Thesis: This paper contends that Paul, an entrepreneurial apostle, shifted from causation as Saul to effectuation post-conversion, aligning with Sarasvathy’s theory, reinterpreting his eschatology and mission as flexible and means-driven rather than fixed.
Abstract: Saras Sarasvathy’s Effectuation Theory has influenced fields beyond entrepreneurship, shaping decision-making under uncertainty in management, education, and social policy by emphasizing adaptability, leveraging existing resources, and navigating change through partnerships and iterative learning. Despite numerous social identity analyses of Paul, effectuation theory remains untapped. I argue that Saul’s pre-conversion strategies—securing letters to persecute Christians (Acts 9:2)—reflect causation’s predictive rigidity, while Paul’s post-Damascus ministry embraces Sarasvathy’s heuristics: Bird-in-Hand (identity-driven), Affordable Loss (risk tolerance), Crazy Quilt (partnerships), Lemonade (adaptability), and Pilot-in-the-Plane (control amid uncertainty). This shift, rooted in his Gentile calling (Rom 15:27), reframes his eschatology as dynamically adaptive, offering new insights into his mission.
Argumentation Points:
1. Saul’s Causation Framework: I’ll examine Saul’s zeal (Phil 3:4–6) as causation entrepreneurship—goal-oriented (eliminate Christians), with letters as means—contrasting Sarasvathy’s effectual flexibility. Acts 9:1–2 highlights this predictive approach.
2. Damascus as Pivot: I’ll posit that the Damascus encounter (Acts 9:3–19) disrupts Saul’s control, initiating an effectual mindset—eschewing letters (2 Cor 3:1–3) for Spirit-led means—per Sarasvathy’s unknowable-future premise.
3. Effectual Heuristics in Ministry: I’ll map Paul’s traits—self-support (Acts 18:3), outsider networks (Rom 16), resilience (Phil 1:21)—to Sarasvathy’s principles, illustrating a means-driven mission.
4. Theological Implications: I’ll argue Paul’s eschatology flexes within his calling, not rigid goals (Rom 15:24–27), favoring Wright’s ecclesiological focus over Fredriksen’s apocalyptic urgency. In effectuation’s lens, I see Paul’s eschatological hope—e.g., Parousia (1 Thess 4:15–17)—as a calling shaping present action, not a deadline dictating means, aligning with Sarasvathy’s means-over-goals priority.
Scholarship: I draw on Sarasvathy’s effectuation framework (2001, 2024), Kitching and Rouse’s systemic critique (2020), and Martina’s Affordable Loss insights (2020). Wright (2013), Fredriksen (2017), and Eastman (2017) inform Paul’s identity and eschatology, grounding my analysis in recent discourse.
Contribution: This paper merges entrepreneurship and theology, recasting Paul as an effectual innovator whose adaptable eschatology and ministry model resilience in uncertainty.