Note: From What Is My Calling? (Baker 2022). Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Citations have been omitted.
When reading the NT and specifically some of the key passages on calling, we find a strong prepositional theology related to who we are in Christ. In chapter 3 we looked at several passages, especially in the Epistles, that describe the normative uses of calling language – language that applies to all believers at all times in all cultures and circumstances. Incorporation into or union with Christ stands out.
Christians are called “into fellowship with [the] Son,” and because of God we are “in Christ Jesus” (I Corinthians 1:9, 30).
God has called us to live “in the grace of Christ” (Galatians 1:6).
We are called to a holy life because of the “grace . . . given us in Christ Jesus” (II Timothy 1:9).
God has called us by “his . . . glory and goodness” so that we “might participate in the divine nature” (II Peter 1:3-4).
The Christian’s calling is about who we are in Christ. It is not about the particularities of our life circumstances, such as our occupation, where we live, what we feel wired to do, or to whom we are related….
Called to Participate in Christ, Called to Places of Responsibility in Christ
Participation in Christ is a dominant theme in Paul’s Letters. It is also the substance of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theological reflections on calling and vocation. He writes, “In encounter with Jesus Christ, a person experiences God’s call [Ruf], and in it the calling [Berufung] to a life in community with Jesus Christ.” [Ethics, p. 290]
For Bonhoeffer, calling was not about a specific job, task or vocation but rather about living life in community with Christ and others. Calling is not specific to a particular circumstance of one’s life but extends to the whole of life, which is marked by living in community with Christ. As a result, there is no limit to the ways in which Christians might faithfully express their calling in Christ.
Bonhoeffer is especially concerned with the concrete expression of one’s calling through responsibility. He writes, “From Christ’s perspective this life is now my vocation; from my own perspective it is my responsibility.” [p. 290] A Christian’s entire life constitutes the believer’s calling, not merely some piece or part of it. Calling to Christ becomes a rubric of sorts that helps Christians determine what a faithful and responsible action might be amid whatever circumstances they find themselves. This sounds much like Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians: “Walk [in a manner] worthy of the calling you have received” (Ephesians 4:1 CSB).
This point argues against any attempt to equate calling with a particularity in life, such as a job. In Bonhoeffer’s mind, this is actually irresponsible. He insists, “Vocation is responsibility, and responsibility is the whole response of the whole person to reality as a whole. This is precisely why a myopic self- limitation to one’s vocational obligations in the narrowest sense [such as a job or ministry] is out of the question; such a limitation would be irresponsibility.” [p. 293]
If persons are in Christ, their calling to Christ extends to the whole of their lives. Saying that one is called to be a pastor or called to be a doctor wrongly restricts the scope of one’s responsibility to live faithfully as one who is in Christ. Instead, the whole of one’s life, composed of all the particularities of their situation and circumstances at any given moment, defines and limits the scope of their responsibility to live faithfully in Christ. Extending calling to the whole of one’s life means no circumstance or situation of life is outside the scope of a Christian’s calling. All of life is a calling in Christ.
Obedient to the Call within Particular Circumstances
Karl Barth affirms Bonhoeffer’s thinking about vocation, in particular reinforcing that vocation is “the place of responsibility.” [Church Dogmatics, III/4:264; the subsection in Bonhoeffer’s Ethics that deals with calling and vocation is titled “The Place of Responsibility.”] He frames responsibility, though, in terms of obedience – obedience first to Christ’s call and, second, obedience within one’s particular life circumstances.
As “calling” relates to one’s responsibility to live a life of obedience, Barth recognizes that there is freedom in Christ for the Christian, but this freedom has limitations. These limitations provide the framework for Christians to express their calling to Christ.
First, Barth identifies a person’s age as a limiting factor. Each person experiences “gradually changing conditions of [their] psychophysical existence.” [III/4:274] As people called to Christ mature from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, they have different sorts of responsibilities and opportunities to live a life of obedience. The energy that one has in one’s twenties and thirties to be a youth pastor who plans and leads retreats and all-nighters is not the same level of energy one has in one’s forties and fifties. By no means does this exclude those who are further along in life from engaging in youth ministry, but one’s age and stage of life limits what one can do and sometimes what one even wants to do. In this example, one’s calling does not change because one’s energy level or desire to be a youth pastor diminishes. Rather, one’s calling to Christ remains intact no matter one’s age, though the shape of one’s obedience as one who is in Christ adjusts.
Second, Barth observes that the historical situation limits how believers express their calling in Christ. Included in a historical situation are one’s “country, century, generation and ancestry, the comprehensive state of political, economic, cultural and ecclesiastical affairs, the nature and level of humanity, habits, intellectual conceptions and morality in…[the] immediate environment.” [III/4:284-85] Often one cannot choose such elements of one’s broader context and environment….The various factors of our historical situation not only shape who we are but also determine the limits within which we strive to live in obedience in Christ. This second limitation resides outside the person. Again, Barth believes that one’s calling cannot be understood apart from acknowledging these kinds of limitations.
Obedient to the Call as the People We Are, Doing Specific Kinds of Work
Barth’s third limitation resides within the person: one’s personal aptitude. Each person has certain skills, abilities and inclinations. There is a level of usefulness each person offers based on what they have the capacity to do. Speaking personally, our skills, abilities and inclinations have led us to work in the world of academia and coaching – teaching, researching, mentoring and writing books such as this one. Not every person has this same skill set and should therefore not be expected to express their obedience in this same way. Others are able to design propulsion systems for underwater vessels; we do not possess those skills.
But neither “seminary professor” nor “engineer” are callings. We have seen seminary students claim to have a calling to be a pastor and yet not have the competency to preach, sit with people empathetically, or lead a group of people. Rather than conflate calling with a job, Barth reminds us that it is wise for Christians to embrace their calling to Christ and discern how to express this calling in and through the various abilities and skills they have.
Barth’s final limitation is obedience in the Christian’s particular “sphere of operation, the field of…ordinary everyday activity.” [III/4:296] This limitation is similar to the second one mentioned above; yet here the emphasis lies not on the contextual elements of one’s life but on one’s obedience extending to the whole of life. Calling is not limited to one’s gainful employment: “That a man’s vocation [calling] is exhausted in his profession is no more true than that God’s calling which comes to him is simply an impulsion to work. He will always live in widely different spheres if he receives the divine calling and is obedient to it.” [III/4:265]
The Limits of Our Vocations Define Our Freedom in Christ
While there is a tendency to myopically identify a specific aspect of our lives with our calling, Barth helps us lift our eyes to see that the whole of our lives is like a canvas on which an artist chooses to paint. No part of the canvas is off-limits, but the canvas has edges, and the artist should not go beyond these boundaries and paint the nearby dog or table. There is ultimately freedom for Christians to explore the shape of their obedience in Christ as they live within their varied spheres. In this way, Christians have the freedom to engage all aspects of their lives in ways that are worthy of their calling in Christ.
At the intersection of responsibility and limitation, those who are in Christ must discern how to live their lives in a manner that reflects that they participate in Christ. This means that participating in Christ concerns who they are in the whole of their lives rather than what they do in a particular job, task or role. That Christians participate in Christ must occupy the most prominent place in their understanding of who they are and therefore how they live in the whole of their lives. Rather than identify a particular job, task, or role with one’s calling, Christians must start with and subsequently emphasize what it means to live a life worthy of participating in the one to whom they are called and affirm their identity as God’s people.
From What Is My Calling?, Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, copyright 2022, used by permission.
William Klein, professor emeritus of New Testament interpretation, Denver Seminary; and Daniel Steiner, leadership coach, Sojourner Enterprises
