Business

Is it Wrong to Pursue a Profit?

by Kenman Wong

That the primary goal of business is to earn a profit has reached the status of unquestioned cultural assumption. While people in other fields of work can readily point to the social contributions they make—physicians heal, teachers enlighten minds, and ministers bring people closer to God—business people can often only give an abstract nod to “making money” when asked about the aims of their work.

Of course, no profession is free from pecuniary interests. Nor should business people be primarily faulted for seeing their work in such narrow terms. Profit is the way to gauge success in the world of business. Churches have also unintentionally reinforced this narrow view by reducing the value of the work of business people in their congregations to supplying the wealth needed to fund proper “kingdom” work.

Prevailing cultural assumptions aside, should profit be pursued by a Christian business person? Nothing in the scriptures, aside from a literal interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, would seem to say so. What then should business be about? The broader scope of Biblical teaching provides us with an alternate vision, calling us to live in alignment with the mission of God. Thus, our work should partner with God’s transformative mission of human flourishing. Business, then, is better seen as a calling to serve God and our neighbors, seeking “the “common good.” Although much more needs to be done, business already participates in kingdom work by creating goods and services that enhance people’s lives, providing meaningful work, and helping investors save for goals such as college and retirement.

[READ: Dr. Wong's new book, Business for the Common Good: A Christian Vision for the Marketplace.]

While profit is necessary to achieve these outcomes, nothing indicates that it should be an end in itself or used as a primary metric of success. Consistent with the mission of God, we should ask how our work enhances people’s lives and their relationships with each other, with God, with those least off among us, and with the natural environment. Although this may sound naïve, some historical perspectives may help. Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, thought business was a way to harness enlightened self-interest to serve the common good. The title of his most well known book is The Wealth of Nations, emphasizing a collective goal rather than an individual pursuit. Similarly, J.C. Penney, founder of the eponymous retailing company, once stated “business never was and never will be anything more or less than people serving other people.” He gave shares of ownership to every store manager long before stock options became popular and eschewed the offering of credit, fearing it would cause people to overspend.

We have contemporary exemplars too. Consider Ralph and Cheryl Broetje, pioneers of an emerging “double bottom line” business model that seeks to intentionally and simultaneously create both social and economic value. They are the owners of First Fruits of Washington, one of the largest privately owned apple orchards in America (5,000+ acres, roughly 1000 full-time year round employees and 900 seasonal employees; over 5 million boxes of apples a year supplied to the likes of Costco and Safeway). The company’s motto is “A quality fruit company committed to ‘bearing fruit that will last’” (John 15:16 NIV).

“Sure, we have to make money or we’d have to shut the doors,” Cheryl Broetje explains. “But profit isn’t our main motive. It becomes the by-product of treating people with dignity, respect, and mutuality, and as equals in every sense of the word.”

[See Eric Reynolds' Q talk on "Sustainable Business."]

Consistent with their motto and mission, the Broetjes invested millions of dollars to build 100 homes, which they rent at subsidized pricing to their employees, many of whom would otherwise be “migrant” workers. They have built a private Christian school, a ranch for troubled youth, and a day-care center that serves employees at highly subsidized rates. They have also created after school programs and an onsite library. Children of employees can also qualify for college scholarships. In all, the company donates about 75% of its yearly profits to charitable projects. First Fruits is a business, one that grows and sells excellent apples, but as the Broetjes’ state it, they are also in the business of developing people.

While profit should not be the primary aim for Christians in business, re-envisioning business as a calling to serve God and our neighbors may offer some earthly rewards. Researchers have found that employment that can be re-crafted into a “calling” (work that is seen as contributing to the greater good) is the most satisfying because it is done for its own sake rather than for the material rewards it may bring. In a time of record low reported indicators of job satisfaction, not simply pursuing financial gain can be highly profitable indeed.

------
Is pursuing profit as the primary aim ever justifiable? How does seeing employment as calling inform this conversation?

