I find even the mildest of proselytism and missionary work in general inherently repugnant and repulsive on its own but this is definitely at an even creepier level- though it's not surprising at...
I find even the mildest of proselytism and missionary work in general inherently repugnant and repulsive on its own but this is definitely at an even creepier level- though it's not surprising at all.
Having been raised in evangelicalism and having gone on mission trips myself as a teen, I'm well aware of the extremely insidious and subversive behavior of missionary work that has gone on for forever
Even when doing things on the side that seem good (taking medicine to the poor, as we did on one of our trips) it's all seen not as the point of the mission, but as a subversive avenue of conversion. And of course, my brand of evangelicalism was Western/American baptist, so at times, the leaders of our missions were even trying to convert other Christians because they weren't the "right" kind of Christian
If it makes you feel better, some of us are trying to do a better job! Your disdain is fair and critiques are accurate, and I could throw out a bunch more. I work in short term missions for a...
If it makes you feel better, some of us are trying to do a better job! Your disdain is fair and critiques are accurate, and I could throw out a bunch more. I work in short term missions for a private Christian university, and we're trying to reshape our culture (the students and faculty/staff we send out) to be much better aligned to best practices in poverty alleviation, trust based mutual relationships, and generally trying to go the opposite way of anything smelling like colonialism.
That said, for those of us who do believe in Jesus and that His life, death, and resurrection are inherently transformative and objectively a good thing for all people, missions is a logical and core aspect of faith.
But I definitely wouldn't do what the article talks about. Like, I get the rationale, but breaking the law in such an impersonal way doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. Brazil's stance on indigenous people having to come to others first seems more reflective of what happens in Acts anyway. And, last thing, a lot of American church people need to be reconverted to what Jesus actually talks about instead of political talking points, but that's a whole other discussion.
Part of that's probably that I'm being careful with my words because of the space I'm in. Online is not a great place for faith and religion conversations, in my experience. Part of that could be...
Part of that's probably that I'm being careful with my words because of the space I'm in. Online is not a great place for faith and religion conversations, in my experience. Part of that could be that I live and work in fairly conservative spaces (politically and religiously), but lean pretty progressive (politically and religiously [though "religiously" requires more nuance]). But I'm definitely smoking what I'm selling.
These two ideas seem inherently contradictory to me. Alleviating poverty is great. Alleviating poverty as a mechanism to convince impoverished people that they should follow your [historically...
and generally trying to go the opposite way of anything smelling like colonialism.
That said, for those of us who do believe in Jesus and that His life, death, and resurrection are inherently transformative and objectively a good thing for all people, missions is a logical and core aspect of faith.
These two ideas seem inherently contradictory to me. Alleviating poverty is great. Alleviating poverty as a mechanism to convince impoverished people that they should follow your [historically imperial] religion is... Colonialist, I think.
I can see that. The distinction, in my head at least, is how you go about sharing both about Jesus and about what that means for life. The "colonialist" model was basically that everything needed...
I can see that. The distinction, in my head at least, is how you go about sharing both about Jesus and about what that means for life. The "colonialist" model was basically that everything needed to look like church and practice in Europe, so change everything about your culture to match how we do things, even to the point of internment camps to reeducate children.
A more contextual model says 1st, we want to help alleviate poverty because that is good on its own, regardless of if that leads to any type of conversion. Part of that is also the belief that spiritual wholeness (or lack thereof) is also a type of poverty, so, while not mutually exclusive, certain aspects of material and relational poverty can be dealt with separately from what I'd consider spiritual wholeness. And yes, I do think Jesus made exclusive claims, so I would consider spiritual wholeness to be rooted in relationship with God as revealed through Jesus.
Then 2nd that the Gospel is, by nature, Good News to everyone, especially the poor, AND that how that is interpreted and implemented in a particular place respects cultural practices, ways of being, expressions of joy and lament, etc. that are not directly in conflict with becoming like Jesus. Obviously, that's really challenging, and what a particular Christian believes is "core" often differs from another Christian or denomination, and certainly doesn't line up with what people would think is right or acceptable that disagree with Christianity or religion.
tl;dr is that alleviating poverty because it's a good thing to do is essentially enough for me, but I can't be divorced from my relationship with Jesus and the church, so those things will be naturally, and at times intentionally, infused in the work.
I want to say that I understand this is a firmly held belief system of yours and I don't really want to try to engage in a conversation that feels like I'm attempting to convince you not to be...
Exemplary
I want to say that I understand this is a firmly held belief system of yours and I don't really want to try to engage in a conversation that feels like I'm attempting to convince you not to be Christian or that the Gospel does not have value to you or others.
Also, I'm interpreting your engagement in this particular topic as a willingness to discuss the nuances and ethical challenges of missionary worl, but, like it's fine if that's not actually something you want to discuss. Just let me know.
I feel as though there's some intrinsic dissonance in these ideas that I would like to poke at, if that's alright. You've mentioned a few times that it's important to you to engage in missionary/conversion work in a way that doesn't feel like it's disrepecting or overriding local culture, ways of life, and even rituals in some cases. This seems like progress over historical, and even most modern forms of religious conversion, which often seeks to use religion as a thinly veiled vehicle for wholesale cultural replacement.
But there is a glaring omission from the list of local cultural aspects that you have respect for: religion. I think this is the source of the dissonance I'm seeing. Local religion is a key component of local culture. I many ways, most of the other aspects of culture you identified flow from the local religion. In other ways, the local religion is the natural accumulation and encoding of those cultural aspects. Changing the religion changes the culture.
The conversion work you describe seems less violent than historical conversion work, but not less colonialist. Ultimately, you have a set of core values (becoming like Jesus) that you think are better or more important than the values that another people has, and you seek to replace their values with yours. You say that you only seek to replace the values, but along with those values come practices, stories, morals, and eventually, culture. This is what modern colonialism looks like.
What happens to local stories of morality when the religious mythologies that back them vanish? What about local laws that centered on those morals? What about food and celebration that derive their traditions from religion? At best, they are muddied and altered beyond recognition. At worst, they are replaced. This is also what modern colonialism looks like.
Ultimately, it is not reassuring to me to hear that modern conversion workers are using new practices that are less overtly colonialist. It feels as though the priority is it appear to be respectful of local culture, so as to avoid the criticism that has historically been laid on conversion work, without grappling with the actual ethics of replacing another people's values with one's own. Finding people at their most vulnerable and suggesting that they will find prosperity, spiritual or otherwise, if only they had the values that the converter had, will always feel wrong to me, no matter how it's dressed up.
Yeah, this is definitely the breaking point for firmly held beliefs. At some point, definitely at religion, there’s going to be a true or not true decision. I, probably not surprisingly, believe...
Yeah, this is definitely the breaking point for firmly held beliefs. At some point, definitely at religion, there’s going to be a true or not true decision. I, probably not surprisingly, believe in Absolute Truth as intrinsic to God’s nature. So, as someone said in another comment on this post in a different chain, there’s a point where I want that conversion for everyone because I believe the truth of it so deeply and fully.
I think there are varied cultural expressions of Truth, and that lots of aspects of culture, history, and even religious practice can be utilized in a faithful expression of the Gospel. But yeah, there’s definitely a place where I think I have at least a grasp on Ultimate Truth, and I want to share that so you can also have it.
I can definitely see the critique, if not disgust, in that because I’m assuming we’re working from pretty different frameworks. I would also, at least, like to say that how I (and general we) often practice Christianity in America is often pretty divorced from what Jesus did and taught, so I’m fighting against that at home and trying not to spread those things.
I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. It’s a valuable and fairly rare thing to get good faith engagement from both sides on a topic like this, however much I might disagree with...
I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. It’s a valuable and fairly rare thing to get good faith engagement from both sides on a topic like this, however much I might disagree with what you’re saying.
I like what you say further down about focusing on doing the right thing for its own sake, but I can’t square that at all with what you’re saying here.
Ultimately, it has to boil down to the idea that you have found truth that other miss: you’re necessarily saying that either you’re more capable and intelligent than anyone who disagrees with you, because you’re seeing what they couldn’t, or that god likes you more than them, since he/she/they has revealed truth to you in a way that hasn’t been offered to them.
The arrogance in that viewpoint seems to fly in the face of the otherwise humble and genuinely caring way you’ve spoken about helping others, and honestly it seems profoundly sad to me that your desire to do right by people has become inextricably linked to something that prevents them from ever being equal to you on their own terms.
Thank you, and I agree that this has been a fairly rare type of conversation. Yeah, I get the cognitive dissonance perspective. Ugh, where do I go from here? I think I largely have to accept your...
Thank you, and I agree that this has been a fairly rare type of conversation.
Yeah, I get the cognitive dissonance perspective. Ugh, where do I go from here?
