A Customer’s Restaurant: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

For most of my life, I have been a frequent customer in restaurants. I have been treated like a king in a few, like a peon in some, and like a pure business contact in most of them. What I have noticed over time is that when I walk into a restaurant, I am on their turf and I play by their rules. They basically tell me what to do, where to sit, what to eat and how I am going to be served.

I don’t think that’s good enough anymore. In fact, I think the present operational system of the average restaurant is archaic and the rules provincial. It is time to drastically change how people are wined and dined in the twenty-first century eating establishment. I have listed a few of the needed changes. There may be more that come to mind as restaurateurs catch on.

• When a customer comes in the door, he should be asked if he has a special purpose for eating there at this time. Does he need to talk to a client? Does he need an out of the way location in case it is a romantic getaway? (Don’t ask if it is romantic.) Does he need to get in and out in a hurry? If by himself, does he need extended time to do some paperwork, make phone calls or work on his laptop? How about a newspaper or a magazine? These questions will allow the management to show sensitivity to the customer’s specific needs and then respond to them.

• If there is a wait, attend to the customer’s needs while waiting. Ask him if he has any questions about the restaurant, the menu or the service. If you have special services you offer, like a private dining room or a meeting room, you can inform him at that time. You can also talk about any unique features of the restaurant that may be of interest. Appetizers or beverages during the wait would also be appreciated. It might be a good time for the customer to sample something that he may not ordinarily choose to order for his dinner.

• Don’t seat the customer where it is most convenient for the management. Let him sit anywhere he wants to sit according to availability. When the concierge takes him to the restaurant’s seating choice, why make the customer unhappy or why put him in the uncomfortable position of asking for a different location?

• This may be a huge step, but tell the customer that the menu is only a suggested list of meals and entrées. Is there a special dish that he would like that does not appear on the menu? Are there any special needs he has for his food, like dietary restrictions or avoiding foods that cause allergic reactions? He should not have to make an uninformed server understand that he doesn’t want MSG or high sodium, or foods cooked in peanut oil. You should make every attempt to prepare the food to the customer’s specifications.

• Tell the customer that you will bring out the courses whenever they become available. Otherwise, you will look for his signal to come and serve him (refills of beverages, condiments, additional service items, etc). Some restaurants have used little flags for the customer to raise at the table if he needs service. Of course, if the customer likes to banter with the server, that’s fine. He needs to know that you will not bug him every five minutes or you will not interrupt his conversation with crass questions. (How is everybody doing over here? Is the food good? Blah, blah, blah.) 

• Work with the customer with regard to the bill. Separate billing for individuals or couples should not present a hassle for the customer, especially when the server shows obvious annoyance at splitting up the bill. Also, ordering an appetizer or a dessert should mean a percentage discount on the main entrée. Any complaint at all about the food or service should be compensated with a discount coupon for a future meal. Serious complaints should result in an entrée taken off the bill and/or a replacement entrée provided without charge. 

• Arrange the dining room layout so that there are secure places for coats, hats and purses within eyesight of the customer. Inform the customer of the route to the restrooms without him having to ask.

• Give the customer as much control over the ambience as possible. The type of music, the volume of music, lighting levels, direct sunlight shining in through a window, an air duct blowing on the customer, and any other comfort factor for the customer should be addressed at his request. If nothing can be done, at least offer to reseat him.

• If the customer orders a special creation of the chef, have the chef come out and serve it himself. He could then answer any questions about the entrée and show his delight that it was ordered. This creates an exciting touch for the customer and the patrons seated around him.

Twenty-first century dining is all about the customer. These difficult economic times make the competition more fierce than it has ever been. Good food is good, but good food and outstanding service gets the edge every time.

The Unfairness of Fair: Part Two

In teaching this lesson to my adult Sunday school class, I entitled it “The Unhappy Christian,” with the subtitle of “The Unfairness of Fair.” We concede the fact that a general sense of unhappiness prevails in our society at large, but why do we have so many believers in the church who are unhappy? Shouldn’t joy, peace and love characterize the state of mind for Christians? Shouldn’t we have supreme cause to rejoice when we reflect on our redeemed souls, our deliverance from the bondage of the world and our justification from sin? Yet, we see so much anger, bitterness, jealousy and depression among the very people whom God has rescued from a corrupt world. What’s going on, anyway?

This is what’s going on: We operate under false assumptions. We assume rights that we do not possess, we claim guarantees that God never promised us and we hold expectations about life that are unrealistic. When these expectations fail to materialize, we waste untold amounts of emotional energy by trying to make them happen anyway or else adopting an aggrieved attitude and blaming anyone we can find to blame, including God. A school teacher once told a smart-alecky kid, “I give you an inch and you think you’re a ruler!” God gives us more happiness than we deserve and, then, rather than showing him our gratitude, we try to push him off of the throne and put ourselves in the reigning position.

Years ago, those who attended Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, remember that he explained anger by referring to driving on the highway. Ever wonder why we get upset when someone cuts in front of us? Because, we think we had the exclusive right to the spot just ahead that the offending driver just took over. But, wait a minute. Aren’t you driving on a public highway? Do you have your name on that spot? Ludicrous, of course. Gothard said that the best way to resolve the conflict is to give up your claim to that spot. You never owned it in the first place, and the other driver has just as much right to it as do you. Once you realize that you were not robbed of a personal possession, you lose your reason for anger.

In my observation, three major points of understanding emerge from our examination of fairness. Each of them is based on false claims to non-existent rights. We must make a conscious effort to rid ourselves of these notions. In addition to causing us much inner conflict and anxiety, they prevent us from experiencing the presence of God in a way he truly designed for us. Think of it as making a bad, non-refundable purchase: not only do you fail to get what you wanted; you now lose your ability to buy what you do want. Insisting on fairness is such a two-edged sword.

The Goal of Fairness Is Control

First, the concept of fairness has at its root a human attempt to control God. There are certain things that God is “supposed” to do; and certain things he has no right to do, as least as far as we are concerned. For example, a referee in a basketball game should operate according to an official set of rules that apply equally to all players. We realize that in individual calls a referee applies the rules the way he see fit, but if he deviates too far from a common understanding of those rules, he immediately hears about it from one side or the other. He cannot make up his own rules as he goes along. When they disagree with him, partisan fans berate him, insult him and scream at him to be fair. They hope they can influence his calls by appealing to fairness.

When life sends us into a crisis, we feel as though God has violated a set of eternal principles which ought to govern the way he makes decisions. “God! You can’t do that!” Many of the Psalms of David illustrate this propensity of man to complain against God. While David never charged God foolishly, he was not bashful about expressing his grievances, his despair, and his perception that others were treated better than he. The twenty-second Psalm serves as a poignant example of his feelings:

“God, God…my God! Why did you dump me miles from nowhere? Doubled up with pain, I call to God all the day long. No answer. Nothing. I keep at it all night, tossing and turning.

“And you! Are you indifferent, above it all, leaning back on the cushions of Israel’s praise? We know you were there for our parents: they cried for your help and you gave it; they trusted and lived a good life. And here I am, a nothing—an earthworm, something to step on, to squash.

“Everyone pokes fun at me; they make faces at me, they shake their heads: “Let’s see how God handles this one; since God likes him so much, let him help him!” And to think you were midwife at my birth, setting me at my mother’s breasts! When I left the womb you cradled me; since the moment of birth you’ve been my God. Then you moved far away and trouble moved in next door. I need a neighbor.” (Psalm 22:1-11, The Message)

Fairness serves as a sort of trump card, our lever on the conscience of God. After all, what could be more righteous, more just and more deserved by every person in existence than fairness? But God will not come under our control. He will not be confined in the box of finite human understanding. We would do well to remember the incident in which Daniel pronounced a judgment on King Nebuchadnezzar. Without equivocation, he couched this judgment in terms of the sovereignty of God. “This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king…till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” Daniel 4:24-25. Nebuchadnezzar and all the Princes of Babylon had to realize that they did not control the one, true and living God in like they controlled their tribal gods. They fashioned their false gods out of their own imaginations. They assigned parameters of behavior and notions of right and wrong to their gods. They also created more gods if they felt that the ones they had were inadequate. Whenever they received distasteful answers from their false gods (through their high priests) they simply slew the priests and recruited new ones.

Jehovah God, of course, permits no such control. Fairness, therefore, is a theological question. God cannot be God if he must submit to our immature human thinking.

Fairness Has No Place in Divine Decisions

Second, fairness, as a concept, does not exist in the economy of God. Spawned in the vortex of our human existence, fairness is a strictly human value. The angelic beings had no expectation of fairness from their Creator God. The physical creation did not come into being according to some arbitrary rules of fairness. God does not now, nor has he ever used the premise of fairness to decide any course of divine action. It is not a human prerogative to search for it, insist on it or impose it on ourselves or others. God enjoys transcendence over all human opinions and judgments. The Apostle Paul must have been aware of how difficult this attribute of God seemed in human interaction because he makes it a theme of Romans chapter nine.

He writes, “For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:9-15 NIV)

“Is God unjust?” We find ourselves more in agreement with Paul’s rhetorical question than with his supplied answer. God loved Jacob and hated Esau? Yes. The Bible clearly says so. Close study of the Word of God bears out the reasoning behind God’s choices, but man still chokes on the idea that God would or could be so prejudiced. Everything we have ever believed about fairness flies out the window when contemplating this scenario. Yet, we are faced with the facts as they are given.

Why do we insist on fairness? Do we actually believe that everyone deserves equal treatment? Probably not. But, given our humanness, we have no other choice. In the world of human interaction, we operate in a limited field of vision and with limited understanding and prescience. If we knew everything we would like to know, we could drop the fairness routine and give people their just desserts. In fact, this is the very point that Paul makes about the will of God: God exercises his divine sovereignty when making decisions. “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

Paul explores the question even further. “One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? It is hard to resist such persuasive reasoning.

Our Adamic nature wants to do exactly what the apostle intimates. We want to rise up and interject ourselves into the thought processes of God. Absolute sovereignty rubs us the wrong way.

Yet, just because God is sovereign does not mean he acts cavalierly. God formulates his plans out of his infinite wisdom and his eternal purposes. Paul’s treatise in Romans completes this thought. “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:17-24). In the final analysis, we must always understand that God knows best. He not only has the sovereign right to act as he sees fit, he also possesses the supreme wisdom and foresight to justify his decisions.

Fairness Precludes a Unique Relationship with God

After we concede that we have no control over God, and after we adjust our thinking to the wisdom and sovereignty of God, we are still left with the question of why. What possible benefit do we derive from this understanding of God? The end point to which our journey inevitably leads us is a unique relationship to God. God does not homogenize his people into a dull sameness, but in uniqueness.

Thus, we all have a different pathway to follow. This is the message of John 21. “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.” John 21: 20-22. Jesus came close to saying, “It’s none of your business.” His next statement is profound. “Follow thou me.” Herein lies the secret of discipleship: First, follow Christ. But it is even more personal than that. You follow Christ! Embrace the uniqueness of your relationship with Christ alone.

In the same vein, the Apostle Paul cautions us not to concern ourselves with each other’s pathway. “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.” 2 Corinthians 10:12-13. When we engage in comparisons with others, or when we judge ourselves or others relative to our lot in life, we plunge into waters too deep for our shallow minds. This means that the entire range of troubles that befalls others may call for our sympathy, encouragement and ministry, but it does not call for our judgment. That pathway belongs exclusively to the individual that travels it.

Ultimately, the benefit we derive from this unique relationship with God is a unique revelation of God. Whenever we opt for a so-called fairness principle, we cheat ourselves out of a personal revelation of God that he has specifically designed for us alone. Perhaps re-reading the 23^rd Psalm will reinforce this divine purpose. Take special note of the personal pronouns used in the passage.

“The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green  pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.”

The scriptures teem with references to this exclusive relationship we can have with God. From the voice of God in the garden of Eden to the revelation of God’s grace to Noah; from the presence of God that David felt in the hinterlands watching the sheep to the special care God took of Elijah in the cave of his depression; from one lost sheep rescued by the shepherd in Luke chapter fifteen to the Savior knocking on the door of any man to sup with him, God offers each of us an intimate and unique relationship with him.

Think of it! In heaven, Noah will have a story to tell that no one else can rival. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and on and on, will all have a different perspective on the infinite attributes of God. Do you think Daniel thought God unfair when he was cast into the lions’ den? I don’t think so. Instead, he recognized that he was about to see an aspect of God that no one else ever saw. Even if he God had permitted the lions to feast on him, there would have been a revelation of God to him that would have eclipsed any pain or suffering that he would have experienced. The only way we can come to this conclusion is to completely divest ourselves of the concept of fairness. This old hymn says it best.

It Is Well With My Soul

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

-Horatio Spafford

The Unfairness of Fair: Part One

Kristen is a beautiful, intelligent, young woman, twenty-three years old. On the day she was to take a new job in a major city, she was diagnosed with stage four Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She had gone to the doctor complaining of a persistent cough, unexplained weight loss and other symptoms, never imagining what was happening in her body. A grim appointment with an oncologist and scheduling chemotherapy replaced the excitement over her upcoming move and new position.

Brian is a highly motivated, disciplined pre-med student, also twenty-three years old and still weighing out the career decisions he would be making in the next few months. His plans were interrupted by preliminary reports of a serious kidney disease. Instead of deciding his schedule of classes, he met with medical professionals to decide how aggressive his treatment strategy would be and the impact it would have on his life as a student and beyond.

