No cause, just effect ...

 Built deep within the human condition is the idea of cause and effect. Have you noticed whenever something happens in the world the media immediately starts "guessing" what caused it to happen? Aristotle's model of causation is fundamental to reasoning. Thomas Aquinas used this model in his famous proof for the existence of God.

Maybe every effect in our lives doesn't have a cause. That idea kinda blows the mind, doesn't it?

There's evidence of this everywhere, however. Just open your eyes.

Yesterday I was going to play golf an hour away. It's something I do regularly, so it's fairly routine. This time there was an "effect" I can't explain. I was heading to get into the car. RANDOMLY I saw the garbage needed to be taken out. Since we are in an apt right now, I must take it to the dump in the car as I leave the complex. I usually put it in the back seat for ease of access. BUT, this time I had the RANDOM thought that the bag was a little messy. So, I went to put it in the trunk. As I opened the trunk, guess what? NO GOLF CLUBS!

 After a brief moment of panic, I remembered I had left them at the AU Club when I played Wed. Why had I not put the clubs in my trunk as I have every other time? What caused the effect of no clubs? RANDOMLY I had received a text from my cousin about having dinner at the club that night. So, I put my clubs at the bag drop and went in to make a reservation. My whole routine after golf had been affected by RANDOM events. 

Where was the cause for no clubs in my trunk on Fri morning? Had I not decided to take the garbage, had I not decided to put garbage in back seat, had I not put clubs at bag drop instead in my car after golf, I would have arrived 1 hr away from home to play golf with NO CLUBS, an effect with no cause.

Just the previous night my son had given me an account of how he tried to make a last minute change of QB's on his fantasy football team. He went into the system to put Tannehill in place of Carr. Tannehill was playing Thursday night so it was a last minute decision. As he was making the change, his daughter RANDOMLY called. He got distracted. He forgot to hit "save." His attempt to change QB's didn't happen. As he starts to watch the game, Tannehill is on fire. Bang, bang, bang, completion after completion and then a TD. My son is feeling great until he notices Carr is still in his lineup. "What happened?" he thought. Then he remembered he must have forgotten to hit "save" when he made the change, an effect with no cause. To make a long story short, that was it for Tannehill that night. He ended up doing nothing more and had the worst game of his career. My son's thwarted attempt to play Tannehill worked best for him. Randomness worked against his plans FOR his benefit.

How often do things like this happen in life? Over and over it seems. Positive effects in our lives from RANDOM events. 

Yet, the human condition cannot handle randomness. We must have a cause for every effect.

Sometimes the effects of RANDOM events are not positive for us (or it seems). We then feel guilty or look to blame something outside ourselves. 

This may be the source of mankind's natural tendency to misunderstand Sovereignty? Sovereignty is effect without cause. Now, that' something to ponder ....
 

and the problem is ...

One of the problems many educators face is, "how do we teach kids to solve problems?" Critical thinking is at the top of the list in qualities businesses are looking for in new hires. Its been quite common in my work with students and employees to help them learn to solve problems rather than treat symptoms. Obviously, this is what we want from medical physicians when we are sick. Don't just give me something for the fever, get rid of the infection.

This is not new. Over 2500 years ago when the Greeks began the work of philosophy, they were trying to solve three problems. These were

1.  the problem of knowing (how do we know what is?)

2.  the problem of behavior (what is the right thing to do?)

3.  the problem of governing (how do we treat each other?)

Since 400 - 500 BC, humans have relied on the findings of Socrates, Plato, and especially Aristotle for the ways in which we should solve these three problems. First, we know "what is true" by reasoning what we see. This is the basis of science and works fairly well with knowing the physical world. There has been serious disagreement over the years about how we reason truth about invisible objects. Science evolved to support knowing the world we see. Scientific inquiry then became the way to try and solve the problem of knowing what we cannot see. For instance, Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century Christian philosopher, used Aristotle's model of reasoning cause and effect to prove how to know that God exist.  

From Aristotle's work on "knowing" came the idea of virtue, universal principles we can reason about the right way to be and do. Be fair. Be kind. Be courageous. Be free. and so forth. This solves the second problem, "how do we behave?"

The problem of governing became one of ethics and morality. There are universal codes of conduct that we can reason from observing the world over time. These suggest the best way for society to operate for the benefit of all its occupants. Those in charge of others should be moral and expect all other citizens to be also. Government should put into law these principles. Much like Aquinas, the founding fathers of the US took Aristotle's model and applied an assumption that God's Word provides a script for moral governing. Thus, the third problem was solved for the US by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

The prevailing notion that the US is a Christian nation was established and has been the basis for political advocacy of evangelical Christians ever since. Christians push forward the idea of Christian morality and values. But, is this how Jesus advocated solving these three problems?

It might be noted that we have no recorded words from God between the time of Aristotle until Jesus came to earth. Four hundred years of God's silence. Aristotle's views ran rampant. Why?

Suddenly Jesus appears. Jesus arrives on earth and teaches about God's Kingdom. Of course there is a lot to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. However, one thing He did was to give a totally different view of solving these three problems than Aristotle and his cohorts did. I find the Sermon on the Mount to be a fairly direct rebuke of Greek philosophy. 

What are Jesus' answer to these three problems?

1. How do we know? Jesus uses a different word for knowing than the philosophers used. Jesus spoke about "knowing" without observing physical evidence, gnosis. This involves revelation. Words given to us from an unseen source outside ourselves.

2. What should we do? Instead of virtue, Jesus spoke about faith. That is, trusting what we receive from this unseen source of "knowing." Acting on the unction of the Holy Spirit is Jesus' answer to the second problem, not an internal drive and set of principles to pursue virtue.

3. How should we treat each other? Jesus advocates humility and service. Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. Seeing the provisions and privileges of the Kingdom of Heaven is God's way to work in unity to glorify Himself. Seeking the rights and rewards of a "proper" or lawful path in the physical world is what mankind inherited from Adam.

Jesus did not bring a new set of problems to solve. The Greek philosophers and all that followed from them, including many Christian philosophers, had the right set of problems. Jesus brought a totally different way to solve them. Repent, metanoia, is a call to this different way to solve the same problems.

That is what it means to "be not conformed to the ways of this world (solving problems like Aristotle), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (solve problems like Jesus)."

They don't teach critical thinking like this in school I don't believe ......  

Good leaders do what?

During these politically divisive times, one of the major ways people attempt to degrade Trump is to accuse him of being pathetic, if not absent, as a leader. His opponents claim he is the "worst President (leader of our nation) in history." Now, this blog is not about politics and certainly not about Trump. It's about what we can learn to recognize and to be an effective leader.

At the center of the criticism is Trump's results in controlling infections and deaths from CV-19 along with an equally critical view of his handling the economy. When looking at a single result to determine the merits of a leader, we miss the complexities in which any leader must lead. For instance, most sensible people, when not being seduced by politics, understand that aggressively shutting down social activity to halt the spread of the virus simultaneously destroys the economy. On the other hand, if commercial activity were allowed to continue as usual (and the US had a great economy going into the virus period), then the virus would likely have dire consequences on public health.

Putting various biases of Trump aside, what would a good leader do? Pick one outcome and let the other create a disaster? If so, which one?

When I was a young man, just getting started in my career, I witnessed something I will never forget. I worked at Vanity Fair (the garment company) as a systems analyst.

There was an interesting business problem Vanity Fair was trying to solve. If they dyed big batches of cloth, the dying and finishing productivity was good, but in-process inventory in sewing plant was too high. To reduce the problem with inventory in sewing, they would dye smaller batches. But then, productivity in the dye plant would suffer.

This went on and on for months and I watched. Being a math geek I pondered, "why don't they optimize the conflict instead of bouncing back and forth trying to accomplish a single objective?" I was getting my first taste of what it meant to balance two significant opposing forces. I was beginning to see what leadership was and was not.

Today I heard financial analysts interviewing business people about the Presidential debate. The mostly liberal media were trying to corner successful business people to support their claim, "Trump is a bad leader and bad for our country." Ironically, the first person they interviewed was Robert (Bob) Johnson, the founder of BTN.

BTN is the first successful TV network designed for Black Americans. Bob is black. Bob is very successful and respected by all business professionals. What do you think he said about Trump and leadership?

Basically he said that the true test of a leader comes from how he/she deals with trade-offs between two conflicting and difficult outcomes. No leader wants people to die, as they have with CV. Nor does a leader want the economy to tank and create hardship for many.

His focus on evaluating a leader is not picking one outcome and judging whether it alone should have been better or worse. He said the leadership issue should be more about how the leader addresses the trade-offs between two opposing forces. 

In other words, how a leader balances and finds the best middle ground determines a leader. In the case of Trump, Johnson knows how Trump is trying to deal with the trade-offs. It may not be perfect. No one can agree what is the right trade-off. But Trump is predictable in seeking trade-offs, and that is what counts in business.

You can agree with Johnson or not on Trump vs Biden, but his point about leadership is important. In fact, I pondered the very same thing 50 years ago and felt the same way.....

Can you be reasonable?

We look at each other and "demand" that others be reasonable. This is how we know what is true, who is right, what is fair. A conclusion is "valid" only when it passes the test of reasonableness. Whether in marriage, as parents, in business, and especially in the public policy arena, we accept what is reasonable and we reject what is not. That's what we do without much consideration of what we are doing.

Did you know that the criteria of "being reasonable" is at the core of philosophy and is one of the major areas of contention between Martin Luther, the author of the Protestant Reformation, and Thomas Acquinas, the first Catholic philosopher. 

The ability to reason was advanced by Plato and Aristotle as the main facility humans had that animals did not. Being able to experience via physical senses multiple data points in the world and inferring a moral principle from this data is innately human. Acquinas believed that by following Aristotle's model of cause and effect we can reason that God exist. Luther took exception. He believed human reasoning could not determine matters of faith. Evidence of God cannot be confirmed through physical senses.   

You may not ever think about what it means to be reasonable, but you build your life on being reasonable all the time. You demand it of others. Isn't that interesting? Yet, you may not even understand whether you or anyone else is actually being reasonable. What is reason based on? If you wish, we can explore what it means to be reasonable. You never know what you might find.

What is reason? The 1828 Webster dictionary says reason is the basis by which we reach or justify a determination or conclusion. In this sense, everyone is reasonable in that they have a way to judge or determine what they conclude. However, is everyone's reason really reasonable?  

Let's examine this question by breaking the process down to its two components: 1) the starting point and 2) the thought path or logic used to get from the starting point to the conclusion.

There is a field of study for the second component, the logical pathway to conclusion. For instance, there are accepted paths of logic, such as "if A = B and B = C, then A = C." There are aspects of the logic process called fallacies, which is drawing a conclusion that violates laws of logic. You can accept these laws or not, but most scholars of reason would agree on the ways in which logic works. Often, if a thought path adheres to the rules of logic, we would agree the conclusion is reasonable. This is what Aristotle and Acquinas basically do. They apply accepted paths of logic to observations to determine what is true.

So, why did Luther vehemently disagree with Aristotle and Acquinas. Luther pointed to the problem of the starting point. In other words, regardless how logical your path is, if you start at the wrong place, your conclusion will not be reasonable. The starting place for Aristotle and Acquinas was never at question by them. They assumed every human has the same built in core assumptions that make them human. This is what psychology and philosophy has spent thousands of years studying.

Luther claimed that this natural human assumption starting point for reason is flawed. This issue of a flawed starting point is found in the doctrine of Total Depravity of man that came with the fall (Adam and Eve's misstep). Luther believed that humans cannot reason things of God because their logic starts from a place that leads them away from God. Luther believed that revelation not reason is the way man concludes the ways of God. Jesus said that he reveals truth, implying man does not find it on their own from observing the world.

Going back to the meaning of reason, which is simply a pathway to reach a conclusion, I agree with Luther's reason that humans cannot be reasonable. They can be logical but they have a flawed starting point. 

However, I have reasoned that humans can be reasonable if the process of thought and emotion follows basic principles of logic applied to an unflawed starting point. My reasoning finds that the starting point is what Luther calls faith. Humans have been given the ability to think and feel about the revealed faith they have received. This is the work of the transformed mind. It seems this is what the historical debate between faith and reason is missing. 

Therefore, I encourage you to refrain from trusting reason from the wrong starting point, but also do not reject the idea of reason when it is logic applied to the right starting point. 

We claim our judgments are reasonable. We demand that others be reasonable, or we reject their judgments. Being reasonable is not so simple, maybe even impossible for some. Yet, I find it reasonable to ponder, "can you be reasonable?"

" he's fearless in his mother's arms"

                                

I was visiting my brother's family at the beach this week. There was a nice sandbar that allowed us to safely take the young children further out into the waves. As the kids got used to the waves "crashing" upon their bodies, they became more and more excited and daring.

The youngest of the 3 is a boy. Of course, he gets more and more aggressive and  daring as he gains confidence. Suddenly out of nowhere, a larger than normal wave comes and knocks him off his feet. He becomes confused, disoriented, and not so daring. He reaches for his mother. She picks him up. He begins to calm down. Once composed and seeing what was happening, he says, "this is really fun."

His wise mom simply says, "he's fearless in his mother's arms." 

I immediately pondered, as I often do, what a great picture of our life in Christ. Why does He repeatedly say, "fear not"? Notice what He does not say. He does not tell us to "be courageous! Be strong although you are afraid." He says "fear not." This is a state of being without fear. This is being fearless.

Like my young grand nephew, his mom didn't say, "no be courageous, stay on your own and fight through this. Be a big boy." She picked him up into her arms, and he became FEARLESS.

That's the Gospel. That is life in the Kingdom. That is "wow worthy". That is worth pondering

a small glimpse of Heaven

Two days have passed since what appeared to be a disaster ended up being a blessing. I've moved through the moment and had time to reflect. It's actually quite a story that came upon me without any notice. Would you like to hear about it? Stay tuned. Like me, I hope you can see a small glimpse of Heaven in a situation that should have been an unjust disaster.

After days and weeks of preparing to move from Upstate SC to Auburn, Ala, we had made progress on plans to pack, sell, give away, and toss household goods. We then closed flawlessly on the house, which carried it's own set of stress. It took much of the day to load the truck, using a crew I had hired locally, hoping they would work out well. They did beautifully. The truck was so full I had to give the loading crew things like a bicycle, lawn mower, yard tools, etc. that I wanted to take but had to leave. The cleaning ladies came, made the house pristine, took away the last set of garbage and more household goods that I couldn't take. That all went well. After all of this effort, I got to where I saw my household goods as just stuff.

The biggest challenge (I thought) laid ahead. I must drive a fully loaded 26 ft rental truck 300 miles. This part of the move brought on worry and prayer from most of my family. I got up early Sat morning to beat the traffic in Atlanta. Five hours later I arrived at the storage facility in Auburn to unload the truck into storage units I had thoughtfully procured to store household items until we move into the new house in Dec.

The part of my plan I had the most confidence in was unloading in Auburn. I had contacted a moving company that had moved friends before and came highly recommended. I contacted the owner when I arrived by text, and he replied, "be there in 20 minutes." Whew, this journey is almost over. The plan had come together.

This is when the day deteriorated quickly and profoundly. As I waited out front of storage building for the mover, I noticed a young black guy walking toward me. No one spoke at first, then I asked,"are you here to help unload this truck?" He smiled and replied, "yes." I then asked the obvious, "are you alone?" His reply sent shivers down my spine.