I think I largely have to accept your statements. I don’t think of myself as above others, and I don’t think of what I believe as hidden knowledge. But squaring the “accident” of my birth with a family that raised me in this, which I accepted and hold to firmly, versus other people with different backgrounds, experiences, genetics, and so on who believe differently is a hard pill to swallow in the grand scheme of faith. I’m also not satisfied with perspectives that say God picked me versus someone else, because that God sounds like a jerk.
I really want to believe in universal salvation, but certain teachings from Jesus make that too risky a position for me. I don’t know. Most of the time I suppose I’d prefer to be a secular humanist, but I can’t escape that I truly believe that following Jesus is the best way to live, and I want other people to experience the wholeness and peace I’ve experienced. But that experience isn’t consistent for all Christians - I mean, I’m a white, heterosexual, cisgender, Protestant, male, one of the easiest existences on the planet. I can only work from my perspective and, sort of, what others have shared with me through relationships, books, etc. I’m rambling now.
So, in conclusion, I suppose, sets apart is fair. I don’t prefer sets above.
Well, it seems that you are a card-carrying Christian. You've approached this thread with ownership of your own faults and recognition of your shortcomings, and I think that's great. Internal...
Well, it seems that you are a card-carrying Christian. You've approached this thread with ownership of your own faults and recognition of your shortcomings, and I think that's great.
Internal conflict and self-contradiction is an innate part of the human experience. God is all-loving and yet still allows Satan to dunk on Job for no reason. People are born gay and then God says they're going to hell. We are made in the image of God, and yet we have a butthole for making poops. And what's going on with kids getting cancer?
You can believe that the Bible is literal, verbatim truth if you want. Sola scriptura and all that; you'll find no shortage of people to agree with you. The New Testament was compiled by human hands, though, and none of those hands were Jesus'. I think it's important to recognize the humanity inherent in the Bible, heretical as that may sound. The real truth of the Bible, in my own perspective, is that Jesus walked to the cross to be willingly crucified so that the Jewish people could be freely forgiven for their sins without the requirement of a sacrificial lamb - like imagine being a poor Jew who doesn't have the means to pay a sin offering in order to repent - man that would suck!
I dunno, I don't want you to feel indicted by this thread. I've been the minority perspective on this website before and it can be rough. I appreciate you and your willingness to make "I statements" rather than projecting your beliefs onto others. I hope you stay on the path, whatever it looks like for you.
Aw, thanks! I invited the discourse with my first response, and I certainly braced myself after hitting the initial “Post comment” button. That said, I appreciated the responses and pushbacks more...
Aw, thanks! I invited the discourse with my first response, and I certainly braced myself after hitting the initial “Post comment” button. That said, I appreciated the responses and pushbacks more than I expected.
And yeah, lots of human hands on the Bible - that’s part of what makes it so amazing to me. May your path lead to life.
As an atheist who grew up adjacent to evangelical Christianity, I empathize with the disgust. But by the same token, I don't think of this sort of proselytizing as necessarily colonialism, as...
As an atheist who grew up adjacent to evangelical Christianity, I empathize with the disgust.
But by the same token, I don't think of this sort of proselytizing as necessarily colonialism, as Christianity has a long and storied history of incorporating and destroying existing systems of belief throughout its history, all over the world. As a matter of fact, I feel like the same things that I find repugnant - proselytizing and a persecution complex - are why Christianity has stuck around as long as it has.
My question would be - how would you tackle the problem of boundary-pushing proselytizing in a systemic way? Reading the article, something I noticed was that there were a few words that I didn't see; things like "arrested," "detained," "deported," or similar, and I think that's not an accident, but a reflection of the political will to see these violations of their autonomy as an actual problem.
I think the Jews have it pretty solid. They’ll accept new converts if they are serious enough about it, but they don’t push it on anyone ever. It seems to me that any religion that is confident...
My question would be - how would you tackle the problem of boundary-pushing proselytizing
I think the Jews have it pretty solid. They’ll accept new converts if they are serious enough about it, but they don’t push it on anyone ever.
It seems to me that any religion that is confident enough in itself to brand it as “Absolute Truth” (and those are quoted capitalizations) should be confident enough that it can sell itself on its merits without needing a salesman.
I agree that it's an admirable trait to have. However, I think it's a lousy strategy for the long-term survival of a religion. In a way, I feel like Judaism is lucky that its adherents ended up...
I think the Jews have it pretty solid. They’ll accept new converts if they are serious enough about it, but they don’t push it on anyone ever.
I agree that it's an admirable trait to have. However, I think it's a lousy strategy for the long-term survival of a religion. In a way, I feel like Judaism is lucky that its adherents ended up surrounded by fellow people of the book - periodic persecutions are bad, but a better fate than being lost to history.
I suppose that I see religion through a "survival of the fittest" lens. I don't think that Christianity is as popular as it is because it's more correct, or because it makes us better people, but because of characteristics of its practice and dogma that have made it thrive.
So the question I've been wrestling with is - if you consider religions with "Absolute Truth" a problem for societies with diverse beliefs, how do you systemically deal with a belief system that seems tailor-made to subvert existing cultures, scream persecution at the slightest micro-aggression, and be resilient to the death in the face of actual persecution?
Faith is inherently pessoal and must not be imposed on anyone. Religions should grow by example and good deeds towards society. If a religious person is good, generous, fair, loving, honest,...
Faith is inherently pessoal and must not be imposed on anyone.
Religions should grow by example and good deeds towards society.
If a religious person is good, generous, fair, loving, honest, forgiving, and tolerant, spreading nothing but love and acceptance to everyone, someone might want to be part of that same faith.
That is a good sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't think that you can effectively push back against prothlytizing religions with just sentiment.
That is a good sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't think that you can effectively push back against prothlytizing religions with just sentiment.
Of course. It was my intention to provide clarification, not a solution. In the concrete case we have here, I would expect the Polícia Federal (Brazil's FBI) to intervene and arrest those who are...
Of course. It was my intention to provide clarification, not a solution.
In the concrete case we have here, I would expect the Polícia Federal (Brazil's FBI) to intervene and arrest those who are illegally infringing on the rights of our isolated peoples. It's actually a crime, so there's not much to think about it. It is a matter of enforcement.
Talking about society as a whole, the extraordinary rights churches enjoy should come with much greater scrutiny. Proselytizing should be under strict legal bounds. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. Neopentecostals are a large, growing part of the Brazilian population. And they vote.
It is true that one does not require the other. That doesn't mean that religion cannot cause someone to develop that kind of ethics. But it is true that religion is not required for that to occur....
It is true that one does not require the other. That doesn't mean that religion cannot cause someone to develop that kind of ethics. But it is true that religion is not required for that to occur.
One might feel compelled to go to the same religion of someone they admire in the same way that they might choose a specific university because they admire a particular alumni. You don't have to go to that specific university to become a great professional. But you want to.
Probably anything that promotes prosperity, balanced division of resources, and physical security. That did great things for European style Christianity. I suspect most useful interventions are...
Probably anything that promotes prosperity, balanced division of resources, and physical security. That did great things for European style Christianity. I suspect most useful interventions are fundamentally economic in nature.
The evidence would suggest that continued stability and improved living standards will do the job, it just takes time. If you look at the census figures for “no religion” in...
So the question I've been wrestling with is - if you consider religions with "Absolute Truth" a problem for societies with diverse beliefs, how do you systemically deal with a belief system that seems tailor-made to subvert existing cultures, scream persecution at the slightest micro-aggression, and be resilient to the death in the face of actual persecution?
The evidence would suggest that continued stability and improved living standards will do the job, it just takes time.
If you look at the census figures for “no religion” in traditionally-Christian Western Europe over the last 60 years or so it’s absolutely rocketed. If you look at the percentage still identifying as Christian and compare it to the percentage actually going to church you’ll see that the numbers are even more extreme - very few are actual believers, it’s just a kind of light touch cultural default even for most of those who do still adopt the label.
None of that really helps with the topic at hand - and on this specific one the missionaries were already breaking the law, so I think that’s been handled to the extent it reasonably can be as long as it’s enforced - but I do think it’s interesting in the context of what does and doesn’t increase religious belief more broadly.
This creates moments of opportunism during recession or backsliding, as well as allowing for a large incentive for making people's lives materially worse in plausibly-deniable ways in order to...
The evidence would suggest that continued stability and improved living standards will do the job, it just takes time.
This creates moments of opportunism during recession or backsliding, as well as allowing for a large incentive for making people's lives materially worse in plausibly-deniable ways in order to consolidate power; either by the true believers themselves or by a mutually beneficial arrangement between oligarchs and religious leaders.
Religion has outlasted regimes and even empires. To beat religion, you need something that grips people through the good times and the bad.
Christianity started off being illegal and often fatal. Ideas that are valuable to human beings will survive somehow until human beings choose to hold another one more dear. We see it happening in...
