Missionary Killed on Remote Island

[nico]

The Newsweek article here. They are all basically the same, fairly neutral.

John Allen Chau was killed by the natives of North Sentinel Island, one of the last places on earth with zero contact with the outside world.

He attempted to preach the gospel to them. Apparently his only words were "Jesus loves you".

Most people are calling him a fool, arrogant, selfish, delusion, etc. because he attempted to disturb a people hostile to outsiders, unreceptive to Christianity, and for possibly introducing diseases to them.

This tells me two things. First, that non-Christian people aren't convinced that Christians actually believe the Bible and Great Commission; that when push comes to shove we all (Christian and non-Christian) basically believe the same stuff, and that anyone who would risk their life to share Christ with someone is a fool. Second, that western Christians are so far removed from the Bible and living a life consistent with the commands of scripture that instead of calling him a martyr, they too would call him a fool. They say this because he didn't work with a missions agency, didn't fully know the language, didn't secure a blessing from the Indian government, etc. He did everything wrong, therefore he was deserving of a fools death.

I'm less concerned with the first because it's rooted in the second. Western Christians, generally, do not know their Bibles, and therefore do not know God. If they did, they would know that Chau's heart and subsequent actions and consequential death was far more consistent with a Biblical life than the lives of Christians in America.

I'm sure this story will disappear soon, but I'd be interested to see if it creates any disturbance in Christian circles.

[seer]

He is with God now...

[Leonhard]

He courted martyrdom and received it.

[Roy]

Whatever else he was, he was also an illegal immigrant.

[Mountain Man]

He courted martyrdom and received it.

Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the Apostles?

I find I have mixed feelings about this. I understand wanting to live the Great Commission to its fullest and confess to my shame that I come up short, but is it wise to effectively commit suicide in the name of spreading the gospel? What would you think of a Christian who went to a Muslim country to preach only to get his head cut off? Is he a saint, or a fool? I don't know the answer.

[seer]

Whatever else he was, he was also an illegal immigrant.

You really are an ass Roy...

[Leonhard]

Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the Apostles?

I find I have mixed feelings about this. I understand wanting to live the Great Commission to its fullest and confess to my shame that I come up short, but is it wise to effectively commit suicide in the name of spreading the gospel? What would you think of a Christian who went to a Muslim country to preach only to get his head cut off? Is he a saint, or a fool? I don't know the answer.

Neither do I. But it had a ring to it of the Christians who came to Denmark only to be killed by the vikings. I wouldn't emulate what this guy did, but I still find something inspiring in it.

I'll stick to preaching to Christians in my own country. They're the ones I know who least understand Christianity.

[Terraceth]

Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the Apostles?

While this was directed at Leonhard, I would say critical differences is that they may have been willing to risk their lives (and at least based on tradition, in most cases lost it at some point), they didn't go into situations that were almost certainly deadly without any chance of success in evangelization. St. Paul, for example, multiple times in Acts leaves areas where his life is in danger. There's a difference between risking your life to try to accomplish something that could happen versus losing your life for something that you really can't accomplish.

I find I have mixed feelings about this. I understand wanting to live the Great Commission to its fullest and confess to my shame that I come up short, but is it wise to effectively commit suicide in the name of spreading the gospel? What would you think of a Christian who went to a Muslim country to preach only to get his head cut off? Is he a saint, or a fool? I don't know the answer.

The problem I see with this is that this seemed to have no chance of success. You can't spread the Gospel to someone who you can't communicate with (looking it up, it seems no one really knows their language), and their continual hostilities towards outsiders precludes the opportunity to learn their language. And going by yourself means you can't even present a show of strength that could compel them to communicate with you as could going with a group.

It seems to me that had he not died in what by all accounts was a fruitless endeavor, he could have worked to convert other people that there was a possibility of success with. Which returns back to my point above with St. Paul: It's much harder to convert people if you're dead, so if your goal is to convert people, it's actually to your benefit to keep yourself alive.

In your analogy of a Christian going to a Muslim country, even if we're talking about a situation as extreme as getting arrested and executed as soon as you start to convert anyone, you at least would (assuming you know Arabic) have the opportunity to briefly preach to at least one person in a language they would understand.

[Faber]

It reminds me of Jim Elliot and the Auca Indians. His death led to their being reached with the Gospel.

From what I read, I got the impression that the government of India, which has jurisdiction over the island, has been attempting to isolate the natives and prevent contact with the outside world, as if to not spoil their pure culture. They are living is abhorrent conditions, without medical attention and proper care. In my opinion, that is an abomination.

The best thing that could be done is to allow civilization to reach out to them. And allow this incident to eventually lead to their conversion.

[Cow Poke]

Neither do I. But it had a ring to it of the Christians who came to Denmark only to be killed by the vikings. I wouldn't emulate what this guy did, but I still find something inspiring in it.

I'll stick to preaching to Christians in my own country. They're the ones I know who least understand Christianity.

I started a thread once about some Russian Orthodox Christians I met "in the valley" (south Texas) on their way across the border to try to win drug cartel members to Christ.

This was their third or fourth trip, and they had faced down drug lords before, who promised to shoot them, and these Russian Orthodox just reached out and hugged the gangsters and prayed for them.

