Ship of Fools: Theology of work

Thread: Theology of work Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026576

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

How many of our churches and church-related institutions actually have a theology of work? One that's spelled out, that is? Because if it's not spelled out, it's going to be implicit and perhaps unintentional.

I don't just mean priests, either, although that's who we normally think of when we think of church employment. But every church hires at least one lay person to do things like manage the office, type and file things, answer phones, clean the toilets, etc.

My main questions, although others may come up in the course of this discussion, are:

1) Do we consider the person prior to the job, or the job prior to the person? In other words, do the gifts, abilities, and weaknesses of the person matter, or is all that matters whether or not they tick off items on a checklist in a timely fashion? Do we allow for imperfection?

2) How is employee compensation related to matters of stewardship? Is it important to limit compensation (whether pay level, hours allowed, number of employees, or benefits) in order to justify the expenditure to the congregation? Or, on the other hand, is the gift of time and talent by volunteers valued over throwing money at staffing needs? How can these be balanced? And do congregations even know about the size of the lay staff employed by their church, or what kind of staffing is required to maintain the service schedule and other ministries of their church? Does this come up at stewardship time?

3) Are employees considered members of the community, or "the help"? Many small churches tend to hire from their own membership, but for those that don't, often employees aren't members of the denomination, or may not be Christian or even religious at all. Are they nonetheless embraced as members of the community that includes, but may not be limited to, the congregation? Are employees considered to be slacking off in their duties if they form relationships with members of the congregation, even if Sunday is a work day for them? (That goes back to whether or not they're considered "the help," I think.)

I asked this question on facebook, and, predictably, got zero replies (many of my facebook friends are priests and church workers as well as seminary faculty, staff, and students). Presumably people don't want to get in trouble with their employers by addressing the matter. Or maybe others don't find it a matter worth discussing? I figure people would discuss it here, though.

FWIW, I do work in a church, and I should state that no grievance against my employer should be inferred by anything here, and I trust the same will hold true for any church workers who post here. This is on my mind primarily because I'm a Detroiter who thinks about labor issues (as we Detroiters do), and I'm a committed Christian in the Episcopal Church, so I care deeply about how the Church behaves. It seems to me that if the Church has any business putting people in pulpits to preach to others, then we ought to behave in manners we would recommend from said pulpits. Do we?

(As a side-note that is perhaps more central to this issue: It's been reported that in my own denomination, gender pay inequity exists among both clergy and lay staff. All I can find right now is this report , which addresses only clergy compensation, but if you scroll to the 4th and 5th pages of the report, the gender inequity is painfully clear.)

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Interested by your questions. I've been involved in hiring/appointing church workers of various descriptions over several years.

In terms of your questions:

1) We have always started with the job. What do we need as a church for this role? what are the basic requirements and dimensions of the role? Then we seek applicants but with an open mind that the final boundaries of the role will be determined by the specific skills, gifts, knowledge and experience of the person we select.

2) I am in a church where all the funding for the workers comes solely from the gifts of that congregation. This means it is always a balancing act between honouring those doing the work, stewarding the finances of the church and recognising that this sometimes (often?) means that those employed by the church can be paid more than some "ordinary" members. It's never an easy one but we usual try to at least take some account of what a fair salary for that role would be in the wider market (e.g. for an admin role, youth worker or using teacher's pay scales for pastoral staff)

3) We would expect any employee of the church to be a regular member of the congregation - and if appointed from outside we'd try hard to make them feel part of the community and definitely not the "hired help" - thought this didn't always work sadly.

Having said all of that when you asked about a "theology of work" I was expecting something much broader than church employment. A theology of work for me is far wider and about seeing whatever work we do as being done for God regardless of what line of work we are in. E.g. how we treat other people at work, acting with integrity, etc.

I hope that helps!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
churchgeek: I don't just mean priests, either, although that's who we normally think of when we think of church employment. But every church hires at least one lay person to do things like manage the office, type and file things, answer phones, clean the toilets, etc.

We don't

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In my rather opinionated view, the idea of a theology of work has been completely transmorgified for at least the past 40 years in every sector of society in the theology of money, and how can individuals justify enriching themselves.

Certainly churches are not immune. Considering the bishop, who was frankly a compromise candidate, who did Very Stupid and Idiotic Things, who tried to hang on until he was finally caught out. He hung on because he wanted to ensure his pension amount.

Considering the amount of time spend on the 3 vestries (parish councils) whose meetings are devoted to the praise and raising up, but not of souls, rather loot. Whether investments, sales of things, tours, or Mr. Damn* knows what.

* calling God by the last name.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Just after starting this thread, I thought, D'oh! I should've specified "in churches" in the title. But since I didn't, why not expand the thread beyond churches?

Although I think it has to start with churches and related institutions, because, well, we're the ones who do theology. And if we're going to hammer out a theology of work, we need to apply it in our own institutions, or else we have no business preaching it (i.e., commending it to others).

Interestingly, I just learned today that in the diocese where I work (I'm not a member of this diocese, though), there's a minimum starting salary that churches are allowed to pay priests. Of course, there is no such requirement for lay staff. It's nice to ensure priests are paid enough to live in the communities they serve, but if congregations then have to hire only part-time clergy, or nickel-and-dime their lay staff, or forego lay staff to make up the difference, then it's not really a helpful policy. It also seems to either come from or reinforce the general clericalism in my denomination. And the base salary for clergy is quite comfortable, too.

