I had a frustrating book week this week. After the colossal "Mao," it was hard to get motivated about reading for some reason. I probably started 6 different books, anticipating that one of them would attract my interest enough to gulp down page after page of interesting reading. Nothing ever works out like you would hope it would, does it?
So I did what anyone would do: read a captivating fiction book. And please don't judge me for indulging in one of my guilty pleasures: Star Wars. Yes, this is a Star Wars novel; one that had no message, no thought-provoking ending, just a pure escapist-fantasy Star Wars novel.
But I must say, I read an article last month about the effects of reading a novel, and apparently science is on my side. The article said,
"“The neural changes that we found associated with physical sensation and movement systems suggest that reading a novel can transport you into the body of the protagonist,” said Gregory Berns, the lead author of the study. “We already knew that good stories can put you in someone else’s shoes in a figurative sense. Now we’re seeing that something may also be happening biologically.” The changes persisted over the five days after finishing the novel, suggesting that reading could possibly make long-lasting changes to the brain."
(Read the full thing here: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/study-reading-a-novel-changes-your-brain/282952/)
So, judge me if you will. But my brain will be stronger because of it!
This novel follows the series of about 13 books called "The New Jedi Order." It's essentially about an alien race that invades the galaxy and begins to take over. This particular book followed the search of a planet called Zonama Sekot, diplomatic relations on a various planets, and further intrigue in the aliens home base. Overall, it was just one of many in the series, perhaps not the best but an essential part of the puzzle.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Saturday, February 15, 2014
6 - Mao, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, 811 pages
The opening sentence of this book on the 20th Century Chinese communist leader says, "Mao Tse Tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth-century leader."
Chang and Halliday spent over 10 years of research demythologizing the reputation of Mao and casts him in a severe light; one that rivals the atrocities of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as the most-killingest man of the 20th Century, mostly ignorant to Western society. Even as of this week, a portrait of Mao's was sold for 12 million dollars (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/a-triumph-for-capitalism-warhols-canvas-of-mao-tse-tung-fetches-76m.1392275521). We hear a lot about the demons of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but we are less inclined to hear about the magnanimous losses in China. We are even fed that Mao was a good ruler and misunderstand or muckraked to a poor reputation. I will propose that neither of these is true after reading this book.
Mao had a lust for power that would never be quenched until he conquered the world. Examples of this can be seen from "the Long March," where Mao led over 80,000 communist troops all over China, most without shoes or clothing to shelter them from the elements (Mao either rode a horse, mule, or was carried the whole way while the Nationalists pursued and bombed/ambushed them), killing about 70,000 (only 10,000 survived). After he came to power in the 1940's, he desired an un-rivaled power, using the Soviet Union to help him get weapons technology and produce China's first atom bomb. In the process, of what now is called, "the Great Leap Forward," he starved to death over 30 million (some estimate as high as 45 million) Chinese, making them eat leafs and dirt while he exported most of China's produce to the Soviet union for money to 1) pay back the Soviet Union and 2) develop more militaristic weapons including a navy, air force, and guns. He enacted a policy that created the "backyard furnaces," where pots, pans, jewelry and anything metal was confiscated and made into a sort of "pig metal" to be used for such endeavors. Of the steel made that year, only 40% of it was able to be made into anything worthwhile.
He led numerous purges in order to castigate those who were deemed as "counter-revolutionaries" into a conservative light, giving them the green to be executed or sent away to a work camp in inner Mongolia where few returned from. He was a womanizer, lazy, power hungry among other things and did not care about the people he ruled or how many he would have to kill to become a superpower. On the Great Leap, he said, "Half of China may well have to die." Finally, in the 1960's-70's, he led a campaign called the "Cultural Revolution" where actors, actresses, opera, music, books, writers and the educated elite were all purged in favor of "Maoist" propaganda in the form of what was called "The Red Book:" a series of Mao quotes that nearly everyone was issued. Millions died as a result of these purges as well.
