A New Focus and My CPM Influences

I've been away from blogging for a while, and I'm sure all 2 of you who read this blog regularly have really been upset! :)

I'm introducing a new focus today!! For the next 6 months or so I have given up my MBA classes and will be using that time to focus on developing a plan for my church to facilitate church planting in India. (Before you give me extra credit for giving up MBA classes, you need to know that Sprint cut my reimbursement. God has a funny way of showing us the direction we should go!! )

I will be travelling to India in October to kick off the strategy so until then, I will be writing about what I am learning. I'd love for you to follow along on the journey with me.

First things first ... my thoughts on church planting have a bunch of influences. As I write, I'm sure I will not adequately give credit where credit is due so I thought I'd take care of that up front. Here is a list of people - both famous and not so famous - who I have learned a great deal from.

Ken Lumley - He would likely be shocked to see his name here, but he was the first person who taught me to spend daily time with God and how to share my faith. He also introduced me by email several years ago to an author named Dallas Willard who has greatly influenced the way I think about God and His Kingdom.

Bob Anderson - He reinforced in me what it means to be fully committed to a God. He demonstrated for me that God is worthy of our complete trust. I would not be the same person today without Bob's influence.

Jeff Lewis - I heard a talk from this man while in college that revealed to me God's heart for the nations in a way that has impacted me ever since.

John Piper - His book - Let the Nations Be Glad - is an amazing look at the desire of God to see all peoples find joy in Him.

Erwin McManus - His book - An Unstoppable Force - is the vision of what a church movement could or should be. His writing and speaking have greatly influenced me.

Matthew Nance - My friend and coach. He taught me that nothing is too bold. I have never met anyone with more of a 'just do it' attitude. The Kingdom needs more of that! Most of us have a 'just sit on my rear and listen to the pastor talk' attitude.

YK - The author of T4T which you will here a lot about. He is a humble, unimpressive man on the outside who relatively silently, in his own part of the world, may be doing more than any other person to expand the Kingdom.

Bill S. - The person who introduced me to CPM, T4T, and other strategies that are working internationally. An incredibly passionate and no-nonsense man who I admire very much.

Countless IMB Friends - I can't possibly list all the people I have learned from during conferences, training, and conversations around a dinner table. There are truly great people at the IMB.

Neil Cole - The author of Organic Church. A true practitioner of multiplication church planting principles in the USA.

Dallas Willard - A philosopher and writer whose thoughts on the Kingdom of God have changed the way I think about Christianity.

David Garrison - The author of Church Planting Movements. A man who took time to research what God is doing around the world and write it down in an understandable and doable way. I will refer to his book a lot.

Floyd McClung - I have just recently met Floyd. I have heard him speak and visit his blog from time to time. He is living all of this stuff out in South Africa. He's a great teacher and the Kingdom is benefiting greatly from his work.

Schaun Colin - A man who simply loves. He loves God, loves kids, and loves serving. I've learned a lot about love, justice, and mercy from him.

Peter and Joshua - two great friends in China who I miss dearly and who I learned a lot from in my two years there.

Matt Adams - A man passionate about following Jesus within community. I learned a lot from him about leading small groups in a U.S. setting which although I didn't realize it at the time, translates beautifully into church planting in an international setting.

Conservatives, Liberals, and the Great Depression

Just a quick post to share something I find kind of funny. Most of you probably won't, but I'll share it anyway. :)

I was in two facebook status/comment discussions at the same time. With one person I was arguing that government spending did in fact have an impact on the economy and the idea of a stimulus was a good thing. With the other person, I was defending the argument by Republicans that there is plenty of non-economic focused spending in the stimulus bill that shouldn't be there. Then in unison ... they both bring it up - The Great Depression.

Person 1 paraphrase: The Great Depression showed that government intervention works - FDR was a hero.

Person 2 paraphrase: The Great Depression showed that government intervention didn't work - FDR was a goof. We would have recovered much quicker without him.

Hilarious. Same event, and two completely opposite views ... so I did what anyone would do - I googled it. Turns out the real economists are split pretty evenly on this as well. The cause of the Great Depression is generally agreed upon (Money Supply, Gold Standard, etc.) The reasoning for why it took us over 12 years to recover is not. Very good arguments have been made both ways by people smarter than me. It's hard to argue with the fact that we did recover ... eventually. It is also hard to argue with the fact that it was the worst (most prolonged and painful) recovery ever. Oh yes ... and that most all the other countries in the world suffering through the same depression recovered much quicker.

Another interesting note: FDR was viewed at that time much as Obama is now, and Hoover was viewed much as Bush is now. FDR could do no wrong. I ran into a Will Rogers quote, he basically said that FDR was idolized so much that he could burn down the white house and the public would say 'great, look at that, we started a fire!'. Hoover was thought to be market driven and relaxed on government-intervention but his actions in office were anything but. This reminds me of Bush talking about fiscal responsibility and spending a whole bunch of money.

So the lesson here in my humble opinion is to beware of group-think. We all have a certain opinion, then we read things that mostly match that opinion. Look at anyone's blog roll to see this - generally not much diversity there. As we read more, we begin to lean even more in that direction. Eventually we think one side is right and the other side is wrong when the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. If living in China taught me anything, it is that we as humans are not the independent thinkers we claim to be - we are very much a product of the information we take in.

Some Random Thoughts

There is not enough time for blogging lately ... here's what's been on my mind.

1. our congress as a whole is dishonest and disappointing and that is about as gentle as I can put it. This article explains it well: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/cafferty.stimulus/index.html

2. excited that the India microfinance ministry my wife and I are helping with will have a story in the KC Star ... Wednesday I think ... look for it.

3. bummed I have to quit school for a while (Sprint cut my funding :) ). I will have to come up with some other kind of project to work on in the mean time.

4. impressed with the coaching job Bill Self did against kstate on Saturday ... assigning lesser players to begin fouling Clemente and Pullen consistently was brilliant (and perfectly legal). Clemente has got to keep his cool there.

5. btw, I think Frank did a good coaching job as well - just has less talent right now. He doesn't have the 'bring everyone up top and then lob a 30 foot pass to the big guy' option.

5. wishing people would stop calling Clemente's frustration hit to the head of Reed a punch. Reed didn't even notice it or turn around. If it was a punch, he would have. Clemente shouldn't have done it ... but it was not a punch. My two year old hits harder than that. Same deal with the elbow ... yes - it was correctly called a technical, no - he was not really trying to hurt him. Again, I've been elbowed more seriously by my two year old in the last 24 hours. :)

6. pondering why Christians have to be so cheesy. Have you listened to KLove lately ... uggh.

7. amazed at the simplicity yet profoundness of Jesus' stories - there is so much meaning packed into simple stories about seeds, wheat, fruit, harvest, loans, sons, daughters, and money.

8. also amazed at the story of Joseph - one of the few old testament men who did almost everything right. Most of the others seem to be blessed in spite of themselves.

9. now you know where I'm at in my read through the Bible in a year effort ... can't wait to blog on Leviticus. Yippee.

Cheney's comments - Scary!!

An excerpt from a report on an interview with former VP, Cheney:

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said in the interview published Wednesday.
"These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek," he said.

Yikes, these are some scary comments. How can a person not be more concerned about values like freedom, and human rights than these quotes show? In my mind the only way you can possibly justify this type of behavior is if you are confident that every person you are interrogating is in fact guilty. In my opinion, there is no way that is possible. We have been torturing innocent people, and the fact is you could make a good case we shouldn't even be torturing the guilty ones!

I personally am willing to sacrifice a bit of safety in order to stand up for American values. If you think about it, we actually do that every day with domestic policy. I have lived in mainland China and can tell you that I have never felt safer than when I was there. However, freedom and human rights are greatly sacrificed there to achieve this safety. They execute people for things we would not. They do not allow any type of firearms at all. Often times you are guilty until proven innocent.

