The Dignity of Work

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the most recent data puts the unemployment rate for our country at 9.7%. One in ten Americans does not have a job, a truly startling figure, and obvious reason for concern. But our concern should go beyond the self-preservation instinct to worry that we may become one of the unfortunate citizens without work. As a matter of fact, with unemployment that high, many of us already are without a job. As Christians, our unease should touch multiple levels. First of all, and perhaps most obvious, is the reality that poverty and unemployment go hand in hand. The plethora of Scripture verses that call the Believer to care for the poor implies that we must worry about the unemployment rate. Additionally, our Christian duty of compassion should lead us to sympathize with the unemployed, and negative effects unemployment has on family life is certainly a cause for concern.

At a deeper level, however, I want to focus on the spiritual implications of the unemployment rate, specifically with regards to how this issue ties into the robust doctrine of the image of God. The Imago Dei, as theologians refer to it, is perhaps the most central piece of theology for guiding the Believer in his or her interactions with society. The Imago Dei is what tells us we must fight for the unborn, it leads us to battle HIV/AIDS in Africa, prompts us to advocate for human rights, and tells us that unemployment is as destructive to the soul as a myriad of other societal ills. If we don’t fully understand this doctrine it may seem strange that unemployment would make such a list, but the biblical narrative indicates that work, and by inference employment, are central to what it means to be created in the image of God.

In Genesis 2:2-3 we are told three times that God worked, this just a few paragraphs after we read that God had created mankind in His image. The fact that the book of Genesis states that God worked during the six days of creation shows that it is a part of His nature. Additionally, when we are told that mankind is created in the image of God, and then told to work the Garden, we see that work is an extension of the Imago Dei. In its most basic form, the Imago Dei means that we are a further representation of God here on earth, that He created us to be ambassadors. Part of our ambassadorship is participating in the act of creating, which is at its very core work. By working we are engaging in one of the central tenets of what it means to be human.

Before we continue a caveat is in order. Work is an extension of the Imago Dei, but that doesn’t necessarily require it to be work in the employment sense. A stay at home mother or father is certainly working, and that act of work also reflects the image of God. In the same way, a volunteer for a charity is working without being employed. By discussing the unemployment rate, let us not fall into the common trap of believing that “bringing home the bacon” is any more valuable in God’s sight than work that doesn’t receive a paycheck.

So, we have seen that work is important in God’s eyes, and that our Christian duty leads us to be engaged on this issue, but what do we do about it? The most obvious answer when dealing with unemployment is government intervention. There is certainly a place for government jobs—especially public work projects—in lowering the unemployment rate. But an economy cannot be sustained on government jobs. A government employee is a net drain on the tax system, so in order for a stable economy to exist there needs to be multiple private sector workers to support every public sector employee. This implies that the best thing the government can do to lower unemployment is let the private sector create jobs, prompted by government incentives. Many today treat the phrase “tax-cuts” as a curse word, but what better way to incentivize companies to higher more employees? Most of the angst over cutting taxes for corporations comes from the misguided notion that corporations can pay taxes, when the reality is they can’t. Sure, there is a tax levied on corporations, but in order for a company to survive they simply pass that tax on to their consumers. Ironically, when taxes on corporations are raised it is the unemployed who get hit the hardest by the escalating cost of goods. By cutting tax rates and incentivizing companies to higher more employees the government can make huge strides in lowering the unemployment rate.

Secondly, each of us can do our part to lower the unemployment rate by helping those without work find a job. We all have a network that includes contacts with employers, and we all know people without work. By connecting these two groups through mutual friends and acquaintances we can help employers find good employees, and the unemployed find work. Finally, we all have an obligation to vote with our wallet. We should support businesses that have good hiring practices and treat their employees fairly.

The unemployment rate is a huge problem, and some of the brightest minds in the country are working to make things better. As followers of Jesus, though, we have a responsibility to help those who are need, many of whom would be counted among the ranks of the unemployed. As the Church our prayers and generosity should touch the unemployed in a special way in this time of economic hardship.

