The Christian Work Ethic??
by Glenn Conjurske
An article has recently come to hand entitled “Rediscovering the Christian Work Ethic.” This appears in a column entitled “Toward a Biblical Worldview,” in The Heartbeat of the Remnant (March / April, 1997), published by Charity Christian Fellowship, Leola, Pennsylvania. The article is written by Peter Hammond, and “selected by Myron Stoltzfus.” I have been asked for my opinion of this article.
The first thing which arrests our attention here is the terminology employed in the title. It is the common language of Neo-evangelicalism. “Biblical worldview” and “Christian work ethic” are not the language of the church of God, but the jargon of Neo-evangelicalism, which is a modern departure from the ways of God. Anyone who understands what is going on in the church in our day, and who saw only the language employed in these titles, would immediately conclude that this Charity Christian Fellowship must be a Neo-evangelical movement. But this is not so. From all that I know of the movement, it is very conservative. It has high standards—-higher indeed than those of most Fundamentalists. How then does it come to wear these badges of Neo-evangelicalism?
I believe there is only one possible answer to this question: these folks have been reading the wrong kind of literature. They have been reading the books of Neo-evangelicalism. No one could adopt such language as “Biblical Worldview” unless he had learned it from the Neo-evangelicals. The word “worldview” is not even in the dictionary—-unless perhaps in a dictionary printed yesterday. This is the jargon of modern Neo-evangelicalism, and language which just suits the Neo-evangelical mind, which is always more occupied with the world than with anything else. Those who use this language have obviously acquired it from that source. “Thy speech bewrayeth thee.”
It is one of the great evils of our times that Neo-evangelicalism provides most of the literature which is read by conservative Christians. I have remarked in these pages before that I have no hope for the future of Fundamentalism, so long as it continues to feed upon Neo-evangelical literature. And here is a movement certainly more conservative than most of Fundamentalism, and yet obviously exposed to the same danger, obviously influenced from the same source, and obviously unaware of its danger. These things I write with tears, and they are indeed enough to make the angels weep.
It has been rumored of myself that I will read nothing unless it is at least a hundred years old. This is not true. I do read a little of modern literature, though I have very little taste for it, as its content is generally shallow, and its atmosphere unspiritual. Neither do I believe there is any danger in reading a little Neo-evangelical literature, so long as it is distasteful to us, so long as we read it as a chore, or as a physician would examine a patient with a contagious disease. But those who feed upon this modern literature will certainly be the worse for it, and it would certainly be much safer for them if they would read nothing less than a hundred years old.
But on. If the title of the article betrays its Neo-evangelical source, so does its content. Of who Mr. Hammond is, I know nothing. Of whence Mr. Stoltzfus selected this article, he tells us nothing, and I know nothing. It is the principles of the article which concern me, and I know very well the origin of those. While it contains some good, the evil principles which it inculcates outweigh any good which it may contain in details. The essence of that evil is set forth in the following extract:
“Many people labor under the illusion that God is mostly concerned with religious pursuits. This misunderstanding is based [on] at least four false assumptions:
“1.God is far more interested in people’s souls than their bodies.
“2.The things of our life after death are far more important than the things pertaining to our life in time.
“3.Life is divided into the secular and the sacred.
“4.Becoming a minister, evangelist, or missionary is the only way to serve God in a vocation.
“The Bible shows that God is interested in the whole person, not in a disembodied soul. What goes on in both time and eternity are equally important to our Sovereign God. Being co-laborers with God in making His physical, temporal world run smoothly is important, just as co-laboring with Him in evangelism is.”
That there are some grains of truth in some of these propositions I would not care to deny, but their general tendency is downward, and directly against spirituality—-directly against the Bible—-directly against the heavenly calling of the church. Their only possible effect must be to settle the saints down in the earth—-or in the world—-forgetful that they are called of God to be “pilgrims and strangers on the earth,” and that the judgement of God is soon to destroy all that man is now building here. These are the well known and long established principles of Neo-evangelicalism, and it is a great grief to see such principles taking root in conservative circles. The last sentence quoted contains the very quintessence of Neo-evangelicalism, which always blurs the distinction between the kingdom of God and the domain of the devil, by treating the present world as though it were of God.
