Changing definitions

It's common in theology to take a word and change or limit its meaning. This can help if everyone knows that the meaning has been changed, but it can also cause confusion especially when speaking to people who are still justing using language in its everyday sense rather than the technical theological sense. E.g. It's common to hear Christians insist that Jesus was resurrected not resusciatated, but in everyday speech and also in etymology these two words are almost identical in meaning. Resurrect means to rise again and resusciate means to raise again, but when Christians insist that Jesus was resurrected not resusicated, they are not insisting that he experienced rising rather than raising. What they actually mean is that Jesus came back from death and will never die again but now lives an endless life, he didn't just nearly die to then be brought back to the same type of life he had before and then face death again at a later point. English-speaking preachers say that the latter is resuscitation and the former resurrection, even though that's not what these words originally meant. It is really important when talking about Jesus to explain that he did go through death and come out the other side alive never to die again, rather than just coming back to a mortal life, but that idea won't actually be communicated to people who don't know very much about Jesus if a preacher says Jesus was resurrected rather than resusciated if the preacher doesn't actually explain how he is using those words differently. Another example are the words command and decree. In everyday speech, a command is an order usually given by a person in authority and a decree is a command that has been written down in a law. But in Augustinian/Calvinist theology, those words take on different meanings when theologians talk about God's will of command and God's will of decree. In this context a command is an instruction that God has given, which could be oral only or could be written down in the form of law. It is something that God has said he wants to happen, but it is not something that God guarantees will happen and it is clear that God's laws are broken every day. However, a decree is something that God has determined definitely will happen. Unlike a command, decrees are often secret and are only made know by the fact that they actually happen. If decrees are made known, they are prophecy rather than law. And decrees can actually be in opposition to what God has commanded. E.g. It is against God's law for judges to punish the innocent and yet God decreed that Jesus would be crucified for our salvation.

Is it wrong to own shares in a company that produces goods and services that are harmful?

In 2014 there was a scandal in the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury described payday loan companies as immoral and vowed to compete them out of business by supporting credit unions. Shortly afterwards, the media reported that the Church of England itself had shares in Wonga, one of the main pay-day loan companies and one which Justin Welby had criticised directly. After the news broke, the Church of England arranged for the shares to be sold and the funds to be directed to more ethical investments. Although Welby himself had no direct control over over the Church's investment decisions, he reported that he was irritated and embarrassed when he heard about the shares and that he was relieved when he heard that the Church had got rid of them. See the BBC report here.

The assumption by both Welby and the media was that if you believe a company's business is immoral, you should not hold shares in that company. 

Is that correct? If the goods and services that a company produces are harmful, is it morally wrong to seek to grow your own finances by holding shares in that company? Does the answer to the question depend on other factors, e.g. (a) whether the company only produces goods and services that are harmful or has a range of good and bad goods and services, (b) the number of shares you hold in the company (c) whether you hold the shares directly or indirectly. 

It is an important question for Christians to ask because it is likely that most Christians hold shares in companies that produce goods and services that are harmful. If you have a normal pension, your pension probably consists of shares in a range of different companies and it is likely that some of those companies will make money by producing goods and services that you believe are harmful or morally wrong.

The reason why this question is so important to me is because of my views on abortion. I believe that all human life is made in the image of God and that human life begins at end of the process of conception. I believe that the only circumstance in which abortion is justified is when not to carry out an abortion would almost certainly result in the death of the mother. In every other circumstance I believe that to carry out an abortion is to commit murder and so I don't want to do anything that promotes, condones or assists abortion. (I appreciate that not everyone will share my views on abortion, but even if you don't agree with me on this issue, I expect there are other things that you feel very strongly about and that you don't want to do anything to facilitate or promote and certainly don't want to profit from. Perhaps you could substitute that for abortion as you continue reading).

The connection to my pension is that it is likely that my pension fund holds shares in pharmaceutical companies, although I don't know that for sure. Pharmaceutical companies produce many things that are good, but they also produce the abortion pill (see here) and the morning after pill. (There is some uncertainty as to whether the morning after pill works by preventing fertilisation, which I would not see as objectionable, or whether it prevents implantation after fertilisation, which I would regard as murder. As it is uncertain we have to say that the morning after pill could be murder if we assume that human life in the image of God begins at fertilisation). If my pension fund does hold shares in pharmaceutical companies, it is in my financial interests for the sale of abortion drugs to grow, because the more profitable the pharmaceutical companies are, the more my shares will grow in value.

When I first considered this issue, I thought that it was clear cut and that the only godly thing for me to do would be to insist that my pension fund did not hold any shares in pharmaceutical companies, even if that meant that my pension would be very small. From what I understand, it is likely that my pension pot would be very small if I did this because most pension companies don't allow you to be this specific if you have a share-based pension. Most pensions are share-based. Almost every pension company will offer what they regard as an ethical pension fund, but that fund will still have shares in pharmaceutical companies because they don't regard abortion unethical. Instead of investing in shares, the pension companies could invest your pension in commodities, cash or property, but none of these will give you the same returns that shares can provide and it is likely that your pension would be very small if this was all the fund was invested in. 

So, is the only godly option for me (and for you too if you share my views on abortion) to take big hit on my pension by insisting that my pension pot has no shares in pharmaceuticals, or is the issue less clear cut than I previously thought?

Here are the factors that could make it less clear cut than I thought.

1. Pharmaceutical companies produce products that save lives as well as products that take away life.

In contrast to Wonga, pharmaceutical companies don't only do one thing. The whole of Wonga's business is payday loans and so if you are opposed to payday loans, you really shouldn't have shares in Wonga because that is their whole business. However, as well producing abortion drugs, pharmaceutical companies produce products that save lives. I want those products to succeed. So perhaps if a pharmaceutical company receives more revenue form the life-saving drugs it produces than the life-destroying drugs it produces, it is OK to hold shares in that company.

A comparison can be drawn here with employment. Most hospital doctors in the UK who work for the NHS are employed by an organisation that carries out abortions. If I wanted to be a doctor to save lives, I think that very few people would say that my belief that abortion is murder should prevent me from working for a hospital that does perform abortions, as long as I did not personally carry out an abortion. Does the same apply for holding shares in a pharmaceutical company? Is it a valid analogy? What if my job in the hospital was not as a doctor but as a manager who recruited doctors who did carry out abortions among their many other duties? Is that still OK, or I have then become complicit in what I regard as murder?

To move the discussion away from abortion, what about if I worked in a supermarket and the magazines sold by the supermarket included pornography? I am guilty of promoting pornography by scanning the magazine at the till? Does it change if I am store manager or company director? 

Although it is true pharmaceutical companies usually produce a range of products, it is possible that I have shares in specialised companies whose whole business is the production of abortion drugs, so I don't think this factor by itself saves me from having to make what could be a costly sacrifice. 

2. I am not actually the legal owner of any shares.

My pension fund does not make me the direct owner of any shares in any company. My pension company uses the money that I contribute to my pension to buy shares in its own name. The fund managers that work for the pension company buy and sell shares according to how they think different companies are performing in order to grow the funds that they manage. When I come to retire, shares in the funds that my money has been invested in will be sold and then the proceeds will be made available to me. Often it is actually more complicated that this, because the pension companies themselves don't own shares in companies directly, but will own shares in other funds that own the shares in the companies, but the key point here is that it is arguable that the moral responsibility for investing ethically lies not with me but with pension companies (and their fund managers) who are actually the legal owners of the shares.

It is the pension companies, not me, who have the right to attend company meetings in which they hold shares and vote on issues like the appointment of board members and therefore indirectly on the direction of the company. 

Whilst I may not like the thought that I could be profiting indirectly from the successful performance of goods and services that I am opposed to, it is arguable that the moral responsibility for making the investment lies with the pension company rather than with me. 

Because the legal ownership of the shares is with the pension company rather than with me, giving money to a pension company and asking them to invest it for me is not fundamentally different from having money in a bank account. When you put money in your bank account, you are essentially making a loan to the bank that is repayable on demand. For as long as you don't need the money, the bank is free to lend it to others to make money for itself. That is why they can afford to pay you interest, because they use your money to make money for themselves. You do not have any control over who the bank lends money to and so the money you put in your savings account could be used to make loans to businesses that you are opposed to. However, I think most people would say that the moral responsibility for who the money is lent to rests with the bank itself and not with the savers who give to the bank the money that they use to lend out. Arguably, giving money to a pension company is not fundamentally different from putting savings into a bank account. In both cases, the organisation that you give the money to uses it to make investments that they think will make money and then give back to you more money than you gave to them (but in the case of shares, you could actually end up with less money).

