Christians In Taiwan

Just a question, as I’m curious. Most of Taiwan’s apartment buildings have either a locked front door or a doorman that doesn’t let any unknown people in. How do they missionaries make their rounds? None have showed up at my door, as I’m assuming the doorman didn’t let them in. Some places may have those intercoms, but I can’t imagine those being that successful for missionaries.

And then there are the Christians who insist on trying to cram their religions down everyone else’s throats.

Waiting in line in CostCo, some guy starts chatting with me about what a wonderful day it is. Ok, great, it’s nice out, how totally sweet, like it hasn’t been for the last three months. Then he makes this radical segue (now forumosa :stuck_out_tongue: ) about how he’s a committed Christian and how wonderful that is, blah blah. . . . Fine, sure, ok, whatever. Then he gets offended that I don’t join him in the Hallelujiah Chorus, and starts making snide comments. When I mention I’m heading for Taipei RSN, he snarls that it must be because the President is a good committed Christian and I must be an intolerant jerk – even though I had been unfailingly polite throughout.

Or my former neighbor, who launched into how Jesus turned his life around and I should consider joining his family at church some weekend about one time out of three that I ran into him on the street. Oh, and the religious video that was left in my mailbox “free of charge”.

Or, my personal favorite, the time back in college when my girlfriend and I were riding the T (Boston) and some little old hag with a Bible started stabbing my girlfriend in the foot with the tip of the hag’s umbrella. The provocation was that we were standing next to her on a crowded train – well, sheeit, that’s public transportation for ya.

Hey, I’m a polite guy about it, but I really do resent it when, after my being polite about it, these Christians either turn into fucking werewolves or just keep hammering at it for months on end. It’s annoying. Like, do you think they would be particularly happy if I started bugging them about joining the Campus Crusade for Chthulhu? “Join me now, or I will boil the marrow from your bones and make nose-flutes out of them for my many-tentacled master.”

The Mormons are the best of the lot in my experience, invariably polite in return. Two of their missionaries dropped by over the summer and offered to help me shovel a pile of semi-composted grass out from behind some bushes where a lawnmowing service had dumped it – in 80 degree temps while wearing their black suits. :slight_smile: I declined; I didn’t want to wreck their day, but I had some fun teasing them about it.

None of these people even know what religion I am – I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned it here either. I don’t see any point in bringing it up to people; it’s usually in poor taste, and sometimes even rude.

I didn’t even know that my best friend in Seattle is an atheist until last summer, and I’d known him for seven years by then. IMHO that’s about how it should be.

Amen!

This reminds of the first and last time I ever went to church in Taiwan. (Not counting the time I worked as an extra for Studio Classroom.) I was dragged to that nice church on Yangminshan one Sunday because my Chinese-language classmate at the time said I had a filthy mouth and needed to go.

Mormons here seem to use the, “I’m American, you’re American in a foreign country so lets be buddies and chitchat” approach, which I am sure they learned in mission bootcamp. Not really a bother.

But the more lost souls they save (hard sales won), the better their own chance of entering their heaven and sitting at the elbow of their God. Of course, if they were really sure they were destined for a blissful afterlife, they wouldn’t need to go recruiting. :o

Just a question, as I’m curious. Most of Taiwan’s apartment buildings have either a locked front door or a doorman that doesn’t let any unknown people in. How do they missionaries make their rounds? None have showed up at my door, as I’m assuming the doorman didn’t let them in. Some places may have those intercoms, but I can’t imagine those being that successful for missionaries.[/quote]

I’m not sure how they deal with that these days. I worked in the south part of Taiwan back in 1988-89, and there weren’t many gated communities then. They probably try to make nice with the guard, or simply stay away. We used to do most of our contacting during the daytime, reserving the nighttimes for teaching church lessons. Daytime contacting was best in parks, on beaches, or in train stations. I know that missionaries today work largely on referrals from members and friends. We weren’t as smart back when I was burning through shoe leather in Taiwan.

There was no reward for conversions, per se. It was a feather in your cap, something to write home about, but the box seats at the right hand of God were reserved for those who worked the hardest and who were most “obedient,” regardless of success.

The Mormons believe that they’ve got save you and me from misery and eternal damnation. On the surface, they proselytize out of a sense of duty and love. The idea is that if you’re happy about your religion, you want others to feel the same joy.

I know, I know. It is extremely naive, and smacks of group insecurity and a desire for conformity. I’m just telling you what the party line is.

[quote=“Flicka”]
Mormons here seem to use the, “I’m American, you’re American in a foreign country so lets be buddies and chitchat” approach, which I am sure they learned in mission bootcamp. Not really a bother.[/quote]

Actually, they taught us to focus on the natives. It’s just that you get tired of speaking Mandarin all day, so when you see a big nose, you get a chance to rest your brain, relate to someone from overseas, all in the name of the cause (just throw in an invitation to “hear the gospel,” and you can justify the time). I rarely met laowai when I was a missionary, but I spent most of my time in small towns in the south.

[quote=“Tomas”]
I’m not sure how they deal with that these days. I worked in the south part of Taiwan back in 1988-89, and there weren’t many gated communities then. They probably try to make nice with the guard, or simply stay away. We used to do most of our contacting during the daytime, reserving the nighttimes for teaching church lessons. Daytime contacting was best in parks, on beaches, or in train stations. I know that missionaries today work largely on referrals from members and friends. We weren’t as smart back when I was burning through shoe leather in Taiwan.[/quote]

I wasn’t even thinking about gated communities. For security reasons, Just about every apartment building in Taipei has a locked front door, or a doorman. There’s those intercoms where you can buzz the apartments, but I can’t imagine many Taiwanese listening over those for too long much less inviting the missionaries in.

The schedule as you’ve described explains a lot, because I’m always in the office during the day. I had always assumed they come to your house in the evening after 7, because that’s when you’re most likely to be at home.

I have a question.

Some people would say that Mormons are not Christians. They say they are a cult. How do you respond to such a statement?

Link angelfire.com/az2/arizonadry … itmer.html

These are two different questions. I too am interested in the first one (are Mormons Christians). I don’t really know much about Mormons although I had a quick look at the Book of Mormon once. The formal definition of Christianity is generally taken to be something like acceptance of the Holy Trinity including Jesus Christ as the son of God. Is there much Mormon theology? I wonder what other Christian theology it aligns itself with, if any.

As for use of the word ‘cult’; it’s not really a descriptive, accurate or scholarly term. The preferred term is ‘new religious movement’. I realise that may sound like political correctness but it is better because it covers a whole variety of different organisations with widely differing beliefs and practices, and does not prejudge them by using a word which has become rather hysterical and meaningless. (I believe that ‘cult’ originally meant an inner circle or select group of practitioners from a religious tradition; obviously now it’s used in connection with ‘brainwashing’ etc.)

One of the best introductions to NRMs is Eileen Barker’s “New religious movements: a practical introduction” (London 1989). She lists and briefly examines and describes a large range of NRMs from the good through the indifferent to the bad. With scholarly authority but in an accessible way, she looks at the whole ‘cult’ phenomenon including ‘brainwashing’, media hysteria, and ‘deprogramming’ and the anti-cult movement. As I’m sure some people are aware, sometimes the actions of anti-cultists can be almost as distressing as those of the more evil kinds of NRMs.

She observes that there can be positive outcomes from encounters and involvement with many different NRMs, even if those involved subsequently lapse membership and walk away from the organisation.
Although in some cases it can be difficult to make the first moves towards leaving the organisation (for both external and internal emotional reasons), many ex-members who have left in a considered and mature way rather than being dragged out and forcibly re/deprogrammed report that overall their experience has been a positive one and that they have learned things from it. Many ex-members keep in touch with friends who are still inside the organisation, although of course with some of the more ‘closed’ NRMs this could be difficult.

I suppose that Mormonism is comparatively new and hence might be described as an NRM (along with a great deal of very worthy organisations). I doubt that it has any of the characteristics of the very few really sinister NRMs, though. I have a Taiwanese friend who’s converted to Mormonism and she leads an open, active and fulfilling life.

If I may…?

