Does business matter to God?

At creation, the mandate that God gave to humanity was for people to reflect and mirror God’s stewardship… This involves far more than religious enterprises or the church. It has to do with how we engage with scientific endeavours, how we do business, how we treat each other, how we treat animals, and how we treat the environment.

Sproul, R. C. (2016), How Should I Think about Money? Reformation Trust Publishing, p23

Reading from the title of the book “Why business matters to God (and what still needs to be fixed)”, we have one person’s answer to the question of whether or not business matters to God. But does business really matter to God? If we ask ourselves this question three times, do we still get a definite ‘yes’? More importantly, in what way does business matter to God? Aren’t ‘business’, ‘money’ and ‘profit’ just a few of those awkward, veiled words in a Christian dictionary?

"Why Business Matters to God" front cover

Van Duzer, J. (2010), Why Business Matters to God (And What Still Needs to be Fixed), InterVarsity Press, Madison.

Jeff Van Duzer is Dean of the School of Business and Economics at Seattle Pacific University and points out that the most common positive views towards business and its relationship to God’s kingdom are probably instrumental: that

  1. business can contribute to God’s kingdom by supporting mission and ministry work; and
  2. business (or the workplace) can be used as a platform for evangelism.

But beyond the instrumental value of business in relation to God’s kingdom, does business matter to God? Does business have any intrinsic value to God? Does the actual work of business have any interest to God?

Going back to Genesis, Van Duzer points out that God created a material world and the material world matters to God. The material world is a blessing to human beings and with it comes the responsibility of stewardship. The dichotomy of ‘material’ and ‘spiritual’ actually contradicts the biblical account of Genesis. In the creation–fall–redemption–consummation framework, the material well-being of humanity is an integral part of God’s promises, from the ‘land flowing with milk and honey’ (Exodus 3:8) to the ultimate promise of the resurrection of the body (Sproul, 2016).

God’s plan of redemption is concerned about the material welfare of human beings, and this concern is also central to the Christian faith (Sproul, 2016). “If we are concerned that people don’t have any food, the most important thing to do is to produce food. If people are naked, our concern is not going to do any good unless we make clothes. Production must increase in order to alleviate poverty in physical areas…the single most important element for meeting the physical needs of human beings is the production of goods and services.” (Sproul, 2016, p.48-49). Van Duzer observes the intrinsic purposes of business: outwardly, businesses provide goods and services that create wealth, enable a community to flourish and enhance the quality of life; and inwardly, businesses create opportunities for individuals to express some of God’s given characteristics (e.g. creativity) in the performance of meaningful and creative work.

Contemplating the question ‘Does business matter to God?’ opens up further questions that need to be explored. For instance, “If the material world matters to God, are we internalizing this biblically instead of over-spiritualizing things?” “If the material world and its business matters to God, are we grappling with these as we study the word of God?” “If business matters to God, are Christians sufficiently encouraged and equipped to engage with the business world?”

Dr Xia Zhu is a lecturer in Marketing at Keele University. Her research looks at service experience in consumer and business-to-business markets. Xia’s webpage is: and twitter name: @zhuxia .

Church Scientific begins in Leeds

A new space for students and researchers to grow their scientific thinking is about to appear in Leeds. Church Scientific is a project to nurture scientific thinkers in building a holistic understanding of how our insights about the world originate and develop through imagination, theory-building and experimentation. The project concerns all kinds of pure and applied sciences: not just the “natural” sciences.

Church Scientific banner


Funded by a “Scientists in Congregations” grant from St John’s College Durham, Church Scientific will see a group of science students and researchers engage in workshops looking at the nature of scientific progress in theological, historical and philosophical contexts. We’ll be asking questions like:

  • How does scientific understanding progress?  What’s the role of people’s worldviews in the birth of new theories?
  • Which scientific beliefs are the least liable to revision over time?  Are laws more reliable than theories, for example?
  • How does “General Revelation” relate to “Special Revelation” – should we think of a “Book of God’s Works” alongside a “Book of God’s Word”?  What is the role of faith in developing knowledge?  What’s the difference between belief and knowledge?
  • What’s meant by methodological naturalism, and do we really need it?
  • What norms and values are assumed and discussed within scientific enterprises?  How do they affect the ways scientists think and live in everyday life?
  • How are scientific fields shaped and driven by social, economic and ideological factors?

