Retirement is Unbiblical

[workathome]

His argument is more akin to Socialism than actual historical Church practices. For example, the French Revolution made monastic communities illegal and jailed the monks for not being productive. Though I guess many Catholic nations (e.g. PIIGS) are also stereotyped as being lazy.

[GandK]

I've heard these arguments before, and have discussed them at length on more than one occasion. Every time I've heard the issue come up, the person raising it was trying to make themselves feel better about not having saved. There was a "See? I did the Godly thing by not squirreling away money. I was trusting God." undercurrent to what they said. It was probably their insecurity talking, but I remember feeling like I was being judged because we did save. We must be selfish people whose faith is insufficient if we have a retirement fund. (Of course, if we don't have an iPad and they do, what then?)

IME the arguments in the OP are about an imperative of contribution, not an imperative of paid employment. It rejects the notion that one ever reaches the point where one is entitled to do nothing. If you believe that Christians are supposed to function as one organism rather than a collection of individuals, that logic makes sense. But the people who say such things are often wealthy people who can afford to get as much down time as they need to refresh themselves, which calls into question their motivations.

[jennypenny]

Please note, I’m answering this from a Catholic perspective as if it was asked in my class...

All due respect to Lapin, there is a word that is considered comparable to ‘retirement’ that appeared in the Bible. It has been loosely defined as being relieved of one’s burdens or being freed from bondage. See Exodus 6 in an old translation for an example of its usage. (6-7 in particular)

So arguably you might retire from your job, but not retire from "life." But really, who cares--does God really care???--if you quit your job and play golf or travel, or make art, or whatever?

To answer EK’s question, I think yes, God does care what you do with your life. I don’t think that necessarily means paid employment, though. Those are two different issues, mainly addressed by the Ninth and Tenth Commandments.

To answer the second part of your question first, look to the Ninth Commandment. It’s the basis of the idea that we shouldn’t live our lives solely or primarily in pursuit of pleasure. It warns against concupiscence and disordered desires. It does not mean to deny ourselves any pleasure, but to seek non-physical desires first (sometimes described as seeking ‘reason’ first).

To answer the first part, look to the Tenth Commandment. This is the basis for the concept of 'poverty of spirit' to which BeyondtheWrap was referring. The modern concept of poverty is different than what was intended in the Beatitudes and other biblical teachings. In that context, poverty doesn't mean ‘having’ very little, but ‘needing’ very little. (edited for slightly better phrasing) Contentedness comes from needing only what God provides. We are taught to be thankful for anything more, and to be careful not to covet any more. It's more a poverty of needs, if that makes sense.

The Bible’s teachings on stewardship are probably the most applicable here. Jesus teaches that we each have an individual calling. Good stewardship in this context means we should take care of and make use of our unique gifts to fulfill our personal calling. This calling does not necessarily mean ‘working’—caring for a family member or serving in some way like dragline’s aunts are good examples. It also doesn’t mean that we only have one calling. It's a cliche, but lives have seasons. The way we may best serve God changes and it is our responsibility to be open to and prepared for each calling. Sometimes it’s working; sometimes it’s something else. In this sense, the idea of retirement is more in line with jacob’s. It just means being unencumbered, self-sufficient, and prepared to move on to the next stage of your life, whatever it is and whenever it comes.

If you take out the obligation to serve, I think New Testament teachings and ERE are very similar. Working for money isn't inherently bad, nor is retirement. I hesitate to make blanket statements about either. I've heard it preached that we shouldn't work solely for the money, but I don't always agree with that. What if it enables us to save enough to 'retire' to raise a child, or do something else we feel called to do? In that case, working just for the money might be the right thing to do for a while. It's also hard to judge someone who retires to what seems like an indulgent life of leisure. Who are we to judge? How do we know their calling? Maybe their retirement is their calling; their life meant to be a light to others?

Anyway ... I just wanted to throw that out there. I've gotten into more than one religious argument about early retirement. Usually they quote things like 'idle hands' to me, so in some ways I understand their position, even though I think it comes from a narrow, unimaginative viewpoint.

[Chad]

Anyway ... I just wanted to throw that out there. I've gotten into more than one religious argument about early retirement. Usually they quote things like 'idle hands' to me, so in some ways I understand their position, even though I think it comes from a narrow, unimaginative viewpoint.

The "idle hands" thing seems to result from the same assumption everyone makes when we say "retire." They don't seem to be able to understand that you can do purposeful, useful, and interesting stuff without being told to do it.

[robby152]

Interesting discussion. I understand a lot of the mindset behind the Protestant work ethic (PWE), which I think under-girds a lot of the anti-ERE mindset. However, as to ERE being un-biblical, that is another thing. The PWE includes some form of salvation anxiety as a motivator, which seems sad and tiring. Fear and doubt may be good at short term motivation, but not at long term (and I do not think the PWE is purely Biblical here). However, when I look at the life of Jesus, I see him teaching freedom and love as motivators and to work 'as unto the Lord' not as unto society to fill some social norm. So, the teachings of the Bible and what many who quote the Bible say may be two different things.

I also see Jesus working hard til 30, and then not working for income (sounds pretty ERE-ish to me, lol). I guess his ministry was supported by some form of donations (evidenced by Judas being money handler and other scenarios), but it didn't seem like he worked for income past 30. However, he said that he and his father (i.e. God) are 'always working' (even on the Sabbath). So, I see Jesus engaged in some form of non-income producing work during his life in addition to income producing work earlier in life. He was engaged in some form of purposeful activity. His life really is pretty fascinating to study.

He also didn't seem to care whether others approved of his lifestyle or not, as he did crazy things like sleep in the bottom of a ship in the midst of a storm, go off to pray alone while tons of people were trying to make him ruler and break all sorts of other 'rules' that didn't hold water to him (not picking heads of grain on the Sabbath and others). He seems to be the kind of person that is into the purpose behind an activity instead of the perception of the activity by others.

So, on the whole, I see myself pursuing some form of ER as a way to (hopefully) more closely model my life after the life of Jesus, even if it isn't completely understood or accepted by others. I think it is entirely biblical to work your whole life or to ER, as the main idea is more about life purpose. I think the major thing I see from the Bible in the life of Jesus is engaging in a higher purpose to do God's will. So, I guess for those that don't try to follow the teachings of the Bible, that could correlate to some sort of service to others (instead of just watching soap operas and eating bon bons all day... which isn't very ERE-ish anyway).

[Tyler9000]

Great post, Jennypenny. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

[BeyondtheWrap]

Several of you have made some good points about how Jesus did not work for income all his life. A good counterargument to ERE being unbiblical may be, "Should Jesus have remained a carpenter?!"

Some of you brought up that saving need not be inherently a selfish act. Jesus himself did seem to be against unnecessary rules and prohibitions.

However, while Jesus did cease income-producing work, I get the impression that he did not have any savings. He seems a bit more Daniel Suelo than ERE, IMHO.

Here's another point I want to bring up. A big part of classical Early Retirement Extreme is investing the savings for income. Would Jesus have approved of capitalist financial markets? He did call the money-changers thieves, so it might not be that much of a stretch to say that he disagreed with the using of money to make more money through interest, etc. However, it's hard to say, since he almost never talked about institutions and only criticized how individuals interacted with each other on a personal level.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Great post, Jennypenny. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

x2. This has been an enlightening and thought-provoking thread from the perspective of an agnostic.

[7Wannabe5]

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." – Matthew 6:19–21,24 (KJV)

The Qur'an takes a more moderate stance, along the lines of "hold your hand (grasping your money/possessions/pride in your many children etc.) not in a fist nor carelessly open."

In "The Seven Stages of Money Maturity" the zen-practitioner author George Kinder defines money as (I paraphrase) "that which naturally flows into your life when you do the work that others want you to do." I think this definition should really read more like "that which naturally flows into your life when you do the work that others WHO HAVE MONEY want you to do." and doing "God's work" can be roughly secularized as "doing the work that those who do not have money or power want you to do." IOW, focusing on the "feeding the orphan" or "freeing the slave" in whatever way that possibility manifests in your modern life.

[robby152]

Here's another point I want to bring up. A big part of classical Early Retirement Extreme is investing the savings for income. Would Jesus have approved of capitalist financial markets? He did call the money-changers thieves, so it might not be that much of a stretch to say that he disagreed with the using of money to make more money through interest, etc. However, it's hard to say, since he almost never talked about institutions and only criticized how individuals interacted with each other on a personal level.

That is a really big question that many have disagreed with for a long time (concept of usury as evil, etc.). The money changers as thieves thing to me has always been about 2 things - using unfair weights and scales (something God clearly hates in scripture - cheating others through deception) and the seemingly perverse mixing of profit with worship motive. From what I have gathered over the years is that the money changers were not motivated to promote worship, but were motivated to exploit those who had no other option (some family travels for 60 miles on a donkey from their village to worship at the temple and can't find any other place to buy an offering, so they are easily exploited).

