My home church, Redemption Tempe, does a very good job of applying faith
to all areas of life. Over the past few months, they've gone so far as
to interview a different individual every week during the service about
their vocation and how they seek to behave in that vocation in light of
their faith. We've had people representing occupations from fields such
as athletics, medicine, education, and construction, and it's been very
interesting and thought-provoking! One thing I have noticed, however, is
that most of the people interviewed work directly with or for the good
of other people: even the researcher interviewed a few weeks ago was an
MD studying pediatric cancer, and there have been no artists of any type
interviewed. While I know (from other events and from speaking with the pastors) that Redemption believes any vocation can be used for the glory of God and has intrinsic value, I have seen in other Christian circles a
definite desire to justify any vocation or endeavor by directly linking it to
some application for the good of humanity or the spread of the gospel.
For
example, in this paradigm, the study of literature or history might be
perceived as having value only insofar as the lessons derived from that
study enabled one to better serve others or impact society. Music and
the arts might be considered worthwhile only if centered on explicitly
Christian themes, intended for use in church, or used for healing or
comforting. In my own vocational sphere, science is often seen as "good"
only when it is clearly bound to some clinical application or
environmental good. The broader Christian community smiles upon things
like diagnostic lab sciences; research into different diseases and their
detection, treatment, and prevention; evaluation of food and water
pollution; research into cleaner technologies; and projects to make
clinically and environmentally relevant discoveries and tools available
to underprivileged areas. The so-called "pure sciences," on the other
hand - research simply for the sake of knowledge and discovery - are
ignored or seen as less valuable, along with what I'll call pure art -
art for the sake of beauty, truth, and creation.
It is not incredibly
difficult to understand this way of thinking. People in the church
believe (correctly) that our primary call in life, regardless of our
vocation and talents, is to love God and to love others. It can be hard
for them to see how reading a classic novel, painting a portrait, or
studying the social habits of bees manages to accomplish either of those
things, and so they consider them to be of lesser value. With some
impressive mental gymnastics and a good imagination they might be able
to find some connection between those occupations and practical relevant
service to others or to God, but the link will always seem slightly
tenuous and unreliable, casting a shadow of doubt on those activities
and the people who pursue them vocationally.
Is this an appropriate
way to view different callings and careers? When choosing a vocational
path, should we be careful to select something with at least the
potential for that sort of practical application in service to others? I
have at least one friend who consciously made that a part of his career
choice planning, and I went through a lot of soul-searching along these
lines myself, trying to force myself to fit into a medical profession
simply because of its potential to benefit others and open avenues for
sharing Christ. Since then, though, I've come to believe that this is an
incomplete way to evaluate vocation, and that what it ultimately
amounts to is Christian utilitarianism.
What do I mean by that? Well,
in secular philosophical utilitarianism, things or activities gain
worth or moral standing in direct proportion to the quantifiable good or
happiness they produce. This can be construed in terms of either
personal happiness or social good (which is essentially the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people). Christian
utilitarianism in its popular and loosely defined manifestations eschews
personal happiness and satisfaction as a justifying end, but embraces
the social good as a justifying end, adding to the definition of the
social good things like freedom of religion, access to the Bible, and
faith in God. Sometimes this social good is elevated to the primary end,
even eclipsing what the catechism says is the chief end of man: to
glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Maybe this happens because the social
good is a much more visible and quantifiable pursuit - I don't know. In
any case, it can be very frustrating for someone who works in a more
abstract field, whose vocation does not tangibly or directly impact
issues of physical/emotional well being, poverty, social justice,
education, missions, and so on, to try to justify their vocation and
find lasting meaning in it, because of the strength and prevalence of
this paradigm within the church.
What utilitarianism excludes is the
concept that things are or can be "good-in-themselves" - that is, things
do not necessarily require a justifying end to be valuable and
worthwhile. Or, to put it another way, the joy of exploring and
discovering more of God's creation is a good thing whether or not any
clinically or agriculturally relevant application is ever made because
of it. A piece of music or work of art is worth creating and delighting
in because of its innate beauty or the truth it represents, whether or
not it is explicitly Christian, or whether or not a lesson or parable
can be drawn from it, and even whether or not it is ever shared. These
things are not "less than" because they do not have a justifying end
planned as part of their purpose and execution. They are simply good
because of what they are: good because in pursuing them we reflect God's
joy in creating beauty and order and glorify Him by probing the depths
of that beauty and rejoicing in Him in it. That may be all. But it is
more than enough.
I want to encourage the church to remember what the
chief end of man truly is, to reflect on the woman in the Gospels whose
sacrifice of worship was praised by Jesus as a beautiful act even
though she could have used those resources to provide for the poor, to
dwell on the countless unnecessary but wonderful things God Himself
created. It is a good thing to devote our lives to the service of
others, and I believe it should be our posture towards others in general
even if it is not specifically related to our vocation. But it is not
the only worthwhile thing, or even the greatest thing. The greatest
thing is to glorify God, and one way we can do that is through immersing
ourselves in the beauties of His creation, learning more about it,
meditating on its complexities, imaging His creativity in our own art
and invention. Our vocations may not be acts of service, but they can
still be acts of worship, beautiful, valuable, and worthy of the time
and diligence we invest in them.
