One quarter of our Bibles now printed by Chinese Bible monopoly...
"And now we come to a topic not mentioned on our schedule," smiles He, "condoms." Some nervous shuffling and coughing ensues. It slowly emerges that there are some in the group who have heard of condoms, but never seen one. Although He and his colleague Shao En have gone to lengths to approach the topic in a careful and sensitive way (this being day two of the workshop), some of the women are palpably embarrassed. In general, however, women prove to be the more daring of participants over these two days, learning fast and volunteering answers.
-Katrin Fielder reporting on her work for Amity Foundation; (emphasis not in original)
(By Craig French) Would you believe the above workshop was an outreach program provided by a Christian organization? The setting is China. Few of the participants own a Bible of their own. The “Christian” organization holding the workshop is Amity Foundation.
Amity Foundation is a not-for-profit non-governmental organization (NGO) that works cooperatively with the Chinese government providing sex education geared especially toward stopping the spread of AIDS. Besides condom instruction, they promote green initiatives, seek more equitable income distribution, do earthquake relief, and more.
But Amity does other work, also. It's likely they printed your Bible...
Back in 1987, Amity Foundation teamed up with the United Bible Societies in a joint-venture to publish God’s Word giving birth to Amity Printing Company which also does business as Amity Press. If you click on the above link, you’ll see a quote from former Anglican Bishop K.H. Ting displayed quite prominently. Back in 1956, Ting delcared that the Chinese people have come to regard Communist rule as "an act of God and a demonstration of His love" (Time). Ting also claims there is no persecution of Christians going on in China.Currently, Amity is the only printer authorized by the Chinese government to print Bibles in China. The main way of distributing these Bibles is through the approved State church: the Three-Self Patriotic Church. I’ve read conflicting reports about what’s involved with purchasing a Bible. Some say the buyer must register with the State and be instantly marked by a hostile government as being a Bible-reading Christian. Others say it is no longer necessary to present identification when buying a Bible from a government authorized bookseller.
The fact is that Amity cannot produce enough Bibles to meet the demand. But even if they could, most Chinese believers don’t have the money needed to travel thousands of miles to a metropolitan area to buy a Bible. Designating one believer to travel and buy enough Bibles isn’t safe, either. A believer may buy one or two Bibles with relative security, but any more than that and the government cracks down. Some believers try printing their own Bibles to distribute within the Underground Church, but they risk persecution and prison.
So why would the United Bible Societies join forces with Amity Foundation to print Bibles in China in cooperation with the Chinese government? It is likely that it was in the hopes of smoothing relations with China and getting the Scriptures into the hands of believers there. We have seen development there, but it is difficult to say whether Amity is the means to such an end.
Arguably, the creation of Amity Printing has benefitted the Chinese government most. They welcomed such a joint venture because it lends a façade of legitimacy to their claims of religious liberty and deflects further scrutiny. All they have to say is, “Look. Not only is there a Bible printer in China, but a Bible printer with Western Christianity’s stamp of approval on it via the United Bible Societies”.
Amity boasts large productions of Bibles with a major distribution in China (80% of their production). Their claims of Chinese distribution are suspect given the outlets for their government-approved Bibles are through the Three-Self Church located only in metropolitan areas. Millions upon millions of Chinese are unable to travel the thousands of miles to reach one of these outlets. They are too poor, and besides, they don’t want to arouse suspicion with the government. Even if we were to grant that Amity distributes 80% of their Bibles, it still isn’t enough to meet the need of Chinese Christians.
So if Amity is printing millions and millions of Bible (and they are, they are currently capable of printing one million Bibles per month), then where’s the money coming from?
Answer: One in four Bibles worldwide are produced by Amity Printing. China is one of the biggest exporters of copies of God’s Word.
Some of evangelicals’ favorite translations are printed in Amity’s facilities and sold at bargain prices.
Our Bible publishers are using our dollars to buy Bibles that fund a company that facilitates a hostile government’s control of Bible distribution among its population, and that's only the beginning of the religious oppression in China.
