NOTE: the following is adapted from The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an Emerging Culture, by Mark Liederbach and Alvin L. Reid (Kregel).
On September 13, 1970, the New York Times Magazine published an article by Milton Friedman titled “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Friedman argues that the number one priority of business managers is to serve the interests of the firm’s owners—the shareholders. The moral obligations of the business, in this view, are limited to functioning within the law and engaging in “open and free competition without deception or fraud.” Profits are the bottom line. This view, which is known as the “shareholder theory,” quickly became the standard view in the field.
Friedman’s contends that when the bottom line is maximized (profits), the by-product will be the protection of a free society, which will in turn yield a higher standard of living for all involved and ensure a greater alleviation of social ills as society mutually enjoys the increase of overall wealth.
A more recent perspective that diverges significantly from this view and yet is growing in popularity is known as the “stakeholder theory.” This view, championed most notably by Edward Freeman, who is the Olsson Professor of Applied Ethics at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, argues that business managers have a moral obligation to serve the interests of all those who have a “stake” in the company, not just shareholders. Those who have a “stake” are anyone who affects or are affected by the company’s mission and objectives. According to Freeman, the “bottom line” of maximizing profits is not the only line that matters. In addition to profit maximizing for the shareholders, businesses also must consider the interests of everyone who has something at stake in the company’s success—employees, customers, suppliers, and the community in which the business firm operates. These stakeholders are not means to an end, merely to be treated in a manner that enables the firm to reach its goals, but are ends in themselves and should be treated as such. Their well-being not only matters but also is—at least in part—the moral responsibility of the firm to look after.
A key element in this stakeholder theory relates to the question of what will eventually happen to the “bottom line” (profits) if a company adopts this broader view of moral responsibility. In Friedman’s New York Times Magazine article, he opposes the ideas of corporate social responsibility and the stakeholder theory because he believes ultimately they will divert a firm from the primary objective (being profitable) as well as lead to the legal impositions of moral obligations that will ultimately destroy the free-market economy itself.
On the other hand, Freeman and those who support the stakeholder theory argue that when those who have something at stake in the company are treated well (i.e., suppliers are paid on time, customer service is high, employees are given extra benefits, and community concerns are addressed), then more people will be motivated to work with and for the firm as well
as to buy and use its products. Ultimately, they argue, “good ethics is good business.” It may cost more in the short run, but in the long run people are cared for and profits eventually will maximize.
If one is careful not to push the analogy too far, it is possible to see similarities between these two business ethics models and the question about evangelism and social justice. There is no question that evangelicals have tended toward a “shareholder theory” of evangelism in which the bottom line of “saved souls” is really “the only line that matters.” Thus, with purity of mission to seek and save the lost in mind, evangelicals have placed great emphasis on the proclamation of the good news almost to the exclusion of any other endeavor in relating to the culture. Evangelistic campaigns both here and abroad, international mission trips, parachurch ministries, and Sunday morning pulpiteering for decades have largely evaluated their success by counting numbers of decisions for Christ, and with little to no evaluative tools geared toward issues of social justice.
This is not to say that social justice issues were ignored, but they were not emphasized and have primarily been merely the means to the end of the “bottom line” (conversions). But in the long run is this the best approach? Consider the words of Philip Ryken. He writes, “A recent report from the Princeton Religion Research Center claimed, ‘Religion Is Gaining Ground, but Morality Is Losing Ground.’ The report showed how increases in church attendance and Bible reading have been offset by a simultaneous decline in morality among churchgoers. This is a strange combination: supposedly people are more religious, and yet at the same time their conduct is less moral. What this shows is the absence of real gospel holiness—a passion to do what is right before God.” More religious, yet less moral. Could
it be that pursuit of the bottom line has led to the neglect of other very important elements that are at stake in the Christian life?
One has to wonder if perhaps a “stakeholder approach” to kingdom expansion and mission could increase the long-term impact of the church on society, raise the reputation of the people of God among the lost, create environments for holistic discipleship, increase the hunger for theological depth by those facing life’s challenges, and in the long run turn out to be the most effective means of maximizing disciple making and increasing evangelistic effectiveness. How might this work?
Consider two scenarios. First, a local church decides that it wants to reach the lost in its community and then equip these new converts to become mature and ministering worshipers of Christ. In order to accomplish their goal, they map out a strategy and begin
a door-to-door evangelism program. Within a year they have mobilized a significant number of their congregation, and eventually they knock on every door with an invitation to church and an offer to discuss a simple gospel presentation and pray for the homeowner. Not only would such an approach have biblical warrant (Acts 2, 20:20, etc), but it might well provide a surge in conversions. In addition, there would be a clear ability to take inventory of effectiveness in light of the goal. With each door knocked on there would be a clear picture of yes or no responses to the gospel, and one could then consider that church’s identified “target audience” as being reached for Christ. According to the shareholder theory, the plan is a success. As more people are reached with the gospel message, more come to church and enter discipleship, and little by little these new disciples begin to influence their places of work and activity in the community.
Second, the same church seeking to reach the lost and equip the new disciples to be mature and ministering worshipers of God decides to engage in several communal and social justice issues. First, they develop a crisis counseling center to offer non-church members free counseling on issues ranging from marriage and parental counseling to money management and care for victims of abuse. They also get involved in the start-up and support of a crisis pregnancy center. In addition, they spend time and resources engaged in local literacy programs by teaching English as a second language, and they begin a ministry to HIV/AIDS patients that involves free testing and care and support for those already infected. In the midst of these pursuits, through repeated and positive contact with these various community
“stakeholders” the church members find they have an increased number of evangelism opportunities. The strategy is not so clean and precise in terms of numbers evaluation, the process takes a bit longer, and there are not as many “quick” decisions for Christ, but over the course of five years they recognize a rather large upsurge in the cumulative number and character depth of their disciples. In addition, they have gained a reputation as a place of care, shelter, and understanding.
Understand several things about these two scenarios. First, they are stereotypical projections and, thus, we must recognize the limitation of the illustration. Having done so, however, we can understand that on both accounts something important has been done for the advance of the kingdom of God. What we want to stress, however, is that the second scenario is not only very biblical in nature, but arguably it also has the superior long-range evangelistic plan and strategy. By serving the needs of all “stakeholders,” it does a superior job of ensuring its pivotal role in the community as a whole and provides a much wider range of ministry exposure for discipleship and ministry training.
Second, in order for the second of these scenarios to maintain evangelistic potency, there must be a clear commitment to the verbal proclamation of the gospel message as a part of the ministry strategy.
Third, in order to rightly employ a healthy balance between evangelistic proclamation and a ministry of social justice, one must have a solid theological foundation. Not only must we see social injustice as having its basis in the human sin condition, but we also must emphasize that salvation fundamentally involves a personal embracing of the redeeming, atoning, and transformational work of Christ. Perhaps then we can see a form of evangelism like that Paul noted in I Thessalonians 2:8, where he said the imparted to them not only the gospel, but their very lives.
