Whose Approval

There are many ways we Christians demonstrate to those around us what
we believe and in whom we believe. The old song tells us that
"they'll know we are Christians by our love." Certainly our choice of
career gives the world some indication of our priorities. Avoiding
vices like premarital sex or excessive drinking is another
differentiator. But I know a lot of non-Christian folk who are
equally if not more loving, sacrificial in their careers, and moral
than most Christians.

I wonder if another, powerful differentiator and pointer to the One in
whom we trust is the way we carry ourselves in terms of whose approval
we are ultimately seeking. Diva athletes and insecure high schoolers
do not have a monopoly on desperately seeking approval. It is
inherent to our human natures to desire to be accepted. It is easy as
humans to get down on ourselves when we are scorned, to get high on
ourselves when we are adored, and to fundamentally change our behavior
to minimize the scorning and maximize the adoring - even if that
behavior isn't true to who we are or what we believe to be right.

We Christians are no less guilty of such self-manipulating. We seek
power and security in the religious and social structures we've set
up. We spiritualize some vocations and attributes over others. And
despite our basic belief that God loves and accepts us, we fall
woefully short in loving and accepting ourselves and others.

What if, instead, we were deeply rooted in God's love for us, and in
our understanding that while we were yet unredeemable sinners, He made
a way to return us to right relationship with Him without compromising
His just and perfect nature? Would we not become better friends and
spouses and parents and children and bosses and employees, freed by an
unshakable security from having to coax that security we so desire
from other finite and fickle humans? Would we not be free to do great
works and bask not in our greatness but in a greater greatness? Would
we not be free to take risks, no longer afraid of failure since
failure does not shake our sense of self-worth? And would not such an
approach to life bring pleasure to our God and persuasively compel
others to desire a similar source of security and strength?

Consider this a New Year's resolution of mine, and perhaps yours, too.
Let us who walk with Jesus and believe in His lordship live
accordingly, in terms of how we view ourselves in success and failure,
and whose approval we are ultimately seeking.

One More Plug for "Zachary"

Last month I posted a message from my high school friend Kurt Kuenne
about a documentary he was making called "Dear Zachary." Earlier this
week, I got a chance to catch up some more with Kurt, and it was
inspiring to see how much of himself he's invested in this work. I
urge you again to go to www.dearzachary.com (or search "Kurt Kuenne"
on YouTube) and watch the trailer, and be on the lookout in mid-2007
when the full documentary is completed. Thanks.

To Parent

Becoming a parent necessarily focuses one's attention inward. Kids,
after all, are completely dependent on you for their survival and
development. Taking the time to be a good parent has its benefits,
but it comes at the cost of time and energy that could be spent for
other positive purposes.

As a Christian, I have known for a long time the apostle Paul's
teaching that it is the single person who can put the Kingdom first
and the married person who must tend to family matters. I struggle to
know how to simultaneously honor my responsibilities as a husband and
dad, and "hate" my wife and kids for the sake of the Kingdom.

It is easy to settle when you're a parent - to settle for a
comfortable, decent middle-class lifestyle, to put your time and
talents on the sideline and close ranks so that your kids are OK. I
don't think that's what the Bible or these times demand from us.

It is equally easy to neglect your family obligations in the pursuit
of ministry activity, as if being a bad husband and father becomes a
badge of honor, a demonstration that you are sold out for God. There
is nothing honorable or godly about that kind of approach.

I am guided in this dilemma by a former mentor of mine who regularly
prayed to God that she would not treat either her kids or her ministry
as a god, but that in fulfilling her responsibilities to both she
would treat God as God. This is a good word. For to be a parent is a
noble calling, but no matter how hard we work and study to be better
at it, it is God who is our God in our parenting. And it is the same
with whatever skills and opportunities and vocations we have.

I recently finished a book written by a child psychologist who quoted
two significant studies performed in the middle of last century. One
study found that during the bombing of London in World War II, those
kids who fled but were separated from their parents fared
significantly worse over time than those kids caught in the violence
but remaining with their parents. Another study found that orphans
cared for in a particular world-class institution did better than
orphans in other institutions but worse than normal kids who lived
with their parents.

I think of these two studies because they remind me that no matter how
good we are when it comes to looking out for kids, the best thing we
can hope for kids is that they have loving parents. In that sense, me
taking the time to be a good dad to my kids is more productive, in a
global sense, than me taking the time to do things for other kids.

On the other hand, part of me being a good dad is setting an example
for my kids, and part of being a good example is being charitable and
compassionate. Doing stuff outside my family, like working a
meaningful job and ministering in the church and performing community
service and giving to worthy causes, while it diverts time and
resources from my kids, also builds my kids by helping them see what
are the right expenditures of time and resources.

Again, though, I will return to the wise words of my mentor. It is
always good to expend time and resources in ways that are productive
both for the kids and for the Kingdom, but better still to do it in
ways that affirm that God is God of both and God of me. Easier said
than done, right, parents? Yet let us seek to do just that.

Predictions Accurate or Your Money Back

About a year ago, I posted these predictions for 2006, which I now
revisit to remind you to take everything I write in this space with a
grain of salt:

"1. America turns the corner on Iraq, but terrorism rears its ugly head
in a new place." The good news is I was wrong on the second part; the
bad news is I was wrong on the first part.

"2. Jeb Bush and Condi Rice solidify their status as the front-running
Republican ticket for 2008." There's still time - although I concede
that by '08 there's likely to be too much Bush fatigue and Iraq War
fatigue to make this ticket winnable.

"3. Between GM and Ford, one will declare bankruptcy and the other will
be bought out by a non-US carmaker." Somehow these two firms are
still afloat, although the threat of bankruptcy and buyout still
looms.

"4. Google's stock price will plunge." If by "plunge" I meant "soar,"
then I nailed this one.

"5. Super Bowl XL will be decided by more than 20 points." 21-10,
Steelers. Last I checked, 11 was still less than 20. Oh well.

"6. There will be two new reality TV shows involving religion." This
was too easy - there was "God or the Girl" and the Amish one.

Well, 1 out of 6 . . . is bad. And as for 2007? Aw, what the heck:

1. The front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination
will not be named Clinton or Obama.

2. There will be some significant troop withdrawal from Iraq, and it
will be triggered by good news and not bad news.

3. Britney Spears will get married but Jennifer Aniston will not.

4. Google will buy out Second Life and turn it into a 3-D,
interactive search engine.

5. Apple will start to lose its luster while Walmart will start to
silence its critics.

6. The US's biggest entertainment splash and its biggest technology
innovation will both come out of South Korea.

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger will run for president and film an action movie.

Merry Christmas!

Gross Feelings

Gross Clinic is staying in Philadelphia after all. Jefferson
University's proposed $68 million sale of the Thomas Eakins painting
to a Walmart heiress was trumped by a local effort that will result in
the work being displayed at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, more people will see the work, it's
quintessentially Philadelphian and so it's good it's staying here, and
the small and big contributions are a huge demonstration of the power
of art to bring people together.

On the other hand, Jefferson University is being unfairly vilified for
selling a local treasure - they're a hospital, not an art gallery, and
they need the money to do a better job at being a hospital. And shame
on so many locals who got uppity about Thomas Eakins and Gross Clinic
when most of us have never taken the time to see the Gross Clinic
painting or donated any money to keep the Thomas Eakins House afloat.

Finally, a lot of local foundations ponied up a lot of money to keep
the painting here, money that could've gone to other local causes
while we "imported" $68 million of new money from outside the region.
In other words, someone outside the region valued the work at $68
million and was willing to exchange that amount of money for the
painting; we as a region responded by matching that amount, thus
simultaneously refusing that infusion of cash and putting to the side
that same amount for the purpose of retaining that painting.

Maybe all this good feeling about rescuing a local treasure, when
combined with the increased economic activity that is generated by
people visiting the Art Museum to see the work, will end up producing
more than the equivalent of an immediate $68 million inflow to the
city. Because it would be a shame if, after turning down that inflow,
we then promptly forgot about the work and gave it the same amount of
brain space as it had before this whole thing started.

Out of the Mainstream

For almost twenty years, Nevada has been the fastest growing state in
the US in terms of population. But this year, that prize goes to
Arizona - most likely thanks to continued migration to Sunbelt states,
ongoing immigration from Mexico, and a surprising number of young
professionals holding down jobs at companies like Motorola and Qwest.

But I'd have to think some of it is caused by our love affair with
golf. Whether on the upswing of one's career or after the end of it,
you go to Arizona for good golf. And given that I've never played
even nine holes of golf, as much as I'm sure I'd enjoy it, I'm
wondering if I've gotten completely out of touch with Americana.

