How might each passage be applied to a business context (Use verse below, verses attached): Genesis 1:26-31: 2: 4-9, 18-25
Discussion Assignment Instructions
Overview
Within the Discussion , the student is required to post a thread in response to the provided prompt for each discussion. Please remember to write these discussions like mini-papers. Biblical connections from the Bible (NIV or KJV) are required. Use these instructions and any additional information in each specific discussion instructions ( Discussion Instructions below). (Reading, Verses, Rubric attached on next page}
Instructions
Thread
The purpose of the Discussions is to examine the ethical values displayed in various organizations and view such in light of Scripture, the course text, and scholarly research. For each Discussion thread, write a 400–500-word thread that presents an analysis of the readings in Hill’s text. Your thread will not summarize the readings; instead, this will analyze the readings in light of Biblical truths and outside research. Follow the specifics in each discussion in addition to the instructions here.
Support your assertions with at least 3 scholarly resources that have been published within the last 3 years, in addition to, the course text, and Scripture from the New International Version or King James Version of the Bible. Use subheadings that are in APA (don’t put the questions). Subheadings should align with that discussion’s requirements. Have in text citations and a reference page at the end. Paragraphs should be well-developed (at least 5 sentences). Avoid using the word “it ‘because “it” is vague. Avoid direct quotes unless they are famous quotes such as from the Bible. Have an introduction and conclusion.
Paraphrase your work. Paraphrasing means to read the material until you know what you’ve read. Then put the reading aside and write about this. Still reference paraphrased work. Your thread must be in current APA format and must include a reference list. Please copy and paste your thread into the Discussion. No title page or abstract are needed.
Discussion requirements:
Our reading this module (attached on next page) begins with an introduction to ethical decision making and also explores the Christian involvement in ethical business.
For this discussion, answer the following questions:
How might each passage be applied to a business context (Use verse below, verses attached):
Genesis 1:26-31: 2: 4-9, 18-25:
How are humans different from the rest of creation?
What responsibilities and privileges does this bring to those engaged in business?
How does this relate to business today?
Needed Documents Below:
Microsoft_Word_Document.docx
Genesis 1:26-31:
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 2: 4-9
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2: 18-25
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
image3.emf
Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx
Chapter 1
S A CHRISTIAN ETHIC POSSIBLE IN BUSINESS?
Managers often confront such nerve-wracking, heart-wrenching and guilt-producing scenarios. In their quest to do the “right thing” for shareholders and subordinates, they often experience a deep sense of uncertainty.
Why? Because the “shoulds” of life bring values and relationships to the forefront. Ethics—the study of doing the “right thing”—attempts to provide a value-laden framework, a grid through which real-life decisions can be made. What counsel does Christian ethics, the application of biblical values to the decision-making process, have for Maria? Does it provide a simple solution to her dilemma?
One approach is to view Scripture as a book of rules to be applied to specific situations: simply find the right rule and match it with the current problem. While this strategy may work well in relatively simple situations—such as when a worker is tempted to steal or an executive considers slandering a competitor—what about more complex situations like the one confronting Maria?
If Abe approaches her first, seeking to keep his job, should she heed Jesus’ admonition to “give to the one who asks you”? What if Barb and Carl then make similar requests? Or what if Abe were to assault Maria when he learns of the possible layoff? Is she to turn the other cheek, or should she demand restitution and bring criminal charges against him?1 Taking this line of reasoning a step further, is there a scriptural rule that provides guidance to Maria’s company in deciding how many units to produce or in which geographical areas to seek expansion?
Attempts to find easy answers to such enigmatic situations have led one skeptic to label Christian ethics “infantile.” He compares the “rule book” approach to the types of absolute commands typically given to children between the ages of five and nine, such as don’t talk to strangers or sing at the dinner table.2
While this criticism misunderstands the heart of Christian ethics, it should give pause to those who would take a simple rules-based approach. In ambiguous cases, it is clearly deficient in its capacity to give precise answers in every situation. Ironically, research indicates that corporations with highly detailed codes of ethics actually are cited more often for breaking the law than their counterparts without such explicit rules.3 Dietrich Bonhoeffer was bluntly uncharitable toward such an approach, labeling it “naive” and those who practice it “clowns.”4
Other critics attack the idea of a Christian business ethic from a different angle, arguing that Scripture has nothing relevant to say about business today. After all, they point out, the Bible was written two to three millennia ago, largely in the context of an agrarian economy. No doubt, Israel’s entire gross national product under King Solomon was less than the net worth of Google today. What significant insights, they ask, can Scripture give Maria in deciding the fates of Abe, Barb and Carl? Indeed, is the Bible even relevant to leveraged buy-outs and copyright infringement? Using Scripture as a business rulebook, they contend, would be like using ancient medical texts written by Galen and Hippocrates to train modern doctors.5
If the critics are correct in arguing, first, that the Bible is rule bound and, second, that it lacks relevance, we need not proceed any further. If they are right, Scripture has minimal applicability to modern business practices. However, if it can be demonstrated that Christian ethics is rooted in something much deeper, then these critics are wrong.
