Hi,

I wasn’t quite sure where this topic should go - but anyways. . please let me know if it should be elsewhere.

Having just come back from a short term mission trip to a closed country, it was only afterwards that i was really confronted with the issue of whether doing mission in a closed country is ethical and appropriate for a Christian to be involved in.

We were encouraged on the event of being questioned by authorities we should only give vague brief answers such as “i am here travelling”. We were told not to bring any unwanted attention to the rest of the party and in effect ‘play stupid’ by saying “i’m not sure where i’m staying because i dont know this area well”. Whilst all those are in effect true - i was travelling and i didnt know the area. . .there is some level at which conscience wise i believe this to be deception and 2 Cor 4 says this is inappropriate (albeit not prescriptively).

There were a few other incidents that occurred that made things difficult, but at the end of the day it was the underlying issue that i felt i was not being truthful to the government and to people i met.

Security wise, i can understand the need for such caution. However I’m not so sure I can justify this with “people need to hear the Gospel”. . .it sounds awfully like a “the ends justify the means” reasoning and furthermore, it does not reflect well on Christian integrity.

In a nutshell, 1 Peter 2 exhorts us to obey authorities - to what extent should this be applied to seeking to mission work in closed countries?

Thanks everyone.

I think you raise an interesting question about being truthful and I am interested in seeing what other people say on this.

In a nutshell, 1 Peter 2 exhorts us to obey authorities - to what extent should this be applied to seeking to mission work in closed countries?

Generally I think we should obey authorities. But there are exceptions to this. Acts teaches that if we are forbidden to do what God has commanded, then our obedience to God comes first.

“Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”—Acts 4:18-19

[bump]

I’d like to hear what other people’s thoughts are too. 

I agree that we are meant to obey God rather than men when the situation calls, but there’s an important difference between what Simon is describing and what is happening in Acts 4.

In Acts 4 the apostles are unashamed in their proclamation of Jesus and in disobeying the authorities they’re being upfront that this is what they’re doing.  I reckon this shows they were courageous men of integrity.

That said, if I were going into a closed country I can’t say I would be able to do the same.  I’d truthfully weasel my way through.  Is it right or not?  I don’t know.

Somewhat unhelpfully (and upfront about it!),
Derek aka Weasel Boy

what about the story of Rahab and the spies from Israel - aren’t spies liars by profession?

Hi Derek

I don’t think you can “truthfully weasel” - I think if you’re truthful you aren’t weaseling (or at least that’s how I understand the terms, I may have a different understanding of the semantics than do others).

The only niggling thing with what Simon describes is the possibility of being seen to lie by omission.  Silence in law can amount to a positive statement, when there is an obligation or expectation that something ought be said - but is there really an expectation that something should be said in these situations other than answering with true-but-not-necessarily-completely-garrulous responses.  I would like to be able to say I see nothing unbiblical with how Simon dealt with those questions, and it seems on the surfance that in that situation it is permissible/proper/not unbiblical to disclose everything about what you are doing in precise detail, but there is a vestige of me that seems to think it’s not right.  I wonder though whether that’s simply the 21st century western democratice rule of law side of me coming to the fore, and if there isn’t some misplaced sense of obligtion to disclose coming through from that cultural background instead of a bibilical requirement to do so in all circumstances. 

Also, I can’t see how these fit in, but the two things that come to mind are Peter not returning to prison when he gets sprung by God, and Paul escaping from the city by fleeing over the wall in the dark of night.  They’re not so much “deceptions” but they do seem to show that ultimately christians walk to the beat of a different drum to that set by the transient rulers of a given time and space. 

Hmmmm, this post isn’t really helpful either, but I felt I had to add my 5c worth. 

It’s certainly a thought provoking issue.  I’d also be interested to see what others think about it (Alan - are you out there in cybersapace or are you too attached to the airconditioner until April?  Mr Kirsop?  What does the lawyer in each of you think?)

Yeah it is a hard issue. The verse : Matthew 10:16 comes to mind (I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves).

I think my bottom line would be not to say anything false even if I don’t reveal my full reasons for being there.

I would be interested in knowing which closed countries and realise it may be difficult for people to comment here with their real names on a public forum like this.

I suppose that Brother Andrew fits in here somewhere, too?

Cheers,
Andrew