Michael R. Jordan

Hello,

I am writing an essay about religious intolerance within Christian missionaries of the seventeenth-nineteenth century Canada-America and their relations with the native (or savages) people of this time. My argument grants that the missionaries were religiously intolerant but yet they are not to be percieved as some sort of villian, as we might when considering religiously intolerant individuals. They were religously not out of malice, greed or the thirst for power. I claim that the religious intolerance of the missionaries came about from what they felt was the best for the indigenous people.


Now, what I am looking for is scriptural support for the missions. I know, as common knowledge, that christianity is inherently a missionary religion but I am seeking a scriptural permitter or motivator for them to conduct these missions. Help?




Additionally, does anyone have any suggestions for a primary source that deals with Constantine?

andrewcriddle

Matthew 28:18-20 says Andrew Criddle

pharoah

This response brings to mind a question that I've always pondered. On what basis do Christians believe that a command from Jesus addressed directly to his disciples is also meant for them?

andrewcriddle

On the general point: If the Bible is to be of any relevance to modern Christians there must be some presumption that things originally addressed to people far away and long ago still have some relevance.

On the specific point: Are there any reasons in this case to regard this command as meant only for the immediate hearers ? Matthew almost certainly saw it as relevant for his readers 1-2 generations later.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

That is general the source of religious intolerance - thinking you know what is best for someone else. Does that excuse the missionaries' actions?

Eusebius knew Constantine, so his Life of Constantine the Great would be a primary source. Not necessarily reliable, but primary.

Society for Late Antiquity might have more.

Michael R. Jordan

By saying the "general source" you are entailing some sort of measurement, how did you go about that?

Anyhow, what I am arguing is that there should be at least two groups of the religiously intolerant within this time frame. The two groups are those who are malciously bigoted, that is, individuals are behave in intolerant manners but do so maliciously and those who do so out of benevolence.

This difference, I can prove is even identified by the missionaries of that time. I have access to letters produce by certain missionaries, complaining that others, are just worse than savages and act antithetic to the Christian name.


I began this article in response to what i feel is an wholly perjoative sense to religious intolerance. That is, with the advent of modern human right activism, the term automatically connotes a stigma against their character.


As for your last question, I am not interested in culpability but empathy towards their actions would largely depend on what actions you are refering to. Although, keep in mind to be careful not to perform the historian fallacy or presentism when making such value claims.

Michael R. Jordan

btw, thanks for taking the time to find me the sources.

Toto

sorry, that was a typo - it should have been "in general."

I think it is unclear whether people with "good" Biblical motives do more or less harm than "maliciously bigoted" people.

I am not interested very much in passing judgment on historical characters. I am more interested in how to avoid evil in the present. The lesson I would take from this story is that people can do evil with the best of motives, and the worst evil may come from dogmatism and inflexibility.

Michael R. Jordan

i disagree. I do not believe an act or ramification should be called evil without malacious intent ( neglect too) but this is getting off topic.

Tigers!

It's not just limited to religions. Politics is full of such intolerance as is historical, acadeame etc: