Eric's Beijing Diary

Last May Safina and Jack both graduated from high school at about the same time. The graduations were on the same day, so I could not go to both of them, but there were a number of relatives who came for both graduations, so we were able to intermingle somewhat. As it happened, John and I were both staying at a condo that Heather and Jason figured out, so I took the opportunity to interview him while Melissa and David were at the beach.

For a lot of modern young people, it's perhaps a bit hard to appreciate the impact on the Six Day War on the mindset of the American public. John was born in 1950, and I was born in 54, so we were of an age where we could begin to appreciate the significance of that victory. To be fair to history, one should also consider the Yom Kippur War of 1973, because if you put those two together, the victory of 1967 is not quite so astounding. Still, regardless of how you look at the outcome of those wars, Israel clearly won the PR war in both cases. Perhaps that is partly what motivated Anwar Sadat to extend the olive branch, because he was immediately lionized as a peace hero. But it cost him. He was assassinated by extremists who did not like his friendship with the Jews.

When Sadat was assassinated in October of 1981, I was teaching in a small one room school on the prairies of North Dakota. I took the children outside the schoolhouse and lowered the flag to half mast. Why? Why do the best ones have to die? The simple reality is that peace has friends, but peace also has its enemies.

Having come of age in the audience of these momentous events, and having been a product of evangelical Sunday schools and Christian schools from my earliest memories, and also having been a strong believer in Horace Greeley's statement that “it is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a bible-reading people," I read the Bible throughout my growing up years.

We had another book around the house called "Egermeier's Bible Story Book." I took that thing and read through it to give myself a basic understanding of the stories of the Bible. As you can gather from what I am saying, Israel figures quite prominently in the literature of my childhood and youth environment. Not exclusively, of course. I read novels like the Hardy Boys, and the Little Women, Little Men series. So I was exposed to lots of literature as a child that had nothing to do with Israel. But I also lived and learned in an environment where Israel was talked about a lot. And of course my Bible reading put me in a place to know how Jews think. Every book in the Bible was written by a Jew, except for the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke.

I think you will find this podcast episode very useful. John has studied the Middle East (mostly Israel) his entire adult life. I have too, but not to the extent that John has. I am interested in Israel, of course, but I also went through long periods when I studied stuff that had little to do with Israel, such as the ten year study I did of the American Civil War in the eighties and nineties and my study of the history of modern China back in the noughties before and after I moved to Beijing in 2004. And there was a period after I left the trucking industry in the late nineties when I read almost no history of any kind for a period of two years as I was teaching myself technology to become a technical trainer, spending hundreds of hours reading tens of thousands of pages of technical documents.

After that two years, I tried to balance my reading a bit, bringing back some reading of history, but I still continued to spend quite a bit of time studying technology as the university I worked for decided to train me as a database specialist. On top of that was my study of Mandarin as preparation for living in China. I hired my first Mandarin tutor in Arizona when I was two months shy of my 48th birthday, so you can imagine I had some catching up to do. What I am trying to say is that through those years I had lots of irons in the fire, so even though I had a high level of interest in the Middle East, I was busy with so many other things. I like learning. But learning takes time. There's no magic to it. It's a simple war of attrition. To understand a subject, you need to do a lot of reading over a prolonged period of time. So I am not nearly as well versed as John is on the various dimensions of the Middle East conundrum.

And what is that conundrum? Basically, it surrounds two main people groups who both have a right to the same piece of ground. To a Zionist, the land has always rightfully belonged to the Jews. And Evangelicals who are students of the Bible tend to agree with this. As I have said many times (mostly to myself), Evangelicals are basically uncultured Orthodox Jews. They have Bibles that disguise the name of Yahweh out of respect. In the Old Testament, wherever the original Hebrew says "Adonai," the English is "Lord," because that's what Adonai means. But wherever the original Hebrew is "Yahweh," the English is "LORD," which is incorrect, because that's not what Yahweh means. Yahweh is simply the name of God (Psalm 68). The best text I have found for this is Isaiah 6. There are several examples of each word.

I am a man. My name is "Eric." "Man" describes what kind of being I am. But Eric doesn't really describe being. It is simply my name. I don't mean that name meanings are not important. I think they are. But while a name may be given to indicate a particular quality the parents may hope for in their child, no parent feels a need to name their child "human" to make sure they don't become a dog or a cat.

If I were the only man in the universe, "man" and "Eric" might tend to be viewed as synonymous terms. But even then they would not be the same. One describes being. They other is the name of that being. In the same way, since there is only one God, and his name is Jehovah (another way to say Yahweh—the two words don't sound that different if you remember that the letter J has a Y sound in languages like German), people might be inclined to think that "God" and "Jehovah" mean the same thing. Not so. When you see the word "God" in the Old Testament, the original Hebrew is "Elohim."

Evangelicals are clueless about this sort of thing. As I said, every English Bible (except the old ASV of 1901) disguises the name of God in the Old Testament by writing LORD in stead of Yahweh. So Evangelicals carry Bibles that disguise the name of Yahweh. Then they go out and sit around the campfire with their guitars and sing, "Give me gas in my Nova keep me truckin' for Jehovah." Forgive them. They don't mean any disrespect. They just really don't know.

But that doesn't change the fact that Evangelicals are very Jewish.

"Jewish? But they don't keep the Old Testament laws!"

That's not what distinguishes them from the Jews. That's what they and most modern Jews have in common. As any honest Jew can tell you, most Jews don't keep them either. Have you ever met a Jew who kept all the Mosaic rules? I doubt it. There are over 600 of them. Most Jews couldn't even tell you what they are. As I mentioned in the podcast, Israelis I meet in China invariably say, "We're not religious."

This is really the point that Peter was trying to make in the 15th chapter of Acts:

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.  
Acts 15:8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;  
Acts 15:9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 
Acts 15:10  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 
Acts 15:11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 

Historians will tell you that Evangelicalism is a product of the revival movements of the last couple centuries. That's the short story. But in fact, Evangelicalism is a product of the original apostles deciding to receive Gentile believers into the family of faith without imposing the ceremonial laws of Judaism on them. That's why Acts 15 is so important.

But don't Jews know more about the Old Testament? Not necessarily. You see, Jews typically study the Talmud, which is a collection of medieval commentaries on the Torah. So what is the Torah? The word "Torah" means "law." So "Torah" is the word used by the Jews for the first five books of the Old Testament (often referred to as "the Pentateuch" by Christians). Evangelicals tend not to study them as much as they do the New Testament. And the prophetic books. Evangelicals love Isaiah. Jews tend to focus on the Torah, and the Talmud, which, as I said, are commentaries on the Torah. In fact, Ittay Flescher in his book The Holy and the Broken, said, "The Torah is the Hebrew Bible, consisting of the Five Books of Moses."

That's an astounding statement, coming from an educated Jew who was brought up under the shadow of the menorah.

Listen to me: The Torah is not the Jewish Bible. It is only one small part of the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible is called the Tanakh." It's basically the same as the Christian Old Testament. But Jewish seminarians tend to focus on the Torah, and the Talmud.

Back in the summer of 1972, after I graduated from high school in Salem, Oregon, I hitchhiked across the country--first to Dallas, Texas, where I attended Explo 72, then on to my sister's place in Tennessee, and then to Florida to join a bunch of Christians at the Democratic Convention. While there, I met a Jewish guy. He was a messianic Jew. He had a big star of David--if I remember correctly, it was an Israeli flag. I said to him, "How did you become a Christian?"

He told me that he had been in a seminary studying to be a rabbi. He said, "Everybody was studying the Torah. I started studying the prophets, and I saw Jesus."

So...

Question: Why do the Jew not believe that the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah refer to Jesus?

Answer: They've never read them.

Some Jews are as ignorant of the prophetic books as some Christians are of the Torah. In fact, many of them, even educated Jews like Ittay Flescher, are not even aware that the prophetic books are part of their Bible. To be fair to Flescher, he does say quite honestly that he is not religious, so perhaps one cannot expect him to be knowledgeable about a book he does not read.

You see, this is why I said in the podcast that if you want to study the Old Testament (except maybe the Torah), you might be better off going to an Evangelical seminary. I actually think it would be really good for some Evangelical Christians to go to Jewish seminaries and for Jews to go to Evangelical seminaries. Why not? They're all Jews in one way or another.

But let us get back to the real issue. Who does the land belong to, the Jews, or the Palestinians? It belongs to both of them, and they have to learn to share it. And Christians have a role to play in defending the rights of BOTH Jews and Palestinians to live in that area.

"The land cannot be shared!" That's what the Jordanian graduate student told me (as I shared in the podcast).

Wrong. The land must be shared. Does this mean a "two state" solution?" I don't really want to get into that, but it may be one way to address this problem for the present. I personally do not believe that it is a workable long term solution, but I am not principally opposed to it. But the bottom line is that if you believe God has promised you a land, you need to stand back and let him give it to you. Then once he has, of course you will defend it with your life if you are a true patriot.

So I do not blame the Jews for being in Palestine. They are supposed to be there. But I do blame them for not caring for the Palestinians. There are exceptions, of course. And interestingly enough, more often than not, the most caring Israelis tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum (such as Ittay Flescher). I can't help noticing that, and I have seen it time and again. I may not agree with them on much, but I do appreciate their sense of compassion for the Palestinians. I will be coming back to this subject often, because it is central to why Israel has so much trouble with Palestinians. They don't care about them.

We talked about the ten tribes. i don't have a lot to say about this, and i am not really worried about it--when God ordains that they shall reappear, they will surface. It's interesting that not long after I recorded this interview with John, I heard a report that the government of Israel is planning to bring the Bnei Menashe to Israel. I think we are going to be hearing more stories like this in the future.

There is some confusion about the tribe of Simeon. You can see that Simeon is surrounded by Judah. So how did it get to be part of the Northern Kingdom the got taken away by the Assyrians? One source I read said that Simeon was northern by alignment, not by location. But that doesn't make sense, because how would Sennacherib have been able to reach them if they were sheltered within Judah? So there must have been some migration. I have put a link under the External Links below to an article that attempts to explain this. Read it and see what you think.

We also talked about the Ashkenazim. This is a much more contentious issue, because they really are the power base in modern Israel. I tend to agree with John that they are actual Jews, even though they have obviously intermarried considerably over the years. But I don't spend a lot of time stressing over this, because if they really are Jews, DNA is going to eventually make this more and more evident. DNA doesn't lie. People can use DNA to lie, I guess, so we shouldn't trust just one study. But I just think the truth about this will become more and more clear as time goes on. I will only say that if it really could be proven that they are not ethnic Jews, then they clearly do not belong there. But I just don't think that's going to happen. Time may prove me wrong, but I don't think so. We shall see.

So what to do about the current struggle? As I have said many times, mostly to myself, my standard for how to deal with matters like this is the American occupation of Japan after World War II under General Douglas MacArthur. When held up against that standard, the Jews and the Americans both fail miserably, and the Americans appear to be ready to fail again in Iran. I hope not, I really, really hope not. But I am not optimistic. I will do a separate podcast on the Iran issue, because I don't want to get sidetracked, but I do need to just at least mention that the main reason for the whole Gaza situation is the complete failure of Israel to really care about the wellbeing of the Palestinians. It's only fair to point out that the Palestinians themselves are also to blame. After the devastation of the Gaza war became more apparent, Trump started talking about taking over the Gaza strip and moving the Palestinians to other Arab countries. I don't think that's going to work, but it is interesting, because it does point out that if a real estate mogul like Trump can see potential in that piece of real estate, just think what Hamas could have done with it. If they had developed it, like they could have, the Palestinians in Gaza would have been the envy of the world. Instead, they spent their time and money building rockets. I blame them for doing that, but I also blame the Israelis for letting that happen.

Imagine what would have happened to Japan if the Americans had just walled them off after World War II and said, "OK, stay out of trouble. Don't bomb us anymore." Hokkaido would have been taken over by the Soviet Union. And who knows what would have happened to the rest of Japan, and to Japanese culture. Thank-fully that did not happen. MacArthur ruled Japan as a dictator for five years. He wrote the constitution that the Japanese people are still using today. He made a plea for 10,000 missionaries and a million Bibles. And the MacArthur missionaries came in hordes. Not that much has been written about the MacArthur missionaries and the tremendous impact they had on the people and life of Japan. I happen to be aware of them because my parents were MacArthur missionaries, so I grew up in that in that environment.

Years ago, I was attending a Japanese fellowship in Beijing, and a guest speaker from Japan was visiting. We were having dinner after the fellowship, and this guy said, "In the old days, we had two kinds of missionaries, China missionaries and MacArthur missionaries. "

He's right. When the missionaries were kicked out of China by the Communists after 1949, many of them went to Japan. The German doctor who delivered me when I was born in Tokyo was a China missionary. Mom told me that many of the China missionaries had a tough time adjusting to Japan. They didn't speak Japanese, and the Japanese people are somewhat more closed than the Chinese. The mission board my parents worked for dealt with this problem by opening a new field in Taiwan. So some of the China missionaries left. But the MacArthur missionaries were younger. They had never been to China. They knew only Japan. My parents were farm kids from North Dakota and Minnesota, but they both became near-native speakers of Japanese. They and many others like them had a huge impact on what Japan became in the years after World War II. MacArthur himself went to Korea for the Korean War, but not until he had put Japan on it's feet and left them with a whole generation of young missionaries who spoke their language and helped them to become a peaceful prosperous western country. Rudyard Kipling said, "East is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet." Japan has challenged that assumption over and over again in the years since the second world war. And this was made possible because Japan was set on the right path by a benevolent dictator.

I say all this about MacArthur to contrast with Israel, as I have mentioned—you know, letting that hornet's nest fester all these years, but also to contrast with the modern American notion of war with "no boots on the ground." It pains me to see Trump standing in America and saying "Okay you guys, here is your chance to take over your government." Seriously? Friends, the Revolutionary Guard is still very much in force, and they are armed to the teeth. To be fair, Trump has acknowledged that it would be tough for anyone to do anything at this point. But there just doesn't seem to be a solution for this. They did have a right to act, and I think Trump was right to help them. But there does't seem to be a clear idea how to bring about the peace after the war. I'll have more to say about that when I do a podcast about Epic Fury.

And Evangelicals. They are to be commended for supporting Israel's right to exist. But not for rubber stamping all of Israel's policies. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. And then there are Israel's critics. They are also to blame. I have seen them in Congress railing against Israel, but they cannot bring themselves to condemn what Hamas did on October 7th. If you can't bring yourself to condemn what Hamas did on October 7th, then you are not morally qualified to be criticizing Israel. Please don't get me wrong. I believe in freedom of speech. I fully support your right to speak. I just don't think anybody should listen to you until you take the time to watch the videos, do the reading...whatever it takes to become aware of what happened on that day, and then you can say something like "Of course I condemn what Hamas did on October 7th, but Israel..." Then I will be very interested in what you have to say, because you will have earned your right to speak. No. I shouldn't say that. Your right to speak is a given. I should say you will have earned your right to be listened to.

This is why this issue is so frustrating: Everyone is wrong. Why? Because we all live in our own little bubbles, never reading anything or listening to anything or anyone who does not feed our cherished biases.

So what to do. You need to start getting informed. We all do. So I recommend that you start with three books by the author I mentioned in the podcast (Chaim Potok):

1. The Chosen
   
2. The Promise
   
3. My Name is Asher Lev

Read those three books, and in that order. Don't read anything else Chaim Potok wrote, just those three. When you finish them, go on to other stuff.

When you get to My Name is Asher Lev, you will see the conversation I mentioned in the podcast. Here it is:

"Can you explain those paintings to me, Mama?"

"The first ones we saw?"

"Yes."

"They were about a man called Jesus."

"I know about Jesus. Jesus is the God of the goyim."

"Jesus was a Jew who lived in Eretz Yisroel at the time of the Romans. The Romans killed him. That was the way Romans executed people. They hung them from big poles, the way you saw in the paintings."

"Were many Jews killed by the Romans?"

"Thousands. Tens of Thousands."

"Why did the Romans kill Jesus?"

"He said he was the moshiach. They thought he would make a revolution against them."

"Was he the moshiach, Mama?"

"No, he was not the moshiach. The moshiach has not yet come, Asher. Look how much suffering there is in the world. Would there be so much suffering if the moshiach had really come?"

This is classic Judaism, and contains the two most important aspects of classical Jewish view of Jesus and of the Messiah.

1. Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he wanted to lead a revolution against the Roman Empire.
2. Jesus could not be the Messiah, because he did not bring world peace.

I am not sure where the first one came from, but it is a very commonly held view among Jews. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this, and of course the New Testament clearly refutes this. The whole reason so many people turned away from following Jesus is because he refused to lead a revolution. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." I first heard this expressed many years ago in a documentary series on PBS by Abba Eban, foreign minister during the Six Day War. I was astounded. But this bizarre notion is still around. I heard Ben Shapiro express it just recently. Again, I have no idea where it came from, but it is completely unhistorical. It was not the Romans who wanted Jesus dead. And it was not the common people. The Bible says that "the common people heard him gladly." (Mark 12:37)

It was the corrupt religious elite who wanted him dead. And isn't this always the case? Can you imagine that there might have been the same kind of corruption among the Jewish religious elite in the time of Christ as there was among the Catholic religious elite in the time of Martin Luther? You see, it's not about one religion or another. It is just the case that ALL religions tend toward corruption over time. This is because religion is man made. It is man's attempt to reach God. So throughout history there have been times when religion became corrupted, and a reformer would arise who rebuked the religious elite and brought about a reform which liberated the common people. Go to a Bible book store, buy a cheap red letter edition of the Bible, and read through the sermons of Jesus in the four gospels. He said nothing about the Romans. But he was ruthless in his rebuke of the corrupt Jewish religious leaders. That is why he was crucified. Pilate, the Roman governor, said, "I find no fault in Him."

But what about the second item? It is expressed pretty much like this. "Would the world be in such a mess if the Messiah had come?"

As a Christian, I would say, "Yes and no." Why? Because we as Christians understand that the Messiah comes twice, not once. He came the first time to redeem mankind. He will come the second time to rule with a rod of Iron. Many Jews are not aware of this, so they imagine that Christians view Jesus only as a savior. But we as Christians see the second coming of Christ on the Mount of Olives as the establishment of a world political order which will bring a reign of righteousness that will last for a thousand years. So the turmoil around us does not tell us that the Messiah hasn't come yet. It tells us that he has not come back yet.

Now I want to give you some recommendations of resources that will help you, but just before I do, I want to clear up the confusion about Israel that comes from an ambiguity of terms in describing a Jewish country.

