In several recent posts I have been attempting to explain a few of the factors regarding relationships and I have also been promising to explain what these factors have to do with Church. The two main points I have been trying to make is that each of us are only able to tolerate a certain number of relationships and that each of us have different criteria for what we consider a relationship. There is no dividing line between men and women. However, in general, men tolerate fewer relationships and men are more restrictive in how they define a relationship.
Traditional Christianity always emphasized individual character and the difference between right and wrong. With the reformation, the emphasis changed from the traditional view to an emphasis on individual salvation. I happen to agree with the reformation. People need to get right with God before they can get right with the world.
Church also changed with the reformation. Traditional Church was centered on the sacraments and on the community of believers with some memorized prayer thrown in. The reformed Church was centered on teaching and studying the Bible, worshiping God, and spreading the Gospel with some unstructured prayer thrown in. Today, the Catholic Church has retained much of the traditional Christian Church while the reformed Church slowly evolves toward less and less orthodoxy.
The ideal Church for me would be a blend of the Catholic and Reformed. A community of believers who worship God, teach and study the Bible, practice the sacraments, value individual character, know right from wrong, understand salvation, pray holy prayers, and spread the Gospel would be just about perfect.
Relationships are a part of what’s good about life and a part of what’s important in life. A healthy community is based on mature relationships. Church should be the model of a healthy community ministering to less than healthy individuals. But in no circumstance should Church be all about relationships anymore than Church should be all about spreading the Gospel or all about prayer or all about the Bible or all about anything.
When a typical man sits in Church and has to listen to the preacher go on and on about the need for more and better relationships in order to spread the Gospel, he gets turned off to Christianity. For some men, its like throwing salt on a snail. When an unsaved man visits a Church and hears the preacher go on and on about relationships, he is less likely to hear the rest of the Gospel because he is hearing female verbiage. Some Christian women are turned on by relationship talk and some unsaved women are attracted to a Church that emphasizes relationships. However, the emphasis on relationships is a massaging of a female need, not a traditional view of Christianity.
Perhaps the traditional Church did not satisfy the female need for relationships. Perhaps a tweaking was in order. Perhaps there is room in Church for a more masculine and a more feminine approach. However, if the Church continues down its current path of over-emphasis on relationships, it will be mostly women begging their husbands to come to Church.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: That was then, this is now.
I was fortunate enough to be a member of a Church ten years ago where I had the privilege of knowing a man who grew up in Iowa in the 1920’s. My wife and I were both part of the single group at this Church then. The Church usually had around 1000 people attend two Sunday morning services at this time. It also had a Sunday evening service that attracted less than 100 people. Almost all of the Sunday evening attendees were retired or single.
The vibrancy of this man who grew up in Iowa masked his older age. He passed away several years ago, but looking back now, it is clear that he spent his final years on earth preparing for heaven by witnessing to almost anyone who would listen, and he did have lots of listeners. During one of our conversations, he expressed sadness about how few people attended the Sunday evening service. He told me that when he was growing up, he would spend all week working on his family’s farm, and then on Sunday, he would spend all day, not just an hour or two, at Church.
He said the Sunday morning service would include at least a dozen hymns and two hours of preaching. After the morning service, the entire Church would eat lunch together and then the children would play, the women would fellowship, and most of the men would take a nap. The afternoon activities were followed by an early evening service with more singing, and more preaching, and more fellowship, and then everyone would return to their farms where they would rarely see each other again until the following Sunday. His Sunday at Church was the most important part of his week as he got to worship God and fellowship with other believers.
Everyone didn’t live on a farm in 1920, but most people did live a life that included much less interaction with others than we do today. Factory workers and farmers worked in labor intensive occupations, merchants had many less customers than now, and most of the wives raised children and performed manual housework without modern appliances. Therefore, Sunday mornings weren’t just a time for God; Sunday’s were also a time for socializing. The Church was where most of the actual relating took place for everyone in a typical American community.
Nowadays, most working people are relating from the time they get up until the time they go to bed at night. Many, if not most, of us work on projects with dozens of other people in office complexes of hundreds of other people. There are as many women as men in the workforce now. Even in software development, a good part of every week is spent in meetings and discussions with our co-workers. Outside of work, we have contact with the parents of the children who are in activities with our children, from soccer, to softball, to swimming, to gymnastics, to dancing, to singing, to talent shows, to scouting, to who knows what’s next! We shop in Super Markets with lines longer than all of the customers of a store in 1920.
By the time Sunday roles around, some of us, mostly men, have had about as much relating as we can stand for the week. It’s no wonder the Sunday evening service is a sliver of what it once was. It won’t surprise me to see the Sunday morning service also experience more decline as well since Pastors continue to over-emphasize relationships in the typical Church ministry plan.
The vibrancy of this man who grew up in Iowa masked his older age. He passed away several years ago, but looking back now, it is clear that he spent his final years on earth preparing for heaven by witnessing to almost anyone who would listen, and he did have lots of listeners. During one of our conversations, he expressed sadness about how few people attended the Sunday evening service. He told me that when he was growing up, he would spend all week working on his family’s farm, and then on Sunday, he would spend all day, not just an hour or two, at Church.
He said the Sunday morning service would include at least a dozen hymns and two hours of preaching. After the morning service, the entire Church would eat lunch together and then the children would play, the women would fellowship, and most of the men would take a nap. The afternoon activities were followed by an early evening service with more singing, and more preaching, and more fellowship, and then everyone would return to their farms where they would rarely see each other again until the following Sunday. His Sunday at Church was the most important part of his week as he got to worship God and fellowship with other believers.
Everyone didn’t live on a farm in 1920, but most people did live a life that included much less interaction with others than we do today. Factory workers and farmers worked in labor intensive occupations, merchants had many less customers than now, and most of the wives raised children and performed manual housework without modern appliances. Therefore, Sunday mornings weren’t just a time for God; Sunday’s were also a time for socializing. The Church was where most of the actual relating took place for everyone in a typical American community.
Nowadays, most working people are relating from the time they get up until the time they go to bed at night. Many, if not most, of us work on projects with dozens of other people in office complexes of hundreds of other people. There are as many women as men in the workforce now. Even in software development, a good part of every week is spent in meetings and discussions with our co-workers. Outside of work, we have contact with the parents of the children who are in activities with our children, from soccer, to softball, to swimming, to gymnastics, to dancing, to singing, to talent shows, to scouting, to who knows what’s next! We shop in Super Markets with lines longer than all of the customers of a store in 1920.
By the time Sunday roles around, some of us, mostly men, have had about as much relating as we can stand for the week. It’s no wonder the Sunday evening service is a sliver of what it once was. It won’t surprise me to see the Sunday morning service also experience more decline as well since Pastors continue to over-emphasize relationships in the typical Church ministry plan.
Friday, August 05, 2005
50% Crap
My wife and I had an occasion to see a marriage counselor at one point in our marriage when we were having a little trouble relating. [: -)] One of the first things the counselor tried to explain to me was that people are human “beings” not human “doings”. Just like Jennifer’s reaction to my previous post, my reaction to this counselor was that she was full of crap. Now that I’ve had time to reflect on her counsel, I will admit she was about half right. About 50% of people, mostly female [for lack of a better word], are human beings, and about 50% of people, mostly male [for lack of a better word], are human doings.