Christianity started off being illegal and often fatal. Ideas that are valuable to human beings will survive somehow until human beings choose to hold another one more dear. We see it happening in America in real time, where the vaneer of cultural Christianity is being replaced by pride, lack of kindness, and love of money. A lot of Americans only participated in Christianity for those reasons anyway: we have the true gospel, we're gonna invade and bring Bibles, and rebuilding them will make us rich just as god intended.
Christianity isn't tailor made to subvert anything any more than other systems of belief such as scientific thought, capitalism or patriotism: when a group gets powerful it gains adherents to the power behind the superficial tenents.
Religion is very much like those other things you've listed...and that's the problem, the other things you've listed also have undesirable and possibly even pathological issues. Racism & eugenics,...
Christianity isn't tailor made to subvert anything any more than other systems of belief such as scientific thought, capitalism or patriotism.
Religion is very much like those other things you've listed...and that's the problem, the other things you've listed also have undesirable and possibly even pathological issues.
Racism & eugenics, mortgaging our children's future to make our oligarchs richer, the dismissal of entire fields as being beneath scientific study, sacrifice and colonialism in service of an imagined shared identity, I've got plenty of criticism for the other things you've listed.
I can't help but feel like there's got to be something better - something fundamentally and inseparably egalitarian instead of yet another vehicle for power and exploitation.
Because if there isn't...I can't help but feel like we are in deep trouble as a species.
The common denominator is humans . We have the possibility of being good, but we are more likely to turn out rotten. There are no human relationships that isn't bruised: marriage and family can...
The common denominator is humans . We have the possibility of being good, but we are more likely to turn out rotten. There are no human relationships that isn't bruised: marriage and family can also be vehicles of power and exploitation. BUT: just like scientific thought or patriotism or dare I say even religion --- when good people love one another, we make those things work, and beautifully at that
It isn't the institution or the religious brand or school of philosophy or family motto: it comes down to choosing loving actions and refusing to exploit.
I agree. I wish there was something out there that pathologizes that world-view in the ways that exploitation is.
It isn't the institution or the religious brand or school of philosophy or family motto: it comes down to choosing loving actions and refusing to exploit.
I agree. I wish there was something out there that pathologizes that world-view in the ways that exploitation is.
I think you just described what "colonialism" means.
But by the same token, I don't think of this sort of proselytizing as necessarily colonialism, as Christianity has a long and storied history of incorporating and destroying existing systems of belief throughout its history, all over the world.
I think you just described what "colonialism" means.
That's fair. I suppose I was trying to make a distinction between the somewhat recent age of colonialism and neo-colonialism that is most often associated with the word "colonialism" and the...
That's fair. I suppose I was trying to make a distinction between the somewhat recent age of colonialism and neo-colonialism that is most often associated with the word "colonialism" and the history of Christianity going back to its origins. But you're right, colonialism can indeed cover both.
I get why Christians (even the "better" ones) think that they need to convert others and share their faith, I used to be one. I was in the church for over two decades. It's part of the dogma, to...
I get why Christians (even the "better" ones) think that they need to convert others and share their faith, I used to be one. I was in the church for over two decades. It's part of the dogma, to spread it as wide as possible and infect everyone with it. I just disagree and don't think they should. They should keep it to themselves. They should feel free to express it through their behavior, personal appearance, or whatever, but tracts, or missions work, or door-to-door, or even the slightest imposition of faith on someone else, or otherwise directly talking to other people or using any sort of conversational "you need Jesus" stuff is a no-go for me, and something I find actively hostile to humanity. I don't think there is an "appropriate" way to do it, even if it's couched in all those "best practices". The best practice would be not to do it at all. At a minimum at least it should 100% be restricted everywhere to only if someone asks very explicitly for someone else to explain more. No soliciting / no salesmen / etc should include no proselytizing, because that's all it is, and I'm not buying
Doing anything ever to "bring" Christianity or the story of Jesus to "unreached people groups" to me is a colonialist act and will always be and there is NO way to separate the two. It is inherent to the act. These groups and their own beliefs and customs should remain 100% untouched. They don't need Jesus. The stories of when missionaries did this years ago and got physically harmed by these groups for trying to infiltrate them? Deserved.
Either do charity/aid/altruistic work on its own, without a conversion component, or don't do it at all, and especially don't do conversion work on its own, ever, for any reason IMO.
That said, this is not a debate we need to have, as we're in fundamentally different places in life where we will not reach agreement on this as we fundamentally disagree on the importance of the Christian mythos
Politics definitely is a separate discussion, an entire separate can of worms, and looking back at my conservative Christian past, I can find small ways to appreciate when there are actual inclusive/intersectional/left-leaning/etc movements in the church, but overall Christianity's presence in politics at least here in the US is massively poisonous and has been for decades, and all of the ones that seek and hold power are the destructive ones
Edit: Also smores' comment articulated a lot more of what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. I feel exactly the same as they do, that Christianity sees itself as a better set of values/culture and necessarily will be imposing itself / replacing other culture and is inseparable from colonialism
I feel like this just boils down to whether or not you believe in big J or not. If you are a believing Christian, then they absolutely need Jesus. Per doctrine, they need Jesus more than anything...
These groups and their own beliefs and customs should remain 100% untouched. They don't need Jesus.
I feel like this just boils down to whether or not you believe in big J or not. If you are a believing Christian, then they absolutely need Jesus. Per doctrine, they need Jesus more than anything else in the entire world. Heaven > Earth, after all.
Obviously, if you don’t, then Jesus is just an interesting historical and cultural element.
But it seems impossible to “constrain” Christians like that. Any true believer would prosthyletize. The fact that many don’t is as much a statement about how most Christians in developed countries mostly half-believe these days.
I mean, yeah I agree, it all boils down to a fundamental belief either in the doctrine or not and how they exercise that. I know because I've been on both sides of that equation. And sure, it's...
Exemplary
I mean, yeah I agree, it all boils down to a fundamental belief either in the doctrine or not and how they exercise that. I know because I've been on both sides of that equation. And sure, it's certainly difficult to constrain Christians in such a way, but I don't oppose potential methods of doing so: people should tell them off for that stuff, call it out, and make it a shame-worthy behavior and I am okay, as apparently was done in Brazil, in it even being regulated if necessary. I am also okay with various groups acting in whatever methods of self-defense they feel is necessary, as historically has happened before.
Edited to add: Part of my vehemence about the issue probably stems directly from the fact that I was on the other side of this at one point in time and some of my biggest regrets in life (even though I was usually too shy to try to convert others anyway) are being involved in missions work at all. Got to see some cool places and travel internationally, but with the worst psychological baggage hanging over the whole thing, because I cannot look back on it as anything other than a mistake I didn't know I was making. I was being used as part of an agenda that I vehemently oppose now. That era of my life was a completely different "life" from my life today, and thank goodness for it. I am free.
Big J Himself said this about travelling overseas to convert others: The entire chapter is pretty scathing. Any true believer should be busy "working out their salvation with fear and trembling"...
Big J Himself said this about travelling overseas to convert others:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. [...] 23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel
Any true believer should be busy "working out their salvation with fear and trembling" and busy with doing good work wherever they are, not going on feel good photo op trips and feeling like they're shining beacons of goodness.
People absolutely need Jesus: but the doctrine of feeling sure about other's damnation , and the doctrine of confessing specifically Christian faith being the lynchpin of salvation are specially Protestant (eg, not universal Church) things.
Yup, and there you’ve neatly distilled the enormous danger inherent to any religion that has a concept of proselytising: it’s either watered down to the point that the cherry-picking allows the...
Yup, and there you’ve neatly distilled the enormous danger inherent to any religion that has a concept of proselytising: it’s either watered down to the point that the cherry-picking allows the religious leaders to make up their own conclusions, or fundamentalist to the point that it’s incompatible with anything short of total indoctrination of the planet.
Anyone who believes they know an absolute universal truth is horrifically, terrifyingly dangerous, because they can justify anything if they want to, believing it to be morally right the whole time, with no space for counter argument.
I’ll bow out after this one, probably, but I hear all that is being said here. I am sorry for the evils, abuses, unwilling coercions, and all manner of other horrors and atrocities done by...
I’ll bow out after this one, probably, but I hear all that is being said here. I am sorry for the evils, abuses, unwilling coercions, and all manner of other horrors and atrocities done by Christians in the name of Jesus. It’s blatantly evident that many of the worst things in history have been done in the name of religion, and many many of those under Christianity specifically.
I can’t get away from Jesus though. Some of that’s probably determinism, though I prefer a free will bent myself, and much of it is my own culture, family, and learning history. But, through my own continued wrestling, it would be a lie for me to not believe.
With those things together, and a lot of other stuff from years in seminary and other places, I agree that helping for the sake of proselytizing is a bad choice. Helping is it’s own good (doing that wisely is another subject). If people ask why, it’s Jesus, but we’re not in the business of requiring hearing a sermon or even listening to a prayer to get a bag of groceries, etc. I want to be the best neighbor you’ve ever had, and, while I hope that makes you ask some questions at some point, being a good neighbor no matter who is next door is right and good in and of itself.
