 |
(L) N. Sentinelese man aiming an arrow at a helicopter photographer
(R) Missionary John Allen Chau
|
By now you surely have heard the sad story of the young missionary, John Allen Chau, who lost his life to a native arrow while trying to approach the people of North Sentinel Island in the Bay of Bengal. The 15-400 people who live there have pronounced themselves "off limits" by their own violent behavior, ratified by the laws of India, which prohibit approaching within three miles of the island.
The responses in print and social media to Chau's evangelism and resulting martyrdom, have been especially caustic. Some deny that he is a martyr, judging him "stupid, arrogant and reckless." One blogger noted that the Life Magazine coverage of the similar deaths of Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, Pete Fleming and Nate Saint in 1956 was at least respectful of their heartfelt desire to bring the Christian gospel to the isolated, violent and cannibalistic Ecuadorian Auca tribe. Little of that earlier era's tolerance has been offered to Chau, who has been criticized for "colonial behavior," and "exposing the tribe to disease." They blame the victim for "inviting aggression" and "asking for something to happen" (#MeToo notwithstanding). Their vitriol is reminiscent of the cruel remarks after the death of college student Otto Warmbier at the hands of the North Koreans.
Perhaps most shocking have been the comments from some Progressive Christians and "enlightened evangelicals" who exhibit no shame in scolding Chau for being "ill informed" (how would they know?); for not spending "years studying their language" (how could he?); being "arrogant and unethical," (such judgment from eyes blinded by their own logs). They wag the bony finger that Chau "lacked humility," and come close to blasphemy in their certitude that the Holy Spirit would never lead someone to approach a culture in such a "direct and unwelcome" way. In the Bible that I read, Jesus was direct in his approach to a diseased and corrupt culture - and was so unwelcome that they killed Him too.
The four main points of agreement from all camps seem to be (1) that the Sentinelese are some kind of second-generation, pure-of-heart Adams and Eves living an idyllic life in a romantic Eden that is worthy of being "protected" - even at the cost of human life - from the horrors and pollution of the modern world; (2) that the Indian government is justified in using the force of law to keep the rest of the world from contacting them; (3) that the Sentinelese were justified in using lethal violence to "protect" themselves from a young man, coming in peace, "armed" with only a Bible; and (4) that Chau was "reckless" in exposing the tribe to his germ-laden presence, which would surely lead to the extermination of the tribe.
This weird romanticizing of the person and life of the "noble savage" has been at the forefront of every effort to marginalize and steal from non-white cultures since the dawn of Western civilization. What are we stealing from the Sentinelese? For starters, besides the Gospel: unheard music and unseen beauty, the miracles of modern medicine, literacy in their own language, the unknown history of their fellow human beings, the concepts of justice, mercy and fidelity, running water, electricity, ice-cream, the Aurora Borealis and peace with The Other.
And how are they being marginalized? India has declared itself to be the self-appointed protector of a people who use murder as their main point of contact with the civilized world. Why is the government of a civilized nation protecting a group of people - not, mind you, a civilization - that has demonstrated that it is a petri dish for a human vice that humanity has sought to eradicate in all cultures?
And what of Chau's disease-bearing recklessness? Perhaps medical science could mitigate any long-lasting harm, but that will never happen without the Christian influence, because India is a Hindu nation. There is no provision in the karmic thought world and way of life that aids the sick, helpless and downtrodden. Reincarnation must be relied upon. Suffering must not be alleviated, lest in the next life the sufferer will be consigned to an even lower state, as if that were possible. But perhaps Chau took a calculated risk that the Christians of the medical world would not leave them without aid.
The reason the romanticizing of the Sentinelese is cruel and not kind, is that telling the truth in love means pointing out that the Sentinelese - like all human beings, no matter their location or situation - are already diseased unto death. This is a Christian concept, but their behavior should prove its objective truth, even to the secular world.
Perhaps their tiny island is exactly like Eden - polluted by the Fall, evidenced by their lives of narrow scarcity, intolerance, exclusion and violence. To stretch the point, like the original Adam and Eve, what is needed is expulsion from living in their own rot. This is not a pretty picture, but human beings are not malleable according to our imaginations - they are real and they are suffering, and the world is forming a virtue-signaling circle around them so that they will not have to touch them. Remember, India is also the home of a class of people known among the cultural elite as the "Untouchables".
The main thing denied to the Untouchables is community. Clearly, the Sentinelese are being treated as Untouchables, even as it is coyly called, "protection." They are being denied the community of humankind, because humanity refuses to deem them "human like us," when in fact we are more like them than we are willing to admit. Give me a spear and a line in the sand and watch me prove it.
The mere presence of the suffering tribe serves as an unwelcome reminder that, as fellow human beings, we share every deviant, exclusionary, violent trait that they have, we also aim our weapon towards the sky, and we all deserve to be banished to a desert island to protect the world from us.
Do I go too far? What about the refusal of the ruling elites and celebrities of the Western world - especially those who insist that they know better than their Creator - who refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child in the womb is a human being, with the same origins, proclivities and destinies that they have? What about their unwavering insistence that those millions be isolated forever by death in the womb, so that we will not be reminded that we also were once where they are, distinct in our selves and secure in our superior destinies (as opposed to simple luck)? What about the pearl-clutching eugenicists who insist that they are "protecting" the unborn from being born and unwanted? Unwanted by whom? Unwanted by them, because as long as the "originals" are allowed to exist, by comparison they are exposed as the imposters they are. We aim our weapons at the unborn because the very purity of their existence exposes our depravity.
The Gospel compelled Chau to go to the isolated tribe bearing the gift of human and divine community. The gift of welcome into the circle of humanity, the gift that invites everyone into eternal fellowship with God. It is the Gospel that compels us to welcome The Other - all other members of the human family, born and unborn - because it is not good for us to be alone. We are neither strangers nor orphans. We are those whom God so loves. Without God, we should not fear disease because we are already infected and born dead. We are in need of healing and rescue. We need no protection from God nor babes. It's time to lay down our weapons and call out from the shoreline, "Hosanna! Save us, we pray!" (Psalm 118:25) Jesus saves.
No comments:
Post a Comment