Shodan, thank you. That passage from Acts seems to support the prevailing Christian argument in this thread better than the passage in Hebrews. The difficulty with that argument, in this case, is that the religion (Islam) which discourages proselytizing and conversion to other faiths acknowledges the same all-powerful God Whom the Christians do. So which fiat of God takes precedence? How much pain has entered the world in the effort to answer that question?
I fall heavily on the same side with RTFirefly, Shodan, and Polycarp on this issue. The injustice was not misrepresenting their motives for going to Afghanistan, it was banning religious discussion in the first place. It amazes me how two-faced (speaking about ideas, not persons) people can seem when it comes to Christianity:
We’ve all seen the outraged threads talking about how horribly the Taliban regime treated women, how miserable its people were, how badly the citizens as a whole were treated, and were all pretty much in agreement that their government should be overthrown by force, allowing the people to institute their own government.
But let a Christian ministry do its own small part to change things there, and all of a sudden we’re required to respect their laws?! Are you insane? Or, in the name of respect for local law, should all female military and press personnel wear veils and undergo “circumcision”? You can’t have it both ways. Either the government is just and deserves respect, or it is not, and does not deserve respect.
Anyway, echoing Shodan, Christians have a mandate from a higher authority than any earthly government, and that mandate is to spread the gospel. Our “founding fathers”, so to speak, were gladly imprisoned for doing so, and blatantly disobeyed orders to the contrary. They even staged a prison break, and though it was against local law, it was not wrong, as they were released on the authority of our King (who overrules any other leader).
And the Nazi Germany analogy is valid. From a Christian POV, those people are in danger, both physical and spiritual, and failing to act against both types of danger will cause further suffering.
Isn’t there a danger of “rice Christianity” here? You know, the missionaries come in as aid workers, provide all sorts of aid, and then say “We’re Christian…don’t you want to be Christian too?” I’m not saying it’ll happen, but that danger might exist, as Dublos mentioned in his OP.
In a more general sense, the practice makes me uncomfortable. I think people have the right to believe what they want, but those aid workers were in Afghanistan with the permission of the government, and it seems to me that they had the obligation to obey the laws of the country, and especially, not to lie about their intentions in coming into the country. It would seem to me that if a foreigner came into the US and lied about his purpose for entering, when the real purpose was to commit illegal acts, the US would be justifiably upset.
Of course, I’d say that the U.S. laws are more just than that of Taliban controlled Afghanistan, and there is an objective difference between someone who’s trying to convert someone else and someone who’s smuggling drugs (for example)
Of course, the missionaries believe that they’re doing a positive good…they’re helping to save the Afghans from hell, and teaching them about the correct religion. However, the Taliban leaders of Afghanistan probably would have said that they had the correct religion, and that the Christian missionaries were doing no such thing, but instead endangering the souls of the Afghans they encountered.
I think it is important, though, to make a distinction between this, and Shodan’s example of lying to a government to bring food in, or Polycarp’s example of lying to an SS officer to keep him from capturing and killing Jews. In both those cases, the action has an uncontrovertable, objective benefit to the group that you’re helping…everyone can agree that providing food to someone who’s starving benefits him, and that preventing someone from being killed benefits him. These have objective benefits in a way that converting someone to Christianity doesn’t, because it can be debated whether or not someone being Christian is a good thing.
So, I’m a little uneasy about it.
Also, echoing Sua Sponte (sorry, but all the stuff I wanted to say is already said), Nobody converts anybody to anything. If the Afghani Muslims decided that faith in Jesus was preferable to their current lot, and seemed like the right thing to do, then what business is it of anybody else’s?
No, I am not “insane”, thank you very much, and I don’t believe I have said anything to deserve that kind of response. If you wish to engage in that sort of rhetoric, please take it to the Pit.
Also, my understanding from the OP is that the injunction against proselytizing was made by the current provisional government of Afghanistan, not the Taliban. So no, it is not “insane” of me to perceive a difference between the provisional government and that of Nazi Germany. Furthermore, it is my understanding that Islam does generally discourage proselytizing by and conversion to other faiths, so this kind of injunction is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
A. it’s a figure of speech, not a diagnosis (and not directed particularly at you anyway, but at the position), no need to get your panties in a twist.
