"Today with the increasing secularization of our society, the word 'vocation' has almost lost any religious connotation. It simply means to most people the way in which anyone cams his living."¹ So says Professor Daniel Day Williams as he begins to discuss "The Divine Call and Man's Response" in chapter six of his most stimulating work. Yet, as he himself so clearly shows, the doctrine of vocation was one of the doctrines which broke the Reformers away from the medieval church with its shop-keeping theology: "Protestantism came into being through a new understanding of what it means to live as a Christian in this world."²

      It is generally admitted that Protestantism arose through three major emphases and claims against the Catholicism of its day: (1) sola scriptura, (2) sola fides, and (3) sola gratia. The great Protestant confessions, from that of Augsburg to the Thirty-Nine Articles and the later Philadelphia Confession, are full of these emphases. But, there was a fourth emphasis, which the writings of the original Reformers reveal, that of the priesthood of all believers, or more properly, the priesthood of the church. It was under this emphasis that there lay the doctrine of 'vocation.'

      The doctrine of sola scriptura, the view that the Holy Scriptures alone constituted the source of authority for judgment on the Christian religion and the Christian way of life, the Reformers were not writing as strict Fundamentalists. In fact, it is questionable whether either Luther or Calvin were fundamentalists. Certainly they were not introducing a new literalism or legalism against the legalism of the old church. They were reacting against the Catholic doctrine of [7] Holy Scripture and holy tradition. They wished to be free from tradition, and in this they were as keen as their opponents to appeal to the writings of the primitive fathers and even to the best of the scholastic fathers, and often did so. It was not a claim that there was no tradition, but a claim that the Holy Scriptures, which contained the most primitive tradition of the Church, were in a class above tradition in general and even constituted a judgment on it.

      In the assertion of sola fides, faith alone, they did not wish as so much modern Protestantism has done, to argue against the Church and the sacraments. Both Luther and Calvin were as ardent supporters of the church and the sacraments as their opponents, for they knew that the Holy Scriptures contained much evidence that both were necessities for conveying the grace of God. In fact, they both believed the doctrine that ordinarily extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation). They simply wished to stress that salvation lay in the realm of faith and not in the multiple ceremonies and rites which the medieval church, in its lust for greed, had devised.

      In their stress on sola gratia, neither were they arguing for a church free from forms and ceremonies, or disregarding ethical content. They were arguing against the multiplication of forms and ceremonies, largely based upon a legalistic conception of God then held by the Roman Catholic Church, to a new conception of God which the Gospel enshrined, as at the same time, especially in Calvin, against a growing increase of humanism which the Renaissance was producing and which the Roman Church had positively absorbed in its doctrine of salvation by works, especially in its doctrine of penance. The Reformation was really a reformation in ethics, more than in theology, except in its stress that original Christianity showed a different God from that of the Roman Church. They were not arguing for the abandonment of ethics, but for a new type of ethics, based not on merit-making, but on the grace of God, for the God revealed in Christ was that kind of God.

      In all this was contained a new doctrine of vocation (vocatus) and this they expressed in their writings about 'vows,' so that it lies more hidden than the other three doctrines. To understand the background of this teaching one must have sufficient imagination to grasp Christian life in the later middle ages. A good introduction would be the reading of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. One might [8] also try to grasp the painting, which looms large in Luther's conversion, of the ship of salvation loaded and steered by ecclesiastics, bishops, priests and deacons aided by monks, the laity swimming about in the sea, and here and there, a lazy monk or nun casting a rope to drowning men and women. This gives a fair picture of the state of affairs. To each wayfarer the church held out the 'religious' office, that of priest or monk as vocation. There were only two kinds of 'vocation,' religious vocation, which meant taking the threefold vow of poverty, chastity and obedience, and the multiple secular vocations. Of these two choices only the first was really Christian vocation and bound by strict laws, except where the human element in priest, nun, or monk broke the laws. It was against this situation that both Luther and Calvin rebelled, extending the Christian vocation to the laity, for their life was to be regarded as truly priestly. Luther was "a magnetic champion of the common people. His theology was expressed in such terms, and was of such a character that it could be intelligently discussed by ordinary people."³ As far as Luther is concerned, he set the pace in the first three of his famous ninety-five theses, nailed to the door of his parish church in Wittenberg. The first declared that "When our Lord and Master said 'repent,' He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence." In the second thesis he declared that the word 'penitence' "cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy." In thesis three he further declared that 'repentance' "is not restricted to penitence in one's heart, for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh."⁴

      For Luther the church consisted of shepherds and sheep in Christ's flock and both are alike subject to Christ's way of life.⁵ Ministers are not potentates but servants and faith is made the ground of obedience for both shepherds and flock. For both,⁶ true [9] 'satisfaction' is to amend the mode of life.⁷ In the Primitive Church, "once the works (satisfactions) had been completed, the penitents were exercised more fully in the faith and newness of life."⁸