As to God being primarily concerned with religious pursuits, this is no “illusion,” but the very truth, and every revival in history bears witness to the fact. Only let the Spirit of God take hold of any people, and immediately the temporal matters and secular concerns which had engrossed their hearts become insignificant and trivial, while religion becomes the grand concern, and the chief topic of all their talk. Let any man read “The Mark of an Awakening” in the May issue of this magazine, and say whether it is an illusion that God is primarily concerned with religious pursuits.
As to the first two of the numbered propositions, they stand directly against both the spirit and the content of the New Testament as a whole—-and I may add, directly against the spiritual instincts of the godly. “It is not reason,” say the twelve apostles, “that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables” (Acts. 6:2)—-not reason, that is, that the ministers of Christ should leave the spiritual for the sake of the physical. And to this the spiritual instincts of the whole church of God give immediate and entire assent, for we all know that the spiritual vastly transcends the physical. It is no “false assumption” that God is far more interested in our souls than in our bodies, though it is certainly true that he cares for our bodies, and for our temporal affairs also. The hairs of our heads are all numbered. Our Father feedeth the fouls of the air, and we are much better than they. But observe, the propositions in this article are not designed to teach us what God does, but to define what we ought to do. The purpose is not to teach us of God’s tender care, but to define “the Christian work ethic.” The obvious and only possible design of this is to inculcate the principle that since God cares as much for our bodies as for our souls, since God is as interested in our temporal affairs as he is in our eternal, it is our business to be so also. This is directly against the Bible. The very passage of Scripture which teaches us most thoroughly of the care of our Father for our bodies and our temporal needs is written precisely to teach us not to concern ourselves with them.
“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.” (Matt. 6:25). “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithall shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek.” (Matt. 6:31-32). The Gentiles are the ungodly, and what occupies them ought not to occupy us. We have more important concerns. I should remark that “take no thought” would be very properly translated “care not,” or “be not concerned.” The word is translated “care” elsewhere, referring not to anxiety, but to legitimate cares. “The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” (I Cor. 7:34). I cite this scripture only to illustrate the meaning of the word “care,” but I must turn aside to notice that it is one of many which come to mind which directly overturn the principle set forth in this article, that eternal things are not more important than temporal. The whole chapter from which I quote this verse, the seventh chapter of I Corinthians, directly and forcefully establishes the fact that the eternal IS of much greater importance than anything and everything temporal—-much more important even than marriage, which to most minds is the most important matter pertaining to this life. The second proposition of this article, that “The things of our life after death are far more important than the things pertaining to our life in time,” is no “false assumption” at all, but the very truth of God, established not only by the whole of I Corinthians 7, but by the whole tenor of the whole New Testament, and by numerous explicit statements of the same.
In Matthew 6:19-20, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, …but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven”—-whence it plainly appears that the eternal is of much greater importance than the temporal. And again, “Seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (vs. 33). Why “first,” if the temporal and the eternal are of equal importance? And note, the kingdom of God is here explicitly contrasted with things temporal and earthly, and this text certainly teaches us that we are to regard the spiritual and the eternal as vastly more important than the physical and the temporal. Again, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life.” (John 6:27). How so, if the former is not far more important?
It is hardly necessary to affirm that this text does not teach us not to labor at all for the meat which perisheth. Such a notion is hyperspiritual, and false. I do not write to establish anything hyperspiritual, but only to plead for that which is truly spiritual, and it is a grand certainty that to spiritual men, the eternal is of much greater importance than the temporal, and the soul than the body. The fact is, Scripture frequently commands us to deny ourselves the temporal for the sake of the eternal, but never the reverse. And why not, if the two are to be regarded as of equal weight and importance? The Bible advises us even to sacrifice the body in order to save the soul. “Others were tortured [in their bodies], not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” (Heb. 11:35). In plain English, the soul is far more important than the body, and it is our wisdom so to regard it, and our safety to act accordingly.
Look where we will in the Bible, this is its uniform testimony. “Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not.” (Luke 12:33). And “Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.” But “Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.” (Luke 6:21, 24-25). From all which it plainly appears that we are to disregard or sacrifice the temporal, in order to secure the eternal—-and how then are the two equally important?
