English
Korean
Spanish
I read the story of Yousef Nadarkhani, a pastor in Iran who is possibly facing execution for becoming a Christian, with a combination of outrage and heartache. Nadarkhani is closing in on three years behind bars for being of resolute conscience on this matter. The plight of Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese man (I don’t know if he’s a Christian) who has been brutally treated and imprisoned by his country for over seven years because he has spoken out against forced abortions and sterilizations in that country, similarly offends civilized people. Bombing Christian churches, attempts at wiping out Christian tribes, arrests of pastors and whole churches, slavery, forced starvation—all these things make some people avoid reading the news.
Perhaps, I think, it’s time for Secretary of State Clinton to come home rather than affirm the barbarous behavior of the Chinese government. Maybe the SEALS could rescue imprisoned pastors. Could we extend economic sanctions to countries that have behaved as horribly as Fidel Castro ever dreamed of doing? Would that work?
While I do believe our nation should always use its influence to uphold life and liberty, we will not and cannot end persecution of this sort. It’s wrong thinking to believe the situation is politically solvable. Like the absurd Occupy Movement, we tend to forget that corporate bodies of individuals are actually made up of individuals. Governments and companies, even the worst of them, are led by and served by individual willing actors. These actors, at their most offensive, are doing what seems right according to their own view of the world. Perhaps they behave the way our pagan ancestors would have done if they had sufficient power. What changed? How is it that the brutal tribes of our forebears (pick your continent or country and I’m talking about you) ended up building a country that recognizes the God-given rights of all men? These changes were not effected by Roman legions, Enlightenment thinking, Colonial minutemen, the Industrial Revolution, or even U.S. Marines.
No, my own barbarian ancestors were conquered by something they picked up when they invaded southern Europe about 1,700 years ago. As they plundered Rome, many that hadn’t already heard the Christian gospel carried it away along with new wives, slaves, priests, and other booty. It changed them in a way the legions of Rome could never do. In fact, this gospel had already greatly changed even those legions.
Our current crop of barbarians have already been infected I think. Imagine Yousef Nadarkhani’s jailors and judges, talking with him, perhaps mistreating him for nearly three years. In the face of that he responds, “I cannot,” how many, 900 times? Have those most personally involved with him ever seen this kind of resolve before? It calls to mind with hope the testimony of Paul that some of his jailors in Rome had come to believe. We know that many, perhaps millions of Chinese men and women have followed Christ while living in a harsh and atheist country. The lives, even the suffering of these believers has an impact on even the beast that hates them most.
No, I do not believe Iran will necessarily become a mostly Christian nation or that the power of the gospel will certainly transform China into a benevolent democracy. I do think the gospel sticks to those who punch Christians.
Our Embrace strategy, the effort to impact every tribe of mankind with the gospel, is the answer to the outrages most of us observe from a distance. As we chip away at the 3,000 groups that do not yet include one Christian, barbarians and the future leaders of barbarians will inevitably become something else. Outrages may proliferate as the gospel offends those who reject it, but maybe that means more gospel-laden Christians to punch, with all the risk that action suggests. Some of those Christians will be Baptists. Your kids, mine may find themselves in a bad place influencing bad men in a way no parent wishes for. It’s not a thought I think lightly.
But consider this. Most of us would accept that some world problems are appropriately addressed by sending Winston Churchill’s “rough men” to conquer a tyrant who cannot be contained by more gentle means. In theory, most of us would accept that our wealth and our precious kin will have to be risked, maybe expended to make that happen. Some of us have willingly but sorrowfully done so. But the gospel addresses, and eternally, more problems than does even justly administered force. Are we willing to give, send, and go at great loss to ourselves to more effectively address the outrages of a corrupt world? Why are military sacrifices more comprehensible to us than missionary ones?
I write this knowing that precious friends live in hard places for the sake of the gospel, and understanding that my daughter is missions bound. The world is a threatening place into which to send the righteous—all of it is. Our churches must take seriously the opportunities we have to “infect” the darkness of the world with the gospel we carry. Some of this will be done through believers who live abroad for some non-religious vocation. A good bit may be done through church groups that come for short periods of time. Significant work can be done as horrible situations in faraway places drive members of groups formerly unengaged by the gospel to a more open location—Texas maybe. And we will always need to send those who are prepared to do this gospel work for the rest of their lives.
While Christians are being persecuted in various places around our world, the gospel is spreading. Our sorrow over the human suffering can be redirected into a determination to kick at the darkness in a way that wounds it forever. For now, and from this free country, even through this denomination, we have that opportunity. Have you considered ways that your church can embrace a lost and unengaged people group? Hurry, there are only 3,000 or so people groups left to claim.
