CTJ 40 (2005): 104-107

Arise, Shine A Sermon on Isaiah 60:1

Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.

Isaiah 60:1: “Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.”

How I Approached This Sermon In isolating a text to preach from this assigned chapter (a blessed assign- ment, of course, by comparison with, say, Ezra 6), I wanted to say in other words what the text says and to do in other words what the text does. These require- ments moved me to center the sermon, both thematically and dynamically, on the glory that shines out—from God, from Israel, from the nations—when each party in the drama acts “in character.” God’s specialty is to save, so break- ing Israel out of her Babylonian captivity is God’s glory. Israel’s specialty is to attract the nations to God so that they may stand under his blessing. Her glory is to shine. The nations, in turn, each have their specialties to bring to God— cedars, flocks, spices, and so on—which are their glory. Vs. 1 compacts the whole chapter message into the form of a glad invitation. To get some of the gladness and glory onto a page and then out into air- space at Symposium, I needed to get those nations moving. I needed to expose what they are carrying. So we’ve got these nations and their treasures on the move, but the procession is up ahead because, for the moment, Israel is trapped in darkness. What’s that like? The Messiah story connects Israel’s text to a situation we can all imagine, and, at least for me, powers the adversative clause right into our hearts. Darkness, yes, but the Lord shall arise upon thee. (The text also belongs in your Easter folder.) That’s the hinge of the sermon. Darkness, depression, sorrow of persons and nations, but the Lord shall arise. The fulfillment of the promise comes at the end of history when the nations are on the move again, bringing their special- ties into the City of God. In the end, what attracts us all is “the light of the knowl- edge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” So, I did a simple major key, minor key, major key progression, moved along by the chapter’s own imagery of light, darkness, light; and of glory, shame, glory; all of it framed up by the Bible’s big dynamic of promise and fulfillment.

104 ARISE, SHINE

The Sermon I suppose that if you looked hard enough you might find a chapter of Scripture that needs the doctrine of biblical inspiration to shore it up a little, but nobody needs a doctrine to tell that the Holy Spirit is in Isaiah 60. All you have to do is to read it or hear it. All you have to do as a preacher is to stay out of the way. So much light in this chapter! So much of God’s glory rising like the sun. So many kings and queens in all their splendor. So much of the world’s treasure pouring into the city of God, all of it carried in royal procession through city gates that never close. The treasure is premium quality, and it comes from every direction. Ships sail in from the West with gold and silver, ships move in from Tarshish with Jewish babies in the arms of their nannies. From the East, the gifts of the Arabian tribes come in overland on the backs of camels, which are the “ships of the desert.” Gold and frankincense come in with the desert tribes who stream through the gates. It’s Israel’s homecoming; it’s God’s Epiphany; every- body brings a gift. Not just any gift. These are the treasures of the people who bring them. These are the things they’re known for. When lumber comes through the gates to rebuild God’s temple, it can’t be Michigan pine. It’s got to be Lebanese pine, or Lebanese cypress. The lumber has to come down from the North in Lebanon, because lumber is Lebanon’s glory. As if these multicultural riches aren’t enough, God brings homecoming gifts too, upgrading each in turn: Instead of bronze, I will bring gold Instead of iron I will bring silver; Instead of wood, bronze Instead of stones, iron. People bring their glory into the city of God. They bring what they’re famous for; they bring things that cause others to flourish, which is what glory is about in the first place. Kings and queens come through the gates, and their nation’s cultural glory comes with them. In Isaiah 60, Israel’s homecoming is God’s Epiphany, and so all the banners are flying, and all the trumpets are sounding, and everything is lit up by God as on earth’s first day when God said, “Let there be light!” The writer of this inspired drama calls out to a people who sit in darkness. Israel is trapped in Babylon. Back home her cities are ghost towns. In Babylon she’s as homeless as Cain. She’s camped out along the rivers of Babylon, weep- ing over her bondage, weeping over her homelessness, weeping over her terri- ble vulnerability to Babylonian guards who know how to taunt and hurt. “Hey, you with the harp, give us a tune! Hey, Jew, sing us one of your Jew songs!” Israel is depressed by her sin, depressed by her bondage, depressed by her terrible homesickness. Israel is like a person too depressed to get out of bed,