GOD’S CHARACTER
Christianity operates on the notion that ethics (the study of human character) parallels theology (the study of God’s character). When we behave in a manner consistent with God’s character, we act ethically. When we fail to do so, we act unethically. All of Scripture—from the law of Moses to Paul’s list of virtues and vices—serves to illustrate behavior that is congruent with God’s moral character.
This approach is quite different from human-based ethical systems, which generally focus on (i) egoism (promotion of individual pleasure), (ii) utilitarianism (maximize pleasure and minimize pain for all involved) or (iii) deontological reasoning (keeping moral rules such as “don’t harm others”).6
This is not to say, however, that Christian ethics totally rejects these approaches. To the contrary, there is much overlap. While concerned with human happiness and the fulfillment of ethical obligations, Christian ethics does not see these as its ultimate goal. Rather, it prizes the life that seeks to emulate God’s character.
Thus, Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, was eulogized: “The aim of life is not to gain a place in the sun, nor to achieve fame or success, but to lose ourselves in the glory of God.”7 In a similar vein, reformer John Calvin wrote:
We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal.8
HOLINESS-JUSTICE-LOVE
If being ethical is reflecting God’s character, then the critical question becomes, what is God like? Christianity’s answer includes such common responses as God’s orderliness and artstry in creation. It also goes much further, however, focusing on God’s self-revelation as recorded in Scripture and through his son Jesus Christ.
Three divine characteristics that have direct bearing on ethical decision making are repeatedly emphasized in the Bible:
1.God is holy.9
2.God is just.10
3.God is loving.11
Each of these qualities will be explored in much greater depth in the next three chapters. For now, it suffices to say that a business act is ethical if it reflects God’s holy-just-loving character. Such hyphenation is appropriate because the three qualities are so intertwined that it would be just as accurate to describe God as being loving-just-holy or just-loving-holy.
The human body provides a helpful illustration. If holiness is comparable to the skeleton in providing core strength, then justice is analogous to the muscles ensuring balance and love is similar to the flesh emanating warmth. Obviously, all three are needed in equal measure.
Just imagine a body with only a skeleton (or a business with only a code of ethics); it would be rigid and immobile. Or picture muscles without a skeleton and flesh (or a business steeped in detailed procedures and policy manuals); they would be cold and improperly focused. Finally, consider flesh unsupported by any infrastructure (or a business trying to meet every need); it would be undefined and undisciplined.
Christian ethics requires all three characteristics to be taken into account when decisions are made. Holiness, when untethered from justice and love, drifts into hypercritical legalism. Likewise, justice that loses its attachment to holiness and love produces harsh outcomes. And finally, love when left on its own lacks an adequate moral compass.
Each of the three contains a vital ethical ingredient. Christian ethics does not involve either-or analysis—as if we could choose among holiness, justice and love—but rather a synthesis in which all three conditions must be met before an action can be considered moral. Each, like a leg on a three-legged stool, balances the other two (see fig. 1.1).
Highly respected clothing maker Levi Strauss has four core values. Interestingly, two of these—integrity and empathy—directly mirror the biblical principles of holiness and love. Significantly, former CEO Robert Haas discarded the corporation’s thick ethics rulebook because “it didn’t keep managers or employees from exercising poor judgment and making questionable decisions.” Instead the company opted to focus on core principles and conduct extensive employee training.12
Figure 1.1
FLAWED HUMANITY
Unfortunately, being holy-just-loving is easier said than done. A quick glance at the deception and broken promises common in the marketplace indicates that something is fundamentally wrong. Why is it that, despite our noblest intentions, we seem so incapable of living as we ought? Why, after a massive tsunami hit Indonesia, did ten Oxfam charity workers tasked with rebuilding destroyed homes end up colluding with local contractors to steal from those in great need? The result was tragic: homeless Indonesians were force
The why questions go on and on. Why does a typical company lose 5 percent of its revenues annually due to employee fraud? On a global scale, this translates into losses of nearly four trillion dollars annually.14 Why did industrial powerhouse Toshiba systematically overstate its earnings by $1.2 billion?15 Why did Sanjay Kumar, former CEO of Computer Associates International, backdate over $2 billion in sales?16 On a smaller scale, why did a Bay Area dry-cleaning-business owner engage in systematic identity theft, scamming loyal customers of hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Scripture labels the fundamental human flaw “sin.” At its core, sin is the refusal to emulate God and instead set our own independent agendas. This attitude of elevating self to godlike status results in spiritual alienation. The apostle Paul goes so far as to call fallen humans “enemies” of God.18
Analogous to cancer, this moral disease infects us, clouds our moral vision and alters our character. J. I. Packer describes it as “a perverted energy . . . that enslaves people to God-defying, self-gratifying behavior.”19 The result is a chasm between God and us. While he remains holy-just-loving, we have become dirty-biased-selfish.
An important distinction must be made between the concepts of sin and sins. While the former term describes our defective moral character, the latter focuses on actions that naturally follow—lying, promise breaking, stealing and so on.
