An economic expression of Christianity?
Patrick K. O’Brien (in David Jeremy (ed.) (1998)) looks at the correlation between religion and work, with particular reference to Max Weber’s thesis on capitalism and Protestantism. He accepts that many business leaders have demonstrated both commercial acumen and strong religions convictions, but questions the validity of making a causal connection between the two. He also questions the extent to which there is any identifiable shared set of theological beliefs that unites a diverse workforce across a large region of Europe.
He turns instead for explanation to management theory, specifically the field of labour economics, which looks at what motivates workers to participate enthusiastically or otherwise in a company. Pecuniary reward is a major factor but there are also other factors that affect the “quantity, quality and effort” that people put into their jobs, including status, approbation and fame. The author points out that theological examination takes place at a very rarefied level to discern the distinctive elements of different denominations regarding attitudes towards work, in ways that are unlikely to filter down to the pulpit and into the minds of working people in the cities and particularly in the fields. Also, it is hard to discern any absolute divisions between Catholic and Calvinist teaching regarding the “dignity of labour, the productive use of time and its counterpart idleness, and the spiritual value of all kinds of work in the secular domain”. He concludes by saying that the evidence of a primary causal link between Protestant religion and capitalist success has been more or less disproved by economic historians, who have found limits to the degree of correlation. He also says the idea that members of Protestant sects are represented out of proportion to their overall numbers when it comes to workforce leaders (scientists, merchants, entrepreneurs, skilled workers etc.) have been “more or less refuted for the English industrial revolution.”
In juxtaposition to this, David Jeremy writing in the same book (David Jeremy (ed.) (1998)) looks at the make-up of lay Methodist leaders in 1907. He defines leadership as having membership of at least five national church committees. Of the 76 individuals in this category, more than 72 per cent of them were involved in business, all of whom apart from five were owners or managers of their business, with owners outnumbering managers. They were leading businessmen in sectors such as flour milling (Joseph Rank, a wealthy mill owner), chemical manufacture (Thomas Barclay), textile industries, building contractors, three ship owners and two working in the railways. However he also accepts that it is next to impossible to determine the extent to which their Methodism permeated their business methods, partly because “I have no non-religious control group with which to compare them since this cohort lived in a predominantly religious age.” In addition, he acknowledges further difficulty in determining any causal link between their faith and work: “How far religion motivated or facilitated their business success is impossible to measure.” Among the ways in which there might have been influence, he suggests: “If the obvious message of Wesley restrained the garnering of riches, it might be argued that that message also induced a cautious judgement and frugality which predisposed its adherents to capital accumulation.” If so Jeremy’s conclusion contradicts the Weber thesis that a Protestant’s liberty to take risks is at the heart of successful accumulation.