God's Bottom Line

You may have heard of the phrase, “business is business”. It’s usually something you say which means the purpose of business is to make a profit, and that things such as personal feelings or relationships, must not be allowed to prevent this. Do you agree with this phrase? I think if you ask a random person on the street, everybody will have their own point of view. Some would say that money making isn’t everything. A business has a responsibility to the society, to its workers and to the environment. There is no doubt you want to make money and that is important, but it is not a pursuit at all cost. Others would dismiss such concerns as idealistic. Don’t you know it is a dog eat dog world out there? Maybe this is why family businesses seldom last beyond two or three generations. When you get sentimental, you lose your focus of doing business. And the purpose of doing business is always to make a profit.

Coming from a business background, I can see the rationale in both arguments. In business, it’s always about weighing your priorities, and having a clear focus of your top priorities is important. Of course, everyone may have differences on what these top priorities should be. That is not my biggest worry. Instead, what I’m more afraid of, is a mindset that business is business, but life is personal life. What I fear is a belief, that you can be a ruthless cut-throat character in your work, and you can play a different character outside of your work. This is where I would truly disagree. Business is business. But many parts of your life can become rather business-like. How do you handle transactions with others? How do you handle rivalries and conflict? How do you manage the demand and supply of your resources, especially your time? In fact I would argue that managing your life is your main business. And so you cannot have a philosophy of business and not expect that philosophy to influence your life. That would be naïve. And so, this is my starting point in today’s message. We want to talk about business and we want to talk about life. How should we manage our lives? What are your key priorities? Once again, we will be looking at different scenarios in life. All these scenarios have to do with those parts of our lives that can become rather business-like. And after looking through all the scenarios, I will then offer my personal reflection on the whole issue of life and business.

Let us look at the first scenario. Lending money can perceived as a business transaction.
Yet we read this in Deuteronomy 23: 19 Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.
The first scenario might seem strange because loans and interest are a common part of modern life. Most of us collect interest from our savings in the bank and pay interest for housing loans or car loans. Yet, such commercial activities were uncommon in ancient Israeli times unless you were a merchant who had to deal with foreigners. Hence, this was specific towards lending money to those in desperate need. This was a prohibition against loansharks. Charging interest would be taking advantage of the misfortune of others. The word used for charging interest has a literal meaning of taking a bite, like a snake bite on your victim. The Lord blesses those who help others in need, not those who bite those in trouble.

The first scenario is business with the poor. The second scenario is like a business with God. It relates to transactions that invoke a vow to God.
21 If you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the Lord your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. 22 But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. 23 Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the Lord your God with your own mouth.
Vows are different from oaths which is about the truthfulness of a testimony. Vows were sometimes made to request the blessing of God or some form of divine help. And the payment of these vows could be in the form of sacrifices of goods or service in the sanctuary. Note that the verses clearly state that such vows are not necessary. But however, if you choose to make the vow then you must fulfill it. The emphasis is therefore not on the value of your sacrifice, but on the value of your trustworthiness. If you say it, then you must fulfill it.

Business with the poor cannot be too business-like and profit driven. Yet, business with God seems strictly business and you have to fulfill your terms of agreement. This is food for thought as we go into the third scenario which relates to people who travel through the fields that belong to another. What should be your business with accidental guests in your life? Traveling by foot and for long distances was very common in ancient times. Therefore, ancient customs allows for travellors to cross the fields of others to shorten travelling distances.
24 If you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. 25 If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain.
As you are travelling, if you are hungry, you may pluck and eat enough to satisfy your hunger. However, you may not harvest the food as the harvest belongs to the farmer. This is a simple rule that helps those in need, but at the same time protects property rights.

So far, we’ve seen that some examples of how life imitates business. Yet there are things you can take and some that you cannot take. You cannot take interest from lending money to the poor. You cannot take back your promises to God. Yet you can take food when you’re traveling. But you cannot take too much. The next scenario is slightly complicated, and it relates to spouses you can or cannot take.
Deuteronomy 24: If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
On the surface this scenario is about divorce and remarriage. [1] But actually it is referring only to a special case of remarriage, which is a remarriage to a former spouse. So why is such a remarriage prohibited? There are many theories, but the one I am the most convinced of, is that such a remarriage would seemingly complete a process just like an adultery. Adultery by definition means that you have an affair outside of your marriage. Therefore, even though the first divorce is legalised, and the second divorce is legalised, and a remarriage to a former spouse may seem legally sound, but if you think about it, a remarriage back to the same husband would mean that the former divorce is cancelled, and this wife is now back in the same marriage after sleeping with another man. This is why such a particular remarriage is disallowed. If you truly want a divorce, then it must be taken seriously as well. You cannot take something that no longer belongs to you.

From taking money to taking food to taking wives, now we move on to taking lives. The next scenario relates to drafting for military service.
5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.
Note that this rule is not for the benefit of the man, but for the benefit of the wife. The husband has a responsibility to bring happiness to her. If he died in battle, the wife would at least have offspring to continue the land ownership. Neither country nor king has the right to take away the happiness of a wife.

The next scenario has been mentioned in detail in an earlier sermon. [2]
6 Do not take a pair of millstones—not even the upper one—as security for a debt, because that would be taking a person’s livelihood as security.
Ancient families used millstones to grind their grain to make food. To take that as a collateral would be to deprive a family of food. You would be taking their lives through starvation.

The final scenario is rather self explanatory and it is a direct form of taking lives.
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
Such practices might be common in the prevailing cultures in ancient near east. Slaves were common because of war and poverty. But that could not become acceptable to the people of God.

As we look at all these scenarios, we see a lot of case studies of what you can take or what you cannot take; what belongs to you and what cannot be owned by you. If you have a philosophy that business is business, then you would question these laws and ask why not? As long as things are legitimate, why not? I have a right to collect interest for my loans. Why not? I have a right to marry whoever I want. Why not? A king has a right to send any subject into battle. Why not? A winner can subject a loser to any form of humiliation. Why not? A creditor has his rights over a debtor. Why not? The question remains: Business is business, so why not?

At this point I would like to share a clip from a Michael Hui’s (许冠文) 1984 movie “Teppanyaki”(铁板烧). [3] In the movie, Michael Hui plays a penniless character married into a rich family, and is also staying with his grandpa. He secretly takes his wife’s ginseng for his grandpa to alleviate his rheumatism. In the first scene, his wife caught his grandpa red-handed with the ginseng, and they had a fight. In the second scene, he’s had enough and is leaving the house for good. See if you can spot the contrast between the two scenes. [3] *play clip*

These were memorable scenes in the movie for me because I always remember the quarrel between stealing (偷的) and taking (拿的). Is it stealing or is it taking? In the first scene, Michael Hui argued that since he is part of the family, then he has a right to take a family possession. But his wife argued that since he married penniless into the family, it doesn’t belong to him. His taking is stealing. But in the second scene, his wife is desperate for him to stay and appeasing him with ginseng tea. Michael Hui refuses the tea, saying that would be stealing. This time his wife says, no, no, no, it is taking. She is implying that the ginseng does belong to him.

What makes the difference between the two scenes? I believe the truth is obvious. In the first scene, the wife does not regard the husband or his grandpa as part of the family. Any taking becomes stealing. In the second scene, the wife regards him as family. And she treated him totally differently. The change in the nature of the relationship makes the difference. In the same way, as we answer the question: Business is business, so why not? Our answer is that: because the relationship is different, some things are permitable, some things become forbidden. The relationship between God and his people, and the relationship they have with one another, these relationships have transformed because of the covenant, and that is what makes the difference. You might think that you can charge interest because the loan money belongs to you. But taking an interest from the loan, becomes stealing from his poverty, because the brother who borrowed from you is family. You might think that you don't need to return a vow to God because God has blessed you already. Since nobody knows, and your stuff still belongs to you now, why should you carry on with the sacrifice and offering? But taking back your stuff now becomes stealing from God, because you have a relationship of mutual trust with God. God does not need anything, but what you have stolen is your promise to God.

Similarly, a poor travellor is taking and not stealing because you have a responsibility to help him. But if he becomes greedy enough to abuse such a benefit, then his taking now becomes stealing. This is the same with marital relationships. Husbands belong to their wives, and wives belong to their husbands. A taking of a partner that disrespects such a marital relationship becomes a stealing. The taking of a life, such as kidnapping or starving a family to death, is therefore stealing of the highest degree, no matter how legitimate your claims. What is stealing or taking depends not on what is strictly business, or what is legally allowable, but on how God sees the relationship. If it is good for the relationship, such as creating a hospitable and generous community, then it is not stealing, but taking what is necessary so that we have may be blessed and live well. If it is harmful to others, such as increasing the suffering of others, then taking becomes stealing, even if you think it is within your rights.

You may have heard of the term “bottom line” in business. In traditional business accounting, the "bottom line" refers to the sum of revenue minus expenses, which is either "loss" if negative, or "profit" if positive. The term originated because profit is always shown as the very "bottom line" on a statement of revenue and expenses. These days, we also talk about a double bottom line, which is a business term used in socially responsible enterprise and investment. While all businesses have a conventional bottom line to measure their fiscal performance—financial profit or loss—enterprises which seek a second bottom line look to measure their performance in terms of positive social impact.[4] Environmentalists have struggled to bring an even broader definition of "bottom line" , the concept of a triple bottom line to include environmental concerns. The three together are often paraphrased as "Profit, People, Planet".[5]

Today, as the people of God, we must include a fourth bottomline, the bottomline of God. In God's eyes, we are a family bound by his covenant, and we must operate as a family. In business, we may only care about what is in our best interest, or to fight for our rights. But our business, whether it is life or work, is God's business. And God's will is that we live not just for ourselves, but also for one another. If we were to apply the ancient scenarios to today’s context, we learn to help those in need without extra interest. We learn to be hospitable with God’s blessings. We honor our promises to God, and especially our marriage vows. And we treasure our lives and the lives of others, whether physically or socially. We have been preaching on Deuteronomy for a while now, and I wonder how much these have really sunk in for you. Let's take some time to reflect on how our lives should change. What should we do, or encourage, so that our community can change? Then let us commit our personal vows to the Lord.
[1] Jewish laws would later use these four verses to formalise their divorce laws. But when we look closely, we would see that it is not really rules written to support divorce or to condemn it. It is merely describing it like a familiar practice because it needs to talk about remarriage. It is perhaps why Jesus says in Matthew 19: 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. What Jesus meant was that Moses accepted it as a fact of life that as long as you have marriages, you would have instances of divorce. The permission is only out of pragmatic acceptance.
[2] http://www.jubilee.org.sg/sermons/?sermon_id=495
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LtFk_zvkGw
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bottom_line
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line