Unpacking Ideas

There was a certain village with many gardens.  The people of the village planted seeds in their gardens every spring.  The villagers loved their seeds and protected them in every way.

Every spring, at just the right time, the villagers prepared their garden soil and planted their seeds.  Soon, the seeds germinated pushing tender sprouts out of the dark soil into the light of day.  The villagers rejoiced at the sight of the tender new seedlings.  All the people were happy and they celebrated.

Soon, the days grew longer and warmer as summer approached.  Unfortunately, because many days had passed without rain, the young seedlings began to wilt.  Some villagers tried to protect their seedlings but there was not enough water in the village for every garden.  In some gardens where water was scarce or too costly the seedlings became weak and diseased.

One dry day, an old woman entered the village with her donkey pulling a small wooden cart.  She noticed that many seedlings were wilted, diseased, and dying. She spoke with a man who was pouring water from a small cup onto a wilted seedling in his garden.  The old woman asked, “Why are many seedlings in this village wilted, diseased, and dying?”

The man answered, “There is not enough water for every seedling. Water is rare and costly.  Do not worry, for we have protected and nurtured extra seeds to plant next year.”

The old woman asked, “Would you like me to gather your wilted seedlings and take them to the next village where there is water?”

The man said, “If you choose, but we cannot pay you.”

The old woman filled her cart with wilted seedlings and left the village.  Along the way, she saw the village leaders preparing to chop down several old oak trees.  She marveled at the graceful beauty of the old trees and wondered if they planned to sell the wood to buy water for their wilted seedlings.  She asked, “Tell me, sirs, why do you chop down the old oak trees?  Will you sell the wood for money to buy water for your wilted seedlings?”

The men responded, “We will not sell this wood for money to buy water.  Water is rare and too costly.  Instead, we will use the wood to build a new warehouse for our seeds.  Do not worry about these old oak trees.  We have gathered every acorn for safe storage in our new warehouse.”

The old woman and her cart filled with the wilted, diseased, and dying seedlings left that place never to return.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2013)

“Harlow!”

Mr. Moore was my Trigonometry and Calculus teacher in high school.   He often yelled my name with a particularly high-pitched tone when I calculated the square root of 7 incorrectly or forgot the equation of an inverted parabola.  I think he was annoyed because I was not the same caliber of student as my sibling predecessors.  Surely they must have calculated the square root of seven in their heads. [1]

A calculator would have been helpful to figure the square root of seven, but in 1977 we did not have calculators, although the TI30 was slowly becoming available, so I heard.  My friend Chris, an original nerd, snagged one of the earliest TI30s later that year.  The rest of us were jealous. [2]

My Circular Slide Rule Ruled!

Without a TI30, I depended on a slide rule, straight or circular.  I was versatile, though I preferred the circular version because it more conveniently fit into my shirt pocket without being noticed by the girls in the cafeteria and I was told once that it was more accurate that its straight counterpart.  I found it in a kitchen drawer at home and began practicing to perfect the accuracy of my calculations.  I was good, and fast.

Which means I was devastated the day Mr. Moore mocked me in class for a three one-thousandths calculation error.  That’s a .003 folks.  Not a big deal.  Close enough.  He deducted points from my homework score for that .003 error.   ”Harlow, it’s wrong!”  Really?  Three one-thousandths wrong.

Rounding May Not Be Good Idea

I think that was the very day I adopted a more relaxed rounding rule for my life.  I use the rounding rule when I enter values in my checkbook ledger which is why my accountant wife hides the checkbook from me.  OK, so rounding is not a good idea for a checkbook ledger.

The three one-thousandths calculation error has haunted me for years.  Seriously.  What was the big deal?

Ask A Chaos Theorist

Ask a chaos theorist, or a bounded rationalist, or a policy maker who muddles through, or an  incrementalist budget planner, or a decision maker influenced by a plurality of stakeholders.

There are more than a few meteorologists who believe that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Somalia contributes (eventually) to the emergence of a tornado in Oklahoma.  So it stands to reason that if the butterfly flaps its wings three one-thousandths faster or slower, the tornado will occur in Kansas or Missouri respectively, or not at all.  Mr. Moore was right.

Three one-thousandths makes a difference.  I am ashamed that I questioned him.

Budgeting, Political Compromise, and Incomplete Information 

Forget tornadoes.  Consider tiny changes in federal budgets today that might incrementally affect families over five years.  Or subtle shifts in policy about medicaid or immigration today that might incrementally affect low-wage workers a decade from now. Or a slight nuance in political choices limited by incomplete or inaccurate information today that might incrementally strengthen or weaken key political choices later.  Or unnoticed compromises required today to negotiate with diverse stakeholder groups in a pluralist society leading incrementally over time to far better — or worse — than expected conditions years later.

Three one-thousandths might make a difference.

The scenarios listed above represent a set of theories proposed by three like-minded political scientists and a psychologist in the middle part of the last century.  They have been described as incrementalist in their own way.  Charles Lindblom (1959) was a political scientist who wrote about the “science” of muddling through with incrementalist policy development.  Aaron Wildavsky (1964 and 1988) was a political scientist who wrote about the incrementalist process of federal budget-making.  Robert Dahl (1982) was a political scientist who wrote about the dilemmas of making effective policy decisions in a pluralist political environment that requires incremental choices through compromises.  Herbert Simon (1976) was a psychologist who wrote about the incremental nature of decisions made by leaders of organizations when their ability to make purely rational decisions is hampered by incomplete information. [3]  For these scholars, three one-thousandths in policy making terms might have made a difference.  Mr. Moore was right.

.000127 Is Significant

Actually a smaller error makes a difference.  The famous butterfly effect of chaos theory was first noticed in 1961 by meteorologist Dr. Edward Lorenz at M.I.T.  He was running a series of computer calculations for a weather simulation.  To save time one afternoon he entered the rounded value .506 instead of the value .506127 used in the same calculation previously. [4]  This tiny .000127 difference in data input produced an exponentially different simulated weather pattern.

