Evangelizing an already "perfect" tribe

[JRKH]

For the sake of Discussion:

You are part of a Christian missionary group. (The specific faith tradition doesn’t matter.) The leader of the Group hears of an isolated set of tribes far up in a remote and virtually inaccessible part of the world. Only one or two caravans per year can get in or out. You are sent to this area for a year with the mission, not of evangelizing but of study. You are to learn all that you can of their beliefs and social structure in order that the group can devise an appropriate plan of evangelization to Christianity.

During your time with these people you find, to your surprise, the most Christian of societies:
No war among the tribes,
Just laws, rigidly but justly applied and tempered with mercy and forgiveness,
Little if any crime,
Strong family bonds,
Neighbor helping neighbor constantly,
A society of Love and Fellowship open and freely given to any who come to it.
Weekly meetings to honor the Universal God in prayer and fellowship,
The Great commandment engraved in the very Core of society: Love God and Love neighbor.

In fact the only disturbing thing you notice is that their dress (or undress) would be considered inappropriate even by today’s worldly standards, though sexual promiscuity is virtually unknown.
Also some of their punishments are harsh by our standards but so rarely applied that they virtually do not count.

Now, after a year, you return to your missionary group with your findings. What are you going to recommend to them?
Here is a group, living quite naturally the Christian ideal of Fellowship, Peace and Love of God. The only things lacking are a few ritualistic signs such as baptism by water. Other than this they are the living embodiment of the Ideal taught by Christ, and they have been for a 1000 years or more.
Do you take them the Gospel or do you leave them in (obviously) God’s Hands?
Do you go back to teach them or to learn more from and about them?

Are these people behind the curve simply because they haven’t heard the name of Jesus, or far ahead of the curve by living inside the very teachings of Christ.

Do you try to “Convert” these people or do you simply stay away since God has so obviously taken these people in Hand and written His ordinances on their Hearts.

Peace
James

 

[onaquest]

This makes me think of the work of Charles de Foucald. He lived among a tribe of people and did not evangelize. Yet his witness has spoken to me and strengthened my faith.

My question to myself is, would I have made an impact on that tribe to bring them to Christ without preaching to them?

 

[Contarini]

St. Thomas More sort of addresses this in his Utopia (though it’s hard to be sure how tongue in cheek he was while writing this, or what he really thought about the society he described). The way he describes it, many of the Utopians embrace Catholicism enthusiastically, precisely because it completes and agrees with what they already believe based on natural law. (At least that’s how I remember it–it’s been years since I read Utopia and I’m sure I’ve forgotten the nuances.)

A more adversarial presentation of the issue is in James Blish’s *A Case of Conscience *(Blish was not a believer).

But both of these are fictional societies. Is there any such thing as a “perfect society” in reality?

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

St. Thomas More sort of addresses this in his Utopia (though it’s hard to be sure how tongue in cheek he was while writing this, or what he really thought about the society he described). The way he describes it, many of the Utopians embrace Catholicism enthusiastically, precisely because it completes and agrees with what they already believe based on natural law. (At least that’s how I remember it–it’s been years since I read Utopia and I’m sure I’ve forgotten the nuances.)

A more adversarial presentation of the issue is in James Blish’s *A Case of Conscience *(Blish was not a believer).

But both of these are fictional societies. Is there any such thing as a “perfect society” in reality?
Edwin

The Problem with trying to determine whether a “perfect society” truly exists is going to depend upon how we define “perfect” in the details.
Even in my example there is a lot of details left out and a lot of room for interpretation. I simply got around this by saying that the “You” who went to study this tribe found a “model Christian” society. When “You” returns and describes all that he studied and learned, will the others in his group agree that it is a model Chriatian society? Might they not interpret certain things differently than “You” did?

Peace
James

 

[Pro_Domina]

Can’t exist. If all but one virtue is not practiced then there really is no practice of the other virtues.

It is like saying a pool of water that does not wet.

 

[coyotekate77]

other than a few ritualistic signs such as baptism by water

Ouch. If I may, I would like to state that no matter how perfectly the actions of these individual tribespeople may correspond to the ‘actions’ demanded of Christians, without them actually hearing the ‘good news’ of Christ, they are missing out on something far more vital than a ‘religious’ evangelization.

Further, the idea that baptism is only a ‘ritual’ and does not confer any actual or sanctifying grace on the recipient, removal of original sin, etc., is very troubling to me as a Catholic. Baptism is not an empty ritual. . .and neither is communion. Without the gospel, without baptism, there is no chance for these people to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Our Savior, nor to learn His teachings (which are far more than simple outward ‘living of the good life’). . .IMO of course.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Does this society know that Jesus died for their sins? If not, then we need to tell them about Jesus. We don’t have to change their lifestyle, those are merely cultural trimmings. Obviously we don’t need to worry about the practice of their morals. But we would be very remiss to let them go on without knowing that God so loved them that He sent His only begotten Son for them.

 

[JRKH]

Ouch. If I may, I would like to state that no matter how perfectly the actions of these individual tribespeople may correspond to the ‘actions’ demanded of Christians, without them actually hearing the ‘good news’ of Christ, they are missing out on something far more vital than a ‘religious’ evangelization.

Further, the idea that baptism is only a ‘ritual’ and does not confer any actual or sanctifying grace on the recipient, removal of original sin, etc., is very troubling to me as a Catholic. Baptism is not an empty ritual. . .and neither is communion. Without the gospel, without baptism, there is no chance for these people to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Our Savior, nor to learn His teachings (which are far more than simple outward ‘living of the good life’). . .IMO of course.

My apologies if I offended. I too do not think of these things in terms of “empty ritual” but am speaking in the terms of whether the addition of Baptism by water would make any difference to these people.
Baptism is an outward sign of an inner change. If that change is not needed, then the external sign may well be meaningless to these people. That is what I was trying to get at.

Peace
James

 

[rlg94086]

reductio ad absurdum

Based on the description, they have a great societal structure. However, if you are saying they are without sin (pride, lust, etc.), then we all know that such a tribe doesn’t exist. If you are saying they do sin, but have a “Christian” society (I’m guessing that is what you mean, since you mention punishment), then certainly they should be evangelized. They still sin, therefore, they still separate themselves from God (indvidually) and are denied the beatific vision. To deny them Christ would be cruel and inhuman punishment.

As someone else said, they would more than likely embrace Christ’s teaching, since their society is already closer to the ideal.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Even Mary who was without sin needed a Savior. She was evangelized by an angel.

 

[Feedmysheep]

Baptism is an outward sign of an inner change. If that change is not needed, then the external sign may well be meaningless to these people. That is what I was trying to get at.

Peace
James

Here’s my thoughts:

1. The Church teaches us that we’re all born with Original sin on our soul. All of us. Because of this, we are unable to obtain sanctifying grace until the stain is removed- baptism being the ordinary form.
2. No matter how perfect the external of their society seems, life on this Earth is not the point. We are pilgrims on our way to Heaven. A Heaven we’re not going to obtain without the restoration of sanctifying grace in our soul.
3. Jesus gave the Great Commission, telling us to make disciples of all nations. He didn’t say, “Unless they seem like they’ve already got it together, then go ahead and skip them”. I would be wary about applying my faulty human notions of “perfection” if that meant disobeying my King.

That said, I would be very, very careful about how I framed my mission work. Cultural elitism is a terrible thing, as culture, being a man-made construct, is just as flawed as anything man does on his own. In every way possible, I would keep the autonomy of the native culture intact, introducing only what the Church teaches, and not what my cultural sensibilities would dictate.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Here’s my thoughts:

1. The Church teaches us that we’re all born with Original sin on our soul. All of us. Because of this, we are unable to obtain sanctifying grace until the stain is removed- baptism being the ordinary form.
2. No matter how perfect the external of their society seems, life on this Earth is not the point. We are pilgrims on our way to Heaven. A Heaven we’re not going to obtain without the restoration of sanctifying grace in our soul.
3. Jesus gave the Great Commission, telling us to make disciples of all nations. He didn’t say, “Unless they seem like they’ve already got it together, then go ahead and skip them”. I would be wary about applying my faulty human notions of “perfection” if that meant disobeying my King.

That said, I would be very, very careful about how I framed my mission work. Cultural elitism is a terrible thing, as culture, being a man-made construct, is just as flawed as anything man does on his own. In every way possible, I would keep the autonomy of the native culture intact, introducing only what the Church teaches, and not what my cultural sensibilities would dictate.

That is incorrect. At least not without some premises.

That way of thinking is typical among two types of people.

The really pious and the really educated.

They both tend to act like they should and are exclusive.

Religion and culture both come from God’s hand.

The best thing is to be able to use things from both the temporal and spiritual world, because while the temporal is well temporal, it is a reflection of what will happen in Eternity.

Now that culture could be infiltrated by evil has no doubt.

Yet the idea of leaving a culture intact because all cultures are good and equal and cannot be influenced by another is the arguement of indiginists who say that the Spanish destroyed the Aztec “culture” and the Church imposed this and that.

What culture? Eating each other and walking naked?!

Cultures need to, while preserving their identity, as the uniqueness shows the infinite munificence of God, take and give to each other.

Beauties come from that stuff.

Want an unbeatable example?

Chocolate.

 

[Feedmysheep]

That is incorrect. At least not without some premises.

That way of thinking is typical among two types of people.

The really pious and the really educated.

I’m not sure I’d classify myself as either (though I hope to be authentically pious), so there’s your first premise, out the window.

They both tend to act like they should and are exclusive.

Religion and culture both come from God’s hand.

I have never acted like religious devotion and education “should and are exclusive”, so there goes your second premise. (You’re not doing very well so far…)

And I would maintain that BOTH religion AND culture come from man’s hand. God reveals to us His divine Truths. He engraves in our very hearts His law. However, the way those Truths are practiced and those laws observed are dependent on the culture that we, as humans, have created.
Take, for example, the issue of priestly vestments. They are part of Church tradition (little t). They are an artifact of a particular cultural expression (clothing) created by a particular section of humanity (Rome) in a particular time (can’t remember with any accuracy ATM). I do not for an instant think that God designed the cut and style of vestments. He deserves what is beautiful, and so is better honored by, say, stoles in lovely fabrics and cuts than a tacky polyester one that’s all ratty and tattered, but both are human expressions.
Remember that whole “free will” thing?
That God is all-powerful is without doubt. That God granted us free will and would not violate that is also without doubt. Certain individuals in each society may be more in unison with God’s will than others, and therefore help to shape society in a way more pleasing to God, but God does not issue forth whole cultures from His hand.
Humans come from God’s hand. Culture and some of the more specific expressions of religion does not.

Yet the idea of leaving a culture intact because all cultures are good and equal and cannot be influenced by another is the arguement of indiginists who say that the Spanish destroyed the Aztec “culture” and the Church imposed this and that.

What culture? Eating each other and walking naked?!

First of all, I never suggested that every culture, no matter what, should be left unaltered because all cultures are good and equal. I was responding to the highly improbable, very specialized example given in the OP. There was no mention of cannibalism in the OP, and, frankly, I don’t think I would be without Church support in saying that simply walking around naked is anything automatically sinful. Nudity is, in and of itself, morally neutral. What we flawed humans do with that nudity is another issue.

Cultures need to, while preserving their identity, as the uniqueness shows the infinite munificence of God, take and give to each other.

And who decides what parts to give away? To take? Humans? or God? I stand by my previous post. It would be a dangerous thing indeed to, as an outsider, assume that my sensibilities are enough to determine what should be changed in any culture. I trust God’s guidance through the Catholic Church, and would be willing to infiltrate a culture only with the Truths of Divine revelation, and nothing more.

Beauties come from that stuff.

Want an unbeatable example?

Chocolate.

I think you have completely glossed over the point of the OP. Here is a “perfect” society, all sugary treats aside. Should one, acting as a missionary, introduce God’s Truth to it, risking the permanent alteration of said society by doing so.

 

[KingAlfred]

For the sake of Discussion:

You are part of a Christian missionary group. (The specific faith tradition doesn’t matter.) The leader of the Group hears of an isolated set of tribes far up in a remote and virtually inaccessible part of the world. Only one or two caravans per year can get in or out. You are sent to this area for a year with the mission, not of evangelizing but of study. You are to learn all that you can of their beliefs and social structure in order that the group can devise an appropriate plan of evangelization to Christianity.

During your time with these people you find, to your surprise, the most Christian of societies:
No war among the tribes,
Just laws, rigidly but justly applied and tempered with mercy and forgiveness,
Little if any crime,
Strong family bonds,
Neighbor helping neighbor constantly,
A society of Love and Fellowship open and freely given to any who come to it.
Weekly meetings to honor the Universal God in prayer and fellowship,
The Great commandment engraved in the very Core of society: Love God and Love neighbor.

In fact the only disturbing thing you notice is that their dress (or undress) would be considered inappropriate even by today’s worldly standards, though sexual promiscuity is virtually unknown.
Also some of their punishments are harsh by our standards but so rarely applied that they virtually do not count.

Now, after a year, you return to your missionary group with your findings. What are you going to recommend to them?
Here is a group, living quite naturally the Christian ideal of Fellowship, Peace and Love of God. The only things lacking are a few ritualistic signs such as baptism by water. Other than this they are the living embodiment of the Ideal taught by Christ, and they have been for a 1000 years or more.
Do you take them the Gospel or do you leave them in (obviously) God’s Hands?
Do you go back to teach them or to learn more from and about them?

Are these people behind the curve simply because they haven’t heard the name of Jesus, or far ahead of the curve by living inside the very teachings of Christ.

Do you try to “Convert” these people or do you simply stay away since God has so obviously taken these people in Hand and written His ordinances on their Hearts.

Peace
James

Leave them alone, but also know that someone else will someday go after them.

 

[peary]

Now, after a year, you return to your missionary group with your findings. What are you going to recommend to them?
Here is a group, living quite naturally the Christian ideal of Fellowship, Peace and Love of God. The only things lacking are a few ritualistic signs such as baptism by water. Other than this they are the living embodiment of the Ideal taught by Christ, and they have been for a 1000 years or more.
Do you take them the Gospel or do you leave them in (obviously) God’s Hands?
Do you go back to teach them or to learn more from and about them?

Are these people behind the curve simply because they haven’t heard the name of Jesus, or far ahead of the curve by living inside the very teachings of Christ.

Do you try to “Convert” these people or do you simply stay away since God has so obviously taken these people in Hand and written His ordinances on their Hearts.

Peace
James

They do not know Christ, Who is their Savior and Lord, and they do not know the love of God for them. Remember, they too deserve eternal life in Christ.

 

[coyotekate77]

Are these people behind the curve simply because they haven’t heard the name of Jesus, or far ahead of the curve by living inside the very teachings of Christ.

“The curve” has nothing to do with the answer.

Is there any other name by which we may be saved than the name of Jesus? There isn’t, is there?

I know I’ve said it earlier, and others say it as well–no matter how ‘perfect’ the actions may ‘appear’, without the gospel. . .without being made members of the body of Christ. . .no matter how “Christian” this society may look, it is seriously lacking.

Further, if these people are already living such a good life. . .then the gospel can only enhance that life. It appears that people already ‘primed’, if you will, to accept teachings which they already have ‘written on their hearts’, would become ardent supporters of the gospel.

Everybody needs the gospel. To deny it because one thinks ‘they don’t need it, they already LOOK like they follow the rules’, is a terrible misunderstanding of what Christianity is and teaches.

We were told to preach the good news everywhere–not to ‘skip over’ people who already ‘looked like good Christians without being told the Truth anyway.’

 

[JRKH]

Are these people behind the curve simply because they haven’t heard the name of Jesus, or far ahead of the curve by living inside the very teachings of Christ.

Very interesting discussion so far.
Coyote, I think you are missing a certain reality that I tried to make clear in the part you quote above.
I said they are, “living inside the very teachings of Christ”.
You seem to read that as, “they already **LOOK like **they follow the rules”.

So the person who comes back and tells you that these people not only display Christian Charity, but in every sense he was able to observe, they were imbued with Christian Spirit - Living within the very teachings of Christ - You would read/hear this as being only something superficial like the actions of the Pharasees and cannot be a true represntation of how they think and feel.
This strikes me as leading to a overly aggressive stance when evangelizing and possibly more harm than good.

