Related articles and links |  1 of 2

When President Bush visited Beijing during the Olympic Games, he asked the Chinese government, "Why don't you register the underground churches and give them a chance to flourish?" Bush told Olympics broadcaster Bob Costas that President Hu Jintao politely listened to his request: "I can't read his mind, but I do know that every time I met with him, I pressed the point."

President Bush's instincts are on the money, though his point is just a bit off. Granted, some house churches in China are willing to register (in many cases to avoid arrests and disruption), but they often get turned down. Others don't want to and they shouldn't be required to. As in many other countries, registering as a church in China means state regulation, not a greater chance of flourishing.

Government pressure limits what Three-Self pastors can preach and pray about. Nina Shea, vice chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, told Christianity Today about a registered church in Beijing whose pastor prayed for victims of political imprisonment. Government officials raided the church and physically removed the pastor from the pulpit. Constant government surveillance of church services cannot help having a chilling effect on church teaching.

So, we should not be pressing for the government to register more churches. This is a half measure designed to keep trade relations normal while appearing to advocate religious freedom. Instead, we should be pressing China to give up the idea of registering churches.

Put another way, President Bush's well-intentioned comment suggests a more widespread problem in America's advocacy, or lack thereof, for religious freedom.

When determining the nation's stance toward another country, the U.S. State Department must weigh a number of issues—trade, defense, strategic alliances, national resources, and human rights, among others. In a fallen world, nations do not have the luxury of letting one factor (such as human rights) always trump others. Flexibility is necessary in a wise and effective foreign policy. Moral consistency in international relations is the hobgoblin of naïve minds.

But a foreign policy that sidelines the moral dimension of international relations in favor of a so-called realpolitik is a foreign policy doomed to failure. One enduring international asset of America is its human-rights ideals, and to undermine these is to lose credibility overseas. When the U.S. consistently ignores human rights, it breeds bitterness and resentment among people who are suffering abuse, resentment that can take decades to reverse. Our silence about human-rights violations under the Shah of Iran in the mid-20th century has done damage we are still paying for in that region.

When it comes to human rights, religious freedom is particularly important. A minority religion—such as Christianity in China, Pentecostalism in Turkmenistan, or Baha'i in Iran—is a proverbial canary in the coal mine. If it cannot survive, other basic rights ranging from freedom of assembly to freedom of speech are compromised.

It is our view that the U.S. State Department has regularly sidelined human rights in favor of more traditional diplomatic goals. We do not feel it brings sufficient pressure to bear on, for example, China, Vietnam, or Saudi Arabia. Strategic military considerations make us timid before the Saudis. And trade issues seem to rule our relationships with Vietnam and China.

Ten years ago, Congress enacted the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), but there are precious few instances where religious freedom overseas has improved significantly. In 1998, evangelicals strongly supported this legislation. Each fall, churches by the thousands observe the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church.

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

October 2008, Vol. 52, No. 10