Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
173
Human
Work,
Divine
Spirit,
and New Creation: Toward a Pneumatological Understanding of Work
Miroslav Volf*
Introduction
The
purpose
of this article is to
suggest
and make
plausible
a
pneumatological understanding
of human work. One could think
that with such an
introductory statement,
I have indicated
clearly
enough
the
subject
matter to be considered and should
proceed
without further
explanation.
But this is most
likely
not the case. So
a further word of clarification is needed.
Surprisingly enough,
a
lack of clarity concerning the
subject
matter at hand-understand-
`
ing
work from the
perspective
of the
Spirit-lies
less in the obscure
‘
nature of the
mysterious Spirit
of God than in the
vagueness
of our
concept
of mundane work. Thus in order to indicate
clearly
the
scope
of the
inquiry
I need to
interject
a word about what I
understand work to be.
In industrial societies we have come to
operate
with a rather
limited definition of work. For us work is related
primarily
either to
formal
employment
or to
activity resulting
in
monetary gain.
Everything
else
is, strictly speaking,
not work
(except,
of
course,
some wearisome activities which we have to do but for which we are , not
paid).
Such an
understanding
of work has
increasingly
come
under attack. For one
thing,
it does not to the situation .
correspond
of non-industrial societies
(such
as we find in many countries of the
so-called “Third
World”)
in which much of the work is done
by
people
who are
self-employed
and
work,
not for
monetary gain,
but
for satisfaction of
personal
needs or the needs of their extended
families.
Second,
the
prevalent understanding
of work in industrial
societies is thought to be
oppressive
in those societies themselves
because it implies that
significant
activities of some of its members
(for instance,
the domestic duties of
many women)
are not work.
There would be no
problem
in
excluding
these activities from the
concept
of work if it were not for the unfortunate fact that in
industrial societies a
person’s
work is the measure of her value.
Thus when such
significant
activities are held to be “non-work”
they
are
degraded
and the
people
who do them are
tacitly
pronounced
inferior members of society. Today, there is a need for
a broader
understanding
of work which would include on
equal
terms the work of the
computer programmer
and the housewife
(or
househusband),
work in the
fields,
and volunteer work in the
community.
This article is written a broad definition
of in mind
1
with just
such
work
1
174
In terms of the
subject
matter of this article the broad definition
of work means that I am not
only reflecting theologically
about the
activity
in which most of us are
engaged eight
hours a day, five days
a week. Rather I am
talking
about the whole
spectrum
of human
activities that must be called work
(in
distinction from such
activities as
sleep
and
hobbies).
The
only
activities which
belong
properly
to the
category
of work that I am
excluding
from this
inquiry,
are
strictly
ecclesial activities
(although
much that is said
here is
applicable
to that
type
of work
too). My
thesis is that all
secular activities we do in order to
satisfy
our own needs or the
needs of our fellow creatures should be understood from the
perspective
of the
operation
of the
Holy Spirit.2
Ecclesial activities-whether
they belong
to the
category
of
work,
like
preaching,
or do not
belong
to this
category,
like
worship-have always
been understood
pneumatologically.
The
secular activities of Christians, on the other
hand,
have for the most
part
been understood from the
perspective
of the doctrine of
creation. I need not discuss here the obvious
problems
created
by
such a
heterogeneous theological grounding
of the two
types
of
activities
of
a
single
Christian.3 The
purpose
of this article is to
indicate how the
duality
of sacred and secular activities
(that
often
degenerates
into a dichotomy) can be overcome if we learn to think
of secular activities also from a pneumatological
perspective.
Methodology
for a Theology of Work
In the
past, theologians
have
frequently attempted
to arrive at a
Christian
understanding
of work
by analyzing
and
combining
more
or less
freely,
individual
passages
of the Bible which
speak
about
human
beings
and their
daily
work.4 For two reasons such
attempts
are
problematic. First,
the New Testament
by
which a Christian
theology
of work must be guided, treats the
problem
of work
only
occasionally,
and then as a subordinate theme.5 The few New
Testament
passages
that deal with the
question
of work contain
specific
instructions about how Christians should do their
work,
but
they
do not address the
problem
of the
meaning
of human work
in a comprehensive
way.
Taken
together, they simply
do not add
up
to a theology of work.
Second,
a deep divide
separates
the world of
work in biblical times from work as it is
experienced today
in
industrial and information societies.6 This broad
(and
ever broad-
ening) gap
makes it
impossible
to arrive at a
theology
of work
relevant to our time
by simply using
“a concordance-method”
without
placing
biblical references within a
larger theological .
framework.
As Moltmann
correctly (though
with some
exagger-
ation)
has
observed, “Anyone
who
inquires
about the work ethos of
the Bible runs
up against
the cultural
history
of past societies if he
or she
only investigates
the statements on human work.’?
2
175
.
I am, of course, not
suggesting
that the
specific
biblical
teaching on work is irrelevant for a contemporary
theology
of work. If we cannot arrive at a
theology
of work
simply by combining
the individual biblical statements about work, still less can we do so by completely ignoring
them. In
many
cases these statements are highly
relevant to our
situation, despite
the radical
changes
which have taken
place. Important
as
they are, however,
the
exegetical results on this issue cannot be treated as
pieces
of a
large jigsaw puzzle
which we
only
have to
put
in to the
proper place
to
get
a theology
of work which is both
biblically
faithful and relevant to the
contemporary
world of work.
Rather,
we need to
place
the biblical data on the
question
of work in a
larger theological framework and then
apply
the data to the
present
situation from within that framework.8
In this
article,
I will endeavor to
provide
such a framework
by suggesting
a pneumatological
understanding
of work.
First,
I will discuss the fundamental issue in any
theology
of work, and that is the
question
of the
continuity
or discontinuity between the
present and the
future, eschatological
order.
Second,
I will
present
two basic frameworks which
theologians
have used in
attempting
to analyze
work: work as
cooperation
with God in creatio continua and work as cooperation with God in
transformatio
mundi.
Third, using
Martin Luther’s
understanding
of work as an example, I will critique
the
predominant
Protestant
understanding
of work
(work as
vocation) developed
within the first framework
and, fourth,
I will propose a pneumatological
understanding
of work on the basis of a theology of charisms
using
the second framework.
Annihilation or Transformation?
The
question
of continuity or discontinuity between’the
present and future orders is the
key issue in developing
a theology of work.9 .The ultimate
significance
of human work
depends
on the answer to this
question.
If the world will be annihilated and a new one created ex nihilo then our mundane work has
only earthly significance
for the
well-being
of the
worker,
the worker’s
community
and
posterity until the
day
when “the heavens will
pass away
with a loud
noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire”
(2 Pet. 3:10).
