Missionary dies trying to reach an isolated tribe

6,362 Views | 128 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by diehard03
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Quote:

That's what I don't get about the praise being thrown on him. He went to a known hostile tribe that doesn't speak English. From their perspective, he was an intruder that was shouting nonsense at them. This guy might as well have tried to go preach to an active volcano.


His plan was to spend extended time with them to where he could learn their language and then share the gospel with them. In theory if he had been successful he would have spent some significant time there before really going into detail about his message.

I suspect you are right. But, still seems pretty unlikely that someone without any language training would be able to absorb a foreign language and then be able to teach them non trivial philosophical concepts.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

The behavior of Christ and the early apostles was almost guaranteed to lead to their deaths, but they chose that path regardless.


His situation isn't exactly analgous with the Apostles. It was illegal for him to be on the island - proselytizing in and of itself wasn't illegal...where the Apostles where in areas where it wasn't illegal for them to be there, just proselytizing was. Therefore, their chains and struggle made sense, and martyrdom was more straight forward.

I think the difference is not insignificant.

Quote:


2. His lack of planning and spontaneity seems characteristic of this Gen Z.

This is a strange conclusion based on 1 person.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Read The Spirit of the Rainforest, by Mark Ritchie. Perhaps someone could post the Amazon link. It is must reading for anyone interested in this thread.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

I suspect you are right. But, still seems pretty unlikely that someone without any language training would be able to absorb a foreign language and then be able to teach them non trivial philosophical concepts.

A majority of the time I spent on the mission field was with linguists. Many who were in the middle of translating the Bible for a language group or who had completed a translation. Language training surely helps however let's not forget that babies can learn languages in a few years.

It's also amazing how much these newly exposed people react to the words of God. When they read of the ground being cursed in Genesis they understand it first hand more than we ever will as that's how they spend a majority of their time. Often the ground is broken by throwing rocks at the soil before planting (depending on the degree of isolation).
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

It was illegal for him to be on the island - proselytizing in and of itself wasn't illegal.
To me, this is irrelevant, as even Peter said we are to obey God above men. Making it illegal to go on the island forced a decision for him. Obey man's laws or what the Spirit called him to and, not to mention, the Great Commission. He chose to obey God.
Post removed:
by user
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?


The Spirit of the Rainforest by Mark Ritchie
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

To me, this is irrelevant, as even Peter said we are to obey God above men. Making it illegal to go on the island forced a decision for him. Obey man's laws or what the Spirit called him to and, not to mention, the Great Commission. He chose to obey God.

And Romans 13 lays out the consequences. I feel the bar is higher for Christians. We are to try and satisfy both the requirements of those in authority above us, and God. If there are ways to achieve the same goals while not in conflict we should do so. Only when they are in direct (and I don't think they are) conflict, so we obey God and put our mercies at the hands of the rulers.

To me, this reads like he used his calling to do what he wanted to do how he wanted to do it.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Illegal is illegal, isn't it? I guess that I'm not completely understanding the distinction that you're making. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Doesn't the Bible teach that we are to obey man's law, except when it conflicts with God's law or God's direction? If God was in fact directing this young man to reach out to the Sentinelese, doesn't that trump the laws of India attempting to isolate the island?

No, I think God is clear that the means are just as important as the ends. Obviously, I think there is a distinction. He actually chose an "ends justify the means" approach...which I don't think God would approve of.

It's fascinating that we believe we God can do anything...yet it seems that "moving the hearts of the Indian government" wasn't possible...
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
it doesn't say that though. It reads like whatever is handed down by those ruling authorities might as well be from God himself. "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

I find it strange that yall are equating this situation to sharing the word of God itself being illegal or being an overtaken and subjugated people. I know that it's super sexy in the Christian world to die trying to reach a lost people but I can't this as being analgous to reaching the lost in Indian or China or where the very act of spreading the Gospel is illegal.

I assume you are for Planned Parenthood protestors actually destroying clinics? (same thing applies, no? the ends justify the means?)

edit: Pacifist...I see you with the editting!
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

it doesn't say that though. It reads like whatever is handed down by those ruling authorities might as well be from God himself. "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."
It says we are to be subject to governing authorities. We can be "subject" to them without obeying them, especially when their laws are a roadblock to fulfilling the Great Commission. If he had been arrested, he should accept the punishment. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were "subject" to Nebuchadnezzar. They didn't obey him when he demanded they adhere to the law. Peter said it is better to obey God than man.