Two sports metaphors describe our condition. First, like archers with poor vision, sin has affected our ability to properly focus. The bad shots that follow—we often fail to even hit the target—are like sins in that they are the natural outcome of our bad eyesight. Second, we are comparable to high jumpers with broken legs. Try as we may, we cannot even come close to clearing the standard. As Reinhold Niebuhr wryly observed, “The doctrine of original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith.”20
Our fallen natures are like petri dishes in which sinful actions flourish. This is particularly problematic in the marketplace, where financial stakes are high, career destinies are decided and the temptation to rationalize unethical behavior is strong. How else can one explain the Medicare scam carried on by a Houston doctor who repeatedly gave patients tests they didn’t need?21 Or PricewaterhouseCoopers partners who overlooked financial problems in audits for scandal-plagued companies such as Microstrategy in order to procure them as clients?22
Lest the finger of accusation be pointed too quickly, we must all acknowledge our own susceptibility to the temptation of justifying unethical or imprudent behavior. Lewis Smedes correctly observes: “Self-deception is a fine art. In one corner of our mind we know that something is true; in another we deny it. . . . We know, but we refuse to know.”23
For example, despite alarming evidence against him, Adelphia Corporation’s president persisted in self-deception by insisting on his innocence to accusations of fraud and conspiracy. He was later found guilty of all charges.24 In a recent survey of college-bound students, a quarter rated themselves in the top 1 percent in their ability to get along with others.25 Fooling ourselves is too easy.
A MIXED MORAL BAG
Imagine a society operating entirely under the paradigm of sin. Sellers and purchasers could never trust each other, so deals would be difficult to transact. Managers would constantly spy on subordinates to prevent theft and laziness. Slavery, child labor and bribery would be common. Since “might makes right” would be the guiding principle of business, companies would hire armed personnel to protect and pursue their interests. Prisons would be full and new ones would be needed at an accelerated pace.
Society would so distrust business that government regulators would be assigned to every company. These bureaucrats would in turn be inept and corrupt. As a result of all these factors, the costs of doing business would skyrocket and the very foundations of capitalism would be undermined. While some pessimists view this as an accurate description of the direction in which our culture is heading, it is clearly a bleak picture.
Thankfully, as Henry David Thoreau chided his generation, this paradigm is not the complete story of Christian ethics: “Men will lie on their backs, talking about the fall of man and never make an effort to get up.”26 At least three factors encourage us to arise from the moral morass.
First, despite our sinful nature, our spiritual core has not been erased; we retain the “image of God.”27 We continue to aspire to wholeness and regret when we fall short of our ideals. Our conscience, though less reliable than originally designed, is still operative.28 We also remain capable of reciprocal kindness—of providing for those who in turn give something to us.29 Hence, we ought not be surprised by acts of managerial benevolence toward hard-working, loyal employees.
Second, God has established social institutions such as government, the legal system, family and business to check human sin, preserve order and provide accountability. Human authority and tradition provide the framework necessary for communal living: government punishes wrongdoers, law requires fair play, parents discipline their children and businesses provide societal order.30 Without such institutions, anarchy would reign. Reformed scholars call this “common grace” because these protections extend to all members of society, regardless of whether they acknowledge God.31
Of course this is not to say that all governments, parents and employers are ideal. To the contrary, authority figures often abuse their power; they too are infected by sin. Rather, common grace merely affirms the general principle that human authority is necessary in an imperfect world and should ordinarily be respected.
The third force for good are those whom Jesus identifies as the salt and light of the world.32As salt prevents decay and light illuminates the darkness, so Jesus expects his followers to positively affect their surroundings. Corruption is to be confronted, and high moral standards are to be set.
Examples of business leaders who serve as salt and light in the marketplace include Bob Lane, who led manufacturing giant John Deere for a decade. Emphasizing “gritty ethics” and “uncommon teamwork,” he sought to bring lasting positive change within the corporation. “When employees see their everyday work not just as assembling a tractor, but as building a lasting business that serves to feed coming.
Dan Amos, president of insurance giant Aflac for thirty-five years, states: “Faith is important at Aflac. . . . Almost all of those principles [in the employee ethics manual] come in some way from Scripture, adapted for use in the workplace. . . . Really, that’s all we have—our word—so how we fulfill that promise is how we carry out those principles of Christianity, which we do to reinforce the body of Christ, makes all the difference in the world.”34
Likewise, David Browne, past CEO of LensCrafters, led the company using the servant-leadership model of Jesus. “At first,” he reflects, “I was a classic numbers-only butthead. . . . But now I want to serve folks, to help them be the best they can be.”35
These leaders, while realistic about human nature, have not based their careers on the half-empty-glass paradigm of sin. Rather, they have seen the glass as being at least half full, with opportunities to be holy-just-loving in one of the most challenging arenas of all, the marketplace. This book is an exploration of how we might follow their lead in wrestling with tough, real-world issues.
CREATIVE MORALITY IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD
To summarize, Christian ethics recognizes that the vast majority of humans are neither wicked nor angelic but fall somewhere in between on the moral continuum. It also acknowledges that it is difficult to be holy-just-loving, not only because of human foibles but also because worldly institutions are marred.
