Page 1 of 55

Hospitable Cross-Cultural Communication in the School Classroom

R. Ray Klapwyk, Ph.D.

July 1, 2020

This essay was written to accompany my online course LDRS 620 Worldview Foundations of Educational Leadership in the Master of Arts in
Leadership program at Trinity Western University, Langley, BC. Special thanks to colleagues and friends who have suggested improvements
to previous drafts. I accept full responsibility for any inaccuracies in this draft.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Part One – Cultural Diversity: Embracing and Excluding Others
Embrace and Exclusion
Hospitality and Holocaust
Following Jesus in Cross-cultural Christian Missions
Effective Cross-Cultural Communication
Part Two – Hospitality: Welcoming the Stranger
Welcoming the Stranger
A Difficult Journey
Part Three – Learning With: Discerning and Celebrating Indigenous Gifts
Modernism and Postmodernism
Preliminary Definitions
Reflections on Two Interviews
Preparation
Focus on Culture
Focus on Religion
Leadership and Change
Advice for Educators
Conclusion – Participating in the Community of Truth
REFERENCES

Introduction

The teacher-student model, practiced increasingly in the Western world, has two positions: teacher and student.
The student provides response but seldom feedback to the teacher. The teacher simply needs to know that the
student has learned what the teacher has taught. . . The master-apprentice model, on the other hand, calls for
feedback to make the communication of the message more accurately targeted to each apprentice. The
apprentice is expected to have learned so well that in certain areas of application and refinement in principle, he
becomes master to the master himself. This is the ultimate expression of the learning experience. MARVIN K.
MAYERS, 1987, p. 276
The model of community we seek is one that can embrace, guide, and refine the core mission of education—the
mission of knowing, teaching, and learning. We find clues to its dimensions at the heart of the image of teaching
that most challenges me: to teach is to create a space in which the community of truth is practiced. . . The
community of truth. . . reaches into the assumptions about the nature of reality and how we know it. The
hallmark of a community of truth is in its claim that reality is a web of communal relationships, and we can know
reality only by being in community with it. PARKER J. PALMER, 1998, p. 94-95
My main purpose in this paper is to reflect on how the strategies employed by today’s Christian missionaries
can inform our understanding of the K-12 educator’s task as a Christian servant leader in a culturally diverse
classroom of students. I will explore the basic notion that we human beings are born into, and mature within,
cultural groups that give us a sense of belonging while also setting us apart from others. I will review the
 Page 2 of 55
different cultural identities of Westerners and Indigenous persons as expressed in their life stories and, based on
the lessons to be learned from the example of Christian missionaries of the past two centuries, I will reflect on
how Westerners and Indigenous persons can learn from each other in order to communicate effectively.
The following “research questions” will be addressed in this paper: What does it mean to have a cross-
cultural encounter? Why is hospitality so important? How can we learn about, from, and with others in a cross-
cultural encounter? For a Westerner, what might the process of building trust and communicating effectively with
an Indigenous person look like? To affect healing, how can we become the hands and feet of Jesus when
interacting with an Indigenous person? What does this all mean for us as Christian educators?
In Part One, Cultural Diversity: Embracing and Excluding Others, I reflect on the dramatic shift during the
past two centuries in strategies employed worldwide by Christian missionaries from an emphasis on imposing
their home culture on the peoples they evangelized to an emphasis on first learning the culture and language of
the people they evangelized and then empowering the converts to search God’s will for them in their own culture.
To help the reader make sense of the details, I will draw from the scholarly work of Daniel Bays, David Bosch,
Duane Elmer, Philip Jenkins, C.S. Lewis, Sherwood Lingenfelter, Marvin Mayers, Mark Noll, Richard Rohr, David
Smith, Timothy Tennent, Miroslav Volf, Andrew Walls, and others, to show how the recent history of Christian
missionary activity as a cross-cultural endeavor around the world suggests a pattern for effective cross-cultural
communication.
Missionary Duane Elmer, in Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility (2006),
argues that the practice of “relating to people in such a way that their dignity as human beings is affirmed and
they are more empowered to live God-glorifying lives” is a process which should be mastered by every servant
leader. I will summarize the steps of Elmer’s model.
In Part Two, Hospitality: Welcoming the Stranger, I stress the importance of hospitable cross-cultural
communication in our postmodern world in which we encounter people of an ever-increasing diversity of cultural
backgrounds. David I. Smith argues, in Learning from the Stranger: Christian Faith and Cultural Diversity (2009)
that tolerance of others is not enough. We ought to practice our intention to build trust with people we meet in
our workplaces and classrooms by learning about them, from them, and with them, while sharing life-stories with
them, rejecting our own blind spots about their cultural circumstances, and no longer assuming that our own
culture is superior to theirs.
The Indigenous peoples’ story reminds us that to the present day they continue to be deeply concerned that
the power, prejudice, and privilege of Westerners continue to threaten their very livelihoods and their cultural
integrity. I will review some highlights of the Indigenous people’s story in North America, told from their point-of-
view. In my review, I will pay special attention to The Doctrine of Discovery, The Wounded Knee Massacre, and
The Residential Boarding Schools, both in Canada and in the U.S. In sharing memories of these events,
Westerners and Indigenous people have the opportunity to learn about and from each other. I will also pay
special attention to the topic of Truth and Reconciliation, in which Westerners and Indigenous people face the
challenge of treating one another as equals, and learning with each other by digging deeply into themselves while
seeking mutually acceptable resolution of issues that separate them.
Also, I will reflect on my own understanding of American Indigenous ways of knowing and believing, and I
will suggest ways in which celebration of Indigenous contributions to social and cultural life in Canada and the
U.S. will lead to a better future for everyone within our boundaries. To help the reader make sense of the details,
I will introduce perspectives on Western European-Indigenous cross-cultural interactions gleaned from my own
reading about the history and culture of North America’s Indigenous peoples, including books by Taiaiake Alfred,
Dee Brown, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, David Stannard, Anton Treuer, David Treuer, James Tully, and others.
In Part Three, Learning With: Discerning and Celebrating Indigenous Gifts, I share audio links for two
interviews I conducted in February 2020 with two persons whose insights kept me grounded while conducting my
study of Westerner/Indigenous cross-cultural communication: (1) Larry Vanderaa, retired Christian missionary,
whose 40-year career as evangelist among the Fulani people of Mali, West Africa, does a wonderful job of
illustrating the effectiveness of Duane Elmer’s model of cross-cultural servanthood, and (2) Dr. Anton Treuer,
professor of Languages and Ethnic Studies at Bemidji State University, whose teaching, workshops, and activism
have earned him the title of ambassador for the Ojibwe language and people in the U.S.
Both interviews are arranged under five sub-titles: preparation, focus on culture, focus on religion, leadership
and change, and advice for educators. My reflections on key ideas expressed will be presented under these sub-
titles.
 Page 3 of 55

