2 How Faith

Makes a Difference: Business as a Calling or

the Calling of Christians in Business?

JOHAN VERSTRAETEN

[email protected]

Abstract

REFLECTION ON THE CALLING OF BUSINESS and the role of Christians

can easily lead to two misunderstandings: either to an underestimation of the specific rationality

of business or to an ideological misuse of Christian ideas for the justification of the status quo in

the business world.

In my paper I try to demonstrate that Christians are called to affirm a difference in business

and that as such they become relevant as a source of moral innovation and transformation

towards more humanity. It is precisely the narrative basis of their traditions that enables them to

mobilize the necessary imagination for innovating moral practices in business.

P A R T I I : B U S I N E S S A S A C A L L I N G

2

1. The specific rationality of business and the different hermeneutic horizon of the Christian interpretation of the world

Talking about the ‘calling’ of business can give the impression that one can easily merge

the rationality of business with the ethico-religious language of ‘vocation’ or ‘calling’. This is quite

problematic since the world of business and the sciences related to it (management theories,

business ethics) are affected by the differentiation process of modernity.

As products of modernity, business and management are differentiated fields determined

by a sort of system-immanent logic of the market in the broadest sense of the word. Even when

the practice of business is understood as more than merely the art of profit making, and even

when on acceptance that profit making is based on the more fundamental end of producing

meaningful goods via the creation of work communities in which people 'work with others for

the benefit of others'1, the ethical understanding of business is still driven by market pressures.

Business is 'value' driven, but in real life, value is often reduced to shareholder value (profit),

which remains the ultimate criterion. Good practices and ethical considerations are accepted and

included in daily business as far as they are necessary and efficient for the realization of the goals

of profit. Multinational companies pay attention to human rights and moral values, but in many

cases only when they are, so to speak, coerced to do so as a result of market pressures by

significant stakeholders such as NGO's with ethical agendas (Amnesty International, Greenpeace,

the other-globalists), ethical investment funds, religious communities engaged in shareholder

activism (cf. the interfaith centre for corporate responsibility), consumer organizations, etc. As

soon as they can escape the market pressure via political support, their ethical ‘vocation’ becomes

extremely shallow (cf. the refusal by the Bush administration to implement the Kyoto norms).

Even business ethics as an academic discipline which pretends to guide the business community

towards a more ethical behavior cannot escape the problem of being caught in the iron cage of

modern rationality.

Already more than 16 years ago Dennis McCann convincingly diagnosed that business

ethics, although it has rightfully contributed to criticizing the myth of amoral business life, has

enclosed itself in the same illusion as amoral business itself in so far as it has taken over the

presupposition which accords this myth its plausibility and which protects it against critique,

namely, the belief in the typical rationality of management and the acceptance of the manipulative

power that is linked to it. In other terms: business ethics does not escape from the manipulative

3

modern rationality of which management is the expression par excellence.

Like any other sort of expert ethics, business ethicists often nurture the illusion that they

possess a collection of specialized knowledge with which they can objectively and professionally

solve the problems of business life and thus can improve the praxis of management. The ethical

expertise view has been defended by Th. Van Willigenburg in a dissertation on Inside the Ethical

Expert (1991).2 According to this view, an ethicist is an expert who possesses within a certain

domain an amount of specialized knowledge and skills which are obtained only after thorough

study and training. Aside from the ability to clarify problems and to analyze concepts and

arguments, he or she is also capable, as an expert, to make use of the specific skills of moral

reasoning in such a way that he or she can come to an weighing of values and norms, so that he

or she can offer advice if necessary.

Taken on itself, expert ethics is a legitimate project. But in order to become the

acknowledge dialogue partner of management, it has to pay a price. And this price is the

acceptance of the modern presuppositions which determine the hermeneutic horizon in which

management operates. In doing so the ethical experts in business are not as such capable of

offering other perspectives than those determined by this hermeneutic horizon of modernity and

its forms of manipulative rationality. They do not allow real innovation in moral behavior.

The acknowledgment that business can have on itself no other "calling" than to apply the

know-how of instrumental rationality does however not mean than no innovation would be

possible.

Business is not only a field dominated by instrumental rationality, but also a dynamic field

of human interaction. Business organizations are not only visible organizations, but also complex

institutions, and this implies the possibility of change: "in our life with other people we are

engaged continuously, through words and actions, in creating and recreating the institutions that

make this life possible (…) We form institutions and they form us every time we engage in a

conversation that matters…".3

As much as institutions and structures influence the individuals working on behalf of

business organizations, these same individuals also interact in such a way that they permanently

reshape by way of their innovative behavior the business context.

