Would Someone Please Make a Movie About the Congo

It seems that one of the only ways to get Westerners to consider a disaster outside of their limited frames of reference is for Hollywood to make a movie about it (often after the fact, such as Hotel Rwanda or The Last King of Scotland) or to have a rock star adopt it as a cause. Then, the cause will be considered sexy, and it will become socially advantageous to bring up the cause in conversation or declare on Facebook that you stand in solidarity with the victims. Political candidates will use the cause as leverage to reinforce their credibility. Otherwise morally bankrupt celebrities will adopt the babies orphaned by the disaster and declare their outrage at the politicians who allow such injustice to be perpetrated. Greasy televangelists will take a break from their heretical tirades to raise a few dollars for the cause.

So, why has someone not embraced the Second Congo War as a cause? Where is the outrage at the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, a disaster that has claimed 5.4 million lives and dwarfs the body count of wars in nearby Rwanda and Sudan? Is anyone drawing attention to the absolute impotence of the 17,000 UN "peacekeepers" to quell the violence there? Why is it that the US government seems so quick to intervene militarily in situations in which there is a direct link to Islamic extremism or in which our access to oil could somehow be threatened, but is essentially disengaged from this conflict?

C'mon. Make a movie, someone.

Would Someone Please Make a Movie About the Congo

It seems that one of the only ways to get Westerners to consider a disaster outside of their limited frames of reference is for Hollywood to make a movie about it (often after the fact, such as Hotel Rwanda or The Last King of Scotland) or to have a rock star adopt it as a cause. Then, the cause will be considered sexy, and it will become socially advantageous to bring up the cause in conversation or declare on Facebook that you stand in solidarity with the victims. Political candidates will use the cause as leverage to reinforce their credibility. Otherwise morally bankrupt celebrities will adopt the babies orphaned by the disaster and declare their outrage at the politicians who allow such injustice to be perpetrated. Greasy televangelists will take a break from their heretical tirades to raise a few dollars for the cause.

So, why has someone not embraced the Second Congo War as a cause? Where is the outrage at the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, a disaster that has claimed 5.4 million lives and dwarfs the body count of wars in nearby Rwanda and Sudan? Is anyone drawing attention to the absolute impotence of the 17,000 UN "peacekeepers" to quell the violence there? Why is it that the US government seems so quick to intervene militarily in situations in which there is a direct link to Islamic extremism or in which our access to oil could somehow be threatened, but is essentially disengaged from this conflict?

C'mon. Make a movie, someone.

From the Man Who Knows What Every Woman Wants ...

John Hagee, the man who, with his second wife, wrote the book What Every Woman Wants in a Man/What Every Man Wants in a Woman now has taken three weeks out of his busy schedule to write Financial Armageddon. Along with the rather disconcerting image of a burning flag, the cover of the book claims that "We are in a battle for our very survival." "Discover how oil will become the ultimate weapon of war." "Learn the four events that will cause the West to implode." "Keep your investments from funding the enemy's advance." "Why energy independence is key to survival."

... Where do I start? ...

From the Man Who Knows What Every Woman Wants ...

John Hagee, the man who, with his second wife, wrote the book What Every Woman Wants in a Man/What Every Man Wants in a Woman now has taken three weeks out of his busy schedule to write Financial Armageddon. Along with the rather disconcerting image of a burning flag, the cover of the book claims that "We are in a battle for our very survival." "Discover how oil will become the ultimate weapon of war." "Learn the four events that will cause the West to implode." "Keep your investments from funding the enemy's advance." "Why energy independence is key to survival."

... Where do I start? ...

From the People Who Brought You Todd Bentley ...

I just received and e-mail from Rory and Wendy Alec, the people who brought you the Todd Bentley Show on GODTV and have since blamed Todd’s demise on witches, warlocks and critics. It was a prophetic word with “specific and powerful rhema” insight into the economic crisis and the election.

Utilizing an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 91, Wendy explained that those who have given of their substance would weather the financial storm. She supported this interpretation with a vision she says she had of oil pipelines, giant spiders and a sign with the word “Babylon” hanging over Wall Street.

Then, she gave insight into the presidential election, pointing out the media’s “Jezebelic” spirit and the need for “temperance, sober-mindedness and measured wisdom.”

Of course, it’s fairly easy to look at the remarkable nature of current events and, in the midst of them, assign them some type of apocalyptic significance. But I’m wondering why this “prophet” didn’t foresee Todd Bentley’s collapse and make a similar statement of warning—when all the signs were obvious.

From the People Who Brought You Todd Bentley ...

I just received and e-mail from Rory and Wendy Alec, the people who brought you the Todd Bentley Show on GODTV and have since blamed Todd’s demise on witches, warlocks and critics. It was a prophetic word with “specific and powerful rhema” insight into the economic crisis and the election.

Utilizing an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 91, Wendy explained that those who have given of their substance would weather the financial storm. She supported this interpretation with a vision she says she had of oil pipelines, giant spiders and a sign with the word “Babylon” hanging over Wall Street.

Then, she gave insight into the presidential election, pointing out the media’s “Jezebelic” spirit and the need for “temperance, sober-mindedness and measured wisdom.”

Of course, it’s fairly easy to look at the remarkable nature of current events and, in the midst of them, assign them some type of apocalyptic significance. But I’m wondering why this “prophet” didn’t foresee Todd Bentley’s collapse and make a similar statement of warning—when all the signs were obvious.

Saga of a One-Issue Voter

I've admitted before that I'm a single-issue voter, since there is only one major distinguishable ideological difference between the two candidates: abortion. However, I also believe in having a consistent ethic of life, and I have read numerous articles--and heard people I respect--that make the argument that a Barack Obama administration would lead to fewer abortions. (Although one cannot help but see the ironic similarity to Thomas Jefferson's 1778 legislation that abolished the slave trade without emancipating the slaves.) Republican presidents have been unsuccessful in their attempts to limit abortions legislatively, and at the Saddleback Forum, Obama himself made the thought-provoking (if incorrect) argument that abortion rates did not go down during the Bush presidency. In order to be intellectually honest (and sleep soundly on November 4), I was compelled to follow this trail wherever it leads. All I had to go on was Obama's voting record and his speeches. Amid the encouraging statements predicting the reduction of abortions through more compassionate social programs, here's what I found:

• Obama supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and that are not the result of rape or incest.
• Obama opposed parental-involvement laws which would require either the notification or consent of parents before their underage daughter crosses state lines to seek an abortion.
• Obama promised that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
• Obama opposed (by virtue of voting "present") the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois senate, and he condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning the practice.
• Obama opposed key provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, which was designed to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies—specifically the inclusion of coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child.
• Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an unsuccessful abortion, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability.

So, my decision is final: I'll be voting for McCain--albeit unenthusiastically, and I'll be looking for a crisis pregnancy center to invest in to do my part toward reducing abortions.

Things That Blow My Mind #2

Did you ever stop to consider that we as humans are able to experience only a minute fraction of Creation? Only 6,000 stars (at best) are visible to the naked eye. There are 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way is only one of millions of galaxies. There are distant stars being formed whose light will not reach our planet for millions of years. Depending on your view on the age of the universe, there were stars burning, planets spinning, and countless creatures prowling the earth before we even arrived on the scene.

Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God--the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?

Saga of a One-Issue Voter

I've admitted before that I'm a single-issue voter, since there is only one major distinguishable ideological difference between the two candidates: abortion. However, I also believe in having a consistent ethic of life, and I have read numerous articles--and heard people I respect--that make the argument that a Barack Obama administration would lead to fewer abortions. (Although one cannot help but see the ironic similarity to Thomas Jefferson's 1778 legislation that abolished the slave trade without emancipating the slaves.) Republican presidents have been unsuccessful in their attempts to limit abortions legislatively, and at the Saddleback Forum, Obama himself made the thought-provoking (if incorrect) argument that abortion rates did not go down during the Bush presidency. In order to be intellectually honest (and sleep soundly on November 4), I was compelled to follow this trail wherever it leads. All I had to go on was Obama's voting record and his speeches. Amid the encouraging statements predicting the reduction of abortions through more compassionate social programs, here's what I found:

• Obama supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and that are not the result of rape or incest.
• Obama opposed parental-involvement laws which would require either the notification or consent of parents before their underage daughter crosses state lines to seek an abortion.
• Obama promised that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
• Obama opposed (by virtue of voting "present") the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois senate, and he condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning the practice.
• Obama opposed key provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, which was designed to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies—specifically the inclusion of coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child.
• Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an unsuccessful abortion, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability.

So, my decision is final: I'll be voting for McCain--albeit unenthusiastically, and I'll be looking for a crisis pregnancy center to invest in to do my part toward reducing abortions.

Things That Blow My Mind #2

Did you ever stop to consider that we as humans are able to experience only a minute fraction of Creation? Only 6,000 stars (at best) are visible to the naked eye. There are 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way is only one of millions of galaxies. There are distant stars being formed whose light will not reach our planet for millions of years. Depending on your view on the age of the universe, there were stars burning, planets spinning, and countless creatures prowling the earth before we even arrived on the scene.

Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God--the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?

A Lost Letter from the Apostle Paul

Dear Roman Friends,

As you may know, with the death of our emperor Claudius, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus now ascends to the throne. I don't need to tell you that this development spells the end of life as we know it, both as Roman citizens and as Christians. As you know, at 16 years of age, Nero has no experience in running the empire and has given no indication that he will respect the rights of the Christian community in his realm.

While there were many reasons for us to not like his uncle Claudius--not the least of which was his lowbrow sense of humor and penchant for bloody games in the coliseum--we can thank him for the expansion of our Roman values to the barbarians in Britain and the expulsion of foreign sorcerers and druids from Rome. Simply put, this has made our job that much easier. Additionally, Claudius has exhibited notable discipline in limiting his romantic attachments exclusively to members of the opposite sex--something we cannot be sure about this young upstart who now ascends to the throne. While Claudius repealed taxes on food for those suffering from the famine, all indications are that Nero will raise taxes upwards to an onerous 4.5 percent. How will we be able to carry out our ministry in such a economically hostile environment?

I tell you all this to encourage you to contact your senators and instigate some type of uprising that might result in the installation of a more worthy candidate to this office--perhaps even one of us. As you know, the dissemination and survival of the gospel depends on an environment conducive to our cause. And a government in which we have influence and control is a government that is ultimately on our side. Perhaps one day we will have an emperor who will be one of us and will assist us in the advancement of the gospel. Perhaps one day we will no longer hide in catacombs and tombs and will be able to build great sanctuaries alongside the palaces of our emperors. Until that day comes, let us work together to establish our Lord's kingdom here on earth--in a way he never imagined.

Grace and Peace,

Paul

Note: The Apostle Paul did not write this, and it is antithetical to his theology. This is intended to be a satire, inspired by recent frantic eruptions from Christians terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency. One column I read today actually predicted "the end of life as we know it" if Barack Obama were elected. My contention is that Christianity is a religion that has historically thrived in environments in which it is not appreciated and that the transcendant power of the gospel is subversive and countercultural--even to its own adherents. Yes, we should vote and participate in government, but as resident aliens, our citizenship is not here.

A Lost Letter from the Apostle Paul

Dear Roman Friends,

As you may know, with the death of our emperor Claudius, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus now ascends to the throne. I don't need to tell you that this development spells the end of life as we know it, both as Roman citizens and as Christians. As you know, at 16 years of age, Nero has no experience in running the empire and has given no indication that he will respect the rights of the Christian community in his realm.

While there were many reasons for us to not like his uncle Claudius--not the least of which was his lowbrow sense of humor and penchant for bloody games in the coliseum--we can thank him for the expansion of our Roman values to the barbarians in Britain and the expulsion of foreign sorcerers and druids from Rome. Simply put, this has made our job that much easier. Additionally, Claudius has exhibited notable discipline in limiting his romantic attachments exclusively to members of the opposite sex--something we cannot be sure about this young upstart who now ascends to the throne. While Claudius repealed taxes on food for those suffering from the famine, all indications are that Nero will raise taxes upwards to an onerous 4.5 percent. How will we be able to carry out our ministry in such a economically hostile environment?

I tell you all this to encourage you to contact your senators and instigate some type of uprising that might result in the installation of a more worthy candidate to this office--perhaps even one of us. As you know, the dissemination and survival of the gospel depends on an environment conducive to our cause. And a government in which we have influence and control is a government that is ultimately on our side. Perhaps one day we will have an emperor who will be one of us and will assist us in the advancement of the gospel. Perhaps one day we will no longer hide in catacombs and tombs and will be able to build great sanctuaries alongside the palaces of our emperors. Until that day comes, let us work together to establish our Lord's kingdom here on earth--in a way he never imagined.

Grace and Peace,

Paul

Note: The Apostle Paul did not write this, and it is antithetical to his theology. This is intended to be a satire, inspired by recent frantic eruptions from Christians terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency. One column I read today actually predicted "the end of life as we know it" if Barack Obama were elected. My contention is that Christianity is a religion that has historically thrived in environments in which it is not appreciated and that the transcendant power of the gospel is subversive and countercultural--even to its own adherents. Yes, we should vote and participate in government, but as resident aliens, our citizenship is not here.

