I have heard wise colleagues rightly say that the Christian university is not the church. This is a prudent reminder. Nonetheless, I would like to explore how a comparison between the first-century Jerusalem Temple and modern Christian universities might provide a useful guide for faculty, staff, administrators, and trustees at Christian colleges. Such a comparison yields some helpful cautions that might guide the business practices of today’s Christian universities.
In Jesus’s day, the Temple undoubtedly dominated the landscape, economy, and culture of Jerusalem. As the central place for worship, the Temple facilitated connection between faithful worshippers and their God. The Temple was the primary site where the people of God engaged in worship. In order to preserve the holiness of this sacred precinct by preventing icon-inscribed currency from entering the Temple and to facilitate the ability of worshippers to offer the necessary sacrifices without bringing their livestock on long journeys, moneychangers and animal vendors enabled the business practices of the Temple to run smoothly. In many ways, the Temple was a well-oiled religious machine that efficiently served the religious needs of a large population.
The Temple’s business model was evidently a highly successful one. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus remarked, “[The treasury chambers contained] an immense quantity of money, and an immense number of garments, and other precious goods, there deposited; and, to speak all in a few words, there it was that the entire riches of the Jews were heaped up together” (Jewish War 6.282). Likewise, the author of 2 Maccabees observes, “The treasury in Jerusalem was full of untold sums of money, so that the amount of the funds could not be reckoned” (2 Maccabees 3:6). In short, not only was this godly institution serving as the most important religious center for God’s people, but it was doing so with great economic success.
The Temple’s economic stability was due at least in part to the generosity of faithful donors. In Mark 12:41-44, Jesus draws his disciples’ attention to the giving patterns of the Temple’s donors. They observe several wealthy donors offering large gifts (Mark 12:41). Then, when a widow donates just two small coins, Jesus points out to his disciples that the widow “has put in more than all those contributing to the treasury” by offering “all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43-44). The lesson, at first blush, seems to be that this widow’s generosity in supporting the House of God is worthy of emulation.
However, a closer look at the Gospel of Mark reveals that Jesus’s remark here may not be intended so much as a praise of the widow’s generosity as a bitter condemnation of the Temple-industrial complex that had been built up to support the Temple’s operations. In fact, immediately before this episode in Mark, Jesus excoriates scribes who “devour widows’ houses” (Mark 14:40). This condemnation echoes a similar critique from Mark 7:10-13 where Jesus had condemned practices of devoting resources to the Temple rather than to sustaining one’s father and mother in their elderly years.
Beyond Jesus’s harsh words for the Temple, his condemnation of this institution is, perhaps, most visible in the dramatic events narrated in Mark 11:15-17 as Jesus drove out the Temple vendors, including money changers and those who sold sacrificial doves that would have likely been the offerings of choice for impoverished worshippers who could not afford more expensive animals (cf. Lev 5:7; 12:8; 14:21–22). In other words, for as much good as the Temple might have been doing in nurturing its community’s life of worship, Jesus has no shortage of critique for this institution and its acquisition resources to cover its operational expenses, especially when that acquisition came at a high cost to those who could least afford it.
Today’s educators might be puzzled by what the first-century Temple in Jerusalem has to do with the business of running a Christian college or university in the twenty-first century. While it is true that the similarities are hardly exact (I’m certainly grateful not to have animal sacrifices on campus!), there are certain parallels that emerge. Both institutions require substantial resources (both human and fiscal) in order to operate at full capacity. Both institutions are presumably intended to serve their constituents by encouraging a strengthened connection to God. Both institutions can dominate the social and geographical landscape of their broader community. In short, there are some notable parallels between the work of the first-century Temple and the modern Christian university.
Thus, we might rightly ask, how would Jesus respond to the “college-industrial complex” of today’s Christian universities? If Jesus’s reactions to the Temple’s business practices are any clue, we might detect a word of caution directed to those of us entrusted with the operations and maintenance of a Christian university.
- Don’t take advantage of economically vulnerable individuals. In his critique of giving wealth to the Temple rather than assisting one’s family (Mark 7:10-13), his expulsion of those who took advantage of the poorest worshippers who could afford only the smallest sacrificial animals (Mark 11:15), and his observation that the poor widow felt compelled to give her whole livelihood (Mark 12:44), Jesus condemns the Temple for sustaining its business model at the expense of those who were most vulnerable due to their age, social standing, or poverty. While tuition-driven universities may always be susceptible to the siren call of raising tuition to cover costs, Jesus’s condemnation of the Temple offers a word of caution that such measures ought not come at the expense of our most economically vulnerable students or their families.
- Keep the focus on individuals, not on the institution. Jesus critiques scribes who pride themselves on positive public appearances and performances but nonetheless take advantage of specific individuals (Mark 12:38-40). For the administrators and trustees of today’s Christian universities, maintaining the institution’s public reputation might appear to be of paramount importance. Nonetheless, Jesus’s words caution against allowing institutional reputation to supersede concern for the individuals who comprise that institution. While failing to focus on the preservation of the institution might sound like organizational suicide, Ryan Bonnici writing for the Harvard Business Review observes that focusing first on the individual rather than the institution often yields unexpected benefits for the institution as a whole.
- Trust that God is bigger than the institution. To first-century residents of Jerusalem, the Temple would have undoubtedly seemed to be an indestructible cornerstone of city life. As the institution that could boast more than any of being blessed by God, its success would have seemed to many in the first-century as a foregone conclusion. Nonetheless, Jesus’s words of condemnation presaged what might have seemed unimaginable: the utter destruction of this storied institution in 70 CE. Jesus’s critiques of the Temple reveal a powerful theological truth: God is bigger than any institution, even the most revered and holy of all institutions. The same might be said of today’s Christian colleges. For as blessed as these institutions might appear, and for as important as it might seem to sustain them for perpetuity, the destruction of the Temple illustrates that God has always been bigger than any single institution. The attempt to tie the success of any one institution to the success of God ultimately does a disservice to the Divine.
Just like the Temple of the first century, the Christian college of the twenty-first century is entrusted with truly holy work. As such, the preservation of such institutions is certainly important. Nonetheless, if the lessons from the first-century Temple are to be taken to heart, then today’s Christian university faculty, staff, administrators, and trustees might do well to heed Jesus’s words and be willing to engage in business practices that, while seeming backward to contemporary economists, might more readily reflect the upside-down kingdom economics that Jesus’s ministry promoted.
