#meanwhile this one tool sits on a significant portion of the world’s wealth

[sapphoslibrary]

i genuinely cannot fathom being the richest person in the world and spending the bulk of my time harassing minorities on the internet. don’t you want to travel the world? solve world hunger? buy a bunch of animal shelters? donate to charities? house the homeless???

[firstumcschenectady]

“Odd Commandments” based on Acts 9:1-20 and John 21:1-19

Today we're dealing with stories of 3 men who undergo changes.  The change in Ananias is probably the least significant, and may be the most fun.  Ananias is briefly described as “a disciple in Damascus,” where disciple means student and implies student of Jesus or the early church.  Damascus was then, as it is today, a city in Syria which is north east of Galilee, about as far northeast of Galilee as Jerusalem is south of it.

Ananias is my kind of disciple.  He is in the midst of a visionary experience with Jesus himself, and is told to go find Saul to fulfill a concurrent vision that Saul is having.  His response is EXCELLENT. He says, “I've heard of that guy.  He has done a lot of evil, and he has the authority to do a lot more.”  Which I take to mean, “Um, Jesus, you sure you have the right guy?  Cause what you are telling me makes no sense.  This is the guy killing us off, and thus not one who is likely to be invested in helping you out.  Also, I'd rather not.”  I appreciate anyone who talks back, asks for clarity, and double checks instructions that sound wrong.  

In this case, as the story goes, Jesus was quite sure that Saul actually was the right guy, and Ananias was open to doing as he was asked, and it worked out.  Thus, I don't think that there was a huge change in Ananias.  He was already a student of Jesus, he was wise enough to ask for clarity, and courageous enough to do what was asked.  When he was told to do something new, and convinced it was really on purpose, he was game.  However, he didn't follow blindly.  Phew.

Saul and Peter experience bigger changes.  I was reminded recently that most people have a lot of things to do and learn in the world that don't have to do with the Bible and Christianity, and thus it is particularly helpful to say directly:  Saul is also Paul.  Saul is a Hebrew name, Paul is a Roman name, the same guy was called both, depending on where he was.  So Peter and Paul, two relatively huge figures in early Christianity, undergo major changes in today's stories.  I'm not sure which one is bigger – if you need extra entertainment in this sermon, feel free to try to decide for yourself.

That story in Acts about Saul (Paul) and Ananias starts off saying, “Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:-1-2)  in the previous chapter of Acts, Saul was introduced as standing in approval when Stephen was stoned, and dragging disciples in Jerusalem to prison.  (Ananias had not been exaggerating.)

Saul had gone to all the trouble of getting special permission to persecute early Christians outside of Jerusalem.  He was deeply and profoundly committed to eliminating the scourge of Jesus-following from faithful Judaism.  Saul was from a committed Pharisee family, Pharisees at the time of Jesus were a sect of Judaism who were particularly careful in their observance of laws and traditions of Judaism.  They were often the experts in Jewish law, and many were scribes and sages.  At the time of Jesus, and of Saul, Pharisees were not the most common sect of Judaism, rather they were the …. populous nerds, if that makes any sense, and around here it SHOULD ;).  After the destruction of the Temple, the Pharisees were the strongest sect left, and modern Rabbinic Judaism is largely based on the Pharisee perspective.

I'm explaining all that because I've often wondered why Saul was SO angry about the early Jesus-movement.  He seems to have taken it personally, in that he made it his personal mission to root it out and kill it.  The Pharisees, from my perspective, didn't have a particular reason to be threatened by the early Jesus-movement.  The ruling sect, the Saducees, did, because they were responsible for keeping things quiet and under control and the Jesus followers didn't help with that.  But the Pharisees existed quite peaceably with other sects of Judaism, and I really think early Jesus-following could have been understood as just another sect before Paul started his missionary work.

