TruthBook Religious News Blog

Dan Ehl
11/19/2009

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"
Matthew 16:26

"The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure."
BC Forbes

The American public has been bombarded for the past several years with news accounts of massive Ponzi schemes, predatory lending, unfair labor practices, industrial poisoning of water and air, excessive bonuses, corporate greed, Wall Street manipulations and toxic loans.

All these, along with the cost of the Iraqi War, have been blamed for the meltdown of the American economy. And all of these, says Jeff Swartzentruber, vice president of the MMA Trust Company in Kalona, are inconsistent with Christian principles. What is consistent with these standards, he added, is "stewardship investment."
The concept of stewardship investment is not new. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) founded an insurance fund in 1832 to provide life assurance to its members - and excluded investments in "sin" stocks. That insurance fund, now the FTSE 100 company, Friends Provident, celebrated its 175th anniversary.

Through the years, its exclusion of unethical companies expanded to include issues such as climate change, biodiversity and labor.

Swartzentruber says MMA's origins began in the 1930s when the Mennonite Church leaders identified some financial needs of its members, such as assistance with housing loans and sharing resources among Mennonite churches. It eventually morphed into Mennonite Mutual Aid (MMA) - incorporated in 1945. Its services expanded, along with the members its represents. These now include a number of churches that have Anabaptist ("rebaptize") roots and historic ties to the 16th Century religious reformers, among this list are the Religious Society of Friends, Old Order Amish and Church of the Brethren.

MMA's stewardship investing examines both the financial and social records of hundreds of companies, Swartzentruber says, and uses these six guidelines for investments:

* Respect the dignity and value of all
* Build a world at peace and free from violence
* Demonstrate a concern for justice in a global economy
* Exhibit responsible management
* Support and involve communities
* Practice environmental stewardship

Please click on "external source" for the complete article. And for a Urantia Book/Jesusonian view of wealth, please see Jesus' Discourse on "Dividing the Inheritance" HERE.

Labels: Amish, Dan Ehl, finance, Jeff Swartzentruber, MMA Trust, stewardship, wealth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Survey Says: People Are Happier

The 2008 World Values Survey found that freedom of choice and tolerance—and not simply wealth—have lots to do with a rise in happiness

by Matt Mabe

Happiness hunters have done it again. They've used an army of pollsters and a mountain of data to uncover the world's happiest countries. But this year, there are some unexpected winners—for unexpected reasons.

The World Values Survey, which has compiled data from 350,000 people in 97 countries since 1981, found Denmark to be home to the planet's most contented citizens (again) with Zimbabwe as the most miserable (again). Classic Scandinavian front-runners like Sweden and Finland were nudged out of the top 10 by Puerto Rico and Colombia. El Salvador placed a surprising 11th, beating out Malta and Luxembourg. Further down the list came the U.S., ranked in 16th place.

Directed by University of Michigan political scientist Ronald Inglehart and administered from Stockholm, the survey found that freedom of choice, gender equality, and increased tolerance are responsible for a considerable rise in overall world happiness. The results shatter the more simplistic and traditionally accepted notion that wealth is the determining factor, says Inglehart.

This year, the analysts were shocked by their findings. Reported happiness had actually risen in 40 countries and decreased in just 12. Inglehart, who has been involved in this research for 20 years, says the results defied conventional wisdom on the subject of happiness, which has held that levels remain more or less static. "We knew it couldn't happen," he says. "I said to myself, 'Do I dare report this?'"

Inglehart's team figured it needed a better explanation for the data. "Most of the earlier studies, including my own, were based on economic factors, which are something you can simply pull off a bookshelf and look up," he says. "If that's all you look at, then that's all you find."

What the survey found this year is that freedom of choice and social acceptance are the most powerful forces behind national moods. "Money's pretty powerful, but it's not the whole story," says Inglehart, though he maintains that a strong correlation still exists between high standards of living and happiness measures.

It's Not Just About Money

Generally, a rising global sense of freedom in the last quarter-century has eclipsed the contribution of pure economic development to happiness, he says. This is especially evident in developed countries with stable economies, where the freedom of choice gained through wealth has made people happier—not necessarily the wealth itself.

Social tolerance is another important factor in how happy a country rates itself. Over the last quarter-century, growing gender equality and acceptance of minorities and homosexuals has played a major role in those European countries found to be the most content. No. 7-ranked Switzerland, for instance, has elected two women as head of state in the last 10 years, while No. 4-ranked Iceland has recently passed laws guaranteeing virtually all the same rights to gay couples that married couples enjoy. "The less threatened people feel, the more tolerant they are," says Inglehart. Tolerance simply has a rippling effect that makes people happier.
Gratitude Improves Attitude

While Inglehart does not profess to know the true secrets of happiness, he says that this most recent study has made the picture a bit clearer. In his opinion, benevolence and expressions of gratitude appear to be subtle but powerful ways to bring happiness into one's life and to extend it. Religion and solidarity in the community play a big role in this, he says, but any positive belief system can help. "Latin America seems to understand this," he says.

"In the old days I would have told you to work hard and save your money," says Inglehart. "It's different today. I just haven't nailed it down yet."

Labels: freedom, happiness, Matt Mabe, Ronald Inglehart, tolerance, wealth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, November 05, 2007

Survey: Wealthier Nations Less Religious

By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Nov. 05 2007

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Results from a recent survey may agree with that familiar Scripture passage.

A Pew Research Center report recently showed that religion is less likely to be central to the lives of individuals in richer nations than poorer ones.

The survey found a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. According to the report, which released last month, African and some Asian countries – which are among the poorest in the world – scored highest on the religiosity scale. Meanwhile, rich Western European countries are among the most secular. Canada, Japan and Israel are also wealthy nations that have low levels of religiosity.

The United States, the wealthiest nation, was "most notably" an exception, scoring higher in religiosity than those in Europe. The level of religiosity in the United States was found to be similar to less economically developed countries such as Mexico. Americans tend to be more religious than the publics of other affluent nations, the survey stated.

Other exceptions include the oil-rich, predominantly Muslim kingdom of Kuwait which has a much higher level of religiosity than its economic situation would predict.

Over the last five years, the percentage of people who think believing in God is necessary for good values has increased in nine countries, stayed about the same in 10, and declined in 13. Sharp decreases were found in Eastern Europe, India and Kenya.

The survey was done as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys that encompass a broad array of subjects.

Labels: economics, Nathan Black, Pew Global Attitudes Project, religiosity, wealth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Giving Makes You Rich

by Arthur C. Brooks
November 2007 Issue

(Page one of two - as always, click on "external link" for full article)

New proof that it pays to be charitable.

In John Bunyan’s 1684 classic The Pilgrim’s Progress, the character Old Honest poses this riddle to the innkeeper Gaius: “A man there was, tho’ some did count him mad, / The more he cast away, the more he had.” Gaius solves the riddle thus: “He that bestows his Goods upon the Poor / Shall have as much again, and ten times more.”

Less poetically, the idea is this: Giving makes you rich. A lovely sentiment, to be sure, but quite backward-sounding to an economist. You obviously have to have money before you can give it away, right? Or in the pithy words of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, “No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions—he had money too.”

Well, it turns out that Gaius was right, and new economic research backs him up. Emerging evidence—crunchy statistics from real data, not the mushy self-help stuff—supports the contention that giving stimulates prosperity, for both individuals and nations. Charity, it appears, can really make you rich.

The United States is a remarkably charitable nation. The Giving U.S.A. Foundation estimates that Americans donated nearly $300 billion to charity in 2006—more than the gross domestic product (the annualized value of goods and services produced within a nation) of all but 33 countries in the world. More than three-quarters of this came from private individuals. Additional research suggests that between 65 and 85 percent of Americans give to charities each year.