In this perspective I prefer to speak in terms of the 'calling' of people in business rather

than of the calling of business itself.

P A R T I I : B U S I N E S S A S A C A L L I N G

4

In it are individual persons (acting as members of a community with a different

hermeneutic horizon) interacting with others who make the difference, who retell and reinterpret

the story of business and who give meaning to it.

In a Christian perspective it consequently becomes interesting to raise the question: what

is the ‘calling’ of Christians in business? Does their presence make a difference?

The answer is clearly ‘yes’ and this in more than one regard.

Christian life leads to a hermeneutic interruption of business since Christians are not only

"citizens" of the world of business and its hermeneutic horizon, but they have also access to

another horizon of interpretation which is quite different. The point is not, as McCann has

suggested, that they have access to a hermeneutical horizon which is “older” than the horizon of

modernity with its instrumental rationality4, but that it is different. Because Christians cultivate an

hermeneutic relationship to an interpreting community and an ethos that is different than that of

modernity and its forms of instrumental and managerial rationality, they able to discover ethical

and meta-ethical perspectives that can break through the dominance of this type of rationality

and social organization which is coupled with it, as well as it enables them to break through the

narrow angle of "problem solving" (seeking solution on the basis of the analysis of problems

instead of on the basis of innovative new perspectives).

As a consequence of the creative interplay between the rational and the narrative aspect

of Christian practice and thinking, the Christian community is able to introduce a sort of counter

point, a different interpretation in business.

An aspect of this is the introduction of another vision. This is crucial, since, as Elsbernd

and Bieringer have demonstrated, without vision there is no transformation of life possible. 5

The transformation by way of vision takes place

(i) by engaging the imagination, which can be interpreted as follows: the journey into

metaphor and story moves the actors beyond classical problem solving since it

enables them to disclose new worlds of meaning (and this is the source of real

innovation);

(ii) by opening ways of challenging the status quo and by offering the potential for

alternatives to the present reality;

(iii) vision moreover engages all who share the same vision in changing realities,

(iv) and it integrates diverse components into a whole.

5

2. Although the ethos of capitalism has its roots in Christian thinking, it is

not the calling of Christians to justify the market.

Nobody will deny that there has been, in one or other regard, a link between Christian

ethics and the emergence of the capitalist work ethic. This does, however, not justify a simplistic

use of Christian ideas for the justification of the market or as new ‘window dressing’ for

capitalism.

It is indeed one of the striking characteristics of the history of modernity that the manner

in which theologians have interpreted the relationship of human beings with God has influenced

the development of the cultural framework wherein modern business life could come to unfold.

Capitalist society is not only founded, as Marx claimed, on the material substrate of

relations of production and means of production. It is also based on a spiritual foundation, more

specifically, on a mentality generated by a certain form of religious thought. In his famous work

Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber demonstrates that a link can be made between

modern capitalism and a labor ethos rooted in the Protestant tradition of thought. In this ethos

the systematic pursuit of profit goes hand in hand with methodical diligence, soberness and a

sense of individual responsibility with regard to the profession one practices.

An important first step towards this ethos was, according to Weber, Luther’s translation

of the text of Jesus Sirach 11:20-21: “Stand by your obligations, go on with your work until you

are old, trust in the Lord and keep at your job (Beruf).” In this text, Luther attributes to the word

Beruf (vocation), which refers to a spiritual calling, the meaning of professional work. According

to Luther, people must praise and serve God not by means of a contemplative life but ‘in

vocatione’, in the performance of the daily labor to which a person is called.

Much more influential than Lutheran theology was the Calvinistic tradition. Like Luther,

Calvin attached much importance to the duty of glorifying God ‘per vocationem’, by means of

meticulously devoting oneself to the ordained fulfillment of one’s professional tasks. In this the

doctrine of predestination plays a crucial role even though at first sight it does not seem to

promote harder work because, according to this doctrine, a believer cannot absolutely justify

himself or herself by good works. The decision over a person’s salvation or damnation is totally

dependent on God’s arbitrary and sovereign predestination, his ‘decretum horribile’ that leads

believers into a state of inner loneliness and uncertainty. Weber, however, has very keenly

observed that Calvinistic pastoral theology has found a solution to this: The one who is chosen

P A R T I I : B U S I N E S S A S A C A L L I N G

6

by God must also consider oneself as predilected, and the one who fails to do so shows a lack of

trust, and therefore he or she is not in a state of grace. One must clearly bear witness of the

‘certitudo salutis’ by an attitude of self-confidence and one can best externalize this by an ascetic life

coupled with an industrious and, most preferably, successful professional labor. This has to be

kept up in a systematic way during one’s whole life. Weber described this as ‘inner-woldly ascetism’.

