Missionaries Need Not Apply
The fact is that missionaries irritate the living hell out of me, there’s few things worse, IMO, than having someone try and tell you that unless you believe like they believe you are wrong.
That includes everyone from the Jehovah’s Witness folks that knock on the door, to the transit evangelicals, to the church of the fire of god people down in the market, to those who feel compelled to go to foreign lands and tell the people there that everything their culture and their ancestors believed was a crock of shite and their great-great-grandparents are even now burning in the hot fires of hell — just how does one justify that sort of arrogance anyway?
I was discussing this with friend crow one day and, while the whole missionary gig irritates him as well, he does have a different take on it than I and he actually thinks I should be a bit nicer to them seeing as how their god specifically commanded them to run out and tell the world – in effect, when looked at in that light, the true christians don’t really have much choice in the matter do they?
My initial thoughts upon reading about the evangelical minister who has been given the big Israeli boot for engaging in missionary work was, “good on them”, what gives this guy any right to go to a foreign country and try and tell the Jews that they’ve only got it 1/2 right anyway? If they’re happy in the synagogue leave them alone, and if they’re not, they’ll find his church soon enough if that’s what they’re interested in…. don’t ‘cha think.
Then again, if we take into consideration friend crow’s thoughts on the matter, this is a society that has contrived legislated that specifically targets the tenets of another religions; and not just any religion either, no, no, no my friends, they have legislated against the tenets of a religion that is one of their primary international backers – and that is not only intolerant, but more than a little shortsighted and stupid as well.
—————
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, Stageleft, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
I’m sort of with Crow on this one. The Mormons or JWs who knock on the door of the Bunker on the days when I’m doing reception duties always get a polite couple of minutes, before I tell them politely that I’m a practicing Scientologist ( I have no idea why, but that seems to make the door to door evangelists scatter like vampires sprayed with holy water. Try it!)
I’m assuming that they believe, deeply and sincerely, that they are offering me the gift of salvation in the face of my own ignorance. It’s annoying, and a bit presumptuous of them (especially the ones who presume to engage in a discussion of human origins without the foggiest notion of what natural selection means): but it’s hard to get mad at folks who willingly give up their time and expose themselves to anger and contempt, purely for the sake of my salvation.
Now, telemarketers…that’s a different story.
It’s my understanding, (and I’ve heard this from others over the years) that far from attempting to save my soul, the door to door evangelicals (of whatever sect) are not there to gather in a new convert, but to test the strength of their own bulwark of beliefs in the face of trial and trepidation (ie: annoyed people interrupted at home by proselytizing).
In other words, I’m their practicum after the training wheels have been taken off their brainwashing and they’re allowed outside the compound. Which makes sense to me. There are no chains so strong as the ones imposed upon the chained by the chained themselves. Every mental controller’s wet dream is to have self maintaining thralls. Way easier on the overseer’s time.
But, that angle being true, I personally, have better things to do with my time than play flagellant aid gratis for the submissively minded.
That’s not been my experience, or what I’ve gathered from the limited sampling of proselytizers I’ve gotten to know well enough to talk to. But I suppose in some cases you may be correct.
I talk to JWs who call. I make it clear I’m not going to join, but I don’t mind because I think they’re attempting to give me a gift. However, JWs aren’t in a power situation for me. I have a very different feeling with “here’s your soup, now you pray”, although “I’m giving you soup because I believe Christ obligates me to: you don’t owe me or Christ anything” is I think beautiful. I love Mama in Vancouver – her Agape Street ministry gives out sandwiches and vitamins and soup and coffee and hugs if necessary, but never preaches. Unless you ask her to.
I wish there were more like Mama in Vancouver.
Sadly, there is more along the lines of Samaritan’s Purse – they collect Christmas gift boxes with toys, toothpaste, clothes etc from churches all over Canada and the US. They then require people to go through a church service before recieving their “gift”…
Sometimes, they won’t get it unless they openly convert (this was the situation in Central America a few years ago). So controversial was this practice that World Vision and CARE distanced themselves from Samaritan’s Purse and Vision TV’s “360 Vision” ran an expose on them.
