Response: “Choose a representative passage from this novel that holds particular significence to you. Type it in and comment on its significance.”

Response to the instruction, “Choose a representative passage from this novel that holds particular significence to you. Type it in and comment on its significance.”

The selected passage is from Peace Child page 240-242; I will only type up some parts of the passage, but the full passage includes all the text in between the first and last ones I typed (italicized text is the quoted parts of the passage, though without quotation marks):

Memories began to flood back, memories that drew me aside into a narrow path branching toward the Tumdu.
I followed the path until it ended on the crest of a knoll of high ground beside the still river. I stared down at the dew-wet kunai grass around me, remembering the two men who lay buried beneath it. Two men whom I learned to love very deeply. Two men who in their life-time had often looked into me with a closeness of understanding rare on earth...
…
Aeons of change had metamorphosed us both until we appeared totally alien to each other. Yet providence had brought us together again. Why? To demonstrate that Christ is the Fulfiller of every man's true self.
I turned slowly from the two unmarked graves and walked along the grassy edge of the Tumdu. Peace seemed to be everywhere and in everything. It was flowing down with the moonlight, twinkling through the stars, shimmering among reflections. I vibrated through birdcalls and Amhwi's now distant voice.
It brought back the memory of another voice which, though now hushed in death, still echoed out of that very different world from which we had come: the firm, commissioning voice of an old, white-haired man:
“You will encounter customs and beliefs which will baffle you, but which must be understood....
“Our Lord is impatient to establish His kingdom of love in those dark places which are now the habitation of cruelty....
“Who will go?”
I remembered how my whole being had responded with a sureness that would tolerate no other option: “I will!”
I reached for the gate, and as I touched it, joy swept through me. Joy more than just my own.

This passage's significance for me is what I might describe (though maybe inadequately) as a beautiful way to conclude the book (apart from the postscript and epilogue, that is). I just find the passage pleasing as the final part of the story. I might even be able to empathize, even if I had not experienced what Don Richardson did at the moment, to some extent the sense of a great joy (and, perhaps, if the word is appropriate, delight) at the peace in the now transformed Sawi people. I also find the recollection of the past quite beautiful in this passage. Perhaps it is so because of similar reasons why reminiscent things cause yearning as well as delight – though I'm not exactly sure if I am capable of giving even a roughly accurate analysis of it – as I now can sympathize with Don Richardson after having gone through his story.

Perhaps the sympathizing and maybe even empathizing can be attributed to one, the Christian faith I share with Don Richardson, and two, my reading of more than half of the book (and most of the portion that involved Don Richardson) in a relatively condensed time – by which I mean, I spent much of a shorter period of time to finish that portion rather than reading smaller segments over a longer period of time. Having the previous parts of the story not so distant, perhaps I was able to sympathize with the part that mentioned memories.
In short, I find this passage as a pleasant part of Peace Child.

Work Cited

Richardson, Don. Peace Child: An Unforgettable Story of Primitive Jungle Treachery in the 20th Century. 4th. Regal, 2005. 240-242. Print.

Response: “What reflections and connections can you make with this novel?”

Response to the question, “What reflections and connections can you make with this novel?”

My response to this question likely comes from my Christian perspective. A general response is, I can see God's work in the world and also see a story of people who worked for God. The conversion and the transformation of the Sawi seems to demonstrate for me something I believe as true, that a true conversion to becoming Christ's disciples result in a transformation of the person. I think I can also connect with Don Richardson's experience in the manner of looking at a predecessor and senior in the walk of faith and work for Christ. For example, I can see how I can shake off fear when I have to enter an unfamiliar unfriendly looking place because I am called to go there in a manner similar to Don Richardson's when he though, “This swamp also is part of my Father's creation. His providence can sustain us here as well as anywhere else. Then the peace of God descended on me and suddenly this strange place became home” (Richardson 83).

Another thing I can see from this book is a quite interesting matter, that sometimes the incorporation of locality can help understand something else, which, in this book, was the gospel. I believe that biblical truth should not be watered down, but I also realize that forms of communication might change to communicate those biblical truths soundly. For example, Bible translations for the English speakers already involved the translation of original language into the English language, and thus a change in the form of communication. But ideas aren't always easily understood even if the original words have been translated into another language, as was the case initially with the Sawi, who were impressed by Judas Iscariot and did not really grasp Christ's significance. Eventually, though, through the Sawi understanding of a peace child, the Sawi were eventually able to understand better the importance of Christ and, at least for some, no longer see Judas as the hero. So, in short, this book allows me to see that sometimes biblical truths can be more effectively communicated when understanding the ideas and the already established understandings of the audience, while the biblical truth nor the Bible itself does not and should not be compromised.

Work Cited

Richardson, Don. Peace Child: An Unforgettable Story of Primitive Jungle Treachery in the 20th Century. 4th. Regal, 2005. 83. Print.

Response: “How did Christianity change this[Sawi] culture?”

Response to the question, “How did Christianity change this[Sawi] culture?”

Though I did not study about the entire Sawi population after the missions and therefore am not sure if the scope of change was wide and applied for most of the Sawi, I can say that Christianity changed the Sawi culture quite radically at least some parts, particularly for those who converted to Christianity, as the the Sawi Christians demonstrated behaviors that one, was different from what would have been expected in the past, and two, new types of activities (which constitute a new way of living and culture) that stem from their new faith.

One difference in behavior for the converts include the giving up of vengeance, and likely forgiveness. In chapter 24 of Peace Child, one person (Amio) seemingly gives up his vengeful feelings toward a Kayagar who killed his baby brother when he was given as a peace child, which, in Kayagar customs, are eaten to “seal the peace” (Richardson 184, 227-228).

More changes occurred: “Men who once abused and even tortured their wives as subhuman chattels and slaves now openly acknowledged their rights as cherishable companions and helpmeets... Women who once indulged in moodiness, screaming tirades and highly abusive speech now manifested a compelling newness and warmth of personality. Children were no longer being primed for war. Strangers and even former enemies could now accept invitations to feasts without fear of tuwi asonai man [which could be referred to as the fattening with friendship for the slaughter, an idealized form of treachery]” (Richardson 231). It seems that once people started to become Christians, there has been a change that may be quite reasonably traced back to the change in faith.

Work Cited

Richardson, Don. Peace Child: An Unforgettable Story of Primitive Jungle Treachery in the 20th Century. 4th. Regal, 2005. 184, 227-228, 231. Print.

Response: “How different is your modern culture from the sawi tenants?”

Response to the question, “How different is your modern culture from the sawi tenants?”

Italicized texts are those I wished to say but may not be directly relevant to to responding to the question.

It is notably different in a way. Treachery and a treacherous murder was idealized in the Sawi culture, and that's not (at least not publicly) idealized in my culture. However, even that is not completely alien to the culture that I live in; even if it doesn't result in cannibalism and treacherous murder, betrayal, deception, and selfishness still exist in my society. I think that's demonstrative of the fact that there is no inherent superiority of morality in the people's nature of my society over that in the Sawi people. Before I go on, I would like to state that I am probably coming from the perspective of my Christian theology and doctrines (claim of original sin definitely is).

In a sentence I don't think we (those in the modernized society) have more moral nature than the Sawi people, but both are born with original sin and are born sinners capable of committing any morally depraved act (sin). Think of any of us, for instance, being born in the Sawi, raised just like a Sawi, and completely disconnected from anything we've encountered in our real life that is not part of a Sawi's life – would we have been any different from a typical Sawi?

Unless there was some sort of intervention that spoke differently from the Sawi tenants, likely not. Such may demonstrate that it is not because the Sawi are not born with anymore depravity than us nor are we born with greater nobility – we're born with the same inherent nature in terms of morality, which I say is an innate sinfulness. And, from my Christian view, the grace of God is needed for humanity to gain true morality, as well as order on the surface.

I say that because anything good that has been given, including both the common order, such as the prevention of everybody running around and killing the next person they meet in the street, as well as a genuine transformation of a person that allows immorality to be severed, can be traced back to God, for He is the source of every good and perfect gift; since sinners are undeserving of any favor, the favor(like those I just mentioned) must be an undeserved favor – that is, grace.

So, yes, some of the Sawi tenants may seem different from modern culture's publicized idea of nobility. But that does not indicate an innate superiority from our part, but a difference wrought through the influence the people of the respective societies received and then passed on.