105 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

but in chapter 60 it’s a new day, and now the glory of the Lord is going to rise in the East. “Arise, shine: for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you.” My mentor, Douglas Nelson, once told of attending a performance of Handel’s Messiah in Edinburgh. It was December and darkness covered the earth as it does there at that time of year. The musicians kindled the light of God’s grace that shines from just about every page of Handel’s score. My men- tor was particularly moved by the bass soloist, whose singing that night seemed to come up from a well of love and sorrow that was desperately deep. In the newspaper the next day there was a story about him. It said that a few hours before the performance of the previous night, the bass soloist had gotten news that his son in England had been killed in a crash. Yet the singer had decided to go ahead with his part in the music. So the bereaved father walked out onto the stage, and some of you know the recitative he needed to sing. These are the words: “For behold, darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the peoples, but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” My son is dead, but the Lord shall arise. My heart is broken, but the Lord shall arise. Everybody in the Middle East has somebody to hate, but the Lord shall arise. Half the children in an African village have AIDS, but the Lord shall arise. The church of Jesus Christ is in Babylonian captivity, depressed by her sex- ual-abuse scandals, depressed by her schisms, depressed by the terrible irony that her people glare at each other over the question of how to worship God. The church of Jesus Christ is in Babylonian captivity, but the Lord shall arise! Isaiah is talking to depressed people of God, and that means he’s talking to us today. He says that dawn is coming. God is going to rise like the sun, and God’s glory is going to shine on us. And what is this glory? What is it that God is known for? What’s God’s specialty? Brothers and sisters, God is always out to save. God is an exodus God, a wilderness God, a God of manger and cross and resurrection and Pentecost. God’s saving goodness is like Lebanese lumber. It’s God’s specialty, and God glories in it. So Israel’s rebelliousness turns out to be a means of grace because God sticks with her, and saves her, and even brings in Cyrus the Persian to do it. As my pas- tor John Timmer has put it, Israel’s no to God becomes God’s yes to the world. God chose Israel to be a blessing to people of every tribe and tongue and nation, and so, here they come now, streaming into the city of God. According to Revelation 21, the city of God descends out of heaven so that God may dwell with us here. We don’t go to heaven; heaven comes to us. It’s a second Eden, but also a city because centuries of global culture have poured through her gates.

106 ARISE, SHINE

In a vision lovely enough to break your heart, John shows us what God showed him: up ahead of us, after centuries of tribal feuds and racial arro- gance, after centuries of militant nationalism, after we human beings have just about silted history full with the debris of all our antagonisms—after all that, God will descend to us and dwell with us. Once more, God will say, “Let there be light” and there will be light. The city of God is full of light because it’s so full of God; the city of God is full of glory because it’s so full of God’s schemes for making others flourish. The city of God is full of grace because it’s the residence of the Lamb of God who has taken away the sin of the world. When the city of God descends to us, we find that there isn’t just one gate on the East. Now there are twelve gates and at each one of them stand angels who shine with intelligence and welcome. Whom are they welcoming? They are welcoming tribes and nations and roy- alty, all bringing their treasures into the city of God. The treasures that were once a source of leverage over other nations, or a source of cultural arrogance, or of cultural imperialism—these treasures have been approved for entrance into the city of God because they have all been washed in the blood of the lamb. On it goes, a procession through the gates of the city. Marching in the parade are nations who had once battled, clans who had once feuded, tribes who had once grappled with each other in a nightmare of resentment that seemingly could not end. Here they are, marching together into the city. They are marching by the light of the glory of God. I wonder: Could it be that this symposium is a small rehearsal for our final homecoming? We all have our treasures with us—our minds and hearts and voices, our faith and skills and arts. Some of us have brought ethnic specialties that our people are known for. Maybe we have brought our cultural glory, like lumber from Lebanon. We have brought these things for God and for each other. We have brought these things so that others may flourish, which is what makes them glorious things to bring. Why have we come here with our minds and hearts and voices? Why have we traveled to snowy Michigan, carrying our treasures with us? I suppose it’s because we are like everybody else. It’s the light that attracts us, and what espe- cially attracts us is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” “So arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.” In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

107 CTJ 40 (2005): 108-118

On Simplicity, Balance, and Wearing Spectacles: A Discussion of David Aikman’s Jesus in

