Almost every adult works in some way—whether they serve as a doctor, a computer programmer, a teacher, a businessman, a pastor, a janitor, a caretaker of dependents, or a homemaker. Yet, 86% of workers are “not satisfied with their job” and 82% are “unhappy with their work/life balance” according to a news release in 2004 (N. Smith, Introduction xiii). Many workers feel unfulfilled and frustrated in their work, including Christians. Work can be boring, mundane, stressful, and insignificant. Many do not see a bigger purpose for their work than simply earning money or meeting temporal needs of those served. Christians often feel that the majority of their time is wasted on things that really don’t matter in the grand scheme of God, and if they really loved God and people, they feel they should dedicate their lives wholeheartedly to God and minister to the spiritual needs of people on a full-time basis.

Most workers do not see a connection between what they do and what they believe God wants done in the world. A theology of work is necessary to see work from God’s perspective and to realize that one’s work is significant to God. Through the years, many have had a misconception that in order for a person to be fully pleasing to God and serving Him, they have to go into full-time Christian work by becoming a monk, a pastor, a missionary, a teacher of the Bible, a worship leader, or by performing some other ministry work. Since most people spend a majority of their waking hours at work, it is critical that Christians see their work as having significance to God and how it can be used to further His purposes on earth, otherwise frustration results. There is a desire among Christians to see their work as service to God and to see their everyday efforts as a godly vocation, a divine calling. A person’s work can become a ministry to God and to others by sharing in word and deed. With proper understanding and attitudes, Christians can live out their faith at work so as to attract others to the God who is loved and served by them. A proper Biblical view of work is needed to guide Christians to proper actions and attitudes toward work.

To develop a good theology of work, three particular areas must be addressed: history, Scripture, and practical application (Ringma). First, the views and attitudes of the past toward work must be considered as they have contributed and shaped modern attitudes toward work. This especially includes learning from the wisdom of church theologians and scholars of the past, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. Second, the Scriptural data must be consulted to determine God’s revealed view of work, as well as the comments of contemporary theologians concerning Biblical passages. Third, history and Scriptures must be integrated with the real world to produce practical applications. Within this paper, after reviewing the main literature pertinent to the topic, this writer presents a theology of work and its practical implications by presenting historical views and attitudes toward work, Scriptural data related to work, and practical ways to incorporate faith with work. Practical implications are often derived from insights gained from a Scriptural perspective on work. Tamasy offers such an insight:

Work is sacred. It was ordained by God from the beginning, before the fall of man. After the Fall, it just got tougher, frustrating, exhausting, sometimes even boring. But work pursued with excellence and integrity is still pleasing to God, a way of honoring Him by serving in the unique ways He has equipped us. Our work often provides the opportunities to proclaim Him to a broken, unredeemed world—through our example, as well as by our words. (3)

Definition of Terms

Annihilationist – a view that sees the current earth being destroyed by God’s judgment in preparation for the creation of a new heaven and a new earth “out of nothing.”

Calling – “to urgently invite someone to accept responsibilities for a particular task, implying a new relationship to the one who does the calling” (Miller, “Sunday-Monday Gap”).

Co-creationism – view that creation was not entirely finished in Gen. 1-2, and humans participate and contribute toward God’s continuous activity of creation.

Creation Mandate – mandate from God to rule over, care for, and serve the rest of God’s creation (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15). Sometimes it is called the Cultural Mandate.

Cultural Mandate – mandate from God to transform society (Gen. 1-2).

Dominion Theology – belief that the Church will take dominion over all of society prior to Jesus’ return.

Dominionist – one who ascribes to Dominion Theology.

Eschatological – having to do with the last events of time, such as the new heaven and new earth.

Evangelistic Mandate – mandate from God to save souls (Matt. 28:19-20).

Faith at Work Movement – a movement of individuals and groups interested in integrating personal faith with one’s work.

Fulltime Christian Ministry (common definition) – going overseas as a missionary, becoming a minister in the church, or doing something for a Christian organization.

Great Commission – to go and make disciples of Jesus Christ and teach them (Matt. 28:19-20).

Kingdom of God – renewal of all creation by the re-entry of God’s ruling power through Christ’s death and resurrection.

Kingdom Now Theology – belief that the kingdom of God is established during this present era prior to Jesus’ return.

Leisure – free time from work.

Ministry – primarily helping to make faith a way of life for persons, communities, and cultures.

Monasticism – relating to monks, nuns, and monasteries

Pneumatological – having to do with the Holy Spirit or the gifts of the Spirit

Providence – God sustaining and guiding humanity.

Reconstructionist – one who ascribes to postmillennialism with emphasis of the Church taking dominion of society and establishing the Kingdom of God prior to Jesus’ return to reign.

Remuneration – payment, wage, salary, or compensation for work done.

Sacred – all Church activities including community service in the name of the church, evangelism, teaching Sunday school, etc. (Helweg).

Secular – anything not directly related to the Church (Helweg).

Stewardship – the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.

Theology of Work – the study of “work” from God’s perspective, especially as shown in the Bible.

Vocation – a calling; God’s call to a particular Christian role; the call of God to His Service; a person’s career or profession.

Work – paid employment; service rendered to another; any productive activity.

Workaholic – “a person whose desire to work is compulsive, excessive, extreme” (Mahaney).

Workplace Leader – “anyone who leads or influences others in the workplace, even if he or she does not have a specific position of authority” (Humpheys 14).

Workplace Ministry – “an intentional focus of equipping men and women in all spheres of work and society to understand and experience their work life as a holy calling from God” (Hillman, God in the Workplace).

Review of the Literature

Purchased Books – over 190

Numerous books were purchased by this writer after searching online bookstores such as Barnes and Noble, Christian Book, and Amazon, using search criteria such as “Theology of Work,” “Vocation,” “Workplace Calling,” and “Faith and Work,” “Leisure and Sabbath,” etc. Other relevant books were found on ministry sites such as www.workplaceministry.com and www.FaithandWorkResources.com, which provided book resources for integrating faith and work. Many other books were obtained after reviewing descriptions of over 700 marketplace-faith books in The Marketplace Annotated Bibliography, written by Pete Hammond, R. Paul Stevens & Todd Svanoe. Still other books were purchased after seeing authors quote from particular books.

Theology of Work

Of these many purchased books related to the faith-workplace connection, a small percentage of them—perhaps two dozen--had as its focus a theology of work, though many had sections containing some elements of a theology of work. Most of the books emphasized co-creationism, where man is exhorted to participate with God in His continuous work of creation. Although the subject of work has been discussed periodically throughout the centuries, the term “theology of work” first appeared around 1949 (Chenu 4), and the first formal theology of work did not appear until 1950. In the decades following, other significant writings on theology of work appeared.

Dorothy Sayers, an associate of C. S. Lewis, wrote the essay “Why Work?” in her 1949 book, Creed or Chaos?, which was first presented as a speech in England in 1942 (63). Sayers was one of the first to speak and write in modern times about a “right [Biblical] attitude to work” (64) to an intellectual audience. According to Harrison, Sayers has a unique approach to work: “She focuses upon the end (telos) of work, arguing that the purpose of work must be found in the value of its product, which must be of such quality that it glorifies God. As creators, people must make themselves subservient to the work for which they are best suited in order to bring into being that which they were created to create” (240). “Central to Sayers’s theology is the claim that we are called to be co-creators with God. Therefore, work must be understood as a participation in the reign of God and the value of our work defined by the quality of the product” (Harrison 239). Sayers advocates that people must “estimate work not by the money it brings to the producer, but by the worth of the thing that is made” (“Why Work?” 67). The product of work is “the heart of Sayers’s theology of work,” according to Harrison (241).

Josef Pieper’s book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture, first published in 1948, uses more philosophical arguments than theological arguments to emphasize that leisure instead of work is the basis for culture as it was for the Greeks, and it has “influenced subsequent theologies of work, especially those which have sought to resist and critique ‘co-creationism’” (Mackenzie 42). Pieper sees leisure as being most meaningful when worshipful celebration is part of it (54).

J. H. Oldham’s book, Work in Modern Society, published in 1950, “probably is the first formal theology of work. . . . Oldham pleads for a lay-developed doctrine of work that will enable the majority of people to experience a genuine vocation to do ordinary kinds of work.” (Hammond, Stevens, and Svanoe 145). Mackenzie affirms the value of this “pioneering work” by saying “there is hardly a theme which has emerged in subsequent theologies of work which was not raised or prefigured in Oldham’s writing” (34). Oldham first presents the realities of work-life in modern society so that a Christian meaning of work can be properly assessed and interpreted within that context (11). With reference to Gen. 1:28, Oldham lays the groundwork for co-creationist thinking: “[Man] is commanded, that is to say, to co-operate with God in the continuance of His work in creation,” and this decree remains even after the Fall (49).

Alan Richardson’s book, The Biblical Doctrine of Work, published in 1952, focuses on the biblical material related to work with no attempt to apply the material to real life situations. Richardson’s book laid the Scriptural groundwork for many others to do a theology of work, “especially in more conservative Protestant circles” (Mackenzie 39). Richardson says that the Bible does not encourage a connection between God’s creative work and human creativity, though he says God did give man dominion over all creatures and creation as described in Gen. 1:28 and Ps. 8:6 (17-18). Instead, he sees work being a “divine ordinance for the life of man” (23).

Karl Barth’s third volume, part 4, of Church Dogmatics, published in 1961, contains a section about “The Active Life” in which he presents a theology of work. He views work as a necessity of life for mankind that has some importance in that it is a command given to man (473), but he rejects co-creationism. Barth cautions against over spiritualizing work and elevating it as worship (Mackenzie 44).

M. D. Chenu’s 1963 book, Theology of Work, originally published in French in 1955, shows “man as collaborator in creation” (23) and gave movement to the “doctrine of cocreation that dominated the theology of work in both Catholic and Protestant traditions for the last half of the twentieth century” (Hammond, Stevens, and Svanoe 54). With the revolutionary “changeover from craft tool to machine” that created different kinds of work, Chenu feels that traditional Biblical images of “potter, blacksmith and peasant” are inadequate and often lead to “resentment against the machine,” and thus a good theology of work must take these new technological innovations and concepts into consideration (8-9).

Edwin Kaiser’s book, Theology of Work, published in 1966, is a full Catholic theology of work, drawing upon history and Catholic documents and advocating work as cooperation with God in his providence.

Gideon Goosen’s book, The Theology of Work, published in 1974, provides a positive view of work after tracing the historical views and attitudes toward work. Work is a God-given task for man to dominate the forces of nature and “collaborate with the Creator in continuing the work of creation,” yet some work is “dehumanizing” and not creative and should not be classified as work, according to Goosen (58). Work produces a service to God and others (58).

Jacques Ellul’s book, The Ethics of Freedom, published in 1976, has a section on “Freedom and Vocation,” in which Ellul claims that the Bible does not speak of work as a vocation (496). As an example, he says that Gen. 1:28, “Replenish the earth, and subdue it,” has no connotation of “divine vocation,” but “we simply have to work—that is all” (496). Furthermore, for Ellul, work “is a result of the Fall” and “has no specific value” and “is a simple necessity” in life (496). He also says, “Work is the painful lot of all men but it is not particularly important” (495). Consequentially, Ellul is opposed to a co-creationist view of work. “Clearly the ongoing battle between co-creationism and Barth and Ellul’s view of work as necessity provides one of the main creative theological tensions in discussions about work and vocation during the last fifty years” (Mackenzie 59).

Paul Marshall’s essay, “Vocation, Work, and Jobs,” was published in 1980 in Labour of Love: Essays on Work. After assessing historical views of work, Marshall describes vocation as a calling to be Christian in all spheres of life and not simply a call to a particular work. Also, one should not be “obsessed with work” but should take a rest, for even God rested (16).

Pope John Paul II encyclical letter On Human Work, published in 1981, presents an updated view of work that, according to Ryken, would be favorable to the original Protestants (112). John Paul II presents work as having dignity (23) and as the expression of man, created in God’s image (5). He also promotes co-creationism (MacKenzie 60).

Dorothee Soelle, with Shirley Cloyes, wrote To Work and to Love in 1984, where co-creationism is their framework for their theology of creation (Mackenzie 67). Soelle, with Cloyes, view the first creation as being unfinished and thus creation continues in an on-going process with the help of mankind (37).

Doug Sherman and William Hendricks wrote Your Work Matters to God in 1987. The heart of the book lies in presenting a theology of work, and it shows that secular work also matters to God. Its emphasis is that all work has intrinsic value to God and instrumental value to God in that it is a means to accomplishing things that God wants, such as serving people’s needs (77, 87).

M. Douglas Meeks wrote God the Economist in 1989, arguing that “Economist” is a valid metaphor for the work of the triune God (2, 181). In his chapter on “God and Work” (127-55), Meeks presents a Trinitarian perspective on work (132).

Lee Hardy’s book, The Fabric of This World, published in 1990, attempts to “help revitalize the concept of work as vocation—or calling” (xv). He does this by tracing the concept of vocation throughout history.

Miroslav Volf’s book, Work in the Spirit, published in 1991, is widely acclaimed for articulating a theology of work—one that is both eschatological and pneumatological (79). After presenting a critical assessment of Luther’s concept of vocation (107-09), Volf proposes a theology of charisms, or gifts, which he feels is a “more stable foundation” to “erect a theology of work that is both faithful to the divine revelation and relevant to the modern world of work” (110). As coworkers with God working in the Spirit with gifts from God, man’s current work has value not only in the present world but also in the world to come, according to Volf (123).

Leland Ryken’s book, Redeeming the Time, published in 1995, is an expanded and revised version of his 1987 book, Work and Leisure in Christian Perspective. The new book presents a theology of both work and leisure and how the two belong together. According to Hammond, Stevens and Svanoe, “This is perhaps the best and most integrated approach to daily life to date [2002]” (158).

Gary Badcock’s book, The Way of Life, published in 1998, provides a theology of Christian vocation, described as a way of life of loving God and neighbors (141). Grounding human vocation in doing the will of God, Badcock says “the will of God does not extend down to the details of career choice,” thus liberating people to “live more adventurously . . . in an atmosphere of love” (142). People are called to a life of love and discipleship (141).

R. Paul Stevens’s book, The Other Six Days, published in 1999, presents a biblical perspective on vocation, work, and ministry. Stevens argues for a “people theology” that opposes the clergy-laity division and is for the notion that all are called to minister. Stevens balances both the Great Commission with the Creation Mandate and supports co-creationism (89, 97-98).

Alistair Mackenzie and Wayne Kirland wrote Where’s God on Monday?, published in 2003. They present a theology of work that integrates faith with work in a popular way. Man is born to work as God’s coworkers in line with co-creationism (18-20).

Armand Larive’s book, After Sunday: A Theology of Work, published in 2004, presents a theology of work in line with co-creationism (72-73) and described by “work related characteristics of the Trinity” (Zalot 718) that are initially distinguished in Volf’s book and deepened and extended by Larive (Thompsett 704).

Douglas Schuurman’s book, Vocation, published in 2004, attempts to renew a contemporary Christian doctrine of vocation and reshape it in light of important criticisms (180). Schuurman addresses criticism over the theology of vocation by Badcock, Ellul, and Hauerwas who say religious meaning should not be placed on secular life and by Volf who says that the traditional understanding of vocation is too static (xii).

Darrell Cosden’s book, A Theology of Work, published in 2004, presents dialogues with Jürgen Moltmann and Pope John Paul II to present a definition of work and a theology of work that consists of three dimensions: instrumental, relational, and ontological. Instrumentally, work is a means to provide for humans and to assist in a person’s spiritual growth and sanctification; relationally, work provides self-fulfillment and impacts social relationships and civilization; ontologically, work itself has intrinsic, eternal value to God as an act of worship and a link to the new creation (178-85).

Darrell Cosden’s most recent book, The Heavenly Good of Earthly Work, published in 2006, emphasizes how present work is linked to the new creation. Ordinary work and things produced by it can be transformed and brought into heaven by God (2). Thus, “all human work (and not just ‘religious work’) has eternal meaning and value” (2).

David Jenson’s book, Responsive Labor: A Theology of Work, published in 2006, “aims to recover a Christian theological vision of ordinary work, a vision that grounds human labor in God’s initiating activity” (x). Human work is meaningful as it responds to God’s work (ix).

Practical Applications Derived from a Biblical Theology of Work

Upon further review of the books purchased, most of them fell in the category of popular writings that contained at least some elements of a theology of work, though unusually emphasizing more practical applications or stories or testimonies. Dr. Peter Wagner had read and reviewed over 86 workplace ministry books by 2004, many of which were on this writer’s list, and he states “One theme running through these books, especially the earlier ones, is how to be a good Christian out there in the workplace or in the ‘world.’ A later emphasis comes in defining a Christian’s role in the workplace as ‘ministry’ per se” (qtd. in Hillman, Faith@Work 211-23).

By 2006, Wagner had “purchased and read more than 100 books on the faith-at-work movement,” thus his recent book, The Church in the Workplace, is a reflection of his views after surveying these other writings (9). With this in mind and considering Wagner’s influence in the lives of several influential spokesmen for the movement, such as Os Hillman and Kent Humphreys, his 2006 book is of great importance. His main point is that there are two forms of the one biblical church: “One is the gathering of believers in local church congregations each Sunday. The other is the scattered body of believers throughout the workplace the other six days of the week” (16). Wagner calls congregations the “nuclear church” and calls workplace believers the “extended church,” (110) having built “on the commonly accepted sociological concepts of the nuclear family and the extended family” (16). Each of these churches has a culture of its own and its own set of implied rules or assumptions which can cause misunderstandings if not properly understood. Wagner feels that with proper understanding, appreciation, and support for the extended church, social transformation is possible (110-12).

Os Hillman has been the most prolific writer in the Faith at Work movement. Coupled with his leadership role in the movement as president of two ministries, his writings are of practical importance. In 2000, Hillman published Faith&Work: Do They Mix?, where he contemplates from Scriptures and his own journey how to find purpose and meaning in one’s work and to see work as a divine calling of God to ministry. In 2004, Hillman published Faith@Work which helps both pastors and church leaders understand the Faith at Work movement. In 2005, Hillman published The 9 to 5 Window which gives an updated overview of the Faith at Work movement and thoughts on how to connect a person’s faith to their work life that typically occurs between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Kent Humphreys’ book, Lasting Investments guides pastors to practically help their members who are workplace leaders to make an eternal difference in their sphere of influence, using their workplace as a platform for evangelistic and discipleship ministry. Similarly, Humphreys’ latest book, Shepherding Horses, helps pastors to understand the strong self-sufficient workplace leaders, whom he calls “horses,” among the compliant sheep under the shepherd’s care (1- 9).

