A Time for a new work ethic?

TIME FOR A NEW WORK ETHIC?

by Grant Thorpe

For some time now, the Christian church has been aware that its understanding of work and vocation has been deficient. Years ago, David Kucharsky wrote in a Christianity Today article: ‘Evangelicals have yet to develop a substantial theology of vocation appropriate to our day, and good literature on the subject is lean.’ (August 24, 1971, p. 11) Probably many traditions within the church would say that the same is true even now.

Many articles are appearing in various periodicals, and Christians in various ways are endeavouring to discover and live out an attitude to work that is appropriate to their faith. But the mill grinds slow. Articles will need to give way to discussion and application, and this may sometimes be painful. There are plenty of indications that, at present, the greater majority of Christians are not willing to have their daily vocations subject to the Lord of the church.

Dedication to religion, in evangelical circles at least in Australia, seems to be measured more by one’s dedication to religious pursuits rather than in the whole business of one’s life in the world. But a new factor is present now that is making it less possible to be indolent.

Unemployment has now become a factor touching not only the loafer but the industrious, and there are few indications that the situation will change quickly. While attention needs to be given to opening new opportunities and to helping the unemployed with their immediate situation, the difficulty demands that not just the unemployed but the whole work force think again about the meaning of what they are doing with regard to work.

It does not seem unreasonable to me, that behind the immediate factors causing our present situation, we must see the hand of God’s judgement and recognise that he has not been content to leave us with the attitudes to work that we have had. This comment does not apply particularly to the unemployed but to the whole work force.

Facts being as they are, however, it is likely that the people who will think most about the meaning of work are those who have none. Because this is so, I believe that those who find themselves coping with the traumas of unemployment should see themselves not as redundant to the existing order of things but as a creative core of a fresh understanding of things. They need to understand what God is saying to the whole situation and to offer their insights to the wider community.

First, it may be helpful for us to understand where some of our present work attitudes developed. The Protestant reformers and the Puritans after them emphasised the dignity of work in contrast to the medieval belief that sacred occupations were of more value than secular occupations. The Puritan work ethic was not then what it has come to be known as.

They say work as the means appointed by God for the providing of man’s needs, and because of the emphasis on ecclesiastical callings, claimed that all were called by God to the particular occupations of their daily life. This gave a new dignity to common tasks, even though it wrongly equated calling and normal occupation.

However, a good truth in bad hands can readily be perverted. For example, those in America who were more interested in the founding of factories than the dignity of their employees, could urge them on to greater productivity because, by working, their workers would confirm their election. God had called them to labour in the particular vocation they had.

People who had lost their roots in the gospel could easily be trapped by this view; work could have value in itself, and remuneration would be seen as the proof of one’s approval by God. (It is too easy with hind-sight to condemn the reformers and Puritans, but a close examination of their teaching shows them to be closer to the truth than we may be ourselves.)

President Nixon in his 1971 Labour Day message, may have summed up the popular conception of a Western work ethic:

‘The "work ethic" holds that labour is good in itself; that a man or woman becomes a better person by virtue of the act of working. America’s competitive spirit, the "work ethic" of this people, ...the value of achievement, the morality of self-reliance—none of these is going out of style.’ (Christianity Today, October 19, 1979, p 17).

To some extent, this chain of ideas has influenced our own patterns of thought regarding work but they are not biblical, nor Puritan, essentially.

I would like now to examine several of the questions facing Australian people in the light of relevant biblical perspectives.

First, what is the purpose of a man’s labour? There will be different reasons why people will ask this question. For example, some may be recognising the futility of a society oriented around consumerism; others may be jaded by their futile attempts to join the work force. I suggest that the question needs to be asked mostly by those whose position in the present system is most assured.

If our answer to the question is that we must work in order to earn a living, because of plain necessity, in one sense the answer is right but it is also inadequate. Proverbs says that ‘A worker’s appetite works for him; his mouth urges him on’ (Prov. 16:26). But there are more things for mankind to do than to feed itself. Man and woman together are made in the image of God, and in fellowship with God are entrusted with the work of managing the world’s affairs so as to meet the needs of all mankind.

This function for man opens up a whole range of activities. For example, man needs to understand the nature of the world in which he lives so as to use all things in a manner consistent with their true function. He must understand the nature of the people in the world as well so as to properly discern their needs and meet them.

Then there are development tasks to accomplish because from the beginning there have been tasks for man whereby he could increase the yield of natural resources by his labour. In developing he was not intended to let the earth master him but was to master the earth and have all things under his feet. None of this could be done without extensive cooperation between peoples and certainly not without the help of God.

But then, man had been made in the image of God, as a creature of love and with the ability to relate, and depend, and to help, and so these functions were not beyond his reach. (The fact of man’s responsibility to rule the earth is reaffirmed in Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2, even though it is plain man has not yet completed his assignment.)

The pattern of work suggested by the creation narrative in Genesis also includes relating, reflecting on what was done, and relaxing at the end of the task. If we are willing to accept this wider view of work as a whole of life function then it should also be said that our work becomes the arena for an ongoing knowledge of God. If God is a worker, and we share in his labour, the experience is the scene (not source) of revelation of God’s nature.

No amount of discussion about the inadequacies of our present employment scene will make these responsibilities go away. Some will feel that the best way to truly work will be to be out of the ‘system’, but if the present system is the one whereby a majority of needs are being met, however inadequately, one should think very carefully before opting out because of pressures.

Although Christians are aware that we will not perfect a kingdom of righteousness without the return of the King, we can express the principles of his kingdom in the world that is, and show that this is the way things are to be done. It would seem to me that this can best be done from within the establishment, believing that righteousness (right order and relationships) is the goal of one’s work. If that means losing one’s employment, that is different from choosing not to be employed.

A second question, or range of questions, has to do with the recognition and remuneration of one’s work. What particularly is the relation between works and one’s acceptance as a person? And what bearing does this have on how one is remunerated?

Dr Brian Dickey (Zadok Centre News, March 1980) has written:

‘Christians in Australia—must assert, that men and women have no universal rights. They have, instead, universal duties and responsibilities for which they are all, knowingly or unknowingly, answerable to God.’

In our present context, this assertion means that if we talk about a person’s right to remuneration and acceptance for their labour, we are starting at the wrong point.

We can say that a person needs to be remunerated for their work, and that those who benefit by his labours have a duty to reward them appropriately. But Christianity cannot stay on the level of rights.

Fundamental to the faith is that God has not given us our rights, nor even simply what we needed, but rather, the gift of his grace. While this is the context in which we live (and who could live for long in any other), we cannot regulate our output in life by the response we are likely to receive.

Our duty to keep the law of God does not arise out of the law but out of grace. Therefore our duty remains though no person recognises what we have contributed. The remuneration we do receive should not so much be seen as the reward of our labour as the gift of God for our sustenance.

One can readily see that if this principle were thoroughly worked through by Christians, they would not be so tied to employers’ apron strings, and be more readily able to express the principles of the kingdom of God in the kingdoms of this world. One can imagine a person saying ‘If I lived like that, I would be crucified’. It is in these settings that we again need to hear Christ asking us to take up our cross and follow him. But a deeper problem still remains.

The question that lies beneath all other (and is more clearly in focus because our primary needs of food and shelter are met) is the matter of self-esteem. It would appear that a person is able to survive the rigours of many trials, but is crushed by non-acceptance. Alternatively, given acceptance within a certain sphere, a person will endure extensive privation. One need only recall the example of Cain and Abel to be aware of the effects brought about by non-acceptance—in that case, by God.

The society of which we are a part has tended to make usefulness the criteria of acceptance and remuneration the reward or proof of that acceptance. It follows, that when a person is employed, they may seek their acceptance by either the amount or quality of work they do, or at least, by the amount they are paid for what they do. Therefore, some may be driven beyond reasonableness in their application to work; and others may despair when they find that society has no useful work for them to do.

I am sure that inquiry will and must continue in the search for a just solution to these difficulties, but fundamental to that search is a truly Christian attitude to the basis for a person’s acceptance. A Christian, fundamentally, is a person who is accepted by God not because of his works but because of the works of Christ. It is not at the end of the day, but at the beginning of each day that he receives the approbation of his Father. His works proceed from acceptance, not towards acceptance.

The church, and the family, should reflect this attitude, as should society—but it is a fact of life and history that they never have and never will in the way that they should. The Christian is called to stand firmly in the liberty he has been given and not be trapped by the works-righteousness form of self-esteem offered by the world. Those who do not see this will be in bondage to work (or to some other peer-group pressure) for their acceptance, and be unable to bring to their work, the truly Christian attitude of serving the needs of others.

Many workers, for want of a fundamental change of perspective (repentance) may be expecting more from their work than it is meant to give them. Frustration is an integral part of the judged world in which we live, and to expect the earth to be a new Garden of Eden is not within the range of a technological society or an ecologist’s utopia.

Fulfilment, for the Christian, arises from doing the will of God, not from works of themselves. I would not deny that to be rewarded or loved for one’s works is legitimate, but if this is the basis of reward or love, the results are plainly devilish.

What practical means could be used to discover and personally implement such a work ethic? First, a new study needs to be made of justification by faith, particularly in the areas of its practical outworking. Second, the church (or groups within churches) needs to help individuals in their immediate situations to understand their motivations for work and encourage an acceptance that is based on grace rather than performance.

Third, employers and employees need to hear the call of God to implement what they know about the message of the cross within the existing structures of society, or if necessary, alongside of existing structures. Fourth, those who are suffering immediately because of unemployment or prejudicial treatment within the work force, must take the opportunity thrust upon them to know in greater depth, the meaning of their justification, and to help the church to a new understanding by being honest about their struggles.

It may be that those without work will prove to have most insight into its meaning.

First published in a Zadok Paper.