Christian missions have gotten a bad rap. If you doubt this, just watch a PBS or a BBC history special on the subject. The missionaries who followed in the wake of the Conquistadores have received special condemnation. A BBC TV series of The Missionaries claims that:
- “Under the guise of evangelism came harsh exploitation and eventually the enslavement of the Indians.”
In “6 Modern Myths about Christianity and
Western Civilization,” Research fellow, Philip J. Sampson attacks the myth
that the missionaries were oppressors. He counters that many of the
missionaries had taken a strong stance against these colonial powers. He cites
a sermon by Dominican Antonio de Montesinos (1511), preached against the sins
of the white colonists:
- “Tell me, by what right and with what justice do you keep these poor Indians in such cruel and horrible servitude? By what authority have you made such detestable wars against these people…you kill them with your desire to extract and acquire gold every day…Are these not men…Are you not obliged to live them as you love yourselves?”
Contrary to
the philosophy of Aristotle who regarded the slave as a “live tool,” the Bible
grants dignity to all humanity as “created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26).
Sampson points out the consequence of this:
- “Many 19th century missionaries were appalled at the slave trade and did their best to try to change it. William Burns opposed the ‘coolie’ trade in China and protested to British government representatives…Missionaries in East Africa were horrified at the local slave trade and were at a loss as to what to do about it.” (100)
In her
discussion of the missionaries to Africa, historian
Ruth Tucker acknowledges that, while there were missionaries who also
understood their role as one of westernizing the natives,
- “They, more than any other outside influence, fought against the evils colonialism and imperialism brought. They waged long and bitter battles…the heinous traffic in human cargo. And after the demise of the slave trade they raised their voice against other crimes, including the bloody tactics King Leopold used to extract rubber from the Congo. The vast majority of missionaries were pro-African, and their stand for racial justice often made them despised by their European brothers. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that without the conscience of Christian missions, many of the crimes of colonialism would have gone entirely unchecked.” (“From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya,” 140).
Sampson
explodes the myth that the missionaries were in collusion with the imperialists
and colonists. In fact, the missionaries were often expelled by the colonial
powers to prevent them from “publicizing atrocities or intervening to help the native
people.” (101) He agrees with Tucker that the,
- “Missionaries in Africa were opposed to slavery from an early period, and they used a variety of means to oppose it, including buying slaves and establishing plantations for them to work on.” (102)
According to
Sampson, rather than collusion, conflict characterized missionary-colonialist
relations:
- “The missionaries insisted on treating native people as human beings who are entitled to the protection of the law, and this rubbed salt into the wound. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that colonists and traders often opposed missions.” (103)
- “Traders and colonists resisted the evangelism of native people, seeing conversion as the first step to indigenous people gaining access to the resources of Western culture and hence to the power that colonists wished to keep for themselves…Native people who wished to break free of the settler’s stranglehold and worship God were immediately persecuted by the white traders.” (103-104)
Stephen
Neill’s “History of Christian Missions”
gives an example of this:
- “The missionaries [to New Guinea] from the start found themselves in bitter opposition to the white traders and exploiters, whose attitude was expressed by one of them to John G. Patton in the words ‘our watchword is ‘Sweep these creatures away, and let the white men occupy the soil,’’ and who, in pursuance of their aim, placed men sick of the measles on various islands in order to destroy the population through disease.” (355)
In contrast
to the concerns of the missionaries, the educated, disdaining the idea of the
“spiritual equality of all colors of Christians,” aligned themselves with the
exploiters:
- “Missionaries, on the other hand, were ridiculed in scholarly journals for their shallow thinking in regard to race.” (Tucker, 140)
Darwinism had
made racism intellectually respectable. Evolutionist Karl Giberson, in “Saving Darwin:
How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,” acknowledges the
prevailing racism:
- “How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time …shared [evolutionist] Haeckel’s [racist] ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.”
Consequently,
evolutionists presented no rationale to oppose the abuses of colonialism. In
contrast to this, Tucker cites A.F. Walls,
- “But one thing is clear. If missions are associated with the rise of imperialism, they are equally associated with the factors which brought about its destruction.” (111)
She also
cites Ralph Winter:
- “Protestant missionary efforts in this period led the way to establishing all around the world the democratic apparatus of government, the schools, the hospitals, the universities and the political foundations for the new nations.” (111)
What greater
testimony could there have been to the missionary dedication to those among
whom they worked! Nevertheless, they have often been charged with the
destruction of native culture. This is ironic because missions have done more
to “codify and preserve [indigenous] languages” than has any other group:
- “The anthropologist Mary Haas estimates that ‘ninety per cent of the material available on American Indian languages, is missionary in origin.” (Sampson, 109-110)
Indeed, the
missionaries did campaign against certain native practices like female
circumcision. Charles Darwin confesses:
- “Human sacrifice…infanticide…bloody wars, where the conquerors spared neither women nor children—all these have been abolished…by the introduction of Christianity.” (Sampson, 110)
Why then all
the bad press against the missionary? Darwin proposes that:
- “Disappointed in not finding the field of licentiousness quite so open as formerly, they [the Western traders] will not give credit to a morality which they do not wish to practice or to a religion which they undervalue, if not despise.” (Sampson, 111)
Consequently,
the historian Stephen Neill concludes that the:
- “Weight of the evidence tells heavily against” the accusation that missionaries have been responsible for the destruction of native cultures.” (Sampson, 111)
The Christian
missionaries bravely opposed the prevailing worldview. Representative of the
Darwinian thinking of his day, Richard F. Burton complained that the Christian
willingness to treat Africans as “men and brethren” was “a dangerous error at
odds with the evolutionary facts.” (Sampson, 98) Instead, faith in the Gospel…
- “Encouraged Dr. John Philip of the London Missionary Society to support native rights in South Africa in the early nineteenth century…Lancelot Threlkeld to demand equal protection under the law for the Awabakal people of Australia and also inspired John Eliot to persuade the Massachusetts courts to find in favor of native people against settler claims. Even so unsympathetic an author as David Stoll concedes that the contemporary missions in Latin America ‘tended to treat native people with more respect than did national governments and fellow citizens.’” (98)
This should
be no surprise. It has been the faithfulness to their beliefs that has
motivated Christians from the start. Regarding this, Philip Yancey provides
some insights that he gleaned from the historian Rodney Stark:
- “In the midst of a hostile environment, the Christians simply acted on their beliefs. Going against the majority culture, they treated slaves as human beings, often liberating them…When an epidemic hit their towns, they stayed behind to nurse the sick. They refused to participate in such common practices as abortion and infanticide. They responded to persecution as martyrs, not as terrorists. And when Roman social networks disintegrated, the church stepped in. Even one of their pagan critics had to acknowledge that early Christians loved their neighbors ‘as if they were our own family.’” (CT, Nov 2010, 32-33)
Nevertheless,
the many secular charges against missions have taken their toll. Hwa Yung, the
bishop of the Methodist Church of Malaysia, is concerned about the waning of
Western missions. He cites Western guilt and charges of “imperialism” as major
culprits, and he wants to counteract these.