Philip C. Holtrop

Occasionally a book is published that suggests issues that go far beyond the immediate text of the book itself. That is certainly the case with David Aikman’s Jesus in Beijing: How Is Transforming and Changing the Global Balance of Power (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2003). Because of its importance, it demands an interchange on some of the very important concerns it raises. Aikman traces the ancient Nestorians from “the West,” the early Jesuits, the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, up to the of 1900 and the slaughter of missionaries. He gives a perceptive account of the most noteworthy Chinese heroes of faith—Wang Mingdao, , , Moses Xie, and Li Tianen. He highlights the most significant recent Chinese Christian develop- ments—the Fengcheng and Tanghe Fellowships, the Born-Again Movement, and the “Little Flock” and “Shouters.” He points to current women and men leaders in Chinese Christianity and gives an inside view of seminary training. He treats controversial topics like the Three Self movement and the figure of Bishop Ding Guangxun, and frequently evaluates those topics perceptively. He touches on China’s “Jerusalem” (the city of Wenzhou), the “Back to Jerusalem” missionary movement, and the possibility of a pro-Israeli China. Aikman includes an interesting chapter on Chinese Catholicism and another on per- secution today. For me, his most enlightening discussion relates to Chinese Christian artists, writers, and academics. He specifically names several theolo- gians, philosophers, and other academics with whom I have personally had some contacts in the last five years. The author was a longtime Beijing bureau chief for Time magazine and also an evangelical Christian who has watched developments in China for many years. He writes knowledgeably—and often well. His book has been trumpeted as the most complete view of current evangelical and the best short account of the long history that led to the present state of Christian churches in that massive country. Aikman acquaints American readers with the dramatic impact of Christianity in China and gives an optimistic view of its future. He sees the work of the Spirit in the entire country, including cities and backwoods areas. All of that is commendable.

108 ON SIMPLICITY, BALANCE, AND WEARING SPECTACLES

This book may be prophetic in a very important way. Not only the numeri- cal but also the intellectual center of Christianity may shift in coming years from Europe and North America to China, as the Christianizing of “the Middle Kingdom” takes deep root and as China becomes a veritable global super- power. There may, of course, be a more tensioned ambivalence in China than Aikman perceives. The party conservatives will continue to allege that Chris- tianity is infiltrated from the West and that massive numbers of unregistered churches could lead to another potentially dangerous . On the other hand, increasing numbers of academics will continue to say that Christianity is what made the West so very strong. In the long run I suspect, however, that Aikman (like Philip Jenkins in The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity) has accurately foreseen the massive shifts on the horizon of world Christianity as we move more fully into the twenty-first century. As Aikman observes, truly dramatic things are going on in China today. Westerners who work there are often enthralled by those astounding and even exhilarating developments. The author sees this drama and some of the extremes within it. He celebrates the increasing freedoms that have enjoyed in the past twenty years. He is also sober in recognizing persistent prob- lems. “Though persecution of Christians is sporadic rather than uniform, it still exists in vicious forms across the country. It is a grim and cruel reality, but an important aspect in the growth of China’s Christianity” (178). A further strength of this book is that Aikman gives us important supporting appen- dices—especially the creed of the house-church movement (295-307). That is a very crucial document for Christians in the West. Despite all these positive features, one might argue that this book should not have been published apart from significant revisions. It suffers from analyses that are too simple and a lack of balance at significant points. That is first of all the case because the sufferings of Chinese Christians, which Aikman rightly deplores, are often exacerbated, ironically and unintentionally, by critics such as himself who mention names directly; exaggerate points; and inadequately appreciate the cultural, philosophical, and even different moral backgrounds against which Chinese officials commonly operate. Western scholars do not have to agree with those backgrounds, but they lose their credibility if they do not even try—or know how to try—to understand them, and when they thereby undermine the dignity of those whose views and actions are condi- tioned by those backgrounds. It is a Christian virtue to attempt (at least) to walk in someone else’s shoes before we tar him as a villain or a deliberately evil per- son. Aikman comes close to doing that at points. Unfortunately, people in other nations often say that Americans especially view them in jaundiced ways because they look through their American spectacles without realizing that they are wearing them. Second, my point here is not only theoretical. Aikman’s book has led to a crackdown on foreign Christian workers in China and on some Chinese Christians themselves. Government officials have stepped up investigations of

