Christianity Today has a couple of resources and reflections on the aftermath of the Korean kidnappings. The first article gives a summary of the effect that this incident has had on the church that sent the team, both domestically and in the international community.
South Korea has been known for its zeal for missions; it sends out more missionaries than any other country except the United States. The country currently sends about 1,000 new missionaries every year, according to Steve Moon, director of the Korea Research Institute for Missions.
"At this point, it's hard to guess how it will affect the missionary movement quantitatively," Moon said. "Qualitatively, it will be an opportunity for growth in maturity. … Churches will need to think more strategically, and churches and missions will prepare better for short-term missions. Many people will maintain the same kind of enthusiasm, but what they need is wisdom and cultural sensitivity."
Park said that 20 of the South Koreans traveled to Afghanistan for a short-term trip to volunteer at a school and to provide medical aid. Three of the hostages were missionaries who had already been in Afghanistan when the group arrived.
In parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, unarmed aid volunteers are at high risk of being kidnapped or injured. They typically travel in very small groups and often with military or police escort. But this group traveled together on a conspicuous bus, without police or military escort. Furthermore, the driver was not carefully selected, since the hostages say he collaborated in the July 19 abduction.
Princeton University sociologist Robert Wuthnow told CT that most American short-term missions volunteers travel to relatively safe environments for relief work. In contrast, many South Korean churches are willing to send short-term groups to dangerous parts of the world.
In
a separate article, CT gives the results of a survey of prominent missions leaders. I wasn't surprised as much by the answer to the first question--"Should churches send short-term mission groups into dangerous or closed countries?". 46% responded yes, under certain conditions. Another 27% gave an unqualified yes. I was a bit surprised by the answer to the second question: "When such groups go and suffer persecution, how should their government respond?". 43% of the respondents expected the government to step in.
I'm certainly not against government help, but I was a bit surprised that people expect the government to do something. As citizens of a country, people surely have certain rights, even when they travel abroad. But I don't know if I would expect the government to intervene if I knowingly went somewhere to serve the cause of Christ. Would I receive such help? Certainly. But I wouldn't expect it.
For the most part, I agree with the other respondents. I think short-term trips to closed or dangerous countries are acceptable, given certain conditions. I certainly support the church going to those countries--after all, that's the point, isn't it? But I'm not as certain about the wisdom of
short-term trips to those countries. In certain cases, under certain conditions, I would support such trips. But I think we also have to check our motives, to make sure that we are acting in response to a call from the Lord, and not a romantic notion of missions that we've created in our heads. In general, I'm much more in favor of long-term missions to closed countries than short, two-week to 6 month types programs.
That said, I thought
the final article, a CT editorial, made a great point. We live in such a messed up world. After the kidnapping ordeal was finally resolved, guess who was blamed for it all... It's not the Taliban or the kidnappers. Instead of blaming the people who did this evil, the church is taking the blame. It's "their own fault" for being there, in a sense... Crazy, isn't it?
The world will never understand our real motive for missions, but that should not affect our response to the call of Christ.
Any thoughts?