Since the results of the cumulative work of humankind
throughout history will become
nought
in the final
apocalyptic catastrophe,
human work is devoid of ultimate
significance (except
in the sense of being a school for the
purification
of the soul in preparation for
heavenly bliss, 10
or
by
virtue of
keeping body
and soul
together
and thus making possible
the
pLoclamation
of the eternal life to the
“souls). If,
on the other
hand,
the world will not be
destroyed
but transformed,
then human work is of eternal
significance
in a direct
3
176
way.
Then
nothing
is wasted. The noble
products of
human ingenuity,
“whatever is beautiful, true and good
in human cultures,”‘
2 will be cleansed from
impurity, perfected
and
become a
transfigured
to
part
of God’s new creation. The assurance of continuity between the
present age
and the
age
to come is a “strong
incentive to … cultural involvement. “13 The results of human work form “building
materials”
which,
after
being transfigured,
will be made part
of the
“glorified
world
There are both indirect and direct
theological arguments
for the idea of
transformatio
mundi.
First,
one can
argue indirectly
for eschatological
transformation of the world instead of annihilation by pointing
to the
earthly
locale of the
kingdom
of God.’5 In a recent
article,
R.H.
Gundry argues
that in Revelation the saints’ dwelling place
is the new earth. It is “quite clear that the Book of Revelation
promises
eternal life on the new earth that is mentioned, not ethereal life in the new heaven that is likewise mentioned.1116 In
to the
saints’ earthly dwelling place,
the
promise
to
.
correspondence
the church at
Smyrna
“but
you
are rich”
(2:9)
has to be
given
a “materialistic”
reading:
it refers to “a redistribution of property, an exclusive
redistribution
of
property
to the saints
Moreover, Revelation complements
the economic side of the
promise by adding
the
political
side: the saints will rule as “new
kings
of the earth,
all of
them,
the whole nation of
kings.”‘8
The same
emphasis
on the new earth as the
eschatological dwelling place
of the
people
of God found in Revelation is also present
in the
Gospel according
to Matthew. The
prayer
for the coming
of the
kingdom (6:10)
is a prayer for God’s “rule over all the earth,”
and
seeking
the
kingdom (6:33)
“means
desiring
the final coming
of his rule on earth,.”‘9
Similarly,
the “earth” mentioned in the
promise
of inheriting the earth
given
to the meek
(5:5),
can
only refer to “the
earthly
locale of God’s
kingdom.”20
In the
eschaton, the resurrected
people
of God will inhabit the renewed earth.
The stress on the
earthly
locale of the
kingdom
of God in the New Testament
corresponds
not
only
to the
earthly hopes
of the Old Testament
prophets
but even more
significantly
to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the
body. Theologically
it makes little sense to
postulate non-earthly existence, yet
at the same time believe in the resurrection of the
body.
The resurrection
body demands a
corresponding glorified,
but
nevertheless,
material environment. The future material existence is part and
parcel
of the Christian
eschatological expectation.21
.
Second,
there are also direct statements in the New Testament which
support
the idea of an
eschatological transformatio
mundi and indicate that the
apocalyptic language
of destruction of “all
4
177
these
things” (2 Pet. 3:11)
should not be taken
literally.
In Romans 8:21 we read that the “creation itself … will be set free from its bondage
to
decay
and obtain the
glorious liberty
of the children of God.” The liberation of creation-i.e. of “the sum-total of sub- human nature both animate and inanimate “22-cannot occur through
its destruction but
only through
its
transformation.
As F.F. Bruce
says,
“If words mean
anything,
these words of Paul denote not the annihilation of the
present
material universe on the day
of revelation, to be replaced by a universe
completely new,
but the transformation of the
present
universe so that it will fulfil the purpose
for which God created it.”23 When God ushers in his final kingdom
the
striving
of “everything in heaven and on earth … after renewal”24 will be fulfilled.25
The biblical statements that affirm the
continuity
between the present
and
future, eschatological
order are
theologically
based in the Judeo-Christian belief in the
goodness
of divine creation. It makes little sense to affirm the
goodness
of creation and at the same time
expect
its
eschatological
destruction.
Cooperator
Dei
In,
the
past
few centuries Christian
theologians
have
basically attempted
to understand human work as cooperation with God. In both Protestant and Roman Catholic
traditions, theologians today agree
that the
deepest meaning
of human work is to be seen in the fact that in work men and women are co-workers with God.26 Depending
on how we conceive of this
cooperation
with
God,
we can differentiate between two
types
of theologies of work: the one is based on the doctrine of creation and sees work as cooperation with God in creatio continua; the other is based on the doctrine of the last
things
and understands work as
cooperation
with God in anticipation
of God’s
eschatological transformatio
mundi. I will look
briefly
at both of these
ways
of understanding human work as
‘ cooperation
with God.
The first
way
of interpreting work as cooperation with God takes the Old
Testament, especially
the creation
accounts,
as its starting point.
In the Old
Testament,
human
beings
even in their mundane work,
are seen as partners with God in God’s creative
activity. True, the Old Testament stresses the
uniqueness
of God’s creative activity.
No human work
corresponds
to divine creation ex nihilo (bara).
At the same time we find that the Old Testament draws an analogy
between divine
making (asa)
and human work.27 The analogy
seems to
suggest
that there is a partnership between God the Creator and
working
human
beings.
The most vivid
portrayal
of this
partnership
is found in the second account of creation. In Genesis 2 the
relationship
of God’s
‘
. .
.
5
178
work to that of the human
beings,
is addressed when the reason for the lack of vegetation on the earth is given: “For the Lord God had not caused it to rain
upon
the
earth;
and there was no man to till the ground” (vs. 5).
The
growth
of
vegetation
demands
cooperation between
God,
who
gives rain,
and human
beings,
who cultivate the ground.
There is a mutual
dependence
between God and human
beings
in the task of the
preservation
of creation. On the one
hand,
human beings
are
dependent
in their work
upon
God. In the Psalms we read,
“Unless the Lord builds the
house,
those who build it labor in vain”
(Ps 127:1a;
Cf. Ps
65:11-13).
On the other
hand,
God the Creator chooses to become
“dependent”
on the human
helping hand. God makes human work a means
by
which God
accomp- lishes his work in the world. As Luther said: human work is “God’s mask behind which he hides himself and rules
everything magnifi- cantly
in the world.”28
Second,
there is
another,
more
recent, theological
tradition which bases its
theology
of work on human
proleptic cooperation in God’s
eschatological transformatio
mundi. It includes the essential
elements of the
understanding
of work as
cooperation with God in creatio continua and
places
them in the
eschatological light
of the
promised
new creation. It is true, of
course,
that the world is presently under the
power
of sin and is transitory. For that reason God’s new world cannot be created
through
human
work, no matter how noble human motives
might
be.29 We can see this clearly
in the
description
of the “New Jerusalem”–the new
people of God-in Revelation.3° It is a city (meaning
people)
of God and it comes “down out of heaven”(Rev.
21:2;
Cf. 1 Pet.
1:4; Matt. 25:34). As a divine creation it is a
“living hope”
freed from all evil and corruptibility
and it transcends
everything
human
beings
can
plan or execute.31 The
origin
and character of the “New Jerusalem” show that the new creation as a whole is fundamentally a gift, and the
primary
action of human
beings
in relation to it is not
doing,
but “waiting” (2
Pet.
3:12;
Cf. Matt.
6:10;
Rev.
22:17).
But the
emphasis
on waiting should not make Christians inactive in relation to the
coming kingdom.
In the New Testament the injunction
to wait
eagerly
for the
kingdom
is not
opposed
to the exhortation to work
diligently
for the
kingdom. “Kingdom- participation”
is not
contrary,
rather it is
complementary
to “Kingdom-expectation.”32
Placed in the context of
kingdom- participation,
mundane human work for
worldly
betterment becomes a contribution-a limited and
imperfect
one in need of divine purification-to
the
eschatological kingdom
which will come through
God’s action alone. Human work can
be seen as an aspect
6
179
of “active
anticipation
of the
transformatio
mundi. “33 In their
daily work human
beings
are “co-workers in God’s
kingdom,
which completes
creation and renews heaven and earth.
“34
‘
Both
ways
of understanding cooperation with God in daily work which I have
briefly analysed
above are
theologically
valid. One can develop
a responsible biblical
theology
of work
using
either of these frameworks. For a number of reasons I prefer the
eschatological rather than
protological
framework in
developing
a
theology
of work.35 The
primary
reason for
my preference
is that
“protological” theologies
of work tend to justify the status
quo
and hinder needed change
in both microeconimic and macroeconomic structures
by appealing
to divine
preservation
of the world: as God the
Creator, is God who
preserves
the world he has
created,
so also human beings
in their work should strive to preserve the established order. Other reasons for
opting
for an
“eschatological” theology
of work will become clear both from the
following critique
of Luther’s understanding
of work as vocation
(developed
in the
protological framework)
and from the reasons to be
given
for the
proposed pneumatological understanding
of work.
Work
as- Vocation
Protestant
theologians
of different traditions have understood work
predominantly
as calling or vocation.36 This
understanding
of work was developed by Luther
(Calvin
followed Luther with minor variations3?)
on the basis of his doctrine of
justification
and in controversy
with medieval monasticism. Luther made an
impor- tant contribution in this field
by overcoming
the monastic reduction of vocation to a calling to a particular kind of religious life. Luther came to a twofold conclusion in relation to vocation: (1) all Christians
(not only monks)
have a vocation, and
(2) every type of work
performed by
Christians
(not only religious activity)
should be understood as vocation. Instead of relating vocatio to a particular
kind of life of a
privileged group
within the
larger Christian
fellowship,
Luther
spoke
of a double vocation of
every Christian:
spiritual
vocation
(vocatio spiritualis)
and external vocation
(vocatio externa). Spiritual
vocation is God’s call to enter the
kingdom
of God which comes to a
person through
the proclamation
of the
gospel.
This vocation is common to all Christians and is for all Christians the same
(communis
et similis).38 External vocation is God’s call to serve God and fellow human beings
in the world. It comes to a person through her
profession (Stand).
This
call, too,
is addressed to all Christians, but to each one in a different
way, depending
on one’s situation
(macht
ein unterscheid).39
7
180
In his
Kirchenpostille
1522-a work in which Luther uses the word “vocation” for the first time as a terminus technicus “for a purely
secular
activity”4°-Luther
reveals his
understanding
of external vocation. He answers the
question
of a person who feels vocationless: “What if I am not called? What should I do? Answer: How can it be that
you
are not called? You are
certainly
in a station (Stand), you
are either a husband or a wife, son or
daughter,
male or female servant. “41 To be a husband, wife,
child,
or servant means to be called
by God to
a particular kind of activity. It means to have vocation. When God’s
spiritual calling through
the
proclamation of the
gospel
reaches a person in her social
position
or profession, it transforms these into a vocation. The duties of the
position
or profession
become commandments that God addresses to a person. In this
way,
Luther understands the
daily
work of every Christian42 to be derived from the center of Christian faith: work in
every profession,
and not
only
that of a minister, rests on a commission from God and: is thus of
fundamentally equal
value.
As Christians
obey
God’s commission in their
daily
work
they cooperate
with God in his work of
preserving
of the creation. “God’s will to create and to
preserve
his creation” is in
fact,
the basis for human work.43 The
diligent
work of Christians-so diligent
“as
though
God was not there” to
provide44-is
“a mask of God,
our
Lord,
under which he hides himself
working
and accomplishing
what we would like to
accomplish.”45
Critique
of Vocation
There are several
problems
with Luther’s
understanding
of work as vocation both in terms of its applicability to the modern world of work and its
theological persuasiveness.46
First,
this
understanding
of work as vocation is
indifferent toward alienation in work. In Luther’s
view,
there are two features which are both
indispensable
and sufficient to understand a particular
work
theologically
as vocation:
first,
the call of
God, second,
service to fellow human
beings.
Vocation is defined
by the origin
and
purpose
of work and not
by a particular quality
of work. If this is the
case,
then it seems that
virtually every type
of work can be considered as vocation, no matter how
dehumanizing
it might be (provided
that in
doing
the work one does not
transgress
the explicit
commandments of God). For
instance, although
the work of a prostitute is incompatible with the
understanding
of work as vocation,
there is nothing in this
understanding
of work to
prevent that mindless work on the
assembly
line at a galloping
pace
from being
considered vocation. This broad
applicability might
seem to be a desirable feature for an understanding of work,
especially
since (as
Calvin
pointed out)
it seems to
give
a “singular consolation” to
8
181
people
whose work is “sordid and base.1147 But one can have this broad
applicability
and the benefits of consolation
only
at the expense
of the
transforming potential
for
overcoming
the alien- ation in work when transformation is both
necessary
and
possible. If one can describe with Luther the
“lifting
of a single straw” as a “completely
divine”48
work,
there is no reason
why
one should not be able to ascribe the same attribute to the most
degrading types
of work in industrial societies in which the human
person
is reduced to “a mere
automaton,
a wooden man.”49
Second,
there is a
dangerous ambiguity
in Luther’s under- standing
of work as vocation. In his view
spiritual calling
comes through
the
proclamation
of the
gospel
and external
calling
comes through
one’s
place
in society, one’s station
(Stand).
It has
proven difficult for Lutheran
theology
to reconcile the two
callings
in the life of an individual Christian. “The
history
of Lutheranism as well as Lutheran ethics shows that Luther’s bold identification of vocation
[i.e.
vocatio
externa-M.V.]
with the call
[i.e.
vocatio spiritualis-M.V.]
led again and
again
to the
integration
of the call into vocation and vocation into
occupation,
and thus to the consecration
of the
vocational-occupational
structure: Vocation began to gain
the
upper
hand over the
call;
the Word of God on the right (gospel)
was absorbed the word of God of the left (law).”
’50
by
Third,
the
understanding
of work as vocation is
easily
ideo- logically
misused. As I indicated
earlier,
Luther elevated work in every profession
to the level of divine service.51 The
problem
arises when one combines such elevation of work with indifference to alienation and the identification of
calling
with
occupation.
The understanding
of work as vocation
suggests
that
every employ- ment-even when human
activity
in work is reduced to “soulless movement”-can and should be a
place
of service to God.52 It serves
simply
to ennoble
dehumanizing
work in a situation where the
quality
of work should be improved
through
structural or other kinds of change.53 The vocational
understanding
of work
provides no resources to foster such
change.
Fourth,
the
understanding
of work as vocation is not
applicable to the
increasingly
mobile industrial and information
society.
Most people
in these societies do not
keep
a single
job
or employment for a life-time but often switch from
one job
to another in the course of their active life. Industrial and information societies are character- ized
by
a diachronic
plurality of employments
or
jobs
of its members. Luther
developed
his understanding of external vocation in
correspondence
to the
singleness
and
permanence
of
spiritual calling.
As there is one unchanging spiritual calling so there must be
.
.
9
182
‘
..
one
unchanging
external
calling.
Given this static
understanding
of
external vocation it is easy to understand
why
he
regularly
relates
his comments about external vocation to a conservative
interpre-
tation of the
body
of Christ and
accompanies
them with the
injunction:
“let each one remain in his
vocation,
and live content
with his
gift.”54
The
injunction
to “remain” and “be satisfied” is a
logical consequence
of the
understanding
of work as vocation.55 To
change
one’s
employment
means to fail to remain faithful to God’s
initial commandment. The
only way to interpret change
of employ-
ment
positively
and at the same time affirm the
understanding
of
work as vocation, is to assume a diachronic
plurality
of external
vocations. The
soteriological meaning
of vocation, which serves as
a
paradigm
for the socio-ethical
understanding
of
vocation,
however,
militates
against
such an
assumption. According
to the
soteriological understanding
of vocation
singularity
and
perma-
nence are constitutive characteristics of vocation.
Fifth,
industrial and information societies are
increasingly
characterized
by synchronic plurality of employments or jobs
of its
members,
i.e.
people
are
increasingly
involved in more than
one job
or
employment
at the same time. In Lutheran
theology
vocatio
externa
as a rule is related to a
single employment
or
job
which
persons
hold
throughout
their lives. This
corresponds,
of course, to
the
singularity
of vocatio
spiritualis.
Unlike much of Lutheran
theology,
Luther himself claimed that
every person,
since he
or
she
belongs
to more than one Stand, has more than one external
vocation.56 His sense of
reality
led him to break loose in this
way
from the
exegetical
and
dogmatic
framework set
up
with the
concept
of vocation. It is more consistent with this
concept
when he
exhorts that a
person
should not “meddle in other
person’s
vocation.
“57
Strictly speaking
one
may take
work as vocatio
only by
assuming
that a Christian should have
only
one
employment
or
job.58
In
responding
to this
criticism,
one
might attempt
to
reinterpret
the
understanding
of work as vocation in order to free it from
theological inadequacies
and make it more
applicable
to industrial
and information societies. There
are, however,
both
exegetical
and
theological arguments against doing
so.
First, exegetes agree
that Luther
misinterpreted
the main
proof
text for his
understanding
of work
(1
Cor.
7:20). “Calling
in this
verse is not
calling
with
which,
to
which,
or
by
which a man is
called,
but refers to the state in which he is when he is called to
become a Christian.”59
Except
in this verse
(and possibly
1 Cor. ,
1:26),
Paul and others who share his tradition use the term klfsis as
a terminus technicus for
becoming
a Christian. As 1 Pet. 2:9 shows,
10
183
klësis includes
both the call of God out of “darkness into his
call
of vocatio
Second, vocatio externa
only
singularity
and the
work as
of this vocatio as One has to start with the
which becomes
wonderful light”
which constitutes Christians as Christians,
to a life which
corresponds
to this
“light” (Cf.
I Pet.
l:15).60 Thus when klesis refers not to
becoming
a Christian but to living as a Christian, it does not
designate
a
calling peculiar
for
every Christian and
distinguishing
one from
another,
as Luther claimed
externa.
Instead,
it refers to the
quality
of life which should characterize all Christians as Christians.
theologically
it makes sense to understand
if one can conceive
corresponding
to vocatio
spiritualis.
and
permanence
of vocatio
spiritualis
individualized and concretized in the
process
of human
response
in the form of a singular and
permanent
vocatio externa. Even Luther himself in a social ethic which was
designed
for a
comparatively static
society,
could not maintain this
correspondence consistently. One could weaken the
correspondence
between vocatio
spiritualis and vocatio externa and
say
that when the one call of God
addressing
all to become Christians
logical understanding
reaches each individual it
tasks.61 I do
of charisms
provides
a
.
following,
charisma,
and second,
apply
it to work, developing
cation
logical,
pages
I will
argue briefly charisms.
branches out into a plurality of callings for
particualr
not find it
helpful, however,
to deviate in this
way
from the New Testament and from a
dogmatic-soteriological
use of vocatio because the New Testament has a carefully chosen
term-actually
a terminus technicus-to denote the
multiple callings
of
every Christian to
particular
tasks both within and outside the Christian church. I refer to the term charisma.
I propose
that, the
Pauline
understanding
firm foundation on which we can erect a theology of work that is both faithful to divine revelation and relevant to the modern world of work
(provided
one does not
merely exegete
what Paul is saying but
develops
his statements
theologically).62
Such a
pneumato-
of work
will,
I hope, share all the
strengths
of the traditional Protestant
understanding
of work as outlined
by Luther without
being weighed
down
by its serious problems.
In the
I will first
give
a theological reflection on the notion of
a Christian
understanding
of
further the
theology
of charisms as the
appli-
demands.
A
‘
Theological
Reflection on Charisms
In recent
years lively discussions,
have focused on the
subject
of charisms. In the
following
for a
particular understanding
of
It will not be a
simple analysis
and reformulation of biblical statements about charisms. Rather I will indicate four
both
exegetical
and theo-
11
184
important
elements of a
theology
of charisms based on these statements. I
propose
to make these four elements serve as a framework for a theology of work.