Until this point scientists had generally accepted the axiom that a small error causes only a small change in results.  As James Gleick explains, this Newtonian approach suggests that “[g]iven an approximate knowledge of a system’s initial conditions and an understanding of natural law, one can calculate the approximate behavior of the system.” [5]   For Lorenz’s system of equations, however, a small error proved catastrophic.  The science of weather forecasting has not been the same since.

So, if the puff of a tiny butterfly’s wings today potentially makes such a huge difference in our weather tomorrow, what about a tiny puff of change in a policy or budget today?  What about a small political decision implemented today without complete or proper information?

Small Things Matter

Mr. Moore was right.  Small things matter.  A small decision that creates significant change for a low-wage family, for example, really matters for that family … or for the hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of families affected by the small change.  Worse, small decisions made today with incomplete or poor information might create catastrophic changes for all of us over the next ten years.

I wonder if that .003 error in high school created enough change in my life then to affect me today?  I think I’ll re-submit that homework assignment.  I have a calculator now.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2013)

1. Some day I will proudly reveal to my sibs my GRE math score.  Hm.  So there.
2. I received my first TI30 for a high school graduation gift.  What a gem!
3. Lindblom, Charles (1959).  The science of “muddling through.  In Democracy and market system.  Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press.  Wildavsky, Aaron (1988).  The new politics of the budgetary process.  Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.  Dahl, Robert (1982).  Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control.  New Haven: Yale University Press.  Simon, Herbert (1976).  Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization.  New York: The Free Press.
4. For a delightful narrative of the emergence of chaos theory through Lorenz’s mathematical discoveries see Gleick, James (1987).  Chaos: Making a new science.  New York: Penguin Books.
5. Gleick (1987). p15.

God is kind; you be kind.  Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults—unless, of course, you want the same treatment.  Don’t condemn those who are down; that hardness can boomerang. Be easy on people; you’ll find life a lot easier.  Give away your life; you’ll find life given back, but not merely given back—given back with bonus and blessing.  Giving, not getting, is the way. Generosity begets generosity.   — Jesus in Luke 6:36-38, in the Christian New Testament (The Message, a paraphrase by Eugene Peterson)

According to the most reliable and consistent sources there are about 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.  There is a vibrant debate in secular and religious circles about whether or not our undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty.  Amnesty for undocumented immigrants means they would receive forgiveness for the laws they have broken.

I expect church folk to understand forgiveness.  Will the Church in the U.S. forgive undocumented immigrants?  Of course there is no single voice of the Church.  We are a diverse bunch.

What’s Wrong With Forgiveness?

Call me simplistic, but I wonder:  What’s wrong with forgiveness?  After all, this could be easy forgiveness.  Undocumented immigrants have been our neighbors for a long time.  Nearly two-thirds of undocumented immigrants have lived in the U.S. for at least ten years.  Their children attend our schools.  They work in our communities and shop in our stores.  They attend our places of worship.  They are generally good, hard-working people.  Compared to those of us who are native born, undocumented immigrants are more likely to have jobs, more likely to be business entrepreneurs, and more likely to avoid serious crime.

Are They Criminals?

About half of the undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. are here on lapsed visas that were originally authorized legally.  This is called a visa overstay.  Remaining in the U.S on a lapsed visa is considered a civil violation of federal law (not a crime).  Estimates suggest that the other half of our undocumented immigrants are here because they entered the country by means of an illegal border crossing or entry.  Entering the country without proper documentation is considered a federal misdemeanor crime.  However, unless a person is caught in the act of entering illegally, that person’s presence in the U.S. without documentation is considered only a civil violation (until he or she is shown to be guilty of having entered illegally).  So, the entire set of 11 million undocumented immigrants, unless they commit a crime while living here or are proven to have entered the country illegally, are currently guilty of violating only U.S. civil law.

What about the good news?  There is good evidence that the addition of undocumented immigrants to our workforce actually boosts the economy, and does not threaten employment opportunities for the rest of us.[1]

Forgiveness Is Good

So, amnesty for our undocumented immigrants would be an easy forgiveness.  Easy or hard, though, for the Church forgiveness is good.  And required.

Let’s be honest.  Most of us like forgiveness.  It makes us feel good.  In a previous article [2] I suggest that Americans seem fond of forgiveness (or amnesty) as a tool for reconciliation and healing after a difficult situation or conflict.  The granting of amnesty is part of our American and religious traditions.

I think granting amnesty is good for the soul.  President Andrew Johnson granted amnesty to lower-ranked former Confederate soldiers in 1865 and to all participants of the rebellion in 1868.  Even though it took a few years, amnesty must have felt good to most Americans – to the receivers and the givers.  Many presidents and governors when nearing the end of their terms of office grant amnesties and pardons to various lawbreakers.  Early in his term of office Gerald Ford granted a pardon to his disgraced predecessor Richard Nixon.

I was amazed to hear the story of the powerful act of forgiveness offered by the Amish community in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania in 2006 after a gunman murdered five of their children and then shot himself.  Leaders of that Amish community including parents of the dead children visited the gunman’s wife to offer forgiveness and compassion.  That courageous conversation must have transformed all of them.

Our Congress is entering a serious debate about how best to craft policy for comprehensive immigration reform.  There is growing optimism that an effective compromise might take place.  There is optimism at least until someone mentions amnesty for existing undocumented immigrants.  Keep in my mind, the notion of amnesty does not mean the immigrant would sail through to citizenship unfettered.  A waiting period, payment of fines, and other hurdles are likely to be included in the long process toward citizenship.  Amnesty would only eliminate the status offense for a lapsed visa, or for some, the illegal entry offense.  And amnesty would be offered only to those who are currently in the U.S.  More deeply, amnesty would help all of us get a fresh start.

Amnesty Is Not A Dirty Word 

Like forgiveness, amnesty is a gift — not earned, and perhaps not deserved, but an act of kindness to the recipient which would help all of us.  Amnesty would help the nation move forward into reconciliation.

Somehow, though, the word amnesty triggers feelings of resentment or anger, as if it is a dirty word.  The mention of amnesty evokes the battle-cry “our nation is based on the rule of law.”  Sure.  Laws are necessary.  But our Church is based also (first?) on the rule of love.  God is kind.  Be kind.  Let us forgive and enjoy a fresh start.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2013)

1. See a link to the American Enterprise Institute study at http://www.unpackingideas.org/2012/01/immigrants-and-jobs/.
2. See the article at: http://www.unpackingideas.org/2012/02/running-out-of-reasons/

They are our companions as ultimately everybody on this planet is a companion.  There is only one race — the human race.  And the history of that race is a long struggle against all restrictions, a long struggle to affirm that God made us one, that Christ died to keep us that way, so that our sin in only that we are constantly trying to put asunder what God has joined together.   — William Sloane Coffin, March 1978

The year was 1978.  For the first time since 1605 the Roman Catholic Church claimed three popes.  In August Pope Paul VI died.  He was succeeded by Pope John Paul I, who died only 33 days into his papacy.  Pope John Paul II was chosen in October becoming the first non-Italian pope since 1523, and the third pope for the year.  The same year Pete Rose claimed his 3,000th base hit, but it was the Yankees who claimed the World Series after beating the Red Sox (again) to clinch the American League East Division and eventually beat the Dodgers for the title.  Unfortunately, this was the year of Andy Gibb and the BeeGees disco craze, tempered a bit by Queen’s We are the Champions and Eric Clapton’s Lay Down Sally.  My final year of high school began that fall.

Crazy year.  But I had not yet noticed the crazier events in southeast Asia.

In 1978 the Khmer Rouge army of Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) continued its campaign to topple the newly formed Republic of Vietnam with repeated border incursions.  In April they invaded and massacred the people of Ba Chuc, Vietnam.  Of the 3,157 civilians living in Ba Chuc, two survived, prompting Vietnam to invade Cambodia months later.  Vietnam occupied Cambodia for about four years, resulting in the removal of the much-feared Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot.

Vietnam’s continued occupation of Cambodia, however, coupled with their stubborn refusal to address U.S. requests for information about our MIA soldiers, along with multiple other human rights concerns, all contributed to the U.S. refusal to lift a trade and aid embargo against Vietnam put in place in 1975 after the fall of Saigon.

The People of Vietnam Were Hungry

By the end of 1978, after three years of struggling to re-build their war-devastated country, the people of Vietnam were hungry.  Without special permission from the U.S. State Department, shipments of food from the U.S. to Vietnam were prohibited. [1]

The same year, on Sunday, March 5, one month before the Khmer Rouge massacre of the Vietnamese civilians in Ba Chuc, William Sloane Coffin climbed the stairs into the pulpit at Riverside church in New York City.  Coffin had publicly and persistently opposed the war, but three years after U.S. involvement in Vietnam had ended, Coffin’s concerns were different.  The people of Vietnam were hungry.

The day before, Coffin had returned from a ceremony celebrating a rare shipment of 10,000 tons of wheat to Vietnam.  For the first time in three years special permission had been granted for a shipment of food to Vietnam.

Coffin acknowledged the diplomatic complexities of our relationship with Vietnam at that time.  Approving or disapproving shipments of food and other humanitarian aid to an enemy was (and is) an often-used tool of diplomacy.  But Coffin preferred a simpler perspective:

The shipment of wheat is an act of minimal decency, from a people still committed to a moral world.  They are hungry, and we are not; it’s as simple as that.  And the fact that “they” are Vietnamese has nothing to do with it.  If civilians are not a legitimate target during wartime, why should they be in peacetime? [2]

Our Nose Is Out of Joint Because We Did Not Win

Had Coffin stopped talking at this point, his sermon would have been more palatable to more of his congregation.  But this was Lent.  Preachers meddle more during Lent.  Coffin proceeded to suggest that the U.S. refusal to send food to the hungry people of Vietnam was not about about diplomatic complexity, but about our pride.

Had we openly declared war on the Vietnamese, had we fought it as cleanly as possible, had we won it fairly and squarely, I would imagine our government today would be demonstrating a generosity that would make 10,000 tons of wheat look like a pittance…our nose is out of joint because we didn’t win…

Reconciliation is more difficult for the loser.  Faced with hungry children dying, we stubbornly refused a minimal act of decency toward an enemy that beat us.  We can call it diplomacy, or we can call it pride.  I wonder what will happen to our shipments of food to Iraq or Afghanistan if, in the end, we lose the fight and the Taliban regain control.  What will happen to our shipments of food if we lose the fight for democracy and the Muslim Brotherhood gain even greater control over government and lives in Egypt?  Will we send shipments of food to the Syrian people if we lose the fight to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power?

Reconciliation and cooperation are more difficult for the losers of any fight, even an election.  In October 2010, two years after President Obama won his first election, the U.S. Senate minority leader, a Republican, said in an interview, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” [3]  His nose was a bit out of joint because he did not win, so he sounds like a sore loser refusing to cooperate.

In my own state, when a Republican delegate was asked recently if he is worried that Virginia might miss a deadline to decide whether or not Virginia would create its own health exchange (a provision of the Affordable Care Act which had been signed into law three years earlier), the delegate said, “I’m not interested in helping them meet their deadline.  I’m sure not interested in putting Virginia on the hook for the failure of this regime.” [4]  His nose was out of joint because he did not win, so he sounds like a sore loser refusing to cooperate.

