[The following report is from the Digging in the Walls section of O Timothy magazine, Volume 5, Issue 5, 1988. David W. Cloud, Editor. This material cannot be placed on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. The Way of Life Internet web site is http://www.wayoflife.org/ .]

Your news article entitled "Visitors See Signs of Strong Evangelical Faith in China" (Christianity Today, Sept. 6, 1985, pp. 46-48), is causing much concern among Chinese evangelicals in Hong Kong, especially since its appearance in the December issue of the Chinese edition of Decision magazine, a publication of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. We are concerned because that article seems to be conveying the impression that Christianity Today is seeking to present the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) as an authentic representative body of the Protestant Church in China that is quite evangelical in character. In view of the trust that the Christian public has placed in your magazine as a leading evangelical voice in America, this selective, impressionistic article by Tom Goosmann and Edward E. Plowman can, and most likely will, do great damage to the cause of the Gospel in China, unless necessary corrections are made.

Let me share with you how your article presents the TSPM to the American Christian public as essentially evangelical, and hence acceptable for future cooperation.

Are they Evangelical?

In the first place the title -- "Visitors See Signs of Strong Evangelical Faith in China" -- conveys the impression that what the visitors saw and heard (from the TSPM leaders) were expressions of evangelical Christianity in China. It is true that there are many evangelical pastors in the TSPM local churches, but the national leaders of the TSPM are far from evangelical. This can be seen if one studies their past track records and what they have written in Chinese in their official magazine, Tian-feng.

Secondly, the two reporters simply repeated what K.H. Ting (Ding Guangxun) and other Chinese speakers said without making any qualifications. For example, the following quotation from Ting was given without any editorial comments:

"a growing church [has had] ... the freedom to worship, propagate its faith, educate its youth, live in Christian homes, [and] publish journals, books, and Bibles."

This statement gives the impression that a growing church in China in general is enjoying the above mentioned freedoms. An interpretative paraphrase of Ting's quotation would read like this: "Churches under the TSPM/CCC have freedom to worship in officially designated places of worship, propagate their faith by officially designated TSPM pastors within the designated places of worship, and educate their youth in the TSPM-operated seminaries and short-term training sessions run by regional TSPM leaders. The national TSPM/CCC publish a journal called Tianfeng, a theological quarterly, a series of booklets, and Bibles."

The Background

Readers without adequate background could not help but get the impression that churches in general have the freedom to conduct worship or even print Bibles. That is far from the case. From 1982 to 1984 local Christian meetings which refused to register with TSPM or the Religious Affairs Bureau were systematically closed, and itinerant preachers who refused to join the TSPM were either arrested or made fugitives. Even today unregistered meetings are considered illegal. Privately published books and Bibles, mimeographed by house church leaders, have been confiscated by local authorities and used in court as evidence of producing and distributing "anti-revolutionary" materials.

From mid-1984 to September 1985, Chinese society had one of her most open periods since 1949. Led by the urban economic reform package of October 1984, reforms were carried out in many aspects of society. It was precisely in this time that the open church was able to expand. The Amity Foundation was created to solicit foreign Christian assistance for China. The number of open churches doubled from 2000 to about 4000. It was in this period that the conference in Nanjing was held. These developments are good in themselves, but they do not change the reality of the linkage of the TSPM to government programs and policies.

Since September 1985, there have been a number of signs of the re-imposition of social controls, in China. The church has felt these as well.

On October 9, 1985, three house church preachers, one of whom is a very faithful itinerant evangelist, were arrested in Shanghai for Bible distribution, and the evangelist's contacts in West China were also arrested.

The reporters in your article note one leader's remark that "the government no longer views the Christian faith as a threat." If so, why does it continue to forbid more Bibles to be taken into China except for one or two copies per visitor? Why does it forbid free itinerant evangelism?

Freedom of Religion

Thirdly, your news article reported assertions made by K.H. Ting which were not checked against other sources. For example, "[Ting] insisted that freedom of religion is protected by law, and that the TSPM is not under government control or direction." "Freedom of religion" was not defined, and, when left as it is, Western readers would normally interpret it as they understand it in their own context. They do not realize that freedom of religion in China means freedom to believe in one's heart and freedom to worship in TSPM churches; it does not include freedom of evangelism nor freedom of religious assembly outside the approved churches. Freedom of religion in China, or the extent of religious freedom as guaranteed by the 1982 Constitution (not 1979 as stated by your article), has been most clearly defined in this way by the Chinese Communist Party in Document No. 19 of 1982. The assertion that the TSPM is not under government control or direction is propaganda which only uninformed people can believe as truth.

In the fourth place, the reporters' selective quotation of the conference participants' experience in Nanjing leads the readers to believe that K.H. Ting and the other TSPM leaders are evangelical at heart. Werner Burklin was reported as sensing "a strong evangelical spirit among all those who attended. They came across as men and women without guile ... my prejudices softened after meeting Ting. I was overwhelmed by his humility, his spirit, and by his spiritual insight." Burklin was further quoted as saying that "there was a strong support among church leaders for a preaching visit by evangelist Billy Graham."

It is most interesting to note that Werner Burklin's name was mentioned four times in this short report. Burklin is the Executive Director of the 1986 Amsterdam Conference of Itinerant Evangelists sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Is Burklin preparing the way so that the American Christian public would look with favor on a meeting between Graham and Ting? Is this the motive behind Burklin's effusive praise?

Most unfortunately, Burklin and Sam Wolgemuth, President emeritus of Youth for Christ, drafted an 11-point statement addressed to believers outside of China. It called on Christians not to criticize the Church in China [i.e. TSPM]. It exhorted Christian broadcasters to pay attention to [TSPM] Christian leaders, and it urged evangelicals to cooperate with the TSPM.

Such an open letter would normally be drafted and published by the TSPM leaders, as they did when they visited Hong Kong in 1981. But having those points spoken by acknowledged evangelical leaders certainly carries more credibility than were they to come form Ting's mouth. That was a superb "United Front" tactic. For years the TSPM/CCC have been trying to persuade American evangelicals to recognize them as the authentic representative of the Protestant Church in China. The ecumenicals are already on their side.

Should We Co-operate?

In the final analysis as a reader I could not help but ask: Why is Christianity Today making this seemingly deliberate attempt to make the TSPM appear attractive and give it an evangelical look? Is Christianity Today paving the way for American evangelical cooperation with the TSPM in general and for Billy Graham's proposed visit to China in particular?

I am not opposed to American evangelicals making some contacts with the leaders in the TSPM, because they are part of the realities of the Church situation in socialist China. But if American evangelicals desire to develop a meaningful dialogue with official leaders of churches in a socialist country, they would do well to understand first the system under which these leaders work and the functions of their communications with the outside world. In such contacts American evangelicals should speak as evangelicals with evangelical concerns, such as evangelism among the unreached. They should not misrepresent the TSPM as evangelical and hence mislead the American Christian public.

Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Chao,
Director, Chinese Church Research Center