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.