Eric's Beijing Diary

This is not a new book. It was written during the Cold War, probably in the early Seventies. As such, one may assume that it would be outdated, but in fact, it gives a good perspective on the events which led to each of the three featured individuals being singled out by the established order after the 1949 revolution. For me, it is also interesting in another way. I don't believe that any of the three individuals would be harassed today in the same way they were then. These men were not criminals. But they all had a following that brought them to the attention of the Communist authorities.

During the late eighties and early nineties, a "revolution" swept through the Communist world. In Europe, it was represented most poignantly by the fall of the Berlin Wall. In China, by the events surrounding Tiananmen and the massive student protests that followed the death of Hu Yaobang. Tiananmen was suppressed, of course—we all know that history. But I have always said that the students lost the battle and won the war. China did change, as did the other Communist countries. In the Soviet Union, that change resulted in the Party losing power. In China, the Party stayed in power, but did not really stay Communist. When the Communists first took over in 1949, there really seemed to be the belief that Christianity (along with other religions) was "the opium of the people." As such, it was antithetical to the kind of system they were trying to set up, and Christian leaders, particularly those with a reputation as "true believers," were singled out for attack. But today, the emphasis is more on regulation and containment in an atmosphere of tolerance. China does not have American style religious freedom, and the leadership is still quite sensitive to any kind of foreign control of religion. But the general attitude is much more one of resignation to religion as a part of Chinese life. In that sense, this book is useful, because it was written before that change, and gives a very helpful insight into the contrast.

Even if you are not familiar with any of the three "mighty men" whose stories are told in this book, the narratives will be interesting to you. The stories are well told by someone who was very familiar with the events. I was most interested in the description of Watchman Nee, who is quite well known by Christians in the West because of the numerous devotional type books published under his name (most of them were actually transcribed lectures--Watchman Nee himself only wrote two books). Nee's writing and work was characterized by a strong reaction to the tendency of missionaries to export their own favorite schisms to China. But he was also known for his passionate belief in an indigenous Christianity, where authority was vested in local churches, not dictated by foreign mission boards. As such, he represented the true spirit of the "Three Self" movement long before the Communists set it up, and their persecution of him showed their own hypocrisy. When Christians from that era describe the Three Self movement as an agent of suppression, it is hard to argue with them. But it's not that way now. Things have changed. This book cannot, of course, describe that change. But it helps by giving a clear picture about the way things were, thus justifying Christian's who refused to be part of the Three Self movement, while at the same time showing, by contrast, that the present status quo is something fundamentally different.

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn

Labels: Christianity, Persecution

Who are they? Where did they come from? Well, they came to China from Persia, but they were not originally from Persia. The Persians had accepted the the Nestorians for their own political reasons. So the Nestorians who came to China came directly from Persia.

But were they really heretics? It's a problem of definitions, I think. Goldschmidt and Davidson, in their book Concise History of the Middle East state the following:

In Antioch grew up a school of theologians called the Nestorians. They saw Christ as two distinct persons, divine and human, closely and inseparably joined.

Whereas orthodox Christology holds that Christ has two natures, divine and human, ineffably united in one person, or hypostasis, Nestorianism so stresses their independence as to suggest that they are in effect two persons, or hypostases, loosely joined by a moral union. Nestorianism envisages the divine Word as having associated with itself at the Incarnation a complete, independently existing man. From the orthodox point of view, Nestorianism therefore denies the reality of the Incarnation and represents Christ as a God-inspired man rather than as God-made-man.

1John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 1John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

But more germane to their relationship to China is the extent to which they influenced the religious landscape in this country and culture. The problem is that they completely disappeared after about 150 years. Their presence in China is historically documented, being attested to by an ancient stone document inscribed in 781 AD. Many years ago, I visited the museum in Xi’an where this stone stele is housed, and took a picture of it with my pocket camera. It clearly establishes their presence, but gives not a clue as to what happened to them. They just disappeared from the scene, perhaps dissolving through intermarriage or something. So there is no discernable influence of the Nestorians on modern Christianity in China. But the question of their influence on the Tang Dynasty itself is something that cannot be so easily dismissed. It would be hard to determine, since they vanished, but it really should be studied.

When I first posted this piece, I had finished it at the previous paragraph. But I realized that I had neglected to mention the Theotokos, and I just couldn’t let that omission stand. We need to talk about it.

Theotokos is often rendered in English as “Mother of God,” but that is not an exact translation, and there is some controversy over it. Got Questions has a very good article on this subject, so I will quote from it here:

We should distinguish the term Theotokos from mother of God, because there is a subtle yet important difference. The term mother of God could be taken wrongly as implying that Mary was the source or originator of God, similar to how Juno was the mother of Vulcan in Roman mythology. Of course, Christianity teaches that God is eternal and that Jesus Christ has a pre-existent, divine nature. The idea that Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the source of God or somehow predated God or is herself part of the Godhead is patently unbiblical.

The term Theotokos, on the other hand, is more specific and less open to being misconstrued. Theotokos simply implies that Mary carried God in her womb and gave birth to Him. Mary was the human agent through whom the eternal Son of God took on a human body and a human nature and entered the world. The term Theotokos was a succinct expression of the biblical teaching of the Incarnation, and that is how the Council of Ephesus used the word. Mary is the “God-bearer” in that within her body the divine person of God the Son took on human nature in addition to His pre-existing divine nature. Since Jesus is fully God and fully man, it is correct to say that Mary “bore” God.

Facebook       LinkedIn

Labels: Christianity, Nestorians, Tang Dynasty

The Winter issue of the ChinaSource Quarterly (December 13, 2021) features the growth of Reformed Christianity in China. Many years ago, I taught at a family church Bible school in Beijing that was run by a Reformed guy. For those of you who are wondering, the term “Reformed” generally refers to that part of the Reformation that descended from Calvin and his teachings. Basically, the Reformation was bipolar. Protestant Christianity followed either Luther or Calvin. That is a simplification, of course. If you want to include Roman Catholics, you could talk about Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits, but that’s really a counter reformation.

And of course, there are other groups, such as the Anabaptists, who didn’t really fit into either the Reformed or Lutheran camp. But I would say that the predominant direction of the Reformation was Lutheran-Calvinist. I don’t want to get bogged down with the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism—I will do that some other time. What this issue of the ChinaSource Quarterly focuses on is the growing popularity of Reformed (Calvinist) Christianity throughout unofficial Christianity in China.

If you download the pdf file, you can read the articles offline at your leisure. I have written a few notes (below) about the articles, which I hope you will find helpful:

• “On December 9, 2018, in a move that attracted international media and government attention, Chinese authorities arrested one of China’s most prominent Reformed voices, Wang Yi, a pastor and former dissident lawyer, along with more than a hundred other ministry leaders associated with Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu. Many others associated with this church—members, students, and ministry workers—scattered for protection. While most of those arrested were subsequently released, Wang Yi was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment. The work in Chengdu has not recovered.”
  It should be noted that Wang Yi, in sharp contrast to most family church pastors, [I use the term family church because that is the term Chinese Christians use. The term “house church” is a uniquely American construction. I have never heard a Chinese believer use it.] was quite political, and a big part of his message involved a call for political reform. I am not making a judgment about that, nor am I saying that he is not being persecuted—he certainly is. But in his case, it is primarily political persecution, not religious persecution. Americans are not too sure there is a difference between those two, but they are not exactly the same.

• ”What are China’s reforming churches? For a church to make a meaningful claim to being Reformed—whether church is understood as a single congregation or a cluster of congregations operating as a connected body—at least two things should be evident. First, they should adhere to a Reformed confession of faith such as the Westminster Standards (most common among those rooted in the Presbyterian tradition) or Three Forms of Unity (most common among those rooted in the Continental Reformed tradition) or, for Baptists, the Second London Confession (1689), which was an adaptation of the Westminster Standards to Reformed Baptist convictions. These are not the only Reformed confessions, but they are the most common. Others, including newly produced Confessions for the Chinese context, may be regarded as Reformed if, in the main, they agree with these.”
  It’s common in America to talk about various branches of a given religious direction, but in the case of Reformed Christianity, this would be much less common in China. You just hear the word “Reformed,” and that’s it. So does this mean that there are people who call themselves “Reformed” who are not? Perhaps. I have a friend who always calls himself a Mormon, because it was a Mormon who first told him about Jesus. But he uses the same Bible I do (ESV) and when I told him that Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God, he steadfastly denied that.

  I also wonder a bit if some are not confused by the English terminology. The word "Reformed" looks like it means "that which comes from the Reformation." But in America, by convention, the word "Reformed" refers specifically to that part of the Reformation that came from Calvin. I am not quite sure that all people in China who call themselves "Reformed" really understand that distinction.

  For the most part, though, I think people in China who call themselves “Reformed” would have studied Reformed ideas and are very attracted to them. The director of the family church Bible school I taught at many years ago fell in love with Reformed thought when he was in university. He started a group to teach Reformed ideas and got quite a following. The university officials warned him about this, but he ignored them. The finally called him aside and promised all kinds of help in his academic career if he would stop preaching Reformed ideas. He turned down the deal and got kicked out of school.

• “Churches holding this view are mainly house churches who later adopted Reformed theology, including a few of the Reformed Baptist churches. Under the influence of this view, believers in these churches actively evangelize outsiders. They do not care about political topics and have no passion for public affairs. They care about the return of Christ, spreading the gospel to the ends of the earth, establishing churches in all nations, and promoting cross-cultural evangelism. These believers are willing to donate money to evangelical ministries.”
  This paragraph neatly describes what is the basic perspective of the overwhelming majority of family church Christians. They are fiercely independent. They absolutely do not want to be controlled by the government or by any government agency. But by the same token, they avoid politics and political issues like the plague. This is partly due to the Cultural Revolution, I think.

  During the Cultural Revolution, you could get in real trouble for not being political enough. Even university scholars, when they wrote books, would say something like “Long live Chairman Mao!” every few paragraphs or something to avoid getting in trouble. But after the Cultural Revolution, there was a change. Suddenly there was a third option. You still could not be politically incorrect, But being overtly political was not the only alternative. Now you could be nonpolitical, and as long as your viewpoints did not cross the powers that be, you would be left alone. The vast majority of family church Christians in China take this option. Others, like Wang Yi, choose to buck the system. Who am I to say which approach is right for any given person?

• “In the past, many Christians believed that a proper worship gathering needed a public space specially dedicated to worship, a full-time pastor, and a choir. Nowadays, designated spaces, choirs, and public gatherings can no longer be regarded as basic elements of worship. What matters most are the correct preaching of the word, the carrying out of the sacraments, prayers, and fellowship (cf. Acts 2:42). Some churches also share a meal after the Sunday worship.”
  The problem here is that a public space dedicated to worship is precisely what makes them illegal. The government policy on religion states that families worshiping together are exempt from the registration requirement. But you can also invite a few friends. So why not another family and a few more friends? You can see where this is going. This is why illegal churches tend to refer to themselves as “family churches.” But in fact, they clearly are not. They are small illegal independent churches. [I have to state, for the record, that this is hotly debated. I visited Samuel Lamb's church in Guangzhou years ago. He preached every week to 3000 people in an unregistered church. When confronted by the police, he did not say "I must obey God rather than man." He insisted that his church was a family church. "This is my house, these are my friends."]

• “In the pages that follow, a Reformed pastor laments in passing that the retreat of some house churches from more open worship practices means that people will no longer wander in off the street because they will no longer be able to hear the congregation singing. It is a striking lament. The idea that house churches in China worship so openly that people passing by can hear them singing, and that strangers off the street are welcome to wander in to worship, may surprise readers just tuning in. But more striking yet is that this actually happens in China with enough regularity to be on this pastor’s radar as a lamentable loss to their outreach efforts.”
  This is idealistic wishful thinking, I think. I cannot imagine a situation where someone would able to walk down the street, hear singing from a family church, and walk inside. It may have happened, but probably not likely, certainly not in Beijing. Family churches typically use rented office space. They are not “underground” in the sense that they are hiding—the police know they are there. But there is no cross on the building, and their activities cannot be heard from the street. I guess it is fair to say that if someone happened to be walking down the hallway inside the building, heard singing, and walked inside they would certainly be welcome. Of course. This issue is not that they are not welcome. The issue is that family churches are not allowed to advertise, or more accurately, they are not legally allowed to exist. So if the local police tolerate their presence, it would not be wise to press the issue by advertising in a way that would give the police no choice but to shut them down. So generally speaking, the idea of walking by a church and deciding to go inside would be conceivable with a Three-self church, but quite unlikely with a family church. Most people who go to a family church are invited by someone who goes there regularly.

• "Since house churches typically choose not to register their venue, they are not legally recognized."
  This is a very American idea. The posture of the powers that be in China toward family churches is not, “You are operating as a church so you should register.” It is “We did not create you, so you should not exist.” So while it is certainly true that most family churches do not wish to be governed by the Religious Affairs Bureau, it is just as true that the vast majority of family churches, if they tried to register, would probably be ordered to disband. “We already have ten Christian churches in this citiy of twenty million people, we don’t need anymore.”

