There’s a Jinn in the House

30 12 2009

Protect our children

Shortly after 9/11 our church embarked on a program to have meetings with Muslims in our community.  The purpose was to learn more about Islam and to see our Muslim brothers and sisters as individuals as opposed to being a monolithic group of fanatics.  For about a year we met numerous times in small groups and during that time I had the privilege of meeting some very fine people who were saddened and outraged by the acts of the few who had destroyed the Trade Center.  One of the men who I came to know and respect was an engineer and a Shiah Muslim.  One day we were having lunch and talking about our hopes and dreams for our children and grandchildren and he said, “I am worried that Jinn will invade my home and will take over my children”.  (a paraphrase).  I inquired about this term and after some struggling with the language he interpreted it as “demons”.  Still not understanding, I inquired further and he said that they were everywhere and all around us.  It was only then that I realized that his explanation was more than a mythical concept.  In fact, these Jinn were real.  They come through the television, on the air waves, in our media, in the internet and throughout our culture.  As we continued to talk, I realized that he and I both wanted the same things for our children and grandchildren—to be safe and hopefully to embrace our faith tradition.

 Last week, my wife and I got our weekly Netflix video, a cable series called Weeds.  It’s about a suburban housewife whose husband died from a heart attack early in his forties.  In order to maintain their lifestyle she became a drug dealer, selling Marijuana to all her suburban middle class adult friends.  In the series, Eight and nine year olds used language that even ten years ago would have been banned on TV and would be given a film an “R” rating.  Today, even on network TV the boundaries on language, sexuality and violence have been pushed back to levels that just a few years ago would have been considered unacceptable.  My wife only stayed for a few minutes, stating that the program was gross and she refused too see the whole series, but as I watched the program, I thought that if the life depicted in the series was anywhere near real life, then we have truly been invaded by Jinn.   

 If this program was an isolated incident, it might not be something to be concerned about.  But unfortunately it has become the norm.  More and more boundaries are being pushed back and we seem helpless to do anything about it.  Over the last weekend my wife and I stayed in a La Quinta in San Antonio.  We looked to see what was showing on the hotel TV.  I was surprised to see that there was a whole section of adult films.  Ten years ago that would never have been the case.  I was amused that there was a disclaimer that you had to be eighteen to view films on those channels.  I wondered who monitored the monitor.  Sex, violence and destruction are so prevalent in the media we have become anesthetized to it.  Or maybe that shouldn’t be the word. By seeing these depictions in the media our children and we, come to see these behaviors as acceptable and those behaviors are reinforced. They become what is known as a “community standard”.   I realize that my concern is one that has been debated and fought for centuries.  Can we censure free speech in some of its forms for the sake of preserving other moral and ethical standards?  The supreme court has often ruled on issues of free speech from whether someone can yell fire in a crowed theatre to Larry Flint and his magazine Hustler.  One of the current standards is “community standards”.  In 1973 a supreme court case established the Miller test concerning pornography.  It stated that there were three criteria establishing what was considered pornographic. In order for something to be considered pornographic all three criteria had to satisfied.  They were, that it appealed to prurient interests, that it was patiently offensives, and lacked serious literary, artistic, and political or scientific value.  This according to the court would be based on local standards so that something in Jackson Mississippi would have a different interpretation than what was the community standard in New York City.  As you well might guess the ruling did little to clarify the issue.  And as we have seen, little by little the media has been chipping away at what is considered as community standards and has done so on a national level.  Only periodically do citizens rise up and protest and then at great expense and personal stress.

 This article is not just about standards as they apply to pornography.  It also is about protecting children and giving other persons protection from offensive material being allowed in their homes.  It’s not enough to tell a parent just to monitor what their children watch on TV or at the movies or to install the V chip in their TV.  One of my sons does not have cable TV but both of his children go to friends houses that do have cable.  Then their’s the influence of the internet and other media.  Why should parents have to go to the extent that they have to in order to protect their children against what I have come to believe is home invasion from what my Muslim friend called Jinn.  Why should we be assaulted by internet material that is harmful to a person’s health. 

