Some questions on missions

[rlvaughn]

...from an article about John Allen Chau in Christianity Today.

His landing on the island was illegal. Should his personal convictions allow him to override the rule of law?
Not only did he break the law himself – and there might certainly be cases where Christians would feel free do to that – but he implicated other people in his lawbreaking. Is that justifiable?

He was putting [the North Sentinelese] lives at risk...who lacked any immunity to any pathogens he may have been carrying. Suppose the price of his evangelism was the deaths of those he evangelised – would it really have been worth it?

He was going against their clearly expressed wishes and invading their territory. Why should he have thought they would welcome him, when others had been driven away or killed?

Who knew what he was doing, and to whom was he accountable?

How, when he didn't speak their language, was he going to witness effectively to them?

Thoughts?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

...from an article about John Allen Chau in Christianity Today.





Thoughts?

Yes he has a right if God indeed told
him to. God already told us to preach the Gospel to every creature. We ought to obey God rather then men. It’s not different than being forbidden to enter North Korea.

Secondly, so if he brings pathogens and they all die..well what if he doesn’t go and they all live long normal lives and die and go to hell.

How can he speak to them if he doesn’t know the language?...Um how can he learn the language without going to them?

And so what if the people didn’t want him there. The people didn’t want Jeremiah when he was prophesying either.

I think all of those points are seriously lacking.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

It seems the people over at ChristianityToday are more concerned about doing what is “ethical” than obeying God’s word.

And here I was thinking Mark 16:15 is ethical, I sure am glad the people at Christianity today can tell me what is ethical.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes he has a right if God indeed told
him to. God already told us to preach the Gospel to every creature. We ought to obey God rather then men. It’s not different than being forbidden to enter North Korea.

Secondly, so if he brings pathogens and they all die..well what if he doesn’t go and they all live long normal lives and die and go to hell.

How can he speak to them if he doesn’t know the language?...Um how can he learn the language without going to them?

And so what if the people didn’t want him there. The people didn’t want Jeremiah when he was prophesying either.

I think all of those points are seriously lacking.

The key would be "If the Lord had told him to go there", not from the great Commission, but from a personal calling to go there!

 

[rlvaughn]

It seems the people over at ChristianityToday are more concerned about doing what is “ethical” than obeying God’s word.

And here I was thinking Mark 16:15 is ethical, I sure am glad the people at Christianity today can tell me what is ethical.

Some of the things I see at Christianity Today certainly makes me wonder about them.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Some of the things I see at Christianity Today certainly makes me wonder about them.

I know!!! I've seen a few of the same things.

 

[rlvaughn]

I think all of those points are seriously lacking.

I basicaly agree. The author is good enough to make them seem substantial in the context of his writing, but it seems to me when you look at them as bare questions seeking a biblical answer they are quite weak.

His landing on the island was illegal. Should his personal convictions allow him to override the rule of law?
Not only did he break the law himself – and there might certainly be cases where Christians would feel free do to that – but he implicated other people in his lawbreaking. Is that justifiable?

I think preaching the gospel in all places is a command of God, and we ought to obey God rather than men. I do disagree with his implicating someone else in the illegal activity, though. If what I read is correct, some Indian fishermen were arrested for taking Chau to the North Sentinel island.

He was putting [the North Sentinelese] lives at risk...who lacked any immunity to any pathogens he may have been carrying. Suppose the price of his evangelism was the deaths of those he evangelised – would it really have been worth it?

If our perspective of eternal life through Jesus Christ alone is correct, yes.

He was going against their clearly expressed wishes and invading their territory. Why should he have thought they would welcome him, when others had been driven away or killed?

Here some have suggested the "shake the dust off of your feet" command. Might that possibly apply? Or do not some of the reports suggest he thought they were somewhat accepting of his friendliness?

How, when he didn't speak their language, was he going to witness effectively to them?

I have tried to avoid speculating about this situation, but I must admit with the Oral Roberts connection, it has crossed my mind that he might have expected a tongues miracle. Perhaps future information will come out that speaks to this. Nevertheless, I think Jordan's answer brings up a good point:

Um how can he learn the language without going to them?

From what I've read so far, it seems like no one knows their language. So it is obvious someone must go to them before anyone will know their language and be able to communicate with them.

 

[rlvaughn]

I ran across a website someone created for the North Sentinel Island -- obviously not by the Sentinelese! It has some interesting facts about the island and people. It agrees with what I had read elsewhere about the language:

Their language, however, was impenetrable and it remains unknown to this day.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The key would be "If the Lord had told him to go there", not from the great Commission, but from a personal calling to go there!

God already told us to go and preach the Gospel to every creature. I think far to many people are waiting for a “call” when the command is already to go.

In fact, of the command already is to go, the shouldn’t the call be to stay

Why is the default to stay and wait for a call to go?

In matthew 28 Jesus said to go and teach all
Nations (Greek:Ethnos, or people group) Part of the problem
I think is everyone thinks someone else who is “called” should go.

 

[Yeshua1]

God already told us to go and preach the Gospel to every creature. I think far to many people are waiting for a “call” when the command is already to go.

In fact, of the command already is to go, the shouldn’t the call be to stay

Why is the default to stay and wait for a call to go?

In matthew 28 Jesus said to go and teach all
Nations (Greek:Ethnos, or people group) Part of the problem
I think is everyone thinks someone else who is “called” should go.

All Christians are called to be witnesses for Jesus, but a Missionary will have a specific call to a specific region/area on top of the normal calling!

 

[MartyF]

I seem to disagree with all of you here. I believe that what happenned was a tragedy. It was a tragedy which could have been avoided.

At best, the young man was misguided.

He was unprepared for what was going on. He did not take what he needed nor did he put in the effort to get the training he really needed. He was young in his faith and still used a Bible as a sacred object. He didn’t study anthropology - a subject vital to this type of ministry.

He didn’t find other Christians to travel with. I’m sorry but the early Christians rarely traveled alone. And when you can’t convince another Christian to participate in your actions, then you really need to rethink your actions. Some say he went alone because he didn’t want anyone else to be in danger. I doubt this was the case. If someone can give me the name of the Christian who offered to go with him, I’ll accept this possibility.

He didn’t follow his parent’s advice.

Exodus 20:12 ESV
[12] "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

He was impatient. He was twice given the chance to see the error of his ways and return to rethink what he had decided. Instead, he decided to go back a third time.

Mark 6:11 NLT
[11] But if any place refuses to welcome you or listen to you, shake its dust from your feet as you leave to show that you have abandoned those people to their fate."

Luke 4:12 NLT
[12] Jesus responded, "The Scriptures also say, 'You must not test the LORD your God.'"

He had no concern for the fishermen who brought him to the island. Did he care that they were going to be arrested and might not be able to support their families?

I hope that, at best, he was just misguided and not something worse.

The story of John Allen Chau | Worldation