First,
charisms should not be defined so broadly as to encompass the whole
sphere
of ethical
activity by Christians. Ernst Kasemann has
argued
that the whole ethical existence of the
Christian,
the nova oboedientia, is charismatic.63 There is no doubt that one should conceive the whole new life of a Christian
pneumato- logically,
but the
question
is whether it is legitimate to describe the whole life of Christians more
specifically
as charismatic. I cannot argue
for this
point
within the confines of this article64 but must simply
assert that it seems more
adequate
to differentiate
together with Paul between
gifts and fruit
of the
Spirit.
The fruit of the
Spirit designates
the
general
character of Christian
existence,
“the lifestyle
of those who are indwelled and
energized by
the
Spirit The
gifts
of the
Spirit
are related to the
specific
tasks or functions to which God calls each individual Christian.
,
Second,
charisms should not be defined so narrowly as to include only
ecclesial activities. Sometimes the
sphere
of
operation
of charisms is limited to the Christian
fellowship
and the claim is made that one cannot understand
“charismatically
the various activities of Christians in relation to their non-Christian
neighbors.”66 Taking
individual charisms as examples, it would not be difficult to show that one cannot
consistently
limit the
sphere
of operation of charisms to the Christian
fellowship.
For
instance,
the whole purpose
of the
gift
of an
evangelist (Cf. Eph. 4:11)
is to relate the Gospel
to non-Christians. To take another
example,
it would be artificial to understand
contributing
to the needs of others
(cf. Rom.
12:8) as charisma
when exercised in relation to Christians but as simple benevolence when exercised in relation to non-Christians. The
Spirit
of God is not
only
active in the
fellowship
but also through
the
fellowship
in the world. 67 There are no functions of the fellowship-be they
directed inward toward the Christian com- munity
or outward toward the world-which are not the result of the
operation
of the
Spirit
of God and thus charismatic.
Third, charisms should
not be taken as
a possession
of an elite group
within the Christian
fellowship.
New Testament
passages which deal with charisms
consistently
claim that charisms “are found
throughout
the Church rather than
being
restricted to a particular group
of
people.”68
In the
fellowship
as the
body
of Christ there are no members without a function and thus also no members without a charisma. The
Spirit
who is poured out
upon
all flesh
(Acts 2: 7ff.) imparts
also charisms to all flesh:
they
are
gifts given
to the
community irrespective
of the
existing
distinctions or conditions within the
community.69
12
185
.
Fourth,
the
tendency
to see charisms
given only
to an elite
group within the Christian
fellowship
is closely related to the
tendency
to ascribe to charisms an elite character.
Very frequently
charismatic is taken to mean
extraordinary. Ecclesiologically
this restricted understanding
of charisms can be found in some Pentecostal
(or “charsimatic”)
churches which
identify
charismatic with
specta- cular.70 A secularized form of this
“supernaturalistic
reduction” is found in the
commonly accepted
Weberian
understanding
of charisma as an
extraordinary quality
of a personality.71 One of the main
points
of the Pauline
theology
of charisms is to overcome this restrictive concentration on the miraculous and
extraordinary.
For this reason it is of great
importance
to keep the term charisma as a generic
term for both the
spectacular
and the
ordinary,72
We can determine the
relationship
between
calling
and charisma in the
following way:
the
calling
to enter the
kingdom
of God and to live a life that
corresponds
to this
kingdom (a calling
which comes to a person
through
the
preaching
of the
Gospel) expresses
itself at the
point
of its individual
appropriation
in a call to bear the fruit of the
Spirit
which should characterize all
Christians,
and branches itself out.in the
gifts
of the
Spirit
to each individual.
Pneumatological Understanding
of Work
If it is true that all Christians have
gifts
and that their
gifts
are related to all their
specific
tasks in the Church and in the world
they are related also to
everyday
work. We have to understand the working
life of Christians as a particular case of life in the
Spirit
in
.
.
general.
What does such
pneumatological understanding
of work look like
concretely?
To answer this
question adequately,
one would have to
develop
a full scale
pneumatological understanding
of work. ln
general terms,
one can
say
that it looks much like the vocational
understanding
of
work, except
that it overcomes the consequential
deficencies in the latter. In the
following pages
I will attempt
to state
briefly
in what
ways
a
pneumatological
under- standing
of work based on a
theology
of charisms shares the strengths
of the
understanding
of work as
vocation,
and how it overcomes some of the
major
weaknesses.
First,
the
pneumatological understanding
of work based on a theology
of
charisms,
similar to the
understanding
of work as vocation,
makes it possible to understand work from the center
of Christian faith.
When God calls
people
to become God’s children the
Spirit gives
them both
callings
and
capabilities
in the form of charisms to do
particular
tasks either in the Christian
fellowship
or in the world. In this
sense,
work
(in
whatever
field,
be it sacred or secular)
becomes an inalienable
aspect
of the life of every Christian.
13
186
Moreover, just
as it is in Luther’s
understanding
of
work,
in a pneumatological understanding
of work there is no
place
for a hierarchical valuation of the different tasks of a Christian.
Every function of a Christian-be it
“spiritual
or
bodily”73-has
funda- mentally
the same
dignity,
for its basis is charisma as the
Spirit’s calling
and
equipping
for that function. In this
respect,
it is significant
that Paul does not know a hierarchy of charisms. If one compares
the different lists of charisms one comes to the conclusion that “at different times different
gifts
are the
greatest
and the most important, depending
on how God can use them. “74
Second,
a
pneumatological understanding
of work makes it possible
to understand work as
cooperation
with God since the work is done in the
power
and under the direction of the
Spirit. Charisma not
only
entails a call to a
particular
task but also an enabling
for it. Even when charisma consists in
empowerment
to use “natural”
capabilities,
the
enabling
is not a
possession
of the individual
person irrespective
of that
person’s
relation to
God,
but is
dependent
on the
presence
and
activity
of the
Spirit.
It is impossible
to separate the
gift
of the
Spirit
from the
enabling power of the
Spirit?5
Moreover,
the
Spirit
who
imparts gifts
and is active
through them,
is “a
guarantee” (2
Cor.
1:22)
of the realization of the eschatological
new creation. Jesus Christ as the
glorified
Lord is “present
in his gifts and in the services that both manifest these
gifts and are made
possible by
them. 1116 Through the
gifts
of the
Spirit, Christ is
realizing
his
eschatological
rule in the world.
Thus, cooperation
with God in work
through
the
empowerment
and direction of the
Spirit
should be
interpreted
as
cooperation
in the Kingdom
of God that
“completes
creation and renews heaven and earth.
