Thoughts on the man killed by tribal peoples in the Andamans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Jake,
In my opinion, the law placed intact by the Indian Gov't was for the safety of its citizens and visitors. *I could be arrested for walking out into traffic on the highway and setting up a makeshift pulpit. The arrest would be, not against the gospel per se, but the safety of myself and the drivers I would be endangering.

As I said, it is historically documented that this tribe was extremely hostile to any outsiders-in fact, have killed people in the past; there wasn't any hint of their civility in anything I have read. in my opinion, he could have used the water as a safe haven and gave witness, somehow, from afar. Rafts of food and such; bibles in various languages. It would seem logical that this was the way to go, at least, initially (for one's own safety).
 
Pergamum said:
Stephen in Acts 7 should have taken better precautions. He was being foolish and should have toned down his words.

The Apostle Paul acted foolishly and knew what was in store for him and still went ahead anyway. I question his wisdom.

William Tyndale really should have listened to the authorities. I mean, Europe already had a bible anyway in Latin. He should've have been more wise and taken more precautions. He was doing things illegally.

Brother Andrew really shouldn't have smuggled those bibles into Communist countries. Those countries were sovereign and made it clear that they did not want Christian evangelism there anyway.

---This is what Christians on the internet sound like this week sitting in judgment of a young man trying to do his best to glorify God.
Click to expand...
Brother, you solicited our thoughts on this matter, and our thoughts will necessarily judge in this matter, whether for or against the endeavour.

I too have seen the unkind treatment of this matter by the anti Christian world, and it's deplorable the way they are speaking of it. But here we have a more in-house forum in which to discuss this; the question is not: should the Gospel go out? The question is: what is the right way to reach an isolated tribe who are protected from foreign interference by a well-meaning government, for reasons that are not primarily anti-Gospel?
Though the Gospel will be slandered by the ungodly no matter how it is proclaimed (think of the caricature of missionaries fostered by Somerset Maugham, Rudyard Kipling, James Michener, and Hollywood in general), it seems that breaking all sorts of laws and implicating local fishermen in crimes may be a bad testimony. No one has questioned his intentions here--we have only questioned his methods: a pentecostal-leaning parachurch sending body; a fly-by-night approach to a hostile coast; persistent returns though clearly unwelcome: they considered him an invader, perhaps! If the article is correct that he tried to speak to them in English, what possible good could that do? Surely he knew they couldn't understand?
It looks like the problem of how to reach these people needs more study. The learning of a local language that may be similar? Pressure on the government to allow access? When God is pleased to bring them the Gospel He will surely open doors. In the meantime, those burdened for these people can pray and prepare and learn--they can cry to the Lord of the Harvest. And who knows? perhaps the attention surrounding this tragic disaster will be the very means God uses to bring access to this tribe.
I'm sorry for all concerned that it worked out this way. But I still think his methods were ill-considered.
 
Harley said:
No one even knows their language. How do we get Bibles to them?
Click to expand...

Well then....that destroys your argument in post 29, to a degree. Thats why I said, 'bibles in various languages.'

From what i've read, local linguists don't even know if they even have a language. The missionary must have known that.
 
Harley said:
No one even knows their language. How do we get Bibles to them?
Click to expand...
I expect they're illiterate. They need a preacher. They need a preacher who speaks their language. This requires more preparation than simply landing with gifts. But we know that God is able to do abundantly above all that we ask or think. Let us cry to God for these people.
 
Pray that the Lord will use this event to awaken the Church to the need for more missionary activity on the island.

May the blood of this martyr be the seed of the Church on North Sentinel Island.
 
Harley said:
[I tremble to speak these words]

Then the next question is, are we the orthodox Christians who have it altogether willing to do anything like it? We can disagree with how John Chau did his work and perhaps be right, but I've not ever known anyone in any denomination I've been in to say "Send me to the cannibals!" Not in the present day. So, perhaps we could rightly rebuke Chau in some areas (I don't know enough about him), but in this one I think he rebukes us.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there are very few cannibal peoples left among countless people groups needing missionaries and I would consider John Paton and his fellows still relatively recent. That said, confessional Presbyterian denominations generally punch above their weight (which is rather slight in the modern church landscape) in foreign missions, but, of course, there is incredible need for the advance of the gospel and reformation of the church here in our own nation that should and does take up a great deal of our resources.
 
