Skip to main content

Among business disciplines, David J. Hagenbuch notes that marketing may be the field that is perceived least often as compatible with Christian vocation. However, when one considers that the central purpose of Christian vocation is reconciliation, that reconciliation is linked inextricably to exchange, and that marketing is the science that facilitates mutually beneficial exchange, it is right to suggest that marketing can be practiced as part of a Christian vocation. Because the practice of marketing does not always align with this normative conceptualization of the discipline, this article offers several suggestions for reconciling marketing’s sometimes disparate practical and theoretical components. Mr. Hagenbuch is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Messiah College.

In titling this paper “Marketing as a Christian Vocation,” I was struck by the notion that for many other disciplines, a similar choice of words would be much less controversial. For instance, would people be as skeptical of an article entitled “Social Work as a Christian Calling” or “Nursing as a Christian Vocation”? This question is not meant to suggest that these disciplines are uninteresting or not conducive to Christian service. In fact, the implication is exactly the opposite: To a great extent, people seem to accept these and many other fields as ones in which people readily do work that is honoring to God. Marketing, however, enjoys few such positive associations.

Indeed, for some, to associate marketing with Christian vocation represents something between paradox and blasphemy, analogous to “Money Laundering as a Christian Calling,” or “Pirating Software for Jesus.” A teaching colleague of mine, for example, once bantered, “Your class is called Marketing Principles? Isn’t that an oxymoron?” Also, during a sermon I heard a few years ago, the speaker remarked matter-of-factly, “Advertising is lying.” Even in an introduction to marketing textbook, a case study mentioned in passing that car salesmen are “the most untrustworthy people.” These isolated comments are not particularly troubling; however, when considered along with numerous works that have documented negative perceptions of marketing,1 the collective implications should be of concern to Christians in higher education. Marketing is a major at a large number of Christian colleges and universities, yet students often seem to be the recipients of a conflicting message that marketing is not an acceptable field in which to serve God. The tragedy of this miscommunication is that our world greatly needs individuals to practice marketing in a way that is true to the discipline’s theoretical foundation and is consistent with the central tenets of the Christian faith.

The main purpose of this paper is to elucidate the foundational compatibility between Christianity and marketing, thus supporting the discipline’s suitability as part of a Christian vocation. Unlike other works that have dealt with Christian responses to certain marketing-related ethical issues more superficially, this paper delves deeper into the core of both belief sets, those of marketing and of Christianity, by explicating two intimately related concepts, reconciliation and exchange. In doing so, the paper develops the following important linkage between Christian vocation and marketing: The main purpose of Christian vocation is reconciliation; reconciliation is related inextricably to exchange; exchange is the underlying social behavior that marketing directs; consequently, the proper practice of marketing facilitates mutually beneficial exchange, which fosters reconciliation and thereby supports Christian vocation. In addition, this paper suggests practical ways in which Christians can help to reconcile marketing practice to both the discipline’s normative theory and to appropriate societal expectations. Given this agenda, it is important to begin with a discussion of the paper’s key terms: vocation, reconciliation, marketing, and exchange. I will now treat the first two concepts, vocation and reconciliation, and support how they are intimately related.

Reconciliation: the Main Purpose of Vocation

Much has been written about vocation, and while it is not my intention to review the breath and depth of literature, I do feel the need to present my own understanding of the concept. Like many others, I see vocation as God’s calling for all of one’s life. Vocation derives from the Latin verb vocare, to call, and from a biblical perspective, that caller is God.2 It is important to note that this calling applies to every area of one’s life, as there is no distinction between sacred and secular.3 An individual’s vocation may include, for instance, his or her role as parent, spouse, sibling, deacon, scout leader, softball player, and choir member. As such, a vocation is a unique, individualized calling, often not discovered easily, that requires specific talents, offers true enjoyment, and accomplishes something of value.4

Of course, one’s occupation is also part of one’s vocation. Here my understanding of vocation is influenced by Lutheran theology, which suggests that almost any occupation may be part of a Christian calling.5 All work has the potential to be of service to God.6 Because the topic of this paper is “Marketing as a Christian Vocation,” the occupational component of vocation is this paper’s main focus. It is important to note, however, that marketing is not practiced exclusively as an occupation; marketing may be part of any number of other vocational roles.

