Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 22: T.B. Baines

On the surface it appears as though Baines would have his readers believe that a compelling argument for the secret rapture is the fact that, other than in the passages addressed immediately above, Christ never tried to give His disciples hope of His return as being eminent, and because it is spoken of here in eminency then here Christ cannot be speaking of the end of the world because prior to that event we know other things must happen, thus Christ must here be speaking of a different return; Baines would he would assert that return to be the secret rapture. Of course, we have already addressed the fact that even to the disciples, the secret rapture could not have happened at ANY time because Peter had to die before its occurrence. Baines really just tries to gloss over this fact and in my opinion just because he exempts Peter from having the same hope of an eminent return does not mean that the return is necessarily eminent, thus separating it from the return in power and glory. Baines continues.

“But though our Lord's own language seems sufficiently plain, it may be asked, whether it is in agreement with other portions of God's Word? Christ's teaching [teaching of the secret rapture], as we have said, only slightly touched this special subject of His separate advent for His saints; and He left its full significance to be brought to the hearts of His disciples by that Spirit of Truth, who was to teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever He had said unto them. What, then, does this Holy Spirit teach us concerning the wondrous theme we are here considering?”

Here we see Baines acknowledging the fact that evidence for a division in the return of Christ is sparse at best, and I would claim that it is nonexistent. So he goes on to answer the question he poses in the last sentence above by examining Acts 1:10-11.

“10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."”

“Now no time is here mentioned, and if the passage stood by itself it might be supposed to refer to the end of the world. But, comparing it with other passages, this interpretation becomes impossible. For, in the first place, His coming again was to be "in like manner" with His ascension, and nothing can be conceived more unlike to this event than the appearance of the Judge upon the great white throne. Secondly, when the Judge then appears, He does not come to the world, for "the earth and the heaven flee away." It is the dead who are summoned before the Judge, not the Judge who comes to them. (Rev. 20: 11-15.) But thirdly, our Lord had Himself constantly spoken of His coming, and had only recently named its effect upon the disciples as a special ground of consolation and hope, as the one precious comfort to stay their hearts during His absence.”

Regarding the verses in Acts 11, Baines does admit that, in isolation the passage would easily be interpreted as the end of the world, but he also assumes that the phrase, “will come in the same way” necessarily excludes the future coming referred to here because Christ’s second coming is described as being in power, glory, and judgment. But this conclusion is drawn from a deficient view of other passages he cites for support. His assumptions regarding Rev. 20: 11-15 about the nature of Christ’s second coming (specifically his assumption that this judgment doesn’t take place on Earth) are in error—there is no reason in the context of the Revelation passage to assume that th Great White Throne Judgment does not take place on Earth. What is more is that, even if it were proven that this judgment must take place in a separate dimension of God’s rule, the fact that Christ’s return prior to it could also be “in the same way” as the men of Galilee saw Him ascend is not precluded, because we know that the second coming of Christ is described as His glorious appearing, and this entails more than just judgment. For some reason, Baines wants to dichotomize a return of Christ (which is in part to judge the wicked) and the possibility of hope for the disciples in the anticipation of the same event; just because the return of Christ is in part to judge, does not mean that saints cannot gain hope through their anticipation of it.

But Baines resumes his argument for a secret rapture by stating that it is actually in the epistles where its enigmatic character is more clearly revealed. I can’t help but think here that for some reason, Baines has the writing’s order in the cannon in view as he formulates his reasons for the sheer absence of explicit teaching of the secret rapture.

Baines begins his mining for the secret rapture in the epistles by appealing to the fact that the Thessalonian church had turned from idols and are waiting for Christ to appear from Heaven, and he determines that the outstanding character, uncommon in his own day (according to Baines’ assessment) because it had drawn the attention of others, it therefore could not have resulted from the expectation of Christ’s return in power and glory, but must have resulted from the hope derived from another coming, the supposed coming for saints alone. Let’s read…

“These, then, were the two characteristics of the Thessalonian Church. Can it be said that they are the distinguishing marks of Christians at the present day? It may be answered that all believers expect Jesus to come from heaven, and this is, no doubt, true. But surely no person, looking at modern Christians, would seize upon this as a leading feature of their faith The expression appears to imply, what the rest of the epistle plainly shows, that there was among these Thessalonians something much more than a distant expectation of the Lord's coming at the end of the world; that it was a present hope, influencing all their thoughts, their feelings, and their practical life, a hope so vivid and powerful as to attract the attention of "all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia."”

Is it possible that Baines would charge all previous centuries of believers who have, instead of in secret rapture, found their hope in and were driven from idols by an anticipation of the second coming of Christ; (why would one need “something much more” anyway) would they have a hope and deliverance that is second rate? My guess is that he would not say that aloud, but the thought is implied in his pronouncement of great hope only to be had in a secret rapture; he seems to say that the lack of persevering hope in the church of his day was a result of not having their hope found in this type of return. Furthermore, if the Thessalonians or believers of any age cannot find their hope in the Lord’s coming at the end of the world, then I submit that whatever future return of Christ in which they are attempting to find their hopes is terribly misplaced. My assessment of Baines’ view of this first century church is that they have actually been driven from their past idolatry to their idolatry—into a different type—the hope of a secret rapture; if any of us finds more hope in any gift of God (whether it be a secret rapture or the end of the world) than we find in God Himself, then we have made that gift into an idol, and we have placed it on the throne of God to be worshiped instead of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Clearly referring to the hope that the Thessalonians had, Baines makes these remakes,

“If then, this [their hope] was a delusion arising from imperfect knowledge, how is it that the apostle, instead of putting them right, records this waiting attitude, side by side with their turning to God, as a portion of the bright testimony they were bearing? In the next chapter he again incidentally alludes to the hope, and again without the slightest hint that the Thessalonians had fallen into error, or were cherishing unfounded expectations.”