CG Bible Cross-Reference Graf

As much as I love scholarly interpretation tools for the Bible, I've always contended that "Joe Sixpack" with a good cross-reference Bible (preferably an NASB) would come to the same conclusions 90 percent of the time as a Ph.D. with access to a seminary library. The scriptures interpret themselves, and the image below illustrates that.Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). " 'It almost looks like one monolithic volume,' said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge."

CG Bible Cross-Reference Graf

As much as I love scholarly interpretation tools for the Bible, I've always contended that "Joe Sixpack" with a good cross-reference Bible (preferably an NASB) would come to the same conclusions 90 percent of the time as a Ph.D. with access to a seminary library. The scriptures interpret themselves, and the image below illustrates that.Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). " 'It almost looks like one monolithic volume,' said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge."

The Starfish and the Spider

My latest reading has been two important books, The Starfish and the Spider and Groundswell. Both discuss the growing phenomenon of decentralization, specifically as it relates to organizations/businesses and media. In other words, power and influence are being distributed to "the little guys" through wikis, social networking, blogging, etc. (as Groundswell points out), and the same should be happening in business, as leaders delegate idea generation, creative control and ultimately executive responsibility to their teams (as The Starfish and the Spider advocates). A similar argument was made by Dennis Bakke in Joy at Work--Dennis only allowed the executives at his multi-billion dollar company to make two decisions per year. All the rest had to be delegated to managers and team members. Of course, all this makes for good talk, and many organizations boast of decentralization. But I've discovered that actually making it happen is tough, for at least one reason: me.

"I'll just do it myself," is something I've always found myself thinking--and sometimes even saying. But, that statement is loaded with hubris (i.e. "I can do it better than anyone else"), impatience (i.e. "It will take too long for you to do it") and selfishness ("I don't want to show you how to do it, because then you'll be one step closer to stealing my job"). Ultimately, it's an attitude that harms ministries and organizations because it consolidates knowledge and skills in individuals rather than teams, it makes continuity tough during transition and it assumes that leaders are better at certain things simply because they're leaders. It's an attitude that feigns industriousness by always being busy but rarely empowering others to excel. It's an attitude that feigns responsibility by always assuming the burden of decision making, but rarely entrusting others with challenging solutions. Simply put, it's a sure-fire way to make yourself burn out and your team rust out. Either way, what a waste of resources.

The solution? Every day, I'm exploring how I can empower someone to make a decision that I would normally make, to discover a solution I would normally attempt to solve alone or begin to learn a skill that I'm not all that good at anyhow.

The Starfish and the Spider

My latest reading has been two important books, The Starfish and the Spider and Groundswell. Both discuss the growing phenomenon of decentralization, specifically as it relates to organizations/businesses and media. In other words, power and influence are being distributed to "the little guys" through wikis, social networking, blogging, etc. (as Groundswell points out), and the same should be happening in business, as leaders delegate idea generation, creative control and ultimately executive responsibility to their teams (as The Starfish and the Spider advocates). A similar argument was made by Dennis Bakke in Joy at Work--Dennis only allowed the executives at his multi-billion dollar company to make two decisions per year. All the rest had to be delegated to managers and team members. Of course, all this makes for good talk, and many organizations boast of decentralization. But I've discovered that actually making it happen is tough, for at least one reason: me.

"I'll just do it myself," is something I've always found myself thinking--and sometimes even saying. But, that statement is loaded with hubris (i.e. "I can do it better than anyone else"), impatience (i.e. "It will take too long for you to do it") and selfishness ("I don't want to show you how to do it, because then you'll be one step closer to stealing my job"). Ultimately, it's an attitude that harms ministries and organizations because it consolidates knowledge and skills in individuals rather than teams, it makes continuity tough during transition and it assumes that leaders are better at certain things simply because they're leaders. It's an attitude that feigns industriousness by always being busy but rarely empowering others to excel. It's an attitude that feigns responsibility by always assuming the burden of decision making, but rarely entrusting others with challenging solutions. Simply put, it's a sure-fire way to make yourself burn out and your team rust out. Either way, what a waste of resources.

The solution? Every day, I'm exploring how I can empower someone to make a decision that I would normally make, to discover a solution I would normally attempt to solve alone or begin to learn a skill that I'm not all that good at anyhow.