[Note: This article was originally posted in June 2004.]
In an article critiquing Samuel Huntington’s book on immigration, Francis Fukuyama makes an interesting observation about the “new Protestants”:
[Huntington’s] chapter describing "core" Anglo-Protestant values ends up focusing almost entirely on the work ethic: "from the beginning," he writes, "America's religion has been the religion of work." But who in today's world works hard? Certainly not contemporary Europeans with their six-week vacations. The real Protestants are those Korean grocery-store owners, or Indian entrepreneurs, or Taiwanese engineers, or Russian cab drivers working two or three jobs in America's free and relatively unregulated labor market. I lived in Los Angeles for nearly a decade, and remember passing groups of Chicanos gathered at certain intersections at 7 a.m. waiting for work as day laborers. No lack of a work ethic here: That's why Hispanics have pushed native-born African-Americans out of low-skill jobs in virtually every city where they compete head-to-head.
This "work ethic" hasn't always been a fact of history. In fact, until the Protestant Reformation, work wasn’t considered to be an intrinsically valuable enterprise. Greek and Roman cultures held both manual and mental (skilled) labor in low regard. And during the medieval period, the Catholic Church considered “profane” work to be beneath the “sacred” monastic life. (The official position has since changed. See Pope John Paul II's Encyclical on Human Work for the most current stance on the issue.)
It was the Protestant reformers, particularly Luther and Calvin, who helped change the attitude toward work. Both men believed that work was a calling and a means in which believers were able to serve God. This view radically transformed the economic systems and became ingrained in the Reformed worldview and eventually carried over into other strains of Protestantism. During the 18th century, for instance, John Wesley became a a fervent exhorter of work. The evangelist even preached a sermon in which he encouraged believers to “gain all you can; save all you can; give all you can.”
The German economic sociologist Max Weber coined the term "Protestant ethic" to describe this attitude, which included as key elements “diligence, punctuality, deferment of gratification, and primacy of the work domain.” Such values had an immeasurable effect on the rise of capitalism throughout Europe and North America.
Over the past fifty years, though, the worth of these values has steadily eroded, even within churches founded on Reformational values. While some fringe groups exhort a “Health and Wealth” gospel based on a labor-free “Name it, Claim it” theology, few churches today encourage the formation of the virtues that comprise the work ethic. (Many congregations would no doubt be shocked by Wesley’s sermon on the “Use of Money.") The only time we are served a homily on work, it is to berate us for focusing on such "worldly concerns" as our career.
Not all Protestant Christians, however, have been infected with our inherited sense of entitlement or our lackadaisical attitude toward hard work. In fact, we can look to our fellow Christians who have emigrated from other lands to gain some perspective on what we have lost. How, for instance, is it possible for Korean immigrants (who are predominately Christian) to move into heavily populated urban areas and start new business, almost always without the help of the government or lending institutions?
Cecil Adams, who writes The Straight Dope newspaper column, has the answer:
Where do you think the money comes from? The Koreans save it up, just like you could do if you hustled more and whined less. They also borrow from relatives and form fundraising clubs, in which 10-20 people contribute to a cash pool each month. The ante can range from $75 or $100 to thousands of bucks. The pot is given to a different member each month, who invests it as he or she sees fit, usually in a business, home purchase, or the like, although there is nothing to prevent somebody from blowing it at the track. When everybody has had a turn, the club disbands. The money is not a loan and you don't have to pay it back.
In Korea such a fundraising club is called a kye (pronounced "keh"). Dating from the 17th century, it's one of the main ways Korean small business people and investors historically have raised money. The concept is hardly confined to Koreans; Chinese have the hui, West Indians the susu, and Ethiopians the ekub. But Koreans seem to be especially adept at it. The number of Korean greengrocers in New York grew from 30 in 1977 to 1,300 in 1988. Koreans dominate the wig and liquor business in Los Angeles, and they're a big factor in dry cleaning in Chicago and in convenience stores in Toronto. Kyes are given much of the credit for this success.
The great thing about a kye is its simplicity. There's no red tape or bureaucracy. Typically the members meet each month over a meal at a Korean restaurant to conduct their business and swap advice.