Ideologues Anonymous

Are you an ideologue? Most likely your instinctual reaction to this question is a resounding “no!” That nasty word has come to be one of the gravest insults in our culture, especially if the person being insulted is involved in politics. No one wants to be labeled an ideologue, and for quite obvious reasons. Merriam-Webster defines ideologue as, “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.” Now, honestly assess yourself, are you an ideologue? I will confess that I am a recovering ideologue, and by my own informal assessment of the Church today, I would assert that a great majority of us are ideologues, especially when it comes to our politics. True, there is also a portion of the Church that hasn’t put enough thought into public policy to have an opinion one way or the other, which is a quite different problem, but the preponderance of us who participate in political discussions have a distinct ideological bent.

You will notice that the definition we gave of an ideologue mentioned the word “partisan,” and many of you are thinking that this is your way out of this etymological trap. And, as long as we define “partisan” in a narrow enough way, most of us would not be partisan. We cling to the fact that, while we may vote for party X every time we see a ballot, we still criticize them when they do something we don’t like. True, but let’s take a more broad use of the word partisan. Hardly anyone is blindly Republican or blindly Democrat, but all too many of us are blindly conservative or blindly liberal, and thus the pejorative: ideologue. We trumpet the idea that we can always leave our party of choice, but few of us ever diverge from our ideology of choice. So when we say we are nonpartisan (i.e. not a Donkey or Elephant), we should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that we are ideological, and most likely an ideologue.

A caveat is in order, however. We do in fact need some intellectual grounding, and the philosophies of liberalism and conservatism provide a good framework from which to make political decisions. The problem for most of us is that they are more than simply a framework, they have become the altars upon which we worship our political gods, confident that they will provide the absolution our nation needs. We do a wonderful job of convincing ourselves that we are merely following the tenets of the Christian faith; that God is on our side. Rarely, however, do we stop to assess whether or not we are on God’s side. We blindly assume that Christianity obviously tends towards conservatism, or that if you read your Bible closely you will end up a liberal. The truth (and a painful truth it is) is that both liberals and conservatives are right on some things and wrong on some things. If we are going to fully reflect what it means to be the Body of Christ we will need to draw from both of these ideologies, which means there may yet be a place for us recovering ideologues.

Book Review: Jesus for President, By Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw

A friend of mine recently pointed out the importance of discernment when choosing what books to read. Most of us will not complete more than a dozen or so books in a year, and with all the fantastic books out there, we need to be careful not to waste our time on dribble. Unfortunately, Jesus for President, by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, is not a fantastic book. It is a stunning example of what happens when Christians allow our political ideology and biases to affect how we approach the Bible. Billed as a “book to provoke the Christian political imagination,” the reader is left with more provocation than actual thought. Showing no understanding of the differing roles of the Church and the state, the authors conflate the two in a misguided attempt to shape Christians approach to politics. The end result is a work that only the most radical of the Christian left will find intriguing, while the rest of us are left wondering if it is Jesus they are following or the god of Liberalism. The book is replete with error, all of which fit into one or more of four different categories.

1. Bad Hermeneutics (Biblical Interpretation)
The most egregious and prevalent of all their errors, the authors blatantly rape Scripture in order to bend it to their ideology. For example, even though 1 Chronicles makes it quite clear that David was not to build the Temple because he had shed much blood, Claiborne and Haw argue that God didn’t want a temple because He likes sleeping in tents with poor people (pg. 35). Of course this doesn’t explain why God seems to have been pleased to dwell in the temple Solomon built. In another instance the authors state that the Israelites had laws for dealing with illegal immigrants (pg. 58). By choosing the phrase “illegal immigrants,” instead of what the text actually says “aliens,” the authors are trying to make a passage that has little relevance to our current immigration debate fit their own ideological purpose. At one point Claiborne and Haw state that Jesus was from a family of “peasants” (pg. 116), when we now know that the fact that he was a carpenter most likely put him in what we would know as the middle-class. In another instance, the authors say that the people were hungry for revolution, and thus chose for Barrabas to be freed instead of Jesus (pg. 76), when the Gospel account makes it clear that it was the prompting of the Pharisees that led to this decision. Finally, they state that the book of Revelation was written in code so the empire wouldn’t know what John was really saying (pg. 148), when it is commonly recognized that the genre of Revelation is apocalyptic and is thus written in such a mysterious manner.

2. Bad Theology
Despite the fact that Chris Haw is said to be working on a graduate degree in theology, the authors make some incredibly basic errors in theological understanding. In many cases they footnote their arguments by thanking some scholar for giving them “new eyes to see” on a particular issue, but due to the obscure nature of their argument, we are left feeling that they simply choose which eyes they like best. In one disturbing instance, they state that violence kills the image of God within a person (pg. 205). The doctrine of Imago Dei is one of the most foundational beliefs for Christian thinking, and no where does the Bible indicate that a person can have more or less of the image of God within them. The image of God is what gives each person their value, and, if the authors’ assertion were true, we would be left with some people that are intrinsically more valuable than others, hardly the traditional Christian understanding. Another instance where the authors show their ignorance is their understanding of the Trinity. In a poor attempt at humor, the authors tell a joke in which Jesus is letting people into Heaven whose names are not written in the Book of Life (pg. 290). This type of naiveté is easily repudiated when one recognizes that the Trinity cannot be divided, and thus would certainly know who is allowed into Heaven. Of course, this issue is further complicated by the authors seeming to indicate that they might not believe that Hell exists anyway. In another instance, Claiborne and Haw state that it is difficult to know whether or not Jesus would pay taxes if he lived in the U.S. (pg. 257), of course the simple phrase “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” seems to answer that quandary. In still another case, the authors revel in the act of lying when it fits their political cause (pg. 297).

3. Bad Political Philosophy and Logic
In many places Claiborne and Haw show utter inconsistency in their logic, coupled with a radically naïve approach to politics. For instance, they state that capitalism is a yoke that we need to be freed from (pg. 113). And while they admit that writing a book participates in capitalism, they don’t seem to grasp the fact that without capitalism their book would not be able to be printed or distributed. In a truly confusing paragraph, the authors argue that the industrial revolution wasn’t really an advancement, an assertion so absurd it is difficult to even respond to (I’ll let the fact that you are reading this be my rebuttal). And in perhaps the most stunning example of the sheer absurdity of their logic, Claiborne states that, if faced with genocide, he would simply take his clothes off and squawk like a chicken (pg. 273). Such a simplistic assertion fails to grasp the fallen world we currently inhabit, and instead makes a joke of over a million deaths on one continent alone.

4. Bad Use of Historical Argument
Still another way that Claiborne and Haw mislead their readers is by a deceptive use of history. They state that the more the early Church lived out the Gospel, the more they collided with the Roman Empire (pg. 141), when even a cursory understanding of early Church history shows that persecution was sporadic and wholly contingent on who was running the empire, not the degree to which Christians lived the Gospel. In an attempt to show the futility of violence, the authors state that an attempted assassination plot against Hitler only galvanized his resolve and made any efforts towards peace impossible (pg. 203). What they fail to mention is that this happened mere months from the end of WWII, and there was no indication that Hitler was going to surrender under any circumstances.

There are many other examples of all these types of errors I could list, all with equally simple rebuttals. The point is that Claiborne and Haw do not contribute anything new to the discussion of how our faith should influence policy. Rather, they simply carry the water for the far left, attempting to argue that Jesus agrees with them. Personally I am tired of people trying to prove that Jesus agrees with their ideologies, instead, I believe, we should be trying to agree with Jesus. Admittedly this is incredibly difficult for any of us to do, especially since Christ didn’t have much to say about the role of the state (contra Claiborne and Haw). What He did address, however, is how we as Christians should act, and I think if we put those things into practice the politics will come naturally.