Can Business be Mission?

It is rare that I read a magazine from cover to cover. In fact, I think that I can say that I've never done it, until this week. I picked up the recent issue of Mission Frontiers magazine because of the cover, titled Can Business be Mission?

Ralph Winter, longtime advocate of frontier missions says:

"Really big and sudden changes in the world of missions don't come often. But now one is upon us."

That big change is the mobilizing of Christians to start businesses that manifest and extend the good news of Christ to the ends of the earth in ways that don't confine the reign of Christ to the church.

Unlike the Christianity Today treatment, which is very general, numerous articles in the Missions Frontiers issue tackle the issues of what distinguishes missional business, how it is effectively done, and why it is so critical. Here is a summary of the articles, and you can download the whole issue here.

When Business Can be Mission: Where Both Business and Mission Fall Short
Ralph D. Winter

Making God the Hero-King of the Great Commission Company
Tom Steffen

Over-Steering a Cadillac
Frank L. Roy

Mission Agencies: Infrastructure, Passion, Business as Mission?
Justin Forman

Business as Mission: Kingdom Focused Companies
Justin Forman

Business: Poverty's Long-Term Solution
Chris Page

Raising Local Resources
Glenn Schwartz

You will find in this magazine the theological backbone that guides effective gospel entrepreneurship, written by those who are actively engaged in that work. I highly recommend it!

The Mission of Business

I was quite surprised to see that the cover story of Christianity Today related to Business as Mission. It was heartening to hear that there is a groundswell of interest in what they call 'business as mission.'

BAM "is the big trend now, and everyone wants to say they're doing it," says Steve Rundle, associate professor of economics at Biola University. (source)

That is both exciting, and dangerous. I am deeply encouraged that the division between the spiritual and economic spheres is being demolished; yet I fear that lack of theological depth and spiritual maturity will beget yet another wave of misguided Christian enthusiasm.

Unfortunately, I didn't find the article tremendously helpful in clarifying how BAM is different from social entrepreneurship (besides motivations). I think that there is likely a lot more depth to the individuals highlighted than comes out in the article. Nonetheless, I'm encouraged by the public call for Christians to be actively involved in creating organizations that meet real needs, create opportunities, and give opportunities to share the good news with vendors, clients and employees.

The true administration of justice

This morning I passed the court house on the way to jury duty and read the inscription above the court:

"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government."

This maxim is no less true for good business. The true administration of justice by the government creates the environment in which its citizens (and their enterprises) can flourish. Yet regardless of the degree to which a government truly administers justice, business establish themselves firmly by doing the administration of justice in all their affairs.

I don't think John Owen overstates the case when he says:

"The greatest mercies and blessings that in this world we are made partakers of, next to them of the gospel and the covenant of grace, come to us through this channel and conduit ['the proper work of magistracy' i.e. good government]" (Overcoming Sin and Temptation p352).

May God give to those who have tasted of grace the ability to truly administer justice!

Green Collar jobs

I found this article in the New York Times to be on the mark in addressing entrepreneurship to the poor in the United States. It didn't, however, address the reality that the hope that if offers is only temporal. In order for Christians to engage in creating green collar jobs, we must be clear about the way in which hope is offered - and offer a hope that does not deceive in the process.

As though they had no goods

Paul, in writing to the church in the city of Corinth, exhorted them:

"This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on . . . let those who buy [live] as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away" (1 Corinthians 7:29, 30-31)

He was not telling them to come out of the world (1 Cor 5:10), but to live in it in a way that recognizes and declares the new reality: that the goods we have are as nothing. Our very participation in the world is to be the witness to another more real, and more durable world.

In these phrases Paul is capturing all of his hearers, not merely the merchants, for they all buy goods of some sort, and they all deal with the world. All of us, in all our dealings, are to live in such a way that doesn't expect these things to satisfy, or to last. We cannot pretend to isolate ourselves from "the world". It is simply impossible. The issue is whether we treat this world and its goods as ultimate, or fleeting.

This, I believe, is the theological foundation of gospel entrepreneurship. Believing that these things are fleeting, we deal with the world in a way that points to the age to come, and to enduring reality. This is where our colleagues, customers and vendors will see the reality of the Kingdom: not that we retreat from the world, but that through us the Kingdom comes near to them. May God give us grace to truly believe that the appointed hour has grown short, and diligently engage in commerce that witnesses to the resurrection of the dead.

Confessing

This week I had a conversation with a friend and former colleague. He asked what I am doing, and I told him about the two ventures that I'm participating in right now. With regard to one of them, he asked me, "How did you decide to do this?"

In that moment I became aware that I was both reticent and excited to tell him the truth. The motive for this particular venture is to manifest the Good News of God to the neighborhood. I was tempted to tell him all the other (good) reasons that we had chosen that particular venture, and leave out the one that wouldn't matter to him.

As these thoughts raced through my head, I also realized that this is the very reason that I am involved in entrepreneurship: so that I can confess the Good News of Christ to people who otherwise would never ask, and so that this Good News is manifest in deed and word.

I have a lot to learn about answering that question well - in a way that gladly confesses Christ's redemption and provokes more questions about His Good News. I'm excited to practice, and to see the Holy Spirit use our confession to bring new life.

Wilberforce on Doctrine and Public Life

William Wilberforce was a member of parliament, not an entrepreneur. Yet his understanding of the relationship between theology and social engagement is deeply helpful for those who would engage in entrepreneurship, just as much as those who aspire to political change. He wrote:

"The fatal habit of considering Christian morals as distinct from Christian doctrines insensibly gained strength [in Great Britain]. Thus the peculiar doctrines of Christianity went more and more out of sight, and as might naturally have been expected, the moral system itself also began to wither and decay, being robbed of that which should have supplied it with life and nutriment" (quoted in Roots of Endurance p116).

He understood well that a good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. The only way to make the fruit good is to make the tree good - which is precisely what he sought to do. And so, in the public discourse, Wilberforce did not reduce his reasoning to the lowest common denominator with his fellow parliamentarians in order to win their favor for the abolition of slave trade, and then of slavery, in Great Britain. John Piper gives a brilliant explanation of Wilberforce's definition of sin:

"When considering the nature of sin, Wilberforce said, the vast bulk of Christians in England estimated the guilt of such an action 'not by the proportion in which, according to scripture, [actions] are offensive to God, but by that in which they are injurious to society.' Now, on the face of it that sounds noble, loving and practical. Sin hurts people, so don't sin.
Wouldn't that definition of sin be good for society? But Wilberforce says, 'Their slight notions of the guilt and evil of sin [reveal] and utter [lack] of all suitable reverence for the Divine Majesty. This principle [reverence for the Divine Majesty] is justly termed in Scripture, 'The beginning of wisdom' [Psalm 111:10].' And without wisdom, there will be no deep and lasting good done for man, spiritually or politically. Therefore, the supremacy of God's glory in all things is what he calls 'the grand governing maxim' in all of life. The good of society may never be put ahead of this. That would dishonor God and, paradoxically, defeat the good of society. For the good of society, the good of society must not be the primary good" (ibid. pp121-2, emphasis mine)

I believe that the same is true of entrepreneurship: For the good of society, the good of society must not be the primary good. The supremacy of God's glory in all things must be the grand maxim that motivates entrepreneurship - and therefore that which governs the language with which we explain our ventures to society for their good.

More than charity

In a recent Sunday school class titled 'God and Mammon', our teachers outlined the nature of the Old Testament tithes.

1. Pre-Mosaic Tithing: In these accounts, tithing is voluntary, occasional and mentioned only briefly (Genesis 4:1-4; 14:18-24; 28:16-22)
2. Mosaic Law Tithes:
   
1. The Levitical Tithe: giving for the Levites, who served in the temple (Numbers 18:21; Leviticus 27:30-33)
2. The Festival Tithe: giving for the celebration of the festivals (Deuteronomy 14:22-27)
3. The Poor Tithe: giving every third year for the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless and the widow (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 26:12)
   

What stood out to me was how little of the tithe God has marked out for the poor. Every third year a tenth was to be set aside for the alien, the fatherless and the widows. That would hardly suffice to carry them through the next three years until the next tithe for the poor.

The poor tithe was extraordinary care for the poor, as it did not happen often. So what were the ordinary mechanisms of care for the poor?

1. Leaving the margins: (Leviticus 23:22)
   

   “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.”

   God ordained a way for his covenant people to live that provided for the poor in a way that placed responsibility with the poor. It preserved both their dignity and responsibility, and was their provision, as in the case of Ruth.
2. Lending to the poor: (Deuteronomy 15:7-8)
   

   "If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be."

   Lending, like leaving the gleanings, imparted both dignity and responsibility to the poor. It was not to be for interest (Exodus 22:25), but neither was it a handout. The expectation was that the loan would be repaid, except at the year of release (every seventh year).

I believe that if we are to address poverty in a manner consistent with the gospel, we must move beyond charity to consider how to do conduct our business in a way that leaves the margins, and lends to the poor.

Gospel Coalition

It is wonderful to discover others who can say what you feel and believe better than you can. I had that experience in reading the Gospel Coalition foundational documents. They capture well the core of the gospel, and begin to spell out the implications for engagement in commerce. I highly recommend reading them.

I pledge allegiance to the firm

One of the reasons that I believe that Christians are called out of the rank and file workforce, and yet into the very same fields as entrepreneurs is the unrighteous allegiance that employers demand. On working for the public school system, I was required to sign a statement saying that I would not proselytize, as a condition of employment. When I worked for a financial services firm, there were similar restrictions.

I see only these alternatives for those who claim Jesus as King:

• Refuse to sign the non-proselytism form (and be terminated)
• Sign the form, and then break your word by sharing the Gospel
• Sign the form, and do not share the Good News
• Start businesses based on the Gospel that don't claim the supreme allegiance of employees, but instead allow them freedom of conscience - to share the Gospel

If we follow the first, the fourth will become a necessity. If we do the second (which I have done), we violate our integrity, and diminish the power of the witness we intend to convey. If we do the third, we ought not to call ourselves Christians, because we have turned our allegiance from Christ to "the Firm."

In a context that increasingly demands of employees that they not share the Good News of Christ, I see gospel entrepreneurship as a necessity of witness and of conscience. If we can serve within organizations without butchering our conscience, then the impetus to entrepreneurship is simply witness. However, if employers demand our allegiance above Christ, both conscience and witness are compelling forces to start businesses based on the Gospel.

John Bunyan was not required by his employer to refrain from evangelism; rather he was restrained by his government from preaching the Good News. He was offered release, if only he would consent not to preach. John Piper explains:

So for 12 years Bunyan chooses prison and a clear conscience over freedom and a conscience soiled by the agreement not to preach. He could have had his freedom when he wanted it. . . . When asked to recant and not to preach he said, "If nothing will do unless I make of my conscience a continual butchery and slaughter-shop, unless, putting out my own eyes, I commit me to the blind to lead me, as I doubt not is desired by some, I have determined, the Almighty God being my help and shield, yet to suffer, if frail life might continue so long, even till the moss shall grow on mine eye-brows, rather than thus to violate my faith and principles." (source)

Bunyan had a wife, and four children (one of whom was blind) for whom to care. Yet he realized that he could choose neither to consent truly, or by way of pretense, and remain faithful to Christ. (His wife Elizabeth was wholehearted in her agreement. Her defense of her husband reveals her astonishing courage in support of her husband's integrity.) This is the kind of courage and love that I believe must drive us to stop making of our consciences a continual butchery, and establish enterprises that conform to, and commend the Gospel.

Augustine on luxury

In speaking of the fall of Rome in The City of God, Augustine says,

It was at that time also that the proconsul Cn. Manlius, after subduing the Galatians, introduced into Rome the luxury of Asia, more destructive than all hostile armies. (p 99).

Luxury was more injurious to the virtue of Rome than all hostile armies. Could there be a more apt description of the effects of luxury on our own nation?

The implications for entrepreneurship based on the Gospel are clear: we do not engage in entrepreneurship to multiply the luxuries of the wealthy; rather we plunge into entrepreneurship to manifest the reign of Christ in ventures that creatively address needs, particularly those of the poor.

Aligning interests: moving in with the poor

The Gospel calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Many Christians have interpreted that to mean that we remain where we are (or further insulate ourselves from poverty), and give to the poor in order to better their situation. Our consciences are (at least partially) salved for having helped, but often our whole hearts are not poured into loving the poor. So how do we change that?

One way to align our interests is to move in with the poor. Then giving is not merely to salve our conscience; it is to seek the good of those who are truly our neighbors because our lot is bound up with theirs. More than that, we will begin to understand what are the issues that perpetuate poverty - and we can begin to address them personally (and not just by throwing money at the problem) through the Gospel.

I am not suggesting that this is easy. I am suggesting, however, that apart from this move there will naturally tend to be the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude toward loving the poor. Our interests will be conflicted: we want good for the poor, so long as it does not threaten our comfort or security. By moving in with the poor, their interests become ours, because we begin to truly live as neighbors.

If I am not mistaken, this will also drive true gospel entrepreneurship because we will begin asking the question:

How does the good news of Christ need to be manifested in the public square in this community?

Social, or Gospel Entrepreneurship?

There is an emerging field of entrepreneurs who are not Christians, and and interested in starting similar ventures in similar communities. They are social entrepreneurs, motivated not primarily by money, but by social change. They are convinced that commerce, and not just non-profits, can be the vehicles of change among the poor.

As I have been getting involved in entrepreneurship, I have been asking the question,

What is the difference between social entrepreneurship and gospel entrepreneurship?

Do we share the same values? Are we pursuing the same goals? Are we working together, or at odds?

I'll try to answer each of those in order:

• Do we share the same values? Yes and no. Yes, we care for poor communities, and yes, we believe that commerce can be a vehicle of social change. Yes, we believe that entrepreneurship is not about profiteering, but adding value and creating capital.
  But, no we do not believe that social change will happen in the the same way, and no we do not have the same hierarchy of values.
  
• Are we pursuing the same goals? Yes and no. Yes, we want to see poor communities revitalized, residents becoming invested in their communities, and local commerce flourishing. But there we part paths. With these outcomes a social entrepreneur will be satisfied; with only these outcomes, the gospel entrepreneur will not be satisfied.
• Are we working together, or at odds? There are many ways in which gospel entrepreneurs will join hands with social entrepreneurs to work for the good of a neighborhood. It is precisely in this context of partnership that the differences in our values and goals will emerge, and will, in a sense, put us at odds, even though we both seek the good of the neighborhood.

If you're asking, "So what are the values and goals of gospel entrepreneurship that differ from social entrepreneurship?" you're asking the right question.

1. Values: The primary interest of a gospel entrepreneur is to seek first the Kingdom of God. At its very core it is different from social entrepreneurship because it seeks to be a sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom of God. Social entrepreneurship has none of these aims.
   
2. Methods: Gospel entrepreneurship believes that lasting social change happens through the Gospel and not apart from it. In fact, it believes that social entrepreneurship, though active and well-intentioned, does not address the real issues of poverty. Consequently, in its dialog with social entrepreneurs, it focuses on the chief end, and the methods of achieving that end.
3. Results: Gospel entrepreneurs measure success entirely differently than social entrepreneurs. Gospel entrepreneurs look for the extension of the reign of Christ over all things through the Gospel. If they start a business that is profitable, provides jobs to the community, and contributes to social change, but does not result in people submitting to Christ as King, they will not consider their work a success.
   

Social entrepreneurship and gospel entrepreneurship are distinct. They have different values, methods and metrics. Yet the business of gospel entrepreneurs is not to criticize social entrepreneurs, but to call them to Christ through the gospel, that He may be all in all.

Bigger is better?

Woe to those who join house to house,
who add field to field,
until there is no more room,
and you are made to dwell alone
in the midst of the land (Isaiah 5:8)

We do not live in the only age of expansion. The 'bigger is better' mentality had gripped the people of Israel to whom Isaiah prophesied. They did not regard the deeds of the LORD (v12), but were set on expansion.

How easy it is to say that growth is the blessing of the LORD! Yet small and humble may more honor the King than a vast empire.

Loving by lending

The books of the Law give many indicators of how are to fulfill the two great commandments of loving God supremely, and our neighbors as ourselves:

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’" (Deuteronomy 15:7-11, emphasis mine)

In the previous chapter, God had commanded the tithe for the poor:

“At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do." (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

Thus on a triennial basis, the people were to care for the poor by bringing the tithe of their produce for those in need: the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widows (and the Levites, who had no inheritance). The thrust of the command in chapter 15 is to show that the normal way of loving one's poor neighbor is not through the tithing every third year, but through lending regularly. He does not mean lending to the poor in order to profit from them; the Scripture is very clear that exacting usury of the poor is wicked (e.g. Exodus 22:25) - and in this very passage, lenders are warned against hardening their hearts because the year of release is near.

What ought to draw our attention is that the way in which God provided for the poor among His people was primarily through the ordinary laws of not gleaning the edges of the field (Leviticus 23:22) that the poor might gather the fruit, and through generous lending to those in need (Deuteronomy 15:8). The tithe at the end of every third year was bounty for the poor, but could not possibly sustain them for the intervening years. The regular provision for the poor required them to work (in gleaning the edges of the fields), and to repay loans (except in the year of release).

What difference does it make what laws God had for His people Israel, now that we live not in the theocracy of Israel, but as Christians? Jesus said that the law and prophets were summed up in this: To love the LORD with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Thus, the law is to us an instructor in how to love our neighbors, even though it does not govern us in the way that it did the people of Israel.

We desperately need this instruction in our day. I have witnessed the destruction of cultures through handouts in Uganda and in the United States. Well-intentioned people (including Christians!) have provided for the poor in ways that did not require or enable them to work, and in ways that did not affirm and maintain their responsibility. The effect of this well-intentioned charity was to plunge those cultures into ruin, not to lift them from poverty. If we would seek how to truly love the poor, we must heed the wisdom of God.

This teaching is not confined to the Old Testament law. Jesus, I think, was alluding to this particular kind of lending when he said:

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount." (Luke 6:34)

Jesus could have said, "Give to the poor" (as he does elsewhere), but instead here he commends lending in which we assume the risk of the poor. We reflect to the world His righteousness and mercy when we lend to the poor, who may not be able to repay.

It is at precisely this point that our citizenship in the Kingdom of heaven is manifest in the world, and the Kingdom of heaven itself comes to bear on the world. We lend to the poor not because the laws of the land require it, but because our King has commanded it. As such, by our commerce, we show forth the foolishness of the gospel and the righteousness, wisdom and mercy of our King in a way that does not destroy cultures but renews them through the Gospel.

Prayer

Since I work from home and have very flexible work arrangements, I often end up doing work in the evenings. After a recent evening of research on a start-up, I realized just how often I can pour great time and effort into a task, and yet hardly pray at all about it - even if I believe that what I am doing honors God. After wrestling for hours one evening with a glitch in a tool that I had designed, I was shamed to realize that I never labor that way in prayer. I don't spend hours waiting, pressing and seeking for an answer. I content myself with a few minutes, and go back to work.

If the gospel is really to permeate my life and work, there is going to have to be a radical shift in the ways that I approach God through prayer - and in the perseverance with which I pray.

Mercenary mentality

The New York Times Magazine ran an article in January on Faith at Work. Randy Cohen began the article this way:

I answered an ad for a job as a data-entry clerk at a faith-based charity, but I stopped filling out the application when it said I could not work there unless I signed a ''statement of faith,'' affirming that I had evangelical Christian beliefs. Isn't this religious discrimination?

What struck me was not that this charity asked its employees to sign a statement of faith, but that this Mr. Cohen has an overwhelmingly mercenary mentality quite without realizing it. For the reality is, that whether one signs a 'statement of faith' or not, in entering the employment of any organization, one is aligning oneself with their mission, values and goals. Doing data entry is supporting the cause of the organization. If one was doing data entry for Osama bin Laden, there is a tacit commitment of oneself to the purposes that he represents.

Doing data entry for bin Laden is different from doing it for a Christian charity. They serve different ends. That the charity asks its employees to make that commitment explicit only serves to focus attention on the fact that to hire oneself out to an organization is to support it.

It is precisely at this point that I believe that Christians need to demonstrate more faithfulness to the message of the gospel. I think hardly a person would willingly enter the employment of al Queda, but do we realize that our employment represents an allegiance? We do not simply work to take home a paycheck; rather we are compensated for advancing the cause of our employer. Therefore a Christian must ask: How can I advance the cause of my employer while being entirely faithful to Christ? My sense is that when we ask ourselves that (or at least when I ask myself that), we'll find that the gospel rubs against the mission of the mass of employers.

Consequently, we have two alternatives:

1. Maintain our first allegiance to Christ, and allow the gospel to define our actions in the workplace, or
2. Start new organizations that (in every righteous sector, not just the non-profit world!) submit to Christ.

In the first, we will be against the world for the world, and in the second, for the world against the world.

Unmasking the powers

The subtitle of this blog is "Unmasking the powers of the age through the Gospel." In engaging in entrepreneurship through the Gospel, I believe that one of the primary outcomes will be to unmask the powers of the age. What does that mean? I know no one more helpful than Lesslie Newbigin. I quote him at length here because a Biblical exposition of 'the powers' is first required in order to understand what is entailed in their unmasking:

I refer to the whole mass of teaching in St Paul's letters about what are variously called principalities, powers, dominions, thrones, authorities, rulers, angels, and other names (38) . . . They refer to something behind these individuals, to the offices, the powers, the authority which is represented from time to time by this or that individual (39). . . If one can summarize all these as referring to the structural elements of human life, one brings them into relation with the language about the stoicheia [elements]. All human life is lived and has to believed within limits which are set by certain structural features, both of the natural world and of the world of human society. . . [O]ur life in society is structured by law, custom and tradition (42) . . . These structural elements are necessary to guide and protect human life. They serve God's purpose. . . But they can come to usurp the place to which they have no right, the place which belongs to Christ and to him alone (43). [For example] Money, which is a useful means for facilitating exchange, has become a power in itself, so that we do not measure human wealth in terms of real goodness and happiness but in terms of cash. Money has truly become a fetish, a power which demands and receives absolute devotion (44).

In the cross Christ has disarmed the powers. He has unmasked them. . . . The death of Christ was the unmasking of the powers - Caiaphas and Herod and Pilate were not uniquely wicked men; they were acting out their roles as guardians of the political and moral and religious order. They acted as representatives of what the New Testament calls the world, this present age. When God raised the crucified Jesus, this present age and its structures was exposed, illuminated, unmasked - but not destroyed. Cross and resurrection seen together mean both judgment and grace, both wrath and endless patience. God still upholds the structures; without them the world would collapse and human life would be unthinkable. But the structures lose their pretended absoluteness. Nothing now is absolute except God as he is known in Jesus Christ; everything else is relativized. That is the bottom line for Christian thinking and the starting point for Christian action in the affairs of the world. What does it imply in practice? (45)

Let me begin with some negatives. It does not mean anarchy. It does not mean an attack on structures as such. . . . human life is impossible without them, and God in his mercy preserves them in order to give time for the Church to fulfill its calling to make manifest to them the wisdom of God. Our relation to the structures has to contain both the judgment that is inevitable in the searing light of the cross, and also the patience that is required of us as witnesses to the resurrection. We are not conservatives who regard the structures as part of the unalterable order of creation, as part of the world of what we call 'hard facts' beyond the range of the gospel and who therefore suppose that the gospel is only relevant to the issues of personal and private life. Nor are we anarchists who seek to destroy the structures. We are rather patient revolutionaries who know that the whole creation, with all its given structures, is groaning in the travail of a new birth, and that we share this groaning and travail, this struggling and wrestling, but do so in hope because we have already receive in the Spirit, the firstfruit of the new world (Rom 8:19-25). (45-46) . .

What are we talking about when we speak of confronting the institutions of state and market economy and culture with the gospel? We are not fighting against the individuals who perform their roles within these institutions . . . Those who call for a Christian assault on the worlds of politics and economics often make it clear that the attack belongs to the same order of being as the enemy to be attacked. The aim of the attack is to seize the levers of power and take control. We have seen many such successful revolutions, and we know that in most cases what has happened is simply that the oppressor and the oppressed have exchanged roles. The structure is unchanged. The throne is unshaken, only there is a different person occupying it. How is the throne itself to be shaken? How is the power to be disarmed and placed in the service of Christ? Only by the power of the gospel itself, announced in word and embodied in deed. As Walter Wink reminds us, the victory of the Church over the demonic power which was embodied in the Roman imperial system was not won by seizing the levers of power: it was won when the victims knelt down in the Colosseum and prayed in the name of Jesus for the Emperor. The soldiers in Christ's victorious army were not armed with the weapons of this age; they were martyrs whose robes were washed in blood. It was not that a particular Emperor was discredited or displaced; it was that the entire mystique of the Empire, its spiritual power, was unmasked, disarmed, and rendered powerless. A conversion of individuals which failed to identify, unmask, and reject that spiritual, ideological power would have been as futile as an attempt by Christians to wrest that power from its holders. Evangelism which is politically and ideologically naive, and social action which does not recognize the need for conversion from false gods to the living God, both fall short of what is required (Lesslie Newbigin: Missionary Theologian 46-47).

The power of capitalism is unmasked when its pretended absoluteness is displayed in exactly the way Newbigin describes: "Only by the power of the gospel itself, announced in word and embodied in deed." When money is dethroned as the reigning god, and the Church submits to Christ her King as her true and great Sovereign, then through the power of the gospel, announced in word, and embodied in deed, the mystique of capitalism may be disarmed and rendered powerless just as was the Roman empire.

Gospel entrepreneurship is not seeking to wrest the power of commerce from evil oppressive businesses by outperforming them in the marketplace. Rather, it is the work of patient revolutionaries, announcing the good news in word and deed, in all sectors, in hope [in the Romans 8 sense of that word] that through the Church, the Spirit will use this to display the manifold wisdom of God in dethroning and disarming the powers.

Power to get wealth

As an entrepreneur, I am keenly aware of opportunities to create wealth. I see them everywhere. There are opportunities to do good, meet needs in a just way, and create wealth for those who work. For people like me God has recorded these words in Scripture:

Beware lest you say in your heart, 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.' You shall remember the Lord your God, for it he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. (Deuteronomy 8:17-18)

These are words that I need on my head and on my heart, and on the door frames of my house.

Walking in the way, we wait

There is, I believe, an inherent tension in participating in gospel entrepreneurship. We believe that we are called to engage in commerce in ways that are informed and transformed by the gospel and that this has redemptive effects within human society. At the same time, we have no illusion that our small obedience will bring about what we desire. Our desire is much greater than the influence that one, or even many, gospel-centered businesses can accomplish. We crave times of awakening and revival in which human society is transformed swiftly and deeply through the gospel.

Isaiah captured well how we live with this tension:

Yes, Lord, walking in the way of your laws,
we wait for you;
your name and renown
are the desire of our hearts. (Isaiah 26:8)

The way of waiting for, and pleading for the outpourings of the Spirit that we desperately need is not to sit idly. Rather, walking in the way of His laws, we wait. We are engaged in the business of bringing the Gospel to bear on all of human society. Yet we do this with a spirit of waiting, mindful that unless the Spirit creates repentance, any societal change is going to be superficial. Truly, His name and renown, and not the works of our hands, are the desire of our hearts.

Pulling out, or pressing in?

If, as I have maintained, for Christians to have integrity they must align three interests (1) the advance of the gospel, (2) provision for one's family (3) securing competent human capital to achieve the mission of the organization, does that mean that Christians ought to pull out of 'non-Christian' sectors?

Take for example, the financial services sector. My former employer had as its mission: to become the premier global wealth management firm. Their stated mission is to make the richest people in the world even richer. In contrast, Jesus said,

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21)

Does this mean that in order to have integrity, Christians need to pull out of firms like my former employer, or even out of the industry entirely?

To be faithful to the gospel, the Christian must act according to its truths, and not according to the stories that the financial services industry tells. I can imagine a Christian broker working for my former employer sitting down with his clients and saying,

"You have come to me as a wealth manager, and I aim to do the best job that I can for you. At present, your number one liability is the wealth that you possess. I want to help you minimize that liability."

That opening sets the stage for the Gospel: not that we do not seek profit, but that we seek lasting profit. If a person is amassing wealth only for this life, she is a fool. But if she invests her present wealth in a way that secures a more valuable and lasting return, she is wise. The Christian broker is going to approach investment strategies entirely differently from his peers. Furthermore, he is acting on faith. If he assumes that he can convince a client to divest her wealth liabilities for the sake of the gospel simply through persuasion, he has denied the very foundation of the Gospel: that it is the sovereign work of the Spirit. So the only way that he can faithfully present this investment strategy is by trusting that the Holy Spirit will open the eyes of the blind to the good news of God. If that doesn't happen, the client is going to walk right out the door shaking her head - perhaps for the Spirit to use that conversation later for her conversion.

The reality is that if the Christian broker decides to stay with the big wealth management firm, he may either be pushed out by his superiors, or simply lose his client base through the foolishness of the gospel - and it is foolishness to those who do not believe. We do not have a faith that is respectable in polite society; it is true and revolutionary or it is nonsense.

Given those two likely scenarios, what can a Christian do? Should he abandon the industry and go to work for a non-profit? Although some will be called out to 'non-profit' work, I strongly believe that rather than pulling out, we are called to press in. That individual must search out what gospel entrepreneurship means in his industry. How does he start a small business that brings the gospel to bear on his particular sector or industry? That is the question.

In the case of financial services, I think it will probably mean starting a small business built on the truth of the Gospel that does not target its services exclusively to Christians. Rather, it recognizes that it has at least 3 target markets: (1) Christians who want to store up treasure in heaven and need advice, (2) Christians who have never thought about storing up treasure in heaven, and (3) non-Christians who can only store up treasures on earth. If the new business is faithful to the Gospel, it cannot address only its first two target markets; it must pursue the third. The glory is that the only way to pursue the third market is through the gospel. The entire investment philosophy is built on the gospel, and is foolishness to those who reject the gospel. Those who form this company are going to be constantly engaged in evangelism, not because it is the path to their own profitability, but because the gospel constrains them. This is gospel entrepreneurship.

Aligned interests

When I worked in the financial services industry, I quickly saw how important it was for interests to be properly aligned. For example, if a broker gets paid on commission, every time he buys or sells equity shares for one of his clients, then he is quite naturally going to need to move their money around in order to make any money. This does not tend to make for good long term investment strategies for the investors, since the only way the broker makes money is by buying and selling.

Consequently there was a strong push in the financial services industry to align the interests of the broker and investors. The solution was a fee-based system where the broker is paid a set percentage of the client's assets every year. The bigger the total assets, the more the broker gets paid. Suddenly long-term growth strategy is in the interest of both the broker and the investor.

I have observed at least three major interests that exist for Christians in the working world. First, there is the interest of the Gospel, to see it announced, believed and transforming individuals, families and society. Second, each individual has a legitimate interest to provide for the needs of his or her family by working. Third, employers, whether individuals or organizations, have an interest in securing competent employees to fulfill the mission of their business, even if that business is 'non-profit.'

For the most part, I observe Christians aligning the second two interests, and seeing the first as disconnected from the other two. We are told that religion belongs to the 'private' sphere, and not the workplace. Religion in the workplace creates a conflict of interest, we are told. As a result, for a great many Christians, the latter two interests are aligned and to some degree satisfied, while the interest of the Gospel is unaligned with their work life.

I can provide a couple of concrete examples. In the financial services industry, I was on a number of occasions reprimanded for sharing the good news with co-workers. When I taught in the public schools, I was required to sign a non-proselytizing statement as a condition of employment. In no uncertain terms, I was being told that my first, and according to the Gospel itself greatest, interest could not be satisfied in the work place. Functionally, they were telling me that I could only work as a mercenary. I could work for my salary in order to take it home and do with it there what I wished - but not in the workplace.