Chase, a twenty year old laborer in the oil business, was widely known as a hard working and a loving, generous young man. He was a major source of income for his mother and siblings, often spending extravagantly on them. While cutting used pipeline from scaffolding, his welding arc touched off an explosion of a fifteen thousand pound pipe containing natural gas. Chase was only two feet away from the blast. He never knew what hit him.

At the opposite end of fate’s spectrum, we have this. Mark Zuckerberg, dubbed an innovator with a genius instinct, developed the social networking site Facebook at age nineteen. With a reported 110 million subscribers, Facebook has turned this young, Harvard dropout into a billionaire. Bill Gates (Microsoft), Steve Jobs (Apple), Shawn Fanning (Napster) and a long line of youthful geniuses whose wealth is now stratospheric, all join the club of gifted (some would say lucky) achievers.

Such wild fluctuations in fate evoke an outcry against the unfairness of life, as if a master, mystical bean-counter totally lost his mind. Many people, convinced that sinister forces are at work to punish good and reward evil, are overcome with bitterness. Others become depressed, thinking that God has something personal against them. Even if we dare to think these thoughts, most sane people—like us—dismiss them and determine to deal with life as it comes. In our more philosophical moments, however, the nagging question of “why” chews at the edges of our conscience.

Western culture has conditioned us to believe in the concept of fairness as an overarching fact of life. We instinctively expect equal treatment by others. We act under the assumption that we deserve the best life has to offer, just for being alive. We feel entitled to certain definitions of happiness such as good health, financial security, family welfare and the equal opportunity to achieve our life’s goals. Sure, we will tolerate minor setbacks in the general scheme of things, mainly because we admit to a bit of “fairness” in struggling. When those setbacks seem disproportional to our sense of fairness, however, we become discouraged, depressed and disparaging of the meaning of life.

The expectation of fairness in political life pervades our system of codes and laws. The founding fathers built into our governmental structure fair elections, fair treatment in a court of law, fairness in tax assessments, fairness in the military draft, and fairness in all aspects of governing the citizenry. Gaping loopholes and partisan administration have kept the system from a perfect application, but the concept suffuses our national conscience, nevertheless. It is still a work in progress because many areas of life exist into which fairness has not yet filtered. We continue to address such grievances. In a presentation to the Keeping the Lights on Human Rights Conference, Amnesty International, February 9, 2006, Gregory J. Levine, Ph.D.,LL.B., Barrister and Solicitor gives a representative statement on the accepted philosophy of fairness.

“At some intuitive and primeval level we all crave for fairness, for fair play and for fair treatment. We long for justice in our lives, for ourselves and our fellow travelers and fairness is a quintessential part of that longing. Fairness and equality are cornerstones of justice. Fairness ultimately is founded on respect for humanity, on mutual respect, on democratic impulses and on profound senses of social responsibility.

Our desire for fairness is found in situations great and small. Indeed it is in seemingly little injustices, if there truly are little injustices, that we often see the need for fair process and fair treatment most clearly…fairness is a human right, that fair treatment of individuals by each other and by institutions is essential for human dignity to be respected.”

This makes sense from a legal, political point of view. Equal rights under the law? Absolutely. Fair treatment from authorities? No question. Right to a free, public education? Yes. But then, we start getting into grayer areas. Is fairness to be defined as a human right? Although we might instinctively answer yes, we’re not really sure. How far do we go with this? Do we have a right to good health and good health care? (i.e., is it fair that some people can afford good health care and others cannot?) Do we have a right to a job, a home, clothes, a car? (i.e., it is fair that some people make more money than others?) Do we have a right to certain possessions, like an air conditioner, a television, a computer, a telephone? Such arguments juxtapose a conservative view against a liberal one. Strict, narrow-minded conservatives say no. Magnanimous liberals say yes. The fairness football thus gets kicked from one end zone to the other, depending on the political powers of the day.

No less a source than Time Magazine has helped to propagate this perception. Although this quote is decades old, it captures the sense of the concept still in vogue. “Certainly a principal purpose of human government must be to mitigate the unfairness that seems to be an integral part of human life—or, at the very least, not to compound it. The judicial system is meant to mediate, to knock the chaos of human behavior into a manageable pattern. The goal of fairness underlies American education, which has been regarded, sometimes more hopefully than accurately, as the way to give everyone an equal chance. Medicaid was meant to provide fairness in health care, so that if a poor man needs an $800 appendectomy or a $15,000 coronary bypass, he will, in theory, receive something like the same treatment as a character who arrives at the hospital by grossen Mercedes. (Lance Morrow, Time Magazine, August 1, 1977)

Before we naively swallow Mr. Morrow’s preposterous contention, “Certainly a principal purpose of human government must be to mitigate the unfairness that seems to be an integral part of human life,” we need to examine its pretext and consequences. Who has ever said that the purpose of human government is fairness? No one. The purpose of government is to provide an alternative to anarchy. We have a need to live orderly and peaceable lives. Government does that. How it does that is, of course, hopelessly complex. Libraries have been written on government and law, so it lies beyond the scope of this article. Still, the contention that government is to ensure fairness is fundamentally flawed. Fairness does not account for vast differences in people, personalities, abilities, resources, backgrounds, wealth, education, culture, strengths, weakness, talents, and on and on. Fairness does not govern the distribution of good looks, intelligence, or even, in many cases, opportunity. In fact, it is precisely when government tries to artificially force fairness that unfairness flourishes. One need go no further than to examine the quagmire of affirmative action initiatives to understand this, although enforced bussing, desegregation, animal rights and environmental protection laws could also be very instructive in the same vein. Moreover, how would we ever manage to apply uniformity or fairness across the board? We can’t. True fairness would require omniscience.

Philosophers have expounded on this theme forever. A blogging philosopher, Peter Prevos, makes this point: “The common sense point of view of fairness is a sense of equality. Our sense of fairness is cultivated at a very early age: I remember having fights with my sister over who should get the largest piece of cake and even using a measuring tape to support our point of view. Fairness as an absolute equality, such as in the cake problem, is a strange concept. If we apply this childish view of the world to adult problems, everybody would be paid exactly the same salary; would live in the same kind of house, wear the same clothes …” (Peter Prevos, The Horizon of Reason, 8-6-2007).

Yet, the expectation of fairness persists in human thinking. Most of us continue to mutter to ourselves, “I never get a break. Someone always beats me to the punch. What am I doing wrong? I don’t deserve this. Why isn’t this happening to other people? Why me?” We find it difficult to negotiate the reversals in life such as sickness, tragedy or loss. (Ironically, we never seem to experience too much philosophical angst over windfalls of good fortune!) We do anoint fairness as a right, whether overtly or secretly, and calibrate our psychological, emotional, financial and even physical adjustments to the vicissitudes of life. When something goes wrong, we have a right to be angry, bitter or vengeful. At least, we affirm our aggrieved feelings as right.