Comments

Marc Fey

Dr. Wong's beginning point, I think, is the problem here--a null hypothesis that sets up the discussion to be more about avoiding an evil rather than pursuing good. While he does a good job here enumerating the opportunities that profit provides, I am afraid he sets us up, as Christians, to sound more like liberals who would shape the world in the image of collectivism models of the last century (and we know where that ended up): money is a necessary evil.

Also, parenthetically, I find Dr. Wong sets up a false dichotomy between business and service fields when he says, "physicians heal, teachers enlighten minds, and ministers bring people closer to God—business people can often only give an abstract nod to “making money” when asked about the aims of their work." Tell a physician he isn't getting a paycheck, a hospital administrator they aren't interested in posting a profitable year, and taxpayers that teachers may or may not be hitting targets for the tax dollars invested, and you may have a different view of the relevance of profit in the social sector.

How about approaching it this way?-- "Is it good and right to pursue profit?" That is a much different beginning point, and is more consistent with God's design for the sphere of labor, which reflects His own wonderful character--there is profit everywhere we look when we gaze upon His work. God's economy of abundance that we see in creation is a testimony that it's not profit that is the problem--it is what a person does with profit. The love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself, as we have all heard the mantra.

The Broetjes were able to invest millions of dollars to build 100 homes because they pursued profit. What they did with the profit after they earned it is a different question altogether than whether or not it was right (or "godly", or "Christian", or any other euphemism we might use) to pursue profit. Thank God for the profitable Broeties.

God is the ultimate Worker. Does He share His profit with us? Absolutely. His profit is our blessing, as our profit should be a blessing to others. However, I don't find it helpful to frame the discussion the way Dr. Wong has done here--making the pursuit of profit a question of morality.

I thank God for that part of the workforce in America who values a reward for their labor, not apologizing for pursuing a profit. I thank God for Christians who also pursue profit, thus resisting the temptation to set up another kind of false dichotomy between sacred and secular which, I am afraid, will be the natural outcome of the kind of thinking proposed here by Dr. Wong.

M. Fey

caleb anderson

I agree with Fey about the false dichotomy between sacred and secular. That is a perpetual danger, and a reality we're still knee deep in.

I also agree with holding up the Penney value/viewpoint that business exists to serve people. It does. We only only "incorporate" to provide organization and intentionality...but it has always been, and should continue to be, about meeting needs or enriching lives - and the value derived in doing so.

Yet some attempt to serve others and enrich culture/economy is excellent ways, and others seem to settle for average levels of service/quallity. Profit finds the excellent.

So excellence is another piece of this conversation. Other than earning a living and providing for your family, should pure profit be the primary aim? I'd go with No. But should excellence in our work (do everything as unto the Lord...)? Should serving on an increasingly wider scale (expand my territory...)?

For me, the issue comes down - as it typically does - to the invisible stuff. What is at the core? Be it imperfect, what is the real intent? How about God-fearing friends who also read and appreciate Neopolean Hill, etc... You can. There is healthy, valuable content/truth about how our minds work and how beliefs impact everything else. However, if money/profit/riches become the main thing - the central focus - we'll never experience peace or contentment. If honoring God, offering our best, and loving/serving people can be the main thing, well, wealth/profit/riches have an appropriate place. Espcially in the life of a person that God trusts with resources.

Jennyfer

Profit is a through-put. Do we make it the ultimate goal of our effort? And like Marc commented, what do we do with it once we have it? What comes before and after the profit is made? All of these answers are matters of our heart and mind. Only God knows the complete depth of those two, our motives for pursuing profit and for putting profit to use. And till these are revealed profit is neutral.

At the end of the day it is in this sphere of personal relation with God, outside of the public arena, that our pursuit or utilization is weighed. Only then profit loses its neutrality and no one other than Him passes the verdict ‘right or wrong’. In translation: to our actions/choices - ‘blessing or curse’, and to ourselves - ‘wise or fool’. Luke 12:20.

Just a thought. God bless,

Jennyfer

Bob Moyers

As president of a non-profit Center Of Unconditional Love and a for-profit Positive People Partners, I have the joy of doing God's will to the best of my ability each day. With this in mind, by business plan for both entities is as follows: Purpose: To Serve Satisfied Customers. Objective: To build trust relationships to be able to serve satisfied customers when they need to use or purchase my products and/or services. Goal: To break even and provide fair compensation to all of the employees, including myself, since I gave God ownership over my life and my work and my worship. As an aside, in the 28 years of doing God's will wholeheartedly, my books have come within a penny of being in perfect balance between income and outcome. God is good. God is in control. Love to all. Check out THE EVENT 9.11.11 FOLLOWED BY 50 DAYS OF FORGIVENESS FOLLOWED BY NATIONAL FORGIVENESS DAY.

Kirk Bartha

Any organizational structures with numbered bottom lines are automatically forced into legal and financial protocols that are non-humane and most often bleach away the personal ... We hear it all the time, "Nothing personal, it's only business." I've heard that line in churches, non-profits, and NGO's as well. As a business CEO with theology degrees who's worked with the big deals, I've witnessed the carnage on all sides.

Most techniques and efficiencies aiming toward profitability (which includes the best uses of donor dollars, or you don't get donor dollars next year) are dehumanizing, stripping away what is most like God in all of us. This is a long conversation worth having, but in all these models we have to perform to legal expectations, our numbers telling their own stories... and as financial resources get tighter, people's faith either gets more beautiful, or the ugly comes out... turn up the heat, remove the dross from the silver, or not.

From the UN to Apple to the World Bank to Twitter to Google to Q, regardless of your mandate, vision, scope, values, and protocols, on either side of the profit or non-profit divide, there is always a bottom line... a number... a financial indicator with legal ramifications (twitter and facebook have already proved to be a 21st Century war-room).

The bottom line is, just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean it's obviously pro-people. Money and law are what they are, and they do strange things to both those who want to profit in the marketplace and those who want to profit from a larger donor base. Question is: can we be innocent of the law while not pretending to walk above it?

Many who don't have a penny watch while the law crucifies them in the marketplace, or after the church board meeting, or in the dust clouds of a refugee camp.

Like I ask in my first book Clairvaux Manifesto, a subjective journey dealing with all such things, "How can we make poverty history if we are not willing to stand in solidarity with the poorest of the poor in every way ourselves?"

Rob

@ Marc - reading Wong's article with a bit more care may be helpful. Which part don't you understand of the Bronte's affirmation “But profit isn’t our main motive. It becomes the by-product of treating people with dignity, respect, and mutuality, and as equals in every sense of the word.” The Bronte's DID NOT pursue profit.

Also, receiving a fair wage for your day's hard work is NOT profit. So to call a doctor getting his paycheck or taxpayers that teachers may or may not be hitting targets for the tax dollars invested as profit is misleading and confusing. Then to top that off by speaking of God as "sharing his profit with us" and further that "His profit is our blessing, as our profit should be a blessing to others" is to so mangle words, meanings and language that no profitable conversation can possibly take place.

Mr Wong could have worded some things better but its still not too much to ask to read his article carefully and thoughtfully.

Marc Fey

Rob-- Your points are well made regarding my comments about the doctor and teacher--better thinking needed from me aside...

Instead of just pointing out what part of my argument I did not made very effectively, I would appreciate hearing ANY rationale from you as to why profit is onerous--a notion that you seem pretty strongly committed to given your emotionally-charged response to me. What do YOU think?

Dr. Wong's (not "Mr.") assumption is the problem, stated here: "Nothing in the scriptures, aside from a literal interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, would seem to say so."

Really? Nothing in the Scriptures? Wow.

I would not call that sloppy thinking, but misguided at best, dangerous at worse.

Sharon

I do think pursuing profit is onerous. There, I said it. Stone me.

