Persecution

Rainbow flag. Image source.

Here's something that happened in the queer community in Shanghai. I wrote this post a while ago and I'm just publishing it now.

---

Event 1

So, I was part of a group of queer people that was planning an event. We were holding it at a gay bar in Shanghai, which I will call Kevin's Bar for the purposes of this story. The bar owner, Kevin, is great, he's done a lot to support the queer community in Shanghai, and some of my friends have held events at his bar before.

In the planning for our queer event, we were working on making images and writing a description to advertise for it. These would be posted on WeChat, the texting/ social media app that everyone in China uses. Here's what Kevin told us about our advertising: We shouldn't use keywords like LGBTQ, queer, rainbow, and so on. Because, the Chinese government can read everything you post on WeChat, and we don't really want to draw their attention.

So we put a lot of rainbow colors in our images, and we wrote that the event was about "celebrating our identities" or something like that. If you read it, you understand it's talking about being queer, but a computer looking for keywords is not going to catch it.

When we made announcements in person to advertise for our event, we said it was about being LGBTQ, but we didn't say that when we advertised on WeChat.

Also, the information we got from Kevin was that we can bring pride flags to the event, but not the rainbow flag specifically. I guess he was thinking about our audience members taking pictures and posting them on WeChat, and the rainbow flag makes it way too obvious what kind of event it is. He doesn't want that in the pictures.

So we did all these things like Kevin said. He's the bar owner and we don't want to put him at risk.

Anyway, at the event itself, the first thing we did was show off our flags and see if the audience could identify them. Fun! After that, I hung my asexual flag on something on the stage. I was really excited about having my ace flag there- I'm not really "out" so it feels good for me when I'm in a queer space where I can be "out."

Later, in the middle of the event, Kevin quietly came and took my ace flag and folded it up and put it away. I was kind of unhappy about that, but later I figured out it was because he didn't want the attention from the Powers That Be if they see photos on WeChat with any kind of pride flag.

---

Event 2

Well the first event went well and the audience liked it, so we started planning a second event, also at Kevin's Bar. We brought our flags, just like the first time, but then while we were setting up, Kevin told one of our group members that he didn't want us to use the flags, so we didn't use them.

I have to say, I kind of wondered why Kevin wanted us to be so careful, when I often saw WeChat posts from Kevin's Bar, advertising other events, and those posts were very obviously gay. But, we have to do what Kevin says because he's the bar owner and he knows the situation better than us. 

I've heard of gay bars in Shanghai getting fined or shut down because the police falsely claimed that people were using drugs there. I have no idea how true any of that is, but... yeah it's definitely true that there is risk, owning a queer bar in Shanghai.

It's like... the government doesn't *really* like the queer movement, but we're not doing anything that's actually illegal, so for the most part the government doesn't really care. Just keep doing queer things, but low-key, and the government won't care enough to do anything about it. Just don't be too obvious about it. And it's not at all clear what "too obvious" would mean- Kevin thought that posting photos with queer flags on WeChat would be too obvious. That's where he drew the line. But since there's no actual rule about it, and we aren't doing anything that's actually illegal, it's impossible to say what exactly we are or aren't allowed to do.

---

Event 3

Then we thought, for our next event, let's do something really big during Pride Month! We did a lot of work planning a really cool event for Pride Month.

But then, about 1 week before the event, one of our members (let's call her Wanda) was visited by the police. (Wanda quickly deleted our group chat from her phone as soon as the police came.) The police officer had a whole bunch of questions about our group and what the event was about. Wanda kind of gave vague answers- don't lie to the police, but you can give vague answers- and said it was about people telling personal stories from their lives- but didn't mention it was about being queer.

Apparently she talked to Wanda for a long time. Apparently the police officer said nice things, like how it's nice that we're doing events to encourage people and build community. And she mentioned that June is Pride Month, and Wanda was like "oh huh yeah I guess it is." The police officer also said it's great that China no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental illness. Basically it's like the government wants to have this image like they accept queer people, but don't push it. (Please note that China does not have same-sex marriage.)

Wanda told us about all this, and as a group we decided we needed to cancel the event. (Later we found out that Kevin had also been visited by the police.) Because, what if we do the event anyway, and the police are watching us, and they take issue with something that we say there? Who even knows what kind of thing they might take issue with? And we don't want to get Kevin in trouble, and also all of our group members (planning the event) are immigrants in China... the government has the right to not renew our visas. We don't want to get in trouble.

We were all really discouraged when this happened. Asking "why do we even bother trying to do queer events like this in China?" We posted on WeChat to tell everyone the event was cancelled (we wanted to be very obvious about cancelling it, so the police would lose interest in us). 

Some of the audience members from the previous events messaged me on WeChat to ask why it was cancelled. I said it was because of "the situation" and "I can't talk about it on WeChat" and they basically got the point.

This didn't just happen to us; this happened in the context of a wave of increased scrutiny from the Chinese government, towards all events like this. (Not just related to queerness- I know of other events that got cancelled around this time too, for fear that the government might not like them.) That year I didn't see any Pride events advertised on WeChat at all.

Basically, this is the way it goes: normally in China, the government doesn't really care, and you can hold queer events and whatever. Maybe the government doesn't like it, but if you keep a low profile then they won't care enough to actually do anything about it. But every once in a while, they suddenly "crack down." And for a few months, you don't do anything because "it's sensitive" and you don't want to take the risk. But slowly the situation goes back to normal, slowly you can start doing public queer events again.