  I am not going to say anything about Sinification right now, because I am not sure how widespread this will be. Personally, I think it’s a flash in the pan. I have heard of churches who sing the national anthem as a congregation, but I have never seen this myself. So I am watching this development, but it doesn’t worry me. Every action that has been taken by the Communist party to restrict the growth of the church has resulted in the church becoming more robust and more numerous than if that action had not been taken.

  Several years ago in Beijing we started to hear that family churches were going to be restricted. I asked a sister who went to a local family church what they were doing. I had been to her church. It had three Sunday morning services, with about 100 people in each service. She told me that they had divided into thirty groups of ten people. But when I asked another sister what her family church was doing to anticipate the change, she said “Nothing. We have a good landlord.” So responses are varied. The powers that be can announce changes, but they simply do not have the power to enforce those changes universally. Think about it: how easy would it be to put tens of millions of people in prison?

  As I said, I am paying attention, but I really don't anticipate much difference in how family churches operate, and those who divide a church of 300 people into 30 churches of 10 people will just become thirty new family churches that will eventually grow into many more people than if the government had not announced a new policy. I think we would all be wise to remember the words of the French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr: “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

• “The theological education of ministers and other kinds of church workers in China often occurs in seminaries. What counts as a seminary in China and how these seminaries educate their students varies widely. While I do not know of any credible count as to how many there may be—back in 2006 David Aikman guessed hundreds—it seems certain that there are many more seminaries in China than in North America.”
  I don’t think it’s possible to know how many Bible schools or seminaries there are in China. Probably lots. But there is something that isn’t mentioned here. More and more young people who grow up in family churches are going to the national seminary in Nanjing, not because they think it is such a great school, but so that they can become pastors in Three-self churches. Of course that doesn’t meet the needs of those who are looking for Reformed type seminaries—most of them will probably go abroad. Hard to know how that is going to go because of COVID, but I expect to see a big increase there. Not just the United States, but Singapore, the Philippines, Korea, and also some to Europe.

  As for this statement: “…it seems certain that there are many more seminaries in China than in North America.” Not real seminaries of any substance. I don’t believe that. Seminaries in China are typically small, illegal family church seminaries. They are sometimes tolerated because they are small and the local cops really don’t care. But no, seminary education in China does not begin to compare with America.

• “With its confrontational stance toward the government, a home-grown Christian school, an outspoken public voice on social issues such as abortion, and a thriving seminary, Chengdu’s Early Rain Reformed Church appeared to many as the epitome of the Reformed movement in China.”
  It has to be pointed out that groups like Early Rain that set about to establish large mega-churches have to know that they are going to be shut down eventually. There’s just no way they could not know that. That’s why most family churches would never try it, because they are about establishing a body of believers, not creating an international protest. So why do groups like Early Rain do what they do if they know they are going to be shut down? I guess they are hoping to get international attention that will result in pressure applied from abroad that will somehow allow them to succeed. It is a vain hope, but it fools a lot of Americans, as this paragraph indicates. Anyone who actually allows himself to hope that a church like Early Rain will become the epitome of anything just doesn’t know China. It’s not going to happen. Not anytime soon.

  Is this bad? Well, from an American perspective, yes. But I believe that it is part of God’s plan for China, because keeping churches small so that they mulitiply rapidly is resulting in much faster church growth. This is a good thing, you guys. If your hope is in one particular movement (such as Reformed Christianity) then you may not be happy about it. But if your desire is to see the body of Christ as a whole develop and grow, then we all have much reason for optimism.

  But let’s ask the question: Is this new Reformed fad good for China? I am not a five-point Calvinist, and I do have some concerns about Reformed ideas that stand in contrast to the clear teaching of Scripture, such as cessationism, but I do think it is a good thing for one main reason: It is attracting men. As you may know, the population of family churches is lopsided. Usually more women than men. But the Reformed movement is attracting lots of men. That is a good thing.

  My concern is for the church as a whole, so I am always wary of a movement among believers that is smaller than the body of Christ. But I think this is going to have a positive effect, because there will be more Christians in China as a result of it. This movement is reaching people (especially young men) who probably would not have been drawn to Christianity if the only church they knew was a bunch of ladies like their grandmother who sit around and talk and weep. So in spite of my reservations, I have to say that it is a positive movement. The Reformed believers I have been acquainted with (mostly through teaching at that little Reformed Bible school in Beijing) are good people. They have a solid faith in Christ, and they are committed to a deep understanding of spiritual truth.

Comments

Labels: Christianity

Interesting discussion on the Sinica Podcast about attitudes toward China. Listen to this in the background while you're doing something else. I listened to it twice that way, and I found it to be very informative.

This podcast features a book by Benjamin Shobert called Blaming China. I don't know anything about him. I had never heard of him before I listened to this podcast. But the other two guys have both spent a lot of time in China.

Basically, they juxtapose two attitudes reflecting two kinds of people: the "panda huggers" and the "dragon slayers." For those of you who are not familiar with the terms, they are pretty self-explanatory, I think. The panda huggers tend to see everything China does in a positive light. They make excuses for actions taken that others would be inclined to criticize, and they articulate a defense that puts the best light on the actions of the Chinese government. The dragon slayers, on the other hand, tend to view every action of China with suspicion. They are the pessimists in this game, and they are often holdovers from the Cold War. The person who immediately comes to mind when I think of the dragon slayers is Peter Navarro. In the introduction to his documentary "Death by China," he says "Don't buy 'made in china.'" That seems to me to be a ridiculous statement. The American middle class has lived on China-made products, because it makes their lives more affordable. Can anybody reasonably expect them to buy more expensive products and lower their own standard of living just so they can say that everything they own is made in America?

But I don't want to get sidetracked. Every time I read or listen to something by Navarro, I can't seem to get more than an inch into it without detecting language that is designed to sell books. Navarro is a sensationalist. I have no time for that kind of thing because it doesn't educate me.

But who would I list as a panda hugger? Here comes the problem. Nobody wants to be called a panda hugger. This is interesting to me. All three of these guys in this podcast criticize the dragon slayers, but they don't think of themselves as panda huggers. But can you really have it both ways?

The way I have it both ways is to define it in terms of the issues, rather than just signing on to one category or the other. If you ask me, "Which one are you?" I would not say, "I'm a panda hugger" or "I'm a dragon slayer." I would say, "It depends on the issue.

