ethics

Can We Quantify Corporate Culture?

August 27, 2015 By Stephen DeKuyper

In the general discussion about ethics, governance and compliance, the concept of corporate culture often seems to be missing. Why is it that the underlying culture of a company can evade the discussion?

Unlike regulation, it is difficult to quantify a company’s culture. We can describe it, but it becomes difficult to break it down into measurable units. Compliance is often driven by rules, but culture is driven by mission, vision and values. Rules are somewhat easy to gauge, but measuring values is elusive. In a business environment where successes and failures are measured quarterly in dollar terms, it can seem easier to disregard company culture than to try to figure out how to measure it.

It would be a mistake however to dismiss culture just because we can’t count it. Companies like Apple have grown in leaps and bounds, due in a large part because of their culture. Just as a good culture can contribute to a company’s success, so a bad culture can contribute to its downfall. A toxic culture alienates its stakeholders, who in turn take an adversarial or even predatory position against the company. When employees, suppliers, and clients turn against a company or see it simply as a vehicle for personal success, the risks of the company failing increase dramatically.

Regardless of how difficult it can be for us to wrap our rational minds around a squishy subject like corporate culture, it is essential. A company’s success or failure can depend on it.

Strong Ethical Cultures

August 5, 2015 By Stephen DeKuyper 2 Comments

Deloitte released a post today on their Risk and Compliance blog about the Ways to Build Strong Ethical Cultures. It raises a number of interesting issues, in particular that ethical cultures are built on relationships. It is about having the right attitude and trust with stakeholders and especially with company employees. The post quotes 4 principles for ethical cultures:

Consistently model ethical behaviors, with a premium on honesty and courage.
Give paramount loyalty not to any person in an institution, but to the institution itself and its stakeholders. This is a difficult concept to execute because everyone has at least one boss.
Foster high-quality relationships based on respect and decency.
Bear in mind at all times the differences between facts, experiences and stories: Facts are objectively verifiable, experiences are subjective but real, and stories are what we make of facts and experiences.

Ethics should be about relationships and the most important may be to the company and its Mission, Vision and Values. Ethical behavior needs to be modeled, but the ethics that are modeled, need to be the company’s. Properly communicating and modeling the character of the company not only gives employees a target to which to aspire, but it also provides a framework of permissions, within which employees should feel safe working. These targets and permissions will help in building up a healthy company culture.

Catholic Social Thought On The Common Good

April 29, 2014 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

The second principle that arises out of the Papal Encyclicals, and one which has been a major theme that runs throughout Roman Catholic social thought since their inauguration, is that of the Common Good.

The Common Good

The principle of the common good runs throughout the social encyclicals, starting with Rerum novarum. Leo XIII did not so much explain what it is, but assumed it. “Civil society exists for the common good, and hence is concerned with the interests of all in general.” (§51) He further acknowledged that “although all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to the common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves, it should not be supposed that all can contribute in a like way and to the same extent.” (§34)

In Quadragesimo anno, Pope Pius XI equated the common good with social justice. “To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods… brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.” (§57-58) Pope John XXIII came closer to defining the common good in Mater et magistrate, when he referred to the responsibility of public authority to “take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.” (§65) Further; “as for the State, its whole raison d’etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order.” (§40) In Pacem in terris, he further argued that “every single citizen has the right to share in it” (§56) and that it “is best safeguarded when the personal rights and duties are guaranteed.” (§60)

Gaudium et spes, which came out of Vatican II, was much more specific in defining the common good as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” (§26) In Populorum progresso, Pope Paul VI nuanced it, stating that “if certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.” (§24)

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace taught that the common good stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people and it remains common because it is indivisible (§164); it involves all members of society (§167), although its demands may change according to social conditions (§166); that the responsibility for attaining the common good also belongs to the State, whose existence is predicated on the common good (§168) and whose responsibility it is to harmonize different interests for the common good (§169); and that the common good is not an end in itself, but only in reference to the ultimate ends of the person (§170).

Implications

The move towards individualism effectively began with the Enlightenment. Since that time, Western society in particular, has placed increasing emphasis on the individual over society. Since the 1960s, this move has accelerated. But not only has the individual been placed over society, in many cases he or she is being placed over the family. This self-centredness has increasingly considered service towards others as unnecessary or even wrong. This has created a much more divisive society with an ‘us against them’ or ‘me against the world’ mentality. Individual accomplishment is celebrated, while giving to those who are in need, has come to be seen as an enabling crutch.

The problem with this attitude however, is that we are social creatures and always have been. To discount the contributions or benefits of society toward our well-being is not only disingenuous, it is also deceptive. In a comment made by President Obama a couple of years ago, he rebuked corporate America by saying “you didn’t build that.” His intention seemed simply to point out that every one of us has been given something in our past that we were not responsible for, whether it was by a teacher in our youth or by the construction of the roads that connect our factories with the market. He was quickly and decisively excoriated by the business community. This seems to be a clear case in which the contributions of society towards the individual has been wrongly dismissed out of hand in favour of an elevation of the individual as superior. One could argue that the road was paid for through taxes or would have been better built by private hands, but the reality is these were in fact contributions made by society as a whole.

In return, then, we also have a responsibility to contribute back to society. We are all products of our history, and there should be a willing response by individuals to contribute to the society which has supported us and particularly to support those who may not have enjoyed the same benefits of history as we have. When Jesus came, he gave his life as a gift for those who do not deserve it. While on earth, he was a servant leader, seeking to lift up those in the community who needed it most. We would all do well to live by his example, and consider our actions within the larger context of the common good.

Book Summary: Resurrection and Moral Order

January 19, 2014 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

41SPC06PRSL._SL500_AA300_ O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd ed. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press ; Eerdmans, 1986

Resurrection and Moral Order is broken down into three parts: the objective reality, the subjective reality, and the form of the moral life. Oliver O’Donovan begins in the Prologue referring to the realistic principle–“purposeful action is determined by what is true about the world into which we act;” the evangelical principle–“That truth it’s constituted by what God has done for his world and for humankind in Jesus Christ;” and the Easter principal–“the act of God which liberates our action is focused on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.” (ix) He also refers to a church principle–“that the church is a community of moral formation, where moral practices and concepts are communicated by precept, example and (most importantly) sacrament.” (xviii)

“Christian ethics must arise from the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (11) While Natural Law sees all morality display in nature, O’Donovan points out that the Christian ethic believes a certain morality is attributable to the Gospel itself. He argues “that Christian ethics depend upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (13) It is a promise of new life with Jesus as the one who effects what needs to be done. There is no distinction between ‘ethics of the kingdom’ and the ‘ethics of creation’ because the resurrection is the reaffirmation of creation (15).

Since the Enlightenment, Western moral thought has been ‘voluntarist’ in its assumptions–morality is the creation of man’s will (16). Kierkegaard argued Christian faith and morality must simply be chosen, but O’Donovan sees a difference between the morality which is natural to man and that which has been revealed to him. “Creation and redemption each has its ontological and its epistemological aspect.” (19)

“From the resurrection we look not only back to the created order which is vindicated, but forwards to our eschatological participation in that order.” (22) O’Donovan does not differentiate between subjective and objective freedom–we are both the subject and object of freedom, which comes from participation in Christ’s authority and the created order. It restores our Adamic authority and instills in us redemptive love. “. . . the Spirit forms and brings to expression the appropriate pattern of free response to objective reality.” (25)

“The resurrection of Christ, upon which Christian ethics is founded, vindicates the created order in this double sense: it redeems it and it transforms it.” (56) This looks backwards and forwards. ‘Historicism’ looks to teleology as historical teleology–‘ends’ are a product of historical development (58). This is opposed to the natural teleology which is generic (59). We should identify creation, not as ‘history’, but as the origin of history (63) and history as eschatology versus teleology. The birth of Christ brought with it the salvation event, while historicism is systematically interventionist–man seeking to direct cultural development.