Several years ago my family went to the home of a friend of my wife for a barbeque. My wife and her friend met through their health club and had gotten to know each other by talking about their children. I had never met the husband of the friend of my wife, but I was anxious to meet and talk to him. Ten minutes into our conversation, he invited me to go with him and his friends on a weekend canoeing and fishing trip. In effect, he was saying, “Our wife’s have a relationship, we should have a relationship, too.” However, my emotional reaction to his request was, “Hey buddy, I’ve only known you for ten minutes, I’m not ready for a relationship.”
Jennifer and anyone else who doubts my description of the difference between the typical male relationship and the typical female relationship can test what I am claiming at their church. Does a female have a relationship with the other women she only talks to at church? If you doubt me, ask your female friends. I’m betting most of them will say, "Sure, you must be kidding.” Does a man have a relationship with the other men he only talks to at Church. Ask your husband and maybe a few male friends. The ones who are honest will probably say something like, “No, we only talk to each other at Church.”
I apologize for taking so long to get to my main point. I have at least one more sub-point to make about male relationships in my next post before explaining how the Church needs to at least modify the way it uses the word “relationship”. Hopefully, however, our Churches will start to understand what relationships are to men and then do a better job of designing and executing ministries to actually make disciples of men.
Several years ago my family went to the home of a friend of my wife for a barbeque. My wife and her friend met through their health club and had gotten to know each other by talking about their children. I had never met the husband of the friend of my wife, but I was anxious to meet and talk to him. Ten minutes into our conversation, he invited me to go with him and his friends on a weekend canoeing and fishing trip. In effect, he was saying, “Our wife’s have a relationship, we should have a relationship, too.” However, my emotional reaction to his request was, “Hey buddy, I’ve only known you for ten minutes, I’m not ready for a relationship.”
Jennifer and anyone else who doubts my description of the difference between the typical male relationship and the typical female relationship can test what I am claiming at their church. Does a female have a relationship with the other women she only talks to at church? If you doubt me, ask your female friends. I’m betting most of them will say, "Sure, you must be kidding.” Does a man have a relationship with the other men he only talks to at Church. Ask your husband and maybe a few male friends. The ones who are honest will probably say something like, “No, we only talk to each other at Church.”
I apologize for taking so long to get to my main point. I have at least one more sub-point to make about male relationships in my next post before explaining how the Church needs to at least modify the way it uses the word “relationship”. Hopefully, however, our Churches will start to understand what relationships are to men and then do a better job of designing and executing ministries to actually make disciples of men.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Men and Women
Read my previous post before reading this post.
For the purpose of further discussion the word men means male tendencies and the word women means female tendencies in this post since there are no attributes that are solely male or female.
Women tend to form relationships in order to have someone to talk to and do things with. Women will also talk to other women and do things with other women in order to from relationships. It’s all perfectly logical. So what is different about men?
Men don’t form relationships in order to "talk" or "do" and men don’t "talk" or "do" in order to form relationships. For men, the doing and the talking and the relationship are inseparably integrated. It’s not that men don’t want or need companionship. Men want friends to golf with, and fish with, and drink beer with. For men, the relationship, the golf, the fishing, and the beer are all one in the same.
Women derive joy from knowing about the happenings of their friends, their friend’s families, and the friends of their friends. Even when women friends share tears over a sad event in one of their lives, they are still receiving a certain satisfaction from having someone to empathize with. The relationship for women is the knowing, and caring, and empathizing, with friends. The “doing things” for women is the sideshow, not the relationship.
The “doing things” for men is the relationship, not the sideshow. Men will talk about golf, or beer, or fishing, but the talking is no substitute for the golf, the fishing, and the beer. Men will also talk about the happenings of their friends and occasionally even empathize with their friends, but men don’t get any satisfaction from crying with their friends, and rarely will a man care about the friend of a friend.
It’s easy for women to say men should be more like women. If men could make a decision to be more like women, I’m sure many men would. In some ways, the way women relate is much more Christ-like than the way men relate. However, men can’t just flip a switch and be more relational without the "doing" part. A good man will make the effort to compensate for the weaknesses of his nature, but no man can change his nature completely.
OK, in the next post I will get to the Church. [Hopefully]
For the purpose of further discussion the word men means male tendencies and the word women means female tendencies in this post since there are no attributes that are solely male or female.
Women tend to form relationships in order to have someone to talk to and do things with. Women will also talk to other women and do things with other women in order to from relationships. It’s all perfectly logical. So what is different about men?
Men don’t form relationships in order to "talk" or "do" and men don’t "talk" or "do" in order to form relationships. For men, the doing and the talking and the relationship are inseparably integrated. It’s not that men don’t want or need companionship. Men want friends to golf with, and fish with, and drink beer with. For men, the relationship, the golf, the fishing, and the beer are all one in the same.
Women derive joy from knowing about the happenings of their friends, their friend’s families, and the friends of their friends. Even when women friends share tears over a sad event in one of their lives, they are still receiving a certain satisfaction from having someone to empathize with. The relationship for women is the knowing, and caring, and empathizing, with friends. The “doing things” for women is the sideshow, not the relationship.
The “doing things” for men is the relationship, not the sideshow. Men will talk about golf, or beer, or fishing, but the talking is no substitute for the golf, the fishing, and the beer. Men will also talk about the happenings of their friends and occasionally even empathize with their friends, but men don’t get any satisfaction from crying with their friends, and rarely will a man care about the friend of a friend.
It’s easy for women to say men should be more like women. If men could make a decision to be more like women, I’m sure many men would. In some ways, the way women relate is much more Christ-like than the way men relate. However, men can’t just flip a switch and be more relational without the "doing" part. A good man will make the effort to compensate for the weaknesses of his nature, but no man can change his nature completely.
OK, in the next post I will get to the Church. [Hopefully]
Nature and Tendencies
Human nature is complex and complicated. We are all unique creations of God. However, it is the combination and the degree of our attributes and characteristics that make us unique. Rarely is a single attribute of any one person unique. God seems to have used building blocks that are combined with our life experiences and choices to make us who we currently are. Some people rise above the limitations they were created with while others never live up to their potential.
It would be absolutely false for me to claim all men behave a certain way and all women behave a different way. There is very, very, little that is true for all men and very, very, little that is true for all women. However, if the tendencies of men were plotted on a graph, the resulting graph would look like a bell shaped curve. There would be some men on both ends of the graph and a big hump in the middle of attributes and characteristics of most men. The same is true of women. A graph of all humans would be two overlapping bell shaped curves. The female graph would start inside the male graph and the male graph inside the female graph.
When I refer to male nature or female nature, I only do so because I don’t have a better word to use. What I am actually referring to is the downside of both bell shaped curves; not the big hump in the middle, but the parts of our nature that seem to be mostly male and mostly female.
There are men who rarely talk and when they do talk, their words are very precise. There are women who are never quiet and whose words are explaining three things at once. The men who rarely talk are an example of an extreme male attribute and the women who are never quiet are an example of an extreme female attribute. This description does not describe most men or most women; it just describes a difference between an extreme attribute of men and an extreme attribute of women.
When my oldest daughter was very young, I could tell she was different than the boys her age. She was 100% girl. I was so happy when my second daughter was born because I wanted another 100% girl. However, it didn’t take me long to discover that my second daughter has a little boy inside of her. She has just turned six years old. Her mouth moves at 100 miles a minute except when she is serious about a game she is playing or a picture she is drawing; then it’s all business.
One of the points I have been trying to make in the relationship discussion and the Church ownership discussion is that we need to be aware of human nature, male tendencies, and female tendencies. The nature and tendencies we were born with are not sinful. However, the choices we make based on our nature and tendencies can be sinful. It has long been accepted within Christianity that males need to control their sexual nature. Sex with a spouse is good, but unlimited and unrestricted sex leads to all kinds of sinful problems. Relationships may be the female equivalent to male sex. Relationships are good and essential to the Body of Christ. However, an insatiable appetite for relationships needs to be controlled.