Similar to Humphreys’ analogy of workplace leaders as “horses,” Linda Rios Brook uses an analogy of colored clothes in a laundry basket with the spiritual colors of church people and calls workplace leaders “the reds” in her book, Front Line Christians in a Bottom-Line World (30-31). “The reds” want to lead (28) and will bleed on all other colors when they are wet by the “river of God,” in an effort “do church” (31, 35-36). Brook makes the point that “the reds” are not fully understood or appreciated and often find the church irrelevant to their daily life, thus they desire to make an impact where they spend most of their time—the workplace—by establishing a non-traditional extended church at the workplace (18-27). While most authors are not as pessimistic about current church environments or motivations to integrate faith at work, Brook demonstrates, as does Humphreys, that there is a need to recognize the unique qualities and desires of workplace leaders and for the nuclear church to equip them as “change agents” for work on the “frontline” (Brook 207).

David Miller’s book, God at Work, published in 2007, is the most recent book to address the Faith at Work movement. It provides a scholarly study of the movement and its history. Additionally, Miller describes four ways to integrate faith and work using an “Integration Box” model consisting of “Four E’s”: Ethics, Evangelism, Experience, and Enrichment (126-42).

Professional Book Reviews and Articles from Journals

Twenty-three scholarly book reviews and articles related to “faith and work or career” or “vocation” were obtained from Southeastern University’s Library via their online subscription service, EBSCO. In addition to various scholarly articles, the authors whose writings were reviewed in connection with a theology of work include the following: D. Michael Bennethum, John C. Haughey, Armand Larive, William C. Placher, Dorothy Sayers, and Miroslav Volf. Furthermore, three short reviews were for Larive and five reviews were for Volf, thus showing one indication of the importance of Volf’s book Work in the Spirit in academe.

Internet Articles Online

Over 70 relevant articles were selected from the Internet and read thoroughly. Many were obtained by performing searches in Google and Yahoo! using phrases such as “Theology of Work,” “Vocation,” “Faith at Work,” “Spirituality of Work Movement,” “Marketplace Calling,” etc. Sometimes one link would lead to a set of insightful articles. Some relevant articles were then found on ministry sites such as www.intheworkplace.com, www.christiansatwork.org.uk, and www.faithatwork.org.nz. All the articles addressed aspects of a theology of work and viewed work itself in a positive Christian way, though two articles had an insightful alternative view in comparison to all the other articles: Carly Friesen in “Labor: Sin or Sacrament?” sees the Apostle Paul as emphasizing the suffering aspect of work, like Augustine and other church Fathers, and thus Paul embraces work not as “honorable” but as a “disgrace” revealing his personal weakness, so Friesen says “The worker may have a sense of dignity in his toil because it is obedience to God in sharing the cross of Christ, but not because work per se is honorable” (5); Otto Helweg in “The Secular and Sacred; Friends or Foes?” sees “full-time Christian service” as the most spiritual calling and that God does not call people to secular tasks, for calling refers to spiritual gifts—not talents--to be used to build up the body of Christ.

Audio and Video Sermons on Work

Having acquired thirty-seven audio sermons on work, this writer actively listened to them over and over in the car over the past year. The first sermon was obtained on audiocassette after seeing and hearing David Pawson deliver a message, entitled “Work,” in Hong Kong at the Asian Convention for Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International in 1993. Taking more notes during this sermon than any other sermon, this writer believes the message was life altering in giving a new perspective on work that had not been realized before that time by this writer. The message affirmed the value and dignity of work for its own sake and not just for its value in providing opportunities to witness. He encouraged Christians to “see that their daily work is full time Christian service”--that does not need to be justified to God by witnessing at work, though Christians are called to be witnesses (Pawson). Pawson also emphasized the value of manual labor in particular, as the Bible often refers to God working with His hands as did Jesus, many of his disciples, and Paul.

Recently in 2005, this writer found an audiocassette message entitled “Why Work?” by C. J. Mahaney, recorded in 1991. It also proved to be a life changing sermon, giving the following as reasons for working: to love God, to worship God, to serve others, to develop character, to provide for one’s needs, and to earn finances to invest (Mahaney). These two sermons, coupled with reading and studying the book Your Work Matters to God in 2005, provided impetus for this writer’s Senior Project that would commence in 2006. All other sermons were obtained by searching the Internet for “Theology of Work sermons.”

Three excellent sermons were acquired from Gordon Kirk of Lake Avenue Church. The sermons dealt with a Biblical view of employees, management, and work as an aspect of worship. Three more sermons came from Rich Lusk of Trinity Presbyterian Church. These sermons dealt with the connection of God and work, each emphasizing Col. 3:22-24. Ten other sermons came from Dr. Robert S. Rayburn of First Presbyterian Church, addressing such topics as vocation, duties of employees and employers, workaholics, leisure, and retirement. Nineteen sermons came from R. J. Rushdoony, with some focus on social transformation. Five messages came from a one-day workshop taught by Os Hillman, entitled Called to the Workplace. These messages showed how work is meant to be a calling of God and a ministry.

Two DVD’s were ordered from available workplace resources for Christians, found on the Internet. Andy Stanley preaches six sermons in the series Taking Care of Business and hones in on the importance of working whole-heartedly unto the Lord. Os Hillman produced a DVD in 2005 entitled God in the Workplace, where he addresses the latest events in the Faith at Work movement and how Christians can make an impact in the workplace with God.

Growth of the Number of Publications for Incorporating Faith and Work

Pete Hammond has stated that publication of books relating to the “faith-workplace connection” grew from 350 titles to 2000 titles from the years 2000 to 2005, with the earliest books being written in the 1930’s. Many of these books focus on “leadership and management” and others speak to “issues faced by all Christian workers” (Hillman, The 9 to 5 Window 84). Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of books focusing on theology of work, but there is still a need for more scholarly writings in this category.

Quotes and Comments on the Need for more Writings on Theology of Work

Though there are at least two dozen good books dealing specifically with a theology of work, there is still a need for more academic writing in this field. Considering the importance of the topic and how its implications affect every working person, there should be much more research and writing done in this specific field. This is also evident as different scholars in this field have also stated the need for more academic writings on the theology of work.

In 1955, Chenu wrote in his book Theology of Work, “Today, we are far from having achieved a ‘theology of work’” (2), yet he was pleased that “thoughtful Christians” were moving beyond just a study of “morality of work” that had been prevalent since the nineteenth century and to a necessary “study of work as a subject” itself (2-4).

In 1974, Hiltner expressed the need for a theology of work, “and quickly,” to “take into account the impersonalization, dehumanization, and often degradation” that occurs more often than not (274).

In 1993, Harper said that there were very few who had produced a “definitive” theology of work, but felt that Volf had now filled this void with his Work in the Spirit (386). Two years earlier, in 1991, Volf notes in his book that much more theological reflection takes place on ancient church debates, like transubstantation, than on the matter of work that consumes the lives of most people (69). Along similar lines, in 2004, Chang argues that different theological positions have been explored for other subjects, but the lack of “schools of thought” on the subject of work indicates a sparseness of theological scholarship (2).

In 2003, Lewis, an Episcopal priest, says “even though work plays such a dominant part in the Bible, one is hard-pressed to find much written today about the theology of work” (1).

In 2004, after writing his book on theology of work, Larvine says this topic is not yet well explored or a “mature area of theology” (7).

According to Dr. Peter Wagner, “Os Hillman is arguably the most broadly informed individual in the faith and work movement today. God is using Os to cast the vision for the church and the workplace for this new move of God in the body of Christ” (qtd. in Hillman and Hillman, Called 2). In 2005, Os Hillman acknowledged, “we have to have a good theology of work and this has been lacking, not only in the movement but in our churches” (God in the Workplace).

In 2006, Miller says, “With a few notable exceptions, most theologians do not develop interdisciplinary competence nor seek to understand the complexities of modern global economies and develop a constructive theology of work” (God at Work 101).

In conclusion, it is encouraging to see the growth of the number of “faith and work” books as well as seeing some recently published “theology of work” books; yet there is a clear need for more academic writing in this field, from which practical implications can be drawn and popular writings can be based to meet the real needs of the general public, most of whom work.

Findings of Research

History of Attitudes about Work

Classic Period: Greeks and Romans; Hebrew Jews and Christians

The Greeks despised work and viewed it as a curse—an evil to be avoided. Work was considered “beneath the dignity of a free person” (Ryken 71). According to Plato and Aristotle, the highest form of life was the “contemplative life of the mind” (Bryan), so the “elite devoted themselves to the exercise of the mind in art, philosophy, and politics” (Ryken 72). Work distracted people from freely exercising the mind, thus philosophers saw work as demeaning (Friesen). To be in a state where one did not have to work for the necessities of life was highly valued as it allowed one to pursue more worthwhile activities, such as being a politician or a military hero, that helped them become immortalized like the gods (Hardy 8-9). While manual work was devalued, study and contemplation were valued as helping man to ascend to the gods (Goosen 18-20). The Greeks regarded work with one’s head as superior to work using one’s hands. They had an ambition to work as little as possible so as to maximize their leisure pursuits (Pawson). In quest of a life of happiness, Greeks had a lofty view of leisure whose goal was “contemplation and the life of the mind” while the Romans also valued leisure but “preferred active pursuits, including physical fitness and spectator sports” (Ryken 85, 87).

Like the Greeks, Romans despised labor, according to Kaiser, largely due to their desire to be independent from having to work for others--either out of necessity or gain (37). Roman agriculture or farming became associated with slaves, who soon outnumbered freemen, and thus farming was despised along with all kinds of work performed by slaves (Goosen 23). Since slaves did most of the labor, Friesen says, “Labor came to be equated with slavery in the minds of the people” (3). Thus, both Greeks and Romans had a negative view of work, seeing it reserved primarily for slaves.

“Unlike the Greeks, who thought that working for one’s living was beneath the dignity of a gentleman, the Hebrews looked upon daily work as a normal part of the divine ordering of the world, and no man was exempt from it” (Richardson 22). Because Yahweh worked, work in Hebrew culture had value far above work in Greco-Roman culture (Goosen 25). The Old Testament and Hebrew culture did not elevate intellectual work over manual work, and even Rabbis who studied also worked at a trade for financial support (31), like Jesus (Mark 6:3) and Paul (Acts 18:3). Balancing intellectual pursuits with physical skills, almost every Jewish boy was taught how to work with his hands in a trade to support himself financially (Tenney 97).

In New Testament Christianity, work is esteemed further as its primary characters served as manual laborers: Jesus as a carpenter; some disciples as fishermen and a tax collector; and Paul as a tentmaker. Jesus identified with the common worker through his parables. Also, Scriptures commanded diligent work for all able-bodied people and condemned idleness even while hoping for the soon dramatic return of Jesus (Col. 3:23; 2 Thess. 3:10). Christianity “gave slaves and workers value as people who God loved” (Haskins and Smith 11). This positive view of work was the prevailing Christian attitude for the first century after the Apostles.

Medieval Period: Secular versus Sacred

“Gradually the Church Fathers began to draw more heavily on Greek and Roman motifs in their theology and the more positive view of work gave way to a much lower view” (Mackenzie 184). Ordinary secular work became devalued as it was distinguished from religious work. Eusebius in the fourth century is known to have divided life into two spheres, one indicative of the sacred and the other more secular. Augustine, who emphasized suffering in work as part of the curse (Kaiser 110), distinguished between the “contemplative life” (vita contemplativa) of reflection and religious meditation and the “active life” (vita activa) of common work with a preference for the former as being of a higher order (P. Marshall 7). This crucial distinction and attitude ran throughout the Middle Ages (Higginson).

During the Medieval Period, a two-tiered concept of work developed where life was divided into two spheres: “the sacred spiritual life of contemplation and the secular world of labor,” where contemplative “spiritual” work was considered far superior to physical earthly work. The work of priests, monks and nuns was “spiritual” and of a higher order than ordinary work, and their work could only be entered by a divine calling (L. Smith). “The highest human endeavor was to meditate and lead a solitary life” and thus monasteries were built and supported by the common worker (Bryan). In the eleventh century, celibacy was imposed upon the clergy and thus “the demarcation between priesthood and laity was complete” and rendered ordinary workers as second-class citizens to the clergy who had a higher spiritual status (Mackezie and Kirkland 83). According to Guinness, elevating spiritual work over secular work is a distortion of the truth of calling, which he calls the “Catholic distortion” since it “rose in the Catholic era” (31-32).

In the thirteenth century, “Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, defended the spiritual hierarchy of the Middle Ages with significant implications for the world of work” (Friesen 6-7). Aquinas developed this pyramid hierarchy theory of society using Greek thoughts—writings from Aristotle who built from Plato’s writings (Calhoun 99). Though all work was necessary, Aquinas’s hierarchy of work placed “spiritual works” such as prayer, preaching, and the like in a higher rank than “manual works” which were also ranked according to profession and trade (99). Calhoun says, “This view is reaffirmed and elaborately developed by Antoninus of Florence (A.D. 1486-87)” (99). While acknowledging that all Christians were called in a general sense, only the work of the church was deemed a vocation (103). Vocation in the medieval period “meant being called into the ‘spiritual order’ with its special privilege of greater closeness to God by its abundance of good works” (Oldham 45).

Reformation Period: Reformers

In addition to the dignity given to work with one’s hands during the Renaissance (Ryken 75), the Reformers dramatically developed a very positive view of work. Martin Luther rejected monasticism and the well-established division between “sacred work” and “secular work” (Higginson). The word “vocation” had been used exclusively for a call to monastic life, thus implying that “God did not call other people to their jobs” (Goosen 64) and their work had “little if any spiritual significance” (Nichols 84). “The Reformation made [vocation] a universal term, applicable to all states of life and all kinds of work. All work is regarded as a service to God. In principle, all kinds of work are ‘holy,’ in so far as they are performed in faith and in obedience to God” (Oldham 45). Thus all work, sacred and secular, intellectual and manual, were ways of serving God (Colson and Eckerd 36). Therefore, Luther said that it was not necessary to leave or escape secular work and go into church work to be “pious” or pleasing to God, as was previously thought (Bennethum 52).

According to Goosen, while Luther encouraged staying in the same vocation with no personal ambition, John Calvin provided for the opportunity to change vocations in order to better utilize one’s gifts and talents and to serve neighbors and saw no evil in personal ambition or “moving into better jobs or up the social ladder” (63-64). In favor of capitalism, “Calvin encouraged workers to produce more than they needed so they could give surpluses to those in need” (Colson and Eckerd 37). Calvin had a more positive view of the world and its potential than Luther, so for Calvin, Christ is the “transformer of culture” (Niebuhr 217-18). “Calvin . . . taught that believers are responsible for social transformation, and his followers began to believe that we have a cultural mandate (the mandate to transform society) as well as an evangelistic one (the mandate to save souls)” (Wagner 36).

The Puritans carried the Reformers’ message and are known for their Protestant work ethic. The Puritans were exemplary, according to Packer, in integrating faith into their daily lives—a holistic lifestyle—where all awareness, activity, work and enjoyment had the purpose of honoring and glorifying God (23-24). They emphasized diligence in their work, as stewards of God’s call, whose purpose was to serve God and society (Ryken 109). “The Puritans commended industriousness and profit in moderation” (L. Smith). The Puritan’s Protestant ethic of hard work produced thriving societies and “later fueled the industrial revolution which produced vast increases in invention, productivity, and wealth” (Colson and Eckerd 39).

Enlightenment Period and Industrial Revolution

While diligent hard work remained in the work ethic, the Puritan’s original focus on working unto Christ disappeared and thus a vocation really became just an occupation with no connection to God. Imbelli observes the potential for this oscillation saying: “bringing the religious and secular into close conjunction” by having vocation or calling assimilated to work and occupation “can serve either to enhance the secular or domesticate the religious” (32). During the Reformation, secular occupations were enhanced, but the Enlightenment secularized spiritual callings. This removal of the spiritual from secular work and subsequent elevation of secular work is called the “Protestant distortion” by Guinness (38-39). The eighteenth-century Enlightenment brought a humanistic “ethic of self-interest and expediency,” thus “perverting” the original Protestant ethic “into a creed of personal success” (Ryken 77). In the secularized version of the Protestant work ethic, Lee Smith says “there was no central purpose to glorify God, no concept of stewardship or servant hood, and no moral duty to help the needy.”

The Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries used machines to increase production, which formed “alienated workers” on an assembly line that continuously focused on a specific task that became monotonous, and they were not able to see how their never-ending work fit into the end-product (Ryken 79). Karl Marx describes such a person as “a cog in the wheel” of economic activity (Goosen 56). Marx encouraged workers to look for personal fulfillment in the work of one’s hands, which eventually led to idolizing work. Marx’s friend and associate Friedrich Engels “increasingly glorified work as an end in itself,” thus “the worker and his work have taken on religious significance” within Marxist countries (Bernbaum and Steer 30). Marxism believed that the working class, by reforming institutions, would redeem society, yet such a system has not succeeded in Communist countries that have tried it (Ryken 80).

Since the time of modern industrialization, more and more women have sought work outside the home. Some have done so to acquire needed income, yet others search for a meaningful occupation. Addressing a Women’s Society in 1938, Sayers says, “It is very well to say that woman’s place is in the home—but modern civilization has taken all of these pleasant and profitable activities out of the home, where women looked after them, and handed them over to big industry, to be directed and organized by men at the head of large factories” (“Are Women Human?” 32). Some of those traditional activities that required “head as well as hands” included “spinning, weaving, baking, brewing, distilling, perfumery, preserving, pickling . . . [and being] in command of her own domestic staff” (61-62). Thus, “the home contains much less of interesting activity than it used to contain” (32). In Sayers opinion, “It is perfectly idiotic to take away women’s traditional occupations and then complain because she looks for new ones” (33) even outside the home. Yet, many mothers stay at home with their kids realizing that it is an important function and responsibility to train and raise them and it can be intellectually stimulating as well.

Although much meaningful work was transferred from the home to the factory as industry grew, Simmons says, “There are modifications [people] make to [their] activities and purchasing habits to restore some of that meaningful activity” (173). For example, instead of purchasing bread and products, one bakes bread and grows food. Also, “there seems to be a revival in recent years of home-based activity and industry” with the ability to telecommute, thanks to the technology of modems and the Internet (Simmons 176). Thus, potentially interesting work can be done at home, and parents who prefer to stay at home with their children have that option.

The value given to secular work has oscillated since the Reformation. Around 1800, the modern missionary movement started with an emphasis on evangelism and the “evangelistic mandate, but not so much the cultural mandate” (Wagner 37). By the end of the 1800s, the “social gospel” was promoted by liberals who went to the “extreme of advocating that [work of] transforming society was all that was necessary and that saving souls was an idea of the past” (37). Bible believing evangelicals reacted to this extreme by going to the other “extreme of rejecting social ministry [work] altogether” (37). In the 1950s and 1960s, Wagner was probably like many other evangelicals when he says, “I was of the persuasion that our task was to save souls, make disciples and multiply churches. Period” (37). In 1974, in Lausanne, Switzerland, the evangelical movement held the International Congress on World Evangelization. “Evangelicals began reconsidering the place of the cultural mandate alongside the evangelistic mandate within the total mission of the church . . . [though] subordinating the cultural mandate to the evangelistic mandate” (37). This was an important shift from an exclusively evangelistic emphasis that many evangelicals had. Thus, secular work was considered important too.

