The Missing Element in the Packaging of Vocation

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/is-work-good

Reading this piece from Ligonier, it felt like a sale pitch, like I was being sold a package. And what is the product? It's the Protestant Work Ethic, so critical to the Magisterial Reformation's sacral programme. All of life in this world is made into holy Kingdom work and is an act of transformation.

On the contrary, the so-called 'Dominion Mandate' is no longer fulfilled by us – but by Christ in the New Heavens and New Earth. The work in the garden was Kingdom work – but once the Fall took place and they were exiled to the East of Eden, Adam and Eve no longer dwelt in the Kingdom. Rather, they awaited the seed, the One who was to come, the One who would defeat death – for there is no death in God's Kingdom.

When a variation of the mandate (if we assent to call it that) appears in Genesis 9 it's quite different. No longer are Noah and his sons building the Kingdom on Earth. Rather they are in a state of antagonism with nature and there's no notion that by building civilization and subduing the Earth, will the 'Dominion Mandate' somehow by fulfilled. It is now not just a time of thorns and thistles, but of blood and fear.

In fact, harking back to an earlier section of Genesis, we see the stirrings of civilisation among the sons of Seth? No, we see it among the Cainites. This is not to say that civilisation, the city, or the arts are therefore universally evil and to be rejected – by no means. But they are not part of the Kingdom of God either. Our interest is that of detached pilgrims at best, partakers but not investors it could be said.

We must also make sure that we don't confuse the city of Cain with the City of God – which is heavenly, lest we fall into the condemnation of loving the world and the things of the world. This confusion so painfully marks the history of the Church and in fact was made even worse by the Magisterial Reformation and its re-cast doctrine of Vocation.

By all means work – in rejecting these sacral categories I'm not for a moment suggesting otherwise. But that work is not Kingdom work and the doctrine of Vocation is unscriptural.

But as is often the case, there's a vital element to the discussion that's absent. Everyone wants to focus on the prelapsarian declaration of work being 'good' and how that doesn't change with the Fall. In fact there is a profound change – one wonders if they do not fully understand the implications of the weeds, sweat, and pain in childbearing. We work, but our hope is not in this life and thus the New Testament speaks in clear terms that this age is characterized by vanity and futility. An understanding of this changes things and demonstrates that the article in question (while stating many truths) is overall unhelpful – even misleading. The critical element of futility is missing from the discussion – and it counters any notion of prosperity gospel, whether the tacky and obscene variety of middle America, or the also repugnant high-brow versions represented by the likes of Ligonier and Reformed Confessionalism.

The Holy Spirit builds the Kingdom and uses us and our lives and cross-bearing witness to do so. We may do so while we are working but this is not to say the work itself is building the Kingdom. The work itself is futility and this is no less true even if it puts food on the table. We still die and this is not our home. Our work no matter how well done, will be misused by others and ultimately turn to dust. It is temporal, not eternal.

Dispensing with the drive to take dominion and conquer culture, we can realize that mundane work (as opposed to genuine Kingdom work) is not an end, and not even the means that some would make it out to be. We work, but because we live in a fallen world we do fallen work that fails and will ultimately burn with the rest of the works of men. Nevertheless even fallen futile work has some 'good' – that we will grant. And yet contrary to Myrick, for many people work is not a source of dignity and for many (especially the exploited) it is dehumanising and futile. As is so often the case, when it comes to the heirs of Magisterial Reformation, the perspective and framing of the discussion assumes middle class norms, values, and expectations. As such the discussion is skewed.

And the passage in Colossians is misused – something we regularly encounter. The same is true of the passage in 1 Corinthians. These passages do not teach the doctrine of Vocation as they would have it. Read them in context and you'll realize they're about self-abnegation, self-sacrifice, and other-orientedness. Rather than affirming all work as some would have it – the application of the passages mean (in many cases) not pursuing certain spheres and tasks that would result in a violation of New Covenant ethics.

While I would certainly not take exception to the Proverbs he quotes, nevertheless I would say that they must also be considered in light of both the Old and New Testament's condemnation of the rich – and all such Proverbs must be read in light of New Testament teaching. Such Proverbs are harnessed by those who wish to present a certain set of values and reinforce a set of economic assumptions – which in many cases don't actually conform to Scripture either.