"I read a hour ago that David (the head of the moving company) had put an ad out on Craig's List for help to unload a truck in Auburn today. I guess I'm the only one that has taken him up on the offer." There was no hand truck, no experienced crew, just one young strong black guy. We had never seen each other and were seemingly as different as two people could be.

For some reason, none of that mattered. We had a full truck and an empty storage facility and a job to reverse that. That's what brought us together, a mutual task, a shared challenge. There was no talk about what I would pay and if he was even capable of the job ahead. We just started unloading the truck. Auburn, Ala in August. It was hot and muggy. We didn't even know each other's name for the first hour. Gail came to help where she could. There were 2 old white privileged people and one young black adult, who worked from day to day to live. 

We all recognized, we just had a job to do.

There were difficult moments, like a very large and heavy TV chest that was taller than the door to the truck and the storage room. It took us many tries and 30 minutes to finally get it in place in storage. The greater the challenge, the more the three of us came together. ALL WE HAD WAS TRUST. No one questioned anything.

Through the chatting around the work, we found that we had gone to the same schools in Montgomery (many years apart). His aunts, uncles and parents had gone to the same high school as I did. We relished talking about what we had in common and didn't notice what was different. Sometimes he would make a suggestion on how to solve the problem ahead and I would subordinate to his lead. Other times it was the exact opposite. No pride, no fear, no angst, no pecking order. Just 2 old white privileged folks and a young black guy trying to make life work.

As we saw we were close to finishing, I said, "would you like to get paid in cash or by check?" He said, "cash please." There was no mention of amount. The four hours and the job were not a transaction but a shared job to do. When he was not looking, I asked Gail to go closest ATM and get $300 in cash. She returned about the time we were completing the job. The main feeling of the moment was, "we did it." Together, we shook hands and acknowledged a "job well done."

I then said, "is $300 sufficient for your work?" His eyes got real big, but not as big as his smile. He felt so blessed. I think that's more than he expected by 2 or 3 times. His smile blessed me and Gail. Three people, one was a stranger. We only had trust to hold us together. It was enough.

He was blessed by a reward that was based on the generosity of the reward giver, way more than he thought he deserved. We were blessed by his smile. The thought of the injustice of being let down by the moving company was not even on my mind anymore.

Maybe this is how God puts unexpected, spontaneous small glimpses of Heaven in our life? What caught us by surprise and looked insurmountable, a situation that seem unjust at first to all of us, became a blessing because of trust.    

God calls us all to be faithful, not fair, not productive, not capable, not anything, but faithful when nothing appears right to our eyes .....

her eyes said it all

"How can eyes talk?" we might ask. Its not uncommon to mix the senses to understand how we receive insights from others and the world around us. Most of us have said at one time or another, "I can see it in your eyes." Eyes have a way to tell us things that words cannot express, don't they?

Such it was over 15 years ago as I watched mother struggle with the horrific disease called dementia. What an injustice it was to her that nature was robbing her of all she had gained over almost 80 years. She so feared Alzheimer that she would try to convince the doctor she had Parkinson disease as she felt the symptoms coming on. Everyone who knew her shared the sense of unfairness she must have felt. She had just cared for dad in his late life and looked forward to returning to her own active life after his passing. 

Toward the end I remember sharing with family and friends that I no longer visited with mother, I simply visited her. It was during one of those visits, late into the disease's thievery, where I saw something amazing. It seemed as if God wanted me to know mother in even a deeper way, a way only her eyes could tell me. She was completely disabled. Couldn't talk, eat or even respond to the question, "how are you?" She could only sit in the wheelchair and look up into the air. To the casual observer, it was just the way her head hung as she could not control her posture. She seemed totally detached and unaware. She no longer could interact with me or anyone, she had nothing to offer the world, but more interestingly, it became apparent to me she no longer needed anything from the world.

It was in this state that mankind would consider her useless, less than a person, worthless and lost to all things and people around her. Yet, it was in this moment her eyes said to me, "I am fully in God's presence, nothing in this world distracts me from my time with Him, my soul is enjoying God like crazy." What seemed to the world an injustice for mom, was right in God's sweet spot. Her identity had moved from a white woman in Alabama in the late 20th century to a child of the King. It wasn't that she had not been God's child, but it was so fully apparent to her. This is what she told me with her eyes.

This could just remain a story of one woman, whom I witnessed God transform her identity and bring fully unto Himself. If we stop and pay attention, there is a larger lesson here. After all, that's what life in this world is for. This world is finite, temporary and visible. God desires to form us and inform us, not leave us in our social identity. God is always pointing us to our identity in the Heavenlies. Christians live there now but get too distracted by how the world defines us to see it.

Like unwelcome disease, in some strange way the injustices of this world are not as much a problem for man to fix than they are opportunities for God to use. He's plenty capable of handling anything us puny humans think we must do. The injustices of nature and bigotry and bullying and seeing people as non-people are right in God's sweet spot. Its in these moments that we see more clearly God's divine plan. The fact that injustice on a human plane disgusts us is good. WHAT? How can injustice be good for us? It's in seeing the terrible aspects of injustice that we can more fully appreciate the cross. The terrible taste of injustice left in our mouth from what we see it in this world points us to the most grievous injustice of all, Jesus willful march to the cross. Through the lens of the unfairness of disease or racial injustice in the world, we see in the injustice of the cross the loving hand of God. We fall down. We fall deeper in love with Him. Our hearts are broken and turned toward Him.

What greater step can we all take but to move past the distractions of this world because its not fair and doesn't work well to see the outstretched arms of a loving God? 

My visits to mother were never the same again. I no longer pitied her. I no longer looked with disdain at the injustice of her disease. I envied her. I saw my mother closer to her Father, and I longed for the time I too would not be so distracted by the things of this world. Injustice looks terrible and in man's eyes it is. Yet, injustice can be a wonderful thing too, especially when it ushers into my soul the song, "when I survey the wondrous cross."

Her eyes said it all ....

Who is driving the justice bus?

 Ever since I heard the words, "justice is man's preeminent concern," in a Ph D Org Psychology class, I have been curious about its implication for Christians. The field of psychology is very clear on the meaning of justice. It is based on social exchange, which is the basic human need for balanced exchange or reciprocity. I researched justice in writings of antiquity and found the same idea. It's been the same forever, until now. The current narratives on justice are way off base. No social justice advocate demands reciprocity. The justice bus has left the station claiming those who have not, should get more and those with a lot, should give away what they have to those who have not. So, my first issue was how meaningless the public cry for social justice was in terms of what justice means historically. 

Of course this bothered me some, but not near as much as watching the Christian church try to catch up with the justice bus and become its driver. I had been quite watchful of how justice was represented by the church and worldview ministries. The epiphany I had when I heard the words about mankind's obsession with justice was, "that's why man cannot embrace grace." You see, justice is human nature seeking equilibrium, grace is a disequilibrium where God's justice does not lead to giving man what he deserves. The human condition cannot handle disequilibrium. Jesus emptied Himself of His privilege to be equal to God, humbled Himself by taking on the form of man, and going to the cross (unjustly, for He did nothing wrong) to take care of God's justice. God is still just, but He found a way through His love to satisfy His justice.

This is where I stay in hot water with the institutional church and most Christians, who tend to see justice the same way society does.

Man's deeply seated idea of justice just doesn't fit with grace. In fact man's desire to produce justice is at the heart of the fall. I blogged about this in "and the serpent said." I can't let this go for some reason. I see it as core to why Western society doesn't see the church any differently than the secular world. In fact they see the church behind when it comes to justice. That may be why church conferences lead with the theme, "the church has fallen behind in the cultural battle against injustice."

The church wants to drive society's justice bus?

Here's what I do that makes most Christians, especially pastors, shun me. I just ask questions about soundbites popular in both secular and Christian narratives. Like this

“do justice” (is this one of the 10 commandments? Where does Jesus mention justice? Is justice a ‘fruit of the Spirit’?)

 "large swaths of the church still do not see ‘doing justice’ as part of their calling as individual believers."  Tim Keller on Biblical justice - do you realize that God's justice was compelled to destroy Babylon (secular society)? Is that what "doing justice" is?  

“all men are created equal” (in what way?)

“that’s not fair” (why should it be?)

“fair share” (who determines ‘fair’?)

“what’s right about rights?”  (where do rights come from?)

“what’s right, what’s wrong?” (who is the judge?)

Asking these questions about oft used cliches can begin to introduce a view of justice from God's perspective. To begin to move others to a Kingdom view of justice (starting with the church), we can go see what the Bible actually says. Here's a few examples:

And the serpent said .. “you can be like God. You can be the judge of right and wrong.” Isn't this known as 'The Great Mistake,' which leads to spiritual death?

Jesus said, “Those that are put down and put out by the world because they identify with me are so very fortunate (blessed – makarios).”  Where’s the justice in this? Didn’t Jesus live a life of injustice?

Paul said, “Do not fashion yourself after the world’s system but have a transformed identity. This is your spiritual service”   wow, you mean identity transformation gets my Garden of Eden privileges back?

I can spend so much time on this topic (and have actually through many blogs). The bottom line is not that the secular world is so confused because it misapplies its greatest obsession. It's that Christians and their church fail to honor the Cross and the grace behind it. The Christian church buys in to the secular narrative (with a little religious twist) and distorts what justice really means. 

Here's a summary of my narrative on justice that I wish were taken to the world by the church:

“God alone is just. Inheriting my identity from Adam & Eve condemns me forever. I deserve it. I want to be THE judge. I'm obsessed with 'doing justice.' I’m doomed. That’s His justice. We are ALL CREATED EQUAL in this regards, no matter how feeble or fabulous the flesh is. It is God’s mercy and grace (agape love) on the cross that privileges me against all odds. My righteousness (God’s verdict of approval) is imputed on me from Jesus’ righteousness (God’s just response to His Son’s perfection). 

To put man in charge of God’s justice and make justice achievable by man’s pursuit diminishes the wonder of the Cross. My generosity, kindness, patience, mercy and such extended to others is not ‘doing justice’, but a natural response flowing from an identity in Christ."

Righteousness is the action of the judge (God) on my behalf not my actions on behalf of the judge (God).

My righteousness or what many think of as "doing justice" is “necessarily” appropriating God’s action that belongs to me (Luther's idea of 'necessity').

What do you think the main stream media would do with this? It can't be any worse than what they do to Christians who are trying to drive the secular justice bus.

Maybe you can get off that bus and carry the cross to the world? You might get a "WOW" rather than a yawn.

 

What say you?

 I have begun advocating a focus on trust rather than on truth. People seem to want to argue or debate what is true. We never really get anywhere with this approach. I find it more helpful to ask, "who or what do you trust for what you believe and why, not what do you think is true."

While I believe there is one truth in most aspects of life, people can never resolve what it is. No one can prove anything. Science is helpful in many ways, but it mainly confirms what we believe, it never settles the debate. It's never been more obvious than with current events around the corona virus. Before that it was climate change. Economists have never settled on the one true model for growing the economy. And so on ...

What sits beneath what we think is true is the biases we trust. These are the basic foundations of belief we depend on without question. So, when someone wants to argue a point on what they believe, I try to move the debate to who/what they trust for this belief. This becomes especially the case about spiritual or moral ideals people cling to. Most of my life there were attempts to prove God exists. In fact this has been an ongoing debate in the Western world for a thousand years, maybe more. 

Recently I was teaching this principle, "its not what we know that matters but who/what we trust," when a friend said, "can you give us an example? Ca you tell us why you trust God?"  Fair question.

Here is what I put together on what I trust God for my identity in Christ:

“The Holy Spirit has revealed to me God’s presence and love for me. The Scriptures are more than just words, I know that I know they are His words about who He is, His Kingdom and who I am. These revelations seem reliable because they are confirmed consistently by reason and emotion. What I see around me strengthens my trust, not by proving, but by pointing in tangible ways to the invisible and eternal ways of God.

It makes sense to me that all humans are futile in judging right and wrong, in producing outcomes in this world that satisfy the soul, and in fulfilling passions of the heart on their own. It makes sense that I am privileged to receive from Him all provisions of the Heavenlies. It makes sense to me that something is real only when it is true everywhere all the time. It makes sense that the only thing that really matters to me is His Kingdom. It makes sense to me that credible people throughout history have consistently testified in their own lives these same insights God has revealed to me.  

I find my deepest love is for Him and His Son Jesus. With Him I Wow all the time. With Him I do not feel alone, fearful, abandoned, or inadequate. I find a ground swell of emotion as He let’s me know He’s here and involved. I find great comfort in knowing in my heart that He is sovereign, and everything in the visible and invisible realms are exactly as He wills. 

I do not trust God FOR anything He does for or to me. I trust HIM without reservation.”

Notice this is way different than proving God or anything about Him, for no one can ever do that. Faith is a trust that comes about from unobservable evidence. Everyone has a faith. Everyone relies on unobservable evidence for that faith.

When asked for why you trust whoever or whatever you rely on, what say you?

 

 

and the serpent said ...

"Your'e just wrong on this," one says. "No, you're wrong, I'm right," the other fights back.

How often do you her this? We think it's a relatively new argument because of the recent increase in volume on morality debates of justice, CV, economics, climate change, marriage, abortion, and on and on. The facts are, this has been going on since the famous deal Adam and Eve made with the serpent.

"for God knows that when you eat of the tree of right and wrong, your eyes will be open and you will be like God with regards to knowing right and wrong."

So, what is central to mankind's inheritance from first man? The desire to be God's agent for truth about right and wrong. "You shall surely die" was God's warning to Adam about taking over God's job to know right and wrong. Adam and Eve didn't physically die, but they died spiritually. They became forever separated from fellowship with God because of their desire .... until God sent Jesus to rescue us of this terrible place Adam and Eve left us in.  

In a recent article by Tim Keller, "A Biblical Critique of Secular Justice and Critical Theory," he explains how throughout history movements have grabbed power by becoming THE "truth-claimants." Keller goes on to say that when any human claims something is harmful to others or unjust, they are making a claim to judge the truth that determines the rightness of their position and the wrongness of others'. Here's where the power grab occurs. Keller says, "the main way power is exercised is through language. Language does not describe reality, it constructs or creates it. Power structures mask themselves behind the language of rationality and truth." 

Now Keller is primarily explaining how cultural movements over time have usurped the Christians' advocacy for a moral and just society. The competition for truth has been at the center of the struggle for power over society for ever. I can agree with Keller's lengthy and in depth treatise on this topic.

Keller is capturing the predominant view of the current Western evangelical Christian Church. Here is where I have a problem with Keller and what is considered "normal language" of the church in our times.

It seems that the Christian language agrees with secular ideas in many ways but is a different, more improved way of being a "truth claimant.," a competing grab for power. It seems to me the demands for God's justice, morality and virtue is different than the secular, but not really. It seems that the claim Christians make to fix the wrong in the world according to God's ideas of right and wrong is giving in to the exact same response Adam and Eve had to the serpent. Seeing man's job as one in which we bring God's Kingdom to earth is the inheritance we have received from first man. 

Some people study the Bible to confirm existing deep seated beliefs (core assumptions). I attempt to study the Bible to transform my core assumptions. God only knows if I do. Here's what I found, not as a "truth-claimant", but as a faithful child.

Jesus didn't come to earth to pump up God's people to be better Pharisees. He had His harshest words for them. He didn't come to improve on Aristotle's idea of a happy life through personal and community virtue. He rebuked EVERY tenet of Aristotle's teachings.

Jesus came NOT to judge a world on what is right and what is wrong, but to provide for God's people a pathway back to fellowship with Him. His people are left on this earth for a brief time to point the flawed and dying world to God and His Kingdom. God desires our faith, not our actions (see how Jesus answers the question of His disciples on 'what is the work of God?'). Trusting Him will result in Godly actions, but to a different end than is often professed to Christians by preachers and teachers. The life of a Christian will point to a King and a Kingdom where we are welcomed and blessed. We show the lost world that justice and rights in this world are NOT what defines or fulfills us. As Kingdom dwellers, we are heavenly fortunate (makrios), not earthly happy (eudaemonia). Our goal (telos) in life is God's goal in life, to glorify Him.

What a person believes about Heaven and earth will form and inform every aspect of the person's soul, the center of thought, feelings and choices.

You might be saying by now, or at least thinking this, "aren't you grabbing power by claiming a truth in this blog that competes with claims of others?" 

Could be ..... That's for you to ponder ....    

"wow worthy"

Many are questioning and many more are asking, is the church relevant in much of the western world today? Over association with a divisive political climate and a society that no longer has "religious dots" for the church to connect to are major challenges of leaders today, according to famous church planter Tim Keller. Keller advocates that the church must bring a different narrative to people who are lost and needing answers in chaotic times. Keller even suggests that atheists have lost their fuel because the church is shooting itself in the foot without them. I think Keller would say the world is not effectively seeing the church as "wow worthy." Where is the glory that gets the world's attention, like the glory of a bride as she comes down the aisle? After all the church is the "bride of Christ." 

Today I heard the story of Jesus telling His disciples to be "shrewd as a serpent." It's interesting that Jesus used the serpent in a positive way, since the serpent was vilified in the fall of Adam and Eve. What really got my attention is the idea that shrewd is acquainted with wisdom. Shrewd represents practical, subtle insights to complex issues. Shrewd is considered wise because it stirs things up, finds what fits and solves problems. The speaker went on to describe a wise person or action as something that brings glory in mundane moments. 

Glory is a word often found in the Bible as something God desires for Himself. Jesus claims He completed His purpose because He brought glory to His Father. Some say the main purpose of mankind is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." Glory is a commonly used word, but not one easy to define.

What should you expect people's response be when someone reflects God's light in a dark world? Would "WOW" be appropriate? Isn't that what we typically say or think at a beautiful sunset? "Wow worthy" has been a way some have defined GLORY. If there is one thing the world desperately needs these days are "wow worthy" moments. Many of them. But can the church make the mundane to be majestic?

Let's first make sure we clearly understand how something can be "wow worthy." There are actually two possible ways, and we cannot confuse them. The differences are profound.

A person or an action can be "wow worthy" either quantitatively or qualitatively. I know you'd prefer I quit using difficult words but bear with me. A quantitative approach to "wow worthy" would be characterized as having an extraordinarily high SUPERnatural factor. In other words, something that is seen as natural but abnormal. The quantity is viewed as off the charts high. Examples might be extraordinary acts of kindness, or courage, or generosity, or fairness. These kinds of people do produce a "wow."

Contrast abnormal supernatural quantity of "wow" with the idea that its wow factor is not even natural. Something that transcends or becomes something of a different form than what is natural is called SUPRAnatural. Thus, if you encounter something that is way different, completely different, totally unexpected from what is natural, you'd likely say "WOW." This is a different wow than being amazed at something extraordinary because it is abnormal in amount of something, not abnormal in its very nature.

You may not have ever thought much about "wow" in two different ways. Usually we use it when we see some extraordinary feat that we cannot imagine doing. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Barbara Streisand, and others have brought us wow moments with talents that evade our reality. Other times we see people like Mother Theresa who don't do things with talent or effort we can't do, but seem to be so different in subdued ways that we say a different kind of wow. It's supernatural courage to act in the face of fear. It's supranatural to not fear. It's supernatural to be really generous with what you have. Its supranatural to be generous beyond what you have. It's supernatural to be kind to those less fortunate. It's supranatural to hug and pray for your enemy.

Let me see if I can give you a picture of the difference between supernatural and supranatural.

In the center of this model is "self." The soul is a way we reference a person, which represents them beyond his/her body. The soul can be determined by any examination of a medical doctor. The core factor of a soul is its identity. A person sees themself socially as a part of a bigger community (company, nation, family, etc.). They have a personal identity unique to them that may include their personality, abilities, experiences, etc. Each person also has an identity based on their nature. For instance, humans are fundamentally different from fish but like all other humans in some non physical ways. Confirmation bias and need for freedom would be examples of natural identity. A person's identity is primarily determined by who/what they trust. 

The study of the self is called psychology, whose root is taken from the ancient Greek word for soul. Psychology has two sources. Human psychology comes from the study of humans by humans. Biblical psychology on the other hand is provided to humans by God through His narratives in Scripture and revelations by His spirit. For instance, Jesus covers the same topics in the Sermon on the Mount as I did in teaching organizational psychology in the university. These include topics such as satisfaction, motivation, perception, acceptance, emotions and trust.  

Human Psychology assumes the soul is trusting its physical senses for its nourishment, such as satisfaction and acceptance. The physical senses interact with the world's system informing the soul of what is and isn't real about them. A soul can be supernatural when it becomes really successful receiving and using its physical senses. Really successful flesh does have a 'wow" appeal. But, humans don't need the church for supernatural "wow," and the people know it.

Biblical psychology assumes the soul is trusting the Holy Spirit for its nourishment, which is providing the soul eternal (real) manna from Heaven for needs, such as satisfaction and acceptance. The soul transforms from a human psychology to a Biblical psychology when it trusts the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross for its identity. This makes the soul supranatural. The church stands alone in this aspect of providing "wow." When the world sees the Kingdom of heaven and its King Jesus, it finds a "wow" unlike any other.

For the church to really be the church, it must make every narrative in society have a Kingdom orientation. Every topic from economics to racism to government to sex to marriage to abortion to justice can be viewed from a Kingdom perspective. Glorifying the King is what makes a person supranatural and solicits "wows" from others who desperately need a "wow." Making the mundane majestic is not being supernatural in the moralistic and virtuous ways of the world, but transcending an identity in the flesh to an identity that trusts the spirit. 

Paul tells the church in Rome (and I am paraphrasing), "ALL headwinds are really tailwinds (and vice versa) when the soul’s identity has been formed and influenced by the goodness of God (His intrinsic

nature) through the work of His Holy Spirit."

 
Then and only then will Christians move past being ONLY human to being human with a supranatural "wow" factor.

Then and only then will the dark world see the light of the King and say, "WOW." This is how God is glorified.

what is right about rights?

Tim Keller, the beloved pastor, was recently asked about his concerns that religious liberties are under assault. His answer was a bit surprising to the moderator and may be to you as well. He basically said that government's actions on religious freedom is a win/win for Christians.

"How so?" you might ask. His answer is interesting and worthy of ponder.

He replied, rights of religious freedom is beneficial for "institution building." Persecution, or constraints on the civil right to religion, results in "Spiritual growth." He never said which path is right. So, what is implied in his response? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say that we the people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights goes on to include the right to freedom of religion. Does Keller have a problem about what is right about rights?