I think that with Wonga and the Church of England, a part of the Church of England was itself the direct owner of the shares in Wonga and so the connection it had to the business it objected to was much closer than the the connection I have to the "business" that I object to. 

3. The shares that are held for my benefit will rarely amount to a controlling interest in the companies in which they are invested.

As mentioned above, a share is a share in the ownership of a company and the shareholders usually have rights to attend and vote at company meetings. However, companies in which pension funds invest often have thousands of shares and so it is unlikely that the voting power represented by the shares that are held for me could actually make any difference to what the company actually does. 

The relevance of this is that your moral responsibility for the actions of a company must be affected in part by the ability you actually have to control what that company does.


So what do you think? Is it immoral to have a share-based pension scheme if there is a chance that your pension pot will be growing at least in part because of the harmful goods and services produces by various companies or does the moral responsibility for the investments lie with the pension company?

If you do think it is immoral, do you think that it is equally immoral to have bank account? 

And what about being employed by an organisation that sells goods or services that are objectionable?

Let me know what you think. 

Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead is a real historical event that people need to know about.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead will not, by itself, convince anyone to become a Christian, but no one can become a Christian unless they know that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

"If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." - Luke 16:31

This statement in Luke is not an argument against using historical evidence and the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts to convince people that the resurrection actually happened. 

Jesus (through Abraham in the story of the rich man and Lazarus) is saying that evidence that God is real is not enough to convince people to turn to him in repentance and trust. However, that doesn't mean that it is futile, when speaking to people about Jesus, to start  by talking about facts and evidence. People need to know who Jesus is before then can put their faith in him. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead won't in and of itself cause people to trust in Jesus, but in order to trust him, they do need to know that he rose from the dead, and it is right and useful to go through the evidence with people on this. 

Of course, those who realise they would need to surrender to Jesus if he did rise from the dead won't consider the evidence dispassionately - they will find themselves wanting to reject the evidence because of the implications it has for them, rather on the basis of its weight - but they still need to know the evidence and to be told of this as well as being told that everyone who comes to Jesus in repentance and faith will find forgiveness, love and acceptance and the power of God at work in their lives to live for the one who loved them and gave himself for them. 

The Glory of God in Romans - the restoration of the image of God in man through Christ

One of the most famous verses in Paul's letter to the Romans is Romans 3:23:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I have realised recently that the glory of God here refers to the glory men and women had from being made in the image of God and that one of the major themes in Romans is God's work to restore that glory in us. 

God, indeed, made Adam and Eve in his image and this made them glorious. (1 Corinthians 11:7). Their glory was not something inherent in them but was dependent on their reflection of the character of God. Their glory was not something that should lead to self-congratulation but to praise of the God whose goodness their glory reflected. 

But men did not give thanks to God for the glory he had given them. Instead they focused on their own glory and worshiped the creature rather than the creator. (Romans 1:20-25).

In focusing on their own glory, they lost their glory and became worthless, not fit for purpose, (Romans 3:12) because the purpose of their glory was to reflect God's own glory and was dependent on it doing so. 

This is true for every human being. All of us, through sin, have fallen short of the glory that God gave to us when he created mankind. (Romans 3:23).

But now, through the Gospel of God accepting us on the basis of Christ's righteousness, we have a promise that we will be glorified again as God restores his image in us, conforming us to the image of Christ. 

We have "the hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5:2), which means the image of God being restored in us. We rejoice that the glory that we lost will be restored, a glory that depends on our dependency upon God as sons as we submit to him, thank him and rejoice in his goodness and grace. So strong is this hope that we can even rejoice in suffering knowing that suffering is one of the things that will transform our characters to the image of Christ. (Romans 5:3-4). 

In fact, suffering and glory have been inseparably connected. Following Jesus, who was himself rejected and hated by civil society, involves a call to suffer with him. If we do not suffer with him when suffering comes, this will appear as evidence that we do not really belong to him. We will not be glorified with him if we do not suffer with him, because unwillingness to suffer with him demonstrates not belonging to him. (Romans 8:17).

