Traders and NGO’s do what any outside third party is going to do to a culture such as the Sawi. In the words of The Scorpions, traders and NGO’s are going to “rock you like a hurricane…” which is about the best explanation that I can come up for the significance that the introduction of traders and NGO’s are going to have on a culture. Think of the results of Cortez on the Native Americans. A pandemic swept across the whole of the societies killing and disrupting the ‘ecosystem’ of the Native Americans. The results are very much the same looking at this situation with Cortez representing the traders or the NGO’s and the Native Americans as exactly what they were, cultures that were isolated from other interaction until some beast upon a horse came riding into their community. However this is looking at the effects of the traders and NGO’s in a very pessimistic way. From the book, relying again on an excerpt from Chapter 8 in which the positives are highlighted and the evidence for why traders and NGO’s are going to exist and why it is necessary for missionaries such as Don and Carol to continue to do their work in these cultures.
Chapter 8, page 102.
“ If I had not been there that day to trigger that salute as an emissary of Christ, someone else’s emissary would have trigger it later, possibly with quite different motives and results. Thos who advocate the world’s remaining tribal groups should be left to themselves do not realize how naïve their notion is! The world just isn’t big enough anymore for anyone to be left alone! It is a foregone conclusion that even if missionaries do not go in to give, lumbermen, crocodile hunters, prospectors, or farmers will still go in to take! The issue is not then should anyone go in, because obviously someone will! The issue is rather, will the most sympathetic person get there first?
As the one who go there first to live among the Sawi, it was my aim to combine faithfulness to God and the Scriptures with respect for the Sawi and their culture. The crucial question was, would the Sawi culture and the Scriptures prove so opposite in their basic premises as to render this two-way loyalty impossible? I intended to find out.
But first I had to build my home.”
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
What concepts in the Sawi culture intrigued / reviled / saddened / angered / surprised you?
For me, the piece that really intrigued me about the Sawi was how vastly different they were, and at the same time how incredibly similar they were to what I see as a typical culture. As we read and learned about the Sawi and got a sense for the hierarchy or the society and how life functions in the Sawi villages, I became more and more intrigued. I was in awe that this culture was able to establish such an opposite set of moral values in which treachery is seen as a skill and is desired and encouraged. There is a passage which deals directly with this similar feeling that Don Richardson found when living with the Sawi and the feeling that I had when reading about them. This deals with both the similarities as well as the differences between the cultures.
Taken from chapter 15, page 148.
From the perspective of Don Richardson.
Basically, there were two presuppositions I shared wit the Sawi-belief in a supernatural world and in the importance of interaction between that supernatural world and men. The Sawi believed in a hierarchy or disinterest, if not malicious, demons and departed spirits of the dead. I trusted in an infinite yet personal God who loves justice and mercy.
The Sawi were convinced that no misfortune happened by accident, but was invariably caused by demons who could be either activated or restrained by witchcraft. I was persuaded that all things were either commanded or permitted by a divine Providence which in turn could be influenced by prayer…”
Marked up version:
[ ]= Don Richardson and his beliefs
[ ]= The Sawi and their beliefs.
Basically, there were two presuppositions I shared wit the Sawi-belief in a supernatural world and in the importance of interaction between that supernatural world and men. The Sawi believed in a hierarchy or disinterest, if not malicious, demons and departed spirits of the dead. I trusted in an infinite yet personal God who loves justice and mercy.
The Sawi were convinced that no misfortune happened by accident, but was invariably caused by demons who could be either activated or restrained by witchcraft. I was persuaded that all things were either commanded or permitted by a divine Providence which in turn could be influenced by prayer…”
For me this was a really interesting passage that contributed to my interest in the Sawi and how their culture functioned. As presented by Don in this excerpt the differences between himself and the Sawi was immeasurable. And following this excerpt Don confirms this in saying that “Beyond this point there was little common viewpoint in our respective world views…” I am unsure what it was that so quickly occupied my interest with the Sawi but my best guess is based upon “opposites attract” and that seeing the Sawi and their values nearly opposite of mine I had to wonder how can they live that way, I’m sure however, if they were to have looked at our culture at the same time they would have asked something similar.
Taken from chapter 15, page 148.
From the perspective of Don Richardson.
Basically, there were two presuppositions I shared wit the Sawi-belief in a supernatural world and in the importance of interaction between that supernatural world and men. The Sawi believed in a hierarchy or disinterest, if not malicious, demons and departed spirits of the dead. I trusted in an infinite yet personal God who loves justice and mercy.
The Sawi were convinced that no misfortune happened by accident, but was invariably caused by demons who could be either activated or restrained by witchcraft. I was persuaded that all things were either commanded or permitted by a divine Providence which in turn could be influenced by prayer…”
Marked up version:
[ ]= Don Richardson and his beliefs
[ ]= The Sawi and their beliefs.
Basically, there were two presuppositions I shared wit the Sawi-belief in a supernatural world and in the importance of interaction between that supernatural world and men. The Sawi believed in a hierarchy or disinterest, if not malicious, demons and departed spirits of the dead. I trusted in an infinite yet personal God who loves justice and mercy.
The Sawi were convinced that no misfortune happened by accident, but was invariably caused by demons who could be either activated or restrained by witchcraft. I was persuaded that all things were either commanded or permitted by a divine Providence which in turn could be influenced by prayer…”
For me this was a really interesting passage that contributed to my interest in the Sawi and how their culture functioned. As presented by Don in this excerpt the differences between himself and the Sawi was immeasurable. And following this excerpt Don confirms this in saying that “Beyond this point there was little common viewpoint in our respective world views…” I am unsure what it was that so quickly occupied my interest with the Sawi but my best guess is based upon “opposites attract” and that seeing the Sawi and their values nearly opposite of mine I had to wonder how can they live that way, I’m sure however, if they were to have looked at our culture at the same time they would have asked something similar.
What does Jesus want us to do for the Sawi?
This question is answered in a very similar way to the question of what God expects of us when confronted by another culture. So, Jesus wants us to continue to be the Salt and the Light of the world, even when we enter a culture such as the Sawi. The Sawi is an interesting culture in that its ideals, expected behaviors, and morals are nearly the polar opposite of what our societies consider acceptable, or ethically correct. The Sawi had built their culture based upon a simply-complex system of treachery, presented in the book Peace Child as “fattened with friendship...” We however have formed the opposite of the Sawi in that the ethics that we favor are trust, honesty, and uprightness. So how can Jesus expect us to be able to help the Sawi at all? Clearly what we see as morally upright and ethically acceptable is significantly different, so how can it be that we could help?
God calls us to be the Salt and the Light that was discussed earlier, to witness to those who encounter us, to be the light in a dark world. Jesus doesn’t call us to ‘help’ the Sawi by seeking to change who they are as a culture, but instead to introduce Him into their culture. He doesn’t expect us to infiltrate their culture and corrupt the infrastructure with our own ideas and present to them the ideals that are seen as acceptable in a ‘modern’ world. By introducing the idea of Jesus into the culture the culture and its roots remain intact, the hierarchy and system of government are still stable and the culture can still function. As presented in Peace Child, Don and Carol had to look into the Sawi’s culture and find where it was that God could be introduced and the idea of Him allowed to develop and grow. This is what Jesus calls us to do, to offer to the culture everything that comes with Jesus, not to force Him upon anyone, but to present Him as an opportunity for him or her. In Peace Child, Don and Carol first do the typical and try and impose their ideals on the culture and just expect it to change. When the realization that this method is flawed becomes apparent Don and Carol seek to merely introduce their ideas to the Sawi and let the principles and ideas from this teaching spread throughout the society gradually by the Sawi themselves gaining understanding. This is found in the Sawi culture as the peach child in which later Don and Carol understand the significance of a peach child for the Sawi and then make the connection that God gave Jesus as a peach child for the world. This is what Jesus wants us to do for the Sawi, inform not impose, offer but don’t force, teach but allow them to teach themselves through their own developing understanding for all that is offered by Jesus.
God calls us to be the Salt and the Light that was discussed earlier, to witness to those who encounter us, to be the light in a dark world. Jesus doesn’t call us to ‘help’ the Sawi by seeking to change who they are as a culture, but instead to introduce Him into their culture. He doesn’t expect us to infiltrate their culture and corrupt the infrastructure with our own ideas and present to them the ideals that are seen as acceptable in a ‘modern’ world. By introducing the idea of Jesus into the culture the culture and its roots remain intact, the hierarchy and system of government are still stable and the culture can still function. As presented in Peace Child, Don and Carol had to look into the Sawi’s culture and find where it was that God could be introduced and the idea of Him allowed to develop and grow. This is what Jesus calls us to do, to offer to the culture everything that comes with Jesus, not to force Him upon anyone, but to present Him as an opportunity for him or her. In Peace Child, Don and Carol first do the typical and try and impose their ideals on the culture and just expect it to change. When the realization that this method is flawed becomes apparent Don and Carol seek to merely introduce their ideas to the Sawi and let the principles and ideas from this teaching spread throughout the society gradually by the Sawi themselves gaining understanding. This is found in the Sawi culture as the peach child in which later Don and Carol understand the significance of a peach child for the Sawi and then make the connection that God gave Jesus as a peach child for the world. This is what Jesus wants us to do for the Sawi, inform not impose, offer but don’t force, teach but allow them to teach themselves through their own developing understanding for all that is offered by Jesus.
Choose a representative passage from this novel that holds particular significance to you. Type it in and comment on its significance.
One section in particular that tipped my interest was in Chapter 8 page 102. It goes as follows:
If I had not been there that day to trigger that salute as an emissary of Christ, someone else’s emissary would have trigger it later, possibly with quite different motives and results. Thos who advocate the world’s remaining tribal groups should be left to themselves do not realize how naïve their notion is! The world just isn’t big enough anymore for anyone to be left alone! It is a foregone conclusion that even if missionaries do not go in to give, lumbermen, crocodile hunters, prospectors, or farmers will still go in to take! The issue is not then should anyone go in, because obviously someone will! The issue is rather, will the most sympathetic person get there first?
As the one who go there first to live among the Sawi, it was my aim to combine faithfulness to God and the Scriptures with respect for the Sawi and their culture. The crucial question was, would the Sawi culture and the Scriptures prove so opposite in their basic premises as to render this two-way loyalty impossible? I intended to find out.
But first I had to build my home.
From my book, this is how I marked up this section.
If I had not been there that day to trigger that salute as an emissary of Christ, someone else’s emissary would have trigger it later, possibly with quite different motives and results. Those who advocate the world’s remaining tribal groups should be left to themselves do not realize how naïve their notion is! The world just isn’t big enough anymore for anyone to be left alone! It is a foregone conclusion that even if missionaries do not go in to give, lumbermen, crocodile hunters, prospectors, or farmers will still go in to take! The issue is not then should anyone go in, because obviously someone will! The issue is rather, will the most sympathetic person get there first?
As the one who go there first to live among the Sawi, it was my aim to combine faithfulness to God and the Scriptures with respect for the Sawi and their culture. The crucial question was, would the Sawi culture and the Scriptures prove so opposite in their basic premises as to render this two-way loyalty impossible? I intended to find out.
But first I had to build my home.
This is a section that addresses those who say it is wrong to infiltrate a society/culture such as the Sawi. I have often weighed the pros and cons of ‘helping’ a society/culture by means of going there and giving to them what we think they need. What I have often wondered is is it better for us to ‘help’ them by giving them these things that we say the need, but they really don’t, or is it more beneficial to just leave them as they are. This passage grasped my attention that it addressed both perspectives and provided evidence as to why we need to provide the best ‘help’ that we can.
If I had not been there that day to trigger that salute as an emissary of Christ, someone else’s emissary would have trigger it later, possibly with quite different motives and results. Thos who advocate the world’s remaining tribal groups should be left to themselves do not realize how naïve their notion is! The world just isn’t big enough anymore for anyone to be left alone! It is a foregone conclusion that even if missionaries do not go in to give, lumbermen, crocodile hunters, prospectors, or farmers will still go in to take! The issue is not then should anyone go in, because obviously someone will! The issue is rather, will the most sympathetic person get there first?
As the one who go there first to live among the Sawi, it was my aim to combine faithfulness to God and the Scriptures with respect for the Sawi and their culture. The crucial question was, would the Sawi culture and the Scriptures prove so opposite in their basic premises as to render this two-way loyalty impossible? I intended to find out.
But first I had to build my home.
From my book, this is how I marked up this section.
If I had not been there that day to trigger that salute as an emissary of Christ, someone else’s emissary would have trigger it later, possibly with quite different motives and results. Those who advocate the world’s remaining tribal groups should be left to themselves do not realize how naïve their notion is! The world just isn’t big enough anymore for anyone to be left alone! It is a foregone conclusion that even if missionaries do not go in to give, lumbermen, crocodile hunters, prospectors, or farmers will still go in to take! The issue is not then should anyone go in, because obviously someone will! The issue is rather, will the most sympathetic person get there first?