Funny how these so-called Christians forget about those teachings on helping the poor and living by example…
There’s a very illuminating article up on one of the Christian blogs explaining how Jesus really didn’t give a shit about the poor, REALLY…
The thrust, I guess, being that “the poor” are here to serve as tools to assist us in accreting spiritual value.
Such a compassionate interpretation, eh?
Yeah, making people the objects of our charity and attention is exploiting them. Have to stop doing that! *roll eyes*.
It’s wonderful how malleable Christ’s message is, isn’t it? I’ve seen his teachings – or at least, interpretations of his teachings – cited in defense of capital punishment, racism, the persecution of homosexuals, war, capitalism, communism, socialism…
I had never seen someone suggest that Christ didn’t really care much for the poor, that’s all.
Suzanne, if it takes the promise of eternal life, or the threat of eternal damnation, to convince
stupidunimaginative people that they should be charitable and care about those less fortunate, then hey, thats great.I think it’d be healthier to encourage those same people to develop their own moral code, and then appeal to that to convince them to be charitable to those less fortunate.
But then, it also helps those in power that all it takes is the promise of eternal life, or the threat of eternal damnation, to convince
stupidunimaginative people to die for their cause. And I guess that’s great too.Of course Christ cared for the poor. But he wasn’t about ending poverty. Slight difference.
And yes, textual interpretations can be malleable, that’s why Catholics have Tradition and the Magisterium to help us out.
“But then, it also helps those in power that all it takes is the promise of eternal life, or the threat of eternal damnation, to convince stupid unimaginative people to die for their cause.”
So you’re suggesting that the idea of dying for a cause is the product of people in power? Interesting idea, seeing as the first apostles and missionaries of Christianity encouraged people to accept martyrdom, but virtually had no power.
In a semi-related tie-in to this sharing the faith issue, jesseofthenorth and I were swiggin a coupla brews on the weekend, and he did a little research on Chuck Strahl (new INAC minister).
Chuck is a member of the Chilliwack Alliance Church in his home riding.
The Chilliwack Alliance Church Website states that one of the core values of the church is “Personal Evangelism involveing each person actively sharing their faith with their circle of influence.”
I’d say that Chuck’s circle of influence just got a whole lot bigger.
I’m suggesting that it CAN be. The politically powerful often ally themselves with some powerful religious movement to lend some perceived moral credence to whatever political cause they are championing.
In a simplisitic interpretation, the apostles had power over their “flock” and managed to convince them that it was okay to die for their cause. And became one of the most powerful religious and political forces in history.
OF COURSE Jesus wasn’t about ending poverty you guys, why would he want to do that? Good thing we have people like Suzanne keepin’ it real and tellin’ it like it is.
I would like to honestly and sincerely thank Suzanne and people like her for reinforcing my own beliefs and worldview.
I understand the distinction you’re making, SUZANNE, and I agree – it is as absurd for socialists to claim Christ as one of their own as it is for fascists or capitalists to claim him (and both have, of course).
The problem is not wanting to die for cause. The problem is wanting to kill for a cause. If of your own free will, you want to go to furthest ends of the earth and are willing to sacrifice your life to promote it, I don’t see the problem.
Balbulican: I do not believe that Jesus belongs to any one ideology. I think some ideologies have it wrong on the more fundamental issues, than others. Again– not to say that any one is synonymous with Christianity, but some ideologies are more true than others.
But this is another reason I do not adhere closely to any one ideology. Ideologies do get it wrong, and I reserve the right to change my mind.
“But he wasn’t about ending poverty.”
And Jesus, looking upon him [the rich man], loved him and said to him, « Go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ».
- Mark, 10 : 21
« I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you covered me; sick and you visited me […] As long as you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me ».
- Matthew, 25 : 34-40
« Now the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul, and not one of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. [….] Nor was there anyone among them in want. For those who owned lands or houses would sell them and bring the price of what they sold and lay it at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each, according to their need ».
- Acts, 4 : 32-35
I beg to differ on that interpretation. So would Jesus, I suspect.
Remember:
« No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand for one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (the worship of money) ».
- Matthew, 6 : 24, Luke, 16 : 13
Sorry SL, just saw the thread about Chuck Strahl now…
Why would Jesus (as described by sanctioned Christian texts) particularly care about poverty? His concern was the next world, not this one. To sell one’s possessions was his invitation to take a vow of poverty.
Well, Jesus may have had his eye on the next world, but much of his ministry was about this one. After all, if this one means nothing, why not murder? Thou shalt not steal is materialistic, probably because people feed themselves on the material plane.
“And Jesus, looking upon him [the rich man], loved him and said to him, « Go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ».”
That’s if you want to be perfect. Selling all you have is about you, not about ending poverty.
“« I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you covered me; sick and you visited me […] As long as you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me ».”
Again, not about ending poverty. Of course Jesus wanted Christians to help the poor. But he didn’t command people to end poverty. Again, it’s about the believer’s soul, not so much as the economic result.
“« Now the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul, and not one of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. [….] Nor was there anyone among them in want. For those who owned lands or houses would sell them and bring the price of what they sold and lay it at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each, according to their need ».”
Yes, again, helping the poor, is a good thing. But there is no agenda to end poverty.
“« No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand for one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (the worship of money) ».”
Not wanting to end poverty does not equal greed.
“Ideologies do get it wrong, and I reserve the right to change my mind.”
“that’s why Catholics have Tradition and the Magisterium to help us out.”
Bites tongue.
Jesus didn’t really engage in politics of a big scale, but focused on interrelations. Render unto Caesar, connect with the Centurion.
So he didn’t say not to focus on ending world poverty, either.
As far as I can tell, the Bible suggests that the devil will be with us always – or at least until some kind of freaky end times, but I’ve never heard a Christian suggest that Christianity shouldn’t work against the devil because of that.
As far as I can tell, the history of Christianity is rife with Christians running this way and that trying to “fight evil”, whether that’s slavery, poverty, alcohol, prostitution (ironic), or *gasp* the teaching of science.
Of course, many Christians have seen poverty as evil: Satan’s work. Consider the lilies, n’ all that. Christian charity, and all that. Mother Theresa, and all that. You know. The ones who don’t kill people but try to help and heal them. And all that. And isn’t it interesting if we all did that – turned the other cheek, say, and helped those around us out – that poverty might actually end? That’s neat how that works.
Christians have historically been rather bad at saying: God just doesn’t want me personally to be gay, eat lettuce on Tuesdays, or marry outside my race, but that’s about my believing soul. It’s sort of interesting that when this does come up, it’s in the form of:. “Don’t tell me I have to care about ending poverty just because I’m a Christian. Empty bellies of pagan babies, who cares? So intense. Christ just didn’t want me over-valuing my Ming Vase because Yahweh needs my constant adoration, but he didn’t want me to be too concerned about the empty bellies of my fellow humans.”
That whole agape thing is sort of a hassle.
A different interpretation of what Christ was saying to Judas is that you can also over-value and fetishize service for egotistical means, which distracts from the fact that it’s coming through you, it’s God’s. Like, you know, don’t get hung up on rage at all the pain out there, or next thing you know you’ll be leading a revolution. That’s sort of different than don’t witness and address the pain. But hey. Whatever floats your boat. Your religion, not mine.
Hmmm. On this being “perfect,” I’ll follow the example of The Vatican. Just on the property and wealth point though.
I have to admit I like women. And I find it abhorrent for men to like little boys.
But yes, on property and wealth, The Vatican, for the most part have done a terrific job. When one Pope has been excessive, another one comes along and hires just the right secretary to get the bank balances right back up there again.
“Ideologies do get it wrong, and I reserve the right to change my mind.â€
“that’s why Catholics have Tradition and the Magisterium to help us out.â€
Bites tongue.
I consider political ideologies to be of human origin. My faith is not.
UpMyKit:
Are you going to infer, then, that all Muslims are terrorists, and the school system supports pedophiles because some teachers are pedophiles?
People complained when Jesus let the repentant woman pour perfume on his head. “Hey!” They said “that perfume could have been sold and the profits given to the poor!”
