Plans Under Way for Christianizing the Enemy

Two leading evangelical Christian missionary organizations said Tuesday that they have teams of workers poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of a large Muslim population.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and the Rev. Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse said workers are near the Iraq border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's second largest religion.

Both organizations said their priority will be to provide food, shelter and other needs to Iraqis ravaged by recent war and years of neglect. But if the situation presents itself, they will also share their Christian faith in a country that's estimated to be 98 percent Muslim and about 1 percent Christian.

"We go where we have the opportunity to meet needs," said Ken Isaacs, international director of projects for Samaritan's Purse, located in Boone, N.C. "We do not deny the name of Christ. We believe in sharing him in deed and in word. We'll be who we are."

Mark Kelly, a spokesman for the Southern Baptists' International Mission Board, said $250,000 has already been spent to provide immediate needs, such as blankets and baby formula. Much more will follow, along with a more overt spiritual emphasis.

"Conversations about spiritual things will come about as people ask about our faith," said Kelly, based in Richmond, Va. "It's not going to be like what you might see in other countries where there's a preaching service held outside clinics and things like that."

Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, is urging caution for the two groups, as well as other evangelical organizations planning to go into Iraq.

"Evangelicals need to be sensitive to the circumstances of this country and its people," said Cizik, based in Washington, D.C. "If we are perceived as opportunists we only hurt our cause. If this is seen as religious freedom for Iraq by way of gunboat diplomacy, is that helpful? I don't think so. If that's the perception, we lose."

Graham, the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, has been less diplomatic about Islam than his father has been. Two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Franklin Graham called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" during an interview on NBC, the television network. In his book published last year, "The Name," Graham wrote that "The God of Islam is not the God of the Christian faith." He went on to say that "the two are different as lightness and darkness."

On the eve of the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis last year, the Rev. Jerry Vines, a former denomination president, told several thousand delegates that Islam's Allah is not the same as the God worshipped by Christians. "And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah, either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist," Vines said.

Widespread condemnation of those comments followed from other Protestant leaders as well as from Catholic and Jewish groups. The Graham and Vines statements even created a problem for President Bush, who has called Islam a "religion of peace."

Bush, an evangelical Christian himself, has close ties to both Franklin Graham, who gave a prayer at his inauguration, and Southern Baptists, who are among his most loyal political supporters.

Isaacs, who works for Franklin Graham, refused to comment about his boss' views of Islam, except to say, "most of Franklin's work is to the Muslim world and those are sincere acts of love, concern and compassion."

In a written statement, Graham said: "As Christians, we love the Iraqi people, and we are poised and ready to help meet their needs. Our prayers are with the innocent families of Iraq, just as they are with our brave soldiers and leaders."

Isaacs said Samaritan's Purse has assembled a team of nine Americans and Canadians that includes veterans of war-relief projects in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Rwanda and Somalia. The teams include a doctor, an engineer and a water specialist.

They will bring resources that include a system that can provide drinking water for up to 20,000 people, material to build temporary shelters for more than 4,000 families, packages of household items for 5,000 families, and kits designed to meet the general medical needs of 100,000 people for three months.

So far, there's no budget for the effort because it's so fluid, said Jeremy Blume, a Samaritan's Purse spokesman, but donors are being asked to help. A Southern Baptist fund-raising drive is under way to help underwrite the cost, Kelly said. Both groups said only private donations have funded their plans thus far, with no government assistance in the works.

Southern Baptists, representing a denomination of 16 million members, have workers in Jordan waiting to help refugees. But so far, few refugees have arrived, perhaps because it's still too difficult for much of the population to maneuver between warring militaries on their way to the border, Kelly said.

Baptist Men, a national organization devoted to providing disaster relief work, has promised to send volunteers from the United States "on a moment's notice," Kelly said.

As soon as they gain access to northern Iraq, teams will go, Kelly said, with plans of feeding up to 10,000 or more people a day.

"The hope is that as the war front moves and the situation in the outlying areas improves, we'll be able to send mobile teams in.

"Our understanding of relief ministries is that anytime you give a cup of cold water in the name of Jesus you've shared God's love in a real physical way. That also raises the question as to why you did that. When people ask you, you explain that it's because of the love of God that has been poured out into my life and I have a deep desire that you know that same love as well."

"Anka" - or can I call you Paul?

i know it hurts sometimes to think.

Thanks for confirming your own personal crutch, but I'd suggest that's either due to disuse or the deteriorating effects of the drugs and HP Lovecraft books. Here's a toy you can make and play with, while you recover from the pain of typing out that last, longer-than-usual post of yours. That way, you can entertain yourself while the adults finish their conversation.

instructions

My assertion is...Without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain.

You ask, how do I define "very difficult" and "impossible". Very difficult means that it will only happen a few times in a hundred tries. Impossible means that it has never been done, and cannot be done. Depending on how you define 'democracy' and 'sustain', it has not been done so far.

I have already explained how the two examples you give from ancient history do not fit the bill of a nation state with a lasting republican form of government. The vast majority of people under Roman authority, including the half of the population that were female, did not enjoy anything like a representative form of government. It was a broad based oligarchy where the 135 families of the partician class made the decisions until the emperor came along.

Take all the nations of the world in the last 5,ooo years. Divide them into Judeo-Chrtistian and Other. Then record the number of years each member nation of each group have had a form of government where the majority of the people living in their boundaries were allowed to make policy or select the people who do.

The plain conclusion of such a tally would be 1) Democracy is rare and 2) It is practically non-existent outside of a Juedeo-Christian framework. If you did such a tally just using governments in operation today whose government form has been unchanged for 100 years the result would be the same.

Your two questionalbe exceptions do not prove my rule false, quite the contrary, they highlight the strength of my position. To undermine the God of the Bible is to undermine self-government.

Who cares what will be said. It **is** said that this war is for Iraq's oil. It **is** said that we simply want to occupy and take over Iraq. It **is** said that this war is becasue Bush couldn't be an effective diplomat. All of which are false. Simply becasue people will make false statements doesn't mean that one should run from them.

Yes, all of these things are said, and to the extent that they affect the cooperation of the Iraqi people, they are all challenges against which our forces must perform.

The last thing that we need at this fragile time in a region of religious fanatics, is a religious cause against which they can mobilize. It is true, of course, that we do not intend anything wrong, but truth is not at issue, perception is.

There will be a time when the Word can be actively spread in Iraq, but this is definitely not that time. In a way, you are correct that it doesn't matter what is said. It does matter what the Iraqi people believe, because it will determine when, and whether some of our troops come home.

>Thanks for confirming your own personal crutch, but I'd suggest that's either due to disuse or the deteriorating effects of the drugs and HP Lovecraft books. Here's a toy you can make and play with, while you recover from the pain of typing out that last, longer-than-usual post of yours.

thanks for confirming your fondness and knowledge of legos while continuing to offer nothing of value to the discussion.

>That way, you can entertain yourself while the adults finish their conversation.

i'll keep up the adult conversation while being entertained by your nonsensical posts.

cheers.

anka

>My assertion is...Without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain.

>You ask, how do I define "very difficult" and "impossible". Very difficult means that it will only happen a few times in a hundred tries. Impossible means that it has never been done, and cannot be done. Depending on how you define 'democracy' and 'sustain', it has not been done so far.

so your assertion is based on an unproven test?

>I have already explained how the two examples you give from ancient history do not fit the bill of a nation state with a lasting republican form of government. The vast majority of people under Roman authority, including the half of the population that were female, did not enjoy anything like a representative form of government. It was a broad based oligarchy where the 135 families of the partician class made the decisions until the emperor came along.

and it took close to a century for our government to grant the right to vote to former slaves and women.

>Take all the nations of the world in the last 5,ooo years. Divide them into Judeo-Chrtistian and Other. Then record the number of years each member nation of each group have had a form of government where the majority of the people living in their boundaries were allowed to make policy or select the people who do.

i don't have my almanac handy so bear with me...

'judeo-christian democracies':
Israel
United States
Great Britian
Brazil
Argentina
Mexico
etc... etc...

'Non judeo-christian democracies'
India
Taiwan
Japan
Bosnia
Djibouti
Qatar
Sri Lanka
Turkey
Roman Republic
Greek (Athenian) Democracy
etc... etc...

i'll let you do the work of tallying the number of years each country has had a democratic form of government.
since you're so adamant about your false presumption.
do some research and prove otherwise.

>Your two questionalbe exceptions do not prove my rule false, quite the contrary, they highlight the strength of my position.

ahh, something doesn't fit nicely with your presumption so it is automatically questionable. you can go to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/ to begin your research. i'd be interested in the results (sincerely)

>To undermine the God of the Bible is to undermine self-government.

tell it to Taiwan, and Bahrain, and Qatar, and Japan, and Djibouti...
...

cheers.

anka

First of all the LDS Church only sends missionaries where they are allowed to go. That means if a country doesn’t wanted proselytizing, then they will not send missionaries. That means because currently all Islamic nations do not allow missionaries in, they do not have a “presence”. Although there have been cases where the LDS Church has sent massive amounts of aide to Islamic nations such as Afghanistan, and also a lot of aide is being prepped to be sent to Iraq.

The LDS Church has a presence in Jerusalem (Israel) with the BYU Jerusalem Center. It is currently closed right now due to the violent conflicts. Part of the agreement with being able to build the Jerusalem Center was that any people staying there would not be allowed to proselytize, even if they were asked specifically to tell more about the Church. The LDS Church also made an agreement with the Israeli government that no Israelis would be baptized into the Church.

The LDS Church does care about non-Christians, and are in many countries where Christianity is not the norm. My brother is currently serving in Thailand and has met numerous people who have not even heard of Christ. But the only reason missionaries are currently there is because the government has allowed them, the LDS Church will not use deception to gain a foothold in a country. Currently there are “Humanitarian Missionaries” from the LDS Church in China, they have been allowed in by the government but are currently not allowed to proselytize. Because there are many denominations that chose to ignore the Chinese Government’s wishes proselytizing Christianity is still not allowed there.

