Avik Roy demonstrates why Americans have good reason to be concerned that our healthcare system is on its way to becoming more like the National Health Service in Britain. “Britons are frustrated by the indifference and inhumanity of the National Health Service. Its problems are covered widely in the British press”.

I continue to be amazed that Chris Matthews is taken seriously by anyone. This time asking Bob Inglis who recently lost a Republican primary in South Carolina if he has been “hurt in the Republican Party now for having had a fine education”. Thereby reinforcing the impression that leftists assume anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or evil or both. I have a bachelor’s master’s and doctoral degree from Cornell University along with a three year master’s from Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond and consider myself a moron.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

We should be dismayed not pleased that the Obama administration goes after al-Qaeda by calling it a “racist organization”. Andy McCarthy puts it well in a recent post at National Review Online:

The race obsession of the Obama administration is a sight to behold. Remember, these are people who adamantly refuse to see the Islamic underpinnings of jihadist terror, although those underpinnings are obvious and undeniable to anyone willing to look. Yet, racism, their unified field theory for interpreting all human phenomena, somehow explains al Qaeda. Sure.

Eric Holder makes Janet Reno look good.

I have stated previously that as we aggregate all of the threats to the Black community and then stack rank them based upon their threat level, preponderance and proximity – there are more “non-racist” acts that will never be labeled “civil rights violations” against Black people (despite being so) than those which are labeled “RACIST” and thus raise the ire of the NAACP and other leftwing actor-vist groups.

Street pirates killing robbing and terrorizing actual black people versus Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement.

By the way Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope has been on a roll lately. From one brilliant post a week to something like 2-3 each day. Getting hard to keep up. My only mild warning/critique is that the writing style is not always easy to follow.

Back to the news. So the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People wants to pass a resolution about the Tea Party movement.

Stop by and give some love to Another Black Conservative who addresses the absurdity of the resolution against the Tea Party movement – and also offers a thoughtful defense (and mild critique) of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Once again the NAACP is still trying to fight pre Civil Rights era struggles in a post Civil Rights era world. They will even go after a media made racial boogeyman to do it.  The NAACP is working with the false story from the media that Tea Partiers hurled racial slurs at black congressmen. To date not a single video of the incident has ever emerged and the media itself has seems to drop the story all together. Yet here is the NAACP getting all fired up about it now.  If the NAACP thought there was truth to this story, they should have made noise when it happened, instead of waiting until now.

Why did they wait you ask?  Because the midterm elections are now four months away and the NAACP is more about shilling the leftist agenda than they are about the “advancement of colored people”. Rallying blacks against the Tea Party is more important to the leftist agenda than tackling the real issues facing the black community like poor schools, unemployment or the devastating effects of drugs and crime.

Timothy Dalrymple serves up a gumbo pot full of truth and reason with his essay “Is the Tea Party racist?”

These arguments are, however, mere justifications for a position already taken. Liberals were inclined to believe Tea Partiers racist even before such “evidence” was available. That is, the belief that Tea Partiers are racist is not an evidence-based belief. It is a belief in search of evidence.

What I propose, then, is the Theory of the Missing Motive. Since the education establishment has failed to convey a thorough and unprejudiced perspective on differing political points of view, even highly educated liberals possess a cartoonish, easily-dismissed image of American conservative thought. Liberals cannot believe that Tea Partiers are actually motivated by the passions and the reasons that Tea Partiers claim motivate them, because liberals in general are alienated from those passions and insufficiently educated in those reasons.

It is essentially a failure of imagination. Liberals cannot imagine themselves into a way of thinking in which conservatives do what they do and believe what they believe for good reasons. And since they cannot believe that conservatives are motivated by rational beliefs and admirable motives, they must appeal to darker, more primitive impulses to explain their behavior. The racist motive presents itself as a natural and convenient explanation.

Liberals, in other words, were always going to believe that a movement dominated by white conservatives is racist.

* * *

If you were not already inclined to consider Tea Partiers racist, you would not find the evidence compelling.

Elizabeth Scalia aka The Anchoress also exposes the lack of intellectual honesty behind such charges of “racism”.

“We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made,” NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. “We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.

Emphasis mine. Does it matter at all to Ms. McDowell et al. that the rare racist behavior exhibited at any conservative/libertarian gathering is explicitly condemned by the vast majority of tea partiers, and so the repudiation she seeks is already a reality?

Here’s another perspective the NAACP could have offered, had they wished:

“…while there is still work to be done in America, it is heartening to see that when racist behavior is exhibited it is quickly condemned by people of good will in all spheres of society; we work toward the day when racism will exist no more, and the fact that it cannot grab a foothold even among those whose concerns we do not share gives real hope too us, that the dream of Martin Luther King and of so many anonymous, tireless workers for social justice can and will be realized for all God’s children.”

That would be a statement everyone can get behind, because all reasonable people want that. If people really do want to see continuing progress made in converting distrustful hearts and minds, a positive statement like that would be much more effective than the one they’re using.

This country needs someone in authority, somewhere, to acknowledge something good about its people, and to mean it. Lacking that–and we are–such a statement from the NAACP would be something good. And it would have the added benefit of being true.

What does it say when we demand someone do something they have already done? Does it not call into question the sincerity of our demand?

Once again for the record I am not a member of the Tea Party movement although I am sympathetic with its concerns. I think the country is heading in a disastrous direction – and Congress is at least as much to blame as is the Obama administration – and am troubled by apparent efforts to use the racism charge to silence political dissent. First they come for the Tea Parties and all that.