A stray thought – I have worried, perhaps because I am slightly paranoid and jaded about the human condition, that there remains an undercurrent of animosity toward the President’s policies simply because he is African American.  Such hidden animosity toward Mr. Obama personally might further bruise one’s pride already wounded from losing the election.  These are words his respectable opponents dare not speak aloud.  “We lost the election so I refuse to reconcile and cooperate.  Worse, we lost the election to him, so I absolutely refuse to reconcile and cooperate.”  What will happen if a woman wins the next election?

Share the Loaf

Coffin prefers reconciliation, so he reminds me with his words in 1978 that the Vietnamese — as humans — are our companions, meaning literally that we share the same loaf (made with wheat?).  He cites the Letter to the Colossians of the Christian New Testament, in which the writer claims,  ”For in Christ all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Christ God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” [5]

So, if the Vietnamese of 1978 might be our companions, so too might enemies of other lands and times.  If through Christ God is pleased to reconcile us — to share a loaf — with those humans across the globe, surely we can share a loaf and reconcile with those humans across the aisle.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2013)

1. This embargo was finally and fully lifted in 1994 during the Clinton Administration.  In 1996 Clinton appointed former Vietnam POW Pete Peterson as our first Ambassador to Vietnam ending the long return to normalization of trade and diplomatic relationships between our two countries.
2. All Coffin quotes are taken from Coffin, William Sloane (2008).  The Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin: The Riverside Years, Volume I.  Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, p56-59.
3. Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, in Kessler, Glenn (September 25, 2012).  When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a “one-term” president?”  The Washington Post.  Retrieved February 19, 2013 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html.  In McConnell’s defense, later in this reported interview he also said, “If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.”  So, maybe he’s only a slightly sore loser.
4. Del. Benjamin L. Cline, R-Rockbridge, in Martz, Michael (January, 30, 2013).  Panel puts off vote on health exchange bill.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch.  Retrieved February 19, 2013 at http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/panel-puts-off-vote-on-health-exchange-bill/article_99acac46-c588-5a35-a877-2eb8ce0be04a.html 
5. Colossians 1:19-20, New Revised Standard Version

The GOP-led Virginia House of Delgates faces a moral dilemma, a temptation of sorts.  They are about to be handed an easy, perhaps legal, opportunity to split Virginia politics into more severe partisanship.

The underhanded manner with which Virginia’s GOP Senators accomplished their redistricting task is worthy of discussion, but that maneuver is not my greatest concern.  For background, here’s what happened.  Earlier this week in a surprise, unscheduled vote the Virginia Senate by a 20-19 margin. [1]  adopted a redistricting plan that will give Republicans the advantage in six districts now held by Democrats and create one new district in which most of the voters are minorities.  The re-drawn lines will result in minority voters squeezed into the one new district, and non-minority voters safely re-positioned in the six other districts.

Often this sort of redistricting is accomplished when district lines are re-drawn so urban communities are consolidated into one or two homogeneous districts and adjacent suburban communities are separated from urban districts and re-attached to more rural districts.  Because of predictable voting patterns by urban (minority) residents and suburban/rural (non-minority) residents, the effect on the next Senate election is obvious.

My concern, though, is deeper and longer than the next election.

The long term result of the re-draw will be to establish homogeneous districts in which one party or the other can expect majority support with little effort.  However, in the event of a primary election within their party, candidates will be forced to adopt extreme left or right positions in order to impress their constituent base and win the primary. [2]  The long term effect for the commonwealth will be to produce candidates who express, or worse believe, the extreme rhetoric of their campaign promises.  Moderate candidates with centrist positions will not fare well in primary elections and will not likely survive to the main election.  The choices left for voters of either party become more limited and more extreme.

Here’s what really matters — the resulting partisan body of elected representatives in the General Assembly will contribute to sharper divides with few reasonable or effective policy decisions.

But that’s just me talking.  Our House of Delegates on the other hand could become a band of heroes.

Will they?  They face a huge moral dilemma.  The temptation is fierce.  We could, they might say looking ahead, help our prospective GOP Governor (if he wins) enjoy a majority rule to propagate our delicious extremist policies in both houses.

Or, we could be honorable (they might say).  We could resist this wilderness temptation (they might say) in favor of the right thing.  We could (they might say) reject the Senate’s maneuver and trust that our policies are self evidentally right and good and worthy of genuine, open debate.

I have written to my delegate.  You can too.  Say simply: Vote for honor, reject partisan extremism.  Virginia deserves honor.  Virginia needs effective policy.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2012)

1. Every GOP Senator in the Commonwealth supported the plan.
2. If there are no primaries, the state or district party will select their sure-win candidate, leaving little need for an election.  God help us.

There is no simple choice between the children of light and the children of darkness.  Good and evil are not symmetrically distributed along political lines. – Saul Bellow, Nobel Laureate in Literature, 1976 [1]

Sometimes I wonder if I am one of the good guys, which raises the question – what, exactly, is a good guy? [2]

Choosing the good guys is difficult.  For example, I would not want to be the one deciding whether or not to supply weapons to the rebels in Syria.  Sure, the Syrian President seems to be one of the bad guys.  What if, though, the rebels are not the good guys?  Or, what if they are good guys now but not later?  People change.  Similar decisions in the past have not worked out so well for us.

It is difficult to identify the good guys.  Sometimes we are fooled.  I read about a band of volunteers recruited and trained by a sheriff in Arizona to help with patrols around schools and to conduct searches for undocumented immigrants.  The volunteers are permitted to carry their own firearms, if properly permitted in that state.  One new source reported a volunteer saying, ”If a school finds itself under threat, the job of the volunteer posse is to ’eliminate the target,’ said [volunteer] Mr. Donowick, 58, using the military language for shoot to kill.”  [3]

I suppose these volunteers are good guys.  Most of them.  But it is hard to tell.  Apparently, according to a local TV news source, several of those volunteers in Arizona were later found to have criminal records for offenses including drug possession and assault.  I suppose they are good guys now… people change.