In my next post, I hope to get to how this has affected the Church.
It would be absolutely false for me to claim all men behave a certain way and all women behave a different way. There is very, very, little that is true for all men and very, very, little that is true for all women. However, if the tendencies of men were plotted on a graph, the resulting graph would look like a bell shaped curve. There would be some men on both ends of the graph and a big hump in the middle of attributes and characteristics of most men. The same is true of women. A graph of all humans would be two overlapping bell shaped curves. The female graph would start inside the male graph and the male graph inside the female graph.
When I refer to male nature or female nature, I only do so because I don’t have a better word to use. What I am actually referring to is the downside of both bell shaped curves; not the big hump in the middle, but the parts of our nature that seem to be mostly male and mostly female.
There are men who rarely talk and when they do talk, their words are very precise. There are women who are never quiet and whose words are explaining three things at once. The men who rarely talk are an example of an extreme male attribute and the women who are never quiet are an example of an extreme female attribute. This description does not describe most men or most women; it just describes a difference between an extreme attribute of men and an extreme attribute of women.
When my oldest daughter was very young, I could tell she was different than the boys her age. She was 100% girl. I was so happy when my second daughter was born because I wanted another 100% girl. However, it didn’t take me long to discover that my second daughter has a little boy inside of her. She has just turned six years old. Her mouth moves at 100 miles a minute except when she is serious about a game she is playing or a picture she is drawing; then it’s all business.
One of the points I have been trying to make in the relationship discussion and the Church ownership discussion is that we need to be aware of human nature, male tendencies, and female tendencies. The nature and tendencies we were born with are not sinful. However, the choices we make based on our nature and tendencies can be sinful. It has long been accepted within Christianity that males need to control their sexual nature. Sex with a spouse is good, but unlimited and unrestricted sex leads to all kinds of sinful problems. Relationships may be the female equivalent to male sex. Relationships are good and essential to the Body of Christ. However, an insatiable appetite for relationships needs to be controlled.
In my next post, I hope to get to how this has affected the Church.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Problems and Solutions
For a problem to be solved, the problem must first be observed. Then the problem needs to be analyzed in order to understand the cause of the problem. After understanding the cause of a problem, possible solutions can be tried. It is very common in most organizations for the leaders and the participants to have a different list of problems that need to be solved. Rarely do all of the followers even agree on a problem. A husband and a wife may even disagree about whether or not certain behaviors of their children are a problem. Observing, analyzing, and solving problems within organizations is much more complex and much more difficult. Solutions to problems often cause new or different problems. And so the cycle continues…
Most Christian leaders believe the problem with Christianity is a lack of commitment from average believers. These leaders think that if and when they inspire their followers to greater commitment, more Bible reading, more prayer, more evangelism, more donations, and more service, then the cause of making disciples will be advanced. Most followers do the best they can to meet the leaders expectations, while feeling a little guilty about not ever being able to be or to accomplish everything the leaders want to achieve. Most followers know that time and effort are limited. And so the cycle continues…
One of the aspects of the blogsphere that I have enjoyed is the number of non-Pastor bloggers who are offering their own solutions to the problems within the Christian Church. For instance, Teresa at Restoration Station is an advocate of Home Churches and the Home Church movement. There is much to like about Home Churches. In many ways the Home Church is exactly what I am writing about with the concept of more “ownership” within Christian Churches. When an individual or a married couple decide to use their own home as a facility to congregate, break bread, fellowship, and pray, more opportunities for unfiltered and direct ministry should result.
The interesting part about Teresa’ solution and my support of her solution is that the two of us are trying to solve two different problems. I like Teresa’s solution because I think there are many believers and also many non-believers who would prosper in a Home Church environment. However, I don’t think the Home Church movement is the solution to all of the problems within our Churches.
I see one of the big problems within our Churches as an over-emphasis on relationships which has led to the males of our species becoming disinterested in Church matters. Teresa sees the problem within Churches as the inability of believers to form meaningful relationships because of the time and money being wasted on non-relationship matters, such as buildings. Maybe we have been going to different Churches, but most probably, we have a completely different perspective.
Our perspectives have been articulated in a couple of posts and comments. Teresa’s Give Him Back post and comments and my Relationships post and comments are the background for Teresa’s post yesterday. In my next post, I will add to some of what I’ve already written and also respond to Teresa.
Most Christian leaders believe the problem with Christianity is a lack of commitment from average believers. These leaders think that if and when they inspire their followers to greater commitment, more Bible reading, more prayer, more evangelism, more donations, and more service, then the cause of making disciples will be advanced. Most followers do the best they can to meet the leaders expectations, while feeling a little guilty about not ever being able to be or to accomplish everything the leaders want to achieve. Most followers know that time and effort are limited. And so the cycle continues…
One of the aspects of the blogsphere that I have enjoyed is the number of non-Pastor bloggers who are offering their own solutions to the problems within the Christian Church. For instance, Teresa at Restoration Station is an advocate of Home Churches and the Home Church movement. There is much to like about Home Churches. In many ways the Home Church is exactly what I am writing about with the concept of more “ownership” within Christian Churches. When an individual or a married couple decide to use their own home as a facility to congregate, break bread, fellowship, and pray, more opportunities for unfiltered and direct ministry should result.
The interesting part about Teresa’ solution and my support of her solution is that the two of us are trying to solve two different problems. I like Teresa’s solution because I think there are many believers and also many non-believers who would prosper in a Home Church environment. However, I don’t think the Home Church movement is the solution to all of the problems within our Churches.
I see one of the big problems within our Churches as an over-emphasis on relationships which has led to the males of our species becoming disinterested in Church matters. Teresa sees the problem within Churches as the inability of believers to form meaningful relationships because of the time and money being wasted on non-relationship matters, such as buildings. Maybe we have been going to different Churches, but most probably, we have a completely different perspective.
Our perspectives have been articulated in a couple of posts and comments. Teresa’s Give Him Back post and comments and my Relationships post and comments are the background for Teresa’s post yesterday. In my next post, I will add to some of what I’ve already written and also respond to Teresa.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Sweet Six
When did birthday cakes become Picasso's?
Probably when 5-year-old's started jumping off high dives.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Ownership II
In a previous post on ownership within the Church, Derek comments that ”the "ownership" model fails as solution because the "big pot" model fails as an explanation for the failure of the institutional church to do God's Will.”
I agree with Derek here. There is not a budgeting and funding model that will make a Church that is not doing the will of God all of a sudden start doing the will of God. Also, a bad budgeting and funding model will probably not stand in the way of a Church that is completely sold out to doing the will of God.
Of course there are many organizations, some of which are Churches, that are extremely well funded and extremely successful at something. A few even do a fairly good job of preaching and teaching and spreading the gospel, but there really isn’t a corelation between the will of God and the funding of activities. Many cults are well funded and many legitimate Christian ministries get by on pennies.
I never meant to imply that the big pot was the cause of all of the problems within Churches or that an ownership model would solve all of the problems within Churches. In some ways a change of the model will change the problems, not solve every problem.
However, I believe a change of the model will free up believers to use their spiritual gifts and tithes in ways that will provide for more accountability, more enthusiasm, more joy, and most importantly, make the body of Christ more attractive to non-believers. Capitalism works because in capitalism, there is a corelation between ownership and success. The more individual ministries within a Church are owned, the greater the probability of the ministries being successful. Filtering tithes through the fingers of Pastors, and Elders, and Committies, saps the enthusiasm and joy out of even the most committed believers, just imagine what it is doing to those who observe the process without being committed.
I agree with Derek here. There is not a budgeting and funding model that will make a Church that is not doing the will of God all of a sudden start doing the will of God. Also, a bad budgeting and funding model will probably not stand in the way of a Church that is completely sold out to doing the will of God.
Of course there are many organizations, some of which are Churches, that are extremely well funded and extremely successful at something. A few even do a fairly good job of preaching and teaching and spreading the gospel, but there really isn’t a corelation between the will of God and the funding of activities. Many cults are well funded and many legitimate Christian ministries get by on pennies.
I never meant to imply that the big pot was the cause of all of the problems within Churches or that an ownership model would solve all of the problems within Churches. In some ways a change of the model will change the problems, not solve every problem.
However, I believe a change of the model will free up believers to use their spiritual gifts and tithes in ways that will provide for more accountability, more enthusiasm, more joy, and most importantly, make the body of Christ more attractive to non-believers. Capitalism works because in capitalism, there is a corelation between ownership and success. The more individual ministries within a Church are owned, the greater the probability of the ministries being successful. Filtering tithes through the fingers of Pastors, and Elders, and Committies, saps the enthusiasm and joy out of even the most committed believers, just imagine what it is doing to those who observe the process without being committed.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Aspects of our Nature
Many years ago, when I was a young, and not so smart, Marine, I needed to punch a guy who was trying to start a fight with me. I knew the guy was going to beat me to smithereens, but I had to defend my honor. However, I must have been slow, as well as dull, because before I got my punch thrown, one of my buddies had the other guy on the ground beating him to smithereens. I’m not saying that Derek is asking for a fight, or that I need to defend my honor against him, or that I’m any smarter or faster now than I once was, or that Jennifer is beating Derek to smithereens, but I will say that Jennifer can be in my squad anytime she wants. Derek can too.
Derek and Jennifer left such great comments. Before I start addressing any of the specifics of Derek’s critique and Jennifer’s earlier concern, I first need to clarify an aspect of all of the factors that have made capitalism the best economic system and an aspect of capitalism that will also be present if our Churches were more willing to use an ownership model.
When I wrote that free will, property rights, and competition, were three of the main reasons why capitalism is successful and why I believe these same factors should be a part of a model for improved Church organization, I wasn’t trying to claim these three aspects of capitalism were morally good. Free will, property rights, and competition are morally neutral. I don’t think any of these three factors are part of our sinful nature or part of our good nature. They are simply part of our nature that can be used for good or evil. Jennifer did a great job of showing how Scripture describes these aspects of our nature are as being used for good. Free will, private property, and competition are also described in Scripture as aspects of our nature that are used for evil. The free will that God gave us, we use to separate ourselves from him as did Adam and Eve. We sometimes hoard our property, as did Cain and Abel and Esau and Jacob. We sometimes compete at the expense of others, as did the apostles to sit at the right hand of Jesus.
These same negative aspects of free will, private property, and competition will be present in our Churches if we change the model. However, this is not a reason to keep the old model because the old model doesn’t take advantage of all of the good aspects of free will, private property, and competition. I believe Capitalism has proven to be the superior economic model because of these aspects of our nature and I also believe it will prove to be a better Church model because of these aspects of our nature.
Derek and Jennifer left such great comments. Before I start addressing any of the specifics of Derek’s critique and Jennifer’s earlier concern, I first need to clarify an aspect of all of the factors that have made capitalism the best economic system and an aspect of capitalism that will also be present if our Churches were more willing to use an ownership model.
When I wrote that free will, property rights, and competition, were three of the main reasons why capitalism is successful and why I believe these same factors should be a part of a model for improved Church organization, I wasn’t trying to claim these three aspects of capitalism were morally good. Free will, property rights, and competition are morally neutral. I don’t think any of these three factors are part of our sinful nature or part of our good nature. They are simply part of our nature that can be used for good or evil. Jennifer did a great job of showing how Scripture describes these aspects of our nature are as being used for good. Free will, private property, and competition are also described in Scripture as aspects of our nature that are used for evil. The free will that God gave us, we use to separate ourselves from him as did Adam and Eve. We sometimes hoard our property, as did Cain and Abel and Esau and Jacob. We sometimes compete at the expense of others, as did the apostles to sit at the right hand of Jesus.
These same negative aspects of free will, private property, and competition will be present in our Churches if we change the model. However, this is not a reason to keep the old model because the old model doesn’t take advantage of all of the good aspects of free will, private property, and competition. I believe Capitalism has proven to be the superior economic model because of these aspects of our nature and I also believe it will prove to be a better Church model because of these aspects of our nature.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Is it unBiblical?
In a comment to my previous post on Church Ownership, Derek asks, “I grant you this: an "ownership model" is definitely "contrarian." But is it Biblical?” Derek’s question is similar to the challenge posed by Hammer in an earlier comment, when he wrote, ”Clearly, there are some in the church whose job can be to manage the "big pot".
I would never, ever, want to write or advocate anything that conflicted with the will of God or the word of God. I can’t even express how much it means to me to have Derek, Jennifer, Teresa, Hammer, Buz, Pete, and a few others who read what I write and compare my thoughts to what each of you know about the word of God. I don’t take different positions to be different, I just have a different way of looking at most issues. I pray often that my blog doesn’t become anything that would not be approved by God.
I try to stay away from broad generalizations. My opinions, views, and proposals are not for everyone. They are not even for most believers most of the time. I want to offer an alternative view and an alternative proposal to what everyone else is advocating. For the most part, I don’t see the point in advocating what the majority is advocating even if I agree with the majority.
If the Bible has a clear teaching on any matter, I would never advocate against what it teaches. If the Bible is not clear, I would still give the Bible the benefit of the doubt based on our best understanding of what it teaches. However, I will not automatically afirm traditions that are based on the Bible but not taught in the Bible. I don’t see where the big pot model is taught in Scripture.
I will address some of Jennifer’s and Derek’s concerns in a later post. But for now, I ask Derek and others, is anything I have advocated unBiblical?
I would never, ever, want to write or advocate anything that conflicted with the will of God or the word of God. I can’t even express how much it means to me to have Derek, Jennifer, Teresa, Hammer, Buz, Pete, and a few others who read what I write and compare my thoughts to what each of you know about the word of God. I don’t take different positions to be different, I just have a different way of looking at most issues. I pray often that my blog doesn’t become anything that would not be approved by God.
I try to stay away from broad generalizations. My opinions, views, and proposals are not for everyone. They are not even for most believers most of the time. I want to offer an alternative view and an alternative proposal to what everyone else is advocating. For the most part, I don’t see the point in advocating what the majority is advocating even if I agree with the majority.
If the Bible has a clear teaching on any matter, I would never advocate against what it teaches. If the Bible is not clear, I would still give the Bible the benefit of the doubt based on our best understanding of what it teaches. However, I will not automatically afirm traditions that are based on the Bible but not taught in the Bible. I don’t see where the big pot model is taught in Scripture.
I will address some of Jennifer’s and Derek’s concerns in a later post. But for now, I ask Derek and others, is anything I have advocated unBiblical?
