Is Mary's Song in tune?

Historic Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been adored and ignored. Catholics and Christian Orthodox religions worship her. Secular and non Christian religions honor her. Protestants do not think about her often.

Yet her story is infamous and impossible to ignore. A popular account of Mary is found in the Scripture known as Mary's Song. Mary recognizes and treasures the blessing God bestowed on her as the Mother of Jesus.

Let's take a moment and see how Mary was blessed.
1.   She was pregnant out of wedlock at a very young age
2.   She had to travel many days because of a corrupt and greedy political system
3.   She had no decent place to stay
4.   She bore her baby in a stall and had to place him in an animal's food box
5.   To escape a jealous ruler, she became a refugee in Egypt for several years
6.   She saw her son rejected by the important people in her community
7.   She witnessed her perfect son, sent to earth by God, suffer great injustice
8.   Finally, she witnessed the most hideous death humanly possible

Now, tell me again why she felt immensely blessed.

In her song she identifies three reasons for her blessedness.
1. she saw something beautiful to live for
2. someone supremely important knows her intimately and includes her in His story
3. God can be counted on to deliver on His promises, regardless of what others do

Miracle birth is a motif or theme throughout God's story, but everyone else was desiring a child from being barren, and Mary was young and a virgin. Why was her blessing of a birth so much more difficult?

What if God had honored Mary's heart to "make them stop" as the political system crucified her son?
God's answer to Mary's questions as to why it must be this way was not found in the moment.
You and I would be destined to eternal damnation, that's what.

Mary's blessings was that she was favored by God. Blessing has nothing to do with temporal and and visible circumstances. Mary's blessings was not in how God improved her situation, but that He used her in His-story.

The Bible says Mary clung to (treasured) God's blessings and pondered them in her heart. I use the word ponder often because I was so impressed years ago that "Mary pondered these things". Ponder is from the word symballousa, which means to place together for comparison. Its like focusing on a piece of a puzzle. While you are looking at the piece, you are really looking for how and where the piece fits in the whole puzzle.

Mary's Song has a beautiful tune. We just have to listen.

I think Christmas is a good time to ponder Mary's pondering, don't you?

Can you learn from a video?

This is a short video of the argument for the existence of God. I am curious as to whether you think it is effective. With the popularity of YouTube, can we really learn from video instruction?
Watch it and see what you think.

Leibinz Contingency Argument

You may have come to a quick answer, "yes" or "no". On the other hand my question may have raised more questions for you, like

what do you mean by effective?
what is it the presenter wants from me?
would some people get what he is saying better than others?

Obviously, the sponsor of this YouTube video wanted you to learn something. But what is learning anyway? Is it obtaining new knowledge? or is it being transformed by new knowledge?

The science of teaching is called pedagogy. Educators know that teaching must stimulate learning. Animation in the video presentation is pretty good. Learning involves inquiry and the presenter uses questions to answer questions. The points being made are concise and thoughtful, rational and orderly.

So, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Did you obtain new knowledge? Are you different? What is the likelihood that people you know would learn anything from the video? be transformed by it? If you feel that they would, then adherence to good pedagogy is effective. If you feel that the video was interesting, but I am not sure I am smarter or different as a result of it, then what might we learn about learning? I'm not sure i know many people who would be smarter or transformed by the video.

Let's explore this issue by linking pedagogy (effective teaching) to some of my more recent blogs. First, knowledge has two meanings. One is from Greek word "eido" which means knowledge I gain though my physical senses. This is mainly a cognitive activity. The other word is "gnosis." This knowledge is what we get through experience that doesn't rely on our physical senses. This kind of knowledge is more affective or based on emotions.

Let me illustrate.

If you have a friend you know is smart, how do you know? You may know that he graduated from college and made really good grades. You may know his IQ is very high. He may win the trivia games at parties. This is "eido" knowledge that your friend is smart. You have information that you acquired through your mind.

However, you have been with this friend many times when choices needed to be made. You benefited from his right choices. He had answers to your questions that made your life work better. You could feel comfortable that he is smart. You could depend on him to know what to do. This is "gnosis" knowledge that he is smart. You have experienced him being smart and so you "gnosis" know. You trust him for direction in your life and you feel good about acting on his advice.

To gain more "eido" knowledge and learn how smart he is, you must receive information though your senses that connects with your mind. At some level you have knowledge, but you are not likely to act on that knowledge except in superficial ways. You are not likely to trust him with important decisions that affect you. Through your experiences of being involved with him when he exercised his smartness, your emotions were affected. This provided you with "gnosis" knowledge of your friend. You become different or transformed as your "eido" and your "gnosis" knowledge work together to gain knowledge of how smart you friend really is.

Now, back to the video, was it effective? Well, it might have been effective at providing you with a rational for why God exists ("eido" knowledge), depending on whether your mind is capable of handling the information. Further, if the question is not salient to you or relevant to you, if it makes no difference in your life that this argument provides a rationale for the existence of God, then you likely would not attend to the information in the video enough to learn what is being presented. So, to gain "eido" knowledge about the existence of God, you would have to have the mental ability and the motivation to learn what is being presented.

However, even if you are able and motivated to learn (gain "eido" knowledge) what the presenter wishes you to know, what must happen for you to be transformed by the knowledge. That is, what would cause new knowledge to make you different? Based on the knowledge of knowledge, you would need "gnosis" knowledge, an experience of rationale for the existence of God. Emotionally experiencing the argument makes you trust the knowledge gained by the argument. This is the key to good pedagogy.

Wait, I am not sure that all educators accept that teaching is more than giving someone information or "eido" knowledge. In fact, while educators speak about "experiential learning", my "gnosis" knowledge of teachers leads me to believe that most see pedagogy as obtaining information through cognitive processes. For clarity purposes, maybe we should call instructing in a way that the student obtains both "eido" and "gnosis" knowledge TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY?

Certainly worth pondering, for some of you anyway ....

Maybe U just hug'em?

We have debates, discussions, arguments, disagreements, whatever you want to call them all the time with other people. Some times they are close to us like family and friends and sometimes we just know them as acquaintances. Social media has increased the frequency and the access to argument and conflict. Most of the time we just don't get anywhere with it. We leave thinking, "they just don't get it." We may even think they are "stupid", a screw is loose upstairs, the elevator doesn't go to the top.

If we step back a bit, what is really going on. I have blogged about knowledge, truth, and faith and this blog fits into that stream of consciousness. What generally is happening is that we cannot come to the same conclusion, given we both have really good reasoning for our conclusion and can easily see flaws in their logic.