Reactions to a series of misfortunes vary between persons. Some assume that they are unworthy or inadequate. Others cross off their dreams and settle into a miserable existence without trying to analyze why. Some internalize their problems and develop serious or terminal physiological problems. Others make major changes in their personality, their philosophy of life or their ambitions. In worse case scenarios, those to whom life seems grossly unfair go postal, wreaking havoc in their homes or workplaces.

A prominent preacher in the UPCI, Brother Rex Johnson, lost his wife and son in a fiery auto crash a number of years ago. I attended the funeral service since I served with Rex on the General Youth Committee, and I remember well the intense sadness that hung over the congregation that day. Over twenty years passed before Rex was able to put his experiences of tragedy and recovery on paper. His book, With a Palm and A Willow, recounts the story in what he calls, “Reflections on a journey from grief to grace.” I was not prepared for the emotional impact the book had on me when I read it. After my tears dried and I re-read the book, I realized that Rex articulated, in his own way, the questions posed in this essay about the fairness of life. He wrote,

“Amid great suffering and monumental losses, Job asked God over 200 questions. The first night after losing Denise and Justin, it seemed like I asked God twice that many. Not only was I a decent person, but Denise was also the most honorable woman that a man could want for a wife. Justin was an angel walking on God’s earth. They were pure, right, clean, and respectful, possessing wonderful spirits. Denise was the kind of woman any man could cherish as a wife. Justin was the kind of boy any dad would be glad to claim as his son. Trying to digest being told I would never see my wife and son again wrung my heart and muddled my thoughts. Like fiery darts, thoughts pierced my soul and devastated my spirit. I kept thinking, “Things like this don’t happen to good people! This only happens to people who don’t trust God!”

Rex is a powerful preacher and one would be immensely blessed to buy the book and read it in its entirety. It is an anointed discourse on peace and comfort that God brings to a devastated soul.

In my observation, three major points of understanding emerge from our examination of fairness. First, the concept of fairness has at its root a human attempt to control God. Second, fairness does not exist in the economy of God. We are wrong to search for it, insist on it or impose it on ourselves or others. And third, our relationship to God is not based upon sameness, but uniqueness. Whenever we opt for a so-called fairness principle, we cheat ourselves out of a personal revelation of God that he has specifically designed for us alone.

I will elaborate on these in part two of this essay.

Accessorizing the Life

The headline caught my eye. “Accessorize thug-style, thanks to the state.” The story covered the ostentatious dress of high rollers in the dope business. “In the world of gangster jewelry, nothing says ‘bling’ quite like a diamond-studded crucifix, a golden pit bull, or a jewel-encrusted gorilla…Seized from drug dealers, some items appraised at more than $35,000 apiece, this collection of ill-gotten trinkets goes up for bid on Thursday—everyone welcome.”[1]

Sometime known as accoutrements, accessorizing refers to outward forms of recognition or trappings, like cathedral ceilings, heated swimming pools, and other symbols of wealth. Usually, accessorizing refers to adding coordinating items to a main wardrobe. Scarves, shoes, hats, gloves, purses, jewelry, even eyeglasses that go with an outfit are considered required dress for a cultured socialite. And, not just any accessories, thank you very much. As one ascends the social ladder, accessorizing translates into big bucks. Armani, Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Rolex, Gucci, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger and more are household names for climbers.

Don’t want to impress the elite crowd? No problem. You can accessorize the gang lifestyle by saggin’, super baggy pants ten inches too long and so big at the waist that the belt has to be cinched every thirty seconds. Add to that oversize baseball caps, big coats with team logos emblazoned on them, bandanas representing the color of the gang, chains, piercings, tattoos and $300 sneakers.

Goths accessorize. They color their hair black, paint their nails black, wear black boots (essential), pencil in black eye shadow, at least one silver ring for each finger, all black clothes (pants, shirt, jumper, jacket), black greatcoat, net gloves, and red tie with red nail polish. Preppy people wear classic and conservative clothing and accessories like button-down Oxford cloth shirts, argyle sweaters, cuffed chinos, and cordovan loafers. (Google all this stuff out online and you too can be a fashion expert like me.)

The sky’s the limit. You already know that you can accessorize your home (including each special purpose room in the house), but did you know you can accessorize your garden, your car, your bicycle, your individual sport (tennis, golf, skiing, etc.), your website, your cellular phone, your pager, your laptop, your handgun, your day planner, your child, your baby, your child’s baby (doll), your toiletries, your dog, your iPod Video, your contact lenses, your wedding, your deck, your camera, your healthcare résumé, your city (city?) and, of all things, your accessories?

The dirty little secret is that you can accessorize yourself right into an identity, just as surely as if a gangster tattooed his profession across his forehead. Truth at street level is still “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” When one begins to add the trinkets and toppings of a certain lifestyle, it becomes a dead giveaway that he or she wants to identify with that lifestyle, whether it is gangster, preppy or Goth. More than mere fun or meaningless symbols, people take accessories seriously. Many schools now ban gang colors and some clothing because they ignite fights between rival gang members. The accessories one wears speaks—or screams out—lifestyle values.

For the most part, the Christian world long ago abandoned its signature accessories, proclaiming the “man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” This departure from a scripturally defined holy appearance has caused many unintended consequences. It said that no one really knows what a Christian should look like. It invalidated Bible descriptions of holiness. It validated subtle questioning of and even wholesale rebellion against modest, subdued dress. It brought about confusion and strife among followers of Christ. It created a huge vacuum into which a plethora of worldly accessories flowed. It held those people up as a laughing stock who wanted to retain Bible holiness. Finally, it facilitated a tectonic shift of basic Christianity toward general worldliness.

Two things. One, man still looks on the outward appearance. Two, none of us are God who can discern the heart. The verse in question does not purport to wipe out proper appearances that define one’s status. The human need for identifying earmarks of righteousness continues to exist. In my discussion in an earlier article entitled Body Language, I raised this question: “In the church, when a man says, ‘I am living a holy life,’ and then gets drunk, philanders, and steals from his employer, his body language clearly contradicts his verbal messages. If a woman avows that she is pure and chaste, and then dresses like a prostitute and is frequently seen with different men, [in compromising situations], at all hours of the night, what are we to conclude but that her claims are bogus?”

