CSR: fact or fiction?

Wal-mart and Sears pull all products containing any image of the Confederate flag.
"We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer."     Walmart Spokesman

This is not a blog about the merits of the Confederate flag as a symbol of anything, but rather an opportunity to illustrate an important point about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The prevailing thought about CSR is that when a corporation acts in some ethical or moral way, then they are being socially responsible. I contend that when they are acting "moral". businesses are almost always being Politically Correct in order to maintain customers.

Here's the crux of the debate. Are for-profit organizations just an economic agent of shareholders or are they also moral agents of society. The famous Friedman Doctrine posits that for profit business have only a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders as long as they obey the law. Obama has made the statement that businesses are moral agents. Which is it? 

Business ethics is the framework within which society deems an action to be socially responsible, as opposed to being economically motivated. Here's the key to ethics that is often not noticed. For an action to be ethical, the actor must be motivated by the benefit of the action to others at a detriment to themselves. if it is beneficial to the actor, then its economic or self motivated. Further, for an action to be ethical, the action cannot not be governed by law or policy, only the character of the actor.

Applying this to CSR, an action by a business is being socially responsible when society (non shareholder stakeholders) benefits at the expense of the shareholder, otherwise its just a good business decision for the benefit of the shareholders. Conforming to the norms of society in order to be legitimate may be morally aligned actions, but they are motivated by the economic benefit of the investors, not the ethics of management.

So when Wal-mart says they do not want to "offend anyone", is that a moral action that benefits society but reduces returns for shareholders, or is it "good business". Is it a judgment of management that more people will think well of them and remain or become a customer than there will be people who are offended by the removal of the flag, seeing the flag as positive.

Ten years ago or so when CSR was the hot topic, I failed to read an article on a company's CSR that did not ultimately say it was good for the shareholders to take some action for employees or the environment or some other PC movement. Chic-fil-a is famous for not opening on Sundays. is this a moral stance or is it just good business. Truett Cathy used to say it was beneficial in getting good employees and essential to their appeal to consumers. It was not to the detriment of investors.

Its perfectly fine if a business wishes to make decisions based on what is PC in order to communicate the image they wish to the market. Its not OK to "toot their horn" that they are being morally responsible. The fact that these actions concerning the flag are all occurring around a highly publicized, emotional event somewhat supports that CSR is PC. SO, why don't "we" (the business community) call it "our PC policy" for branding rather than pretending "we" are something we are not (moral agents).

Certainly worth pondering for all executive teams ....  

making sense of PC

We all notice how our society has aggressively subjected us to "political correctness." Seinfeld recently said he was no longer going to college campuses because the PC police made humor into something ugly. 

Where does this PC obsession come from anyway? More importantly, what is its ultimate effect on our society?

First, political correctness is just a contemporary term that captures the human need for legitimacy. Most people conform to social norms to be liked, not right. Regardless of what factors drives social norms, most individuals will strive to be PC in order to be seen as OK. You can only be blamed if you try something out of the mainstream and fail and shame can only occur when one fails to be seen as legitimate.

It just so happens that since WWII the determinants of social norms have fallen into the hands of politically liberal institutions (education, government, media, entertainment, and religion). This has created a norm of tolerance, unless you disagree with the politically liberal position, then you are shamed. Throughout the history of mankind and forever forward, there will be an emphasis on being PC. It just so happens the norm makers of today value the absent of absolutes. The presence of 24/7 news and social media makes the policing of PC more prevalent and effective. 

The above applies to the more macro society. What about sub cultures? I would suggest the evangelical church has their own PC. Why is it churches split? Denominations form? What about the way public education operates? Do they have their own PC? Political correctness is the manifestation of the human need for legitimacy, in what ever form that takes. Actually, product branding leverages this need and creates a form of PC.

Second, what are the consequences of PC? Research shows that the need for legitimacy over the need to be right stifles creativity and change. Inertia to the norms penalizes thinking outside the box and those individuals who tend to operate on the edge. "Brown nosing", not rocking the boat and challenging the status quo, is how you get accepted and even get ahead. 

The bogging down of growth and progress and the advance of tyranny is the result. Organizations and institutions get bloated and tend to go down the toilet over time, not transform so they can reach to the mountain tops. 

Ultimately the norms collapse and new ones replace them and PC starts all over again, only a different PC. 

