What do mission organisations do for these people?    

    

  This question is of personal interest to me-especially considering that my parents have been missionaries since 1996. After much contemplation, I will be writing specifically about Christian missionaries-as that has been nearly all of my experience. Furthermore, whenever I do refer to "missionaries" or "mission organizations", I shall be referring to Christian missionaries. 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Don Richardson's "Do Missionaries Destroy Cultures". I most heartily agree with his viewpoints on missionaries and believe he brought up some very valid points including the idea that the most sympathetic person should go first. Honestly, I agree with him that Christian missionaries are the most sympathetic people and although there have been some sporadic cases here and there of a missionary doing something horrid, there are many, many more cases of those who have done extreme good.    

Even if one ignores the religion brought in, the medical aid alone should grant missionaries and mission organizations some respect from people. Missionaries have braved diseases-even in our modern world, going to places in South America and Africa, many which are still disease-ridden. Anyone who claims that medical missionaries have hurt the society in which they resided should go to the people who were given medical aid, the women whose children were birthed at the hospitals built by missionaries, the young lives saved through the access to modern medicine and the thousands who were not destined to life as a cripple because of missionary doctors and the hospitals that were created as a consequence. Take for example the Snells who took their family to the Amazon rain forest to work among the Machiguenga people. They saved many lives through their ministry. Betty Snell helped save many babies in a tribe where previously more than half of all infants died, she and her husband also helped many with Malaria, the flu, and polio in a tribe where the average life expectancy was previously less than forty years of age. They had brought change to a society because of their obedience to God's calling and the burden He placed upon their hearts for the people which they served. Therefore should these amazing people and the thousands of others like them be told that they cannot continue physically helping people?  

Missionaries have also provided an example of something which no other organization could ever give in quantity or quality. This is love. Christians are commanded to love-first God, then everyone else regardless of whether and how others respond. Take Elisabeth Elliot, whose husband, Jim Elliot, was killed by the Huaorani of Ecuador, she could have just been mad at those who killed her husband and gone back to the US, but she went and lived with the very people that killed her husband because she loved them. This may sound crazy to many people, but God had given her such a love for the people that He loved and she saw the people through His eyes and provided a wonderful example of how Christians should love and how God does love. Amnesty International and the United Nations can do a lot of good things for people, but when it comes to loving people, missionaries and missionary organizations are well-known for their love and they would be the first ones to say that the love comes not from themselves or their goodwill, but from God. 

What else do missionaries do for people? They present the gospel of Jesus Christ to these people. Do they force people to accept this message? No, for this is a message that cannot be forced upon anyone but is truly accepted by choice. Do they go against different aspects of the cultures? Yes-when it goes against Christian beliefs. Do they go against the whole culture? No. Have there been missionaries that have made mistakes? Yes. Does that mean that all missionaries are bad? No-there is a much higher percentage of missionaries that do respect the culture and people group with which they live and still are able to share the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In regards to the few missionaries that have behaved in a manner not Christ-honoring, I have a quote from my pastor which says: "Don't blame God for man's sin." I believe this is highly applicable to this topic as many are very quick to point out the mistakes in missionaries and use it as a reflection on all of God's people and most importantly God. People are not perfect, and Christians are no exception by any means and this is essential to keep in mind when looking at mission organizations and their works.

 

Citations:

Snell, Ron. It's a Jungle Out There. 1st. Hannibal Books, 1995.

http://www.sbcv.org/data/images/maincontent/imb_logo.gif

http://www.citris-uc.org/files/imce-u10/needle.jpg

How different is your modern culture from the Sawi tenants?

The Sawi culture differs from my modern culture in that the physical embodiment of evil is more obvious. This phrase is seemingly very prejudice and judgemental. Granted, my perspective can never be balanced and I can never be open-minded and thus I will attempt to not put on a facade when I write. 

Take notice of the words "physical embodiment of evil" as they are essential to understanding my point. I specifically chose those words because I believe that no human being is perfect and that all have a sinful nature. It says in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I believe that all men are capable of evil acts, but modern society does not take the same route to show their evil. For example, it is quite plain that in the Sawi culture they promote violence and uphold treachery. Quotes such as "fattening with friendship for the slaughter" and "What mattered, after all, was not the number of heads taken, but the quality of the treachery that secured them." clearly display their acceptance of cannibalism. 

Going back to my modern culture. Cannibalism is killing, and although my modern society does not justify cannibalism, they do justify certain types of killing. These types of killings are often called "mercy killings" where, usually an elderly person, is killed by injection or the halt in life support. These killings are usually done in the justification that it is better for the person and that it is their will, however if that option is truly better for them, as many state, then I would argue that it is better for all people of the world. Why should we have to live in a world of suffering knowing that in the next life we will be in Heaven-for Christians, or it will "all be over"-for atheists? I believe that these killings are a form of murder and thus forbidden by God. Another example of treachery in our modern society is abortion. Abortion is the killing of an unborn child which is done of the justification of "women's rights", however upon hearing that, ignoring my moral views, I would argue that the woman has just as much as a "right" as the man since the child belongs to both of them. The child is not 100% the woman's and 0% the man's or vice versa, he/she is 50% of the woman's and 50% of the man's, and nothing can change that. I also believe that this is killing and thus forbidden by God. Both of these are prime examples of "treachery" in this "modern" world. 

Onto the final part of my statement which contains the word "obvious", once again essential to the understanding of my idea. Because of the blatant support of the whole tribe to kill and eat people, I would consider the physical embodiment of evil more obvious. As Aristotle states, "Evil draws men together.", this is displayed not only in the combined community effort to insure that the most deceitful way of securing the victims was accomplished but also by the fact that eating human flesh was a "requirement" for the society, evidenced by the by the Sawi word "kerkeriyap" which means "squeamish". That word was used to show that the eating of human flesh is not natural to humans and thus, makes the evil more "obvious" in the sense that it is evil one does not see everyday. Cannibalism is such a degraded tradition upon which to base a society. Thomas Elliot stated that: "It is by no means self-evident that human beings are most real when most violently excited; violent physical passions do not in themselves differentiate men from each other, but rather tend to reduce them to the same state.", the Sawi men want to become legends and legend makers-they want to have that honor, well shown by Maum, Sauni and Mavu's willingness to help Kani in his fateful deed, but do they realize the irony of their actions? The violence that procures their honor dehumanizes them in the process-therefore not really making them different then the man they just killed and/or ate. In the movie, The Matrix, Andy and Larry Wachowski give a great quote, "To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.". Cannabilism is not natural and affects more than just the individuals that partook of the ritual. This goal of treachery has negative affects on the society as each man attempts to outshine the man before him through using innovative ways to lure someone to kill. If I were to sum up the result of the goal in relation to society, a quote from Randy K. Milholland is quite appropriate, "There are people I know who won't hurt me. I call them corpses.". Although this may be seen as humorous, it is a fairly good portrayal of the severe lack of trust that occurs as a result of the goal. 

Citations:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mari_coan/211198101/

What factors of your native culture have informed your religious world view? Explain the impact of these factors.

Native culture is a word that I would associate with one culture: Christianity. I would consider myself a TCK(Third Culture Kid), a MK(Missionary Kid) and a PK(Pastor's Kid), but I am not the typical PK, MK, or TCK. I was raised with spiritual mentors and being involved with my parents ministry ever since I can remember. My "family" consisted of all the "Aunts" and "Uncles" I had in the mission organization that employed my parents. Everyone I knew in the states were either family or people from church. I had been in Christian schools since fourth grade and grew up with conservative Christian values. "Christianity" was my native culture, and even more specifically, I was "Southern Baptist".

Southern Baptists are often viewed as being "too conservative", "traditional" or even "legalistic". These words were the best way to describe some of the reactions received upon coming to TCIS where I entered a non-denominational Christian school with a large variety of Christian beliefs. My mind was "broadened" by basically having to accept the different views of teachers, staff and students, but at the same time I was losing my faith and identity. My world view was being opened at the expense of my personal ideals and philosophies.

My former "world view" would best be described as nearly total agreement in all Southern Baptist philosophies and ideals as well as a firm belief in God and the Bible. I was close-minded by the world's standards, but I knew who I was. I did not consider other religions at all and was very passionate and unwavering in my faith. Some would consider this "bad" that I was growing up so "ignorant" and "mono-cultured", but honestly I love that I had a life filled with faith.

As I lost my world view I began to question my faith and the Bible-I began to doubt. People on all sides were telling me that my views was wrong. That I shouldn't align myself with an denomination, that my values were too conservative, that I couldn't really have "fun" in life if I didn't compromise-so I did and regretted it. I did not stay true to my conservative nature and my ideals and thus, I felt my relationship with God suffering. But thankfully, He did not give up on me and slowly, but surely He brought me back to Him and my life took on a new chapter and a new world view.

I became a student in the art of understanding but not accepting. God helped me decipher between what I should and should not accept, he brought people into my life that supported me throughout my years at TCIS-both Christian and non-Christian. I learned to listen more to others ideas regarding faith and not immediately disregard them. These lessons taught me tolerance which is very important for a balanced world view. I began to develop a new world view still characterised and dictated by my beliefs as it had been previously, but with more understanding of another's view. This is not, and was not, smooth and consisting of just loveliness. I still find myself struggling with doubt and living up to the ideals of a Christian life more than I had in the past, but I have found myself to be much more effective in communicating my beliefs to people and receiving better responses. I still believe that Christianity is the only way and the right way and if others get offended by that idea, then so be it. I go against many of the ideas of the world and thus describe myself as a anti-conformist and a "revolutionary anti-revolutionary"-meaning that I am against the current culture of the world and also that I reject the revolutionary views of secular society. My world-view does have "narrow mindedness" present, but I am not going to change it because that "narrow mindedness" comes from my Christian beliefs and I have seen what compromising those beliefs entail. One has to give God all or nothing-there is no middle ground. He says so in Revelation 3:15-16 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. I am reminded of a song by Krystal Meyers titled "Anticonformity":

I identify with the song a lot because I agree with what Krystal has to say, especially "I'm anticonformity, I don't try too hard to be". I have made my choice in worldview and I know from where it comes. My family life, the strong presence of Christians in throughout my life, the Southern Baptist ideals and culture all contributed to my world view on religion. I have made up my mind, so to speak, when it comes to my beliefs regarding religion. I am a Christian which greatly affects how I view other religions. I do write them off because I am confident that God is the one and only God. In other words, I AM anticonformity.

The whole theme of this blog is changing perspectives. Peace Child is a book that challenges the perspectives and preconceptions of people. As is tradition of my blog posts, the name and theme comes from a song. The song for this blog is "Just Because" by Christopher Toy. It is not a well-known song, but it is a fun approach to changing perspectives. The video below is about a guy(Christopher Toy) who is trying to break the norm saying that: "just because I'm not the white guy, doesn't mean I'm not the right guy." The stereotypical ideas presented within provide humor while still allowing the profound message to shine through.

Video: