The Key to Productivity
People produce for one of two reasons: either they choose
to do so or they are forced into productivity. Those who choose
to produce are driven by an inner sense of purpose and, ultimately, take
great pride in the productions of their own labor. Their desire to produce
and their pride of accomplishment is shown in the higher quality of their
work. Forced production, too often, is accompanied by apathy and
sloppiness; quality suffers because the hearts of the people are not in
their work.
A government concerned with increasing productivity in
its people can set policies designed to encourage production. At the heart
of such policies, however, must be an incentive for people to view their
work as inner-directed rather than forced upon them. Government policies
should therefore be constructed to allow individuals to act upon their own
sense of purpose.
Individual Worth and Purpose
Purpose in life necessarily begins with a sense of
individual worth. Often governments have tried to supply that worth
themselves; they have sought to define a person's worth through the
contribution a person makes to the State. But in doing so, they have made
the individual simply one small cog in a giant machine, thereby further
lowering his sense of worth.
Individual worth cannot be provided by the State. It is
generated from within, primarily through religious beliefs. In this case,
religion supplies what the government cannot a personal relationship to
the creator and sustainer of all things. Religion offers an explanation
for life and furnishes a divine purpose. Basic questions are answered,
questions such as "Who made me?" "Why was I made?" and
"What is my duty?"
The Christian responses to these questions lead not only
to a sense of purpose, but also to a productive life. Christians are told
to do their work with all their hearts, as if everything were being done
expressly for God, and not merely for other men. The testimony of history
is that men who are governed by God are inner-directed and become
hardworking, conscientious citizens of the country in which they reside.
Too often, though, governments view strong religious
beliefs with jealousy, as though allegiance to God automatically means no
allegiance to one's own government. They neglect to take into account, at
least with Christians, the many commandments in the Bible that call on
believers to obey their government, pray for all those who are in
authority, and to live peaceable, productive lives that harm no one.
Religious Liberty
People, then, who have a sense of purpose—provided by
their religious beliefs—should be the most productive members of a
society. A government that severely restricts the free exercise of these
beliefs, therefore, will only hurt itself. Restrictions on free exercise
will have at least three bad consequences:
-
They will discourage those who do not have that sense
of inner purpose from exploring the realm of religious beliefs; such
people will continue to need governmental controls to force them to be
productive and usually will be less productive than those with a
God-directed purpose;
-
They will discourage religious believers who will be
hindered in the practice of their faith; this also could cause a loss
of productivity;
-
They will run the risk of alienating from the
government the religious portion of the people; despite the entreaties
of the Bible to obey and pray for those in authority, restrictions
will increase the temptation to become less loyal toward that
government.
The reverse of all these is also true. Free exercise of
religion will increase the loyalty of believers because they will
appreciate the efforts made on their behalf. The government will find more
favor with these people and they will work more energetically in its
behalf. In addition, the nonreligious will be encouraged to investigate
religious beliefs; if more people are added to the community of believers,
the government will have increased its number of productive workers.
Historical Examples
Since my own perspective is that of Western
Civilization, I will draw upon that heritage to illustrate the truths
already presented. Regardless what era one examines, it is demonstrated
again and again that control over individuals' religious beliefs and
practices only creates greater problems for the one imposing the controls.
I offer two major European examples.
Western Civilization's Middle Ages, commonly the time
between 5001500 A.D., was dominated by religious control. Strangely,
though, the control was not by a government seeking to deny
religious expression, but by the hierarchy of an established church that
would not allow any dissension. All of Europe was under the umbrella of
the Roman Catholic Church and everyone had to believe that church's
version of the truth--there was little room for real discussion or the
development of different interpretations of the Bible.
People were not well educated and, generally, a higher
level of education was not actively encouraged. It was much easier to
control the people if they had to rely on whatever the church claimed was
truth. The Bible was a closed book and all the people could know was what
their priests told them.
Gradually, the emerging European nations that had to
live under this system grew restless. They resented their lack of
religious selfgovernment and the abuses of power that the Church was
exhibiting. Great alienation set in toward the latter stages of this era.
The Church maintained external control, but it was losing the loyalty of
the people in the process.
The problem, though disguised for a number of centuries,
finally came to a head in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth
century. This reformation began in Germany through the writings of Martin
Luther and spread throughout Europe. The Church's refusal even to consider
the reasons for the need of reformation led to more than a century of war
and bloodshed as men fought for their desire to be God-directed rather than
being forced to do whatever the authority wanted. At issue was the
question of real truth and whether a man should be free to come to his own
conclusions about the truth. As the Middle Ages reveals, the attempt to
deny this desire resulted in the breakup and deterioration of a
once-powerful church. The misery caused by an unnecessary power struggle
decreased the church's effectiveness. A nation, in a similar struggle for
the minds of men, would suffer through a very unproductive time.
