[[How has been]]

Monday, June 27, 2022

[[]]

Generational shifts in society affect churches. It is easy to think that one generation is "right" or "more biblical" or "more committed" or "more knowledgeable" than another. Let us look at some (one for now) case studies.

Case study 1. Management of money, how aggressive should one invest?

I could be wrong but I have observed that the younger generation starts investing a lot earlier and a lot more aggressively than preceding generations. Off the top of my head, this is probably due to a combination of a few factors.

1. Increased financial education (which might be a derivative of a more educated younger generation too) - Younger generation learns about investing earlier. Also about inflation, compounding interest, time horizons, risk - easily accessible through youtube and other platforms

2. Access to investment opportunities / platforms - Newer generation has low cost brokers, crypto, bonds, gold, art .etc at the touch of their fingertips. Gone are the days when you need a relationship with your bank manager or pay 25 dollars per trade in commissions such that only the wealthy invest.

3. Different time horizons - Older generations are closer to retirement, more conservative in risk taking.

4. Different generational values - Older generation value survival more.

Generally speaking, the uncontroversial biblical concept of how a Christian church should manage money is stewardship. However, what constitutes good stewardship?

A younger person might argue that keeping the church's reserves in a fixed deposit at the fraction of a percentage is worse than the servant that kept his talent and buried it in a field since on real terms, the value of the church's reserves which is analogous to a talent or "resource unit" that God has given to us is being eaten away by inflation year over year. At the very least, the church should take on some short term risk by investing in a conservative basket of stocks, bonds and real estate (for any reserves) for in the long term, it has historically kept up / beat inflation. Furthermore, the church should spend / give away the money for worthy causes as much as possible.

An older person might argue that God doesn't intend for us to "gamble" with the church's money. And that it is prudent to save, maybe citing from proverbs, for a rainy day. And that it is important that it is "risk free" as it is not their own money but money entrusted by congregants to the church for the use of the church and it would be hard to explain to the congregation that we have just lost more than 20% of it in the recent market downturn. A fixed deposit would be the best way to manage the church's wealth as it is dollar guaranteed and keep a sizable reserve in case of events like losing one's premises or some other unforeseen disaster.

"Bracketing" judgement on who is more correct or biblical for now, I would like to give some observations.

1- Even if a church acknowledges the merits of both lines of argument, a decision ultimately has to be made - short of doing some half half kind of compromise

2a- For churches where the congregation holds the ultimate power, the make up of the EDC and the congregation is usually decisive

2b- This is even more so if we look at the demographic that contributes the most to the coffers of the church (I know I know, we strive to be impartial but please, don't kid yourself). This demographic is going to undergo a big change in the next decade or so as people enter the workforce or retire

c - Both the hypothetical young person and old person are acting in good faith. Both want the church to manage money the way they would have done (give or take a little). And assuming that people are self interested in the way they manage their own money, it is clear that they think their favoured way is best.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:36 PM|

Monday, June 20, 2022

[[]]

Of all the money that ere I had, I spent it in good company.

Do you know that following the law is futile?

I suppose I can demonstrate it from personal experience. Have you ever set yourself some rule, like oh never gonna watch porn again, or never gonna lose my temper at my mum again or even like will do such and such. You will fail, rule keeping always fails. The motivation to keep rules is not big enough to fight whatever caused you to do it in the first place i.e sin or self-centeredness. And you try to get more comprehensive rules and or workarounds and it just devolves because, fail. You can try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Another example is like the army safety handbook. They say that it is written in blood. So someone screwed up and they wrote don't do that. But well... there is a reason why they screwed up. And rules are not going to overcome the fundamental reason whether it be laziness or not giving a shit or gunghoness. At best they can provide a bandaid, some friction. Of course friction is better than no friction, but if you know any army officer below the rank/appointment of where they have to say they always follow safety protocols, you know that that doesn't happen lol.

The army safety handbook being really comprehensive is also really burdensome. It tries to be comprehensive to reduce/eliminate any potential risk, but eliminating risk, especially circumstantial risk, means cutting out more than is necessary. And people are also not stupid, if you need 1 hour to do everything properly to save a 0.01% risk, people do rather take that risk. I suppose it is an example of the comprehensiveness of the law that is required for perfection and why it doesn't work.

Actually I wanted to write about something entirely differently but it is gone. Perhaps I will write it if it comes back to me.

Oh! I think it is about people in the past. Ah, maybe some other time.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:16 PM|