Kenman Wong

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

Marc, I do think you could have read with greater care. You write that I set up a dichotomy between business and "service fields" yet I directly follow my statement that "physicians heal, teachers enlighten minds. and ministers bring people closer to God..." with "no profession is free from pecuniary interests." In the very next paragraph, I state: "Although much more needs to be done, business already participates in kingdom work by creating goods and services that enhance people’s lives, providing meaningful work, and helping investors save for goals such as college and retirement." So, by no means to do I state that business is only about profit or that other professions are free from financial interests.

You also seem to be arguing with a perspective that says profit is wrong, period. My post is about pursuing profit as the primary goal of business and using it as the sole metric for success. Do you support the latter? Better yet, do you think a case can be made from the scriptures?

As for the Broejtes, we know they made a profit (and continue to do so), but I don't think we can say that they aimed for it as the primary purpose of their business. In fact, I know them personally and can say with a fair amount of certainty that they did not and do not.

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I would really appreciate it if you would make more of an effort to understand and accurately represent my argument before calling me misguided or dangerous.

Kenman

Marc Fey

Dr. Wong-- Thank you for your response. Perhaps I am reading into your argument the bias that I think has become "trendy" among some Christians today to be against profit because for political overtones--ones we hear in the news every day. If I am doing that, my apologies.

Whether you think I read your post closely enough or not, the fact is you make this very bold statement that I don't think is Biblical:

"Should profit be pursued by a Christian business person? Nothing in the scriptures, aside from a literal interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, would seem to say so."

To tell a Christian business person that he should not pursue profit as the primary means of his business efforts to me is like telling a farmer not to harvest all that he possibly can from his field.

You start your article with this statement, to which you take exception: "That the primary goal of business is to earn a profit has reached the status of unquestioned cultural assumption." Of course, it's the primary goal. Should it be the only goal? Absolutely not. Is it something to be pursued with no regard to ethics and social responsibility. Of course not. In fact, true profit comes as a result of doing business in an upright, fair, and God-honoring way.

I did not say at any point that I thought profit was the sole measure of success (where do you see that in my post?). Rather, I said that profit provides us the chance to bless, as God has blessed us out of His abundance; it gives us the OPPORTUNITY to do good--to have the chance to do what the Broeites' have done, whether that is will $10 of profit, $100 of profit, or $100M of profit. I think perhaps you haven't read my post very closely.

At the end of the day, profit is simply this--

"The value of output minus the value of input." In other words, we want to get the most out of what we put in.

That's just what smart people do. It's what a business does. By posing the question the way you do in the title, then proposing the thesis that you do (quoted by my above) I think you confuse matters of the heart with what I would call simply "God's design for labor"-- which quite simply includes profit. Not a bad thing. Especially when you want to build 100 houses for people who need them.

Profit, I believe is a Christian person's (or anyone's, for that matter) way to meet the needs of the poor-- primarily through the jobs that profitable businesses provide for the poor. So, no, absolutely profit is not an end in itself. But it's still the primary goal of a business.

Let me tell you my bias. I work for a non-profit ministry and am involved in community transformation efforts. Practically speaking as well as theologically speaking, it's God's design for labor that offers some of the greatest hope for health and restoration for our communities. And more often than not, it's a business person who really understands profit who provides the greatest, transformational impact in their community.

Where we do agree is in regards to your last thought--that calling is a key to providing value, purpose, and true reward. Moving forward I will look to further discussion on grounds where we share more in common in our viewpoint, than on this one where we clearly are at odds.

Again, I do appreciate the exchange, respectfully-- Marc

Randy Heffner

Kenman - I appreciate the questions raised and (what I see as) a balanced discussion in your post. Thank you. Much of the discussion reacts to the binary framing of "Is it Wrong to Pursue a Profit?" versus the greater nuance encouraged by "How does seeing employment as calling inform this conversation?"

I've heard it said that our God is a god of adverbs: It's not so much what we do, but the character by which we do it. The personal responsibility to support myself and my family, in today's economy, makes me say, "I'd better make some money." It is, if you will, a primary goal for me. Starting a business to make a profit is a fine way to pursue this goal. The question then becomes my character and attitude in pursuing my primary (but not pure) profit goal, not the binary "is it right or wrong?"

If my attitude is: "Right. The game here is maximizing profit, so let's play the game," my approach might include:

Paying employees based on what I must/have to pay them

Being driven toward more is better; seeking the luxury of more

Viewing all profit made as rightfully mine

"Nothing personal, it's only business" (thx, Kirk)

Hiring unsustainably and then quickly laying off if profit is endangered

etc. . .

By contrast, with an attitude infused with "love others as yourself" and a culture of common good, my approach might include:

A propensity to pay employees more, considering organizational economics and societal context

Pursuit of a modest lifestyle (even amongst high society if that's the context of my work)

Viewing profit as "created by the team" and thus not all rightfully mine

Business based on personal concern and commitment

Using flexible resource models and being extremely reticent to lay off anyone

etc. . .

Though the specifics are different, this contrast of attitudes applies to everyone — doctors, CEOs, non-profits, small biz proprietors, self-employed, employees, etc.

By the nature of it, business is sometimes wildly successful, and profits run far beyond what's needed for a modest lifestyle. Whether I'm a proprietor or a stockholder, love says that there are many beautiful things to do with the excess other than spend it on myself or store it in my grain-house. I'm only a steward of the gifts given.

And then, as Kirk points out, it is the nature of organizations to become impersonal machines. The double bottom line model of the Broetjes and others offers a corrective by building broader concerns into the machine. The old aphorism "you get what you measure" applies (imperfectly, no doubt) to concerns beyond pure profit.

Sean

Marc,

I love how Dr. Wong just lovingly smacked you down and you popped right back up to keep lobbing arguments at him. This post was not extreme in the slightest, and he offered a very balanced perspective.

William Harris

Many of these issues were carefully thought through a generation ago by Max DePree of Herman Miller. For him, profit was what the corporation did, it was something organic, like breathing, but of course we are far more than breath.

What I missed in the article was the sense of business as a cultural entity. Early on, Dr. Wong casts business in a missional light, so business has a kind of instrumentality to it. I would suggest that business also possesses its own intrinsic rational, with its own collection of goods, its own intrinsic growth. That is, this is one more place where we get to live out our creature-hood, our "createdness."

The business offers the opportunity to meet human needs for corporate purpose, for the created work of dream and accomplishment. For the small shop keeper it can be a drudgery, but the business purchases a sense of sovereignty; for the entrepreneur, the business is the occasion to put love and life together; for the manager there are great satisfactions of purposes accomplished.

If the corporation or business is a place where one can achieve some human goals, it is also a place where idolatries can reign. The reduction of self-worth to task is one such; profit as the purpose is another; the sheer wave of materialism can be yet a third. Here, the Christian has something as well to say, more confrontive at times and so more easily read as anti-business, etc. (oh, those hippie socialists! -- we know the accusations).

There's plenty to think about here. This dual tones of honor and caution are not heard very often in the church, at least not in the academic circles I walk in.

Andy Murray

Marc/Randy

I greatly appreciate and agree with your perspective. As a Christian in the marketplace, especially in advertising, I'm thrust into debating profit/evil binary conversation on all the time. As a founder and CEO, profit is a crucial measure for building a sustainable company. A profit focus allows you to drive out wasteful practices and pulls you to develop your craft. What you do with profit is a different question, different debate.

I agree with Randy, the approach to developing profit in a company is where the real issue lies. Wherever there is virtue there is vice.

I know of a CEO who takes a very selfish view on profit - paying people only what you have to, redirecting an absurd proportion to just the top few, cutting employees at the drop of a hat, etc. Even in a totally secular framework, this kind of company and this kind of CEO is not sustainable.