I'll note that I've been going to church on a regular basis for about 3 years now; I'm really trying to understand. I guess the question is - why does the reason need to be Jesus? Is it really so...
I'll note that I've been going to church on a regular basis for about 3 years now; I'm really trying to understand. I guess the question is - why does the reason need to be Jesus? Is it really so foreign to human nature that we have empathy for people who are struggling? It really seems to me that a number of different belief systems have come to this conclusion independently.
Do you think it's possible for Christian-identifying people to read Matt. 7:18 and recognize that it's the fruit of a person's deeds that proves who they are in relationship to their higher power, rather than their willingness to throw around Jesus' name?
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from. So, I believe that every human in made in the Image of God, and therefore there are aspects of all people that reflect God’s nature. I believe the root of...
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from. So, I believe that every human in made in the Image of God, and therefore there are aspects of all people that reflect God’s nature. I believe the root of goodness (and the rest of the fruits of the Spirit, etc.) are inherent to who God is.
From there, I think anyone can do good things for a variety of reasons and rationales. So, I expect to see empathy frequently from tons of different backgrounds, which is a great thing! When I see someone hurt and want to help, my first thought is rarely “Jesus would help” and is more “that person needs help.”
But, like Paul launching into something about Jesus when the question wasn’t exactly asking that, I think a question like, “Why are you helping?” or whatever it is serves as a good and open ended opportunity to share about what I think is both the foundational reason for goodness and my own experience of wholeness found in Jesus.
As to the last question, people who are awful throw around Jesus’ name as a rationale for a ton of things, so that’s definitely a poor litmus test for cruciformity. The back half of Matthew 25 seems like a way more relevant metric than saying Jesus’ name. Part of it comes down to if it’s performative (I’m going here to do this and be noticed) or just in the course of life, I guess.
I have minimal knowledge and no direct experience of proselytisation (or that much of christianity), so apologies if the answer is super obvious, but why can't the individuals be given the freedom...
These groups and their own beliefs and customs should remain 100% untouched
I have minimal knowledge and no direct experience of proselytisation (or that much of christianity), so apologies if the answer is super obvious, but why can't the individuals be given the freedom to judge whether christianity is or isn't more true than their pre-existing beliefs? I understand that there is by default a somewhat coercive nature to it, but it still seems like it should be possible to practice it in a "safe" way. Is it that christianity is infectious / self-replicating-ish and therefore dangerous?
That sounds like a fairly weak argument to allow such coercive behavior though, which inherently, no matter how "nice" and "safe" they are about it, still presupposes the idea that external belief...
That sounds like a fairly weak argument to allow such coercive behavior though, which inherently, no matter how "nice" and "safe" they are about it, still presupposes the idea that external belief systems / religions / cultures might be superior to the one they're practicing. It's entirely based on a colonialist mindset/premise to begin with.
To make this argument you'd have to argue this for every religion or belief system that wants more members, not just Christianity. Any person with a religion whose doctrine requires converting others could make this argument.
Often with these types of conversion attempts, and "letting people know about Jesus" and whatnot- what accompanies that is a dogmatic ultimatum, or fear tactic- "if you don't, you're going to hell", why should some indigenous group that has been deifying nature or has <insert any number of customs or beliefs here> need to hear that? In what way does it help them? Only the religious believe it "helps" them, because their doctrine tells them they're "saving" people from hell or similar. But, if we open this up to multiple religions, now these indigenous people have been told by two different groups they're possibly going to two different hells? Which one do they believe, and why was any of this necessary to impose on their existing system at all? At that point, especially if they fall for it, this almost feels like psychological abuse to me!
Take religion specifically out of the argument for a second- does it sound appalling to you that someone would come to your culture, traditions, customs, and internal/local systems and posit their own as a superior replacement that must be spread everywhere, replacing others in its wake? If it sounds bad put that way, it's the same exact thing when religion is part of the picture, because an outside religion will attack all of those things when it attempts to replace the local one, since, as others here have extensively commented, religion is often a key component of the culture, from which many other things flow. If you attack or replace that, the rest will follow.
It comes off to me like "let's sit them down and tell them about all the possible belief systems out there and let them choose". It presupposes a need for them to consider alternatives in the first place. Why are we wasting their time inserting ourselves into their lives needlessly with such arrogance? And yeah, the self-replicating part of it is part of the problem because any new members now have the same dogmatic command to continue the spread.
I believe anyone is fine to privately/personally practice their religion and even express it outwardly in some way that isn't imposing, of course. However, I specifically have disdain for, and find morally inferior, any religious doctrine or dogma that requires or advocates the spreading of itself, which is often not a key feature of many of the local religions and such. It is not they who are traveling the world trying to force everyone else to see things their way.
Well, if you are a true believer, it’s inhumane, no? It’d be like you knew an invisible meteor was going to strike your neighbors house and kill them all in a few days. Many Christian...
Well, if you are a true believer, it’s inhumane, no? It’d be like you knew an invisible meteor was going to strike your neighbors house and kill them all in a few days.
Many Christian denominations believe that if you don’t forcibly convert someone, they’re going to be in eternal torment for an infinite amount of time. How could anything like “laws” or “preservation of culture” compete with that?
Even for the ones that don’t, being with Jesus is super cool and the ultimate pleasure or whatever.
In the case of relatively isolated or largely uncontacted communities, it’s less about Christianity, more about outside influences in general. History has shown that interactions of smaller...
In the case of relatively isolated or largely uncontacted communities, it’s less about Christianity, more about outside influences in general. History has shown that interactions of smaller indigenous cultures with larger, more dominant, often more technologically advanced ones almost always results in harm or outright destruction of those indigenous cultures. If they’re interested in the more dominant culture, it’s safer to ensure it’s their choice to come to investigate, not the other way around.
Christianity is relevant because some Christians specifically are the ones choosing to ignore that reasoning here, and to ignore the laws set up to enforce it as well.
The aid is the mission. We were told to visit those in prison, feed the hungry and clothe the naked. We were told to love another as ourselves and live peaceably in the land. Until we in the...
The aid is the mission. We were told to visit those in prison, feed the hungry and clothe the naked. We were told to love another as ourselves and live peaceably in the land. Until we in the western modern world fix the climate crisis and address inequality, and until we are ready to give to another sacrificially, we have nothing to teach anyone. We serve, we wash feet, we bring medicines, and we learn from local peoples, and we ask for their mercies and pray for forgiveness where we are lacking. That's it. We have no "story to tell the nation's" when our societies are so messed up. If one must preach, go preach "up" to those in power they seem to need it, we're more likely to see our crosses there.
Heh, that'd be fun. You play as someone in an uncontacted tribe, hearing weird voices that sound like gibberish to the player with the atmosphere getting more and more tense... Then at the end a...
Heh, that'd be fun. You play as someone in an uncontacted tribe, hearing weird voices that sound like gibberish to the player with the atmosphere getting more and more tense... Then at the end a visitor shows up and says "Yeah, this is just from Jehovah's Witnesses. Trust me you're better off not knowing. I swear they get more pushy every year..."
Actually, as someone who was brought up in the evangelical world, it falls right in line with their religious beliefs. The religious beliefs are the problem, not the individuals who try to act on...
Actually, as someone who was brought up in the evangelical world, it falls right in line with their religious beliefs.
The religious beliefs are the problem, not the individuals who try to act on their faith.
As someone who was also brought up in the evangelical world, individuals acting on these beliefs is a problem, and arguably a much bigger one than them privately holding those beliefs themselves.
As someone who was also brought up in the evangelical world, individuals acting on these beliefs is a problem, and arguably a much bigger one than them privately holding those beliefs themselves.
IDK, in my mind it doesn't make sense to say any belief is OK, and then go after the poor guy who didn't realize that people usually don't practice what they preach. Of course, the idea is not to...
IDK, in my mind it doesn't make sense to say any belief is OK, and then go after the poor guy who didn't realize that people usually don't practice what they preach.
Of course, the idea is not to police private beliefs. But preaching and disseminating such ideas is problematic. And the same goes for many other religious beliefs, not limited to Evangelicalism or even Christianism.
I think what people do to those around them is what matters more. I've known a lot of evangelicals who have the same fundamental, awful beliefs about gay people, for instance, and trust me when I...
I think what people do to those around them is what matters more. I've known a lot of evangelicals who have the same fundamental, awful beliefs about gay people, for instance, and trust me when I say the difference in what they choose to do with those beliefs and how they treat other people as a result matters a lot. I'm not saying any belief is okay. I'm saying people should not be absolved of responsibility the things they do and how they affect others because they're the consequences of something they authentically believe.
I see your point, it's reasonable to call for empathy for the zealots. You don't get to choose how you're raised. But I'd say the fact that it's illegal, and that the group was already barred from...
