Year: 2026

Christian Unity: Can We Disagree Without Dividing?

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Christians don’t agree on everything.

We never have.

And perhaps we shouldn’t expect to.

Across Christian denominations, there is significant variation in worship practices, theological interpretation, biblical interpretation, and social and ethical questions.

Some differences are important.

Some are profound.

Some deserve vigorous discussion.

But an important question is often overlooked:

Will this disagreement prevent us from fulfilling the Great Commission?

Jesus gave His followers a mission:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…”
— Matthew 28:19

That mission was not given to one denomination.

It was given to His disciples.

Perhaps Christians need a hierarchy of agreement.

At the foundation are the core beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed—belief in one God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Son; His incarnation, death, resurrection, and return; the Holy Spirit; and the Church.

Around that foundation are many other beliefs and practices on which Christians disagree.

We might think of them this way:

 The problem isn’t necessarily disagreement.

The problem is what we do with disagreement.

Differences can become an opportunity when they lead us to listen, learn, understand the biblical reasoning of others, and recognize the limits of our own understanding.

But differences can also become a jail cell when they prevent us from working alongside another Christian whose beliefs differ from ours.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance.

Respect does not mean agreement.

And agreeing to disagree does not mean abandoning truth.

It can simply mean recognizing that none of us possesses a complete understanding of God’s mind.

Romans 12 offers an important challenge here.

Christian maturity is not demonstrated only by how we treat people who agree with us.

Perhaps one of the better tests is how we respond to fellow believers with whom we disagree.

Look at Acts.

The early Church did not begin by resolving every theological question.

The apostles proclaimed what they had witnessed.

They shared the Gospel.

They made disciples.

Those disciples shared what they had learned.

And the movement grew.

There were disagreements. There were conflicts. There were even serious disputes among the early Christians.

Yet the mission continued.

The Gospel moved forward.

That brings me to an example closer to home:

LifeWise Academy.

LifeWise provides Bible education to public-school students during school hours through released-time religious instruction. Its curriculum is powered by The Gospel Project and takes students through the Bible, connecting Scripture to Jesus and to the way students live.

And here is something worth recognizing:

LifeWise is non-denominational, yet its curriculum is based on The Gospel Project, a curriculum published by Lifeway Christian Resources. LifeWise describes its curriculum as operating under a license agreement with Lifeway and notes that the Gospel Project lesson content and Bible passages remain unchanged, while the language and organization are adapted for LifeWise’s setting.

Lifeway is closely associated with the Southern Baptist tradition.

That fact may cause some Christians to pause.

And that’s okay.

We should examine what we believe.

We should ask questions.

We should understand theological differences.

We should be willing to challenge one another respectfully.

But should those differences prevent Christians from supporting the larger mission of introducing children—and potentially their families—to Jesus Christ?

That is the question.

LifeWise is only one example.

There are countless opportunities for Christians from different traditions to work together:

To teach.

To serve.

To feed.

To mentor.

To encourage.

To defend human dignity.

To care for the vulnerable.

To strengthen families.

And most importantly:

To make disciples.

Imagine what might happen if Christians spent less energy determining who was most correct among ourselves and more energy helping people encounter Christ.

This is not a call to abandon doctrine.

It is not a call to pretend our differences don’t matter.

It is a call to distinguish between the essentials of our faith and the disagreements that should not prevent us from pursuing our shared mission.

Perhaps the question Christians should ask is not:

“Do you believe exactly as I do?”

but:

“Can we work together to fulfill the mission Christ gave us?”

The Great Commission is bigger than our denominations.

Bigger than our worship styles.

Bigger than our theological traditions.

And certainly bigger than our disagreements.

If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, perhaps it is time to ask what Christians could accomplish if we stopped treating every difference as a reason to separate—and started treating our shared faith as a reason to serve together.

The mission is waiting.

What could we accomplish together?

End Notes

Acknowledgments: The ideas presented here were refined through an iterative process of study, reflection, discussion, and dialogue with artificial intelligence tools. In the spirit of continuous improvement, the conversation served as a catalyst for learning rather than as an authority. The resulting conclusions remain my own.

Introduction to the basic concepts, examples, and tools of quality at SuccessThroughQuality.com

Humble Service in the Body of Christ: Love in Action

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized
A Living Sacrifice

12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Humble Service in the Body of Christ

3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Love in Action

9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Footnotes

  1. Romans 12:6 Or the
  2. Romans 12:8 Or to provide for others
  3. Romans 12:16 Or willing to do menial work
  4. Romans 12:19 Deut. 32:35
  5. Romans 12:20 Prov. 25:21,22

No Space for Extremism

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized
Gemini Summary:
In “No Space for Extremism,” author Mark Franke draws on Harvard Professor Harvey C. Mansfield’s insights from The Rise and Fall of Rational Control to argue that political change involves replacing foundational ideas rather than simply building upon them.
He concludes that voter disillusionment drives the appeal of extremist promises and warns that electing candidates who reject founding principles risks eroding core liberties like free speech, religious freedom, and property rights.

