work and calling

7/28/2019 Work and Calling

1/9

Jacques Ellul's most recent books to be publisbed in. the Unitedl '. States are Autonomy at Revolution, The Politics at God and the- ~ v . Politic.s of Man: False Presence of the K'ingdom. and Th e Meaning

of the CUy. Earlier works include The Techllological Society,Prapaganda, The Political Illusio/l. He is Professor of Law andJurisprudence at the Univer:sity of Bordeaux and an active member of the Reformed Church in France. Th e present article wastranslated by James S. Albritton.

1.It is not necessary to undertake a lengthy study to

realize that nothing in the Bible allows us to identifywork with calling. When the tenus that can be translated by the word "vocation," or "call from God" areencountered, they are always concemed with a summonsto the specific service of God: a summons to be prophetor apostle, bu t also king, as was David; and eventually,to serve God by an exceptional act, without even knowing one is serving Him, as the Chaldeans, or Cyrus, orthe king of Damascus. I t is never a question of workwith the exception ,of Hiram and the construction of theTemple. ViTork is (w e cannot, of course, produce a "theology of work" withiIl the limits of this articleI) a natural exercise of activity which either places man in apositive relation to the creation (the situation in Eden),or in a negative one (in the rupture with God, and "Eastof E d e n ~ ). In the latter case, work becomes painful an dcompulsory in the attempt to survive. In any case, however, it does no t represent a service to God. I t is an8

CALLINGJacques Ellu

imperative of survival, and the Bible remains realenough not to superimpose upon this necessity a sufluous spiritual decoration.Moreover, the Bible is not essentially concernedthis situatioD of work. It is the common and distreslot of everyone, bu t it is not particularly important. I toften been noted that one can find hardly anythinthe Old or New Testaments about ho'w the Judgethe Prophets, the Apostles or the Disciples, eamliving. The references to Amos the shepherd, andthe maker of tents, are exceptional indications ofconsequence. It has often been said that this lacreference was due to the fact that on the cultural lein the Jewish and then Greco-Roman worlds, worksuch little place and importance (and this is nottain) that people did not speak of it-and not beci t should have little importance before God. Biblicaltachment in this respect would then not be normaIn reality. however, this observation is without substaFor if work was conceived as a calling, a vocation comfrom God, the Bible would have accorded it an imance that it may not have had culturally. In addione should ask why it was desirable to extracate fthe Bible the idea of work as calling, at a time wwork was becoming important, culturally?

When Christianity became dominant in the Roworld, about the third century, certain theologiansgan to put a high value on \-vork. This coincided

KATALLAG-----_._ ... . . . . - - _ . _ ~ - ~ - _ . ~ . _- --..... ! . . . ' . , ~ ~ - - - , . - ...... ... ~ - - . _ - - - - _ . ~ - - - ~ _ . _ - - - - - - - - --_"'-' - ""---_ ..


2/9

the political movement: the Empire had more an d moreneed of workers and manual labor. This is not, ho-wever,the principle point. I do not at all believe, in this case,the Marxist interpretation (which is valid, on the contrary, for the use made of Christianity by 'Western bourgeoisie during the nineteenth century; we shall speak ofthis later), which states that the theologians formulatedan ideology of w o r k - i n - t h e - s e r v i c e - o f ~ G o d , in order toinduce people to work conscientiously, with seriousminds, without deceit, etc. Rather, the idea of work asvocation, as calling, appears to me to derive from nvoperspectives which progressively emerge in Christiantheology from the third to the fifth century. The firstarises from Greek philosophy, an d is what I would callthe passion for unity. The ideal life is "One", undivided,just as the ideal for the Creek city was unitary organization. All philosophy is oriented by this attraction tothe One. The world is bad because it is shattered,divided, separated. The One is both the reversion to theoriginal situation, and the fulllment of all convergencies.Man must establish a life of oneness, unequivocal; hemust not be divided. Under these conditions, and forfaith, it is evident that God is the essential part of ourlife. It is a function of grace-the Word which is revealedto us-and faith, that unity should be constituted. Manshould be of God and for God-in all that he does and inall his works. His life is not made up of incoherent andsuccessive moments, bu t is one in the recapitulation ofChrist. Likewise, man's diverse works are not thrownto chance: they form a whole with respect to tbe gracewhich has been given by God. Consequently, each one ofthese works is related to God: and, moreover, they come(i f one is faithful, if one is a believer) from th e will ofGod: recognized, discerned, accepted, loved. Therewill be a calling, a vocation addressed by God, no t onlyin His service and in accordance with the proclamationof the Gospel, bu t also for the "states" we adopt: avocation for marriage or celibacy, for example. Therefore, there wilJ be a vocation for work an d even for aparticular work. This is what is required for our livesto be 'One in God.

Bu t there is a second motive. \Ve have just spoken ofa calling to the service of God. Yet, more an d moreduring the fourth century, this service to God appearsnot only as preaching, in tIle service of the Church,"deaconry," etc., bu t as a service in th e world throughthe idea of Providence. God wills that the world of Hiscreation survive. He wishes to maintain it . There is a certain order of the world which is willed by God. Hence,all that we do to maintain Creation itself (make it last;have children, work), and to preserve its order, is aservice to God. Thus, military service in the fourth century could become a calling because it was part of themaintenance of the worldly order willed by God. And,of course, work, labor. All of this appears to me to beclearly formulated during the fourth an d fifth centuries.However, these theological constructions will be wiped

out during the troubled period from the fifth to the tecenturies.

Then, during the Middle ages (tenth-fourteenth cturies) a more confused situation occurs. Duringperiod, there is in reality two contradictory currents.some, work is purely and simply a curse, a sign ofcondemnation of Adam. Consequently, it doespossess any value in itself and cannot be the objeca calling. Genuine vocation is expressed, for examby the acceptance of poverty, and the tendency towthe begging monks (the mendicants) which correspoto tbis idea. At the extreme, some will say thatv,;orld is a place of evil, dominated by the Princesthis world: we should do all in our power to speedits end. Here, Catharism unites with a certain Chrisorientation. One must do nothing to make the wolast; on the contrary, to seek to bring about the kingdof God is to work for tbe end of the world (from whthe Cathars based their refusal to procreate). Butalso finds among the theologians the contradictory tdency: the defense of the ideology of work-its sanfying value, its lntegration into the unity of life,consequently, the idea that God calls us to performspecific work. Yet, different sorts of work aretinguished. Agricultural work is sanctifying, and caothe object of God's calling; it is a service to GodNature, Contrawise, commerce, and more so, motraffic, is not susceptible of incarnating a vocation frGod. Generally, all the theologians who attemptedconstruct dogmatics during the Middle Ages encotered the problem of work and energetically resolvein the direction of a choice made between work whpleases God, and work which is damnable, and inaffirmation of the unity of man's life, entirely submito grace, he is called upon through these works totest to that grace. '\Vork was not excluded; it wasobject of a vocation God addressed to man. Howeit concerned more a universal, as opposed to an inYidualized, calling.

The situation will be reversed during the Bfteenth sixteenth centuries. rst of all, by the great movemof secularization which began during the fourteecentury, and again, by the development of econoactivities (and especially commerce) which tendedset a high value on work. \Vork subsequently becomboth more essential than in the preceding period, it Bnds itself "ennobled." The idea of work as a cslo'wly disappears. During the fifteenth century, one gins to find the argument, so often developed duringReformation and the eighteenth century, of the uselness of the monks (and especially the begging monbecause they do not work, and produce nothing. \"begins to be (what it was not in the thirteenth centua value as well as a virtue.

"\ L


3/9

It is amidst this cultural climate, this psycho-economicmutuation with respect to work, that Martin Lutherappears. He cannot reject everything that has takenplace. The society in which he finds himself worTes asnever before. The social categOly he principally speaksto has made work the end and meaning of life. Onlythe view that evenjf:hing is related to God, that every-thing comes from God, is retained. Thereafter, work isalso related to God. Work is validated, bu t this is trueonly because it comes from God, because it is a part ofthe order He established for man. Thus, Luther willforcefully argue, in the celebrated text about the cobbler,that in making shoes, the cobbler serves God, obeys hiscalling from God, quite as much as the preacher of theWord. At times, during the Reformation, the idea thatwork is a service to God through man also appears: the' ....orker renders services to other men and, in doing so,obeys God's commandment.

It was also necessary to consider another interpretation of calling: work could be dreadfully painful, crushing., and mortifying, but such ""vas God's will. I t wasnecessary to assume this burden, this condemnation, toaccept it, because it came from God. Thereby, onerapidly arrived at a concept which would be developedduring the seventeenth and eighteenth centUJ'ies-thatof work as redemption, It is obvious that this was part ofman's vocation, man's calling. However, an importantchange takes place. Luther had heavily inSL'ited on theindividual character of grace, on the singularity of eachcalling. Could that which was true in the spiritual realmhe false in the temporal-if one served God in the one aswell as the other? Hence, he who performed a particularprofession did so because he was called upon by God tohold that particular profession, and no t another. Eachindividual entered into God's design in a particular There is no longer a general calling for work, but aunique calling addressed to such an d such individualto become a bricklayer, or a doctor, etc. This bringsabout, on the one hand, the impossibility of thoroughlyclassifying the professions which please God, and thosewhich are cursed (God cans a particular man to a paTticular work. . .). On the 0 ther hand, the inclividualassumes the responsibility that each person must askhimself: what type of work does God wish me to do?And this will arouse the uneasy conscience of Protestantism-the uncertainty concerning the obedience to acan which is never so obvious as to leave no room fordoubt. In any case, all this results in a tremendous professional conscience. It \Vas dear that he who acted byvocation should place all his zeal, all his love, all hisstrength, in the service of God. The economic consequences which this would have for the development ofcapitalism and the bourgeoisie are very familiar also. I tproduced a considerable valuing of work, and we thensee its development through reciprocal influence: themore work is valued through the idea of vocation, themore economic activity is increased; and, conversely:

the more economic activity is developed, the more wis valued.In the ideological realm, this question takes o

double orientation. On the one hand, work is lifteits highest pinnacle of exigency and concrete valuethe bourgeoisie. \iVe are all familiar with the "commplaces" which resulted: t hat , for example, "he 'who woprays" (which comes directly from the confusion tween work and divine calling). Or, even, "work is fdom," emphasizing the redemptive character of w'Ve also know about the use made of Cod's will bybourgeoisie concerning those who "",ork. The bourgeoemployed all these religious ideas during the ninetecentury to maintain the workers in submission an ddience to a divine order. At this time, the call to w(vocation) becomes once again collective, and a meof exerting social pressure, while, within the bourgeoitself, the sense of vocation as a personal service to Gthrough a profession (often liberal) is very often mtained. This implied the display of exceptional qualitone worked with more passion, taste, and care, becaone worked for God and by His command.

It is also necessary to underline the other aspect ofevolution of the idea of work as calling-found in writings of Karl Marx. Marx lifts the ideology of wto its summit. Man is what he does (in his work). Wis what distinguishes man from the rest of naturehe awards work an exceptional place and virtue. He:Marx gives us this admirable text concerning the reof work:

In your use of my product, I will directly enjoy theconsciousness of haVing satisfied a human need and objectified the essence of man, of having been for you theMiddle Tenn between yourself and the human race; ofbeing known and felt by you as a complement to yourproper being and a necessary part of you; thus to knowmyself confinned both in YOUI' thoughts and your love;to have created in th e individual manifestation of my life,the manifestation of your life; to have therefore formedand realized dire


4/9

one can say whatever one wishes on the philosophicallevel, bu t it has become very clear that nothing, in anyhistorical epoch, could justify any such idealism ofwork. Since the nineteenth century, we have 'witnessedthe degradation of work in three stages, yet we mustalways emphasize that it is never by glorifying the workof the artisian or the peasant as being easier, less tiring,etc. There ,vas, perhaps, in this latter conception of worka greater possibility of confusion witIi God's command.On the one hand, the crafts represented a more individualized type of work, directly implying the ratherpersonal idea of service, and the accomplishment, orcreation, of a product expressing all the personality ofthe author: one could see if the product was a success orfailure. It was a more complete type of work, at thesame time subjected to the rhythm of the worker himself.Similarly, the peasant works in nature, and inevitably,the medieval idea was preserved that Nature, as thenatural environment of man, is good. 'Vork which is donein nature is "closer to God." ( I t is not, however, a question of work which is more agreeable.) These twoaspects which encouraged the confusion between workand calling, have apparently disappeared, and we cannow observe the shattering of the unity between the twoterms, work and calling.