Part One – Embracing and Excluding Others

EMBRACE AND EXCLUSION

C.S. Lewis: The Law of Nature
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make.
First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave a certain way,
and cannot really get rid of it. . .
Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
C.S. LEWIS, 1952, Mere Christianity, p. 21
C.S. Lewis’s book Mere Christianity had its beginnings in a series of broadcasts on BBC during World War II.
Through these broadcasts, the voice of C.S. Lewis became “nearly as recognizable as that of Winston Churchill,”
and his book has become “among the most popular books in existence” (Wikipedia, 2020, Mere Christianity). For
good reason: as a recent convert to Christianity, C.S. Lewis was able to bridge the divide between culture and
religion in ways that make sense to everyone--both Christians and non-Christians. In his writing, he shared from
his heart what he sensed all human beings have in common—a deep-down inclination to see our world “whole.”
That’s how he saw the “Law of Nature” and its moral implications.
As I write this paper during our time of worldwide anxiety while we’re all threatened by the Covid19 virus, I
would encourage us to see things whole as C.S. Lewis did. When reflecting on what we as human beings all have
in common, he thought of the human body and the human mind as inseparable and complementary in forming
our identity and integrity. In the same way, he saw culture and religion as inseparable and complementary.
Towards the end of World War II, during the height of the nuclear bomb threat, C.S. Lewis gave voice to his
holistic perspective when writing
This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all
going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human
things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting
to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking
about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.
(Smethurst Matt, 2020)
Miroslav Volf: Embrace
Theologian Miroslav Volf describes the practice of hospitality, in which both host and guest are empowered,
as an act of embrace. Below is his poignant summary of what is involved in seeing hospitality done well as an act
of embrace:
In an embrace I open my arms to create space in myself for the other. Open arms are a sign that I do not
want to be by myself only, an invitation for the other to come in and feel at home with me. In an embrace I
also close my arms around the other. Closed arms are a sign that I want the other to become part of me
while at the same time I maintain my own identity. By becoming part of me, the other enriches me. In a
mutual embrace, none remains the same because each enriches the other, yet both remain true to their
genuine selves. (Volf, Miroslav, quoted in Smith, David, 2009, p. 121).
Barbara Rogoff: People Develop in Cultural Communities
The insights of Barbara Rogoff help me frame my discussion about the significance of culture in the
development of young people. Barbara Rogoff is UC Santa Cruz Foundation Distinguished Professor of Psychology
and author of the book The Cultural Nature of Human Development (2003). . . “She works together with faculty
and graduate students from across campus to promote understanding of the strengths for learning from groups
historically underserved in schooling--especially Latinx, African American, and Native American” (Center for
Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 2020, accessed at https://citl.ucsc.edu/team_mf/barbara-rogoff/)
I share below a few key excerpts from Rogoff’s book. You will soon notice her postmodernist bias of
appreciating the contributions of all cultures to the wellbeing of the whole society rather than seeking a “one right
way”:
 Page 4 of 55
The idea that societies develop along a dimension from primitive to “us” has long plagued thinking regarding
cultural processes. A clear example appears in a letter to a friend that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the early
1800s: Let a philosophic observer commence a journey from the savages of the Rocky Mountains, eastwardly
towards our seacoast. These he would observe in the earliest stage of association living under no law but
that of nature, subsisting and covering themselves with the flesh and skins of wild beasts. He would next find
those on our frontiers in the pastoral state, raising domestic animals to supply the defects of hunting. Then
succeed our own semi-barbarous citizens, the pioneers of the advance of civilization, and so in his progress
he would meet the gradual shades of improving man until he would reach his, as yet, most improved state in
our seaport towns. This, in fact, is equivalent to a survey, in time, of the progress of man from the infancy of
creation to the present day. (Pearce, quoted in Adams, 1996, p. 41) (Rogoff, 2013, p. 18-19)
A primary goal of this book is to develop the stance that people develop as participants in cultural
communities. Their development can be understood only in light of the cultural practices and circumstances
of their communities—which also change. (Rogoff, 2013, p. 3-4)
To date, the study of human development has been based largely on research and theory coming from
middle-class communities in Europe and North America. Such research and theory often have been assumed
to generalize to all people. Indeed, many researchers make conclusions from work done in a single group in
overly general terms, claiming that “the child does such-and-so” rather than “these children did such-and-so.”
(Rogoff, 2013, p. 4)
A cultural approach notes that different cultural communities may expect children to engage in activities at
vastly different times in childhood, and may regard “timetables” of development in other communities as
surprising or even dangerous. (Rogoff, 2013, p. 4)
When does children’s intellectual development permit them to be responsible for others? When can they be
trusted to take care of an infant? In middle-class U.S. families, children are often not regarded as capable of
caring for themselves or tending another child until perhaps age 10 (or later in some regions). In the U.K., it
is an offense to leave a child under age 14 years without adult supervision. However, in many other
communities around the world, children begin to take on responsibility for tending other children at ages 5–7
(Rogoff, 2013, p. 4)
When do children’s judgment and coordination allow them to handle sharp knives safely? Although U.S.
middle-class adults often do not trust children below about age 5 with knives, among the Efe of the
Democratic Republic of Congo, infants routinely use machetes safely. Likewise, Fore (New Guinea) infants
handle knives and fire safely by the time they are able to walk. Aka parents of Central Africa teach 8- to 10-
month-old infants how to throw small spears and use small pointed digging sticks and miniature axes with
sharp metal blades. . . (Rogoff, 2013, p. 5)
So, at what age do children develop responsibility for others or sufficient skill and judgment to handle
dangerous implements? “Ah! Of course, it depends,” readers may say, after making some guesses based on
their own cultural experience. Indeed. It depends. Variations in expectations for children make sense once we
take into account different circumstances and traditions. (Rogoff, 2013, p. 6)
One Size Fits All?--The importance of understanding cultural processes has become clear in recent years. This
has been spurred by demographic changes throughout North America and Europe, which bring everyone
more in contact with cultural traditions differing from their own. Scholars now recognize that understanding
cultural aspects of human development is important for resolving pressing practical problems as well as for
progress in understanding the nature of human development in worldwide terms. Cultural research is
necessary to move beyond overgeneralizations that assume that human development everywhere functions
in the same ways as in researchers’ own communities, (Rogoff, 2013, p. 7)
I argue that child-focused settings and ways in which middle-class parents interact with their children are
closely connected with age-grading and segregation of children. Child-focused settings and middle-class child-
rearing practices are also prominent in developmental psychology, connecting with ideas about stages of life,
thinking and learning processes, motivation, relations with peers and parents, disciplinary practices at home
and school, competition and cooperation. (Rogoff, 2013, p. 8)
An alternative pattern involves integration of children in the everyday activities of their communities. This
pattern involves very different concepts and cultural practices in human development. The opportunities to
observe and pitch in allow children to learn through keen attention to ongoing activities, rather than relying
on lessons out of the context of using the knowledge and skills taught. In this pattern, children’s relationships
often involve multiparty collaboration in groups rather than interactions with one person at a time. (Rogoff,