      On the question of 'vows' Luther speaks of "the unthinkable lightheartedness in which they are undertaken."⁹ He wants them abolished, especially those of a life-long character. He lauds the baptismal vows, which apply to all Christians, and thinks that we need to be recalled to our baptismal vows.¹⁰ He says plainly, "The vows we took at our baptism were ample, more than we are able to keep. . . . We shall have enough on our hands if we give ourselves to this duty alone. Our baptismal freedom is made captive."¹¹ He complains that "No one thinks baptism worthy even of being remembered,"¹² in a day of the multiplication of vows. (Is he here having the foresight of a prophet and getting an insight into our present plight?) With remarkable foresight he goes on to say, "However numerous, sacred and arduous they (vows of monkery and priesthood) may be, these works in God's sight are in no way whatever superior to a farmer laboring in the field, or a woman looking after her home. Rather all are measured by him by faith alone. . . . Indeed it occurs quite frequently that the common work of serving man or maid is more acceptable than all fastings and other works of monks and priests where faith is lacking."¹³ This does sound in anticipation what George Herbert, the country parson, was to put into sublime poetry more than a hundred years later:

      Luther goes on to say, referring to the priests of his day, "These are in fact 'the people of captivity,' who hold in captivity the gifts freely given to us in baptism, while the few poor 'people of the land' appear contemptible, as also do those who are married."¹⁵ In The Freedom of a Christian he further says, "Good and devout works never make a man good and duteous; but a good and religious man does good and religious works."¹⁶ Luther believed that if the Tree were good the fruits would be good. He removed meritorious works from the Christian vocation and placed them as the fruit of ordinary Christian living but not of merit but of faith.¹⁷ Of the primacy of faith in the same work he says, "He removed meritorious works from the religious vocation and placed them as the fruits of ordinary Christian living, but not of merit but of faith."¹⁸ He says of the true Christian, "He should have no other thought than what is needful for others. That would mean a true Christian life; and that is the way in which faith proceeds to work with joy and love."¹⁹ Thus, his conclusion is that Christians "serve each other, and each has a care, not for himself and his own concerns, but for others and what they need (Phil. II, 2). To my neighbor, I will be as a Christian, what Christ has become to me, and do just what I see is needful, helpful or acceptable to him, for I have enough of all things in Christ through my faith. . . . Thus we see that the Christian life is a truly noble life. Unhappily it is now not merely held in poor esteem, but is neither known nor preached any longer."²⁰

      There can be little doubt that in Luther's mind the Protestant Reformation would produce a situation in which, from the humblest Christian to the most exalted Christian Prince, no less than those who had given themselves to the church's ministry, there should be [11] in their lives an advertisement of the Christian faith. There was, in this respect, to be no difference between laymen and clergy, between theologians and ordinary church members. Any 'secular vocation' was to be on the same level as 'religious vocation': it was to be a 'religious vocation' and was so sealed by the baptismal vows which were common to both clergy and laity.

      When we pass to Calvin the situation is the same, though the approach is somewhat different. Calvin begins by clearing up the question of faith. He destroys the notion of 'implicit faith' in which men believed ignorantly what the church taught. This he does in chapter II of Book III of his Institutes. He admits that there are mysteries but there must be knowledge in real faith.²¹ Thus he makes the faith of the priest and layman the same by removing the poorer kind of faith (implicit faith) which was ascribed to the layman.

Because God is holy, we must be holy. Wherefore the Scriptures teach that this is the end of our vocation, which it is requisite for us to keep in view, if we desire to correspond to the design of God in calling us. For to what purpose was it that we were delivered from the iniquity and pollution of the world in which we had been immerged, if we permit ourselves to wallow in them as long as we live?²²

      He says clearly that it is the duty of believers 'to present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.'²³ This is made more concrete when he says, writing on self-denial:

For when the Scripture enjoins us to discard all private and selfish considerations, it not only erases from our minds the cupidity of wealth, the lust of power and the favor of men, but it also eradicates ambitions and all appetite after human glory, with other secret plagues. Indeed a Christian man ought to be so disposed and prepared, as to reflect that he has to do with God every moment of his life.²⁴

      Calvin builds his whole doctrine of election and perseverance on 'calling' (vocation).²⁵ His point is that there ought to be a 'plus in all Christian virtues; "for, as Augustine justly contends, it is acting a most perverse part to set up the measure of human justice as a [12] standard by which to measure the justice of God."²⁶ In his last chapter of The Institutes, on 'Civil Government,' in which he places civil government as an ordinance of God, he takes the trouble to deny spiritual withdrawal from this world (including politics), as he does mere subservience and flattery of princes.²⁷ Here he indulges on one of his infrequent plunges into eschatology and describes the reign of Christ on earth in proleptic terms. "For that spiritual reign, even now upon earth, commences within us some preludes of the heavenly kingdom, and in this mortal and transitory life, affords us some pre-libations of immortal and incorruptible blessedness."²⁸

      In all this the later Reformers fell into the trap of misunderstanding the deep things Calvin was plumbing. As the years advance there even appeared, strange as it may seem, an other-worldly kind of Calvinism which still lives on into our days. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that it was out of his doctrine of predestination and perseverance that there came the most intrepid builders of the new world. It cannot be denied that it was the Dutch and the Scottish explorers and settlers, together with the English Puritans who were Calvinistic, who best magnified the virtues of man under the doctrine of the glory of God almost to the far corners of the earth. There are two sides to the doctrine of predestination and the mystery of its reach is often ignored. At first sight it might seem that its result would be to abase man and his independence, but strangely, it has in history done the opposite. It has dignified man and increased his worth simply because it can be argued that, if he is predestined, he must be important. This in the living man has dignified him and endowed him with human achievement.

