Perhaps you've read Julia Lovell's new book on Maoism.  It's quite an impressive study.  Its central point, however, is clear:  decades after his death, Mao continues to influence people around the world.
     And we might want to ask why.  Why is a man who deliberately caused the death of tens of millions through warfare, famine, and "cultural" revolution still revered by thousands of other people?
     Yesterday, I talked about freedom and responsibility.  Mao preached freedom.  He engendered hope, hope that oppression could be quashed, that the burdens of tyranny could be arrogated for all time. It is a hope to which those of us who live in the "free" West cannot necessarily relate:  in many ways, it's not in our categories.  It's not part of our worldview.
     Not that I excuse Mao's excesses.  Not at all.  My point is that we who do not know a condition intimately ought not to condemn, immediately, those who do.  We ought not reject those who pursue something with which we are so familiar we cannot begin to grasp life without it.
     After all, did not the Sanhedrin, the council of first century Jewish leaders who, largely, opposed Jesus and his teachings, condemn him because they were unwilling to picture life without the traditions with which they were so familiar?
     Almost always, there's a delicate balance in how we interpret the activity of God.