The Contribution of Love and Hate to

Organizational Ethics 1st Edition

Michael Schwartz
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-contribution-of-love-and-hate-to-organizational-eth
ics-1st-edition-michael-schwartz/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Visual Ethics 1st Edition Michael Schwartz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/visual-ethics-1st-edition-michael-
schwartz/

Immortality A Love Story Sequel to Anatomy A Love Story

Dana Schwartz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/immortality-a-love-story-sequel-to-
anatomy-a-love-story-dana-schwartz/

Worldviews Ethics and Organizational Life 1st Edition

Michel Dion

https://ebookmeta.com/product/worldviews-ethics-and-
organizational-life-1st-edition-michel-dion/

Values and Ethics of Industrial-Organizational

Psychology 3rd Edition Joel Lefkowitz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/values-and-ethics-of-industrial-
organizational-psychology-3rd-edition-joel-lefkowitz/
Family Murder Pathologies of Love and Hate 1st Edition
Susan Hatters Friedman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/family-murder-pathologies-of-love-
and-hate-1st-edition-susan-hatters-friedman/

Leibniz A Contribution to the Archaeology of Power 1st

Edition Stephen Connelly

https://ebookmeta.com/product/leibniz-a-contribution-to-the-
archaeology-of-power-1st-edition-stephen-connelly/

The Book of Love Michael Noman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-book-of-love-michael-noman/

Perspectivism A Contribution to the Philosophy of the

Social Sciences 1st Edition Kenneth Smith

https://ebookmeta.com/product/perspectivism-a-contribution-to-
the-philosophy-of-the-social-sciences-1st-edition-kenneth-smith/

Love Hate Love Bites Steamy Shorts 1 1st Edition

Matilda Martel Martel Matilda

https://ebookmeta.com/product/love-hate-love-bites-steamy-
shorts-1-1st-edition-matilda-martel-martel-matilda/
THE CONTRIBUTION OF LOVE, AND
HATE, TO ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS
RESEARCH IN ETHICAL ISSUES IN
ORGANIZATIONS
Series Editors: Michael Schwartz and Howard Harris
Recent Volumes:
Volume Spiritual Intelligence at Work: Meaning, Metaphor and
5: Morals – Edited by Moses L. Pava and Patrick Primeaux –
2004
Volume Crisis and Opportunity in the Professions – Edited by
6: Moses L. Pava and Patrick Primeaux – 2005
Volume Insurance Ethics for a More Ethical World – Guest Edited
7: by Patrick Flanagan, Patrick Primeaux and William
Ferguson – 2007
Volume Applied Ethics: Remembering Patrick Primeaux – Edited
8: by Michael Schwartz and Howard Harris – 2012
Volume Ethics, Values and Civil Society – Edited by Michael
9: Schwartz, Howard Harris and Stephen Cohen – 2013
Volume Moral Saints and Moral Exemplars – Edited by Michael
10: Schwartz and Howard Harris – 2013
Volume The Contribution of Fiction to Organizational Ethics –
11: Edited by Michael Schwartz and Howard Harris – 2014
Volume Achieving Ethical Excellence – Edited by Michael Schwartz
12: and Howard Harris with Guest Editor Alan Tapper – 2014
Volume Conscience, Leadership and the Problem of ‘Dirty Hands’
13: – Edited by Matthew Beard and Sandra Lynch – 2015
Volume The Ethical Contribution of Organizations to Society –
14: Edited by Michael Schwartz, Howard Harris and Debra
Comer – 2015
Volume Contemporary Issues in Applied and Professional Ethics –
15: Edited by Marco Grix and Tim Dare – 2016
RESEARCH IN ETHICAL ISSUES IN ORGANIZATIONS
VOLUME 16

THE CONTRIBUTION OF LOVE,

AND HATE, TO
ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS
EDITED BY
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ
School of Economics, Finance &
Marketing, Royal Melbourne
Institute of Technology, Melbourne,
Australia
HOWARD HARRIS
School of Management, University
of South Australia, Adelaide,
Australia
DEBRA R. COMER
Department of Management &
Entrepreneurship, Hofstra
University, Hempstead, NY, USA
United Kingdom – North America –
Japan
India – Malaysia – China
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2016

Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without
either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying
issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright
Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst
Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald
makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application
and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78635-504-1
ISSN: 1529-2096 (Series)
CONTENTS

EDITORIAL BOARD

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

LOVE AND HATE IN ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS

Michael Schwartz, Howard Harris and Debra R.
Comer

DIVINE FRIENDSHIP AND THE PRACTICE OF

MANAGEMENT
Jim Wishloff

LET LOVE RULE: OPPORTUNITIES AND

IMPEDIMENTS FOR COOPERATION IN NETWORK
ORGANIZATIONS
Erik Groeneveld and Leon van den Dool

SURVIVING AND THRIVING IN CONSTRUCTIVE

CONFLICT: THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF BUSINESS
ETHICS FACULTY AND NON-PROFIT HUMAN
SERVICE WORKERS
Jana Craft and Mary Godwyn
LOVE AND HATE IN UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER: EXAMINING FACULTY AND STAFF
CONFLICTS AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Clovia Hamilton and David Schumann

CAN THE UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS LEAD

TO CONSCIOUS SUSTAINABILITY? THE EXAMPLE OF
LOVE
Mario Carrassi

FOR THE LOVE OF FAMILY: A MAFIA LENS ON LOVE

AND COMMITMENT
Janine Pierce and Benjamin Pierce

BEATING SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES TO REALIZE

THE POTENTIAL OF THE UNGC: USING
APPEASEMENT TO CONSTRAIN THE ARMS
INDUSTRY
Michael Schwartz and Debra R. Comer

AN ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR BUSINESS

COMMITMENT TO CULTURE AND FINE ARTS:
APPLICATION TO THE SPANISH IBEX 35 LISTED
COMPANIES
Rafael Cejudo and Pablo Rodríguez-Gutiérrez

VALUE CREATION AS BUSINESS COMMITMENT TO

RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION
Cristina Neesham and Susan Freeman
 REVIEWS

HEMINGWAY, A. (2014). CORPORATE SOCIAL

ENTREPRENEURSHIP: INTEGRITY WITHIN.
CAMBRIDGE, UK: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Howard Harris

BITITCI, U. (2015). MANAGING BUSINESS

PERFORMANCE: THE SCIENCE AND THE ART.
CHICHESTER, UK: JOHN WILEY & SONS
Howard Harris

VISSER, W. (2015). SUSTAINABLE FRONTIERS:

UNLOCKING CHANGE THROUGH BUSINESS,
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION. SHEFFIELD, UK:
GREENLEAF PUBLISHING LIMITED
Lars Moratis

MCMANUS WARNELL, J. (2015). ENGAGING

MILLENNIALS FOR ETHICAL LEADERSHIP: WHAT
WORKS FOR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS AND THEIR
MANAGERS. NEW YORK, NY: BUSINESS EXPERT
PRESS, LLC
Theresa Ricke-Kiely

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

EDITORIAL BOARD

Joseph L. Badaracco, Jr.

Harvard University, USA

Ida Berger
Harvard University, USA

Norman Bowie
University of Minnesota, USA

M. Neil Browne
Bowling Green State University, USA

Debra R. Comer
Hofstra University New York, USA

Wesley Cragg
York University, Canada

Ron Duska
The American College, USA

Georges Enderle
University of Notre Dame, France

Edwin Epstein
University of California at Berkeley, USA

Amitai Etzioni
George Washington University, USA

William Frederick
University of Pittsburg, USA

Al Gini
Loyola University Chicago, USA

Kenneth E. Goodpaster
University of St. Thomas, USA

Ellen McCorkle Harshman

St. Louis University, USA

Laura Pincus Hartman

Boston University, USA

Daryl Koehn
DePaul University, USA

Kimball P. Marshall
Alcom State University, USA

E. Sharon Mason
Brock University, Canada

Douglas McCabe
Georgetown University, USA

Alex Michalos
University of Northern British Columbia, Canada

Barry Mitnick
University of Pittsburg, USA
Moses Pava
Yeshiva University, USA

Mark S. Schwartz
York University, Canada

Meir Tamari
Jerusalem Institute of Technology, Israel

Steven Wartick
University of Northern Iowa, USA
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Mario Carrassi Department of Economics and Mathematical

Methods, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy
Rafael Cejudo Department of Social Sciences and Humanities,
University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
Debra R. Comer Department of Management & Entrepreneurship,
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
Jana Craft Department of Business Administration, Winona
State University, Winona, MN, USA
Susan Freeman UNISA Business School, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Mary Godwyn Division of History and Society, Babson College,
Babson Park, MA, USA
Erik Groeneveld Church of the Nazarene, Purmerend, the
Netherlands; European Nazarene College,
Vlaardingen, the Netherlands
Clovia Hamilton College of Engineering, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN, USA
Howard Harris School of Management, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Lars Moratis Antwerp Management School, Antwerp, Belgium;
NHTV University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The
Netherlands
Cristina Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University,
Neesham Hawthorn, Australia
Benjamin Pierce School of Management, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Janine Pierce School of Management, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Theresa Ricke- Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies,
Kiely University of Notre Dame, IN, USA
Pablo Department of Business Management, University of
Rodríguez- Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
Gutiérrez
David College of Business, University of Tennessee,
Schumann Knoxville, TN, USA
Michael School of Economics, Finance & Marketing, Royal
Schwartz Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne,
Australia
Leon van den PwC Advisory and Tilburg School of Politics and
Dool Public Administration, Tilburg University, Tilburg,
The Netherlands
Jim Wishloff Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge,
Edmonton, Canada
LOVE AND HATE IN ORGANIZATIONAL
ETHICS
Michael Schwartz, Howard Harris and Debra R.
Comer

