A few weeks ago I read a book about Jim Elliot, a missionary who gained international recognition in 1956 when he, and four other missionaries, were martyred at the hands of the Auca Indians of Ecuador.

This story is truly amazing, and it really had a big impact on me. It's one of those things that you read, and you just know it is life-changing.

After reading the book, I just happened to come across a video called 'Through the Gates of Splendour', which is the same story, told by Elisabeth Elliot, Jim Elliot's widow. (I wasn't even looking for this video) Seeing the documentary also moved me, and really got me thinking about doing missions work overseas. I already had been thinking about that for a while... but recently, in the last few weeks, or couple months, that desire has really grown. And I keep experiencing all these coincidences (ha, yeah right) ;) having to do with not only this particular story, but missions work in general.

For example, where I work (at a Christian bookstore), I was talking to a woman I work with about the story, and she said, "Nate Saint's son is going to be speaking at my church, in a few weeks." (He is the son of one of the five missionaries who died with Jim Elliot, Nate Saint was the pilot) So of course I told her I'd go to her church on that day, to hear him speak.

Then another thing that happened was, at my work, I was talking to a really nice older couple, and somehow missions work came up in the conversation. The man told me that he and his wife were missionaries. So I asked him where? And told him I was interested in this. He said they were missionaries to Ecuador. I said, "Really! My mom is from Ecuador, and I just recently read a book about Jim Elliot and the others who were killed, and I also saw the film 'Through the Gates of Splendour'. The man said, "We were the missionaries who went down there, after they died, and we worked there for a number of years." He also told me that his wife is in the film I watched, at least a really quick clip of her. This to me was amazing... I mean, what are the odds of me just happening to meet the very missionaries who went to Ecuador in 1956 to continue Jim Elliot's work? So this man gave me his card, and told me to call him if I wanted more info, and invited me to come have dinner with him and his wife. He said we could watch the film again, and I thought about maybe bringing a nonChristian friend of mine to watch it.... because this film really is moving, whether you're a Christian or not.

Another thing... A girl I work with invited me to come to this Tuesday night group called 20's and 30's. It's a praise/worship/Bible study. So I went, and it was great... very cool people, but the thing was... The day I first went, they had just started a new study (after completing a study that lasted for weeks) And the new study just happened to be on Missions work. Perfect. :) So, I've been going on Tuesday nights and it's been great so far.

I could go on, but... after a bunch of these coincidences, I knew God was moving, in my life, I'm feeling really led towards doing missions work. So I'm going with it, I want to do what God wants for me... whether it's doing missions work right here in my own town, or in South America, or on the other side of the world, in Africa, or wherever.

The speaker at our Tuesday night group is a guy who grew up on the missions field, and he is not only a great speaker but really knowledgeable, and he has shared some amazing stories. :)

Anyway, when I first started writing this post, I wanted to tell the story of what happened in Ecuador, with Jim Elliot and the 4 other missionaries who were killed.

I'm not sure if I can sum it up in a few words, so I'm going to try to find something on this to post, and maybe some pictures. I'll be back!

Thanks for reading!

Love,
cindy

Like I told you before.. I stand 100% with you on this. It was an amazing story. Hurry up with pictures:D

go for it..:nice: definitly sounds like you should give it a try..:)

I told you I would support you on this however you decided. You are such a wonderful person.

Sounds rewarding. :)

Go and don't worry about a thing. He has his eye on the sparrow. :)

Originally posted by buttercup
whether it's doing missions work right here in my own town, or in South America, or on the other side of the world, in Africa, or wherever.

There's always all those heathens in San Francisco. :p

Originally posted by CCC
There's always all those heathens in San Francisco. :p
Don't forget us online heathens too! :p

Sorry to turn against the tide here,
But I would leave the Indigenous people of Ecuador alone unless you plan to join a CSB and practice Liberation Theology which I doubt is on the menu, but I could be wrong...

I myself toyed with the idea of practicing L.T. but w/out any missionary zeal. Even though I'm predominately Christian, I have too much respect for Indigenous belief systems to be culturally imperialist.

Sorry, I hope that wasn't offensive much...It's just opposite since I'm comming from the North Pole.

Shell, you rock. :) I totally appreciate you being a good friend and being supportive... and for offering to be a penpal if I do go overseas for a while! you are a blessing. <3

Dawn, yeah I think I'm going to... I'm not sure when it will happen or where.. it might not be for a while. but those will eventually get worked out. thanks for the encouragment! :cool: <3


Alan, no you are! :D you're too good to me. ;) thank you.


John, thanks and no if I left I would never forget you all. :p



Originally posted by BIG GABE
Sorry to turn against the tide here,
But I would leave the Indigenous people of Ecuador alone unless you plan to join a CSB and practice Liberation Theology which I doubt is on the menu, but I could be wrong...

I myself toyed with the idea of practicing L.T. but w/out any missionary zeal. Even though I'm predominately Christian, I have too much respect for Indigenous belief systems to be culturally imperialist.

Sorry, I hope that wasn't offensive much...It's just opposite since I'm comming from the North Pole.

