Since having an atrial fibrillation episode and finding few clues on what may have caused it (even after a very thorough battery of medical tests), I am going to do the following things (and may add to my list as time goes by):
1. I will follow my doctor’s orders. The only thing my doctor suggested was that I have a study made to see if I have sleep apnea. A lack of sufficient oxygen to the heart caused by sleep apnea could have been a contributing factor in my episode. I have already scheduled a sleep apnea test.
2. One of the suggestions from the instructions for my sleep apnea was to avoid caffeine (coffee, tea, soda pop with caffeine, cocoa, or chocolate) within six hours of bedtime. If that is an influence on studying sleep apnea, it must also apply to everyday sleep. I will address this issue, though it is not a big one for me. I suspect the bigger problem for me is eating snacks while I watch TV after dinner. I am going to stop that.
3. The doctor gave me a prescription for some medication (a beta-blocker), but he said I could just use it if I sense another episode coming on. I have decided on a more cautious approach and will take the medication for a couple of months as I try to deal with my other strategies. I will keep a small supply on hand to use if symptoms recur.
4. I am going to make a concerted effort to deal with issues that may contribute to stress. These strategies already are being tested. Before I went to the hospital, we were dealing with problems with our home air conditioner at the same time we were trying to get away for a week of vacation. While I was in the hospital, the air conditioning system was checked; and no problems were found. My first morning home, however, the same problem recurred with the system. The subsequent service call revealed that we need a new control panel for our air conditioner/furnace. At least the cause appears to have been found, but here was an immediate test of my capacity to handle the kinds of little things that contribute to stress. The air conditioning service agent had hardly walked out the door before one of our commodes became stopped up. After almost all attempts to get it unstopped failed and I was on the verge of calling a plumber, we finally got the stoppage resolved, but not without making a tremendous mess on our bathroom floor. I could almost feel my heart saying, “Here I go again.” When I feel stress building up in such situations, I am going to make a concerted effort to relax. A few deep breaths and a conscious attempt to pull back from the anxiety, anger (is that what I am feeling?), and inclination to want to resolve every problem immediately will be my first line of coping mechanisms.
5. I am going to stop doing things that I know create unnecessary stress. One of these is playing timed games on Facebook and my computer. The deadline nature of these timed games adds to the excitement of them, but the excitement is just another form of unnecessary stress. I am resolved to give these up completely. Games that require problem-solving that is not driven by an artificial deadline will still be part of my computer experience (unless I begin to take them too seriously), but the rest are gone. If my friendly competitors on Bejeweled Blitz see me playing, please remind me of my resolution. This is going to require a kind of twelve-step program for me, for I have loved these games since I bought my first Atari. If I am going to reduce stress, however, I’m going to have to let this kind of stress go.
6. I am one of those people who, when I wake up in the middle of the night, find my mind going into problem-solving mode. We have spent a lot of time with the last of our home-remodeling projects during the last year. It seems that every one of these projects had something significant go wrong. Whether it has been fretting over the poor installation job done by the plumber who installed our new master bath shower stall, or our boat dock coming untethered, or our boat battery giving up the ghost, or a hundred other things, I have found myself awake for hours in the middle of the night planning strategies, considering options, or searching for solutions. The lack of sleep has for years influenced by alertness during the day. At time highway driving in the afternoon has become hazardous, trying to listen to a sermon while sitting in the choir loft has become embarrassing, and giving attention to my writing assignments has been interrupted by brief afternoon naps. Here is how I am going to attempt to address this issue:
a. I am creating a “WAT List” and will put it on my bedside table. “WAT List” stands for “Worry About Tomorrow List.” When I awake at night and begin to stew over something, I’m going to add that item to my list and then make every attempt to banish it from my mind until the next morning.
b. In conjunction with that, I am adding to the old adage: “Don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today.” My addition will be: Today ends when I go to bed at night, and tomorrow doesn’t begin until I get up in the morning.” So my adaptation is, “Do not attempt to deal with any matter after you go to bed at night and before you get up the next morning. Sleep is a time of rest and relaxation, not a time to continue solving today’s problems or a chance to get ahead on tomorrow’s problems.”
If you have other ideas to add to my strategies, please feel free to contribute them.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Looking at Executive Compensation
In 1981 I bought 100 shares of Exxon stock. It has been the best long-term investment that I have made in my life. The company itself (now known as ExxonMobil) is one of the largest and most influential companies in the world. Because I own the stock and receive its annual report, I was able to gather the following information about the compensation of its chief executive officer (CEO).
Let me preface this report with a brief statement. American companies devote many pages in their annual reports explaining the rationale for and the details about the compensation of their executives. The rationale is that a CEO should be rewarded for the successful leadership he (or occasionally she) has provided for the company. In addition, the executive’s interests should be aligned with the interests of the company, which means they should receive a large portion of their income based on the successful performance of the company’s stock. In order to enhance this alignment of interests, a significant portion of the executive’s compensation involves the granting of shares of company stock or options to purchase shares of the stock at a fixed price. In essence, the owners (the shareholders) of the company are giving away a portion of the company each year to the executives so that the executives will do the job for which they are being paid better than they would if they were just paid like the rest of the company’s employees. Many companies give their executives the equivalent of two or three percent of the company every five years. In 150 years they will have virtually given away the entire company (in actuality, the shareowners’ ownership is merely being diluted).
Decisions about executive compensation are made by a board of directors elected by the shareholders (though nominated by the currently entrenched board of directors, which generally is composed of CEOs of other companies). In the case of ExxonMobil, the members of this board of directors are paid $240,000 to $614,000 a year to oversee the performance of the company. [To put this in perspective, directors are being paid $1,000-$2361 per work day if they worked 260 days per year.] Some of this director compensation also is designed to align the interests of the directors with the company by giving them stock grants and stock options. It seems that the money they are paid is not a sufficient enough motivation for the day or two per month they spend in oversight of the company’s and shareholders’ interests (if they actually devote two days a month to their duties as directors, their daily compensation rises to $10,000-$25,583 per day)
Now let’s look at the annual compensation of ExxonMobil’s CEO for 2009:
Salary -- $2,057,000 ($7,911 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 136 minimum-wage workers)
Bonus -- $2,400,000 ($9,230 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 159 minimum-wage workers)
Stock Awards -- $16,963,875 ($65,245 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 1,125 minimum-wage workers)
Change in pension value -- $5,466,517 ($21,025 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 362 minimum-wage workers)
In addition the CEO received other benefits (life insurance, savings plan, personal security, personal aircraft usage, financial planning help, etc.) worth $280,925 ($1,080 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 16 minimum-wage workers)
By the way, the CEO also owned 1,325,613 shares of company stock (that $88 million current valuation alone would seem to me to be sufficient alignment with the interests of the company).
My question is not merely, “Why are executives paid so much?” My questions are, “Why are people who are paid so much showing so little concern for the poor? Why are they so intent on keeping the minimum wage so low? Why are they so worked up about paying taxes that support education, health care, and other social services? Why are they ignoring the Lazaruses who are lying at their doorsteps (Luke 16:19-31)?
Let me preface this report with a brief statement. American companies devote many pages in their annual reports explaining the rationale for and the details about the compensation of their executives. The rationale is that a CEO should be rewarded for the successful leadership he (or occasionally she) has provided for the company. In addition, the executive’s interests should be aligned with the interests of the company, which means they should receive a large portion of their income based on the successful performance of the company’s stock. In order to enhance this alignment of interests, a significant portion of the executive’s compensation involves the granting of shares of company stock or options to purchase shares of the stock at a fixed price. In essence, the owners (the shareholders) of the company are giving away a portion of the company each year to the executives so that the executives will do the job for which they are being paid better than they would if they were just paid like the rest of the company’s employees. Many companies give their executives the equivalent of two or three percent of the company every five years. In 150 years they will have virtually given away the entire company (in actuality, the shareowners’ ownership is merely being diluted).
