What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Kimyal receive the New Testament in their own language

This is an inspiring video:

The Kimyal People Receive the New Testament from UFM Worldwide on Vimeo.

After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.... (Revelation 7:9-10)

Here at What's Wrong With the World we are dedicated to the "defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ." There is a real sense in which the Kimyal are not part of that civilization, yet in another sense they are.

Aboriginal tribesman of Papua, the Kimyal people lived in the stone age until reached by Protestant missionaries in the 1960's. Some of them still do live in the stone age. It would be fair to say that they are as yet more the beneficiaries of the civilization "made by the men of the Cross" than members of or contributors to that civilization.

That's in one sense--the sense in which "civilization" is connected with material culture and knowledge, for example. But on the other hand, it would also be correct to say that the Kimyal are members of Christendom because they are Christians--they are our brothers in Christ. Having received the great gift of the Gospel from brave missionaries, they have been enabled to join us. As a Protestant myself, I would say that they are members of the Church universal--what the Book of Common Prayer calls "the blessed company of all faithful people"-- just as I am.

The Gospel is not bound, and we have been called to carry it to all nations. Like a seed, it may spread and be preserved in unlikely places even as it seems to become rare in its place of origin.

The Kimyal are glad to have the Bible in their own language that it may help to keep their children in the "path of righteousness," as one of the women says in the video. We should want to preserve both individual souls, eternal souls, and also the knowledge of that right path. If the seed is sown among the Kimyal, that is one more place for it to exist, to live, and to be cherished.

God bless the Kimyal Christians and all who minister to them.

Comments (55)

Thank you so much for sharing this, Lydia.

Lydia,

This brought me to tears.

I know. The first time I saw it it almost did that to me, too.

As we in the West continue our march through the moral looking glass, it is good to know that the faith is thriving in Asia and the developing world. God goes where is he is wanted. And once the social-democratic ponzi scheme collapses, I suspect he'll be wanted in the West once again also. All we have to do is wait for the Euro-model "lifestyle states" to finish bankrupting and depopulating themselves.


The is another example of the growing predominance of non-Western Christianity, which I address in a recent article at Quarterly Review:

"The Rise of Anti-Western Christianity"

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4693


A quote from my article of Richard Jenkins celebrating the de-Westernization of Christianity:

“American universities prize the goal of diversity in their teaching, introducing students to the thought-ways of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, often using texts from non-Westerner cultures. However strange this may sound in terms of conventional stereotypes, teaching about Christianity would be a wonderful way to teach diversity, all the more so now that [this] non-Western religion is returning to its roots.”

The Kimyal People should be added to the curriculum.

Erggg, that should read Philip Jenkins. I was thinking about two different people and fused them together into one.

MAR, I was waiting for you: Baloney. If you have specific evidence that the Kimyal practice a syncretistic, doctrinally suspect version of Christianity incorporating animism, bring it forward. Otherwise, go pound sand. (You will have suspected by this time that I have little patience with your not-entirely-ingenuous attacks on Christian missions.) I've read most of your article. You sent it to me by e-mail. I completely reject syncretism and think it's a big problem. But nothing you say there means that the Kimyal are worshiping their ancestors or anything of the kind. You would have us despair of or abandon all Christian missions to non-Western peoples lest Christianity be corrupted, and you would have us do this because you are not a Christian yourself, care nothing for the Great Commission, and are looking for any stick with which to beat a dog. If real Christians can be convinced to abandon concern for and outreach to non-Westerners by raising the worry of syncretism, you will not only raise that worry (a legitimate concern in itself) but will wield it as a club in a sweeping fashion that would, if you had your way, shut down altogether missions of the kind that brought God's Word and Gospel to the Kimyal.

I'm not biting. I have no truck with syncretism or multicultural sensitivity, as my recent post and interaction with readers on the Maori mountain-worship show.

But I will not be robbed of the rightful joy and love that a video like this elicits on the grounds that these are a bunch of non-Westerners and hence _must be_ doing something illicit from the perspective of true Christian doctrine. Such cynicism and total rejection of Our Lord's commands and of our brethren abroad not only do not move me. They anger me.

"You sent it to me by e-mail."

Yes, since we have had this debate here previously, I sent a copy of my article to a few of you at WWwtW.

"because you are not a Christian yourself"

Actually, I was raised Protestant, although, I'd admit, I'm probably not as religious as many of those here. My point in writing the "Rise of Anti-Western Christianity" article was not wantonly to "attack" Christianity but to point out the recent phenomenon of the de-Westernization of Christianity.