Given the preceding description of vocation, one may conclude that every person’s vocation is different; God’s calling is always unique. Nevertheless, there is a sense that all Christian callings are united by a common purpose. Many see the unifying objective of vocation as loving God and one’s neighbors.7 I agree whole-heartedly with this assertion, which is based soundly on Jesus’ greatest commandments.8 It is every Christian’s calling to love God and to love others no matter what his or her specific vocation. I also offer, however, that the desired outcome of this love may be summarized aptly in a single concept: reconciliation. For me, the central purpose of vocation is reconciliation. The works of several Christian scholars as well as Scripture itself seem to support this belief that Christian vocation is fundamentally about living a life of reconciliation.

Most Christians are likely to agree that reconciliation is an essential, if not the most fundamental, component of the gospel,9 but what makes reconciliation integral to vocation? The writings of various scholars help to illuminate the important connection. Henlee Barnette contends that because all Christians have themselves been reconciled through Christ, they are called to be agents of reconciliation; she adds, “God calls the Christian with a holy calling and for a definite purpose (Romans 8:28; 9-11; Ephesians 1:11; II Timothy 1:9). His aim for mankind is that of redemption and reconciliation.”10 Douglas Schuurman supports the importance of reconciliation to vocation by maintaining that “the purpose of God’s call is for people of God to worship God and to participate in God’s creative and redemptive purposes for the world.”11 Gary Badcock suggests that “the Christian calling refers to the reorientation of human life to God through repentance, faith, and obedience.”12 Furthermore, Robert Cushman adds that reconciliation is not restricted to private redemption but includes the restoration of social structures, suggesting that Christian vocation should be seen as “positive engagement with the living Christ in the reconciliation of the whole creation.”13

The most compelling support for the inseparability of vocation and reconciliation, however, comes from Scripture. As 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 suggests, those who have been reconciled through Christ are called to practice reconciliation: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” Likewise, Colossians 1:18-20 speaks of Christ as the head of the church and the means through which all things are reconciled to God. It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that Christians, the members of Christ’s body, are called to supportive roles in that reconciliation.

Although the preceding discussion has begun to reveal my understanding of reconciliation, it is appropriate to define this complex construct more completely. My use of the term in this paper stems primarily from the New Testament meanings of three related Greek verbs:14 diallasso: to change; to renew friendship withone;15katallasso: to change; to exchange for an equivalent value; to return to favor those who are at variance; to adjust a difference;16 and apokatallasso: to bring back to a former state of harmony.17

The writings of several Christian scholars help to elucidate the biblical term further. For instance, in keeping with the idea of returning to a former state of harmony, Badcock suggests, “reconciliation in biblical terms means that we are no longer strangers or enemies [of God] but children and even friends.”18 In terms of a change or an exchange, Cristoph Schwöbel suggests that reconciliation involves exchanging wrath and enmity for love and peace.19 In addition, although reconciliation should occur first and foremost between an individual and God,20 this reconciliation with the divine is tied closely to individuals reconciling with each other.21

Barnette affirms the preceding point and adds, “The ministry of reconciliation, however, is not limited to bringing men to God, but extends to the reconciliation of men with men. Moreover, all economic, social, and political ideologies are to be captured for Christ.”22 Reconciliation, therefore, is fundamentally about restoring, building, and maintaining strong relationships,23 and as the following model illustrates, a Christian vocation understood in the broadest sense is one that supports reconciliation between oneself and God, oneself and others, others and God, and others and others.

Figure 1: Model of Reconciliation as Vocation

I have shared my understanding of two of this paper’s main constructs: vocation and reconciliation, arguing that the central purpose of vocation is reconciliation. The main question still remains, however: How can marketing be considered a Christian vocation? Furthermore, by defining vocation in terms of reconciliation, I suggest that marketing must be supportive of reconciliation if the discipline is to be considered a Christian vocation. A key transitional question, therefore, is: How does marketing support reconciliation? In order to address both of these questions, it is important to describe this paper’s third and probably most controversial construct, marketing, as well as the social behavior that marketing is meant to facilitate, exchange.

Exchange: The Focus of Marketing

The American Marketing Association (AMA) describes marketing as “an organizational function and set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.”24 From this concise yet comprehensive definition of marketing, I would like to extract an implicit concept that many in the field have identified as the core focus of marketing—exchange.25 Shelby Hunt confirms the centrality of exchange to marketing as he states, “the basic subject matter of marketing is the exchange relationship or transaction . . . marketing science is the behavioral science that seeks to explain exchange relationships.”26 Figure 2 provides a visual image of marketing’s relationship to exchange.

Figure 2: The Core Focus of Marketing

Marketing seeks to encourage exchange that benefits buyers and sellers equally. Unlike a zero-sum game in which one party must lose in order for the other to win, both parties improve their situations through the exchange.27 This mutually beneficial exchange begins by sellers first identifying and embracing the needs of buyers28 and then using that philosophy to guide choices related to: what is exchanged, where and when the exchange takes place, and how buyers and sellers share information related to the exchange. In doing so, marketing strives to maximize the value of the exchange, or the ratio of benefits received to costs incurred.29 The central purpose of marketing, therefore, is to facilitate valuable, or mutually beneficial, exchange.

The next logical question, then, is: How does exchange, the central focus of marketing, support reconciliation? Exchange is a fundamental human behavior that involves two or more parties each receiving something of value by offering something of value in return. The parties participate in the transaction voluntarily because all expect to be better off as a result.30 God established exchange as part of the created order.31 Even before the Fall, Adam and Eve offered their work and care for the Garden in exchange for its fruits. God also made humans with different talents and abilities, thereby necessitating that individuals and groups exchange with each other in order to lead productive lives. For example, 1 Kings 5 recount show Solomon and Hiram, King of Tyre, cooperated in exchanging their nations’ resources in order to build the Temple in Jerusalem. Likewise, the body of Christ, with its many different parts, serving a variety of complementary functions, seems to be an entity designed for exchange.32

Just as the need to exchange serves as a means for bringing individuals and groups into positive relationships, ongoing mutually beneficial exchange seems to be associated with the maintenance of strong interpersonal rapport. When parties are estranged, or not reconciled, they tend to avoid exchange. When spouses become alienated, they often fail to exchange words and affections. When nations become estranged, one of the first reactions is to curtail trade and diplomatic discourse. When buyers and sellers have disputes, products are seldom sold or purchased. “Confrontation demeans, destroys, and diminishes. Reconciliation results in growth, dignity, and mutual benefit to both parties.”33 In reconciled states there tends to be free-flowing, mutually beneficial exchange.

At a minimum, the phenomenon of exchange appears to be consistent with the concept of reconciliation. It also seems likely, based on the preceding examples, that exchange is a key ingredient of reconciliation and that reconciliation promotes exchange. Furthermore, one might even argue that reconciliation is exchange when one considers, as mentioned earlier, that the Greek New Testament meaning of reconciliation involves changing something relatively undesirable for something desirable, establishing a favorable state, and achieving value for all participants. So, by facilitating mutually beneficial exchange, marketing supports a God-given behavior that is consistent with, if not instrumental to, reconciliation. Presuming that the central purpose of vocation is reconciliation, the core of marketing appears uniquely suited to serve as part of a Christian calling. It is important to note that the preceding discussion describes what marketing should be ideally. This paper’s next section compares this normative description to actual marketing practice, both good and bad.