I see your point, it's reasonable to call for empathy for the zealots. You don't get to choose how you're raised.
But I'd say the fact that it's illegal, and that the group was already barred from talking to these tribes, makes the individuals particularly responsible.
I think most of the world has settled on the idea that religion is not a defense when breaking the law.
It’s interesting that you read it as a call for empathy - I’m definitely filtering things through my own lens here, but I read it as “these aren’t just a few bad apples, and even if they’re...
It’s interesting that you read it as a call for empathy - I’m definitely filtering things through my own lens here, but I read it as “these aren’t just a few bad apples, and even if they’re appropriately punished the whole system remains rotten” rather than “these people deserve leniency because the fault lies with the system”.
You're probably right, I actually started writing about that bit in my GP but stopped when I realized it was beside the point. The larger conversation about missionaries and the religions that...
You're probably right, I actually started writing about that bit in my GP but stopped when I realized it was beside the point.
The larger conversation about missionaries and the religions that promote them is worth having but this particular case is pretty egregious and I imagine most christians would agree it's over the line. I'm pretty sure none of the major christian religions advocate spreading the word by doing illegal things.
To be clear, I completely agree with that. I just think that we shouldn't stop there. Just because the dangerous ideology that you're spreading happens to be a religion shouldn't make you immune...
To be clear, I completely agree with that.
I just think that we shouldn't stop there. Just because the dangerous ideology that you're spreading happens to be a religion shouldn't make you immune to serious scrutiny.
If you genuinely believe that these people will burn in hell for eternal suffering, then the only humane thing to do is to try anything and everything to convert them to Christianity. I mean,...
If you genuinely believe that these people will burn in hell for eternal suffering, then the only humane thing to do is to try anything and everything to convert them to Christianity.
I mean, personally I was never even born in a Christ-believing family, let alone being a Christian myself, so seems pretty weird to me. But I can understand why a true believer would go to any lengths.
I do feel like I need to point out that there are a number of Christian denominations that don't belief in a literal hell of eternal conscious torment (with a spectrum of belief ranging from not...
I do feel like I need to point out that there are a number of Christian denominations that don't belief in a literal hell of eternal conscious torment (with a spectrum of belief ranging from not believing in the eternal or the conscious part to not believing in hell at all). American Evangelicals may be numerous and loud at the present time, but the don't represent the full theological range of christian belief, either historically or currently.
:p I share your sentiments even if I feel less comfortable with the phrasing. And drones. Like, come frelling on, go preach to the ultra rich, go and try to convert union busters, go fight the...
:p I share your sentiments even if I feel less comfortable with the phrasing.
I sent a report with the photos to police intelligence, but so far we haven’t heard anything back. The Indigenous people didn’t want to give me the devices, so I thought it best not to insist. I just managed to get the images,” he said.
And drones. Like, come frelling on, go preach to the ultra rich, go and try to convert union busters, go fight the can't feed the hungry cities, go to jail for handing out water at the polls, start a Poverty for Christ movement and live radically low footprint lives ......there's so much these people can and should be doing at home but no let's endanger "unreached" peoples instead. It's just for self satisfaction and pride, and cowardice not speaking to power at home. Much easier to talk at someone else who can't do anything to defend themselves or hurt you in any way.
And let's say they get converted. Then what. Who's going to be there to impart the importance of certain traditions and why we do what we do? How can they understand scripture written thousands of years ago from people groups completely different from them? Who's going to shepherd them on a long term basis? Even within the framework how is this different from air dropping lambs onto a deserted island?
You likely got Noise labeled because your comment, while a totally understandable response (I also said a similar, "Oh, for fuck's sake!", out loud after reading the headline ;), doesn't exactly...
You likely got Noise labeled because your comment, while a totally understandable response (I also said a similar, "Oh, for fuck's sake!", out loud after reading the headline ;), doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the discussion.
Oh, I figured, it wasn't really a question or complaint. And at the time there was no other conversation. I'm not bothered, I just can't see which downlabel it is so I couldn't be specific.
Oh, I figured, it wasn't really a question or complaint. And at the time there was no other conversation. I'm not bothered, I just can't see which downlabel it is so I couldn't be specific.
I find even the mildest of proselytism and missionary work in general inherently repugnant and repulsive on its own but this is definitely at an even creepier level- though it's not surprising at all.
Having been raised in evangelicalism and having gone on mission trips myself as a teen, I'm well aware of the extremely insidious and subversive behavior of missionary work that has gone on for forever
Even when doing things on the side that seem good (taking medicine to the poor, as we did on one of our trips) it's all seen not as the point of the mission, but as a subversive avenue of conversion. And of course, my brand of evangelicalism was Western/American baptist, so at times, the leaders of our missions were even trying to convert other Christians because they weren't the "right" kind of Christian
If it makes you feel better, some of us are trying to do a better job! Your disdain is fair and critiques are accurate, and I could throw out a bunch more. I work in short term missions for a private Christian university, and we're trying to reshape our culture (the students and faculty/staff we send out) to be much better aligned to best practices in poverty alleviation, trust based mutual relationships, and generally trying to go the opposite way of anything smelling like colonialism.
That said, for those of us who do believe in Jesus and that His life, death, and resurrection are inherently transformative and objectively a good thing for all people, missions is a logical and core aspect of faith.
But I definitely wouldn't do what the article talks about. Like, I get the rationale, but breaking the law in such an impersonal way doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. Brazil's stance on indigenous people having to come to others first seems more reflective of what happens in Acts anyway. And, last thing, a lot of American church people need to be reconverted to what Jesus actually talks about instead of political talking points, but that's a whole other discussion.
Maybe it’s just because I have a hard time with any form of religion but everything you say here sounds…off.
Part of that's probably that I'm being careful with my words because of the space I'm in. Online is not a great place for faith and religion conversations, in my experience. Part of that could be that I live and work in fairly conservative spaces (politically and religiously), but lean pretty progressive (politically and religiously [though "religiously" requires more nuance]). But I'm definitely smoking what I'm selling.
These two ideas seem inherently contradictory to me. Alleviating poverty is great. Alleviating poverty as a mechanism to convince impoverished people that they should follow your [historically imperial] religion is... Colonialist, I think.
I can see that. The distinction, in my head at least, is how you go about sharing both about Jesus and about what that means for life. The "colonialist" model was basically that everything needed to look like church and practice in Europe, so change everything about your culture to match how we do things, even to the point of internment camps to reeducate children.
A more contextual model says 1st, we want to help alleviate poverty because that is good on its own, regardless of if that leads to any type of conversion. Part of that is also the belief that spiritual wholeness (or lack thereof) is also a type of poverty, so, while not mutually exclusive, certain aspects of material and relational poverty can be dealt with separately from what I'd consider spiritual wholeness. And yes, I do think Jesus made exclusive claims, so I would consider spiritual wholeness to be rooted in relationship with God as revealed through Jesus.
Then 2nd that the Gospel is, by nature, Good News to everyone, especially the poor, AND that how that is interpreted and implemented in a particular place respects cultural practices, ways of being, expressions of joy and lament, etc. that are not directly in conflict with becoming like Jesus. Obviously, that's really challenging, and what a particular Christian believes is "core" often differs from another Christian or denomination, and certainly doesn't line up with what people would think is right or acceptable that disagree with Christianity or religion.
tl;dr is that alleviating poverty because it's a good thing to do is essentially enough for me, but I can't be divorced from my relationship with Jesus and the church, so those things will be naturally, and at times intentionally, infused in the work.
I want to say that I understand this is a firmly held belief system of yours and I don't really want to try to engage in a conversation that feels like I'm attempting to convince you not to be Christian or that the Gospel does not have value to you or others.
Also, I'm interpreting your engagement in this particular topic as a willingness to discuss the nuances and ethical challenges of missionary worl, but, like it's fine if that's not actually something you want to discuss. Just let me know.
I feel as though there's some intrinsic dissonance in these ideas that I would like to poke at, if that's alright. You've mentioned a few times that it's important to you to engage in missionary/conversion work in a way that doesn't feel like it's disrepecting or overriding local culture, ways of life, and even rituals in some cases. This seems like progress over historical, and even most modern forms of religious conversion, which often seeks to use religion as a thinly veiled vehicle for wholesale cultural replacement.
But there is a glaring omission from the list of local cultural aspects that you have respect for: religion. I think this is the source of the dissonance I'm seeing. Local religion is a key component of local culture. I many ways, most of the other aspects of culture you identified flow from the local religion. In other ways, the local religion is the natural accumulation and encoding of those cultural aspects. Changing the religion changes the culture.
The conversion work you describe seems less violent than historical conversion work, but not less colonialist. Ultimately, you have a set of core values (becoming like Jesus) that you think are better or more important than the values that another people has, and you seek to replace their values with yours. You say that you only seek to replace the values, but along with those values come practices, stories, morals, and eventually, culture. This is what modern colonialism looks like.
