capitalism has a double bottom line

Capitalism is not new, contrary to progressive liberal claims. It's as old as human beings themselves. In the very nature of each person from the beginning of time until the end is the compulsion to trade. Fair exchange is endemic in human nature. Yet, capitalism is under assault as it is viewed as greed run amuck. This is a very limited and misguided view of capitalism. A little understanding wouldn't hurt anyone.

Who are the players in capitalism? First, there are the capitalists. Many think these are the ones who run off with all the money leaving everyone lacking. Nooooo, the capitalists are the ones with capital, willing to risk it for some return. Capitalists have a "double bottom line," representing their wish to gain a return on their investment of time and money both financially and ecologically. A ecological return is the benefit or value the capitalist brings to others.



Others impacted by the capitalists can be one of two kind. First, there are the ones outside of the organization established by the capitalist that form what is called "the market." These people benefit from the capitalist because they receive in some form of exchange the products and services that make their life more favorable. The degree the capitalist maintains engaged customers and consumers is the degree that the capitalist is winning in their ecology.

Another group of others outside the capitalist's organization are those who benefit from any residual effects of the capitalist's impacts. Air and water quality, roads, schools, commerce from support systems, etc. that exist in part because the capitalist is creating economic, social and environmental factors resulting from their presence in the community.

Inside the organizations of capitalists are managers and workers. These are called agents of the capitalists. When the production and distribution of goods require more human resources than just the capitalists themselves, an organization is formed and agents have to be employed by the capitalists. In a similar way to the ecology, capitalists must maintain a favorable position with agents or they will leave and not be engaged in the capitalists' activities. The trick for capitalists with regards to agents is that there are normally conflicting objectives and needs. If the capitalists fail to satisfy agents needs, the capitalists no longer retains agents and the capitalist cannot meet its double bottom line. If the agents desire more from the capitalist than the capitalist wants or can provide agents, then the capitalists dismisses the agents.

Now, this is how capitalism works. Often businesses are seen only for their greedy financial interests, but economics involves much more. It involves equilibrium among all constituents, both inside and outside the organization of the capitalist. Any successful capitalist understands that over time, they must win on the Double Bottom Line.   

Under normal conditions, the capitalists seek equilibrium with internal and external constituents, called stakeholders. The capitalists can then claim all residual financial benefits for themselves to offset the risks of providing capital. This is the normal risk/reward force that drives capitalism.

In unusual times, such as the current social tragedy of the coronavirus, capitalism embraces unusual norms. Here the capitalists forego some or all of their desired financial reward to support abnormal needs of stakeholders. This is what is happening NOW. Capitalists are finding ways they can use their residual claims from normal times to invest in the lives of stakeholders who have less options and opportunity to navigate the crises. This adjustment may include how agents who have benefited greatly by the capitalists' successes may now forego or share benefits with the agents who have benefited less.

Capitalism embraces all of this. It is the beauty and lure of capitalism for everyone. Greed finds itself into every system in which humans operate. Capitalists and stakeholders can be greedy. Greed is not peculiar to capitalism. Fair exchange both inside and outside the organizations is what makes capitalism work. Fair exchange is the engine of capitalism, the purest form of justice. There is a DOUBLE BOTTOM LINE. It is, or at least should be, the full horizon of the capitalist's vision.

Just some thoughts worth pondering in times of social distancing when capitalism is under assault but is the answer ....

"I have a bias"

 A half a century ago Martin Luther King addressed a large crowd with these immortal words - "I have a dream." The full brunt of his words railed against racial bias in the country and indeed the world. Bias as bigotry began the trend in which the term bias took on a negative notion.

Over 20 centuries ago another King pronounced that he had a dream. Jesus taught only a few disciples of His bias to the Kingdom of Heaven. He described a realm where God's grace provides everything and His provision is freedom. There was no social media around for either King. While Jesus' idea of freedom was what MLK, a preacher of the gospel, was referencing, the world didn't really understand. Why? Because the human condition is biased to a nature unlike the Kingdom of light. Human nature is a bias to steal God's glory, not reflect it. Mankind looks to the world to give it its rights.

You see, bias is not restricted to racial bigotry. Bias is any endearing belief you hold that you never question but influences all of your souls thoughts, feelings and choices. Your bias is your heart's desire. Jesus was going at mankind's core bias. The first humans decided that they could be God and received a fundamental bias that identifies with a realm (the world's system) that is at enmity with God's Kingdom of Heaven.

So, Jesus explains the contrast of these two biases in His sermon to His disciples (often called the "Sermon on the Mount"). He, too, uses the idea of light and darkness. A bias to the Kingdom of Heaven brings God's light into the world by reflecting (glorifying) His Son as the moon reflects the sun. Human bias motivates man to pursue and produce "light" in their own power. But this "light", man calls virtue and morality, is a counterfeit to God's light. Man's own light is fake news, not good news. Human nature obsesses in the rightness of man's own version of justice and revels in elitism.

Understanding bias is to understand faith. For faith, too, is an endearing belief we hold that informs all thoughts, feelings, and choices. Everyone has faith. Everyone walks in faith. Everyone trusts something they cannot prove. That's not the question. The issue is which of the two fundamental biases, which flows from an identity in this world or an identity in Christ, represents the faith one holds dear?

Some of you may have assumed by the title and picture of MLK that I might be disparaging MLK and supporting bigotry. After all, I did grow up in Ala in the 50's and 60's. This might have been what was OBVIOUS to you in some small way before you read the blog. What is obvious to you in any situation points to your core bias.

Just something to ponder when you have time .....

pondering "Just Mercy"

 "Just Mercy" is a moving movie that has recently come out based on a period of history that makes us all stop and think and weep. Set in rural south Ala in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the story is an account of severe injustice propagated on the most vulnerable of our society, those who receive the the death penalty without guilt and fair representation. The movie based on a true story set in Monroeville, Ala highlights how little has changed in the 30 years after the South and indeed the nation was supposedly awaken by the impact of the  movie based on Harper Lee's book "To Kill a Mockingbird."

This was particularly salient to me since I saw the movie as a young boy in Montgomery and lived in Monroeville as a young family man in the early 1970's. You might say I lived in the epicenter of the 1960's Civil Rights movement, so the story had a deep emotional connection with me.

Those of you that know me also know I have spent a great deal of my work in recent years trying to understand the effect of the human obsession with justice compared to the transforming Gospel of Grace that underwrites the Kingdom of Heaven. Basically, justice is a reciprocity based on exchanging rewards and punishment to balance one's actions. Justice is what we deserve based on what we do. People desire fairness more than anything. The natural tendency and proclivity for justice, which is central to the human condition, actually constrains what should become natural to us in the provisions and privileges of grace as Kingdom dwellers. Jesus repeatedly describes His Kingdom as one where God provides generously not based on doing good, but to those who receive by faith what Jesus has done for them. The fallen nature of man to demand justice may be the biggest constraint on the soul in trusting grace.

So, what should the Christian's response to "Just Mercy" be? Good question. Here's where I have come down. Christian's should abhor injustices when punishment is unduly administered. This type of injustice in society is simply the outgrowth of power grab for personal gain. This type of injustice should break our heart, just as it does God's. But is hating injustice the same as being an advocate for justice? Here is where Christian's should differ from any non-believing "good person." If philosophy and psychology both find that core to the human condition is a desire for the virtue of justice, then what makes a justice centric Christian different, and why is the cross of Jesus necessary?

At the end of the movie, the main character, who has admiringly committed his life to unjust death penalties, says that justice, mercy and grace is what we should all be about. This is where he lost me. If justice is getting what we deserve, mercy is not getting what we deserve, and grace is getting what we don't deserve, how can we be about all 3 at the same time? Ever thought about that? Isn't just mercy an oxymoron?

Aren't mercy and grace just forms of injustice? Not the type the story moves us to tears over, but a different form of injustice that causes many in society great concern. Those, who believe a crime should be fairly punished, do not take mercy and grace well. They see it as weak, promiscuous, and fight it at every turn. This is the battle over the death penalty itself, and even issues like abortion. One person's mercy and grace is another's injustice.

If God's mercy and grace were similar forms of injustice, then He would not be just, and that cannot be. This is the unique role of the Cross in human history and the central theme of how we are all wrapped up in His story.

My wife use to ask me after a really good movie like Just Mercy, "what did you think of the movie?" Responses like this over time is the reason she does not ask me anymore. She rather speculates on what's going on inside my head and says, "Why can't you enjoy movies like everyone else? Just take them for what they are."

Good question and certainly worth me pondering ....

the great heist

A common and popular concept of faith is captured in this Snoopy cartoon. The appeal of this idea of faith resonates with both Christians and skeptics of Christianity. Why so, would you think? Maybe its the ambiguity of what we're "holding on tight" to, what "the going" is, and what is the notion of "windy"? That about gets it. In other words, each person is left to fill in their own idea of the words used in this cartoon to fit their biases.

The world that is skeptical of Christianity sees the tree as a positive self concept - "I am powerful, unstoppable, beautiful, and so on. "The going" is our circumstances and they are windy when they challenge our well being or what we want for ourselves.

