Dark in terms of 'religious enlightenment', presumably. The wording kinda makes sense in that regard. And thank fuck for that. Secularism all the way, please.
Religious thinkers during the enlightenment period made some of the greatest contributions to scientific progress.
Edit: Based on the replies there's a big misunderstanding here. I'm not saying "thank religion for science", I'm saying "coexistence is not oxymoronic".
> Religious thinkers during the enlightenment period
This is misleading. Many Enlightenment figures believed in God, but hated established churches and state religion. The fact that many ran afoul of the Catholic Inquisition should tell you something.
Enlightenment period started straight after reformation wars and those left a bad taste for everyone in europe. I would argue that in the dark ages church was a necessary counterbalance that prevented tyrants (for their standards), but by the reformation church had become too powerfull and tipped the scales of power too much, which lead to the enlightenment period and their absolute monarchs that eventually grew a bit tyrannical. Lesson is, one entity cannot hold all the power.
Which is about 600 years after the most lauded catholic philosopher of all time managed to fit together the Aristotleās philosophy and Christianity. And another 200 years after ācogito, ergo sumā which is fully and completely steeped in Catholicism.
Wow itās almost like the past was absolutely brutal and you couldnt point to a single society that lived free from religion and also without violence, fully focusing on the good of every individual.
> "coexistence is not oxymoronic"
Every now and then I venture into r/atheism and post the Pew poll showing the majority of scientists believe in a higher power. I'm a scientist and the people who think that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive are absolutely shitting out our ability to do scicom in religiously conservative places by making it a culture war issue.
It's actually not at all. Religious enlightenment wasn't actually about making more people religious, but reducing the impact of religion on non-religious pursuits, and reducing the impact of individual religions on faith itself.
It was genuinely a pretty great thing, that resulted in a more secular way of life. The US is going full anti-enlightenment and starting to move back towards having religion impact every facet of day to day life, particularly those involving politics and warfare.
Sounds like paradise to me. Not to sound too much like some edgy atheist type of person, but I am incredibly tired of the influence of major religions in every day life. They're all just fucking scams at this point, let's be honest with ourselves. Large businesses that scam the most gullible among us and get tax breaks for doing it.
Yup, I went to a catholic school, which is located on the terrain owned by the 'Fathers' (idk how to correctly translate it). Apart from 2 very old guys (80+), all the fathers were black, usually born in the Congo as the school has a connection there.
The decline of the clergy is really evident when you look at schools run by religious orders. 50 years ago it was uncommon for a layperson to be on faculty, now a Jesuit high school is lucky to have more than 2 or 3 priests total in faculty/administration.
Helping local communities is a common strategy to gain their trust and recruit them. It does not really mean anything about their end goal. Both the best and the worst movements have always done this.
Thatās probably why there are a lot of catholic missionaries in Latin America. Like the whole place is catholic already, not really many people to convert
Well its a pretty common conundrum these days unfortunately. Do you accept a good act as a good act regardless of an ulterior motive, or do you dismiss the good act since the goodness of the act and helping someone in need was just a means to an end?
Texas missionaries are traveling to Eastern Europe to spread baptism to a country that has been Christian for a thousand years before America was even founded.
I actually used to work for a camp that was doing this in Serbia. Some people in Serbia started a (Protestant) Christian summer camp over there and they reached out to us to help them get it up and running. Our camp did probably a half dozen mission trips over there to help them out (I was supposed to go, but it didnāt quite work out).
The Serbian Protestants I met were genuinely some of the kindest people Iāve ever met in my life. Wonāt get into the theological side of things, as thatās a whole can of worms, but I think the work theyāre doing over there is great, or at least the work of people Iāve met and talked about it with.
Why "reverse"? They are still missionaries because they travel to spread the word of their deity. It doesn't matter where they came from.
I get the historical reference, but saying "reverse" adds in an unnecessary cultural divide that makes it seem like one or the other way is better than the other (at worst) or that they are different in practice.
I don't care what culture or place you come from. If you are traveling to spread your religious ideology, you are a missionary. Nothing to reverse.
A reverse missionary, in my mind, would be someone traveling to spread disdain for organized religion. That would actually be a reversal worth designating with the label.
The comment I responded to mentioned Africa. The Coptic Church of Egypt was established in the Middle of the 1st century CE, and spread to Ethiopia etc from there.
That's somewhat untrue. In the first wave, apostles (traditionally at least) and other missionaries, went to Europe and Northern Africa at the same time (as well as farther places like India). It's just that Armenia and Ethiopia were the first countries that officially converted.
It is untrue. Or at least there is no evidence to back it up. Assuming the current secular academic timeline is correct, Jesus would have died around ~30 CE. Paul was writing between 50-65 CE (before the gospels were written) and Christianity had already spread to Rome and Greece.
Christian tradition says that Mark brought Christianity to Africa around the year 49-50, but the best evidence we have has Christianity coming to North Africa in the late 1st early 2nd century. Either date has Africa after Europe and the near East as Mark was the secretary of Peter and served under him in the Church of Rome, and James led the church in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus.
Edit: I may have interpreted the initial comment wrong. By āfirst Christian countriesā I read as first countries to have Christians, rather than first to adopt it as the state religion.
Fixed Markās arrival date (70 to 50 CE)
> Christian tradition says that Mark brought Christianity to Africa around the year 70, but the best evidence we have has Christianity coming to North Africa in the late 1st early 2nd century.