In reality, most people can put together decent rationale for their arguments and are somewhat offended when their capability is drawn into question. It is obvious there is real conflict, but while it appears to occur in the conclusions, it is not so obvious the conflict exists in the core assumptions from which the conclusions are derived.

Here is an ageless example. One of the main, if not the key, disagreement about Jesus is whether He is God or not. One reason for Islamic Jihad against Christians is because the Trinity violates Islam's belief there is only one true God worthy of worship. Claiming Jesus is God is blasphemous. The core assumptions behind this conflict came way before Mohammed wrote down the pillars of Islam. From the first Christmas the claim that Jesus is God was challenged. By Easter it was the chorus of the Gnostics. Who were these people and why did they not come to the same conclusion that the Apostles did?

There was a prevailing core assumption among Gnostics that matter and spirit could not coexist. Since God was spirit and Jesus was human, then Jesus could not be God. The Gnostic worldview actually came from the two Greek words for Knowledge, eido and gnosis. Eido is knowledge we gain through our physical senses and gnosis is knowledge we gain through experience not involving our physical senses. Gnosis knowledge then applied to knowledge of God or spirit world.

This is the basic worldview distinction that exist today and are core assumptions that determine most everything else we believe. If this binary option underwrites much of our conflict, how will we ever resolve conflict? We will never agree on conclusions if we start at different places. We will never prove Jesus is God through physical senses. At some point it is self evident to us that He is who He says He is or he is not. 

That is what we call faith. Faith is the core assumptions we hardly think about, find self evident and that we cannot prove. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen." I blogged previously that faith comes from the interplay and synergy of eido and gnosis. Maybe that is a good way to think about why we believe what we do. What seems crazy to me is not that some people are stupid and I am not, but that we rely on the debate of conclusions, ignoring the conflict in core assumptions from which disagreement comes.

We can continue the futile wars of logic, or we can debate something we cannot prove, or we can just hug 'em. That is the choice we can make ....

"Christian Morality": an oxymoron?

There's always a surge in reference to "Christian morality" in Presidential election cycles. This year has been no exception. The heat is on due to the ever increasing assault on traditional values of marriage, life, Christmas, democratic capitalism, and God Himself. Churches, apologists, and lay theologians have come from everywhere to protect what I often hear called "Christian morality."




This phrase has generally bothered me. My personal spiritual growth involves an understanding what Jesus talks about when He says "The Kingdom of Heaven is like this ...." I've never heard Him follow this with - conform to a particular code of conduct.

In fact Jesus tended to have His harshest words for the Pharisees, the greatest moralists of His day. Paul goes to great length to emphasize that anything added to the resurrection misses the point of the Gospel of Grace, especially morality. So what is the genesis of the notion of "Christian morality"?

I don't know!!!

But I do believe the term is an oxymoron. That is, the two terms used together contradict themselves. For them not to, they must take on a different meaning than originally intended. While Jesus referred to the Kingdom, not to Christians, there was some early reference to disciples of Jesus as Christians, Throughout the past 2000 years, the term Christian has been contaminated to refer to people who have a particular cultural or political persuasion. CS Lewis says that the term Christian has been applied to people who act like disciples of Christ. John Wesley preached a sermon called "The Almost Christian" to describe those who had all the values and behavior of Christians, but did not have the faith.

Morality is a term that technically refers to the notion of the right and wrong code of conduct for a society. Morality differs from laws in that law establishes a formal punishment system for violation whereas morality ostracizes (questions the legitimacy) rather than penalizes offenders.

Often morality is confused with culture. Culture technically describes behavior that is normal or expected and aligns with society's values. Doing the wave at a football game is cultural, not moral. But it is easy to see how most people combine morality with cultural norms and compile a behavioral code of conduct that everyone in a society must conform to or be rejected by the society. So morality is really a social exchange established by a society where individuals trade their behavior for acceptance.

When I put codes of conduct next to what Jesus says about the Kingdom, I get contradiction. The Gospel of Grace is not a behavioral code of conduct. In fact Jesus often references the same behavior that is acted out from two different motives. He says charitable giving or prayer or fasting with an social exchange focus may gain approval of people (morality), but is not what it means to be a Kingdom dweller. Jesus says the work of God is to repent and believe (trust a completely different mindset), not adhere to codes of conduct.

I certainly have no issue with wanting everyone in society to adopt what we see as a code of conduct that produces the best society. But by pushing a "Christian morality," we testify to a dying world that being a disciple of Jesus is just a code of conduct that competes with other moralities. This is not light to a dark world, its just someone's preferred criteria for exchange. The end game of pushing a particular morality is making "sinners" feel judged and condemned. Not the point of the Cross.  

It may be the reason that the church has become irrelevant to the millennial and even more so to pre-millennial. I somehow believe that these rising generations would fall in love with Jesus, but its hard for them to date Him when their parent, "Christian morality," demands otherwise.

"core assumptions"

All knowledge is not true but we act on knowledge we trust is true. We spend great amount of time collecting data and analyzing it to insure our actions are the best for us to take. Of course we are subject to many self-serving biases, such as confirmation, stereotype, and attribution, which can lead us to erroneous conclusions for our action.

However, at the heart of your thinking, feeling and acting is what is called "core assumptions."  These are beliefs you hold dear because of what you trust to be absolutely true, giving you the faith to act on them. We might say that “core assumptions” are what you believe, but you cannot prove, and do not debate, but use to prove everything else you believe. It doesn’t matter how smart or clever you are, you have basic beliefs that all of your rational conclusions emerge from. 

No one really knows where you get your core assumptions, but some experts believe that you are influenced in your formative years by people, culture, and experiences that made a significant impact, positively or negatively, on your development. Core assumptions are the basis for your worldviews that influence how you feel, think and act using filters and biases built into your human nature.

In proving theorems in science, which is the process many use to finding truth, scientists start with core assumptions. In faith they believe something from which they use rational arguments to build further conclusions. Mathematicians call these self evident truths “axioms” and “postulates”. The reality is that regardless of how logical the scientists are and how strong they believe their assumptions, if the initial assumptions are not absolutely true, the conclusions reached are flawed. Darwin confessed in developing the theory of evolution that if his core assumption is ever determined to be wrong, then his theory does not hold to be true.

There are many things in your life you assume to be true that seem self evident. Some people have confessed that they trust that the father they know is their biological father and they were born where they are told is their birthplace without DNA tests or eye witness accounts. The reality of life is that each of us adopt core assumptions that we can’t get or need absolute proof. Often we are not fully conscious of what makes our core assumptions because they are so dearly and closely held that we never question them.  You will be amazed when you compare what you demand proof of, like the existence of God, and at the same time accept knowledge to be true that you never question. Accepting knowledge as true without the burden of proof and refusing to accept knowledge because we do not have 100% proof is a significant problem in worldviews. Either can leave us with core assumptions that hold us back from living an abundant and virtuous life.

Experts in decision-making have found that we all are subject to what is called “bounded rationality”, regardless of how smart we are. There comes a point when we have to decide and act because we can never get all the facts and even if we could, our minds are limited and flawed, incapable of correctly exploring all the possible decision paths to select the best solution. Deciding and acting on decisions ultimately requires us to have faith is something we have not been able to prove.

I can't prove what I just said, its one of my core assumptions .... 

Maybe life is more than knowing your ABC's

Lets pretend I want to gain favor with you, so I plan to buy you a present for your birthday. I heard you mention to someone that you needed a sweater and so I asked you what color you liked the best. It may seem straightforward that I would likely then buy you a sweater this color? But is life ever that simple? 

I now have knowledge of the color you say you like best. But can I trust that this is really the color you like best? Can I believe what you said? If I know you to be someone who listens well and is always honest, then I probably will believe that what you said is true. If I know you to be a person that jokes around or doesn't pay attention well to what is being asked or can’t make decisions well or normally lies, then although I have knowledge of what you said, I am not sure I can believe that this is true. I might look around and even ask others to get for myself some evidence to whether this is true. In the end, the question for me remains, should I buy you the sweater or not? 

If I believe what you say and aspire to have relationship with you, I act in faith, trusting I will please you. If I cannot trust you, then I do not have faith to buy you this sweater and I hold back on serving you in a way that could bring us closer together. This is of course a very simple example, but one that repeats itself over and over in many ways. 

I know what you said about yourself, but can I trust it to be true, and then have the faith to act on what I know.  It defines all of our relationships, even our relationship with God. Living life is a constant flow of knowledge, truth, and faith working together to influence what you do.

I have been posting some blogs aimed at gaining an understanding of worldview. At the heart of living your life well is your worldview of truth, knowledge and faith. Have you ever wondered why advances in science and technology have not had any impact on corruption, broken marriages, war, crime, the mysteries of death, and many other ills in our world that make life miserable for so many? Access to knowledge is at the highest level in the history of the world and growing rapidly every day. Knowledge has provided communities with benefits of economic growth and higher standards of living, but there is still so much fear and anxiety, guilt and shame, depression, and sadness. 

What is it about knowledge, truth, and faith that can help you understand this better? Many worldview courses explore topics that form the pillars of your life, like work, economics, family, government, and religion. Yet, living an abundant and virtuous life involves more than just getting more information on these subjects. 

You need a framework of knowledge, truth and faith to transform your worldviews. 

Christmas: radical recruitment

I heard a pastor say today that God did not send Jesus to earth as a recruiter. There are several examples that he must have been trying to bring to mind to make his point. We are in the middle of colleges who are in a competitive struggle to recruit high school football players that will help them win. We hear a lot about the emergence of new jobs where there is a shortage of skilled people from which companies can recruit potential candidates.

In these instances the idea of recruitment presupposes that the recruiter is looking for the best, looking for those who can be stars, who can make the organization a winner. I guess the pastor was trying to say that God did not send Jesus to find those who could help Him win, who had it all together, the most competent, the smartest, the best.

That is a good point we need to hear, but it struck me that this idea of recruiting did not mean God was not involved in recruiting. I think its stinkin thinkin to consider that Jesus' coming to earth as a babe, to live among us, suggests God is not recruiting. But rather that God is a radical recruiter. He sends His Son to us as a babe, seeking out candidates that do not have it all together. He violates all cultural norms to recruit a woman caught in adultery. He seeks out a tax collector who was the most despised by the masses. When he encounters those who appear to everyone else to be winners, He tells them that to join His team they have to be born again because their birth has given them pride or He tells them they have to give all they have away because their riches are an obstacle to His Kingdom.

I think what is radical about Christmas is not that God is not recruiting, but the kinds of people He wants to recruit. Are you "sick", incapable, in need, sad, oppressed, guilty and in shame?

Then HE WANTS YOU !!

Now that is radical and when that message is received, it makes for a great Christmas gift!!    

Becoming "radicalized"

Becoming "radicalized" is an often used phrase these days referring to Islamic Jihadist that are so committed to their faith that they commit atrocities in the name of Allah. More often than not this commitment involves losing their own lives. However, dying is not considered a loss because by dying, they are promised an eternal life that has a significant appeal to them. What makes this trade radical?


Many pundits have tried to explain the rise of Islamic terrorism to poverty and hopelessness. Yet, when examined closely we see educated professionals becoming "radicalized". We see women becoming "radicalized." We see mothers of new born children becoming "radicalized." We scratch our heads wondering what is it with becoming "radicalized?"

Let's step back from the emotion of these acts and the cultural biases that we all have in trying to understand anything and see this from a different perspective. Maybe Islamic Jihad is not so radical. The idea that life in this form is not the ultimate and a person can take an action in this life to insure an eternal destiny in an afterlife is quite appealing. Why wouldn't we all be drawn to a religion that we can control what happens to us for all of eternity by what we do today?

Oh, maybe we are, Culturally relative legalism is normal for the human condition, not radical.

Maybe trusting Christ for our redemption and eternal life because of what He did for us, not we do for Him is what's radical. Maybe living from a faith that doesn't depend on what we do is really becoming "radicalized"?

This is certainly worth pondering .....

Footnote: For those who don't like pondering - while normal human acts of self-righteousness destroys life, the radical works of redemptive grace restores it  

Heck, may still require pondering, oh well!

I KNOW (s)he loves me

How do "we know"? How do "we know" anything? Is what we know true because we know it? Can we trust what we know? What's the connection between faith (trusting enough to act) and knowledge?

Let me start by asking you this.



Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

           Faith is only necessary when I do not have enough knowledge.

What about this statement?

           Faith is acting on the knowledge I have.

If you agree with the first statement, you likely see faith as a fallback position when you do not enough knowledge. You may even see people who rely on faith to be weak in dealing with truth because they are not willing or capable of getting more knowledge. If you agree with the second statement, then you may see knowledge without faith as weakness. In this case you may feel that knowledge is not really important unless you trust it enough to act upon it. You may disagree with both statements, seeing faith and knowledge in a different way. However, agreeing with both is a contradiction that may represent that you have not resolved your worldview on the relationship between faith and knowledge.