 It seems inconsistent that we are so concerned about lead paint on toys and protecting children from faulty car seats and seem so cavalier about what they are exposed to on TV or the internet.  Using the logic that it is a matter of parental responsibility of what children see or consume in the media, we would have to say that parents should be solely responsible for testing all toys for faulty and harmful construction of products used by children or for dangerous chemical additives in children’s food.  These are issues about morality but they’re also about ethics, because the attitude that seems to be prevalent is that anything goes and it’s an infringement on other person’s rights to have both strong moral and ethical community standards.  Our culture has long decided that the protection of our children is a primary concern of our society.  Whether it’s having laws about child labor or laws against abuse, even by parents or having laws protecting children as end user consumers, or education and healthcare for children, we know that our children need to be protected and are our future.  Because of the complexity of society, it is not possible for parents to know every harmful situation or to be in all places that children are exposed.

 It’s not enough to put some bogus disclaimer on an internet porn site or say that parents should use the V chip on their TV to block certain programs (the last time I saw anything about the V chip was from Bill Clinton).  And it’s not enough to just say that parents are the ones responsible for protecting their children.  It’s inconsistent with standards of morality, ethics and law that we have declared are sacred. 

It’s time that Christians, Jews, and Muslims and others concerned about children unite around the safety of our children.  Don’t let the Jinns around us fragment us in what we all want for our families—a safe place for our children to grow up to be what God has intended them to be.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Questions about QuestionsDec. 8, 2009

24 12 2009

Questions about QuestionsDec. 8, 2009.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : ethics, Sticky Wickets

Pray the Devil Back to HellDec. 4, 2009

24 12 2009

Pray the Devil Back to HellDec. 4, 2009.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : ethics

Ethical Conflict

22 12 2009

Ex. 8:12-15

“After Moses and Aaron left Pharaoh, Moses cried out to the Lord about the frogs he had brought on Pharaoh.  And the Lord did what Moses asked. The frogs died in the houses, in the courtyards and in the fields.  They were piled into heaps, and the land reeked of them.  But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.”

In part two of Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict we explored the idea of covenant as a means of dealing with conflict and the basis for establishing reciprocal ethical standards.  But this may be putting the cart before the horse.  Theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr in his book Moral Man and Immoral Society takes a more radical position on conflict than many sociologist and academics.  He states, “the relations between groups must therefore always be predominately political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses….  The coercive factors, in distinction to the more purely moral and rational factors, in political relations can never be sharply differentiated and defined.  It is not possible to estimate exactly how much a party to a social conflict is influenced by a  rational argument or by the threat of force….Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflict, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself.”  Theologian Bernard Loomer also addresses the issue in terms of power inequalities and states that “we seldom relinquish our power voluntarily.  We loosen our grip and make our concessions only when we are forced to do so by some competing group that has acquired sufficient power to bring us to the negotiating table, as the history of the labor-management conflict and the modern women’s movement illustrate….We tend to trample on or remain indifferent to those people whom we feel we can safely ignore.”  Throughout history we see this phenomenon occurring over and over.  In the Exodus scripture we note that Pharaoh agrees to let the Israelites go to keep from having frogs throughout the kingdom.  But when Moses and Aaron leave the court he changes his mind and decides not to let them go.  That’s why it took seven plagues to get Pharaoh to let them go.  Even then he reneges on his promise and goes after them with his army, only to have his army destroyed.  Power is difficult for despot to relinquish.

            In order to understand this inequality of power we not only need to address the issues of economic and social power but also in-group, out-group relationships.  In-groups are those persons who form a power relationship that is dominant in the particular culture that it exists.  Out-groups are those who lack the power of influence of the in-group and are considered in some sense to be inferior to the in-group.  In the Pharaoh, Moses scriptures Pharaoh was the in-group and Moses was the out-group.  These differentiations exist in multitudinous ways where an in-group may be an out-group as it relates to another more powerful group and vice versa.  Even though Moses was perceived as being the weaker, because of his relationship with God, he was really the stronger. 

