From the mid-1960's through the the mid-1970's, at least, the leadership of the churches I attended sang the praises of those who were willing to do whatever it took to spread the gospel. There is actually a history of fervent men standing standing on streetcorners and shouting out sermons so that all who came into earshot - and with their lung power that was quite a distance - would hear the message of salvation preached in the south. Actually, to say that this is a southern phenomenon, with the suggestion that it occurs no where else, is inaccurate. When I was in Boston 3 years ago, for example, there were teams preaching on Boston Common from sunrise to sunset.
The problem comes when local municipalities pass noise ordinances or other laws that would limit such practices. Then, the question becomes faithfulness in proclaiming the gospel or obedience to the law. Generally, those so inclined to preach on street corners proudly proclaimed that God's Commands to preach the gospel trumped any man-made law.
Probably the extreme version of this practice during the 60's and 70's came with those who smuggled Bibles into Communist countries. One of the more famous of these people was Brother Andrew who was known as "God's Smuggler," with a book by that title. The book detailed Brother Andrew's harrowing exploits at getting Bibles past the Border Patrol checkpoints. He seemed to be a cross between Secret Agent Man and a saint.
This situation was brought to my mind as I listened to the news reports about the protesters detailing China's poor record in allowing religious freedom. Slate.com ran a story describing how efforts to get "missionaries" from groups outside of China had been thwarted with a significant section of the story detailing a recent visit to China by Franklin Graham. Graham indicated that he had seen real progress in religious freedom over the last 20 years made by the Chinese government and encouraged China's Protestants to resolve disagreements with their government. That section of the article ends with this sentence, "Then, in a bombshell for American evangelicals, Graham added that he was opposed to Olympic evangelization: 'I would not support any illegal activity at all.'"
So, Franklin Graham is against people trying to sneak in 'preachers' or 'missionaries' because it is against Chinese law. That raises the question: Should western Christian groups try to take advantage of the Olympic Games in Beijing and send in teams of evangelists in the guise of tourists? Whose law should be followed?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Lawful or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Franklin Graham has probably weighed the possible outcomes and determined that talking and slowly doing what he can, is likely to get more done for the Chinese Christians than open confrontation. This seems to be the case in his dealings with so many other oppressive governments as well. Other world leaders and celebrities are already trying the frontal approach anyway, so all strategies are covered.
Sooner or later the million or more young men with no women to marry, thanks to the Communist Party's ongoing "one child" policy, will make a formidable army that will probably have to be faced by freedom loving citizens of the world (mostly from the USA, as usual, no doubt). Unfortunately, the repressed citizens of the regime are likely to follow orders lock-step like so many citizens of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan did a couple of generations ago.
It is very hard to divine what the Lord's plan for us all has in store with regard to Communist China, and why He would have it be so. Pity those that have to experience it from the inside instead of the outside!
It will also be very interesting to see how far under the tent flaps the popular media is willing to go in its coverage of the host country at this year's Olympics. So far it has mostly been a dutiful amazement in front of the facade, with little inclination to look behind. Maybe when they try to google from within China, they will begin to realize the truth, because few of them are likely to be caught with Bibles in their luggage I fear.
In the close of his article "Empire of Lies" Guy Sorman describes the possible futures for China, and the situation does not look good.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_china.html
"“Do you dare deny China’s success story, her social stability, economic growth, cultural renaissance, and international restraint?” Yan Yfan (a pseudonym) asks me, back in Paris. A scholar on the payroll of a Beijing foundation, an extension of the Party, he has the assignment to handle my case. I respond that political and religious oppression, censorship, entrenched rural poverty, family-planning excesses, and rampant corruption are just as real as economic growth in today’s China. “What you are saying is true, but affects only a minority yet to benefit from reforms,” he asserts.
Yet nothing guarantees that this so-called minority—1 billion people!—will integrate with modern China. It is just as possible that the “minority” will remain poor, since it has no say in determining its fate, even as Party members get richer. Yan Yfan underscores my fundamental error: “You don’t have any confidence in the Party’s ability to resolve the pertinent issues you have raised.” He’s right; I don’t.
One must tread cautiously when trying to predict China’s future. Over the last century, China has never ceased to surprise with her dramatic U-turns. China scholar Andrew Nathan suggests various scenarios: a revolution (but not necessarily a democratic one); economic bankruptcy (with a military dictatorship taking over); gradual liberalization (unlikely); or the maintenance of the status quo. I think the status quo will prevail, at least for now, for the Chinese people fear new political violence. Of course, a fifth scenario is possible, the one that can’t be predicted. But those in the West who think that the future belongs to China should think again."
Post a Comment