During my long visit with Chinese Christians in the house church in Beijing they expressed concern that:

• the Chinese government is actively promoting/supporting Buddhism and even Islam
• some people want Buddhism to become the official religion of China – because Christianity is perceived as Western even American whereas Buddhism is somehow Asian

I was skeptical of this at first. In most parts of China I did not see strong evidence that the Chinese government actively promotes/supports any particular religion. But there were a couple places along my journey where I saw some things that indicated their concerns were well founded.

Shaanxi province was by far the most troubling. Two words: Famen Si (or Temple).

Inside entrance complex of Famen Temple - note stupa in distance

Famen Temple is an important Buddhist site. Where archeologists discovered a finger bone that supposedly belonged to the Sakyamuni Buddha. (Actually there were several finger bones. The idea being that if thieves tried to steal the sacred relic they would never be sure if they had the original finger bone or a copy.) There is a temple and surrounding monastery along with a small museum. Well and fine.

Except that a couple years ago the Chinese government built a new complex that partly surrounds and partly replaces the original temple complex. Absolutely colossal. More than 150 acres. With an immense Namaste Dagoba stupa which is the new resting place for the finger bone. (Most of the time one can see a copy. The real finger bone in its crystal enclosure is on a special platform that is raised and lowered two times each day.) And a gate/entrance complex that is two kilometers from the stupa and original temple/monastery.

Namaste stupa - the colossal "hands" are purely decorative

The cost of the new complex must have been staggering. According to my Chinese friends some of the money actually came from Buddhist Society of China. But most came from the Chinese government.

From my journal:

It is difficult to describe just how immense and expensive and utterly appalling this complex is. Used to be just the old temple and museum. Now a gigantic complex of buildings complete with 2 kilometer walk to the new temple. Very expensive admission price [something like 150 RNB aka yuan - although an electronic sign seemed to indicate that people who have official Buddhist religion cards(?) can enter for free]. Guides offer to show us around for 400Y which is an princely sum. Buy incense! Buy! The whole thing reeks.

Z_ stays outside while Y_ and I forgo the the car ride – for a fee of course – and walk the entire distance. There is a cheap insincerity to all the statues and inscriptions along the way. This is what happens when the government decides to involve itself in religion! Some of the funds came from the Buddhist Society. But most came from the Chinese government. They wanted to build something truly grand in order to show off such an important historical site.

Nonsense. They wanted to make a killing.

Cheesy music warbles along the way. “Be peaceful and happy”. Perhaps what the Chinese government wants the people to hear? Have enough to eat. Be calm. So that we can remain utterly and completely in control.

Apparently the old temple contained a finger bone of the (a?) Buddha (Sakyamuni who I guess is a primary Buddhist saint?). But the Chinese government felt it necessary to construct this ginormous sprawling complex and move the finger bone to a gigantic new modern temple. It is in some sort of crystal enshrined podium(?) that is raised and lowered at various times during the day. You can pay 10Y – or was that 100Y? – to have a little lamp remain lit constantly in the temple. Police and military guards everywhere. Leave an offering! Put some money in the box! Buy a souvenir! Oh and be happy. Reminds me a little of the early George Lucas film “THX 1138”.

We head down and to the old temple and museum area. Into pagoda and downstairs. Pay the monk to strike a bell while you pray. Gong. Gong. No pictures! This is a holy place! Yeah right.

The attached museum area is genuinely interesting. Artifacts found in – taken from? – the original temple. Including the boxes-within-boxes which housed the finger bone. Apparently there were several finger bones – so that if thieves took one they would not know if it was the true original or a duplicate. The head of the monastery is also a member of the People’s Committee(?) – so it is also a highly political position. Follow the teachings of the Buddha. And be a good obedient citizen of the People’s Republic of China. [emphasis added]

Use public funds to promote Buddhism. Charge exorbitant fees to get in. The head of the “religious” site is a politician.

Billboard at back exit focusing on head of monastery

In Shanxi province (which is to the east of Shaanxi province and I now know the difference between the two) I visited a few old Buddhist temples. Yes there were admission fees. And yes they were still used as temples. One would see monks as well as ordinary Chinese people come and burn incense and pray and leave offerings.

(I would add that a curious feature of many Buddhist temples is that there is also the presence of Chinese traditional religion. Statues and shrines to the earth god or goddess of mercy. These are not just of historical interest. Some Chinese people come and pray for particular concerns. And return to give a thanks offering if those prayers are answered.)

This points out a dilemma that all governments face. How do you deal with historical sites that are also religious sites? This question came up during a mildly heated discussion with Chinese friends in Shanghai (who argued that the Chinese government does not support or favor any particular religion). I appreciate that the government has an interest in preserving historical sites that also happen to be religious sites. When they do so – and charge admission fees – can one fairly criticize them of promoting religion? One might argue that if those historical sites are being used today then the faith community that prays/worships there should be responsible. How do you balance public/historical interest with particular/religious interest?

But – and this is how I countered my friends in Shanghai – surely Famen Temple goes too far. This is not simply “okay let’s protect the old temple and charge a modest admission fee”. This is “let’s use vast amounts of public money to build an unnecessarily huge monument to Buddhism – complete with new statues and a new temple”. The political role of the head of the monastery cannot be overlooked. He is not a simple Buddhist monk. He is a politician.

I could also mention the Gwanlin temple/complex outside Guangzhou. Although it was not clear to me how much government support (as opposed to private/religious support) was involved.

