Black Ops for Jesus?

Jeremy Courtney's CNN opinion piece on mission in 'hostile' countries is challenging and thought-provoking. He argues that those involved in mission to places where missionaries are not welcome should be 'transparent' and not 'duplicitous'. Here is the target of his irritation:

In order to get inside these "closed" countries, some missionaries pose as aid workers, teachers and business owners. Under the guise of work they think a hostile government or population will find valuable, they sneak in, concealing their true aim: to convert as many as possible to their religion.

He argues that such an approach to mission is fundamentally dishonest, undermines the cause of religious freedom, and puts a target on the backs of local Christians. Many of the points Courtney makes are good, arguing that, for instance, missionaries shouldn't lie and that they should 'show the world there is something worth living -- and dying -- for'.

But there are some serious problems with Courtney's argument:

1. Though there may be some truth in Courtney's picture of the covert missionary, for the most part it is a caricature - a straw man set up to make his argument sound more convincing. It would certainly be no surprise if there are missionaries operating under the modus operandi he paints. There are all sorts of people involved in all sorts of activities under the banner of mission. Much of it is commendable; sadly some is nonsense and some even plain wicked. But to paint much of what missionaries do in unwelcoming countries as 'spycraft', and 'covert missionary interventionism', explicitly comparing it to the operations of the CIA, is either grossly dishonest or just plain ignorant.
2. Courtney is operating under a fundamentally flawed paradigm of 'religion' and 'conversion'. He argues for 'religious freedom' and that is good, as far as people in the West generally understand such a concept. But he assumes that such an understanding is shared globally. It is not. And it is surprising that someone who has lived and worked in the Middle East for a decade does not seem to appreciate that. What circles is Courtney moving in? Must followers of Christ really tell Muslims or Hindus or whoever that they want 'as many of them as possible to convert to their religion'? Clearly, when people equate 'Christianity' with Western decadence as exemplified by Hollywood, that is the last message we want to give. 
3. Courtney's willingness to be 'transparent' about his work is hardly surprising given that is to provide 'life-saving heart surgeries for children'. Such a work is indeed commendable and what society or government is going to oppose it? But what if you are convinced, under the force of the Bible's teaching, that such work is inadequate to lead someone to salvation? What if you believe that the only way someone will get spiritual heart surgery is if they hear that Christ is the only mediator between God and man? Then you are going to go beyond medical work, aren't you? And that is the rub. You don't have to tell people to join your religion to get thrown out of a country. Simply sharing the story of Jesus and inviting people to submit to his lordship in order to be right with God might earn a visit from the secret police or even a bullet in the head. We are instructed in Scripture to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. That may mean that we withhold some information about ourselves to prevent our untimely departure. I was once asked by a secret policeman in Nepal whether I 'preach'. I asked him what he meant. He said, 'Do you pay people money and tell them to join your religion?' 'Certainly not!' I replied. And that was the end of it. It was not duplicitous. You don't have to engage in 'spycraft' to disabuse your interrogator of his misconceptions. But you may need to be very careful that your words don't get you into trouble. And if you are a teacher, you better be the best teacher you can be. Sadly, though, many live as enemies of the gospel. That may be enough to get you kicked out of a host country. Your task is to ensure that, as far as it depends on you, you don't get kicked out for any other reason.

To Bribe or Not to Bribe?

Katie walked into the office of the Social Welfare Council (SWC) and greeted the clerk at the desk: “Namaste, Gopalji!”. “Namaste, Katieji,” he replied. It was Katie’s fifth visit in as many days. She had been getting to know some of the workers at the office and for the most part they seemed friendly enough. But why was it so difficult to get her Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) registered? She was puzzled and getting more frustrated as the days passed.

Katie had arrived in this South Asian country two months ago, after a long break back home. She had spent two years in the country before and it was during this time that she became aware of the problem of sex trafficking and the need for safe homes for the girls that get caught up in this sordid trade. Once home in the UK she had visited dozens of churches to share her vision and was now back in the country to establish an NGO to care for such girls. There were a number of bureaucratic hurdles to be overcome before the charity could become a reality: permission would need to be sought from the Home Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Finance Ministry, and the Social Welfare Council, the government body that regulates charities. Getting the charity registered with the SWC then was the first, and major official task for Katie if she would see her vision become a reality.

As soon as she arrived she had visited the office and registered her intention to set up an NGO. She had filled in multiple forms and presented numerous policy documents covering all aspects of the running of the NGO. A ‘Letter of No Objection’ had been obtained from her embassy. Clearance had been obtained from the local police. Fees had been paid. As far as she knew all the paperwork was now complete. All she needed now was official registration. And for that the Director’s signature was required.

But day after day Katie was told by Mr Adhikari, the section head, that the Director was not available: one day he was in a meeting; the next day he was not well; the day after that an unspecified problem had arisen. Each day she was told to “Come back tomorrow”. Katie was getting demoralized. “Would my dream ever become a reality?” she mused to herself. There were girls even now in a vulnerable position who could do with a safe house to stay in. Without registration Katie was powerless to act.

Now, after another fruitless day hanging around the offices, Katie went to get advice from the director of another NGO. “Have you tried offering a gift?” asked Bob, an old hand at dealing with officials.

“No, certainly not. Bribery is unethical,” replied Katie.

“Oh, it is not bribery,” went on Bob. “You see, you have to understand, government employees are paid a pittance for their work. Everybody knows that they have to supplement their income through gifts otherwise they can’t manage. So it is not a bribe, it is an accepted and normal transaction for the work they are doing.”

“But they should do the work without ‘gifts’ and besides, if you start giving ‘gifts’ for one thing it will never end,” objected Katie.

“You are not asking them to do anything illegal or unjust,” said Bob. “The gift is an ‘acceleration fee’ to encourage them to do their duty in a more timely and efficient manner.”

“But there will be no receipt, so how do I account for that in my book-keeping?” went on Katie. “And besides, my supporters would be appalled at their sacrificial donations being used to feather some bureaucrat’s bed.”

“Well, that is just how it goes Katie. You better get used to it,” Bob replied. “Everyone does it. It is the only way to get things done. You must figure in that 10% of your finances will go missing in one way or another. If you don’t play the game, you will never get registered and all those girls will have no place to go.”

Katie left Bob’s place feeling deflated. Should she ‘go with the flow’ or try to buck the system? If she did start passing out ‘gifts’ for such services would she not just become part of the problem? But if she didn’t, her dream might be dead in the water – the girls would continue to be in a vulnerable position. She felt that it was all so unjust but wondered whether such a small injustice, if indeed it was that and not just a neutral aspect of the culture that she had to get used to, should be accepted in order to avoid an even greater injustice should the NGO not be registered and the girls remain at risk. What should she do?