I was in a conversation with a former classmate from seminary, now a priest in this diocese (though not full-time...), and mentioned this thread to him. He pointed out that a good place to start on a theology of work is with Jesus' parable of the day-laborers: Matthew 20:1-16. His reading of that parable was that the workers' pay was enough for their needs; and even those who came in at the eleventh hour needed enough to live on. I've never heard that from a pulpit! But it makes a lot of sense to me.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I have not heard discussion of this except a few comments from the viewpoint of church workers.

One church or denomination (not sure which) says the secretary must not be a church member, for confidentiality/politics reasons.

Another has a member as secretary, she says she can't show up at an event and expect to simply participate, whether Sunday morning or a mid-week event, because people dump church business on her any time they see her.

An organist told me he made a mistake in joining the church, always before he was a member of a different church than the one he played in, the employment relationship made it easy for him to limit the amount the church could demand of him. If the organ needed repair he reported that fact and went home at the end of his duties, up to them to find a repair person. As a member, he is expected to do his job and then stay on to do the repair work himself, free.

A budget manager told me whatever work is needed, the church tries to find a member who can do it, only if there is clearly no capable member who can be arm-twisted to do the work (including providing any needed materials free) do they hire someone.

I know a man who is really tired of his church deciding on remodeling jobs and then telling him to donate the work because he is a building contractor.

So from the viewpoint of some church members who have skills the church wants to use, the theology feels like "milk the members for free labor until they scream." Not just lay members, the clergy wives get irritated at the endless demands, one fussed at me that she was scolded for staying home some evenings to help her daughter with homework instead of attending meetings at church (on top of a full time job).

OTOH, one church I visited had an entry hall with tables neatly covered with signup sheets to do small tasks, like change the burned out light bulb in the hall, you (do or do not ) need to bring a ladder and a bulb. Not "volunteer to do all the church maintenance" but pick a one-time small task. Lots of little ways to participate by doing something that makes a tangible difference.

But in general I think churches don't have well thought out concept of what kinds of work should be paid, or free, and why, and how much is fair to ask of any one person. I'd love to sit in on a discussion, there are a lot of real issues to think about. And that's before the question of do you pay a living wage or expect the employee to view the job as a "ministry" for below market pay?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The church of which I am treasurer will pay for specialist work but will ask for volunteers for things that don't require specialist secular skills or qualifications. The only person who is employed to work for the church is the minister, and they are paid centrally (and the CoS don't currently ask us for anything like the full cost of employing our minister). All admin is done by the minister, the session clerk or (a little bit) me. The church is cleaned by volunteers, the organ is played by volunteers, volunteers installed the sound system (with professional advice). And it is volunteers; the minister is very reluctant to put pressure on people or even to ask for people to do things. A general appeal for volunteers for a particular task is as close as it gets.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Ideally, the work of each church will be shared by those called to do it, and the pay if any will be only as much as will pay for the basic needs of the recipient.

In real life, there's sometimes no-one in the congregation ready, willing or able to carry out certain tasks, so that someone must be hired and paid out of donations if it's a necessary task. In that case, secular rules apply.

More broadly, I think that it would be good if 'love others as yourselves' were applied in every board room, company ethos and meeting, and placed above the love of money.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Perhaps this is slightly tangential, but in Britain the "Trustees" of a charity may not benefit from their position. In practice this means that people like paid administrators or secretaries cannot be Elders or Deacons or PCC members as these offices are deemed to be those of "Managing Trustees". (Ministers are exempt through historical precedent).

So you can pay your organist; but you can't pay one of your Elders to work for the church unless s/he resigns their Eldership. (Of course the reimbursement of expenses or a "thank-you" gift are allowed).

[ 27. October 2013, 13:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Perhaps this is slightly tangential, but in Britain the "Trustees" of a charity may not benefit from their position. In practice this means that people like paid administrators or secretaries cannot be Elders or Deacons or PCC members as these offices are deemed to be those of "Managing Trustees". (Ministers are exempt through historical precedent).

So you can pay your organist; but you can't pay one of your Elders to work for the church unless s/he resigns their Eldership. (Of course the reimbursement of expenses or a "thank-you" gift are allowed).

Unless there are specific rules for religious charities, this isn't quite the case. Yes, charities need to be very careful about paying trustees but the law does permit charities to pay their trustees for services to the charity and even (with tight controls and restrictions) for acting as a trustee. More details at the Charity Commission website.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Thank you SKK, that's very helpful and a useful correction. AFAIK there's no difference for religious charities. (Of course a church doesn't have to be a charity!)

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Thank you SKK, that's very helpful and a useful correction. AFAIK there's no difference for religious charities. (Of course a church doesn't have to be a charity!)

I think that it would be a strange church where the greater part (if not all) the activities were not charitable. And so, as far as I understand it, the church would be a charity, those who "ruled" it would be charity trustees and so bound by the law, whether the charity is registered or not.

There's much to be said, when registering a charity for the first time, to be sure to list the activities for which payment of trustees may take place.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

No probs Baptist Trainfan, and good point american piskie. Registering as a charity does not make an organisation a charity; whether or not any particular organisation is charitable depends on the aims and structure of the organisation. A charitable organisation is obliged to register with the Charity Commission if its income exceeds £5,000 in any financial year.

All the above applies for England and Wales only, I think. AIUI, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own charity regulations, as of course do other nations.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

One of the problems for the CofE is that thanks to a report produced in the 1980s/90s (Turnbull?) there has been increasing centralisation.

So, while the rest of the world has been de-centralising, the CofE has been going in the opposite direction.

