How Social Enterprises Fulfill a New Testament Model of Business and Can Contribute to Addressing Social Justice Issues

The current economic climate raises the issue of work and Christian responsibility in new ways. Not that Christians have not thought about work in other times of economic crisis, but there is a new generation who are dissatisfied with the current deficiencies in business ethics that seem to have led a global marketplace to the point of economic crisis as never before. This is a generation that has grown up with Enron, Arthur Anderson, Bernie Madoff and ridiculous corporate bonuses and golden parachutes which have wreaked havoc on confidence in the capitalistic system of corporate spending and profits without regard to economic or human impact.

The capitalistic system that has created so much wealth in the Western world has evolved into a consumer-driven rather than value-drive system where the purchase of goods fuels our economies. Without consumption of goods the economy continues to be vulnerable. For example, in the midst of the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the First Lady’s call to come to the Gulf Coast was a call to spend money in order to keep the economy viable.1 On February 9, 2009 US President Barack Obama announced an economic stimulus package focusing in part on infusing the market with more cash in the form of tax credits hoping to create more spending by consumers.2

The economic crisis has not only impacted the West. Recent civil unrest fueled by unemployment as well as the increase in the cost of living in Egypt have raised concern for the economy with the potential impact of the lack of tourism revenue on the government and its people. Stores and tourist sites are closed to consumers in the midst of government protests and the need for economic reform.3 The consumer climate continues to be fueled by comments made by governments around the world in regards to the need for citizens to spend money to help boost the economies. Such comments make us realize that we are nearing the twilight of the post-industrial/technological age and dawn of the consumer one. Indeed, some have wondered if we have been in such a consumer age for decades and are only now reaping the consequences of overconsumption and market saturation.

Such consumerism is beginning to take effect on natural resources as well. In a recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, warned that the natural resources which spurred economic growth in the last century are in jeopardy if action is not taken soon. Speaking forcefully to the forum, Ban Ki-moon called the unfettered consumption of natural resources a “global suicide pact.” He stated, “We mined our way to growth. We burned our way to prosperity. We believed in consumption without consequences. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high.”4

The near depression in the United States has had a global impact with unemployment on the rise and approaching 7 percent. That number increases to 12.6 percent among the world’s 15-24 year olds. The International Labor Organization reported that unemployment was unchanged between 2009 and 2010 and stood at 205 million people although this was an increase of 27.6 million from 2007. While there have been glimmers of economic life in some developing countries like Brazil, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Uruguay boasting steady decline in unemployment, the number of vulnerably employed and working poor continue to increase around the globe.5

Vulnerable employment is understood as work which does not provide steady income or benefits. Those in such circumstances are often self-employed and live on a subsistence level. They are less likely to have contractual arrangements for employment and are not represented by trade unions or protected by labor laws. Lawrence Jeffrey Johnson of the ILO commented, “Vulnerable employment is often characterized by inadequate earnings, low productivity and difficult conditions of work that undermine workers’ fundamental rights.”6 Their numbers continue to rise and stands somewhere between 49-53 percent of the global workforce (ca. 1.5-1.6 billion people).

In the current economic environment, it is good for Christians to ask the questions “what is God doing?” and “is there an opportunity to engage in practical gospel proclamation in word and work?” This chapter will focus attention on the current climate by visiting a model of business that is based on the New Testament corpus. In particular, attention will be given to the relational expectation that Paul and Jesus place on Christians and especially on employers. We will see that those relationships are based on mutual respect and dignity stemming from the understanding that people are created in the image of God and that business is primarily a relational or interpersonal enterprise. Regardless of the particular economic system, whether market, mixed, planned or barter, the relational aspects of Christianity is paramount to any contemporary understanding of the manner in which Christians do business. Thus, a Christian business person must be more concerned about people than finances making social businesses a creative alternative to typical for-profit business models. Social businesses are ventures that address issues of both local and global concern by catalyzing opportunities that create sustainable change for improvement of the social conditions, quality of life and dignity of people created in the image of God.