After all, I also have never used an iPod, and I haven't gone to a
fast food joint or a movie theater in almost five years, during which
time I've also not bought a CD at a music store or a soda at a
restaurant. I've never been to Kansas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma, and I
don't watch Grey's Anatomy, American Idol, or Survivor. Good God, if
the federal government had a massive profiling database, would I be
flagged as a possible terrorist?

I suppose there are enough things that I'm into that I could pass when
gathered around the water cooler or small-talking at a cocktail party.
And some of the stuff listed above I've been intentional about not
doing because I consider them a waste of time or money that I can
better spend elsewhere.

As a Christian, I think often of what it means to be in the world but
not of it, how much to engage in worldly things "that I may win some"
and how much to detach. I actually consider myself more secular than
many of my Christian friends. But I'm realizing I too am pretty
detached. Still, if you ever see me pull up in a SUV to a McDonald's
with shiny white ear buds sticking out of my ears, you have my
permission to just smack me.

Pray For Our Pastors

I have a fair amount of pastor friends, so while I personally have
never attended seminary or served in ministry, I feel I know a little
of the struggle of being a pastor. And, knowing that, I ask you to
pray for your pastor and for pastors in general.

My viewpoint tends to be more organizational, so my take on being a
pastor is that it is an impossible job. Here you are asked to be the
lead preacher and teacher, available for counseling sessions, leading
a staff of people that can span such responsibilities as missions and
janitorial, serving as the public face for your organization in the
community, networking with other leaders at Christian conferences and
denominational gatherings. That's a lot of hats!

I can also consider the pastor's job from the perspective of a frail,
temptation-vulnerable human being. It is a position of power, and yet
you must avoid the dangers that come from that power, whether pride or
inappropriate relationships. People turn to you and dump their
problems, whether personal baggage or gripes about the church - and
you can't really do the same back to them, so where do you go?

Let's finally consider the financial issues. I don't believe pastors
are paid very well, so that's obviously a downer. And if you are paid
well, and sometimes even if you aren't, that has it's own issues, for
congregants can quite easily feel they own you, since they're paying
your way. What other organizations is the person at top in such an
awkward financial relationship with his or her co-workers and clients?

So I am reminded from all this, and from my regular conversations with
my close pastor friends, that being a pastor is a calling that
requires a lot of prayerful support. Won't you join me, then, in
offering such support?

The Importance of Place

The place where I worked for ten years and where I am now on the board
is a small non-profit with an annual budget far south of $2 million.
Yet it boasts an incredible and historic facility valued at well north
of $2 million. The church I have attended for ten years is in a
similar situation, with an annual budget well south of $500,000 and an
ornate building over a hundred years old.

It is easy to wonder what a business-focused non-profit or a Christian
church are doing focusing so much mental and fiscal resources on such
non-essential things as building maintenance and janitorial services
and roof repairs. Indeed, I would encourage start-up non-profits and
churches to avoid making huge investments in buildings, because all
too quickly your mission can be decided on by your building instead of
the other way around.

However, if you do have a great facility, as these two organizations
do, you might as well make the most of it. And while we can
quantifiably see the cost of upkeeping a big and old building, we can
also tangibly reap the benefits of having space. The non-profit, for
example, hosts events of all types and sizes, creating a buzz about
its work that far exceeds any marketing efforts we could otherwise
generate. The church also hosts events and is home to two other
congregations, making the physical plant a place of spiritual mingling
and Christian community.

So while we ought not measure the success of our organizations by the
magnificence of our structures - not when far more spiritually vibrant
gatherings in poorer countries meet in shacks - we also ought not
discount too deeply the importance of place in helping our
organizations achieve their missions. Especially when it comes to
bringing people together, there's no substitute for a place that comes
to symbolize more than four walls and a plot of land.

A Most Difficult Subject Matter

I read for pleasure, and the biggest part of that pleasure is learning
something new. So I devour books on spirituality, history, sociology,
and other topics. But since I've become a parent, I've increasingly
tackled a most difficult subject matter: the psychology of a toddler.

One would think that out of all of the parenting that has been done
throughout the existence of mankind, we would've built up more
knowledge and expertise. And yet each new parent finds himself
fumbling around incompetently and cluelessly.

I have been no different. But the more I read, the more I understand.
It hasn't made parenting any easier, but it does give me a reverence
for the complexity and importance of providing a child with a suitable
environment in which to grow.

