The New York Times has an article on a group of relief workers/missionaries from Antioch Community Church and how they are stirring up controversy in Sri Lanka for preaching the gospel during the course of their relief work.
This is especially interesting to me (and a bit worrysome), since I know one of the members of the team (who actually isn’t a part of the church, but went along with the team).
On its face, the article puts the Antioch group in a rather bad light. Whether this is an accurate reflection of the team’s approach or simply the bias of the reporter is hard to tell, but I wanted to pull a few parts of the article out and raise some questions:
The Americans, who all come from one church in Texas, have staged plays detailing the life of Jesus and had children draw pictures of him, camp residents said. They have told parents who lost children that they should still believe in God, and held group prayers where they tried to heal a partly paralyzed man and a deaf 12year-old girl.
On the surface, these activities seem pretty consistent with Jesus’ call to spread the gospel and heal the sick. But it raises some questions about whether the Antioch group’s approach is sensitive to the local conditions. Is Antioch partnering with local Christians? Remember, the Antioch team will only be on the ground for a few weeks and then will leave - it is the local community which will have to deal with any potential backlash (or even a large number of converts) afterwards. It’s really easy to be bold when you’re not the one who is going to face the consequences, most likely.
Last year, Buddhist hard-liners attacked the offices of the World Vision Christian aid group and vandalized or threatened churches and pastors 75 times. They accuse Christians of using money and social programs to cajole and coerce conversions.
This paragraph is a bit unbalanced. What was the response of the local Christian community to these accusations? What is the Buddhist’s definition of “cajole and coerce?” It is possible that from their standpoint, even talking about Jesus is considered coersion.
The Rev. Sarangika Fernando, a local Methodist minister, witnessed one of the prayer sessions in Sri Lanka and accused the Americans of acting unethically with traumatized people. “They said, ‘In the name of Jesus, she must be cured!’ ” he said. “As a priest, I was really upset.”
The heart of the matter is whether this is truly unethical, or if it is merely a difference in approach. I don’t have a good answer to this. I would have to say that I doubt this is unethical - as a follower of Jesus, I believe that while it is absolutely crucial to meet the physical needs of people, there are deeper, spiritual needs which also must be addressed. Now obviously, approach is everything - if these folks were forcing people to attend their presentations in order to receive aid, then yes, that’s unethical. But I suspect that they were merely sharing what they believed to be true with individuals who were free to come and go as they pleased. In any case, I should be able to find out some answers when my friend comes back.
Older Christian aid groups like Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief and others with religious affiliations say they do not proselytize, abiding by Red Cross guidelines that humanitarian aid not be used to further political or religious purposes.
I’m going to have to say I disagree with this stance. While I certainly agree that humanitarian aid should never require that recipients hear what the workers have to say about religion, I would consider it unethical if you felt you had something that could contribute to spiritual healing and did not share it with those willing to listen.
Residents of the camp here reported no healings as a result of the group’s prayers. But they said they appreciated the aid and activities for children that the group provided and did not want to see them end.
This statement is pretty telling. If what the Antioch group is doing is so bad, then why do these folks want them to continue? I will definitely ask my friend about the healing part though, since I’ve been hearing the opposite about there being physical healings. Someone is misinformed.
In the end, I think it is possible that this group was not as sensitive as they should have been to the local conditions, and did not work closely enough with the local Church leaders who will need to handle the aftermath of their stay. But on the other hand, who we worship is a life and death matter. If we get it wrong, most of the world’s religions say we’re in for a bad eternity. So maybe they can be excused for a little overzealousness if it means that a few more people may be able to get on the lifeboat?