First of all, there was capitalism. 'Vith wage-earning,work becomes a commodity which is bought and sold.Man is then dispossessed both of his power to work andthe product of his work-in exchange for a salary whichallows him to do little more than survive. This salaryabsolutely does no t represent the tme, superior, "transcendent" value of work. On the contrary, it reduces workto nothing more than a commodity. The individual whosework is sold in this manner can have no initiative, nojoy; work can no longer be the expression of his personality, since he has no other objective than to produce theobjects which will enter into the commercial circuit.Hence, i t was from this time already difficult to maintain the idea of work as calling. as vocation. TIle situation will be further aggravated, however, as the ageof the machine fully develops. The problem is nowfamiliar. For example, in the works of Georges Friedmann: "Le travail en miettes" (''\Vork in pieces," "atomized work"), and "Ou va Ie travail humaine?" ( ', ' 'heregoes human work?") Work separated from workmanship has become pure and simple obligation withoutany meaning-shattered through division and specialization. The worker is ignorant in the end of what he doesand makes. What is the utility, the value, of such work?He is also ignorant of the materials with which he worksan d is familiar only \vith the gadgets and insITumentsthanks to which he works. The atomization and fragmentation of work prohibits any understanding of theactivity to which one devotes oneself. Specialized pro

fessional training encloses the worker in a narrow sphof activity. Personal reflection is no longer possible cocerning the "how" of his work. There is a rupture btween thought and action. And this leads to the situatwhere each action of the machine's servant will be callated by a third party, who is specialized in the "'mmachine" combination, as well as in the combinationthe machines among themselves, in order to fonnharmony among them. From that moment, man's wois entirely subordinated to the possibilities of the mchine and to the necessities of the organization mac:hines among themselves. This is represented, example, by the problem of "cadences" and the Taylozabon process. 11Jis means that worl" from which mis now totally dispossessed, can be only an activity alto him, imposed in some fashion from the outside. Wocan no longer correspond to any inward reality, aliterally holds no place in the true life of the worker-ayet it absorbs the major portion of his lifetime. Undthese conditions, it is obvious that work could no longbe a vocation, a calling. Of course, it is always possibto contend that God can transform the worst situatioand that He Clln restore the sense of vocation to tworst type of work. But this really represents a covenient refusal to see the real si tualion: 'Vark such asis today cannot be universally upheld as a calling. best, let uS say that God can by grace and miracle cauwork to be lived by man as a gift and a calling. Nontheless, the theological rapport between vocation awork has been broken: work as such is not vocation, na calling.Today, the general technicization of society has evaggravated this ruphue. Technique has become tmediator between all actions and all intentions. In oworld, it is necessary to depend upon techniques in ordto accomplish anything at all. And furthermore, tecnique has its own specific quality of efficiency; in faefficiency is technique's major characteristic. Conq1Jently, technique itself destroys any recourse to addefficiency. \\There true technique exists, it is not possibto employ Ambroise Pare's formula: "T dress his woundand God heals him." I t is not possible to say, "I presson the accelerator, and God made the car speed upThis regularity of effects, this specificity of means,' thgeneralized intercession of technique, leaves no roofor the concept of vocation as calling. Quite to the cotrary, we know there is serious criticism of "calling"the technological society; where a strict technicianneeded. one cannot accept a man endowed with voction, or God's calling. Possessing vocation becomesmeans for not becoming a competent technician. We aall familiar with men who present themselves for potions as p r o f e ~ s o r s , educators, psychologists, because thare obeying a calling from God to a vocation-and aperfectly incompetent. Even more so, we consider theven for a specialist, vocation can cause much bungliin the use of technique: a nurse who obeys her vocatiowill Jet herself be influenced by sentiment in her wo


5/9

and no longer be dominated by the rigorous criterion ofefficiency. \Ve also know what tlns social, pedagogicalor medical work becomes in the absence of "calling": th eapplication of cold techniques, the radical indifferenceof th e practitioner toward his patient, th e exactitudeof th e gestures in the absence of human relationships, th etransfonnation of the patient into a case, a number.Now, all of this results from the generalization of technique-as-mediation, which makes any grafting of vocation to technique impossible. I t is only in an abstractan d theoretical fashion that ODe can say: 'There is avocaoon, a call from God, and he who received it becomes a perfect technician." Or, "Beyond th e use of aperfect technique, there is the marvelous adjunction ofGod's gesture in calling us to vocation." All such thinkingis simply romantic idealism. In reality, it is perfecttechnique which excludes the very idea of vocation.There is only one fact to remember: technical efficiencypelmits us to heat a greater number of "cases" But:one carmot indefinitely multiply human resources withresort to pity, sympathy, compassion, love.

