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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS