How to share the gospel through business

I've been busy working on tumblon, and haven't made time to keep blogging here. However tonight I participated in Redeemer's Entrepreneurship Fellowship, which was a great prompt to get me writing again. The theme of the night was "sharing our faith through our work," and prompted some excellent discussion.

Several outstanding questions emerged:

1. How are Christians different from other ethical persons in the marketplace?
2. How do Christians act in such a way as to not limit their dealings to other Christians?

I love having a context in which to listen to others who are asking these questions, and seeking to live out the answers!

An inevitable conflict

As I work on tumblon, I'm intensely aware of the public/private and fact/value division that Lesslie Newbigin describes as the central feature of the modern scientific world view. He captures that tension well in this passage:

Of course, if religion is construed in essentially mystical terms -that is terms for which the idea of purpose is not central - then there is no clash. The modern scientific world view coexists peacefully and naturally with that kind of religion. But if we are talking as the Bible talks about God, who is Creator and Governor of all things, who acts in specific ways, and whose purpose is the criterion for everything human, whether in the public or the private sectors, then there is an inevitable conflict. Is it or is it not the case that every human being exists for the joy of eternal fellowship with God and must face the possibility of missing that mark, forfeiting that prize? If it is the case, it ought to be part of the core curriculum in every school. It will not do to say that the determination of character by the structure of the DNA molecule is a fact that any child must learn to understand, but that the determination of all proper human purposes for the glory of God is an opinion that anyone is free to accept or reject. The question of which world is real simply cannot be permanently evaded. There can be no genuinely missionary encounter of the gospel with our culture unless we face these questions. (Foolishness to the Greeks p67)

That question, Which world is real? is the question that parents must answer for their children. To answer that the material world must be understood by school children, but not the God who made it is simply to say that God is not the really real. That is precisely the message that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of school children have internalized from their parents answers and actions.

I am coming to realize that the conflict is inevitable. It can be hidden or dismissed; but it is inevitable. From this conflict flow two questions:

1. How do we demonstrate integrity to children in teaching them the truth about God and the world?
2. How do we demonstrate integrity in conflict with the dominant world-view in a way that is confessional and not isolationist, and in ways that are humble and not arrogant?

Those questions need working out every day.

The REAL missionary encounter

In his call for 'the energetic fostering of a declericalized, lay theology', Lesslie Newbigin states:

"And we need to create, above all, possibilities in every congregation for laypeople to share with one another the actual experience of their weekday work and to seek illumination from the gospel for their daily secular duty. Only thus shall we begin to bring together what our culture has divided - the private and the public. Only thus will the church fulfill its proper missionary role. For while there are occasions when it is proper for the church, through its synods and hierarchies, to make pronouncements on public issues, it is much more important that all its lay members be prepared and equipped to think out the relationship of their faith to their secular work. Here is where the real missionary encounter takes place. (Foolishness to the Greeks p143, emphasis mine)

I long and labor to see that sharing, and that missionary encounter take place.

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.

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.

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.