The New Testament does not say much about a distinctly Christian economic system and seems to assume that Christians will work in the system of their particular culture. This differs considerably from the Old Testament where the Mosaic Law was clear in regards to the work habits of the nation of Israel. While the OT serves as a backdrop to the New Testament, we cannot assume that such a system was explicit in first century Palestine. By the time of the New Testament, the Jewish economic model had been sufficiently influenced by other economic systems that it was largely indistinguishable from that of the Greco-Roman.

The multiple references to households (whether of Caesar or a patron) and the agrarian nature of the economy tells us that the economic system of the period was in the form of the institution of the clientela. This system of market distribution of goods and services was based on reciprocity where the patron provided protection and the client provided legitimacy and power; the greater the number of clients, the greater the influence of the patron.7

It is interesting that neither Jesus nor Paul paid particular attention to the economic structure of the day as much as they did to the way in which people interacted when conducting business. While there are brief remarks in regards to taxes (e.g. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”), agrarian lifestyle and households, the silence is sometimes deafening as the perception that God is not interested in business is pervasive in the church today. Noting this dichotomization of the sacred and mundane, Chris Wright stated, “God, it would seem, cares about the church and its affairs, about getting people to heaven, not about how society and its public places are conducted on earth.”8 Others have recognized this dichotomy as well. David Miller, for example, noted the tendency to separate the business person’s spiritual identity from the work identity in what he called a “Sunday-Monday gap.”9

Many, on the other hand, are recognizing that work glorifies and pleases God. Wayne Grudem put forward the notion that business is an act of worship that can promote moral living and ministry.10 The Business as Mission movement, also known by many other names (Kingdom Business, Marketplace Ministry, Great Commission Companies etc.), was inspired to use business as a means for propagating the gospel while also creating wealth and transformation of society.11 Indeed, Richard John Neuhaus argued that there is a theological foundation to the creation of wealth that is very much a part of democratic capitalism, but warns “Any game, including economics, can become an idol to which we surrender our existence, at which point it ceases to be a game.”12

Capitalism as an economic system is not bad in and of itself. Economic systems can be morally neutral. At the moment the system becomes the focus and not people then attendant ethical issues, such as over-consumption and greed, come into play. The Bangladeshi banker and Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus captured the issue correctly, “The biggest flaw in our existing theory of capitalism lies in its misrepresentation of human nature. In the present interpretation of capitalism, human beings engaged in business are portrayed as one-dimensional beings whose only mission is to maximize profit.”13 Such a focus on profit rather than people ultimately contributes to unemployment and ultimately poverty.

The manner in which people were expected to interact was paramount to New Testament Christian business and much of what was written addressed the relationships between people, especially care for the marginalized. While many Christian businesses are inspiring people to engage culture through various enterprises, Christian business people must be asking questions about how their interaction with employees or clients spurs them on to Christ-likeness. One distinctive of the Christian employer is that they think of the person holistically with both material and spiritual needs. They believe it is vitally important to help create a work environment that is conducive to promoting healthy employees. The Christian business must have the employee at its heart. Employees are not simply commodities whose purpose is to fulfil the mission of the business. They are individuals who have been created in the image of God and therefore have a higher purpose to love him and others. Business, then, becomes a means by which one can fulfil their purpose and it is primarily relational. Elizabeth Nash stated it well,

My “whole” life is all concerned with relationships. Why do I cook the dinner, or do the washing? Not because clean clothes and a nice dinner are of themselves good things, but because they improve, aid, help our family relationships. Why do we make steel? In order to make cars, washing machines, etc. Of what value are the cars and the washing machines? None at all, except where they help human relationships, freeing us from drudgery to enable us to fulfil and develop ourselves and build up relationships with other people.14

There are definite injunctions to Christian business people in the New Testament addressing the manner in which people were to relate. What will become abundantly clear is the attention given to the way people were to interact. Those interpersonal relationships were important not only because of Christian discipleship, but also because people are the central focus of God himself.

