Diversity is a Noun

On the front page of University Business' website is a feature story
on "diversity presidents." The story goes on to talk about how
universities can hire presidents who are committed to diversity on
campus, but I find the phrase, "diversity presidents," a troublesome
one.

It's not as bad as what I've heard from some people -- of all races --
when they talk about a candidate being a "diversity candidate." What
they mean when they say that is that the candidate is of the minority
population. But one person cannot be a diversity! So even though
they don't mean it, University Business is using the word in the same
way it is often misused.

Also, I may be exaggerating a little here to make a point, but in my
opinion, diversity for diversity's sake is not as important to
institutions as is the ability for individuals and groups within that
institution to be aware of, understand, respect, and gain from
perspectives other than their own.

Let me unpack this point a little. First, my caveat at the beginning.
I do think that diversity for diversity's sake is important in its own
right: where possible, under-represented groups ought to have extra
attention given to them in regards to opportunities to contribute and
grow. Anybody who has influence in the amount of diversity in an
institution should be sensitive to this.

Some would say that this is the most important outcome of diversity.
I would not always agree. I would hold up as more important what
diversity brings to an institution. And let me also say that these
two goals need not be pitted against each other, for diversity for
diversity's sake is most powerful when those who are under-represented
are not only allowed in but allowed to make a difference.

So let me return to this notion of having your individual and group
perspectives enhanced. The privilege of the majority, whether it is
via race, gender, or sexual orientation, is that you don't have to
think too hard about the issue you're in the majority on.

For example, as a male, I can choose to be aware of women's issues and
even get off my duff and do something about them. But I don't have
to, and if I don't, my life goes on just fine. Not so for women, for
whom women's rights isn't just a cause, it's their life.

You can say the same about any other way in which there are majority
and minority groups. And the irony of this is that where we are
"privileged" to not have to worry about things, that "privilege" is
actually a detriment to ourselves and to the organizations we are a
part of. White people in a sea of white people will have little to no
need to stretch in their thinking of race in America, straight people
in a sea of straight people the same.

But it's that stretching that leads to good things. Personally, your
mind expands and you become more tolerant in a good way, more
sensitive, more open. Students learn more, businesses get more
responsive, service agencies develop more creative strategies.

And that's why diversity is good. Not just because you are opening
the doors to more kinds of people is good for society, but because
it's good for you and for the institution inside those doors.

This point was made well by the University Business article, in that
it urged administrators to seek out presidential candidates that had a
true commitment to diversity. I would go further and state that the
best candidates are those for whom diversity has ceased to be an
issue, even the most important of many, and has become part of the
perspective through which all things are viewed.

To use the gender example again, I could be the most vigilant of
women's rights activists you know, of either gender; but if I am but
one person, then at the end of the day I retain my male perspective
and my male privileges. But if I am joined with my wife, then women's
rights are no longer some issue I feel strongly about, but a reality
that directly affects me -- both positively and negatively.

So I guess that's what I'm trying to say. When we use "diversity" as
an adjective, it sounds like a cause we're rallying around, and
however spirited we might be, we can still go home and not have to
change our lives or perspectives. How many "diversity" seminars have
we all attended where our minds and views were stretched, and we left
weary, more knowledgeable, . . . but thankful that we could just go
home and not have to deal with it anymore?

But if we intentionally connect with those who are different from us,
intimately enough that we hear their concerns and share their views
and feel their struggles, we're better for it, and hopefully so are
they. And then you could say we have something: diversity, in the
noun form.

Good News Amidst Bad News

My company was nice enough to buy an extra ticket for a co-worker to
come with me to my previous organization's fundraiser last night. It
was her first exposure to the organization and the facility, and she
was impressed on both counts.

And who wouldn't be? The place was packed, it was elegantly and
festively decorated, and they had pulled out all the stops, in terms
of food and valet and red carpet.

The program was also top-notch. Entitled "Passing the Torch," it
honored the successful transition of the family business from three
black icons -- Earl Graves, Tom Joyner, and Walter Lomax -- to their
sons. Talk about some heavy hitters!

At one point, my friend and co-worker saw a TV camera and whispered to
me about how positive this event was, and how she hoped it would be
played up in the media instead of the usual stories that emanate from
our neighborhood, about crime and drugs and subpar educational
achievements. I heartily agreed.

So I was dismayed to find that the only coverage the event received
was in the Philadelphia Daily News' "Local News in Brief" section.
And they do mean "brief": the story took up less than two square
inches of page space. Even worse, it was the third item, beneath a
double homicide and the discovery of the remains of a suicide victim.

Here's the link to that page, in case you missed it:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/15636288.htm. Until we can get
the media to give publicity to the good things that are going on in
our community, make sure you read down to the bottom of the page when
you're reading the paper; who knows what positive thing gets
sandwiched between the usual violence and mayhem?

Fame and Fortune

I can't believe I'm jumping into the TO media frenzy, but even I had
to do a double-take when I caught a glimpse of yesterday morning's
headline: "TO Has 25 Million Reasons to Live." If, unlike me, you've
successfully shielded yourself from all things TO, Dallas Cowboys wide
receiver Terrell Owens was admitted to the ER this week. Was it a
suicide or an allergic reaction?

His publicist -- I didn't know TO needed one -- tried to squelch
suicide rumors, snarkily saying that "TO has 25 million reasons to
live." Referring to TO's three-year, $25 million contract with the
Cowboys. Many readers, sports fans or not, will heartily agree with
the sentiment. Why would someone that rich, famous, and fabulous want
to end his life?

Ah, but there are just as many suicides in multi-million dollar gated
communities as there are in the most squalid of urban ghettoes. For
all the fame, fortune, and success TO has enjoyed, he's still just a
hurting young man with a broken past and more than his share of
psychological and emotional demons. All the publicity, stardom, and
dollars don't change that.

While I think he's a terrific football player, I'm certainly not a fan
and am in fact more than a little tired of the media frenzy. Nor am I
sympathizing with him, per se, or defending him; just because his
baggage causes him to seek out the limelight, even at the risk of
doing crazier and crazier things, doesn't excuse that behavior.

I just wanted to point out that when we think those who have fame and
fortune couldn't possibly be depressed, we confer upon those things
healing powers they don't have. In that regard, we are no less
reprehensible than those who have fame and fortune and who believe in
those things to deliver them happiness and peace.

Walked in the City and Found Nature

I've blogged often about how nice it is to walk or bike to work
instead of driving. Usually, it's about being able to get a read on
the vibe of a city, interacting with people, literally rubbing elbows.
Versus when you're in a car, walled off by sound and distance from
others, able to listen to the radio instead of engaging with people at
eye level.

But on my daily commutes I've also discovered, to my surprise in the
big bad city, that I'm more in touch with nature, as well. I started
my new job in May, so until now my commutes have been during summer
months, and they've been very pleasant -- the sun is out, but it's
cool enough to tolerate. Now, though, we're into fall, and I've had
to wear a light jacket some days, and I find that the sun is in my
eyes when I head east in the morning, and it's in my eyes when I head
west in the evening. Pretty soon, there won't be any sun at all, and
I'll commute in darkness; and I'll have to deal with colder temps and
snow.