On a different topic, I find it really interesting how so many people are so adamant about the persecution of the LDS Church, some of these people say they are Christians, but if you ask me their actions are not very Christ-like. I guess the LDS Church must be doing something really right if the adversary must work so hard to persecute it.

Your list of current 'Non judeo-christian democracies'
India
Taiwan
Japan
Bosnia
Djibouti
Qatar
Sri Lanka
Turkey

Your own source lists Quatar as a TRADITIONAL MONARCHY.

The French Territory of the Afars and the Issas became Djibouti in 1977. A peace accord in 1994 ended a three-year uprising by Afars rebels. Hardly an example of "sustained self-government". And what self-government they had was likely a result of their experience with France.

Bosnia is NOT an example of sustained self governemnt, even if it is half orthodox Christian. It is a UN created and sustained unnatural act.

Tawain has only been around since 1950, and has endured one party rule until three years ago.

Sri Lanka was granted independence by the Brits in about 1950. Despite the advantage of being a colony of a great government, it has been locked in an ethnic civil war ever since.

Turkey has a defacto oligarchy (the military) that overturns decisions when the voters 'decide wrong'. They have been around 70 years. Let's see how they are doing in seven more, if the Islamacists that won the last election continue to get their way.

Japan and India are the only two half-decent examples on your list. They would be a lot more impressive if both had not inherited their goverments less than 60 years ago from the Christian nations that ruled them. Japan is already a basketcase as government-business cronyism has destroyed their once powerful economy.

The idea that you have these absurd examples to counter Great Britain, France, Italy, Israel, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, the USA, Brazil, etc... shows how wildly wrong you are.

>Your own source lists Quatar as a TRADITIONAL MONARCHY.

i'm generous. i like throwing bones ;-)

>And what self-government they had was likely a result of their experience with France.

of course. fits nicely with your presumption.

>Tawain has only been around since 1950, and has endured one party rule until three years ago.

50 years of democracy. the people have decided.

>Sri Lanka was granted independence by the Brits in about 1950. Despite the advantage of being a colony of a great government, it has been locked in an ethnic civil war ever since.

that's another 50 years of democracy... keep up the research.

>Turkey has a defacto oligarchy (the military) that overturns decisions when the voters 'decide wrong'. They have been around 70 years. Let's see how they are doing in seven more, if the Islamacists that won the last election continue to get their way.

seems to be working out ok for them.

>Japan and India are the only two half-decent examples on your list. They would be a lot more impressive if both had not inherited their goverments less than 60 years ago from the Christian nations that ruled them. Japan is already a basketcase as government-business cronyism has destroyed their once powerful economy.

speaking of government-business cronyism and economies...

>The idea that you have these absurd examples to counter Great Britain, France, Italy, Israel, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, the USA, Brazil, etc... shows how wildly wrong you are.

and how many of the above mentioned countries where monarchies and for how long before becoming 'democracies'?
religion alone is not the reason or answer for governance.

and what about those ancient greeks who first thought of the mountian which we sit so high upon?

cheers.

anka

I take it you are Orthodox then, or perhaps Coptic?

ONe can only hope that you are right and I am wrong on this, as Europe is now a post-Christain culture. America is headed that way. If self-government is difficult or impossible to sustain absent a Judeo-Christian worldview then we will be headed for tyranny within a generation or two.

It may be a 'soft tyranny' of the nanny state, with the illusion of choice between two parties who will implement the same policies and control the masses through manipulation of the mass media.

RE: Post 313:

Jorge: "But this is the expressed intention (converting people to Christianity)"

el: No, they are going in to preach Christ crucified ('go ye into all the world and preach the gospel...'). To most, this will be a stumbling block or foolishness.

Jorge: Huh? So this means the intention of evangelists in NOT that people should be converted to Christianity? Your kidding right?

Anyone who brings the Gospel would love for the hearer to be saved (converted). No believer wants anyone to go to hell.
The point is that all we can do is bring the Gospel. We can't argue anyone into Heaven. We can only offer the Word of Life and Truth - but God does the converting.
These missionaries assuredly will sow the seeds by spreading the Gospel - in addition to bringing medical and other relief. But they usually won't know what seeds take. Some who hear may react with open hostility, but yet reflect on what they heard - and by the grace of God, come to the Lord years later. You never know. I think this is illustrated well in the following passage:

Matt 21:28-31
28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first.

We are priviliged to bring the Word - and we can take confidence in the words of Isaiah 55:11:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

In summation, the Missionaries will bring medical, health, and other relief. But they will bring something more precious - the offer of eternal life. These missionaries will understand that most won't accept this offer, but they will also understand that some who seem to reject - really will have been saved - and there is much joy in the knowledge that as sowers of the Word they served as a precious instrument in the salvation of the lost.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.