Christian converting Mulsims in Afganistan

Great Debates
1

I was channel surfing last night and happened on one of the news/hype/entertainment shows, and one of those stories was on people who were going to a country (Afganistan in this case) with the surface reason of providing relief/support to the undertroddden poor’s physical needs and the “hidden” adjenda of trying to convert the undertrodden poor to their religion.

From my perspective as an Agnostic, the factthat they lied about what they were there to do was not nearly as reprehensible as the possibility that occured to me this morning…

I was having a mental conversation/debate with the young lady fetured and the question occured to me.

“Hey, there are muslims right here in the good old US of A that you could witness to, why aren’t you witnessing right here where you can do so without risking being stoned to death?”

Well, then one very good reason occured to me.

You’re a lot more likely to succeed when the person you’re trying to convert is mentally/emotionally open to any option being better that what they are currently experiencing. The person your trying to convert being oppressed and starving has to make your message all that more compelling… you’re a christian, look what riches you’ve got.

<sigh> how very “christian” of them to take advantage of these people in this way.

Though caveats before others bring them up. I am in no way suggesting that all or even a majority of relief efforts, whether led by a religous organization or not are taking advantage of people in this manner. The people featured on this show were obviously of an extreem branch of Christianity and I do not think their behavior should be generalized to the mainstream.

-Doug

2

There is a branch of thought within Christianity (no cite at the moment) that holds that the second coming will happen once all the peoples on the earth have “heard the gospel”. This makes muslims in a remote Islamic country far more attractive as “witnessing targets” as doing so will bring the return of Jesus that much closer. US Muslims (living in a majority Christian country) are assumed to have had oppurtunities to be exposed to the gospel and are therefore not so “urgent” a target.

This is not to say that your reasoning does not have some substance - more’s the pity :frowning:

Grim

3

It figures that theyd act like this. "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest", Diderot. Well, the world is well on the way to getting rid of kings (except in my benighted country); priests are a wilier bunch, but well get there.

4

I don’t think it as meant quite in that manner, aldib

5

What Jesus said was to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). Whether a Christian believes that the Second Coming will come at one time, or another, or only metaphorically, is immaterial. We are instructed to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, including Afghanistan.

In the case of Afghanistan, the alternatives were to either lie or be barred from the country; there was no legal way to bring the Gospel to people there while the Taliban was in power. I agree with them that in this case, lying was justified.

I would also submit that many Christians routinely do their level best to bring the Gospel message to nonbelievers here in America, to the point where many nonbelievers wish they’d kindly shut up. So it’s hardly an either/or.

The apostle James said that “faith without works is dead.” When well-off Christians bring the Gospel message to impoverished places, they would deserve brickbats if they didn’t also give generously out of their abundance to the poor of the Third World, with no strings attached. Sure, the giving may make the Gospel more attractive, but if the giving weren’t there, it would be a hollow Gospel that they’d be preaching.

I think that people in all countries should have the right to hear the messages of any and all religions, and be able to choose between them, or choose none at all. Excepting evangelism directed at young children, I don’t think evangelism by representatives of any religion constitutes “taking advantage” of anyone. YMMV, and apparently does.

6

It should read “Afghani Muslims converting to Christianity.” No one converts anyone else to anything.

The OP is offensively paternalistic. The premise is that Afghanis are weak-willed subliterates who cannot make up their own mind.

Unless you can show that the missionaries in Afghanistan are using force or coercion to induce conversions, what’s your problem?

BTW, I’m a raving atheist.

Sua

7

And exactly where in the Decalogue does it say “Thou shalt not bear false witness except when you think it’s okay?”

8

Monty, you do realize that the Decalogue does not prohibit lying. It prohibits “bearing false witness” - that is, testifying falsely.

Sua

9

Hi, Monty -

Actually, it says in the Decalogue that “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. That is, you shall not misrepresent the truth to your neighbor’s detriment.

To a Christian, bringing the Gospel to a person is the most charitable act possible. A “little white lie” to a horribly repressive government does not strike me (as an average Christian, if such a thing is possible) as such a great sin.

