Persecuted Christians

I've blogged before about the values-based buying that I think we should all embrace.  It would mean buying and doing business preferentially with people who share our values.  Moreover, after reading how God told the Israelites to make no treaties with people who didn't share their values ... I'm convinced the consequences of such laxness are sure and dire in the end.

So two of our country's biggest trading partners are India and China.  I was stunned recently to read a report that Christians are attacked in India more frequenty than in any other country of the world!  (Source: Voice of the Martyrs)  Really.  Still, we send our call centers and software development happily to India.  Never mind that it's a Hindu nation where the vast majority of people don't recognize our God.  They have to go on and actually physically attack those who serve the one true God.

Of course, then there's China.  We've set them to manufacturing nearly everything we use - from computers to clothes and toys, plastics and steel, even food.  And American companies are investing in China like there's no tomorrow.  We see it as an enormous market potential to be tapped.  But let's look at some key facts about China.

In China, a woman recently received a 15-year prison sentence for publishing a Christian magazine.  The only Christian publications allowed are those of the state Protest Church (TSPM) and the state Catholic Church (CPCA).

In China, someone recently received a 3-year prison sentence for printing and selling Bibles.  The Chinese government permits only one Bible printing company ... which doesn't produce enough Bibles and cannot distribute them in the rural areas where no state churches exist (and house churches aren't allowed).

There are about 50 nations in the world now that are openly hostile to Christianity and/or severely restrict its practice.  Does anyone but me think it would be a good idea for us to "no make treaties" with such people?

Outsourcing

There is common trend in U.S. businesses known as outsourcing. Actually Ross Perot invented it with the founding of EDS several decades ago. It's where companies hand critical functions - and the employees that do them - off to other companies to handle on their behalf. It's been a good business for decades and has always been well respected.

But in recent years, things have changed. Much of the outsourcing has turned to third world countries. So instead of taking the function and the employees that perform the function, the outsourcer just takes the function. The employees that performed the function are then fired. What's happened in the U.S. in recent years is that so many of them have been fired there's been vast unemployment and under employment. Said differently, the U.S. economy hasn't been robust enough to be able to withstand this massive loss of jobs.

Given this negative effect on our society, a lot of people have come to hate outsourcing. In, the name has changed from outsourcing to "offshoring." And the people who are the most bitter and angry about it are typically (and not surprisingly) the ones who've seen their own jobs shipped offshore. They may be manufacturing jobs, technology jobs, call center jobs or even sales or accounting jobs. In fact, there are few, if any jobs, that are really not vulnerable to the offshoring move. It's a simple matter of economics in most cases. But the broader impacts (beyond the specific deals) are undeniable.

Statistics show some sobering realities for the American people. For example, by 2007, this offshoring movement had taken at least 10% of all service jobs to China or India. Approximately 5 million manufacturing jobs had been moved to China, India or other third world (or NAFTA) countries. Americans have found an apparent love affair with foreign cars. In the process, GM has closed dozen of plants, laid of tens of thousands of workers - and filed bankruptcy. Chrysler filed suit. Ford followed suit - but stopped just short of the bankruptcy.

With trade deficits, national debt, consumer debt, personal bankruptcies, unemployment and state and federal government operating deficits at record and historic highs, the news continues to be more sobering. America's greatest manufacturing companies are no more. The cars are made in Asia. The electronics are made in Asia. The clothes are made in Asia and Latin America.

So ... is outsourcing bad for America? Is this concept of offshoring ruining our country? To be honest, I'm not smart enough to say one way or the other - at least with any sense of confidence. But I do know this ... having worked in the outsourcing industry for a good many years, I have seen its value.

Outsourcing, when done right, builds companies and communities. Outsourcing has the power to transform and create extraordinary value (versus simply incremental or marginal improvement in costs). It can be a powerful change agent for good. It can facilitate - even nurture - innovation.

On the other hand, done wrong - or for the wrong reasons, outsourcing can be destructive. Simply moving things offshore doesn't inherently make them better. In fact, if you take something that's stupid or mediocre and move it to India - it will just be stupid and mediocre in India.

Unfortunately, many executives who are making the outsourcing differences don't know this simple truth. And because they don't know, they make the decisions with the wrong criteria. They often get nothing more than some labor cost arbitrage ... and they wonder why it doesn't feel better than it does. They tend to be underwhelmed with the results.

I saw an advertisement on TV this week that one of our national networks is rolling out a fall sitcom called Outsourced. The previews seem to indicate that it will be a situation comedy which pokes fun of Indian outsourcing (among other things). Frankly, this worries me a bit. It may suggest that our culture has lost site of the fact that outsourcing has been a legitimate and honorable business for several decades. And it may indicate that in our cynical view - expressed from our pain - we are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I hope that's not the case.

Outsourcing's Agenda

I've blogged before (and so have others) about the concept of outsourcing. It's been said that Ross Perot invented the outsourcing industry with his company - Electronic Data Systems. In the past few decades it has grown to an industry. And outsourcing now encompasses much more than just running mainframe computers or computer networks. In fact, just about anything can be outsourced these days.

Perhaps the question most of us blog about is whether or not just about anything should be outsourced. What are the political issues? What are the moral issues? What are the business issues? Do we have the right issues in each category? There are many questions. At the same time, there are many experts who will sell you their advice to help you sort out the issues.

Oddly enough, I'm a fan of outsourcing. But I see it as a double-edged sword. It seems to cross boundaries (as most things in life do) and become problematic. What's good becomes bad. How do we know this? Well, the surest signs are when ordinary events (transactions) seem to have extraordinary significance. In other words, seemingly ordinary decisions seem to get made with decision criteria that is may not so ordinary, maybe no so expected. Perhaps it might be a seemingly ordinary decision that gets made --- with rather unfortunate views.

