Introduction
In an era increasingly shaped by debates over corporate responsibility, stakeholder rights, and ethical capitalism, the moral foundations of business are once again under scrutiny. While contemporary management ethics often draws from secular philosophies or pragmatic frameworks, the Reformed Christian tradition offers a deeply rooted theological alternative. Two of the Reformed tradition’s confessional summaries—the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 (HC) and the Westminster Larger Catechism of 1647 (WLC)—offer rich insights into the structure of relational ethics that remain highly relevant for today’s business leaders, though not originally designed for economic instruction.[1]
At the heart of these catechisms lies a profound concern for ordered human relationships as reflections of divine authority. This is especially evident in their exposition of the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and mother” (Ex. 20:12). Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, suggests that the relationship between parents and children needs to be reciprocal.
When God requires parents to be honored, he at the same time demands that they so discharge the duties of parents as to be worthy of honor; and in thus enjoining the duties which are devolving upon parents, he also enjoins the duties of all others in authority, inasmuch as they are all comprehended in the term parents, as here used. So God in like manner enjoins the duties of children, when he commands them to honor their parents; and not only of children, but of all others in subjection, since God will have all those who are in positions of authority honored by those who are under them. ([1584] 1852, 576)
Jochem Douma, a Dutch Reformed theologian and ethicist, in his detailed examination of the Ten Commandments builds on Calvin’s interpretation of honoring parents or superiors. He emphasizes that this honor entails responsibilities such as “take to heart the instruction,” “show deference toward parents,” “loving them,” and “being faithful” (Douma 1996, 172–73). Notably, he describes the act of loving parents as “a form of gratitude, a way of giving back something to our parents for all they have meant and still mean to us” (Douma 1996, 173).
Far from restricting this commandment to familial relationships, the Reformed tradition interprets it as the ethical cornerstone for all structured relationships, including those found in business organizations. The WLC explicitly expands the scope, instructing in Question (Q.) 124 that “by father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth” (WLC, Q. 124, citing 2 Kings 5:13, Isa. 49:23, Gal. 4:19, among other texts) and emphasizing that inferiors owe “all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior” (WLC, Q. 127). This ethical structure offers more than a code of politeness—it presents a theological anthropology grounded in the image of God (Imago Dei) and God’s providential ordering of society. Abraham Kuyper, the towering Dutch theologian and statesman, captures this vision with clarity: “The honor we owe them is due neither because they are so excellent nor because we love them so much, but because they are placed over us by God… they are instruments; the organs of His will” (Kuyper 1894, 3:65).[2]
Douma (1996, 182) observes that, while the form of authority relationships has changed over time, the reality of such relationships continues to exist. He notes that our descriptions may now use different language but that the underlying principle of obedience remains. In Scripture the same term for “obey” is applied across various relational contexts: between parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and servants, and rulers and citizens (Luke 2:51; Rom. 13:1; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:9). Such a view asserts that authority in organizational relations—whether exercised by executives, regulators, or managers—is a divine vocation, not merely a contractual arrangement. Building on this theological conception of authority, we can now turn to contemporary approaches in business ethics, such as stakeholder theory, to see how they grapple with similar questions of moral responsibility and legitimacy.
As business ethics has evolved, particularly under the influence of stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984), there has been a growing demand for normative frameworks that go beyond instrumental utility. Stakeholder theory has effectively reoriented attention from shareholder primacy to broader ethical obligations toward all individuals and institutions affected by a firm’s operations, often based on principles of justice. Yet it often lacks theological depth, leaving unanswered questions about the source and legitimacy of authority, the nature of justice, and the moral obligations inherent in economic power.
This essay proposes that these catechisms—especially as interpreted by Reformed thinkers like Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583), Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), and Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)—offer a foundational moral vision for business rooted in divine command, communal responsibility, and redemptive purpose. Bavinck’s Christ-centered anthropology, Kuyper’s doctrine of societal spheres, and Ursinus’s emphasis on reciprocal duty all contribute to a vision of commerce as a venue for obedience, justice, and grace. Furthermore, by reinterpreting business relationships through the theological lens in terms of superiors, inferiors, and equals (WLC, Q. 126), this essay aims to offer Christian business leaders practical approaches for navigating complex stakeholder environments. This vision challenges both secular models of corporate governance and uncritical adaptations of managerial capitalism. In its place it proposes a biblically grounded, theologically rich, and ethically rigorous framework for Christian theories of management.
In the sections that follow we will explore how these Reformed teachings can be integrated into contemporary stakeholder theory. We will address the ethical duties of inferiors and superiors, reflect on power dynamics, and examine how a theology of obedience and justice can reshape corporate culture. Finally, we will propose a framework of normative business practice that faithfully embodies the imitation of Christ in the workplace.
Stakeholder Theory: Secular Ethics Meets Theological Insight
Stakeholder theory emerged in the late twentieth century as a challenge to the dominant model of shareholder primacy. First articulated by R. Edward Freeman in Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984), it offered a more holistic vision of business responsibility. Instead of focusing solely on maximizing shareholder value, Freeman argued that managers should attend to all groups affected by the firm’s operations—employees, suppliers, customers, communities, and regulators. Stakeholder theory invited businesses and managers to see themselves as participants in a web of mutual relationships.
Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) in their seminal work on the theory provided a comprehensive overview of various approaches to analyze the nature of the stakeholder relationships. They helpfully characterized stakeholder attributes in terms of power, legitimacy, and urgency. Mitchell et al. argued that “a party to a relationship has power, to the extent it has or can gain access to coercive, utilitarian, or normative means, to impose its will in the relationship” (1997, 865). They adopted Suchman’s definition of legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (1995, 574). Finally, urgency, which adds to the dynamic nature of stakeholder relationships, is “the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention” (1997, 867). This depends on two factors: (1) time sensitivity, meaning how unacceptable any delay in response would be to the stakeholder, and (2) criticality, meaning how significant the claim or relationship is to that stakeholder. Power gains authority through legitimacy, and it in turn gains exercise through urgency. Mitchel et al. (1997) concluded that power, legitimacy, and urgency are dynamic, interdependent attributes that collectively shape stakeholder salience within organizational contexts.
The stakeholder model quickly gained traction in business ethics. It posed two essential questions: What is the purpose of the firm? and To whom is management responsible? (Wicks 2014, 297). These questions disrupted long-held assumptions about the role of business in society. Firms were no longer seen as instruments of profit alone but as moral actors embedded in communities. Yet while stakeholder theory reshaped the language of business ethics, it often struggled to ground its moral commitments. Its normative vision—centered on justice, fairness, and mutual obligation—lacked a clear source of authority. As critics pointed out, appeals to fairness or care are compelling, but why should managers be bound by them? What ultimately obligates a firm to treat its stakeholders justly?
Normative stakeholder theory emerged in response to the predominant model of share-holder capitalism and claimed that all stakeholders possess intrinsic moral worth (Zakhem and Palmer 2017), meaning that their value exists in themselves rather than only in the benefits they provide to others. This contrasts with extrinsic or instrumental value, which is tied to the outcomes or advantages these stakeholders generate. A normative core (Ray et al. 2014), provides the ethical foundation of stakeholder theory by grounding it in moral principles, values, and rights that justify its approach to management. Stakeholder theory itself does not define these basic moral commitments but instead applies them to business practice, requiring alignment with a broader ethical framework. Zakhem and Palmer even claim that “stakeholder theory, in this sense, was never intended to provide a theoretical account of our most basic moral values or obligations, but rather is an attempt to operationalize those moral concepts within the context of business” (2017, 56). The specific ethical orientation chosen shapes both how stakeholder theory is interpreted and how it is put into practice. However, Zackem and Palmer argue that these ethical perspectives have a normative core that is “intended to provide a foundational account of the moral principles, values, and rights that would justify a stakeholder approach to management” (2017, 56). The authors argue, hence, that normative stakeholder theory has “two overarching goals: (1) to provide a theory of management that explicitly integrates business and ethical considerations, and correlatively, (2) to provide a theory of management that focuses on the intrinsic worth of and creating value for stakeholders, through some sense of equal treatment, and/or equal consideration” (2017, 56).
Furthermore, upon extensive analysis and evaluation of various ethical perspectives (Kantian, Contractarian, feminist ethics, and pragmatism), Zackem and Palmer conclude that although a unified normative perspective may be absent, stakeholder theory nevertheless provides a framework for grounding organizational action in ethical principles that facilitate the resolution of business conflicts. Their analysis, however, lacked reflection on normative cores stemming from religious wisdom, whereas Ray et al. (2014) argued that because religion is inherently normative and addresses fundamental questions of right and wrong, it can provide valuable insights for shaping normative stakeholder theory. Their assessment of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam suggests that at the core of all three religions lies the belief that personal interests, though legitimate, must remain secondary to obedience to God and the pursuit of the common good. How might the teachings of religious traditions deepen or correct the ethical foundations of stakeholder theory when secular philosophical frameworks reach their limits? How might theological conceptions of duty and ethical responsibilities, for example, enrich the moral vision of stakeholder theory?
