Apple's shareholders skirmish over ideological differences

I agree with the general principle of not coercing people with money like the Muslims in Europe are doing or losing focus on the new birth by focusing on externals, however, all laws of a nation are, at least to some extent, coercive. Sunday work laws, and other so called blue laws, were largely an application of the 2nd use of the law. Application of passages like 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Deuteronomy 13:6-11. It also helped helped to prevent Christians from being asked to violate the Sabbath or go against their conscience, encouraging the proper 3rd use of the law.

This is essentially the definition of the 2nd use of the law, to restrain evil and protect the righteous from the unjust.

3 Likes

Boycotts have to do with the deliberate withdrawal from participating in a thing for the purpose of protesting a point. And yes, I do think there’s a place for the Christian to boycott. There are times when it is appropriate to say, with our money, that we’re not going to bow down to this or that golden image in exchange for goods or services.

But I think there are many silly boycotts that Christians engage in. For instance, I think it’s a ridiculously sad thing when Christians boycott stores for saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” We make the so-called “war on Christmas” into some sort of proxy war to avoid participation in the actual war of preaching Christ to a lost and crooked generation. It is really nothing short of Christians getting wrapped up in their sentimental ideas of what society should look like, instead of actually taking up the substance of the gospel. Why do we act so surprised that a depraved and Christless culture would not appreciate Christmas?

Nevertheless, we weren’t talking about boycotts. We were talking about investing in companies in order to seize control of them and force them to adopt Christian ethics. I see these as two very different things.

In the sense that I described this – which was speaking of the common grace well-being society – no, that is not the point. Our point is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not to merely ban people from working on Sundays.

I do think there is a place for the Christian to engage in political activity. I am grateful, for example, for the Christians who have gone before me in my state to appeal to the governing authorities to legalize homeschooling, and make great provisions of liberty for my family. I see these sorts of efforts as consistent with 1 Timothy 2:1-4. By proclaiming simple truths regarding the place of the family, the authority of the parents, and the intrinsic nature of education, and calling the governing authorities to submit to those truths, homeschooling advocates have advanced the ability for Christians like me to pursue a peaceful and quiet life as I raise my children.

But that peaceful and quiet life for the Christian is not an end in itself. Rather, the peaceful and quiet life of the Christian is in pursuit of proclaiming the gospel, because God desires all men to be saved (again, 1 Timothy 2:1-4). We are not interested in merely creating a world where Christians can live comfortably in a society that they control through political or economic brow-beating power. We are pilgrims and exiles here. We are citizens of a city that is to come, a city whose builder and maker is God, by the Spirit.

But again, we weren’t talking about making truth appeals to government officials. We were talking about commercial investments as a tool to seize power.

Right ok. Going to need to say something to this…

I agree with the first sentence but the second doesn’t follow. Jesus tells us the imitate serpents (Matt 10:16).

I agree entirely with this. I hold to a classical protestant sharp distinction between the law and the gospel. Nevertheless the gospel doesn’t abolish any of the three uses of the law and that includes its first use.

Here you seem to totally reject the first use of the law, thats quite radical and not orthodox. Taking your point to its logical conclusion means we should have no interest in the affairs of the state…or for that matter parenting children if we aren’t sure they’re converted.

Nonsense. What is good for the well-being of society is what gives us space to preach the gospel clearly. In a fatherless society it becomes harder to preach of Gods fatherly kind care. In a society where the state calls good evil and evil good it is becomes harder to convict men of their sin and need of a saviour. Its harder to get folks to church on Sunday if they are all working!

I’ll finish with a random quote from Luther which I happened to be reading yesterday, although quotes from any of the reformers could be multiplied no end.

“The first use of the Law, then, is to bridle wicked people. For the devil reigns throughout the whole world and forces people to do all kinds of horrible wickedness. Therefore God has ordained magistrates, parents, teachers, laws, shackles, and all civic ordinances, so that, if they cannot do anything else, they at least may bind the devils hands so that he does not rage in his slaves as he wants to do. This civil restraint is very necessary and appointed by God, both for public peace and for preservation of everything, but especially so that the course of the Gospel should not be hindered by wicked people.” Luthers Galatians commentary.

My point is simply that it would help the culture if we thought christianly about our investments and in doing so we could hinder that which hinders the course of the gospel. Perhaps people are triggered by my reference to Islam. Believe me I know all about the satanic nature of Islam.

5 Likes

I’m talking about the point in the context of this discussion:

You keep trying to shift it to one of what the essence of the gospel is. If there is no place for discussing good things to do other than gospel proclamation, then there is no place for any secular employment at all. All must be full time evangelists.

2 Likes

Well said. This is something people often forget, that life is interrelated. This is why all of life can, and should, be done to the glory of God. Diligent work allows me to support my family, allows my wife to be a homemaker and homeschool, allows my children to be, Lord willing, brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It allows me tithe, to support missionaries, support local institutions that feed the homeless, numerous other activities that, although they may not be direct evangelism, support the spread of the gospel.