Contrast that to driving, with your temperature control and your
tinted windshields and your wipers. I am reminded, instead, when I
walk or bike, that nature is still stronger and grander than me, that
there was once a time when we were all subject to nature's whims, and
there are times even in the present when we are completely at its
mercy. I am reminded that there are four distinct seasons, each with
their joys and frustrations, not deadened by the power to change my
surroundings so that they are always in my control to make how I want
them to be year-round.

I'm not glamourizing the past or suggesting we return to it -- after
all, we once lived in a time without water purification or
immunization shots, and we need more of that, not less. I'm just
saying that if you drive to work and can at all walk or bike instead,
do it every once in awhile. In addition to the easier pace and the
benefits of exercise, you might just get to know your city a little
better. And you might be surprised to find yourself closer to nature,
remembering that while we might have some control over how it affects
us, we are ultimately smaller and less powerful than we realize.

#289 of 2006

The latest homicide victim in Philadelphia was a 5-year-old, shot to
death while riding in the backseat of her mother's car. That makes
289 homicides this year in the city.

We can argue about what needs to be done here. I agree that
government has a role to play, but to just shake a fist at
"government" is to give that entity a role in our lives that it was
not meant to play. You can lay the blame on the bad people who deal
drugs and shoot guns, but it's more complicated than that. We need
more jobs, yes, but how do we create them?

I have wanted to elaborate on this topic for a long time but just
haven't yet. Tonight, I have the time but not the energy. For the
latest victim is not just #289 of 2006; she is a little girl, who was
somebody's daughter, who just started kindergarten, who deserved to
live longer and have it better than this. And my response, then, is
not to spout some insight or argue some point, but simply to mourn.

Straight Talk

(Note: Some of the facts and all of the names in the following post
have been altered to protect the identities of the people involved.)

Adam, the older brother of Brian, one of my very closest high school
friends, recently ended his marriage after eleven years and two kids.
I had gotten to know Adam quite well through Brian. I liked him a
lot, and his wife Cathy too, and actually kind of looked up to them
and their marriage. Needless to say, the news of their divorce was a
total shock to me.

Even worse, it was a shock to my friend Brian, who was pretty close
with Adam despite their geographic distance. By all accounts, Adam
and Cathy were happy, according to Brian. It wasn't until right after
the divorce proceedings began that Brian found out Adam and Cathy had
been unhappy for quite some time.

When Brian broke the bad news to me over the phone earlier this month,
he concluded by saying, "So let's cut the BS here: I promise to tell
you if my marriage is ever in trouble, and I want you to promise me to
do the same." In fact, Brian and I had, over the years, shared a fair
amount about the bumps and bruises in our respective marriages, but I
appreciated his straight talk, because I knew that if either of our
marriges were ever in serious trouble, it might be those very times
we'd be most likely to want to hide that from each other. But Brian
cared too much about his wife and about me to see happen to either of
us what had happened to Adam.

And I care too much about my wife and about my friends to have things
deteriorate right underneath my nose. So this month, I have been
systematically reaching out to my close guy friends to have the same
conversation with them as Brian had with me. Marriage is hard, and
Adam's pain reminded me I need to find safety in numbers and be
accountable to my friends and hold them accountable, too.

All of my guy friends have responded commendably. They have
appreciated my concern, and have matched my commitment with theirs.
Even as I feel weaker -- if it could happen to Adam, I'm more
vulnerable than I thought -- because of my friends and their support,
I feel stronger.

One of the friends I reached out to responded with: "Well, actually."
When I urged him to tell me if there was ever anything wrong, he took
the opportunity to tell me that something was wrong. Apparently, he
knew he had a problem, and my straight talk was the opening he needed
to confide that problem with another person. We talked, we wept, we
prayed. And then we committed to reconnecting soon.

I left that conversation again feeling weaker but stronger. Forget
just marriage -- life is hard. But I am rich with friends who trust
me and who I trust, and together we can be good husbands and good
fathers and good Christians. I never was one for small talk, but I am
all the more convinced that life is too short, too precious, too hard
for us to do anything but sharpen one another, bear one another's
burdens, look out for one another.

Making a Difference Over Time

In its 2005 report to the President, the Small Business Administration
cites a number of reasons why African-American and Latino business
formation lags behind that of non-Latino whites and Asians. If you're
hoping for a quick fix, the report will sober you, for none of these
problems will be resolved overnight.

There are huge differences in assets and in education, both of which
are strongly correlated with starting a business and succeeding at it.
There are differences in being near other entrepreneurs, whether in
one's own family or in one's social networks. And there is
discrimination, in terms of access to capital and contracts.

As someone who spent ten years working for a non-profit that promotes
minority entrepreneurship, and who has recently joined its board, it
can be easy to become discouraged. For change in these areas is
likely to take generations.

And yet it is that very fact that also inspires me. As we expose our
client, some as young as 14, to business principles, introduce them to
big wigs around the region, and support them through their
entrepreneurial experiences, we might be making a small difference for
them.

But that small difference will get magnified in the next generation,
and magnified still more in the generation after that. Business will
be discussed around the dinner table more often, rolodexes will get
fatter, and people will have more business knowledge and more business
"reps" to draw on.

We may not see a quick fix, even at the end of a long lifetime. But
that does not negate that we are contributing to a slower but greater
fix. And if that's the case, this is very exciting work to contribute
to.

Church as We Know It

I've written often in this space about how, even in an age when you
can do everything virtually, the face-to-face still matters in
business. We can send files electronically, do online research, even
videoconference with remarkable clarity . . . but still there's
something to be said about being near and with other like-minded
individuals.

This is no less true for the church. I appreciate the sentiment of
George Barna in his recent book, "Revolution," in that the church,
especially in America, needs to be re-envisioned and refreshed, for
the purposes of its purposes. But I disagree that it needs to be
totally blown up, replaced by home-based cell groups and anything else
that would avoid church as we know it in its parochial and
sanctuary-based sense.

After all, just like you can conduct all manner of business virtually,
so you might think you could do the same spiritually. There are an
extraordinary number of sermon texts and mp3's available online. You
can share your griefs and confess your sins in online chat rooms and
groups. And of course, you can worship God anywhere you like, from
your closet to up on a mountaintop to the bottom of the sea.

But there's no substitute for the physical touch, the feeling of
community from a congregation being together in worship and prayer,
the sense of intimacy you get in a small group. Church, clunky and
old-fashioned as it is in its traditional sense, is still a scratch
for something deep inside us that itches.

So we're lucky we can access so much information and reach so many
people and do so many things right in front of our computer screens.
But church as we know it, while it might need a make-over, is still
something essential in the life of an active Christian.

Advertising's Next Golden Era

TiVo, cable, and the Internet were together supposed to spell the
death of advertising as we used to know it. It was thought that you
could no longer sell toothpaste via 30-second spots on the top show on
Thursday nights and full-pagers in the biggest newspapers and
magazines, and so advertising would have to adapt or die. In an age
where we are overloaded with information, with messages, and with ads,
many people would have bet that advertising would die.

It may still die, but if it is dying, it sure is having a golden era.
Changes in technology and media have indeed forced advertising to
adapt, and boy has it ever. Ad agencies are producing more elaborate
and clever campaigns, centered not around snappy slogans but
off-the-wall characters (Subservient Chicken) and practically
feature-length movies (BMW Films). New ad types are being developed,
like 2-second blurps ("D'oh!"), video snippets made especially for
YouTube, and Flash-animated pop-up ads. Product placement and entire
product-based shows are a response to the ad-skipping we all seem to
relish doing.

In short, desperation spawned innovation. And this is why I will
always trust the free markets. The quest for profits and the
fight for survival are two motivators that catalyze far more
productivity and creativity than anything else you can think of, to
the benefit of consumers like you and me. In advertising's case,
their near-death experience just might have helped usher them into
another golden era.

No Commodities

Earlier this week, I caught the tail end of a political ad on the
radio that I found very disturbing. In ominous tones, it talked of
the devastation of manufacturing jobs that have been lost to China.
Never mind that any such jobs we've lost to China are dwarfed by the
jobs we've "lost" to machines. In other words, manufacturing job
numbers are down mostly because we've mechanized what we used to have
to do by hand. In fact, while manufacturing job numbers are down
steeply in the US, manufacturing production is up, up, and up.

Which is not to say that we don't have an inter-country
competitiveness problem. Quite frankly, we are losing our edge
against other countries. But again, I disagree with the ominous
sounding political ads. They would say that the tremendous difference
in wages means the US can no longer compete.

They assume that production has become commoditized. In other words,
in the same way that a pound of coal is a pound of coal, no matter
where it was made, there is the notion that a computer is a computer,
no matter if it was manufactured in China or the US. And if that's
the case, and Chinese workers are willing to work for a tenth of what
US workers are willing to work for (when you factor in wages and
benefits and pensions, maybe it's a twentieth or a thirtieth), why
would anyone want to source production domestically?

Except that production doesn't have to be commoditized. If there's
anything we've learned in this country over the last generation, it's
that as consumers, we actually do care about things besides price. Oh
sure, Walmart will still garner some of our wallets because we can get
laundry detergent and bubble gum and blue jeans cheaper there than
elsewhere. But there's still something to be said about the premium
some products can command, whether from design, service, or
convenience. Products don't have to become commodities unless we're
too unimaginative to think otherwise. Who knew that you could trick
out a desktop, a visit to the grocery store, even a cup of coffee?

Maybe I'm particularly sensitive to the Asian-hating -- you know,
random Asians were beaten and even killed less than a generation ago
by angry Detroit auto workers who were tired of Japan eating them for
lunch. But we haven't lost our edge in manufacturing because of
"those darn Chinese." First, as mentioned, everyone's "losing" jobs
because technology allows us to produce more stuff with less people.

And second, we lost our edge not because Asian workers were willing to
work for less but because Japan made better products and US products
no longer had the monopoly in quality. Ask anyone in America who's
familiar with manufacturing from a generation or two ago, and they'll
tell you Japan was a laughingstock in terms of production quality --
and while they learned, retooled, and got better, we Americans got
lazy and sloppy.

If we want our edge back in manufacturing, we have to stop blaming the
Asians for the job losses that the machines created. We have to
recommit to quality control. And we have to put our unparalleled
America ingenuity to work, to dream up, design, make, and sell stuff
that people are willing to pay extra for.

The Pursuit and the Prize

Jerry Bridges' "The Pursuit of Godliness" ends with a helpful
clarification about the Christian walk. He quotes many of the apostle
Paul's words to describe our lives as having a godly purposes and a
heavenly prize. That is, we ought to live in pursuit of God-like
righteousness, in pursuit of God-centered reward.

I find this a helpful clarification because the strenuousness such a
life demands is in contrast to the half-Christianity that is no
Christianity, which we so easily fall into. This half-Christianity
says that God's forgiveness gives us room to sin, failing to realize
that God forgives us to free us from sin, not to sin. That God has
secured forgiveness for us in and through Jesus Christ, and then we
feel less of a need to live righteously, misses the point altogether
of how destructive sin is and how we must actively kill it lest it
kill us.

This half-Christianity also says that being a Christian is all about
getting a free ticket to heaven, and if that's the case, what's the
point of pursuing a prize that God has already secured for us? Again,
when we think like that, we lose sight of the overwhelming number of
commands in Scripture that link salvation to obedience. John
MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" makes this very point over
and over again. To the extent that we let this notion of heaven as a
prize to vigorously pursue slip into a passive sense of entitlement or
indifference, we are -- I say this with trembling -- putting our souls
at stake.

Lest we swing to the other extreme and become slaves to perfection, in
the name of saving ourselves or making ourselves feel better or
looking good before others, Bridges reminds us that our pursuit must
be both devotion and desire. And both are to be God-centered:
devotion for the sake of being Godlike, and desire for the sake of
being Godward.

We admire single-minded dedication in the very best of athletes,
performers, and leaders. And we settle for much less than that
dedication in those very fields, because we ourselves are not
professional athletes, performers, or leaders. But while we might be
recreational athletes, performance hobbyists, and amateur leaders, we
most certainly ought not be anything but fully allocated about our own
souls. There is no other more important purpose in life to practice,
no more important prize in life to pursue.

Race, Shallow or Deep

ESPN columnist Bill Simmons recently posted a thoughtful article on
the first week success of the Rock's new movie, "Gridiron Gang," which
is a formulaic account of inner city sports success, in contrast to
the critical acclaim (but low ratings) of HBO's "The Wire," which is a
gritty, no-holds-barred look at drugs in inner city Baltimore. His
main point was along the lines of something I had written in a
previous post about another, somewhat formulaic Hollywood production
(in this case, Disney's "Remember the Titans"): you can go to
http://leehuang.blogspot.com/2003/07/what-i-remember-about-titans-i-watched.html
to read it.

So this is what we can say about America: we like our encounters with
race and with the inner city to be sanitized, tidy, and hopeful. In
reality, to truly delve into these issues is stark, dirty, and
despondent. "The Wire" is too real for America; "Gridiron Gang" is
the fairy tale we prefer.

The sad thing is that this kind of thinking has atrophied even the
more enlightened of voices. For example, I've seen far too many
knee-jerk reactions to "Survivor's" division of tribes by race, that
it's race-baiting and despicable and abhorrent.

Never mind that there is nothing -- nothing! -- "real" about "reality"
TV. Those of us who are interested in race in America should be glad
we'll have such ripe fodder for discussion and dissection. Besides,
for ignorant people who have already formed an opinion about race and
about people of certain races and who have those opinions affirmed by
the show, it's too much to expect TV to enlighten and correct.

Thankfully, there will no doubt be people who think more deeply about
race in America that are going to be able to mine from this show some
interesting things to discuss. Like who CBS chose to represent the four tribes (they must have gotten thousands of applications, so they could have gone any number of directions in terms of who they wanted in each tribe) Or the fact that there is a lot of diversity and disagreement among the ethnic tribes. Or that the white tribe, as in real life, hasn't had to bear the burden of "representing," so they've been free to do the whole "flirt with one another" thing.

Hopefully, even those of us who aren't as sensitized to the nuances of race in America can pick up these insights along the way. Let's just hope the show, and the discussions that ensue from it, can help lift us from the shallowness we've settled for when it comes to race in America.

Past, Present, Future

leehGrowing up, I was always a future-oriented person. My only
recollection of being 4 was wanting to be 5. I kept a calendar way
before most of my friends did. I was always good at planning ahead: I
once left an admissions officer at Berkeley speechless when I inquired
about different joint degree options involving law school . . . at the
age of 16.

I'm still pretty future-oriented and still pretty good at planning.
But I'm learning to appreciate the importance of living in the past
and present, too. Moving to Philadelphia, which is so steeped in
history, has helped me get the fact that in order to know anything,
you have to know history. I recall my freshman year at PENN, when my
carefully crafted course schedule for my very first semester in
college got completed revamped one week into the term. That taught me
that there's only so much planning you can do; sometimes you just have
to wait and see, and making the decision later is often better.

My faith has also played a role in helping me to respect the past and
the present. Of course, the entire Bible is about past events and
past writings, and it is the very fact that God has proven faithful in
the past that we can trust Him to be the same in the future -- thus,
the more we ruminate on the past, the more ammo we will have for the
future. The Bible also speaks about being in the present -- whether
in worship before God or in having an authentic moment with another
person, to care for them and to treat them with the dignity and honor
and importance that they deserve.

Of course, God, unbound from the constraints of time unlike us, can be
simultaneously in the past, present, and future. We have to shift
somewhat more clunkily between the three. I used to be stuck more in
the future. But I'm learning to be more in the past and present now,
too.

Wimpy Commuter

Earlier this week, I had to drive myself and a couple of other
consultants to the suburbs for a meeting. It made sense to drive,
given that a) there were three of us and b) there were no easy public
transit options to this particular location. The traffic wasn't
actually that bad, either, even though the highway we took (hint: it
rhymes with "Boo Thrill") is notorious for its congestion.

And yet, the drive still took a lot out of me. I had to figure out
whether I wanted to drive into work and circle endlessly in search of
a parking space or just bike to work and bike home to grab the car en
route to the burbs. (I went with the latter.) Then, I had to figure
out directions -- thankfully, one of the passengers knew the way,
although I still almost got us lost. While the traffic going wasn't
bad, by the time we headed home, there were enough snarls to force
some alternate routes, which further turned me around and resulted in
left turns from right lanes and vice versa.

Then I had to drop off one of the consultants downtown, after which I
turned right onto a major street that happened to be one-way, and not
the way I was going. The policeman stopped oncoming traffic and waved
me back in the right direction, all while shaking his head wearily --
I took comfort that perhaps I wasn't the only one to pull this
boneheaded maneuver.

We got back to our neck of the woods, and I had to pull over to the
side of a busy street to let out my co-worker, and then circle
endlessly for a parking space, feed the meter with more quarters than
I'd used in several months, and then walk about a third of the
distance I usually walk to and from work just to get back to the
office. I jetted from work abruptly, lest I get a parking ticket --
in fact, my meter had expired, but no maid magically appeared to
record the infraction -- and drove home in traffic much slower than my
normal biking speed. I arrived home more frazzled than usual and not
any earlier than usual.

The moral of the story is that I am an absolute wimp when it comes to
commuting. When I walk, it provides a nice ramping up in the morning
and a nice winding down in the evening. When I bike, it's a nice
journey length: long enough to feel I'm saving time, but short enough
that I'm not out of breath upon arrival. Ah, but when I drive . . .

Not a Blog, Not Yet a Column

You could say that I've been blogging for a few years now, but that
wouldn't do justice to the true bloggers out there, who post more
frequently, trick out their sites with things like RSS, and show more
"link love" than I do. While I envy their ways, I don't think I'll
ever emulate them; I guess all I ever wanted was for my site to be
like an online column, and write about what's interesting to me like
some of my favorite columnists on paper and in cyberspace.

I imagine they derive great satisfaction in their work, for the
platform it offers to inform others and the freedom it provides to
investigate interesting topics. To explore, to express, and to
educate: that's why I post. Does that make me a blogger, too? Not
sure. A columnist? Not yet.

X or Y

Allow me some gross over-generalizations and look past my
upper-middle-class suburban bias for a second. I'm on the younger end
of "Generation X," a group that came of age in the greed and cynicism
of the 80's. We were latch-key kids who learned how to think and live
independently, to figure out our own way to Point B from Point A. We
thrive when we have an assignment and resources, and little else in
the way of supervision and constraints. We've not totally sold out on
the idea of changing the world, but our idealism is tempered with an
understanding of reality.

The past few years have seen the entrance into the workplace of
"Generation Y," a group that was coddled by parents who rejected the
greed and cynicism of the 80's. These cats are much more into doing
good, they run circles around us Gen X'ers in technology, and are
perfect for the new work world's emphasis on teamwork. But they are
less experienced when it comes to problem-solving, preferring instead
to know exactly what they need to do rather than given a vague problem
with an unknown path to the soution. This is also fed by another
somewhat negative characteristic, that of requiring constant
evaluation and feedback and affirmation.

So which would you rather be, X or Y? And which would you rather
hire? The latter is no hypothetical question for today's employers,
as described in a recent Business Week article about the best places
to launch a career. Dealing with Gen Y (or Millennials, or Echo
Boomers, or whatever you want to call them) is fundamentally different
than dealing with Gen X. And as boomers are living and working
longer, they're still in the mix in the workplace too. At least three
distinct generations, each with vastly different notions of what makes
a good workplace and what makes a good job, co-existing in one firm,
in one department, on one team. Employers, managers, and recruiters:
good luck.

Adam's Sin

Much of the first half of the book of Romans is concerned with this
notion of what God's forgiveness ought to lead to in our lives.
Having established that where our sin abounds, God's grace abounds all
the more, Paul asks a logical question: shall we then sin more, so
that God's grace can be all the greater applied to our lives?

May it never be, says Paul. For God's forgiveness is not freedom to
sin, but freedom from sin. We are to avoid sin not because it's the
best thing for us but God wants to keep us from it, but because it's
the worst thing for us and God wants to keep us from it.

As Christian author John Piper once said, we don't sin out of any
other reason than self-interest; sin, in the moment, offers some
promise of satisfaction, of gain, of pleasure. If we were to spend
any amount of time in God's presence, we would see clearly that that
promise of sin is vastly inferior and mostly deceptive, in comparison
with the great riches of living as God would have us live.

And yet we in fact spend so little time basking in the richness of
life in God and with God that we do indeed choose sin over obedience
time and again, doubting God's goodness and casting our lot instead
with the world's offering, alluring as they are. In short, we are
guilty of Adam's sin.

Adam and Eve, after all, broke the one rule God gave them in the
garden. They were tempted by the devil to eat the fruit because they
believed God was withholding something good from them. They believed
the promise of sin more than the promise of God. And to this day,
that spirit continues to plague us and nudge us to make poor choices
and cause us to stray from the life God would have us to live.

Remember, too, that the experience of Adam and Eve in relation to God
was that God would meet with them face to face -- this, after all, was
before the fall. And yet, their experience with God was also that He
would come and go; note, for example, that after they have sinned, God
steps back on stage and is looking for them and they are hiding from
them. In other words, even before the fall, there were times that
Adam and Eve didn't see God nearby, and yet they still had to trust
that His commandments were for their good.

How much harder it is, sometimes, for us to live out that trust, on
this side of the fall. There are many days that God seems far from
us, and it is easy then to think that the world's offering, maybe just
this once, can be trusted more than God's promises. Though we are
plagued by Adam's sin, and though God may seem to exit the stage more
often now than before, still we are to live in the truth that His
commandments over us are for our good, still we are to live in the
belief that what the world has to offer us is inferior to all that
awaits us in our life with God.

The Real Debate

Lost in the shallower commentary of the Pennsylvania gubernatorial
race -- Philly versus Pittsburgh, the white guy versus the black guy,
the career politician versus the political newbie -- is a legitimate
debate between two distinct choices.

"Fast Eddie" Ed Rendell represents a quintessentially Democratic
approach to government: namely, that government's job is to do stuff
for the people, like juice the economy and create jobs and administer
programs. Ask him to tell you what he's done for the state and he'll
rattle off a laundry list of checks he's presented to various agencies
and for various initiatives.

Lynn "Swanny" Swann represents a quintessentially Republican approach
to government: namely, that what's wrong with the status quo is that
government has become bloated and corrupt, and that the solution is
for government to be smaller. Ask him to tell you what he'll don for
the state and he'll talk about things like tax relief and putting
dollars back into citizens' wallets.

You know which side of this fence I stand on, but that's not the point
of this post. The point is that this is what is truly interesting to
me about this race. Not that Swanny used to catch passes for the
Steelers, while Fast Eddie does a weekly talk show for the Eagles.
But that here is a choice for Pennsylvania residents about what
government is for, how jobs are created, and how many of our dollars
should be put to use for public purpose versus left in our pockets. I
hope that the next 45 days or so will percolate more of this aspect of
the race.

The Practice of Godliness

I'm reading a great book right now called "The Practice of Godliness,"
by Jerry Bridges. A follow-up to his best-seller, "The Pursuit of
Holiness," it highlights aspects of godliness we Christians ought to
uphold and offers insights on how to uphold them.

This morning, I came across a passage I wanted to excerpt here:

"To paraphrase a writer from a previous century, so often when we sin
we are more vexed at the lowering of our self-esteem than we are
grieved at God's dishonor. We are irrirated at our lack of
self-control in subjecting ourselves to some unworthy habit. We are
unable to stand the disappointment of seeing ourselves fail. God does
not honor these self-centered desires. This is one reason we do not
experience more of his enabling power in our day-to-day struggles with
so-called besetting sins. God does not give us his power so that we
might feel good about ourselves; he gives us his power so that we can
obey him for his sake, for his glory."

This notion of subjecting our behavior to another for the purpose of
pleasing them is one that we don't particularly like in modern times.
We are uncomfortable with anything that seems too close to slavery.
Few of us have bosses in our workplaces who we truly desire to please.
None of us want to be in a romantic relationship where satisfying the
other person is our sole purpose in life.

On the other hand, conquering our flesh, gaining victory over a
nagging sin, demonstrating our ability to attain righteousness through
sheer devotion and perseverance; these are approaches we can get
excited about. And so we pursue the right ends with the wrong means.

Whether or not we are comfortable with the notion of God as our
master, boss, or lover, it is true that our lives as Christians should
be about living in ways that bring pleasure and honor to Him. When
our desire is for Him, and sin is seen as a displeasing offense to His
righteousness rather than a frustrating chink in our self-made armor
of righteousness, that is when, according to Bridges, we can truly
begin to practice godliness.

Like Small Government, Small Church

I've decided that just as like small government, I like small church.
What I mean here isn't that I want to move to a small city or attend a
small church. What I mean is that I believe that government and
church are best when they are as minimalist as possible.

Some of my reasons are the same and some are different. In the case
of government, clearly there are important roles that need to be done
at a certain scale (say, environmental regulations) and by a certain
entity that has authority (say, law enforcement). Those roles need to
be played by government, of course; but let's not do them in a way
that usurps the responsibility of the people to do their part (say, in
protecting the environment or helping fight crime).

But there's a lot of stuff that government does now that is, in my
opinion, counterproductive to societal wellbeing. When government
should be smaller is when it is not the best entity to do the job (you
could make a case here for providing trash collection), and/or when it
does the job in a way that atrophies others' role in doing the job
(you could make a case here for promoting community service).

A minimalist government, then, takes care of the roles that only it
can do, provides a suitable environment for others doing their part in
those and other roles, and otherwise stays out of the way and lets
others who are better and more suited for those other roles to do
those roles. (It will probably come as no surprise that this is my
approach to management, as well.)

A minimalist church, then, should have a similar approach. There are
some things that church structures can do that only they can do,
whether because of size or authority, like host services and
administer sacraments. Everything else -- caring for kids and
teaching classes and reaching out into the neighborhoods -- should be
as empowering of congregants as possible.

Three reasons here: 1) It's what prescribed by the Bible, that the
members are to do the ministry and the called-out full-timers are to
support them in that (Ephesians 4:11-13), 2a) It preserves staffers
from burnout and 2b) keeps congregants from being pew potatoes, 3) Too
many formal responsibilities and events and programs can so burden a
congregation with maintaining itself that it has no energy left for
the outward service that ought to define every church's mission.

In other words, big church can mask problems in the same way as big
government. It's hard to say no when a church or government wants to
do something positive; it's tricky to see that that program, however
well-intentioned or even well-organized, might actually be a net loser
if it steals from a congregation or jurisdiction the opportunity to do
it themselves. It's tempting as a church leader or government
official to be seen as doing something, no matter that such an action
might detract from a better solution, or such a mechanism be too fine
when a blunt tool is needed or too blunt when a fine tool is needed.

One last thought here: there is a role that governments and churches
play that I am a believer in, that of redistribution. That is, the
taxes and tithes that are collected are usually disproportionately
from the richer the group, while the services and programs that are
disbursed are often more evenly apportioned or even enjoyed more by
the poorer among the group.

This is right and appropriate, in my opinion. The richer among us
might not directly derive their fair share of the taxes they put in,
but their riches are due in part to the system in which they live, a
system their governments have helped maintain. So there is in fact a
sense of fairness for those who have so benefitted to bear more than
their fair share of the burden. As for churches, of course there are
numerous Biblical references to the responsibility of the richer among
us to assist the poorer among us, not just with kind words and
dignified respect but with a transfer of resources so that no one is
needy.

However, again, governments and churches can do this redistribution in
ways that maximize themselves or minimize themselves. Governments can
bear massive programs that you pay more into the richer you are and
you receive more from the poorer you are; or they can incentivize
redistribution through tax breaks and leave the programming and the
care to the private, non-profit, religious, and neighborhood sectors.
Churches, too, can run all manner of formal programming and hire all
manner of staff and specialists; or they can support, encourage, and
challenge their members to accomplish the same outreach with the same
fervor, but without the burden of a growing bureaucracy that demands
more resources and more attention to sustain. Guess which approach I
like better?

It takes a lot of humility and perspective than most of us have to get
more involved in government and in church only to make it smaller.
After all, as noble and selfless as we like to think we are, we still
do shallow things like measure our worth and compete against our peers
based on how big our budgets are or what new programs we've started.
At least in my mind, though, that's not always the best way to go.
And I'm realizing that's how I feel, not just about government, but
about church.