The movie Love Actually (2003) begins with a voiceover from Hugh
Grant commenting that in Heathrow Airport’s arrivals terminal love is
all around. Heathrow Airport is an organization. When it comes to
such organizations others have suggested that it is not love which
dominates but hate. Regardless of such conflicting claims, those
interested in organizational ethics have devoted more attention to
love than to hate. Hate, and the behavior it motivates, has remained
largely the preserve of those concerned with the military (Ballard &
McDowell, 1991). Nonetheless, we have in this issue sought to
explore the roles of both love and hate in organizations.
The contributors to this issue discuss, in both for profit and non-
profit organizations, love and happiness, hate and war, conflict and
co-operation, and what their implications are for organizational
ethics. In doing so, they are considering aspects of the organization
which have perhaps been ignored by the popular media for decades.
Fortune magazine once ran an annual story titled “The Toughest
Bosses in America” (Flax, 1984, p. 16). In that story, Fortune ranked
the 10 toughest bosses of major American corporations that year. In
1984, General Electric’s John Welch Jr. topped their list. These
bosses were described as brutally hostile masters of intimidation
whose subordinates “have to put up with ego-shredding criticism,
insatiable demands, and Wagnerian fits of anger” (Flax, 1984, p.
16). There can be no doubt that they were either hated or loved by
their staff. Furthermore, one contribution to our issue considers how
such emotions relate to the American Mafia. In doing so, they too
return us to a theme also pursued by Fortune (Rowan, 1986).
Abraham Maslow, the initiator of the well-known hierarchy of
needs, is a most remarkable character, not least of all, because
whilst hating his mother he firmly “believed in human beings’ innate
capacity for goodness” (Gabor, 2000, p. 155). Maslow came from a
family of coopers and whilst resentful of his father’s behavior
“developed an abiding hatred of his mother” (Gabor, 2000, p. 156).
P. G. Wodehouse’s fictional character, Bertram Wooster, had an
abiding hatred of his aunts. That he did, critics tell us, provides
much of the humor in the books. But they add that if it had been his
mother that Wooster hated Wodehouse’s books would not be funny
but tragic. Unfortunately, Maslow did not hate his aunts but his
mother.
That he did should not completely surprise us. Not all families are
happy families and many contain their fair share of hate and conflict
with the members of those families caught in a perpetual state of
war of one against the other. Fortunately, there are others where
love and happiness prevail. These realities are depicted in fiction. As
Alan Goldman explains “great works of literature contain themes of
central human interest” (2013, p. 12) such as love and conflict. Our
organizations too contain such themes. They like families are beset
by the conflicting emotions of those who work there: by love and
hate, conflict and co-operation. Anyone who has spent time working
in different organizations knows that some are happy and that
others are miserable, and that understanding why some are happy
and some are not is never easy.
It should therefore not astonish us that an organizational
psychologist such as Maslow was interested in this topic as Maslow
sought “to set up a work situation in which (as) self-actualisation
and personal growth becomes more possible … everybody’s both
happier and more efficient” (Maslow as quoted by Wilson, 1972, p.
170). Some, such as Drucker (1985), have asked whether happiness
leads to efficiency or whether efficiency leads to happiness. That of
course for us leads to another question and that is what love,
happiness, appeasement, and co-operation within the organization
means for organizational ethics. And in turn what hate, war, and
conflict within the organization means for organizational ethics.
Arguably, there are organizations in which love, happiness, and
co-operation prevail but that cannot guarantee that the
organizational ethics within such entities is worth mentioning. In
short, there are no obvious reasons why love, happiness, and co-
operation are compatible with beneficial organizational ethics; and,
alternatively, there are no reasons why hate, war, and conflict are
incompatible with ethical organizational behavior. That, seemingly,
makes little sense. As we remarked earlier, there are happy
organizations and there are miserable organizations. Why the latter
should sometimes display a positive organizational ethic whilst the
former a negative organizational ethic seems absurd but they do. For
all we know a gang of arsonists in a given town causing much
mayhem and distress may constitute an organization whose
members feel love and happiness to one another and co-operate in
all they do. Meanwhile, the local fire brigade might be a nasty and
embittered place filled with hate and conflict with all constantly at
war with one another.
Regarding such situations, and indeed paraphrasing most liberally
from our contributors in doing so, Jim Wishloff in his paper “Divine
Friendship and the Practice of Management” explores the relevance
of love to managerial work by undertaking a Christian reflection on
organizational ethics. Wishloff considers St. Thomas Aquinas’
insights on charity and how they apply to contemporary
management practice. Pursuing a similar theme, Erik Groeneveld
and Leon van den Dool in their paper “Let Love Rule: Opportunities
and Impediments for Cooperation in Network Organizations” drawing
on existing insights from theology and public administration
investigate how love can intentionally be reflected in decision-
making processes.
Jana Craft and Mary Godwyn in their paper “Surviving and
Thriving in Constructive Conflict: The Emotional Lives of Business
Ethics Faculty and Non-Profit Human Service Workers” find that
those individuals emphasizing the minority view are a key part of
organizational success as it is the critical voices within organizations
which give rise to problem-solving, innovation, and those moral and
ethical considerations that might otherwise be ignored. However,
they explain that such individuals are prey to a wide variety of
emotions including fear and sadness. Remaining within the faculty
Clovia Hamilton and David Schumann in their paper “Love and Hate
in University Technology Transfer: Examining Faculty and Staff
Conflicts and Ethical Issues” provide a greater understanding of how
research faculty’s personal values and research universities’
organization values differ, and whilst both parties are perceived to be
virtuous agents, why sometimes a love relationship exists and other
times a hate relationship exists.
Mario Carrassi’s paper “Can the Understanding of Economics
Lead to Conscious Sustainability? The Example of Love” is the result
of an investigation on how the internal states of individuals, and in
particular, their various psychological processes affect their choices,
and in turn, their organization’s behavior. Janine Pierce and Benjamin
Pierce focus on a unique organization. In their paper “For the Love
of Family: A Mafia Lens on Love and Commitment” they explore the
themes of love, commitment, and honor within the context of the
American Mafia. The paper highlights how those virtues are
interpreted within the Mafia and what such interpretations justify for
the Mafia.
Moving from love to appeasement Michael Schwartz and Debra R.
Comer in their paper “Beating Swords into Plowshares to Realize the
Potential of the UNGC: Using Appeasement to Constrain the Arms
Industry” explain that as armaments are expensive their acquisition
by many nations undermines the initiatives of the UNGC. They
explore in that paper Walzer’s (1974) arguments for appeasement
and how appeasement could stymie the global demand for arms.
The following two papers do not relate directly to the theme of
this issue but are very much concerned with the ethics of
organizations. In their paper “An Assessment Model for Business
Commitment to Culture and Fine Arts: Application to the Spanish
IBEX-35 Listed Companies” Rafael Cejudo and Pablo Rodríguez-
Gutiérrez draw up a framework to assess company responsibility
regarding culture and fine arts. And in their paper “Value Creation as
Business Commitment to Responsible Consumption” Cristina
Neesham and Susan Freeman propose a typology of firm-
stakeholder relationships based on four different states of
consumption which lead to a new model of business commitment to
responsible consumption.
In our film/book review section, Howard Harris reviews Christine
A. Hemingway’s Corporate Social Entrepreneurship: Integrity Within
(2014) explaining the author’s arguments as to the need for
corporate social entrepreneurship. Howard Harris also reviews Umit
S. Bititci’s Managing Business Performance: The Science and the Art
(2015) explaining that Bititci’s book recognizes the moral nature of
many of the relationships which underpin successful organizations. It
might be no co-incidence that Bititci resides in Edinburgh where over
two centuries ago Adam Smith explored those very themes.
In that same section, Lars Moratis provides a very thoughtful and
detailed review of Wayne Visser’s most recent book Sustainable
Frontiers: Unlocking Change through Business, Leadership and
Innovation (2015), Moratis writes that Visser’s book is a call for
change and that it is an inspirational read. Moratis does though also
address several points of critique. Moratis reflects too on Visser’s
previous book and explains how this book augments that one. And
he concludes by commenting on Visser’s forthcoming book on
leadership which as Moratis explains includes a “totemic encounter”
with two geese in a Johannesburg zoo and the lessons they provide
for leadership. Moratis himself is inspirational. He inspires one to
read Visser. Lastly Theresa Ricke-Kiely reviews Jessica McManus
Warnell’s book Engaging Millennials for Ethical Leadership: What
Works for Young Professionals and Their Managers (2015). McManus
Warnell’s book does relate to Visser’s book as she is, regarding
change, discussing the role which the millennial generation will play
in it and how they will reform organizational dynamics. According to
Ricke-Kiely McManus Warnell is optimistic that millennials will strive
for authenticity in the workplace.
 We are indebted to all the contributors who come from many
different countries and who bring their varying experiences, insights,
and perceptions to this issue. All of the papers, with the exception of
the book reviews, were double-blind reviewed and we are also
indebted to the reviewers who, perhaps in the heart of some
contributors, aroused a little love and a little hate but without their
contribution none of this would exist.

REFERENCES
Ballard, J. A., & McDowell, A. J. (1991). Hate and combat behavior. Armed Forces & Society,
17(2), 229–241.
Bititci, U. S. (2015). Managing business performance: The science and the art. Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Flax, S. (1984). The toughest bosses in America. Fortune International, August 6, pp. 16–
21.
Gabor, A. (2000). The geniuses of modern business – Their lives, times, and ideas. New
York, NY: Times Books.
Goldman, A. H. (2013). Philosophy and the novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hemingway, C. A. (2013). Corporate social entrepreneurship: Integrity within. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Love Actually. (2003). Directed by Richard Curtis. Universal Pictures.
McManus Warnell, J. (2015). Engaging millennials for ethical leadership: What works for
young professionals and their managers. New York, NY: Business Expert Press.
Rowan, R. (1986). The 50 biggest mafia bosses. Fortune International, November 10, pp.
20–32.
Visser, W. (2015). Sustainable frontiers: Unlocking change through business, leadership and
innovation. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Walzer, M. (1974). World War II: Why was this war different. In M. Cohen, T. Nagel, & T.
Scanlon (Eds.), War and moral responsibility (pp. 85–103). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Wilson, C. (1972). New pathways in psychology: Maslow and the post-Freudian revolution.
New York, NY: Mentor Books.
DIVINE FRIENDSHIP AND THE
PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT
Jim Wishloff

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to engage in an in-depth
examination of the infused virtue of charity as it is taken up in
the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’
elaboration of the interior and exterior effects of charity is
used to prescribe a normative management pathway. The
methodology is a conceptual/theoretical one. The paper
underlines the relevance of love to managerial work. Human
dignity and the proper end of organizational endeavor are
highlighted. The paper pulls forward the insights on charity of
the great medieval scholar St. Thomas Aquinas as they apply
to contemporary management practice.

Keywords: Charity; love; theological virtue; organizational

purpose; managerial practice

INTRODUCTION
 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it:
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all
the law and the prophets.” (Mt. 22:36–40)1

Organizations are social entities in which a group or groups of

people work interdependently to accomplish a set of goals. Today
the influence of organizations is substantial. We live in a complex
organizational age.
But organizations are not like mountains, rivers, and other
landscapes formed by natural processes. They are created and
sustained by the beliefs, values, desires, hopes, expectations,
attitudes, and actions of individual human beings. At their essence
organizations are products of how their members think and interact.
This being so, the question is not just what kind of organizations do
we have but also what kind of organizations can we have and should
we have. What can we strive for in terms of organizational
functioning and what ought we attempt to enact in organizational
life? What is the good organization and how do we realize it? In a
word, how can we create an organizational world worthy of what are
as human beings?
What is immediately evident is that this inquiry can only be
honestly undertaken by pursuing questions or surfacing assumptions
of a more fundamental nature. What is the nature of reality
(metaphysics)? What kind of being is the human being (philosophical
anthropology)? How ought one act to achieve the properly human
good (ethics)?
Primary questions must remain primary. What is the origin,
nature, and destiny of the human person? What is the meaning of
the human pilgrimage through history? The practice of management,
the art of getting the work of the organization done with and
through people, is ultimately grounded in such profound realities.
This work endeavors to get to this level of profundity by
undertaking a Christian reflection on organizational ethics. More
particularly, St. Thomas Aquinas’ (1948) treatment of charity (IIa-
IIae, q. 23–46) in his Summa Theologiae will be studied to elaborate
an ethic of love for contemporary managers.
As the consequences of the modern denial of final causes
(Anderson, 2010; Sandelands, 2015; Wishloff, 2009) have become
more and more untenable, reflection on the right and proper ends of
enterprise has increased. A vigorous search is on for a purpose that
is more than just making as much money as possible (Camenisch,
1981; Duska, 1997, 2000; Hollensbe, Wookey, Hickey, & George,
2014; Karns, 2011). At the same time, organizational scholars are
giving their attention to love. Harris (2002) presents the case that
love is a management virtue. Schlag (2012) discusses love as the
highest principle of social and economic life. Kouzes and Posner
(1992) argue that we ought to lead with love, a call renewed by
Caldwell and Dixon (2010) and Senander (2013). Guitian (2015)
proposes service as a bridging principle to operationalizing love.
This promising work continues to have the problem of breaking
through in a sensate culture (Bradley, 1985), however. Deeper
cultural realities have a foundational influence on how business is
conducted and if they are not taken into account “we will constantly
misdiagnose problems and prescribe disordered solutions”
(Naughton, 2012, p. 12). Quite succinctly, the cultural and religious
soil upholding the practice of management must be renewed if love
is to bear fruit in our organizations.
The contention here is that Aquinas’ presentation of the
theological virtue of charity (Schockenhoff, 2002) both returns us to
transcendent reality and gives us practical guidance on proper
conduct, including how we ought to structure and manage our
organizations. Aquinas’ astonishing disclosure is that love, the
principal act of the virtue of charity (IIa-IIae, q. 27), is grounded in
God’s gift of Divine friendship. Love of God and neighbor (Beyer,
2003; Clark, 2011) has primacy (Gilleman, 1959; Wadell, 1992) in
the moral life.
The paper will be structured in two parts. First, I will examine
Aquinas’ text in detail including pulling out the interior and exterior
effects of charity. Next, I will look at how charity impacts the practice
of management particularly the relational structure of the
organization.

DIVINE FRIENDSHIP
For we are called wayfarers by reason of our being on the way to God, who is the
last end of our happiness. (ST IIa-IIae, q. 24, a. 4)

The Christian worldview is theocentric. At its heart is an

acknowledgment that we are not the cause of our existence but that
we are brought into being, as is all of creation, by the loving action
of a Triune God. The important distinction to note is that God has
necessary existence while our existence is contingent. God exists
with an inner Trinitarian life and does not need human beings,
angels, or a world. It is out of sheer goodness that God, infinitely
perfect and blessed in himself, chose to create.
Human beings are the crowning glory of God’s creative work in
the universe. God has willed us for our own sake and everything has
been created by God for us. Man is born of God’s creative love,
formed in the very likeness of God (Gen. 1:27) and deliberately
designed as male and female. Every human person possesses an
inherent God-given dignity.2
The vocation of being human is to come to the fullest
development of the distinctive human powers of intellect and will by
knowing truth and loving goodness. The supreme truth is God and
the supreme goodness is God. Therefore, the ultimate purpose is to
know and love God, and since our imperishable soul destines us
eternally, to enjoy God forever. God made human beings for loving
fellowship with himself. The cosmos comes first in time but not in
divine intention.
If God was to relate to us in love, however, he had to leave us
free to reject our divine destiny. The doctrine of original sin says that
our first parents tragically decided to do just this and that their fall
from goodness has been transmitted to all subsequent generations.
God’s purpose in creation was to have human beings share his inner
life of self-giving love. But God could not compel this association. It
had to be freely chosen.
Pride turns us away from God but God does not leave us in this
lapsed state. In another act of absolute love, God provides the way
by which we can reach the ultimate end for which he created us.
God sends his Son, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ as
Redeemer and Saviour. In Jesus, God puts himself into human hands
and suffers a humiliating death on the Cross to bear humanity’s
transgressions. Jesus’ resurrection furthers God’s saving plan
temporally. God’s shocking response of love enduring to the end
reveals his essence. God’s love is unveiled (Sri, 2015) on the Cross.
It remains for human beings to accept God’s invitation to a new
life of grace lived in intimacy with the Holy Spirit. It is this
relationship to God in love that sustains the Christian in his existence
and elevates his nature to a supernatural level.
What it means to be a human person takes on a deeper, fuller
meaning. Freedom is participation in the very being of God through
grace. We can look above the mundane to the divine to see what
our personhood should be. Jesus realizes humanity perfectly. In
doing so, he explains our humanity to us which is something we
cannot do for ourselves because we did not create ourselves. The
goal of the Christian life to be nothing less than Christ like becomes
entirely understandable. Imitating Jesus brings us to the perfect
freedom that was naturally his. In Jesus, God teaches us what
fraternal charity is. This means that Christian disciples must be
prepared to take up the Cross because Jesus showed his love by
laying down his life for others.
There is a natural moral law written on our hearts.3 Authentic
liberty is found in adhering to this law which is preserved in the Ten
Commandments and is also reflected in the cardinal virtues.
Prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance are the qualities of
character that enable the human person to reach the furthest
potentialities of his or her nature. These moral habits ought to be
cultivated because they perfect the distinctly human powers and
protect against the harm that inordinate desire can do to the human
personality.
The complete fulfillment or embodiment of the Christian faith is
found in the saints, however. Being fully human means being holy as
God is holy (Mt. 5:48). Supernatural help is needed to transform
“hearts of stone” into “hearts of flesh” (Ezek. 36:26). God does this
by infusing (ST. IIa-IIae, q. 24, a. 2) the theological virtues of faith,
hope, and charity into our souls by the Holy Spirit. The cardinal
virtues are not supplanted but neither do they remain just natural.
“Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it” (ST. Ia, q. 1, a. 8,
reply to obj. 2). The theological virtues inform and give life to the
natural virtues making them more than they could be without God’s
more than amazing grace.
Charity is the most excellent of the virtues because “charity
attains God Himself that it may rest in Him” (ST. IIa-IIae, q. 23, a.
6). God extends the gift of Divine friendship to human beings, the
gift of participation in God’s own Divine essence of charity. Charity
“attains God, unites us to God” (ST. IIa-IIae, q. 23, a. 3) imperfectly
here but “perfectly in heaven” (ST. IIa-IIae, q. 23, a. 1, reply to obj.
1).
Charity, man’s friendship with God, can grow stronger by
becoming “more fervent” (IIa-IIae, q. 24, a. 4, reply to obj. 3). The
“intensity” (IIa-IIae, q. 24, a. 5) of a person’s love for God grows
within the person’s soul until the will is entirely devoted to God.
“Man ought to love God with all his might, and to refer all he has to
the love of God” (IIa-IIae, q. 27, a. 5).
Charity is the form of, or informs, the other virtues. It “directs the
acts of all other virtues to the last end” (IIa-IIae, q. 23, a. 8), its
own end, God as he is in himself. “All other virtues draw their
sustenance and nourishment” (IIa-IIae, q. 23, a. 8, reply to obj. 2)
from charity. By commanding the other virtues charity conceives
their acts by its desire for God.
Sharing in divine love moves man to love all that God loves. Man
will love himself because God loves him. He will love his body
because it is the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 6:20), that is,
man journeys to God who is his happiness in his body whatever the
physical aches and pains experienced. He will love his neighbor
because this person too has been created by God to share in God’s
own life. He will love the world because everything that exists has
been created by God out of love. Dostoevsky’s (1958, p. 375) text
put into the form of a poem, “Love of Creation,” beautifully
communicates this affection.
Love all of God’s creation,

The whole and every grain of sand in it.

Love every leaf, every ray of God’s light.

Love the animals, love the plants, love everything.

If you love everything,

You will perceive the divine mystery in things.

Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend

it better every day.

And you will come at last to love the whole world

with an all-embracing love.

Charity produces interior effects in the individual. Aquinas lists

these as joy (IIa-IIae, q. 28), peace (IIa-IIae, q. 29), and mercy
(IIa-IIae, q. 30). It also has exterior effects in society. Charity results
in beneficence (IIa-IIae, q. 31), alms deeds (IIa-IIae, q. 32), and
fraternal correction (IIa-IIae, q. 33). Aquinas then goes on to
discuss the vices opposed to charity. Each of the integral elements of
charity identified by Aquinas can be looked at more closely.
Charity brings spiritual joy into the life of man because it brings
God into the soul of man. “Charity is the love of God, whose good is
unchangeable, since He is His goodness, and from the very fact that
He is loved, He is in those who love Him by his most excellent effect”
(IIa-IIae, q. 28, a. 1). “God is love, and those who abide in love
abide in God, and God abides in them” (I Jn. 4:16). Perfect
happiness is the “full enjoyment of God” (IIa-IIae, q. 28, a. 3).
Human beings enter into the joy of the Lord (Mt. 25:21).
 Human beings long for peace in the world but by looking for it in
all the wrong places it remains elusive. True and lasting peace is an
effect of charity. The individual human person must be at peace with
himself or herself and this cannot come about until the passions, the
human person’s conflicting appetites and desires, are brought under
the rule of reason and reason itself is directed by the will to the love
of God. The human soul is at peace when God-centered charity
directs all its powers. Concord is then spread across society.
Peace implies a twofold union … The first is the result of one’s own appetites being
directed to one object; while the other results from one’s own appetite being
united with the appetite of another: and each of these unions is effected by
charity: – the first, insofar as man loves God with his whole heart, by referring all
things to Him, so that all his desires tend to one object: – the second insofar as
we love our neighbor as ourselves, the result being that we wish to fulfill our
neighbor’s will as though it were ours. (IIa-IIae, q. 29, a. 3)