2000 or so people died in the twin towers attack, and that is terrible. But how many people have died due to gunshots? How many people have died because convicted felons are put back on the street? How many people have died because we presume innocence? My guess is it is a much bigger number than 2000 - and yet we are generally ok with it because it preserves our values of freedom and human rights.

We sacrifice our local safety daily so we can experience these liberties. Why should this change when we look at foreign policy? I don't think it should. Treat all people as human, with respect, and value them. This is how we will set an example for the world. If it makes us a little less safe, so be it.

Cut it off!

I'm still spending time reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount. Today I thought of something I've never thought of before. I'm sure someone has somewhere, but I've never heard it.

When Jesus says "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out," or "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off," it has always been a bit confusing to me. I've always just accepted that he is exagerating for effect ... after all it would be ludicrous to start chopping off body parts. (and painful!)

Here is my new thought: His point is more literal than that. This actually WOULD be the way to handle it if the parts of your body were causing you to sin, BUT THEY ARE NOT! He is not exaggerating. Instead he is mis-attributing the cause of your sin and taking that to it's logical conclusion so you realize how ridiculous it is! The truth is that at the end of all the chopping, you would be a bloody stump and still have a sinful heart. You've addressed the symptoms, but not the cause.

Your eye is not causing you to sin, and neither is your hand. Sin is not about the body, it is about the heart. The body is only an expression of the heart. This fits in beautifully with his next words equating adultery and lust, as well as his words equating hate and murder. He is telling us that it is not about the outside, it is about the inside. It is so clear, I am not sure why I haven't heard it or thought it before.

Thoughts on Economics and the Stimulus

Economics is complicated. That's why I like it. There are right answers and wrong answers, but no one is sure which is which. It's the kind of stuff that makes your brain turn. I am not an expert, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about it!

First, the economy is nothing more than the resources (money) we spend. There are three parts to this ... what we as consumers spend, what businesses spend, and what the Government spends.

So let's look at consumer spending:

We can stimulate by lowering our taxes, right? This gives us all more to spend so it stimulates the economy. True, and it has worked in the past. But logic says it can't work forever. Eventually taxes get so low that the government can't function. I don't know about you but I like having schools my kids can go to and roads to drive on.

At some point these huge government deficits are unsustainable ... lowering taxes makes that situation worse.

Right now, if our taxes were lower, most of us would save a good chunk of it (or pay off debt). These actions do not help the economy at all. So you've taken a big chunk out of the efficiency of this solution. I get an extra 1000 dollars, but I only spend 200 more than I would have without it. Not a very good return on investment.

A lot of what we would buy with our extra money is actually an import. A good chunk of it would go overseas to China or the like. China in the past has been generous in reinvesting that money in the US Government and US companies. Those investments aren't looking so good now. I doubt they will keep it up.

Some will say that lowering taxes will raise tax revenues in the future because the economy will be stimulated, causing us to earn more, thereby the percentage of our income goes down, but the tax dollars we pay goes up. This may be true at some levels. Logic again says this doesn't work forever. If taxes hit zero, revenue does not go up - there is none! Somewhere there is a line.

Lowering taxes generally affects those who pay taxes so it has a disproportional benefit on the rich. The rich have money, so it makes sense to stimulate the economy by starting with them, but this increases the gap between rich and poor. Trickle down economics is just that ... a very small trickle ever makes it to the poor.

Business Investment:

I don't have much to say on this one other than our tax rates on businesses are high and I don't really understand why. In my uneducated opinion, I would think that lowering this would be the best way to stimulate the economy. Of course, most people would see this as bailing out the CEOs while we little people get nothing. I don't get that. CEOs make way too much ... I agree. But my company also pays my salary, and I kind of like that. We all get paid by companies. If they benefit, we benefit.

