Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Miroslav Volf’s article, “Human Work, Divine Spirit, and New Creation: Toward a Pneumatological Understanding of Work,” advocates for a comprehensive theological framework for human labor. Volf begins by broadening the conventional definition of work beyond mere employment or monetary gain to encompass the full spectrum of human activities aimed at satisfying personal or communal needs, excluding only strictly ecclesial duties. He identifies a significant theological incongruity: while church-related activities are typically understood pneumatologically (through the Holy Spirit), secular work is often grounded solely in the doctrine of creation. This dichotomy, Volf argues, fosters an unhelpful sacred-secular divide, which his article aims to overcome by proposing a pneumatological understanding for all secular human work. A crucial precursor to Volf’s argument is establishing the ultimate significance of human endeavor, which hinges on whether the world faces annihilation or transformation. Volf contends for *transformatio mundi*, the eschatological transformation of creation rather than its destruction. He supports this with biblical evidence pointing to an earthly locale for God’s kingdom and the resurrection of the body, which necessitates a renewed material environment. Direct New Testament passages, such as Romans 8:21, further affirm creation’s liberation through transformation. This conviction underpins two established theological approaches to work as “cooperation with God”: *creatio continua* (partnership in ongoing creation) and *transformatio mundi* (proleptic cooperation in God’s future new creation). Volf explicitly favors the latter, arguing that a creation-based framework risks justifying the status quo and hindering necessary social change. To develop his pneumatological framework, Volf critiques Martin Luther’s influential understanding of work as “vocation.” Luther laudably expanded the concept of vocation beyond monastic life, dignifying all Christian work as a divine commission to preserve creation. However, Volf identifies several critical weaknesses in Luther’s view. It is deemed indifferent to the dehumanizing aspects of alienated labor, offers an ambiguous reconciliation between spiritual and external callings (often consecrating existing occupational structures), and is prone to ideological misuse by ennobling oppressive work conditions without providing resources for transformation. Furthermore, Luther’s static conception of a singular, permanent vocation proves incompatible with the dynamic realities of modern industrial societies, characterized by job mobility and simultaneous multiple employments. Volf also highlights exegetical problems with Luther’s interpretation of *klēsis* (calling) in 1 Corinthians 7:20, arguing that the term refers to the call to Christian discipleship, not a specific occupation. As a more biblically faithful and socio-ethically relevant alternative, Volf proposes a pneumatological understanding of work rooted in Paul’s theology of *charisms*. He defines charisms broadly as specific gifts of the Spirit, not limited to ecclesial functions, an elite group, or extraordinary manifestations, but encompassing all Christians’ diverse tasks in both church and world. This framework, Volf argues, remedies Luther’s deficiencies while retaining his strengths. It grounds all work in the core of Christian faith, ensuring equal dignity across different tasks, as charisms represent the Spirit’s calling and equipping. Work thus becomes cooperation with God in the ongoing realization of the new creation, empowered and directed by the Spirit, leading towards the completion of creation and renewal of heaven and earth. Critically, this understanding is not indifferent to alienation; it posits a necessary correspondence between giftedness and work performed, prompting the transformation of dehumanizing labor. It is also inherently adaptable to modern occupational fluidity, acknowledging that Christians can receive different charisms over time or simultaneously, thereby dignifying job changes and multiple employments as expressions of faithfulness and service. Ultimately, Volf’s pneumatological model offers a robust, dynamic, and transformative theology of work that integrates all human labor into the Spirit’s ongoing work of leading creation to God’s glory.
Dr. Vinny Hudson
This article by Volf presents a convoluted and misleading interpretation of work that strays far from traditional Christian theology. By attempting to integrate secular work with a pneumatological framework, he creates an unnecessary confusion between sacred and secular that the Church has historically kept distinct. According to Pew Research, religious beliefs significantly shape people’s views on work and purpose, yet Volf seems intent on diluting this by equating all human activity with divine cooperation. This is not only theologically questionable but also risks endorsing heretical ideas, as it undermines the unique role of the Church in guiding believers toward God’s truth (Pew Research). Furthermore, his critique of Luther’s concept of vocation ignores its historical context and value in affirming the dignity of labor within God’s creation. Luther’s perspective highlights a divine call that transcends modern industrial complexities, yet Volf dismisses it as inadequate without providing a solid alternative rooted in scripture. By focusing on the notion of charisms—while well-intentioned—he blurs essential distinctions between roles within the ecclesial community and secular responsibilities, leading to potential misinterpretations of spiritual gifts (Pentecostal Archives). The concept that work can be reduced to mere expressions of personal or communal needs is gnostic in nature; it undermines the very essence of Christian teaching about work as part of God’s redemptive plan for creation. In conclusion, Volf’s arguments fail to hold up against biblical scrutiny and established theological principles, making his claims not only misleading but bordering on heretical.