CT's May cover story discusses how the routine monthly giving of millions of evangelicals is keeping ministries afloat during the so-called "Great Recession." The story confirms the magazine's December cover story on why automatic and routine giving is most faithful. (Though it presents the opposite conclusion on the story of American Christian giving.)

But the big givers are still giving during this recession too. The National Christian Foundation announced today that it just passed out its 2 billionth dollar. The organization is a non-profit that provides "donor advised funds" that collect the donations of wealthy individuals to be dispersed at a later date. It has been around since 1982, and the NCF gave out its 1 billionth dollar just three years ago. Since 2006, it's given out another billion.

The $1.5 million gift that put NCF over the top was from "The Green Fund to Reach the Children," a donor-advised fund of Hobby Lobby and its CEO David Green.

Posted by Rob Moll at May 6, 2009 | Comments (0)

The Senate just passed an amendment to lower the estate tax. CT last reported on Obama's budget recommendation to maintain the estate tax at 2009 levels: 45 percent on assets after $3.5 million or $7 million for couples.

The Senate voted to allow exemptions up to $10 million and tax estates at 35 percent above that level.

The question (for those of us not worried about being affected by this) is: Will the new level decrease charitable giving, since it encourages people to hang on to their money?

Posted by Rob Moll at April 3, 2009 | Comments (2)

Perhaps because of articles like this, suggesting a new Great Depression is upon us, or TV shows like this, suggesting we just might avoid that fate, or maybe because we've all got friends, family, or neighbors who are out of work, but Americans have quickly adopted new mores when it comes to public displays of money.

Even those who are well off, in consideration of others who are financially hurting, are toning down any evidence of conspicuous consumption. "I just feel so decadent with all the stuff I've got," says Ethel Knox.

And the values replacing those of consumption are laudable. "I think this economy was a good way to cure my compulsive shopping habit," Maxine Frankel, 59, a high school teacher from Skokie, Ill., said as she longingly stroked a diaphanous black shawl at a shop in the nearby Chicago suburb of Glenview. "It's kind of funny, but I feel much more satisfied with the things money can't buy, like the well-being of my family. I'm just not seeking happiness from material things anymore."

Another trend is appearing among the friends and family of those who are less well off. What's the best way to help your friends? "For all the people who are struggling to pay the bills," writes The New York Times financial columnist Ron Leiber, "there are many in their inner circle who have been agonizing for months over how or whether to write them a check." Loaning a friend money, for example, can put a real strain on a relationship, especially if the giver is worried about not being paid back or feels the receiver isn't using the money well.

Some people are setting up websites so others can anonymously help someone in need. A church, Leiber points out, also works well as a charitable middleman. "Sue Barnet of Wetumpka, Ala., arrived home one day in November to find a $200 check in the mail. The bookstore where she worked had closed, and someone from her church had given the money anonymously to her minister and asked that he forward it."

It's one small way churches can step up during this recession. And they need to, says Bradford Wilcox. With the expanded governement services on offer from the Obama administration, churches will be pushed out of the social service sector. "Charitable spending by churches declined 30% in the wake of the New Deal," Wilcox reports, "and that nearly all of the decrease can be accounted for by increases in public spending in the 1930s." And those services are the best thing churches have to get new folks in the door.

Posted by Rob Moll at April 1, 2009 | Comments (1)

Bernie Madoff has admitted guilt to an astounding fraud. And his actions have harmed numerous individuals and institutions. At least $50 billion has vanished. The scope of the fraud is so vast that regulators are convinced it couldn't have been done solely by Madoff.

Yet, in many respects Madoff is only more successful in his confidence game than others. He built an affinity fraud, preying on those who would implicity trust him because of their mutual associations. For Madoff, that was the Jewish community. As Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel said, "To us it happened the way it happened to so many others, meaning we had friends who were very close friends of Madoff, and years ago [a friend] just came to us and he said, 'Look, you work, you work so hard, what are you doing with your money?' "

And there it began.

For Madoff, it began equally simply: "When I began the Ponzi scheme," he told the court yesterday, "I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme. However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible."

The essence of my scheme was that I represented to clients and prospective clients who wished to open investment advisory and individual trading accounts with me that I would invest their money in shares of common stock, options and other securities of large well-known corporations, and upon request, would return to them their profits and principal. Those representations were false because for many years up and until I was arrested on December 11, 2008, I never invested those funds in the securities, as I had promised. Instead, those funds were deposited in a bank account at Chase Manhattan Bank. When clients wished to receive the profits they believed they had earned with me or to redeem their principal, I used the money in the Chase Manhattan bank account that belonged to them or other clients to pay the requested funds. The victims of my scheme included individuals, charitable organizations, trusts, pension funds and hedge funds.

Madoff fooled the sophisticated and the gullible. But in many ways, everyone is complicit. Perhaps Madoff's gullible victims may be exempted from the following criticism: Throughout history, the con man has been able to sucessfully operate not because he is uniquely deceptive but because his victims--in their greed--are willing to be decieved. Granted, none of Madoff's victims are deserving. They were ripped off.

But let's not turn Madoff into an unhuman monster. The wickedness of Madoff's heart is no worse than that of any other's. And the truth is, it may be that as Madoff now sits in prison, he knows better than most of us just how desperately wicked the human heart is.

Posted by Rob Moll at March 13, 2009 | Comments (6)

Vanguard University, a Southern California Assemblies of God school that was warned last fall about its financial oversight from an accrediting body and went through a string of leadership transitions this January, may be facing sunny days again.

School officials met with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) February 18 to show that they had taken recommended steps to remedy the fiscal and management issues noted by WASC during its September visit. College president Carol Taylor announced last week that WASC had granted the school's request to defer action on its accreditation review until its June 2009 meeting.

"In granting a deferral, the WASC Commission recognizes Vanguard's progress and has noted that this deferral provides the University a window of time to bring to fruition key initiatives that have been undertaken," President Taylor said in her online message. Deferment gives the CCCU member school time to show it can run with an independent board of trustees and implement sound financial management, which it had reportedly lacked for years.

Four days after the WASC meeting, Vanguard learned that Bruce Lindsay, a millionare who hung out on campus every day and became known as the school's "campus grandpa" and "student advocate," had died and left his fortune to the school, which is $42 million in debt.

According to the Los Angeles Times profile, Lindsay, 79, was known for his frugality and made his fortune in part by buying low-cost oil leases and flipping beach homes. The worth of Lindsay's estate is still unknown, but Vanguard has said part of the donation will go toward renovating its cafeteria, where Lindsay ate three meals every day.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at March 11, 2009 | Comments (1)

President Obama's budget calls for a decrease in the amount of tax savings that wealthy donors (those who earn more than $250,000 per year) can claim after giving to charity. The budget estimates the new rule would bring in about $318 billion over ten years. This means that those in the 33% or 35% tax brackets would only get to claim 28% of the donation as a tax brake.

But charities and their supporters in Congress don't much like the idea. "After objections from Democratic lawmakers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appeared to suggest at one point Wednesday that the administration was willing to consider dropping or modifying the proposal," reports The Wall Street Journal.

Charity Navigator says it sees a huge jump in donations in the days before January 1, as donors adjust their giving for tax purposes. The Indiana University Center on Philanthropy estimates the new rules would decrease giving by nearly $4 billion, at 2006 giving levels.

Churches and other religious groups, whose services aid the increasing numbers of needy and who are already doing more with less, are likely to increase their pressure on the White House as the budget debate draws on.

Posted by Rob Moll at March 6, 2009 | Comments (7)

Women are about to surpass men in their participation in the workforce. The New York Times reports that "a full 82 percent of the job losses [in this recession] have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction." Women, on the other hand, are heavily represented in steadier sectors of the economy, such as health care and education.

As a result "women are now bearing the burden - or the opportunity, one could say - of being breadwinners," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. Just a year ago, some evangelicals were concerned about the two income trap, the need to have mom and dad in the workforce in order to make it in America. Now, families are lucky to have a second income at a time when the economy is losing half a million jobs per month. However, when the wife brings home the bacon, not only does the situation hurt a man's pride, but also challenges his theology, if as Paige Patterson says, a women's place is in the home.

A structural shift may be occurring that could keep women as breadwinners for much longer than the end of the recession. In the last two downturns, writes Justin Fox, the jobs the economy shed never came back. Instead, the new jobs created were in different sectors for people with different skills. It doesn't look as though many investment bankers will head back to Wall Street or construction workers will head back to the Sun Belt when the economy picks up again.

Having two incomes these days looks like less of a trap than desperately-needed insurance policy.

Posted by Rob Moll at February 17, 2009 | Comments (1)

Last week the Justice Department announced that drug company Eli Lilly had agreed to pay $1.42 billion to settle criminal and civil charges that it had illegally marketed its blockbuster antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. The case accused company sales reps of promoting the drug for conditions beyond its narrow FDA-approved use of treating schizophrenia and symptoms of bipolar disorder, and for populations (children and the elderly) for whom its known side effects are particularly risky. The New York Times report indicates that claims and evidence in the case were similar to a California state lawsuit which alleged that company studies of the drug circulated among its sales force were "Lilly's thinly veiled marketing of Zyprexa as an effective chemical restraint for demanding, vulnerable and needy patients."

While the settlement was the largest amount paid by a single defendant in the history of the US department of Justice, it is dwarfed by the $39 billion in sales Zyprexa has generated since its approval in 1996, and is less than half of its $3.5 billion in sales in the first nine months of 2008.

This most recent case adds to the already sordid backdrop to Marcia Angell's scathing indictment of drug companies and the physicians, medical schools, and professional organizations happy to collude with them published in the latest New York Review of Books. Angell, the Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School who served as editor-in-chief for the New England Journal of Medicine for two decades, believes these massive payouts are "just the cost of doing business" and "well worth it" for drug companies so long as the drug continues to rake in billions.

In Angell's telling, the particular offenses reported in the government Zyprexa case represent only a fraction of drug company improprieties, a discouraging litany she candidly rehearses. Yet without countenancing or minimizing their contributions to a corrupt system, she reserves her sharpest rebuke for her colluding peers.

It is easy to fault drug companies for this situation, and they certainly deserve a great deal of blame...Still, apologists might argue that the pharmaceutical industry is merely trying to do its primary job - further the interests of its investors - and sometimes it goes a little too far.

Physicians, medical schools, and professional organizations have no such excuse, since their only fiduciary responsibility is to patients. The mission of medical schools and teaching hospitals - and what justifies their tax-exempt status - is to educate the next generation of physicians, carry out scientifically important research, and care for the sickest members of society. It is not to enter into lucrative commercial alliances with the pharmaceutical industry.

Angell is concerned that unless the medical profession reasserts its independence by sharply breaking its improper financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry, the integrity of its work will continue to decline, and with it, the trust of the public.

And no payout, however staggering, can buy that back.

Posted by Derek Keefe at January 21, 2009 | Comments (3)

Barry Minkow, Fraudbuster and pastor of San Diego's Community Bible Church, has been busy since the stock market began its decline a year ago last October. Last year, Minkow called Herbalife a fraud--essentially a multi-level marketing business that sold nearly all of its products to its sales people.

Now, Minkow has turned his sights on Lennar, a homebuilder with Ponzi scheme-like activities operating under joint ventures. The company, Minkow says, "has a pattern of behavior over a sustained period of time of knowingly and willfully abusing the legal system to gain an unfair advantage over the less capitalized, smaller entities."

After the letter from Minkow's Fraud Discovery Institute hit the web, Lennar shares fell 20 percent, prompting the company to sue Minkow.

It should be noted that Minkow's work tends to be profitable. Lennar alledges that one of its former partners hired "Minkow and his company to use any means available, including fraud, identity theft and manipulation of securities markets, to wrongfully and falsely harm Lennar's business and reputation." And Minkow shorted (profiting from a decline in shares) Herbalife's stock while calling it a fraud.

Having run his own scam, Minkow knows how they operate. But since his release from prison, he's stuck to the straight and narrow. "We don't put out false information," he says of the Fraud Discovery Institute.

Posted by Rob Moll at January 14, 2009 | Comments (3)

The global economic troubles are an opportunity to emerge from the spiral of debt and me-first consumption, says the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. He complained to the BBC last week that such "moral questions" are not being considered as the government plans jump start the economy.

Rather than restart old habits of mass consumption, Williams said, "I'd like to think that in this sort of crisis, people would be reflecting more on how we develop a volunteer culture, where people are willing to put their services at the service of the needs of others so that there can be a more active and vital civil society."

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown is having none of the Archbishop's criticism. Brown is taking the argument to Williams's own turf by recalling the parable of the Good Samaritan. "Every time someone becomes unemployed or loses their home or a small business fails it is our duty to act, and we should not walk by on the other side when people are facing problems."

Posted by Rob Moll at December 22, 2008 | Comments (4)

Sunday Adelaja has been a controversial figure in Kyiv church life for some time. The senior pastor of Embassy of God megachurch has drawn criticism for allegedly overreporting attendance, preaching a prosperity gospel, exaggerating his role in the Orange Revolution, and for his church's relatively flamboyant cultural engagement.

But this time, he faces allegations of criminal misbehavior. Charisma ran a long article about accusations that Adelaja was at the center of a scam that bilked investors - many of them congregants - of $100 million.

Pentecostal leaders allege Adelaja encouraged church members to invest in King's Capital,

But last month, several church members went to authorities saying they were unable to recover the money they invested, which left many of them bankrupt. Police later arrested one of King's Capital leaders, Aleksandr Bandurchenko, on suspicion of fraud.

So far, it's unclear whether King's Capital was a legitimate venture that failed, as Adelaja claims, or a pyramid scheme.

The press release on Embassy of God's website sends some mixed messages, quoting Nehemiah 6:3 ("I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down"), John 8:7 ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her"), and Micah 7:8 (Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will rise). But Adelaja denies he had anything "to do with the King's Capital management, administration, and moreover finances."

Posted by Susan Wunderink at December 19, 2008 | Comments (5)

In light of tightening financial times, and the heightened scrutiny of household spending that follows, some churches are making it easier for congregants to follow the money. Waterfront Community Church in Schaumburg, Illinois, gives 100% of its offerings each week to local households identified by a partnering Christian agency. This practice allows a church member, in pastor Jim Semradek's words, to "see a face on the other side that you're blessing."

How does the church take care of its own operating costs? Eight sponsors cover rent and salaries, freeing it to use all of its offering in this way. The model is an attempt to restore trust in local churches and return mission to the core of their identity. Its mission-minded sponsors believe freeing Waterfront from concerns about its own expenses does just that.

Waterfront is, of course, not alone among local churches experimenting with new budgetary models as it rethinks mission.

Posted by Derek Keefe at November 18, 2008 | Comments (4)

Blame is flying as the U.S. economy continues to dive.

Some say the problem is greed among business executives. Others say all Americans are too greedy. Still others are blaming capitalism itself.

Lest we put the blame on ourselves - where at least some of it no doubt belongs - here's another possibility: Feel-good theology is causing the financial crisis.

When belief in God is prevalent in a society, the values of honesty and integrity are more prevalent as well, economists Kevin Kliesen and Frank Schmid noted in a 2004 article echoing German sociologist Max Weber's classic "Protestant work ethic" argument.

But the relationship is complex: A 2003 study from Harvard University's Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McCleary found that the economy strengthens as belief in heaven or hell increases, but weakens with increased church attendance. And as a country's economy gets stronger, faith in God and interest in religion declines.

This leaves the economy - and religion - in a catch-22. Economies thrive in a semi-religious atmosphere, but are hurt if countries get too religious or too secular. A country needs a strong religious base to build the economy, but as soon as the economy is built up, religious faith drops off.

In case you're wondering, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life says belief in hell has declined in the last eight years. In 2001, 71 percent of Americans said they believed in hell. Today only 59 percent do. No wonder we're in financial crisis.

Shoring up the numbers of people who believe in hell without actually getting them to increase church attendance is simple enough: get them to watch horror movies, not listen to sermons.

Shoring up the numbers of people who will stay out of hell? That's a different question.

Posted by Ted Olsen at October 6, 2008 | Comments (11)

This quarter is likely to be the first since 1991 in which American consumers cut back on their purchases. A Wall Street Journal survey of more than 50 economists found that they "expect a 0.1% contraction in consumer spending during the third quarter." Other forecasts expect a greater than 1 percent decline.

The last recession earlier this decade surprised economists when consumers continued to spend, even as the stock market declined, unemployment worsened, and wages were stagnant. Of course Americans were encouraged by politicians following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to do their patriotic duty and hop on planes, visit shopping malls, and go to the movies. Though finanicial markets and wage growth slackened, consumers were able to tap into their homes to maintain the type of consumption the go-go '90s had provided.

It's over now--even for teens. Often viewed as recession-proof spenders, American teenagers are getting frugal. Adrienne Tennant, a senior analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, told Portfolio magazine, "Usually teens are a resilient portion of the economy because all spending is discretionary, but this time around, gas prices are clearly eating up budgets." Despite a $100 billion stimulus injection, retail sales fell in August after falling in July.

On top of that, declining gas prices seem to have done nothing to make consumers more willing to spend. "The fact that purchases at gasoline stations declined 2.5% for the month and consumers did not utilize those savings for consumption elsewhere is more than a bit troubling," says Joseph Brusuelas of Merk Investments."

Over the long term a consumer retrenchment is probably a good thing, but the process may last years, which would be economically painful. It would mean high unemployment, slow economic growth, stagnant house values, and more.

While this is no immediate consolation--especially to those looking for jobs, seeing their homes foreclosed, struggling to make payments--it illustrates, in a fascinating way, human behavior. First, you get what you pay for. Pay too much (because you were too greedy) for a high-priced stock or home, and it will come back to bite you. Next, go too much into debt, as as the Bible warns, you'll become servant to the lender. Third, follow the crowd that exuberantly says, "This time it's different," and you'll find that broad are the paths that lead to destruction.

Finally, there is nothing new under the sun. Centuries ago, John Bunyan instructed readers of The Pilgrim's Progress on the dangers of Vanity Fair. Christians, he admonished were to follow the example of "that Blessed One," who was tempted by the devil when he passed through the town "to cheapen and buy" some of the delights at the fair. "But he had no mind to the merchandize, and therefore left the Town, without laying out so much as one farthing upon these Vanities."

Though the Puritan's words seem oh so applicable now, he knew the temptations would return. "This Fair, therefore, is an ancient thing, of long standing, and a very great Fair."

Posted by Rob Moll at September 12, 2008 | Comments (6)

It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the middle class has grown over the last decade. The rich are getting very, very rich while the poor and middle class are--while not worse off--certainly no better. (Depending on your time frame, however, the poor actually are doing worse.)

This graph shows the average annual income of the top one percent earners in 2005 was more than $1 million, while the middle 60 percent is just above $50,000 per year. That compares with the $500,000 the top one percent earned just ten years before, versus an average income of just below $50,000 for the middle 60 percent. In other words, while the top one percent doubled their income, the middle 60 percent only modestly improved.

More striking is that the average income of the bottom 20 percent seems not to have moved in the last 25 years. Factor in inflation, and the bottom 20 percent is doing much worse. (Women too, it seems, haven't done well. But instead of making less, they're just staying home. And interestingly, feminists are making arguments for doing so.)

There's plenty of debate over why the income of the top earners has so vastly outpaced that of everyone else. It's tempting to argue that the top one percent is making its money off the backs of those less well off. And America, being the nation of individualists it is, has been generally content to allow the rich to get much, much richer. Plus, globalization has brought millions of new laborers into competition with those already in developed economies.

But another argument seems compelling. New York Times writer Tyler Cowen summarizes it this way:

The reason is supply and demand. For the first time in American history, the current generation is not significantly more educated than its parents. Those in need of skilled labor are bidding for a relatively stagnant supply and so must pay more.

Technological change has put a premium on workers who understand, can manage, and can profit from such advances. According to this argument, education--not abuse by the rich--makes the difference between advancing in the economy or falling behind.

But the difference between the educated and the un-educated is not a matter of wealth but of upbringing. After all, the poor can value education as much as the rich, and often do. And, education is not simply a matter of IQ, according to James Heckman, a professor at the University of Chicago and Nobel Laureate. Heckman says in his paper "Schools, Skills and Synapses" (available for download here) that "the workplace is increasingly oriented towards a greater valuation of the skills required for social interaction and for sociability." These skills are taught in the home, Heckman says.

