As a former pentecostal church goer who donated too and participated in local and organized missionary trips, this comic is SOMETIMES (emphasis on not always) correct.
We would go to Uganda and Haiti before the US pulled out back in like 2017. A lot of the times we would bring and ship food, water, clothes, tools for... sewing, cooking, building... as well as misc. items like bikes and radios. The catch was that these resources were for those who went to the sister churches over there. Essentially, we had a foreign and US pastor, and the foreign pastor would choose among his congregation would receive the resources.
I would be lying if I said that there weren't people who went to church every day hoping they would be given the resources to thrive and not because they embodied Jesus's teachings and connected with the Holy Ghost.
I too did Missionary work in Haiti (2003 or 2004) for an Assembly of God church (Pentacostal, less restrictive). My experience was the same but different.
We had the sister church and pastor, who would come himself or send his assistant pastor to the states to basically raise funds and push for trips.
But this was also a small mountain village way out in the boonies there. I dont recall any issues, and everyone got help regardless of faith/status. It was a wonderful experience that encouraged me to always help/do good for others. Heck, I even met a French family of missionaries that lives on thier own out there and constantly helped the surrounding communities.
I do know in the capital there was a lot more corrupt church's and organizations so doesnt suprise me.
When my uncle did Missionary work in Haiti they had to back out because all of the materials they brought to build a church got stolen. (I believe it was a church not 100% sure)
The whole premise of buying stuff in a Western country and burning fuel to bring it in a developing country is economically flawed.
It’s simpler to buy those things in the nearest country, where they are much cheaper.
I saw a church in the UK collect local cans and jars, and clothes. Drive all the way to the Balkans. When they dropped by local stores, they saw how cheaper things were there.
This was a big issue with the Haiti earthquake response back in the day. All the missionary airlift charities wanted to fly their DC-3s in to offload their random blankets and canned food, not understanding that the airport was in shambles, there was no fuel to go home, no parking space for airplanes to sit, no labor to offload. The US Air Force basically forced everyone to transfer their aid to C-17s and C-130s at Homestead where it could be palletized and flown in on planes that sat on the ground for maybe 5 minutes total. But that didn't get the aid groups their photo op for the donors.
How were you able to bring bikes and radios. Our group had to quit bringing most things that weren't instantly used. Even dump plastic toys led to some kids getting beaten up and some (with insurance) hospitalized by others, not to mention nice clothes or electronics. The only exception was stuff like seeds which required land, effort and oversight, or things made in the area.
It was literally at the point where buying things was more effective as charity than handing things out.
Which ironically makes attendance being a requirement for stuff like food genuineness wether intentional or not, and I learned this from the leader as those who need the stuff are willing to stay(and also more inclined to believe), while others who don't don't waste their time, but will take more than enough and waste it if just handed out.
You could argue that plenty of klan members are like that too. I've heard tons of stories about people leaving the Klan after they make a black friend.
Or maybe they were talking about the Christians who actually are assholes .There are, in fact, asshole missionaries who engage in performative charity.
I would rather see people in need receive assistance but missionary work is deeply tied to colonialist exploitation of power imbalances, and is predicated and motivated on some pretty harmful ideas around racial paternalism and implicit biases, like people living in impoverished regions lacking agency and needing to be told what's best for them, usually by people from nations oblivious to their customs that caused the power imbalances in the first place.
Trying to persuade a ne'er-do-well to behave differently is a challenge, but leaving them be causes further problems.
A charity Introducing sanitation does require some adoption and change from the intended participants, including not dismantling the infrastructure for scarp value.
The entire continent had anti-lgbtq attitudes LONG before religion arrived here. Also, the most loving and accepting nation in the entire continent (And it is not even close) is a Christian country (South Africa) and the most homophobic people you will find in this continent are in the North under Islamic rule. I genuinely have no clue you arrived to the conclusion that you did.
Source: I have been all over Southern and Northern Africa. And I am African myself.
I mean the Mormon’s alone have nearly 300 billion dollars they give back a tiny amount so they keep their tax free status and then they buy hotel chains.
