I'm working on another already-too-long blog post and I realized that it needs some context on how the Lutheran understanding of vocation differs from what seems to be the prevailing view. So rather than try and fit it into the other post, I've decided to do it separately.
Let's start by looking at the way I think most people think about vocation. The word for vocation comes from the Latin word vocare, which means 'to call,' so it's fair to associate vocation with calling. The way I had always been taught to think of vocation was as something akin to my life's grand purpose, the one thing that all else in my life should help me accomplish. This could be something like owning a business, making a better life for my children, becoming involved in missions work, etc. In a Christian context, it is the one big thing to which God is calling you, and only you. A very large part of the talk about vocation while I was at Whitworth was focused on discerning our vocation; trying to figure out "where our greatest joy meets the world's greatest need."
While I don't think there is anything strictly wrong about this way of thinking about vocation, I do think it is incomplete. Here's how Lutherans talk about vocation:
Lutherans tend to talk more about our many vocations than about one big overriding calling, and this can be confusing to someone who is used to thinking about vocation in the way described above. In Lutheranism, our vocations are understood to be our roles in life. So, to use myself as an example, some of my vocations are: husband, son, brother, friend, neighbor, blog writer, student, therapist, etc. Because of my belief in the sovereignty of God, the very fact that I find myself in these roles tells me that God has called me to them. This doesn't mean that vocation can't be understood to mean the "big" roles that we aspire to, but it isn't limited to that. I, for example, have been following a call to pastoral ministry for nearly ten years now, and I certainly consider that to be my vocation, but it is only one of many, even if it is a very important one.
There's a couple advantages that I see to the Lutheran understanding of vocation over the prevailing view, and they both have to do with inclusivity. First, this understanding of vocation includes all of our roles in life, which allows us to recognize God's call over the whole of our life, rather than in just one aspect. Instead of being so consumed with preparing myself for some future grand purpose, I am called back into the present to do the work set out for me right now.
Second, this understanding of vocation includes everyone in a way that the prevailing view doesn't. While speaking about the big thing you're going to do in the world may be entirely appropriate when speaking to a group of college students, many don't think of their lives this way. Many people aren't going to have one overriding calling in their life that will be publicly acknowledged as such. If we talk about vocation only as the one big thing we need to do, as the grand impact we're going to have on the world, then many will succumb to the myth that a life without a publicly recognizable achievement was a life not worth living. If we only talk about some big capital "V" Vocation, then we imply that the mailman or the janitor are failing human beings or are somehow worth less than the CEO or the pastor or the politician. Not only does talking this way devalue people in their professions, but within the church it puts pressure on people to "be better Christians" or some such nonsense by working for the church or going overseas instead of letting them focus on the place they are at, the place where God has put them.
Now I'm sure that my professors at Whitworth had the best intentions in talking about vocation in the way they did and, as I said earlier, it may have even been appropriate given the audience, but I think that a move to the understanding of vocation I have put forward would be beneficial for a lot of people.
What do you think? Does this seem to cheapen the idea of vocation as you've understood it? Enrich it? Let me know in the comments.
