"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.