[1] Douglas John Hall describes Bound and Free as his attempt
"at the end of this long apprenticeship to say something publicly
about what I have found this vocation [theology] to entail" (page
xi). Within that purpose statement stand the two words and concepts
that become the most interesting reflection point of this work:
theology and vocation.
[2] More to the point, you could say that (as Hall does) that he
is not interested here in a general or generalized theology of
vocation. Instead, he is interested in discussion theology as
vocation: his personal vocation expressed over a lifetime and a
public vocation for the sake of the church.
[3] Hall self-consciously writes autobiographically about his
own journey into theology and through a lifetime "apprenticeship"
in theology. However, as he writes his own story and invites the
reader deeply into his own story, we learn things that are much
more wide-ranging and general than the specifics of the life of
Douglas John Hall. This fact alone opens an important window to
Hall's theological practice. Context is critical and general truths
about God and humanity are primarily (only?) encountered in the
specific experiences of individuals shared with one another.
[4] Hall begins to get into the meaning of vocation when he
describes his own ordination ceremony where each of the ordinands
made a public statement about what they felt at that moment about
Word and Sacrament ordination. Hall remembers that his own
statement was about the irresistibility of God's call: the "it's
not exactly my idea" (page 5) side of the vocational experience. In
his ordination oration long ago and in this book now, Hall quoted
from Jeremiah 20 to describe the nature of vocation: "O Lord, you
have enticed me, and I was enticed; you have overpowered me, and
you have prevailed."
[5] After describing his own ordination experience long ago,
Hall moves to the more general. He describes the lost sense of
irresistibility in vocation. For this reader this passage entered
what might be described as the tempting territory of a book of this
type: the tendency to decry "current conditions" in the church and
wish things were like they used to be in some dreamed-of idyllic
past. However, Hall avoids this tendency in this discussion of
vocation by providing a slightly different spin: what he feels is
sorely lacking is the sense that vocation to ministry is missing a
sense of irresistibility primarily in its specificity. In other
words, "one has the distinct impression that decisions concerning
the actual working out of the call to ministry are less a matter of
vocation than of practicality and of personal or conciliar
determination" (page 7).
[6] Hall is speaking of course of the call to live out the
ministerial vocation in the realm of theology. However, the same
call to a sense of the specificity of vocation applies throughout
what the church considers ministerial vocations. The church and
those in its service would do well to cultivate a sense that God is
involved (in fact, driving) our calls to serve in parish ministry
or in chaplaincy. And God is driving the call to serve in a
particular ministerial context. God, through the Spirit and the
church, calls me to serve as pastor in the specific congregation in
which I serve and not another. All too often, we speak as if these
issues are determined by my personal preferences or the whims of
committees and call processes. Hall would call us to recover a
sense of speaking of call in specific terms: God has called me to
serve as a parish pastor in Palatine, IL just as God has called him
to serve as a theologian in Montreal, Quebec.
[7] Upon identifying the problem, Hall moves on to place blame
for this lack of a clear sense of vocation related to theology. The
blame and the discussion of how we got to this point, according to
Hall, is two-fold: the church has failed itself and its
theologians, and theologians have failed the church and their own
vocation.
[8] In a phrase, Hall describes the failure of the church to
nurture theology as a vocation as a "failure to require theology
and nurture theologians" (page 7). What he means by this is that
the church historically and definitely in the 20th Century has
failed to see much need for serious theologians beyond as seminary
teachers for pastors. Hall calls on the church and on local
congregations to think creatively about their own need for
theology. This is especially true in our current cultural context
with a lack of what Hall calls "automatic Christianity" (page 8).
That is to say that, in this post-Christendom era where all of
society no longer encourages or establishes Christianity, there is
a greater need for serious conversation about faith and the church,
the province of theology.
[9] After placing the blame for this disconnect between the
church and theology at the foot of the church and its lack of
respect and demand for serious theology, Hall turns to place the
fire at the feet of theologians as well. He does this primarily in
chiding his fellow theologians who have fallen for the temptation
of what he calls "career-oriented intellectualism" (page 9). Here
he speaks of those who strive after academic distinctions and
personal ambition at the expense, sometimes, of service to the
wider church. Two specific examples are illuminating. First, in
Hall's own lifetime the preferred degree for theology has moved
from being a ThD (which Hall maintains has come to be suspect in
academia) to the more-acceptable but less "churchly" PhD. Second,
those who do attempt to write and speak of theology in ways that
are accessible to those outside of the academy but within the
church are all too often accused of being "popularizers" within
academic circles, which is not a compliment.
[10] These discussions of the vocation to theology and the
unfortunate disconnect between theology and the church are all from
the Preface and the Introduction to Hall's volume. In the remainder
of the book, Hall goes on to describe something of his own journey
as a theologian and emphasizes what he believes to be the most
important features in the theologian's life.
[11] I have chosen to focus on these distinctions from the
Introduction because they have been captivating to me as a parish
pastor. The distrust of theology and theologians as somehow foreign
to what we in parish ministry are trying to do is too often
palpable in the church. In seminary communities false distinctions
are too often drawn between those who focus on systematic theology
and those who focus on ministry skills such as preaching and
liturgy. Too often in congregational or denominational settings
there almost seems to be a preference for approaches uninvolved
with theological reflection: words like "practical" and
"real-world" reflect these preferences, however they are
stated.
[12] I pray that the church can find the courage to "require
theology" to use the words of Douglas John Hall. I pray that the
church will find the courage to reflect seriously and theologically
and historically about its life together. To quote Hall: "to do so
will require of the churches that they overcome the adolescent's
disease of rejecting every kind of authority in the name of a
pseudodemocratic assumption that everybody is already theologically
knowledgeable, just on the grounds of being human. Christianity is
a historical faith; we are simply not born with the knowledge of
it" (page 13). Count me as one pastor who will strive more and more
to seek the authority and the guidance of theological tradition and
theologians in our own day and time, in our own church.
© May 2008
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 8, Issue 5