Wood and Stone

A poem, psalm, for Easter

A wooden cross standing beside a rocky entrance to a cave, with a large stone rolled to the side and a warm glow emanating from inside the cave during sunset.
You came in the flesh
A spirit become man

To the world you created
That rejected you

The world worshipped gods
Made of wood and stone

You came to show your infinite might
A power of patient love

You could have remained God
But you became man

They spilled your blood
And broke your bone

They tried to kill you on a cross of wood
To hide you in a tomb of stone

On Good Friday you defeated the wood
On Easter you conquered the stone

Your victory is ours
Our souls are free

Our lives will worship you
In spirit and in truth

Knowing you became blood and bone
To defeat the wood and stone

Less technology can mean more sophistication

Steve Jobs, the founder and long-time leader of Apple, is credited with saying that “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” He was talking about the intuitive design of the phones, tablets and computers the company makes.

An open book resting on a wooden surface, showing pages fanned out, against an orange background.

But I have been embracing the concept of simplification in my own life recently, ironically due to a bad experience with Apple.

Sophistication is a misunderstood word. It is positively associated with complexity, elegance and being cultured or important. The word comes from the Greek “sophists,” a group of people who were itinerant teachers for pay, experts in rhetoric and philosophy, known for their ability to persuade. It’s how we get the notion of a “sophisticated” argument. In the fourth and fifth centuries, a sophist was a term of contempt for someone who engaged in fallacious arguments intended to mislead.

Whatever the meaning of the term, in modern usage related to technology, sophistication has come to mean having multiple devices and apps and programs. But, as I noted, I was moved by a tech company to make some significant reductions in technology in order to be more simple, or the ultimate sophistication.

The issue I had with Apple was the sudden closure of my Apple account. I don’t know what I did wrong and customer service would not tell me. I suspect I forgot to monitor my cloud storage and went over the limit. As I result, I had to start a new Apple account and rebuild much of my digital life.

Fortunately, I was able to recover some vital documents and other parts of my digital life. But in the process I made some significant, dare I say sophisticated (ie simple) changes:

  • I eliminated many apps that I was no longer using;
  • I purged my contacts, including hundreds of people who I no longer had a professional or personal relationship with. A surprising number of contacts are now deceased.
  • I no longer back anything up to the cloud, since that was the source of my problem and exposed the fact that someone else controlled a lot of my stuff. I have several high capacity thumb drives and a large external hard drive and back up to those so I am not dependent on an impersonal company to retain access to my personal documents if anything happens to my equipment.
  • I separated my work and personal lives by no longer syncing anything but calendar. Its a sophisticated, technological work-life balance.
  • I have started to favor reading hard copy books from the library over electronic anything. I still have e-books and news online. But for a pleasant diversion I am enjoying free access, no power requirement, and no interruptions by ads, emails etc. 

I thought I was doing something unique, emerging as “Tim Penning, unplugged.” But as I have spoken to people about this, I find a broader cultural movement with eliminating or reducing technology in our lives. Around the world, including various US states, there is a move to ban or limit cell phones for kids in schools and to monitor social media access. Many adults are voluntarily using technology less. I read an article that old basic flip phones are popular among young professionals. And of course there are all sorts of cautionary objections to the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in our culture. 

This view of technology may remind some of the Luddites, a group of British craftsmen in the 18th century who objected to automated machinery for fear of losing their lives. The term Luddite is unfairly used to indicate people just against all technology. But they were merely responding to a practical concern about their livelihood.

I am responding to a practical concern for my life.

Since going not no-tech but less tech, I have found I have greater energy and less stress. I savor times when I am walking in nature or reading a book on paper. I often set my phone in another room, shut down the computer, and do what comes naturally as opposed to waiting to respond to the next device “bing” like one of Pavlov’s dogs. 

I feel sophisticated.  

Nonprofit mailings need more quality, less quantity

The United States Post Office has a nice service called “informed delivery.” People who sign up for it get an email each morning that shows them an image of each mail piece or package set to be delivered that day. It’s a nice heads-up feature for anyone looking for some important mail. As one who uses the service, I find myself often looking at the email and saying “again?!”

A stack of various envelopes, including a white envelope labeled 'BILL ENCLOSED' and several colored envelopes in the background.

It makes sense that an organization will send a thank-you and acknowledgment of a recent gift. It also is to be expected they would ask past donors to consider another contribution. But the frequency of these mailings from individual organizations often exceeds what is reasonable. As a result, the mailings defeat their purpose to generate another response. The likely response to being flooded is to toss or shred the mailing unread in an inevitable “cry wolf” effect.

The frequency of mailings from each organization is made worse by the number of mailings from multiple organizations. I contribute to a number of nonprofit organizations. Of course this places me on their mailing list. But because organizations sell or share mailing lists, or addresses appear in the database of professional mailing houses that serve nonprofit organizations, my name gets added to the mailing lists of organizations I have never given to or even heard of.

This all adds up to a pile of mail, and my conclusion that nonprofit mailings need less quantity and more quality.. Part of my past career doing public relations work for nonprofit organizations included direct mail fundraising letters. So I offer some suggestions as a consumer as well as a professional in this arena.

  • Segment by recency, frequency, and quantity. It is conventional advice that organizations should segment their publics and avoid the folly of thinking there is a “general public”. In nonprofit fundraising, this means having a database and using it strategically. Sending mail, and writing corresponding content, that considers how recently someone gave, how often they historically give, and how much they typically give is just common sense. Asking someone to give when their last contribution has not even appeared on their bank statement or credit card bill is annoying. Taking them off the list for a period is respectful and likely will have more response. A targeted letter to lapsed donors, those who have missed a pattern of regular giving, can also be effective if written well to acknowledge the appreciation of past giving and asking if there is a reason the contributions have stopped. Related to recency is frequency. Some people give monthly, while others prefer to give quarterly or annually. Once organization I support smartly recognizes that I give each July and they send me a reminder appeal shortly before then. Finally, appeals should be written differently to groups of donors according to they amount they have given or have potential to give. A letter to a wealthy individual with check boxes for $10 or $100 is a missed opportunity. Asking for a large gift from someone of modest means will cause offense or distress.
  • Match donor intent and cause. When I worked for an NGO, we allowed donors to support specific staff, projects or a country where we worked. This gave donors more agency and the opportunity to feel more engaged with the organization. It also matched their preferences and considered why the donor gives and not just what the organization needs. If a donor gave to a project that was fully funded, we let them know and offered to return the gift or redirect it to something else of the donor’s choosing.
  • Be a relational vs transactional nonprofit. Corporations that make and sell products or services talk about what type of brand they are. Transactional brands merely offer a product or service in exchange for payment. That’s fine in some product categories and industries. Others seek to be a relational brand, where there are repeat customers who engage with the company in ways beyond a purchase and actually have relationship with company representatives. Some of the nonprofits I support achieve this relational status well. I receive correspondence not from some nameless organization, or even a development director, but directly from a person in the field doing what the nonprofit mission is. Often it was that person and my association with them that encouraged me to give in the first place. But the ongoing relationship also keeps me on the list of engaged supporters.
  • Manage the report to request ratio. I wrote above about the instinct to shred or trash mail from nonprofits who flood my mailbox too frequently. One way to encourage me–and others–to open mail is to ensure that some mailings do not request more contributions at all, or do so subtly. Instead, they report on what the organization has done with the support, in what specific ways have they been accomplishing their mission. There may be some people who give to nonprofits to feel good about themselves and say they support an organization. However, most want to know that their contribution housed the homeless, fed the hungry, established a church, rescued animals or in any other way demonstrate impact. The best way to do this is with storytelling–personal stories where the beneficiaries of the organization’s mission are front and center demonstrating positive change in their lives as a result of the organization doing what it says it does. Direct mail letters can include these stories in a letter, or in a newsletter or annual report. A giving envelope can be included without fanfare so donors can choose to give. But the purpose of such communications on a regular basis should be accountability.

In addition to this advice for organizations, I have advice for people like me who want to support nonprofits but get annoyed by the flood of direct mail funding appeals. People can go to DirectMail.com and fill out a form to be taken off mailing lists. But I would rather have people become strategic donors and reward organizations who do the above.

Essentially, I would encourage people to select a set number of organizations they want to support. Even do what I do and develop a spread sheet. Then indicate the annual amount (or monthly or what makes sense for you) to give to each organization. The total would be your annual charitable giving, which may equal the “tithe” percentage of income that Christians are encouraged to consider when giving. This helps to plan, stay committed to giving, report on taxes if you itemize, and mostly allows you to sort mail and discard organizations you have not pre-determined to support.

