Someone spoke about designating 33% of the UMCom publicity funds go to radio ministry in Africa. He used the word "illiterate" to describe the Africans and someone spoke against his use of language. We took a moment of silence to reflect on that, and then he tried to explain that the president of Liberia told us she was dealing with a 60% illiteracy rate.
But that's not actually what got to me. In his speech promoting Christian radio in Africa, he used the phrase "save them from Islam." It seemed a bit over the top to me. I know that sme people believe that Christ and only Christ can save souls, etc., so I suppose that's where he was coming from. But it was stated in a very degrading manner that I felt to be inappropriate and unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
it was inappropriate and accusatory. it is also a very modern paradigm for reaching out. not to mention the idea of doing it from 'afar' really gets to me. someone needed to give up their bishop hook for the moment to get that guy off the mic
Come on folks. Let's give our brother in Christ a break. Are we denying that illiteracy is not a problem in Africa? I fail to see why using the word "illiterate" was inappropriate.
Are we saying that we are not to help the church in Africa in its ministry of evangelism and outreach, to bring people to Christ? The reality of evangelism in Africa is that Christians are proclaiming and living Christ in order to convince their neighbors that there is a better way than paganism and Islam. That better way is the way of Jesus.
I do not think the man deserved the rebuke he received.
I've been planning to respond to this for a couple of hours and am just now finding the time. Steven has posted the sentiment of what I wanted to write, but I do want to ask some additional questions:
How is stating that illiteracy is a problem (assuming this is factual) "inappropriate?" We state all kinds of things as being problems: poverty, AIDS, malaria. It it's true, and it's a problem, I don't see it as being a "mean" statement.
Also, Becca stated that "some people" believe Jesus is the only way to salvation. From a world-view perspective, you are right. From a Christian perspective, I would argue that the vast majority of people believe Jesus Christ to be the only means of Salvation and eternal life. This leads to my next question:
As a UMC pastor and a Christian, what do you believe and preach about Salvation.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and answer on another board (Will's entry) earlier this week, by the way.
Ronnie
I am not a pastor. I am a Christian, but a fairly universally minded Christian. I do not believe that a God who sent his Son to Earth to die because he loved humankind so much would forever damn members of humanity who, during their lifetime, were not Christians due to culture. I am still exploring my exact position on this and other theological matters and am trying to remain as open-minded as possible without denying my faith and belief in God's Word.
A word about Joe's use of the term "illiterate"...I personally was not offended; however, I understand why some people would be. For many people, that word has been used for decades as a degrading word with implications that it is the fault of the individual if he/she is illiterate. The bishop presiding carefully did not entirely rebuke Joe but instead asked us to remain aware of our words.
steve, i think there is glaring inappropriateness. from what i have witness there has been a huge divide over respect for the global church from the american church. this pulls together an elitist aura. whether right or not, it's there and you can't deny that.
so stating, even if it is factual that there is a problem "there" is a slap in the face.
granted, people are tired, but there is a point too that you need to write your words down so that your thoughts are clear and intentions are faithful.
More Modernistic view points (Africa needs the salvation message of Christ) as opposed to the Post-Modern view (How can WE find Christ already WORKING in Africa and celebrate).
Gavin,
I don't disagree with your larger point that there is massive disrespect for the church outside the US. In particular, the church in Africa. The amendment in question is an example of just such disrespect and American paternalism. In fact, I think an argument can be made the General Conference itself, or rather the way GC is conducted, disenfranchises non-US delegates. The legislative process that necessarily polarizes issues is foreign to many non-US delegates and their cultural context. The rules of GC intimidate many non-US delegates. Thus preventing their voices being heard. If we are going to be a truly international communion, I believe we need to dispense with Roberts Rules of Order in favor of a process of listening and discernment that helps the body come to something that resembles consensus rather than polarization.
That being said, I do not believe the man making the amendment intended any offense and did not deserve the rebuke he received from the assembly. In this case I think we need to remember Mr. Wesley's admonition to always think the best of one another rather than looking for the bad in them or their words. In other words, we need to cut each other some slack.
fair enough steve.
Ditto what Gavin said! And thanks to everyone for commenting and being respectful of each other on the blog.
Post a Comment