I am in the midst of reading Ron Chernow's biography of John D. Rockefeller. Like many other readers, I first became acquainted with Chernow's writing through his spectacular biography of Alexander Hamilton. I have since read his works on U.S. Grant and the house of Morgan. All of his writings reflect thorough research and solid writing and are well worth reading.
Rockefeller's religion plays a significant role in Chernow's understanding of the titan, as the place of religion in Rockefeller's understanding of the world and his place in it provides valuable insight into the thinking and actions of the man. From childhood and throughout his adult life, Rockefeller was a devout Baptist, attending services regularly both when at home and while traveling. His choices of houses of worship reflected religious conviction, rather than social status, and his understanding of religion seems to have shaped the values that prioritized his personal life. Unlike many of the other robber barons of that age, Rockefeller doted on his wife and children. While his lifestyle certainly was that of someone of wealth, he disliked ostentation and lived below his means. His children had no idea of how wealthy they were, and he engaged in numerous exercises intended to teach them the value of hard work and generosity.
For the most part, Rockefeller also treated his employees well. While he was anti-union, for the most part he had good relationships with those who worked for him. His philanthropy, particularly over the final three decades of his life, was remarkable.
For all of that, Rockefeller is known to history for his ruthlessness and questionable ethics with regard to his competitive business practices. Rather than seeing this as an inconsistency, Chernow sees this outcome as an outgrowth of his "Baptist" religious sentiments that permitted this kind of compartmentalization. I put "Baptist" in quotes, for I think that Chernow emphasizes the Baptist nature of Rockefeller's religion, when in fact he could have spoken more broadly of it as "revivalistic" religion that is in view. Rockefeller had religious commitments that focused mostly on pragmatic concerns and behavioral change. As such, he had no use for doctrines such as original sin or detailed understandings of the atonement. Thus, it was easy for him to see that God had a plan for his life -- which involved making lots of money through doing good by bringing oil to the world. If God's plan for your life is to build your business, then your enemies -- business competitors -- are God's enemies. This leads to a sort of Manichaeism that becomes the justification for ruthless dealings with those enemies.
Of course, Rockefeller was neither the first nor the last to compartmentalize religion for his own gratification or to ignore sin where one doesn't wish to find it. All of us are probably guilty of this to one degree or another, and we see it in the public sphere on a regular basis. It is sometimes noted that Christians who are political conservatives tend to focus on individual sins, especially sexual ones, while those who are political liberals give more attention to social evils. Neither side really displays an effort to develop a robust understanding of sin that will lead to the sort of self-examination and social criticism engaged in by Augustine of Hippo, as but one example. In fact, our understanding of sin tends to be self-justifying while condemning those with whom we disagree.
A recent pop culture flare up puts this on display. I don't watch reality television, so I would ask reader indulgence if I get some details wrong, but it seems, according to media accounts, that in this year's season of one of the dating reality shows there was a flare up between a young man committed to sexual purity prior to marriage and the female lead whose tilting at windmills involved sexual positions. While critics of the man pointed out his arrogance and lack of consideration, one might also have asked why a vocal Christian would even be involved with a television program with premises that entail dehumanizing people by reducing their real lives to entertainment, arguably a violation of the sixth commandment. Meanwhile, the young woman declared that her self-expression and commitment to loving were consistent with her own commitments as a Christian, but her understanding of Christianity seems to have confused Jesus with D.H. Lawrence. In spite of that, she seems to have won the media argument, which is not surprising given that our culture wishes for Jesus to be more like D.H. Lawrence, and no one on either side wanted to hear that enjoyment of reality salaciousness might be dehumanizing.
What all of these people lack is a full orbed understanding of sin that does not reduce the Law of God to a set of check boxes for affirming our own goodness. In reality, the Law is a devastating reflection of the character of God, devastating because it relentlessly exposes the vast chasm between God's character and ours. Fortunately, Christianity also points to a Christ who by His death and resurrection justifies the wicked, thus offering hope for those who see behind the banal efforts at compartmentalization and minimizing and instead turn to Christ who comes in grace to the ungodly who believe. Freed from condemnation, the Law can then become our friend, as its revelations point us to ways that we can root out sin and learn to live as God would call us.
That is the message of hope that the church should offer. Not one that papers over feelings by a lack of forthrightness regarding sin, but one that sees the dark, gritty realities of the human hope and proclaims hope in the merciful work of Jesus Christ.