The thing that really makes me sad is this: I'm fine because I have a good group of queer friends here. Even without a public event, I'm still connected to the queer community. But what about other queer people, who are alone and wish they could meet queer friends? If there aren't public queer events, how will they ever find us?

Because there were no Pride events in Shanghai that year, one of my friends (let's call her Tasha) decided to put together a performance of a play with queer characters and themes. I wasn't involved in the planning for it, but a bunch of my friends were. It was very secretive. They told their friends about it in person- "we're working on doing this queer play"- and then when they had figured out the time and place and wanted to officially invite people, they sent out messages on WeChat that said it was a "party," trusting that the invitees would understand what it actually was, even though we can't talk about it on WeChat. 

I went to the play. At the beginning, Tasha made an announcement to tell the audience "this is a queer play, don't post about it on WeChat" etc. There was even a backup plan- if the police come, we are going to pretend we are all watching a movie together. I enjoyed the play; they did a good job even though it was very hastily thrown together. At the end someone said happily "we didn't get raided!" So, success!

---

What persecution is

I wanted to blog about this to show how persecution actually works, and how it's so much different than what American evangelical Christians think. Christians in the US have all sorts of ideas about how the "evil" Chinese government persecutes Christians. When I first moved to China, I worried about whether it was safe to tell people I'm a Christian. Like, the minute I say it, will police pop up out of nowhere?

No, it's not like that at all. 

Here's what I've seen, about how the queer community is persecuted in China. And I believe it's similar for Christianity in China (because my first trip to China was a mission trip, and the pastors and missionaries we met on the trip basically told us similar things). The government doesn't really care that much, as long as you don't make it too public and visible. There are churches in China- very easy to find a church- there are gay bars in China, and it gives the impression that the government has no issue with it at all. The average Chinese person would be totally unaware of any persecution. But the leaders of the churches/ queer groups know there are invisible restrictions. You don't know exactly where the lines are, but you know there's a risk that if you do too much, too publicly, the government will come and ask you questions. So you're held back by your own fear and uncertainty, rather than any explicit action from the government.

When conservative Christians in the US think they're being persecuted, they make a big deal about it, posting on social media "I'm being persecuted!" That's not how persecution actually works. Instead, it's keeping a low profile by not posting rainbow flags in your event ads on WeChat. It's being careful, being unable to say or do what you want to say or do, even though you're not doing anything illegal- because you don't know at what point the police will be unhappy with it and find a way to accuse you of something. It's the fear of being fined or deported- being powerless to fight back if that happens, and so you just don't take the risk. It's finding each other through word-of-mouth, because it's too risky to have public events.

---

Related:

OF COURSE Martyrs Don't Work That Way

Blogaround

1. Facing the Forgotten Martyrs (The Ones We Killed) (July 11) "Our own heroes have killed countless faithful people because of their different cultures, beliefs, practices, and religions. The fact that we consider them heroes for doing so betrays a lot about our ideals."

2. Nepal becomes first South Asian country to allow same-sex marriage (July 11)

3. Shannon Harris has written a book called The Woman They Wanted: Shattering the Illusion of the Good Christian Wife. Shannon is the ex-wife of Joshua Harris, who wrote the most influential purity culture book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye," and other books about how if you perfectly follow all of God's rules, and stay pure, and don't even kiss, and don't date unless you're really really really serious about marrying that person, and be really jumpy and scared about being "too emotionally attached" to your boyfriend or girlfriend, and worry about every little thing because maybe it will ruin your chances to ever have a good marriage... if you do all of those things perfectly, then you'll never experience heartbreak and God will give you a perfect marriage. Anyway, a few years ago, Josh announced that he had abandoned a lot of those beliefs, and then later announced that he and his wife were separating. Now we have a book that has Shannon's side of the story. I'm really interested in this.

Some of my posts about Josh Harris:
So I Watched Josh Harris's Documentary (2018)
Wishing the Best to Josh Harris and His Ex (2019)

4. We Can End AIDS, if We Follow the Path of Progress (July 14) "Worldwide, several countries are on track to end HIV/AIDS. Botswana, Eswatini, Rwanda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Zimbabwe have already achieved the 95-95-95 target, meaning 95% of people living with HIV know their HIV status, 95% of people who know their status are receiving treatment, and 95% of people receiving treatment have a suppressed viral load, reducing the likelihood of their infection being passed on. Another 16 countries are close to doing so, while China has achieved an impressive 84-93-97 ratio."

Also from Sixth Tone: Plea for Marriage Rules Reform Sparks Debate on Parental Consent (July 13) "As per the existing regulations, couples intending to marry are required to notify their household owners, typically their parents, in order to obtain the necessary document. While this step may be straightforward for many individuals, it can pose challenges when either set of parents disagrees with the marriage."

Blogaround

1. My 2023 Reader Survey will be open until June 19. Please go take the survey- it's useful for me to know what kind of topics readers want to read about.

2. Died: Tim Keller, New York City Pastor Who Modeled Winsome Witness (May 19)

3. IKEA's New Ad Claims they Are 'Proudly Second Best' and It's a Stroke of Genius (May 14) I love this. Yes, I'm a mom and I can confirm, the baby doesn't want to sleep in the expensive state-of-the-art baby bed that you bought for them. The baby wants to sleep on Mommy.