Reconciling Misconceptions of Marketing

Given the inherent consistency between marketing and Christian vocation, why do so many people still believe, as this paper’s introduction has suggested, that the discipline fosters estrangement, not reconciliation? Unfortunately, such attitudes toward marketing are not entirely unfounded. The blame, however, does not rest with the fundamental tenets of the discipline but with the actions that some people and organizations take under the auspices of marketing. Every day, marketers facilitate a variety of exchanges that benefit buyers and sellers equally. For example, to a great extent, marketing is the reason why consumers don’t have to drive to Battle Creek, MI to buy their breakfast cereal; a congregation is aware of its church’s upcoming Worship Arts Weekend; bread costs $2.50 a loaf, not $5.00; and people can see well despite poor vision.

Regrettably, however, some sellers, under the guise of marketing, promote exchanges that favor themselves disproportionately. It is reasonable to conclude that these types of exchanges encourage dissonance rather than reconciliation. It is also important to note, however, that this category of actions does not reflect the core purpose of marketing accurately, as previously developed.

In order to address the discipline’s apparent inconsistencies, it is helpful to distinguish inappropriate marketing practice from a proper conceptualization of the discipline. Such an aim is consistent with the work of Shelby Hunt, who differentiates positive marketing theory (actual observed marketing behavior) from normative knowledge of the discipline (what marketing strategy should be). Hunt further delineates two types of normative knowledge: rational normative, which is based on marketing’s fundamental tenets, and ethical normative, which stems from moral principles.34 The following section seeks to strengthen the argument further that marketing supports reconciliation and, therefore, can be part of a Christian vocation, by analyzing the positive and normative dimensions of three common marketing misconceptions in light of the preceding framework.

First Misconception:
Marketing Theory Encourages Selling Things to People that They Do not Need

One of the most common indictments of marketing theory is that it supports selling products to people that they do not need. Of course, at the root of this issue is the question of what constitutes a need. In the strictest sense, people need very few things to survive: air, water, food, clothing, shelter. The point, however, is not to argue that marketing is constrained by too narrow a definition of “need.” One can concede that people need things beyond basic elements of survival; for example, people may need cars for transportation or need phones for communication, yet some products still seem to exceed the limits of what represents reasonable consumption. For instance, in a recent catalog, toy retailer F.A.O. Schwartz offered a $15,000 child-size Mercedes with rack-and-pinion steering and a $30,000 playhouse with bay windows.

Most people hear of these items and conclude quickly that there is no legitimate need for such products. I tend to agree with this judgment and add that ultimately such exchanges foster estrangement, not reconciliation. Although many kids would be thrilled to take ownership of a $30,000 playhouse, discord is likely to occur as parents rationalize the extreme gift as a reason for spending less time with their children, as envious friends become disenchanted with their own more modest toys, and as the young playhouse recipients develop a distorted view of money and possessions.

Likewise I will argue, however, that rational normative marketing knowledge also rejects the sale of such products. Although these exchanges may appear first to be mutually beneficial, they really are not. The probable outcomes described above and others like them (for example, children begin to lose interest in the playhouse after a few weeks) suggest that a family will never realize $30,000 worth of benefits from the purchase. The notion that the exchange is really not mutually beneficial should be reason enough to dissuade a marketer from promoting such a transaction, even if actual marketing practice sometimes suggests otherwise.

When practiced in a way that is consistent with its core tenets, marketing never seeks to sell things to consumers that they do not need but rather supports exchanges that produce real value for buyers and sellers. As such, marketing facilitates a virtually limitless number of valuable exchanges, helping to meet needs that vary from employment to entertainment, from food to friendship, and from education to esteem. As developed earlier, these exchanges themselves may play a role in reconciliation. Furthermore, having lower-level needs met may allow people to fulfill higher-level needs35 and, perhaps, other forms of reconciliation.

Second Misconception:
Marketing Theory Supports Deception in order to Get People to Buy Products

A second common criticism of marketing theory is that it advocates using deception to persuade people to buy products. This criticism is perhaps levied most often at advertising, marketing’s primary form of mass communication. First, it is important to understand that advertising is advocacy, and advertisers have a right to put their best foot forward, or to present their products in a favorable light.36 Consumers are justified, however, in bemoaning television commercials that suggest an SUV can climb an unrealistically steep and treacherous hill or magazine ads whose models’ glistening white teeth are due more to photo retouching than use of the advertised dental product. It is truly regrettable that there are instances of deception in some marketing promotion, for these types of practices certainly do not foster reconciliation. On the contrary, deceptive marketing communication is likely to stir resentment among buyers37 who will terminate the exchange relationships when the deception is discovered. Unfortunately, such deception might also lead to estrangement in other relationships. For instance, family members may resent the purchaser for “wasting money,” or consumers might grow to distrust marketers in general.