And no, whatever is handed down from those authorities is not a case of "might as well be from God himself". That's asinine, unless of course you believe atrocities such as the holocaust or any countless number of state-sanctioned genocides are from God. While God can work through things, He is not the source of evil. This mindset is how you get the church to go along with all manner of evil that comes from the state.
Quote:

I find it strange that yall are equating this situation to sharing the word of God itself being illegal or being an overtaken and subjugated people. I know that it's super sexy in the Christian world to die trying to reach a lost people but I can't this as being analgous to reaching the lost in Indian or China or where the very act of spreading the Gospel is illegal.
When the state makes it against the law to go to the island, they make it against the law to spread the gospel to the Sentinelese. The law may not explicitly prohibit missionary activities, but they are prohibited by the law nonetheless.
Quote:

I assume you are for Planned Parenthood protestors actually destroying clinics? (same thing applies, no? the ends justify the means?)
Goodness. You just got done talking about what you think is a bad analogy, then you follow with this? The ends (spreading the gospel) and means (risking one's life or freedom to spread the gospel) aren't in conflict. He wasn't going there to destroy anything. He was going there to build relationships and, in time, share the gospel message.
Quote:

edit: Pacifist...I see you with the editting!
Okay? I edited because I wasn't satisfied with what I wrote as I don't believe it adequately conveyed my point.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

And no, whatever is handed down from those authorities is not a case of "might as well be from God himself". That's asinine, unless of course you believe atrocities such as the holocaust or any countless number of state-sanctioned genocides are from God. While God can work through things, He is not the source of evil. This mindset is how you get the church to go along with all manner of evil that comes from the state.

I think we tie ourselves in knots trying to explain evil and the like...i accept that God had to allow these "evil" things to happen for him to be God. And you can read Romans 13 for yourself. It certainly doesn't say that we should disobey the laws, regardless of the reason.

Quote:

When the state makes it against the law to go to the island, they make it against the law to spread the gospel to the Sentinelese. The law may not explicitly prohibit missionary activities, but they are prohibited by the law nonetheless.

You are making that jump. If its not explicit, it's not explicit.

Quote:

Goodness. You just got done talking about what you think is a bad analogy, then you follow with this? The ends (spreading the gospel) and means (risking one's life or freedom to spread the gospel) aren't in conflict. He wasn't going there to destroy anything. He was going there to build relationships and, in time, share the gospel message.

You can try and nitpick details if you want, but it's the similar choice: which laws do you follow? Whos to say what's a "good" law breaking and a "bad" law breaking?

All that said, I find myself on Woody's side that it's wrong for the Indian government to even do this. I just think this selective "law breaking" isn't what Christ would have wanted.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

Illegal is illegal, isn't it? I guess that I'm not completely understanding the distinction that you're making. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Doesn't the Bible teach that we are to obey man's law, except when it conflicts with God's law or God's direction? If God was in fact directing this young man to reach out to the Sentinelese, doesn't that trump the laws of India attempting to isolate the island?

No, I think God is clear that the means are just as important as the ends. Obviously, I think there is a distinction. He actually chose an "ends justify the means" approach...which I don't think God would approve of.

It's fascinating that we believe we God can do anything...yet it seems that "moving the hearts of the Indian government" wasn't possible...


Did Peter and John "move the hearts of the Sanhedrin" before disobeying their direct orders?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Did Peter and John "move the hearts of the Sanhedrin" before disobeying their direct orders?

Where the Sanhedrin forbidding Peter and the Apostles from being there or professing Jesus?

I get that everyone's making the immediate jump from "it's illegal to be there" to "illegal to spread the Gospel". I just don't think it's there.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Acts 5:34-39.

Not making any jumps at all. Sometimes Jonathan says perhaps and a bunch of Philistines die. Sometimes Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Holy Spirit, and Jewish priests end up converting. Sometimes 11 apostles and Paul get martyred, and 250 years later the emperor converts. Call me Gamaliel on this one. God can judge it, and God can have the glory for whatever happens.

diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess this is the usual "the ends justify the means when I approve the ends and don't care about the means" bit.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bishop Robert Barron's take