2013, p. 9)
 Page 5 of 55
There is not likely to be One Best Way. Understanding different cultural practices does not require
determining which one way is “right” (which does not mean that all ways are fine). With an understanding of
what is done in different circumstances, we can be open to possibilities that do not necessarily exclude each
other. Learning from other communities does not require giving up one’s own ways. It does require
suspending one’s own assumptions temporarily to consider others and carefully separating efforts to
understand cultural phenomena from efforts to judge their value. It is essential to make some guesses as to
what the patterns are, while continually testing and open-mindedly revising one’s guesses. There is always
more to learn. (Rogoff, 2013, Loc 385)
Beyond Ethnocentrism and Deficit Models-- People often view the practices of other communities as barbaric.
They assume that their community’s perspective on reality is the only proper or sensible or civilized one. For
example, the ancient Greeks facilitated their own cultural identity by devaluing people with different
languages, customs, and conceptions of human nature. Indeed, the word barbarous derives from the Greek
term for “foreign,” “rude,” and “ignorant.” (Rogoff, 2013, p. 15)
Separating Value Judgments from Explanations-- To understand development, it is helpful to separate value
judgments from observations of events. It is important to examine the meaning and function of events for
the local cultural framework and goals, conscientiously avoiding the arbitrary imposition of one’s own values
on another group. Interpreting the activity of people without regard for their meaning system and goals
renders observations meaningless. We need to understand the coherence of what people from different
communities do, rather than simply determining that some other group of people do not do what “we” do, or
do not do it as well or in the way that we do it, or jumping to conclusions that their practices are barbaric.
(Rogoff, 2013, p. 17)
To learn from and about communities other than our own, we must put our usual ethnocentric assumptions
aside. Often, the first and most difficult step is to recognize that our original views are generally a function of
our own cultural experience, rather than the only right or possible way. This can be an uncomfortable
realization, because people sometimes assume that a respectful understanding of others’ ways implies
criticism of their own ways. A learning attitude, with suspended judgment of one’s own as well as others’
ways, is necessary for coming to understand how people both at home and elsewhere function in their local
traditions and circumstances and for developing a general understanding of human development, with
universal features built on local variations. (Rogoff, 2013, p. 24)
Augustine, Duane Elmer, Chuck DeGroat: Humility
If you ask me what is the first precept of the Christian religion, I will answer first, second and third: Humility.
ST. AUGUSTINE, quoted in Duane Elmer, 2006, p. 30
“If anyone would like to acquire humility, I can, I think, tell him the first step.
The first step is to realize that one is proud. And a biggish step, too.
At least, nothing whatever can be done before it.
If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.”
C. S. LEWIS, quoted in Duane Elmer, 2006, p. 32
St. Augustine, the fourth-century hero of the Christian faith who led his parishioners in Hippo, North Africa,
through the frightening disintegration of the Roman Empire, exhorted Christians of his time to “be meek,
sympathize with the suffering, bear the weak; and on the concourse of so many strangers, and needy, and
suffering people, let your hospitality and your good works abound” (Augustine, quoted in Elmer, 2006, p. 171).
Augustine also formalized the notion of original sin, and in so doing he reminds us of C.S. Lewis’s remark that,
according to the Law of Nature, we human beings make moral rules and we break them. We Christians identify
readily with Jesus’ model of hospitality, but too easily we find ourselves in the grip of our culture when it comes
to working out the practical details—to the detriment of many “strangers, needy, and suffering” people we
interact with.
Christian Missionary Duane Elmer shares a humorous story about a Monkey who “serves” the needs of a
struggling fish, and in his reflection on this story, he advises us to be wary of “false humility”—
A typhoon had temporarily stranded a monkey on an island. In a secure, protected place on the shore, while
waiting for the raging waters to recede, he spotted a fish swimming against the current. It seemed obvious to
the monkey that the fish was struggling and in need of assistance. Being of kind heart, the monkey resolved
to help the fish. A tree precariously dangled over the very spot where the fish seemed to be struggling.
At considerable risk to himself, the monkey moved far out on a limb, reached down and snatched the
fish from the threatening waters. Immediately scurrying back to the safety of his shelter, he carefully laid
 Page 6 of 55
the fish on dry ground. For a few moments the fish showed excitement, but soon settled into a peaceful rest.
Joy and satisfactions swelled inside the monkey. He had successfully helped another creature.
The story does not tell us the degree of humility or arrogance the monkey possessed. But, then, that was
not the real issue as far as the fish was concerned. The fish likely saw the arrogance of the monkey’s
assumption that what was good for monkeys would also be good for fish. This arrogance, hidden from the
monkey’s consciousness, far overshadowed his kindness in trying to help the fish. Good intentions are not
enough. Others can’t see our motives, only our actions, which become the basis for their impression of us. In
like manner, missionaries will need to learn the local cultural patterns so that their desire to serve will be
seen as serving and not be misinterpreted. (Elmer, 2006, p. 30)
Theologian-psychologist Chuck DeGroat, in a stunning negative appraisal of Western Christians’ cultural
propensity to seek power while intending to serve the needs of others, insists that our “ministry leaders and
churches today are obsessively preoccupied with their reputation, influence, success, rightness, progressiveness,
relevance, platform, affirmation, and power” (DeGroat Chuck, 2020, p. 14) . He cites research that shows
narcissism is a growing phenomenon in America, especially over the past fifty years—during the 1950’s, Baby
Boomers had markedly higher narcissism scores than college students, and each successive generation has seen
a rise. DeGroat’s “reality check” about today’s missionaries and megachurch pastors gives us pause:
I am convinced that the missional fervor and rise in church planting we’ve witnessed since the 1980s can be
correlated with the growing prevalence of narcissism. Nowhere have I seen the narcissism-shame dynamic
more pronounced than among church planters, some of whom have become megachurch pastors. Some
church planting assessments I’ve seen practically invite narcissistic leadership. My work in this area as a
therapist, pastor, consultant, psychological assessor, and professor over many years persuades me that the
narcissism in many young men in particular is baptized as spiritual giftedness in a way that does a great
disservice to them and ignores deep wells of shame and fragility lurking within. (DeGroat, Chuck, 2020, p.
15).
DeGroat reminds us that when we succumb to our cultural selves in this way, we “run from the beauty of our
God-given, God-gifted, God-loved reality as image-bearers—humans designed to be enough without all of this
extra baggage” (DeGroat, Chuck, 2020, p. 15). He draws on the wisdom of Thomas Merton to give voice to “our
great sin”—
All sin starts from the assumption that my false self, the self that exists only in my own egocentric desires, is
the fundamental reality of life around which everything else in the universe is ordered. Thus I use up my life
in the desire for pleasures and the thirst for experiences, for power, honor, knowledge, feeling loved, in order
to clothe this false self and construct its nothingness into something objectively real. And I wind
experiences around myself and cover myself with pleasures and glory like bandages
in order to make myself perceptible to myself and to the world. (Thomas Merton, quoted in DeGroat, Chuck,
2020, p. 15.)
These are hard words for us Western Christians to hear. We do well to recognize that when our Indigenous
neighbors look at our actions, they tend to see our desire for power whereas we tend to be blind to it. Our
hospitality to our Indigenous neighbors will only seem authentic to them when we acknowledge that they were
removed from their ancestral homelands by false pretenses. How many blanket exercises will we need to conduct
to become fully aware of what keeps us from effectively communicating with them?
 Page 7 of 55
HOSPITALITY AND HOLOCAUST

