The "Great Commission" and the Harm it Has Done

[Jagella]

Christianity started out as an apocalyptic religious sect having a stated goal of ruling the world. Although its theology involved a wrathful and violent god who was believed to be about to come down from the sky to punish and do away with all those who were not Christians and then place Christians in authority, in practice Christians sought power through converting people to their beliefs. Strength in numbers was the ultimate goal. We see the injunction to convert anybody and everybody in what has become known as the "Great Commission." This commandment appears in Matthew 28:19 (NRSV):

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.

Question for Debate: Has The Great Commission done a lot of harm?

The short answer is yes, but allow me to elaborate.

A person converting to any religion can result in social disruption if one's friends and family disapprove of the newly adopted faith, or if the newly adopted faith disapproves of one's friends and family. Some Christian sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage individual Jehovah's Witnesses from socializing with those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and many non-Jehovah's Witnesses discourage people from joining the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Conversion to Christianity also has adverse psychological consequences for the convert. Since Christ preached that all those who didn't believe him were doomed, Christians must live in fear that unbelievers may be eternally damned. Those unbelievers might include loved ones. To avoid having people suffer eternal damnation, many Christians may try to convert people to "save" them. Christians may become very upset if the conversions are not forthcoming fearing that the persons who fail to convert will be eternally damned. I've personally experienced Christians getting very upset when they realize I'm an unbeliever who won't convert to Christianity.

The consequences of joining a Christian sect like this can be far more severe than social disruption and paranoia. Depending on how much hostility that sect endures, people who convert to it place themselves in jeopardy--danger that can easily be avoided by never converting to that sect. Christians have been persecuted and even executed merely for being Christians, so conversion can be very harmful indeed.

There are other reasons why the Great Commission can be harmful, but for now it should be revealing to discuss the culpability of Christ in issuing his injunction to convert all people. One might object to blaming Christ for the evils done in his name. He never meant to place anybody in harm's way, right?

I don't think so. According to many gospel passages, Christ was well aware of the dangers that converts to his sect would risk. He knew his followers would be hated (Matthew 10:22), would endure alienation from their families (Matthew 10:35), and would be executed (John 16:2).

For these reasons, I must conclude that The Great Commission has done incalculable harm. If Christ did issue the command to convert people, then he is guilty of the harm it has done.

[Mithrae]

...social disruption if one's friends and family disapprove of the newly adopted faith...

...Christians must live in fear...

Depending on how much hostility that sect endures, people who convert to it place themselves in jeopardy...


If Christ did issue the command to convert people, then he is guilty of the harm it has done.

It is universally accepted among thinking people that guilt is borne by the perpetrators of harmful acts: The person who commits rape is guilty, not the person wearing revealing clothes; the person inciting violence against a group is guilty, not the people who remain in the targeted group. According to the 'logic' of the OP, because they encouraged others to join their respective movements folk like Gandhi and Mandela are therefore guilty for all the harm inflicted against anti-Apartheid and Indian independence movements.

It goes without saying that...

[Jagella]

It is universally accepted among thinking people that guilt is borne by the perpetrators of harmful acts...

We also consider the guilty to be those who instigate wrongful acts or attempt wrongful acts and those who may endanger others even if no actual harm occurs to them. Christ openly instigated division among his people and their families, so by my reasoning he is guilty of that wrong.

The person who commits rape is guilty, not the person wearing revealing clothes...

Also any person who may encourage a woman to wear attire that may make her more likely to be raped knowing it endangers her in that way would be guilty of a crime of endangerment. Christ encouraged his followers to put on the "attire" that he knew could result in their deaths. As such he endangered them.

the person inciting violence against a group is guilty, not the people who remain in the targeted group.

I agree that merely being a member of a group does not make one guilty of wrongdoing. For example, Christians are not guilty of any wrong just because they are Christians.

According to the 'logic' of the OP, because they encouraged others to join their respective movements folk like Gandhi and Mandela are therefore guilty for all the harm inflicted against anti-Apartheid and Indian independence movements.

I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the harm that may have come to the followers of Gandhi and Mandela, so I will not comment at length about those circumstances.

In conclusion, let me say that if I knew that harm came to innocent people as a result of something I said, then I'd feel very guilty, and I would try my best to right any wrong I was responsible for. Among other things, I would avoid saying ever again something I knew had hurt innocent people needlessly.

So why can't Christians do the same?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

The point I am making is, it is pretty easy to demonstrate this command was only intended to be for the 11 disciples. Of course 12, when you consider the fact that Mathis was added to the eleven, which we will get to in a moment. But first we need to look at this command given by Jesus in it's correct context, in each of the Gospels where it is recorded. First in Matthew 28 we read,

"So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated."

So now, who was it that "went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated"? Well, it clearly was the "eleven", correct? It then goes on to say, "When they". So then, who would "they" be referring to? Well, it could only be the eleven, correct? So then this whole sentence reads,

"When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted".

