I am well aware that this may be met with outraged protests and shocked denial. Yet I am certain what I describe here is a real phenomenon, and that it needs to be said. I write in the abstract so that the message may be clear without creating undue or unintended offense. I believe one of the key reasons so many pastors fail to preach a Biblical and properly ordered view of work is that many pastors, themselves, suffer from a horrifically inadequate work ethic.

One might get the impression that I am not thrilled with the state of the Christian church’s opinions and teachings on work.[1] I am struck by the defensive tone churches take, presupposing that “too much work” is the default sin of their congregation rather than “not enough work.” I guarantee that the latter outnumber the former in every church I have ever observed or studied by a wide margin. This is vitally important to get right because our very purpose as humans is to be productive cultivators-that is, workers. I believe there are both well-meaning and less-well-intentioned reasons for the church’s inadequacy in presenting a theology of work.

Inputs, Not Outcomes

First, the well-meaning. It is understandable that churches don’t want to risk jumping from the frying pan into the fire. If their congregation includes husbands who ignore their families, they, of course, don’t want to greenlight further family neglect. If they have a congregation filled with greedy idolaters, it makes sense that they want to decry materialism and greed.

The solution to the well-meaning fear that speaking the truth might encourage excess? Stop. Stop what? Stop being afraid of the whole counsel of God. Speak the truth. The soft-peddling and milquetoast preaching is not and cannot be effective. It is time to see truth and love as intertwined, not two separate ingredients to try and measure in appropriate ratios. Stir in all the truth and all the love, and then brace yourself for the outcomes of faithful courage. If you mean to preach against idolatry, preach against idolatry. If you mean to preach for a robust defense of work and productivity, do so. Where tensions must be held in balance, preach wisely and sagely. This doesn’t have to be hard. Preach without fear of which constituency in the congregation is being offended. Instead, if it is true—preach it!

The courage to preach the truth can be found in recognizing that the responsibility of the minister is in the input (the fidelity of what is preached) and the outcome is best left in the hands of God (how inputs will be received and applied). This ought to be comforting to the minister: he is not responsible for what he cannot control. Nearly every pastor with whom I have discussed this has admitted to worrying that a pro-work message will be taken the wrong way. I am not an ordained minister, but I want to remain sympathetic to those who have an earnest and well-meaning concern here.

The issue of inputs versus outcomes is not unique to the pastorate. This principle is universal in a world where there is both a sovereign God and accountable humans. I credit the “inputs versus outcomes” distinction as a major part of my success in the wealth advisory business. Our profession deals with risk-taking in capital markets. Some people want to hear that their investment returns will be higher than they are likely to be; even more want to hear that their risk or fluctuation volatility will be less than it is likely to be. Everyone early in a career of managing money or offering financial guidance runs into the conflict of telling the truth and losing a client versus embellishing results and securing the client. Those most likely to have a successful career are those who learn to focus on the “inputs”—the truth of what is presented, the tenacity that goes into portfolio planning and presentation—and to be totally content with the “outcomes,” what the client or prospective client does with the information.[2] 

This principle works the same way for a real estate agent attempting to secure a listing without exaggerating the likely sale price of a house or an investment banker needing to value a business without providing false guidance. Would a diet work if the nutritionist merely lied about the calories to tell the client what they wanted to hear? Would a doctor keep a patient happy by assuring them that unhealthy practices were acceptable?

This concept isn’t complicated, but we freeze up when those tasked as prophets and priests are called to boldly preach Christian truths. Inputs are vitally important, and of course, there is ample room for wisdom, tact, and care. But there is a point at which concern over how a message will be received must be replaced by acknowledgement of the “uncontrollable” nature of outcomes. A preacher must reserve his concern for the inputs.

Poor Excuses for Poor Theology

Though this is not the primary focus of this article, I am sure there are some less innocuous excuses for failing to proclaim a robust theology of work in our churches. Genuine theological ignorance should not be defended or excused, and yet it is less sinister than other explanations.

Gnosticism keeps popping up in our discussion of modem error regarding work and vocation. Believing there is a difference between the significance of body and soul, the physical and material, and the earthly and the spiritual is a heresy that has bled into philosophy and ethics since the early church. A belief that the church is superior to other vocational callings is likely to come through in one’s preaching. This dualism is not always intentional. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say, “Your job matters to God—He wants you to work hard and do well,” then conclude their thought with “so you can do more in ministry, church, and Kingdom.” That is Gnosticism that sends a preacher off course.

Almost all errant preaching I have heard on this subject exhibited latent Gnosticism—unintentional, but not innocent. A common example is depicting a career as only valuable because of the material benefits it bestows (e.g., providing for one’s firmly, tithing to the church, supporting other ministry projects). This is explicit utilitarianism (even if wrapped in Great Commission rationale), but it comes from implicit Gnosticism.

A Christian theology that values the incarnational truths of our religion—that God made man with a body and a soul and that his eternal destiny encompasses both—is the only antidote. We know that the Son of God was fully man and fully God. We exist in both a material and a spiritual dimension, and we should celebrate this creational truth, not hide from it.

If we want to restore a cultural apologetic for Christianity, each minister of the gospel needs to ensure his presentation of work, calling, and vocation repudiates these three mistakes:

• Gnosticism (the material is subordinate to the spiritual)
  
• Dualism (the secular is distinct from the sacred)
  
• Pietism (intensity of personal feeling is superior to doctrinal truth)

Ensuring a message or argument is free of these three things would bring a new understanding of work, calling, and protectivity. These errors are so embedded in our thinking that only a self-aware, concerted effort will enable us to shake them.

So much of the focus and critique I make is specific to the church—a distinctive theological institution and concept—that I risk skipping over the conflict that exists in the messaging of work, career, calling, and financial resources. A relatively new cottage industry of “Christian philanthropy” has reached new heights over the last two decades. Institutions, funds, think tanks, and various not-for-profit organizations have emerged without a direct connection to a church or denomination whose primary focus is to advocate for Christian generosity and philanthropy.

I am not discouraging generosity or philanthropy. I am supportive of any and all endeavors that faithfully equip and inform believers in the act of generosity. I work with a plethora of organizations in this “cottage industry” and have known dozens, if not hundreds, of senior leaders and advocates in it. Many of them are faithful men and women of God who desire to see greater attention paid to Christian philanthropy. Some of the most heartfelt believers I know work in this space, so I do not offer this warning lightly.

Read More