For example, I am a churchman. I go to church every Sunday in Beijing at a Chinese church. When it comes to Christianity in China, I tend to be a panda hugger. Christians have it pretty good in China. American Christians complain a lot about "persecution" in China, but I personally think Chinese Christians have a lot of freedom. Most Protestant Christians worship in "family" churches that are technically illegal. But they are largely left alone. The Three-Self churches are regulated by the government, but that does not mean that they are totally controlled by the government. The idea some foreigners (even Christian foreigners) have of Christian pastors standing up every Sunday and spouting Communist propaganda is nonsense. I read a report like that one time in the Wall Street Journal. It was nauseating. Basically, Christian pastors in Three-Self churches say what they think they can get by with, and most of the time, it's more than enough to get the job done.

Sure, there are problems. In the summer of 2014, the party boss of Zhejiang Province pulled the crosses off of more than a thousand churches in the city of Wenzhou (a Wenzhou family church pastor told me it was 1400). That was very rude. But it was as noteable for what they did not do as for what they did do. They did not arrest a bunch of pastors. They did not tear down the church buildings (except for the huge, five million dollar mega-church they demolished).

They just took the crosses off the buildings. Not very nice, but the effect was positive. Christians started asking themselves, "Why did God allow this to happen? Were we allowing the symbol of the cross to become more important than the cross itself?" So it had a purifying effect. Christianity in China is much more pure than Christianity in America.

Another area where I tend to be a panda hugger is when it comes to China's determined independence regarding the currency issue. Every four years American politicians talk about China being a "currency manipulator." But such talk is disingenuous. Hong Kong has had their currency pegged to the dollar for many years. Why don't the politicians ever complain about Hong Kong? And Ecuador doesn't even have their own currency. They use the US dollar. How can you have more of a peg than that? Yet, I have never heard a whisper about Ecuador's "currency manipulation" from American politicians. This is one area where I agree with the Wall Street Journal. They have said that countries like China and Hong Kong and Ecuador are merely outsourcing their currency to the US Federal Reserve. Simply true.

But when it comes to Human rights, I tend to be a dragon slayer.

So let's take a look at this. First of all, they all seem to be situated toward the left end of the political spectrum. I know that's true for Jeremy Goldkorn and Kaiser Kuo. And it seems to be true for the other guy too. So they start out talking about Trump as a dragon slayer. That's not true. If he was only hard on China, they would have an argument. But he is not. Trump has shown himself willing to ax America's closest allies if he thinks they are getting the better end of a trade arrangement. Trump is a deal maker. But if you remove trade issues from the equation, Trump is in some ways more pro-China than any president in my memory. He responded very favorably to the idea of Xi Jin-ping being president for life. I can't imagine Obama doing that. Or Clinton or either of the Bushes.

So I disagree with them on that issue. But I was very glad to hear them speak out about the detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. As I said before, I have had a "wait and see" attitude about this situation, because it is very hard to get accurate numbers, and I don't like to make cheap conclusions. But the information coming out is more and more concerning. So I was glad to hear them express that concern. Hopefully, that situation will move in a different direction very soon. I am going to be watching it closely.

Comments

Labels: Christianity, Uyghurs, Xinjiang

There is a lot of talk now about the changes in the government's approach to Christians, especially family church Christians. Much of what I read or hear in the western media is so full of hyperbole that it doesn't reflect what is actually going on. But this report is worth watching, because I think it is mostly accurate, although it could be misleading if you don't know the situation in China. One thing I contradict. Todd Nettleton of Voice of the Martyrs says that the Communist part is concerned because there are more Christians in China than there are party members. I don't think anyone knows. The estimates by Western Christians are never less than a hundred million, which seems large to me. But even the China Daily estimated fifty million. So let's say, for the sake of argument that the number of Christians exceeds the number of party members. Does that really mean that Christianity is more popular than the party? Not necessarily. In fact, party membership is competitive. If the party accepted into membership everyone who wanted to join, I'm pretty sure they could outnumber Christians quite easily.

But I suppose you could say the same thing about the churches. Church membership wouldn't be called "competitive," but it does require belief--they don't just take anybody. The Communist Party can't require belief. because they don't believe in anything. They still use words like "Marxism," but today's "Communists" are anything but Marxist. Even the main propaganda papers (China Daily and Global Times) admit this. They talk about "updating" Marxism. Updating means changing. The reason you change something is because you don't like it the way it is. Nobody in China likes Marxism (I mean real Marxism). So the party uses a different method. In the universities, students vote for each other. To join the party, they must be chosen by their peers. So the Party could easily have many more members if they accepted everybody.

The real problem, I think, is that family churches are technically illegal, and beyond the control of the Party. The official government policy does allow small groups involving a family and a few friends to meet for prayer and Bible reading without being registered. So most illegal churches refer to themselves as "family churhes" in order to consider themselves as fitting with in the rubric of this policy. But that self-designation approaches the ridiculous when a "family" church has hundreds of members. So realistically speaking, the vast majority of so-called "family" churches are actually small illegal unregistered churches. The Party has always smarted at this reality, but has decided to ignore them as long as they don't get too big. But how big is "too big?" In the past, more then thirty people was considered problamatic in the countryside. But in Beijing, it was not uncommon at all to see a church with several services, each with a hundred to a hundred and fifty worshippers in attendance.

That is changing. "Family" churches that previously rented office space for their church activities are facing trouble now, because their landlords are being told not to rent to them. I talked to a sister the other day who told me that her "family" church used to have three services, each with about 100 people. Now they have divided into almost 30 cell groups, each with about 10 members.

But this piece features a large family church in Chengdu that was shut down. That's not new at all. Anyone who tries to build a large "family" church knows that it's only a matter of time before they wil have to go the way of history. Furthermore, the pastor of Early Rain Church who was arrested had a history of political activism. He talks about "faithful disobedience." This is atypical, to say the least. Chinese Christians are the most apolitical people I have ever met. They may be sympathetic with this guy's views, but they would never do what he is doing. So this little segment is interesting, and largely factual, but not representative at all.

Comments

Labels: Christianity, Family Churches, Persecution

The Bible Problem. A year or so ago, I took a student to the bookstore in the Three-Self Church I attend to help her buy a Bible. They said they didn't have any. I didn't need one myself, but I was curious, so I went back every week and got the same answer. I should note that the particular type of Bible I was checking on was the bilingual version (pictured), because that is the one students prefer. Most students tell me that the English is easier to understand than the Chinese. In fact, the old Chinese Union Version was (and still is) an extraordinary literary accomplishment, put together and modified during a span of close to one hundred years, ending in 1919 or 1920. But it's basically a late Qing Dynasty work, so the language is archaic. But for Chinese students who read English, the bilingual version is really an ideal combination, because they can read the English, which is more comfortable for them, but they also have access to the Chinese Union Version, which is more scholarly, and sometimes more accurate than the English, because the CUV is not translated from English. It is translated directly from Greek and Hebrew to Chinese more literally than some English versions, and sometimes more accurately.

