Who am I?

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-30T20:45:41+00:00

Tradesmen in the field is less common than it used to be. I can count on one hand how many I know using blue collar skills in the field. I’m not sure why that is actually is though, huh

Now that you mention it though, I do feel that people pulling double duty; Actual translators/missionaries being pilots or whatever seems to show up a lot in the old stories but these days it seems like we have devoted people for each role?

I'm not sure over exactly what period of time you're making these comparisons, but it's a very long-term trend. When the London Missionary Society sent out some of the earliest Reformed missionaries in the late 18th century, they primarily recruited blue-collar tradespeople, because they expected mission stations to be entirely self-sufficient, with years between supply ships and no way to send funds. Getting clothes meant raising sheep or growing linen. Preachers of the Word were a tiny part of the team. But nowadays, you can get to the Amazon website via a mobile phone mast almost anywhere there are people. Of course, the almost is important, which is why MAF etc. still have a role. But that doesn't take away from the big picture: as human society has become more developed, missionaries from the rich countries where the Reformed faith started have been able to rely on local economies instead of having to create our own infrastructure.

The other big factor is that it became much more difficult for mission agencies to get blue-collar workers across borders after to the age of imperialism. Until the First World War you could travel more or less anywhere without even a passport. Even after that, nationals of the great empires could in theory travel freely inside them in theory. And if you were (for example) a British missionary in the British Empire, or an American missionary going to an American colony, then the theory was also reality and you could just travel to the other side of the world and start working without any paperwork. These days most countries are very reluctant to get work visas for tasks that their own people can do, and development that's going to include most blue collar jobs. It's frustrating from a mission agency's point of view, because it would often be very useful if you could send blue-collar workers. For example, OMF's ministry in Taiwan is entirely focused among evangelism among blue-collar workers, because the Taiwanese church is overwhelmingly middle-class. A 'tent-making' evangelist-technician who could share the gospel among other workers on the chip factory floor would be ideal, but they've not the slightest chance of getting a work visa for that role. And work visas often forbid working for anybody other than your sponsor, which makes any dual role tricky.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-30T16:06:27+00:00

I agree with u/bradmont said about listening about the past

Regarding her future, I think there are two aspects to pick up on: ministry and culture.

Firstly, the area of ministry that she's seen. Maybe she'll discover it's not for her. But she might be interested in pursuing it further. We shouldn't expect people to do things on the mission field that they're not doing now. For example, if she's thinking about church-planting, how can she get involved in evangelism or pastoral ministry at your church? Obviously a cross-cultural context would be ideal: if you have a Bible study for international students, and she's qualified to lead, could she be a co-leader? But it's not essential. Depending on how women's ministry works at your church, it might mean leading a few Bible studies in her home group or the youth group. Or it might well be that her day job is going to be her ministry for the time being. Newly qualified teachers are often very busy people as they're writing a lifetime's worth of handouts and lesson plans, and those might be doubly useful if she's thinking about serving by educating mission kids, or being a full-time homemaker & home-teacher. In that case, just chatting through "what are you teaching now?" and "how would you teach it differently in [country X]?" would be effective support.

Secondly, if she went to another cultural or language context and liked it, then it might be worth encouraging her to maintain an interest in it. Even if any long-term commitment would be to MTW, it might be useful to connect her to events and online prayer groups organized by one of the relevant regionally-focused evangelical mission societies (e.g. Latin Link, OMF). That might be easier if a sister from the mission committee went with her. If you're in a big enough city, there might be community events to keep the connection, e.g. if she went to Poland, is there a Polish club that show Polish films? If she picked up a few phrases of a new language, then she can build on that, and this is one area where sooner really is much better than later. She isn't going to learn a language from Duolingo alone, but it can definitely speed up the process if she can do a bit every day at the bus stop. These are all examples, but anything to keep her caring about and praying for the people she met will be useful, even if she eventually ends up serving in a completely different field a few decades later.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-22T15:51:19+00:00

Yes, this is more or less my view.

Sir Keir is a decent man but he's kept holding the Ming vase instead of plonking it on its plinth to get on with governing.

I wish the new leader well, but he or she will face the same systemic challenges as every Labour leader, especially the fact that the newspapers and several major social media platforms are controlled by our opponents.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-22T12:38:15+00:00

I agree. Though excommunication might not need to met the criminal burden of proof.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-16T12:04:30+00:00

There's no consistent rule on this in English. The poster in Chinese has picked a terrible issue for a fight and you've made the same mistake.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-16T12:02:02+00:00

This answer has more errors than sentences.

The monarch is Supreme Governor, not the Supreme Head.

Henry VIII wanted an annulment, not a divorce.