If American voters play out their frustration by electing DSA candidates, what will disappear? Individual liberties such as freedom of speech and worship? The right to accumulate and enjoy property?

by Mark Franke“There is no vacant space left in the world today; founding something new requires destroying something old.” — Harvard Professor Harvey C. Mansfield

I ran across this quote in Mansfield’s recently released book “The Rise and Fall of Rational Control: The History of Modern Political Philosophy.” Mansfield, sometimes called the last conservative standing at Harvard, lectured on political philosophy for more than 60 years. This book is taken from those lectures.

His point, I think, is that new ideas take hold by replacing earlier ideas previously held by its new adherents. He traces the rise of the conceit that the human race is rationally in control of its destiny, and for the better. He calls this conceit “modernism.”

It is nearly impossible to summarize great thoughts by great thinkers like Mansfield in a few paragraphs but here goes. Beginning with Machiavelli and progressing through Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche, he describes each philosopher’s theory of how mankind left a state of nature and entered into civil society with a sovereign government. Modernism gives way to postmodernism with Marx and Nietzschke and a rejection of liberal values in the classical sense of the Founding Fathers.

Mansfield’s thought process is well above my pay grade but I do see applicability to the state of America in 2026.

The success of extremists in controlling party primary elections is a documented fact, to the chagrin of the old-line party leadership. Today it is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); a decade or so back it was the TEA Party. Are these two movements siblings, just from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum?

A recent op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal offered an analysis of these two movements which presented a compelling case that they are demonstrably different in strategy and tactics. The DSA is much better organized at the national level and quite willing to use violence in furtherance of its ultimate goal — the overthrow of American republicanism based on individual liberty and free market economics.

That may sound like a partisan observation when coming from a conservative like me. But the WSJ article was written by ex-Democrat Congressman Daniel Kapinski, who does not like what he sees.

His description of the TEA Party movement aligns with what I was told in its early days. I asked a local Republican operative what the TEA Party’s platform was, and he told me it varied by county. One county’s committee was pro-life; another was focused on Second Amendment rights; still another on lower taxes and so forth. It was a local, grass-roots organization to the extent that it was organized at all. The foundational ideal of our nation’s creation was not challenged.

The DSA movement, on the other hand, is clear in its goal of destroying what America is and always has been. The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant and the Constitution is an impediment to be removed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The 18th century classical liberals spoke of happiness within a construct of limited government and personal freedom, freedom of conscience and of property.

So what does the appeal of an extremist platform such as these self-identified socialist politicians offer?

The only explanation I can suggest is a growing discontent among the populus, a pessimism that opens voters to listening to extreme rhetoric and promises of free stuff paid for by other people. It’s always other people who will pay for it all, of course. Never underestimate the political coin that can be earned by appealing to humankind’s envy. I think there is a commandment or two warning us against that.

It’s not that socialism can offer an historical success story. I’m still waiting for even one example of a socialist society that allowed individual freedom while achieving a high level of economic well-being.

The Soviet Union was described by Lincoln Steffens as a future that works. It’s now on Ronald Reagan’s trash heap of history. In my lifetime Sweden was the poster child for social democracy, assumed to be the logical transition to full socialism. But Sweden has repented of its flirtation with socialism as a former minister of finance admitted: “What we believed in as young socialists simply turned out to be impossible in practice:” In fact, Sweden has risen above the U.S. on the libertarian Cato Institute’s Freedom Index.

So are we reduced to a zero-sum game as Prof. Mansfield claims? If American voters play out their frustration by electing DSA candidates, what will disappear? Individual liberties such as freedom of speech and worship? The right to accumulate and enjoy property?

I’m not the only one concerned about where our election results might take us. Lapinski concluded his op-ed column on the threat presented by DSA candidates with this clarion call: “This isn’t a prediction. It is a warning.”

We have been warned.

Mark Franke, M.B.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

The Indiana Policy Review Foundation is a nonprofit education foundation focused on state and municipal issues. It is free of outside control by any individual, organization or group. It exists solely to conduct and distribute research on Indiana issues. Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors, the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, or its board of directors. Nothing in this journal, whether in print or pixels, is an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill or influence the election of any candidate.

Gary Varvel: Faith of the Founding Fathers

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Message on the Faith of the Founding Fathers

Gemini Summary:

In his message, “Faith of the Founding Fathers,” delivered at Chesterfield Community Church of God, Gary Varvel presents historical evidence arguing that America was explicitly founded as a Christian nation, reliant on biblical principles and faith in Jesus Christ.

Key Themes & Historical Arguments

Lifewise: Bible-based instruction during the school day

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

LifeWise gives parents a fully legal way to bring Bible-based character classes into their child’s weekly public school routine, without any extra scheduling. And if your school doesn’t have a program yet, our proven 10-step process makes it simple for a community to start one together.

Post at Brown County Matters

As of July 30, 2026. Brown County School Corporation is at 19 signatures right now and needs to reach 50 signatures or more! 

The churches that are represented in the community interest list so far are:

Legal Basis

Zorach v. Clauson – Wikipedia. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), was a release time case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a school district allowing students to leave a public school for part of the day to receive off-site religious instruction  did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[1]

  • Religious Accommodation: Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas famously stated: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”  The Court reasoned that government accommodation of religious practices does not constitute an unlawful “establishment” of religion as long as public resources aren’t directly funding or conducting the classes.

The landmark Supreme Court decision in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) prohibited government-sponsored devotional Bible reading and prayer in public schools. It did not prohibit teaching about the Bible. In fact, Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the Court, made an important observation that is frequently overlooked:

“It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

The Court recognized an important distinction between religious instruction and academic study.

The Ten Commandments and American History: Why Biblical Literacy Belongs in Public Education, By Tim Clark

Additional Resources:

1. What is LifeWise Academy?: A brief overview of LifeWise.

2. Program Overview  Robust brochure with 10-step process, Statement of Faith, curriculum link, and FAQs

3. OSP on Angel Studios (direct link): LifeWise documentary. It’s Awesome!! You will need to create an Angel account, but it costs nothing to do so.

4. Impactful stories:
Connor’s Story
Christian’s Story This one is my favorite.

5. All of our most popular videos in one place:
https://lifewise.org/videos/

6. Catholic students do participate in LifeWise. We consider them a denomination but are welcome to join a LifeWise program.

7. Social media,  LifeWise Academy Facebook Page

 

 

10 Commanandments – Old and New Testaments

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Sources: Gemini and ChatGPT

The 10 Commandments – Old Testament

Found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, they are:

  1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

  2. You shall not make idols.

  3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord.

  4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

  5. Honor your father and your mother.

  6. You shall not murder.

  7. You shall not commit adultery.

  8. You shall not steal.

  9. You shall not bear false witness.

  10. You shall not covet.

New Testament

The 10 Commandments in the New Testament

While the New Testament does not present a brand-new list, it redefines, deepens, and shifts the emphasis of the Ten Commandments in several major ways:

1. Internalizing the Intent (The Sermon on the Mount)

In Matthew 5:21–28, Jesus expands the original prohibitions from external actions to internal motives and attitudes:

  • Murder (6th): Upgraded to include harbored anger, hatred, or contempt toward others.
  • Adultery (7th): Upgraded to include lustful intent in the heart.

2. Summarizing into Two Core Commands

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus condenses the Law into two directives:

  1. Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind (summarizes Commandments 1–4).
  2. Love your neighbor as yourself (summarizes Commandments 5–10).

Jesus concludes that “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

3. Reaffirming Nine, Leaving Out One

Throughout the New Testament epistles (e.g., Romans 13:8–10, Ephesians 6:1–2), nine of the ten commandments are explicitly reaffirmed for Christians.

  • The missing exception: The 4th Commandment (Keep the Sabbath) is never explicitly commanded for New Covenant believers. In scriptures like Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews 4:1–11, the physical Sabbath rest is described as a shadow pointing to spiritual rest in Christ rather than a strict legal obligation.

4. The “New Commandment”

In John 13:34, Jesus raises the standard of love even further:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

Instead of using oneself as the standard (“love your neighbor as yourself”), believers are called to use Christ’s self-sacrificial love as the new standard.

For a deeper look into this topic, The 10 Commandments in the New Testament provides a great video walkthrough on how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted these principles.

Sharing “Matthew 22:36-40 NIV – “Teacher, which is the greatest – Bible Gateway”

While the New Testament does not replace the Ten Commandments with a brand-new list, it significantly reframes their purpose, scope, and application.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of how the commandments function across both testaments:

1. Direct Comparison Matrix

# Commandment Old Testament Focus (Exodus 20 / Deut 5) New Testament Reinterpretation
1 No other gods External exclusive worship of Yahweh over pagan deities. Absolute devotion; loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37-38).
2 No idols Prohibits crafting physical images/statues to represent God. Internalized to include greed, covetousness, and putting anything above God (Colossians 3:5).
3 Do not take God’s name in vain Respecting God’s sacred name; avoiding false oaths or swearing untruthfully in His name. Let your “Yes” be “Yes” and “No” be “No”; living in a way that accurately reflects God’s character (Matthew 5:33–37).
4 Remember the Sabbath Physical cessation of work on the seventh day (Saturday) as a covenant sign. Not explicitly commanded to Christians. Framed as a shadow pointing to spiritual rest in Christ (Colossians 2:16–17, Hebrews 4:9–10).
5 Honor father and mother Social duty tied to the promise of long life in the Promised Land. Reaffirmed as the “first commandment with a promise,” emphasizing heart submission and mutual respect (Ephesians 6:1–3).
6 Do not murder Prohibits the unlawful physical taking of a human life. Extended to include internal hatred, unresolved anger, and contempt (Matthew 5:21–22, 1 John 3:15).
7 Do not commit adultery Prohibits physical sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Extended to include lustful intent in the heart (Matthew 5:27–28).
8 Do not steal Prohibits taking another’s physical property or livestock. Reaffirmed, with an emphasis on working hard to share generously with those in need (Ephesians 4:28).
9 Do not give false testimony Prohibits lying in legal proceedings or slandering neighbors. Reaffirmed as putting away all deceit and speaking truth in love (Ephesians 4:25).
10 Do not covet Prohibits desiring a neighbor’s house, spouse, slaves, or assets. Identified as the root cause of evil desires and idolatry; countered by contentment (Romans 7:7, 1 Timothy 6:6–10).