Running and Praying with a Friend

I have a friend who I run with about two or three times a week. I've
known her for about fifteen years, and we've been running together for
almost that long. When I first met her in 1991, she was in pretty bad
shape, financially and psychologically. Since I've known her, she's
improved considerably on both fronts, which has been great to see.
Although she still has her wounds that she's working through.

We don't often talk when we run, but by just observing her I get to
know her better. I celebrate her strengths and lament her weaknesses.
Sometimes I pray silently for her, her companionship spurring me to
lift her up to God when I often forget to do the same at other times.
I always look forward to running with her, the best part of which in
just being together. I hope she'll continue to heal, and that we'll
continue to run so I can see that healing over time.

My "friend," if you haven't figured it out already, is Philadelphia.
Oh sure, I like running in less urban areas. But there's something
about a good urban run that helps you get to know the city as if it
were a friend.

In Philadelphia's case, here is a friend that has improved
considerably in the last fifteen years. And running through town, I
can see some of the evidence: new construction, the exciting buzz of
activity, a diversity of people engaged in a diversity of pursuits.
And I can also see where there is still pain: run-down blocks and loud
confrontations and the homeless.

So the next time you're running (or walking or biking or driving)
through Philadelphia, won't you take a moment to observe her, too; and
won't you say a prayer for my friend?

Picking up on a previous post on my company's recent study on property
tax abatements in Philadelphia, I wanted to elaborate on a couple of
points that were made in our report. I learned in government school
that taxes should be evaluated on two fronts: efficiency and equity.

Efficiency means that there is a minimum of distorted behavior that
negatively impacts your jurisdiction. Take for example a street, one
side of which is in your jurisdiction and the other side of which is
in another jurisdiction. If your wage tax is 4% and the neighboring
jurisdiction's is 1%, guess where businesses are going to choose to
locate? The other side of the street is no further for a firm's
workers to commute to and no further for its customers to get to, but
by locating there each of its workers gets to keep 3% more of their
pay. This is grossly inefficient for your jurisdiction.

Equity means that the burden of paying the tax is borne in proportion
to a person's ability to pay it. All things being equal, the richer
you are, the more of the tax burden you should bear. This is often
referred to as progressivity versus regressivity. A progressive tax
is one in which the tax rate escalates as you get richer. Our federal
income tax, for example, is structured such that as you cross certain
inceom threshholds, you pay a higher and higher percentage on each
increment. A regressive tax is one in which the tax rate escalates as
you get poorer. Let's say, for example, there was a tax that was
designed so that everyone had to pay $500. If I make $20 million a
year, that's a drop in the bucket for me; but if I make $20,000 a
year, that's a much higher percentage of my salary.

Property tax abatements for new construction are both efficient and
equitable. On efficiency, you want to tax what can't move. If what
you're taxing can move, people will make decisions to move away from
whatever's being taxed higher to whatever's being taxed lower. New
construction can move: it can be built on your side of the boundary or
the other side. Once built, it's fixed; thus, it's efficient to abate
taxes upfront while construction can move, and then collect it later
when it can't.

On equity, here's a rare housing-related tax break that actually
derives more benefit to you if you make less money. In general, our
tax code on this subject is designed to provide a greater benefit to
the rich: the fact that you can deduct your property taxes and your
mortgage interest means more the richer you are, because your marginal
tax rate is higher.

Let's use an example. Jack and Jill own identical houses with
identical values. Jack is in the 15% tax bracket and pays $3000 in
property taxes this year. Jill, who makes ten times what Jack makes,
is in the 33% tax bracket and also pays $3000 in property taxes. The
deduction on the Form 1040 translates into $450 back into Jack's
pocket (15% of $3000) but $1000 in Jill's pocket (33% of $3000). So
paying that $3000 in property taxes really means paying $2550 for Jack
but $2000 for Jill. And Jill's the one who makes more money!

Now, let's add a property tax abatement into the equation. That
abatement wipes away $2550 for Jack but only $2000 for Jill. In other
words, the abatement is worth more to Jack than to Jill. It is, thus,
an equitable tax incentive.

I encourage you to go to our website and download the report from our
news page. Enjoy.

Culture

The question was simple enough and yet so multi-layered: "How have you
helped your child appreciate her culture of origin?" It was posed to
us by our social worker, who was doing a one-year follow-up interview
on our adoption. But it is a question I find myself thinking about a
lot.

For one, myself growing up biculturally, I want to help my daughter
grasp her "in-between-ness." For another, culture is such an
important -- and loaded -- topic in our society today, especially in a
region and neighborhood as cosmopolitan as ours.

It's a tricky topic, indeed; and we have it relatively easy as
adoptive parents, for at least I'm Asian-looking like Jada is. All of
the other families we adopted with were Caucasian parents adopting
Chinese girls. At least I have a frame of reference for teaching Jada
how to be Asian in America, because it's my frame.

And yet, what does it mean to teach Jada about her culture of origin?
Obviously, I get that it's more than dressing her up once a year in
Chinese dress or taking her to the occasional festival. But if
there's more depth to it, what is that depth? What, after all, is
culture?

I haven't yet unified all this in my head yet (maybe that's the very
reason why I'm blogging; to get it unified). But I know that culture
is a multi-faceted, ever-changing notion. One facet is language.
It's no coincidence that the typical American is monocultural because
he or she is monolingual. Learning another language not only opens up
the playbook in terms of being able to speak with more people; it
reminds you that there are myriad words that mean the same thing. I
kid you not when I say that I once was asked the Taiwanese word for
chopsticks, to which I replied, "dee," after which the response was:
"Why don't they just say, 'chopsticks'?" As if those two thin pieces
of wood are really and truly called "chopsticks," and us Taiwanese
have the crazy idea of calling it "dee."

History has got to be something our daughter has an appreciation for.
It took me moving to one of the more historical cities in the country
to really begin to appreciate the relevance of our history to our
future. It is a saying that is over-said but no less true: those who
don't know the past are certainly condemned to repeat it. When we
know our history -- the history of our people, of our communities, of
our religion -- we gain perspective without which our current view on
life is dangerously shallow and narrow.

Finally, I would say that culture is fluid. As her parents, we can
take intentional steps to put Jada in a position to master languages
and learn history so that she is more culturally rich. But
ultimately, it's on her to navigate the ever-changing sense of who she
is culturally. There may be others like her who live in Philadelphia
and were adopted from China and have a Caucasian mother and an Asian
father, who are her age and share her interests and her political
beliefs and religious doctrines. But she alone will have to decide
how to integrate all of those aspects of her, all of her life
experiences, all of her hopes and aspirations and foibles and talents,
into a life that is uniquely and authentically her.

We are, simultaneously and unceasingly, influencing and being
influenced by the culture around us. Would that Amy and I live in a
culturally rich way, and provide our daughter with the environment and
support to do the same.

NFL Predictions

I haven't posted sports predictions for over a year, but I have to
admit it wasn't because I wasn't thinking about it, it was because I
didn't want to put myself out there and potentially look foolish. But
hey, even people who follow sports for a living and can research this
kind of stuff 40+ hours a week (or in other words, about 10 more hours
a week than I do) can look a fool. So what the hey.

AFC West 3 Denver, 6 San Diego
AFC North 4 Cincinnati
AFC South 1 Indianapolis
AFC East 2 New England, 5 Miami

NFC West 4 St. Louis
NFC North 3 Chicago
NFC South 1 Carolina, 6 New Orleans
NFC East 2 Philadelphia, 5 Dallas

Wild-card round: Denver, Miami, Chicago, Dallas
Divisional round: Indianapolis, New England, Carolina, Philadelphia
Conference championship: Indianapolis, Philadelphia
Super Bowl: Philadelphia, 27-21

I hang around plenty of liberals whose opinions I respect enough to
even be persuaded. So it was nice to get back to my conservative
roots this past month through a book written in 1995 called
"Revolution at the Roots." Written in the wake of the historic 1994
elections, which brought an abrupt end to 60 years of big government,
the book calls for smaller government.

The book is surprisingly feisty towards the concurrent movement at the
time, that of "reinventing government." No one would argue that better
isn't, well, better, but "better government" isn't always preferable.
After all, if the government shouldn't be in the business of doing
something, it isn't a good thing to improve its performance; what's
preferable, rather, is to get government out of the business.

Perhaps it's just typical Americanness to always want to be bigger and
better. But in the case of government, bigger, even if it means
incrementally better, leaves us all worse. A dollar spent by the
government is one less dollar that could've been spent in the private
sector, perhaps in a more efficient and effective way.

It's not just wasted dollars, either; it's also atrophied civic
muscle. The government has done so much for us that we've completely
lost sight of personal and community responsibility. Back in the day,
people looked out for one another. We had voluntary fire companies,
we banded together in response to natural disasters, and we raised our
children to expect no free lunches.

Sometimes when people learn that I'm a fiscal conservative, they ask
me why I'm down on social programs. It's hard, for example, when a
great program that is federally funded and that is now on the chopping
block, to support the chopping. But that use of funds could be
redirected to a better use, as could the burden of responsibility.
It's not shame on the government for ceasing a program to help people;
it's shame on us for forgetting that we have the same responsibility
to serve.

Don't get me wrong: economically and organizationally, sometimes it
makes sense to do things in a massive, centralized, and bureaucratic
fashion. I'm too practical to be a total libertarian.

I do appreciate the libertarian sentiment, however. Take a look at
the Constitution, for one. This document, which I believe (said
tongue in cheek) is still the law of the land, greatly circumscribes
what the federal government can do. The list is short: wage war,
conduct foreign policy, levy taxes, regulate interstate and
international commerce, coin money, and establish post offices and
postal roads. That's it. The states have the power to do everything
else.

The book gives, as an example, the convoluted logic employed by people
who would want bigger government. A proposal to make it a federal law
prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun near a schoolyard was
Constitutionally justified by a lawyer with the following logic: guns
are bad for schools, education will suffer, therefore interstate
commerce will suffer, therefore the federal government has the right
to pass such a law. The problem here, of course, isn't whether you
think guns should be near schools, but rather whether this ought to be
a federal discussion. And (tongue still in cheek) if we're still
going to give the Constitution some influence in this day and age, you
can't possibly think this is a legitimate federal function.

Our civic muscle has so atrophied that we expect the government to do
everything and then lambast it when it doesn't. Shame on those in
elected office -- Republicans and Democrats -- for forgetting what
government is supposed to do and not do, and instead seeking to enrich
themselves and their friends via pork, earmarking, and other power
plays.

The government has become a beast, and it needs to be starved. It
would be a messy transition, both for politicians used to living fat
instead of governing as our founding fathers who have them govern; and
for us citizens used to passing the buck rather than taking
responsibility for ourselves, our children, and our communities. But
it is a transition that ought to be made.

Can't Live Without My Handheld

Last week, my handheld computer pooped out, after almost seven years
of service. I can't tell you how reliant I am on this little thing.
My life revolves around the calendar, contacts, to-do list, and notes
I dutifully record in my PDA. My wife jokes that the thing even tells
me when to pee. She's wrong; although it does tell me when to replace
my toothbrush, wash the car, and get a haircut, among other reminders.

It was probably good that I was without a PDA for a few days. It's
not good to be so tethered to something; it smacks of an idolatry and
dependence that isn't good for the soul. Of course, I ordered a new
one almost immediately and it arrived in the mail much sooner than I
had expected, so I'm back to having my security blanket.

(On a side note, am I the only person in America that still uses a PDA
that is just a PDA? Even though I have thousands of records, the
lowest-end PDA has more than enough memory space for me. It helps
that I don't use my handheld to make phone calls, listen to music, or
take pictures. I remember buying my first handheld when it was still
pretty cutting-edge to have one. Almost seven years later, the entire
industry has passed me by, and I'm more than content with the starter
model.)

How to Get Everyone to Work For You By Working For Them

At my previous job, I managed all the support functions of the
organizations; in other words, all the stuff that allows the people
that do the work of the organization to do that work. In our case,
the work was helping minority entrepreneurs. So the support functions
were what you'd see in any non-profit: fundraising, finances,
facility, HR, PR, technology, and so on.

To help me in these important functions, we hired a ton of college
interns. For many of them, this was their first exposure to the task
at hand, and so I tried to impress upon them the possibility that
their function could and should serve as a lever to influence the
entire organization. In other words, you weren't just helping keep
the books for an agency; you had in your power to make the whole thing
go better, faster, stronger.

Our approach to making such an impact was to simultaneously work for
others while getting them to work for us. Let's take PR as an
example. PR wasn't the central function of the organization; helping
minority entrepreneurs was. But PR could greatly support that central
function, by shining a light on the good works and the good people.
So we PR people were subordinate to the people on the front lines,
helping our clients. We daily put ourselves in a position where we
could do what we could, in PR, to help them succeed.

But simultaneously, in order to do that, we had to get them to work
for us. Just as their job was incomplete without us doing the PR work
to get them the publicity they needed, we couldn't do our work without
their cooperation. So in a sense, we expanded our team from me and
the interns to the entire organization. Because we set it up so that
everyone was doing their share of the PR work.

I make this very long-winded introduction to say that this is how
churches ought to run. I have a fair amount of pastor friends who I
talk to regularly, and managing staff and congregations is a common
subject; partly because this is what my pastor friends need help in,
and partly because they know I've had a fair amount of experience
here.

Not many of my pastor friends decided to pursue the ministry for
managerial purposes; rather, they had shepherd's hearts, or were
gifted in preaching, or loved to teach the Bible. And yet, as
important as those roles are, I would argue that a pastor's
effectiveness (not to mention his or her happiness) is undoubtedly
bound up in the management of staff and congregations.

A senior pastor, after all, is among other roles the head of a staff
of people. And that is a grave responsibility, not to mention a
challenging one. How to lead a group of people, all of whom are ready
to serve but who have different roles and gifts and agendas? Too
often, management is under-appreciated, and as a result church staff
teams are less than the sum of their talented parts. And that is
really a shame, isn't it, since the work they do is so eternally
important.