Consider the following two terms:

1. Arab state
2. Islamic state

Do those two mean the same thing? No, not at all. Not every Arab state is an Islamic state. And Arab state defines a state where the majority population is Arab, so Arabs are not discriminated as a persecuted minority. An Islamic state is a state ruled by the religion of Islam. Some Americans seem to think that all Arab states are Islamic. Not so. Kuwait, for example, has a basically secular government. Turkey did too, under Ataturk, but under Erdogan it seems to be changing. Now consider the following two terms:

1. Jewish state
2. Jewish state

Do these two mean the same thing? No, not at all. One of them defines a state where the Jews are the majority people, so they are not discriminated against as an oppressed minority. The second term defines a state dominated by the Jewish religion.

So is modern Israel a Jewish state, or a Jewish state? It is definitely a Jewish state, NOT a Jewish state. How could it be a Jewish state if so many, many of its citizens say they are not religious?

You see how hard it is to explain this? In the Arab case, it is very easy to talk about the difference between an Arab state and an Islamic state. But in the case of the Jews, the term that defines a state populated by ethnic Jews and the term that defines a state dominated by Judaism—those two terms look and sound exactly the same. This creates a lot of confusion.

When we talk about the need for a Jewish state, we are not talking about a country dominated by Judaism which is focused on spreading Judaism to the world. We are talking about a state where the Jews as a people can be free from oppression as a persecuted minority, as they were in Germany. After World War II, there was a strong felt need for this among the United Nations and many others, because of the holocaust. Look at a map of the Middle East. Look how much of this is taken up by Arab states. Only tiny Israel is a haven for the Jews, who were exterminated by the millions before the UN set up a country for them.

So we must support the right of the Jews to live in peace in their own country. But we must not do this at the expense of the Palestinians who were in that country, and who have a present right to be there, which should be honored just as much as the Jews' historic right to be there. Neither group's right should be trampled on by the other.

I will have much more to say about this in future podcasts, but for the present, I want to give you some resources to help you start getting up to speed on this momentous issue (after you have read the three books I just mentioned).

Internal Links

Jews in China

This is a collection of blog posts that I have written over the years about Jews in China. I notice that there are some dead links. Some of them are to YouTube videos that have been pulled because of copyright issues. But some of them are photos that show up if you click on them, but not until you click on them. Something about the way I used to code this doesn't work anymore. But I found a YouTube tutorial that shows how to do this through Blogspot, so I will get on this. Fortunately, though, the pictures are not lost, just not immediately visible. You have to click on them to see them.

Harbin, China 2009

One of my students invited me to join her family in the north of Heilongjiang Province for Chinese New Year in 2009. After spending a few days with her family, I took a very crowded train down to Harbin, where a friend of mine in Beijing who was from Harbin met me and helped me to find a small neighborhood guest house for 30 kuai a night. I stayed there for ten days, and tried to find out as much as I could about the Harbin Jews. I learned a lot.

Concise History of the Middle East

This is a book review for a book that I read at the National Library of China in Beijing. Written by left-wing American Jews, it treads pretty lightly when talking about the history of Islam, but is still very informative.

Why Israel Keeps Having Trouble

This is a previous podcast I did on the Israel question.

External Links

Gathering of Israel

This is basically a compendium of Old Testament prophecies about the return of the Jews to Palestine. This includes the ten lost tribes, who were taken in 722 BC by Sennacharib. Particularly note the quote by Maimonides, which looks like it could have been written by a modern Evangelical Christian Zionist.

Statement from the Qu'ran Regarding Israel

Scroll down to verse 19 and read through verse 21. This text clearly shows that Allah gave the land to the Jews.

Three Main Views of the Millennium

This article outlines the three main millennial positions. Not immensely informative, but it's a good brief summary of the three theological schools of thought on the matter.

Everyman's Talmud

Many years ago, when I was in Denver visiting my sister, I went to visit a rabbi. I walked into the synagogue and asked to speak to the rabbi. I asked him if there was any place where a gentile could go to study the Talmud. He said, "If you speak Yiddish."

Yiddish! Oy vey! I did not know until that minute the Yeshiva boys actually study the Talmud in Yiddish. Do they still do that? I just asked Doubao, and Doubao said they still do that quite a bit. So I gave up on the idea. But several years later I was in a bookstore in Bismarck, and I saw a copy of a volume of the English language Talmud by Rabbi Steinsaltz. Then some years later, I discovered this little jewel. It is a one-volume compendium of the Talmud. The Talmud covers some 60 odd volumes, so this is quite a condensation. If you're not interested in the Talmud, you don't need this, I guess, but if you are, this would be a good place to start. I don't know if the one on Amazon is the same edition as the one I had, but it is basically the same thing. I bought mine for three dollars at a thrift store in Seattle, but I left it in a coffee bar somwhere.

