Business

Is it morally wrong to be “filthy rich”? Researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of Massachusetts Amherst examined how people across 20 countries judge excessive wealth. People in wealthier, more equal societies are actually more likely to view having too much money as morally wrong compared to those living in poorer, more unequal countries.

The research involved over 4,300 participants from nations as diverse as Belgium, Nigeria, Switzerland, and Peru. While you might expect people in struggling economies to resent the ultra-rich more, the opposite appears to be true.

The study found that people do not find excessive wealth very immoral across all countries. But more equal and wealthy societies like Belgium and Switzerland consider having too much money more wrong than less equal societies.

This suggests that when basic needs are met and inequality is lower, people become more sensitive to the potential harm caused by concentrated extreme wealth. Meanwhile, in developing nations where billionaires might represent hope for economic advancement, excessive wealth is viewed more favorably.

The researchers reference a 2023 statement by Elon Musk, currently the world’s richest person, who said it’s morally wrong to use the word “billionaire” as an insult if the individual uses their wealth to create products making millions of people happy. This perspective aligns with Western thinking that prioritizes happiness maximization as a moral good.

The luxury of moral criticism of excess may be more affordable for wealthier communities. Meanwhile, in developing nations, billionaires might represent aspiration rather than moral failure.

Possible Preaching Angle: Money; Money, love of; Wealth – The Bible does not condemn wealth, as such, since Abraham, Job, and Solomon, among others, were very wealthy individuals. The Bible does warn about the love of money (1 Tim. 6:10), the oppression of the poor, and making money ones security (Matt. 6:19)

An accountant who fills out spreadsheets at the beach, a dog groomer who always has time for one more client, a basketball player who shoots free throws to the point of exhaustion.

Every profession has its share of hard chargers and overachievers. But for some workers — perhaps more than ever in our always-on, always-connected world — the drive to send one more email, clip one more poodle, sink one more shot becomes all-consuming.

Workaholism is a common feature of the modern workplace. A recent review found that roughly 15 percent of workers qualify as workaholics. That adds up to millions of overextended employees around the world who don’t know when — or how, or why — to quit.

Workaholism could be on the upswing thanks to Zoom, Slack and every other technological advance that makes it easier for people to work anywhere, anytime. Behavioral scientist Toon Taris says. “It is something I’m worried about. The conditions for workaholism to develop have never been as good as today.”

Psychologist Malissa Clark agrees that the stage seems to be set for more people to find their inner workaholics. She said, “The mass shift to working from home and remote work may have changed some of our communication patterns and expectations.” Working from home, which became especially widespread during the pandemic, likely created a new group of always-on workers who lost all sight of the boundaries between work and home life. It’s troubling, she says. “Even just your average worker might now start to be more of a workaholic.”

Jack Hassell, a human resource specialist in New Zealand, interviewed an academic who got a wake-up call during the massive Christchurch earthquake of 2011. When the earthquake started, they were reluctant to quit work and leave their desk, Hassell says. Finally forced to exit the shaking building, the academic had an epiphany. “They realized, ‘Oh my God, I was so consumed with work I was willing to almost die.’”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Part of the curse (Gen. 3:19) introduced toil and effort into our lives. Yet, God never meant for us to become slaves to our work. In fact, He insists that we take a day of rest for every six days we labor (Exod. 20:8-11; Luke 23:56).

On November 12, 2024, future Hall of Famer Tom Brady joined Harvard Business School professor Nitin Nohria at a Fortune Magazine symposium to discuss principles of success from his football career that translate to the business world.

Brady emphasized the importance of setting a high standard for work ethic and teamwork. He shared, “I would get in the weight room at 6:30 in the morning. Guys would walk in at 6:45, thinking they were early since the first meeting was at 8:00. I’d joke, ‘Good afternoon!’ The next day, they’d show up at 6:30, but I’d be there at 6:15. By the end, we had a culture where everyone came early and stayed late. We weren’t just punching the clock; we were pushing each other to succeed.”

Brady also highlighted the collective nature of achievement, both in sports and business. “When you succeed, there’s enough credit to go around for everybody. The greatest joy, even as a seven-time Super Bowl champ, is knowing I have thousands of friends and teammates I gave everything for. We played in all conditions, lost and celebrated together. The joy of life was sharing those moments with others.”