It is this systematic inner-worldly ascetic way of life which has set forth, according to him, the

rationalization process that determines modern economy to this day.

Weber also points out that later, in the preaching of vulgarized Calvinism, economic

success (earning money) was considered to be a sign of divine predestination. In English

Puritanism, moreover, much emphasis was placed on hard work as an ascetic means against the

temptations of an impure life, and aversion to labor was interpreted as a sign of the absence of

grace. Religious leaders were also very well aware that the Protestant work ethic did not only

bring a new spirit, but also a real accumulation of capital. To put it in the words of the Methodist,

John Wesley: “religion” entails “necessary thriftiness and diligence” and “that can do nothing else

but bring forth wealth”.

Weber’s theses were criticized by a number of commentators. They have, among others,

questioned the fact that he practically links the ethos of capitalism exclusively with the Protestant

tradition. A thorough reading of Weber’s work shows nevertheless that he certainly does not

exclude influences “of a different nature”. In Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft he refers to the methodical

organization of life in the monastic tradition, and at the same time he emphasizes the continuity

of this form of asceticism with the inner-worldly ascetism of the Calvinists. And yet the Catholic

contribution, or better, the contribution of pre-reformation Christianity, to the development of

the modern work ethic is very much underestimated. Along with Mumford and Toynbee one

can, nevertheless, refer in this context to the influence of the ‘ora et labora’ of the Benedictines.

This device establishes a link between monastic life and the ethos of capitalism, especially by the

way of internalizing the motivation to work. According to him, “the Benedictine rule” achieved

“what was never achieved by the land reforms of the Gracces or the imperial alimenta because

they did not function as an operation imposed by the state from above, but rather from below by

inciting the (economic) initiative of the individual through the channeling of his or her religious

enthusiasm”.6

As to whether the proponents of the Catholic or those of the Protestant thesis are right,

7

we leave that aside for now. Neither do we intend to comment on the historical correctness of

Weber’s interpretation in itself. His thesis, however, remains important in so far as it

demonstrates that there can be a link between theological views and the development of the

modern economic mentality. For Weber, this link was in fact no more than a scientific

hypothesis, or, to put it more precisely, only a careful affirmation of a certain affinity between

Protestantism and capitalism. After Weber, however, this point of view has evolved into a

legitimation theory wherein theological views are considered as means of justifying or supporting

capitalism. How could it have come to this?

According to Oliver Williams, it was Daniel Bell, a typical representative of the present-

day neo-conservative culture criticism in the United States, who started making an ideological use

of the thesis of Weber.7 In The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976), Bell states that business

life has come to a deep moral crisis. According to him, the true cause of this crisis is not the

failure of the economic system, but the breakdown of the religious frame of reference within

which the ethos of business life was originally embedded. In this regard Bell associates himself

with the warning that Weber had already issued himself at the end of his essay on Protestantism,

namely, that when the inner-worldly ascetism is alienated from its religious roots, only a secular

utilitarianism and materialism is left. Through the dissolution of the religious background,

materialism, originally nothing more than a “light cloak that could be taken off at any moment”,

was changed into an “iron cage”. And Weber adds: “When capitalism reaches its highest

development, the pursuit of profit, devoid of any religious and ethical significance, becomes

associated with pure mundane passions, through which it not seldom acquires the character of a

sports event: earning money in itself becomes a performance; and to earn even more means to

extend the limits of achievement”. In this way a culture arises of “specialists without a soul,

sensualists without a heart; this nullity makes itself believe it has attained a stage of civilization

never attained before”.

From the conclusion of Weber and Bell, that the disappearance of the original theological

frame of reference leads to a rude materialism, a further step towards a theological justification is

not large. Henceforth, it was claimed that the crisis of the capitalist ethos had to be averted by

restoring its theological foundations. In this way theology became a ‘useful’ science for

economics. With that a remarkable development arose. Not only did the American business

community begin to support, especially in Latin America, the radically Calvinist church

communities and sects, but at the same time it also directed its attention to Catholic social ethics

P A R T I I : B U S I N E S S A S A C A L L I N G

8

and theology. This shift is evidenced in a symptomatic way from the title of Novak’s book which

echoes Weber: The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1993).8

In such books the theory of Weber is in a way reinterpreted as a means in the struggle

against any type of market unfriendly ways of thinking such as it has been the case in liberation

theology. Catholic theology is used as the alternative ‘hired legitimist' of capitalism. A significant

example of this is the moment when Michael Novak once summoned the business community

not only to remain competitive in the market, but also in what he called the ‘battlefield of ideas’.

