The Big Book says God has secrets belonging only to Him and at depths of knowledge making some of His judgments untraceable (Romans 11.33).  That Distance from clarity can be a torment.  I want to watch us on His Screen with the Son of Man doing color commentary.  Life’s fascination is in the details, don’t we know, and They miss nothing!  (Yes, Trinitarian.)   Imagine the “movies” we have all starred in – and the Higher Audiences (including the “angels” – whatever they are exactly).  Of God’s directives to those legions made a little higher than us, do they more often hear regarding here “that will require some discipline” or “reward/encourage more of that”?

Biblical cosmogony from the first chapter of Christianity’s primary document declares the central function of Earth’s highest creature – Adam/Man, in tandem as male and female, powerfully complementary – to be God’s image bearer, representatives having rule and dominion, being fruitful and multiplying, keeping and cultivating the Earth as garden, bringing forth treasure from the soil, from plants, from animals.  The seed is received and fruitfulness results – easily, whether soil or womb.

God is on record playing serious games with us who have been made a “little lower.”  Job’s ordeals and Paul’s sifting were prompted by a proud, powerful entity testing God’s resolve to finish what had been started, to refine image-bearers who can withstand toil and trouble.  That Job and Peter had trials and challenges discussed and arranged beforehand in the Heavenlies stops me in my tracks time and again.  What is going on Up There?  Whatever is, God does not seem to be in a hurry – at all – to resolve human shortcoming and injustice and suffering, often en masse.  Are we that “fun” to watch?  Surely amusement is not behind it all.  But musing?  I think so.

Job was eventually double-blessed and Paul returned to the fold, as predicted.  High drama, indeed. Why wouldn’t it be true that you and I have also been protagonists/antagonists, major and minor actors in countless comedies and tragedies for Heavenly screening.  That “angels long to look into” the Divine’s orchestration of human redemption should fascinate us (I Peter 1:12). Why did they not get the same deal? (Biblically, grace extended to the angels [all males, fyi] is hard to find.)  

Humans, from the beginning, have been full of expression, pressing out, moving the tent pegs, increasing their hegemonies, managing the environment to meet needs and wants.  The Creator has watched our technological advance over much time: controlling fire, manufacturing wheels, shaping metals, refining sound through instrumentation, and now trading information all over the planet in nanoseconds. Routinely, cattle pens and slaughterhouses lead to dining tables with filled and garnished plates resembling fine wall art.  God watches us leave representations of ourselves, makings in our image (as He did), the sending forth of self-expression in words, numerals, images, and manufacturing  -- expressions in ever-increasing complexity, exactitude, and scope.

Dominion starts in sandboxes and treehouses, but He watches us standing intelligently over complicated and dangerous medical procedures. He watches us fly into space, photograph the ocean floor, and put nearly everyone in the driver’s seat of an automobile that can go 130 mph. God enjoyed watching Edison and Einstein at their labs and chalkboards, for sure.  They were discovering the intricate possibilities of living within the Created Order.  Lately, a virus ravaged the world (nothing new), but a few found it and made something to neutralize its lethality.

And if God made man over much time, (time and chance get nothing done without matter and design/information) and we discover stages along an “evolutionary” journey, who wouldn’t say, “what a spectacle” if we had eyes to see growth that miniscule and gradual and purposeful.

Having spent more time than I would have wished brooding over the Problem of Evil (a good and powerful God allowing so much suffering), I have found some solace pondering the satisfactions of God as Creator.  He is portrayed in Genesis 1 as gazing satisfyingly over “it all” and pronouncing early on “very good”!  Might viewing satisfaction be a current factor in the delay to restore all things?  Does He not delight in our rule and dominion over animals and minerals and electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces?  How long, oh Lord, until the suffering stops? Until we inhabit Mars?  Why wouldn’t He want us to travel intergalactically?  I’m not expecting a soon Second Coming.  Too much yet for Man to discover!

Human history is replete with “small step{s} for man [that are] giant leap[s] for mankind.” God most and best knows just how “fearfully and wonderfully made” we are. We accomplish so much – each of us in our own manner and capacity – and oftentimes for “good” reasons. We incessantly discover, improve, extend, safeguard, heal and, yes, vaccinate! (Sorry.)

