education for vocation in public life usa

Education for Vocation in Public Life USA • Ernest Simmons 155

Theology Update

Education for Vocation in PublicLife USA1

By Ernest Simmons

Abstract: The Lutheran sensibility is that life is a paradox, a dialectical tension, in the midst of whichone must act and live. This sensibility informs an open and dialectical educational model for liberalarts education, which encourages a dynamic interaction of faith and learning. It supports a vocationalunderstanding of public life that cultivates critical analysis while seeking to encourage citizenship for thecommon good.

Key Terms: education, dialectical critique, vocation, citizenship, common good

Life in the Shadow of the Cross

A few years ago, on Good Friday, I sat in thecity church (St. Marien) of Wittenberg, Germany,and contemplated the predella painting by LucasCranach the Younger of Luther preaching Christcrucified to the people.2 It was a fitting theme forGood Friday, but as I sat there also contemplat-ing the then furor over Mel Gibson’s “The Passionof the Christ” I began to wonder if the worldcould any longer handle the idea of Christ cruci-fied. Then the pastor began his sermon with thelast written words of Luther: “Wir sind Bettler. Dasist Wahr.” “We are beggars. This is true.” As Ilistened to the sermon with Christ crucified sus-pended above the altar, I realized that yes, thisis still valid and needed. The proclaimed word ofGod’s love for humanity and the world in Christplaces all that we are and do at the foot of thecross, as Cranach’s painting points out so vividly.

Ernest L. Simmons is Professor of Religion and Director of the Dovre Center for Faith and Learning at Concordia College, Moorhead,Minnesota. Teaching for over three decades, he has written extensively on faith and learning issues including the book Lutheran HigherEducation: An Introduction (Augsburg Fortress, 1998). He currently serves as President of the Editorial Council for Dialog.

Empowered by God’s grace, the Christian responseof humility and loving service expressed as vocationcan function as a critique of the values and assump-tions of present day America, and perhaps even ofglobal empire. But how do we prepare ourselves forlife in the public square mindful of living in theshadow of the cross? Education in preparation forvocational leadership is one approach. What rolecan Lutheran higher education play in cultivatingsuch vocational leadership for public life? This es-say intends to modestly respond to that question byemploying the Lutheran theological understandingof the dialectical relationship between Christ andculture.

The Lutheran sensibility is that life is a para-dox, a dialectical tension, in the midst of whichone must act and live. Life need not be simple andclear to be livable or intelligible. Drawing uponLuther’s model of simultaneity for the Christianlife (e.g., simul justus et peccator), such a dialecticcan offer both affirmation and critique as it sup-ports dialogue involving multiple points of view,

C© 2010 Wiley Periodicals and Dialog, Inc.

156 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 49, Number 2 • Summer 2010 • June

contributing to constructive change and mutualunderstanding. Such a theology can inform a dy-namic interaction between academic freedom andChristian freedom. Together, these freedoms canthen empower social freedom by assisting Christiansin constructively critiquing the emerging globalsociety.

Christ and Culture

A dialectical understanding of the relationship ofChrist and culture is essential for our time. Wemust argue neither for a faith so detached from thesurrounding culture as to lack intellectual credibil-ity, nor for a faith so accommodated to a particularculture as to sanctify its idolatry and hubris.

My thesis is that the Lutheran tradition informsan open and dialectical educational model for lib-eral arts education in the United States (ELCA),which encourages the dynamic interaction of faithand learning, supporting a vocational understand-ing of public life. The Lutheran educational modelcultivates critical analysis while seeking to encour-age citizenship for the common good. Many pointscould be developed on this theme so I will notattempt to be exhaustive here. Rather, I will beginwith a brief discussion of Lutheran higher educa-tion and then propose four functions of such aneducation that I see as essential for the cultiva-tion of vocation in public life. The structure is asfollows:

1. Lutheran Higher Education. The Lutheran tra-dition embraces a dialectical model for edu-cation, which seeks to simultaneously affirmboth academic freedom and Christian freedom.It places emphasis upon multiple points ofview while bringing all academic study into dy-namic relationship with the Christian faith. TheLutheran educational model cultivates criticalanalysis while seeking to encourage citizenshipfor the common good.

2. Articulate Constructive Critique. In bringingone’s faith to bear on daily life one is engagedin articulating a transcendent, God-related, di-

alectical critique. The theology of the cross, af-firming God’s presence in suffering and hidde-ness, calls a thing what it is and can groundsuch a critique.

3. Educate for Citizenship. Viewing one’s activityin life through the theological lens of vocation(work done in relation to God’s call) allows oneto see one’s actions as being done for the neigh-bor and the needs of the wider society, both athome and abroad. Vocation allows for work tobe seen as self-transcending and not self-serving.In such a context civic responsibility is encour-aged, and creative leadership can be effected.

4. Pursue the Common Good. The common goodneed no longer be seen as a thing of the past oran unachievable ideal because of socio-culturalrelativism. Articulate persons capable of findingthe common threads of human and environ-mental need running through diverse culturescan begin to cultivate a coordinated ethical vi-sion. Our ‘town square’ is now global and ourcommon ground is the earth itself.

This brief essay will explore each of these func-tions in turn. But let us begin with a brief dis-cussion of the Lutheran understanding of highereducation.

Lutheran Higher Education:Relating Faith and Learning

Why is there LutheranHigher Education?

The purpose of liberal arts study is to study the hu-man and the cosmos in all their diversity and con-texts. This is the artes liberales vision of education,which in the West harkens back to Socrates and wasgiven further definition by Cicero and Quintilian.3

Its purpose was to train a good citizen or leaderinvolving the skills of grammar, rhetoric, and logic,what became known as the trivium. This was latersupplemented in late antiquity with arithmetic, ge-ometry, music, and astronomy, the quadrivium.4


One could only be an active and informed citi-zen of the polis (city-state) with such an education.For Christian liberal arts study the arts and sci-ences were affirmed but supplemented with theol-ogy. The fundamental context that provides unityto this program of study is the theological; indeedit is the commitment to God as creator that per-mits the affirmation of the cosmos itself as a unitedcosmos, a universe. In light of this orientation allstudies of humanity and nature are seen as validin their own right, with their own inherent dignityand integrity.

Valuing the liberal arts, the fundamental purposeof Christian education for Luther was the preserv-ing of the evangelical message and the equippingof the priesthood of all believers for service in thechurch and the world.5 At the same time this pre-pares leaders for public life. For Luther and hiscolleague, Philip Melanchthon, one of the directresults of the theological doctrine of justificationby grace through faith was public education. Inhis treatise of 1524, “To the Councilmen of AllCities in Germany That They Establish and Main-tain Christian Schools,” Luther states this in a verypractical manner,

Now the welfare of a city does not consistsolely in accumulating vast treasures, build-ing mighty walls and magnificent buildings,and producing a goodly supply of guns andarmor. Indeed, where such things are plen-tiful, and reckless fools get control of them,it is so much the worse and the city sufferseven greater loss. A city’s best and greatestwelfare, safety, and strength consist rather inits having many able, learned, wise, hon-orable, and well-educated citizens. They canthen readily gather, protect, and properly usetreasure and all manner of property.6

For Lutheran higher education that purpose hasnot changed but the context has, so that dialoguemust be opened up with more diverse partners.The task now is to bring into creative interactionrelationships of faith and learning in an increas-ingly global and multicultural society. Today theLutheran model of higher education must seek toaffirm the importance of diversity and the need todialogue with multiple points of view. This means

that all persons are important and contribute to thecharacter of a community of inquiry, including per-sons of other faith traditions. Diversity within thebounds of a common commitment to connectingfaith and learning is not only tolerable but desirablefor it can yield creative adaptations that assist mu-tual survival. Liberal arts education must not loseits originating purpose but find creative ways toexpress it today. Joseph Sittler stated it well, “Thepurpose of liberal arts education is to complicate aperson open.”7

What is the Lutheran Modelof Higher Education?

One of the most helpful ways to understand theLutheran tradition in higher education and itsunique theological perspectives is to compare itwith two of the other great branches of the Protes-tant Reformation, the Reformed and the Anabap-tist, and their approaches to education.8 How eachof these traditions addresses the relation of faithand learning will also clarify how they address edu-cation in general. For simplicity I will employ threeprepositions to describe these traditions. ‘under’ forthe Reformed, ‘in’ for the Anabaptist, and ‘with’for the Lutheran.

Under

At the heart of the Reformed tradition in edu-cation is the thought of John Calvin. Central toCalvin’s thought is the sovereignty of God over allcreation. The Christian’s task is to place all life andthought ‘under’ God’s sovereignty, integrating faithand learning such that “All truth is God’s truth.”Calvin attempted to create in Geneva a model citywhere every aspect of life was placed under God’ssovereignty: religion, art, politics, music and so-cial behavior. Ever since then, the same vision hasmotivated Calvinists to bring all aspects of life un-der God’s sovereignty, including education. RichardHughes observes, “Reformed educators seek to placethe entire curriculum—and every course withinthe curriculum—under the sovereignty of God.


According to this purpose all learning should beChristian in both purpose and orientation.”9

In

While the Reformed tradition approaches educationfrom ‘under’, the Mennonite model, serving as anexample of the Anabaptist tradition, takes a dif-ferent approach from ‘in’ the world, and makesconnection through loving service to the neigh-bor. Their call is to radical discipleship.10 One ofthe Mennonite colleges (Goshen College) pioneeredservice-learning programs in the developing world.Clearly, this tradition understands that educationtakes place through communal service and encoun-ters with other traditions, peoples, and experiences.The emphasis is not on doctrinal or intellectual in-tegration but rather on loving witness through ser-vice. Richard Hughes sums up the distinction nicelyby quoting a Mennonite scholar: “The Reformedmodel. . .tends to be cerebral and therefore trans-forms living by thinking. The Mennonite model,on the other hand, transforms thinking by livingand by one’s commitment to a radically Christo-centric lifestyle.”11 The Lutheran tradition attemptsto keep both of these emphases in paradoxicaltension.

With

Paradox stands at the heart of the Lutheran tra-dition precisely because Luther refused to separatethe life of faith from life in the world, simulta-neously affirming both immanence and transcen-dence. Luther insisted on the Christian life be-ing lived right in the midst of the world so thatthe resources of faith must be brought to bear ondaily work and life, rather than in some separated,ostensibly more holy or religious sphere such asa monastery. This simultaneity is affirmed in theLutheran understanding of simul justus et peccator,at the same time justified and sinner. We remainsinful in the world even though at the same time,through faith in God’s grace, we are justified, ac-cepted by God. It is an eschatological dialectic.This gives rise to the Zwei Reiche, two kingdoms or

realms, of Luther’s thought. The one is the realmof today, the natural world, governed by the firstuse of the law and guided by reason; the otheris the realm to come, the kingdom of God, gov-erned by grace and guided by faith. The Christianlives in the interface, the overlap, by being in theworld but mindful of a world to come. The Chris-tian lives in both worlds simultaneously. RichardHughes summarizes:

The authentic Lutheran vision, therefore,never calls for Lutherans to superimpose thekingdom of God on the world as the Re-formed tradition seeks to do. Nor does itcall for Lutherans to separate from the worldas the heirs of the Anabaptists often seek todo. Instead, the Christian must reside in twoworlds at one and the same time: the worldof nature and of grace. The Christian inLuther’s view, therefore, is free to take seri-ously both the world and the Kingdom ofGod.12

This dynamic ‘withness’ sustains dialogue and doesnot fear a slippery slope into secularity. Rather, itis all of life, including that which is labeled secular,for it too is part of God’s creation, which must bebrought into dynamic relationship with faith andthe potentially transforming grace of God.

This very dynamic sustains openness and aca-demic freedom in higher education while at thesame time insisting on bringing this world ofknowledge into creative relationship with the Chris-tian faith, with Christian freedom. The result oftencan be messy, paradoxical, and ambiguous but thatis where faith gives one the strength to continueon. Hughes observes, “The task of the Christianscholar, therefore, is not to impose on the world—or on the material that he or she studies—a dis-tinctly ‘Christian worldview’. Rather, the Christianscholar’s task is to study the world as it is and thento bring that world into dialogue with the Christianvision of redemption and grace.”13 The Lutheranmodel thus results in dialogue rather than impo-sition. In a fine article on the nature of Lutheranhigher education, Darrell Jodock concludes,

The Lutheran tradition’s understanding offreedom, its incarnational principle, and itsprinciple of authority, considered together,


suggest that a college founded in that tra-dition must be a community, a communitywhose members are engaged with each otherand with transcendence. Such mutual en-gagement involves them in discourse, andsuch discourse equips them to lead. Partic-ipation in the search for truth is open toall members of the community, and no ex-ternal authority determines in advance theoutcome of its engagement with the truth.14

To conduct open reflection in dialogue with tran-scendence, with understandings of the Divine, isclearly one of the most important contributionsLutheran colleges and universities can make to thechurch’s mission of enlightened understanding ofthe faith, empowering educational service to soci-ety. In a culture where public discourse, especiallyabout matters of religion, is not encouraged or evenwelcome, colleges of the church may offer one ofthe most effective venues for such deliberations.Our students, our society and our religious institu-tions need such reflection for we live in a time ofsignificant spiritual searching.

Articulate Constructive Critique:Spiritual Searching in Our Time

What is the Problematic?

From the beginning of the Enlightenment throughthe middle of the twentieth century it had becomecommon to speak of a separation between fact andvalue, science and religion, nature and history. Na-ture, as object, had no intrinsic development butwas rather to be understood through scientific anal-ysis in a value-free inquiry where both human andreligious purposes were considered irrelevant. His-tory, on the other hand, was the realm of humanpurpose and religious value in which civilizationsrose and fell, charting their course in dominatingan impersonal world. I have come to understandthis as a false duality and agree with Parker Palmerthat epistemologies have moral trajectories: ways ofknowing are not morally neutral but morally direc-tive.15 Ways of knowing necessarily include ways of

valuing, so a complete separation of fact and valueis not possible. The construction of fact is valueladen, for it is precisely the values imbedded ininterpretive systems that permit the conversion ofraw data into meaningful fact. That is the functionof theories, models and paradigms whether it be inthe sciences or the humanities. This condition ofseparation of fact and value combined with flux,impermanence and mass media merchandizing hasled to a collapse of traditional, cultural frameworksof meaning. Today this condition is not only localand national but also global.

Historically, individuals found personal mean-ing through the received religious and cultural ex-planations of their time—but no longer. RenateSchacht speaking from a German Christian per-spective refers to the formation of what she calls a“collage identity” among many persons today, espe-cially the young. She observes,

Modern man [sic] has no fixed roots. Mo-bility, flexibility, plurality of standpoints, andfreedom of opinion development are keycharacteristics of modern life. These trulypositive characteristics, however, bring a darkside of insecurity and disorientation withthem, which can retreat behind fundamen-tally secured walls or vegetate into a ‘noth-ing matters’ position. The task of educa-tion then is to make other paths visible andaccessible.16

It seems to me that it is exactly the role of aLutheran college to offer such identity-forming al-ternatives.17 Identity is a process not a possession,and environment forms identity. Lutheran, as wellas other Christian, colleges and universities may as-sist this meaning-seeking, identity-forming processby cultivating an environment in which faith andlearning can be kept in dynamic relationship, cre-ating the opportunity for transcendent critique.

What is the Transcendent Critique?

When we turn to the function of presenting a tran-scendental perspective to critique culture, we mustkeep in mind that for many people today, espe-cially the young, popular culture is culture. Many


of the students we teach have been conditionedto think about religion more through its portrayalin the mass media than in their own families orreligious institutions. Fundamentally, the problemwith popular culture is its treatment of religionas a form of entertainment or escape from reality,rather than as a resource for coping and adaptingto it. It is attempting to address religion apart froma community of worship and faith, apart, for theLutheran, from Word and Sacrament. At the heartof the Lutheran tradition is the theology of thecross. So one way of asking the question of tran-scendent critique is to ask if a theology of the crosshas anything to say to persons conditioned by thepopular cultural portrayal of religion?

In reflecting upon the theology of the crossLuther observed that in the cross God comes inhiddeness, in the form of the opposite, in sufferingand weakness and death, precisely to make roomfor faith. For Luther, faith was clearly defined inHebrews 11:1, “Faith is the assurance of thingshoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Itis precisely this hidden dynamic of faith and hopethat is missing in most popular culture portray-als of God. The experience of hiddeness, of divinesuffering and absence, is not taken seriously butrather its opposite, manifestation of the supernatu-ral, is most often depicted. This is very entertain-ing precisely because the ambiguity of the divineor the supernatural is taken away. The supernaturalmakes for great special effects. But herein preciselylies the problem. That which is hidden is ‘revealed’in order to entertain or shock. There are creativefilms that depict serious struggle with God or suf-fering in relation to the absence of God, such asSchindler’s List. For the most part, however, por-trayals of the divine in popular culture are obvious,hokey even, because in the more sophisticated un-derstanding of physical existence, the physical andlife sciences, the divine is so hidden. The result, ofcourse, is that persons are not enabled to deal withthis hiddeness. Instead they are given the sense thatthe divine would reveal itself if it could, or that in‘olden days’ God did so but today God does not—perhaps God is really gone! The God portrayed inmost mass media presentations is dead in contem-porary society and personal experience.

The theology of the cross takes God’s hiddenessand absence seriously. “My God, My God, whyhave you forsaken me?” The theologian of the crosscalls a thing what it is. It is precisely by meetingthis hiddeness head on that ground for meaningfulfaith is established and critique of popular cultureportrayals becomes possible. We must see that inthe self-emptying of the divine into creation comesa hiddeness that is ontological and not simply epis-temological. The world cannot and will not con-tain the fullness of God so that hiddeness is theonly way in which God can be present in the cre-ation without destroying it. This means that God’spresence must be discerned through faith and notthrough empirical demonstration. In the absenceof such careful critiques, people go questing afterdivinity of their own making, which will be lesshidden and more idolatrously satisfying. The the-ology of the cross critiques all human attempts atultimacy and absoluteness. It seeks to allow God tobe God. Education brought into dialogical relation-ship with this theological understanding of God’sparadoxical presence can empower persons to culti-vate cultural critique and contribute to responsiblecitizenship.

Educate for Citizenship:Christian Vocation

What is Christian Vocation?

The English word ‘vocation’ derives from the Latinvocatio, which is derived from the verb vocare, tocall. Vocatio is the Latin equivalent for the Greekklesis from kaleo, to call. Klesis is used eleven timesin the New Testament, almost exclusively in Pauland the Pastoral Epistles.18 What is crucial here isLuther’s decision, in translating the New Testamentinto German, to use the German word Beruf asthe equivalent of klesis, specifically in translating ICorinthians 7:20, “Let everyone remain in the kle-sis to which he or she was called.” Centuries later,Beruf, because of Luther’s use, became the generalterm for occupation in German. At Luther’s time


this use simply affirms all human work done forthe neighbor in society as valuable in the sight ofGod. While vocatio could refer to God’s call toall, in the late medieval world it was increasinglyconnected with so called ‘religious’ vocations (e.g.monks, nuns), which were seen as spiritually su-perior to worldly work. Luther reaffirmed all con-structive work as an expression of God’s call. It wasa theological move affirming the understanding ofthe priesthood of all believers and the freedom ofa Christian.

This new understanding was made clear in histreatise On Monastic Vows (1521) and his sermons ofthe time. Karlfried Froehlich observes, “One’s Berufwas not something special, but something down-to-earth, something exercised right in the world ofeveryday work and toil. It was the word for theChristian’s calling, wherever exercised, as an act offaith active in the love of God and neighbor.”19

For Luther, we are called by God to incarnate faiththrough vocation as loving service in the midst ofthe world.20 Christian vocation is the living out ofbaptismal faith in the midst of the creation as oneseeks to be a ‘little Christ’ to one’s neighbor.21 It isthrough our work in the world that we incarnatefaith, and by so doing help sustain the creation.

Vocation rejects the separation of the materialfrom the spiritual, of nature from grace, insistingthat they be kept together. Vocation is for the earthand the world of today, so that as Gustaf Wingrensummarizes, “Human action is a medium for God’slove to others.”22 The world of today is not aneutral place, however, but rather one of compet-ing and conflicting powers in which struggle is adaily experience. It is for this reason that Lutherargued against leaving the world for the cloister,for that would be to abdicate one’s calling to serveGod against the forces of destruction present in theworld. The priesthood of all believers engages theworld as it is, mindful of a world to come.

The Lutheran tradition’s emphasis upon vocationis one way to give theological grounding to civicresponsibility. It centers upon one basic questionthat has two fundamental dimensions. The questionis, “Why are you here?” The first dimension is thepractical: why are you here? Namely, why are youat the specific location in which you work, such as

home, office, hospital, school, church, etc.? Lutherreferred to these as stations in society that serve thewider creation. What are you doing now and whyare you doing it where you are? This is the realmof practical engagement with life on a daily basis.The second dimension cuts more deeply, however:why are you here? That is, why do you exist? Thisis the existential dimension of the question, thedimension that focuses on the nature and challengesof human life. Why are you here and not someoneelse? Why did you come into life or existence atall? Where did you come from and to where areyou going?

The practical is composed of the necessary fac-tors of place, history, resources (both physical andhuman) and structure. The existential is composedof the philosophical and theological dimensions ofhuman existence. In a rather simplified manner, onecould say that the practical dimension addresses in-strumental questions of value (means), while theexistential dimension addresses questions of intrin-sic value (ends) for human life. Vocation occursat the intersection of these two dimensions of thewhy question. Vocation, in the Lutheran under-standing, addresses the practical from the contextof the existential. It seeks to connect purposes andpractices, ends and means, and not allow themto fall apart into separate realms. Luther was arelational thinker. For him, one lives coram Deothrough faith, and coram hominibus through love.This is the inner and the outer person referred toin “The Freedom of a Christian.”23 The role ofeducation at a Lutheran institution is ultimatelyeducation that draws students out of themselves inorder to acknowledge the needs of their neighbor.It encourages students to develop and express theirabilities beyond self-interest alone. It is educationfor vocational citizenship.

What is Vocational Citizenship?

The Lutheran expression of Christian vocation inthe wider society finds its basis in the paradoxi-cal understanding of Christ and culture. The clear-est summary of this theological position is still tobe found in the classic text by Yale theologian


H. Richard Niebuhr in his magnificent work Christand Culture, written over sixty years ago in 1951.In surveying the history of Christianity, Niebuhrformulates five distinct models that he sees as waysthe Christian tradition has attempted to understandthe relation of Christ to culture. His analysis is notprimarily a cultural analysis but rather a theologicalanalysis of various ways that Christ can be relatedto any cultural expression.

For simplicity’s sake, we can image these five op-tions on a continuum. At one end is the ‘ChristAgainst Culture’ position, which sees no reconcili-ation possible between Christian faith and any cul-ture. This position often results in a sectarian, sep-aratist approach, which sees separation from societyas the only option to preserve the purity of thefaith. At the other end of the continuum is the‘Christ of Culture’ position, which sees no seri-ous separation between Christ and culture at all.It is what Niebuhr calls an accomodationist po-sition of cultural theology, where the best valuesof culture are coincident with values of the Chris-tian faith. Christ is collapsed into culture. In themiddle of the continuum is the position he la-bels ‘Christ above Culture’, which is the positionof the Roman Catholic tradition. This model repre-sents the great medieval synthesis of faith and learn-ing, where the church and faith are at the centerof society. This synthesist position maintains thedistinction between Christ and culture such thatChrist is ‘above’ culture and thus able to critiquesociety. Finally, this leaves the two mainline Ref-ormation positions, the Calvinist model of ‘ChristTransforming Culture’, and the Lutheran model of‘Christ and Culture in Paradox’.

Calvin and Luther agreed on many things andCalvin certainly acknowledged his debt to Luthereven while going beyond him on certain positions.The relation of church and society was one ofthem. Calvin believed that it would be possible toconstruct a truly Christian society, and that underthe sovereignty of God Christians were commandedto do this. Hence Niebuhr labels the model ‘ChristTransforming Culture’. I would place it on the con-tinuum between the Christ ‘above’ culture and theChrist ‘of’ culture end. For Calvin the first use ofthe law was as a moral guide for human action

and as such could direct society. Since ‘all truthis God’s truth’, the transformation of society waspossible by constructing it along the lines of truthfound in Scripture. This is what Calvin attemptedto create in Geneva, and it is the dominant modelfor the so called ‘cultural Protestantism’ found inthe United States dating back to the Puritans. It hasshown up more recently in such movements as the‘Moral Majority’ and the ‘Christian Coalition’.

Christ and Culture in Paradox

By contrast, the Lutheran model is labeled ‘Christand Culture in Paradox’ because there is an inten-tional, irresolvable tension between the two. It isthis model that can inform colleges and universi-ties of the ELCA, and students educated in suchinstitutions. For Luther the first use of the lawwas to maintain order in society because of origi-nal sin. Luther never thought that human societywas perfectible so he did not attempt a Calvin-ist type transformation in Wittenberg. Rather, hesaw the Christian as always living in the tensionbetween the world of today and the world tocome. For this reason Luther and the Lutherantradition has always retained a healthy skepticismabout any program of social or political reform.Niebuhr observes, “Living between time and eter-nity, between wrath and mercy, between cultureand Christ, the true Lutheran finds life both tragicand joyful. There is no solution of the dilemmathis side of death.”24 I would place this modelbetween the Christ ‘above’ culture and the Christ‘against’ culture end of the continuum. The dangerof the Calvinist model is that it may absolutize aparticular model of society and see any form ofunderstanding outside the Christian worldview as athreat. The danger with the Lutheran model is thatit may lose the dialectic and spin off into a du-alism in which Christ and culture do not interactand social critique ceases.