Government Spending:

Here is where things get messy. As best I can tell it has never really worked. However, it is still very attractive because the people running the show get to throw lots of money at whatever they want. I read an article in the WSJ the other day saying Obama's team was using a multiplier figure of 1.5 - meaning that for every billion they spend, they think the economy will benefit by 1.5 billion. I totally don't get that! If that's really true, why not spend 10 Trillion, or 100 Trillion ... I mean a 50% return is pretty stinkin' good!

First of all the Government doesn't have the money to spend - so the cost of borrowing money must get added in and it rarely is. This would lower efficiency and take the multiplier below 1.

The government is generally inefficient. They do less with the same amount of money than a private corporation would. This would lower efficiency and take the multiplier below 1.

Government spending takes a long time which leads to inefficiency. Have you ever seen them do anything fast?

Government spending can be focused on domestic investment so this is a big advantage over tax cuts.

Government spending can be focused on the poor which may not do much for the economy, but is a nice plus.

Government spending can potentially use resources (labor, etc.) that would have otherwise been used for private investment. This lowers efficiency. The only way government spending doesn't do this is if every resource the government pays for would otherwise be sitting idle - an impossibility.

Whew! That's enough for now. Here is where I fall after all of this: I think theoretically government spending would work the best if and only if we were smart enough to know how to do it. The problem is, we are not! We may or may not target the right things. The thing I like about lowering taxes is that it allows everyone to try something different which increases the chance that someone will succeed in spurring on the economy. I think this is why tax cuts have proven to work in the past, and government spending results have been debatable.

If I were king for a day ...
First of all, I would have more information and need to be quite a bit smarter, but ignoring that point:
I would lower business taxes and temporarily lower consumer taxes.
I would focus government spending on specific projects that support business. (roads, power, etc.)
I would focus government spending on the poor so that we try to do some good. If we have to spend it somewhere, I would prefer there.

So that's my plan. Similar to what's out there, but different. More business tax cuts, and less government spending (with more focus). Of course, that wouldn't be very good politically for a lot of people ... and that brings us back to what makes government inefficient.

Our bodies are good!

I've been spending some time reflecting on some talks I heard this weekend by Christopher West. Christopher is a Catholic theologian and spoke incredibly eloquently about the Theology of the Body written by Pope John Paul II. Here is my attempt to summarize the key take away for me:

The body is good. It is not something to be killed, but something to be treasured. Our problem is that we do not treasure it enough. Our body is in fact the very way that God brings visibility to spiritual truth. We, the church, are the body of Christ - that is we are the physical reality of Christ in the world. Without our bodies we can not be what we were designed to be.

The quest for sexual purity is not one that requires us to put to death our desires, but to instead satisfy our desires in the only way that can result in ultimate satisfaction. Satisfaction that is shameless, pure, and beautiful - satisfaction that satisfies completely and does not send us on a quest for more. For those of us that are married, this satisfaction comes from the oneness we experience with our spouse. This oneness is a symbol of the oneness we will one day experience with Christ. For those of us that are single, this satisfaction comes from discovering that our desires can lead us to a oneness with Christ in such a way that we find a satisfaction in Him that is impossible for a married person to experience. I admit, the married way sounds better to me, but I suspect this is because I do not accurately grasp what an undistracted life, completely and totally enveloped by God, would be like.

The problem is not that we have desires, but that we too often satisfy them in ways that miss the mark. The Bible calls 'missing the mark' sin - falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Sin is simply taking a legitimate desire meant to point us to God, and satisfying it in a way that falls short. By falling short, we rob God of his glory, and rob ourselves of our joy.

Here are some quotes that express this truth better than I ever could:

"The body, in fact, and only the body, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It has been created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the mystery hidden from eternity in God, and thus to be a sign of it" - Pope John Paul II

"I know some muddle-headed Christians have talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body - were bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body - which believes that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness." C.S. Lewis

"Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God" G.K. Chesterton