We remember Auschwitz and all that it symbolizes because we believe that,

in spite of the past and its horrors, the world is worthy of salvation:
and salvation, like redemption, can be only found in memory.
—ELIE WIESEL, Quoted in Dante Stewart, 2020.
Mark Noll: From Every Tribe and Nation
In today’s multicultural world, any review of how Christian converts live out their new faith in their daily lives
requires us to recognize that they translate the Gospel message to fit their culture. Christianity began as a cross-
cultural encounter between Jews and Gentiles, and it has since then grown into a multicultural movement of the
followers of Jesus. Historian Mark Noll considers it “sheer pleasure” to share with his readers what he has learned
from Andrew Walls and others about the global Christian story of world missions during the past century. His
fascinating book From Every Tribe and Nation (2014, Kindle edition loc. 127) builds on the vision in the book of
Revelation--
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count,
from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.
They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Revelation 7:9, NIV)
Perhaps you wonder why I named this section “hospitality and holocaust.” Let me put it this way: What are
we to make of the pattern of conquest, colonization, forced assimilation and enslavement of Indigenous peoples
that has, since the beginning of recorded human history, resulted in the rise of powerful cultural groups and the
demise of weaker ones? It’s difficult for us Christians, when we reflect on that pattern of history, to imagine that
Indigenous people would have an interest in joining Christians in the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9.
Shouldn’t Jesus’ followers love their enemies, and shouldn’t they support the poor and the disadvantaged in
society as Jesus did during His earthly ministry? The story of European colonization of the Americas beginning in
the sixteenth century, and the Indigenous peoples’ association of the Christian missionaries with the invaders of
their lands, is of special interest to us because the impact of these assaults lingers into the present time through
the continuing marginalization of our Indigenous neighbors.
Dante Stewart: Our Imagination Connects Our Past, Present, and Future
Black American theology student Dante Stewart invites us to think of the events of black American history as
powerful memories that “bind the pains of the past to the problems of the present and possibilities of the future.
Memory has a particular way of allowing us to ponder the actual and imagine the possible. . . The black story is
our story, which this nation, and its people, have tried to steal from us. We have lost, but we remember”
(Stewart Dante, 2020, italics added). Quoting from Toni Morrison’s book The Site of Memory, Stewart shares a
vivid picture of how our memory functions—
Toni Morrison says that “the act of imagination is bound up with memory.” She recounts how the Mississippi
River was straightened out to make room for houses and livable conditions. From time to time, the river
floods these particular places. Morrison stops and examines the word “flooding.” What is happening when the
 Page 8 of 55
water comes over the banks is not flooding, she says; “it is remembering, remembering where it used to be.”
All water “has a perfect memory and is forever trying to get back to where it was.” (Stewart, Dante, 2020)
All human beings are creatures of culture, and memory is a powerful tool for perpetuating one’s cultural
traditions but also for excluding others. Many Westerners remember times of struggle when they emerged as
winners—most Europeans and European colonists remember a glorious past when they won militarily and
economically at the expense of a foreign power. In contrast, members of marginalized cultures tend to remember
times of loss.
All humanity thrives when Westerners follow Augustine’s advice to be humble in their encounters with others.
I felt blessed by hearing about Christian missionary Larry Vanderaa’s humble, gentle, giving approach in his
encounters with members of the Fulani community in Mali. When I asked him about changes that the Fulani
people made in response to his influence, he insisted that any changes they made were entirely up to them,
while he readily acknowledged that living with the Fulani people dramatically changed him and his wife for the
better:
I’m not sure so much how much we changed them—you’d have to go and ask them, I guess. . . What they
changed would have been their choice, not because we dictated to them in any way. . . We ourselves learned
tons: We set aside our watches. . . We learned a lot from them about their treatment of the elderly. . . and
about how they would take care of the blind. . . They wrapped [a mentally challenged boy] into the life of the
family, giving him simple tasks to do, like chasing the kid goats, tying them up, so he had a sense of
contributing to the family. This really challenged us to think about how we in our culture take care of the
disadvantaged in our society. (Klapwyk, 2020, Vanderaa Interview #4, Leadership and Change)
In contrast, when Indigenous peoples around the globe reflect on their past, they remember times of loss.
They argue that the whole society loses when Indigenous people are marginalized, but when Indigenous people
are given equal opportunity, everyone wins. As Anton Treuer told me in our interview—
If people of color do better, it doesn’t take jobs away from White people. It means that people of color are
gainfully employed and paying taxes, instead of depending on the social safety net. It means, you know, if
the teacher can now work faster, the neighbors’ kids can work faster too. If your neighbor’s house values go
up, guess what, yours does too. We all do better when we all do better. (Klapwyk, 2020, Treuer Interview
#5, Advice for Educators)
David Stannard: Pondering the Past
Let us take a brief “tour” of the history of genocide—presented from the perspective of Indigenous people,
whose overwhelming sense of loss has been nurtured by the atrocities suffered by their ancestors since the
sixteenth century. I chose the book American Holocaust by historian David Stannard (1992) to guide our
reflections about genocide because this book, more than any other, convinced me that as a Western Christian, I
need to learn about, from, and with my Indigenous neighbors so that, deeply understanding one another, we
might be reconciled and grieve together.
Stannard opens his book by sharing the glories of Tenochtitlan, the paradise imagined by Mexican Indigenous
peoples when they remember their past. They say, “We lost, and we remember.” Especially since publication of
John Milton’s Paradise Lost in 1667, Western Christians remember the Biblical Garden of Eden as the paradise
they must regain; for them, the conquest of the New World was merely an event on their journey towards world
domination. Early in the 16th century, Conquistador Hernan Cortez was impressed with what he saw, but he
wanted King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to think of Tenochtitlan and its surrounding territory as an “incredibly
rich” source of wealth ready for harvesting by Spain. In spite of the devastation their ancestors caused in the
New World on the way to replacing the Indigenous peoples, today’s Western Europeans and their colonists in the
Americas still tend to justify the conquest and genocide set in motion by their ancestors. They say, “We won, and
we remember.”
IT’S GONE NOW, drained and desiccated in the aftermath of the Spanish conquest, but once there was an
interconnected complex of lakes high up in the Valley of Mexico that was as long and as wide as the city of
London is today. Surrounding these waters, known collectively as the Lake of the Moon, were scores of towns
and cities whose population, combined with that of the outlying communities of central Mexico, totaled about
25,000,000 men, women, and children. On any given day as many as 200,000 small boats moved back and
forth on the Lake of the Moon, pursuing the interests of commerce, political intrigue, and simple pleasure.
With a conventionally estimated population of about 350,000 residents by the end of the fifteenth century,
this teeming Aztec capital already had at least five times the population of either London or Seville and was
vastly larger than any other European city. Moreover, according to Hernando Cortés, one of the first
 Page 9 of 55
Europeans to set eyes upon it, it was far and away the most beautiful city on earth. (Stannard David, 1992,
p. 3)
In attempting to recount for his king the sights of the country surrounding Tenochtitlán, the “many provinces
and lands containing very many and very great cities, towns and fortresses,” including the vast agricultural
lands that Cortés soon would raze and the incredibly rich gold mines that he soon would plunder, the
conquistador again was rendered nearly speechless: “They are so many and so wonderful,” he simply said,
“that they seem almost unbelievable.” (Stannard David, 1992, p. 8)
Stannard finds that European contempt for Indigenous people of North and South America, as well as Africa
has a very long history, has become “common knowledge” and continues to influence scholarly writing in our
time:
. . . recent scholarship has begun to redirect inquiry and expose falsehoods that have dominated
characterizations of the Americas’ native peoples for centuries—although very little of this research has yet
found its way into textbooks or other nontechnical historical overviews. It now appears likely, for example,
that the people of the so-called New World were already well-established residents of plains, mountains,
forests, foothills, and coasts throughout the Western Hemisphere by the time the people of Europe were
scratching their first carvings onto cave walls in the Dordogne region of France and northern Spain. It also is
almost certain that the population of the Americas (and probably even Meso- and South America by
themselves) exceeded the combined total of Europe and Russia at the time of Columbus’s first voyage in
1492. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 11)
It should come as no surprise to learn that professional eminence is no bar against articulated racist
absurdities. . . If one example were chosen to stand for all the rest, perhaps the award would go to Hugh
Trevor-Roper, the Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, who wrote at the start of his book
The Rise of Christian Europe of “the unrewarding gyrations of barbarous tribes in picturesque but irrelevant
corners of the globe,” who are nothing less than people without history. “Perhaps, in the future, there will be
some African history to teach,” he conceded, “but at present there is none, or very little: there is only the
history of Europeans in Africa. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 13)
The Eurocentric racial contempt for the indigenous peoples of North and South America, as well as Africa,
that is reflected in scholarly writings of this sort is now so complete and second nature to most Americans
that it has passed into popular lore and common knowledge of the “every schoolboy knows” variety. No
intent to distort the truth is any longer necessary. All that is required, once the model is established, is the
recitation of rote learning as it passes from one uncritical generation to the next. (Stannard David. 1992, p.
13)
Stannard offers an extensive review of the history of racism and ethnocentrism in the West. Perhaps this
review conjures, in us, memories we’d rather not deal with. On the other hand, when we take them seriously,
