First things first, I must give a statement of intent. This article is going to present a moral quandary regarding missionaries specifically and Christianity as a whole. I do not know the correct, or even the biblically sound, answer. My aim is not to sow anger and bitterness. Rather I hope simply that readers will be enriched by considering the issue and their own beliefs. Finally, because my experience is with Christianity, I will often phrase things from that perspective. That does not mean that Christianity is the only religion the example applies to. Whenever, one religion attempts to spread itself, common problems will arise. Now then, without further delay let us engage a challenging issue and work those critical thinking skills.

It is no secret that differences in religious belief tend to erupt in violence. No world religion exists in complete peace and harmony with its opposition. Because of this, spreading one’s beliefs in foreign lands can often be dangerous. Depending on the specific culture, beliefs, and laws in a given location, missionaries can face peril as small as mean names and as large as execution. While they are willing to accept the risks of their calling, it would be a waste of time and resources for missionaries to boldly declare their mission only to be immediately prevented from performing it.

Thus, we have undercover missionaries: mild mannered workers by day, but preachers of the faith by night! Where an evangelist cannot go, often times a teacher, doctor, or business person can, and just like that, a secret identity is born.

However, this solution creates some of its own problems: namely, do the ends justify the means of evangelism and is it ethical to endanger someone by converting them to a religion that is opposed where they live? Let’s take them one at a time.

The question about whether or not the ends justify the means is an important one. For Christians, if all people who do not know Jesus as their savior are going to be condemned to Hell no matter what, then whatever it takes to save them seems reasonable. Further if all it takes to be saved from Hell forever is a very simple prayer, then things which would appear to be dishonest or at the very least suspicious become acceptable. For example, why not run a clinic where treatment is free if people pray the sinner’s prayer and confess Christ as their savior? Or, why not become a teacher and use that position of power to coerce children towards Christianity?

At first glance, these suggestions may sound ridiculous, but if one believes in the infinite goodness of Heaven and in the infinite torment of Hell, saving people from Hell becomes the only thing that matters. The people being “tricked” into converting should and will be thankful when they arrive in Heaven. For many Christians this is the worldview they labor in, and the Bible provides evidence to back up this perspective. However, the Bible also speaks of knowing Jesus being a part of salvation from sin and Hell. It is generally accepted that this requires more than a single prayer, and that a life changed and molded by one’s faith is also required. Holding this belief will lead to the conclusion that these once and done conversions are not enough, and further, it becomes clear that they actually hurt the ministry because of the unsavory reputation of missionaries. Still, the question remains, does the end of salvation justify the use of undercover missionaries?

From within Christianity, I believe the answer is yes. But there’s a slightly nuanced look at this. The problem is that undercover missionaries are lying about why they are in a country, but for many of them, it is not a lie. Rather, they really are there to teach children, to build houses, or to treat sick people. Thus there is no lie anymore. At worst it is equivocation, but the point is that for many people in missions there is a true desire to help people, to respond to their need, before they even bother to mention the gospel. There is a strategy in which the missionary simply does their cover work to the best of their ability and in a Christian way and Jesus is never even mentioned unless asked about. In this case, where is the lack of integrity which must be justified?

Alas, there remains yet another question to answer. Is it ethical to convert people to a religion in a place where it is opposed? The heart of the issue with this question is that if I am an undercover missionary who converts you to my religion, and if you are then killed for believing in my religion and telling others about it, then I must surely be responsible at some level for your death. Again, from a Christian perspective, I think that the believed requirements for salvation are important. Some people feel that one is not truly a Christian until one has made a public declaration saying so. This makes the stakes very high for new believers in places hostile to Christians. However, high stakes ensure that only the true believers will take the risk.

Yet, it feels wrong to demand a dangerous declaration of faith from people when the missionary remains in the shadows. Therefore, some missionaries do not push for a public declaration. Rather, these undercover missionaries make undercover Christians. This approach lacks the high stakes to weed out those less committed, but it has the advantage of being more likely to create a church in the area. If all the new converts keep having to flee town, there will never be enough of a presence to constitute a church. Public declarations of faith are still likely to occur, but now they will be supported by other believers. However, there is always the risk that the public confession is required for salvation and that people may die before being truly saved. Again, I would say that, from within, the end would justify the means, but the discussion is worth having in order to ensure we missionaries are truly showing God’s love and concern for the people we are hoping to share with.

At this point, I hope readers have enough of a grip on the questions to continue to wrestle with them on their own. As for me, I am walking away from this topic with the intent of remembering that while conditions may seem dangerous to me I at least have a magical blue book that grants me passage back to safety. For the people I leave behind, the people I came to serve, there may not be “safety” to return to, and they will be forced to deal with whatever remains when I go.

Also, this is a good read on this topic, but I could not find a great spot to link it.

PS If you are attempting to find Waldo in the cover photo, I apologize for the cruel nature of things, but in this photo you are supposed to find Colonel Sanders. Note all the KFC signs.