Implications on Defining the Kingdom of God in BAM Businesses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
religions Article Thy Kingdom Come in BAM as It Is in Heaven: Implications on Defining the Kingdom of God in BAM Businesses Ben Ward Applied Ministry and Student Life, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY 40280, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Business as Mission (BAM) is a subcategory of Social Entrepreneurship as it seeks cultural innovation from a Christian perspective focusing specifically on economic uplift and religious direction. Most BAM authors describe the kingdom of God as the reign of God. In a theological review, I will show that defining kingdom simply as God’s rule is not a complete view of the kingdom. Rather, a more robust definition of the kingdom is preferred in biblical and theological studies that focuses on God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule. Therefore, the BAM community can adopt a refined definition that helps them move forward in the core vision of holistic ministry. This research provides a biblical and theological understanding for business practitioners to pursue a spiritual bottom line alongside local churches. Keywords: business as mission; kingdom of God; spiritual bottom line; local church 1. Introduction Citation: Ward, Ben. 2021. Thy Business as Mission (BAM) is a for-profit business in a cross cultural setting with a goal Kingdom Come in BAM as It Is in to participate in God’s mission in the world (Johnson 2009). From a Christian perspective, Heaven: Implications on Defining the BAM is a subcategory of Social Entrepreneurship (SE) as it focuses on cultural goals for the Kingdom of God in BAM Businesses. common good of communities within for-profit companies. This fits as a cultural goal in the Religions 12: 557. https://doi.org/ research of Braunerhjelm and Hamilton(2009, p. 28) suggesting that SE seeks to develop 10.3390/rel12080557 “economic, cultural, or political goals.” BAM is postured as holistic, practicing business as Academic Editors: Steven Rundle and a blessing of common grace in the world helping to alleviate poverty and fulfill Christian Min-Dong (Paul) Lee ministry (Tunehag et al. 2004). BAM practitioners desire to seek the common good of their community even in the context of religious pluralism (Jeremiah 29:7). Therefore, a BAM Received: 11 June 2021 business is unique through its organizational objectives as it seeks holistic work which Accepted: 16 July 2021 Johnson and Rundle(2006) clarify pursues economic uplift and spiritual benefit. Published: 21 July 2021 One question among the BAM community is how should spiritual or kingdom ob- jectives be defined and measured (Albright et al. 2014)? Some, similar to the Lausanne Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Occasional Paper #59 call for kingdom growth, which mentions a wide range of Christian with regard to jurisdictional claims in activity such as poverty alleviation, prayer, witness, and ethics. There is evidence that the published maps and institutional affil- purpose of holistic ministry for kingdom impact is described in BAM as economic uplift iations. and Great Commission impact (Rundle and Steffen 2011; Baer 2006; Lai 2015; Gort and Tunehag 2018; Eldred 2005). However, the term kingdom is often loosely defined, perhaps better said it is often described, in BAM literature leaving the door open for mission drift. Most notably, the Lausanne Occasional Paper #59 on BAM uses kingdom 163 times while Copyright: © 2021 by the author. never defining the term. To gain clarity for future momentum, a robust definition needs Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. to be established for kingdom, and its impact on how to define and measure “kingdom This article is an open access article objectives”. distributed under the terms and This paper’s purpose will be to answer the question, “What is the definition of the conditions of the Creative Commons kingdom from a biblical theology point of view, and does this definition have implications Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// for a BAM practitioner?” This paper suggests that the BAM community began using the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ word kingdom as a broad category to enlarge the potential connections of business and 4.0/). Religions 2021, 12, 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080557 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2021, 12, 557 2 of 13 mission. Authors commonly used the word kingdom as an adjective to describe the Chris- tian intent for the work, but often the term used an assumed definition meaning holistic ministry outside the walls of the church.1 When defined, authors often rely on a definition for kingdom steeped in Protestant liberalism that has its own ministry implications that do not fit the holistic trajectory of the BAM movement. This paper will introduce a definition of kingdom through the biblical theological work of Graeme Goldsworthy to show how it can forward the core vision of BAM. This paper will develop three sections that end in a tight connection between BAM businesses and local churches for kingdom objectives. First, the historical conversation on the kingdom produced a consensus understanding in a view coined inaugurated eschatology, the view that Jesus preached a kingdom present on earth that will be fulfilled at the end of time. Second, a definition of kingdom based on biblical theology best suits the holistic ministry objectives of the BAM community that ends in the dual objectives of economic development and local church impact. Third, a robust definition of the kingdom will have practical implications on the spiritual planning processes for a BAM company. My perspective is evangelical Protestant. By evangelical, I agree with Graeme Goldsworthy(2012) in describing a large group of people with a trust in the reliabil- ity of the Bible to inform my definition of kingdom. This perspective is important due to the modern historical conversation of the kingdom rising from a Protestant liberal per- spective that did not trust the reliability or unity of the entire Bible. This will shade my interpretation of the conversation in the last century.2 In my reading, many practitioners, and scholars in BAM that view their social concern as a kingdom objective come from a similar perspective with a high regard for the Bible seeking for the practitioners’ business in some way to be connected to the Bible’s narrative. The following article seeks to provide concepts and clarity on the ways a business can be connected to the Bible’s narrative. 2. The History of Defining the Kingdom of God While there have been excellent arguments for a biblical basis for BAM (e.g., Russell 2010), there is not a resource that helps a BAM practitioner define the crucial definition of kingdom in context of the historical conversation. The history of interpretation on the kingdom since the 19th century is a classic pendulum swing. For interpreting the kingdom, scholars argued that either the kingdom was entirely inaugurated (now) or the kingdom was entirely eschatological (future). Pendulums, however, come to rest in the middle over time. When scholars later came to a consensus on inaugurated eschatology, the pendulum rested in the center with a “both-and” view. In this section, a summary will be given for interpreting the kingdom from the 1870s until now.3 The movement began with Albert Ritschl's emphasis on the kingdom as present. Scholars Schweitzer and Weiss represented a shift to thinking of the kingdom as primarily eschatological (future). Later, figures such as Dodd, Ladd, and Kümmel produced a middle way that connected both the kingdom present and the kingdom future into the message of Jesus and the church. 2.1. The Kingdom Present Albert Ritschl began to write about the kingdom with his pupils in the 19th century, and originally established that the kingdom of God was entirely of this world. Ritschl was a representative of social liberalism which dominated the theological establishment of his day. He questioned whether Jesus really thought the kingdom was a future event or was Jesus more concerned about the social ethics of the people present? He concluded that the kingdom message of the historical Jesus was an ethical message that provides liberation for the people Jesus taught (Willis 1987). Protestant liberalism, using historical critical analysis, tilted Jesus’s teaching on the kingdom of God as a present reality more than eschatological reality. Richard Hiers(1987, p. 16) wrote: “Liberal Christianity viewed Jesus primarily as teacher and exemplar of a timeless ethic of love who had either proclaimed that the kingdom of God was present Religions 2021, 12, 557 3 of 13 in the hearts of individuals through the experience of communion with God, or who had called people of all times to the task of bringing the kingdom of God (or extending its influence) on earth through moral action and social reform.” BAM practitioners who practice holistic ministry often cite God’s rule in the individual or often seek social reform as a goal for ministry similar to Hiers summary of liberal Christianity (Russell 2010; Ewert 2006; Gort and Tunehag 2018). This raises the question, “Is there a difference in perspective or objectives for an evangelical BAM practitioner to work towards holistic ministry?” 2.2. The Kingdom Future In the 1890s, authors Albert Schweitzer and Johannes Weiss began to swing the academic pendulum by focusing on the future, eschatological kingdom. Weiss posited six characteristics of the kingdom: (1) It is radically transcendent and supramundane (not of this world). (2) It is radically future and in no way present. (3) Jesus was not the founder or inaugurator of this kingdom, but he waited for God to bring it. (4) The kingdom is in no way identified with Jesus’ circle of disciples. (5) The kingdom does not come gradually by growth or development. (6) The ethics that the kingdom sponsors are negative and world-denying (Willis 1987, p.