Missionaries far from selfish
I would like to respond to Dan Bloom's criticism of foreign missionaries (Letters, May 6, page 8). Interestingly, Bloom, after acknowledging the good deeds of missionaries, stated that, "there is another point that needs to be politely addressed." He then proceeds to insult Christian missionaries by asserting that the faith they are trying to share is "superstitious" and "unfounded." If this is Bloom's polite argument, then I pity the person who gets on his bad side.
His main point seems to be that missionaries are not here to serve, but rather to convert people. In Bloom's words they are here "to destroy native beliefs." I'd like to know how Bloom presumes to know the hearts and motives of people who practice a faith that he so clearly detests. Christian service involves much more than evangelism. Most Christians believe that they should "be a light" to those who may never embrace their faith. They are commanded to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. Jesus even teaches that refusing to serve a cup of cold water to "the least one of these" is the same as refusing to serve him.
Of course, Christian missionaries are also convinced of the truth of their faith. And they will share that faith. To today's relativists, this notion of "one religion is the correct religion" is the height of arrogance. Relativists prefer to argue -- as Bloom has in past opinions -- that all religions are equally valid and that no one religion has a claim to truth. This certainly feels more fair, and does much to promote civility and tolerance. But does the universe really adjust to our different beliefs? When moral decisions between religions conflict, are both religions actually right? Did a new god "appear" when the Heaven's Gate cult was formed, and then disappear at its demise? I would think not, just as the earth would not change shape if the Flat Earth Society starting writing our science textbooks.
Humans can disagree about many things -- whether God even exists, whether he incarnates, etc -- but they cannot logically say that two religions describing mutually exclusive realities are both true. If relativism existed as the only guide for humanity, then there would be no motivation outside of mere impulse to change one's beliefs. Modern science would be filled with alchemists and phrenologists. There is one truth, even if it's an uncomfortable one and even if it hurts someone's
feelings.
It seems that the new Bloom would at least agree with that final point. There is a truth out there, but Christianity is not it. Bloom argues that Christianity is a superstition, the religion of a "dead Middle Eastern prophet." Perhaps Bloom believes that all religions are false and that humankind invented the concept of God. But is such an "all-knowing" view of the universe any less arrogant then a few missionaries claiming that their faith is correct?
Bloom is entitled to his anti-Christian views. He's certainly not alone. Though I disagree with his conclusions, his clear stance suggests a larger discussion that would be anchored (hopefully) in the pursuit of truth. My hope is that Bloom has truly done his homework before confidently drawing conclusions on matters of eternity.
Vance Fry
Taipei
I recently came across Dan Bloom's in your newspaper regarding missionaries.
While living in Taiwan on business, I came in contact with several missionaries who have either spent most of their adult lives there and will probably go to their grave in Taiwan or are on at least a three- to five-year mission. Regardless of their time commitment, I found these dedicated servants of God and of the people of Taiwan to be of the utmost givers of life.
Bloom's harsh accusation that missionaries are "selfish" couldn't be further from the truth. These giving people are there to help people in need first of whatever the circumstance may be. Whether it be medical, educational or even economic need, the missionaries are there for the people. If they were selfish, would they give up Western living conditions and conveniences? Would they uproot their families and forgo other family members and friends alike to take on a journey of "selfishness?" Hardly!
I have seen and met them up close and personal, and like any of the Sept. 11 heroes and heroines of the moment, they too deserve a better title than what Bloom has tried to paint for them.
It is true and no one denies that they would love to see those who they are helping come to know Jesus Christ like they do. But no one missionary holds a gun, a knife or a Chinese bottle rocket to anybody's head and says, "believe or I'll light the match." It is always a freewill choice after the Gospel is presented. And do the missionaries stop helping those in need even if they don't see Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? No! They keep on being the heroes and heroines for the very people Bloom is sorely attempting to protect, and they do it year after year after year.
Tobie Hatfield
Beaverton, Oregon
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS