Ora et labora: Uniting work to the one thing necessary

The Benedictine synthesis of prayer and work is a hallmark of the order’s particular brand of religious life. Saint Benedict viewed ora et labora (prayer and work) as the twin poles around which to organize the monastic community. In the Benedictine vision, these two exercises are partners in orientating a monk toward God. 

The sisters Martha and Mary personify the two practices. When they open their home to Christ. Martha prepares the meal, while Mary sits listening to the Lord speak. When Martha asks Jesus to direct Mary to share in the work, Jesus urges Martha not to be so anxious. Instead, He tells her that there is need of only one thing, and that Mary has chosen “the better part” (Luke 10:38-42). 

The passage is popularly understood as a commentary on the relative merits of prayer and work — and, by extension, the contemplative and active lives. Yet other interpretations are possible. Saint Oscar Romero, for example, suggests that Jesus is not chastising Martha through His response. Instead, Romero interprets the passage as instructing its readers to unite work to the one thing necessary so that both activities share a common root in God. 

Romero’s reading provides a scriptural thrust to the Benedictine model. From his hermeneutic, instead of a tension between prayer and work, a synthesis emerges. 

Ora et labora was in the background of one this past summer’s blockbuster decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. The case of 303 Creative LLC v. Enis placed a small business owner against a state anti-discrimination law. While the decision is significant for the limits it sets on the reach of government power, the commitment of the business owner speaks to the unity of faith and work. 

The case was brought by a business owner through her single-member limited liability company. Among the services the business offered were customized website designs to memorialize and celebrate weddings. Colorado’s state law would require the business to provide wedding website services for all couples regardless of sexual orientation. While 303 Creative was willing to perform work for anyone regardless of status or orientation, the owner was unwilling to commit the business to messages celebrating unions that contradict her Christian faith. 

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the company. Because the work was “expressive,” 303 Creative and its owner were protected by the Constitution from state laws that would purport to compel speech. 

While the Court decided the case on First Amendment free-speech grounds, the business owner’s faith is what inspired the company’s expressive conduct. In its decision, the Court recounted that the business owner would not allow 303 Creative to produce content that she believed would “contradict biblical truths.” 

The opinion in the case now ranks among the Court’s most significant First Amendment decisions. The owner’s example, however, makes a stronger statement about work and the divine genesis of unique human talents. The product of human work is not mere merchandise, but the result of the exercise of God-given abilities. To commoditize human skill and depersonalize it by compelling it to be put to the direct and active service of morally objectionable causes is to deny human dignity. Such an approach would obviate any meaningful difference between an individual’s personal contribution and any raw material bought and sold in any market. 

Thankfully, the Court acknowledges, even if indirectly, the right of one’s professional life to coexist with her faith. Work, like prayer, should give glory to God without fear of reprisal. Aside from taking comfort in the result, Christians everywhere would do well to follow the example of St. Benedict and consider how each might take the best of Martha and Mary both.