In a way, too much has been said about the recent killing of an American missionary in the Andaman islands but since John Chau was quite active in publicly recounting his travels and adventures, a recent opinion piece by Southeastern Seminary professor Scott Hildreth that was carried by Religious News Service may be appropriate and relevant.
John Chau and the dangers of missionary work
The RNS story is worth reading in its entirety. I’ll just put a couple of salient quotes here:
The death of Chau raises questions for Christians and non-Christians alike. There are ethical questions, as Chau deliberately broke Indian laws, first by proselytizing and second by deliberately entering a restricted area. There are questions about the wisdom of risking one’s life for such a small, isolated group of people who clearly want no interference from outsiders. There are also theological questions about the need for a missionary to go to such lengths to evangelize people who have had no previous encounter with the Christian message.
In my estimation, traveling to an isolated island alone, with no national support and scant knowledge of language and culture, was destined for failure. Success for a missionary cannot be limited to initial points of contact but rather the establishment of relationships that allow room for the gospel to be heard and observed. [emphasis mine]
Dr. Hildreth is engaged in the training and education of present and future international missionaries who will serve the Lord through our Southern Baptist channels and others. I appreciate his sober and sensible words here.
We’ve already seen that opinions vary widely on this. Dr. Hildreth correctly frames the relevant questions. I would ask that commenters not mistake his listing of the questions for his conclusions. Read the RNS article in its entirety.
Baptist Press has a story on the matter in which a couple of prominent Southern Baptists are quoted:
“It’s important for Christians to understand it is always right and never wrong to share the gospel with anyone, whether or not they are believed to be a part of either a reached or an unreached people group,” [Southern Seminary president Albert]Mohler said. “But methodology is important here.”
“To put the matter bluntly,” Mohler continued, Chau’s evangelistic method “is not the way that most modern missions organizations would seek to reach this kind of group.”
The BP article also includes a number of quotes from Keith Eitel dean of the Roy Fish School of Evangelism and Missions at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Almost universally, serious evangelical Christians have commended the zeal of the slain missionary and have sympathized with his family and friends who grieve his death. It will take another world before we know the answers to all of the questions.
As a side note, readers should not ignore the fact that hundreds, thousands of our IMB personnel serve in locations where there is danger and several have been killed. I am appreciative of the fact that while personal security is not the highest priority (sharing the Gospel is at the top), our IMB is concerned about security and has in place numerous measures to ensure the safety and survival of our workers and their families.
____________
Dr. Hildreth is Assistant Professor of Global Studies and George Liele director of the Center for Great Commission Studies st Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is author of Together on God’s Mission, which I reviewed here.
[Sorry for the mistake. It was Keith Harper who co-authored SBC FAQs which I reviewed also. You can’t trust those bloggers to get stuff right.]
WilliamT…Excellent post as always. The mistakes in strategy of this young man are glaring. No doubt about it. There are two reasons why i’m not sure why we continue to scrutinize his methods. First, What is the point? There is nothing for SB to learn from his strategy. Second, the IMB has developed the best strategy and provided the finest training known to man…years ago. IMO the take away lesson for SB should be to examine John’s zeal and commitment to personally share the gospel. IMO opinion as SB we have a zeal problem as it relates to the gospel. I”m not updated on IMB stats but nationally baptisms decline. There is not shortage of evangelic articles, training sessions or notebooks. There does seem to be a shortage or person to person witnessing. In short, let us not examine his methods, let us examine his zeal. To be honest I would be ashamed to state on this blog how long it has been since i personally led someone to Christ.
f
If the general rush to critique and mock a fellow believer’s methods of evangelism which led to his death are indicative of the collective zeal with which we share the Gospel in American pulpits, then we should be surprised if we anyone being baptized at all.
Joel, are all methods of evangelism unassailable?
I know your comment was directed to Joel but could you please unpack it a little more.
DL: I made a similar point in the previous thread. It seems like, from some corners, that the fact that this young man was zealous means his methods are beyond critique.
Thanks Bill Mac
I must admit IMO the zeal for personal witnessing is at a very low point
I disagree DL. It is not at an all time low and you have no way of knowing what goes on in people’s private lives. I think witnessing is at a normal which is high, rate.
Joel: Seriously? No one has made light of this. And I will have zero baptisms on my belt according to you, because I won’t be doing what this young man did.
How is the method the young man used one to follow or condone? I think he was thinking he was called, I think he was mistaken, the tribe didn’t speak English, he was not given the gift of their language? So I hope you answer or else it is just words.
Debbie I simply point to the years of decline in baptisms in the SBC…that was my point of reference. Trust you are doing well
Debbie-
Two questions for clarification:
How do you reconcile these statements?
“you have no way of knowing what goes on in people’s private lives” and “I think he was thinking he was called, I think he was mistaken…”
Also-would you be willing to unpack “the tribe didn’t speak English, he was not given the gift of their language,” because it seems those statements are being used as evidence that he was in the wrong.
Thanks for clarifying.
Debbie,
“You have no way of knowing what goes on in people’s private lives,” but “you” think he was thinking he was called, and “you” think he was mistaken. Interesting.
If witnessing is at a high rate, Southern Baptists sure aren’t very good at it. And I certainly could do better myself.
William, thank you for posting this. If you read my comments on Dave Miller’s post about Jonathan Chau, Keith Eitel’s comments in the
Baptist Press article, and Scott Hildreth’s commnets above, you’ll see a commonality. We all said the young man demonstrated commendable zeal, but his approach was fatally naive. Certainly, we should seek out and evangelize unreached people groups. Missions agencies give priority to larger unreached people groups. The missions agencies do not neglect unreached people groups because the government forbids evangelism. Quite the contrary, most unreached people groups are located in nations that are hostile to Christianity. The agencies obey God’s command rather than government policies or laws. The agencies seek and find work-arounds that enable them to work with the unreached peoples. Missions agencies do wish to evangelize people groups like the Sentanalise; however, there are proven ways to do this. Hildreth, Eitel, and I all mentioned working through a neighboring people group. It is true the Sentalise are an isolated group, but I’ve never heard of a people group that lived in total isolation. Almost certainly, the Sentanalise have some contact with another people group on a neighboring island. Another aspect mentioned is the importance of learning the people’s language and culture. There is no point in proclaiming the gospel in a language that the people cannot understand. For example, gihigugma sa Ginoo kanino, ug namatay siya arong nga maluwas kamo pinaagi iyang kamatayong para inyong mga sala.
Mark, I agree totally with what you say. IMO SB have no takeaways from dissecting his methods. Both NAMB and IMB have done an excellent job in strategy. Based on declining baptisms nationally we might be better served by dissecting his zeal and commitment. I’m not updated on want’s happening with IMB, so I will not speak to that issue.
Mark: I agree with much of what you’ve said, but everything I have read suggests that, other than early attempts by westerners to study the Sentinelese, they do indeed live completely isolated. They don’t appear to communicate or trade with anyone.
There are times I have though of living that way myself…Ok actually for a month in my friends Montana mountain cabin located on a fantastic trout stream 🙂
I admit that I’m rather dumbfounded by the response of so many Christians to the mission and death of John Chau. If Chau was foolish and his methods were misguided then so were those of John G. Paton, Hudson Taylor, William Borden (he died before he even made it to the field), Adoniram Judson, David Brainerd, Jim Elliott, etc. I guess it’s time to stop reading those biographies which were very likely to have inspired this young man.
Most of the people on this blog could teach me plenty about missiology and ministry. We can debate mission strategy about current and future opportunities but we need to lay off this dear martyr who in his zeal was killed for his faith. He was in the arena and gave his life. Yes there are lessons to be learned but I won’t criticize him. It reminds me of the Teddy Roosevelt quote “In the Arena” “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Amen. Let’s honor his faithfulness and thank God for his service to our Lord to spread the Gospel. Questioning someone’s calling (and thinking) is not our place. Let’s leave that to God to lead as He wills. Why don’t we just all stop and ask God; “What do you want me to do to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It would be much more productive than kicking a fallen soldier.
John,
Excellent. Thank you for the wisest words thus far on this tragedy. It’s easy to talk down on someone who did what we didn’t and wouldn’t do for the cause of Christ.
The strategy to find fault with Chau is a much more dissapointing than the strategy being bashed. He went and lost his life to share the gospel. We sit and criticise publicly his going to share the gospel.
Chau probably would be the one cutting off an ear in the garden while the rest were running away.
So, is the feeling here that this article shouldn’t even have been written?
We missiologists responded to questions asked about Jonathan Chau’s actions. I have not read any criticism of his intention or zeal. Both his intention and zeal are commendable. However, we study missions history to gain inspiration, to learn positive lessons, and to discover errors to avoid in the future. All missionaries, like all pastors and all Christians, demonstrate strengths and weaknesses. For example, David Livingstone showed great courage in exploring Africa, but he neglected his family. So, when I teach my course on the history of missions, I point out both aspects to the students.
Mark, again I agree in principle completely. However, again I say, SB have learned these lessons long ago. This is one incident. If there was a “ground swell” or a “movement” of this type of strategy, of course write commentary to tell other mission agencies there is a better way. This however is not the case. IMO it is time to mourn and leave it at that. As always I respect and learn from your comments…thanks much.
Everything you say has its place and is needed… yet, God’s call to go trumps all of that.
I think it might be safe to say about many of our missionary heroes that their mission to go was put before their families.
Bill Mac. I am hardly an expert on Blog strategy. Dave, because of his expertise, has built one of the if not the strongest blog among SB. However IMHO this blog post was poorly timed. Maybe it would have been better to let folks mourn first and then perhaps unpack John’s strategy at a later date. Again just my opinion.
DL: I see your point. I just don’t like the “touch not the Lord’s anointed” attitude that prevents us from learning from mistakes. The bible is not shy about sharing the mistakes of men and women who we consider heroes of the faith. I agree that SBs have a good, grounded mechanism for missions, but with societal missions on the rise, even in the SBC, events like this cannot be ignored (the good or the bad).
Bill Mac, I see your point. My main concern is timing. IMO a bit premature, butI am hardly an expert on blog strategy
Fair enough.
This is the second of only two articles posted hereon the matter. The earlier one by Dave Miller correctly identified the issues, questions, and reservations about this. Nothing has been added to change much of anything in his piece. No one has failed to commend JAC’s zeal. My second article was mainly a compilation of comments from SBC missiologists and others that incorporated additional information.
It’s completely relevant to state that no mission sending organization has more and longer experience in doing work around the world with UPGs in difficult places than the IMB and SBC. While that doesn’t make the SBC, IMB, or SBC profs infallible, it does give credibility and weight to their words. There are no more Adoniram Judsons, David Livingstones, or Lottie Moons. We can be inspired by their stories but will not follow in their footsteps. This isn’t the 18th or 19th, or even the mid-20th century.
Ed Stetzer, an SBCer now at Wheaton (alma mater of Jim Elliot) has a very insightful article linked below. He adds a few new things to this. I don’t know that anything more can be said that hasn’t already been said several times. In SBC life, no missionary is appointed who fails to demonstrate a very close connection to a congregation of Christians who have themselves assessed, evaluated, and recognized the calling of that one who desires to serve in distant places. This is biblical, right, and proper though I make no judgment about JAC in this regard. There are hundreds and thousands out of our own church and personal families who are serving is places where there are hazards and personal risk whose deeds are not newsworthy but which are very productive for the Gospel.
The comments of Mark Terry and the several folks who have and are spending their lives overseas serving Christ are valuable and valued here. This is as it should be, I think.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/november/john-chau-missions-and-fools-part-1.html
“he adds a few new things to this” … I would submit he adds a LOT of new things to the articles thus written here and contradicts some of the first rash things said here. I would prefer a man doing something to win some to Christ than those in ivory towers and mahogany desks just talking ABOUT the gospel. As Vance Havnor once said, “it’s eaiser to cool down a zelot than it is to warm up a corpse”