As the one who go there first to live among the Sawi, it was my aim to combine faithfulness to God and the Scriptures with respect for the Sawi and their culture. The crucial question was, would the Sawi culture and the Scriptures prove so opposite in their basic premises as to render this two-way loyalty impossible? I intended to find out.
But first I had to build my home.
This is a section that addresses those who say it is wrong to infiltrate a society/culture such as the Sawi. I have often weighed the pros and cons of ‘helping’ a society/culture by means of going there and giving to them what we think they need. What I have often wondered is is it better for us to ‘help’ them by giving them these things that we say the need, but they really don’t, or is it more beneficial to just leave them as they are. This passage grasped my attention that it addressed both perspectives and provided evidence as to why we need to provide the best ‘help’ that we can.
What should we do when we are confronted with other cultures?
When we are confronted with other cultures a very cliché answer would be that we are to be culturally conscious and respective. I once over heard a conversation in which it was stated that if “you think that what you are about to do might offend someone, then just don’t do it…” The idea being that if you are about to do something in a situation, or culture, that may come across as offending to the other individuals the best way to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes is simply not to move your feet. In other words thing before you act. Now this may work in some situations but by not moving your feet, you could actually be doing the opposite of your intentions. For example, lets say that you have just entered a new culture and are unsure if eye contact is encourage/expected or if it is seen as insulting. Here are several of the possible outcomes of the situation.
1.) So you decide that because you are unsure of the cultural expectancies and the connotation that comes with eye contact that you are not going to look anyone in the eyes. Someone talks to you and you refuse to look them in the eye by looking elsewhere as they speak to you. As it turns out, when being spoken to it is expected that you will maintain eye contact with the individual speaking to you. You have just expressed your ignorance of the culture, and possibly offended the individual.
2.) So instead of decided instead of trying to play it safe and not look someone in the eye when addressed, you are going to maintain eye contact with the individuals. So you are confronted and spoken to, you maintain eye contact with the individual(s) as throughout the conversation. Later you discover that eye contact is seen as disrespectful and is to avoided. You have once again expressed ignorance and possibly offended the individual.
So as evident in such a method where either you do something or in the interest of possibly avoiding such outcome you “play it safe” and do nothing. The chance of you offending someone or simply doing something that would be seen as “culturally unacceptable” still exists. So in short, the best method to utilize when confronting a new culture would be something like this.
The stepwise process:
1.) If possible do research on the culture(s) that you may experience and gather the do’s and don’ts for them.
2.) Get to the new culture
3.) Be respectful and as culturally conscious as possible
4.) Base your actions on principle such as “think before you act” and in general just be as respectful as possible
5.) If your not sure if something is acceptable or not, ask someone or if you cant ask, try and observe how others are behaving.
6.) You are going to make mistakes; the best way to learn is to do and to learn from your mistakes
As evident there is no clear and concise explanation for the proper method for encountering a new culture, but you can bet your going to make mistakes. So, don’t be afraid of doing that, just be respectful and just go for it…you will make it out alive…probably.
1.) So you decide that because you are unsure of the cultural expectancies and the connotation that comes with eye contact that you are not going to look anyone in the eyes. Someone talks to you and you refuse to look them in the eye by looking elsewhere as they speak to you. As it turns out, when being spoken to it is expected that you will maintain eye contact with the individual speaking to you. You have just expressed your ignorance of the culture, and possibly offended the individual.
2.) So instead of decided instead of trying to play it safe and not look someone in the eye when addressed, you are going to maintain eye contact with the individuals. So you are confronted and spoken to, you maintain eye contact with the individual(s) as throughout the conversation. Later you discover that eye contact is seen as disrespectful and is to avoided. You have once again expressed ignorance and possibly offended the individual.
So as evident in such a method where either you do something or in the interest of possibly avoiding such outcome you “play it safe” and do nothing. The chance of you offending someone or simply doing something that would be seen as “culturally unacceptable” still exists. So in short, the best method to utilize when confronting a new culture would be something like this.
The stepwise process:
1.) If possible do research on the culture(s) that you may experience and gather the do’s and don’ts for them.
2.) Get to the new culture
3.) Be respectful and as culturally conscious as possible
4.) Base your actions on principle such as “think before you act” and in general just be as respectful as possible
5.) If your not sure if something is acceptable or not, ask someone or if you cant ask, try and observe how others are behaving.
