One might get the impression that I am not thrilled with the state of the Christian church’s opinions and teachings on work.[1] I am struck by the defensive tone churches take, presupposing that “too much work” is the default sin of their congregation rather than “not enough work.” I guarantee that the latter outnumber the former in every church I have ever observed or studied by a wide margin. This is vitally important to get right because our very purpose as humans is to be productive cultivators-that is, workers. I believe there are both well-meaning and less-well-intentioned reasons for the church’s inadequacy in presenting a theology of work.
1. From my book, Full–Time: Work and the Meaning of Life (New York: Post Hill Press, 2025).
Inputs, Not Outcomes
First, the well-meaning. It is understandable that churches don’t want to risk jumping from the frying pan into the fire. If their congregation includes husbands who ignore their families, they, of course, don’t want to greenlight further family neglect. If they have a congregation filled with greedy idolaters, it makes sense that they want to decry materialism and greed.
The solution to the well-meaning fear that speaking the truth might encourage excess? Stop. Stop what? Stop being afraid of the whole counsel of God. Speak the truth. The soft-peddling and milquetoast preaching is not and cannot be effective. It is time to see truth and love as intertwined, not two separate ingredients to try and measure in appropriate ratios. Stir in all the truth and all the love, and then brace yourself for the outcomes of faithful courage. If you mean to preach against idolatry, preach against idolatry. If you mean to preach for a robust defense of work and productivity, do so. Where tensions must be held in balance, preach wisely and sagely. This doesn’t have to be hard. Preach without fear of which constituency in the congregation is being offended. Instead, if it is true—preach it!
The courage to preach the truth can be found in recognizing that the responsibility of the minister is in the input (the fidelity of what is preached) and the outcome is best left in the hands of God (how inputs will be received and applied). This ought to be comforting to the minister: he is not responsible for what he cannot control. Nearly every pastor with whom I have discussed this has admitted to worrying that a pro-work message will be taken the wrong way. I am not an ordained minister, but I want to remain sympathetic to those who have an earnest and well-meaning concern here.
The issue of inputs versus outcomes is not unique to the pastorate. This principle is universal in a world where there is both a sovereign God and accountable humans. I credit the “inputs versus outcomes” distinction as a major part of my success in the wealth advisory business. Our profession deals with risk-taking in capital markets. Some people want to hear that their investment returns will be higher than they are likely to be; even more want to hear that their risk or fluctuation volatility will be less than it is likely to be. Everyone early in a career of managing money or offering financial guidance runs into the conflict of telling the truth and losing a client versus embellishing results and securing the client. Those most likely to have a successful career are those who learn to focus on the “inputs”—the truth of what is presented, the tenacity that goes into portfolio planning and presentation—and to be totally content with the “outcomes,” what the client or prospective client does with the information.[2]
2. I would be remiss if I did not give credit here to my advisory profession mentor, the great Nick Murray, who taught me early in my career not only this concept but this exact nomenclature.
This principle works the same way for a real estate agent attempting to secure a listing without exaggerating the likely sale price of a house or an investment banker needing to value a business without providing false guidance. Would a diet work if the nutritionist merely lied about the calories to tell the client what they wanted to hear? Would a doctor keep a patient happy by assuring them that unhealthy practices were acceptable?
This concept isn’t complicated, but we freeze up when those tasked as prophets and priests are called to boldly preach Christian truths. Inputs are vitally important, and of course, there is ample room for wisdom, tact, and care. But there is a point at which concern over how a message will be received must be replaced by acknowledgement of the “uncontrollable” nature of outcomes. A preacher must reserve his concern for the inputs.
Poor Excuses for Poor Theology
Though this is not the primary focus of this article, I am sure there are some less innocuous excuses for failing to proclaim a robust theology of work in our churches. Genuine theological ignorance should not be defended or excused, and yet it is less sinister than other explanations.
Gnosticism keeps popping up in our discussion of modem error regarding work and vocation. Believing there is a difference between the significance of body and soul, the physical and material, and the earthly and the spiritual is a heresy that has bled into philosophy and ethics since the early church. A belief that the church is superior to other vocational callings is likely to come through in one’s preaching. This dualism is not always intentional. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say, “Your job matters to God—He wants you to work hard and do well,” then conclude their thought with “so you can do more in ministry, church, and Kingdom.” That is Gnosticism that sends a preacher off course.
Almost all errant preaching I have heard on this subject exhibited latent Gnosticism—unintentional, but not innocent. A common example is depicting a career as only valuable because of the material benefits it bestows (e.g., providing for one’s firmly, tithing to the church, supporting other ministry projects). This is explicit utilitarianism (even if wrapped in Great Commission rationale), but it comes from implicit Gnosticism.
A Christian theology that values the incarnational truths of our religion—that God made man with a body and a soul and that his eternal destiny encompasses both—is the only antidote. We know that the Son of God was fully man and fully God. We exist in both a material and a spiritual dimension, and we should celebrate this creational truth, not hide from it.
If we want to restore a cultural apologetic for Christianity, each minister of the gospel needs to ensure his presentation of work, calling, and vocation repudiates these three mistakes:
• Gnosticism (the material is subordinate to the spiritual)
• Dualism (the secular is distinct from the sacred)
• Pietism (intensity of personal feeling is superior to doctrinal truth)
Ensuring a message or argument is free of these three things would bring a new understanding of work, calling, and protectivity. These errors are so embedded in our thinking that only a self-aware, concerted effort will enable us to shake them.
So much of the focus and critique I make is specific to the church—a distinctive theological institution and concept—that I risk skipping over the conflict that exists in the messaging of work, career, calling, and financial resources. A relatively new cottage industry of “Christian philanthropy” has reached new heights over the last two decades. Institutions, funds, think tanks, and various not-for-profit organizations have emerged without a direct connection to a church or denomination whose primary focus is to advocate for Christian generosity and philanthropy.
I am not discouraging generosity or philanthropy. I am supportive of any and all endeavors that faithfully equip and inform believers in the act of generosity. I work with a plethora of organizations in this “cottage industry” and have known dozens, if not hundreds, of senior leaders and advocates in it. Many of them are faithful men and women of God who desire to see greater attention paid to Christian philanthropy. Some of the most heartfelt believers I know work in this space, so I do not offer this warning lightly.
The cottage industry of non-church organizations that advocate for Christian giving is not immune from theological naivete or grift, either. It is worth it to apply the criteria suggested above to these organizations, as well as to the church. They must make a conscious effort to repudiate Gnosticism, dualism, and pietism in their messaging, and they most certainly must avoid grift and self-dealing.
I wish I could say that I have little experience with these groups being torn apart by direct conflict. For several reasons, this space is more vulnerable to conflict and warrants greater diligence and scrutiny. It should be noted that messaging about careerism and vocational dominion conflict with the business models of many of these organizations.
I do not seek to make sweeping accusations, but rather emphasize that some organizations are more faithful than others in pursuing a mission around the time, treasure, and careers of others that are faithful to creational theology and Biblical teaching.
Less Likely but Possible Cynicism
A more cynical read of the challenges in getting pastors to take the creational view of work I outline is that it works against the varied interests of the church itself. Churches serve their own self-interests when they preach that time should be less career-focused (and therefore more church-focused). The theory goes that pastors water down messages advocating for greater workplace dominion because it takes away from their volunteer base, donor base, and general support and enthusiasm level, at least on the margins.
I am skeptical that this is a primary or systemic problem, yet I am sure that it happens at least sometimes. At the risk of taking attention off the more likely scenarios, conflicts of interest ought to be navigated carefully. Pastoral messages that can lead to concern here should be presented clearly and forcefully, and congregants ought not to listen to a minister with the worst possible interpretation in mind.
I have no choice but to write from my own perspective here, having spent over twenty-five years engaged in heavy dialogue on this subject with pastors and spiritual leaders of every theological and denominational stripe. I have rarely found their agenda to be getting their congregants to care about their careers less and the church’s operations more. That level of transparent manipulation seems to be the exception, not the rule, and we can be happy that that is the case.
That said, theological errors of the preceding point, well-meaning intentions, and an additional possibility are all harmful in their own right.
Poor Work Ethic, Poor Focus, Poor Priorities?
The last possible reason why the church offers an inadequate theology of work comes from an entirely different category of conflicted motives. I am well aware that this may be met with outraged protests and shocked denial. Yet I am certain what I describe here is a real phenomenon, and that it needs to be said.
I write in the abstract so that the message may be clear without creating undue or unintended offense.
I believe one of the key reasons so many pastors fail to preach a Biblical and properly ordered view of work is that many pastors, themselves, suffer from a horrifically inadequate work ethic.
This would constitute a “not-so-well-meaning” reason—and I believe it is far more widespread than we want to believe.
One of the first oppositions I hear when I charitably and humbly make this suggestion is that such-and-such pastor works “all the time.” If I polled one thousand people within the evangelical world at large, I’m sure that the vast majority would say that their pastor is overworked. But allow me to make a few points (without intending any dishonor) that might better shape our understanding:
- I am specifically referring to the attitude towards work that most people have in their career—the understanding that sometimes boundaries are crossed, after-hours needs are real, and sometimes people are unduly critical. Anyone who wants to be coddled and insulated from any inconvenience or discomfort won’t have a strong work ethic—be they a pastor or any other vocation. I think it’s fair to say that pastors often feel a greater entitlement to boundary insulation than the rest of us.
- I am not counting in the tally of a pastor’s work time his non-church work that may very well be “time spent” but is not “time spent ministering to his church.” I don’t care if a pastor has a blog or a podcast; in fact, these vehicles may very well be useful in ministering to a congregation via good content, church growth, etc. But should extensive time in the comments section or messaging threads of social media count as pastoral work time? Are there other extracurricular efforts can think of that fit this description? Pastors are susceptible to gray areas around their church work and should be hold accountable, in my opinion.
