Here are the Blogs in the science and ethics category.
Thursday, 27 May 2010
The Book’s the Difference
The Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925 could not have happened without the influence of Fundamentalism. When I use this word with an uppercase F, I refer specifically to an American religious movement that rallied behind a series of publications known as The Fundamentals (1910-1915). A total of twelve inexpensive volumes covered a variety of topics ranging from the inerrancy of Scripture to the doctrine of atonement. A further defense of premillennial dispensationalism set Fundamentalists apart from other conservative groups. At its core, however, the movement rose up in opposition to theological liberalism.
Critics and outside observers portrayed Fundamentalism as a militant struggle against social progress.[i] On this interpretation, for instance, the anti-evolution movement of the 1920s was seen as an attack on modern science that had nothing to do with the merits of Darwinian theory or its ethical implications.
This way of understanding the conservative impulse within Christianity was exported to militant Islamic movements after World War II. One popular definition from sociologists Jeffrey Hadden and Anson Shupe characterizes generic or global fundamentalism as “a proclamation of reclaimed authority over a sacred tradition which is to be reinstated as an antidote for a culture that has strayed from its cultural moorings.” [ii] Alienation was supposed to link these seemingly disparate groups. Just as conservative Bible believers felt isolated by the arrival of the modern scientific paradigm, so Muslims felt isolated by the arrival of the modern secular state.
There are at least two major problems with the Hadden-Shupe thesis. First, American Fundamentalism was, for the most part, a religious movement. Concerned believers set their sights on the rising tide of secularism within their own community of evangelical Protestants. They took their Fundamentals to be an antidote for a church that had gone astray. Influence on culture was only a secondary goal.
A second and larger point is that the language of Hadden and Shupe’s definition masks a critical difference between American Fundamentalism and militant Islam. Fundamentalists were certainly instrumental in creating Tennessee’s anti-evolution legislation, which in turn triggered the Scopes Trial. The act prohibited teachers from presenting anything contrary to “the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.” This certainly looks like an attempt to reinstate a sacred tradition, but it was done within the context of an existing political structure. Militant Islam, as witnessed in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the attacks on 9/11, has an entirely different approach.
Moreover, essays in The Fundamentals were written by people committed to rational argument and empirical science. Only a very narrow segment of Fundamentalists could possibly fit the stereotype of anti-intellectual radicals seeking to plunge Western civilization into a theocratic dark age, and yet this is precisely the goal of militant Islam.
We need only compare The Fundamentals to Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones (1964) to appreciate the difference between these two movements. Both publications were meant to serve as manifestos for their respective faith traditions, and yet their diagnoses of what went wrong and their prescriptions for change were light years apart. From within the overwhelmingly Muslim nation of Egypt, Qutb argued for the violent overthrow of its secular government. And that was only the beginning. Qutb’s writings continue to have had a profound influence on the Muslim world.
Exporting the “fundamentalist” label to these post-colonial Islamic movements might have seemed compelling at one time, but only on the shallowest of levels. Here were people who loved their Qur’an and wanted it to play a larger role in the life of ordinary Muslims. Did this not resemble the back-to-the-Bible movement of the 1920s? It soon became apparent that the jihadists wanted so much more. Nonetheless, their motives and methods were pinned on Bible-believing, church-going groups in America. If radical Islam sought the collapse of liberal Western democracy then, by mere dint of labeling, conservative Christianity must pose a similar threat. Both movements could now be demonized as religiously motivated threats to the progressive agenda.
The reluctance to mark a distinction between conservative Christianity and militant Islam stems from a refusal to take their respective texts seriously. The New Testament and the Qur’an (and the supplementary hadith) embody diametrically opposite views on the role of violence in religion and the role of religion in society. The Book really does make the difference.
[i] George M. Marsden. Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 4.
[ii] Jeffrey Hadden and Anson Shupe. The Politics of Religion and Social Change. Paragon House, 1988, p. 111.
Posted on 05/27/2010 2:52 PM by Trevor Major
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Ethics Where We Live and Where We Work
In this issue of Think magazine, the focus will be on ethics in our society and in our lives. The word ethics comes from the Greek word ethos that has a direct meaning of “of the people” and an implied meaning of “the disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement.”[i] In other words, the study of ethics is all about how we should live our lives. We have never lived in a time when this study was more crucial.
