'We Hunt People for Jesus': Are U.S. Soldiers Proselytising in Afghanistan?

Even this idea of approaching people and *not* killing them is inherently colonialist and oppressive.

After this, I fail to see how Muslims are *not* justified in calling America's actions a new crusade.

It's Heather Mercer and Dana Curry all over again, letting the US military rescue them and then crowing all over America about how wonderful the US military was, conflating the Gospel with the violence of the military and destroying the reputation that Jesus called us to have as men and women of peace.

Truth Project is awesome. I have known the Jesus you speak of for more than 32 years now. The Truth Project has only strenghtened and confirmed my faith even more.

I sought the Lord all day for a way to answer the question satifactorily of what was confusing about what I said. It was the word negetive when used with social Christian doctrine. I feel that I owe an apology about using terminology that was unclear. I was speaking not from the world view, but as a Christian. Years ago when my now adult children were in junior high, we had a "Christian" pop culture that embraced a slogan of "What Would Jesus Do?" The Fung blog "Who Would Jesus Shoot?" is a take off of that slogan. As a Christian, I always thought the idea was misguided. What is important is What did Jesus Do? , What is Jesus Doing?, and What will Jesus Do? "What Would Jesus Do?" is subjective and I don't think that we should go there. When the lawyer came to Jesus in Luke 10:27 to ask what must be done to inherit eternal life, Jesus drew him into answering it correctly. You must love the Lord and your neighbor as yourself (in that order). If you do the first, the second comes automatically. If you do the second without the first, that is where I see it negetively. We will mess it up. Actually we can't love our neighbor without loving the Lord. We live in a fallen world and there is no righteousness that can come from us without Him. He wasn't just this nice guy that I should emulate, He is my Lord and my God.

I think I understand where the Chaplain is coming from--there was a thread about this some months ago about a church using militaristic images to inspire its members to witness. The issue, I think, is not in the witnessing or prosletyzing, but the language behind it, using strong militaristic images, especially with relation to those in the military, and especially with the very sensitive cultural and religious issues involved. We who might be familiar with the use of culture to "dress up" the Gospel and inspire people to enthusiastic witness might understand where the Chaplain is coming from, but there is a huge language barrier here that Muslims would not understand, would not find enticing, would find it incredibly offensive, and might further incite more anti-American sentiment. We need to be careful of the language we use.

Yes, and you heard nary a word against gays in all those years of being in these Christian evangelical churches, then on top of that you extrapolate it to the whole evangelical experience (I am referring to your past posts on this blog, of course) and then you say that you are misunderstood. Your credibility really is wanting.

I think a fair reading of my original post made it abundantly clear I oppose the US intervention in Afghanistan and believe it fundamentally makes it more difficult to give witness to Jesus' love. I only commented on what the video actually showed and did not show. The dynamics of the issues and relationships are complex and widely varied. Really my point is not much more than noticing that whether or not scriptures are on the floor has little meaning.

When a soldier calls his child to see how she is doing in school and tells his wife he loves her--he is a soldier and is not responding to military orders. When a soldier attends chapel, she is a soldier, and is not responding to military authority. When soldiers sit around and play cards they are not responding to military orders. When soldiers play soccer with a group of kids they are not responding to military orders. They have lives that extend beyond the parameters of their military obligations. Chaplains play unique roles. An analogy would be that of a military psychologist. The psychologist might deal with a soldier regarding their core military duties or might discuss how things are at home. A chaplain covers the full range--including opportunities for religious expression, worship and spiritual formation. The video shows nothing more than soldiers having access to about 20 scriptures to give as gifts--if they desire. If Afghanistan sent a
contingent of soldiers to help keep peace in New Orleans after Katrina, and you struck up an ongoing conversation with a soldier you would see every few days at the local park in his off hours, and he asked if you would be interested in a Koran--would you really find offense. I almost take your high level of offense as disrespect to Afghan people who might actually be interested in reading scripture--or might actually have the mental capacity to know if they are interested.

what about Jesus

Truth Project is awesome. I have known the Jesus you speak of for more than 32 years now. The Truth Project has only strenghtened and confirmed my faith even more.

I think a fair reading of my original post made it abundantly clear I oppose the US intervention in Afghanistan and believe it fundamentally makes it more difficult to give witness to Jesus' love. I only commented on what the video actually showed and did not show. The dynamics of the issues and relationships are complex and widely varied. Really my point is not much more than noticing that whether or not scriptures are on the floor has little meaning.

"You compass land and sea to make one proselyte, and he becomes twofold more a child of hell than yourself." Is that in the Bible, or did I just make it up?