The practice of deceptive communication does not constitute the majority of positive marketing practice, however, nor does it represent normative marketing knowledge, the reasons for which are very similar to those outlined in the previous section. As inferred earlier, consumers who realize they have been deceived are unlikely to be satisfied with the exchange in question and, when possible, will try to avoid further association with that particular seller, and sometimes with that entire category of sellers. Deceptive communication is, therefore, antithetical to marketing’s goals of facilitating mutually beneficial exchange and forging positive long-term relationships.

In contrast, when marketing communication is practiced with integrity, as it often is, buyers and sellers benefit and reconciliation is supported. For example, there are tens of thousands of ads that inform consumers realistically and accurately of potential exchanges such as ones involving sales of breakfast cereals, releases of newly published books, and meetings of single parent support groups. Honest marketing communication, therefore, directly and indirectly supports positive relationships, or states of favor, among a variety of different parties. Such marketing facilitates exchange and reconciliation.

Third Misconception:
Marketing Theory Suggests that a Given Product should be Sold to Everyone

A third and final misunderstanding of marketing theory is that it encourages sellers to try to persuade all consumers to adopt their product offerings. It is true that sellers can potentially increase their own rewards by benefiting a greater number of buyers, and corporations often are under pressure to grow, which may mean expanding their markets and reaching more consumers. Unfortunately, there are instances of sellers trying to push their products outside a reasonable circle of consumers. For example, many people have received direct mail pieces that seemed entirely misdirected, such as a couple renting an apartment receives a mailing for new vinyl replacement windows, or a single, middle-age man receives a postcard announcing a sale at a teen girls’ clothing store.

These examples seem rather benign, yet it would be difficult to argue that they support reconciliation, and other more intrusive promotions may actually provoke estrangement. For instance, the national Do-Not-Call List appears to reflect many consumers’ disdain for the telemarketing of products that are often irrelevant to the consumers’ needs. These types of examples do, unfortunately, represent actual marketing behavior to some extent. Such practices do not, however, represent the discipline’s normative knowledge, or what marketing strategy should be.

In marketing, the quantity of prospective consumers should be secondary to the qualities of the consumers. The main reason that quality supercedes quantity is that not all buyers want or need the same things, and marketing is predicated upon creating beneficial exchanges, or meeting people’s needs. In the aggregate, consumer demand tends to be divergent and heterogeneous,38 which should lead a marketer to segment the whole market into smaller groups of more homogenous buyers who do have similar needs39 and to target only that group of consumers whose needs the marketer is best suited to meet.40 In addition, qualities of consumers are important because marketing theory values people and relationships,41 a focus that encourages marketers to demonstrate care and compassion in their exchanges.

These market segmentation and target marketing strategies offer benefits both to buyers and sellers. First, by targeting a smaller and more homogenous group of consumers, organizations are able to satisfy those consumers’ preferences more precisely and effectively.42 Such need fulfillment is, of course, appealing to consumers. Second, organizations benefit by being able to make more efficient use of their limited resources, which enhances their profitability.43 It is unreasonable for sellers to try to sell to all potential buyers, and it is impractical for firms to try to bring about a convergence of divergent consumer demand.44

When market segmentation and target marketing are employed, reconciliation is supported again. Consumers tend not to become disgruntled with marketers because consumers receive promotional messages for items in which they are interested. For example, a 30-year-old mother reading Good Housekeeping sees an ad for a vehicle with special child safety features, or a teenager listening to Christian radio hears an ad announcing the release of one of her favorite artist’s new CDs. In such instances, marketing directly cultivates positive relationships between buyers and sellers. Furthermore, to the extent that marketing helps to fulfill some of consumers’ basic needs, the discipline also enables people to move to higher-level need fulfillment, including that of other social needs.45 Such marketing facilitates exchange and reconciliation.