As I surveyed this book, something struck me that is applicable to our modern day. Many Americans have been critical of such conflicts as the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. But when half of the Korean Penisula was liberated from the communist North in the 1950's, that became a beacon of freedom and capitalism that prevented the deaths of probably millions of people. When we come to view Vietnam as a huge failure, I think we fail to realize the "good" that such interventions may achieve. While we did not liberate Vietnam as we did South Korea, I think there is a moral responsibility for those who are more fortunate to help those who are unable to speak for themselves. In the same vein, there has been an enormously negative reaction to the intervention in Iraq. But if a killer and a poor leader was ousted to make the lives of millions of people better, was it worth it? In my eyes it is.
This is a thought-provoking book: it gives clarity to what freedoms we have in America and how fortunate we are. This is a great read.
Chang and Halliday spent over 10 years of research demythologizing the reputation of Mao and casts him in a severe light; one that rivals the atrocities of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as the most-killingest man of the 20th Century, mostly ignorant to Western society. Even as of this week, a portrait of Mao's was sold for 12 million dollars (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/a-triumph-for-capitalism-warhols-canvas-of-mao-tse-tung-fetches-76m.1392275521). We hear a lot about the demons of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but we are less inclined to hear about the magnanimous losses in China. We are even fed that Mao was a good ruler and misunderstand or muckraked to a poor reputation. I will propose that neither of these is true after reading this book.
Mao had a lust for power that would never be quenched until he conquered the world. Examples of this can be seen from "the Long March," where Mao led over 80,000 communist troops all over China, most without shoes or clothing to shelter them from the elements (Mao either rode a horse, mule, or was carried the whole way while the Nationalists pursued and bombed/ambushed them), killing about 70,000 (only 10,000 survived). After he came to power in the 1940's, he desired an un-rivaled power, using the Soviet Union to help him get weapons technology and produce China's first atom bomb. In the process, of what now is called, "the Great Leap Forward," he starved to death over 30 million (some estimate as high as 45 million) Chinese, making them eat leafs and dirt while he exported most of China's produce to the Soviet union for money to 1) pay back the Soviet Union and 2) develop more militaristic weapons including a navy, air force, and guns. He enacted a policy that created the "backyard furnaces," where pots, pans, jewelry and anything metal was confiscated and made into a sort of "pig metal" to be used for such endeavors. Of the steel made that year, only 40% of it was able to be made into anything worthwhile.
He led numerous purges in order to castigate those who were deemed as "counter-revolutionaries" into a conservative light, giving them the green to be executed or sent away to a work camp in inner Mongolia where few returned from. He was a womanizer, lazy, power hungry among other things and did not care about the people he ruled or how many he would have to kill to become a superpower. On the Great Leap, he said, "Half of China may well have to die." Finally, in the 1960's-70's, he led a campaign called the "Cultural Revolution" where actors, actresses, opera, music, books, writers and the educated elite were all purged in favor of "Maoist" propaganda in the form of what was called "The Red Book:" a series of Mao quotes that nearly everyone was issued. Millions died as a result of these purges as well.
As I surveyed this book, something struck me that is applicable to our modern day. Many Americans have been critical of such conflicts as the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. But when half of the Korean Penisula was liberated from the communist North in the 1950's, that became a beacon of freedom and capitalism that prevented the deaths of probably millions of people. When we come to view Vietnam as a huge failure, I think we fail to realize the "good" that such interventions may achieve. While we did not liberate Vietnam as we did South Korea, I think there is a moral responsibility for those who are more fortunate to help those who are unable to speak for themselves. In the same vein, there has been an enormously negative reaction to the intervention in Iraq. But if a killer and a poor leader was ousted to make the lives of millions of people better, was it worth it? In my eyes it is.
This is a thought-provoking book: it gives clarity to what freedoms we have in America and how fortunate we are. This is a great read.
Friday, February 7, 2014
5 - Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein, 335 pages
For those who have been following this project since it's inception, you are probably thinking, "doesn't this guy read anything that isn't non-fiction?" Well, for you doubters, here it is: a purely fictional book that the hit 1997 movie was based on.