I have observed, over the years, that when a believer’s ardor towards God begins to cool, telltale accessories of carnality start showing up. At first, subtle, barely perceptible signs appear. They are generally justified by these statements. “What? This little thing? Don’t be silly. There’s nothing wrong with this.” Or, “just because I’m wearing this, you’re ready to throw me under the bus. What kind of Christian are you?” Or, “I get so tired of you holier-than-thou people judging me!” Then, the road to full-blown rebellion is wide open. If I wear the colors, I tout the lifestyle. The Bible could not speak with greater clarity here: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” ^[2]

First, the Bible teaches us to be born again in which we adopt a radically new identity. Second, it further defines a set of behaviors and guidelines for living as an outflow of our regenerated life. The foundational verse for this is Romans 12:1-2: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” ² Lest we think we can define this any way we wish, the scriptures continue to provide guidelines for the way we should behave and dress. For example, consider Galatians 5:19-21: “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” ^[4] Also, 1 Timothy 2:8-11: “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” ^[5] The Apostle Peter further defines this teaching: “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.” 1 Peter 3:3-4. ^[6]

This sampling of scriptures about accessorizing the Christian lifestyle lets us know the general standing of Bible teaching. These are not silly, irrelevant throwbacks to an era of unsophisticated Christianity. They are solid, timeless principles which govern the attitudes and tenor of believers. More importantly, they are the inspired and changeless Word of God! Many more topics may be found throughout the New Testament, with underlying anchors from the Old Testament. We would do well to refresh our memories—and our hearts—with these Bible truths.

Some may protest that one can wear the accessories of the Christian fraudulently. However true that statement may be, it gives no standing to those who violate proper Bible teachings. Yes, counterfeit money is in circulation. That hardly means that we should discredit all money as suspect. Let us do what we can and should do. Let God judge the hearts.

In my view as a Pentecostal pastor and as one in organizational leadership, perhaps the most formidable foe of holiness living today is the spirit of worldliness. Today, it is more pervasive, more innovative, more institutionalized than ever before. The true church must not evolve into something indistinguishable from the pantheon of religions. Rather, it must devolve back to its roots if it is to survive and thrive. No, the holiness lifestyle does not represent the core doctrines of salvation and oneness theology. But, the holiness lifestyle is the Bible way to accessorize our life. And, holiness is inherently birthed out of a right relationship with God. Why? Because God is holy. When we adopt the lifestyle, we accessorize the life.

---

[1] Josh Shaffer, News & Observer, Raleigh, NC., 11-11-08

^[2]The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Jn 2:15-17). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Or reasonable

^[3]The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Ro 12:1-2). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

^[4]The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Ga 5:19-21). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

^[5]The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Ti 2:8-10). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

^[6]The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Pe 3:3-4). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

How Do We Know That You Know What You Are Talking About and What You Are Going To Do When You Take Office?

Hilarious, sad, stupid, ignorant and downright unbelievable. I’m talking about radio talk shows, media commentators, reporters, editorialists, political pundits, and partisan party hacks across the board. Probably the most honest commentary I’ve heard recently was a Bill Moyers clip when he was interviewing Tom Brokaw. His main point? “I really don’t know Barack Obama.” Rope-a-doped, Tom agreed. “No. We really know nothing about his core beliefs.” (Of course, that didn’t stop them from campaigning and voting for him.) The sheer volume of spin, disinformation and propaganda out there is formidable.

I have zilch respect for the words-for-dollars, stories-for-votes, all-the-smart-people-agree-with-me-anyway media who are either so jaded or so brainwashed that they produce their junque blatantly, in full view of their consumers. They have no idea that the back of their hospital gowns are gaping open. It’s like they keep jabbering away with a glob of mayo clinging to the corner of their mouths and the rest of us keep motioning for them to wipe it off but to no avail. I’m convinced that they actually despise facts, at least any facts that prove their stories embarrassingly wrong. And these are the people who act as the official clearing houses for the truth.

This isn’t just about Barack Obama. He looms as the biggest visible target, but he is only one of many people in government who make critical decisions. We should make a concerted effort to educate ourselves about them, whether elected or appointed, as we can. Obviously, we have to concern ourselves with those who will directly impact our lives on a personal and a citizenship level. I admit that the job may be nearly impossible. The public access to crucial information has become extremely limited due to privacy laws, plus a fair amount of deliberate subterfuge to keep many facts hidden. But we can at least discern whether or not we are being told the truth or being sold a bill of goods.

The political party to which one belongs defines the broad outlines of a person’s principles. This may be vague, but we’re forced to start there because the person in question ostensibly ascribes to the party’s position. Do you really know what a party believes? Do you agree with the platform in every respect? Does the candidate or appointee embrace every plank of the platform or does he or she openly disagree with one or several of them?

Here are some other important questions. They may or may not matter to you, but each question does have some value on a sliding scale of relevance. I have noted some reasons for the questions to connect the relevancy dots.

• How old is the person? (Generation gap, youth culture familiarity)
• Is the person male or female? (Gender issues, philosophical viewpoint)
• Is this person a member of a minority group? (Racial issues, activist interests)
• How much life experience does this person have? (Success, failure, breadth of interests)
• What pivotal experiences does this person have? (Tragedy, abuse, financial loss or gain)
• Where was this person born and raised?
• What do former neighbors think about this person or family?
• What experience in public life?
• Who are this person’s mentors?
• Who are this person’s confidantes and associates?
• What college or university did this person attend?
• What was this person’s major?
• Does this person have any renowned teachers or professors?
• Does this person have a paper trail of essays, term papers or theses?
• Has this person contributed to journals, magazines or newspaper literature?
• What causes has this person joined or backed?
• From whom did this person accept campaign contributions?
• Does this person have military experience?
• Was this person a union member or the member of a guild?
• Was this person a member of a secret society or lodge?
• What professional associations or group memberships does this person have?
• On what sports teams, if any, did this person play?
• What do former schoolmates, college roommates or teammates say about him or her?
• What jobs has this person held?
• What opinions do former bosses and co-workers have of this person?
• Does this person have any strong or out-spoken convictions?
• Has this person had any physical, mental or emotional issues in the past?
• Has this person had any legal issues to deal with in the past?
• What legislation has this person backed if he or she was in public office?

These are things I can think of off the top of my head. And, I don’t do this for a living. How much more thorough and exhaustive should the media be who have professional credentials in the field? Even extreme partisan hacks should want to know the answers to many questions. We are not hiring a person just to do a job. We are hiring them to make critical and binding decisions about our lives, our possessions, our jobs, our money, our families, our religion and our freedom. The moment we hire them we give them the power to destroy us if they so choose. The position we offer them comes as close to having absolute authority over us as we may ever experience in this life. We have a paramount interest in making sure this person knows what he or she is talking about.

Any candidate who stonewalls, objects to the line of questioning, lies, equivocates or refuses to answer questions should be disqualified for the job from the get-go. The gravity of the position demands the most stringent and tough questions we can ask. We have a right to know as much as is humanly possible about a person in public office. We give up this right at our own peril.

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: PUTIN STYLE

The following news report was filed by a brave AP writer, Paul Sonne on Sunday, December 14, 2008. Is this where America is headed?

Note the silence of the media on the protest. What is the difference between this and the intent of the Fairness Doctrine? Make no mistake. Those who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine are not looking for another outlet to publish their views. The alphabet soup networks and the press already do that.