Heckman makes no argument for marriage support programs or other family-supporting policies. In fact, he says the state, for economic reasons, should intervene early in families deemed to be unable to nurture well-educated (in terms of IQ and sociability) children. Yet, his analysis could be used to support traditional, Christian views of the family. "Those born into disadvantaged environments are receiving relatively less stimulation and resources to promote child development ... [Statistics show] the dramatic rise in the proportion of children living in single parent families. The greatest contributor to this growth is the percent living in families with never married mothers."

But, Heckman says, having two parents--even wealthy ones--isn't enough for healthy child development. "The proper measure of disadvantage is not necessarily family poverty or parental education. The available evidence suggests that the quality of parenting is the important scarce resource. The quality of parenting is not always closely linked to family income or parental education." In other words, there's no inherent reason that children who grow up with wealthy parents, or well-educated ones, should become wealthy themselves.

Unfortunately, more American children are growing up under "disadvantaged" circumstances. And this is having a negative impact on the American economy, because these children, even if they have high IQs, don't have the social skills for success. "A greater fraction of young Americans," Heckman says, "is graduating from college. At the same time, a greater fraction is dropping out of high school."

Churches could use Heckman's paper to argue for a different kind of social ministry, one that emphasizes parenting skills as much as poverty alleviation. Also, it shows once again, that the soft patriarchy model of the family is quite good for all involved. But, to me, it mostly argues that God had it right when he created male and female to be fruitful and multiply.

Posted by Rob Moll at July 31, 2008 | Comments (7)

While the media keeps reminding us of the bad news--which is one of its jobs--I keep reading stories that try to put our current economic woes into perspective. Here is a paragraph from an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal ("Where's the Outrage? Really. By Arthur C. Brooks.)

In some countries, a depressed economic climate means mass unemployment, political instability and large-scale deprivation. In America this decade, we have reached the point at which even in a down economy, our unemployment rate does not reach 6% (lower than the rates in Canada and the European Union, let alone those in the developing world). Any unwanted unemployment is terrible; but it is worth remembering that this stability especially benefits the economically vulnerable.

Furthermore, no matter what the state of our economy, we can realistically count on uninterrupted provision of critical public services, high business start-up rates, the world's highest levels of charitable giving and volunteering, and countless other benefits that come from living in a successful nation.

We may well be unsatisfied with the current state of affairs. Some Americans are suffering, and cannot be faulted for seeking substantial political change in the coming election. But most of us are reasonable people, and can see the difference between correctable problems within a strong system of democratic capitalism and the kind of catastrophic failure that justifies real outrage.

This reality should be a part of all our conversations about the current economic crisis--which is a crisis in some ways, and in some ways not.

Posted by Mark Galli at July 31, 2008 | Comments (3)

"It's only when the tide goes out," says Warren Buffett, "that you learn who's been swimming naked."

For a good long time, the American health care system had its drawers down, but it didn't matter too much. HillaryCare was summarily dismissed in the early '90s. The problems it might have fixed weren't felt badly enough. Lately arguments for universal health care have been about the unavailable care for the uninsured. But still, no action. The vast majority in the country have health insurance, even if they pay more and more for it every year.

But now, even doctors can't afford to pay for health care. Oncologists, who have to pay for drugs before they're delivered intravenously to patients at the doctor's office, have had trouble lately paying up. As a result, they've learned to be more cautious about the costs of the treatments they recommend to their patients. The Wall Street Journal reports:

In a survey of 167 cancer doctors reported last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42% said they regularly raised the issue of costs when discussing treatment options with patients. The study, conducted by Deborah Schrag, an oncologist at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, found that 23% of oncologists said costs influence their treatment decisions, and 16% said they omit discussion of very expensive treatments when they know the cost will place great strain on patients' resources. ...

John P. Whitecar Jr., an oncologist in Columbus, Miss., says 89% of his cancer patients are on government insurance. He has watched his income plunge 75% in the past three years because of rising treatment costs and declining reimbursements. He says he's borrowed money to keep his office afloat.

At what point should a Christian say, "This simply costs too much. Putting my family in debt or significantly straining their resources is not worth my life. Maybe God wants me in heaven."

Certainly life is priceless. But is more life equally invaluable?

Dying is different these days. Once, vast resources could go toward treating a man suffering from a heart attack. If he lived, he could continue living for decades, and those resources justifiably provided years of good living. Now, people die slowly, consuming those vast resources over the course of years--and often crippling relatives financially.

Joanne Lynn writes, "One hears people say, 'He's not dying yet,' of a person living with fatal lung cancer. Generally, that means he's not yet taking to bed, losing weight, and suffering from pain, as would be expected when dying is all that he can do. But the category is used as if one is either 'temporarily immortal' - which is the usual state of human beings - or 'dying,' in which case the person is of a different sort, having different obligations and relationships. 'The Dying' are expected to do little but wrap life up and go. But this dominant myth about dying does not fit many people. Many elderly people are inching toward oblivion with small losses every few weeks or months."

We are, of course, all always dying, thanks to sin. Our outer man is decaying. It seems these days its a good thing to remember and a good thing for Christians to try to re-teach our culture.

Economists have begun thinking about the "cost/benefit dilemma of end-of-life medical care." One writer on the Freakonomic blog says, "When Teddy Kennedy was diagnosed with malignant brain cancer a few weeks ago, the senator who championed universal health care opted for the rarest and most expensive treatment [unlikely to be provided by any state-paid insurance] - surgery followed by radiation and chemotherapy. But with or without surgery, the prognosis for patients with glioblastoma like Kennedy's is poor, with an 18-month survival rate for those over 60 less than 10 percent."

Wealthy and not at all ready to give up the ghost, Kennedy -- like nearly every American would who can make the choice -- is "fighting" for his life. Even the very, very old these days are opting for surgery and other risky and costly medical procedures that could extend their lives.

Yet, what is that extra time worth? Any universal health care system seems unlikely to provide expensive and marginally beneficial treatment. The government would decide it's not worth $1 million in taxpayer money to give an 85-year-old six more months of life. But unless and until the state starts making those decisions for us, we Christians need to think this one through: How much is longer life worth?

Here's another one: How should pastors help their parishoners decide? This is enough. It's time to see God.

Posted by Rob Moll at July 20, 2008 | Comments (20)

Ministries headed by evangelists Joyce Meyer and Benny Hinn are both changing the way they operate even as a Senate probe into alleged lavish spending by six prominent ministries continues, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Monday, July 7.

"Both Joyce Meyer and Benny Hinn have indicated that they are instituting reforms without waiting for the committee to complete its review," said Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, in an update on the investigation he began last year.

"Self-reform can be faster and more effective than government regulation."

Roby Walker, a spokesman for Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Mo., confirmed that changes are being made but could not release details on Tuesday.

Don Price, a spokesman for Benny Hinn Ministries in Grapevine, Texas, also declined to comment in detail but said "reforms and improved governance practices" were being shared with Grassley's office.

Grassley's update noted instances of "whistleblower intimidation" where former employees "have received phone calls reminding them of their confidentiality agreements and threatening lawsuits if the agreements are breached."

Jill Gerber, a spokeswoman for the committee, would not disclose which ministries were involved in such calls, and declined to elaborate on the changes planned at Hinn's and Meyer's ministries.