Aquinas begins his analysis of mercy by providing a definition

from Augustine. Mercy is “heartfelt sympathy for another’s distress,
impelling us to succor him if we can” (IIa-IIae, q. 30, a. 1). Mercy is
both an effect of charity and a virtue. Indeed, Aquinas counts it as
the greatest of the virtues ruling human relations because by it
those in need are given aid. Mercy is an effect of charity in two
ways. First of all, the human person is moved to be merciful upon
recalling God’s unbounded mercy. “When he saw the crowds, he had
compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like
sheep without a shepherd” (Mt. 9:36). Charity unites us to God in a
bond of love likening us to him and true godliness is compassionate.
Secondly, he who loves “looks on his friend as another self” and
“counts his friend’s hurt as his own” (IIa-IIae, q. 30, a. 2). We can
never be indifferent to the poor, the weak, and the needy.
Beneficence is the bestowal of good on others. Prudence is
needed to decide when and how to be beneficent. “Since the love of
charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but
according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must
be modified with a view to their due circumstances” (IIa-IIae, q. 31,
a. 2). “Almsgiving is an act of charity through the medium of mercy”
(IIa-IIae, q. 32, a. 1). Because man is both body and soul, corporal
(to visit, to quench, to feed, to ransom, clothe, harbor, or bury) and
spiritual (to counsel, reprove, console, to pardon, forbear, and to
pray) alms are identified as the acts of mercy required to meet
human needs. Fraternal correction, helping another avoid
wrongdoing, is also “an act of charity” (IIa-IIae, q. 33, a. 1).
When charity is not the well-spring of human action, man
descends to a level below the beasts according to the principle the
corruption of the best is the worst. Man’s flight from charity ends up
in hatred. It is natural for man to “love what is good, and especially
love of the Divine good, and of his neighbor’s good” (IIa-IIae, q. 34,
a. 5). But by a perverse will man can act contrary to what is natural
and oppose God’s goodness. The choice is always futile and
destructive because the goodness that is hated is eternal. Sloth or
acedia, “sorrow for spiritual good” (IIa-IIae, q. 35, a. 1), opposes
the joy of charity. One wearies of God and turns to the pleasures of
the world. The mind consents “in the dislike, horror, and detestation
of the Divine good, on account of the flesh utterly prevailing over the
spirit” (IIa-IIae, q. 35, a. 3). Envy, “sorrow for another’s good” (IIa-
IIae, q. 36, a. 1), is contrary to charity. “Just as sloth is grief for a
Divine spiritual good, so envy is grief for our neighbor’s good” (IIa-
IIae, q. 36, a. 4).
Charity also gives man the gift of wisdom. This is a wisdom
“descending from above” (Jas. 3:15), a gift of the Holy Spirit, not
the intellectual virtue acquired by human effort. This gift enables
man to see things, judge things, as God does. Wisdom “directs
human acts according to Divine rules” (IIa-IIae, q. 45, a. 3).
Folly opposes wisdom and charity by plunging the mind into
earthly things. A “distaste for God and His gifts” (IIa-IIae, q. 46, a.
3, reply to obj. 1) takes hold.
Aquinas observes a teleological world. “Every agent acts for an
end” (IIa-IIae, q. 45, a. 1, reply to obj. 1). He also concludes that
“whoever turns away from his due end, must needs fix on some
undue end” (IIa-IIae, q. 45, a. 1, reply to obj. 1). In covering charity
Aquinas determines that man was made to love God beyond all
things. Charity brings fulfillment and rest in God’s goodness. When
man forsakes charity he inevitably turns inward on himself. Locked in
a prison of selfishness, all that is left is one’s own arbitrary will.
Conflict, often horrific, ensues. The mind is plagued by
meaninglessness. Abandoning the order of charity is the gravest
mistake human beings can make.
How can Aquinas’ wisdom be translated into managerial practice?
What does charity entail in the work of enterprise? What would it
mean to embody charity in organizational life?

THE PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT

The perfect order which the Church preaches … places God as the first and
supreme end of all created activity, and regards all created goods as mere
instruments under God, to be used only in so far as they help towards the
attainment of our supreme end. (Pius XI, 1931, 136)

Christian humanism holds that we were made in love and for love,
that our lives are a vocation to divine charity. The twofold
commandment to love God and our neighbor, which synthesizes the
entirety of natural moral law, is to be fulfilled in enterprise as well.
We are to will the good of others in our organizational life just as we
do in our personal life. Because a company is a community of human
persons, love must be extended in the practice of management and
form the firm.
The subject and end of every social institution, including
economic enterprise, is the human person. Institutions exist to
elevate man because of the grandeur of the human personality.
Made in God’s image, every human person has an inalienable dignity
and an infinite worth. An individual being of a rational nature, each
human person’s life is an unrepeatable onceness. Destined for
eternal life with God, even a single person is worth more than all the
material goods that might be produced or the organizational entities
created to generate that production.
The justification of an enterprise is the correspondence of its
economic activity with God’s plan for man. Capital resources are to
assist in the process of sanctification but are not to be thought of as
an end in themselves. Profit is a means to achieve the properly
human telos.4 The legitimate end of every work community is the
common good, the sum total of social conditions that facilitate every
person to attain his or her perfection.
The decision of primary importance is what to produce or supply.
Enterprises ought to make a contribution to human flourishing by
what they bring into being. Material goods are meant to be a means
to our sanctification. What we have should help us realize our
destiny, which ultimately is spiritual not material. Although we are in
the world, we are not of it, having been created for eternal
happiness with God. Economic production should not deflect people
from this end. Spiritual and moral good should not be sacrificed to
material interests. The want structure encouraged by enterprise
should serve good moral formation. Just because something can be
made and sold doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be. Society
doesn’t need an institution that makes it hard for people to be
virtuous. The goods and services provided by business should really
be goods and services, not bads and disservices, when human well-
being in its totality, physical, mental, social, moral, and spiritual, is
considered. Enterprises ought to make a contribution to human
flourishing by what they bring into being.
Corporal works of mercy include feeding the hungry, sheltering
the homeless, and clothing the naked. What might get overlooked in
thinking about commercial enterprise is that the supermarkets, home
builders, and apparel manufacturers in their work are coming to the
aid of those in need. By provisioning good quality products and
services that meet authentic human needs, entrepreneurial firms add
to the prosperity of society generating the wealth needed to alleviate
misery and enhance the culture.
God hears the cry of the poor and so must we. Mercy never
permits indifference to those in need. To emphasize that a right
ordering of the world’s goods demands an active love of the poor,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church employs rhetorical questioning
to summarize, one of only two places in its 2,865 items that this
technique is utilized.
 How can we not recognize Lazarus, the hungry beggar in the parable [cf. Luke
17:19–31], in the multitude of human beings without bread, a roof or a place to
stay? How can we fail to hear Jesus: “As you did it not to one of the least of these,
you did not do it to me? [Mt. 25:45]” (CCC, 2463)

Organizations in the commercial sector can act beneficently by

entering into creative partnerships with other sectors of society
seeking to alleviate poverty and unnecessary human suffering. For
example, Habitat for Humanity’s building fund offers a wise, just,
and honorable way or place for anyone to bestow material goods.
Charity insists that any surplus goods be so bestowed or put to use.
The temporal goods which God grants us, are ours as to the ownership, but as to
the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are
able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs. (ST. IIa-IIae, q. 32,
a. 5, reply to obj. 2)

After products are made they still must find their way into
people’s hands. The proper objective of marketing is to identify the
people who would benefit from the goods and services being
supplied and provide them with the information they need to make
prudent decisions. If the truth about these products cannot be
communicated honestly and openly, then the chances are good that
the firm is treading on thin ice ethically. Promotional efforts need to
do even more today. They need to encourage people to simplify their
lives both to reduce the environmental impact of consumption and to
help people find a place for leisure and prayer. Business should aid in
the shift to lifestyles where consumer choices and financial decisions
are determined by “the quest for truth, beauty, goodness, and
communion with others for the sake of common growth” (Benedict
XVI, 2009, 51). Wisdom is to be pursued not the satisfaction of
hedonistic impulses.
Goods and services are produced by people using material
means. Labor takes precedence over capital in the process because
every human being is a high and holy mystery, possessing the
capacity for self-transcendence. The human worker must never be
looked at as another commodity to be bought and sold at the service
of capital expansion. Pius XI (1931, 135) long ago pointed out the
scandal of giving capital priority over sacred human personhood.
 Bodily labor, which Divine Providence decreed to be performed, even after original
sin, for the good at once of man’s body and soul, is being everywhere changed
into an instrument of perversion; for dead matter comes forth from the factory
ennobled, while men there are corrupted and degraded.

Such inversion of ends and means lacks the divine wisdom to see
the immortal splendor of the human personality. Laborers must not
be treated like a factor of production.
People ought to be given meaningful work that utilizes and
develops their higher faculties. The magnificence of one’s work
ought to match the magnificence of the human personality and be
perfective of the same. Responsibility for managing the enterprise
would then be broadly diffused. Employees would rightly be seen as
associates or partners in the venture.
Proper attention should be paid to the work practices in place.
The hours of work required, the physical demands put on the
worker, the safety conditions should be humane. Charity can never
countenance work environments that are harmful to the physical
health and moral integrity of the people working in them. Love
draws out the best in others and sets the workbench up as a place
where virtue can be developed.
Fraternal correction is directed to the amendment of wrong
behavior by others. Its practice is critical to achieving organizational
excellence. First of all, it is not an act of love to accept the poor
performance of someone under your managerial aegis. Failures
should be pointed out, causes identified, and a path or method to
success mapped out. Of course, the completion of superb work
should be acknowledged. Secondly, a healthy dissent must be
possible. A forum or mechanism by which people can safely surface
bad news or express their concerns must be in place. Dangerous
incidents or conditions must be reported before harm occurs. Charity
welcomes, even rewards, such disclosures.
In contractual relationships people exchange something in return
for something else. The key feature to note about these relationships
is their contingent nature. Parties are only obligated to uphold their
end of the bargain (e.g., money paid) if the other party fulfills their
end (e.g., merchandise provided). Contracts play an important role
in organizational functioning but by themselves they cannot uphold
human community. God has shown human beings that they are
meant for covenantal relationships, first with himself and then with
each other. God does not give human beings their just deserts and
pledges his love non-contingently, “I will be your God, and you shall
be my people” (Lev. 26:12), and follows through “to the point of
death – even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). We must go beyond
contracts (Argandona, 2011) in our organizational relationships, just
as we do in our marriages (“till death do us part”) and our
friendships (“one who walks in when the whole world walks out”), to
enter into these interpersonal relationships in which people give
themselves or pledge themselves to one another. God commits
himself securely, personally, unconditionally to people and calls us to
lock in our commitments to others just as securely. Daring to love
this radically requires the cultivation of the virtues of forgiveness,
sacrifice, gratitude, patience, forbearance as managing now requires
sustaining a place for people in the organization and seeing people
through their problems.
People are owed a living wage for their work. It is only in families
that the human race perpetuates itself, so families must, at a
minimum, have their material needs met. The organization cannot
just throw up its hands and say that market forces do not allow it to
compensate its employees fairly. Prudential reasoning must be used
to exhaust all measures internal to the firm that might be utilized to
ensure that just wages are paid. If these are not enough, the help of
indirect employers must be sought. If even the help of governments,
social service agencies, unions, etc., are insufficient to ensure a just
wage, it may have to be concluded that an otherwise sound mission
of contributing to human flourishing isn’t a viable business
proposition. “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering
should be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil” (1 Pet. 3:17).
Parental requests ought to be accommodated to the greatest
extent possible. Management should work flexibly with each
individual and family, fostering personal and professional
relationships that make a good life for employees and their families
possible, thereby contributing to the building up of the basic social
structures of our existence. That is, love is to be expressed not only
in our families but also to all families. Management has an obligation
to put in place policies under which the family can more easily fulfill
its mission. This is especially important in a world where the
globalization of the economy has placed tremendous pressure on the
family (Dau-Schmidt & Brun, 2006).5 Policies as simple as flexible
work hours can help parents meet their family obligations thereby
ensuring that adequate investment in children is made in the global
economy.
Charity is to extend to the natural world as well. We have an
obligation to be good stewards of God-given creation, maintaining it
in its integrity and perfecting it by opening it up to God through our
own sanctification. Our covenant with the environment should mirror
the creative love of God.
The management practices offered so far as exhibiting charity
must be considered as a basic minimum. God’s love seeks and
suffers in order to save and this is the love divine friendship calls us
to pour forth in the world. God points out the freedom found in
going the “second mile” (Mt. 5:41).
Good employment opportunities can be provided to the disabled
or hard to employ. The workplace can be modified to accommodate
those with special needs. Information can be volunteered to
legislators if it would assist them in making regulations, even if this
is not required by law. In their analysis of corporate transparency,
das Neves and Vaccaro (2013) argue from a Thomistic perspective
that the virtues of prudence, justice, and truthfulness are essential in
deciding what to disclose. Charity’s gift of supernatural wisdom
further equips organizational decision-makers to know what to do
with the information in their possession. Leadership can be shown in
building an industry consensus around abolishing unjust practices or
achieving positive social change. Human ingenuity and capital
resources can be applied to address pressing environmental
problems, thereby helping to bequeath to future generations a world
not depleted of its resources. The only limit on charity’s efforts is the
moral imagination.
 CONCLUSION
In a complex organizational age, management is an essential
profession. Accepting the gift of divine friendship properly situates
this occupational undertaking. It is our duty, our obligation in
friendship, to use the gift of our life, to bring about God’s plan for
the world, a vision of all people living in peace as a family.