Implications: The Roles of Christians in Reconciling Marketing

Having developed and supported the legitimacy of marketing’s claim to Christian vocation, there remains the practical question of how the day-to-day practice of marketing can be reconciled both to the field’s normative theory and to proper societal expectations of the discipline. More specifically, given this article’s focus and the readership of Christian Scholar’s Review, an even more relevant question considers the role that believers might play in redeeming, or reclaiming, the marketing function. There is, of course, no simple prescription for resolving the deep-rooted and longstanding tensions surrounding marketing. In order to move toward reconciliation, it is important that attitudes toward the discipline change for both marketers and consumers, given that exchange is a social phenomenon that involves two or more parties. To that end, the following paragraphs outline how three main groups of Christian stakeholders can encourage marketing’s reconciliation.

Christian Higher Education

Perhaps the most obvious place to start with recommendations for change is within Christian colleges and universities, where a large number of future leaders in business and other fields develop long-lasting attitudes toward the discipline. Business faculty should take the lead, first in debunking the belief that marketing is simply advertising and selling, a notion that unnecessarily relegates the discipline to a narrow promotional role. Instead, Christian-business educators must help their own students, as well as students and faculty from other disciplines, learn about the true nature, or full scope, of marketing; that is, that marketing involves optimizing decisions related to products, distribution, pricing, and communication in order to best meet consumers’ needs, thereby creating mutually beneficial exchange. Likewise, business faculty should help consumers across campus recognize and appreciate how marketing activities make possible the products and services upon which everyone depends daily, for example, food, clothing, and transportation. This education must, of course, start in the classroom, but should then extend into other venues that reach more interdisciplinary audiences, such as public lectures, alternative chapels, seminars, panel discussions, collaborative research, and service projects.

The Church

As implied earlier, the Church is at times not an especially friendly environment for businesspeople, meaning that marketers, in particular, can be made to feel that their discipline undermines biblical teaching and Christian values. Some of this perceived conflict stems from the same narrow stereotyping of marketing described above, which can be addressed in similar ways. Beyond these measures, it is important for pastors and other Church leaders to affirm the legitimate and helpful roles of marketers and other Christian businesspeople within their congregations. This movement toward broader acceptance might begin by recognizing the precedent for “biblical businesspeople,” for example, Job (a livestock magnate;Job 1:3), Lydia (a textile merchant; Acts 16:14), and Jesus (a carpenter/tradesman;Mark 6:3). Successful Christian businesspeople also should be encouraged to excelin the “grace of giving” (2 Corinthians 8:7), a spiritual gift that many possess, which can assist the Church’s ministries greatly. In addition, the Church should appreciate the potential that marketers and other Christian business people have to utilize their discipline-specific skills to further the Church’s mission. For instance, many churches can use help in researching community needs, branding new programs, and promoting unique ministries.

Christians in Business/Marketing

The third group of stakeholders consists of Christian marketers themselves. The main way that these individuals can help to reconcile the discipline is by practicing it according to the normative theory described throughout this paper. Positive examples of mutually beneficial exchange will speak volumes more than any verbal defense of the discipline. In addition, it is helpful to reiterate one specific biblical guideline that lies at the heart of reconciliation—the Golden Rule: Treat others the way that you want to be treated, or as Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself”(Mark 12:31). In following this one principle, Christian marketers will also uphold several other important mandates effectively, for instance, thinking long-term, considering all parties affected by one’s actions, and putting people ahead of things. Ultimately, such a focus will produce the mutually beneficial exchange and reconciliation this entire paper has sought.

Concluding Thoughts

To summarize, I have argued that reconciliation is the central purpose of Christian vocation; therefore, an occupation or discipline must support reconciliation inorder to be part of a Christian calling. Furthermore, I have attempted to establish that marketing, through its facilitation of mutually beneficial exchanges, is consistent with and supportive of reconciliation. Consequently, I have maintained that marketing can be part of a Christian vocation.