4. Women Are Never Going to Cover Themselves Enough to Get Men to Shut Up About Us (May 12) "As The Rules become longer and more consuming, being on the wrong side of them becomes more and more eroticized. Today it's nursing moms, but tomorrow it'll be women holding babies, because babies make men think about nursing and nursing makes them think about breasts (if you think I'm exaggerating, remind me to tell you the story of the time I was reprimanded for hanging a swimsuit to dry where boys could see it at church camp). The rules create the fetish, not the other way around."

5. "Hey, stop!" Taylor Swift defends Baltimore woman during Philadelphia concert (May 15) "Taylor Swift might have bad blood with one particular security guard in Philadelphia. In a viral moment, the star defended a concertgoer during the middle of her set while performing her 2014 hit 'Bad Blood.'"

6. Israelite Divination and the Mysterious Teraphim (May 4, via [along with links 7 and 8]) "The story of Michal helping David evade Saul’s guards by putting a teraphim in his bed, dressing it up to look like him, and then telling the guards David is sick (found in 1 Samuel 19:11-16) while David escapes out the window does little to inform us of the teraphim’s purpose. It simply suggests that teraphim could be nearly life-sized, and that it was not unusual for a household to have one around."

7. Why the Carroll verdict might matter (May 15) "And yet, there was never a come-to-Jesus moment when conservatives repented their previous views and pledged to go a different way. Instead, a conservative sea change happens like this: People who used to be zealots for a particular view go silent for a while. And when they start talking again, they have the opposite view, which they put forward as if they had always believed it."

8. Florida bill would require patients to share their immigration status (April 28) Wow not cool. Aren't these lawmakers worried about going to hell? 

9. The Sudoku With Only 4 Known Solvers (December 20, 2022) "Oh you're jocking my straps, that is absolutely- I've got digits, I've got 2 digits. ... That... That... I've actually got tears in my eyes. That is un... That is unbelievable setting." (1-hour-25-minute sudoku solve video)

10. Beijing LGBT Center shuttered as crackdown grows in China (May 16) Sad news. I've seen people talking about this in WeChat groups- where it's a bad idea to say things about the Chinese government- and based on what they *weren't* saying, I assumed it had something to do with the Chinese government's dislike of queer organizations. This article from AP News comes right out and says it directly.

A similar thing happened to ShanghaiPRIDE a few years ago. The people involved with ShanghaiPRIDE are still around, organizing queer events, but are no longer doing it as part of one big organization, because that attracts the wrong kind of attention.

11. 5 Questions to Ask Before You Talk to a Woman About What She's Wearing (May 15) "She cannot do anything about being well-endowed. The issue can never, ever be about how her body is affecting the men around her; that’s on them." Wow, really amazed at this post about dress codes- the idea presented here is that it has to be about clothes, not about a woman's body. It has to be a standard about what clothes are okay to wear, and it has to be universally applied. 

This is completely different from modesty ideology, which says that if a skinny girl wears a modest outfit, that's fine, but if a girl with big breasts and curves wears the exact same outfit, that's not okay, that's not "modest"- and yes, it is ALL ABOUT her body type, modesty culture doesn't even try to hide that. The result of this modesty ideology is that for some girls/women, there's really no possible outfit they can wear that will satisfy the modesty police. And this intersects with race- women of color are seen as more "sexual", so even if they wear the same "modest" thing that a skinny white woman is wearing, they might still get labelled as "immodest" and sinning against the boys. NOT COOL.

Blogaround

1. TANF: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (March 13) "The wild thing here is, our current system was created under the assumption that poor families simply couldn't be trusted to collect welfare honestly. But the past couple of decades have proven that it's actually politicians and government officials who've been relentlessly abusing this system."

2. Asexual Advocacy in India: An Interview with Dr. Pragati Singh (March 27) [content note: mention of rape] "And there were so many such things being shared by people that I realized in my country, for my people, asexuality is not just about a flag, right? Or microidentities, or a label, it's not about that. It's about people literally making life and death decisions. People going through severe depression because they're being raped, or because they're being forced into a marriage. And you know in my country, unfortunately, marital rape is not even recognized as rape. It's legally not recognized as rape."

3. What If All the Men Around You Have Lust Problems? (March 24) "I have never, ever heard any of these pastors or authors talk about how women are whole people and we shouldn't objectify them." Wow, very good post. Sheila Gregoire says that it's NOT true that all men "struggle" with "lust", and if a man has lust problems, that man should not be allowed near young girls, until he gets himself under control. This is completely different than what I've always heard in Christian culture, which is that it's normal for men to "struggle with lust" and so women have to dress modestly to help them out.

She says if you're in a church like that, LEAVE THAT CHURCH. Wow. I'm really surprised to see her saying that, since as far as I know, she is evangelical.

Also this was a good line from her post: "It’s terrible to say, but non-Christian families have far less problems with lust than Christian ones. Even if porn use is just as high, objectification of women is more often seen as anathema, rather than as normal."

But, also, I think we need a better definition of lust, otherwise people will think that simply being attracted to people is a serious issue that means that church should bar you from interacting with people, etc... Gregoire is aware of this problem, and does provide a better definition- she says noticing is not lust; it's when someone dwells on those thoughts, that's lust. Or when you see someone as a sex object rather than as a person. I personally don't want to define it in terms of policing thoughts, because I'm ex-evangelical (lol there is a lot more that could be said about that). How about this: What if we say "lust" means you're being a creep/ aren't treating someone with respect/ aren't viewing them as a whole person. And so, to not lust, it's not about "don't think about sex, don't think about sex!" because we all know that if you say "don't think about [something]" then everyone will naturally think about it- what if we define "not lusting" in a more positive way, where you make sure to respect them and treat them as a whole human being, not a sex object, regardless of what sexy thoughts you may or may not have about them.

