by Steve | Mar 28, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Archive: God With Us Again
By Paul Mickey, Chairman, Good News Board of Directors
Recently I was being entertained in the home of a United Methodist family. The husband (John) was a life-long Methodist layman and had been infrequent in his church attendance in the past decade. We drove to a nearby pizza place, placed an order, and sat at a table to wait.
Shortly, John turned to me and said, “Paul, I know you’re a religious man and teach in a seminary but I need to check something with you. I have a lot of dealings with Jews and Arabs in my work; we often talk about religion and religious differences. My Jewish friends want to know especially the differences between Christians and Jews. Oh, they believe Jesus lived and all that good stuff; they’re not arguing that. But isn’t the real difference in the resurrection? I have always believed that.”
In response to this layman’s basic testimony, I replied, “Yep, John, I think you about have it put together, as I see it. There are, for me, two distinctive differences—and in other ways there are a number of basic similarities. One is, as you say, that we Christians believe Jesus not only lived a good life but that He was raised from the dead by the power of God.
“A second basic for the Christian is that we believe that Jesus was the Son of God; He was the Messiah of the house of David. He came fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah, the Savior.”
We continued in our conversation about Jewish and Christian distinctions. Finally I added, “I have always remembered my college professor in New Testament saying that Christians are honorary Jews—not by birth but by faith, because we are adopted into the family of God as sons and daughters, brothers, and sisters of Jesus. And I believe that.”
That set off a thought reaction in John. He recalled, “A couple of months ago I was with a Jewish scientist and an Arab oil producer. We were talking about the same thing and to my amazement the Arab and Jew agreed that they both could point to ‘Father Abraham’ as the common family ancestor.”
“Yes,” I added, “I think that’s right. We are more tied together in this world than many of us realize. It’s amazing how God works through Hagar, Sarah, Jesus, and us—if we are open by faith.”
When the pizza arrived, our conversation began to turn toward food and entertainment. But before leaving, John turned for a final reassurance: “Then you’d say, Paul, that the resurrection is the most important for the Christian and next to that our belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God?”
“That’s it, John; that’s the Gospel in a nutshell.”
As I have meditated on our conversation and John’s Gospel sharing in the midst of international commerce and the rising and falling of nations, I take encouragement in the simple yet profound message of the Gospel and of Easter. Jesus Christ … “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1:4, RSV)
by Steve | Mar 8, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Is the mysterious shroud of Turin
A Relic of the Resurrection?
by Rev. Dr. John C. Wilkey, Pastor, United Methodist Church Pittsfield, Illinois President, Central Illinois Conference Council on Finance and Administration
Is there factual proof that Christ’s crucified body underwent an amazing energy transformation at the moment of the Resurrection? I believe the Shroud of Turin provides this evidence. I have had an interest in the shroud for many years but have become firmly convinced of its authenticity as a result of reading two new studies. These investigations were made by Robert K. Wilcox (Shroud, Macmillan, 1977), former religion editor of the Miami News; and Ian Wilson (The Shroud of Turin, Doubleday, 1978), also a newspaperman and an Oxford history graduate. In addition there are older, Roman Catholic books on the shroud, including Edward Wuensche I’s Self-Portrait of Christ (1956), Pierre Berbet’s A Doctor at Calvary (1953) and Peter Rinaldi’s It Is the Lord (1972).
What is the Shroud of Turin? It is a piece of linen cloth measuring 14½ feet in length and 3½ feet in width. It is kept in the Cathedral of Turin, Italy. Imprinted on the cloth is the frontal and dorsal image of a man approximately 5 feet, 11 inches in height. His hands are crossed at the pelvis. There is a large, bloody wound on the wrists and one on each foot. The entire body is covered with wounds made by the Roman flagrum or whip. The man’s hair is matted with blood from scalp wounds caused by sharp objects such as thorns. The face is bruised; the nose is probably broken. In the side is the largest wound; it was probably caused by the common Roman spear used by execution squads. This wound shows not only blood but a clear fluid (“water”) stain as well. The man is bearded, which indicates he was Jewish; Roman and Greek men were nearly always clean shaven. The man’s hair is bound into a pig-tail in back; this is a little known but common custom of ancient Jews. The shoulders bear marks which were caused by carrying a rough, wooden beam.
The evidence is overwhelming that the image is that of Jesus of Nazareth after His crucifixion. While there were thousands of crucifixions in antiquity, the New Testament accounts mention the flogging, the wound in the side, the nailed hands and feet, the bruised face, the cap of thorns, and the bruised shoulder from carrying the cross beam. This could be no other person than Jesus.
The Shroud of Turin is known positively to have existed since 1357 when it was exhibited in Lirey, France. It was nearly destroyed in a fire in 1532. The fire did burn 24 holes in the cloth which was folded up at the time. These have been patched with duck-foot shaped pieces of newer cloth. The fire did not damage the image itself.
The shroud is an object of controversy even today. Opponents of its authenticity, including both Catholics and Protestants, charge that the shroud is a 14th century forgery. They base their arguments on a lengthy document of Pierre D’Arcis, bishop of Troyes; Lirey was in his diocese. D’Arcis claims to have found an artist who admitted painting the shroud for money.
However, in opposition to the D’Arcis document, several factors support the shroud’s authenticity. First, the image on the shroud is a negative; the natural lights and shadows are reversed, as on a photographic negative. It was not until 1898 when the first photograph of the shroud was taken that this fact was discovered. When the negative of the shroud photograph was developed, a positive image appeared, showing a face and body of almost photographic exactness! How would a medieval forger know how to do this in the 14th century? And even if he knew how, why would he paint something that could not be appreciated until half a millennium later? Furthermore, scientific tests made on the shroud in 1973 show conclusively that there is no paint on it. However the image got on the cloth, it was not painted!
Two big questions are raised by the shroud: Where was it before 1357? and, How did the image get on it?
Both Robert Wilcox and Ian Wilson have a fascinating and convincing theory about the shroud’s whereabouts before the 14th century. There was a well-known face of Christ on cloth in the Syrian town of Edessa in the 6th century. In 943, this cloth or “Mandylion” as it was called, was sold by the Muslim emir of Edessa to the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus Lecapenus, who brought it to Constantinople. Soldiers of the Fourth Crusade reported seeing the Mandylion there in 1206. Shortly after, the Crusaders sacked the city and the Mandylion disappeared. The Knights Templars, a militant religious order who were in the Fourth Crusade, were later accused of worshiping a strange “head.” Copies of this “head” are obviously made from the face of the Shroud of Turin. The Knights Templars were suppressed by the pope in the 14th century, and one of them, Geoffrey DeCharnay, was burned at the stake in 1307. It was another Geoffrey DeCharnay, probably a nephew of the old Templar, who turned up with the shroud in Lirey in 1357.
But the Mandylion was only a face, not a full body image. Not so, says Wilson. The Mandylion was referred to by a strange and unique Greek word meaning “folded in four.” The shroud, when folded in four, shows only the face of Christ. The Mandylion, I am convinced, was what we now know as the Shroud of Turin.
How did the cloth get from Jesus’ tomb to Edessa? The early church historian Eusebius tells about Abgar V, King of Edessa, who heard of Jesus and sent for Him to come and heal him. If we theorize that the messengers from Abgar arrived after the crucifixion, they would have sought out the apostles. The linen shroud would be an embarrassment to the apostles for two reasons. First, it had touched a dead body and was therefore unclean. Second, as Jews, they abhorred images. So the apostles might have given the burial cloth to the Syrian messengers to take to Abgar. Edessan tradition says that the cloth was later stored in the city wall and forgotten until the 6th century.
The other question is more intriguing: How did the image get on the shroud? Wuenschel and older Roman Catholics theorized that the image was a “vapor-graph,” made by ammonia gasses from the “aloes” (see John 19:39) produced in the damp atmosphere of the tomb. Experiments with aloes do produce a brownish stain similar to that on the shroud. But vapors never rise in straight lines, so any image produced by this process is always badly blurred. The image on the shroud is quite clear.
Ian Wilson, after conferring with two Air Force Academy physicists at Albuquerque, New Mexico, has a more convincing theory. Dr. John Jackson and Dr. Eric Jumper believe the image was burned or scorched by some flash of pure energy from within the shroud, similar to the images scorched on objects in the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It must have been that at the moment of the Resurrection, Jesus’ body was transformed by some energy process unknown to us, but which scorched the image onto the cloth. This is a theory I find quite convincing after studying the evidence.
Then what significance does the Shroud of Turin have for us? Some regard it as only a medieval forgery. Some think it is but another bit of traffic in “holy relics” so characteristic of pious, unsophisticated Catholics. But I believe it is a genuine piece of evidence which corroborates the testimony of the New Testament.
