Rome's model was developed under the auspices of Late
Antiquity and their version of Christendom was forged in what we now call the
Middle Ages. They needed kings, knights, bailiffs and all the rest. And yet
many thinkers within the Roman Catholic fold recognised problems with one being
engaged in these occupations while at the same time holding a Christian
profession. This tension is something Magisterial Protestantism failed to recognise
and in fact rejected. The Reformers and their descendants saw no difficulty
with these professions at all and in fact blessed those who endeavoured to fill
them. Over time Roman Catholic theologians developed spiritual frameworks for
Christian knighthood etc... and while Rome long resisted usury, even while
utilising loopholes, by the time of the Renaissance and Reformation, Rome would
cave on this issue too.
In forms appropriate to the so-called (if somewhat nebulous)
Age of Reason, the mainstream Protestant groups of the 16th and 17th
centuries would heartily embrace these same social and economic models and
would quickly sacralise them. Instead of knighthood, one would discuss the
'vocation' of soldier. Usury once a grievous sin was transformed in order to
accommodate the times. No longer a term used to describe and thus forbid all
interest, it was redefined only as excessive interest. Capitalism would become
the new blessed and God ordained norm just as Feudalism had been during the
previous Catholic dominated epoch.
The tensions between Nature and Grace were eliminated at
least in principle, and yet by the 20th century some Protestant
leaders were frustrated as it would seem the Nature-Grace dichotomy had crept
back into their circles.
In fact to some extent the duality had always continued to
exist. Why? Because intuitively the man in the pew knows different and additionally
people read their Bibles. The Kingdom-Culture monism taught by Magisterial
Protestantism isn't found in Scripture. Confessional Protestantism was also
less than consistent and as mentioned previously there was still some notion of
the clergy-laity distinction. Pietism for all its flaws also recognised that
there were problems in the various acculturated forms of Established and
Confessional Christianity and thus in seeking something more, the notion of
breaking with the world began to mean breaking with mainstream Christendom, and
rightly so.
Rome with all its countless errors realises that while some
callings are legitimate.... we wouldn't agree with what they consider to be
legitimate but will grant they at least have the concept.... some callings are
higher. The way in which they define this is mistaken as is their conception of
clergy-laity, priesthood etc.
And yet the idea that there's a life of holiness that
precludes certain aspects of secular life is a point well taken and a rare
point in which Rome sits closer to the Scriptures than the Protestants claiming
it as their sole authority. One thinks of Charles V retiring the crown and
living out his final years as something of a monk. Again while misguided and
flawed within the Roman system, there's a hint of correct impulse in his action
and such practices were not uncommon.
Once again, I am not advocating monasticism in any way but
the idea that being a king isn't the ideal – there's more than an element of
truth to that.
In fact we should go further and following the New Testament
we learn that we should not entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life (2
Timothy 2) and we should understand (via passages such as 1 Corinthians 5ff and
Romans12-13) the world has its sphere (and providentially its role) but this is
something distinct and separate from the Church and the life it is called to.
As its Confessional critics will point out Rome indeed has a
nature-grace dualism but in light of the New Testament we need to understand
that it doesn't go near far enough. They accommodate fallen nature and do what
they can to sacralise it but even their bent philosophy and distortions of
Scripture can't go all the way down the road to arrive at the Protestant monism
that sanctifies everything and thus (ironically at the same time) secularises
everything. This is the ethos of The Gospel Coalition. Modern Dominionism is in
principle no different than the Christianisation programme of Rome and indeed
Rome has over the past fifty years moved much closer to the Protestant
position. I cannot even begin to count how many times in the past decade I've
heard comments, sermons and the like expressing Dominionist principles and
encouraging the Church to build their business 'to the glory of God' and to not
feel guilty for working those long extra hours, even at the expense of Church
life. For in doing so you are building the Kingdom of God.
As I continue to point out this is but another, perhaps
refined and more intellectually robust version of the Prosperity Gospel. It's
ironic but some of the loudest voices condemning the Prosperity movement are
themselves advocates of the same position... albeit in a manifestation that is
little more than less ostentatious and tacky.
Even Traditionalist Catholics can see this is one of
Protestantism's worst blind spots. In seeking to make everything holy, they end
up making nothing holy and the Church loses its identity and is secularised.
Catholics (as wrong as they are) can nevertheless still look toward
ecclesiastical ideals and models for holiness that they can aspire to and
contemplate. Protestantism has lost this altogether and it's hardly surprising
the movement ended up being largely swept away, caught up in quests for power,
money, status and the interests of the nation. Protestants for a long time
gloried in the might and power of the Protestant nations and decried the
backwardness of Catholic cultures and their lack of industry and innovation.
Their glory was and is their shame.
As a Christian, assuming the Catholic nation would tolerate
me I would rather live in Italy, Ireland or Spain than in the nations most
robustly affected by Protestant and Dominionist values. The very policies that
made Britain, Germany and America 'great' and 'glorious' were in the end
harmful and 'shameful' to the Church and certainly to the family.
We are called to live in a state of grace as citizens of the
Kingdom of Heaven. As pilgrims and aliens we eschew certain forms of work and
aspects of worldly life not because they are intrinsically evil but because
they are fallen and under curse and are not destined for redemption but
judicial fire. We have to live in the world but we are at the same time called to be not of it. We cannot escape the
world's evils and its pollution of all institutions. Again see Paul's
statements in 1 Corinthians 5 which is in reality part of a larger conversation
beginning with the Christian epistemological breach with the world and is
followed by a series of arguments in which the Church is exhorted to think
differently about relationships, power, ethics, marital love, money and the
nature of our times and the course of this world. Paul draws sharp distinctions
between the Church and the world, those who live and worship in the realm of
the Spirit, those who will rise in Christ as opposed to those who belong to the
realm of death and are destined to perish.
We are called to Separatism but we are called to live
separate as fools. The separatism of the New Testament is not that of the
monastery but that of a holy and separate life, bearing witness to the world,
rejecting what it has to offer and thus proclaiming the coming judgment. We are
called to live in the world and bear witness even while the world hates us,
mocks us and turns against us. This is the mindset and ethos represented by the
faith of Hebrews 11.
We are called to holy lives but among our community some are
called to serve the Church as elders and teachers. This is an ever higher
calling and blessing and certainly preferable to being an auto mechanic or
farmer. There's nothing wrong with those jobs but hopefully they are
occupations that will allow us to be Christians and to give of our time to the
things that really matter. They are valid jobs but are no more than a means to
an end. The time turning the plow or the wrench is not wasted and the prudent
Christian will use such time and tasks wisely and in his honest dealings and
saline communications he will bring the Gospel of the Kingdom to others. But he
will also look forward to the end of the work day when he can then use his time
even more fruitfully in time spent with his family, in devotion, in learning
about God which is also a form of worship and communion as well as in formal
communion with the Church and in its meetings.
The full-time elder is able to devote virtually all his hours
to Kingdom work and hopefully he does so and doesn't fritter away his time on
things that are unimportant as indeed many 'ministers' are wont to do.
Occupations that are rooted in the world system, in sinful
assumptions and jobs that require subservience and an almost total giving of
one's time and energy are not jobs Christians should seek. This is not easily
defined and sometimes it simply depends on the specific situation. Rather than
make a list of acceptable and unacceptable occupations for Christians it's
better to encourage and foster wisdom that Christians can ask the right
questions, wrestle with the issues and allow their consciences to inform their
decisions.
Sadly this is something that very few Church leaders
encourage and others like those affiliated with The Gospel Coalition actually
discourage and invalidate such questions. For them the only wrestling for the
Christian is to figure out how to 'affirm' and 'redeem' all occupations, once
again an example of philosophically driven categories not found in Scripture.
It must be admitted that this whole question has been further
complicated by industrialisation and that the spectrum of viable jobs has grown
ever more narrow and difficult, especially for those who would seek to obtain
the respect and security that comes with a Middle Class lifestyle... something
that also needs to be reconsidered and largely rejected.
Especially in the wake of Vatican II, Rome has more or less
capitulated to the world and created frameworks in which Roman Catholics can
get along just fine. The alternative would have been an even greater loss in
numbers and temporal influence. And yet Rome has turned down a road from which
it will not easily retreat.