Evangelicals in Post -war Iraq.

[Sava]

It's one of those things where I don't think they should be banned, but they should definitely respect the religion and ethnicity of the Iraqis and not try to preach to people.

[Spiffor]

If I understand correctly, we are talking about missionaries here. Don't forget missionaries are people who devoted their lives to bring people to the true god, and genuinely believe it is the ultimate good that could happen for these converts, for it is about the salvation of their immortal soul.

Adressing their mortal needs is secondary. You cannot expect any tolerance or religious respect from a missionary, for his ultimate goal is to convert. The missionary can accomodate the local religion to make the conversion easier, though.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If I understand correctly, we are talking about missionaries here. Don't forget missionaries are people who devoted their lives to bring people to the true god, and genuinely believe it is the ultimate good that could happen for these converts, for it is about the salvation of their immortal soul.

Adressing their mortal needs is secondary. You cannot expect any tolerance or religious respect from a missionary, for his ultimate goal is to convert. The missionary can accomodate the local religion to make the conversion easier, though.

This tends to be my opinion. In fact, I just posted a somewhat relevant article about Mexican villagers stoning a "witch" to death. Missionaries converted these people and look what happened. If they want to help, fine. If they want to make their religion available to people who are curious, fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to try to push their religion on people who need humanitarian aid.

[Ben Kenobi]

What do you mean when you say evangelicals?

When I was a little kid evangelical was almost a sinonim(sp?) of Lutheran (the evangelical church), but now evangelicals are pentecostals and tv evangelists.

Plan Austral:

I belong to an Evangelical Mennonite church. They key factor in all Evangelical churchs is a focus on bible studies and on sponsoring missions.

There can be evangelical churches of all stripes, even Catholic Evangelicals.

If I understand correctly, we are talking about missionaries here. Don't forget missionaries are people who devoted their lives to bring people to the true god, and genuinely believe it is the ultimate good that could happen for these converts, for it is about the salvation of their immortal soul.

Spiffor:

Well, here's where you are wrong. This is a misconception towards missionaries that they are only concerned with the spiritual and not the physical well-being of those who they come into contact.

Now, I ask you, who are you more likely to respect, someone who helps you 'just because' or someone who does so with strings attached? I'd say the former. That's what a mission should be about, helping those who are not well off and then sharing the Gospels.

The missionary can accomodate the local religion to make the conversion easier, though.

Where do you get this from, Spiffor? 'Accomodation' can mean many things. Some missions will change traditions of worship to fit the people they are working with, but they cannot, by definition, accomodate everything. To do so renders the church as not Christian, and can greatly confuse people as to the true message of the Church.

Sava:

"You can have medicine and food, as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your true God."

While not all missionaries will be like this, a lot of them are. If they want to give aid, they should give to the Red Cross, or some other agency that won't try to convert people.

Where's the quote from, Sava? I would be very surprised to hear any Christian group, even missionaries, preach that they must become believers in order to receive aid.

BTW:

From the source provided:

"Both the Southern Baptist Convention and Samaritan's Purse, in contrast, combine relief efforts with evangelization."

What this means is that they will provide leaflets proclaiming Christ as Savior along with the food, and medicines.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Spiffor:

Well, here's where you are wrong. This is a misconception towards missionaries that they are only concerned with the spiritual and not the physical well-being of those who they come into contact.

Now, I ask you, who are you more likely to respect, someone who helps you 'just because' or someone who does so with strings attached? I'd say the former. That's what a mission should be about, helping those who are not well off and then sharing the Gospels.

I don't really understand the expression "with strings attached", but I'd say I'd respect an altruistic helper, rather than someone who helps me in order to fulfill his political/religious/whatever agenda.
If I had to choose, I'd prefer an organization with a political agenda rather than a religious one, because at least, with politics, I don't have to fear a supernatural punishment if I come to change my mind.

Where do you get this from, Spiffor? 'Accomodation' can mean many things. Some missions will change traditions of worship to fit the people they are working with, but they cannot, by definition, accomodate everything. To do so renders the church as not Christian, and can greatly confuse people as to the true message of the Church.