THE SERMON - repudiating the obsession with justice Part 2

In the previous blog I attempted to explain how human nature's obsession with justice invades our sense-making at every turn. My premise is that if the study of human nature has found "justice" as man's preeminent concern, then justice has to be a dominant aspect of our carnal mind and thus what Jesus must be repudiating in the Sermon on The Mount, where He is explaining to us what its like to belong in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Sermon on the Mount has been studied and written about by great Bible scholars over the years, so what could I add that hasn't been said? Do I have even a right to correct or expand on what we know about this Scripture? While I too have studied Matthew 5 - 7 many times, the last time i was teaching from these verses i was also teaching organizational psychology. This is where i began to ask questions like:
 
If obsession with justice is central to human nature, then is it a flaw in our Christian life?
What is it about justice as a guiding principle that interferes with the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies?

Pursuing these questions caused me to understand what Jesus was saying in ways I had never before. Maybe it will you too. For instance:

In the Beattitudes Jesus is explaining the sources of our joy as a Kingdom dweller. Guess what Jesus did not say? "Oh the joy of being fair", and what He did say, "oh the joy of being merciful." Mercy is treating others as if they did not offend us at all.

Then Jesus says something remarkable, "Do not think I came to destroy the law but to fulfill it." The law is the basis for justice. Its the benchmark by which we determine guilt and punishment. He said, I didn't come to negate the immutable nature of God (justice), but I came to take care of it for you. In other words we no longer have to be obsessed with justice, Jesus has ushered in a Kingdom where it is no longer the basis for being right and enjoying the benefits of life. The key to dwelling in the Kingdom is a righteousness that far exceeds our being just in what we do and having others being just in how they treat us. He then goes on to explain what this is like by explaining how our carnal mind (one obsessed with justice) makes sense of things in contrast with how the Kingdom mind makes sense of the same thing. Some examples:

You hide behind laws of murder, adultery, and marriage to satisfy justice, but you do so to serve self while your heart is defiled with contempt, lust, and power. The Kingdom mind (Grace) creates a heart of thanksgiving where laws are not needed, and therefore justice is not the point.

Jesus gives several examples of where justice (eye for an eye) causes us to demand our rights, but the Kingdom mind leads us rather to rest and be blessed in our Heavenly privileges (turn your cheek, go the extra mile, give your cloak too).

Jesus teaches His disciples to give and to pray where these are not exchanges to gain the favor of others. Notice in the Lord's Prayer Jesus never says, "lead us into a life of justice, help us be fair." Rather He petitions the Father for our desire to forgive (do not even see the offenses against us).

There's many other examples where Jesus is repudiating our obsession with our role in enacting justice. The most obvious is "Judge not." What is judging? It is simply the determination of guilt. How much more direct can Jesus be about life in the Kingdom. Determining someone else's guilt is your natural tendency. Don't you realize that in the Kingdom the issue of guilt has been taken off the table for you, so why do you put it back on the table for others. In fact (Jesus goes on to say), judging others robs you of the privileges and provisions of the Kingdom because it distorts your relationship with God. You cannot make sense of your relationship with others without this perspective affecting how you make sense of how God sees you.

While we employ God's character of justice to play a role in our civil practices to maintain order, we are free from being agents of His justice in our relationships with others. If God does not deal with us thru the lenses of justice, but rather Grace, then why do we feel we must carry the mantra of justice for God. Is that His great commandment, "be just in all you do." No, its love God with all your heart and others as if they were you. Grace frees us to love. Justice binds us to guilt and fear.

You can read more about how justice dominates our sense-making and why it guarantees that we cannot experience joy, freedom, hope, and significance, which are the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies.

Justice: a misguided perspective?

Making sense of ourself and the world around us can be quite flawed. Our perspectives generally come from perceptions that are biased and have significant filters governing how we see things (self interest). Our obsession with justice is likely one of the most significant judgments we make that is subject to such distortion. It see seems that the populist movement has hijacked the mission of every institution (government, education, commerce, healthcare, marriage religion, etc) into one of social justice.

We see the obsession for justice dominate our public discourse as if justice is the standard by which we mainly base society's actions. President Obama makes this claim when he distorts the Constitutional mandate for separation of powers by stating "the role of the Supreme Court is to enact social justice." If you look close enough Obama bases all his arguments on the preeminence of justice. Hillary picks up the mantra in her first campaign speech as she anchors her candidacy in "prosperity must be shared by all."

The obsession with justice is not limited to liberal politicians. Recently the annual meeting of the PCA Presbytery allocated time and focus on repentance for the injustice the denomination has perpetuated on the black community. The motion put forth by two prominent pastors was a statement of corporate repentance of the church's sins against our minority neighbors, especially during the Civil Rights era.