2. Key Differences in Approach

  • Letter vs. Spirit: The Old Testament formulation focused heavily on prohibitions of external actions (“Thou shalt not”). The New Testament shifts the standard to the attitudes of the heart, meaning one can break a commandment through thought and motive without committing the physical act.
  • Legal Obligation vs. Fruit of the Spirit: In the Old Covenant, keeping the law was tied to national blessings and covenant standing. In the New Covenant, keeping God’s moral law is described as the natural result of living by the Holy Spirit rather than an attempt to earn salvation (Romans 8:3–4, Galatians 5:22–23).
  • Summary Standard: Jesus condenses the entire Decalogue into two primary commands—Love God (Commandments 1–4) and Love Neighbor (Commandments 5–10)—noting that all other laws hang on these two (Matthew 22:36-40).

 

 

The Ten Commandments; Five Whys; Taguchi Loss Function – Leading and Lagging Feedback Indicators

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Content supported with Gemini and ChatGPT.

Context: God is Love ( 1 John 4:8). Love is willing the good of others in thoughts, words, and actions.

The Five Whys is a problem-solving technique that involves asking “why” five times to identify the root cause of a problem, intent or purpose.

When applied to a negative problem (e.g., “Why did the machine fail?”), the Five Whys uncovers a root cause—the fundamental defect or breakdown in the system.

However, when applied to a design system, a policy, or moral law (like the Ten Commandments), asking “why” repeatedly does not reveal a failure; it strips away surface-level mechanics to uncover the ultimate purpose, foundational intent, or target condition.

Why “Purpose” Functions as the “Root Cause”

In quality systems, Deming emphasized that every system must have an aim. Without an aim, you cannot evaluate whether a system is succeeding or drifting.

  1. The Commandment is the Mechanism: “You shall not steal” is an operational boundary (a rule).

  2. The “Why” uncovers the System Target: Asking “Why?” five times reveals that the boundary exists to protect mutual trust, justice, and social cooperation.

  3. Purpose IS the System Root Cause: The root “cause” for the existence of the rule is its purpose—human flourishing and alignment with God’s design.

When you reach the top level—such as Loving God wholeheartedly and loving your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40)—you have arrived at the ultimate aim of the system.

 When applied to the Ten Commandments, it can help uncover the deeper principles behind each commandment rather than viewing them merely as rules.

The Ten Commandments as a System

Why should we obey the Ten Commandments?

Why #1: To avoid harmful behavior.
Why #2: Why avoid harmful behavior?
Because harmful behavior damages relationships.
Why #3: Why are relationships important?
Because individuals flourish through healthy relationships with God and others.
Why #4: Why is human flourishing important?
Because people are created with inherent dignity and purpose.
Why #5: Why do people have dignity and purpose?
Because they are created in the image of God.
Purpose:  Respect for God’s design and the inherent dignity of every person.

The Five Whys Applied to Each Commandment

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Why? To maintain proper worship.
Why? Because misplaced worship distorts priorities.
Why? Because distorted priorities lead to harmful decisions.
Why? Because people become like what they worship.
Why? Because ultimate allegiance shapes character and destiny.
Purpose:  Right worship creates right living.

2. You shall not make idols.

Why? To prevent false representations of God.
Why? Because false images distort truth.
Why? Because distorted truth leads to false beliefs.
Why? Because beliefs drive behavior.
Why? Because behavior determines the quality of life and relationships.
Purpose: Truth must not be reduced to human preferences.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.

Why? To show respect for God’s name.
Why? Because names represent authority and character.
Why? Because disrespect erodes trust and reverence.
Why? Because trust is foundational to relationships.
Why? Because healthy relationships require integrity.
Purpose: Honor and integrity sustain trust.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

Why? To set aside time for rest and worship.
Why? Because continuous labor depletes people.
Why? Because depletion reduces effectiveness and well-being.
Why? Because people need renewal.
Why? Because humans are finite beings created with limits.
Purpose: flourishing requires rhythms of work, rest, and worship.