It could be that Saul/Paul was really upset about the ways that Jesus threatened the value of the Law, particularly about strict Sabbath observance, but I don't quite believe that.  There were far more important violations of Jewish law happening, and Paul wasn't stupid. From all accounts he was incredibly faithful and very intelligent. Perhaps one of Jesus disciples had really annoyed Paul.  Perhaps one of the stories or teachings he heard drove him particularly nuts. Perhaps he noticed the power of the fearlessness of the early followers, and noticed that the nascent movement was a bigger threat than others noticed.  Perhaps he was just doing his job, and his job happened to be to root out THIS threat, and he thought it needed to be done in Damascus too.  Try as I might, I can't quite get my head into his thought pattern to figure out why he was rushing to arrest people and approving even of murder.

But, he was.  

And then this … something happened.  He became blind.  He heard a voice he attributed to Jesus.  He prayed and fasted for three days, then Ananias came and healed him, he could see, and he became a part of the very movement he'd been trying to kill.

That Paul guy.  He didn't do things in half-measures.  He was 100% against you and then 100% for you, and he did both with complete devotion and passion.  It is a bit scary.  I guess it also makes sense.  A capacity for passion can be harnessed in a lot of different ways. Also, when someone who has stood VEHMENTLY in one position manages to change their mind, they are sometimes just as VEHEMENT on the other side afterwards.  

I wish I could see the bridge though.  I suspect it would be very interesting.  Something about how Paul valued his faith and understood God had led him to think that the Jesus-followers were a threat to what mattered, and Paul was willing to do anything to protect God and God's people.  After the change, Paul was still willing to do anything to protect God and God's people, it is just that his conception of God's people had expanded.  I suspect the same motivation was there all along, but his interpretation changed.  

It seems to me that this may be a helpful tool to remember when we are face to face with people with whom we are on ENTIRELY OPPOSITE SIDES of things.  There are a few such examples in our society (and denomination) today, and I know you are aware of some.  The irony is that there is often a shared value in our positions, but a difference in interpretation.  If you'll allow me to admit it, I suspect that the VAST majority of people in the United States care about our country, care about the people in our country, want people to have a chance to thrive, and want our country to be a leader and positive example in the world.  There are some incredible differences in how we think those things can be accomplished, but if you look at it that way, we're seeking the same thing.  One of the ways we can meet people with whom we disagree, if they are willing and we want to keep being in connection, is to keep digging deeper and deeper until we find shared values underneath what appear to be radically different positions.  A game can be made of how deep two people have to dig to find shared values.

Paul is an example of an extremist, but one who shows with his life that the same passion can be expressed in polar opposite ways, and that gives us a chance to remember that those with whom we most passionately disagree may be people with whom we … well, share fundamental values. )

OK, onto our final changer – Peter.  I've always thought Peter was set in up the Gospels to be a bit of an idiot so we'd feel better about ourselves when we are being idiots, but John Dominic Crossan thinks that the Gospels are rough on Peter because they reflect some ambivalence about his role as church leader.  In any case, Peter usually looks like an idiot.

This is no exception.  After Easter, Peter is sitting around, aimless and decides to go fishing.  Now, fishing for Peter is not like fishing for any of us.  (I'm unaware of any commercial fisher-people in this church.  If I am misinformed, please let me know.)  Peter, at least according to the Synoptic Gospels, had been a fisherman before Jesus called him.  (John doesn't share this information, in fact this story sounds shockingly like the call of Peter in the Synoptics.)  A fisherman was a commercial position.  Peter had likely fished the sea of Galilee, as his means of making a living.  Scholars seem to argue a bit about fishing – they agree that a large profit was being made at this time from fish, as demand for it was high in the Empire at that time.  Scholars don't seem to have clarity about whether or not the fisherman were able to actually keep any meaningful portion of the wealth they produced.  Based on how the world works, I'm leaning towards, “nope.”

In any case, if Peter had been a fisherman, and then left fishing to go follow Jesus, then going  back to fishing after Jesus's death was going backward.  This was AFTER Easter, so after the disciples were supposed to have GOTTEN IT, that they could keep on sharing Jesus's message, that they could empower others as he had empowered them, that the work wasn't done but it was now theirs to do.

