Abstract: This article examines the general terminal and instrumental values of Christian leaders and the values of capitalism and capitalistic culture. Using the socio-rhetorical method, this article analyzes the Lukan Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–26). The study pays close attention to social and cultural textures in Luke’s Gospel to make sense of the extreme propositions in Luke 6:20–26. The social and cultural textures of limited good worldview, apocalyptic ideology, and sect typologies illuminate multiple values that should inform Christian leaders. The remainder of the article evaluates the Christian values of the Lukan Beatitudes in conversation with a capitalistic culture’s values. The study reveals that the rich should not necessarily be considered evil because of the economic opportunities that now exist in capitalistic cultures. It also suggests that Christians can lead in capitalistic cultures based on their shared value of human flourishing—with the critical caveat that Christian leaders must condemn wealth gained by corruption and use their resources to alleviate poverty.
Some sayings of Jesus sound radically foreign to 21st-century ears. The Lukan Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–26), which confidently assert “Blessed are you who are poor . . . Woe to you who are rich” (vv. 20, 24, ESV), sound counter-cultural to a society shaped by capitalistic values. Most readers would argue by experience, “Blessed are the rich, and woe to you who are poor!” To make matters more interesting, Christians are some of the world’s wealthiest people in the 21st century (Frank, 2015). How do Christian leaders reconcile the dissonance between the assertions of Jesus in Luke 6:20–26 and their participation in a capitalistic culture? This article will explore the values of a Christian leader and the values of capitalistic culture and analyze the Lukan Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–26) for values that should inform a Christian leader’s involvement in a capitalistic culture. Using the socio-rhetorical method, this article will examine a selection of the social and cultural textures in Luke’s Gospel to make sense of the extreme propositions in Luke 6:20–26.
Sociological and anthropological studies have given scholars great insight into the cultural texture of Scripture. Socio-rhetorical analysis—specifically social and cultural texture analysis—is like studying a person’s culture to understand better the meaning of their language (Henson, Crowther, & Huizing, 2020). Social topics such as sect typologies, honor and shame cultures, individualism and collectivism, and economic exchange systems illuminate Biblical texts’ sociological texture (Robbins, 1996). Due to the potential length of full sociocultural exploration, this article will be limited to the cultural texture of limited good, apocalyptic ideology, and sect typologies, which will determine an appropriate interpretation of the Lukan text. The Lukan Beatitudes’ socio-rhetorical analysis will inform readers of the agreement and disagreements of values between Christian leaders and capitalistic culture and explain how Christian leaders might participate in their capitalistic cultures while maintaining their Christian values.
Defining Christian Leadership
There is no agreed-upon definition of Christian leadership. However, a few common themes exist among the definitions. Most agree that any depiction needs to recognize a Christian leader’s defining characteristic: they are followers of Jesus Christ. As such, the leader reflects Jesus Christ’s leadership style (Bell, 2019). A Christian leader imitates Jesus’s character, humility, and wisdom, avoiding the negative influence of power and ego (Jones, Murray, & Warren, 2018).
Another approach proposes that Christian leadership must emphasize what makes the leader Christian. The Christian leader, separate from any other leader, is concerned primarily with expressing their Christian faith in all leadership contexts and displaying Christ in all things (Huizing, 2011). Such leaders’ theological convictions govern the way they execute leadership styles. A Christian leader does not merely imitate Jesus’s leadership style but instead leads with Christ as their focus and the Holy Spirit and Scriptures as their guide (Huizing, 2011). This definition of Christian leadership has been used for the sake of this article. Christian leaders are defined by the theological convictions common to all Jesus-followers post-resurrection (Luke 24:1–53) and post-Pentecost (Acts 2:4).
A leader’s values determine their choices as they lead (Hultman, 2002). These values come from sociological forces in the leader’s life, such as family history, religion, culture, and socioeconomic status. In contrast, the theological convictions of Christian leaders serve as the dominant basis for their values. According to sociologist Rokeach (1973), two types of values guide leaders and organizations: instrumental values (i.e., how things should be done) and terminal values (i.e., the desired final result of those efforts) (Hultman, 2002). A Christian leader who focuses on Christian terminal values would be governed by the eschatological values of Christian hope: the eternal salvation and redemption of humankind for the glory of God (Eph. 1:3–23). When Christian terminal values govern the leader, servant leadership models may be most appropriate, as Jesus used a leadership style similar to what is now known as servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977); He used a humble, servant-like posture to accomplish His purposes of eternal redemption (Heb. 9:11–15). Because of their salvific nature, Christian terminal values should primarily govern the church and parachurch organizations.
Christian instrumental values, however, can govern Christian leaders in any organization, even if the organization does not have Christian terminal values. Christian instrumental values are born from theological convictions out of Scripture and the Christian experience of being led by the Holy Spirit. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13) serve as instrumental values that guide a Christian leader (Wright, 2010). Thus, a Christian leader leads with instrumental values of gentleness, self-control, patience, and peace, as well as many other values found in Scripture (Gal. 5:22–23).
Finally, a Christian leader is an individual with Christian theological convictions and instrumental values who has embarked on the process of influencing a group to achieve a common goal—which may or may not originate from Christian terminal values (Northouse, 2019, p. 5).
Defining Culture
It is first necessary to define culture before describing what a capitalistic culture might be. Like the multitudes of leadership definitions, culture is multifaceted, and therefore, its definitions vary. Theologian Niebuhr (1951) describes culture as a collection of any society’s values. Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) liken culture to the software of the mind for an entire people group. They explain that culture, at its core, is the collective values, which they define as “broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 9). These values govern the culture’s practices, which manifest themselves through rituals, heroes, and symbols. Rituals are socially essential ceremonies and rites of passage that reinforce core values but may seem superfluous if observed from outside the culture. The heroes of a culture are those people (whether real or fictional) who serve as examples for behavior. Furthermore, symbols are “words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular meaning that is recognized as such only by those who share the culture” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 8). These practices flow from the culture’s core values and provide mental software for the given culture.
A similar definition from management experts Schein and Schein (2017) states that organizations, much like societies, can have cultures that are manifested in three parts. The culture’s three components are artifacts, espoused beliefs/values, and basic underlying assumptions (p. 18). Like Hofstede’s (2010) rituals, heroes, and symbols, Schein and Schein’s (2017) artifacts are the observable behaviors in an organization. Espoused beliefs and values are the organization’s verbalized goals, aspirations, vision statements, and ideals. Finally, the underlying assumptions are hidden values influencing the culture’s dreams and aspirations (Schein & Schein, 2017). While these two definitions of culture differ, they are similar in that they perceive hidden core values as catalysts for all cultural manifestations. A culture’s core values (i.e., Rokeach’s [1973] instrumental and terminal values) determine the culture’s manifestation: its expression through artifacts, rituals, heroes, espoused beliefs, and symbols (Hofstede et al., 2010; Schein & Schein, 2017).
Defining Capitalism
Having defined culture, it is now necessary to define capitalism to determine what a capitalistic culture is. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by three primary elements: “comprehensive private property, free-market pricing, and the absence of coercion” (Sternberg, 2015, p. 385). While not included in this definition, capitalism also requires an entity to protect these three elements. The government usually fills this role, which should protect private property rights, enforce contracts, and ideally allow a free market to push innovation and creative destruction of inferior products and services (Defining American Capitalism, 2012). An innovative and productive organization sensitive to the free-market demand for products and services can profit its stakeholders in a capitalist economy.
Capitalism is often confused with many of its corollaries (Sternberg, 2015). While it sets the stage for greed and inequalities, it would be more accurate to identify individual choice as the impetus for greed. The capitalistic economic system allows innovators to profit while unproductive individuals fall behind (Wachtel, 1972). The industrial revolution of the 18th–19th centuries discovered what moral philosopher Adam Smith (2015) called the division of labor. The division of labor, added to innovative labor-saving inventions, resulted in higher productivity and a much higher potential to create wealth. In addition, the creation of stock companies made non-wealthy, non-innovative individuals share in the organization’s wealth by allowing people to purchase small pieces of ownership (Richards, 2019). Provided the three elements of capitalism, an organization can create wealth through innovation and increased productivity and add value to the consumer and the stakeholders, including people with minimal ownership levels (Delacroix, 2007). Thus, instead of viewing the world as a zero-sum game, capitalistic enterprises are positive-sum games where more people create and enjoy new wealth (Richards, 2019; Sternberg, 2015). This does not suggest the new wealth is evenly distributed among the population; it often is not (Blomberg, 2012). Instead, capitalistic efforts create new resources that formerly did not exist (Stark, 2006).
Different types of capitalism are practiced globally (Antonelli, Calia, & Guidetti, 2019). They differentiate by the degree of governmental influence. The lowest degree of governmental control is unfettered, free-market capitalism. As stated above, a total absence of government in a capitalistic economy cannot exist because some entities must protect the right to private property. The highest degree of governmental influence is socialism, where the government does not allow the market to adjust freely (Beed & Beed, 2014; Sternberg, 2015). The motivation for governmental intervention is to prevent inequalities from becoming too pronounced. Such intervention, called welfare capitalism, seeks to redistribute the newly created wealth through tax-funded social services (Delacroix, 2007). Because of social programs, welfare capitalist countries have less income inequality than free-market capitalist nations (Antonelli et al., 2019). Whatever the degree of governmental intervention, statistically speaking, the increased productivity of capitalism, in all its forms, has increased the standard of living in every capitalistic country for everyone, including those considered marginalized (Delacroix, 2007). Foreign direct investments into developing countries have helped these nations leapfrog into the latest technologies and increase their living standards (Alemayehou & O’Keefe, 2021). The increasingly globalized nature of capitalism has reduced global poverty from 35.9% in 1990 to 9.3% in 2017 (The World Bank, n.d.).
Defining Capitalistic Culture
The values of capitalism—innovation and increased productivity, private property, free markets, and lack of coercion—can shape the core values of its regional culture. A capitalistic culture manifests its values through artifacts, rituals, heroes, espoused beliefs, and symbols (Hofstede et al., 2010; Schein & Schein, 2017). A capitalistic culture has heroes that serve as examples of the capitalistic spirit. The American myth of entrepreneurial success or “self-made man” is an example of a capitalistic hero (Watt, 2016). People like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk are capitalistic heroes to many others who aspire to be financially successful through innovation.