What happens to local stories of morality when the religious mythologies that back them vanish? What about local laws that centered on those morals? What about food and celebration that derive their traditions from religion? At best, they are muddied and altered beyond recognition. At worst, they are replaced. This is also what modern colonialism looks like.
Ultimately, it is not reassuring to me to hear that modern conversion workers are using new practices that are less overtly colonialist. It feels as though the priority is it appear to be respectful of local culture, so as to avoid the criticism that has historically been laid on conversion work, without grappling with the actual ethics of replacing another people's values with one's own. Finding people at their most vulnerable and suggesting that they will find prosperity, spiritual or otherwise, if only they had the values that the converter had, will always feel wrong to me, no matter how it's dressed up.
Yeah, this is definitely the breaking point for firmly held beliefs. At some point, definitely at religion, there’s going to be a true or not true decision. I, probably not surprisingly, believe in Absolute Truth as intrinsic to God’s nature. So, as someone said in another comment on this post in a different chain, there’s a point where I want that conversion for everyone because I believe the truth of it so deeply and fully.
I think there are varied cultural expressions of Truth, and that lots of aspects of culture, history, and even religious practice can be utilized in a faithful expression of the Gospel. But yeah, there’s definitely a place where I think I have at least a grasp on Ultimate Truth, and I want to share that so you can also have it.
I can definitely see the critique, if not disgust, in that because I’m assuming we’re working from pretty different frameworks. I would also, at least, like to say that how I (and general we) often practice Christianity in America is often pretty divorced from what Jesus did and taught, so I’m fighting against that at home and trying not to spread those things.
I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. It’s a valuable and fairly rare thing to get good faith engagement from both sides on a topic like this, however much I might disagree with what you’re saying.
I like what you say further down about focusing on doing the right thing for its own sake, but I can’t square that at all with what you’re saying here.
Ultimately, it has to boil down to the idea that you have found truth that other miss: you’re necessarily saying that either you’re more capable and intelligent than anyone who disagrees with you, because you’re seeing what they couldn’t, or that god likes you more than them, since he/she/they has revealed truth to you in a way that hasn’t been offered to them.
The arrogance in that viewpoint seems to fly in the face of the otherwise humble and genuinely caring way you’ve spoken about helping others, and honestly it seems profoundly sad to me that your desire to do right by people has become inextricably linked to something that prevents them from ever being equal to you on their own terms.
Thank you, and I agree that this has been a fairly rare type of conversation.
Yeah, I get the cognitive dissonance perspective. Ugh, where do I go from here?
I think I largely have to accept your statements. I don’t think of myself as above others, and I don’t think of what I believe as hidden knowledge. But squaring the “accident” of my birth with a family that raised me in this, which I accepted and hold to firmly, versus other people with different backgrounds, experiences, genetics, and so on who believe differently is a hard pill to swallow in the grand scheme of faith. I’m also not satisfied with perspectives that say God picked me versus someone else, because that God sounds like a jerk.
I really want to believe in universal salvation, but certain teachings from Jesus make that too risky a position for me. I don’t know. Most of the time I suppose I’d prefer to be a secular humanist, but I can’t escape that I truly believe that following Jesus is the best way to live, and I want other people to experience the wholeness and peace I’ve experienced. But that experience isn’t consistent for all Christians - I mean, I’m a white, heterosexual, cisgender, Protestant, male, one of the easiest existences on the planet. I can only work from my perspective and, sort of, what others have shared with me through relationships, books, etc. I’m rambling now.
So, in conclusion, I suppose, sets apart is fair. I don’t prefer sets above.
Well, it seems that you are a card-carrying Christian. You've approached this thread with ownership of your own faults and recognition of your shortcomings, and I think that's great.
Internal conflict and self-contradiction is an innate part of the human experience. God is all-loving and yet still allows Satan to dunk on Job for no reason. People are born gay and then God says they're going to hell. We are made in the image of God, and yet we have a butthole for making poops. And what's going on with kids getting cancer?
You can believe that the Bible is literal, verbatim truth if you want. Sola scriptura and all that; you'll find no shortage of people to agree with you. The New Testament was compiled by human hands, though, and none of those hands were Jesus'. I think it's important to recognize the humanity inherent in the Bible, heretical as that may sound. The real truth of the Bible, in my own perspective, is that Jesus walked to the cross to be willingly crucified so that the Jewish people could be freely forgiven for their sins without the requirement of a sacrificial lamb - like imagine being a poor Jew who doesn't have the means to pay a sin offering in order to repent - man that would suck!
I dunno, I don't want you to feel indicted by this thread. I've been the minority perspective on this website before and it can be rough. I appreciate you and your willingness to make "I statements" rather than projecting your beliefs onto others. I hope you stay on the path, whatever it looks like for you.
Aw, thanks! I invited the discourse with my first response, and I certainly braced myself after hitting the initial “Post comment” button. That said, I appreciated the responses and pushbacks more than I expected.
And yeah, lots of human hands on the Bible - that’s part of what makes it so amazing to me. May your path lead to life.
As an atheist who grew up adjacent to evangelical Christianity, I empathize with the disgust.
But by the same token, I don't think of this sort of proselytizing as necessarily colonialism, as Christianity has a long and storied history of incorporating and destroying existing systems of belief throughout its history, all over the world. As a matter of fact, I feel like the same things that I find repugnant - proselytizing and a persecution complex - are why Christianity has stuck around as long as it has.
My question would be - how would you tackle the problem of boundary-pushing proselytizing in a systemic way? Reading the article, something I noticed was that there were a few words that I didn't see; things like "arrested," "detained," "deported," or similar, and I think that's not an accident, but a reflection of the political will to see these violations of their autonomy as an actual problem.
I think the Jews have it pretty solid. They’ll accept new converts if they are serious enough about it, but they don’t push it on anyone ever.
It seems to me that any religion that is confident enough in itself to brand it as “Absolute Truth” (and those are quoted capitalizations) should be confident enough that it can sell itself on its merits without needing a salesman.
I agree that it's an admirable trait to have. However, I think it's a lousy strategy for the long-term survival of a religion. In a way, I feel like Judaism is lucky that its adherents ended up surrounded by fellow people of the book - periodic persecutions are bad, but a better fate than being lost to history.
I suppose that I see religion through a "survival of the fittest" lens. I don't think that Christianity is as popular as it is because it's more correct, or because it makes us better people, but because of characteristics of its practice and dogma that have made it thrive.
So the question I've been wrestling with is - if you consider religions with "Absolute Truth" a problem for societies with diverse beliefs, how do you systemically deal with a belief system that seems tailor-made to subvert existing cultures, scream persecution at the slightest micro-aggression, and be resilient to the death in the face of actual persecution?
Faith is inherently pessoal and must not be imposed on anyone.
Religions should grow by example and good deeds towards society.
If a religious person is good, generous, fair, loving, honest, forgiving, and tolerant, spreading nothing but love and acceptance to everyone, someone might want to be part of that same faith.
That is a good sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't think that you can effectively push back against prothlytizing religions with just sentiment.
Of course. It was my intention to provide clarification, not a solution.
In the concrete case we have here, I would expect the Polícia Federal (Brazil's FBI) to intervene and arrest those who are illegally infringing on the rights of our isolated peoples. It's actually a crime, so there's not much to think about it. It is a matter of enforcement.
Talking about society as a whole, the extraordinary rights churches enjoy should come with much greater scrutiny. Proselytizing should be under strict legal bounds. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. Neopentecostals are a large, growing part of the Brazilian population. And they vote.
Being nice and tolerant seems orthogonal to metaphysical knowledge though.
It is true that one does not require the other. That doesn't mean that religion cannot cause someone to develop that kind of ethics. But it is true that religion is not required for that to occur.
One might feel compelled to go to the same religion of someone they admire in the same way that they might choose a specific university because they admire a particular alumni. You don't have to go to that specific university to become a great professional. But you want to.
Probably anything that promotes prosperity, balanced division of resources, and physical security. That did great things for European style Christianity. I suspect most useful interventions are fundamentally economic in nature.
The evidence would suggest that continued stability and improved living standards will do the job, it just takes time.
If you look at the census figures for “no religion” in traditionally-Christian Western Europe over the last 60 years or so it’s absolutely rocketed. If you look at the percentage still identifying as Christian and compare it to the percentage actually going to church you’ll see that the numbers are even more extreme - very few are actual believers, it’s just a kind of light touch cultural default even for most of those who do still adopt the label.
None of that really helps with the topic at hand - and on this specific one the missionaries were already breaking the law, so I think that’s been handled to the extent it reasonably can be as long as it’s enforced - but I do think it’s interesting in the context of what does and doesn’t increase religious belief more broadly.