Again, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” (Matt. 10:28). How does it appear here that it is a false assumption that “God is far more interested in people’s souls than their bodies”? How does this scripture teach us that “God is interested in the whole person, not in a disembodied soul”? When the body is killed, we are not whole persons, but precisely disembodied souls.
Again, “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (II Cor. 4:16-18). How does it appear from this that the body is as important as the soul, or that “What goes on in both time and eternity are equally real and important”? Equally real, perhaps, but equally important is another matter. It is safe to say that everything in this scripture is directly against the principles of this article.
Again, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” (I Cor. 9:11). This assumes that the value of the spiritual vastly exceeds that of the physical, and this assumption is the very foundation of spirituality, to which the heartbeat of the true remnant will most surely and cordially assent.
Other scriptures of the same nature clamor for a place here, but I fear to weary my readers with too much of the same sort. I proceed to notice the third of the numbered propositions which I have quoted above. If it is a false assumption that life is divided into the secular and the sacred, why is it that God explicitly condemns the confusion of the two? “The word of the Lord” by the prophet Ezekiel is this: “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have PUT NO DIFFERENCE between the holy and profane.” (Ezek. 22:26). The word “profane” bears a different sense in modern English than it does in the Bible. Its meaning in the Bible is “common” or “secular.” “The holy and the profane,” then, are precisely “the sacred and the secular”—-the words are so rendered in the Berkeley Version—-and God condemns those who put no difference between them.
I know that there is a grain of truth in this proposition. I know that we ought to do all that we do—-sacred or secular—-for the glory of God. But to make the two equally important, or equally spiritual, is to cut directly across the grain of the spiritual instincts of the church. Such principles might have applied in the garden of Eden, but they forget that man is now a sinner, that the earth is under the curse of God, that the world is under the dominion of Satan, that “the time is short,” that “the fashion of this world passeth away,” that all that man is now building under the sun is shortly to be destroyed, and that therefore we ought to be about our Father’s business—-which is spiritual, and not milking cows or building houses.
But I proceed to the fourth proposition. It is a “false assumption,” we are told, that “Becoming a minister, evangelist, or missionary is the only way to serve God in a vocation.” This is really only an extension of the third proposition. We grant there is a grain of truth here, and the statement may be technically true, yet its spirit and emphasis are all wrong. In explanation of this principle the article says, “When we can realize that God has placed us in our job to co-labor with Him, contributing to His creation, it leads to a sense of dignity and destiny in our work.” Quite so, no doubt, but that sense of dignity and destiny will be at the expense of spirituality. If these principles are true, then Paul ought to have felt as much sense of dignity and destiny in his tent-making as he did in his apostleship. It is precisely this which these principles are designed to establish. But it was not so with Paul. He could say, “Woe is me if I preach not the gospel,” but certainly not “Woe is me if I make not tents.” The latter is so palpably false that it must in fact be an outrage upon the spiritual instincts of every spiritual man. No doubt Paul could glorify God in making tents, by working honestly and conscientiously, and by using the proceeds of his work for the cause of Christ, for which he lived, but making tents had nothing to do with the purpose of his life. It was an incidental, a trifle, a means to earn his bread and butter—-nothing more—-whereas to preach Christ was his life. Every saint of God may engage in secular work, if necessity so requires, whether or not he is called of God to public ministry. And every saint of God is certainly called of God to promote the spiritual interests of Christ, so far as his spiritual gifts and state enable him, though he may work at a secular occupation to earn his bread. The spiritual is our life and purpose, the secular only incidental. To make them of equal importance is really to destroy the spirituality of the church.