I would like to add that the discussion of whether marketing can be a Christian calling is vitally important not just for Christians who work or intend to work in marketing, but for everyone. The basis for this sweeping claim is that marketing involves and affects everyone. Although relatively few people practice marketing as an occupation, virtually everyone is a marketer of something. While individuals may not market products in the commercial sense, they do market their personal services and ideas. In addition, every living person participates in exchanges from a consumer ’s perspective.46

Furthermore, marketing has a tremendous impact on our world’s social and economic structures. Many believe that business is the world’s most dominant institution,47 and marketing, which is at the heart of commerce, may be the quintessential business discipline. The power and influence of marketing is immense. Many of the world’s largest corporations generate revenues of more than $200 billion a year and employ hundreds of thousands of people in the process of exchanging their products and services. While some might view this influence with dismay, a more enlightened perspective envisions the potential that marketing has to help overcome many societal woes.48 When understood and practiced as part of a Christian vocation, marketing directs the God-given phenomenon of exchange rightly, affording a unique opportunity to support reconciliation in our world. Christian higher education should be a leader in encouraging individuals to practice marketing as part of their divine calling.

Cite this article
David J. Hagenbuch, “Marketing as a Christian Vocation: Called to Reconciliation”, Christian Scholar’s Review, 38:1 , 83-96