Many of us would agree that the most common "push back" parents get from their children, especially teens is "dad (mom), it's not fair." Experts in social psychology tend to agree that justice (the equity norm of fairness) is main's dominant concern. While there may be much agreement on this point, there's no real explanation as to why. You can have whatever opinion you want on this. The study of human psychology and sociology does not inform us as to the source of the human obsession with justice, only that it exists. Let me offer a perspective from God's word. You can decide if your "bloated" obsession with justice is from "water or food" :-)

While justice is the character of God, justice is something He takes care of and does not push the responsibility down to us. Mankind inherits the obsession for justice from Adam as he sought to be God (part of our original sin). The Old Testament discusses justice often, but the intent is to establish justice as an immutable character of God. Man's attempt at justice always fails. Paul describes this dilemma for humans in Roman's 9. He reminds the Jews they seem to have every right to God's favor, but God has chosen to bless the Gentiles too and moreover, the fact that one is a Jew does not grant him or her God's favor. Paul then raises the question that we all must ask because it is in our nature, "Is God not fair?" Paul's reply seems to be saying that we are barking up the wrong tree. That is, God acts for His glory, He wills what He wills for His purposes. People are to leave justice to Him. He is the potter, we are the clay and He will make His riches known to His vessels (those He purposes) in His glory.

The problem we have as humans is that we are cursed with the obsession for justice. Life in the Kingdom means God provides all justice for us, we are free from its burden. We like to quote Jesus, "I am the truth and the truth will set you free." Yet, we merely say we are set free from sin without always knowing what that means.

Jesus regularly describes God's Kingdom as a place where Grace, not justice is the operating principle. The need for justice is the source of strife and discontent, not the resolution of it. Just a couple of examples, Matt 6 begins with Jesus explaining that the basis for rewards is the discretionary nature of God (the ultimate reward giver), not the exchange nature of man (a temporary reward giver). In the parable of the laborers in Matt 20 Jesus says "for the Kingdom of Heaven is like this" and He goes on to describe how the landowner (God) rewards His workers. In this parable we also see how the laborers obsession with justice blocks their experience of His grace and restricts their experiencing the provisions and privileges of the Heavenlies. 

So, what does this mean? If you accept in faith that God is just and He has taken care of all injustice for us (the Cross), then you can be free from the obsession of justice. Forgiveness will not be about resolving injustices in our lives, but a spirit that lacks a sense of offense at all. Repentance is not about telling others we are sorry for our actions, but a complete reappraisal of justice and Grace. We will not have guilt over our actions and we will not have bitterness over actions of others. You might say, this is impossible, "I am only human"! That's right, that's why we need a Savior.       

This is a difficult message for everyone, especially Christians, because it runs counter to our nature. However, the explanation is all over Scripture, the issue for us is the degree our own perspective is biased and filtered by our nature. 

So, don't you think questioning our obsession with justice is certainly worth pondering .....

The Duggar Dispute

The press is having a field day with the Duggar family revelation that the oldest son had committed a sexual abuse crime years ago as a young teen. There's the criticism of many that a family that goes on TV as an advocate for Christian values is highly hypocritical given this issue within their own family. Their defense and that of their allies is that Christianity is about forgiveness and they have all forgiven their son's transgression. Then the Duggars and their allies criticize the criminal justice system for making public details of this case that is supposed to be closed due to the juvenile age of the perpetrator.

I find the public debate of Christianity to be quite disturbing by both the pundits who question the Duggars (such as Meghyn Kelley) and the responses given by the Duggars and others who try and present their position as Christians. The point seems to be that Christianity is only about family values and forgiving transgressions. What an excellent opportunity to actually discuss Christianity in what it really is - a relationship with the person Jesus Christ. I have not heard any Christian asked about this in the public forum of ideas ever divert the discussion away from family values to the relationship with Christ.

The obsession of society with Christianity as the advocate of family values and morality is really interesting. One is that somewhere Christians have failed to be a testimony to their faith when others see them as something unrelated to what they are. While Christians value morality, the Christian is not the banner carrier for morality, social justice, and traditional values. Jesus actually had the harshest words for the moralists in His day, the Pharisees. In watching the TV documentary "AD: The Bible Continues" we see a portrayal of the early Christians. They were seen as those committed to the person Jesus, whom they proclaimed to be alive and King. They were not persecuted because they were hypocrites and politically incorrect defending family values as the Duggars are (and many many other Christians).

Its not unexpected that the world would "persecute" Christians even in the USA. Jesus told us that the world would persecute us, not because we are hypocrtical advocates of morality but because we believe He is the only way to truth and life. While most churches certainly preach the Gospel for the most part, why does the world see Christians incorrectly. What is it about our lives that do not shout "we trust Jesus for life"? The contrast I see in the early church and today's church should be a sobering reminder of what we should proclaim as Christians.

The Duggar dispute would be a fantastic opportunity to defend the hope that is in us, not the Pharisee in us.