And one the results of this is that you now have to use one of a small number of "approved" architects for church projects.

The days of parishes being able to get a lot done for very little are long gone.

In my own parish the situation is that with no fewer than 6 architects on the church electoral roll, we have to employ an architect on the approved list from the DAC. Result is we're forced to pay full RIBA fees for everything - which, don't forget isn't just the cost of the drawings but also 15% of the contract cost.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the problems for the CofE is that thanks to a report produced in the 1980s/90s (Turnbull?) there has been increasing centralisation.

So, while the rest of the world has been de-centralising, the CofE has been going in the opposite direction.

[Tangent - not really. It's been regionalising - the work goes to the Dioceses, rather than Church House Westminster. Paid posts at the centre, like children and youth workers and disability adviors, are getting cut, and Dioceses are asked to take on the additional work. With no extra funding.]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

To broaden the discussion, here's a mental exercise: If everyone, no matter what work they did, was paid the same hourly rate for their work, what work would not get done? What would people be unwilling, less willing, or more willing to do?

Would anyone be willing to be a CEO, for example, if it paid the same as being a janitor? Or, would anyone be a janitor, if it paid the same as being a baseball player? Think about this in your own industry.

I think that exercise goes toward the dignity and value of work, especially since different people have different talents and abilities. Should everyone be able to have a job they find fulfilling? Would that even be possible? What light might that shed on the way we currently reward some labor more than other labor?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Reminds me of the old Lutheran pastor who, when he was dying, announced he was proud he had never done a good work.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Sorry to be so dense, but I'm genuinely interested in a brief explanation of what that pastor meant, since I lack enough knowledge about Lutheranism to understand. Was it perhaps ironic humor?

[ 01. November 2013, 03:44: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Probably a reference to "works theology," a title no one would claim for their own theology, but generally refers to some idea you can get into heaven by doing good things, or on your own merit.

Not to be confused with a theology of work, which is an entirely different matter.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

churchgeek, I may be wrong, but I believe that Communist Bulgaria was set up so that street cleaners earned the same amount as surgeons, which is pretty much what you seem to be suggesting.
I don't think it worked very well, but it did limp along for many years.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I don't just mean priests, either, although that's who we normally think of when we think of church employment. But every church hires at least one lay person to do things like manage the office, type and file things, answer phones, clean the toilets, etc.

I wish to God that were true.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I'm not sure what a 'theology of work' would be like. There are arguably good employment laws for the fair treatment and welfare of those who are employees. Always assuming the employment is legal and above-board, of course. It would be reasonable to expect a church employer to be sensitive and conscientious towards its employees to a greater degree, along the lines of 'practice what you preach'. It would be reasonable, too, that working for a church - whether as cleaner, typist, cleric or fart-wrangler - should not be an oppressive or exploitative experience.

Beyond these things, all the Church's relations with others (in theory!) ought to be guided primarily by the Golden Rule of doing unto others as it would wish to be done by, church employee or not.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm not sure what a 'theology of work' would be like.

Surely, a theology of work goes beyond the moralities of employment practices, business ethics or spirituality in the workplace? A ToW examines the meanings that human beings give to their 'work' (taken in its widest sense). It's likely to encompass aspects of co-creativity with God, vocation, gifting and transformation of a fallen world.

<Disclaimer - 4000w essay in gestation [Eek!]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Recently, my church's theology of work has tended more to the idea that it is less important for someone to be able do the job well than it is to offer a helping hand to someone in the community struggling with unemployment. This, as you can imagine, does not always lead to happy results. I think they may be changing this ethos soon, not to ignore the plight of the unemployed, but to make sure that whoever is employed will do a good job. Anything else is poor stewardship of meagre resources.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Hyatt

The Lutheran pastor story is a joke, for all I know. Lutherans, to be frank, are modern day antinomians in so many ways. Whenever they get into discussions about how to respond to the Gospel, they want to avoid anything that smacks of good works. For instance, you can't come to Jesus. It is the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel creating your faith.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm not sure what a 'theology of work' would be like.
Surely, a theology of work goes beyond the moralities of employment practices, business ethics or spirituality in the workplace? A ToW examines the meanings that human beings give to their 'work' (taken in its widest sense). It's likely to encompass aspects of co-creativity with God, vocation, gifting and transformation of a fallen world.

I think this is probably a tangent that if you want to follow it is worth a thread on it's own.

I'm quite sympathetic towards the aspects in my own - and related - traditions that head in this direction. OTOH I'm also deeply deeply sceptical about them - it appears that at least some of them proceed out of a need to and make all work eternal in a sense that it was never meant to be.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm not sure what a 'theology of work' would be like.
Surely, a theology of work goes beyond the moralities of employment practices, business ethics or spirituality in the workplace? A ToW examines the meanings that human beings give to their 'work' (taken in its widest sense). It's likely to encompass aspects of co-creativity with God, vocation, gifting and transformation of a fallen world.
I think this is probably a tangent that if you want to follow it is worth a thread on it's own.

I'm quite sympathetic towards the aspects in my own - and related - traditions that head in this direction. OTOH I'm also deeply deeply sceptical about them - it appears that at least some of them proceed out of a need to and make all work eternal in a sense that it was never meant to be.

Indeed, I might start one, but not tonight.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Actually, no, that's not a tangent at all! I think that's the direction this thread should be taking.

A theology of work should include, among other things, perhaps, reflection on the dignity of the human person, on the meaning and value of work, on the dignity of labor (i.e., work done with the body), on just wages, on stewardship of resources, as well as a critique of economic systems.