Their real intent is to deny free speech to dissenters. Their vision: Accepted versions of news and commentary only. DISSENTERS, SHUT UP!

Police thwart Moscow rally, seize 90-130 people

By PAUL SONNE, Associated Press Writer Paul Sonne, Associated Press Writer SunDec14, 4:57pmET

MOSCOW – Police thwarted a banned anti-Kremlin protest in central Moscow on Sunday, seizing dozens of demonstrators and shoving them into trucks.

Organizers said 130 people were detained around the capital but police put the number at 90. The opposition movement headed by fierce Kremlin critic and former chess champion Garry Kasparov said the co-leader of the group was one of those seized.

The Other Russia movement organized the protest, in defiance of a ban, to draw attention to Russia’s economic troubles and to protest Kremlin plans to extend the presidential term from four years to six. Critics say the constitutional change as part of a retreat from democracy and is aimed at strengthening the grip of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his allies.

News broadcasts on the main television networks made no mention of the Moscow crackdown or of protests in St. Petersburg and Vladivostok. [Emphasis mine.]

Kasparov and other prominent liberals have just launched a new anti-Kremlin movement called Solidarity in a bid to unite Russia’s liberal forces and encourage a popular revolution similar to those in Ukraine and Georgia.

Kasparov had vowed to carry out Sunday’s protest although authorities had denied permission for it.

Before the scheduled start, hundreds of officers guarded Triumph Square, which was ringed by police trucks and metal barriers.

Police roughly grabbed protesters who tried to enter the square, dragging at least 25 people into waiting trucks.

Police also seized Other Russia co-leader Eduard Limonov along with a handful of bodyguards as they walked toward the square. They were bundled into police vehicles.

Kasparov and a group of supporters decided to avoid police by marching in a different location, then set off for a third site after finding another strong police presence, spokeswoman Marina Litvinovich said.

Dozens of protesters gathered at the third site and marched about a kilometer (half a mile) along a major street, shouting slogans such as “Russia without Putin!” before they dispersed.

Kasparov traveled by car and the march was over when he arrived, Litvinovich said.

Kasparov’s Web site said police in Moscow also broke up a protest by a hard-line group of retired generals in a square nearby and detained about 50 participants.The group, the Soviet Officers’ Union, could not be reached for comment.

The Moscow police said they detained 90 people. Some of the detainees were members of a pro-Kremlin youth group that staged a counter-demonstration, dropping leaflets from a concert hall rooftop.

Litvinovich said 130 people were detained in Moscow, including 18 who tried to enter the Kremlin through one of its guarded gates.

“Today we saw a police state and its methods,” she said.

Other Russia said most were released but many were ordered to appear in court later on charges of involvement in a prohibited public activity. It said Limonov appeared before a judge and was fined 500 rubles (about $18; euro13) for that infraction.

Lyudmila Morozova, 61, a nurse from the southern city of Voronezh, had planned to protest in Triumph Square but was put off by the massive police presence. She said the police actions showed that the government was afraid “some kind of power will rise against them.”

“I want my country to develop along a democratic path,” said Morozova, standing against a wall at the edge of the square. “It’s not only not democratic, it’s becoming totalitarian.”

She said she has joined Solidarity.

In St. Petersburg, about 200 Other Russia supporters demonstrated at a site approved by city authorities. But local leader Olga Kurnosova said at least one organizer was detained beforehand, and St. Petersburg police said about 10 people were detained at a separate site.

Popular support for Other Russia and other vocal opposition groups is minimal, but the Kremlin is wary about any evidence of public anger as its struggles with a potentially politically damaging economic downturn.

There has been little evidence of change in the government’s heavy-handed treatment of critics since Dmitry Medvedev succeeded Putin as president in May and stressed the importance of civil rights in his inaugural address.

Ekho Moskvy radio and Russian news agencies reported that several thousand motorists took part in protests in the Pacific coast city of Vladivostok against government plans to raise import tariffs on used cars.

___

Associated Press Writer Douglas Birch contributed to this report.

Integrated Chaos

The world is in a royal mess. We‘re in the middle of an economic collapse. We have financial markets in free-fall. Century-old manufacturing firms are begging for bail-outs. Radical religious fervor runs rampant. Military conflicts and threats menace the world. Terrorism keeps entire populations on edge. The environment poses great concerns for the planet. Social and cultural change creates turmoil everywhere. Access to energy sources are at crisis levels. Legal disputes cause bitter divisions. Criminal behavior has become uncontrollable. Rioting in the streets and in some nations, full-blown civil war. Governance has become nearly impossible. Political persuasions spin the solutions in the favor of competing parties. Our time will undoubtedly be recorded as the most chaotic era in history, yet one which boasts of dizzying levels of human achievement and progress. Chaordic.

A Chaordic Universe

Chaordic, a hybrid term fleshed out by VISA International CEO, Dee Hock, evolved to describe the mix of chaos and order, conveys the thought of an accordant coexistence displaying characteristics of both, each acquiescing to the other, yet each disrupting the other. Believers in a chaordic universe posit that all systems exist largely in this state. Living organisms, human organizations, integrated systems, businesses, nonprofit organizations, government entities and hybrid combinations of them all that are neither hierarchical nor anarchic, come close to explaining the nature of their being. Rather than analyzing how the chaordic organization develops, let us accept this as the twenty-first century reality. Unless we understand the complex interdependent nature of our world, we will inadvertently destroy nearly everything we touch. Unilateral decisions made without regard to integrated systems will result in “solutions” that will precipitate universal disorder.

Pick-Up Sticks

The childhood game of pickup sticks best approximates the integrated and interdependent association that describes the development of human organizations and their associations with other people and organizations. The sticks are gathered in a bundle, held vertically in the middle of the playing area and released. They fall into each other according to the forces of gravity and balance. In some versions of the game, sticks are of different color and one color is worth more than others. The objective of the game is to carefully separate one stick at a time from the pile without disturbing the other sticks. Each player gets his turn. If he succeeds, he keeps going to the next stick of his choice. Once he causes another stick to move, however, his turn ends and the next player takes over. The winner is determined by successfully removing the most sticks, or by retrieving the most valuable colors and scoring the assigned values.

The strategy of the game gets interesting. The top sticks may be removed with relative ease. As the players work their way into the pile, however, the weight and position of overlapping sticks make it almost impossible to pull one out without causing one or more of the others to move. Tug ever so slightly at one end of a stick and the player discovers that he has indirectly affected sticks layers away.

A player’s motive for moving a particular stick has no bearing on the consequences. He may fully intend to limit his manipulations to his side of the pile, but he interferes with the top, bottom and sides that he had neither intentions nor desire to touch. Even if he claims to have complete understanding of the entire pile of sticks, he still cannot move one of them without risking a major shift of positions. Moreover, once the shift begins, the pile undergoes a significant change with different sticks forming new associations and assuming new positions. The pile may become hopelessly entangled or it may totally fall apart. Every move affects every subsequent move.

