Misaligned means makes divergent ends

Strategy Moral of the Story:

•  Before entering into strategic alliances and contracts with other companies – run the numbers for the other company as a result of entering the deal with you (short and long term). If the other company does not make more money and grow their business through that deal in the near/long term, but instead have a significant incentive to go against the terms of the deal because greater business success depends on it – don’t bother signing the deal. They might have every intention of working with you and achieving a common-good end state – but if their business practices and business success runs counter to yours – miracles won’t occur to align the end state to be beneficial to you both. I’ve advised more than one exec “don’t sign that deal, I ran the #’s and it won’t turn out well” – and have been proven right every time on this foundational principle.

 As an example of ‘misaligned means making divergent ends’ I’ve been thinking a lot on the concept of social justice vs the implementation of it in the recent government policy edicts. I wondered whether the near term means AND the foundational end goals of the two entities are philosophically aligned or unaligned. Will this ‘contract’ turn out with the two entities achieving BOTH their end goals while maintaining their foundational principles?

Background: Jesus Christ wasn’t hated by the leaders in his day because he was a good teacher, nor because he told the rich to give to the poor,  the powerful to protect the helpless, and the people to turn back to God.  In the Jewish tradition of that day, Messiah would come and overthrow the pagan powers to set up a global kingdom centered in Jerusalem. The “way things were supposed to work” would be established not by changing the hearts of men, but by overthrowing the government of Rome.  They weren’t alone.  Peter, Jesus’ disciple rebuked Jesus for predicting His own death. Jesus: “Get behind me satan, for you are interested in the things of man – not of God.” What was so wrong with Peter not wanting his friend Jesus Christ to die? Jesus came to seek and save the hearts of man…in the most covert revolution possible.

Enter Constantine: there are many examples of how this temptation to shortcut God’s methods through collaboration with, or use  of coercive power plays out. The collaboration starts innocently – a desire to change societal structures quickly, using a tops down policy edict instead of working towards a transformation of the hearts of man. It’s well intended,  it’s faster. It usually ends up insidious.  The purpose of the church is to be witnesses to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ demonstrating the transformational power of His life in our lives here on earth. As a consequence of the collaboration/coercive power, we now have a history of crusades, inquisitions, and papal directed assasinations.

Government and church might have agreed early on to enter a mutually beneficial collaboration- but at the point where the success and goals of government departs from the principles of the original agreement or the principles of the church- either the agreements go or the principles go. We see cases of both situations in the history of the Western world.

If you’re interested in a more personal take, click “more” – the above really captures the importance of ensuring complete alignment in goals, benefits and end states – before entering any agreements.

Recently I realized why I personally cannot be comfortable aligning myself with social justice as a political policy, despite so many of the stated goals seeming to align with Christ’s sermons. I become queasy around christians who don’t think deep and hard before accepting the shortcuts offered to them by a collaboration with this coercive power. Social justice policies stem from progressivism – progressivism from Age of Enlightenment – the entire point of which is progress of man towards a utopian end. At the philosophical root we find the intended end of progressivism to be the Kingdom of God without any god besides man himself. Call it “Tower of babel – version 2.0”  

Making alliances with the ruthless using the excuse that the end goals they espouse resemble things Christ preached still boils down to an alliance with the ruthless.  During the reign of terror in the French Revolution, Robespierre’s original allies were sent to the guillotine – by Robespierre. 

Don’t mistake me for saying that we should not abide by the laws of the goverment or pray for our rulers. But an alliance with another group that has philosophically divergent ends simply because their statements sound “close enough to the Sermon on the Mount” is dangerous and ignores both the way Christ worked as well as the reality of the outcomes of the Age of Enlightenment when fully practiced in government.