Competition

Competition is a fact of everyday life. Students compete for academic honors by scoring high marks in examinations. Athletes compete in a race, and only the first three runners past the finish line receive prizes of recognition (see Sports). Businesses compete for a market share of their products and services. Churches compete for the attention and voluntary support of adherents in the midst of a pluralistic, multireligious society. Nations compete for economic advantage in the global village. But what do we mean by competition? Is it always, or normally, negative? Can we construct a theology of competition?

The negative consequences of competition in society are easily identified, especially in business. Competition in the corporate world forces companies to reengineer in order to survive, often leading to loss of jobs (see Firing). Unionized employees negotiate for better compensation, but the prospects for job security are increasingly jeopardized by demands for greater benefits. Consumers benefit from competitive pricing, but sometimes at the expense of small businesses unable to offer the volume discount promised by chain stores in their weekly advertisements.

At the personal level, our children compete in examinations and sports. Students strive for a place at the university based on their academic achievements in high school. Undoubtedly these harsh realities affect our perspective on priorities and purposes in personal life. Should we pursue a “successful life” by embodying an unbridled competitive spirit (see Success)?

Beyond Definition?

The word competition has a history. As the Oxford English Dictionary notes, the root word compete derives from the Latin competo, which in its original sense means “to fall together, coincide, come together, be convenient or fitting, be due.” But by the sixteenth century it took on a stronger sense of engagement with another person, thus “to enter into or be put in rivalry with, to vie with another in any respect.” Subsequently, it came to be used “to strive with another, for the attainment of a thing, in doing something.” In order to achieve a certain end or goal, we strive with another person, and in the process we may overcome obstacles or challenges, whether personal or impersonal. But these definitions fail to account for the complex character of human competition as it involves biological, psychological, rational, voluntary and social factors.

A theoretical understanding of competition must consider the human situation. The field of sociobiology, represented by E. O. Wilson, distinguishes two modes of competition, scramble and contest. The former is exploitative, without universal rules of conduct governing the scramble for limited resources. The latter involves a conscious struggle for appropriating specific resources and thus permitting a winner in a contest competition. When a group of boys scramble for coins thrown on the ground, a contest ensures certain rules of behavior and predicts certain agreed-upon outcomes, such as winner-take-all. But an evolutionary model of competition that assumes the commonality of animals and humans competing for survival for limited resources appears to make some sense, but it is incomplete, especially with regard to the ambiguous motivation of human beings.

Competition has a moral character; individuals are able to exercise self-control in limiting or suspending pernicious kinds of aggressive competition. Often this is not done. Examples in the Bible of people striving with one another for personal advancement in unbridled sibling competition include Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, and James and John. The story of Joseph is especially illuminating. Joseph’s brothers schemed to eliminate him as they competed for parental attention and acceptance. Joseph was both a victim and a victor. But the biblical account suggests that a higher purpose determined the outcome (Genesis 50:20). Whereas the brothers’ attempts at destroying Joseph’s future seemed obviously malicious, the unintended consequence of Joseph’s fortune pointed to a divine drama with significant benefits for the extended family.

Inside Competition

Why is it important for human beings to act in a competitive manner? Psychological explanations point to the need to gain recognition, approval and acceptance. Along this line public demonstrations of competitive behavior are often motivated by a desire to overcome weakness, helplessness and loss of individuality. So Stuart Walker concludes that “competitors think of themselves as being primarily motivated to develop, demonstrate, and enjoy competence” (p. 4). In other words, competitive behavior is largely about winning and about public awareness, regardless of the outcome. Walker has possibly overstated the case, since it is conceivable that an individual might run a race for the sake of proving to himself a level of achievement associated with the sense of excelling in a particular field of sport rather than merely winning public recognition.

The difficulty in determining actual motivations in competitive conduct may be due in part to the ambiguities and complexities of human behavior. There is more to motivation than the individual. Greek ideals exemplified in Aristotle’s notion of human good and in Plato’s articulation of timeless virtue illustrate the potential of personal actions. Values, standards and ideals are not created in a vacuum but are shaped by social and personal experiences. Therefore, competition and cooperation are not necessarily antithetical in a given society. In fact, anthropologists like Margaret Mead have described the relative significance of both types of behavior in tribal groups. Mead concludes that

competitive and cooperative behaviour on the part of individual members of a society is fundamentally conditioned by the total social emphasis of that society, that the goals for which individuals will work are culturally determined and are not the response of the organism to an external, culturally undefined situation, like a simple scarcity of food. (p. 16)

If we accept the cultural dimension without denying the natural disposition inherent in human behavior, then we can recognize how competition and cooperation may take place simultaneously. This happens when an athlete competes with others while cooperating with members of his or her own team to challenge their opponents. What is important here is the impact of cultural and structural factors in determining the outcome for a particular group of individuals. While some societies exhibit cooperative characteristics, others appear more competitive (Mead, p. 511).

The Protestant Work Ethic

Not only culture but even religion influences competitive behavior. The classic explanation of competition was given by Max Weber. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber accounts for the impact of theological ideas on human behavior and social life. He sees the Reformation as leading ultimately to the emergence of a capitalist economy in Europe. Weber’s basic hypothesis revolves around the notion of divine election as a key theological idea that influenced the moral and ethical outlook of Protestant Christians. In particular, he suggested that the believer needed concrete confirmations for his experience of salvation. Therefore, individuals took hold of the opportunities for work, investment and industrious activity in order to produce tangible rewards of achievement that could be interpreted as divine approval. In other words, divine blessing in this life indicated positive assurance of salvation for eternity.

Participation in God’s gift of salvation demanded a conscious performance in this world—hard work, prudence, frugal stewardship and productive output. Weber was careful to highlight the affinity between a certain work ethic and the emergence of a successful middle class. While he was not necessarily arguing for a direct cause-effect relationship between the Protestant work ethic and the rise of capitalism in Europe, Weber persuasively demonstrated a strong correlation. His conclusion remains compelling: the emerging culture of capitalism was in a complex but significant way influenced by the religious idea of divine election and by the ethical orientation to competing for success in this world. In the Work Ethic article Weber’s thesis is more completely critiqued. What is needed now is to develop a fully biblical approach. Thus far, we have considered the lexical, functional, biological, psychological, cultural and religious factors influencing our concept of competition. But how does the Bible speak of competition? Can we construct a theology of competition? When is competition good, even holy?

Competition in the Old Testament

The Bible is full of competitive activity. The Old Testament stories, ranging from the exodus to the exile, depict the struggle of God’s people in the face of religious pluralism and political conflicts. The challenge of maintaining loyalty to the one true God was central to the story of covenant faithfulness. Recognizing the Old Testament drama of divine contention for Israel’s allegiance, each narrative uncovers a competitive tension between Yahweh and the diabolical schemes of Satan. The life of Job reveals a cosmic competition in which Satan is granted limited jurisdiction over the circumstances of Job and his family. Israel had to choose, time and again, the one true God and to obey his revealed laws for holy living, to give up popular myths and religious idolatry in favor of the distinct lifestyle demanded by the God of Abraham, Moses and David.

Thus incidents like Aaron and the golden calf and David and Goliath illustrate the danger of competing ideas about God. On both occasions, the people were motivated by fear, helplessness and the need for security. These motivations were largely inspired by an inadequate view of God and an inflated view of the enemy. Moses and David contested for the people’s allegiance to God as a prerequisite for competing against their enemies. Narratives such as the exodus and David and Goliath highlight the persevering character of God in demanding total allegiance in the midst of competing forces. In these instances competition in the religious life of Israel issued from this theological understanding.

Competition in the New Testament

In the New Testament Paul uses the metaphor of an athlete engaged in a race (1 Cor. 9; Phil. 3), and Jesus teaches with parables about the danger and potential of competitive behavior (Luke 16:1-8; Luke 19:12-27). The parable of the shrewd manager focuses on the resourcefulness of an employee facing malicious accusations of impropriety and eventual dismissal. By turning his employer’s creditors into friends, he transformed hostile circumstances into opportunities for survival. Competitive behavior in this instance was marked by a streetwise motivation to strive for economic security. Jesus commended the shrewd manager for his prudent actions. In the words of Eugene Peterson’s translation,

The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way—but for what is right—using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you’ll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior.

Not only does Jesus acknowledge the competitive nature of living in the world, but he recommends a streetwise approach to survival that overcomes the destructive potential of competition. For the Christian, this competitive advantage is gained by a circumspect awareness of the issues and the relationships affected by changing circumstances. Sometimes, cooperating with our competitors may produce positive results. In contrast hostile, predatory competition bent on destroying relationships and institutions often leads to unscrupulous actions. When a salesperson exaggerates the value of a product, an unwitting consumer might succumb to deceptive persuasion. However, when the product fails to deliver in performance, the reputations of both salesperson and company are greatly discredited. In the final analysis, competing for consumer confidence is more important than sales profits. Companies and employees succeed in a competitive economy by delivering quality products and services and thus ensuring customer satisfaction.

There is more in the parable of the ten minas (Luke 19:12-27) than stewardship of investments. Jesus deliberately draws attention to the character of each servant who was given a mina. The one who earned ten more was rewarded with responsibility for ten towns. Similarly, the servant who invested the operating capital and earned five more minas was recognized for his achievement. In turn, he also gained additional responsibility for five towns. Finally, the parable focuses on the servant who avoided the risk of investment. Out of fear, he opted to deposit the money in an unsecured and unprofitable place. The master condemned the foolish attitude of this servant and, in an unexpected manner, deprived him of the asset by transferring the money to the servant who gained ten.

While the narrative appears similar to the parable of the talents, what is unique about this parable is the circumstance surrounding the events. The master had to secure authorization from a distant ruler in order to return with legitimate governing powers over the region. The period of absence was marked by protests from the local citizens as well as tensions among the servants over the master’s instructions. How should they deal with local resistance to the master’s sphere of influence? At the same time, how would they invest the capital entrusted to them in the face of competition? The servants were competing with external uncertainties and with internal challenges. Each servant had equal opportunity to invest, but the social and economic circumstances were not necessarily favorable. High standards of achievement were demanded by the master, thereby increasing the pressure to perform. How do we explain the variable productivity of the servants despite equal capital investment opportunity? What accounts for the difference in results? Why did the master reward the servant with ten minas additional capital taken from the unproductive servant?

Good Competition

As the parable suggests, competition can bring out the best and the worst in each person, depending on the motivations. Jay Newman, in his study of competition in religious life, agrees with Simmel’s sociological thesis that competition “not only provides the individual with the occasion for self-realization and self-respect, but simultaneously presents him with an incentive and an opportunity to contribute to social progress” (p. 48). In other words, competition enhances the value of human relationships by cultivating the best from each person. Unlike the destructive potential of conflict, one positive outcome of competition is excellence in character and in performance.

Sports and athletic activities are usually associated with the idea of competition. In a race, every runner aims for first prize. Apart from the first three places, all other contestants are not even recognized. Paul’s metaphor of the athlete in the coliseum assumes the competitive spirit. However, he does not appeal to the unbridled side of aggressive competition. In 1 Cor. 9:24-27, Paul compares himself to an athlete in training for the games, not unlike present-day sportsmen preparing for the Olympic marathon races. It seems Paul is urging for a competitive spirit in the Christian’s life. But the metaphor of a race and the goal of winning the prize does not preclude the possibility of a marathon. In a race, only one person gets the prize. But the analogy of winning in a competition cannot be applied to the Christian in a simplistic manner. Surely Paul is not suggesting that only one Christian will complete the race and win the prize. Instead, the reference to disciplined training for the express purpose of gaining the reward points to a deep concern in Paul’s life that he will not become disqualified at any point in his race toward the end.

Paul maintains a clear vision of the ultimate reason for his Christian endeavor: “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14). Every Christian, in Paul’s estimate, is called to run in a race that has an eschatological purpose more profound and deeper than a hundred-yard sprint. We may assume that Paul exaggerates the point of winning the race in order to make the more important claim that each person “should run in such a way as to get the prize.” Therefore Paul views the competition as more of a marathon than a sprint. The difference is that everyone who completes the marathon wins.

A Sprint or a Marathon?

In the context of daily life and organizations, we may choose to regard competition as a race or a marathon. Whereas in a race only a few winners enjoy recognition, everyone who competes in a marathon and finishes actually wins. Charles Handy, a management consultant, suggests that competition “is good news for everyone, but only if everyone can win” (p. 83). He recalls the feedback from several thousand managers in America who were invited to account for the occasions when they did their best: “they did not talk about competition, but about goals that were exciting and challenging, about autonomy and ownership, high visibility and accountability, and an exciting task” (Handy, p. 85). From our earlier discussion about the definitions of competition, we recognize the basic elements in Handy’s observations that match Paul’s concept of competing in a marathon.

The quality of our goals and the challenges of the tasks before us make for a positive engagement in work and daily life. We compete by pursuing goals of excellence. When work entails a sense of ownership and accountability, each worker is given the opportunity to prove their merits. Organizations that offer incentives and motivate toward realistic goals will cultivate a healthy work force. Whereas monopolies in a market economy tend to take their products and services for granted, and internal monopolies exist through isolating or removing external challenges, people become lazy. Handy observes,

In tough competitive situations people like to be surrounded by people less competent than themselves because it gives them a better chance of winning. That is not good news for the organization. Nor do people always, or even often, take the risks or make the creative leaps which competition is supposed to encourage. The fear of failing is usually much stronger than the hope of winning, so people play safe. (p. 85)

Competition usually involves a positive effort to aim for a set of goals worthy of the individual or organization in the face of changing circumstances and varying opposition. One may do this with integrity and courage. Competition issues from a basic theological conviction that God calls each person to live out his or her full potential, which is not defined by human evolution but by what Christ has accomplished in each one (Phil. 3:12). Furthermore, competition at the personal and social levels involves risks. The ethic of excellence can transform the destructive character of unbridled, unscrupulous competition into a creative spirit of true competition; of turning races into marathons. The Christian thrives in a competitive environment through a clear vision of the ultimate purpose for living and working.

References and Resources

C. Handy, Inside Organizations: 21 Ideas for Managers (London: BBC Books, 1990); J. Newman, Competition in Religious Life, editions SR vol. 11 (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1989); M. Mead, ed., Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive Peoples (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937); S. H. Walker, Winning: The Psychology of Competition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980); E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap/ Harvard University Press, 1975).

—Peter Quek