Grassley's update described the responses from Hinn and Meyer as "in good faith and substantively informative," but said the others are "incomplete" or "not responsive."

Broadcaster Kenneth Copeland has reportedly said his Texas-based ministry will not respond even if a subpoena is issued. Grassley's memo said staffers are "consulting with Senate attorneys about next steps."

In other cases, staffers continue to contact ministry lawyers and officials in hopes of further cooperation.

"Sen. Grassley still very much wants to avoid subpoenas and hopes that those ministries will agree that subpoenas would be an unnecessary step," Gerber said.

The other ministries under investigation are: Bishop Eddie Long's New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Ga.; Creflo Dollar Ministries in College Park, Ga., and Randy and Paula White, who co-pastored Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Fla.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at July 8, 2008 | Comments (14)

Reading an economic report at Moody's Economy.com, I was struck by one sentence. It read something like: "If the U.S. falls into recession, it will be because the American family couldn't make good on its debts."

While that oversimplifies all the factors that went into the creating and popping of the housing bubble (including deceptive practices and fraud on the part of lenders and the "irrational exuberance" that accompanies any such asset price inflation), the basic cause of the country's economic problems is the fact that a huge number of borrowers couldn't pay their debts.

As we are seeing, fiscal irresponsibility can be devestating not just to those whose houses are foreclosed upon, but neighbors, lenders, other borrowers, the growing numbers of unemployed, and on and on as the effects ripple through the economy. So, it's about time that some thinkers have begun discussing debt not simply in economic terms, but moral ones.

In a terrific essay, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, lays out how our country instituted a culture of thrift and fiscal responsibility only to give in to hucksters pushing payday loans and the lotto.

Whitehead reports that in 2004--when home prices were escalating and families were easily able to borrow against the inflated value--the typical family spent more than 18 percent of its income on debt payments, 12.2 percent said debt payments exceeded 40% of their income. One in seven families has filed for bancruptcy or sought the help of a credit consolidator. "Few other advanced countries confront a debt debacle comparable to that of the United States."

Financial deregulation, allowing for a massive increase in what lenders could charge borrowers in interest, in the 80s began to unravel the once-wary attitude Americans had toward debt. Lenders began to market their products as bringing the advantages of credit to the masses. No longer did the less than affluent need to save up for the new sofa or pay for a car in cash.

This democratization of credit, however, led to the widespread propagation of debt. Between 1989 and 2001, credit card debt almost tripled, from $238 billion to $692 billion. By fall of 2007, the amount of revolving consumer credit had reached $937.5 billion, a 7 percent increase over the previous year.

In the generally flush 1990s, many families were able to manage higher credit card debt without undue distress, but in today's more troubled times, families who once kept on top of their credit card balances - even if it meant paying only the minimum on several cards - are now toppling into delinquencies and defaults. Nearly half of all credit card holders have missed payments in the last year.

Creditors today structure loans and repayment terms to keep borrowers borrowing--and creditors flush with fees, interest, and other finance payments. Loans "are structured so that it is hard for the borrower to repay the loan in full. Instead, many consumers end up with little choice but to pay special fees to "roll over" the original loan into the next payday, a practice that can lead to chronic dependency on expensive credit."

Whitehead points out the "loan sharks" are nothing new in American society. As the country industrialized, there were plenty of unscrupulous creditors taking advantage of workers in America's burgeoning cities--workers fresh from the farm who had nothing but their next paycheck to borrow against. "But this was the Progressive Era, and a handful of reformers set out to combat the 'loan sharking evil.' "

Reformers fought to make lending to the poor profitable--allowing banks to charge enough interest to cover the extra risk but not too much to forever impoverish borrowers. Other reformers took on the task of creating "pro-thrift" institutions such as the credit union.

Whitehead's article is based on a report by the Institute for American Values . David Brooks calls the paper, titled "For a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture," "one of the most important think-tank reports you'll read this year."

Brooks does admit that may not be saying much.

But he agrees that financial decadence is something those concerned about the country's moral shift need to be paying more attention to. There are policy fixes to implement, but, he says, "the most important is to shift values. [Benjamin] Franklin made it prestigious to embrace certain bourgeois virtues. Now it's socially acceptable to undermine those virtues. It's considered normal to play the debt game and imagine that decisions made today will have no consequences for the future."

A shift in values is needed in part because those we should be calling upon to bring payday lenders and fast and loose mortgage agents back into line are the politicians. And they're as enslaved to debt as the rest of us. "The debate about our nation's fiscal problems," writes Andrew L. Yarrow in the Balitmore Sun, "is on the wrong track. Debt is a moral issue; by any objective standard, it is wrong to beggar your children."

Our country runs a $9.4 trillion tab and has promised another $50 trillion in outlays (think Social Security and Medicare) that is currently unfunded. What happens to organizations that make huge promises that they can't possibly fulfill? Think the Big Three: Ford, GM, Chrystler. Think Detroit and the Michigan economy.

Yarrow argues that this kind of debt is immoral. "Our culture's Judeo-Christian tradition offers powerful counsel on this subject, words that we should not be afraid to wield. The biblical book of Proverbs, for example, warns that 'the borrower is servant to the lender,' and Psalms 37:21 offers the more pointed injunction that 'the wicked borrow and don't pay back.' "

He offers specific and helpful policy positions and persuasive moral arguments for getting our country's revenues and expenditures back into line: "Increasing the Social Security eligibility age, indexing benefits to price (not wage) inflation and establishing carve-out personal retirement accounts because these are the right things to do for our kids. Speak of sacrifice (whose Latin root means "sacred") for future generations when advocating taxes on those most able to pay." He goes on to address health care, the evironment, and energy.

"As theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: 'The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.' "

Posted by Rob Moll at June 28, 2008 | Comments (10)

In a short, short news story, The Grand Rapids Press reported that

Christian publishing giant Zondervan on Tuesday announced it was cutting 18 jobs as part of a restructuring effort.

Among those who lost their job was Executive Vice President and Publisher Scott Bolinder, who had been with the company for 19 years.

The company, owned by media conglomerate News Corp., has about 325 employees in Cascade Township and 35 at offices in Miami and San Diego.

The jobs that were cut represent about 5 percent of the positions at Zondervan, and included 5 executive positions. The publishing house hired Moe Girkins as its new president and CEO last winter.

Publishers Weekly reported that, "Parent company HarperCollins has said that Zondervan has been a soft spot in the overall performance of HC."

In recent years Zondervan had annual title output in the high-500 to low-600 range. Powers confirmed the reorganization would lead to a reduction in titles, but said the company would not release specifics now.