NOTES
1. All biblical quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic
Edition.
2. Observation of what human beings uniquely do in the world reveals an ontological
distinction between the substantial entity, human being, and all other beings in existence.
The human person’s rational nature is characterized by the capacity for conceptual thought
and free choice (Lee & George, 2008). Furthermore, this essential rational nature confers
an equal fundamental dignity to every human person. The Christian faith adds to this basis
for human dignity by pointing to man’s destiny

of all visible creatures only man is able to know and love his creator … he alone is
called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that
he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity. (Catechism of
the Catholic Church, 1994, 356)

3. St. Thomas Aquinas begins his Summa Theologiae by establishing the authority of
Sacred Scripture. “It was necessary for men’s salvation that there should be a knowledge
revealed by God, besides philosophical science built by human reason” (ST. Ia, q.1, a.1).
Both these sources of knowledge are needed and they cannot fundamentally be at odds.
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation
of truth” (John Paul II, 1998, preamble). In his Treatise on Law (ST. Ia-IIae, q. 90–108)
Aquinas builds on the revelation (divine law) in Paul’s letter to the Romans that the Gentiles
have a law “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15) by presenting the ordering of eternal law
(q. 93), natural law (q. 94), and human law (q. 95). Natural law, the first principle of which
is to do good and avoid evil, “is nothing less than the rational creature’s participation of the
eternal law” (ST. Ia-IIae, q. 91, a.2), the eternal nature or character of “God Himself” (ST.
Ia-IIae, q. 91, a.1, reply to obj. 3). The general principles of natural law impressed upon
human reason by the nature of being require particular determination or expression in civil
law. Kant’s formulation of a categorical imperative, we ought always to treat others as ends
in themselves and never as a mere means, is an effort to derive a principle found in natural
law without accessing the metaphysical grounding of morality found in Aquinas.
 4. Aquinas distinguishes natural wealth (e.g., food, drink) from artificial wealth (e.g.,
money) and argues that “it is impossible for man’s happiness to consist in wealth” (ST. Ia-
IIae, q. 2, a.1). Natural wealth is sought as a support of human nature. The ideal then is to
have enough or have sufficient natural riches in our life. Money has been “invented by the
art of man, for the convenience of exchange, and as a measure of things salable” (ST. Ia-
IIae, q. 2, a.1). Artificial wealth should be sought only for the sake of natural wealth – that
is, as a means to procure the necessities of life. Aquinas further cautions that “the desire
for artificial wealth is infinite” (ST. Ia-IIae, q. 2, a.1, reply to obj. 3) because of disordered
concupiscence and concludes that only the foolish allow money to rule life.
5. The global economy has changed a lot more than just where products are sourced. It
has greatly impinged on people’s ability to marry and form families. Workers are now in
competition with each other over the whole world and are subject to more job and
geographic dislocations. Suppressed wages force both members of a couple to seek paid
employment and work longer hours on the job. Extended periods of education and training
are required to develop a career. This reality both delays family formation, often till the end
of the child-bearing years, and raises the costs of having children.

REFERENCES
Anderson, O. (2010). Without purpose: Modernity and the loss of final causes. Heythrop
Journal, LI, 401–416.
Aquinas, St. T. (1948). Summa Theologiae, 5 volumes (Fathers of the English Dominican
province, Trans.). New York, NY: Benzinger Brothers (Original translation 1911). Work
completed 1265–1273. [ST in text].
Argandona, A. (2011). Beyond contracts: Love in firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1),
77–85.
Benedict XVI. (2009). Caritas in veritate [On integral human development in charity and
truth]. Vaticana: Liberia Editrice.
Beyer, G. J. (2003). The love of god and neighbor according to Aquinas: An interpretation.
New Blackfriars, 84(985), 116–132.
Bradley, J. P. (1985). Why liberal arts? International Social Science Review, 60(4), 176–180.
Caldwell, C., & Dixon, R. D. (2010). Love, forgiveness and trust: Critical values of the
modern leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 91–101.
Camenisch, P. F. (1981). Business ethics: On getting to the heart of the matter. Business &
Professional Ethics Journal, 1(1), 59–69.
Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC]. (1994). Canadian conference of Catholic Bishops,
Ottawa, ON.
Clark, M. J. (2011). Love of god and neighbor: Living charity in Aquinas’ ethics. New
Blackfriars, 92(1040), 415–430.
das Neves, J. C., & Vaccaro, A. (2013). Corporate transparency: A perspective from Thomas
Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 639–648.
Dau-Schmidt, K. G., & Brun, C. (2006). Protecting families in a global economy. Indiana
Journal of Global Legal Studies, 13(1), 165–205.
Dostoevsky, F. (1958). The brothers Karamazov (D. Magorshack, Trans.). New York, NY:
Penguin Books (Original edition 1879).
Duska, R. F. (1997). The why’s of business revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13),
1401–1409.
Duska, R. (2000). Business ethics: Oxymoron or good business? Business Ethics Quarterly,
10(1), 111–129.
Gilleman, G. (1959). The primacy of charity in moral theology. Westminster, MD: Newman
Press.
Guitian, G. (2015). Service as a bridge between ethical principles and business practice: A
catholic social teaching perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 59–72.
Harris, H. (2002). Is love a management virtue? Business and Professional Ethics Journal,
21(3&4), 173–184.
Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., & George, G. (2014). Organizations with purpose.
Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1227–1234.
John Paul II. (1998). Fides et ratio (faith and reason). Sherbrooke, QC: Mediaspaul.
Karns, G. L. (2011). Stewardship: A new vision for the purpose of business. Corporate
Governance, 11(4), 337–347.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1992). Ethical leaders: An essay about being in love. Journal
of Business Ethics, 11, 479–484.
Lee, P., & George, R. P. (2008). The nature and basis of human dignity. Ratio Juris, 21(2),
173–193.
Naughton, M. (2012). The logic of gift: Rethinking business as a community of persons.
Milwaukee, IL: Marquette University Press.
Pius XI. (1931). Quadragesimo anno (on social reconstruction). Boston, MA: Daughters of
St. Paul.
Sandelands, L. E. (2015). On taking people seriously: An apology, to my students especially.
Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 603–611.
Schlag, M. (2012). “Iustita Est Amor”: Love as principle of social and economic life. Acta
Philosophica, 1(21), 77–98.
Schockenhoff, E. (2002). The theological virtue of charity (IIa-IIae, qq. 23–46). In S. J.
Pope (Ed.), The ethics of Aquinas (pp. 244–258). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Senander, A. (2013). What’s love got to do with leadership? Proceedings for the 9th
European conference on management, leaderships, & governance. Academic
Conferences Limited (pp. 245–251).
Sri, E. (2015). Love unveiled. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
Wadell, P. J. (1992). The primacy of love. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Wishloff, J. (2009). Spe Salvi: Assessing the aerodynamic soundness of our civilization flying
machine. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 1(1), 1–27.
LET LOVE RULE: OPPORTUNITIES AND
IMPEDIMENTS FOR COOPERATION IN
NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS
Erik Groeneveld and Leon van den Dool*

ABSTRACT
The research problem investigated in this paper addresses
how love can intentionally be reflected in decision-making
processes. The study is built on a theoretical and a practical
foundation. The theoretical foundation comprises two parts
with perspectives from theology and organizational theory.
The practical foundation is derived from field research in the
area of public administration and church leadership. Examples
from field research indicate that trust and building of
relationship will change adversarial behaviour into cooperative
behaviour. Three network strategies are identified to make
decision-making intentionally relational. The conceptual
contribution is original, although the authors draw on existing
insights from theology and public administration.

Keywords: Philia-love; network management; cooperation;

decision-making; trust
 *The examples in Boxes 2–4 are based on his advisory work.

INTRODUCTION
Writing about organizational leadership and love is an interesting
topic. Although love is not commonly connected to the functioning of
organizations nor to the functioning of networks, it is a highly
relevant perspective. In theology, three archetypes of love are
distinguished. Agape-love is love in spite of unloving actions of
others. Eros-love is love because of the good or beauty we
encounter. Philia-love is love as we come alongside of others to
promote overall well-being. As organizations become more hybrid
and network governance has become more crucial to solve societal
problems or attain common goals, the classic steering mechanisms
of hierarchy and market-mechanism are insufficient. The broad
notion of love brings crucial added value. However, love is easily
impeded. This paper looks at factors and processes to let love play
its role. The authors will argue that (mutual) trust is an important
characteristic of philia-love.1

THREE IDEAL TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL

LEADERSHIP
Inter- and intra-organizational relations are broadly categorized in
three sets, one related to the market, one to the state and one to
civil society. Robinson, Hewitt, and Harriss (2000) provide a useful
overview (p. 8). The authors differentiate between three ways of
interaction, referred to as the ‘ideal types’ of competition,
coordination and cooperation.2 Each of these ideal types involves
specialized control mechanisms. Whereas competition as a way of
organizing is based on the use of price criteria to determine
behaviour, coordination as a way of organizing is based on rule-
regulation and hierarchy.
Cooperation, however,
tends to be associated with voluntary organizations, as non-hierarchical and with
all parties involved on an equal basis with each other …. Co-operation is also a
potentially strong device for managing diverse interests [and] offers the possibility
for diverse interests to be brought together and to be built into a whole new idea
or approach.3

The authors depict the three ideal types in Table 1.

Table 1. Common Associations of Competition, Coordination and

Cooperation.

However, no organization and no network of organizations will

fully fit in one category. Rather they are a mixture of all three.
Hence, most organizations use competition, coordination and
cooperation at the same time. Organizations with an apparent
mixture are called hybrid organizations (Brandsen, van de Donk, &
Kenis, 2006). Examples are housing corporations working both in the
field of subsidized housing as well as working as a commercial
project development organization, or a university also working on a
commercial basis doing advisory work (Van Montfort, 2014). As
many see an increase in the influence of functional rationality and
market mechanisms under the influence of new public management,
we argue here with, for instance, Van de Donk (2007) that a fixation
on these mechanisms undervalues other important values and
mechanisms including love. We would therefore ask the question:
How can love rule amidst of these dynamic relationships? Over the
years, numerous attempts have been made to differentiate forms of
love (e.g. see Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987) as well as to define love.
Sorokin (2002, pp. 13–35), for instance, defines love as ‘a
meaningful interaction – or relationship – between two or more
persons where the aspirations and aims of one person are shared
and helped in their realization by other persons’. Vacek (1994, p. 44)
sees love as ‘an emotional, affirming participation in the dynamic
tendency of an object to realize its fullness’. As a final example, Yong
(2012, p. xi) suggests as a working definition that ‘love is the
affective disposition toward an intentional activity that benefits
others’. For the purpose of this paper, we will define love in three
categories, as we did previously with the three ideal types of
organizations.