Current Period

There are two extreme attitudes toward work prevalent in society today: making too little of work and making too much of work, which Pawson calls “immorality” and “idolatry,” respectively. Many view work as a necessary evil, something to be avoided, in order to maximize their leisure time. They want to make as much money as possible while working as little as possible. According to Pawson, this “attitude leads to other forms of immorality of the workplace” such as “the evasion of tax, calling in sick when you are not sick, [and] taking company property home as if it’s your own.” On the opposite extreme, others idolize work and derive their identity and security from their work. They will work long hours and sacrifice other important things such as their family, relationships, and church activities. The Biblical view of work can be seen between these two extremes.

Mark Greene believes that the greatest cultural challenge facing the church today is “SSD Syndrome,” that is the “sacred-secular divide,” “the pervasive belief that some parts of our life are not really important to God--work, school, leisure--but anything to do with prayer, church services, church-based activities is” (“The Great Divide”). With that thinking, holy people go into sacred work while less holy people do secular work and become second-class spiritual workers. Others believe there is no difference in God’s eyes between sacred and secular work, and thus there is no hierarchy of occupations, like full-time Christian work being more spiritual or pleasing to God than secular work. A.W. Tozer believes that all work can be just as sacred as that of a minister, because “it is not what a man does that determines whether his work is sacred or secular, it is why he does it. The motive is everything. Let a man sanctify the Lord God in his heart and he can thereafter do no common act” (127).

Despite verbally acknowledging that their purpose in life is to glorify God, most Christians struggle with the meaning of their ordinary work “in comparison with what they do on Sundays or in activities typically associated with the spiritual, the ministry-oriented, or the ‘eternally’ important” (Roseman). John Beckett in his book, Loving Monday, expresses his work attitude that is common to many Christians:

For years, I thought my involvement in business was a second-class endeavor—necessary to put bread on the table, but somehow less noble than the more sacred pursuits like being a minister or a missionary. The clear impression was that to truly serve God, one must leave business and go into “full-time Christian service.” Over the years, I have met countless other business people who feel the same way. (69)

Attitudes toward work in today’s society vary from hating work to loving work. Those who hate their work often see work as an evil necessity whose main purpose is to acquire money to afford leisure. Many people are aware they are underemployed—where their college degree does not serve them in the job market today (Mahaney). Ryken says that those who are underemployed are quite numerous and represents some of the most dissatisfied workers since they are too highly educated, or too physically able, for their jobs (56).

Current attitudes toward work, says Mahaney, can be seen in some humorous bumper stickers. For example, the phrase “I owe, I owe, so it’s off to work I go” indicates that people only work because they need to pay their bills; they work for materialism and the purchasing of possessions. If they win or inherit a large sum of money, then they would not work. Their purpose is not serving people through their work but making money to afford things and leisure opportunities. Several bumper stickers show people’s dissatisfaction with work and their desire for leisure including “Take this job and shove it,” and “Thank God it’s Friday,” and the phrase “A bad day at golf is better than a good day at work,” and the commercial where a man raises a beer in his leisure and says, “It just doesn’t get any better than this.” A fulfilled life is said to be found in the context of leisure, not work. Work is seen as undesirable and unfulfilling, and people long for early retirement. A lottery winner may say, “I never have to work again,” as if that is the goal (Mahaney). Yet, Christians should not reflect these attitudes. There should be a distinct difference in the attitudes and motives and goals of Christians toward work. Work is not just about the paycheck, but it is about serving people and God, who instituted work.

Principles of a Biblical Theology of Work

Definition of “Work”

Society and authors often refer to work as “paid employment.” While the Bible addresses this aspect of work, the Bible also uses words for work that encompass broader definitions that embrace dominion over nature, service to others, and all productive activity. Geldard defines work in this broader way as “the investment of one’s energy in dominion over nature and the service of others” (444). Stevens also defines work in a broader way as “purposeful activity involving mental, emotional or physical energy, or all three, whether remunerated or not” (107). As a result, businessmen, manual laborers, homemakers, volunteers offering services, and God are all individuals who work.

God is a Worker

God was the first worker who created, designed, fashioned, engineered, molded, and crafted the entire universe. The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The first two chapters of Genesis show God actively at work, creating all that exists, and His work is characterized as “good” (Gen. 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Yet God continues to work even after the initial week of creation. Paul acknowledges God in Christ as creator of all and that “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). The psalmist declares that God “who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4). And Jesus said, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (John 5:17). Thus, Paul Minear aptly says, “The God of the Bible is pre-eminently a worker” (44).

God’s activities associated with creating the heavens and the earth and all their hosts are described as His “work” (mela’khah) in Gen. 2:2. This same Hebrew word is used to describe man’s work in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:9-10), thus showing a connection. Throughout the Bible, God describes his initial and ongoing work using images from the world of human work. Robert J. Banks explores sixteen of these in his eight-chapter book, God the Worker, including God as composer and performer, metalworker and potter, garment maker and dresser, gardener and orchardist, farmer and winemaker, shepherd and pastoralist, tentmaker and camper, builder and architect. These images are very helpful in connecting one’s work on earth with the kind of work God does.

God Created Man to Work in Partnership

Mankind is Created in the Image of God Who Works

God, who works, created man in His image: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness’ . . . And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:26-27). None of the other creatures were made in God’s image. Pope John Paul II says “Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish[es] man from the rest of creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work . . .” (5). With reference to other passages found later in the Bible, the image of God can refer to “righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:24) and to beings that are “free, rational, capable of self-appreciation and self-expression, [and] capable of moral and spiritual understanding . . .” (Where We Stand 106). “While [Sayers] accepts that a case may be made for the divine image being found in the ‘immortal soul,’ ‘rationality,’ or ‘self-consciousness’ (all of these quite traditional locations of the Imago Dei), she argues that the author of Genesis had none of these in mind” (Harrison, 251-52). As Sayers mentions in The Mind of the Maker, the main thing known about God in the first 26 verses of Genesis chapter 1 is that God creates, and since verse 27 says man and woman are created in the image of God, then a main characteristic shared by God and humanity is that of being creative, which Sayers calls “the desire and the ability to make things” (22). Clearly mankind does not create things out of nothing, ex nihilo, like God does (Stuart 3). Explaining Sayers’ view, Harrison says, “God retains the capacity to bring into existence from non-existence, while humans can only order that which already possess being” (252). Thus, since creative work is part of God’s nature and character, creative work is also a part of man’s nature and character. Instead of focusing on a creative workmanship connection between God and man, Richardson prefers to focus on work as “a divine ordinance for human life” as shown “all through the Scriptures” (24).

Creation Mandate – A Divine Command for Man to Work

In Gen. 1:28, God commanded Adam and Eve to “fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over” all living things. The words “subdue” and “rule” imply active work and, according to Doorey, “responsible dominion.” Mackenzie and Kirkland say this verse places a stewardship role upon humans who are called to work with God, to further His purposes. “Because of this, the value and significance of our work is directly related to how connected it is with God’s work” (19). The creation mandate to manage the earth’s resources and meet human needs is given in Gen. 1:28. This is further expressed in Gen. 2:15 as “God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” The Hebrew word for “cultivate” or “till” is avadh, meaning to work or to serve, and the word “keep” means “taking pains ‘to care for’” (Gilbrant 340). Thus, man came into partnership with God: God planted the garden (Gen. 2:8), and man cultivated it (Gen. 2:15) (Sherman and Hendricks 82). In addition to working in and caring for the garden, man is given the enjoyable intellectual activity of naming the animals (Gen. 2:19). God made woman to help man in his God-given tasks (Gen. 2:18). Commenting on Gen. 2:15-19, “Adam was given work to do, such as cultivating, trimming and caring for the garden (otherwise the garden could have become a jungle). This work would be healthy and also a joy, thus, God made him a responsible being sharing in part of the work of taking care of God’s creation” (Horton 29). The mandate given to man was to share in God’s work and be His coworkers and partners, cooperating with God.

Prior to the Fall, work was enjoyable. To an extreme, French layman Ellul holds that Adam did not really work prior to the Fall, at least not in the current sense of the word: “rather he plays. All is given to him by God” (Mackenzie 57). Although most English versions translate Gen. 2:15 to say that man was put in the garden “to work it and take care of it,” Sailhamer prefers Cassuto’s translation “to worship and to obey” (45). In Hugenberger’s scholarly article on Genesis 2:15, he lists four arguments they use for such a translation; then he provides six detailed arguments against their translation and in favor of the traditional translation by analyzing Hebrew grammar and Biblical references (2-9). Although the nature of work was different prior to the Fall, the Bible shows that man was given responsibility for purposeful active work as a coworker with God.

In addition to the creation narratives affirming the call of God for man to work (Geldard 443), work is shown to be a divine ordinance in many other parts of the Scripture. The fourth commandment recognizes that man’s nature is to work; he is to work six days (Ex. 20:9) and rest on the seventh, and Ps. 104:23 recognizes that man works at his labor until evening. Proverbs is full of exhortations for diligent work and warnings against idleness: “Go to the ant, O sluggard, Observe her ways and be wise” (Prov. 6:6). Several New Testament Scriptures show work as a moral duty and reveal the attitude a Christian should have in their work: Col. 3:22-4:1; Eph. 6:5-9; 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9; and 1 Pet. 2:18-25. Thus, work is a divine ordinance and command.

