Of the very few references in Jesus’ teachings to a Day of Judgment, surely the most notable is described in Matthew 25: 31ff. In that scene, the sheep (the righteous) are separated from the goats (the sinful) and God explains his judgment with the well-known commendation of the righteous: “For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat . . . thirsty and you gave me something to drink . . . a stranger and you welcomed me . . . naked and you clothed me . . . sick and you cared for me . . . in prison and you visited me.” The sinful were condemned for neglecting these acts. Certainly the most striking point is that eternal judgment hinges how we behave toward those who exist at the margins of society, those generally described as “the poor.”
Someone might protest that this necessitates “works righteousness,” but John ascribes our involvement or neglect to its foundation: one’s love for God: “Whoever has earthly goods and sees his brother in need but doesn’t have compassion on him, how can the love of God be in him?” My children, let us love, not just in word, but in deed and in truth.” I John 3:17-18
Unlike the practice of sharing within the Jerusalem church described in Acts 2 or the collection for the church in Jerusalem (e.g., I Corinthians 16), there are simply no models of economic development programs in scripture. Likewise, there are no specific models of medical mission efforts, but we understand how, teamed with an evangelistic focus, they fulfill the second-greatest commission to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
An aspect of most biblical models of Christian economic assistance is the focus on distribution (or allocation) rather than production. It is the role of an economic system to allocate resources among producers and consumers in order to accomplish the goals of the society. A system of distribution that ignores its effect on production may end up producing more people in need, or at least people who appear to be in need. Even Christian relief ministries face the dilemma posed by the requirement to be good stewards of God’s resources on one hand while observing Jesus’ command to “give to whoever asks you” (Matt. 5:42) on the other.
There are numerous explicit and implied encouragements to industriousness and diligent work (e.g., the virtuous woman, the example of the ant, the parable of the talents), but none of these carries the weight of a “commission” to go and teach the gospel to unbelievers. In addition, business and money lending suffer from a poor reputation. Some people will sincerely question whether the church ought to be engaged in the business of consulting and money lending.
Christian mission efforts have characteristically emphasized evangelistic efforts to the exclusion of social or economic programs. The reasons for this are several:
With limited resources including money, personnel, and time, efforts have focused on what is considered by evangelicals to be the foremost task of the Christian church-to seek and save the lost. Given limited resources, funds diverted to economic programs reduce funds available for more direct evangelistic efforts.
Related to this is the deeper question of whether Christians ought to be very concerned about physical welfare. Jesus’ ministry did not seem to emphasize physical wellbeing, including economic hardship or political oppression. Instead, he encouraged followers to depend on God’s loving care for their physical needs, and charged that the real problems in life are not physical but spiritual ones.
Third, given this background, the physical world will pass away while the soul is immortal. Why, then, should resources be expended on saving the body, which will eventually die, when they could be used to save the eternal soul? As evidence of this perspective, many are likely aware of economic relief efforts (including church benevolence programs) that have been pitched on the basis of ultimate evangelistic potential. Others of us are aware of programs that have been justified or questioned on whether they produced evangelistic opportunities or conversions.
There are a number of potential problems that could result from offering business counseling or financing services, particularly in making grants or loans. First, how are the funds to be allocated? If loans are made available first to Christians, it could provide perverse incentive to convert. Assuming the lending process would involve an analysis of the borrower and the proposed investment, there would likely be some proposals that are rejected, resulting in hard feelings that might become obstacles to evangelistic efforts.
The intertwining of commercial and personal (and in this case, spiritual) relationships creates problems in our own society, where the nature of commercial relationships (e.g., borrower and lender, buyer and seller) is better understood. In regard to loans, we recognize that the typical borrower/lender relationship is characterized by some degree of conflict. That conflict could compromise the congeniality of the relationship between missionaries and locals that could undermine the spiritual aims of the mission. Recognizing this danger, and wishing to focus on spiritual relationships rather than commercial ones, some organizations choose to provide grants rather than loans. Even so, assuming individuals must qualify for the grants, some will certainly fail to qualify and there will be disappointment.
Many Christians are uncomfortable with capitalism. They appreciate the benefits, but wonder at what cost these benefits are obtained. They are concerned about a system which, as they see it, is fueled by greed and which thrives by creating desires for products that people really don’t need. A critique of capitalism is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is sufficient here to say that the thinking Christian cannot simply regard capitalism as “God’s system,” nor ignore its success in producing benefits. It is a system that responds to the desires of the market, and its results will reflect the sanctity or sinfulness of the market participants. Capitalism is, like each of us, in need of redemption. The challenges to advocating this controversial system are one aspect of the dilemma of accepting the task of economic as well as spiritual mission.
Aside from the specific concerns about capitalism, some Christians are concerned about exporting American consumerist culture and “defiling” native economic arrangements that are attractive in social terms yet not conducive to economic progress. How will the missionaries handle native customs or taboos that are socially beneficial in some respects but which may retard or prevent economic development? Two examples may be helpful. One African tribe follows the custom of drawing lots each year to determine which plot of tribal land each family will farm for their own purposes. The system is very fair since each family has an equal chance of obtaining the most productive land. However, this system fails to recognize that the system discourages anyone from looking to the long-term good of the land. Why would a farmer let a plot lie fallow for a year or spend money to enrich that plot if the benefits were to go to whomever by chance farmed that land the following year? Another example comes from Latin culture, which places a high priority on the closeness and support of the family. An accompanying feature, however, is suspicion of those outside the family. The closeness of Latino family ties tends to work against the development of strong relationships in the larger community, including business relationships.
Although not appreciated by many, free enterprise does not thrive in an environment of heavy-handed government intervention, trade protectionism, and low regard for work or private property rights, among other things. For extensive economic development to occur via free markets, stable political systems are necessary. However, even within difficult circumstances, economic mission initiatives are creating what one organization calls “islands of integrity.” In these areas, sound Christian-based business principles are being taught and implemented and families are being extracted from poverty one by one.
While there is no explicit scriptural example of economic missions, there are a number of principles that apply. Mountain Movers is committed to being biblical as we help people out of love, and to respect the native culture.
In justifying economic initiatives, the arguments most compelling to me come from the Golden Rule and the Protestant Reformation. The Golden Rule compels me to desire for others those things that I rightly desire for myself. That is, I personally desire the benefits of a thriving economy with its higher standard of living. I therefore wish them for others. Second, a holistic view of God’s reign as reflected in Reformation theology is that there is no realm of life outside God’s oversight. All of life is sacred, including commercial activities. As such, all activities should be conducted as if done in the service of God. A view of God’s work consistent with this realization does not allow stark lines between evangelistic efforts, economic relief efforts, and economic development efforts. They are all done to the glory of God in order to bring people to come to know Him and to serve him.
In a practical light, combining personal and commercial relationships, particularly through micro-loan programs, does propose hazards. Great care must be taken that evangelistic efforts are not undermined by hard feelings related to economic initiatives. One solution would be to have the economic programs administered by an organization separate from the mission, or to separate duties so that those making the grant or loan decisions are not the same as those doing the primary evangelistic work.
Despite the “dog-eat-dog” reputation of commercial relationships under capitalism, close consideration reveals that success in free markets requires a great deal of concern for the needs of customers, suppliers, employees, and so on, since all associations are voluntary.