Decisions about executive compensation are made by a board of directors elected by the shareholders (though nominated by the currently entrenched board of directors, which generally is composed of CEOs of other companies). In the case of ExxonMobil, the members of this board of directors are paid $240,000 to $614,000 a year to oversee the performance of the company. [To put this in perspective, directors are being paid $1,000-$2361 per work day if they worked 260 days per year.] Some of this director compensation also is designed to align the interests of the directors with the company by giving them stock grants and stock options. It seems that the money they are paid is not a sufficient enough motivation for the day or two per month they spend in oversight of the company’s and shareholders’ interests (if they actually devote two days a month to their duties as directors, their daily compensation rises to $10,000-$25,583 per day)
Now let’s look at the annual compensation of ExxonMobil’s CEO for 2009:
Salary -- $2,057,000 ($7,911 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 136 minimum-wage workers)
Bonus -- $2,400,000 ($9,230 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 159 minimum-wage workers)
Stock Awards -- $16,963,875 ($65,245 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 1,125 minimum-wage workers)
Change in pension value -- $5,466,517 ($21,025 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 362 minimum-wage workers)
In addition the CEO received other benefits (life insurance, savings plan, personal security, personal aircraft usage, financial planning help, etc.) worth $280,925 ($1,080 per work day, or the equivalent of the annual compensation of 16 minimum-wage workers)
By the way, the CEO also owned 1,325,613 shares of company stock (that $88 million current valuation alone would seem to me to be sufficient alignment with the interests of the company).
My question is not merely, “Why are executives paid so much?” My questions are, “Why are people who are paid so much showing so little concern for the poor? Why are they so intent on keeping the minimum wage so low? Why are they so worked up about paying taxes that support education, health care, and other social services? Why are they ignoring the Lazaruses who are lying at their doorsteps (Luke 16:19-31)?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Perspectives on Sorcery and Other Occult Practices
OCCULT PRACTICES REFERENCED IN THE BIBLE: Sorcery, magic, witchcraft, divination, omens, spells, mediums, spiritualists, astrology, dream interpretation, enchanters, and false prophecy
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES:
Exodus 7:8-12—After Moses and Aaron performed “a miracle” or “a miraculous sign” before Pharaoh by turning a staff into a snake (cf. Exod. 7:9 with Deut. 6:22; Ps 78:43; 105:27), Pharaoh summoned wise men, sorcerers, and magicians who practiced “secret arts,” who were able to duplicate the act.
Exodus 22:18—God commanded Moses, “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
Deuteronomy 18:10—Moses told Israel that when they entered the Promised Land, they would encounter a number of detestable practices. Among these were child sacrifice, the practice of divination or sorcery, interpreting omens, witchcraft, and casting spells. Mediums, spiritualists, and those who consult the dead also were mentioned. These practices were to be banished from Israel, and Israel was to be blameless before the Lord.
2 Kings 9:22—Jezebel was accused of idolatry and practicing witchcraft.
2 Chronicles 33:1-6—Manasseh, the king of Judah, followed “the detestable practices of the nations” and “did much evil in the eyes of God.” Among these practices were child sacrifice, sorcery, divination, witchcraft, and consulting mediums and spiritualists.
Isaiah 47:8-13—Isaiah mentioned sorceries, potent or magic spells, astrologers, and stargazers as powerless to prevent God’s judgment.
Isaiah 57:3—Isaiah called the wicked “sons of a sorceress.”
Jeremiah 27:9—Jeremiah stated the neither prophets, diviners, interpreters of dreams, mediums, or sorcerers could turn aside God’s judgment that would put Judah in subjection to Babylon.
Daniel 2:2—Nebuchadnezzar summoned magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers to interpret his troubling dreams.
Micah 5:12—Micah prophesied that God would destroy witchcraft and casting of spells among his people.
Nahum 3:4—Nahum viewed the sorceries and witchcraft in Nineveh as evidence of their evil influence over nations under their sway.
Malachi 3:1—Malachi says that God will testify against sorcerers and will judge them.
