Chao is mostly remembered for his role in RFT, which, in the words of Bruce P. Baugus, editor of China’s Reforming Churches: Mission, Polity, and Ministry in the Next Christendom,  “helped form a new generation of Reformed leadership within China and throughout the global Chinese church.”

From the earliest days of Protestant missions, foreign missionaries understood the need of training local pastors. The priorities given to this task varied. In many cases, circumstances helped to hasten the process.
This is what happened in Manchuria, a historical region of northeast China, in 1941, when the government forced all religious schools to close. This Yinkguo Bible Institute, which had become an isle of orthodoxy in a country where the siren of religious liberalism was attracting many.
The school’s president was J. G. Vos, son of the renowned Princeton professor Geerhardus. Before leaving for the States, Vos asked his friend, assistant, and former student Charles H. Chao (Chao Chung-Hui) to be the school’s caretaker, hoping that the situation would soon change.
Translator and Pastor
Born on August 2, 1916, Chao was raised a Christian by his mother, who had encountered Christianity in her youth. Of all her children, only Charles shared her faith. In 1935, Charles attended the first Manchurian Christian conference at the Yinkguo Bible Institute and was so impressed by the teachings of the main speaker, Wang Mingdao,[1] that he applied to become a student at the institute and dedicated his life to serving Christ.
By then, Chao was already married. As it was customary, his marriage had been arranged by his mother. Because of the uncertain times, the ceremony took place when Chao was only sixteen. His bride, Li Yu Chen Chao (Pearl), was not a Christian but Charles’s mother sent her to a nearby Bible institute where she learned about Christianity and was baptized. Their first son, Theodore, was born in 1936.
After an internship in Northern Manchuria, Chao returned to the seminary on the invitation of J. G. Vos, who was looking for an assistant. Vos introduced him to the writings of Loraine Boettner, lighting in Chao’s heart a desire to translate them into Chinese. Following Boettner’s advice, he started with The Inspiration of Scriptures. This was just the first of Chao’s numerous translations.
After Vos’s departure, Chao took care of the school’s grounds for fourteen months, until the government claimed them. He then moved to Tashihchiao, where the local pastor needed an assistant. He stayed there until 1945, when the Japanese surrendered. The people of Manchuria rejoiced to see the Japanese leave their country. But their joy didn’t last long, because Russian troops soon replaced them.
Out of the Tiger’s Mouth
This began the long struggle between the Soviet army and the Chinese Nationalist movement. It was a harrowing time for the population, who was forced to submit to the Russians’ demands for food, services, and women. In his autobiography, Out of the Tiger’s Mouth, Chao remembers one time when the Russians asked him to find them some women. He had heard of locals who had been killed for refusing to comply. Thankfully, some unexpected circumstances forced the Russians to let him go unharmed.
Another time, right after the birth of his seventh son, William, a group of Chinese communists abducted Charles from his house and brought him to their headquarters where he and other Chinese captives were forcefully enlisted to march before their troops as a human shield. Taking advantage of a moment of confusion, Charles managed to escape.
Clearly alarmed, the Chaos decided to move to Mukden, which was under Nationalist control. There, Charles worked as an interpreter for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), shipping American relief supplies to Chinese distribution centers. It was a demanding and stressful job. Longing to put his pastoral training to practice, he was glad when opportunities arose to teach English first in a local school and later at the Mukden YMCA, where he was also able to introduce young Chinese to Christ.
During this time, he corresponded with Vos and Boettner, who encouraged him to continue his studies in the States. In fact, they had procured for him a scholarship at Faith Seminary of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), in Tacoma, Washington, and had helped him to get a visa.
What’s more, Boettner was able to arrange for Chao a plane ride from Mukden to Shanghai on a Lutheran “mercy plane,” which was meant to transport refugees out of China. The door seemed wide open and Chao interpreted it as a confirmation that God wanted him in the States.
Crisis of Conscience
His conscience, however, kept bothering him. Could he really leave his wife and seven children in a country where the Communist forces were advancing rapidly and often violently? He had been encouraged to go by his father-in-law, where Pearl and the children were staying, but doubts kept resurfacing.
He was fully aware of Pearl’s challenges. In her own words, from the time Charles had left, their family had been suffering “separation, anxiety, and all the daily inconveniences and perils of life in the middle of a civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists.”[2]
Read More

Paul’s challenge to Peter reminds us that the critical issue is not so much “who” is preaching, but “what” is being preached. Even the apostle Peter must be confronted when he falls into doctrinal error. Fortunately, Paul rescues Peter from very serious consequences including condemnation from the brothers because of his own hypocrisy.[13] By the time of the Jerusalem Council, held shortly after Paul composes his Galatian letter, Peter and James are both in agreement with Paul. The issue is the content of what is preached (justification by faith alone), and the standard is fidelity to the gospel revealed by Jesus.

The Success of the Gentile Mission Raised Questions
As new churches were established in Gentile areas north of Palestine, one pressing question needed to be addressed. How were Jews and Gentiles to get along with one another in these new churches? This was especially the case in Asia Minor where Jews lived in many cities among large Gentile populations. Jewish Christians remained steeped in Jewish life and culture. No doubt, they struggled with the fact that recent Gentile converts had different sexual mores, ate things Jews did not, and who, when pressed about matters of the law may have asked, “who is this Moses fellow you keep talking about?” How would close fellowship between Jewish believers and “unclean” Gentiles in Galatia and Antioch be seen back in Jerusalem? The dicey relationship between Jew and Gentile meant that a collision between the weak-willed Peter and the iron-willed Paul was at some point inevitable. In verses 11-14, Paul demonstrates that even apostles must have their doctrine and conduct checked in the light of Scripture, specifically the revelation of Jesus about the gospel.
Moving on from recounting his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, Paul tells the Galatians how he was forced to confront Peter to his face when the latter had caved in to pressure from messengers from James possibly claiming they were sent by the Jerusalem church. This confrontation likely occurred not long after Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their prior visit to Jerusalem. As N. T. Wright points out, it is easy to overlook the fact that the reason why this seems so vivid in Paul’s account is because these events had taken place quite recently [1].
There is a noticeable progression in Paul’s recounting of his relationship with Peter, especially in light of the burgeoning Gentile mission undertaken by Paul, Barnabas, and others. Paul describes being Peter’s guest for fifteen days during his first trip to Jerusalem post-conversion (Galatians 1:18-20). Then, he speaks of Peter as a fellow apostle when recounting his second trip to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10), before, finally, describing a confrontation with Peter when the latter falls into serious doctrinal error (Galatians 2:11-14).[2] While it is difficult to know how much of this is a word for word account of what Paul said to Peter and how much is a summation, what follows amounts to a major confrontation between the two men over the ground and meaning of the doctrine of justification.
The Men from James
We know from Luke’s account in Acts that Gentiles and Jews previously enjoyed table fellowship together in Antioch (where Paul and Peter later have their confrontation). Both groups participated in the Lord’s Supper as one body, with Peter apparently approving of the practice. In Acts 10:9-48, we read of Peter’s vision and visit to the Gentile Cornelius’ home, where the Holy Spirit told Peter that “all foods were clean.” From these events Peter concluded, “truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34). As recounted by Luke, the Gentiles were baptized and received the Holy Spirit, just as occurred with the Jewish believers. At first Peter saw Jew and Gentile on an equal footing before God.[3] A common faith in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and the Son of God who died for their sins who was then raised from the dead produced a remarkable fellowship between Jew and Gentile, who, otherwise would have little if anything to do with each other. That is, until “certain men came from James.”
Professor Bruce thinks these men “from James” who arrived in Antioch were trying to convince the Jewish brothers of something along the lines of “we in Jerusalem hear that those of you in Antioch are in the habit of practicing regular table fellowship with Gentiles.” This practice was causing great concern among the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem who feared such close associations might make efforts to evangelize Jews much more difficult. This was also a time of increasing Jewish militancy against their Roman occupiers. About this time, the Romans crucified several prominent leaders of the zealots in Palestine. With such tensions in the air, any Jews, including Peter, who fraternized with Gentiles and adopted Gentile ways were increasingly seen by the fellow Jews as traitors, fraternizing with godless and unclean Gentiles.[4]
Under such circumstances we can see why men like James, Peter, Barnabas, and the Jewish believers in Antioch, would be greatly troubled by too close an association with Gentiles. The churches had enjoyed a time of peace and numerical growth, but now trouble was brewing. The Jerusalem church was worried. The issue at hand was not simply a question of how Gentiles join the church–through faith in Israel’s Messiah, not by embracing Jewish customs and practices as claimed by New Perspective on Paul [NPP] proponents.[5] Since NPP advocates understand the matter as a question of “who is in the church?” the answer given is that all believers are children of Abraham, including Gentiles. Therefore it is wrong for the agitators to seek to exclude Gentiles merely on ethnic and cultural grounds.
Rather, the underlying issue was the question of how Jews understood the role of human effort in justification.
Read More
Related Posts:

Recognize that the more sensitive the communication, the more to the right you should travel. Obviously, you would never communicate a confidential matter to a friend via Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., as other eyes would be upon it. Likewise, every time we send a digital message we need to remember that it has the potential of being spread instantaneously around the world. The Proverbs say, “Discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you” (Prov. 2:11). So as you weigh the sensitivity of a matter, the more careful you need to be, the farther to the right you should travel. 

In my youth, I only had three typical ways to communicate with another person. I’m not speaking of mass communication, but of talking to an individual. What were those ways? I could meet face-to-face. I could write a letter. I could call on the phone. Life was pretty simple when I was young.
Sure, there were other means to interact. Some might mention carrier pigeons, but that’s just another way to deliver a letter. Still, others would say there were walkie-talkies or ham radios. But to keep this real, those forms of communication were just variations of what a telephone gives us – a sound (phone) coming from afar (tele).
But in today’s Digital Age, the options by which we can communicate have multiplied and become more complex. Though there is a myriad of ways to do the following, we could probably boil these additional means of communication down into three categories. I can email a person. I can text. Or I can use the various forms of social media to speak to him or her. I may do these activities on a phone but, oh my, they are much different than a phone call.
Again, remember in this exercise we are only thinking of the routes of personal conversation and not mass communication such as publishing a book or writing a blog article. With that given, what is the best form of communicating at a given time?
To help us, think of the above six ways available for us to speak to another person as a six-lane highway. On an expressway, typically slower traffic is on the right as faster traffic passes on the left. If you think of communication like driving a car on a highway, you have to consider such factors as time, safety, consideration of others around you, etc. With this in mind, we might position these six forms of communication in the following lanes as they indicate both the speed of delivery and the risk of a “crash”, i.e., words wrongly impacting the intended recipient or others that could be involved.

To justify some of these lanes, I would say a letter (Lane 2) is in a safer lane than an email (Lane 4) because a letter is less likely to be seen by someone else and takes longer to write than typing an email.
Read More
Related Posts: