Why won't you buy this?

My eight year old daughter loves to make things. And now she wants to sell them. Her motives are great. She wants to give money to the Rehoboth Children's Home in India (which is supported by the gifts of our church). But she's baffled that people aren't leaping at the chance to pay for her pieces of art.

She is stumbling onto something really important that she'll need to wrestle with for the rest of her life. In order to participate in value exchanges, you have to provide something that people value. At this stage, her work doesn't yet meet their criteria of fine art.

The critical question for her is not Why won't you buy this? but What can I offer that solves a problem for you? At this stage in life, she is a fantastic "mother's helper," who can take competently care of younger children (while an adult is present in the home) so that the parent can get other things done - like read a book! At $3/hour, that feels like a tremendous amount of money for my daughter, and a bargain for our friends who need a breather.

With that experience under her belt (and the referrals that flow from doing a good job) she'll be ready to take on "real" babysitting jobs when she's old enough to do that. In the process she will have learned that she doesn't have to twist people's arm into buying something they don't want. She simply has to ask what she can do or provide that others will gladly pay for. After all, that's what most artists do while they refine their craft such that people gladly want to pay for their art.

Why spotlight this nonprofit?

In response to my recent Cardus essay on Value, Values and Valuation, one reader challenged one of my examples:

Perhaps Charlottesville Investment Collaborative is not the example you are looking for. I find the website indicates the cooperative concentrates on training, and is willing to lend money.  How effective the cooperative actually is will depend on the successes of the values created by the participants. Nothing on the website is dedicated to explaining and expounding the new found values, [but rather to] providing 'free advertising' for the participants.

Why did I choose CIC as an example if it has these apparent shortcomings?

1. Value Creation: CIC is creating value by doing something that no-one else in our community is doing by enabling the marginalized to start new businesses. Training and lending IS the value provided. The participants have no other access to such opportunity or resources, and therefore could not otherwise start new enterprises.
2. Participant Success: The reader is right that success hinges on the entrepreneurs/participants' value creation and values. The proof will be in their flourishing.
3. Free advertising? Providing 'free advertising' for participants is also value creation. The poor - by definition - don't have the social networks we do. Getting the word out about the value that they're creating is mission critical for their success and the flourishing of our city.
4. What values? The reader is also right that "nothing on the website is dedicated to explaining and expounding the new found values." CIC is not a Christian organization. I have the privilege of collaborating with my non-Christian neighbors who, by common grace, are doing good and creating value for their neighbors. Into that good work I speak these words. Indeed, I think that is precisely the value that we as Christians need to bring to the table - the embodied and spoken values of the Kingdom. That, I truly hope, is public theology for the common good.

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.

Evil in the economy

Yesterday I saw this headline in Business Week: Wall Street's Economic Crimes Against Humanity. In the article, Shoshana Zuboff assails the moral judgment of the suit and tie folks who work on Wall Street in the 'banality of evil' in which they indulged. In shocking terms for a major article in Business Week, she pounds and the personal responsibility of those involved, and not merely of the gigantic entities for which they worked. For the first time in a long time, the word evil has entered the vocabulary of capitalism. It recalled to me this insightful section from Lesslie Newbigin:

"But to say that capitalism requires a certain kind of moral foundation is to say that capitalism cannot survive permanently in a purely secular society. To quote a recent writer, 'The disinterested devotion which was vital to the creation of the capitalist world order and to the public life of industrial nations and which rested on a religious idea-system appears to be a type of moral capital debt which is no longer being serviced.' but this means that capitalism cannot be a self-sustaining system. It depends on the moral-cultural system and cannot be separated from it. But moral imperatives cannot operate merely as useful props for a profitable economic order. If they are not rooted in some belief about how the universe is in fact ordered, they collapse; and if they are so rooted, then the economic order cannot be isolated from their jurisdiction. If capitalism depends on the insights of a moral conscience, then that conscience has to have authority over the working of capitalist economics. (Foolishness to the Greeks p112).

