“It’s great that these people are doing God’s work, but
do they have to talk about Him so much?” So muses Brian Palmer at Slate about the work of
medical missionaries like Dr. Kent Brantly, who contracted Ebola in Liberia. I’m
almost embarrassed to write about this piece, because it is such an easy
target. But the Brantly case has put new focus on the work of medical
missionaries, who are generating surprisingly negative comments from certain
observers. These critiques have fallen into several categories: those who say
that the missionaries are stupid for putting themselves in harm’s way, those
who say that the missionaries should get no special treatment when they
contract a disease that has affected so many others in Africa, and those like
Palmer who insist that medical missionaries are wrong to speak about their
faith to patients. Here’s three observations about this debate:
1) Palmer and other critics have a deluded sense of
“neutral” medicine. Doctors who deal with suffering and dying patients will
inevitably send messages, explicit or implicit, to their patients and patients’
families, about the meaning of dying and death. Doctors who think that death is
a purely natural event, and that there is no afterlife, or who are agnostic on
such questions, will tend to communicate that sentiment to clients. This partly
explains why so many Christian doctors do volunteer for the mission
field – they believe that there is transcendent meaning in both life and death,
and that every person has an eternal destiny. They are uniquely positioned to
help people who are struggling with such questions. All doctors can and should
be sensitive to issues of politeness and propriety, and the religious
convictions (or lack thereof) of patients. But no doctor – no person – is
“neutral” on topics like suffering, death, and the afterlife.
2) Making volunteer medical service contingent upon
silence about one’s faith would be devastating to impoverished regions
internationally. As Palmer himself notes, disproportionate numbers of
doctors and nurses serving in under-serviced areas of the world (like Liberia)
are people of faith. Devout Protestant and Catholic Christians are among the
most common volunteers. They serve to honor God, and they do not believe that
they can honor God fully if they do not speak about Jesus Christ to clients,
when appropriate. Palmer seems unable to identify with the vast majority of
people in the world who do not believe that death is the end of life, nor does
he fathom that serious believers cannot be silent about their faith in their
vocations.
Domestically and abroad, people of faith are far more likely to give
time and money to charitable causes than are secular people. (Just this week another survey appeared demonstrating that the
most charitable states are those with the highest rates of churchgoing.) You
can accuse these believing folks of having ulterior motives, but where are the
legions of atheist volunteers to take their place? Palmer’s innuendos
about how the missionaries might be doing more medical harm than good are
vicious and slanderous.
3) Christians must not object to other medical
volunteers who speak of their own faith (or lack thereof) to clients. Of
course, there are secular medical agencies such as Doctors without Borders
(though presumably many of their individual volunteers are people of faith as
well), Muslim
medical missionaries, and those of other faiths. While Christians will not
agree with the implicit or explicit messages these doctors may share with
clients, the principles of religious liberty and charity would affirm that all
medical “missionaries” are free to serve and speak (or not) in the name of
their faith, and that their healing work does great worldly and humanitarian
good. If we expect others to honor Christians’ right to freely witness about
Christ, then workers of other traditions, or no faith at all, should have that
freedom as well. Of course, this point may be moot: I don’t recall hearing of
many Christians echoing the kinds of complaints made by secularists like Brian
Palmer…
See also Ross Douthat’s take on the piece, in which he concludes that
he thinks Palmer’s real complaint is “not that the missionaries are necessarily
doing something wrong (he won’t actually come out and say that),
but that they’re doing something right in a way that makes his team, Team
Secularism, look somewhat less impressive by comparison. Which isn’t
really a reaction that Christians should be offended by. It’s one that should
be welcomed, worn as a badge of honor, and joyfully provoked.” Agreed.
Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/10/those-suspicious-medical-missionaries/
No comments:
Post a Comment