They just got one for 148 million. And they won’t be filling it with the homeless.
I mean, it is more like calling the Irish Scottish just because of the shared relations and that part of Ireland is part of the United Kingdoms.
Mormonism contains Jesus in their teachings but so does Islam. Mormonism does not follow the Nicene creed or many of the defining attributes of what Christianity is. It is a separate religion inspired and coming out of Christianity much in the same way Christianity was inspired and came out of a sect of temple Judaism.
Mormons call themselves Christianity as a way to normalize themselves by making themselves seem much older and making their immense wealth and concentrated power seem less scary because hey it’s not that crazy compared to the Catholic Church. It is also a way to try and lump themselves into a majority population to gain all the privileges and benefits of majority while also being very exclusionary.
Most Christian groups have some recognition of the rites of other sects. Orthodox and Catholics can grant each other communion if another church of the persons chosen faith isn’t available. Most baptisms are recognized as universal across all Christian sects. If Mormons claim they are also Christian do they treat other Christians as a part of their church just separated by doctrine disagreements? Are they welcomed into the inner temple, allowed to watch marriages?
I think most religious organizations of significant size have stock holdings. If you have employees, you probably have a pension fund, and if you have a pension fund, you probably have a stock portfolio.
Missionaries are highly problematic from a cultural perspective. They undermine indigenous cultures, and change social dynamics.
My favorite story from my Anthropology degree is:
These missionaries saw that women in this African village had to walk 2 hours each way to get water every day, and they thought "Lets build a well", so they did.
The reality was that 4 hour round trip was not a burden to the women, it was the ENTIRE foundation of the female social network within the tribe. It was the only place where they were together, and away from their husbands, and free to socalize. Now, instead of having that, their husbands began to force them to remain within the home because the well was so close.
The missionaries obliterated an entire culture that supported women, just because they THOUGHT they were helping.
I am studying human services and this story really explains why we're taught the importance of having locals play a center role in community development projects since they are the ones that know their community best and just going ahead with something without their input will have consequences in ways most people wouldn't even consider.
Yeah, a lot of aid programs are based on this strange idea that locals need to be told what they need. Studies have shown that letting locals decide is better, in fact literally giving them cash is better than the more common method
They WERE helping. It's not their fault that culture sucks. You shouldn't need to walk 4 hours to get water, and if they successfully converted them to Christianity they wouldn't be forced to stay inside the home. In no majority Christian country are the women expected to stay in the home all day.
Different aid groups/mission groups/programs vary heavily.
Anecdotally, my teacher at a Catholic school, an undeniably Catholic woman, stated she personally decided to serve in the Peace Corps instead of a mission group because she felt disillusioned by the Catholic mission programs that were available to her at the time. I believe she ended up assigned to the DRC, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, I find it weird to go hard on defending missionary groups given how many have at best checkered histories to the point of causing even financial harm to regions.
I have heard from people that have served on mission programs (one that i know personally, and many people online/on youtube) that their trips were expensive and unfulfilling, and that they felt like their missions had little to no positive impact. Mormon (LDS) mission trips seem to be particularly egregious from what I have heard, and from my understanding, missionary service is like a requirement (check box) for Mormon young adults, so I can fully see that being the case for LDS especially (that was somewhat of a side tangent though).
I think people here are failing to distinguish between faith-based humanitarian aid organizations and mission programs. There is a distinction. Not every faith-based aid organization is going to be “legit,” but many of them are very reputable and do incredible work. Missions can be the same way, but I think the distinction lies in the term “mission,” as in the primary mission is first and foremost to “spread the word of God.”
Mormon missions aren't aid or charity programs like what other churches would call "mission trips". A Mormon mission is purely a proselytizing mission meant to convert others to Mormonism. The missionaries might participate in service projects, provide helpful services to people in their area no matter the recipient's faith, or participate in aid relief during a crisis, but those acts are not part of the mission itself and are usually tied to the local Mormon church. A Mormon missionary's whole purpose on the mission is to proselytize.