The first question “Are Mormons Christian?” makes no sense unless we can agree on what “Christianity” means. If you ARE a Christian, then presumably you have some “insider’s” view of what the minimum requirements are–but of course, there will always be people who THINK they are Christians but don’t agree with YOU. If you are NOT a Christian, then you might just accept as Christian, anyone who says they’re Christian (which would include the Mormons). But to try to distinguish between a “true” and “false” Christianity makes little sense for an outsider, no matter how unusual some groups’ teachings may seem. (The Mormons, for instance, say that there are many Gods.)

The second question, “Are Mormons a cult?” predictably, begs the question of what a “cult” is. Some people say a “cult” is any group organized to support the worship or veneration of some deity, hero, etc. In which case most of our religions are (or include) cults. Other people use the word to mean “a religion I don’t like.” (But who cares what you like?) There are more formal “anti-cult” definitions involving checklists–for example, is there a charismatic leader?–but these too are open to debate. Who’s to say whether a more gung-ho or disciplined religion is better or worse than a more laid-back one?

Hi SJ,
Your post is good because it opens things right up for debate. I’m also glad you agree that the original ‘question’ was really two.

Neverthless, after saying that definitions are really open to the definer I feel that some cautious contextual definitions are useful. I think an orthodox definition of Christianity, that is one accepted by a majority of practising Christians from established traditions, and one that has good grounding in historical theology, is that Christians accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, and believe in the Holy Trinity. It can be seen from Christian history that thinking that strays from this is defined as heresy, such as the Arian heresy.

As for ‘cults’, the undefined and often ill-used nature of this word is what led me to suggest the adoption of the commonly accepted alternative, ‘New Religious Movements’. Although she explores many issues I don’t think Eileen Barker includes a ‘checklist’ in the book I mentioned because as you point out, such a checklist would serve little useful purpose.

The Mormon church is actually called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” The idea is that the church is a modern-day incarnation of the original Christian church, set up by Christ himself. Jesus Christ and God, the Father, are most definately the focal points. The third member of the Holy Trinity is referred to as the Holy Ghost, or the spirit. Insomuch as accepting the divinity of Christ makes a church a Christian church, there’s not much doubt that the LDS church is a Christian church.

As to whether it’s a cult or not, I agree that it depends on your definition of a cult. There are secret rituals and such, a past that includes polygamy and secret military units, and there’s a certain amount of brainwashing, but it isn’t as insidious nowadays as many people would think. I don’t feel uncomfortable in a Mormon church. It’s pretty easy to go and see the thought control for what it is. I think it is pretty mild compared to most “cults.” Most of the thought control seeks to persuade people to be kinder to each other, more committed to their families, to the church, to God, and to encourage humility and obedience. There’s no encouragement to do anything illegal, to seek conflict, to do things that modern Christians would view as evil.

Joesax wrote:

But then, a “majority of practicing Christians” would accept the leadership of the pope. (Since most Christians are Roman Catholic.) Now do you still want to decide “orthodoxy” according to a head-count? :smiling_imp:

Having “a good grounding in historical theology” sounds like another way of saying “a religion that I like.” But each ecumenical council was designed to exclude somebody–somebody whose history is just as historic as the other side’s. If you don’t like the Arians, what about the non-Chalecedonians? (They’re still around.) There are also several non-Trinitarian or partly non-Trinitarian Christian groups (Unitarians, Swedenborgians, some Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ, some Quakers, some New Thought churches).

Depending on what you mean by “the divinity of Jesus,” I’m sure you would find both ancient and modern deniers of that idea, who still thought / think they are Christians. Do you really want to exclude the Ebionites, or what’s-his-name the Archbishop of Canterbury from a few decades ago?

SJ, I don’t really see your point. I can see that you know quite a lot about Christian history, probably more than I ever knew, and certainly more than I know now as I have forgotten a great many things.

I think you knew quite well what I meant by an orthodox definition of Christianity and no, it didn’t involve a head count.

I don’t know where you got the impression that I “don’t like the Arians”. Perhaps I had better give you a little background to say where I’m coming from.

Firstly, I am not a Christian by any definition. However, I have a lot of respect for some very great Christian people who I have met, and I have a deep respect for many of the teachings of Christianity. My father was a vicar in the Church of England for many years, so I have more than a passing experience from ‘the inside’ as it were (by which I mean as opposed to the outside meaning someone who has little sympathy or empathy with it).

Secondly, at one point I was a scholar of religions. I was lucky enough to have some very good professors- committed religious practitioners who were also deep and objective thinkers. If I were to attempt to write an essay for them about what constituted Christianity, it would of necessity have to include and explore some of the more orthodox definitions. If I then wanted to disagree with these definitions, that would be fine, because I would at least have a firm historical contextual base for further argument. If I were simply to say what you have said - that nobody really has the right to define Christianity and that it is entirely up to the individual - I would recieve a big ‘zero’ on my paper.

By the way, none of these professors thought that it was strange or inappropriate for me to be studying Christianity, Sikhism or Judaism (I studied other religions as well but not with ‘insider’ professors). As they were kind enough in many cases to give me very respectable grades, they must have felt that my understanding and empathy was adequate.

In fact the above approach is key to any Christian theology. This was drummed into us so many times. It was fine to take whatever view we wanted, as long as it was backed up by firm arguments and a good knowledge of what had gone before. I believe the same holds true for the study of philosophy as a separate subject.

I have some experience with and knowledge of Quakerism. As you presumably know, while Quakerism does in fact have a developed theology, many modern practitioners do not care to dwell on that and themselves actually hold some very un-Trinitarian or even un-Christian (in the orthodox sense) views. As in many cases their beliefs and practice help them lead a fulfilling life that benefits others as well as themselves, I respect that and wish them the very best.

I hope that we can continue with an interesting and I think useful discussion.

Yes, that kind doesn’t do it to other adults; they don’t like the challenge. Just wait until they have kids. Then watch while they cram it down their kids’ throat. There isn’t any difference between prosyletizing and indoctrinating kids, except that the adult gives consent.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that kind doesn’t do it to other adults; they don’t like the challenge. Just wait until they have kids. Then watch while they cram it down their kids’ throat. There isn’t any difference between prosyletizing and indoctrinating kids, except that the adult gives consent.

Vorkosigan[/quote]
Sometimes I really like your posts, but I feel this one is insufficiently considered.

Firstly, you might consider the evidence in the post immediately above yours, in which I say that ‘I am not a Christian by any definition’ but that ‘My father was an Anglican vicar for many years’. Admittedly, my situation was perhaps not the average one.

It should be noted that studies have shown that the child tends to follow the parent in matters of religion, including if the parent is atheist or agnostic, even when the parent has made an effort to be open-minded and offer the child choice. So, intentionally or not, all parents are to some degree indoctrinating their children.

Then, the question as to what they indoctrinate them with. If it is with intolerance and selfish pride, whether within an ostensibly Christian framework or not, then that is terrible. If it is with tolerance, respect for other people and a desire to do as you would be done by, then I do not see what is so very bad about that.

Yes, that kind doesn’t do it to other adults; they don’t like the challenge. Just wait until they have kids. Then watch while they cram it down their kids’ throat. There isn’t any difference between prosyletizing and indoctrinating kids, except that the adult gives consent.

Vorkosigan[/quote]
Kids also often don’t consent to eating mushrooms. Or broccoli. (However, dogfood and worms are perennial favorites that parents have to forbid.)

Society has a general consensus that parents should be allowed to raise their children in whatever way they want, except for the various forms of physical/mental abuse – which (most) religions aren’t classified as.

Joesax, you think it is possible to identify an “orthodox” mainstream of Christianity, and have that be an objective observation rather than a statement of faith (or just a simplifying convenience). I disagree.

For the basis of Christian doctrine, an Orthodox (big O) Christian would look to the seven ecumenical councils. An Armenian Christian would look to only the first…um, two? And the Catholics are up to thirty-something by now. How do we decide what’s mainstream? The Catholics alone would push us to over 50 percent, but that doesn’t feel right.

All right, the first two councils would give us the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, whose beliefs would be accepted by well over 90 percent of claimed Christians. This is useful for teaching a course, since we can’t give equal coverage to the Book of Mormon and the writings of Sun Myung-Moon. But the smaller or newer religions have a different sense of where the “mainstream” lies. Who’s to say which is right? A believer could, but an outsider?