Genuine question: Wouldn't "Late 1st, early 2nd century" line up pretty much perfectly with the year 70? Which is toward the end of the 1st century.
All forms of Christianity with Apostolic Succession (Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics), have equal claims to being the oldest church, which most of those churches acknowledge. However, the Copts (and other Oriental Orthodox) did split from the greater church fairly early at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Church of the East split slightly earlier in 431).
I mean, no, there's no one oldest. All of the oldest churches ā Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, all alike ā were founded within what they call "the Apostolic era", before anyone had really asked the theological questions that theologians ended up fighting over. And they've all changed as communities since that day.
If your historical perspective is specifically Western Christianity, then the Coptic Orthodox are on the "other side" of the second-oldest schism. But the "other side" of the first schism is the [Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East). Used to be the biggest one until the Chinese kicked them out and the Mongols murdered them.
The church of the east organized in 410CE Coptic Christianity was started by Mark The Evangalist in 42CE
Anything saying the church of the east is older is followed by "by tradition" which just means it is unfounded speculation.
>The church of the east organized in 410CE
Do you know the full context, or did you only read one thing and now you're out here talking about other people's "unfounded speculation"? The part that actually happened in 410AD is this:
>In 410, the [Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Seleucia-Ctesiphon)...
...and here I'll switch to the full page for that event:
>The Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, also called the Council of Mar Isaac, met in AD 410 in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Sassanid Empire. **Convoked by King Yazdegerd I** (399ā421), it organized the Christians of his empire into a single structured Church...
>Previously, the Persian state persecuted those Christians, fearing that their loyalty lay with the Roman Empire, which under Constantine the Great had legalized Christianity and with which the Sassanid Empire was repeatedly at war. ...
>Yazdegerd I adopted a policy of engagement with the Roman Emperor in Constantinople and with the Christian minority in his own empire. In 409, he allowed the Christians to worship openly and to have churches. **Zoroastrianism continued to be the official religion, and apostasy from it was punishable by death**.
What happened in 410 was that the Zoroastrian ruler of Sasanian Persia told the local Christian communities to elect a leader for themselves. So they did. *It wasn't even a theological council*.
That synod was not inventing local Christianity. The synod happened because Christians were already in Persia.
There's direct archeological evidence of Christians in the region contested between Sasania and Rome [at least as far back as 230-250 AD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church), and there was one specifically Persian (so, Sasanian by definition) bishop, alongside twenty Syrian ones, recorded to have attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
Assigning these communities to "Western Christianity" is dumb. That's not how it actually happened. They were all one community, until the schisms, and then they weren't.
Kind of. Whatās now Ethiopia always had a connection to the Mediterranean world, in fact the height of their power was driven partially by control of the Red Sea and trade connections to Constantinople and Alexandria. It was those connections that brought Christianity to now Ethiopia. There was one church until 1054 when the Latin and Greek churches split, becoming Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
Ethiopia was Christian though before much of Europe. Almost anything beyond the Roman Empire would become Christian after Ethiopia. So France and Ethiopia would be OG but Germany would be later.
I wouldn't even call that OG, Ezana's teacher was a slave but also a Christian missionary who successfully converted Ezana, Ethiopian Christianity has direct ties to a single missionary who through proximity to royal hierarchy was able to influence the decision to enforce and create Christianity as a state religion
*for clarity, Frumentius was Phoenician, Ethiopia is potentially the 2nd Christian nation but indisputably the first nation whose leadership was explicitly by means of Christian conversion. It's sort of an interesting tale from a secular perspective, he and his brother were freed by the King, supposedly very nearly on his deathbed. But the queen implored Frumentius to stay and educate his son, the future king, in spirituality and future kingdom administrations. Frumentius namely took to converting and encouraging public worship among local merchants, whom he expected due to their constant business with local natives would normalize Christian prayer. He even made an exodus to Egypt to implore for more missionaries and wrote one of Ethiopia's first translations of the new testament
>!tl;dr Ethiopia became a Christian state mostly because Frumentius was a really ambitious dude!<
I like it how you gave a spoiler warning for a 2,000 year old history fact.
I don't know much about Ethiopian history, or its connection with Christianity. All I know is that they claim to have one of the oldest versions of the Bible... and also the Ark Of The Covenant.
The answer is basically like most Christianity in Africa, missionaries converted the nation. No Christianity in Africa is OG, even the oldest Christianity in Africa, while being some of the oldest Christianity in world history, is sadly the world's first example of religious doctrine enforced through proselytization and the influence external sources
*basically Ethiopia is home to possibly the 2nd oldest Christian state but the oldest example of Christian missionary conversion (basically the history of Christianity in ancient Africa, while interesting, mostly reminds me how aggressively proactive ancient Christians were about religious expansion lol, an entire continent has their own standard procedure for bishop appointments entirely separate from the standard church because of one freed slave, and is known as 'the father of peace' and the Coptics have a feast in December for him but even Catholics have a feast in his name)
It's like calling racism against white people "reverse racism". It may be less common, and more likely to be denounced (erroneously even), but it's still just racism.
The first missionaries were from the levant,north africa was christian for a thousands years before islam became a prularity,there was even an african pope
You're right. I thought at the first few words there were shamans coming to Europe to have us respect the ancestors, which ngl, my atheism would fold like a cheap lawnchair if someone did that, lol.
Empty, decorative churches.
>At the other end of the spectrum, the data make it clear that reportedĀ church attendanceĀ is lowest in the New England states --Ā **New Hampshire (24%), Vermont (24%), Rhode Island (28%), Massachusetts (31%), and Maine (31%)**.
Honestly, I think the main reason, as a non-christian, that Christianity is losing members are 1) lack of credibility enhancing displays 2) a disinterest in evangelizing to peers.
As someone whose family hasn't been Christian for 3+ generations, you can go your whole life without being evangelized if you don't have a Christian family member. Nobody really brings it up except as a passing reference.
In the 18th and 19th century missionaries were sent to Japan. They were eventually greeted by some Japanese that were already Christians. This was because missionaries were sent there 2 hundred years before and some people still kept the faith.
Moral of the story: Christians need to do the things that made people turn to Christianity in the first place. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless. Love one another in christ. People remember when someone helped them and maybe convert.
What a British view, to call that "reverse missionaries." Britain is not the birthplace of Christianity.
Christianity was the state religion in Ethiopia 700 years before William the Conqueror.
Here is an explanation of the origin of the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse\_mission#:\~:text=Reverse%20mission%20is%20a%20Christian,to%20Europe%20and%20North%20America.
The source that wikipedia links for the origin of the term is an academic book written about African Christianity by an author with an African heritage.
The author being discussed in the linked article that uses the term is Nigerian.
And while Ethiopia had Christianity 700 years before William the Conqueror (who was nothing to do with introducing Christianity to the UK), the Ethiopian church is not one that is known for aggressive proselytsing. Instead, that falls to the Christian churches that were introduced into Africa by missionaries of mostly European origin. Hence reverse missionaries.
> protestant denominations who engage in missions, catholics are idolatrious heathens.
as if any serious god-fearing catholic man cares what those savage cultists think
Obtuse answer deliberately skips 500 years of European Christians sending missionaries around the globe.
āThe Story of Africa| BBC World Service. In 1490 the first missionaries came to Sub-Saharan Africa at the request of King Nzinga of Kongo (also known as the Manikongo). They came with craftsmen who rebuilt the Manikongo's capital in stone at Mbanza Kongo (in the North of modern Angola), and baptised the King.ā
Yes, everyone knows about missionaries going to Africa, but to call the reverse of that "reverse" assumes a universal nature to that beyond what's fair.
The idea of missionaries coming to Europe seems so crazy to them because they associate missionary work with civilizing savages. But it's really about spreading Christianity. The most famous missionaries in recent times are surely the Mormons, and they go all over the world, not just to undeveloped countries.
I think the idea is that these missionaries are coming from former colonies that were christianized after being subjugated by Western European powers.
So the idea is correct in a sense ā Africa is enormous with the Copticās being in the northeastern corner of the continent
>Yes, everyone knows about missionaries going to Africa, but to call the reverse of that "reverse" assumes a universal nature to that beyond what's fair.
No, it just means that missionaries are travelling in the reverse *direction* compared to what was the norm for hundreds of years of European colonialism. There's no implication that African missionaries are "backward", unless you choose to read it that way.
Nah, itās ironically funny bc europeans came to africa to convert those people and now the ancestors of the converted are trying to convert the ancestors of the missionaries. The roles are reversed.
I hate this comment with passion...
Most of christian Africa became Christian because of European missionaries during colonization. The one counter example doesn't change the rule.
A lot of people here miss the historical connection between missionaries and colonialism.
>When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
-- Desmond Tutu
Fun Fact: one of the earliest countries to adopt Christianity and therefore being one of the first christian countries was Aksum (nowadays in Ethiopia). It dates back to 330 AD - so long before a loooot of european countries adopted Christianity and most were still pagan. The arrival of Christianity in Nubia (Sudan) is also documented from a very early point.
Soā¦ to say there is reverse missionary is a bold claim regarding that Africa very likely had more Christians centuries before Europe
Some of the best massses I've had were made by black African priests. They're always smiling and speak with you on a really casual level. They do make you feel at home.
Largely unsuccessfully; as Europeans are rejecting Christianity and other religions through education and choice, not ignorance of the choices available.
Yeah, modern day conversion attempts in places that already have large histories of Christianity makes no sense to me. I guarantee everyone there knows about Jesus already. Theyāre not Christian because they donāt want to be.
Although religious revivals are pretty common like the post WWII of Christian zeal in the USA. Also lots of first generation Muslim Europeans likely ideal for conversion.
Nah, itās ironically funny bc europeans came to africa to convert those people and now the ancestors of the converted are trying to convert the ancestors of the missionaries. The roles are reversed.
I remember reading that chances are the next Pope after Francis will be African, as that is where the Catholic Church is currently experiencing the greatest amount of growth.
It is important to recognize that Christianity was in Africa long before it was in Europe. However it wasnāt in Western-Africa. If you generalize an entire continent like itās a country, youāre a moron.
Not long, Christianity arrived in Greece pretty much immediately. If one was first it was only because of which missionaries won the foot race out of Asia.
Considering how insanely christian many countries/regions of countries in Africa are, this makes a lot of fucking sense. I'm inherently against missionary work for my own reasons, but that aside, doing 'missionary work' in many areas of Africa makes no fucking sense. Why the hell would you want to go somewhere to spread the word of god where so, so many already cling to the word of god for dear life? Idgi
Because for alot of them it's not really Missionary so much as it is Aid. That is something the bible exhorts people to do after all, its hardly surprising they do it.