It's ok, you weren't being offensive. But you have to hear the whole story first... Like I said, I was going to post a synopsis of it, but I couldn't find a good one so i'm going to have to put it in my own words. I'll post that later, cause I don't have it written yet. Trust me, this is an amazing and positive story. Something bad was turned into something good, and not only something good for short term but for a long time. This story is still moving people (as it is for me), almost 50 years later. I'll try to explain it later. :)

my little buttercup is all growns up

:eek:

i'm both happy and sad at the same time

:lol: I don't think we've met yet... but i'm happy that you're happy. :D ;) I'm cindy.

Originally posted by buttercup
Alan, no you are! :D you're too good to me. ;) thank you.


Aha! After approximately five years of knowing you, we finally found something we disagree on! BUTTERCUP IS WRONG! :D









Oh, I'm so sorry, Cindy. Let's not fight anymore. Truce? :)

Originally posted by buttercup
It's ok, you weren't being offensive. But you have to hear the whole story first... Like I said, I was going to post a synopsis of it, but I couldn't find a good one so i'm going to have to put it in my own words. I'll post that later, cause I don't have it written yet. Trust me, this is an amazing and positive story. Something bad was turned into something good, and not only something good for short term but for a long time. This story is still moving people (as it is for me), almost 50 years later. I'll try to explain it later. :)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I would very much like to know more about this historical situation you speak of in order to make a better judgement. But, of course, I have my doubts and am cautitious. And with my studies of Latin American History and Religion in general, I consider such to be rightly so.

The guy I work with.. his nephew is the one of the guys who made that documentary.

lol@Alan... ok, truce! ;p


Originally posted by RightWingZealot
The guy I work with.. his nephew is the one of the guys who made that documentary.

I want to hear about it. :) That must be the new documentary on this story...(the one I saw was the old one) the new one I think is called Beyond the Gates of Splendor.


I just wanted to say... remember how I said I kept experiencing coincidences having to do with this topic? I had another little one tonight. After the 20's/30's bible study, I went out to dinner with some people (my friend who brought me to this bible study and some other people) And it turns out this guy who was sitting right next to me is going to do mission work overseas this summer. Guess where? Yep, Ecuador! :cool:

anyway... I'm going to start going to another weekly thing, to learn more about all this, sort of like a discipleship. I'd like to go on a short term trip sometime in the not too distant future, but I'd have to get time off work.

ok, I'm rambling now....

I still haven't written out that story, I'm still going to do that. Not now though, it's so late!

Beyond the Gates of Splendor.

Yeah, i think that is it.

I've done a little research, although I have yet to come across a critical perspective. It seems the Aucas people were what is known as 'indios bravos' in Latin America history although I didn't come across such a description in evangelical accounts. Indios Bravos were the fierce tribes that could abstain from the whole annihilation and assimiliation process occuring all over the Americas. I come across accounts of their violence as 'savage' knowing only 'the spear' and so forth. Of course, I hold my reservations.

Since you might be more educated about this specific topic or least have more access to information, I came across the tribe killing of Oil workers...now, to this very day, multinational oil companies have made a mess in the amazon regions...I'd like to know more about these killings. There might be a critical context.

Lastly, I'm seeing a bit...the pacification and assimiliation of indios bravos.

I keep an open mind. Cindy, please provide your side of the story. I'd like to hear it. :)

I dont have a whole lot of experience with missionaries.. but I did live down the road from some missionaries to Papua New Guinea.
They were on some sort of sabbatical back in the US.. they were required to take one every seven years I think.

These folks probably had the most positive influence on me that any christians ever have. They were really amazing folks. I really miss them. Wish I could find a way to get in touch with the,
But you dont think of these things when you are a kid.

Anyway, I cant speak for ALL missionaries, but I can speak for them I believe when I say that their goal is not to annialate the culture of the tribes they minister to, but to purify it.
Basicly to keep as much of their culture intact while removing the idolatry and animism from their beliefs.

Perhaps Gabe would think this is still an anniahlation of their culture?

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
Anyway, I cant speak for ALL missionaries, but I can speak for them I believe when I say that their goal is not to annialate the culture of the tribes they minister to, but to purify it.
Basicly to keep as much of their culture intact while removing the idolatry and animism from their beliefs.

Perhaps Gabe would think this is still an anniahlation of their culture?

In the course of of Latin American history, the missionary experience has not always been bad. I can point to some instances of Jesuit ( who have been progressive in a sense ) missionaries aiding natives against the Portugese empire's desire to enslave them.

But yes, to so-called primitive cultures, religion is key to their cultural experience. In true cultural imperialist form, "purify" belongs in such a lexicon. It goes beyond those parameters.

What If I said, I want to purify you from your monotheism?

Why don't indigenous people come to the US and go on conversion missions? Because, quite simply, the historical process of colonialism and imperialism are the coatails that missionaries ride in on. There is a psychological/cultural dimension that accompanies this, one of which being, our religion is better than yours and we need to purify you. Honest, well intentioned people are a part of this ongoing process whether they are aware of it or not.

What If I said, I want to purify you from your monotheism?

If it were the truth and you could convince me, then so be it.

if a culture cannot withstand the truth, then what good is it?


Why don't indigenous people come to the US and go on conversion missions?

I would say it is mainly becuase they ahve a different plan for salvation, if any plan at all.