Sort of like the classic example of a person hiding Jews during the Holocaust. If a Nazi then asks the person, “Are you hiding Anne Frank in your attic?”, to classify the answer, “No, of course not, mein Herr” as a sin is slightly ridiculous.

And dublos writes:

I do think this behavior should be generalized to mainstream Christianity. All of us are committed, at least in theory, to bringing the Gospel to everyone, no matter what.

And I would hardly call doing good works for those in need “taking advantage” of them. That is a good big chunk of what we do. The fact that it leads to the natural question “Why are you doing this for me?” does not invalidate the good works.

The chance to preach the Gospel is hardly the only reason we do good to others, but it is certainly one of them. To say that Christians should only preach their message to those who are uninterested in it is like saying that agnostics should never address themselves to anyone belonging to a religion.

The Christian church is absolutely shameless in its desire to see all persons worshipping at the feet of Christ. We try to bring this about in every way we can - direct appeals, charitable works, and by leading a life of good example. We do not require that you be a Christian to benefit from our food shelves, Third World development projects, hunger relief, hospitals, orphanages, and social service agencies.

But we would sure like it to bring you into His church.

Regards,
Shodan

10

I don’t see where Jesus said, “Go preach to all nations, except where they tell you you can’t,” either.

We each resolve such ambiguities in our own ways.

11

Shodan: Jesus taught that we’re all neighbours.

RT: Yeah. I see that you resolve it by rationalizing away disobeying the commandment.

12

I think this is an interesting issue. After reading one of the “why are jews persecuted?” thread I started wondering if it was partly because Judaism doesn’t go in for bearing witness (please correct me if I’m wrong) and converting like Christianity, and perhaps to a lesser extent, Islam do. Not all Christianity today, but still certain strains of it. Hence the vast differences in the numbers of Jews/Christians/Muslims.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm - for stats.

In the Afghanistan case I think as the OP mentions, there is some truth in the easier-to-convert theory. Early missionaries in Australia reportedly gave Aborigines clothes and food in return for coming to church.

I also think there is an issue of them actually getting off on the danger and excitement. They once had a speaker at school who related his “James Bond for God”-days - when he’d smuggled Bibles into countries they were banned. He admitted that he’d come to realise it wasn’t the only way - or necessarily the best/right way - to serve god, and that the adventure was perhaps too much part of the attraction. So this may be true for the Afghanistan missionaries.

I can relate to this as a journo - it’s true many of us long to go to danger-zones - often for excitement/prestige/glory - not particularly admirable motives.

13

On the issue of lying to gain entrance to Afghanistan for the purpose of proselytizing: whatever happened to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”? If the Afghani government – and/or Islam, generally – discourages proselyztization by other religions, is it important for a Christian (or anyone) to respect this law/policy? Wouldn’t a Christian expect the same respect for existing customs, laws and policies when visiting our country?

The only option is not lying; you may also work to change the policy or law which forbids what you wish to do, so that you do not have to lie.

14

And I’ll see you in the Pit, if you’re gonna lend a personal tone to things.

15

No. A Christian owes respect to the laws of the state, as long as they don’t conflict with the dictates of the Lord. In this case, they did.

A Christian would think it’s the business of the country to require respect for its laws and customs: Christians are only sojourners in all countries of this world. (Hebrews 11:13-16.)

We speak out against unjust laws wherever we are, and a law that placed a gag order on other religions would be just as unjust as if it applied to us.

In the case of the Taliban government, overthrow would have been the only means to do that. That’s usually impossible to do without killing. (As it was in practice.) And there’s a commandment about that, too.

16

Sua,

while I will readily admit to paternalistic, I wasn’t aware I’d reached offensively so, in which case I apologize for the offense.

As I didn’t say anything about literacy or will power I’m going to assume that’s just a paraphrase of how you took what I did write so I’ll attempt to clarify.

From what I have been seeing on the news, The Afghani people have been subject to physical and emotional/mental abuse by those in power during the reign of the Taliban. (Yep, broad generalization there, I’m sure there are citizens there who’ve been untouched by any of this… but I’m not talking about them.)

Now in the midst of this heavy handed goverance, in come christian relief folks attempting to inform these abused folks that the way to salvation lies through christianity… their particular flavor thereof.