This creates moments of opportunism during recession or backsliding, as well as allowing for a large incentive for making people's lives materially worse in plausibly-deniable ways in order to consolidate power; either by the true believers themselves or by a mutually beneficial arrangement between oligarchs and religious leaders.
Religion has outlasted regimes and even empires. To beat religion, you need something that grips people through the good times and the bad.
Christianity started off being illegal and often fatal. Ideas that are valuable to human beings will survive somehow until human beings choose to hold another one more dear. We see it happening in America in real time, where the vaneer of cultural Christianity is being replaced by pride, lack of kindness, and love of money. A lot of Americans only participated in Christianity for those reasons anyway: we have the true gospel, we're gonna invade and bring Bibles, and rebuilding them will make us rich just as god intended.
Christianity isn't tailor made to subvert anything any more than other systems of belief such as scientific thought, capitalism or patriotism: when a group gets powerful it gains adherents to the power behind the superficial tenents.
Religion is very much like those other things you've listed...and that's the problem, the other things you've listed also have undesirable and possibly even pathological issues.
Racism & eugenics, mortgaging our children's future to make our oligarchs richer, the dismissal of entire fields as being beneath scientific study, sacrifice and colonialism in service of an imagined shared identity, I've got plenty of criticism for the other things you've listed.
I can't help but feel like there's got to be something better - something fundamentally and inseparably egalitarian instead of yet another vehicle for power and exploitation.
Because if there isn't...I can't help but feel like we are in deep trouble as a species.
The common denominator is humans . We have the possibility of being good, but we are more likely to turn out rotten. There are no human relationships that isn't bruised: marriage and family can also be vehicles of power and exploitation. BUT: just like scientific thought or patriotism or dare I say even religion --- when good people love one another, we make those things work, and beautifully at that
It isn't the institution or the religious brand or school of philosophy or family motto: it comes down to choosing loving actions and refusing to exploit.
I agree. I wish there was something out there that pathologizes that world-view in the ways that exploitation is.
I think you just described what "colonialism" means.
That's fair. I suppose I was trying to make a distinction between the somewhat recent age of colonialism and neo-colonialism that is most often associated with the word "colonialism" and the history of Christianity going back to its origins. But you're right, colonialism can indeed cover both.
I get why Christians (even the "better" ones) think that they need to convert others and share their faith, I used to be one. I was in the church for over two decades. It's part of the dogma, to spread it as wide as possible and infect everyone with it. I just disagree and don't think they should. They should keep it to themselves. They should feel free to express it through their behavior, personal appearance, or whatever, but tracts, or missions work, or door-to-door, or even the slightest imposition of faith on someone else, or otherwise directly talking to other people or using any sort of conversational "you need Jesus" stuff is a no-go for me, and something I find actively hostile to humanity. I don't think there is an "appropriate" way to do it, even if it's couched in all those "best practices". The best practice would be not to do it at all. At a minimum at least it should 100% be restricted everywhere to only if someone asks very explicitly for someone else to explain more. No soliciting / no salesmen / etc should include no proselytizing, because that's all it is, and I'm not buying
Doing anything ever to "bring" Christianity or the story of Jesus to "unreached people groups" to me is a colonialist act and will always be and there is NO way to separate the two. It is inherent to the act. These groups and their own beliefs and customs should remain 100% untouched. They don't need Jesus. The stories of when missionaries did this years ago and got physically harmed by these groups for trying to infiltrate them? Deserved.
Either do charity/aid/altruistic work on its own, without a conversion component, or don't do it at all, and especially don't do conversion work on its own, ever, for any reason IMO.
That said, this is not a debate we need to have, as we're in fundamentally different places in life where we will not reach agreement on this as we fundamentally disagree on the importance of the Christian mythos
Politics definitely is a separate discussion, an entire separate can of worms, and looking back at my conservative Christian past, I can find small ways to appreciate when there are actual inclusive/intersectional/left-leaning/etc movements in the church, but overall Christianity's presence in politics at least here in the US is massively poisonous and has been for decades, and all of the ones that seek and hold power are the destructive ones
Edit: Also smores' comment articulated a lot more of what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. I feel exactly the same as they do, that Christianity sees itself as a better set of values/culture and necessarily will be imposing itself / replacing other culture and is inseparable from colonialism
I feel like this just boils down to whether or not you believe in big J or not. If you are a believing Christian, then they absolutely need Jesus. Per doctrine, they need Jesus more than anything else in the entire world. Heaven > Earth, after all.
Obviously, if you don’t, then Jesus is just an interesting historical and cultural element.
But it seems impossible to “constrain” Christians like that. Any true believer would prosthyletize. The fact that many don’t is as much a statement about how most Christians in developed countries mostly half-believe these days.
I mean, yeah I agree, it all boils down to a fundamental belief either in the doctrine or not and how they exercise that. I know because I've been on both sides of that equation. And sure, it's certainly difficult to constrain Christians in such a way, but I don't oppose potential methods of doing so: people should tell them off for that stuff, call it out, and make it a shame-worthy behavior and I am okay, as apparently was done in Brazil, in it even being regulated if necessary. I am also okay with various groups acting in whatever methods of self-defense they feel is necessary, as historically has happened before.
Edited to add: Part of my vehemence about the issue probably stems directly from the fact that I was on the other side of this at one point in time and some of my biggest regrets in life (even though I was usually too shy to try to convert others anyway) are being involved in missions work at all. Got to see some cool places and travel internationally, but with the worst psychological baggage hanging over the whole thing, because I cannot look back on it as anything other than a mistake I didn't know I was making. I was being used as part of an agenda that I vehemently oppose now. That era of my life was a completely different "life" from my life today, and thank goodness for it. I am free.
Big J Himself said this about travelling overseas to convert others:
The entire chapter is pretty scathing.
Any true believer should be busy "working out their salvation with fear and trembling" and busy with doing good work wherever they are, not going on feel good photo op trips and feeling like they're shining beacons of goodness.
People absolutely need Jesus: but the doctrine of feeling sure about other's damnation , and the doctrine of confessing specifically Christian faith being the lynchpin of salvation are specially Protestant (eg, not universal Church) things.
Yup, and there you’ve neatly distilled the enormous danger inherent to any religion that has a concept of proselytising: it’s either watered down to the point that the cherry-picking allows the religious leaders to make up their own conclusions, or fundamentalist to the point that it’s incompatible with anything short of total indoctrination of the planet.
Anyone who believes they know an absolute universal truth is horrifically, terrifyingly dangerous, because they can justify anything if they want to, believing it to be morally right the whole time, with no space for counter argument.
I’ve got a long meeting this afternoon, but I’ll be back later to reply. We agree more than you might think about how and when is appropriate!
I’ll bow out after this one, probably, but I hear all that is being said here. I am sorry for the evils, abuses, unwilling coercions, and all manner of other horrors and atrocities done by Christians in the name of Jesus. It’s blatantly evident that many of the worst things in history have been done in the name of religion, and many many of those under Christianity specifically.
I can’t get away from Jesus though. Some of that’s probably determinism, though I prefer a free will bent myself, and much of it is my own culture, family, and learning history. But, through my own continued wrestling, it would be a lie for me to not believe.
With those things together, and a lot of other stuff from years in seminary and other places, I agree that helping for the sake of proselytizing is a bad choice. Helping is it’s own good (doing that wisely is another subject). If people ask why, it’s Jesus, but we’re not in the business of requiring hearing a sermon or even listening to a prayer to get a bag of groceries, etc. I want to be the best neighbor you’ve ever had, and, while I hope that makes you ask some questions at some point, being a good neighbor no matter who is next door is right and good in and of itself.
I'll note that I've been going to church on a regular basis for about 3 years now; I'm really trying to understand. I guess the question is - why does the reason need to be Jesus? Is it really so foreign to human nature that we have empathy for people who are struggling? It really seems to me that a number of different belief systems have come to this conclusion independently.
Do you think it's possible for Christian-identifying people to read Matt. 7:18 and recognize that it's the fruit of a person's deeds that proves who they are in relationship to their higher power, rather than their willingness to throw around Jesus' name?
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from. So, I believe that every human in made in the Image of God, and therefore there are aspects of all people that reflect God’s nature. I believe the root of goodness (and the rest of the fruits of the Spirit, etc.) are inherent to who God is.
From there, I think anyone can do good things for a variety of reasons and rationales. So, I expect to see empathy frequently from tons of different backgrounds, which is a great thing! When I see someone hurt and want to help, my first thought is rarely “Jesus would help” and is more “that person needs help.”
But, like Paul launching into something about Jesus when the question wasn’t exactly asking that, I think a question like, “Why are you helping?” or whatever it is serves as a good and open ended opportunity to share about what I think is both the foundational reason for goodness and my own experience of wholeness found in Jesus.
As to the last question, people who are awful throw around Jesus’ name as a rationale for a ton of things, so that’s definitely a poor litmus test for cruciformity. The back half of Matthew 25 seems like a way more relevant metric than saying Jesus’ name. Part of it comes down to if it’s performative (I’m going here to do this and be noticed) or just in the course of life, I guess.