Bishop Robert Barron said:

even if we grant that there is a warrant for John Chau's mission, wouldn't we have to admit that it was a tragic failure, a miscalculation? I don't think so. Mother Teresa famously commented that the Lord does not ask us to be successful, but rather to be faithful. Was young Mr. Chau faithful? It is hard to deny it. Might his success be measured not so much in converts made but in witness offered? And was he an avatar of Western intolerance? I don't know: a kid wading ashore, unarmed, wearing only a pair of shorts, and carrying only a Bible? Say what you want about his prudence. I will speak of him with honor.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I think we tie ourselves in knots trying to explain evil and the like...i accept that God had to allow these "evil" things to happen for him to be God. And you can read Romans 13 for yourself. It certainly doesn't say that we should disobey the laws, regardless of the reason.
God can work through anything, but that doesn't mean He's the source of the evil. Saying that all things from government are like "from the mouth of God" places God as the source for the many evils that flow from government. And I didn't say Romans 13 said we should disobey laws. It says that we should be "subject". That doesn't mean obey. Just as we often see with the Apostles, they violated laws or orders from "governing authorities" but accepted punishment handed down. They disobeyed man's laws while also being subject to them.
Quote:

You are making that jump. If its not explicit, it's not explicit.
Yes, it's not explicit. It is an unavoidable byproduct of the law, which in essence, prohibits missionary work as well. If one cannot go onto the island for any reason, then one cannot go on the island for mission work.
Quote:

You can try and nitpick details if you want, but it's the similar choice: which laws do you follow? Whos to say what's a "good" law breaking and a "bad" law breaking?

All that said, I find myself on Woody's side that it's wrong for the Indian government to even do this. I just think this selective "law breaking" isn't what Christ would have wanted.
It's not nitpicking details. Your analogy was far worse than the one you were critical of. When the law prevents us from following God's commands, such as a law that prevents us from engaging in mission work, then we have no obligation to obey such law. I more proper analogy would be what we've seen in certain communities when the government steps in and stops the feeding of the homeless under some general food safety regulation. Enforce your regulations all you want, but those feeding the homeless should continue to do so. If that results in arrest, then so be it. The call to care for the homeless and marginalized trumps any ordinance from man.

That said, I don't think we're really going to see eye-to-eye on this, and that's fine. Just approaching it from different angles.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's a lot of words to simply reiterate that the ends justify the means. I just think that God expects more from us.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

That's a lot of words to simply reiterate that the ends justify the means. I just think that God expects more from us.
I think God expects us to fulfill the Great Commission, regardless of the laws that man puts in place that obstruct it. He didn't instruct us to go make disciples, only after checking to make sure we're compliant with man's laws. Who are we to obey? God or man? Just like we see with the Apostles, we follow God and if that puts us on the wrong side of the law, then we submit to the state's punishment.

Sinful means to achieve a certain ends would be wrong. That's not what happened here.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I think God expects us to fulfill the Great Commission, regardless of the laws that man puts in place that obstruct it. Who are we to obey? God or man? Just like we see with the Apostles, we follow God and if that puts us on the wrong side of the law, then we submit to the state's punishment.

You keep repeating this like I didn't hear you the first time. It's fairly simple for you: whatever is done in the name of the Great Commission is what we are to do....regardless of who or what we harm in the process. Everything is secondary. Sure, you have to "submit to the government", but it's only because failure to do what's necessary means God would punish you more.

I just think God gives us things like Romans 13 to remind us that how we go about the Great Commission matters....not just that we fulfill it.

Quote:

That's not what happened here.

How are you so sure?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

It's fairly simple for you: whatever is done in the name of the Great Commission is what we are to do....regardless of who or what we harm in the process. Everything is secondary.
Okay, this will be my last post because clearly we're talking past each other. I did want to address this though. This statement is simply false. No, we aren't free to do whatever we want in the name of the Great Commission. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but our means must look like Christ. We cannot engage in sinful conduct in the name of the Great Commission. Chau didn't harm anyone. He, in fact, took precautions to guard against harming others.

Violating the law isn't inherently sinful, as man's law does not define what is, or is not, sin. Chau followed where the Spirit led him, and he did so in a way that would minimize risk for the Sentinelese. He lost his life in his efforts to spread the gospel, and he is considered blessed for doing so.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

We cannot engage in sinful conduct in the name of the Great Commission. Chau didn't harm anyone. He, in fact, took precautions to guard against harming others.

Except whatever risk the Indian patrol teams had to endure in dealing with this presence. And you know well and good that harm is not the standard by which we measure sin.

In the end, we also disagree on Romans 13, so I agree we won't get anywhere. I don't see how you get your interpretation from the text. It goes deeper than just "submit to the unfair rule of the government".
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.