He reflected on the deep bonds formed through teamwork: “I didn’t have a brother growing up, but now I feel like I have thousands-from all over the country, all backgrounds. We loved each other and what we were trying to accomplish.”

Brady concluded by encouraging business leaders to find colleagues they love working with and to push each other beyond comfort zones. “It’s okay to feel uncomfortable. That’s how we grow. Unless we stress ourselves-our minds and bodies-we don’t grow.”

You can watch the video here (time stamp 18:38-20:17)

The Freakonomics podcast explored why the phrase “I don’t know” is so difficult for people to say. Contrary to the common belief that “I love you” is the hardest phrase, the hosts argue that “I don’t know” is even more challenging, and our reluctance to admit ignorance starts in childhood and persists into adulthood.

Psychological experiments show that when children are asked nonsensical questions, such as whether “a sweater is angrier than a tree,” most will invent answers rather than admit they don’t know. This tendency to fabricate answers instead of acknowledging uncertainty is not just a childhood trait-it carries over into adult life, especially in professional environments. In the business world, saying “I don’t know” is often seen as a sign of incompetence, so people feel pressured to respond with any answer, even if it’s made up.

The podcast hosts note that despite their reputation as “business experts,” they rarely hear anyone in corporate settings-especially in front of a boss-admit they don’t know something. The prevailing belief is that expertise means always having an answer, even if one must fake it. However, this mindset is counterproductive. Pretending to know everything may protect one’s image in the short term, but it stifles learning and personal growth.

The hosts argue that admitting “I don’t know” is essential for improvement and learning. Embracing uncertainty opens the door to genuine inquiry and self-betterment. Rather than faking expertise, the real path to growth is to acknowledge what we don’t know and use that as a starting point for discovery.

Imagine a savvy organization that does a leveraged buyout and buys a company, and the company is losing money. It's awash in red ink. What does the company do? The takeover buyer knows that this company that it's bought is just full of incompetent management. Management stinks from top to bottom.

So, what do you do? Fire them all? Block them out? Put in new people? Is that illegal? No, the buyers have that right. Is that impractical? No, they have the power. It's smart.

In the biblical story God comes to us. Because he's powerful, he's got the right to blot us out. Why? Because look at the world. It's incompetent. Morally incompetent from top to bottom. He's got the power, so it's not impractical. He's got the holiness. He's got the right, but thank goodness he's also got the mercy, because if he was just powerful and holy, he would do what any good company would do who has just bought out another company that's incompetent. Every head rolls. Fire them all! They have the right; they have the power. It's the smart thing to do. But God's also merciful, so he will restore us. He will redeem us. He'll cut the head off of our sin instead of cutting the head off of our bodies and that's the reason…the hymnwriter said, “for his mercies endure, ever faithful, ever sure.”

Huy Fong Foods’ founder and owner, David Tran, created the sauce we know as sriracha in his L.A. kitchen as a refugee from Vietnam. Starting with nothing but a recipe and condensed milk cans full of 100 ounces gold that he smuggled out of Vietnam, Tran built Huy Fong Foods over the next four decades into a behemoth that was the No. 3 hot sauce brand in America, behind only Tabasco and Frank’s Red Hot.

Sriracha hot sauce has been copied, counterfeited, and even taken into outer space. Tran didn’t spend a dime on marketing, but his product found fans across the country and was celebrated by chefs and celebrities like Miley Cyrus. The bottle could even be found on the International Space Station.

Then a catastrophic disagreement between Tran and Craig Underwood, the California pepper farmer who had grown the red jalapeños for Huy Fong’s sauce for 28 years, created a crisis for the business. The breakup of Huy Fong Foods and Underwood Ranches, stemming from a disagreement over payment that erupted in November 2016, led to shortages of Huy Fong’s “rooster sauce.” This left millions of fans often unable to get their hands on their favorite condiment. The rift decimated both men’s companies—leaving the farmer with thousands of acres of pepper fields but no customer; and the sauce-maker with a 650,000-square-foot factory but not enough chili peppers to keep it running consistently.

Since then, dozens of other srirachas have flooded the market amid the original’s scarcity, including versions from the likes of Texas Pete and Roland’s and generics from various supermarket chains. And the No. 1 hot sauce brand in America seized the opportunity created by the shortage of Huy Fong’s sauce to dominate the category that Tran created: Tabasco had the bestselling sriracha in the country for the second half of 2023, pulling ahead even of the original rooster sauce.