The Mind of God includes so much more than what has been revealed. The healing of the nations has been and will be quite a slow process.  As God watches current generations around the world moving amongst the races and colors so much more fluidly together, the view is surely “good.” Why the “hurry up”?  (Remember: a sizable portion of the angels do not welcome The End, but that’s another topic.) No one has the slightest idea when Jesus is returning (the last rites for dispensational premillennialism being performed more than two decades ago).  But, I’m glad to have found a significant place amongst my theological paradigms for an emphasis on God as Creator and the orderliness and wonder of it all. So much to do!  However, marana-tha – always.

Photo of the South China Sea, Credit: Taneli Lahtinen

China vs Taiwan : Where Are We and What Happens Next?

Of all the potential military conflict hotspots in the world, the one most worrisome is the potential invasion of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China (PRC). After reviewing some of the history of why this invasion may happen and comparing this possible invasion against some historical examples may point to why it could be a very bad idea. Along with the historical comparison, a limited comparison/correlation of forces between the PRC and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly referred to as Taiwan), with a small glimpse of what the U.S. could bring to the fight if the U.S. is involved with military forces; the U.S. possesses a better operating architecture and that could provide the advantage in a conflict, and that may determine whether expected allies join the battle. As we’ve all seen in the news, the PRC is making aggressive moves toward Taiwan and Taiwan’s leaders are giving every indication that they are ready to fight. For those of you who want a short course on the history of this conflict, read this BBC article: What's behind the China-Taiwan divide?. The bottom line is, the PRC thinks Taiwan is a rebellious, breakaway province and wants it back as an obedient part of the PRC. Can China achieve this using force if necessary? Maybe. 

The history of warfare is replete with many examples of countries starting wars based on bad assumptions and catastrophic outcomes. This was especially true in the 20th Century. Significant examples: Hitler invading Poland, assuming Britain and France would do nothing to help the Poles resulting in an earlier start to the war in Europe than Hitler was prepared to fight, especially on multiple fronts against multiple enemies. Allies quickly responded, including the British, French, and ultimately, the Russians and the United States. A second example is when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, under the impression that South Korea was no longer within the United States’ sphere of interest resulting in the subsequent intervention by the U.S. and the United Nations (UN) and the stalemated border at the 38th parallel that remains today. Finally, and most recently, Iraq’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait, under the impression that the U.S. would not intervene in what was called an Iraqi internal affair resulting in the intervention by the U.S. and the UN and the destruction of a major portion of the Iraqi military and national infrastructure during the Gulf War. In all three cases the aggressors misunderstood the repercussions of their actions and the destruction that would befall them. The example of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is a close parallel to the situation today between the PRC and Taiwan.

Like Iraq, the PRC has overwhelming numbers, and in several respects, technological superiority over its potential enemy. Unfortunately for the PRC, it will have to cross the 80 mile-wide Taiwan Straits to reach Taiwan. With the intelligence likely available, preparation and assembling of forces will be known to Taiwan, the U.S. and potential allies, days if not weeks in advance. This will give the ROC a large amount of time to mobilize and be ready to defend itself and the U.S. ample time to begin deploying forces to the area. But it’s not just the distance the PRC has to travel, it’s what kind of ships they will have to deploy a large enough force to attempt an invasion with a realistic expectation of success. Using unclassified sources, it is surmised that the PRC will have to use commercial cargo ships to transport the troops and supplies they’ll need for the invasion. This would be similar to what the British had to do to invade the Falkland Islands in 1982. The major difference being the scope and size of the invasion of Taiwan will be incredibly larger than that of the Falklands. It will provide a very large target-rich environment for the ROC army, navy, and air force to engage and inflict huge numbers of casualties over an extended timeframe. This will be doubly destructive since the commercial shipping will have little, if any, defensive systems on board. In comparing forces, on paper, the PRC has approximately a 3 to 1 advantage in fighter aircraft. This is similar to what the Germans’ advantage over Britain was for the Battle of Britain. However, the PRC will have the same disadvantage the Germans had trying to fight an air war over England. PRC air pilots will have a substantial distance to fly to attack Taiwan, restricting the amount of time they can spend in the target area. In addition, a PRC aircraft shot down over Taiwan results in a lost aircraft and pilot. A ROC aircraft shot down over Taiwan could easily lead to that pilot being recovered and ready to fly again. The PRC advantage would also be seriously reduced if the U.S. commits aircraft carriers and deploys land-based fighters to Taiwan or nearby friendly countries. Using Desert Shield/Storm as a guide, the U.S. had two fighter wings and multiple ships deployed to Saudi Arabia within ten days of the decision to do so in order to attack any further Iraqi operations. In total, the U.S. deployed approximately 1,300 combat aircraft for Desert Storm and nearly 2,350 with allied aircraft. This would make it a fairly even numerical match with the PRC.   

If the numbers are about even, and the quality of equipment is essentially equal, what will be the collective advantage the ROC, the U.S., and any anticipated allies possess over the PRC? It will be the level of training, the better integration of command and control resources with the combat forces, and the decentralized way U.S. forces execute a war plan.

The U.S. trains for combat in realistic

exercises every year in the U.S. and with its allies around the world. Exercises like Red Flag, and the training done at the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (In 1996, Top Gun training was integrated into the NAWDC) have been the cutting edge of how well U.S. air forces (Air Force, Navy and Marine) can fight. These exercises and training programs fully integrate previous lessons learned in aerial combat and inclusion of what we’ve learned of our potential enemies’ capabilities. In addition, as part of this training, our air forces fully integrate the command and control resources, reconnaissance, airborne warning and control, and other control assets, to improve the tactical efficiency and effectiveness of an air campaign in an electronic combat environment. The PRC does not appear to have these kinds of training programs, nor does it display the ability to act quickly during military events because the PRC’s military is highly centralized in making, ordering, and executing military operations. If the U.S. can disrupt or get inside the PRC decision loop, the Pentagon would be able to dictate how the air war, the naval war, and ultimately the ground war would be fought. 

Will the U.S. defend Taiwan if China attacks? In 1972 the US acknowledged the One China Policy where Taiwan was considered part of one greater China. In 1979 President Carter tried to break off relations with the ROC; however, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act that maintained relations, but did not recognize Taiwan as a country. Since then, the U.S. position has vacillated on how much recognition and support the U.S. would provide Taiwan. This culminated in 2016 with a very obscured U.S. position, when then President Trump made a statement that the U.S. was not necessarily bound by the “One China” policy, but shortly thereafter, after a phone call with PRC Leader Xi Jinping, President Trump clarified his position and said the U.S. would honor the “One China” policy. Under President Biden, the United State’s position on the ROC appears to be under reconsideration again. According to news reports the U.S. has Marines and special forces in Taiwan helping train and prepare defenses, and they’ve been there for at least a year.

Just this past week, the U.S. approved a $1.8 billion weapons sale to Taiwan. This immediately brought out a multitude of editorials about what could happen next. On one extreme is the opinion that this weapons sale is futile and could prompt the PRC to attack Taiwan sooner than expected and draw the U.S. into a losing war. On the other extreme is the position that the US has a commitment to Taiwan and should be willing to fight up through a nuclear war to keep Taiwan free. The U.S. will intervene militarily and use its nuclear superiority as deterrence against China’s nuclear threat. After the debacle in Afghanistan, if the U.S. doesn’t aid Taiwan, it will lose whatever respect allies and enemies still hold. One of the first would probably be the United Kingdom. They recently sent the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier strike group to participate with US and Japanese Self-Defense forces in a naval exercise in the Philippine Sea. In addition, Australia, South Korea, and Japan have voiced concerns about an attack on Taiwan and how it would affect the area’s economies and affect their access to world trade. Finally, there is a possibility that India could play a role, recent news reports describe a recent successful launch of an Indian intermediate range, nuclear capable missile. This would allow India to strike targets deep in China if a Taiwan conflict would escalate. 

Unfortunately, any support to Taiwan, especially military combat support, will have a devastating effect on the world’s economy. Based on the experiences in previous wars, one of the first actions the U.S. and its allies would take is to blockade shipping in or out of the PRC. This will lead to major naval engagements in conjunction with the massive air war fought to stop the PRC from landing or resupplying their invasion forces. Trade shipping in that part of the world would come to a stop.

Lastly, when could this happen? Most of the analysis in the press coming from U.S. intelligence sources say probably in the next four to six years. This timeline will probably be affected by who the U.S. elects for president in 2024. Electing a pro-Taiwan president might have the effect of forcing the PRC to attack Taiwan before that president takes office. That very likely won't happen in the next six months, not until the Chinese-hosted Winter Olympics’ final ceremony. With a lot of diplomacy and luck, it won’t happen at all.

China wants Taiwan back. It believes the Chinese military has the quantity and quality of forces to do it, unless the U.S. and its allies intervene. Even then, Chinese leaders think they can succeed. It will be a true test of the U.S., its allies, and the UN to see if the time and treasure spent on weapons systems and training can stop this potential latest attempt of occupying a sovereign state by force. It will be costly to both sides in casualties and to the worlds’ economy. Let’s hope it doesn’t occur.