So then, the "eleven saw him", and some of the eleven doubted, correct? It then goes on to say, "Then Jesus came up and said to them". So now then, who is "them" referring to? It would be the eleven who were with him. So then, what Jesus goes on to tell, "THEM" the eleven is,

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.�

So thus far we can clearly see that Jesus is clearly only talking to the "eleven", and so in the last passage here when we read, "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" who would the "you" be referring to? The eleven correct? We will see this more clearly as we move on to the other Gospels which record this event, along with Acts.

When we arrive to, "The Gospel of Mark" we read, "Then he appeared to the eleven themselves". So again, we are back to only the "eleven", and as you can see thus far, in both Gospels, it is making the point that only the eleven would have been present when this command was given.

Now keeping in mind this author has made it plain that Jesus had just appeared to the "eleven" the authors goes on to say, "He said to them", So again, who is the, "them" referring to? It would have to be the "eleven", correct? So what was it he said "THEM"?

"“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

Now, what is said next here is extremely important, and if you are not careful you could miss this, but it goes on to say,

"

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

I'd recommend that Christians take care not to harm people in their missionary efforts. They should make sure to let people know what they're getting into when they convert to Christianity. Those converts should be informed that they may lose friends and experience difficulties with their family members if they become Christians. Potential converts should also be told that as Christians, they may experience fear and other emotional difficulties as they try to deal with believing that unbelievers, including people they know who have died, will be tormented in hell forever.

It's only fair and honest to warn people this way.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 4 by Jagella]

I'd recommend that Christians take care not to harm people in their missionary efforts. They should make sure to let people know what they're getting into when they convert to Christianity. Those converts should be informed that they may lose friends and experience difficulties with their family members if they become Christians. Potential converts should also be told that as Christians, they may experience fear and other emotional difficulties as they try to deal with believing that unbelievers, including people they know who have died, will be tormented in hell forever.

It's only fair and honest to warn people this way.

COOL! -- A warning label on the cover of all proselytizing books, and the New Testament.

But why all the gimmickry? Why does the NT have to be so contemptible (in its SO pastorally veiled way)? Innocent readers wanting to find solace and redemption are shocked to see that it's goodness comes with a price -- GIVE UP ONE's FRIENDS, RELATIVES, BRAIN USEAGE, AND FOLLOW ME!

[Jagella]

COOL! -- A warning label on the cover of all proselytizing books, and the New Testament.

It's been done already.

But why all the gimmickry? Why does the NT have to be so contemptible (in its SO pastorally veiled way)? Innocent readers wanting to find solace and redemption are shocked to see that it's goodness comes with a price -- GIVE UP ONE's FRIENDS, RELATIVES, BRAIN USEAGE, AND FOLLOW ME!

Some Christians will tell you that salvation is "free." Don't believe them. Some people have paid with their lives.

[Mithrae]

But why all the gimmickry? Why does the NT have to be so contemptible (in its SO pastorally veiled way)? Innocent readers wanting to find solace and redemption are shocked to see that it's goodness comes with a price -- GIVE UP ONE's FRIENDS, RELATIVES, BRAIN USEAGE, AND FOLLOW ME!

Perhaps when caricaturing other viewpoints as anti-intellectual, a little more care with spelling would be in order Seems to me that Jesus' core message addressed a number of problems he perceived in the society of his day: Politically concerned about Jewish tribalism or nationalism and the likelihood of failed insurrection against Rome, he preached instead a kingdom of God more important than political or familial loyalties; economically concerned with social stratification and inequality, he proclaimed blessings on the poor and urged people to give up their wealth to trust in God instead; culturally concerned with religious traditionalism, ritualism and hypocrisy, he urged a more private and less formal/organizational approach to prayer and good deeds. And yes, of course he knew that such opposition to the status quo would come at a cost. There's nothing secret about Jesus' commands for his disciples to forsake everything and take up their cross to follow him; it's only a surprise to anyone because for the past seventeen hundred years or so most churches have apparently done everything in their power to avoid teaching what Jesus taught, and often promoted exactly the opposite!

Seems to me that nationalism and tribalistic tendencies are still major problems in our world, potentially threatening extinction should it ever come to a nuclear exchange; social stratification and inequality still mean billions suffer unnecessary diseases and deprivation while a small handful live in extravagant luxury; religious traditionalism and hypocrisy still see pompous clowns fleecing the masses and parading their ignorance while impeding the spread of scientific and medical knowledge.

Perhaps feelgood things like solace and redemption are not necessarily the most important things that 'innocent' participants in our political, economic and religious systems should be looking for?

[Jagella]

...it's only a surprise to anyone because for the past seventeen hundred years or so most churches have apparently done everything in their power to avoid teaching what Jesus taught, and often promoted exactly the opposite!

Actually, most churches have taught much of what Christ taught including:

• ☼ A Wrathful God
  ☼ That Wrathful God's Punishment of Sinners
  ☼ That Punishment Lasting Eternally
  ☼ That Eternity Spent in Tormenting Flames
  ☼ A Devil Who Does His Damndest to Make Sure We Are Damned to Those Flames
  ☼ The Jews Whose Father is That Devil
  ☼ Forsaking Those Jews' Covenant and Taking Up a Covenant "Remembered" Via
  Ritual Cannibalism and Vampirism
  ☼ And Much More!

So give the churches credit for their proclamation of Christ even though it hasn't worked out to everybody's satisfaction.