The sad saga of the two men who created one of America's favorite condiments feels like a kind of fable, or cautionary tale, showing how fragile one product’s dominance of a category can be, no matter how beloved it is.

Possible Preaching Angles:

Just as discord can splinter a business and erode its effectiveness, so disagreements within a church can be equally devastating. Unresolved conflicts have the potential to shatter unity, undoing the hard work, and cause harm to its reputation.

Twenty years ago, at the moment of its IPO announcement, the most powerful company in the world declared that “Don’t be evil” would be the orchestrating principle of its executive strategy. How did Google intend not to be evil? By doing “good things” for the world, its IPO document explained, “even if we forgo some short-term gains.”

Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO at the time, had some private doubts: as he would later explain in an interview to NPR, “There’s no book about evil except maybe, you know, the Bible or something.” But Schmidt came to believe that the absence of an authoritative definition was in fact a virtue, since any employee could exercise a veto over any decision that was felt not to involve “doing good things.” It took 10 years for the company’s executives to realize that the motto was a recipe for total, corporate paralysis, and quietly retired it.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The Bible offers a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to business ethics than Google's original motto, providing guidance on positive actions rather than just avoiding a vague negative motto (Micah 6:8).

Certain words that many companies use in their annual reports—words like ethical, integrity and responsibility—are meant to convey trustworthiness. But research suggests that companies that use such words in annual filings known are often hiding their untrustworthiness.

The study found that use of “trust” words in annual statements was linked with a decreased interest in the stock of the company in question. Basing their findings on 21 words that seek to evoke a sense of trustworthiness, the authors also found that companies whose annual filings included the words tended to pay about $100,000 more in auditing fees than firms without the words.

Companies using trust words were also about 15% more likely to receive a comment letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission asking them to clarify information on their annual report than companies that didn’t use trust words.

One of the researchers wrote, “Companies likely use trust words to project a positive image and better manage information within the annual report, but it seems that no one is really fooled.”

We used to have a short Halloween season, a nice slow-paced Thanksgiving, and then around mid-November we'd see Christmas stuff out for sale. Well, now these three events are getting mashed together in what one author calls a "HalloweenthanksgivingChristmaspalooza."

Ellyn von Huben notes, "I've noticed that so much of society's sense of holiday celebrations has been condensed that it is hard to even see what holiday we are headed toward."

Possible Preaching Angle:

This story (and her wonderful new word to describe this season) provides a great way to help your congregation slow down, take a deep breath, and focus on Christ and the true meaning of Advent, which Von Huben defines at "The time in which we prepare our hearts for the celebration of Our Lord made flesh to dwell among us."

On Sept. 29, 1916, newspapers across the country announced a wealth milestone once thought to be unreachable: the world’s first billionaire. “Standard (Oil) at $2,014 makes its head a billionaire,” blared The New York Times headline, adding that Standard Oil’s soaring share price “makes John D. Rockefeller, founder and largest shareholder, almost certainly a billionaire.”

Now more than a century after the first U.S. billionaire, the question of who will be first to reach the trillionaire mark continues to fascinate. According to a new report from Informa Connect Academy, Tesla CEO Elon Musk will likely be the first trillionaire sometime in 2027, assuming that his wealth continues to grow at an annual average rate of 110%.

The second person projected to reach trillionaire status will be India’s Gautam Adani, founder of the Adani Group conglomerate, in 2028. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, who has seen his wealth skyrocket from $3 billion to more than $90 billion in five years, would become a trillionaire by 2028. Fourth on the list is Indonesia’s Prajogo Pangestu, founder of the Indonesian energy and mining conglomerate Barito Pacific, who could reach trillionaire status by 2028.

Tied for fifth would be LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg who are forecast to become trillionaires sometime in 2030. Some top billionaires who seem like strong candidates to quickly reach the four-comma club don’t make the top 10. Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the Google founders, are all slated to wait 12 years to become trillionaires.