How does all this generosity relate to our high average levels of prosperity? Let’s begin with individuals and families. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, completed in 2000, is a survey of about 30,000 people in more than 40 communities across the U.S. and is the best single source of data available on the civic participation of Americans. The S.C.C.B.S., which takes into account differences in education, age, race, religion, and other personal characteristics, shows that people who give charitably make significantly more money than those who don’t. While that seems like common sense, it turns out that the link in the data between giving and earning is not just one-way. People do give more when they become richer—research has shown that a 10 percent increase in income stimulates giving by about 7 percent—but people also grow wealthier when they give more.

How do we know this? When two variables like giving and income are interrelated, economists use something called an instrumental variable to see which is pushing and which is pulling. In a nutshell, that means selecting something that’s closely related to donations but not directly to income, like volunteering. Volunteers tend to be money givers and vice versa because of the same charitable impulse. But income doesn’t always directly affect volunteering. (While people have differing amounts of money, they all have the same amount of time.)

We start by predicting how much money people would donate based on how much they volunteer, regardless of income. This projection essentially strips out the role of income in giving. Next, see if that predicted donation level correlates with income. If it does and the correlation is positive, it means that giving pushes up income and not just vice versa.

Labels: Americans, Arthur C. Brooks, charity, generosity, Giving U.S.A. Foundation, income, Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, wealth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Capitalising on the spirit

Page 1 of 3

Wednesday October 03, 2007

The days when businesses could operate solely on self-interest, short-term gain and with an eye on the bottom line are numbered as customers, employees and shareholders insist on knowing what companies are doing in the world.

There is a growing interest in what is being called 'spiritual capital'.

Financial planner, chartered accountant and managing director of Money Matters and Rodger Spiller & Associates, Dr Rodger Spiller, says spiritual capital is the value reflected in a business's commitment to quality of life.

"It is a bit of an intangible - like brand worth," he says. "It's something that helps companies be better able to attract customers and employees.

"It's about focusing on quality of life and sustainability. These are things that citizens are getting more aware of and are seeing as more important."

A recent survey in Britain showed that 53 per cent of workers felt a tension between their spirituality and daily work. "This needs to be addressed," Rodger says, "as it affects productivity and engagement."

Rodger points out that wealth is being redefined but, in some ways, it's reverting to its original meaning.

According to Wikipedia, wealth comes from the old English word "weal", meaning "well-being" or "welfare", and the term was originally an adjective used to describe the possession of such qualities.

"Spiritual capital reflects the original definition of wealth as wellbeing - not just money," Rodger says.

"It's about individuals and businesses being environmentally and socially responsible and wanting to improve wellbeing for all.

"Employees want to work for companies that take into account these things. Interestingly, companies with this broader perspective who look to enhancing quality of life are doing better financially.

"Responsible investors who prefer these companies are doing well by doing good. Stakeholders want to work and invest in companies that make a difference in the world and make money at the same time."

A famous quote from Body Shop founder the late Anita Roddick is: "The end result of kindness is that it draws people to you."

Rodger talks of the four Ps of spiritual capital: purpose, principles, practices and performance.

He says the old idea that greed is good has been rejected by a lot of people who don't merely want to work to finance the weekend. They want to feel good about the work they're doing.

"People are searching for meaning, and becoming more aware of spirituality. Employees who feel in tune with their company's efforts will be more productive and enthusiastic," Rodger says. "People's purpose in the world is more than just about money.

Labels: 'spiritual capital', business, spirituality, wealth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, July 12, 2007

The Bliss We Can't Buy

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A15

Ponder now the happiness gap.

In 1974, economist Richard Easterlin pointed out that beyond a certain point -- presumably when people's basic needs for food, shelter, public order and work are met -- greater wealth does not generate more national happiness. The America of 2007 is far richer than the America of 1977. Life expectancy is 78 years, up from 74 years. Our homes are bigger and crammed with more paraphernalia (microwave ovens, personal computers, flat-panel TVs). But happiness is stuck.

In 1977, 35.7 percent of Americans rated themselves "very happy," 53.2 percent "pretty happy" and 11 percent "not too happy," reports the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In 2006, the figures are similar: 32.4 percent "very happy," 55.9 percent "pretty happy" and 11.7 percent "not too happy." Likewise, in most advanced countries, self-reported happiness has been flat for decades.

Hordes of scholars are asking why. Consider Cornell University economist Robert Frank's new book, "Falling Behind." He argues that rising affluence condemns us to self-defeating consumption contests. People want ever-bigger homes, because their friends have ever-bigger homes. But the extra pleasure of owning these grander homes is muted, because (yes) all our friends have them, too. Meanwhile, the added debt to buy the house may make us more anxious; and we may regret sacrificing some leisure -- working harder to buy the bigger home.

Greater individual wealth does not bring greater collective welfare. Moving farther out into suburbia for a bigger home increases traffic congestion and our commutes. Roads grow more clogged, pollution worsens. We engage in "behaviors that are smart for one, dumb for all," Frank writes.

Superficially, Frank seems convincing. The trouble is that he ignores history. The behavior he describes isn't new. A mobile society such as ours is inherently stressful. People rise and fall.

Americans have always been acquisitive and rank-conscious. In "Democracy in America" (1840), Alexis de Tocqueville observed: "Besides the good things which he possesses, [the American] every instant fancies a thousand others. . . . This thought fills him with anxiety, fear, and regret."

The psychology of prosperity -- striving, taking risks -- feeds on ambition and insecurity. Our system often seems an insane rat race. But over time, it has created huge gains in material well-being. Air conditioning may not have made people in the South and elsewhere happier. But it surely has made them more comfortable.

True, there's an economic disconnect today. Despite obvious prosperity, including 8 million new jobs since mid-2003, consumer confidence is subdued. But the explanation, I think, lies neither in Frank's elaborate theory nor in several popular culprits -- higher gasoline prices and the housing slump. Instead, I'd cite two underlying causes.

First, economic insecurity has increased. Companies are quicker to fire. Median job tenure for men age 45 to 54 dropped from about 13 years in 1983 to eight years in 2006, reports economist Rob Valletta of the San Francisco Fed. People have more cause to worry -- and they do.

Second, Americans compare the present with the immediate past. The economic boom of the late 1990s conditioned people to expect a blissful future. Clearly, that hasn't arrived. People are disappointed because reality doesn't match the promise.

Still, even the 1990s economic boom didn't produce a happiness boom; the survey figures barely budged. Nor has the growing income inequality since the 1970s produced an unhappiness boom. Between the richest and poorest Americans, happiness gaps have always been large. But income differences in the middle class involve modest or nonexistent differences in happiness. The old adage is true: Money can't buy happiness.

We ultimately get satisfaction from our relations with family and friends, the love we give or receive, the meaning we find in work, service, religion or hobbies. The strongest survey finding is that married people are happier than singles, particularly widowers and divorcees, says Tom Smith of the National Opinion Research Center. An estimated 42.5 percent of married couples say they are "very happy," compared with 18 percent of the divorced.

The popularity of happiness research suggests that economists and other social scientists think they can devise public policies to elevate the nation's feel-good quotient. This is an illusion. Happiness depends heavily on individual character and national culture. Some people will complain no matter how great their fortune; others will smile through the worst of times. In international comparisons, the United States ranks lower in happiness than some smaller nations (Denmark, Ireland, Sweden) but much higher than many large countries with paternalistic welfare states (France, Germany, Italy). Governments can provide health care. But they cannot outlaw despair or mandate euphoria.

It is novelists and philosophers, not social scientists, who provide a deeper understanding of happiness. For better or worse, there are limits to reengineering the human spirit.

Labels: family, happiness, love, National Opinion Research Center, prosperity, religion, Robert Frank, Robert J. Samuelson, wealth