Romans 13, resistance, and vocation

Last updated on: June 5, 2009 at 6:05 am By Gene Veith

The Bonhoeffer post the other day provoked some fine, fine discussion on whether or not Roman 13 forbids all resistance to civil authority. The ideas expressed on both sides were thoughtful, showing genuine wrestling with a difficult issue.

I wonder if we could factor into the issue the doctrine of vocation.

Elizabeth Scalia at the First Things blog cited another quotation from Bonhoeffer:

He once argued, “if a teacher says to a child, ‘did your father come home drunk again last night,’ is the child bound to tell the truth?” Bonhoeffer decided no, the teacher [institution] had intruded beyond her scope, and therefore the child, to honor his father, is not obligated to subject him to judgment or mockery, or for that matter governmental intrusion.

That is pure vocation ethics, recognizing that what is sinful outside of vocation (e.g., sex outside of marriage; killing someone), can be a good work when performed within vocation (e.g., sex within marriage; a soldier fighting on a battlefield). In this case, the teacher had no authority, no calling from God, to interfere with the family and make the child betray his father. The child was lying, but he was fulfilling the commandment to honor his father and acting within his vocation.

Romans 13 is about the vocation of the civil authority, describing how all authority is really from God, who works through lawful magistrates to punish evildoers and to reward those who do well.

Where does Hitler fit into Romans 13? He punished those who did well and rewarded evildoers. Did God call him to do that? Was he exercising God’s authority? Or violating it? Was he loving and serving his neighbors in his vocation? How can we say that Hitler had a vocation protected by Romans 13, when in actuality he was consistently sinning against his own office and failing to fulfill its duties? What authority did Hitler have? Not God’s, as in Romans 13, since he was violating God’s authority.

Was Hitler even the lawful magistrate? He was elected to the Chancellorship, but he later suspended the constitution under which he was serving. He banned all political parties other than his own and made himself Fuehrer for life, something that had no legal authority behind it.

Yes, Romans 13 upheld the pagan Roman authorities, but Rome had an excellent legal system, one of the best ever devised. This text was not justifying Nero. Christians certainly saw the self-proclaimed deified Emperors as acting outside of their calling and not worthy of being obeyed when it came to their demands to be worshipped. Christians continued to obey the legal system that restrained evildoers, as Romans 13 says to do, but they denied–at the cost of their lives–the notion that the Emperor has a divine authority in defiance of God’s authority.

Premium Content

Christendom and vocation

Last updated on: May 26, 2009 at 6:00 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Thanks for last week’s discussion of “Christendom.” I agree that the church must not get caught up in wielding power. The church is all about the Gospel of Christ. There is another piece of the puzzle, though: Vocation.

“God does not need our good works, but our neighbor does.” Those who receive Christ’s forgiveness through the Word and Sacraments are then sent out into the world to love and serve their neighbors. They are called to do so in the family (the vocations of marriage, parenthood, and childhood), the workplace (as master and servant, as a worker using whatever gifts and opportunities God has given), and the state (as ruler and citizen, as member of the particular community, culture, and society).

The different vocations are intrinsically culture-making. Not culture ruling, but culture-making. Historically, Christians have had an impact in their cultures, and not just Western cultures as we are still seeing today in Africa and elsewhere. Christians in their diverse callings always open schools, establish hospitals, reject tribal revenge codes in favor of the rule of law, make contributions in the arts, promote productive economic activity, etc., etc.

So if we could fully recover the doctrine of vocation, keeping the Gospel central, what would that look like today? How could that bear fruit, if not in a new Christendom, in a positive Christian presence in the culture?

Premium Content

Other words for vocation

Last updated on: April 28, 2009 at 6:10 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Language is inherently metaphorical, and those underlying metaphors shape the nuances of meaning and thus how we think. Tickletext’s discussion of “Vocation” vs. “Career”–do we think of our work as something God has called us to, or as a road we happen to be on?–made me think of other words that we use.

OCCUPATION. What we do to pass the time? Actually, the word has the sense of “place.” Our work as the place we occupy.

JOB. That originally referred to the unit that was made by the craftsman. It came from a word for “lump”!

PROFESSION. That means “a public declaration,” probably referring to the oaths necessary to enter certain guilds. (Cf. “profession of faith.”) That’s the converse of vocation: what the person says, whereas vocation–calling–refers to what God says.

Vocation-related words that convey the classic theological meaning include “CALLING” (of course, which is all “vocation” means, connoting a voice that summons and names); “OFFICE” (a position of authority), “STATION” (where someone is assigned to stand), “POST” (where a soldier is stationed).

(Etymologies from Merriam-Webster.)

Premium Content

“Vocation” vs. “Career”

Last updated on: April 27, 2009 at 5:43 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

On that recent “Other versions of Vocation” post, commenter Tickletext had some fascinating things to say about the difference between “vocation” and “career”:

It’s instructive to contrast the metaphorical underpinnings of “vocation” and “career.” The central metaphor of vocation is, of course, a calling–latin vocare. The person who is called is the receptor of that gift, the respondent to that calling, which originates not in oneself but in the Person who calls.

