The Mismanagement of Our Values

Since we all speak from ignorance and I'm no different, I might as well add my vioce to the cacophony. Actually, everyone seems to be buzzing about the election right now and only talking about the economy inasmuch as it affects the outcome of the election. To be sure, I'm not a McCain fan, but he's a far cry better than Obama. I just can't figure out if Obama is more socialist or more Muslim. I could be mistaken, but the last I heard, he wants to take the oath of office on a Koran. I've always considered that one day we may see a showdown between the socialists and the Muslims in their quest for world domination. I'd just like to know which side Obama is really on.

Anyway, since everyone is bothered by the election and talk about the economy has waned slightly, I figured I would add my words of great ignorance to everyone else's. Considering that I supposedly don't even have good common sense, this should be interesting.

What is economic value? It's the value we all agree that an object has. This "object" could be a tangible item or a service that someone provides. For manufactured items, value is assessed in three categories: Material, Labor and Overhead. The value of materials is assessed from the labor required to render (produce, mine, refine, whatever) the materials themselves and the value assigned by any market on those values. Real market values are adjustments to the labor required to render the materials. False market values are artificially manipulated adjustments due to undue control over inventory and other such regulations. Overhead is a combination of real costs added such as physical plant costs (building, energy, machinery, depreciation), taxes and various support services (administrative personnel, benefits, shipping, sales commissions, advertising, etc.).

So, all value can be traced back to labor and tangible assets and both are subject to adjustment according to market forces. Labor is subject to market forces based on the demand for the labor caried out. For example, someone can work very hard digging a hole that no one wants. Who's going to pay him for it? It's a worthless hole an he has labored in vain. Someone else, without breaking a sweat, can have an idea for organizing other people to work that will produce vast amounts of wealth. The nearly 500 people wher I work result in millions of dollars a year in sales. What do we do with all that money? Well, I keep only a small fraction of it and everybody else here gets a small amount of it. None of us would be able to do anything except that someone took an initial risk on the venture and put up the millions of dollars to get us all started. Those investors deserve some of the profits commensurate with the size of their investment. We are competing with other companies making similar products and have to keep streamlined in order to win the sales. I don't have the knowledge, experience or business acumen to be very effective at guiding our efforts, but someone does. I may or may not agree with our corporate leadership's direction, but they are effective in keeping us in business. Otherwise, I have to think of some other way to provide for my family. Therefore, they deserve a healthy portion of the company's profits.

But, certain value is placed on things aside from any labor that went into them. Gold is one. There is some initial labor to mine and refine the stuff. However, there is some market for it. people want to buy it as an investment. They believe they can sell it or trade it later for something they really need for more than the initial investment. There seems to be a trend of people buying gold tomorrow for more than they bought it yesterday that is consistent enough to expect that to continue. This seems rather arbitrary to me. There is no intrinsic value in gold. There is only the value we all decide that it should have. You can't eat it and it's not practical as a building or clothing material. The only thing it's good for is mere adornment or keeping vaults from blowing away.

There's also real estate. This seems to have a more intrinsic value to it. We need a portion of earth on which to stand and on which to build shelter in which to reside. If you come to an undeveloped piece of land, certain labor must be applied to make it suitable to live on. It must be cleared to some extent and a house built on it. Once the house it built and the labor done, you may expect that no labor value can be added since it's already paid for. (I'm not getting into collateral value for the purposes of usury at this point.) However, the value is yet subject to the market. If two pieces of land are being considered by a buyer for a house where one piece of land has a house on it and the other doesn't, the buyer will consider it worthy to buy the land with the house if it's not much more thatn the land without the house since he would have to consider the additional value of developing the land and building a house there. So, land with a house on it has greater value than land without a house even though the labor has long been done and paid for to build the house.

Furthermore, houses come into disrepair if they are not maintained. Mainting a house can help maintian the value of the house or even increase its value despite the fact that the house ages. Older houses may depreciate, but many also gain character. This is a value that is a bit more arbitrary, but enough people seek the character of older homes to make it a more well-established increase in value. There is also the value of location. Houses in or near town tend to be higher in value because of their convenient proximity to various services.

Since real estate has this kind of value and because it is a necessity, it is a good investment. Home owners use their homes as investments. Money lenders use real estate as investemts by lending money to home owners against the value of the home. This is a mortgage. The return on the investment in the loan was the interest (kind of like paying rent on money) due. If something happened and the home owner couldn't pay back the loan, then the money lender would forclose and the property would belong to the money lender to recoup the money they loaned, thus guaranteeing the investment.

