FaithfulAmerica: Rescue or Revival?

The National Council of Churches USA has a team in Southeast Asia working to assess ways that denominations in the United States might be helpful to churches torn apart by the tsunami and with relief efforts in general. Vince Foster, director of NCC’s FaithfulAmerica.org project, is part of the team and is writing a blog that reports on their experiences. One of the questions Foster has encountered is the appropriate role for Western churches to play. Are we there to provide relief, evangelize, or both. Foster writes:

January 10, 2005, Colombo, Sri Lanka -- In an earlier post I mentioned that on the heels of the disaster some Christian evangelists were using the tsunami as an opportunity to evangelize and convert Sri Lankans from Buddhism or Islam to Christianity. Today we traveled to a small coastal village near Colombo to visit an orphanage ruined by the wave. On our way we came upon a boy dressed in new jeans and a bright white Yankees t-shirt, and carrying a brand new Bible. We stopped and asked where he was going and he told us, “To the prayer.” We learned that there would be some fifty survivors from this fishing village attending the meeting led by an American evangelist.

What is interesting -- and this is purely speculation -– but there is a better than average chance that this young man, or at least some of the fifty in attendance, were Buddhists –- at least before tonight. This illustration touches at the heart of the tension between Buddhist leaders and visiting Christian groups, some of which, such as FaithfulAmerica, are here not to evangelize but to help provide relief. There are some who say evangelists are exploiting this nation’s bad fortune to gain converts, while some evangelists believe they are doing exactly what their faith commands them to do.

A couple of years ago I took a class in evangelism and walked away believing that Western Christians (particularly white ones) should not be allowed to conduct evangelism in other nations (or in communities other than their own). True evangelism can only take place when it occurs with two groups of people who have equal power in the relationship. Handing out relief aid in Southeast Asia post- tsunami at a Bible study is not evangelism – it is extortion.

M. Thomas Thangaraj is a professor at Candler School of Theology at Emory University. He is from southern India – where I traveled in 2003 – and has served as a pastor in congregations of the Church of South India. He writes in his book The Common Task: A Theology of Christian Mission that:

Mission is possible only in a spirit of mutuality in the sphere of interhuman relations. There are no longer “missioners” and the “missioned.” All are missionaries in a relationship of mutuality.

He further writes:

History proves that we have not always appreciated the mode of mutuality in our relationships. Humans have related to each other in an I-It relationship rather than an I-Thou relationship. The tragic history of slavery bears ample witness to this. Similarly, the way in which various societies have organized themselves in the past and continue to do so is indicative of this lack of mutuality. In the history of Christian missionary movements of the last three centuries, for example, one can detect this problem. The very term “mission field” to denote a group of people of nations is symptomatic of the kind of I-It relationship the missionary enterprise had entailed.

Our task right now in Southeast Asia should not be about evangelism – it should be about relief, about finding ways to work in interfaith partnerships with Buddhists and Muslims, and about working with local Christian communities to support their efforts.

Samaritan's Purse is one of the best known Christian relief agencies in the world today. It is lead by Franklin Graham, son of Bill Graham. They intertwine relief efforts with evangelism in a way that shows an utter contempt for mutuality. Their web site tells the story of how Franklin Graham got involved with the organization and it offers us great insight into his theology:

In the summer of 1973, Bob Pierce (founder of Samaritan’s Purse) met his eventual successor, an adventurous young student—Franklin Graham—with a growing heart for world missions. Intrigued by his many stories from the field, Franklin began to spend more and more time with the seasoned Christian statesman. In 1975, he accompanied Bob on a life-changing tour of some of the world’s neediest mission fields, where Franklin saw the poverty of pagan religions and the utter despair of the people they enslave. God had captured his heart for missions.

Graham and his group see disasters like this as an opportunity to swoop in and save souls. That is not what the people of Southeast Asia need right now (or ever for that matter). Let the Christian churches in India worry about evangelism efforts among their own people. When Americans try and accomplish the same task we often end up supporting oppressive governments and economic policies that only benefit the west. Western Christians, for example, supported the colonial powers that ruled Southeast Asia until the end of World War II. The poverty in the world has nothing to do with pagan religious – it has everything to do with those in the West who advocate economic policies that benefit our own people and which essentially attempt to re-colonize the “third-world.”