these memories can contribute to our spiritual growth when we reflect on the price of victory whenever human
beings resort to violence for the purpose of “ethnic cleansing.” The urge to exterminate others is not only present
in bullies on the school playground; this urge tempts every human being. Our being “at home” in any culture
makes us susceptible to seeing persons of other cultures as inferior. Stannard highlights the history of anti-
Semitism, Islamic-Christian wars for dominance during the spread of Islam into Africa followed by push-back by
Christians in the Crusades, the enslavement of Indigenous peoples, and the indiscriminate killing and
marginalization of unwanted others. Indeed, I personally wonder if St. Augustine’s notion of “just war” is helpful.
If God is Love, how can He support the killing of any human being?
Ethnic Cleansing in the Old Testament
The Old Testament. . . is unremitting: “And when the Lord thy God shall deliver [thy enemies] before thee,”
says Deuteronomy 7:2, 16, “though shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant
with them, nor shew mercy unto them. . . . Thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall
deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.” (Stannard David, 1992, p. 177
Anti-Jewish sentiment in early Christianity
During the first centuries of Christianity’s existence, when the religion’s faithful were subject to intense
persecution, Christianity often was regarded by its critics as a cult of orgiastic devil worshipers who indulged
in rituals of blood-consuming infanticide and cannibalism. Once in a position of power, however, Christianity
turned the tables and leveled precisely the same accusations against others—first against pagans whom they
regarded as witches, magicians, and idolaters, and eventually against all non-Christians. And, of those who
were near at hand, few were regarded as more non-Christian than Jews. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 174)
 Page 10 of 55
Anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle Ages
The first great slaughter of Europe’s Jews by Christians began on May 3, 1096, in the town of Speyer,
Germany. There, on that date, eleven Jews who refused to accept baptism and conversion to the despised
faith of Christianity were murdered. The number of deaths would have been much higher, but for the
intercession of the local bishop who understood the canon law’s technical restrictions against forced
conversion, and who protected the remaining local Jewish population within the confines of his castle. . . The
worst was yet to come. In Mainz, a city just to the north of Worms, the archbishop briefly defended the Jews,
but soon fled for his own life as the Christian mobs attacked. And still it was not over. From Mainz the killing
spread to Trier. From there it moved on to Metz, and then to Cologne, and then to Regensburg, and then to
Prague. By the time the killing stopped little more than a month was gone since it had begun in the town of
Speyer, and as many as eight thousand Jews lay dead. (Stannard, 1992, p. 175)
Just War?
Following Augustine, the Church enthusiastically came to accept the idea of “just war,” and from that
developed the concept of “mission war” or Holy War—an idea similar in certain respects to the Islamic jihad.
This evolution of belief took on great importance during the last years of the eleventh century, when Europe
was awash in disaster—flood, pestilence, drought, and famine—and had unemployed standing armies on
hand in most countries, living off the peasantry. Belief in the Second Coming’s imminence was encouraged by
the turmoil in the land, and it was hardly diminished by a shower of comets—a clear sign from God—that
appeared overhead in April of 1095. Before Christ could return, however, the Holy Land had to be liberated
by the Christian faithful. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 177-178)
Slavery
Slavery, of course, was an ancient tradition in the West. While no reliable figures exist regarding the number
of slaves who were held throughout all of ancient Greece, there were as many as 100,000 slaves laboring in
Athens during the fourth and fifth centuries B.C., or at least three or four slaves for each free household. This
is a proportion of the population much larger than that of the slave states in America on the eve of the Civil
War.100 The practice continued in Rome, where slaves—who under Roman law were non-persons—were
inspected and auctioned off in public marketplaces. During the late first and early second centuries A.D.,
between a third and nearly half the population of Italy were slaves. It has been estimated that in order to
maintain the slave population at a stable level throughout the empire during this time—a level of 10,000,000
slaves in a total imperial population of about 50,000,000—more than 500,000 new slaves had to be added to
the population every year. (Stannard David, 2992, p. 180)
In the fourth century the first Christian emperor, Constantine, decreed that “anyone who picks up and
nourishes at his own expense a little boy or girl cast out of the home of its father or lord with the latter’s
knowledge and consent may retain the child in the position for which he intended it when he took it in—that
is, as child or slave, as he prefers.” In view of the enormous numbers of children who were being abandoned
by their parents in this era, Constantine’s edict assured that there would be a vast supply of young slaves for
owners to hire out as prostitutes and laborers, which they commonly did. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 180)
The booming slave trade in the fourteenth-century Mediterranean was at least a two-way operation. That is,
while Christian Europeans were buying shiploads of captured infidels, Muslims were doing the same thing—
except that many of their purchased slaves were Christians. This greatly upset the Church and led to various
methods of discouraging trade in Christian captives, including efforts to cut off all trade of any sort with
Muslim countries and the excommunication of Christians caught buying or selling their religious brethren as
bondsmen. (At that time it generally was agreed that free Christians could not be enslaved by other
Christians except as punishment for certain crimes.) However, since the Church remained devoted to its
evangelical mission and to supporting the slave trade in general, a difficulty of potentially major proportions
soon developed: what to do with the legally enslaved infidel who saw the light and converted to Catholicism?
To order the manumission of such a person might rapidly undermine the lucrative trade in captive infidels,
but to fail to free him or her would be to condone the enslavement of Christians. (Stannard David, 1992, p.
207)
Near-extermination of Indigenous peoples after contact with Europeans
If the fate of Indians captured by the English for display and viewing in London was routinely the same as
that suffered by natives in Spanish captivity, there also was a similarity in the fate of those Indians, north and
south, who remained at home. By the time the English announced the settlement of Jamestown in Virginia
(marking their dominion, as did the Spanish, with a cross), the lands the Spanish and Portuguese had
conquered already were an immense and bone-strewn graveyard. Indians in the many tens of millions had
 Page 11 of 55
died horribly from the blades and germs of their Iberian invaders. As far north as Florida and southern
Georgia, for every ten Timucuan Indians who were alive in 1515 only one was alive in 1607. And by 1617, a
short decade later, that number was halved again. According to the most detailed population analysis of this
region that ever has been done, in 1520 the number of Timucuan people in the area totaled over 720,000;
following a century of European contact they numbered barely 36,000. Two-thirds of a million native people—
95 percent of the enormous and ancient Timucuan society—had been obliterated by the violence of sword
and plague. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 101)
In sum, when in 1492 the seal was broken on the membrane that for tens of thousands of years had kept the
residents of North and South America isolated from the inhabitants of the earth’s other inhabited continents,
the European adventurers and colonists who rushed through the breach were representatives of a religious
culture that was as theologically arrogant and violence-justifying as any the world had ever seen. . .
Holocausts are part of God’s divine plan, after all, and perhaps even were harbingers of his Son’s imminent
Second Coming. . . And through it all, as with their treatment of Europe’s Jews for the preceding half-
millennium—and as with their response to wildness and wilderness since the earliest dawning of their faith—
the Christian Europeans continued to display a seemingly antithetical set of tendencies: revulsion from the
terror of pagan or heretical pollution and, simultaneously, eagerness to make all the world’s repulsive heretics
and pagans into followers of Christ. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 242)
When the first 104 English settlers arrived at Jamestown in April of 1607, the number of Indians under
Powhatan’s control was probably upwards of 14,000—a fraction of what it had been just a few decades
earlier, because of English, French, and Spanish depredations and disease. (Estimates of the region’s native
population prior to European contact extend upwards of 100,000.) By the time the seventeenth century had
passed, those 104 settlers had grown to more than 60,000 English men and women who were living in and
harvesting Virginia’s bounty, while Powhatan’s people had been reduced to about 600, maybe less. More than
95 percent of Powhatan’s people had been exterminated—beginning from a population base in 1607 that
already had been drastically reduced, perhaps by 75 percent or more, as a result of prior European incursions
in the region. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 107)
Genocide: 1500-1900 A.D.
During the course of four centuries—from the 1490s to the 1890s—Europeans and white Americans engaged
in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas. . . The Spanish
depredations in the West Indies and Mesoamerica under the initial command of Christopher Columbus. . .
and the United States Army’s massacre of Sioux Indians near a creek called Wounded Knee in South Dakota
are representative of thousands of other such incidents that occurred (and in some places continue to occur)
in the Indies and in South, Central, and North America--most of them bloodbaths that have gone unnamed
and are long forgotten. (Stannard David, 1992, p. 146)
Stannard’s Conclusion: Elie Wiesel is right. . .
The first Europeans to visit the continents of North and South America and the islands of the Caribbean, like
the Nazis in Europe after them, produced many volumes of grandiloquently racist apologia for the genocidal
holocaust they carried out. Not only were the “lower races” they encountered in the New World dark and
sinful, carnal and exotic, proud, inhuman, un-Christian inhabitants of the nether territories of humanity—
contact with whom, by civilized people, threatened morally fatal contamination—but God, as always, was on
the Christians’ side. And God’s desire, which became the Christians’ marching orders, was that such
dangerous beasts and brutes must be annihilated. Elie Wiesel is right: the road to Auschwitz was being paved
in the earliest days of Christendom. But another conclusion now is equally evident: on the way to Auschwitz
the road’s pathway led straight through the heart of the Indies and of North and South America. (Stannard
David, 1992, p. 246)

FOLLOWING JESUS IN CROSS-CULTURAL CHRISTIAN MISSIONS

During my conversation with Larry Vanderaa, I wondered what inspired him to completely adjust his own
demeanor and lifestyle to become fully accepted and trusted by his Fulani friends. To me, his approach seemed
very different from the approaches of Christian missionaries who evangelized Indigenous people in the Spanish,
French, and English colonies during the seventeenth century—their missions were patterned after the styles of
their home countries, and their goal was to convert the Indigenous people not only to their religion but also to
European cultural ways.
Did Larry follow some precedent or model that he had been taught? Before our conversation, I sent him my
interview questions and a note asking that he share something about his own training and what motivated him to
 Page 12 of 55
follow his approach of becoming a welcome guest to the people he evangelized. As I mentioned above, I was
very appreciative of his presentation, and felt that he encouraged me to investigate further how an educational
leader can benefit from thinking of his/her interactions with colleagues, teachers, and students as cross-cultural
encounters.
It’s now clear to me that Larry and Ann Vanderaa were well prepared! They were both children of Christian
missionaries to Africa, and they knew that living as Fulani involved great sacrifices to them and their family. But
that’s what they decided to do. Their goal was to encourage the Fulani to remain true to their cultural heritage
while taking their own initiative in investigating how a Fulani Christian ought to behave and worship. Indeed, as
you will notice when you listen to the Vanderaa Interview, Larry and Ann resisted all attempts of their Fulani
hosts to convince them to become their Fulani spiritual leaders, their marabou.
After reading several scholarly treatments of the history of Christian missions from the first century A.D. to
the twenty-first century, I have reached the conclusion that the approach followed by Larry and Ann Vanderaa is
firmly rooted in the exemplary ministry of Jesus Himself and in the work of the apostles and of St. Paul.
Furthermore, this approach was “rediscovered” during the past two centuries by Christian missionaries to Latin
America, Africa, and Asia.
Andrew Walls: A Historian’s Discovery of Global Christianity
My search for an answer to the question, “What can we learn about cross-cultural communication from the
history of world missions?” was guided by books written by Christian historian Mark Noll, educator David Smith,
and missiologist Timothy Tennent. These books led me to the writings of Andrew Walls, David Bosch, Daniel Bays
and other Christian missionaries and missiologists whose writings have deeply impacted current thinking about
the history of world Christianity and of the task of Christian missions. Virtually all the Christian missiologists
whose writings I reviewed gratefully acknowledge the formative influence of Andrew Walls.
David Smith (2009, p. 5) writes, “A hundred years ago (although not in all preceding centuries) it was
plausible to think of the Western world as the Christian center from which missionary activity radiated out. Recent
decades have, however, seen rapid demographic shifts. Philip Jenkins (2006, p. 9) vividly sketches the basic ways
in which the picture is changing.” Then he summarizes: “Between 1900 and 2000, the number of Christians in
Africa grew from 10 million to over 360 million. . . Already today, Africans and Asians represent some 30 percent
of all Christians. . . [By 2050] there should be around three billion Christians in the world, of whom only around
one fifth will be non-Hispanic whites.”
What should we make of this huge shift in the “center of gravity” of Christianity during the past century?
Andrew Walls takes us back to the first century to show that the history of Christianity is not one of linear
expansion (as is Islam), but one of advance and recession:
The first center of the Christian church, Jerusalem, lost that status with the destruction of the temple in 70
AD. Also, the homelands of Tertullian and Augustine no longer burgeon with Christian scholars and political
leaders. In many once Christian countries, former churches have become mosques. The Christian story. . . is
not a steady, triumphant progression. It is a story of advance and recession (Walls Andrew, 2002, p. 12).
. . . the period bounded by the two anniversaries of 1492 and 1792, and substantially the period since the
second of them, has seen the Christian centre of gravity steadily move away from the West and towards the
southern continents. That movement has accelerated in the twentieth century, and is now in spate. The last
hundred years have seen the most considerable recession from the Christian faith to occur since the early
expansion of Islam, and the area most affected has been Europe (Walls Andrew, 2002, p. 31)
At the beginning of the twenty-first century something like six out of ten professing Christians live in Africa,
Asia, Latin and Caribbean America, or the Pacific, and the proportion who do so rises year by year. The
accession to the Christian faith that has taken place in the southern continents has been accompanied by a
recession from it in Europe and North America. In the course of the twentieth century, Christianity has
become a mainly non-Western religion. (Walls Andrew, 2002, p. 194)
Andrew Walls, while teaching courses in Christian ministry at Fourah Bay College in Sierra Leone in the late
1950’s, made what Mark Noll describes “a personal discovery whose effects have reverberated around the
globe”—
I arrived in West Africa in my thirtieth year, with an assignment to teach those in training for the ministry in
Sierra Leone, and in particular responsible for teaching them church history. . . I shared the conventional
wisdom of the 1950s. . . that church history was full of lessons to be imparted to ‘the younger churches’ from
the accumulated wisdom of the older ones. . . I still remember the force with which one day the realization
struck me that I, while happily pontificating on Christian literature of the church in the second century, the
 Page 13 of 55
life, worship and understanding of a community in its second century of Christian allegiance was going on all
around me. Why did I not stop pontificating and observe what was going on? (Andrew Walls, quoted in Noll,
Mark, 2014, p. 91)
Timothy Tennent, a student of Andrew Walls, argues that the advances of Christianity into new cultures as
well its recession from previous cultures has serious implications for theologians and missionaries. He offers three
“snapshots’ to show that in our increasingly complex culturally diverse world, the Gospel is “culturally and
geographically translatable”--
We are now in the midst of one of the most dramatic shifts in Christianity since the Reformation. Christianity
is on the move and is creating a seismic change that is changing the face of the whole Christian movement.
Every Christian in the world, but especially those in the West, must understand how these changes will
influence our understanding of church history, our study of theology, and our conception of world missions.
(Tennent, Timothy, 2007, p. 33)
Snapshot #1, From Jewish Birth to Gentile Home--Christianity began as a Jewish movement fulfilling Jewish
hopes, promises, and expectations. Indeed, the continuity between Judaism and Christianity seemed so
seamless to the earliest believers that they would have never thought of themselves as changing their
religion from Judaism to something else. They understood Christianity as the extension and fulfillment of their
Jewish faith. Yet, right in the pages of the New Testament we read the story of those unnamed
Jewish believers in Antioch who took the risky — and controversial move — to cross major cultural and
religious barriers and share the gospel with pagan, uncircumcised Gentiles. . . Acts 11:19 begins by
recounting how, after the persecution in connection with Stephen, these scattered believers began to
share the gospel “as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews.” The next verse
records one of the most important missiological moments in the entire New Testament: “Some of them,
however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the
good news about the Lord Jesus” (italics added). This is the beginning of a new cultural frontier, which,
though radical at the time, became so prominent that it was considered normative Christianity.” (Tennent,
Timothy, 2007, p. 36)
Snapshot #2, The Fall of Empire and Birth of Barbarian and Byzantine Faith--Not only was Christianity
continually making cultural gains on one hand while suffering losses on the other hand, but the geographic
center was also shifting. By the end of the second century, Rome, as capital of the empire, was the most
important city for Christians. Indeed, even in the structure of Acts, we already see the strategic and cultural
importance of Rome for Christians. However, in AD 330 Constantine relocated the capital to Byzantium
(modern-day Istanbul), which he renamed Constantinople. By the time Rome was sacked in 410,
Constantinople was the undisputed geographic center of the Christian faith. Christianity experienced some
remarkable advances in the East during this time, including important progress among the Slavic peoples.
During the ninth and tenth centuries, when Christianity in the West had reached dangerously low levels of
faith and practice, Constantinople represented the most vibrant expression of Christianity in the world. In
fact, the Russian ruler Vladimir was so moved by what he experienced in Constantinople that he sponsored
the propagation of Eastern Christianity throughout Russia. Christianity, it seems, was becoming accustomed
to reinvigorating its vitality and inner life through cross-cultural transmission to new people groups
and adapting to new cultural and geographic centers.” (Tennent, Timothy, 2007, p. 39-40)
Snapshot #3, A Faith for the World: Missionaries and Migrations--“The Protestant Reformation led by Luther
(1483 – 1546), along with the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation led by Ignatius Loyola (1491 – 1556),
represent renewal movements that helped to stimulate new vitality among previously Christianized peoples
who had become largely nominal. Christianity in the Middle Ages was still confined primarily to Europe, which
remained the geographic center. However, a revitalized European Christianity eventually led to dramatic
missionary endeavors that brought the gospel to many new people groups, including most of Latin America
but also Asia. . . The Roman Catholic Church founded the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in 1622 to
assist in training new missionaries, to oversee all Roman Catholic missionary work, and to coordinate major
new missionary initiatives in non-Roman Catholic regions of the world. (Tennent, Timothy, 2007, p. 40)
Eventually the Protestants, beginning with the Moravians and later through the creation of dozens of new
mission-sending societies, followed with their own missionary initiatives. The nineteenth-century missionaries
planted the seeds for a future twenty-first-century Christian harvest beyond anything they could have
imagined during their lifetimes. However, apart from missionaries committed to sharing their faith across
cultural and geographic lines, Europe itself was engaged in the largest ocean-based migration in the history
of the world. From 1500 until the middle of the twentieth century millions of Europeans relocated to the New
World, bringing their faith with them and spawning the birth of massive new populations, largely Christian.
 Page 14 of 55
The gospel, once again, proved it was culturally and geographically translatable. Soon the English-speaking
world, including Britain and North America, became the most important new center of vibrant Christianity.
(Tennent, Timothy, 2007, p. 41)
Timothy Tennent reflects on the implications of this new understanding of the history of Christianity for the
role of Christian theologians, missionaries, and laypersons around the world. He addresses the dilemma of
universality versus particularity—
. . . there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Indeed, most Western theologians now recognize
that it would be arrogant to believe that one or more of the theologies our culture has produced have
somehow managed to raise and systematically answer all questions, for all Christians, for all time. Every
culture in every age has blind spots and biases that we are often oblivious to, but which are evident to those
outside of our culture or time. Every culture has universal questions we all share in as members of Adam’s
fallen race. Every culture also has questions and challenges peculiar to their particular context (Tennent,
Timothy, 2007, p. 59)
Rephrasing an argument first presented by Andrew Walls, Timothy Tennent distinguishes between the
indigenizing principle and the pilgrim principle—
The pilgrim principle is the universal force of the gospel that transcends all the particulars of our own cultural
background and gives us what Walls calls a common “adoptive past,” whereby we are “linked to the people
of God in all generations.” This principle emphasizes our common identity in Jesus Christ, quite apart from
our particular language, culture, or background. In contrast, the indigenizing principle is the particular force
of the gospel that reminds us that the gospel really does penetrate and become rooted in the
specific particularities of our cultural life. We live out our Christian lives within specific contexts, each of
which has its own peculiar challenges and opportunities. (Tennent, Timothy, 2007, p. 51)

EFFECTIVE CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

David Stannard’s hard words about the history of cross-cultural encounters between Western Christians and
Indigenous peoples call for responses from both Western Christians and Indigenous peoples as they reflect on the
past and envision a better future. Given the huge cultural divide between them, how might they approach one
another for this much-needed conversation? I propose that we consider the approaches and practices of today’s
Christian missionaries. As we will see, their approaches and practices are very different from the approaches and
practices of Christian missionaries during the 16th century.
Our review of cross-cultural communication will feature the work of two well-known Christian missionaries:
Marvin Mayers, author of Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Cross-Cultural Evangelism (1987) and co-
author with Sherwood Lingenfelter of the book Ministering Cross-Culturally: A Model for Effective Personal
Relationships (2016), and Duane Elmer, author of Cross-Cultural Servanthood Serving the World in Christlike
Humility (2006).
Marvin Mayers: A Strategy for Cross-cultural evangelism
Marvin Mayers first published his “Basic Values Questionnaire” in his 1987 book, so by the time it was re-
issued in the Appendix of Ministering Cross-Culturally 29 years later, numerous Christian missionaries and
missiologists had had the opportunity of using it as a self-assessment tool
Scenario 1 succinctly summarizes Mayers’ approach to cross-cultural communication. He recognizes that
when two people or two groups of people engage each other in conversation, their words, gestures, and
practices convey something about their self-identity. Each word, gesture, and practice is received either in an
atmosphere of mutual trust or one of mutual mistrust, so their interactions have either positive or negative
consequences. Ideally, an atmosphere of openness, acceptance, and mutual trust and understanding builds to
the point when they respect one another and pledge to serve each other’s interests.
 Page 15 of 55
SCENARIO 1: A Model of Cross-cultural Communication
Adapted from Mayers, Marvin K. (1987) Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Cross-cultural Evangelism, p. x
R. Ray Klapwyk 3/25/20
A B C D
PERSONAL ENTRY THE FACTS OF LIFE (INEVITABLES) PERSONAL COPING RESULT
(APPROACH) SKILLS (RESPONSE)
Openness
POSITIVE

