And yet another interactivity post:

The spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography contains an article with a concise overview of A. Judson’s life and mission. One of the distinguishing marks of his legacy is his status as the first American missionary. He was sent from the Congregationalist American Board to India and carried with him a letter of introduction addressed to William Carey, the famed English missionary pioneer. Judson was excited about meeting the Baptist missionary and in preparation for dialogue with Carey, he used the voyage to study the differences between the Congregationalist and the Baptist views on water baptism. While studying, Judson, a highly educated man, became convinced of believers baptism and with his wife was baptized by one of Carey’s associates upon arrival in India. The consequence of this action was immense. This meant that Judson would lose financial support from the Congregational missions board, that Judson himself had worked so hard to create. To meet the financial need, Luther Rice, a member of Judson’s missions team was sent back to the United States to promote a new Baptist mission board.

On one hand, the courage of Judson is admirable – he sought the Word of God, interpreted the text, changed his belief based on scripture and allowed his actions to coincide with his beliefs.

On the other hand, one could argue that Judson acted inappropriately – he was sent by the Congregationalists, funded by their sacrifice, commissioned with the laying on of hands and trusted with carrying out the intended mission.

Question:
Were Judson’s actions correct? If you were counseling a young missionary today facing a similar situation, what would you say? The purpose of this question is to critique the ethics of Judson’s course of action and to contemplate the relationship/allegiane a missionary has with his/her sending organization, RATHER than a theological debate concerning water baptism. This is an important issue in our evangelical world where denominational lines have blurred a bit from Judson’s era and cooperation among missions organizations is growing.

I am having a hard thinking about this question because it just seems like it is asking if our obligations should lie in a group of people and their theological convictions or our conscience before God as we look in Scripture. I mean for Judson, what’s his alternative? Once he becomes convinced of believer’s baptism is he to say nothing to his sending group as though nothing had happened? Should Judson lie because he wants to please men? It seems to me that he had no other option but to go in the direction God was leading him and have the integrity enough to say that he had altered slightly theologically. How could any one accuse him of abandoning those who had sent him? That’s like asking whether it was right for Luther to believe in justification by faith and ask the questions he did of Rome. We can’t help what we believe. We either believe it or not. And if we do believe something, we have to be able to undergo the implications that are incumbent with it. I mean, let’s ask the question the other way. Judson was the one going to the field. Was it right for the congregationalists to sever financial support to a man who had the utmost integrity and faith to do what he was doing; a man that made their mission board exist? If there were ever an ethical question to be raised here, I think that would be the most pertinent.

How can you look at this apart from a theological debate? It was a theological issue that divided these people, ridiculous as it was. This wasn’t a mere luxury preference that Judson had which cost him his support unnecessarily. He looked at Scripture and was convinced because he was open to that doctrine. Is that his fault as though he was looking for something to split from the congregationalists over because he was a jerk? I hardly think anyone believes that.

My wife and I thoroughly enjoy the food network. One of the new shows that has aired this year is Ham on the Street hosted by George Duran. I never quite figured it out, but one of the reasons I liked George is because he looked so familiar. I did not figure it out till tonight! He is the Mark Driscoll of the culinary world. Like Piper and Koch, these guys are parallel down the line. George is a French trained chef, so he is generally the highest pedigree in his field, yet has chosen to appeal to the common American regarding some of the oddest and coolest food out there. He has had episodes from gourmet microwaving to banquet style camping. Mark did his undergrad work with a minor in philosophy and chose to narrow his emphasis on epistemology and the historical epistemological shift that took place after the life of Descartes. He has chosen to appeal to the unchurched young culture of Seattle while maintaining a Reformed theological perspective, which is (pardon my bias) the highest pedigree of his field. But more than that, these two guys looks identical. I swear, if Driscoll had a soul patch in his picture to the right there would be no telling them apart.

