A Controversy over Missions among the Sioux

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/15/1117605626/a-reservation-in-south-dakota-bans-outside-missionaries

I caught this NPR story a few weeks ago while driving home and it made me groan inwardly – yet another compelling story, but one in which I find myself disagreeing with all involved.

In this case the Evangelicals involved have admittedly embraced what could be described as a 'dumb' and even less than tactful approach to missions. But that said, there are no apologies due. The Church is called to evangelize and though the world doesn't like it and finds it offensive – that's just too bad. We neither ask for their permission nor their sanction.

And yet when it comes to American Indians, decency and wisdom demand a little bit of prudence and caution in how this topic is approached. Historically missions to Indians have been entangled with a long legacy of conquest, betrayal, removal, and death. It's one thing to challenge the idolatrous nature of a culture with the claims of the gospel, it's another to confuse one's culture with the Kingdom and justify avarice, brutal subjugation, murder, and finally – cultural eradication.

Cultures are largely sacral and thus to live as a Christian in the narrow tribal context of American Indian culture was almost an impossibility. Many missionaries (ecclesiastical and cultural) have found the solution in eradicating rival or problematic cultures – and even striking at the root in the form of language.

Other missionaries (such as the Moravians in the eighteenth century) found another way – one faithful to the gospel but one that didn't equate Western Constantinianism with Kingdom life and calling. As such, these Moravians (and also the Quakers) were largely tolerated by the Indians and even embraced as friends. They brought a message that would challenge Indian norms, but they weren't out to steal their land or force them to become cultural Europeans. They could remain Indians even if that meant giving certain things up – it was a radical approach at the time.

To simply assault an Indian Reservation in 2022 with this kind of evangelistic attack – while true enough in what it states and claims – is neither helpful nor wise. And it stinks of past evils.

I was immediately reminded of a little controversy that brewed back in 2003 over Albert Mohler and some of the statements he made in the wake of the US conquest of Iraq. He suggested that missionaries be sent in and he stood his ground even while being interviewed on NPR. I remember it well and I also remember that he was praised for his stand and defended by the Christian community.

It wouldn't be the first or last time I took exception to Mohler's views and found them to be lacking in acumen and wisdom. Blinded by his sacralism and nationalism, his counsel was in fact unwise. Though possessing an impressive array of academic credentials, he has often displayed a singular lack of reflection when it comes to history and its application.

Such missions work in Iraq would be impossible to divorce from the context of the US conquest and subjugation of the country and from the chaos, death, and social disintegration it produced. Had US goals come to fruition, that subjugation would have included the naked appropriation of the nation's oil. That's quite a gospel. Believe in Christ while we point guns at you, murder all resistors, and steal your resources.

Even lost people could make these connections, but Mohler couldn't.

Does this mean that there's ever a case in which we refuse to evangelize and engage in missionary work? The Church must always pursue this most basic task but it cannot do so when it has entangled itself with Bestial powers and the murder they commit. At such a point it's the duty of the Church to condemn these actions and take the greatest possible measures to divorce it and its identity and mission from the nation engaged in the violence and conquest. If missionaries were to be sent into Iraq during that time – they should have been of a non-American nationality and from countries which are not part of the orbit of Washington's Empire. But these are points beyond the grasp of most Evangelicals and in fact offensive to them.

I did not praise Mohler because in the end he supported the war and the Bush administration and fully echoed its deceit and propaganda. He had no moral standing and in my book he still doesn't. I stand by previous statements I've made regarding him – he's a blind guide and very misled in his thinking, politics, and cultural commentary, not to mention his theology and ethics. He is in fact dangerous to the Church and all the more as he is respected and has a considerable following. Those who criticize him as being 'woke' or a 'leftist' are ignorant (and in many cases just plain stupid), and accomplish nothing more than the further muddying of waters. He's none of those things but that doesn't make him any more discerning or less dangerous.

And for the NPR secularists who find such missions work to be offensive. I must ask – do they show respect for traditional cultures regarding their views of women or their posture toward sodomy and other forms of perversion and sexual deviance? Are those cultures to be left alone and respected as they are?

These people are offended by Christian assumptions, but they're blind to their own assumptions which are rooted in Enlightenment Liberalism – assumptions no less metaphysical or religious. They think Christians to be arrogant but they are no less so. They are so certain that they're right and they can't see that secular schooling, counseling, and many government programmes, and attempts at legislating civil rights and so forth are no less 'missionary' attempts than that of evangelizing of Christian missionaries.

They don't like the tract which assaults Native American religion and yet they won't even blink at sending in some social worker/activist who seeks to indoctrinate young girls, teaching them to embrace feminist values and psychological concepts of self-worth (which are also metaphysical and religious in nature), that in fact represent a direct attack on the traditional and religious values of these people and the way their sacral culture delineates life, values, and roles within society. They have no respect for these things.

For that matter do they extend respect to cultures that utterly reject not only feminism and sodomy but even democracy as well? In their bigotry and hubris they assume democracy to be a given and a universal value system and yet it is utterly at odds with the values of many traditional societies that have polities built on the roles of elders, traditional practice and wisdom and in many cases values, omens, and judgments provided by religious figures.

The truth is they despise this as much as the Christian missionaries do and as such their editorial tone and commentary is hypocritical, replete with self-contradiction, and ultimately bankrupt.

I'm not overly thrilled with Evangelical missions and the approaches they take or the way in which their values are placed in such contexts. And to add a layer of complexity and confusion, many of them have confused the Gospel with some of these same Enlightenment concepts. But their secular critics are just as bankrupt and in many cases just as missionary oriented. They too want to see these societies destroyed. What they want is for these traditions to become quaint little anthropological exercises that are trotted out on special days and during festivals and 'cultural pride and celebration' parades – but normal life and values are to be determined by the secular norms and materialist assumptions of the dominant culture. Ultimately they want these people to assimilate into society become doctors, lawyers, teachers, police, and soldiers and it is their hope that traditional gender roles will be cast down and that ultimately feminism and sodomy will be embraced. They are missionaries too and that's the real nature of this debate. It's not missions versus non-missions – it's a clash of religions both of which are keen to overthrow the remnants of Indian society and culture.

I am a Christian and I believe we need to do mission work among the Indians (regardless of reservation law or Federal law) and indeed among all people (regardless of their respective laws) but there is a right way and a wrong way – a faithful way and a foolish and morally compromised way. And only a fool would ignore the lessons of history – specifically in the North American context, but even the larger history of missions in places like Africa and Asia. There are lessons to be learned and neither the Evangelicals nor the Secularists have been able to rightly learn them, interpret their meaning, and discern the truth.