3. Questions about the work of human beings

How plausible are these theological statements about the sense of work? To what extent are they consistent as a body? To what extent are they consistent with the realm of our experience? And to what extent do these statements serve as a basis for constructing a convincing answer to the questions of today?

First, some reflections:

a) Certain difficulties follow from the assumption that God charged humankind with subduing the earth. By and large, the arguments of the churches begin with the assumption that human labour shall serve this purpose. It is only through human endeavor that God's charge can be carried out. How then shall we explain the situation to which human striving during the last centuries has led? Why is it that work has led, not to greater freedom, but to growing destruction, injustice and misery for humankind? The statements of the churches have no answers for us. They do point out that these dark consequences follow whenever people stop being God's collaborators and start serving themselves, rather than seeking to honor God and to serve their fellows. Everything depends on whether work is guided by the perspective of God's charge. However, such an answer remains unsatisfactory. For even if we thereby allow for human effort getting off the track, the conviction remains that God still is involved in His project for humankind. Can one, however, verify this assumption? Does it hold up that when human beings work this is ultimately done in accord with God's commission? Given the overwhelming evidence of the consequences of human striving, mustn't one question the validity of this entire project which human work promotes? The pronouncements of the churches don't seem to accommodate this possibility. Generally, they cover over this problem with a reference to God's kingdom, towards which humankind is directed: some time in the distant future it will become clear that "the honest effort" of human work has furthered God's purpose in human history.

b) If it truly is the destiny of humankind to progressively subdue the earth, then it follows that human history must be understood as a process. Each generation contributes its part. Each generation takes us closer to fulfillment of the plan. Indeed, based on certain Roman Catholic documents, one is led to the conclusion that, in a certain sense, each generation is more fully human than the previous. Can such a notion hold up in the face of the contemporary situation? Does each generation advance us further in this process of becoming human? Were earlier generations less far along in this regard? No one will argue that human effort has freed humankind from many shackles. No one will wish to give up the amenities which have been gained over the course of time. However, just how much effect do such changes have on the humanness of human beings? The transformation of nature by means of human work has always been accompanied by destruction. Cultures have been annihilated and, in some respects, work has led to dehumanization. The idea of an ongoing process of transformation leads unavoidably to the hubris that we are superior to earlier generations.

c) How then is the goal of this commission to be understood? Will one be able to say one day, that the divine charge has been fulfilled and the earth sufficiently subdued? The pronouncements of the churches about work appear to be based on the assumption that the process of transforming the earth will never come to an end. Each generation takes on anew the command to subdue the earth. In recent centuries human effort has increasingly come to be directed at achieving mastery over nature. This has been fittingly described as a "general mobilization of forces" towards this one goal. [Peter Sloterdijk, Eurotaoismus, Zur Kritik der politischen Kinetik, Frankfurt a. M. 1989: "Neuzeit als Mobilmachung". (p. 21 ff), "Mobilmachung des Planeten durch die Gestalt des Arbeiters"(p. 50)]  Must this aggressive transformation of nature be pursued in the future? Or could forces be demobilized or the process at least be slowed? Will humankind one day be able to say, "that's enough"? Or have we ourselves become subjugated by the commission to subdue the earth? Must this process of transformation be stubbornly pursued until the destruction is complete? The dangers inherent in this project are evident for our generation and even more so for the generations to come. "Work" done today can have devastating consequences in the future. The world which we pass along to our offspring may be so transformed that their freedom of action is considerably reduced. The churches have scarcely begun to address this dynamic. [Aside from an isolated and quite surprising comment in the report of the Conference of Oxford (1937): "The resources of the earth, such as the soil and mineral wealth, should be recognized as gifts of God to the whole human race, and used with due and balanced consideration of present and future generations", Report p. 117] Here again, to make do with references to the Kingdom of God is to obfuscate and avoid. Instead of looking towards the fulfillment of this charge within history, we implicitly assume and sometimes explicitly conclude that this project of ever greater development will one day lead us into God's Kingdom.

