Peace Carol, thank you for the explanation...
I would say first hand image is important. Of course noone can say "do not help the poor, do not dig wells in Africa", but the reality is that missionaries flow into a land which is colonised, occupied, invaded. This does not seem wise. I will tell why.
Gazzali said that religious scholars should not be very intimate to rulers, and should no depend on them. Because if they do so, when the ruler does something bad they may not say the bare truth to their face. He adds if Muslim scholars stand fest and hold the truth erect, then they will be able to keep the Islamic principles up and going. If they go astray, whole society will go too.
Now, when I look at the Christians churches and missionaries, they are not interested in the mess at home. They cannot prevent people become atheists. They do not much to keep justice up in the world. They do not do their main duty: warning about and supporting the truth, whoever does the oppression. Justice, and truth, has no color, has no ethinicity, it accepts no reserves. Missionaries watch the horror, then flow in to take advantage, like in Iraq. This is what I mean by first hand image.
(To be honest, while Bush is surrounded by radical Christians sects, present Catholic Pope objected to the invasion of Iraq. At least I read such citations in the media. But I hear no comments for the ongoing situation in Iraq, except that missionaries are very active in the country. This was a war depending solely on the weapons of mass destruction which do not exist.)
This shows whether they have a passive approach like Buddhists OR they believe in eternal injustice type thing which is out question here, OR they really have a chauvinist world view like all Christians are good. What is a fourth alternative?
Christian theology is not something i can digest. Its fruits either.
Unite