I am sure i dont need to remind you that it is a christians job to preach the Truth to others.
That's pretty much jesus 101 stuff. :D

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
if a culture cannot withstand the truth, then what good is it?

I don't think of it in those terms. Many times, its not a matter of simple religious debates. It's other contributing factors that come into play.

I would say it is mainly becuase they ahve a different plan for salvation, if any plan at all.

I am sure i dont need to remind you that it is a christians job to preach the Truth to others.
That's pretty much jesus 101 stuff. :D

Good points. However, some indigenous people, particularly the pre-colombian californian tribes, did not have a missionary zeal despite the diversity and closeness of many other tribes. As one said, "they tell it this way, we tell it that way." That's a good religious attitudes in many regards.

Nevertheless, one can never discount the historical process in play. For instance, currently, evangelicals have ridden the coatails of invasion with regards to Iraq. Muslims certainly have a missionary zeal as they conquered and converted during the expansion of their historical empire. Again we see conquest & conversion intimately linked. We don't see Muslims in Latin America for instance because the Middle East did not economically subjugate and violently enforce such a reltionship in those regions. Their empire abstained from the process due to some isolationist hubris concerning the west and its new activities.

You raise some good points, however, I'll still stay with my original framework.

With regards to the story of Eliot, anthropology in the 50's is a whole lot different from the discipline today. If that's the intellectual framework they had coming in, well...

For instance, currently, evangelicals have ridden the coatails of invasion with regards to Iraq

That is becuase they are allowed in.
That is something that is also worth mentioning..
I know at least in the case of the Acunas and the Tribe my friends are missionaries to in Papua New Guniea, they asked for and recieved permission to come live amongst the tribe.

They dont invade and forcefull cram thier beliefs down thier throats.

My friends lived among this tribe in NG, learning thier language and ther customs. They helped them develop a written language becuase they did not have one.
And then he transcribed the whole bible into thier language.

It was 10 years before they had a single convert.

The acunas had given permission for the missionaries to come stay with them as well, but from what I recall one of the members of the tribe lied to save his own butt and acused the missionaries of doing inappropraite things with one of the acuna women, and it got the missionaries speared.
Eventualy the truth came out and the guy who did the lieing got himself speared.
The acunas were always spearing each other it seems.
Not a bad cultural thing to get rid of if you ask me.

Originally posted by RightWingZealot


That is becuase they are allowed in.

By whom? The Muslim community? Or the historical process which broke the gates open?



they asked for and recieved permission to come live amongst the tribe.

Of course, they come to ask for permission to live with the tribe. The tribe of course being amiable, allows for it, and thus once trust is gained then the missionary work with regards to conversion begins. Thats how the missionary system works most of the time.

They dont invade and forcefull cram thier beliefs down thier throats.

No, but usually their host country's military invades the nation in question. If not the military, then capital ( in Ecuador, this comes in the form of Multinationals)

Also, as stated before, missionaries don't forcefully cram their beliefs, yet they do stay, live, and slowly gain the trust of certain people within a tribe ( usually the outcasts first ) they wouldn't be effective using any other means.

My friends lived among this tribe in NG, learning thier language and ther customs. They helped them develop a written language becuase they did not have one.
And then he transcribed the whole bible into thier language.

But you see, the appearance of cultural reciprocity is quite uneven. Missionaries learned cultures in order to be better missionaries, not out of some affinity for multiculturalism. As stated before, my specialty is in Hinduism. British missionaries learned Sanskrit in that case in order to write anti-Hindu polemics accessable to the people...



The acunas had given permission for the missionaries to come stay with them as well, but from what I recall one of the members of the tribe lied to save his own butt and acused the missionaries of doing inappropraite things with one of the acuna women, and it got the missionaries speared.
Eventualy the truth came out and the guy who did the lieing got himself speared.
The acunas were always spearing each other it seems.
Not a bad cultural thing to get rid of if you ask me.

Again, I would like to see an account of this history outside of the christian missionary community.
Also, calming the 'culture of violence' may or may not need Christian conversions. Lord knows so-called Christians throughout history and up until today have partaken in such a culture of violence. Spears? perhaps not...guns, missles, etc perhaps.

By whom? The Muslim community? Or the historical process which broke the gates open?


The govt. ususaly keeps christian missionaries out of thier countries.
I believe it is illegal to prostelatyze in most muslim countries.

The tribe of course being amiable, allows for it, and thus once trust is gained then the missionary work with regards to conversion begins. Thats how the missionary system works most of the time.

First of all, I wouldnt call the acuna people "amiable"..
unless amiable is synonymous with "spear-happy impalers".
Second, so what? Sounds like a pretty peacful way of working to me.


Missionaries learned cultures in order to be better missionaries, not out of some affinity for multiculturalism.

I guess that would be a matter of opinion. I doubt you are qualified to make such a blanket statement on all missionaries.

Again, I would like to see an account of this history outside of the christian missionary community.

Well, as it happened in a remote area between the acunas and the missionaries I doubt you are going to get any account of it except from them.
Which was part of what the documentaries were about.

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
The govt. ususaly keeps christian missionaries out of thier countries.
I believe it is illegal to prostelatyze in most muslim countries.

Thanx for the facts, however, they are there now because of the larger, violent historical process that clears a path.