Edward said:
@Pergamum

It is, I suppose, fine for Baptists to criticize those who criticize the deceased young man, but the Presbyterians on the board, at least, are bound by the 10 Commandments and the teachings thereon.
Click to expand...

And confessional Baptists are not?
 
Pergamum said:
(1) If it was folly to go because it was dangerous than it was folly for missionaries to ever attempt to reach malarial Africa, which became known as the graveyard of missions due to the high rates of death.




(2) All Nations University trained and sent him. He had previous experience in other heard places like Iraq and was a wilderness EMT. If anyone was suited, it was him.

"All Nations (allnations.us), an international Christian missions training and sending organization, is mourning the reported death of one of its missionaries, John Allen Chau, 27, of Vancouver, Washington."

"A seasoned traveler who was well-versed in cross-cultural issues, Chau had previously taken part in missions projects in Iraq, Kurdistan and South Africa. He joined All Nations as a missionary in 2017 and trained at its North American headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri."

He received good training and experience and had medical skills.



(3) Governments forbade early Christians, too, but we have Acts 5 in our bibles still.



(4) What is the difference between a gift, a bribe, a payment, and a fee? Ben said that he "bribed" the fishermen. Why not just say he paid them?

Early Christians often paid Roman guards to be allowed to visit Christian prisoners or bring them food. I guess the entirety of their actions are evil due to paying those guards to help their Christian friends?

(5) Others have criticized him because he entered without knowing the language. But who actuallly knows their language? This is a common missionary scenario, to enter an unknown region and live until communication is possible.


(6). Others have criticized him because he was young and adventurous.

But those writing are usually old and not adventurous. Which is worse?
Click to expand...

Pergs,

Can there be a third way of thinking about it without making him either foolish or a hero who couldn't have done anything wrong? Can we impute the purist of desires and hold him up as in many ways a model example of missionary zeal, but at the same time not be afraid to say that he, like us, was a broken vessel and also I might add, a pretty young man, and grant that he might then have had room for a bit of maturing (as well all do)?

Full disclosure, I haven't read any actual articles about this; I've just seen the snippets and picked up a few things about what people are saying on this post.

I will not judge him or say he did something wrong. But I don't think it's unfair to ask questions and think/talk about it so we can all grow in our understanding of these things. The rulers in Jerusalem commanded the apostles not to tell people about Jesus; they responded by saying that was an order they couldn't obey. I could very much be wrong, but it seems to me there are some differences between their situation and situations like this. First of all, that was their own country/city. That's where they were citizens; that was where they lived. Secondly, the command was specifically not to tell people about Jesus (preach in his name). This young man was choosing to go to another country that was not his own. So I see that as different. He was going as a "guest" of a host country. This host country has laws, and it seems, in this case, there were actual (not made up) reasons for prohibiting people from going to this island. I think we can ask questions and talk about it in a way that's healthy without condemning or judging or whatever. My question is not about his zeal or willingness to suffer or whether or not we should keep silent when people tell us we can't talk about Jesus. My question is: Did he have to go to these particular people at this particular time? In doing so he was violating the laws of India, which weren't telling him he couldn't tell people about Jesus but just that he couldn't go to that one island. The same Paul who wrote about the things you mentioned also strongly urged us to obey the governing authorities. I don't think he ever broke any laws in the name of the Great Commission. Should I be involved in ministry? Yes. Should I be involved in a very particular/specific ministry if it means sacrificing my marriage or well-being of my spouse or children? I believe the answer is no. Because I don't think God wants me to have to choose between my ministry and my marriage, if that makes sense .

What if God is ultimately behind countries that are closed to outsiders? I'm just asking the question. What if there is some divine judgment going on that it would be best for us to let run it's course? Does God want us to have to choose between fulfilling the Great Commission and keeping the 10 Commandments? What if there are seasons God is leading us/the church broadly where He wants to send us by using the means of the laws of governments? Surely there is gospel need all over the place in hundreds of countries. I'm just asking the question and I honestly don't have an answer to this. But as I ponder the question more and more I do find myself wondering about these things.

Love ya man.
 
Last edited:
The Great Commission says to go to all nations. To conclude that it is "God's sovereignty" if a nation is closed and, therefore, not make any efforts to reach them is to allow the laws of men to annul the Commission of our Lord.


Many people-groups resist the Gospel. The whole Muslim world resists the Gospel. Should we call it quits then because they make it clear that they do not want us?
 
MISSIONS AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES:

I often hear of Reformed believers objecting to missionary activity based on ecclesiological differences. "He's from a parachurch..." or "He's an independent missionary..."

Several comments:



-(1) FIRST: Let's be reasonable and "triage" who we work with and who we discard.

Here's an explanation based on my colleague Dave's blog:

"What are the theological deal-breakers?
Dealing specifically with theological issues, Al Mohler presents a helpful way to sort through which issues should be deal-breakers in his article A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity. He says that doctrines should be divided between first, second, and third order doctrines. Below is a brief summary of how he divides up doctrines:

First order doctrines – The fundamentals (authority of Scripture, deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, trinitarian view of the godhead, etc.).

Second order doctrines – Theological differences within the Christian faith which create significant enough boundaries that Christians organize themselves around these doctrines within local churches (modes of baptism, the Lord’s supper, views regarding the spiritual gifts, roles of women within the church, etc.).

Third order doctrines – These are theological differences within the Christian faith that are subtle enough that Christians can be in the same local church and yet have differing views relating to these doctrines (various interpretations of difficult passages relating to the end times, convictions regarding head coverings for women in church, how much a Christian should be involved in politics, methodology in evangelism, etc.).

The issues listed above apply well to those who are staying in the United States, but many of them are less applicable to those working overseas. For instance, in some cultures, women wear head coverings all the time, so disagreement on that practice is a moot point. However, potential missionary teams need to wrestle through everything from translation theories to the idea that they should baptize a believer in secret to avoid persecution from his family.

Further, Mohler’s triage affects missionaries differently depending on their role on the team. For instance, if one is intending on planting a church, then he ought to agree with his team on first and second order issues, down to modes of baptism. For someone involved in medical missions or translation work, however, secondary issues are of lesser importance. First order issues such as the authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone are essential if the work is more than humanitarian. As far as third order issues, those issues will likely serve as lively conversation pieces rather than a foundation by which a church is laid.

So, for the aspiring missionary, there is great potential in partnering with those who share first and sometimes second order doctrines, even if there are some differences among the third order doctrines."


In some places in the world I am just happy to meet ANY believer at all, and I would do all I could to help out that believer. If they were a true believer but still errant in many things, I would STILL be overjoyed to work with them in some very unreached areas.



-(2) SECOND: Many "Non-Reformed" groups have more experience and practical wisdom and know-how than Reformed groups, simply because they send more people out and know better how to train and sustain them.

Be mad if you want, but the more "Truly Reformed" one is, the less likely they are to have good training about the practical aspects of missions. We simply do not send out that many.

We could do a lot better.



-(3) THIRD:

It is much worse NOT to send. It is much worse to be passive than to go forth with imperfect methodology. Nobody and no church is 100% perfect.

And...at this point, several will twist my words and gasp and say, "We don't want to send out heretics!" But we are not talking about that. There are many good and solid Christians who are not truly reformed but who are serving faithfully on the mission field. And there are some good training institutions out there who are sending people out to hard places.


----
Of course, if you are the type of person who leaves a church over whether they are wholly EP or not, or over headcoverings or not, you will probably just be mad at my post above, but you are also probably the kind of believer who most needs to read it.

In a region where there are many churches, we can be choosy...but in some regions of the world we may need to be less choosy about how rigidly we hold to tertiary doctrines of lesser importance. I'd much prefer an animist turning into a Charismatic than remaining an animist.
 
Last edited:
"We are so utterly ordinary, so commonplace, while we profess to know a Power the Twentieth Century does not reckon with.

But we are "harmless," and therefore unharmed.

We are spiritual pacifists, non-militants, conscientious objectors in this battle-to-the-death with principalities and powers in high places.

Meekness must be had for contact with men, but brash, outspoken boldness is required to take part in the comradeship of the Cross.

