Let me try this again…

The idea you expressed seemed to be that the main culprits in this martyrdom were people who suffered from a 'tribal mindset', and that we should be more of a 'global mindset'.

I find these terms to be vague, as well as speculative. Also, I think they cover up the real issue—that these missionaries were giving the true Gospel to these people, and that some who rejected it then took it upon themselves to try to silence those proclaiming the Gospel.

The issue, to my mind then, has not to do with mindsets, but with those Christian 'cliches' of saved and lost, redeemed and not redeemed, those of Christ and those of the devil.

Which also brings up a second point—the idea that viewing these martyrs as we view NT martyrs somehow enforces and 'us-and-them' view.

The fact is, the NT is probably the strongest source we have for the view that there are in the end two kinds of people, and Jesus is the strongest source in the NT. He spoke of wheat and weeds, wise and foolish virgins, sheep and goats, Lazarus in paradise and the rich man in hell, that there were those with Him and those against Him, wise and foolish servants, those born of the flesh only and those born of the spirit.

One last thing, d j—you claimed that by 'global community' you meant the church, and for a bit I accepted that; however, in your first post, you said  A tribal mindset views these persecutions as an attack on their own little community detached from the gloabl communty, christian & non-christian. I can't help but think that saying 'global community' to refer to 'christian and non-christian' and then saying that it is the 'church' is inconsistent. Calling non-christians a part of the church is about like saying black is white.