A potential drawback is that there's nothing to prevent kye members from failing to keep up the monthly payments once they've had their turn at the trough. What prevents this is a combination of trust and savvy. Kye members often belong to the same church or share some other close bond, and they know that if they stiff the others they'll be considered slime for the rest of their lives. In addition, kyes usually are organized by a a wise head who knows enough to keep out the losers.
Other racial and ethnic minorities, particularly black Americans, are often incensed by Korean or West Indian businesses sprouting up in their neighborhoods. But instead of complaining, why don’t they simply form their own equity pooling programs and start the businesses themselves?
An even better question is why aren’t churches in poverty-stricken urban and rural areas encouraging this idea? Politically conservative Christians often harp that it’s the church’s duty, not the government’s, to aid those in need of charity. Why then do we take a different view when it comes to the “working poor?” Why do we rely on abstract “market forces” to create jobs for our fellow brothers and sisters rather than taking it upon ourselves to encourage self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship?
If Milliard Fuller can apply a similar concept to the creation of housing (re: Habitat for Humanity), why can’t churches apply the idea to job creation? By pooling the various sources of capital (i.e., money, knowledge, experience), American churches could create kye-style arrangements that could raise their members out of poverty. By following the example of the “new Protestants”, American evangelicals could transform the microeconomic realities of the church’s “working poor.”
The idea is certainly worthy of consideration. After all, many Christians already invest their hard earned savings in faceless corporations. Why shouldn't we also invest in our neighbors in the next pew?
1
You make many good points here about the "work ethic" and the role of the Church. Approaching 65 in October and retired after 30 years with the railroad, I survive by supplementing my pension check with a job in Special-Ed at a local public school. When I married over 42 years ago, it was quite possible for a man, alone, to support his family. Not today. I watched Reagan kill the Aircontrollers' Union and begin the big onslaught and, while I admit it was a two-way street (I was sandwiched between two concerns that cared nothing for the individual worker), the only reason I held a job for three decades with that company was the union. I hear people say that the illegal immigrants only work jobs that others won't work. It's more like they work jobs the rich won't pay the union to do; and illegal is illegal any way you look at it. The Church needs to return to its first love; and our government needs to be purged of millionaires who no longer connect with the working class. But...lest I sound like no more than some grumpy old man, let it be known I served ten years in the Navy for a country I yet love and have walked with Christ for over three decades and love His people. It is all, to me, just signs of the times. I put it to prayer and invest myself in His cause. Peace..........
posted on 05.22.2006 5:59 AM2
Jim:
A couple of comments...
First, a major difference in family income today and 1964 is the average tax burden. Basically, the federal and state government taxes have gone up so much (see here) that it is much more difficult to raise a family without two incomes. Of course, according to DC democrat politicians, taxes should be much higher so they can make the economy boom.
With regard to the ATC firings, I supported it then and I support it now. There is no a priori reason I see that a small group of workers should be able to hold the country hostage for more bucks by throwing a wrench into the gears of the economy. Of course, as a railroad employee, I can understand why you would disagree with that. My dad and grandfather were railroad employees, too, so I know a little bit about railroad labor law. I clearly recall the union's claim that firemen were needed on diesel locomotives. And that's not even the biggest bellylaugh. How do you define a "full day"? Care to share the mileage with us?
I find it amusing that you mention unions and the work ethic in the same breath. Wasn't it the French unions that forced the 35 hr French workweek? There's a "work ethic" for you. France's economy is so robust in comparison to ours that surely we should strive for their economic solutions. As an aside, I happened to be living in Britain when Maggie Thatcher broke the miner's union. It amused me to watch unionists on TV arguing that the government should keep mines open in spite of the fact that there was basically no more coal to be mined out of a particular pit. Why? Because they had been raised in that particular mining village and didn't want to move.