This is a very appealing idea of faith to the human condition.

Yet when the Christian claims to "hold tight" to their faith in Jesus, the world responds like this:

       “Refusal to think leads to faith. Blind acceptance and obedience leads to 
       faith. Faith is belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the  contrary. 
      It’s wishing – nothing more."

In other words, its OK for me, the skeptic, to trust something I believe even though I cannot defend it through science, but its not OK for you Christians. The skeptic says, "I am reasonable, but you, the Christian, are just being emotional." The world's reliance on faith is evidenced in how often they claim, "you must trust your heart." In a recent Hall Mark Christmas movie the star said, "our heart can tell us more than any spreadsheet ever could." And everyone goes, "yeah!" Business people take pride in "trusting their gut." It's quite common for everyone to operate on faith.

But let a Christian's heart defend its trust in God based on an assurance of unseen evidence (their heart), then the world laughs and says he/she is just wishing. The truth is that the world's view of faith is therapeutic and not transformational. Its like taking medicine to make us feel better when the medicine doesn't cure anything.

Christians must view their faith differently, as transformational. Christian faith does not view "the going" as circumstances and does not view "windy" as something that is working against them. "The going" is being entrenched in an adoring relationship with the King of the Universe and the wind is to help us fly our kite. What the world fails to see is that the power of faith is in the object of the faith, not in the extent in which we believe.

Has the church let the world get away with a great heist. Has the world stolen the notion of faith so Christians don't readily and purposefully defend the hope that is in them? Why do Christians feel they have to prove their faith with physical evidence? That's the antithesis of faith (unseen evidence) and not even what skeptics do to support their own faith. When will Christians stand their ground and call the skeptics hand? Why isn't it enough for a Christian to say, "I trust God because my heart is sold out to Jesus and that's more clear evidence than any spreadsheet could ever provide."

"The things we think are the most important things theologically are not the most important things to God. He wants your heart."  Jon Tyson, pastor Church of the City NYC

Learning to articulate the Christian faith as a heart not based on physical evidence with the same confidence the world defends their own faith is something certainly worth pondering ...... 

"we hold these truths to be self-evident"

If truths are "self-evident", why is there so much confusion in our society over rights, justice and happiness over 200 years after the Declaration of Independence was written? If truths are "self-evident", how can truth be absolute given every self operates with a different perspective or set of biases, so to speak? How can any truth be self evident to many people who trust something different? What does "self-evident" mean, and why do we base anything of importance on the notion it is "self-evident"?

The founders of our country created a very successful form of governance as a rejection of the power held by monarchies in Europe. The source of ideas for our country comes from Greek philosophies of Socrates and Aristotle. Universal laws of democracy and virtue order lives of society. BUT, the problem of knowing truth has never been solved by humans.


It is a mistake to assume that the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is God's gift (endowment) to the world. This is not what Jesus said. What kind of country would we be if the Declaration of Independence said, "we hold these truths to be Bible precepts"? This takes away the "self evident" idea. Maybe the preamble would read like this:

One thing would be that the focus of folks in the US would not be on our rights in this world. We would not look to our circumstances for our well being. Justice would not be the preeminent concern. We would not be transactional with each other thinking our "fair share" matters. A heart of grace would be our barometer and guide, not virtuous behavior.

God desires that we view our selves as aliens and sojourners in this world, here for a moment to reflect the light of Jesus bestowed on us to glorify His Father. Biblical precepts exhort us to a transformed life that walks by faith, unseen evidence God reveals to us, not a life in this world that is influenced by experiences of our physical senses.

The USA is a wonderful country. One that is founded to allow everyone to flourish in a finite world according to their efforts and abilities. This is great for the human condition (for a while), but it is not the eternal realm of the Heavenlies God has made available to us NOW as we find our identity in Jesus.

What does this mean for you?  That's where pondering comes in .....

"then sings my soul"

"How Great Thou Art" is one of the most sung songs in recent history. It makes people feel so good down deep inside. Even those reluctant to raise hands in praise will find their hands go up. Singing this song, especially the chorus, seems to make all our troubles go away. Yet, how often do we ponder the song? What do we think we are really saying when we sing?

This popular chorus starts with a astounding statement, "then sings my soul." Interesting claim. How does a soul, which is non-physical, produce a song that is experienced through the physical sense of sound? Generally, when I ask such pondering questions, most people go, "I don't know and don't really care." Fair enough. Your life won't stop in its tracks if you don't explore what you are really singing. BUT, your life could be enriched beyond a feel-good song if you found life's treasures in the song you sing.