B. Regardless of what government said it, they’re still justified under their beliefs and under the principle that people should be free to religious expression, and because people are converting willingly, not under duress.
For a better summary of my position, look here, because I don’t want to cross-post it.
Joe_Cool, I read the summary of your position, and it is pretty similar to what has been posted in this thread already. I am not equating active proselytizing with forced conversion. The point is that the government of Afghanistan expects Christians to refrain from the former. As I said earlier, this is consistent with their religious mandates handed down to them from the same God – which would seem to put them on an equal footing with Christian mandates. If Christians can’t acknowledge that about Islam, why would you expect the Muslims to respect Christian beliefs and allow them to do their thing?
Also, I do realize that it was a “figure of speech” but: I don’t think it was necessary, it did/does seem to be directed at me personally, and in context of a discussion involving such sensitive issues as religion, Nazis, Taliban and so on, I found it rather offensive. Just as I find the “figure of speech” in your next post rather offensive – and clearly directed at me, not my position.
Jerevan - I apologize for my unclarity. You had asked, “Wouldn’t a Christian expect the same respect for existing customs, laws and policies when visiting our country?” I was using Hebrews only to indicate that ‘our’ country isn’t the obvious one for a Christian.
Shodan - thanks for providing a better Scripture!
Polycarp - absolutely, we are called to respect the laws of the countries God has placed us in, as long as they don’t conflict with our calling. But [hijack] regarding the other thread, I think you understand the difference between respect and allegiance. For instance, I greatly respect the Roman Catholic Church (regardless of my qualms about its current leadership), but I owe it no allegiance. [/hijack]
Jerevan again - I fully agree with what Polycarp said about respecting the dignity of every human being. And we are required to share our faith in a way that conveys that respect. And we are required to respect the choices of those who choose to worship God in different ways than we do, or not at all.
But share the Gospel we must. And while that can’t involve deceiving the ‘other’ that we are sharing with, a hostile government that forbids us to witness is another story entirely. We respect the right of persons to make up their own minds as to whether they want to accept Christ, or whether they even want to listen to the Gospel message. But as I see it, Person A, or Government A, doesn’t have the right to be Person B’s gatekeeper in this matter, to pre-empt their right to hear and to choose. And since they do not have that right, I cannot respect their claim of right.
I percieved the OP to be asking an ethics question (whether it is right or wrong to use a of position of authority/compassionate service to proselytize) than offering a religious debate on a God-given command to spread the Gospel or whether evangelical Christians have a moral imperative to honor the law of restrictive governments.
I watched that show last night also, and what really disgusted me about those women was that not only did they lie to the public after they were released about their actual mission in Afghanistian (“church planting;” humanitarian efforts were secondary to addressing the “heart”), their church group used the sponsorship of Shelter Now to get into the country under the guise of a humanitarian organization in the first place knowing that they were using their protection in order to seek converts. I disagree that it is “paternalistic” to suggest that “humanitarians” offering down-trodden people much-needed food, medicine, and jobs in order to “share” their religious beliefs does not result in winning truly committed converts. Yes, it was wrong for the Taliban to ban proselytizing ,and yes, individuals have a right to share (or “witness”) their religious beliefs, but those women and their group were using their position as humanitarian workers to covertly spread their religion and thereby endanger the lives of their Afghan friends, and to me that is despicable.
I’d suggest you read more closely. Equating proselytizing with forced conversion is not at all the point of my position, it’s only a tangent. My point is that those Christians, at whose actions you take such offense, are IMO acting under “wartime rules,” not standard rules. Under such circumstances, I classify their actions as espionage and infiltration of an enemy occupation, not lying and misrepresenting themselves. Soldiers are not tried for murder, nor should they. And Christians who have to misrepresent their motives to enter a hostile land should not have to bicker over whether they told a lie.
And since you seem to have missed it, my point is, “too bad.” My God commands the sharing of His message. If another religion says something else, then I do not concern myself with it, any more than your child should obey when a stranger gives them an order contradicting what you said. The job of a Christian is not to bend over backwards trying to make everybody like us (“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” - Jesus, Matthew 10:34-39). If another government, or even this government, says something contrary to what the bible says, we are required to obey the higher order. If there are consequences for disobeying the government’s mandate, then so be it. We are commanded to disobey any law that contradicts God’s law. Period.