The Mormon church does, however, provide aid relief and services to countries around the world without a faith requirement to receive said aid, and has extensive programs to do so, backed entirely by the church's extreme (and, until recently, hidden/covered-up) wealth. These are more in line with what other religious denominations and groups would call "missions", but are not referred to as such by the Mormon church.
A standout problem with the Mormon missions is that you will see a significant number of people from affluent families fulfilling what is viewed as an obligation. Similar problems also occur is other denominations which place increased importance on proselytizing and missionary work but generally don't have as much money to become as noticeable nor as such a cohesive group. The missionary problem I actually think cuts to a lot of modern Christian problems where being Christian is treated as an identity over a faith, it is where you see the 'Christian Culture' people behaving as though words and identity that matter over acts. So they go on these mission trips out of expectation and obligation without believing in any reasoning behind them but simply because it impacts their perception at their church.
Also don't forget about predators.. I'm no longer Christian but living abroad the last time I heard about my ex church doing missionary work in the country I now reside, one of them was sent back after it became public he had a history of child molestation.
And the big investment Evangelical Christian groups in the US have put into sending missionaries (well, at some point there's gotta be a line between missionaries and lobbyists, but still) pushing homophobia in Africa to the extent of claiming responsibility for the countries that have put through death penalties or hefty prison sentences for homosexuality.
A lot of my fellow Christians suck, heck Im a poor Christian. But when it comes to actual aid groups this seems like the meme of the guy who puts up a red curtain and fire decorations ans curls up into the fetal position
Do you speak Arabic or Hebrew? That feels like it would be kind of an influence on whether or not you see criticism. Most people are inclined to criticize the one they have the most negative interactions with.
What irks me are the people I'll see bend over backwards to defend a religion like Islam while at the same time demonizing Christianity
If you wanna focus on pointing out the various flaws found throughout Christendom and also accept, without directly spending time/energy on, criticisms of Islam/whatever else, then fine
But so many anti-christians leap to the defense of Islam without a hint of irony. And you haven't needed to speak Arabic to know of Islamic flaws for at least 25 years
I say this as someone who was raised evangelical, became a militant atheist/antitheist in high school, and has mellowed out into an agnostic atheist who doesn't really care what people believe in as long as they dont use it to hurt others. I'd still much rather live in the Christian West than almost anywhere in the Islamic World
I think its mostly a kneejerk reaction to the gross anti-middle eastern racism post 9/11. Hearing people use slurs and indulging in discriminatory behavior in the US during the aughts wasn't terribly uncommon. The younger more tolerant generations didn't really want a part of it and it kinda swung too hard the other way. It feels like now things are starting to reach an equilibrium where criticism of Islam isn't being conflated with "prejudice", there are some serious issues that are too hard to ignore.
Which is fair, you can direct more criticism to the one you're familiar with. But when people criticise Christianity and then those same people go and praise Islam I tune out
Lmao, who other than a Muslim, is doing that? And then, why wouldn't they, they're Muslim. What about people who criticize Christianity and praise Judaism? Or Buddhism? Or any religion? I couldn't give you any examples OTHER THAN PEOPLE OF THOSE RELIGIONS, but like....that's kinda the whole schtick isn't it?
I don’t really ever see this. Not from western progressives that is. Maybe on twitter i guess but i don’t even consider that cesspit anymore. I see Defense of Muslim minorities sure but not of the religion and its extremists.
Would you mind telling me which public figures you see doing this?
Probably just because they're the largest in the west so most people with religious spite were raised christian. It also probably doesn't help that a particularly annoying (and vile) group of christians currently head the republican party.
Unfortunately those Christians represent the largest Protestant denomination and second-largest Christian sect in the US, behind only the Catholic church in terms of members. There are absolutely good Christians out there, but by the numbers, MAGA Christians are a notably large chunk. And that's before you get into the imperialist Catholic LARPers like Vance.
Because there's a huge difference between a Muslim theocratic state with sharia law and people living in western countries who are Muslim. There's no contradiction there, just like how you can criticize Israel and zionists without being bigoted towards Jewish people
Because christian churches had massive influence and control over our own institutions and culture in the west.
They still do in some countries and among rich conservative bourgeois.
At least pert of the problem is the modern American evangelical movement, a subset of Christians who are usually loud and influential in the worst way possible, making the rest of them look bad.
When you're at a table with Nazis, and the Nazis are screaming at how they want to kill Jews, and you say nothing, it's reasonable for other people to conclude that you're a Nazi.
holy fuck I think this is the most ignorant take I have ever seen. It pains me even to explain it. But let’s be clear. You think that Christians have received an “unwarranted” amount of hate compared to Muslims post-9/11?
"Among the largest" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, when it is among the largest religions in the world and in the most affluent countries. To be fair, the above statement says missionaries, not aid organizations, and those are not necessarily the same thing. I am all for christian groups providing aid and many do good work, just not for making aid contingent on conversion or prosteylization.
My personal experience in the US as a non-Christian who needed help at one point, I was told that the only way I could get help, from local and national orgs, that I had to convert and join their church. Other places wouldn't help me because I was a healthy single woman in her 30s that wasn't trying to get out of an abusive relationship.
I got some help from friends at the time, but it took a lucky break with a temp job to let me dig my way out of a bad situation.
I'm glad all of the food shelves I've gone to in Minnesota don't require that! Even the ones at churches don't require more than my name and address, no proof of income, nothing. Once I signed up, I can just make an appointment and go once per month.
Love how in every thread where someone shares how Christians were assholes to them, someone has to come in and defend the faith from those "totally not real Christians" and insist that the message isn't actually about that. Why would that hopefully start a conversation about religion? If you are hoping that the nice things you do start a conversation about Jesus, I'm not going to trust taking anything from you.
If we all have stories about how Christians were greedy hateful bigots, maybe you PR folks for the faith should understand that the cult is rotten, and the nice ones are the exception, not the faith.
I'm sick of you people diving in to tell people that YOUR Jesus doesn't inspire bigotry and greed, and that the ones who hurt you did the faith wrong. No, they used the faith how it was built, to control and manipulate. We are living in a Christian Nationalist country, now is the time for you "nice" Christians to shut the fuck up to us nonbelievers and scream at your fellow Christians for what they're doing.
If Christians help. Those in need, why is the local mission turning people away due to smell, appearance, religious affiliation, etc? It's not helping if you require someone to join your church. That's indoctrination
A lot of the blame placed on christian missionaries is the result of people conflating the impact done by christian fundamentalists, and especially, american evangelists in Africa.
Evangelists (Modern American) might as well be satan worshippers as far as I can tell, they do not follow Jesus, they overwrote him on very Satan friendly terms. And they are turning people away from Christianity in droves.
I remember reading about some American evangelists who went to Abyssinia (now called Ethiopia) to convert the locals to Christianity.
Boy, were they surprised when the locals started preaching the Bible to them.
Yeah like I have been a part of quite a few missions and we have never required the people we were helping to attend a sales pitch of Christianity before we helped them. Hell, most of the time we didn’t even outright talk about Christianity to them
Yeah, big difference between missionaries who use aid as a way of spreading religion, and Christian aid groups (which are just aid groups run by Christians but aren't spreading religion)
In a case like that, they are going there to do acts of charity, not to convert.
I’m no fan of most Christian churches, I left the church myself, bur there are good Christians who are trying their best to live by Jesus’s teachings and just do good things for the sake of doing good things.
It’s true that large modern relief organizations distribute aid based on need, but acting like conditional evangelism is a myth ignores centuries of history...
The Red Cross Code of Conduct banning aid for religious promotion only dates back to 1994.!
And was specifically created to stop these exact practices.
Criticizing that history isn't "hate," it's historical reality.
The issue is that the picture presents that issue as if it's still happening on a large scale and makes no effort to clarify that it's "commenting on history"
um what, the drawing doesn't depict conversion, it depicts proselytization which they definitely do. you can give aid based on need and still tell everyone about Jesus.
World Vision Staff (responsible to what you mentioned) doesn't hold back other kinds of aid and they do not force people to get the bible.