Why is it that those whom Zuboff condemns so strongly were unaware of their banal evil? It certainly has to do with the mediation which Zuboff identifies in shielding them from those whom they exploited. But far more profoundly, the story that they had embraced - the story of limitless growth - was separated from the moral-cultural system which it rejected.

If there is to be real reform now, moral imperatives cannot be used merely as 'props for a profitable economic order.' They must be rooted in reality - which is precisely why Christians must engage in the public discourse about the purpose of society and economies. We testify to the One for whom, and by whom all things exist.

Exposing assumptions

Today I received an email from Avaaz, an activist organization, calling on me to petition the Pope to change his position on condoms:

This week, on his first visit to Africa, Pope Benedict said that "[AIDS] cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

The Pope's statement is at odds with the research on AIDS prevention, and a setback to decades of hard work on AIDS education and awareness. With powerful moral influence over more than 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, and 22 million HIV positive Africans, these words could dramatically affect the AIDS pandemic and put millions of lives at risk. Worldwide concern is starting to show results and a willingness by the Vatican to revise the statement - sign our urgent petition asking the Pope to take care not to undermine proven AIDS prevention strategies:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/pope_benedict_petition

The personal beliefs of Catholics and all people should be respected, and the Pope does advocate for other AIDS prevention methods such as abstinence and fidelity that can be effective when combined with condom use. The Catholic Church engages in a vast amount of social service work, including the care of those living with AIDS. But the Pope's claim that condom distribution is not an effective AIDS prevention mechanism is not supported by research. It's untrue, and if it diminishes condom use, it will be deadly.

To expose assumptions, it is helpful to use Andy Crouch's questions:

1. What does this email assume about the way the world is?
   It assumes that the "personal beliefs" of Catholics and all people should be treated as private beliefs. It further assumes that the Pope's support for abstinence and fidelity is ineffective without condom use.
2. What does this email assume about the way the world should be?
   It assumes that people should be able to have sexual intercourse without accepting the consequences of those actions.

Why does this matter for gospel entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurs are those who see a social problem and address it in a way that creates wealth and opportunity. HIV/AIDS is clearly a social problem. And there are hundreds of organizations devoted to addressing the problem.

How is gospel entrepreneurship here different from social entrepreneurship?
The good news of Christ says that the baseline state of humanity is rebellion against the one true God, who made us for Himself. The good news does not offer freedom for license, but forgiveness through Christ and freedom to live in the way we were created to live.

What the Pope is doing is simply restating the injunction of Hebrews 13:4, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled . . ."

Consider for a moment what would happen if these two rules were upheld. First, the primary means of HIV transmission (promiscuous sexual activity) would be eradicated. Second, the single best predictor of child poverty (being born out of wedlock) would be eliminated. The impact for education and healthcare is similarly staggering.

So why is Avaaz up in arms? It comes down to the assumptions defined above. Christians have good reason for heeding the first half of Hebrews 13:4, because the second half reads, " . . . for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Our convictions are grounded in a view of reality that is fundamentally different from Avaaz. Avaaz cares deeply about current human suffering, but does not see a connection between human responsibility and current - and final, eternal - suffering.

What to do?
Emails like this provide the occasion for meaningful interaction about assumptions - and about the gospel. We can easily become distracted by discussing conclusions: whether or not we should encourage condom use. But the reason we arrive at different conclusions is because we start in fundamentally different places. The pope, and Christians everywhere, now have a great opportunity to share the hope that we have - the gospel that is our starting place. Christian organizations that engage these issues need not be ashamed of their position, but have ample opportunity to explain their assumptions.

Investing time

It is often said that the one thing of which everyone has an equal amount is time. The rich have no more than the poor in a day. On this footing, at least, we are equal.

Jesus often told stories that emphasized our role as stewards, those who care for something that belongs to one greater than us. So it is worth considering our stewardship of time. Each of us is given the same amount with which to honor the Master. Do we invest that time? Or hoard it? Or squander it?

Not long ago I was writing a blurb for a piece on Tumblon explaining my decision to leave teaching in order to provide full-time care to my daughter while my wife completed her pediatric residency. I discovered that the most helpful expression to describe what I had done was this: I took a child care leave to invest three years in my relationship with my daughter. It was a calculated investment. The return on that time spent loving and nurturing my child was far greater than what I could have "earned" as a teacher.

That experience has led me to ask more often: How am I investing my time?

Loving our neighbours

Lesslie Newbigin makes no mistake in going back to Augustine in order to understand how citizens of the city of God ought to live in the city of man.

God, the Instructor, teaches two main laws, love of God and love of one's neighbour. Here man finds three beings to love, God, himself and his neighbour. He who loves God makes no mistake in loving himself. Consequently, since he is ordered to love his neighbour as himself, he advises his neighbor also to love God. . . . He wishes to be similarly cared for by his neighbours if the need arise. So far as in him [it] lies he will be at peace with all men in that ordered harmony which is the peace of men. (Augustine's City of God XIX, 14, quoted in Foolishness to the Greeks p104)

For Augustine, the logic was inescapable. The great commandment and great commission are wedded; one who loves God cannot love his neighbor without advising his neighbor also to love God. Thus, under God, the commerce of the city of man is designed for each to call his neighbor to love God. Hence the call of gospel entrepreneurship is to embody these two main laws in the public square, and not merely in the realm of private belief.

Love is the basis of society

It is very common to hear people cast both naive and cynical views about government. For those who seek a well-considered view of society, Augustine's City of God is extremely helpful. Lesslie Newbigin notes:

"Augustine was very realistic about the evils that tear all human communities apart - the family, the city, the nation. In The City of God he has no sentimental illusions about natural brotherhood among human beings. Yet he insists that love is the basis of society; even in their wars men are in fact speaking peace. But peace is only possible when there is order, and order depends on proper government; but government in which one is subordinated to another is only right if the one who is called to govern does so for the sake of those he governs -as their servant. The motive power of order is therefore love." (Foolishness to the Greeks p103)

All the natural goods of peace and order that result from good government hinge on the one who governs acting in love. Thus the character of the one who governs is of utmost importance to the order and peace of the state.

By extension the same is true of those who 'rule' in the economic sphere by employing others. The subordination of one to another is only right if the one who is called to so rule does so for the sake of those he leads - as their servant.

Confessing the Kingship of Christ

As I continue to reread Lesslie Newbigin's Foolishness to the Greeks, I find myself essentially blogging through it. Page after page is full of rich missionary insight into my culture, the things that I don't naturally see because they are so familiar to my view. So on that path I will continue.

In his chapter on Christian engagement in politics, economics and culture, Newbigin writes:

"From the eighteenth century onward, Europe turned away from the Christian vision of man and his world, accepted a radically different vision for its public life, and relegated the Christian vision to the status of a permitted option for the private sector. But for the modern church to accept this status is to do exactly what the early church refused to do and what the Bible forbids us to do. It is, in effect, to deny the kingship of Christ over all of life - public and private. It is to deny that Christ is, simply and finally, the truth by which all other claims to truth are to be tested. It is to abandon its calling." (Foolishness to the Greeks p102)

What he points out is that Christianity in the West has, by and large, accepted the status of a permitted option for private belief for personal salvation. Newbigin points out elsewhere that:

"Such private religion flourished as vigorously in the world of the Eastern Mediterranean as it does in North America today. It was permitted by the imperial authorities for the same reason that its counterparts are permitted today: it did not challenge the political order" (ibid. p99)

This is where the rubber meets the road for economics and entrepreneurship. The claims of the gospel prevail on every element of public and private life, calling all people everywhere to order their lives around the One for whom all things. There is not a tidy world of business in which one can bracket his 'personal' beliefs in order to be a faithful employee or employer. To be a Christian means to believe and announce the rule of Jesus over everything, and to witness to that Reality in all aspects of life. That challenges the political and economic order, and is a genuine call to repentance.

An encounter with the gospel

"What would an encounter of the gospel with our post-Enlightenment cultured involve for the public arena - the political, economic, and social aspects of our life?" (Foolishness to the Greeks p95)

I think about that question daily. Where are the places that the good news of Christ calls political, economic and social life into question? As I ask the question, I hear the answer, "Everywhere!"

This morning I read in Ecclesiastes 4:4

"Then I saw that all toil and all skill in work come from a man's envy of his neighbor. This also is vanity and a striving after wind."

To be born again by the Spirit is to be born to a new reality that is no longer governed by envy. There are new reasons for toil and skill; and there are abundant reasons to call for repentance from envy. We are now to manifest a new social and economic order defined by love, not envy! This is but one area where public life is questioned and transformed by the gospel.

What is the real truth about the world?

"We have come again, from another angle, to the cleavage running through our culture between the private and the public worlds, a public world interpreted in terms of efficient causes and a private world in which purpose and therefore value judgments still have a place. I have affirmed that we cannot accept the situation in which Christian faith is admitted as no more than a possible option for the private sector. We cannot settle for a peaceful coexistence between science and religion on the basis of an allocation of there spheres of influence to the public and private sectors respectively. We cannot forever live our lives in two different worlds. We cannot forever postpone this question: What is the real truth about the world?" (Foolishness to the Greeks p79)

I feel precisely what Newbigin is saying here, having been raised with this "two different worlds" mentality. As an employee, when I shared the gospel with co-workers, I was told that matters of belief are personal and do not belong at work. When I was a teacher, I was told that religion had no place in school, because it was a matter of faith and conviction. And so I, like many others in my generation, have lived a schizophrenic life, postponing the question, What is the real truth about the world?

Now I am in a unique place as an entrepreneur. I don't have organizational forces telling me that I am not permitted to say certain things; yet I feel very deeply our cultural taboo against the truth of the gospel. Certainly it is a permitted opinion, but it is not admitted in any sense as truth. Science is what we consider sacred, and must not be defiled by religion, which is scientific blasphemy.

So my challenge is to do precisely what Newbigin calls for: "instead of trying to explain the gospel in terms of our modern scientific culture . . . to explain our culture in terms of the gospel." To accept the division between public and private, fact and faith, is to surrender the field - and to fail to confess Jesus as Lord of all. I am not claiming to have figured out how to do it, but I know it is what I must do. I must press the question with those we engage through tumblon: What is the real truth about the world?

The light of the Gospel

"The dichotomy between a world of so-called objective facts that can be 'scientifically' known apart from any faith commitment on the part of the knower and a world of beliefs that are solely the personal responsibility of the believer is precisely what has to be questioned in the light of the gospel." (Lesslie Newbigin "Foolishness to the Greeks" p50)

This is precisely the tension that I feel as I work on tumblon. I'm working with 'scientific' facts called developmental and literacy milestones that we will present to parents on the basis of scientific research, and I'm working with a set of values [parenting, literacy, virtue, etc.] that cannot find their origin in that 'scientific' world precisely because they are claims about what should be, a realm which the scientific world-view has relegated to 'belief' rather than knowledge.

The only way (that I can see) to faithfully present the facts and values with appropriate confidence is to do exactly what Newbigin is suggesting: to question the dichotomy between the 'world of so-called objective facts' and the 'world of beliefs.' There is no question in my mind that this confrontation is necessary; the remaining question for me is how to do it in my situation.

