2 of 3

Van Biema lets this point drop with little commentary, and it's probably for the best. His piece is already 5,500 words long, and exploring evangelicals and Mideast peace would require several thousand more. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that American evangelicals—especially American evangelical missionaries—aren't very concerned with how their work will affect American foreign policy. They believe the end of such policy is to promote justice and freedom, and to free the oppressed (whether from political or economic oppression). Similarly, they view their task as doing this same work directly: feeding the hungry, serving the poor, and freeing oppressed—but here the emphasis is spiritual oppression. Therefore, while evangelicals see the benefit of bolstering a moderate Islam against, say, Wahhabism, ultimately they view both as forms of spiritual bondage.

It's also worth noting that supplanting the Muslims' view of "Americans as purveyors of trash culture and libertinism" with the view of the missionaries portrayed in this article would not necessarily be a bad thing. There's no "holy war" talk among the evangelists quoted here, and it's abundantly clear that none are operating as agents of the American state. What comes through is their love for Muslims, not a hatred for Islam. "In addition to the Christian Gospel, which they consider their most precious gift, they have channeled millions of dollars in aid and put in countless hours of charitable work," Van Biema writes.

Furthermore, the conception that all Muslims are automatically opposed to Christian missionaries may need adjustment. Witness the story of Martin and Gracia Burnham. Their extremist Muslim captors were not opposed to their missions work. "Actually, they were impressed with us because we were reaching people who knew nothing about God," Gracia Burnham toldChristianity Today. "We were working with them, telling them about the one true God." The Abu Sayyaf was much more hostile to the other American, Guillermo Sobero, since he was seen as sexually loose. (Of course, if the Burnhams had been more involved in missions to Filipino Muslims, the Abu Sayyaf might have had a different attitude.)

Certainly critics can find things to quibble with in this article. The main critic quoted, When Religion Becomes Evil author Charles Kimball, doesn't have his attitudes examined quite as rigorously as the evangelicals do, and Van Biema could have noted that Kimball believes "absolute truth claims" are a warning sign of corruption in religion and is critical of all missions work (except for the silent witness of presence demonstrated by the Mideast's dwindling indigenous churches).

Similarly, Van Biema suggests that Presbyterian and Methodist workers in the Middle East have obeyed "local antiproselytizing laws and [focus] on building educational and charitable institutions and providing humanitarian" rather than engage in enthusiastic evangelism because they have spent a long time in these countries. In fact, that their "zeal is often tempered" has less to do with revelations experienced overseas than with those denominations' liberal drift here in the U.S.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

June (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47