As you can see, we’re not shying away from big issues. But the project is driven by a conviction that our own careers as scientists, and also scientific understanding at large, can benefit from a deeper understanding of how scientific thinking fits into people’s broader frameworks of belief, and the cultural beliefs that are called “knowledge”. And that will help us explore connections with our deepest beliefs about the nature of reality, the sources of knowledge, and the best ways to live – which are where philosophy meets religious traditions. Ontology, epistemology and ethics are certainly brought very close to the scientific enterprise when science writers make bold claims along the lines of “where we really came from”, “a theory of everything” or that some scientific view “leaves us with no choice but X…”  We’ll explore these hidden questions, and when the workshops are over, participants will have the opportunity to sign up to share their insights in an informal science talk in one of the café evenings that will run in the new year.

Get involved

There are various ways you might get involved with Church Scientific. If you live in or near Leeds, come to the launch event on 25 October. Dr Elaine Storkey will be asking, “Could a Christian worldview make you a better scientist?” – and we’ll hear from a number of scientist Christians about their work and faith perspectives. Then, if you’re a scientist (student or researcher), you might participate in the workshops in November; if not, there are other important ways to be involved as a mentor or organiser.  Please register your interest on the project web site and someone will get in touch!  You can also find Church Scientific on Facebook.

In the longer term, we hope that this initiative will inspire a fresh wave of Christian engagement in the history, philosophy and theology of the sciences. Personally I’ve found these perspectives stimulating and helpful, and I’m convinced that many of us who are scientists can find new insights for our work by stepping back to survey the landscape.

The Triune Structure of Experience

Last Saturday Faith-in-Scholarship hosted a workshop about Christian philosophy with Dr Jeremy Ive. Having asked what “Christian philosophy” might be, I’m now going to share the basics of a proposal concerning the structure of our experience. For now this framework is presented in Jeremy’s thesis awaiting publication… so remember, you heard it here first!

Three Transcendental Conditions

Does reality have a structure that humans have to acknowledge? Let’s start with an example from geometry. If we reflect on what reality feels like spatially, one of the obvious things is that there are three dimensions. You really can only find three mutually-perpendicular axes of space, and we can’t (as far as I know) imagine space any other way. Emmanuel Kant proposed that the human mind actually imposes the basic structures of time and space that we experience, in outlining his doctrine of transcendental idealism. But wherever they come from, there clearly are constraints (“transcendentals”) for the ways we can conceive reality.

It may be argued that a more fundamental set of conditions is necessary for us to have any experience at all. There are things, there are relations, and there are events. “Things” are just the items we recognise, like rocks, people and companies; they don’t have to be detached, tightly bounded or universally recognised. Although as babies we may have had a stream of consciousness without distinguishing people/things at all, we don’t remember that, and it probably wasn’t “experience” as we know it. Secondly, there are relations among things. This covers the sensations we have in perceiving a thing: we stand in relation to it as we conceive its location, colour, potential behaviour, economic value, etc. Thirdly, there are events. Our sensations are dynamic, giving rise to the sense of continuity and the possibility of change. Each of these three limiting “Ideas”, as Jeremy calls them, reveals a transcendental, as shown in the diagram below.  We’re playing thought experiments again: can you imagine a situation or state of affairs without conceiving of things, relations and events?

Triangle diagram


So the three transcendentals of particularity, relationality and time are supposed to lie behind our basic ideas of people/things, relations and events. The diagram also indicates three “descriptive views” (blue circles) in which we can begin to analyse reality. Lived experience comes to us in a rich, dynamic flow of consciousness, but undisturbed reflection allows us to focus, abstract and attempt to describe the world. The structural, life-history and evolutionary perspectives (my terms!) probably come up in most academic disciplines, for example, although there will often be a focus on just one or two.

This may appeal to you if you like big, unifying schemes, and believe that philosophy should start from common sense. The epistemology in play here (of which more another time) puts great weight on the phenomena we experience. And that’s where this proposal departs from that large body of the Western philosophical tradition that posits some kind of unfamiliar “substance” (e.g. matter or spacetime) behind the appearances we observe. The “substance” approach is unlikely to be either realistic or fruitful, Christians might suspect, because, originating in non-theistic cultures, the “substance” idea is suspiciously similar to an impersonal notion of what is divine.

Jeremy’s triangular proposal is actually a synthesis inspired by the notion of perichoresis in Trinitarian theology. It’s not meant to be natural theology (drawing inferences about God from nature), or evidence for the Trinity. The main source, in fact, is the 20th-century Dutch philosophers Dirk Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd. These brothers-in-law are said to have hit on their big idea one day when one (or both?) of them took a walk along the coastal dunes near Amsterdam. But that’s a story (and a diagram) for another time!

You can read more about Jeremy’s work, including his thesis, at