Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China And Changing the Global Balance of Power [Paperback]

I highly DO NOT recommend this book for 3 reasons (2 objective and 1 subjective)
Objectively speaking his book fails on 2 general lines:
He equates "easy believism", "quick coverts", and "cheap grace" as true belief and repetance...Most of the teaching of the gospel in China is quite inept, weak, cheap, and even non-Biblical. Rarely is there a call to true discipleship. This leads to many "decisions", which on the surface look legitimate, but in fact, do not have root and therefore often wither. Aikman equates these "decisions" with true Biblical belief, and therefore exagerates the affects of current mission endeavors in China.
Secondly, he thoughtlessly and wrongly associates and interconnects Christianity with Democracy and Western Ideology. With the rise of one, so the other. This joining together of the church and state is unfortunately (I say again, unfortunately) the majority of the current preaching of the gospel in China. Chinese people want a more affluent, western lifestyle...Christians (affluent westerners in their minds) come preaching a gospel not of self-denial but of "finding happiness", this looks appealing to your average Chinese person. Hence, acceptance of this "American" brand of Christianity is an acceptance of democracy as well (in some form or another). Aikman, perhaps rightly presents these actual findings, but he presents them as something positive and something to be commended. Well, David, this may be good for American politics and world democracy in general, but this is awful for the gospel and true biblical discipleship.

Missions and the preaching of the gospel is not about spreading an ideology of democracy and this world's kingdoms [which is alluded to even in Aikman's subtitle "How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power"], but about spreading the idea of dying to self and living to Christ and coming under the authority and power of the kingdom of God (which will often times look quite different from western democracy and even the western-brand of Christianity).

That's the more objective reasons as to my distaste for this book.

As to my more subjective reason for disliking this book (I acknowledge that my previous 2 critiques could be labeled subjective as well)...
This book has led to a more severe crackdown on missionaries in China. Post-publication of this book, China officials have radically beefed up their inquiries and investigations into missions work there; this is mainly due to this over-exaggerated and TOO PRO-DEMOCRACY book by Aikman.
These investigations are escalating to such an extent, that it looks as though my close friends doing orphan work, benevolence, and leadership training in China are about to be kicked out.
Aikman didn't even "change the names to protect the innocent". What was he thinking???? He mentioned them by name in the back of his acknowledgements.

See articles about this at this web address:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/31.0.html

Well, American Christians may get teary-eyed from reading Aikman's report about "all that God is doing there in China", but I can tell you for sure, that the missionaries there in China are teary-eyed praying night and day that they won't get discovered, not so they can save their own lives, but so that they can continue to stay in that land struggling and laboring to faithfully administer the word of truth.

Aikman didn't do us (and especially not those missionaries) any service here!

Let me begin by emphasizing the positive dimensions of the book. Its survey of the history of Christianity in China, its focus on individuals especially of the 20th century and mostly in the house church movement, its (inconsistent!) efforts at balance. It is worth reading, and we need to hear the stories of suffering, courage, faith, and triumph that are found therein.

The book does have flaws which center on three loci:

1) Its persistent bias against the Three Self Patriotic Movement and persons/groups associated therewith,
2) Its casual and uncritical assumption of Christian "orthodoxy" as more or less coequal with conservative evangelical Protestantism [in my opinion its largest and worst flaw],
3) Its hypocritical(?) stance(s) on the relationship between Christianity and politics/capitalism.

1) I have persons who have become Christians while attending TSPM churches, and persons who became Christians through house churches. American Christians should categorically call for full religious freedom in China - no one should have to register with or work through TSPM. But we also need a little more understanding of Chinese Christians who choose to worship/minister "above ground".

2) Aikman uses the word "orthodox" a great deal - and clearly by it he means conservative evangelical Protestant theology. Aikman paints with far too broad a brush "Modernism" as the opposite of authentic Christianity (see pages 147, 156-157 et passim). Not everyone who rejects "conservative evangelical Protestantism" is a modernist, or a liberal, or "not a true Christian". I think Aikman too often presents us with a false dichotomy - either you are a "fundamentalist" and orthodox, or you are a "modernist" and liberal. He needs to allow a bit more room for other faithful and committed understandings of the Christian faith.

3) Aikman loves to criticize those Chinese who try to blend Christianity and politics. Who say, "Make Christianity serve socialism/Communism". Fair enough. Meanwhile notice how much Aikman tries to sell the "benefits" of Chinese Christianity in terms of capitalism, a pro-Western China, a big ally against radical Islam. How often do American evangelicals wed pro-American patriotism to their Christian faith? (If you don't know what I mean, look for cars with stickers that have an American flag draped over the cross. We sing patriotic songs in our churches while some Chinese Christians get in trouble for refusing to do just that.) If Christianity should not be twisted into the handmaiden of Communism, perhaps neither should it become the herald of Western capitalism.