Acts 8:9-24—A boastful sorcerer named Simon, who amazed all the people in Samaria with his magic, became a believer after hearing Philip preach. He was astonished by the great signs and miracles Philip performed. When Peter and John came to Samaria and laid their hands on some of these new believers, the believers received the Holy Spirit. Simon offered Peter and John money to bestow this power on him so that he could dispense the Holy Spirit to others. Peter rebuked him for this “wickedness,” seeing that he was “full of bitterness and captive to sin.” Peter called on him to repent.
Acts 13:6-12—When Paul and Barnabas visited Paphos on Cyprus, they encountered a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet who was an attendant of the Roman proconsul. When the sorcerer opposed them, Paul announced that the Lord was going to blind him for a time. Paul called him “a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right.” He was “full of deceit and trickery” and was “perverting the right ways of the Lord.” As a result of his attendant’s being blinded, the proconsul became a believer.
Galatians 5:20-21—Paul listed witchcraft as one of the acts of a sinful nature and said those who live with such practices will not inherit the kingdom of God.
MY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I am amazed that occult practices have continued into our modern, scientific world. Almost all of this ancient “wickedness” can be found in our communities. Some of these practices (like a president’s wife who regularly consulted with astrologers) actually reach into high levels of our society, and many of our most prominent newspapers and publications perpetuate such practices. The power in them has to be more than ignorance and superstition.
At the bottom line, these practices contend against faith in God. They promise guidance for the present and insight into the future. They promise a power that will astonish us, an insight into our unalterable fate, and an explanation of realities that are beyond our physical senses. They promise good luck, a charmed life, and hope for success; but if you are on the wrong side of their powers, you can be cursed with bad luck, misfortune, and even the threat of death.
Many people look at these practices with amusement and don’t take them seriously. Practitioners are viewed generally as hucksters who are basically harmless; and if they take advantage of some people’s gullibility, so what? Have a little fun! On the other hand, if evil is an active reality in our world, maybe the occult deserves a second look. In spite of the fact that much of the evil in our world is perpetuated under the guise of religion, maybe we ought to acknowledge that the occult is an alternate religion that contends for faith, power, influence, and allegiance. Just as Malachi confronted Israel with its syncretism that allowed the occult to get in the door, maybe we too should be focusing on “pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father” (James 1:27). James argues for a faith that will keep us “from being polluted by the world” while expressing itself in ministry to the “orphans and widows in their distress.” That’s a pretty good balance for all of us to seek.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES:
Exodus 7:8-12—After Moses and Aaron performed “a miracle” or “a miraculous sign” before Pharaoh by turning a staff into a snake (cf. Exod. 7:9 with Deut. 6:22; Ps 78:43; 105:27), Pharaoh summoned wise men, sorcerers, and magicians who practiced “secret arts,” who were able to duplicate the act.
Exodus 22:18—God commanded Moses, “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
Deuteronomy 18:10—Moses told Israel that when they entered the Promised Land, they would encounter a number of detestable practices. Among these were child sacrifice, the practice of divination or sorcery, interpreting omens, witchcraft, and casting spells. Mediums, spiritualists, and those who consult the dead also were mentioned. These practices were to be banished from Israel, and Israel was to be blameless before the Lord.
2 Kings 9:22—Jezebel was accused of idolatry and practicing witchcraft.
2 Chronicles 33:1-6—Manasseh, the king of Judah, followed “the detestable practices of the nations” and “did much evil in the eyes of God.” Among these practices were child sacrifice, sorcery, divination, witchcraft, and consulting mediums and spiritualists.
Isaiah 47:8-13—Isaiah mentioned sorceries, potent or magic spells, astrologers, and stargazers as powerless to prevent God’s judgment.
Isaiah 57:3—Isaiah called the wicked “sons of a sorceress.”
Jeremiah 27:9—Jeremiah stated the neither prophets, diviners, interpreters of dreams, mediums, or sorcerers could turn aside God’s judgment that would put Judah in subjection to Babylon.
Daniel 2:2—Nebuchadnezzar summoned magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers to interpret his troubling dreams.
Micah 5:12—Micah prophesied that God would destroy witchcraft and casting of spells among his people.
Nahum 3:4—Nahum viewed the sorceries and witchcraft in Nineveh as evidence of their evil influence over nations under their sway.
Malachi 3:1—Malachi says that God will testify against sorcerers and will judge them.
Acts 8:9-24—A boastful sorcerer named Simon, who amazed all the people in Samaria with his magic, became a believer after hearing Philip preach. He was astonished by the great signs and miracles Philip performed. When Peter and John came to Samaria and laid their hands on some of these new believers, the believers received the Holy Spirit. Simon offered Peter and John money to bestow this power on him so that he could dispense the Holy Spirit to others. Peter rebuked him for this “wickedness,” seeing that he was “full of bitterness and captive to sin.” Peter called on him to repent.
Acts 13:6-12—When Paul and Barnabas visited Paphos on Cyprus, they encountered a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet who was an attendant of the Roman proconsul. When the sorcerer opposed them, Paul announced that the Lord was going to blind him for a time. Paul called him “a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right.” He was “full of deceit and trickery” and was “perverting the right ways of the Lord.” As a result of his attendant’s being blinded, the proconsul became a believer.
Galatians 5:20-21—Paul listed witchcraft as one of the acts of a sinful nature and said those who live with such practices will not inherit the kingdom of God.
MY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I am amazed that occult practices have continued into our modern, scientific world. Almost all of this ancient “wickedness” can be found in our communities. Some of these practices (like a president’s wife who regularly consulted with astrologers) actually reach into high levels of our society, and many of our most prominent newspapers and publications perpetuate such practices. The power in them has to be more than ignorance and superstition.
At the bottom line, these practices contend against faith in God. They promise guidance for the present and insight into the future. They promise a power that will astonish us, an insight into our unalterable fate, and an explanation of realities that are beyond our physical senses. They promise good luck, a charmed life, and hope for success; but if you are on the wrong side of their powers, you can be cursed with bad luck, misfortune, and even the threat of death.
Many people look at these practices with amusement and don’t take them seriously. Practitioners are viewed generally as hucksters who are basically harmless; and if they take advantage of some people’s gullibility, so what? Have a little fun! On the other hand, if evil is an active reality in our world, maybe the occult deserves a second look. In spite of the fact that much of the evil in our world is perpetuated under the guise of religion, maybe we ought to acknowledge that the occult is an alternate religion that contends for faith, power, influence, and allegiance. Just as Malachi confronted Israel with its syncretism that allowed the occult to get in the door, maybe we too should be focusing on “pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father” (James 1:27). James argues for a faith that will keep us “from being polluted by the world” while expressing itself in ministry to the “orphans and widows in their distress.” That’s a pretty good balance for all of us to seek.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Leveraged Debt: A Letter to Vanguard
Mr. F. William McNabb III
The Vanguard Group
P.O. Box 1110
Valley Forge, PA 19482-1110
Dear Mr. McNabb:
I am a long-time investor with and admirer of Vanguard. I am proud of my association with a fund management company that places its investors first. I also appreciate the reputation that Vanguard has established so that when Vanguard speaks, others listen. I am writing to suggest a general investment philosophy that I think will address some of the debt-related ills on Wall Street and will piggyback on what is happening in the way of reform brought on by the over-leveraging of financial firms. I think Vanguard could play a significant role in a practice that I believe takes money out of investors’ pockets and lines the pockets of “investors” in hedge funds. Let me explain.
I realize that prudent hedging has a role in investments, but the extremes we have seen among investment banks and others in recent years has jeopardized the security of our country, our businesses, and investors like Vanguard’s customers. While those concerns are being addressed, another aspect of them has not been—the leveraged buyouts of well-capitalized companies which are resold to investors after the LBO has stripped the company of its assets and loaded it down with debt. Investment management firms that sell stocks when the LBO is buying up the company and then repurchase the reissued stocks after they are loaded down with debt are allowing their investors to be ripped off. The hedge funds are reaping great returns, but investors are getting weakened companies that are hampered in their growth by overhanging debt. I think that high levels of debt weaken companies, make them more vulnerable to failure if the economy shifts, and hinder their ability to grow and expand in a competitive economy.