Since 1988, Zondervan has been part of HarperCollins, which is a subsidiary of News Corporation, which is run by Rupert Murdoch. The publisher’s first huge break was the NIV Bible, which in 1986 overtook the King James Version. A more recent one was The Purpose Driven Life.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at May 28, 2008 | Comments (4)

The economic numbers for the first quarter of 2008 showed that while the U.S. is not yet in a recession, we're sure darn close. The quarter's scant 0.6 percent growth rate suggests that ridiculously high commodity prices (oil, corn, pork bellies) should fall back to earth as Americans cut their spending, reducing demand. But as recent earnings reports show prices have skyrocketed. Since last August, the price of a barrel of crude has gone from $70 to over $110, despite six months of stagnant economic growth. The same is true for other commodities like copper, where trading volume has remained stable, suggesting that the price hike is not entirely due to speculative investors.

While economists make fine arguments in support of the belief that the rise in commodity prices is a symptom of bad monetary policy, it's also hard to dismiss the fact that high prices could simply be a matter of supply and demand - or at least expected supply and demand. One Wall Street Journal writer suggests that there are many similarities between today's economic conditions and those in the '70s, including low interest rates, a weak and falling dollar, market interventions, and high oil prices. But, he says:

there is an important difference between our troubles today and those of the 1970s. In that decade, aggregate supply sagged as oil producers scaled back production and anchovies disappeared off the coast of Peru. The 2000s have been about demand expansion. Millions of workers in China, India and Vietnam, among others, have joined the world trading system.

So, while there may be other factors influencing the rise in the price of oil, metals, and food. A fundamental reason for this price increase is a matter of basic economics: supply and demand. Indeed, despite oil prices that would encourage massive production, oil giant Chevron said it pumped less oil in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of 2007. And when ExxonMobil announced its production expectations, investors were shocked to hear that the company said it would pump no more oil over the next few years than it does today despite increasing its exploration and production budget by 25% to between $25 billion and $30 billion a year over the next five years. Business Week explains how astounding the announcement is:

Ponder that for a minute. Texas-based Exxon is the largest publicly traded company in the energy business. In fact, it's the most profitable company in the history of capitalism, earning a record $40.6 billion on sales of $404 billion last year. Yet even with prices at the pump near all-time highs, Exxon isn't planning on producing any more oil four years from now than it did last year.

It would be as if Steve Jobs said that though people were willing to spend nearly four times more for a Mac than they had been eight years ago, Apple would not build any more. Why is one of the best run oil companies, and most profitable company ever, declining to increase in production? Business Week explains, "Since 2000, Exxon's oil output from two of its largest regions, the U.S. and Europe, declined a startling 37%. That's 500,000 fewer barrels a day in just seven years." In other words, its getting harder and harder to find oil. The most money being made in oil exploration is by those who can drill miles beneath the ocean floor.

While it may not be accurate to say that the world is running out of oil (a cartel dedicated to keeping prices high has too much to say about the world's oil supply to suggest the world is running out), it is accurate to say that for the moment supply is having trouble keeping pace with demand.

While supply remains stagnant, demand has spiked. "World consumption is projected to rise 35 percent, to around 115 million barrels a day, in the next two decades," according to The New York Times. Most of the growth will come from China, India and oil-producing countries in the Middle East."

As developing countries prosper, their citizens seek to emulate developed countries. They eat wheat instead of rice; meat instead of beans. They commute in cars from their homes miles away from the office. They buy cell phones and other electronics, increasing demand for copper and microchips. Some commentators suggest that those of us in the developed world must either quickly abandon our energy guzzling, wasteful ways or get used to a lower standard of living. Most likely, we'll have to do a little of both.

But how should American Christians react to a world in which those resources we've become used to having mostly for ourselves are suddenly in demand across the globe? Can we learn to share our global resources? Must we see a lower standard of living in our future?

Many Christian traditions have taught the lessons of simple living. Living simply, and thereby consuming less, does not necessarily correspond to a decrease in living standards. Those skills in simple living, it seems, are more needed these days as billions more people are now competing for a shrinking supply of resources. While some researchers foresee nationalistic competition in a scramble for limited resources, possibly resulting in war, Christians can be leaders not only in wisely exploiting creation but also in justly sharing it.

Of course, actually accomplishing that task takes more than words. But in a world where energy and other resource dependencies have allowed terrorists to breed and genocides to freely proceed, where people go hungry because they can't afford food, the ability to do more with less is another resource in which demand outweighs supply.

Share this:

Posted by Rob Moll at May 4, 2008 | Comments (21)

Capitalism runs on capital. So, what do you do when your religion forbids loaning money, but your economy is flush with cash due to rising oil prices?

Islamic scholars are debating just how to get around the ban on usury, or lending with interest. And a recent ruling by an Islamic scholar has thrown a wrench in what had become accepted practice. The International Herald Tribune reports,

Islamic banking assets outside Iran totaled $400 billion to $450 billion in 2006 and are projected to rise to $1 trillion by 2010, according to a recent report by McKinsey & Co. Total assets, including those in Iran, totaled $750 billion in 2006, a small fraction of global financial assets, but one that is growing quickly.

Experts say growth has been driven by booming Persian Gulf oil revenue, Muslims' growing preference for an expanding range of Shariah-compliant products and increasing acceptance of Islamic banking practices by financial regulators around the world.

Unfortunately for the industry, "one of the world's leading Shariah finance scholars recently rattled the market by saying 85 percent of Islamic bonds, or sukuk, are not Shariah-compliant. Sheik Mohammed Taqi Usmani argued that, in essence, they were structured too much like conventional bonds."

These bonds are structured in a way that gives the lender a share in future profits, but they also include a promise to pay back the original loan. The promise to repay makes the arrangement similar to a traditional bond, Usmani said.

Christians should pay attention to this debate. While the church has long since become comfortable with loaning money with interest, it can be helpful to see another religious group wrestle with modern capitalism. After all, why was it that for centuries Christians forbade usury and then heavily regulated it?

Hmm, maybe the mess created by the sub-prime mortgage lenders has something to do with it.

Posted by Rob Moll at January 14, 2008 | Comments (5)

Last summer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company denied the West Adrian United Church of Christ in Michigan insurance because its denomination supports same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Wall Street Journal reporter M. P. McQueen writes,

"Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses have resulted in property damage and the potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions," Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual -- one of the nation's largest insurers of religious institutions -- wrote in a letter to the church last summer.

McQueen writes that churches have sometimes been denied or have had coverage revoked because of specific acts of violence. "Some churches in the South reported cancellations after a wave of arson attacks in the mid-1990s." But this would be the first instance of the denial of a claim due to fears that a controversial stance would provoke a violent backlash.

Founded in 1917 as a mutual-aid organization by evangelical Mennonites, Brotherhood Mutual is now the largest provider of insurance to churches in the country. A spokesperson "didn't have any examples of violence attributable to a church's support for gay clergy or same-sex marriage," McQueen writes. She did note that disputes over gay marriage have led to church splits and resulted in costly lawsuits.

Michigan banned same-sex marriage in 2004. The church has not specifically endorsed the denomination's position on same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals. The article says that as long as insurance companies abide by non-discrimination and other laws, they are free to set their own guidelines for accepting or rejecting applications.