Our job as Christians today should simply be to respond to the crisis and to honor the requests made by local churches. People are dying and there is a job to do.

Link: FaithfulAmerica: Rescue or Revival?.

Comments

[Kevin]

Sir,
I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the role of a Christian. Indeed, we as Christians need to be giving to help those who have been affected by this disaster, and we need to give to those who are poor, hungry, and homeless. But to say a Christian should not be concerned with sharing his/her faith goes against the Christian faith, I believe. In fact, what those in SE Asia need more than anything else is the Gospel.
Now, I do understand that you and I (and the millions of other evangelical Christians) have a different view of Christianity. I believe that we as Christians ought to spread our faith, after all, Jesus Christ redeemed us. As 1 John 2:2 states, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours but also the sins of the whole world." The two blind men who were healed by Jesus as described in Matthew 9:27-31 couldn't help but tell others what Christ had done for them. Jesus commands believers to go and make disciples of all nations in Matthew 28:19-20. Finally, Paul in Romans 10:13-15 tells us that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (see also Rom 10:9-10) and they can only call upon the Name when they hear and can only hear when someone preaches. Now, I've only used a few verses, but I do believe that this shows that there is no shame in a Christian sharing the Good News with those who have not heard.
Let me reiterate, I believe that giving aid is important (Matthew 6:1-4 among many others). Evangelical Christian groups are giving and giving generously. And because they have established missionaries in the region already, they are able to use 100% of the donations to help those in need. But if a man's life is temporary (Ecc. 3:19-20 and Isaiah 40:6-7) and because the Bible describes us as fallen (Rom 3:23)--destined to spend an eternity separated from God in hell where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 8:12)--ought we tell them about this great Gift from God who offers us eternal life (Rom 6:23)?
You have done a successful job demonizing the "religious right" in this post as well as many others. You do not believe them to be very loving because they want to talk about this Jesus stuff. Yet, we evangelicals--because we hold the Bible to be our sole authority, inspired without error--believe the teaching of the Bible about heaven and hell to be true. We do not want ANYONE to go to hell. God doesn't either, that's why He told us to preach the Gospel. You said, "People are dying and there is a job to do." I agree. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand that people are dying and going to hell. You would much rather pass out supplies and never speak of the Gospel (the Gospel that redeems). Evangelicals would rather pass out supplies AND preach the Gospel. Granted, not all will accept. But it is not the job of the Christian to convert (the Holy Spirit does that), rather it is our job and our pleasure to preach the Gospel. Why is that wrong?
I will admit that Christians of all theological backgrounds have messed up. We are fallen, after all. Even today, evangelical Christians could be doing the Lord's work better. We may neglect some things and/or our priorities may be skewed. But make no mistake, we are doing something.
It is my belief and I believe the Lord Jesus' as well, that He wants His name preached to all (Psalm 67, Matt 28:19-20, Rev. 7:9). Relief supplies are good, but the best and most important thing--better than anything--is to be in the House of the Lord (Psalm 84:10, 12). After all, as Paul says, we should fix our eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal 2 Cor 4:18.
And how does this comment, "That is not what the people of Southeast Asia need right now (or ever for that matter)." square with Phil 3:18-21?
It is hard to fathom how one can criticize fellow brothers and sisters in Christ for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Should we live according to the Lord? Paul seems to think so, 2 Cor 5:15, "And He died for all that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and was raised again"
I would also like to say that I appreciate your blog. Even though you and I many times disagree, I harbor no ill will toward you. I simply want to discuss what I believe to be a very high priority. Thank you.

[NancyP]

My impression is that Kevin's approach will end up with "rice bowl Christians". People will show up for services and food, but when they get back on their feet, hasta la vista, baby. Conversion for food isn't going to stick. Not unless there are special circumstances that make sense to the recipient long after the disaster. Not unless there is a church community run by the locals.

It is true that Christians who minister to displaced Dalits (untouchables) are likely to make some converts FOR REASONS UNRELATED TO THE DISASTER, that is, that Dalits have nothing to gain, not even self-respect, from remaining in the Hindu realm. At least that's how I have heard the Dalit situation. My guess is that the higher up the social scale, the lower the likelihood of conversion.