“Morality is man’s (free and joyful) participation in the created order.” (76) Knowledge of the order of creation must be: first, “knowledge of things in their relations to the totality of things;” (77) second, “from within,” and therefore incomplete; (79) third, “from man’s position in the universe;” (81) and fourth, “ignorant of the end of history.” (82) While true knowledge is an exclusive claim, its object is inclusive of the whole order of things (85). Objections to the authority of Christian moral thought are that we 1) have left ourselves no room to say anything about the character of moral thought as a corporate enterprise of learning, which must respond to the new challenges of historical experience; 2) are charged with neglecting the role of compromise and moral understanding (91)–as in casuistry and conduct of public life (97).

The Holy Spirit enables us to participate in God’s act in Christ (101). He “makes the reality of redemption present” (102) and “authoritative to us.” (103) The world is judged and re-created through redemption. The Holy Spirit is presented in three judgments of; unbelief in Christ at the crucifixion, the father’s exaltation of Christ at the resurrection, and Christ’s judgment on the world in the parousia (105). We and our communities are subjects of our actions and the spirit “evokes our free response as moral agents to the reality of redemption.” (106) The authority of redemption and the freedom as agents determine the present world and how we act upon it (109) and the Holy Spirit moves our reality from ourselves back to God. Freedom of the will and the objective reality of reason come into conflict (116). Voluntarism falls into the trap of denying competence to reason or affection or sentiments moral judgment.

One kind of authority gives “a reason for judging or acting in the absence of understood reasons, or for disregarding at least some reasons which are understood and relevant.” (121) Another king of authority grounds action as well as an object towards which action strives (122). There are four forms of authority to which we may respond: beauty, age, community, and strength (124).

Political authority draws from both natural authority and moral authority, but neither exclusively. It is a concurrence of might, tradition, and injured right (128). Divine authority transcends the judgment of our moral reason (131). Aquinas saw this authority solely through the Natural Law, while the voluntarist tradition made a distinction between divine command and that which man discerns within the order of creation (134). Voluntarists see the conflict between reason and revelation in man’s reason always being deficient and susceptible to divine criticism.

The relation between ‘deontic’ and ‘teleological’ moral language has been a question for generations (137). Some argue the deontological approach does not consider the subject’s welfare, while teleological ethics recognizes the ordered structures of being good (138). “The tension between the two moral languages reflects a necessary dialectic in the perceptions of moral agents for whom moral insight is still a task and not yet been achieved fact.” (139)

The Holy Spirit conforms us to the authority of Christ and there two conclusions about divine authority; “The authority of God is . . . located in the public realm in an event of history which may be told;” (141) and “God’s authority . . . may oppose the natural authorities in their rebellion and assertiveness, but is not opposed to the created order as such.” (142) Jesus is irreplaceable as the pattern we are to follow, as ordained by God and proclaimed through the good news, as a unique and significant historical event.

Our freedom is not only individual, but is found in the power to act in community (163). Angel-ecclesiology gives exclusive authority to church law and discipline as the mediator between man and God. The Protestant objections to this paradigm are that it minimizes interpretation of the moral teachings of Christ and even allows for a challenge to the authority of the recorded words of Christ, and that it alienates the individual from God (167–168). There is a distinction between the command and counsel authorities of the church, with the latter being authoritative, but not coercive.

While we may learn about a variety of formal theories of ethics, the command to love takes precedent. “The form of the moral life will be that of an ordered moral field of action on the one hand, and of an ordered a moral subject of action on the other. . . . relating to human acts and also to moral character.” (183) Human acts consist of a plurality of responses to a number of event, according to a variety of situations. Casuistry is how we respond to moral problems as quandaries, either looking at our past experience to determine our future actions or anticipating the consequences of our present actions.

“The moral agent approaches every new situation . . . equipped with the ‘moral law’ (. . . that wisdom which contains insight into the created order, when it is formulated explicitly to direct decisions, i.e. deontically).” (190) “Synderesis, . . . (is) the comprehension of the principles of moral law, and conscientia, their application to particular cases.” (191) We can then “lay down formal rules governing the subsumption of particular cases under generic moral principles.” (193) We can find ourself in a situation where the decision we make is not necessarily a moral judgments but simply wrestling with temptation. Also, is the command to love inclusive–all other commands are present within it–or does it take priority over other commands (201)

Moral thought concerns both moral action and the moral subject–each affecting or explaining the other. God looks at the heart, but Jesus did not simply substitute looking at the agent for looking at the action. “These two stipulations complement each other: (a) the subject’s character must not be reduced to a function of his acts; (b) the subject’s acts must be allowed to disclose his character.” (206) Reductionists look to reduce a subject’s character to become a prediction of future actions, With repetitive sequences pointing to a particular disposition. Others point to the foundation of character as influencing actions. Knowledge of a subject’s perspective only allows us to evaluate moral thought and not to contribute to deliberation of it.