Amity Foundation is the parent company of Amity Printing Company, and both employ many nationalities including Chinese, Americans, Australians, and Germans. Katrin Fielder, for instance, is a German Christian, but her message does not conflict with the message of the communists. But what of the message of the Word of God? Is there no final conflict between Christ, Marxism, and safe-sex?
Upon completing the sex workshop referenced above, Ms. Fielder retired to her hotel where she received a call from a woman offering her a massage. As Ms. Fielder reported it:
Checking back into my hotel in Kunming next to the Green Lake tourist hot spot, I get a call to my room, which is interrupted when the caller hears a female voice answering the phone. Presumably this was only the usual offer for "massage". I just hope the unknown girl out there has also got the message.
What message?
The condom message. That’s what Amity was out there to do. They were not there to spread the Gospel. They hadn't come to call souls to repentance. They hadn't even come to rescue a few sex slaves from the clutches of evil men.
Rather, their mission was telling people to use a condom. Ms. Fielding reports Amity’s mission:
We are not exclusive, we are an inclusive community of Christians and people of other faiths and of no faith which serves all Chinese regardless of their beliefs. Amity serves as a bridge between China's Christians and the wider population, including the government. This all goes back to Jesus himself, who was not afraid to cross religious or social boundaries.
You did catch that, right? Amity is a bridge to Jesus, Christians, the wider population, and did I forget to mention? The government.
The quote above is from an interview of Ms. Fielding conducted by Amity after her time working for Amity who considers her an ally, still. In the same interview Ms. Fielding expresses concern over the the wholesale slaughter of unborn girls that has altered the male/female ratio across China:
Poverty is still very real in most parts of China and is still at the root of many other problems, such as the abortion of girls or environmental degradation.
To undiscerning Evangelicals, ecumenism, condom promotion, and TONS of Bibles being printed all looks good--and nevermind that most of the Bibles are exported to the West.
Back in 2005, Amity's General Secretary, Zhonghui Qiu, spoke in Washington D.C. This was prior to Crossway Publishers (of English Standard Version fame) joined up with Amity to print all the ESV’s distributed during the Olympics. Zhonghui Qiu told his audience:
Last June I visited the United States where I was told that some Americans donated for smuggling Bibles. They did not know we Chinese have legally printed 40 million copies of Bible. I think communication which is important for understanding and world peacemaking should be strengthened.
What was Zhonghui Qiu saying?
He was telling his listeners not to smuggle Bibles into China, thus implying Amity prints enough copies for the Chinese people. But this isn't true. Beyond numbers, though, consider that smuggled Bibles mean Christians reading them cannot be traced. Also that smuggled Bibles would cut into Amity’s market-share. Let's remember that Amity holds a government-sanctioned monopoly on God’s Word.
So how do we judge United Bible Societies' bosom-buddy relationship with the Chinese government and its Amity Foundation and Press?
Bible Society NSW's CEO, Daniel Willis, who serves as a board member of United Bible Society says we shouldn’t smuggle Bibles into China.
And what about us? Did you know that one in four Bibles are printed by Amity Press? Where was your Holman Bible printed? Your ESV? Open your Bible and read the copyright page. Is it printed in China?
For myself, I've decided not to buy Bibles from publishers who have their printing done by Amity.
One source I discovered is the Trinitarian Bible Society. Sadly, they only sell the Authorized Version. I’ve been an NASB guy for about 13 years so this is stepping outside of my comfort zone. But it is the King James' 400 year anniversary. One of the commemorative editions I came across is published by Hendrickson and printed in China (likely by Amity). For about the same price as an Amity-printed hardback, I got the Trinitarian Bible Society’s calfskin Windsor edition.
The quality is very good. Trinitarian Bible Society also sells a metrical version of the Psalms.
Drop Marnie over there an email.
(TB: this article by Craig French)




Comments
Somewhere someone said something about being pure as doves and shrewd as serpents.
Evangelicals, however, seem bent on being stupid as doves and eaten by serpents.
My NASB (Zondervan) was printed in Korea. I wonder what that means?
