I read with interest the apparent discrepancy between Lombaard’s (p25) and Titus’ (p8) views on “tolerance” in relation to missions (Inside Out, July 2003). It could easily be either a healthy sign of diversity within CWM or symptom of widespread confusion.
In the name of tolerance, Titus harshly stigmatized missionaries entering post-war Iraq to proselytize Muslims as “fanatics” or “child of hell”. Lombaard, on the other hand, asserted that if tolerance involves abandoning evangelistic intent, mission becomes impossible. I suspect that muddy definition is to blame.
Tolerance is a virtue if it means showing humility, compassion, and sensitivity to those who disagree with us. Live and let live. However, if tolerance is defined as “having no exclusive claims”, then I submit it is both absurd and self-defeating. Even Titus’ own statement that “None of us alone possesses the whole truth,” is itself an exclusive claim that precludes alternative views. Is he, then, guilty of spreading hate and arrogance?
In reality, my view that Jesus alone possesses the whole truth no more fosters violence against Muslims than his pluralist view fosters violence against evangelical Christians.
Undeniably, Christian mission should involve partnership in resource-sharing. But isn’t “uplifting the quality of life” precisely what these missionaries are doing with their aid and food? The real question is - Should they go beyond political correctness to extend to Iraqis the message of the Son of God who died for our sins?
A tolerant exclusivist from Kuching, Sarawak
Comments