Who are the Sentinelese? Was Chau right to contact them?

John Chau was killed making contact with an isolated and largely uncontacted tribe of people in the Indian Ocean last week. 

What do we know about the Sentinelese? 

 
Anthropologists  

 
This tribe has been so isolated for hundreds if not thousands of years that we know very little about them. We don’t know what language they speak, though it’s clearly unrelated to the surrounding languages. We don’t know where they came from or how they arrived at the island. We have only a handful of observations.

 
Despite our entire lack of knowledge about the Sentinelese people, “anthropologists” will tell you that they have lived on this island for 60,000 years. Ironic, isn’t it. 

 
Their basis for saying this appears to be the limited technology which has been observed by our few contacts with this people group. For example, it is believed by some that they do not have the technology to produce a fire. They apparently eat meat uncooked and live by fishing, hunting and gathering. This is based on very limited observations. On this basis, Darwinian anthropologists claim that this people group are “pre-neolithic” (pre-cave man), which is basically a very racist thing to say about another people group. 

 
The reality is that technology does not necessarily correspond to biology. Whilst a certain amount of biological complexity is required to allow for technological development, limited technology is still not necessarily caused by limited biology. This is an example of bigotry. 

 
The assumption of the Darwinian anthropologists is that technology always advances (or stagnates) but never regresses. This is completely false. There are plenty of examples of primitive cultures that once retained relatively significant technological advancement, but lost it. 
But for now an illustration will suffice. Imagine a small group of iPhone addicted city dwellers from the West are suddenly left stranded on a lonely little island in the middle of the ocean. They proabably don’t know how to make the clothes on their back let alone start a fire without matches. Suddenly you have a people group who have regressed technologically in a very short period of time (an anthropologist may describe them as pre-neolithic).    

 
The only requirements for such technology loss would be unrecorded technology (say through illiteracy) and a sudden loss of people who carry the generational knowledge (such as through a natural disaster or sudden isolation). 

 
The brutal culture of this people group doesn’t indicate them being ‘primative’ either. This may have simply been because of hostile contact with people passing by ships exploiting a technologically disadvantaged people over the centuries. This is not a defence of their behaviour but a refutation of false thought. 

 
So on the speculation that this people group we know very little about has been allegedly isolated for 60,000 years and is pre-Neolithic (less evolved, that is), anthropologists assert that the Sentilese are not “genetically” immune to the diseases of the of the rest of the world. Note, they think they don’t have the genetic ability that the post-Neolithic world has because they are speculating with little data. Hence they are alleging that the Sentinalese are genetically inferior. 

 
Do the Sentinelese lack the “genetic” immunity to diseases of the rest of the world? 

 
The evidence to support this idea that the Sentinalese lack “genetic” immunity, they claim, is that the surrounding island groups have suffered significant population decline since contact with the outside world was made. However, this ignores two factors. First, European settlement involved a sudden, abrupt and large settlement on the island. The settlement brought convicts and many diseases. And the settlement occurred right next to a mosquito infested swamp resulting in a sudden outbreak of death and disease among both indigenous, Indian and European people groups. Second, their assertion ignores the pressures placed upon those groups by contact with the outside world. Their first contacts were not with missionaries but colonial soldiers. They suffered wars, encroachment on their territory, oppression. But they ignore these factors and pressures and instead use the regional decline in the indigenous population as evidence of their lack of “genetic” immunity. Such wilful ignorance only fan the flames of racism.  

 
Despite having no contact with the outside world, the Sentinelese population appears to be declining. This has been attributed to intermarriage in a small population. John Chau was a healthy young 26 year old, not an entire people group settling the island next to a mosquito infested swamp. The experience on the other islands clearly doesn’t support the genetic vulnerability hypothesis. 

 
It’s really just a racist assumption that brands another people group as “genetically inferior”. 

 
Media

 

One journalist, who spent most of her factually incorrect article insulting John Chau, actually promoted this bigoted idea, saying,

  
“Three of the four groups surveyed have suffered illnesses and deaths after coming into contact with outsiders. Only the Sentinelese – the ones John Chau was so determined to visit – remain untainted.” 

