At our family reunion last week one of my uncles had a photo copy of a document from 1918, my grandfather's release from the draft for the armed forces. My grandfather had lost one leg below the knee in a logging accident when he was 12 years old, and was also legally blind in one eye, so he was exempted from the draft for World War I. The exemption was duly signed by the county draft board representative, who was the grandfather of my cousin's husband. My grandfather did not sign it himself: he had my grandmother, to whom he had been married for maybe a year, sign it on his behalf and then he 'made his mark'. She had been able to complete 5th grade, so her handwriting was better. Appalachia in 1918 was a hard place to grow up, and it got even worse during the Great Depression in the early 1930's.
In a time when many fewer people could read and write, signing an important document really was a ceremony. While my grandfather was able to do his own signature by the time I knew him, I don't really know if he was able to write in 1918 or if it was just slow and laborious so he had my grandmother do it instead. But in any case, to write your signature was an important thing in those days. For those who could not write, it could be an embarrassing thing. I can see how 'signing ceremonies', such as the President signing a new bill into law, would be a much bigger deal in those days than it is now.
This reminded me of what a powerful thing the written word can be. Through much of history writing was both expensive in terms of the cost of paper, ink, and pens, but also required education that many did not have. Writing is taken for granted now, and with computers it is being replaced by 'keyboarding'. In many ways that is a shame. While in college my mother would write to me sometimes, and she still does. But I only have one letter written in my father's hand. I saved it. Since he was born in 1922, he grew up in Appalachia when the value placed on education there was still not much different than when my grandfather grew up a few years earlier. Good handwriting was not a priority for them. For him to write a letter was unusual but I am glad he took the time to do that. I am sure it was a chore for him, but it was a blessing to me.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Family Reunions
We had a family reunion yesterday up in Tennessee. We had somewhere around 100 folks show up, which I was very pleased to see. It was my mom's side of the family and all of her living siblings except one were able to attend. There were lots of cousins and their children and grandchildren as well. When I was growing up this side of the family had at least one, sometimes 2 or 3, of this sort of get together every summer since the family was less scattered geographically. It was generally at a public park in the early years, then later at my uncles farm. It was where many of us cousins got to know each other better. In a family like this (mom is one of 13 siblings) it was just about the only way to get everyone in one place, by having the event outside!
The fun and food that happened in those events played an important role in cementing family relationships, in keeping the family acting like a family. Several generations could spend a full day together every so often, talking, playing, eating, discussing all kinds of things: family events, religion, politics. Now that the family is scattered, this happens much less often. My cousin, who organized this one, did the work to organize it in part because she wanted her children to get to know her other cousins better, like she had been able to do when growing up. I think all of us in the family miss that.
I think that also describes part of what we miss in many churches today, especially mega-churches. I frequently ask my children and others of their generation what impacts their choice of a church to attend. One thing that comes up at times is the desire to know whole families and not just their own generation. In most large churches, we organize the groups outside of the large worship events by age, effectively segregating generations. Families are broken down into individuals.
In my last blog I discussed how Obama and indeed most of secular society since the Enlightenment have viewed the individual as the key unit of society and self-fulfillment as the key goal in life. The Bible uses the family more as the basic unit, with Abraham's family carrying the load in the Old Testament and the church as the 'bride of Christ' and the 'children of God' being the New Testament family. Individual sin and repentance is important, that is true; but the thing that holds society together is a family. Families require a lot of giving and caring, not just self-fulfillment. It is very different model than the individual of the Enlightenment view.
The reunion yesterday reminded me of that as we recovered some of that extended-family cohesiveness, at least for a day. We need to find more ways to do that in the local church, too.
The fun and food that happened in those events played an important role in cementing family relationships, in keeping the family acting like a family. Several generations could spend a full day together every so often, talking, playing, eating, discussing all kinds of things: family events, religion, politics. Now that the family is scattered, this happens much less often. My cousin, who organized this one, did the work to organize it in part because she wanted her children to get to know her other cousins better, like she had been able to do when growing up. I think all of us in the family miss that.
I think that also describes part of what we miss in many churches today, especially mega-churches. I frequently ask my children and others of their generation what impacts their choice of a church to attend. One thing that comes up at times is the desire to know whole families and not just their own generation. In most large churches, we organize the groups outside of the large worship events by age, effectively segregating generations. Families are broken down into individuals.
In my last blog I discussed how Obama and indeed most of secular society since the Enlightenment have viewed the individual as the key unit of society and self-fulfillment as the key goal in life. The Bible uses the family more as the basic unit, with Abraham's family carrying the load in the Old Testament and the church as the 'bride of Christ' and the 'children of God' being the New Testament family. Individual sin and repentance is important, that is true; but the thing that holds society together is a family. Families require a lot of giving and caring, not just self-fulfillment. It is very different model than the individual of the Enlightenment view.
The reunion yesterday reminded me of that as we recovered some of that extended-family cohesiveness, at least for a day. We need to find more ways to do that in the local church, too.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Breakfast!