This brings us back to Maria’s dilemma in dealing with Abe, Barb and Carl. Economic realities require that the budget be cut. In God’s original plan for a perfect world, such a decision would have been unnecessary. But since humanity and its various systems, including the market, are imperfect, difficult choices must be made.
It is quite probable that the final solution for Abe, Barb and Carl will be less than ideal but may represent what is possible under the circumstances. Like an optometrist during an eye exam, Maria’s task is to line up the three lenses of holiness, justice and love so that they align as much as possible.
It is imperative that Maria not constrict her range of possible choices too hastily. While it would be simple to frame the problem as having only three options—fire Abe, Barb or Carl—she should opt to emulate God’s creativity instead.
Rather than abandoning us in our moral failure, God lovingly devised a plan for our restoration. It is important to note here that in doing so, neither holiness nor justice was sacrificed. In a stunningly creative move, God took the radical step of substituting his own son for us, casting our punishment on him. The roughly analogous act in the situation involving Abe, Barb and Carl would be for Maria to fire herself!
A more modest integration of holiness, justice and love might lead to some type of job sharing, joint reduction in hours, a deferral in capital spending, or, at minimum, a severance package for the dismissed employee. In any event, Maria should explore all options before acting and choose the one that is most pure, fair and benevolent to all involved.
Chapter 2
HOLINESS—THE CONCEPT of single-minded devotion to God and absolute ethical purity—is a predominant theme in Scripture. Cited over six hundred times in the Old Testament, it is also strongly emphasized in the New Testament, particularly by Jesus, Paul and Peter. John Wesley, father of the Methodist movement, considered it to be the linchpin of Christian ethics.1
During the Middle Ages, holiness was understood to mean separation from ordinary life for otherworldly contemplation. Hence business—perhaps the most fleshy of all human enterprises—was viewed as being antithetical to holiness. Though this attitude is less prevalent today, many still consider the marketplace to be “dirty.” Others associate the concept with either unrealistic moral expectations or a condescending attitude (“holier-than-thou”).
Is this perspective fair? Holiness is, after all, an ideal standard, whereas business is conducted in the rough-and-tumble environment that beckons players to think in terms of “survival of the fittest.” In the midst of Darwinistic competition, is it really possible to be simultaneously holy and successful in the marketplace?
Holiness is composed of four primary elements: zeal for God, purity, accountability and humility.
ZEAL FOR GOD
CASE STUDY
Churning and yearning. Last year Jill was hired as a stockbroker. Working seventy-hour weeks, she was under great pressure to increase sales. Her manager motivated her with visions of a yacht, expensive cars and a lakeside home. Affluence was the name of the game and she was determined to succeed. Seeing less and less of her husband and child, she also permitted her spiritual life to atrophy.
When a dry spell of fewer sales occurred, Jill decided to conduct unneeded trading on some accounts—“churning,” as the practice is known. Her sole purpose in making these sales was to increase daily performance. Her manager congratulated her and made no inquiries about methodology.
However, three months later, when one of Jill’s clients questioned why she had been advised to sell high-performing stock, Jill’s manager immediately fired Jill and held her up to other brokers as an example of “what not to do.” Jill was devastated and felt betrayed.2
At its center, holiness calls us to zealously make God our highest priority. It demands that all other concerns—such as career goals, material goods and even personal relationships—be considered of lesser importance. The Old Testament compares God to a spouse who demands faithfulness from his mate and who is understandably jealous when rivals are entertained.3
This theme is echoed in the New Testament when Jesus warns that “no one can serve two masters” and that our greatest duty is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”—clear calls to holiness.4 He illustrates this single-minded passion by chasing exploitive moneychangers from the Jerusalem temple: profit must not be permitted to gain priority over piety.5 Indeed, Jesus’ focus on holiness is so intense that his followers must “hate” all competing loyalties by comparison.6
Are we to conclude from this that Christianity opposes business success? By no means. The crucial point is that holiness is fundamentally about priorities. So long as business is a means of honoring God rather than an end in itself, the concept of holiness is not violated. What holiness abhors is a business, or any other human activity, becoming an idol.
Unfortunately, Jill did not fare well against such expectations. By permitting career, wealth and desire to please others to become her primary concerns, God had been displaced. There was simply no time for reflection, thanksgiving or rest. She never intentionally rejected God—no, she merely permitted him to drift to the outer fringe of her life. But negligence is no defense. “We live in the age of God-shrinkers. For many, God is no more than a smudge.”7
The urge to compromise is evident in other forms of sales as well. Publications such as the Tampa Tribute, Newsday, Chicago Sun-Times and Dallas Morning News have all admitted to inflating circulation numbers in order to charge more for advertising space.8 In a survey of lawyers, more than half admit taking on pointless assignments—such as doing excessive research or conducting extraneous document review—as a means of inflating their billable hours.9
Like the Greek traveler Ulysses, who was tempted by unseen voices to land his ship on the rocks, financial and career ambition can lure us to destruction. The marketplace is replete with many who later regretted listening to temptation. Holiness is a competing voice, beckoning us to honor God, to praise him in good times and to be prayerful in the bad. Though subject to the same ill winds, individuals who choose holiness have a secure moral mooring.
