Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Missionaries in Islamic countries stand the test of Time
Back in April, when the conservative media got hold of an internal Time magazine assignment memo to reporters outlining a major story on Christian missions work in Islamic countries, they pretty much freaked.

World magazine called it "a sensational cover piece" that could expose missionaries to "imprisonment, torture, or death." Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus similarly reported that "the slow, painful progress of evangelism in these countries could be significantly hindered" by the piece.

WorldNetDaily columnist Craige McMillan seemed ready to storm the gates of AOL Time Warner. "In an era when most mainline media outlets have abandoned reporting the news in favor of channeling public opinion in the hope of directing events, Time's approach stands out as particularly insidious," he wrote. "God is increasingly sifting nations and people—indeed, the whole world. … It is His intent to find where our loyalties lie. With this decision, Time has left no doubt into which camp they fall. Time's battle is now with God."

Now that readers are finally able to judge Time by its fruits, writers like McMillan may be eating some crow. David Van Biema's piece, "Should Christians Convert Muslims?" gives missionaries pseudonyms and doesn't mention the countries where they're working. There's nothing new here that will put missionaries in danger of violence or expulsion. (In fact, much of this ground was covered in Christianity Today's September 2002 cover story, "Doors into Islam.")

But what is new—at least in the mainstream media—is the informed, fair, honest, and accurate reporting of evangelical attitudes and debates on this subject. "Evangelicals assert again and again that their message is based in love," Van Biema writes.

They are far better informed and more actively concerned than the average American citizen about the Islamic world's material needs, and their desire to share Christ springs in the main from a similarly generous impulse. Claims that Christian aid groups engage in charity as a "cover" for proselytizing do a disservice to the sometimes heroic humanitarian efforts by workers who believe that Christians should heed not just Jesus' message of salvation but also his example as a feeder and a healer. Yet there should be no question that while most evangelical missionaries love Muslims, they hope to replace Islam. Some cringed at [Franklin] Graham's "evil and wicked" description, but their critique was more about tone than substance.

There are, however, substantive critiques of how evangelism is done in these countries, and here Van Biema demonstrates the depth of his reporting.

"Many [evangelical missionaries] show exquisite sensitivity, sharing their Lord only with people whose intimate friendships they have earned," he writes. "But there remains a troubling contingent of indeterminate size that combines religious arrogance with political ignorance." That contingent (often consisting of untrained short-term missionaries) isn't just troubling to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations—it's troubling to long-term missionaries and mission agencies.

"There is a lot more good than bad," says Robert Seiple. "But what I discovered is that well-intended people have in many, many cases eroded the message they were trying to communicate through inappropriate methodologies. Persecution results, and there are times you wish they had stayed home."

But Van Biema isn't writing for Christianity Today, so his concerns are broader than simply what this kind of missions work means for religious aid agencies and the Great Commission. "Missionaries often complain of suffering from an overall Muslim perception of Americans as purveyors of trash culture and libertinism," he writes. "But with the newly aggressive wave of evangelicals and the newly sensitive situation in the Middle East, the shoe may be on the other foot: the missionaries may actually affect the way the Muslim world understands America. … Sufficiently amplified, it could also presumably complicate American efforts to bolster moderate Islam in the Middle East. The Administration, however, does not see it that way."

next page... |  1 of 3

June (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47