I recently received the following note from a young man who genuinely loves the Lord and is passionate about the unreached. The topic is so important that I have decided to share my thoughts in a broader context.
He wrote, “Hey, Mark! I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the young man who was recently martyred while reaching out to the Sentinese people of India (if not I’ve included a link below). I’ve seen a ton of dispute on social media between friends on God’s call, the wisdom of approaching resistant people groups, the legality of missions, etc., and I was wondering what your thoughts are on the subject?”
Here’s my reply:
I am familiar with the story. I don’t think it’s as simple as whether his actions were wise or unwise, good or bad, right or wrong. Life and ministry are complex, and there are always many factors involved in our decisions.
First, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “Who am I to judge another man’s servant?” (Rom. 14:4). We will all stand before God one day. It that moment, all of our motives will be revealed, our wise decisions offered up as a sweet-smelling sacrifice, and our unwise choices burned up in the fire of God’s knowledge and purity, and covered by his amazing grace. It is clear that this young man felt led to do what he did. In no way am I questioning his commitment. He was a courageous man who deeply loved Jesus and his mission. So, in one sense, I very much applaud his desire to obey the Great Commission no matter the cost. However, I don’t think it’s that simple. My comments here are meant to be viewed as a tool for those moving forward more than an evaluation of what he did or his mission organization endorsed.
“The bad news is that persecution and violent opposition still accompany the preaching of the good news.”
The Book of Acts is not a manual for pioneer missions, but it certainly provides us with some helpful insights. There are two realities that we must keep in balance. First, while suffering and martyrdom for the sake of the gospel were common during the First Century, it wasn’t as pervasive as it might appear in a cursory reading of Acts. We must remember that the events covered in the book span at least 30 years. These happenings were recorded to help us understand how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome, and how a group of diverse, self-oriented men of no standing, once filled with the Spirit, could turn the world upside down. However, here is the hard reality that we must also embrace. Of all of the proclamation events recorded in the Book of Acts, all but three were accompanied by violent opposition. The apostolic preaching of the cross is inseparable from suffering. So, while the church did not live under constant threat of extermination due to persecution, those called and equipped to plant the church where it did not exist fully understood that theirs was a dangerous task—one which they willingly embraced. Nothing has changed. The bad news is that persecution and violent opposition still accompany the preaching of the good news. And, we must be willing to own this reality if we are going to see the church planted among the unreached.
It seems pretty clear that John Allen Chau was not only familiar with our apostolic history but also wanted to join himself to their early efforts to make disciples of all peoples. Like the Apostle Paul, this young man was full of zeal to see the gospel preached where it had never been. The best approach is one that joins wisdom and zeal together. I love the way Paul retained his zeal while still being willing to listen to others. It’s a good approach for all of us. It isn’t one or the other. Zeal and wisdom do not have to be paradoxical. When yoked together, they strengthen one’s approach and increase the chances of success. We see what could have been an unwise expression of Paul’s zeal in Acts 19. Paul desperately wanted to enter the theater in order to speak to the crowd. However, his traveling companions and the local believers asked him to refrain. He submitted to their request, the riot ceased, and the group was actually exonerated. Only God knows what would have happened had Paul ignored the counsel of his friends, but it isn’t hard to believe that Paul would have been harmed, and even more importantly, the work of the Lord negatively impacted.
Second, we don’t fear death, but neither do we pursue it. We are willing to embrace suffering when it is unavoidable, but we need to understand that there is nothing noble about suffering in and of itself. Paul took a beating when his Roman citizenship was of no value, but when it protected him, he was quick to use it to avoid suffering unnecessarily.
Third, the “call of God” is complex. Yes, there is that necessary part of “God said….” However, there is more to it than that.
Are you familiar with the Fisher-Price stackable rings that toddlers use to improve their manual dexterity? The rings have to go on in a particular order, largest to smallest, or they won’t work. So, with that in mind, I like to think of God’s calling like this.
The bottom ring is God’s word to me. It is foundational and highly personal, but it requires confirmation.
The next ring is the “It seems good to ‘us’ and to the Holy Spirit” ring. We find this statement several times in the Book of Acts. Acts 16 is an example of this. Paul felt led to go to Asia, but he couldn’t get in. At this point, he sees a dream. Paul apparently submitted his dream to the group, because they responded with, “Yes, this seems like something the Lord wants us to do.” It seems that if they had said no, Paul would have listened. This example also validates a team approach as it relates to frontier missions.
The next ring includes endorsement from the greater body of Christ. Today we would call this the mission agency. In Paul’s day, it was the apostles in Jerusalem.
The next ring is the practical ability to get there. In our case, this would be getting our budget raised. I think this step should also include initial training in the missionary task. Most long-term missionaries are well trained before heading to the field. Likewise, they continue to receive training while on the field—many going on to complete graduate programs in cross-cultural communications, anthropology, and subjects that will assist their efforts to serve the people to whom they are called.
Lastly, there is the ability to get into the country. A “no” isn’t final. It may merely mean not now.
If all of these “rings” line up, then I would say it is the Lord’s will to move forward now. If not, then I would encourage a humble approach that continues to seek God’s will while doing what I can do at the moment–casting vision, garnering prayer support, continued studies in linguistics and missiology, etc.
These are complicated issues, and only God has all the pieces. We will trust the Lord and pray that this man’s death will somehow bring glory to Jesus and a greater awareness of the unreached that will turn into increased prayer and future missionaries.
Now concerning the “legality” of missions–this is a tougher one. As kingdom people, we should be the best possible citizens. Only when the government is asking us to do something that is contrary to Scripture should we defy the law. The apostles said, “We must obey God rather than man.” However, Paul even saw value in pagan governments. So, we strive to obey God and man. Only when it is clear that we can’t do both do we draw that line in the sand.
John Allen Chau was part of a missions group. I don’t know anything about it, but he may very well have submitted his calling to them, and they said go. I have no reason to critique or criticize this group or their actions. The early church deacon, Stephen, was probably a young man full of zeal. Was his death necessary? That isn’t a question for us. What we do know is that God was glorified, and he used it to compel the church to leave Jerusalem–something that they had been unwilling to do before this. It is not my place to judge. We can do everything “right,” and God may still choose to add one more person to that group of martyrs in Revelation 6 whose souls dwell under the altar of God. As this young man wrote in his journal, Soli Deo Gloria!
As a side note, I am concerned about the social media dialogue taking place around this topic. It is likely that this young man’s family has or will eventually see some of this, and some of it could be very hurtful to them. It is clear from the short statement released by the missions organization with which he was associated that his family was supportive of their son and proud of the man he was—for good reason.
One final thought. From the world’s perspective, missionaries are often thought of as being culturally insensitive at best. This idea is present in much of what has appeared in the media concerning this event. There is even a significant voice in the church that while not necessarily criticizing the missionary task or those who carry it out, ponders the wisdom of taking the gospel to dangerous places. Many lament the “wasted potential” of this young man. As I have read these comments, I think back on the deaths of Jim Elliot, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully, Nate Saint, and Roger Youderian, five young husbands and fathers who gave up their lives to evangelize the Auca (Huaorani) people of Ecuador in the 1950s. Elliot’s journal reflects the same zeal as Chau’s, though written in the language of another generation. Life Magazine positively reported the story of these five martyrs in a January 1956 edition of their magazine. Chau has been criticized and mocked. Yes, there were differences in the approaches surrounding these two events. However, the most significant difference is the cultural shift that has occurred in America. No. The 1950s weren’t the good old days. It was a time when racism was systemic and rampant in parts of America. We need to continue in our efforts to right the wrongs of our society, so I’m not suggesting that we turn back the clock. Nevertheless, what I am suggesting here is that the real provocation is the idea of necessary conversion. It is understandable that non-Christians would oppose the long-held view of Christians that salvation comes through Jesus—and him alone. Christianity is both inclusive (“whosoever will”) and exclusive (“no other name under heaven by which we must be saved”). When we get this balance right, we are loving of those who disagree with us while allowing that love to motivate us to preach Jesus to them—the only lasting hope for humankind. If we believe this, we must be willing to pay any price—even the scorn of those whose opinions we value.
We must all remember that death is not final for those who are in Christ. “But whatever was gain to me, I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.”
Maranatha!