The shroud gives us a reliable picture of the physical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. For centuries, the question of His personal likeness has intrigued artists, theologians, and common Christian folk. I believe the shroud shows us what Jesus looked like.
But more important, the shroud is a piece of historical evidence from the central fact of Christianity: the Resurrection. Let me be quite clear, however: I do not accept the Resurrection because of the shroud. I accept it in faith based on Scripture. But the shroud supports faith and the written Word. It is factual evidence against Bultmann, Willi Marxen, and others who speak of the Resurrection as a myth or legend.
The shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ which underlines the truth of our New Testament faith. More and more scientists accept the authenticity of the shroud, and of the Resurrection which it proclaims. Isn’t it tragic that so many theologians and preachers deny what science now supports?
by Steve | Mar 7, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Archive: Good News Serves as a Forum
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
The following editorial was written by a frequent contributor, Riley Case, pastor of Wesley UM Church, Union City, Indiana, a member of the Executive Committee, Good News Board of Directors.
Good News, the Forum for Scriptural Christianity within the United Methodist Church, comes into its share of criticism. In recent weeks we have not only been accused of literalism, fundamentalism, racism, ageism, sexism, intolerance, witch-hunting, McCarthyism, and scholasticism (whew!), but also of being connected with the new Far Right, and dedicated to negating the church’s commitment to social justice.
For a movement whose stated desire is to exalt Christ and promote Scriptural Christianity, that hurts. It gives cause for self-reflection as to who we are, and what we are really about.
It is admitted that Good News does take a conservative stand on many issues. That is to be expected, since a great part of the constituency of Good News is conservative in nature (and it could be argued that so is a great part of United Methodist laity). Where else in the church can a conservative voice be spoken? Therefore, part of what Good News does is to supply balance. It is hard to imagine that “official” church magazines (such as response, New World Outlook, or engage/social action) would ever allow a fair case to be made for a limited use of capital punishment, for abortion as morally offensive (a view not inconsistent with the UM Social Principles), or for the idea of a limited free market as a strategy for development in third world countries. Part of our purpose for being a forum is to offer a place where United Methodists can express some opinions which simply are disallowed by boards and agencies of the church; (we are not nearly as pluralistic a denomination as we claim to be).
At the same time, it should be stated emphatically—to both friend and critic—that Good News was not called into being to promote any social agenda. We do not exist today for that purpose.
Good News people are united by the deep desire for “Scriptural Christianity,” a phrase borrowed from John Wesley. It suggests an appreciation for the rich heritage that is ours through the historic Wesleyan understanding of the faith as being first and primarily defined by the “plain truths” of Scripture. Since 1966, the heart of the Good News concern has been our conviction that this church has lost its theological moorings, and, therefore, in many instances has strayed away from its own rich heritage.
“The Junaluska Affirmation,” created by Good News, is the attempt to clarify officially what we understand today to be the essence of that rich heritage. “The Junaluska Affirmation ” states clearly the official position of Good News. Therefore, we ask that any who want to criticize the Good News movement start first of all with that statement.
Beyond a basic theological unity at the heart of our faith, there is a great deal of diversity within Good News. There are not many issues on which Good News people can easily and accurately be categorized. In the magazine and within the Good News constituency we discuss freely, and sometimes vigorously argue, subjects such as speaking in tongues, healing, methods of evangelism, inerrancy, and the nature of the second coming. That is another purpose for being a forum. We are often reminded that much of this kind of discussion does not take place in areas of the church’s official life.
The same is true with social issues. While a great part of the constituency of Good News is conservative in nature, we see no necessary links between evangelical theology and conservative politics. We do not have an official position, nor is there consensus within Good News, as to what that position might be on many of the current social, political, and economic issues. There is part of the Good News constituency that is quite liberal—perhaps even “radical” (in the sojourners sense)—on these issues. Social conservatives, on different occasions, have been challenged from Good News platforms to examine the basis for their convictions.
Some say our stand for racial and economic justice has not been strong enough. That may be true. God is our judge. Perhaps it needs to be emphasized—both to friend and to critic—that we do not believe apartheid is the will of God, that racism is too much a part of all our lives, that oppressive political, economic, and ecclesiastical systems, whether of the right or of the left, are inconsistent with the Gospel. Our argument with some of the church is not over the goal of justice, but rather over the strategy used to achieve that goal, and the theology on which some social justice advocacy is based.