On the work ethic more generally, when I lived in MA (home of Kennedy/Kerry, nacherly) in the mid-80's, the state government (aka democrat machine) was funding courses teaching people how to game the system for welfare benefits and, once their hands were securely in the pocketbooks of the working people, to maximize those benefits. Maybe between the unions and the democrats, we can get to the point that nobody in the country works, everything is free, and somebody else pays for it. I suppose one problem is we haven't found the right sugar daddy.
posted on 05.22.2006 8:14 AM3
Good post, Joe, and very relevant.
Joe wrote:
"During the 18th century, for instance, John Wesley became a a fervent exhorter of work. The evangelist even preached a sermon in which he encouraged believers to “gain all you can; save all you can; give all you can.”"
The 18th century certainly provides much literature extolling the virtues of work. Thinkers as diverse as Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin Franklin produced lists of precepts to aid them in their quests for moral perfection. Resolution #5 of Edwards' famous list (of 70!)is as follows:
"Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can."
For Franklin, diligence came in at number 6 out of a list of 13 virtues he wished to cultivate:
"INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ'd in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions."
Diaries from this period and slightly before, like those of William Byrd of Virginia and Samuel Pepys, evince a kind of critical self-examination that has clearly waned in popularity. People these days seem to depend on help from others (popular psychologists, self-help "experts") to understand themselves, whereas their Early American counterparts seemed to embrace this duty for themselves.
Edwards' Resolutions can be found at:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/Edwards/j_edwards_resolutions.html
Franklin's list of virtues can be found at:
http://www.ftrain.com/franklin_improving_self.html
4
George,
If one wishes to say something about the necessity that both husband and wife work, one must also mention the drop in real wages since the 60s. One must say something as well about the inflation-adjusted increase in health care and housing costs. Moreover, the increase in tax-burden is not so precipitious as you seem to imply that is is. 27.4% of income in 1960; 31.6% today. Since 1960, it has fluctuated from the high 20s to the low 30s.
The rest of your response is composed of anecdotal information. The ability of such stories to establish facts about broad, multi-generational, multi-coutry trends is dubious.
Your tone is quite clearly sarcastic. I've found that, for the most part, discussion here is civil. I expect that most here wish you would follow that example.
Peace
posted on 05.22.2006 9:00 AM5
The early civil rights movement in the south had very similar origins with in the churches. In the church that MLK eventually became the pastor of as well as the ones that his father and his contemporaries preached at, they often organized into "birthday clubs." There would be twelve clubs, all organized by what month the person was born in, then an amount of money or a task was given to the group to achieve. The groups heavily monitored themselves and rarely came up short. If it looked like the group was going to be short of a goal, each member was looked at individually and were asked persuasively to give their portion. This became a means of communication, unity, and self sustaining power by which they could make a stand and not back down because they had this base.
Presently, it seems criminal for a pastor/elders in a church to know who is giving and who is not giving. This abuse of this knowledge can be a huge problem, but I don't see any Biblical mandate that keeps a pastor/elder from "meddling" in such a way when the end result can be helping many people on their way to achieving something that the church can be proud of and giving the glory to Christ.
posted on 05.22.2006 10:35 AM6
Bless you, Joe.
I'll be tackling this and other work/liefstyle issues in the days ahead over at Cerulean Sanctum.
You are absolutely correct, the Church in America has no clue how to deal with the 8-10 hour a day reality of the typical American's work. We do a lousy job of helping people who lose jobs, have no concept of how to support small businesses run by men and women in our churches, and basically act as if the employment that takes up most of our day does not even exist.
Too many sectors of the Evangelical Church think the ability to keep a mom home with her kids while dad works ten hour days in a cubicle fifty miles away is a major accomplishment. Yet we're blind to the fact that perhaps dad should be home, too. Our inability to step back and ask foundational questions about the way we work and how the Church in America has undermined itself by sanctioning the Industrial Revolution is hurting us all.
Thanks again.
posted on 05.22.2006 12:03 PM7
I have had an idea percolating for several years, but haven't acted on it.
If two families could buy a duplex, and both make a full mortgage payment, they could have it paid off in 7-8 years. If they continued saving those mortgage payments, they could buy a second house within a year, and have two more families move in. You now have four mortgage payments. If the cycle were to continue, you could own an entire community free and clear, within a generation.
