Comments on: One of Earth’s Last Uncontacted Tribes Found

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:34:25 +0000

INSERT Homer Simpson quote here:

“DOOOH!!!!”

However, the fact that this particular case was a hoax doesn’t affect the principle of what I stated above.

By: Ben Cotten

Ben Cotten — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:53:53 +0000

Good catch, Emily! That’s crazy. They fooled everybody.

By: Emily Mitchell

Emily Mitchell — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0000

Interesting conversation here. Even more interesting is that the whole “undiscovered tribe” thing was false: http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91536

By: austin

austin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:15:05 +0000

YES we should go to them to preach the Good News, but just like Jeff said, whoever goes should NOT take the culture to them.

By: Reed

Reed — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:25:06 +0000

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.

By: Jan

Jan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:23:39 +0000

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!

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:08:24 +0000

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 â€ last thingâ€ 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 â€œamazonianâ€ to reach the other â€œamazoniansâ€.

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.