Because an in-group sees itself as being better and having more self-esteem and power over the other, ethical treatment of the out-group may suffer.  Ethical behavior of the out-group may also be affected.  In the arena of race relations a white in-group may feel itself superior to a black out-group and therefore snub or treat them with less respect and take advantage of them including doing bodily harm to out-group members.  The out-group may view this treatment as unjust and justify stealing, burning or otherwise breaking existing laws as punishment and “pay-back” for past grievances.

            In the instance the O.J. Simpson murder trial that ended in acquittal, most whites who saw the trial believed that Simpson was guilty while the majority black jurors and the African American public tended to believe he was innocent.  There were many in the black community who may have believed that he was guilty but that the acquittal was pay back for past injustices to blacks. 

            If there is an inequality of power in societies that effect ethics how then is it that some cultures and situations are able to make covenants that bolster relational structures?  Where then, does the concept of covenant in ethical conflict fit?  I suggest that there are steps that precede many conflicted power struggles before covenantal relationships can exist.  Some of the possible steps are as follows:

  1. Out-group seeks to gain redress for injustices
  2. In-group will not meet or recognize validity of out-group
  3. Out-group continues to seek redress and to meet.
  4. In-group uses force and physical or economic intimidation to suppress out-group
  5. Out-group enlist secondary support from both inside and outside their group
  6. Out-group uses demonstrations and economic sanctions against in-group
  7. A breech occurs in the wall of support with moderates breaking ranks with in- group.  Moderates seek change to ameliorate and pacify out-group. 
  8. The beginning of relational power sharing
  9. Forming a permanent covenant

All during the process the out-group attempts to have a dialogue with the in-group or to forcibly displace the in-group.  In the earlier stages this does not happen and may take years for negotiations to begin in earnest.  At some point with or without a plan developed, the two groups form the semblance of covenant.  The covenant may begin with the in-group acknowledging that the out-group has a right to exist and to bring grievances.  Conversations may start and stop at every point of the negotiations.  And from the outside, constituents from both the in-group and out-group may do whatever they can to maintain the status quo, even when bloodshed occurs. 

The situation may be complicated when one or both sides engage in violence against the other side or when there exists a myth of entitlement such as the violence in Northern Ireland and in the Palestinian, Israeli conflict that has been fueled by both reality and myth that justifies further violence. (Def. myth—Attempt to state humanity’s faith or belief in the reality of experience and the meaning and value of that reality for life on the historical level.[Christian Word Book]) In both of these instances each side to the conflict are bound together by an ingrained historical myth that must be dealt with before change can occur.  Often the full impact of the myth cannot even be discussed either with the other group or with outsiders.  Much of the groups self is bound up in the myth.  In these instances there is little incentive to listen to the others point of view, their history, their myth or for them to treat the other ethically.  Their anger, prejudice and mythology are the glue that binds them together. And in a perverse way it binds both adversarial groups together in a seemingly endless Gordian knot.

In order to bring about change there needs to be a new story, a new created mythology that embraces the possibilities for living together in the future.  This has to come out of dialogue and will not have come about as the initial goal of that dialogue.  It comes about as a result of a continuing dialogue through each side telling their story and in the process, creating a newly constructed story.  

Coming soon—a process of creating a new story.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Relational ethics, politics, and conflict (part 2)–Constitutional Covenant

14 12 2009

In earlier blog articles we discussed the problem of passage of laws requiring more and more disclosure and accountability.  The more complex the issue and the law, the more ways some people and organizations found to circumvent those laws.  Normal unintended consequences due to the complexity of issues were exacerbated by passage of more laws, restrictions and often with resulting law suits and other impediments to free movement and actions.  Then there are those who are responsible for enforcement of laws and regulations.  In our current crisis we observe finger pointing at agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the treasury, and other agencies who were given the responsibility of enforcing and overseeing the appropriate regulations.  The more laws that are enacted and the more regulations that are promulgated the more chaos seems to occur. 

 So, what is it that binds us together?  We contend that it is covenant.  What exactly is covenant and how does it differ from a contract?

 “It is important to recognize that a covenant is far more than a contract. In contracts, parties give legal undertakings to effect transactions for reciprocal benefit. In covenants, people bind themselves together, in pledges of faithfulness and loyalty, to promote mutual well-being. The Chief Rabbi of Great Britain spoke about Covenants to the international gathering of Anglican Bishops, the Lambeth Conference, earlier this year. He summed up the differences between covenant and contract in four succinct points. · Contracts concern our interests, while covenants concern our identities. · Contracts deal in transactions, while covenants deal in relationships. · Contracts benefit, while covenants transform. · Contracts are about competition – if I win, you lose; while covenants are about cooperation – if I win, you also win.”

Most Revd Thabo Makgoba

 It makes little difference what laws are passed or what restrictions are placed on those who are governed, if persons do not covenant with one another to be governed or to act ethically, then it will not happen.  Our constitution is such a covenant.  In its inception the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution covenanted that they would abide by such an agreement, because “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed even when all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  Over our history there have been many disputes and debates over the meaning of different parts of the constitution.  But in the end we have held onto those principles even when we suffered thorough the civil war to maintain the union and what it stands for.  Only in debate, examination and litigation have we continued to view the evolution of this wondrous document.  Democracy is not easy.  It requires participation, conversation and consensus and ultimately acquiescence to the rule of law and the will of the people.

 These policies inform our ethical behavior.  Can we covenant with one another to abide by certain ethical standards in dealing with one another?  Some would say not; that over the years we have lost something in our dealings with one another.  To some extent this may be true.  But I believe that we may be looking backwards with a dimly lit candle.  We fantasize about the way things used to be when we remember that a man’s word was his bond and you could depend on a handshake. 

 This characterization may be true in some cases but we only have to look at our own history of robber barons, carpet baggers, and snake oil salesmen who bilked the poor and unsuspecting and oppressed the working class. 

 The Most Revd Thabo Makgoba the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in the Harold Wolpe Memorial lecture discussed the concept of Constitutional Covenant. Some of his points included:                                                                                                 

What's good for me is good for America

  1. Constitutional Identity                        
  2. Constitutional Transformation
  3. Constitutional Relationship
  4. Constitutional Cooperation
  5. Democracy, Participation, Accountability
  6. Constitutional Diversity
  7. Democracy and Ubuntu
  8. Constitutional Economic

A full copy of his speech may be seen at the following website.  Even though it addresses the South African constitutional situation it has relevance to our own constitutional principles.

http://archbishop.anglicanchurchsa.org/2008/11/harold-wolpe-memorial-lecture.html

 Even though we live in a secular world, both our constitution and Archbishop Makgoba’s speech point us towards a higher calling as we struggle to live together morally, ethically, legally and responsibly. 

 “More than half of recent MBA graduates say their programs should have focused more on ethics, corporate governance, and sustainability, according to a survey from the Association of MBAs’ Research and Consultancy Center. According to a summary of the survey in the Raleigh (North Carolina) Triangle Business Journal, 59 percent of the 544 graduates surveyed agreed that business education programs should focus on all of the stakeholders affected by a business, not simply the shareholders.”

“ Another item from the report: While recent graduates reported that about half of their programs examined ethics “to a large extent,” only 10 percent of MBA graduates from the 1980s made the same estimation. “

http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2009/12/07/education-ethics-6/

 It’s encouraging that more MBA students see the need for ethics training and a broadening of the curriculum.  And the fact that about 50% of student programs examined ethics while only 10% of MBA graduates from the 1980’s felt that ethics was covered with adequacy shows that there is a growing recognition for the need for ethics training in business as well as other organizations.

 The question that we have is, can we shift the primary emphasis of ethics from a purely behavioral and cognitive mindset to a paradigm that includes the covenantal aspects of ethics?  Doing this would make ethics a much more human function that would recognize that organizations are not cold bottom line entities that rely on computer modeling and other hard science justifications for decision making. 

 The complexities of the twenty first century demand that we reinvigorate and scrutinize the constitution and how it impacts our ethical dealings with one another.  It is a living breathing document, subject to multiple interpretations.  Can we formulate the same scrutiny to ethics in the same way that we have done with the constitution?


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict

12 12 2009

  In our article entitled “The Difference Between the Moral and the Ethical” we considered some of the ethical challenges for an individual working in an organization.  Even though there is not always a clear cut distinction between the ethical and the unethical, it tends to be less challenging since the issues that a person faces are more concrete, definable individually definable. 

However, the larger the organization, the more opportunities there are for missteps and unintended consequences.  The decision matrix becomes larger and complex.  And in some organizations the tendencies exist to see the organization itself and its continued survival as the primary goal.   Setting that concern aside for a later discussion, we know that within organizations there are constituent stakeholder groups that must be considered when making decisions.  Some of these include:

  1. Shareholders
  2. Management
  3. Workers
  4. Customers
  5. Suppliers
  6. The public
  7. Governmental entities

Each of these constituent groups has a stake in the future of the organization.  Depending on the power of a constituency, decisions concerning one group will affect the others stake and subsequent outcomes.  And due to the inevitable imbalance in power of each group, decisions will impact possible ethical, moral, legal and responsible behaviors. 

Not only are these of concern when considering ethical behaviors, but organizations (particularly large entities) have to grapple with issues of disclosure whether in annual and quarterly reports or with the media. 

We don’t have to go far to see the consequences of these perplexing situations.  Examples abound:

  1. Making sub-prime loans to unqualified people with the idea of fulfilling home ownership as the American dream for everyone.
  2. The bundling of these loans into packages that were rated AAA even though they were not.
  3. Giving brokers and investment persons huge bonuses for putting together complicated derivative concepts that very few people understood. 
  4. Bailing out banks and institutions that were “too big to fail”

And as we know there has been much second guessing and finger pointing at all concerned.  To name just a few:

  1. Congress for making it possible for unqualified parties to buy a home.
  2. Congress for allowing banks and other financial institutions to get so large and complex that bailouts became inevitable.
  3. The institutions for not having the discipline to monitor their programs and insure that they were sound.
  4. Individuals who took the deals that later made them lose everything they had.

 

We could go right down the line with the blame game as each constituent group bought into the shell game.  Whether we consider the events leading up to the fall to be unethical, irresponsible or just stupid, much of our economy bought into it.  And now as we try to work our way out of the situation, it seems that we are going back to the same old behaviors and prescriptions.  We’re told that the consumer is the one that will get us out of the mess by buying more instead of trying to bolster our infrastructure and focus on education, paying off debt and saving for retirement.  We continue to witness the increased economic power of countries like China and the oil producing nations and talk a lot about energy independence, our national debt and the unabated orgy of spending for goods that most people don’t need, but feel they have to have.  We’re like an addict who knows the outcome of his addiction but can’t seem to have the discipline to change. 

So, are we doomed to this never ending cycle of “exuberant optimism”, catastrophe, renewal, and back to social amnesia?  Whether it’s the prophets of the Bible or modern day prophet’s, history would indicate that this is our human condition.  Rational philosophy and liberal theology tend to imply that humanity is evolving and that humanity’s dark side will be conquered by reason.  Sociologist Kimball Young states,

 “the only way in which collective conflicts, as well as individual conflicts, can be successfully and hygienically solved is by securing a redirection of behavior toward a more feasible environmental objective.  This can be accomplished most successfully by the rational reconditioning of attitudes on a higher neuro-psychic or intellectual symbolic plane to the facts of science, preferably through a free discussion with a minimum of propaganda.”

 On the other hand, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr sees the issue quite differently. 