Bnei Menashe

The Bnei Menashe are a group of people in India who believe they are descended from the Lost Tribe of Manasseh. If they are actually brought to Israel, and if it turns out that they are, in fact descendents of the tribe of Manasseh, they would be the first people from the lost tribes to return to Israel.

Al Jazeera World

This is a weekly documentary program with will help you to get up to speed on Arab culture in the Middle East. Americans can really benefit from watching culture shows like this. Try one and you'll see what I mean.

Whatever Happened to Simeon?

If you scroll up and look at the map above, you will see that the tribe of Simeon was completely surrounded by Judah. So how did they get to be part of the Northern Kingdom? This article attempts to explain that. Read it and tell me what you think.

Fifteen Characteristics of Life in the Millennium

This contains of list of fifteen characteristics of the Millennium. As I mentioned in the podcast, once we accept the truth of Revelation 20, all the vivid descriptions from the book of Isaiah will come to life.

Exposition of Hosea 1

I excerpted a five minute segment of this message in my post-interview comments. I am including this link in case you want to listen to the whole thing. It is somtimes good to hear from somone who is focussed on what the Bible says, and not just pushed around by the events of the latesst moment. Donald Grey Barnhouse died in 1960, so you can be sure that his comments here were not merely a response to the evening news. The portion I exerpted was from about minute 12 to about minute 17.

Nassar Family

This BBC feature story is dated 2014, and that is probably when I first saw it, I think. It is a story about a Christian Arab family in the West Bank who were brutalized by cruel Israeli neighbors. But don't overreact. Not all Israeli settlers are cruel and heartless. But some are really evil. This is a must read about a family that refused to hate.

James Tour on Judaism

This is really excellent. Every previous YouTube video I have watched by this guy as been on the subject of evolution, because he is a professional chemist, and aguably the top nano-scientist in the world. But everything he puts out is excellent, so I was really intrigued when I saw his name. He talks here about what it is to be a Christian, a Jew, and how they relate to each other, as well as the millennial reign of Christ. Give Dr. Tour a listen. You won't regret it, and you will want to see more of his videos.

Al Jazeera Op-Ed

Fascinating editorial from Al Jazeera discussing the pros and cons of Trump's latest venture, which is now hotly debated in the United States. I am so tempted to enter the debate, but I don't want to distract from the general question before us. I will discuss the Iran War later in a separate podcast.

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn       Podcast Site

How do we explain the increcible rage focused on Elon Musk for trying to make government more efficient? What is is about the modern Democrat party that makes it so hostile to people of faith and conviction who want to do what's right?

The Bible says, "The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth." (Psalm 37:12)

Those people who are lashing out at Elon Musk and his team of crusaders are not just foolish and unwise. They are evil. We should not be surprised when wicked people do wicked things. But what concerns me is that even a few people who call themselves Christians are getting caught up in this hysteria. Don't do that, you guys. You're going to end up on the wrong side of history.

If you have legitimate objections to cuts they are making, of course you should let your voice be heard. That's not a bad thing to do. In fact, these guys really need that kind of input. But to just lash out blindly at their sincere attempt to rescue America from economic disaster is very wrong.

So how do we respond to these angry folks who are venting their rage at those who want to do justice? Sometimes we may call them stupid, or say that they are misguided. And sometimes, those may be the case. But in end, we should not be surprised when wicked people lash out at the righteous. If they point out shortcomings in our approach, we should be mature enough to consider what they say. But if all they want to do is attack any attempt to clean up corruption, then we should proceed in spite of their rage. The powers of darkness despise the righteous. Satan and his minions will always oppose attempts to bring righteousness to government and society.

I started this podcast a week ago, but it took me longer than I had expected. The problem is that I included too many audio clips. Speaking as a teacher, these news clips can be useful in helping to explain various concepts. But I got a little carried away. A lot carried away, actually. Again, they are useful, but time consuming. I think I had four or five in addition to the half-time news break. So this is late, but still current. This issues is not going away, because the search for corruption is going to continue.

That being the case, the scripture below will continue to be salient. This verse doesn't really tell us how to deal with the problem, just that we should not be surprised when it happens. We should not be shoccked and dismayed when wicked people attack us for dong what's right.

Toward the very end, I mention the almost universal contempt for reform on the part of Democrats. I don't like it when one party or the other beccomes branded as the epitome of evil. But in today's world, it has become very difficult to avoid that. The Democrat party has become deeply hostile to people of moral conviction.

And the Republican party has been much more supportive to people who are open about their Christian belief. And that kindness to people of faith is, I believe, a big part of why God has blessed the Republicans in recent years. But we should not measure ourselves against ourselves. We should always allow ourselves to be measured against God's standard. In that sense, I am afraid that America is a civilization in decline. I'm kinda discouraged about America right now. But even though I thought I understood what is developing in America, the sheer wickedness of this attack on these reformers has shocked me. It's at times like this that we need Paul's reminder that we wrestle not against flesh and blood.

After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.

The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.

In…

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 10, 2025

Again—and I can't say this with enough emphasis—constructive criticism should be welcomed. No government should be above criticism. We need thoughtful pointers from righteous people, not only to correct mistakes, but to keep them from happening in the first place.

But this blind rage we see directed at any attempt to fix corrupt systems—this is evil. Pure evil. These are wicked people inspired and controled by the demons of darkness. We should not be amazed when wicked people behave wickedly.

Note: Shortly after I published this podcast, I was listening to the Rogan podcast, and happened to hear a very interesting discussion of USAID by Mike Benz. You might want to give it a listen. Key statement: "If it's too dirty for the CIA, give it to USAID."

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn

Note: I originally publshed this book review on Amazon on March 31, 2008

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

Donald Trump is no doubt the only president in the history of the United States to take the oath of office without placing his hand on the Bible.

I first became aware of this watching a show called "Vantage" on the Firstpost network from New Dehli. The video they showed focused on his hand hanging limply by his side, as if the most important thing was to prove he did not have his hand on the Bible. But the news report was flawed, because it was almost all conjecture. So I did some research and found a Fox video (below) that shows a more complete view of the scene. The three people who matter are Melania, Justice Roberts, and, of course, Trump himself. Watch how each of them moves and tell me who you think is primarily responsible for this mishap.

But the larger question is, "Why does it matter?" To answer that question, I focus on three areas represented by the act of placing one's hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office:

1. Sentiment, or tradition
2. Principle
3. Law

Sentiment, principle, and law. Why do they matter? Which matters most?

Sentiment

Taking an oath on the Lincoln Bible is sentiment. It has to do with honoring tradition. Does that matter? After all, any Bible will do, rightd? Yes. So the purpose of taking an oath on the Lincoln Bible is not to imply that the Lincoln Bible is any more true than any other Bible. Or any more holy. But it is a tribute to a great man whom we view with respect as a man who wrestled with God. So while taking the oath of office on the Lincoln Bible doesn't make you more president than any other Bible, it deepens the experience by associating with one of the very best who have held this office.

Principle

The principle involved with placing one's hand on the Bible could be expressed as this statement: "As this book is true, so my words are true." Isn't that a bit presumptious. Yes, it is. But the presumption can be forgiven if it is a sincere attempt to be as committed to our oath as we are to the very Word of God. We keep the oath not because we are paid to, but because we honor God. But does not the act of taking an oath on the Bible imply that we actually believe what it says? So while only one president has failed to show proper regard for the Bible by failing to place his hand on it, Numerous others have openly mocked the Bible by placing their hand on it, and then regarding it's words with disdain and persecuting it's followers.

Law

The law specifies that words that must be agreed to in order to assume the office one has been given. This is right and proper. The holder of an important office should be required to make promises regarding loyalty to which they can be held for the duration of their term of office. If those words have been spoken and the promise has been made clearly, the demands of the law have been fulfilled. But a strictly legalistic approach to life is less than worthy of the man or woman of integrity that we all wish to see occupying high office.

So take a look at the video below and see if you can decide who should bear the most responsibility for this incredible mishap. What does it mean for Trump and his second term? Speaking as a Christian, I have mixed feelings about Trump and what he stands for. Part of me is frustrated by his tendancy to admire dictators and assgn to them far more humanity than I think they deserve. He did it with Kim of North Korea, Erdogan of Turkey, and now he seems to be ready to do it with Putin of Russia. This is not to say that he should not be talking to these individuals. And it's only fair to add that in spite of my frustration with his shallow approach to Zenensky and his grudging support for Ukraine, there is no question that the war there in Ukraine would never have happened if Trump had been in the White House.

Still, we should be wary of being used by autocrats to justify their mistreatment of their people. This requires the vigilence of every citizen.

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn

Labels: Donald Trump, Ukraine

I have been agitating about doing this for some time. I basically grew up with this issue. As a child, I went to bed every night about 2000 miles from Beijing, 1500 miles from Taipei, and 500 miles from Vladivostok. Not surprising that the Japanese people always considered Russia a greater threat than China. It's partly, I suppose, because Japan had occupied large parts of China in the past, and didn't consider them a threat. For us as Americans, Red (Communist) China always seemed more forboding than Russia. And throughout my childhood, Free China (Taiwan) was led by Chiang Kai-shek, who had been the president of China before the KMT escaped to the island of Taiwan. But I said "had been" the president. From his perspective (and from ours at that partular time in the cold war), he still was the president of China. Remember, the name of the country is not Taiwan. Taiwan is the name of an island, not the name of a country. The official name of the country is Republic of China (not People's Republic of China), and that government moved to Taiwan to get away from the Communists, but still considered themselves the "real" government of China. They even took the treasures of the Forbidden City with them.