Criteria for giving are up to individuals but I suggest the following:

  • Obviously, select thoughtfully the types of causes you want to support. Religious, arts, environmental, political or anything else that means the most to you.
  • Investigate if the organization is responsible. One metric is the percentage of funding that goes to mission vs operations. A good standard is 80-20. Sometimes a donor can feel like they are merely paying for the next package to come in the mail to ask them for more. Guidestar is a good online resource of third-party data to vet nonprofits before committing to giving to them.
  • Do you actually know someone who works for the organization? This is not necessary, but it can help ensure you are entering into more of a relationship than a transaction.
  • Does the organization match what is recommended above in terms of the frequency and contents of direct mail communications?

If all of the above are practiced, I suggest it would lead to less frustrated donors and more effective nonprofits.

There are two spirits in the world

There are two spirits in the world

The world is in chaos. More than normal. That is obvious.

But it is not complicated. 

The chaos will continue. But there can be clarity in the chaos if you look at the world with the right perspective, through a spiritual lens.

There are two spirits in the world. Only two. It’s not complicated. 

Some would say this is an over-simplification. They would argue that such a “binary”—seeing things as one or the other—is not a complete conception of reality. 

However, these same people would likely agree with the many pundits and others who describe our current culture as polarized. There are strong opinions that seem irreconcilable. 

But this is not not about ideology, it’s about theology. It is not about political parties, it’s about spiritual forces.

There are two spirits in the world.

There is the spirit of evil, and the spirit of good. There is the spirit of darkness, and the spirit of light. There is the spirit of this temporal world, and the spirit of eternity.

These contrasts are obvious in our culture, from politics to media to entertainment to social conversations.

On the one hand there is overt pride and self interest. On the other there is humility and service.

The response to the death of George Floyd was violence and destruction and threats. The response to death of Charlie Kirk is peace, worship, singing, and forgiveness. 

The one spirit encourages screaming, chanting and ranting. The other spirit moves to calm, rational, and civil dialog.

One spirit places identity in personal achievement, sexual preference, possessions and the things one can create. The other spirit gives people an identity in the One who created all things. 

One spirit encourages an allegiance to human traditions that vary with time. The other spirit favors divine authority that is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

One spirit claims that everyone should speak their own truth. The other spirit is the absolute truth.

One spirit enables and defends lawlessness. The other spirit respects law, order and justice.  

One spirit worked to allow and now celebrates ending the life of humans in the womb, The other spirit stands for the fact that life is sacred.

One spirit seeks to disrupt peaceful worship to make themselves heard by other people. The other spirit moves in the hearts of people to peacefully worship and to be heard by that spirit.

It all looks chaotic and hard to explain. You could conclude and fret that society is breaking down. Or you could see evidence of the larger truth.

There are two spirits in the world. 

This is not new. From the time when humans first fell to temptation by the devil, God announced there would be enmity between these two spirits. Since then this concept of two spiritual forces is frequently mentioned in the Bible, most famously in the Apostle Paul’s letter to an early church in Ephesus:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12).

So once you can see clearly, and understand the chaos, what do you do?

You choose.

This also has biblical precedent. The prophet Joshua advised:

“choose this day whom you will serve…as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

Jesus also called people to choose: “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30). 

And, after you choose, have hope and stay confident.

As the disciple John wrote of the two spirits: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

The world is in chaos. But you can view it simply. And you don’t have to fear. You just have to choose. 

There are two spirits in the world.

Re-embracing my Dutch heritage

There is much talk these days of immigration and assimilation. I’ve determined to assimilate my  roots.

A sudden desire to reclaim my Dutch identity happened while I was speaking Spanish last month on a Miami elevator. My wife and I were getting on a hotel elevator to go to the lobby. When the doors opened, a hotel employee was working on the elevator and spoke Spanish and made hand gestures to inquire if we were going up or down. 

Facade of the Flamingo Express and Post Office located in the Dutch Caribbean, featuring arched windows and a red-tiled roof.

“Abajo,” I said, tentatively recalling some of the two-years of Spanish I studied in college. But then another word came to my mind silently.

“Why?”

Why, I wondered, would a person who is not only in the United States but working here be unable or unwilling to speak English? Since they work on elevators, would it not be possible to at least learn up, down, open and close?

This probably sounds harsh to some. It sounds practical to me. And the question is born not out of judgment of immigrants but the fact that I come from an immigrant family.

Seventy years ago, in 1956, my mother and her parents and siblings came to the United States from the Netherlands. They had to have a sponsor and prove that they could gain employment. They also learned English. 

I remember my mom telling me she got work in an office and used the typing and filing as a way to improve and practice her English. My oldest uncle was able to purchase a television for the family and they used that to work on their vocabulary and intonation. My youngest uncle came home from school having been mocked for his accent and stood in front of a mirror repeating the words that caused him embarrassment until he could pronounce them as close as possible to an American Midwestern intonation. 