  “What is lacking among all these moralists, whether religious or rational, is an understanding of the brutal character of the behavior of all human collectives, and power of self-interest and collective egoism in all inter-group relations.”  He goes on to say, “The relations between groups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proposition of power which each group possesses…”.   “Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflicts, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself.”  

 With this in mind we will now move to how power and conflict have been and can be used to bring about change.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Cultural Isolation (part 7)–Making a Place at the Table

4 12 2009

 

            As a Methodist Christian I have had a stormy relationship with Holy Communion.  For years our church had communion only infrequently and I purposely avoided it at those times.  It just seemed a waste of time and what’s more it was boring.  It was only after one of our pastors asked me to serve the elements one Sunday did it finally begin to sink in.  As I passed down the kneeling rail with the tray of grape juice saying, “this is the blood of Christ shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.  Take and drink this in remembrance of him” I looked into the faces of  my friends and neighbors.   Some were passive as if just going through the motions, but some had tears in their eyes and I could tell they had heavy hearts.  Some would stay in prayer and then hurry back to their seats.   Others seemed joyful.  In this brief encounter with them, I wondered what they were thinking and feeling. And as more and more came to the alter, the words I was speaking began to sink in.  I was sharing something very intimate with these people.  We were the body of Christ and as Methodist’s we have an open table which means that anyone can partake. 

            In the years since serving, I have come to feel that this sharing of community and the confession of our common brokenness and alienation  is the most important part of the service.  In those moments at the alter I know I’m not alone; not in my relationship with God, or my friends and neighbors or my loving wife.  We are one and yet separate.  We admit our individual shortcomings but also our communal brokenness and separation.  When we leave the table we have experienced the words that send us forth with a new spirit knowing that we worship a God of new beginnings through an unconditional love that is always present, even when we don’t acknowledge that presence. 

            I know that all persons do not celebrate communion as we do.  In fact, they may not celebrate it at all.  But possibly if we can see that communion is a metaphor for our life together as the human race, with all our frailties as well as our courage and loving acts of kindness; that we can see that our call by God is to make a place at the table for everyone.  In so doing, ethics is no longer a set of rules to be followed and interpreted like a Pharisee. Ethics becomes an intentional act of community, recognizing our differences but also our eternal connection with each other and with God.  We develop a covenant with one another and with God to live into a life of Loving God and Loving Neighbor.  If we do that, we will still make mistakes as that is also part of the human condition.  Doing this, we may come to see that our institutions are not merely entities to promote their own existence and that they are called to act with mercy and justice to those who they serve—I and You.   As Jesus said in Matt. 5:17, “I have not come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”.  


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Cultural Isolation (part 6) I and You

2 12 2009

             Over the years, there have primarily been about a half dozen writers and theologians that have influenced my thinking.  One of these was Martin Buber in his book I and Thou.  Buber’s world of theology is one of relationship.  These relationships are intertwined between ourselves, others and God.  This trinity of relationship is circular in that he states that in order to know God we must come to know ourselves and we must learn to know others as the You. And as we begin to know each of these we grow in our relationship with each.  When taken intentionally the You becomes the sacred You which he calls, Thou.  This sacred relationship with you becomes I-You and cannot be separated.  We no longer see persons merely as Its that we objectify and that we use and then cast off after we have gotten from them what we want.  

            Even though we do not have the intensity in a casual meeting as we would with our lover or with our children there is still sacredness that exists and that is expressed in our living into the You of the other and that affirms their worth.  He further states that this recognition of sacredness comes from our personal feeling of You’ness that comes from our recognition that God sees us as You’s and not Its.  The implication is that we cannot turn off this attitude.  If we are in commerce or other kinds of work all day long and we treat people as Its we can’t go home and turn it off.  The tendency is to treat family and loved ones as Its.  And somewhere along the way we begin to see our own worth defined as being an It.  We are what we can earn, what service we can perform or what we look like.  Our value is defined by what we have, what we can produce and what power we can exert.    Institutions, comprised of humans can begin to see persons as customers or voters or aggregated or disaggregated groups.  The sheer numbers institutions work with tend to categorize persons into Its. 

We obscure the You in us through the language we use, the lenses we view one another and the distance we place between us, thus creating an atmosphere that defines persons as Its.   The world of  the I-You defines us in a different way.  Even in casual or commercial relationships the criteria of I-You is based on respect and seeing God’s image in ourselves and the other.  It recognizes that in all relationships God can be present, if we allow it and recognize God’s presence in those moments. 

            This is more than the Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  It goes beyond that.  It states, “do unto others as they would want to be treated and what would it look like if God were present in those moments of relationship?”

            Even in the business world where there is a drive to please the customer, our focus still tends to be one of treating persons as Its, and ultimately only to benefit the bottom line.  In education we have shown our concern for the child with special needs and yet have spent little effort on recognizing and accommodating children that learn differently and at different rates of speed.  Government bureaucrats may be the worst offenders of creating a culture isolating persons as Its.  With the additional realities of a more complex society, it becomes incumbent on us to find better ways of acknowledging persons as Yous rather than Its. 

In the past twenty years businesses and institutions have endeavored to humanize relationships and acknowledge persons as Yous with the implementation of mission statements.  Mission statements according to Steven Covey and other advocates of the mission statement are to live into primary principles such as loyalty, honesty, integrity, respect and fairness.  Often the unspoken inference was that if the institution lived by these principles, the company/institution would flourish and because it was more responsive to human needs would be more efficient and/or profitable.  This was a good beginning but unfortunately many institutions just stuck the mission statement over in the corner and paid little attention to it.  The mission statement was more of a creative writing exercise with little reality.  Employees would think it more of a joke than an important document to be lived.  A mission statement that had high sounding ideas such as, “”We treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves….We do not tolerate abusive or disrespectful treatment. Ruthlessness, callousness and arrogance don’t belong here.” (Enron mission statement) obviously missed the boat somewhere.   Another fallen company World Com had this mission statement in 1988, “Our objective is to be the most profitable, single-source provider of communications services to customers around the world.”  Even the IRS has a mission statement. “Provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.  I suppose my favorite is Warren Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway,  . “He who walks with The Fools grows Foolish.”  Looking at the Enron and World Com mission statements that says it all. 

It’s also true that in order to make mission statements work, those who are supposed to being living into those mission statements (including management)  have to periodically reinterpret and reexamine and internalize the core principles of the mission statement.  Otherwise the organization begins to live into another informal mission that can be off the mark and potentially destructive.

Jonathan Sacks in his book The Dignity of Difference suggests that one way to overcome our isolation is through covenant.  It’s not about making everyone the same in beliefs or temperament.  It’s about celebrating difference and by covenanting with others  and even with our institutions.  He states that “The great covenantal relationships between God and mankind, between man and woman in marriage, between members of a community or citizens of a society—exist because parties recognize ‘it is not good for man to be alone’.”  He further asserts,  “Covenant occurs when two individuals or groups, differing perhaps in power, but each acknowledging the integrity and sovereignty of the other, pledge themselves in mutual loyalty to achieve together what neither can achieve alone.  Covenant is the use of language to create a bond of trust through the word given,  the word received, the word honored in mutual fidelity.”  Our United States Constitution is a covenantal document.  Mere words won’t make it work.  It only works because enough of us believe in what it stands for and have covenanted with one another to make it work. 

            As I read these words by Sacks it seemed a bit naïve.   Don’t we live in a secular world with its relativism and isolation?  That might be true but he gives us something for those of us who have been raised in the tradition of the Book to strive for.  And in our tradition of a democratic and republican government we see that covenant will work. Can it be that we can continue those traditions with covenantal relationships in other areas of life.  What would our world be like if we strove to be in covenantal relationships with persons and institutions?  And how would that affect our ethical behaviors? 

            Hmmm…..maybe that’s too much to dream about.    But, if we wanted to try, where would we begin?


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.