A Culture of Respectul Discussion

I took some time off from professional existence during the Holidays and spent quality time with my 88-year-old Italian mother.  Physically she is a bit frail, but mentally still very sharp.  Being a woman of faith she does not fear death and as a result, we can talk rationally about this and many other things.  And although she only has a High School education, she is a critical thinker and enjoys a good conversation about religion and secular issues.  We got into a discussion about the so-called “War on Christmas.”  She pointed out the concept separation of Church and State was first espoused by Jesus.  I could argue, but the observation was so scholarly I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

She refers to the New Testament account when the Jewish Pharisees attempt to trick Jesus into choosing to pay the Roman Tribute or not.  This was a hot-button issue of the time – much like the “fiscal cliff” discussions today, but without the crucifixions.  Jesus asks to see a coin and proceeds to ask whose image is on it.  “Caesar,” is the reply.  Specifically that of Tiberius.  Jesus’ reply is what my mother refers to as the genesis of the separation concept.

Some read the phrase "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" as unambiguous at least to the extent that it commands people to respect both state authority as well as God's authority.  After all, when we donate to charity in the name of our religion or some other purpose, we do so with Government Issue currency. Furthermore, we can legitimately argue that secular law is derived from religious law.  The Ten Commandments come to mind. 

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. A great example of faulty logic called “the false dichotomy.”  This is not an “either/or” question.  The Pharisee's try to make Jesus choose: If one’s faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar’s claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one’s faith is in Caesar, God’s claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.  My mother interprets Jesus' response to mean some things are owed the government and some things are owed because of our devotion to our spirituality...whatever the latter may be.  Hence the "establishment clause" of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

What does this have to do with Organizational Culture?  Other than the reference to the concept of faulty logic, really nothing. Except, we can have serious and respectful discussions with people who have very different views from our own - whether it is between the Jews and Romans of Jesus’ time, within our own organization, or even with my 88-year-old mother.

Happy New Year!

 

FG