a1029: Re: a1006: Evangelical Christianity in Haiti and the "pact with Satan", from Mambo Racine (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Dotie Joseph <dotiej@hotmail.com>

I just wanted to point out that Haiti does not occupy any special place for
evangelics in terms of the hope that it be ruled by Christ.
"Evangelicals...advocate for [EVERY] country [to be] ruled by "Jesus"!"
Also, in theological terms, it isn't about "a right to force their way of
life onto people who may not be members of their religious group," but about
a responsibility/privilege to spread the "Good News" about Christ, his
actions, and their implications. Following this line of reasoning, evagelism
tied to humanitarianism hopes to feed the people first, then, when the
opportunity presents itself, embark on sharing the gospel. When Jesus spoke
to the corwds, he made sure they were not hungry first. Accordingly, I agree
with Mambo Racine that leveraging "conversions" through a reward system
should not apply to basic needs (such as food/health care/etc), and that the
Church (as defined biblically apart from man made denominations) should not
excuse those in its ranks who violate Christian doctrine by providing
excuses and should instead deal with the perpetrators, BUT (and it's a big
one alright) as the spiritually-aware being that you claim to be, it seems
self-defeating not to acknowledge that humans--even when pursuing spiritual
ends--do not always act out of the spirit. What do I mean by that? Even the
Pharisees, and many others criticized by Christ, knew the "Law" (or what
they should be doing spiritually) to the tee, but did they act according to
what they should be doing spiritually? Not always, and what most were doing
was simply not enough. They were more concerned with, what we would desrcibe
in legal terms, following the "letter" as opposed to the "spirit" of the
law. Why is this significant? When people do things, perhaps with what they
perceive as good intentions, the consequences may not always reflect this
orginal benvolence. Am I trying to add to the long list of appologies for
Christian misconduct? Absolutely not--I personally hold proclaimed
Christians working in evanglesim to higher moral standards than I would
otherwise--but it is necessary to see that we do not always act out of
divine instruction and often take matters into our own fallible hands.

As for the "deal with the devil" at Bwa Kayiman, although I see how it could
come about, I do not see its relevance to "Evangelical Christianity" in
general. Sure, there may be some groups that may spread ignorant propoganda
about it (it sure makes for an easy sell), but serious evegelism from the
Christian perperspective does not focus on annhilating one religion to make
place for its own, but rather present one and its implications, and leaves
people to speculate (albeit with Biblical guidance about the implications of
participating in other religious/spiritual acitivities). It's like when my
little sister has an approach to something that isn't necessarily wrong
(like hiding her toys from our younger sister so she doesn't destroy them),
but I present a reasonable alternative (perhaps explaining that she could
give the younger one the smaller toy that she wouldn't mind being broken, or
just playing with her to make sure none get broken) and leave the final
"choice" to her. Often times, people can get caught up in thinking "I need
to make this person choose God instead of x," and maybe even think it
necessary to employ direct/indirect force (as those mentioned my Mambo
racine) but it is key to remember that:

Conversion isn't about the evangelist; its about God and what He wills.