PURITY
CASE STUDY
Honesty is the best policy? Last week Vantha went on a business trip with two coworkers, James and Charlie. After they returned, James and Vantha had the following conversation.
JAMES: Charlie and I have been talking. Since we worked so much overtime on the trip, we figure that the company owes us a little something extra. We’re going to add $20 each to our meal expenses and $15 each for
Purity, the second ingredient of holiness, reflects God’s moral perfection and separation from anything ethically unclean. It contains two components: ethical purity and moral separation.
Ethical purity reflects God’s moral perfection and aversion to anything impure. In the Old Testament, priests are instructed to be physically and morally clean before entering God’s presence.10 Likewise, in the New Testament, Jesus encourages his followers to be “perfect . . . as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The apostle John directs his readers to emulate the purity in Jesus’ character and Peter charges Christians to be “holy” and “spotless.”11
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 84 percent of respondents cited honesty as the most important quality of a CEO. This is consonant with an earlier study in which business executives listed moral integrity as one of the top three qualities sought in managers (along with competence and leadership).12
Moral separation follows naturally from ethical purity. In an impure world, ethical gold ought not to be mingled with moral dross. Scripture constantly warns the people of Israel not to assimilate with other cultures lest they imitate their behavior.13 Similarly, Jesus chides his followers to “not be like them” and, no doubt with a degree of hyperbole, teaches that it is better to be blind or lame than to accommodate lower ethical standards.14 These twin principles of integrity apply to business today in at least three ways.
Purity in communication. Jill’s willingness to breach her client’s trust illustrates the triumph of expediency over integrity. When personal benefit is valued over ethical purity, the result is a host of predictable consequences: financial reports are skewed, contract language is manipulated and innuendo is used to undercut others.
In the state of Washington, a significant number of teachers recently falsified their applications by claiming degrees they had not earned. Similarly, the dean of admissions at Massachusetts Institute of Technology admitted, after serving the institution for nearly three decades, that she had lied on her initial application regarding her academic credential. In an ironic—and tragic—twist, she had just coauthored a book that included the following advice to high school students:
Holding integrity is sometimes very hard to do because the temptation may be to cheat or cut corners. But just remember that “what goes around comes around,” meaning that life has a funny way of giving back what you put out.15
In another situation, thirty travel agents set up dummy companies, ordered airplane tickets on credit and then went out of business.16 Such behavior is most unholy. When holiness is valued, people communicate without guile, saying exactly what they mean.17
Purity in sexuality. Scripture is replete with warnings against sexual immorality. Base sexual conduct is common in many offices—lewd comments, offensive jokes, not-so-innocent flirting and harassment. Such behavior goes far beyond “locker room talk.” Employees who distance themselves from such behavior are often labeled prudes. Ethical purity frequently comes at a social price. A recent study finds that workplace ostracism is often more painful than bullying.18
Purity in purpose. In his book The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead, author David Callahan asserts that cheating from Wall Street to university exam rooms is unraveling the moral fabric of the nation. Executives cook the books, injured parties over-report insurance losses and applicants pad their resumes.19
Examples of business cheating are endemic. The scouting director for the Saint Louis Cardinals baseball team pled guilty to hacking into the database of a competitor, the Houston Astros.20 Nearly six in ten employees call in sick when they want to watch or attend a sporting event.21 The Internal Revenue Service estimates that Americans illegally hold back $450 billion in unpaid taxes each year. Of the 20,000 accounts held by Americans with the Swiss bank UBS, up to 95 percent hide taxable funds from the IRS.22 A New York bank teller recently led a ring that stole $850,000 from client bank accounts.23
That businesses behave in this manner is not surprising given their pool of prospective employees. Three out of five high school students admit to cheating at least once a year.24 At the college level, seventy Harvard students were forced to take a year away from school following a major dishonesty scandal.25 Perhaps even worse, 178 teachers and principals at forty-four Atlanta public schools cheated by erasing and correcting student answers on standardized tests in order to receive merit pay increases. Eleven were convicted on federal racketeering charges.26
Vantha, in the expense-reporting case, illustrates the opposite principle. Rather than putting his finger to the social wind to determine which course of action to take, he resolves to follow the holy path, whatever the personal consequences. His integrity will not permit him to go along with James and Charlie, even though a measure of ostracism will no doubt follow. The alternative—deception and theft—is simply unacceptable as a viable option. Integrity has its cost, but so does unethical behavior.
ACCOUNTABILITY
CASE STUDY
What goes around comes around. Bill is the marketing director for a corporation that manufactures ski clothing. To discover more about a competing company, he paid one of its employees, Anne, to secretly provide him with information. In this manner, he learned of his competitor’s manufacturing and marketing plans for the upcoming year. As a result, Bill was able to make adjustments and increase his company’s sales.