In our time of increased pluralism, where thereis a need for open dialogue among ideas as well asreligions and peoples, our campuses can be oases ofrespectful discourse. The Lutheran model of highereducation certainly encourages such discourse and


dialogue while at the same time affirming Chris-tian faith as a central part of the discussion. Withthe model of paradox and dialectic there is roomfor interaction and even mutual growth and under-standing. The value of a dialectical model is thatit maintains the integrity of both sides of the di-alectic, and in so doing prepares for vocational citi-zenship. Vocational citizenship is dialectical citizen-ship. In a pluralistic world this position can supportrespectful intercultural and interreligious dialogue.By keeping the vocational understanding of servingone’s neighbor as a calling from God, the Christianis empowered for engaged citizenship. Being able todialogue with those of differing positions and notabsolutizing any one perspective can lead to con-structive critique and informed social action. It is,in effect, the empowerment of one’s baptism for theexpression of faith in life that is Christian vocation.Through such an understanding the common goodcan be pursued even within a global context.

Pursue the Common Good:The New Public

What is the Common Good?

This ethical question is quite complex and no thor-ough overview is intended here, only to raise theethical concept for consideration regarding the roleof a citizen in public life. The concept of the ‘com-mon good’ has returned in recent years to be a cen-tral concept in much contemporary ethical reflec-tion.25 While there are problems with the concept(such as how one defines ‘good’ and participationin what is called ‘common’) it still remains valuablefor considering the purpose of public life. ManuelVelasquez et al. observe:

The common good is a notion that orig-inated over two thousand years ago in thewritings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. Morerecently, the contemporary ethicist, JohnRawls, defined the common good as ‘cer-tain general conditions that are. . .equally toeveryone’s advantage’. . . The common good,then, consists primarily of having the so-

cial systems, institutions, and environmentson which we all depend work in a mannerthat benefits all people. Examples of partic-ular common goods or parts of the com-mon good include an accessible and afford-able public health care system, an effectivesystem of public safety and security, peaceamong the nations of the world, a just le-gal and political system, an unpolluted natu-ral environment, and a flourishing economicsystem. Because such systems, institutions,and environments have such a powerful im-pact on the well-being of members of a soci-ety, it is no surprise that virtually every socialproblem in one way or another is linked tohow well these systems and institutions arefunctioning.26

The Lutheran understanding of vocation em-powering for public service can serve the commongood. Certainly Luther’s proposal of the “commonchest” is a clear sixteenth century example of sucha pursuit.27 The dialectical method of Lutheranreflection also permits engagement with differingpoints of view such that no one position can beimposed on others in discerning what is the com-mon good for all. The common good in any givensituation must be discerned through dialogue andmutual participation by all parties involved. Voca-tionally inspired citizenship will seek such dialogue.

Fortunately, the commons has not completelydied away. There are various ‘publics’ that do stillexist, both electronic, such as on the Internet (dis-cussed below), and embodied, such as college cam-puses, where many still have a ‘commons’. Collegecampuses are places where the encounter with the‘other’ can occur on a human scale and pluralismis seen as a normal, existential reality. Pluralism canbe approached through the lens of constructive di-versity rather than of ethical and social relativism.Today, common concern is giving rise to new formsof public, such as the Internet, which may serve tohelp discern new expressions for the common good.A new nature of public is evolving.

What is the New Public?

I firmly believe that we are witnessing a majorreformation in what constitutes ‘public’ in our


Internet-connected world. There is a level of tech-nological mediation taking place that has the powerto redefine public, community, social organizationand the very nature of what is considered humancommunity. This revolution in how we define pub-lic will have a direct impact on what constitutespublic life and how one expresses vocation. We arein the beginnings of what can only be called thebirth pangs of emerging new world social struc-tures. As this article is being written the UnitedStates is reeling from the worst economic recessionsince the Great Depression and it is clearly havingglobal repercussions. We are in this one world to-gether and there is no going back to isolated, sepa-rate, national existences. At the same time, however,there is enormous worldwide hope and optimismfor newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama.One cannot underestimate the significance of thiselection for persons of color in the United Statesand abroad. The juxtaposition of the inaugurationwith Martin Luther King, Jr. Day could not havebeen more appropriate. It represented a time ofchange and a shared desire to restore hope and af-firmation of fundamental human rights and equal-ity for all. Nothing can, nor should, take away fromthis historic moment.

Natives vs. Immigrants

But there also was another type of change afootin the election of Barack Obama. He is the firstiPresident,28 the first president elected by massive,organized, and committed use of the Internet forcampaign organization. The pundits were stupefiedand then star struck at the efficiency and effective-ness of the campaign. It raised the largest funds andinvolved the most people in the history of presi-dential elections. It was, if you will, electronic ordigital populism. It was also a harbinger of thingsto come. In their book iBrain: Surviving the Techno-logical Alteration of the Modern Mind, Gary Small andGigi Vorgan address the physiological changes thatregular and extended use of digital technology haveon information processing in the brain. It is evolu-tion in action. They also go on to point out how itis changing social networking and the fundamen-

tal means of human social interaction. Facebookreplaces face to face, and technological mediation(texting, blogging, Skyping, twittering and Ningingamong others) becomes automatic and second na-ture. They acknowledge that a new digital dividehas emerged between those whom they refer to as‘Digital Natives’ and those who are ‘Digital Im-migrants’.29 Digital Natives (primarily the Millen-nial Generation born after 1980) have grown upwith computers, cell phones, iPhones, iPods, theInternet, etc. and have never known a world with-out them. For Natives digital interaction is intrinsicand automatic. Digital Immigrants are the rest ofus born before 1980, and for whom computers,cell phones, the Internet, etc. are technologies intowhich we have had to migrate (sometimes unwill-ingly). We can become competent, proficient even,but we will never be native.