Observe

CULTURAL DIFFERENCE
Acceptance RAPPORT

DISSONANCE
Frustration Listen
Trust EMPATHY
Misunderstanding Inquire
Adaptability
Confusion
Fear
NEGATIVE

Tension Criticize
Superiority WITHDRAWAL
Embarrassment Rationalize
Prejudice ALIENATION
Suspicion Isolate Self

In the process of coming together, Mayers encourages people to learn about one another’s cultural values
and to make adjustments that will ensure that they communicate effectively. Mayers defines cultural values as
“whatever a group or an individual within a group considers of importance. Values refer to the worth of an object,
thing, or belief. . . In each automatic or consciously made decision, some value underlies the choice of one thing
over against another” (Mayers, 1987, p. 154). It’s important to notice that Mayers is not referring to values that
are published in an institution’s statement of basic beliefs, but rather he stresses that people’s words, gestures,
and practices are themselves expressions of their basic commitments. In his book You Are What You Love,
Christian philosopher James K. A. Smith (2016) uses the word love to denote the identity of a person. In the
same way, Mayers uses the term cultural value to point to a person’s identity.
Change in our Lives
Culture is everything that is a part of one’s everyday life experience. It includes:
1. Tangibles such as food, shelter, clothing, literature, art, music, etc.
2. Intangibles such as hopes, dreams, values, rules, space relationships, language, body movements, etc.
(p. xi)
Whenever two entities (persons, groups, teams) come together, there is a cross-cultural encounter because
no two individuals or groups have the same list of, or integration of, cultural details. Thus individuals in ever-
expanding groupings form subcultures and cultures, and every individual has his own expression of the
culture. This is a process of social and language differentiation comparable to the sudden and dramatic event
that took place at the time of the Tower of Babel when God “confounded their language” (Genesis 11:1-9).
People agree to recognize themselves as members of the same culture and thus obviate difference. However,
when shared features are minimal and a distinctive entity emerges, people from this emergent group see
themselves as a different culture. Cross-cultural encounters thus occur between individuals, between
subcultures and, more noticeably, between two distinct cultural groups. (Mayers Marvin, 1987, p. xii)
However much any given individual or society is able to adapt to others who are different, there is always a
degree of self-orientation and ethnocentrism that closes out the other. There is a sense that “we are the real
people.” Such an attitude blocks effective communication with others. Fortunately it can be helped by
training, by personal sensitivity, and by prayer. (Mayers Marvin, 1987, p. xii)
There is no experience in human life more vital and exciting than encountering someone who is different and
beginning a mutual trust relationship that grows and matures through time. The experience with God is the
most challenging and rewarding. The marriage experience runs a close second. (Mayers Marvin, 1987, p. xiv)
Change and the Basic Values
Social existence is constantly subject to change. New agreements of social contracts are being made
whenever two or more people come into direct or indirect contact. The sum of such agreements makes up
what is termed culture. With each change of association, a new contract emerges, based in part on the
former one, yet distinct to the degree that these new associating people are distinct. Such change is difficult
 Page 16 of 55
to observe and control because much of it is covert, lying behind existing social structures and behavioral
expressions. Further, the change process is gradual, and certain aspects of change will lie covertly behind the
social structures for many generations before coming to the fore. (Mayers Marvin, 1987, p. 156)
Duane Elmer: Learning About, From, and With Others
Missionary Duane Elmer, in Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility (2006),
argues that the practice of “relating to people in such a way that their dignity as human beings is affirmed and
they are more empowered to live God-glorifying lives” is a process which should be mastered by every servant
leader. Elmer’s communication strategies “openness, acceptance, trust, and adaptability,” which follow the logic
of “learning about, from, and with” others reflects the general argument of Mayers’ model of cross-cultural
communication, so I trust that the following review of Elmer’s book will inform your own understanding of the
process.
1 – OPENNESS: Welcoming Others in your Presence
During my research, I came upon a helpful strategy for imagining openness in a cross-cultural encounter,
presented by Duane Elmer in a workshop for church leaders. Elmer called this strategy “the exchange of glasses.”
In this strategy, a Westerner and an Indigenous person face each other both wearing glasses. The Westerner
then invites the Indigenous person to exchange glasses for a short time. They do so, and they find that neither of
them can see well through the other’s glasses. Then the Westerner says, “What would it be like if I could see the
world through your glasses and if you could see the world through my glasses?” The conversation then moves
into imagining together how the other perceives the world. Such a conversation will prove fruitful if the Westerner
and the Indigenous person both speak openly about themselves and each other in ways that affirm and
appreciate. (cf. Elmer Duane & Sveen David, 2018).