Traditional cultures have rituals, such as rites of passage that signal maturity in an individual’s life. In a capitalistic culture, such rites of passage correspond to work-life cycle events: completing one’s education, one’s first job and career, and ultimately, retirement (Mayrhofer & Iellatchitch, 2005). In a capitalistic culture, a person’s earning potential and economic productivity determine their stage of maturity. Not that higher earners are more mature, but an individual who can make an income is respected more than one who cannot earn. Workers with higher mobility and education are compensated more for their work and enjoy the accompanying privileges of honor and respect (Kazakis & Faggian, 2017).
Greed is not necessarily synonymous with capitalism since capitalism is only an economic system that promotes wealth through innovation and increased productivity (Sternberg, 2015). However, there is no prohibition against accumulating more possessions than one needs in a capitalistic culture. Because the broader culture associates financial independence and abundant riches with success, only individual convictions would keep a person from pursuing ever-increasing wealth. A capitalistic culture associates higher income with higher levels of well-being (Clark, 2018). Therefore, greed and materialism easily influence capitalistic cultures.
The capitalistic culture’s core terminal value is well-being, or human flourishing, associated with wealth. A capitalistic culture’s instrumental values derive from the competition that drives the free market. The utilitarian ethic of “whatever it takes” to “do the greatest good for the greatest number” (Fedler, 2006, p. 28) is an example of a capitalistic instrumental value. Many corporations have a reputation for exploiting workers and ecosystems for profit, but studies have shown that such exploitation leads to lower productivity and smaller profits (Stewart, 2020). Profitable companies must be ethically responsible to all their stakeholders in the long run to create wealth and well-being (Nielsen, 2009). Finally, this article defines a capitalistic culture as a culture or organization with terminal values of human flourishing, which is attained primarily through instrumental values of wealth accumulation and utilitarian ethics.
The Lukan Beatitudes
The following section moves from discussions on Christian leadership and capitalistic cultures to analyzing the Lukan Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–26), examining the passage’s social and cultural texture. The text is as follows:
And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!
Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:20–26, ESV)
Analysis of Luke 6:20–26
The Gospel of Luke has much to say about the economic implications of following Jesus. The Lukan Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–26) differ from the Matthean Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3–12) in that Luke includes woes for the rich and well-to-do that Matthew does not have. Matthew also spiritualizes Jesus’s Beatitudes by qualifying the state of being poor: “Blessed are the poor in spirit [emphasis added]” (Matt. 5:3, ESV). Matthew’s poor are poor in their attitude, not just in material possessions (Mitch & Sri, 2010, p. 89). Luke’s woe to the rich statements provide the contrast to make it clear that Jesus means the economically poor are blessed (Nolland, 2018, p. 281). The Lukan Beatitudes’ most salient feature is the reversal of fortunes between the rich and the poor (Garland, 2011), emphasizing the dichotomy between serving God and serving money (Green, 1997). Understanding the cultural texture in Luke’s Gospel is required to explain the focus on the reversal of fortunes.
Limited Good
Anthropologist Foster (1965) wrote about the image of limited good that shapes how peasant societies in every culture understand resources. In this influential worldview, all desired things, including land, wealth, and honor, exist in limited quantities and are always in short supply (p. 296). To make matters worse, since all desirables in life are a zero-sum game, one may improve their situation only at the expense of another. Most people viewed the rich as hoarders who had taken more than their share of goods (Oakman, 2018). Theology professor Malina (1987) proposed that the limited good worldview of the ancient Mediterranean world explains why the New Testament disparages rich people. He suggested that to call someone rich was to essentially call them greedy and inherently evil (Malina, 1987, p. 361; Oakman, 2000).
The limited good worldview of the first century permeates the Gospel of Luke. The use of possessions in Luke is a literary function that demonstrates one’s standing with God. Sharing wealth is a sign of true repentance in Luke (Johnson, 1977; Luke 3:10–14; 11:41; 12:13–21; 16:1–15; 19:1–10); those who do not share are wicked. Frequently in the Gospel, the rich are denigrated while the poor receive help (Luke 1:51–53; 3:7–14; 4:18; 6:20–26; 11:39–41; 12:13–19, 33–34; 14:18–23; 15:11–32; 16:1–13, 19–31; 17:26–29; 18:18–30; 19:1–10, 11–27). In the third Gospel, the rich’s negative assessment is due to the underlying cultural assumption that the rich became rich by exploiting the poor (Malina, 1987). Thus, the limited good ideology colors the socioeconomic texture of the Gospel of Luke. See Table 1 for examples of salient limited good texts in Luke. The permeation of limited good perspective in the Gospel of Luke explains the starkness of the Lukan Beatitudes.
Table 1
Salient Lukan Texts with Limited Good Assumptions
| Lukan Text | Assumption: All goods are zero-sum. | Assumption: The rich have taken more than their share. |
| 1:53 | X | X |
| 3:10–14 | X | X |
| 12:13–21 | X | X |
| 16:1–15 | X | |
| 16:13–15 | X | |
| 16:19–31 | X | X |
| 18:18–30 | X | |
| 19:1–10 | X | |
| 19:11–27 | X | X |
| 19:45–48 | X | |
| 20:20–26 | X | |
| 20:47 | X | |
| 21:1–4 | X |
Therefore, when Jesus cries out, “Woe to you who are rich” (Luke 6:24), His statement is congruent with His contemporaries’ views of economics (Oakman, 2018). At the minimum, Jesus was accommodating the worldview of His day. However, Jesus likely held the limited good, zero-sum economic worldview because it was the lived experience of most due to the limitations in productivity and commerce in first century Palestine (Oakman, 2000). Indeed, the lack of free markets, stable property rights, agricultural productivity, innovative technology, and the ever-present overtaxing government made scarcity normative, reinforcing the limited good worldview (Oakman, 2000; Stark, 2006). Once readers are aware of the sociocultural assumption of limited goods, they may see the condemnation of the rich in the Lukan Beatitudes as, more precisely, a condemnation of gaining at another’s expense.
