Blog post no 3: Do missionaries destroy culture?

At first I was not really sure if missionaries did spoil culture though I was leaning a bit towards the idea that they do. When you see countries and their historical buildings, songs, prayers, whatever; culture is based around the religion and the religion around the culture. I think that religion and culture go hand in hand. You wouldn’t find ancient Buddhist temples in England or paintings or carvings of Christ in the caves of Ajanta and Ellora in India. As Buddhism did not come about in England neither was Christianity a religion in the culture of India. In India Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam were the religions that existed for the longest time and hence there are the relics and historical cultural views that you can see. When missionaries come they changed the religion thus modifying the culture and changing the view of the people.
Even though cannibalism is ridiculous it was a part of the Sawi culture and their religion did not have anything against that. After they become Christians they cannot kill and hence they will not follow that part of their culture and that will also stop them from having the ceremonies related to that event as there is no significance in having them anymore. That’s a good thing as there is nothing good that comes out of being a cannibal. Still, I was thinking maybe missionaries do not change the culture as long as the main art and culture remain however when I started reading the writings by Don Richardson I was thinking I would start afresh and build my views. I was waiting for some biased view however, he starts his writing giving examples of the missionaries that destroyed culture and this just made me decide, missionaries DO destroy the culture. He should have give examples of missionaries that do no. I thought he would give one example and then stop and saying “but, unfortunately, “Abne Hale” came to be synonymous with ‘missionary’.” Instead he goes on giving more examples, Fray Diego de Landa and the destroyers of the totem poles. He says that it is better if missionaries go there before others as missionaries are sympathetic. That is being biased and what does he really mean by “agents”?
Does he mean people from other religions? Or people who want to take capture animals and lumber men; they only destroy the nature and not the people. I really hate people who destroy nature. I am not an animal activist or anything but I would rather live in a world filled with trees than with sky scrapers. Back to the topic: In the case of the Sawi even if others came would they not have just eaten them? After all they were cannibals! Whether culture change is arbitrary, forced or for the change to live according to the New Testament. It is change all the same. Culture change will always occur some how of the other if it is not missionaries then it will be other people or just modernization however, what is important is the amount of culture loss. What I liked from reading the book peace child was that he learnt the language and using their own language he taught them God’s word. However, isn’t a time going to come when they are going to be forced to learn English? Even if people speak their own language there is culture loss sometimes. For example: in Hindi and in Korean there are English words being put in. After a while these seem part of the language. Aren’t the missionaries and other people coming into the tribe’s own little Garden of Eden. It is said that when God had not revealed everything to Adam and Eve they did not realize they were naked and hence they did not cover up all that much. That is something the tribal people and they had in common. In some cases when the tribal people refuse to convert Dan Richardson mentions how the missionaries do not give up and they keep forcing them to convert. Sure perseverance is good but only for some things. In this case it would be considered forcing religion on them and even if they finally accept it most likely would be just to keep the missionaries away. “Unity is strength” and all Christians irrespective of their denomination, worship Christ and hence whether Roman Catholic or Presbyterian missionaries it does not make a difference. If people always show the difference and keep saying that there are different denominations that only shows that there must be something wrong if there have to be so many dimensions for worshiping the same God as we all have one thing in common; the belief that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
Do missionaries destroy culture when they evangelize people? I conclude that they do and the amount that is destroyed changes from missionary group to missionary group. I do not think that this is bad as long as the main cultural view or most of it remains. Cultures should remain as they are, unless they are harmful.