THREE ARCHETYPES OF LOVE: AGAPE, EROS

AND PHILIA
Theologian and Philosopher Oord (2010a, 2010b) places the various
versions of love under three forms of love: agape, eros and philia.4
Oord acknowledges that agape is the form of love used most often
by Christians identified with unconditional love (2004, p. 8). In the
1930s, the Swedish theologian Anders Nygren sharply contrasted
agape-love with eros-love (or self-love). Oord clearly indicates,
however, that biblical authors use agape to convey a wide variety
and sometimes contradictory set of meanings:
Neither the narrow claim that agape possesses a single meaning in the Bible nor
the broader claim that one meaning of agape predominates in Christian Scripture
 finds textual support.… To be true to Christian Scripture, we should not talk about
the biblical understanding of agape or think that agape is a definitively Christian
form of love. (Oord, 2010a, 2010b, pp. 32–39)

Based on a word study, both within the Septuagint and the New
Testament, James Barr came to the conclusion that the use of agape
within the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament refers to both
‘good’ love (love for God, love for one’s neighbour), ‘bad’ love (love
for money, love of evil-doing), and ‘neutral’ love (‘I love swimming’
or ‘I just love cheese’). In other words, the use of agape is
theologically equivocal:
Far from designating a special kind of love, a sacrificial or a personal love, the
terms are equivocal about the sort of love that is meant.… This makes it highly
improbable that the choice of these words has anything to do with a theological
differentiation between one conception of love and another. And this is not
confined to the LXX, for the same is true of the New Testament.… In the New
Testament, then, as in the LXX, [agape] was theologically equivocal. (Barr, 1987,
p. 12)5

Despite the various meanings of agape in Scripture, Oord (2010a,

2010b, p. 39) argues that agape carries significant rhetorical weight,
and therefore it seems unwise to him ‘to squander the value that this
word has accumulated’. Accordingly, Oord asserts that the use of
agape needs to be clearly defined and that meaning should then be
employed consistently. For Oord agape is a unique form of love in
contrast to other forms because of its response to ill-being: ‘Agape
repays evil with good. Other forms of love are not responses to ill-
being; they are intentional responses to something else’. Applied to
Oord’s definition of love, a definition of agape-love is: ‘acting
intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to
promote overall well-being when responding to acts, persons, or
structures of existence that promote ill-being’ (Oord, 2010a, 2010b,
p. 43).
In a similar way, Oord specifies his definition of eros-love. In
going back to Plato, Oord considers the core notion of eros its
affirmation of value. Oord states that sometimes eros is defined as
an inclination towards the lover’s own wishes or orientation, and in
this use eros is often called ‘self-love’. Vacek (1994) identifies eros in
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
conscience, whether there is one bishop or presbyter in England, Wales,
or Ireland, that looks upon our canons as his rule of action? If they do,
we are all perjured with a witness, and consequently, in a very bad sense
of the word, irregular indeed. May I not, therefore, say on this, alluding to
what my blessed Master did on another occasion, “He that is without the
sin of acting illegally, if the canons of our church be implicitly to be
obeyed, let him cast the first stone at me and welcome.” Your Lordship
knows full well, that canons and other church laws are good and
obligatory, when conformable to the laws of Christ, and agreeable to
the liberties of a free people; but when invented and compiled by men of
little hearts and bigotted principles, on purpose to hinder persons of
more enlarged souls from doing good, or being more extensively useful,
they become mere bruta fulmina; and when made use of only as cords to
bind up the hands of a zealous few, that honestly appear for their King,
their country, and their God, like the withes with which the Philistines
bound Sampson, in my opinion, they may very legally be broken. What
pains and penalties are to be incurred for such offence, (as I have not
the canons at present before me) I cannot tell; but for my own part, my
Lord, if any penalty is incurred, or any pain to be inflicted upon me, for
prophesying or preaching against sin, the Pope, and the devil, and for
recommending the strictest loyalty to the best of princes, his Majesty
King George, in this metropolis, or any other part of his Majesty’s
dominions, I trust, through grace, I shall be enabled to say,

All hail reproach, and welcome pain!

I think there now remains but one more particular in your Lordship’s letter
to be answered:—your Lordship’s truly apostolical canon taken out of
2 Corinthians x. 16; upon turning to, and reading of which, I could not
help thinking, my Lord, of a passage I once met with in good Mr. Philip
Henry’s life. It was this: Being ejected out of the church, and yet thinking
it his duty to preach, he used now and then to give the people of Broad-
Oaks, where he lived, a gospel sermon; and one day, as he was coming
from his exercise, and meeting with the incumbent, he thus addressed
him: “Sir, I have been taking the liberty of throwing a handful of seed into
your field.” “Have you so, said the good man? may God give it his
blessing! There is work enough for us both.” This, my Lord, I humbly
conceive, is the case not only of your Lordship, but of every minister’s
parish in London, and every bishop’s diocese in England; and therefore
as good is done, and souls are benefited, I hope your Lordship will not
regard a little irregularity, since at the worst, it is only the irregularity of
doing well. But supposing this should not be admitted as an excuse at
other seasons, I would hope it will have its weight at this critical juncture,
wherein, if there were ten thousand sound preachers, and each preacher
had a thousand tongues, they could not well be too frequently employed
in calling upon the inhabitants of Great-Britain to be upon their guard,
against the cruel and malicious designs of France, of Rome, and of hell.
After all, my Lord, if your Lordship will be pleased to apply to Mr. B――
himself, (who, I suppose, knows where the place is registered) or if upon
enquiry I shall find, that the lessor hath no power to let it out, as I hate
and abhor every dishonourable action, after my setting out for Bristol,
which I expect to do in a few days, I shall decline preaching in the chapel
any more. But if the case should appear to be otherwise, I hope your
Lordship will not be angry, if I persist in this, I trust not unpardonable,
irregularity: for if I decline preaching in every place, meerly because the
incumbent may be unwilling I should come into his parish, I fear I must
seldom or never preach at all; and this, my Lord, especially at this
juncture, when all our civil and religious liberties are as it were at stake,
would to me be worse than death itself. I humbly ask pardon for
detaining your Lordship so long, but being willing to give your Lordship
all the satisfaction I possibly could, I have chosen rather to sit up and
deny myself proper repose, than to let your Lordship’s candid letter lie by
me one moment longer than was absolutely necessary. I return your
Lordship a thousand thanks for your favourable opinion of me, and good
wishes, and begging the continuance of your Lordship’s blessing, and
earnestly praying, that whenever your Lordship shall be called hence,
you may give up your account with joy, I beg leave to subscribe myself,
my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXX.
To the Bishop of B――.
 Tabernacle-House, February 23, 1756.

My Lord,

S INCE I had the honour of writing my last letter to your Lordship, I

have made inquiry, and find that the certificate is in the hands of
one Mr. Culverwell, with whom Mr. Gardiner lodges. I think he told me,
the place was licensed in the Commons, and as far as I can judge, Mr.
Barnard’s committee do not intend to let the chapel go out of their hands.
As therefore, your Lordship would undoubtedly chuse that the church
liturgy should be read in it sometimes, rather than it should be entirely
made use of in a non-conformist way, I hope your Lordship will not be
offended, if I go on as usual after my return from Bristol. I assure your
Lordship, through the divine blessing, real good hath been done; and
therefore I am sorry to inform your Lordship, that notwithstanding the
admonitions I hear your Lordship hath given them, some unhappy
persons have still endeavoured to disturb us, by making an odd kind of a
noise in a neighbouring house. I hear that some of them belong to your
Lordship’s vestry, and therefore wish that your Lordship would so far
interpose, as to order them once more to stop their proceedings. But I
only just mention it, and shall leave it to your Lordship’s discretion. I can
only entreat the continuance of your Lordship’s blessing, and begging
your Lordship’s acceptance of a short address I am now publishing, I
hasten to subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXI.
To Mr. W――.

London, March 18, 1756.

My dear Friend,
 ESTERDAY I received your kind letter, and this morning I send you a f
Y lines by way of New-York. May they find you and all my dear
Boston friends strong, yea very strong in the Lord, and in the
power of his might. Every day do I make mention of them, and dear
New-England, in my sermons and prayers. Thousands I trust are
interceding for you continually. Last night I preached upon Moses’s
praying on the mount, whilst Joshua fought against Amalek in the valley.
I hope some spiritual shot went after the fleet, that we hear is gone to
America. What awaits us here at home, the Redeemer only knows. We
deserve the greatest scourge, but I trust we have too many praying
people amongst us, to have such a one as the threatened invasion, laid
upon our backs.—The event will prove. Blessed be God, for the effects
of the late earthquake. May they be lasting! no doubt they will be upon
some. The awakening at London continues, and more ministers are
coming out for the ever-blessed Jesus. Last Lord’s day I opened my
spring campaign, by preaching thrice in the fields to many thousands in
Gloucestershire. O that I may begin to begin to spring for my God! I trust
you and my other never to be forgotten friends will not fail to remember
us here. Though at such a distance, we can meet at the throne of grace.
Why does not dear Mr. S―― send me one line? I desire to be
remembered in the kindest manner to him, and his, and all my dear, very
dear friends. I can now add no more, but hoping to have another
opportunity, I beg leave to subscribe myself, with tender affection to your
whole self,

Yours most affectionately in our common Lord,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXII.
To the Bishop of B――.

Tabernacle-House, March 20, 1756.

My Lord,
T
O my great surprize, upon my coming up to town, I found that the
disturbances so justly complained of near Long-Acre chapel, had
been continued. On Thursday evening last, when I preached there
myself, they were rather increased. Notwithstanding some of the
windows were stopped up, to prevent in some degree the congregations
being disturbed by the unhallowed noise, yet large stones were thrown in
at another window, and one young person badly wounded. This
constrains me to trouble your Lordship once more, and to beg the favour
of your Lordship so far to interpose, as to desire the persons belonging
to your Lordship’s vestry, to desist from such irregular proceedings. For
my own irregularity in preaching, I am ready at any time to answer; and
was I myself the only sufferer, I should be entirely unconcerned whatever
personal ill treatment I might meet with in the way of my duty. But to have
the lives of his Majesty’s loyal subjects endangered, when they come
peaceably to worship God, and to pray for his long and prosperous
reign, is an irregularity, which I am persuaded your Lordship will look
upon as unjustifiable in the sight of God, and of every good man.
However, as a subject to King George, and a minister of Jesus Christ, I
know your Lordship will allow, I have a right to do myself justice, and
therefore, I hope, if the disturbances be yet continued, your Lordship will
not be offended, if I lay a plain and fair narration of the whole affair,
together with what hath passed between your Lordship and myself,
before the world. I beg your Lordship not to look upon this as a
threatning, or as done with an intent to expose; I scorn any such mean
procedure. But as providence seems to point out such a method, I hope
your Lordship will have no just reason to censure me, if it be pursued by,
my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXIII.
To Mr. ――.
 London, March 22, 1756.

