1. This post is occasioned by the controversy surrounding Francis Chan's recent healing claims. But that's just a launchpad to address a broader issue. I'm discussing general principles that may not apply to that particular situation.
2. I'm reading high-profile cessationists who have a new criterion for reported miracles: unless it's caught on camera, it isn't credible. With the profusion of cellphone cameras, we should demand photographic evidence for reported miracles before we lend them credence. Eyewitness testimony is inadequate.
3. I'm all for empirical verification of miracles where that's available and feasible. But to demote testimonial evidence degrades biblical miracles.
4. From what I've read, miracles are more likely to happen in a virgin mission field, to help the Christian faith get a foothold. I also think it likely that God does more for those who have less and less for those who have more. Take folk who don't have access to advanced medical care.
5. There are different kinds of missionaries and different kinds of missionary settings. In some countries, Christianity is technically legal, but in reality Christian expression is persecuted.
In some countries, Christianity is legal but conversion is illegal. By the same token, Christianity is legal in some countries but evangelization is illegal.
This creates an underground church where native Christians and Christian missionaries practice a degree of anonymity to evade detection from hostile authorities. At the risk of stating the obvious, in closed country the authorities can use cellphone camera images to identify and apprehend Christians and missionaries. Consider the use of facial recognition technology in China.
6. There are different kinds of missionaries. For instance, there are white-American missionaries who do temporary junkets to Third-World countries. They stick out compared to the native population. In addition, there are white-American missionaries who live in the host country.
Then you have minority-American missionaries of the same race/ethnicity as the host country. For some, these are temporary junkets. Others take up full-time residence.
They can pass for natives. It's easier for them to avoid detection from hostile authorities. Finally, you have native missionaries.
7. But it many cases it's necessary for the missionary, Christians on the ground, and unreached people, to maintain their anonymity. In some situations, cellphone cameras will be a deterrent to missionary activity, because it exposes the identity of the participants.
This includes prospective converts who might be open to conversion, but they're not prepared to take the risk of arrest, if their face shows up in a gov't database at a Christian gathering, and flags them to be "disappeared". So there's a disincentive to missionaries, Christians, and prospective converts blowing their cover.
I'm just stating the obvious, and I'm struck by the naïveté of some cessationist critics. There are situations where it's reasonable to request medical verification. But we must make allowance for impediments and deterrents on the ground. We need to take the setting into account, and judge reported miracles on a contextual, case-by-case basis.
For what it's worth, our church has missionaries in various nations, but they don't always disclose that they're missionaries, because it'd be dangerous for them to do so. Rather they just say they're doing normal jobs like teaching English or working as an engineer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some peoples don't really trust Westerners so Westerners would have to tread carefully when interacting with them. It might be considered insensitive or plain rude if a Westerner just pulled out a camera and started filming locals without much warning. That in turn would foreclose future missionaries from ministering to them.
And I think there are even some people who don't wish to be recorded in photo or video due to superstitious or similar beliefs. Although in an increasingly connected world, I would assume this is likely diminishing.
~ I have worked with homegrown/native churches in India where numerous folks came to the faith by way of something miraculous. This was quite often a healing or an exorcism.
ReplyDeleteThese are folks who were well educated, well to do, had high social standing and just had all sorts of things going for them except for say, perhaps a terminally ill family member. So they woudl go from doc to doc and nothing would work. Then they go from purohit to purohit and still nothing worked. Finally, they went to a local christian or a pastor who then prayed. And guess what? The person with the terminally ill diagnosis got healed.
You can find these stories in India, again and again and again and again and ... no kidding. They really are that common. Well, at least in native, homegrown, conservative, evangelical churches you can find these stories. You will not necessarily find them in liberal churches.
So what I am trying to say is this. Conversion for these folks comes with a cost. At times quite his cost is quite expensive. They had it all good before, in terms of finances, social standing, land, etc. Upon becoming Christians, they now are ostracized, maligned, thrown out of their families, rejected, etc. Yet they cannot deny that they have seen and experienced something remarkable.
If the healing were faked or something, they would not have set foot in a church. Why? Because, who wants to be maligned? Who wants to lose their family, friends, inheritance, even husbands, wives, etc. Yet they have experienced something incredible, something miraculous. Had they not, they never would have bothered to set foot in a Christians home. Even the thought of it would never have occurred to them.
Now having said all that, if you pull out a camera and take photos or a video of someone being healed and esp then turning to Christ, and then post those photos online, you are may well be sealing their deaths. Or you may at least be enabling other things to happen such as their houses or churches being vandalized. Christians and Christian groups are constantly being watched by various radical groups. They are all too aware of all those glorious stories we post about 33,000 people came to a prayer meeting in XYZ-nagar. They are all too aware and you see repercussions.
Thanks for the firsthand background info.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete☍
ReplyDeleteIn an age when videos can be faked, I’m not sure how well their criteria works out. If a miracle was caught on camera they could just question the video. Not to mention the fact that we do not have video evidence of the resurrection. I wonder how many who buy this line of thinking end up being skeptics.
These sort of hyper-cessationists should be asked to clarify what they're asking for. Do they distinguish between a *reasonable belief* that a miracle has occurred, such that a rational person is justified in believing it? Or are they asking for a repeatable proof sufficient to satisfy the hardest skeptic? These are two very different standards of evidence. They appear to demand the latter. What they need to justify is why. As Steve's previously pointed out, that standard is self-defeating. The real hardest skeptic refuses to believe anything about the gospels, or the past at all. He hardly believes in his own existence. Why is that sort of unreasonableness the gold standard for accepting multiply-attested eye-witness testimony from people without motive or track record in lying?
ReplyDelete