Gwanlin Pavilion outside Guangzhou

It might sound like I am picking on Buddhism. I am not. The historical/religious site problem applies to old churches and cathedrals. And I would like to think if the United States government ever did a Christian version of Famen Temple that American Christians of good will would be deeply troubled.

(Monumental displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings anyone? Incoming!)

I was not able to get a good sense of religious freedom for Muslims. In most cities one can easily find restaurants that specifically advertise halal food and where one will see both Chinese and foreign Muslims come to eat.

I did not see much in the way of Taoism – until I visited Lao Mountain outside Qingdao. During our two hour hike through the park (which was beautiful and genuinely moving) twice we came across Taoist temples. Very different from the many Buddhist temples. No hoards of women trying to sell incense sticks or souvenirs. No extra admission fees.

Entrance to Taoist temple in Lao Mountain park

Just simple dignified shrines. At the second shrine there were Taoist monks. None of whom tried to sell us anything. They were just… there. I was impressed by the simplicity and apparent honesty. One can argue that because these shrines/temples are part of a national park they implicitly/indirectly receive government support. Maybe. But (a) did they choose to be located inside a national park? and (b) no one asked for any money at these sites.

By the way – there are some who would argue Taoism is not a religion so much as a philosophy. For what it is worth both sites had statues of deities to which people pray.

While in Shaanxi province I heard about a group of Latter Day Saints who meet in Xi’an. Although part of me does not want to see Mormonism gain a foothold in China I have to be fair. If I believe in religious freedom for Christians then I must support religious freedom for everyone else.

Let’s talk about Hong Kong

That is the People’s Republic of China. Where there seems to be a high degree of religious freedom within certain limits. But also troubling examples of government involvement in particular religions – especially in Buddhism.

Hong Kong is radically different. In a nutshell Hong Kong is where religious groups fled after the Communist Revolution and during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. In many ways Hong Kong still preserves more traditional-conservative expressions of many religions. Hong Kong is where many Chinese Christians go to receive seminary training if they are not able to study in the United States.

I happened to visit the Jewish community during my one night stay. Rabbi Stan Zamek of United Jewish Congregation used to serve as the rabbi of Beth Shalom Synagogue here in Baton Rouge. I had the pleasure of participating in their Friday night Shabbat service. Followed by kosher dinner in the Jewish Community Building. And then a couple hours delightful conversation with Stan and his wife Martha who is also a rabbi.

I asked Stan if there are particular problems facing the Jewish community in Hong Kong. Oh yeah they have problems. But they did not sound like particularly Jewish problems so much as the difficulties and obstacles one faces in pretty much any place of congregational ministry. Not a few conservative evangelical Christian pastors can identify with what Stan described. Problems with lay leadership. With paid staff. With a lack of volunteers (although that is improving thanks largely to Martha). And apparently more friction between different Jewish groups (orthodox conservative and liberal) than one finds in the United States. Stan said the situation is about 10 years behind what it is here.

Security was pretty intense. Just to visit United Jewish Community I had to submit my name and passport information to their head of security ahead of time. When I arrived at the unmarked door I was asked who I was. “Ah yes – we’re expecting you go on in”. And we passed through metal detectors and past guards on our way to the kosher dining room.

Not a happy time for Jewish people right now.

East Shanghai Church

Complicated. Changing. Encouraging.

Those three words encapsulate what Chinese Christians shared with me concerning religious freedom and the state of the Christian church in China.

The third of my three goals for the trip through China was to observe first hand just what is going on in China with religious freedom in general and the Christian movement in particular. For years I have not been able to get a clear and consistent picture. On the one hand I hear horror stories about Christians being persecuted. About the underground church. Secret missionaries. But on the other hand most Chinese people who participate in Church of the Nations never mention any of this. As if being a Christian is not a big deal. Unless one is a member of the Communist Party and/or works for the government or a university. And then one has to keep a low profile. There have been several Chinese people over the last eleven years who have said “I would like to become a Christian but I cannot because of my work and position back home”. A few have been baptized secretly – no non-Christian internationals told or invited.

So which is it? Is it difficult to be a Christian in China or not? And which narrative is more accurate? The “suffering persecuted church” narrative? Or the “people can be Christians and churches can minister openly” narrative?

Let’s start with the raw data. What did I see and do?

I visited three registered churches – Three Self Patriotic Movement churches that cooperate with the Chinese government. (1) Haidian Church in Beijing. (2) A registered church in Yangling. And (3) East Shanghai Church. Oh and I should add (4) a registered church in Nanning.

I also visited or talked at length with (people in) three family churches – churches which are not registered with the Chinese government. (1′) That meets in a large apartment in north Beijing. (2′) That meets in a small apartment in north Beijing. (3′) That meets in rented space at a television studio in Beijing.

1. Haidian Church in Beijing

Haidian Church meets in a huge extremely modern building – almost does not look like a “church” and yes that is a mild criticism. They have several worship services to accommodate 3000+ members. We arrived half way through a Chinese service and tried one of the overflow rooms (where people watch and participate by video feed from the main sanctuary). There was no room but my friend said “this is a pastor from America who has come to visit” and they found us a couple spots. Those who came represented a good cross section of Chinese society but especially young people and university students.