It is certainly worth suffering with him because there is no comparison between what we suffer now and the glory that will be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18). We have never experienced what it means to be fully human with a fully human body living in a world the way it was meant to be, because God subjected us and the world to frustration after we threw away our glory. (Romans 8:20-24).
We can be sure that God is working all things together to glorify us, and himself through us, because he has promised that he is working all things together to conform us to the image of his Son. We should have no doubt that those whom he has justified will also be glorified. (Romans 8:28 - 30).

Going outside of Romans, it is clear that  we are changed from one degree of glory to another in this life as we look at the character of Christ in his word, (2 Corinthians 3:18). Then, when we see him face to face, the transformation will be complete because seeing him as he is in his glory and goodness will make us like him in an instant. (1 John 3:2).

The mainstream approach to religion today

The quote below is from Chapter One of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Although he was writing in the nineteenth century, his account of the natural form of the mystical method describes brilliantly the approach to religion that has become mainstream in the twenty-first century in Britain. 

Mysticism as applied to Theology. 

Mysticism, in its application to theology, has assumed two principal forms, the supernatural and the natural. According to the former, God, or the Spirit of God, holds direct communion with the soul; and by the excitement of its religious feelings gives it intuitions of truth, and enables it to attain a kind, a degree, and an extent of knowledge, unattainable in any other way. This has been the common theory of Christian mystics in ancient and modern times. If by this were meant merely that the Spirit of God, by his illuminating influence, gives believers a knowledge of the truths objectively revealed in the Scriptures, which is peculiar, certain, and saving, it would be admitted by all evangelical Christians. And it is because such Christians do hold to this inward teaching of the Spirit, that they are often called Mystics by their opponents. This, however, is not what is here meant. The mystical method, in its supernatural form, assumes that God by his immediate intercourse with the soul, reveals through the Feelings and by means, or in the way of intuitions, divine truth independently of the outward teaching of his Word; and that it is this inward light, and not the Scriptures, which we are to follow.

According to the other, or natural form of the mystical method, it is not God, but the natural religious consciousness of men, as excited and influenced by the circumstances of the individual, which becomes the source of religious knowledge. The deeper and purer the religious feelings, the clearer the insight into truth. This illumination or spiritual intuition is a matter of degree. But as all men have a religious nature, they all have more or less clearly the apprehension of religious truth. The religious consciousness of men in different ages and nations, has been historically developed under diverse influences, and hence we have diverse forms of religion, — the Pagan, the Mohammedan, and the Christian. These do not stand related as true and false, but as more or less pure. The appearance of Christ, his life, his work, his words, his death, had a wonderful effect on the minds of men. Their religious feelings were more deeply stirred, were more purified and elevated than ever before. Hence the men of his generation, who gave themselves up to his influence, had intuitions of religious truth of a far higher order than mankind had before attained. This influence continues to the present time. All Christians are its subjects. All, therefore, in proportion to the purity and elevation of their religious feelings, have intuitions of divine things, such as the Apostles and other Christians enjoyed. Perfect holiness would secure perfect knowledge.

Consequences of the Mystical Method.

It follows from this theory, — (1.) That there are no such things as revelation and inspiration, in the established theological meaning of those terms. Revelation is the supernatural objective presentation or communication of truth to the mind, by the Spirit of God. But according to this theory there is, and can be, no such communication of truth. The religious feelings are providentially excited, and by reason of that excitement the mind perceives truth more or less clearly, or more or less imperfectly. Inspiration, in the Scriptural sense, is the supernatural guidance of the Spirit, which renders its subjects infallible in the communicating truth to others. But according to this theory, no man is infallible as a teacher. Revelation and inspiration are in different degrees common to all men. And there is no reason why they should not be as perfect in some believers now as in the days of the Apostles. (2.) The Bible has no infallible authority in matters of doctrine. The doctrinal propositions therein contained are not revelations by the Spirit. They are only the forms under which men of Jewish culture gave expression to their feelings and intuitions. Men of different culture, and under other circumstances, would have used other forms or adopted other doctrinal statements. (3.) Christianity therefore, neither consists in a system of doctrines, nor does it contain any such system. It is a life, an influence, a subjective state; or by whatever term it may be expressed 9 or explained, it is a power within each individual Christian determining his feelings and his views of divine things. (4.) Consequently the duty of a theologian is not to interpret Scripture, but to interpret his own Christian consciousness; to ascertain and exhibit what truths concerning God are implied in his feelings toward God; what truths concerning Christ are involved in his feelings toward Christ; what the feelings teach concerning sin, redemption, eternal life, etc., etc. 