People Change

It is difficult to identify the good guys.  I was alarmed to read about a public school teacher in a neighboring county in my state who was arrested for possession of heroin.  She will have her day in court, but I am led to wonder.  Wow, a school teacher, working in our schools.  I assumed schoolteachers and other school staff are the good guys.  Not always, I guess.  Perhaps when she was first hired she was a good guy, and then she changed.  Or perhaps she really is a good guy but got into some trouble.  People change.

Psychologists and social workers who do therapy with troubled individuals will tell you it is nearly impossible to predict if or when a client will commit a violent action.  I wonder, is a person diagnosed with a mental illness a bad guy or a good guy?  Who gets to decide?

Perhaps we should ask our theologians.  They should be able to decide.  It appears, however, even theologians will disagree about this.  Some theologians say everyone is a bad guy while others say everyone is a good guy, with lots of confusing mixtures and internal conflicts in between.  A few theologians will say everyone is a good guy and a bad guy.  They say everyone is capable of doing extreme good and, sometimes, on a bad day, each of us could do extreme bad.

So, on a good day who gets to decide if I am a good guy?  Perhaps I should take a test.  If I score well, I must be a good guy and can be trusted with good guy things.  Or perhaps I can be trained to become a good guy.

Suppose I Have A Bad Day

But what happens on a bad day?  Let’s suppose I have scored well on a good guy test and I have been trained to become a good guy, but then I have a bad day.  A really bad day.  Will my training or high test score prevent me from feeling bad or doing bad on a really bad day?

The good news is that I don’t need to worry about it.  I live in a nation where it doesn’t matter much if I am a good guy or a bad guy until I actually do a bad thing on a bad day.  My freedom is a wonderful thing.  I can be a good guy on the outside and a bad guy on the inside, or a good guy today and a bad guy tomorrow, and I will have the same rights as the next guy today, even if  tomorrow becomes a bad day for me.

OK then, is there a way to predict when I am going to have a bad day?  My family, neighbors, and the children in the school down the road would surely like to know.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2012)

1. David Pratt, Editor (2007).  The Impossible Takes Longer: The 1,000 Wisest Things Ever Said By Nobel Prize Laureates.  New York: Walker & Company, p123
2. This article is the second of a pair of articles to be read together.  The other article is Please Put The Toilet Seat Down, For Us.
3. Santos, Fernanda. (January 16, 2013).  An added mission for Arizona sheriff’s immigration posse: School patrols.  The New York Times.  Retrieved January 19, 2013 at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/arizona-sheriff-adds-school-patrols-to-posses-duties.html?_r=0.

As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil.  – 1 Peter 2:16 of the Christian New Testament

You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another.  – Galatians 5:13 of the Christian New Testament

Evil takes root when one man starts to think that he is better than another.  – Joseph Brodsky, Nobel Laureate in Literature, 1987  [1]

Freedom is a good thing, most of the time.  [2]   My freedom is especially helpful to me because it comes attached with privileges, such as my rights as a human or as a citizen of this free land.  I have the right to do this, or not do that.  I have the right to claim a right.  I have the right to not claim a right.  I am free to choose whether to claim it or not.

Some of my rights are established and protected by laws or the Constitution.  Other rights I enjoy simply because I exist.  In fact, I even have the right to exist.  Because of the rights I enjoy, my freedom is a good thing, for me.

I am free to exercise my rights — most of the time, especially if I lived alone, which I do not.  So, I lament, perhaps I am not so free.

Every now and then I am reminded that the free exercise of my rights might harm or disturb others who live with me.  My wife and daughters have reminded me.  “Dad,” they say, “please put the toilet seat down.”

I respond, “I am free.  I have rights.  This is my house, too.”  (OK, there are no constitutional amendments protecting my right to leave the toilet seat up.  But I have the right to leave it up if I choose.  What’s the worse that could happen?)

And so I say, ”Which is more important?  My right to leave the toilet seat up or your right to be comfortable?”  (Freedom is a big deal.  My freedom must be more important than your comfort.  Your request that I put the toilet seat down places an extra burden on me.  It’s not fair.)

My family responds, “What if one of us gets hurt, or embarrassed?”

Then I say, “Be more careful when you sit down, because my freedom is important and must be protected.”

They say, “We are free too and we have the right to protect ourselves from your actions.  Besides, you are also free to live alone.”

“But I don’t want to live alone.  We are a family!”

“Then put the toilet seat down, for us.  We are not asking that you pee outside or not pee at all, just put the toilet seat down, for us, because we are a family.”

This deserves some thought.  I will “stick it in my pipe and smoke it” as the saying goes.  Which brings to mind that I have considered smoking a pipe.  Surely I am free to smoke a pipe in my own house.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2012)

1. David Pratt, Editor (2007).  The Impossible Takes Longer: The 1,000 Wisest Things Ever Said By Nobel Prize Laureates.  New York: Walker & Company, p44
2. This article is the first of a pair of articles to be read together.  The other article is Am I A Good Guy Or A Bad Guy, And Who Gets To Decide?

“What gets measured gets done.”   — Tom Peters, management consultant, author of In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America’s Best-Run Companies [1]

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”  — Sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein who often shared this quote with his students, but the quote might have originated with sociologist William Bruce Cameron.

Like other professions mine is itching to measure itself, but Einstein’s words haunt me.  I am a pastor in a large protestant denomination.  Recently my pastor friends and I were assigned the responsibility of tallying up a few numbers about our congregations, entering them into a database using a nifty, web-based data entry interface, and wondering together what it means.

Let me be clear, I love to count.  I enjoy designing and implementing measurement systems for organizations.  I built an earlier career at a university research center counting behaviors, attitudes, feelings, events, and decisions for human service and other agencies.  We learned that large numbers mean something, small numbers mean something else.  Sometimes we learned that the numbers mean nothing because we were counting the wrong thing.  And so I learned — as I wrote in a previous article [2] — it is best to count the right thing.

