I am currently in a doctoral program, studying semiotics—cultural symbols—which requires a great deal of reading. Probably the greatest benefit of an education is the wise guide (teacher) who can give a curated tour of the best there is in any given subject, and such is the case with this program. Dr. Leonard Sweet has opened the door to an entire world of scholars and theologians who look beneath the surface of things and reveal mysteries. Now I would like to open that world to you.
Faithful Obedience
A little over twenty years ago, I read the remarkable book The Heavenly Man, centered around the conversion and ministry of Brother Yun. As an inveterate reader, it is hard to come up with a Top Ten list of books that have forever changed my life, but if I were pressed to the wall, certainly The Heavenly Man would make the cut. Now, I have better language to understand what changed me. The believers described in Brother Yun’s book have a habitus of faith, they are patient and persevering, and above all trust in the ferment of God’s divine power at work in them, in their circumstances, and in the world (the link below gives more about this whole-life devotion to God).
This is what I expected to read about when I opened Faithful Disobedience.
And I was not disappointed.
I learned that a lot has changed since Brother Yun’s day. House churches are really churches of any size, public and open to all, meeting in a variety of venues which have, as an act of integrity, not registered with the Chinese government’s officially sanctioned Three-Self Church.
The Three-Self Church
I had to look up the distinctives of the Three-Self Church—they are to be free of foreign imperialist and colonialist powers, hence self-funded, self-actuating, and self-propagating—three “self.”
The irony, as a number of essayists in Yi’s book point out, is that they are instead under the domestic tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party, funded, regulated, and even neutered, as they are not permitted to evangelize, and there is even a cap on annual baptisms. The Communist Party decides their doctrine, and their whole purpose for existing is for political reasons couched in religious language (p. 63). The Three-Self Church actually plowed many house churches into the ground … literally (pp. 90–93). I can see why the writers call it the antichrist tool of the devil.
It brought to mind Hosea’s timely prophesy, “… lest God’s people are destroyed for their lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6; p. 27)
Or, how about this one,
“Once the church falls into the trap of being ruled by emotions, depending on power, or yielding to politics on matters of doctrine, priesthood, or sacraments, they have worshiped a false god.”
Wang Yi, Faithful Disobedience: Writings on Church and State from a Chinese House Church Movement, 27
The Dangers of a Combined Church and State
We know that has happened in our long history so far, at least in the west. And, it seems, an arm of USAmerican Christianity may be in danger of going there again. I was surprised to read about such a strong advocacy for the separation of church and state, but the more I read, the more I realized how wise this is. Christians are not free to be obedient to our true Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, if we are called in obedience to any other ultimate head, including the state (pp. 29–30).
I also read with interest the dangers of developing the inner life to the diminishment of investment in the outer life, including investment in a church family, and wonder if this is also a part of what is happening with the expanding “nones” and “dones” groups in the US. This is a slide in another direction, also, for those who remain:
… because of their bondage to liberal theology, they were not able to move toward orthodox soteriology in order to properly and comprehensively understand the relationship between personal salvation and social change.
Wang Yi, Faithful Disobedience: Writings on Church and State from a Chinese House Church Movement, 69
I think we need to learn from that statement.
Three Final Thoughts
All throughout the first half of his book, including Wang Yi’s “95 theses,” I saw warnings about where our own western Christianity may be headed, if current trends continue. I hope we will fear being spineless more than we will fear being homeless, when the time comes (p. 50).
Penal Substitutionary Atonement
I found myself disagreeing with Yi’s early exhortation to stand firm on what is essentially penal substitutionary atonement doctrine—unworthy of God’s love, count only on Christ’s righteousness because we have none, and so on. This is all tidy Calvinist logic, but it is a thin, cold wrap in a solitary, wintry cell (p. 139).
But by page 162, Yi was exploring a richer theology that enters into union with Christ rather than adherence to a doctrine. It is Christ himself, not the concept of grace, which warms the bones and enlivens the heart. By page 184, Yi stated that the blood of Jesus on the cross can reconcile all things to himself, appealing to a redemptive theme rather than a punitive one. If I were to modify what has been championed as Protestantism’s central, foundational doctrine for five hundred years, it would be exactly this: redemptive substitutionary atonement.
Dangerous Church
I also found myself resisting his insistence that the church must be dangerous to the state, that the church is outside of God’s will if it does not make a public stand, or if it dissolves into small groups (pp. 177–178). First of all, God has shown us through the whole of the Bible that there is no cookie-cutter way of dealing with life. We must remain attuned to God’s voice, God’s guidance, while asking for discernment in the situation, wisdom in what to say and do, and courage to say it and do it (James 1 is my text).
Secondly, I do not agree that small gatherings will, a priori, lack elders or pastors (pp. 192-193). This is relying upon earthly institutional thinking and disregards the mighty power of God to raise up leaders and advocates, and dismisses God’s ability to set aside untold numbers of people for God’s purposes (as God did in Elijah’s case, 1 Kings 19:18). It also reflects narrow thinking in what qualifications elders and pastors must have. I point to the nascent church in Philippi as my Exhibit A.
Yi rightly cautions that the church must never submit to being institutionalized, and he is surely referring to the state’s control (p. 224). Yi speaks of being truly free by being unregulated (“unlawful freedom” p. 133). But I would add to that caution that when we regulate the church as an institution in any way, we are dancing on a thin line between earthly control and the movement of God.
Justice and the Church
Yi also writes on matters of justice, for example praying Chinese officials will meet the fate of Haman (p. 167). I realized that justice themes in scripture keep hope alive for the oppressed and persecuted, the exploited and abused. There is a sense of empowerment that comes with knowing God is going to make it right one day, which perhaps is a big part of why the imprecatory Psalms have been preserved for thousands of years.
I sat with what I had read for a while, and was reminded of T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. This excerpt in particular:
… we know what we must expect and not expect.
We know of oppression and torture,
We know of extortion and violence,
Destitution, disease,
The old without fire in winter,
The child without milk in summer,
Our labor taken away from us,
Our sins made heavier upon us.
We have seen the young man mutilated,
The torn girl trembling by the mill stream.
And meanwhile we have gone on living, living and partly living,
Picking together the pieces,
Gathering fagots at nightfall,
Building a partial shelter,
For sleeping, and eating and drinking and laughter.God gave us always some reason, some hope;
But now a new terror has soiled us, which none can avert, none can avoid,
Flowing under our feet and over to the sky.… God is leaving us, God is leaving us,
More pang, more pain than birth or death.… The Lords of Hell are here.
T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc: 1963), 43–44
The people begged Thomas à Kempis to save himself for their sake, but à Kempis knew in that moment that he had to make a public stand instead and be martyred for Christ’s sake, and ultimately for the people’s as well, to know that God is the victor even in death, and that “partly living” as a way to cope with oppression is not really living at all.
Yi leans into this truth, saying that for pastors, their glory is not in their accomplishments nor even in their lives but rather in their investment in the church and in Christ, what will live into eternity (p. 162). He called it when he told pastors to get over being afraid of losing their jobs. That is earthly kingdom thinking, not heavenly kingdom thinking. I can see Yi saying churches must be public proclamations of freedom in Christ, for the sake of Christ and for others. This is what really living, fully living means, and to live under another’s thumb (whether that is Satan, the Chinese Communist Party, or the pressure of public opinion, etcetera) is only partly living.
Obedience flows from love which gives us what we need to do what is right, even in the face of unrighteousness.
Wang Yi, Faithful Disobedience: Writings on Church and State from a Chinese House Church Movement, 174–175
Chinese churches are not prepared, but God has “made the cross to serve as the boundary marker between church and the world” and in the cross there is great power. The martyred church, and martyrs individually, live in death rather than be dead while living (p. 182). Even books and money can be seen as martyred for the sake of Christ, doing a worthy work as a public demonstration.
- The church is the new city of God with God’s presence in the temple (p. 147). Do we see our churches that way?
- “True hope and a perfect society will never be found in the transformation of any earthly institution or culture but only in our sins being freely forgiven by Christ and in the hope of eternal life” (p. 222). Do we agree with that in our own culture?
- “The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world” (p. 223). How do we feel about that statement?