And for churches, their own practices should be something they would commend to the employers and employees who fill their pews.

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Recently, my church's theology of work has tended more to the idea that it is less important for someone to be able do the job well than it is to offer a helping hand to someone in the community struggling with unemployment. This, as you can imagine, does not always lead to happy results. I think they may be changing this ethos soon, not to ignore the plight of the unemployed, but to make sure that whoever is employed will do a good job. Anything else is poor stewardship of meagre resources.

That's the other side of the coin, isn't it? There's a balance that's needed. Because when resources are limited, it's too easy for everyone to become perfectionist and put the job ahead of the person - by which I mean that the person filling the job isn't as important as that the checklist of duties gets done perfectly. The temptation for this is greater, of course, in lower-paying jobs, where duties are usually easier to clearly articulate. People in those roles can easily be confined to those roles, when they might have other gifts to share. But at the same time, you don't want to have your business, workplace, store, church, whatever, not functioning properly because the maintenance isn't getting done properly. Now I, as a customer, worker, and churchgoer, don't mind imperfection at all: if there are dustbunnies on the floor (as there always are in large buildings), or one of the toilets is out of order, or a light is burned out, or whatever - I'm hardly bothered by that. If an employee is being run ragged, mistreated, underpaid, etc., that puts me off. It might make me not shop in a store, or protest rather loudly to management. I'd rather shop, worship, and work in places where workers are happy - and money isn't everything as far as worker happiness is concerned.

And I think there are deep theological bases to that - beginning with the creation of human beings in God's image, and the Golden Rule, and Jesus' teachings that leaders must be servants, or that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The Magnificat also factors in for me, since it addresses economic justice so clearly - as do the Beatitudes and many of Jesus' parables. (ETA: not to mention the vision of the reign of God given by Jesus and the Prophets before him!)

[ 04. November 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I agree. When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it would be about work as part of our lives, not just work in church institutions.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Yeah, I wish I'd framed the OP differently... I work in a church, so I think a lot about how the Church can model this for the rest of the world - with all the challenges that entails for non-profits which are often struggling to survive. But the conversation needs to be much broader than I indicated in the OP.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...on the meaning and value of work, on the dignity of labor...

If, indeed, any such things exist in and of themselves. I mean, work obviously has a value because it's what pays the bills, but beyond that...?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Actually, no, that's not a tangent at all! I think that's the direction this thread should be taking.

A theology of work should include, among other things, perhaps, reflection on the dignity of the human person, on the meaning and value of work, on the dignity of labor (i.e., work done with the body), on just wages, on stewardship of resources, as well as a critique of economic systems.

I agree - but I still think that once we speak about 'transformation' and 'renewal' with all the spiritual weight those phrases they bring to bear we are going off at a tangent that is kind of orthogonal to all those things you mention.

It's perfectly possible to have a solid theology and doctrine of vocation that encompasses all those things without going down a Kupyerian route.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Dorothy Sayers had very strong feelings about the proper Christian attitude towards work. Here is an excerpt from an essay entitled "Christian Morality"*

quote:
Perhaps if the Churches had had the courage to lay their emphasis where Christ laid it, we might not have come to this present frame of mind in which it is assumed that the value of all work, and the value of all people, is to be assessed in terms of economics. We might not so readily take for granted that the production of anything (no matter how useless or dangerous) is justified so long as it issues in increased profits and wages; that so long as a man is well paid, it does not matter whether his work is worth-while in itself or good for his soul; that so long as a business deal keeps on the windy side of the law, we need not bother about its ruinous consequences to society or the individual.
.....
Doubtless it would have needed courage to turn Dives from the church-door along with Mary Magdalen; (has any prosperously fraudulent banker, I wonder, ever been refused Communion on the grounds that he was, in the words of the English Prayer-book, "an open and notorious evil liver"?) But lack of courage, and appeasement in the face of well-organized iniquity, does nothing to avert catastrophe or to secure respect.

Moo

*p.11 in Unpopular Opinions, Victor Gollancz, London, 1946

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

St. Paul had an interesting theology of work - it seems he believed that, no matter how much someone has been spiritually called by God, they shouldn't rely solely on their spiritual calling, and the good will of others, but also to work with their hands to pay their way. Paul didn't just spend all his time preaching and expecting handouts from the faithful, but continued with his employment making tents.

I guess this attitude keeps the feet of the religious firmly placed on the ground, so they don't become 'so heavenly minded that they are no earthly use' and also to avoid the excesses of the prosperity gospel prophets who seem to expect wealth to fall into their laps for minimal physical effort.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

Dorothy Sayers also wrote The Mind of the Maker, a commentary on creative work from the point of view of an author. She posits a three-fold structure - concept, realisation and impact - which she maps onto a Trinitarian schema. In the sense that all non-alienating work is creative, I find this a useful way of thinking about how God is working in the world, and how we might join in.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

A few people on this thread have asked about or mentioned the sort of elements that might appear in a theology of work. I was thinking about what those elements might be and then...well then I got a bit carried away!...

