Australian optimist Arthur Chrenkoff looks northward toward China and reads the tea leaves to see if future conflict with America is really a foregone conclusion. Chrenkoff gathers disparate threads from the news that demonstrate China’s ambition to control East and Central Asia (military buildups, diplomatic overtures, business deals), but then throws in an interesting wild card I hadn’t thought much about recently: the rise of Christianity in Chinese culture, especially among that society’s elites.
But I wonder … whatever happened to China’s secretive Assassin’s Mace program? It sure has dropped from sight in the news, but that doesn’t mean a doggone thing. Anybody have any news about it?
One other wild card comes to mind: capitalism (see Dinocrat’s related post). If free market economics continue to make inroads into Chinese society, can China long remain a communist nation? If it does become some sort of democracy or republic, then it would be much less likely to clash militarily with America. After all, democracies don’t attack each other.
Definitely something to ponder.
UPDATE: More China blogging from Why are all the good names gone …
From Reuters, we have “U.S. Warns Iran Over Missiles, Punishes Chinese Firms.” Since the release of Seymour Hersh’s article on Monday, MSM sources have turned an increasingly sharp eye toward anything involving Iranian friction with the U.S.
Oddly, no official announcement of the sanctions was made, leading me to wonder if this is because the United States has no desire to highlight disagreements with China over Iran. Considering U.S. efforts to highlight Iran’s intransigence, I would have otherwise expected this to receive more play from the administration:
The most indepth coverage was provided in the Times. I found the end of the article to be the most informative. China is a high-growth country with ever-expanding energy needs. Considering the fact that U.S. interest in the Middle East stems largely from a desire to meet its own energy needs, our position on the “moral high ground” regarding the spread of WMD is based primarily on the same sort of realistic calculations China has made in seeking to secure its own national interests:
The article suggests that Chinese nonproliferation efforts are taken more as an economic step (to avoid U.S. sanctions) than out of genuine concern for the spread of WMD and delivery system technology:
Talk of China and its expanding role in regions such as the Middle East reminds me of the recently waged debate within the EU regarding an end to the current arms embargo levied on China.
I’ve discussed the idea of political realism outweighing the notion of “shared values” here and here. Steps by some members of the EU (most specifically France) to court China as a strategic balancing point to U.S. influence serve as a reminder that national interests often take precedence over shared values.
Interesting Iranian/French angle. It can be maddening, trying to keep everyone’s hidden agendas straight in one’s mind.
Want to get really complex? Throw into the mix Colin Powell’s recent statements revising America’s stance on the “One China” policy, which appear to leave Taiwan twisting in the wind (presumably in exchange for an as-yet-unmentioned something from China). I wonder what Condi Rice will have to say about this (if anything)?
UPDATE 2: Finally! The shipping lane map I’ve been hoping for! Great find by Little Red Blog, along with more good analysis on the EU-China arms connection.
UPDATE 3: This post has merged at high speed into today’s Beltway Traffic Jam.
Vox Apologia I is up, with ten posts on what apologetics means to today’s Christian church.
Every Thought Captive and RazorsKiss.net are sponsoring a Christian blog symposium called Vox Apologia 1. The topic is “What does apologetics mean to today’s Christian church?” I can’t resist this one.
First, a definition. In rough terms I’d define “apologetics” as “defending the faith”, although others give fuller definitions based on the Greek root word apologia, which means “a verbal defense, a speech in defense.”1 Christian apologetics is a branch of Christian theology seeking to provide a rational defense of the truth of the Christian faith. When you engage in apologetics, you give an answer to tough questions about subjects like the existence of God, the Bible’s reliability as a historical document, Jesus’ resurrection, the simultaneous existence of evil and a good all-powerful God, and the like. That covers the definition well enough for our purposes here.
Since I don’t hop from church to church, I can only speak for my impression of my congregation, which is part of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. Here’s what I fear “apologetics” means to my congregation:
That sounds a bit harsh, so let me dial it back a little. If I conducted a survey of my congregation and got replies from a signifant chunk of the ~2,000 official members, I’m confident that over 90% would not know what the term “apologetics” means, nor would they know much about the subject.
It’s not that way because they wouldn’t be interested if they were given an opportunity to learn. Any blame lies with the 10% of us (myself included) who do know something about apologetics … and I also blame the inherent handicap we face in a society that tends not to read books, pay attention to anything but a TV screen, and have any spare time to speak of.
Odds are, your church’s library has several books by apologists like C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, G.K. Chesterton, Saint Augustine, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Francis Beckwith, or Ravi Zacharias … or at least “pop apologetics” books by Lee Strobel, Paul E. Little, Josh McDowell, Hank Hanegraaf, or Phillip E. Johnson.
But if your church is like mine, those books probably have a good coating of dust on them. The most popular books are most likely the ones with the least theological meat in ’em, from authors like Tim Lahaye, Rick Warren, and Max Lucado. Don’t get me wrong; these authors are fine Christian men who write well, and their books inspire many people to live better Christian lives.
What their books don’t do is teach you to know what you believe, why you believe it, how it differs from what cults and other religions believe, and how the Christian faith makes more sense than any competing worldview out there. That is apologetics. And it’s a field that absentminded amateur apologists like me need to get workin’ on, so we can educate our fellow believers and offer the world better reasons to become a Christian than “it feels good and helps me cope.”
So right now, I think the church has barely a clue about apologetics. I’m hopeful that some years down the road, it’ll mean a lot more to the average believer … who will be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks them to give the reason for their hope, with gentleness and respect.
1) The word “apologia” occurs in the original Greek New Testament in the following passages: Acts 22:1 & 25:16; 1 Corinthians 9:3; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Philippians 1:7, 16; 2 Timothy 4:16; and 1 Peter 3:15.
Yesterday I pointed out the correlation between deeply-held Christian belief, knowledge of current events, and antipathy to Islam. Today, Power Line notes a similar connection between religious belief and voting patterns:
This year’s election made clear what political leaders have known for some time — religious belief and degree of religious commitment are closely associated with how people vote. Thus, the extent to which people hold, and are serious about, religious beliefs has a direct bearing on who will hold political power and what our policies will be across the spectrum of key foreign policy and domestic issues. Put another way, the fact that so many Americans believe in God and take religious teachings so seriously is a major reason why our politics and policies are not like those of Europe, where religion has been marginalized.
This is another “duh” moment for most everybody from the center to the right in American politics, but I’m betting that the guys at Power Line felt obligated to point out what ought to be obvious, since otherwise intelligent folks like Jeff Jarvis and Jesse Taylor still just don’t seem to get it.
Hugh Hewitt tackles Jarvis’ essay on the supposedly exaggerated battles over Christmas in America:
It is too easy to say “everything is fine,” and “chill.” The place of faith in America is a crucial topic that deserves every bit of attention it receives, even when a particular battle seems overblown when measured against the persecution of the house church in China.
Every time an elitist condemns a person of faith as a “theocrat,” or a scientist rejects an argument against embryonic stem cell research as a “fundamentalists’ position,” the effort to expel faith from the public square advances, and not via debate, but via the sneer. Jeff Jarvis may not care a bit because such steps don’t result in bloodshed or any sort of violence. But most public policy disputes don’t, and the absence of physical injury doesn’t make them any less worthy of debate or attention. Jarvis’ jeremiad against focus on conflicts between the sectarian and the secular is itself an attempt to demote issues of faith in the culture to second-class conflicts, beneath the attention of “serious” thinkers — a back lot drama played out by hayseeds and snake handlers. How convenient, and how wrong.