finding “the true way” of mission
As we enter into a semester-long conversation about what it means to be on mission with God, I’d like us to begin by spending some time in the writings of 16th century priest and abolitionist Bartolomé de las Casas. One of the early Spanish residents of Latin America, Las Casas witnessed the horrors that the colonists committed against the indigenous people of the area (not to mention against the African slaves they’d brought with them), evils often perpetrated in the name of Christian mission. The Native Americans were warred upon by and subjected to foreign political power, denied their natural rights (family, property, etc.), and coerced under threat of pain and death to convert to Christianity.
As a result, Las Casas writes, “Pagans are forced to burst out into blasphemy, to curse the Creator since they think the awful injustice they undergo comes from that Creator’s law or precept or prior and wicked command. They will then go on to detest faith and salvation in Christ as a fake, a lie.” (The Only Way, 136) According to Las Casas, all this is in complete opposition to the true way of mission and evangelism, the peaceable way which he describes at length in his writings.
The passage from Las Casas that you’ve been assigned to read (pgs. 103-112) is the author’s description of the ideal missionary. Constructing his own theological argument on the basis of other Christian scholars (Chrysostom, Anselm, Jerome, etc.), Las Casas lays out five traits that he believes characterize the ideal missionary. This person:
1) is not perceived as hungry for power, 2) is not perceived as greedy for wealth, 3) addresses audiences (especially non-Christians) with modesty and respect, 4) exemplifies charity (the virtue of love, not necessarily the act of giving), and 5) is a living example of blameless virtue.
After you’ve read the text, here are the questions I’d like you to contemplate and respond to in the comments below: What do you think of Las Casas’ list of qualifications for a missionary? What would you add or take away, and why? How do you think his definitions of mission and missionary might be different from you own? What are your own definitions?