I think this argument above is a type of straw man because Baines is assuming and arguing against an unreality—that, if there is no secret rapture, then the Amillennialist must believe that the hope of the believers in Thessalonica was a delusion. Or it could be this, that in this induction he assumes the secret rapture as fact (not necessarily deduced from the scriptures clear reading) and must be answering an objection to his position presented by some hyper-preterist type interpretation (because they see all biblical prophecy as having been fulfilled by AD70) that interpretation alone suggests that the Thessalonians were in error. The problem with his argument here is that it is, in large measure, irrelevant today. No orthodox covenant theologian who is an Amillennialist would have to answer Baines concerns at this point; no one is claiming that they had “imperfect knowledge” which Paul should have corrected. Now regarding some of the text of the Thessalonian letter itself,

“15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.”

Strangely enough, when he quotes the passage above, Baines leaves out the underlined portion above. It is in this portion we see a distinct description that would certainly forgo any secrecy to the interpretation of the nature of Christ’s return (he conveniently left out, “with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.”), but even with the portion of the text he did quote, secrecy, I think, is not best described as “a shout”. Furthermore, it does make one wonder that if Paul in fact did have a secret return of Christ for only His saints in mind, why did he not use the coming as “a thief in the night” language he uses later in the letter?

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 21: T.B. Baines

The following section deals primarily with, “Section 1 of: The Lord's Coming, Israel, and the Church. 4th edition, revised and enlarged. Broom, 1881.

In this section of Baines’ work, he also shows his misunderstanding of the Amillennial position. Baines writes,

“Everybody is aware of the difference prevailing among the Lord's people as to the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which foretell the future in reserve for the Church and the world. The ordinary interpretation is, that the promises contained in the Psalms and Old Testament prophecies refer to the Church, which, as the spiritual Israel, has taken the place, in God's purposes, of the literal Israel, to whom these promises were given. So, the [fulfillment] of the promises is taken to be spiritual rather than literal, being brought about by the gradual spread of Christianity, and the blessings of peace and prosperity following the universal triumph of the gospel.”

It is interesting how much difference 150 years makes—at the time of Baines’ writing, the Amillennial view was the popular, ordinary view, and now his view is popular and considered ordinary. There are two misstatements in the paragraph above regarding the Amillennial view (if that in fact is the view he inteded to critique), one, that we believe that the Church as the Spiritual Israel has “taken the place” of national Israel, and two, that this usurping comes from an intepretation of prophecy that is “spiritual rather than literal”. Regarding the first, no Amillennialist I know is taken seriously on the subject in the 21^st century regards the Church as having taken over the place of national Israel…no one I know says that. Instead, the view actually maintains that, after the dividing wall was broken down; after the veil was rent in two, gentiles were then to be considered as, “brought near to the commonwealth of Israel” as Ephesians 2 puts it, and that they also have been “grafted into the true olive branch” as Paul states in his Roman epistle, not that the gentile Church has taken the place of national, territorial, or ethnic Israel, nor that the Church is comprised exclusively of gentiles. The Church doesn’t “take place” of so called, literal Israel, the promises were never made to that Israel, only to the remnant. Note here that there certainly have been those in the Amillennial camp who would qualify as so called “Supercessionists”, but their existence is one of minority when considering a 2000 year history. Baines has more incorrect assumptions when he makes this claim about his opposition,

“Indeed, the very thought that the constant references to the future scattered through the sacred writings are not meant to be understood, carries its own refutation.”

Certainly any self-respecting Amillennialist would agree that this view carries its own refutation as it were, but no Amillennialist worth his salt would claim that the prophecies contained in Scripture were “not meant to be understood”, so it is a straw man that Baines sets up and burns at this point. In the following bold assertion, Baines attributes the “mystery” referred to in Scripture as the mysterious division of the Lord Jesus’ return into two different parts: what its’ proponents would in present days call the rapture and the glorious appearing.

“But in the epistles there appears another fact, a "mystery" hidden from the Old Testament prophets, and only hinted at by Jesus himself. This is that the Lord's coming is divided into two different acts.”

Again, the mystery of the Old Testament that is now revealed in the New is that the gentiles will be included, and the Old cultic practices of circumcision and sacrifice have gone away. The only problem is that the isn’t even one passage of scripture which tells explicitly of this secret coming of Christ to “rapture” His Church prior to His coming in power and glory, I think that only inferrence fed by false dispensational presuppositions can result in such a view. The following paragraph in the words of Baines are somewhat puzzling to me; it appears quite obvious that he is straining their meanings to develop some sort of half baked proof that the “coming” to which Christ refers is not the second coming in power and glory but rather, it is the secret, taking up of the members of the Church exclusively, resulting from dispensational presuppositions.

“That these words disclose a new prospect, not the spirit's presence with Jesus after death, is clear from the closing verses of this gospel. There our Lord first foretells Peter's death; then, being asked what should become of John, replies — "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John 21: 22). Now this could not mean that John might live till the end of the world. But neither could it mean that John might go to be with Jesus at his death. In this case, how would he have differed from Peter or any of the other disciples? Moreover, such an interpretation would rob the words of all meaning, making them equivalent to this — "If I will that he lives till he dies, what is that to thee?" The coming referred to, therefore, is neither the departure to be with Jesus at death, nor His appearing at the end of the world.”

I think that the only reason that Baines could say “it could not be the end of the world” is because he presupposes a secret rapture typified by dispensational eschatology, whereby saints, on that day, will be secretly (apparently not with a very loud shout) removed from the earth. I think this doctrine has largely grown in popularity in our day due to its teaching that we believers will not have to endure the “Great Tribulation” and “miss the wrath of God” which misunderstands what “missing the wrath of God” actually entails and how it is actually accomplished. These words to which he above refers are the words of 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, and in that passage, it is very clear that its meaning is that we are to seek contentment whether in the physical body of our present sort of life, or the spiritual body in our future presence with the Lord, and it is this passage about which he speaks first, in the paragraph above. Baines trys in vain to appropriate this for proof of a secret rapture. He suggests that words such as Paul used in 2 Corithians 5:1-9 are similar to the words used by Jesus to His disciples in order to comfort them in their distress as He left, and that they necessarily must then refer to a secret rapture prior to the Second coming in order to be words of salve. That is why he claims in error that the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians refer, “not the spirit's presence with Jesus after death”. He concludes at the end of the paragraph that, because of the timing of John’s death, it refers neither to Johns’ physical death nor to Christ’s Second coming, so then there must be a coming of Christ between those two event…hence the enigmatic and elusive doctrine of the secret rapture. Regarding his conclusion summed up in his last sentence, this interpretation totally ignores why Peter asked the question about John’s death. Peter is taken aback by the prophesy of his own death and thus he inquires about John and the manner in which he might die, and this question then prompts Jesus to say something like, “…well Peter, that’s just not your business.”. If Jesus actually wanted to comfort His disciples by reassuring them that they would not face “The” tribulation, but rather, they would be raptured out before the time of the “Great Tribulation”, (as Baines would likely suggest) then He certainly would not have done so by prophesying Peter’s death, even if he is excluded. At the risk of assuming upon myself something that I think the God-Man should have done during His incarnate ministry, this would have been the perfect place to make the doctrine of a secret rapture clear enough to the disciples that it would calm their hearts in the future, and provide them with enough information that they could later describe the event accurately enough in their letters and other writings so that the teaching could also calm and edify the faith of the believers they would later be called to shepherd.

While it is as clear to the Amillennialist as it is to the dispensationalist that when the Lord returns, the saints of God will be translated and they will not die a physical death. Without any preconceived notion of a secret rapture prior to Christ’s coming in power and glory, one should never derive such a belief from the reading of the passages Baines and others use to promote it. His argument for such a secret rapture seems to rely largely on his assumption that the disciples could not have been comforted by the desciption of Christ’s return “at the end of the world”. I am not certain, but it almost appears that Baines, either believes for himself, or believes that those who oppose the secret rapture claim that all persons living at the second coming of Christ in triumph will necessarily die a physical death, therefore it cannot be comforting to Christ’s disciples.

This next discussion is clearly an aside, but I do find the following statement (which is in order with the statements as made in Baines’ material) to be very curious due to the popular emphasis today on “the eminent return of Christ” as being a doctrine of proper Biblical interpretation.

“The time of the Lord's coming is studiously kept out of sight. The only event that must necessarily happen, according to these scriptures, before the promised return of Jesus for his disciples, was the martyrdom of Peter, a thing which, in an age of persecution, might have occurred at almost any hour. When that had taken place, there was no reason to be deduced from these passages why the return of Jesus should not be momentarily expected.”

The way I have heard persons speak about the “eminent” return of Christ as being a mark of “correct” eschatology, one might get the feeling that such persons think that the word “eminent” is a synonym for certain. To be sure, the “certain” return of Christ is a mark of true Christian orthodoxy, and its rejection is a sure sign of heterodoxy, but to elevate the “eminence” of Christ’s return to such a position is horibly ungracious at the very best, because the disciples themselves knew that Peter had to be martyred before Christ’s return in any form, thus Christ never would have spoken of His return to them as being eminent! I gather from his statements above that Baines would not do this, but it is interesting that this might be a point of difference between Baines’ dispensationalism and 21^st century dispensationalism.

In the quote above, the part that I have underlined is the classic and popular, modern argument against the eminence of Christ’s return that covenant theologians would level against present day Ryrie style dispensationalists; because Christ told of His certain return, and Peter expected His return to Earth as a certainty (though he must have know he would die before it) they knew that there was at the very least, one event that would have to happen before it…namely, Peter’s martyrdom.

Now to continue with the discussion of the secret rapture and the prophetic discussion of Peter’s death and John’s possible tarrying.