"lest Christianity be corrupted"

Like Jenkins, I don't believe there is a pure form of Christianity. (If there is a pure form, it would be entirely Middle Eastern without any Western influence.) Historically, Christianity has melded with different traditions. In the West, there was syncretism with Celtic, Germanic, Greek and Roman paganism, which resulted in Western Christianity in its various forms. In the Third World, Christianity is melding with their indigenous traditions and we're getting an entirely new and different variety of Christianity. Let me be clear: I'm not criticizing those in the Third World for their appropriation of Christianity. It's quite normal. Why would they want to keep Western elements in Christianity when their ancestral traditions aren't Western? I wouldn't. More power to them. My point (and Jenkin's) is that the new variety of Christianity is not Western.

"abandon all Christian missions to non-Western people"

I'm not so sure it's that simple. Throughout much of European Medieval Christianity, Europeans weren't actively proselytizing to foreigners. Many Orthodox Christians have downplayed proselytizing to foreigners for much of their history. In fact, this obsession with proselytizing The Other has probably gone in waves since the Age of Discovery. Most recently, it has become the obsession of American social conservatives. I heard a woman a while back talk about all the "competition" in Haiti among all the denominations of Americans there proselytizing. As Bruce here said in a previous discussion, in my entire life the only people I've had approach me and proselytize were some Jehovah's Witnesses and some Mormons. What's wrong with proselytizing to your neighbors? Is it necessary to get a second mortgage on your house and move to Haiti in order to be saved? Why should Haitians be privileged over one's secular neighbors or the Johnsons two towns over? Is it a fetishism of The Other? I find it odd.

BTW, I was wondering whether you were waiting for me. :)

These sorts of discussions can only make one long for Heaven where there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, but all are one in Christ.

The Chicken

A quote, often paraphrased and misattribute, that has approval from Popes and Divines is something useful to meditate on when getting too worked up about non-Western Christianity:

Rupertus Meldenius (Lutheran, 1627)

Verbo dicam: Si nos servaremus, in necesariis unitatem, in non-necesariis libertatem, in utrisque charitatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostra.

[My quick translation]

I say the following word: if we would serve ourselves in the best way, let it be for us: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

St. Paul said it much earlier, however [my pericope of 1 Cor 1]: One says, "I belong to Paul," another says, "I belong to Apollos." Is Christ divided? Has Paul been crucified...I planted and Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

The Chicken

Is it a fetishism of The Other? I find it odd.

This odd fetish is a commandment of the Lord Himself, to go and teach all nations.

MA, I realize the call to missions is something you don't understand. It's called love. And obedience. I realize these are difficult for you to get.

Again, either provide evidence that the Kimyal are bringing in pagan or animistic practices and melding these with Christianity or bug off. I'm serious. I know of none. Your implications are gratuitous.

I was planning to post this because it is absolutely wonderful and exciting before you ever wrote to me. Your e-mail only made me more determined. Christ came to redeem all men. These guys with bones through their noses are my brothers in Christ if, as I have every reason to believe, they worship my Lord and God. I rejoice in the fact that God used Western missionaries to bring the light of His Gospel to them. You, who understand things only in terms of "blood" and "kin" and the like, have no comprehension of this, because that light has apparently not truly shined in your heart. I hope that it will one day, but until then, I won't let you disparage with vague sneers about multiculturalism those who love Jesus along with me and in whose salvation I rejoice, or the brave missionaries who brought the truth to them.

Like Jenkins, I don't believe there is a pure form of Christianity. (If there is a pure form, it would be entirely Middle Eastern without any Western influence.) Historically, Christianity has melded with different traditions.

This is true enough, but I'm not entirely sure what the point of it all is. It is true, for instance, that third world christianity is often different than any form of Western Christianity, but as you say why shouldn't it be? You have brought it up several times, but I'm not sure what you find troubling about it. Is it the possibility that Christian institutions like the Catholic Church will be de-westernized?

Like Jenkins, I don't believe there is a pure form of Christianity. (If there is a pure form, it would be entirely Middle Eastern without any Western influence.) Historically, Christianity has melded with different traditions.