Please correct me if I have read you wrong.

Of the proposals presented so far, I liked the term infiltrate the Gospel into their society. If a person (or persons) were to live among them as Christians, living the Gospel and preaching by action and only incidentally with words, the tribe would likely assimilate the teachings without any real problem.
If one went in with the sort of attitude that, while they are living exactly the way they should live, they are still going to hell because no one poured water over them, I could see reistance and misunderstanding and spiritual conflict being introduced.

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

If one went in with the sort of attitude that, while they are living exactly the way they should live, they are still going to hell because no one poured water over them, I could see reistance and misunderstanding and spiritual conflict being introduced.

But the Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. This is a problem for conservative evangelicalism, but not for Catholicism. While many Catholic missionaries may have had this attitude, even Aquinas recognized that there might theoretically be people out there who had come to the truth through some extraordinary means (and could be saved through “baptism of desire”). And I’ve already mentioned St. Thomas More. But certainly the modern Catholic Church teaches that such people can be saved. So where’s the problem?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Problem with trying to determine whether a “perfect society” truly exists is going to depend upon how we define “perfect” in the details.
Even in my example there is a lot of details left out and a lot of room for interpretation. I simply got around this by saying that the “You” who went to study this tribe found a “model Christian” society. When “You” returns and describes all that he studied and learned, will the others in his group agree that it is a model Chriatian society? Might they not interpret certain things differently than “You” did?

Exactly. And that’s why the best thing to do is to proclaim the Gospel and let the society in question work out for themselves (subject to the checks and balances of the universal Church if they come up with clearly heretical answers) how this does or doesn’t change the way their society functions.

Edwin

 

[coyotekate77]

said they are, “living inside the very teachings of Christ”.
You seem to read that as, “they already LOOK like they follow the rules”.

So the person who comes back and tells you that these people not only display Christian Charity, but in every sense he was able to observe, they were imbued with Christian Spirit - Living within the very teachings of Christ - You would read/hear this as being only something superficial like the actions of the Pharasees and cannot be a true represntation of how they think and feel.
This strikes me as leading to a overly aggressive stance when evangelizing and possibly more harm than good.

Please correct me if I have read you wrong.

Yes, James, you read me wrong. I wasn’t saying that their actions were superficial or untrue–but what I was, and am, saying is that the actions are not the crux of the matter–the soul and the heart are.

I might never have heard the gospel let live ‘imbued with Christian spirit.’ Of course we know that if I would be ‘saved’ it would be ultimately through the Catholic Church (even if I had never heard of the Church nor been a member)–but we also know how much more difficult it is for those who have not heard of Christ to find Him.

So even though our faith is shown through works that we do (for faith without works is dead, as St. James rightly tells us) the reverse, that ‘works show our faith’ is not correct. While it is difficult, if well nigh impossible, to express our faith without doing good works, it is certainly very easy, for many reasons, to ‘do good works’ without having any faith whatsoever. And even if we had a ‘partial’ understanding, would it not be better to have the whole, the best, understanding? Would you be content with having ‘half a pie’ if you not only should, but could, have the entire pie?

The most important thing for these people is to know God. . .and right now, you’re saying that while they don’t know ‘the word’ they ‘live the word.’ But while it is certainly important to ‘live the word’, it is also important to ‘know the word’. . .indeed, one can argue that knowing is more important. Again, as I said earlier, we were told to ‘preach the gospel to the ends of the earth’. . .and, pace St. Francis, in a situation like this one, teaching ‘without words’ is not really going to be much help if it is the ONLY ‘teaching’ these people get. They need “The Word”. After all, when St.Paul spoke to the Greeks (who had an ‘Unknown God’ and a tradition which, despite its pantheon of gods etc.–in which few if any Greeks actually believed by the time of Christ) he spoke to them (by word along with example) of how Christ was ‘seen’ (through the “unknown god”) even before He became incarnate and thus that what the Greek people saw imperfectly was manifested and perfected in the teachings of Christ. This would be the way that I think missionary work would go with this tribe–showing how the tribe’s good yet incomplete (because of lack of knowledge of the gospel) society and teachings foreshadowed what has become manifested and perfected in the teachings of Christ.