I am suggesting that Vanguard consider the following ideas in developing guidelines for investments made by Vanguard based on Vanguard’s desire to preserve, protect, and grow its customers’ assets. I also suggest that Vanguard utilize these policies to distinguish its commitment to protecting investor interests and to influence investment policies in general.
1. Vanguard recognizes that high levels of corporate debt weaken a company’s opportunities for long-term growth and make these companies less attractive opportunities for investment.
2. While an appropriate level of debt will vary from industry to industry based on the need for capital and how that capital is employed, Vanguard will use an appropriate level of corporate debt as a criterion in its investment decisions. I suggest that Vanguard begin with a guideline that no investment will be made in any company whose debt/equity ratio is greater than .8. I suggest that a long-term strategy be implemented to gradually reduce that guideline to .4. I further suggest that Vanguard consider offering a fund whose portfolio is built around companies with little or no debt (.05 or less).
3. Vanguard should adopt a policy that its funds will not purchase debt instruments, invest in any debt securities, or assist in any way in financing the leveraged buyout of any company.
4. In representing the interests of its clients, Vanguard will encourage company management and boards of directors to evaluate their debt levels carefully and to ensure that investors are rewarded for their investments and not management, directors, or LBO specialists. Mergers, acquisitions, and buy-outs should reward current stockholders only.
I really would like to see American tax policy focused on reducing personal and corporate debt and especially removing the deductibility of debt service for repaying LBOs. I think a better approach would be to get someone to address the debt issues in our economy both at the personal and at the corporate level. I believe Vanguard, in its concern for its customers and their debt loads and in its development of sound investment policies, could address these issues and give them prominence. I believe your customers and our nation would be in a better and more competitive position if the problems related to debt were addressed.
Thank you for giving attention to these concerns.
The Vanguard Group
P.O. Box 1110
Valley Forge, PA 19482-1110
Dear Mr. McNabb:
I am a long-time investor with and admirer of Vanguard. I am proud of my association with a fund management company that places its investors first. I also appreciate the reputation that Vanguard has established so that when Vanguard speaks, others listen. I am writing to suggest a general investment philosophy that I think will address some of the debt-related ills on Wall Street and will piggyback on what is happening in the way of reform brought on by the over-leveraging of financial firms. I think Vanguard could play a significant role in a practice that I believe takes money out of investors’ pockets and lines the pockets of “investors” in hedge funds. Let me explain.
I realize that prudent hedging has a role in investments, but the extremes we have seen among investment banks and others in recent years has jeopardized the security of our country, our businesses, and investors like Vanguard’s customers. While those concerns are being addressed, another aspect of them has not been—the leveraged buyouts of well-capitalized companies which are resold to investors after the LBO has stripped the company of its assets and loaded it down with debt. Investment management firms that sell stocks when the LBO is buying up the company and then repurchase the reissued stocks after they are loaded down with debt are allowing their investors to be ripped off. The hedge funds are reaping great returns, but investors are getting weakened companies that are hampered in their growth by overhanging debt. I think that high levels of debt weaken companies, make them more vulnerable to failure if the economy shifts, and hinder their ability to grow and expand in a competitive economy.
I am suggesting that Vanguard consider the following ideas in developing guidelines for investments made by Vanguard based on Vanguard’s desire to preserve, protect, and grow its customers’ assets. I also suggest that Vanguard utilize these policies to distinguish its commitment to protecting investor interests and to influence investment policies in general.
1. Vanguard recognizes that high levels of corporate debt weaken a company’s opportunities for long-term growth and make these companies less attractive opportunities for investment.
2. While an appropriate level of debt will vary from industry to industry based on the need for capital and how that capital is employed, Vanguard will use an appropriate level of corporate debt as a criterion in its investment decisions. I suggest that Vanguard begin with a guideline that no investment will be made in any company whose debt/equity ratio is greater than .8. I suggest that a long-term strategy be implemented to gradually reduce that guideline to .4. I further suggest that Vanguard consider offering a fund whose portfolio is built around companies with little or no debt (.05 or less).
3. Vanguard should adopt a policy that its funds will not purchase debt instruments, invest in any debt securities, or assist in any way in financing the leveraged buyout of any company.