Anyway, it was clearly not available anymore, and I was very concerned about why not. I talked to three of the pastors--all three of them denied knowing anything about it. I know that seems extraordinary, but this is China. Nobody seemed to know what was going on. Finally I got the report, and, not surprisingly, it did not come from China, it came from Mission Network News.

Listen to the report, and draw your own conclusions, but here is what I think is happening:

In China, all Bibles are printed at Amity Press in Nanjing. Bibles are not allowed to have ISBN numbers, and sale of Bibles in public bookstores is strictly forbidden. I did see a couple black market Bibles in a bookstore once, but this is very rare. Basically, if you want to buy a Bible in China, you need to go to a Three-Self Church bookstore, or buy one on the street for a ghastly price. But having said that, there has not been a quota limit on purchase of Bibles by Church people in churches. So church people who wanted a Bible could usually get one (unless, as I said, there was a black market operation going on). What it comes down to is that the Party has resigned itself to the fact that there are going to be Christians in China, and that the Church is not going to go away. So they allow Bibles to be sold in Church bookstores to Church people, but not to the general public. What I think happened is that the Communist Party, in its periodic examination of the number of Bibles that were going out, discovered that somebody was going to a church or churches and buying up huge numbers of Bibles for the purpose of distributing them to people outside the church--that is, members of the general public who are not church goers and would not otherwise be inclined to come in contact with the Bible. So the Party decided to compensate for this by shutting down the production of Bibles for a period of time. This shows that they still have a few things to learn about economics--limiting supply does not diminish demand. Quite the opposite. But it also shows that they view the growth of Christianity with suspicion and concern.

Some people (myself included) might be inclined, at first, to see this as religious repression, but when I mentioned the issue to the Italian reporter, he just shrugged, "Rice, noodles, dumplings. Think about how they're cooked. They all involve water, but it's different." I have to admit he is right. The government is not trying to shut down Christianity. They are just adding some cold water to the mix to keep it from boiling over. Printing of Bibles has been restored now, and you can buy Bibles again, although I understand there is a quota of two Bibles per person. [Note that I am speaking about people in the cities. It is not always so easy in the countryside, as the report from Mission Network News indicates.]

So the most significant fact about the Bible problem is that it is not that significant. The Party's decision to (artificially) reduce supply has almost certainly increased demand, so it is likely that there will be more Bibles in China than there would have been if they had just left the matter alone. In today's China, anyone with a smart phone can have a Bible in minutes. I don't have an iPhone, but I know with an Android phone you can Blue Tooth the .apk file from one phone to another very easily. There is no restriction on how many times a file like that can be duplicated, and, of course, no way that any government entity can track how many eBibles are being distributed. So Bibles are here to stay. It's not like it used to be... but that brings up a question: How did it used to be?

Let's talk about that. The Communist Party is very much opposed to foreign control of religion, and when they first came to power, the Bible was viewed as a foreign book and religion viewed as the "opium of the people," to quote Karl Marx (das Opium des Volkes). So there was much government opposition to the Bible, and they were not easy to find. But there were attempts to bring them in from outside, the most notable being the the massive smuggling operation called, "Project Pearl," where a missionary by the name of Brother David smuggled a million bibles into China. I first read about Project Pearl in the classic book about Bible smuggling by Brother Andrew. I next read about it in Jesus in Beijing just before I moved to China. In that book, David Aikman, former Beijing bureau chief for Time magazine says that the CIA was flying overhead and was astounded by what they saw. I have often wondered if it was in fact the CIA that tipped off the Chinese that a massive smuggling operation was going on right under their noses. Clearly the CIA could not have known that it was Bibles, not drugs that were being smuggled. At any rate, the police did show up, but they were too late, and the incident became a profound embarrassment to the Chinese government. You shouldn't be able to smuggle a million of anything into a country. I believe it was this embarrassment that eventually led to the establishment of Amity Press, which has printed millions of Bibles for the Christians of China since that incident.

The Bible is a revolutionary book. Empires have risen and fallen on the truth in its pages. Horace Greely said,

It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a bible-reading people. The principles of the bible are the groundwork of human freedom.

By the way, the reason my Bible looks so rugged is not because I read it all the time. In fact, I do most of my daily Bible reading on my smart phone these days. But in the early morning, I like to go sit by the lake and have my devotions. Clumsy as I am, my Bible fell in the lake the other day. I fished it out right away, but the pages are a little crinkly.

Labels: Christianity, Smuggling

Labels: Christianity, Three-Self Churches

There is no registration requirement for, to quote from Chinese Christians, "house services," which are mainly attended by relatives and friends for religious activities such as praying and Bible reading.

Monday, April 02, 2007

What Do Chinese People Believe? 

Back in Beihai. Flew in last night from Beijing. Don't tell anyone, but I accidentally stole the safety instructions from the Airbuss 320 when we changed planes in Changsha. It somehow got stuck between the pages of the International Herald Tribune that I had stuffed in the chair pocket and grabbed quickly as I was leaving. I don't feel to bad, though. Last year, someone from the airline stole my paper. It was one of those deals where we didn't actually change planes--we just landed in Changsha to drop off and pick up passengers. I had gotten off the plane for a few minutes, and when I got back, my paper was gone. Some over-zealous clean freak had thrown it away.

The rest of the trip was uneventful, except that when I got to Beihai, I forgot to pick up my checked baggage. It was kinda embarrassing, because it is quite a drive from the airport out to the college, and I didn't discover I had left it until we were carrying my stuff into my apartment. The guy who picked me up was very cheerful about it. He immediately took me back to the airport, which, unfortunately, was closed by that time. So, we had to go out there this morning and get it. Disgusting. If I added up all the time I have wasted in my life going back to get something that I have forgotten the first time...I don't even want to think about it.

In other news, I started a podcast. The first program features some friendly folks from the English Corner discussing the question, "What do Chinese people believe?"

For those of you who may not be too familiar with podcasting, there are three ways to deal with podcasts:

1. You can listen online directly.

2. You can download the .mp3 file to your hard drive.

3. You can install free podcasting software which will manage the download(s) for you.

If you have a fast internet connection, and don't want to store the files, the first option might be best for you. If you don't have a very good connection, or you want to transfer the .mp3 to an Ipod or .mp3 player, you could chose the second option. If you listen to a number of podcasts (as I do), you may want to consider the third option, because you don't have to go to the web site for each podcast and download the file. Your podcasting software will visit the web sites for the podcasts you have subscribed to, check for the latest program for each podcast, and download it automatically.

