The letter printed here is a copy of a letter sent to David Radcliffe at the Elgin offices concerning the Native American Justice paper, “Community: A Tribe of Many Feathers” which will be coming to the Annual Conference this summer at Wichita.
–HSM
May/June 1994
Dear David,
At our Sunday night Bible study on December 12, 1993, we combined our youth and adults for a special meeting to study the Native American Justice paper so that we could meet the December 15 deadline for response. We have concerns about the paper which we hope will be considered and addressed as you meet with the committee to revise and prepare the paper for the 1994 Annual Conference. While this is not an official church statement, it does reflect the feelings of a representative cross section of sexes and age groups within our church. 24 persons took part in the discussion including six youth, eleven young adults and seven older adults. These comments came out of observations from the group which we wrote on the blackboard and now put into some logical order of thought. We need to say up front that we are evangelical in our view of salvation and Scripture, having a high view of God’s written Word.
First, some general observations about the paper. There was a remark made about being offended at constantly being referred to as “angles” and being lumped in with others who have committed atrocities and injustices against Native Americans and other peoples. In our judgment, it is just as wrong to make us all look bad as it is to make “Indians” all look bad for so many years. As in any ethnic group, we and Native Americans have good and bad individuals within our cultures. There is much “European bashing” in this paper, and to some extent, revision of history in an effort to balance the facts. The comment was made that history shows that Native American tribes fought with each other long before the white people first appeared on the scene. We should not depict Native Americans as perfect, pure and pristine people who were “tainted” by European culture. They, too, are simply part of a sinful humanity, prone to rebellion against a holy God and capable of acts of harm against one another because of lust, greed and hatred, as are all races. The paper, therefore, seems almost divisive to us. Instead of accomplishing its task of furthering unity, it divides us into little ethnic pockets. Instead, let us focus on unity IN CHRIST. Yes, we are aware of injustices done. But we do not feel personally responsible for the sins of past generations. We want to respond individually, in love, to Native Americans. But we do not want to respond out of guilt.
The other general observation is our dismay at the blatant misinterpretation of Scripture by responsible persons. We noted two examples of Scripture taken out of context to make a point which it does not make. To say that Cain’s problem was one of relating to someone who did things differently misses the mark. Cain was jealous because his offering was seen by God as unacceptable. The issue was not coming to God in a different way. The issue was coming to God in the way God prescribes.
Also the statement about Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 is not accurate. Abraham was not interceding for the “different” (wicked) people of the cities, but only for his own family who were counted as righteous persons living in those communities. Lot’s sins aside, the New Testament calls him a ‘righteous man” (2 Peter 2:7). The issue here, in Abraham’s words, is ‘Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” There was no question that the wicked were going to be punished.
Now for our two key concerns.
Questions 1 and 4 under “Key Questions” need to be addressed. Our basic difficulty with the paper, as it now IS, stems from the way it appears to promote syncretism in the church. Ahab wished to combine worship of Yahweh with worship of Baal, but this was intolerable. No matter how politically incorrect it sounds, there are some things God will not tolerate. The paper says that Jesus does not tolerate wrong behavior. Neither does He tolerate wrong belief in gods other than himself. We cannot affirm the statement that ‘he (Christ), too, is a wise pathfinder” (emphasis mine). Rather, we acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Path–the Way, the Truth and the Life. This is not our idea. This is Christ’s own self-disclosure. If by mutual faith sharing, you mean we are to be open to a lesser Christology than that which the Bible declares, then we must hesitate. Certainly new Christians can be allowed some time to grow in the faith, but those who have believed for some time ought to be firm in their understanding of the Person of Christ.
This paper must lift up the uniqueness of Christ in our view. How do Native American Christians really see him? We feel this issue is relevant to the paper and must be addressed. If not, we would have great difficulty in accepting their spirituality. Contrary to one comment made by someone in another setting, this is not the “anglo” interpretation of Scripture. That statement is a cop-out to avoid the responsibility of facing the truth about Christ. If the Navajos or other tribes have a Bible in their language, and if that Bible was accurately translated from the Greek, then John 14:6 will still say that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Acts 4:12 will still say that there is no other name given among people by which we must be saved. 1 Timothy 2:5 will still say that there is one God and one Mediator between God and us, the man Christ Jesus.
We are tired of feeling intimidated by those who would be quick to call us bigots, racists, Pharisees or whatever because we believe in the historic Christian faith. This is not a racial issue, it is a theological issue, so let’s keep the distinction clear.
Secondly, the idea that we must welcome persons with all their cultural trappings, even if they include practices which are contrary to God’s revealed will, is simply not supportable from Scripture. In Matthew 7, Jesus is clear that the way to life is narrow, and the gate is small. One person goes through at a time, and the luggage must be dropped. All of us have ethnic backgrounds. Several in the study group testified that after they met Christ, their family history began to change, and they would not go back to the old ways. “Old things are passed away, behold, all things are new” (2 Corinthians 5:17). At this point in the discussion, several members pointed to some significant texts.
Paul, in referring to his “Jewishness” in Philippians 3, said, “lf anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more; circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee, as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit, I now consider loss for the sake of Christ…l consider them rubbish…” (Philippians 3:4-8). Yes, he maintained customs that were not harmful, but if his Jewishness ran up against his new life in Christ, the Jewishness had to go at that point. Also in the paper, you refer to Ruth as an “outsider” welcomed into the community of Israel, and so she was. But what was her testimony? “Your people will be my people, and your God (singular) my God” (Ruth 1:16).
We have no difficulty with Native American brothers and sisters expressing biblical truth through their cultural media, but we have great difficulty with Native Americans or any other culture expressing heresy through their cultural media in the name of Christ. Forms of worship are not the issue. Theological assumptions are. Humans are not equal to birds, animals, plants, water or sky. We are a unique creation of God, the only ones with the capability to commune personally with the God who is personal. Genesis 1:28-29 clearly states that humans have dominion over the rest of creation as God’s stewards–not to exploit it or ruin it, of course. But the creation is subservient to human beings by God’s design. Creation does not come from a Mystery, but from a revealed God who has also disclosed himself as Redeemer in Jesus Christ.
Finally, some statements in the paper seem to lead us to a false assumption about the church’s mission. This is found in Key Questions 3 and 5. As individual Christians and citizens, we should speak out about racism and injustice. But our overall mission as the church is to make disciples of all nations. We can accept anyone where they are when they come to Christ. But if we truly want what is best for them, we will also want them to grow in the truth as Scripture declares it. None of us stops growing. But together we encourage one another to press on in the race to Christian maturity.
We have seen Nigerian, Hispanic, and Korean Brethren express faith through their cultural media over the past several years at Annual Conference. But in every case, their exaltation of Christ as Lord and Savior, supreme over all creation, and the way to Eternal Life, was obvious. And we were greatly blessed. If our Native American Brethren do the same, we will be equally blessed. We should and will seek ways to help them in their justice issues–but not at the cost of losing orthodox Christology. That is our primary concern.
It is not our desire to be antagonistic about this matter. But we see it as vital to the life of the church. To lose the uniqueness of faith in Christ is to lose the very reason for our existence. That is a price we do not want to pay. We hope you will give serious consideration to our deep concerns as you continue to hammer out this paper for Wichita. And we pray that God’s truth will be lifted up and his will done.
Ray Hileman, Pastor
The preceding letter (used here by permission) was written by Ray Hileman, pastor of the Ashland Dickey Church of the Brethren (N. Ohio District). The ideas for the letter were gleaned from the thoughts submitted by the Sunday evening Youth and Adult combined Bible Study Groups which met to take a careful look at the Native American Study Paper. (At the March, 1994 General Board Meeting, some amendments to the Paper were added, but many of the concerns raised in this letter have still not been adequately taken into consideration.)
Don Fitzkee, in his evaluation of the Native American Paper (Brethren Life and Thought, Summer, 1993, page 166), makes a cogent observation. He says that the Paper “comes at a time when Brethren disagree about who Jesus is, and how to make peace with other faiths without granting equal validity to non-Christian claims of truth. These are the issues that were being debated on the Conference floor–not the issue of whether injustices against Native Americans should be addressed.” As BRF sees it, there is no doubt that injustices have been done against America’s indigenous peoples, but neither is there any doubt that faith in Jesus Christ is the only means by which humans can become rightly related to God.