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Church Ownership
Most people tend to take very good care of the things they own and tend to be less concerned about the things that are shared or belong to someone else. When I worked as a Real Estate appraiser back in the early 90’s, I would occasionally appraise a house that was in South Central Los Angeles, close to where the Rodney King riots broke out. The owner occupied houses were smaller but not much different from the houses I appraised in the better parts of LA or Orange County; the lawns were mowed, the gardens had flowers, the houses were painted, and the owners were proud of their homes. At first, I was surprised to see such nice houses in such bad neighborhoods, but the more I appraised, the more I realized well maintained owner occupied houses were the norm, not the exception. However, the rented houses in the same neighborhood were such a mess it was hard to imagine anyone actually living in them.
Private amusement parks tend to be maintained better than public parks. Private golf courses are usually in much better shape than public golf courses. Rental vehicles never accumulate as many miles as leased vehicles which don’t last as long as vehicles that are bought outright.
One of my biggest challenges as a parent is trying to get my girls to treat everything in our home as if it was their very own possession. One of the biggest challenges constantly facing large corporations is getting employees at all levels to take ownership of a problem. Corporate leaders know that when a problem is “owned”, it is usually solved, and when the problem is not “owned”, it is rarely solved.
Christian Churches have a similar challenge to the challenge faced by parents and corporations. The leaders of a Church come up with ideas for ministry and then depend on the members of the Church to fund and execute the ministries. In my last post, I wrote about what happens to the funding when members don’t agree with the ideas of the leaders. Execution is just as big of a problem as funding in most Churches. Members who try to execute the ideas of the leaders fail to meet the leaders expectations most of the time. But sometimes, the members even do harm to the ministry by not executing properly. I can’t even count the number of Churches I’ve visited where some of the Child Care staff had no business working with children or parents. The leaders may have had a great idea, but the idea never got executed properly because the leader didn’t own the ministry and the Child Care staff member did not own the ministry.
The solution to the ownership problem in Church is for Churches to abandon the big pot model. Throwing money into a big pot and then allowing a group of leaders to decide how to spend the money is inefficient at best, and sometimes even very harmful. A better model for Church would be for the leaders to be shepherds and the members to fund and execute their own ministries. For the most part, there is no reason why contributions need to pass through the fingers of the Pastor or other leaders.
Some ministries and projects would require the funding and participation of more than one member and some ministries and projects would require only one member. If someone wants to provide coffee on Sunday morning, just let that person buy the supplies and coffee and be the one who serves the coffee instead of having that person put money in a basket and then beg the leaders for money to buy coffee and supplies. If a group of members want to build a new building, let that group of members sign promissory notes to acquire the funding. The group of members who want a new building will end up doing more of the manual labor themselves if the funds are coming out of their pocket than if the funds are coming out of the big pot.
Under an ownership model, Churches will still need Pastors and Elders to: occasionally veto an idea that isn’t a good fit for the Church; coordinate activities between ministries; oversee some ministries; sometimes help with recruiting members for ministries; and sometimes help with getting commitments for funding ministries. However, Pastors and Elders will no longer have to make members execute the ideas of the leaders, and they will no longer be responsible for creating a budget and hoping everything gets funded through donations. Also under this ownership model, members will put their time, effort, and tithe, into a ministry that matches the desire God has laid on their heart instead of the ministry God has laid on the heart of the Pastor or Elder.
For the ownership model to work, Pastors and Elders will need to relinquish some control. I know the members are ready for a new model. I’m not sure the leaders are.
Private amusement parks tend to be maintained better than public parks. Private golf courses are usually in much better shape than public golf courses. Rental vehicles never accumulate as many miles as leased vehicles which don’t last as long as vehicles that are bought outright.
One of my biggest challenges as a parent is trying to get my girls to treat everything in our home as if it was their very own possession. One of the biggest challenges constantly facing large corporations is getting employees at all levels to take ownership of a problem. Corporate leaders know that when a problem is “owned”, it is usually solved, and when the problem is not “owned”, it is rarely solved.
Christian Churches have a similar challenge to the challenge faced by parents and corporations. The leaders of a Church come up with ideas for ministry and then depend on the members of the Church to fund and execute the ministries. In my last post, I wrote about what happens to the funding when members don’t agree with the ideas of the leaders. Execution is just as big of a problem as funding in most Churches. Members who try to execute the ideas of the leaders fail to meet the leaders expectations most of the time. But sometimes, the members even do harm to the ministry by not executing properly. I can’t even count the number of Churches I’ve visited where some of the Child Care staff had no business working with children or parents. The leaders may have had a great idea, but the idea never got executed properly because the leader didn’t own the ministry and the Child Care staff member did not own the ministry.
The solution to the ownership problem in Church is for Churches to abandon the big pot model. Throwing money into a big pot and then allowing a group of leaders to decide how to spend the money is inefficient at best, and sometimes even very harmful. A better model for Church would be for the leaders to be shepherds and the members to fund and execute their own ministries. For the most part, there is no reason why contributions need to pass through the fingers of the Pastor or other leaders.
Some ministries and projects would require the funding and participation of more than one member and some ministries and projects would require only one member. If someone wants to provide coffee on Sunday morning, just let that person buy the supplies and coffee and be the one who serves the coffee instead of having that person put money in a basket and then beg the leaders for money to buy coffee and supplies. If a group of members want to build a new building, let that group of members sign promissory notes to acquire the funding. The group of members who want a new building will end up doing more of the manual labor themselves if the funds are coming out of their pocket than if the funds are coming out of the big pot.
Under an ownership model, Churches will still need Pastors and Elders to: occasionally veto an idea that isn’t a good fit for the Church; coordinate activities between ministries; oversee some ministries; sometimes help with recruiting members for ministries; and sometimes help with getting commitments for funding ministries. However, Pastors and Elders will no longer have to make members execute the ideas of the leaders, and they will no longer be responsible for creating a budget and hoping everything gets funded through donations. Also under this ownership model, members will put their time, effort, and tithe, into a ministry that matches the desire God has laid on their heart instead of the ministry God has laid on the heart of the Pastor or Elder.
For the ownership model to work, Pastors and Elders will need to relinquish some control. I know the members are ready for a new model. I’m not sure the leaders are.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Giving and Budgeting
Free will, ownership, and competition within the Christian Church would all help to make Christianity a better and more attractive alternative to other religions of the world in the same way each of these factors have made capitalism the most effective economic system in the world.
I have never known of a Church that did not use a socialistic model for financing Church expenses and Church activities. Under this model, members, regulars, and visitors will donate money to a Church and then allow the Elders and/or Pastors to decide, prioritize, and budget how the donations are spent. Budgets are usually based on historical giving patterns and yearly pledges from the members. Most Churches allow input from the members and then require a vote of the members before a budget is approved. More often than not, contributions fail to meet the budget expectations.
It is a mystery to me why Churches continue to use a model that has rarely worked and will never work as a long-term model. I know there are some Churches where giving outpaces expectations during periods of rapid growth, but there are also cults where giving outpaces expectations during periods of growth, so citing examples of where this model has worked does not make it God’s intended model.
Understanding why this model has so many problems is not complicated. People who believe in a Church will give generously. Most believers look for opportunities to give. However, every time the Church Leaders makes a decision that affects how contributions are spent, some of the contributors become less enthusiastic about supporting the vision of the Church. Ideally, others would become more enthusiastic, but it is always easier for those who are already giving to start giving less than it is to start giving more.
Older churches intrinsically understand this dynamic, even if they don’t understand all of the reasons. Many Churches wither away very slowly over many years because the leaders never make a change of direction. These Churches continue to get contributions from long-term members year after year even after the ideas of the Church have quit producing new fruit because the long-term members have become very comfortable with the purpose of the Church, even if the only purpose is a Sunday meeting.
