Hi Jim,


>Doug,
>
>I've been wondering what your opinion has been on an issue, and this is the opportunity to raise it...
>
>The two American women, said to be "aid workers" who were 'detained' until recently in Afghanistan were accused of "preaching Christianity" and the law of that land forbade this.
>
>There was always some doubt expressed by the media reports that they were actually doing this.
>
>However, within hours of their release being made public a Reverend in Buffalo was all over the television expressing his relief (one of the ladies is a member of his group or congregation) and stating outright that they were there to preach the Lord's word and that to his knowledge his member intended to continue doing so wherever that may take her. I understand that the ladies have admitted to preaching God's word there too.
>
>So the question is: were they wrong to have done what they did where they did it?

>snip<

Hmm.. Super question.. And tougher to answer than one might initially think.

There are a couple of issues here essentially summed up in the question, "Is it more important to obey God than man?". The Bible absolutely instructs the Christian to obey the laws of the nation they are in. That would include countries that persecute Christians as well as all the others. Whether or not the Christian think s the laws are fiar has no bearing on the issue. The only issue is whether or not the laws preclude a Christian from practicing his/her faith and bu practicing I would mean four essential things: 1) Communion, 2) Fellowship with other Christians (this is usually the big bugaboo), 3) Reading, Studying & teaching the Bible and 4)Prayer.

Probably one of the best Biblical examples would be found in the fourth chapter of the book of Acts. (New Testament, 5th book. <g>) Peter and John were on their way to worship in Herod's Temple when a man who had been born lame was healed. Well, naturally this caused quite a ruckus and they were hauled before the High Proest to give an account of themselves. They were told by the High Priest to cease and desist from preaching the name of Jesus to which they replied:

"Act 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Act 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

If you under Jewish culture in those days the High Priest was the final authority both in civil and religious matters. However, Rome had taken away their authority to put people to death (which caused a great national lament as the prophets had declared that the Messiah would come before they ceased to be a nation and they interpreted this removal as the loss of power but the Messiah hadn't shown. But Jesus was born a year or so before this authority was removed.. <g>).

Another good example can be found in the book of Daniel in the Old testament where the laws were specifically changed to 'get' him. His reaction was to keep praying as before.

Well, anyway, here you have an 'official' state command to not preach Christ and the apostles replied, in so many words, that they were compelled to do what they did and, again in so many words, that the law of God was higher than the law of man.

Now, at this point folks usually object because they think that this is an attempt to subject them all of the Jewish laws. That isn't the case as the only requirements are not to eat blood, things strangled and to avoid fornication. Balanced with the two commands to 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor.

So, I will obey the laws of the land I live in up to the point that I am required to forsake my faith. That's essentially been the way most Christians have looked at this over the years. Helping people find eternal life is more important than this one and I suspect these eight (8) folks were indeed in Afghanistan to 'preach Christ'. Folks smuggled Bibles into Russia for years and they are still being taken into others locations.

My guess is that they assessed the risk and took them with full knowledge of what they were doing. They went in to demostrate their faith by their actions and if questions arose they would answer them. I am pretty well in the camp of those who do not like 'pushy' preachers. While I'll stand up for my faith I try very hard to not push it on others, though I know that the mere mention of some of these issues set some folks off. For them I can only suggest that they get over it as I have, in our current culture, the same right to speak as they do. That may and most likely will change over the next 10 years or so and speaking to others about Christ and sin and so forth will be classified as hate speach and forbidden. I'm thinking that it's a sort of judgement call that the individual needs to apply some straightforward principles to...

You have to remember that more often than not it is the Christian organization that is in a country first. They build hospitals, sewer systems, schools, farms, teach agriculture skills, etc, etc etc. and are not only interested in the spiritual welfare of those they serve but their material welfare as well. I can't tell you how many good deeds have been done in the name of Christ without asking for a penny. Yes, there are frauds and they are a blemish but my guess is that these ladies truly wanted to teach the Afghan women the skils they were teaching them.

I can't think of any right now but I'll bet that there are several books on Christian Ethics that would expand greatly on this subject. I'm sure these issues have been intensely debated over the years.

Hope this helps...