Evangelizing remote tribes

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Salmonslayer said:
We shouldn’t avoid envangelizing primitive people simply because they don’t wish to hear it.
Click to expand...
But if they’re NOT going to hear it, it’s pointless bloodshed. It’s like walking off a cliff hoping that - just this once - you’ll be able to fly.
Salmonslayer said:
That being said, they defended their borders, and fought to keep their way of life intact. I can respect that, even if they’re wrong.
Click to expand...
Murder may be an obvious and inevitable consequence, but it is wrong. So I can’t condone their decision to slay a guy “to protect their borders” just because he came to their island.

We could build a case for resorting to killing to protect borders if there’s an armed invasion. But not for killing a lone, unarmed missionary.
 
Salmonslayer said:
They reacted in accordance with their custom and values.
Click to expand...
So is murder OK in that situation? It’s OK if a culture believe it so?

Are you a moral relativist? Or do you thing that murder is OK for any culture who feels psychologically threatened by an unarmed outsider?
 
Last edited:
I think the missionary did what missionaries are inclined to do. And the indigenous tribe did what indigenous tribes sometimes do. I don’t think it’s right or wrong.

All the best!
 
Last edited:
Matthew 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
 
Can you cite the part of our Catechism that condones killing an unarmed individual person “to protect borders” and/or “to preserve [a] society and culture against foreign influence?”
 
Unless they can keep the island totally secure, I see no reason to continue this foolish game. The Sentinelese will need inoculated otherwise the next missionary will unwittingly expose them to disease.
 
Last edited:
KevinK said:
What do people think about the morality of trying to evangelize uncontacted or remote peoples? Is this in their best interests?
Click to expand...
Where I live remote tribes are pretty common, though they’re probably not as “wild” as the people of Sentinel Island where Mr. Chau lost his life. You ask about the morality of evangelizing remote peoples: well, it is not very moral. You ask if it is in their best interests. Well, it isn’t. Missionary work breaks up families, confuses communities, and mostly yields lukewarm converts whose motives for conversion are often “circumstantial”.

If there is one thing characterizing missionaries in exotic countries, it is hubris. I’ve known a lot of missionaries, and they all overestimate their understanding of the local culture – yes, even the ones that go through the trouble of learning a local language passably well and make an effort to prepare themselves for their missionary work with study and research. The mistake that just about every missionary nevertheless makes is that he (or she) does not understand how he (or she) is really perceived. The missionary thinks he is dealing with “simple” people, and that he is accomodating their “ancient ways”. What he does not realize is that the “savages” see him as the simple, and indeed the clueless one, and that it is he (the missionary) who is being humored and accommodated – and only as long as the tribesmen are willing to humor and accommodate him. This severe misjudgment by the missionary of the situation into which he inserts himself, is the reason why things can go wrong, as they did in this instance.

Therefore, though I would not have wished for Mr. Chau to lose his life, I object to calling him a martyr. A martyr is someone who is persecuted for his faith. Mr. Chau was not persecuted for his faith. If we can call what happened “persecution” at all, it happened because he intentionally and stubbornly inserted himself into an environment where he obviously wasn’t welcome, and insisted on conducting himself in a way that was certain to aggravate the locals. Presumably he was hoping or expecting that things would turn out alright. Well, they didn’t. There’s noone to blame but him.
 
Last edited:
Really? Because other media sources say that, though, he was a missionary, that’s not why he was there. That said, I have already asked this question. I even used the Sentinelese as an example. Look at the percentage of Christians in Papua New Guinea, so we know it’s possible. I guess, the difference is, missionaries actually bothered to learn about their language and culture. Well, how can you do that when you don’t know the people’s language or culture? Calling the Sentinelese uncontacted (as some have done) is only partially true. A few were taken as slaves, but died a few days after. My family became Christian, we lived in pretty inaccessible mountains and swamps (well, my mom’s family did). They were able to get to us. But, then after we were made Christian, they told us we had to leave. They told us they had to make room for “real” Americans. But I digress. My point is, so long as you can communicate with the people, and can respect the culture, you can bring the gospel to them. Again, the language and culture barrier presents a bit of a problem. And that’s not even getting into disease.
 