Investors began to see the value of buying and selling mortgages. Money lenders would set up the initial mortgage and earn the fees. Then they would sell the mortgage to an investor, who would expect to benefit from collecting the interest. This investor could also decide to resell the mortgage under the pretense that the value of the property would increase. If the home owner could be expected to repay the mortgage in a timely fashion, this doesn't mean much. However, if the homeowner was expected to default on the loan, then the property at the increased value would belong to the investor holding the mortgage ostensibly for more than they paid for the mortgage. That is, unless, the mortage was like a hot-potato where the value of the actual property was less than the mortgage was being exchanged for. In other words, whover has the mortagage last gets stuck with a loss.

A sub-prime mortgage is one where the value of the property is expected to decrease rather than increase. The home may be in poor repair and renovation is not reasonably cost-effective. Or the land may exist in a area where the neighborhood is delapidated in general, the land is decreasing in value and the only hope is for commercial development of the area. If the sub-prime loan is made to someone who cannot be expected to repay the mortgage, then you have an investment nightmare in the making. When such mortgages are mixed in with good mortgages and traded en masse, then you have an inequitable exchange. Good value is being exchanged for low value. So, an investor may end up with a pile of notes he thinks is worth something. He has invested in future value that will never happen. When the true value is revealed he thinks he has suffered a loss. He suffered the loss when he traded something of high value for something of low value. The revelation of the truth, what we might call a correction in the market, didn't cause him to lose money because no one can lose something they don't have.

We still have the same value in the system. People still work and homes still have value, but some investors who managed to sell bad mortgages for a profit wak away with free money.

It's these investors that lost money that the government has decided to "bail out". In other words, as a nation, we have decided to cover the false value of the mortgages. The government can do this a number of ways. Officials can raise taxes which means that our real work will be applied to the problem. They can print more money which means that the real value of each dollar that we have will decrease. So, while we make the same number of dollars, we are actually getting paid less in value. The government can sell bonds, which are an investment in the growth of government. Yikes! In any event, the extra money ultimately goes into the pockets of the theif investors that originally sold the bad mortgages to begin with.

Here's where it gets strange. Many of the investors doing this did so with funds wherein we have our retirement CDs and 401Ks or our companies where we may still have a pension have placed our pension money there. Oops. It seems most of those investors are us by proxy.

Folks, we've trusted others to invest our money wisely for us and we have been mismanaged; and it was legal. We have our corrupt representatives to thank. Remember this at the polls if you haven't yet voted.

By the way, this is intricately linked with the mismanagement of our moral values in this way: We often look to politics or Hollywood for culpability. However, we have only ourselves to blame. They all pander to our self-satiating desires, and have mismanaged our trust in them.

The Value of a Man - A Parable

The value of a man is like a good man that has two $100 bills. Thirsty, he purchases a bottle of rainwater for $1, but the water seller doesn't have $99 in change so the good man tells him to keep the change. Later, he meets an elderly man who possesses a jewel of great worth. The old man tells him that robbers are threatening to come and take the jewel from him. Having belonged in his family for generations the jewel is priceless to him, but he has no children to whom to pass it. He gives it to the good man to keep, desiring that it not fall into the hands of evil men. Honored, the good man gives the old man his second $100 bill.

Who determines that the bills are worth $100?
Which $100 is worth more to the good man?
Which $100 bill are you?
How do you spend your $100 bills? (goats and sheep)

What is Importance to God?

Do people ever treat your contribution to their world like you smell bad? Do you ever treat others' contributions to your world like they smell bad? That's not really the direction I want to go with this post, but I thought it worthy to throw out.

I have another conundrum along the lines as the last. It's not a contradiction like the other one, but a matter of drawing a balance:

Question: Are we important to God?

Answer: God has given us value in Christ's work on the cross. This is a priceless value. However, God doesn't need us for anything. When it comes to ministry, we can point to the people in the spotlight and say, "We couldn't have done it without so-and-so." These are important people. God doesn't even need us to worship Him. Inasmuch as He was undiminished in creation, He gains nothing from our worship. Worshiping God benefits us. If we failed to worship God, we are told, the rocks would cry out. Indeed they have, for inasmuch as we are genuine Christians our hearts were once stone. Have they not now cried out to God?

Question: Is knowing that we are important enough to God for Him to send His only begotten Son to pay the penalty on the cross for our sins necessary for us to render due service to His glory?

Answer: We know that we love because He first loved us. (I John 4:17-19) We respond to God because he accords us enough importance. Can we stand before God reeking of sin like Asok before the board stinks of unimportance? If the board entertains Asok and his proposal, then they accord him importance. Likewise, as God sanctifies us, He accords us importance.

