If that is what you are looking for, then don't read further. This uppercase titled piece is strictly an untested observation that I wanted to get down before it escaped my fragile short term memory.
The missionary movement among the Christian faith was birthed by Jesus when he sent out the twelve in two's to preach the good news in the neighboring towns. Their mission was simple, speak publically and privately about the work Jesus was doing and the reason he was doing it. The disciples were advised to take little baggage along, but instead survive on the generosity of the people in the town moved by their message. If no one listened, then move on.
The modern missionary movement had the same goals, but with outside funding could stay in resistant areas and "do good works" to prove their worth and fortify the message. In many settings it was a recipe for cultural clashes and martyrdom. Death on the field was a major loss at home, but it was seen as a direct ticket to heaven based on purity of motive and service to "the cause". Excuse me if this is a little blunt, but the hardline truth in this analysis is to throw a light on intent and strategy: Modern Christian missionaries used service, good works, and teaching as the strategy for attention to the message: Jesus Christ is the messiah and shows us the right way to live and die.
The crazy thing to me has always been the idea that different denominations, often with very similar doctinal stands, would have similar missions in the same foreign lands yet never speak of joint efforts or mutual benefits. Just two completely separate organizations with almost identical missions, doctrinal statements, identical missional strategy, and location. The duplication of effort drive me nuts. One church, one Savior, one salvation, 8,000 organizations. (Exaggeration intended. Accuracy not needed. Bureaucracy run amok.)
Now we are seeing a similar missionary effort in the West by another religion, and we are not handling this situation so well. First, what is the missionary effort then why are we not handling it so well.
The missionaries and their tactics.
Media reports the infiltration of missionary tactics happening on our borders and through the internet. People and thoughts are crossing our porous safety nets to bring a new message of order and peace to the people of America. Their mission is to make converts. Their tactics are to use the same rhetoric of oppression, dominance and order that makes for great conspiracies. But it is also the same rhetoric that builds freedom crushing societies built on fear. The first push for such organizations is to build enclaves of useful “others” who peacefully coexist and build lives of prominence. The second step is to build a force of their well heeled children and the disaffected in the surrounding society.
What the current missionary effort in the USA didn’t count on was the close aliance with another movement pushing through the culture at the same time: radical racial upheaval and the adoption of the Teachings of Mohammed by many influential religious leaders of color. While Christians looked to Ghandi for patterns to change society, others looked to Mohammed for inspiration and found a different tactic for cultural “rightness”. Think Martin Luther King compared to Louis Farrakhan as an example.
If this writing seems vague without names or specific dates/events it is on purpose: I’m laying some ideas about strategy that are running through my head, I have not done the hard work of researching them or correlating them to facts. Let’s face it, this topic is worthy of book length examination.
People without hope looking for meaning (in a meaningless society, now there’s another statement to tear apart) will gravitate to the place where change is being done personally and in the surrounding world. The new crop of missionaries to America see the mission as lifting Mohammed and his religious order to prominence using the tactics of the past: peaceful infiltration then legal reform to the pattern of the Koran and finally pressure enforcement through fines, imprisonment and death. Their tactic is the soldier, recruited and trained according to the thoughts and motives of their founder, with language that only now sounds ominous; before the language sounded like the language of protest.
So how does my earlier observation about the English language come into play here? Because we are loathe to call these recruits what they really are: missionaries of Islam in the context of the Koran completing the missions that Mohammed himself sent his disciples to do to the surrounding towns. This is the core of the tactic being revived in the modern age. Our language, or perhaps our societal refusal to engage religious dialogue, has set us up to miss a crucial point for the so-called terrorist threat. These are not terrorists! They are missionaries of the prophet working according to the directions he gave with the message and tactics outlined through practice. Not so different than Jesus sending out the twelve, just radically different message, tactics and results.
Missionaries. Some bring water, crops, medicine, chickens and a message of life and hope. The current crop bring bullets, confrontation, dirty bombs and “in your face” pressure hoping to die for the cause. Which should be supported for the general welfare? Which should be stopped?
No comments:
Post a Comment