Cultural Fluidity

I read an article in a recent Government Executive issue about how the federal government needs to do a better job of training its managers in having a more international perspective.  Amen to that – being a hyphenated Asian-American, I am particularly sensitive to the fact that most Americans have trouble appreciating other cultures and languages.  When your country is by the far the most powerful in the world, and when your language is by far the most useful in the world, it is easy to think everything revolves around you and every other culture and language is foreign in the sense of different from the norm.  But the thing in your room that lights up when you flick the switch is not by definition a lamp, and a word that sounds different in other languages; it is an object that has different names in different languages.  And the underlying cultural assumptions that are as hard for us to detect as water for a fish are different than the underlying cultural assumptions of people in other countries – different, not necessarily inferior or superior.

 

My freshman year at Wharton almost fifteen years ago was the first that a language requirement was imposed.  The international component of the school's curriculum and student body has only increased since then.  One hopes that some of these young business leaders and their counterparts in other academic disciplines will end up in government positions, and that their multilingualism and cultural fluidity will help us manage our government affairs in a way that is more effective on the global level.

What God Loves More Than People

Christian contemporary artists Point of Grace have a song called "God Loves People More Than Anything."  It's a lovely tune that my wife has played in the house a number of times.  Maybe I wasn't listening before, but today when it was on, I found myself bunching up my face at the words.  God doesn't love people more than anything; God loves Himself more than anything. 

 

As John Piper, author of Desiring God and Pleasures of God, might put it, for humans it is the epitome of vanity, but for God it is the epitome of righteousness.  It's bad for humans to love themselves more than anything because they are less than perfect.  Vanity isn't just socially inappropriate; it's a poor moral and value choice.  For God to love Himself more than anything, whether or not you think that's arrogant, it's right in the sense that for Him to love anything more than He loves Himself would be less than right.

 

That God loves Himself more than anything is the proper context and foundation for His love for us, for that love for us is predicated not on our worth in His eyes but His own worth in His eyes.  If we thought God loved us because we were something or because He lacked something, we would have no assurance to stand on.  Instead, we have His own iron-clad love for Himself to secure us.

 

The Point of Grace song goes on to say, "He'd rather die than let them go."  Incorrect again -- He did in fact die in order to never let us go.  And again, that death was not out of insecurity or because He was constrained by some authority or plan higher than Him.  With pleasure, the prophet Isaiah records in the Old Testament, the Father bruised His own Son.  And for the joy set before Him, writes the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews, the Son sacrificed His life to the Father's purpose.

 

In this day and age, the gospel message is too easily ignored, watered down, and just plain sugar coated.  Would that we who believe in and who have been transformed by it dust it off in our lives and present it afresh to a world that desperately needs it.

I’m the Baby

If there is a silver lining to being kept up all night by a baby fussing because she's still on China time, it's that such experiences are ripe for sermon illustrations.  The one I thought of last night as I tried desperately to feed and calm our daughter was this:

 

I'm like my little Jada, who is howling at me and punching wobbly at my hands as I try to hold up to her face a bottle of formula.  She's trying to grab the bottle and feed herself.  She howls when I leave the room for thirty seconds to heat up another bottle.  She's crying but not giving me any indication of what she needs.  She's too upset to enjoy this moment that she and I are having, father and daughter in the quiet hours of the wee morning.

 

And so it is with God and me sometimes.  I take His blessings and try to manufacture them for myself by myself.  I question His goodness when I don't get an immediate answer, not thinking that perhaps He's metaphorically going into the next room over to give me something even better.  I'm grumpy without being honest and open before Him about why.  And I'm too wrapped up in what's going right or wrong in the moment to simply be present before God and enjoy the intimacy of fellowship and relationship.

 

Last night, as this was all playing out before my eyes and in my mind, I thought of Psalm 131, and how the psalmist was next to God as a weaned child, finally content in being in God's presence without solely needing anything from Him.  Physically, Jada is just a baby, and some day she will mature and not be as fussy at night.  Spiritually, unfortunately, I can be a baby too; better that I would be more mature, still before God and trusting that He's working everything out even if I don't see it or it's not yet.