Recipe for Theology of Work

Ingredients:
1 original mandate (Gen 2:15)
1 dose of harsh reality (Gen 3:19)
1 portion wisdom (Ecc 3:22)
1 pinch of salt (to taste) (Matt 5:13)
1 measure of integrity (Matt 5:37)
1 cup of golden flakes (Matt 7:12)
2 measures of fair pay (Luke 10:7, 1 Tim 5:18)
3 slices of apostolic encouragement (for example Eph 4:28, 1 Thess 4:11-12, 2 Thess 3:8 but there are plenty of varieties to choose from)
1 portion equality (Gal 3:28)
9 portions of fruit (Gal 5:22-23)
2 measures of perspective (Col 3:23, Eph 6:5-8)

Cook in a pressure cooker (most workplaces do fine for this) on a slow burner (for best results cook for a long time letting anything that bubbles up overflow)

This should result in (worst case) you being seen as a person of integrity who treats people fairly and (best case) results in transforming your workplace, infecting it with Kingdom values and creating the joy of work in others!

Please enjoy Theology of Work responsibly. Happiness may vary.

Any other serving suggestions/recipe ideas?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I'm still not convinced that work is a good thing in and of itself. In a hypothetical future where robots are capable of doing all the mining, farming, building, manufacturing, transport etc. that society requires, would there be any good reason why humans should have to work at all?

Would any putative theology of work demand that we continue to slog away at our jobs even in a world where there was no practical reason for doing so? And if so, why?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: In a hypothetical future where robots are capable of doing all the mining, farming, building, manufacturing, transport etc. that society requires, would there be any good reason why humans should have to work at all?

There are people wouldn't necessarily see this hypothetical future as a good thing. People who see that working and contributing can give meaning and dignity to our lives, and that it is sanctified as a relationship between us and the world around us. I am personally quite heavily influenced by Liberation Theology, so the sanctity of work is actually a large aspect of my faith.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Would any putative theology of work demand that we continue to slog away at our jobs even in a world where there was no practical reason for doing so? And if so, why?

I don't know. We don't live in this world and I'm not convinced that we ever will. I don't see an urgent need to formulate a theological answer to this right now.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There are people wouldn't necessarily see this hypothetical future as a good thing. People who see that working and contributing can give meaning and dignity to our lives, and that it is sanctified as a relationship between us and the world around us.

There are so many other things that can give meaning and dignity to our lives. Family, friends, hobbies, sports, crafts - all the relationships and activities we don't have enough time for right now because we're having to bloody well work five (or more) days a week. All the things that are so much more enjoyable and worth living for than work. Hell, we'd even have more time to spend on religion and worship!

quote:
I am personally quite heavily influenced by Liberation Theology, so the sanctity of work is actually a large aspect of my faith.

I thought Liberation Theology was all about freeing the poor from oppression? Where does the sanctity of work fit into that?

quote:

quote:
Would any putative theology of work demand that we continue to slog away at our jobs even in a world where there was no practical reason for doing so? And if so, why?
I don't know. We don't live in this world and I'm not convinced that we ever will. I don't see an urgent need to formulate a theological answer to this right now.

It's just another way of asking if there's any religious reason why we should work even if we don't have to. If work is a good thing in and of itself, or merely as a means to an end.

[ 06. November 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: There are so many other things that can give meaning and dignity to our lives. Family, friends, hobbies, sports, crafts - all the relationships and activities we don't have enough time for right now because we're having to bloody well work five (or more) days a week.

Yes, there are other things too that can give meaning and dignity to our lives.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: I thought Liberation Theology was all about freeing the poor from oppression? Where does the sanctity of work fit into that?

I can't give a full summary of Liberation Theology in this short space (not in the least because I don't nearly understand all of it), but the way I understand it, it criticizes the idea that workers are just an 'asset' (or worse: a 'cost') in order to generate profit for shareholders. Work is something that needs to be respected in many senses (including the economical sense).

quote:
Marvin the Martian: It's just another way of asking if there's any religious reason why we should work even if we don't have to. If work is a good thing in and of itself, or merely as a means to an end.

I'm not saying that you should do anything. I'm not sure if work is a good thing in and of itself, I guess an important aspect is that it contributes to something.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

I'm not sure if work is a good thing in and of itself, I guess an important aspect is that it contributes to something.

I'm inclined to agree work can be awful and exploitative or it can be fulfilling and rewarding and contribute to society. It's not "work" per se that is the issue but us human beings (as usual).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Also, we sometimes need to counter the increasingly materialistic attitude to work in society today - the attitude that says it's not really work if you are not being paid for it. The voluntary sector is a very noble place to spend one's time, offering a vital service to the community, not to be belittled by those who are only interested in a pay packet.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

There are certain types of work, such as hands-on care of the young and of the helpless, that can never be automated.

Moreover, the individuals being cared for need the human touch.

Moo

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Also, we sometimes need to counter the increasingly materialistic attitude to work in society today - the attitude that says it's not really work if you are not being paid for it. The voluntary sector is a very noble place to spend one's time, offering a vital service to the community, not to be belittled by those who are only interested in a pay packet.

I'm not belittling the voluntary sector, I just don't consider it to be work. I mean, I volunteer as a guitarist at church but that doesn't mean it's my job.

I consider something that one would choose to do regardless of whether one is paid or not to be a hobby rather than work. Of course, some people are lucky enough to be able to earn a decent salary for doing their hobby, and fair play to them - they're probably the happiest people in the world. I wish I could join them, but I can't. Instead I have to work.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm thinking more of a job of work rather than a hobby (eg. serving behind the counter at Oxfam (unpaid) being little different than serving behind the counter at Marks and Spencer (paid).

I've noticed, increasingly, that people with disabilities are being given work in traditionally voluntary roles, eg. working in Oxfam, a) because it is hard to get enough volunteers in such jobs and b) because it is very hard for people with disabilities, especially mental disabilities, to get jobs in traditionally paid jobs.