Although noone in this discussion has said that full time evangelism is the only option, there are people who will prioritize the spread of the gospel to such an extent that they start to claim it is the only option. I once listened to a sermon by a fairly well known fundamentalist baptist preacher who said farming should be left to unbelievers, because it was such a time consuming occupation that they would have no time or energy for “soul-winning.” This is an extreme example, but is the logical end to the point @jtbayly made.

I’m even someone who believes far more of us should and could be full time evangelists. Why not have more evangelists while thinking strategically about all of life.

2 Likes

Thanks for the continued responses. It seems I have some work to do to clarify what I’m trying to convey.

It sounds like ya’ll are hearing me say that we should all be out evangelizing all the time, and that all involvement in the civil arena or secular employment are wastes of time and Christians should prohibit themselves from engaging in them. I don’t believe anything of the sort. I, too, have heard preachers speak in such a way as @Jesse outlined, and I think we will all firm that such reasoning is horribly flawed.

I am in no way arguing that parental rule in the home, or government’s restraining sin through the law, etc., are not good and God-ordained. But these do need to be kept in their proper light. While it’s good for my children that I, as their father, would restrain their sin and require obedience of them, this should not be understood as an end to itself. My great aim as a parent is not merely to produce children who are generally respectful and submissive to authority. I’m not just trying to produce good members of society. My great hope is that through the discipline and instruction they receive as my child, they might learn their need for a Savior, and come to new life through faith in him.

This is what I mean when I say that our interest isn’t to coerce the world to adopt Christian ethics. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said our interest isn’t merely to coerce the world to adopt Christian ethics. I don’t know. But I trust you understand what I am saying.

But I digress on that point. It isn’t the main thing I want to talk about.

What I set out to criticize was the proposed strategy of investing in companies in order to seize control over them, and then force Christian ethics upon them. I didn’t set out to oppose all dealings with the world or anything like that.

Calling governments to repentance and to appeal to them by arguments about the truth of the world God made is one thing. Refraining from doing business with organizations that are diametrically opposed to what we stand for is one thing. But to propose that we should clandestinely plot to like, invest in Disney, so we can take control of 51% of their stock to ensure there will never be a gay princess; or to take control of Walmart so they will close on Sunday? Stuff like that is just sneaky, and exposes a desire to simply craft a Christianesque society apart from actually converting people or appealing to them on the basis of truth.

Maybe that isn’t what you were proposing, but that’s what it looked like to me.

1 Like

As far as I know, a “boycott” always has a goal, being sought through financial… well… “coercion” isn’t quite the right word, but it certainly is close. Financial “influence” might be better. The bigger the group boycotting the more like coercion it is.

I’m sympathetic, but I don’t think you’ve adequately answered the previous points about the uses of the law. What if it wasn’t sneaky? Does that change anything? Suppose a country with majority Christians. Are blue laws problematic in your mind?

2 Likes

Actually, they lead with slaughter and I think it’s deadly. Love,

4 Likes

Sounds like there are a couple of references in this thread to the traditional reformed threefold use of the law.

This hearkens back to another thread in which @jander and I were pushing back on the traditional reformed position on the law, as @ascryans picks up on in this thread.

I try to avoid making assumptions so for the sake of clarity can @ascryans or @jtbayly (or anyone) please make clear what you mean by first use of the law and how you see it applying to this conversation. It would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Chris

2 Likes

@ascryans already gave a fairly detailed explanation that included this quote from Luther’s commentary on Galatians:

“The first use of the Law, then, is to bridle wicked people. For the devil reigns throughout the whole world and forces people to do all kinds of horrible wickedness. Therefore God has ordained magistrates, parents, teachers, laws, shackles, and all civic ordinances, so that, if they cannot do anything else, they at least may bind the devils hands so that he does not rage in his slaves as he wants to do. This civil restraint is very necessary and appointed by God, both for public peace and for preservation of everything, but especially so that the course of the Gospel should not be hindered by wicked people .”

Does that not answer your question?

2 Likes

With respect, no, it doesn’t. I was going to ask the same clarifying question that Chris did. I thought maybe you were referring to Calvin’s “Threefold Use of the Law,” (link to Sproul summary). Is that what you’re referencing? Or did Luther have his own order of talking about it that I am unaware of? Or are we talking – as I thought we were – about the Christian use of human law, as in, how ought Christians seek to employ the influence of government force as a vehicle to influence the world (with God’s law) for the kingdom of God?

Joseph, you earlier said that you believed I was trying to shift the conversation, but are you sure you aren’t the one doing that at this point? The present discussion arose from the specific proposition that Christians should invest in companies in order to assert Christian influence in the world. So, unless I’m missing something, we weren’t originally even talking about the use of government influence and human law to restrain the evildoer. We’re talking about weaponizing our money to supplant sinful institutions, but doing so in such a way that bypasses actually appealing to persons to repent and believe the gospel. And I think we should have a big problem with that.