The book, like most book-to-movie movie's, is quite different than the movie. On the Acknowledgement's page, it reads:
"TO "SARGE" ARTHUR GEORGE SMITH - SOLIDER, CITIZEN, SCIENTIST - AND TO ALL SERGEANTS ANYWHEN WHO HAVE LABORED TO MAKE MEN OUT OF BOYS."
So this book is about sergeants. The book begins with Cpl Juan "Johnnie" Rico on a "drop," a term that means the M.I. (Mobile Infantry) shoot down to a planet from a starship. After this introduction, he takes us back to his reasons for joining the military life. In this society, one gains citizenship and thus a vote only by completing service time (a theme we will explore later). After he joins, he goes to boot camp, where he meets Sergeant Zim.
As a Marine, I can relate a lot to this person. At the time, I can remember being frustrated at my drill instructors, and even loathed and perhaps hated them. They made us do these ridiculous things, yelled at us, and became a figurehead of fear to be resented. But in retrospect, I can see how these men molded me into the man I am today and I am forever grateful to them. Moreover, I can see how they actually took care of me and prepared me for the future fleet life: if they failed a recruit, it could mean that a fellow Marine would someday lose his life for that recruits (future Marine's) mistakes. Their job is to make men out of boys, warriors out of civilians. It is said that every Marine has at least 1 confirmed kill: the civilian that was inside of you when you made that transformation into a Marine. And you know what they say: once a Marine, always a Marine.
Anyways, one of my favorite lines of the book is in one boot camp scene:
"[Recruit Jenkins speaking] I can't help wondering what kind of a mother produced that [Sergeant Zim]. I'd just like to have a look at her, that's all. Did he ever have a mother?" It was a rhetorical question but it got answered. At the head of the table, several stools away, was one of the instructor-corporals. He had finished eating and was smoking and picking his teeth, simultaneously; he had evidently been listening. "Jenkins-" "Uh-Sir?" "Don't you know about sergeants?" "Well, I'm learning." "They don't have mothers. Just ask any trained private.... They reproduce by fission... like all bacteria."
Further, the book illustrates how Sergeants take care of those who are under them. Recruits in the M.I. are taught something Marines are taught: freeze. It's a command that tells you to immediately stop, don't even take the next step. Evidently, one recruit landed on an ant pile when he was given the command freeze and when he didn't, Sergeant Zim put him in his place. The recruit gave him some lip and was taken to the Company Commander. He didn't like the meager punishment and revealed that he had landed a strike on Sergeant Zim, a violation of Military Law. After this was found out, he was kicked out of the M.I. and given 8 lashes (just what it sounds like). The Sergeant purposely did not tell the Company Commander about the strike in the first place to protect his recruit, but once he had ratted himself out the Company Commander had no choice but to enforce the law upon him.
There are some critiques of this book that claim that the Terran Federation (the ruling government) is a symbol of fascism. Robert Paxton defined fascism as: "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Perhaps not all of those are applicable, but it is an interesting question and one that has been floating around for some time. I remember being out of boot camp for just days and telling some folks that I thought it was something that everyone should experience, to the chagrin of some; one lady told me that her son was never in the military and turned out fine.
Regardless, this book is enlightening about certain aspects of military life. I encourage all Sergeants to read it.
The book, like most book-to-movie movie's, is quite different than the movie. On the Acknowledgement's page, it reads:
"TO "SARGE" ARTHUR GEORGE SMITH - SOLIDER, CITIZEN, SCIENTIST - AND TO ALL SERGEANTS ANYWHEN WHO HAVE LABORED TO MAKE MEN OUT OF BOYS."
So this book is about sergeants. The book begins with Cpl Juan "Johnnie" Rico on a "drop," a term that means the M.I. (Mobile Infantry) shoot down to a planet from a starship. After this introduction, he takes us back to his reasons for joining the military life. In this society, one gains citizenship and thus a vote only by completing service time (a theme we will explore later). After he joins, he goes to boot camp, where he meets Sergeant Zim.