Not sure what the theology of all that is, but put it forward for your thoughts.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The voluntary sector is really struggling to find people to give their time because volunteering is seen as second class. I have never met a young person who can see why we would volunteer to work with them. As a really sweeping generalisation, the attitude tends to be really snotty when there's nothing to do because there aren't enough volunteers available to keep something open, but equally snotty to the volunteers as not worthy of respect because they are stupid to be volunteering. (That's a generalisation, because personally, individually, young people can be grateful for the support they get, but as a concept volunteering is seen as unacceptable.)

And surely this is down to Government policy. If people aren't in paid employment workfare only looks at paid employment and volunteering doesn't count. A few months back, before the most recent changes, claiming JSA, any volunteering had to be declared, it had to be less than 16(?) hours a week before affecting benefit levels. The declaration agreed that the voluntary activity would cease around interviews and paid work. Not sure what the rules are now, but I do remember arguing that voluntary experience continuing on a CV was going to be better than nothing and being told that it was for our own protection - if we'd declared voluntary roles then any accusation of working and claiming could be met from the paperwork.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

I just can't accept that work is an undesirable necessity.

In many ways I think we are designed or made for work. We derive job satisfaction from seeing the fruits of our labours. Even if something is really hard graft we can (and do) derive real satisfaction from seeing "a job well done". Plus as others have pointed out many jobs can be rewarding and can be beneficial because they provide the human touch in professions like teaching, medicine and social care.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all work is lovely. It isn't. Workers can be exploited, jobs can be mundane or even soul-destroyingly awful. All I'm saying is that isn't the whole picture. Paid work for many can be a rewarding and fulfilling part of life that is not a "hobby" - it is something they do for the pay - but it is nonetheless a positive thing.

And much of this applies for me regardless of whether the work is actually paid or not.

I don't really know if government policy contributes to the under-valuing of voluntary work or whether it is wider assumptions in society that contribute to that government policy (which I guess then makes a vicious cycle).

Anyway in terms of paid employment if you think of each organisation as a system then that system can either be a good one (giving workers a rewarding role, fair pay and delivering value for its customers and wider society for example) or it can be a bad system (that exploits it's workers and delivers very poor service to its customers - i.e. takes more than it gives). What is at fault is the system of work within those organisations - not the nature of work itself.

A chap called Deming once said "a bad system will defeat a good person every time". So you need to improve the system if you want to improve the lot of the workers.

In my career over the last 20 years or so I have been in a whole variety of jobs that have varied wildly between thoroughly enjoyable and rewarding (most of the time) to demoralisingly awful and everywhere in between. Regardless of how I feel about my workplace I now try (not very successfully I admit) to be someone contributing to improving the "system" I'm working in. It's my way of attempting to honour God in my work.

(PS Curiosity - yes I think its is 16 hours and IIRC it also means if someone volunteers more than 16 hours then the organisation has to pay them minimum wage - you can't volunteer for more than 16 hours regardless - not just to stay below the benefit threshold - something like that anyway. I'm sure more knowledgeable Shipmates will correct me)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I just can't accept that work is an undesirable necessity.

In many ways I think we are designed or made for work. We derive job satisfaction from seeing the fruits of our labours. Even if something is really hard graft we can (and do) derive real satisfaction from seeing "a job well done". Plus as others have pointed out many jobs can be rewarding and can be beneficial because they provide the human touch in professions like teaching, medicine and social care.

Yes - and being of use to others (and appreciated for it) is also a basic human need imo. But I don't think busy young and middle aged people always realise this - as they have too much work, so the pleasure of giving gets lost in the melee of life.

It's not the work which is the problem, it's lack of choice I think. A stressed and time-poor person must find it very hard to understand how awful it feels to be of no use to anyone.

When my MIL was old and actually capable of very little we used to make up 'jobs' she could do for us - otherwise she would be miserable. It couldn't be anything we actually needed because she wasn't mentally or physically capable of it. E.g. we'd re-peel all the potatoes after she'd done them etc. (without her knowing, of course).

[ 09. November 2013, 09:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Interesting that you think the 16 hours limit for volunteering is down to having to pay people for a job if someone volunteers for more than 16 hours per week, because I'm not sure that's valid. It would have a huge impact in church circles for readers, churchwardens, self-supporting ministers if that were true.

(I was volunteering in a number of places and lied, mostly because they were volunteering roles I'd been doing around jobs, and was intending to continue when back at work: Guides, church ...)

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Interesting that you think the 16 hours limit for volunteering is down to having to pay people for a job if someone volunteers for more than 16 hours per week, because I'm not sure that's valid. It would have a huge impact in church circles for readers, churchwardens, self-supporting ministers if that were true.

You're right looks like I'm wrong. Should've checked the facts rather than rely on third-hand hearsay!
For those in England lots of useful resources and info here.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not the work which is the problem, it's lack of choice I think. A stressed and time-poor person must find it very hard to understand how awful it feels to be of no use to anyone.

When my MIL was old and actually capable of very little we used to make up 'jobs' she could do for us - otherwise she would be miserable. It couldn't be anything we actually needed because she wasn't mentally or physically capable of it. E.g. we'd re-peel all the potatoes after she'd done them etc. (without her knowing, of course).

Totally. Have been there too with older family members who still need to feel useful [Smile]

and why not?

I am still interested in the whole "theology of work" thing though. IME "work" is not often a subject tackled in churches - despite the fact that most of us "ordinary Christians" spend a vast proportion of our time at work (whether that's paid or voluntary).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Perhaps younger people are reluctant to volunteer now because people might think they are on 'community service' i.e. being punished for a misdemeanour.