The soul is essentially your "self." It is who you really are, the center of thought, emotion, and will. When your soul sings, it is your deepest expression. This may be why the Bible references the soul over 100 times in the New Testament. In this song that ministers to so many in such a deep way, what is the soul expressing? Obviously, the soul is absorbing the greatness of God. But, what about God does the soul consider to be "Great"?

I have found there are basically two possibilities. The soul is relishing in God's greatness based on the basic bias of the soul. The natural bias is for the soul to identify with the body and outcomes in this physical world. In this case the stress, anxiety, frustration and pain of the human condition trouble the soul. Finding hope in a day when I am free from the bondage of the body is a therapy that transforms me.  "How great Thou art" is the soul's recognition God is in control and one day after I die I will be in Heaven and have no more pain. That's one way to approach our anxiety.

Another possibility is a bias where the soul identifies with the Spirit. Here the soul relishes in a reality where it is no longer subject to physical senses for satisfaction, motivation and acceptance, even while still in the body. The freedom comes as the soul is transformed and becomes a "new creation," or as Jesus says, "born again" of the Spirit. While the body is still subject to futility of this world, the soul experiences not one of suffering but blessings found in a passionate relationship with Jesus. God is "Great" because He has willfully and generously invited me into His Kingdom. His provisions and privileges of Grace transcend the human condition as it relates to my soul.

This may be what Paul means when he calls upon God's people to walk according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh. Understanding this difference may make all the difference in how the soul is nourished when it sings, "How Great Thou Art." This is a complete change of bias, not just thinking. This is what is called walking not by sight but by faith.

A song worth pondering in addition to singing....

the "narrow gate"

We are told in the summary of the Sermon on the Mount, "for narrow is the gate that leads to life and few will find it." This is quite familiar to Christians and provides for sound theology. BUT, in what ways does this truth infiltrate and influence lives of Christians in our culture today? In what ways do we try to widen the gate or maybe even go around it?


Here is what I have learned as my life's work these days focuses on how flawed human nature wars against the life that God desires for us. It is built into our very human nature to avoid the exercises and diets necessary to slim down for the narrow gate of the Kingdom. It's not natural and quite uncomfortable to shed excess baggage we carry around that feeds a soul comfortable with "walking according to the flesh."

This is true not only of us pedestrian Christians but of those who lead us, those who head Christian universities, churches, and ministries. As I have been a part of marketing b4Worldview to such institutions, what have I found that suggests this may be the case?

While most legitimate Christians and their leaders can readily profess sound theology about the Gospel of Grace and a life lived under God's sovereign love, virtue ethics seems to be the end game of Christianity that manifests itself to those "looking in." Maybe this is the way it is because many Christians and their leaders also emphasize right behavior and that the Gospel is a palliative remedy to human pain in their teaching, prayer and worship activities. Foremost, Christians are led to change the culture to an ethic they view as Biblical. Yet, in doing so they are no different than the rest of humanity, seeking a better way not a new way. Many young people brought up in these contexts abandon what they are taught only to seek an alternative virtue ethics.

Why are Christian leaders so protective of their message of virtue ethics and reluctant to explore ways to help their flock "be transformed by the renewing of their minds"? Why is "good" more about fitting into a prescription of what a person does to positively affect others rather than the intrinsic quality within them that comes only from intimacy with Christ? Why is purpose about what we can produce and not about faithfulness in our pursuit? Why is God's favor a righteousness of exchange with the Father rather than receiving a generous, willful action from the Father?

Here is a perspective I have found by working with Christians and their leaders for the past several years. The "market" for Christian products and services responds more to an Aristotelian view of life's goal where happiness is a personal pursuit and production of virtues such as justice, courage, kindness and such. This ideal is universal in the human condition and has BROAD appeal to people. Why? Because Aristotle captured the essence of human nature, the idea built-in each of us that humans have the power to produce the right life, and what we experience via physical senses is what determines reality. BUT, wasn't this the error of Adam and Eve? Isn't Aristotle's philosophy about the natural power within each person just an excellent account of our fallen nature? Might this be what makes an appeal attractive to many people, or a BROAD gate?

NARROW is the market comprised of those who are motivated to receive and reflect te light of God and trust only the power provided by the One they have a passionate love affair with, Jesus. This is a pure form of trust, not a trust underwritten by "our own understanding," not a trust dependent on outcomes but trust based on a relationship.

So, I have found that Christians and their leaders generally know the truth in their head, but worldly success depends on attracting customers with a market appeal which is BROAD and not one that is NARROW.

Might this be what Jesus wants us to know as He sums up His profound message to us?

Something worth pondering ......