Apocalypticism
While the assumption of limited good does well to explain the condemnation of the rich in the Lukan Beatitudes, the sociocultural influence of apocalyptic eschatology more adequately explains the blessing upon the poor. Apocalypticism was a religious ideology popular among Jews during the first century (Crawford, 2000). It is best described by Evans, Aune, and Geddert (2000) as a worldview that,
centered on the expectation of God’s imminent intervention into human history in a decisive manner to save his people and punish their enemies by destroying the existing fallen cosmic order and by restoring or recreating the cosmos in its original pristine perfection. (p. 46)
Apocalypticism has four emphases. They are “supernatural revelation, pronounced belief in the activity of angels and demons, focus on the invisible spiritual realms, forecasts of the end of this world” (Pitre, 2013, p. 27). The Gospel of Luke’s apocalyptic texture is toned down compared to the other three (Pitre, 2013). Still, Luke demonstrates all four emphases of apocalypticism (see Table 2).
Table 2
Texts with Apocalyptic Emphases in the Gospel of Luke
| Imminent Divine Intervention/Judgment | Supernatural Revelation | Activity of Angels and Demons | Focus on Unseen Spiritual Realms |
| 2:34–35 | 2:25–38 | 1:11–20, 26–38 | 10:17–20 |
| 3:7–9, 15–17 | 3:21–22 | 2:9–15 | 11:14–26 |
| 4:17–21 | 9:28–36 | 4:1–13 | 20:34–38 |
| 9:26–27 | 10:22 | 4:33–35, 40–41 | 24:51 |
| 10:8–16 | 18:31–34 | 8:27–39 | |
| 11:29–32, 39–52 | 24:30–35, 45 | 9:1–2, 37–43 | |
| 12:35–13:9 | 10:17–20 | ||
| 13:22–35 | 22:3–6 | ||
| 17:20–37 | 24:4–8 | ||
| 19:41–44 | |||
| 20:9–19 | |||
| 21:5-36 |
The most relevant aspect of apocalypticism is the belief in an immanent divine intervention when God ushers in the age to come, characterized by justice and righteousness (Aune, 1993). The reversal of fortunes in Luke 6:20–26 is an announcement of the immanent divine intervention signaling the reign of God and is a manifestation of Luke’s apocalyptic worldview. Luke’s eschatology is partially realized rather than entirely consistent (Schellenberg, 2013). That is, Luke expected a coming day of judgment, but God’s intervention into human history had already begun in the ministry of Jesus (Luke 7:16). The poor were blessed in Luke 6:20 because the divine intervention was about to benefit them. Interpreters must consider this apocalyptic worldview to understand the Lukan Beatitudes’ extreme propositions accurately.
Social Texture
While apocalypticism is not as influential today as in first century Judea, similar ideologies now shape religious sects. Sociologist Wilson (1959) developed a typology of sects among religions according to their perception of “the solution” for corruption in the world. Knowing the sect typology of Luke is helpful since types serve as a control for the theological trajectories appropriate to read from the text. Wilson (1959) separates sects into seven types. The first is the conversionist, who sees the solution as converting as many individuals as possible to cure the world’s corruption. Fundamentalists usually hold to this view (Wilson, 1963). The revolutionist type believes the social order is so corrupt that only divine destruction can bring about the needed change. Revolutionists see it as their responsibility to be witnesses against the world’s evil while they wait for its destruction and recreation by God (Robbins, 1996). Introversionists seek to separate themselves from the corrupt world and focus only on their group’s religious interests apart from involvement in the secular world (Wilson, 1959).
The gnostic type does not entirely condemn the world. Instead, it seeks hidden knowledge, insight, and methods to help people achieve better goals. Salvation comes through the right knowledge (Robbins, 1996). Thaumaturgicalists view salvation primarily in terms of relief and solutions to immediate problems. This salvation does include life after death; however, the emphasis is on divine intervention in today’s issues (Robbins, 1996). Reformists believe the world is corrupt because its social structures must be changed. Religious insight can bring the change required to change the world into a better place (Robbins, 1996). Finally, the utopian sect type believes they can reconstruct the world with divine principles to eradicate evil. They do not seek to reform it, wait for divine destruction, or even create a secluded community. Instead, they seek to replace the existing social organization by starting over (Robbins, 1996).