First of all, I wouldnt call the acuna people "amiable"..
unless amiable is synonymous with "spear-happy impalers".
Second, so what? Sounds like a pretty peacful way of working to me.

No, they ( Aucas......Acunas are probably a nice Mexican family ;) ) are Indios Bravos. But those communities which accept invations are... It may be a "peaceful" way but as mentioned before many times the path of peace is cleared by a violent historical process.


I guess that would be a matter of opinion. I doubt you are qualified to make such a blanket statement on all missionaries.

Well, based upon the historical evidence you offered, and the evidence I offered, I believe it to be a majority statement. I suppose there are some, but the first wave is hardly ever acculturated for culture's sake. For instance, Jesuit missionaries in Brazil used music as a way to obtain their objectives...

Do missionaries ever spend time in a community, learn about the local religious beliefs and say, well that's true/right/ok? No. A blind agenda, well, can be blinding...


Well, as it happened in a remote area between the acunas and the missionaries I doubt you are going to get any account of it except from them.
Which was part of what the documentaries were about.

Perhaps so. I can only deduce things critically from their offerings. When I ran across the oil workers issue...I had my suspicions raised and then read Jim Elliot's mission framed like this...

The Aucas had killed many Quichuas. They had also killed several workers at an oil company-drilling site near their territory. The oil company closed the site because everyone was afraid to work there. Jim knew the only way to stop the Aucas from killing was to tell them about Jesus.

I would have to do more research, but I have some inclinations about an oil corporation, Shell, a US multinational ( which historically to this day have been enviromentally destructive among other things in Ecuador ) benefiting from the pacification of Indios Bravos....

Lastly, Aucas, which in Quichuas' language means "savage" Why not call them Waoranis?

Here's a little something from a non-evangelical perspective finally(peopleoftheworld.com) :

In the late 1960s the oil company, Texaco, approached the Ecuadorian government hoping for permission to drill for oil on Huaorani land. Saint and Dayuma became a key part of the following massive displacement of hundreds of Huaorani.

The missionaries and the Ecuadorian government agreed to relocate as many Huaorani as possible away from the drilling areas to the missions that had been established in the previous ten years. Hundreds were relocated, while others fled to even more remote parts of the jungle. Accounts of the relocated Huaoranis' experiences differ. At one extreme, some have written of this event as "ethnocide." Others have claimed that it saved the Huaorani from genocide at the hands of the oil companies. An unquestionable outcome is that many had their life and culture changed forever, while others chose (and in some cases were never presented a choice) to stay deep in the forest and live the way they'd only ever known.


There are many ways to look at this. Displacement is never a good thing and for indigenous peoples' a locative worldview is essential to their culture. Displace them and it destroys their culture...just ask Black Elk and the Lakota people.

If the missionaries didn't mediate for the corporations, it's likely a violent near- extermination/displacement campaign would have happened. However, displacement occured and the missionaries orcheastrated on behalf of those corporations in many regards. Therefore, it may be said that in some regards, some cultural annihilation was overseen and not protected against by Christian missionaries.

What is concluded is that A) Missionaries oversaw a displacement campaign which effectively ripped apart the locative cultural worldview central to those people on behalf of foriegn multinational corporations. B) The missionaries did not stand up for the Waoranis against the Oil companies with regards to the land displacement issues

Liberation Theologians might have understood the issue of land and justice in south america and with CSB's might have stood up to corporations instead of mediating for them.

^this last part is an assumption based on the tenets and practices of LT's, I just wanted to illustrate that for most of my prelimenary concerns, I have found some evidence to justify them... I wouldn't consider land displacement 'an amazing and positive story.'

If the missionaries didn't mediate for the corporations, it's likely a violent near- extermination/displacement campaign would have happened. However, displacement occured and the missionaries orcheastrated on behalf of those corporations in many regards.

What on earth are you talking about?? The oil company and missionaries shouldn't even be said in the same sentence, they are completely separate, and it is totally offensive for you to lump them together. The Shell oil company was there many years before the the group of missionaries in this story, and unfortunately the corporation was horrible to the Aucas, I heard some really awful things (I'm not sure if what I heard about what the Shell people did was true) but that is part of the reason why the Aucas were so extremely vicious towards outsiders, and why they were known for killing any people who came into their vicinity. The Shell oil company was the Aucas' example of foreigners, and so they had a bad conception of foreigners, or the white man, for years to come.

I want to send you the book I read, and I wish you could see the documentary I saw. I'm sorry I didn't write out the story in my words.. I started to, but it was getting too wordy.

Augh, I just edited that post and added a couple paragraphs and then I accidently pressed reset and lost all that I added. Now I have to try to re-write everything I just wrote.

I just read that site you went to. It said that another oil company (Texaco) went to Ecuador in the 60's and caused many natives to move away from the land they always lived on. Don't blame the missionaries for that, blame the oil company or the Ecuadorian government for allowing Texaco to drill on that land.

Fortunately, I can get some inside info on this, because I met a couple of the missionaries who went down there in the late 50's, after the deaths, and they worked there for a number of years. They already have invited me over, so I will take them up on that, and ask them for more info on all of this, and see what they have to say about the allegations of yours.

For some reason, you seem to want to find something to point the finger at the missionaries for... to make them the bad guy, or to dismiss what they did there, by impugning their character. That is really sad... because 5 missionaries gave their lives in order to reach the Aucas, now Huaoranis, who had never heard the gospel. And they gave their lives willingly (They owned weapons, but they had decided beforehand not to use them in self-defense if it came to that) And they did reach them, ultimately. A few years after that event, many of the Huaoranis came to Christ... and the very man who speared to death Nate Saint is now good friends with Saint's family... he himself is a Christian who is a missionary to other Huaoranis, and (as unbelievable as this sounds) Saint's kids call him grandpa. Here is a photo of Steve Saint and Mincaye, the man who killed his father. I'll post more pictures a little later.

Mincaye and Steve Saint
http://www.wbfj.org/webcam/scchapman/5.jpg


An older picture of Mincaye
http://www.geocities.com/incindiaryonline/mincayekimo.txt



Jim Elliot
http://www.geocities.com/incindiaryonline/elliott.txt



Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Ed McCully
http://www.atanycost.org/images/dss00282.gifhttp://www.atanycost.org/images/dss00281.gifhttp://www.atanycost.org/images/dss00284.gif

Jim Elliot is known for the quote "He is no fool to give what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

Here's an image of it, in some notes/scribblings of his. :)


http://www.geocities.com/incindiaryonline/elliotquote.txt

[i]Originally posted by Buttercup[i]
What on earth are you talking about?? The oil company and missionaries shouldn't even be said in the same sentence, they are completely separate, and it is totally offensive for you to lump them together.

It's not offensive. Again:

In the late 1960s the oil company, Texaco, approached the Ecuadorian government hoping for permission to drill for oil on Huaorani land. Saint and Dayuma became a key part of the following massive displacement of hundreds of Huaorani.

The Oil company wanted to drill in their ancestral lands. Saint became a key part of the massive displacement of hundreds of Huarani. They helped displace them. Not so seperate...

I heard some really awful things (I'm not sure if what I heard about what the Shell people did was true)

Now look, you are doing the very same thing I have done. Raised questions and not accepting a claim at face value. I urge you to investigate and verify. However, raising the question for this, well, my instincts would say you won't find much evidence contrary to the abuse claims. As my Latin American history professor has told me, " you're instincts are usually right"

I just read that site you went to. It said that another oil company (Texaco) went to Ecuador in the 60's and caused many natives to move away from the land they always lived on. Don't blame the missionaries for that, blame the oil company or the Ecuadorian government for allowing Texaco to drill on that land.

It took me awhile to research this. At first I only encountered evangelical, "inspirational" accounts. I still had my instincts and pressed forward. It wasn't until I ran across the term Waorani, that I found non-evangelical sources of information. Most of the evangelical accounts used Aucas. The rival tribe's language has Waorani's as "Aucas" which means savages. Well, lets just say that today's discipline of Anthropology, etc would not use an antiquated term for an intellectual presentation at hand. I believe the 'savage' connotation plays well into the preconceptions of some in the evangelical audience. However, it the academic arena, it would be mildly irresponsible intellectually. Thankfully, Waoranis is used approriately for discussion today and not the antiquated 'aucas' Lexicon is highly important.

Now, the historical process I harp about comes into play. Ecuador, prior to the nationalist military coup which nationalized oil industries, was a client state. Multinationals and the ruling class collaborated as is the case here for buisness interests. Yes, the two, the client state and the multinational oil corporation, are the chief protagonists here. However, the missionaries, as understood before, did not act in contrary to their desires for displacement. They did act accordingly thus bearing some responsibility for displacement.

For some reason, you seem to want to find something to point the finger at the missionaries for... to make them the bad guy, or to dismiss what they did there, by impugning their character. That is really sad... because 5 missionaries gave their lives in order to reach the Aucas, now Huaoranis, who had never heard the gospel. And they gave their lives willingly (They owned weapons, but they had decided beforehand not to use them in self-defense if it came to that)

No, I was tipped off by evangelical mentions of oil workers in the 40's and with my instincts persued the larger story. None of the evangelical accounts mentioned the land displacement fate. I think that is essential information. Much less the fact that those who aided in displacing natives from their ancestral lands were the missionaries themselves.

My motives are simple, to transcend the 'inspirational' evangelical description and to ascertain some truths about the larger historical experience. It's not really sad. It's called having spent years of my life studying the epic of Latin America, having a good sense of instincts concerning events, and investigating a presentation where my instincts tell me there might be more to the story. That's all I did. If I am presenting things that you don't like, oh well. As for your rebuttal, I don't find it very persuasive in all honesty.

Lastly, as a student of Latin America knows, the same issues can occur in different national histories. Mexico as of late has a similiar ordeal. US and other multinationals wanted to exploit the resources of Chiapas Mexico. The state is very rich in resources. The client state of Salinas de Gotari participated in organizing NAFTA. Central to foriegn corporate interests was article 27 of the Mexican constitution. Article 27 dealt with land rights and subsoil resource rights, it was written with the blood of one million dead in the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The US multinationals wanted the Indigenous off their lands in Chiapas, and the client state in Mexico was willing. Are they displaced today? No. Why not? Well, thankfully, they have been able to ward off the violent attempts by the US subsidized Mexican army. Also, there is no missionary presence there willing to displace them. Is there a Christian presence? You bet. However, the displacement of indigenous peoples to the liking of corporations is not on the agenda of Bishop Samuel Ruiz. The indigenous people resisted and organized a people's army, the EZLN. Faced with displacement, reconquest, and cultural annihliation, they armed themselves for self-defense. The last I know of is that the EZLN has worked an autonomous governing body into their communities. Their resistence continues. Land displacement by more powerful forces is not a given. It can be resisted and averted. This is not the lesson of the missionaries in Ecuador.

