I receive an academic journal called The Hedgehog Review.  Each issue of the journal is devoted to a single topic and examining it critically.  The current issue is titled, “The Moral Life of Corporations[1].”  Beyond providing an academic thesis and overview of the articles, interviews and book reviews inside, the issue introduction observes that some may say that that title itself is an oxymoron, i.e., given recent history, aren’t corporations inherently immoral?  Of course, there is room for debate on this topic and the issue does its best to consider this, among other topics.  The article that caught my attention considers what level of responsibility a corporation may have in a given situation, how that expectation can be fraught with consequences and opportunities and finally, how to educate individuals about the opportunity that exists in these situations.  The author, Josh Margolis, calls this, “not my responsibility,” syndrome, the Responsibility Gap. 

 

It’s timely that The Hedgehog Review chose this topic as I think it dovetails nicely with this morning’s texts.  Both James and Mark admonish their readers against the very sort of quick defensive outbursts that Margolis will unpack in his text.  The three of them together remind us that in corporate life, in our personal life and as a church community, it is how we respond to crises and the mundane that is truly emblematic of what we value. 

 

Our reading from the letter of James begins by proclaiming that every gift and good act comes from heaven and that by God's word of truth we become a kind of first fruits of that goodness.  So, James' first point to his readers is that God's goodness is given to us, so that we can share it.  But, how can we best do this?  He tells us beginning in verse 19, that it is by listening attentively, calmly considering and respectfully responding that we glorify God.  It is the meekness of the word of God that saves.  James goes on to say that listening is not the culmination of faith. We must do as we have heard, living our faith, for we are blessed in our doing.  As the reading closes, James declares that the purest of actions is caring for those in need.

 

In his article, Margolis tells the true story of a Swedish charter tour company operations manager, Mikael Edwards, who was abruptly awoken at 4AM local time on the morning of December 26th, 2004.  Answering the phone, expecting the usual college kids destroyed a room at the hotel situation, he was not particularly surprised to hear that a car was floating in the pool of the hotel where a group of his clients were staying in Thailand.  The reason there was a car in the pool was not because of a prank however.  A massive Tsunami had struck the island and the whole of Southeast Asia and nearly a quarter of a million people would eventually be declared dead.

 

In the hours that followed that first call, Edwards and the senior leadership of the travel company were forced to consider and respond to a situation not of their making, and technically not their problem.  So long as they took care of their clients, their job would be done.  But, how to do this?  They immediately sought help from the Swedish government, when they finally reached the Foreign Minister via cell phone, his first act was to bark, "How did you get this number?"  And then he did nothing.  So, what about their clients, not to mention all the Scandinavians vacationing and travelling in Thailand?  In the vacuum, the responsibility gap was created. 

 

Do you hear our Mark text in the words of the Swedish Foreign Minister's reaction? "How did you get this number?"  "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but the things that come out are what defile."  Or, maybe James, "be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger.  How often do we quickly jump to a conclusion?  How often are we apt to say, "no not my problem?"

 

The Mark text is a bit of a Reader's Digest version, cutting a number of verses that repeat Jesus' central message.  The text begins with Jesus denouncing the rituals that the Pharisees are holding out as necessary for the eating of foods, rules which the disciples were breaking.  Centuries earlier, these food laws were set up to provide purity and ritual and to avoid inadvertent or careless behavior in the preparation of meals.  Unfortunately, by Jesus' day they were a burden on the faithful, separating them from their historic ritual and their God.  Upon whom is the responsibility?  The disagreement that Jesus pushes, begs this question.  Is the fence built around the relationship more important than the relationship with God itself?  Is the way we eat, more important that the fact that we are thankful for having something to eat?  What implications does Jesus' rejection of the Pharisees rituals have for us?  Is it more important that we worship in a certain way, than that we are actually worshiping?  In our work, is there more ritual to certain actions, than necessity?  What is the 'must' behind our actions?

 

Back to the responsibility gap in Thailand.  Margolis comments in his story that the tour company was struggling; it possessed no corporate Values Statement and was not profitable.  On paper, there was no inclination that they would do anything.  But they did.  As "the Scandinavian government faltered," Edwards and his team coordinated with locals to transport every Scandinavian out of the Tsunami zone, regardless of whether they were a customer of the company.  In an extraordinary situation they took on responsibility that was not theirs, using their expertise to make the impossible happen.  Gap filled.

 

James declares that it is in the meekness of our faith that God is glorified, and it is in the purity of our conviction to serve the orphans and widows that our faith is displayed.  These were the actions of the tour group.  What if we're not comfortable with that kind of faith?  What if we define our faith as sitting in this pew?  What if we don't think that our faith has any place at our job?  What responsibility gaps exist in our personal and professional lives?  Where is our responsibility?

 

Our responsibilities are these.  One, we are to be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger and living our faith through our acts as James tells us.  Two, none of us are Jesus; so we should be considerate of how defeating our defenses of certain rituals are.  While food restrictions don't pertain to our modern diets, we are still very capable of spewing bad things from our mouths.  

 

Margolis, himself a business school professor, closes his article with observations on how to encourage the good ethical judgment displayed by Edwards after the Tsunami, both in the teaching of business students and in the business world.  He glibly comments that we could try and remake the entire capitalist society wholesale, demanding that the entire engine behave in a responsible manner.  Or, he says, teachers and individuals alike could begin to consider what it means to personally place themselves into the responsibility gap.  Such personal investment in moral questions is informed by at least two things.  One, we are agents capable of effecting the outcome.  Two, we are finite and changeable.    Let me repeat that, we are agents capable of effecting outcomes, and we ourselves are changeable.

 

Two thousand years ago, James and Mark shouted these very sentiments.  In living our faith, we can change outcomes.  In reconsidering our rituals, we ourselves are changed.  The gift of faith is that, when we do it right, it is not stagnant.  It is forever transforming us and our lives.  Our ability to change things and ourselves extends far beyond these pews and these doors, to our families, our jobs, our associations.  In all these places opportunities await us.

 

In word and deed, may we stand in the gap.

 

Amen.

---