[Chuck Currie]

Thanks, Kevin, for your comments. I appreciate hearing from people who disagree with what I write but still remain respectful. It is easy to just start calling people you have different opinions of names (and I know this because I’ve been guilty of doing it myself).

In response to what you wrote I just say this in addition to what I’ve already posted: Western Christians have a long history of misusing our faith to promote western political interests. Enriching western nations is not the goal of Christianity, but you’d have a hard time distinguishing the political agenda of George W. Bush and the mission of Samaritan's Purse. We have a lot to learn about God and God’s relationship to humanity from the people of Southeast Asia. We don’t need to worry about changing them. We really ought to be more worried about changing ourselves. After all, we’re the ones waging wars and promoting economic policies that promote poverty around the world.

[V Woodhouse]

I grew up in the protestant Christian church and my life is informed by the extraordinary love and lack of worldliness of the life of Jesus Christ. But I find myself disgusted at the notion of proselytizing "christians" scavanging the Far East for converts to the letter of the law of the arbirtary tenets of evangelistic sects. Where is the selfless giving? Where is the love?

[Chuck Currie]

I’m sure you’d agree with me that the people supporting these evangelical groups have enormous love in the hearts and want to do the right thing. But too often we confuse our own national agenda with the Christian faith. The two are not the same.

Can you imagine how offended Americans would be if Muslims from Iran showed up in the US after a natural disaster hanging out in front of Christian churches trying to convert children to Islam (and in turn for the national agenda of Iran)?

All of our efforts should be focused on relief efforts. Let people know what is in our hearts by how we live out our faith.

[Kevin]

In response to NancyP, I agree with you, Christianity in exchange for food will not work and is wrong. As a matter of fact, Christianity requires that we be willing to give up all for Jesus. Also, I believe that it is important that indigenous churches be built up and take an active part in evangelization, and in the case of the tsunami, disaster relief. This summer I went on a team to a SE Asian country (name withheld for security reasons) and taught English to university students (I too am a university student). The missionaries in the country were very mindful of building up an indigenous church that is reproducible for the citizens of that country. In other words, the goal wasn't pumping in American culture, the goal was evangelizing, making disciples, and encouraging the new Christians to do the same.
So I would agree with all of you...we as Christians are to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not the gospel of American civilization. By the way, the largest mission sending organization, the Southern Baptist Convention holds these same ideals.
Chuck, I stil do not see where you are coming from with your criticism of Samaritan's Purse and evangelical Christians.

[Chuck Currie]

Well, i don't think the SBC or Samaritan's Purse holds up the ideal of spreading the Gospel vs speading American civilization. I don't think they see a difference between the two.

[Kevin]

Chuck,
I appreciate your response. Could you provide information as to why you believe that about the SBC and Samaritan's Purse (not that I'm an apologist for either organization)?

[Chuck Currie]

I'm not sure what else I could add regarding Samaritan’s Purse. They see non-Western nations as a mission field in need of evangelism. They think other religions are, in Franklin Graham’s word, “wicked.” Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and most of that denominations most important leaders, wrote that “Christians must seize this opportunity to confront this awful disaster with the life-changing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ” and said in another statement that “In Australia…the Anglican Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, explained that natural disasters are a part of God's warning that judgment is coming. Jensen was right of course, as Jesus Himself pointed to natural disasters as a warning to human beings of our own mortality and of the coming judgment of God.” I understand God as radically different than Graham and Mohler and see our responsibilities as being vastly different than what they offer.

[Dan Bloom]

I agree with your comments 100000%, sir.
First comes relief work, without any evangelicalism involved. Period. Anyone who does relief work with evangecalism also is totally 10000000% wrong this time. Get over it. We are the world. All of us.

Sir, I do not know you, but from your enlightened blog comments, I can see that you are the future of Christianity. Finally, things are changing, for the better. I salute you, sir!

Fly with the eagles, and don't listen to those old out of date turkeys.

http://greattsunami2004.blogspot.com

[Kevin]

Chuck,
Thanks for clarifying your position...I think I finally understand where you are coming from (at least a little bit). If I understand correctly, you do not believe that Christians ought to go to other nations and preach the Gospel. While I can't speak for Graham, Mohler, or anyone else; because I hold similar views, I'll speak for myself. I believe that religions other than Christianity are wicked because they point people away from Christ and toward an eternity separated from Him. Now, in my first post, I partially explained why I believe Jesus is the only way. This belief is grounded in the Bible and not my own feelings about God.
Now, you indicated that evangelicals focus on evangelizing non-Western countries. It is true that American Christians do go to Third World countries...that's where the Lost are. But American Christians are also in the entire world evanglizing, including Western Europe and here in America. As for Graham, wouldn't it make sense to you, if you were an organization such as his that focuses on the poor in the Third World that you would go to non-Western countries?
While I think I understand your reasons for your criticism I do not think I understand your logic. Simply because one wants to take the Gospel message to all people, doesn't mean they are actually wanting to spread American ideals. As you know, Americans weren't the first to come up with this evangelism stuff.
Could you tell me what your stance is on evangelism? What do you base your beliefs on, or what is your authority?

[Chuck Currie]

As I've written before, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, took into account Scripture, tradition, reason and experience when trying to discern God’s will. That is what I attempt to do faithfully as well. Authority for me does not just come from the Bible.

I'll also point you to my post How We Understand The Bible Matters. You might find it helpful in understanding where I come from.

[Alicia]

Thanks, all, for a very respectful conversation. It's such a change from what I usually hear.

I hold views similar in many ways to Chuck's, but do consider myself part of evangelical Christianity -- so Kevin, maybe you in particular can read what I have to say? Perhaps you'll understand that there's a bit more subtlety to the position than you might think.

Kevin writes: "If I understand correctly, you do not believe that Christians ought to go to other nations and preach the Gospel." I'm not sure what Chuck's position is, but I am one Christian out there (and there are many others) who *does* believe in evangelism, even to other nations, and yet doesn't think that United States missionaries evangelizing to the tsunami victims in this way at this time is either likely to be the will of God or in good taste. Even just practically speaking, if we pay attention and really listen to our Buddhist critics, we will learn a lot that might help us be much more effective (not just 'nicer' or more 'politically correct') evangelists. In the FaithfulAmerica blog posting we learn that Buddhists are suspicious of us if we go to evangelize in this way at this time. If this is true, then why do we keep doing it and expecting that it will bring a good long-term result? I think it's because we have a set idea of what evangelizing means: go to a foreign country, give out some aid, have a prayer meeting and altar call, count the number who came forward without asking too many questions about why they came forward, pass them on to local churches without putting too much effort/thought into those churches and whether or not they’re a good place for them to grow, and go home congratulating ourselves on our successful outreach. This is our model sometimes in our own country as well, and my two brothers are two casualties of this model: they both came forward at an altar call after an evangelistic event, and even though there was supposed to be follow-up it turned out to be quite meager. Now they’re both cynical about Christianity and the way Christians manipulate people’s emotions to gain converts.

The good news is that there are many other possibilities for witnessing to Jesus’ lordship in our lives and in the world. Jesus says, for example, that it is by our love for one another that it will be known that we are his disciples; so what if we send significant donations of material aid to the native Christians in the affected areas, and perhaps visit to show our solidarity? It still demonstrates Christ's love without raising the same sort of suspicion, and shows our confidence in local believers that they are as capable as we are of carrying out the great commission. What if through our prayers and love we help native Christians to live joyfully in the midst of incredible tragedy, and what if they are prepared to give an answer to those around them who ask them why? What if the United States, which much of the Muslim world considers to be a Christian nation, simply were to give generously, overwhelmingly, with no hint of there being any strings attached? Wouldn’t this be an amazing witness to Christ, and to the kind of love God gives to us?

The problem is that this one pattern of evangelism we've chosen to perpetuate comes with all sorts of negative associations for those we evangelize to, namely that at this point in history people all over the world identify it with misuse of power by Western Christians (because that is what has happened historically!). White evangelists bringing material aid and the gospel to nonwhite countries historically have treated the evangelized like children rather than thinking adults, have profited economically from their evangelical efforts, and have left before long without seeming to have any further concern for those they 'converted.' In my view, it can only benefit the true proclamation of God's word if we understand the harm we have done through this model and distance ourselves from these manipulative and overused tactics.