Finally, Miles also reaffirmed the fluid nature of stakeholder relationships and concluded “that a universally accepted definition [of a stakeholder] can never be achieved” (2017, 39) and that various types or classifications of stakeholders are not strictly separate categories, as stakeholders may share characteristics across these groups. Thus, while each class is distinct, overlap among them is possible. For example, a vendor may hold more power than the customer, while minority shareholders often occupy weaker positions compared to management, despite management’s supposed duty to serve them.
This dynamic nature of stakeholder relationships is precisely why WLC’s approach to delineating specific duties as superiors (i.e., with power) or inferiors in particular circumstances of the stakeholder relationships (e.g., claimant or influencer) is so helpful. For instance, even when the power dynamics change and the customer may have more influence over the vendor (now an inferior), due to changing market conditions or regulations the aforementioned duties of the superior (i.e., now the customer) remain relevant and applicable. In line with the duties toward “inferiors” (WLC, Q. 124), the customer (e.g., an influential trucking transportation company) can act responsibly by blessing and commending the dealership (i.e., supplier) when it provides reliable service, for example, publicly recognizing the dealer’s commitment to on-time delivery of new trucks. This customer can also instruct and counsel by giving constructive feedback on maintenance packages or warranty terms, helping the dealer refine its offerings. Where the dealership falls short, such as delaying parts supply, the transportation company can reprove and discourage poor practices through honest communication or by holding back further orders until issues are addressed. Finally, in its role of protection and provision (WLC, Q. 124), the transportation company might help the dealership secure longer-term stability by signing multi-year procurement agreements, ensuring that the vendor has consistent business needed for ongoing operations.
Authority and Obedience: Reformed Teachings on Business Hierarchies
Reformed theology treats authority not as a human construct but as a divine institution. Within the ethical framework of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Larger Catechism, the fifth commandment establishes the moral order for structured relationships—not only within families but across all human interactions. This understanding is vital in organizational contexts, where individuals constantly navigate roles as superiors, inferiors, and equals, often based on conceptions of authority.
The Heidelberg Catechism instructs that God’s will in the fifth commandment is “that I honor, love, and be loyal to my father and mother and all those in authority over me; that I submit myself with proper obedience to all their good teaching and discipline; and also that I be patient with their failings—for through them God chooses to rule us” (HC, Q. 104). The WLC expands the term “father and mother” to include all those “who, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority” (WLC, Q. 124). This includes employers, government officials, senior colleagues, and any person occupying a leadership role. The catechism frames authority in moral and spiritual terms, not simply institutional or contractual ones. Respect and obedience are owed because authority reflects God’s own ordering of creation.
Such ethical clarity introduces a radical sense of duty in organizational life. Employees, for example, are called to show “all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior”; to imitate virtues; obey lawful commands; and to bear patiently with the failings of their superiors (WLC, Q. 127). This does not amount to blind submission, however. As Reformed commentators like Calvin and Douma clarify, obedience is bounded by God’s law. When human authority contradicts divine will Christians must resist unlawful orders, affirming the higher sovereignty of God.
Kuyper, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, adds theological weight to this duty of obedience by insisting that it must be offered not on the basis of personal admiration but out of reverence for God’s sovereign placement of individuals in positions of leadership and authority. “Even a father who grieves you or a ruler who… makes your life difficult must… be just as strictly and willingly respected by you” (Kuyper 1894, 3:65). This posture of respect is not naïve; it is grounded in the understanding that obedience ultimately serves divine order. In business terms this theology encourages a more thoughtful structure of authority. Hierarchies are not arbitrary or solely pragmatic—they are reflections of moral responsibility. Managers, for instance, do not merely lead projects; they bear spiritual obligations toward those under their care. Superiors must, according to the WLC (Q. 129), love, instruct, reward, and protect their subordinates: accountability to God undergirds every managerial action, rejecting any notion that leadership serves private ambition. Interestingly, organizational behavior literature on managerial authority is generally supportive of this vision. Simon, for example, views authority—“relationship between two individuals, one ‘superior,’ the other ‘subordinate’” (1997, 179)—not as coercive power but as a relational and rational construct that enables effective decision-making and coordination within organizations.[3]
This ethical framework also challenges modern business culture’s fascination with self-promotion and autonomy. The emphasis on mutual obligation, patience with failings, and imitation of virtue offers a counter-narrative to managerial individualism. Christian business leaders are called to act as shepherds, not merely strategists, shaping environments of justice, encouragement, and integrity. Moreover, the concept of inferiors’ duties invites fresh reflection on contemporary organizational compliance and employee conduct. Voluntary reporting of corporate failures, respect toward regulatory bodies, or internal discipline practices can be seen not merely as legal obligations but as spiritual disciplines that honor God’s structuring of society. Kuyper writes, “Obedience means that you do what you are told because you are convinced… [that the one in authority] bears responsibility for his own orders” (1894, 3:58). Such trust, when rightly placed, fosters healthy systems of mutual accountability and grace.
For example, when inferiors neglect these duties—through contempt, envy, or rebellion—they undermine the moral fabric of the organization. The Catechism warns against such attitudes, listing them as sins not only against humans but against the divine order itself (WLC, Q. 128). Contempt for authority, in this view, becomes not merely a workplace issue but a theological concern. Reframing business relationships through this moral lens reveals the depth of Reformed theological insight into institutional life. Roles of power and submission are not primarily functional; they are ethical callings. This understanding paves the way for a richer engagement with stakeholder theory, which has long searched for a normative basis for its ethical claims.
Reformed theology, with its emphasis on obedience to creational norms, offers a compelling answer. The moral demands of stakeholder theory resonate with the ethical framework of the Catechisms, which derive relational duties from God’s law, not social consensus. In this context stakeholders are not merely contractual partners or interest groups—they are neighbors in a moral community structured by divine command. Hence, the WLC’s tripartite division of relationships—superiors, inferiors, and equals—provides a theological grammar for stakeholder analysis. Rather than defining relationships through influence or transaction, the Catechisms define them through mutual moral obligation. The firm-regulator relationship, for example, can be understood as a superior-inferior dynamic, requiring obedience, fidelity, and patience on the part of the firm but also of the regulator. Conversely, the firm-supplier relationship might reflect the duties of a superior—protection, instruction, and fair reward—while also emphasizing the responsibilities of the supplier (e.g., an inferior in this context). Incorporating these categories allows stakeholder theory to reclaim a sense of transcendent accountability. Firms do not owe duties merely because stakeholders are useful or influential. They owe them because God has structured human life to require mutual care and submission. The fifth commandment thus becomes a cornerstone of ethical stakeholder engagement.
This theological reframing also strengthens the normative core of stakeholder theory. Scholars like Donaldson and Preston (1995) and Goyal (2022) have noted the theory’s three dimensions: normative (what is right), instrumental (what works), and descriptive (what is). Among these the normative dimension remains foundational. Reformed ethics aligns naturally with this emphasis, insisting that right conduct flows from obedience to God and imitation of Christ, not merely from strategic calculation. Furthermore, the Catechisms’ emphasis on community and relational integrity mirrors stakeholder theory’s claim that firms are not isolated actors but embedded communities. Kuyper strengthens this link, arguing that God lays the foundation for human society through structures like the family and, by extension, all institutions. “The fifth Commandment is more interwoven with the commandments that look to our earthly community,” he writes, emphasizing that mutual honor sustains the moral fabric of society (1894, 3:43).
Moreover, Kuyper identifies obedience as the seed of communal blessing. “It is from the family, it is from family life that human society and the national state grow,” he argues, “and the maintenance in this family of paternal authority is itself the foundation of all authority” (1894, 3:47). His point is not nostalgic but deeply theological: flourishing—a state of wholeness and thriving, grounded in harmony and shared well-being—begins when authority is honored and exercised justly. Hence, the integration of stakeholder theory with Reformed theology furnishes it with a more comprehensive and resilient ethical framework. Its appeals to justice, transparency, and relational stewardship are thus grounded in a coherent and theologically informed foundation. They rest on the enduring moral law of God, articulated in Scripture and explicated in the Catechisms. This foundation allows Christian business leaders to practice stakeholder engagement not as a strategy but as a vocation rooted in divine justice.
Power, Responsibility, and Justice: A Reformed Vision of Leadership
Within stakeholder relationships power asymmetries are inescapable. Governments regulate firms, firms negotiate with suppliers, executives manage employees, and competitors engage as equals vying for market position. Much of the existing literature on stakeholder theory acknowledges these dynamics, often focusing on how to balance competing interests or mitigate harm (Wicks 2014). However, the teachings of the Catechisms offer a deeper moral framework for understanding the ethical responsibilities that accompany such power structures. The Catechisms’ delineation of duties owed by superiors, inferiors, and equals is not merely descriptive but fundamentally prescriptive, drawing authority from divine command.
WLC Question 129 addresses power asymmetries and instructs that superiors must “love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; instruct, counsel, and admonish them; commend and reward those who do well[; and]… protect and provide for them in all things necessary for soul and body.” This articulation of leadership reframes managerial authority as a form of moral stewardship. Leadership within an organization, whether exercised in the executive suite or in regulatory oversight, is therefore not a license to control but a call to serve—a vocational charge to foster the flourishing of those under one’s care. Vos (2002, 350) highlights that authority in the Reformed tradition is inseparable from accountability, noting that the extent of one’s authority is directly proportional to their responsibility. This accountability is ultimately vertical—before God—even as it manifests horizontally in relationships with stakeholders.
Kuyper affirms this dual responsibility and regards obedience as the very essence of social cohesion. He writes, “The discipline of obedience binds both the household and the life of the nations together” (1894, 3:64), underscoring that authority, when rightly ordered, is a reflection of divine justice rather than an instrument of personal gain. Importantly, Kuyper does not romanticize authority; rather, he acknowledges the corrupting influence of sin. “It is therefore not strange at all that this power is abused,” he concedes, “but rather to be wondered at when it is not abused” (1894, 3:65). This sober realism invites Christian leaders to exercise self-examination and humility, recognizing that the moral legitimacy of their power hinges on its alignment with divine law and justice.
Justice, then, in this framework is not defined by consensus or utility but by conformity to God’s righteousness. Kuyper goes so far as to argue that the fifth commandment serves as the foundation for the “formal principle of justice among humans” (1894, 3:78), asserting that human justice is always derivative, a mere shadow of essential divine justice. This perspective challenges many modern corporate practices that treat power and authority as value-neutral tools for achieving efficiency. Instead, according to the Kuyperian framework, authority must always be exercised in ways that promote the dignity, welfare, and rights of those subject to it.
Interestingly, the Catechisms also provide guidance on the ethical pitfalls that threaten leaders. WLC Question 130 lists the “sins of superiors,” including “an inordinate seeking of their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure,” “commanding things unlawful,” and “misusing authority through harshness or provocation.” These vices are not administrative failures but are moral failings that dishonor both God and the office of leadership. They corrode trust, degrade human dignity, and undermine the moral legitimacy of institutions. Even among equals the Catechisms stress the necessity of moral integrity. Mutual relationships among peers—whether among executives, business partners, or competing firms—must be characterized by recognition of each other’s dignity and worth. Envy, contempt, or usurpation of pre-eminence are considered not simply unethical but sinful (WLC, Q. 132). Justice in these contexts is again rooted in theological claims: that every person bears the image of God and that all legitimate power must be exercised in conformity to divine standards. These teachings form a comprehensive vision of leadership marked by humility, justice, and grace. Business leaders, whether in positions of structural authority or partnerships of equals, are called not to mastery but to moral responsibility. Reformed theology, therefore, provides not only a critique of the misuse of power but a redemptive path forward—one that encourages leaders to imitate Christ by stewarding authority for the good of others and the glory of God.
Conclusion: Implications and Future Explorations
The Heidelberg and Westminster Larger Catechisms, when interpreted through the lens of Reformed theology, offer a normative framework for stakeholder theory that is both theologically grounded and ethically expansive. Their teachings on the fifth commandment, especially as developed by theologians like Ursinus, Kuyper, and Bavinck, provide a profound ethical foundation for structuring business relationships. Rather than viewing organizational dynamics through the narrow lens of contractual obligation or strategic advantage, the Catechisms frame them as moral relationships governed by divine authority, mutual responsibility, and the call to justice.
At the heart of this framework lies the recognition that every stakeholder relationship—whether between superiors and inferiors or among equals—is fundamentally relational and covenantal. The duties of superiors to instruct, care for, and reward those under their authority are inseparable from their responsibility to reflect God’s justice and mercy. Likewise, inferiors are called to obedience, reverence, and patience, not because superiors are infallible but because authority itself is instituted by God. This vision insists that power and submission are not merely tools of governance but expressions of moral virtue and spiritual formation.
This essay contributes to the academic discourse on business ethics by introducing a robust theological foundation for stakeholder theory. Drawing from the Reformed Christian tradition, it reframes organizational morality as participation in God’s ordered creation. Grounding ethical duty in divine command rather than social consensus, the paper strengthens the normative dimension of stakeholder theory and offers a coherent justification for moral obligations in business life. Integrating theological anthropology (Imago Dei), relational ethics, and Kuyper’s doctrine of societal spheres, the essay advances a vision of commerce as a moral vocation shaped by obedience, justice, and grace. It thus challenges secular paradigms of corporate governance by offering a theologically grounded, ethically rigorous model of leadership and enterprise oriented toward human flourishing and divine accountability.
The implications for contemporary business ethics are substantive. While stakeholder theory has rightly called attention to the ethical responsibilities firms have toward a broad array of constituents (Barney and Harrison 2020), it often lacks a sufficient moral anchor. The Catechisms fill this gap by rooting these responsibilities in divine command and theological anthropology. Kuyper’s (1894, 3:64) insight that obedience—not love alone—is the moral glue of society challenges prevailing business narratives that prioritize emotional intelligence over principled authority, positioning obedience not as authoritarianism but as covenantal fidelity.
Moreover, the concept of Shalom—a state of holistic flourishing rooted in justice, order, and mutual care—serves as a goal toward which business ought to aim. The Catechisms’ ethical vision aligns naturally with this telos. When firms treat employees, regulators, suppliers, and communities with dignity, they participate in the redemptive work of God’s kingdom. Bavinck’s notion of Christlike imitation, grounded in obedience to God’s law, urges Christian business leaders to see economic activity as a moral vocation. As Joustra (2024) explains, for Bavinck the imitation of Christ is not abstract moralism but the concrete shape of the Christian life—rooted in grace, embodied in justice, and directed toward the transformation of the world.
This moral vision also offers a corrective to the misuse of power. The Catechisms’ stark warnings against unjust commands, neglect of duty, and abuse of influence resonate deeply in a world plagued by corporate scandals and systemic inequality. Vos’s commentary reminds leaders that authority is not self-justifying; it is a trust from God that must be exercised for the good of others and in submission to divine law (Vos 2002, 350). Kuyper, likewise, cautions against spiritual pride and emphasizes that even the noblest office is vulnerable to corruption without continual reliance on God’s grace.
For leaders, authority is redefined as stewardship—a sacred trust to protect, guide, and bless those under their care. Leadership thus becomes an act of moral service rather than self-promotion. For followers, obedience is recast as conscientious submission rooted in reverence for God, coupled with the moral courage to resist unjust commands. Both leaders and followers are called to mutual gratitude, patience with failings, and respect grounded in the fifth commandment’s vision of ordered relationships. Organizations that embody this ethic will cultivate cultures of humility, accountability, and redemptive purpose, wherein every stakeholder interaction reflects God’s justice and grace. In summary, these teachings challenge the modern ethos of managerial autonomy and transactional compliance, replacing it with a vocation of faithful service, moral integrity, and relational harmony under divine authority.
In light of these insights Christian business leaders must ask new questions: What does it mean to lead not simply as a strategist or executive but as a servant accountable to God? How can virtues such as justice, humility, fidelity, and patience (Ursinus [1584] 1852, 580–83) shape policies, hiring practices, and external stakeholder engagement? How does virtue ethics contribute to the formation of stakeholder relationships and in contemporary multi-cultural or multi-religious workplaces? (Asatryan 2022). Furthermore, what impact do “other graces [which] include public righteousness, love between parents and children, knowledge of the moral law, knowledge of God, the possibility of cultural development, the arts, science” (Brock and Sutanto 2024, 89) have on the management of stakeholder relationships? How might corporate cultures be reimagined to reflect the redemptive possibilities of business as mission?
Several avenues remain open for further exploration. The tension between love and obedience, as highlighted by Kuyper, merits deeper theological and practical reflection. The integration of Reformed concepts such as vocation, common grace, and Imago Dei (Ray et al. 2014), into business education and leadership formation could reshape stakeholder relationship management in significant ways. Additionally, redemptive practices such as forgiveness, reconciliation, and grace in workplace conflict might provide the lived expression of the Catechisms’ theological vision. Ultimately, the Catechisms do more than offer abstract ethical principles. They invite a reordering of the business world according to the justice and mercy of God. Stakeholder relationships, when shaped by this vision, cease to be mere strategic alignments. They become opportunities for obedience, witness, and restoration—pathways through which Christian leaders can participate in the unfolding of Shalom.