As a parenthetical, if the pointy-haired boss presents Asok's proposal, the board accepts it because of who presents it. Certainly, our case has been made by the Son before the Father. In that respect we have an advocate. When I was in the Marine Band it was recognized that I had a level of intelligence. For a while, I had the highest GT score in the entire 2D Marine Division Headquarters Battalion. I was an unimportant Lance Corporal, however, and my fellow band members dismissed this gift summarily by saying, "He's book smart, but he doesn't have any common sense." That afforded them the justification they needed to maintain their own self-importance. Once, during a sectional, we encountered a complex set of rhythms. I correctly analyzed the written music and was alone in my analysis. Everyone else completely and hotly disagreed with me. Just then, our Master Sergeant, the senior staff member of our unit, entered and inquired as to the substance of the debate. After studying the music for several moments, he agreed that my analysis was correct. With his authority, it was generally accepted and we were able to move on. He was important. I was not. This despite the fact that I demonstrably outweighed everyone in the room, including the staff member, in cognitive marbles.

Well, we know that human perception is less than wise. Importance is often recognized on anything other than rational terms. For all of God's glory, none of us is intrinsically important. However, God accords us a level of virtual importance. First is that we need to understand our unimportance. Second, in order to respond in love, we must be able to understand our importance to God. My question is this:

What's the balance between understanding our unimportance and our importance with regard to our Creator?

What's the Measure of Your Heart?

"A heart is not judged by how much you love but by how much you are loved by others." The Wizard of Oz (to the Tin Man)

Are you lovable? None of us are intrinsically lovable. One might wonder if the Wiz even had it right. It's true that we are commanded by Christ to love, but is that the measure of our heart?

I've been editing a video of our recent Christmas Concert at church. Right now, I'm waiting for the final cut of the second piece to export. It has 40 more minutes. What's missing from it is some fantastic camera work done by a girl studying cinematography in college. She even brought a good high-definition video camera from school. it uses the same miniDV tapes that mine does. When she was done, she gave me the tapes. I took them home and found out that the high-def format isn't playable on my camera. There was no way for me to capture the video she took with her camera.

We met at church, she with her camera and I with my laptop and had a capture party. After fiddling with the hardware to get the computer to recognize the camera, we were off. We captured all the video and I got to see the great closeups she got. A few hours later we were finished and I had some great video saved to files on my hard drive - or so I thought. When I got home, I found the files and tried to play them. They were blank except for some video that she shot with my camera. The format wasn't compatible with my software. I just don't have the capacity to process high-definition video. The greatest video I have are clips I can't use. All that work for nothing.

What is the measure of the value of the video? Is it merely utilitarian? That's what I'm tempted to say here. The high-def clips are useless. They exceed the capacity of the program. They outshine the quality of the other video but no one will ever see them. I have the tapes and no means to play them or use them. They will not make the final cut. However, their value transcends their usefulness. In them is encoded the greatest expression of the Christmas program that I have and I will treasure what they represent.

The pattern of Christ is encoded in creation. The Bible is inerrant and is our certain source of truth. However, truth exists outside the text of the Bible inasmuch as it agrees with the text of the Bible. This truth is to be sought for its intrinsic value. This is why I used the quote from the Wizard of Oz. I'll also use this song from Icicle Works:

Love Is Full Of Wonderful Colour

My friend and I, were talking one evening,
Beside some burning wood,
Trading tales of places we came upon,
When the times were good,

Spoke of a girl he viewed like no other,
Whom he had come to know,
I swallowed hard and listened intently,
Resigned beside the glow...

Always there, it's standing proudly,
When all else falls down,
It's all around you, didn't it find you,
When you said you couldn't be found,

When love calls me, I will be running swiftly,
To find out just what all the fuss is all about,
Unrelentless, deep in the strangest feelings,
Believe me, love is full of wonderful colour...

I insist that you pick the wrong one,
To preach your theories to,
Simmer down, we'll run for a reason,
To see what faith can do,

Love is a beacon, on the horizon,
Watch when you touch down,
Reality finds you fumbling for reasons,
when the chance comes 'round

Take my confidence to guide you,
Through the fallen hope inside you,
Love is full of wonderful colour

Who knows precisely what the composer really meant by these words. This is a style of writing that is often nebulous although it sounds deep. however, there are some things to note that are pertinent to my observation here. Although, "a girl he viewed like no other" seems to indicate that the value is in the one who loves, he's talking about being loved: "didn't it find you, When you said you couldn't be found". "Take my confidence to guide you, through the fallen hope inside you." While these words can be interpreted different ways, the measure of our heart is not in that we love, but that we are loved. When we have hope in no other and when we are alone in this world, the value of our heart is in the love that we are given by God.