We stayed also for the English language service which is led partly by Chinese and partly by English speaking foreigners. My classmate Chen Yiyi who teaches at Peking University said this is quite unusual and suggests the pastor is both clever and careful. He is able to work with the Chinese government so effectively that Haidian Church is able to do things that normally the government would not permit.  About half the congregation was Chinese (especially young and university people) and the other half foreigners (mostly Americans). The style of worship was definitely “contemporary” and I do not mean emergent – about 10-20 years behind what one normally sees among evangelical churches in the United States. The sermon was given by a Chinese woman who speaks exceptional English. It was excellent and focused on obedience to the commandments of God.

There are several registered churches in Beijing. This sounds great. But do the math. You have several churches each of which includes maybe 3000-7000 people. In a city of 20 million. Clearly the vast majority of Beijing residents do not have ready access to a church that worships and ministers openly. What the Chinese government allows barely scratches the surface of what the Chinese people need.

Every registered church in China also functions as a bookstore. This is where Chinese people can purchase Bibles and other basic Christian literature.

I should note my Chinese friend (who is a professor at a university) did not entirely care for Haidian Church. Her concern is that the church is so large that people can come and go without ever truly being part of the life of this church family. Whereas Church of the Nations is small enough that visitors are always noticed and welcomed. Relationships and friendships form. There is community. But this is not really a comment on registered churches – her concerns would apply to any large church in the United States. I countered that Haidian Church does offer Bible study and discipleship groups – you can choose to become involved and connected.

(1′) House church in north Beijing.

That afternoon a good friend took me to visit a house church in north Beijing. It meets in a rented apartment – with a large living room that functions as a sanctuary and holds maybe 100 people. I met and talked for 2 hours with several members of this church. Two attend a seminary in Hong Kong. One a recent convert. Plus a few others. Some spoke English.

What they tell me is that even this unregistered church can worship and minister openly. Most of the time. For the most part. There are times and circumstances when the Chinese government will give them some difficulty. Such as during the Beijing 2008 Olympic games the government said “this church is too big – you need to divide and meet in smaller groups”. And the church cannot engage in activities that are too public – such as an evangelistic event in a public park.

They were mildly critical of registered churches. Their concerns are that because registered churches must cooperate with the government there are inevitable compromises. Also there is a lack of emphasis on obedience. And accountability is almost non-existent. When I told them about the sermon that morning by Cathy Zhang at Haidian Church they were surprised and somewhat encouraged.

They did express some specific concerns about religious freedom in China. First that the Chinese government appears to be choosing sides – supporting Buddhism and even Islam. But not Christianity even though there are many more Christians than there are Buddhists or Muslims. Second that there are some Chinese who argue that Buddhism should be declared the official religion in China. Why Buddhism? Because Christianity is perceived by some as Western even American. Whereas Buddhism is not. At the time I wondered if these Chinese Christian friends were exaggerating – but later (especially in Shanxi province) I could see what they were talking about.

I asked “what message can I bring back to American Christians for you? what can we do to help you?” they mentioned a few things. Number one was the need for more and better training. There is a lack of good theological and pastoral training in China. They would like to be able to attend strong seminaries in other countries such as the United States. But that takes money. If American Christians want to help Chinese Christians receive strong training we need to work harder at providing good scholarships and financial support. And of course they asked for prayer.

Now my good friend who attended Louisiana State University is not herself a member of this house church. That evening I had dinner with her and her family at their small two bedroom apartment. An American who teaches in China joined us. He has lived in China for several years and grew up in a missionary family that served primarily in Japan. He told me quite plainly “there is no underground church in China. It’s not underground. It’s completely open”. And that there is no need to smuggle Bibles into China. People can buy Bibles openly in China and there are plenty being published to meet the need. The only reason some American pastors talk about smuggling Bibles is because they want to “play at being James Bond”. He himself is fairly active in a Three Self church in Beijing. I have seen shows on television about American Christians visiting truly underground churches – traveling in vans with curtains drawn so no one can see the Westerners within and churches that meet in caves or basements outside of town with people standing guard outside. But this American argued that such shows do not reflect the current situation.

(2) Yangling Church

Very different from the big modern expensive building full of educated people in Beijing. Not far from Northwestern A and F University. But a more humble and simple church building. Wooden benches. The restrooms are basically concrete latrines. Mostly local people and farmers. Many do not have more than a middle school education. The female pastor speaks in a strong local dialect. And yet I enjoyed this worship gathering most of all. It seemed more honest somehow.

My friends in Yangling – a university town about one hour from Xi’an – tell me that the university administration strongly and actively discourages people from participating in this local church. Indeed they warn visiting scholars against having anything to do with Christian churches when they are in the United States. Although I do see some university students and faculty.

The order of worship is interesting. At all three Three Self churches I visit the first half hour is practicing songs. There is little singing during the worship service proper. Although they sing the Apostles’ Creed. They – and I saw this in house churches – read at least one Psalm responsively (men and women alternating). The choir at Yangling Church presented a beautiful and moving rendition of Psalm 23 in song. And apparently we were there on one of two testimony Sundays. No sermon – just people going forward and sharing testimonies. Several people took pictures of videotaped parts of the worship gathering. No one seemed to mind.

(3) East Shanghai Church

East Shanghai Church - exterior

East Shanghai Church is in many ways the closest to a modern-traditional American Protestant church. Beautiful old building in excellent condition. Very well organized with plenty of ushers to help you out. Lists of rules for how to behave during worship – such as no going to the bathroom during the sermon! Traditional wooden pews in good repair. They even provided me a Chinese-English hymnal which is uber cool because now I can sing along with everyone else.

The sermon is good but mind crushingly long. After about 45 minutes I suggest we get going. Apparently she was almost done because the service ends a few minutes after we leave. Super long sermons are quite normal in China.

The friend who took me is also a university professor. She does not normally attend church. She tells me she cannot partly because of her job but mostly because of her husband who is a police officer. He cannot even be seen with me a foreigner. Exactly what kind of police work? Her husband told her “it’s better if you don’t know”. The Shanghai Expo is keeping him extraordinarily busy – maybe three days off in the last few months. My guess is he is the Chinese equivalent of a domestic security agent. Again – it seems that being a Christian is not a problem for ordinary Chinese people. But it is a problem for people in certain positions.

(4) Chonghe Church in Nanning

Apparently one of my friends in Nanning got in touch with a local church – they wanted me to come by and visit. Chonghe Church was crammed into a multi-story building on a narrow street in downtown Nanning. In many ways like a modern Baptist church in America. The sanctuary is relatively small but has a baptistry (beneath the platform – so baptism by immersion), high end sound system, projector and screen, band instruments (such as guitars and drums), and equipment so that people in overflow rooms can watch the live video feed. Part of the building is for their ministry that provides housing for elderly widows who have no children of their own to care for them.

From my journal:

Several staff. Three services with around 2000 members. Li Ping shows us around. Now head to restaurant. There we meet with two friends(?) of X_ who work for the government. Plus three people from Chonghe Church. As well as Z_. Most people do not speak English so most of the conservation revolves around me in Chinese. The two groups of other people have never met each other so it is interesting to see how government workers interact with Chinese Christians. Does not seem to be a problem. Li Ping and Xile Joy are very open and share literature with Peng and Wang.

Toward the end of dinner I ask what the Chinese Christians would like me to pass on to brothers and sisters in America. Please pray. Pray for economic development in Guangxi – one of the less developed provinces in China. For the young people. For men – most Chinese Christians are women. For Christian married couples – that they can be an example to other Chinese. For people in the government.

(2′) Small house church in Beijing

During my last Sunday in China I visit the small house church that meets in my friend’s two bedroom apartment. By small I mean six people. X_ has been studying piano. There are three other people besides her family. We sing several songs. There is prayer and Scripture reading. Her husband L_ alternates preaching with W_ who picks me up and drives me to the apartment. The sermon is a theological exposition of the first sentence of the Apostles’ Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth. It is one and a half hours long. Ouch. Even if you take into account Chinese and English translation still it would have been nearly an hour. After we finish I am asked to lead in the celebration of Communion. Their one year old son David participates because he has been baptized. Many house churches are strongly interested in Reformed theology. X_ and L_ have been studying Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion in Chinese translation.

(3′) Large family church in Beijing

I have been put in touch with Shaowang Church via a professor at Louisiana State University who keeps in close touch with a young man active in this church. Two years ago they bought property for 10 million yuan. But the real estate company has not allowed them to take possession – even though this costs them a substantial daily fine. Apparently the Chinese government is involved and is blocking this large house church of 1000+ from having their own property because of the significant legal implications.

If you let an unregistered church buy property – you cross a mighty big legal line.

So while the property is on hold they rent space at a government television studio. Which is interesting. My friends X_ and L_ come along because they have always wanted to see Shaowang Church and meet some of its leaders.

From my journal:

There is a gentleman standing outside. Yes? Are we looking for a place to eat? No we are here for the church. Ah then – and he tells us where to go. Apparently if we are not looking for Shaowang church he would have been less helpful.

Shaowang Church meets in the bottom floor of a television studio – with a restaurant right next door in the same building. X_ H_ finds us and we head into the worship space. The space and the service in many ways are familiar. Except for the Chinese language the order and style of worship are similar to independent/evangelical traditional/contemporary. Half of the songs are traditional translated into Chinese. The other half are recognizable “contemporary” – the term is problematic – worship songs also translated into Chinese. There are prayers. The choir sings at least once. The people recite a Psalm together – women and men alternating each verse. Women lead the worship service. There is a central screen and a projector which shows words. There is a time of open/vocal prayer where everyone stands and prays out loud at the same time – have seen this before.

Then the pastor(? later confirmed to be the pastor) comes out. Soft spoken man who appears to speak simply. Apparently this is the sermon. I ask X_ H_ if this is a good time to step out and have a chance to talk. I cannot stay for another two hour service all in Chinese.

X_ H_ is an engaging and outstanding young(?) man who speaks impeccable English with an educated British accent. Turns out he learned primarily by listening to BBC Radio as a child. Whoa. Now a journalist who writes for a well known popular Chinese magazine. The conversation that follows is exceptional. Some of what he shares is revelatory. Some confirms impressions/observations so far about religion and Christianity in China.

Perhaps in a separate document will write up what I can about the conversation. In a nutshell the situation in China is (1) complex (2) changing rapidly – he knows 25 people in his former place of work have become Christians in just the past three months and (3) generally encouraging. The government seems to be saying “we are going to grant you more freedom – but you need to wait a little bit”. He tells me it would have been no problem for me to carry and give out my church business card. Now that is remarkable and not what American pastors in Baton Rouge were telling me. Again – do we exaggerate the situation? So far that has been the case. The church in China is not entirely free. But neither – at least according to what I see and hear – does the situation match some of the horror stories one hears in the United States. Am I missing something?

He says we focus too much on the issue of who is in power rather than specific details and situations.

What can we do? What help does the Chinese church need?

