Before dissecting the above tweet, I believe it’s necessary to mention two things: (1) This is merely one example of a godless, secular worldview that pervades modern thought, yet many agree with it and shared this post. (2) I don’t know the author personally, and I’m not sure he is a real individual. Regardless, this is not meant to be a personal attack on the author. What I do know is that it was shared publicly via Twitter. Others then shared it publicly, some of whom identified themselves as Christians, hence, the reason for this post. When godless worldviews are regularly shared and unchallenged, they eventually infiltrate the church, and contrary to Scripture, believers are then conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2) to some degree. So, my goal in this post will be to address each assertion in light of the Bible.
“9-5 is [bogus].” Context is key, but I believe the author’s intent is to suggest that people work too long, a theme of this overall post. Interestingly, this idea is devoid of historical concepts of work and, as we’ll see repeatedly through this post, devoid of any biblical information. 9-5 is an 8-hour work day, which is a more modern and restrained idea of work (reference the time of work elements in the parables in Jn. 9:4, Mt. 20:1-16). We know from Scripture that work was dependent on daylight in biblical times, not the number of hours worked for they didn’t have fully realized concepts of “hours.”. Nevertheless, a typical “work day” was likely 10-14 hours.
“Unpaid lunch breaks are [bogus].” This one is more of a complaint than an argument. Yet, while I appreciate the idea of paid time off, which is meant to be a benefit to employees in addition to financial compensation, paying for work not performed doesn’t have biblical support. It’s a nice perk, but I don’t think it can be argued that it’s mandatory.1
“Working all day to go home and have 2 hours of free time before bed is [bogus].” Again, another idea which ignores the biblical idea of work. The right to free time and leisure are not rights that I can pinpoint in Scripture. The idea and need for rest is repeated in Scripture, but I don’t think the author is making that argument. He instead ignores the fact that no one has to be the employee in a capitalistic free market, for if he were the creative, risk-taking entrepreneur, he could easily create a work environment where he only works 2 hours. Yet, he seems to be resigned to the idea that he must be an employee.
“5 day work week is [bogus].” He’s right…though, again, he’s not seeing the restraint of our current work models. Biblically, in the Old Testament, man was called to work a maximum of 6 days per week.
“Working yourself to dealth [sic] is [bogus].” He might have a point here. The struggle associated with slave-like laborious work is a part of the Fall. Work isn’t a part of the Fall (more on that later), but the toil is. However, he again assumes modern standards are “working yourself to death.” It’s not. Most of us, due to modern, Western labor standards work at a pace that would be laughable to any era prior to this one.
“Retiring at 65 (unlikely) is [bogus].” It’s important to note no one’s entitled to retirement. In fact, a truly biblical worldview sees work as a blessing from God, and something linking man to the image of God. The keen eye will note that the work was instituted before the Fall of man in Genesis, not after (compare Gen 2:15 and Gen. 3:17-19). It’s the toil or labor-intensive part of work that comes after the Fall. While there’s nothing wrong with changing careers at a certain stage in life or retiring due to inability to perform certain duties, the general guide is that man was created to work actively for as long as possible. This doesn’t mean you must work a 9-5, nor does it mean you can’t take on an important volunteer role, or turn a hobby into something you work on productively in your latter years (even if there’s no money gained). However, it does provide a sobering check to those who seek to retire at 35 so they never have to “work” again, instead spending their lives in dormancy.
“Starting life in debt from student loans is [bogus].” Again, more entitled speech devoid of considering that it’s not a requirement to carry debt. College is not mandatory, neither is it mandatory to attend a college that you cannot afford. In fact, it’s flat out unwise and unbiblical to enter into a debt situation that you don’t plan to fulfill (Ecc. 5:5).
“Giving kids 7hours of school and then homework to ready them for this never ending grind is [bogus].” I can understand this one to a degree. There is such a thing as too much school work (or too much work for that matter). However, I don’t think the post accurately captures the reason for this “grind.” It’s not necessarily to prepare children for a life of grind, though I believe it’s intended to teach some work ethic and reinforce ideas because the school-aged child’s mind is a sponge, soaking information. You know what’s the best way to control the amount of time a child has to spend in school and on homework? Remember that you are the parent! You have options. You can homeschool, private school, or allow a student to learn the facts of life by receiving a diminished grade as a consequence of incomplete homework. That’s your biblical right as the parent, which is derived from God (not a school or government; see Ex. 20:12; Deut. 6:7; Deut. 11:19; Prov. 6:20-23). Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as “actions without consequences”—even if you might be doing the right thing by eliminating excessive homework.
“It’s so frustrating that we have one chance in life…” This is accurate—within his secular humanist worldview. Through that lens we only have one chance at this life. However, it’s plain to see the hopelessness this comment possesses, for it doesn’t consider God, His ways, nor an eternal state. If there were no hope beyond the grave, he would be absolutely right. The entirety of his post hinges on this nihilistic idea of nothing after this life. It’s hopeless and godless, but that is not the case for those who believe (rf. 1 Cor. 15:53-54; 1 Thess. 4:13; Heb. 9:27).
“…on this earth and humanity chose taxes and credit scores and pollution instead of floating in the ocean and eating fruit and hanging out.” Perhaps this is the crescendo and equally saddest part of the post (which is part of the reason I highlighted it). If he’s being facetious, then I suppose he means that any type of life is better than a life filled with work and responsibility. However, if serious, then, sadly, the best he can offer as an alternative to a life of purpose, work, and responsibility is abject sloth and loafing. This is not to suggest that enjoying one another at all is wrong, or that enjoyment in life is wrong. To the contrary, Scripture encourages it as a part of God’s blessing (Prov. 27:17; Ecc. 4:9-13; Gal. 6:2) but only in its proper context (Ecc. 3:1-8)
In the end, while the Preacher of Ecclesiastes also lamented the toils and seeming vanity of work (Ecc. 3:9), he arrived at a rather different and fitting conclusion—one that I believe is appropriate here:
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. – Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
1. If someone insists on having paid lunches, know that it’s quite doable and easy to illustrate without undoing its financial compensation structure—just pay employees a little less to account for 9-hour work days, where 1 hour of the day is a paid lunch. For ease, we can see this with simple numbers. If a person makes $13.50 per hour, then they’d make $108 in an 8-hour day ($13.50 x 8). If an employer instead pays them $12 per hour giving them a 1-hour paid lunch break, it would still cost the employer $108 per day and would not reduce productivity. Of course, I’m sure the author of that tweet would not want this idea because it makes the “9-5” a “9-6”, but it would provide a paid lunch. The bottom line is that employers have a responsibility to be fair and compensate their employees, but those concepts must be balanced against profitability and maintaining viability.