This smells like question-begging. It would seem that when Germans become Christian, it is somehow Christianity which has been paganized, rather than the pagan who has been Christianized. The sanctification and Christianization of diverse peoples does not result in a uniform Christian culture because different peoples are different, and remain so even upon coming to Christ. Christianity is not Islam--it does not contain, even in theory, an appropriate "Christian" way for a man to get out of bed in the morning, and it does not demand flat monocultural conformity of an African man to Italian culture.

If it did do so, I assume you would decry it as a monstrous, anti-human, conquering totalitarianism, and you would be right. But it does not follow from this that there is no pure Christianity, that is to say, that there is no such thing as real Christianity as such. You leap from the observation that Christianity is not a comprehensive way of life in and of itself, to the conclusion that wherever you find it, it has been in some measure paganized.

The reason this is such a popular line of thinking among non- and anti-Christians is the same reason that the non-existence of any real "nations" is a popular theory among Communists. It is motivated by the same malevolence as the theory that there is no such thing as free choice. It is the same spirit which lurks behind the smirking question, "Ah, but can you define what is the white race?" It is a method of diminishing a thing in people's minds by telling them that it does not, in the final analysis, really even exist.

Again, that Christianity takes a different form among Middle Eastern Semitic peoples than among Germanic peoples or Saxons or what have you, does not mean that there is no pure Christian essence which has informed the Christianization of those peoples. By conforming their civilizations to Christ, it is they who are changed, not Christianity. The sanctification of a harvest festival to Christ does not deform Christianity--it raises that practice to a higher expression of conformity to ultimate reality.

This is not a hard concept, and to deny this obvious truth is to expose not erudition or thoughtfulness concerning the range of Christian practice, but gratuitous and thinly veiled hostility.

Oh, and a Christianity not influenced by the West? And what is this "West" you speak of, in the absence of Christianity? The West fundamentally is Christian, so to speak of it influencing Christianity is to get history, and the essentials of our whole civilization, completely inside out.

Well, Sage, it helps if one believes that Christianity is true. The question, "Is Christianity true?" tends to strip away vague waffling like statements to the effect that there is no "pure" form of Christianity. It brings us back to facts and to clarity: Was Jesus God? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Does God exist? And so on and so forth. Actual Christians have at least the concept of a difference between essentials and inessentials, though of course they might in some cases disagree about what those are. But having that concept, and having the notion that Christianity is the kind of thing that can be _true_, helps us to avoid getting confused over phrases like "non-Western Christianity." If that simply means a different musical form or grass skirts, it can still be something we celebrate. If it means sacrificing to one's ancestors as part of supposedly "Christian" worship, then that's a problem. I see no reason at all to think that the non-Western Christianity of the Kimyal is of the latter type. Roberts, not even wanting to talk about the notion that Christianity might be _true_, is interested not in making but in blurring this distinction.

People who take Christianity seriously--or even people who wish to think clearly--needn't be bothered with that sort of nonsense.

MW: "Is it the possibility that Christian institutions like the Catholic Church will be de-westernized?"

The Catholic Church is already fast becoming de-Westernized. Unlike Archbishop Turpin in the Song of Roland who took up arms to halt the invasion from the south, the archbishops today openly side with the Third World against the First on the issue of immigration -- and it's not only leftists like Roger Mahony but also pro-immigration neoconservatives like Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan or Opus Dei Archbishop Jose M. Gomez who have taken up the anti-Western crusade. Even Catholic Bishops in Europe side with Africans against Europeans. Look around in the U.S., and you'll find priests attending La Raza functions. I suppose once there's a non-Western pope (probably from Africa or Latin America) it will be more apparent.

I discuss some of the new Catholic liturgies in my article: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4693

Lydia: I'm merely talking about sociological and historical factors surrounding Christianity, which neither deny nor affirm the truth of Christianity. They are separate issues.


"As Catholics, we believe that the Lord Jesus is the Lord of history, and that for some reason He has desired that this massive wave of immigrants take place in the most powerful country on earth.”

“I believe that in God’s plan, the new Hispanic presence is to advance our country’s spiritual renewal.”

-- Archbishop Jose Gomez

So your concern is not that Christianity is becoming non-Western, but that it is becoming anti-Western, especially with respect to immigration?

I wouldn't worry that much then. The Christians least likely to support open borders are probably traditional Catholics. The Church would never take a hard line against immigration (for hopefully obvious reasons) but the actual position is not quite as dire as people think. Here's a post from Scott Richert on the subject.

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2011/01/17/pope-benedict-and-a-mexican-bishop-reflect-on-immigration.htm

So now this thread has something to do with immigration and the position Catholics take on immigration?

