So, let's think this through.
I'm sure you heard. American missionary, John Allen Chau, apparently hired some fishermen to take him illegally to North Sentinel Island off the coast of India. (I've found only one outlet that references his Christian mission there. Most refer to him as an "adventurer".) The island is "home to one of the last undiluted hunter-gatherer societies." They are being protected from all outsiders. The authorities arrested the fishermen that took him out there. They don't know if they can recover his body.
So, here's the question. This is for Christians only. The rest of the world will have its own ideas. I'm looking for Christian thinking. I had thoughts about "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1) conflicting with the disciples who answered, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge" (Acts 4:19). So the question is did Mr. Chau violate Romans 13 or did he comply with Acts 4? Was John sinning by disobeying the government or was he bravely following God's directions by taking the gospel to them?
I've gone both ways on this, but I think I've come down on an answer. I suspect he was following God's biblical leading (Matt 28:19-20) and, therefore, bravely gave his life for His Lord. What do you think?
Addendum
Interesting inputs from this blog on the question.
11 comments:
I'm torn. I think his desire to evangelize those people was noble and correct, and ignoring the authorities was biblical based on the fact that we're to obey the government until they tell us to go against God's commands. However, I think he was wrong to involve those fishermen. It was still an illegal act and he encouraged others to disobey the law. If he had used the aid of other believers that agreed with his calling, that would be one thing, but from what I can tell, he bribed some random fishermen. I don't think urging others to sin so that we can obey God is the biblical thing to do.
Interesting take, David. So if a missionary to, say, China had bribed an officer at the border in order to get into the country with Bibles, that would be wrong, but smuggling Bibles would not?
FYI, Dan, given the choice between "sinner" and "saint", thinks he was wrong for breaking the law to force his religion on others. Good intentions aside.
Causing others to sin, I think, is never acceptable, even if the end goal is righteous.
Sinner, saved by Jesus, trying to share fulfill the great commission? Perhaps not making the best decisions. Why must it always be about tearing people down?
Yeah, "sinner or saint" was shorthand for "Was he right or was he wrong?" Of course believers are saints forgiven by grace. I can see David's problem of getting others to break the law, but I don't think I can actually hold that breaking the law to take the gospel to these people on the face of it is the wrong choice ... is sin.
My mistake. Dan has corrected me. He didn't say he was wrong for breaking the law. He said he "was wrong to push his religion/culture upon people who didn't want it." I stand corrected. I'm certainly glad the Apostles didn't feel that way.
No, I think he was fine in breaking the law to obey God. I think his sin was in making others that didn't believe as he did to be accomplices. If those fishermen were believers that agreed with him, fine, but based on the story, they were just random fishermen willing to take his money.
I know, just pointing out the obvious that all saints are sinners.
I’d never say that’s its wrong to desire to share the gospel.
Of course Dan’s take is primarily two ungrounded assumptions based on his prejudices, but who’s really surprised by that.
True, but while all saints are sinners, not all sinners are saints.
That is true.
Post a Comment