109 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

“foreign experts” and have interrogated—in some cases they have impris- oned—Chinese Christians whose actions Aikman mentions and obviously approves. Some Chinese Christians who were once persecuted have been put under strict surveillance again. The study of religion programs has been declared off-limits—at least temporarily—for first-year university students. China watchers have often said that progress in China is made by taking two steps forward and one step backward. So, too, in the present crisis—brought on, in part, by Aikman’s book. We may grant that this book has contributed to our understanding of China. It has also occasioned, to a large extent, the one step backward. It has intensified the irritations of Chinese authorities because of some misunderstandings and exaggeratedly pro-democracy, pro-American, and pro-evangelical claims. At times Aikman seems to identify—or at least to confuse—these last three concepts. Some of his judgments are therefore too simple. The danger is also real that the activities of Christians from outside China who do noble work inside may be curtailed, such as orphan relief, benevolence, leadership train- ing, and English education, to say nothing of the work of those who teach in other fields of education. Aikman is not a philosopher or theologian, and he is not astute in seeing the significance of cultural backgrounds in China. That may be the most serious problem and weakness in this book. He speaks as an evangelical American patriot who innocently—too innocently—assumes that all people in the world want, first of all, an American kind of individual freedom. His criticisms of the Chinese government are motivated largely by that presumption—the “specta- cles” through which he looks. Perceptive students in Beijing, however, have assured me repeatedly that this presumption is wrong and is also largely respon- sible for many international crises. (“Who makes America the world’s police- man, when Americans don’t even try to understand other nations?”) My students have impressed upon me that the Chinese traditionally put the highest premium on group and national harmony, and on the assurance of life and stability. Most students still see obedience and filial piety as primary virtues. They have a persistent acceptance of authority in Chinese society, which some foreigners regard as obsequiousness or “childlikeness.” That piety builds on a hierarchical structure despite all the avowed tenets of communism—a concept that is not as dominant in Chinese universities today as it was even five or ten years ago. Put all these accents together and one begins to understand a soci- ety that easily accepts, and even expects, control and restrictions on the part of its “father figures.” That, however, is something that Aikman does not consider or even seem to recognize. I am not suggesting that this Chinese posture is morally good, neutral, or even adequate—especially from an American human rights point of view. Everyone wears spectacles, and sometimes they may enable us to see things more clearly. As an American Christian, I feel strongly that the Chinese gov- ernment and society should increasingly allow and promote a greater freedom

110 ON SIMPLICITY, BALANCE, AND WEARING SPECTACLES in all areas of life. Nor is my purpose to praise Confucianism. Nor am I unduly impressed with a “Chinese mystique” that could blind our eyes to passing any moral judgment on it. I am not saying that Americans should accept the stric- tures, controls, and ad hoc persecutions of Christians that still occur in China. (Those strictures are, of course, technically opposed to the Chinese constitu- tion and official state policy.) In short, I am not implying that human rights are irrelevant in China. That would be an insult to the Chinese people and could also suggest that they should always suffer and be treated as deferential children. No Westerner who loves and respects the Chinese could suggest that sort of thing. I am saying, however, that discussing freedoms and controls with Chinese, or Americans, should come after we have sympathetically tried to understand the Chinese culture and long-standing traditions. If we do not do that much, we are morally and Christianly culpable. Assuming that their father figures are benevolent, the Chinese people, including church members, commonly view controls in a positive light, or as necessary, and not as vicious, malicious, or pernicious. A prevailing Confucian- ism, with its hierarchical predilections, is in the background of the Chinese sys- tem of values even today—and many Chinese academics are trying to restore that appreciation. Because all people in that system, especially the father fig- ures, are innately good, they see no felt need for the checks and balances so dear to the hearts of Americans. Persecuted house-church Christians and ana- lytically critical students in Chinese universities may have appreciation for the moral value of American human rights, but most Chinese, even in churches, do not understand why Americans focus so much on occasional persecutions and not more on the overall health and growth of the church in China. Like most American critics, including the compilers of the annual State Department human rights reports, Aikman does not see the cultural, philo- sophical, and even spiritual backgrounds of Chinese human-rights violations. He assumes that American standards of morality can be and should be univer- salized. A great many Chinese, however, commonly view that assumption as naïve, self-righteous, and arrogant, as unworthy of a serious conversation part- ner who wants to be “fair to both sides.” Christian scholars especially should be examples of fairness, balance, and integrity. All of this has implications for theological as well as political apologetics. If we start at the point of seeing others as opponents to be criticized or condemned, it will be very hard to convince them of our good intentions—to say nothing of our love. Moreover, sheer logic and argument do not have the same clout in China as in the United States. If we start at the point of love, respect, and a desire to understand our Chinese partners as dignified creatures of God, it will be eas- ier to invite them to appreciate what we say when we discuss our differences. In a mood of humility, we might even change some of our own thinking. Aikman, as I read him, does not contribute to this ideal of mutual appreciation.