American Thanksgiving falls on the fourth Thursday of November, which, this year, was two days ago, on the 28th.

In simplest terms, the Rohingya are Muslims in Burma who consider themselves to be indigenous people. The government Considers them Bengali intruders. This all strikes me as an issue that doesn't need to be, but maybe that's because I live in China. Their government of China recognizes 55 minorities in China. It's actually S6 "nationalities," but one of those 56 is the Han, and they, of course, are not a minority. Uyghur

I think there is a lot of moral confusion about ceasefires. . This blog post was inspired by a tweet from Mr. Jerad Kushner, who worked for Trump, and was very significantly involved in the development of the Abraham Accords. Perhaps we could say he was the architect of the accords.

September 27th is the most important day in the Middle East since the Abraham Accords breakthrough.

I have spent countless hours studying Hezbollah and there is not an expert on earth who thought that what Israel has done to decapitate and degrade them was possible.

This is…

— Jared Kushner (@jaredkushner) September 29, 2024

Before anything else, let's remember that there was a ceasefire on October 6th that had been in place a long time before it was bcroken by Hamas on October 7th.

Note: This book was originally published on Amazon on August 23, 2005

Here in China, I have met more than one young person from Europe or America, who has come to China to study the history and language of this country. I, myself am interested in the history of China, so I naturally begin to discuss the subject, and try to get their thoughts on some issue or another. But if I refer to something that pertains to the many dynasties of China, the response is always the same, "Oh. I'm only interested in modern China." I am always intrigued by this comment, because I don't think it is possible properly to understand modern China without knowing something of what went on before. But certainly the predominant interest of those from the West who write about China, is the history of "Modern China," which I date from the Macartney Mission in 1793.

This new biography by Jonathan Fenby, former editor of the South China Morning Post, promises to be the definitive work on the subject for years to come. There are several reasons why I like his book. I will try to elucidate the most important. First of all, Chiang Kai-shek has often been seen by westerners as the person who "lost" China because of his refusal to fight the Japanese. Much of this view came from Barbara Tuchman's biography of Joseph Stillwell, which came out in '70 or '71. Stillwell was protrayed as the hero who tried to save China, but was prevented from doing so by Chiang. In actual fact, Stillwell was a jerk, who according to one of his strongest supporters (Marshall) was "his own worst enemy." He referred to Chiang Kai-shek as "Peanut," and FDR as "Rubber Legs." Jonathan Fenby sums up Stillwell with one simple statement: "He was the wrong man at the wrong time." Very well put.

But getting back to Chiang Kai-shek. Should he have concentrated more on fighting the Japanese, and not so much on fighting the Communists? Probably so. Chiang always said that the Japanese were a disease of the skin, and the Communists were a disease of the heart. In some ways, you could argue that history has supported his approach, because the Japanese were ultimately defeated, not by the Communists or the Nationalists, but by the Americans, when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the problem is that the Americans made Europe a priority. Asia came second. And by the time the Japanese were finally defeated, too much damage had been done in terms of the relationship between the Nationalists and the laobaixing (common people) of China. If Chiang Kai-shek had fought more vociferously, he would certainly have prevented the Xi'an Incident, and may have been more likely to have the people with him by the time the Americans finally did what they had to to put the Japanese out of business. At least that's the thinking. It is very hard to say for sure.

But Fenby is fair. He shows that the Communists employed basically the same strategy--avoiding conflict with the Japanese to save themselves for the inevitable showdown with the KMT. So what is the truth. T?e fact is that both the Nationalists and the Communists fought the Japanese, but probably not as well as they could have if they had not been fighting each other. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. And then there is the matter of opium. It is well known that Chiang Kai-shek was supported by Big-Eared Du, who controlled the opium trade in Shanghai. But what is not commonly known is that Mao had a production facility for opium set up in Yanan. He fully intended to wipe out opium after the Communists were in power, but he could not resist the temptation to benefit from the sizeable revenue this drug brought in during a time when the fledgeling Communist Party desparately needed cash. According to Fenby, the production and sale of opium in Yan'an by the Communists brought in billions of dollars, and at one point constituted 40% of total revenue.

This is a sad book. But it is a very important one, because it deals so completely with a very important time in China's history. It is also important because it is missing much of the bias one way or another that characterized stuff that was written about Chiang Kai-shek during the cold war period. I don't know that it would be easy to follow for someone who is completely unfamiliar with 20th Century Chinese history. When you're reading this book it definitely helps to have some familiarity with the dramatis personae. That being said, it is a significant addition to the study of this period. And although it will probably not be sold openly on the mainland for a long time, it will definitely redefine the way this period is viewed, both by supporters and detractors of this most unusual figure in the history of modern China. Five stars without any hesitation.

Transistors represent the intermediate slage between vacuum tubes and modern serucconductors.