Obviously, all else being equal, the answer to this post's title is "yes." I think the answer is "yes, but not right now," and I'll explain why.
This is a surprisingly neutral article about Evangelical efforts to convert Iraqis to Christianity. Let me first say that I have the highest respect for the zeal and fearlessness displayed by many Evangelicals, and I have no doubts about their sincerity or love of Jesus Christ. The best of them could teach your average Catholic a thing or two about how to live a Christian life without compromise.
That said, I have serious concerns about how Evangelicals run their foreign ministries. They center around two issues: the prudence of evangelizing in Iraq right now, and their attempts to convert Christians to their brand of Christianity, without regard to the Christian communities that already exist in that culture.
Let's take the second point first. When I was in Nicaragua a couple of years ago, I saw many Evangelical churches aggressively proselytizing in the Juigalpa province, a poor, rural area. I can understand evangelizing a non-Christian population, but the people were uniformly Christian. This is a part of the world where a large town's main general store is named after the Fatima apparitions, and bus drivers put a religious slogan ("Jesus Bendiga Mi Camino"), a picture of the Virgin, or both on the rear of their vehicles. (I also noted with satisfaction that Catholic churches weren't even marked as such, and that everyone -- Catholic or Protestant -- knew where they were.)
Converting Catholics is an explicit denial that Catholicism is Christian. If Evangelicals really believe that it doesn't matter what church you go to, as long as you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then why attempt to lure away poor, believing Catholics? Or active members of other Christian traditions who are entirely orthodox about the nature of Jesus?
Next, take a look at this quotation from the article:
"It is every Christian's requirement to share Jesus Christ's gospel with everyone on the planet, including every Muslim," said Richard D. Land, president of the public policy arm of the largest U.S. Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. "If that causes anger and violence, it only shows we must speak more loudly."
Isn't that what you're supposed to do when foreigners misunderstand you? JUST TALK LOUDER!!!
I don't mean to lampoon Mr. Land or his efforts. (Okay, maybe just a little.) But there's a serious question as to whether they are undermining the long-term prospects of the Gospel by concentrating on short-term growth of storefront churches. Arabs are enamored of conspiracy theories, and Iraqis are particularly enthusiastic in their love of such things. (Please, spare me any lectures on the evils of "ethnic stereotypes," because this is generally true. Ask anyone who's spent time in the Middle East.)
There are many Iraqis -- by no means all, but a very significant minority -- who believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq to steal its oil wealth and convert the inhabitants to Christianity. Since wealth-stealing and forced conversions are recurring themes in that part of the world, that isn't as absurd it might seem, and I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss their concerns.
Right now, the United States and its allies are trying to stabilize Iraq so it can have a decent society. That will be hampered if there is a widespread belief among the populace that the "crusaders" are there to destroy or subvert Islam. The Christian message will find a more receptive audience when the hearers are less paranoid and more self-confident.
I'm not a relativist, and I'm not saying that Iraqis don't deserve to hear the Word of God. Some places just aren't ready for the Gospel yet. Why not wait another year or two, when things are more stable and there's a native Iraqi government in place? Contrary to the comment in the article, there's no "six-month window" to spread the Gospel in Mesopotamia.
"Contrary to the comment in the article, there's no "six-month window" to spread the Gospel in Mesopotamia."
Depends on how November goes.
Unless November is the Second Coming, we've got a little more time than that.
Eric,
What if Kerry wins the election, and does something or other to cause Iraq to go to hell?
I don't think he'll do anything substantially different in Iraq. The Bush administration has already indicated it wants to work with the U.N. -- heck, it was doing that until those cowards ran off after somebody blew up their headquarters. It's tough to see what a President Kerry could do other than stick it out in Iraq.
I'm not against Christian missionary organizations establishing a foothold in Iraq, but they should be handing out food and working for human rights and good government. Then once they've gained some confidence with the Iraqi people, they can start explicitly evangelizing. Almsgiving and social justice are forms of evangelism, too.
Eric, some people's "second coming" will come this instant.
There's no time to waste, I would agree with the Evangelicals. The catholics should be there now trying to preach the gospel.
Think of the zeal with which Igatius spread the Gospel to foreign lands: "SOULS! SOULS!" his dying words.
Without Jesus, we're lost and that's that.
However I would agree that converting catholics away from their faith is scary, but if we're not feeding our sheep, they're gonna get eaten!
One more note: yes, prudence is necessary. We do need to consider whether this is the time to go in with spiritual guns ablazing. However, Christians at the very least should be there helping the poor and destitute and providing their material needs and in a place where widespread evangelization can take place in the months and years to come when the fear dies down.
I do trust that God wants muslims reached, and he will make a way were there is none.
Something else to note as well: most American Evangelicals bring a particularly American-style of Christianity. Unlike Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism is very much tied up in American culture and that can rankle natives.
A friend told me that when he was studying in then-Leningrad before the fall of the Soviet Union, but after glasnost and perestroika had begun, he encountered some young American Protestants standing on street corners trying to convert people, singing American hymns in English, while most Russians look at them like they'd just landed from Mars. And he heard that many of the religious services were indistinguishable from American services.