A couple of things to note: Brotherhood Mutual rejected the church's application not because of moral or religious opposition to the church's stance, but because the stance might increase risk to the insurer. So this is not precisely a religious freedom issue. One wonders if the company didn't want to do business with supporters of same-sex marriage and risk seemed a better explanation for its refusal. But are churches that support same-sex marriage really more prone to being victims of vandalism? The article says there is no evidence one way or the other. The story doesn't mention any other ways in which Brotherhood Mutual does business with supporters of same-sex marriage. Does it screen its investments of companies that offer benefits to partners of employees? Presumably, if/when same-sex marriage and homosexual ordination became less controversial, Brotherhood Mutual would then accept applications from churches that supported that stance.

Also, there is no lawsuit. West Adrian didn't sue Brotherhood Mutual over the denial, so the situation would set no legal precedent in regards to religious freedom. If same-sex marriage does gain national legal acceptance, there will probably be exceptions for clergy and churches to discriminate according to their religious teaching. The real test, however, will lie with for-profit companies like Brotherhood Mutual.

Posted by Rob Moll at January 8, 2008 | Comments (4)

Pastors' attempts to ward off the Christmas spirits of consumerism and busyness are so predictable, they're easy to ignore. So many churches are looking for creative ways to reinvigorate members to take the energy they usually put into holiday-season spending and convert it into compassionate giving.

Such is the Advent Conspiracy, a self-described "emerging international movement" began in 2006 by Rick McKinley, senior pastor of Imago Dei Community, a 1,500-member emergent church in Portland, Ore. Sick of the de-emphasis on Christ during the weeks leading up to Christmas, McKinley challenged his congregation to give like God does.

"It's called the Advent Conspiracy because Jesus' birth . . . was done in secret, almost hidden," said McKinley to Nancy Haught of The Oregonian. "He didn't come posturing for power. . . . He came giving himself away to others. Ultimately, he gave the greatest gift of all - his life for our life. We think Christmas should be celebrated the same way."

In response to McKinley's challenge, Imago Dei and four other congregations - Ecclesia in Houston, Windsor Crossings Community Church in Chesterfield, Mo., New Providence Community in Nassau, Bahamas, and Fellowship Church in Anthem, Ariz. - collected $430,000 last Christmas season. The majority of the collection was given to Living Water International, a nonprofit group working to dig clean wells in impoverished countries.

In the months following the conspiracy's first-year success, news of its efforts spread over the Internet. It received hearty praise from the likes of megachurch pastor Rick Warren and evangelical missions organization World Relief. This year, about 490 churches from 10 countries have joined the conspiracy, reports Jeanne McKinley, who directs the program with her husband, Rick. On its website, the conspiracy provides downloadable print materials and videos for use in church services and small groups.

World Relief has also volunteered another 500 churches to join the campaign, while 17,000 individuals have pledged online to put the campaign's credo - "Worship More, Spend Less, Give More, and Love All" - into practice this Christmas.

While believers can and should actively resist consumption and busyness for busyness's sake, especially at a time both are so pervasive, one wonders if the proper way for churches to help this resistance is to create a program to join, especially (and ironically) one rife with slogans and logos. The way Christians can really make their Advent celebration countercultural is not by aligning themselves with a movement, even one that may have godly intentions. In its press release, the conspiracy says it wants to restore the "scandal of Advent," by worshiping a God who calls us to constantly give away instead of hoard. Sure, that's a bit of a scandal for most of us. But if the conspiracy wants to be truly scandalous, it will have to call us back to put aside all our programs and movements and wait, with joy and terror, for the Christ child who is coming to reconcile the world to himself.

More coverage of the Advent Conspiracy:

• For Christmas, Fishers church urges donations as part of Advent Conspiracy | Fishers church joins Advent Conspiracy urging donations in the spirit of Christmas (The Indianapolis Star)


• Organization wants less spent on Christmas and more donated to others (The Kansas City Star)


• 'Advent Conspiracy' urges Christian giving (Religion News Service, via The Ledger, Lakeland, Fla., alt. site)


• Find true meaning of Christmas -- in August (Hank Arends, Statesman Journal, Salem, Ore.)


• WWJD? Treat giving differently, that's what (Wendi C. Thomas, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis)

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at December 11, 2007 | Comments (3)

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating several major church-based ministries known for their leaders' lavish lifestyles and prosperity teachings.

"Recent articles and news reports regarding possible misuse of donations made to religious organizations have caused some concern for the Finance Committee," Grassley wrote to the ministries in letters asking for detailed financial records.

None of the ministries targeted -- those led by Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Eddie Long, Joyce Meyer, and Randy and Paula White -- are required to file the financial disclosure Form 990 with the IRS because they are are designated as churches.

The rest of this article is now posted on CT's main site.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 6, 2007 | Comments (28)

In today's Wall Street Journal, reporter Valerie Bauerlein chronicles the effect the sub-prime mortgage bust had on an Atlanta lending company that integrated its loan business with Christian faith. At HomeBanc,

executives opened companywide gatherings and internal meetings with Christian prayers. Every branch office kept a chaplain on call. The company's $365,000-a-year human-resources chief, Dwight "Ike" Reighard, was the founder of a mega-church in an Atlanta suburb. He says he encouraged employees to pray, put others first and become better workers -- and also performed weddings and funerals for employees. "People who never attended church would tell me, you're my pastor," Dr. Reighard said in an interview on Saturday. ...

On Thursday, HomeBanc filed for bankruptcy-court protection. It fired most of its 1,100 employees on Friday and is shuttering its 22 branches and 139 kiosks in real-estate and builders' offices, exiting the mortgage-loan origination business and processing no new loans, including ones in its pipeline.

Some people complained of a cult-like atmosphere at the company. Others said it simply allowed people of faith to integrate their beliefs with the business.

"I don't think they saw God as a magic genie that was going to insulate them from the marketplace," said the Rev. Victor D. Pentz, the senior pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Church, an 8,500 member congregation whose leadership includes several HomeBanc executives. Instead, he said HomeBanc was "a place where the deeper expressions of their values are welcomed as a part of the mix. People want to relate at a deeper level than 'I stand next to you at the copy machine.' "

Barbara Aiken, a human-relations executive who'd been with HomeBanc for 14 years, says, "Everybody said we were a cult, they said, 'You drink the Kool-Aid.' But I really believe the uprightness with which the company held itself really bothered people."

Still, it wasn't enough faith to save HomeBanc. A few former employees are suing the company for unpaid overtime. Efforts to turn the company around as the mortgage crises deepened earlier this year weren't enough. HomeBanc's stock closed on Friday at 4.8 cents.

I have three comments: Reporter Bauerlein doesn't allege that the company's focus on faith had anything to do with its collapse. After all, the sub-prime lending bust has taken down some of the most successful members of Wall Street. Yet, it does hint at the problems of involving religion too heavily in the workings of a company. Undoubtedly, the 1,100 employees who were laid off, yet prayed together and saw their work as an expression of their faith, feel, at least to some extent, betrayed both by the company and by God.