“77
Third,
a pneumatological
understanding
of work is free from the portentuous ambiguity present
in Luther’s
understanding
of work as vocation. That
ambiguity
consists in the undefined relation between
spiritual calling through
the
gospel
and external
calling through
one’s
place
in
society
or
profession.
In the
pneuma- tological understanding
of work the resurrected Lord alone
through the
Spirit gives
the
calling
and the
equipping
for a particular task in the world. Of
course,
both the
calling
and the
equipping
do not occur in a social and natural
vacuum, they
do not
come,
so to
say, directly
from God’s
Spirit
to the isolated soul of human
beings. They
cannot be
properly
understood
except
in the context of the sociality
and essential
belonging
to nature of each
person. Calling and
equipping by
the
Spirit
are mediated
through
each
person’s social interrelations and
psycho-somatic
constitution. But
they
still
14
187
remain
different from
their mediations and cannot be reduced to or confused with them?8 For the
Spirit
who is active in the social and natural mediation of charisms and
gives gifts
“as he wills”
(
Cor. 12:11 )
is not
primarily
the
Spirit
of the human social structures or of a persons’
psycho-somatic makeup,
but the
Spirit
of the crucified and resurrected Christ.
Fourth,
like the
understanding
of work as vocation, a pneumato- logical understanding
of work makes it
possible
to see work as a servire
to fellow
human
beings.
Not
only
the call and
empowerment of the
Spirit
is a constitutive feature of charisms. So also is their purpose
for the sake of service to others. For this
reason,
the New Testament as a rule relates them to diakonia
(Cf.
1 Cor. 12:4ff.; 1 Pet. 4: IOf.). The
understanding
of work as service to fellow human beings
that is implied in the
concept
of charisms
corresponds
to the explicit
claims made in numerous New Testament
passages
about the
purpose
of human work
(cf.
Acts
20:35; Eph. 4:28).’9
Fifth,
the
pneumatological understanding
of work is not
indif ferent
to alienation in work. It is difficult to
apply
such an understanding
of work to the
types
of work that stifle human personality (such
as the
repetitive
work
practiced
in some
jobs).
I am not
saying
that it is
impossible
to
apply
a
pneumatological understanding
of work
(developed
on the basis of a
theology
of charisms)
to dehumanising work that obstructs the
development
of human
personality.
But if applied to such
types
of work it creates tension between the character of work and the characteristics of human
personality
which then calls for a transformation of work to suit the characteristic of human
personality.
The reason for this transformative
potential
in a
pneumatological understanding
of work lies in the fact that the constitutive feature of charisma is giftedness, equipping
for a particular task. This
understanding
of work thus demands a correspondence-between the
giftedness
and the work
performed.
In the act
of cooperation
with God and service to fellow human
beings,
one should not
suppress
individual
gifts imparted
for the
purpose
of service.
Precisely
for the sake of the task
given,
these
gifts
should be developed, both
through
the work process
itself and
apart
from it.
Sixth,
the
pneumatological understanding
of work is as open to ideological
misuse as the
understanding
of work as vocation. No attempt
is made to
proclaim
work as meaningful, without simultan- eously attempting
to humanize it.
Elevating
work to
cooperation with God in the case of a pneumatological
understanding
of work, implies
an obligation to overcome alienation because the individual gifts
and the
person exercizing
them are taken
seriously.
‘
.
15
188
Seventh,
a
pneumatological understanding
of work is
easily applicable
to the
increasing diachronicpluriformity
of employments/
/ jobs
that characterize industrial and information societies. Unlike the Christian
calling,
charisma-in the technical sense-is not “irrevocable” (cf.
Rom.
11:29).
It is true that a
person
cannot simply pick
and choose her
charisma,
for it is the
sovereign Spirit
of God who
gives
charisms “as he wills”
(I
Cor.
12:11).
But the sovereignty
of the
Spirit
does not mean that a
person
could not “earnestly
desire”
spiritual gifts (cf.
1 Cor.
12:31; 14:1,12)
and receive different
gifts
at different times. Paul
presupposes
both diachronic and
synchronic pluriformity
of charisms.
The diachronic
pluriformity
of charisms
corresponds
to the diachronic
pluriformity
of employments/jobs in present industrial and information societies. A
pneumatological understanding
of work makes it
possible
to
change jobs
without
coming
under suspicion
of unfaithfulness. If the
change
of
employment
corres- ponds
to the
given charisma,
then it can
actually
become an expression
of faithfulness to God who
gave
the charisma and readiness to serve fellow human
beings
in a new
way.
Eighth,
it is as easy to
apply
a pneumatological understanding of work to the
synchronicpluriformity of jobs/employments
as it is to diachronic
pluriformity.
Paul
presupposes
that it is
possible
for every
Christian to have more than one charisma at
any one
time. Actually
he is concerned that each Christian “excels in gifts”
( Cor. 14:12)
if
they
are exercised within the framework of the inter- dependence
within the
fellowship
and concern for common edifi- cation.
A pneumatological understanding of work sets us free from the limitation of being able to
give
a theological
interpretation only
to the
single employment
of a Christian
(or
the limitation of having to resort to a different
theological interpretation for jobs
that are not the dominant
ones).
In correspondence to the
plurality
of charisms a
person
can be involved in a
plurality
of
employments/jobs without
necessarily having
to reduce
any one
of them
theologically to mere
“side”jobs.
A pneumatological
understanding
of work thus makes
possible
a redefinition of work needed in today’s industrial and information societies.
Conclusion
What I have
suggested
above are
only
some essential elements of a pneumatological
understanding
of
work, developed
in dialogue with the classical Protestant
understanding
of work as vocation and
applied
to the
present
world of work in industrial and information societies. A full scale treatment would be needed to show how different
aspects
of human work can be understood
16
189
pneumatologically.
Such an
understanding
of work would contri- bute to the
understanding
of the whole of Christian’s
existence, ecclesial as well as
secular,
from the
single perspective
of the activity
of the
Spirit
of Christ, whose work consists in “leading all creation to its
destiny,
the final
purpose
of which is the
glory
of God. “80 .
*Miroslav Volf is Professor of
Systematic Theology
at the Biblical-Theological
Institute in
Zagreb (Osijek), Yugoslavia.
He recently completed
the Th.D.
degree
at the
University of Tübingen where he worked with
Jurgen
Moltmann.
1 have attempted to give such a broadened definition of work in book
my
Zukunft
der Arbeit-Arbeit der Zukunft: Das Marxsche Verständnis der Arbeit und seine
theologische Wertung (Miinchen/
Mainz: Chr. Kaiser/
Matthias-Grgnewald
Verlag, 1987).
2 For the inclusion of the activities related to non-human creatures in the
category
of work, cf. Volf, Zukunft der Arbeit,
chapter
III.
