Hello all,

I'll try to keep this brief, but I am sure I will fail miserably. I think Aaron Belz is off base here.

Yes, it can be. Time and again in Scripture we see examples of godly men who apparently did little else than work hard at glorifying God in their "secular" professions: Job the rancher, Abraham the rancher, the centurion (Matthew 8:5), a "devout" soldier who waited on Cornelius (Acts 10:7), David the shepherd, and the various other kings who glorified God in political offices. As far as sitting around being "connoisseurs and critics" to be more culturally sharp, if Belz is saying that we need to balance our intellectual musings with practical work that actually changes society, then he is right. However, I am concerned that his view of work may not reflect the Reformed view that work done in a godly way, to God's glory, is as pleasing to God as what we normally think of as "ministry."

Belz has set up a straw man here, which, in my limited understanding, is not a part of the Reformed faith. If we are thinking rightly, our work is good because the work itself can build up God's kingdom. It is not Reformed to think of work as spiritually neutral. I teach economics, which means I teach people about human behavior and about how to use the limited resources at our disposal most efficiently. Since we are called to be faithful stewards (Matthew 25:14-30), my work is, in its substance, glorifying to God. Now, if I am working faithfully in the job that is my calling, with the fruit of the Spirit evident in my life, I am doing the will of God. What beef can Belz have with that? But we move on:

Ah, now we see that Belz has a rather un-Reformed perspective here, though he may not realize it. I got so tired of this perspective from my fundamentalist Baptist students here at Liberty University. It pains me to hear it from people who are otherwise Reformed. There are other ways to glorify God than through evangelism! A Christian doctor is pleasing God as he aids the healing process, as Christ did (that he charges a fee for his services does not sully the good of his work). A Christian lawyer, in preparing a will for a dying man or writing a contract to preserve a peaceful business relationship is pleasing God in the substance of his work. By definition these people are serving the needy. I am not trying to be flippant, but when I go to a doctor I have a very specific need that I expect him to help me with. I am needy. (I'd be interested to see a biblically derived definition of needy from Belz.) How can we criticize a doctor who spends 60 hours a week helping the sick for not taking more time away from family and church and other responsibilities to help other needy people? Furthermore, as an economist I think of ways to make changes that will benefit the poor and everyone else in society. Maybe the best way for me to help the poor is not to change the sheets at a homeless shelter (though that is also noble work and will perhaps produce humility), but to use my training to help reduce the number of homeless through a policy change.

Perhaps under the surface here is the erroneous notion that one cannot glorify God if one accepts payment for the services rendered. Can a pastor, then, who preaches faithfully and well each Sunday, and does other ministerial work during the week, not glorify God through his labors if he is paid? (I Tim. 5:18) The beauty of the Reformed faith is that anyone, in almost any profession (not, e.g., abortionist, Visigoth, or prostitute) can glorify God in their work, without feeling like they have to compensate for the 50 hours of non-glorifying, "secular" work every week by donating time to some charity.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as "free time." Yes, you can expect that from an economist. A businessman who takes 5 hours a week to spend helping out at a charity is indeed doing noble work. But it is not free. That's 5 hours he did not spend glorifying God in his business, in his home, in his church, or in political activity. The choice the Christian faces is not "do I glorify God or not?" but rather "how can I best glorify God?"

One of my favorite quotations from a Reformer is what Martin Luther said when someone asked him what he would do if he knew Christ were going to return tomorrow. He replied (paraphrase), "I would plant a tree."

Mistake 1 here is that the call to the disciples is assumed to be general. There are many people to whom Christ did not issue such a call, and we can't (well, shouldn't) assume that those people remained unsaved or were being unfaithful. We as Christians are civilization-building. Part of that involves evangelism. That is key, in fact. But it is not the only part of civilization-building. Culture, art, architecture, agriculture, politics–every part of a civilization–needs to be brought captive to Christ. It is not that we are no longer civilization-building. It is that the civilization we are now building includes Gentiles as well as Jews–it is worldwide and encompasses a diverse range of races, languages, and ethnic groups.

God forbid that we should all leave secular trades. And of course salvation does not hinge on that decision. I don't know whether Belz is using the phrase "full-time Christian ministry" seriously or not. I hope not. I suppose the level of concern I should have over the phrase would rest on what Belz means by "ministry." In a sense I minister as an economist.

This is true–that in and of themselves, these tangible things and human knowledge are vain. Non-Christian doctors or lawyers or literature professors cannot glorify God in their occupations because their work is not submitted to God, and we know that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1, 2). However, physical things have their place. But is Belz tending toward a rejection of the usefulness and goodness of the physical? I'm sure Belz would argue that he is not. In fact, I am convinced that Belz understands a great deal of what I am saying here, and would not disagree with much of it. However, from the piece I read, it seems that Belz has either become somewhat inconsistent with his Reformed faith or simply miscommunicated his intent. I hope it is the latter.

In conclusion, it is not clear to me what Belz would have us do in response to the problem he sees. Should we sell all our goods to the poor? Should we keep our "secular" jobs but ask our bosses for more time off to work on a Habitat house? It is not clear how Belz would have us change our lives to better fit the Scriptural ideal.

I'll stop here. If you have read this far, you have probably misused the time at your disposal. But share with me your thoughts, please.

Timothy