A surprise confrontation from the skeptic

People have often asked me if meeting and/or interacting with another American or even another white person for that matter is perceived as a positive occurrence. One would think, in light of the fact that I live alone in a village in which there have been stretches as long a month-and-a-half with no interaction with someone besides the resident Aukaaners that I would jump at the sight for a chance of conversing in my native tongue. The reality, I have learned, is quite the contrary. There is typically, what I guess you could so eloquently categorize as three “white people” groups you meet in the interior of Suriname. The more common two: Peace Corps volunteers and European Tourists from France or Holland are generally somewhat risky because one doesn’t know there perception of missionaries- which is unfortunately often negative and with Europeans, the whole language guessing game: not knowing exactly where they’re from, both of us not sure if we might be proficient in the other’s language and to what degree they understand and speak English (which is more often than not, pretty well). With Peace Corps, it’s a real grab-bag. You might find a guy like a friend we have who is a born-again, evangelistic and down-to-Earth or you might get a liberal, pluralistic, feminist who sees you as someone destroying the beautiful and harmonious indigenous culture. The third group, one to which a degree of suspicion reaches its pinnacle and an encounter, as I just found out yesterday can be downright confrontational: an anthropologist.

When Joe white man shows up in your village while you’re having a conversation with the native inhabitants you’re naturally caught a bit off-guard; not being sure what to expect from this unavoidable, impending interaction. But you know you’re in for a lively debate when, after formal greetings and the divulging of your purpose being here your newfound antagonist makes this statement: “You’re a missionary…well I guess you and I are working against each other.” That’s right, that’s what the guy said. And this gentleman, presently working on his PhD brazenly began to question me in a flagrant display of academic pretentiousness my purpose for being here and my beliefs. This dialogue eventually covered more topics on ethics, theology, history and various sub-categories that I knew little or nothing about than I have ever participate in. I wish I could have recorded the entire “session”.

“Stan” as we shall call him posed questions such as follows: What is faith?, Who is God?, Why does this supposed loving God sent people to a place of torture and punishment? Is there is such a thing as sin? How can you profess there to be only one truth? Why is there suffering? Is God just?

Now keep in mind, Stan wasn’t asking these questions without premeditated knowledge both on the subject and support to refute a “Christian” answer. He had an incredible amount of head knowledge you’re apt to find within the intellectual circle. I realized early on, I would need a pen and a few spare ink cartridges to check-off the reading list this guy had compiled. He made it clear early on how he saw my work as culturally-destructive, ungrounded in truth, and pernicious. I remembered what Jesus said to his disciples about not worrying beforehand what to say because The Father will give you wisdom which your adversaries will not be able to refute contradict.

When quoting the Bible at one instance early on, Stan interjected stating: “Don’t use the Bible to defend your Christian position! Will a thief’s own testimony be valid in his own defense or are witnesses necessary?” Now I have, especially in the last two years really developed a passion for apologetics. I love to read books defending the faith and I also am interested in what authors and individuals who oppose Christianity have to say. As the dialogue continued, I began to appreciate this opportunity. Stan had an agenda and he was undoubtedly trying intimidation as a means to his perceived victory.

As Christians, it’s vastly important we know how defend our faith. Books such as the Case for Christ and the Case for Faith and Mere Christianity can go far to help you in this realm (They did for me). Now Stan invariably questioned every widely accepted set of truths out there. His field studies cultures and he seemed to have an obscure cultural example to contradict every “universal” out there. I brought to attention that there are generally accepted truths that span all cultures in regard to morality: murder, adultery, respect for the elderly, theft are a few examples.

Evidently, what Stan was trying to do was shock and stump me with the unusual and exceptional. I prayed many times for the Lord to give me wisdom to answer this belligerent skeptic After having a discussion that usually involved him doing most the talking I was able to bring a couple key points up that he cleverly side-stepped but could never answer me head-on. The biggest one, involving the spiritual presence in the village, namely the existence of demons he simply said doesn’t apply to his work. He knew acknowledging the spiritual realm opened up a big can of worms. He dismissed the Aukaaner’s widely held beliefs and plainly stated that he has a hard time accepting anything as fully and completely true. He questioned the existence of what is sin but yet freely labeled what he believed to be evil or wicked. How can you categorize evil when you haven’t established anything as being right or wrong? Clearly, there were too many holes created with his conviction-less belief system.

So, how does a man like this live and find his meaning? Well, when your stance is positioned as is Stan’s, you question everything, accept anything and oppose nothing. Your beliefs are as follows:

-You live by a set of ethics and morality which you can select, adopt or discard at your pleasure

-You’re principles and evidence necessitate acceptance of a “higher power” or “spiritual force” but he has no role in your life whether to judge, love, or guide. You are in no accountable to him.

-You can’t stand people who belief something with their whole heart and accept many of their core beliefs on faith but you eventually realize you can’t oppose them, it would contradict the very core of your life philosophy.

We ended our two-hour long discussion with him being much more subdued, amiable and reflective mood. His closing remarks being that it’s a good thing that I’m doing what I believe in and being sincere in it all. It’s the extent of what he could say, there’s no room for condemnation when truth is non-existent in your belief system. And although, from my standpoint, I don’t believe “being sincere” constitutes anything as right or true… (who can you find out there more sincere and zealous than an Islamic suicide bomber).

Then again, that’s why I’m a missionary and the Jesus I serve doesn’t accept any god, moral code, or philosophical state outside of him because He is Truth.