Theology a science

This is the introduction to Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. It has helped me to see why genuine Christians who sincerely believe and study the Bible may come to different conclusions on points of doctrine even though the Bible is God's word. We should be no more surprised at this than we are when scientists in other areas come up with different theories to explain the data that is observable by everyone. 

Theology a Science. 

IN every science there are two factors: facts and ideas; or, facts and the mind. Science is more than knowledge. Knowledge is the persuasion of what is true on adequate evidence. But the facts of astronomy, chemistry, or history do not constitute the science of those departments of knowledge. Nor does the mere orderly arrangement of facts amount to science. Historical facts arranged in chronological order, are mere annals. The philosophy of history supposes those facts to be understood in their causal relations. In every department the man of science is assumed to understand the laws by which the facts of experience are determined; so that he not only knows the past, but can predict the future. The astronomer can foretell the relative position of the heavenly bodies for centuries to come. The chemist can tell with certainty what will be the effect of certain chemical combinations. If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. It must embrace an exhibition of the internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all. It must be able to show that if one be admitted, others cannot be denied. 

The Bible is no more a system of theology, than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics. We find in nature the facts which the chemist or the mechanical philosopher has to examine, and from them to ascertain the laws by which they are determined. So the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other. This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. This is not an easy task, or one of slight importance. 

Necessity for System in Theology  

It may naturally be asked, why not take the truths as God has seen fit to reveal them, and thus save ourselves the trouble of showing their relation and harmony?

The answer to this question is, in the first place, that it cannot be done. Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot help endeavoring to systematize and reconcile the facts which it admits to be true. In no department of knowledge have men been satisfied with the possession of a mass of undigested facts. And the students of the Bible can as little be expected to be thus satisfied. There is a necessity, therefore, for the construction of systems of theology. Of this the history of the Church affords abundant proof. In all ages and among all denominations, such systems have been produced. 

Second, A much higher kind of knowledge is thus obtained, than by the mere accumulation of isolated facts. It is one thing, for example, to know that oceans, continents, islands, mountains, and rivers exist on the face of the earth; and a much higher thing to know the causes which have determined the distribution of land and water on the surface of our globe; the configuration of the earth; the effects of that configuration on climate, on the races of plants and animals, on commerce, civilization, and the destiny of nations. It is by determining these causes that geography has been raised from a collection of facts to a highly important and elevated science. In like manner, without the knowledge of the laws of attraction and motion, astronomy would be a confused and unintelligible collection of facts. What is true of other sciences is true of theology. We cannot know what God has revealed in his Word unless we understand, at least in some good measure, the relation in which the separate truths therein contained stand to each other. It cost the Church centuries of study and controversy to solve the problem concerning the person of Christ; that is, to adjust and bring into harmonious arrangement all the facts which the Bible teaches on that subject. 

Third, We have no choice in this matter. If we would discharge our duty as teachers and defenders of the truth, we must endeavor to bring all the facts of revelation into systematic order and mutual relation. It is only thus that we can satisfactorily exhibit their truth, vindicate them from objections, or bring them to bear in their full force on the minds of men. 

Fourth, Such is evidently the will of God. He does not teach men astronomy or chemistry, but He gives them the facts out of which those sciences are constructed. Neither does He teach us systematic theology, but He gives us in the Bible the truths which, properly understood and arranged, constitute the science of theology. As the facts of nature are all related and determined by physical laws, so the facts of the Bible are all related and determined by the nature of God and of his creatures. And as He wills that men should study his works and discover their wonderful organic relation and harmonious combination, so it is his will that we should study his Word, and learn that, like the stars, its truths are not isolated points, but systems, cycles, and epicycles, in unending harmony and grandeur. Besides all this, although the Scriptures do not contain a system of theology as a whole, we have in the Epistles of the New Testament, portions of that system wrought out to our hands. These are our authority and guide.

Three types of work during wartime

During wartime, there are three types of work, broadly speaking. 

First, there is the ordinary work that everyone was doing before the war broke out. In part, it is the goodness of these jobs that makes the war worth fighting. Communities can only function when people do good, ordinary work. "Look at the chair you are lounging in...Could you have made it for yourself?...How [would you] get, say the wood? Go fell a tree? But only after first making the tools for that, and putting together some kind of vehicle to haul the wood, and construing a mill to do the lumber and the roads to drive on from place to place? In short, a lifetime or two to make one chair!...If we...worked not forty but one-hundred-forty hours per week we couldn't make ourselves from scratch even a fraction of all the goods and services that we call our own. [Our] paycheck turns out to buy us the use of far more than we could possibly make for ourselves in the time it takes us to earn the check...Work...yields far more in return upon our efforts than our particular job puts in. Imagine that everyone quits working, right now! What happens? Civilized life quickly melts away. Food vanishes from the shelves, gas dries up at the pumps, streets are no longer patrolled and fires burn themselves out. Communication and transportation services end, utilities go dead. Those who are survive at all are soon huddled around campfires, sleeping in caves, clothed in raw animal hides. The difference between [a wilderness] and culture is simply, work."¹ If such work were not present in a society, such a society would hardly be worth defending in a time of war. During wartime, this work must continue if society is to function. The amount of time that can be devoted to it may well be reduced, but it needs to continue. It should continue not simply so that food and ammunition can be supplied to the troops, but  in order for there still to be a society when the war is over.

Second, there is ordinary work that is applied specifically toward the war effort rather than toward the development of culture. For example, engineers that used to build commercial aircraft may now put their skills to use building bombers and fighter jets; clothes designers designing military uniforms; doctors treating injured soldiers; marketing strategists designing army recruitment adverts. 

Third, there is the specific work of engaging with and killing the enemy. This work is the full-time occupation of the infantry, air force pilots, artillery and other front-line service men and women. This is the work that only takes place because the nation is at war. 

Once the war is over, the third type of work will cease and those who were engaged in the second type of work will redirect the application of their skills, so that the only type of work that remains is the first. 

At Avenue Community Church, we have just started a new series on work and the Gospel. As I was listening to the sermon this morning it struck me that the church is always on a wartime footing until Christ returns, and so there are three types of work that any Christian can be involved in. 

First, most Christians will be engaged in ordinary work, directed to the "ordinary" purpose of fulfilling God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:28). For most Christians, following Christ does not mean doing "Christian work," but involves the high calling of doing ordinary work in a Christ-like way: recognising that work is a good gift from God, through which we worship him and benefit our neighbours. Most Christians are called to the great privilege of putting Genesis 1:28 into practice in the context of knowing as our Father the God who has called us to this task: becoming a responsible adult who can bless others, finding a spouse with whom to have children and, in cooperation with others, using the skills he has given to us to develop the world that God has made and build civilisations. 

Second, some Christians will do ordinary work that is applied specifically to the war effort. These are the office workers and administrators who run mission agencies, the engineers who maintain the planes used by the Missionary Aviation Fellowship, the architects who work exclusively in designing meeting places for churches, and many others. This is the type of work I do as I provide legal advice to churches and Christian charities through FIEC Practical Services. 

Third, there are the some whose full time work will be prayer and the ministry of the word. (Acts 6:4). This is the work that only exists because of the war and that will end when the war is over. This is the war declared by Satan against God that affects every human being. The end of the war is already known. Christ, who has defeated Satan through his death and resurrection will return to cast Satan into a lake of burning fire, together with all of his followers. Those who have swapped sides from following Satan to following Christ will then live with Christ in a renewed and purified world. The second and third type of work will no longer be needed and everyone will be joyfully engaged in worshiping God through the ordinary work of ruling the world and the universe with Christ and all his people. 

Some Christians will be engaged in some of all of these types of works, and many who do the first type effectively do two or three jobs as they engage in the second and third types in their spare time. 

1 Lester DeKoster, Work: The Meaning of Your Life (Christian Library Press, 1982), 5, 7, 9-10 as cited in Timothy Keller, Every Good Endeavour (Hodder and Soughton, 2012) 75-76^↩