-
Website
http://www.bencotten.net -
Original page
http://www.bencotten.net/2008/05/29/one-of-earths-last-uncontacted-tribes-found/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I hesitate to answer the question because I wonder if it's a trick question. :)
If I understand the nature of what we call the Great Commission--to preach the gospel to all creation--and then, as Jesus said, the end will come...I'd say we have a mandate to try and share the gospel with them in some way.
HOWEVER...I do NOT believe it should be done in the ways we've done it in the past. I've heard the word "post-colonial" recently, talking about how we have intermixed the gospel with colonization, superimposing our culture on the peoples we were reaching. I think history has shown this is a big mistake.
The good news of Jesus crosses cultures, and different people groups can worship Him with their own flavor. I think there must be a way to reach people groups like this without "infecting" them with cultural elements they don't want or need. I don't claim to know HOW this can be done; I just think there must be a way to do it.
I guess what I'm saying is that the question shouldn't be about IF, but HOW.
But I do know that if these people do "make contact" with outsiders (although what do you call flying over them really low in a big plane?) they will almost certainly be wiped out by diseases they have no natural immunity too. So, even if the aim is to help them or "show them the way", any contact would pretty much end in their death.
So actually, I guess my answer is LEAVE THEM ALONE!
(at least until you figure out a way to do no harm)
But, even though I care deeply about preserving culture, and I understand that to make untouched people-groups wear chinos and a polo shirt isn't "reaching" them -- how much more important is it that they spend eternity in heaven rather than keep their earthly "culture"? Any culture we made them lose, even by accident, would be restored in heaven, but if they are not in heaven, what kind of service have we done them?
I think the big picture DEFINITELY says that we must reach them (in the most conscientious way possible); to not tell them about Jesus for fear of disturbing their culture would be a horrible mistake and foolishness on our part.
As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feel of those who preach the good news!'"
Romans 10:14-15
The short-term answer I would put forth is that Brazil (within whose sovereignty this colony lies, if I'm not mistaken) probably has a government anthropological organization that deals with discovering new indigenous populations. Here in Mexico the gov't has something like that that would send in specially trained personnel to make contact with the tribe and then catalog their language and cultural ethnology. There are still lost tribes in Mexico and that occasionally happens here. So I say (short-term wise) to let the government go in and do their thing and let the villagers get accustomed to outsiders and/or integrated into the greater framework of Amazonian tribal societies. Then, (now speaking long-term wise) let the local tribes that have an indigenous Christian church began outreaches to the newly found tribe. I understand that there are some very complex dynamics at play here - like the intense generational warfare between neighboring tribes - but in my view it would probably be best for Amazonians to reach other Amazonians at most with some help and support from Brazilian churches.
The worst thing would be to let something like a U.S.-based missions agency (New Tribes Missions comes to mind...) go crashing in there and try and "convert these heathen." Nothing against New Tribes but that's so 19th Century. There are most likely enough Christian churches already planted in neighboring tribes which would do a much better job in reaching the newly discovered tribe.
It is good not everyone has the opinions that I have read here or there never would be the first "amazonian" to reach the other "amazonians".
What bothers me about these comments is the importance of culture is being put before the imortance of eternal desiny. Would it really be the "worst thing" for these people to lose some of their culture but gain eternal life? (I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive.)
The harvest is plentiful and the workers are few, and yet we are going to sit back with arms crossed and "decide" the best way these workers should give their lives? I don't think we should get to decide until we are willing to give our lives as well.
And Imago Dei is the image of God.
A lot of people have gotten it wrong in the past. Evangelists using the gospel as a brow-beating device. Missionaries equating wearing pleated kakis and head coverings with being saved. Pastors planting churches in Africa that serve only to abuse the generosity of the West at the expense of impoverished Africans. All of that, I think, has produced a reluctance in the post-modern world to take aggressive action in the spreading of the gospel.
I agree with Martha Margaret that there has been a world-view shift where anthropology is quite often given preeminence over the realities of hell and the love of Jesus. There does seem to be a passion for preeminence of Christ missing in most discussions I hear on the subject.
I suppose what I mean is... Our FIRST reaction to this news should be "My God, they need Jesus. We have to do something NOW." Then we should be saying, "How the heck do we do this?" Until we have had that first reaction, the second one is inappropriate and will cause the subsequent efforts to be motivated by something other than the gospel.
The ” last thing” they need is to NOT go to hell.
It is good not everyone has the opinions that I have read here or there never would be the first “amazonian” to reach the other “amazonians”.
indicates to me that you aren't trusting that God loves this tribe more than you do and He wants to see them saved infinitely more than we can imagine. This is where the preeminence of Christ comes in - He will work out this tribe's unique destiny according to His own plan. And he will include whomever He calls to be part of that beautiful plan - whether that person be white, brown, gringo or Amazonian. What I (and Reed & Ben) are calling attention to is the cultural myopia of the past in the West's engagement in missions. The ends DO NOT justify the means. One has to see for themselves the damage done overseas by well-meaning missionaries and how absolutely counterproductive to the gospel many of the Wests' best efforts have been. We are not putting culture before eternal destiny as you imagine. The simple fact is that culture matters much more than you may realize. It is the sea in which we swim.
You see, for so many years the church in America has been the sending church. Unfortunately, I see this many times with visiting groups to Mexico. They get this urgent mentality that if they don't do it, no one will. One has to be very careful not to be proud. Here in Mexico, the Christians are VERY capable of spreading the gospel. Not only capable, but they have a real love for their country and their people.
Does this mean that God has stopped calling outsiders to nations? By no means! If I believed that, I would be out of a place to live, minister, and work. He often uses foreigners to bring a different perspective and to teach from their successes and mistakes. It doesn't make us any better, just different.
So, my first inclination is to say, find Brazilian Christians to share with this tribe. I guess, though, above all, we must pray for the workers to go into this harvest field and support them, whoever they are!
I hope that helps a bit to see why we feel so strongly that not only does it need to be shared, but shared in such a way that the message actually is received and its transformative power is able to work.
"DOOOH!!!!"
However, the fact that this particular case was a hoax doesn't affect the principle of what I stated above.