Ugh--hard to do anything now, it seems, without moral compromise. I have trouble with supporting forced abortion in China--and the apparent sex trade--via business with Amity, and I also have trouble with the notion of encouraging King James-Only people at the "Trinitarian Bible Society."
(the name derives from the fact that the Textus Receptus has some "trinitarian" formulations that the eclectic text does not, hence it indicates clearly that that society tends to KJVO nonsense)
Thankfully, my family has a number of Bibles around, so we won't need to buy any for a while while we wear our current ones out.....
Bert,
TBS broke off from British and Foreign Bible Society around 1831 because the B&FBS started including the apocrypha and incorporated Unitarians into their membership...hence, they took the name "Trinitarian" Bible Society.
They are not KJV-only.
I've been doing research on the Three-Self Church in China. Does anyone know of any good sources of information? Has anyone ever actually attended a service at a Three-Self Church?
TBS is a good organization and I'm glad they have bibles available that are note printed in communist China.
Thank you for this article. I will have to check the copyright page of my New Geneva Study Bible when I get home. Then I'll check my 1599 Geneva Bible.
Craig, from one of their newsletters:
"To promote Bible translations which are accurate and trustworthy, conforming to the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old
Testament, and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament, upon which texts the English Authorised Version is based."
Members are also required to use the AV unless "refuting the errors" of other translations. Thankfully it's not Ruckmanism, or a claim of a second inspiration, but it's still a variant of KJVO.
They are not KJV-only? Am I missing something here? Look at their published articles! If they aren't KJV-only, who is?
And I realize this is beside the point of the original post but
what was wrong with the Geneva Bible before KJV? I've heard that the Puritans rejected the KJV (for obvious reasons) and stuck with their older translation--why do KJV-only folks only go back to 1611?
And, back to the original post, my NASB says it was born in the USA.
Whether or not TBS is KJV-only is moot...to believe that God sovereignly preserved the truth of His Word via the Textus Receptus before our modern preference for Textual Criticism (and its texts which the NASB, NIV, and ESV are based) is not tantamount to KJV-onlyism. The former affirms the sovereignty, inspiration, and activity of God by His Spirit while the former exalts a *translation*.
A far cry from KJV-onlyism. Even if TBS is wrong, their error isn't a sin.
My NASB from 1998 was printed in the USA...NASB's from the same publisher of my 1998 NASB are now printed by Amity.
Craig, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Take a look:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a63.pdf
More or less, they're going with the argument "because the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are different, they are corrupted"--more or less arguing not from evidence, but rather from tradition.
This is dangerous at best, sinful at worst--training God's people to refuse to take a look at textual evidence out there and understand how He has given us His Word.
Because I love and cherish the AV, I cannot abide this kind of argument, because it links the AV with what can only charitably be described as nonsense arguments. Here's a resource that goes through the KJVO movement in more detail:
http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305140980&sr=1-1
Brother,
Your first comment was wrong. Your second was just an assertion. The third one is simply stretching it.
Thinking that the Textus Receptus is better than earlier manuscripts we've since come across is not a sin, even if poor arguments are made for it. It doesn't compare to outsourcing Bible printing to a company that is complicit with a Christian-persecuting government...which is the whole point of the post above.
Proportion.
Craig, since when is it "wrong" or a "stretch" to point to their own documents, which clearly demonstrate that they require their members to use the AV exclusively, and clearly demonstrate that they accuse the scribes who copied the Alexandrian manuscripts of deliberately altering them? Is that not the sin of slander?
Sorry, but this is classic KJVO--pick on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they're written near Arius' time, or because they used uncial scripts instead of miniscules (invented about five centuries later), or something like that. Bonus points if you point to the godliness of the AV translators and the heresies of the students of the eclectic text, and of course you've got to ignore the possibility that some variants got added in centuries of copywork in the Majority Text. Whatever you do, don't mention that many scholars believe that most majority text manuscripts are lectionaries, intended to clarify the meaning of the text.
Not admitting that you're KJVO while badmouthing the newer translations (generally whichever one is the most popular) is also classic KJVO. Sorry, I've seen this up close, and TBS is fitting the pattern to a T.
And perspective? Well, thankfully TBS is a lot smaller than Amity, but the effect of the efforts of both is the same. TBS seeks to prevent Bibles from the critical text from reaching readers, and spends (judging from their newsletters) a lot of time bad-mouthing newer translations. Amity is apparently working to prevent any Bibles from reaching readers. Hopefully a bit of light on the subject will help both groups repent.
Somehow I'm not seeing it, Bert. Sorry I don't. I see they unequivocally affirm the received text, and that is part of their constitution...but that is not the equivalence of KJV-onlyism. They also reject dynamic equivalence when it comes to interpreting (which I agree with them on).
KJV-onlyism exalts a translation made by errant men. TBS does not. Here is what TBS says:
"Translations made since New Testament times must use words chosen by uninspired men to translate God’s
words. For this reason no translation of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive status. The final appeal must always be to the original languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts..."
Taken from: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf
They also discuss misinterpretations found in the AV (like Easter instead of Passover). They acknowledge faults with the KJV.
This is my last comment on TBS and KJV-onlyism. This is splitting hairs in comparison to Christian Bible publishers shilling out Bibles through Amity Printing.
The trick is that they unequivocally affirm the received text by insulting the heritage of the critical text--now we can quibble about what the true boundaries of KJVO are (you seem to place the boundary closer to Peter Ruckmann than I do), but reality here is that they are taking part in a movement which is splitting the church by setting believers at odds by disparaging the Bible they read on rhetorically and evidentially dubious grounds.
This movement is also hamstringing the discipleship of many believers by demanding that they use the AV--which is among government schooled speakers of English a few grade levels higher than their reading level, to put it mildly.
Again, thankfully it's not a BIG movement in the U.S., but I've seen up close and personal the damage it does. It's the same kind of thing that Amity is doing, just on a smaller scale--let's prevent people from having the Scriptures unless it's the one we favor. Nasty stuff.
My ESV Reformation Study Bible was printed in the USA.
The TBS's (a British org) Windsor calfskin edition with metrical Psalms was printed and bound in the Netherlands.
>> which is among government schooled speakers of English a few grade levels higher than their reading level, to put it mildly.
Bert,
It could be that my kids are just above average, but I use the NASB95 for our evening family reading and my six-year-old and now my four-and-a-half year old don't have a problem understanding it.
On my commute to work I've been listening through the KJV (the Alexander Scourby recording, highly recommended) and I'm finding myself getting frustrated at the NASB: over and over and over the richness of the literal down-and-dirty Hebrew idioms are obscured. We lose the potency of the phrase "sons of Belial", getting instead the insipid "worthless men"; the jolting "bastards" softened to "illegitimate children". All through the Proverbs the Hebrew words are replaced with other words, words that bring out perhaps the primary meaning but obscure some of the richness that God put there in the Hebrew.
When my wife and I started reading George Eliot's Middlemarch, the style of language was a shock for the first couple of nights, but by chapter 5 it felt natural. A similar thing happens when I see quotes from the KVJ: it looks so foreign. But I think it wouldn't take long until it felt natural.
As I listen now into the New Testament, I notice that when the Greek verb tense switches to a present tense verb, the KJV translators go ahead and translate it in present tense.
I'm not attached to the thees and thous. I checked out NKJV thinking it was KJV with just thees and thous modernized. But it's not, it also softens many things. Where but the KJV do you see the daggers in David's eyes as he swears that by morning light Nabal will not have left to him any that pisseth against the wall.
I don't want to go to the KJV. Men will wag their heads knowingly and say, "Aha! We see how he is." But the faithfulness of it--how can I stay away?
I lived in China for 4 years, worked for Amity and attended a 3-self church for all of that time. Good books on the Chinese Church are 'Unfinished Encounter' by Bob Whyte and 'No Longer Strangers' by KH Ting.
That means it is a few years old...and better quality than the Chinese ones being produced now.
Add new comment