Now, imagine if one player gets to keep playing even though every time he plays he disturbs the rest of the pile. He always says that he didn’t intend to move the other sticks, but it just happened. He continues to play, and each time the pile shifts more radically until the sticks can no longer be separated. The other players quietly sit by and watch. They have no authority to act. Eventually, the dominant player makes no excuses for his behavior. He just throws the sticks down at will and picks them up whenever and however he pleases. The other players threaten to leave because, understandably, they have little interest or incentive to play. The player then cuts them a deal. He tells them he will assign a victory to them if they just sit there and watch. If they are nice to him, if they tell him he is doing a good job, he will let them “win” more games than the other players. This becomes pure totalitarianism. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The Elements of Society

As in the pile of sticks, elements in the universal society of man have a direct and an indirect bearing on all other elements. Each element, of course, has its own individual shape and position. It has purpose, structure, operating procedures, controlling boards and a defined human imprint. It consumes, produces, takes up space and lends itself to measurements of success or failure. Yet, with all these individual profiles, no element can be treated independently of all other components of society. Whether we talk politics, the economy, education, manufacturing and labor, the trades, financial markets, the law, the environment, the military establishment, the media, health care, farming, social services, transportation, religion, recreation, entertainment, tourism, entrepreneurial pursuits or the underlying philosophies and passions that fuel them all, everything affects everything else.

Let’s isolate the current housing market crisis for examination within the parameters of this discussion. The government created two entities to extend affordable housing to people who could not enter the market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through a complex strategy too involved to explain here, we will just say that they pressured banks to loan money to people who would not ordinarily qualify. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then bought up billions of dollars of these bad mortgages and offered them to the financial markets with the backing of the federal government. The government has always been considered the safest of guarantees because it is not going out of business. This maneuvering, as anyone can see, affected the financial markets. Banks either closed or required bailouts to survive, investment firms lost billions of dollars and their clients incurred huge financial losses. With lending money drying up, manufacturing concerns now find it difficult or impossible to continue operations. Thus, labor costs have to be cut which translates into layoffs or elimination of jobs. The ripple effect is now in full swing. With no money, the trades, health care, transportation, recreation, entertainment and the entire economic playing field now deal with shortages and cutbacks.

If one looks at each industry unilaterally, this state of affairs seems grossly unfair. After all, what blame lies at the feet of the transportation segment of the economy? What role did tourism play in it? What about farming? Why should any individual industry suffer because of irresponsible decisions made about affordable housing in the United States congress? Precisely the point. No element of society is insulated from the decisions and movements of one or many other elements.

In fact, studying the whole series of developments in areas of society that seem disconnected to the current crisis may be extremely interesting. Why did congress make these decisions in the first place that caused the domino effect? Was it the politics of vote-getting? Did legislators make a blatant play for the votes of minorities that were excluded from affordable housing? Perhaps. If not, then were they motivated by altruistic concerns that people were being unfairly shut out of the housing market? That leads us to question of who raised this issue to the level that it garnered the attention of the lawmakers. Did unions or minority representatives raise the awareness of the issue by community organizing and championing causes? Did religious persuasions or beliefs have a hand in this? Or, did the educational component of society sow the seeds of unrest and chart a strategy to deal with the supposed problem? Now, we have to ask why the clergy or the professors were so zealous in their support of the cause. Again, did they have altruistic motives? Or, did a significant number of them have profound philosophical disagreements with the dominant status of the United States of America or with our capitalistic system?

We may conduct the same routine of questioning with regard to the American auto industry, now in the process of asking for a bailout. The conventional wisdom blames management. Stupid management decisions bear responsibility for the devastation of the car companies. Right? Well, if we impugn the car executives, we cast aspersions upon the academic institutions from which they received their degrees. Yet, we cannot overlook management’s resistance to change, inflexibility, irrelevance, anti-intellectualism, unsustainable car models and a litany of ill-advised acquisitions of businesses under the guise of diversifying their assets. Executives enamored with lifestyles of luxury diverted their attention from their primary business to irrelevant side issues. Still, we cannot ascribe all the blame to the people who run the business.

Maybe we ought to take our questioning a little deeper. What role did the imposition of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards have on the troubled industry? Auto execs say plenty. If so, then the regulatory oversight of the government caused the problem to a certain degree. How did these laws come into being? The environmentalist lobby. Insofar as the green movement was responsible for the passage of the CAFÉ standards, they became players in the game. Now, the green movement must come under scrutiny. Are their philosophies and data credible? Are their motivations purely a defense of the environment or are they front issues for political causes that have America’s punishment or even destruction in their sights? Even more esoteric is the belief that the environmental movement is the outgrowth of a new religion that worships Mother Earth.

The auto industry also points its finger at the bloated labor unions that have negotiated now unsustainable contracts. Some seven hundred thousand retired workers are on the industry’s pension rolls, plus a staggering number of union workers qualify for a so-called “Job Corp” which essentially pays workers for not working. Aside from these perks, the cash benefits of the union workers include wages for up to seven weeks of vacation and many paid holidays and days off. These contracts draw the support of political parties because they represent voters. They are also infiltrated by selfish and greedy leaders, plus the well known problem of union fraud and thuggish tactics. Are unions willing to expand their vision of the problem beyond their unilateral self-preservation, without regard to the impact on the pile of pick-up sticks? According to the International Association of Machinists, Tom Buffenbarger, it’s not likely. The IAM blog contains this statement. “A business plan that includes limits on executive compensation, prohibits companies from paying excessive dividends and gives the government an equity stake is warranted in this extraordinary circumstance,” said Buffenbarger. “What is unwarranted is any requirement designed to penalize employees or retirees whose unions have already negotiated substantial cost-cutting measures with automakers.”

This article can easily become unwieldy. Let us then point the reader into some further directions of inquiry. How does the banking industry look at the present crisis? What does the crisis look like from the perspective of international security? How do immigration authorities view the problem? Taking the narrow viewpoint of any one of these interests as it relates to their particular industry may have disastrous consequences for a number of other industries. Such is the nature of our integrated chaos.

The Dominant Player

In the end, the government has the catbird seat. Through legislation, executive fiat, and regulatory enforcement, lawmakers can pretty much do whatever they want to do. Questioning their motives makes no difference. Call them partisans, political hacks, bullies, tyrants or unfair practitioners of law enforcement. No matter. They can grab of any stick in the pile of their choosing and rip it out of position. They can create, destroy, modify, ruin or grant arbitrary success to any industry that suits their purpose du jour. Five hundred thirty five legislators, backed up by a like-minded judiciary has unlimited power. Three hundred million people are at the mercy of an oligarchy that the founding fathers never designed to operate in the way that it does today. The loudest and most effective lobbyists have the best chance to affect the outcome of any particular issue. It is doubtful that any group of lobbyists acts in the best interests of the whole. Their very purpose for existence is to clamor in the favor of special interest groups. They demand that the government pick their designated stick from the bottom of the pile and yank it out. The few take precedent over the many.