But what do I know, I'm asexual.

4. Cops Sue Afroman For Sharing Video Of Their Unfounded Raid Of His House (March 24) "Above and beyond that, alleging a privacy right over the conduct of a raid ostensibly on behalf of the public amounts to a face-melting level of stupidity. This is basic constitutional law. There’s no undercover work here, these are cops taking actions that they would have gladly blasted to the whole world if they had found any evidence."

5. Kansas City Cop Blows Whistle On Department's Jim Crow Policing (March 28) "Williams's suit further claims that officers were told to meet their ticket quotas in minority neighborhoods because it would be 'easier to write multiple citations on every stop.' Noting that minority residents might feel cranky about all the over-policing, the command staff allegedly advised to 'approach every car with the mindset to be ready to kill everybody in the car.'"

And another one from Wonkette: Sixty-Three Years Later, White Mom Finally Gets 'Ruby Bridges' Banned From Elementary School (March 27) "Every teacher but Barbara Henry, who had been hired specifically for her previous experience teaching in integrated schools, refused to teach her. But she went back and sat alone in that classroom as Henry's only student. Every day. For a year. At the age of six."

6. Tamping alone (March 29) "I try not to use phrases like 'America’s declining social capital' when talking to customers who are buying things like tampers, but I do ask whether they might just want to  borrow one from a neighbor or from their brother-in-law or somebody. That’s usually a better solution for them, for their budget, for neighborliness and social capital, for America, and for democracy in general."

7. It’s Time to Change My Pseudonym (March 15) This is a post from "Jackson Wu", a blogger at the Patheos Evangelical channel, about why he's not going to use the pseudonym "Jackson Wu" any more. Long story short, he's a white guy (but he worked as a missionary in China for 15 years, and he speaks Mandarin Chinese), and he's gotten a lot of backlash recently for using a Chinese-sounding name on his blog. (Especially after he published a post that strongly criticized a book by an African writer about the problems in Western missions.) And then, someone posted his real name on Twitter, so he has decided to use his real name (Brad Vaughn) on his blog now.

I live in China, so I have some thoughts on this.

First of all, I've followed his blog for a while. I like it. (If I had to guess, I would have guessed that he's a Chinese American who moved to China and lived there over 10 years.) He's evangelical, so I don't agree with a lot of his beliefs, but I appreciate him discussing Christian concepts from a more Chinese perspective. And, giving up your own culture to go live as an immigrant on the other side of the world, well, I admire that. To have that lived experience is a very significant thing. 

About having a Chinese name: Well, yes, I think if you come live in China, you should choose a Chinese name. I have a Chinese name. Mostly I use it for things like signing up for food delivery apps. It's not "cultural appropriation," it's "making life easier for the delivery drivers who don't know how to read English." And Vaughn says that Chinese people in China think it's great that he uses a Chinese name- and yes, I can confirm that. It communicates that he really wants to learn their culture and be like them.

It's, uh, a bit weird that he's responding to his critics by talking about how useful/good/etc it is to have a Chinese name in China. I don't think anyone was criticizing him for using a Chinese name in China. The issue was that he writes a blog, in English, so that means it's for a mostly-western audience, where he uses a Chinese-sounding pseudonym, and one of the main topics he blogs about is discussing evangelical Christian beliefs from a Chinese perspective. (And then he criticized a book by an African writer talking about her experiences as an immigrant in the US- to make that criticism as a white person is a different thing than making that criticism as an Asian person.) I mean, it's fine that he wants to discuss Christianity from a Chinese perspective- but to do so as an ethnically Chinese person is a different thing than to do it as a white person who has a lot of experience in China. So yes, I do think it was a problem that he was misrepresenting himself.

As for the part about the Chinese government persecuting Christians- yes, I believe him there, but I think American readers will get a skewed picture of the actual situation. Vaughn is specifically talking about house churches in China. There are also churches in church buildings in China. You can search on any map app and find a church near you. You can walk up to the building and there will be a sign posted that says what time the service is on Sunday. I've done that. American Christians have this impression that Christianity isn't allowed at all in China, but that's just not true. The thing is, these churches in church buildings are monitored by the government, and there are restrictions on what they can say. (Though I've been to services at Chinese government-approved churches and they seemed like pretty normal Christian churches to me- whatever restrictions there are, they are not obvious to the average churchgoer.) The house churches are a totally different story. House churches do what they want, but then they have to worry about persecution.

8. Getting to ‘No’: How I Negotiated My Bride Price Away (March 24) "But she remained unconvinced. 'If a man doesn’t pay a financial price to marry you, he won’t value you as much in the marriage,' she replied."

Like I said before, I married a Chinese man and nobody gave me any money. (We got some cash as a wedding gift, but nothing like this asymmetrical "bride price" thing.) This is more of a tradition in the countryside rather than in big cities.

9. Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury on more than 30 counts related to business fraud (March 31) "Donald Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud in an indictment from a Manhattan grand jury, according to two sources familiar with the case – the first time in American history that a current or former president has faced criminal charges."

Churches in Xiamen, China

I have still more photos to show you from my trip to Xiamen, China. In this post I'll show you some of the churches that are on Gulangyu Island (鼓浪屿).

These churches were marked on the map as tourist attractions. (The whole island is basically tourist attractions.) And it seems like they have congregations and weekly services- they're not just historical sites.

It's important to me to post this because a lot of Americans have a really bizarre incorrect view of Christianity in China. They think Christianity is illegal or something, and churches all have to hide. No, it's not like that. There are lots of churches- you can go online and find information on the churches near you. And of the Chinese people I've talked to about this, most of them don't really know much about Christianity, but they're like "oh my aunt is Christian" like they see it as a pretty normal thing to be.

I get the impression that the government does put restrictions on Christianity, but they vary from place to place and may or may not be enforced. (Because China is a giant bureaucracy...) Seems like they are particularly concerned about Chinese people being influenced by western culture, so you're more likely to get in trouble if you show up with a group of white missionaries trying to start up some Christian thing for Chinese people. And I know that in some places in China, there is real Christian persecution- churches being shut down and stuff like that- but the average Chinese person isn't aware of that. As I said, I get the impression the average Chinese person is aware that some people are Christian, and doesn't really have strong feelings one way or the other on it.

Anyway. Here are some churches in Xiamen. Right there in the open, with no indication that anyone is trying to "ban" Christianity or anything.

First, some photos of a Catholic church:

A statue of Jesus, in front of the Catholic church.

The base of the statue has this inscription: "Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!" which is apparently a well-known Catholic phrase meaning "Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands."

Also outside the Catholic church was this statue of 2 women. I guess it's Mary and an angel?

Here's the Catholic church. It was ABSOLUTELY CRAWLING with couples getting wedding-dress photos taken. See in China, they do photos in a wedding dress a few months before the wedding, sort of like how we do engagement photos in the US. Because Chinese weddings don't have the cultural concept of "THE dress" (ie, this is THE dress, YOUR dress, the special dress you only wear 1 day out of your whole life). Actually, Chinese brides have a whole bunch of outfits they change into throughout the wedding day. One of them is a white dress. But it's not like it's "THE dress."

And here's a second church, Trinity Church (三一堂 sān yī táng). 三 (sān) means 3 and 一 (yī) means 1. 三一 (sān yī) means "trinity." Get it? (Chinese vocabulary is so easy!)

This sign describes the history of Trinity Church. Building started in 1934 and was completed in 1945. And it's still in use as a church. 

Trinity Church

主是好牧人 (The Lord is the good shepherd.)

Trinity Church. See the 3 characters over the doors there: 三一堂

And here's a third church:

Also I took this picture of a Taoist temple, so I'll include it in this post:

Everything in Xiamen is so beautiful~

----------------------

Series of posts with photos from my trip to Xiamen:

Taking the Train in China
Xiamen, China
Xiamen, China (part 2)
Churches in Xiamen, China
Food in Xiamen, China

----------------------

If you want to see more posts like this, consider supporting me on patreon~ When I reach my goal of $20/month, I'll do a series of blog posts about various aspects of life in Shanghai. With lots of photos. ^_^

That Time Jesus Didn't "Stand Up For What's Right"

Image from VeggieTales "Rack, Shack, & Benny," before they are thrown into the furnace. Image source.

[content note: mention of gun violence and martyrs]

So we've come to a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interrrrrrrrrrrrrresting passage here. Matthew 21:23-27.

23 Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”

24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

27 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

So basically, the chief priests asked Jesus a question he didn't want to answer, and he avoided answering it, by asking them a question they didn't want to answer either.

I've been in bible studies before where people were puzzled over why Jesus wouldn't want to answer. We decided that if Jesus had just straight-up told them he's the son of God or whatever, it would have been dangerous for him, or would have messed up his plans. Maybe the religious leaders would have tried to kill him earlier. Maybe he wanted his followers to learn more about him and come to their own conclusions, instead of telling them what to think.

And that's all well and good, those are fine reasons, in my opinion. I don't have any issue with Jesus refusing to answer questions.

But here's the thing: This explanation is totally at odds with Christian folk tales about martyrs and "standing up for what's right."

Anybody who grew up in white American evangelical culture has heard the urban legend about a school shooting where the shooter asks people "do you believe in God?" or "are you a Christian?" and the understanding is that if the victim says "yes," they will be killed. And the victim is a hero and a martyr for saying "yes"- they did the right thing, they "stood up for Jesus" even though it was dangerous. And the message is: Would YOU be brave enough to say "yes" and get yourself killed?

There are lots of stories about martyrs that work just like this. The bad guy asks the Christian to say something, and if the Christian gives a direct honest answer about their Christian beliefs, they know they could be killed. (Sometimes God intervenes and saves them- as in the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.) The Christian is held up as a role model for us to follow because they gave a direct, honest answer. Because they didn't consider the risk when they answered.

The sermons ask us to consider what we would do in that situation. Would we "stand up for God" and give a naive, honest answer that completely ignores the risk? Or would we "deny Christ" and say something a bit less straightforward or even a bit dishonest, in order to save ourselves?

Back then, we read these bible verses:

Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
Matthew 10:32-33

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
Romans 1:16

And we beat ourselves up over our failure to mention Jesus in conversation with our friends. Someone asked me what I'm doing tonight, and I said "homework" when in reality I'm going to a worship night, it's because I didn't want to explain what a "worship night" is, ohhhh I am "ashamed of the gospel." And so on.

So the message was this: If somebody asks you a question where the answer is something about you being a Christian, you need to give a straightforward, honest answer. Even if there is danger of violence. Even if you don't really feel like talking about religion right then. It is wrong to consider the situation you're in and adjust your response accordingly. If you don't give a direct answer, that means you are "denying Jesus" and "ashamed of the gospel" and you are a bad Christian.