But the word “career” is etymologically associated with roads, courses, chariot-paths, etc. Poets used to speak of the “career” of the sun in its course across the sky. This is how modernity generally conceives of work, as a choice of course, not a calling and a gift. The person who faces a career choice faces a crossroads of choices. A person usually discovers one’s vocations as they naturally unfold through the talents that arise in relation to the people to whom one is called. But the criteria for making the right career choice and taking the right career path are self-originating, they are discovered by being true to oneself and one’s desires (to speak the Hollywood argot). Because that is extremely vague, and because one’s desires are in constant flux and contradiction, there has arisen a whole industry of incantatory-astrological magicians and paperback mountebanks who hawk the right “formula” or series of steps, which, if purchased and followed, will bring happiness and success in one’s career choice.

Universities today are extremely career-oriented, of course. Like all the secular schools the Christian university I attended had a Career Center but no Vocation Center, nor was vocation taught in any substantive way. The phrase “revolutionize” is a cliche, but a strong and full articulation of vocation properly understood would truly transform the way we approach education. In the humanities, for instance, an understanding of art, literature, and criticism as vocational means of serving the neighbor would provide a compelling alternative to the dehumanizing, obscurantist tendencies of modern English departments.
In another comment, he added this:

One reason I find the distinction between vocation and career useful is that the former category has a teleological orientation which is lacking in the latter. By which I mean: the career culture has no sound way of differentiating legitimate careers from illegitimate careers. It doesn’t really matter WHAT career you choose–the choice is the only important thing. Who are we to judge the choices of others, anyway? There is a built-in aversion to truth in the career mentality. And thus it leaves the neighborhood in the cold and fragmented.

But vocation acknowledges the flourishing–the shalom–of the neighbor as a legitimate check to the authority of choice. Vocations that prove deleterious to the health and well being of the neighbor are no vocations at all. But the same cannot be said of the career mindset, which is inherently choice-oriented. Vocation doesn’t deny the role of choice, it just humbles it, redirects it.

Premium Content

Other doctrines of vocation

Last updated on: April 23, 2009 at 6:00 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

As I continue to study the doctrine of vocation, I find that nearly all writers in English on the subject–both popular and scholarly–tend to skip over Luther’s version, even though Luther is THE theologian of vocation. Instead, I have noticed at least three other versions that are quite different from his:

(1) The Roman Catholic version. The notion that “vocation” and “calling” has reference only to church-work is still very prevalent, including among many Protestants, evangelicals, and even Lutherans. (I get a kick out of the Google ads on this blog. We talk about vocation so much we are getting targeted with ads for “Religious Vocations for Women” and “Join the Franciscans.”)

(2) The charismatic version. “Calling” becomes a sort of inner voice from God, or a strong inner conviction that God wants you to do a certain thing or pursue a certain “ministry.” This is evident even in non-charismatic writers, such as Os Guinness in his book “The Call.”

(3) The Puritan version. “Vocation” becomes a synonym for “the Protestant Work Ethic.” It becomes pure law and principles for Christianizing whatever you do.

These different doctrines of vocation sometimes have elements of truth, but you have to start with Luther and his insights that vocation is about how God works THROUGH people as part of the way He governs the world, that the purpose of vocation is to love and serve our different neighbors, that vocations are multiple, that vocation is about living out our faith in the realm of the ordinary, etc.

On that foundation–and you don’t have to be a Lutheran to profit from Luther’s insights on these points– you can learn from other theological perspectives. But if those others are all you have, you are going to get it wrong and miss out on the blessings of this teaching!

Premium Content

Wingren’s book on vocation

Last updated on: April 22, 2009 at 6:00 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds announces that Westminster Theological Seminary is selling Gustav Wingren’s “Luther on Vocation.” He asked me how that book influenced me. So I’ll quote him quoting me:

Some years ago, a friend gave me a copy of Gustav Wingren’s Luther on Vocation, saying, “You’ve got to read this.” I put it on my stack of books to read, as others piled up on top of it. I thought I knew what the doctrine of vocation was. You do your work to the glory of God. What else is there to say? But when I finally opened Wingren’s book, I found that Luther’s doctrine of vocation is completely different than what I thought it was.

Vocation isn’t so much about what I do, but about what God does through me. Vocation is nothing less than the theology of the Christian life. God calls us to live out our faith in the world, in the ordinary-seeming realms of the family, the workplace, and the culture. The purpose of every vocation is to love and serve our neighbors, whom God brings to us in our everyday callings. Wingren shows that vocation is also about God’s presence in the world–which He providentially cares for through ordinary people, believers and non-believers alike–and about Christ’s presence in our neighbor. Luther’s exposition of vocation is imminently practical, offering a framework for how Christians can work out their problems in their various callings. It is the key to successful marriages and effective parenting. It also solves that much-vexed question for evangelicals today of how they are to interact with the culture.

Reading Wingren’s book was one of those paradigm-shifting moments for me. It turned my life and how I see my life–its meaning, value, and purpose–upside down. It brought spiritual significance into the realm of the ordinary, where I live most of the time. I am convinced that recovering the Reformation doctrine of vocation–specifically, Luther’s version–is a key not only in bringing Christianity back to the culture but bringing Christianity back into the everyday lives of contemporary Christians.
Follow the links from Justin’s blog to the seminary site to buy the book on sale.

Premium Content