The entire premise depends upon strongly held beliefs & values, delay of gratification, self sacrifice, discipline, ability to live in peace with your neighbors, ....
maybe that is why it wouldn't work. These are qualities we have largely lost.
You would also need a group of young people willing to live in a starter house that isn't $250,000 with four BR, three baths and a great-room.
posted on 05.22.2006 12:17 PM8
Inquiring Minds,
$250,000 is too much for a house? I think you need to check what even tiny houses go for in some parts of the country. When we left Sunnyvale, CA, in 2000, a twenty-five-year old 1,600 square foot home with no yard to speak of cost $525,000.
posted on 05.22.2006 12:30 PM9
George,
Doesn't the starting point for discussions re: unions have to be whether or not they were necessary in the first place?
10
Many years ago I discovered a passage in II Cor. 8, specifically vs 13-15. Paul is rather pointedly chiding the Corinthians for not keeping their promise to help the poor in Jerusalem. On two occasions he uses the word "equality" and cites an OT passage to back it up. It appears that the early church as evidenced by Acts 2:44-45 put this into practice. As one who does humanitarian/Gospel work in Cambodia, this gives me plenty of food for thought.
"For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality--at this present time your abundance being a supply for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may be equality; as it is written, 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack.'
Any comments?
posted on 05.22.2006 12:44 PM11
This sort of thing is sometimes called microcredit, and it's gaining credibility as a development tool in the Third World. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is an example.
Its success may require cultural characteristics now lacking in mainstream American culture -- a sense of honor and a sense of shame.
12
I watched Reagan kill the Aircontrollers' Union and begin the big onslaught ... and illegal is illegal any way you look at it.
Okay, I know I juxtaposed to different points of your post, Jim, but it's just to show how fickle we can be in making our arguments. The ATC strike was illegal, and they'd been warned several times not to strike. They thought they could call Reagan's bluff, and they got what they deserved.
As for unions, I've held exactly two union job in my life; they're the only two jobs I was ever laid off from, because the company couldn't afford to keep so many people on the payroll, and the ridiculous rule of last-fired, first-fired kept incompetents on the job while hard-working hard-charges were let go.
Finally, look at the fiasco that is today's Detroit. Almost every one of GM, Ford and Chrysler's woes can be laid at the feet of greedy unions. (Just read about GM's program to pay thousands of workers full salary and benefits not to work.) Okay, utterly stupid managment with the foresight of a flea bears some of the blame, too.
Unions may have been necessary at one time, but they now bear a large share of the blame for failing industries.
posted on 05.22.2006 5:55 PM13
I took no offense at your earlier comments, Tom. We just disagree. The ralroad was a "closed shop", you were given no option, and, in 30 years, I saw both sides of the story. You speak truth when you refer to the ludicracy of what most employees demanded of the company. I saw, firsthand, how "incompetents" were ignored and the work passed on to the guy who tried to give his best. I was merely a clerk and "low man on the totem" compared to engineers and switchmen; and felt for many years like I paid union dues for nothing. I've lost wages picketing only to be forced back to work by the government, paid into my pension only to have the government both rule on my retirement and then tax me on money that has already been taxed once. But I also worked those last few years for the CSI (the intermodal part of the business)doing the same work I had done for the CSX for 15 years. They split under some legal mumbo-jumbo, claimed they were different companies, and I nearly lost my pension in its entirety. Only the union saved it for me and enabled me to hold a job till I could go. To me, it's where we're at: "global"-shmobal. We're killing the middle class and turning us into another third-world economic clone. They're cutting off jobs and giving them to India. Merger. Merger. Merger. Employment is up; but what is it paying? We're headed for filthy rich or filthy poor. No in-between. I'm wondering how old you are and what you do for a living? It's all usually a matter of where you're sitting that determines how you see things. At any rate: this I know. Christ has seen me through it all and I'm content to leave the future in His hands. Hoping you know the same. Peace, my friend.........
posted on 05.22.2006 6:25 PM14
If Detroit designed and built better cars the union wouldn't be an issue. The designers and engineers and upper management are the problem, not the folks on the line.
posted on 05.23.2006 11:54 AM