Have you had the experience of carefully purchasing a computer, after hours of researching for just the right product at just the right price, just to discover the next day that the newer, faster model has just arrived in the electronics store or at a website at a cheaper price? This illustrates our age: an age of negotiated ethics and disposable values.[ii] We custom-make our ethics to be what we want them to be, we use them as long as we need them, and then we throw them away. In this article, I want to look at the foundation of ethics, note the dilemma in America of trying to believe in ethics without God, and emphasize the need for ethics we can justify in our own personal lives and in our professions.
The Foundation of Ethics
The study of ethics is often divided into the categories of normative and non-normative ethics. "Normative ethics" denotes systems of ethics that claim to produce norms or standards by which value judgments can be made. "Non-normative ethics" denotes just the opposite.
There are three major perspectives employed in the classification of normative ethics: the deontological, the teleological, and the aretaic. The deontological approach emphasizes the nature or essence of the act itself thus often known as “duty-based,” the teleological approach emphasizes the consequences of the act under consideration because the word teleos means “end” or “goal” in Greek, and the aretaic approach emphasizes the character of the person who performs the act. Arete is the Greek word for virtue or moral excellence. These three major systems of normative ethics emphasize the three major focal points of ethics.
If I am trying to determine the moral value of an action x (where x is a variable to represent anything I am considering), then thefirst focal point of ethics is the nature or essence of x itself. Whenever the nature of an action is being considered, this is called the intrinsic value of x. If an action is intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong in and of itself. When we use the nature of God to determine the intrinsic value of x, then the value of action x will never change, whatever the culture, whatever the country, and whatever the period of history. If something is intrinsically right, it will always be right; whenever something is intrinsically wrong, it will always be wrong. Why? Because the nature of God never changes (Malachi 3:6). I personally do not believe that there are any justifiable intrinsic value systems without God, a topic to which we shall return later in this essay.
The other two focal points of ethics will not yield any intrinsic value because they are based on extrinsicor instrumentalvalue. The second major focal point of ethics is the consequences of action x. When viewed this way, actions have no value in and of themselves, but there is some value of these actions when their consequences are used to judge their value. In this category, we find the number one dominant moral theory in America today—consequentialism. The dominant sub-category of consequential theories is utilitarianism. As Spock would say in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” In a less famous way to our culture, the high priest Caiaphas mirrors this view in John 11:49-50.
The third major focal point of ethics is the motives or character of the one who does the action(s) in question. In other words, x is not right or wrong at all. However, one can determine some instrumental value in x if the one who does x has good motives or a good heart. The roots of this ethical thinking are traced to Socrates in western philosophy and to early Confucianism in eastern philosophy.[iii] This way of thinking also finds a residence among many college students.[iv]
What does the Bible teach? The Bible teaches that certain things are intrinsically right or wrong. The Bible often gives lists of things that are always right or always wrong (Galatians 5:19-23; Revelation 21:8; et al.). Thus, the deontological view is confirmed. However, the Bible also teaches that some actions have morally determined values based on consequences. For instance, eating meat sacrificed to idols is not viewed by Paul to be intrinsically wrong. Yet if doing so violates either the conscience of the one eating or the consciences of weak brothers or sisters, then the action becomes wrong; instrumentally wrong, that is (1 Corinthians 8:13; Romans 14:23). Consequences do matter when there is no intrinsic worth. So, teleology does have some place in a Christian’s moral reasoning. Finally, sometimes actions are morally determined by the motives of the one(s) doing the actions. Amos teaches in Amos 5:21 that God can “hate your solemn festivals and feast days” if the motives in worship are not right. One can even preach out of wrong motivations (Philippians 1:15-17). So, the aretaic view is also confirmed in some circumstances. Does the Bible teach each equally? Absolutely not. Consequences and motives should be considered in all situations where there is no absolute or intrinsic worth. Even when there is intrinsic worth, good motives contribute to intrinsic value. For example, murder is not murder unless motives are taken into consideration. If one is guilty of premeditation as opposed to impulsive killing, the punishment is different because the motives differ.
Therefore, the Bible primarily teaches a deontological, or intrinsic value, based approach to ethics. Yet consequences and motives are important in the ethical areas where God has not directly spoken.
