How Muslims Defeated the United States - Letter From A Soldier in Iraq

From the desk of Diana West on Wed, 2010-01-27 10:49

Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

So be it.

He writes:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days ... lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.

*****

You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.

*****

The Full Analysis:

Parts 1 and 2 of “The ‘Surge’ and ‘Success’” correctly identify that we have gained nothing positive for our efforts in Iraq while the Iraqis have betrayed us. I do not trust any Iraqi or Middle Easterner. I do not care if anyone calls me a “racist” or “bigot” anymore. Those words have lost their meaning. Do I think that every single Iraqi or Middle Easterner is bad? No. But I think it is difficult to tell. An Iraqi or Middle Easterner will smile to your face or be your best friend one moment, and cut your head off in the next. It is odd that so many people cannot comprehend this. It is even weirder that those who pride themselves on being “culturally aware” cannot grasp that Middle Eastern culture and thought, and Islamic behavior and thought are completely different than ours (than ours on the Right, at least). Perhaps this ignorance partially explains why the U.S. had no reaction when Maliki declared victory over the U.S. when we moved out of the major Iraqi cities. But even if it is a partial explanation it still is no excuse.

The Iranian War in Iraq is a travesty and has been since it started under Bush. I still cannot believe that a nation can war against us and murder Servicemen, and not pay the price of oblivion for it. Our nation sits back and apologizes, and defends itself constantly from accusations of an “illegal” and “unjust” war yet Iranians, other foreign terrorists, and even Iraqis go about murdering American troops without any consequence whatsoever. We should war back against them. But we won’t.

I remember when people said that we had brought on the September 11 attacks because “we created Bin Laden.” I never understood that. In fact, that we had helped the Afghanis defeat the Soviet Union should have been even more reason for us to kill Bin Laden and destroy Afghanistan. We had saved their lives and they repaid us for it by murdering us on our own soil. Yet our government refused its God-given duty to its people to mete out punishment and justice. History repeats with Iraq. The Iraqis lived under oppression for decades and when we liberated their nation they repaid our unimaginable mercy and sacrifice with betrayal. It is sickening.

Part 3 (“Victory” in Iraq? Really?) perfectly summarized where the U.S. is now in our “war” in Iraq. Once we made Iraq an officially Islamic country I knew that it would become among our worst enemies. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I said years ago that the end result of our efforts will be that Iraq will be a rebuilt nation better prepared than ever to wage jihad against us. You cannot create an officially Islamic nation and expect anything less. Regrettably, our leaders and our nation cannot identify Islam for what it is: evil. And so we continue our suicidal practice. The Iraqi betrayal of the U.S. started sooner than I expected it but I expected it nonetheless. This is outrageous. Yet the situation is even more unjust than this.

Muslims have waged jihad against the West since their insane, pedophiliac founder started their cult; they have waged jihad against the U.S. since our inception. But what is worse about our policy of establishing officially Islamic nations and pouring money, technology, weapons, and training into them is that we have been labeled as “occupiers” being on a “Christian crusade to wipe out Islam.” Think about that. We have been demonized as “occupying Christian crusaders” (if only!) even as we have waged jihad in the service of Islam, helped Muslims spread Islam and wipe out Christians, and died for ungrateful Iraqis even as terrorists from all over the war invaded and occupied Iraq, and slaughtered and oppressed Iraqis. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that we—the United States of America—are truly being invaded and occupied by illegal aliens warring on us!)

I am woefully understating the situation when I say that the U.S. has no clue how to fight wars any longer. We have allowed our enemies to control this war and make it one of media and information—information warfare / information operations . We have chosen not to win by refusing to reject the enemies’ preferred warfare; we have chosen not to wage a kinetic warfare where we could easily defeat our enemies in months if not weeks with our superior technology, tactics, and Servicemen. And through it all we seem not the least bit embarrassed that a “coalition” of dozens of nations cannot beat a primitive bunch of troglodytes. I no longer can express my outrage about this or any of the myriad horrors which plague our once great land. Every day there is something new which is more perverse and inequitable than the last day’s wickedness. I sit here in Iraq and do all I can do to stomach the disastrous excuse that passes for “strategy” in this war—a strategy where our leaders openly say that the lives of our Islamic enemies are worth more than ours; a “strategy” where the Army Chief of Staff openly states that the “death of diversity” would be a larger tragedy than the slaughter of Soldiers (and get away with it with but a whisper of outcry from the American people). I pray that I get out of here alive so I can complete my Army contract and get away from this nonsense and betrayal.