  1. Kathleen Cholewka, “Survey Says: Some Sales Execs are Liars,” Sales & Marketing Manage-ment 153 (February 2001): 18; Richard N. Farmer, “Would You Want Your Son to Marry aMarketing Lady?” Journal of Marketing 41 (January 1977): 15-18; Ian Ryder, “Seven Key Chal-lenges for Today’s Communicators,” Strategic Communication Management 7 (December 2002/January 2003): 20-23.
  2. Gary D. Badcock, The Way of Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998); ShirleyJ. Roels, “The Christian Calling to Business Life,” Theology Today 60 (October 2003): 357-369;Leland Ryken, “Work as Stewardship,” in On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Re-sources for Ethics in Economic Life, ed. Max L. Stackhouse, Dennis P. McCann, and Shirley J.Roels, with Preston N. Williams (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 84-86.
  3. Badcock, The Way of Life; Alexander Hill, Just Business: Christian Ethics for the Marketplace(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997); Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987).
  4. Michael Novak, Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life (New York: The Free Press,1996), 34-36.
  5. Badcock, The Way of Life.
  6. Luther’s Works: Volume 3, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 15-20, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis,MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1961), 321; Robert A. Wauzzinski, “The Gospel, Business,and the State,” in Biblical Principles & Business: The Foundations, ed. Richard C. Chewning(Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1989), 203-222.
  7. Badcock; Douglas J. Schuurman, Vocation: Discerning Our Callings in Life (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004).
  8. Matthew 22:36-40.
  9. James Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (New York: George H. Doran Com-pany, 1918). Charles T. Matthewes, “The Academic Life as a Christian Vocation,” Journal ofReligion 79 (January 1999): 110-121.
  10. Henlee H. Barnette, Christian Calling and Vocation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,1965), 20.
  11. Schuurman, 18.
  12. Gary D. Badcock, The Way of Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 9.
  13. Robert E. Cushman, Faith Seeking Understanding: Essays Theological and Critical (Durham,NC: Duke University Press, 1981), 225-226.
  14. James Strong, Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary (Winterbourne, ONT: Online Bible, 1993);William E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words (Nash-ville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1940)
  15. Matthew 5:24.
  16. Romans 5:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Colossians 1:21.
  17. Ephesians 1:10, 2:16; Colossians 1:20-21; Philippians 2:10.
  18. Badcock, 30.
  19. Cristoph Schwöbel, “Reconciliation: From Biblical Observations to Dogmatic Reconstruc-tion,” in The Theology of Reconciliation, ed. Colin E. Gunton (London: T&T Clark Ltd., 2003),16.
  20. Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation.
  21. Matthewes, “The Academic Life as a Christian Vocation.”
  22. Barnette, Christian Calling and Vocation, 20-21.
  23. Wayne T. Alderson and Nancy Alderson McDonnell, Theory R Management (Nashville, TN:Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1994); Colin E. Gunton, “Towards a Theology of Reconciliation,” in TheTheology of Reconciliation, ed. Colin E. Gunton (London: T&T Clark Ltd., 2003), 167-174.
  24. The American Marketing Association, “Marketing Definitions,” (August 2004), /content4620.php (accessed August 9, 2006).
  25. Wroe Alderson and Miles W. Martin, “Toward a Formal Theory of Transactions andTransvections,” Journal of Marketing Research 2(May 1965): 117-127; Richard P. Bagozzi, “Mar-keting as Exchange,” Journal of Marketing 39 (October 1975):32-39; Philip Kotler, “A GenericConcept of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing 36 (April 1972): 46-54; Charles W. Lamb, Jr.,Joseph F. Hair, Jr., and Carl D. McDaniel, Marketing, 7th ed. (Mason, OH: South-Western,2004).
  26. Shelby D. Hunt, Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2002), 132.
  27. George S. Day, Strategic Market Planning: The Pursuit of Competitive Advantage (St. Paul, MN:West Publishing Company, 1984).
  28. George S. Day, “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations,” Journal of Marketing 58(October 1994): 37-52; Ajay K. Kohli and Bernard J. Jaworski, “Market Orientation: The Con-struct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications,” Journal of Marketing 54 (April1990): 1-18; Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong, Principles of Marketing, 8th ed. (Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999); Philip Kotler and Sidney J. Levy, “Broadening the Con-cept of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing 33 (January 1969): 10-15.
  29. Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, Marketing, 7th ed.
  30. 0Philip Kotler, Marketing Management: The Millennium Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2000).
  31. Roels, 359.
  32. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.
  33. Alderson and McDonnell, xv.
  34. Hunt, Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory.
  35. Abraham H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review 50 (July 1943):370-396.
  36. Edward D. Zinbarg, Faith, Morals, and Money: What the World’s Religions Tell us about Ethicsin the Marketplace (New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2001).
  37. Schuurman.
  38. Wendell R. Smith, “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Mar-keting Strategies,” Journal of Marketing 21 (July 1956): 3-8..
  39. Theodore Levitt, The Marketing Imagination (New York: The Free Press, 1986)
  40. Day, Strategic Market Planning: The Pursuit of Competitive Advantage .
  41. Martin Christopher, Adrian Payne, and David Ballantyne, Relationship Marketing: BringingQuality, Customer Service, and Marketing Together (Oxford, England: Butterworth-HeinemannLtd., 1993); Jonathan R. Copulsky and Michael J. Wolf, “Relationship Marketing: Positioningfor the Future,” Journal of Business Strategy 11 (July/August 1990): 16-20; Christian Grönroos,“Quo Vadis, Marketing? Toward a Relationship Marketing Paradigm,” Journal of MarketingManagement 10 (July 1994):347-360; Michael D. Johnson and Fred Selnes, “Customer Portfo-lio Management: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Exchange Relationships,” Journal of Market-ing 68 (April 2004): 1-17.

  42. Smith, 3-8.
  43. Yoram Wind, “Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research,” Journal of Marketing Re-search 15 (August 1978): 317-337.
  44. Smith, 3-8.
  45. Maslow, 370-396.
  46. Kenneth S. Kantzer, “God Intends His Precepts to Transform Society,” in Biblical Principles& Business: The Foundations, ed. Richard C. Chewning (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress,1989), 22-34.
  47. 7William H. Shaw and Vincent Barry, Moral Issues in Business, 10th ed. (Belmont, CA: ThomsonWadsworth, 2007); On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Eco-nomic Life.
  48. Novak, 37; Roels, 357-369

David J. Hagenbuch

Messiah University
Mr. Hagenbuch is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Messiah College.