Two such decisions came about this week. First, we saw that Xerox announced it will spend about $100 million paying an Indian company to manage its data centers. (http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSTRE5342R120090405) Xerox laid off more than 3,000 people last year, slashing American jobs. Now they're busy securing jobs in India ... while Americans suffer the most devastating economy in our generation. What made this incredibly newsworthy was Xerox' timing. It couldn't have been worse!

Second, we say that Sallie Mae (a company that the U.S. federal government created and then spun off) is pulling back jobs from overseas. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/economyNews/idUKTRE5352TH20090406) Sallie Mae's operating company will create about 2,000 American jobs by pulling jobs from Mexico, Philippines and India. What made this story so newsworthy was Sallie Mae's alleged motive. It is said that Sallie Mae is trying to find favor with the U.S. federal government (its foreign parent) as it seeks to buy troubled assets at deep discounts (funded by American taxpayers).

Do you have that bad taste in your mouth? Offshore outsourcing has always tasted this way. It's always slashed American jobs to fund American greed. Stay tuned for more as the truth about offshore outsourcing continues to be revealed. Company after American company has drunk the Kool Aid on this one, folks. The best names in the business, from all the blue chip companies to the mid sized manufacturers --- have been busy shipping jobs overseas so they won't have to pay anyone in America a living wage. Now that our economy is crashing and burning and no American jobs are to be found --- we shall find out the real impact.

Can the American economy really recover when the jobs are all offshore? What do you think? And what of these companies -- most of which are falling on their swords -- that outsourced to offshore locations "in order to remain competitive?" What do you think? Do you suppose they really are more competitive?

Equally Yoked?

Most people are familiar with the Biblical concept of being equally yoked. Often we apply it to marriage - and conclude that Christians should not marry non-Christians. (They shouldn't.)

Of course, there are many people who see themselves as religious that are happy to convert from one religion to another for the sake of a marriage. Perhaps they don't think the Biblical admonition to refrain from being unequally yoked is serious enough to obey. Perhaps they aren't the people of faith that they like to think of themselves as.

/

Suffice to say that Christians should not be marrying non-Christians. It is that clear. It would be impossible to build a holy union between two people who are not fundamentally on the same page about the most important truth in all of humanity. It is that simple. But alas - my blog today is not about marriage. It is another kind of relationship that draws my attention today.

/

In the Old Testament, when God gave the promised land to the Israelites, he instructed them to destroy all of the heretics. That's right, God said the Jews were to kill everyone who was not one of them (i.e., God's chosen people). Obliterate them. Wipe them from the face of the earth. No only that, but God said to kill their animals ... even their donkeys.

/

Why do you suppose a loving God would give such a command? Do you suppose God knew these people would never turn to Him? The answer is really simple - God didn't want His chosen, holy people to be corrupted by relating to those who would never be His chosen, holy people. He didn't want them to be unequally yoked!

/

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 gives us further instructions on God's intent. "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and (Satan)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said, 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

/

Notice how it says nothing about marriage? No, God is not talking about marriage relationships here. He is talking about all relationships - marital, personal, platonic, corporate, government, diplomatic, business. Virtually all relationships that Christians have - even as organizations or people groups, are subject to these instructions.

/

If we are "one nation under God," or one Church of the living Christ, or one family that serves the Lord, or a Christian business ... the message is clear. We are not to get in bed in any way with others. We are to step away from those relationships if we are in them, and not enter into them again. We are not to be unequally yoked. Ever. For any reason.

/

So I continue to be bothered by American disregard for this bit about being unequally yoked. Our government disregards it - and continues to build tighter bonds and more interdependent relationships with governments that do not share our values - principally Communist, Muslim and Hindu. American businesses disregard it - and continue to become more dependent on people who don't share our values for cheap labor, cheap goods, and of course cheaper energy.

/

But perhaps the most startling observation is the dilemma of the individual American who seems not to see his or her self as having any responsibility or choice in any of these matters. Like sheep, we shop and buy merchandise dumped on us from these other countries. We don't demand anything made in America. We don't refuse anything made in China. Would any of us care if the fuel for our car came from American soil, or at least from soil of people who share our values? Who among us is willing to pay more for a product that isn't made in China?

/

You know, Japan tried to annihilate us. They still come to Pearl Harbor and proudly point to the destruction they did to our country in that war. In return, we've protected them with military might, given them our auto industry and become deeply indebted to them financially. China, Saudi Arabia and Hindu flagrantly disregard our Christian values as foolishness. They persecute people and even evangelize our people to their way of thinking. In return, we buy an increasing amount of goods and services from them - and become deeply indebted to them financially.

/

I don't know if you heard the noise last week, when China warned the U.S. about our fiscal responsibility. My thought was, "Ah, it's just beginning." What was I thinking about? I'm thinking about the consequences of being unequally yoked with China. They are just beginning. When China speaks now, America will have to listen. And listen we did. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others rushed to reassure China that we are cognizant of our responsibilities to them and that their loans to us are "very sound."

/

China has zoomed ahead of Japan to become the largest holder of U.S. government debt. We owe more to China than any other country. Between China, Japan and other foreign governments, more than half of our national debt is held by other countries.

/

Am I the only one who imagines that the borrower could become slave to the lender? Am I the only one who thinks China will be able to exert pressure on our government and help shape the policies of our current administration?

/

What policies? How about health care, education, welfare, taxes and even defense spending.

Indeed, we are not to be unequally yoked. For if we do, there are sure to be consequences. The question then is whether or not any of us will believe in the consequences.