This radical rupture beh'l'een work and calling. dueto the "capitalism-machinism-technicization" trio, hascaused as a consequence, the crisis of calling amongChristians themselves. I would like to look at this crisisfrom three angles. First of all, it has become well known(a t least in Europe) that the theory of vocation has oftenbecome a way not to pay for services at their tm evalue. Just as the bourgeois made workers obey by explaining that their condition was the fruit of the vocationwhich God had given them, so in many Christian an dchurchly enterprises, "vocation" is used as a pretext togive lower salaries (and sometimes no salary at an) tonurses, social workers, pastors, teachers, etc. "Since youobey a vocation c o m ~ g from God, you're not really goingto demand to be paid for obeying a order coming fromGod!" This speech, made by the presidents of businessesand churches in Europe, facilitated things for them verywell! At th e present time, of course, there has beenth e expected reaction to it, and these "servants" nowdemand a salary equal to those who fulfill-\vithout anycalling from God-the same function. But as a consequence of all this. vocation itself has become suspect.\Vhen a professor or a tutor hears th e words "calling", or'"vocation," his reflex is "\Ve11- they are invoking my'calling: an d that means they are not going to pay mewhat is just and fair for what I do." So even seriousChristians frequently want to hear no more of v o c a t i o n ~ for they consider it as a means of blaclanail.

From a second point of view, calling as vocation isunder a shadow with Christians due to th e fact that theChurch's responsible people (pastors, etc.,) feel verymuch debased in a ymrld of technique since they areno t themselves specialists, and especially not tei}l

nicians. To obey a calling and then to preach, to a congregation, to take time for soul-searching-aseems frivolous in a world of engineers and prodSo, these embarrassed pastors also want to betechnicians. They therefore practice psychoangroup dynamics, social psychology, information tetc. And it is as psychoanalysts that they will ac tthe Christian community-no longer because theycalled upon by God for service. Here again it isillusory to believe that technique is simply addedserves, vocation: technique in fact substitutes for vocation.

\iVhen we combine these first two criticisms of tion by Christians we rapidly arrive at the tmrd: tfusal to admit that there can be any calling from Grender a vocation of service to the Church. Inwords, Christians have fallen into precisely the operror which characteri7.ed the old identllcation bework and calling. Now, there is no longer any vocatbeing a pastor or a deacon, I t is simply work likother work. The young French pastors have pusheto the extreme: '


6/9

Under these conditions, what are the possible responses if we do not accept a pure and simple rejectionof vocation, i f we continue to believe that God calls us tofulll a particular service? One attitude that is still frequently adopted consists in saying that, fundamentally,there are still certain professions which can be conceived of and lived as God-given callings: physicians, toheal and preserve life; lawyers, to defend the poor, Lhewidows and the orphans; teachers,.to aid in the formationof character; psychologists, soda! workers, etc. . . .Christians could, therefore, direct themselves towardthese professions. But I am sure that this is in no wayan answer to the question of work and calling. In thefirst place, these '"bourgeois" professions imply that Christians must be part of an "elite." Again, it is a completeillusion to believe that these professions are any longerpeculiar vocations for Christians. They have become astechnical as any other profession, and professionalexigencies rapidly efface the; sense of calling. Ar:d finally,these professions can more often than not be seen tofunction mainly to reintegrate our technical society.Thus, to become a lawyer by "calling" represents thee":pression of good sentiments, a generous "'ill, anidealism, bu t it means in reality to be the victim of anillusion and to live in ignorance of what is real in oursociety. In our times, there is no "profession-vocation."Therefore, we might move on to another answer: wemust accept the fact that work is condemned in oursociety; that t-here is a segment of our life which is"cursed," Hence, we can abandon ourselves to a tradeor profession which is without any .value, without anysignificance, without any interest, which functions solelyto supply us with enough money to survive, and weshall find the main interest for our lives elsewhere. Thisis the attitude of all those sociologists and social pS)Tchol-ogists who believe that man is going to find the good lifein leisure: Let us accept the fact that we shall not be living while we work. I t will be rather a sort of lethargy,a blindness, an unconscious sleep (and especially let usnot even approach consciousness) . We shall be arousedby leisure, where we shall become ourselves at last. Atleast we shall live. And so it shall be exactly the same\vith respect to calling. Vocation will be a part of leisure,whether one undertakes some search for Christian lifein his spare time, or whether oDe divides, traditionally:"The week for the world, Sunday for God." This dichotomy facilitates things very well. One can be an efficientand ruthless businessman for six (five!) days; on Sundaythe whole of the Christian calling is resolved throughparticipation in worship. Church festivities and works.But it is obvious that this is not satisfactory, and i t is unnecessary to linger too long upon it. The case against"Sunday C h r i s t i a n s ~ has ofteo been made. But, neithermust we forget that we cannot bring "a little Christianity"into modern work. I t is simply out of the question toadopt the attitude often held by the Catholic Church:to bless "externally". That is to say, to Christianize byadding a little prayer or benediction to professional

