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