4. In representing the interests of its clients, Vanguard will encourage company management and boards of directors to evaluate their debt levels carefully and to ensure that investors are rewarded for their investments and not management, directors, or LBO specialists. Mergers, acquisitions, and buy-outs should reward current stockholders only.
I really would like to see American tax policy focused on reducing personal and corporate debt and especially removing the deductibility of debt service for repaying LBOs. I think a better approach would be to get someone to address the debt issues in our economy both at the personal and at the corporate level. I believe Vanguard, in its concern for its customers and their debt loads and in its development of sound investment policies, could address these issues and give them prominence. I believe your customers and our nation would be in a better and more competitive position if the problems related to debt were addressed.
Thank you for giving attention to these concerns.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Malachi 2:17: Good and Evil
We face a lot of ambiguity in our lives. Traditional values often are questioned and ridiculed. New rules seem required for our new circumstances. Yet one thing we must avoid is saying, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord, and he is pleased with them.” When we are unable to identify and name evil in ourselves and in others, we indeed are lost.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Malachi 2:13: Giving and Receiving
We draw subtle connections between our gifts to God and the blessings we expect to receive from God. This is the “give and it shall be given unto you” principle of Luke 6:38. What happens when the blessings cease to flow and our gifts seem to hold no sway with God? Is the fault with God, with us, or with the assumption of an automatic connection between gifts and blessings?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Faith, Grace, And Morality
I find that I must constantly remind myself that Malachi wrote before the new covenant of grace that was established through Jesus Christ. Recently I have found myself longing for some evidence of grace in Malachi. The tenor of the book has led to a tenor in my exposition that seems to focus exclusively on obedience with few hints of grace. For Malachi, the covenant was maintained by keeping the commandments. Faithfulness to the commandments was evidence of a person’s love for God and of right standing with God.
As Christians, we know that we cannot save ourselves no matter how committed we might be to the covenant with God or how faithfully we try to observe all of the commandments. None of us becomes morally perfect once we have accepted God’s grace, but grace does not remove the tension or the struggle for a moral daily walk.
In the spirit of Jesus’ teachings, the “morally concerned” most often seem to miss the mark. They focus on deeds and not on a spirit of compassion and grace. Often we struggle with that because compassion and grace seem to be “soft” on sin. Jesus didn’t want faith and discipleship to be a burden, but establishing and operating under “the rule of God” in our hearts and lives is not an easy goal.
Keeping grace and obedience in balance will not be easy. I have offered an approach to the issue, but not everyone will agree with it. When Broadman and Holman were beginning work on THE HOLMAN BIBLE DICTIONARY, I was invited to contribute a number of entries in the work—mostly short articles that filled in the gaps in the dictionary.
One of the articles I wrote was on “apostasy,” a subject that has been hotly debated among Baptists and other Christian groups. In the almost 20 years since I wrote that article, I have received only one letter about my treatment of that rather controversial subject. The letter came from Dr. Dale Moody, one of my seminary professors who is perhaps best remembered as the professor who tried with all his might to get Baptists to forsake their “once saved, always saved” views. Dr. Moody was rather complimentary of my article; but he wanted to know whether I had written the last paragraph or had it been written by the editors. That was the only part of the treatment that he did not like. I told him that I had written it, and it was my way of trying to reconcile the differences between those holding opposing views. I guess my “compromise” must have worked, because no one else has challenged the conclusion.
Here is that last paragraph: “Persons worried about apostasy should recognize that conviction of sin in itself is evidence that one has not fallen away. Desire for salvation shows one does not have ‘an evil heart of unbelief.’” Applying that principle to the discussion above, I would make a similar conclusion. People who focus on the sins of others and fail to express concern for their own sinfulness likely have missed the essence of Jesus’ teachings. Those who most loudly speak words of condemnation without first examining themselves are likely the hypocrites in our midst. Those who struggle with their own inclinations toward sinfulness are likely to be more compassionate toward “sinners like me.”
Maybe this is why Malachi troubles me. He seems to speak from a position of moral superiority, condemning others for their sin but with scant acknowledgement of his own “falling short.” Some will not be troubled at all about that issue because they think that Malachi was merely writing what God dictated, and God has no need to be concerned about revealing any sin in the Godhead. The problem with that view is that it divides the God we see in the Old Testament from the God revealed through Christ in the New Testament. Jesus showed compassion for sinners, not condemnation of them. He saved his condemnations for the pious who were blind to their own sin while focusing on other’s short-comings with a high powered microscope.
My former pastor, David George, on several occasions has quoted Dr. Ben Curtis of Belmont University. Many years ago Ben was in conversations with a church that wanted him to become its pastor. Dr. George was pointing out to him some things about being a pastor that he thought Ben might not like. In response, Ben said, “All I would expect from them is that they be religiously serious and decently human.” Those two things hold in tension what I am striving for in the study of Malachi. I believe God wants us to be religiously serious, but I also think God wants us to be decently human. In the tension of those two polarities, we will also find commitment and grace.
As Christians, we know that we cannot save ourselves no matter how committed we might be to the covenant with God or how faithfully we try to observe all of the commandments. None of us becomes morally perfect once we have accepted God’s grace, but grace does not remove the tension or the struggle for a moral daily walk.
In the spirit of Jesus’ teachings, the “morally concerned” most often seem to miss the mark. They focus on deeds and not on a spirit of compassion and grace. Often we struggle with that because compassion and grace seem to be “soft” on sin. Jesus didn’t want faith and discipleship to be a burden, but establishing and operating under “the rule of God” in our hearts and lives is not an easy goal.
Keeping grace and obedience in balance will not be easy. I have offered an approach to the issue, but not everyone will agree with it. When Broadman and Holman were beginning work on THE HOLMAN BIBLE DICTIONARY, I was invited to contribute a number of entries in the work—mostly short articles that filled in the gaps in the dictionary.
One of the articles I wrote was on “apostasy,” a subject that has been hotly debated among Baptists and other Christian groups. In the almost 20 years since I wrote that article, I have received only one letter about my treatment of that rather controversial subject. The letter came from Dr. Dale Moody, one of my seminary professors who is perhaps best remembered as the professor who tried with all his might to get Baptists to forsake their “once saved, always saved” views. Dr. Moody was rather complimentary of my article; but he wanted to know whether I had written the last paragraph or had it been written by the editors. That was the only part of the treatment that he did not like. I told him that I had written it, and it was my way of trying to reconcile the differences between those holding opposing views. I guess my “compromise” must have worked, because no one else has challenged the conclusion.
Here is that last paragraph: “Persons worried about apostasy should recognize that conviction of sin in itself is evidence that one has not fallen away. Desire for salvation shows one does not have ‘an evil heart of unbelief.’” Applying that principle to the discussion above, I would make a similar conclusion. People who focus on the sins of others and fail to express concern for their own sinfulness likely have missed the essence of Jesus’ teachings. Those who most loudly speak words of condemnation without first examining themselves are likely the hypocrites in our midst. Those who struggle with their own inclinations toward sinfulness are likely to be more compassionate toward “sinners like me.”
Maybe this is why Malachi troubles me. He seems to speak from a position of moral superiority, condemning others for their sin but with scant acknowledgement of his own “falling short.” Some will not be troubled at all about that issue because they think that Malachi was merely writing what God dictated, and God has no need to be concerned about revealing any sin in the Godhead. The problem with that view is that it divides the God we see in the Old Testament from the God revealed through Christ in the New Testament. Jesus showed compassion for sinners, not condemnation of them. He saved his condemnations for the pious who were blind to their own sin while focusing on other’s short-comings with a high powered microscope.
My former pastor, David George, on several occasions has quoted Dr. Ben Curtis of Belmont University. Many years ago Ben was in conversations with a church that wanted him to become its pastor. Dr. George was pointing out to him some things about being a pastor that he thought Ben might not like. In response, Ben said, “All I would expect from them is that they be religiously serious and decently human.” Those two things hold in tension what I am striving for in the study of Malachi. I believe God wants us to be religiously serious, but I also think God wants us to be decently human. In the tension of those two polarities, we will also find commitment and grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
