even better than consistent denouncements, I'd love to see more positive alternatives to current dehumanizing status quos in both business and government. I've touched on that in earlier parts of the series, and I am hopeful that through this curriculum many more 'free-market' Christians will be part of such positive alternatives. If we're truly more concerned with justice than with a certain political or economic ideology, it seems like a no-brainer, though admittedly much easier said than done.
Now, I'm not picking on work or on capitalism. I repeat: I AM NOT PICKING ON WORK OR ON CAPITALISM. Work is good and capitalism has great potential to address poverty. Faithful, discerning followers of Christ and compassionate people from all walks of life are experimenting with market-driven solutions to poverty and injustice. These efforts should be applauded and supported. But these innovative, entrepreneurial ones on the front lines will be the first to tell you, I think, that social justice won't happen with business-as-usual. And while this study rightly emphasizes the need for people to be able to find work that promotes dignity and provides the means for providing for family and sharing with neighbor, I'm not sure the vision presented here goes far enough to tackle the weak spots and potentially quite destructive downfalls of capitalism as we know it.
The American Dream is compelling, but it is not the gospel. Jesus didn't come preaching a slightly modified, baptized version of any economic system, be it capitalism or socialism or anarchism or mercantilism or any others. He came preaching the Kingdom, and no man-made economic system can handle the profound implications of that. May God grant us the grace to be faithful stewards, right where we are, with what we have, with who we are. May God grant us the grace to be gracious.
Recent Posts
- Mini-vacation
- Repaso: Chris Wright interview; refugees in Lancaster; science in a fallen world; most read books; Jeppe on a Friday
- Lesslie Newbigin on faith, doubt, and gospel reasonableness
- Truth, gentleness, and convicted civility
- Remembering Iraq with Preemptive Love