Nearly 25 years ago
then-Lutheran clergyman Richard John Neuhaus wrote his seminal "The Naked
Public Square." Neuhaus was particularly concerned that public discourse
in America--already in 1988--was becoming secularized. It wasn't that
religious voices were not speaking--they were then and are now--but that the
unofficial norms that governed discussion of public issues like taxes, military
intervention, foreign aid, abortion, and the like asserted that explicitly
religious rhetoric was out of place in any public forum where those who did not
adhere to the religion were also present. The late John Rawls's "Political
Liberalism" comes to mind. (For some related thoughts about Rawls's
contributions (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) to contemporary political
though see my Looking for Bedrock (abstract here) and Principled
Pluralism and Contract Remedies (abstract here). For a more
positive approach to the sorts of public arguments that can be made,
historically speaking, anyway, take a look at my God's Bridle: John Calvin's
Application of Natural Law (abstract here)). The battle
over what is (not) appropriate for public political discourse continues
unabated but the militantly secular border police seem to be be losing, or at
least that's my take on matters.
Several years ago Lyman Johnson addressed another bastion of secular discourse--the duties of corporate directors. In Faith and Faithfulness in Corporate Theory (abstract here) Johnson address the propriety of articulating specifically religious rhetoric and values in corporate decision-making. I think this is a particularly important question if only because the corporate form of economic organization has more control over our day-to-day lives than all levels of American civil government. (Check here and here for a few of my occasional thoughts corporate personhood and corporate rights.)
Johnson writes that "neither discourse within the corporate institution itself nor within corporate law theory must be wholly secular. Current conceptions of corporateness do not exclude—indeed, they invite—introduction of religious faith into corporate decision-making" He specifically posits the Christian notion of "faithfulness" as a higher-order principle behind the legal notion of fiduciary duties with their concomitant applications to the specific duties of care and loyalty. For what it's worth, I might characterize the working principle in terms of stewardship. The biblical usage of faithfulness is usually (but not always) associated with God: God is faithful to his covenant and his people regardless of their lack of faithfulness to him. The appropriate human virtue (exemplified primarily through narratives) is stewardship. Stewardship is bi-directional: Good stewards are answerable to one who entrusted matters to them as well as to the ones over whom the steward was given charge. It is the emphasis on the personal that distinguishes stewardship from contemporary legal understandings of fiduciary duties. The steward should care for persons; the fiduciary need only discharge obligations. And, I suspect, it is this personal dimension that forms part of Johnson's plea for the freedom to introduce religious rhetoric and values into the corporate boardroom.
In any event, like Johnson I believe that there should be no barrier to filling the shared public-private square of corporate governance with distinctively religiously-motivated rhetoric and values. And for those who find themselves interested in more of what Johnson has to say, come to the Regent Law Review Symposium on "Emerging Issues in Social Enterprise" on Saturday, October 5.
Several years ago Lyman Johnson addressed another bastion of secular discourse--the duties of corporate directors. In Faith and Faithfulness in Corporate Theory (abstract here) Johnson address the propriety of articulating specifically religious rhetoric and values in corporate decision-making. I think this is a particularly important question if only because the corporate form of economic organization has more control over our day-to-day lives than all levels of American civil government. (Check here and here for a few of my occasional thoughts corporate personhood and corporate rights.)
Johnson writes that "neither discourse within the corporate institution itself nor within corporate law theory must be wholly secular. Current conceptions of corporateness do not exclude—indeed, they invite—introduction of religious faith into corporate decision-making" He specifically posits the Christian notion of "faithfulness" as a higher-order principle behind the legal notion of fiduciary duties with their concomitant applications to the specific duties of care and loyalty. For what it's worth, I might characterize the working principle in terms of stewardship. The biblical usage of faithfulness is usually (but not always) associated with God: God is faithful to his covenant and his people regardless of their lack of faithfulness to him. The appropriate human virtue (exemplified primarily through narratives) is stewardship. Stewardship is bi-directional: Good stewards are answerable to one who entrusted matters to them as well as to the ones over whom the steward was given charge. It is the emphasis on the personal that distinguishes stewardship from contemporary legal understandings of fiduciary duties. The steward should care for persons; the fiduciary need only discharge obligations. And, I suspect, it is this personal dimension that forms part of Johnson's plea for the freedom to introduce religious rhetoric and values into the corporate boardroom.
In any event, like Johnson I believe that there should be no barrier to filling the shared public-private square of corporate governance with distinctively religiously-motivated rhetoric and values. And for those who find themselves interested in more of what Johnson has to say, come to the Regent Law Review Symposium on "Emerging Issues in Social Enterprise" on Saturday, October 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment