*Posted by Joe Wooddell
In recent years there’s been a movement in Christian theology, philosophy, and ethics, which I find extremely beneficial. It has to do with things like faith, work, economics, the best ways to help the poor, what it means to be a good “steward” of God’s creation, and viewing one’s vocation as a ministry or calling from God. Groups like the Acton Institute, the Kern Family Foundation, the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, and Southwestern Seminary’s Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement all touch on these issues. Books like Wayne Grudem’s Business for the Glory of God, Jay Richards’s Money, Greed, and God, Robert Sirico’s Defending the Free Market, and Michael Novak’s Business as a Calling do much of the same.
There should be no secular/sacred divide. We can do all things (all things, that is, which are not inherently sinful) to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). “Ministry” need not – indeed should not – be regarded simply as teaching children on Sunday morning or helping at the Soup Kitchen on Thanksgiving. Moreover, we should not think of our church staff as the only ones in “ministry.” Those who serve on the church staff are “vocational” ministers. That is, they earn their living from the gospel, which is fine (see 1 Cor. 9:14). But if you are a believer and you own a small flooring business, a machine shop, a chiropractic practice, or a frozen yogurt store, the sixty plus hours of work you put in each week can and should be your primary ministry, your calling. (Of course, it should go without saying that family should come first. One might be successful in business but be a horrible dad or husband. This ought not to be the case for believers.)
Teach Sunday School if the Lord leads you to do it; help out at the clothes closet (so long as such a venue is not doing more harm than good, undercutting local business and actually keeping the community poorer than it otherwise would be); and go on domestic and international “mission trips.” These all can be legitimate ministries, but your primary ministry is your vocation. If you are a believer and president or CEO of a Fortune 500 company (no, there’s no contradiction here!), figure out ways to be a blessing to your employees and to the community. Be honest, ethical, and virtuous in your dealings with vendors, suppliers, workers, etc., and strive to make a profit! God graciously gives us the power to create wealth (Deut. 8:18). Store the wealth (banks will then lend it, hopefully to people who can one day repay it, thus creating even more prosperity in the community); invest it in other profitable companies (thus helping them to create jobs and bring people up from poverty); put it back into research and development for your company (ultimately creating a better product at a lower price); purchase luxury or everyday items (thus helping people who create those products); give large portions of it to legitimate charities, “ministry” organizations or schools (like Criswell College!), or to people who need a temporary hand-up; make micro-finance loans to honest and capable entrepreneurs in third world countries (thus helping poor communities around the world); and of course tithe to your local church.
These are just some of the ways faith, work, and economics go together. If you’re a pastor or serve on a church staff, encourage parishioners to understand these principles. Don’t make them feel guilty or like they’re second-rate Christians because they are in “business.” Remind them that business and profit are not inherently sinful, that it’s not money that’s the root of all evil, but the “love of money” which is “a” root of all sorts of evil (1 Tim. 6:10), and remind them that they are reaching people with the gospel (or at least they should be) whom you as a vocational minister probably will never be able to reach. Remind them how grateful you are for their ministry and their calling in this regard. None of the above is to endorse a “prosperity” or “health/wealth” “gospel.” It is simply to say that business, entrepreneurship, and all sorts of what we have traditionally understood as “secular” vocations can and should be done to the glory of God as a ministry and as a calling.
This is a good article, but I take exception to your comment about not giving out clothing in case it might damage the local economy or keep a community In poverty. How in the world would you determine such a thing?! And how long would a hungry man or desperate single mom have to wait for this decision? Giving to the poor is a biblical exhortation, despite motivation or condition of an economy. This sounds more like a Tea Party statement than a biblical one.
Mrs. Hawkins,
Here is a lengthy reply, if you have 5-10 minutes:
Thank you so much for reading and commenting. I definitely appreciate the interaction and the challenge. Your comment, as I see it, is problematic in two ways. I’ll take the easier but not-so-obvious problem first: Your comment seems to imply that if the Tea Party says something it must not be Christian or rational or right (or some such thing). I’m not sure you intend this, but that’s how it could be interpreted. This is faulty reasoning, it’s fallacious. For example, the Tea Party might also say that in general the Democratic Party has very little respect for the Constitution. They wouldn’t be right or wrong for saying this simply because it’s the Tea Party saying it. Rather, the claim must be evaluated based on some sort of evidence. Maybe it’s true (or false) that Democrats tend to have very little respect for the Constitution, but the fact that such a claim sounds like a Tea Party claim shouldn’t count against the claim itself. The claim needs to be evaluated on its merits.
