John H Armstrong

What Andreas Widmer Learned About Business and Entrepreneurship from the Pope

Business entrepreneur Andreas Widmer has a truly great story to tell. His new book, The Pope and the CEO, tells this story and makes a hugely valuable point about both business and poverty. Widmer says, “The pope showed me what real leadership looks like. He modeled for me how to pursue our God-given potential. Not coincidentally, this also makes us and those around us better employees, more capable of and more willing to work hard at building a stronger company. That is something that makes both good human sense and good business sense.” Amen!

Andreas Widmer served as a member of the elite Swiss Guard for two years. The guard is a security detail that protects the pope. (I had the opportunity to talk to some members of the Swiss Guard at the Vatican in March and find their work very interesting.)  In this new book Andreas Widmer gives us a behind-the-scenes look into the life and thinking of Pope John Paul II, “the most authentically human person I’ve ever met.” He reveals how these memories shaped and forged his own success, after he served at the Vatican, as a corporate executive.

Papal biographer George Weigel has called Widmer’s story a powerful example of leadership at work. In this new book Widmer recounts his personal experiences in serving Pope John Paul II and then relates the secrets of successful leadership that he learned directly from the pope. Both the story and the secrets are worth the time and the book.

Widmer moved up the ladder of business success and eventually became senior management in a $600 million company.This company, Dargon Systems, developed voice recognition system for computers. When he helped to sell the company he was involved he relates that he learned a hard lesson. The company that bought the business was fraudulent. He says the leaders of Dragon went with their stomach not their heart and they paid for it deeply. He began to think a lot more deeply about business rather than just balance sheets. The result of this process shows powerfully in his new book.

What Andreas Widmer says the pope actually taught him was about the value and importance of entrepreneurship. The pope said that when you look at the market you must focus on the goal, not the system itself. He says the pope taught him that the real human goal of any enterprise was human flourishing and prosperity. These results, flourishing and profit making, rests on three legs: (1) The freedom that comes from participatory government. We must be able to vote and have a say in the direction of our human affairs. (2) A free economy. The law must be “blind.” Everyone is the same before the law. Without this freedom, joined with the “rule of law,” economic association will not work properly. (3) A robust public moral culture. This is the only thing that will check the appetites of the first two. Put simply greedy capitalism is a real problem but the solution is not to attack freedom.

You can watch Widmer talk about these principles and his new book on a recent Wall Street Journal interview. The interviewer should have allowed Widmer to talk more but the second half of the interview is worth waiting for it you take eight minutes to see it. Andreas Widmer is part of the Seven Fund. SEVEN (Social Equity Venture Fund) is a virtual non-profit entity run by
entrepreneurs whose strategy is to markedly increase the rate of innovation and diffusion of enterprise-based solutions to poverty. I am also pleased to say that Andreas Widmer also has a relationship with Acton Institute.

Words of Wisdom for Labor Day

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was born in Brooklyn, New York. He was a prolific public intellectual, and an American Nobel Laureate economist, something we need a lot more of these days. He made major contributions to both economics and statistics. In 1976 Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy. Simply put, Milton Friedman was the best known advocate of economic freedom in recent American history.

According to The Economist, which is not a pro-Friedman magazine, Milton Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century . . . possibly of all of it.” Former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan stated, "There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people." I agree with Alan Greenspan’s analysis. This does not mean that I agree with everything Friedman wrote but in general I believe his thinking about freedom, economics and markets is sound and (generally) irrefutable.

Last week I came across one of the best Friedman’s quotes I have ever found: "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

If you think about it this sounds counterintuitive at first glance. Surely we should strive for equality in a nation that is fundamentally committed to freedom (“all men are created equal”). But equality under the law is not the same thing as the equality of results. Yes, the law should be color blind but people are not and cannot be forced to embrace results based on this law. And yes, we should strive to protect the freedom of all people, regardless of race, creed, religion or gender. But, and this is hugely important, freedom does not mean that everyone will have the same economic results. This is a false deduction. Thus true freedom comes first and with true freedom people will have the opportunity to better themselves in an open society of laws. This is why Friedman also said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” I believe he is right. This is why I believe in economic freedom – I believe in freedom!

Friedman expressed the same type of sound thinking when he wrote: "I think that nothing is so important for freedom as recognizing in the law each individual’s natural right to property, and giving individuals a sense that they own something that they’re responsible for, that they have control over, and that they can dispose of."

One of the most engaging and thought-provoking Friedman statements that I recently came across was made in reference to one of the most memorable lines in a presidential speech in my lifetime.

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.’ It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic ‘what your country can do for you’ implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, ‘what you can do for your country’ implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive” (italics mine).

But doesn’t the government have a role in creating business and jobs? We hear a great deal about this role during the present recession. The wisdom of Friedman is again remarkably precise because he provides a profound measure of necessary wisdom for us in this difficult time. The government is a bad creator of jobs in almost every instance. Why? Because the government is not designed for creating jobs. When it tries it often makes things much worse, contrary to popular opinion. Here is a funny Friedmanism about what government often does: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."

"There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud” (italics mine). Note that he says business must stay within the rules of the game. This did not happen with AIG and its related practices on Wall Street. This did have an impact on bringing about our present economic problem. White collar crime is serious and it clearly tilts the table against freedom.

But what about the government’s role in providing jobs? Almost everything we hear these days is one argument after another about the growing danger of a “jobless recovery.” This is followed by an appeal to the role of Washington, or your state capitol, to provide more jobs. I would argue that the government is not in the business of business; i.e., that it should not provide jobs. The best thing it can do for jobs is to protect true freedom so the market creates jobs. This will happen if the government plays a limited role in the process and allows real freedom to work. Said Milton Friedman:

"For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs--jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume."

Some may read this as a license of consumerism, something I’ve written against many times. I do not read this statement in that way. Good jobs provide real goods and services for real people to consume (use) for real needs and imagined needs. It is the imagined needs that are created by consumerism, a by-product of freedom that we can personally resist without trying to manage other people’s lives in the process. Again, the central purpose of government is to protect our freedom and besides the freedom of religion and the right to vote no freedom is more vital to our day-to-day well-being than economic freedom. Friedman, a mild libertarian from what I can tell, understood that quite clearly. This was basis for his opposition to government’s intervention in the use of marijuana as well. This was the basis of this one final quote I share:

"This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes ‘on suspicion’ can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations."

Dealing with Consumerism Through Biblical Asceticism

Let’s face it – there is a growing personal freedom that comes by living in a culture deeply rooted in materialism and consumerism. If I have enough money, and the desire to spend it, I can buy a new car, a bigger home or a new iPhone or iPad. In fact, I can have all of this stuff and never even pay for it, or at least not for several years anyway. This is not all bad. But this particular kind of consumerism feeds into two major problems – individualism and hedonism. And these two problems create devastating moral consequences in our society. This explains, I believe, why so many well-intentioned Christians link free markets with consumerism and them reject them both in the process. I tried to show yesterday why this connection was false.

Make no mistake about this -- the dangers here are very real. In fact, a great deal of modern evangelistic practice has fallen into a consumerist trap. We seek to fill a personal niche by appealing to consumer needs and desires. We tell consumers (the non-Christians we are evangelizing) that they need the message of the gospel more than they realize. We then package and market the gospel (?) in a way that helps them see just how much they need it. The problem with this approach is that it gets really close to embodying a view of God that makes him as the author of our personal satisfaction. The real answer to this should be found in Christian churches and communities where alternative Christian virtues are actually taught and nurtured.

I believe Christians further err when they turn everything into one of two categories – a blessing or a curse. When this happens we apply this blessing/curse thinking to wealth and the personal freedom we have to build and grow a business. I wish I could count how many times I’ve heard Christians say that great wealth will destroy America, thus assuming that great wealth is a huge curse. On the other hand I almost never hear people say it would be a great blessing if we became a very poor nation. Why? Because poverty brings its own problems and these also destroy both growth and personal faith.

What should we do about the confusion that we’ve created about economic freedom, wealth and consumerism? First, we need to be clear about the difference between capitalism and consumerism. Capitalism, at least as an understanding of how economies work, is not taught in the New Testament. What is taught is how Christ sets us free. And this freedom extends to all areas of life – public and private. This includes the freedom to buy and sell, to build one’s own business, to possess wealth and to save money and give it away.