111 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

In theological terms, the issue is whether we start our conversations with other people by seeing them as dignified creatures and image-bearers of God or as fallen and controlled by satanic forces and as therefore controlling others. Of course, every human being is both dignified and fallen, but that is not the point. Which of these is the context of our discussion of the other? In philo- sophical terms, created dignity is a principle, but fallen sinfulness is an aberra- tion, negation, and in that sense accidental. In Augustine’s terms, sin is privatio boni. As fallen creatures, we all need salvation—or true health, healing, whole- ness, reintegration, and restoration, but all of that implies an original good- ness that is restorable. Therefore, we may think more highly of our opponents, and their dignity, than they think of themselves. We should see them as first of all the created image-bearers of God. In Scripture, the love and grace of God in Christ can free people from their sins, or their sinful selves (their old selves), and enable them to be their authentic selves (their new selves) in Christ. According to the apos- tolic witness, salvation is “in no other name” (Acts 4:12). That is the true inter- nal freedom that Paul refers to when he says, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). And so the old makes way for, or is restored in, the new. If Christians begin their apologetics with the Fall, as the context of their dis- cussion, they will tend to see all reality and society in terms of two kingdoms— God and the world, or Satan. That starting point, however, fails to protect the lordship of Christ over all things, his presence in all creation, the idea that “in him all things in heaven and on earth were created,” and the confession that in him they all “hold together” (Col. 1:15). If we go in that direction, therefore, we break the biblical storyline, and obscure the good news, and depart from what we should mean by orthodoxy. Aikman’s book, in my judgment, shows this bifurcated, contrastive approach in too many of his analyses. He seems to employ a Manichean duality, which also appears, too often, in simplistic evan- gelical thought. Some recent history may illuminate my point. There is, for example, a more fluid continuum today between house churches and registered churches in the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) than there was even five years ago. (For those uninitiated in Chinese church parlance, Three Self means self-govern- ing, self-supporting, and self-propagating.) In fact, the house churches are not simply good and the Three Self evil, although Aikman repeatedly tends to sug- gest that much. He does observe that some of the TSPM churches are com- mendable in their vital, gospel witness; for example, the Gangwashi church in Beijing (135-38), which he describes as “firmly, almost defiantly evangelical” (137). In general, however, he draws too sharp a line between these two groups. His penchant is to see things in black and white, although the church in China today can only be pictured in various tones of gray. Let me add to Aikman’s materials in order to underscore the current conti- nuities between these groups. The sharp line was formerly, in large part, a gen-

112 ON SIMPLICITY, BALANCE, AND WEARING SPECTACLES erational phenomenon from the 1950s through the 1980s in a number of Chinese communities. What was the background? When the TSPM was formed in the 1950s, Wang Mingdao refused to join because of his strong belief that the church and state should be separated. He was imprisoned for some thirty years, and, in that time, he inspired many Chinese church leaders. During the Cul- tural Revolution, the TSPM closed down almost entirely, and its leaders were subjected to massive pressures and persecutions. Some betrayed their compa- triots who did not join the TSPM. Millions of Christians met in homes, and some continued, heroically, to have a very strong faith. Aikman points to some of these, and he does so commendably. After the Cultural Revolution, in the early 1980s, the TSPM invited a number of house-church leaders to pastor or counsel the registered churches. Many refused and did not register because of their previous experiences with the TSPM and their theological concerns. Aikman is right that in the 1990s the church in China grew amazingly, but that, too, created a more complicated situation than he seems to recognize. Today the churches have immense needs for competent pastors and preachers. In some areas, registered and unregistered leaders have known each other for some time and have come to an unofficial rapprochement and cooperation. Some house-church pastors are now invited to preach in TSPM pulpits and even to lecture or teach in official seminaries. Younger Christians sometimes choose to register because of their sense that the TSPM congregations can be more socially active and influential, but some of them choose not to do so in order to protect their freedom. The latter are not necessarily antagonistic to the TSPM. In fact, some of these younger Christians join both the TSPM churches and nonregistered home groups. For them—especially students— the question of whether to join or not to join an official or nonofficial church is often a matter of which is closer, or which friends invited one, or who is the leader, or what kinds of programs the churches have. In some communities, there is no registered church and a is the only option. In some, the official church may be too liberal for particular Christians. (We should note here that practically all Chinese churches are comparatively conservative by American standards.) There are other reasons, also, why the church situation in China is more complicated than Aikman seems to suggest. The number of official registered churches has grown to about thirty thousand, and within that grouping there is a very wide variety of theology and worship styles. Significantly, thousands of official churches across the land have organized training classes, lasting several weeks or a year, for their own leaders as well as those from house churches. In the past few years, Handel’s Messiah has been advertised and given by an inter- national choral group at Christmastime in the Forbidden City Concert Hall in Beijing. It has also been presented in . It was formerly contraband and associated with evangelical Western Christianity. My point is that all of these factors contribute to the “graying” of the church scenario in China.

113 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Fairness demands that we see this complex and mixed picture. There is still more to be said. Although many American evangelicals regard the Chinese gov- ernment—along with the TSPM—as evil, we cannot deny its positive actions in several important respects. At times, in the last years, it has allowed local house churches to regain church properties and to construct new church buildings. It has established seminaries and published Bibles through the Amity Foundation. Moreover, there are factors here that people in Western countries seldom ponder very seriously. Some house-church believers have left their churches because of the exotic practices within them or the personality cults that are common in unlearned, syncretistic communities. Some believers want a more sophisticated theology than the stress—so rampant in the country- side—on dreams, miracles, signs, wonders, prophecies, speaking in tongues, and the imminent return of Christ. Some house-church leaders abuse their authority or neglect their families, with traumatic effects on their congrega- tions. Once again, changing political, economic, personal, and social circum- stances have brought a new mix and profound ecclesiastical mutations. The picture is very, very gray. It is not black and white at all. Increasing exposures to the outside world have also contributed to the mix. Again, we should credit the Chinese Ministry of Education, which was able to authorize the establishment of religious studies departments, beginning with Peking University in 1996. The Chinese government has realized that in its increasing exposures to the outside world it has had to understand the reli- gious and spiritual resources of the West. All the departments of religious stud- ies—about thirteen so far—have therefore welcomed international Christian scholars. They have sponsored conferences that bring to China a number of Christian academics from Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, and other top Western universities and seminaries. The presentations of these scholars have helped to establish the rational credibility of Christianity. There are also faculty lectures, exchanges, and grant opportunities in leading schools in North America that aim to equip and enrich the Chinese faculty and students in the religious studies programs. Serious Chinese scholars in those programs reflect on the Chinese cultural heritage and Christianity and try to improve their teaching curricula and publications. In the West, we should encourage all these efforts and not impose our own criteria and strategies on them. Aikman does not comment on this entire development. He does, however, take note of Christian English teachers in China. Unfor- tunately, he sees them as undercover missionaries. “No foreign missionaries, of course, are permitted to work in China. But perhaps as many as 2,000-3,000 do so anyway, under the guise of teaching English” (278). Those last words, in my judgment, are unfortunate. My own experience is that most of these teachers are uncommonly professional, exceptionally dedicated, and very creative pre- cisely because of their Christian and largely evangelical commitments. They are simply excellent teachers. Therefore—in Aikman’s own words—“China’s higher education system has learned to appreciate the quality of the Christian