We are "sideliners" -- coaching and criticizing the real wrestlers while content to sit by and leave the enemies of God unchallenged. The world cannot hate us, we are too much like its own. Oh that God would make us dangerous!”


---- Jim Elliot, late missionary killed by tribals in South America.
 
Trevor,
Not that I disagree with anything u have said and cited, but given that u are experienced in these types of outreaches, would u have handled this situation in a different fashion?
 
Mods: Should this thread perhaps go to the Coffee Shop where it can't be searched?

Scott Bushey said:
Well then....that destroys your argument in post 29, to a degree. Thats why I said, 'bibles in various languages.'

From what i've read, local linguists don't even know if they even have a language. The missionary must have known that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how. Post #29 is addressing how the Indian law is effectively a barrier to the Great Commission, and an attempt to go "legally" is more likely to guarantee they will remain unreached, as India doesn't even clear the red tape for government officials--let alone reps of a Western religion. In my second post, were it possible to just send over Bible and tracts in various languages that'd be one way to do it, but no one knows what language these people speak, it has no known connections to any continental/local languages, etc. I would concede in today's tech world there can be mightily effective ways to do it, but whatever a missionary did would still be in breach of law.

Ben Zartman said:
I expect they're illiterate. They need a preacher. They need a preacher who speaks their language. This requires more preparation than simply landing with gifts. But we know that God is able to do abundantly above all that we ask or think. Let us cry to God for these people.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but no one knows their language. And if we want to figure it out, the island needs to be intruded against Indian law--even if there was no landing directly on the island and getting speared/shot, perhaps learning by drones, planted microphones, mechanical seagulls or whatever you can think of, the Indian law will need to be broken.

TheOldCourse said:
To be fair, there are very few cannibal peoples left among countless people groups needing missionaries and I would consider John Paton and his fellows still relatively recent. That said, confessional Presbyterian denominations generally punch above their weight (which is rather slight in the modern church landscape) in foreign missions, but, of course, there is incredible need for the advance of the gospel and reformation of the church here in our own nation that should and does take up a great deal of our resources.
Click to expand...

I have to concede to your point here brother, if it really is a rare thing and situations like the Sentinel are becoming more unique. I suppose for my own ponderings I have to at least ask why we haven't thought to do this. And eventually, someone has to.
 
Harley said:
Mods: Should this thread perhaps go to the Coffee Shop where it can't be searched?
Click to expand...
That's up to Perg. I have called attention to this thread on the PB Facebook page which is public simply due to the excesses of the public reaction and need to show balance. I think it important a believing discussion of this is accessible. But again that is up to Perg.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
That's up to Perg. I have called attention to this thread on the PB Facebook page which is public simply due to the excesses of the public reaction and need to show balance. I think it important a believing discussion of this is accessible. But again that is up to Perg.
Click to expand...

Understood; and on rethinking it, fully agreed.
 
Last edited:
Harley said:
I'm not sure how. Post #29 is addressing how the Indian law is effectively a barrier to the Great Commission, and an attempt to go "legally" is more likely to guarantee they will remain unreached
Click to expand...

The Indian gov't never said that the guy couldn't evangelize the tribe; the law that they instituted has to do with safety, given the tribes history.
 
Scott Bushey said:
Trevor,
Not that I disagree with anything you have said and cited, but given that you are experienced in these types of outreaches, would you have handled this situation in a different fashion?
Click to expand...

I admire this man deeply.

He was single and did not endanger or plan to leave a family fatherless.

He was well-trained and a Wilderness EMT.

He had previous experience in hard places like Iraq.

He had a school training and behind him. Even though this might be viewed as a parachurch, it was still the larger Body of Christ, and so he was not a Lone Ranger.

The Indian government had recently lifted some of the restrictions to visitors to the Andaman Islands, including North Sentinel Island. Some of these rules were unclear.

Of course his school could have been reformed.

He counted the cost.

He was young and adventurous....but those are not faults. Better than being old and passive.

He went unarmed and tried to show his friendliness with gifts. Some have mocked these gifts, but "contact goods" like salt and other things that bespoke good intentions happened in New Guinea and other places as well. We brought such items into our region.

I suppose he could have worn a flak jacket. But this might have given an impression of menace. He came trying to show himself to be harmless, knowing the risks.

Had he made contact and set up to live among them he'd be hailed as a hero. But he died and so some are mocking his foolisness.

I will not criticize this man. We neeed 10,000 more like him. It is a shame that he is the first to die to bring these people the Gospel. It is 2018 and only one person has been killed in mission efforts towards this tribe? That reflects badly upon the Church.


I have had arrows shot my way, had machetes swung at me, and have been punched, slapped, spit on, and even bit. It makes me wonder how badly folks would talk about me if I ever got killed. There's probably plenty of PB posts showing me to be a stubborn or combative person. The media would probably dig up Right Wing posts I made to show that I was racist, sexist, or Alt-Right or something. But this man was universally attested to be a nice, humble guy who treated all people well and had the noblest of intentions.

Much respect for him!
 
About moving this post: I don't mind, The whole world is talking about him. We've got nothing to hide in our discussions.
 
Scott Bushey said:
The Indian gov't never said that the guy couldn't evangelize the tribe; the law that they instituted has to do with safety, given the tribes history.
Click to expand...

I admit, I'm confused.

He can evangelize the tribe, but he can't go to the island?

My understanding according to the NY Times article cited earlier in this thread is that the nation of India has put the island strictly off-limits, and intend to keep it in "total isolation." No aid, no government intervention, nothing. They want to prevent outside diseases, and they want to "preserve its culture" (why???). There are also patrols to keep people off the island. Chau wrote in his diary that God kept the navy patrols from spotting him. The fisherman are being charged with Chau's murder. The islanders prize their isolation for some reason, they don't ever go mainland (I assume), they don't ever allow visitors, they have a history of trying to keep it this way.

Is there a scenario you envision where he could somehow evangelize them without breaking the mandated isolation by the Indian government? What would it be? I'm sorry, but I'm not grasping your point.

If we're discussing the legitimacy of the law in place, I agree the law is well-intended for safety and is reasonable for most circumstances. I think we are agreed there. My contention is that obedience to this law demands we disregard bringing the Gospel to them, even if that's not what India intends (though they wouldn't complain).
 
Last edited:
I would say that the Great Commission is a higher law.

Brother Andrew illegally smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union. And William Tyndale illegally translated the Bible.

I just broke national law here last year violating my visa because I helped treat very sick patients while on a spiritual visa, and was put under investigation and almost fined (except for public pressure put on immigration). Some issues are hard to navigate lawfully and still stay true to your conscience.

The laws of man are often flawed and arbitrary.

It is sad the fisherman are being charged. I don't think Chau anticipated or would have wanted this. I also believe the law is well-intended and reasonably for most cases.
 
Pergamum said:
I would say that the Great Commission is a higher law.

Brother Andrew illegally smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union. And William Tyndale illegally translated the Bible.

I just broke national law here last year violating my visa because I helped treat very sick patients while on a spiritual visa, and was put under investigation and almost fined (except for public pressure put on immigration). Some issues are hard to navigate lawfully and still stay true to your conscience.

The laws of man are often flawed and arbitrary.

It is sad the fisherman are being charged. I don't think Chau anticipated or would have wanted this. I also believe the law is well-intended and reasonably for most cases.
Click to expand...

Yes but it's not so clear that the Great Commission required a particular person to go to a particular country at a particular time. If it did, Paul would have violated it when he didn't go to Asia. If the Great Commission applies to everyone with respect to every people group at every time then even Chau violated it, because it doesn't stop at "Go." But we know that this isn't the case just as we know that you and I are not violating it by not heading over in Chau's wake immediately.
 
And of course, the Bee had to chime in.

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-who...wc20P5J9ikGyKpECUbqdOteANn6S9jH6GkOvGnKmECuFE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Steve Curtis
  • Locked
Any thoughts on the 'Jesus Manifesto'?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Jack K
Jack K
Goodcheer68
Thoughts on the PRC
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
yeutter
Y
fredtgreco
  • Locked
Some Thoughts on the Coronavirus
Replies
20
Views
3K
KMK
KMK
Hamalas
  • Locked
Thoughts on the Bible Project?
Replies
4
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
jambo
  • Locked
Tribal Quiz
Replies
3
Views
1K
Jack K
Jack K
Back
Top