China On the Front Burner

HONG KONG - Almost every month, Bassanio Hung returns to the land that his parents fled, searching for small pieces of the massive puzzle that is China.

The group that he represents - East Gates Ministries, International - tries not to make headlines. Hung smiles and bows and plays by the rules. He knows that life isn't easy for Chinese Christians, but he tries to be positive. That's the plan and he is going to stick to it.

"We are only one small group. We have one calling – one mission," said Hung, who has made at least 50 trips from Hong Kong into China in the past five years. "We are not saying that there is only one approach to take in China and we know that others use different approaches. But we are doing what we believe we are called to take."

If Hung sounds cautious, that's because he is. China is on the front burner, right now, and even groups that want to be non-controversial are feeling the heat. The handover of Hong Kong at midnight on Monday will focus even more attention on China and the current regime's policies on human rights.

"Negative reporting focusing on both Hong Kong and China has been used for years as a tool by Christian organizations that operate illegally in China," wrote East Gates President Ned Graham, in a recent newsletter. "Recently, a very prominent evangelical leader made a scathing, although ill- informed, attack on China. ... He is being fed faulty information from some congressional offices and radical human rights-special interests groups that are more interested in overthrowing communism than in sharing the gospel."

Threats to deny most-favored-nation (MFN) status, he added, would only "bring more persecution to bear upon our brothers and sisters in China, thus causing the very thing that these well-meaning Christian leaders seek to end." Graham, who is the son of evangelist Billy Graham, then wrote a similar letter that was distributed to congressional leaders, backed by a statement signed by a number of mission leaders with years of experience in China.

This drew an immediate response from Family Research Council President Gary Bauer, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and others who oppose MFN status for China. It is, they said, a form of "hostage taking" to allow China to manipulate American policies in this way. "Should we all keep silent about China's massive campaign of forced abortions and compulsory sterilizations?", asked their letter to congressional offices. "Should we avoid criticizing China's use of slave labor?"

Another divisive question is whether Western churches should do as much work as possible through China's government-run Catholic Patriotic Association and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement for Protestants. Some missionary groups - such as East Gates - stress that working through legal channels is yielding increased permits to distribute Bibles and invitations to prepare new educational and evangelistic materials. But others insist that the emphasis should be on protesting China's efforts to punish or control underground Protestant churches and Catholic congregations that have stubbornly remained loyal to Rome.

Hung stressed that he sees signs of progress during his trips to the mainland. Yet, he also noted that China is "very, very big and I cannot say that what I have experienced is true everywhere." Thus, activities that can lead to Christians being jailed or tortured in one part of China may be overlooked in another. Evangelism and education efforts that are growing in one region may be banned in another. Truth is, almost any statement one wants to make about religion in China can be proven true or false - somewhere in China.

Meanwhile, Chinese authorities know that when people are free to preach, teach and pray, it's hard to tell them what they can or cannot preach, teach and pray about. From the viewpoint of the Chinese police, an evangelist looks a lot like a political dissident.

"We don't know how to take away the government's fears," said Hung. "We can only do our work and pray that China's leaders will grow to realize that Chinese Christians love their country. They are not criminals. They are good citizens. We want them to see that Christians can be a positive force in China. ... At the same time, we must be patient and remember that Christ holds the future in his hands."

Fox, Families and 'safe TV'

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - They're out there, perched on family-room couches, trigger fingers poised to punch the "mute" buttons on their TV remotes.

They have TV listings nearby, marked with highlighter-pen slashes indicating the few shows that have been deemed worthy. They can program their VCRs while blindfolded and quote chapter and verse from media reviews in various sacred and secular publications.

They are the few, the proud, the parents who try to monitor what their children watch on television. And last week many of them winced when they heard that Rupert Murdoch's Fox Kids Worldwide Inc., plans to spend $1.9 billion to buy half of the Family Channel, a cable TV network linked to the media empire of religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

Newspapers pounced on the differences between these media giants and their two brands of conservatism - contrasting video bimbos with biblical values, "The Simpsons" with "The Waltons," "The X Files" with the 10 Commandments, the capitalistic fervor of cable television's dark prince with the Pentecostal convictions of the Religious Right's high priest. The big question: Will Murdoch's crew create what millions will see as a dysfunctional Family Channel?