Business in the New Testament

There are only a hand-full of references to actual businesses in the New Testament. The Gospels tell us of people who sold their goods at the temple, but nothing in regards to how they were organized (Matt 21:12-13). There are clear references to land ownership and cultivation that seem to indicate some larger production of produce rather than subsistence farming (Matt 20:1-16). Wealthy households are referenced occasionally and we learn that they were made up of servants and slaves as well as family members who held particular responsibilities (Luke 15:11-32). This seems to be the situation with James and John and their fishing business which might have included multiple boats and employees (i.e. hired servants; Mark 1:19-20). Tax collection is often mentioned indicating that people did generate revenue and that such revenue taxation supported the government (Mark 2:13-17; Luke 19:1-9, 20:19-26).

Outside of the Gospels we learn of various types of business people from lawyers and physicians to those in the clothing and leather industries. Paul certainly gives attention to households and the treatment of slaves which seems to indicate that, in some instances, people willingly sold themselves into slavery hoping for a better quality of life (Rom 6:15-22). One persistent question emerging from the Pauline corpus is of the role of the slave. While on the one hand some theologians and sociologists have argued that Paul was on a trajectory of manumission or at least emancipation for the slave due to his insistence that all were free, others saw the lack of a first century slave revolt as indicating contentment of those enslaved.15 Whatever the case, slaves were certainly a part of an economic system that made up the household in first century Roman society.

The notion of household (oikia) is of importance in the New Testament. Wayne Meeks argued that the household “was the basic unit in the establishment of Christianity in the city, as it was, indeed, the basic unit of the city itself.”16 Churches often met in the houses of prominent members as seen from the birth of the church up until the first archaeological evidence of a church building. Those households were made up of family members, hired servants and slaves and were led by the head of the family who might have been a woman, as in the case of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and perhaps Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2) and Nympha (Col. 4:15), or a man, as in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) and Philemon. Such households constituted social units that served economic, political and religious purposes. One might naturally assume that a similar household system was existent with Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18: 1-4). The fact Paul knew he could find employment with them might indicate that others had done similarly. Priscilla and Aquila were also invested in the religious life of people as we see with Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) and, eventually, a church meeting in their house, first in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) and then in Rome (Rom 16:3-5).

The oikia unit is important in understanding the development of the early church. The Greek word meant a body of people who were related by blood or marriage and included servants and servants’ families as well as slaves which constituted a socio-economic unit.17 The household functioned as a small business enterprise first and foremost, but certainly not in the modern sense of such an enterprise. The head of the household was responsible for the well-being of all in his care and this provided a natural connection between business and ministry. It is highly likely that when Paul greets the churches meeting in the oikia of various friends, he is greeting people associated with a particular socio-economic unit that made up the household operation (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor. 1:16; Phile. 1).

Ekkhard Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann noted that, “The home, the fundamental socio-economic unit of ancient societies, is of eminent importance both in the social context of early Christian communities and in the New Testament linguistic usage.”18 The implications of the oikia as a socio-economic unit which became the focal point of the early churches’ gatherings are significant. First, the oikia had a natural leader in the head of the family. This seems to be Paul’s indication when giving instructions to Timothy in 1 Tim 3:4 – the leader of the church must demonstrate that he can also manage his oikia well. Second, someone who leads a socio-economic system is in fact a business person in every modern sense of the understanding and the household was a business enterprise. Third, the NT business person had a natural responsibility to care for those under his employ and such care would lead to a business-person/pastor role. Fourth, wealth creation was for good works rather than riches which cannot be stored in heaven. These last two implications are worth further exploration.

Healthy Employees

Timothy no doubt learned to teach household heads to treat their households with respect and dignity for there was no difference in his mentor’s, the Apostle Paul’s, mind that all were free and equal in God’s eyes. Indeed, Paul said clearly that there is no partiality with God (Eph 6:9). So, household heads must treat those in their care with good will as if they were addressing Jesus himself. Timothy knew this and practiced it. In fact, in two letters he co-authored with Paul to the church in Colossae, he and Paul clearly enumerated the relationship between the master and slave which offer principles for employer/employee relations.