Volunteerism and pluralism are related in that each agent interprets their situation, but that there are many agents with different intentions, all equally valid. Agents may act differently when confronted with a situation that presents a conflict between virtues. An evaluative stance does not lead to relativism. There can still be unity in a plurality of believers with various gifts, as witnessed by the unity of God, Father, Son and Spirit.

Love is “the fulfillment of the moral law on the one hand, and of the form of the virtues on the other.” (226) The love of God and the love of neighbor should not come into conflict but point to the same thing. We love our neighbor because they are fellow subjects but also because they are suitable objects of our love. This is not the same as the love of God, but yet neither is it in competition. The ordering of love relates to the ordering of creation.

The end of the moral life is found in love, faith, and hope. The latter two find their pinnacle at the end of history, while the former allows us to participate in life with God and creation. The Christian moral life must point to the resurrection with hope pointing us to it and faith moving back from it. Christian morality is therefore founded in the love of Christ pointing to his resurrection as the distinct event which reciprocates that love.

Where Am I Going Now

October 11, 2013 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

think positively, big, crative As I mentioned in my previous post, up until about 6 to 9 months ago I was fairly certain I was going to return to China. As I found out however, the Lord had different plans for me.

Back in April, I was accepted into the PhD program at Southern. I wasn’t actually even considering continuing my education until the end of 2012 when I had a compulsion of sorts to apply. I was accepted into the program in April and I am really excited about it. I was told that one shouldn’t apply to PhD unless they have a burning desire to research a particular topic, and that topic for me is, and has been since becoming a Christian: “How do we conduct ourselves as Christians in the business world?” When I was still exploring Christianity, God surrounded me with a number of godly, Christian businessmen who modelled what it is like to be both a husband and a businessman. As I have sifted through possible dissertation topics, I have been really struck by the question of whether a business can be Christian. I have been exploring the idea of Stakeholder Theory which basically posits that there are more stakeholders in a company than just the shareholders. I believe this meshes well with our faith and I hope to explore it in much more detail.

I have always had an entrepreneurial spirit, although not necessarily a successful one. When I felt called to come back to Canada, church planting seemed the obvious calling. I looked at two groups, and as so often happens in God’s planning, some doors opened and others seemed to shut. I feel blessed now to be appointed, as of October 1, as a church planter with Toronto Church Planting (www.torontochurchplanting.com), which is affiliated with the North American Mission Board and the Canadian National Baptist Convention. I have a real desire to minister to business people, professionals and white collar workers in the financial district and they have been very supportive of my plan to plant in the downtown core. I have already begun working and training with them, but I am now seeking some ministry partners to join and prayer partners to support me.

When considering my options, I thought about whether to become a full-time or a bi-vocational church planter. There seemed to be advantages and disadvantages to both, but I thought that being active in both a church plant and a Christian ministry that serves the same people whom I want to serve, would be an ideal situation. Not only would it help financially, but it would also put me in the ‘market’ as it were, where I could meet people in a similar context. Once again, God blessed me with an opportunity which I heard about indirectly. As of October 1, I became the Chaplain at King-Bay Chaplaincy (www.king-bay.com). I am following in some really big footsteps, but I am really excited about the work they have done and that I hope we can do together.

This is going to be a very business season in my life and I pray that God gives me the strength, endurance, and ability to engage in each of these ministries to his glory. I would not have even thought this possible if it were not for the same theme that runs through each of them for me: I became a Christian as a businessman and I feel called to minister to those who have had, and hopefully will have, similar experiences as I did. I want to serve business people, professionals and white collar workers who know the Lord and those who don’t. I believe God calls us to work, and while the Fall makes it more difficult, it is still something we can do to his glory and I hope I can serve him by serving others.