And yet, here in Matthew 21 we have the chief priests asking Jesus, "By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?" Surely the honest answer here is "I am the Son of God, I have the authority to do this." But that's not what Jesus says.

Is Jesus "denying God"? Is Jesus "ashamed of the gospel"? No, he's just considering the situation that he's in, his goals, and how it's not really a good time to announce publicly that he's the son of God. Which, as I said, I agree Jesus is being reasonable here and it's fine for him not to answer, but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE LEARNED IN CHURCH about martyrs and persecution. We learned you HAVE TO ANSWER, and you have to answer in the most honest and straightforward way. We learned that we have to "stand up for what's right" and trust that God would protect us. Look the bad guy in the eye and say, "But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."

Jesus doesn't "stand up for God" here. He doesn't want to answer the question, so he uses the chief priests' embarrassment over their opinion of John the Baptist to weasel out of it. That's clever, and it required him to have an awareness of the situation, his goals, the chief priests' feelings and motives, and rules for polite social interaction. Yes, we learned in church that, when prompted with a religion-related question in a possibly-dangerous situation, you should always blurt out your deepest core beliefs about God, without a second thought- but reality is not like that at all.

-------------------

Related:
Christians and Tests
OF COURSE Martyrs Don't Work That Way
Perfect Number Watches VeggieTales "Rack, Shack, & Benny"

-------------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew. 

Previous Post: That Time Jesus Got Hangry (Matthew 21:18-22)

Next Post: The Parable of the Wedding Banquet is Extremely WTF (Matthew 21:28 - 22:14)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

OF COURSE Martyrs Don't Work That Way

Artwork showing the apostle Peter. Image source.

[content note: religious persecution/ martyrdom]

I've been watching a YouTube series called "An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ", by Steve Shives (which I very much recommend to anyone who used to be an apologetics nerd, like me). In his video on chapter 14, Shives is talking about the apologetics argument that says the Resurrection must have happened because if the disciples were lying about witnessing the risen Jesus, they wouldn't have held on to that belief to the point of being martyrs- they wouldn't have "died for a lie." He says:

Well, the website "Debunking Christianity" has a really excellent article on this subject, on the "die for a lie" argument. ... And it brings up a very important question that Strobel and Moreland of course don't address here at all, and that is: What if the disciples were killed because of their Christianity, but they weren't given the opportunity to save themselves by recanting? This whole argument presupposes this choice that the disciples were given, that they were killed for their beliefs and that if they had only renounced Jesus, they would have been allowed to live. There's no reason to make that assumption, even if we go far enough to assume that their martyrdoms actually took place as believed by Christians. There's no reason to assume that they could have saved themselves by recanting or renouncing their testimony. 

And the article specifically mentions the execution of Peter, which according to tradition took place in the aftermath of the burning of Rome in the year AD 64. Emperor Nero blamed the fires on Christians and made them the fall guys, the scapegoats if you will, for the fire, and set into motion a campaign of persecution against Christians and it's during this persecution that it's traditionally believed that Peter was executed. 

But here's the key point: Peter was killed because he was a Christian, but he was killed because his Christian sect had been identified as a threat, not because of his beliefs. Whether Peter recanted his belief in Jesus or not would have made no difference, which means that the "die for a lie" argument does not apply at all to the martyrdom of Peter, who was the most celebrated of the disciples and whose supposed death via that inverted crucifixion is by far the best-known among Christians to this day.

And here's a section from that article he referenced, "Die for a Lie" won't Fly:

Imagine Peter leading a church service at that time, and Roman Soldiers bust in:

Soldier: All right. Who is in charge here?
*Everyone points to Peter*
Soldier: You, and your entire group here are charged with the crime of arson. You will be tried, found guilty, and executed, and not necessarily in that order.
Peter: But it is all a hoax. Jesus wasn’t physically resurrected. I don’t want to die for a lie.

Now, is the Soldier going to apologize for bothering Peter, and then leave, chuckling how he single-handedly eliminated Christianity? Of course not. He will proceed with his orders, and, regardless what Peter says, Peter will die. Yes, he is a martyr. Yes, he died for being a Christian.

This was basically what I always heard in church about being a martyr. You get arrested and the bad guys try to force you to deny Jesus. You refuse, and they torture you a little bit, and give you another chance to deny Jesus. And so on, until they finally kill you.

But why on earth would it be that way? This whole narrative assumes that the bad guys hold the same beliefs about what it means to be a Christian as you do. Christians are supposed to remain loyal to Jesus regardless of the cost*, and therefore the bad guys are going to try to get you to be disloyal to Jesus, apparently. Did the bad guys attend all the same Sunday School classes that you did and learn what it really means to be a Christian, and that's how they know what test to set up before your martyrdom? Seriously?

Of course it doesn't work that way. While there may be some minority of bad guys out there who are just really really bothered by people stubbornly believing in Jesus, don't you think most of the persecution is motivated by other things? Like power, or money, or us-vs-them hatred and fear? Do you think anybody burns down a church and then is horrified to realize that some of their victims weren't actually super-religious and would have totally renounced Jesus if given the opportunity? Do they care what the individual Christians believe specifically, or is it a case where they see Christians as a threat just because their culture is different?

Doesn't it make more sense that the disciples were persecuted and killed for being leaders in a movement that was seen as a threat to Rome's power, and the bad guys didn't care at all about the disciples' individual relationships with or beliefs about Jesus?