Getting rid of the big pot mentality will increase contributions, improve budgeting accuracy, and, most importantly, improve the effectiveness of spreading the Gospel and creating Disciples in our Churches. In my next post, I will discuss how ownership would change the contribution and budgeting dynamic.
I have never known of a Church that did not use a socialistic model for financing Church expenses and Church activities. Under this model, members, regulars, and visitors will donate money to a Church and then allow the Elders and/or Pastors to decide, prioritize, and budget how the donations are spent. Budgets are usually based on historical giving patterns and yearly pledges from the members. Most Churches allow input from the members and then require a vote of the members before a budget is approved. More often than not, contributions fail to meet the budget expectations.
It is a mystery to me why Churches continue to use a model that has rarely worked and will never work as a long-term model. I know there are some Churches where giving outpaces expectations during periods of rapid growth, but there are also cults where giving outpaces expectations during periods of growth, so citing examples of where this model has worked does not make it God’s intended model.
Understanding why this model has so many problems is not complicated. People who believe in a Church will give generously. Most believers look for opportunities to give. However, every time the Church Leaders makes a decision that affects how contributions are spent, some of the contributors become less enthusiastic about supporting the vision of the Church. Ideally, others would become more enthusiastic, but it is always easier for those who are already giving to start giving less than it is to start giving more.
Older churches intrinsically understand this dynamic, even if they don’t understand all of the reasons. Many Churches wither away very slowly over many years because the leaders never make a change of direction. These Churches continue to get contributions from long-term members year after year even after the ideas of the Church have quit producing new fruit because the long-term members have become very comfortable with the purpose of the Church, even if the only purpose is a Sunday meeting.
Getting rid of the big pot mentality will increase contributions, improve budgeting accuracy, and, most importantly, improve the effectiveness of spreading the Gospel and creating Disciples in our Churches. In my next post, I will discuss how ownership would change the contribution and budgeting dynamic.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Tithe
It should be obvious to anyone who has been around Church for any period of time that the big pot never is big enough. There are always more ideas and more ways to spend contributions than there are contributions. More contributions to Church won’t solve the shortage of funds any more than more taxes ever satisfy all of the needs of government. When it comes to spending other peoples money, there never is enough. If you don’t believe me, just go ask your Pastor or your dictator.
For most of my life as a believer, I’ve given my 10%. I believed I was obligated to tithe because I have always been taught it is Biblical to tithe. God has blessed me in ways I never could have imagined, so I can’t complain about how much I have given, but I will no longer participate in a big pot model of the Christian Church because the big pot model is a mess and it is not a model prescribed by God.
There are many interesting passages in the Bible about tithing. I would encourage everyone to do a study on their own. Most tithes have a very specific purpose and sometimes the purpose is even for the benefit of the person doing the tithing. Even though tithing is not coerced, it is very similar to a tax in some situations. The poor are even expected to tithe. Tithes that are used for sacrifices can be eaten by the ones doing the tithing. Tithes are used to support the priests and the temple. Tithing is used to diversify assets. [I bet a Pastor never told you that one.] The alien, the fatherless and the widow are to receive tithes designated as gifts.
I’m not pointing out any of these tithing principles to be legalistic. I’m legalistic about my lawn, not my faith. But I do want to point out that rarely, if ever, is tithing described as a big pot contribution where a committee decides how to spend the tithe. The tithe is almost always designated for a specific purpose.
Perhaps getting back to the principle of a designated tithe along with the principles of capitalism would improve contributions and the uses of contributions. In my next post, I will tie this together with capitalism.
For most of my life as a believer, I’ve given my 10%. I believed I was obligated to tithe because I have always been taught it is Biblical to tithe. God has blessed me in ways I never could have imagined, so I can’t complain about how much I have given, but I will no longer participate in a big pot model of the Christian Church because the big pot model is a mess and it is not a model prescribed by God.
There are many interesting passages in the Bible about tithing. I would encourage everyone to do a study on their own. Most tithes have a very specific purpose and sometimes the purpose is even for the benefit of the person doing the tithing. Even though tithing is not coerced, it is very similar to a tax in some situations. The poor are even expected to tithe. Tithes that are used for sacrifices can be eaten by the ones doing the tithing. Tithes are used to support the priests and the temple. Tithing is used to diversify assets. [I bet a Pastor never told you that one.] The alien, the fatherless and the widow are to receive tithes designated as gifts.
I’m not pointing out any of these tithing principles to be legalistic. I’m legalistic about my lawn, not my faith. But I do want to point out that rarely, if ever, is tithing described as a big pot contribution where a committee decides how to spend the tithe. The tithe is almost always designated for a specific purpose.
Perhaps getting back to the principle of a designated tithe along with the principles of capitalism would improve contributions and the uses of contributions. In my next post, I will tie this together with capitalism.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: The Wrong Model
God created people to act and react in certain ways. Our own sins and the sins of others prevent us from ever experiencing all of what God intended. Communities of believers should be more of a reflection of God’s intentions than communities that are a mix of believers and non-believers or communities that are completely non-believers. We will never be free from sin completely, but believers should be noticeably different from non-believers.
Perhaps one of the reasons Churches don’t seem to be much different than the other world communities is because Christian Churches have been using a wrong model for ministry. We have been operating with a severe handicap. Maybe Christianity has misinterpreted the description in the Acts of the Apostles of new believers selling their possessions and sharing the proceeds. Perhaps selling and sharing is a good idea for individuals, but a bad idea for the Church.
The socialism model that has proven to be an utter failure for governments around the world appears to be as equally pathetic in most Churches. The idea that believers can just throw money into a big pot and then let some wise Pastor or Elder Board decide the best way to allocate scarce contributions may be just as foolish as the idea to let a wise Dictator of a State government decide the best way to allocate scarce resources. My entire life I’ve been hearing about how believers need to give more to their Church. Maybe it is the Church, not the believer, who is responsible for the problem.
Perhaps our Churches would benefit greatly if we took advantage of all of the reasons capitalism is such a success. Maybe God didn’t intend for His Church to be socialistic. If God’s plan outside the Church is capitalism, why should it be different inside the Church? In a future post, I will describe some new ways this could work inside our Churches.
Perhaps one of the reasons Churches don’t seem to be much different than the other world communities is because Christian Churches have been using a wrong model for ministry. We have been operating with a severe handicap. Maybe Christianity has misinterpreted the description in the Acts of the Apostles of new believers selling their possessions and sharing the proceeds. Perhaps selling and sharing is a good idea for individuals, but a bad idea for the Church.
The socialism model that has proven to be an utter failure for governments around the world appears to be as equally pathetic in most Churches. The idea that believers can just throw money into a big pot and then let some wise Pastor or Elder Board decide the best way to allocate scarce contributions may be just as foolish as the idea to let a wise Dictator of a State government decide the best way to allocate scarce resources. My entire life I’ve been hearing about how believers need to give more to their Church. Maybe it is the Church, not the believer, who is responsible for the problem.
Perhaps our Churches would benefit greatly if we took advantage of all of the reasons capitalism is such a success. Maybe God didn’t intend for His Church to be socialistic. If God’s plan outside the Church is capitalism, why should it be different inside the Church? In a future post, I will describe some new ways this could work inside our Churches.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Capitalism: Competition
Everyone is born with a desire to survive and a desire to compete. Not everyone loves to compete and most everyone likes an occasional break from competition, but God did create humans with a competitive nature. Therefore, competition is the third key to the moral and functional success of capitalism.
