The Differences Between Missionaries and Foreign Policy War Plannersby
Bill Barnwell What a contrast between cross cultural missionaries and central war planners. Missionaries are very brave and interesting people. To be a successful missionary one has to become quite familiar with a foreign culture that is very different from their own. They must learn the language of this country, understand its customs, and be sensitive to the needs of its people. It requires quite a bit of education and training before the missionary even goes abroad to their mission field. The concept of the conquering and colonial missionary has long been in disrepute. The perceptions some people have of missionaries is that they are arrogant Westerners who are seeking to impose their home culture and religion on a foreign people group. Certainly there have been examples of that in the past. But talk to a missionary from virtually any denominational background and ask them how they operate. The answers are far removed from some of the popular stereotypes. A missionary never goes abroad without first learning the language (or at least getting a decent grasp on it) and knowing the group of people they will be living amongst. They do not go there and ask for the people to conform to their way of life. They go there and live amongst the people and adapt to their way of life. Often times they will run into cultural problems that run counter to their faith or some form of societal immorality. They definitely take a stand but in a pragmatic yet principled fashion that will sway people to their point of view without alienating them. As far as I know, no missionary is bombing people into submission or using force or arms to prompt conversions. Compare the attitudes and approach of pragmatic missionaries and overzealous war planners. I am fairly confident that few neoconservatives understood Middle Eastern culture very well in the years they were salivating for an invasion of Iraq, and even today as they pontificate about the region and what needs to be done. I’m sure few if any have ever lived amongst the people, spoke their language, and have shared their customs. None of that stopped the overly rosy post-war scenarios which envisioned a "cakewalk" in the words of one Rumsfeld subordinate from 2003. It also didn’t stop the predictions that Iraqis would be throwing roses at the feet of U.S. soldiers. As it actually played out, most officials were completely dumfounded with the aftermath of the war. Indeed, there is ample evidence that there was no real post-war plan for Iraq before and during the invasion. Apparently, the hope was that everything would just fall into place. In the past few years the President and other officials have said over and over again that they never said it was going to be easy. They never really said it was going to be this difficult either. Certainly none of the war planners envisioned insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have gone this long and caused so much trouble. They were caught off guard and are still struggling for a strategy that spans beyond just "staying the course" and not to "cut and run." If the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown anything, it’s that military might and foreign central planning is more often than not going to be insufficient to change certain parts of the world. Neoconservatives really did believe in a new 21st century version of the "domino theory." Their hope was that democratizations in Iraq and Afghanistan would cause democratic reforms in the nations around them and eventually lead to peace in the Middle East. The reality, however, is that imposing Western political systems and ideals on countries with a completely different way of life is inevitably going to lead to the problems we are currently facing. Iraq is not America and never will be. Their history, language, culture, etc, are far removed from our own. It’s not particularly easy to transition a country into the 21st century that is still living in the late Middle Ages. War supporters and planners would object to these statements and insist that it was never their intention to impose their way of life over there and for the most part they are being honest when they claim that. Unfortunately, that’s not how millions in the Arab nations view it. Instead they view the U.S. as an occupying and imperial force. Their perception is their reality. Post–World War II Japan is typically the trump card for those who want to "stay the course" indefinitely and continue pursuing nation-building policies elsewhere. Obviously it took a great deal of time and resources for Japan to transition from an imperial cult to the kind of country it became after the war. There was indeed a general cultural change that took place. The Middle East, however, is not Japan. As the good missionary knows, every culture and people group is different. Just because it worked for Japan doesn’t mean it will work for Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever else. Every country that is not America is not the same. Lew Rockwell also reminds me of an important point. Even in post-war Japan, which had just been pounded by two horrific atomic bombs, concessions were made. There were many in the Truman administration that argued for executing the Japanese emperor Hirihito and imposing a more aggressive Western-styled republic. Other voices argued that executing the emperor would be counter-productive to rebuilding Japan and would further alienate the population. Those voices of restraint ultimately won the debate. Hirihito was forced to repudiate claims to divinity, but he was kept as a figurehead with a few minor official capacities in Japan. Hirihito was a part of Japanese life until his death in 1989. By altering but not abolishing the role of the emperor, American forces made a smart move (contrast this with the disenfranchising of thousands of Baath Party members and military personal after the overthrow of Saddam, which was one of the fueling factors of the insurgency) and avoided some other problems. As a Christian, however, I would much rather would see billions of dollars spent on covert missions operations (though not taxed and funded by the government) than covert military operations and full-scale war. Speaking of Christians, it strikes me as ironic that so many of them were such strong supporters of the war and continue to defend aggressive U.S. foreign policy every step of the way. Most Christians familiar with missions and church planning will explain the same careful process of cross-cultural ministers and endorse their work. But for whatever reason many of these same people seem to think the U.S. can and should play Globocop around the world. They also apparently believe that if we only devote enough tanks, bombs and money to the cause, people will see things our way. Why can’t these Christians see the obvious disconnect in their thinking? Pursuing peace in troubled regions of the world and bringing them into the 21st century is indeed a noble goal. However, some people groups ultimately might not want or be ready for that. If that is their goal, the way to get them there is not bombing them into submission or creating the impression that we are occupiers and imperialists. Even though it's considered outdated, we ought to pursue trade and peace with all and strife with none if possible. Like the missionary, we should seek to really understand and get to know people in other regions of the world. This means not to just pretend we know who they are and what they are about or get angry when they don’t see things our way. This is not a call to "isolationism" as some understand it, but a call to be truly involved in the world in a way which does not isolate millions and leads by example. Of course, these are unrealistic hippy-sounding words to the crowd that thinks violence and force is the be-all and end-all of solving problems including national disputes. Certainly there are times when force and restraint becomes a necessary evil, but this should not be seen as our ethical starting point. The problem throughout human history has not been people and nations have used too little force, it has been that they have used too much. The problem has not been that we have been too understanding and respectful to one another and to foreign cultures; it has been that we have not been understanding and respectful enough.
October 11, 2006 Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer from Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |
Perhaps
we should just put the missionaries in charge of foreign affairs
for a while. They certainly have a thing or two to teach the governing
authorities and war-hungry journalists and bloggers. After all,
how much worse could they do than the present crowd?