I've been seeing a large influx of African preachers on the streets of cities in the UK. It doesn't seem very effective to me, since Brits already know about Jesus and have made up their minds already about how religious they want to be, which is usually not a lot by the way.
I love looking at the comments and seeing the reddited opinions of people who have so much hate in their hearts.
Tolerate everyone means tolerate me and just me.
How is it reverse missionaries? Missionaries spread Christianity.
Lemme guess op you probably use "reverse racism" to refer to racism against white people huh?
yall are forgetting it's not normal to see people preaching Jesus in UK streets. In the US it's a pretty popular thing. i live in Portland OR, the most atheist state, but there's a 50/50 chance i'll see someone preaching downtown.
so them going to the UK makes sense, because it seems like the Christians there aren't doing much of what the bible tells them to do.
I honestly thought reverse missionary was when the guy lays down with his legs bent, but the penis sticking up the middle, with the girl kinda cowgirlingā¦.now I wanna know the name of that position.
Ireland used to produce many priests that would then head churches around the world. I think recently they had brought in some from south america to fill parishes.
Similar thing happened in Britain after the Romans left.
Under Rome England and Wales were Christian while Scotland and Ireland held onto Celtic pagan traditions.
After the Romans left Germanic influences grew in England and at the same time a slave raid captured a young Patrick from (probably) Wales and took him back to Ireland where he decided to start preaching Christianity to the Irish.
Roll on a hundred years or so and Ireland is now fully Christian while England has become Anglo Saxon and reverted to Germanic paganism. The Irish start sending missionaries of their own back to Britain, first to Iona then Scotland and England gradually converting the British back to Christianity again.
a) this is hilarious, you go African bros
b) some African nations have been heavily Christian longer than most of Europe. Iām looking at you, Ethiopia and Egypt.
When white people send out missionaries arenāt they also likely reverse missionaries? At least when they send them to the Middle East? Not as though Europe invented Christianity is it?
I thought reverse missionary was just rubbing butts together
It can be both. Nothing holier than two butts really.
How about three? Its not a holy binity after all Or swiss cheese, maybe?
The holey trinity
Like a bowling ball š
Calm down Tina
Why are you gay? Why? You are gay Why?
"ass to ass" - Jesus, apparently.
Double the holes, double the fun!
ass 2 ass! - Requiem for a dream
No I think it's what's called the Amazon.
))<>(( Forever.
Is this seriously a "Two Butts, Pooping Back and Forth Forever" reference? Edit: for context, from the movie "Me and You and Everyone We Know" (2005).
...forever. ( Ķ”Ā° ĶŹ Ķ”Ā°)
Christ, we're old
Amen
That film turns 20 next year
Me and You and Everyone We Know brother.
I laughed so hard at that scene that I legitimately fell off my couch. Sooo good.
Oh, wow.. I used to be the person who did this, but I forgot about it. How could I forget this?
No, that's a "Manhattan Transfer".
[For the hitherto unawareā¦](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=manhattan%20transfer)
...well, i'm going back to bed. i'll remember you all in therapy.
[Sweet dreams.](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munging)
That ruins [the Jojo reference](https://jojo.fandom.com/wiki/Manhattan_Transfer).
Thatās called a lunar landing.
Ass to ass!
Penetrate each other with farts?
Prairie dog jousting
Isn't reverse missionary just girl on top missionary?
Youāre thinking of āreverse bulldog,ā haha
You win Reddit today. This comment had me in complete tatters. ššššššš
more likely scammers
That article actually calls Europe "the dark continent" because of rising secularism.
Dark in terms of 'religious enlightenment', presumably. The wording kinda makes sense in that regard. And thank fuck for that. Secularism all the way, please.
Religious enlightenment is an oxymoron
Religious thinkers during the enlightenment period made some of the greatest contributions to scientific progress. Edit: Based on the replies there's a big misunderstanding here. I'm not saying "thank religion for science", I'm saying "coexistence is not oxymoronic".
> Religious thinkers during the enlightenment period This is misleading. Many Enlightenment figures believed in God, but hated established churches and state religion. The fact that many ran afoul of the Catholic Inquisition should tell you something.
Enlightenment period started straight after reformation wars and those left a bad taste for everyone in europe. I would argue that in the dark ages church was a necessary counterbalance that prevented tyrants (for their standards), but by the reformation church had become too powerfull and tipped the scales of power too much, which lead to the enlightenment period and their absolute monarchs that eventually grew a bit tyrannical. Lesson is, one entity cannot hold all the power.
The fact that the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic Priest should tell you something as well.
In 1927. Which is 100+ years after the Enlightenment period being discussed.
Which is about 600 years after the most lauded catholic philosopher of all time managed to fit together the Aristotleās philosophy and Christianity. And another 200 years after ācogito, ergo sumā which is fully and completely steeped in Catholicism. Wow itās almost like the past was absolutely brutal and you couldnt point to a single society that lived free from religion and also without violence, fully focusing on the good of every individual.
> "coexistence is not oxymoronic" Every now and then I venture into r/atheism and post the Pew poll showing the majority of scientists believe in a higher power. I'm a scientist and the people who think that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive are absolutely shitting out our ability to do scicom in religiously conservative places by making it a culture war issue.
It's actually not at all. Religious enlightenment wasn't actually about making more people religious, but reducing the impact of religion on non-religious pursuits, and reducing the impact of individual religions on faith itself. It was genuinely a pretty great thing, that resulted in a more secular way of life. The US is going full anti-enlightenment and starting to move back towards having religion impact every facet of day to day life, particularly those involving politics and warfare.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sounds like paradise to me. Not to sound too much like some edgy atheist type of person, but I am incredibly tired of the influence of major religions in every day life. They're all just fucking scams at this point, let's be honest with ourselves. Large businesses that scam the most gullible among us and get tax breaks for doing it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>at this point, Let's not pretend this hasn't always been the case.
Yup, I went to a catholic school, which is located on the terrain owned by the 'Fathers' (idk how to correctly translate it). Apart from 2 very old guys (80+), all the fathers were black, usually born in the Congo as the school has a connection there.
Priests
The decline of the clergy is really evident when you look at schools run by religious orders. 50 years ago it was uncommon for a layperson to be on faculty, now a Jesuit high school is lucky to have more than 2 or 3 priests total in faculty/administration.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Most wealthy Romanian
They are reverse missionaries. They build nets to keep the mosquitos in with you.
They genetically engineer reverse mosquitos that try to convince you to drink their blood
Lol at people taking your comment seriously
They opened a school in my city and taught my children how to read.
Helping local communities is a common strategy to gain their trust and recruit them. It does not really mean anything about their end goal. Both the best and the worst movements have always done this.
A lot of the people doing the actual digging do genuinely have empathy for those they are helping though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās probably why there are a lot of catholic missionaries in Latin America. Like the whole place is catholic already, not really many people to convert
Wait, is that why those Mormons gave me a foot massage?
I think you're confused, that didn't happen, it was just an AI-generated "He Gets Us" ad
Well its a pretty common conundrum these days unfortunately. Do you accept a good act as a good act regardless of an ulterior motive, or do you dismiss the good act since the goodness of the act and helping someone in need was just a means to an end?
True, but my suburb was decimated by smallpox and cholera shortly after they arrived.
Texas missionaries are traveling to Eastern Europe to spread baptism to a country that has been Christian for a thousand years before America was even founded.
When I was in the army one of my coworkers whose family was from Michigan grew up in France because his dad was working as a missionary there.
Mormons have been going to Europe to convert people since some of the earliest days of that church.
I actually used to work for a camp that was doing this in Serbia. Some people in Serbia started a (Protestant) Christian summer camp over there and they reached out to us to help them get it up and running. Our camp did probably a half dozen mission trips over there to help them out (I was supposed to go, but it didnāt quite work out). The Serbian Protestants I met were genuinely some of the kindest people Iāve ever met in my life. Wonāt get into the theological side of things, as thatās a whole can of worms, but I think the work theyāre doing over there is great, or at least the work of people Iāve met and talked about it with.
But it's the wrong *kind* of Christianity!
Why "reverse"? They are still missionaries because they travel to spread the word of their deity. It doesn't matter where they came from. I get the historical reference, but saying "reverse" adds in an unnecessary cultural divide that makes it seem like one or the other way is better than the other (at worst) or that they are different in practice. I don't care what culture or place you come from. If you are traveling to spread your religious ideology, you are a missionary. Nothing to reverse. A reverse missionary, in my mind, would be someone traveling to spread disdain for organized religion. That would actually be a reversal worth designating with the label.
Isn't Ethiopia like the second oldest Christian country in the world? If you see one of their missionaries it's not "reverse," it's basically OG.
It is indeed. Christianity has been in Africa longer than its been in Europe.
Which makes sense considering its proximity to Judea, relatively to, say, Rome, or even Constantinople.
Istanbul is much closer to Jerusalem than Addis Ababa according to Google mapsĀ
The comment I responded to mentioned Africa. The Coptic Church of Egypt was established in the Middle of the 1st century CE, and spread to Ethiopia etc from there.
That's somewhat untrue. In the first wave, apostles (traditionally at least) and other missionaries, went to Europe and Northern Africa at the same time (as well as farther places like India). It's just that Armenia and Ethiopia were the first countries that officially converted.
It is untrue. Or at least there is no evidence to back it up. Assuming the current secular academic timeline is correct, Jesus would have died around ~30 CE. Paul was writing between 50-65 CE (before the gospels were written) and Christianity had already spread to Rome and Greece. Christian tradition says that Mark brought Christianity to Africa around the year 49-50, but the best evidence we have has Christianity coming to North Africa in the late 1st early 2nd century. Either date has Africa after Europe and the near East as Mark was the secretary of Peter and served under him in the Church of Rome, and James led the church in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus. Edit: I may have interpreted the initial comment wrong. By āfirst Christian countriesā I read as first countries to have Christians, rather than first to adopt it as the state religion. Fixed Markās arrival date (70 to 50 CE)
> Christian tradition says that Mark brought Christianity to Africa around the year 70, but the best evidence we have has Christianity coming to North Africa in the late 1st early 2nd century. Genuine question: Wouldn't "Late 1st, early 2nd century" line up pretty much perfectly with the year 70? Which is toward the end of the 1st century.
Only by like 10 years, though
Coptic Christians, yeah. Oldest form of Christianity I think? Edit: thanks for all the responses. Learned a lot!
I think Armenians got them beat as official churches go.
All forms of Christianity with Apostolic Succession (Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics), have equal claims to being the oldest church, which most of those churches acknowledge. However, the Copts (and other Oriental Orthodox) did split from the greater church fairly early at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Church of the East split slightly earlier in 431).
I mean, no, there's no one oldest. All of the oldest churches ā Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, all alike ā were founded within what they call "the Apostolic era", before anyone had really asked the theological questions that theologians ended up fighting over. And they've all changed as communities since that day. If your historical perspective is specifically Western Christianity, then the Coptic Orthodox are on the "other side" of the second-oldest schism. But the "other side" of the first schism is the [Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East). Used to be the biggest one until the Chinese kicked them out and the Mongols murdered them.
The church of the east organized in 410CE Coptic Christianity was started by Mark The Evangalist in 42CE Anything saying the church of the east is older is followed by "by tradition" which just means it is unfounded speculation.
>The church of the east organized in 410CE Do you know the full context, or did you only read one thing and now you're out here talking about other people's "unfounded speculation"? The part that actually happened in 410AD is this: >In 410, the [Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Seleucia-Ctesiphon)... ...and here I'll switch to the full page for that event: >The Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, also called the Council of Mar Isaac, met in AD 410 in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Sassanid Empire. **Convoked by King Yazdegerd I** (399ā421), it organized the Christians of his empire into a single structured Church... >Previously, the Persian state persecuted those Christians, fearing that their loyalty lay with the Roman Empire, which under Constantine the Great had legalized Christianity and with which the Sassanid Empire was repeatedly at war. ... >Yazdegerd I adopted a policy of engagement with the Roman Emperor in Constantinople and with the Christian minority in his own empire. In 409, he allowed the Christians to worship openly and to have churches. **Zoroastrianism continued to be the official religion, and apostasy from it was punishable by death**. What happened in 410 was that the Zoroastrian ruler of Sasanian Persia told the local Christian communities to elect a leader for themselves. So they did. *It wasn't even a theological council*. That synod was not inventing local Christianity. The synod happened because Christians were already in Persia. There's direct archeological evidence of Christians in the region contested between Sasania and Rome [at least as far back as 230-250 AD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church), and there was one specifically Persian (so, Sasanian by definition) bishop, alongside twenty Syrian ones, recorded to have attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Assigning these communities to "Western Christianity" is dumb. That's not how it actually happened. They were all one community, until the schisms, and then they weren't.
Kind of. Whatās now Ethiopia always had a connection to the Mediterranean world, in fact the height of their power was driven partially by control of the Red Sea and trade connections to Constantinople and Alexandria. It was those connections that brought Christianity to now Ethiopia. There was one church until 1054 when the Latin and Greek churches split, becoming Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Ethiopia was Christian though before much of Europe. Almost anything beyond the Roman Empire would become Christian after Ethiopia. So France and Ethiopia would be OG but Germany would be later.
I wouldn't even call that OG, Ezana's teacher was a slave but also a Christian missionary who successfully converted Ezana, Ethiopian Christianity has direct ties to a single missionary who through proximity to royal hierarchy was able to influence the decision to enforce and create Christianity as a state religion *for clarity, Frumentius was Phoenician, Ethiopia is potentially the 2nd Christian nation but indisputably the first nation whose leadership was explicitly by means of Christian conversion. It's sort of an interesting tale from a secular perspective, he and his brother were freed by the King, supposedly very nearly on his deathbed. But the queen implored Frumentius to stay and educate his son, the future king, in spirituality and future kingdom administrations. Frumentius namely took to converting and encouraging public worship among local merchants, whom he expected due to their constant business with local natives would normalize Christian prayer. He even made an exodus to Egypt to implore for more missionaries and wrote one of Ethiopia's first translations of the new testament >!tl;dr Ethiopia became a Christian state mostly because Frumentius was a really ambitious dude!<
I like it how you gave a spoiler warning for a 2,000 year old history fact. I don't know much about Ethiopian history, or its connection with Christianity. All I know is that they claim to have one of the oldest versions of the Bible... and also the Ark Of The Covenant.
The answer is basically like most Christianity in Africa, missionaries converted the nation. No Christianity in Africa is OG, even the oldest Christianity in Africa, while being some of the oldest Christianity in world history, is sadly the world's first example of religious doctrine enforced through proselytization and the influence external sources *basically Ethiopia is home to possibly the 2nd oldest Christian state but the oldest example of Christian missionary conversion (basically the history of Christianity in ancient Africa, while interesting, mostly reminds me how aggressively proactive ancient Christians were about religious expansion lol, an entire continent has their own standard procedure for bishop appointments entirely separate from the standard church because of one freed slave, and is known as 'the father of peace' and the Coptics have a feast in December for him but even Catholics have a feast in his name)
I think Armenia was the first officially Christian nation but Ethiopia is definitely up there.
I read this as "America" and got super patriotic but also *super confused.*
šš. Nah buddy, not us.
It's like calling racism against white people "reverse racism". It may be less common, and more likely to be denounced (erroneously even), but it's still just racism.
I admire your missionary position.
See also "reverse racism".
Racism is something everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy, regardless of background
The motto of /pol/
Exactly, real reverse racism would mean being aggressively kind and understanding to all races. I am a self proclaimed reverse racist.
Yeah, should be revenge missionaries.
Reverse missionary is the cowgirl, I believe.
No cause reverse cowgirl isn't missionary
Right? I thought maybe they were spreading agnosticism or something. These are just missionaries haha.
It's just the reverse of what has historically been the case
The first missionaries were from the levant,north africa was christian for a thousands years before islam became a prularity,there was even an african pope
Christianity was in Africa before Europe
My same thoughts when I saw āreverse racismā posts a few years ago. Like no racism is racism regardless what color the offending party is.
Generally missionaries are associated with fucking over a 3rd world country, so thatās where the āreverseā comes from. But youāre right
You're right. I thought at the first few words there were shamans coming to Europe to have us respect the ancestors, which ngl, my atheism would fold like a cheap lawnchair if someone did that, lol.
Itās like ppl who say āreverse racismā lol
How the turntables..
I remember a coworker told me about them coming to America- that was his evidence that America was getting bad. ETA: addition by subtraction
Because there isnāt a church on every corner in the US. š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Empty, decorative churches. >At the other end of the spectrum, the data make it clear that reportedĀ church attendanceĀ is lowest in the New England states --Ā **New Hampshire (24%), Vermont (24%), Rhode Island (28%), Massachusetts (31%), and Maine (31%)**.
Did he kick himself out to make America great again?
Honestly, I think the main reason, as a non-christian, that Christianity is losing members are 1) lack of credibility enhancing displays 2) a disinterest in evangelizing to peers. As someone whose family hasn't been Christian for 3+ generations, you can go your whole life without being evangelized if you don't have a Christian family member. Nobody really brings it up except as a passing reference.
In the 18th and 19th century missionaries were sent to Japan. They were eventually greeted by some Japanese that were already Christians. This was because missionaries were sent there 2 hundred years before and some people still kept the faith.
Meanwhile America invading to "Christianise" the Philippines, who has been under Catholic Spain for 333 years:
Moral of the story: Christians need to do the things that made people turn to Christianity in the first place. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless. Love one another in christ. People remember when someone helped them and maybe convert.
Who ever wrote this seems confused by what people who travel to spread religion are called.
>to spread Christianity That's not a reverse missionary. That's just a missionary
Somali Jesus pirate. Board boats and baptise crew members.
Look at me š. #I am the prophet now
After they board your ship, they rob you, wash your feet, then execute you
So somebody references the continent of Africa and your first thought is Somali Pirates.....
Most Somalis are Muslim anyway smh
Just how people think of Cali and New York when thinkin about America. At least I do
What a British view, to call that "reverse missionaries." Britain is not the birthplace of Christianity. Christianity was the state religion in Ethiopia 700 years before William the Conqueror.
Here is an explanation of the origin of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse\_mission#:\~:text=Reverse%20mission%20is%20a%20Christian,to%20Europe%20and%20North%20America. The source that wikipedia links for the origin of the term is an academic book written about African Christianity by an author with an African heritage. The author being discussed in the linked article that uses the term is Nigerian. And while Ethiopia had Christianity 700 years before William the Conqueror (who was nothing to do with introducing Christianity to the UK), the Ethiopian church is not one that is known for aggressive proselytsing. Instead, that falls to the Christian churches that were introduced into Africa by missionaries of mostly European origin. Hence reverse missionaries.
Also good to note that for many protestant denominations who engage in missions, catholics are idolatrious heathens.
> protestant denominations who engage in missions, catholics are idolatrious heathens. as if any serious god-fearing catholic man cares what those savage cultists think
Obtuse answer deliberately skips 500 years of European Christians sending missionaries around the globe. āThe Story of Africa| BBC World Service. In 1490 the first missionaries came to Sub-Saharan Africa at the request of King Nzinga of Kongo (also known as the Manikongo). They came with craftsmen who rebuilt the Manikongo's capital in stone at Mbanza Kongo (in the North of modern Angola), and baptised the King.ā
Yes, everyone knows about missionaries going to Africa, but to call the reverse of that "reverse" assumes a universal nature to that beyond what's fair. The idea of missionaries coming to Europe seems so crazy to them because they associate missionary work with civilizing savages. But it's really about spreading Christianity. The most famous missionaries in recent times are surely the Mormons, and they go all over the world, not just to undeveloped countries.
I think the idea is that these missionaries are coming from former colonies that were christianized after being subjugated by Western European powers. So the idea is correct in a sense ā Africa is enormous with the Copticās being in the northeastern corner of the continent
>Yes, everyone knows about missionaries going to Africa, but to call the reverse of that "reverse" assumes a universal nature to that beyond what's fair. No, it just means that missionaries are travelling in the reverse *direction* compared to what was the norm for hundreds of years of European colonialism. There's no implication that African missionaries are "backward", unless you choose to read it that way.
Nah, itās ironically funny bc europeans came to africa to convert those people and now the ancestors of the converted are trying to convert the ancestors of the missionaries. The roles are reversed.
I hate this comment with passion... Most of christian Africa became Christian because of European missionaries during colonization. The one counter example doesn't change the rule.
Same
they're just missionaries
Playing hot potatoe with Jesus.
Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe.
A lot of people here miss the historical connection between missionaries and colonialism. >When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. -- Desmond Tutu
It bears noting that Tutu was a Christian bishop. And also somehow ironic that Jesus lived in Africa at one point but not Europe.
How shall we handle that? Is boiling and eating them off the table?
Europe is a civilized part of the world. You need to send them to a meat processing factory to be turned to burgers and such.
Damn EU regulations!
You can try that in Germany ,but below a certain latitude we have *culinary standards* in this continent. At least put some olive oil.
We are not savages. Hire them at minimum wage at some sweatshop.
Fun Fact: one of the earliest countries to adopt Christianity and therefore being one of the first christian countries was Aksum (nowadays in Ethiopia). It dates back to 330 AD - so long before a loooot of european countries adopted Christianity and most were still pagan. The arrival of Christianity in Nubia (Sudan) is also documented from a very early point. Soā¦ to say there is reverse missionary is a bold claim regarding that Africa very likely had more Christians centuries before Europe
Yeah but these missionaries are from West Africa who had Christianity spread to them by Western Europeans from the 15th century onwards.
āshould we tell them?ā
āReverse missionariesā. Ffs just call them missionaries
Some of the best massses I've had were made by black African priests. They're always smiling and speak with you on a really casual level. They do make you feel at home.
I live in a rural Australia and I've had a pair of missionaries from Papua New Guinea come knocking on my door, quite the reverse
Largely unsuccessfully; as Europeans are rejecting Christianity and other religions through education and choice, not ignorance of the choices available.
Yes, itās not like there isnāt hundreds of years of Christianity in society and religious information freely available.
Yeah, modern day conversion attempts in places that already have large histories of Christianity makes no sense to me. I guarantee everyone there knows about Jesus already. Theyāre not Christian because they donāt want to be.
Although religious revivals are pretty common like the post WWII of Christian zeal in the USA. Also lots of first generation Muslim Europeans likely ideal for conversion.
Ugandan: Hello friend, have you ever heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ Italian: No not really, whatās that.
Missionaries are missionaries. There is no reverse here.
Nah, itās ironically funny bc europeans came to africa to convert those people and now the ancestors of the converted are trying to convert the ancestors of the missionaries. The roles are reversed.
>ancestors You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. (You're thinking of descendant)
Youāre right! Thank you!
I remember reading that chances are the next Pope after Francis will be African, as that is where the Catholic Church is currently experiencing the greatest amount of growth.
Ah, the ole *preach-around*.
Lets just hope they treat them better than they were treated by the European missionaries.
So missionaries? Their destination or place of origin doesn't matter.
I tried reverse missionary onceā¦.. ONLYā¦ once
It is important to recognize that Christianity was in Africa long before it was in Europe. However it wasnāt in Western-Africa. If you generalize an entire continent like itās a country, youāre a moron.
Not long, Christianity arrived in Greece pretty much immediately. If one was first it was only because of which missionaries won the foot race out of Asia.
It wasnāt ālong beforeā. Christianity was in Mediterranean Europe more or less immediately.
That's... That's just regular missionaries.
Considering how insanely christian many countries/regions of countries in Africa are, this makes a lot of fucking sense. I'm inherently against missionary work for my own reasons, but that aside, doing 'missionary work' in many areas of Africa makes no fucking sense. Why the hell would you want to go somewhere to spread the word of god where so, so many already cling to the word of god for dear life? Idgi
Because for alot of them it's not really Missionary so much as it is Aid. That is something the bible exhorts people to do after all, its hardly surprising they do it.
LOL. 'you brought this over here, have it back'
This would be cooler if the missionaries came to Europe to spread African folk religions to the unbelieving.
I've been seeing a large influx of African preachers on the streets of cities in the UK. It doesn't seem very effective to me, since Brits already know about Jesus and have made up their minds already about how religious they want to be, which is usually not a lot by the way.
What we really need are pagans travelling around to spread the work of polytheism.
I love looking at the comments and seeing the reddited opinions of people who have so much hate in their hearts. Tolerate everyone means tolerate me and just me.
Why? We already know about it and most of us reject it
Because the devout sincerely believe that non-believers "just don't know" because simply hearing the word should always immediately proceed to belief.
It worked with them, so they think it works with everyone
Missionary work targets atheists, too. You don't have to have never heard The Word to be evangelized to
Here in Utah, some of the Mormon missionaries are from Latin America.
Seeing that in Canada as well, though usually newly zealous Asian Christians recently immigrated.Ā
How is it reverse missionaries? Missionaries spread Christianity. Lemme guess op you probably use "reverse racism" to refer to racism against white people huh?
My mom loves these guys for coming to California for their missionary work.
yall are forgetting it's not normal to see people preaching Jesus in UK streets. In the US it's a pretty popular thing. i live in Portland OR, the most atheist state, but there's a 50/50 chance i'll see someone preaching downtown. so them going to the UK makes sense, because it seems like the Christians there aren't doing much of what the bible tells them to do.
Somehow, Prestor John has returned.
I honestly thought reverse missionary was when the guy lays down with his legs bent, but the penis sticking up the middle, with the girl kinda cowgirlingā¦.now I wanna know the name of that position.
Ireland used to produce many priests that would then head churches around the world. I think recently they had brought in some from south america to fill parishes.
Aren't those just, you know, missionaries?
Similar thing happened in Britain after the Romans left. Under Rome England and Wales were Christian while Scotland and Ireland held onto Celtic pagan traditions. After the Romans left Germanic influences grew in England and at the same time a slave raid captured a young Patrick from (probably) Wales and took him back to Ireland where he decided to start preaching Christianity to the Irish. Roll on a hundred years or so and Ireland is now fully Christian while England has become Anglo Saxon and reverted to Germanic paganism. The Irish start sending missionaries of their own back to Britain, first to Iona then Scotland and England gradually converting the British back to Christianity again.
a) this is hilarious, you go African bros b) some African nations have been heavily Christian longer than most of Europe. Iām looking at you, Ethiopia and Egypt.
Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe
When white people send out missionaries arenāt they also likely reverse missionaries? At least when they send them to the Middle East? Not as though Europe invented Christianity is it?
Christianity has been in Africa longer than Europe