Who lobbies for the American people? Who has the interest of the whole in mind? What may be good for the housing industry may be toxic for the financial markets. What may delight the environmentalists to no end may signal the end of certain manufacturing segments of the economy. The sinister agendas of anti-capitalist professors whose tenure insulates them from reprisal may also incite their young learners to act in ways that will destroy the country.

Mission Statements

Reading the mission statements of several special interest groups, manufacturing concerns and labor unions is instructive.  Their reason for existence is clearly spelled out, and, as you can tell, it is not to help their competitors.

SIERRA CLUB MISSION STATEMENT: To explore, enjoy and protect the planet.To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out those objectives.

Natural Resources Defense Council’s mission statement reads, in part: We work to foster the fundamental right of all people to have a voice in decisions that affect their environment. We seek to break down the pattern of disproportionate environmental burdens borne by people of color and others who face social or economic inequities. Ultimately, NRDC strives to help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.

U.A.W. Local 723 Mission Statement: To educate our members in the history of the Labor Movement and to develop and maintain an intelligent and dignified membership; to vote and work for the election of candidates and the passage of improved legislation in the interest of all labor. To enforce existing laws; to work for the repeal of those which are unjust to Labor; to work for legislation on a national scale, having as its object the establishment of real social and unemployment insurance, the expense of which to be borne by the employer and the government.

GENERAL MOTORS MISSION STATEMENT: General Motors is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business partners will share in our success and our stock-holders will receive a sustained superior return on their investment.

LEHMAN BROTHERS MISSION STATEMENT: Our mission is to build unrivaled partnerships with and value for our clients, through the knowledge, creativity, and dedication of our people, leading to superior results for our shareholders.

Freddie Mac’s mission is to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the housing market. Congress defined this mission in our 1970 charter [PDF 54K], which lays the foundation of our business and the ideals that power our goals. Our mission forms the framework for our business lines, shapes the products we bring to market and drives the services we provide to the nation’s housing and mortgage industry. Everything we do comes back to making America’s mortgage markets liquid and stable and increasing opportunities for homeownership and affordable rental housing across the nation.

All of these mission statements sound good on their face. Their strategies for achieving their mission, however, may pose serious problems for anyone other than their specific industry. It is when their mission runs counter to other interests on the planet that they begin to flex their muscles. Eventually, someone has to decide who has the upper hand. That decision usually falls to the government. Can we trust our representatives in Washington D. C. to be one hundred percent objective and become fearless patriots interested only in fulfilling their constitutional mandate? Their track record discourages us from believing that. In fact, our government is filled with partisans whose visions are skewed by their political views or by their individual constituencies. The government, then, becomes its own special interest group…with one major difference. It always gets its way. Unless a massive lobby comes along that wants the nation as a whole to prosper, the future belongs to the partisans in government.

What is the answer?  The best answer is no answer. The only totally objective force that mitigates in favor of no one in particular and everyone in general is called the free market. Either we opt for centralized control over everything in accordance with the philosophies and values of political hacks in government or we let the free market determine our destiny. Brutal? Maybe. But it plays no favorites. A level playing field presents itself to everyone who looks to the free market for governance.  To those who think centralized control is better than the free market, I have one main question:  Who will exercise this control?  Once we assign the privilege of control to one individual or entity, we will have effectively shut off all debate, and with it, freedom to speak, freedom to act, freedom to be.

The Free Market

So, what is the free market? From Wikipedia, it is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other’s property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the transfer coerced by a third party.

Free market decisions are made strictly by the law of supply and demand. Free markets conspicuously lack control or regulation, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies. Artificial control distorts market signals. In the free marketplace, consumers dictate whatever prices that the market will bear for goods and services. The allocation of resources toward consumers and investors become totally a function of the whims, needs and desires of free people. In a free market, price is whatever the consumer is willing to pay rather than a governmental edict. Free markets stimulate competition between players in the economy, generally forcing prices downward and quality upward.

The free market is risky, but it is equally risky for everyone involved. It is especially frustrating to those who hold their ideas passionately, but cannot sell them to the general public. Such players tend to bypass the raw rules of the free market and work to obtain an unfair advantage over the rest of the players. This translates into political power. In its purest sense, political power is the power to make the marketplace conform to a centralized decision-maker. In a perfect world, that makes sense. In an imperfect world such as ours, it means tyranny.

Yes, ours is a system of chaos. But it is an orderly chaos. Our integrated systems can not be manipulated by anyone espousing a singular or unilateral viewpoint. If this happens, at some point in the future we will all get squashed.

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen

With our world in chaos and our nation’s future grim, it is more important than ever to retreat into the joys of Christmas. Some consider the holiday a diversion from monotony and others look to it as an escape from reality. We who live in a genuine relationship with Christ, however, know the incarnation story as the very basis of our salvation. Such is the theme of a favorite English carol, now over five hundred years old: “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen.” From www.thehunterslife.com, we find out the story behind the song.

“Years ago, the words ‘rest’ and ‘merry’ had different meanings. ‘Merry’ meant strong or valiant, as in Robin Hood and his merry men: they were not happy, but strong and valiant. Rest meant, ‘to make.’ So the line means, ‘God make you strong and valiant, gentlemen.’ The next line then makes sense, ‘Let nothing you dismay.’ And what cause do we have for such courage and strength in the face of difficulties? ‘Remember, Christ our Savior was born on Christmas day.’ The coming of God to be with us in our nature that He might bear our sins for us is sufficient cause for a strong and courageous spirit in this world. If God be for us (and His willingness to be our Immanuel, ‘God with us’ is proof that He is for us) then who can be against us? So, God rest ye merry, Gentlemen (and women).”

You are strong and valiant, even though your present circumstances stand against you. Remember, Christ came to earth in the weakest and most vulnerable form of existence and finished in victory over death, hell and the grave. He came in poverty and left richer than the wealthiest person who ever lived. Powerless, he became the King of the Jews. Slighted at birth, he attracted the love of millions. Unknown, he emerged as the most celebrated figure in all of history. Merry Christmas, indeed!

In Christmas, we have more than a mere symbol of a new beginning. We have the power, the authority and the right to make it happen. Let us bend down and look closely at the manger. We see a cross. Look closer still. We also find a crown. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Hebrews 2:9. Jesus tasted of our suffering. He now invites us to share his glory. We must not allow the manger, the stable and the swaddling clothes to obscure the Christ child lying in the midst of it all.

I pray that you experience the richness and fullness of Christmas blessings this year. You are loved, honored and appreciated.

The J. Mark Jordan family