Recession, Repentance and Remission

Right now 'recession' is the word on the street. There are two words that are no less important but get far less press: repentance and remission. As I have quoted Lesslie Newbigin elsewhere:

". . . Increased production has become an end in itself; products are designed to become rapidly obsolete so as to make room for more production; a minority is ceaselessly urged to multiply its wants in order to keep the process going while the majority lacks the basic necessities for existence; and the whole ecosystem upon which human life depends is threatened with destruction. Growth is for the sake of growth and is not determined by any overarching social purpose. And that, of course, is an exact account of the phenomenon which, when it occurs in the human body, is called cancer." (Foolishness to the Greeks p114, emphasis mine)

We are entering a time of recession because our growth has been cancerous. This is a mercy if we will receive it with repentance. God may even see fit to put our cancerous growth into remission if we will repent.

True repentance requires not just limiting our spending, but changing our entire trajectory. It is not merely about limiting unsustainable production, but radically altering the purposes for which we produce. Furthermore, there can be no genuine repentance without reference to the One whom we have offended. As Christians in our time, the desperate need is to exemplify and call for repentance that has Christ as its center of reference - rather than the environment, or industry, or anything else.

In order for this repentance to occur, we must transgress the public/private divide that says that religious language does not belong in public dialogue. This is part of our repentance, the claim that Christ's authority is not limited to those who confess Him, but is over all of humanity. I know no other way to begin this call than through humble, prayerful study of the Scriptures, and faithful, consistent action in the world. God grant us repentance!

Cancerous growth

As I continue to hear pundits talking about recession, Lesslie Newbigin's words ring in my ears:

. . . Increased production has become an end in itself; products are designed to become rapidly obsolete so as to make room for more production; a minority is ceaselessly urged to multiply its wants in order to keep the process going while the majority lacks the basic necessities for existence; and the whole ecosystem upon which human life depends is threatened with destruction. Growth is for the sake of growth and is not determined by any overarching social purpose. And that, of course, is an exact account of the phenomenon which, when it occurs in the human body, is called cancer. (Foolishness to the Greeks p114, emphasis mine)

I think there can be no question that at this time in history, growth is for the sake of growth, and is not determined by any overarching social purpose - except perhaps the rebuilding of Babel. So dire is our condition that our 'prophets' (those on the television, who tell us what is to come) mourn that the growth might abate.

I cannot think of a better description of our economic system than cancerous. It is therefore incumbent upon Christians not to engage mindlessly in a terminally ill system, but through purposeful businesses to function as a sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom of God.

Market economics

In the past several weeks, all eyes (or at least many eyes) have been on the global financial markets. That focus, in conjunction with Newbigin's writings have caused me to think a lot about market economics. Newbigin observes:

In an earlier age, as in contemporary premodern societies, farming and the various skilled crafts were mainly for the use of the family or the local community. The market in which money operated as a means of exchange was only a minor and marginal part of the economy. But as the principle of division of labor gained ascendancy, the market moved into the central place as the mechanism that linked all the separate procedures with each other and with the consumers. The modern science of economics was born. Once again teleology [the study of purpose] was removed, because economics was no longer part of ethics. It was no longer concerned with the purpose of human life. It was no longer about the requirements of justice and the dangers of covetousness. It became the science of the working of the market as a self-operating mechanism modeled on the Newtonian universe. The difference was that the fundamental law governing its movements, corresponding to the law of gravitation in Newton, is the law of covetousness assumed as the basic drive of human nature. (Foolishness to the Greeks pp30-31)

As I have reflected upon it, I cannot see how a motive other than greed would drive a market economy. 'The market' does not add value in the way that individuals, cooperatives or businesses do. So the impulses of justice, love and mercy have no object on which to rest.

In contrast, an individual or group of people can work in ways that express justice, love and mercy. They can add value to a society through creativity and hard work - and in the process create wealth.

Based on this appraisal of the market economy (and I'm open to being challenged), it seems Christians are called to engage not in the financial markets, but in endeavors that employ creativity and hard work to show justice, love and mercy to one's neighbors. It is a call to Christian work, and Christian entrepreneurship.

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.

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.

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.