Cogito Ergo Sum

July 6, 2013 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

I first read Rene Descartes’ “The Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences” back in high school. I was fascinated by the simplicity of his hypothesis “I think therefore I am“. It had a profound effect on my own philosophy from that time (secular humanist if I were to give it a title) onward and particularly later as I came to faith in Christ.

Descartes helped me to bring things down to basics. After all his argument is persuasive if not for its simplicity: if I seek to find the thing(s) of which I can be sure, I first need to eliminate all that can not be definitively known. Most people would consider the physical world around us to be a definite, but I was not so sure. I remember working through Descartes’ argument to explain to a friend that the only thing of which we can be sure is that we in fact exist simply from the fact that we are thinking. When I tried however to persuade my friend that we can not know anything outside of that, a wall went up. “Of course we know about other things. I see trees and grass etc.” I responded that perhaps we are only dreaming and that this is not in fact real, but only imaginary. (I wish I had Vanilla Sky or The Matrix as a reference at the time.) But my friend was having none of that and the conversation ended there as did may other similar conversations.

The Discourse is broken up into six sections. The first contains some ideas on science. In the second section Descartes lays down some ground rules on the experiment which he is about to undertake. In particular, he argues that he needs to strip away past beliefs to get down to truth(s) which are obvious for everyone. In the third section, he sets forth some maxims for his investigation. In the fourth section, he finally comes to his argument that “I think, therefore I am” based on the fact that everything we perceive can possibly be explained away as a mental phenomenon, but the fact that we think, can not. He continues on to argue that we are not perfect and therefore a more perfect nature must exist to explain the objects external to himself. This leads him to the conclusion that a perfect God must exist and be the creator of that perfect nature, which he, as an imperfect man, could possibly not. He continues on in sections five and six to discuss some issues related to medicine and nature, but these are not the focus of my investigation.

In the past number of years, I have heard what I believe are misrepresentations of Descartes’ position. I am not sure where he was spiritually, but I have heard it argued that what Descartes was in fact trying to do is to prove that he alone exists. The point of my exercise here has been to re-read the Discourse and to figure out what he was arguing. I am now more confident that Descartes used the “I think therefore I am” argument solely to establish what could be known and that once he did that, he continued on to prove the existence of God. This argument in fact helped my in my faith and for this reason I am thankful to Descartes.

The Basis of Capitalism

April 16, 2013 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

Originally feudalistic, the economies in Europe shifted to a more capitalistic system from the Middle Ages onward. Feudalism flourished during the 9th to 15th centuries and the structure of relationships in society were primarily economic. Land holders were empowered with a ruling authority arising from their land holdings and the relationship of the different classes were based on their relationship to the land holding. Rodney Stark argues that capitalism started to take form as early as the 12th century and that by the end of the 13th century “the leading Christian theologians had fully debated the primary aspects of emerging capitalism-profits, property rights, credit, lending, and the like.” [zotpressInText item=”{FBSTGVC8, 66}”]

Capitalism contrasts with the earlier economic system in that it is characterized by the purchase of labor for money wages as opposed to the direct labor obtained through custom, duty or command in feudalism.

Rather than trying to define ‘capitalism’ as a system, it may be better to understand what are the necessary conditions to make a successful economic model work.

Freedom

Freedom is the foundational component for any successful economy. Agents must have the freedom to make the best and most productive economic and business decisions if the system is to work properly. Without freedom, the economy will necessarily be centrally planned and dictatorial. We can see from history that such an economy rarely if ever works. It is not feasible in the long-term because it is built upon and subject to the whims of a small group of ‘elite’ leaders who normally have vested interests in directing the economy. The collective wisdom of the market will often trump the presumed wisdom of a small group of leaders.

Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is essential to the efficient and effectual functioning of an economy for two main reasons: first, it establishes the parameters in which the market operates, and second, it gives the players the confidence necessary to partake in the system. Trying to participate in the economy without the Rule of Law is like playing sports with rules or a referee. It becomes chaos and bows to the whims of the strongest players. Capitalism is not a free for all, but a system in which the players makes decisions with certain expectations and the Rule of Law helps establish and enforce those expectations.