Second, Bauerlein does write that employees felt that religious devotion was valued over productivity. Third, the article exposes the tendency of religious groups (and not only those) to create insular communities where external forces--like the lending crisis--can be ignored or viewed as an attack to be met with more devotion instead of business strategy.

Posted by Rob Moll at August 13, 2007 | Comments (2)

Yesterday the Senate passed an energy bill mandating stricter fuel economy standards for autos and more production of ethanol. As someone who grumbles every time I drive past a gas pump (much less when I shell out $50 to fill my tank), who worries that U.S. dependence on oil from overseas is not in the national interest, who loves the outdoors, and who believes that human beings are to be good stewards of God's creation, I've got to say that the tank is half-empty on this thing.

The Associated Press notes:

"The legislation would require ethanol production for motor fuels to grow to at least 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over the amount of ethanol processed last year.

"And it calls for boosting auto fuel economy to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over current requirements for cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks.

"The legislation also calls for:

"Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an 'unconscionably excessive' price for oil products, including gasoline. It also gives the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation."

I'm no expert on these issues, but it seems to me we have a long way to go--Democrats and Republicans--before we have a realistic energy policy. A few random thoughts:

-- Why is there no talk of increasing our national commitment to nuclear power, which, compared to foreign oil, is clean, efficient, and carries no risk of stirring up the bin Ladens of the world?

-- Do the senators know that our already massive commitment to producing ethanol for gasoline contributes to inflation for the many food products made with corn, and that the resulting corn shortages hurt the poor in the developing world?

-- Why is there no discussion of increasing the number of oil refineries in the U.S. as a way to increase the supply of available gasoline? The system that we now have is stretched to the limit and is extremely vulnerable to events that swiftly drive up the price of oil, such as refinery fires.

-- Why don't legislators ever talk about giving back some of their own record "windfall profits" from taxes, which go up proportionately with the cost of a gallon of gas?

-- Why don't politicians come up with new and creative ways to encourage mass transit? Where I live and want to go there are virtually no transportation options except for the automobile.

-- While increased auto fuel economy would be helpful (at least for those with the means to buy new cars), are they willing to acknowledge that this will inevitably lead to more highway deaths as people drive smaller vehicles?

Yes, go after the oil companies if they are breaking the law. But remember that without the profit incentive, there would be no oil wells. We can't simply respond to the demand for oil. Let's also work on the supply side. Allow the laws of supply and demand to work. If demand is sufficient, new supplies should eventually drive down the price of oil.

Unless we simply don't want people to drive automobiles at all. For senators who get chauffered everywhere, that may not be a problem. For the rest of us, however, affordable gasoline is a moral issue.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at June 22, 2007 | Comments (11)

Doug Lockhart is stepping down as president and CEO of Zondervan. A press release from the company quotes him saying,

"I consider it a great privilege to have served in this role and to have been a part of the tremendous Zondervan family, which is truly the most dedicated, loyal and mission-minded team of people I have ever worked with. I look forward to a smooth transition and will pray for the continued success of the organization as it strives to achieve its mission and continue its leadership in Christian publishing."

PW Daily unsuccessfully asked why:

Erin Crum, spokesperson for HarperCollins, parent company of Zondervan, declined to elaborate on the reason for Lockhart's departure. "We don't usually discuss personnel matters," she said. Lockhart was not available for comment. Zondervan's sales declined after the enormous success of The Purpose-Driven Life several years ago, but HC CEO Jane Friedman had said that the company was "recovering" in the third quarter.

Longtime Zondervan leader Bruce Ryskamp, who worked at Zondervan from 1983 to 2005 and served as its president for the last 12 years of his tenure, will return from retirement to serve as interim president and CEO.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 23, 2007 | Comments (1)

BusinessWeek reports

In recent years, a range of businesses have made financing more readily available to even the riskiest of borrowers. Greater access to credit has put cars, computers, credit cards, and even homes within reach for many more of the working poor. But this remaking of the marketplace for low-income consumers has a dark side: Innovative and zealous firms have lured unsophisticated shoppers by the hundreds of thousands into a thicket of debt from which many never emerge.

There may be money to be made lending to the poor. It may make business sense, though the recent sub-prime lending collapse shows the risks in lending to the poor. And it may allow the poor to buy things they couldn't otherwise afford. But is it right?

Posted by Rob Moll at May 14, 2007 | Comments (13)

Got a necklace that looks like this?

The Oriental Trading Company has sold about 132,000 of them for about 70 cents each. Turns out there's quite a bit of lead in them, so there's a recall.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 3, 2007 | Comments (0)

Of all the lines in the widely circulated letter against Richard Cizik's work on global warming, I found one section particularly surprising:

Cizik's disturbing views seem to be contributing to growing confusion about the very term, "evangelical." ... We believe some of [the] misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its "conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality" can be laid at Richard Cizik's door.

As I've said before, I found that surprising because most evangelical activists I know of have been eager to define evangelical theologically or sociologically and oppose use of the word as a political descriptor. But while you can talk about trends in evangelical political behavior (which is quite a bit different than talking about "evangelical politics"), I was stumped on what the letter's signatories thought evangelical views on economics are. Granted, 50 years ago there was a strong anti-Communist streak in evangelical Protestantism. But today?

Well, I just found an answer, at least in part, in the journal Social Science Research. (More after the jump)

In the June 2007 issue, Pennsylvania State University sociologists Jacob Felson and Heather Kindell write about "The elusive link between conservative Protestantism and conservative economics." For the full article, you'll have to pay $30. But here's the abstract (emphasis mine):

Research on the political attitudes of conservative Protestants has yielded inconsistent results. We know that conservative Protestants (CPs) tend to be more socially conservative than members of other religious groups and have tended to vote Republican in recent years, but we are less certain of their attitudes toward the size and role of government in matters unrelated to religion. Despite theoretical expectations and qualitative research supporting a link between conservative Protestantism and conservative attitudes about the size and role of government, quantitative work has failed to find a consistent relationship. The present study interprets conservative Protestant issue preferences in the context of research on non-attitudes, arguing that we should not expect ideological constraint among the less educated segment of the population. However, among better educated members of the population, we should expect to find ideologically consistent attitudes. Results from the General Social Survey suggest that better-educated evangelical Protestants are consistently more economically conservative than other Protestants. Among Protestants with lower levels of education, there is no consistent relationship between conservative Protestantism and economic policy preferences. Since the better educated are disproportionately politically active, politicians may be especially likely to pay attention to their interests. This may help to explain why the Republican coalition between social and economic conservatives has endured for several decades and shows no signs of abating.

Since I didn't pay the $30, I can't tell if the study took into account that the better-educated evangelical Protestants are likely to have higher incomes--something that would no doubt also influence their economic views. But the bottom line here is that talking about the "evangelical view on economics" is even more problematic than talking about evangelical politics. There is a group that is both evangelical and economically conservative. And certainly it would be interesting to find out more about that group, and whether its influence is proportional to its size. But please don't confuse the part with the whole.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 25, 2007 | Comments (4)