No, it doesn't. At all.

I'm merely talking about sociological and historical factors surrounding Christianity

Right, Roberts: you're purpose does not go beyond sociological curiosity. We get it.

I'm not anti-Christian. I do not see what is wrong in pointing out the current anti-Western trajectory of Christianity. Couldn't this knowledge be useful for those who might want to preserve Western Christianity? By and large, I'm on YOUR side.

I'm merely talking about sociological and historical factors surrounding Christianity, which neither deny nor affirm the truth of Christianity. They are separate issues.

M.A. Roberts, Fair enough, as a speculation on the future, you have written a well-informed article. Christianity is the religion of one who lives as if an earthquake were possible at any moment. So no surprise the faith is more vibrant in the Third World than it is in the denatured, sated and arid West. Your analysis suffers though from making an idol of Western Civilization, as you have inverted the situation. Isn't it fairer to say The West became anti-Christian, rather than Christianity morphed into an anti-Western ideology?

Hard to imagine what remains of The West once it's spiritual substance evaporates, and the Church dusts off her sandals and moves to the fertile, welcoming villages of the Southern hemisphere. Sure the faith will have a complicated contest with the indigenous pagan practices of the "Global South", but it has a very successful track record in cultural transformation to draw on. Any religion that can civilize the Germanic tribes for extended periods throughout the last 2000 years can enter any continent with inspired confidence.

The Latin Mass, albeit with some quirky new liturgical accretions, is a far more appealing than the heartbreaking trajectory Europe is on.

I do not see what is wrong in pointing out the current anti-Western trajectory of Christianity.

The current trajectory of the West, as its elites ostentatiously abandon Christianity in the chase after the gods of acquisition and pleasure-seeking, will compel more and more sane men to adopt an anti-Western posture. It's only natural and right, given the depravities we're seeing in the West.

But you still haven't so much as ventured a reply to Lydia's questions about how your hobbyhorse relates precisely to this post. If you really are, as you say, on our side, how come the only thing you come around here to do to is show us that our religion is not on your side?

how come the only thing you come around here to do to is show us that our religion is not on your side?

Well-put, Paul.

And actually, MAR, you don't keep these things separate. Up-thread you blathered about whether people who become missionaries merely have a "fetishism of the Other." You repeatedly, clearly, unmistakably imply that foreign missions is a bad idea because it "de-Westernizes" Christianity. This is absolutely not separable from the question of whether Christianity is true. This has been pointed out to you again and again. If Christianity is true, Jesus told us to spread the Gospel to all nations. Some people are called to do so locally, some far away from their own homes. If no one had been so called in this instance, the Kimyal would still be dying in heathen darkness.

Christians honor foreign missionaries and rejoice in things like this video because they believe Christianity true and want everyone to have it. Moreover, if Christianity is true, then it is true that the Kimyal are our Christian brothers. The passage in the main post about every tribe and kindred is from the Bible. We actually believe this stuff. And because we believe it,we don't hold the preservation of the white race or avoiding the third-world or whatever it is that you are after to be the most important value in the world. The reason we don't sit around and sneer at missions as representing a "fetishism of the Other" is because we are Christians.

So, Don C., don't give him an inch. What he's said is not "fair enough," because his "sociological" musings are in service of an agenda that makes sense only if Christianity is not true. And he's smart enough to know it.

Again, as the French philosopher Alain de Benoist has pointed out, I find this missionary drive to be globalism on steroids, which is antithetical to the conservative mindset grounded in the local.

Lydia: "our Christian brothers"

Watch out. This can be an explosive concept. Thomas Fleming rightfully points out the limits of this concept (the universal brotherhood of man) in the Morality of Everyday Life. Regarding the limits of the implied obligations therein, Aquinas wrote, "[A]fter his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents … and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland."

And don't forget the fruits of the concept of Christian brotherhood. Alain de Benoist has argued that nearly all modern left-wing thought can be traced back to the idea of Christian brotherhood. Oswald Spenger argued that the idea of Christian brotherhood is the fons et origo of Marxism, that Marxism is but a secularized form of the concept of Christian brotherhood.

"And don't forget the fruits of the concept of Christian brotherhood."

The rotten fruits of the concept are rotten because of the attempt to maintain the idea of Christian brotherhood while leaving out Christ (and by extension, the Church), who is its root and source. To paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, Christian brotherhood cut off from the source of that brotherhood leads to the gas chamber.