The second, and more difficult challenge (if I follow you), is your notion that it’s always right (or biblical or Christian) to give to the poor, no matter what the broader economic effects might be. I would take issue with this. I believe part of what it means to love God with our minds is to think carefully about the broader effects of our actions and ministries. In Basic Economics (by Thomas Sowell), in Money, Greed, and God (by Jay Richards), and at many talks given at “Acton University” (sponsored by the Acton Institute each June in Grand Rapids, MI), the case is made that good intentions are not necessarily enough. (See also Beyond Good Intentions by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute.) (It should go without saying that I don’t necessarily agree with everything in these sources.) This includes the larger problem of so-called “fair” trade versus free trade. Almost every time we try to manipulate prices artificially it tends to have the opposite effect of what we intend. It also includes the problem of things like rent control. For example, putting caps on how much the owner of an apartment complex can charge for rent (in a governmental effort to increase availability of housing for the poor) often results in less housing for the poor. Why? Because now an individual poor person is able to afford an apartment for himself, so he doesn’t get a roommate, thus the supply of housing effectively goes down, and new builders don’t build anything in those rent-controlled areas, because they know they can only charge so much. As a result, builders only build luxury units in non-rent-controlled areas, thus driving up the price of housing and limiting the supply of lower priced housing, thus compounding the problem of poor people not having a place to live. This all in turn leads to a wider gap between rich and poor, which then leads people to want more rent control or wealth redistribution or whatever, which in turn worsens the problem more and more in a downward spiral.
I’m not saying situations like this are always the case, but it definitely happens, and Sowell’s book documents many situations like this throughout history. The same can happen with charities. It’s the old but true adage: “give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime.” Again, trite but basically true. Alex Chafuen argues (at Acton University, mentioned above) that there are two types of aid we give to people in counseling. One is immediate, short-term crisis intervention, where we do for them what they can’t do for themselves (“think” for them, keep them from suicide, etc.), but this should only happen for a short period of time (2 or 3 counseling sessions). The other is longer-term consultation, where we show them how to do for themselves. He argues that in domestic and worldwide economics we should follow the same model. But what we’ve done is turned short-term, crisis intervention into a long-term deal. We have been feeding people for decades, and they’ve come to expect it. They think they can’t live without our help. This degrades the image of God in them, it is dehumanizing, and it is counter-productive in terms of helping them become self-sufficient.
It’s possible that some charities unwittingly have this effect. If we constantly go into low income areas and give simple handouts over and over, it could result in and perpetuate a “victim” or us/them or 1% / 99% mentality. Such is not necessarily the case, but it could become the case. Believers who are considering volunteering or working in such ministries need to ask whether this is happening. If so, they might reconsider the type of help they give. Certainly help is needed, but the type of help one gives is important. Some of my students will fail my course if they don’t get help. But they don’t need a handout in terms of grades. Rather, they need to learn how to study, read well, write, learn, and do for themselves. Some students will never go on to earn a Master’s or Ph.D., and that’s okay. So there will never be “equality” in that sense. Also, if they’ve been “given” good or passing grades all their life before college, they’ll expect it in college, which is a shame.
Some ministries (like Criswell College, no less!) rely heavily on the generous support of donors, but this is because the mission is a team effort. Some people have the financial means to support such a ministry, but perhaps not the time, energy, or intellectual know-how to teach the courses, while others have the academic gifts and talents but not the financial ability. As the body of Christ, however, such persons work together in an effort to educate the next generation of ministers and Christian academics. There’s no problem with this. But there is a problem with what I’ve described above in terms of economics.
You asked, “how in the world would you determine such a thing?!” Answer: There’s no fool-proof way to do so, but there are signs, and each believer must decide before God (as with so many decisions!) whether he thinks the charity is doing more harm or good overall. Signs include things like: I always see the same people here, year-in and year-out; the community around it is getting poorer, not more affluent; the people seem not to be in crisis mode, rather, they seem simply to have an expectation that this charity will always be here, and they tend to take it for granted and build it into their own monthly and yearly budgets. There are other signs, and again, they are not hard and fast or always telling. I leave it to the individual believer to determine, based on his own prayerful, careful, logical, and economically and biblically informed decision-making process.
Yes, it can become a “cop-out,” and people might not serve or give to charities at all based on the above. This would be wrong-headed and unfortunate. We need to be involved in helping the poor at every level, from the local to the global and everywhere in between, and many charities do wonderful work. However, part of what I’m trying to help people see is that the general approach to helping the poor, no matter how good it makes us feel or how long such methods have been around, can sometimes be counter-productive.
Again, many sincere thanks for reading and commenting (and for being such a blessing to Criswell over the years). It is great to have thoughtful comments come to the blog. I welcome any counter-reply, and I’m always willing to re-think my position based on compelling input. Thank you.