For one
thing, intellectuals from the newly established countries:
·
Long
for their countries to become modern democracies with advanced economies. They
do not buy into the secularization theory that suggests that the unique, finely
balanced combination of democracy, political stability with checks and balances
in government, civil society, human rights undergirded by a strong a just legal
system, and an advanced economy with minimal corruption will emerge willy-nilly
with modernization. They have looked at the 20th-century experiment
called Marxism, perhaps the most secular of ideologies, and have found it
utterly wanting for either the prosperity or the freedoms they seek. (Christianity Today, Nov. 2011, 44)
This
conclusion should be a matter of common-sense, but it certainly isn’t common.
Oddly, the secularists of the Western university credit secularism with Western
successes. Meanwhile, they have substituted moral relativism for a commitment
to moral absolutes and marvel speechlessly before the various
moral-economic-social-political woes that are now afflicting the West. This is
because they are unwilling to give credit where credit is due:
·
These
intellectuals have reached the same conclusions as those of the late American
legal scholar Harold Berman and the sociologist Rodney Stark: The moral values,
legal principles, and psychological basis of the best modern Western
civilizations came from their Christian history. Thus, many, like Chinese
cultural Christians, see the gospel alone as able to provide adequate moral
foundations for rejuvenating their nations. (CT)
Oddly, we in
the West have lost sight of this fact. In fact, it has even become politically
incorrect to make such observations, which can imperil one’s livelihood.
Yung cites a
2008 article in The Times (UK) by Matthew Parris, a journalist and former
British MP, reflecting on his visit to Malawi:
·
Now
a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that
Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply
distinct from the work of secular NGOS, government projects and international
aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do.
In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings spiritual
transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good…Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global
competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even
the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A
whole belief system must first be supplanted by another. Removing Christian
evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a
malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone, and the machete.
(CT)
Well, haven’t
Christian missions undermined indigenous culture? Isn’t there a basis for
Western guilt? Yung cites Yale professor Lamin Sanneh who claims that
“Christian missions actually helped to preserve cultures and languages” through
the translation of the Bible into “vernacular languages”:
·
As
he put it, “Christian missions are better seen as a translation movement, with
consequences for vernacular revitalization, religion change and social
transformation, than as a vehicle for Western cultural domination.” I don’t
know of any serious scholar refuting Sanneh’s thesis. (CT)
If we are concerned
about the advancement of the Third World, then
missions should be encouraged. In her discussion of the missionaries to Africa,
historian Ruth Tucker acknowledges that, while there were missionaries who also
understood their role as one of westernizing the natives:
·
They,
more than any other outside influence, fought against the evils colonialism and
imperialism brought. They waged long and bitter battles…the heinous traffic in
human cargo. And after the demise of the slave trade they raised their voice
against other crimes, including the bloody tactics King Leopold used to extract
rubber from the Congo.
The vast majority of missionaries were pro-African, and their stand for racial
justice often made them despised by their European brothers. Indeed, it is no
exaggeration to say that without the conscience of Christian missions, many of
the crimes of colonialism would have gone entirely unchecked. (“From Jerusalem
to Irian Jaya,” 140).
All of this
should give renewed emphasis to Jesus’ words:
·
Then
Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you
always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Christian
missions have arguably been the greatest source of positive change. It is
therefore a pity that they have been so maligned. In contrast, Jesus had
promised:
·
The
thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life
and have it abundantly. (John 10:10)
Indeed, we
find that that where the missionaries have trod, so too has come abundance, as
the work of the sociologist Robert Woodberry has revealed.
In view of
all this, we should ask, “Why hasn’t communism or Hinduism sowed such benefits within
the nations where they have spread?” Perhaps they came with ideas that failed
to promote the people, while Christianity came with ideas that had proved
salutary to their hosts. Well, why is it that these truths proved beneficial?
Perhaps they came from above, from a benevolent God.