As a Marine, I can relate a lot to this person. At the time, I can remember being frustrated at my drill instructors, and even loathed and perhaps hated them. They made us do these ridiculous things, yelled at us, and became a figurehead of fear to be resented. But in retrospect, I can see how these men molded me into the man I am today and I am forever grateful to them. Moreover, I can see how they actually took care of me and prepared me for the future fleet life: if they failed a recruit, it could mean that a fellow Marine would someday lose his life for that recruits (future Marine's) mistakes. Their job is to make men out of boys, warriors out of civilians. It is said that every Marine has at least 1 confirmed kill: the civilian that was inside of you when you made that transformation into a Marine. And you know what they say: once a Marine, always a Marine.
Anyways, one of my favorite lines of the book is in one boot camp scene:
"[Recruit Jenkins speaking] I can't help wondering what kind of a mother produced that [Sergeant Zim]. I'd just like to have a look at her, that's all. Did he ever have a mother?" It was a rhetorical question but it got answered. At the head of the table, several stools away, was one of the instructor-corporals. He had finished eating and was smoking and picking his teeth, simultaneously; he had evidently been listening. "Jenkins-" "Uh-Sir?" "Don't you know about sergeants?" "Well, I'm learning." "They don't have mothers. Just ask any trained private.... They reproduce by fission... like all bacteria."
Further, the book illustrates how Sergeants take care of those who are under them. Recruits in the M.I. are taught something Marines are taught: freeze. It's a command that tells you to immediately stop, don't even take the next step. Evidently, one recruit landed on an ant pile when he was given the command freeze and when he didn't, Sergeant Zim put him in his place. The recruit gave him some lip and was taken to the Company Commander. He didn't like the meager punishment and revealed that he had landed a strike on Sergeant Zim, a violation of Military Law. After this was found out, he was kicked out of the M.I. and given 8 lashes (just what it sounds like). The Sergeant purposely did not tell the Company Commander about the strike in the first place to protect his recruit, but once he had ratted himself out the Company Commander had no choice but to enforce the law upon him.
There are some critiques of this book that claim that the Terran Federation (the ruling government) is a symbol of fascism. Robert Paxton defined fascism as: "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Perhaps not all of those are applicable, but it is an interesting question and one that has been floating around for some time. I remember being out of boot camp for just days and telling some folks that I thought it was something that everyone should experience, to the chagrin of some; one lady told me that her son was never in the military and turned out fine.
Regardless, this book is enlightening about certain aspects of military life. I encourage all Sergeants to read it.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
4 - When We Were on Fire: A Memoir of Consuming Faith, Tangled Love, and Starting Over, Addie Zierman, 234 pages
I think we've all been there: you spent too much time reading a book that you had so much hope for but didn't really care for in the end. Well, while I was browsing Facebook one afternoon, I stumbled upon a blog written by Mrs. Zierman called, "How to Talk to an Evangelical" (http://addiezierman.com). This led me to her book, "When We Were on Fire" with that crazy long subtitle. It was only 7 dollars on Amazon, so I thought why not?
The book is just as it says: a memoir of this lady's life. It starts out as a person reminiscing about a typical 1990's evangelical childhood, one that I can fully sympathize with: See You at the Pole Rally, Awana, Psalty that big blue Bible that sang songs, etc. She makes a few good points early on: how commercial Evangelicalism has become (or was), how you could order everything out of a Bible book store catalog among other things. But there was always a sense of cynicism towards Christianity in her thoughts: for example, at the beginning of each chapter there is a definition of an Evangelical term that is brutally misrepresented, like "born again" which traces itself back to John 3, and is not typically Evangelical but Biblical.
As her life moves on, she talks about a love affair with a "missionary" boy, a boy (notice: not man) who wants her to be spiritual as "spiritual" as he is. She deals with again, some good points: the fact that sometimes people want to be seen as hyper-spiritual, even legalistic, when they are not authentic. After getting married to a man in college, she begins a downward slide into alcoholism and depression but returns to a "normal" life after months of therapy and begins to attend Church again after a long departure.
