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.