The thing that has always kept me from making blanket statements about Jesus viewing interest as evil is the parable of the talents where a business man (i.e. God) gives 3 guys different amounts of money to 'trade' (i.e. invest) and only disapproves of the guy that buries the money and does nothing with it out of fear of loss/laziness. He even says that at least the 3rd guy should have given the money to the bankers so that it could earn interest. Interesting stuff to think about. Personally, I have taken that and viewed it as it is fine to earn interest on institutional trade and financing (bonds, bank accounts, cds), but not so cool to earn interest off of other individuals (I guess P2P lending comes to mind). But, even that doesn't seem super clear in the New Testament. I mean if Jack can get financing from a big bank at 10% or from Prosper at 6%, how is that exploitation?

[Dragline]

Yeah, I agree you'd be better off looking at the parable of the talents: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=ESV

Don't be obsessed with whatever you have, but don't waste it either. Note, he doesn't tell the guy he was supposed to become a financial whiz with it -- but at least he should earn a little interest. You see that theme a lot -- we know not everyone has the same financial or other abilities, but do the best you can with whatever it is you have and don't begrudge other folks who may be better or less well off than you.

As P. Parker says in the last lines of the "Spiderman" movie, "Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words: "With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my curse." Thankfully, most of us are not super-human, and thus have much lesser powers and responsibilities.

This also reminds me, I have a nice little book that just has the parables and you can also find them here: http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/parables.htm They are very useful as a cultural reference even if you don't care for the religious aspects. And many were told as insults to the authorities.

[jennypenny]

However, while Jesus did cease income-producing work, I get the impression that he did not have any savings. He seems a bit more Daniel Suelo than ERE, IMHO.

Is Suelo not in the realm of ERE? I would think he was, just a hardcore version. If you live on close to nothing, you don't need much savings, but would still be considered ERE in a way (like Proenneke).

Here's another point I want to bring up. A big part of classical Early Retirement Extreme is investing the savings for income. Would Jesus have approved of capitalist financial markets? He did call the money-changers thieves, so it might not be that much of a stretch to say that he disagreed with the using of money to make more money through interest, etc. However, it's hard to say, since he almost never talked about institutions and only criticized how individuals interacted with each other on a personal level.

I struggle with this idea, too. I do find that earning money from 'work' feels differently than earning money from other money. Maybe that's cultural and not biblical in its origin? Not sure.

[IlliniDave]

I didn't follow the original links, but I first encountered that philosophy from a book by Rabbi Daniel Lapin called Thou Shall Prosper. I found it a fairly interesting book, although the premise is rooted in all the "luxuries" of modern life (cell phones, big HD TVs, nice clothes, upscale vacations, large homes, luxury vehicles, etc.) being sources of happiness, and the more of those things that more people have, the better off everyone is. In other words, happiness flows in the opposite direction of money. People give you money to perform a service because the service makes them happy. You spend your money on things that make you happy. I suppose that's fine for those that feel that way, but in the couple years since I read the book my own attitude about money and consumption has drifted away from that.

Lapin believes people have a lifelong imperative to create wealth and spread it around, thereby being a hub of happiness as it were. It's rooted in his religious beliefs and rabbinical tradition.

I don't know what the facet of Christianity that sees retirement as "unbiblical" cites for their argument. The internet is unbiblical too. I've not seen anything in the Bible that made me think retirement goes against it.

My own thought is that for most people having some sort of "occupation" throughout life is probably a good thing, as it seems to bolster people's mental and emotional well-being. But that occupation does not need to be a source of financial revenue.

[EdithKeeler]

I first encountered that philosophy from a book by Rabbi Daniel Lapin called Thou Shall Prosper. I found it a fairly interesting book, although the premise is rooted in all the "luxuries" of modern life (cell phones, big HD TVs, nice clothes, upscale vacations, large homes, luxury vehicles, etc.) being sources of happiness, and the more of those things that more people have, the better off everyone is.
...

My own thought is that for most people having some sort of "occupation" throughout life is probably a good thing, as it seems to bolster people's mental and emotional well-being. But that occupation does not need to be a source of financial revenue.

I agree. I think everyone has a purpose, and maybe that's an "occupation," even if it doesn't earn money. Maybe it's volunteer work. Maybe it's just being a good son or daughter. Heck, maybe it's just being one of those nuns that does nothing but pray all day for other people.

But I personally don't think stuff equals happiness. I personally find that I'm happier with the less stuff I have. I don't think I'm cut out to be a total ascetic monk or anything, but I seem to happiest in my oldest clothes, most comfortable shoes, doing something outside, preferably with people I enjoy being with. It's taken me a long time to figure out I don't need the newest doo-hickey to be happy. (I used to be a horrible early adopter. Now I'm just the opposite and recently horrified a coworker--literally open-mouthed shock--when I mentioned I haven't owned a TV for almost 2 years).