3Cf. below the comments on the ambiguity in Luther’s
understanding
of vocation. All references to Luther’s works in this article, will be to the standard critical Weimar
edition,
abbreviated WA.
4Cf., for instance, W. Bienert, Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel, Eine Grundlegung evangelischer
Sozialethik
(Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlags- werk, 1954); A. Richardson, The Biblical Doctrine
of
Work
(London: SCM Press,
1952).
5Cf. M.
Hengel,
“Die Arbeit im fruhen
Christentum,”
17:4 178.
Theologische Beitråge (1986),
6For the use of the term “information
society”
cf. J.
Naisbitt, Mega- trends : Ten New Directions
Transforming
Our Lives (London/Sidney: MacDonald & Co.,
1984), 1 lff.
‘J. Moltmann, “The
Right
to
Meaningful Work,”
On Human
and Ethics
Dignity: Political
Theology (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press,
1984), 43.
8For a hermeneutical reflection in relation to economic issues cf. N. Wolterstorff,
“The Bible and Economics: The Hermeneutical
Issues,” Transformation
4:3/4 ( 1987), 1 1-19.
9Cf. on that issue H.
Berkhof,
Christ the
Meaning of History (Richmond:
John
Knox, 1966), 189; A. Hoekema,
The Bible and the Future
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 39-40, 73-75, 274-287.
IOCf. the Christian monastic
understanding
of work as serving to muzzle the flesh, present even in Luther
(WA, LVI, 350). For
a modern Christian version of this idea cf. E.F.
Schumacher,
Good Work
(San
Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1979), t! 2ff. In Buddist tradition, too, work is conceived as a path to enlightenment (cf. J. Kitagawa, “Reflections on the Work Ethic in the Religions of the East Asia,”J.
Pelikan, ed., Comparative
Work Ethics: Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Eastern, [Washington: Library of Congress, 1985], 38).
17
190
“Barth’s distinction between
parergon (work)
and
ergon (faith
and obedience)
is a form of such understanding of the ultimate
significance
of work
(cf. K. Barth,
Church
Dogmatics [Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark,
1961],
III/4, 516-525).
‘2Evangelism
and Social
Responsibility:
An
Evangelical
Commitment (Consultation
on the Relationship between Evangelism and Social Responsi- bility ;
Exeter: Paternoster Press,
1982), 41-42.
‘3Evangelism,
42. Cf. V. Samuel/ C. Sugden, “Evangelism and Social Responsibility,”
B.J. Nicholls, ed., In Word and Deed:
Evangelism
and Social
Responsibility (Exeter:
Paternoster
Press, 1985), 208ff.
14Cf. Berkof, Christ the Meaning of History, 190.
150n that notion cf. J.P. Miranda, Communism in the Bible (Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
1981), 12ff.
16R.H. Gundry, “The New Jerusalem:
People
as Place, Not Place for People,”
Novum Testamentum 29:3 ( 1987), 258.
17Gundry,
“The New Jerusalem,” 258.
18Gundry,
“The New Jerusalem,” 263.
Gundry,
Matthew: A
Commentary
on His
Literary
and Theo- logical
Art
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 106, 119.
zoGundry, Matthew,
69. In his article on work in early Christianity M. Hengel
states that a realistic
eschatology
has its roots “in the realistic preaching
of Jesus and is
widespread
in
early Christianity” (Hengel, “Arbeit,” 194).
21 In his seminal work,
Theology of Hope,
Moltmann has
argued persuasively
for cosmic
eschatology
over against Bultmann’s individual- istic and
(despite
the
rhetoric) present-oriented eschatology. See,
J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope:
On the Grounds and the Implications
of a Christian
Eschatology (New York/
Evanston:
Harper
& Row,
1967), 58ff., 133ff.
22C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans
(Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1975), I,
411-412.
23F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and a
170.
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963),
24J. Calvin, Institutes
of
the Christian
Religion,
J.T. McNeil, ed., (Philadelphia:
The Westminster
Press, 1977), 989.
2’Some other New Testament
passages
that affirm continuity are: Matt. 19:28;
Acts 3:19-21; Rev. 2 l :24-26.
26For Protestant
examples
cf. Moltmann, “Work,”38-45, 53-57; J. Stott, Issues
Facing
Christians
Today:
A
Major Appraisal of Contemporary Social and Moral
Questions (Basingstoke:
Marshall
1984), 160f. For Roman Catholic
theology,
cf. John Paul
Pickering,
II, Laborem Exeroens: Encyclical
Letter
of the Supreme Pontif
John Paul II on Human Work (London:
Catholic Truth
Society, 1981), 85ff., where John Paul
II takes the
up
theology
of work
developed
in the Pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (nos. 67ff.)
of Vatican Two ([W. M. Abbott, S.J., ed., The Documents of
Vatican II; New York: Guild
Press, 1966], 199-316); “Economic Justice for All. Catholic Social
Teaching
and the U.S.
Economy,”
in T.M. Gannon, ed.,
The Catholic
Challenge
to the American
Economy: Reflect- ions on the U.S. Bishop’s Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social
Teaching and
18
191
‘
the U.S. Economy (New York/ London: Macmillan,
1987), no. 24, n. 32. 27Cf. J. Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the
Spirit of
God
(San
Francisco:
Harper
&
Row, 1985), 86; Bienert, Arbeit,
45. Differently H.D. Preuss, “Arbeit
I,” Theologische Realenzyklop- ddie III, 614.
28Luther, WA, 15,
373. As Luther’s statement
indicates, cooperation with God need not be a conscious effort on the part of human
beings.
In other words,
objectively
it must correspond to the will of God, but it need not be done subjectively as God’s will. Furthermore
cooperation
with God can even occur
through
alienated forms of
work,
if the results are in accordance to God’s will.
Although
the
concept
of new creation does inform the character of human work, the
non-alienationg
character of work is not a necessary precondition to human
cooperation
with God.
29This is stressed
by M. Honnecker,
“Die Krise der
Arbeitsgesellschaft und das christliche Ethos,”
Zeitschriftfür Theologie und Kirche 80 ( 1983), 213.
3upn the “New Jerusalem” as people rather than a place, cf. Gundry, “The New Jerusalem.”
31 Cf. J.M. Lochman, Marx
begegnen:
Was Christen und Marxisten eint und trennt
(Giitersloh:
Giiterslocher
Verlaghaus Mohn, 1975), 117ff.
32Cf. P. Kuzmic,
“History
and
Eschatology: Evangelical Views,”
B.J. Nicholls, ed.,
In Word and Deed:
Evangelism
and Social
Responsibility (Exefer:
Paternoster
Press, 1985), 150ff.
33Moltmann, Creation,
93ff.
34Moltmann, “Work,”
45.
350n normative
guidelines
for judging economic structures
implied
in the concept of new creation cf. M. Volf, “Market, Central
Planning,
and Participatory Economy,” Transformation
4:3/4 ( I 987), 61.
for instance, two contemporary Protestant writers
coming
from different
segments of Protestantism,
D. Field/ E. Stephenson, Just the Job: Christian Talk About Work and Vocation (Leicester:
Inter-Varsity, 1978), !8off.; J.C. Raines/D.C.Day-Lower,
Modern Work and Human
Meaning (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1986),
94ff.
37Cf. Calvin, Institutes, 724f.
38Luther, WA, 34, II,
300.
39Luther, WA, 34, II,
306.
aoG. Wingren, “Beruf II. Historische und ethische
Aspekte,” Theolog- ische Realenzyklopadie V, 661.
‘
4’Luther, WA, 10, I, 308.
42Luther did not
apply
the
concept
of vocation to the work of non- Christians
(cf.
G.
Wingren,
Luthers Lehre vom
Beruf [Mdnchen:
Chr. Kaiser, 1952], 15;
H. Gatzen,
Beruf
bei Martin Luther und in der industriellen
Gesellschaft [Münster,
theol.
diss., 1964], 39ff.).
43P. Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther (Philadelphia:
‘ Fortress
Press, 1972), 101.
44Luther, WA, 15,372.
45Luther, WA, 15,372. Cf. O. Bayer, Aus Glauben leben.
Uber Rechtferti- gung
und
Heiligung (Stuttgart:
Calwer Verlag, 1984), 37.
19
192
46For a more extensive treatment of this
problem
see the
M.
forthcoming article Volf,
“Arbeit und Charisma: Zu einer
Theologie
der
Arbeit,” Zeitschrift
Fiir
Evangelische
Ethik 31 ( 1987).
47Calvin, Institutes,
725.
48Luther., WA, 10, 1, 317.
49W.F. Taylor, “The
Principles
of Scientific
Management”,
in
Scientific Management (New
York:
Harper
& Row,
1947), 125.
5°Moltmann, “Work,”
47.
5 1 On Luther’s
understanding
of work as divine service, cf. Gatzen,
Beruf, 79.
s2Cf. P. Althaus, Grundriss der Ethik (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann,
1953), 80.
53Cf. D. Mieth, Arbeit und Menschenwi7rde
(Freiburg/ Basel/ Wien: Herder
Verlag, 1985), 24.
54Luther, WA, 42,
640.
5Calvin claims that God gave human
beings vocations
because he knew “with what
great
restlessness human nature flames”
(Institutes, 724). Having
a calling from God, a person “of obscure station will lead a private life ungrudgingly so as not to leave the rank in which he has been placed by God”
(Institutes, 725).
5bCf. Wingren,
Beruf,
17.
57Luther, WA, 34, II,
307.
58G: Wunsch,
Evangelische Wirtschaftsethik (Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), 579.
C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First
Epistle
to the Corinthians (New
York:
Harper
& Row,
1968),_ 169-170; cf. U. Brochhaus,
Charisma und Amt. Die
paulinische
Charismenlehre
auf
dem
Hintergrund
der frühchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen (Wuppertal:
Brochhaus
Verlag, 1972), 224;
J. Eckert,
“kaleo, ktl.,” TWNT, II, 599.
6oCf. Preston, “Vocation,”J.
Macquarrie, ed., A Dictionary of Christian Ethics
(London: SCM, 1984),
355: The New Testament term vocatio “refer[s]
to the call of God in Christ to membership in the community of his people,
the saints, and to the qualities of Christian life which this implies.”
6′ Cf. F. Wagner, “Berufung, III: Dogmatisch,” Theologische Realenzyklo-
5:711.
‘
‘
pailie 62In a
sense, the pneumatological understanding
of work I am proposing
has its roots in Luther. When he addressed the question of vocatio externa
Luther not only placed it in the context of the Pauline
concept
of the Body
of Christ
(which
is closely related to his understanding of charisms) but
also sometimes
explicitly
in the context of the gifts of grace: “Behold, here
St. Peter
says that the graces and gifts
of God are not of one but of varied
kind. Each one should understand what his gift is, and practice it and so be
of use to others.” ( WA, 10, I, 31 I-italics
mine).
63Cf. E. Kasemann, “Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament,”
Exegetische
Versuche und
Besinnungen (G6ttingen:
Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1970),
I:109-134; E. Kasemann, “Gottesdienst im Alltag der ‘
Welt,” Exegetische
Versuche und
Besinnungen (G6ttingen:
Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht,
1970), 11:204.
64Cf.. on that issue Brockhaus, Charisma, 220ff.
20
193
6sF. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 251.
66Brockhaus, Charisma,
239.
67Cf. for a similar understanding of charisma M. Harper, Let My People Grow: Ministry and Leadership in the Church (London: Hodder
& Stoughton, 1977),
100; H. Muhlen, “Charisma
und
Gesellschaft,”
H. Muhlen, ed., Geistesgaben
heute
(Mainz:
Matthias-Grünewald
Verlag,
1982), 161.
b8H. Kung, The Church (Garden
City: Doubleday
& Co.,
1976), 246. s9Cf. Brockhaus, Charisma, 170.
7°For a similar
understanding
of charisms in the New Testament cf. also K. » Berger, “charisma, ktl.,” EWNT III, 1105.
For an important
(but only partial)
criticism of Weber’s
understanding of charismatic
personality
and its popular reception in Western culture, cf. A. Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed
Democracy
and
Impoverished
the Souls of Today’s Students
(New York: Simon and Shuster,
1987), 208ff.
72S. Schulz, “Charismenlehre des Paulus. Bilanz der Probleme und Ergebnisse,”
J. Friedrich et al., eds.,
Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fur
Ernst Käsemann zum 70.
Geburtstag (Göttingen/Tübingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1975), 444.
73 Luther, WA, 10, I, 310.
74E. Schweizer, Heiliger
Geist (Stuttgart/ Berlin: Kreuz
Verlag, 1978),- 128.
75Cf. Kasemann, “Amt,” 110.
‘
76Käsemann, “Amt,”
I 1 8.
77Moltmann, “Work,”
45..
O. Bayer, “Berufung,” ESL, 7. ed., 142.
79Cf. M. Volf, “On Human Work, An Evaluation of the Key Ideas of the Encyclical laborem
exeroens,” Scottish Journal of Theology 37 ( 1 984), 77. 8oA. Kuyper, The Work
of
the
Holy Spirit (New
York: Funk and Wagnals, 1900), 22 (quoted by
R.J.
Mouw, “Life in the Spirit
in an ‘ Unjust World,” p.
120 above).
–
–
‘
21
