Mao The Untold Story: a review

I have just finished what is a first for me. Ithink I have read a best seller -- at least it ought to be. The release of: Mao the Untold Story by Jung Chang and her husband historian Jon Halliday, in the USA edition -- for the first time before it became a best seller. Also before Time Magazine gave a full page review of the book in this week's edition. However the reviewer does a very poor job and probably did not read the book. Please read the review and "destroy" it on your blog. The review is a farce. He covers very little of what the book is about and obviously has doubts about the main proposition of the book, that Mao was motivated by his desire for personal power and ruthlessly put to death anyone in his way, no matter how close they were to him; and he had no care for the Chinese people or their future. Which of course can be historically documented.

The almost endless list of murdered friends relatives and associates that he used and then destroyed for simple statements of opposition to his policies are documented facts of history in this book. The reviewer omits any mention of this tyranny.

The reviewer, Adi Ignatius betrays his doubts about the book's conclusions which cast a shadow over the whole of the extensive research, that he seems to acknowledge, by one statement re: the above mentioned proposition of the book : "Who could characterize even their own feelings with such certitude." I would say someone read the book for him and he got paid for the review

Anyway the book is a mammoth read and has taken me many hours stretched over almost 3 weeks. The documentation is unique in that it is incredibly extensive but there are no footnote numbers inserted in the text but almost every page is documented in the notes at the end of the book. The reviewer mentions that there are about 817 pages in the book; there are actually 877 including many unnumbered pages of maps and 36 full pages of photos with extensive text. He does not know evidently that the text is 630 pages long and almost 300 pages are given to documentation and lists of sources that seem endless. What an incredible accomplishment. What ever else may be said about the authors, they are literary geniuses.

If you have not read Wild Swans by Jung Chang you have missed out. Read it before you read Mao the Untold Story. They are Must reading for anyone who wants to be a breast of events in the near and mid century future led by China.

Deacon as an office but not Deaconess

The word for " deacon" -- that is various forms of diaconos is translated deacon or deacons four times in the KJV . The rest of the 26 or so other times it is used it is translated servant or minister and refers to all classes of people Christians and non Christians, men and women alike. Consequently all men and all women in the church are servants or ministers. There would have been no distinction between the words deacon and minister or servant for those reading the original Greek Bible.

But just as all old people would be elders only men occupied the office of "elder" Even though 1Tim 5:2 uses the feminine form of presbyter. We do not conclude therefore that there was an office of "presbyteress" or "eldress"

Since there are qualifications for diakonoi and they are men who are set apart to be officially deacons or servants and not all servants or ministers were set apart to an office it should not follow that there is an official office of deaconess because all Christian women, like Phoebe, are ministers or a "deacanon." The Greek form for Phoebe is deacanon. It seems to me to be a neuter form. I do not know what that means.

All Christian men are ministers or servants but it does not follow that all Christian men are officially set apart to be deacons or ministers.

So also since all Christian women are servants or ministers it also does not follow that they have all been set apart officially to an Office.

I do not think that not having an office will keep Godly men and women from doing work that needs to be done in the church. Most of the serving responsibilities in the church can and should be shared by all Christians without holding an office. In England the indigenous churches of Christ have always had women song leaders and those who prepare and pass communion or the collection. All share the responsibilities of worship (except that women to not "preside")

I do not see the qualifications for deaconeses in the NT so there doesn't appear to be an office. There are qualifications for deacons' wives but these too are to qualify the deacon for his office not for the wife's office. The fact is that women in the N T served in the Lord's work in worship, and evangelism, but it would take some real stretching to find an office for women in the New Testament. I believe that all men and women in the N T were evangelists but I don't believe there was any women who had the hands of the elders laid on her to set her apart and who held the Office of evangelist. Let us do the work whether we have officials or not. Me, I have always been in favor of and always called on women to lead in prayer, and I am in favor of women and men sharing the responsibilities of doing what is needed in a worship service except for preaching.

There are other things about authority that might be said but I will reserve that for another time so as not to confuse what I have just written.