It appears that there might have been at least two churches meeting in oikia at Colossae (Col 4:15; Phile). Paul, while imprisoned in Rome, and Timothy wrote to the saints and faithful an encouraging letter relating his concern for them to continue in the faith. They were informed by Epaphras, a co-laborer and perhaps a church leader in Colossae and Laodicea, that pagan religious practices had influenced the church. They warned the Colossians of persuasive teachers who could shake the foundations of their faith. It seems the specific problem was in regards to the person of Christ, asceticism and rituals.

Paul and Timothy deal graciously with the Colossians assuring them of their commitment to them. They beautifully share the biblical Christological view (Col 1:15-23). Upon that foundation they set out their condemnation of asceticism and rituals. It is in Christ that everything has its beginning and they want the Colossians to understand that they must continue upon that foundation in the Christian walk (Col 2:6-23). It is also in Christ that believers derive their identity and maintain their unity (Col 3:1-16). Paul and Timothy do not miss the opportunity to pray for them as well as solicit prayers from them for their continued ministry (Col 4:2-6).

Paul and Timothy also address the issue of work and begin by declaring that all that is done (en logo n en ergo) should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col 3:17). Literally en logo n en ergo translates as “in word and work.” It is often rendered “in word and deed” like in the English Standard Version as ergon has a range of interpretative words which includes deed. However, in the context of the passage, work seems to be operative word. They give instructions for how people were to conduct themselves if indeed they had put on the new self (Col 3:1-16). After addressing the nuclear family they proceed to the entire socio-economic unit (oikia). Slaves were to work heartily as they would for Jesus and masters were to be just and fair (Col 3:22-4:1).

Around the same period of time Paul and Timothy wrote a letter to Philemon who led one of the churches in Colossae. Onesimus, an apparent runaway slave of Philemon, had made his way to Rome and had an encounter with Paul. Their conversation led Onesimus to become a slave of Christ and Paul wrote to his friend Philemon to request Onesimus’s release. While we do not know Philemon’s occupation, we can assume that he was the head of a household who owned slaves perhaps indicating some agricultural enterprise. Paul and Timothy clearly set out the manner in which Philemon was to act with others, especially those in his oikia. He was to love others (v. 5), talk about his faith with others (vv. 5-6), refresh people (v. 7), practice goodness (v. 14) and go beyond what may be normal expectations (v. 21). The same type of concern Paul and Timothy expected from Philemon is the same for the modern business person. These are principles that must be instilled in the heart of the Christian employer and the Christian business as well as the lives of the people they serve.

Wealth and the Love of Money

Business in the 21st century is commonly characterized by the creation of wealth and goods for consumption. Ask a business person or student what the purpose of business is and the answer might be to maximize shareholders’ investments and increase the wealth of their owners.19 It is the financial bottom-line that is of utmost concern for the business person. The security of a positive balance sheet ensures sustainability into the future as well as credibility for additional investment. However, with increased wealth comes increased responsibility and temptation. As I argued with Steve Pointer, there are dangers when business is combined with ministry. Christian history is littered with efforts to do business as a means to support ministry which ultimately succumbed to the financial bottom-line rather than the human. The ministry often gave way to the cost of doing business.20

This does not escape the New Testament writers. Picking up on the idea of wealth and the potential danger for those who acquired it, Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money” (Matt 6:24). It is clear that Jesus is not promoting poverty or even simple living. We see his teaching of the care for the poor as a significant feature of his ministry (Matt 25:31-40; Luke 4:18). Rather, he knows the distractions of wealth and the potential for destruction of the individual’s relationship with God. In fact, it is this focus on money that got his disciples in trouble in Bethany (Matt 26:6-13). The poor would always be present, but what takes priority is worship of Jesus. When the priorities shift so will the temptation to succumb to the creation of wealth. Judas Iscariot seemed to have fallen into the temptation and eventually delivered Jesus to Jewish religious leaders for 30 pieces of silver (Matt 26:14-16).

Paul picks up the same idea as he counsels Timothy with instructions for the rich. He warns that there is temptation in pursuing wealth for the sake of wealth. This temptation can lead to all kinds of evil, not the least of which was “wandering away from the faith” (1 Tim 6:10). Instead, the rich were not to set their hopes on their wealth. Such hope was uncertain, but hope on God provided “everything to enjoy” and we should be content (1 Tim 6:17). Where there is wealth, Paul stated that the rich must focus in three areas: 1) to do good; 2) to be rich in good works; 3) to be generous and share their possessions. He is certainly not talking about redistribution of wealth, but he most certainly is talking about proper care for people. Paul understood that the material was perishable and inconsequential to true life, “we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world” (1 Tim 6:7). Nevertheless, if the material could be used for good in the care of people then it had a relational purpose. Thus, the purpose of wealth, like business, is primarily relational as it provides a way by which a person can fulfil their purpose.

The question remains: what are the characteristics of a Christian business? If the criteria for a response are based on the New Testament then we would have at least the following two principles:

1. A Christian business must care for employees both spiritually and materially.
2. A Christian business must focus on doing good for people and society as its primary objective in value creation.

The subsequent question is: what business enterprise best fulfils these criteria? We have already established that economic systems are morally neutral. Ethical questions emerge as people engage in a particular system and thus it is the manner in which a person utilizes a system that determines its morality. To achieve a New Testament model for business it must fulfil the characteristics listed above. I believe that many enterprises can do this, whether for-profit or not-for-profit. In order to ensure that an enterprise conducts business in this manner it must have a clear and explicit purpose that will guide and fulfil its mission. I suggest that social businesses best achieve the aspiration of a NT model for business.

If indeed households were socio-economic units whose primary purpose was care for members, then the early Christian movement had a built-in mechanism for the material care for the church. The Christian socio-economic unit functioned holistically as a means to care for both the physical and spiritual needs of people. It was wholly natural for the head of the household, whose experience was in managing the business as well as caring for the members, would assume a pastoral role. Granted, social businesses were certainly not on the minds of the Christian business person of the first century. Nevertheless, care for the other was.

Of course, the history of Christianity is dotted with a landscape of sundry social ventures from education to healthcare and Christians were rightly involved in these enterprises.21 Over time with the fragmentation of the family unit and the diversification of the economy, business and churches became professionalized to the point where there was a clear distinction between the sacred and mundane. Due in part to the Enlightenment project and what Max Weber called the secularization, religion was taken out of the public realm. Faith became personal and private rather than corporate and public. Eventually, the healthcare and education industries were overcome by business and the church surrendered her role in society to a privatized faith. The withdrawal of the church’s involvement in areas of society and culture reduced its influence and ultimately contributed increased ethical challenges that led to the dichotomy of business and church as well as to moral decline.22

The Reformation seems to be a key starting point (although not the cause) for understanding the secularization thesis, for without the Reformation, the Catholic Church would have continued in its monopoly on religious belief and social control. It was the Reformation that emphasized personal responsibility in religious matters. The church was no longer a means of social control. That control was taken over by the formation of institutions, organization or corporations that gave a different sense of purpose to the individual, namely one that was more material than spiritual. Subsequently, religious belief became personal and ultimately relegated to the private sector. The societal influence that the church once enjoyed was diminished.

Simultaneously with the decline of the church’s influence was the rise of individualism promoted by a renewed awareness of vocatio. Max Weber captured the notion when he wrote, “But at least one thing was unquestionably new: the valuation of the fulfillment of duty in worldly affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of the individual could assume.”23 The vocation of the individual was seen as fulfillment of God’s calling. Indeed, the Reformation idea of vocation was understood as the only manner by which a person could live acceptably before God.24 The unintended result of this understanding of vocatio was the elevation of personal fulfillment above glorification of God. By the time of the Puritans, wealth was equated with God’s blessing and it would only be a matter of time that it became the focus of business.