An example is the quota system. We are not sure that the church at large, or groups that are being represented by quotas, are best served in the long-run by a legalistic system of quota representation. We believe a case can be made that this communicates legalism, paternalism, and tokenism-the very attitudes that we are trying to overcome in the church. We hope it is still possible to discuss such issues without being accused of un-Christian motives. And we are convinced that the UM Church will be healthier because Good News has created a forum where views lacking in the official church can be honestly aired and discussed.
by Steve | Mar 6, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Archive: St. George Fights a New Dragon
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
Credit, they say, should be given where credit is due.
And much credit belongs to a bold, innovative UM minister, Rev. Don Wildmon, founder of the National Federation for Decency. Credit is also due Mississippi Bishop Mack Stokes for granting a special appointment enabling Don to head up NFD.
Last summer I visited this organization’s office in the Wildmon home in Tupelo, Mississippi. One result of that visit, and subsequent contacts, is the interview published on page 11 of this issue.
Don deserves praise because he is a Christian of uncommon principle and courage. When he realized what television was doing to his children, his parishioners, and his country, Don became deeply troubled. His concern developed quickly beyond futile hand-wringing and despair. Soon he began to fight. He rallied other Christians and enlisted their cooperation in a movement which is now nationwide.
He didn’t waste time piddling on the periphery. Instead, NFD went straight for the jugular vein of the enemy—TV’s advertising income. Minimizing emotion and maximizing hard facts, Don boldly and successfully confronted such corporate giants as Ford, Sears & Roebuck, CBS, ABC, NBC … and the advertising agency elite. He is a new St. George jousting with the dragons of Madison Avenue. He is a latter-day David facing down the corporate Goliath.
What sort of man would dare to do this?
What sort of minister would leave the institutional security of a guaranteed appointment and fringe benefits to pursue “the impossible dream?”
One whom God had stirred into action.
A man whom “God thrust into the game, ” as the Reformer John Calvin once described himself.
A man whose faith produced an intense “hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
Church history recalls many men and women of radical faith. Their personal challenges differed according to the times. But some common denominators can be seen across the Christian centuries: (a) each was stirred unusually by the Spirit of God; (b) each was indignant to see the fallen world brazenly defying the revealed will of God; (c) each, in his or her own way and time, followed God while the world scoffed, fumed or said, “so what?”; (d) each was a doer of the Word, not only a hearer; (e) each accomplished something significant for God’s Kingdom of righteousness; (f) each personified the Spirit’s admonition through Paul: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” (Romans 12:9, NIV)
I urge you to support Don Wildmon and the National Federation for Decency. Give him your prayers and your dollars. Get active in his vigorous, commonsense crusade. Who knows, God may be able to redeem even the “idiot box” in your living room!
by Steve | Mar 4, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Archive: Rescued, Refurbished, & Rededicated
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
As all the world knows, Wesley Chapel in London has been rescued, refurbished, and royally rededicated. Now, a congregation functions in what had almost become a pile of historic rubble.
Is there a parable here?
Before restoration, the old Wesley Chapel was a building close to collapse. Now it survives, stronger than ever. It was rescued in the nick of time and so Wesley Chapel endures as a kind of manger of Methodism, a place which importantly reminds us of our roots in the great Wesleyan revival which reached from this place around the world.
So the place has been preserved. What is the condition of the faith which made Wesley Chapel important? In what condition is the message of Scriptural Christianity, the wellspring of this and every other true revival of religion?
ls it, like the old Wesley Chapel, crumbling away? How many among us, pastor or laypeople, retain a passionate zeal to save the lost and sanctify the saints? How many among us are warning people to flee from the wrath to come? How many are stressing that United Methodists are a holy people, raised up in the providence of God to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land? How many among us are going on to perfection? How much of our preaching, teaching, and personal witness focusses on the free grace of God in Jesus Christ … the inward witness of the Holy Spirit … and blessed assurance—all wrapped in an awesome, reverential sense of eternity?
These great Bible truths were to original Methodist faith what roof, timbers, and bricks are to Wesley Chapel.
I suspect it is much easier to resurrect a decrepit building than to refurbish a faded faith. Yet, with God all things are possible, even this. So we should regard the rescue, restoration, and rededication of Wesley Chapel as a parable of what needs to happen in the faith of our church.
Unless this faith can be vitally rescued, refurbished, and rededicated, our church will become a zombie—alive in body but dead in spirit. Unless real faith is supernaturally renewed within us, all claims of renewal in the church will ring false.
So the new Wesley Chapel presents a challenge to “a people called Methodist.” If a building can live again, why not the faith of a church? God asked the prophet Ezekiel,
“Son of man, can these bones live?”
I said, “O Sovereign Lord, you alone know. ”
Then He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! . . . I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’ ” (Ezekiel 37:3-6, NIV)
by Steve | Mar 4, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Thinking About China
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
America’s sudden recognition of the People’s Republic of China has raised many questions. For example …
- Was it morally right to end relations with our longtime ally and friend, Nationalist China?
- Was it consistent for America, preaching a hard doctrine of “human rights” to sinners in Africa, Latin America, South Korea, and the Philippines, to recognize Communist China, a “human rights ” sinner whose transgressions probably equal or may even surpass Russia and Nazi Germany?
- Should such moral considerations be set aside for the sake of a potentially profitable business opportunity—selling to the teeming Chinese market, which Time magazine described as “one quarter of mankind”?
- Are we being naive (again)allowing US technology to empower a giant communist country, a declared ideological enemy of freedom?
Another, even larger question looms for Christians: does the new “open door policy” in China mean that Christians there will have more freedom to worship, witness, and live for Jesus Christ? Does the thawing out of US-China relations offer a new missionary opportunity to evangelize the world’s most populous nation?
However we may feel about political aspects of the China situation, Christians are obliged to consider first these Kingdom questions.
There is some hazard in speculating about China today. It is like a landscape hidden beneath swirling banks of fog. Presently, we in America have only a glimpse of this vast landscape. So we need to be cautious about drawing too many conclusions too firmly and too quickly.
The condition of Christ’s Church in China is uncertain. It seems that a solid nucleus of believers has survived the anti-Christian years of Chairman Mao. An encouraging sign is the large number of young Christians (new converts, according to Rev. Dr. Robert Coleman, the only United Methodist member of The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism). Apparently Chinese Christians have triumphed “in spite of dungeon, fire and sword.”
This has happened before. Over past centuries, the Church of Jesus Christ has been invigorated repeatedly by persecution. Just as a grapevine, drastically pruned, bears more heavily, so Christ’s Church usually develops more vigor when opposition arises.
The hard years under Chairman Mao probably scared off many nominal churchmen … leaving a majority of battle-toughened believers who are ready to die for Jesus. Some of these Chinese Christians ought to come to America as missionaries! We need to meet and hear some people for whom the faith is precious unto death, ridicule, and exile. Such “frontline Christianity” stands in marked contrast to American religion, which the Wall Street journal described in an article commenting on the Jonestown cult massacre:
The decay of religion [in America] is unmistakable. The appeal of the cults expresses the profoundness of the human will to believe, the longing for the certainty of faith. The last place anyone would look today to fill this longing is in any of the mainstream religious denominations. They have little time for faith, being preoccupied with such issues as how to govern South Africa.
Apparently China is opening itself to the outside world in a remarkable turnabout from Mao’s isolationism. Yet it remains to be seen whether this new “openness” will include freedom to preach Jesus Christ as the only way to God (John 14:6). In India and elsewhere, intense nationalism makes it harder now for Western missionaries to come and stay permanently. China’s communist government is pragmatic but not soft-headed, so it will probably not offer a wide-open-door to professional Western missionaries.
In all probability then, Chinese Christians, not Americans or Europeans, will be carrying the ball to evangelize China’s unsaved millions. For Westerners, the future role will probably be mostly that of helper and cheerleader. Does this mean the end of missionaries? No. Rather, it means that God will be needing many missionaries of a different sort.
Today, China seems eager to receive technical assistance from abroad. This means that many Western technicians will be living and working in China—setting up computers, building modern factories, etc. Their salaries and expenses will be paid by governments or by large multinational corporations.
Some of these Western technicians could also be missionaries—mature Christians who might enter China as technical specialists and then engage in missionary work as a divinely-appointed sideline. They could witness personally to their Chinese fellow-technicians. They could serve as coaches, cheerleaders, and helpers for the native Christians who will be carrying the main burden of evangelizing in China. Such “new breed” China missionaries would follow an ancient, honorable pattern. St. Paul supported his own missionary endeavors by making tents while he was preaching and teaching in Corinth (Acts 18:1-4), and Paul was the greatest Christian missionary of all time.