“Let us look at the position of the early disciples, remembering that this was almost all the light they yet had on the subject. Of the two whose future career had been spoken of, one had been told that he must suffer death, the other that he might tarry till Jesus came. Would it not be a perfectly natural and lawful thing for John to be living in anticipation of the Lord's coming? Yes, Amillennialists would agree because Christ’s words tell all of us to do so. Would it not, indeed, have shown sad unbelief if he had not looked for translation, but had looked for death instead of translation? Christ doesn’t predict John’s life like He does Peter’s death, and Baines’ working assumption seems to be that future events will transpire in this way: secret rapture, The Great Tribulation, Christ’s return, and then a millennial reign. Would it not also have been lawful for the other disciples, Peter excepted, to anticipate that the Lord might come in their lifetime, and to have constantly before their souls the refreshing hope that the One whom they loved, and who had departed from them would soon return to take them to Himself? Again, Amillennialists would say yes, as long as all the expected events happened first. I think Baines’ dispensational assumptions upon the character of the rapture, tribulation, and second coming blinded him to passages that firmly evidence an eschatology that opposes his own. It is important to ascertain the legitimate effect which these words of our Lord would have on the minds of the disciples, because they were the only clear light on this subject which they yet possessed. It is true there were other prophecies as to His coming uttered by Himself, but these were intentionally obscure as to the great point here brought out namely, the coming of the Lord for His saints apart from and before His coming in power and glory.

The intent of Jesus telling Peter of the possible tarrying of John until His return was simply to make a point to Peter, that if it was the will of the Father, John would live until Christ’s return, or that Christ would return prior to John’s death. Jesus assures him that John’s future was lastly any of Peter’s concern. Christ was not here in this statement proclaiming some great treatise of the division of His return into two parts: secret and triumphant. Certainly, all who lived after Christ’s ascension were to look for His return, but the simple fact that John was encouraged to do so even though Christ also told Peter that it might happen prior to John’s death could never mean that Christ must return in “secret” in order for His words to be accurate prophesy, and for them to ring true in their hearts as an encouragement to hope. Just because this admonition of Christ here for His disciples to look for His return was more detailed than His description of events that would be preliminary to it, in no way gives the theologian license to separate these out into two particular returns; in fact, I believe that, unless you assume a secret rapture, it would be impossible to draw that conclusion from this text. The discussion Christ has with Peter regarding John’s life would not necessarily preclude his expectation of possible death.

“In no other place had the Lord Jesus held out the hope of His return for His disciples, without reference to other events affecting His coming to the world. The hope, therefore, was clearly expressed, in very few words, and of little capable of erroneous interpretations. It is a serious thing to maintain that a hope so clearly and definitely stated is a mistake; that the conclusion legitimately flowing from our Lord's own words was a conclusion which He did not mean His disciples to draw; that the hope reasonably founded on His own promise was a hope which He did not mean them to cherish. Rather, surely, should we infer that, though in His wisdom God has seen fit to conceal the time, and though in His mercy He has seen fit to delay that event, which, however blessed for believers, puts a period to the grace in which He is now acting towards the world, yet His purpose was to hold out this coming of His Son as a precious perennial hope for the souls of those who are His.”

Baines avows that because, at this point, Christ holds out hope of His return without reference to any necessary preliminary event (which is not true because Baines exempts, without authority in my opinion, Peter’s martyrdom) that Christ cannot be referring to His second coming in power. Even if Peter’s death was not necessary as an event, the simple fact that (at least it is not recorded for us) Christ didn’t mention any required event does not oblige us to believe that He must be speaking of another, return, separate from His return in glory.

On the surface it appears as though Baines would have his readers believe that a compelling argument for the secret rapture is the fact that, other than in the passages addressed immediately above, Christ never tried to give His disciples hope of His return as being eminent, and because it is spoken of here in eminency then here Christ cannot be speaking of the end of the world because prior to that event we know other things must happen, thus Christ must here be speaking of a different return; Baines would he would assert that return to be the secret rapture. Of course, we have already addressed the fact that even to the disciples, the secret rapture could not have happened at ANY time because Peter had to die before its occurrence. Baines really just tries to gloss over this fact and in my opinion just because he exempts Peter from having the same hope of an eminent return does not mean that the return is necessarily eminent, thus separating it from the return in power and glory.

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 20: T.B. Baines

I haven't posted in my series on dispensationalism in some time, and I am not here making a commitment to reinstitute the frequensy of post with which I wrote rigorously in the past. Seeing that I have not finally concluded the writing project, whether you call it an essay or paper or something else, it only makes sense that more articles would follow at least until I have formally closed it in this format; that would in no way signify that I have exhausted all possible research and learning on the topic of contrary hermeneutical schemes.

Section Three:

Responding to the Arguments of Particular Dispensational Authors

T. B. Baines: Against Whom Does He Argue

I got the overwhelming sense that Baines was actually leveling his critique at full or hyper preterism. The position against which he argues in chapter 2, his section called “The Promises Not Fulfilled by Christ’s First Coming”, would be one against which I would also argue. Full preterism states that, all of the Old Testament prophesies have been fulfilled—including the prophesy of Christ’s coming in power and glory; this view is heterodox.

