Evangelizing an already "perfect" tribe

[Marsha_Adams]

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.

Well said, Coyote, in fact it is my understanding (and I’ve been wrong before) that the Church teaches that even GOOD actions if not done for the love of God are sinful. People sometimes say, “well, look at this philanthropist who does so much good, and he’s an athiest.” But even his good actions are sinful because they are done for the wrong reasons.

 

[JRKH]

Much good stuff here. Thanks for the clarification. Just a couple of quick points.

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 couldn’t agree more. This is precisely what our dear lord was trying to get through to the “Law Following Sons of Abraham” with the corrupt hearts. In this case, since our Scout has reported that these people are truly imbued with the Spirit of Christ in the thoughts and actions, (Living the Word) it seems there is precious little to do in so far as preaching the Gospel is concerned.

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.

I agree with all of this, except I would ask, if these people have every Christian attribute, inside and out, (spirit and action) is it really accruate to say they have not found Christ already? The only thing they seem to lack is the name Jesus. At most it seems that all we could do is put a name to the teachings that already match there own.

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?

Certainly I would be content with ‘half the pie’ since I wouldn’t know it was half the pie.
I think the thing here is to recognize, and determine how much of the pie they actually do have. Of course a some of that would involve how they define and worship God. Which I did not go into in my OP other thatn to say they worship a single all powerful God.

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.

I’m not sure I agree with this.
While they haven’t had the word fo the Bible preached to htem, it seems to me that they already “know” the “Word” which God has given us to live by. When and how that word was revealed to them we don’t know. The OP does not explain that.
Having said that, we may be getting into semantics which can get goooey so I’ll leave ti that that.

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.

A number of good points have been brought up on this thread that say we should go ahead and take the Gospel to these people. The main idea seems to be to do it gently.

Peace
James

 

[coyotekate77]

A number of good points have been brought up on this thread that say we should go ahead and take the Gospel to these people. The main idea seems to be to do it gently.

The only points where I think we diverge are due to a difference of opinion or possibly an incomplete understanding of two concepts:

One: We appear to disagree on whether or not it is ‘necessary’ to bring Christ to those who already live ‘moral lives’ without ever having heard the word of God. The society that in its actions, constitutions, etc. seems to understand the ‘law written on our hearts’ yet lacks knowledge of Christ may be ‘proto-Christian’ to me, ‘Christian-in-all-but-name’ to you–yes? I, with others, think that being a Christian in the Catholic tradition is more than just ‘doing Christian things’ if one does not know Christ. After all, Buddhists, animists, pagans, atheists, etc. can be and are capable of living in a very Christian way yet do not ‘know’ Christ or His teaching. While as you say a ‘gentle’ (more on that later, that is the second point of disagreement) treatment is necessary that respects the people as people and not ‘tabula rasa’, I don’t think that you would say that we ‘need not’ bring the gospel to people who already live good moral lives. Otherwise. . .the crux of the matter --why does Scripture (and Tradition) say that we must preach the gospel to all? Not, “preach the gospel to the ones who seem to need it --leave the kind-hearted gentle pagans etc. alone, they’re already following Me.”

Second: “Gentle” preaching. Again, this depends very much on individual POV. To you, gentle might mean spending years–generations–living with these people without ever saying a word about Christ, just ‘modeling’ Christian behavior and hoping that someday the Spirit will ‘lead them’ to ask, “Say, you seem to be living a good life that has ‘more’ than I know. Can you tell me what has made you this way?” Or it might mean starting out with just speaking out to one or two people about “this wonderful person” and giving examples of parables, and then waiting for people to ask for more. Or sadly, there might be some with the attitude of “you ignorant heathen, living without God. . .accept JESUS as your savior or burn in hell. . .” Now my opinion here is that of the 3 examples, the first is an extremely passive one, the second is a reasonable example of true gentleness, and the third an example of extreme aggression. If you find 2 to be a good approximation of what you find ‘gentle’–well, then we agree. If you think 1 is best–we disagree. I’m sure you’ll find 3 totally unacceptable (I do too) --but probably fear that people are going to act that way. If that’s what you fear, and that is what is leading you to insist on the gentle (and I mean, the gentleness of #2)–again, we agree.

So you see, there is a very broad notion of what ‘gentle’ and ‘respectful’ can be out there. I’m all for gentle and loving, but not to the point that I would either try to downplay Christianity as ‘this is the way I worship, it works for me’ (because it isn’t ‘just for me’), or be so respectful that I conclude "gee, you people are already doing fine, you don’t need to hear about Jesus Himself as you obviously already know all you need just living the way you do.’

I would be honest that I truly believe in the truth of Catholicism and how important it is, since there is such a truth, for everyone–not just me–to know and hopefully to accept yet–yet I would be most complimentary of how wonderful these people are already and would be sure to acknowledge that.

Will there be problems when the gospel is spread? Possibly. Does the possibility then free us from the need to preach it? No. Be gentle --but firm for the right; loving–loving enough to risk offense and worse for the sake of Jesus; and trust in God. He wants everybody to know Him – All of Him.

 

[JRKH]

Coyote,
Another excellent post. Thanks.

I don’t really think we disagree in intent or even style as one might surmise from our posts. If we were sitting at a table with all the data in fromt of us I would be confident that we’d have a workable plan very quickly. The reason is that I think much of our “differences” are in understanding each other.

I would not suggest a “generational” approach even though I am confident that anyone dying in this tribe will be saved. Rather I would think more in terms of an “educational” approach that would introduce Jesus Christ to them while at the same time encouraging and promoting the similarities between Christianity and their own Theological understandings.

As you say, it could be just a few people at a time, or on a larger scale depending on how interested the people are in hearing the message. Care would need to be excersized to not present a “turn from sinful ways” message, but rather a completion of what they already have, as you indicate.

Peace
James