When Crosses Cross the Government

  1. Share
0 1

Our brothers and sisters in China are weeping, yet singing hymns as the government there cracks down on what it sees as a challenge to its authority. Crosses all over Zhejiang Providence are systematically being cut down, with blowtorches and saws. Christians have made appeals and some have even put up a courageous resistance, but in the face of such overwhelming governmental power, the demolition simply marches on to the next church.

You can read more about it in this article, but here is an interview with a Chinese brother in Christ:

"It was a surprise attack. We did not let them in, but they broke in by cutting off the lock. We demanded paperwork, but they showed us none. They cordoned us away from the church," Tu said. "They had 60-70 people. We had just about a dozen or so. Everyone was crying. Our hearts ached. We felt powerless to resist, and only prayed and sang hymns."

The lust for power is insatiable and jealous. It does not give it up and it does not allow rivals. The larger governments grow, the more inclined they are to trample on the people and to ignore or rescind whatever rights had previously been thought to be firm. China has a religious freedom policy. But policies made by the State can be violated by the State.

This is minor, of course, to the horrible tragedy that befalls other brothers and sisters around the world, some of whom have lost their lives today because of their faith in Christ.

Remember them in your prayers and ask God if He may be calling you to help in some way. Join the Persecuted Church social issue or start a Group on the site and begin to gather with others who share that passion and find a way to make a difference.

Community tags

This content has 0 tags that match your profile.


To view comments or leave a comment, login or sign up.

Related Content

Two Objects Before US
William Wilberforce is in my Hall of Faith. He isn’t listed in Hebrews 11, but I’m sure if it were written today, he would have made it. Before his conversion, he was living as an independently wealthy socialite. His wit and popularity and money got him elected as a Member of Parliament at the age of 21, but he was unfocused, disorganized and enjoying the life of a hedonist. All that changed when the Lord got a hold of him. And that is when he began to smell the stench of the slave ships. England was the center of the slave trade in the 1700 and 1800’s and a large part of their economy rested upon it. But a new heart brought a new nose and a new set of ears. The clinking of the chains on the slaves broke his heart. If you’ve seen the movie Amazing Grace, then you know the initial part of Wilberforce’s story. He labored for over 25 years, amid jeers and taunts, to end the slave trade. When Parliament finally voted to do so, the ones that had sneered him years before now rose to their feet in applause to honor him. He simply bowed his head upon his desk and wept. But he wasn’t through. He then began the fight to free the slaves. That brought caustic opposition, scorn and death threats, but he persevered and labored for it the rest of his life. Three days before his death, the British Empire voted to free its slaves...all because of the dedicated service of a small, sickly man. And all of this really began a few years after his conversion to Christ, when Wilberforce wrote the following, “God has put before me two great objects: the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of [morals].” It became clear to him that his fight to end the slave trade would not succeed if it were not accompanied by a moral reformation within the English people. I believe it was the Lord that gave him those two great objects and I also believe He is giving us the same…for our situation is similar and God’s principles don’t change. He desires righteousness in the people and righteousness in their rulers and in their laws. Therefore, I sense that we, also, have two great objects before US: Reformation of public policy Reformation of the people This is also why so many of the articles I have written of late seem to be so “political”. Contrary to some views within Neo-Christianity, just because unrighteousness happens to fall under the “political” label does not make it off limits to the believer’s voice and heart. It is the smooth talk of the enemy that has beguiled us into thinking otherwise. I’ve heard all of the arguments that Christians are not to be engaged in political affairs. Nonsense. Two of the biggest political activists of the Old Testament, Moses and Elijah, were the guys that Jesus brought back from the dead to stand with Him on the mount of Transfiguration. Moses was the great political activist that got into the face of Pharaoh and said, “You do wrong!” He then became the first and one of the most prominent political leaders of Israel. Elijah was the great political activist whose primary activity was to get into the face of Ahab and say, “You do wrong!” Jesus declared that the greatest man ever born of woman was John the Baptist…the guy who just happened to have gotten his head cut off because he dared to stand before the political leader of his day and say, “You do wrong!” Now we have Christians who think and teach that it is unbiblical to stand in the political arena and declare the same thing that virtually every prophet of the Old Testament declared in the face of their king, in their day. It isn’t unbiblical...it is inconvenient. It is uncomfortable and it is unpopular. It puts one at the pointy end of jeers and taunts and name-calling and even death threats. Wilberforce, even though he had every physical and social reason to pass on the task, did not. Neither can we. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Matthew 5:6 This is what I am committed to and this is why I have this site and why I post what I do. I will pursue these two great objects: I will fight for righteousness in public policy and I will fight for righteousness among the people…seeking revival and reformation. All of our public policy efforts will be in vain if we don't see a revival within the people. Don't think that electing your guy into office is going to really change much. It may help, but it won't turn the nation around. As long as the public continues toward selfishness and immorality, laws and constitutions, as Daniel Webster said, are waste paper. It must be, and has to be, a restoring of the foundations, the return of the people to God and their repentance and moral walk. It is these things alone, that will pull this nation back from the sheer cliff before which she now stands.  All of this has to begin with the Remnant. And it will be only through the Remnant that we will see righteousness return to our nation. And, prayerfully and hopefully, an awakening in those who need Christ…an awakening and a new heart like the one that radically changed an English playboy 250 years ago.      
Court Rules: Baker Can't Say No; ACLU Calls it a Proud Day
A few miles up the road from me, in Lakewood, CO, a baker is fighting for what he believes is morally right. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2013. The gay couple, rather than respecting his beliefs, took him to the authorities, because this isn’t about getting a cake or flowers or photos, this is about forcing you to bow the knee or pay tribute. In this case, as well as the numerous ones flaring up around the country, the court is not only wrong, but it’s ruling is flawed. The argument is that Phillips “discriminated” against the couple and that he was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because he was “picking and choosing customers based upon their sexual orientation”. But this is in error. Phillips openly stated that he “has no problem serving gay people”. It is the purpose for the cake that violates his conscience, not the buyer. I suspect that even if his mother had asked him to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he would have said no because of his Biblical convictions. This isn’t discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. The ACLU lawyer stated “no one should be turned away from a shop or restaurant because of who they are or who they love.” This is a false argument, because, first, they weren’t “turned away” like someone in the past might have turned away an Indian, a black man, a Jew or an Irishman. Phillips said he would have been happy for them to order or buy anything else in the shop. They weren’t “turned away”, they were denied a specific request. And second, most importantly, they weren’t refused this request because of “who they were or who they love”. It had nothing to do with them, it had everything to do with what was on the cake and its purpose. If the gay couple had asked for a cake with "Happy Birthday" on it, he would have made it. If they had asked for "Congratulations, Graduate", he would have made that also. But when he is asked to use his God-given talents to produce or support that which he believes is morally wrong, he is bound, before God, to say no. If the gay couple had asked him to portray a gay sex act or if a black heterosexual couple had asked him to portray a heterosexual act, does he not have the right to refuse both on personal moral grounds? In the argument of our courts today, he is in violation of the law if he refuses either, for he would be considered discriminating against gays and blacks. Does anyone in their right mind think that a black couple who requested this would take the baker to court? Of course not. Just as I would not do so if I went to a baker requesting a cake for my pork luau, and the baker told me he was sorry, for he was Muslim, and he could not in good conscience, depict a pig. I would ask his forgiveness that I had requested this of him, thank him for his honesty, and then seek out another baker.  Now, if Phillips had stated that he wouldn’t serve gay people at all, then I wouldn’t be supporting him either, because, although I personally think he has a right to refuse service to anyone, I think it would be contrary to a Christian worldview to show partiality. There is a difference between “discrimination and partiality” and partiality is morally wrong. After the court ruling, the ACLU called it a “proud day”. No doubt there was “dancing in the streets” by some. But this is not a proud day. This is a solemn day...as other headlines trumpet the power of the courts over a florist in Washington, a photographer in New Mexico, county clerks in Kentucky and Tennessee, and another baker in Oregon, who is facing a $135,000 fine because it, too, violated her religious beliefs to support a gay wedding. Some have lost their shops; others are faced with losing their jobs, paying huge fines, and some…going to jail. A proud day? I don’t think so. I remember seeing pictures of people celebrating in the streets after 9-11. Some thought that was a proud day too. It wasn’t. I pray I will never celebrate knowing that someone else is grieving or losing something precious to them. Our President did this after the Supreme Court Oberfeldt ruling when he lit up the White House with rainbow colors while a large part of the nation was grieving. That was not a proud day, either. It was an unbecoming, "in your face" by a President. Christians should never do this. I suppose one may rationalize it on the football field, but in real life, we should be a people of compassion...resolute for truth and righteousness, but always gracious in victory. The courts and blue media and academia and Hollywood and much of civil government are aggressively against us...and against a Biblical worldview. It will most likely get even more difficult for us in the days ahead. But, despite this…there remains a huge remnant in the land. Take heart, take hope, take winsome and gracious, but firm, action. Pray, Remnant, Tuesdays Noon Eastern, for Revival and Repentance.