activities. One's work will never be transformed becauat the beginning or the end of it, he prays to God several seconds. Moreover, there can be a compmentary form to this hypocrisy: to imply that the obeence to a God-given vocatiOn is to live as a Christwhose calling is seen clearly and is manifested inexercise of a profession; that in the style of a Christin a profession, there would be an incarnation, andmerely the addition of a few pious words.

So: we have established our powerlessness. \Vbat thcan we say?

III.The first observation we must make is that, al lideological level, work is of the order of necessity. I tgiven to man by God as a means of survival, bu t italso posed as a condition for survival. This is evidenwhich St. Paul emphasizes: I f a man does not wish\,'ork, then neither shall he eat. It is not, therefore, a pof the order or" grace, of gratuity, of love, of freedo\Ve must always avoid confusing the two when we speof work and calling. At this juncture, I am repeatiwhat I wrote concerning violence. For like violence, lpolitical power, work also is part of the order of necsity. One cannot escape it; it is the human condition sulting from the rupture with God. And let us not forgthat even after the Incarnation and Reconciliation,still remain men. \Ve have not become angels. vVe mstiU eal to live; we are still subject to the "necessity"gwwing old. and "ve are still subject to the final necessito die. In Christ there is no suppression of the Clrof necessily: there is victory over that order. Victorythe Resurrected over death, of the Crucified over powers of this world, of love over evil. But death, eand the powers of this world still exist, and they fothe order of necessity by which man is always trappWork is a part of this order. At no time, and in no ccumstances, can one say that from a Biblical point view, "work is freedom." It is just the conbmy, Hum0xperience encounters just this revelation in Christ, athat revelation never beguils us with illusions. So,must accept it as we have been given it. And we shouespecially not pretend it to be something other than whit is. Otherwise, as Pascal remarked, "He who 'wisto play the part of an angel, plays the part of a beasConsequently. we must also accept work as calling, bnot at all as a calling to live like Christian, as beiredeemed, as being free. Ori the contrary, we must acept it as a calling to recognize ourselves as creatu(finite, limited, submitted to necessity) before God, sfnful creatures (suffering the consequences of our ruture with the Father). Work should be received in fGimarked with this double qualification. Consequently,is "normal," in that it is alienating, ovenvhelming ainsignificant. We should accept the feeble stupidity of


7/9

'.as being the mark of the absurdity itself which constitutesour lives. Therefore, work has no ultimate value, notranscendental meaning. Before God, it is that whichallows us to survive and which characterizes us as humanbeings. This realism matches our earlier observations,and suggests the destruction of bourgeoise or Marxistromanticism, as well as any idealism concerning work.

However, the recognition that we are in the order ofnecessity does not at all imply the scorning of work, orthe refusal and criticism of it : such is indeed the order towhich we belong, and nothing more. Th e only thingwhich is forbidden us is, precisely, to confuse the orderof necessity ,,,,ith freedom-which is to say, grace; whichis to say, vocation. \iVork is completely relative beforeGod. After the criticism of work by Ecclesiastes, all ofthe sociological studies about ",'ork are quite vain! Thereis no place for illusion about work. ''Fork does not leadto anything decisive. Particularly in opposition to Marx,work does not constitute the essential meaning to life.'\Vork is incapable of giving meaning to life, or of sheding light on what man is, or of leading to buth. Wemust accept the fact that while working we are wly inthe most completely relative type of situation. This iswhat is meant by the expression: "Sufficient unto tbe dayis the evil thereof." Work is thus limited in everyday life,and even limited to the banal, to the '11Opeless." I t isneither value nor creation. I f we receive satisfaction fromour work, like the doctor who cures or the artist whocreates a work, we must not then say: "such is the truemeasure of work, by which we must measure all othertasks, that of the poor assembly-line worker, or that ofthe \OVTetched laborer." No! It is in fact the latter typeof work which is more genuine. And when human endeavor produces joy, or produces a work which seemsto surpass the ordinary, then we must be conscious of anexceptional event, a grace, a gift of God for which wemust give thanks. I f we consider work in this manner,then we join realism with Biblical discernment, and wecut the wings from the idealism concerning a marvelousfuture where each person will do rewarding and signmcant work.

On the other hand, however, relative work is not\"ithout value and interest, since it also allows the possibility of continuing on in life, of maintaining the world,an d consequently it opens up the possibility of history.Here, Marx's interpertation is fully valid: it is obviouslywork 'which allows history to be made. And this is God'swill. Hence, at this level only, therp is vocation: Godcalls us to a particular work (whatever it may be!) toprolong tllis world, which He has not ye t decided toterminate and to judge. It is an entirely relative task,but it must he done. I will say it once again: it is notbecause something is relative that we should disdain it.Christians are all to thirsty for absolutes. vVhat is nJative never interests them (from which proceeds, forexample, the many political errors they commit). Now,it ought to be otherwise. That which is relative shouldconcern Christians, for the absolute is God's affair. I t is14

in the domain of the relative that we should be engprecisely as Christians. 11le relative should be consias our true place, and should be taken altogseriously from now on: "'If you have been faithflittle things. . . ." This, however, excludes the deimportance of the choice of a profession, as the idcalling, in the sense we have discussed it in the apages.

I f it is not in work that 'we can unify our lives, orincarnate our Christian vocation, if the society of nique brings us back to the hard condition of rework, without ultimate value and significance, thenobvious that we must discover a fonn of activity wexpresses our Christian calling, which implies acarnation of faith. And since we aTe involved inworld, it cannot be a purely interior matter, nor a in the sense in which that word is usually takeexample, in "work of charity." The Christian cshould be expressed in an activity-in an activity ha social and collective "impact," susceptible of modin one way or another the shape of the world win, and an activity that can only be gratuitous, presen1ing the characteri


8/9

"normal"-that is, making them confonn to the modelsociety would makE; for them, or adapting them to somekind of work. I t is, in fact, a matter of giving them themeans to transform their negative lack of adaptationinto a poS'itive lack of adaptation. This means helpingthem learn about their personality so that they canchange negative behavior into a capacity for innovation,their aggressiveness into a force of controlled action, andthat they themselves develop the capacity to face thedifficulties in their lives, and integrate their tensions intofruitful efforts. This is done, first of all, through certainactivities (parachuting, mountain-climbing. scuha-diving,sail-boating, etc.,) during which they leam control andteam relations. for these activities should always be dangerous enough to represent a genuine challenge. Secondly, an effort is made through open, interpersonalrelations, which one can call "psychological therapy" ifone wishes, but which has never had the character of arigorous application of psychological techniques. Todirect such an enterprise like the one I have described(and, of course, this includes a full-time, therefore, apaid staff) is genuine work. But to the extent that thisdoes not fall into the re,alm of necessary work, as societysees it-since it takes for granted a large autonomy ofaction, unceasing innovation, and free choice-it appearsas being truly related to the personality of the individualwho is involved in it. This seems to me to be an exampleof one of those possibilities of incarnating grace, in aspecific and unconstrained manner. I Bnd some meaningin this. However, it implies that each person seek andinvent an activity of this nature, and not be reduced simply to copying what is already tal'ing place somewhereelse. This is always the great problem with all Christian'\-"orks" for i f we have received a calling, a vocation, tolive in this world as witnesses, it involves us rst of all inthe initiative of that incarnation which can never berepeated.

