Stay Alive, My Son

Simply put, you must read this book: Stay Alive, My Son, by Pin Yathay. I've never had a book elicit such visceral anger and grief. At times I was literally vibrating with rage at the author's unbearable suffering, which he recounts with the detached demeanor of one who has lost everyone dear to him.

In a nutshell, the book is Yathay's account of the Khmer Rouge's rise to power in Cambodia in the 1970s and how nearly every member of his family was systematically destroyed in the regime's maniacal plot to rid the nation of any they perceived of as a threat to their establishment of a socialist utopia.

Although Cambodia is known for the "killing fields", where 20 percent of the nation's population was exterminated, what struck me even more than the overt violence of the Khmer Rouge is the dehumanizing strategy of their worldview. In an attempt to create loyalty and dependence on the regime, people were removed from their homes, family relationships were severed, children were taken away for brainwashing, books were destroyed, education was banned, personal possessions were stolen and redistributed and every aspect of daily life was controlled—all under the guise of ensuring equality. The result, of course, was not equality, but universal poverty, starvation and social disintegration.

Read "hard" books like this. They will motivate you to pray for, give to and advocate for those who have no access to the freedoms we take for granted.

Mary Had a Little Egg?

First, this is not sacreligious to discuss. It is of interest to anyone who considers the Incarnation a pivot point in history, the moment at which the fullness of God was supernaturally compressed—like a ball of molecules at absolute zero—into two human cells with a few frail strands of human DNA and an immediate death sentence.

The question (which I hinted at several days ago) is whether Mary contributed an egg to the incarnation. I say "no," and here's why in 200 words.

Jesus was the "second Adam," created by God, with no human father or mother. Both were representatives of humanity: one, whose transgression plunged all of his descendants--with one Exception--into sin; the other, whose sinless life, death and resurrection overcame the actions of the first Adam and present a prototype for true humanity. As Athanasius compellingly argues, Jesus had to be human. I agree, but humanity is not theologically defined as sharing genetic material with a human mother or father--or Adam would not have been human.

In his genealogy of Jesus, Matthew refers to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba as "mothers", but does not refer to Mary as Jesus' mother ("... Mary, of whom was born Jesus ..."). Of course, elsewhere in the Gospels, Mary is referred to as Jesus' mother, but Matthew's is an interesting choice of language.

If Mary contributed an egg to the incarnation, who contributed the sperm? If God did, doesn't that make Jesus a hybrid--part divine, part human?

I'm running out of words, so I'll just say this: God created a body for Jesus, and Jesus entered the world through a human woman and lived in a human family, but he shared no genetic material with the woman or the man who served as His earthly parents.

Here's the big hole in my argument: Besides the references to Mary as Jesus "mother," if I'm right, Jesus was not an actual descendent of David in the biological sense. Isn't this a problem?

The Apology Tour

President Obama's recent "apology tour" has highlighted the guilt many Americans feel for power we wield in the world. Of course, it's a bit more nuanced than Obama or his conservative critics would have us believe.

Alongside the botched military campaigns, misspent aid, and other assorted acts of hubris, our soldiers have disproportionally bled on foreign soil for others' freedoms--even when our own have not been threatened. American citizens have given billions--perhaps even trillions--of dollars in foreign aid through voluntary charity and tax dollars. Thousands of Americans have given up comfortable suburban life to serve in non-military roles in troubled parts of the world as Peace Corps members, missionaries and other NGO workers.

Interestingly, the complex and often contradictory aspects of America's relationship with the rest of the world were not adequately reflected in our president's legitimate acknowledgment of our faults. And it was particularly telling when he made these remarks in the presence of dictators and autocrats who themselves have such a low view of freedom and human life.

My recent reading (Tony Horwitz's A Voyage Long and Strange and Jon Meacham's American Lion, among others) has helped me see that, if anything, the injustices of America have been inside--not outside--our borders. Historically, our relationship to other nations has been uncharacteristically benevolent for a country of our size. (Contrast the colonial aspirations of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the UK as they were at their apex.)

What is unconscionable is our treatment of native peoples and black slaves, and--dare I say--millions of unborn children. These qualify as systematic acts of injustice and genocide that cause recent international incidents to pale in comparison. Their impact and consequences are still being felt by the victims and the descendants of the perpetrators.

Map Your Mind

My mind is like a Louisiana swamp—full of bad ideas with several really good ones buried among the alligator droppings, cypress roots and rusting carcasses of F-150s. So, I need something to help organize my thoughts as I work through ideas, plan for the future and keep my team running without getting in the way.