In other words, there's no much effort at inculturation. Christianity is a universal faith, compatible with almost any culture, but Protestant often can't see that. (Also why many Protestant Bible translations used in the missions are translations from English to the foreign tongue, not from original languages to that language.)
You might have a point here.
The Gospel was spread in the Roman world during Pax Romana, where the ease of travel and relative security thereof afforded for the planting of the Church in Asia, Europe, and North Africa.
A stable governing structure would be best in Iraq before the Gospel goes forth.
But on a more spiritual note, missionary work without "praying it through" is doomed to have major setbacks if not failure.
Missionaries must be sent in proper time by direction of the Holy Spirit, not the whim and frenzy of good intentioned folks moving too fast relative to God's timeline for the matter. "Lest the Lord build they house, they that labor, labor in vain."
I think that, as American Catholics, we need to support the Chaldean Catholics who are in Iraq. They will be the best way for us to evangelize, as they have been there longer than Islam.
Good points on all sides, I think. American evangelical missions activities usually strike me as more zealous than thoughtful.
But at least there -is- zeal. There were some influences in late 19th century evangelicalism that were very anti-intellectual, and while the situation is getting better, there is still much work to be done.
Apparently, Iraqi secularists -are- responding. This is a good thing. Rome has certainly recognized evangelical baptisms as valid. Remember that there are a lot of secularist Iraqi's in the "Sunni" (Chaldean?) triangle.
The situation on the ground there is likely very complicated. The Chaldeans have suffered persecutions and suppression for what, 14 centuries? Do they evangelize at all? Do any of the Eastern Orthodox or Church of the East groups do so?
On the question of evanglization.
I think it is always proper to try to persuade anyone to conversion to Christ.
I personally see no need to try to convert a Catholic to evangelicalism. But I do see a need to convert non-devout or lapsed Catholics or Catholics living in mortal sin to conversion to -Christ-. Not to me or my faction!
I would similarly hope that Catholics, especially with the teaching on the new Evangelization, would do the same. Even to self-identifying evangelicals that didn't really 'get it' when they responded to an altar call.
Surely we all recognize that not everyone baptised, or everyone sitting in a pew on Sunday morning, is understanding the Gospel, and/or is following Christ.
As to proselytization, which perhaps for this discussion I could define as also trying to persuade someone to join one's communion, Catholics believe that only in the Roman Catholic Church is the true eucharist available, and that the RCC has the fullness of the Faith. Presumably, out of love, Catholics would gently try to persuade even believing Evangelicals of these matters, as brothers, not as opponents. Likewise, many evangelicals believe (whether it is a true belief or not) that the Catholic Church obfusticates the Gospel so that few find it. So they often try to persuade Catholics to become, not only converted to Christ, but also to be Evangelicals. You have to understand that they mean this out of genuine love.
I hope that _The Passion of the Christ_ is furthering what began in the picket lines at abortion clinics (as it did for me) that Catholics and Evangelicals believe the same core gospel. There are certainly differences of opinion on other matters, but these should be discussed in a kindly fashion, as brothers, and not as enemies.
As to the window, I think that lasts until June 30th and the Muslim-majority government taking effect.
That is less than 6 months.
Great points, puzzled.
I have an Evangelical friend who lived in Turkey for three years trying to spread the gospel. Turkey is moderatley muslim, and technically a secularist country. However, they still had to hide their true intentions and live there under the guise of being students learning arabic. If they wrote letters of update home to friends and family, they had to hide the true identity of any converts or those possibly considering conversion, lest they be ostrasized by their entire community.
And I agree, at least the Evangelicals have a zeal. We should be zealous. I think far too often we write off the passion of Evangelicals and forget of the true zeal of our very own saints. Just think of the missionary zeal of St. Francis De Salles or St. Patrick, St. Dominic, St. Francis Xavier etc. All great saints had a truly missionary desire, and understanding that we should be "fishers of men."
And as to the cry of "american christianity." Yes, there is often a lack of the idea of inculturation, but most Evangelicals primarily want them to know Jesus, they just don't know anything other than the american style of modern protestant worship. Many Evangelicals are actually very good at inculturation; Mother Jones exposed a large network of Evangelicals in the muslim world with "Jesus Mosques." That is, they became like the culture in dress and grooming, and built "mosques" that were essentially churches, in order to, according to mother jones, trick muslims into entering them.
May I remind Mr. Bettinelli that, while many Evangelical denominations are very much "tied up" in American culture, the Catholic Church is very much "tied up" in Medieval European culture. In fact, many conservative Catholics not only want the Church to be so tied, they also don't differentiate between the two, aesthetically or intellectually (see Aquinas and "Natural Law").
May I also remind you all of the following:
1. Rome has no interest in effectively cathechising its own, let alone in bringing non-Christians to the Gospel. Notice I said "Rome," not the Church. They're not the same thing (despite what the apologists say). Rome (i.e, the Vatican and the Holy See) is more interested in "ecumenism" and in promoting its own geopolitical interests rather than the Gospel.
2. Jesus said that whoever is not against Him is for Him. Despite theological differences with Catholics, Evangelicals are far closer to Catholics than Muslims are. At least, Evangelicals recognize the necessity of Christ's blood atonement for redemption (far better than most Catholics do, btw). Muslims don't. Period. End of issue.
Stop bitching about Evangelical missionaries and start praying for them.
Who was bitching? I see no bitching here, just critiques.
Natural law isn't tied to culture. Particular cultures may interpret it differently, but it transcends time and circumstance. It's also part of Catholic teaching that all men know the moral law, however imperfectly; I don't see how that's a medieval concept.
I agree that many orthodox Catholics think of the Middle Ages as a "golden age" of Catholicism, and in many ways it was, but too many seem to think it was a utopia. Like all ages, it had good, and it had evil, but it was not the Thousand-Year Reign. (I say this as a former Medieval Studies grad student.)
The idea that the Vatican has "no interest in effectively cathechising its own" is nonsense bordering on slander. The local dioceses and churches have the primary responsibility for teaching the Gospel to believers and non-believers in their territories. The Vatican is there for guidance, which is what it has provided in abundance. If you don't see enough effective catechesis, blame the bishops and priests, blame the people in the pews, but the Vatican seems to be doing what it can, issuing encyclicals and documents and the like.
I confess I don't understand point #2 or the last statement. When you say "End of issue," what issue are you talking about? That Evangelicals are doctrinally closer to Catholicism than Muslims? No one would disagree. That Evangelicals are closer to Catholics and therefore we should pray for their success? Okay, I have no problem with that. But my post didn't have to do with evangelizing Muslims in general, but rather the prudence of outright proselytization in Iraq at the moment.
Eric, I understand your previous post entirely. What raised my ire was the idea that far too many Catholics seem reflexively suspicious of anything Evangelicals do, and appear to hold a snooty, superior attitude toward them. Granted, the common history hasn't been pleasant (to say the least) but at some point, people must move past unpleasant history to tackle the matter at hand: spreading the Gospel to those who believe the satanic lie that is Islam.
To address your points:
1. Regarding my "end of issue" proclamation: That was my way of saying that Muslims must believe in the atoning work of Christ to be saved, and that they cannot see salvation as Muslims; divisions between Catholics and Evangelicals pale in comparison. Muslims not only don't believe in the necessity of blood atonement (let alone in Christ's messianic mission), they don't even believe that He was crucified. It's one thing to have honest doubts about principles of faith; it's quite another to deny history -- and, regardless of what anybody thinks of Christ, it's an indisputable fact He was crucified.
2. Regarding my comments about Rome: Undoubtedly, JPII has been indefatigueable about proclaiming Christ (at least, his vision of Christ) through pastoral letters and encyclicals. But those aren't enough. He must discipline those in episcopal authority who do a misfeasant job of catechesis (after all, he appointed these bishops). And even JPII's most ardent admirers (Weigel, for example) concede that administration isn't one of his gifts. Well, 25 years in Peter's chair should be more than enough time for a man of JPII's intellectual breadth and talent to either develop those gifts or appoint people who can adminster effectively. The clerical abuse crisis, unfortunately, shows how lax JPII has been in governing those he appointed.
3. Regarding your concerns about evangelization: Granted, Evangelicals can be neither subtle nor patient (in fact, they can be downright clumsy and unintentionally cause more contempt for the Gospel). Catholics, on the other hand, seem almost ashamed to proclaim Christ crucified and resurrected. Given the imperfections inherent in both groups -- and given the idea that conversion is the best way to stem the tide of Muslim terror -- I'll take clumsy and impatient over excessively subtle.
I have deleted the last 13 (!) comments here because they exceed Catholic Light's tolerance for uncivil debate. Strong arguments are fine, name-calling is not.
For the record: Mr. D'Hippolito, I will caution you that any incitement to mass murder, however theoretical (killing Muslims because they aren't Christians) won't be looked upon kindly here. All men are children of God and no innocent person should be deliberately killed, no matter what their beliefs.
I don't know if you're serious, and I don't care. Some things don't need to be debated, and they certainly don't need to be debated here.
So would it have been better if the Spanish had not brought Christianity to the South American natives? Would it have been better if they had just taken their resources and not brought them the Gospel?
If you look at cases like American slaves and their decendents and the South Americans, you see where Christianity winds up outliving and transcending the power that brought Christianity to these people. Slaves learned of Christ from the whites who oppressed them through a slaveholder regime, and then years and years later it was a black Christian minister leading them in demanding civil rights.
Catholics Need to Step Up Their Evangelism? With the Chaldeans, we have a foothold in Iraq. They have been practicing Christianity since the time when Britons were pagans. Now they need the support of Catholics around the world, so that in the matrix of liberty provided by destruction of Saddam, they can do good works and spread the Word.
We need people who know the culture and might know the best way to help those people allow themselves to be found by Jesus.