From HQ: How do you view or balance the idea of evangelization or otherwise spreading the Good News with the colonial/imperialist history that has accompanied such efforts in the past and is still an influence today? My parents come from a country that was colonized until recently by the French, and I'm therefore always uncomfortable when "missionary work" or bringing the Gospel to our "brothers & sisters in the dark" are mentioned in the context of church communities working abroad. I'm interested in how you approach this dialectic.

HQ, I don’t think of evangelism the same way now that I used to when I was a “flaming evangelist.” I like St. Francis’ quote, “Preach the gospel at all times and when necessary, use words.” I think the foundational problem here is the dualism of the Western gospel. Western folk are graph-o-centric, in that they believe the gospel is the Bible, or keeping doctrines, or creeds, or covenants or the use of some other outside arbiter. For Westerners it is all about orthodoxy.

Jesus told a story about a son who said he wouldn’t go work in the field and he went anyway and a son who said he’d go and never went. It does not matter what one says they believe-only what one does. In my new book (shameless plug)Shalom and the Community of Creation, I deconstruct the Western worldview including charts and lists of the differences between indigenous and Western faith systems, etc—the bottom-line being that Westerners have a totally different definition of what it means to believe than Jesus and most indigenous people. Colonialism is about power and conformity to a set of beliefs. Gospel is about love and giving away power. The Spirit affirms our uniqueness and giftings. Empire conforms us into a particular image.

As far as evangelizing those “in the dark” goes, I think that’s often the language of White supremacy or as Kipling wrote, “the White man’s burden.” Everyone, but especially White people because of the colonial past, must earn the right to share the story of Jesus with others. When I teach missiology (the study of mission), I have some assumptions that are now being referenced by my students as “Professor Woodley’s Missiological Imperatives.” Here they are:

1. There is no-where we can go where Jesus is not already present and active.

2. Since Jesus is active everywhere, our first responsibility in any culture is to discover what Jesus is doing.

3. God expects two conversions out of every encounter, our conversion to the truth in their culture, and their conversion to the truth we bring to the encounter.

4. Conversion is both instantaneous and a process.

5. Our humility should naturally lead us to convert first.

6. Our process of conversion may take years.

7. When and if they allow us to share the message that describes the gospel they have noticed us living all this time, then the process formally known as cultural contextualization of the gospel can occur.

8. Their process of conversion may take years.

So, in one sense, HQ, we are all “in the dark,” but that’s okay. I’ve noticed that God likes to hang out in dark places.

From Kate: Do other ingenious people see your faith as "selling out?"

Yes, Kate, some do, and actually, I can’t blame them. If most Americans really understood the depths of degradation that our Native people have gone through, and continue to go through, at the hands of the US Government and the Church-they would be in disbelief of how any Indian could ever become a Christian. But on the other hand, Indians are pretty forgiving people and many Native folks really like Jesus in spite of Christianity.

The old people I knew years ago were real traditional elders. They were tolerant and very kind to everyone. They knew there was only one God-the Creator, call him what you will-and that Creator God is the only one to hear our prayers. They were by and large, much better Christians without formal Christian beliefs than the Christians who tried to convert them. Today, we have what I call “neo-traditionalist.” They don’t like Christians much and I’ve been called out for my faith in Jesus a few times. Unfortunately, it was actually the Indian Christian evangelical/fundamentalists who we have received the most persecution from over the years. They were, and many still are,100% against the use of Native American culture.

From Genevieve : Randy, I am a descendant of several tribes in the Midwest - although most of my Native blood is from the Mississippi/Pembina band Ojibwe. Most of my family practices either a mix of Native/Catholic faith or straight Native faith, although my extended family, from my grandmother down, adopted a Christian evangelical faith. My extended family is very anti-Native faith because they see Spiritism as inherently satanic. I would like my children to have an awareness and even participate, as they grow up in some Native ceremonies, such as pow-wow and other gatherings and to teach them some of the ancient stories. Do you have any recommendations for Christian parents regarding resources or ways in which they can teach Native oral traditions and ceremonies without sacrificing Christian values or endangering their children by putting them in the path of dangerous satanic ritual? My "gut" tells me that my many relatives who practice Native faith are NOT satanic - they are loving people who speak frequently about a God who greatly resembles my own. But I know almost nothing about Native religion or theology, having been completely cut off from it by my own family since it was seen as something evil and dangerous. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Genevieve, short answer to a long question. Go with your gut. The missionaries did a real number on us by trying to make us White instead of allowing Jesus to love us through our own cultures. I feel that about 95% of our ceremonies reflect Jesus or point to him somehow. Those who condemn our cultures are simply teaching us to hate ourselves and really, to hate God for making us Indian. Go with your gut, and do like we all have to do in every culture, separate the good and less good. Strengthen the things that remain.