I recently discovered XMind, a free mind mapping software that lets me type my thoughts in a stream-of-consciousness flow of ideas, punch the "tab" and "enter" keys and construct organic flowcharts of interrelated ideas. This could just as easily be done on a whiteboard, but I'm pretty sloppy, so typing works better.

Check it out. It will help you think better and work smarter.

Old Skool vs New Skool

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, this ad from Westminster Seminary is good marketing. It's assertive, provocative and simple--in spite of the fact that it's totally old school in its presuppositions about what seminary is for (training pastors) and how it should be matriculated (on campus).

I was fortunate enough to attend seminary in class, and only had one electronic interchange with a professor: He wanted me to e-mail him the font I used in a research paper on whether Mary contributed an egg in the conception of Jesus. (Yes, this was my idea. No, he wasn't sold on the conclusions of my paper. And, no, I don't recommend you ask me my conclusions either.) However, my professor did like the typeface, and there's a good chance he's using my paper as an example of bad theology tastefully packaged.

I digress. Recently, friends of mine who are pursuing graduate studies through distance programs have told me that the experience is in many ways superior to their experiences in class. They have more interaction with other students and professors, the assignments are tougher and they feel more engaged with the educational process. I'm not sure what I think of this, because when it comes to education, I'm an old-school traditionalist.

Anyhow, I'm interested in hearing whether what other people think of this. For your next degree (I'm talking about education, not your ascendance in the ranks of Freemasonry) would you pursue distance or in-class education?

What I Did For Lent

I've never given up anything for Lent, although I know people who've given up coffee and chocolate and such. I guess I could have done that, but it wouldn't have improved my life that much. What I did give up had nothing to do with my diet, but it cleared my mind and heart in a way I didn't expect. I gave up recreational Web surfing, Twitter, Facebook, etc. for the 40 days leading up to Resurrection Day.

At first it was strange, as I resisted the instinctive urge to check my RSS feeds or Tweet something funny Maddie or Nathan were doing. Then, I got into the groove of being "disconnected" and started to enjoy myself.  Here's a "stream of consciousness" flow of a few items from my life during Lent:

Read Psalms (highly recommended), Ken Gire's Moments With the Savior (highly recommended and moving), Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity? (also very good) and Greg Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea (pretty good, but kind of discouraging)... got back into QRP Amateur Radio with the help of my friend, Kelly McClelland ... learned how to mind map, which has helped me with some major projects at work ... have achieved "email supremacy" with a "zeroed-out" inbox before I go home from work ... and have started playing more guitar/piano to help me relax.

So, the goal now is that overused word of the last few years: sustainability, through self-imposed time limits and such. Anyhow, fasting the Web isn't just for Lent. I'd highly recommend it anytime, if you want to clear your mind to focus more attention on your God, your family and your work.

Who's the Boss?

I find it interesting that the same people who would probably question the authority of the Pope have set up for themselves authority structures that rival the Catholic Church—and are often just as lacking in accountability. Lately, this crowd has been castigating Charisma editor Lee Grady for questioning the "restoration" process of evangelist Todd Bentley.

Bentley left his wife and children last August amid admissions of alcohol abuse and infidelity, married the family's nanny and is now on his way to reentering ministry under the restoration of prophetic minister Rick Joyner and associates. Lee questioned the speed and effectiveness of Bentley's restoration, calling it "greasy grace" in one of his columns. Joyner fired back in an online video, suggesting that Lee was pharisaical and questioning what ministry a "journalist" like Lee had ever built that would give him the legitimacy to criticize Joyner.

Joyner's defense consistently returned to the issue of authority—who has authority to correct, who has authority to restore, who has authority to question authority, etc. According to Joyner, only those who have big ministries and a following should have a voice in these matters--they've earned the right to speak. For Joyner, it is the clerical elite--although he calls them elders, apostles, prophets, etc.--who are in charge of the church.

I used to almost agree with this premise--that there were authorities in the church who had to be obeyed--pastors, teachers, other leaders. Now, I don't. My study of the New Testament has led me to believe that the early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers. The church was flat--in contrast to the hierarchical pagan religions of the Near East at that time, and in contrast to the church as it developed in later centuries. Paul advocated mutual submission, James called for corporate correction of the erring, and for Peter it was Jesus, no mere man, who was the head of the church.

How far we've come. Now, I hear pastors instruct their sheep to faithfully attend each service, to be sure to tithe, not to question the man with the vision. I dread to think that when Jesus returns it may be to rescue his Bride from the rapacious businessmen and hirelings who have usurped His position as head of the household.

[[UPDATE: For my revised perspective on this topic, click here.]]