The mission organizations do what they believe is the best and righteous for the Sawi people; "We missionaries don't want the same fate to befall these magnificent tribes in Irian Jaya. We risk our lives to get to them first because we beleve we are more sympathetic agents of change than profit-hungry commercialists." The fact that they would risk their lives in order to save the Sawi people reminded me of what happened a while ago with Koreans.
What happened was that about 20 Christians from Sam-Mul Church decided to go on a mission trip to Afganistan to help the poor and spread the Word of God. They had probably thought of what Don Richardson stated, "I guess what you are looking for the cultural key, the key that unlocks the culture and opens the way for the gospel" However, although they had no intention at all of causing harm to Korea, the Christians ended up getting kidnapped by the Taliban terrorists. Therefore, the government had to pay tremendous amount of money to bring them back safely, and some of them like Mr. Bae, the pastor, unfortunately got killed before they could be brought back home safely.
When I first heard of this incident, I thought the Christians are the epitome of mankind; they disregard the danger that might be ahead of them, strengthen the boldness through belief in God, and do their job - help make peace. I had always thought this story was truly exemplary of Christians' righteous intentions and motivation unfortunately being sadly denied by immoral terrorists only until... until I have become aware of the truth - They carried out their actions DESPITE the government's numerous warnings. First the government cancelled all their plane tickets in the hopes of preventing the potential conflicts catastrophies. When the Christians rejected the suggestion and had just arrived in Afghanistan, the Korean government sent planes to safely bring them back before anything horrible could happen. They denied. They got kidnapped. Now the reputation of Korea in a global society and Christians has been marred severely. No one can reverse this. Are they to be blamed though? I don't know, but I'm sure the government did what they can, and they are not to be blamed.
This triggered so much discussion within Korea and internationally because Korea was on the verge of being viewed as the nation to compromise with the terrorists, and this would surely have hurt the reputation of Korea, and its relationship with the United States. Even the religion Christianity was doubted and reprimanded by so many people. My opinion on this particular issue was this - they should have come back when they sent planes to bring all of them back home.
Reminding myself of this incident reminded me, again, of what Don Richardson had mentioned in his book. One family went to research on the life of the Sawi people, and its husband had been killed unfortunately. She went back to the United States, and after matters were settled, she went back to the forest full of danger, believing that God wanted her to send a message to the Sawi people.
Earlier in this post, I have stated that the mission organizations do what they believe is the best for the primitive cultures. I think the word believe in that sentence is of great significance. believe. It's a hypothetical situation! And they are putting the lives of twenty - thirty - so many people on a risk on the most dangerous parts of the world where treachery and cannibalism are respected?
Well, I honestly don't know the answer. I'm not sure if the wife should not have gone back to the Sawi after the husband had been killed. I don't know if the people from Sam-Mul Church should have come back when planes were sent just before they were kidnapped by the terrorists. I am not sure if what they did shows how strong their faith it was, or if it was just foolishness. I don't want to say that it was foolishness. I just hope God is looking after those who got unfortunately killed, and would please give them the very wisdom necessary to distinguish what is God's intention, and what is not. Only if they had had the wisdom to accurately interpret God's message and carry that out...
They do what they believe is best for people in underdeveloped areas. No one but God knows what really is the best for them. I would like to know.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Second Entry: What should we do when we are confronted with other cultures?
As technologies and communication methods such as the advent of the internet develop more rapidly than ever before, we have become more prone to facing other cultures even when we did not intend to do so. Exposure to exotic cultures at first could trigger repulsion from it; however, I believe this is not the way we should deal with this issue. However, this is not to say that one should accept every culture just because one wants others to respect his or her culture as well. I believe and understand that one could have prejudices and preconceptions about other cultures with which one is not familiar. I think those discriminations could possibly justifiable if and only if one has a certain set of beliefs that drive one’s behavior. For instance, although I am not a Christian, I firmly believe that it is completely immoral to be cannibalistic. Can you consider humans as a source of food? To me, that is not even a rhetorical question, and that is blatantly against my set of beliefs. I simply can’t understand the notion that one can accept others eating up his or her parents, friends, or relatives. However, even though I do not agree with cannibalism, I do not intend to go find countries who practice that and destroy that culture; this is the maximum degree of which I can show towards those cultures. I do not agree with them, but I won’t deal with them, and rather shut off my ears and eyes because they have their own logic and reasoning that affect their behaviors, and I guess I’ll have to respect that. Therefore, I think when one is confronted with other culture, (yes, one eventually will encounter one with which one completely disagrees with) one can judge their cultures whether or not morally acceptable in their mind, but is not necessarily required, or I’d rather say, preferable if one does not express one’s opinions publicly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