Originally posted by BIG GABE


It's not offensive. Again:



The Oil company wanted to drill in their ancestral lands. Saint became a key part of the massive displacement of hundreds of Huarani. They helped displace them. Not so seperate...

Again, if that is true, it is the oil company and the Ecuadorian government who are to blame for why they had to move, not Rachel Saint. But again, I am going to go straight to the source of someone who was there, and find out more about this. I was thinking... if you want, you should come up here and I can take you to meet the missionaries I met, if you want. And we can see the documentary.



Now look, you are doing the very same thing I have done. Raised questions and not accepting a claim at face value. I urge you to investigate and verify. However, raising the question for this, well, my instincts would say you won't find much evidence contrary to the abuse claims. As my Latin American history professor has told me, " you're instincts are usually right"

First of all, in the above quote I was talking about things I heard about the Shell oil company! And I don't remember where I heard the things, so I have to find it again, and find out the facts. But this is off topic anyway, my thread is about the missionaries, not Shell, or Texaco. And yes, I don't take everything I read at first glance at gospel truth, especially stuff on the interent. You said that you were skeptical of this story, but the first 'non-Christian' leftist site that you found, you instantly believed. But I have noticed that is a pattern with you. When it comes to other things too. Like how you don't believe what many Christian scholars say, but the second you find a liberal biblical scholar that fits more into your view of gnosticism, you immediately believe them.


It took me awhile to research this. At first I only encountered evangelical, "inspirational" accounts. I still had my instincts and pressed forward. It wasn't until I ran across the term Waorani, that I found non-evangelical sources of information. Most of the evangelical accounts used Aucas. The rival tribe's language has Waorani's as "Aucas" which means savages. Well, lets just say that today's discipline of Anthropology, etc would not use an antiquated term for an intellectual presentation at hand. I believe the 'savage' connotation plays well into the preconceptions of some in the evangelical audience. However, it the academic arena, it would be mildly irresponsible intellectually. Thankfully, Waoranis is used approriately for discussion today and not the antiquated 'aucas' Lexicon is highly important.

They don't still use "Aucas". Everyone uses Huaorani now, except to sometimes describe them before their name changed. My mom, though, didn't know their name changed... I have a funny story to tell you about that, but I'll tell you another time. :D


Now, the historical process I harp about comes into play. Ecuador, prior to the nationalist military coup which nationalized oil industries, was a client state. Multinationals and the ruling class collaborated as is the case here for buisness interests. Yes, the two, the client state and the multinational oil corporation, are the chief protagonists here. However, the missionaries, as understood before, did not act in contrary to their desires for displacement. They did act accordingly thus bearing some responsibility for displacement.

All of this is off topic.


No, I was tipped off by evangelical mentions of oil workers in the 40's and with my instincts persued the larger story. None of the evangelical accounts mentioned the land displacement fate. I think that is essential information. Much less the fact that those who aided in displacing natives from their ancestral lands were the missionaries themselves.

My motives are simple, to transcend the 'inspirational' evangelical description and to ascertain some truths about the larger historical experience. It's not really sad. It's called having spent years of my life studying the epic of Latin America, having a good sense of instincts concerning events, and investigating a presentation where my instincts tell me there might be more to the story. That's all I did. If I am presenting things that you don't like, oh well. As for your rebuttal, I don't find it very persuasive in all honesty.

Lastly, as a student of Latin America knows, the same issues can occur in different national histories. Mexico as of late has a similiar ordeal. US and other multinationals wanted to exploit the resources of Chiapas Mexico. The state is very rich in resources. The client state of Salinas de Gotari participated in organizing NAFTA. Central to foriegn corporate interests was article 27 of the Mexican constitution. Article 27 dealt with land rights and subsoil resource rights, it was written with the blood of one million dead in the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The US multinationals wanted the Indigenous off their lands in Chiapas, and the client state in Mexico was willing. Are they displaced today? No. Why not? Well, thankfully, they have been able to ward off the violent attempts by the US subsidized Mexican army. Also, there is no missionary presence there willing to displace them. Is there a Christian presence? You bet. However, the displacement of indigenous peoples to the liking of corporations is not on the agenda of Bishop Samuel Ruiz. The indigenous people resisted and organized a people's army, the EZLN. Faced with displacement, reconquest, and cultural annihliation, they armed themselves for self-defense. The last I know of is that the EZLN has worked an autonomous governing body into their communities. Their resistence continues. Land displacement by more powerful forces is not a given. It can be resisted and averted. This is not the lesson of the missionaries in Ecuador.

Again, if you want to start a thread about how corporations or governemnts displace indigenous people, start a thread. You and I are talking about different things. And again, if you want to hear more about this story, you should come up here and meet the missionaries who were there. I want you to hear the amazing story that I never even got into depth on.

