Richard Stenbakken: Jonathan, tell us about yourself.
Jonathan McGraw: I pastored in the Potomac Conference for seven years. While I was pastoring in Rockville, Maryland, I chose to go into the army as a chaplain. First, I served at Fort Bragg and then in Germany for three years. The army selected me to go to Yale University for a master's program in ethics. Prior to that, I started work on an MBA through Boston University, and the army asked me to do that as well. At present I'm at Fort Nutterwood at the army engineer school, teaching ethics and leadership.
RS: So you're trained in theology, business, and ethics. How do you combine the three? Some would say, "Look, I have religion, or I'm a Christian. Isn't that enough ethical underpinning? Why would someone in theology need ethics?"
JM: I minister to the whole military organization. I provide pastoral care, whether counseling or preaching. I also feel an obligation to minister to the system itself. That's how people are taken care of, that's how decisions are made, and that's how we do the mission that's given to us in the military. I think it's the same in any organization. An organization no matter how good its intention or its spiritual base needs to ask the question "Are we doing the right thing this time?" rather than assuming because we're a part of this organization we always do the right thing. Here's where theology, ethics, and organization make a nice mix.
RS: Give me a simple definition of "ethics."
JM: Ethics is determining how to do the right thing the right way. Given that simple definition, and given the fact that even spiritual and religious organizations have to make decisions every day, it is obvious how ethics can impact church organizations. Religious organizations interact with people, and they need to create an environment where people can work and worship, affirm their spiritual roots, and take an overall spiritual overview that will help them make decisions based on Christian ethics and purpose.
RS: While Scripture gives some very clear dos and don'ts, it doesn't cover everything. There are problems and issues that demand that we develop some matrix or understanding that will guide us in making decisions responsibly.
JM: That's right, especially in a church organization, where we have to deal with people from different backgrounds, educational levels, cultural upbringing, and theological perspectives. The issue becomes more difficult where there isn't a clear "Thus saith the Lord." And here is where a thoughtful, biblically informed ethical structure can be helpful.
RS: Ethics, then, can help the church develop a baseline, a common ground, that will be acceptable to the diverse groups that make up the church?
JM: Yes, ethics provides a sense of right and wrong that impacts people across different backgrounds. A church organization is judged not only by its theology but also by its actions. So the community in which our church lives and functions will judge us on how we act, how we relate to people of varying backgrounds, how we relate to others (whether we exclude some and include others), and how sensitive we are to the needs of local community.
RS: Am I hearing you say, then, that the corporate ethical issue makes an impact on people both inside and outside the church?
JM: That's right. We often think of ethics as dealing with a dilemma: How should our church wrestle with this or that problem? But ethics also calls upon a leader or a pastor to ensure that the church carries out two ethical responsibilities in a community: to function as a moral agent and act rightly and then to create the organization's ethical climate the perception of what is right and wrong.
Let's consider an ethical dilemma where you have to decide between two right things. A congregation has recently built a large church. They've stretched themselves to meet the mortgage, and then suddenly a large benefactor disappears. The church is in a financial crisis. When they built the church, they got a loan from a local bank. Now they are in a moral dilemma: They have a legal right to default on their loan, but they don't want to default because of their obligation to pay. They can resolve the dilemma either by defaulting or by looking for resources to pay the mortgage. They decide on the latter course. That's acting as a moral agent in the community.
Here we are dealing with the perception of the members within the church body as to what is right and wrong, how they should and shouldn't act. In all of this they are creating a certain ethical climate. Consider the history of the church building project. Go back five years. Three building contractors had submitted bids. At its appointed meeting, the building committee invited each of these builders to make their presentations. The committee interviewed them separately and then closed the doors to consider the bids and arrive at a decision. About fifteen minutes into the discussion, one of the members of the building committee suddenly said, "Hey, I'm a contractor. I can cut five percent off the lowest bid here."
Now, even to say such a thing is unethical. There is a tendency in the church to say, "If we can save the Lord's money, it's all right."No, it is not all right. The chair person should simply say: "Mr. Jones, you should have given us a bid on this. It's too late now, and we've got to decide between those who made the presentations." Even though Mr. Jones may be offering to save the church some money, he's not helping the ethical climate of the church within the community. The community and the church members have a right to expect that the church makes its decisions on what is right and not on what is convenient.