He said: that it was a good thing that she did, and the poor will always be with us.
He doesn’t object to beautiful, expensive objects and buildings dedicated to him. Quite the opposite. It’s not a waste to him.
So what are you saying? You like women and you don’t like pedophiles? That’s commendable. Though I’m a little confused as to what the two have to do with one another. Do you dislike all homosexuals? Or only the ones who think about little boys?
To clarify, do you find people abhorrent who only think about sex with children, or do you reserve your disgust only for those who act on their desires? People can’t control who or what they like or are attracted to, but those who can control their urges so as not to harm others should be commended. It is only those who actually commit harmful acts towards children that should be abhorred. Anything else is arrogant thought-policing.
“I consider political ideologies to be of human origin. My faith is not.”
Your faith is an ideology as well, though. It requires of you that you interpret your experience in light of some basic premises not subject to negation.
SUZANNE, (hey, anyone wonder what the folks at The Politic would think of the word “God” having one uppercase letter while SUZANNE has all of hers in uppercase?)
Nope. I have some very good friends who are Christian that share my abhorence of the cover-ups and lack of responsibility for the actions of some of it’s employees on the part of The Vatican.
But I do find it funny how some Christians or some who claim to be Christian infer that all Muslims or a lot of Muslims should be killed in the name off anti-terrorism.
Really? Can you show me how you know this notion you have cited as belonging to Christ is correct?
I don’t have problems with beauty either. I was talking about wealth and bank balances.
No, it’s not the individual that I dislike. It is their desire to have sex with children and then carrying out that desire that I find abhorrent.
Further, I’m with Jesus on this one: Although he had harsh words at times for sinners, he seemed to reserve his harshest words for hypocrites.
Wrong. It is thought-police if I were to attempt to ban the thoughts of someone. I can still find their thoughts to be objectionable, however.
I abhor the published thoughts/ideas of Statists that would want to diminish my inherent rights but I do not call for the banning of that.
Hey, did you know that some Scientific works were banned by The Vatican for centuries, and it was only in 1966 when the banned list was revoked?
Sorry, UpMyKilt, you didn’t answer my question. You make the statement that you like women and abhor pedophiles. The two parts of this statement have nothing to do with each other. Does that fact that you like women preclude you from being a pedophile? Actually, most men who like men equally abhor pedophilia as very hurtful and criminal.
Or, are you trying to use Jesus to somehow make some link between homosexuality and pedophilia? If you are, that’s insulting, hateful, and just plain wrong.
As well, what does all this have to do with poverty and missionaries, which is what was being discussed?
I wrote that, did I? Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I wrote was:
“And I find it abhorrent for men to like little boys.”
Now, for the sake of clarity, yes, I mean’t like as in sexually attracted to. I find that abhorent.
Let me put it to you differently. Because of a previous occupation, I have known some pedophiles. It was their acts and their ideas that abhored me. They were still, as individuals, treated with respect however.
Do you understand the difference?
The idea of me liking women (sexually) is a different idea than what I abhored. You may or may not know that some Vatican officials and its employees are banned from having sexual relations with women. I will therefore not follow their example in that regard.
Very good! You’re on the right track.
Huh? Do you have these projection issues often?
Hmmm. Who’s being a “thought police officer” now? Tell me – is it always wrong to insult another or some institution? Or just the ones you like?
And what’s with this hate business? Are you suggesting I might “hate” something? Would you define “hate” for me precisely? See, I’ve had an emotion that I’ve identified as “hate” probably three times maximum in my entire life. The emotion was directed towards three different individuals that seriously infringed on my property rights and/or the rights of a family member. Is that kind of hatred ok? I did control my reactions to that emotion.
Perhaps you should read my comment again. I was referring to following the example of The Vatican on some issues (wealth creation), but not wanting to follow the example of The Vatican on other issues (sexual relations, cover ups, hypocrisy regarding ‘the law’, etc.).
But all you have to do really is simply read what I wrote, without projecting upon what I wrote.
UpMyKilt, please excuse my confusion, I was indeed confused by what I thought was implied in your statement.