Last week, however, Anne’s supervisor discovered the secret arrangement and fired her immediately. Bill was also dismissed when his CEO was informed. Anne and Bill now face civil lawsuits by their respective companies and possible criminal charges by the state.
Holiness holds us accountable by rewarding moral purity and punishing impurity. Biblical examples include Abraham being blessed for his virtues and the people of Sodom being destroyed for their vices.27 While it is tempting to relegate the doctrine of divine accountability to the Old Testament, it is important to note Jesus’ many threats of judgment. Certainly, the early church had not lost its sense of reward and punishment: when Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, died after lying about money, the narrative concludes with the statement that “great fear seized the whole church.”28
The analogy may be rough, but accountability is both a theological and an economic concept. For while the market does not credit righteousness or sanction sin per se, it does tend to reward companies that keep their promises and to punish those that regularly miss deadlines or manufacture substandard products.
In the case above, Bill and Anne discovered this principle the hard way. Accountability is built into the moral universe—all actions have consequences. Bill and Anne’s misbehavior not only displeased a holy God but also undermined the trust of their employers. Holy living not only honors God but also enables the creation of long-term relationships. Successful businesses know that earning the trust of employees, suppliers, dealers and customers is critical.
Volkswagen, once the world’s largest automaker, cheated on emission controls standards for more than a decade via a clever engineering devise in Jettas, Golfs, Passats, Beetles, Audis and Porsches. While in test mode, the cars complied with federal standards. When driven on the road, however, they shifted into a different program. This resulted in altered fuel pressure, injection timing and exhaust-gas recirculation. Moral accountability kicked in when the deception was discovered. VW sales plunged, its CEO resigned and a settlement of nearly $15 billion was reached with the US federal government.29
Likewise, Intelligent Electronics, once the largest American reseller of computers, exemplifies how unholy behavior ruins business relationships. When IBM, Apple and Hewlett-Packard discovered that the company had significantly overcharged them for advertising costs—these overbillings were so significant that they constituted half of Intelligent Electronic’s annual earnings—the company faced a significant loss of business and lawsuits.30
Similarly, the principals of Employers Mutual, a large healthcare provider, conspired to misrepresent their ability to provide coverage. Customer premiums were secretly channeled into various accounts for personal use. Policyholders learned about the improprieties only after their ensuing medical bills were not paid. The principals’ behavior led to multiple federal and state charges.31
While some might object to using the threat of punishment, whether human or divine, as a motive for ethical behavior in business, the human propensity for self-delusion makes fear a legitimate motivator. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out, holy fear limits the risk of “cheap grace”—that is, of accepting God’s forgiveness but not changing our behavior.32 The apostle Paul echoed that sentiment: “Let us purify ourselves, . . . perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”33
HUMILITY
CASE STUDY
I did it my way. Juanita, the owner of a janitorial service company, rarely listens to the ideas of her employees. After all, she reasons, she has an MBA, and they are mostly immigrants without any higher education. While giving lip service to “empowering” them and soliciting their advice, she generally does what she thinks best.
Humility is the natural outcome of seeking to imitate God’s holiness. If we honestly measure ourselves by divine standards, we are forced to recognize how far short of the ideal we fall. Pride evaporates and despair envelops even the greatest of saints. Take Jonathan Edwards, seventeenth-century Puritan leader: “When I look into my heart and take a view of my wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely deeper than hell.”34 The gap between God’s holiness and our impurity seems to expand the more we attempt to bridge it. No wonder the apostle Paul calls himself the “worst” of sinners.35
One of the deepest insights of Christian ethics is that we are incapable of making ourselves holy. Holiness gives us a correct self-assessment, deflating our balloon of pride and self-reliance.36 Paradoxically, Scripture instructs that the way to rise in holiness is first to sink, to admit our moral inadequacy. Jesus labels such an attitude poverty of the spirit. He further commends those who mourn their loss of innocence and praises those who become meek.37 The road to the mountain of holiness first passes through the valley of humility.
Is there a place for humble people in the corporate world today? Or are they victims-in-waiting, the next roadkill on the capitalist highway? Max De Pree, retired CEO of the Fortune 500 furniture maker Herman Miller, takes umbrage with such thinking. Humility, he argues, is not synonymous with weakness; rather, it is a prerequisite to accurate self-assessment.38
In the case above, Juanita fails in this regard. Her overinflated ego makes her relatively unapproachable, hierarchical and arrogant. Humble leaders, on the other hand, listen to their subordinates, build strong teams and are not embarrassed to admit mistakes. They reach out to others, hesitate to criticize and are effective listeners.
POTENTIAL ABUSES OF HOLINESS
As discussed in the first chapter, above, holiness, justice and love are like three legs on a stool. When imbalances occur, holiness becomes distorted and falls into error. As one author notes, “Partial views of holiness—half-truths—have abounded. Any lifestyle based on these half-truths ends up looking grotesque rather than glorious; one-sided human development always does.”39
Three erroneous views of holiness are legalism, judgmentalism and withdrawal from society.
Legalism. Legalism reduces holiness to rule keeping. Its primary adherents in Jesus’ day were the Pharisees, a group of religious leaders. On the surface, Pharisees appeared to be models of piety—regularly attending the temple, possessing vast theological knowledge, donating 10 percent of their income (including their food!) and strictly observing the sabbath. Unfortunately, most were also cold and aloof, caring more for the keeping of petty rules than for people. Focusing on minutiae, they missed matters of great ethical importance.
CASE STUDY
Mind your p’s and q’s. On his first day on the job, Sergei was stunned to receive a two-page memo from Meg, his new manager, detailing how to shut down the office at the end of each day. It included such tasks as “place a cover on your computer, empty your wastebasket, recycle all paper, account for paper clips, turn off all lights, make sure all phone messages are off your voice mail.”
Sergei felt that this was an inappropriate way to treat professional staff. As time passed, he found Meg to be formal and difficult to know. He trusted her but did not particularly like her. When he requested time off without pay to visit his terribly sick best friend, she said that company policy permitted absences only for family emergencies. Besides, she noted, he had not worked long enough yet to accrue time off.
Meg is obviously a legalist. She treats subordinates fairly and is honest to an extreme but is relationally anemic. She follows policies and keeps promises but shows very little emotional sensitivity to others. Companies operated by legalists become rigid and institutionalized since procedures and manuals cannot produce a committed workforce. Workers learn all too quickly not to invest too much emotional capital in their jobs but merely to follow the rules. Tragically, Sergei may well be on his way to becoming a clock puncher.40
Unfortunately, legalism is worming its way into corporate ethics offices. Many such programs owe their existence to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Act, which promises to reduce fines for illegal corporate behavior if internal ethics programs are in place. Surely this is a poor motive to institute top-down reform. Too often the result is a set of rules disconnected from higher principles. Notes one expert: “Too many companies just write up a code of ethics and display it for public relations.”41
Legalism is both self-defeating and morally wrong. By missing what is truly important, it confuses the forest from the trees. A ludicrous example involves a cadre of legalistic Christians who fought in the German army during World War II. While refusing to dance or imbibe alcohol, they participated in the execution of thousands of Jews in Nazi death camps.4
Judgmentalism. When legalists fail, they justify themselves by pointing out even greater moral lapses in others. The classic example is found in Jesus’ parable about a proud Pharisee who attempts to justify his actions by comparing himself to thieves, adulterers and tax collectors—not exactly tough competition. He concludes his “prayer” by alluding to his strict tithing and fasting twice a week.43
Judgmentalism is a ghastly imitation of holiness. That the two are linked when we call self-righteous individuals “holier than thou” is most unfortunate. Operating on the basis of pride and self-reliance (rather than on humility and grace), these smug individuals criticize others in order to inflate their own self-opinions. By contrast, holy people refuse to cast stones at others and are careful to put their own moral houses in order before confronting others.44
Judgmental employers like Meg have long memories, refusing to forget errors committed by subordinates. Like precise accountants, they carefully log each mistake and then keep offenders on a short leash. Ironically, judgmentalists are doomed to hypocrisy because they are unable to live up to their own standards. As a result, pride forces them to become masters o deception in covering up their own failures.
Withdrawal from society. False asceticism is another bastardization of holiness. Many well-meaning people have concluded that withdrawal from “the world” is the only way to attain holiness. Most extreme were medieval hermits such as Simeon Stylites, who lived alone on a small tower for thirty years, and an Irish saint who remained suspended by his armpits over an open hole for seven years.45 They would scoff at the notion of a “holy businessperson,” regarding it as a wicked oxymoron. For them business was indeed a dirty, worldly profession, staining all who touched it. The only way to attain holiness, ascetics contend, is through self-denial and withdrawal from corrupting influences.
A more modern example, recounted in the book Into the Wild (and later in a movie), involved a college graduate named Chris McCandless. As he became increasingly disillusioned with the materialism and greed that surrounded him, he headed into the Alaska wilderness, intending to live off the land. Tragically, he died of starvation four months later.46
CASE STUDY
Business is crass. When Rose was a college student, her parents encouraged her to major in business. Rejecting this advice, she focused on education instead, reasoning, “I would rather deal with people’s character than with their pocketbooks. In business you always have to think about money. It’s so crass.”
Just out of college, Rose married a social worker named Don. When Don tired of that line of work, he successfully launched several service companies. Rose took very little interest in his activities, preferring to read the classics and work with the poor. “Business is so exploitive,” she complained, “and the Bible says that you can’t honor God and money.” When her daughter later decided to major in business, Rose was irate: “How could you make such a compromise? And for what? So that you can get a job when you graduate?”
An internet search of the word boycott unearths a wide variety of groups advocating a secular version of the ascetic approach of withdrawal. Consumers are encouraged to boycott virtually every product imaginable, including cars, carrots, chickens, credit, clothing, coffee, computers and chocolate. Companies to be shunned run the full gamut—Apple, McDonald’s, Motorola, Johnson & Johnson, Disney, Nestlé, Chipotle, Caterpillar, Air France, Walmart and Nike.47 While well intended, such blanket boycotts often reflect a deep ascetic impulse to withdraw from commerce completely.
This perspective confuses moral separation with physical separation. In doing so, a primary point is missed: holiness is acceptance of, not flight from, responsibility. True holiness involves incarnation into the world and its troubles, not abdication from it. Jesus prayed not that his followers be removed from common life but that they might discover holiness in the midst of it.48
Holiness does not convert us into hothouse plants that can grow only in artificially controlled environments.49 Jesus certainly did not live in such an antiseptic manner and, if physically present today, would no doubt feel quite comfortable befriending sales representatives, IRS agents and defense attorneys. Indeed, nearly a quarter of his parables dealt with business situations.50
Unclean, messy and full of opportunities for good or ill, the marketplace provides a forum in which responsible holiness can grow. Like the apostle Paul, who wrote positively about his own business experience, we should use the marketplace as an opportunity both for testing our character and for bringing light into darkness. It is certainly an environment in which zeal for God, purity, accountability and humility are sorely needed.
image1.emf
Criteria Ratings Points
Thread Content
35 to >31.0 pts
Advanced
All key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in the thread. The thread has a clear, logical flow. Major points are stated clearly. The textbook’s assigned chapter is used and major points are presented and are supported by at least 3 scholarly resources published in the last 3 years. Good examples demonstrate thoughtful analysis in each paragraph. Biblical integration is present and developed.
31 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Most of the components of the Discussion prompt are answered in the thread. The thread has a logical flow. Major points are stated reasonably well. Major points are supported by good examples or thoughtful analysis. The textbook’s assigned reading is used presenting major points that are supported by at least 2 scholarly sources published in the last 3 years. One good example demonstrates thoughtful analyses in each paragraph. Biblical integration is somewhat presented and developed.
25 to >0.0 pts
Developing
The components of the Discussion prompt are addressed minimally. The thread lacks flow or content. Major points are unclear or confusing. Major points are not supported by examples or thoughtful analysis. Biblical integration is minimally presented and developed.
0 pts
Not Present
Not Present
35 pts
Thread
Grammar, Spelling, and APA Formatting
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
Spelling and grammar are correct. Sentences are complete, clear, and concise. Paragraphs contain appropriately varied sentence structures and are well-developed with at least 5 sentences. Sections are organized with subheadings in APA. Where applicable, references are cited in current APA format including a reference page. No first or second person is used.
8 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
Spelling and grammar have some errors. Sentences are complete, clear, and concise. Paragraphs contain some varied sentence structures. Where applicable, references are cited with some APA formatting. Some subheadings are used. No first or second person is used.
5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Spelling and grammar errors distract. Sentences are incomplete or unclear. Paragraphs are poorly formed. Where applicable, references are minimal or not cited in current APA format. No subheadings are used.
0 pts
Not Present
Not Present
10 pts
Word
Content
5 to >4.0 pts
Advanced
Minimum word count of 400-500 words is met.
4 to >3.0 pts
Proficient
Minimum word count of 250-399 words met.
3 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Minimum word count of 1-249 words met.
0 pts
Not Present
Not Present
5 pts
Discussion Response and Replies Grading Rubric | BMAL570_B02_202340
Criteria Ratings Points
Replies
Content
35 to >31.0 pts
Advanced
Each reply must clearly link to the original author’s post, contribute new information, and focus on meaningful points made in at least 2 other students’ threads. Each reply provides substantive additional thoughts regarding the thread and an explanation of why the student agrees or disagrees with the idea presented in the thread. Each reply is clear and coherent and advances the conversation. Each reply must include a minimum of 2 scholarly resources.
31 to >24.0 pts
Proficient
Most replies focus on a meaningful point made in at least 2 other student’s threads. Most replies provide substantive additional thoughts regarding the thread and an explanation of why the student likes or dislikes the idea presented in the thread. Most replies are clear and coherent.
24 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Some replies focus on a point made in another student’s thread. Replies could be more substantive regarding the thread. Replies lack clarity and coherence. Only one reply to another student.
0 pts
Not Present
Not Present
35 pts
Replies
Grammar, Spelling, and APA Formatting
12 to >10.0 pts
Advanced
Spelling and grammar are correct. Sentences are complete, clear, and concise. Paragraphs contain appropriately varied sentence structures. Where applicable, references are cited in current APA format.
10 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
Spelling and grammar has some errors. Sentences are presented as well. Paragraphs contain some varied sentence structures. Where applicable, references are cited with some APA formatting.
7 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Spelling and grammar errors distract. Sentences are incomplete or unclear. Paragraphs are poorly formed. Where applicable, references are minimally or not cited in current APA format.
0 pts
Not Present
Not Present
12 pts
Replies
Word Count
3 pts
Advanced
At least 2 replies are present, and a minimum word count of 200 words is met or exceeded for each.
2 pts
Proficient
At least 2 replies are present, and a minimum word count of 175-199 words met.
1 pts
Developing
At least 1 reply is present and a minimum word count of 1-174 words met.
0 pts
Not Present
Not Present
3 pts
Total Points: 100
Discussion Response and Replies Grading Rubric | BMAL570_B02_202340
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.