5. Honor your father and your mother.

Why? To strengthen families.
Why? Because families shape character and values.
Why? Because values influence societal behavior.
Why? Because societal behavior affects community stability.
Why? Because civilization depends on healthy generations.
Purpose: Strong families are foundational to a healthy society

6. You shall not murder.

Why? To protect life.
Why? Because human life has value.
Why? Because every person possesses dignity.
Why? Because dignity does not depend on usefulness or status.
Why? Because people are made in God’s image.
Purpose: Human life is sacred.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

Why? To preserve marital faithfulness.
Why? Because trust is essential to marriage.
Why? Because broken trust damages families.
Why? Because family instability harms individuals and communities.
Why? Because long-term flourishing depends on covenantal commitment.
Purpose: Faithful commitment protects human flourishing.

8. You shall not steal.

Why? To respect others’ property.
Why? Because theft violates fairness.
Why? Because fairness supports trust.
Why? Because trust enables cooperation.
Why? Because cooperation is necessary for a functioning society.
Purpose: Justice and trust make civilization possible.

9. You shall not bear false witness.

Why? To protect truth.
Why? Because lies distort reality.
Why? Because distorted reality leads to poor decisions.
Why? Because good decisions require accurate information.
Why? Because truth is essential for justice and trust.
Purpose: Truth is the foundation of justice.

10. You shall not covet.

Why? To avoid envy.
Why? Because envy breeds dissatisfaction.
Why? Because dissatisfaction often leads to harmful actions.
Why? Because harmful actions damage relationships.
Why? Because inner desires eventually shape outward behavior.
Purpose: Contentment protects both character and community.

Summary: The System Behind the Commandments

Viewed through a quality-management lens, the Ten Commandments form an interconnected system:

Commandments Underlying Principle
1–4 Right relationship with God
5 Respect for authority and family
6 Sanctity of life
7 Faithfulness
8 Justice and stewardship
9 Truth and integrity
10 Contentment and purity of heart

Applying the Five Whys suggests that the commandments ultimately converge on a single systemic principle:

Love God wholeheartedly and love your neighbor as yourself.

This aligns with Jesus’ summary of the Law (Matthew 22:37-40), which can be viewed as the deepest “root cause” beneath all Ten Commandments. From a Deming or systems-thinking perspective, the commandments are not ten disconnected rules but components of a system designed to promote human flourishing, social stability, and alignment with God’s purposes.

This is where the framework becomes especially useful from a Deming, Taguchi, and systems-thinking perspective.

A principle often attributed to quality management is:

“You cannot manage what you do not measure.”

The Ten Commandments establish the target condition. The Taguchi Loss Function identifies the cost of deviation. The next step is to identify leading and lagging indicators that allow a community, church, county, state, or nation to monitor movement toward or away from the target.

The challenge is that many of the commandments involve moral and spiritual conditions that cannot be measured directly. Therefore, we measure the effects of deviation.

Taguchi Loss Function applied to the ten commandments to: (1) establish the target condition; identify the cost of deviation , identify leading and lagging indicators that allow a community, church, county, state, or nation to monitor movement toward or away from the target.

In Taguchi’s quality engineering, any variation or deviation from the ideal target creates an exponential loss (cost, friction, breakdown) to the broader system—even if the variation remains within traditionally “acceptable” bounds.

Here is the breakdown of the target conditions, costs of deviation, and leading/lagging indicators across the Ten Commandments framework for community and societal evaluation:

The Taguchi Framework Applied to the Ten Commandments

1. You shall have no other gods before Me

  • Target Condition: Shared, ultimate moral purpose and aligned higher-level priorities.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Societal fragmentation, moral relativism, loss of overarching community direction, and increased friction from conflicting fundamental aims.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Civic participation rates and community service involvement

    • Charitable giving and voluntary contributions

    • Frequency of inter-group dialogue and community coalition building

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Social trust indices

    • Political and ideological polarization metrics

    • Rates of loneliness and social isolation

2. You shall not make idols

  • Target Condition: Uncompromising devotion to truth and intrinsic values rather than material or superficial substitutes.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Misallocated resources, economic instability driven by materialism, addiction, and systemic pursuit of superficial metrics over genuine human well-being.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Household savings vs. discretionary debt ratios

    • Average weekly work hours vs. family time allocation

    • Financial literacy participation rates

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Consumer bankruptcy rates

    • Behavioral addiction rates (gambling, spending, screen time)

    • Stress- and lifestyle-related mental health disorders

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain

  • Target Condition: Utmost integrity, institutional sacredness, and honor in commitments made under high authority.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Erosion of institutional legitimacy, deep-seated cynicism, and the immense overhead cost of verifying commitments when trust disappears.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Ethics training completion and adoption in organizations

    • Openness and transparency metrics in government and non-profits

    • Compliance with public accountability standards

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Institutional trust ratings (faith in government, churches, business)

    • Public corruption convictions and formal ethics complaints

    • Breach-of-contract litigation volume

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy

  • Target Condition: Sustainable rhythms of work, rest, reflection, and spiritual renewal.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Chronic systemic burnout, physical and mental exhaustion, degraded family units, and long-term drop in human productivity/creativity.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Average vacation usage rates

    • Frequency of shared family meals and rest days

    • Employer wellness program participation

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Workplace burnout and stress-related medical leaves

    • Chronic health issues (cardiovascular, fatigue-related illnesses)

    • Employee turnover and absenteeism rates

5. Honor your father and your mother

  • Target Condition: Strong multi-generational family structures, intergenerational respect, and structural continuity.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Breakdown of foundational support systems, high public safety/welfare expenditures to replace family safety nets, and loss of generational wisdom transfer.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Rates of two-parent or stably supported households

    • Parental involvement in educational and community activities

    • Participation in eldercare and multi-generational family support

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Child poverty rates

    • High school graduation and literacy rates

    • Juvenile offense and disciplinary incident rates

6. You shall not murder

  • Target Condition: Absolute sanctity of human life and safety.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Destruction of human potential, severe trauma across generations, direct medical and law enforcement costs, and pervasive fear.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Domestic disturbance calls and crisis response requests

    • Availability and usage of mental health crisis services

    • Youth engagement and gang prevention program metrics

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Violent crime and homicide rates

    • Suicide rates

    • Drug overdose and violent mortality metrics

7. You shall not commit adultery

  • Target Condition: Deep covenantal loyalty, marital stability, and relational trust.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Emotional and financial destruction of homes, psychological trauma to children, high legal costs, and fragmented community foundations.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Marriage rates vs. separation trends

    • Participation in relational and marriage counseling programs

    • Hours dedicated to shared family activities

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Divorce rates

    • Single-parent household growth driven by abandonment

    • Behavioral and emotional counseling rates among youth

8. You shall not steal

  • Target Condition: Universal respect for ownership, property, and economic fairness.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Enormous economic loss, massive overhead spent on security/surveillance, reduced business investment, and decay of commercial centers.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Local employment and wage adequacy rates

    • Participation in vocational and financial education programs

    • Community youth development opportunities

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Theft, shoplifting, and fraud statistics

    • Insurance premiums and security expenditure totals

    • Inventory shrinkage rates in local commerce

9. You shall not bear false witness

  • Target Condition: Truthfulness, objective justice, and transparent communication across society.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Breakdown of the judicial and democratic systems, high litigation overhead, pervasive misinformation, and failure of public policy consensus.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Public access to open government and objective media sources

    • Ethics and media literacy education efforts

    • Transparency practices in reporting local government/corporate data

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Perjury, fraud, and defamation litigation cases

    • Public perception of news and information trustworthiness

    • Costs associated with fraud investigations and legal compliance

10. You shall not covet

  • Target Condition: Inner contentment, gratitude, and joy in others’ success.

  • Cost of Deviation (Taguchi Loss): Malice, social resentment, destructive competition, financial overextension, and baseline societal unhappiness.

  • Leading Indicators:

    • Debt-to-income ratios driven by status consumption

    • Social media usage patterns and comparative metrics

    • Active involvement in community volunteerism and giving

  • Lagging Indicators:

    • Embezzlement and financial crime motivated by envy

    • Self-reported life satisfaction and happiness index scores

    • Prevalence of anxiety and depression linked to social comparison

By tracking leading indicators, communities can detect when systems are drifting away from the target before catastrophic loss occurs. Lagging indicators then confirm the total “loss to society” generated by that deviation.

Is America an Oligarchy?

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

The Free Press:  Tyler Cowen: America Isn’t an Oligarchy
By Tyler Cowen — 07.19.26

  • The left preaches that a small group of ultrawealthy people are steering the country. But the problems in our politics stem from popular demand.
  • Is America ruled by an oligarchy—that is, a small group of tightly knit, self-serving, and very wealthy people? We hear this argument increasingly, most of all from the Democratic Party. Their fundraising emails have begun to stress this point over the last year, blaming “billionaires” for driving America into ruin. I call this “billionaire derangement syndrome.”

Functional Oligarchy, Iain Davis, Off-Guardian.org

  • Today, we define “oligarchy” as “government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.”

    When oligarchs exercise political power by virtue of their wealth, we call it “plutocracy.”

  • In 2014, political scientists Professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin I. Page conducted a multivariant analysis of nearly 1,800 policy decisions made by the US government over a more-than-thirty-year period. Their objective was to understand:

    Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of US citizens sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?

    Gilens and Page concluded:

    Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

    Representus

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: A “new wave” of an “old evil”

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized
Transcript
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently shared a perspective on communism and radical leftism, calling the rise of leftist extremism a “new wave” of an “old evil.”

The speech referenced in the post was delivered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the State Department’s Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism on July 16, 2026.   

While the official full text transcript hasn’t been posted to a single landing page on the State Department website yet, you can view video highlights of his remarks directly on YouTube:

Additionally, detailed breakdowns and quotes from the speech are available via media coverage and analysis, such as the reports from the Washington Examiner and the Daily Citizen.

Rubio tells international summit on left-wing terrorism: ‘Time to crush this evil forever’
By Timothy Nerozzi, Washington Examiner

Rubio condemned “radical leftism” as a “distinct and unique evil” that is “driven by hatred against the strong and the good” and “perpetrated by those who cannot build, who cannot create, who cannot achieve great things.”

Walter A Shewhart: Two types of variation

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Walter A Shewhart, 1924, and the Hawthorne factory

, 
PMCID: PMC2464836  PMID: 16585117

The year 1924—at a factory in Cicero, Illinois—saw the start of two of the most important developments ever in managerial thinking. In May that year Walter Shewhart described the first control chart which launched statistical process control and quality improvement. In November of that year there began a series of research projects which came to be known as the Hawthorne studies. This body of work was central to the creation of the fields of the sociology, social psychology, and anthropology of the work place. Although these events occurred at the same place and in the same year, there has been remarkably little cross fertilization of ideas between them.

Walter Andrew Shewhart (1891–1967)

Walter Shewhart was born in New Canton, Illinois on 18 March 1891 to Anton and Esta Barney Shewhart. He received Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University of Illinois, then attended the University of California at Berkeley from which he was awarded a Doctorate in physics in 1917. He taught at both universities and went on to head the department of physics at Wisconsin Normal School at LaCrosse for a short period of time.,

In 1918 Shewhart joined the Western Electric Company to assist their engineers in improving the quality of telephone hardware. Western Electric produced hardware for the Bell Telephone Company, which became the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). The Western Electric Company manufactured telephone equipment for them and since 1905 its major plant was the Hawthorne Plant in Cicero, a suburb of Chicago. The company and its factory grew rapidly with the need for telephones. By 1913 there were 14 000 employees and by 1930 there were 43 000. It was one of the largest manufacturing plants in the country. Shewart worked at Hawthorne until 1925 when he moved to the Bell Telephone Research Laboratories where he remained until his retirement in 1956.

While at Hawthorne, Shewhart met and influenced W Edwards Deming who went on to champion Shewhart’s methods., Joseph Juran also worked at Hawthorne from 1924 to 1941 and was influenced by Shewhart. Shewhart, Deming, and Juran are often considered to be the three founders of the quality improvement movement. Two of Shewhart’s contributions continue to influence the daily work of quality—namely, control charts and the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle.

Reducing variation: statistical process control

The focus on reducing variation as a way to improve quality is a non‐obvious contribution of quality management. When the ancients built their temples they needed squared stones that would fit together. If the door of a new car is too big, it will not close. If it is too small, the rain will come in. In a high quality car the doors and the frame match with precision. Today all customers would expect such a fit. By way of contrast, one of the most widely observed phenomena in population health is regional and small area variation in care. Medicine has only started down the road of reducing variation.

Shewhart identified two categories of variation which he called “assignable‐cause” and “chance‐cause” variation. Others call the two categories “special‐cause” and “common‐cause” variation, respectively. He devised the control chart as a tool for distinguishing between the two. The various control charts that Shewhart proposed for variables and attributes include mean, range, np, p, c, and u charts.,, Shewhart reported that bringing a process into a state of statistical control—where there is only chance‐cause (common‐cause) variation—and keeping it in control was needed to reduce waste and improve quality. Shewhart is referred to as the “father of statistical quality control”. Shewhart’s historical memorandum of 16 May 1924 proposed the use of the statistical control chart to his supervisors. In the preface to his book “Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product” Shewhart stated:

“The object of industry is to set up economic ways of satisfying human wants and in so doing to reduce everything possible to routines requiring a minimum amount of human effort. Through the use of the scientific method, extended to take account of modern statistical concepts, it has been found possible to set up limits within which the results of routine efforts must lie if they are to be economical. Deviations in the results of a routine process outside such limits indicate that the routine has broken down and will no longer be economical until the cause of trouble is removed.”

For over 50 years clinical laboratories have embraced Shewhart’s ideas and incorporated statistical process control into standard operating procedures for clinical laboratory quality control,, and proficiency testing. More recently, other industries have re‐discovered Shewhart’s tools of statisical process control. Motorola developed the philosophy for quality improvement, based on statistical process control, which is called “Six Sigma”. Sigma is the Greek letter used to denote the standard deviation of a population. In 1988 Motorola won the US Baldrige National Quality Award and this brought the six sigma concept to public attention. Several other organizations started using six sigma, and General Electric, under Jack Welch’s leadership, popularized the six sigma method.

