Business For The Glory Of God

In Grudem’s (2003) “Business for the glory of God: The Bible’s teaching on the moral goodness of business” the writer seeks to create a treatise in which he aims to establish a divine moral ground for our current economic system. Nevertheless, in its seventh chapter “Inequality Of Possession” he at best presents us with an incomplete analysis conditioned to a subjective interpretation of the bible that fears to fully develop what it’s inferred as it is rationally applied to the socioeconomic history of humanity.

Right form the beginning the author commits to a flawed justification of material inequality based on a curtailed interpretation of the divine law of cause and effect—karma—or God’s sense of justice in which, according to him, a person is given according to his or her capacity to posses and command. To begin with, fairness of reward is not always exemplify by our current economic system, that more than being divinely ordained, seems to be the result of habit and humanity’s desire for power work out into a historical mental construction based on axiomatic abstractions derived from greater ontological principles inherent to all of humanity’s divine value in our connection with God and service to God. And which it is thus, in effect, corrupted and degraded by an unfair economic system that neglects to consider both social and personal aspects that go beyond any sense of material stewardship, which the author ascribes to God but then fails to recognize that such idea, if taken to its furthest consequences, implies that evil is resultant from an express divine will, as it oftentimes is influenced by a person’s economic situation and opportunity to experience and express love in his or her life.

Moreover, in his inferences from Paul’s interjections in the Bible at the beginning of the chapter, Grudem doesn’t extract completely the idea that more than a material reward, we are to receive there in heaven a retribution of spiritual connotation which is not presupposed by an earthly sense of satisfaction that is oftentimes socially signified in a person’s capacity to posses.

Furthermore, our capacity to posses and manage our possessions, is not and hasn’t ever been concomitant with our sense of happiness and divine fulfillment, as the later is derived from deeper spiritual truths not present in the world’s socioeconomic systems; truths of life’s value based in a willing spirit of surrender to a greater sense of self—namely God—that requires us to let go of our oftentimes partial and incomplete notions—desires/possessions—of what’s good and evil; for a person’s heaven can clearly be another’s hell, and many at times throughout history our most talented souls have lived simple lives and died impoverished, and yet happy in God and for God—or vice-versa.

However, further down in his analysis, Grudem W. (2003) mentions that “it is a great mistake to call this—referring to the biblical passage in (Acts 4:32-35)—early communism. ” (p. 2) and thus proceeds to describe the reasons why such egalitarian sentiment is not suggestive of Communism, in spite of the self-evident similarities to the original Marxist idea outside its historical executions by imperfect and authoritarian agencies of control—government. Nonetheless, in doing so, the author misses the point contained therein, where more than a total change of our actual economic modus operandi, what the bible indicates is an openness as to the current reforms that can be applied to assuage the economic disparity in our society, which are in no way possible the result of God’s will, but of a human imperfect endeavor to organize and equalized a person’s effort and the result thereof. If analyzed properly, we could better infer that what the bible is instructing society to do, is not to settle and conform to injustice, but always look for ways in which we can improve, not only personally but collectively; for it is written that, “The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common…

None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of hem, to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need. ” (acts 4:32-34) In other words, here we are prompted to give up all sense of attachment to our possessions for the sake of creating a god-like relationship with all the members of our society, by first acknowledging God’s participation in our lives as we come to expand our sense of self and base it rather on our intrinsic divinely-based value—we are all children of God, and god created man and woman according to his own image (genesis 1:27). This, in exchange, can result in an attitude, in which we are all seen as channels or instruments in service of a greater realization that needs to be manifested, and of which everyone can partake; where my home is your home and any reference of ownership is simply the result of language, but not of intention. Unfortunately, Grudem, once again, fails to see beyond his own sense of interpretation, and presents us with a flawed analysis as to what is truly been suggested, which takes me to my next and final point.

Grudem constantly refers to a social reality condemned to sin, which is utterly unchangeable and conducive of a permanent state of inequality, whose only alternative is to be lived in heaven. However, the bible says that God created the earth from the void (genesis 1:1), which can also be understood as the divine agency by which the potential chaos is transfigured into form. And God is in service of, inside of, from and outside the form—social structure; for he is omnipresent, infinite and thus indefinable.

Therefore, to try to fetter God, or God’s will, and the potentiality of God as expressed in the human spirit and its endeavors to manifest and maximize a common wellbeing thus far, is not only naive, but oftentimes the same reason whereby change is resisted and ostracize by dogmatic factions of a fanatic spirit looking to enclosed the truth into an unyielding notion that frantically seeks to find reasons in spite of reason. And hence, present us, not necessarily a false, but most certainly an incomplete version of what’s possible in God’s kingdom on earth—very much like the 7th chapter of Grudem’s book.