Increasingly, I believe that a paradigm shift needs to occur among Christians in the workplace like the change that happened in the financial services industry in order to align interests. Christians (myself included!) need to retain the integrity of all three interests. In some cases, I believe that will mean stepping out, or being forced out, of current employment. It will mean stepping into organizations that are either truly tolerant, or are Christian. Or it will mean creating organizations that are deeply Christian and therefore align the three interests and foster a truly tolerant work environment. Since I have encountered a frighteningly small number of existing organizations that are either truly tolerant (and allow for appropriate, non-coercive proselytism) or deeply Christian, I can only conclude that the call to align these three interests is going to necessitate gospel entrepreneurship.

Bearing a radically other-worldly hope

To put it even more sharply: the hope, of which the Church is called to be the bearer in the midst of a famine of hope, is a radically other-worldly hope. Knowing that Jesus is king and that he will come to reign, it fashions its life and invites the whole community to fashion its life in the light of this reality, because every other way of living is based on an illusion. It thus creates signs, parables, foretastes, appetizers of the kingdom in the midst of the hopelessness of the world. (Lesslie Newbigin: Missionary Theologian p146)

How is it possible to engage in entrepreneurship and bear "a radically other-worldly hope"?
There are two typical answers to this question that Christians have taken:

1. Many have said that since we have an other-worldly hope, and this world is passing away, we are not to be enmeshed in it. Those who do not believe in the age to come will engage in entrepreneurship; but we, who believe in the Gospel and the age to come, will engage in evangelism.
2. Many others have denied that we have an other-worldly hope altogether, and have contended that the hope that Christ offers is for this age, and that therefore we ought to be actively engaged in entrepreneurship that brings the kingdom of Christ into the world.

I think that Newbigin gets closer to a Biblical answer to the question when he says,

"Knowing that Jesus is king and that he will come to reign, [the Church] fashions its life and invites the whole community to fashion its life in the light of this reality, because every other way of living is based on an illusion."

As such, the Church does not abdicate her involvement in society because she has an other-worldly hope; nor does she have the illusion that her efforts will establish the kingdom of Christ in this world. Instead, as she fashions all of her life around the reality that Christ is King and is coming to reign in order that through her engagement in temporal affairs, others may experience a foretaste of the kingdom of Christ now, and by faith become partakers of that other-worldly hope.

What others taste of the Kingdom of Christ is but an aperitif. It points to a great, eternal reality. Our businesses and ventures will not endure; but Christ will reign forever as King. This is what makes us bold to engage in entrepreneurship that witnesses to a radically other-worldly hope.

Beginnings

Not long ago, a good friend made and observation and asked a question that captured my attention. We had been talking about some opportunities for entrepreneurship, and he said:

I grew up in the church, and I learned that Christians should have integrity, treat people well, and use their profits wisely and generously. But I feel like there is something more. Is that all there is to being a Christian in the workplace?

When he said that, I was deeply impressed that the church often says very little about the claims that the Gospel makes on us in the workplace beyond having integrity, treating people well, and being generous.

My friend had glimpsed something painfully clear: There are many people who are not Christians, nor make any pretense of being Christians, who excel in integrity, good will and generosity. So what difference does it make if you are a Christian or not?

I'm quite confident that my friend is not alone. We live in a disintegrated, and disintegrating, society. We have been told that matters of faith are distinct from, and not integrated with, matters of social engagement and welfare. What is worse is that we have believed it. We have agreed to be Christians at home and at church, and dutiful employees at the office. We have conceded that as long as our work is not immoral (like publishing child pornography), we can do it with a clear conscience.

My aim, then, is to demonstrate integrity in a disintegrated and disintegrating society by contending that the only way Christians can live under Christ as King is for our engagement in social and economic structures to be defined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that the Good News of Jesus Christ calls us not out of the world, but into it in a way that unmasks the powers of this age, provides a foretaste of the age to come, and is the instrument of the Holy Spirit for rescuing the enemies of God.

There are a host of questions that need to be answered, and with which I will wrestle on this blog. I welcome submission of more questions, and contributions to meaningful answers to them.
Here are a few of the questions:

1. How does an entrepreneur submit to Christ as King?
2. How does gospel entrepreneurship differ from social entrepreneurship?
3. What are the aims of gospel entrepreneurs?
4. How do gospel entrepreneurs measure success?
5. Are there any business sectors off-limits to gospel entrepreneurs?
6. What is a 'Christian' business?
7. Why focus on entrepreneurship and not commerce more generally?
8. Aren't the Gospel and profit fundamentally irreconcilable?
9. What is the hope of a gospel entrepreneur?