The succes of the Catholic Church came from the lack of dogmatism from its missionaries. As you put it, many have adopted the 'traditions of worship' in order to have a greater audience in the targeted tribes. This explains why there are so many differences among the traditions of the catholic world, especially across the continents : voodoo for example is a mix of Christianty and traditional African lore. That's what I called "accomodation".
Yet, it doesn't mean these missionaries didn't profess the belief in one god and his heaven.

What this means is that they will provide leaflets proclaiming Christ as Savior along with the food, and medicines.

Let's hope they write this in esperanto
In the post-Saddam Iraq, the possibility of a strong radicalization of religious communities is not to be discarded. If such a climate emerges, these leaflets would be considered as a provocation by the religious people. I don't think it is time to pour oil on the fire.

[Ben Kenobi]

The succes of the Catholic Church came from the lack of dogmatism from its missionaries. As you put it, many have adopted the 'traditions of worship' in order to have a greater audience in the targeted tribes.

Actually, the success of the Catholic church stems from it's ability to retain much of the same tradition, across the world. They might perform the service in different dress, with different music, but the rest will remain the same.

voodoo for example is a mix of Christianty and traditional African lore.

And it is not considered Christian. The problem with accomodation is the unintended effect of syncretisation. Your example is one of these.

I don't really understand the expression "with strings attached", but I'd say I'd respect an altruistic helper, rather than someone who helps me in order to fulfill his political/religious/whatever agenda.

Look at it this way, does the person helping you receive any benefit himself from the help that he gives? Missionaries do not profit if they receive more converts, therefore they qualify as altruistic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Look at it this way, does the person helping you receive any benefit himself from the help that he gives? Missionaries do not profit if they receive more converts, therefore they qualify as altruistic.

Indeed, missionaries don't get any reward for helping. But their superior motivation is to bring people to the light. Yes, such a motive is extremely altruistic, because they risk being badly welcome for the salvation of others. But should I be on the recieving end, they would simply look like brainwashed zealots.
Besides, about all humanitarian associations who go to Iraq do it in a genuinely uninterested way, where the one and only aim is to provide humanitarian aid, nothing else. The red cross, the red crescent, Médecins du Monde etc. all go without a political/religious/whatever agenda. I think these organizations are infinitely more altruistic than missionaries' organizations, even though individual missionaries can be genuinely altruistic (I admit, I wonder if the red crescent is completely prselytism-free )

[JCG]

Ive read/heard that Protestant missionaries have, in some cases, so altered the ancient religions/practices of many of the remaining native americans in such a manner that they can identify their own "pagan" deities as manifestations of "Jesus" and "Mary"...or even of the "Devil".

Such a mixture is definitely not a good thing, from both a Christian and a cultural point of view.

Something like that probably won't happen in Iraq, but you never know...that's why I'd like to see strict government oversight of any missionary work in Iraq.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Felch, same question :
"So it would be OK to let humanitarian aid sent by communist groups or islamist groups bent on proselytism ?"

Absolutely. Again, as long as it wasn't tied to any coercive activity. If Christians, Communists, or Muslims want to bring humanitarian aid to a place and talk to people about why they are doing it (religiously inspired charity, or desire to eliminate hunger and poverty), they have that right. It's what we're all about.

[Spiffor]

Felch :
Thanks for the answer. I had assumed you'd tell yes. The question was more spectacular when oriented to a usual conservative

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The question was more spectacular when oriented to a usual conservative

Why? I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Spiffor]

You obviously haven't developed enough hate for the commies and the Islamists then. Go back to GOP school !

[DinoDoc]

Seriously, the more NGO's we have in there providing humanitarian aid the cheaper it will be for the US.

[Spiffor]

This is true, but the potentially proselytist humanitarian NGOs much remain under control. It is not time to bring some outside factions, there will be way enough factions internal to Iraq.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks for the answer. I had assumed you'd tell yes. The question was more spectacular when oriented to a usual conservative.

Spiffor:
Meaning me? If the missionaries are willing to risk their lives by going to Iraq just so that some may become Christian, I think they should be allowed to do so.

As for those organisations, such as the Red Cross, they have their own jobs. A place for everything, and everything in its place.