   
How does she know? Although she doesn’t cite any sources, we can already see why this is wrong. Before we contact a people group, we have no information and data about them with which to compare after we contact them.  

  
Also, she says the Sentinelese remained “untainted” but this is false. One of the few observations we have been able to make about them is to roughly count their population. Recent attempts to count their population have shown that they are in steep population decline. It has been speculated that this is a result of their intermarriage within a limited population because of their isolation. Perhaps the answer then is they need to allowed contact with the outside world after all.

  
Suffice to say, the news article author couldn’t even identify who John Chau was out of a photo of two people, called his work “cultural imperialism” and otherwise spouted her ignorance. Cultural imperialism is not trying to share your faith with another culture. Cultural imperialism is deeming another people group to be inferior (ie pre-Neolithic). And trying to “protect” them from contact with the outside world, on the assumption that they ‘can’t handle it’ due them being pre-Neolithic would count as cultural imperialism too. At best it is misguided but benevolent cultural imperialism. 

  
And this is quickly confirmed by the ignorant journalist: 

  
“The Sentinelese are one of the last pre-Neolithic tribes left on the planet, with a lifestyle and culture that has remained unchanged for longer than any in Europe or America.” 

  
But she can’t hide her contempt as she scoffs at Christian missionaries, including the recently dead brother John, and spouts insults. She concludes with: 

  
“Why can’t these zealots accept that some non-believers do not need the words of Jesus or plastic footballs?” 

  
Because, there is no other name under heaven by which a man or woman may be saved, but Jesus. They do need the words of Jesus, just as you do. 

  
Would there be any benefit with missionary contact for the Sentinelese?

 
Hundreds of people groups are thriving today whose first contact with the outside world was through Christian missionaries. 

  
Often during the colonial period, missionaries rallied to defend indigenous people groups from exploitation. When the Xhosa king was killed by British soldiers, the London Missionary Society lobbied the government to hold the soldiers and governor to account. They were partially successful. When USA was expanding into Indian lands, Jonathan Edwards a missionary, advocated for the rights the North American Aboriginals. In the pacific, against Whalers and other exploiters, the missionaries provided a voice to the government and accountability for the islanders. 

 
In terms of education and literacy, the missionaries were the ones who reduced whole languages to writing. This resulted in thousands of languages which may have become extinct because of the pressure of the prevailing Lingua Franca, surviving and experience a revitalisation. Many oral histories were preserved in writing because of missionaries and preserved against the pressures of globalism. 

  
In terms of medicine, often the only medic or doctor in the region was the local missionary, who were often trained doctors. 
Where were anthropologists? Nowhere to be found among most places until the 20th century. They and their racist Darwinism want to keep people they contact out of the technology of the West and the treasury of Christ. Relatively speaking, we know more about the indigenous peoples of the world from the missionaries who lived and died for them, than we do from the anthropologists who simply came to make an academic point for Darwinism. 

 
The anthropologists have long, out of sheer jealously, maligned missionaries. Yet the missionaries have conserved more cultures and protected more peoples than the anthropologists. 

 
Indeed I have experienced the benefits of the missionaries myself. 

 
Conclusion 

 
Anthropologists look at this people group as being less-evolved (pre-neolithic). Missionaries view them as humans made in the image of God. Anthropologists view them as a conservation project, to keep them in their habitats eating raw meat. Missionaries view them as isolated humans and want to offer them the good news, technology and medical advancement. 

 
What is clear is that the Darwinists want to keep their living fossils (their racism not mine) under lock and key, cut off from medicine, technology (even fire) and the gospel. What is clear about the Sentinelise, is they they desperately need the gospel. 

 
So when you hear the media claim that these people lack “genetic” immunity to disease, you’re hearing racist and ignorant assumptions made about a people we actually don’t know all that much about.
By the way, they do use fire. 

 

(Image accessed via Wikipedia.org, it is the property of Medici82, and shared via Creative Commons)

Advertisements

The incredible story of John Allen Chau

John Allen Chau left his home, family and friends to take the Gospel to a people who would likely kill him for making contact with them. In 3 days, he was killed. 

He was 26. 

 
The little known tribe of people, to whom he reached, have so successfully refused all contact with the outside world for centuries, that we don’t know what their language, social structure or way of life is, much less how long they have inhabited their island in the Indian Ocean. 

 
All accounts indicate that John was determined to share with these uncontacted people the gospel. So last week he travelled to their island, offering them gifts to express good will and attempting to sing to them. They shot an arrow at him, striking his Bible. Determined to show good will to gain their trust for the gospel’s sake, he returned the next day. This time he was shot with arrows, surviving he swam back to the fishing vessel he had commissioned. He wrote on the boat of his determination to share the gospel with them if it cost him his life. On the third day, knowing it may be his last he again returned to the island. The next day the fishermen could see he had been killed. 

He did not waste his life in comfort; he spent it to advance the gospel. He may not have had a chance to communicate the gospel in their language, or even translate their unknown language, but he furthered contact with this little known group of people for the sake of the gospel. 

 
His gifts, his kindness and his peacefulness in death may be used to bring conviction and reflection on these people. Perhaps next time, they will respond to the relationship and in time to the gospel. 
John poured out his life to the glory of God. 

 
No spear, no arrow, no gun can stop the steady advance of the gospel of peace. Love your enemies, Jesus commands, and preach the gospel in all the earth.  

Jesus is the Way to True Happiness

Proverbs 15:16-17    Better is a little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble with it.   Better is a dinner of herbs where love is than a fattened ox and hatred with it.

These two proverbs speak to the same thing. The incomparable worth of the fear of the LORD and love surpass great treasure and good food. Implicit in the reference is that trouble comes from a failure to fear The Lord. In the same way, it’s better to eat a meal of vegetables shared with someone who loves you, than to eat good food with someone who hates you. So why is the fear of God so important?

 
Elsewhere the proverb says “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Pro9:10) “for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.” (Pro8:11) Wisdom is a most valuable thing, but what is it exactly? Wisdom has been called right living. The following proverb forms a parallel structure where one thing is repeated twice using two different wordings to draw out its full meanings. “I have taught you the way of wisdom; I have led you in the paths of uprightness.” (Pro 4:11). The “way of wisdom” is the “paths of righteousness”. Wisdom speaks saying “  I walk in the way of righteousness, in the paths of justice, granting an inheritance to those who love me, and filling their treasuries.” (Proverbs 8:20-21) 

 
So how do we get this righteousness? No one is righteous (Romans 3:10). This means that none naturally can approach God. The reason is simple, we have all disobeyed God’s law (Romans 3:23). We cannot get righteousness after being unrighteous by now doing the law, because later good deeds don’t undo past bad deeds. The way to get righteousness is made available as a generous free gift with eternal life (Romans 6:23). By Jesus’ death on the cross, God demonstrates his love towards us (Romans 5:10). You can receive it today. Consider the following verse and find out more here

 
Romans 5:18-19   “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.    For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

 

Romans 8:3-4   “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

 

 

 


Chibok School Girls: Today 4 Years of Kidnap

Today is 4 years since 276 school girls were kindnapped at gunpoint by a terroist group call Boko Haram. Boko Haram hate Western education, but targeted their school because it was in a predominantly Christian district. 

Today 112 remain captives. They are subject to an ISIS style brutality. Christians we must pray for them. 

Evidence indicates that they are undergong brutality on a daily basis. 
The others were released, ‘married’ off, or killed. 

Pray!

Dear Israel Folau: love warns

Dear Israel, 

Please accept my encouragement, as one believer to another. 
You have found yourself surrounded by controversy and name calling. The fact that you are called ‘bigot’ doesn’t make you one. 

In a time when ‘tolerance’ means affirming and agreeing rather than tolerating, it is important to remember that love warns. If danger is coming, it would be unloving to affirm the course of danger. True love warns. 

In an age when people’s opinions are changing with the times. Truth is fact and is not an opinion. Truth does not change with the sands of time. Truth is timeless. The views of time are fast changing and we are accused of being out of touch with the times. What matters is that we stand for timeless truth, not that we move with the ever changing ideas of a truth ignoring generation. 

As people are name called and shamed into silence, your voice is a blessing. Anti-Christian activists want to normalise church silence – so speaking out renormalises a church with a voice. It was silence (though not yours) that gave the November plebiscite its victory. The media was mostly silent in reporting any alternative to ‘yes’. The conservative politicians stuck to ‘religious freedom’ rather than the true merit of no. 

What we need is a voice warning in love. A voice in the wilderness of silence; prepare the way of the Lord. 

With much love and many blessings in Christ, 

Romans Road 

What does Bible say about Slavery? 

It condemns it. 

1 Timothy says

“understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

So let this be clear, the law (Old Testament), in accordance with the gospel (New Testament), condemns “enslavers” as “lawless and disobedient“. The Old and New Testaments both condemn the enslaving of others. They list slavery with other severe sins, such as murder, elder abuse and sexual immorality. 

Why then does the Mosaic law then regulate the practice of slavery? It is important to note that the Mosaic law regulates other activities, which the scriptures condemn as sins, such as divorce. Divorce is a sin, but a process for obtaining it was provided in the law of Moses. Why? As Jesus said, because of the hardness of the human heart. Without the gospel, humans couldn’t handle such moral perfection. Divorce is a sin but was regulated by the law to make best of the worse; like damage control. Enslaving is a sin but rights of a slave were promoted to make the best of the worst. 

Why does the law then regulate rather that cure our sin? 

For a very simple reason, as Galatians 3 says:

“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.”

Both the law (Old Testament) and the gospel (New Testament) condemn enslavers as lawless and disobedient. The whole Bible condemns slavery but the law (the guardian) controls the damage of the sinful activity until faith in the gospel could liberate humanity from sin. 
To be liberated, click here

Moana: What is it teaching children? 

Moana is a new Disney film displaying the heroic sea voyage of a young Polynesian girl who can navigate by the stars. By all accounts it is a charming and appealing film, however the question must be raised what is it teaching the children?

What is it teaching children? 
  • Feminism: a young empowered girl, breaks with her father’s patrilineal authority and conservative boundaries to go on an adventure. The father figure is overly conservative, fearful and is benevolently yet misguidedly authoritarian.
  • paganism: a “goddess” as “creator”, a demigod, powers etc.
  • Bad theology: the “goddess” who “created the world” is destroyed by man’s mistake and must be rescued herself to save human kind and the environment. In fact the “goddess” “creator” becomes the devil and must be saved from herself.
  • Humanism: humans made the mistake but human’s rescue the “god[dess]” who has lost her heart and has become evil. Moui (the demigod/human) must learn that self confidence and initiative are the solution to human problems. Humans fix the problems, save the world and get the credit etc.
  • Environmentalism: humans have destroyed nature and must self fix the problem. The ocean, in weirdly pagan undertones, is personified and helps the young girl save the world and its creator. The ocean in fact chooses the girl for this mission.
  • Disobedience to parents: the heroine disobeys her father’s rule to cross the boundary reef  to save the world.
Some Christian reviews rave about how the film is family friendly with little violence, no sexuality and nice morals such as “believing in yourself”. The unfortunate problem is that while these “Christian” film critics consider many important criterion (such as sexuality, nudity and violence), they do not consider more essential issues such as worldview. It is disgusting that any “Christian” group would recommend such a pagan antichristian film.

Romans Road gives this the lowest rating as a family friendly film (because it’s not). Any follow up conversation you may have with your children after the film to address these things will NOT be as engaging, glamorous and stunning as the film production promoting these things. Once the tares are sown, talking about the tares is not going to remove them. 

Calling humans monkeys is a bad idea

Did you protest with the #feesmustfall movement? Did you demand that the statue of Rhodes must fall? Then you must take a stand against something much more deeply outrageous.

Calling African people monkeys is racist, actually thinking that African people descended from one is outrageous. Yet this is what most South African, and international, universities teach.  
 Darwin’s theory of ‘evolution’ not only teaches that humans descend from ape like ancestors, but also that African and Australian Aboriginals were more closely related to monkeys than white people. Darwin actually claimed this explicitly. 
This idea had success only for the same reasons that Nazi ideas were successful among academics in 1930s Germany; a convenient idea. Because the evolutionary idea arose in a time of Colonialism when people were looking for an opportunity to oppress others, it became wildly popular amongst those who had intellectual sway in the English speaking world because England now had it’s justification for colonialism. English colonialism could now throw off the constraints of the Biblical teaching that all humans descend from Adam (a single common human ancestor) and that human beings were to love their neighbour as themselves.  