Is this change just a passing technological blip ora sea change in human social interaction? I thinkit is the latter. I think this latest election demon-strates the power of the digital world (universe?)and how younger people have come to live in it asauthentically as in the so-called ‘real’ world. Theymove seamlessly and effortlessly between what usedto be called ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ realities, a distinc-tion becoming increasingly one without a differ-ence. Work-a-day reality is not going to disappear,but the interface between these realms has becomediaphanous for the Digital Native. Social organi-zation has undergone a sea change. It has beendeveloping for a long time but the Obama electionsignals a tipping point in how social (or politi-cal) movements are formed and motivated. It is atechnologically mediated social revolution but, thenagain, wasn’t the Reformation?

What does this mean for the church? Whatwould such an Internet ‘public’ church, an iChurch,look like? It will certainly be more than simply awebpage or a televised broadcast of a worship ser-vice. No, churches will have to figure out, with thehelp of digital natives, ways to move seamlessly be-tween the digital and physical worlds. The implica-tions for social organization for good are enormous,and the resources needed affordable and available,even for congregations with limited resources. Also,the worldwide interconnectedness that this makes


possible for the developing world is remarkable.Cell phone growth is exploding in the developingworld with web access soon to follow. (In Africa,for example, almost 90 percent of all telephonesubscribers have mobile phones, and the numberof cell phone subscribers is growing by more than50 percent each year; in India more than 90 per-cent per year.)30 Sister parishes can be connectedvirtually with minimal expense. The church alwayshas been worldwide but only connected sporadi-cally at councils, assemblies, and gatherings. Whatof continual connection? How would global socialorganization work on a continuous, not intermit-tent, basis? It is an exciting time to be alive as aperson of faith. One can only imagine what St.Paul might have done with such resources.

Citizenship for the CommonGood

Luther’s colleague Philip Melanchthon, who becameknown in his own time as the Praeceptor Germa-niae, (teacher of Germany), saw the primary roleof education to be moral formation. He observed,“Nature has put this difference between humansand animals that animals cease to take care of theiroffspring after they have come of age. But on man[sic] Nature has enjoined to feed his progeny notonly in their first years, but even more to mouldtheir behaviour toward honorable attitudes (ad hon-estatem formet).”31 Gunter Schmidt goes on to ob-serve about Melanchthon,

Melanchthon’s highest educational aims arepietas and eruditio, ‘reverence’ and a ‘cul-tured mind’. Pietas and eruditio support eachother. The first has a refining effect on con-duct, the latter enhances sensitivity as to thedepth-dimension of reality. Melanchthon’sideal is an individual whose inner life is hi-erarchically structured and who lives withina hierarchical order of society. . .Educationhas to foster this harmony within individu-als and within society.32

For Melanchthon pietas (faith) is not possible with-out eruditio (education), and education is not pos-

sible without faith. This interactive vision for edu-cation is still operable in Lutheran higher educationtoday.

The critical role of faith seeking understand-ing through the educational process, helping toform responsible and articulate citizens, is as criti-cal now as it was then. The Enlightenment sepa-ration of fact from value led to a so-called ‘valuefree’ education, which in fact has not been valuefree or neutral but has affirmed a secular ma-terialism without any particular moral imperativebeyond the profit motive. The critique regard-ing the inevitable contextuality of human thoughtfound in post-modern theory has shown this tobe the case even in the natural sciences. Pure ob-jectivity is not achievable, and so the best alter-native is to be self-conscious and self-critical ofone’s own biases and presuppositions. But whereis one to learn about this and become informedof one’s own condition and biases? At its bestthis is one of the main objectives of liberalarts education, the cultivation of critical thinkingskills.

The Lutheran model of such an education isparticularly helpful here because of its dialecticalopenness to alternative viewpoints and their dy-namic interaction to maintain the creative tensionbetween academic freedom and Christian freedom.Such a model avoids what Tom Christensen hastermed the “fallacy of exclusive disjunction.”33 Theparadoxical character of the Christ and culture re-lationship in the Lutheran tradition informs so-cial expression and encourages its practitioners tobe forthcoming in the public arena. The theologyof the cross encourages humility both in terms ofone’s own thought and also in the claims of oth-ers. Such a theological perspective can and shouldconfront any human claims to absoluteness or fi-nality (Tillich’s “Protestant Principle”), especially inits secular expressions.

Such an education also involves value reflectiveinquiry in an intentional and purposive way toprepare students for responsible public life in andthrough their respective vocations. Concerning thefunctions of Lutheran higher education listed ear-lier, the Lutheran tradition has no trouble address-ing each of them.


The great challenge facing mainline religious in-stitutions and faith traditions is to communicatetheir religious reflection in a way that is accessi-ble to persons living in a technologically socialized,mass media driven, popular culture dominated soci-ety. The Lutheran model of Christ and culture cri-tiques contemporary society by bringing it into di-alectical engagement with Christ and the gospel. Ineffect, it places life and thought, action and reflec-tion in the context of transcendence. This modelcultivates self-transcendence for expression in publiclife by empowering persons to pursue the commongood in addressing the needs of their neighbor andthe wider natural environment. To summarize: theLutheran educational model cultivates critical anal-ysis while seeking to encourage citizenship for thecommon good. It is education for vocational citi-zenship expressed in public life.

Endnotes

1. Prepared for the Lutheran World Federation Global Consultation:Theology in the Life of Lutheran Churches: Transformative Perspectivesand Practices Today, 25-31 March, 2009, Augsburg, Germany.

2. Some material in this essay is derived from my article “LutheranHigher Education and the Public Intellectual” published in Intersections,Fall, 2007, as well as from my book Lutheran Higher Education: An Intro-duction published by Augsburg Fortress Press, 1998.

3. Constance Gengenbach. “The Secularization of Vocation and theWorship of Work.” The Cresset, LI. 2: 1987, 6.

4. William Narum. “The Role of the Liberal Arts in Christian HigherEducation,” in Ditmanson, et al., Christian Faith and the Liberal Arts.(Minneapolis: Augsburg,1960), 4.

5. Martin Luther, “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany thatThey Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” (1524) Luther’s Works(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962). LW 45:347–378.

6. LW 45:355.

7. Joseph Sittler, “Church Colleges and the Truth,” In Faith, Learningand the Church College: Addresses by Joseph Sittler. Northfield, Minnesota:St. Olaf College, 1989.

8. For much of the material in this section I am indebted to thework of Richard T. Hughes, “Introduction” in Models for Christian HigherEducation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 1-9 and theunpublished presentation “The Mission of Lutheran Colleges and Uni-versities” the 1997 Lina R. Meyer Lecture presented to the LutheranEducational Conference of North America, (LECNA), February 1, 1997,Washington, D.C.

9. “The Mission of Lutheran Colleges and Universities,” 2.

10. Ibid., 4–5.

11. Hughes, Models of Christian Higher Education, 7.

12. Ibid., 6.

13. Hughes, 6–7.

14. Darrell Jodock. “The Lutheran Tradition and the Liberal ArtsCollege: How Are They Related?” in Called to Serve: St. Olaf and theVocation of a Church College, (Northfield: St. Olaf College, 1999), 31.

15. Mark Schwehn, Exiles from Eden. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,1993), 25.

16. Renate Schacht, “Christian Education in Unstable Times,” Lutherand Melanchthon in the Educational Thought in Central and Eastern Europe.Reinhold Golz and Wolfgang Mayrhofer (Hrsg.) (Munster: LIT, 1998),68.

17. Ernest L. Simmons, Lutheran Higher Education: An Introduction,Chapter One.

18. Karlfried Froehlich. “Luther on Vocation,” In Harvesting MartinLuther’s Reflections on Theology, Ethics and the Church, ed. Timothy Wingert.Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),122–123.For a more complete treatment of the concept of vocation, see DouglasJ. Schuurman, Vocation: Discerning Our Callings in Life (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2004).

19. Ibid., 126.

20. Ernest L. Simmons, “A Lutheran Perspective on Christian Voca-tion and the Liberal Arts—II,” The Cresset (January, 1989), 11–15.

21. See Luther’s “The Freedom of a Christian, 1520,” in Luther’sWorks ( American Edition, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957) LW31:327–77.

22. Gustaf Wingren, Luther on Vocation. (Philadelphia: MuhlenbergPress, 1957), 180.

23. LW 31:327–77

24. Richard H. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture. (New York: Harper andRow, 1951), 178.

25. See for example, Herman Daly and John Cobb, Jr. For the Com-mon Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment anda Sustainable Future, (Boston: Bacon Press, 1989) and John C. Knapp, ed.,“Forward” by Jimmy Carter.. For the Common Good: The Ethics of Leadershipin the 21st Century. (New York: Praeger, 2006.)

26. Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., andMichael J, Meyer. “The Common Good,” Issues in Ethics, Vol. 5 No.2, (Spring, 1992).

27. Carter Lindberg, “Luther on Poverty” in Harvesting MartinLuther’s Reflections on Theology, Ethics and the Church, ed. Timothy Wingert.Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 141.

28. Ernest Simmons, Editorial: “The First iPresident” Dialog: a Journalof Theology, Summer, 2009.

29. Gary Small, and Gigi Vorgan, iBrain: Surviving the TechnologicalAlteration of the Modern Mind . (New York: Harper Collins Publishers,2008), 3 and especially Chapter Two: “Brain Gap: Technology DividingGenerations.”

30. International Telecommunications Union, ICT Statistics,www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics.

31. Philip Melanchthon, Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl [Studienaus-gabe] ed. Robert Stupperich 1951-1983, 1961, MSA III: 69.

32. Gunter Schmidt, “Foundations of Melanchthon’s Views on Edu-cation,” in Luther and Melanchthon in the Educational Thought in Central andEastern Europe. Reinhold Golz and Wolfgang Mayrhofer (Hrsg.) Munster:LIT, 1998, 17.

33. Thomas Christenson, The Gift and Task of Lutheran Higher Educa-tion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 12.

education for vocation in public life usa

Documents