BUSINESS EDUCATION IN A CHRISTIAN CONTEXT

By Glenn Van Wyhe

It is the goal of a university to teach not merely practice but also theory. If a university were content to teach only common and accepted practice in each of a multitude of disciplines, it would be better to call such an institution a universal vocational school. If a university were content to teach the accepted practices in the various disciplines and then toss over that a little "theory"-a few "principles" and classification schemes and other definitional generalizations--we could perhaps call such an institution a university, albeit a poor one. The teaching just of some principles and procedures cannot make up a "quality" education.

It is the goal of a university scholar to rationalize his discipline, to go back beyond lower level principles and seek out first principles and conceptual beginnings. Serious scholars who have been making that effort have come to realize over the past few decades that there are alternative "first principles" available, that the alternatives have real effects upon the way a discipline is seen (and taught), and that choice among such principles cannot be made inductively. The relativity of scholarship, its lack of objectivity, and its dependence on a worldview has been recognized. It is now admitted that one's perspective strongly colors the "findings" of one's scholarship.

It is now clear that the worldview (or "faith") of a professor or of a group of professors (e.g., a university) is not at all something unimportant with respect to the teaching of a discipline. In fact, it colors the way a discipline is seen by the people who practice it. People once spoke of the need to integrate faith and practice or (if you held the opposing position) of the need to keep faith and practice separate. In fact, faith and practice are integrated and cannot be separated. The task of scholarship is to discover what the faith or worldview is that lies behind the way a discipline is being perceived and taught. Once this is done it can be determined which principles and procedures (once naively considered to be objective) are consistent with such a worldview and which are not. Once the various worldviews are openly disclosed and discussed and their differing effects made known, intelligent choices can be made among them. Here the goal of a university to integrate practice and theory and to examine various theories reaches fulfillment.

The task of being a good university has very particular implications for an institution such as PLU, which seeks to provide a "quality education in a Christian context." The "context" of such education must be seen as the worldview out of which each discipline is taught, and such a worldview should be Christian. It is wholly inadequate to think of a Christian university as identical to a secular university except that it has a chapel somewhere on campus and it requires students to take one or two religion courses (which are taught the same way they are taught at secular universities). In order for PLU to be a good university it must be true to its worldview (just as secular universities are true to theirs) and work out the implications of that worldview in each discipline. Only in that way can theory at the highest level be united with practice in every discipline. Yet settling for anything less is a denial of the task of being a good university.

It is no easy task to be a university scholar, but then, if it were, the work would not be so rewarding. PLU professors have generally received many years of education at secular universities, and have been taught their disciplines from a secular worldview, and have been very impressed by the (often unspoken) claim that such a worldview was the only true one, the only one worthy of an intelligent person. It is not at all easy to overcome such long and powerful indoctrination and to examine the issues without a secular bias. The task confronting PLU professors is greater (and higher) than that at secular universities, where a dominant and thus often unexamined worldview rules without significant challenge.

The "Christian context" of PLU ought to be the worldview that God--defined as the Father of Jesus Christ, who is His perfect Son--is the creator, and thus the rightful judge, of the whole world. This is the worldview which is professed in the "Objectives of the University" published in every PLU catalog. Such a worldview is very different from any other worldview, such as the secular worldview where the world and everything in it results from chance. A Christian worldview is distinct from others and has distinct implications for every discipline.

I teach the financial accounting class which is required of all business students early in the course of their major studies. The class is an introduction to the use of financial information in making business decisions, and is designed to help students become familiar with concepts and definitions being used in the business community. One approach to teaching such a class could be to simply present prevailing practice and give some instruction in "how to do it." While that is the approach often taken at other schools, it is obvious from the preceding discussion that such an approach is not consistent with a university education, and it would be negligent of me to take such an approach.

The approach which is appropriate is a much more difficult one to take. To the limits of my ability, I should tie business, as one area of life, together with other areas of life by identifying the broad principles which apply across such different areas. These "first principles" should be applied to business by reference to the specific facts about business, and such principles can be used to critique practices and ideas prevailing in business. Such an approach does more than lip service to the wholeness of the individual student and the wholeness of his education. In this way the student truly receives a liberal education in business.

The essence of business is trade, a relationship between two (or more) people in which they exchange things (goods or services) with each other. Business is thus one type of relationship between people. The God of Christianity is preeminently (almost exclusively) concerned about relationships between people. To pretend that His concerns could be ignored in a business course and still say that there is a "Christian context" to such education is sheerest nonsense. Some ethical position must be taken in discussions about interpersonal relation ships. If it is not a Christian one, it will be one which in some instance or in many instances disagrees with the Christian one. If the ethical position being taught is not directly addressed in the class it will still be implied in its effects, and it will be transmitted subtlely (even deceitfully) rather than being addressed straightforwardly and honestly.

If the essence of business is trade, then the fundamental question to ask is: is trade a good or bad relationship in terms of the Christian worldview? I confess that I am still seeking the answer to this deepest of all questions about business. It is not one easily answered. Trade presumes specialization. I would not trade with someone else unless that someone had the time or ability to do or make something which I want but do not have the ability and/or the time to do or make. Such specialization I take to be good in the light of my understanding of Christ's teaching. Specialization affirms the uniqueness and the specialness of individuals, and it acts as a way of drawing people to each other and into relationship with each other.

On the other hand, trading also presumes distrust. We could, after all, give without expecting anything in return. Jesus said that it is more blessed to give than to receive. The reason that we trade rather than give is that we do not trust people. We are afraid that, if we give, others will not give to us and we will be left destitute. In a fallen world, of course, it is reasonable and appropriate to distrust people. But is our distrust actually a distrust that God will provide for us, and thus a lack of faith in God? Yet faith in God should not cause us to do unreasonable things, should it? These questions are not easy to answer, and theologians have argued about such matters of faith.

If we presume that trading, at least in this age, is acceptable (always keeping our reservations in the back of our minds), then certain conclusions can be reached. The initiating motivation for a trade is that a trader expects to be better off after the trade than before it. Both parties to a voluntary trade expect a "profit," an increase in well-offness. If what you get would be no better, in your opinion, than what you give, there would be no incentive to go through the trouble of trading. The profit motive is inseparable from the act of voluntary trading.

The act of trading involves not just receiving, however, but also giving. Without giving, we would have not trading but stealing. Without giving what the other party is reasonably expecting, we would be cheating instead of trading. Without giving something of acceptable quality, future trades will not exist. How often do you go back to trade with a business which has cheated you? There

must be the desire to give something of value to the other party, to be of service to a customer or client. The importance of this part of the act of trading cannot be overemphasized when Jesus has told us that the one who is greatest in God's Kingdom is the one who is a servant to others.

The service motive is the motive which in a world of distrust is always in danger of being suppressed and downplayed. To try to be of service one must give the other party to a trade reason to be really satisfied with the trade. Taking advantage of someone who is in a vulnerable position is not being of service to that person. The almost universally accepted adage that a business should "maximize profits" is simply false from this perspective.

The excuses for maximizing profit can be examined and shown to be theoretically inadequate. The excuse that competition acts as an automatic control so that no one can get too much profit is true only in an environment called "perfect competition" by economists, an environment which exists nowhere in reality. In any competitive environment short of "perfect," excess profits can be made in the short run and people can be seriously hurt.

The excuse is made that a businessperson is free to gain whatever profit he can because, after all, he is not omniscient and cannot know what a "proper" price is. Omniscience, however, is not required. If a businessperson is not smart enough to know what an adequate profit is, then he is not smart enough to do any trading anyway. To carry it to its logical extreme, he might often suffer a loss because he is so ignorant that he cannot determine that a loss is not an adequate profit. A businessperson should be able to judge what an adequate profit is or he should not be in business.

The excuse is made that a businessperson should conserve resources, be efficient, minimize costs (while retaining adequate quality, of course), and it is said that minimizing costs is the same as maximizing profits. It is easy to see the logical fallacy in such an argument. One can minimize costs without "maximizing" profits merely by reducing one's price at the same time as costs are reduced.

There are other theoretical issues that must be dealt with. Distrust can be handled by a business through a reasonable system of internal controls and by support for a law-abiding society, but excessive distrust can result in oppressive controls and laws. Also, money is a handy tool for valuing trades, but it has serious limitations as a valuation device if used exclusively. These and other issues must be thoughtfully considered by all business students or else they have been deprived of a quality university education.

Furthermore, these issues should be dealt with in business classes, not sluffed off to philosophy and religion classes. Students should not be allowed to incorrectly think that philosophy and religion are irrelevant to a business career. Not in a university, and certainly not in a university dedicated to a "Christian context" type of education! The same professors who teach business principles and procedures should also teach the fundamental theories underlying them and show how the theories and principles and procedures are all integrated. Then we will have educated thoughtful businesspeople who will be able to perform their future business activities in a "Christian context."

11/26/85