Today, as I reflect on the life and death of S. Truett Cathey, founder of Chick-Fil-A, I am reminded why I have chosen to do business in an entirely unique, almost un-American, way. I am also encouraged by the countless number of people who are choosing to follow in Mr. Cathey's footsteps.

I am thankful for the life of Mr. Cathey, for his unyielding pursuit of being in business without becoming like the business world. His commitment to do business with the highest biblical standards was, and is, rare in the American economy. So many forget that God wants us to be Christian in our business endeavors too. Not, Mr. Cathey. 

Most American food chains would tell you that they couldn't survive without Sunday business, yet Chick-Fil-A does. I am told that virtually every mall lease requires all mall stores/vendors to be open on Sundays. Malls across America have consistently made an exception for Chick-Fil-A. Why? Because Chick-Fil-A has consistently demonstrated that they could produce more business in six days than the mall's other stores could in seven. God blesses obedience to His word. God has obviously blessed Chick-Fil-A.

So, what does a Godly business look like? First, it is courageous - daring to be different. It treats it's employees fairly and maintains high standards for their conduct and appearance. It is kind, serving each and every customer and vendor, with respect, courtesy and joy. It maintains the highest standards of quality for both it's product and it's service. It gives back to the community around it, in purposeful and meaningful ways. And, most importantly, it reflects Godly character to a lost world, pointing people to Him.

I am told by those who knew Mr. Cathey, that he consistently modeled Christian character in both his personal and business life. Can a business be Christian? We will leave that up to you to decide, but nobody can argue that Mr. Cathey's business didn't reflect his belief in God.

In the early hours of this morning, S. Truett Cathey heard his Master say, "Well done My good and faithful servant." I can just imagine Mr. Cathey's response... "It was my pleasure." 

This may be my shortest blog post ever, in part because few words are needed to make the point. 

The Facebook post at right appeared on my news feed this morning and I was struck by the irony of the words and society's failure to see the much larger issue at hand.

What if we were to substitute these images with pictures of aborted babies?  Will our moral compass allow us to say that unwanted pregnancies are the "product of careless humans?" Aren't those babies being "thrown away like trash?"

Like these kittens, abortion is not an "isolated incident or uncommon drama." Each year, in the United States alone, more than 1.2 million babies are aborted. Since abortion was legalized in 1973, more than 50 million children have been killed because of "careless humans." Right here in Tennessee, in an average year, 16,000-18,000 babies are aborted. Yet, where is the outrage?

Where is our sense of priority?

Dr. Ben Carson is being courted as a potential GOP candidate for President in 2016. This is not intended as an endorsement of him as a candidate because there simply is not enough information to form such an opinion at this time. This is, however, a close look at a statement Dr. Carson recently made regarding the source of his strength.

Dr. Carson was asked, "From where do you expect to draw the most support." His answer was candid and priceless, "Honestly, I don't care." Of course, his answer drew a round of laughter from The National Press Club, to whom he was speaking, but he followed that statement by saying, "I'm serious. As long as I have the support of God, that's what matters to me." It would appear Dr. Carson is more concerned about what God thinks of him than he is the image he creates with the media, which is in and of itself a value.

Tying in to yesterday's blog post, Dr. Carson went on to say that the reason America rose to such a prominent place in the world as quickly as it did was because we live by Godly principles such as, "loving your fellow man, caring about your neighbor, developing your God-given talents to your utmost so that you become valuable to the people around you, and of having values and principles that govern your life." Carson went on to say that if we can regain those attributes, we will truly be One Nation.

Over the last 20-30 years, we've been told that we can't exercise our beliefs and values in the public square. Furthermore, it would appear, based on results, that the current system isn't working. My question for you as readers is, would a return to these values return America to the right track? If so, how do we begin to change the culture of business, government, education, and more to accept values and beliefs that are right and good? That isn't intended as a rhetorical question, how do we do it? What steps need to occur in order to get us back on track?

Do businesses have a soul or a conscience? Can a business express a belief and if so, who determines that belief? These questions and more come to mind when Hobby Lobby refuses contraception coverage or Pepsi gives to a homosexual cause.

First, as Christians, God instructs us (people) to serve others, to give and to be fair in our dealings. But, does the Bible say anything to business entities? Does God hold businesses or people accountable? What is a business entity and what makes some types of businesses different? These are the questions I began asking myself over the last year, as more and more businesses on both sides of the issues find themselves struggling to serve their markets without alienating substantial portions of their market.

Perhaps the most important element for us to consider is the legal structure of the business and how that impacts a business' social activism. Businesses can be organized in any number of formats, but at the end of the day, one factor seems to draw a distinction in whether or not a company can legitimately and fairly express itself in the social arena. That is who owns the business? In its simplest form, a business could be a sole-proprietor, LLC, or even corporation, that is owned by a single person. A slightly more complex company might be owned by a family or a smaller group of associated people. On the more complex side, you would have companies that are owned by large groups of stockholders, or perhaps even other companies.

In the simplest of those business forms, it would be fairly easy for a business owner to make a moral decision regarding his company - it is, after all, 100% his company, his values, and his risk.  One such example might be a local baker that chooses not to cater homosexual weddings, or another that elects to refuse service to a local company that isn't considered environmentally-friendly. In the middle you have a company that, while its ownership pool is a little wider, could still reasonably make decisions base on its ownership's values - think Hobby Lobby, which is family owned. On the far end of the spectrum, however, we have companies that typically have thousands of shareholders (owners); companies like Apple, whose CEO, Tim Cook, recently said, "We want to leave the world better than we found it." That is certainly a nice soundbite, but according to whose standards? His? Shareholder #213,549? Who decides how Apple makes the world better? Can companies like Apple reasonably reflect the values of all their shareholders (owners)?

Here is my bottom line. I don't think a publicly-traded company can have a values system. Values are a creation of the mind, heart and soul, not an assembly line. Values are human and should always be expressed by humans. Economist Milton Friedman famously said in 1970, "There is one and only one social responsibility of business -- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." Companies should generate their profits, return them to the shareholders and allow the individuals to make decisions about how and what they will support with their profits. Publicly-traded companies that do otherwise are robbing owners of their possessions and their right to determine what those possessions support.  

Publicly-traded companies would do themselves (and their bottom lines) a major favor by refusing to become activists (on either side) and avoiding alienation of potential buyers. This is what they owe their ownership (you). On the other hand, when privately-held (closely-held) companies want to stray into those waters, that is within their rights. After all, they own 100% of the company and assume all the risks of activism. 

I'd love to hear from you. What are your thoughts? 

If corporate activism concerns you, then you should learn what the companies your mutual funds and retirement accounts are supporting. Visit www.StorehouseAdvisors.com to learn the details.