But it's not just about managing the paid staff, or even the committed
volunteers who put lots of hours every week. For a church is not
meant to be the few working on behalf of the many, but rather the few
setting into motion the work of the many. That's what Paul says in
his letter to the Ephesians: when he describes the various giftings,
the goal isn't to do work for a congregation but to put that
congregation to work.

Certainly, some of a pastor's role is to serve his or her
congregation, through counseling or preaching or exhortation. But I
would argue that a greater role is to put the congregation into
service, towards one another and the community of faith contained
within the church, as well as propelled outward to the neighborhood,
region, and world.

Us congregants have our role to play in this paradigm shift. After
all, we too often fall into a service laziness as it relates to our
staff. "We pay their salaries, so they should do the work," is that
implicit, if never spoken, attitude sometimes. And this is wrong and
un-Biblical.

Being a pastor is a hard job on a number of fronts. I hope that I can
encourage my pastor friends in the same way I encouraged my college
interns, to figure out ways to serve everyone so that everyone can be
put into motion to serve.

Abatements Rising

My company was just involved in a press conference talking about the
good things that have happened in Philadelphia as a result of the
city's ten-year abatement on property taxes on new construction. This
was the first report I worked on that went public in this manner, and
I couldn't be prouder of our end product.

Although I have to admit you don't have to have crunched through the
numbers like we did to see that the abatement program has juiced
construction in Philadelphia. Everywhere you turn downtown, there are
new condos sprouting up. Part of this, of course, is the demographics
of boomers craving the urban lifestyle, and part of this is the
general cycle of real estate markets. But a large part of it is also
the abatement.

A lot of my more left-leaning friends are mixed or even irate about
this, though. Incentive programs like this are often seen as helping
the rich stay rich. The argument usually goes something like this:
why should we let a rich person pay zero on his new $1 million condo
when Joe Middle Class has to pay something for his $100,000 rowhouse?

The reason I feel good about the results of our study is that I truly
believe that the abatement program was a good move for the city and
all of its residents and neighborhoods, not just the upper class and
downtown. For one, rich people moving into downtown condos is a good
thing for the city as a whole: it broadens our tax base, without which
taxes would go up for the middle class in order to keep paying for the
many public services offered by the city.

Secondly, on a related note, lower taxes in general make Philadelphia
a much more competitive and vibrant place to attract workers,
families, and businesses. A city trending up in population, activity,
and tax base, is also a net gainer for all socio-economic classes.

Thirdly, condos represent only 11% of the abatements for new
construction, if measured by market value. Almost all of the
remaining 89% has gone for single-family homes, like the very nice
home in North Philadelphia that served as the backdrop for the press
conference. Being somewhat unfamiliar with this part of North
Philadelphia, I looked around and saw a sea of new construction, all
abatement-induced. This was no the North Philadelphia I remember from
many youth group excursions through bombed-out streets of empty
warehouses and dilapidated rowhomes. So much for the argument that
what the city is foregoing in tax revenues is all ending up in the
pockets of those who can afford $1 million condos downtown.

In fact, as I stood there listening to the various speakers and looked
around on a sunny day to see new houses sprouting up in North
Philadelphia, I couldn't help but be happy that a good thing is
happening in Philadelphia. I'm just fortunate I got a chance to study
it in a little further detail.

He's a Liar, Either Way

There's a place I regularly go (I won't say where to keep things
discreet) that has recently become a source of relational conflict.
Not necessarily involving me, but definitely involving those whom I
like a lot. To the extent that there is a spiritual component to
these conflicts, as with any conflict, I am trying to be prayerful
over the people involved and trusting that God is still running things
in the midst of opposition and confusion.

I am not one to claim that all hardship in life is "spiritual
warfare." Life sometimes is just plain hard, without any extra
presence of demonic forces or Satanic influence. But that doesn't
mean I don't think this world is utterly devoid of such things.
Darkness still has its moments on this side of glory.

As I've tried to play peacemaker, weird things have happened to me
lately. One day, I tried to turn on my handheld computer in this
place and found I couldn't. I did a "soft" reset, only to have it
shut down almost immediately. I did it again, and this time it
automatically did a "hard" reset, wiping out all of my data. Having
used my handheld computer earlier in the day, I was puzzled as to why
it would all of a sudden not work.

Two days later, I rode my bike to this place. On my way home, my
wheel made a funny noise and then I heard a "clunk." I looked down
and the axle had come loose from the frame! Having ridden my bike to
this place, it puzzled me that I would have problems riding from this
place.

It occurred to me that perhaps there are unseen things going on here.
Might it be that the enemy of my soul is trying to heap these petty
discouragements on top of the larger discouragements, to keep me from
playing peacemaker and persevering in prayer?

Perhaps, perhaps not. After all, my handheld computer is seven years
old and my bicycle is nine years old, so both were bound to poop out
on my at any minute. Either way, I said a quick prayer, murmured
"he's a liar" under my breath, and proceded on my way.

You see, if there isn't spiritual warfare going on here, God's running
things and Satan is a liar; and if there is, God's still running
things and Satan's still a liar. In a world where so much is beyond
our control, so much pain happens that we can't do anything about, so
many forces are in play that are much stronger than we are, this is a
comforting truth to stand on.

Sheltered

You often hear people talk about living "the sheltered life." You get
the image of a cove that is protected from the winds and waves of the
fearsome ocean. Some people spend all of their energy trying to find
that cove, and once they're there, to keep the ocean away. Who can
blame them: the ocean is not to be trifled with, and life in the cove
is, in contrast, so free and easy.

It's a false hope, though. In life, there is no such thing as a cove
that can keep you from the ocean. Life isn't the cove; it's the
ocean. And while you might have seasons in the cove, the ocean keeps
spilling in, no matter how hard you try to keep it at bay.

Some people think the suburbs can be the cove. If we get away from
all the crime and all the pollution, and get ourselves into the wide
open and into good schools, we can avoid the ocean altogether. And
yet the ocean keeps spilling in: people find themselves disillusioned
with their childrens' educational experiences, violence still happens
in the burbs, and dysfunction doesn't leave our psyches and our
families just because we've changed zip codes.

Thinking you can find the cove is certainly one way to approach life.
When this is found to be a vain search, a second approach is often
disillusionment, cynicism, and settling. This too is far less than
what life ought to be, as is a "shiny happy" approach, which breezily
admits that life has it's ups and downs, and let's just be grateful
for the ups and level about the downs.

The Christian life, believing God to be the author of life, offers, in
my opinion, a better way to do life. The Christian life is brutally
honest about the fearsomeness of the ocean. But it believes that in
that fearsomeness there is true living.

When we open ourselves up to truly living, bad stuff does indeed spill
in. But instead of running from the messiness -- the broken marriages
and substance abuse and street violence and unjust systems -- we sit
in it, touching others compassionately and ourselves being comforted
by God. We open ourselves to feeling pain and betrayal and anger, but
we open ourselves also to truly feeling, to truly grasping and
experiencing life in all of its vividness. We have real
relationships, real connection to God, real appreciation of life and
love.

Of course, what gives us the courage and perspective and anchor to do
all this is that we know the One who is stronger than the ocean that
is stronger than us. And we know that eventually He will bring us to
a perfect cove and vanquish the ocean forever. Until then, let us go
boldly into the ocean, not just to seize the life that there is in
there, but to proclaim that life to others.