Understand, the only possible effect of this fourth proposition is to secularize the church—-to make the whole church unspiritual, and give divine sanction to that unspirituality. I scarcely need appeal to Scripture on this point, so confident am I that the spiritual instincts of every spiritual soul—-that the very heartbeat of the remnant—-will bear me out. If it is a man’s life to preach Christ, we all feel that this is as it should be. If it is his life to make cabinets or to raise corn, we all feel instinctively—-and rightly—-that he is unspiritual, if not ungodly. Yet this is exactly what these principles require—-that we put no difference between a sacred mission and a secular occupation—-that we feel the same dignity and destiny in the one as in the other—-that the secular is the work of the Lord the same as the sacred. No spiritual man can brook such a principle. The Lord said to fishermen, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men,” but where in all history did he ever say to an apostle, “Follow me, and I will make you a catcher of fish”? The notion is preposterous to spiritual sense. Such principles simply destroy spirituality. God took Elisha from following the plow to make him a prophet of God, and Elisha burnt the plow and sacrificed the oxen. Why so, if there was equal dignity and destiny in plowing as in prophesying? And where did God ever take a man from the prophetic office to make him a plowman?
Surely a prophet of God may plow the ground, if an apostle may make tents, but neither the one nor the other give us any excuse for exalting the secular to the level of the sacred, or debasing the sacred to the level of the secular. The fact is, I am engaged in secular work myself. I paint signs for a living, and sometimes engage in more menial employments also, but I surely feel no dignity nor destiny in any of it. It is a necessity, that is all. I have rent to pay, and a family to feed. I tell my customers, “I live to preach, and paint signs to live.” What would they—-what would my readers—-think of me if the matter were reversed? Or what would they think of me if I could say, “I live to paint signs and to preach”? What could they think of me if I felt equal dignity and destiny in painting signs as I do in preaching, or if I felt that both of them were equally the work of the Lord? They would rightly judge me unspiritual, and unfit to preach. The sign painting I could give up at any time—-and would most gladly do so if I could. The preaching I could not give up but with my life. The painting I would give up at a moment’s notice, if necessity would but permit it. The preaching, and the writing, I could never give up at all, unless the sternest necessity absolutely compelled it.
Before I was converted it was my desire and my plan to go to college and become a high school English teacher. After I was converted I retained the same plan for some months, but found that the desire for it faded away. My heart was now engaged to serve Christ, and it never once entered my head that teaching English to high school students would be serving Christ. I had no specific call of God to any particular ministry, yet I knew very well that the service of Christ was spiritual, not secular, and I therefore shortly abandoned all my secular plans, and enrolled at a Bible institute. I could not then, and cannot now, understand how anyone committed to the cause of Christ could pursue mere secular goals—-much less how they could claim the call of God for it.
As for our secular occupations, it is immaterial whether we work at a laundry, or in a grocery store, or in a shipping department, or whether we wash pots and pans in a kitchen—-and I have done all of this since I have been converted. None of these things are the service of Christ, though all may be used to earn our daily bread, and all of them may be used as occasions for the service of Christ. Paul says, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called” (I Cor. 7:20)—-not because of any divine appointment to that place, (as it plainly appears in the next verse), but rather because it is incidental and immaterial. It makes no difference whether I wash pots and pans, or cut meat in a grocery store. I have done both, but neither one had anything to do with my purpose in life. Indeed, that is unaffected whether I am a slave or free. Paul goes on, in the next verse, to say, “Are thou called being a servant? CARE NOT FOR IT: but if thou mayest be made free, USE IT RATHER.”—-for you have no divine appointment to either the one place or the other, both the one and the other being entirely incidental and immaterial—-“For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.” Bond or free, married or unmarried, fisherman or physician, is all the same. We may serve Christ as well in one state as in another, for the service of Christ is spiritual, and distinct from every secular position and all earthly affairs. Paul only goes so far as to recommend that secular place which will leave us most free from care and distraction, and so best able to wait upon the Lord. Otherwise it is simply “Let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” This, because “the time is short” (verse 29), and “the fashion of this world passeth away” (verse 31). All of these earthly places are transient, insignificant—-to be retained or refused only as helps or hindrances to the work of the Lord, which is spiritual.
But to turn all of these secular positions and occupations into the service of Christ—-to say, as Neo-evangelicalism commonly does, that God needs good doctors and lawyers and school teachers and auto mechanics and waitresses—-this is just to turn the world into the kingdom of God. And let us well understand, regardless of how many good men may have imbibed or embraced such doctrines, they originated with the Neo-evangelicals. They originated, that is, in a movement which consists of little else than worldliness—-a movement which from its inception has shunned the reproach of Christ, repudiated separation from the world, sneered at spirituality, and courted the approval of the world at every point.