Prior to the theory of evolution we see greedy colonialists muffled and restrained by the Bible. After the theory of evolution we see blatant hatred for fellow man: apartheid. 

Today, the racist theory of evolution lives on, perpetuated by greed. Corporations want you to live for immediate pleasure rather than transcendent purpose (better marketing). Universities want money donated to their research not to the church. Immoral consumers want an excuse to live like kings without care for the third world because “hey, survival of the fittest”. 

And if you think someone is more related to an ape than you, you might call them a monkey. Racism is rife. 

Every time you hear the news celebrating how humans came “out of Africa” you are hearing racism. Every time you hear that Africans are the “oldest” (hint least evolved), you are hearing colonial era racism spewed out. Each time they claim another “missing link” (really an extinct ape) to “support” their theory that all humans descend from an ape’s ancestor you are hearing the reinforcement of a wicked theory bent on treating humans as animals. 

Racists began abusing fellow humans centuries ago by likening them monkeys. Today they they just say they are more closely related to the monkeys to alleviate their conscience because in a dog-eat-dog world of Darwinism only the “fittest monkey” gets to survive. This racism must end. 

God made us in His image. 

Notes

1. Evolutionists claim that humanity descends from an “ape like ancestor” which in a rather loose way is often called a monkey. 

2. “Survival of the fittest” is a rather crude alternative phrase to ‘Natural Selection’. It is the idea that the animals most suited to their environment (fitter and stronger) that reproduce more successfully will compete effectively against rivals. While this is a truism, it does not support the idea that we ‘evolved’ from apes. “Survival of the Fittest does not explain the Arrival of the Fittest” (Carter). 

3. Although many justifications were given for the apartheid, the intellectual justification was Darwinism. Why would the more evolved share and intermarry with the less fit. With many cases people were trying to reconcile their greed with their worldview, however Darwinism logically flows to racism; the idea that different ‘races’ are inherently different is the fruit of Darwin’s ideas. 

Happy New Year

This new year, recall God’s blessings of the previous year, seek God’s blessings for this year amd trust alone in Him for 2018. 

Above all seek Him while he may be found. Who knows when you will run out of time! To learn more read here

We hope you will have a blessed and God glorifying year. 

Let us consider the admonition of James 4. 

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit” — yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.  Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”   As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (James 4:13-17)

Incoherent Atheist Bias

  
Atheists obviously differ with creationists. Amusingly, they will masquerade their idea that the universe caused itself as ‘science’ and the idea that the universe was created (caused) as ‘religious’. Yet scratch the surface and their incoherency shows. 

What creationists and atheists may agree to

  1. The universe had a beginning. No one who seriously engages with the evidence really disputes this. 
  2. All things that begin to exist require a cause. Science presupposes this, reason does too and everyday experience agrees. 
  3. Thus, the universe had a cause. 

The unnecessary controversy

It is logical to believe that something was caused by something that preexisted it. On the other side, it is incorrect to think that something could preexist itself in order to cause itself. 

It is illogical to believe that the natural world managed to preexist itself in order to cause itself. That is ridiculous. 

The universe (all of nature) must have been caused something, or someone, beyond nature. Since the universe is all time, space and matter, the universe must have been created by something other than itself, ie timeless, spaceless and immaterial. 

It is incoherent to say that the natural world was caused by the natural processes, that are themselves derived from nature. Yet this is exactly the claim of atheism. 

It is correct to say that the universe was caused (ie created) by God. 

The Bias

If you take one look at the Wikipedia article for “creationism”, you will find that the numerous internet atheists will argue differently. They will tell you that the logical idea that the universe could not have made itself is a religious idea. They will then boldy proclaim that the universe did in fact somehow make itself, which would have required it to exist before it existed to act as its own cause. They will argue that this is ‘science’. Whatever they mean by this science, it’s not what put planes in the air or men on the moon – it’s just incoherent atheist bias. 

The universe was created by God (Gensis 1:1). 

Find out how to know God here.