But they didn’t kill him BECAUSE they didn’t want to hear the gospel. They didn’t know his intent. Your point is refuted.
 
Nothing immoral in what he did, it seemed he went to spread the Gospel to those who had not heard it. An incredibly brave young man, it would seem.

Considering what salvation means, hearing the message of Christ must surely be in the interests of the native people there. Even if they do not realise this and killed him.
 
Last edited:
Salmonslayer said:
So it’s not in the best interest of every person to hear the word of God and be told of eternal salvation?
Click to expand...
What makes you think they have a frame of reference for any of this? We know nothing about their religious beliefs, or if they even have any.
 
KevinK said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/us/missionary-john-chau/index.html

Here is a person murdered trying to evangelize a remote tribe. What do people think about the morality of trying to evangelize uncontacted or remote peoples? Is this in their best interests?
Click to expand...
NO.
Several issues noted.
He broke legitimate laws. That is immoral.
He forced himself on people who do not welcome intrusions on their way of life. While it might be moral to spread the Gospel per se, it is not moral to force one’s self into the lives of the unwilling.
God rest the young man and his family, his intentions are good, but that doesn’t make the actions wise or moral.

God is ultimately responsible for the conversion of hearts. We are co-operators. A heart must be open to that particular approach used. And if a people is not ripe to hear the Gospel, we can trust deeply in God’s providence for them.
 
Last edited:
TheAmazingGrace said:
Salmonslayer:
How is that relevant?
Click to expand...
They have to be able to understand what you’re talking about. You can’t effectively communicate a concept if you know nothing about your audience.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Gospel is communication. It is not a thing to be thrown at a person, like a book. I can throw a book at a person all day and all it does is bounce off his head and probably get me hurt.
The Gospel is communication, an invitation into relationship and community, to know God and his people.
So it is wise to tailor the Gospel to the frame of reference to those you are speaking to. St Paul speaks about this, and it is good common sense.
 
Last edited:
The old model of colonial missionary is gone.

The Catholic Church is against it post the 60’s.
The missionary society he was with really needs to direct its people and it’s model into th 21st Century.
 
Last edited:
PNG was an Australian territory. People born there when it was are Australian. There has been a thriving intercultural exchange between png and Australia, and in some respects a good one, in others very bad, especially with mining.
 
Salmonslayer said:
They’re wrong for not wanting to hear God’s Word.
Click to expand...
In an objective sense, yes.
Subjectively, we know absolutely nothing about their culture , history , oral tradition or spirituality.
They may be operating under fear, or ignorance or something else we simply don’t know.

But still, they have the choice to be left alone, and we must never force a conversion.

Our job is to inform.
If we can’t do that, our job is to pray.
 
We are commanded to make disciples of all nations, and it is written that the Church consists of people from “every kindred, tongue, people, and nation.” Martyrdom is an occupational hazard for missionaries, but the Gospel is for everyone. Every tribe, no matter how remote, must hear the Gospel, and it often happens that the killers of martyrs are later converted by the martyrs’ testimony. It is not easy to ignore a man laying down his life for his testimony, especially when he had nothing worldly to gain by coming to you.
 
mythbuster1 said:
We are commanded to make disciples of all nations, and it is written that the Church consists of people from “every kindred, tongue, people, and nation.” Martyrdom is an occupational hazard for missionaries, but the Gospel is for everyone. Every tribe, no matter how remote, must hear the Gospel, and it often happens that the killers of martyrs are later converted by the martyrs’ testimony. It is not easy to ignore a man laying down his life for his testimony, especially when he had nothing worldly to gain by coming to you.
Click to expand...
Go evangelize them yourself then. Get on Expedia and buy a plane ticket right now.

They’re waiting for you. Go!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top