Oswald Spengler, rather.


Don Colacho: "Any religion that can civilize the Germanic tribes...."

That has the flip side that one of the reasons Medieval Christianity was so robust was that the Germanic pagan warrior ethos still survived throughout the Medieval period. You don't see the likes of Archbishop Turpin (see above) today.


Again, as the French philosopher Alain de Benoist has pointed out, I find this missionary drive to be globalism on steroids, which is antithetical to the conservative mindset grounded in the local.

Lydia: "our Christian brothers"

Watch out. This can be an explosive concept.

Again, every word of this shows, MAR, that you do not admit that you are talking to people who believe Christianity true. Honestly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself and am thinking of beginning to delete your comments. You pretend to be "on the side" of us as Christians, but when we say _undeniably biblical things_, things that are true because Christianity is true, you immediately begin to tell us that we ought to stop, to beware, not to do or hold these things.

For the last time: The brotherhood not of "all men" but of all Christians is Christian doctrine. Sorry, but that's how it is. We are all one body, we are all of the household of faith. We have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." It doesn't follow that my duty to the Kimyal is _identical_ to my duty to those immediately around me. It does follow that I should rejoice in, rather than sneer at, their receiving the Word of God, their faith, their joy, their love for the Lord. It does follow that I am united to them in the blessed company of all faithful people and that I should love them in a special way. The same with the "missionary drive." It began in the words of Our Lord. It is not an option. If you think it is just "globalism on steroids," that shows that you are a reductivist and have no slightest gleam of a comprehension of the concepts involved *if one believes Christianity to be true*. This isn't about political ideology. This is about Christianity--love, commitment, service, and obedience. This is about the salvation of souls and the life everlasting.

You refuse to take any of that seriously and insist on riding your hobby horses whenever anyone has the gall to say something nice about "those folks over there," warning all of us about the dangers of Christian missions per se, as if racial identity were the only important thing. Christians think that it isn't. That's presumably why you don't like Christianity. I get that. But I'm utterly weary of the pretense that you are "on the side of" Christianity. Bag it. You're wasting my time.

Lydia: "as if racial identity were the only important thing"

As I point out in my article, unlike in the West, racial identity seems to be very important for many Third World Christian churches. As for me, I'm not a white nationalist, but I am unapologetically pro-Western. (Think Samuel Huntington.) Anyway, I don't want to "tire" you with right-wing critiques of Christian brotherhood by Spengler, et al., so I'll drop it.

May you have a joyous and productive day, and may you tread lightly on the footprints of your ancestors!


Alain de Benoist has argued that nearly all modern left-wing thought can be traced back to the idea of Christian brotherhood. Oswald Spenger argued that the idea of Christian brotherhood is the fons et origo of Marxism, that Marxism is but a secularized form of the concept of Christian brotherhood.

Good grief. Jesus, the Lord, said of his disciples:

Mat 23:8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.

You may try to speak in opposition to this, but I wouldn't. The problem, if there were one, would be in a correct understanding of what Christian brotherhood is. If you start with a flawed view, you get a flawed result. The problem, however does not lie in Christianity, but in the people who mis-characterize it.

As for the de-Westernization of Christianity, I have to ask: is it really the West bring de-Christianized or converted to secular humanism? It is usually harder to re-evangelize a once Christian country than convert a country to Christ. Who is likelier to show the blush of love: a man struggling to love his wife while being distracted by a harlot or a young man who has his first crush?

Also, the distinctions between East and West largelt arose during the pre-technological period. With today's communication and technology, the degree of pressure to uniformity is such that the variation between an Eastern and Western Christianity will probably be no more than one standard deviation in the long run. This whole notion of sociological polarization is being way over-played.

The Chicken

For a rather different perspective on Christianity and the decline of the West, Mr. Roberts should read this:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HartChrist.php

I wasn't inclined to post contrarian comments here for the same reason I'm not inclined to do so when Jeff posts a youtube video of three young Catholics singing Roman Catholic Mariology hymns. No reason to politicize this type of post which is innocent and non-political.

But what the hey, it's already been done.

I'm in partial agreement, partial disagreement with Mr. Roberts. The disagreement first. I didn't agree with you in the other thread awhile back when you said that missioning "deracinates" us (I'm quoting from memory so please forgive if I misquote). I think that's more or less where you're going here.