Two final things.

First, I wonder how many people have considered how successful the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks were. Think about what they accomplished. They thrust Islam to the center of the world; they undoubtedly caused more people to learn about Islam than would have prior to their attacks. And the attacks combined with the near non-response of the U.S. doubtlessly gained them converts. Furthermore, what response the United States did produce resulted in the establishment, enrichment, and training of the officially Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the enrichment and training of countless other Muslim nations around the globe. Islam now stands better suited than ever to wage jihad across the world. The September 11 attacks also resulted in Muslims being portrayed as victims around the world (thanks to their leftist allies) and helped them (again, with an assist from their leftist allies) advance their jihad even as Muslims and leftists further vilified Christianity, America, and Western values. And finally the crowning achievement of the September 11 Islamic attacks: eight years after them the United States places as its leader a person whom can at best be described as an anti-American, racist, Islamic sympathizer (and who has the same name as an infamous Islamic dictator). This is stunning. It is bizarre. It is incomprehensible. Yet it is our nightmarish reality. The Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001 achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of the Religion of Peace cultists.

Finally, I would like you to know that I am willing to comment on other posts and articles that you publish, including some of your other posts that mention the debate that your three-part column on the Surge started. I am willing to comment for two reasons.

The first reason is that everyone on the Right needs to fight back against the Islamic War on the West and stop the jihad. And one of the ways to fight back is to speak out against it. The second reason is that I want to establish for posterity that I am firmly against this evil and every other evil. I will explain why this matters.

Leftists always rewrite history so as to demonize what is Right and so as to cover their real nature. They abhor the truth as much as the vilest of Muslims. And as a way to enable their rewriting of history they use political correctness to silence opponents; to vilify them so that they have no place in society. We have allowed leftists to use political correctness to emasculate us. In fact, political correctness is the leftist weapon of choice in paralyzing the Right and aiding their Islamic allies who also advance an anti-Christian, anti-Foundational America agenda. Political correctness is what prevents us from fighting back against the left, and what prevents us from fully fighting back against the jihad and ending the Islamic threat. Political correctness makes us acquiesce to the left so as to be “moderate” and “bipartisan.” Our capitulation to the left will doom us physically by allowing the Muslims and left to eliminate the last vestiges of the West and it will doom us historically as our enslaved descendants will look back and ask how we could have allowed the twin insanities of Islam and the left to control and destroy us when we easily could have defeated them both. Our descendants will condemn us for remaining idle in the face of evil . . . and the leftists of the future will use our submission and our descendants’ condemnation to manipulate history and blame us as the originators of the horrific agenda that they instituted. The future left will use our sinful surrender to pave the way for them to control and destroy civilization once more (all in the name of “progressivism” of course).

I do not want leftists to be able to do this. I do not want them to easily rewrite history in the future. I want to be a loud voice (wherever I may be) that opposes everything Islam and the left want. I want there to be no doubt that I, a Right-wing Christian, utterly reject them and their core beliefs. I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that, “It was the Christian Right who enabled and supported the worldwide jihad (not to mention the global warming hoax, the sexual perverts, and the freedom hating communists)! It was the Christian Right who wanted them to take over and destroy the world!” I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that atheists, humanists, and secularists (like Bruce Bawer, Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce, and a few others) tried to oppose the Islamic War on the West but “could not convince the mentally inferior but numerically superior Right-wing Christians to join them!” I want to counteract the in-name-only Christians and conservatives who have bought into the “Religion of Peace” and leftist nonsense, and who will do untold additional amounts of damage to civilization and our good name with their cravenness and rejection of Truth. And that is why I am willing to comment on more of your posts.

I know I am in the minority with my beliefs but I do not care. I want to be like the 300—not just the ones who fought at Thermopylae—but the 300 who fought with Gideon against the Midianites. I want to stand for the Truth.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

A US soldier in Iraq

via brusselsjournal.com

Posted via web from Liberty & Such

Watch the desert blooming! [video]

In just a few years, Israel has been transformed from desert and swamp-land into a world leader in agriculture! Truly we are seeing the prophecies of Ezekiel 36 being fulfilled. Now that is worth celebrating! As Jews around the world mark TuBishvat, the New Year for Trees...we pause to reflect on God's bounty of blessings to the nation of Israel.

Source: www.maozisrael.org

Posted via email from Liberty & Such

Defining Christian Maturity [audio]

  
Download now or listen on posterous

Defining Christian Maturity.m4a (3831 KB)

Take a look at the following Scriptures: 1 Cor. 13:11; Mat. 5:48; Heb. 5:14

Can you define Christian maturity? Do you consider yourself a mature Christian? Do you consider other Christians as mature? What is it that makes you believe that?

If we defined Christian (spiritual) maturity better, will this help us be better disciples of Jesus?

Posted via email from Liberty & Such

Robert Spenser Explains the Islamist Threat

TFP: Both as a specialist in Islam and as a Catholic, could you explain what are the principal differences between Islamism and Catholicism?

Robert Spencer: Islam and Catholicism differ in their views of Jesus: Islam denies the divinity of Christ and His redemption. Islam regards Him as a Muslim prophet who taught Islam, but whose message was corrupted by His followers to create Christianity. In doing so, according to the Qur’an, they deified Him and began to teach that He was the Son of God and was crucified, when in reality He was a human prophet and was not crucified. (See Qur’an 9:30; 4:157, 5:112-116).

One of the myriad other ways in which Islam and Catholicism also differ fundamentally is in their views of the dignity of the human person. In Islam, there is a sharp dichotomy between believers, “the best of peoples” (Qur’an 3:110) and unbelievers, “the most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6). Traditional Islam also denies the freedom of conscience, mandating death for apostates.

TFP - Nowadays everyone talks about jihad, but few know its precise meaning. What is the correct understanding of the term?

Robert Spencer: Jihad in Arabic means struggle, and there are as many connotations of the word in Arabic as there are of “struggle” in English. However, the traditional, mainstream and primary Islamic understanding of jihad as a theological concept involves warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. This idea is rooted in a cluster of Qur’anic verses that contain general and open-ended commands to fight non-Muslims, including:

• “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (9:123).

• “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (9:73). The Arabic word translated here as “strive hard” is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad.

The command applies first to fighting those who worship other gods besides Allah: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.” (9:5). In plain English, this means that “idolaters” are to be killed, unless they convert to Islam and begin following Islamic laws such as paying alms (“the poor-due.”)

However, Muslims must fight Jews and Christians as well, although the Qur’an recognizes that as “People of the Book” they have received genuine revelations from Allah: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [the special tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

The words mean what they appear to mean. The noted Qur’an commentator Ibn Juzayy says that Qur’an 9:29 is “a command to fight the People of the Book.” Another respected mainstream Qur’an commentary, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, notes that when 9:29 says that Muslims must fight against those who “follow not the Religion of Truth,” it means those who do not follow Islam, “which is firm and abrogates other deens [religions].”[1]

All four principal Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools, agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared that “it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”[2] Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, explained that the aim of jihad was “that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”[3]

The other schools echo these teachings. The Hanafi school stipulates, “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to convert to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them . . . the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”[4] Likewise, the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) taught that once infidels refuse the invitation to convert to Islam, “war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”[5]

In other words, “Let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

A Hanafi legal manual explains that the fight against unbelievers can sometimes take non-violent forms: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Sharia, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah [in the path of Allah] by nafs [spiritual struggle], finance, tongue or another.”[6] Indeed, in traditional Islam, jihad bil sayf (jihad with the sword) or combat (qitaal) is only one means of jihad. Other forms of jihad include jihad bil mal (waging jihad by means of one’s wealth); jihad bil lisan (waging jihad through persuasion); jihad bil yad (waging jihad by taking action, but not necessarily arms, against injustice).

But all these various forms of jihad – both violent and non-violent – are directed toward the same end: the Islamization of the world and the imposition of Islamic law over unbelieving societies. Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), an internationally renowned Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, explained in his 1955 book War and Peace in the Law of Islam that Islam had embedded within it an expansionist and supremacist imperative:

The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. . . . The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.[7]

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book . . . is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes, “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.[8]

But if this is so, why hasn’t the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recently? Writing in 1994, before the worldwide jihadist effort had reached the strength it enjoys today, Nyazee said it is only because it has not been able to do so: “The Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it.”[9]

TFP: In your most recent book Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, you cover a little-known aspect of the Islamist offensive: psychological warfare, which is waged by Islamic pressure groups within our borders. Tell us something about this.

Robert Spencer: One of the most effective tactics employed by Islamic jihadists throughout the world is to intimidate their opponents into silence. Death threats, murders, acts of mass terrorism, beheadings broadcast over the Internet – all these actions are obviously useful to minimize resistance to the jihadists’ agenda. Naturally, the number of people who repudiate them becomes less significant when such dissidents are afraid to express their opposition in any way.

Threats of violence are indeed effective in silencing criticism of jihadists or even simple mockery of any aspect of Islam. Stealth jihadists, however, do not employ this approach. Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim-American Society (MAS) have learned from the past mistakes of many U.S.-based Islamic leaders that aggressive public pronouncements and threats uttered against Islam’s perceived enemies bring unwelcome attention and undermine their pretensions of being mainstream civil rights organizations. So they’ve adopted a different strategy to silence critics of jihadism and Islamic supremacism: they label them as “bigots,” “hatemongers,” and “Islamophobes.”

In the U.S., playing the race card can in some ways be even more effective than death threats. If a U.S.-based Islamic group announced a death fatwa against an American writer, that group would be denounced in the media as “extremist” and possibly trigger a police investigation. But if the group cries “racism” against the same writer, liberal as well as conservative media figures hop to shun and denounce the accused “racist,” for bigotry and racism are the cardinal sins of the U.S. public square.

Islamic groups in the U.S. skillfully play the race card against those who publicize uncomfortable truths about Islam: criticism of Islamic supremacist impulses or of the organizations themselves is frequently met with indignant cries of “racism.” These groups deliberately conflate race with religion, exploiting the fact that most Muslims in the country are either black or Arab and Pakistani immigrants. The fact that Islam is a religion and not a race is apparently irrelevant, and journalists never challenge these groups on their confusion of the two.

CAIR in particular has become expert at bandying about allegations of bigotry and racism to silence its critics or quash even fictional representations that it deems offensive to Muslims. In 2001, when Tom Clancy’s novel The Sum of All Fears was being made into a movie, CAIR launched a successful campaign to pressure the filmmakers into changing the Islamic terrorists of the story into some other kind of villain. (Ultimately they became neo-Nazis – apparently the Aryan Nations doesn’t have CAIR’s clout.) There can be little doubt that the filmmakers were simply bullied into making the change by the prospect of CAIR publicly denouncing them as racists. Film director Phil Alden Robinson wrote abjectly to CAIR, “I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination.”[10] America got a dramatic reminder of the fact that there really are Islamic terrorists, and they’re not just the figments of bigoted imaginations, on September 11, 2001, but by then filming on The Sum of All Fears had already been completed.

Islamic groups in the U.S. have employed the race card innumerable times in myriad contexts in order to intimidate and silence their opponents. To give credit where credit is due, it has proven to be an excellent strategy for deflecting attention from the reality of jihadist sentiments and jihadist activity among American Muslims. The stealth jihadists employ this kind of obfuscation to great effect. Their immediate goal is not to overpower America directly through combat, but rather to convince Americans that there is nothing at all to fear from Islamic theology, and that anyone who argues otherwise is an Islamophobe motivated solely by hate. With the population lulled into complacency, they can go about their work of forcing western “accommodation” to Islamic practices. This is meant to set the stage for Islam eventually to emerge supreme.

TFP: How should Catholics react against this insidious Islamist offensive in America?

Robert Spencer: The primary challenge that Catholics who are aware of the jihad threat is to convince their coreligionists that such a threat is indeed real. Many have been blinded to the threat by a widespread misunderstanding of the statements of the Second Vatican Council about Islam, and by the impression that Catholics and Muslims must make common cause on moral issues. While some limited cooperation may indeed be possible in the international arena, this fact should not render us unwilling to admit the facts about Islam’s supremacist agenda, which denies the very legitimacy of Christianity as a faith.

TFP: Is there also an Islamist threat in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Holland?

Robert Spencer: Yes, and it is far more advanced there than it is in America. The historian Bernard Lewis has said flatly that Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century. The results for Catholic civilization in Europe and its artifacts will be disastrous.

TFP: You are also the author of a book, which deals with the Crusades: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), which was a New York Times bestseller. Since our magazine is honored to be called Crusade, tell us something about the role of the Crusades in the struggle against Islam, particularly what lessons they may provide for the struggle we must wage today.

Robert Spencer: The Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression, which grew fiercer than ever in the eleventh century. These were wars for the recapture of Christian lands and the defense of Christians, not religious imperialism. Nor were the Crusades called in order to convert Muslims or anyone else to Christianity by force. The Crusaders did many things that cannot be excused, but in their conception they were defensive actions against an Islamic jihad that had by the time of the First Crusade overwhelmed half of Christendom.

Lessons for today? We need to summon our spiritual and cultural resources as well as our military resources in order to defeat the jihadist challenge.

ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of eight books on Islam and jihad. Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.

Mr. Spencer holds an MA in Religious Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980

China: Good Changes Are Coming

By David Wang

A friend is doing her PhD in a university inside China, studying "Comparative Religions." In her research, she has obtained some documents prepared by highly reputable Chinese scholars and professors reporting on the Christian Church of China. Some were assigned by China's Academy of Social Sciences. Some were actually commissioned by the central government.

The scholars are mostly Western educated and non-Christians. Their research was scientific and extensive. And their findings quite consistent:

- In China, there are three major strands of Christian Church: the Three- Self state sanctioned church, the rural house church and the urban "new-rising" church.

- Around 8% of China's population is adherents of Christianity. Some provinces and regions have as high as 10%.

- Christianity (Protestant) is not only China's fastest growing faith, its followers are also most fervent in comparison.

- Of the three, the Three-Self, although most public, because of its government sanctioned status, is the least vibrant and has the slowest growth.

- Because of rapid urbanization, rural house churches are slowing down in their growth. Her pyramid-style, patriarchal leadership structure is giving way to an independent yet interrelated "local church" system. Thus her leadership crisis is most severe.

- The composition of the rural house church, which was predominantly women, the elderly and semi-illiterate, is changing. Youth and children are joining.

- Previously, 80% if not more of new people joining rural house churches were because of healing miracles. Now they are attracted because of the clean and joyous lifestyle.

- The tension between the Three-Self and rural house church is still acute. This is not due to theological differences but to their status. One is, in Communists' term "Red," the other, "Black."

- The urban "new-rise" churches are made up mostly of white-collars, professional, college students and youth. They are a positive influence in the society, even in economic development.

- They are neither legal nor illegal - therefore "Grey." Theologically they are more tuned to their rural counter parts. In social concern and services as well as evangelism, they are more aggressive than the Three-Self.

- The greatest lack of the Church in China, as expressed by all three, is high-standard, open accreditable training of their pastors, leaders, and workers.

These findings are mostly common knowledge - at least to people who have been on the ground. But the researchers' recommendations are revealing:

- For Beijing to continue its "harmony in the society" drive, and to cut-down conflicts between local government agencies and Christian believers, and to eradicate cults and cultic practices, it is recommended to allow church registration outside the jurisdiction of the Three-Self.

- To ensure higher quality of China's Church as a whole, training of its leaders and workers should not be limited only in Three-Self schools, nor pushed to the underground. China's universities can play a vital role.

- The teaching of Marxism in regard to religions needs to be reinterpreted according to China's current situation.

Another finding actually challenges the root cause of the government restricting and persecuting the house church: "The house church movement, by and large, is an indigenous phenomenon. It is not necessarily instigated or sustained by external factions." For the longest time, China's xenophobic authorities have blamed the West for infiltration through its mission activities.

Local believers are sensing the effect of these top-level findings. "These researchers work for the central higher-ups. Their reports are changing the attitude of Beijing towards us. Even President Hu Jintao in his recent speeches is urging a non-pressure, non-conflict approach towards religious activities," a group of Henan house church leaders told me last month.

But they are not expecting big changes overnight. Particularly this year 2009 being a supersensitive time: 60th anninversary of the New China, 50th anniversary of Tibet Liberation, 20 years after the Tiananmen incident, and the 1st anniversary of the Sichuan earthquake.

In unison Chinese believers are predicting, albeit slowly "Good changes are coming."

Source: Asian Report, May/June 2009. As reported by Dr. Peter Wagner's Global Link Newsletter.