In the Summer of 1999 I spent 3 weeks in India on a short-term trip and we stayed in 3 different cities (Chenai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad).  This was a trip organized through the Bible institute I had attended that year and was really designed to foster discipleship amongst the teens who were on the trip as we served on the field.  As such I was very limited to expose of the different kinds of ministry present in each of these cities.  Essentially, what we did was music and word-less drama, followed up by a proclamation of the gospel in what usually amounted to a 45-minute presentation.   We did this is a number of contexts, including schools, churches, hospitals, and remote villages.  Yup, that’s right, even remote, impoverished villages.  Talk about out of place.  Would begin by singing a few classic hymns like “Old Rugged Cross”, “Power in the Blood”, and “How Great Thou Art”, one of us whould share a testimony, we would perform two different dramas, and then our leader whould preach a 10-minute sermon that seemed was right out of “Gospel Revival Hour”.

Needless to say, I learned that God can use anything he wants to accomplish his purposes, even if in retrospect they are so cheesy and out of place they make you cringe.  I think there was a number floating around of like 5,000 people that made visible commitments to Christ in our short 3-week trip.  There is surely no way to verify that at all.  But beyond that, I think one interesting thing I took away from that experience is that the groups we worked with there had no real inroad to many of the places we were able to go before the trip.  Because we were from the US and had a “program”, we “reached” more people in a few days then they could in a few years.  I thought that was pretty cool.

Here’s another interactivity post:

PBS television, on the Jim Lehrer New Hour, recently aired (6/28/06) an update on the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Uganda. The program highlighted Uganda as one example of the recent increase in United States funding for AIDS across Sub-Saharan Africa. Those who have followed the global plight of AIDS recall that while other African nations were in denial during the 1980′s Uganda tackled the disease head on with an agressive and comprehensive information and treatment campaign. The basic message is follow the ABC’s, namely:

1. Abstinence
2. Be Faithful
3. Condom

The program has been lauded as the most successful in Africa and served as a model for other nations. The United States has increased its funding for this program, while appealing to the Ugandan government for more emphais to be placed on Abstinence and less on Condom use. Many faith-based groups in Uganda have changed the “C” from condom to CHANGE COMPANY. The program stated that the U.S. is stipulating 1/3 of the finances to be used for abstinence education. Critics say this may be detracting funds from purchasing more anti-viral drugs for those currently infected. To date, there are over 1 million who have contracted the disease and only 30,000 have access to the approprate drug treatments.

Questions:
From a Christian ethical perspective, knowing that some are suffering and dying, is it right to focus funding on abstinence over medical treatment? As evangelicals can we expect abstinence to take root within an uncoverted heart? Should abstinence education over condom distribution be the appropriate plan when dealing with the health of a nation? Some marriages have one spouse who is infected and the other healthy, should abstinence be the message or condom use or another alternative?

This is a phenomenal question and is extremely relevant to the greatest epidemic of our age. First I will say, regardless of the situation, for Christians to expect abstinence to be a ligitimate “approach” toward sex education among non-christians is just out-right foolishness. I don’t say that because I think we should be fornicators, but I think that it is not our place to impose the Law of God upon people and expect that they will be able to fullfil it apart from a regenerative work of the Spirit of God. At best it’s legalism, at worst it does not help the problem. We are having a hard time enough having Christians remain abstinent before marriage. Of course, the problem in Africa with AIDS is that even people who are married and faithful (mostly wives) as well as celibate and abstinent (children) are the greatest victims. AIDS and HIV have worked there way into the family structure in African countries and the most effective strategies to fight against the spread of these diseases are education, medical research, and condom distribution. Even if there wasn’t a single case spread after this year, we would still have to deal with the millions who are ineffected right now, which would lead me to believe that the priority needs to be not on education about abstinence, but medical research and the distribution of common medicines that most people have no access to in Uganda or the rest of Africa.

Maybe I’m just dense, but I’m still trying to figure how much money you need in order to tell people not to have sex. If people are aware of what kind of problem there is with AIDS and how it is contracted, then it seems to me that people would want to take the necessary precautions in order to prevent it. Thus, general education about AIDS/HIV should be the best preventative measure. The information available at DATA’s website (http://www.data.org/) and the One Campaign (http://www.one.org/) offer the best info I have seen on this subject.