I just watched a PBS program called The Breakfast Special. I have a couple of favorites on PBS that I like to watch every now then. A Hot Dog Program is one about little hot dog joints around the U.S.. The Varsity is included, but most of the others are small places with something unique about them. There is another one called The Ice Cream Program that visits stores that make their own ice cream, though again they include one big one (Ben & Jerry's, of course). I really love these shows, which I suppose is solid evidence that I am a little bit off mentally. I was able to con Sarah into watching the one about hot dogs with me one time, but otherwise it is a solitary venture that I enjoy nonetheless. This one about breakfast was a new one for me. It didn't quite measure up to the fun of the hot dog or ice cream shows, but I still enjoyed it as they wandered around the country looking for unique places for breakfast, so I took notes on the ones that were most appealing.
One called La Herencia in the historic section of St. Augustine (on Aviles Street) looked like a place for a new and different sort of breakfast. They have a Cuban theme and serve some interesting omelettes. The omelette with pork, black beans, salsa and cheese served on top of Cuban bread looked like a good one. The Breakfast Club on Tybee Island looked rather crowded from the lines outside the door that they filmed, but is one I may actually get a chance to try some time since it isn't that far away. The Maple Tree Inn in upstate New York, where they make their own maple syrup from the trees right behind the restaurant and where they are only open during maple syrup season looked like fun, too, though I doubt I will ever make it there at the right time of year. The Best Breakfast in Westerville, OH, looks to have fantastic home made bread and corned beef hash.
None of this is really the my ideal breakfast, though. At the end of the show they asked the various restaurant owners what their most memorable breakfast was, and they all recounted different stories. As I thought about that question I quickly landed upon the time when I was in junior high school and we had made our annual Thanksgiving trip to my grandfather's farm to help with hog-butchering time. The day of actually working on the pig was pretty disgusting, but the next morning's breakfast is probably my most memorable. My grandmother kept her own milk cow and made her own butter and buttermilk, which she used to make the world's most amazing biscuits. There was no shortening in the biscuits except her fresh butter an buttermilk. That particular day in addition to the amazing biscuits, we also had fresh bacon and pork chops (we are talking fresh here--it had been walking around the previous day), gravy, eggs, apple butter and probably some other stuff like fried apples. Amazing. And thus far unequaled.
This perhaps explains why I like Cracker Barrel. I keep looking for a place to come close to that ideal breakfast. Cracker Barrel is really not close, but the down-home atmosphere and just the fact that they generally have at least decent biscuits does bring it to mind. The Moose Cafe outside Asheville has good biscuits, but I am generally not there at breakfast time so I don't know how the rest of their breakfast measures up, though it looks good from the menu. I need to try that place for something other than lunch or dinner.
So what is your most memorable breakfast?
One called La Herencia in the historic section of St. Augustine (on Aviles Street) looked like a place for a new and different sort of breakfast. They have a Cuban theme and serve some interesting omelettes. The omelette with pork, black beans, salsa and cheese served on top of Cuban bread looked like a good one. The Breakfast Club on Tybee Island looked rather crowded from the lines outside the door that they filmed, but is one I may actually get a chance to try some time since it isn't that far away. The Maple Tree Inn in upstate New York, where they make their own maple syrup from the trees right behind the restaurant and where they are only open during maple syrup season looked like fun, too, though I doubt I will ever make it there at the right time of year. The Best Breakfast in Westerville, OH, looks to have fantastic home made bread and corned beef hash.
None of this is really the my ideal breakfast, though. At the end of the show they asked the various restaurant owners what their most memorable breakfast was, and they all recounted different stories. As I thought about that question I quickly landed upon the time when I was in junior high school and we had made our annual Thanksgiving trip to my grandfather's farm to help with hog-butchering time. The day of actually working on the pig was pretty disgusting, but the next morning's breakfast is probably my most memorable. My grandmother kept her own milk cow and made her own butter and buttermilk, which she used to make the world's most amazing biscuits. There was no shortening in the biscuits except her fresh butter an buttermilk. That particular day in addition to the amazing biscuits, we also had fresh bacon and pork chops (we are talking fresh here--it had been walking around the previous day), gravy, eggs, apple butter and probably some other stuff like fried apples. Amazing. And thus far unequaled.
This perhaps explains why I like Cracker Barrel. I keep looking for a place to come close to that ideal breakfast. Cracker Barrel is really not close, but the down-home atmosphere and just the fact that they generally have at least decent biscuits does bring it to mind. The Moose Cafe outside Asheville has good biscuits, but I am generally not there at breakfast time so I don't know how the rest of their breakfast measures up, though it looks good from the menu. I need to try that place for something other than lunch or dinner.
So what is your most memorable breakfast?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Why MBA is not a Professional Degree
The July/August 2010 of Harvard Business Review has an article that finally faces the truth: the MBA degree is NOT a professional degree in the way that a medical, law, or engineering degree is. The author, Richard Barker, is a professor at the Cambridge business school in England, and it is quite refreshing to see a B-school professor ‘fessing up' to what should be obvious.
Much of his commentary is based on things that have been observed by others before, and applies just as much to schools of education as to business: that there is not a well defined body of knowledge to learn to become qualified, that the key to the education is the process and ‘case studies’ more than defined content, that there is no board to measure and license those who are qualified and to ban/discipline those who do not live up to it. All of these areas are quite different than in the professions, though most of them fall short on the part about holding practitioners accountable. He points out that the content of what a medical or law school teaches is what qualifies the graduates, whereas in B-school most alumni will tell you that the classmates and discussions were more important than the content. You hire a doctor or lawyer specifically for the technical knowledge they have but managers are mostly hired for their leadership skills. Professionals provide input and expertise in a defined area but managers mostly assemble input from various professionals and ‘connect the dots’. And as the collapse of the financial sector has shown, there is clearly no accountable and very little in the way of ethics.
This by no means means that management is necessarily an inferior pursuit. It does mean that getting an MBA is not what qualifies you to be a manager. For the most part, you should have already demonstrated the insight and leadership skills BEFORE you get an MBA, which is the reverse of professional degrees. An MBA can broaden your exposure to issues that might take many years for you to encounter on the job, but it does not provide qualifications. In contrast, you would never go to a lawyer, doctor, or engineer until AFTER they are trained. You would never trust a doctor who had spent much of his education just talking about case studies rather than gaining technical skills and technical knowledge. By way of contrast , a great many businesses are successfully led by entrepreneurs who are very effective but not the least interested in an MBA.
As a culture we have tried to make teachers and managers into a content-based skill like engineering, but it just isn’t so. In both cases the attributes for success have more to do with personal traits than with a degree, and much of it cannot be taught. Both teachers and managers should have a ‘real ‘ degree in an area of expertise, but becoming a teacher or manager is more about dealing with people, insight, and connecting inputs across various disciplines than about mastering a body of knowledge. The reverse of that, of course, is that many professionals have mastered a key body of knowledge but have poor interactions with people. There are a great many doctors and lawyers who are very knowledgeable but very inept as well.
Ministry degrees, like the Master of Divinity, have the same issue. For all our pretending otherwise, the M. Div. degree does not qualify a man for ministry. It can enhance the knowledge of one who already has the right insight and people skills, but it does not provide qualification. While academic theology may have to do mostly with particular areas of learning, pastoral ministry and teaching is more like management and teaching. Divinity schools would do well to follow the example of many MBA programs, not accepting candidates until they have already been in ministry for several years.
Much of his commentary is based on things that have been observed by others before, and applies just as much to schools of education as to business: that there is not a well defined body of knowledge to learn to become qualified, that the key to the education is the process and ‘case studies’ more than defined content, that there is no board to measure and license those who are qualified and to ban/discipline those who do not live up to it. All of these areas are quite different than in the professions, though most of them fall short on the part about holding practitioners accountable. He points out that the content of what a medical or law school teaches is what qualifies the graduates, whereas in B-school most alumni will tell you that the classmates and discussions were more important than the content. You hire a doctor or lawyer specifically for the technical knowledge they have but managers are mostly hired for their leadership skills. Professionals provide input and expertise in a defined area but managers mostly assemble input from various professionals and ‘connect the dots’. And as the collapse of the financial sector has shown, there is clearly no accountable and very little in the way of ethics.
This by no means means that management is necessarily an inferior pursuit. It does mean that getting an MBA is not what qualifies you to be a manager. For the most part, you should have already demonstrated the insight and leadership skills BEFORE you get an MBA, which is the reverse of professional degrees. An MBA can broaden your exposure to issues that might take many years for you to encounter on the job, but it does not provide qualifications. In contrast, you would never go to a lawyer, doctor, or engineer until AFTER they are trained. You would never trust a doctor who had spent much of his education just talking about case studies rather than gaining technical skills and technical knowledge. By way of contrast , a great many businesses are successfully led by entrepreneurs who are very effective but not the least interested in an MBA.
As a culture we have tried to make teachers and managers into a content-based skill like engineering, but it just isn’t so. In both cases the attributes for success have more to do with personal traits than with a degree, and much of it cannot be taught. Both teachers and managers should have a ‘real ‘ degree in an area of expertise, but becoming a teacher or manager is more about dealing with people, insight, and connecting inputs across various disciplines than about mastering a body of knowledge. The reverse of that, of course, is that many professionals have mastered a key body of knowledge but have poor interactions with people. There are a great many doctors and lawyers who are very knowledgeable but very inept as well.
Ministry degrees, like the Master of Divinity, have the same issue. For all our pretending otherwise, the M. Div. degree does not qualify a man for ministry. It can enhance the knowledge of one who already has the right insight and people skills, but it does not provide qualification. While academic theology may have to do mostly with particular areas of learning, pastoral ministry and teaching is more like management and teaching. Divinity schools would do well to follow the example of many MBA programs, not accepting candidates until they have already been in ministry for several years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)