I have minimal knowledge and no direct experience of proselytisation (or that much of christianity), so apologies if the answer is super obvious, but why can't the individuals be given the freedom to judge whether christianity is or isn't more true than their pre-existing beliefs? I understand that there is by default a somewhat coercive nature to it, but it still seems like it should be possible to practice it in a "safe" way. Is it that christianity is infectious / self-replicating-ish and therefore dangerous?
That sounds like a fairly weak argument to allow such coercive behavior though, which inherently, no matter how "nice" and "safe" they are about it, still presupposes the idea that external belief systems / religions / cultures might be superior to the one they're practicing. It's entirely based on a colonialist mindset/premise to begin with.
To make this argument you'd have to argue this for every religion or belief system that wants more members, not just Christianity. Any person with a religion whose doctrine requires converting others could make this argument.
Often with these types of conversion attempts, and "letting people know about Jesus" and whatnot- what accompanies that is a dogmatic ultimatum, or fear tactic- "if you don't, you're going to hell", why should some indigenous group that has been deifying nature or has <insert any number of customs or beliefs here> need to hear that? In what way does it help them? Only the religious believe it "helps" them, because their doctrine tells them they're "saving" people from hell or similar. But, if we open this up to multiple religions, now these indigenous people have been told by two different groups they're possibly going to two different hells? Which one do they believe, and why was any of this necessary to impose on their existing system at all? At that point, especially if they fall for it, this almost feels like psychological abuse to me!
Take religion specifically out of the argument for a second- does it sound appalling to you that someone would come to your culture, traditions, customs, and internal/local systems and posit their own as a superior replacement that must be spread everywhere, replacing others in its wake? If it sounds bad put that way, it's the same exact thing when religion is part of the picture, because an outside religion will attack all of those things when it attempts to replace the local one, since, as others here have extensively commented, religion is often a key component of the culture, from which many other things flow. If you attack or replace that, the rest will follow.
It comes off to me like "let's sit them down and tell them about all the possible belief systems out there and let them choose". It presupposes a need for them to consider alternatives in the first place. Why are we wasting their time inserting ourselves into their lives needlessly with such arrogance? And yeah, the self-replicating part of it is part of the problem because any new members now have the same dogmatic command to continue the spread.
I believe anyone is fine to privately/personally practice their religion and even express it outwardly in some way that isn't imposing, of course. However, I specifically have disdain for, and find morally inferior, any religious doctrine or dogma that requires or advocates the spreading of itself, which is often not a key feature of many of the local religions and such. It is not they who are traveling the world trying to force everyone else to see things their way.
Well, if you are a true believer, it’s inhumane, no? It’d be like you knew an invisible meteor was going to strike your neighbors house and kill them all in a few days.
Many Christian denominations believe that if you don’t forcibly convert someone, they’re going to be in eternal torment for an infinite amount of time. How could anything like “laws” or “preservation of culture” compete with that?
Even for the ones that don’t, being with Jesus is super cool and the ultimate pleasure or whatever.
In the case of relatively isolated or largely uncontacted communities, it’s less about Christianity, more about outside influences in general. History has shown that interactions of smaller indigenous cultures with larger, more dominant, often more technologically advanced ones almost always results in harm or outright destruction of those indigenous cultures. If they’re interested in the more dominant culture, it’s safer to ensure it’s their choice to come to investigate, not the other way around.
Christianity is relevant because some Christians specifically are the ones choosing to ignore that reasoning here, and to ignore the laws set up to enforce it as well.
The aid is the mission. We were told to visit those in prison, feed the hungry and clothe the naked. We were told to love another as ourselves and live peaceably in the land. Until we in the western modern world fix the climate crisis and address inequality, and until we are ready to give to another sacrificially, we have nothing to teach anyone. We serve, we wash feet, we bring medicines, and we learn from local peoples, and we ask for their mercies and pray for forgiveness where we are lacking. That's it. We have no "story to tell the nation's" when our societies are so messed up. If one must preach, go preach "up" to those in power they seem to need it, we're more likely to see our crosses there.
Mysterious, out of context voices in the rainforest, repeated endlessly? That sounds beyond creepy..
You could make an horror game out of this
Heh, that'd be fun. You play as someone in an uncontacted tribe, hearing weird voices that sound like gibberish to the player with the atmosphere getting more and more tense... Then at the end a visitor shows up and says "Yeah, this is just from Jehovah's Witnesses. Trust me you're better off not knowing. I swear they get more pushy every year..."
Pardon the irony but Jesus fucking Christ.
amen
This goes beyond overzealous proselytizing and crosses over into sociopathy.
Actually, as someone who was brought up in the evangelical world, it falls right in line with their religious beliefs.
The religious beliefs are the problem, not the individuals who try to act on their faith.
As someone who was also brought up in the evangelical world, individuals acting on these beliefs is a problem, and arguably a much bigger one than them privately holding those beliefs themselves.
IDK, in my mind it doesn't make sense to say any belief is OK, and then go after the poor guy who didn't realize that people usually don't practice what they preach.
Of course, the idea is not to police private beliefs. But preaching and disseminating such ideas is problematic. And the same goes for many other religious beliefs, not limited to Evangelicalism or even Christianism.
I think what people do to those around them is what matters more. I've known a lot of evangelicals who have the same fundamental, awful beliefs about gay people, for instance, and trust me when I say the difference in what they choose to do with those beliefs and how they treat other people as a result matters a lot. I'm not saying any belief is okay. I'm saying people should not be absolved of responsibility the things they do and how they affect others because they're the consequences of something they authentically believe.
I see your point, it's reasonable to call for empathy for the zealots. You don't get to choose how you're raised.
But I'd say the fact that it's illegal, and that the group was already barred from talking to these tribes, makes the individuals particularly responsible.
I think most of the world has settled on the idea that religion is not a defense when breaking the law.
It’s interesting that you read it as a call for empathy - I’m definitely filtering things through my own lens here, but I read it as “these aren’t just a few bad apples, and even if they’re appropriately punished the whole system remains rotten” rather than “these people deserve leniency because the fault lies with the system”.
You're probably right, I actually started writing about that bit in my GP but stopped when I realized it was beside the point.
The larger conversation about missionaries and the religions that promote them is worth having but this particular case is pretty egregious and I imagine most christians would agree it's over the line. I'm pretty sure none of the major christian religions advocate spreading the word by doing illegal things.
To be clear, I completely agree with that.
I just think that we shouldn't stop there. Just because the dangerous ideology that you're spreading happens to be a religion shouldn't make you immune to serious scrutiny.
If you genuinely believe that these people will burn in hell for eternal suffering, then the only humane thing to do is to try anything and everything to convert them to Christianity.
I mean, personally I was never even born in a Christ-believing family, let alone being a Christian myself, so seems pretty weird to me. But I can understand why a true believer would go to any lengths.
I do feel like I need to point out that there are a number of Christian denominations that don't belief in a literal hell of eternal conscious torment (with a spectrum of belief ranging from not believing in the eternal or the conscious part to not believing in hell at all). American Evangelicals may be numerous and loud at the present time, but the don't represent the full theological range of christian belief, either historically or currently.
Yup. Belief begets behaviour due to compulsion from following those beliefs to misguided conclusions. I hope American Evangelicism go away soon.
Yeah it's just so depressing that people have ever been convinced that they need to "save" people from hell at all.
:p I share your sentiments even if I feel less comfortable with the phrasing.
And drones. Like, come frelling on, go preach to the ultra rich, go and try to convert union busters, go fight the can't feed the hungry cities, go to jail for handing out water at the polls, start a Poverty for Christ movement and live radically low footprint lives ......there's so much these people can and should be doing at home but no let's endanger "unreached" peoples instead. It's just for self satisfaction and pride, and cowardice not speaking to power at home. Much easier to talk at someone else who can't do anything to defend themselves or hurt you in any way.
And let's say they get converted. Then what. Who's going to be there to impart the importance of certain traditions and why we do what we do? How can they understand scripture written thousands of years ago from people groups completely different from them? Who's going to shepherd them on a long term basis? Even within the framework how is this different from air dropping lambs onto a deserted island?
It was honestly the only words I could think of that seemed appropriate. I understand it's not appropriate for some but it's all I could even say
Nah, nah I'm happy you said it, cuz "yikes" doesn't nearly cover it does it? Appropriate :|
It's all good I'm getting down labeled in some way anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You likely got Noise labeled because your comment, while a totally understandable response (I also said a similar, "Oh, for fuck's sake!", out loud after reading the headline ;), doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the discussion.
Oh, I figured, it wasn't really a question or complaint. And at the time there was no other conversation. I'm not bothered, I just can't see which downlabel it is so I couldn't be specific.
Ah, gotcha, sorry.
No worries at all
🤣