Like other denominations, mine found itself panicked by reports of low numbers – numbers that we perceived to be bad numbers because they were low.  Our worship attendance and membership numbers had been decreasing.  So, in the heat of a moment, we became captivated by a cry for more.  Give us larger numbers!  We want more!  More people in worship, more people professing their faith, more new members!  In that moment we committed to finding more people, and attracting larger crowds.  In that same heated moment we also committed to adding more church services to our arsenal by adding new faith communities  … because, I presume, we believed more would be better.

Is it?  Is more better?  Of course, this is a dangerous question to ask about church.  Church folk have long assumed that more people in our worship services and more people on our membership rolls must be better.  Of course we want more people in church…right?  I wonder, though, do we have room in our churchy hearts to ask whether or not God cares about more?

In an e-mail to a friend not too long ago I shared my concern that Church leaders indeed seem to be focused on increasing our numbers of members and worshipers — but at what cost, I wondered?  What will we need to give up in exchange for becoming more attractive to a larger crowd?  I recall that Jesus was not very interested in attracting a large crowd – although he sometimes did.  Jesus seemed instead more interested in showing us how to die for one another, deny ourselves for one another, and love one another.

Did you ever notice that the closer Jesus got to the cross the smaller the crowd that followed him?  Is God interested in more, or better?

Thick or Thin Faith?

A favorite author of mine, Miroslav Volf, theologian at Yale and frequent writer for Christian Century [3]  frames the tension this way.  He is concerned that today’s Christian is encouraged to practice a thinned-out faith – a faith that is essentially only goal-oriented.

Volf says a thin faith is not allowed full sway in shaping the way we live and think, but is used to simply achieve our goals, whether or not those goals are related to our faith at all.  A thinned out faith is one that consists of vague religiosities that serve to explain the life we have chosen instead of shaping it.  A thick faith, in contrast, first shapes the life, and then demands an authentic response.

We Need Thick Leadership

In short, Volf is describing an authentic faith.  He calls it a thick faith, which, I believe, requires thick leadership — from pastors, for example.  Today’s Church needs thick leadership, the kind that seeks an authentic, thick faith for our people.

How do we do thick leadership?

As I mentioned above, I have a bit of background in measurement.  I devoted a large portion of an earlier professional life developing systems and tools for measuring the performance of people and groups and agencies.  This is no easy task, and the stakes are high because I happen to agree with Tom Peter’s prophetic warning that ”what gets measured gets done.”  Meaning, our measures do more than provide evidence of what we have done, our measures determine what gets done.

What Is Thick Measurement?

If I care about thick leadership, then, I need also to ask: What is thick measurement?  Thick measurement captures evidence of authentic, thick, faith and thus, because we are measuring it, helps to determine or motivate a thick, authentic faith in our congregations.  I tell my students there are two ways to measure:  A survey is one way.  A survey is known for providing broad data from more people, but a survey is thin measurement providing thin data.  Survey data scratches the surface.  A focus group, interview, or personal observations on the other hand provide thick data — but from fewer people — because the method requires digging a little deeper with each person, and this requires more time.  But one way or the other does not seem sufficient.  Is there another way to achieve thick measurement?

Can I Achieve Thick Measurement With Thin Data?

Sometimes, thick measurement can be achieved from thin, surface data if analysts are willing to do the extra work of seeking thickness through more complicated calculations.  All good measurement systems try to wrestle with the tension between thin and thick measurement – and we must wrestle, if we hope to determine or at least motivate a thick faith in our congregations in the coming years.

But the stakes are high while we seek, it appears, to be asking only for thin data – data that assume more is better, while calling it a sign of our vitality.  The very nature of our data – on the surface in raw form – has already communicated to me how I am to define “vital” – more people, more groups, more, bigger, more.  We will enter our numbers and we will hope that eventually our numbers will increase, because, we are told, more is better and (did I say this yet?) what gets measured gets done.

And so we add people and call them professions of faith today with less regard for authentic faith tomorrow – at least as it appears in our measures.  Our focus on more instead of better risks that we will replicate in order to add more without regard to living an authentic faith better.

If More Is Better Let Us Increase Our Mediocrity

To be blunt:  Our focus on more and bigger numbers becomes, in my view, similar to a cancer-like replication of our initial mediocrity – the kind of mediocrity that compelled us in the first place to cry out in that heated moment – we need more!  Which, as I am suggesting, was the wrong appeal.  In the face of our mediocrity we should have cried out not for more, but for better.  But better is harder to measure.

So, if we are to lead thickly, let us measure thickly – which will be more difficult and require more patience.  But take heart, for thick leadership allows for patience.

And yet I confess my concern.  I fear that authenticity will be an after-thought.  Mediocrity, on the other hand, will be tolerated, as long as my numbers are greater.  Will more be preferred even if it means more mediocrity?  But surely we must want a thick faith.  We must prefer not to replicate mediocrity, right?  And yet since I believe in the value of measuring, I find myself caught between a raw number and a right place.  Consider this question: Given our choice of measures, what do we consider vital, and what then will get done?

I still cling to the hope that our raw numbers can be useful if thick leadership prevails.  The raw numbers, whether more or less, can be used to describe an authentic faith expression – if our analysis dares to be innovative, and if we concern ourselves with other than the raw nature of our numbers.

More People In Worship Is Not Necessarily Better

More people in worship, for example, is not an authentic, thick measure.  Perhaps some of our newer measures are more attractive – more young people, more diversity among our people, for example – but these measures too are vulnerable to simply delighting in higher numbers of younger or more diverse mediocrity.