Most economists rightly assert that competition is a major factor in the success of capitalism. When people, or organizations, or corporations, have to compete for customers, they will have to offer better products and services than if they were assigned customers by the government. When people, or organizations, or corporations, have to compete for sellers, they will find better suppliers than if they were assigned a supplier by the government. Health care is a good example of a system that is not market driven. Prices are high and choices are low in health care due to a lack of competition.
People who criticize capitalism are usually most concerned with the results of competition. According to the critics, competition causes some people to win and some people to lose; some to get more than they deserve or need, and some to get less than they deserve or need. I think competition causes people to get very close to what they actually deserve, but need is slightly harder to quantify. People who really need something will find a way to get it, while people who only want something will not always do what it takes to get what they want.
The aspect of competition that economists usually don’t consider or acknowledge, and the critics don’t understand is that competition is a process, not just an outcome. Our competitive nature is an inner drive that keeps us going when we have obstacles to overcome, it keeps us from reaching a point of satisfaction, and most importantly, it’s enjoyable. Thinks about it, how much of what we enjoy today is a result of someone or some organization refusing to quit? Temporary satisfaction is great, but how meaningless would life become with permanent satisfaction? Could we even imagine a life without having and achieving goals?
Most economists rightly assert that competition is a major factor in the success of capitalism. When people, or organizations, or corporations, have to compete for customers, they will have to offer better products and services than if they were assigned customers by the government. When people, or organizations, or corporations, have to compete for sellers, they will find better suppliers than if they were assigned a supplier by the government. Health care is a good example of a system that is not market driven. Prices are high and choices are low in health care due to a lack of competition.
People who criticize capitalism are usually most concerned with the results of competition. According to the critics, competition causes some people to win and some people to lose; some to get more than they deserve or need, and some to get less than they deserve or need. I think competition causes people to get very close to what they actually deserve, but need is slightly harder to quantify. People who really need something will find a way to get it, while people who only want something will not always do what it takes to get what they want.
The aspect of competition that economists usually don’t consider or acknowledge, and the critics don’t understand is that competition is a process, not just an outcome. Our competitive nature is an inner drive that keeps us going when we have obstacles to overcome, it keeps us from reaching a point of satisfaction, and most importantly, it’s enjoyable. Thinks about it, how much of what we enjoy today is a result of someone or some organization refusing to quit? Temporary satisfaction is great, but how meaningless would life become with permanent satisfaction? Could we even imagine a life without having and achieving goals?
Monday, July 18, 2005
Capitalism: Property Rights/Thy Shall Not Steal
The ability to keep, trade, or give away, the proceeds of labor by individuals is the second key to the moral and functional success of capitalism. When the property rights that were given by God and affirmed in the commandment, “Thy shall not steal” are acknowledged and protected by law, everyone has the opportunity to trade their labor or something of value for something else of value. The use of currency and bank accounts allows a person to store the proceeds of their labor for future use and future transactions.
Capitalism is not greedy anymore than socialism is greedy. Individuals who are greedy will be greedy regardless of the economic system. However, socialism does not account for the relationship between giving and getting that has always existed in God’s plan. In fact, once socialism is established as the economic system of a country, individuals actively begin trying to get more than they have to give. But in capitalism there is a direct relationship between giving and getting. The more the individual gives, the more the individual gets.
Individuals who choose [remember free will] to work harder, or work smarter, or work longer, or be more creative, are rewarded more than individuals who choose to do less. Some people start life with a head start by being from a wealthy family, or having good looks, or being bigger or stronger or smarter. But in capitalism, nobody is rewarded for simply being something. In capitalism the rewards come from doing something. The doing part is the great equalizer and the part that makes capitalism so fair.
Capitalism is not greedy anymore than socialism is greedy. Individuals who are greedy will be greedy regardless of the economic system. However, socialism does not account for the relationship between giving and getting that has always existed in God’s plan. In fact, once socialism is established as the economic system of a country, individuals actively begin trying to get more than they have to give. But in capitalism there is a direct relationship between giving and getting. The more the individual gives, the more the individual gets.
Individuals who choose [remember free will] to work harder, or work smarter, or work longer, or be more creative, are rewarded more than individuals who choose to do less. Some people start life with a head start by being from a wealthy family, or having good looks, or being bigger or stronger or smarter. But in capitalism, nobody is rewarded for simply being something. In capitalism the rewards come from doing something. The doing part is the great equalizer and the part that makes capitalism so fair.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Capitalism: Free Will
With the possible exception of the entire Cuban government, most entertainers, many college professors, and some Europeans, everyone by now should know that capitalism is superior to all other economic systems. Capitalism is both morally superior and functionally superior to every other economic system that has been attempted. There is no reason to believe any other system will ever outperform capitalism either. I’ve heard Christians claim that economics are not important to God. However, the very reason capitalism works so well is because capitalism is consistent with the laws of God.
The first key to the moral and functional success of capitalism is the fact that God created humans with the free will to make choices, and just as importantly, God punishes and rewards individuals based on the choices each individual makes. I know it’s not always clear why we are being rewarded or punished, and sometimes it feels like we are being rewarded or punished when we are not, but still, a basic of Christian belief, and a fact of life, is that there are consequences to our actions.
The more a society is controlled by legislators, bureaucrats, courts, and administrators, the less individual freedom the members of the society have. Conversely, the less a society is controlled, the more individual freedom is available to the members. Absolute freedom would create anarchy. The extremes do need some control. A society cannot let murderers run free or powerful corporations manipulate markets, but within the extremes, individual choices lead to the best outcomes.
When individuals are allowed to choose what to produce and what to buy, the most innovative producers and the most diligent shoppers are rewarded accordingly. Producers who recognize a need in society that is not being currently met can start supplying a product or service at a price buyers are willing to pay. If the price is too high, some potential buyers will choose not to buy. Likewise, if the price is too low, there will be more people who want to buy, than there is product available. Eventually, the interactions between the buyer and the seller will create an equilibrium where the supply and demand are the same. These free will interactions determine how much product is produced, how much product is bought, and what the right price should be. Some products are introduced with very high profit margins and some products are introduced at a price that doesn’t even cover the cost. Some producers are willing to lose money initially if they believe the long term prospects of their product will create opportunities for a profit.
When individuals are told what to produce, producers are not rewarded for innovation, and buyers are not rewarded for diligence or even allowed to choose what to buy. Socialized medicine and other government solutions to economic needs don’t work because of the lack of free will interactions between the buyer and seller to set a price that rewards innovative producers and diligent buyers. The supply and demand never meet because consumers want more than the producers are willing to produce. Theoretically, socialism could also produce more of a product than consumers are willing to buy, but in practice, socialism never is able to produce enough of anything because socialism doesn’t reward innovative producers.
My next post on capitalism will be about the second key to the moral and functional success of capitalism.
The first key to the moral and functional success of capitalism is the fact that God created humans with the free will to make choices, and just as importantly, God punishes and rewards individuals based on the choices each individual makes. I know it’s not always clear why we are being rewarded or punished, and sometimes it feels like we are being rewarded or punished when we are not, but still, a basic of Christian belief, and a fact of life, is that there are consequences to our actions.
The more a society is controlled by legislators, bureaucrats, courts, and administrators, the less individual freedom the members of the society have. Conversely, the less a society is controlled, the more individual freedom is available to the members. Absolute freedom would create anarchy. The extremes do need some control. A society cannot let murderers run free or powerful corporations manipulate markets, but within the extremes, individual choices lead to the best outcomes.