A little history might help. Going back to around 6th century BC, the Greeks introduced the civil governance idea of democracy. This was likely the beginning of the notion of people rule. However, most of history is marked by kings and dictators and Popes. In many cases the authority over the people was some of mix of religion and state, especially by the 13th century European advances in society. Kings/Queens and the Pope conspired to rule the people. This led to Luther's actions and the Reformation. While Luther was viewing this personal choice from a spiritual point of view, this started a civil return to the power of the people originated by the Greeks. Yet, for Luther the Reformation was more of a return to the Sovereignty of God than a rejection of civil authority.

Oddly, the idea of personal freedom and rights to one's own choices seemed to take over the main narrative and seeped back into the religious push of groups like the Quakers. religious dissent from the Monarchy in England resulted in beheading. Various sects of Christianity that broke from the Catholic hierarchy fought desperately with sovereign Kings/Queens for religious liberty.

This was the genesis of the American experiment. Monarchs aren't sovereign. Governments of any kind are not sovereign. Only God is sovereign. "Inalienable rights" became the mantra of a people desiring to be free from any sovereign rule over humans. This declaration meant that human rights are not granted by any human institution. Here's where the subtle but profound question comes in. If human civil rights are not bestowed by some human based sovereign, then who does grant people rights to live as they choose? Must be God, was the Founders' answer. But, was this answer the right answer? Were they right about rights? Keller's response seems to imply some kick back on the Founder's choice of words, "bestowed by their Creator." Keller didn't elaborate, so

you can ponder now, and I'll get back to you in a minute ....

When confused, just go see what Jesus said about rights, especially civil rights and most especially religious rights.

Jesus said, Kingdom dwellers are fortunate when they are disgraced and persecuted by others and have to hear lies told about them by others because they have been made righteous by Him. Oh my, that doesn't sound right about my rights. "Persecuted" literally means hunted down and run out of town. Most likely if the world is rejecting me, my rights are probably violated, and for what reason? Not because I did anything wrong except identify with Jesus and all that He is. Seems like Jesus is OK with this. He doesn't seem to mind that the world not giving me the right to worship as I desire. In fact, Jesus says I am blessed (fortunate) that I don't demand my rights in this world to worship Him. Why would that be?

Later Jesus says I don't have the right to retaliate when I have been wronged. When people demand of me things they have a right from me, like go one mile or take my tunic, go ahead and go a second mile and give them your tunic. They have no right to these, but do it anyway to show them you do not operate on rights. This feels so wrong about rights. Why would He want me to respond to people when they have no right of that from me?

You need more from Jesus about His view of what is right about my civic rights?

you can stop again and ponder, and I'll get back to you in a minute ....

Jesus is preparing you and me for the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is our home, not this world. He tells us that we should not fear (losing our rights in this world) because our Father in Heaven has freely chosen to give us His Kingdom. We don't live by or for our civil rights. We can't serve two masters. The Kingdom is foremost on our mind. We live with the provisions and privileges of Heaven. So, as the Founding Fathers claimed, has our Creator bestowed on us rights in this world? No. How sad! No. How wonderful that we live not with worldly rights but Heavenly privileges, guaranteed, indestructible and imperishable. Maybe this is what Keller meant by winning when religious liberties are taken from us? Maybe living beyond a demand for rights is spiritual growth? I'm so glad Keller gave me cover to blog on rights the way I have been wanting to!

What is right about rights? We have none. We don't need them. We are so blessed because God loves us, warts and all. He has adopted us into His family. He is our all in all.

This is what our Creator has bestowed on us. Not a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where do civil rights come from? Who gives them to humans? I agree that no one is sovereign but God. If no one is sovereign, and God doesn't bestow on us civil rights, who does? The founding fathers decided it was not the government. They assumed God. I have no idea, do you? Human rights are what man wishes to give himself, I guess, and there is where the trouble with rights starts.

I think its best for Christians just to "ride on by" when the world starts demanding rights. Maybe that is one way the world will see a people who are quite different from the world. Maybe that is what is right about rights? Maybe that is how God is glorified?

Ponder that please ....

Is capitalism corrupt or corrupted?

Recently CNBC held a round table with various business leaders to discuss the state of the economy in the US and the world. The concern was that markets are unfair, leaving certain segments behind. This issue is especially of interest in light of the growing attention to ESG (environment social governance) and the pressures on markets and society from recent events associated with a pandemic and renewed focus on injustices of racism. Their discussion identified a number of things wrong with the way our economy works and the complexity of solutions.

There seems to be a narrative advancing with significant political implications that capitalism is not only not working, but it's just a bad system. Some strong advocates of this view go as far as saying capitalism in a sense is a corrupt economic system. They would say the structure itself works against a fair society. They point to the Friedman Doctrine's emphasis solely on shareholders as an inherent tendency of capitalism to be biased to the wealthy (that's the social part of ESG) and be a threat to the environment over time (that's the E). This movement advocates for a whole different system as the solution.

I have looked at business and economics from several different perspectives and come to the conclusion that capitalism is not a corrupt system by design, but capitalism has been corrupted. There are two fundamental ways the natural design of capitalism has been altered, which is the meaning of corrupt. 

Let me start by briefly describing the natural model of capitalism (see below). Then I will point out 2 ways I believe capitalism has been corrupted.

At the center or heart of capitalism is the capitalist. Without capitalists there is no capitalism. This is the entity that risks financial capital in order to accomplish a mission and get a financial return on the investment. Both are essential to the economy. It's the capitalist who decides the mission and how to allocate resources to "successfully" accomplish the mission. The capitalist, also called shareholder, desires to produce an expected profit both for continuance and financial gain (called return on capital). Profit belongs to the capitalists to do as they choose. The capitalist's choice on how to use profit is essential for capitalism to work well. That's why they are called in academic circles, the residual claimant.

Capitalists form companies and engage agents to execute the capitalist's wishes when the job is too big for capitalists to do it all. These agents are called executives. They support the capitalist's endeavors as long as both parties view the exchange between them is fair. In capitalism the fair exchange between two parties is ultimately what makes the system work. In order for the exchange to be fair, both parties must maintain a freedom to choose to participate. Fair exchange is fundamental to human motivation.

Executives who run the company governed by the capitalist hire workers, employees and contractors who execute the plans of the executives. Again, both should be able to freely choose the other and the relationship remains as long as the exchange between the two parties is considered fair by each.

Other entities that are affected by actions of agents are called stakeholders. These include customers, suppliers, the communities in which the agents operate and the physical world that provides natural resources the capitalists needs across time. Again, fair exchange must exist between the capitalist's agents and a stakeholder or the relationship between the two will be broken. Each must choose to participate in the exchange in order for the exchange to be viewed as fair. Nature will even rebel if not treated fairly. All nature seeks equilibrium.

The role of government in a capitalistic system is to maintain the freedom of the market. A free market cannot exist where there is coercion or collusion on the part of any participant. The role of government is ONLY to keep markets free, the choices of market participants make it fair.

So, how has capitalism been corrupted? The two areas of corruption include the reversal of the roles of capitalists and agents and the improper role of government.

First, too often the agents have moved to the center and taken over the place as the heart or driver of markets. This is evidenced by the ESG efforts, which are led by a "CEO Round Table." CEO's and other top executives have hijacked the role of capitalists in deciding the mission and how resources should be allocated. This has evolved over the past 50 years as capitalists have become less personally engaged and abdicated their role to the agents. Institutions, such as pension plans and mutual funds, own much of the stock and they are interested mainly in financial returns, often short term. Trading has grown so that much of the capitalist's focus is only financial and very short term. With the exception of capitalist and CEO being the same person(s), strategies are primarily financial and short term. 

If capitalists saw mission in broader ways, they would see that investing in stakeholders could grow the overall capacity for economic growth. In a bigger economy the capitalist's share of the market would provide greater returns from a bigger pie. Capitalists would benefit from investing in worker capabilities, education, health, access to credit, and a fair justice system. This is a much larger perspective for capitalists than just ethics and morality. This focus would be a significant return through economic growth. Why isn't ESG led by an "Investor Round Table"? 

Second, the government has taken on the role of deciding how a market should be fair. This is the seeds of socialism because this role of government removes choice from the market participants. This change over the past 50 years may be a result of society realizing capitalists have not invested in stakeholders properly, or it simply may be a power grab by politicians. Probably some of both. Regardless of cause, governments corrupt capitalism when it decides that it must determine what's fair in the exchanges between capitalists and its stakeholders rather than freedom of choice of each party to determine what is fair.

These two factors of corruption did not occur overnight and will not be fixed overnight. My problem is that these two factors are not even showing up in the narrative on economic growth. Everyone wants growth, but agents of capitalists and government bureaucrats seem to want power and personal gain more. These two areas are at the heart of problems people think exist with capitalism.

Is the capitalism inherently corrupt?

Is it really the capitalists that are greedy (versus agents and politicians) or are capitalists just asleep?

That's what I ponder when people question capitalism as the best economic system for growth ....

act freely NOT fairly

Today I heard a sermon on work. It was a very good sermon, included many great points. One main theme was to "work freely not fairly." The idea was that to fully find satisfaction in work, it must be free of transaction with anything outside of ourselves. The point was that if we work for any reason other than the joy and significance that comes from doing the work, then we are slaves to something "out there" to provide joy from work. This is a great point, BUT ....

This sermon was not much different than my lectures on motivation and collaboration I gave to college students studying the psychology of human behavior. The only part of the sermon I didn't include in my lectures were citations from the Bible. Now, it is reasonable to assume for Christians that all truth is God's truth. So, why would I expect my teaching about work in a secular setting be any different than what a preacher would cover in his sermon, absent scriptural references?

That is a great question and very profound. The answer is critical to evangelism. If there is no difference in how a topic is taught in a world, which values self concept, virtue and morality, than how it is taught in church, then Christianity is just one of many viable options to view life. This makes Christianity vulnerable to irrelevancy, which is where it is heading in the Western world.

Here is where the perspective of "act freely not fairly" comes in. Any activity of human endeavor that flows from a sense of personal well being involves a balanced transaction that must be fair. How can it then be both fair and free? The lack of freedom comes from the requirement that any satisfactory action must receive something that keeps the outcome of the action in equilibrium with the action. The outcome, however, does not have to be external to the person. This is where "truth" about motivation becomes different for the Christian and the non Christian.

It has been found to be true that intrinsic motivation for any human is free of external reward. However, human nature requires a reward for action, even if it is an internal reward. Thus, a transaction occurs even if the reward does not involve anyone else. This is where morality and virtue enter the picture. Satisfying one's own need for doing the right thing induces a transaction, which makes the person a slave to "doing the right thing." Consider that in the picture above, both people are you, or even more, view the one on the right as God. You give out what may appear to be freely, but you get rewarded fairly, depending on how you perceive the meaning of what you do as being admirable and virtuous. This is intrinsic motivation on a human plane. It appears free, but it is really fair.

This is really what Jesus is getting to in the Sermon on the Mount. Two actions can look the same from the outside, like helping others, giving and praying. But, if the motivation is to satisfy some self concept within the person, then the result of the actions are limited to only what the person receives from the transaction of their action. This usually is fair, but not free.

Only when our action is motivated by a faithfulness to reflect out what God has put in are we free from the fairness of the outcome of the action. This is not a transaction. There is nothing fair about this. The outcome "out there" has nothing to do with the satisfaction "in here." This is the role of faith. We give with no expectation of receiving, but more importantly, we receive (especially from God) with no obligation or duty to respond in order to maintain equilibrium with the giver. This is why gratitude is so motivational, way more than fairness.

This is a weird and confusing idea of human action, I agree. But if the notion of acting freely not fairly can be explained through human psychology, adding a few Biblical citations to the explanation does not make it any less than a transaction. Fundamental in the human condition is the desire and expectation to demand fair transactions, even if the fair exchange comes from our own view of our wonderful self.

Remember, the Gospel is far from being a transaction and even farther from being fair.

This is hard pondering, I know ....

"the era of shareholder capitalism is over"

These words I read recently won't let me go. They were said by Biden as he was asked to explain his economic program for growth. No one picked up on it. I've heard no further discussion or account of this idea from any media pundits. Plus, it sounds so good to so many progressives, those advocating for "the oppressed little people." Let's just get rid of those nasty capitalists and the economy will be fair for everyone.


Let me first say, this is not an attempt to bash a political candidate. This is about political ideology. After all, Biden simply parrots what he is told. If you pressed him for what he really said, he'd likely say, "I really don't mean it." So, what did he really say? What's behind this idea that frames his economic plan for our country?

The fact is, we really don't know unless and until he tells us more. He can mean the end of a type of shareholder is at hand under his leadership rather than meaning shareholders themselves may no longer exist. There is a movement among business leaders that agree with the idea that greedy capitalists, those who are shortsighted and focus only on profit, are a problem. The emerging (but not new) emphasis is on "responsible capitalism," that which balances needs of all stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, customers, and the community as a whole. I contend that this is just proper capitalism, where mission and economics intertwine in decision-making. Maybe he simply means shareholders should share more of their wealth with those who are not shareholders.

In the absence of clarity on this statement, I am compelled (can't not do it) to explore what it would mean if he meant that his leadership would eliminate private citizens from being shareholders. BTW, many left leaning people do mean this by this statement and would push him this direction.

We start with what do we mean by economics? Economics are the systems of production and distribution of goods and services. There are really only two approaches, Marxist/socialism or capitalism. The difference is determined by the source and method of production and distribution. Marxist/socialism prefers the government be the source. Capitalism prefers that free people using their own financial resources and methods are the driving factors.

Currently the US economy is about 80% capitalism and 20% socialism. It seems Biden is advocating more socialism, since he wants to end or reduce the influence of free-thinking private citizens on the economy. What would this really mean?

It there are no shareholders other than govt, there are no investors, no private capital used for the purposes of providing for society. This means, no small business owners, no pension plans, no 401-K's, no corporate taxes. This would mean that the government owns everything. They make and sell all products and provide services. This requires all innovation to come from the government. Everyone works for the government.

If this were the case, would there be a Starbucks? An iPhone? Amazon? Netflix? Google?no pro sports, and on and on? What would the prosperity of our country be? Would there be air travel to other countries? Could people take cruises?

Not likely. Why? Because the innovation required to advance standard of living requires risking capital for the return it generates. Missions to improve the lives of people must be aligned with financial incentives. In Marxist/socialism there is only mission. Some missions are oriented toward government provision. The founding fathers envisioned that govt provides protection against outside attacks and a justice system to maintain civil order. What about other missions?
     feed the masses, provide healthcare, education, recreation, entertainment, etc

The voting machinery of free markets, consumer choice, would not exist. We the people would only have influence of the economic system through periodic voting for the politicians, who would control products and services of the economy according to their wishes.

While it's likely Biden, or no one running for Presidency on the left, would advocate a 100% Marxist/socialists' economy. Practically speaking the political ideology at risk in any election is whether we move toward more socialist economic policies or less. This is not a moral choice, but a preference of which approach to economics brings the greatest prosperity and fairness (both of which are subject to opinion).

Forget all the details of campaigning. That's just too confusing and complex. This economic issue is ultimately what people are voting on.

In the end, the American public will get what they wish for.  

"that offends me"

We live in a day where none of us want to hear this dreadful claim made about something we said or did or even associated with. Culturally selected people can claim that a word, a symbol, a song, a person from the past, an image or just about anything can disturb them, make them feel uncomfortable and cause them emotional pain. I, in no way, wish to diminish the feelings of anyone who hurts, or excuse mistakes of history, or make light of ever present stereotypes that put humans into a bondage that produces biased thoughts.