So, more than 100 years after the first billionaire, the first trillionaire could well be crowned in the next decade.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The Bible does not condemn wealth, as such, since Abraham, Job, and Solomon, among others, were very wealthy individuals. What the Bible does warn about is the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10), the oppression of the poor by the rich (Jam. 5:1-6), and placing faith in the earthly “security” of wealth, rather than in God (Prov. 18:10-11, Matt. 6:19-21). The warnings are intended to encourage a balanced approach to wealth and possessions, recognizing that true fulfillment comes from a relationship with God and serving others.

There is a reason God gave us the Sabbath rest. We need it. We were not created to work seven days a week. Yet, that is where we are headed as a culture, especially since COVID-19, and this is not a good thing.

Technology tethers us to our work through smartphones and “productivity” apps such as Slack and Teams. The majority of workers regularly check their email on their smartphones, which never leave their side, even after work hours or on vacation. The rise in remote work means work and family spheres are no longer separate, blurring the boundaries between work and home. Or as Andrew Barnes, cofounder of 4 Day Week Global, said, “We’re not working from home, we’re sleeping in the office.” This is our new world of work.

Our relationship with work is becoming increasingly unhealthy. Levels of burnout and stress are at all-time highs. Even before the pandemic, the World Health Organization called stress the “health epidemic of the 21st century.” What is a major source of that stress? Our jobs.

COVID-19 exacerbated this problem. During the pandemic, workdays became longer—in the United States, the average workday is now three hours longer; and in the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Spain, it’s two hours longer. But more than that, we have gotten used to working outside traditional work hours.

Leadership can kill you. At least leadership in high stakes positions.

Nineteen chief executives died in office in 2023, the most since 2010, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which tracks turnover at U.S. companies. The outplacement firm tallied a record 1,914 CEO exits in 2023, which Senior Vice President Andy Challenger partly attributes to the post-pandemic burnout that many execs feel. In a January survey of 600 C-suite executives by the professional network Chief, 37% said avoiding burnout would be a personal challenge this year.

A candid help-wanted ad might go something like this: Company seeks visionary leader to take business to the next level. Incumbent will be paid handsomely but may have fewer years to enjoy earnings because the stress of the role can reduce life expectancy.

Ivan Menezes was a few weeks shy of retiring as CEO when he died last June at age 63. The company said he was hospitalized for stomach ulcers and died after a brief illness. Notable CEOs who suffered fatal heart attacks on the job in the past 20 years include Jim Cantalupo of McDonald’s, Samuel “Skip” Ackerman of Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Jerald Fishman of Analog Devices, and Carolyn Reidy of Simon & Schuster. They ranged in age from 58 to 71.

Forty years ago, Steve Bell began building cabinets in his garage. Those humble beginnings have grown over the decades into Bellmont Cabinet Co., an award-winning manufacturing company specializing in the minimalist “frameless” cabinet, of which Steve was one of the first pioneers.

But Steve has pioneered more than just cabinetry – he is redefining the workplace and what it means to be a working Christian. “Growing up, there was this sense that if you’re really called to faith, then you're going to go into ‘the real Christian work’ of full-time Christian service. Everything else was basically a compromise,” recalls Steve, whose parents were disappointed that he didn't want to follow in his father's footsteps into pastoral ministry.

One day in college, he was reading RG LeTourneau's Mover of Men and Mountains. LeTourneau experienced success in his business, so he asked his pastor, “Do you think I should sell my business and become a missionary?” The pastor said, “Bob, God needs businessmen as much as he needs pastors and teachers and missionaries.”

LeTourneau went on to become one of the great industrialists of the World War II era. Steve also realized that his desires for the business and manufacturing sector were a conviction from the Lord.

Steve said: “I think we've got generations of people growing up in the church who don't understand the importance of their work … God doesn't just love the cabinet maker; he loves good cabinets too. He actually loves the work that we do. I’ve got over 300 employees here that go out every day to make something that’s beautiful. And God loves beauty.”

Steve says, “This 200,000-square-foot facility with these 300 employees—this is my ministry … We want everybody that touches Bellmont to see Christ reflected in the way we do our business.”

For years, Wendy’s has been known to be astute in its use of social media to bolster its brand. But recently the company was caught flat-footed, and had to quickly backpedal to defuse a potentially catastrophic public relations scandal.

It started with a corporate earnings call to investors. Wendy’s CEO Kirk Tanner said, “Beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing.” Dynamic pricing is a practice wherein the cost of something fluctuates depending on external factors that affect the product’s demand, like the time of day, day of the week, or the popularity of the product.