"When we talk with our viewers, they say that the Family Channel is 'safe' - that we are 'safe TV,' " said Douglas Symons, vice president for marketing at International Family Entertainment, Inc. "They tell us things like, 'We like the fact that we don't have to keep hitting the remote.' ... It's right there in our name. We are what we are. We have to be one of the most clearly positioned channels in the modern TV market and that's worth something. That has market value, today. I assume that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't spend $1.9 billion to buy that identity and then wreck it."

Another safe assumption is that Fox, after locking down a reputation for producing programs that define the edge of TV youth culture, wanted a partner on the other side of the cultural spectrum. After all, waves of worries about kids, sex and violence keep rolling over Capitol Hill. Also, there is some ratings evidence that an audience exists for family-oriented shows such as "Touched By An Angel," "7th Heaven," "Soul Man" and "Promised Land." TV Guide recently reported that studios have "at least four new shows about angels, spirits and ministers in the pipeline for next season."

Earlier this year, the Family Channel hired the Yankelovich Partners to conduct a "Barometer of the American Family" media study. It found that almost all parents (94 percent) support the availability of some kind of TV-control devices. Most (86 percent) claim to be monitoring their kids' TV viewing and 40 percent said they increased such efforts last year. On the hot issue of TV ratings, 69 percent said they preferred a content-based system. And almost everyone - 97 percent of parents, 91 percent of singles - said they wanted more "family-oriented" programs."

The problem, of course, is that "family-oriented" means different things to different people and it does not necessarily mean programs that address the role that religion plays in American life. After all, the Family Channel itself - with the exception of Robertson's "700 Club" - is better known for its comedy and detective show reruns than for new programs about faith and spirituality.

But the Yankelovich team found that Americans do have some characteristics in mind when they say "family-oriented." The top three criteria were that programs should "be compelling and interesting," "teach and encourage positive values" and "stimulate the imagination." As always, the problem will be finding shows that are "compelling," yet "safe;" that teach common "values" in a schizophrenic age; that "stimulate" plugged-in kids, without shocking cautious parents.

"I am convinced the Family Channel can keep its identity, but that Fox will have some room to maneuver," said Symons. "Sometimes, to show what positive values are, you need contrast that with the negative. You need real, believable bad guys, so that the good guys become more compelling. You can't serve up milquetoast. You may not always have a happy ending."

World war II: How biased is too biased?

Marvin Olasky is a biased journalist.

World magazine's editor freely admits that he often asks his reporters to ditch traditional journalistic standards of fairness and objectivity. Instead, he says journalists should write the stories that God wants them to write, the way God wants them written. The goal is "true objectivity" or "the God's-eye view."

"Biblically, there is no neutrality. ... Christian reporters should give equal space to a variety of perspectives only when the Bible is unclear," argues Olasky, in his book "Telling the Truth." "A solidly Christian news publication should not be balanced. Its goal should be provocative and evocative, colorful and gripping, Bible-based news analysis."

Olasky calls this "directed reporting" or, with a laugh, "biblical sensationalism." Many others - including Christians - call it heresy. This doesn't surprise him, since he says most of what he sees "that is called 'Christian journalism' is merely baptized secularism."

The University of Texas journalism professor is best known as a historian whose work on poverty, abortion and other cultural issues have influenced Newt Gingrich and others during the GOP surge in the 1990s. But in the claustrophobic world of Christian publishing, Olasky is known as a rebel who keeps splashing ink in the faces of dignified church leaders. Some say he runs the evangelical version of The American Spectator.

Recent articles claimed that a trio of powerful groups was quietly preparing a "gender-neutral" revision of the New International Version Bible translation. World's slant was captured in headlines such as "The Stealth Bible" and "The Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church." After weeks of warfare, the International Bible Society said it would abandon plans to revise the text, return traditional gender references to its New International Readers Version and ask a British publisher to pull an inclusive-language NIV. World's critics did not, however, withdraw a formal complaint to the Evangelical Press Association ethics committee.

Echoing specific language in the EPA code, the 10-page complaint claims: "Rather than avoiding distortion and sensationalism, World employed them. Utmost care was not exercised. Opposing views were not treated honestly and fairly. And World seems to be unconscious of its duty to protect the good names and reputations of Zondervan Publishing House, International Bible Society and Committee on Bible Translation."

World's editors say their facts are solid. However, noting the public- relations language in the complaint, Olasky admits that World is guilty of being pushy and of covering stories that others are not willing to risk printing. The controversy has underlined the "distinction between ... journalists and public relations officials," says a World response to the complaint. Ethics committee members face a "historic decision: they have the power to promote independent Christian journalism or to stifle it."

The problem is that the media marketplace includes at least three clashing versions of what is "good journalism," let alone good "Christian journalism." They are:

* A modern American model that preaches "objectivity" or, at the very least, insists that journalists should provide a fair balance of viewpoints. Many conservatives - including Olasky - believe that most American media have abandoned this model.

* A classically European model in which media admit their subjectivity and advocate specific viewpoints. Ironically, while this approach is usually identified with overtly progressive publications, or covertly progressive mainstream media, Olasky's "directed reporting" concept offers a conservative Christian version of this approach.

* A public relations, or church press, model that promotes "good news" that strengthens institutions and causes. It may even justify efforts to hide news or coerce publications to bypass embarrassing stories. The result is what one pro calls "happy little Christian stories."

If those who use other approaches disagree with his style or slant, then Olasky thinks they should start breaking some of these stories on their own. Meanwhile, World will keep giving its readers what they pay for - an openly conservative, "biblical" take on the news.

"We're hearing about quite a few other developments in Bible publishing that are very interesting and, after all that's happened, we'll certainly be looking into them," he said. "There are a lot of stories out there to be written and we're going to keep writing them."

The Bible and Journalism

In the Gospel of John, a high priest makes a stark pronouncement about Jesus that sets the stage for Holy Week.

In the New International Version translation, Caiaphas tells the Pharisees: "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." But in the NIV Inclusive Language Edition the words "that one man die" have been translated "that one person die."

For millions of readers, this change represents an attempt to be sensitive to modern issues of gender and equality. But millions of others believe that changes of this sort warp God's Word.

Thus, a recent World magazine expose about efforts to update the NIV created a firestorm in Christian publishing. This story involves the Bible, millions of dollars, sex roles, doctrine and some of today's most powerful religious leaders and institutions. It also has sparked another round of debate about whether "Christian" and "journalism" are mutually exclusive terms.

World's cover showed a Bible morphing into a black warplane, with the headline, "The Stealth Bible: The popular New International Version Bible is quietly going 'gender-neutral.' " The inside headline was just as provocative: "Femme fatale: The Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church."

The NIV isn't just another volume on the crowded shelf of Bible translations at the mall bookstore. It is today's most popular Bible – with more than 100 million copies in print and a staggering 45 percent share in the highly competitive Bible sales market. The NIV translation is jealously guarded by the International Bible Society, which holds the copyright, and the powerful Zondervan Publishing House, which has exclusive commercial rights to the text. The latter is owned by HarperCollins, which is part of Rupert Murdoch's secular multimedia empire.

Zondervan publicists immediately screamed "foul," circulating a letter noting that World had not contacted the publishing house for comment and claiming that the story followed a "predetermined agenda" that suggested a "conspiracy of evangelical Bible translation with radical social feminism." According to Zondervan, the result was unethical – an article full of "innuendo and sensationalism, containing unconscionable slander."

While an NIV Inclusive Language Edition is available in England, published there by Hodder & Stoughton, Zondervan's leaders stressed that no final decision had been made to publish a "gender-accurate version" for the U.S. market.

World publisher Joel Belz stood his ground. In a follow-up editorial, he noted that no one had challenged World's thesis - that the 15-scholar panel that controls the NIV text, called the Committee on Bible Translations, has given its blessing to the inclusive-language edition in England and was quietly working to produce a similar text here.

"This story about the NIV revision is about people who, for supposedly good reasons, are willing to misquote God," Belz said.

For the NIV camp, this is a clash between two different styles of conservatism. Attempts to modernize gender references, stressed Zondervan's media statements, would focus on words for humanity - not language about God. But World argued that even gender-neutral language for human beings can blur biblical descriptions of differing roles for men and women and, in some cases, weaken references to the humanity and divinity of Jesus. World's editors insist that those who support an egalitarian approach to gender roles in the home, pew and pulpit have surrendered too much turf to feminism.

The battle lines were clear. "Egalitarians" backed a revised NIV. On the other side were "complementarians" who say men and women have differing, but complementary, roles. One of evangelicalism's most powerful figures, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, quickly opposed a "politically correct" NIV. Leaders of the nation's 16-million-plus Southern Baptists began making plans for open revolt against the proposed gender revisions.

Thus, the International Bible Society on May 27 waved a white flag, saying it would abandon plans to revise the NIV, return traditional gender references to its New International Readers Version and ask the British publisher to cease printing its inclusive-language NIV.