But in this passage, they DEFINITELY don't get it, and so they go fishing. They revert.  They pretend away the past year, INCLUDING Easter, and just go back to what they knew.

I've gone fishing.  I've found wonderful new ways of life,  new possibilities, transformations, and then let them slip away.  I've gone to anti-racism trainings, and committed to attending to my own privilege, and then come home to be immediately distracted by all that is normal in my life.  I've gone away on retreat, found my center, remembered how much I NEED to spend time in connection with the Divine to be my whole-self, and then allowed myself to be immediately pulled into things that aren't whole-self inducing.  Or, on a SUPER practical level... on a regular enough basis that it is embarrassing, I notice that I get a little bit overwhelmed, and am not sure which way to turn in the midst of too many options, and I turn to my phone to do something ENTIRELY meaningless rather than exist in the uncomfortableness of not knowing.

I go fishing.

I go back to what I know, what I have been, what comforts me, EVEN when I know better.

I think, maybe, we all go fishing.  But Jesus called the disciples away from the fishing, in this story he does it AGAIN.  He didn't let them revert, he kept on prodding them into the fuller life they needed and the ways they could gift the world around them.  He commands Peter to feed and tend his sheep and lambs... which is NOT fishing.  The story says that when Peter first saw Jesus he leapt into the water to swim to where Jesus was.  That is, he KNEW that where he was supposed to be wasn't fishing, it was in the new life Jesus had called him to.

I think that's true for us too.  Rather than breath threats and murder, we're called to work with those who God loves (ahem, all.)  Rather than be afraid, we're called to speak love to those who scare us. Rather than revert to what is comfortable, we're called to new life and new possibilities.  They can feel like odd commandments, but we're called away from fishing and into taking care of vulnerable sheep – including ourselves and each other.  Thanks be to God that God doesn't make peace with the status quo, or leave us in our comfortable places.  Amen

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 Pronouns: she/her/hers http://fumcschenectady.org/ 
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

May 5. 2019

[dollarsfordays]

Day 50: Investing for the average Joe: a brief introduction

In this day and age, investing is required to achieve any semblance of a comfortable retirement. Healthcare costs, rising housing costs, and inflation are all big nasties that can severely cut into your nest egg. If you are comfortably middle class and want to maintain a similar standard of living in retirement, you must amass over a million dollars in future dollars. Even just a single million can sometimes not be enough, especially with inflation. Thankfully, due to the magic of compound interest and the steady annual growth of the US stock market, a middle class person can weather most financial crises that life throws and retire comfortably with upwards of a million dollars through steady investing and a bit of restraint. In this post, I will cover a few basic key points of investing for the common man.

1. Isn’t investing risky? I don’t want to lose everything in a crash. 

Investing in a single stock is very risky. It the firm goes kaput, you could lose everything. Thankfully, things like index funds. Both index and mutual funds are pools of thousands of stocks in a specific sector. When you buy a share of these diversified funds, you are in effect buying the shares of a vast swath of companies in a specific sector. Barring something like a nuclear apocalypse or a communist revolution, you can never lose it all with one of these diversified funds. 

Index funds attempt to track the value of a stock market index, a value that represents the performance of a specific portion of the domestic or global economy. For example, if you buy shares of the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, you buy shares of a fund that attempts to keep up with exactly the S+P 500 by holding a wide collection of shares associated with the index (S+P 500 tracks the ~500 largest U.S. companies) summarized by the index.  If you buy shares of Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets, you buy shares of a fund whose performance is based on the stock market index describing emerging markets, like the BRICS countries.

Index funds are passively-managed mutual funds. Meanwhile, there are also actively-managed mutual funds, which have financial advisors using powerful computers and statistics to try to beat the market index with more active buying and selling of stocks. These usually have much higher fees than index funds, but may be worth it for some. 

Even if the index plummets, you don’t have to anything to worry about if you still have decades to go before retirement. Take a look at the graph, generously provided by Shawn Roe, below. 

Even though the value of the investment account took a dip in the housing crisis of the late 00′s, the value eventually recovered and far outpaced the “safe” option of keeping it in a savings account. The quotes are there because of inflation. The puny rate of return of a savings account cannot match inflation, therefore you are losing money by stashing it away in a savings account. Same goes for things like certificates of deposit and money market instruments. Investing is an absolute must for those wanting to preserve wealth over generations. Each dollar must have its job. Some dollars must go out to work in the investment market to produce other dollars, while some dollars must sit around, waiting for an emergency. 

Time horizon is an important context when evaluating investment risk. If you have a long time horizon, you can afford to take on a bit of risk because the market is going to recover and become better than ever eventually. If you have a short time horizon, you’d better not take on a whole lot of risk. If you were investing for a house down payment, starting in 2007 and planning on buying a house in 2009... scratch that. You can see from the graph why that’s a bad scenario. The funds one holds must be rebalanced as one approaches the goal (most often retirement) to account for the risk. This can be tedious. In the latter part of this post, I’ll discuss a way to manage this risk. 

2. I don’t want to think when it comes to investing. Ain’t nobody gots time for that! What funds should I buy? 

The first option that comes to mind is to buy into a target date fund. Target date funds, a special type of mutual fund, are a one-stop shop investment solution. Things like risk levels and diversification are left to the fund managers and their powerful computers to consider. Even if you only own shares in one target date fund, you don’t need to worry because of the aforementioned diversification. 

Stocks can be risky. They can drastically plummet, as seen in the mortgage crisis and the dot-com pop. Bonds are far less risky investments. Target date funds, given a target date (usually the retirement date) when the funds will begin to be drawn from, will automatically and gradually sell stocks and buy more bonds as the target date approaches to maintain an acceptable level of risk. 

For example, I plan to retire around 2050. I could buy shares of the Vanguard 2050 Target Fund, which has an optimized risk profile for those wishing to retire around 2050. In December 2017, the target fund primarily holds stock in the form of mutual funds because any stock market dips will be averaged by long term gains. In December 2048, the target fund will primarily hold bonds and cash, so if the Mars travel bubble bursts in 2049, fundholders won’t incur significant losses.

Lifestyle funds are similar investment tools, but they don’t automatically rebalance. Lifestyle funds are analogous to target date funds, except that lifestyle funds aim to maintain the same risk tolerance, with no rebalancing in anticipation of the target date. Therefore, these require a tad bit more thought but provide a bit more freedom in things like fees and taxes.

I would check out Vanguard’s helpful page if I wanted to learn more about what target date fund is right for me. Vanguard also has a handy quiz to help you determine which target date fund is right for you. 

For some people with more assets and a more complicated financial life, getting a financial advisor can be worth it. One thing to be careful about when getting a financial advisor is that some may try towards financial products that may not be in your best interest to purchase because those products have high commissions. Vanguard offers financial advisors to those with more than $50,000 with them. One good thing about Vanguard’s advisors is that they are salaried, not paid based on commission, so you can better trust them to have your best interest in mind. Other options include robo-advisors like Betterment and Personal Capital, which are “advisors” in name but really are almost functionally equivalent to something like a Vanguard target date fund. 

3. Closing points

Investing is very important to do if you want to preserve your net worth. There are many options available to those who don’t really want to think about things like allocation and rebalancing. There are usually higher fees for these set it and leave it type affairs, but it is definitely worth it for those who don’t care whatsoever. Those looking to take a more active approach to their investment and potentially earn more return should still primary stick to the auto-diversified funds over buying individual stock, except as a hobby as course.

Personally, one of my favorite books is the Bogleheads’ Guide to Investing. John Bogle is one of the the pioneers of passive investing and the founder of Vanguard. His disciples are called Bogleheads. This book should be more than enough to introduce you into the wonderful world of passive investing. If you want to take a more active approach in managing your investments, you must learn the specifics of investing in a deeper way. If so, check out the Bogleheads forum, where you can find practically anything you need to know about investing, along with personal narratives detailing best practices.

If you have any question whatsoever about anything I said, don’t hesitate to shoot me an anonymous question on my Ask page.