Random Religion Thread

[vijayjohn]

Isn't what they're doing ultimately missionary work?

[dEhiN]

Isn't what they're doing ultimately missionary work?

Yeah

[vijayjohn]

And are you really considering joining them?

[dEhiN]

And are you really considering joining them?

Yeah, at least to try it out and see if they're a good fit with me. I have a big desire for humanitarian work, and while missionary work isn't the same as humanitarian work, GRN could possibly give me good experience in dealing with other cultures and peoples. Especially if I end up being able to do any fieldwork with them. I know that I could try with other non-missionary-focused humanitarian organizations. But personally I feel that most humanitarian organizations would require me to have a degree or two behind my name before they'd let me get some experience in any sort of fieldwork situation. At the same time, I feel that small Christian ministries are more likely to give me a foot in the door, despite my not having the right qualifications on paper.

[vijayjohn]

Does this not strike you as basically meaning helping people impose their religion on people all over the world?

[dEhiN]

Does this not strike you as basically meaning helping people impose their religion on people all over the world?

I figured that's what you were driving at. The short answer is: no.

The long answer is: from what I've seen, the approach to missions work among Western Protestant Christianity (and maybe Protestant Christianity around the world in general) is changing. It used to be one of going to another place, sharing the Bible and the basic message of Christianity with others, and then telling them how to be Christians. It's now one of going to another place and working with nationals to spread the message of Christianity. So there's still the spreading part; just not so much the forcing others or imposing a completely different culture.

You could argue about the basic tenet of spread the message of Christianity itself. But then again, leaving aside any specific religion's teachings about converting new believers, in general as humans we like to spread the message of any good thing we've found. And it's usually done in the belief that the other person will also find our "thing" good and helpful.

More personally though, my approach to "sharing my faith" is this: I live my life and I try to let you live yours. If you want some advice, I offer you my experiences in a general way. If I know you specifically have the same or similar beliefs as me, I tailor my experiences: that is, I tailor how I share them and the terminology I use. If I don't know your beliefs, I generalise my sharing. But I have no qualms about sharing my beliefs nor about suggesting to someone else that my worldview might work for them, if they are struggling and something in their worldview might be the cause of their struggles.

To get back to your question, as far as I can tell, GRN does not impose their religion on people. They believe in their faith and in sharing that faith to others because it might help others. They do this by trying to make resources available in various languages around the world. And these resources they offer to nationals in a region: usually Christian pastors in that region.

[vijayjohn]

The long answer is: from what I've seen, the approach to missions work among Western Protestant Christianity (and maybe Protestant Christianity around the world in general) is changing. It used to be one of going to another place, sharing the Bible and the basic message of Christianity with others, and then telling them how to be Christians. It's now one of going to another place and working with nationals to spread the message of Christianity. So there's still the spreading part; just not so much the forcing others or imposing a completely different culture.

You could argue about the basic tenet of spread the message of Christianity itself. But then again, leaving aside any specific religion's teachings about converting new believers, in general as humans we like to spread the message of any good thing we've found. And it's usually done in the belief that the other person will also find our "thing" good and helpful.

I would think it would be more useful to make information more accessible in general rather than sharing only some specific information. In this day and age, that would not seem to be all that difficult compared to the kind of work the GRN does.

But I have no qualms about sharing my beliefs nor about suggesting to someone else that my worldview might work for them, if they are struggling and something in their worldview might be the cause of their struggles.

When you say "my worldview might work for them," do you mean your worldview as a whole or something in your worldview?

[dEhiN]

I would think it would be more useful to make information more accessible in general rather than sharing only some specific information. In this day and age, that would not seem to be all that difficult compared to the kind of work the GRN does.

Well I think it depends on who the target is. In GRN's case, they are usually trying to make the Bible (or parts of it at least) accessible to people groups who don't have much access to technology. And while there is the whole field of Bible translation, it's more cost-effective to record a few stories than translate a large book.

But I have no qualms about sharing my beliefs nor about suggesting to someone else that my worldview might work for them, if they are struggling and something in their worldview might be the cause of their struggles.

When you say "my worldview might work for them," do you mean your worldview as a whole or something in your worldview?

I basically mean the fact that I believe in a supernatural being called God and that a fair amount of what I believe about this being is influenced by the Bible and various Protestant Christian interpretations of the Bible. Depending on the person, that could be considered something in my worldview or my worldview as a whole. I see it as my worldview as a whole, since it's basically like a deep, defining framework within which all other beliefs either fit or are tossed out.

[kevin]

Does this not strike you as basically meaning helping people impose their religion on people all over the world?

Is talking about your beliefs the same as imposing them on others? I mean, you share your beliefs yourself here, and seem to be shocked that someone considers it okay to share their different beliefs - by that standard, don't you think this means that you're imposing your worldview on everyone?

I don't think so. I know what I believe, but I'm happy to learn about what others believe, even if I don't agree with it.

[Aurinĭa]

The difference is that these missionaries are going out of their way to tell people about Christianity. They aren't offering to explain their beliefs and in exchange listen to local people talk about their own beliefs—they're not interested in mutual sharing of beliefs, they just want to tell people about what they are convinced is The One True Faith.

The more I read on that website, the more I didn't like it. Take this quote:

GRN is not just communicating an ordinary human message but rather the life giving word of God. Without that word, without the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the message of salvation, people are separated from God and eternally lost. GRN's greatest concern is for those who have not yet had a chance to hear that message. This includes people for whom there are no translated Scriptures and no viable local church. It may also include groups where a written Scripture or portion is available but where there are few if any who can read it or make sense of it. Yes, there is much work to be done in 'evangelised communities' but there are still those waiting for their first chance. Those small, often neglected minority language groups are GRN's highest priority.

That presupposition that people who don't know about Christianity must necessarily be waiting to hear about Christianity... That seems very egocentric to me. We know better what these people want than they themselves do!

Do you see how that's different from what you said, dEhiN?

But I have no qualms about sharing my beliefs nor about suggesting to someone else that my worldview might work for them, if they are struggling and something in their worldview might be the cause of their struggles.

This missionary organisation doesn't bother itself with trying to find out if the people they're trying to convert are struggling, what they're struggling with, whether a change of religion (conversion to Christianity) would help at all.

And just like with those state-sponsored school chaplains in Australia, I wonder how much the money used for all that missionary work would improve those people's lives if it was used for e.g. health care or general education instead of spreading the gospel.

I also wonder what they mean with communicating the message in culturally appropriate ways. It's certainly not "not spreading the gospel at the funeral of a well-known adept of [local religion]", nor is it "not holding an evangelical meeting on the courtyard of a mosque".

I wanted to end this post with a specific recommendation for you, namely to check the organisation's stance on homosexuality before getting involved with them, but I've found the answer already.

We will not however consider for membership those who exhibit behavior forbidden in scripture. This includes sexual immorality, adultery, substance abuse or alcohol addiction, homosexuality, uncontrolled anger, practice of magical arts, pornography, or idolatry.

[Varislintu]

In GRN's case, they are usually trying to make the Bible (or parts of it at least) accessible to people groups who don't have much access to technology.

I think missionary work should only be done among equals. Otherwise you're taking advantage of the situation.

[dEhiN]

Do you see how that's different from what you said, dEhiN?

Yeah I see how that's different. I guess it's a good thing I mentioned this here before I start to get involved!

I wanted to end this post with a specific recommendation for you, namely to check the organisation's stance on homosexuality before getting involved with them, but I've found the answer already.

We will not however consider for membership those who exhibit behavior forbidden in scripture. This includes sexual immorality, adultery, substance abuse or alcohol addiction, homosexuality, uncontrolled anger, practice of magical arts, pornography, or idolatry.

Wow! Tack så mycket!