Wilson’s Types in Luke
A comparison of Wilson’s types with the Gospel of Luke’s social texture is necessary. Except for Luke’s emphasis on repentance, Luke’s Gospel lacks the individualism required for a true conversionist worldview. Instead, kinship and similar collectivist ideals permeate the New Testament worldview rather than individualism (deSilva, 2018). The apocalyptic nature of the Gospel of Luke sounds similar to Wilson’s revolutionist type. Luke’s arrival of the Son of Man (Luke 9:26; 12:35–40) sounds like revolutionist ideals. Likewise, the Lukan Beatitudes speak of a revolutionary-like reversal of fortunes. However, combined with his second volume, Acts, Luke emphasizes forming a new community that lives in faithful discipleship before the Son of Man’s coming (Pickett, 2013; Schellenberg, 2013; Gossmann, 2020). The gnostic type is entirely foreign to Luke’s theology. The Lukan Beatitudes condemn the economic system of its day rather than seeking to change its methods with divine insight (Luke 6:20–26). Likewise, the introversionist ideals do not fit with Jesus’s ethics in Luke 6:27–36, which do not call for withdrawal. Jesus’s ethics call for imitation of God’s mercy in dealing with outgroup peoples.
The thaumaturgical type shows much congruence with the Gospel of Luke. While not its exclusive focus, Luke’s Gospel spends a significant amount of time showing Jesus intervening miraculously in people’s problems and ailments. Luke presents Jesus as a thaumaturge by recording 20 miracles (Green, 1997). However, Luke also greatly emphasizes the afterlife (Luke 16:20–31). Therefore, Luke is not purely thaumaturgical.
Similarly, a utopian theme emerges when including the emphases in Acts with the Gospel of Luke. In Acts, the church becomes an expanded Israel, including Gentiles as God’s people (Campbell, 1997). This new community, centered around the lordship of Jesus, is composed of those who have repented of their sins and believe in the resurrection of Jesus as well as His enthronement in heaven (Acts 2:22–36; 3:17–26; 10:34–43; 13:26–41; 17:29–31). However, there is no sense that Luke intends the new community to replace the world’s evil structures like a pure utopian sect. If anything, Luke imagines the community as a new society embedded in the broader culture. The new community grows through witnessing until as many as are appointed to believe come into the fold (Acts 13:48).
The typology most congruent with Luke is a blend between thaumaturgical and utopian (Gossmann, 2020). Luke’s eschatology is too realized for a proper revolutionist perspective. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God arriving in His miraculous ministry (Luke 9:27; 10:18–19; 11:14–20). His followers are not to wait for the eschatological event to occur before they begin following the kingdom ethics (Burkett, 2010; Luke 6:20–49; 19:11–27). Luke’s religious-sect texture is a vision of a thaumaturgical utopian society centered on the Lordship of Jesus, who has been enthroned in heaven. Jesus’s thaumaturgical powers are to continue in the community as they become the people of God who have repented and believed in Jesus (Gossmann, 2020). Wilson’s (1963) types reveal that Lukan Beatitudes are prophetic announcements of God’s solution for the corruption in their world.
Discussion
The preceding socio-rhetorical analysis has revealed several helpful insights. In their sociocultural context, Jesus’s blessings upon the poor and woes to the rich in Luke 6:20–26 signaled an impending apocalyptic overturning of the present power arrangement. The overturning occurs in the ministry of Jesus. His message of “blessed are the poor” (v. 20) was good news because His ministry changed the lot for those who were poor due to their disabilities (Luke 18:35–43). When followed, His ethical teachings caused the greedy to repent and give food andmoney to the poor (Pickett, 2013; Luke 14:13; 19:1–10). Thus, His ministry brought about an apocalyptic change of ages, are distribution of wealth and power through repentance (Pickett, 2013). His thaumaturgical ministry, kindness to the disempowered, redemptive death and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit’s subsequent out-pouring began a thaumaturgical utopian society (Acts 2:40–47), which was the fulfillment of the Lukan Beatitudes.
The Lukan Beatitudes are not ethical exhortations (Garland, 2011). They do not suggest, literally or metaphorically, that being poor, hungry, mourning, and blacklisted is more desirable than being wealthy, well-fed, joyful, and celebrated. The Beatitudes are a prophetic call of hope that in Jesus, those who are destitute, hungry, mourning, and blacklisted will receive relief in Jesus’s ministry and in the life to come. They are also a warning for those who have become wealthy, well-fed, cheerful, and celebrated at the expense of those around them (Pickett, 2013). God will judge the evil people for the pain they have caused—unless they repent and join the community.
Lukan Beatitudes and Christian Leadership
The following section will discuss the implications of the above analysis on Christian leadership. Earlier, this article defined a Christian leader as an individual with Christian theological convictions and instrumental values who has embarked on the process of influencing a group to achieve a common goal, which may or may not originate from Christian terminal values. The Lukan Beatitudes indeed give Christian leaders instrumental and terminal values.
However, one must know the difference between cultural values limited to the time and space of the first century versus universal truths for all subsequent generations of Scripture readers (Webb, 2001). A complete discussion of hermeneutics is beyond the scope of this article. It is sufficient to write that some of the sociocultural textures of Luke 6:20–26 were social constructs of that period that no longer exist today. Namely, most Western Christian leaders now do not live in a limited good world. Innovation and increased productivity, crucial to capitalism, have changed much of the global economic system from a limited good, zero-sum game to a positive-sum, win-win economy where new wealth is created daily (Stark, 2006; Sternberg, 2015; Richards, 2019). It is true that many people still have a limited good mentality today. Behavioral economists Mullainathan and Shafir (2014) have shown how scarcity reinforces unhelpful mindsets (limited good) that lead to further lack. While the limited good worldview may still be present, it is not the only viable option as it was in the first century. People can now change their lot in life.
Another cultural construct bound to the first century is the view that the rich are evil. Because of capitalism’s economic potential, many ethical, generous, and faithful Christians have become the world’s wealthiest people. Fifty-six percent of the world’s millionaires claim to be Christian (Frank, 2015). There is no reason to believe all these rich Christians made their wealth by despoiling others. These two culturally bound ideologies, a limited good worldview, and its corollary that rich people are evil need not inform Christian leaders’ values today.
Furthermore, while apocalypticism was a sociocultural theology native to first century Judaism, there is no reason to reject its modern-day relevance. The eschatological and apocalyptic hope of the return of Christ and its good reversal of fortunes for believers is still an essential theological conviction for orthodox Christians (Bird, 2020; Grudem, 2008). Christians also still believe, especially Pentecostal/charismatics, in the thaumaturgical nature of the kingdom of God. God can and does intervene miraculously in this present life (Williams, 1996).
Therefore, excluding the culturally bound limited good worldview, the Lukan Beatitudes inform Christian leaders’ following terminal and instrumental values. Luke 6:20–26 demonstrates a terminal value of divine intervention for the marginalized, especially those marginalized because of their Christian faith (Luke 6:22). The intervention is specifically about a lack of wealth (v. 20), a lack of food (v. 21), a lack of emotional well-being (i.e., sadness) (v. 21), and finally, social rejection and alienation (v. 22). The divine intervention is related to the thaumaturgical nature of Christ’s ministry at present and is eschatological in that it looks to the future apocalyptic event of Christ’s second coming (Luke 21:27–28;22:28–30). The intervention also occurs through the church’s activity—the thaumaturgical and utopian community (Gossmann, 2020). Succinctly stated, the terminal value is thaumaturgical divine intervention.
The Lukan Beatitudes give at least three instrumental values for Christian leaders. The statement, “Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven” (Luke 6:23, ESV), insinuates an eschatological hope for a reward in heaven. This eschatological hope informs how a Christian leader should not look at things received in this life as the measure of success. Those who are poor but faithful in this life are blessed because they will gain the kingdom of God in the next life (Luke6:20). Christian leaders learn the instrumental value of a heavenly measurement of success.
Furthermore, those who were promised a great reward in heaven were also excluded, mocked, and blacklisted in this life (v. 22) and were so treated “on account of the Son of Man.” The great reward was not promised because of the rejection but because of the close association with the Son of Man. This association could cause rejection in this life but brings “great” rewards in heaven (v. 23). Therefore, Christian leaders are not successful when they achieve widespread approval or wealth, but rather when associated with “the Son of Man” (v. 22). The instrumental value is that success equals close association with Jesus Christ.
The third instrumental value from Luke 6:20–26 is related to wealth. Jesus said, “Woe to you who are rich” (v. 24). This criticism of the rich originated from the corollary of the limited good worldview that rich people made their wealth by impoverishing others (Malina, 1987; Oakman, 2018). Since this corollary is no longer accurate because of the current economic opportunities, wealth is not inherently evil (Richards, 2019). Nevertheless, gaining wealth by impoverishing others will always be wrong. A Christian leader’s instrumental value is to disparage wealth, comfort, a full stomach, laughter, and widespread public approval when they have been gained by alienating and despoiling others (Foster, 1965). To put this instrumental value in shorter words, Christian leaders condemn wealth gained through corruption (Blomberg, 2012; Rathbone, 2020).
Christian Values in a Capitalistic Culture
This article defined capitalistic culture as a culture or organization with utilitarian values aimed at human flourishing primarily through wealth accumulation. Its heroes are those “self-made men” who achieved exceptional wealth, starting with very little. They are the heroes of rags-to-riches stories (Wyllie, 1966). The capitalistic culture’s rituals include those rites of passage in which an individual ascends to their next earning potential or retires from the workforce (Mayrhofer & Iellatchitch, 2005).
The differences between Christian and capitalistic values should not be understated or exaggerated. There are shared values between the two and significant divergence. The similarities include a value for human flourishing. Even though Luke 6:20–26 seems to suggest human suffering is to be praised more than flourishing, the apocalyptic theology inspiring the Lukan Beatitudes teaches the exact opposite. Those who are now poor, hungry, and rejected are blessed because they will be rich in the kingdom of God. Those who were then rich, satisfied, and loved by all were in danger because they became wealthy through corrupt practices. In the age to come, God’s people would experience the human flourishing they were denied in this life(Luke 6:20–26). They would not continue to be poor, hungry, weeping, and mocked in heaven because these states are not good in this life nor the next. They were only prophetically blessed since the fortunes would reverse in Jesus’s ministry and in heaven. Therefore, human flourishing is also a Christian value.
As stated before, Christian terminal values are eschatological: eternal salvation and redemption of humankind for the glory of God (Eph. 1:3–23). Redemption of humanity includes human flourishing, but said flourishing comes through reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus Christ (John 10:10; Rom. 5:1–2). Ironically, reconciliation with God often includes rejection and suffering in this life—with an eschatological promise of reward in heaven (Luke 6:23). The poor would experience flourishing connected to redemption partially in this life through the thaumaturgical utopian community of the church. Through sharing, acceptance, love, and divine intervention, God’s people experience a foretaste of heaven in this life (Luke 18:29–30; Acts 4:32–35).
