[Oe List ...] 9/16/10, Spong: China Revisited, Part II

Thu Sep 16 12:17:25 CDT 2010

Print this Article 

Not a member?Subscribe now! 

Thursday September 16, 2010 

China Revisited, Part II

Visiting modern China during the summer of 2010 was a transforming, enlightening and even a fearful experience for me. I had not been to China in 22 years.
Our journey began in Shanghai, China's second largest city with 20 million citizens. Embracing the size of China's cities was the first surprise. Chongqing, known as Chungking during World War II, is the world's largest city with 30 million people and covers an area almost as large as Austria. The Chinese do not call a city of ten million a major city. They described a city of 600,000 people as a "small town," despite the fact that it was the size of Cleveland, Ohio.
The airport at Shanghai was clean, modern and efficient. As we walked through customs, each passenger was asked to vote on how politely the customs officials had treated him or her. The city itself was magnificent, modern and beautiful; lit up at night with lights shaped like flowers shining from every tree in the downtown area. Like every Chinese city we visited, there was massive building activity. The urban skylines were marked with numerous cranes as high rises seemed to grow like magic to house China's burgeoning businesses in modern office complexes and its population in modern apartments and condominiums. I was seeing the effects of the economic miracle that is today modern China. This year is an off year for the Chinese economy. It is projected to grow by only 10.3% as opposed to 11.9% in 2009! Three years ago, China replaced Japan as the world's second largest economy behind only the USA. Japan is now third with Germany fourth and the United Kingdom f ifth. Other than China, the world's other economies, including that of the United States, are today stagnant with hope for a 2% growth topping their expectations. While we were in China, the Chinese press announced that China had passed the United States as the nation with the highest annual consumption of energy.
How did this transformation happen? How widespread was it? Were the people living in the Chinese countryside flourishing as well as the urban dwellers? What was or is the human cost to this economic miracle? Is China still a Communist country? These were my questions as our journey took us to cities like Jingzhou, Wuhan, Fengdu, Xian and Beijing. During this trip I watched a Chinese-produced documentary on the Communist revolution and its leader Mao Zedong that was, surprisingly to me, anything but flattering. While giving Mao credit for the Communist victory, it portrayed him as an uncultured peasant leader who never bathed or brushed his teeth and who had a voracious appetite for young women, many of whom he apparently infected with venereal diseases. Talking to many Chinese people revealed that this documentary was not unusual. Mao is still a revered figure as the father of the revolution, but Chinese people today almost universally recognize his limitations. Th e hero of the economic miracle that marks modern China is not Mao, but Deng Xiaoping, who was Mao's bitter political enemy, purged twice, but returned three times by the party. Deng Xiaoping ultimately succeeded Mao in power and introduced what came to be called "market forces." In a telling comment, one lecturer observed that, if it had not been for Deng Xiaoping succeeding Mao, "China today would look like North Korea." Mao's major economic initiative, called "the Great Leap Forward (1958-1961)," was a disastrous failure.
Between my visit in 1988 and my return in 2010, however, a very great leap forward had occurred. China is not today the country I saw 22 years ago. In the last two decades, enormous wealth has been created and more than anywhere I have seen in the world that wealth is being invested in the well being of the masses of Chinese people. This is not to say that there is not still massive bureaucratic corruption and a rampant violation of human rights, but it is to assert that most Chinese peasants are better off today than they ever dreamed they would be.
This country is still a dictatorship. Most of us in the West would not tolerate this government's tactics, but the results are nonetheless impressive. The rise in China's standard of living has been massive; the confidence expressed in the future on the part of the common people was high and I detected almost no organized negativity toward the government.
Two things were apparently responsible for this, neither of which I believe America would tolerate, but both of which define the new China for me. First, by law, they have curbed their spiraling population growth. It has been the policy of this government for about 20 years to allow only one child to be born per family. This policy is enforced by huge fines, including loss of home and assets that could reduce a violating family to poverty, plus freely dispensed birth control and free access to abortion when birth control fails. The results are successful, and the growth of the Chinese population has stabilized at about 1.3 billion people. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are rare and generally rest on specific human situations. This policy now seems fully established and is generally not contested. The tactics used to achieve this population control may offend many in the Western world, but it is working and every developed nation will someday have to addres s its own overpopulation problem. Ultimately, genocide is the only alternative to population control. There are clearly some consequences to this policy and China is facing them today. The cultural desire for a boy in preference to a girl has caused many girl children to be put up for adoption, abandoned or "accidentally" killed. The male to female birth rate in China is now 120 boys to 100 girls, a statistic that promises much instability in the future when some 10 million males will not be able to find wives in China. On the positive side, however, the shortage of girls has begun to raise the value of females in Chinese society and the prejudice against girls is being publicly addressed.
Second, the major principle on which the Chinese government operates is that individual desires and freedoms must always be secondary to the well being of the whole society. Only a dictatorship can follow this principle in a thorough way. If the people are served well enough, however, the individuals will find their basic needs met, and this mutes the negativity significantly. The Chinese government pursues this principle relentlessly. For example, the government built a massive and efficient public transportation system long before it allowed automobiles to become widely available. Then they subsidized the system to make it inexpensive to use. In Beijing, for example, one can go by train to any part of the vast metropolitan area of 18 million people for a fare of one to two US dollars.
The government has also demolished whole cities. We met a 27-year-old man in Xian who told us that in his childhood just 15 years ago, the paths between the densely populated houses in his neighborhood could only accommodate two people walking abreast, making the possibility of escape from a fire almost nonexistent. There was one roofless public toilet for every 20 families, and only two public bath houses serving the whole community, he said. Today, all of this housing has been demolished and its inhabitants moved into high-rise apartments, all of which have indoor toilets, cooking facilities, air conditioning and running water. This transition was government-ordered and the desires of individuals were not considered. It caused great dislocation, particularly among the older people and home owners who in many cases lost their equity, but we met no one who wanted to go back to the past. The wealth of this nation is being used for the benefit of the people, even if it is based on the principle that "big brother knows best." The result is that the standard of living for the average citizen is soaring. One almost sees a new nation emerging. Everything is gleaming, modern and functional. There is still in China a yearning for personal freedom, but this lack is more than countered, for the time being at least, by the new China that is emerging. Pragmatic communism has replaced ideological communism. In fact, one could seriously question whether communism is still alive in China. It looks to me much more like a state-run and state-controlled capitalist system.
Democracy, as we know it, is simply not present in China, but the gap between the rich and the poor has been significantly diminished. Yes, there are people in China of enormous wealth, and there are also exploited workers, but, on the whole, the people appear to have bought into the idea that their individual well being depends on the well being of the whole people. The rich do not rail against the government for funds spent on the poor for housing, health care, transportation and dignity. It was also clear to me that the United States and the People's Republic of China are the only dominant economic powers in the world today. How the economic competition develops between the two will, I believe, determine our long range peace.
The Chinese people seemed happy, proud and largely content with their lives. Ninety percent of the Chinese population lives well today — or at least better than they did 20 years ago. China is today a material and technological success story like none the world has ever seen before in so short a time. China has proven that communism can bring about a major positive shift in the standard of living of the whole population.
While I returned home admiring what I had seen of China's material success, I was still troubled by the fact that I do not believe that any people can live "by bread alone," no matter how impressive that material splendor is. The battle for economic success is won, but what has happened to the soul of the Chinese people? As Western society focuses more and more on materialistic success, I wonder what has happened to the soul of the people in the West. Perhaps we need to look at that question next as I conclude this series on China.

– John Shelby Spong

Question and Answer 
With John Shelby Spong

John Rowley, via the Internet, writes:
At a recent Jesus Seminar meeting I heard a comment something like this, "Jesus went to John to be baptized as he wanted to become a follower of John. Jesus became divine when he came up out of the water and God called (made) him his son." What do you think?

Dear John,
I think you misheard at the Jesus Seminar. I cannot imagine any of the Fellows making such a statement! I have a hard time knowing how to unload the various assumptions that this statement makes but let me try.
I think we can with reasonable certainty state that Jesus began his career as a disciple of John the Baptist and that he was baptized by him. The gospels spend so much time and energy trying to explain how Jesus could have been baptized by John "for the forgiveness of sins" that I must assume that it was a compelling reality that they felt obligated to explain. I also take seriously the suggestion found in the gospels themselves that Jesus moved into his public career only after the imprisonment of John the Baptist.
I do not know how to speak of Jesus "becoming divine" until we define what it means to be both human and divine. I am not a dualistic platonic thinker. I do not think of God theistically, that is, as a being, supernatural in power, who dwells beyond the limits of my world. I rather experience God as the source of life willing me to live fully, the source of love calling me to love wastefully and to borrow a phrase from the theologian, Paul Tillich, as the Ground of being, calling me to be all that I can be. So Jesus lives out the meaning of God as life, love and being rather than "becoming divine" as if that is a new status. The only way I know to enter "divinity" is to become deeply and fully human.
I recognize that if one is unfamiliar with this way of thinking, these concepts are hard to understand. When I wrote "Jesus for the Non-Religious" I addressed these issues much more fully than I can do here.
The great thing about the Jesus Seminar is that not all of the "Fellows" agree for debate there is vigorous. It is, however, a debate on a common understanding of reality. The comment you quote does not share in that common understanding and that is why I feel quite confident that no member of the Jesus Seminar said anything like that.
I hope this helps.

– John Shelby Spong

Send your questions to support at johnshelbyspong.com 

Print this Article 

Not a member? Subscribe now! 

Thanks for joining our mailing list, elliestock at aol.com, for A New Christianity For A New World on 11/09/2008 
REMOVE me from this list | Add me to this list | Manage my e-mail settings | Contact Customer Service 
Copyright 2010 Everyday Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
4 Marshall Street, North Adams, MA 01247
Subject to our terms of service and privacy policy 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100916/e46b4f04/attachment-0001.html>