I love the word "confidence". We usually attribute this to someone who is self-assured. However, the word literally means "with faith". In whom do we have faith? If we measure the value of our heart by our own capacity to love, we have faith in ourselves. If we measure the value of our heart by how much we are loved, we have faith in another. "...we'll run for a reason, To see what faith can do, Love is a beacon, on the horizon." Do we operate according to our own capacity to understand or do we have a sure source of guidance?

I'm not referencing the Bible for a reason here. This is a truth that is easily found in the Bible. Do you know it well enough to find it in there? If not, then perhaps you don't know the love that God has for you. It is a truth that is pervasive enough for the Wizard of Oz to pick up on it as well as the decidedly secular New Age band, Icicle Works.

God loves you enough to come to this world in the person of the Son, born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago. He loves you enough to pay the penalty for your inability to love and your status as one who is unlovable. Nevertheless, He loves you. The value of your heart is contingent not on your failed attempts at love, but on God's perfect love for you. The value of your heart is not contingent on a truth that you can invent on your own, but on the truth the God gives us. Pick up the Bible and learn the truth about His love if you don't already know it.

God bless you this Christmas season.

The Invalent Matthew 25

I can’t find “invalent” in any of my dictionaries. Apparently, I’m not the first to use the term. Most instances I can find in the vast writings found on the immense trade land of ideas of the internet are a misspelling of “invalid” or “indolent”. I have found a screen name of someone who calls him/herself “invalent”. Then I have found the term contrived for use in technical discourse in the areas of philosophy and chemistry. I’m contriving it for my own purposes and I’ll define it for you:

The prefix “in-” can mean “not” (negative) or “into” (positive). The suffix “-valent” means to have a valence specified by the prefix. Valence has the etymological definition “capacity” and is relate top words like “value” or “valid”. If something is invaluable, then it is priceless. If it is invalid it is worthless. (Someone who is an “invalid” is incapacitated in some respect.)

Since “invaluable” and “invalid” already have established meanings with one or the other meanings of the prefix “in-”, and since “invalent” isn’t likely to hit the dictionaries in general usage anytime soon, I’m coining it for my own usage. As such, it is unknown to any who understand any meaning of the suffix “-valent” to know which meaning of the prefix “in-” I intend. This is fitting, for I intend the meaning to be perfectly ambiguous.

Valence also has a couple of other interesting definitions that apply. In psychology, valence is the degree of attraction or aversion that an individual feels toward a specific object or event. Valence, in general, can also be the capacity of something to unite, react, or interact with something else.

So, when asked how I am doing today I may reply, “Simply invalent, thank you.” This will leave the questioner entirely in the dark. If they think about it, they may arrive at the conclusion that my response was intended to be ambiguous and that perhaps that is indeed how I am feeling today.

Which, by the way, is how I feel most days: both invaluable and worthless. Consider that this term could apply to some victims toward their abductors/abusers/attackers where they find a certain attraction to them. I’ve heard of it happening in hostage situations. There are people who stake their sociological claims by devaluing others. They often become popular among those they devalue. The reason is because the ones who are being devalued notice the popular attention that such individuals attract and unreasonably believe that sociological proximity to these people can obtain for them the sociological value that has been usurped from them. Another example may be the capacity to interact sociologically on one level but not another, which is what you get when people ask questions like, “How are you today?” They don’t often want the truth.

But this has theological value as well.

Linus is certainly trying to be contrite. I might believe it if this were written my Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown hopes beyond hope that Lucy will not pull the football away time after time. From him she merely obtains entertainment value at his physical and emotional duress. She doesn’t value his dream of kicking the football. Yet his desire is less in kicking the football as it is hoping that Lucy will value him enough not to pull it away at the last moment. Charlie Brown has been beaten down enough to see himself as less than valuable.

Enter the eschatological Matthew 25. I read this with the kids last night and realized something about the parable of the talents that I had never noticed before. I asked the kids if they had ever learned about the parable of the talents in Sunday School or some other class at church. Hope didn’t recall it, but Luke did. I asked if they had a side note in their study Bibles that expounded on this passage. Luke read one from his and I asked him if this was the lesson that he was taught from this passage. This, he affirmed, was the case.

The lesson is one I’m sure we’ve all heard if we’ve ever heard a lesson from this passage. This is that we should use the gifts and talents we have been given for building the Kingdom of Heaven. You may think of such abilities to teach, preach, sing, evangelize, etc, as the gifts and talents we have been given. This is a good lesson. We should want to serve God with those things we are equipped to do. However, I realized last night that this lesson doesn’t fit the eschatological context.

Matthew 24 establishes clearly that Christ is talking about the “end-times”. The first verse of Chapter 25 affirms that He is still teaching about the “end-times”. “Then [or at that time] the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins…” He then tells a parable about being prepared for the second coming of Christ. Immediately after the parable of the talents is the account of the judgment of the “lambs” and the “goats”. When does this take place? In the “end-times”. Why would we not understand the parable of the talents in light of Christ’s teaching of eschatology?

For the virgins, what is the price of admission to the wedding banquet? Oil in the lamps? Just to be on time? Well, we know that they needed oil in their lamps to get down the road to the place where they needed to be, but they didn’t keep their lamps filled. It doesn’t seem that the issue was that they needed money, but that they had not invested the money and the time they had in the very substance that would ensure their preparedness.

In the judgment, the sheep are admitted and the goats are excluded on what basis? The sheep gave to the least of these brothers of Christ and the goats did not. The sheep gave acts of simple grace to otherwise worthless people. They invested in Christ by doing so.

As an aside, why did Christ make the distinction between sheep and goats if He also made the distinction between giving and not giving? Could it be that there is an intrinsic difference implied between “sheep” and “goats” in this account? What if a sheep didn’t give? What if a goat did? Would the goat who gave magically become a sheep? Would the sheep who failed to give magically become a goat? How would Arminius answer this question? ‘Nuff said.

So what is the parable of the talents about? It is about investing, but what are we investing? When I realized this, I directed the kids to Romans 5:16-17. The gift, I argued is the gift of grace and the righteousness of Christ. I asked them what would happen if they give grace and righteousness away? Would they run out of grace and righteousness? I saw the lights go on in their heads. “No,” they replied, “God gives us more.” I explained that when we give grace and righteousness, we are given more. Plus, someone else has received grace and righteousness. The kingdom of heaven has been propagated.

On the other hand, if we have received the gift of grace and righteousness and have hidden it away for fear that someone else will have it, then we have not invested properly in the kingdom of heaven. It has not been propagated. As new creations, we have not been fruitful and multiplied. If it is grace, then it must be given away – or it is no longer grace. So, whoever does not give the gift of grace that has been given, from them will be taken the gift of grace. Lest you think I’m contradicting the perseverance of the saints, there is a matter where we have all been given some general grace. For those who bear the mind of the Master, they will give general grace and receive the particular grace of salvation. Like the virgins who gave their money and obtained oil early.

Grace and the righteousness of Christ are valuable. The investment of such in the lives of others yields extraordinary dividends in the kingdom of heaven. For the Charlie Browns among us who would hope for a Christmas present yet are convinced of their own lack of value, they may receive a gift that is more valuable than a toy that will break in a couple of weeks. They may receive the free gift of grace and righteousness.

It is a source of constant frustration that yields a feeling of worthlessness that my particular gifts and talents are underutilized for the kingdom of Christ. Yet, I know that have invested where I could if only with the “bankers”, among the people of God. Perhaps it is that my abundant gifts are a special blessing for the very few to whom I am able to offer them. Do you desire to use the gifts that God has given you for His glory? Especially, do you seek to give away the gift of grace and the righteousness of Christ that you have received? Are you worthless, but have been given the invaluable gift? This, you have to give. You also can be “invalent”?

Art and the Artist

I was looking through the blogs on my news reader and came across an interesting article on the value of art entitled "Low-Brow Thoughts on High-Brow Art" posted by Justin Taylor on his blog, Between Two Worlds. It concerned this painting which just sold for nearly $73 million:

An interesting discussion ensued. As I contemplated the value of art I was struck by a parallel between art created by humans and the artistry of creation by the Creator. I arrived at the conclusion that the value of art is recognized by understanding its context and posted my thoughts in the comments. I'll reiterate them here for your consideration:

My take is that it's all about context.

If you hang this painting on a blank wall next to a Where's Waldo and don't give me an inkling that this is supposed to be important somehow, then I might give it a glance and head straight for the Where's Waldo.

If I walk into a classroom with a bunch of scribble pictures on the wall, I'll look for the name of my kid and admire the one he did. If you don't tell me which one he did, I'd never give it a second glance.

If I didn't have any idea that we were created in the image of God, I wouldn't bother to look for Him in anyone. God is our context.

This painting is worth little if anything without the history of the genre and knowledge of the artist, which is its context.

The difference between the high brows and the low brows is knowledge of the context. The difference between Christians and non-Christians is the knowledge of the Artist that created us.