Asymmetric Evangelism

[metapunditedgy]

Bilinda Straight writes about "Killing God" in the latest volume of Current Anthropology. In this case, the "god" was a Kenyan divinity named Nkai. In 1935, an Anglican missionary, Charles Scudder, fired his gun into the cave where Nkai was believed to reside. Nkai was thought to have been vanquished, and the worship of Nkai ended at that site.

Straight also recounts tales of John Williams, a British missionary to Tahiti and the Society Islands. Williams gathered the sacred relics and "gods" of different communities, then publicly humiliated them in his chapel. The "gods" were publicly exposed, hanged, burnt, and possibly shipped back to England as curiosities.

Straight points out that there was a double standard at work in these Christian missions. On one hand, they relied on brute force and sometimes science to demonstrate the invalidity of the religions they opposed. The native gods could not stand up to modern technology, and were therefore defeated. On the other hand, the missionaries simultaneously claimed that their Christian god was above scientific scrutiny.

Nkai was defeated by a rifle shot, but if someone were to physically attack a crucifix or other Christian artifact, Christians would respond that it means nothing; "God is in heaven." On the other hand, when fervent prayers appear to succeed in diverting threatening weather, that is the immanent hand of God. In Christian worship and sacraments, "God is with us." In short, Christian theologians have formulated a god who cannot be assailed by the arguments missionaries use against other divinities. Is this evidence of the superiority of the Christian god, or is the Christian theology of God instead driven by an evangelistic need for superiority?

This type of "asymmetric evangelism" shows up in other scenarios. Perhaps we'll hunt down some examples in the near future.

<http://metapunditedgytheanticlown.blogspot.com/2008/10/asymmetric-evangelism.html>

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. I think this is missing the point somewhat.

What Scudder was trying to by firing his gun into a cave was not to construct a logically valid proof that Nkai was nonexistant or vanquished, but to convince the natives - fallible human beings, and almost certainly uneducated, supersitious ones at that - of it, by any means possible.

I very much doubt that his disbelief in Nkai and the gunshot had anything to do with one another.

[Occam Bandage]

2. I don't really see this as a strong case for anything whatsoever.

Religious warfare of a sort was common in pre-colonial Polynesian society. Gods were not eternal, immortal, or anything of the sort; they were spirits (often bound to an object or place) that offered protection in exchange for worship, and they were frequently adopted and abandoned. If a tribe defeated another, the losing tribe would often adopt the winner's god (as its victory meant it was more powerful) and exile or destroy the old god.

Christian missionaries of course understood that the Polynesian view of divinity was different than the Western view. They told the Polynesians that the Christian God was mightier than any of the old gods; he resided in Heaven but his power flowed over the entire world. As evidence (and understanding their audience) they demonstrated their military power. A polynesian would be convinced: these foreign visitors had near-godlike ability to build and to destroy; clearly their God must be as powerful as they say He is. A Christian could destroy a native god, and with that same power could destroy an entire native village with a handful of men, suggesting that the vanquished god's protection was indeed worthless against the might of the Christian God. A native could desecrate a crucifix, but yet the Christians would remain just as powerful; their claim that their God resided in the heavens seemed to stand to scrutiny.