RS: What it really means is telling the truth to myself as well as to those who fol low me.
JM: Organizational ethics calls upon us to account for the decision-making processes that we're a part of.
RS: Now that you've introduced the word "accountability," all of a sudden the shoe is tight on my foot. How do ethics and accountability fit together?
JM: Accountability is a vital part of building an ethical organization. How can we develop a sense of right and wrong if we are not accountable? Where there is no accountability, wrong is free to have its way. Look at Christ's ministry and how He called His disciples to be accountable. When He called sinners to repent and when He talked of final judgment, He was certainly speaking of accountability. Accountability isn't always easy in an organization, but it needs to be a part of it.
RS: So accountability is not the same as "Gotcha!" and it's not the same as "If you step across this ethical line, you'll be in trouble."
JM: Not at all. Accountability is really about spiritual growth. It's helping me as a church pastor look at myself and see what my piece is in this particular problem or situation. Accountability is to face that church building committee and say to my self: "I must speak up. I have something to contribute to resolve this dilemma. I have a responsibility." Accountability makes me check myself as well as check others.
RS: Now, let's go back to the church-building project. Here's a large donor in the church, a well-to-do person, who can make a donation that's equal to perhaps half of the building cost, and the donor comes to you as the pastor and says, "Pastor, I'd like to donate this large amount of money, and I've always wanted our church to have these huge stained-glass windows, and I have a design for these windows, and I'm willing to contribute this huge amount of money into the building project, and the church can be built around these beautiful windows that I've designed."
JM: Remember what we talked about earlier. The climate of an organization, the ethical climate, is how people perceive things that are done. Here you have a perception problem. You have someone wealthy, willing to donate a large sum, who clearly perceives that he or she has influence be cause of money. So what you need to do is to step back to a decision-making process taking the matter to your building committee or your church board. By this you are building an ethical climate a climate of perception of what's right or wrong and what might be perceived as right.
RS: So what do we do? Here's a major benefactor who's meeting an identified need of the new church and whose idea is "Let's have a beautiful church around windows that I'm going to pay for. These beautiful windows will provide a worshipful atmosphere."
JM: Well, the decision-making process that would help here has five steps. First, identify the ethical problem. This particular member is possibly influencing unduly the construction of the church. How do we deal with this? We have to come up with possible solutions. And that is the second step. Step three is the ethical implication of each of the solutions. Step four is selecting the best solution. Step five is to implement it.
Go back to step two. What are some of the possible solutions? The problem is the possibility that this donor may unduly influence the church-building project. The first possible solution is to accept the offer and give the donor the influence he or she seems to be seeking in the building project. The second is to reject the gift, saying, "This isn't right." The third is to talk to the donor about the implications, to discuss how this could be perceived, and to ask if he or she really wants to tie so much of the church building to the donation.
RS: So we come back to the account ability factor. As a leader, I'm accountable to both the donor and the congregation, and I need to build a bridge between the two.
JM: Yes, one way to build that bridge is through communications and discussion in the decision-making process. If we accept the donation with no clarification or discussion, the ethical climate we're building is that money rules. That leaves some very negative implications. If we reject the gift, we may be standing on high moral grounds for not accepting a donation from someone who's trying to control the decisions of the whole community, but we may have some negative feedback here too. Then there's a third alternative: open communication. Is the donor trying to manipulate things, or is he or she just trying to improve the overall church facility and offer a way to make that possible for the whole congregation? Is the donor willing to offer the money and let the building committee make the final decision?
RS: So really, ethics comes down to building a climate of openness and defining boundaries of what we do or don't do.
JM: Right. For us as Christian leaders, that boundary is a kind of philosophy of ethics, and it takes us back to the Ten Commandments, or more explicitly, to the person of Christ. Take these ten and their synopsis into two as Jesus summarized them and lived them out (about loving God and our neighbor) and use those as the basis of an ethical decision. That's our biblical reference point, our ethical anchor and framework for the church.
RS: It also helps us discover that there's nothing in the ten or the two about stained-glass windows, but there is much about relationship, fellowship, and worship.
JM: All this points to the best solution in facing an ethical dilemma: to communicate, to clarify, and then, once the committee makes a decision, to implement it.
RS: Thank you, Chaplain McGraw.