I get no sense that Baines is distinguishing the Amillennial opinion of the second coming of Christ, that the “1000 year reign” of Christ has already begun, being realized between the first and second comings of Christ. The evidence of the placement of his arguments are thus: “Most interpreters hold that the promise as to the land has already been fulfilled, and that the other promises either have been, or will be, fulfilled as the immediate or ultimate result of the first coming of Christ.” And this, “the interpretation which makes all the promises flow out of Christ’s first coming.” Another, but separate, misrepresentation of Amillennialism is exposed in this statement regarding Galatians 3, “The chapter does not name the promise given to the multitudinous seed, much less show the Church as taking this promise away from Israel.” Even hyper preterism does not claim to steal the promises away from Israel. If it is national Israel spoken of here, they never had the promise, but if it is the remnant spoken of here, then we gentiles are grafted in. It is this type of misunderstanding that has lead to such poor labels as “replacement theology”. Here Dr. Sam Waldron (whom I will also quote later) has appropriately addressed this issue.

“To speak of the Church replacing Israel is to forget that the Church is a reformed and expanded Israel. In a word, terminology like Replacement Theology or Supersessionism disguises the biblical fact that the Church is really the continuation of Israel. There is a genetic and even physical continuity between Israel and the Church that is essential to the biblical view of the relation of the Church and Israel. Such continuity, I would argue, is consistent with Covenant Theology. It is, additionally, not adequately represented by terminology like Supersessionism and Replacement Theology.”

Mysterious China: entry #13 The 36 hour Day

Saturday, February 23: 6:45 pm e.s.t.

I'm finally sitting here in the Beijing international airport waiting on my flight to board. We won't start boarding for another 25 minutes, and then we don't depart for another 30-40 minutes after that. No trouble getting here--the taxi driver was very nice and helpful. In the meantime, I need some coffee...

Sunday, February 24: 5:00 pm e.s.t.

I haven't really felt like writing in a while. Amazingly, it has been more than 28 hours since I woke to begin the trip home. It's really strange when you travel like this, you basically end up living a 36 hour day (with a nap or 2 of course). I talked to you, Melissa, about 2 1/2 hoursr ago; I bought some Day Quill and it has suppressed my cough a bit, but I think it's going to wear off soon. I bought another dose in case that happened. I suppose I would have read or written more on the flight from Tokyo to Detroit if the buttons on my arm console had worked. I couldn't turn on my light, call the attendant, or change the channel or volume, so the entertainment portion of my flight had apparently been canceled. I told the flight attendant, but he didn't seem to share my concern. Just another example of airline service not being held to the same standards as restaurant customer service, "I'm sorry you didn't enjoy your meal sir, here's a free dessert." You don't hear that on an airplane.

Melissa, I'm sorry I haven't been able to shop for anyone on this trip, i'm afraid I didn't have any time to do so. I did get the boys a little something in the airport in Tokyo, but nothing caught my eye there for you.

Mysterious China: entry #12

Saturday, February 23: 5:30 am e.s.t.

I'm now on an airplane on my way back to Beijing. Tomorrow morning I must leave the hotel for my flight home, which leaves at 9:00. As much fun as I have had, and as much as I have enjoyed my stay here, I am definately ready to leave. I have a little cough. I'm not sure that it isn't the result of being around so much cigarette smoke. On several occasions I might as well have smoked myself. Melissa, I can't wait to tell you and the boys all about my trip.

8:00 am e.s.t.

Wow! that is the first thing I must say about the room I'm in tonight at the KunLun Hotel. I will definitely take some photos. When we checked in, for some reason, they upgraded my room. When you walk in you enter a study with a desk, the main room with a bed on the left, the widow straight ahead, and the entertainment center on the right. A door on the right, near the study, reveals the bathroom (or should I say rooms), and it really is quite a room--it is what makes this hotel room incredible itself: with the toilet room, main room, closets, tub (you know, the one with the TV) and the shower. I couldn't believe their was no TV in the shower--I think I'll complain. (photos to come...)

Mysterious China: entry #11 Passport, what Pasport!?!

Last night was quite exciting. We went to another "seafood restaurant" where we all eat family style at a large round table with a lazy Susan, and many dishes--banquet style, if you will. When we left, I carried my coat (efu) out and it had my planner in the pocket, as always. Well, at some point it fell out as we left. The most important thing to note is that the planner contained my passport. When we got back to the hotel I noticed it was missing--I looked everywhere! I was in China without a passport--and we were to travel the very next day. I contacted Mark, who was in his room down the hall, and he got in touch with his administrative assistant, Kathy. Kathy then called the restaurant and made sure they would hold it and then we caught a cab, and Mark asked Kathy to tell the cabby (by phone) where we wanted to go. 15 minutes later we were leaving the restaurant with my planner and my passport in hand. They had stored it at the front desk, wrapped it in plastic, and requested that I sign for it to take it with me. The shift manager himself came down to tell me to open it to make sure everything was in place. You could tell that he was eager to show us how thorough and trustworthy they were at the restaurant. Melissa, we owe Kathy a gift at furniture market time, or if I ever return, not that she would expect it, we should do something special for her.

Another interesting thing is that the family style restaurants are as big as hotels, 5-10 stories. They are the kind of restaurant where you go it and see all the food you want and pick it all out, and the fish you choose to eat are alive and swimming until the decide to cook it for you. Inside, it looks like a hotel as well, and they take you to your room where you and your guests have their own restroom...simply amazing!

Friday, February 22: 7:15 pm e.s.t.