In response to this earnings call, journalists likened it to the concept of surge pricing in rideshare apps like Uber and Lyft, where rides cost more or less depending on how many cars are on the road.

In response to this news, people on social began bashing Wendy’s, because of what they perceived to be another example of corporate greed. One user on X said, “Imagine standing in line and watching the price of a Frostee increase by $2 as soon as you get to the register.”

The company was forced to respond. Whether or not their response was a reversal of plans or simply a clarification of intent, the company released a statement saying that it had no plans for surge pricing. A spokesperson for Wendy’s said, “We said these menu boards would give us more flexibility to change the display of featured items. We have no plans to … raise prices when our customers are visiting us most.”

Analyst Jennifer Dublino understands the outrage, pointing to unfair practices by corporate behemoths like Ticketmaster that result in customers revolting in droves. She said, “If customers are confused or feel taken advantage of by fluctuating prices, they may opt to purchase from a competitor with fixed pricing.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Those who pursue profits at the expense of everything else often face harsh consequences.

Work success isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. That’s the gist of an article in The Wall Street Journal titled, “Is This It?’ When Success Isn’t Satisfying.” The article states:

You got the job, won the award, launched the new project to accolades. So why don’t you feel better? “You get the title and it’s, like, ‘Ugh. Is this it?’” says Robert Waldinger, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School who leads a study on how people thrive.

Sometimes, getting the thing is just as delicious as we imagine. Other times, we climb and climb, only to be underwhelmed by what we find at the top: more work, political wrangling, the feeling of being a fraud. Or the success high wears off fast, replaced by that old panic we hoped the accomplishment would finally cure. Then we wonder: Where’s the next win?

We’re all sprinting on what psychologists call a hedonic treadmill. That is, we might get a hit of joy when we achieve something, but we eventually return to our baseline level of happiness (or unhappiness). Whatever heights we reach, we’re still, well, us.

The article quotes a man named Andy Dunn who sold his clothing line to Walmart for $310 million. Mr. Dunn, now 44, spent years strategizing and fantasizing about such a sale but says it was a mirage. Building the company brought him more happiness, he says, than the eventual payout. Dunn said, “From the outside, people think, ‘Oh, my God, amazing, [but] I learned that those are just illusory things.”

A man in California has been arrested and sentenced to federal prison for a scheme that authorities proved to be a load of manure, metaphorically speaking. Ray Brewer was sentenced to more than six years of prison time for bilking investors of more than eight million dollars by fraudulently claiming he was building a series of green energy facilities capable of turning cow dung into methane in several California counties, and one in Idaho.

Authorities say Brewer secured investment funding through a variety of criminal activities, including forging lease agreements with dairy owners, doctoring loan agreements from banks, and even giving fraudulent tours of facilities where he convinced investors the digesters would be located. He even provided regular email updates with fake photos of construction and other forms of equipment.

Instead of using the money for its expressed purpose, authorities believe Brewer instead spent the money on real estate, building a home for himself, and several brand-new Dodge Ram pickup trucks.

Once several investors successfully sued him to recoup their losses, authorities believe Brewer assumed a new identity and moved to Sheridan, Montana. His ruse was short-lived, however. Eventually, investigators found and arrested him.

In 1907, the American Thermos Bottle Company launched a marketing campaign to popularize its vacuum-insulated bottles. They succeeded so spectacularly that “thermos” became a household word. The problem was, by the early 1920s, competitors were using the term “thermos” to describe their vacuum-insulated bottles as well. And so began the battle for the trademark, which included multiple lawsuits, changing the name of the business to the American Thermos Products Company, and launching Thermos-branded tents and stoves in an effort to prove that “thermos” was not a generic word for vacuum bottles. But it was too late. In 1963 a court deemed that the term “had entered the public domain beyond recall.”

Thermos is not the only corporate brand to fall victim to its own success. “Escalator,” “laundromat,” and “zipper” all used to be trademarks. Believe it or not, a company called Sealed Air Corporation still holds the rights to “Bubble Wrap,” Wham-O Inc. owns “Hula Hoop,” and Sony is hanging on to “Memory Stick.” Velcro went as far as producing a music video urging us to refer to generic versions of their product as “hook and loop,” but that’s not going to catch on.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Positive spin: Many words in Christianity have also taken on a “life of their own.” We commonly hear phrases like “it’s the gospel truth,” “it is the company’s mission statement,” and it is “their cross to bear.” This can be an aid to preaching, if we are careful to define what the Bible means by these now familiar words.

Negative spin: We must be careful that the gospel, the cross, and our mission not be watered down by the world hijacking biblical words, redefining them, and robbing them of their original unique spiritual meaning.

Claiming that courts need to adapt to new modes of communication, a judge in Saskatchewan ruled in favor of a grain buyer suing a farmer for backing out of a business deal.

According to court documents, grain buyer Kent Mickleborough sent a mass text message to a variety of potential vendors expressing a willingness to purchase a certain tonnage of flax at a set price. Chris Achter, a local grain farmer, responded in the affirmative. Mickleborough says he spoke to Achter over the phone, then texted a photo of a contract, asking in a text to “please confirm flax contract.”

Achter responded to that text with a thumbs-up emoji. He ended up not delivering the flax by the agreed-upon date, however, because the market price of the flax had increased and he was looking for a better deal. In the lawsuit, Mickleborough claimed that the thumbs-up emoji indicated a willingness to adopt the terms of the contract; Achter, however, disputes that claim, saying that he intended only to confirm receipt of the document, not a commitment to sign it.

Justice Timothy Keene wrote in his ruling,

This court readily acknowledges that a (thumbs-up) emoji is a non-traditional means to “sign” a document. But nevertheless, under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a signature … This appears to be the new reality in Canadian society. Courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.

Possible Preaching Angle:

God desires honesty in all business transactions and financial commitments. Operating with integrity means honoring business commitments.

Miwa Sado, a reporter for NHK, Japan’s public broadcaster, “died in the line of duty and her body was found with her mobile phone still clasped in her hand.” Doctors soon established that Miwa Sado died as a result of congenital heart failure. But following an investigation by Japan’s Ministry of Labor, the official cause of here death was changed to “karoshi”: death by overwork.

In the month preceding her death, Sado had clocked an exhausting 159 hours of official overtime. That was equivalent to working two full eight-hour shifts every weekday over a four-week period. Unofficially, the number of hours of overtime probably exceeded that.

For the last few decades, the world has watched as China became the world’s largest producer and exporter of manufactured goods. But one of the unintended consequences of this has been a surge in the number of people whose deaths have been attributed to overwork. In 2016, CCTV, the state broadcaster, which usually only resorts to hyperbole when they have good news to share, announced that more than half a million Chinese citizens die from overworking every year.

Many in China’s high technology sector now order their working lives according to the mantra “996.” The two 9s refer to the requirements to put in twelve-hour days, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and the 6 refers to the six days of the week that employees with ambitions to get anywhere are expected to be at their workstations.

Possible Preaching Angle:

There are so many people who overwork their entire lives. They may not suddenly die as poor Miwa did, but over the course of their lives, they do eventually work themselves “into” death by fixating on the wrong goal, and putting temporary gains over eternal rewards.

A recent news article featured the story of three restaurant-owning brothers in India who constantly compete and bicker for business.

B. Vivekanandhan, the 51-year-old owner of a popular restaurant called Moonrakers, competes fiercely for customers in this southern Indian holiday town. So fiercely, in fact, that fists have flown. His chief foes are his own flesh-and-blood. His older brother operates a seafood joint called Moonwalkers right across the street. Just down the same lane, his younger brother runs Moonrocks. The menus are nearly identical.

At one time, all three brothers and their families would sit down for dinner. The three brothers behind Moonrakers agree it began as a true family endeavor. No more. One of the brothers said, “When money comes, comes, comes, love goes away.”

A couple of times in 2020, two of the brothers brawled with each other in the street in front of befuddled customers. “Sometimes it’s like a street fight,” one brother said. “People say, ‘This is a complicated family. We just came down to eat.’”

It’s all proving baffling to tourists, who frequently are stopped on the street by two of the brothers who were giving pitches for their rival restaurants. One resident said she wanted to eat at the original Moonrakers, but was bewildered by the competing eateries. Her husband, who swore he had dined at Moonrakers years ago, was even more confused.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The church looks just as petty and ridiculous when we don’t walk in unity in Christ.