An American Dilemma: Ethics Without God
I love this country. I do not intend for anything to interfere with that love. However, there are at least two dilemmas that currently hamper the moral health of our country. The first dilemma is that many U.S. citizens believe this country is in a state of moral decline[v] and yet morality is difficult to define. The second dilemma involves the definition of morality, i.e. if we define ethics in an objective way in this country, then an unchanging moral standard is needed. If we use such a standard to define moral behavior in this country, then the post-1963 Supreme Court would judge such an approach to be unconstitutional. My wife is a public school teacher, a very good one. Yet she faces this dilemma almost every day: how do you teach ethics in your classroom without using God as the standard? If you introduce God as the standard, then you are breaking the law. Parents want their children to be taught not to steal, not to lie, to respect the rights of others, and to be good citizens of this country. However, these values cannot be purchased at a local superstore. We cannot just pull them out of the air.
To add to the problem, if there is no God, then an evolutionary view of nature would be the next most likely source to provide a basis for moral behavior. Since the world of nature is by nature always changing, then where is the objective standard for morality? There is no standard for morality in the world of nature.
Perhaps American pragmatism gives us the approach that many Americans employ at this stage. If our country needs a strong sense of morality, and if our laws will not permit God as the justification for real ethics, then we just need to do what works for the majority of the country—i.e. a combination of utilitarianism and pragmatism. Although a clever attempt to establish ethics without God, I believe it is self-defeating for a number of reasons. Yet utilitarians or pragmatists cannot, in any sort of an objective way, define words like ethical, good, love, caring, immoral, and other words whose nature indicates that an objective standard for value determination must exist. How can one decide whether certain teleological principles are valid without God? Is hedonistic or non-hedonistic teleology to be preferred? Should it be egoistic or altruistic? Or if hedonism is preferred, will it be qualitative (J.S. Mill) or quantitative (Jeremy Bentham) utilitarianism? The recognition of a teleological principle is absolutely dependent upon the possibility of making an accurate value judgment relative to a certain set of consequences. If one cannot judge certain consequences to be "good" or "bad," then he is no better off than when he started. It should be apparent that there exists a weakness inherent in the axiology of any attempt to establish ethics without God. Here is the logical dilemma: if a teleologist or consequentialist accepts his or her philosophical presuppositions, then the study of ethics is relative—in which case there can be no moral responsibility. On the other hand, if a teleologist or consequentialist feels compelled to argue for moral responsibility, then he or she must posit the existence of a metaphysically objective standard external to the universe—and that, by our English word, is God. If not God, then what? Thus, a world without God is destined to be a world without objective, justifiable ethics, i.e. moral chaos.
Ethics Where We Live and Where We Work
Do ethics matter? Ask any employer. For that matter, ask any employee. We may disagree about the specifics of ethics, but almost all of us would recognize their importance. There may be an exception or two, but in my experience, everylegitimate academic discipline and everyprofession have their own corresponding sets of academic or professional ethics, generally listed in formal ways. Many professions are so serious about their systems of ethics that conformity of their members to their ethics is essential to get into and to maintain a good relationship within the profession (e.g. doctors, lawyers, accountants, nurses, teachers, scientists, etc.).[vi]
Ethical expectations within your chosen career or profession are important to know and at times even crucial, but the most important person to satisfy about how you choose to work and live is God. Our relationship to Him supersedes any human organization or human creed. For years, those of us who work in Christian education are accustomed to receiving accolades about our alumni from their supervisors in their career fields. It is not a new occurrence for us. We expect our former students to do well when they begin their careers, and they overwhelmingly do not disappoint. Why? Our students have been taught God-given principles that help them to excel in their careers and in their personal relationships with God. Learning about Biblical ethics is really about learning how to live and serve others, whether in a job or in other ways.
Conclusion
When I learned that I had prostate cancer two years ago, I did all the research I could to find the surgeon whose credentials and experience gave us reasons to believe in him or her. After all, “credential” comes from the Latin credo, or “I believe.” When my wife and I interviewed the doctor before the surgery, the last question I asked was, “Are you a man of faith?” He was not only a man of faith, but last year he went to some of the most economically deprived parts of Africa to teach urology and to heal many with medical problems. Bingo—he was a man, I believed, in whom we could place our trust. To me, this is the main reason why ethics is needed more in this country than perhaps ever before. For if people teach and live a good ethical life like Jesus (Acts 1:1, 38), it tells you who you can trust and it tells other people they can trust you. If Jesus is not seen in the ethics where we live and work, then He is not truly indwelling in us at all.