Somethings I disagree with:
1) The consistent erroneous ecclesiology. Throughout the book, the Church is displayed in a negative light, most often from the hypocritical people inside the Church. She displays modern Evangelicals as consuming, hyper-spiritual, cliche Bible-thumpers who don't care about people (in certain circles at least). Her view of the Church seems to have an emphasis on receiving. In one section, she says,
"When the pastor begins his sermon, I page through the church bulletin, trying to get a sense of the church's ministries. The flow of its resources and attention. I am looking, specifically, for what they have to offer us: Married, in our early twenties, without kids. I am looking for a kind of instant community. A kind of magic. I am looking for Our People- the ones who will become our dearest friends. The ones who will get us immediately the second we meet."
Obviously, this is the wrong motive of pursuing Church. Yes, community is essential to the Christian life. Yes, the Church does offer people all those things and more. But don't for a second think that the primary purpose of the Church is to serve you. Equally as important is that you serve the Church. Notice there was no emphasis on the teaching, just what programs and ministries can serve you. Does that seem inconsistent?
2) The Church is two-fold. Firstly, it is the universal body of believers, those who are in Christ, who are brought into the kingdom of God and who live like brothers and sisters in that body. Secondly, the Church is the local body of believers that engage in community and fellowship. True, the Church doesn't always have to be in a "building" per say, but the idea that the body of Christ is more important than the Church is not accurate: they are both important. The idea one gets when reading through some of the things Mr. Zierman thinks about the Church displays, again, a false eccelisiology:
"'But we are the Church,' Andrew said. This is one of his favorite biblical truths, this idea of church as a moveable feast, an ever-present community-church not as a place you go to, with walls and crosses and long rows of pews, but as something that happens spontaneously when two or three Christians are gathered together in one location."
If that was true, then why go to Church at all when you can just meet with believers outside of the institution? Jesus said "Love your wife as I have loved the Church," therefore it is important and we should note the distinction of the two.
3) At the end, she finds a Church to her liking. She describes it:
"At Grace Community Church, they are raising money to start a counseling center, so they can help those who cannot afford therapy get to the bottom of their bottomless darkness... They are building wells so that clean water flows from the dry, cracked earth. They are providing oil changes to single mothers, free of charge. They are looking at the world that is shifting, these people in this church. They are clunking along the best they can, trying their damnedest to shift alongside it."
This description is void of things that should be more primary: how is the teaching? What small groups are available? What doctrinal positions do they hold to? This brings me to my next point: While I think books like Amos detail the horrors of when Israel failed to be socially minded, on the flip-side, when the Church is only socially minded, it will never represent the true Gospel. The social Gospel is noble: feeding the homeless, being active in the community, all things that I am 100% for. But when we bypass doctrine and theology for love, we miss an essential part of the Gospel. Dr. John MacArthur said,
"We all know how young people are interested in social justice, and how Christianity…even evangelical Christianity non-Charismatic has turned away from the gospel. Why has it turned away from the gospel? If you go to a place that’s been through a difficult time, you go to New Orleans after a hurricane, or whatever, and you start reaching out to people, if you go and sit them down and say, “Let me tell you why you need to come to Jesus Christ because you’re a sinner,” and you go through the gospel. What kind of reception are you going to get? You’ll probably going to run out of the house, it’s going to be very difficult, people aren’t going to buy in. But show up with food, show up with clothes, they will love you. They will embrace you and say you’re doing this in the name of Jesus. That kind of stuff is easy."
The book is just as it says: a memoir of this lady's life. It starts out as a person reminiscing about a typical 1990's evangelical childhood, one that I can fully sympathize with: See You at the Pole Rally, Awana, Psalty that big blue Bible that sang songs, etc. She makes a few good points early on: how commercial Evangelicalism has become (or was), how you could order everything out of a Bible book store catalog among other things. But there was always a sense of cynicism towards Christianity in her thoughts: for example, at the beginning of each chapter there is a definition of an Evangelical term that is brutally misrepresented, like "born again" which traces itself back to John 3, and is not typically Evangelical but Biblical.
