“If we put our neighbor first, we are putting man above God, and that is what we have been doing ever since we began to worship humanity and make man the measure of all things. Whenever man is made the center of things, he es the storm center of trouble – and that is precisely the catch about serving munity.” –Dorothy Sayers

In orienting our perspective on work and stewardship, one of the best starting points is Lester DeKoster’s view aboutwork beingservice to neighbor and thus to God. And yet,even here, we ought to be attentive aboutthe order of things, keeping in mind Samuel’s reminder that “to obey is better than sacrifice.”

Itmay seem overly picky, but it maybe more accuratetosay that our work is service to God, and thus to neighbor. For without obedience to God, service to neighbor will be severely limited at best, and whollydestructive at worst.

I was reminded of this when reading Dorothy Sayers’ popularessay, “Why Work?”, which she concludes by offering a strong warning against various calls to “serve munity” — a challengeshe describes as “the most revolutionary of them all.”

“The only way to serve munity is to forget munity and serve the work,” she writes, meaning that only when wework for the glory ofGodcan we hope for the flourishing of our neighbors (and selves). “The danger of ‘serving munity’ is that one is part of munity, and that in serving it one may only be serving a kind munal egotism,” she continues.

As afoundation, Sayers reminds us that Jesus doesn’t mention our neighbors until the second mandment:

The popular catchphrase of today is that it is everybody’s duty to serve munity, but there is a catch in it. It is the old catch about the two mandments. “Love God – and your neighbor: on those mandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

The catch in it, which nowadays the world has largely forgotten, is that the mandment depends upon the first, and that without the first, it is a delusion and a snare. Much of our present trouble and disillusionment e from putting the mandment before the first.

She follows this with three reasons for “serving the work” (i.e. serving God), which I’ve preceded with my own headers:

1. Serving God Will Result in Good Service

The first is that you cannot do good work if you take your mind off the work to see how munity is taking it – any more than you can make a good drive from the tee if you take your eye off the ball. “Blessed are the single hearted: (for that is the real meaning of the word we translate “the pure in heart”). If your heart is not wholly in the work, the work will not be good – and work that is not good serves neither God nor munity; it only serves mammon…

The only true way of serving munity is to be truly in sympathy with munity, to be oneself part of munity and then to serve the work without giving munity another thought. Then the work will endure, because it will be true to itself. It is the work that serves munity; the business of the worker is to serve the work.

2. Serving God Is a Labor of Pure Love

The second reason is that the moment you think of serving other people, you begin to have a notion that other people owe you something for your pains; you begin to think that you have a claim on munity. You will begin to bargain for reward, to angle for applause, and to harbor a grievance if you are not appreciated. But if your mind is set upon serving the work, then you know you have nothing to look for; the only reward the work can give you is the satisfaction of beholding its perfection. The work takes all and gives nothing but itself; and to serve the work is a labor of pure love.

3. Serving God Orients Our Work Beyond Temporal Demands

And thirdly, if you set out to serve munity, you will probably end by merely fulfilling a public demand – and you may not even do that. A public demand is a changeable thing. Nine-tenths of the bad plays put on in theaters owe their badness to the fact that the playwright has aimed at pleasing the audience, in stead of at producing a good and satisfactory play. Instead of doing the work as its own integrity demands that it should be done, he has falsified the play by putting in this or that which he thinks will appeal to the groundlings (who by that time have e to want something else), and the play fails by its insincerity. The work has been falsified to please the public, and in the end even the public is not pleased. As it is with works of art, so it is with all work.

One mighteasily twist and over-spiritualize suchmatters, of course, using thesereasonsas justification for other types of selfish or silly behavior. “God told me to do X,” even whenit serves no one, meets no need, and satisfies numerous unhealthy desires. There petingrisks in such balancing attempts, which is why we also ought to be wary of what Oswald Chambers calls“self-chosen service for God.”

As we pursue vocational clarity, the needs and demands of munity are a validinput we should seriously consider, just as the fruit of ourwork is a primary indicator of a Gospel-drivenlife.Indeed, Sayers’ fundamental point is that work that serves God first will, in turn, meet deeper needs, bear better fruit, e from a purer heart than wouldotherwise manifestthrough our own humanistic perspectives.“If work is to find its right place in the world, it is the duty of the Church to see to it that the work serves God, and that the worker serves the work,” she concludes.

Although some might worry about this leading to some sort ofanxious legalism, the result will be quitethe opposite. When we arewaryof the spiritual dangers of doing good, we canmoreboldly and freelyobeyGod’s call over our lives. When we seek Him first, leaning not our own understandingor our own altruistic designs,he will make our paths straight, and munity will prosper in turn.