Three Great Reasons for Christians to Save and Invest Their Money
Posted on June 26, 2018 in Money, Theology by Nathan Cherry
I’ve run into more than one Christian that has told me their “retirement plan is heaven.” On the surface this sounds like a highly spiritual answer to a biblical question. In reality, this shows a lack of understanding of biblical financial principles.
Saving for emergencies and retirement is not a lack of faith in God. Accumulating assets for our medical care and basic needs when we are older is not a sin. In order to properly address this, however, we must first understand some simple biblical truths.
A recent article highlights a number of biblical principles for saving and investing. I found it well-written. Three of the principles listed include the detriment of debt, the biblical nature of saving for our future, and how wise investing is good.
Let’s just cut to the chase right now and admit that people have too much debt. Between mortgages, second mortgages, home equity lines of credit, multiple car payments, multiple credit cards, and student loans, people have too much debt. Debt is indeed a form of bondage (Prov. 22:7). Beyond the fact that we become the servant of another when we incur debt, we miss out on other opportunities.
By having debt, the money we pay each month towards those debts cannot be used for better opportunities. When we compound our debts, we are not only making principle payments, we are making interest payments. Those interest payments add up and reduce our purchasing power and opportunities. Furthermore, debt will ensure we have to work longer and have less to save. Continue reading…
Google Faced with Decision to Engage in Censorship – or Not
Posted on June 20, 2018 in Life, Money, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
If you owned a business, would you want to provide more or less options for your clients?
More specifically, if your business was to provide search results to customer queries, would you want to be known for providing comprehensive search results or for providing politically charged search results?
That’s the decision Google is now faced with as pro-abortion advocates demand the internet search giant limit search results to pacify their political agenda.
Abortion advocates apparently have no problem with censorship as long as it favors them. I can’t imagine they would be as excited if pro-life groups were calling for Google to censor abortion clinics in search results. I imagine that would cause them to scream and protest about censorship. Then again, if you’re willing to kill unborn children I suppose censoring your opponents really isn’t a big deal.
A recent article reports:
“On Tuesday, abortion activists with the groups UltraViolet and CREDO protested outside Google headquarters in California, demanding that the media giant remove pregnancy centers from its internet search results.” Continue reading…
IVF is the Essence of an Inconsistent, Double Standard Definition of Life
Posted on June 19, 2018 in Life, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
A storage tank malfunction in Cleveland brings to light the inconsistency in the definition of “life.”
Earlier this year a fertility clinic at the University Hospital in Cleveland, OH had to explain why their storage tank failed, and 4000 frozen embryo’s and eggs were destroyed. The malfunction impacted approximately 950 families that had embryos and eggs stored in the tank.
CEO Thomas F. Zenty III issued a public apology and took responsibility for the malfunction and hoped actions taken after the incident would restore trust.
“We failed our fertility clinic patients. We are sorry. I am sorry. And we’re going to do everything we can to regain our patients’ trust.These failures should not have happened, we take responsibility for them – and we are so sorry that our failures caused such a devastating loss to you…We hope our actions will restore your trust in us.”
On the surface this looks like a tragedy. But why? According to Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court, and the legal system in the United States, these were just blobs of tissue, cells clumped together that represented the potential for human life, certainly not anything alive. Why would anyone be upset over this incident?
Furthermore, why would anyone bring a lawsuit agains the clinic claiming a loss of life? A recent article on this situation reports: Continue reading…
The Battle’s Not Over: Here’s What the Cake Baking Ruling Didn’t Do
Posted on June 14, 2018 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Before you blow out the candles on your celebratory cake, let’s take another look at the Supreme Court’s cake ruling.
People are understandably excited. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker that refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake. Throughout the entire 6 year ordeal, Jack maintained that he would happily serve gay customers and bake them anything they wanted; but that he does not bake same-sex wedding cakes.
In fact, Jack doesn’t bake Halloween cakes, cakes with explicit messages or photos, divorce cakes, or cakes containing alcohol. These guidelines stem from Jack’s religious convictions. These guidelines allow Jack to happily serve every customer that walks into his shop but still refuse to create cakes with certain messages.
The Colorado Human Rights Commission said Jack discriminated against two men based on their sexual orientation. Jack was fined and ordered to undergo state sponsored monitoring. That’s creepy in a China-ish sort of way. Jack appealed to the Supreme Court where the court, in a lopsided ruling, ruled in favor of Jack.
So people are understandably excited.
Before we get too excited though, let’s understand why this ruling has rightly been called “narrow.” Continue reading…
Paige Patterson, Albert Mohler, and a Brief Theology of Complimentarianism
Posted on June 12, 2018 in Marriage, Theology by Nathan Cherry
In the wake of the controversy surrounding Paige Patterson, the former president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a leading voice in the Southern Baptist Convention, asked a poignant question.
Mohler, wondering out loud about how to think concerning the problems of sexual abuse in Baptist circles asked:
“Is complementarianism the problem? Is it just camouflage for abusive males and permission for the abuse and mistreatment of women? We can see how that argument would seem plausible to so many looking to conservative evangelicals and wondering if we have gone mad.” Continue reading…
BOOM: President Trump Defunds Planned Parenthood! Here’s My Big Concern.
Posted on June 6, 2018 in Life, Money, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
Photo by Oliver Contreras-Pool/Getty Images
President Trump has once again kept his promise to be a pro-life president. For that I am grateful. But I have major concerns with the effect his actions will have.
President Trump has once again delivered on his campaign promise to be a pro-life president by reinstating a policy that denies Title X funding to any community health center that provides abortion. Title X is the federal program that provides free and low-cost health services, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and mammograms to low income people.