[Vlürch]

If the concept of universal human rights is to exist and the equality of all people is the ultimate goal, then I believe all missionary work for any religion should be banned by international law, since it violates the already established human right of freedom of religion. Religious texts should be freely available for anyone who wants them without fear of persecution, and it would be ideal if there were places where people of different religions could go to discuss/debate each other's beliefs and with a "devil's advocate" there to challenge everything. It'd teach critical thinking without forcing people to question their own faith if they're not comfortable with that, and also allow even the most extreme fundamentalists to interact with representatives of other religions peacefully on an individual level in a way that could show them that they're actually nice and intelligent people. Of course, it would probably end in said extremists killing everyone who isn't an extremist of exactly the same denomination of the exact same religion as them, but it could work in theory if enough people were interested in getting along in spite of religious/moral/ethical/whatever differences.

Missionaries pretending to have anything to do with linguistics just makes me so fucking angry, though...

[linguoboy]

Missionaries pretending to have anything to do with linguistics just makes me so fucking angry, though...

It's not "pretence"; whether you approve of their goals or methods, missionaries have done tremendous service over the centuries in recording languages and promoting their use. There are hundreds of languages for which the first printed text is a religious work. We've so thoroughly integrated the work of missionaries into the field, that I can't even say for sure how often I make use of it each day. (Before Wikipedia, I quite regularly relied on the SIL glossary for definitions. How much of it has since been incorporated into Wikipedia?)

Am I happy to be so dependent on the work of people whose goals and beliefs I so fundamentally disagree with? No, I'm not--but that's just part and parcel of being a 21st-century academic. A lot of the giants whose shoulders we stand on were real dicks.

[Massimiliano B]

Do you want to learn the funny sino-roman alphabet? Here you can do it:

http://specgram.com/cgi-bin/sino-roman/sino-roman.cgi

[vijayjohn]

On missionaries, I happened to come across this last night. The last two articles in it are by two people from West Papua talking about how missionaries have affected their lives. I think it's important to take their perspectives into account.

whether you approve of their goals or methods, missionaries have done tremendous service over the centuries in recording languages and promoting their use.

And yet, ironically, they have also been singularly responsible for language endangerment in the Vaupés River Basin (that part of the Amazon I keep bringing up because one of my professors worked there ).

[dEhiN]

whether you approve of their goals or methods, missionaries have done tremendous service over the centuries in recording languages and promoting their use.

And yet, ironically, they have also been singularly responsible for language endangerment in the Vaupés River Basin (that part of the Amazon I keep bringing up because one of my professors worked there ).

There are of course, other examples where missionaries (of any religion) have done more harm than good in regard to preserving the local language. (I believe St. Patrick and Irish is another example). I don't think linguoboy was saying that they only did good, and not bad. Heck, for that matter, any sort of conquest of one people group by another has produced mixed results in regard to language/culture preservation. So then what do we do? Write off the conquistadors as all evil? Or praise them as all good? Or how about just recognize that there were good things and bad things done by missionaries motivated by the belief that they needed to spread their religion?

[vijayjohn]

I know they're not all bad (or all good) and am not at all denying that missionaries have made vital contributions to linguistics as we know it today. I was just pointing out the irony that missionaries have helped both preserve and endanger languages.

I believe St. Patrick and Irish is another example

I'm not aware of large-scale language shift in Ireland taking place before the 18^th century, more than a thousand years after St. Patrick, who I doubt spoke English in any case.

[księżycowy]

I'm equally unaware of any major language shift caused by St Patrick. He introduced Christianity (and probably Latin), but the masses would have still spoken Irish. It wasn't until much later, when England had control over Ireland that we begin to really see the downfall of Irish.

[dEhiN]

I wasn't referring to a language shift but more the destruction of many Celtic writings due to St. Patrick's belief that they were pagan things and should be destroyed. I recall reading that in a book somewhere; I'll see if I can find it again.