Originally posted by buttercup
Again, if that is true, it is the oil company and the Ecuadorian government who are to blame for why they had to move, not Rachel Saint.

Again, I stated that the two are the chief protagonists. However, with the evidence in hand, I will not absolve the role of the missionaries in carrying out the wishes of the two chief protagonists. Let's not pass the buck, let's spread it around accordingly.


I was thinking... if you want, you should come up here and I can take you to meet the missionaries I met, if you want. And we can see the documentary.

Sounds enticing, yet improbable. I have this gig called school, finals, etc.

First of all, in the above quote I was talking about things I heard about the Shell oil company! And I don't remember where I heard the things, so I have to find it again, and find out the facts.

I knew what you were talking about that time. I still offer the same advice.


But this is off topic anyway, my thread is about the missionaries, not Shell, or Texaco.

Well, as mentioned before, Texaco and the missionaries had a common interest in the Huarani peoples. It's not off topic. You are relentlessly trying to distance the missionaries from the displacement that took place which was pleasing to Texaco.


And yes, I don't take everything I read at first glance at gospel truth, especially stuff on the interent. You said that you were skeptical of this story, but the first 'non-Christian' leftist site that you found, you instantly believed.

It's good to approach a subject of religion outside of a belief box. It's called methodological agnosticism, and despite whatever beliefs I have, I use it as a tool of interpretation. Secondly, the peoplesoftheworld website was somewhat balanced in its conclusions. It presented the notion that there are many conclusions to be made about the displacement issue from "ethnocide" to protectionism from Oil company violence. Presenting evidence of displacement and mentioning various ways of interpretation is a balanced way of going about it. You say "leftist," well, I didn't see much in terms of that.


But I have noticed that is a pattern with you. When it comes to other things too. Like how you don't believe what many Christian scholars say, but the second you find a liberal biblical scholar that fits more into your view of gnosticism, you immediately believe them.

You want to talk about off-topic. Politicizing Jesus scholarship is ridiculous. There are liberal theists and conservative atheists. This is one of the many problems I am finding with Lee's book. Anyhow, scholars such as E.P. Sanders, I have criticized in my works as well. Anyhow, your rebuttal seems to be focusing on distancing the missionaries activities with regards to displacement and challenging me on biases, etc.


All of this is off topic.

Not really. It features the characteristics of the topic at hand; indigenous communities, multinational corporations, christian presence, and displacement. It's highly relevant to the discussion. It provides evidence that displacement is not inevitable when the powerful seek it. It can be resisted.



Again, if you want to start a thread about how corporations or governemnts displace indigenous people, start a thread.

Again, you distance the fact that I offer evidence that missionaries carried out the displacement of the Huaranis.

You and I are talking about different things.

No we are not. I'm talking about Huaranis, Missionaries and displacement. The last subject brings a lot of different things to the discussion which is highly relevant. Again, you seek to distance.


And again, if you want to hear more about this story, you should come up here and meet the missionaries who were there. I want you to hear the amazing story that I never even got into depth on.

Drive for 6 hrs on the five to argue with missionaries? I would probably be the only one bringing up issues that no one else would speak to. That's the enticing part. However, I very much doubt my schedule would permit me.

I talked with my professor today. His first extended stay in Latin America was in Ecuador. I spoke with him about the issues here. He said that missionary experiences in Colombia for instance were not always ' good' and as far as missionary-company connections, they have existed and there are historical cases for them. I don't have enough evidence to suggest that is the case here but there is a precident which is enough to investigate on. If you are going to offer me an invitation, perhaps I should do the same. Come here and talk to my prof. about Latin Americe before you decide to travel there on any missionary activities.

I don't know Cindy, I've basically said all I wish to have said. I don't want to get into a pissing contest in your journal. If you, or anyone else dismisses what I have to say, so be it. I rest my case anyhow ( for now at least )

Originally posted by BIG GABE

It's good to approach a subject of religion outside of a belief box. It's called methodological agnosticism, and despite whatever beliefs I have, I use it as a tool of interpretation. Secondly, the peoplesoftheworld website was somewhat balanced in its conclusions. It presented the notion that there are many conclusions to be made about the displacement issue from "ethnocide" to protectionism from Oil company violence. Presenting evidence of displacement and mentioning various ways of interpretation is a balanced way of going about it. You say "leftist," well, I didn't see much in terms of that.

I didn't think the site was that bad (although I only took a quick look)... I am saying that you are the one who is jumping to conclusions, and a very bad one, it seems. And then when I offered you the chance to speak to the very missionaries who worked there for years, you dismiss it and choose to stick to your conclusion, made because of one thing that you heard.



You want to talk about off-topic. Politicizing Jesus scholarship is ridiculous. There are liberal theists and conservative atheists. This is one of the many problems I am finding with Lee's book. Anyhow, scholars such as E.P. Sanders, I have criticized in my works as well. Anyhow, your rebuttal seems to be focusing on distancing the missionaries activities with regards to displacement and challenging me on biases, etc.

I know full well there are conservative atheists and liberal theists. That's not what I was talking about, I was talking about Biblical scholars... not so much their political views, their views on Christianity.



Not really. It features the characteristics of the topic at hand; indigenous communities, multinational corporations, christian presence, and displacement. It's highly relevant to the discussion. It provides evidence that displacement is not inevitable when the powerful seek it. It can be resisted.

That is branching off into another topic. This is about a story of a group of missionaries who sacrificed everything to reach a group of people who had never heard of Jesus. The Aucas/Huaoranis were known for being extremely violent, they had a murder rate of 60% -- most men didn't live past 30, because of murders within their own tribe, and violence with other native groups. Murder was a way of life for them.

But they did accept the missionaries, amazingly, and the deaths of the five missionaries in 1956 was based on a misunderstanding. It took some time before what really happened that day came out, especially with the problem of the language barrier, but the truth came out eventually. And the wives/families of the missionaries had forgiven them from the time it happened, and didn't push them for answers, eventually the Huaoranis told them what happened on that day. They were living together... a couple of the wives of the missionaries had stayed there and were living with them, continuing to show love and to continue their original goal of sharing the gospel with those who were willing to listen. The children of the two different peoples lived and played together. In the film I saw, you can see Valerie Elliot (daughter of Jim Elliot) a cute little blond girl, running and playing with the Huaorani children, in their birthday suits. The other children of the slain missionaries were friends with the Huaoranis, and still are to this day. Mincaye, the man who killed Nate Saint travels with Steve Saint, and they share the story. When I went to my co-worker's church, Nate Saint's widow was there speaking... she is an elderly woman, but still shares the story... and there was a video tape played of Steve Saint and Mincaye speaking to that church. It was awesome.

It's too bad you dont want to believe anything good about this, you seem to want to stick with your negative cynical conclusion, and that is too bad.


Drive for 6 hrs on the five to argue with missionaries? I would probably be the only one bringing up issues that no one else would speak to. That's the enticing part. However, I very much doubt my schedule would permit me.

When did I say to argue? I said just to hear what they have to say.


I talked with my professor today. His first extended stay in Latin America was in Ecuador. I spoke with him about the issues here. He said that missionary experiences in Colombia for instance were not always ' good' and as far as missionary-company connections, they have existed and there are historical cases for them. I don't have enough evidence to suggest that is the case here but there is a precident which is enough to investigate on. If you are going to offer me an invitation, perhaps I should do the same. Come here and talk to my prof. about Latin Americe before you decide to travel there on any missionary activities.

If he is anything like a couple professors that I had at SF state, then I can pretty much guess what he thinks. And btw, I never said that I was going to do missions work in South America for sure, I am willing to go wherever I am led to go. I have been experiencing a lot of coincidences having to do with Ecuador, but I'm going to wait and see if that is the place I will be going... If the decision was up to me, it probably wouldn't be Ecuador. Not that I don't want to visit Ecuador, I do, because it's been a long time since I've been there... but in the past when I thought about doing this type of work, Ecuador was not a place that came to mind.


I don't know Cindy, I've basically said all I wish to have said. I don't want to get into a pissing contest in your journal. If you, or anyone else dismisses what I have to say, so be it. I rest my case anyhow ( for now at least )

I'm not dismissing what you have to say, but I have heard/seen things about this story that you havent seen yet, and I think you are coming to a conclusion before hearing the whole story. And that is unfortunate. But I do agree that there's no point in continuing to argue this.

this powerful story and only noticed this tread today. I was quite young when I first read the book and its always been in the back of my mind. I value all comments in this forum. This would not be a hollywood film as such but rather shoot by myself as an independant. I think the story and issues that go with it are well worth bringing to the foregound again for the current generations to view. Anyway, I would value your comments.. Dave

this powerful story and only noticed this tread today. I was quite young when I first read the book and its always been in the back of my mind. I value all comments in this forum. This would not be a hollywood film as such but rather shoot by myself as an independant. I think the story and issues that go with it are well worth bringing to the foregound again for the current generations to view. Anyway, I would value your comments.. Dave


Hi! I think it's great that you're making a film on this story... I would love to hear more about it (I studied film in college and although i've only worked on a few things, it's something I want to get into in the future). I've been wanting to see the new "Through the Gates of Splendour" film, I've only seen the first one, made years ago.

This story really touched me and was one of the reasons I wanted to get into missions work. I think it will go straight to the heart of people who will see that it was God's love and amazing forgiveness that led pretty much the whole tribe of Huaranis to Christ.

Let me know how it's going... and also, how did you find this thread, btw?

Peace,
cindy

I'm bumping this thread because this story (that I read a few years ago) is the story behind the movie out now - End of the Spear (http://www.endofthespear.com/).

I haven't seen it yet, but I will. I've heard mixed reviews.... It got hit from both sides, from non-christian critics who of course don't like it because it's a film about missionaries, and from christians who say it was watered down, doesn't even mention Jesus, etc. (funny how both sides criticize it for different reasons!) I'll have to see for myself, but I hope they did the story justice, because as the title says.... it really is an amazing story.

THat movie was made by the cousin of the dude I work with so I have had to hear about it from the moment it was thought of.
:|

THat movie was made by the cousin of the dude I work with so I have had to hear about it from the moment it was thought of.
:|

Does that mean you didn't go see it..or no?

not yet, no.