From my view, that doesn’t seem particular moral, right or christian. But that’s just my view. Personally I would consider a conversion once the person’s safety and santity are in a little less danger to be a bit more genuine.

I also haven’t heard what provisions these folks have made for the safety and health of those that they convert. Was it not law at the time that if any citizen converting to another religion was subject to execution? If that’s the case were these christians attempting to create martyrs??

Again… caveat… when I say christian relief folks in the above, I am not referring to all christian relief organizations, only those like the people featured on the news program the evening Tuesday the 11th that generated this little tirade of mine in the first place.

-Doug

17

RTFirefly: Thanks for the explanations. I think I understand your perspective. This is perhaps where I have difficulties with evangelical Christianity: the idea that the evangelical mandate rightly overrides any need to respect for the “other” for his/her/its differences when those differences conflict with Christian belief – nevermind that in practice it appears to be acceptable to deceive the “other” in order to do the Lord’s work. Of course, this may be why I am not an evangelical Christian; I would not be comfortable in such a role.

However, after reading the section of Hebrews which you linked, I still don’t see how this supports your view that it is not necessary for a Christian to respect the laws/customs/policies of the land in which s/he is a “sojourner”, “stranger” or “exile”.

18

The answer I’ve been looking for to your comment to me in the “Pledge of Allegiance” thread. I agree wholeheartedly.

Jerevan, I cannot speak for all Christians, but I know that Episcopalians are pledged to seek and serve Christ in all people, loving our neighbor as ourself, and to respect the dignity of every human being, as part of our Baptismal Covenant. (The particular element from it I’m referring to is on p. 305; hit the “next” link.) As noted, a prevarication to a person using worldly power for evil is not “bearing false witness against” – at the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, if you were alive in Nazi Germany and aware of where a Jewish family was hiding, would you feel it morally right to tell the truth or to lie if asked by the SS whether you knew where they were?

19

Monty -

Christians do not consider that lying to a corrupt government in order to get a chance to bring them food, clothing, and the Gospel, is in any sense “against” our neighbors. Just the opposite, in fact.

The situation is more or less analogous to trying to deliver food to an area of a country controlled by rebels against the government, as sometimes happens. I can see a person promising to the government not to feed anyone, just take pictures or collect information or something, and then handing out a secret stash of food just because the people are starving.

And Jerevan Somerville -

Another passage making the Christian position clearer might be Acts 3-4. Peter and John have been arrested for doing pretty much what the missionaries to Afghanistan were doing - acts of charity in conjunction with preaching the Good News.

And the net result?

This is by no means the first time this topic has come up among Christians. It is very difficult to shut us up, and “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church”.

We consider that we have received a direct command from the Lord of the Universe to tell everyone on earth what He has done thru His son Jesus. And there is no authority anywhere that can overrule this.

Scary thought, ain’t it?

Regards,
Shodan

20

Polycarp: no, of course I would not feel morally obligated to tell the truth, but I don’t think that is a fair analogy. A Jewish family in hiding from the SS would be endangered by the truth; thus I would willingly lie to protect them, but I would also accept whatever consequences or responsibilities accrued to that lie. Afghani Muslims will not be endangered or harmed because they have not been presented with the opportunity to convert to Christianity. In my view there is a huge difference between telling a lie to protect or safeguard the life of another person, and telling a lie to fulfill one’s own personal or spiritual agenda. And I am using the term “lie” in the general sense of a deliberate deception, not in the obviously narrower sense of “bearing false witness”.

So, if the condition under which Christians are permitted to enter Afghanistan and assist in the relief efforts is that they must refrain from proselytizing, then I do think that even evangelical Christians are obligated to comply, or not to flinch at the consequences of having entered the country with subversive intentions or under false pretenses.

I do see that the counter-argument by evangelical Christians rests on the conviction that the souls of those who do not know Christ are in jeopardy, and that saving them justifies the deception. I can respect that this is what their faith tells them to do, and even respect the fact that they do it in spite of the dangers. It is not, however, a justification which people who are not evangelical Christians are bound to accept as a valid explanation for their actions.