First, the government of Afghanistan placed a ban on proselytization, not their god (I suppose I could be wrong. Please feel free to correct me with a cite if it was their god that prohibited Christians). Second, based on what I have seen, I do not believe that Allah and my God are the same being. To be honest, I have not read the Koran, and I don’t know all that much about Islam, but I fail to see how the same God can say to this group of people “[Jesus] is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” (Matt 3:17, KJV) and to this other, “This Jesus guy is good, but Mohammed is greater” (Please correct me with a cite if I’m wrong).
I don’t expect Muslims to acknowledge my beliefs or my mandate from God, any more than Paul, Peter, James, and John expected the Romans to allow them to preach the Gospel. They knew that they were ordered not to, and they willingly and knowingly disobeyed that order. They obviously were well aware of the consequences, and accepted those consequences on the many occasions when they were jailed or beaten for preaching.
Also, you can’t generalize and say Muslims don’t want to hear it. If those individual persons do not want to listen to what the missionaries have to say, they do not have to. If they don’t want to become Christians, nobody is forcing them. It seems to me that they chose to listen, and chose to put their faith in Jesus.
If it pleases you to take offense at any little thing I might say, then have at it. Enjoy yourself. I haven’t attacked you in any way, and I really am not concerned with whether you approve of my manner of speaking.
I did realize that. I just wanted to make it clear that I was not equating proselytizing with forced conversion myself. It seems to me that you view the role of an evangelical Christian, in this case, as akin to that of a “holy warrior”. Fair enough.
I only said that I thought Christians should refrain from proselytizing, as a matter of respect. As I also said that if they chose not to do so, then they should not flinch at facing the consequences for making such a choice. You have said that you would accept such consequences; also fair enough. I can respect that kind of choice, when a person takes full responsibility for the action and any consequences.
My argument was directed at the general idea (not expressed by you) that Christians who proselytize should be excused for their conduct, because that’s what their faith tells them to do. This is certainly a desirable thing, but my point has been that such Christians cannot reasonably expect a non-Christian government to agree with them on this point – and so should not be overly surprised when they do not.
I will work on this. My understanding is based on memory, so it may take some time for me to find a reputable source. Incidentally, though, I’m not saying that Islam prohibits Christianity per se, only active attempts to proselytize to Muslims. I realize that to a Christian for whom “spreading the Gospel” is a matter of the word as well as deed, this Muslim attitude would appear to prohibit Christianity. But in the eyes of Islam there is a distinction.
I will say this: to me there is a distinction between adhering to a particular doctrine (re: against proselytizing) as a matter of general religious principle, vs. selectively choosing to enforce a doctrine only to further a certain political agenda (re: against Christianity). If it could be shown that the provisional government was uneven in its observance of its professed Muslims doctrines, then this would make a case for the latter and I would have to concede my point and revise my thinking. For instance, this kind of policy would not carry much credibility in, say, Turkey, a predominantly Muslim but highly secularized nation which has adopted a far more moderate and liberal attitude towards traditional Muslim teachings than one would find in, say, Iran (leaving aside the distinction between Sunni and Shi’a Islam).
I cannot speak in any detailed manner on the place of Jesus in Islamic theology, but the opening paragraphs of this link explain the identity of the Muslim God: http://www.thetruereligion.org/allah.htm . Muslims believe that they revere the same God as Jews and Christians, whom historically they referred to as “the Peoples of the Book” out of deference for a certain amount of shared scriptural and priestly history. There is a reason why Judaism, Christianity and Islam are collectively referred to as the “Abrahamic” faiths.
All I said was that Islam as a whole discourages this kind of discourse between the religions (though I acknowledge that I must find a source to support this assertion). This may not fit with our own concepts of freedom of religion (which, I think, is a secular concept, not a Christian one); but how do we uphold our own concept of religious freedom if we don’t respect their right to believe differently? It’s not a simple thing.
I do agree: the choice to listen and the choice to convert are matters of individual conscience and free will, not force. But, as Romola points out, the OP was questioned the ethics of entering a country under false pretenses for the purpose of spreading Christianity. On this topic I think you and I and others have explained our positions quite well.
Don’t get me wrong. For what it’s worth, what you think does matter to me because I like to understand different points of view on their own terms. And I think I do understand (mostly) what you believe, and why, and what you think you must do as a result, even if I don’t happen to agree with the approach. As I said earlier, I respect people who follow their faith even into dangerous situations. What I cannot respect is those who do so, then try to excuse their behavior and escape the consequences, instead of owning what they have done and accepting responsibility. You seem to be one of the latter rather than the former.
Very well. Let’s just leave it at that and go on, shall we?
Meanwhile, let me see if I can find a cite re: Islam and proselytizing.
There’s a big difference between violating oyur citizen’s rights, and putting restrictions on immigrants. You don’t like their laws? Then don’t go there. The women of Afghanistan do not have that option.
I find your attitude that you get to ignore other people’s rights simply because you are supporting a “rightious cause” to be arrogant and offensive. I don’t care what your Lord told you to do; you’re responsible for your own decisions.
Ignore other people’s rights? :rolleyes:
Ignoring an unjust directive of an unjust and illegitimate governmnet is not violating anybody’s rights. Neither is feeding and clothing them. Neither is talking to them, even if it is about God. Give me a break.
And you’re exactly right. The women of Afghanistan don’t have that right. Or any other of the rights that we consider to be required for basic human dignity. How is giving them food, clothes, companionship, and a message of love a violation of rights? Whose rights are being violated, anyway?
Get over yourself.
Fair enough. sounds like we don’t disagree quite as much as it seemed.
Did you mean the opposite, or do I have more 'splaining to do?
Sounds good, looking forward to the info. thanks.
I came across some self-righteous “Christian” trying to convert Muslims in North Africa many years ago.
Apostasy is punishable by death under traditional Islamic law, so it’s not a very smart thing for a Muslim to change religions. Even if these missionaries succeeded in converting people, they would permanently separate the converts from their families and friends.
To me, Christianity and Islam are equally silly - but screwing up other people’s lives is wrong. Why can’t these people mind their own business, rather than forcing their superstitions on other people?
Sorry for the hijack, but I don’t believe this sentence has been penned by Diderot. AFAIK, it was written by an ordinary parish priest, whose name escapes me, during the XVIII° century. The guy did is priest things normally during his life, but was apparently a “closet” atheist and left after his death a hateful pamphlet against the church, which included this sentence. The pamphlet was later published not by Diderot, but by Voltaire, IIRC.
I would want to point an issue which apparently hasn’t been raised until now. Some NGOs were very upset against the christian organizations operating in Afghanistan. They said that due to their prozelitism, all western relief workers were viewed very suspiciously by the Afghan authorities, were sometimes not allowed to operate, denied entrance, etc…
That’s a very good reason for me. If by trying to push your agenda, you’re actually jeopardizing the efforts of all other NGOs, you’re doing more wrong than good. Under the conditions existing in Afghanistan at these times, christians should have kept their bibles in their pockets, and limited themselves to help people.
I think it was Bill Maher who painted the picture of a missionary with a Bible in one hand and a can of Spaghetti-Os in the other. And if you want the Spaghetti-Os…
I can’t think of a better example than missionary work of why foreigners often find Americans irritating and condescending. I don’t fear for the people of Afghanistan so much as Native South American tribes being given a Coke and defective IUD with their Bible, hearing “Oh, look at that cute little doll. That’s your GOD? You think he brings water? Aww, that’s so cute. Thank goodness we’re here to tell you the Truth. Now where were we? Oh yes, water into wine…”
I think it was Bill Maher who painted the picture of a missionary with a Bible in one hand and a can of Spaghetti-Os in the other. And if you want the Spaghetti-Os…
I can’t think of a better example than missionary work of why foreigners often find Americans irritating and condescending. I don’t fear for the people of Afghanistan so much as Native South American tribes being given a Coke and defective IUD with their Bible, hearing “Oh, look at that cute little doll. That’s your GOD? You think he brings water? Aww, that’s so cute. Thank goodness we’re here to tell you the Truth. Now where were we? Oh yes, water into wine…”
They don’t need Jesus. They need something to eat. Take the money you would spend on missionary work, and buy them something to eat.
The Gospel According to St. Elucidator
What God wants you to do is to take care of His children.
“Everything else is commentary.” (Hillel)