Next time you read an article about Christian persecution or about Christians being targeted and attacked, ask yourself if it reads like they were attacked for being members of a hated cultural demographic, or if the bad guys had carefully researched the beliefs of each victim and were really angry at how none of them could be persuaded to deny Jesus. Obviously in either scenario it's evil and it's persecution. But it turns out that persecution and martyrdom don't really look like what I learned in church.

-------------------------------

* There's a whole separate discussion to be had on whether it's okay to lie and "deny Jesus" to save your own life. In church it's always assumed that OBVIOUSLY the RIGHT thing to do is never deny Jesus. But I think that's absurd. Why play along with the bad guys' rules? Do whatever you have to do to stay safe. Is God going to be mad at you for not obediently following every command and answering every question that a dangerous criminal demands of you?

Related: Christians and Tests

Blogaround

"for any of you having an awful day, here's a kitty adorably failing to look vicious." Image source.

1. In China, a church-state showdown of biblical proportions (posted January 11) "Many Chinese no longer accept the idea that being Christian means forfeiting a Chinese identity."

2. On Purity Pledges: I Ate Cheesecake, And I Liked It (posted December 7) "Kids are being asked to make decisions about their bodies, their sexuality, and their relationships, long before they have even the faintest notion of what it’s like to be even want to date someone, let alone develop a relationship with them and want to have sex with them."

3. The Astronomically Correct “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” Is Fun and Factual (posted January 9) "Lightyears out from here to there / your light's distorted by the air."

4. One Tweet Shows the Hypocrisy of America's Reaction to White People Rioting at Ohio State (posted January 13) "If this had been a black majority, can we honestly say the rampant fires, stadium break-in and goal post destruction would be have been treated as celebratory revelry?"

5. "Jesus loves me" in Mandarin Chinese:



6. 10 Questions About Why Ableist Language Matters, Answered (posted November 2014) "You see something wrong? Compare it to a disabled body or mind. Paralyzed. Lame. Crippled. Schizophrenic. Diseased. Sick."

7. A Better Way to Talk About Adoption (posted January 14) "I feel that if I allow myself to think of anything else beyond what has happened, such as being adopted into another family or even staying in China, that that could not have been God’s best for me. That somehow my birth parents had no value in God’s eyes because God didn’t provide them the means or ability to keep me, since I was 'meant' to be in the family I am in now."

8. "I think we should 'eat somewhere else'..." Image source.

9. LGBTQ Christians: Hope for the Unseen (posted January 16) "People like you don’t exist."

I taught about Easter, in China

“哈利路亚 基督复活。” Hallelujah, Christ has risen. Image source.

Easter is coming soon, and the school where I work has been encouraging us teachers to do some lessons about it. (English school for adults in China.) Because you know, we teach English but we also want to teach about culture in western countries. Students are really interested in that.

So you know, some teachers are doing egg decorating and Easter egg hunts and making cute little rabbits, which should be really fun. I'm interested to see what kind of creative things the students do with those. But ... you haven't really taught about Easter if you haven't talked about the religious part.

How, though? I've heard stories about persecution in China, and foreigners being kicked out for talking about Jesus. On the other hand, Christianity is among the government-approved religions in China (they are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism, and Catholicism). I've been to several churches here, and almost all have been packed. (And also full of security cameras.)

So the rules about religion are inconsistent. Perhaps the best explanation is the Chinese government doesn't want Chinese culture to be taken over by western culture- so foreign Christians trying to convert Chinese are highly suspicious, while a church with Chinese leaders is not. (And actually, there are some churches where ONLY foreigners are allowed- the government doesn't want them influencing Chinese people.)

Or maybe it's more complicated than that.

Anyway, back to my story. I did a class about Easter a few days ago. I showed the students some pictures of Easter-related traditions- some were religious (like Ash Wednesday) and some were not religious (like Easter baskets). They started asking me about why do we celebrate Easter, and what is Good Friday, etc, and I'm not going to just tell them the answers- I think students learn better when they find the answers themselves.

So I told them to pick one of the traditions and use their phones or the school computers to go online and find some information about it. And then come back in 15 minutes and explain it to the class. In English.

That was pretty fun. The only downside was that they were mostly finding information on Chinese sites, so that wasn't helping them practice their English. If I do a class like that again- where they have to research on the computers- maybe I should make some changes to deal with that problem. (And then when they used English sites, they would just copy down phrases like "commemorate the resurrection of Christ" and I doubt that they even know what those words mean. So yeah. Definitely gotta make some changes to the lesson plan so they use more English- English that they can actually understand.)

But overall, I liked the class. The students learned about Easter, and I didn't teach them anything religious.

I really don't know how paranoid I should be about talking about religion with my students. During the class, I was thinking, "Oh geez, everyone is baidu-ing [Chinese equivalent to googling] Easter... that's gonna look suspicious, we're gonna get our internet connection shut off." Probably a little too paranoid.

In an American school, there would certainly be no problem with what I did. It was clearly education and clearly not forcing religious ideas on students. But what if the Chinese government doesn't see it that way?

(Though I will point out, the only people I've heard say we're not supposed to talk about religion in China are Christians.)

But man, we're supposed to do classes on Easter this month. Easter is a Christian holiday. You can't just not say that. That's not good education.

The Scary Part

Remember how last week, we discussed Jesus sending out his disciples to preach and heal and treat people as equals? That was great. But right after he gives those instructions, he follows it up with what I'm calling "the scary part." Matthew 10:16-42 gives warnings about danger, harsh statements about the personal cost of obedience, and promises about those who remain faithful.