There are a couple of other points I'd like to address as well. Kevin writes, "I believe that religions other than Christianity are wicked because they point people away from Christ and toward an eternity separated from Him." My question to him is this: Do Peter and Paul see other religions as inherently wicked? What about Peter's very respectful conversation with Jews in Acts 2 (as just one example of the countless times the apostles try to interact respectfully with Jews)? What about Paul's very respectful conversation with the Athenians in Acts 17? Paul doesn't dismiss their entire religion as "wicked," but reasons with them, calls them "very religious," and quotes their own poets. Of course this isn't the whole picture and Paul often has harsh words against idols -- but we need to at least take these texts into consideration when we consider how we interact with and view other religions.

One final quote: "It is true that American Christians do go to Third World countries...that's where the Lost are." First, a quick fact check: Europe has a far smaller percentage of regular church-attenders than either Africa or South America; the church in China is among the fastest-growing in the world; about half of sub-Saharan Africans are Christian. If we're going to make a statement about where 'the lost' are, we would be much more accurate to look in the 'First World' than in the 'Third World.'

But beyond this clarification: This statement, I think, cuts to the heart of what many people find repugnant about evangelical Christianity: we assume that we can know who is 'lost,' and we are thus at very high risk of becoming smug or arrogant about our salvation. When Jesus came, it was exactly those whom everyone thought were 'lost' -- the prostitutes, the sinners, the tax collectors -- who were found by Jesus, while those who went around being over-confident about their place in the kingdom of God and calling other people lost -- the Pharisees, the teachers of the law -- were the ones who were truly lost and wouldn’t accept Christ. (This is arguably the point of the "lost son" parable, otherwise known as the "prodigal son" -- but which son is actually lost? I think the elder, representative of the Pharisee; not the younger, representative of the profligate.) In the New Testament it is only Jesus who uses the word 'lost', never his disciples; I think we would be wise to likewise let God be the one who determines who is lost and who is found. “But the Bible is clear,” some will argue, “that those who haven’t committed to Christ *are* lost. What’s the harm in saying so?” The harm is that arrogance is a real danger. When we use the word too much to talk about other people, we will forget our own lostness and consider ourselves to be better than those we’re witnessing to. It’s a very real problem. I know because I see it in my heart, in my church, in history, in human nature, and because it’s warned about over and over in the Bible (1 Corinthinans, just for one example, is nearly an entire treatise against arrogance). I think it’s the most dangerous sin we, U.S. evangelical Christians, are facing today. Yes, sometimes we get accused of arrogance unfairly; but does this mean that we are never arrogant? I don't think so, and I think it can only benefit our witness if we do the hard work of self-examination to discover the arrogance in our lives.

Thanks, all, for reading this long post! I'd welcome any comments.

[Kevin]

Many thanks, Alicia, for a very insightful post. I agree with your assessment of what is not evangelism. Rather than making disciples, many times missionaries focus on people making professions. The model of the New Testament church ought to be followed. During my summer in SE Asia I saw the first fruits of poor evangelism. Our team met several students who claimed to be Christian but still went to the pagoda/didn't understand the Gospel/claimed to be Christian only to get a job with a non-governmental organization. Because our team worked with SBC missionaries, I can only speak for Southern Baptists, but...the focus was not on quantity but on quality. In other words, a confession was not pressed upon anyone and, in fact, if a student said he/she wanted to become a Christian, missionaries often tried to talk them out of it and help them understand the great cost following Jesus would take. I learned so much about sacrifice from these Christians...I was mightily challenged about my own walk with God.
However, I do not believe that Christians should not talk about their faith when offering aid. Why are Christian groups there in the first place? Because of the love of Jesus Christ. Why not talk about it? I do not advocate disaster relief with strings attached. One should not be forced to go to a prayer meeting or a Gospel presentation simply to receive food. But there is so much more to a person than whether they have food in their belly. The whole person should be focused on. They should be talked to, cared for, prayed for, and they should be able to see genuine care from the aid workers. I think this is happening. Doing things tactfully is important. If someone is grieving don't go up and push a Bible in their face...meet their needs...testify to the love that is within...that is the Gospel.
Now, Alicia, you brought up the idea of love. I agree with you, love is tremendously important. As I stated in my previous paragraph, love for those one is helping must be present. The Christian ought to meet their physical needs, Just as Christ did by feeding the 5000 for instance or healing the sick. And by doing that one is helping to spread the Gospel. However, the point I'm making is that when the opportunity presents itself for the Gospel message to be shared, then share. Let people know why you are helping them-- testify to the hope that is within you.
I do not believe that only American Christians can preach the Gospel. Indeed, the local churches have a responsibility. But I find nothing wrong with sharing the love of Christ.
Alicia said, "What if the United States, which much of the Muslim world considers to be a Christian nation, simply were to give generously, overwhelmingly, with no hint of there being any strings attached? Wouldn’t this be an amazing witness to Christ, and to the kind of love God gives to us?" The United States government is a secular entity, not a body of Christians, not a church. I'm not sure what strings you are talking about, but I do know that with the Millenium Challenge Account there are stipulations for money given to other nations, and those stipulations include such things as free speech, assembly, access to credit, protection of private property, etc (as reported in Foreign Policy magazine Jan/Feb 2005). Now one can argue whether those are good or bad, but the US government is trying to help other countries change, rather than throw money into evil dictatorships.
Okay, I got off on a tangent.
As for the wicked comment, I believe that we need to be respectful of other religions, learn about them, talk to others about their religion, but never lose sight that these religions are against God--they are wicked. The Soviet Union was an evil empire, but does that mean that the people of the Soviet Union were evil? No. Similarly, Buddhism is wicked, it points people away from God, but that doesn't mean that we should not respect individual practionars. We must love them. God loves the people of SE Asis just as much as He loves me.
I do know that Europe is very secular. That's why I made my statement about missionaries being all over the world. However, in what we evangelicals call the 10-40 window (stretching from 10 degrees to 40 degrees north of the equator, running from North Africa to China: http://1040window.org/main/whatis.htm), 90% of the unreached people groups live in this region. This region also has many Third World countries. So, the point I was trying to make was that Christians don't go to the Third world to bring American capitalism, but the Gospel because so many have never heard the Gospel. Look, I believe the whole world needs the Gospel. However it is easier to go to Europe to preach (because the culture/economy/familiarities are so much like America) than to go to the poorest of the poor to live--the 10-40 window. So there is a focus to get more people to go to the 10-40 window.
Yes, we must be careful to not be arrogant. But I don't believe it is arrogant for someone who has not heard the Gospel or someone who is not a Christian to be called "lost." It is not a demeaning term. However, if you like I will say, non-Christian. I agree, there is a real danger that we will lose sight of our own iniquities and consider ourselves better than others (despite Paul's warning Phil 2:3-4). Yet that does not mean that we should not acknowledge the fact that there are people who have never heard the Gospel. I think that could be the reason we have so many problems in America...we have people who think they are Christians, but really just go to church or have just been baptized or believe in God--there's NO committment--NO Lordship to Christ.
Oy, this is too long.
And thanks for your response Chuck. It helped me understand a little better where you are coming from.

[Kevin]

This commentary effectively outlines my belief and is an interesting response to Chuck's concerns.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpfeature.asp?ID=1690

[Alicia]

Just a quick follow-up, and then I need to get on to other things with my day (!). First, I did some fact-checking on myself, and I revise my statement that "Europe has a far smaller percentage of regular church-attenders than either Africa or South America." I was searching for some quick figures and misspoke there. What is true, though, is that around two-thirds of all Protestants live outside Europe and North America; and I believe my other two facts in the same paragraph are correct. See Philip Jenkins' _The Next Christendom_ for a terrific account of the current and ongoing shift in the balance of global Christianity.

Kevin, you say that calling someone "lost" is not demeaning; have you checked this with non-Christians you know? Most of my non-Christian friends think it is.

One further clarification: I certainly am quite aware that the U.S. government is a secular entity. My point was this, though: that if a significant part of the Muslim world sees the U.S. (politically as well as socially) as a Christian nation, then our government's actions are being heard by many, many people as representative of Christianity. Given this reality, perhaps one method of witnessing to Christ would be to convince our (non-Christian) government to give with God-sized gracious generosity.

This relates to the main point I have to make (to evangelical Christians, anyway) about tsunami relief and evangelism in general, which I'll reiterate from my prior posting: given our long and often black Christian history of missionary work, if those we're trying to reach are suspicious of our motives in bringing material aid in the wake of the tsunami, then might we not search for a less encumbered way to witness to Christ?

All that being said, I am confident that there are U.S. missionaries in tsunami-affected regions who truly exemplify Christ's love even while they overtly proclaim Christ, as Kevin suggested. I am less sure that those who speak of this tsunami as an 'opportunity' for evangelism are sufficiently respectful of and attentive to the those it has affected that their work will be effective. I will say, though, that I have seen real and amazing Christ-like love from people whose language I might disagree with, and very much hope that the love of God in Christ will be made known through their work.

[Alicia]

Ahh! The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph -- please revise to say "suspicious of our motives in proclaiming the gospel in the wake of the tsunami", not "in bringing material aid."

With apologies,
Alicia

[Chuck Currie]

Alicia,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

CC

[Foon Nerfdahl]

For the FundaGelicals....it's all about money.

How wonderful for them if they could get a few million new Christians tithing!!!

And the FundaGelicals get a cut from every tithe.........cool.

And that PRO-AMERICAN few million will be trying to convert another few million to the slavery of American Capitalism and the FundaGelical Religion (plus they will by doing so, instigate armed conflicts and religious warfare).

War and capitalism and profit.

Hail to big white Daddy Warbucks Jesus!

[Timothy Azevedo]

I realize this page is rather old, but perhaps some will still read it...

I am intrigued by this idea of mutuality. It seems like a good term for the Hebrew idea of loving one's neighbor as one's self. But it seems to me that those who are prostelyzing are, in fact, respecting this idea of mutuality, from a certain point of view (mutuality must be a relative idea by definition). They see themselves as recipients of a gift they can never repay. In return, what better thing could they do than pass on that same gift to others? On the other hand, I can see how a long term view of the socio-political climate can be beneficial for the cause of evangelism. Perhaps a balance is in order. Keep reading, I'll explain what I mean.

I must confess that I do not understand your views on evangelism only being ethical within one's own (racial, social, economic?) group. Such groups almost always share the same religion. This reveals a slight bias present in pluralist (particularly Western) cultures that you imply that they would not. I am curious how Chrisitanity (or any religion) could possibly spread if only shared within one's tiny cultural sphere. This also seems very narrow-minded. Christianity would have died as a minor sect of Judaism without vigorous expansion throughout the melting pot of cultures in the Mid-East, Africa, Europe, and India. What seperates religious ideas from the multitude of other ideas that are daily transacted across cultural boundaries? To take a utilitarian perspective, if an idea has the intellectual force to spread, perhaps it proves itself worthy of it. I am not willing to assume that any "live" idea I possess can be automatically ruled out for everyone not of my social group. Mother Theresa certainly did not promote Western dominance in India. Christianity itself is hardly a Western idea (although there are Western conceptions of it). What you seem to be referring to is a particular type of Christianity, evangelical Protestantism. Do your ideas apply to, say, the Orthodox church in, say, Syria as well? If not, perhaps they are not the universal, immutable laws of ethics in evangelism that you present them to be. As far as historical examples go, there were many missionaries in the Americas that tried to alleviate the abuses of the native population by Spain, as well as those who supported it. Just like there were those who supported slavery in the Civil War, and those who fought against it (Christian clergy led the abolitionist movement as I recall).

The fundamental difference in all these cases seems to be a very fine one. What actually seperates "prostelyzation" from "evangelism"? Christians walk a "narrow road" between orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice). As the Father desires worshippers in both spirit (orthopraxy) and truth (orthodoxy), I think that balance is the key. Christians cannot wholly or partially abandon either concept. The right belief is to share knowledge of the way to the Truth (this is not unique to Christianity, it is the lifestyle of the Greek philosphers as well). To do otherwise is an unspeakable injustice toward the rest of humanity still mired in ignorance. On the other hand, the right practice is to provide unconditional love and support. Since it is unconditional, it should not be mixed with compulsion in any way.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that either precludes the other. When an authentic Christian life is lived (or any authentic life for that matter), people cannot help but take notice. Others ask of their own volition what it is that makes Christians so willing to take up a life that is contrary to culture, human nature, even reason itself. To answer such questions or even to suggest the questions themselves is at least difficult, if not impossible to brand as unethical.

Thank you for your patience,
Timothy Azevedo