- The time pastors spend in their own pulpits has plummeted in the last twenty-five years. I imagine there are situations where an associate pastor or guest preacher can be a very good thing, and perhaps it was excessive to expect a minister to preach around fifty Sundays per year. Add in the fact that many churches now have Saturday evening, Sunday evening, and/or multiple Sunday day services, and I understand the differences in evaluating preaching frequency. I am merely suggesting that it might be worth a reinvestigation of the ideal preaching expectations.
- This one is by far the most important to me. Are we confusing the work a pastor does with their productivity in shepherding and ministering, because the church has bought into the poppycock that churches are really large organizations in need of executive and corporate management? In other words, is the pastor spending so much time on needless bureaucracy and avoidance behavior, on what can often be described as vanity projects, that the actual work of pastoring has become a side show? I think this is worth greater contemplation.
Caveats Galore
I know a lot of pastors work very hard and have sacrificed greatly for their congregations. I think that’s the job (hard work and sacrifice), but I do not say any of this with a harsh or uncharitable disposition. I earnestly desire to offer pastors moral, spiritual, and emotional support. I absolutely believe in giving them the resources to do their jobs well, including appropriate support staff. I believe ministers should be paid well, encouraged, and have the boundaries needed to be devoted to their families.
Some of the most faithful and inspirational people I have ever met were pastors. Please do not interpret this as an anti-pastor article. If right now you are thinking, “How dare he say this about me!” (or “about my pastor”), all I can say is: I didn’t.
Those who feel it does not apply to them or their church need not take offense. I know so many diligent, sacrificial pastors that if you are one of them or yours is one of them, I am not remotely surprised.
But, dear reader, this piece was written for a reason. Some people who have taken on the vocational calling of minister do have a poor work ethic. We have introduced corporate drivel about “visioning” and “strategy” into our churches. Time expectations and clarity of what is and is not “church work” have loosened. All I can say, as someone who loves the church, is that a declining work ethic from those in the pulpit will lead to a declining work ethic from those in the pews. Whether or not that negative feedback loop comes with a helping of pietistic theology, it does great damage to the Kingdom.
One additional caveat: I strive to be an open and transparent writer. I don’t have anything to hide, and where I feel something in my own story may be useful, I am happy to share it. I have previously made an open confession that work was absolutely a diversion through some of the pain I suffered in losing my father early in my adult life. I am happy to admit that part of my axe to grind here is my disbelief at the difference in work ethic demonstrated by my father and by so many pastors today.
I doubt my dad would have taken well to the idea of a group of people coddling him, protecting him, and ensuring that he had the most comforts possible in his ministerial vocation. We will never know because, well, he didn’t have that (to put it mildly). I know that the clichéd argument that “in my day we walked to school uphill in the snow for five miles” is not an effective way to keep people in suboptimal conditions forever. No one wants to hear ad nauseam how bad a prior generation had it, or at least not as a reason for keeping things bad today.
That is not exactly what I am doing. I am sure the limited resources at my dad’s disposal and the different era and time do account for some of the delta between his work ethic and the output we so often see today. Yet, beyond those variables, there is a fundamental difference in how he felt about his calling and what I see time and time again in contemporary pastors. I ask for your forgiveness of my stubbornness in holding on to the model of sacrifice and exertion he set over the coddled, part-time ministry I so often see today.
A More Famous Example
The apostle Paul represents the quintessential Biblical model of a ministerial work ethic. That he wrote, ministered, preached, and endlessly served the early Christian church is beyond dispute. Note how important it was to him that he model this work ethic and general spirit for others to see and follow.
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined way among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a role model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now we command and exhort such persons in the Lord Jesus Christ to work peacefully and eat their own bread. (2 Thess. 3:7–12 NASB).
Modeling Right Behavior
I earnestly want men and women of faith to be successful, productive, and fulfilled in their careers. I want that because that’s how God created us to be, and He has equipped us with the tools we need to excel in our professional callings. When pastors model a mediocre work ethic, their example carries through to their congregation. Inversely, when a pastor has a servant-heart, is industrious, productive, and diligent, and does so without complaining or entitlement, he sets an excellent example for his congregation.
If we are to have a society of diligent and fulfilled workers marrying their passions to their skills, we need spiritual leaders who transcend theological error and embrace Biblical orthodoxy. We need leaders who see church as one aspect of Kingdom, but not the defining part of it. We need to cast off any pretense of conflict of interest in how these messages are delivered. And most importantly, we need a faithful modeling of workers “who need not be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15 MEV).
Editor’s Note: The above is from chapter nine of David Bahnsen’s book Full–Time: Work and the Meaning of Life. It is republished here with the gracious permission of the author and publisher.
