And yet something is amiss. The Christian coverage of the
situation is deficient and that's probably being kind. There's plenty of
condemnation to be levied at Beijing and yet are these various reporting
agencies, hosts, interviewers and ministries concerned with the truth or not?
Is this just another case of American Right-wing politics criticising
international opposition? Shouldn't we as Christians approach this issue a little
differently? Shouldn't our concerns be divorced from the political interests of
the United States?
One would think this would be obvious and yet it's clear to
me this is not the case. To be fair, it's not always deliberate. There's also a
great deal of ignorance at work.... sometimes stunningly so.
Recently I was listening to a Calvinist oriented podcast
dealing with Christianity in Central Asia. It was obvious the host didn't
possess even a basic familiarity with the geography and history of the region,
let alone the contemporary issues that are shaping the discussion.
Fair enough I suppose, though I think it's sort of basic that
you would do a little research before conducting a two hour interview. But at
the very least one would think you would have the guest give a basic rundown of
the situation, the who, what, when, where and so forth and yet rarely do I find
this happening anymore. Even a lot of mainstream journalism is really failing
in this regard but it's glaring in the amateur world. I've listened to
programmes in which 20-30 minutes in, I'm still somewhat in the dark as to what
they're even talking about.
Sometimes when dealing with Central Asia, China or the Middle
East the guests are trying to mask their identity and so they tend to be obtuse
in their descriptions. A good informed host could still tease out a lot of non-compromising
information but in some recent cases, the interview starts to fall flat because
the guest isn't being clear and the host clearly doesn't know what questions to
ask.
After dancing around the topic for the better part of an hour
the listener is left frustrated. I'm well aware of the situation but I was
listening and thinking in terms of other people I know and confident they would
be lost. There was never a basic explanation of the geography, a summary of the
politics or any of the issues, so instead we were left with a somewhat
disjointed and almost patronising discussion of the region.
Maybe this is just ignorance and incompetence? Maybe, but it
can reach such a level as to be misleading, even dangerous. I expect more from
Christian leaders, especially given the weight and status they give to
credentials and how quickly they are willingly to dismiss and cut down their
opponents on that very basis. If they want the standard to be high, then they
had best adhere to it themselves hadn't they?
What does this have to do with China? In the case of the
Reformed podcast on Central Asia, it has a lot to do with China as not once was
Beijing's One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative mentioned, nor was there even a
hint of discussion about the scramble for resources and the tensions between
the United States, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iran. That's a lot of
ground to cover, but they had two hours. It would have helped in explaining the
context and difficulties of Christianity in Central Asia and why the regimes
are hostile to it, why they are pro-Islam but a fry cry from being Islamists.
There was a stunted explanation of Turkic identity but this
was never explained and this led to discussions regarding Andrew Brunson but
the Turkish context was never explored, there was no mention of Erdogan's
programmes, let alone the Gülen, his movement, his residence in the United
States or anything else. How could anyone hope to understand the issues without
a very basic outline or narrative to provide some context?
What was the point of the programme? I don't really know. In
the end I'm left to conclude the host simply wanted to reinforce the
assumptions of the American Right and yet his audience would come away from the
show ignorant of the salient topics regarding Central Asia and China.
Not long after this I listened to another radio show specifically
about China. Right away I knew where it was going. The term Communist was thrown
about incessantly and yet not once did the host or the guest... who was trying
his best despite all the rude and ignorant interruptions from the woefully
unqualified host... mention the changes that took place in the years following
Mao's death.
China abandoned Communism in the late 1970's under Deng
Xiaoping. China's economy is not in any way shape or form communist. It is best
described as oligarchical and authoritarian capitalist. There are classes,
there are rich and poor. The Chinese Communist Party (CPC) has retained the
nomenclature and Maoist iconography but this is because it's part of their
power narrative which grants them legitimacy. And yet they repudiated the
actual ideology more than 40 years ago. The problem is they have nothing to
replace it with, as even Confucianism is problematic in a capitalist context.
They are trying to forge a new identity but it's too soon.
None of this was explained or even touched upon. There wasn't
even an explanation of the tensions between the USSR and China or the US
relationship with Beijing that developed in the 1970's. This story is important
to understanding what happened after Mao and the rise of Chinese capitalism.
Was any of this even mentioned or hinted at? No. All we get is 'communism'
repeated over and over again.
When the issue of Catholic bishops came up the host was so
ignorant as to suggest that maybe Francis wouldn't have a problem with
Beijing's control of Chinese Catholicism because he's a Marxist too.
This goes beyond mere ignorance. This is worthy of rebuke
because (astonishingly) there are people who look to this show and others like
it for information, for important news about what's happening. There are people
who give money to it. And they come to shows like this for a Christian
perspective and yet they're not getting it. In fact they are subject to a grave
disservice, something of a travesty.
Even more important, why would Beijing be so paranoid about
missionary activity and foreign entanglement? Is it just because they're
communist? This is to completely ignore the history. Western missionaries
played no small part in the machinations of empire during the century of
China's shame from the mid-1800's to 1949. Hudson Taylor's Inland Mission was
only possible in light of the Opium Wars. Even though Taylor was not motivated
by imperialist concerns, many missionaries were and were perceived to work
hand-in-hand with the European powers which sought to dismantle Chinese society
and culture.
Beijing wickedly persecutes Christians but at the same time
Western Christians have given them a reason to fear. I was pleased that the
guest saw fit to mention the 19th century Taiping Rebellion but he
was never allowed to elaborate on it. It was never tied in with missionaries,
the Boxers and the role of Christianity in the Republic period and its
influence upon figures like Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, Soong Mei-ling and
the latter's ties to the China Lobby and its many Christian members and
influences. All of this is important in understanding why China fears foreign
religious entanglements. Even though she only died in 2018, how soon figures
like Anna Chennault have been forgotten.
To not mention or pursue this history is dishonest. And what
a travesty that in a two hour programme, none of this could be touched upon. There
was literally about thirty minutes of substance and the rest of the show was a
waste of time. Iron can't be sharpened using a tin can.
BreakPoint is of course little better. The Dominionist outlet
wanted to take pot-shots at Beijing and in a recent show went after China's
anti-Uyghur policy. Again, I do not defend Beijing for a moment but at the same
time the cause of truth is not served by politicised commentary, tactical omission
and downright lies.
The commentator in this case the ever ignorant and
disappointing John Stonestreet decided to focus on Xinjiang and the recent
reports of Uyghur imprisonment. The briefing was ostensibly a plug for
universal religious liberty and yet in reality it was a push for Evangelicals
to support American Anti-Chinese policy and to continue to press Washington to
put pressure on Beijing. Stonestreet's concerns for religious liberty ring
hollow as we know this does not extend to Muslims and others in the United
States itself. Were they to have their way, these groups would be second-class
citizens at best. The whole discussion was disingenuous and misleading.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I think China's claims on
Tibet and Xinjiang are bogus as are the many imperialist claims of nations like
Russia and the United States. Christians are not partisans for any empire,
something Stonestreet cannot say.
That said, he dismisses out of hand any concern Beijing might
have about Islamic extremism and yet it is Stonestreet who once again flouts
his ignorance of the region, its history and current events. If he bothered to
pick up an actual history book he might be able to form a genuine understanding
of the region and interpret it through Christian eyes. Instead as with most
'worldview' teachers, the answers come before the questions and the Bible has
little to do with their 'Biblical Worldview'.
Is he unaware of the Islamic revival that took place in the
1980's and 1990's? This revival affected all of Central Asia and played a part
in the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. Is he aware of Pan-Turkism and the
Grey Wolves and the paramilitary violence they have been involved in? Is he
aware of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM)? It's considered to be
a Uyghur terrorist group and its fighters have been involved in Syria. The
World Uyghur Congress (WUC) which is partly funded and certainly supported by
the United States frequently provokes Beijing and many believe it is akin to
the ETIM's political arm, a kind of Sinn Fein-IRA relationship.
The ETIM is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Does Stonestreet know
that? What about the various reports of Uyghur fighters in the ranks of ISIS?
Does Stonestreet know about the unrest in 2009 and the other episodes of unrest
across Central Asia in recent years? Does he know about the Great Game-like
struggle in Central Asia over resources?
Again, Beijing's government is wicked, tyrannical and
profoundly anti-Christian but to just dismiss their fears about radicalism
among the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is either ignorant or a deliberately misleading attempt
to argue for Anti-Beijing policies. I don't doubt that a bit of both are
probably the case here and yet I'm not sure who is the bigger fool, Stonestreet
or those that would listen to him?