I am looking for thoughts about the issues that are addressed in this essay.
While I mostly applaud the essay itself, I do take issue with one idea. The author states:
1.) The conditions in which some non-Western people are living are in some ways bad.
2.) Those conditions exist solely because of the people who are living in them.
First, 1.) is debatable. Bad by whose standards?
More importantly, 2.) seems prejudicial. It seems to either ignore or deny the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West are due to the colonial and neo-colonial policies of the West. It seems oblivious to the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West may be due to the failure of the missionaries'/evangelists' home countries to apply righteous principles themselves.
While I mostly applaud the essay itself, I do take issue with one idea. The author states:
"When we think of "redemption" we often think of "social uplift": e.g. poverty will be reduced, literacy will be improved, health care will be provided, etc. Looking at it objectively, these things aren't "redemptions" -- they are "improvements." They are, essentially, side effects of righteous living, of righteous principles applied..."
The author seems to be saying two things:1.) The conditions in which some non-Western people are living are in some ways bad.
2.) Those conditions exist solely because of the people who are living in them.
First, 1.) is debatable. Bad by whose standards?
More importantly, 2.) seems prejudicial. It seems to either ignore or deny the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West are due to the colonial and neo-colonial policies of the West. It seems oblivious to the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West may be due to the failure of the missionaries'/evangelists' home countries to apply righteous principles themselves.