“Sigma is a statistical unit of measurement that describes the distribution about the mean of any process or procedure. A process or procedure that can achieve plus or minus six‐sigma capability can be expected to have a defect rate of no more than a few parts per million, even allowing for some shift in the mean. In statistical terms, this approaches zero defects”.

Shewhart cycle

The Shewhart cycle or Shewhart learning and improvement cycle combines management thinking with statistical analysis. The constant evaluation of management policy and procedures leads to continuous improvement. This cycle has also been called the Deming cycle, the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle, or the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle. While Deming marketed the cycle to the masses—a cycle which he called the Shewhart cycle—most people referred to it as the Deming cycle.

The Shewhart cycle has the following four stages:

  • Plan: identify what can be improved and what change is needed
  • Do: implement the design change
  • Study: measure and analyse the process or outcome
  • Act: if the results are not as hoped for

This cycle is used to make changes that lead to improvement in a manner of continuous quality improvement. This is a never ending process. After the easy low cost changes are made (the low hanging fruit harvested), the cycle process is repeated for another step, task, or process in the microsystem or system. After a period of time, other changes may result in the original process having an opportunity for improvement again.

Shewhart published numerous articles, many of which were in the Bell System Technical Journal, and two books: “Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product” in 1931 and “Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control” in 1939 (reprinted in 1986). He was also the first editor of the John Wiley and Sons “Mathematical Statistics Series”, and he continued to serve in this capacity for more than 20 years. Shewhart served as a consultant in the War Department during World War II and the resultant American War Standards helped in the productivity efforts. Other consultancy work included working with the United Nations and the government of India. Among the awards that Shewhart received was the Holley Medal from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and he was the first recipient of the Shewhart Medal by the American Society for Quality Control. He died on 11 March 1967 in Troy Hills, New Jersey at the age of 75.

The Hawthorne studies

In 1923 the National Research Council’s Division of Engineering and Industrial Research established the Committee on the Relation of Quality and Quantity of Illumination to Efficiency in the Industries. The chair was none other than Thomas Edison. Previous reports from several companies showed that better lighting increased productivity. Western Electric was invited to carry out experiments to demonstrate this relationship. Starting in November 1924, the first study found no relationship between lighting and productivity. Later studies showed that productivity increased as lights were dimmed! This was followed by a series of experimental changes in working conditions for six women working in a separated assembly room. Thirteen sequential time periods were observed. Productivity rose over this time period apparently independently of the imposed changes. The conclusion was that the principal cause was that attention was paid to these workers. This unexpected result came to be known as the “Hawthorne effect”. This can be seen as a form of social placebo effect. From 1928 to 1933 Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger and others continued this work. One of their conclusions was the importance of the “informal organization” created by the workers themselves in defining the level of worker productivity. This large body of work is best summarized in Roethlisberger and Dickson’s “Management and the Worker”.

By 1933 the Great Depression had reduced the Hawthorne work force to 6000. Shewhart’s work received worldwide attention but did not change the work at Hawthorne. “Shewhart was a skilled theoretician, but could not successfully convey quality ideas to the manufacturing work force.” By the time Juran left in 1941 “you could walk through this plant, the seed bed of the quality revolution, without seeing any control charts.” According to Juran: “The priorities assigned to the production departments were to meet schedules and achieve high productivity. Quality was left to the inspection department.”

Western Electric and AT&T jointly founded the Bell Laboratories in 1925. It became one of the world’s great industry based research laboratories. In 1947 William Shockley and others there invented the transistor which made our computer age possible. The first Western Electric plant to produce transistors was in Allentown, Pennsylvania. In the early 1950s quality control was a major problem there. Bonnie Small introduced Shewhart’s methods and by the time she left Allentown there were 5000 control charts posted in the plant and performance had dramatically improved. She left the company effort to write “The Western Electric Statistical Quality Control Handbook” which first appeared in 1958. Building on these efforts, AT&T’s power systems division became the first US manufacturer to win Japan’s Deming prize. Today, except for a few buildings, the Hawthorne plant is gone and has been replaced by a shopping mall where, no doubt, one can buy cell phones made in China.

The events at Hawthorne in 1924 have changed the way managers see the world of work. Drawing on the Hawthorne studies and Shewart’s statistical process control, the concepts of organizational behavior remain mostly unsynthesized, unmerged idea streams. The former have become the academic domain of social sciences and organizational behavior and the latter of engineering and production management. The former group of academics do not use mathematics with the enthusiasm that engineers do. These academic departmental boxes have delayed the synthesis of these ideas. This synthesis can happen in the work place by making the understanding of variation and its causes part of the common language of everyone. We pay attention to what we can and do measure. The choice of measures needs to be customer focused. Simply paying attention can create a Hawthorne effect. Creating a joyful transformation of the work environment may help align the goals of management in the formal organization with the informal organization of the workers. It is also worth remembering that technological change created Hawthorne and more such change did away with it.

Supplementary Material