Labels: Christianity, Confucius, Religion

Posted by: Eric / 9:45 PM

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The Church in China 

My life verse, the scripture God set as a banner for my life when I was a young child, is one I memorized in Sunday School when I was in Kindergarten or first grade:

"I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD." (Psalm 122:1)

Church is boring for any kid, I suppose, but for me, even though I sometimes found myself getting bored, there was something about church that I always felt drawn to. I guess it was because I really believed that I could meet God in that place, and to me, nothing could be greater than to be able to hear God speak to me.

This "life destiny," if you will, was confirmed a few years later, when Dad wrote the following in the flyleaf of my confirmation Bible:

"One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple." (Psalm 27:4)

The church, and what it represented has always seemed to me to be the focal point of everything important in life. In my childhood, it was the repository of my dearest hopes. And when I was taken to America with my other brothers and sisters at the age of 13, it was the cause of my deepest disillusionment. Perhaps I was not totally objective. I didn't really want to go to America. Adjusting to American culture was not easy. America has a very complicated culture, and I had come from a culture that was ever so much simpler. I grew up in the countryside of Northern Japan, during the time of relative peace and prosperity that followed World War II. America was respected then, not only because the Americans had defeated the Japanese, but because they had treated the Japanese kindly. The result of this was that, even though Japan is not thought of as a Christian country, we, as Christian missionaries were well received.

Although we were never treated with hostility, Christianity was not popular in the Japan I knew as a child. So the Christianity I grew up with was relatively simple. There was usually only one Christian church in the community, and Christians were known as precisely that. They were called "Christians," not "Lutherans," or "Baptists," or "Pentecostals." So when I went to America, and saw the way Christians seemed to be divided into so many splinter groups, I was disgusted. I began to wonder about the meaning of it all. How do you determine what is really genuine, when so many who call themselves Christians are identifying more with a particular "brand" of Christianity, than with the person of Christ? In other words, how can we encourage a lost world to see Jesus of Nazareth as the answer to the deepest questions of life, if we ourselves identify most strongly with something that really has more to do with a particular Christian club than with the church as the earthly expression of the Body of Christ?

When I was in college, I came across a couple of books by Watchman Nee that had a profound influence on my thinking. The books were called, The Orthodoxy of the Church, and The Normal Christian Church Life. Watchman Nee has been known for quite a few years as a gifted devotional writer, but the books that I was drawn to were not in that category. They are not devotional books, and would not ordinarily be found in the many Christian book stores throughout the United States that sell the devotional literature that Nee is so well known for. I was interested in them because they addressed a subject that was deeply important to me, and because in them, Nee dared to take a position rejecting the institutionalized sectarianism that Western Christians seem so hopelessly addicted to. In other words, he dared to repudiate what I found so revolting about American church life.

During the time that Watchman Nee lived and taught in China (the years between World War I and World War II), his teaching and writing created quite a stir among Evangelical Christians from the West. More than a few missionaries left their own organizations and joined his "movement" Actually, Watchman Nee never intended to start a movement, but it was clear to all that a movement had developed around his ministry. Watchman Nee felt a spiritual responsibility for these people, and tried to address their needs. One of the ways he did this, was to publish a hymnbook, which he called, "Hymns for the Little Flock." The name stuck, and Watchman Nee was identified from that time on as the leader of the "Little Flock" movement.

At one point during this period, the missionaries called him in and talked with him. Their most important question was, "Do you think missionaries have a place in China?" Watchman Nee assured them that missionaries would always be welcome, but that they should come as teaching elders in the local churches. I remember reading this when I was in college. I thought it seemed fair, but I could also understand how the missionaries would tend to react to this. Western missionaries in China were used to being in charge. They were not entirely comfortable being part of something that they did not control. And I suppose in one sense, they could be justified in asking where Watchman Nee got the authority to decide how they should fit in. What is most interesting to me, though, is that the type of church life that has developed in China today is one where Western Christians who insist on being in charge are pretty much non-effective. Missionaries are not allowed in China today, but Western Christians are welcome in every church I have visited. Several of the churches I have visited either provide translation, or provide English language services.

Watchman Nee was arrested in 1951 or 1952, and he spent the next 20 years of his life in prison. I am not clear about whether or not he died in prison, but if he did get out it would have been shortly before he died. His imprisonment was, for the Communist Party, the ultimate act of hypocrisy, because Watchman Nee, more than any other personality on the Chinese landscape, embodied what the "Three Self Patriotic Movement" was supposed to be about. When the TSPM was set up, it was stated as being, "self governing, self supporting and self propagating." That's exactly what Nee taught. But he also taught a type of Christianity that was a deep threat to the Communist system, because it was genuine. Persecuting people like Watchman Nee gave credibility to those who charged that the TSPM was just a thinly veiled attempt to wipe out Christianity. I don't argue much with those who make the charge, as long as they are talking about the church during the days just following the Communist revolution of 1949, because whether or not it was true, it sure looked that way, and the Communist party is as much responsible for that impression as any other entity.

The problem I have is with those who try to dismiss the TSPM today with the same charge. It is a view that misses a very important year in recent history. The year I am referring to is 1989. During that year, a truly revolutionary wind blew through the Communist world, and changed the landscape in ways that were every bit as significant as the original Communist revolutions. It started when Hungary decided to take down the fence that separated them from Austria. People from all over Eastern Europe took vacations to Hungary and simply walked into Austria. The trickle became a flood, and the flow of refugees started a stampede. The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union fell, and with it, other Communist governments throughout Eastern Europe. In China, this revolution erupted in Tiananmen Square when students from Beida and other universities thronged to the square to express their demands for more democracy, something they did not understand, but knew they wanted. As I have said before, in discussing this issue, the students lost the battle and won the war. They were forcibly removed from the Square, and their movement was broken up, but China was forever changed, and could never be the same.

