Missionaries Should Not Need an Excuse
Posted: Thursday, February 12, 2009
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
Some Christian missionaries who are trying to proselytize an isolated Indian tribe in Brazil are being disparaged for their efforts. According to their critics, they are destroying these people's culture.
However, these missionaries claim that their work is necessary in order to prevent infanticide, which they fear is commonly practiced by that tribe and others in the region. Supposedly, these tribes people kill babies that are born with birth defects.
However, it shouldn't matter whether or not these allegations are true. Christians are commanded by Jesus' Great Commission to reach all souls for him. When Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15, KJV), he left no room for any exceptions. Anyone who says otherwise owes us an explanation as to which parts of "all" and "every" they do not understand.If an ancient culture is lost in the process of getting the gospel to everyone, so be it. It might just be the inevitable collateral damage. Besides, there's no way the value of any culture could not even remotely compare to the worth of one human soul.
This Article has been viewed 140 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)How could you feel if missionaries from the tribe in question came to your state and started proselytizing?Would you think them reasonable if they said that destroying your culture was acceptable collateral damage compared to the greater good of their getting their spiritual message across?In places without modern medical technology, people might not be able to look after children with birth defects properly, causing them to suffer a lingering and cruel death.Perhaps in their religion, killing them humanely spares them earthly suffering and guarantees them eternal joy in their equivalent of heaven?Ben,I'll answer each of your questions individuallly below:You ask: How could you feel if missionaries from the tribe in question came to your state and started proselytizing?My answer: I would say they had every right.You ask: Would you think them reasonable if they said that destroying your culture was acceptable collateral damage compared to the greater good of their getting their spiritual message across?My answer: If they had the only way to keep me out of hell, I would say it would be quite reasonable.You ask: In places without modern medical technology, people might not be able to look after children with birth defects properly, causing them to suffer a lingering and cruel death.My answer: True, but while converting them, the missionaries could also help bring them into the 21st century.You ask: Perhaps in their religion, killing them humanely spares them earthly suffering and guarantees them eternal joy in their equivalent of heaven?My Answer: That's a moot point because if their religion is not Christianity, it is wrong."My answer: If they had the only way to keep me out of hell, I would say it would be quite reasonable."
But if they only thought (genuinely) they certainly had the only way to keep you away from eternal damnation?
Since no-one can prove they have a way to keep people out of hell, is it ok for people to destroy other cultures based their personal feeling that they have the only way to keep people from hell?
Wouldn't this kind of attitude lead to conflict? The people on the other side might try and defend their culture from destruction!
"My answer: True, but while converting them, the missionaries could also help bring them into the 21st century."
They could, but will they? And will they bring them to a standard of life comparable to that of the missionaries families back home?
"My Answer: That's a moot point because if their religion is not Christianity, it is wrong."
I imagine they'd say their own religion is right and Christianity is wrong. Most religions make that kind of claim.
They might be just as convinced that theirs is the One Truth as you are.
What makes your conviction right and theirs wrong?Ben, you are right that I cannot "prove" Christianity to be true. However, its founder -- Jesus Christ -- said he was the only way to salvation. There are only two possible conclusions to derive from that: either he is a liar and he is telling the truth. There's no middle ground. My faith causes me to go with the latter. Therefore, because Jesus also commanded his followers to convert everyone to him, I have no other choice than to participate in and support that effort. Otherwise, there's no way I can be a true Christian. Anyone claiming to be Chrstian who denies such tenets of the faith is an imposter, plain and simple.So Ben, where do you stand? Is Jesus a liar or the Son of God who possesses the only hope of salvation for mankind?"There are only two possible conclusions to derive from that: either he is a liar and he is telling the truth"
He could also have been mistaken - telling what he genuinely thought was the truth. He could also have been misreported, or misinterpreted.
"Therefore, because Jesus also commanded his followers to convert everyone to him, I have no other choice than to participate in and support that effort. Otherwise, there's no way I can be a true Christian. Anyone claiming to be Chrstian who denies such tenets of the faith is an imposter, plain and simple."
I understand that, I just think that that attitude can be dangerous and lead to conflict, because people of many different faiths share the total conviction that theirs is the one true way. They can't all be right, but the certainty of the conviction combined with the pressing desire to convert others can, and has, lead to conflict."So Ben, where do you stand? Is Jesus a liar or the Son of God who possesses the only hope of salvation for mankind? "
I don't know if Jesus was a liar (or honestly mistake); I've never spoken to him to confirm whether he actually claimed to be the Son of God.
All I have to go on is the writings of others in the Bible, most of which were written decades or even centuries after his death. There are no writings that I know of by Jesus himself to confirm his position.
If he did claim to be the Son of God I would, in the absence of evidence to support such a claim, disbelieve him. I think extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence before they can be reasonably accepted.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.