A radically different vision

The power of a human mind to think rationally is only developed in a tradition which itself depends on the experience of previous generations. This is obviously true of the vast edifice of modern science sustained by the scientific community. The definition of what is reasonable and what is not will be conditioned by the tradition within which the matter is being discussed. . .

It is no secret, indeed it has been affirmed from the beginning, that the gospel gives rise to a new plausibility structure, a radically different vision of things from those that shape all human cultures apart from the gospel. The Church, therefore, as the bearer of the gospel, inhabits a plausibility structure that is at variance with, and which calls in question, those that govern all human cultures without exception. (Gospel in a Pluralist Society p9)

The business of gospel entrepreneurship is to create ventures that embody this vision, and call into question the cultures around them.

The necessity of assumptions

"No coherent thought is possible without taking some things as given. It is not difficult to show, in respect of every branch of knowledge as it is taught in schools and colleges, that there are things taken for granted and not questioned, things which could be questioned. No coherent thought is possible without presuppositions. What is required for honest thinking is that one should be as explicit as possible about what these presuppositions are. The presupposition of all valid and coherent Christian thinking is that God has acted to reveal and effect his purpose for the world in the manner made known in the Bible. " (Gospel in a Pluralist Society p8)

To elucidate these assumptions, I have found few more helpful questions than those Andy Crouch offers in Culture Making:

1. What does this cultural good assume about the way the world is?
2. What does this cultural good assume about the way the world ought to be?

In creating new opportunities that announce and embody the good news of Christ, we need questions like this to help us examine our assumptions so that we may do honest, faithful Christian thinking . . . and action. In so doing, our actions ought to call into question all aspects of culture that are gospel-rejecting.

Gospel: the foundation of all knowing and doing

I have been re-reading The Gospel in a Pluralist Society and can't help sharing some of the many gems:

"Something radically new has been given, something which cannot be derived from rational reflection on the experiences available to all people. It is a new fact, to be received in faith as a gift of grace. And what is thus given claims to be the truth, not just a possible opinion. It is the rock which must either become the foundation of all knowing and doing, or else the stone on which one stumbles and falls to disaster. Those who, through no wit or wisdom or godliness of their own, have been entrusted with this message can in no way demonstrate the truth on the basis of some other alleged certainties: they can only live by it and announce it. " (p6)

That is the business of gospel entrepreneurship - in new economic enterprises to live by and announce this message of the gospel that is foolishness to those who are perishing, and a rock of offense to those who do not believe, in the hope that through the foolishness of what we live and speak, God will save those who believe.

Acknowledging that others have different assumptions

In my experience, many Christians (myself included) often assume that their listeners share assumptions about the existence and nature of God, and the authority of the Bible. I don't want to fall into those assumptions; I need to remind myself that my friends and acquaintances have diverse theistic, atheistic, agnostic and humanist assumptions. So if I use the word 'God' without explaining what I mean, my listeners may take a very different meaning.

Positively, here is how I think the issues of parenting (which is both my responsibility, and connected to my vocation) open the door for sharing the gospel and respectfully challenging the assumptions of others:

When disciplining a child, every parent knows that something has gone wrong. But many of us have been taught that discipline is simply adjusting the rewards and punishments to manipulate a child's behavior. The thought is that if we sufficiently balance the incentives and consequences, our children's behavior will be effectively modified. But is this a satisfying answer? Do we like it as adults when others try to manipulate our behavior using the carrot and stick? Or do our hearts still yearn to be treated as responsible, moral people who can and should make right decisions? If we simply try to manipulate our children's behavior, will they be left with the same frustration and longing to be treated as responsible human beings? Moreover, how do we decide what is best for our children? How do we know what to encourage, and what to reprove? Ultimately, if our children see that the expectations of them are not rooted in a true vision of the way things really are, they'll see through our hypocrisy and go their own way. We can't simply prop up a set of family ethics that is useful for keeping the peace, but doesn't fit with the world in which we really live.

I believe that the purpose of human existence - which defines what is good and worthy, and what is wrong and shameful - has been revealed in the Bible by the one true God who created all things. This God created humanity for true relatedness to Himself and to one another. In our frequent wrongs, we disfigure those relationships and corrupt our hearts in such a way that we need both forgiveness and help. In the person of Jesus Christ, God has provided forgiveness for those who will trust Him; furthermore, by trusting Jesus, He gives frail, broken people the power to live in restored relationship with Him, and with other people.

As parents, that means that we don't address merely our children's behavior in discipline. We address their hearts, and their relationships. Our discipline must seek to restore the broken relationships through confession, forgiveness, repentance, and when necessary, restitution. It must also address the child's heart that has chosen a wrong and unwise path. In discipline, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach the child to be responsible: to admit what was wrong, to recognize the occasion of their fault, to consider possible wise alternatives, to seek forgiveness from those they have wronged, and to seek help from God in changing.

Parenting provides a unique insight into our own need, and our quest for meaning. It creates the opportunity for us to ask good questions, and to testify to the truth we have experienced.

Spending or investing?

In common use, English speakers often say that they spend time. "I spent the past week with my in-laws." It is indeed monetary language, which acknowledges that time is precious. To use time is to spend it. And how we use our time is eminently important, because no person has more time than any other. To each person is allotted the same 24 hours in each day.

Not long ago, I was describing to a friend my time at home with my daughter during my wife's pediatric residency. It occurred to me that it was much more true to say that I had invested three years in nurturing and raising my daughter, than to say I had spent that time.

That realization caused me to ponder: how do we invest our time? Where are we looking for interest and dividends? A great many people invest an inordinate amount of time in work. So it is fair to ask them: Do you expect to still be part this company or organization in 20 years? Compare that to your relationships. Are you married? Do you expect to be married in 20 years? Do you have children? Do you expect to still be in relationship with them in 20 years?

Where are you investing your time?

Gross National Virtue

We need a new language for a new economy. For too long we have measured economies in terms of goods produced rather than good done. And it is quite understandable; goods are far more easily quantified than good. Yet it is a fatal flaw.

The primary measure of an economy is justice, not productivity. As we are witnessing, productivity can very quickly ebb and flow. Justice however, forms the condition under which humanity can flourish. Whether the market is up or down, and the GNP is skyrocketing or tanking, the most important measure is the justice of the economy.

We need to begin to assess our gross national virtue instead of our gross national product. When we do, we will be ashamed of where we are, but will be in the only point from which a healthy economy can be established: from confession and repentance.

Concentration of Risk

When I talk with people about the economy, I often end up saying the same thing: Concentration of control or capital is concentration of risk. I take that as a basic assumption about economics of scale.

I was pleased to see that Peter Bregman from the Harvard Business Review agrees. In Why Small Companies Will Win in this Economy, Bregman points back to the fundamentals:

Small companies with low overhead, reliable owners, a small number of committed employees, personal client relationships, and sustainable business models that drive a reasonable profit are the great opportunity of our time.

Small is the new big. Sustainable is the new growth. Trust is the new competitive advantage.

The fact is that these are not just the great opportunity of our time; they are the fundamentals of any time. Small businesses allow for a level of trust and personal connection - among employees, and between employees and clients - that are difficult, if not impossible, for large entities to match.

Why is this so? The gospel tells us that we were made for true relatedness - with God and one another. The only way that trust and true mutual relatedness grow is in real relationships. And these thrive, not in big groups, but small. This is one of the many ways that gospel entrepreneurs can embody and offer hope in a famine of hope.