What is the nature of this transformation throughout the Communist world with respect to the church? It varies, of course, depending on which country you are talking about, but generally speaking, the change in attitude was characterized by a gradual acquiescence to Christianity as a more or less permanent fixture on the landscape of modern society. What this meant in China, was that the government changed from a posture of hostility to Christianity, to a recognition that Christianity was here to stay, and that the focus should be on control and regulation rather than elimination. This major sea change has had a dramatic effect on the Christian community. The government, being Communist, and essentially atheistic, began to adopt an approach which, while still characterized by a determination to be "in charge" of religion, was much more livable, because it is at the same time characterized by a disinterested "hands off" approach toward religious activities, as long as there is not a perceived attempt to challenge the authority of the government. This is essentially the balance. China is not like America. China is a controlled society. Religion, like other areas of Chinese life, is controlled by the government. But China is also not like North Korea. Or more importantly, China is not like China during the Cultural Revolution. So you do hear of clashes between Christians and the government from time to time, especially in cases where a religious group is quite obviously trying to establish a separate ecclesiastical authority outside the purview of the Three Self Patriotic Movement and the China Christian Council. But it simply is not the case that Christians are being arrested or harassed simply because they are Christians. We can argue all day about the pros and cons of such a status quo. If there are aspects of this that I like or dislike, I do not choose to discuss them here. I am merely describing the situation.

Now then, as to the way church life is expressed in China, I will talk about the Church in China in three different areas. First, the Three Self Churches, second, the house churches, and finally, since I have been involved in them personally, the international churches.

The Three Self Churches. Ironically, the Three Self Church today functions very much according to the outline that Watchman Nee laid down for how church life was supposed to be expressed in a non-sectarian manner. Watchman Nee said that there was only one local church in each community, and that all believers were part of it. This is essentially how the Three Self Church operates. In a city the size of Beijing in America, there would probably be a couple thousand churches. It is very easy to incorporate a church in the United States. I think it takes at least three people, but it is a pretty simple process. But in China, it is not easy at all. The Religious Affairs Bureau basically allows one church in each district. So there is one (Protestant) church in the Haidian District. The church is not a member of any denomination. We would call it "Protestant," but the Chinese term is jidu-jiao, which says nothing about being Protestant. It is a generic description for Christian. So the folks who go to the Three Self Church are known as Christians. There is little argument about doctrine. I am sure the issues are discussed at some point, but they just don't show up in everyday church life. I have never heard Chinese Christians in the Church I go to talk about becoming a member of the church. They are required to go to a beginner's class for six months before they can be baptized. Once they are baptized, they are allowed to take communion, and accept responsibilities in the Church.

Watchman Nee also taught that denominations were unscriptural. He openly repudiated the proliferation of Western sectarian groups in China. Today, the Three-Self Church is largely postdenominational. Again, this does not mean that there are not differences of expression, but that the denominational structures which typically make ideological purity the standard of membership are pretty much gone. There are separate institutions for Protestant and Catholic--the Government recognizes that distinction. But the institutionalized sectarianism that Western Christians have become so addicted to has been purged from the church in China by 55 years of Atheistic government, as well as the Cultural Revolution.

It is hard to generalize about the spiritual climate and style of worship of Three Self Churches, because there are so many of them throughout China, but my experience has been that they are largely Evangelical. They are also very crowded, but they tend to be filled with sincere Christians who call themselves believers, not with Sunday Christians who go to church because it gives them status in the community. Beyond that though, there are different expressions. I was having breakfast at the Lush once, and an American who introduced himself as a Baptist preacher told me that they were getting ready to go to a "Lutheran" Church. When he described where he was going, I realized that he was talking about Haidian Church. He was quite surprised when I told him that it was a Three Self Church. Actually, I can see how people, especially from a Baptist background would think if it as Lutheran, although there is no liturgy to speak of, except for the Lord's Prayer. But they are not all like that. I went to a Charismatic Three Self Church in Fuzhou which was similar in some ways, but also quite a bit more lively in worship.

Before I came to China, I was aware that many Westerners view the Three Self Church as a "lost cause." I have been acquainted with Western Christians who would never have anything to do with a Three Self Church, because it is "controlled by the government." When I came to China, I found this same sentiment among the house churches. It is not universal by any means, but it is definitely a prominent feeling among many house church Christians. Wouldn't you know it, the same Devil who invented denominations, has figured out all sorts of other ways to keep brothers and sisters from working together. I was at a house church meeting not long ago, where another sister I was with happened to mention to someone that she went to the Haidian Church. One of the brothers in the House Church lectured her sternly about being involved with the Three Self Church. Last spring, when I visited Samuel Lamb in Guangzhou, I told him that I was involved with a Three Self church. He said, "Three Self Church no good." I have a lot of respect for Samuel Lamb, and I think I understand where he is coming from, but I don't agree with that position. The Three Self Churches, for all their weaknesses, are still churches. They are local churches run my Christians for the spiritual benefit of Christians, and for the purpose of preaching the gospel, and the one I am involved in clearly performs both of those functions. Every few months there is a baptism. Last time they had a baptism, they had to divide it into two services, because there were 130 people being baptized. In addition to all of that, many of the Three-Self churches still operating today are old CIM church plants. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we should give them up without a fight. Christians should be flocking to these churches, not running away from them. In many ways, the modern Three Self Church is the world's best kept secret.

The House Churches. Christians in the West often speak of the "illegal house churches" in China. This is a classic example of Western misinformation, or at least oversimplification. In fact, house churches are not illegal in China. The government does require that religious assemblies register with the Religious Affairs Bureau. But small family churches are exempt from this requirement to register. Here is what the official government policy on registration actually says:

In China religious organizations and sites for religious activities must register with the government in accordance with the law, which is the case in some other countries as well. Applications for such registration must meet the following basic requirements: a permanent site and name; regular attendance; a management organization composed of adherents to the relevant religion; clerical personnel for officiating religious activities or personnel with qualifications stipulated in regulations of various religions; management regulations and lawful income. Government departments shall defer the registration or only approve temporary registration of religious sites which cannot completely satisfy these basic requirements or have prominent management problems. Government departments shall not permit the registration of, for example, sites for religious activities which illegally occupy land or violate the statutes of city planning, which have been set up without authorization or which promote superstitious activities, such as exorcising evil spirits under the pretext of religious activities. Once a site for religious activities is registered according to law it has legal status and its lawful rights and interests shall be protected. If its rights and interests are infringed upon the organization in charge of the site is entitled to seek administrative and legal protection by appealing to the relevant government organ or taking the case to a people's court. There is no registration requirement for, to quote from Chinese Christians, "house services," which are mainly attended by relatives and friends for religious activities such as praying and Bible reading.

I have bolded the last statement, because it addresses the house churches, which are granted a blanket exemption from the policy. The question, of course, is how many of the so-called "house churches" can be legitimately exempted according to this dictate. Most of them would say that they are exempt. In fact, I rarely hear Chinese Christians use the term "house church." Most of the time they will use the term, "family church." Presumably, this is to emphasize that their particular fellowship somehow fits into this exemption from the government requirement to register. House churches are in Chinese, and there is usually no translation provided, so I have not been to very many of them. But what I have noticed is that as house churches grow and develop, there seems to be a point where they struggle with the boundary between the above mentioned exemption, and the type of fellowship described in the rest of the paragraph. In other words, how large can a "family church" be, and still meet the conditions for exemption? The policy as stated doesn't give a number. If a family church rents a meeting place, does this mean it is now required to register? I know of at least one fellowship where someone in the fellowship bought an apartment for the fellowship to use. This fellowship is sizeable, but it can still fit comfortably in a sort of extended living room of a private home.

But some fellowships really do get to be pretty successful. Last spring, I visited a non-registered church fellowship in Guangzhou. When I spoke with Samuel Lamb, the pastor, he told me that approximately 3000 people attend four services a week. This would mean an average of over 700 people per service. That's quite a bit. I think the government pretty much leaves him alone now, because Samuel Lamb has international recognition, so the government is understandably hesitant to create an international issue over one violation of the policy. But I just said something that Samuel Lamb would take issue with. He does not believe that he is violating the policy. When the PSB was giving him trouble and insisting that he become a part of the Three Self system, he did not refuse by saying, "I must obey God rather than man." He responded by insisting that his church is covered by the exemption in the registration policy. I have the highest regard for Samuel Lamb, and I believe he is a sincere man of God. But perhaps it strains credulity just a bit to suggest that a church with 3000 members would be covered by the exemption. Let's look at it again:

There is no registration requirement for, to quote from Chinese Christians, "house services," which are mainly attended by relatives and friends for religious activities such as praying and Bible reading.

In fairness, his church is located in a residential neighborhood, and I believe he does own the building. It is not a large structure. It does look more like a home than a church. Still, I just cannot imagine that the law intended to include this kind of church in the exemption from registration. Again, Samuel Lamb will probably not be harassed, because he has become a symbol for religious freedom internationally. But I cannot imagine that any other fellowship would get by with this.

But where, then, should the line be drawn? I don't know of any non-registered fellowships as large as Samuel Lambs "house church," but there are many of them that are doing essentially the same thing. They may have begun as a small group of family and friends in someone's livingroom (the kind of fellowship exempted by the policy), but they have grown to the point were they need to rent or buy a regular meeting place. They are still referred to as "family churches," but the larger they become, the more that term begins to take on a new meaning. Bottom line: many, many informal fellowships in China are stretching the limits of the policy, and so far the government seems to be looking the other way. In some respects, the government doesn't really have a choice. The house church movement is very, very large in China. And it is ironic that the restrictive nature of registration in China has actually been a good thing overall, because it has resulted in a movement of the church back to the home, which is where it really belongs. The early churches always met in homes. In America, now, large mega-churches establish cell groups to encourage their members to meet together in small groups in private homes. But sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get people to participate in these meetings. Church is too easy in America. In China, small group fellowships are the default in some rural areas. And in urban communities like Beijing, where there is only one Three Self Church in each district, house meetings are essential. They are a well recognized institution, and are accepted as a part of life. Thus, the restrictive registration policy in China has produced a healthy, very personal quality of church life in this country.

The International Churches. I attended an International Church the first three months I was in China. The international churches are largely put together by foreign businessmen. I don't have broad experience with this--I have only been involved with one of them (BICF), but I would imagine that the others would be similar. The policy in China allows international churches as long as local people are not admitted. You need a passport to get in. The basic purpose of an international church is to recreate a Western (mainly American) style religious experience for foreigners who are temporarily living outside their own countries, and are not interested in becoming an integral part of the Chinese Christian community. I found myself becoming frustrated with this when I first came to China, but the longer I stay here, the more it becomes evident that there are some folks who would have a lot of trouble adjusting to Chinese churches. So even though I detest the practice of standing at the door and keeping Chinese people from coming to church, I do believe that the international churches have a role to play in providing something for foreigners from quite a number of countries who would probably not go to church if the international fellowship was not there.

Labels: Christianity, Family Churches, International Churches, Three-Self Churches

Posted by: Eric / 10:47 PM

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Nestorian Stele 

Sally from the Youth Hostel has been pestering me to go to the Banpo museum of Ancient history. Today, she offered to take me there. She told me it was a museum of ancient history, but ancient history doesn't quite say it. This is not really ancient history, this is prehistoric. These people supposedly lived six thousand years ago. I would question the dating on that, but they clearly predate any sort of Chinese culture. When we got there today, the actual ruins were being renovated, so we were not able to see them. They are in the process of building a large pavilion to house and protect the ruins. I think this place will be worth seeing when it is finished. But it was still good for me, because it gave me a basis for research. For example, I looked up "Banpo" on the internet this evening, and found that it is called the "Banpo Neolithic Village."

After viewing the village design in the part of the museum that was still open, I asked Sally and her friend, Heather, if they wanted to go with me to the Forest of Steles (BeiLin). The Forest of Steles is so named because it is a collection of large stone tablets containing inscribed writings. But I didn't really come to see the forest. I came to see one "tree." One stele from the Tang Dynasty (below). It is a stone tablet about eight or nine feet high, which contains the story of the Nestorian missionaries coming to China in 635 AD. The text of the story was written by a Nestorian missionary from Persia, and inscribed by a calligrapher in 781 AD. So it tells the history of the Nestorians up to that point, which would be close to 150 years after they came. Christianity was forbidden shortly after that, and the stele was lost for almost a thousand years before it reappeared in the 17th Century. It is an extraordinary document, because it establishes the presence of Christian missionaries in China during the Tang dynasty.

It would take a far better historian than me to assess the impact of the Nestorians on that most creative of periods in the history of China's many dynasties. But the mere fact that they were here is significant, and just as significant is the fact that they seem to have disappeared almost as suddenly as they appeared. Perhaps their failure was in the fact that they did not distinguish themselves clearly enough from the world around them. At any rate, there was no continuing Christianity, that I know of, between the time of the Nestorians, and the Nineteenth Century, when missionaries from the West again came to China.

I took this picture with my little pocket camera, and without any special lighting, so you really have to expand it quite a bit to see the writing, but it is quite amazing to contemplate that this stone document was inscribed some twelve hundred years ago. Who knows what forces of man and nature it has managed to resist to stay alive all these centuries?

And in other news, Rainbow from the youth hostel managed to get me a soft sleeper to Beijing for tomorrow. It's time to go home.

Labels: Christianity, Nestorians

Posted by: Eric / 11:18 PM