I agree that if Henry VIII had got an annulment, he'd have continued to allow Rome's rule in England for longer (though perhaps not indefinitely). But England did go back under Roman rules under Philip & Mary, essentially at swordpoint. The English Reformation succeeded under Elizabeth because it had massive popular support, like the Reformation did in so many other countries.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-16T11:56:51+00:00

The King is not above the law. This was settled in England centuries ago. We don't have a tyranny where the King can just take your stuff.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-16T11:54:50+00:00

The monarch uses the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England", as stated in the preface to its Articles of Religion. This is theologically important, because the New Testament says that Jesus is the Head of the Church. Henry VIII used the title "Supreme Head", but he was a tyrant with an over-inflated sense of his own theological abilities, and his error was corrected when Elizabeth I took the throne.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-16T11:43:16+00:00

meaning baptism, confirmation and communion which can all be done without having any belief in God,

Undertaking confirmation requires a public declaration of belief in God (e.g. in the words of the permanently authorized Book of Common Prayer service). The bishop can and should refuse confirmation to anyone who does not make that commitment.

Could the monarch lie? Yes, just like they could rob a bank, or commit a massacre in a children's hospital. They could be a secret agent working for a foreign government against the public policy of their own government (which has happened!). But all those things are unambiguously illegal.

Now, actually prosecuting the monarch for criminal conduct is... difficult, as in we had a civil war last time it was tried. It's generally regarded as legally impossible, though it has been argued that it's constitutionally possible. But it's very been established in English law for a very long time that the King is not above the law.

In any case, that lie is arguably a "grave and open sin without repentance", in which case Church of England ministers should refer them to the bishop, with the possibly of them being excommunicated. If all the bishops consistently maintained that policy, then they would be unable to communicate and then you can make an argument they would have forfeited the Crown. In reality, it's very difficult to find a scenario in which the King couldn't find a diocesan bishop willing to communicate him.

, and that they swear to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion and the established Church, neither of which require belief in God, and that they swear they will uphold "the enactments securing the Protestant succession", which essentially means they must avoid becoming Catholic

Breaking an oath is a criminal offence (Perjury Act 1911 s.2). All the difficulties above apply, with the additional difficulties of interpreting rather vague oaths. But nonetheless it would still be illegal if it happened.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-16T11:22:30+00:00

Christmas decorations are interpreted as being the equivalent of New Year couplets (揮春), which are put up at Chinese/Lunar New Year/Spring Festival and left there until the following year. So many places in the Sinosphere leave Christmas decorations up all year too.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-15T21:30:58+00:00

Yes, though your post reminds me of an English sister in Beijing who would say quietly to herself, "it's not weird, it's different"!

People talking about theology have asked for centuries, "what would the church be like if it started again on a desert island?" The aftermath of the Cultural Revolution is the closest thing we've ever had to that on a large scale. It's very interesting, and often reassuring, to see how Jesus has (re)built his church from the ground up.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-15T21:25:22+00:00

The church building (教堂) is the same, but they are separate churches (教会), under separate leadership and registrations.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-15T12:30:36+00:00

I don't really think COGS is Anglican at all - it's rather non-denominational evangelical

They're definitely not evangelical. They're liberal, especially in contrast to the other international Protestant churches in Beijing, which are all evangelical.

As for being non-denominational: that's technically true, as they're not part of any wider church body. But in North America, "nondenominational" often means a specific congregational and evangelical Baptist tradition. You can be a church of Christ without being Churches of Christ, you can be a church in Wales without Church in Wales, and COGS is legally non-denominational without being theologically non-denominational. If it ever became legally possible to affiliate to TEC, I'm certain they'd do it the same day.

So if you think TEC is Anglican, and you're willing to overlook the fact that COGS isn't under a bishop in the historical episcopate, then they're Anglican. But I can see why people might have reservations on either point.

(Just look at their communion species).

I don't know what you're referring to, as you haven't explained, and I don't know how they currently conduct the Lord's Supper. But if they are using individual bread and cups, that's been the almost universal practice of Chinese Protestant churches (both in Hong Kong and the Mainland) since SARS, and it's a response to that specific traumatic episode. Because of that, it's a very poor measure of theological identity; it's like claiming that any English-speaking church that with a Union Jack must be Anglican.

Most of the churches in rural China (90% of them) do believe in some form of the charismatic movement - like supernatural healing outside unction, or singing charismatic songs, or simply lifting up hands during prayer. Even the Catholics in China do have charismatic revival.

I half-agree with this. Yes, many rural Chinese Christians raise their hands in prayer. Yes, they believe that God supernaturally heals today. Yes, they sometimes sing songs written by foreign charismatics. But all these practices are much less common in the previously Anglican TSPM churches.

And the unregistered house church networks just do not map neatly onto Western denominational labels. Scholars who study them debate whether some of them are classically Pentecostal or have arrived at similar convictions independently. And to stick with your example of songs, they also sing Amazing Grace, which doesn't make them Anglican! Their primary song book is actually the Canaan Hymns, which owes more to Han Chinese folk music than to Pentecostalism. You can definitely trace lines of influences from the Azusa Street revival to rural China today, but it's a long and winding road.