114 ON SIMPLICITY, BALANCE, AND WEARING SPECTACLES teachers. They behave well, they don’t get drunk, they don’t flirt with the local girls, they don’t have romantic relationships even with other foreigners, they are diligent, and they don’t complain a lot” (278-79). My point here, I think, is significant. These Christian teachers are profes- sionals—not only academically, pedagogically, but also morally. All of that com- mends them to their students and the Chinese authorities. It does not warrant an aspersion from the American side—and certainly not from a fellow evan- gelical Christian (“under the guise”). If their high-level conduct evokes queries from their Chinese students and others (“Why do you work so hard?” or “Why do you love us so much?”), then those teachers are free to say what motivates them as Christians without proselytizing. That is not the same as engaging in subterfuge. The “letters” these teachers write in their lives and the words they speak in their works (to use the language of 2 Corinthians 3:2) are powerful. By any traditional definition, however, these teachers are not missionaries. In fact, some Christian organizations openly inform the Chinese authorities that they are sending Christian professionals motivated by Christian love and a sense of Christian service to the Chinese people. The authorities respect those organi- zations and their contribution to education in China. Let me move on. Other reviewers have pointed to Aikman’s tendency to confuse Christianity and Western thought or Christianity and an American evangelical premillennial and charismatic interpretation of it. There is cer- tainly an irony here. Aikman is rightly critical of those in China who want Christianity to serve socialism or communism (that is his main criticism of Bishop Ding and the Three Self Movement), but he seems to highlight the ben- efits of Chinese Christianity in terms of contributing to capitalism, a pro- Western China, and China’s being an ally of the United States. My point is that if Christianity should not be transmogrified into the lackey of socialism, it should also not be metamorphosed into the handmaiden of capitalism. Of course, there are connections among Christianity, socialism, and capitalism, but they should be pursued in a fair and balanced way. Christianity transcends the collectivism of mainstream Chinese thought (which downplays personal dignity) as well as the individualism of mainstream capitalism (which is inade- quately sensitive to social, moral issues). That should be our caveat also when we hear Aikman’s lauding the Chinese quest for a “Christian worldview” (285-92). He suggests that such a view will make China “a more responsible power” like the United States, which it there- fore will no longer try to “outmaneuver and neutralize” (286). Aikman applauds the “benevolent global imperial role” that America has played, in his judgment, after World War II, and envisions “a Christianized China, now an emergent global Power, . . . wanting to take on some of the burdens that the U.S. has car- ried for the past five decades” (286). Aside from whether these pronounce- ments are valid or chauvinistic, however, we may presume that many (if not most) reflective Chinese would see them as self-serving, self-righteous, and naïve. A Christian worldview is now transformed again into Americanism, and

115 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

the United States receives a halo—set upon it by an enthusiastic, evangelical American. Beyond all this, Aikman once more does not see the basic differences between American and Chinese political and spiritual cultures. The Silver Rule (so strong in China) cautions its practitioners not to do to others what they do not want others to do to themselves. It is negative and passive, with the clear implication: Do not get involved in the affairs of other nations. Concern for the common weal in China extends to the boundaries of the State, but is less sen- sitive to the circumstances of people in other nations. That is why national sov- ereignty must never surrender, according to most reflective Chinese, to universal human rights. Most of my Peking University students in political sci- ence seem to think that China has never been imperialist or aggressive toward other nations, and, that if it ever was, that action was aberrational. By contrast, the Golden Rule (which is still strong in America) is positive and active, with the clear implication: Get involved if you can in helping other nations (with all the possibilities of misjudgment, as may be the case, for example, in Iraq). I per- sonally doubt if most Christianized Chinese will want to help America in being what they will continue to see as the world’s policeman. Even house-church Christians in China are, and will be, in Aikman’s words, “uniformly patriotic and cautious” (289). Aikman does not see enough the longing and need for indigenousness in Chinese Christianity and culture and the pressures that will continue to push in that direction. His failure at this point, I believe, is one more instance of not respecting the dignity of other persons. Chinese professionals who have been educated in the West (especially the States) and who then return to China most frequently adapt their Western experiences into new patterns that are distinc- tively Chinese. That is also the case in theology and the Chinese church. No matter what influences play upon it, the Chinese church will not rubberstamp what it sees in the West (and especially in America). It will find its own way, its own character, and eventually it will carry on its own mission to the Chinese, speaking with a Chinese voice to the world. Those who pray for China-—“the most prayed for nation in history”—should not expect it to become distinc- tively Western and American. Nor should we in the West want to impose our own creeds or styles of theology on Chinese believers. We should listen to their desires and convictions. When I first taught Christian theology in Beijing, I asked a Chinese col- league what sorts of adjustments I should make. His advice was simple and pro- found: “In teaching every Christian doctrine or idea, ask the question ‘So what?’” If any culture is more practical than the United States, he suggested, it is the Chinese. Abstract or merely logical ideas mean little to Chinese people if they do not have a bearing on how to live their lives. Subsequently I experi- enced that I was most effective when I saw doctrine—as Saint Paul did—arising out of ethical concerns and having ethical implications. So, I did not teach sys- tematic theology as logically prior to ethics (a traditional Western and

116 ON SIMPLICITY, BALANCE, AND WEARING SPECTACLES

Kuyperian idea), or doctrine as prior to life, or even objective truth as prior to its subjective application. (The Chinese commonly observe that one person’s objective truth may not be another’s.) All of this ties into what I said before about a practical and relational apologetics, with a focus on the implications of Christianity for life. I began to sense again that an indigenously Chinese theology must demand and take its own shape. I saw increasingly that Confucianism (and Buddhism to some extent) is finally not a religion that can be intellectually dissected, lead- ing to a precise academic theology. It is an ethic to be lived. So, too, I experi- enced that social relationships (guanxi) and actions are more basic in Chinese thought and society than rational coherence and logical apologetics. I sensed, for example, that it makes eminently more sense in China to begin our talk about God with his mighty acts than with his supernal, essential attributes, or even arguments that he exists. (John Calvin also said that we can never know the essence of God himself and should not start at that point.) I have seen that it is meaningful in China to talk about the Trinity in the light of God’s actions in relationship to us, or the Persons in their actions in relationship to each other, and then to us, with implications for how we should respond to that tri- une God. All of this is meaningful as we rethink our concepts in terms of “so what?” The largely unknown doctrine of sin is relevant when I relate it to filial piety, or to the horror of disrespecting one’s (ultimate) father, or disobeying him, or even teaching that he does not exist. Grace, which is also largely unknown in China, makes sense in that context. My point is that Aikman does not see the need for and the importance of this indigenousness in Chinese churches and spirituality. Viewing things through his American evangelical spectacles, he seems to think that true Chris- tianity is always a unilateral, universal phenomenon, no matter where it appears. The implication is that a Christian China will look increasingly like America, an evangelical America, or an evangelical American democracy. There is too much of that kind of oversimplification in Aikman’s book. His subtitle invites us to look for an extended discussion of transformations and changes in China and precisely how they affect the global balance of power. We do not find that discussion. When he recounts the dramatic increase in Chinese conversions, it is hard to know how many are superficial and how many are deeply rooted. How many are built on the radical grace of God and how many on cheap grace—or any real notion of grace at all? Is the emerging Christianity of China as orthodox or as radical as Aikman seems to think? When he projects euphorically what may happen in the democratizing of China within the next decades, he does not ponder the massive need to revise a whole school system rooted in centuries of Chinese culture. That revision would have to turn away from rote memorizing to responsible analyzing of issues on the part of individual citizens. How can all that fit into Confucian culture? How resistant will Confucianism be to a system of checks and balances? How long will it take Chinese society to curb corruption by an idea of transcendent law?

117 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Too often Aikman’s analyses are as simple as those of some American politi- cians who think that China’s problems will all be solved if only “they give their people the right to vote.” Those politicians, in my judgment, do not under- stand the complexities of China’s culture—or the complexities of changing it. Finally, the publisher of this book apparently rushed it into print without adequate proofreading. There are too many errata. The word few is omitted on page 20 (line 17); had began, of course, should be had begun on page 27 (l. 30). A faulty preposition creeps into page 87 (l. 21; it should read, “questioned Xu intensively for a nonstop period”). A preposition is left out on page 105 (l. 15; it should read, “the rising star of Ding’s leadership”). The word realizes should be realize” on page 112 (l. 23), and Christian is misspelled in the heading on page 145. The word principal should be principle on the third to last line of page 155. A period stands where a comma should be on page 159 (l. 25), and a comma where none should be on page 161 (second line). An extra zero finds its way into the dates of ’s life toward the bottom of page 237, enabling him to live several thousand years more than he did (read “1903-1972”). The past tense of succeed is omitted on page 246 (l. 4). A double quotation mark appears where a single should also be added on page 321 (l. 1). My concluding comment is this. One can learn very much from this book. It is very, very important, but its analyses—and even format—are too often inadequate.

118