d) The question of slowing down the process of transformation poses itself all the more urgently today, because the limits, which humankind faces, are becoming ever clearer. Planet earth, which has been given to us to inhabit, is not boundless. Human beings must respect the limits which have been set. Earlier generations could assume that they would never exhaust the raw materials needed for human work. Today we know that this cannot simply continue without endangering the basis for life, and thereby life itself. Production, trade and consumption cannot simply be expanded forever. Globally, the economy must stay within the boundaries set by the planet. Human efforts which exceed these limits are not only senseless, they are dangerous and must be avoided. What sense can it have that the fishing industry employs technology which overfishes the seas? Or that farming renders the soil unfruitful? What sense can it have to dedicate human energy to further extend and accelerate transport when the damage from growing mobility unfolds before our eyes? The crisis in the ecology means that many forms of work done today have become irresponsible. As serious as the problem of unemployment is, we must not let it divert our eyes from the problem of ethically untenable work. It would be senseless to wish to solve unemployment with irresponsible forms of work. In some circumstances, not working is lesser an evil than is senseless work.

e) The project of transforming nature through human work is burdened by yet another deep dilemma: the very nature of technology is such, that it makes human effort superfluous. Many forms of work burdensome to humans have long since been taken over by machines. Human beings have been freed up from toil. However, what have been the consequences? The reduction of toil is generally seen as a gain. How does this look in practice? How is newly gained freedom from toil used? It is thinkable that people would reorganize their lives in freer and more peaceful ways. It is also possible that the energy freed up is applied to new activity geared toward accelerating the transformation of nature. The success of technology is measured by the extent to which the lot of humans is eased. However, when this results in the loss of work, people are robbed of the fulfillment which comes from doing honest work. The pronouncements from our churches, which esteem work so highly, have not yet helped us beyond this contradiction. [Hannah Arendt gave us a superb description of the dilemma: "In the seventeenth century, the modern era began by glorifying work in theory and concluded, by the beginning of our century, by transforming society as a whole into a society of work. Just as in fairy tales where a wish is granted, this fulfillment of an age old dream occurs within a context in which the dream once yearned for turns into a curse. For it is a society of work which is to be freed from the fetters of work, and this society scarcely still knows of higher and more meaningful callings for which it would pay to be freed up", Vita activa oder vom tätigen Leben, Stuttgart 1960, p. 11]

f) Furthermore, what are the consequences of a growing world population when understanding work? What difference does it make whether it is one billion or eight billion people who take on the charge to subdue the earth? Is it thinkable that ever additional billions of humans will be called to fulfill this charge? Or, must we reckon with the unsettling scenario that work, and thereby mastery over the earth, shall become a prerogative of the few? The global population explosion, responsibly seen, is certainly a final signal that boundaries must be set to aggression against the creation.

g) Theological pronouncements, taken as a whole, suffer from the weakness of not thoroughly exploring the consequences of human work. They have been limited to understanding God's commission to humankind and to the human fulfillment which accompanies this project. Of course, our churches do stand up for fairness in the work world. The personhood of each man and woman should be protected. Work should be so configured that it bestows on each working person the benefits of fulfillment promised. Our churches assume the role of spokesperson for justice and remind us that work must serve the interests of all humankind. However, little is said about just which work conforms to God's commission. Without fail, it is this question which must be asked today. "Work" must be distinguished from "work", and humankind needs to come to terms anew with the question, "just how much work can be pleasing to God?". Church pronouncements have a tendency to excuse human work from the deep ambiguity inherent to all of human existence. They emphasize the objective value of work. Certainly, the churches have long posed the question: "are there certain professions which do not conform to God's commission?" The starting point, however, has always been that there was enough honest work to allow for the fulfillment of all. Just what constitutes "honest work" has become more complex today. The battery of theological statements available to our churches does not appear to enable them to dispose of this question. How shall they then speak to the growing number of those who are unemployed, as well as to the growing number of those who work, for whom their work no longer seems meaningful?

Even as the churches decline to address the radical question about the meaning of work, they use pronouncements about work to underpin the ongoing project of ecumenical growth. Without perhaps wishing to, they provide this enterprise with welcome support. The project of ecumenical growth is already surrounded by considerable doubt and, in a variety of ways, its plausibility has already begun to be undermined. Nevertheless, this project continues to be promoted, in part, by extolling work as the fulfillment of human life. One needs only consider how Western observers commonly speak with condescension of a lack of work ethic in East European countries. It is said that personal responsibility and productivity could not develop under the sway of communist systems. The general mobilization of economic forces to subdue nature is simply accepted as valid, without asking just where all this is taking us.

The day has certainly come to ask anew if the churches have anything to add to the pronouncements about human work, or whether the Scriptures and, perhaps, even Christian tradition, may open up other pathways for them.

Vischer, page 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -  5 -  6