The Bible teaches that Christians should not be part of a labor union, for reasons that include those I discussed in my post “Christians and Labor Unions: An Unequal Yoke.”
or
What rights does a religious objector to union membership have in the United States? We will look at that question in this post. (Note: I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT giving you legal advice. If you have a legal question about labor unions, please talk to a lawyer at the National Right to Work Foundation.)
Your Rights Concerning Labor Unions in a Right to Work State
If you live in a Right to Work state, it is very easy for you to avoid being part of a labor union. Big Labor has a very limited ability to attempt to coerce or compel anyone to join it or force you to give it money in Right to Work states. Whether you have a religious objection or you simply do not like unions, perhaps because of Biblical political views favoring freedom and a free market, nobody can force you to either join a union or force you to pay dues or any equivalent in order to work.
I know of someone who was residing in a state that had just passed a right to work law. This person (we will use the generic singular English pronoun “he” without necessarily specifying this person’s gender, and call him “Joe.”) had gotten a government job at a college in a state that had recently passed a Right to Work law. Without Joe’s consent, the labor union took dues out of Joe’s first paycheck. Joe was going to file a religious objection and contacted the National Right to Work Foundation. However, the lawyers at the Right to Work Foundation pointed out to Joe that his state had recently passed a Right to Work law. Consequently, the labor union had no right to compel him, or anyone else at his job, to pay dues. He did not need to file a religious objection at all, but could simply ask for his money back and explain that he did not need to pay the union because of the Right to Work law. Joe followed their advice, and after some time the union refunded him the dues that had illegally been taken from his paycheck without his consent. Not that long afterwards an email was sent to all college employees–many, many people–stating that union dues would no longer be taken automatically from everyone’s paycheck; instead, people had to affirmatively consent to having the dues–which were now voluntary–taken out. Only a minority of Joe’s coworkers (so it seems) voluntarily chose to give the union the money that they had forced everyone to pay before, but until Joe objected, the union had illegally been taking huge amounts of money from every or almost every college employee. Joe’s taking a stand for Biblical, Christian principles likely cost the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-Biblical authority union millions of dollars as they were no longer able to illegally continue to take money from everyone–something they had been doing for some time in defiance of the new laws in Joe’s state.
Your Rights Concerning Labor Unions in a Non-Right to Work State
Let us say that you live in a state that does not have a Right to Work law. What can you do? Even in such states, secular people cannot be forced to become members of a labor union or to pay full dues–they can only be forced to pay a smaller “agency fee.” What about a Christian with a religious objection? Based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and principles affirmed in the First Amendment and reaffirmed in Janus v. AFSCME, religious objectors, even in states without Right to Work protections, cannot be forced to:
1.) Join labor unions as a condition of employment.
2.) Pay union dues.
3.) Pay an equivalent to union dues to a a charity.
The legal reasoning for these facts is explained in the excellent article by Blaine Hutchinson and Bruce N. Cameron in Baylor Law Review vol. 75.2 (2023): “Jamus’s Solution for Title VII Religious Objectors.” (Again, I am not a lawyer and I am not giving you legal advice.) If your sincerely held religious beliefs prevent you from being able to join or fund a union in good conscience, you cannot be discriminated against any more than you can be discriminated against because of your skin color. “We will not hire you because of your religious beliefs that do not allow you in good conscience to join a labor union and pay it dues” and “We will not hire you because you are black” are equally illegal in all fifty of these United States.
This writer knows of someone who lives in a non-right to work state (we will call this person “John,” and refer to the person as “him,” without necessarily specifying that the person is a man, not a woman.) When John was hired at his new job at a large company, he was given a large amount of paperwork to sign as part of his onboarding. One page of the paperwork said that he was agreeing to join the union and to pay union dues. He told the Human Resources person who was doing the onboarding that he did not consent to join the union, nor to pay union dues, because he had a religious objection. The HR manager told John that he “must” join the union and must complete the union paperwork. He consequently completed the paperwork, but instead of checking the boxes to join the union wrote on the paper that he respectfully declined to join because of his religious objection. That was as far as things went, and John was left alone for a few years; he was not a union member (unlike the vast majority of his coworkers who believed the illegal lie that HR was saying that everyone “must” join the union) and dues were not being deducted from his paychecks.
However, a few years later Human Resources contacted John and said that he needed to complete new paperwork concerning the union. He was told to fill out the form about union dues; it was “mandatory” that he complete the form. He crossed out the “yes” checkbox and wrote “no” on the form next to where it said to join the union, and wrote on the form that he did not consent to join the union and did not authorize dues deductions from his paycheck.
Shortly after this, union dues were deducted from his paycheck, not only without his consent, but against John’s explicit affirmations that he did not want to join or fund the union because of his religious objection. He inquired (in writing) about this, and the union wrote that he must pay dues in order to continue to work at a union site. Human Resources also wrote that he must pay dues. The only alternatives John had were quitting or being fired and then, if someone was interested, he could be re-hired (maybe), lose all his benefits and seniority, and start from scratch at a non-union site. These actions threatening to fire John and telling him that he needed to pay dues to keep his job were illegal.