Not sure whether that's the government getting wrong their theology of work or their psychology of work. I suspect the latter.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Just had another thought on the subject of whether work is inherently a valuable thing or not.

Jesus worked. Before his public ministry he worked as a carpenter (probably for over 10 years?). Does this mean Jesus has sanctified work by submitting to it himself? If work was not important for us would he have bothered with it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps younger people are reluctant to volunteer now because people might think they are on 'community service' i.e. being punished for a misdemeanour.

Or maybe they just don't have the time for it because they're having to work all day.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Jesus worked. Before his public ministry he worked as a carpenter (probably for over 10 years?). Does this mean Jesus has sanctified work by submitting to it himself?

No more than he sanctified wearing clothes by wearing them Himself.

quote:
If work was not important for us would he have bothered with it?

Work is important for us - but only because it's how we provide for ourselves and our families. If such provision could be taken care of in another way then work wouldn't be important at all.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

[start of a tangent

Reading this as someone who has struggled (and so far not yet succeeded)in getting back into paid work....I am shocked at how some of the comments here have stung.

For, in another lifetime, I too might not have considered voluntary work to be Real Work.

I do now.

end of tangent]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps younger people are reluctant to volunteer now because people might think they are on 'community service' i.e. being punished for a misdemeanour.
Or maybe they just don't have the time for it because they're having to work all day.

Well that would be quite hopeful, as it would mean that they might be more willing to volunteer as they get older (assuming they do have any life left after retirement, which you do wonder about given current changes). I'm rather biased as I volunteered loads when I was young and also very busy working / bringing up a family. Up to and beyond the point of overload really, which was rather silly. Consequently, it has put me off doing much volunteering now I do have more time, sticking to one such activity only.

As well as people enjoying a long retirement, there were also ample numbers of volunteers from amongst the women who didn't have to work. Now the work ethos is that everyone has to work, mothers as well as fathers, so consequently fewer people with time to volunteer.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Work is important for us - but only because it's how we provide for ourselves and our families. If such provision could be taken care of in another way then work wouldn't be important at all.

Acknowledge your point and I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise but nonetheless, personally, I feel work has value beyond the mere functional or providing for our basic needs.

One of the things that strikes me is that we do seem to have an inbuilt desire to be useful and to contribute (as mentioned further up the thread) - it seems part of our make-up - which to your point Ethne Alba is why voluntary work is important even though it is not paid and not contributing to providing for our family's needs. It is contributing to the needs of others.

Still interested in whether the subject of work is something that people have found cropping up in church very much at all - e.g. in sermons, homegroups, etc?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think it's mostly taken for granted where I am, and comes up only incidentally in study, sermons, etc. D. L. Sayers did a bit with a theology of work--her thesis was that as we are made in the image of a Creator, it's no wonder that we have the urge to make and do stuff. And this is a proper part of our humanity, not a curse or something to bypass as soon as possible. I agree, if for no other reason than seeing how miserable a lot of people are when circumstances prevent them from working/making/doing.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree, if for no other reason than seeing how miserable a lot of people are when circumstances prevent them from working/making/doing.

I'd love a chance to find out how miserable I'd be if I never had to work again.

My father retired ten years ago, and hasn't worked a minute in his life since. He's showing no sign of wanting to start up again thus far...

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Like poverty, it's a different experience if you are forced into it in contrast to choosing it.

[ 11. November 2013, 20:52: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The "had to" makes the difference--I think it's still work if you do it voluntarily, and in fact, probably a lot closer to what God intended work to be back in the beginning. I could very easily adjust myself to a life where my income was totally secure and not tied to my work! But I'd still be working, and probably much more happily.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

@Lamb Chopped: Amen.

[tangent]
On the whole theology of work thing I've also got interested recently in which theories of management might accord better with a Christian ethos (or theology of work). For example, the chap I mentioned earlier in the thread, W. Edwards Deming, critiqued modern western management and proposed his own alternative (that was taken up by the Japanese and sowed the seeds of the Japanese post-war industrial revolution). He proposed "14 points for management" among other things. Two are of interest here. One was around companies maintaining "constancy of purpose" - the purpose being to improve quality (to customers) and thereby stay in business, grow, and create more jobs. (Makes a change for the current fashion for slashing jobs). Another of his points was around encouraging pride of workmanship,

quote:
Remove the barriers that rob workers (and people in management) of their right to pride of workmanship. This implies the abolition of the annual merit rating (appraisal of performance) and of management by objective. The responsibility of managers must be changed from “meeting the numbers” to quality (i.e. to continuous improvement of the system)." (I've edited the quote slightly to make more sense, out of it's original context).

Later Deming revised his phrasing from "pride in work" to “joy in work” after someone pointed out this phrase from Ecclesiastes (Ecc 3:22)
But the point being that taking pride/joy in work should be something that you design in to the organisation (typically this gets designed out).
Does that mesh better with a Christian theology of work that other alternatives?
[here endeth the tangent]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It would be awesome if we could get people to design joy/pride/meaning in work into the system, but that's going to mean tangling with an even bigger problem, which is the First Commandment. As long as money is the god of any given business (or status, or power, or...) we aren't going to get far with anything that doesn't obviously improve the bottom line. And unfortunately this particular sin is one of the hardest to defuse.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, from Aurora Leigh*:

quote:
Get leave to work
In this world,-'tis the best you get at all;
For God, in cursing, gives us better gifts
Than men in benediction.