[Dragline]

Now, now, some of those nuns are running retreat centers and writing books of poetry in their 80s: http://www.amazon.com/Like-Rain-Falling ... ta+vasquez

Yes, its a shameless plug for my Aunt's book. But its really nice -- here's a sample:

Introspection

The deep silence
stirring now within me --
Why does it sadden me?
What deep secrets would it speak
of deepest me?

This is my day of silence.
Steeped and wedded
so to stillness,
my being waits
and knows not why.

I sit and look within --
This who.
This me.
I stand and look without --
This utter stillness,
flowing in,
flowing out

I shall be in stillness,
I shall come at length
to leave my yearnings
there outside my door,
to be at home
with lonely quiet me.

[jennypenny]

@dragline--That's beautiful. I just ordered a copy for each of the girls in DD's class as a graduation present.

You have an interesting family. I read that article you posted about your sister operating on a sea turtle.

[Seneca]

Shameless plug for an ascetic nun's book. Hehe, this place never fails to be interesting.

I agree, you are related to some interesting folk Dragline.

[Dragline]

Ah, selection bias. When you have a lot of relatives, you can pick and choose the ones you actually want others to hear about.

[ebast]

if I read that parable which Dragline linked to, who is an early retiree most closest to?

Say I was FI, collected together my 5 Talents (1 Talent=$100k?) and I nailed my SWR just perfectly such that my principal never decreased (indexed for inflation), and happily I live off my dividends and interest until I died, with $500k still in my name, which I then benevolently will to the world...

Sure I was financially savvy enough like servants 1 & 2, but the net result... Providence grants me 5 Talents, I put it in the bank, then when it's over, I give back 5 Talent... hmm..

Or actually, maybe the FI isn't listed here at all and is instead the most able INTJ of the bunch who takes the 5 talents, doubles them in the market, socks away 3 for security to live on, and brings back 7: look, God, you gave me 5 and I made you 2 talents!

I think, in my reading of the parable (note, not a professional here; best read & interpret for yourself) that's considered a failure. in fact I'm acting like servant 3, who is the daftest of the bunch, and makes that abundantly clear because he doesn't even understand who he's dealing with: He accuses God of taking what doesn't belong to him despite the underlying message that everything belongs to God, who here is pretty generous with it ('Life is the biggest free lunch of all.') I think even, merely if you draw the line around what you get to keep and what gets taken from you, in this story you have already failed.

Not to come out strongly against retirement... monastic orders have probably dealt with this in much deeper treatment than I have the faintest idea about, and must have some mechanisms for retaining versus donating assets, and also the tenets of voluntary poverty strike me as sharing substantive parts in common with ERE.

Also along those lines, the community here sure seems resistant to sitting on their talents: that this site is here at all is a great service (I still remember that first week I came across it and tried to read everything all at once. probably a lot of people did that? probably a lot will continue to.) Also it consistently serves to contribute a lot of practical advice and inspiration and is definitely a five-talenter as far as that goes.. ('you have delivered me five posts, here I have made five more!')

But bringing it back, I do wonder how much that passage is about the morality of interest versus how much it is about doing the best with what you can and also not viewing wealth as fully yours, but as temporary, provisional, a tool for betterment and purpose, and as wasted if only buried in your ground.

[theprincereturns]

Dragline and Jennypenny have done a good job of clarifying biblical thought on "retirement". I had a couple thoughts to add.

From biblical and historical records it is generally accepted that Paul was estranged from his Father and hence denied his inheritance for the first part of his ministry, and worked for his keep through tentmaking. However once he reconciled with his father he used his "earthly" inheritance to finance his travels and ministry and did not have to work for a living anymore. this is a very ERE like example to me, but doesn't imply that everyone has to do this. The bible however is very clear that we are not to put our faith in things, love of money for itself being the root of lots of evil, care of Gods creation, and pursuit of value beyond the physical realities of this world.

Ultimately i think the philosophy behind ERE is close to reflecting the truth of reality with regard to esquing consumerism, pursuing meaning and value, etc. . . However "true" ERE has an assumption about our origin being simply random chance which ultimately necessitates that there is no such thing as absolute meaning. No absolute meaning necessitates that free will, right and wrong, and purpose are all merely illusions. Every philosophy attempts to answer the questions of Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. While I am all for the practical sides of ERE and wish more Christians would see how wrongly they have used Scriptures to justify their own path apart from the truth, ERE is ultimately self contradictory with respect to ultimate meaning. You can not find the answers to those 4 questions by looking only inside the box of the physical world. Every great thinker that comes to mind who followed that path has ended their life in despair of ultimate meaning: Nietzsche, Foucault, Hebbel, Kleist, Lenau, Holderin, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, . . .