Maybe the challenge in knowing what is true and trusting what we know enough to act is understanding the meaning of knowledge. By definition "to know" is to bring to an awareness of the mind. However, our mind can be made aware in two ways. One is information we receive through our physical senses. If I say "I know the President of the nation," it likely means that I have information that I have seen or heard about this person, where he/she was born, went to school, what they look like, how they sound, etc. If I know the wind is blowing, while I can't see it, I can feel it and see other evidence, such as leaves moving around or my golf shot gets knocked off line. I can know the mountains are beautiful because I can see them. The Greeks had a word for this meaning of "to know" called eido.

On the other hand, if I say, "I know my wife loves me" or "I know the mountains are peaceful," it is not likely because someone told me or I can touch it, but because this information came to me through relational experience. The Greek word for this kind of knowing is gnosis.

Both forms of knowing are rational, just sourced in two different ways. What we determine to be true becomes our worldview shaped by the roles eido and gnosis play in our understanding. Eido knowledge without gnosis knowledge has little value to life's satisfaction and gnosis knowledge without eido knowledge can be risky if our experience is not aligned with truth.

In plain language, this is what I wishing for you to know. If our knowledge is mainly eido, then our faith or willingness to trust that knowledge is generally weak. If our knowledge is mainly gnosis, then we are likely to act on the knowledge as truth, but we run a considerable risk of being wrong. We must have both the willingness to act (trust what we know) and knowledge that is valid in order to have a worldview that aligns with what is true.

The kicker is that our flaws (biases and filters) influence both kinds of knowledge and the interplay between them. Knowledge becomes truth for each of us from the credibility we give the info received through our senses and our experience.

We must accept eido as true based on the validity of the source, not subject to our biases and filters. We must then understand our gnosis based on the eido we accept as true.  If we allow a flawed understanding of something based on a bad experience to dominate our faith, our gnosis then dominates our eido. This is where we must trust our eido and through faith it then must influence our gnosis.

For example, we read about and see reports of evil and disasters in the world (eido). We are personally attacked by terrorists or are victim of a flood (gnosis). We hear about how good and powerful God is, but how does this eido interact with our gnosis of evil and disaster? The truth we believe about God and then act upon in faith depends on the worldview of God that comes from "knowing Him" with both credible eido further evidenced by gnosis.

So, how do you know s(he) loves you? You first have eido of that person that comes from credible sources and that you trust to be true. S(he) is kind, loyal, dependable, faithful, etc. Then you interpret your experiences with that person through the lenses of eido to gain gnosis of them. Your gnosis strengthens faith in your eido to trust her/him. This produces life's greatest joy, intimacy.

This is what "to know" means and how faith and knowledge work together to make your joy full. 

This is ...

r u ABSOLUTELY sure?

In the previous blog on Faith & Consequences I discussed the consequences of what we believe to be true because of our faith. What we trust to be true guides our actions in most every way. The BIG questions around truth (and thus faith) are these:
is there an absolute truth or ONE truth that trumps all other perspectives of fact? And if there is, then how do i find it?

I began the discussion on absolute truth by framing the question this way:
   
if truth is relative and thereby any person's truth is just as valid as another's, then must we see our enemies as morally equivalent?


Star Wars has made popular an ageless idea of the battles of good and evil. Where does the notion that something is good and something is evil come from? The writer of the story knows, but why is his view right? Maybe war is only the struggle for power and dominance and has no moral imperative. For if everyone's perception of fact is equally valid, no one has a right to defeat another for the sake of bringing them into subjection to truth.

Religious wars would have been purposeless except to subordinate one group to another. While the idea that others should respect my truth as equally valid as theirs feels right, the logical conclusion of this position does not seem to square with the universal desire people have to seek moral superiority. All people know down in their hearts that Nazi Germany, Islamic terrorists, and African genocides are not right, Everyone throughout history has sought to be right and correct the wrongs of their world. If truth were relative and based on what a person perceives it to be, then the quest for "right" is worthless because "being right" is simply what that person believes it to be The virtue of tolerance has been hijacked by many in our culture to mean moral equivalency, but it really means that we each should respect the right for others to hold to separate beliefs, not that we accept their truth as valid.

The fact that anyone would absolutely believe that truth is relative has violated the notion that there is no absolute truth.  

Now, how do we find THE ONE TRUTH about anything? Here are a few ideas I'd like to share with you to ponder.

While anything that is rational is not absolute truth, absolute truth must be rational. "An eye for an eye" is a rational way to respond to being violated or harmed. It has a rationale actually based in justice, getting what you deserve. However, we have found that revenge is not the best way to resolve offense. It is a downward spiral of destruction. reconciliation based on forgiveness is a rational way to deal with offense that results in healing and restoration and betterment for all involved.

One way to see the difference between the rationale of truth vs. truth is rational is the fact that absolute truth deals with what's right in the "big picture" vs. a narrow or limited perspective. The "picture" is big when long periods of time and a broad view of impacts are considered. Stealing money to meet an immediate need is rational, but stealing has negative affects on the person who loses what's stolen. In addition, the person who steals has taken a path to meeting their own needs that does not solve their problem long term and ignores the benefits to them and others that may come from receiving help from others. Thus, the notion that stealing is wrong has a rational based in the "big picture."

Another perspective on the difference between the rationale of truth vs truth is rational deals with the difference between practical and principled decisions. For example, China saw abortion as a rational way to control population. In the US abortion is considered "right" because it gives a woman more control in her circumstances. Both rationales are based on what is a practical solution to an existential problem. The principled approach to abortion would be to see that the unborn child is a life and that society must protect the life of all people, especially those that are vulnerable and cannot protect themselves. Seeing the principle as true has a rationale that the respect for life has a significant positive implication on the overall satisfaction of a society across time.

To discover what is true, you must expose the idols or counterfeits for truth that you have chosen to worship. If Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe God alone is worthy to be worshiped, why are so many of all faiths devoted to the idols of power, hatred, judgmentalism, pleasure, comfort, safety, performance, etc.?   Human nature has a tendency to put affection toward something that can deliver gratification in some area of life, but fails to satisfy or destroys the overall satisfaction of the soul. When you select something to be true that does not work in harmony across all facets of life satisfaction then you have affection for something that is not absolute truth.

One mistake we make in trying to find truth is to think that if we get enough knowledge, then we do not have to have faith. In many ways seeking knowledge can be helpful because we gain more perspective on the 'big picture", but the quest for knowledge can be a pride thing, a desire to trust ourselves and not trusting the author of absolute truth. We should accept that we will not be an expert in everything. A juror does not become an expert to judge what is true in a court case. Rather a juror must depend on testimonies of experts and eye witnesses when discerning what is true about a case. This would be a helpful model for us, seeking knowledge but also respecting its limits while trusting the testimonies of others who have perspective on truth.