In his apologetics for democratic capitalism, Novak ventured into a thorough and more market-

economy-friendly reinterpretation of the social teaching of the Church and even of classical

dogmatic concepts like the Holy Trinity (as model of a community which does not destroy

individuality), Incarnation (as model for realism), the combat against evil (as model for

competition), original sin (as warning against the illusion to change society by the way of

structural reforms and as legitimization for the role of self-interest), creation (as model for co-

creation and economic inititative), etc.

In reinterpreting Christian dogmatic concepts and catholic social teaching, Novak

sometime displays a clear lack of scientific sense for nuances. An example will suffice to

demonstrate this.

In a passage from Toward a Theology of the Corporation, where he refers to the suffering

servant in Deutero Isaiah, he even turns the whole matter upside down: “For many years, one of

my favorite biblical texts was Is 53,2-3: ‘He had no form or majesty that we should look at him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by others.’ I

would like to apply these words to modern enterprise, an incarnation of God’s presence in the

world that is very much disapproved of”.9 This association of the powerless, non-violent,

suffering servant with the powerful organizations of the world, the multinational companies, does

not do any justice at all to the original meaning of the biblical text, and not one single fraction of

its prophetic eloquence remains.

Moreover, such a concept of the role of Christian or Catholic thinking with regards to

business is nothing more than an affirmation of the status quo of conventional thinking about

the market in the business community. It does not really offer a new and humanizing

hermeneutic horizon, since it stays within the interpretative framework of business itself. It does

fail to appreciate Christianity as innovative force or as source of semantic and practical

9

innovation and defends too unilaterally the established order (what Mounier would have called

the ‘established disorder’, since it is in fact an order which leads to many victims).

3. The vocation of Christians in business: introducing semantic and practical innovation

A more concrete description of what the calling of Christians in business can mean

elucidated from the perspective of narrative ethics (and ethic based on the reading of the bible as

part of participating in a broader tradition10).

I point to the narrative aspect of Christian calling in business in order to avoid another

misunderstanding.

A possible complaint about the specific calling of Christians could be that they want to

introduce into business supererogatory principles such as “caritas” (that a principle is

supererogatory means that it allegedly asks too much of the economic actors). This interpretation

is typical for a discourse of ‘experts’ who are of the opinion that one should make a careful

distinction between principles that ‘are acceptable’ within the sphere of a functionally

differentiated role of responsibility and principles that do not belong within that segment of

reality or that, at most, are intended for private use. Christian principles such as Christian love

are, according to them, only acceptable in private life, not in business.

This 'privatization' of the Christian caritas is inadequate and typical for the first

misunderstanding that we have already described. It fails to take into account that Christian

morality is not primarily about abstract principles, but about a practice which can be fully

understood in the light of the concrete narrative contexts in which these ‘principles’ appear.

Without their original narrative context, moral principles are but abstractions or skeletons.

In this regard the commandment of love is not an abstract principle, but a

commandment, the meaning of which only comes to full light in narratives like the parable of the

good Samaritan. It is not an abstract exposition on love, but rather a narrative set within a

concrete context. It grants the listener the possibility of gaining insight into what he or she should

do within his or her own decision making context. The parenetic (exhortative) character of the

narrative plays an important role in this (see further): the confrontation with the story is not

noncommittal. The listener is offered a choice; he or she is held responsible, even for that which

does not strictly belong within the domain of professional deontology.

P A R T I I : B U S I N E S S A S A C A L L I N G

10

In a certain sense, one encounters this narrative structure also in the many stories of

business life itself (e.g., in the well-known success stories), wherein principles such as efficiency

and efficaciousness are touched upon. But this call to imitation remains rather limited to the

economic sphere.

The fact that members of the business community are confronted with stories from

different narrative traditions can sometimes cause them unbearable tension. One tradition

initiates them towards a praxis in agreement with the rationality of business life, whilst other

traditions urge them on towards a responsibility that surpasses their specific role obligations.

Thanks to this area of tension, moral actors can look at business life in a new way, from a

different horizon of knowledge other than that of managerial rationality alone. Thus a familiarity

with the biblical narrative tradition can actually contribute towards the creation of a space of

freedom that makes it possible to make choices that are reinvigorating and more human.

Let us now explore some concrete aspects of the calling of Christians in business from

the perspective of narrative ethics.

3. 1. The indirect effect of reading the bible on the transformation of Christians in

business and of business by Christians.

3. 1 . 1 . The effect of the scriptures as poetic texts.

Referring to a specifically poetic ‘world’, the biblical text generate