It appears that weaponizing the idea that someone offended someone is the most efficient way to shame people into submission. Shaming is especially attainable if you include the oppressed and those who are a target of injustice. This has formed "the cancel culture." Anyone can be fired, kicked out of school or off a team, and ostracized by the mainstream powers of society if you are guilty of offending the wrong person or people group. Heck, others can shame you not only for what you say but for being silent and saying nothing at all. There exists an ever present fear, not only in the oppressed but anyone deemed an oppressor.

People are expected to be empathetic and love everyone who are different from them. Culture demands inclusion. You cannot be an intolerant defender of offenders in any way. Having an openness to those who are different is a good goal for society. The problem lies in what should empathy should look like? Sometimes it seems the shamers view love as being complicit in the demands of the offended. Please, in the name of love, give anyone who is offended what they want. It often seems shamers view the issue of offending others as a way to get some of their power. This causes tensions to rise for everyone.

This tension puts many well intended people in a pickle. There are those in our society who value their history, the founding fathers and the US Constitution. These values don't lack an understanding that institutions, who have systematically oppressed others, have structural sources of injustice that should be reformed. The problem comes when the shamers demand that these endearing values be abolished and eliminated, not just fixed. If you are one to push back, or even hold your tongue in defense of your values, you are now guilty of being unjust and unloving.

The problem lies in how human nature weaponizes IDENTITY. Humans operate foremost from the way they see themselves. Psychologists call this self concept. Minority identities get in their corner and attack majority identities as a threat. This is why identifying by race, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, and such are popular identities. These are seen as the oppressed, who have the right to take from those they identify as privileged, those who have the resources and power to oppress. The oppressed uses the morality of justice as their justification. Being seen as unjust is where all humans are the most vulnerable to shame.

The Christian is in a much bigger pickle. Love is the mantra of identifying with Christ. Being unloving makes Christians really open for guilt and shame. Christians should be the biggest purveyors of justice, shouldn't they? Isn't justice just love in action? The world wants everyone to think so. After all, justice is their ace in the hole.

Let's take a closer look. Going straight to the Bible is always a good option.

First of all, Jesus speaks often of the injustice you will experience carrying His identity. "Turn the other cheek." "Go the second mile."  "Eye for an eye" is NOT your go to option. "Love your enemy." Wait, where is the justice in forgiveness. Isn't forgiveness JUST tolerance? The accounts of Paul's missionary journeys reminds us that as he was received in the synagogues from city to city, he was welcomed until he preached the resurrection. That offended the leaders and he was then run out of town.

Peter says Christ is the cornerstone of God's Kingdom. This makes Him a stumbling block to the world. Stumbling blocks offend all opposition. Jesus says He is the light of the world and that darkness hates light. Light is pretty intolerant of darkness, wouldn't you say? Light is quite a threat to darkness. Darkness fears light, but does light fear darkness. Maybe there's something here for us to ponder. Oh, btw, we are called to let His light shine in our life. Does the light of Christ in us make us intolerant of other identities? Does this offense give the world the right to shame Christians?

Jesus does say we will be rejected because of our identity in Him. He does say the world will hate us when we put our trust in Him. Is it possible to both love others and offend them at the same time?

What a pickle Christians are in? How can we ever testify to the hope that is in us if we are destined to offend those who don't identify with Christ? What is the answer?

Identifying with Jesus means love is way different than the world's idea of inclusion and complicity. Reflecting Jesus' light sees others as no threat at all. There is no competition for power. There is no bondage to needing the approval of others. There is no fear. There is no shame. Motivation is from generosity, not fair exchange nor entitlement. All that our soul needs is found in our identity in Christ. We are then free to love all kinds of people somewhat oblivious to their claims for power and attempts to shame us.

"Fear not, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom." Competing with the world for material goodies is not the end game of Christians. "This is how they will know Him, that we have love for one another." A love, which does not compete with and has no fear of those who identify with the world, likely will either draw those in darkness to the light or the light will offend them. But, it's Jesus who attracts, and its Jesus who offends. After all, the world has already had its shot at shaming Him.

"the moment you measure"

This blog's title is my next and yet to be written book.
Usually, if I blog about a topic, I get a vision for a book so maybe that's what's happening here.


Over 25 years ago I was heavy into data analytics before it was cool. I started a company called DataVentures that performed advanced analytics on retail scanning data to get a more insightful view of consumer behavior.

Having a Masters in Math and spending several decades in applying data technologies to business problems, I became increasingly aware that human behavior was the end game of all of this work. If somebody didn't do something differently in a value creating way, then what was all the data fuss about anyway.

Throughout the years I bumped into business professionals who are steeped in trying to develop and apply metrics to their processes, products and markets. I continue to see the same attempts to "do science," but for what purpose? Today I witness an entire society going in so many different directions because the caretakers of metrics use their data to manipulate the behavior of the public in ways that meet their needs.

There is one thing for sure:

the moment you measure, people will behave in a direction that the metrics suggest

What's happening? How do benign metrics taken from impersonal data have such a huge behavioral influence? Well, that's what the book WILL one day be about.

For now, let me share the subtitle. The book will ultimately be titled
"The Moment You Measure: The intersection of science and faith"

What does the subtitle add to the conversation? The end of the story is that the science of measuring things must ultimately be interpreted or understood. The secret to this is that what a person believes deep down in their soul forms a set of biases or lens by which the processing of metrics occurs inside the person. It's ultimately not what you know that maters, but who/what you trust.

I mentioned I had a Masters in Math, but I also have a Ph D in Organizational Psychology. Here I learned that the final authority on perceiving and interpreting events (data) lies with biases or assumptions people have they generally don't even know they have, but trust.

I eventually saw that these deep seated biases are actually one's faith (assurance of unseen evidence). Too often "faith" is left to the theologians. I think that is a mistake. Faith is not subordinate to science. Faith does not compete with science. Ultimately, science is man's attempt to use physical senses to confirm their faith. This is true for every human person.

Data tells you what has happened, your biases tell you WHY and WHAT to expect in the future.

This is the intersection of science and faith and occurs THE MOMENT YOU MEASURE.

I'll leave you to ponder this until I write the book. My guess is, however, the book will add to your pondering, not reduce it (unfortunately) .....

Making sense of "hate"

The culture despises hate. If you want to put someone under the jail, accuse them of a "hate crime." Have you ever pondered, "How is hurting or killing someone worse if we add hate to the motive?" The current movement in society is to stamp out hate everywhere it exists. If you don't denounce hate, then you are despised by everyone that matters. Yet, we use the word hate all the time in acceptable ways.
"I hate broccoli."
"I hate snakes."
"I hate Trump."
"I hate people that lie to me."
"I hate people that hate."

Also, if we condemn "hate speech," what do we do with the Bible?

Jesus once said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and sister and brother, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Then what about the hateful things He said about the Pharisees. He called them evil hypocrites and more.

Jesus expected to be hated. He says, "don't be surprised if the world hates you. it's because of me."

But then Jesus says, "if anyone says he loves God, but hates his brother, then he is a liar."

So what gives? Jesus seems to use the notion of hate is different ways. Why is "hate" so despised? Why is hate used to shame people?

The world has adopted the idea that hate means to despise. Hate is seen as the presence of a negative, such as the presence of great dislike. In the Bible the word hate was used as a comparative word. If I hated something, it just meant I loved it less than something else. Hate is then the presence of a higher positive. Hate is simply choosing one thing over another. It is not a negative motive.

For you, is hate a condemning judgment or is hate a prioritization?  Isn't it interesting how the world wants to take words and conform them to their own image. This is just one of many, many instances where making sense of the words of Jesus is beyond our flawed natural purposes.

So, when we say, "we want a world with no hate." What do we mean? .....