[i] Definition is from freeonlinedictionary.com and answers.com.
[ii] There is a real difference in “values” and “ethics” in other contexts. In my classes, I teach that “values” are anything to which is attached worth, significance, or importance whereas “ethics” are prescribed values. Thus, ethics takes one into the category of right and wrong. However, in more informal contexts, “ethics” and “values” are used synonymously.
[iii] See Bryan Van Norden’s book Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism in Early Chinese Philosophy (Cambridge University press 2007).
[iv] Research found in collegevalues.org confirms that motive-based ethical thinking is still preferred by many college students over any form of absolutism (i.e. the belief that some moral values are absolute or have intrinsic value).
[v] Some studies to examine are “Moral Decline in America” at hubpages.com; “More Moral Decline in America” (11-5-09) at video.aol.co.uk/video; “Irrefutable Evidence of America’s Moral Decline” in The Boston Globe at encyclopedia.com; et al.
[vi] For legal ethics, go to abanet.org or legalethics.com; for medical ethics, go to ama-assn.org; for accountants, see cpahandbook.com; for teachers, go to knea.org or aae.org; etc.
Posted on 04/13/2010 11:48 AM by Dr.Ralph Gilmore
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
The Ethics of Repairs
Who do you call when you come home during the heat of summer only to realize that the air conditioner is not working or the refrigerator has quit cooling? You need someone to come, diagnose the problem, and make the necessary repairs. Does it matter who that “someone” is? Is one service company just as fair and reliable as another? Does the ethical standard (or lack thereof) under which the company operates matter?
My business deals primarily with the service and repair of home central heating and air conditioning systems and major home appliances. I work in an industry that is filled with good, competent service companies and service techs that are able and ready to service the public’s needs. All of us, however, have heard of the horror stories about the few who opportunistically use others’ tragedy and misfortune to take advantage. As a result of these few, many in the general public are wary about service companies—and rightly so. No one wants to be taken advantage of. We all want to know that the repairs performed are necessary and that the job is priced fairly. The only way we can be confident that this will be the case is by knowing that the service professional doing the work is guided by a standard of professional, company, and personal ethics.
One common problem that I see in the service industry is unethical service techs performing repairs that are not necessary or misdiagnosing a problem in order to persuade the homeowner to purchase new equipment, thus increasing the profits for the service company. Many times I have been called upon for a second opinion as to whether a central air conditioning system needed to be replaced, only to find the problem was a minor item (less than $100) that could be easily replaced. I have often wondered whether the service tech was incompetent in diagnosing the problem or just wanting to sell a new unit. Either way it shows a lack of ethics. Customers expect the service company that they call to be competent to perform the repair and to be honest. If a service tech lacks either quality, one must question his ethics.
As service providers, we must realize that when a customer hires a service company to perform a specific job, there is an implied assurance on the part of the company and an expectation on the part of the customer that the service tech performing the repair will be familiar with the equipment and competent to diagnose and make the repair. It is only by offering competent, reliable service that we as service providers can fulfill our responsibility to the customer and remain true to our standard of ethics.
Another common problem that arises with unethical service companies is over billing for work performed. I have actually heard some service techs brag about how much they charged for a particular job and justified it because in their mind the customer deserved to be charged more. Whether it was because of the size of the house, the type of car the customer drove, the job that the customer had, or simply because the customer appeared to have an abundance of money. It is clear to see that their lack of a good ethical standard stems from a covetous heart. Whenever we take advantage or defraud someone, whether in a business or personal transaction, we show ourselves to be lacking character and ethics.
Jesus dealt with this in interacting with the rich young man in Mark 10. This young man runs to Jesus and asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Initially Jesus recounts several of the Ten Commandments. In verse 19 Jesus says, “Defraud not,” referring to the Tenth Commandment not to covet anything of your neighbor’s. To defraud someone is to take something of his by fraud or dishonesty. This type of deceit begins with an evil eye that desires something that a neighbor has and is acted upon by a heart that has no moral compass or ethical standard. We can see that a lack of ethics in the workplace is not merely an oversight on someone’s part, but rather is indicative of a systemic deep-rooted problem of the heart.
The apostle Paul dealt with this very thing in writing to those in Thessalonica in First Thessalonians 4. In verse 1 Paul begins by reminding them of their walk with Christ by saying, “We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more” (KJV, emp. added). He continues in verses 3-5 to remind them that it is God’s will that they keep themselves pure from fornication and then in verse 6 he says, “That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter” (KJV, emp. added). While Paul is dealing here with sexual immorality and defrauding another in that regard, the principle laid out is of such a general nature as to encompass any type of fraud or deceit. He then continues in verse 6 with a warning as to the danger of participating in such deceit. He says, “because that the Lord is the avenger of all such” (KJV, emp. added). We must realize that while fraud and deceit may go unnoticed by those with whom we have business dealings, God is the ultimate judge and will avenge or set aright the wrongs which we commit. This fact alone should be enough of a warning for us to deal honestly with all men and maintain a high ethical standard. This point is made by Paul again in Colossians 3 as he teaches on a proper work ethic. This teaching is applicable whether we are working for an employer or as a service company working for the general public. Paul says in Colossians 3:22, “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” (KJV, emp. added). Our work ethic must be rooted and grounded in our faith. Not based on what men expect (as menpleasers), but with a pure heart towards God. He continues in verses 24-25, “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons” (KJV, emp. added).
A good ethical standard in business requires that one charge a fair price in exchange for a quality product or service performed. This price must be set and not allowed to fluctuate from customer to customer because of covetousness, greed, or a desire to make a quick buck. It is only by maintaining a good ethical standard that a godly character can be displayed and a good reputation built.
Just as I am called upon to occasionally review another’s work and offer a second opinion with regards to a repair, we must all realize the each of us one day will all have our work reviewed and each of us will receive a “second opinion” with regards to the good or wrong which we have done.
May we all strive to attain and maintain the highest ethical standard in our lives so as to bring glory to God now and to be able to stand confidently before Him on that last great day.
Posted on 04/13/2010 11:55 AM by Mitch Poskevich
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Christian Ethics in Christian Counseling
Godly love (agape) guides both my theoretical approach and my practice of professional counseling, marriage and family therapy, and addictions counseling. The editors have asked that I share, in a personal way, how faith in the Gospel should play a central role in Christian counseling.
The thoughts that I will present are impelled by three deep and urgent concerns. First, I hope what I discuss will encourage those seeking counseling to find a counselor who is guided by the Gospel. I also hope churches with counseling ministries will recognize the importance of employing counselors whose theoretical approach is firmly based on the Gospel. And finally, I hope Christian colleges and universities that educate Christian counselors will realize that they are failing their students and the church if they fail to provide, boldly and unashamedly, curricula that prepare students to practice Gospel-based counseling.
Christian Counseling
Christian counselors seek to help people achieve life changes leading to healthier, more meaningful living and greater inner peace and joy. Although the Code of Ethics for most mental health disciplines directs counselors to avoid imposing their personal values and beliefs on clients, the counseling process basically is an interaction of values and beliefs.
Every counselor's work is based on faith—a faith based on his epistemology. “Faith” is a person's conclusion of what is true; this conclusion is based on the weight of evidence he views as true. In order to arrive at a specific belief concerning any subject, one must employ some method of knowing. Epistemology attempts to explore the different methods that have been used to establish beliefs and, in light of their implications, make some decisions concerning the most appropriate one(s) to follow. Generally speaking, humanistic counselors base their faith on empirical evidence. But, in addition to empirical evidence, Christian counselors are influenced by rationalistic and authoritative evidence.
Counseling is an art, not an exact science. How each counselor applies his art is based on his philosophy of counseling and his philosophy of life in general. Since a counselor's personal belief system affects the counseling relationship, it is of critical importance that your counselor believes in God and in the Bible as the plenary and verbally inspired Word of God. In addition, it is very important for your counselor to view the Gospel as the only source of power that can effect sanctifying changes in a person's life.
God provides the best way to help people achieve life changes which endow them with healthier, more meaningful living and greater inner peace and joy (Galatians 5:22-25). All humanistic mental health theories focus on change within the nature of man. The Bible also talks about change, but not change within man's nature. It reveals the mystery and secret of changing the very nature of man (Ephesians 4:17-24; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Because no power but divine power can change our nature, no book but the Bible can teach us how to change our nature.
There are two possible motives for everything we do: selfishness or love, i.e., agape love. We will be motivated to please either God or self. The underlying origin of all interpersonal and personal problems we experience as human beings is selfishness. Only one power changes the selfish nature of man. Only one power. It is not the power of science. It is not the power of psychology. It is not the power of a therapist. It is not the power of a church or its ministers. It is not the power of man wrapping his mind around something and changing it himself. It is, of course, the power of God. God used His power to create the world; He proved that power by raising Jesus from the dead; He will use it gloriously to raise Christians from the dead. And that same power is at our disposal! It is the only power—the Only Power—that can change our selfish, sinful nature to a nature that is godly and loving (Romans 1:16; 8:1-17). The message of how we can overcome our selfish nature is called the Gospel.
Without question, knowledge gained from scientific research is valuable. However, unless the selfish nature of man is put to death, any knowledge gained from science will be applied through selfish motives, and it is sure to result in dysfunction and death. Christian counseling, on the other hand, can help people change their nature; humanistic counseling cannot and will not bring about this result!
Ethical Challenges
Should the church promote humanism, or should it promote the Gospel? One of the ethical challenges I face as a therapist occurs when churches ask me to present lessons based on humanistic research about life issues (addictions, marriage, parenting, depression, anxiety, grief, low self-esteem, etc.) instead of how to apply the message of God's love to them. The Bible is filled with information about how to let God effect behavioral change and joyful inner peace.
Paul charged Timothy to preach the Word. And for what reason? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, KJV). I believe Christian counselors should never allow themselves to be used by those in the church who wish to replace the message of the Gospel with humanistic philosophies!
Another ethical challenge I face occurs when I am asked by a church to recommend a counselor. Many churches are beginning counseling ministries. However, church leaders may not know that many Christians doing counseling are trained only in humanistic theories and do not know how to help people change their selfish, sinful natures to godly, loving natures. This also applies to those graduating from some Christian colleges, for many of the graduate counseling programs in Christian colleges teach only humanistic theories. Beware of those who call themselves “Christian counselors.” There is a difference between Christians who use only humanistic theories in their counseling practices and Christians who help individuals experience the nature-changing power of God.
Paul warned the church in Colosse about being taken captive by the deceptive philosophies of men: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ…. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Colossians 2:8, 18-19, KJV). I believe churches should never employ counselors whose theoretical approach and practice of counseling are not based on the Gospel.
Faith Maintenance
The editors have asked me to conclude by explaining how I maintain my faith. Interestingly, my work probably strengthens my faith more than anything else. One of the best ways to keep the Gospel in our hearts is to share it (Romans 1:11-12; Colossians 3:16). Because my counseling practice is founded on the Gospel, I am able to talk about it all day every day. Wow, what a privilege and blessing! I also am able to see the power of God resurrect people's lives and give them a peace that surpasses understanding. The love of God is so amazing and so awesome! I am often emotionally overwhelmed when I see it working right before my eyes. Jesus said of Himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). I know God's Way is the only way for achieving true peace and joy! I know because I experience it every day. Posted on 04/13/2010 12:45 PM by William T. (Bud) Lambert, Jr.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Ethics of Business
Building an ethical life has been and is a desired goal of mine, but an accomplishment that will be incomplete until my final breath. Building an ethical life is similar to the building of the great cathedrals in Europe. These cathedrals took decades to build, and many of the builders who worked on these projects all of their lives never saw the completion. Ethical living is critical to finding joy in this life and the next, but it’s never a state of arrival until you pass from this life. Ethical living is a worthy goal for all of us and one that requires consistency of purpose, a goal that must be achieved daily.
In my profession of traditional banking, there are similar issues faced by many others, issues that all humans face, challenges like keeping one’s self pure sexually, being faithful and loyal to your spouse, maintaining wholesome thought and speech, and practicing the Golden Rule with others (Matthew 7:12). There are also some unique challenges in the banking business. One is the issue of greed that can come from being involved in financial transactions involving large amounts of money, or being introduced to opportunities to earn additional income. Traditional banking is a great profession, and though one can provide a family with a reasonable standard of living, it is not a very highly paid profession. Because of this fact, one dilemma faced by bankers is trying to earn additional income by taking advantage of a customer’s opportunity instead of allowing the customer to reap the rewards of the opportunities he has identified or uncovered. Another dilemma, which could occur with front line tellers or the CEO, is justifying taking money from customers or the bank that could be hidden for a while, but is eventually discovered. Bankers can justify stealing because either they feel they are not getting paid satisfactorily or they believe they will make a profit on the money taken and return it quickly. I have known loan officers to loan themselves money. I have known bank tellers to take money home over the weekend with the intention of returning it on Monday. However, in many instances, the money is not returned and the employee’s actions are discovered. Another example is a new accounts person setting up fictitious documents to defraud customers out of funds. When these actions are exposed, it is easily identified as an act of greed, but usually while it’s occurring, the banker is justifying his or her actions in many different ways that gets him/her very deep in the pool of immoral living by just getting a little deeper and deeper each day.
Many other challenges face bankers today, but there are principles I strive to live my life by to help avoid moral dilemmas in the workplace. Principles that I have learned can be found from many Biblical characters like Job, David, and Nehemiah, but space only allows for the three that follow.
The first is the Uzzah Principle. This lesson comes from a character of the Old Testament in 2 Samuel 6. Uzzah was given a huge task of moving the ark of the covenant of the Lord. While he was moving the ark, it looked like it was about to fall off the cart, so he put out his hand to steady the ark so it would not fall. This seems like a very admirable thing to do, but the Lord struck Uzzah dead for touching the ark. To understand the Lord’s actions, you have to go back to the rules about the ark of the covenant and how the Lord had designated the Israelite priests from the tribe of Levi to move this ark on poles by hand. It was never supposed to be moved by using a cart and no one was to touch the ark except the priests. Uzzah, moving the cart the incorrect way and touching the ark, even though his intention was admirable, he had set himself up for failure. So the Uzzah Principle is starting right to finish right. We bankers must first learn and remember we are at work to serve others, not ourselves. In life, if we set ourselves up for failure by not understanding the commands of God, we will ultimately fail, even though our intentions or actions seem admirable.
The next principle is what I call the Berean Principle. In the New Testament, the Apostles of Jesus were preaching the Gospel of Christ and using Old Testament Scriptures to validate their words. The Christians of the first century did not have written Bibles to study as we have today, but they did have the Old Testament Scriptures to verify what Christ’s Apostles were telling them were accurate and true. Acts 17 states the Bereans were a group of people who studied the Scriptures daily to see if the things taught by the Apostles were true. They studied to verify that God had brought Jesus into the world and that the Apostles were growing the Lord’s church. This principle is based on the requirement that to have moral living, one must have good standards. If there are no true standards, there cannot be truth. The Creator of the universe provided the standards for us to follow. In the twenty-first century, He has provided a lot of information about His world and a lot of information and access to His Word. The fact that God provided the standard is a moot point if we do not study and try to understand the standards. A life of integrity is not lived without standards. That standard comes from God’s Word. Banking has many laws, regulations, and policies that must be followed; knowing the standards is required to be good bankers. The Bereans are a great example of individuals checking the real standard of life and comparing that to the lives they are living.
The third principle is the Joseph Principle. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandson of Isaac, the great-grandson of Abraham. Joseph was his dad’s favorite son, but that favoritism created a great jealousy in his brothers and his brothers sold him into slavery (Genesis 37). Joseph went through ten to fifteen years of serving others and serving time in prison for making right moral decisions that never seemed to work out. Joseph once refused an opportunity to sleep with the wife of his master, and this right moral decision caused him to be thrown into jail. In jail, Joseph was respected because of his continued life of integrity and right living. Joseph seemed to use disappointments in his life and bad circumstances as building blocks for a better future. Joseph later became the second highest-ranking official in Egypt, behind Pharaoh himself, in one of the most powerful nations the world had ever seen. Bankers must at times deny clients their desired loan or transaction, which can be very unpleasant. The Joseph Principle is that of not expecting every right decision to bring about great blessings and better circumstances as some tough decisions will cause one to be criticized and persecuted. In life, we must use those challenging opportunities to develop character and discipline.
In banking and in life, choosing right from wrong will always be required in daily living. May you set yourself up to finish right by starting right. May you study the true standards of right living and apply those in your life, and when things do not turn out as you plan, use those disappointments to build a better future.
Posted on 04/13/2010 1:49 PM by Ted Williams
|