That's there--It was Jesus' woes to the Pharisees.

The American public does not understand how the perception of Christianity and the message of Jesus has been distorted by the syncretism of American Patriotism and Christianity. Witness this quote by Mahatma Ghandi:

"I ask my Christian brethren...not to take their Christianity as it is interpreted in the West. There, we know, they fight with one another as never before. After all, Jesus was an Asiatic depicted as wearing the Arabian flowing robe. He was the essence of meekness. I hope that the Christians of India will express in their lives Jesus the crucified, of the Bible, and not as interpreted in the West with her blood-stained fingers. I have no desire to criticize the West. I know and value the many virtues of the West. But I am bound to point out that Jesus of Asia is misrepresented in the West except in individuals (mkgandhi.org)."

Because of the poor representation of Christianity by the West we see more and more the development of "Churchless Christianity": those who love Jesus but reject the Christianity of the West. Hence we have Hindu and Muslim insider movements, the Chinese house church movement, and the African Independent Churches movement.

We need to make it apparent to the world that Christians do not maintain cultural hegemony over this country (the USA) and therefore Jesus and his true disciples are not responsible for the horrific acts of our leaders. By divorcing Christianity from the social, political, cultural, military, and economic "exports" of the United States, the message of the gospel can be freed from the negative associations it has with Western American culture.

But you are now just proposing a social Christian doctrine. To me that is a negative message against the truth to which Jesus came to bear witness. Are we discussing the same Jesus and the same Gospel?

What do you mean? What do you consider the social Christian doctrine? Why is that a negative message? How is that against the truth of what Jesus came to bear witness to? Please elaborate. Thanks.

Could you answer my questions, please? Your statements are confusing. Thanks.

I now see that we are talking about two quite different things. When I look at descriptions of the rationale for the US presence in Afghanistan, I see words like 'military force', battles, war. Never does the phrase 'peace keepers' appear. And yet you use a description of Afghani soldiers as peace keepers in New Orleans possibly leading to an offer of a Koran and comparable to American soldiers in Afghanistan offering a Bible. I suggest you find and talk with people from countries that have been occupied by other countries' armies and ask them how that made them feel. In my experience, these folks have felt that the foreign army is an arm of imperialism--from a country that is convinced that it knows better than the residents how the residents should live.

In fact, if you are a member of the military, you do NOT operate from the context of your own family. You operate from the context of a military structure that gives orders from military officers that you are required to obey. The military are in Afghanistan in response to the government's political and military goals; they have not been sent to Afghanistan to evangelize. By the way the soldiers live their lives they may show how their Christian convictions drive their actions (tho what a civilian shot by a soldier might think of that soldier who claims to be a Christian is a question to consider). I am deeply offended by the way the chaplain challenges inherently challenges the military purpose.

That's a Mao thing isn't it/

Hi Heather,
How do you define proselytizing? How is it different from 'witnessing'? Do mainline protestants and evangelicals have very different understandings of what it means to 'witness'? An evangelical's emphasis on faith and belief/salvation as the starting point (though not necessarily the be all end all, or the only important thing) would mean that the gospel is spread not only through works, but by, very often, giving out Bibles/sharing religious convictions.
I know Sojo is primarily a theologically progressive publication, and I'm sure most progressive Christians would disagree with the evangelical framework of Christianity- and I know I might get many answers pointing out to me why evangelical Christianity is narrow-minded, concerned with Empire and not Jesus' Kingdom, and 'not what Jesus had in mind'.
Don't get me wrong-- the fact that militarism is so closely tied up with their efforts to 'witness' is troubling. And in my head, although I can't say where the line lies, it has crossed the fine line between proselytising and witnessing. But is there a way for evangelicals to work with the tension between tolerance, respect and love for the Other, recognition of the troubled history of Western Cultural Imperialism, and their belief that Jesus' love for the Other lies in knowing him as Lord and supernatural Savior, and all that jazz?
Peace

Conversion at the point of a gun is as honest as a confession at the point of a gun.

"and makes the feared Other part of the family."

Well written! Thank you for such a beautiful piece!

That's there--It was Jesus' woes to the Pharisees.

Even this idea of approaching people and *not* killing them is inherently colonialist and oppressive.

After this, I fail to see how Muslims are *not* justified in calling America's actions a new crusade.

It's Heather Mercer and Dana Curry all over again, letting the US military rescue them and then crowing all over America about how wonderful the US military was, conflating the Gospel with the violence of the military and destroying the reputation that Jesus called us to have as men and women of peace.