      All the same, in Calvin's chapter on Civil Government, he tends to say, 'Let well alone' and seems to say:

and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this attitude undoubtedly prevailed, both in the old and new world. Parson and church contrived to keep the poor man in his place. Certainly they were averse to his 'sticking his nose' in, as was shown by the case [13] of the Tolpuddle martyrs, sincere and religious men who raised an argument for human rights. Certainly simon-pure Calvinism would have been averse to the kind of thing which the Industrial Revolution has produced and which I have parodied in the following jingle:

It remained for other religious forces, especially Methodism, and the Christian Socialists most of whose disciples have emerged in the work of Anglo-Catholics to be connected with these later changes. I would say that the forces which came out of Calvinism broke with the settled might of aristocracy, especially in the American Revolution, but I am doubtful that it was capable of breaking with plutocracy. It was almost inevitable that poverty should come to be regarded as a disgrace, 'the poor man in his cot.' In this sense 'disgrace' means what it says, 'out of grace.' He was not a man on whom God could look with favor. Money had been so exaggerated that God could not have favored him. I do not for one moment accept the theory of R. H. Tawney that Calvinism produced capitalism for capitalism had begun to arise in the thirteenth century, but it helped the rise of it and created the situation by which it lived and grew. This was largely due to the inordinate value it put on success which in that society meant wealth (what the Gospels call 'mammon'!). In serving God and State it was serving two masters!

      All the same, it is to Luther and Calvin that we must look for a recovery of the Christian doctrine of vocation, however much we have lost it in our day and generation. Their main virtue is that they cleared away the dust and rubbish which had come to surround Christian morals, in works of merit of many kinds, of attrition, contrition and satisfaction and let the clear light of Christ shine in. "If the tree is good, the fruit will be good," they said. The cart had been put before the horse in the current attitude, 'religious works first; then follows the religious life.' Luther and Calvin both said that true religious works come from their basis in Christian faith. Further, they made it clear that the difference between layman and priest was not a difference of 'vocation' but a difference of office, [14] for they did not sweep the minister or priest away, but they declared that the 'vocation' of the layman was as deeply 'religious' as that of the priest, in fact it, too, was a priestly vocation. It is sometimes stated that both Luther and Calvin argued for less priesthood (they did argue for the abolishing of priestcraft), or even of no priesthood. In fact they argued for more and we should be unjust to both if we claimed less than this. There is much truth in the saying 'new presbyter is ancient priest writ large,' and I say this in no offensive way. Both made it clear that whatever vocation a man chooses or has choice forced upon him, if he is a Christian, it is a 'religious' vocation as much as that of a priest or monk. This is our heritage from the Reformers. Dare we Protestants enter into it?

      I find myself in hearty agreement with my friend Elton Trueblood when, after writing on the pagan philosophy which has overcome our present civilization, which here is mixed with much good, he deplores the laxity and lassitude which have overcome the Christian churches. He then declares that,

The basic Christian faith, shorn of its denominational impediments is, in sober truth, the only known force that is more than a match for the passionate zeal which the Marxian gospel has been able to inspire during the past thirty-five years. A revitalized faith would not save us from strain, but it might enable us to live nobly in the midst of strain.²⁹

He sees the need for a new kind of Reformation comparable to that which the Reformers created. This Reformation, he claims to be that of the rising 'religion of the laity':

So far as the Christian faith is concerned the practical handle in our time is lay religion. If in the average church we should suddenly take seriously the notion that every lay member, man or woman, is really a minister of Christ, we could have something like a revolution in a very short time; it would constitute both the big dose and the required novelty. Suddenly the number of ministers in the average church would jump from one to five hundred. This is the way to employ valuable but largely wasted human resources.³⁰

He complains that "most Protestants pay lip service to the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of every believer, but they do not thereby mean to say that every Christian is a minister."³¹ He points [15] to the great revolution which the Protestant Reformation created by opening the Bible to the ordinary Christian, man or woman, and thinks that in our day a similar revolution might result from opening the Christian ministry to every man and woman.

Our opportunity for a big step lies in the opening of the ministry to the ordinary Christian in much the same manner that our ancestors opened Bible reading to the ordinary Christian. To do this means, in one sense, the inauguration of a new Reformation while in another it means the logical completion of the earlier Reformation, in which the implications of the position taken were neither fully understood nor loyally followed.³²

He sees signs of this coming in the Kirchentag movement in Germany, led by Dr. Reinold von Thadden, himself a layman, and in the Christopher Movement in this country: "The growth of the lay ministry is one of the important facts of our time."³³

      He follows with a chapter on "The Revolt of the Laymen," a striking title which, if heeded, may bring about that larger revolt in the significance of the Christian message. [16]

[CTR 7-16]