From its very beginnings, the Christian faith has been trying tobring people in. As the known world began to expand after the deathof Christ, it became a fundamental goal of the church to bring thefaith to everyone it touched; and with that, missionary evangelistswere brought into the world. From the medieval crusades to themissionaries of today, the spreading of Christianity has been one ofthe most organized and influential undertakings in the history ofmankind.
The other day I started thinking about the nature of this faithfuleffort to spread Christianity to the “heathens” of the world. It wasthen when an idea struck me like a bolt of lighting (which seemedlikely considering the idea’s topic). I had realized the spread of areligion through any sort of evangelism is inherently flawed becauseit asks people to accept a belief that can only truly be accepted inresponse to inner change.
If one has ever been in a religious debate with anybody (of anyreligion) they know that a stalemate is almost always reached at thepoint of one’s individual faith. It’s the very nature of religion tohave no logical or tangible evidence. It all comes down to the simplechoice of whether or not to believe.
This is where the flaw lies in the act of evangelism, especiallyin light of the immense diversity of cultures in the world. When anevangelist approaches a new group of people that he or she wants to”show the way,” the assumption is always made that those people wantto be shown something other than what they already know. Thisarrogant attitude is what displaced millions of American Indians andturned Africa into the puzzle of invisible colonial lines that itremains today. These are the ever-reaching effects of the all toowell-known “white man’s burden” or, in the case of evangelism, the”believer’s burden.”
How can anybody know what is right and wrong without being told?They can’t – and that is the point. These views are not inherent buttaught. Young Christians learn Christian values while young Muslimslearn Islamic values. Cultures have developed independently all overthe planet with a number of different environments and factors whichguide the way they explain the nature of their world. All notions ofright and wrong, good and evil or any moral balance are completelyrelative to the culture that created it. This idea of culturalrelativism is completely set aside by evangelists in theirunrelenting attempt to increase the global number of Christians.
In describing the nature of evangelism, one cannot ignore theorganized and deliberate strategies that make it so successful. Forone, do you ever hear of mass evangelistic missions being launched inEurope? Of course not – they are always in the mostunderdeveloped and poverty-stricken areas of the world. If you triedto preach on the streets of London, you would never gain the kind ofnumbers that Christianity gains in places like Africa. That isbecause the people of developed nations are widely taught to thinkfor themselves, seek their own explanations and construct their owncode of morals. For these fortunate people, the decision processisn’t guided by desperation and therefore can be deeply contemplated.
One can only imagine the ease of gaining followers in a moredesperate part of the world when the Christian message is deliveredright along with food and medical supplies. I am not denouncing aidto suffering humans. I am simply stating that relief should end atrehabilitating a people, allowing it to pursue and develop its ownunique culture along with its own unique set of values and/orreligion.
By slipping in western religion between meals and antibioticshots, missionaries are creating a culturally disruptive tie betweenthe things required for mere survival and the Christian faith. Whensuffering is all that you have ever known, doesn’t it seem likelythat one might yearn to seek the origin of his relief? The problem isthat evangelists represent this origin as Christianity. Faith doesn’tfill starving stomachs and holiness doesn’t vaccinate sick children,but it is made to seem that way. A thin line exists between offeringrelief alongside religion and offering relief within religion.
If the foundational argument for Christianity is based on anindividual sense of faith, than shouldn’t Christians be more worriedabout letting these individuals develop there own sense of God ratherthan imposing it? How can one Christian tell even a fellow Christianhow to develop a relationship with God, let alone tell someone whohas never even heard of the Bible? If there is truly a God that wantsall people to live a Christian life, does it make sense that he wouldreveal his will only to a small amount of people while giving therest of the human race thousands of years to become firm in theirown, often contradicting beliefs?
Many Christians will argue that missionaries are only offering achance to embrace a life they truly believe has value, but if thatsame missionary had been a representative of the religion ofBuddhism, more likely than not the prospective converts would havebecome Buddhist. Christians are correct in saying that they offer achoice, but it’s a loaded choice.
If Christians want to pursue their faith, I have no problem withthat. However, when it comes to people who face basic human survival,human aid should not be a Trojan horse for religion. The very essenceof religion is something that dwells in the minds of individuals andtheir own sense of belonging and identity. Religion has sadly becomea campaign of distributing little packets of “instant” faith. Onesize fits all, even if it doesn’t fit.
– Barrett Reiner is an English and anthropology sophomore.
– This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com.Anonymous letters will not be printed – include your full name, majorand year in school.