In spite of the tenuous relationship the church has had with business, numerous faith-based non-profits have filled the gap and continue the history of Christian social involvement. In addition, many are rethinking the value of democratic capitalism and this has given birth to a new form of business: social businesses. Social businesses give more attention to people and needs rather than profit. The advent of social businesses in the 1970s is due in large measure to the micro-lending operations of Grameen Bank and to a lesser extent Opportunity International. The phenomenal and paradoxical success of lending money to the poor has taken the banking industry by surprise. It would, unfortunately, only be a matter of time before some would see an opportunity to make more money and take advantage of the poor.25

Social businesses are distinguished from other enterprises in that they address issues of the economy, environment and society. Some social businesses, such as Benetech for example, use technology for social good. Benetech’s mission combines, “the power of the human mind with a deep passion for social improvement” “to create new technology solutions that serve all of humanity and empower people to improve their lives.”26 One result of its mission was the development of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology for reading for the blind. Other social businesses, like Whole Foods Market, focus on environmental issues. Being the first grocery chain to set standards for humane treatment of animals, Whole Foods purpose is to provide natural and organic foods for healthy living and a healthy planet.27

While environment, social and economic good are foundational to a social enterprise, few address the spiritual good of a community. We believe this is vital for sustainability and care for people. This comprehensive approach to social enterprises can be thought of as a 360 degree blended-value business venture. Such ventures address issues of local and global concern by catalyzing enterprises that create sustainable change for improvement of the social conditions, quality of life and dignity of people as created in the image of God. They focus on economic, social, environmental and spiritual good of a community. Such good seeks to reconcile humanity’s relationship with God, self, each other and the environment.

Social enterprise, as outlined above, reflects a holistic view of the care of the individual as an employee and image bearer. Its concern is for the human bottom-line rather than the financial and thus serves as a model for loving the neighbour (Matt 22) and caring for the marginalized (Matt 25). What appears to be a natural movement of engaging household socio-economic systems by the early missionaries does not necessarily constitute a particular method of missions today. The economic systems are totally different. However, it is apparent that Christians are to engage the current context and utilize principles as best uncovered from the early church’s efforts. Thus, as a missionary strategy for engaging contemporary culture, the socio-economic engagement model holds value and must be contextual in that it will take the indigenous economic systems into consideration.

With increasing needs and opportunities in the areas of healthcare, education and poverty alleviation, social businesses can be deployed as a strategy for small business creation that focuses on the raising the quality of life of the world’s impoverished while addressing the spiritual need of reconciliation with God. Its scope is the return on society rather than the return on financial investment. The missionary/business person, similar to the head of the oikia, then might be envisioned as a social innovator who cares not only for the salvation of the soul, but also the continuing salvation of people as they work out their faith.

It seems to me that Paul was very clear in two of the “pastoral” letters he wrote that Timothy was to enact particular social changes corresponding to the Christian life. Among the many changes were the ways in which the Christian was to be involved in society. Paul was clear in his instructions that Christians were to pray for those in political leadership so that their life would be peaceful and they would have freedom to present the gospel of Jesus Christ who desire all to be saved (1 Tim 2:1-7). Such social innovation would address issues of wealth (1 Tim 6:6-10), care for the socio-economic unit as well as for those on the fringes of society (1 Tim 5). These are just a few of a number of innovations that occurred among the new Christian community that was emerging in the Roman Empire.

Tertullian, perhaps, captured the impression that the church continued to have on Roman society when he wrote in the early third century, “But it is mainly the deeds of love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. ‘See,’ they say, ‘how they love one another.’”28 Eusebius also captured the heart of the early church for engaging society by addressing social issues. There was little regard for the Christians’ physical well-being. No apparent concern about the material aspects of life. Instead, it was a deeply committed movement of social innovators. Reflecting on their work during a time of plague in the Empire, he wrote,

The most of our brethren were unsparing in their exceeding love and brotherly kindness. They held fast to each other and visited the sick fearlessly, and ministered to them continually, serving them in Christ. And they died with them most joyfully, taking the affliction of others, and drawing the sickness from their neighbors to themselves and willingly receiving their pains. And many who cared for the sick and gave strength to others died themselves, having transferred to themselves their death. . . . Truly the best of our brethren departed in this manner . . . .29

These sundry descriptions of the early church are set in a different socio-economic context for certain. Even so, they are qualities that can characterize social enterprises today.