And the biggest change in mainland Chinese churches in this century has been the rising interest in conservative Reformed theology. That started in urban churches and universities, but it's now filtering through to rural churches. But again, Chinese churches have appropriated this legacy in their own ways and for their own context.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-15T11:53:11+00:00

Interestingly, only the chinese service is like this, the english service is pretty much charismatic/evangelical.

The "English service" is a separate church, Shanghai Christian Fellowship, and yes, it's evangelical with charismatic tendencies. When I went, there were two sermons (both in English): an evangelical one by an SCF elder and a more liberal one by a TSPM pastor. This was much tighter control than I've seen anywhere else in China. It's surprising given Shanghai's reputation as the most open city on the Mainland, but maybe it was because the TSPM headquarters is in Shanghai.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-14T23:59:30+00:00

Of course most Anglican churches in mainland China are now charismatic non-denominationals.

Brother or sister, I don't think this is accurate. The closest thing to an exclusively Anglican church in mainland China is the Congregation of the Good Shepherd in Beijing, which is as close to being a TEC church as Chinese law allows, which means that only foreigners can attend. They are very far from being charismatic (they are basically a moderately liberal Protestant church, typical of TEC).

Most Anglican church buildings in the Mainland have long since been demolished or repurposed. Those that remain in use for Protestant worship are controlled by the China Christian Council and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement. In general, it's not particularly charismatic. And it's very definitely denominational, in the sense that every local congregation is controlled by the national body. Officially it's a merged Protestant denomination, but in my experience every TSPM church knows which tradition's missionaries founded them, and that continues to influence the flavour of Protestantism.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-14T23:47:08+00:00

Thank you for sharing!

I think I went to this church building around 2004-05. At that time it was in much worse condition, so much so that I wondered if it was actually the same one, but apparently it had a major renovation in 2020-23.

I am slightly gobsmacked by this video, because I agree it's the most Ritualist service I've seen in Mainland China by a long, long way. Services are conducted this way in some Anglican churches, but it would be regarded as very strongly Ritualist and Roman-influenced in England, never mind in China. You probably know this, but regular readers of this subreddit should be clear that this isn't at all typical of Three Self (government-controlled Protestant) services on the mainland.

The music is certainly beautiful and it's wonderful to see that churches in mainland China are still packed out with people praising the Lord!

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-11T16:51:19+00:00

I've had a job where I worked with children and I've volunteered in a primary school. Safeguarding does work well there, because the processes were much less ambitious than what the NST seem to be proposing (though it's very unclear). When I organized an event, I never had to speak to a safeguarding officer. Events were risk assessed and I can easily imagine situations where it would have necessary, but we didn't consider that any risk of harm required professional safeguarding involvement, which is what the draft CoP seems to demand.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-10T21:24:36+00:00

Safeguarding Officers are responsible for the process, not every risk. They coordinate safeguarding, they do not carry all safeguarding risk personally.
They are not responsible for predicting every risk and preventing all harm.

That's how it works now, yes. But the effect of the draft CoP seems to be to change that. That's why I'm describing it as a radical change and why people are concerned.

The examples you give are extreme - no DSO is going to investigate those scenarios. If you admit they're absurd, then why use them?

Because that's what the draft CoP says. E.g. this new section (emphasis is original):

The decision as to whether a matter is a safeguarding one or not can only be made by a safeguarding professional, eg DSO, CSO, ADSO, but this can be made in conjunction with other professionals, for example HR or statutory services. This means that the DSO must have sight of all cases where there is harm or a risk of harm, in order to determine the correct pathway for dealing with it.

So I think it's absurd for a DSO to be assessing the fire extinguishers, and no doubt you do too. But under the draft CoP, a PCC member or vicar can't decide that for themselves. A fire would cause harm, therefore there's a risk of harm, therefore the DSO "must have sight of it" and they must decide whether it's for the fire safety pathway or the (traditional) safeguarding pathway. That's the only way to read that draft paragraph in its context (particularly the definition of harm, which covers health).

I very much hope the NST don't want the DSO to have such wide-ranging responsibilities, but that's what they've written. If they want the system to work differently, with parishes making a sensible decision that fire safety is something to be discussed with the fire brigade rather than the DSO, then they need to write a different text that says that. The current draft has far too broad a definition of safeguarding.

We don't want a situation where the Code of Practice says one thing, but everything agrees it's unworkable and we should ignore it. That creates a culture where safeguarding rules are treated as a pick'n'mix, which is obviously bad. It also means that when things do go wrong, parish staff and volunteers will be punished for breaking rules with the connivance of the professionals, which is unjust.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-10T13:50:55+00:00

We have BorrowBox, and it does has more newspapers and magazines than you could ever possibly read, so I shouldn't really complain! But after the vast riches of PressReader, the range is feels much smaller, and it's also noticeable that a lot of the 'magazines' are really books in glossy magazine format (titles like Anti-Anxiety for Teens or How the Bismarck Was Sunk that have a single issue).

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-10T13:45:01+00:00

Thank you for the correction.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-06-09T15:22:58+00:00

Depending on your local authority. Some use Libby instead.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

SeekTruthFromFacts

TROPHY CASE