Monasticism is a distinct calling for some. But we are not all called to be monks who renounce material wealth. But, and I believe this is a missing link here, there is a proper ascetic discipline that we all need. This means that we all need the kind of Christian discipline that checks consumerism in a major way.

Asceticism, from the Greek áskēsis, refers to "exercise" or "training.” In the Christian sense asceticism describes a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from various (legitimate) worldly pleasures. Like an athlete that “works out” in order to win we “work out” in order to attain our Christ-like goals. Our mistake is to think that we have sacrificed deeply because we do not steal or kill. This behavior is expected of all people, redeemed or not. For the Christian real sacrifice means to give up what we could have kept for ourselves in order to attain a higher purpose. A proper asceticism will always stress pursuing Christ-centered spiritual goals by giving up what is permitted so that we can become more like Jesus. If we engage in this kind of biblical asceticism we will come face-to-face with Western consumerism and thus find the proper means to address its seductive power in our lives and churches. But if we confuse economic freedom with consumerism we will fall for solutions to this problem that will only create unforeseen consequences that are dangerous to our personal well-being and culture.

Does Economic Freedom Lead to Consumerism?

A number of false conclusions are drawn by focusing only on outcomes. A common one focuses on the dangers of free markets and an open economy. Critics, especially earnest Christian critics, often attack economic freedom and capitalism based upon the very real dangers of consumerism. This association between markets and consumerism is so common that it often goes unchallenged. I hear it almost daily. But is the connection between free market capitalism and consumerism correct? Does opposition to consumerism, which is clearly a rampant problem in the church in the West, obligate one to oppose markets and growing a (global) business? Keep in mind, before you leap into this debate, that you should always ask a few questions before you leap.

The first question should be obvious? What exactly is consumerism? So far as I can tell the term "consumerism" was first used in 1915 to refer to the "advocacy of the rights and interests of consumers" (Oxford English Dictionary). But this is not the common way most modern writers use the term.  Consumerism refers rather to the sense that was first used in 1960 when the word referred to an "emphasis on or preoccupation with the acquisition of consumer goods" (Oxford English Dictionary). In the light of the following texts I think we should oppose consumerism, or preoccupation with goods:

“Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; your life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15).

“Try to be content with essential food and clothing. If you are attached to riches, you can be trapped by senseless desires” (1 Timothy 6:8-10).

Jesus enjoyed the good things of life such as friendship, food, wine and even a cushion under his head. He lived a non-possessive (simple) life. He was unusually detached from family, friends and material things. But the reasons are deeply rooted in who he was and why he came to live and die.

At the same time it seems apparent that more than a few of the faithful, in both the Old and New Testament, were wealthy. The point here is that you can be wealthy and detached from stuff at the same time, though Jesus clearly says it is very difficult. This is why you must “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed” (Luke 12:15). The sin is not in having things but in being owned and controlled by the things you possess. This gets very close to what consumerism really is when our definition is clear. A consumer, as the more recent definition says, is preoccupied with acquisition! You can have wealth but not be preoccupied with it. In fact, some of the finest Christian benefactors in history have been extremely wealthy. Monasteries, colleges and hospitals have all been built because of Christian wealth.

The problem here needs sharper and clearer definition if the followers of Christ are to live well in the West. Consumerism has become a dominant ideology in Western culture. Seeking and having more is a reason to live for many, many people. “Born to shop” creates a few smiles but it is a terrible thing to admit!

The aim of Christian teaching is to help the followers of Christ think through an issue like this one critically. What is the relationship between the church and culture at this point? This leads to a number of other pertinent questions:

1. Does the church build and develop along consumerist lines?

2. Do we imitate consumerism in the way we present the gospel?

3. Have we been clear about the discipleship of all of life or just about private, spiritual concerns?

4. What public policy best serves the true enrichment of our neighbors? (This is one for considerable debate and Christians can legitimately disagree about this and should keep talking and listening.)

I believe we moved, especially in the post-World War II era, from a more healthy form of capitalism to a morally uncontrolled consumerism. Because of this shift in our culture arguments are made today for consumerism that should be challenged. But in the process we should not attack economic freedom through good intentions that are wrongly based.

 

The Barnabas Group

I recently had a unique opportunity to speak about unity in Christ’s mission. I was asked to present an address to The Barnabas Group (TBG) in San Diego (May 9) and Costa Mesa (May 10). The Costa Mesa site is in Orange County for those who do not know Southern California. My title for both meetings was: “The Unity Factor: One Lord, One Church, One Mission.”

The Barnabas Group is one of the more unique missions and ministries I’ve encountered. It combines a high view of business as divine vocation with a big vision of Christ’s kingdom and personal responsibility to his mission. The members of the Barnabas Group are thoughtful, serious and successful people. (I am using the word success here in a business sense thus I do not mean by it that success equals Christian faithfulness per se.)

The Barnabas Group (TBG) has existed since 2000. Their purpose is to make a powerful impact on ministries around the corner and around the globe. In contrast to many great individuals and organizations who support ministries primarily with the checkbook, TBG believes ministry-minded people can provide so much more if given an opportunity to use their network, time, unique abilities, spiritual gifts and resources to help ministries that reflect their own God-given passions. The result is a truly dynamic organization that stays fresh, exciting, and highly relevant to its members, ministries and the communities where it serves.

TBG was founded by Bob Shank (photo) and Jim West. Their purpose was to help men and women who had completed a three-year coaching program (The Master’s Program) to engage their personal calling in service for God’s Kingdom. Today, The Barnabas Group is made up of men and women who are enrolled in, or are graduates of, The Master's Program as well as other service-oriented Christian men and women who are willing to search out and participate in the exciting opportunities TBG provides. You can read more about the passion and vision of both men at the Web sites I’ve linked to in this post.

TBG meets as a whole four times annually. Members invest money and time in the group which allows them to learn about ministries and get involved at a personal level. Each time TBG meets six ministries are allowed/asked to present their mission and its need in 15 minutes. Two speakers are also asked to give plenary addresses that are considered relevant to the mission of TBG. I was one of those two presenters on May 9 and 10.

Presently there are ten groups, five of which are in California and the five in Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, Phoenix and Houston.

I experienced several opportunities by speaking to TBG. First, I met some of the finest  Christian businessmen I’ve come across in my entire life. It was so great to see what happens when the member ministers (laity) of churches become highly trained and deeply committed to their work as divine calling. Second, the ministries that presented themselves to the two groups I spoke to were all interesting, dynamic and exciting. I got to know each of these presenters personally. I felt that my primary role was to encourage these other missions. I see myself as an encourager of leaders so this opportunity fit me perfectly. I was not directly seeking financial help (though ACT 3 can use help) so I was perfectly free to give myself to the group and the other ministries who were there to present. I was given peace to trust God for what he wanted to do through my investment and let the results flow as they would. This is part and parcel of my ACT 3 vision, which is “to equip leaders for unity in Christ’s mission.” Third, I was deeply encouraged personally. My nephew had a lot to do with my getting to know Bob Shank and Jim West. When each person at out table was asked to share what person had encouraged them recently we each shared. My nephew said, “My uncle John!” That was enough to make my day.

I also had a wonderful opportunity to introduce a number of Barnabas Group leaders to Acton Institute, which gave me a special opportunity to partner again with my new Acton connection.

If you are a man or woman in business, and want to get better trained for effective kingdom ministry and involved in one of the most unique groups I’ve met, then check out The Master’s Program and TBG.

Cape Town, Orlando and the Kingdom of God

Question: What has Cape Town to do with Orlando?

Last October a historic global gathering of 4,200 evangelical Christian leaders took place in Cape Town, South Africa. Many of you followed that event via the Internet and some of you may have even listened to keynote addresses and know people who were present at this meeting. I posted one Lausanne address, by Christopher J. Wright, on this blog site. Since the first Lausanne Congress (1974) this initiative for worldwide evangelism has grown into a much more mature movement of Christian leaders working for unity and mission. The story is one every Christian who loves mission and unity should know.