• Prayer

• Training – a shortage of spiritual/theological knowledge among pastors/leaders (he quickly emphasizes that by knowledge he means faithful Christian knowledge)

• Media – by which he means journalists and writers who will (a) produce materials (devotional/spiritual literature, how to live the Christian life, and so on) and (b) promote reading of those materials. This is when Xiaolan expresses her strong interest – she has written articles and her husband is a journalist. One could add publishing/promoting Chinese translations of Christian literature as well. One of the elders is working on Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Dude. But is there not already one?

Concluding thoughts

So is there religious freedom in China or not? In a nutshell what I found was a high amount of freedom for Christians – so long as they did not bump into what I call the “ceiling”. The government does become much more restrictive during certain sensitive times. Shaowang Church was meeting in a public park(!) – and streaming their worship services on the internet! – until President Obama came for a visit. Then the government said “you need to get out of here” – hence the television studio.

So what to make of the “horror stories”? What to make of a June 04 2010 article by Baptist Press?

Persecution of Christians in China is still a widespread problem and an ignored topic in the secular media, said Bob Fu, president of ChinaAid, in an interview with Baptist Press.

Fu knows about persecution firsthand. He suffered for his faith in his homeland before he and his wife Heidi fled to the United States in 1997. A leader of the student democracy movement that was squelched by the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, he became a Christian the same year. In 1996, secret police discovered the Bible school he and Heidi founded and imprisoned both of them. After their release and further persecution, they escaped through Hong Kong.

Fu started ChinaAid (www.chinaaid.org) in 2002 to bring international attention to China’s repression of unregistered churches and their members.

I am unwilling to question what Fu states. Perhaps the situation is different the farther one gets from the big cities. Or in certain less developed provinces. Perhaps what Fu describes is entirely accurate but somewhat out of date. It is difficult to match this article with what I saw and heard during my journey through China.

Shall I describe what I am doing right now? Yeah sure. Why not?

Sweating profusely with my feet in a self-heating foot bath set for 50 minutes – the water the color of tea or apple juice because it is filled with Chinese herbs. Recommended by a highly regarded local doctor.

Oh wait – getting ahead of myself.

Two days ago had the first truly bad experience in China. Arrive in Xian. Friends pick me up and take me immediately to terra cotta warrior museum complex. Oh yeah the terra cotta warriors are uber cool and all that. But the government has turned it into a Tourist Trap™ with a vengeance. Every 5-10 feet someone trying to sell you something. They created a new gate 2 km from the museum. And if you don’t pay for a shuttle ride you can walk. Fair enough. But what is along that 2 km walk? Shops restaurants hawkers and sellers. My personal tour guide (hey life is tough you know?) took me into the museum store where I was very aggressively pressured and manipulated into spending large amounts of money on souvenirs. Obviously all arranged with the tour guide business. So far had not spent anything on souvenirs. In museum store I managed to stop at about $150. At one point I was so angry about being lied(?) to was ready to pack up my wallet and walk out. This is an emerging pattern I see at historical sites in China. Charge premium entry fees that represent small fortunes for the average Chinese person. Squeeze the tourists out of every RNB you can get. Chinese and foreigners alike are fair game. Even our mediocre lunch outside the museum was shockingly expensive.

Then we head out to Yangling. They should put a sign that says “Welcome to Yangling. No you have not died and gone to heaven. But we understand the confusion”.

Yangling is everything Beijing Taiyuan and Xian are not. Quiet university town with wide streets and low traffic. My friends apparently moved me to the best hotel in town. Four stars for 300RNB a night which is a lot in China. But that is only $45. We could hold staff meeting in my room. With our feet soaking in hot water.

It gets better. My friends here so kind and thoughtful and generous they take me to a feet washing place. Can anyone with a functioning brain explain to me why we don’t have such awesome things in the United States?!? Yeah yeah I know it’s because labor is so much more expensive here. But you would pay $100 for what I got for $10 and not regret a single dime. For 80 minutes a highly trained professional rubs massages pulls snaps pounds and presses almost every muscle and joint in your entire body. While your feet are soaking in piping hot water filled with Chinese herbs. At about the 70 minute mark my highly trained professional was teaching my back whole new definitions of the word “melt”. Oh. Yeah.

Of course this is because they were concerned about my ankles which at that point were swollen to almost twice their usual size. Today still some swelling and soreness but significantly better. Thank you for your prayers.

Boy do I have a lot to say about Famen Temple. You know when Jesus entered Jerusalem and was horrified by what he found at the temple? Multiply the scale by about ten thousand change it from Judaism (Yahwism) to Buddhism and you get the idea. What a racket. All in the name of Buddha. With the cooperation indeed involvement and support of the Chinese government.

Generally, faith-based religion defends the goodness of the divine, while religion that is centered on reverence is not afraid to face the idea that the divine may seem evil in human terms. (Paul Woodruff, Reverence, 69)

That parenthetical comment sure got my attention.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about reverence. It started because of the several weeks I spent leading a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. I was most fortunate to study Ecclesiastes at Union Theological Seminary with William Brown who is one of if not the top Ecclesiastes scholars in the nation. The class was genuinely inspiring. Since then I have looked for opportunities to share with others what I am convinced is the surprising good news of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes challenges conventional wisdom and strongly denies that wisdom money or even righteousness cannot guarantee security in life. Instead it advocates a new(?) set of virtues – rather than moral rules and laws. There are several but as I told the Sunday evening crowd if you remember nothing from this series please remember these two things: joy and reverence. Joy and reverence are the two principle virtues which Ecclesiastes offers.

This post is not about Ecclesiastes or even joy so let me focus on reverence. Several times Ecclesiastes aka Qohelet advocates awe or fear of God (Hebrew yir’at ‘elohi(y)m) in Eccl 3:11-15; 5:7; 7:15-18; 8:10-13; 12:13-14. This is one of those times where translation is an issue. Hebrew y-r-’ normally means fear generally in the sense of be afraid. But Ecclesiastes is not saying be afraid of God so much as something else. Which is why some English translations render y-r-’ in these texts as awe or reverence. Granted even reverence the translation I prefer sounds a little weak compared to what Ecclesiastes seems to have in mind.

Brown explains:

To fear God is to embrace one’s creaturely status as well as acknowledge the impenetrably enduring work of God, who freely extends the blessings of life to finite, ephemeral beings.

The stand in awe before the God of mystery is to position one’s character in relation to God, as opposed to defining correct behavior that presumes the ways of God…

Not only does reverence for God correct the rigid logic and extremes of the individual enterprise, it constitutes the source from which all virtue and right conduct are to flow. Qohelet has given godly reverence its orthodox due without reducing it to primitive terror, on the one hand, or human pretense, on the other. (William Brown, Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to Wisdom Literature in the Old Testament, 145, 146)

Or as I said to the Sunday evening crowd:

God is God. And we are not. Respect that. Accept that. Live that.

One can see how the primordial sin in Genesis 3 was to a large extent a failure of reverence in this sense. The first human beings were not content to be like-God but not-God. They wanted to be equal-to-God.

I also asked to what extent reverence in this sense is another word for faith in the sense of radical trust or trusting commitment. Over the last several months I have at times preached Pauline texts where I began to wonder how much Paul has this in mind when he talks about Christ both as object(?) of faith(?) and Christ as exemplar of faith. How much is reverence the relatively unacknowledged theme that holds together his theological reflections?

In other words we think Paul is talking about faith – in what sense? one might ask – when perhaps he is talking about reverence in a robust sense similar to what Ecclesiastes has in mind.

Okay. With me so far? Joy and reverence in Ecclesiastes. Reverence as standing in awe before the God of mystery. And radical trust in and commitment to this God of mystery as perhaps a result? consequence? aspect? of this reverence. Which may be what Paul has in mind by faith.

At this point let me pause and confess that these are raw thoughts. Hypothesis stage. I do not have a theory yet. Still trying to understand the concepts and make the appropriate connections. But bear with me.

Naturally because of this emphasis on reverence in the book of Ecclesiastes – in this case reverence toward the God of mystery whose actions cannot be understood or changed – I wanted to re-read Reverence by Paul Woodruff. One of the most important books I have read in the last ten years. Mind you Woodruff argues strongly that reverence properly understood is not found exclusively in monotheistic religions. Reverence – bare reverence as he puts it – does not require religious belief. The opening chapter provides a good description of what Woodruff has in mind:

Reverence begins in a deep understanding of human limitations; from this grows the capacity to be in awe of whatever we believe lies outside our control – God, truth, justice, nature, even death. That capacity for awe, as it grows, brings with it the capacity for respecting fellow human beings, flaws and all. This in turn fosters the ability to be ashed when we show moral flaws exceeding the normal human allotment. (Reverence,3)

This is not only compatible with the understanding of reverence (yir’a(h)) that we find in Ecclesiastes it is strongly similar. Because Ecclesiastes emphasizes that human beings are finite. God and death – and arguably truth and justice as well – are outside our control. Which is why Ecclesiastes warns against the arrogance and presumption involved when we try to be super-rich super-wise or super-righteous. Although Ecclesiastes makes it clear that the object of our reverence is specifically God.

But in the course of describing bare reverence Woodruff makes some odd comments:

Some religions place a high value on reverence, and some do not. Because reverence is not the same thing as faith, faith-centered religion may place a low value on reverence, exactly as some faith-centered religion places a relatively low value on justice. (66)

Reverence is not faith. And faith-centered religion might be short on reverence. Is Christianity faith-centered? Is Christianity therefore low on reverence? What on earth does Professor Woodruff mean by faith in this context?

Later Woodruff offers the comment I cite at the beginning of this post – the distinction between faith-based religion and reverence-centered religion. But what does he mean? I asked him and he graciously provided this answer:

If I ever revise the book for a second edition, I will change that phrase.

I think what I meant, over ten years back, when I wrote the book, was to pick out religions that defined themselves through a specific verbal creed specifying required beliefs. But many people have pointed out to me that “faith” is the wrong word for that–or, rather, a much richer and better word for a trusting commitment, which is so often deeply reverent.

I am sorry I put this so badly, and I am no longer sure I had a good idea there at all.

(With apologies for quoting him publicly without permission.)

Okay this helps. I should have remembered also where he explained:

Faith is not a virtue; it is either a specific creed or a specific relationship between a believer and God. (64)

Perhaps a better word for what he means is belief. So one distinguishes between belief-centered religion and reverence-centered religion.

So still we might ask which is Christianity?

Let us for the sake of argument hypothesize (1) that Christianity normally understands itself as a faith-based or faith-centered religion. We talk about believing in Jesus. Good readers might object “Now hang on a second there bud. Almost no evangelical Christian really thinks it is as simple as mental assent to certain beliefs. This is faith in the sense of trusting in what God has done for us (by trusting) in Christ”. So I might ask if Christianity normally understands itself as a sort of hybrid belief- and trust-based religion.