Nonetheless, an actual examination of the modern culture may also find that it has its share of corruption – and maybe not very different from the Sawi's, even if the manifested actions or the degree of public acceptance/criticism agaisnt such aren't exactly the same. For example, in modernized societies, though it is not necessarily publicly idealized as the highest possible ideal, treachery may still exist; and though it may not show up often in a murder followed by cannibalism, but it may in other forms.

I do think, without saying that the immoral practices that were been in the Sawi culture were morally alright or lowering ethical standards, a scrutiny of our own society might let us discover that our society too have its immorality, and that our society is not perfect (but I don't intend to say, speaking personally, we shouldn't make efforts to do what's right).

Response: “How do I relate to faith? How did Don Richardson relate to Faith? How do the Sawi relate to faith?”

Response to the question, “How do I relate to faith? How did Don Richardson relate to Faith? How do the Sawi relate to faith?”

There might be two ways to respond to this question, one approaching the word “faith” as a set of beliefs in spirituality, or to approach the word specifically as the Christian Faith. I'll take the first route and make a remark that perhaps includes the second route as well.

A simple answer when using the first definition of faith is, depending on what the beliefs are, they impact the way one think, feel, and act, including Don Richardson, the Sawi, and myself. The Sawi belief “that no misfortune happened by accident, but was invariably caused by demons who could be either activated or restrained by witchcraft,” and, a text in Peace Child[“... use witchcraft to keep them [hamars, which I assume are the spirits or demons in the traditional Sawi beliefs] from entering your villages, your homes, your very bodies”] seemed to indicate that witchcraft may have been practiced (Richardson 148-149). For Don Richardson, however, it his belief in God probably led him to pray; it's also probable that his mission work with the Sawi has its roots in his Christian beliefs, since he likely wouldn't have carried the gospel message and stay with the Sawi with all that he had to go through in order to evangelize the area if he didn't believe in the gospel himself.

Having said that, the Christian faith has its unique way at least in some regards, as differing sets of beliefs have different influences, of influencing its holders, impacting the person's ethics, motivation, worldview, etc.

Work Cited

Richardson, Don. Peace Child: An Unforgettable Story of Primitive Jungle Treachery in the 20th Century. 4th. Regal, 2005. 148-149. Print.

Response to "What should society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?"

Response to the question, "What should society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?" As a Christian myself, I might personally answer to the question from a Christian mission in mind. Bearing in mind, however, that society includes people other than Christians, and writing under an impression or guess of what the generally socially accepted terms are, I would respond as the following:

One thing I think society should not do is to exploit the people living by primeval practices. Determining what exploitation is may be a topic on which another thread of discussion can take place, but to give somewhat a rough definition for this post, I would say that the kind of exploitation that should not take place is taking away viable means of living. That may concern the indigenous land ownership, employment of native people into newly coming industries, etc. From that it transits, that society should allow a fair treatment that allows a viable living option – not only for the current generation but also for the next. That might concern education that prepares the people to live with (and , ideally, not be exploited by) incoming people from a modernized world. One might question, should societies even interact with these people? Or should they just leave them alone? That may be subject to another discussion (I would, as Christian, lean towards yes, interaction is necessary, but for the sake of evangelism and missions more importantly than material developments), but assuming that interactions will take place one way or another eventually fair treatment by the modernized societies (or ensuring the fair treatment and prohibiting exploitation), I think, is necessary.

Also, should there be ethical practices of the modernized societies that the cultures unexposed to modernization don't have (that is, if there are unethical practices, such as purposeful treacherous cannibalism as that the Sawi used to have and headhunting, which I believe are unethical), then the modernized society or people from it likely would have to make efforts to make changes in that regard. Not to equate modernized with ethical, as the modernized part of the world can still have its load of immorality, but as those who can observe something wrong in the customs that the people who practice them don't realize, the people of the the more modernized world should try to promote the ethical practices (that is not to say that practices of indigenous people all are totally unethical; I mean what I wrote about promoting ethical practices in the aspects where the groups that are not yet modernized have an unethical custom).

Having said that, with my belief that what is right and wrong needs to be measured by what God tells humanity and ethics are tied back to God, I think I would, to go back into the more personal thought on approaching the matter as a Christian, keep in mind Christian evangelism and missions even in the promotion of ethics. So that's where I am.