A quick overview:

Verses 16-25: Everyone's going to hate you and kill you.

Verses 26-33: But it's okay- the truth will win in the end, and God can't forget you.

Verses 34-39: Oh, and Jesus came to make your family your enemies.

Verses 40-42: But you'll definitely be rewarded for helping out other believers.

First of all, I want to know why this stuff is in this chapter. Jesus was just sending the disciples out in groups of 2 for a short mission trip- maybe a few weeks long? All these warnings about persecution and people betraying each other surely didn't play out over those few weeks. It sounds more like he's talking about the persecution the church would face over the hundreds of years since then.

So why is it here in Matthew 10, as if it's part of the instructions they need for their little short-term adventure?

I speculate that this passage, this whole section in red letters in Matthew 10, wasn't a single sermon that Jesus gave, but a summary of all his teachings on the subject, over the course of his entire ministry.

From what I've heard, authors and readers from that time period weren't so concerned about chronology when telling a story, but grouped together the events based on topic. So I speculate that Jesus didn't say ALL this stuff right before sending out the 12 disciples- instead, these are ideas he taught throughout his ministry. But Matthew thought they fit in here, so he put them here.

A couple verses I want to pull out, because they're interesting:

Verse 16: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

I like this. "Shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves." I take the "shrewd" bit to mean we shouldn't be naive and sheltered and let people take advantage of that. Christians shouldn't cut themselves off from the rest of the world- no, we should learn how the systems work and how to best use them.

Example: I've heard of pastors who tell their church members not to use Facebook because it's apparently evil or something. Umm. Dude, Facebook is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and we should make use of it to whatever extent is beneficial.

Another example: If you are a missionary to a country that is hostile to Christianity, don't write "missionary" on your visa application. Get some kind of job in your target country, or go as a student, etc. Shrewd as snakes.

And then "innocent as doves" meaning don't do anything bad. Understand how the world works and use that to your advantage, but not to hurt people or anything like that.

Verse 28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

So... I never got whether that meant God or the devil. (And I always felt kinda dumb- the way it's worded is like the writer thinks it's OBVIOUS you know who "the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" is. And no, I'm not going to say "well obviously 'One' is capitalized, so it's God"- capitalization is part of the translation, not the original text.)

I mean, it couldn't be the devil, because Jesus is telling his followers NOT to be afraid of the people who can kill them- so not being afraid of the devil seems to follow along those same lines. (And seriously, Christians don't need to live in fear of the devil. God gives FREEDOM!)

But it can't be God either- then Jesus is saying you should be AFRAID of God because he'll send you to hell if you don't stand up for Jesus enough. Like, hey I know these people are trying to kill you, but if you give in to their demands, God will kill you even more.

And that's a HORRIBLE view of God. Geez. If someone is facing arrest and punishment for their faith, shouldn't God be comforting/helping them? Not judging whether they "stood up for Jesus" well enough, and sending them to hell if they didn't.

So I'm baffled here, y'all. Jesus commands his disciples to "be afraid" and that just makes no sense to me, and seems to run counter to, you know, the gospel and all that. And I don't know who "the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" is supposed to be. (Though it's worth pointing out that "hell" here may or may not be the popular culture version of hell- eternal torture, fire, pitchforks...)

Maybe "hell" is actually waiting in line at the bank for all eternity. Image source.

But the main meat of this passage is that there will be danger and persecution when they bring Jesus' message/healing to the world. And dude, that's scary. Jesus warns his disciples that they will be flogged, arrested, put to death, handed in by family members.

And the WTF part is verse 34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Hmm, too bad this is directly contradicted elsewhere in the bible. The angels singing "peace on earth" at Jesus' birth. Isaiah's prophecy about the "Prince of Peace."  Peace and racial reconciliation made possible through Jesus.

I would say that both are true- sometimes Jesus' message divides people, and sometimes it brings them together. (And I advise you to be highly suspicious of anyone who thinks peace is a bad thing because Jesus apparently didn't come to bring peace.)

But back to the bit on persecution. This totally has happened, throughout the many centuries that Christianity has existed. People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed. It's seriously messed-up and terrifying, and it's what Jesus predicted in this passage. And wow, the courage of all these Christians that have gone through it is amazing.

The Crucifixion of Peter. Image source.

I mean, seriously, the predictions Jesus gives in this passage are legitimately scary. But he also includes some promises:

Verses 19-20: "But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

Verse 22b: "But the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."

Verse 31: "So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."

Verse 42: "And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward."

So basically, God will be with you. God will never forget you, and at the end of it all, you will be rewarded for your endurance.

But... perhaps I'm missing the point, but WHAT GOOD IS THAT? Yeah, God is with you- but he won't stop the violence and the killing and the injustice, not til the end of the world, when creation is redeemed and everything is finally made right.

It really seems overwhelming that this is what Jesus is sending his followers into. Seems like a bad idea.

But this kind of goes along with "the problem of evil" in general (which I don't expect to resolve in this blog post). God allows bad things to happen. And perhaps it's at least comforting to know that Jesus knew what they would be going through, and that God would never abandon them.

I refer to this passage as "the scary part", for obvious reasons. It's scary. These things really have happened. But it seems that Jesus' purpose is not to scare us, but to give us something to remember if we do face that persecution. As he says in verse 31, "So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."

-------------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: To Send Out Workers (Matthew 9:35-10:15)

Next post: Good News? (Matthew 11:1-6)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.