My denomination is also counting the number of small groups in a congregation, and so I am hopeful we will find thickness in our measures of small groups – as long as more small groups is only the first measure – are more small groups necessarily better?  We are also counting the number of persons engaged in mission ministry.  Again, I am hopeful we will find thickness in this measure.  These measures are capable of pointing to deeper, thicker evidence that a congregation is seeking authenticity.  But thick, innovative leadership will be required if we hope to use the raw numbers to point to what is better, not more.

Proportional Engagement In Ministry

Consider, for example, that we will have the raw numbers available to calculate whether or not we have more people engaged in mission ministry as a portion of those in worship.  This ratio might become a useful thick measure because it reflects a thicker understanding of discipleship.  But we must prepare to accept the difficult results.  There is evidence that as a congregation’s worship attendance increases the more difficult it is to move the growing number of worshipers into a similarly growing portion engaged in mission ministry.

The test for our thick leadership will be to use raw numbers to demonstrate authenticity, not our size.  If we agree that what gets measured gets done then we must be very careful about what and how we measure, how we talk about it, and how we analyze the raw numbers.  Thick leadership will persistently care about and measure authentic faith, not an increase in size.  We do not need more, we need better.  I believe we can measure and calculate better.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2012)

1. Peters, Tom and Robert Waterman, Jr. (1982).  In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America’s Best-Run Companies .  New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
2. See What Gets Measured Gets Done  at http://www.unpackingideas.org/2011/02/what-gets-measured-gets-done/
3. Volf, Miroslav (2011).  A public faith: How followers of Christ should serve the common good. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press.

If religion and politics are fundamentally inseparable, then the answer to “bad religion” is not “no religion,” but “good religion” … So let’s press on a bit further.  That God is against the status quo is one of the hardest things to believe if you are a Christian who happens to benefit from the status quo.” — William Sloane Coffin, 1984 [1]

On September 30, 1984, a few weeks before the incumbent President was to re-capture the office in that election,  William Sloane Coffin climbed to the pulpit at Riverside Church in New York to talk about religion and politics, of course.  He was never timid about the mix.

President Reagan won the election that year.  He was buoyed by an economy that had begun to recover after several years of recession.  Nothing else seemed to matter.  Reagan captured 49 states and 525 electoral votes, more than any candidate ever. [2]

Reagan’s initial election in 1980 and his re-election in 1984 were, in part, influenced by a zealous group of conservative Christians called the Moral Majority, led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg, Virginia.  The organization’s influence on Reagan’s victory in the 1980 election has been fairly well-established, but it seems the strength of their support diminshed during subsequent years.  By the 1984 election, some have suggested, Reagan’s bid was strengthened by Moral Majority support as much as Mondale’s was strengthened by an anti-Moral Majority sentiment.  This conclusion is difficult to verify, of course.  The results were nevertheless a landslide in favor of the incumbent.  It seems the economic recovery in 1984 mattered more to voters.

Even During Economic Recovery, Religion Matters

We might argue about the nature and scope of the effect, but we can be fairly certain that religious views play some role in how we vote.  But I wonder, as in 1984 –  does economic recovery matter more than our religious views?

I am a pastor.  And this election seems to have captured our attention in large ways.  And so I continue to wonder and fuss about the extent to which our religion will matter when we vote — or if it should, or how.  I suppose any self-respecting pastor is required at minimum to acknowledge that our religious views should influence our political choices, or any choices for that matter.  Or, might we dare conclude that our religious views should take a back seat to the nation’s economic recovery when we go to the polls?  Hard to know.

It is hard to know.  And it is hard to know the right thing to do — especially when we harbor sharp and conflicted opinions about the candidates and this election.  I wrote in The Soul of Our Nation [3]  that I believe the outcome of this election will have a deep effect on the moral direction of the nation – for mostly economic reasons — which for me means how we choose to spend our money matters more than how much we spend, and these choices will have a moral effect on our collective soul.  A few of you, I know, disagree.  Read the article and let me know.  

So, I am reluctantly compelled to return to the religion and politics question.  How do the two inter-relate, if at all?  Should they? [4]

Perhaps we can learn from that earlier election.  In 1984, Coffin was concerned about the growing wealth disparity  between our highest and lowest earners (sound familiar?).  He criticized Reagan’s insistence that the solution to the disparity problem is to provide more charity:

As a matter of fact, many of us are even eager to respond to injustice, just as long as we can do so without having to confront the causes of it.  And there’s the great pitfall of charity.  Handouts to needy individuals are genuine, necessary responses to injustice, but they do not necessarily face the reason for the injustice.  And that is why President Reagan and so many business leaders today are promoting charity: it is desperately needed in an economy whose prosperity is based on growing inequality.[5] 

Can it be said about some in the Church today that while we are eager to donate for charity, we are unwilling to face the reason(s) for the unjust nature of a prosperity that is reserved for fewer and fewer of us?  Do we dare consider that such an inequality exists today, or might we conclude it was a problem then, and now now, allowing that we need not consider the nature of our economic recovery as an issue of justice? 

What Matters Most?

More broadly, when we dare consider issues of economic justice we might ask, what matters most when we vote?  Our religion, or the economy?  Pollsters have been asking this question of survey respondents for months and they seem to have concluded that the economy matters most. 

What Kind Of Recovery? 

The economy matters the most.  No surprise.  But is this an either/or proposition?  If the economy matters the most, do we jettison our religious or justice concerns as less important?  Or, with a fresh look, might we find that our religious views can and should influence our choices with regard to how our economic recovery is shaped?  For example, might we allow that a slower, more balanced economic recovery in which more of us fare well — especially the least and the last among us — better reflects our religious principles?  Might we allow that for the long term heath of our economy, justice for all is as important for our recovery as gains in personal wealth for some, and that justice might require more time?