Planned Parenthood has been the recipient of these funds, to the tune of $60 million per year, for quite a while. That revenue stream for the abortion merchant came to an end when President Trump proposed the “Protect Life Rule,” which would refuse federal funds to any group providing abortion.
Despite hysterics by Planned Parenthood, a recent articlemakes clear that this proposal does not defund Planned Parenthood or outlaw abortion:
“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law. Any grantees that perform, support, or refer for abortion have a choice – disentangle themselves from abortion or fund their activities with privately raised funds.”
This proposal simply requires any health service organization receiving Title X funds to be an entirely separate entity from one providing abortions. Planned Parenthood, for example, could continue to provide abortions as long as such facilities are completely separate from the facilities where they provide other services. Of course Planned Parenthood wants everyone to think that all health care for all women is now in jeopardy. Continue reading…
Supreme Court Ruling was Good – But Not Good Enough
Posted on June 5, 2018 in Marriage, Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Before we get too excited about the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning baker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, let’s make sure we are clear on the details.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a Colorado cake maker, Jack Phillips, did not have to bake a cake for same-sex wedding. Christians rejoiced. Conservatives cheered. I think someone even gave Donald Trump credit. But before we lose our minds with excitement or despair, let’s make sure we understand the scope of this “narrow” ruling.
Many criticized the media for calling it a “narrow” ruling after the 7-2 decision was handed down. Some called the media out as biased attempting to downplay the decision. This only shows that we often read just a headline and assume we know the context of the article. By definition, the ruling is in fact, narrow.
The decision impacts, at this point, primarily Jack Phillips and the fine levied against him by the Colorado Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court effectively vacated the state’s decision to punish Jack for attempting to live by his sincerely held religious beliefs. The court also made clear that this decision doesn’t pertain to other cases, and that those cases would need to proceed through the courts and could possibly be adjudicated differently.
Joe Carter, writing at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission noted:
“Despite a strong majority of justices voting in support of the decision, the implications for religious liberty are rather narrow in scope, and it is difficult to know how it will affect similar cases. ‘In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated. The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.’” Continue reading…
The Women’s March is Really Upset About the End of a Sex-Trafficking Website
Posted on May 31, 2018 in Public Policy, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
It’s hard to take some special interest groups seriously when they are inconsistent or downright hypocritical in their position.
One example of a group I have a hard time giving any serious credit to is The Women’s March. This group claims to be primarily about women’s rights, protecting women, advancing women. And yet when a significant victory to protect vulnerable women and children was accomplished, The Women’s March took the side of criminals, abusers, and oppressors.
In case you didn’t know, Backpage.com was recently shut down by the FBI. Their CEO was arrested and the government seized the website and shut it down. The primary reason is sex-trafficking: selling women and children to the highest bidder to be raped and abused.
It seems reasonable that a movement dedicated to protecting women would celebrate the closure of a website dedicated to trafficking women. Then again, we are not living in reasonable times. Joe Carter, writing at The Gospel Coalition, reports a strange tweet sent out by The Women’s March upon hearing the news that Backpage.com was closed:
“The shutting down of #Backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers who rely on the site to safely get in touch with clients. Sex workers rights are women’s rights.” Continue reading…
Would You Like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos to be Your Boss?
Posted on May 30, 2018 in Money by Nathan Cherry
Founders of a company have two options: keep the company private or go public.
For the sake of clarity and space, let’s assume the CEO is also the founder of the company.
If the CEO decides to keep the company private, he is welcome to run the company as he pleases. He can choose to ignore the advice of everyone around him. He doesn’t have to apologize when things go badly, and he can take the credit when things go well. In general, running a privately held company allows for all the freedom the CEO desires.
The downside, some might say, to running a privately held company is generating capital. The CEO must be mindful when spending money because it is limited. Without investment managers and willing investors funneling money into the company by buying stock or buying debt, the company’s resources are a bit more limited.
On the other hand, the CEO of a public company, one that allows individual and institutional investors to buy stock and debt in the company has a different role. This CEO must answer to shareholders. Since a publicly traded company allows investors to purchase stock shares, groups like the SEC require a certain amount of accountability.
Lately it seems CEO’s have forgotten that they have a responsibility to their shareholders.
Take for example the recent bad behavior by Tesla CEO Elon Musk during the Tesla earnings report. During a Q&A portion of the call Musk was asked about Tesla’s capital requirements and an update on Model 3 production. Rather than answering the honest questions and showing respect to his shareholders, he made the following comments: Continue reading…
Social Justice Warriors Make Bad Financial Advisors
Posted on May 23, 2018 in Money, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
I think financial advisors do great work for people. Everyone should have a competent financial professional that they can call on to help with the ever changing landscape of personal finance. But who you choose as your financial advisor can make all the difference in the world.
If you were thinking of choosing David Hogg, the Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist as your financial advisor, you might want to reconsider.
Hogg gained a measure of fame after he spoke at a anti-gun rally in Washington, D.C. following the shooting at his high-school in Parkland, FL that resulted in the loss of 17 lives. Following the rally Hogg called for a boycott of The Laura Ingraham show after she mocked him for complaining about not getting into the colleges he applied for. Those efforts resulted in numerous advertisers pulling their funding and a drop in ratings for Ingraham.
After the success of his media tour and boycott of Ingraham, Hogg decided to take on two of the largest investment groups in the world by calling for a boycott of BlackRock and Vanguard.
Tweeting to his army of Twitter activists, Hogg said: “.@blackrock and @Vanguard_Group are two of the biggest investors in gun manufacturers; if you use them, feel free to let them know,” as reported by The Washington Times. Hogg apparently expected the same kind of success as he saw from the Ingraham boycott. Continue reading…