Do we not, however, Bnd ourselves again in the situation an d difficulty we have encountered earlier-thedivision of life into two separate parts, the one devotedto work without value, and the other valued as a calling? Is this not in reality a solution of despair? To besure, it contradicts the idea of the Christian life as theunified life, integrating thf' totality of ou r actions andfeelings. But we have seen that this is no t necessarilythe authentic Christian understanding of life. If we haveunderstood the true place of work according to theScriptures, then we should not be distressed by the factthat our Christian vocation does not fall in the domainof work. Nevertheless, work is not the "cursed part" ofou r lives-the part which presents no interest, which hasto be endured while awaiting vacation-time. In realit"y,we must assume, accept positively, an d take upon ourselves, this sign of our rupture with God-to live fully

this order of necessity, in order that the freedom whis at times granted by God, the calling which we areto assume, represents its true value. It is only throwork, not as calling but as constraint, that the voca\\thich is incarnated in a work of gratitude takesmeaning. I t would be disastrous to think that while Ioccupied with the Prevention Club I am obeying Gwhile the rest of my time is anonymous, without inteor significance. I should rather be convinced thatalso \vorking at something without significance tham fullling Gods plan.

Christian living thus presents itself as a dialectmovement (not dialectic that is a Lype of reasonbu t a movement of actual experience). What isvoted to constrained and insignificant work represnegativity: this is actually the negativi ty of callthe inverted image of vocation, the expression ofimpossibility of living it, of assuming it , of incaring it. This inverted image must exist, in order ton the one hand, we know fully what compromises votioIl, and on the other, we are encouraged to expressCal1ing exists. "Vork in the modern society of tedmishows us the certainty that such work is not our Chtian vocation. Rut this should no t in any way stop usthe "discouraged soul." On the contrary, we should sout what is possible as incarnation and accomplishmby beginning with this negation. And conversely, w

, we have discovered what form vocation could eventutake, when we have invented the "how" of concrete dence, then, the work we are obliged to do to earnliving should become enriched, valued, and to a cerextent , significant.

Thus. these are not two separated parts of life,two faces of the dialectical movement. \Ve are no t aally dealing with a stable and kept situation, hut wa relation that is constantly being challenged, a pgression which results from the influence of the onethe other. And in this process, the negative portionways bas a crea.tive function-due to incessant questiing and re-questioning, which constantly obliges meseek out the most satisfactory incarnation of my callTIlis consequently implies that there ShOllld be a cerrdationship between the two-that the choice, thevention, the discovery of the vocation fonn must hsomething to do with the work accomplished thronecessity. It is obvious that if I am a doctor by necessand consider my vocation to be found in boating, thwill be no such relation. In this. example .. the secchoice cannot make my work significant, since it isthe order of leisure, and not vocation (which meanis of the order of false sociological freedom, as oppoto true freedom, which is grace and gratuitousness)I f I take once again the example of the PrevenClub, I would say that a professor who is called upondeal with students, bu t \.vho does so only because of pfessional requirements, could express his calling by ting care of young people who are different fromstudeIlts, and by situating himself in another set of


9/9

cumstances. But what he would then learn through work-ing with young misfits could lead him to discover awhole facet of his students that he would no t have seenas a professor. He is then engaged in a new relation-ship with them. Certainly, work would still remaincoercive and necessary-with the typical sluggishness ofinstitutions, the absurd regulations, the meddlesome andunjust authorities. Bu t he would find himself removedfrom the function of a professor and into a total humanrelationship-not by humanitarianism or by liberalismbut by the effective discovery of the problems of youngpeople. Reciprocally, the negativity of the professionalfunction teaches how one should not deal with youngmisfits, just as the negativity of university organizationinstructs one as to what shou1d not take place at thePrevention Club!

Each person must consequently choose the form ofincarnation of his vocation with respect to his placthe order of necessity. However, this implies a reveon our part as to the manner in which we can concour lives and our relation to society.

In summary, I will say that calling no longer concwhat we had so long thought it did-an entry intoorder (of life, of the world) willed by God as such,to which one adhers by vocation. Rather, calling ientry into a disorder (although apparently o r d e restablished by man, and this disorder will be upsetput into question each time we seek to express calling.

work and calling

Documents