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2012)

1. Coffin, William Sloane (2008).  The Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin: The Riverside Years, Volume II.  Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, p185, 187.
2. Richard Nixon won in 49 states in his re-election bid in 1972 against George McGovern, but he did not accumulate as many electoral votes as did Reagan in 1984.
3. See the October 6, 2012 article at http://www.unpackingideas.org/2012/10/the-soul-of-our-nation/.
4. You might be interested to know that this Sunday — days before the election – I will preach my recurring sermon, I’ll Tell You How To Vote On Tuesday.  The title alone makes me chuckle when I imagine the pre-emptive squirm I will cause for my parishioners.  You might grumble, “How dare you use the pulpit to tell them how to vote?”  Well, its a bit more complicated…  If you cannot join us in person, feel free to read an earlier version of the sermon at the Tormenting My Congregation tab above.
5. Coffin, William Sloane (2008). The Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin: The Riverside Years, Volume II. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, p188.

“What does it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their soul?”  — Jesus [1]

A few weeks ago I said this to my students:  November’s presidential election will have a greater impact on the soul of our nation than the 2008 election.  When I heard my words I nervously questioned myself.  Do I really believe it?

Yes. 

That I said it to my students was another matter.  I teach at an HBCU [2] where all of my students are young African Americans.  Their pride and sense of confidence about engaging in the civic affairs of our nation were likely boosted exponentially in 2008 when Obama was elected.  I believe that in 2008 our nation took an important step — that election was indeed a big deal.

So, how could the upcoming election be more important?  Here’s what I think – the 2012 election will determine the future nature of our collective soul.

A bit over-dramatic, you say.  Perhaps.         

It appears we have become obsessed during this campaign with this question:  Which candidate is better equipped to fix the economy?  This focus is important, of course.  We probably agree that the economy is growing slowly.  Very slowly.  We are adding jobs to the economy and more people are working, but at rates that are frustratingly inadequate.  So, we ask: Which candidate will lead us to the promised land faster?  But I wonder about the more important questions. 

For me, the better questions are these:  Which candidate’s plan will strengthen our economy while also preserving our nation’s soul?  And so we must ask, “What is the soul of our nation?”

What Is The Soul Of Our Nation?

For me, the soul of the matter depends on a value preference:

• Do we value our right as Americans to satisfy the needs of our individual self-interests in the free pursuit of private wealth?  Or, 
• Do we value our responsibility as Americans to protect and strengthen our common welfare so that all (or more) of us are free to pursue our dreams, including the pursuit of private wealth? 

In short, which is more valuable to us as a nation, our right to pursue individual self-interest, or our responsibility to the common good?  How we answer this question, more than any other, will determine the nature of our soul as a nation. 

Maybe Not One Or The Other

These values are not necessarily oppositional.  But we might wonder, which value do we prefer?  Or, which value should be primary? I think this election is about this choice.  Which value do we prefer?  Which value will determine the soul of our nation for the coming years?

What kind of nation will we become?

The Soul Of The Matter

I have written about Paul Ryan’s economic plan and the values I think it represents.  I first wrote about Ryan before he was ever considered for VP. [3]  The Ryan plan (any version) was endorsed by default by Romney when Ryan was selected, and Ryan’s plan represents a value preference.  Ryan’s plan takes the nation in a direction which prefers my right to satisfy the needs of my individual self-interest in pursuit of private wealth.  I am not suggesting that Ryan himself behaves in this manner or believes in the reign of individual self-interest.  I am suggesting that his economic plan requires our nation to make this choice.  Ryan’s economic plan, if followed, would determine the soul of our nation.

OK.  Again, a bit over-dramatic, you say?  Let’s examine the basis for my drama. Ryan’s fondness for the teachings of Ayn Rand are well-documented, despite his campaign’s recent attempts to re-write his views.  Briefly, Ayn Rand’s philosophy and political views emphasize individual rights in contrast to public (common) good.  She opposed all forms of collectivism, including the welfare state.  She promoted ethical egoism, which means bluntly that each of us ought to make choices that promote our personal self-interest.  This position stands in contrast to an ethic of altruism, which Rand rejected.

Is This 21st Century Social Darwinism?

Rand’s ethic of individualism would allow me to either care for or disregard another person’s needs or interests as long as what I choose satisfies my self-interest.  Is this a form of social Darwinism? [4]  Consider this: When that other person is a vulnerable member of society depending on help from others to survive, my right to disregard that person’s needs in favor of my own needs could be construed as social Darwinism.  In this sense, if I place a higher value on my own interests over another’s needs, and this choice results in further weakening the other person’s health or ability to compete in today’s marketplace, I am unwittingly contributing to a type of natural selection in our human community.

Bolstered by Ayn Rand’s worldview, my individual value preference endorses the worldview that strong and competitive members of society should survive, while weak members of society who are unable to compete on their own should not survive.  If I help those who are weak, a social Darwinist might conclude, I am hurting society.

The Stakes Are High

I am surprised to say this, but I really think this election matters.  Typically, I resign myself to expect very little to change regardless of who wins the election.  Something feels different this time.  This election we are not tinkering around the edges of our economic policies.  This time the soul of our nation will be determined.  Sure, this sounds overdramatic, but the stakes are high.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2012)

1. Mark 8:36, NRSV.
2. Historic Black College or University
3. See my April 2011 article Oath of Office at http://www.unpackingideas.org/2011/04/oath-of-office/ 
4. Social Darwinism is a psuedoscientific theory attributed mostly to Herber Spencer, a civil engineer turned social philosopher of the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Spencer (not Darwin!) is known for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.”  This ideology applies Darwin’s theory of evolution to human communities.  Social Darwinists argued that government should confine itself  to protecting individual citizens only from assault upon person or property.  They found no place for public support of education, public mail, regulation of business or sanitation, or public assistance to the needy.  Social Darwinists claimed that “if competition was the law of life, there was no remedy for poverty other than self-help” (Trattner, p.88).  For more on Social Darwinism of this era, see:  Trattner, Walter (1984).  From Poor Law to Welfare State: A history of social welfare in America.  3rd Edition.  New York: The Free Press.