These are just some helpful hints to finding absolute truth. If there were a pill you could take to find truth, everyone would come to the same conclusion on truth. The absolute truth about absolute truth is that you will ultimately have to rely on faith, not irrational, blind assumptions, but trust in something or someone whose rationale incorporates the "big picture" and works completely for the satisfaction of the whole soul.

At least it is ....

Faith & Consequences

Western Civilization has seen in the past 15 years what Islamic Jihad looks like up close and personally. At some level you have to at least take notice, if not admire, the commitment to their beliefs, Suicide missions involve giving your all. The question this raises for us westerners is not

"why don't we have the faith in our faith like the Jihadist do?", but rather "isn't the target of our faith really the factor in the consequences of our faith?"


Each serious person of faith starts with a sincere need for their life to have a positive impact on the world around them. However, the myth that sends us down the wrong stream of conscientiousness is that our sincerity is the most important aspect of the impact of our faith. It is true that commitment does increase the intensity of our effort and the direction of our behavior. BUT, in reality the aspect of faith that matters most to the consequences is the validity of our faith.

Historic Jesus tells us that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains. In context of His narrative, He is contrasting quantity with object of faith. If you and a friend came to a river and needed to cross to the other side, your experience would not be determined by how much you believed the river was shallow enough to cross. Rather whether the actual depth was passable would determine your fate.

The next myth concerning faith & consequences is whether truth is relative or absolute. The definition of truth is 'perceived fact of reality'. Absolute truth removes the notion of 'perceived'. If truth were relative, then sincerity would be the only measure by which we could judge truth. The logical extension of that would be that the Islamic Jihad is just as valid as anyone else's morality. We would have to accept their claim of jihad because they sincerely believed it, and along with this, the consequences.

More evidence that truth must be absolute is found in the practice of navigation. Anyone trying to move about the globe in any direction must know where north is and trust the compass to signify north. The virtue of tolerance has "tricked" society into believing that truth is not absolute, yet the civilized world is not willing to accept moral equivalency of Islamic Jihad, nor will they travel without a compass. This is a major contradiction in worldviews that leaves individuals and communities in chaos.

One aspect of absolute truth that forces many people back into relativism is 'who's truth is the one that counts?' In the face of having to 'pick one', culture forces people back into the virtue of tolerance - and round we go, opening ourselves up to legitimizing any faith, regardless of its consequences.

There must be a way to determine absolute truth. We can get a hint about finding truth from jurors. They are not the experts or the eye witnesses, they must listen to experts and eye witnesses with humility and a yearning for the truth. However, their judgment is ultimately on who they trust, not what they know. There is NEVER enough physical evidence to PROVE what is true. There are more tips on faith, but that's another blog. For now it is just

Lessons from an orphan girl

While your social identity helps you form a sense of belonging, your personal identity is how you see yourself and the image you project to others. Here’s a simple story to illustrate personal identity and how it works within people’s perspective of what is true about themselves.

Once there was an orphan girl who lived in the slums of the city. She felt abandoned, was alone and had to find ways to feed and clothe herself from the garbage heaps around the town. One day the rich man who lived in the mansion on top of the hill above the city was moved with compassion for the orphan girl and chose to adopt her. Thus, she came to live with him in the mansion on top of the hill above the city. She had access to all new clothes and could feast at the rich man’s banquet table. However, while the girl knew she was adopted, she still felt like an orphan. She identified more with the street people than as a child of the rich man. She was more comfortable in the slums because she still saw herself as destitute. Instead of receiving the provisions and privileges of her new father, daily she would go back down into the city and look for food and clothes in the garbage. Although she had been given a new identity, she still viewed herself as an orphan.

So, here's a little test question, why do you think the girl could not feel, think and act as an adopted child of the kind rich man?

A.      She felt she did not deserve such favor from the rich man

B.      While she knew her new life was better, she felt more comfortable with her old life

C.      She saw her adoption as an obligation to the rich man rather than a privilege

D.      She desired to hang onto her old life rather than to receive the love of her new father
E.   She felt shame because she believes receiving gifts from the rich man is not fair to other orphans.

If you selected A, then your worldview may align with this perspective. Often we feel we do not deserve the good things that come our way, especially if we do not feel we earned them. Its amazing how humans have the tendency to feel guilty about good things happening in their life because they do not feel worthy of such favor.

If you selected B, then your worldview may align with this perspective.  Even when something new may be better for us, there is a natural tendency to stay with what we are comfortable. The certainty of our past provides us with a sense of security and comfort, even if the reality of our past suggests we really are not. Often what we know to be true does not motivate us as much as what we feel to be true.

If you selected C, then your worldview may align with this perspective. While the rich man wanted her to enjoy the blessings of being his child, she focused more on how her adoption would make her obligated to the rich man. Being indebted can seem to rob us of our freedom but as we see in this story, rejecting her adoption kept her from receiving his extravagant provisions. While it may be obvious to an outside observer that she would benefit greatly from the adoption, her view of the slums was more freeing to her. 
  . 

If you selected D, then your worldview may align with this perspective. We can sometimes receive love and kindness from someone and not be drawn to them by a thankful heart. This can happen when we focus more on what we left behind or stay stuck in the self pity we had grown accustomed to. Often we are not thankful for what someone does for us because we are cynical of their motive and do not want to be obligated to them. Sometimes it is our pride of self sufficiency that keeps us apart from a father who wants to serve us. Any of these could be reasons the girl could not accept the generosity of her adoption.

If you selected E, then your worldview may align with this perspective. You can feel that receiving from a rich man when other orphans do not is wrong. This likely means that you see total resources as limited or fixed and so when you receive something good then someone else will have less. Many people with this worldview can feel shame or guilt when they receive more favor than others. The shame or guilt can make you feel like an outcast rather than to feel blessed by the generosity of someone who wishes to share their wealth with you.

The orphan girl’s identity or perception of herself apparently did not change just because she was adopted. Something stood between her old identity and the reality of her new one. This is a simple story, but has profound wisdom for you. Like the girl, you too have a story and from your story you receive a self image, but is it true or is it shaped by circumstances that create a false sense of identity? Like the girl in this story, one of your challenges is whether you have the view of your identity that is your true self. Exploring your personal identity and how it shapes your worldview and vice versa is a worthwhile exercise.

What you will find is that the obstacles we have from living in the fullness of provisions and privileges of our Heavenly Father is likely revealed in how we answered the question from the story of the orphan girl. For we too are spiritual orphans who have been adopted by the rich man who lives in a mansion on top of the hill.

   

"He married my daughter"

OK, you may ask, "are you talking about your son-in-law or the pastor who conducted the wedding?" Good question, with only that information you are left to determine the point of the statement from your predisposed notion of who I might be talking about. This orientation to make sense of something a certain way is called your worldview.