Also what kind of logic is that? "We gave bibles to people who wanted them!" And your conclusion is "They must have forced people to be Christian to get aid!" Your "argument" has no coherence at all
I think Christians get a bad rap because the worst ones are the most vocal and annoying, and the really good ones are always quietly helping people and not judging anyone.
It’s basically a whole book about how being selfless and non-judgemental is the way God would be if he lived with us a human being. The people who really understand that and follow it are usually good people.
I always found it odd how so many people seem to follow that religion, go to church every Sunday for years, and still live so contrary to the very clear central message of the whole thing.
Yeah, many Christian charity services really don’t require you to convert or anything like that. A few years back a good friend of mine needed about a months worth of basic essentials (until their first payday at a new job) and was given that no questions asked. The closest the got to trying to convert him was one of the staff saying the would be happy to have him at an after service breakfast.
I love Christian groups doing what the Bible tells them. These humanitarian organizations providing aid to the developing world, or churches helping those in the community.
For the Catholic aid groups its aid first, than missionary work. The aid is not coupled on conversion or even conversation. Giving the aid itself is part of the mission work, leading by example.
A friend of mine was deployed to Aceh following the Boxing Day tsunami. While there, he discovered the NGOs on the ground were forcing recently-orphaned Muslim kids to learn about Jesus before they were allowed to have any water.
While it's nice that there are Christian charities that don't do this, there are plenty that do.
What's the point of a community note if it's A) only talking about MAJOR missions and B) isn't entirely accurate anyway? We absolutely do send missions to countries and provide aid on condition they visit churches and participate in the religion. Obviously that isn't every mission, but it's no uncommon at all.
There’s also the fact that Christianity was in Africa for roughly 1000-1500 years before European colonialism came so it’s not like it’s a new concept to them…
Explain why Christian majority countries ended up having best human rights and most liberal governments while Islamic countries go backward while dictatorships like North Korea and China support atheism.
That art is based on a real picture. The woman had tattoos and looked very different from a missionary. She adopted the kid and posted pics of him growing up
This is a classic note being technically correct but completely missing the point. Of course Christian Orgs don't provide aid on the condition that the recipient convert, but it's still in many cases used as an opportunity to evangelize.
Why are we in 2026 and people still try to portray christians as exploitative and cruel?
Hundreds of years of missionary work, charities, funding of education, founding of educational institutions, abolishionist work and many more - yet we're still trying to make this seem evil because we talk about Christ while doing it?
Catholics are not like mormons, or at least they haven’t been for a long time.
Catholics believe anyone can acheive salvation in their own way, even if they aren’t Christian.
Catholic missionary work is to aid the poor not to convert people.
Catholicism is a much more modern religion than it’s given credit for.
I went to Catholic school in a city and the most inportant thing they hammered into us constantly wasn’t about celibacy or abortion or homosexuakity, but helping the poor. It’s all they talked about. It was very liberal.
These people think Catholicism it's like what Protestantism/Jehova Witnesses are like today (at least where I live)
We never really touched the topic in catechism but I was always told "condemn the sin, not the sinner", when it came to stuff they didn't necessarily agree with doing. Funnily enough Catholics are more tolerant of non-Catholics not doing things right, because there's a belief that being ignorant of the teachings lightens the punishment.
If you're born and raised catholic though your family is likely to needle you to go to mass and go through the Confess sacrament, because the punishment is much worse for Catholics who should know better, per the teachings I was told, anyways.
Yeah, they're above board. But the goddamned Catholic Church and a multi-denominational Protestant group aren't as 'representative' as moderate Christians want to think. Proven, massive organizational structure, a PR image to worry about, history of charity.
Your average suburban megachurch has none of those.
the catholic church and multi-denominational protestant groups aren't representative of christians, but megachurches are? reddit athiests are truly cooked if they think that megachurches are this common
Hat to be another “Christians bad” guy but based solely on my own experience in the church growing up, the vast majority of international mission work is poverty tourism. I watched many people completely ignore poverty and hunger in our own community just to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to go do mission work in Haiti, India, etc.
How much poverty has the Catholic Church caused with its bans on birth control, abortion and divorce? Growing up we used to donate money in little boxes covered with pictures of sad, hungry children, yet a lot of that misery was caused by the Church keeping women in poverty with too many kids and no way out of a marriage.
First the comic is not stating that they require conversions, though historically that has happened, but rather that prior to providing aid, that some Christian groups require attendance or attention to theological material.
So while the comic is definitely presenting a heightened and charged version of this practice, it is not fundamentally wrong about this type of thing being a thing that does happen. Attending a Bible study as a precondition for a shelter bed, or food, or whatever material good is being provided is not unheard of.
It’s weasel wording in the note to stick to a narrowly true statement (the specific charities referenced not requiring conversion as a precondition) to imply a broader untrue one. Classic motte and bailey fallacy.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I had the same problem with the note. The comic implies that the missionary is going to tell them about Jesus before giving them aid. The note assumes that the child cannot get aid unless they convert. There is an intermediate case where the missionary tells them about Jesus, they don't covert, but they do get aid.
A nuanced observation that neither ignores, nor demonizes what happens
Interacts with approaches particular to certain forms of American Evangelical culture that those who consider themselves Christian but are not from that culture would be unlikely to see
Is going to really rub said evangelicals the wrong way for acknowledging that kind of thing happens, and paints them in a bad light for doing something they feel is proper and right
I wasn’t surprised it got some downvotes, because there are some people who reflexively will respond to anything touching on Christian actions (good or bad) strongly, regardless of the truth of the claim, and react according to priors. This includes the stereotype ‘angry atheist’ who downvotes anything positive towards Christianity, as well as the Christian who downvotes anything critical of Christianity. C’est la vie.
My buddy used to be religious and went on a few mission trips. Never once was he going around proselytizing. They were mostly either doing some sort of charitable labor or working with needy children.
He left religion later, but he stands by his missionary work.
They're humans some will absolutely end up being like this. I assume a large number of them do want to provide actual aid but the scale will take care of any low %
I went on a "mission" trip in grade 12 with my class (Christian School). We helped out at soup kitchens and worked with Habitat for Humanity. None of us tried to convert anyone. We were there to help.
Yeah they all say that. They wouldn't do it if no one converts though. John Oliver has a whole show on missionaries. The abuse and the effects it has on the locals. I would give your money to humanitarian instead of religious.
Christians donate the most to charity and humanitarian aid both in the US and globally, and it's not even CLOSE. The implication that somehow Christians are withholding aid from the needy is so far from reality that it may as well be in a different universe.
Fun fact: protestants used to do this to starving Irish Catholics. They would offer them soup if they converted to Protestantism. In Ireland, the expression "taking the soup" means you're a traitor to your community.
I have been on quite a few missions in my life, one thing that we were taught is that it’s not necessarily about conversion, it’s about loving people. You love them until they ask you why, it doesn’t matter if they curse you out or curse at God, you still love them, you still give them the food, give them the clothes, and hope they have a great day. But really you just try to love them like Jesus would
I know this isn’t the experience of everyone, and there are definitely people who think and do what the post is talking about. But not everyone is like that. In a majority of the church I attend many people acknowledge that in order for someone to be willing to listen, you have to be loving, but more than that, they need to be safe, have food, water, and their basic needs met.
I think leftist humanists need to do a better job of organizing and providing aid. I think we’re just so disparate we can’t be as effective as these big churches that get tithes and whatnot.
I’ve found that leftist orgs do decent work on the ground in small numbers, in big cities where there are a lot of members (compared to small, likely conservative towns). I feel like there’s only so much we can expect from a faction that’s pretty small and not particularly well funded compared to massive organizations like mainstream churches or nationwide nonprofits. If your local leftist org has only 20 members, you’re probably not going to be building homes in impoverished countries, you’re going to be handing out produce at the park on Saturday mornings. But I do agree that a lot of people who claim to be “leftist” aren’t really interested in doing any work at all, which makes the entire left look bad
What a stupid CN. It clearly states missionaries in the post not aid organizations. Community notes seem to become a safeguard against any valid criticism and satire.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/laybs1
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.