I was struck by the thought that God's curse of work is better than the gifts we give each other. It also has a Victorian-feminist vibe to it, about work being of more value for women than the gifts they might receive from men.

*I slogged through Book Three to find this half-remembered fragment. You're welcome.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It would be awesome if we could get people to design joy/pride/meaning in work into the system, but that's going to mean tangling with an even bigger problem, which is the First Commandment. As long as money is the god of any given business (or status, or power, or...) we aren't going to get far with anything that doesn't obviously improve the bottom line. And unfortunately this particular sin is one of the hardest to defuse.

It is doable - I've seen the effects of working a different way. But it requires management to believe that reducing costs (increasing profitability) is a happy side-effect of doing the right thing. But totally take your point human greed gets in the way.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:

... A is for Alienation
That made me the man that I am, and
B's for the Boss who's a Bastard,
A Bourgeois who don't give a damn.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree, if for no other reason than seeing how miserable a lot of people are when circumstances prevent them from working/making/doing.
I'd love a chance to find out how miserable I'd be if I never had to work again.

My father retired ten years ago, and hasn't worked a minute in his life since. He's showing no sign of wanting to start up again thus far...

I think Lamb Chopped extra words in the post are significant 'working...making/doing' The way I use the term 'work' I find it hard to imagine that anyone could not do a minute of work in ten years!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I have been teaching for thirty five years, with no time off except six months maternity leave with each child. I can honestly say that, every month, I am surprised by the payslip. I get payed for doing what I enjoy; which means I have been very very lucky. But, even if I did not get paid for work, I would still be doing it - there is nothing more boring and strength sapping than idleness!

I have recently semi-retired and just 'work' two days a week. The other five are busier than the 'work' days! Many people who retire have never been so busy, useful and productive.

My Mum never 'worked' a day in her life - but was busy and useful for every one of them until she reached 87 years old.

We all need money to live; but there are many people, like me, who are not motivated by it.

I do realise my good fortune in this. But I advised both of my sons to seek work which they love to do, not to think about the size of the payslip it generates.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

Bumping this up to receive a tangent from elsewhere.

I've been wondering how we distinguish between human work and animal 'work'? Tool-using birds and beavers that can co-operate to build an 850m long structure suggest that non-human animals are pretty good at shaping their environment. I was thinking that imagination might be our USP, to conceive an abstract plan and then effect it, rather than pure instinct. That was until lilBuddha over here persuaded me otherwise.

So is work a uniquely human characteristic?

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Work is important for us - but only because it's how we provide for ourselves and our families. If such provision could be taken care of in another way then work wouldn't be important at all.
Acknowledge your point and I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise but nonetheless, personally, I feel work has value beyond the mere functional or providing for our basic needs.

One of the things that strikes me is that we do seem to have an inbuilt desire to be useful and to contribute (as mentioned further up the thread) - it seems part of our make-up - which to your point Ethne Alba is why voluntary work is important even though it is not paid and not contributing to providing for our family's needs. It is contributing to the needs of others.

That's certainly part of it - as so often, St Benedict got there first.

quote:

Still interested in whether the subject of work is something that people have found cropping up in church very much at all - e.g. in sermons, homegroups, etc?

Nope.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't really see a need to distinguish between human and animal work, or for that matter, vegetable work. We do what we were created to do (or not). Come to think of it, that might be the real difference between human beings and animals--we are the only animal that so regularly and on such a widespread, ongoing, deeply penetrating basis manages to fuck up what we're supposed to be doing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
we are the only animal that so regularly and on such a widespread, ongoing, deeply penetrating basis manages to fuck up what we're supposed to be doing.

I was going to say what, if anything, makes us special is the degree to which we manifest traits; not the traits themselves. But I much prefer your version.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Devil]

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

LC, I like it. [Snigger]

Unfortunately, it leaves me still puzzling over the theological anthropology question. In being created in imago Dei, are we equipped with any capacity that distinguishes us qualitatively from the dolphins. Or is it all a matter of degree?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue imago Dei, but that we can do so many thing to levels far beyond any other animal is f@&king special.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think animals do fuck up, but they don't analyze it, or pay therapists a mountain of money over it!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...what we were created to do ... what we're supposed to be doing...

And what is that, exactly?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
LC, I like it.

Unfortunately, it leaves me still puzzling over the theological anthropology question. In being created in imago Dei, are we equipped with any capacity that distinguishes us qualitatively from the dolphins. Or is it all a matter of degree?

I'll throw this out and let y'all punch holes in it. I think that the imago Dei in us consists largely in our position as caretakers, servants and rulers of the rest of creation. At least, on this planet.

You can see the reflection of God in this. If we are both to serve and rule the animals, plants, etc. etc. and even inanimate things like oceans and mountains, this is no more than an imitation of what God himself does with all things--including us. He is both servant and ruler over all things. We are the "mini-Me" who ought to be doing a damned sight better at caring for our world--at fixing the problems it has, rather than adding to them.

And of course we don't (mostly). We have BECOME our world's biggest problem, rather than its biggest blessing. Which is why it makes sense to me to say that the image of God is spoiled in us (though not utterly lost) and also why ecological stewardship and peace/justice issues are IMHO such pressing matters for Christians, in whom the image is being renewed.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Can't see a reference to it here so far but (as you might expect) the Catholic Church has a pretty well, um, worked out theology of work, which is most recently developed in John Paul II's 1981 encyclical Laborem exercens.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0