I think you confuse missioning with mass immigration of exotic people, Christian or otherwise. The former does not deracinate us. The latter does. The former is not the same as creating a Babel out of the West (only a Nimrod would create Babel.)

I do agree with Mr. Roberts that elevation of the exotic Other contributes to the enthusiasm of SOME for missioning in exotic places and at the same time neglecting those near them. Of course we can't know peoples hearts and I have no idea if that is the case here.

Lydia, where's their love for their neighbors? Where's their obedience when it comes to proselytizing to those who are like them and live near them? Why Peru and Papau New Guinea when I didn't even know the basics of the Gospel or Christianity until age 26 (and was introduced to those things by Mormons I might add - thankfully I saw through what THEY teach). Why not their neighbors, black or white? Is it wrong to point out that some Christians just may have absorbed some of the thought tendencies of the basically leftist society they live in?

That said, all these comments probably don't belong in this thread.

P.S. I might add that some of the international missionaries, particuarly the low-church types, think they are helping bring on the end of times by going to the far reaches of the earth. I know this for sure because we've have missionary friends tell us this.

p.p.s., I'm sure that the world is a better place with the Kimyal as Christians rather than animists.

My belated two cents,

1) As someone concerned about Third World immigration into the U.S. (and the West more generally) and furthermore someone who believes in human biodiversity, let me just echo everything Lydia (and Sage and Paul) says;

2) The reason MAR is so off base is because Lydia hit the nail on the head -- for those of us who believe Christianity to be true, we rejoice in reading about/watching the spread of the Gospel -- it is our duty and it should fill our hearts with joy. Nothing is more important than our fellow man's salvation.

3) Another two reasons MAR's comments are not just wrong but inappopriate, at least for someone who claims to love Christ, is Phil Masters and Stan Dale. If you followed the link provided by Lydia you would have discovered they were martyred in 1968 when they were killed and cannibalized by the Yale tribe while doing missionary work in the highlands of Papua. My church teaches me to honor, cherish and pray for martyrs -- those who were martyred early in the Church's history back in the first century and those who are still willing to die for the faith.

4) Finally, I do think Bruce is right that sometimes folks with good intensions should look closer to home first -- Dickens' "telescopic philanthropist" Mrs Jellyby comes to mind as the best parody of the type.

Bless you Lydia for this post -- it brightened my day!

That said, all these comments probably don't belong in this thread.

That's right.

Why Peru and Papau New Guinea when I didn't even know the basics of the Gospel or Christianity until age 26

Because God calls some to Papua New Guinea. And we should be grateful for that, as the Kimyal are. "How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings." This jealousy that begrudges missions to other countries is petty and bizarre.

This will probably be my last post on this thread.

I never wrote that Christian brotherhood implies all men. It does not; only Christians. But, historically, the idea of Christian brotherhood is a radical concept. Many on the right (e.g. de Benoist, Spengler, etc.) have argued that this notion of Christian brotherhood is the basis of much left-wing thought (egalitarianism, Marxism, etc.) in that it eclipses the natural biological family (such as one find's in Aristotle's politics) with an ideological, globalist one. Marxism is a secular form of Christian brotherhood.

Regarding truth, one mustn't affirm the veracity of a religion to appreciate its importance. Cicero, for instance, argued that even if the gods don't exist religion is still important for holding communities together. As I stated before, I was only commenting on current sociological tendencies of Christianity. Is any criticism of any modern tendencies of Christianity off limits? I suppose that, unlike Archbishop Jose Gomez who can read the mind of God, I am unaware of "God's plan" as it relates to current public policy between the Third World and the First, so I am left discussing mere historical and sociological patterns.

That said, I'd like to apologize if things I said here are deemed as inappropriate. I'm quite fond of WWwtW. I've commented here since the website's inception and was a regular commenter at Right Reason before this site. I enjoy the lively debates that take place here among conservatives. Regarding the debate on this thread, since the original post was about translations of the New Testament in Papua, I felt some discussion on the current explosion of non-Christianity to be germane (which I admit is a topic of interest to me), which turned into a discussion about missionary work. To me, such discussions are merely academic; I have no emotional investment in them. It was not my intent to offend. Please accept my regrets if I did offend anyone. Perhaps it would be best if I refrain from engaging in academic discussion (i.e. refrain from commenting on) Lydia's (and Jeff's) posts in the future.

Not jealosy and I don't begrudge missions to other countries. The personal example was because I think that it's significant that a person can live for more than a quarter century around Christians who don't try to share the Gospel with them.

"non-Christianity" should be "non-Western Christianity"

Bruce, it is significant, absolutely. But its significance lies in the disobedience of those who lived near you for a quarter century and didn't tell you the Gospel. It has no significance whatsoever in relation to those who obeyed the Lord to go to other lands and share the Gospel there. It's sort of like saying that because someone who lives here in my hometown in TN didn't tell me about a great sale at one of the local chain stores, it's wrong of someone in Lydia's hometown in MI to tell her about it so she can benefit from it . . . what I hear or don't hear just doesn't mean anything about the people *there* and what is the kind or right thing for *them* to do.

There is no "one way to be a Christian" any more than there is "one way to be a human being."

Even in the Western cultures, and even in individual nations of the West, there are many ways to be a Christian. The "bells and smells" of high-church Anglicanism or Catholicism are not for me, but other people get something out of those cultural practices: it's not my place to seek to impose my cultural preferences for simplicity upon them.

As has been so well pointed out, Christianity never was about "the one true way" to conduct the minute daily affairs of one's life; in that respect, Christianity is about the underlying principles of how to life one's daily life, rather than about specific details.

==
Christ redeems the man *and* the man's culture or nation. And so, when a significant portion of some nation become Christians, that nation becomes even more itself. When I am redeemed, I become more myself; I do not become my neighbor. Why then should anyone expect that when a nation is evangelized, it will become a carbon-copy of Western Europe or America?

Thank you for the analogy, Beth. My only issue with your analogy is that the people we're generally talking about (don't know about the case with this tribe - just speaking generally) are not from Papua or Peru. So it's the same people (generally speaking) living here for many years and going there. They're FROM here so I guess the accurate analogy would be people leaving your TN town to go to Michigan to tell Lydia about the sale but not sharing it with you before they leave.

"historically, the idea of Christian brotherhood is a radical concept. Many on the right (e.g. de Benoist, Spengler, etc.) have argued that this notion of Christian brotherhood is the basis of much left-wing thought (egalitarianism, Marxism, etc.) in that it eclipses the natural biological family (such as one find's in Aristotle's politics) with an ideological, globalist one. Marxism is a secular form of Christian brotherhood."

As I said above, MAR, the thing is, if Christianity is true then any attempts to duplicate its "brotherhood" without Christ will fail, and not only fail, but turn demonic. Marxism may indeed be "a secular form of Christian brotherhood," but if it is, its problem is not with its (vestigial) Christianity, but with its secularity.


when a significant portion of some nation become Christians, that nation becomes even more itself. When I am redeemed, I become more myself; I do not become my neighbor.

Which brings us back to the important and joyful work of Bible translation. There is a story from some friends of mine whose parents worked in Papua; of their challenge in translating the idea of the "heart" to a people with a limited (not incomplete) social/ psychological/physical experience in matters other than food and shelter. Their challenges in seeking to reach across so great a cultural divide puts one in mind of how great a cultural divide God had to consider in order to reach. . . well, any of us.

That heretofore unknown "hearts" were gladdened by the Good News of forgiveness puts to rest, for me, at least, the question of validity.

As I stated before, I was only commenting on current sociological tendencies of Christianity.

No, you weren't, MAR. I already explained that.

Bruce, if your main reaction to that video is, "Harrumph, why did they go to Papua while I waited x amount of time to hear about Jesus?" then I'm sorry, but you have a problem. And I say this also because you have come into another thread and said the same thing. This is simply ridiculous. You have no reason to believe that the missionaries who went and gave their lives for the Kimyal were your personal neighbors or had any contact with you or special responsibility to you. That this is your reaction marks a lack of that rejoicing in a sinner who repents which Jesus recommends. It marks a failure to understand the Biblical notion, "Freely ye have received, freely give." The Apostle Paul lauds the example of churches that gave out of their poverty so that he could carry the gospel to others outside of their geographical area. All over the place in the Scriptures a spirit of joy, generosity, and self-giving is enjoined upon us, especially with regard to the spread of the Gospel. Your response is petty. Instead of saying over and over (which you do say and have said), "Why didn't I hear sooner?" you should simply be grateful that you _did_ hear and also grateful that the Kimyal heard. A thankful heart is a joyful heart and a selfless heart, a heart focused on the good of others and not on past complaints ("Why wasn't this done for me sooner?").