Honoured Sir,

T HE long and intimate acquaintance I formerly had with Mr. N―― and
Lady Jane, would have induced me to send you the inclosed some
weeks past, as a mark of unfeigned respect due to you for your personal
worth and character; but I heard, that both Lord M―― and yourself were
out of town: accept it therefore, honoured Sir, though late. I likewise want
to consult you on account of a very indecent, and I think illegal
disturbance, that hath been made for many weeks last past, whilst I have
been preaching at Long-Acre chapel. Several have been sadly wounded,
and I fear the same fate awaits more, unless those that have hitherto
disturbed us, are some way or other restrained. Did I know when it would
suit you, I would wait upon you in person, and acquaint you with
particulars. In the mean while, praying that he, who is the wonderful
Counsellor, and who hath so richly furnished you with talents for your
country’s service, may more and more improve you for such noble
purposes, I beg leave to subscribe myself, honoured Sir,

Your very humble servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXIV.
To the Bishop of B――.

London, March 25, 1756.

I HEARTILY thank your Lordship for your kind acceptance of my three

small tracts, and my very long letter dated February 16th.—At the
same time, I acknowledge myself concerned, that any thing I have
written since, should prevent your Lordship’s pointing out to me any
mistakes, which I may lie under in regard to the canons. God knows, if I
do err, it is for want of better information; and therefore if your Lordship
will vouchsafe to favour me with the letter prepared for that purpose, it
shall be most thankfully received, most impartially examined, most
explicitly replied to, but withal never exposed to the view of the world.
Your Lordship needed not to inform me of the privilege of a Peer, to deter
me from publishing your Lordship’s letters without first asking leave. I
thank God, I have not so learned Christ. By his help, nothing shall be
done in that way, which is the least inconsistent with the strictest honour,
justice and simplicity. But I hope, if a public account of the repeated
disturbances at Long-Acre chapel should be rendered necessary, your
Lordship will not esteem it unreasonable in me, to inform the world, what
previous steps were taken to prevent and stop them. Surely such a
scene, at such a juncture, and under such a government, as has been
transacted in your Lordship’s parish, in the house or yard of one Mr.
Cope, who I hear is your Lordship’s overseer, ever since last Twelfth-
Day, I believe is not to be met with in English history. Indeed, my Lord, it
is more than noise. It deserves no milder a name than premeditated
rioting. Drummers, soldiers, and many of the baser sort, have been hired
by subscription.—A copper-furnace, bells, drums, clappers, marrow
bones and cleavers, and such like instruments of reformation, have been
provided for, and made use of, by them repeatedly, from the moment I
have begun preaching, to the end of my sermon. By these horrid noises,
many women have been almost frightened to death, and mobbers
encouraged thereby to come and riot at the chapel door during the time
of divine service, and then insult and abuse me and the congregation
after it hath been over. Not content with this, the chapel windows, while I
have been preaching, have repeatedly been broken by large stones of
almost a pound weight (some now lying by me) which though levelled at,
providentially missed me, but at the same time sadly wounded some of
my hearers. Mr. C――, one of your Lordship’s relations, can acquaint
your Lordship with many more particulars, and if your Lordship would be
so good as only to ride to Mr. C――’s house, you would see such a
scaffold (unless taken down) and such costly preparations for a noise
upon it, that must make the ears of all that shall hear it to tingle. Indeed
last Tuesday night all was hush’d,—and in order to throw off all popular
odium, I gave it as my opinion, that it was owing to your Lordship’s kind
interposition. One Mr. C―― and one Mr. M――, I am informed, are
parties greatly concerned. I know them not, and I pray the Lord of all
Lords never to lay this ill and unmerited treatment to their charge. If no
more noise is made on their part, I assure your Lordship no further
resentment shall be made on mine. But if they persist, I have the
authority of the Apostle on a like occasion, to appeal unto Cæsar.—And
thanks be to God, we have a Cæsar to appeal to, whose laws will not
suffer any of his loyal subjects to be used in such an inhuman manner. I
have only one favour to beg of your Lordship, that “you would send (as
they are your Lordship’s parishioners) to the above gentlemen, and
desire them henceforward to desist from such unchristian (and especially
at this critical juncture) such riotous and dangerous proceedings.”
Whether as a Chaplain to a most worthy Peeress, a Presbyter of the
church of England, and a steady disinterested friend to our present
happy constitution, I have not a right to ask such a favour, I leave to your
Lordship’s mature deliberation. Henceforward, I hope no more to trouble
your Lordship; but committing my cause to him, who judgeth righteously,
I beg leave to subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXV.
To ―― ――.

London, April 1, 1756.

Gentlemen,

Y OUR obliging letter came to hand last night. As my influence I fear

was but very small, it scarce called for such an acknowledgment. I
trust, my views to serve my God and my King are disinterested; and
therefore I shall always think it my duty to espouse their cause, who are
firmly united in the bonds of friendship and social love, to defend the
protestant interest, and the glorious privileges we enjoy under our dread
and rightful sovereign King George. Such a union I take yours to be.—
That you may therefore meet with success on earth, and by an infinitely
superior union (I mean that of your souls with God) be prepared for a
never-ceasing union with the spirits of just men made perfect in heaven,
is and shall be the hearty prayer of, Gentlemen,
 Your obliged humble servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXVI.
To the Reverend Mr. B――.

London, April 3, 1756.

My dear Friend,

N ONE but he, whose name and nature is love, can tell what I felt at
the receipt of your kind letter. O how did the welfare of dear never
to be forgotten New England, lie upon my heart. How could I have
wished for the wings of a dove to fly thither! The delightful interviews we
have had together, when in the confidence of social prayer we have laid
hold on God, came so fresh upon my mind, that I knew not what to do. O
come, Lord Jesus, come quickly, that friendship begun on earth, may
be consummated in the kingdom of heaven! He only knows, what awaits
us here below, before we are called to live with him above. England is
now equally threatened with America. Let this be our comfort, “the Lord
reigneth.” Nothing can rob us of our Christ,—let us help each other by
mutual prayer. Thousands here hold up their hands daily for you. I know
you will gladly return the favour. You would be pleased to see how
eagerly people attend the word. I think the awakening, and prospect of
doing good in London, is as great as ever. Satan hath raged at a place
called Long-Acre chapel, near the play-houses, but you know who hath
promised to bruise him under our feet. Send me what good news you
can from your side the water, and assure all the followers of the Lamb of
God, that they are upon my poor heart night and day. How goes on your
son Daniel? May he greatly be beloved! I could fill, yea more than fill a
sheet, but with great difficulty I write this. Adieu, my dear friend, for the
present. I shall never forget our last pleasant short journey. Surely our
hearts burned within us, when we talked of Jesus in the way. I can no
more.
 Yours, &c.

G. W.

LETTER MCXXVII.
To the Honourable Hume C――.

Canterbury, April 9, 1756.

Honoured Sir,

Y OUR kind behaviour when I had the pleasure of waiting upon you,
emboldens me to trouble you with the inclosed. It is the copy of an
anonymous letter, that was sent to my house on Tuesday last, just after I
left town, and forwarded hither to me by my wife the day following. As I
am satisfied that the Lord reigneth, and that a sparrow doth not fall to
the ground without the knowledge of our heavenly Father, its contents in
respect to myself, I thank God, do not much alarm me. But as others are
concerned, and it is an affair that hath reference to the welfare of civil
government, I would beg the favour of your advice. Next Tuesday I
expect to return to London, and on Wednesday morning, purpose, God
willing, to wait upon you in person. In the mean while, I beg leave to
subscribe myself, honoured Sir,

Your most obliged humble servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXVIII.
To Lady H――n.

Canterbury, April 10, 1756.

 Ever-honoured Madam,

T HE letter on the other side, was sent to me last Tuesday. By that,

your Ladyship may see to what an height the opposition hath risen
at Long-Acre; indeed the noise hath been infernal. For a night it was
stopped, but I have reason to think there was a secret design for my life;
some of my friends were sadly used; they applied for warrants, and that
occasioned this letter. I have written to Mr. H―― C―― for advice. May
the wonderful Counsellor direct me how to act! Here, all is peaceable. It
is most delightful to see the soldiers flock to hear the word; officers
likewise attend very orderly. On Monday I return, God willing, to London.
Lord Jesus, do thou prepare me for whatever thou hast prepared for
me! Baron Munchausen hath been very kind in Long-Acre affair; I would
if possible hush all up, but I know no other way but holding my tongue. O
this enmity of heart! This is my comfort,—“the Lord reigneth.” I hope to
answer Mrs. G―― soon. At present, I have scarce time to beg the
continuance of your Ladyship’s prayers, and to subscribe myself, ever-
honoured Madam,

Your Ladyship’s most dutiful, obliged, and ready servant, for

Christ’s sake,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXIX.
To Lady H――n.

London, April 18, 1756.

Ever-honoured Madam,

S INCE my last from Canterbury, I have received two more letters of a

like kind with the former. Before they came to hand I was
exceedingly comforted, from whence I inferred a further storm lay before
me. My greatest distress is, how to act so as to avoid rashness on the
one hand, and timidity on the other. I have been introduced to the Earl of
H――ss, who received me very courteously, and seemed to make no
objection against issuing out a reward for the discovery of the letter-
writer. Whether I had best accept it, I know not. Sir H―― C―― says, it
is not felony; and he advises me by all means to put all concerned into
the court of King’s Bench. The facts are most flagrant. Lord Jesus direct
me for thy mercy’s sake! A man came up to me in the pulpit at the
tabernacle; God knows, what was his design: I see no other way for me
to act, than either resolutely to persist in preaching and prosecuting, or
entirely to desist from preaching, which I think would bring intolerable
guilt upon my soul, and give the adversary cause to blaspheme. Blessed
be God, I am clear, quite clear in the occasion of my suffering. It is for
preaching Christ Jesus, and, for his great name’s sake, loyalty to King
George, to whom under God I owe the liberty of preaching many years.
Alas! alas! what a condition would this land be in, was the protestant
interest not to prevail? Glad should I be to die by the hands of an
assassin, if popery is to get footing here. I shall then be taken away from
the evil to come. I hope that your Ladyship, and the good Ladies with
you, will have hearts given you to pray for me, that, whether by life or by
death, Jesus may be glorified. Thanks be to God, to me to live is
Christ, and to die will be my gain. He knows, that with simplicity and
godly sincerity, I have endeavoured to promote in my feeble way his
honour and glory. I should be glad of a line of advice from your Ladyship;
this is giving trouble I no way deserve, but as your Ladyship is pleased to
honour me with your friendship, it will be adding to the innumerable
obligations already conferred upon, honoured Madam,

Your Ladyship’s most dutiful, obliged, and ready Servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXX.
To Mrs. G――.

London, April 20, 1756.