RICH AND POOR SO CLOSE TOGETHER

Just got back from two weeks in China for our adoption. China is in the midst of rapid economic expansion, and I was constantly struck by the juxtaposition of gleaming new towers and shabby old apartment units. It will be interesting to observe if China’s rise to commercial prominence is enjoyed broadly by all its citizens, or whether this newly forming middle class will leave a larger, lower class population behind – and yet not far in proximity. Certainly, our country’s experiment with high-rise housing project towers demonstrates that it is not good for anyone to densely concentrate our poor population. But will there be unrest in China because of the opposite situation, namely rich and poor right on top of each other? Keep an eye out.

Letters to Friends

I've been reading through a translation of the New Testament called The Message.  Written by Eugene Peterson, it's supposed to be a contemporary, earthy version of the Bible.  I started in late December and I'm now I'm up to 1 Thessalonians.  Which means I'm right in the middle of Paul's various letters.

 

Given how theologically thick these epistles are, you can easily forget that they were originally written as letters to friends.  I don't know that Paul had an idea that they would be accumulated and canonized.  Not to say that he didn't write with authority; clearly he knew what was true and was very clear about spelling it out for his various audiences.

 

But reading The Message helps capture another aspect of Paul's writing style.  Certainly, there is authority and doctrine and sober calls to repentance and obedience.  But there is also intimacy, affection, and disappointment.  Paul didn't just flit around, geographically and relationally.  He and his traveling companions formed meaningful bonds with the people they helped nurture into faith and leadership. 

 

Apart from these dear friends, Paul was compelled by love and desire to write to them.  He wanted to know how they were doing.  He wanted them to know he was thinking of them, even agonizing over them, in his daily prayers.  He rebukes and exhorts and encourages and compliments not as a cold and distant executive but as a close and cherished friend. 

 

I am challenged by Paul's words, not just in what he is telling us is true and to be lived by, but in the emotion and commitment that is displayed in them.  I am grateful for the many dear friends God has put in my life, and hope to be as dedicated as Paul is to keeping in touch with them. 

Tooting Your Own Horn

I have a friend from college who is in ministry in Arizona. Her name is Fiona (not her real name) and for the past four years she has been on staff at a vibrant young church her family began to attend shortly before she came to PENN. She is a faithful servant of God, quite gifted at leading Bible studies and counseling people. She is competent when it comes to administrative things, but it’s not really her thing. Nor is leadership – even though she has seniority over others on church staff, wielding authority is still something she is uncomfortable doing.

Nevertheless, she recently confided in me that she is hurt that her senior pastor did not consider her for an associate pastor position that recently opened up. Instead, the senior pastor promoted another full-time staff person, one who certainly sounds qualified and earnest (according to Fiona’s description of him) but who has only been around for a year and a half. While she would never say so to the church leadership team, Fiona is hurt that she was passed over, given her seniority and faithfulness.

Disregard for a moment whether the new associate pastor or Fiona is more qualified for the job. What I’m curious about is when it is appropriate to toot your own horn. Should Fiona have let the senior pastor know she was interested in the position? I asked Fiona and it hadn’t occurred to her to do this, for in her mind, this would have taken away from her having earned the position, if she herself had to lobby for it.

Maybe Fiona could have been more “political” in her service in the church. It sounds crass to say, but while people knew she was gifted and earnest, Fiona never did the kinds of things that position oneself for advancement within an organization. In fact, she went out of her way to avoid such things, seeing them as disingenuous and self-serving. And yet she wanted recognition and respect and opportunity just as much as the others.

My conversation with Fiona touched on many hot button issues for me. At my former job, as at any workplace, we had our “office politics” (although, from what I hear from others, much less than at the typical organization), and it was always a fine line between being smart and playing the game. I think of Fiona as I recall past situations I was in, and present situations now that I am gone. Second, I study politics now, and as you can imagine politics is not only the subject matter but also the organizational culture (sort of a “meta-political” situation, with people politicking for position even as they are learning/teaching politics). Finally, I’m beginning the job search, and have to sell myself to prospective employers but in a way that is true to myself and authentic to the situation.

In all three cases, I do not use the term “politics” pejoratively, as though it were inherently slimy and selfish. But it is certainly not a neutral term, either. So again I will ask: when it is appropriate to toot your own horn? In my past workplace, my current studies, and my future job search, it is a relevant question indeed.

ATTRACTED TO AND REPULSED BY MACHIAVELLI

The Prince is assigned reading in one of my classes this semester.  As the text is less than 100 pages, I was able to finish it in one sitting.  I found myself simultaneously attracted to and repulsed by Machiavelli.  He wrote The Prince in 1513 to the new ruler of Florence in hopes of getting his job back; after twenty years of public service, he had been accused of conspiracy, fired, and then tortured. 

 

His main message, which has become so famous that we know it by his name, was that leadership wasn't about virtue, as many of his contemporaries (like Thomas Aquinas) claimed in their own writings, but rather about doing what it took to stay in power.  Virtues like integrity and mercy were merely tools, then, useful at times and at other times inferior to deceit and brutality when it came to obtaining and retaining power.  Machiavelli is most entertaining to read when he coins such delicious phrases as "cruelty well-applied" and "know how to resort to evil when necessity demands it."

 

On the one hand, reading this riles me up.  Leaders who resort to emotional callousness and moral flexibility to achieve their ends are not leaders at all but brutes.  It's a short-sighted strategy anyway, for it is impossible to sustain (and even Machiavelli would acknowledge this).  Finally, I believe we are ultimately accountable to an Eternal and Almighty Judge, whose judgment on our despicable actions and attitudes is far more important than any worldly gains we might have obtained from them.

 

And yet I find a lot of truth in The Prince.  When he recommends colonization of newly acquired provinces over military occupation, lest "the whole population feel aggrieved by having the armed force quartered upon them," I can't help but think of the situation in Iraq.  When he says "any man who himself despires death can always inflict it upon others," my mind conjures up images of suicide bombers.  Even in his most dastardly lines of thinking, I understand where he is coming from: it's a cruel, cruel world, and if you don't play the right way, you'll get eaten alive.

 

My professor assigns this book not to commend it to us but to provoke us to respond.  So here is my first response.

 

WHAT AM I INTO

Now that I'm over a month removed from leaving the full-time job I had for ten years, a month into being a full-time student, I've been looking ahead once again, to what sort of job I want to pursue when I graduate (God willing) next spring.  I've already spoken to recruiters and to people who work at companies I respect, and of course they ask me the obvious question: "Well, what are you are looking for?"

 

I cop out now by saying I'm still exploring.  And in fact, that's not a total cop-out, because I promised myself I'd lay low this semester to give myself time to distance from my previous work experience, lest I unnecessarily inhibit my job search (either by assuming I have to do something like what I used to do, or else by wanting to do anything but what I used to do). 

 

But it's still a question I ought to at least have some kind of answer to, even if a vague and broad one at that.  What I've enjoyed so far about The Enterprise Center and about the Fels Institute of Government is being able to apply business principles in non-business settings.  So that's a start.  And maybe what I do is less important than that I'm with high-quality co-workers and in a company that I admire. 

 

But still: what am I into?  I decided that one good litmus test would be to flip through the newspaper and make note of the articles that caught my eye.  After all, there is some reading material I've been assigned to get through (i.e. bulk packs) and other reading material I know I ought to keep up with (i.e. current events).  But reading the newspaper is purely voluntarily, and might give me a good read on what issues I gravitate toward. 

 

So I picked up Thursday's paper last night (I'm about 36 hours behind on newspaper reading, and I'm embarrassed to tell you how many days/weeks/months behind on magazine reading).  Here are the four articles I found most interesting:

 

Red Cross stung by Katrina criticism (page A12).  The relief agency is proud of its work so far, and hurt by those who have accused it of being biased in its charity and who have suggested they should share their recently received donations with other, smaller non-profits.

 

Destination Philadelphia (page A20).  The editorial page celebrates Philadelphia's acknowledgement in National Geographic Traveler as America's Next Great City.  I love what the Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation has done in branding and packaging the city from a tourism standpoint.

 

Getting Mass Transit for China (page C3).  Sam Katz is part of a joint venture that is developing mass transit systems for China's booming urban metropolises.  I tremble at the environmental and social impact of China becoming as car-dependent as we are, and hope that they get mass transit right.  Easier said than done, but glad to hear something's being done.

 

Taxes, not talk, aid conservation (page D1 of Friday's paper).  Business columnist Andy Cassel hits the hammer right on the head in arguing that what will lead Americans to consume gas appropriately is not pleas by the president but higher gas taxes, and that higher gas taxes are actually a good thing for the economy.