The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE) is itself an evangelical movement that grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) and promotes active worldwide evangelism LCWE is simply known, among those who follow it, as The Lausanne Movement. The Lausanne Covenant, which was a theological and missiological document that grew out of the first meeting clearly defines the movement’s goals and expresses Lausanne’s deep commitment to spreading Christianity to every tribe, nation and tongue on earth. The movement’s tagline is: “The Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World.” The ICOWE was organized in part by Billy Graham and met in Switzerland, thus the name that has stuck ever since. Some 2,700 participants and guests from over 150 nations met at the first global gathering to discuss and promote evangelism. This group was largely, Western, white and male. One of the more important results of this conference was the Lausanne Continuation Committee, which planned to sustain the movement started at Lausanne. This committee formed the backbone for the official inception of the LCWE in 1976, which continue to this day. It is this committee which staged the second Lausanne meeting in Manila in 1989 and the third one last October in Cape Town.

The American expression of Lausanne is the Mission America Coalition. Like Lausanne internationally, Mission America seeks to avoid the bureaucratization that typically occurs within similar Christian movements. It maintains what can be called a federated system which includes dense networks that connect local activists with global leaders.

I recently attended the Mission America Coalition (MAC) national gathering in Orlando, Florida, April 4-6. I have been involved with several key leaders of MAC for some time. Dr. Paul Cedar, the chairman and CEO of MAC, is a friend and a fellow missional-ecumenical traveler. (I referred to Paul in a blog on October 10 last year.) Paul has encouraged me in several ways and has always shown himself to be a leader of grace and character. Previously Paul pastored the well-known Lake Avenue Congregational Church in Pasadena (CA) and then served as the president of the Evangelical Free Church in America. He models a style of leadership that is not about himself or his persona but about building human coalitions through friends and allies in Christ’s mission.

Another key leader in the MAC is Pastor Phil Miglioratti. Phil lives nearby and spends a fair share of time hanging out with me as his brother. I support his ministry personally and believe he is the finest facilitator of prayer I have ever met. I heartily endorse his mission and work. Because of my love for men like Paul and Phil , for the work of MAC and a number of other leaders in this movement, I wanted to share in the recent Orlando meeting.

The Orlando meeting was structured something like the Cape Town meeting. Plenary sessions involved worship, prayer and a lot of table conversation with four or five others seated with you. In this context I met some lay and full-time Christian leaders from churches, missions and servant organizations.

The finest part of the experience, at least for me, was the afternoon “affinity group” meeting. I attended one on marketplace mission and theology. I chose this group for two reasons. First, I am formally working with Acton Institute to reach out to evangelical leaders in every possible context to inform them about the value of Acton’s mission and resources. Acton represents a vision of whole-life discipleship that I think is truly needed. Business leaders often see this more readily than pastors. Second, I have found that business leaders understand and embrace missional-ecumenism more readily than most pastors. I think there are reasons for this too but I will save that for another day and place.

There were 15 of us in this Orlando affinity group. I think there were only two or three ordained ministers in the room and only one of them is presently serving in a local church pastorate. This itself made the group unique. It was a room of strong leaders, both men and women, who were in a small circle asking, “What does it mean to be called by God to mission in the marketplace?” We discussed business, ownership, being a CEO, entrepreneurship, money, church and biblical theology. It was one of the most enjoyable dialogs with serious Christians that I’ve enjoyed in years. We have continued the dialog online and talked about how this group could even meet again on its own. Something rather amazing happened for us, at least from what I saw and sensed during this time. I believe a major part of this was encouragement. Let me explain.

The vast majority of pastors are not sure how to minister to entrepreneurs in their congregation. There are many reasons for this but visionary leaders are often not utilized well inside the church. Pastors have a hard time relating to such leaders since their own training was almost entirely in an academic setting that is unrelated to the world of business. The result is that most business leaders turn to other contexts to serve and do Christ’s mission. Because of this the energy for Christ’s kingdom that I experienced in this group was palpable and fresh!

I have a dream. Visionary business leaders and holy unity in Christ’s mission are clearly meant for one another. Such leaders dream, think outside the box and use their resources for what they envision. Churches, by nature, play it too safe and are too often run by committees. Business leaders, generally speaking, do not like to serve on church boards for this very reason. They dream too big and think too deeply about how mission can be accomplished. Somehow the energy of these dreams and the vision of the church for the growing mission we see in North America must be brought together in practical ways. This was happening in Orlando and I had the joy of sitting in on it.