John reached out to the National Right to Work Foundation and explained his case to lawyers that, for free, help those with religious objections to union membership. (They have other lawyers that provide free legal counsel to those who do not have religious objections.) His Right to Work Foundation lawyers–who had experience in labor law all the way up to going to the Supreme Court–sent an excellent cease-and-desist letter to his employer warning them of their violations of the law. John and some of his fellow Christians also prayed to the Lord of heaven, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, about this situation. John’s Right to Work lawyers filed charges against his employer and the union with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for their illegal actions in seeking to force him to violate his religious beliefs and for deducting dues from his paycheck without his consent.
In answer to the prayers of God’s people and through the secondary agency of the skilled lawyers at the National Right to Work Foundation, John’s employer agreed to: 1.) Not fire him; 2.) Not require him to join the union; 3.) Not compel him to leave the union site for the tiny portion of non-union sites that his employer possesses; 4.) Not compel him to pay dues to the union or an equivalent to a charity. They also agreed to compensate John because of the mental distress he endured as a result of the illegal threats to fire him, as well as paying legal fees to the NRWF. John was also not compelled to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the whole situation. His lawyers told him that it was an excellent outcome. Praise the Lord!
We should thank God for and pray for the continuance of the religious liberties that we have here in the United States (1 TImothy 2:1ff.).
Once again, I am not a lawyer and am not giving you legal advice. If you are in a situation where you have a question about labor law in relation to labor unions and religious objections, you should consult a lawyer instead of believing what some guy says on the Internet who insists he is not a lawyer, is not giving legal advice, and who tells you about testimonies that you are not able to verify. Reading what law journals say on this subject could certainly also be helpful, but that is also no substitute for professional legal counsel.
Do not join a labor union because the Bible teaches that you should not do it. If someone tries to make you, if you are in the United States, you have legal rights, both in Right to Work and in non-Right to Work states. The Apostle Paul used his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25ff.), and you can utilize your rights as an American citizen to serve the Lord with a pure conscience, seeking to live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Please do not speculate on how the author of this post knows that the testimonials recounted here are accurate. Comments speculating on that question will probably not be published. If they are accidentally published, they will not be answered, but will be deleted.
TDR
Hello Thomas,
In your previous post, you argued that it is being “unequally yoked” when you join a union because you are part of a “brotherhood” of saved and lost people.
Therefore, if you are part of a labor union are you sinning against God?
Tom
Once again using the bible and Christianity to white knight for the corporations. Anyway I hear salt and paprika really make the boots very lickable.
Hi Tom!
I think my post was quite clear that the answer to that question is “yes,” at least in the large majority of situations.
Here is more on the topic if you want it:
https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_86.html
thanks.
Thomas,
Therefore, since the military is a “brotherhood” similar to a union, then by similar arguments, it is a sin to be part of any worldly nation that has the possibility of entering unjust wars and killing innocent people?
Tom
Hello Thomas,
That site proves the opposite, though no one in America has a servant/Master relationship. The servant was to subject to the Master, for he was owned by him.
For example, 1Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
No one in America is “under the yoke”.
If they were, then Americans should be subject to all established union as being a servant “under the yoke”.
Since that is not true, using those scriptures do not prove your point, but rather are against your presupposition.
Tom
Dear Tom,
It is not a sin to be part of a worldly nation. Paul was a Roman citizen. Rome was worldly.
The leap from union membership to being a citizen of a country is huge.
I noticed that before you never told me if you knew, or were, the person who got banned from this blog before under the title “the Preacher,” who advocated a heretical view of the Triune God and was a strong Ruckmanite.
Do you know, or are you part of, or are you associated in any way with, the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult that was exposed on this blog here:
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2020/08/28/the-anabaptists-church-worldwide-street/
as an organization that is not a church and not Anabaptist and not Biblical?
Thanks.
Thomas,
I read your blog post. It amazes me brother what a fanatical approach you take in your analysis. Your grammar does not meet my standards? Are you kidding me? That is your opening argument?
Then your next statement is calling them a cult? You have yet to analyze ANYTHING, but with feigned words you are in attack mode?
I should have stopped right there and thrown out the rest of your post! I am fine with calling out cults, provable doctrinal errors, lies, etc., but I am not one who makes conclusions before any proof is given. You setup a strawman by name calling in order that others will take your side, arguments and presuppositions.
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. (Pro 18:13). Before you even began, you gave opinions on a group of brethren you know nothing about.
I persisted and read through it all and at the end I can only shake my head at your conclusions. You seem to think that everyone has to believe or think exactly like you to be a Christian. You proved nothing in your accusations and conclusions except how to . sow discord among the brethren!
You accuse them of not believing that Christ was “manifest in the flesh” when you wrote:
Section 2.5 denies Christ’s true humanity by claiming that the Holy Spirit replaced the Lord Jesus’ human spirit
Did you have a problem with reading what was written in 2.4 concerning the humanity of Christ?