I think of Acts 19, where the silversmiths – who made their living through crafting idols – had their livelihood threatened. This was a case where Christianity was indeed having a direct economic influence. But how did it come about? Did Paul appeal to a few rich Christians to scheme and plot to penetrate the silversmith industry and take it down from the inside? No. He preached the gospel. And as people were being saved, the economics took care of themselves.

About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen. These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.” - Acts 19:23-27

Paul appealed to persons concerning their sin and idolatry, and compelled them to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Economic scheming is not the Christian way. Working over the politicians through flattery, bribing, and blackmailing is not the Christian way. Rather, we appeal to all men with the truth.

Now, if the truth should persuade government officials or business owners to enact justice within their spheres of influence, then so be it. Praise God. But it is the truth that must compel them to do this, not our schemes.

Edit: I’ll certainly go back and read Luther’s Galatians commentary, I just get the sense that we’re having two different conversations now.

1 Like

Well worth it, but that’s a big commitment you just made. lol. More tomorrow.

2 Likes

6 points on this:

  1. When you own a share of the company you own a certain percentage of that company, therefore you have the right to help make their decisions. I’m assuming no-one has a problem with this?

  2. If we recognise theres nothing wrong with shareholders influencing companies say to make more money then how can it possibly be wrong for christian shareholders to use their influence to guide a company morally? They’re going to be guided by someone!

  3. If we say that its right to call the state to repentance (which it is; Psalm 2), then it can’t be wrong to call business to repentance. When you call the state to repentance you don’t need everyone in the state and country to change only a certain percentage before the culture changes. What I proposed actually involves no coercion, it is simply that christians should think about where their investments are or could be and require those companies to behave in a manner with which we would approve of.

  4. I’ll turn this around a little. If you have shares in a company that promotes evil, then you’re complicit in that evil until you voice your opposition &/or leave. For the most part theres no neutrality in investing.

  5. Given that one persons share rarely influences a company very much. Might it be a good idea for christians to work together to maximise our collective voice in the market? To use our voice for righteousness instead of handing space over to the wicked and refuse to think about the damage?

  6. We need to learn to think like our enemies. For 200 years the church has been on the defensive and so it seems like we don’t know how to think like those who are serious about the future of our civilisation.

4 Likes

Thanks Ryan. I think I understand your position better now.

2 Likes

Not to speak for anyone else, but I was referring to the 3 fold use of the law, which Sproul summerizes nicely in the link you gave. The Lutheran and Reformed traditions number then differently, which may have caused some confusion. The reason that I brought up using God’s law as a restraint on evil, is that you said 2 things that seemed to limit the uses for both God’s Law and Christian activity in using it:

And:

Our primary concern is that the nations be discipled and men brought under the Lordship of Christ. In that we are in absolute agreement. However, living under the Lordship of Christ, we ought to obey God’s Law (3rd use). Christians called to government should enact Godly laws that restrain evil (2nd use). Christians called to buisness should have Godly policies that restrain their employees from doing evil in their buisness (variation of the 2nd use). Christians called to finance should insure that their money is not put to evil use and that who they are investing in, insofar as it is possible, is a buisness that has policies that prevent the employees from doing evil in that buisness (variation of both the 2nd and 3rd use). Investors also have influence, and this influence can, and probably should, be used to promote that company acting in an ethical manner. These are not coercive in the negative sense you used it, it is part of living under Christ’s Lordship, which is part of the Great Commission.

2 Likes

Thanks, Jesse. This is also helpful. I will have some additional thoughts later.

1 Like

Thanks, @jtbayly, for answering my question by pointing back to the Luther quote shared by @ascryans. I did see that but came upon the same link @jander pointed to by Sproul and just wanted to make sure I was rightly understanding you all since, as @Jesse pointed out, the Lutheran and Reformed traditions seem to number the uses differently. So it actually does sound like we don’t all have a shared understanding of what’s the “first” or “second” use of the law :slight_smile:

In any case, all the continued conversation is helpful and I’m slowly processing it. Thanks all.

3 Likes

Unbelievers know the uses of law. Below is an example similar to the above. A group is proposing a stock exchange for businesses who are committed to long-term success over short-term financial shenanigans. They also throw in environmentalism and diversity, because they love to legislate morality more than the next guy. But they don’t say law, morality or politics. It’s about higher standards etc.

Some of what is being discussed here is over my head, but as I’m reading this, I keep thinking, “But aren’t Christians called to take dominion for the sake of the glory of God and His gospel?” The fact the Jesus is King NOW over all the earth seems to escape our understanding of how we view the world: Well, that’s Disney over there…that has nothing to do with King Jesus. But doesn’t Christ own all of it? And isn’t it our vocation to infiltrate (and I’m not sure if that’s the best word) the culture so that it does glorify God?

1 Like