They were, indeed, from a Church up north somewhere where the names of martyrs were listed on the wall on both sides of the baptistry -- and they were proud do be martyrs if that's what happened.

I got a real sense that they didn't WANT to die, but were so burdened with sharing the Gospel with these drug lords that, if they ended up dead, they just counted it "loss" for the Kingdom.

I would say 'don't do this kind of thing unless you know for sure the Spirit is in it - and if He is - you can't NOT do it".


ETA - here's that thread -- Russian Orthodox Wine and Bagel Breakfast

[Terraceth]

It reminds me of Jim Elliot and the Auca Indians. His death led to their being reached with the Gospel.

From what I read, I got the impression that the government of India, which has jurisdiction over the island, has been attempting to isolate the natives and prevent contact with the outside world, as if to not spoil their pure culture. They are living is abhorrent conditions, without medical attention and proper care. In my opinion, that is an abomination.

The best thing that could be done is to allow civilization to reach out to them. And allow this incident to eventually lead to their conversion.

From my understanding, a big part of the reason India has put such restrictions on visitors to their island is because the inhabitants generally will attack anyone who comes to them (about a decade prior, some fisherman ended up wrecked on the island and were killed by the natives). In other words, attempting to isolate them and prevent contact with the outside world is something that the natives, by all appearances, want themselves. So for civilization to "reach out" to them, it would likely have to be done via force.

[oxmixmudd]

Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the Apostles?

I find I have mixed feelings about this. I understand wanting to live the Great Commission to its fullest and confess to my shame that I come up short, but is it wise to effectively commit suicide in the name of spreading the gospel? What would you think of a Christian who went to a Muslim country to preach only to get his head cut off? Is he a saint, or a fool? I don't know the answer.

IIRC, the early church had a problem with people seeking martyrdom. And they had to speak out against it.

Honestly, I think there are ways to reach out to these people and help them. But it would take a lot of time and effort. And it would be an uphill battle against those that think the best thing would be to leave them to effectively go extinct on their own by granting them their wish to be left alone.

I have known Muslims who convert to Christian faith and who return to their homelands and certain persecution if not death out of a desire to reach their people. In some cases it was a requirement and they would have had to seek asylum not to go back, but they chose not to. I don't see that as wrong or seeking martyrdom.


Jim

[Leonhard]

I started a thread once about some Russian Orthodox Christians I met "in the valley" (south Texas) on their way across the border to try to win drug cartel members to Christ.

This was their third or fourth trip, and they had faced down drug lords before, who promised to shoot them, and these Russian Orthodox just reached out and hugged the gangsters and prayed for them.

They were, indeed, from a Church up north somewhere where the names of martyrs were listed on the wall on both sides of the baptistry -- and they were proud do be martyrs if that's what happened.

I got a real sense that they didn't WANT to die, but were so burdened with sharing the Gospel with these drug lords that, if they ended up dead, they just counted it "loss" for the Kingdom.

I would say 'don't do this kind of thing unless you know for sure the Spirit is in it - and if He is - you can't NOT do it".


ETA - here's that thread -- Russian Orthodox Wine and Bagel Breakfast

That's my take on evangelising to hostile groups as well.

As for the man in the OP, I didn't mean to say anything negative about him, quite the contrary. But I think like others I'm hesitant to give a stamp of approval on his actions as well. Only God knows if what happened was pleasing to Him.

Though if I was forced to make a guess I'd say 'Probably yes'.

[Cow Poke]

That's my take on evangelising to hostile groups as well.

As for the man in the OP, I didn't mean to say anything negative about him, quite the contrary. But I think like others I'm hesitant to give a stamp of approval on his actions as well. Only God knows if what happened was pleasing to Him.

Though if I was forced to make a guess I'd say 'Probably yes'.

I happen to be preaching on Stephen the Martyr this morning. Interesting that Martyr (μάρτυς) in Acts 6 doesn't mean "one who dies for their faith", but "witness". A martyr is not a witness because they died - they died because they are a witness.

[Mountain Man]

While this was directed at Leonhard, I would say critical differences is that they may have been willing to risk their lives (and at least based on tradition, in most cases lost it at some point), they didn't go into situations that were almost certainly deadly without any chance of success in evangelization. St. Paul, for example, multiple times in Acts leaves areas where his life is in danger. There's a difference between risking your life to try to accomplish something that could happen versus losing your life for something that you really can't accomplish.

The problem I see with this is that this seemed to have no chance of success. You can't spread the Gospel to someone who you can't communicate with (looking it up, it seems no one really knows their language), and their continual hostilities towards outsiders precludes the opportunity to learn their language. And going by yourself means you can't even present a show of strength that could compel them to communicate with you as could going with a group.

It seems to me that had he not died in what by all accounts was a fruitless endeavor, he could have worked to convert other people that there was a possibility of success with. Which returns back to my point above with St. Paul: It's much harder to convert people if you're dead, so if your goal is to convert people, it's actually to your benefit to keep yourself alive.

In your analogy of a Christian going to a Muslim country, even if we're talking about a situation as extreme as getting arrested and executed as soon as you start to convert anyone, you at least would (assuming you know Arabic) have the opportunity to briefly preach to at least one person in a language they would understand.

Good comments. Thank you.

But I also consider that this young man's death could have a positive impact some day. Not that this should be our model for evangelism, but God can still use him to spread the gospel.