So where is reverence?

Think about how Protestant and Catholic Christianity typically does theology as well as prayer worship and mission. How much do these things exhibit reverence? In the sense that Ecclesiastes advocates. Perhaps also/even in the sense Woodruff describes.

Like I said raw half-baked thoughts. Still working on them. But does Woodruff make a valid distinction between belief/faith-centered religion and reverence-centered religion? And whether he does or not to what extent is Christianity based on reverence?

Funny how everything works together.

I was mildly annoyed when 3 teenagers who attend Church of the Nations said they needed me to take them home in the church bus – which had left 10 minutes earlier. Sigh. Which meant not being able to give a report during deacon’s meeting. I was not planning to go to deacon’s meeting but apparent our deacon representative had not been receiving our regular emails. Argh.

Got back in time. Gave report. Left meeting early about 2:00 p.m.

If all of that had not happened I would not have heard what may be the single best discussion of the nature of sin I have ever heard. Although I listen to Ancient Faith Radio I have never listened to Steve the Builder. He was ostensibly discussing homosexuality – but the podcast is not only about that and that is not where I think its value primarily lies.

The Christian faith does not give us a definitive answer in the “nature/nurture” debate on any human frailty. Genetically caused disabilities are as much a trait of the fallen world as weaknesses visited upon us by lack of nurture and love. The issue for the Christian is the fact that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). What is the “glory of God”? It is living in perfect love and communion with God and other human beings.

But we don’t live in perfect love; we are born into corruption, futility, and death. We are conceived by fallen flesh and born into a fallen world. We are dealt a set of fallen DNA from conception. The moment we leave the womb, we are placed in the arms of a broken person, then taken home to a place where broken people are working out their salvation with fear and trembling at best, or with no fear of God at worst. From our first interactions, we are mishandled, neglected, and broken in ways we did not choose and often cannot consciously identify. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the following generations, not as punishment but as inevitable consequence. We are all broken.

I do not like telling people “go do this or read that” because I believe so strongly in (a) human freedom and (b) the authority of the Holy Spirit. But on this occasion please take the time to listen to this podcast or at least read through the transcript.

Addendum: In the interest of fairness let me share that my friend Joshua (theologically conservative and politically liberal) did not care for the piece much at all. If I may summarize (which means I am not doing full justice to his critique) (1) it fails to distinguish sin-as-condition from sin-as-acts (2) what was sin in 1st century might not be sin for us today (3) it sounds paternalistic (4) its understanding of people (who want to be) in same-sex relationships is skewed and limited.

Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

Because they are losing money like crazy? Because seminaries and parishes and dioceses are no longer able to support themselves? Surely it is not that simple!

The executive committee of General Theological Seminary‘s board of trustees said April 19 that the school may have to sell some of its property to raise enough money in order to pay its bills after mid-November. …

The April 19 news followed a more general warning about the school’s financial future issued by the entire board after a March 29 meeting when it said it needed cash to service its debt and pay for the 2010-2011 school year. O’Pray told faculty, students and administrative staff that day that the seminary needed between $2 million and $4 million, seminary spokesman Bruce Parker said at the time.

Just one seminary needs another $2-4 million to stay afloat. Yowza. Wonder how many buildings built paid for and formerly occupied by orthodox Anglican parishes need to be sold to keep all these Episcopal seminary professors employed for another year?

For the record no it is not that simple. The Episcopal Church is not doing everything in its power to keep the property of departing parishes and dioceses simply to sell it off and pay the bills. Because if money was the primary motivation then the Episcopal Church is going about it all wrong. Millions spent each year on legal fees suing parishes and dioceses to keep said property? And refusing even to let those departing parishes to buy back the property? Indeed on one occasion selling the parish property to a Muslim group for one third what the Anglican parish would have paid?

The primary motivation has to be something like spite. Because it is costing the Episcopal Church millions of dollars each year to pursue this policy. Although one could argue that they spend millions of dollars to end up with a net gain of tens of millions of dollars. That will keep a fair number of clergy of non-self-sufficient parishes and maybe professors at non-self-sufficient seminaries going for a while.

Disclosure – I serve a small mission parish which is not self-sufficient. The issue is not self-sufficiency. The issue is simply what is the Episcopal Church going to do with all this surplus property it has no use for?

H/T Midwest Conservative Journal

Someone will get what he wants. But not for the reasons that he thinks.

Couple weeks ago heard a podcast by Father Stephen Freeman from May 16 2009 entitled “Personal Issues”.

The transformation of the world will not come about through the successive addressing of issues. It will, according to the Fathers of the Church, come about through the transformation of human persons, whom, having been restored to the proper image and likeness of Christ, are able to restore others and creation around them. It is thus that the “movers and shapers” of our world may never be acknowledged by the world itself. …

I am not suggesting that we cease to care about people or the things that effect them. I am suggesting that our concern for “issues” falls far short of actually caring about people and the things that effect them. It is possible to love humanity and actually hate people. I have seen it far too often and have done it myself.

It is much easier to trust someone who wants to “save the world,” if they have also bothered first to “save themselves” (yet another paradoxical statement).

From a post which you can read here.

Some might rightly challenge one of his central points. One which Clark Carlton also makes in his podcast “My Two Cents on Capitalism”. Namely that our primary concern should be the salvation of our souls. Too often we focus on what we perceive to be the sicknesses of society rather than the sickness that lies within the human heart.