The differences in values are apparent: a capitalistic culture seeks human flourishing through utilitarian ethics and wealth accumulation. These ethics and desire for wealth do not necessarily value reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus. From a theological perspective, capitalism seeks human flourishing in this life only. In contrast, the Christian agenda seeks human flourishing ultimately in heaven with a taste of it now, mixed with the potential for rejection and suffering (Luke 9:23; Acts 14:22).
Christian Leadership in a Capitalistic Culture
How can a leader with Christian values lead in a capitalistic culture? The situation would be difficult to avoid. Contrary to the Lukan Beatitudes’ historical context, Christians are no longer a small and persecuted sect in Palestine. Christianity is now the largest world religion, with 2.3 billion believers worldwide and 277 million in North America (Pew Research, 2015). Because wealth is power (French & Raven, 1959), Christians have arguably become the most influential religious community on earth. Many of these wealthy Christians are indeed leaders of capitalistic organizations.
Several guiding principles derived from this study should direct Christians as they lead in capitalistic cultures. The first is to recognize the difference between Christian terminal values and capitalistic values. Capitalism’s utilitarian and free-market values cannot obtain the Christian terminal values of humanity’s redemption for God’s glory. Likewise, the Christian instrumental values revealed in the Lukan Beatitudes—valuing heavenly rewards over worldly and success equating close association with Jesus—do little to add to capitalism’s ends of accumulating wealth. These two agendas should not be confused.
However, since Christian leaders also share the value of human flourishing with capitalistic cultures, they could join the efforts of creating wealth to share it consistently with others. In this way, Christian leaders would also add value to the stakeholders and consumers while contributing resources to the thaumaturgical utopian community. Christian wealth could fulfill the Lukan Beatitudes and become an agent of God’s thaumaturgical intervention. Christian capitalists could focus their resources on tackling extreme poverty through social programs that empower the poor through financial education and the like (Buheji,2019). The danger the Christian leader must avoid is wealth and status gained through corruption. The Christian leader in a capitalist culture must use their influence to eradicate unethical business practices in their organization and become the agents of divine intervention through generosity and empowerment of the poor and marginalized.
Conclusion
This study has shown how Christian leaders can lead in capitalistic cultures, as informed by the Lukan Beatitudes’ values. While Christian theology and capitalism have different terminal values, they both include human flourishing. Capitalism sees human flourishing in this life as the ultimate end of their efforts, while Christian theology sees it as a posthumous gain with potential for flourishment in this life mixed with suffering (Luke 18:29–30; Acts 4:32–35). The shared value of human flourishing is the open door for Christian leaders to participate in leadership in capitalistic cultures. Effective Christian leadership in capitalistic cultures adds value to stakeholders, consumers, and, ultimately, to the Christian community through consistent generosity.
Some considerations to further this study come in two questions. First, how do the changes capitalism has brought into the world affect other Christian teachings about economics? With the increase of globalism, capitalism creates opportunities for people to have a higher standard of living that was previously unavailable. Secondly, which leadership theories are most congruent with Christian instrumental values from the Lukan Beatitudes and capitalistic instrumental values? The appropriate leadership theory would allow Christian leaders to maintain their instrumental values while adding value to stakeholders and consumers.
Jeff Gossmann, DSL, MDiv, is the director of campus ministries at Regent University, an adjunct faculty member at The King’s University, and the founder of Ekklesia Leadership Coaching, LLC.
References
Alemayehou, M., & O’Keefe, J. (2021). Global progress in addressing inequality: The elusive, encouraging role of foreign direct investment. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 45(1), 61–72.
Antonelli, G., Calia, P. P., & Guidetti, G. (2019). Institutions, models of capitalism and inequality in income distribution: An empirical investigation. Socio-Economic Review, 17(3), 651–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx059
Aune, D. E. (1993). Apocalypticism. In Dictionary of Paul and his letters. (pp. 27–35). Intervarsity Press.
Beed, C., & Beed, C. (2014). Capitalism, socialism, and biblical ethics. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 3(1), 1–20.
Bell, R. (2019). What’s not Christian leadership? Learning from Jesus’ condemnation of toxic leader exemplars in the New Testament.The Theology of Leadership, 2(1), 56–72.
Bird, M. F. (2020). Evangelical theology: A biblical and systematic introduction (2nd ed.). Zondervan Academic.
Blomberg, C. L. (2012). Neither capitalism nor socialism: A biblical theology of economics. The Journal of Markets & Morality, 15(1), 207–225.
Buheji, M. (2019). Re-defining our approaches to extreme poverty: An attempt to disrupting contemporary poverty alleviation approaches through inspiration economy project: A case study. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(4), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.8053
Burkett, D. (Ed.). (2010). The Blackwell companion to Jesus (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Campbell, W. S. (1997). Church as Israel, people of God. In R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids (Eds.), Dictionary of later New Testament developments (pp. 204–219). Intervarsity Press.
Clark, A. E. (2018). Four decades of the economics of happiness: Where next? Review of Income and Wealth, 64(2), 245–269.
Crawford, S. W. (2000). Apocalyptic. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible. (pp. 72–73). Eerdmans.
Defining American Capitalism. (2012). Trends Magazine, 111, 13–18.
Delacroix, J. (2007). Capitalism. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. John Wiley & Sons.
deSilva, D. A. (2018). An introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, methods and ministry formation. InterVarsity Press.
Evans, C. E., Aune, D. E. & Geddert, T. J. (2000). Apocalypticism. In C. A. Evans & S. E. Porter (Eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background (pp. 45–58). InterVarsity Press.
Fedler, K. (2006). Exploring Christian ethics: Biblical foundations for morality. Westminster John Knox Press.
Foster, G. M. (1965). Peasant society and the image of limited good. American Anthropologist, 67(2), 293–315.
Frank, R. (2015). The religion of millionaires. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/14/the-religion-of-millionaires-.html
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Garland, D. (2011). Luke. In C. E. Arnold (Ed.), Zondervan exegetical commentary on the New Testament (p. 266). Zondervan.
Gossmann, J. (2020). Transformational leadership and the rich young ruler: Luke 18:18–30. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 10(1), 22–33.
Green, J. B. (1997). The gospel of Luke. In G. D. Fee (Ed.), New International commentary on the New Testament (p. 24). Eerdmans.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Grudem, W. (2008). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan.
Henson, J. D., Crowther, S. S., & Huizing, R. L. (2020). Exegetical analysis: A practical guide for applying biblical research to the social sciences. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Huizing, R. L. (2011). Bringing Christ to the table of leadership: Moving towards a theology of leadership. The Journal of Applied Christian leadership, 5(2), 58–75.
Hultman, K. (2002). Balancing individual and organizational values: Walking the tightrope to success. Jossey-Bass Books.
Johnson, L. T. (1977). The literary function of possessions in Luke-Acts. Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature.
Jones, J., Murray, S., & Warren, K. (2018). Christian leadership in a secular world. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 12(2), 90–107.
Kazakis, P., & Faggian, A. (2017). Mobility, education, and labor market outcomes for U.S. graduates: Is selectivity important?The Annals of Regional Science, 59(3), 731–758.
Malina, B. J. (1987). Wealth and poverty in the New Testament and its world. Interpretation, 41(4), 354–367.
Mayrhofer, W., & Iellatchitch, A. (2005). Rites, right? The value of rites de passage for dealing with today’s career transitions. Career Development International, 10(1), 52–66.
Mitch, C., & Sri, E. (2010). The Gospel of Matthew. In P. S. Williamson & M. Healy (Eds.), Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Baker Academic.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2014). Scarcity: The new science of having less and how it defines our lives. Picador.
Niebuhr, H. R. (1951). Christ and culture. Harper & Row.
Nielsen, R. P. (2009). Varieties of win-win solutions to problems with ethical dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9967-x
Nolland, J. (2018). Luke 1–9:20. In R. P. Martin & R. A. Losie (Eds.), Word Biblical Commentary (Vol. 35A). Zondervan.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage.
Oakman, D. E. (2000). Economics of Palestine. In C. A. Evans & S. E. Porter (Eds.),
Dictionary of New Testament background (pp. 303–308). InterVarsity Press.
Oakman, D. E. (2018). The biblical world of limited good in cultural, social, and technological perspective. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 48(2), 97–105. https://doi:10.1177/0146107918763048
Pew Research. (2015). Religious composition by country: 2010–2050. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/
Pickett, R. (2013). “You cannot serve God and mammon:” Economic relations and human flourishing in Luke. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 52(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12008
Pitre, B. J. (2013). Apocalypticism and apocalyptic teaching. In J. B. Green, J. K. Brown, & N. Perrin (Eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed., pp. 23–33). IVP Academic.
Rathbone, M. (2020). Capitalism, the book of Amos and Adam Smith: An analysis of corruption. Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 76(4), e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.6194
Richards, J. W. (2019). Money, greed, and God: The Christian case for free enterprise. HarperOne.
Robbins, V. K. (1996). Exploring the texture of texts: A guide to socio-rhetorical interpretations. Trinity Press International.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
Schein, P. A., & Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Schellenberg, R. S. (2013). Eschatology. In J. B. Green, J. K. Brown, & N. Perrin (Eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed., pp. 232–239). Intervarsity Press.
Smith, A. (2015). Select chapters and passages from the wealth of nations of Adam Smith, 1776. Books on Demand Ltd.
Stark, R. (2006). The victory of reason: How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism, and western success (1st ed.). Random House Publishing Group.
Sternberg, E. (2015). Defining capitalism. Economic Affairs, 35(3), 380–396. Stewart, S. D. (2020). Capitalism and biblical ethics. Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy, 1(1), Article 14.
Wachtel, H. M. (1972). Capitalism and poverty in America: Paradox or contradiction? American Economic Review, 62(2), 187–194.
Watt, P. (2016). The rise of the “dropout entrepreneur:” Dropping out, “self-reliance,” and the American myth of entrepreneurial success. Culture and Organization, 22(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1104682
Webb, W. J. (2001). Slaves, women & homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis. InterVarsity Press.
Williams, J. R. (1996). Renewal theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian living (Vol. 2). Zondervan.
Wilson, B. R. (1959). An analysis of sect development. American Sociological Review, 24(1), 3–15. https://doi:10.2307/2089577
Wilson, B. R. (1963). Typologie des sectes dans une perspective dynamique et comparative. De Sociologie Des Religions, 8(16), 49–63.
The World Bank. (n.d.). Global poverty indicators. https://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home/
Wright, N. T. (2010). After you believe: Why Christian character matters (1st ed.). HarperOne.
Wyllie, I. G. (1966). The self-made man in America: The myth of rags to riches. Collier-Macmillan, Free Press.