But enough. I notice but one more statement from this article. “Good work well done is as essential a part of fulfilling the `Great Commission’ as it is a fulfillment of the `Cultural Mandate.”’
The “Great Commission” we know, but what is the “Cultural Mandate”? The whole church has recognized and bowed to the “Great Commission” for centuries, but this “Cultural Mandate” was never heard of before the present generation. And whence did it originate? It comes to us from the most thoroughly worldly portion of modern Evangelicalism—-from the Reconstructionists, or Post-millennialists, whose very doctrines and principles assume that the world is the kingdom of God. This movement knows nothing of the fact that the devil is the prince of this world, or that the judgement of God is soon to fall upon all that man is building here. This so-called “Cultural Mandate” is really nothing more than an endeavor to put a divine sanction upon the most thorough worldliness. There is no “Cultural Mandate” in the New Testament. Yet this article puts this “Cultural Mandate” alongside the “Great Commission,” as though both were of God, and as though both were recognized by the church of God. This is not the case. The Great Commission is of God. The “Cultural Mandate” is of the world. Where do Christ or his apostles teach us to work together with God to make “his physical, temporal world run smoothly”? Can this possibly be the business of “pilgrims and strangers on the earth”?
We have nothing against “good work well done,” if the right thing is meant by it. If this means skilled craftsmanship, to fulfill the “Cultural Mandate,” this is only building in the world—-as Lot in Sodom—-with the judgement of God hanging over it. “Seeing then that all these things shall be destroyed, what manner of persons ye ought to be in all holy conversation in godliness.” (II Pet. 3:11). But if the author means simply working honestly and conscientiously, we grant that this may contribute even to fulfill the Great Commission. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16). The “good works” here are moral, not physical, yet “good work well done” is a moral thing—-and nothing optional, by the way, but a simple matter of righteousness. And though it is certainly not the work of the Lord, it may open the door for the work of the Lord.
From 1976 to 1981 I worked for Manpower, a temporary services agency, often doing difficult and menial jobs. I certainly felt no “dignity” or “destiny” in this, as though it were the work of the Lord. My sole purpose was to earn a living. I worked for Manpower so that I would be free to do the work of the Lord—-with no long-term commitments, and able to work as much or as little as necessity required. One day when I called the office for a job for the next day, the manager said to me, “What do you do to charm these people? I have everybody calling and asking for you by name.” I told her, “I do only one thing to charm anybody: when I get on the job, I work.” I surely believe in “good work well done”—-but never dreamed that this was the work of the Lord. At the present time I salvage, repair, and sell wooden pallets to supplement my income from my sign business, which is not always sufficient. Only yesterday I took in a load of pallets to sell, and while I was unloading them the woman in charge came out to pay me, and said, “When you bring in a load of pallets I don’t even have to look at them. I know they’re good.” Nor did anyone trouble themselves to count them, but accepted without question the figure which I gave them. This is simple righteousness, and every child of God ought to have such a reputation for “good work well done.” And such “good work well done” may contribute even to the Great Commission, if at the same time we “let our light shine” by preaching the gospel. This is doubtless the endeavor of every spiritual man, but to this spiritual purpose this article must add a worldly one, recommending “good work well done” for secular ends—-to fulfill “the Cultural Mandate”—-to contribute something to this present world. Surely this is a blow at the root of spirituality.
But some who may wish to defend the article which I am reviewing will probably say that I have misunderstood it—-that I impute to it more than is actually there. I think not. I have not misunderstood anything. I know well enough these Neo-evangelical principles. I know their source, and their downward tendency. We may hope that the author, and much more the selector, of this article may have failed to understand the real tendency of these principles, which they have obviously imbibed from others. It may be that, seeing only the grains of truth contained in the system, and lacking a sufficient knowledge of the word and ways of God, they have failed to perceive its evil tendency. I may hope so, but the principles of this article are evil for all that. Their tendency is only downward, and where Christian people adopt such principles, it will certainly be the beginning of the end of their spirituality.
Glenn Conjurske