Dear Madam,
I T hath given me concern, that I could not answer your kind letter till
now; but making a short excursion abroad, and fighting with a kind of
beasts at home, hath prevented me. I fancy that something we cannot
see is behind the curtain. Satan seems to have overshot himself. O what
a mercy is it, dear Madam, to be rescued from his slavery! Nothing less
than an Almighty arm could bring about such a great salvation. Its
depths, its lengths, its breadths, who can fathom? By being plunged into
the first, we stretch and rise into the two last. Our Saviour’s death
preceded his resurrection, and his resurrection that of his glorious
ascension into heaven.—So must we die, and rise, in order to ascend
hereafter where he is gone before. No matter if a sudden stroke opens
the passage: God grant I may be always ready! I hope that you, dear
Madam, and the other elect Ladies, have hearts given you to pray for
me. Hitherto the Lord hath helped me. I thank Mr. S―― for his hint. If
occasion requires, I shall improve it. O for a steady disinterested zeal for
my God, my King, and my country! Welcome death, when brought upon
me in defence of these. As I expect to be called away every moment, I
can only add, after sending my most cordial and grateful
acknowledgments to the whole Clifton court, that I am, dear Madam,

Your most obliged and ready servant for Christ’s sake,

G. W.
 LETTER MCXXXI.
To Mrs. D――.

London, April 21, 1756.

Dear Madam,

I HAVE heard by several hands, that you are lately entered into a
new relation of life. Gratitude constrains me to wish you joy, and
earnestly to pray, that you and Mr. D―― may live together as heirs
of the grace of life, and bring forth much fruit unto God in the decline
of age. This is a changing world; but we are hastening towards an
unchangeable state, where we shall neither marry nor be given in
marriage, but be like unto the angels of God. For this I am waiting
day by day. Many seem to be quickened in this work too; though at
the other end of the town, amongst some of the popish party, I have
lately met with much opposition. But we know who hath promised to
tread Satan shortly under our feet. I hope this will find you, my dear
Madam, and my other Charles-Town friends, going on from
conquering to conquer. I do not, I cannot forget them. I send them
my most cordial love and respects, and beg you and Mr. D―― to
accept the same from, dear Madam,

Your most affectionate, obliged friend, and ready servant for

Christ’s sake,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXXII.
 To Mrs. C――.

London, April 21, 1756.

Dear Mrs. C――,

Y OUR last kind letter is come to hand.—By that, I find poor N――
P―― is engaged, and that some good friends in Carolina have
been instrumental in drawing him from the care of a family, over
which I thought divine providence had made him overseer, and
where I imagined he intended to have abode at least for some years.
—I know not what reason I have given him, to suspect my
confidence was weakened towards him.—I could do no more than
trust him with my all, and place him at the head of my affairs and
family without the least check or controul.—Add to all this, that
notwithstanding the disparity of age, I consented that he should have
my dear friend’s sister, with whom I thought he might live most
usefully and happily at Bethesda, if you pleased, as long as you both
should sojourn here below: and you know what satisfaction I
expressed when I took my leave.—But it seems my scheme is
disconcerted, and my family like to be brought into confusion.—Alas,
my dear Mrs. C――, if this be the case, whom can I send that I may
hope will continue disinterested long? But you know, this is not the
first time that I have been wounded in the house of my friends.—
However, I trust the wound is not incurable.—Till I can procure a
proper Latin master, I should think Mr. Dixon, &c. might do in the
school, and if you think George Whitefield would do for the house, he
might be gradually bred up for it.—If not, I shall write to Mr. T――
and Edn―― of Charles-Town to get him a place there: upon the
whole, I believe this would be best. Joseph P―― I design for New-
Jersey college, and shall send particular orders concerning him in
my next by Cheeseman.—Your brothers are very fond of your
marriage with Mr. D――. I am quite free for it.—May God bless you
both together; I cannot think of parting with you for any body I know.
—God bless and direct you to do his will! Never fear; God will be
Bethesda’s God.—He knows the way that I take; when I am tried I
shall come forth like gold.—Will not Mr. D―― and you be a proper
check upon the overseer? As I think at the bottom he is honest, I can
scarce provide myself with a better. Gladly would I come over, but at
present it is impracticable. I must throw my affairs into the hands of
my God and you. I pity those who without cause have troubled my
envied camp. Well, my dear Mrs. C――, let us remember, that
though the bush burned it was not consumed. And why? because
the Lord was in the midst of it. He hath spoken to us many times out
of the bush, and so he will again. I know you must have been in the
furnace: but our affections must be crucified. I pity Dr. ―― from the
bottom of my heart. Never was I wrote to or served so by any from
Bethesda before. Lord Jesus, lay it not to his charge! Lord Jesus,
suffer us not to be led into temptation! I did not think to write so
much. I rather choose to spread all before Bethesda’s God. But you
will not misimprove it. By Maclellan I hope to hear more particulars.
God willing, they shall be answered. My wife will get you the things
sent for. I have no thoughts at present of her ever seeing the
Orphan-house again. Blessed be God, we shall ere long see
heaven. Some antepasts of it we are favoured with daily. Though
lately my life hath been threatened at the other end of the town,
Jesus can and will guard me. This evening I am to bury Wittern’s
mother: she died triumphant. Adieu for the present. God bless you
all. I am, dear Mrs. C――,

Your most affectionate, sympathizing friend, and ready

servant for Christ’s sake,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXXIII.
To Mr. C――.

London, April 25, 1756.

 My dear Mr. C――,

B Y this time I thought to have been moving towards Bristol, but

am detained in town, by endeavouring to put a stop to the
dreadful uproar made at Long-Acre chapel. Such an infernal
continued noise, on such an occasion, at such a juncture, under
such a government, I believe was never heard of before. To
complete the scene, I have had three anonymous letters sent me,
“threatening a certain, sudden, and unavoidable stroke, unless I
desist from preaching, and pursuing the offenders by law.” You have
guessed at the quarter from whence it comes. Blessed be God, it is
for speaking in behalf of the glorious Jesus, and our dread and
rightful sovereign King George and his government. Mr. S―― hath
been so good as to go with me to the Earl of H――’s, from whom I
hope this week some redress will be obtained. On Thursday next, I
am to wait upon his Excellency again. Mine eyes are waiting on the
blessed Jesus, from whom all salvation must come. Ere long I hope
to shew you the letters; they are indeed very extraordinary. O the
enmity of the heart! Lord, help us! What would become of us, if
some folks were to have the upper hand? Our cause, in my opinion,
is the cause of God, and the cause of civil and religious liberty; and
if death itself should be permitted to befall me for defending it, I hope
through Christ strengthening me, it would be gratefully received by,
my dear Sir,

Your most obliged, affectionate friend, and ready servant for

Christ’s sake,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXXIV.
To Lady H――n.
 London, May 2, 1756.

Ever-honoured Madam,

V ARIOUS have been my exercises since I wrote to your Ladyship

last. But I find, that out of the eater cometh forth meat, and that
all things happen for the furtherance of the gospel. I suppose your
Ladyship hath seen his Majesty’s promise of a pardon to any that will
discover the letter writer; and this brings your Ladyship the further
news of my having taken a piece of ground very commodious to
build on, not far from the Foundling-Hospital. On Sunday I opened
the subscription, and through God’s blessing, it hath already
amounted to near six hundred pounds. If he is pleased to continue to
smile upon my poor endeavours, and to open the hearts of some
more of his dear children to contribute, I hope in a few months to
have what hath been long wanted,—a place for the gospel at the
other end of the town. This evening, God willing, I venture once
more to preach at Long-Acre. The enemy boasts that I am frightened
away: but the triumph of the wicked is short. Our people, Sir H――
C――, Mr. M――, &c. are all for bringing the rioters to the King’s-
Bench, and perhaps upon the whole it may be best. Lord Jesus,
direct my goings in thy way! On Tuesday next I hope to set out for
Wales. For indeed my body is weakened through care and
watchfulness, a variety of exercises, and want of sleep. But the
Redeemer’s grace is all-sufficient. To his tender and never-failing
mercy do I most humbly commend your Ladyship, and the other
elect Ladies, and beg a continued interest in their prayers. With
repeated thanks for repeated favours; I subscribe myself, ever-
honoured Madam,

Your Ladyship’s most dutiful, obliged, and ready servant,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXXV.
 To Mr. H――.

Bristol, May 20, 1756.

My very dear Sir,

F OR so I must address myself, having had you in a peculiar

manner upon my heart, ever since I saw and read a letter that
came from you some months ago. It bespoke the language of a
heart devoted to the ever-loving, ever-lovely Jesus. Mrs. B――
confirmed me in this opinion yesterday, and withal told me, she
believed you would be glad of a line from me, who am indeed less
than the least of all saints, but willing, if I know any thing of my own
heart, to spend and be spent for the good of souls. They are
redeemed by the blood of Jesus, whose cross, blessed be his name,
hath been made delightful to me for some years. I thank God that I
am cast out for my Master’s sake. Indeed, my very dear Sir, it is
preferable to all other preferment whatsoever. It is the way to the
crown. Glory be to God, that there are some young champions
coming forth: methinks I could now sing my nunc dimittis with
triumphant joy. Though I decrease, may you, my very dear Sir,
increase. O that you may be kept from conferring with flesh and
blood! O that you may be owned and blessed of God! I believe you
will, and never more so than when you are reviled and despised by
man. It is a fatal mistake, to think we must keep our characters in
order to do good; this is called prudence; in most, I fear, it is
trimming. Honesty I find always to be the best policy. They who
honour Jesus, he will honour. Even in this world, if we confess him,
his truth, and his people, we shall receive an hundred-fold. To lose
all in this respect, is to find all. But whither am I going? Excuse, my
very dear Sir, the overflowings of a heart, that loves you dearly for
the glorious Redeemer’s sake. I am here preaching his cross, and
expect to stay over Sunday. Next week I have thoughts of being at
Bath and Westbury. I lead a pilgrim life. You will pray that I may have
a pilgrim heart. Ere long I hope my heavenly father will take me
home. I am ambitious; I want to sit upon a throne. Jesus hath
purchased and provided a throne and heaven for me. That you may
have an exalted place at his right hand, is and shall be the earnest
prayer of, reverend and very dear Sir,

Yours most affectionately in our common Lord,

G. W.

LETTER MCXXXVI.
To Mr. B――.

Bristol, May 21, 1756.

My dear Mr. B――,

T HE first part of your letter made me smile: for what? Because I

was glad to find you had such an enlarged heart, and at the
same time imagined, that I could build two houses at a time. If the
top-stone of one is brought forth, I shall think we have reason to
shout unto it, Grace! grace! This I hope will be the happy lot of you
and your young fellow-soldiers, in respect to your spiritual building.
Remember, war is proclaimed; the sword is unsheathed; the devil,
the world, and the flesh will dispute every inch of ground, and you
must fight or die. Angels stand by to see the combat, and Jesus
stands ready to make you more than conquerors through his love.
Provoke then one another, but let it be to love and to good works.
Take heed of a trifling spirit when together. It will hurt you, and by
degrees rob you of true and holy joy. I thank you for remembering
unworthy me. I am called to travel, you to trade for Jesus. Last
week, I trust, was a good week. The Lord of the harvest is pleased to
smile upon us here. I hope to be in town at the appointed time. I
hope that dear Mr. J―― prospers every day. Pray remember me to
him, and your single circle, in the most tender manner, and believe
me to be, my dear Sir,