As Tim Keller puts it in his teaching on the "fruit" of the spirit, it is all part of one fruit. Where there is selfishness (as it relates to profit), there will be pride, lack of self-control, lust, greed, etc. Most companies that have an unhealthy approach to profit will manifest a number of other vices as well.

In the end, if our desires are driven by our sinful nature, an unwholesome approach to profit will inevitably be just one of many problems.

Kenman Wong

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies. Its good to know that some good discussion has been provoked. Marc and Randy -- thanks for your comments. Given a 750 word or so limit, it was hard for me to be more nuanced in my original post, so perhaps this has created some misunderstanding. I don't think we are that far apart, though I do think what we do matters, not just our attitudes towards it. How we earn our money is as important as what we do with it. To sound selfishlessly self-promoting (profit-seeking!), my book, Business for the Common Good (w/ Scott Rae) has alot more to it than what I space will allow me to state here.

To end, I will add that many other Christian business people and thinkers see business as a means goal or as a reward rather than an end goal of business. I recommend the writing of Bill Pollard especially "Mission as Organizing Principle," an Ethix.org interview with Don Flow and a Trinity Forum article entitled, The Business of Business" by Dallas Willard (all should easily be found on-line).

Grace and Peace as we muddle through this together.

Kenman

Hector

Dr.Wong,

I struggle with your statement, "Prevailing cultural assumptions aside, should profit be pursued by a Christian business person? Nothing in the scriptures, aside from a literal interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, would seem to say so."

I do not believe the Scriptures are silent in this matter. I believe that we're created in the image of God and as such we have the ability to create wealth and, as you have noted, are to use it for the glory of God. However, the Scriptures are certainly not silent on this matter. Whether we call it gain or profit, it is not prohibited in the Scriptures verses below - ill gotten gain is strictly prohibited and admonished, but not that which is gained through normal ethical business practices.

Was not the Prov 31 woman commended and seen as virtuous because she created a "gain" for her commercial dealings (Prov 31: 11, 18)?

Was not Abraham's willingness to pay the "full price" (cost + margin) for his and Sarah's burial place indicative that profit was acceptable to him? (Gen 23:13)

Does not the Lord command in the increase/decrease of the price (cost + margin) in Lev 25:15-17 for the selling of the land/crops to the people of God?

Was not David willing to pay the "full price" (cost + margin) for the altar of the Lord (1Chron 21:24)?

Isn't it ill-gotten gain what is rejected by the Lord in Prov 1:19?

Does not Prov 14:23 note that "all hard work brings profit" or Prov 21:5 note that "the plans of the diligent lead to profit"?

To your point, does not the Scriptures in Prov 11:24 note that "one person gives freely, yet "gains" even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty"?

In 1Tim 3:8 and Titus 1:7 and 1 Peter 5:2, are not deacons/elders commanded to seek honest gain (stated in the affirmative)?

All of these Scriptures note that God is not against profit (gain). He is the Creator of work (Labor) and even this (i.e. work) is a gift from Him (according to Ecc 3:13) since from work we derive all the material necessities of life. This is the concept of material blessings I believe the Framers had in mind when they noted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence (originally pursuit of property). None of it comes from a "break-even" position nor from a loss position, but come when we as believers obey His commandments and use biblical standards ("balanced scales" and "clean hands") to conduct ourselves and our business practices to develop profit which He gives us for the use and pursuit of His Kingdom (Luke 16).

You can find some excellent teaching on this subject matter (God's design for work) on this site: www.crossexamine.com. If you join the Insider's group, look for a story titled "Who's Property".

Dave Doty

The OP inspired me to think this through in depth which resulted in an additional essay in a new book I have coming out this winter (under contract to Wipf & Stock but I won't name it here in the spirit of being too overt in self-promotion. I did however post an adaptation of that essay, entitled A Brief Theology of Profit-Making, on my blog at http://davedoty.wordpress.com/. Please let me know what you think.