Private Property

Private property is what puts the ‘capital’ into capitalism. Many have tried to argue for a communal or communist attitude toward property from the Bible, often citing Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32. These passages however, are descriptive and not prescriptive. Two of the ‘Ten Commandments’ are a) do not steal (Exod 20:15), and b) do not covet (Exod 20:17). Both of these assume some form of private ownership of property. We also know from experience and human nature, that people tend to respect and value private property more highly than public property and thus they tend to be better stewards of these resources.

But there is another important aspect of private property. Hernando de Soto argues that when the ownership of property is not fully and legally recognised, it is effectively ‘dead’. Without the proper infrastructure and systems to recognise and reinforce ownership, private property cannot be put to its best and more effective use. It is unusable as collateral for credit, which is essential for small businesses. Also, because ownership is questionable, the property itself is frequently kept out of the system. In order for an economy to best utilise its resources and capital, it needs both to recognise and reinforce private property.

Medium of Exchange

In order to have efficient economy, there needs to be some sort of easy and efficient medium of exchange. Money has been that medium for some time now and more recently, the US dollar in particular. Previously people traded goods under the barter system, but exchanging goods of unequal value can be cumbersome. The shift to a monetary system removed the barriers and allows people to trade more freely by creating an easy marker of value.

Free Markets

The free exchange of commodities, products, and services is near the heart of the capitalist system. The freedom to exchange is an essential aspect of an efficient market because without it capital is illiquid. Investors are deterred from injecting capital into the system for fear of not being able to get it out at a later date. Illiquidity must also be considered an opportunity cost of capital, if it could be used more efficiently elsewhere, but cannot be moved.

The main advantage of a free market is that it is a pricing mechanism, representing the amalgamation of all of the buying and selling choices of all of the participants in the market. Buyers and sellers make their choices based on the information available and pertinent to them. The market communicates the real-time accumulation of this information through price fluctuates, reflecting the collective valuation of a particular commodity, product, or service. It is impossible for a central planner to have and understand this depth of information.

Discovery, Creation, and Innovation

At the true heart of a prosperous economic system however, is creation, discovery, and innovation. That is, putting resources to their best and most productive use through human intelligence and ingenuity. God reveals himself and our world to us through the Bible. God is the ultimate creator (Gen 1:1) and man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) and in the Garden of Eden, he called Adam to work and steward creation (Gen 2:15). A productive economic system will therefore reflect man’s desire, ability, and calling to understand, produce, and steward the resources that God has put under his control.

Milton Friedman and Greed

October 11, 2012 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

I really like this video of Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue show. He takes his host to task on the question of greed.

I have struggled in the past trying to reconcile capitalism and greed. The corporate greed and crony capitalism that has become increasingly prevalent in the market over the past 10-20 years or so is very concerning. Capitalism, as a system, is being denigrated by the examples of corrupt players in the game. I grant that one of the strengths of capitalism is the liberty one has to operate within the system and that with liberty comes the risk of abuse. The increasingly unchecked personal ambitions, with disregard to the corporation or those working in it, reflect an increasingly depraved morality not just in the business world, but the western world in general.

Having said that and having lived in a communist country, I can attest that greed is not unique to our economy and culture. Its manifestation may be subdued by authoritarian rule in communist regimes and exaggerated in liberal democracies, but the underlying lusts of the heart which drive us to greed in the first place are the same no matter where we go.

There is something deeper at the heart of the problem and that is our own sinful nature. The Bible tells us that the disobedience by the first couple turned us away from God and as the descendants of the first sinners, we have inherited this propensity to want to be our own gods and the rulers of our own destinies. In the post-modern world, we try to ignore the “rules” of the game, by setting out our own, false parameters. Regrettably, this has only exacerbated the problem. Whether you believe in God or nature as the ultimate creator and ruler, we live by a set of rules and when we break those rules, we should expect consequences.

Capitalism and Christianity – The Fallen World

August 23, 2012 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

It is easy to blame the ills of the world on the capitalist system. As Christians, we often see it being in opposition to the teachings of the Bible. Jesus pointed to the poor and downtrodden as the right objects of our love and attention. The Bible contains a mandate to serve the poor and protect them from the abuses of the rich. As God has bestowed his grace and mercy upon us, so should we do to the poor. But is capitalism, as a system, to blame for the poverty, or for the abuse, or for the greed that we see in the world?

One quick way to see if these negative aspects are based on the system itself, is to look at other systems to understand if the issues capitalism face are unique to it. This post isn’t long enough to get into a detailed analysis of other economic systems. From a personal perspective however, having lived in the most laissez faire economy in the world (Hong Kong), a free market, capitalist economy (United States), a socialist market economy (Canada), and a central command economy (Mainland China), I can attest that inequity of wealth and power, greed, consumerism, and depletion of natural resources are by no means the exclusive domain of capitalist economies. While there may be aspects of the capitalist system that help facilitate these things to happen, the issue is really our hearts.

Capitalism can allow us to reflect God’s character, but it can only be fully realized when it is undertaken by God’s people properly reflecting his image in all of their relationships and actions. There is an underlying morality necessary for the system to function properly. We have seen in earlier posts that God created us to be producers, managers, and workers. Entrepreneurship, business, capitalism, investment and employment are all productive manifestations of these. Because of the freedom inherent in the system, capitalism, contrary to popular belief, actually allows us the opportunity to show our love and build our relationships with one another. It provides an opportunity for us to treat one another with respect and dignity. I am not saying this happens all the time, or even enough, but the system makes it possible.

The system seems flawed to many however because there is still poverty and inequality and we see rampant greed and consumerism. But when we work through the arguments, we come to realize that the root problem is not a flaw in the system, but because of the brokenness of our hearts. The Bible tells us that God made us to be in relationship with him. Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden of Eden and had a direct relationship with him, but when they disobeyed God by eating the fruit on the tree, they rejected his authority. They were tempted by the prospect of having their eyes open and being like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:5) This is what is known as the Fall. They became eternally separated from God and we, as their descendants, continue in our sin and in that separation. And it is this condition which leads us to see the evils we see in the world.

One oft misquoted line from the Bible is 1 Timothy 6:10. It is often quoted as “money is the root of all evil,” but what the Bible really says is “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” It is the love of material things, and power, and prestige that drive us to act in a way that is hurtful to our fellow man and not necessarily those things in and of themselves.

Do you think the love of something and the object itself can be separated?

Capitalism and Christianity – Work

August 16, 2012 By Stephen DeKuyper Leave a Comment

work team The third leg of the Capitalism and Christianity stool comes from our call to work. While God created us to be producers and managers, he also created us to be workers. Even before the Fall, man was called to work;

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2:15 ESV)

People often see work as a burden, as something bad, but work was meant as a good thing for man to do. It was man’s disobedience that led to the Fall and that in turn fundamentally changed the way in which we work.

And to Adam God said Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (Genesis 3:17-19 ESV)

As a result of the Fall, work became difficult, but that does not fundamentally change its original purpose. God did not put Adam to work as punishment. Employment is an opportunity for us to glorify God. We can glorify God in our relationships with superiors and subordinates. When the relationship between employer and employee is working properly, both parties can benefit. Most simply, work enables us to be obedient and productive and relational.

Striving to improve our work is another way to glorify God. Competition helps us to grow the gifts that God has given us. We are pushed to higher expectations, to get better at creating things, reflecting God’s desire to have us to do well and improve what we are able to do. The competitive system tests our abilities and if we are able to do them well, we will be paid for it. The Olympics have just finished and while the athletes are not getting paid for their participation, the games are one of the best examples of the glory God can get from those who work hard and push themselves and develop the talents God has given them.

This is not to argue that work doesn’t play a part in any other other economic system nor any other religion. What is does say however, is that as Christians, we should believe that work is good, and that it has been negatively affected by the Fall, but that one day in the New Heavens and New Earth, it will again be as it was first meant to be.

They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain . . . (Is 65:21–23 ESV)

Do you see your work as a curse or as a way to be blessed and glorify God?