6.) You are going to make mistakes; the best way to learn is to do and to learn from your mistakes
As evident there is no clear and concise explanation for the proper method for encountering a new culture, but you can bet your going to make mistakes. So, don’t be afraid of doing that, just be respectful and just go for it…you will make it out alive…probably.
What should society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?
What should society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?
For this question we are going to take an atypical path to its solution, starting by tearing the question apart and then putting it back together to demonstrate the answer within the question. We will start by referencing dictionary.com.
Defining “uncivilized cultures”
Uncivilized–adjective
1.not civilized or cultured; barbarous.
Culture–noun
1.the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2.that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3.a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4.development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5.the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6.Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
7.Biology .
a. the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use, etc.
b. the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
8.the act or practice of cultivating the soil; tillage.
9.the raising of plants or animals, esp. with a view to their improvement.
10.the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
For the purpose of this explanation we will be using definition #4 “development or improvement of the mind by education or training.” And the definition “not civilized or cultured; barbarous” for uncivilized. Now the explanation that is going to be extracted from these two definitions is a relative explanation of what a society is to do for “uncivilized cultures.” This definition is relative in response to the relativistic perspective in which this question was asked. Saying that a culture is “uncivilized” is a statement that is dependent on your own perspective, therefore meaning that you are seeing your own culture as the civilized culture.
Now comes the next step. Putting it back together.
Based upon our definitions uncivilized + culture(s)= “a culture is not cultured in that it lacks the development or improvement to the mind by education or training.”
So based upon the relative nature of this question, the solution lies within the question, and with the relative statement “uncivilized cultures.” As based upon the definition that was formulated by the conjunction of the definitions for uncivilized and culture, the solution to “what should a society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?” Is simple. A culture is seen as uncivilized only when the one observing this culture (in this case Don and Carol) do not see the development or improvement to the mind by education or training as acceptable, as the divergence in what is educated and trained is vastly different between cultures.
Oversimplified, then, the solution is: In order for the individual who is observing a culture (Don, Carol, and yourself) to no longer see this culture as uncivilized and make it civilized the characteristics and abilities that are “educated and trained” must be in line with that of their own culture. For it is from their own culture that their definition of civilized was established.
For this question we are going to take an atypical path to its solution, starting by tearing the question apart and then putting it back together to demonstrate the answer within the question. We will start by referencing dictionary.com.
Defining “uncivilized cultures”
Uncivilized–adjective
1.not civilized or cultured; barbarous.
Culture–noun
1.the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2.that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3.a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4.development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5.the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6.Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
7.Biology .
a. the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use, etc.
b. the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
8.the act or practice of cultivating the soil; tillage.
9.the raising of plants or animals, esp. with a view to their improvement.
10.the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
For the purpose of this explanation we will be using definition #4 “development or improvement of the mind by education or training.” And the definition “not civilized or cultured; barbarous” for uncivilized. Now the explanation that is going to be extracted from these two definitions is a relative explanation of what a society is to do for “uncivilized cultures.” This definition is relative in response to the relativistic perspective in which this question was asked. Saying that a culture is “uncivilized” is a statement that is dependent on your own perspective, therefore meaning that you are seeing your own culture as the civilized culture.
Now comes the next step. Putting it back together.
Based upon our definitions uncivilized + culture(s)= “a culture is not cultured in that it lacks the development or improvement to the mind by education or training.”
So based upon the relative nature of this question, the solution lies within the question, and with the relative statement “uncivilized cultures.” As based upon the definition that was formulated by the conjunction of the definitions for uncivilized and culture, the solution to “what should a society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?” Is simple. A culture is seen as uncivilized only when the one observing this culture (in this case Don and Carol) do not see the development or improvement to the mind by education or training as acceptable, as the divergence in what is educated and trained is vastly different between cultures.
Oversimplified, then, the solution is: In order for the individual who is observing a culture (Don, Carol, and yourself) to no longer see this culture as uncivilized and make it civilized the characteristics and abilities that are “educated and trained” must be in line with that of their own culture. For it is from their own culture that their definition of civilized was established.
What does God expect us to do for other cultures and faiths?
When encountering other cultures God calls us to, as discussed in an earlier post act with respect and consideration for others. However, more specifically looking at what we are to do FOR the other cultures, I will refer to Matthew 5:13-16.