When individuals are allowed to choose what to produce and what to buy, the most innovative producers and the most diligent shoppers are rewarded accordingly. Producers who recognize a need in society that is not being currently met can start supplying a product or service at a price buyers are willing to pay. If the price is too high, some potential buyers will choose not to buy. Likewise, if the price is too low, there will be more people who want to buy, than there is product available. Eventually, the interactions between the buyer and the seller will create an equilibrium where the supply and demand are the same. These free will interactions determine how much product is produced, how much product is bought, and what the right price should be. Some products are introduced with very high profit margins and some products are introduced at a price that doesn’t even cover the cost. Some producers are willing to lose money initially if they believe the long term prospects of their product will create opportunities for a profit.
When individuals are told what to produce, producers are not rewarded for innovation, and buyers are not rewarded for diligence or even allowed to choose what to buy. Socialized medicine and other government solutions to economic needs don’t work because of the lack of free will interactions between the buyer and seller to set a price that rewards innovative producers and diligent buyers. The supply and demand never meet because consumers want more than the producers are willing to produce. Theoretically, socialism could also produce more of a product than consumers are willing to buy, but in practice, socialism never is able to produce enough of anything because socialism doesn’t reward innovative producers.
My next post on capitalism will be about the second key to the moral and functional success of capitalism.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Plagiarism
Has Walter E. Williams been reading my blog? : -)
Probably not, but I had a feeling he would get it right.
Selected excerpts:
"Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe. Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy."
"The worst thing that can be done is to give more foreign aid to African nations. Foreign aid goes from government to government. Foreign aid allows Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for its leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks.
What Africa needs, foreign aid cannot deliver, and that's elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case. "
Probably not, but I had a feeling he would get it right.
Selected excerpts:
"Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe. Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy."
"The worst thing that can be done is to give more foreign aid to African nations. Foreign aid goes from government to government. Foreign aid allows Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for its leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks.
What Africa needs, foreign aid cannot deliver, and that's elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case. "
Probability
According to Biological Scientists, around one hundred million species have existed since the earth was formed. 30 million are thought to still exist. [Source: PBS Documentary (Take it for what it’s worth; the exact number is not that important for the point of this post.)]
Only one species has ever cooked their own food, harnessed and used electricity, visited the moon, transplanted a heart, painted a Mona Lisa, died to save the life of someone else, written a book, embarrassed themselves blogging, and worshiped God (that we know of).
Doesn’t it take an almost unbelievable amount of faith to believe something would happen based on the odds of 1 in 100,000,000? What kind of intelligence does it take to place a bet for eternity on only 1 chance in 100,000,000 of being right? Can a person be a scientist and not understand finite math?
Only one species has ever cooked their own food, harnessed and used electricity, visited the moon, transplanted a heart, painted a Mona Lisa, died to save the life of someone else, written a book, embarrassed themselves blogging, and worshiped God (that we know of).
Doesn’t it take an almost unbelievable amount of faith to believe something would happen based on the odds of 1 in 100,000,000? What kind of intelligence does it take to place a bet for eternity on only 1 chance in 100,000,000 of being right? Can a person be a scientist and not understand finite math?
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Contrarian View From the Pew: Suffering
Sometimes people see the suffering of others and then feel compelled help. Many mistakes have been made by trying to relieve the suffering caused by injustice without addressing the underlying injustice or by trying to relieve someone else‘s suffering when the relief is unwarranted. Some suffering is good; suffering causes most people to get stronger or make changes. Injustice is never good. Taken as a whole, the New Testament usually shows the effects of suffering and then prescribes our response to suffering in the context of the injustice that caused the suffering.
I love to see my daughters suffer through a homework assignment. I love to see them suffer as they do their chores. Sometimes I will help to relieve their suffering, but I will never remove their suffering that comes from doing homework or chores because they need the suffering of homework and chores in order to develop their brains and their discipline. I love to suffer as I run an extra lap at the track. I don’t love the pain, but I know it is worth the extra effort to keep my heart strong. I absolutely hated the suffering that came with thirteen weeks of boot camp. Left to my own, I would have quit a million times. Thankfully, we have leaders in this country who understand the importance of suffering. What does “Take up YOUR cross and follow me” mean if it doesn’t mean to prepare to suffer and then suffer?
There are people who think the solution to the problems in Africa is for the developed world to end the suffering. They are wrong. Suffering is never ended by relieving suffering. Suffering is only extended by relieving suffering. There are some people who think prayer and missions and conversions will relieve the suffering in Africa. The are probably also wrong.
There was a time in the United States when a very large percentage of the population were believers; similar to today. However, during this time there was also a lot of suffering. Human beings were being bought and sold and traded and whipped and punished and sometimes even starved and murdered without retribution. The majority of slave owners were believers. It is easy for us to see now that it was a corrupted belief, but it doesn’t change the fact that they considered Christ Lord.
Imagine what would have happened to the institution of slavery in the United States if the solution to the suffering of the slaves was for the debts of the plantation owners to be forgiven and then have the northern population start sending aid to the south. I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t be writing this in English if the ONE Campaign solution was the solution to slavery in the United States during that period of our history.
President George W. Bush has proven to be a modern day Churchill in regards to Iraq. Nothing short of a modern day Lincoln, and more than a few modern day Yankees, who are willing to suffer, will end the injustice and the resulting suffering in Africa. Concerts by self-indulgent and pampered celebrities are an insult to Africans and everyone else who understands that good intentions rarely equal good results without the appropriate amount of suffering. Sometimes believers must oppose other believers when those other believers are wrong. I wish we all thought with the same mind, but we don’t.
I love to see my daughters suffer through a homework assignment. I love to see them suffer as they do their chores. Sometimes I will help to relieve their suffering, but I will never remove their suffering that comes from doing homework or chores because they need the suffering of homework and chores in order to develop their brains and their discipline. I love to suffer as I run an extra lap at the track. I don’t love the pain, but I know it is worth the extra effort to keep my heart strong. I absolutely hated the suffering that came with thirteen weeks of boot camp. Left to my own, I would have quit a million times. Thankfully, we have leaders in this country who understand the importance of suffering. What does “Take up YOUR cross and follow me” mean if it doesn’t mean to prepare to suffer and then suffer?
There are people who think the solution to the problems in Africa is for the developed world to end the suffering. They are wrong. Suffering is never ended by relieving suffering. Suffering is only extended by relieving suffering. There are some people who think prayer and missions and conversions will relieve the suffering in Africa. The are probably also wrong.
There was a time in the United States when a very large percentage of the population were believers; similar to today. However, during this time there was also a lot of suffering. Human beings were being bought and sold and traded and whipped and punished and sometimes even starved and murdered without retribution. The majority of slave owners were believers. It is easy for us to see now that it was a corrupted belief, but it doesn’t change the fact that they considered Christ Lord.
Imagine what would have happened to the institution of slavery in the United States if the solution to the suffering of the slaves was for the debts of the plantation owners to be forgiven and then have the northern population start sending aid to the south. I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t be writing this in English if the ONE Campaign solution was the solution to slavery in the United States during that period of our history.
President George W. Bush has proven to be a modern day Churchill in regards to Iraq. Nothing short of a modern day Lincoln, and more than a few modern day Yankees, who are willing to suffer, will end the injustice and the resulting suffering in Africa. Concerts by self-indulgent and pampered celebrities are an insult to Africans and everyone else who understands that good intentions rarely equal good results without the appropriate amount of suffering. Sometimes believers must oppose other believers when those other believers are wrong. I wish we all thought with the same mind, but we don’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