2.4 We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father (John 10:30) manifest in the
flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and that Jesus Christ was and is the bodily
manifestation of God Almighty.
You honestly read 2.4 above that stated that “Jesus Christ is the BODILY manifestation of God Almighty”? Is that not the humanity of Christ?
Also, 2.4 above states that “Jesus Christ is God the Father”. I would not have written it like that, but I understand why it could be written in that manner based not only John 10:30, but also these verses
John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Thomas, please explain “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father”? or “If you had known me, ye should have known my Father also?
What does it mean by “the express image of his person”?
The way I understood what is written is that God the Father manifest in the flesh of Jesus Christ in keeping the unity of God, yet also “My father is greater than I..”, “I pray unto my Father..” to show the Triune relationship of God as Father, Son and Spirit (1 John 5:7)?
That is the way I read it. I would write it differently, but I see no denial of the trinity or other things written. When reading all of what you quoted, I find some excellent insight of the Godhead.
There is nothing in what I read that denies either the unity of God as one as well as the manifestation of God in three distinct parts, Father, Son and Spirit. For example, I do not have a problem in calling them three persons, but I believe that doing that is giving them three “personalities” that could be understood as three distinct God’s based on “the express image of his person” (Hebrews 1:3).
What is “his person” (singular) when speaking the express image (what he is like) of the triune God?
I find your analysis extremely prejudicial, and as I stated in the beginning, fanatical . You go out of your way to find fault and read into things written without giving the benefit of doubt to the writer in not taking into account the complete context and by comparing scripture with scripture.
You need to retract much of what you wrote.
Tom
Hi Tom!
I noticed that you did not ever answer my questions about if you were associated with the “Anabaptists Church Worldwide” cult. Are you?
If someone believes that Jesus Christ is God the Father he is an idolator, just like those who deny the Deity of Christ. Someone who believes Jesus is God the Father needs to repent and believe the gospel.
It is not important that I have a problem with the statement: “We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father.” It is important that God has a problem with it. He will damn those who believe it along with all other idolators.
John 10:30 does not teach that Jesus Christ IS the Father. It teaches that Jesus Christ AND God the Father ARE (plural verb) one (Greek neuter, one thing, one Being, not a Greek masculine pronoun-one Person).
John 14:7-9 teaches that when one sees the Son he sees the Father because the three Persons are one Being.
Hebrews 1:3 teaches that the Son is the “express image” of the Father’s Person. He is not the Father, but the Father’s express image.
If you think that this cult’s statement is “excellent insight” into the Godhead, you are seriously confused about the true, Triune God. That is very dangerous. You should not stay there, but learn to love the real God with your mind (as well as your heart and soul) instead of being satisfied with, at best, confused notions of Him.
You asked: “Jesus Christ is the BODILY manifestation of God Almighty”? Is that not the humanity of Christ?”
No, it it is not. It is saying God the Father had a body, not saying that the Son had a complete humanity-body, soul, and spirit-like ours in all points, except without sin.
The cult teaches that the Holy Spirit replaces Christ’s human spirit–a weird heresy like ancient Apollinarianism–to the extent that their heretical statement is not just confused junk.
Tom, if you believe in an alleged “Trinity” that is merely “as the manifestation of God in three distinct parts, Father, Son and Spirit,” you do not believe in the true God. The true, Triune God does not have three “parts,” one called Father, one called Son, and one called Holy Spirit. The Divine Being or essence is undivided–the Father, Son, and Spirit are not 1/3 of God each, but each Person has the one undivided Divine Being. Nor are the three Persons just a “manifestation” of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally distinct Persons who have from all eternity, before there was any manifestation of God to anyone or anything in time, existed in fellowship one with the other.
Tom, you should condemn idolatry and those who advocate it, instead of those who, out of love for the one true God, call on idolators to repent and believe in the true God. You should agree with the Biblical teaching on the Trinity found in the Athanasian Creed and all Baptist Confessions, and the Biblical teaching on the one Person and two natures of Christ taught in the Creed of Chalcedon and all Baptist confessions.
I commend you for reaading the post to the end. Please read this:
https://faithsaves.net/oneness-pentecostal/
and learn the difference between the one living and true God and the modalist god that you are either defending or at least making excuses for.
You may be mad now, but (assuming you are not an idolator yourself but are just sympathetic to modalist idolatry) you will thank me in heaven. More importantly, rejecting your sympathy for modalism will glorify the one, true, Triune God.
Thanks.
I realized I did not tell you why the word “Person” is singular in Hebrews 1:3. As is perfectly obvious from the passage, it is because it is referring specifically to the “Person” of the Father. Hebrews 1:3 teaches that the Person of the Father is different from the Person of the Son–the Father is one Person, the Son is the express image of the Father’s distinct Person. Hebrews 1:3 refutes modalism and supports Trinitarianism.