13 “أَنْتُمْ مِلْحُ الأَرْضِ. فَإِذَا فَسَدَ الْمِلْحُ، فَمَاذَا يُعِيدُ إِلَيْهِ مُلُوحَتَهُ؟ إِنَّهُ لاَ يَعُودُ يَصْلُحُ لِشَيْءٍ إِلاَّ لأَنْ يُطْرَحَ خَارِجاً لِتَدُوسَهُ النَّاسُ!
14 أَنْتُمْ نُورُ الْعَالَمِ. لاَ يُمْكِنُ أَنْ تُخْفَى مَدِينَةٌ مَبْنِيَّةٌ عَلَى جَبَلٍ؛
15 وَلاَ يُضِيءُ النَّاسُ مِصْبَاحاً ثُمَّ يَضَعُونَهُ تَحْتَ مِكْيَالٍ، بَلْ يَضَعُونَهُ فِي مَكَانٍ مُرْتَفِعٍ لِيُضِيءَ لِجَمِيعِ مَنْ فِي الْبَيْتِ.
16 هَكَذَا، فَلْيُضِيءْ نُورُكُمْ أَمَامَ النَّاسِ، لِيَرَوْا أَعْمَالَكُمُ الْحَسَنَةَ وَيُمَجِّدُوا أَبَاكُمُ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ.”
Translated to English.
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
This in and of itself is the answer to this question. God calls us to simply show him through ourselves, to allow others the opportunity to see him and his works through the lives of others (Christians/Salt/Light).
By the term “other faiths” the assumption must me made that this is not just in reference to everyday walk-across-the-street-faiths but in reference to the faith in other religions. This answer is given when the Sawi are incountered and their faiths and religion in that Don and Carol must cannot explain and teach the Sawi about their God unless they can find the place that God is already existing within the Sawi community and culture. Seen later as being the Peace Child.
So in summary God calls us to do the same to other cultures and faiths as we would expect others to do to ours, but at the same time not changing who we are or what we stand for because of cultural pressures. Because how can we be the Salt and the Light of the world if we “put it under a bowl.” So simply when encountering other cultures and faiths God only expects us to demonstrate our faith by continuing to be the Salt and the Light.
13 “أَنْتُمْ مِلْحُ الأَرْضِ. فَإِذَا فَسَدَ الْمِلْحُ، فَمَاذَا يُعِيدُ إِلَيْهِ مُلُوحَتَهُ؟ إِنَّهُ لاَ يَعُودُ يَصْلُحُ لِشَيْءٍ إِلاَّ لأَنْ يُطْرَحَ خَارِجاً لِتَدُوسَهُ النَّاسُ!
14 أَنْتُمْ نُورُ الْعَالَمِ. لاَ يُمْكِنُ أَنْ تُخْفَى مَدِينَةٌ مَبْنِيَّةٌ عَلَى جَبَلٍ؛
15 وَلاَ يُضِيءُ النَّاسُ مِصْبَاحاً ثُمَّ يَضَعُونَهُ تَحْتَ مِكْيَالٍ، بَلْ يَضَعُونَهُ فِي مَكَانٍ مُرْتَفِعٍ لِيُضِيءَ لِجَمِيعِ مَنْ فِي الْبَيْتِ.
16 هَكَذَا، فَلْيُضِيءْ نُورُكُمْ أَمَامَ النَّاسِ، لِيَرَوْا أَعْمَالَكُمُ الْحَسَنَةَ وَيُمَجِّدُوا أَبَاكُمُ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ.”
Translated to English.
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
This in and of itself is the answer to this question. God calls us to simply show him through ourselves, to allow others the opportunity to see him and his works through the lives of others (Christians/Salt/Light).
By the term “other faiths” the assumption must me made that this is not just in reference to everyday walk-across-the-street-faiths but in reference to the faith in other religions. This answer is given when the Sawi are incountered and their faiths and religion in that Don and Carol must cannot explain and teach the Sawi about their God unless they can find the place that God is already existing within the Sawi community and culture. Seen later as being the Peace Child.
So in summary God calls us to do the same to other cultures and faiths as we would expect others to do to ours, but at the same time not changing who we are or what we stand for because of cultural pressures. Because how can we be the Salt and the Light of the world if we “put it under a bowl.” So simply when encountering other cultures and faiths God only expects us to demonstrate our faith by continuing to be the Salt and the Light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)