All of this to say my mother’s family assimilated. My mom was 16 at the time the family arrived in New Jersey and made their way to Michigan. Four years later she met my dad, an American whose dad had immigrated from the Netherlands as a boy. By the time I came around, all my family knew was English and I considered myself simply an American. My mom made some attempts to teach us Dutch, but we just giggled. This is typical of second-generation immigrants, like my friends with Hispanic surnames who speak less Spanish than I do.

When I was in high school, I wanted to learn Dutch. But the high school did not offer that. So I had two years of German. This is a bit ironic. My mothers family was still in Utrecht, a suburb of Amsterdam, when the Germans occupied it. Last year when one of my aunts died, my cousin told a story at the funeral of her spitting on a Nazi soldier’s boots when he tried to give her candy.

I also recently finished reading a great book called “Things We Couldn’t Say” by Diet Eman. Eman went to the same church my wife and I attended in Grand Rapids when we were first married. She had worked in the Dutch resistance during the Nazi occupation. She speaks proudly in the book of refusing to speak German, even though she could, that whole time. She lost her fiancé in the conception camps, and left the Netherlands after the war due to the painful memories, eventually landing in the United States. She passed a few years ago, but would likely have frowned, or this many years on, laughed at me for learning German.

But I give a lot of this as backdrop. What really sparked my desire to re-embrace was a recent trip to the southern Caribbean. We took a Christmas cruise to the “ABC” islands—Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao. I learned that all of these islands maintain a close connection to the Netherlands and are part of the Netherlands Antilles. I thought this was merely a historical artifact. I saw a man with a t-shirt that said “Dutch Caribbean” and I thought it was amusing. Then I saw that descriptor on a post office and city hall and other official contexts. 

I also heard conversations in shops and on the sidewalks that reminded me of family gatherings when I was young, back when my grandparents and mom and aunts and uncles would speak Dutch when together. It turns out that Dutch is one of the main languages of these islands. Another is Papamiento, a blend of Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and African languages. 

I thought many times on this trip that it would have been nice had I learned Dutch as a child, and then I speak it with the folks on these islands. In addition to learning German and Spanish formally, I on my own studied some French to prepare for teaching at a partner school there four times. When I worked for an NGO I always tried to pick up some basic phrases in everything from Hausa, a common trade language in Nigeria, to Tagalog, one of numerous dialects in the Philippines. I’ve always been fascinated by languages. But why did I not learn the language of my heritage?

Well, I’m doing that now. Despite the large number of Dutch people where I live in west Michigan, few speak Dutch anymore. But I may go to the Netherlands one day,, and I’d like to return to the Dutch Caribbean, where I could speak Dutch. But even so, I want to learn it as a hobby, because language acquisition is a good exercise for the brain health of persons my age. But I also want to do it as a re-connection to my own heritage, albeit decades late.

I have started the lessons, and am enjoying it. I also recently visited a Dutch store near me to acquire some Dutch treats. (Little known fact: we get the English word “cookie” from the Dutch “koekje,” which technically means little cakes and comes from what the Dutch put together from meager provisions when they lived as a colony in New Amsterdam, so named from 1624 until 1664 when the pompous English renamed it New York). 

My mom is amused that I am doing this. She is advanced in years, and laughed when I practiced a few of the basic phrases I learned so far. I recently moved her and my dad to assisted living when they both suffered sudden health declines. As part of that, my mom had fallen and passed out and was a bit loopy for several days, during which one time she randomly spoke Dutch. She was no doubt back in her long-term memory because she had not done so in years. This also got me thinking. I am all for assimilation of immigrants into the language and culture of their new country. But it saddens me that my mom suppressed a lot of her Dutchness, including the language, to blend in. She says she identifies simply and proudly as an American, I’m happy about that. But part of her, and my, identity is Dutch as well.

Perhaps I should fill out the demographic information on various forms that I am Dutch-American and join the hyphenated community of my countrymen. 

For now, I try to regularly take time in my home office, glancing occasionally at a decoupage of the city of Utrecht I took from my parents place when they moved, to go through my Dutch lessons. I feel like an immigrant in a way. A man of a certain age with a PhD going through the paces of what seems like “See Dick Run” books from grammar school. But it is a source of joy and a sense of duty to learn the language of my roots.

I will still speak English to most, and Spanish or German or French when necessary in multi-cultural conversations. But when those interactions end, don’t be surprised if I say good bye in Dutch:

Tot ziens.