One of Earth’s Last Uncontacted Tribes Found

// May 29th, 2008 // Church Life, General

There aren’t many uncontacted people groups left on the planet. One more has been discovered in Peru and some fascinating pictures have been captured from a fly-by.

Check out the pictures as well as the story at The Daily Mail.

Skin painted bright red, heads partially shaved, arrows drawn back in the longbows and aimed square at the aircraft buzzing overhead. The gesture is unmistakable: Stay Away.

Behind the two men stands another figure, possibly a woman, her stance also seemingly defiant. Her skin painted dark, nearly black.

The apparent aggression shown by these people is quite understandable. For they are members of one of Earth’s last uncontacted tribes, who live in the Envira region in the thick rainforest along the Brazilian-Peruvian frontier.

Thought never to have had any contact with the outside world, everything about these people is, and hopefully will remain, a mystery.

QUESTION: Should someone be sending the missionaries in or should we leave them alone?

Technorati Tags: unreached people groups, missions

17 Responses to “One of Earth’s Last Uncontacted Tribes Found”

Jeff says:

May 29, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Wow. Wow to the information, and wow to the question.

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.

Ellie says:

May 30, 2008 at 12:11 am

I don’t know…

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)

Ben Cotten says:

May 30, 2008 at 6:13 am

Not a trick question… Just wondering “out loud”.

Jan says:

May 30, 2008 at 8:10 am

I wonder if any of them have ever left? Are they living with another tribe that has perhaps heard the gospel? Wouldn’t it be better coming from one of their own? I have lots of questions, but pretty much no answers. I wouldn’t want to send in white missionaries to teach them to wear clothing and sing “Lord I lift your name on high” with their powerpoint projectors. I’m not sure WHAT should be done.

Martha Margaret says:

May 30, 2008 at 8:39 am

I think a lot of strides have been made to not affect the culture of people-groups by missionaries. If you look at how YWAM goes into places and tries to minister using their culture, it seems that we are a long way from the way English missionaries went into Africa 200 years ago. I think most missionaries today understand that to “Americanize” someone is not the same as teaching them about Jesus. Also, groups like Wycliffe are very conscienctious about the culture of the people they are witnessing to.

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.

Martha Margaret says:

May 30, 2008 at 8:47 am

“But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feel of those who preach the good news!’”
Romans 10:14-15

Greg says:

May 31, 2008 at 5:10 pm

When I read this news report and saw the photo of the tribesmen looking up at the plane in disbelief, it at first made me think of one of my favorite movies – “The God’s Must Be Crazy.” Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what these people are thinking? Probably about like what we’d feel like if a UFO landed on the White House lawn. Paradigm shift!

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.

Reed says:

June 5, 2008 at 4:35 am

Hmmm. I really like the question Ben. It opens up a theological can of worms, so we may as well fish a bit. I would like to utilize an example of another barbaric warlike people group (at least to the outside observer) and the 2 different approaches used to reach them. The first was by the “church” in a formal way and they failed miserably. The guiding philosophy of the time was that the heathen had to be civil before they could be Christian. Well, there was no way these people were going to be civil, at least not the way Rome viewed civil. The church viewed these barbarians as fundamentally evil (original sin) and deemed them to be wholly without God. Though there was some marginal success (and a lot of martyrs), no lasting fruit could be found within a generation. Then along comes a former slave to these people. He had been kidnapped from his people as a child, grew up among the barbarians, later escaped and was now returning with the gospel. He recognized in their culture the fingerprints of God (imago deo) and seized on this to share the gospel. His name was Patrick, the place was Ireland, and you know the rest of the story. I wholeheartedly agree with Greg & Jan that Amazonians are best suited to reach other Amazonians. The last thing they need is an importation of white “western evangelicalism”.

Martha Margaret says:

June 5, 2008 at 9:02 am

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”.

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.

Ben Cotten says:

June 5, 2008 at 9:32 am

I think this question bleeds over into a lot of other questions. The answers are determined by your world-view and how you see the role of humanity (more specifically, the Church).

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.

Greg says:

June 5, 2008 at 10:08 am

The preeminence of Christ really is the central factor in this discussion. I’m not sure, Martha, that you understand the complexities and pitfalls of cross-cultural missions. To say something like:

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.

Jan says:

June 5, 2008 at 10:23 am

Recently we took a group of Mexican Christians to the US for a short-term missions trip. We were invited to go to a little Baptist church for supper and to share testimonies with them. At the end of the service the pastor spoke to the church about how humbled he felt and that God had really blown his mind that night by showing him that God was using people from another culture.

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!

Reed says:

June 6, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Wow, that did stir up a bit. Margaret, thanks for your thoughts. No one here desires that any should go without knowing the good news of the gospel. Several of us having spent a great deal of our lives, working towards that end both stateside and abroad. So the first question is covered by an emphatic “YES” to the gospel being shared with them. The larger issue is the “how” is the most effective way? Cultural sensitivity has been grossly under recognized by the western church in its missionary efforts. My times in eastern Europe shortly after the wall fell illustrated this in very sobering ways. Not everyone has the same worldview as that of western evangelicals. Compound that with the reality that their worldview is as deeply ingrained in them as ours is in us. When these clash, communication is virtually impossible. The beauty of the gospel is that it is “trans cultural” but the culture is the context in which it will be understood. When someone encounters the gospel as a 21st century American, they view it through a vastly different lens than an eastern European, or a Chinese farmer or Sub-Saharan nomad. Not to mention when it gets complicated by time, a first century Roman citizen, or 14th century Mongolian. The gospel is the same, but the filters it is both communicated through and received through can be profoundly diverse from one another. One of Greg’s Mexican students could come share the gospel with me in Spanish and it would do me no good since I do not speak the language. Language is just one hurtle to overcome, culture is an even bigger puzzle of which language is just one instrumental key. To illustrate this allow me to cite the second chapter of Acts. Pentecost was the birth of the church and it was set in motion by tongues of fire and people from all over the “known” world of that day hearing it in their own language. God obviously understood the importance of language and providentially insured that the good news would get out in a hurry. The common “culture” that these languages all shared was that of Rome and Judaism. When it left Jerusalem and spread, it was culturally adjusted particularly in regard to the gentiles and you see that later in Acts with Paul’s confrontation with Peter over the gospel not being weighed down by Jewish customs.

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.