The Protestant Reformation came to England and was
established in the middle of the sixteenth century. But then the same
problem again was revealed. The Queen of England, Elizabeth I, placed
herself at the head of the English Church. She declared that there could
be only one type of church in England—the Anglican Church—and that she
was in charge of it. Everyone in her realm had to subscribe to the beliefs
and practices of her church. No one was free to practice otherwise and any
attempt to set up a separate church was to be considered an act of
treason. Although done in the name of Christianity, this was just as
restricting to the individual as any secular government's attempt to
control the lives of its citizens. Not surprisingly, Elizabeth's official
church did not please everyone.
One group in England that was most opposed to these
restrictions became known as the Separatists. These Separatists were not
bad citizens. In fact, they were quite hardworking, conscientious people,
as is usually the case when individuals have that inner purpose from God.
But they were persecuted for the belief that they should be able to meet
together in their own churches. The persecution became so bad that, no
matter how loyal they felt toward their country, they believed they had to
leave.
In the early seventeenth century, these Separatists left
England and took up residence in Holland. They were welcomed by the Dutch,
who were not threatened by their beliefs. In return for this welcome, the
grateful Separatists became model citizens. The Dutch themselves were very
impressed with their honesty, integrity, and diligent labor. England had
lost some of her most productive citizens through a harsh restrictive
policy.
The American Experience
These same Separatists, later known as the Pilgrims,
brought their belief in religious liberty to America. Eventually, the
concept that the government should not dictate the religious beliefs of
individuals became the standard in the country. At the Constitutional
Convention, in 1787, the framers of the United States Constitution did not
give the new government any power at all over the minds and hearts of
individuals. It was recognized that a national government should not
intrude on private beliefs because that would ultimately alienate the
people from their government. In the First Amendment to that same
Constitution, it was specifically prescribed that the national government
would not set up any official religion, nor would it prohibit the free
exercise of religion.
Some state governments that maintained an established
religion continually confronted alienation problems with their citizens
who disagreed with the official church. The problems were solved, though,
without bloodshed, as state legislatures slowly tore down all the walls
barring total religious liberty. Finally, by 1833, all established
religions ceased in America.
This approach, coupled as it was with unprecedented
political liberty, was the foundation of an American era of unparalleled
productivity and economic development. At that time, most Americans
understood that religious beliefs were the source of their sense of
purpose and they freely acknowledged religious liberty as the cornerstone
of their productivity.
It is instructive to add a footnote to the American
experience. The belief in a God-directed purpose in life, with hard work
and productivity as its result, began to diminish in America in the late
nineteenth century, until by the middle of the twentieth century, a much
greater proportion of Americans were beginning to believe that they could
look to the State for their sense of purpose and for the fulfillment of
their needs. This rejection of religion as the primary inspiration for
their outlook on life has created, among a distinct segment of the
population, that same apathy and sloppiness in the quality of work that I
mentioned as a fruit of forced productivity in this essay's opening
paragraph. No longer guided by a sense of higher purpose, and viewing
their jobs as simply work to be done for other men, and not for God,
American productivity has been damaged. The damage is potentially as bad
as could have been achieved by any restrictive government policy.
This tendency away from an inner purpose directed by God
has led to another unpleasant development. In some instances, particularly
in the desire of Christians to educate their own children in the Christian
faith, government policies have prohibited the free exercise of religion.
Such policies have run the risk previously mentioned of alienating
Christians from their own government. New systems of government control,
unless held in check, may result in the loss of that sense of individual
worth and purpose essential to a productive people. America is in danger
of forgetting its own lessons.
Conclusion
National goals and government policies must work
together. If the goal of a nation is to become more productive
economically, it must pursue policies that will increase individuals'
desires to produce. The proper path to follow, contrary to a government's
natural inclination, is to allow its people greater liberty. This must
begin in the domain of religious beliefs because they are foundational to
an individual's concept of self worth and his sense of purpose in life.
Restriction of religious liberty will bring only grief
to a nation in the form of resentment, alienation, and loss of
productivity. Permission for free exercise of one's religious beliefs, on
the other hand, will spawn gratitude, loyalty, and increased productivity.
A wise government will restrain its tendency toward control, give its
blessing to religious liberty, and enjoy the benefits of its actions. |