Mysterious China: entry #10 Beauty in the Eye of the Consumer

Thursday, February 21: 7:30 pm e.s.t.

It is very interesting hearing about the way commercialism has suddenly taken China by storm. Mark (the president of our client, Glen Arbor Home Furnishings) said that 6-7 years ago there was no "commercial" TV. There were only two channels: a government run, political channel and a current weather and Chinese news channel, which by the way rarely broad casted programing. At the time there really wasn't a large enough class of people to consume commercial products; there wasn't a demographic large enough to support the product sales that TV programming as we know it needs to support itself--thus there were no TV shows. But now all that has changed as a result of the rising middle class who are consuming, who are buying commercial products that have purchased air time from the TV stations, thus enabling the stations to develop and distribute popular programming.

All that in order to discuss the image of beauty as beheld by the average Chinese person, or so interpreted for us by the Chinese broadcasters. For a few days now I have walked around and wondered who Chinese people consider beautiful and who they don't; what facial structures, skin tone, hair shape and color, body build qualifies as beautiful in Chinese culture? I could certainly walk around and make that judgment for myself..."her face is pretty", "I'll bet women find him attractive..." and so on. But would the average Chinese person agree with me? I often found myself, after looking back at the situation, considering those whose faces resembled Westerners most, to be the most beautiful...those who looked most like me, or my "kind". One humorous incident involved me finding out that they think that my nose is very sharp and long (a bit exaggerated in proportion) and that characteristic is considered to be very "Western". Mark on the other hand, does not have what the Chinese would consider a "Western" nose because his is flatter, closer to his face like a Chinese person, thus more attractive and desirable.

I hope this post was interesting to someone other than myself, I had great fun writing it while I was in China. By the way, the top photo is from a lunch I had, very delicious! The photo at the bottom is from my first experience at a "family" style seafood restaurant, where you pick your food out live, then they cook it and bring it to your "room", where you have a table and your own bathroom. More about all that later!

Mysterious China: entry #9 A Theology of Inprecision?

Wednesday, February 20: 6:45 pm e.s.t.

Now as for the application to the arena of theology, those principle thoughts that I presented in the last post: China has been the place of a growing and flourishing underground Christian church for even the past 25 years or so, even though the Aristotelian line of thinking has not penetrated the culture or been cultivated as the way one should view reality. The differences that Chinese Christians, who obviously have been made so by the gracious power of the Holy Spirit, will face in the area of theological challenges will be more along the lines of the errors of imprecision in their theological constructs. While the Western church does have its share of that, we struggle to find unity within the invisible Church among opposing theological nuances. I'm certain a degree of this will also plague the Chinese Church, I think its greater challenge will result from the gradation tendencies that underlie the very earth in China.

Mysterious China: entry #9 East Meets West

Wednesday, February 20: 4:28 pm e.s.t.

Like most westerners, I find the culture here very different; it's not just the language, the food, and the relationships, but those things are different ("eastern") as a function of some more foundational difference. The fundamental difference truly is the difference we see as West meets East. The same sort of difference that separated Aristotle from Confucius, the Jews from the Greeks, the Greek Orthodox Church from the Roman Church and now, the difference between East and the West as far as I can tell, is the difference between gradated and binary. Don't get me wrong, I've only been in China for five days, and though I have dealt with Chinese and other Eastern Asia folk for 10-12 years now, I would never make the mistake of assuming that I know everything about it or even a great deal about it--but I have, like thinking persons before me, made my own humble observations. Where we Americans and Western Europeans tend to see the world in more binary terms, with fewer degrees of difference; black and white; yes and no, consistent and inconsistent and yes, even right and wrong. This can lead to extremisms and we do bend our thought that way. While on the other hand, Chinese and Eastern cultures tend to view the world in gradation, more graduated terms, many degrees of difference on the spectrum; many shades of gray--from nearly black to almost white; from yes to maybe yes to maybe no to no. As a result, consistency is separated by the different segments of life; where intra-segmental consistency would be expected, inter-segmental consistency is not. The idea of consistency in one segment may not line up with the idea of consistency in another segment, so what might be "right" or acceptable at work or in business may not be "right" or acceptable at home or in familial relationships. There really is no place for the test of the consistent application of moras from one segment to another. This also can result in a tenancy toward imprecision. This different approach goes deeper than the ethos of a culture, even deeper than epistemology--it actually informs the way Easterners develop ethics and the way they determine what is true, just like our rudiments have practical functions.

We consider ourselves on a line, they consider themselves on a circle. This Eastern conclusion or assumption affects their language also--no gender or tense; no verb conjugation; it affects their relationships-- "X is always wrong unless of course, condition Y is met". It also affects their driving--the boundaries made by lines are always being crossed; signs are important suggestions; you should always stop at a red light, unless you are in a big hurry; stop signs are like yield signs, and yield signs mean, "try not to run into anyone as you pull out and merge into oncoming traffic". It also affects their art: visual and culinary. Take tea for instance, the leaves are floating in it whereas, we would strain them. If things are to be mixed, they are not necessarily mixed well, as a solution would be. And finally, the problem of furniture production--in which I am fully engaged on this trip. I believe that the reason American furniture executives and creative persons may so often be frustrated with the sampling and production of furniture by Chinese factories is because the Chinese often see the specifications on a construction drawing the same way they see a stop sign or light.

On another point, yes, Chinese factory owners do think that it is wrong to copy a company's hardware design unless of course it will sell more furniture for the importer; yes it is wrong to copy another company's furniture design unless of course it will prove more profitable to the furthered existance of the factory than not copying it would. I have to wonder that, if those who began importing products from China so many years ago had really considered the sociological and philosophical constrants that maybe the rampant copyright violations in today's environment could have been averted. Then again, maybe all those Westerners involved did make the same observations I have, but they chose to ignore them and then again, perhaps the distinctions I have made between East and West are not nearly so sharp.

Mysterious China: entry #8: The Best Chinese Food I've Ever Had!

Sunday, February 17: 4:45 pm e.s.t.

Melissa, I sent you another email about an hour ago. I can't believe I woke up at 3:30 this morning...well I'm showered and ready to go. I'll bet I hit a wall about 9 or 10 tonight. Mark and I seem to hit it off really well, he and his wife will be married 8 years in July. He is late to be married, but I didn't ask his age. They Live in De Moines, Iowa. I need a haircut--I didn't realize it until i started drying my hair this morning. The weather here is similar to home, but maybe about 10 degrees cooler; no snow but the pond in Beijing near my hotel was frozen, of course Beijing is a 2 hour flight north of Ningbo (or Belun); it's about like Pennsylvania I think.



Monday, February 18: 5:30 pm e.s.t.

Until today all of my dining experiences had been of the hotel sort. Good food to be sure, but perhaps not as accurate a cross section as could be had. At lunch time we left the factory and arrived, on what had turned out to be a very chilly winter day with rain, at a Hunan style restaurant--a name used to describe food from that region near by, but the monotone representation of the way word sounds in English is the only thing about the Hunan style that is translated into English at all--regarding the food it self, at least in my experience, their is no comparison. Perhaps some hole in the wall place in Chinatown, New York or San Fransisco one might find a fair representation, but likewise, one might also be afraid to enter without some personal connection.

The food itself really was fantastic. I think it would be the equivalent of going to Carter Brothers or Olde Orchard Dinner for lunch. The hostess seated us at a round table about 48 inches diameter and pass out hard plastic ware, including a saucer, bowl, small water glass, and a handle less tea cup, all of which would later be washed and reused, and were tightly packaged in a plastic similar to the type that is used as a window for chocolate Easter bunnies...oh yes, and chopsticks, the hard black plastic type which one will wash--not the wood ones. When we entered the small crowded place we were greeted by very earthy smells that might best be described as brown, sienna and umber. We were seated, the waiter took our drink order--I had the predictable shway (water--and all four of us had ta, hot tea of course. Several dishes were ordered: a fish soup with cabbage and red peppers, which had a strong ginger appeal, an offering of the finest julienned strips pf potatoes served with pickles red chilies which had a pungent aroma, beef and pork stir fried in what I think was either peanut or sesame oil--which had a decidedly charbroiled flavor that could not be ignored, a bowl of cabbage with red bell peppers, chilies, and whole garlic cloves--that was my favorite--green beans also with red chilies and lastly--skewered shrimp which apparently had been fried in hot oil with the shell on, the flavor of which was incredible, but the shell with legs, was so tightly gripping the meat that you would probably only eat one of them by trying to remove the shell first, but because the flavor was so good you would soon develop a taste for the shell and all (a texture we are not used to, but one that is not offensive for very long).



All in all, the variety of food I've had thus far has been bold in flavor, colorful in appearance and is in many ways, severe just like the flat land in the surrounding area is often rudely interrupted by a mountain; high in contrast--just like the advertisements and much like the people when you compare them to Americans.

New Blog

Several friends and I have decided to colaborate on a blog. The title of the new blog is Theological Digest Online

With the intent to look and feel like you are sitting down to read a magazine, the format we will use is that of several different authors posting articles, generally not their own, with the purpose of promoting discussion about the content of those articles, which content may or may not express the particular theological view held by the posting author/editor, nor of any of the participating editors.

I hope that you all will decide to visit us and join the theologically thought provoking conversation!

Thank You,

Jason Payton

Mysterious China: entry #7: Descent into Beijing

Saturday, February 16, 2008: 8:00 am e.s.t.

We are starting to descend into Beijing. I fell in and out of sleep as I tried to watch the movie, "The Assassination of Jessie James". We each had a TV in the back of the seat in front of us, and they had a fair selection of movies. I imagine all I will do in Beijing is sleep; I just hope the "customs mob" is milder than everyone says. It is almost 9:00 pm here.

12:00 pm e.s.t.

I am sitting here enjoying breakfast as the hotel. I would say that it is comparable to the Biltmore--though the building is a little older. I had an assortment of bacon, hash browns, Chinese noodles (lo-mien), a Japanese fish and carrot soup, some sushi (California rolls) and some assorted fruit. I'll have to admit that I have had better sushi at home--the nori seemed to be dried out, as did the rice.

Melissa, I hope you and the boys had fun bowling--I wish I had been there. Mark had to meet someone else for breakfast, since our stay in Beijing is so short, his time is divided. I am supposed to meet him in the lobby at 12:30 pm our time so we can go to the airport to catch our 2:15 flight to Ningbo. The people here seem always ready to serve you--of course they are paid to do that in a 5 star hotel.

11:15 pm e.s.t.

I am sitting in the lobby of the Kunlun Hotel, sipping some jasmine tea and waiting on Mark. We will leave soon. It's amazing how far $130 goes at a Chinese hotel.

Mysterious China: entry #6: Close Connection

Saturday, February 16, 2008: 4:00 am e.s.t.

I just boarded the plane in Tokyo, headed for Beijing--the connection was fine; I was able to meet some people making the same connection while going through security...that seemed to ease the tension of having to make such a close connection.

Melissa, I love you very much and I already miss you and the boys terribly. The next challenge that lies ahead is my taxi ride from the Beijing airport to the hotel. Correction for the previous entry: The flight from Tokyo to Beijing is 4 hours.

Mysterious China: entry #5: At Least You Don't Have to Drive There.

Saturday, February 16, 2008: 2:00 am e.s.t.

We just finished breakfast, fried rice with Teriyaki pork--not too painful. After the attendants took our plates John and I stood next to our row for about 20 minutes waiting for the line to the bathroom to diminish, but it seemed like 30 seconds before someone would exit the lavatory another person (closer to the bathrooms) would stand up and get in line, which made it never-ending. Besides, we should arrive in Tokyo in 35 minutes. I have predicted for myself that the next time I get to use the restroom will be on the plane connecting my flight from Tokyo to Beijing because we are scheduled to land at 4:34 pm (local Tokyo time) and we are to begin boarding for my connection at 5:10 pm--I just felt the plane slow--I hope I don't have to go in and out of customs before I board for Beijing, which is another 3 hours away.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that when I checked in at the gate in Detroit I first asked how much it would cost to upgrade to business class...only $4000.00! Can you believe that; how can people afford to fly? Then I inquired about getting an aisle seat but they were all booked, she did however find a seat for me which was closer to the front of the plane: from 60-E to 38-E, a great improvement if I say so myself.

Mysterious China: entry #4: Cracked Windshield

Friday, February 15, 2008: 7:30 pm e.s.t.

Wow is it ever warm on this plane! Melissa, I know you are shocked to hear me say that but I just had to remove my pullover in the bathroom yet there are countless people who are covered in blankets. I just shut the laptop down after reviewing the pieces I am supposed to see when I arrive in China, and there is a movie playing--The Jane Austin Book Club--I believe is its name; I haven't put my headphones on to hear a word of it, but I think it sucks even with the dialogue I have periodically made up for it when it distracted my eyes from my computer. Oh, and by the way, the screen on the laptop somehow got damaged between the time I ate lunch in the Detroit airport and the time when I booted up about 6:00 pm! Basically, the entire right half of the screen is un-viewable because of the beautifully colored vertical lines and the wavy horizontal ones (that are monochromatic based on the color of the background) which seem to emanate from what looks like a windshield type crack in the upper right quadrant of the screen, and are obscuring the right hemisphere of viewable area. Well, I believe it's high time for me to start reading some Table Talk.

The Most Important Question?

Are ALL ideas valid, or does the validity of some ideas necessitate the invalidity of their contrary? I suppose the question may also be posed this way, do we exist among a "multiverse" or in a universe?

It has probably been during my lifetime that a student or even a professor of reknowned Universities would be applauded by may for answering the first question with, "yes, ALL ideas are valid, even those contrary to one another".

Mysterious China: entry #3: Doing Business in Coach?

Friday, February 15, 2008: 4:30 pm e.s.t.

We just finished our delicious dinner...I had the beef. Not too bad for food one might be served at 30K feet off the ground. I've been talking to the guy next to me, his name is John. I can't say too much about his plans on paper, since this paper is going into China, just that I discovered that the Bible in my bag should be fine. It started snowing in Detroit right after I got off the phone with you, but fortunately there were no delays. The stats of our trip that they run across the TV screen periodically said that we have about 10 hours and 18 minutes left until we land in Tokyo. I'm about 8-10 feet away from the television and it is a projected image about 32" diagonally. Can you tell that I'm a little bored? It's going to be very difficult to use the laptop in this cramped seating arrangement...I guess that's why they refer to the other section as "business" class, it's a bit hard to do any business back here in coach. I did bring those two Table Talk magazines too. I may read some of those later. I believe I would be best off falling asleep now if I could, because my neck is beginning to hurt.

Mysterious China: entry #2: Food in Flight

Friday, February 15, 2008: 1:50 pm e.s.t.

Melissa,

I just talked to and Jeffrey and I think it finally hit me that I am actually going to China. As I sit here on the plane at the Detroit airport, I think that many of the passengers are Japanese, and certainly most are Asian (we are connecting to Beijing through Tokyo). I'm seated in the middle section of seats, one from the aisle. There are three sections across the width of the plane: three seats by the window, four in the middle, and three seats by the window on the other side of the plane. The attendants just passed out menus for the in flight meals. There are two meals and a snack: dinner which consists either of beef strips with black bean sauce, white rice and a veggie mix, or roast chicken breast with pepperonata sauce, mashed potatoes, and a veggie mix. We then have a mid-flight snack, and then breakfast: a buttermilk biscuit with sausage egg and cheese, or fresh fruit, muffin and orange juice, or fried rice with Teriyaki pork. I just thought about the Bible I have in the laptop bag...I don't suppose anyone in Chinese customs will consider it dangerous.