The Kimyal themselves are an example to us here. I recommend the prayer of the elder who tells God with something like awe that this day was known in the mind of God from all eternity. Notice that he doesn't say, "Why didn't someone get us the Scriptures in our own language sooner?" He is overwhelmed with gratitude for what he has received.

I suggest, Bruce, that this reaction of yours--instead of the tears of joy with which the video has been greeted by many other Christians--may mean that you are running with a non-Christian crowd that is encouraging you to think in non-Christian ways. Here I refer explicitly to MAR & co., and I make no apology for doing so.

Each person has their own calling. Some go there and preach and some stay here and preach. Entropy - maximum spread, is the goal. Even the late workers get the pay. Just be glad you got hired.

The Chicken

I'm really kind of shocked by the level of hostility to my friend MAR in this thread.

It surely ought to be uncontroversial that there are many competing conceptions of what all is entailed by the claim that "Christianity is true." Like me, MAR is very friendly to some of those conceptions and very unfriendly to others. For example, he admires the militant faith of Archbishop Turpin, but not the "invite the world" views on immigration of Archbishop Gomez. I hope that he & I aren't the only ones here who feel that way.

In that context, isn't it perfectly understandable to be preoccupied with the ongoing third-world-ization of The Church, and worried about just exactly where it's all leading? If this is a "hobby-horse," doesn't it deserve a few rides?

Steve, immigration has zero to do with this thread. To suggest that it does have something to do with this post and this thread suggests, I'm sorry to say, an obsession with that topic and a hostility toward non-Western people--to the point of reacting negatively even to the story of their conversion--that transcends mere concern with the legitimate interests of America or of the West.

Missions has been part of Christianity from its inception and is enjoined upon us by the Founder of Christianity and by the example of the Apostles. It's not some sort of negotiable and regrettable aberration. To react to a post about the joy of a tribe in another country at receiving the Word of God by saying that missionaries to foreign lands seem to have an "odd fetishism of the Other" is not to be neutral toward Christianity, much less "on the side of" Christianity; it is not merely to make some sort of neutral "sociological observations."

It's almost fascinating, in a creepy kind of way: Here is a video and a post about the *conversion to Christianity* of some people who live in the Third World. The video shows not one tiniest _hint_ of syncretism.

Along comes a commentator who reacts to this by talking about "fetishism of the Other" as a presumed characteristic of Christian foreign missionaries and telling us that we should talk about immigration and about the de-Westernizing of the Church. Yet at the same time this commentator tells us that this wholesale criticism of Christian missions, this wholly negative reaction to the scenario portrayed in the video, is separable from the question of whether Christianity is true! No, it's not. To claim that it is and that these comments are neutral toward Christianity is, frankly, to be disingenuous. It's actually quite transparent.

Steve, you ought to be smart enough to see that for yourself.

I wouldn't worry too much about the drift of Christianity to the East. We'll all have our hand full, anyway, evangelizing the space aliens when they come in 2012. Christianity can go other directions than East and West, you know. How about up : )

The Chicken

Bruce, if your main reaction to that video is, "Harrumph, why did they go to Papua while I waited x amount of time to hear about Jesus?" then I'm sorry, but you have a problem.

Lydia, I actually didn't watch the video because I didn't have headphones at work. My reaction to what I figured it contained wasn't the jealousy you imputed to me. I already said I related my experience to make a point about some things I see in contemporary Christianity. I brought it up because MAR brought it up above and it seemed relevant to the discussion. You've never repeated something in two seperate threads? I'm adopted into the family. My reward isn't more or less because I was buried with Him at an older age vs a younger age. Please stop imputing the motive of jealousy to me.

I'm sure he's a swell fellow , but I've never had a conversation with MAR, email or otherwise. I've seen his pieces and comments at Takimag and Chronicles (and here) and I read his recent post after seeing it at the CHT website.

I'm sorry for posting my comments because it was a nice post of yours and didn't need this sort of disagreement. Like I said about Jeff's RC Hymn posts.

We'll all have our hand full, anyway, evangelizing the space aliens when they come in 2012.

We'll have our hands full trying to stop the space robot terrorists, imperialist armies, and other alien villains. In other words, the same thing many paleocons think they are doing in 2011.

Lydia - no doubt I ought to be smarter than I am.

I mean MAR's recent article.

Thanks for the explanation, Bruce. I hope you appreciate the video when you get a chance to see it. Peace.

See..what Bruce and Lydia did...that is Christian brotherhood.

The Chicken

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.