As her life moves on, she talks about a love affair with a "missionary" boy, a boy (notice: not man) who wants her to be spiritual as "spiritual" as he is. She deals with again, some good points: the fact that sometimes people want to be seen as hyper-spiritual, even legalistic, when they are not authentic. After getting married to a man in college, she begins a downward slide into alcoholism and depression but returns to a "normal" life after months of therapy and begins to attend Church again after a long departure.
Somethings I disagree with:
1) The consistent erroneous ecclesiology. Throughout the book, the Church is displayed in a negative light, most often from the hypocritical people inside the Church. She displays modern Evangelicals as consuming, hyper-spiritual, cliche Bible-thumpers who don't care about people (in certain circles at least). Her view of the Church seems to have an emphasis on receiving. In one section, she says,
"When the pastor begins his sermon, I page through the church bulletin, trying to get a sense of the church's ministries. The flow of its resources and attention. I am looking, specifically, for what they have to offer us: Married, in our early twenties, without kids. I am looking for a kind of instant community. A kind of magic. I am looking for Our People- the ones who will become our dearest friends. The ones who will get us immediately the second we meet."
Obviously, this is the wrong motive of pursuing Church. Yes, community is essential to the Christian life. Yes, the Church does offer people all those things and more. But don't for a second think that the primary purpose of the Church is to serve you. Equally as important is that you serve the Church. Notice there was no emphasis on the teaching, just what programs and ministries can serve you. Does that seem inconsistent?
2) The Church is two-fold. Firstly, it is the universal body of believers, those who are in Christ, who are brought into the kingdom of God and who live like brothers and sisters in that body. Secondly, the Church is the local body of believers that engage in community and fellowship. True, the Church doesn't always have to be in a "building" per say, but the idea that the body of Christ is more important than the Church is not accurate: they are both important. The idea one gets when reading through some of the things Mr. Zierman thinks about the Church displays, again, a false eccelisiology:
"'But we are the Church,' Andrew said. This is one of his favorite biblical truths, this idea of church as a moveable feast, an ever-present community-church not as a place you go to, with walls and crosses and long rows of pews, but as something that happens spontaneously when two or three Christians are gathered together in one location."
If that was true, then why go to Church at all when you can just meet with believers outside of the institution? Jesus said "Love your wife as I have loved the Church," therefore it is important and we should note the distinction of the two.
3) At the end, she finds a Church to her liking. She describes it:
"At Grace Community Church, they are raising money to start a counseling center, so they can help those who cannot afford therapy get to the bottom of their bottomless darkness... They are building wells so that clean water flows from the dry, cracked earth. They are providing oil changes to single mothers, free of charge. They are looking at the world that is shifting, these people in this church. They are clunking along the best they can, trying their damnedest to shift alongside it."
This description is void of things that should be more primary: how is the teaching? What small groups are available? What doctrinal positions do they hold to? This brings me to my next point: While I think books like Amos detail the horrors of when Israel failed to be socially minded, on the flip-side, when the Church is only socially minded, it will never represent the true Gospel. The social Gospel is noble: feeding the homeless, being active in the community, all things that I am 100% for. But when we bypass doctrine and theology for love, we miss an essential part of the Gospel. Dr. John MacArthur said,
"We all know how young people are interested in social justice, and how Christianity…even evangelical Christianity non-Charismatic has turned away from the gospel. Why has it turned away from the gospel? If you go to a place that’s been through a difficult time, you go to New Orleans after a hurricane, or whatever, and you start reaching out to people, if you go and sit them down and say, “Let me tell you why you need to come to Jesus Christ because you’re a sinner,” and you go through the gospel. What kind of reception are you going to get? You’ll probably going to run out of the house, it’s going to be very difficult, people aren’t going to buy in. But show up with food, show up with clothes, they will love you. They will embrace you and say you’re doing this in the name of Jesus. That kind of stuff is easy."
I could say more but I think that is enough. Most disappointing for me, was the book went through this long process to describe how heartbreaking the Church was for this woman and in the end, it didn't seem like anything was better. It seemed like there was still bitterness for past hurts and not enough emphasis on what is truly important in the Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)