Which makes the reality of far too many kids' less than suitable
childhood environments all the more saddening to me. How difficult it
is for a child to navigate the chaos and nuance of our adult world,
even with good nutrition and loving parents and a stable home
situation and good schools! How much more difficult it is if that
child is missing some or all of those things.

They say that being a parent unmistakeably turns you inward, and it's
true that I spend a lot of time being a parent that I used to spend
doing outward things like social gatherings and service opportunities.
And I harbor no regret there. But I do hope that as I dive deeper
into the psychology of the childhood years, both through books and
through my own parenting experiences, that that inward focus will also
give me a greater appreciation and heart for kids in general, and that
to the extent that I have time, talent, and/or treasure to invest
outwardly, I will be all the more motivated and informed to do so.

Thank God Ahead of Time

"Today I'm believing You for a job -- not as an end to itself but a
means to seek Your Kingdom -- and I worship You for that provision."
This is what I wrote in my private journal on January 8th of this
year, almost four months before I actually got the offer at my new
job. I had been reading in the book of Genesis about Abraham, to whom
God made a series of promises, most of which took decades to fulfill
and the rest of which were not even fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime.

The thing that struck me that morning was that Abraham built an altar
and worshipped God in response to His promise, not His fulfillment of
the promise. I won't repeat here what I wrote in my blog on January
8th, except to say that usually I praise God when He answers my
prayer, not when I first pray that prayer. And I think God wants us
to have faith that says, "I've prayed it, You've heard it, You'll
answer according to Your perfect will, and so I'll certainly worship
You then but I can also worship You now."

Fast-forwarding to the present, I am even more thankful to God for His
provision of my job. I like my co-workers and my office environment,
my pay and hours, and even my commute. But most of all, I like what I
get to dive into, for it scratches where I itch both in terms of
intellectual curiosity and sense of purpose. I tell people that it's
awfully rewarding to open the paper in the morning, read about
something of importance to my city, and say to myself, "We worked on
that."

I took a step of faith to praise Him before He provided, and I praised
Him again when He provided. With the calendar year coming to a close,
I guess I wanted to praise Him yet again for continuing to provide. I
only hope I'll be warm-headed and soft-hearted enough to remember,
when faced with another big prayer or promise, to similarly thank God
ahead of time.

To Live and Die

"But whether life or death be mine, may Christ be magnified in me. If
He has work for me to do I cannot die." These were the words of Henry
Martyn, the famous English missionary to India. But they echo another
famous missionary: the apostle Paul, who in his letter to the church
in Philippia said, "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for
me; and I do not know which to choose."

Though many of us would not be classified as missionaries, those of us
who call ourselves Christians are in fact sent by God to our unique
spheres and given our unique Kingdom tasks. And so if we think that
it is only the missionaries that can have such fierce zeal for God and
His work, perhaps we are right . . . if we see all of His followers as
missionaries.

Consider with me what energy and focus and bravery and will we can
muster, by His grace, if we acknowledge that God has uniquely made us,
placed us, and commissioned us. Consider how free and fearless and
serene we can be if we recognize death has lost its sting - that we
can be ever ready to die, and yet while we still live, we can work in
the knowledge that we can't die until we've accomplished what God has
purposed for us.

Prayerfully, soberly, joyously, may we too say as Paul did that to
live is Christ and to die is gain. May we too say as Henry Martyn
that so long as God has work for us to do we cannot die. What if we
were to get this, and live our lives and use our time and render our
service and pursue our vocations accordingly? Would not we, however
small our numbers, turn our world upside-down? Could we not do great
works for God and give Him room to do great works for us?

So Many Books, So Little Time

I went from 30+ books read in 2005 to somewhere in the high teens this
year. You're going to say that it's OK because I was busy balancing a
full-time job and a toddler, but you don't know how many hours I spent
watching jugglers on YouTube or ogling baseball stats on espn.com.
Point being that it wasn't for lack of time that I read less this
year.

So I'm committing to coming back with a vengeance in 2007. After all,
while I did less reading this year, I did just as much "Say, that
sounds like an interesting book - I'm going to put that on my
wish-list" as usual. And I happen to work at an office that, while it
employs less than a dozen full-timers, has about two dozen book
shelves full of mostly economics related books.

So there are plenty of books to read, and the time is there to read
'em. Here's to more reading in '07!