Western technicians, functioning as “tentmaker missionaries” inside China, would have many advantages. The high cost of their salaries, transportation, and maintenance would be paid by others. This would free precious missionary dollars for recruitment, training, and assistance to the technician-missionaries- and also to Chinese pastors and evangelists, who may now have greater freedom to travel outside China. Technician-missionaries would have contact with many Chinese who might not be reached by more conventional missionaries operating out of church-sponsored schools, hospitals, mission stations, etc. (if these were permitted by the Chinese government—and this seems doubtful).
This concept of adjunct missionary service, utilizing Christians with secular technical specialties, would put into practice that grand old Protestant doctrine, the “priesthood of all believers.” It would offer laypeople a frontline responsibility for missionary evangelism, and the vitality of the Lay Witness movement shows how effective lay evangelism can be.
A recent report from Singapore suggests how Western technicians who love Jesus Christ might serve Him inside communist China. A Singapore doctor opens his home each week for Bible study and prayer. An American visitor was invited one day last summer. He found the doctor’s small living room jam-packed with 25 doctors and medical students, mostly Chinese. They spent about two hours intensely studying the Bible and its application to their lives.
“It was obvious,” recalled the American, “that there was great spiritual power in that home church. Who can guess what impact all these growing Christians may have for Jesus Christ?”
Transfer this scene to the People’s Republic of China. Multiply it by 1,000. Who can guess the results in eternity?
“We are on the brink of something new and daring,” says Dr. Coleman, who is Professor of Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary and a former member of the Good News Board of Directors. “It looks like this may be a time in God’s providence when He is getting ready to move in a new way—something unforeseen only a few years ago.
“Its exact form is not yet clear. But there will be greater opportunity for the penetration of China with the Gospel. In this, the Apostolic pattern of evangelism seems suddenly all the more contemporary! Paul, the tent-making Apostle, found sensitive hearts seeking God. Then he poured his life largely into them as a nucleus for the growth of an energizing Christian fellowship.
“I see this same pattern as the secret of evangelizing China today.”
To move as the Spirit leads, evangelizing China will require bold, creative missions leadership for the UM Church. What will be needed?
First, missions policy-makers must believe zealously that people outside of Jesus Christ are lost and perishing eternally, and that the central purpose of missions is to “rescue the perishing.” How? By emphasizing always Jesus Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. This eternal message does not change, even though missionary methods do.
Second, missionary recruiters must seek out mature Christian laypeople who are also experts in computer operation, business management, electronics, physics, chemistry, industrial development, communications—and a hundred other skills which abound in America and Europe. The Holy Spirit is capable of locating such people. Under His guidance, our missions leaders could recruit Christian technicians, train them in person-to-person evangelism and Bible teaching, then help them get to China under either corporate or government auspices.
Third, our missions leaders must sustain these missionaries-not with insurance, pensions, and medical supplies (these would be provided by secular employers), but with spiritual guidance, nurture, and patient, loving personal encouragement.
Fourth, among the millions of Chinese living now in exile outside mainland China are many fine Christians. They can be the evangelical leaders as they reenter China to win it for Jesus Christ. An example is the young Chinese medical student who took the American back to his hotel after the home church meeting mentioned above. The student said he was anxious to go back into China—as a doctor and as an ambassador of Jesus Christ.
Mission leaders in America will need to work closely with these “diaspora” Chinese,[1] whose nationality and language offer great natural advantages.
Fifth, mission leaders will need to work closely with those who are even now preparing to evangelize China. Many such groups are identified in the now-available Good News “China Packet. ” Another example is the thriving OMS International-affiliated Seoul Theological Seminary in Korea, where Asians are preparing for the evangelization of Asia.
Sixth, soon China will be sending thousands of its brightest young adults to study in America. Someday they will be among the leaders of new China, and God will bring them to us! What a strategic opportunity! If some encounter Christ in our midst, He will return with them to China, where He will use them in strategic ways and places.
United Methodists live in every sizable US metropolitan area, near almost every US university or college, so we have an unmatched opportunity. We can help evangelize China right in our homes.
Here are six practical suggestions. Many United Methodists have been waiting and hoping for the UM Church to step out creatively and boldly in world evangelization. There will be no shortage of dollars, prayers, or personnel for those mission leaders who catch a glimpse of God beckoning from China, “come and help us.” (Acts 16:9)
[1] Chinese living in dispersion outside of mainland China.
