With Labor Day right around the corner, it seems appropriate to take a few minutes to reflect on work this week.
Multiple stories from Axios, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets have been charting the dissatisfaction many in the workforce have been experiencing. Most of this stems from the new work-from-home environment that COVID-19 gave rise to, while some is associated with the abundance of open positions across industries that entices people to reevaluate their loyalties. It’s a complicated set of dynamics.
Flexibility has become a sine qua non of desirable employment. Flexibility becomes a cipher for work-from-home. Adjacent to work-from-home is the ability to make your own hours. And it certainly need not be a 9-to-5 arrangement.
The problem for employers is the admission from many of the same workers that they’re “less engaged.” The new lingo here is “quiet quitting.” We used to just say people had checked out. Now they’re telling pollsters (and the world online) that they just have a hard time seeing the purpose in their work.
One can also imagine that this engagement deficit is nurtured by the constant “Now Hiring” and “Help Wanted” signs around communities. Certainly, most of these positions wouldn’t constitute a promotion or even a lateral move for white-collar workers. However, it does tend to breed a greater sense of distraction—or endless possibility—in the minds of some.
We shouldn’t go overboard with our concerns about these labor force trends. Conscientious employees and employers will continue to negotiate what they feel are the appropriate settings for work to be completed in, along with the other forms of structure and accountability.
But it is troubling that people openly express their sense of aimlessness and dissatisfaction. It’s troubling not because its honest, but because of what it reveals: people don’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. To put it differently, people are only doing what they’re doing for a very specific purpose. People are fond of saying, “they work to live, not live to work.” They wear it as a badge of honor, as if they’ve reached a breakthrough—the breakthrough of letting their work serve purely utilitarian ends.
Of course, there are different kinds of “utilitarian ends.” One guy works for bread and to pay the light bill, and the other for extra cash for a better kayak.
This is most certainly not the first period when workers have seen work in a one-dimensional way. It’s reminiscent of the early industrial period when people functioned like mindless cogs at the behest of corporations. They knew they were at the mercy of larger economic forces they had no control over, but it was a necessary compromise. If it garnered enough compensation to cover the essentials, then so be it.
What does the factory worker in the Rust Belt and the post-pandemic, work-from-home programmer have in common? They need to draw on the resources of the Christian tradition when it comes to vocation.
From the Latin vocatio, vocation simply refers to calling. You don’t need a full-blown theology of calling to see where I’m going here. People need to have a sense that there is a purpose behind their work, a noble one that is consistent with their own purpose and giftedness, as well as the needs of their world.
Such a perspective doesn’t commit one to one company for life or even one specific position for life. In fact, the most basic understanding of calling—from the Protestant tradition at least—is that whatever you are doing right now is your calling.
Of course, we do want to qualify this to account for the possibility of sin and disobedience. For example, if you’re working as a drug trafficker or prostitute presently, rest assured you are not fulfilling your calling. These constitute ways of existing and making ends meet that aren’t consistent with human flourishing.
But are you a mother? Father? Sunday School teacher? Plumber? Architect? Programmer? You are fulfilling a particular calling that blesses others and that is capable of being self-enriching. Most notably, Christians understand that the ultimate end of these roles or tasks is to glorify God. As Colossians 3:17 says, “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
This seems unsatisfactory. It leaves so many questions unanswered. And it certainly seems inadequate to the unbeliever whose eyes glaze over at the mention of the glory of God. But perhaps they could appreciate it on this level: What motivates you to do your very best at your job? Money? Recognition? Self-confidence? Each of these can be easily diminished, withheld, or chipped away at by any number of circumstances outside your control.
It seems to me that part of the Christian contribution is that we can say in any circumstance, “For the time being, until further notice, this is where the Lord wants me. I’m grateful for this opportunity, which represents God’s providence in my life. Somehow, someway, this job provides a good to the world. Moreover, this job provides for the needs of others, including my family, church, and community. I intend to do my best for as long as I’m here.”
This strikes me as a powerful witness, a “professional apologetic,” if you will. Churches should be seeking to nurture this kind of mindset. First Corinthians 7 reminds us that the primary goal of each station of life isn’t to figure out how to get to a different station, even if that may be permissible. The goal is to glorify God and discern how the Gospel might be fully adorned in those circumstances.
I can’t think of a more powerful perspective on work than that.
Related and Recommended Reading:
D. Michael Bennethum, Listen! God is Calling!: Luther Speaks of Vocation, Faith, and Work
Currently Reading:
Bobby Duffy, The Generation Myth: Why When You’re Born Matters Less Than You Think
Quote of the Week:
There is a reason that the language in the Bill of Rights is as harsh as it is: “shall make no law”; “shall not be infringed”; “No Soldier shall”; “shall not be violated”; “no Warrants shall issue”; “No person shall be held to answer”; “shall enjoy the right”; “shall be preserved”; “shall not be required,” etc. These are not the words of people who wanted to ensure just a little bit of legal protection; they’re the words of people who were playing for keeps.