Where Do I Stand

I just found out after the fact that there was an interesting Q&A
session for City Council candidates last week. I also found out after
the fact that two of my colleagues were on the hot seat - one who I'm
campaigning for and one who I wasn't even aware was running until
earlier this week.

But in looking at the unofficial transcript of the event, courtesy of
A Smoke-Filled Room (www.asmokefilledroom.blogspot.com), I couldn't
help but think of what my answers would be if I were posed the same
questions. Not that I would ever want to run for City Council, but at
the same time I'd want to have a position on these issues, or at least
an "I'll have to think about it."

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to punt, to waffle, and to otherwise
pretend this blog entry never existed.

***

Q: What steps do you think the city can take to increase the amount of
material we recycle?

Well-organized recycling programs can be a draw for the creative
class. They're also good for the environment. They also cut
municipal costs. Why wouldn't we work 10% harder to make this
actually work? My way would be through carrots (vouchers) and sticks
(fines). Incentives can initiate behavioral changes, which creates
the momentum you need to make this happen.

Q: Would you repeal, modify, or retain the current system of property
tax abatements for new construction?

Full disclosure: I worked on a study that found such abatements to be
generally positive. Fortunately, it's what I happen to personally
believe in, too. I could say a lot more but I'll leave it at that.

Q: There is a shortage of 60,000 housing units for poor people in
Philadelphia, and rents are skyrocketing. What do you propose to deal
with this situation?

Vouchers are the least intrusive form of government meddling and the
most effective way to avoid unnecessary concentrations of poverty. In
contrast, affordable housing construction has been shown to cost
significantly more than regular construction and is often
inefficiently sited.

Q: What changes would you make in how the city and related agencies
contract for services?

Mayor Bloomberg just put out a very comprehensive, performance-based
assessment of all New York City agencies. This sort of data-driven
approach is what you need to make municipal activity more effective
and more accountable.

Q: What steps can the city take to reduce handgun homicides?

Larry Sherman, head of Penn's Criminology Department, is correct in
saying the data will yield information on how to coordinate and focus
law enforcement resources towards activities that will preempt violent
crime.

Q: What role, if any, do you think casino gambling should play in
Philadelphia's economic development?

We need to make sure this isn't a race to the bottom, in terms of
gaming drawing and leading to the kind of negative behavior that's
more harm than good. Positively, we can use gaming as an opportunity
to reinvigorate distressed areas and offer our region high-end
entertainment options.

Q: How would you exercise the city's leverage over SEPTA to improve
its service and performance?

I'm working on something here, too, so I'll keep my comments brief.
The city needs to get the state to allow the city to impose taxes, so
that less of our local contribution comes in the form of fares. Lower
fares beget increased ridership, which eases financial pressure, and
causes a virtuous cycle that is the opposite of the vicious cycle
we're in now.

Q: What role should local communities have in determining whether and
how casinos and other developments are built and operated?

Immediate neighborhoods have the most to gain and lose from the
existence of a nearby casino. Let them participate accordingly. But
ultimately their gains and losses have to be weighed against city-wide
gains and losses.

Q: What measures would you support to protect low-income homeowners
from rising property taxes in the wake of gentrification?

If you're a home-owner in a low-income, low-growth neighborhood,
chances are the upcoming tax reassessments will lower your property
taxes. If you're "lucky" enough to be a home-owner in a low-income,
high-growth neighborhood, that same reassessment will increase your
property taxes - but your equity increases, too. The Brookings
Institution has some innovative ideas on how to help such home-owners
monetize those gains.

Q: How would you regulate campaign finance in Philadelphia?
"Leges sine moribus vanae." It's Penn's motto and it means "laws
without morals is in vain." Not to say you shouldn't legislate
towards a less corrupt environment, but let's take some personal
responsibility here, too.

Q: What municipal services in Philadelphia do you think are most in
need of improvement?

IT can connect the dots between agencies. John Fantuzzo and Dennis
Culhane at Penn are doing some of that related to at-risk kids, and
the data is yielding amazing insights on how to look out for our most
vulnerable. More effort like this can help all our agencies do
better.

Q: How would you deal with the financial difficulties of the
Philadelphia Gas Works?

What is PGW - a business, a provider of a critical resource, or a
charity for the poor? That's why we're having so much trouble, it's
hard to be all three of those. We may need to let it stay all three,
but the more business we can inject into it, the more we can deal with
its inefficiencies, which seem to be its biggest shortcoming.

Don't Be a Commodity

Otis White's column on the Governing.com commented today on a recent
study that finds that government workers actually aren't as underpaid
as people think. The stereotype most people have is that government
doesn't pay well, but that's compensated by more job security, more
vacation days, and more benefits. So based on this study, working for
the government does pay well, and you get Flag Day off and your health
care paid for for life. Not a bad deal.

White surmises that the prevailing stereotype comes from the fact that
a generation ago, government work was in fact lower paying than
private sector work, but that thanks to well-negotiated contracts,
government salaries have risen. Meanwhile, private sector salaries
have grown more slowly, because of increasing competition in the form
of technology enabling new entrants as well as globalization enabling
non-US entrants.

When asked about this, union leaders didn't deny the accuracy of the
study, but merely wondered if the problem wasn't that government
workers were paid too much but that non-government workers were paid
too little. In other words, when it comes to wages, why should
government "race to the bottom" like the private sector has?

Some people complain that this is the problem with capitalism, that
it's always a race to the bottom, and that things like protecting
certain types of workers -- whether supporting good pay for government
workers, decent pay raises for policemen and firefighters, or even
higher minimum wage for low-skill laborers – are needed to combat
that.

Call me Darwinian, but a race to the bottom is a good thing. As
consumers, we don't want the price of our cable service or our
tomatoes or our houses to be artificially propped up. What we want is
innovation and competition, people and firms fighting over the chance
to provide us with the products and services we want to consume.

In that sense, we are all consumers of government. And to the extent
that personnel costs are unnecessarily high, that's a net bad for us
all.

What's happened in the private sector is that competition has forced
firms to get better and get cheaper or get left behind. And as a
result, we consumers have benefited. Why shouldn't governments – or
churches or universities or social service agencies, for that matter –
be subject to the same pressures to innovate and to deliver?

Furthermore, competition doesn't always lead to a "race to the
bottom." Downward pressure on prices happens most often when products
become commoditized; that is, no matter who produces the product, it's
about the same, so the only thing you can compete on is price.

This is true no matter whether the product you're talking about is a
ton of steel, a computer, or a job. In other words, how you as a
worker should command higher and higher wages isn't that you live one
more year and "earn" your inflation-indexed adjustment, but that you
distinguish yourself in some way as to command that raise.

This gets at the core of my political and philosophical frame of
reference. Equality by fiat is inferior to equality of opportunity in
terms of arriving at the kind of society I want to be a part of.
Unnecessary government interventions to level the final score rather
than leveling the playing field just don't strike me as the wise way
to go.

So instead of being a commodity and then arguing for artificial
protection from the inevitable ravages of competition, workers – and
governments and churches and universities and social service agencies
– should strive to "uncommoditize" themselves. There are a number of
ways to distinguish yourself to potential employers that cost nothing
but sweat equity. The same is true for governments and their current
and potential constituents, churches and their current and potential
congregants, universities and their current and potential students,
and social service agencies and their current and potential users.
Let's encourage that, instead of discouraging competition and propping
up prices.

Wait

December's to-do list is usually longer than the typical month's: get Christmas cards out, buy gifts for friends and family, make travel arrangements, attend holiday parties, and tie up work projects before everyone disappears near the end of the month.  To this, all of us Christians should add the following - and try to get it up higher on the list: wait. 

This is, after all, the season of Advent, where we celebrate not only Jesus' first coming, but eagerly anticipate His second coming.  It is, thus, a season of expectation, of patience, of making room in our hearts and schedules. 

For as important as all those things on our to-do list are to our lives on this side of glory, there will be a time that the other side of glory will be revealed to us.  And that other side is so glorious as to be beyond human comprehension, to make present suffering incomparable. 

So I hope you'll have a good Advent.  And if you see me running around muttering to myself as I rolodex through work and family and church and administrative responsibilities, would you remind me to wait, too. 

Interdisciplinary

I've taken to sitting in the back of some of the many free lectures and symposia that are offered at nearby campuses.  My bosses have encouraged me to get out of the office and meet people, which I do: a recent seminar on the Temple campus connected me with an old colleague, who informed me of another event on campus later that day, where I bumped into yet another colleague and made some other contacts.  Plus, I always bring drafts of the reports I'm working on, and there's something about being away from my desk that helps me to sort through my ideas and make meaningful edits. 

Of course, in between pressing the flesh and making corrections, occasionally I'll look up and take in the educational presentations themselves.  And I've noticed a recurring theme, even across the disparate mix of topics I've exposed myself to (this month's offerings have included water and sanitation, business law, and state contracts).  And that theme is the interdisciplinary nature of most of life's most interesting problems and solutions. 

Take today's conference on the Penn campus on the topic of Africa and the G-8.  PhD candidates made up most of the presenters, and in looking at their bios, I noticed the following academic disciplines represented: African-American studies (twice), political science, sociology, communication, geography, design, and mechanical engineering.  You can make a few pretty easy points off of this.  One is that no matter your training, you're likely needed for our world's biggest issues.  Two is that the really interesting stuff happens when you get multiple disciplines together. 

And three, then, is that the really productive people/organizations/regions are those who have access to these interdisciplinary mash-ups.  From a people and organization standpoint, you'll do well for yourself if your network is diverse.  And from an organization and region standpoint, you'll do well for yourself if you become a place where a diversity of people want to be, and where you give them room to riff of each other.   

Alas, a lot of people, organizations, and regions are characterized by closed minds and siloed thinking.  Academic institutions, government bureaucracies, and large corporations are all too often sub-optimal in their cross-department sharing and in fact sometimes implictly or even explicitly seek to squelch it.  Residential neighbohoods and ethnic groups close ranks in a desire to "be with our own," treating foreign outsiders as bogeymen and scapegoats instead of sources of innovation and flavor and vibrancy.  Individually, we are guilty of our own prejudice or laziness that keeps us from being more welcoming to new ideas, new people, or new experiences. 

On a positive note, there are organizations and regions that are doing a good job at being hubs of interdisciplinary activity.  The city of Portland organizes lunchtime rock concerts to attract and mix its hip young population.  Amy Guttman, president of the University of Pennsylvania, has hung her hat on the notion of interdisciplinary work in areas such as nanoscale research, studies of the brain, and bioengineering.  Countless firms are abandoning offices in favor of shared, project-oriented work space.  And knowledge workers themselves are abandoning offices in favor of working elbow to elbow in coffee shops and other favorite public gathering places. 

When lots of different kinds of people are given space to get together, tell stories, and laugh, that's called a good cocktail party.  When lots of different kinds of people are given space to get together, tell stories, and laugh - in the context of producing solutions to our planet's most vexing problems - that's called changing the world. 

Salad Bowl

In describing America as a land of immigrants, people used to use the term, "melting pot," but are now commonly consider it a "salad bowl."  For some (not all), this is said somewhat derogatorily: instead of assimilating, different groups are choosing to cluster together and retain a non-majority primary identity.

Your political, cultural, and visceral viewpoints on immigration notwithstanding, consider the good that there is in a salad bowl.  I'm not arguing that a salad bowl is better than a melting pot, or that there's nothing wrong about salad bowls.  I am asking that we delve more deeply into the metaphor. 

I happen to love salads.  My most commonly used ingredients (besides some form of lettuce) are tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, mushrooms, block cheese, hard-boiled egg, and croutons.  I very rarely eat any of those ingredients by themselves, but will eat all of them together six days a week.  The only thing I eat more regularly than salad is a homemade yogurt brew I got from my dad, which admittedly tastes pretty nasty but is great with granola, raisins, and dried cranberries and blueberries - and that's another example of a food consisting of ingredients I would almost never eat individually but which I delight in together.

When you think about it, many of life's most delicious things to eat are mixtures of things you rarely eat on their own and/or that are very different from one another.  Apple and cinnamon, mint and chocolate, bacon and lettuce and tomato, just to name three off the top of my head. 

There's an episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry delights in a Black and White cookie and laments that people can't be as harmonious: "The thing about eating the Black and White cookie, Elaine, is you want to get some black and some white in each bite.  Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate.  And yet somehow racial harmony eludes us.  If people would only look to the cookie all our problems would be solved." 

I think this is a little simplistic; after all, peanut butter didn't ethnically cleanse jelly's ancestors, and jelly didn't enslave peanut butter's people.  The point I do want to make using my food analogies is that it's good that the individual parts are different.  Those who are more about the melting pot are frightened by these differences and want everyone to be the same (or more correctly, to be like them).  Those who are more about the salad bowl delight in those very differences.