To see more clearly you need more information. This is called "context". Within what larger frame of reference did I make this statement? What was the major point I wish you to know?

I could give you his name, but if you didn't know from his name whether he was my son-in-law or the one who conducted the wedding, you would still have to infer from your orientation which person I was talking about.

I could give you information about the person in addition to his name. But again, if the information did not explicitly reference this person in a way that provided you understanding without the need for your orientation to be active, then your worldview is still instrumental in knowing the truth with certainty who I was talking about.

Such it is with reading the Bible. The Bible tells stories about God's story. Often it is not obvious who the characters are, especially in Jesus' parables. Our core assumptions (worldview) about God, the world and ourselves tend to affect how we discern truth from the story.

See, the point of this blog is that its not God's truth that is ambiguous or transitory from situation to situation and person to person, its the flawed orientations or worldviews from which we try to discern truth that causes us to disagree in dogmatism or assume truth is relative.

Which worldview is best?

There is so much going on these days about competing worldviews. I have published a few blogs on this like my grandson's experience at The Summit. Christian apologists have made it their career to discuss and publish perspectives on worldview and these approaches take several different forms, but mainly stay on theological and philosophical tracks, such as origin of the Universe, is there a God, purpose of life, etc.

I too think worldview is very important because it is simply the orientations we have that cause us to think, feel, and act in the way we do. Most people want to do what is right, but how do we determine what right is? However, I have taken a more fundamental approach. I have explored core assumptions that people have from which all of their sense-making is derived. Core beliefs are more fundamental than practice oriented beliefs, such as culture, and the system of beliefs that explain the material and invisible world. In fact, I believe worldview is so fundamental that there are only two, one from the carnal mind and one from the Kingdom mind. The carnal mind is the core assumption that my happiness is the result of successfully exchanging with the world around me, the norm of reciprocity. The result is an obsession with justice, reward systems and punishment. The Kingdom mind is the core assumption that God has given me unmerited favor and that I must simply receive what he has done in faith. My motivation is to receive and reflect, not pursue and produce. Its His glory that matters, not outcomes of my actions. The result is a life of thanksgiving. The focus is on the reward giver, his nature and his purposes.

Let's illustrate how this works.

When you hear the word "LAW", what do you think, feel, and do? Does "law" mean to you a rule to control your actions by declaring offense when you violate its conditions?  Or does "law" mean to you a ruler to inform you that your actions are off target and that outcomes of these actions will not be the best for you. The carnal mind automatically orients our thoughts and feelings to the former. Thus, law is a form of bondage since reward and punishment are related to what we do. The later orientation is the kingdom mind. Law is given to us by God to show us first that exchange is not His plan but more importantly how the Kingdom works so we can experience the privileges and provisions of The Heavenlies.

The Gospels are full of stories Jesus tells to explain The Kingdom. Some are difficult to grasp, but mainly they are difficult when we see them through the lenses of exchange (carnal mind). Here's one of the tough ones. Peter asks Jesus about how many times he should forgive his brother's offenses against him. The Jewish law claimed we must forgive offenses made against us 3 times. Peter offers more than twice as much, SEVEN. Peter's view of the law as a rule is the context for his question. Peter is trying to gain favor with Jesus (context of this passage) so he presents a better exchange, Jesus responds with a story in which He starts by saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king.." Then the story goes like this:

As the king was settling accounts with his servants, one was brought to him that had a debt that was impossible to pay. The master was going to sell him and his family into slavery to settle the debt but the servant pleaded for mercy and patience. the servant swore to ultimately pay back the king but the debt was too big to ever be repaid. Out of his heart for the servant, the king forgave the debt and sent him on his way a free man. The free servant immediately went to one who owed him a much smaller debt and demanded payment. When the debtor of this servant could not pay the debt, the servant had the one indebted to him cast into prison. When the king heard of this, he summoned the servant to him, scolded him because of the servant's response to the king's forgiveness, and delivered him to prison until he could pay his debt in full (which was never).

Jesus concludes the story with these words, "So my Heavenly Father will do to everyone of you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

If we approach understanding this story about the Kingdom with a carnal worldview (exchange), we will conclude that God demands us to forgive according to His expectations (the law) or he punish us. After all, that is justice. If we approach this story with a Kingdom mind, we will hear God's heart for us. The law of forgiveness is like a ruler that informs us that since we have been forgiven much, we have God's provision to forgive others, which is btw, a much smaller debt. The point is NOT - if we disobey God, He will cast us away. But rather if we live outside His design, we will forever be in bondage to exchange. How we grasp God depends on which one of the two worldviews we hold.

This is also illustrated by the servant in the story. He made sense of the king's action with a carnal worldview. His actions show that he thought he could maybe appease the king if he could repay him some of what he owed and so he treated others for his own purposes of exchange. This action stood in stark contrast to the absence of thanksgiving. Implied in Jesus's story is that the provision of Grace is a thankful heart, ready to forgive offenses others have made against us. In fact, Jesus' lesson on forgiveness is that the law of forgiveness is not a quantity of times to forgive others but a heart that sees actions of others as no offense at all, given the Grace we have received from THE KING. The Kingdom bias is the source of all things, not the outcome of things.

Does it really matter?

These are not questions you probably think about on a daily basis. They are not what you ask your friends about in social settings. They may be questions you have never even thought about. So when I set them in front of you for consideration, your tendency maybe to think, "I really don't care." You may conclude it doesn't really matter.

 You may think they are really deep and require too much thought. You most likely have not considered the implications for you of how you answer these questions. However, these may be questions that matter the most to you across your life.

Let's take a minute and explore these questions and why you answers should matter to you.

If you have decided that you will use your experiences to conclude what is true, then you are likely to answer the first question "yes." This means that what you believe about people in general and yourself in particular is a result of how you have observed other people and how they have made you feel about yourself. A good example is your self esteem, which is your belief of your own value or importance. If you have been successful in acquiring material wealth and power and people have told you how good you are, then you probably believe you are pretty important. Of course, the opposite would be true if you had been mainly a failure and not received well by other people. This is just one of many, many beliefs you have that come from how you have observed the world around you and how those experiences have made you feel. You have beliefs about the origin of the universe, about God, about authority, about family, about education and on and on based on what you personally have experienced. The obvious and ultimate conclusion you must reach if you answer the first question yes is that there is no absolute truth. Since truth is determined from our experience, we each have our own version of what is true, what is right and what is wrong.

If you answer the second question yes, then you have decided that there are absolute truths that exist before and beyond your personal experience. In this case you will work to gain more and more knowledge so you can find what is true. Once you have truth, you then perceive and interpret situations in life through the lenses of what is true. Back to example of self esteem. If you answer the second question positively, then you believe that you am important or not regardless of what your experience may suggest. That is, if you believe you are important because God says so, then when you fail and others reject you, it does not affect your self esteem. Similarly with the other areas you have beliefs. If you stand on what you believe and try to understand what just happened through the lenses of your beliefs, you will think, feel, and act differently than if you answered the first question positively.

If the first question is where you stand, then you have resolved the question  "how do I determine truth?" If you answered the second question positively, you have answered the question "is there absolute truth?" but you must resolve the question "how do i know what is true?' This requires faith. In other words, what you settle on as absolute truth will be a result of believing something that you cannot prove.

Many believe that if they take the position that truth is relative to what they believe through experience then they do not need faith. The truth is that answering the first question yes and the second no is having faith in the fact that truth is relative and based on perspective.

Now, if you answer both questions "yes" or both questions "no", you are basically confused and not sure what you believe. These questions are mutually exclusive and demand that you decide. Not making the effort to resolve this is believing you can just float around independent of the effects of truth in your journey and destination. It is kinda like the common statement, "if you don;t know where you are going, then any path will get you there."

    

How do you see the King?

Here's a story that contains a truth that the story teller wishes for you to know.

Once there was a king who owned much land. One day he needed some men to work his land. So he sends his foreman out at 6am in the morning and hires some workers promising a full day’s pay. These workers gladly agreed and worked the full day producing 12 hours of harvest. The king wanted more so he sends out his foreman at 12 noon and hired additional workers. These workers gladly worked producing what they could in 6 hours. Wishing to have more, the landowner again sends his foreman out at 3pm to get workers. More people are hired and gladly work til 6 producing what they can in 3 hours. <move video from speaker to pic below and continue saying> Now when all the workers returned to the King, he pays each worker a full day’s wage. The workers who had worked 12 hours became disgruntled with their reward and left dissatisfied with the King for he had paid the workers who worked only 6 and 3 hours the same as they had received. The King asked, ‘why are you upset with me, cannot the King choose and reward His workers as He pleases?

This is a simple story but provides some really good insights into your worldview, that is, how you make sense of situations. Take a few minutes to explore what truth this story wishes to tells us.

First, which statement below best represents what you believe to be the point of the story.

A. There are many ways to view the fairness of rewards.

B.  Working harder does not produce greater reward.

C.  The King is generous and can reward as he chooses.

D.  Rewarding everyone equally is the best way to keep the most people happy.

While the story is clearly about rewarding people for work, if your answer is A, B or D then you are understanding this story as a lesson about principles of reward systems. Each of these points about rewards could be concluded from this story, but is the story teller trying to tell you the truth about reward systems or truth about the reward giver? If so, what is it that the story teller wants you to know? The King, the one who owns the land, can reward as he chooses and that he is a generous King. This is a story the story teller wishes to use to explain his/her view on the truth about a particular King. Seeing truth in story from the story teller’s worldview is not always easy. 

Furthermore, is the idea that the King wanted "more" have to do with more work or the willingness to have more workers willing to join him in his kingdom? If we have a different worldview from the story teller, then we understand truth about the motives of the king differently from what the story teller wishes for us to know.

Makes me ponder how people determine what is true. How do they work through the myriad of biases, some of which they do not even know they have, to settle on what is right and true?

Why would any American want to be a socialist?

Recently, The CEO of United was dismissed for cause but was given a multi-million $ payoff. Regularly we read about CEO's that have driven their company down in value, not up, and get paid millions to go away. Will Muschamp is an example of a college football coach who failed to meet expectations and was given millions to go away, became the highest paid coordinator while still receiving compensation from previous employee. So far his defense at Auburn has been short of stellar. Major college football coaches are receiving huge salaries, but most fail to deliver on the goals for which they are hired.

Capitalists respond, "this is just the free market at work." I would be the first to advocate market based economies over socialist economies. SO, what is wrong with our current system that would leave room for an increasing attraction to socialism?

What exists in our society are leaders that get rewarded for success, but do not get penalized for failure. There is a huge asymmetry of risks. CEO's and coaches get bonuses if they reach or exceed goals, but they never have to give back any of their compensation when they fail to achieve goals. This actually makes the market dysfunctional, creating a cynicism in society of free market capitalism.

Professionals also learn to game the system, such as what AIG execs did with credit default swaps (insurance on mortgage back securities). In gaming the system professionals bet on the upside potential of their actions but are not subject to the downside risks of failure. Our government is not only ready to bail out financial execs, like Sweden and The Netherlands, the US govt stands ready to remove risk of failure for all its citizens in many ways. In fact the mantra of the federal govt has gradually moved from the founding fathers idea to defend society against foreign attack to protecting all citizens from various forms of risk (i.e., natural disasters, health care costs, social security, unemployment benefits, and so forth).

So why have so many grown weary of leaving society to the forces of the capitalists and free markets?
When greed trumps ethics and society pursues the role of government as removing risks from life, socialism is attractive. While many may be too sophisticated to say they want socialism, a culture of "everybody must win" and BIG GOVT is the new socialism.  

What is it you see?

This is a scale showing my last weigh in. That's what you see, but is it really? Do you see a weight that has gotten out of control and puts me at a health risk? Or do you see a weight that is 20 lbs lighter than I was 2 months ago. Maybe this is quite an achievement for me? Why might different people see the same thing but come to two totally different conclusions on what they saw?

See this smile? What do you see? Someone flirting with you? Maybe its an act of kindness? Or maybe yet, its a little bit of cynicism? How do you know? What makes something you see clear to you?







Seeing is not just an activity of the eyes. The reality is that how you feel and what you do is not about what you see, it's what you see it is.

Seeing is really about perceiving and perceiving is more than seeing. When we encounter our environment and observe what it entails, we take in more than data (199 lbs or a smile), we take in information (a good weight or a bad weight and the intent of the smile). Information is data that we have given context and the context we give is based on biases and filters that are part of our sense-making system. Each one of us has one and each is different from all others.

There are far too many examples of this because it goes on all the time and is even happening right now. You see words, but you make sense of them in context. Who wrote them and does the author have credibility or not? How are you feeling at the time you read them? Are you confident and hopeful or are you fearful or cynical? Are you distracted at the time or are you giving what you see your full attention?

Someone says something to you. Do you trust them or not? Do they make you feel good about yourself or not? What are your needs at the time? What are your expectations of this person?

Your boss gives you feedback. You do not just see the feedback, you see what it is, what it means to you based on the context that defines your relationship with your boss and preconceived notions or biases about the company, the boss, and your peer employees.

Your gender, your age, your personality, your culture, your experiences, knowledge, beliefs and more determine more than what you see, these control what you see it is. Learning to trust yourself less with your initial response to what others do and say will help you be less judgmental. Be intentional to shine a light on your perceptual biases and filters to understand and validate the context so that the data you receive is not distorted information.

To be a good leader you must develop clarity in what you see others do. How do you do that? How do you sharpen your vision.

Faith, which is trusting not what you see but what you know to be true, is essential in the maturity of SEEING WHAT IT IS! 

Trugreen: Why Chapter 5 Matters

As many of you know understanding and explaining strategy for individuals and companies is one of my priorities in late life. So much so I wrote a book on strategy called "Winning in a Hostile Environment". Section Two of the book deals with seven reasons companies fail. These are not common topics for business people, not taught in Strategy classes to MBA's, and seldom discussed within executive chambers as the keys to good strategy. Therefore many people do not elaborate much on these 7 points, especially executives who are more likely to follow institutional prescriptions for success.

It has intrigued me that while some may dismiss my points and not choose to elaborate on these challenges, I see examples everywhere of how companies fall prey to these snares. Latest case in point is my experience with Trugreen Lawn Care. They have really good marketing and customer plans for service. They say all the right things that customers would want to hear. They make it easy to purchase and pay for the services. BUT, exactly how do they line up with Chapter 5?

Chapter 5 claims that companies lose when they choose to approach strategic initiatives as if they were utilitarian. That may sound too academic or complex to apply, but it is very simple and profound to winning or losing. So what do I mean by the strategic point in Chapter 5? Let me give you my story and I think you will see.

I subscribe for annual lawn care service from Trugreen, which includes timely application of weed killer and fertilizer. Once a year they aerate and over seed my fescue yard. This is critical because it happens once a year and determines a great deal of how the yard will look for a year. This service is normally completed in September. They take the initiative to schedule the service and I do not even have to be home for them to execute. As expected they schedule the service, but late the day of service I get a call saying they could not do it because I didn't mark my sprinkler heads so they could avoid them. I don't have a sprinkler system. They didn't put forth effort to see this. So they rescheduled. and this time i was home. They show up after 5pm on the day of schedule, two men jump out of their truck with aeration equipment, speedily move across the yard staying 3 feet from all boundaries, such as sidewalk, drive way, and mulch areas. In less than 10 minutes they were back in their truck and gone. You might say, "good job, they were motivated and efficient."

Yes, they were efficient, but they were not effective. Two things were wrong, which left me, the consumer, dissatisfied. One is that by not taking the time to aerate near the borders, I have no holes punched for new seed to fall and germinate. The second issue, they didn't even put down any seed, although the invoice left for the service said "aeration and over seed." Somewhat befuddled, I just assumed these service technicians were in a hurry and wanted to get home. Poor employee performance was my conclusion. trump would have said, "you're fired".

Somewhat taken back by what I experienced, I couldn't wait to call and report the poor service, get a supervisor to call me to discuss these employees and reschedule. Of course, calling was one of those experiences where you give them a number and they call back in 20 or 30 minutes. I did and they did. The call center service employee was pleasant, acknowledge my frustration and put in a message for the local manager to call me the next day. The next day I waited and by 10:30am there was no call. I proceeded then to call service center again and got a different service operator. Again, she was pleasant and agreed to resend a message to manager. She said one more thing that really got my attention. When i shared that their service felt like a "hit and run" and that the service techs were running through the yard as if they couldn't wait to get home, she said an amazing thing. "It shows in our records that your yard is 2000 sq ft and that means they are scheduled 5 minutes for that job." At first I couldn't believe what i heard and then it hit me.

Those employees were trying as hard as they could to be successful. Its just that SUCCESS meant meeting the efficiency standard for the job. It did not matter how the job was done, that it significantly failed to meet my satisfaction.  Here's what apparently is Trugreen's model - to treat strategic initiatives as if they were utilitarian, a formula for failure. Trugreen sees success through efficiency lenses. Employees are doing as they are rewarded.


Here's the point of Chapter 5 - Strategic initiatives are anything a company does that affects why someone would be your customer or consumer. In this case the aeration/ over seed service is clearly a strategic initiative. BUT, Trugreen believes that success is how efficient they do the service, not how effective. Utilitarian initiatives of a company, such as accounting, mail room, janitorial, and such, need to be efficient only. That's OK. They make a good application for Lean 6-sigma. However, when things a company does that effects the customer/consumer experience is primarily about being efficient without first being effective. The company will lose.

BTW, I have since found that everyone I thought were using Trugreen had fired them already. I am the last, but its now done!!!  

does money motivate?

This is a popular topic in human behavior. The dominant view is "not yes, but heck yeah." But the relationship between money and motivation is very complex. Here are a few principles:

1. the monetary reward must be of a size to have value (e.g., 2% raise vs 15%)
2. the monetary reward must be proximal to the behavior, that is, the money to be gained must be closely associated with what the person must do to get it.
3. the monetary reward is competing with other types of rewards, especially intrinsic rewards of meaning, significance, and enjoyment
4. the monetary reward is often a symbol for some other value the person has, such as fairness, status, and power

The research on when money motivates is quite extensive and basically concludes that money alone often does not motivate a specific behavior and reward givers must not see monetary rewards as a silver bullet to motivation.

But I want to venture into an area of this topic that may be more prevalent than the attention given to it. That is, what are the motivational implications of monetary rewards exceeding the need of the individual for money. Are there behavioral risks to emotionally turning your back on money?





Let's think about it this way. How do you feel when you believe that the monetary reward for what you are doing is in excess of what you need? This is a little different than believing you are overpaid for the work. That usually results in anxiety and fear that you will be found out and that you will lose what you have.

Being rewarded with money when you either have what you need or you are highly intrinsically motivated meaning you do not associate monetary reward with your behavior can create some interesting risks. One is that the world generally associates the desire for money with motivation to do the job. Communicating to others may make them feel you do not care, which has ramifications to how they view your commitment. Research also shows that when we are doing something we love to do and then money is provided as a reward for doing it, we can begin to lose the intrinsic value of what we are doing, be less enthused, and feel obligated to the reward giver.

The main point here is that monetary rewards create feelings in each of us differently based on our needs. Our feelings affect our motivation. The world operates on a system that people do what they do in exchange for rewards. Taking a "one size fits all" view of money as a motivator is risky for the reward giver and not being sensitive to how others read our response to monetary rewards has risk for the the one being rewarded.

just something to ponder ......