Sin Distorted Work in the Fall

As a result of man’s sin, work was distorted in the Fall. God declared in Gen. 3:17-19: “Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground.” Commenting on Gen. 3:17-19, Horton says, “God put a curse on the ground (not on Adam). What had been pleasant work would now become toil, often unrewarding, often difficult because of thorns and thistles” (39). The curse came upon the soil, the work field that man is to cultivate, but Goosen says it also affects all kinds of work—mental and physical as seen in Matt. 13:3-23, 24-30; Gal. 4:11; and Is. 43:24 (65-66). “In all work, manual, mental or spiritual, there is [now] an element of drudgery and monotony” (Oldham 50). When verse 19 says, “by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,” Harrison says, “suddenly, human survival comes to depend upon work and productivity” (255). Furthermore, God evicts man from the Garden of Eden, according to Gen. 3:23, “to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.” Clearly, man had to work hard after the Fall.

Some would contend that work is a result of the Fall and part of the curse. To substantiate this argument, some have argued that man did not really work prior to the fall, but played as Ellul says (Mackenzie 57), or he worshipped and obeyed as Sailhamer and Cassuto believe (Sailhamer 45). Therefore, according to Ellul, work is a consequence of the Fall (496) and thus has no intrinsic value and cannot be regarded as a vocation or a calling of God. Yet, almost all English versions and theologians properly translate the early Genesis verses to say that man was working prior to the Fall. According to Bystrom, “It is important to emphasize the dignity of work today because many believe Christianity teaches that it is the penalty for sin or God’s retaliation for our rebellion. . . . Most biblical exegetes acknowledge that work is not the legacy of the Fall, only its character as toil” (168, 172). Man worked prior to the Fall, and God continues to require man to work after the Fall, though the task became more difficult. Also, according to Kirkland, the Fall doesn’t change the Creation Mandate; instead, it adds to humans’ role as coworkers, and now mankind assists God in his redeeming work, which includes the restoration of creation to God’s original intention.

In spite of man’s rebellion, the divine ordinance for man to work still stands and will continue to stand to the end of history (Richardson 28-29). The fourth commandment about honoring the Sabbath also says, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” (Ex. 20:9). Richardson says, “This text should not be taken in a woodenly literalistic way as a condemnation of the five-day week; but it does surely mean that an honest week’s work is every man’s duty” (29).

As centuries have passed, types of work have changed and made work a bit easier. Although a Utopia will not be established by means of technological or socio-political advances, Richardson says “It is not wrong to attempt by means of technological or other improvements to reduce the sheer drudgery of labour; surely the contrary is true, that it is our Christian duty to remove in any way we can ‘the curse of Adam’, to eradicate the ‘thorns and thistles’ and to wipe off the ‘sweat’ from the face of man” (28). Though the curse will not be fully removed until after Jesus returns, Christ’s death on the cross affects every area of life; because of His redemption, “work as a blessing prevails over work as a curse” (Isaac 186). Gordon Kirk says, “Work can be redeemed, even in the fallen world. Anything that helps us overcome the effects of the pain, the hardship, the difficulty, is part of this redemption. Work itself retains some of the quality of the curse, but the attitude of the worker [in Christ] can transform the work” (“Our Work”). Mahaney agrees that transforming one’s attitude will transform one’s job that may be boring and repetitious, and he says that one’s attitude is transformed by understanding the transcendent God who created people and His gift of work and His command to work and its purposes.

Purposes for Working

To Glorify God

Many theologians would say that the purpose of life is to glorify God, in essence to please Him, for all things were created according to God’s will and for His pleasure and glory (Rev. 4:11). The Apostle Paul says, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). For activity to be glorifying to God, it must be in obedience to either a command or request of God or at least not be immoral to God. Work has Biblical precedence as a divine command and ordinance for mankind (Gen. 1:26, 2:15, 3:23; Eph. 4:28, 6:5-7; Col. 3:23-24; etc.). Thus, work is an activity of life that is to be done for the purpose of glorifying and pleasing God. Rick Warren believes that everything including work can be done to the glory of God “By doing everything as if you were doing it for Jesus and by carrying on a continual conversation with him while you do it. . . . Work becomes worship when you dedicate it to God and perform it with an awareness of his presence” (67). For the Bible says to workers, “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17) and “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men” (Col. 3:23). Furthermore Peter encourages people to work to glorify God, “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another . . . so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 4:10-11). Although some activities and work would be morally unacceptable to God, such as stealing or prostitution, almost all work in society is legitimate in God’s eyes as it meets the needs of families and society or maintains His creation.

To Meet Personal and Family Needs

The Bible says that people are to work to meet personal needs. Paul says, in 1 Thess. 4:11-12, to work so as to “not be in any need,” and thus be able to purchase the necessities of life and to pay any bills consistently on time. Lee Smith warns, “Of course it is necessary to distinguish between actual needs and selfish desires. It is easy for us to fall to the temptation of materialism, greed and the selfish satisfaction of our appetites.” Laboring hard enables one to have money to pay for daily “bread” (Prov. 12:11) or meals (Prov. 16:26) and “not be a burden” to others (2 Thess. 3:7-8). To avoid poverty, one must labor (Prov. 14:23).

Another purpose for working is to meet the needs of one’s family. A person responsible for a household has an obligation to provide for them, thus the scriptures exhorting one to work to meet personal needs extends to meeting the family’s needs. In 1 Tim. 5:8, Paul says, “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” In Mark 7:11, Jesus says it is wrong for a man to set aside money to God, as a “Corban,” that is needed by his aged parents since God desires him to obey the commandment to honor father and mother (7:10). Also, 1 Tim. 3:3-4 says that it is important to be “free from the love of money” and to manage one’s household well. Those who have responsibility for a family are required to work for money to meet the needs of the family and not lavish it on himself; he must be a good manager of the limited money or resources for the well being of the whole family.

To Help Others in Need

Working provides resources for one to help others in need. Paul encourages a person to labor “in order that he may have something to share with him who has need” (Eph. 4:28). While the Bible is not against a person prospering as a result of being successful at work, it does warn that wealth and riches should not be one’s goal or motive in working (1 Tim. 5:6-10; Prov. 23:4). Instead, one should be content with and enjoy God’s blessings and also share generously to those in need.

To Benefit Society

Society is dependent upon goods and services being exchanged by those who work. In God’s providence of sustaining creation (Is. 42:5-6; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:17; 2 Pet. 3:7; Matt. 6:33; Rom. 8:28), He meets the needs of society--Christians and non-Christians--as each person works in his/her particular field for the common good. Paul exhorts people to “do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Gal. 6:9-10). Paul strongly reprimands able-bodied Christian members of society who act like “busybodies” and refuse to work: “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10-12). According to Hillman, “There is value in secular work simply because it meets needs found in society. God created mankind with many different gifts and talents to serve the multifaceted needs of human beings” (Faith@Work 44). “Work in the Christian view is inseparable from service to our fellow-men,” for man lives in community and not in isolation and thus has responsibility for his neighbor (Oldham 51). To love one’s neighbor, as God requires, one must serve his neighbor through work. “Work has a Christian meaning only if the occupation is one by which society is truly served. . . . From the point of view of service to one’s fellows[,] manual and spiritual work are on the same level” (Oldham 51). Through work, God wants to meet the various needs of people, both physical and spiritual, both temporal and eternal. Even if the product of the work is temporal, those who benefit from it are eternal (Sherman and Hendricks 53). Stuart makes the point that human needs are also met indirectly by caring for God’s creation, and not raping the earth, as it is important for human survival (4-5). Christians should view their daily work of serving others in society as an expression of loving their neighbors, for love meets practical needs (Pawson; Hardy 174).

To Assist with the Great Commission

Prior to His ascension, Jesus gave the Great Commission, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). This task is facilitated by work in two ways: a means to make and give finances toward evangelism and a means of engaging in personal evangelism. First, work provides a means of making money to finance those in vocational ministry who spend their time preaching the gospel with little or no remuneration (Phil. 1:3-5; Phil. 4:15-16). Lee Smith says, “Compensating those who give their lives to evangelism and the spiritual nurture of Christians is clearly valid and expected in the New Testament” (1 Tim. 5:17-18; 1 Cor. 9:3-14; Gal. 6:6; 3 John 5-8). A partnership forms in the holy work of spreading the gospel when gospel workers are supported by other workers. Freeing others for gospel work is a great reason to work, according to Davidson.

Second, work can be a means to evangelizing—both in action and in word. According to Mark Greene, “The workplace is the one place where Christians can’t avoid contact with non-Christians,” and it is the place where non-Christians can really see the difference that Christ makes in a Christian’s life over a period of twenty to fifty hours a week for several years (Thank God its Monday 15). According to 1 Thess. 4:12, work is a good testimony toward nonbelievers who expect believers to also support themselves and their own families by the work of their own hands. By honoring a boss and working hard for him, one can be a good witness for God (1 Tim. 6:1). Moreover, Paul says, “Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect” (Titus 2:9-10). Performing work, and performing it well and with respect for the boss and coworkers, can be a good witness for Jesus. Yet, no action in itself can really be interpreted as a witness for Jesus without some measure of verbal witness.

Work can be seen as a platform for verbal evangelism; coworkers, customers, and clients are considered a mission field. It’s hard to be a good verbal witness for Christ if one is not already a good worker that has earned the respect of others. To have spiritual influence in the workplace, Peel and Larimore say Christians must demonstrate competence, character, and consideration prior to courageously engaging in wise communication (64-74). Christians should “always be ready” to give an answer to those who ask about their faith (1 Pet. 3:15).

Some authors caution against seeing the workplace “only” as a context of winning people to Christ, as if the work itself does not matter to God; life and work are broader than just evangelism, and work has intrinsic value (Sherman and Hendricks 66-72; Roseman). Why should working people receive the gospel? Many would say “to be saved and go to heaven.” Yet, according to Rayburn, God also desires the gospel to restore mankind to the spiritual condition that enables them to fulfill their original purpose as given in the Creation Mandate. Thus, the Great Commission does not replace the Creation Mandate; instead it enables mankind to fulfill the Creation Mandate (“Series Introduction: No. 3”).

For Personal Fulfillment

Work is a gift from God and should bring personal fulfillment. Haywood takes this further saying, “Work is necessary for fulfillment” and “may be a basic right of a human being,” instead of a curse, since the institution of work preceded the Fall (299). Nevertheless, reality is that not everyone enjoys their work, nor is everyone using all the talents God gave them to perform the type of work they are doing. Due to the Fall, work is often frustrating and boring. Nevertheless, King Solomon says that work is a gift from God (Eccles. 2:24, 3:13, 5:18-19) and can be seen as good by putting work in its proper perspective. Lee Smith provides such a perspective: “Using our God-given abilities and opportunities to be useful and to accomplish tasks is rightly satisfying. Work meets needs for self-esteem and a sense of personal worth. There is a sense of satisfaction found in constructive work to meet our needs, help others and support the work of the ministry locally and globally.” Thus joy and satisfaction should come from working. Furthermore, Solomon says, “And I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot” (Eccles. 3:22).

All Legitimate Work has Significance to God

For many there is an unconscious hierarchy of occupations that are more spiritual or more pleasing to God than others. Church ministry is clearly an important work for which some are designed. With consideration for the Protestant ethic that declared the “sanctity of all legitimate work in the world, no matter how common,” Ryken says, “no vocation, including church work, is regarded as more ‘spiritual’ or more pleasing to God than other types of work” (214). The Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney issued a resolution 50/95 stating that everyday work is just as valuable to God as vocational ministry:

This Synod recognizes, encourages and supports the roles of Godly men and women in their everyday work vocation - as distinct from ordained or full-time ministry - and affirms its belief that such work of service in and to the world, done in the name of the Lord Jesus and by God's enabling, is true and laudable service rendered to God Himself by those whose vocation and ministry it is, and is no less acceptable to Him than the Ministry of the Word.

Moreover, Wallis says that Larry Peabody’s book, Serving Christ in the Workplace, “proves that there is no scriptural authority for the belief that serving God in business is any less spiritual than serving God in full-time ministry” (8). According to Hillman, all occupations are equal: “The key is to be in the place where God has called you and to live for the glory of God in that place” (The 9 to 5 Window 20).

Work as a Calling of God: A Vocation

During the Medieval period, a vocation was seen exclusively as a divine call to religious work, or the monastic life. Against this background and in protest of it, Martin Luther formalized and popularized the concept of vocation in which there is no division in the eyes of God between sacred and secular positions or occupations and that God calls people to all kinds of tasks in the world (Ryken 76). To Luther, all work and all of life were considered a vocation, a calling from God to express faith and love in serving others. Anyone could have an occupation, but according to Luther, only Christians could have a vocation—spiritual work--that involved worshiping God and lovingly serving one’s neighbors for his sake (Haskins and Smith 13). Thus, for Luther, monastic work was evil since it did not lovingly serve others, only self (Wingren 2), but an executioner was not evil since it was a means of maintaining order in society (Friesen). Work was only good if it served neighbors, which thus served God (Lusk). Luther’s concept of vocation invested significance and dignity in everyday work (Higginson).

Later Reformers and Puritans believed in a double calling: a general calling to individual salvation and a particular calling to work. Ryken lists many examples of calling to salvation: 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:9; Col. 3:15; and 1 Cor. 1:2 (192). The particular call involves serving neighbors with one’s gifts (Bryan). The call to a specific religious task or office has much Scriptural support: Is. 6:1-10; Amos 7:15; Num. 18:1-7; 2 Tim. 1:11; Acts 16:10; Eph. 4:11; and 1 Cor. 12:28 (Ryken 193). According to Anglican Church Dioceses of Sydney, the implication of 1 Cor. 7:20 is that a Christian man or woman should remain in their secular estate and current occupation unless God calls them to “a distinct apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic or teaching task,” which should not be entered into volitionally just because it may be seen as having a greater impact for salvation of others than one’s current work. All are called to share the Word and the gospel to others (Matt. 28:19-20), but some among Jesus’ disciples are called to do this kind of work full time; While on earth, Jesus “chose” certain individuals among a larger body of disciples to go out and preach (Mark 1:17, 2:14, 3:13; Luke 10:1; John 15:16)—not every beloved disciple was sent out. God clearly calls some to work in a career or task that is “specifically religious or church-related” (Ryken 193). However, there has been much disagreement over the centuries as to whether God calls people to other kinds of work and occupations, typically labeled as secular (193). Prior to the Reformation, only those who left their everyday work and entered church or monastery work were considered to have a calling from God or a vocation. The Reformation extended this concept of vocation to include all occupations and related activities (193).

Referencing the Greek word for calling, klēsis, found in 1 Cor. 7:20, the Reformers, Luther and Calvin, were the first to use the Latin term vocatio and the German term Beruf to express men’s everyday tasks and stations (Richardson 38). Luther interpreted klēsis as “one’s outer status or occupation” (Wingren 1). Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:20, “Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called.” The Reformers interpreted Paul’s words as referring to one’s external situation or condition, not one’s inner spiritual life, and thus “new Christians should not abandon their family situations or occupations” (Ryken 195). Some would say that this verse indicates that “Christians are to remain in the Christian life and that it has nothing to do with occupation,” yet Ryken disagrees and says that the context shows that “Paul is raising the issue of how conversion should affect one’s everyday life” (195). Gordon Fee comments, “The call to Christ has created such a change in one’s essential relationship (with God) that one does not need to seek change in other relationships (with people). These latter are transformed and given new meaning by the former” (307). Thus, for Luther, one did not need to leave his particular work upon receiving Christ to find work that would please God: “the order of stations in the earthy kingdom has been instituted by God himself as a way of seeing that the needs of humanity are met on a day-to-day basis” (Hardy 47). Serving neighbor was, in essence, serving God and pleasing to Him. In conclusion, according to Lee Smith, the implications of verses 1 Cor. 7:20 and 7:24 “are that every believer has a calling, not just those who are in vocational ‘full-time Christian ministry’ and that no calling is better or higher than another in the eyes of God.”

In opposition to Luther’s interpretation of vocation, klēsis, as “signifying one’s outer status or occupation” (Wingren 1), Richardson says, klēsis, or calling, in the New Testament “means God’s call to repentance and faith and to a life of fellowship and service in the Church” (35). To interpret calling in the way Luther does would mean that Paul used klēsis “in a sense used nowhere else in his or any other Greek writings” (P. Marshall 13). Additionally, Richardson says that the Bible does not record a person ever being “called to an earthly profession or trade by God”; instead, those whom God calls are to work within the Church and thus they become Christian workers regardless of their secular occupation (35). Richardson says that 1 Cor. 7:20 “does not bid the Christian to remain in the secular ‘calling’ (e.g., that of a slave) in which he was when he became a believer but to remain faithful to the calling of God” (36). According to Ellul, “Jesus never calls upon anyone to work. On the contrary, he constantly takes the men he calls away from their work, e.g., Peter, James, Levi, the man in the parable who wants to try out his oxen, and so forth” (496). Barth agrees (472). Ellul says that “the call of God . . . is always a summons to the specific service of God” such as a prophet or apostle or king (495). Additionally, “He is called to serve God by some exceptional act and without even realizing that he is doing it in God’s service, e.g. the king of Syria, the king of Assyria, or Cyrus” (495). Ellul denies that work is a vocation in the traditional sense of the word. For Ellul, work “offers the possibility of sustaining life, of upholding the world, and of a continuation of history. . . . And this is God’s will. At this level then, if at this level alone, we have vocation. God calls us to work (of any kind) in order to keep going this world which he has not yet decided to stop and judge” (506-07). In summary, many exegetes believe Luther misinterpreted 1 Cor. 7:20, the main text used to support his concept of vocation (Volf 109).

Yet, Luther’s idea of vocation belongs more to his “wider theological logic than to his specific interpretation” of 1 Cor. 7:17-24 (Cosden, Heavenly Good 41), and thus vocation is also expressed in the Bible through “the priesthood of all believers,” through references to God’s servants, and through providence, without using the term “calling.” The base for Luther’s doctrine of vocation lies strongly upon his theology of “the priesthood of all believers” in 1 Peter 2:9. Luther’s emphasis that all believers are priests unto God meant all Christians in all occupations held as high a spiritual office as a priest, bishop, or the pope (McGregor 4). Thus in God’s eyes, there is no difference in status between laity and clergy, between secular and sacred jobs, for all workers are called to minister unto God.

Ryken believes that “the Bible supports the idea that ordinary occupations and tasks are something to which God calls people, even though the phraseology is not always specifically that of calling” and gives the following as examples: Moses as leader in Ex. 3-4, David as king in Ps. 78:70-71, Saul as king in 1 Sam. 15:17, and Bezalel as craftsman and other occupations in Ex. 31:1-6 (194). Placher says that Col. 3:23 “does not use the word ‘call,’ but it certainly invites Christians to think of any task as work done in the Lord’s service” (5). According to Ryken, “An office or task does not have to be termed a calling in order to be regarded as such” (194).

In God’s providence, He bestows upon people aptitudes and then guides them into particular occupations in the world to ensure society is supplied with food, clothing, and shelter; Ryken says these are also “callings from God” (194). In the Reformed concept of work as vocation, “God Himself carries on his creative activity in this world” through the work people are called to do (Hardy xiv-xvii). “God’s providence is seen as the force that arranged circumstances in such a way that a person has a particular work. God also equips a person with the necessary talents and abilities to perform the work. In fact, the original Protestants made this one of the tests to know whether one was in the right calling” (Ryken 200). Thus, daily work has spiritual significance and dignity as the worker partners with God in caring for humans according to God’s providence.

From a historical and cultural context, until the mid-twentieth century, most people had a limited choice for a career (McGregor 6), and they usually entered the occupation of their parents to maintain stability in society. In Paul’s day, it appears some new Christians may have wanted to change their occupational status and other circumstances to serve the Lord better, but Luther insisted—upon the authority of Paul in 1 Cor. 7:20--that one did not have to leave their occupation to serve Christ. According to Pawson, “Provided that your job is not immoral or illegal, you are already in his calling; if He wants you to change jobs, He’ll tell you.” If a change of work is necessary, it should not be motivated out of selfishness but by the leading of the Lord, and thus the new work should be regarded as a calling of God as well. As a person matures in the Christian faith, he “may very well receive another calling to somewhere else” (Veith 162).

Calvin, like Luther, believed 1 Cor. 7:20 encouraged Christians to be content with their station in life and not to be eager to change their work situation without proper reason (Higginson). However, Calvin had a more dynamic view and felt that it was appropriate to change vocations to fully utilize one’s gifts and talents to serve others more effectively. The Puritans had a practical method for determining if a person was in the right calling—by checking “if God had clearly equipped him or her for the work” through gifts and talents and abilities (Haskins & Smith 14-15). The Puritans spoke of vocation in terms of gifts and service for church work and worldly work, yet Volf does not acknowledge this early historical aspect when presenting his “new” theology of work based on gifts for service instead of vocation.

Volf presents important critiques of Luther’s concept of vocation (107-09). Higginson summarizes Volf’s critiques into two main criticisms: First, Luther’s vocation does not address the problem of human alienation or the dehumanizing ways work is done, like assembly line work that is mindless and repetitive; Second, Luther’s vocation is too static in requiring workers to remain in their occupation, normally throughout a lifetime. In the first criticism, since many people hate their job, feel exploited, and are underpaid, they feel their work is dehumanizing and alienating and could not have originated from God as a calling (Oppenheimer). Surveying thirty-one Protestant and Catholic congregations, Davidson and Caddell found that workers who had more benefits, such as full-time employment, job security, and higher pay, were more inclined to think of their work as a calling (145). In the second criticism, Volf emphasizes that Paul was writing 1 Cor. 7:20 in the context of crisis with the thought that Jesus could return very soon; therefore, under these conditions, Paul recommends being content in their occupation as slaves or in their singleness (Higginson). Considering the current mobile society where most people do not keep a single job for a lifetime and normally switch jobs multiple times, a new view of work is needed that remains true to the Bible and to the real world. Volf desires to replace the concept of vocation with the concept of charism, or gift, since he believes it is more in line with the New Testament.

God Gives Abilities, Gifts, and Opportunities for Working

Ideally, work should utilize people’s gifts and talents given by God, especially if they are in God’s appointed work, though Scripture does not guarantee full use of gifts and talents in their work. For the Calvinists, vocation is derived from one’s gifts that are to be used for the benefit of neighbors. Thus, finding a station in life where these gifts and talents can be employed for neighbor’s benefit should be a priority for a Christian (Hardy 66). According to Sayers, work should encompass “the full expression of the worker’s faculties, . . . and [be] the medium in which he offers himself to God,” and then “work is not, primarily, a thing one does to live, but the thing one lives to do” (“Why Work?” 73). Furthermore, Sayers advocates the principle that “every man should do the work for which he is fitted by nature” (74) and not ask of employment “how much a week?” but “will it exercise my faculties to the utmost?” (71). Thus, Sayers emphasizes an integrated life: By using the talents given by God, a “worker is called to serve God in his profession or trade—not outside it” (78). People will make their greatest contribution as they work in a field that “corresponds to the way God has designed [them]” (Sherman and Douglas 143).

Even though “nowhere in the New Testament does God send a special anointing on people for secular tasks” (Helweg) and even though “the New Testament passages about gifts and their exercise are restricted to discussions of the church” (Hardy 63), many believe these gifts can be used in the real work world. For many years Wagner believed that spiritual gifts were to be used within the context of the Body of Christ, or basically the local church and its outreach programs. Now, however, he believes they can be used in the marketplace (107). Silvoso explains that the spiritual gifts in Mark 16:17-18 “primarily [apply] to ministry in the marketplace” since the “entire world, the totality of creation, must be the focus of the mission entrusted to us, not just a church building or a gathering of believers” (34). Volf also “asserts that charisms (Spirit gifts) include more than ecclesiastical activities” and gives as examples the gift of evangelist (Eph. 4:11) and the gift of giving to the poor (122). Volf reasons that the church is currently in the “age of the eschatological Spirit”; therefore, Spirit enablement for skillful work is the inheritance of all believers, which was only given occasionally in the Old Testament, as for Bezalel and David (Ex. 31:2-3; 1 Chron. 28:11-12) (122).

According to Hillman, the five-fold gifts of Ephesians 4:11-13 does not apply only to full-time vocational ministers. “Nowhere does the scripture indicate that these gifts and callings are vocational. The five-fold gifts operate in the workplace to prepare God’s people. We need to see all of these gifts and callings operational in the workplace” (Are You a Biblical Worker? 7). Hammon makes the following comparisons: apostles are like founders, prophets are like strategists, evangelists are like sales managers, teachers are like trainers, and pastors are like local business managers (269-70). Some ministry leaders have been calling for a restoration of the apostolic and prophetic offices for today, with an emphasis on the need for marketplace apostles, whom Wagner characterizes as having “extraordinary authority” in comparison to others in the body of Christ (117). Taken to a further extreme, some ministry leaders would say that societal transformation is limited in effectiveness until workplace apostles are set in place and properly recognized (Wagner 111-12, 163; Marshall with Walker 70; Hillman, The 9 to 5 Window 147; Hammon 251; Brook 180-81). Yet, the Assemblies of God--representative of many other Christian groups with similar views on this topic—builds a case and declares, “Since the New Testament does not provide guidance for the appointment of future apostles, such contemporary offices are not essential to the health and growth of the church nor its apostolic nature” (Where We Stand 294-95). Many groups do not recognize contemporary offices of apostle and prophet of Eph. 4:11; however, many would acknowledge that believers do “exercise the ministry function of apostles and prophets” (298). Most groups would not object to believers functioning as an apostle in the sense of establishing new churches or works in unreached areas and most Pentecostals and Charismatics do not object to the ongoing gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1), especially when it is used to encourage or comfort (1 Cor. 14:3) (298).

Volf is in favor of replacing the concept of work as a vocation with the concept of work as a charism, or gift (Oppenheimer). A weakness of Luther’s concept of vocation is that working people are trapped in the station or work they are in because it is their vocation, or calling from God. By associating “calling” with gifts instead of a static occupation, there is no issue with changing jobs or careers since one’s gifts of the Spirit can still be used faithfully in accordance with one’s calling. Even when unemployed, people could still use their gifts to serve family, society, and volunteer groups (Zabocki).

According to Hillman, the biggest temptation for a successful workplace minister is pride. Workers should never forget that “God gives us the skill, the intelligence, the resources, the energy, the drive and the opportunities to accomplish something” (The 9 to 5 Window 134). Deut. 8:17 warns, “You may say in your heart, ‘My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth,’” but one should never forget that it is God who gives the power to produce wealth (8:18). If one prospers from the work of their hands, it is ultimately due to the blessing of the Lord (Deut. 16:15, 24:19, 28:12; Ps. 90:17).

Work Ethics and Attitudes

Laziness and Idleness are Sins

Scriptures are clear in stating that laziness and idleness are sins (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10-13; Prov. 21:25), and Christians have a responsibility to warn, rebuke, and instruct those who are unruly, idle, or lazy (1 Thess. 5:14). It was sinful or “folly” to be idle between daybreak and sunset (Richardson 53). According to Pawson, since laziness is a sin, “then unemployment is an evil and Christians should be fighting unemployment” since it is a “dehumanizing experience” for a person to be out of work who wants to work. Almost one out of every twenty proverbs between 10:1 and 22:6 deal with the problem of laziness or the virtue of diligence—eighteen proverbs in all (Hohne and Payne). Some Scriptures that contrast those who are lazy and sluggards with those who are desirably diligent include: Prov. 6:6-11, 10:4, 12:24, 12:27, 13:4.

Diligence

A Christian’s work is to be characterized by diligence and excellence. Writing in the first century in a culture where approximately 60 million people, or one-third of the population of the Roman Empire, were slaves (Rossier 165), the Apostle Paul references these servants or workers using the Greek word douloi. According to Richardson, “’Workers’ is perhaps the best modern rendering of douloi, even though it does not carry with it the suggestion of being tied to one