SCENARIO 2: Serving--Becoming Like Christ to Others

Adapted from Duane Elmer, 2006, p. 201

Elmer’s Definition of Openness

Openness is the ability to welcome people into your presence and make them feel safe. Please reread the
definition slowly. First, being open toward others is an ability, by my definition. This is important because if it
is an ability, even if we are not particularly good at it, we can practice and get better. Second, openness is
directed toward people—others like us and, more importantly, others who are unlike us. In Luke 15:2, Jesus,
the holy, righteous Son of God, eats with sinners, the despised and rejected—unheard of for anyone
concerned with their reputation. To sit and eat with another person indicated oneness with them, solidarity
and acceptance—a very countercultural act for Jesus in the Middle Eastern world. God, of course, offers the
ultimate welcome to all of us who were once sinners, strangers, aliens. He welcomed us, through Christ,
into his presence, and today we enjoy the security of that relationship. Third, openness must be expressed in
culturally appropriate ways so that others feel both welcomed and secure in our presence. This, of course,
will mean different things in different places. . . Miroslav Volf uses the term embrace when speaking of
welcoming others into our presence. Then he says, “The will to give ourselves to others and welcome them,
 Page 17 of 55
to readjust our identities to make space for them, is prior to any judgment about others, except that of
identifying with them in their humanity.” (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 46)
Two caveats—the influence of postmodernism and the danger of religious relativism
Elmer recognizes that today’s older generation of Christians have tended to confuse the distinction between
religion and culture, and he sees promise in the younger generation’s greater openness to religions other than
their own. On the other hand, he insists that the Christian’s message loses its vitality when religious differences
are not taken into account:
Nearly forty years of observation suggests to me that my (older) generation has tended to reject cultural
diversity because we have not adequately distinguished it from religious diversity. We have tended to mix our
culture and Christianity quite easily, quite comfortably and with little critique. Often confusing cultural
differences with religious differences, we have judged cultural differences as wrong. In recent years the
opposite seems to be more true. The younger generation, perhaps influenced by postmodernism and the
general relativism of society, has been less inclined to distinguish between cultural and religious differences.
They often prefer to see both as valid choices. Thus the younger generation blurs religious and cultural
issues, tending to believe if peoples’ hearts are sincere, whatever their religious convictions, God will accept
them. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 68)
While openness is a wonderful virtue, it is not to be misconstrued as religious relativism. . . Our challenge is
to be inclusive in extending grace to all people yet exclusive in affirming that the Bible is the authoritative
truth of God. While this often brings charges of exclusivism, narrowness, rigidity and elitism, the fact is that
to make the Bible only one of many truths is to destroy its claims. It negates its value and authority, turning
it into a good piece of literature among many other equally good pieces. Thus religious pluralism or religious
diversity denies the distinctiveness of the Bible. (Elmer, 2006, p. 69)
2 – ACCEPTANCE: Communicating Respect for Others
“If we do not accept as good, God’s shaping of our person and life in our own culture,
we will never be able to accept his work in the lives of others who are culturally different from us.”
SHERWOOD LINGENFELTER AND MARVIN MAYERS (quoted in Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 70)
Elmer’s Definition of Acceptance, In a Culture of Rejection
We could argue that acceptance and its opposite, rejection, are among the most powerful behaviors in the
human race. Think about it. Haven’t many of your devastating life experiences come from feeling rejected—
no longer accepted? Fired from your job? Divorced? No longer part of the “in” group? A broken relationship?
Shunned? Cut from the team? On the other hand, many of your cherished experiences probably are a result
of feeling completely accepted—one of the group, trusted, secure, respected, wanted, valued, desired.
“Nearly all of us have a need to be accepted by others,” says Carley Dodd. Life is good when we feel
accepted. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 70)
Dallas Willard offers a stinging critique of Western culture and its institutions: The infant who is not received
in love by the mother and others is wounded for life and may even die. It must bond with its mother or
someone in order to take on a self and a life. And rejection, no matter how old one is, is a sword thrust to
the soul that has literally killed many. Western culture is, largely unbeknown to itself, a culture of rejection.
This is one of the irresistible effects of what is called modernity, and it deeply affects the concrete
forms Christian institutions take in our time. It seeps into our souls and is a deadly enemy to
spiritual formation in Christ. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 71)
Factors Limiting Our Acceptance of Others
Language. In a cross-cultural situation, language limits our ability to verbally communicate acceptance to
others. This makes things more difficult. To make no effort to learn another’s language is by itself a form of
rejection of people. We cannot separate ourselves from the language we speak. It is how we define ourselves
and make meaning out of life. Not to know my language is not to know me. Even when short-term
missionaries make an effort to learn at least some greetings and a farewell, it communicates that they value
others. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 86)
Impatience. Impatience limits acceptance of others. I like to see things happen quickly, the sooner the better.
I hate waiting in lines; TV commercials frustrate me because they make me wait for the rest of the
program. Long stoplights are irksome wastes of time. I know I can pray and do other productive things
during these wait times, but often the impatience is too consuming. In many parts of the world waiting is a
 Page 18 of 55
nonissue. Meetings don’t start on (Western) time; appointments run thirty to forty-five or more minutes late.
(Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 86)
Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is an unconscious hindrance in communicating acceptance. It refers to
the tendency of every person to believe that their own cultural values and traditions are superior to those
of other cultures. The more the other culture is unlike my cultural background, the more I am inclined to
make unfavorable judgments. While ethnocentrism is a human trait, it seems Americans reveal their
ethnocentrism more quickly and more assertively because they are more forthright with their thoughts. This
may be why many people from other cultures think of Americans as arrogant, controlling and even
neocolonialistic. (Elmer Duane, 2006, 86)
Judgment. Social research says that the most frequent response Americans make to a situation is to evaluate
what they just saw or heard as right or wrong, good or bad. Usually the standard for such judgments is how
similar or dissimilar it is to me and my beliefs. We often use ourselves as the norm by which to measure
others. If they measure up, we accept them; if not, we try to change them (one form of rejection) or distance
ourselves from them (another form of rejection). (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 94)
Summary
The first principle in the pilgrimage to servanthood is openness. To be open like Christ is to invite others
into our presence and treat them in ways that will make them feel safe in our presence. Second, acceptance
of others is to proactively communicate respect and dignity to each human being based on the fact that each
is an image-bearer of God. Both openness and acceptance are deeply rooted in the character of Christ and
expressed in his relationship to all humanity. The third principle, trust, moves us yet closer to the goal of
servanthood. Without trust little of significance will be accomplished. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 98)
3 – TRUST: Building Confidence in Relationships
“The most important step in entering a new culture is to build trust.
Only when people trust us will they listen to what we have to say.”
MARVIN K. MAYERS, Quoted in Duane Elmer, 2006, p. 97)
Elmer’s Definition of Trust
Definition. Trust is the ability to build confidence in a relationship so that both parties believe the other will
not intentionally hurt them but will act in their best interest. . . In most cultures of the world, trust is the glue
that holds relationships together, the oil that reduces friction, the energy that promotes spirited cooperation.
Without trust, relationships grind slowly if not indifferently. If we trust someone, we cannot be indifferent.
Deep trust drives us to act in the best interest of the other. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 99)
Ingredients of trust. For trust to grow it must be nurtured in several ways. First, trust takes time.
Instant trust rarely exists. That would be a naive or pseudo trust. Trust comes in small, incremental steps
over time. Through a variety of experiences we evolve into a more comfortable, confident relationship. This is
even more true when we don’t know the language of the local people. Learning their language actually
signals your desire to know these people and build relationships of trust. . . Second, building trust requires
risk—mostly emotional. Testing strengthens trust. Friendships grow while working through difficulties
together and finding resolution. This includes clarifying misunderstandings, admitting wrong, apologizing and
forgiving. As we deal with the bumps in a relationship, mutual confidence increases. . .Third, trust must be
built from the other person’s perspective. Let me illustrate. For our first anniversary I gave my wife snow
tires. As a male growing up in rural Wisconsin, it would have been a gift that I would have appreciated. Such
a gift would have increased my trust in the giver. However, I made the mistake of believing that what would
build trust with me would also build trust with my wife, who was more metropolitan and was born and raised
in a warm climate. She had no clue about snow tires. So we had a cross-cultural and cross-gender “situation.”
Had I asked the question, What will build trust from my wife’s perspective? . . . Fourth, trust must be
nurtured. Strong confidence in a relationship beautifully portrays the Trinity; absolute trust exists between
the three distinct persons of the Godhead. The Trinity is the model for marriage, family, church and other
relationships. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 101)
Building Trust Across Cultures
Trust is built differently in different cultures. Most people build trust somewhat intuitively, without thinking.
Stop and think about how you build a new relationship with someone: a new neighbor, a new church
member or someone new at school or work. What do you do to build and maintain trust? Some of the things
we do in American culture will work in other cultures: smiling, phoning, e-mailing, spending time together
and showing interest. However, some things that build trust in one culture may actually undermine trust in
 Page 19 of 55
another culture. . . In most cultures being late isn’t disrespectful; it’s a way of life and most people think
nothing of being fifteen, thirty or even more minutes late. Lateness should not be seen as a violation of trust.
(Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 105-106)
4 – LEARNING—Seeking Information that Changes You
A missionary friend of mine once said, “Things were simple before I went to Africa.
I knew what the African’s problem was, and I knew the answer.
When I got there and began to know him as a person,
things were no longer simple.”
ELISABETH ELLIOT, quoted in Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 117
Elmer’s Definition of Learning
I am suggesting three kinds of learning: (1) about others, (2) from others, and (3) with others. We tend to
believe that once we have learned about someone, we know them. Learning from and with others is less
easily accomplished and doesn’t come naturally for many of us. However, serving others is unlikely to happen
unless we become somewhat accomplished in all three types of learning. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 121)
Learning about helps us check and better adjust our expectations against reality. Learning about
should generate questions that will help us probe more deeply into the culture once we arrive. (Elmer Duane,
2006, p. 122)
Learning from. For several reasons learning from others is considerably more powerful than learning
about others. When we learn from someone, it is one of the great honors we bestow on them. When we ask
questions, seek understanding and probe their thoughts, we are saying, in effect: I need you to teach me. I
can’t do this alone. I may even fail unless you help me with your knowledge and insights. The act of listening
shows respect for the speaker and helps build a sense of community. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 127)
Now we turn our attention to the rarest form of learning: learning with. This wonderful form of learning
assumes that the best learning happens in relationship, in mutuality, in partnership where neither side is
above or beneath. Proverbs 27:17 may best express this type of learning: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man
sharpens another.” Respectful interaction between two people benefits both. Each depends on the other.
This interdependence produces a kind of life together that regularly mediates Christ, each to the other. Each
is, at the same time, teacher and learner, without either person knowing or caring that those roles are being
played out. A strong, resilient trust bonds their relationship. This solidarity fosters the deepest sharing, the
joy of authenticity and the wonder of mutually discovering the path of God. Both parties quickly admit that
their respective cultures have been affected deeply by sin and that both cultures have redemptive qualities.
By learning from and with each other, we sharpen our vision and practice in ways that could never happen
alone. We need each other. Our connected lives (and cultures) make us better people. (Elmer Duane, 2006,
p. 134)
The Son of God entered human culture and learned about its bondage to sin and its inability to
reconnect with its Creator apart from divine intervention. Unless we too connect deeply with the people of
our host culture, we will neither see nor interpret their situation accurately: their pain, their values, their
structures, their social limitations, their dreams, their ethos and pathos. Until we can interpret their situation
accurately, we will be like the monkey and the fish; our well-meaning help won’t fit their reality. The Christ
we show them will be more North American than the true Christ, who can naturally address their culture.
(Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 134)
Summary
Let’s summarize the forms of learning important for entering and living in another culture.
• Learning about others yields facts that help us adjust our expectations and generate fruitful avenues for
deeper learning after entering the culture. The danger: we may stop learning and think that now we
know everything necessary for ministry. It also tends to create “we-they” categories.
• Learning from others yields understanding that moves us into strong, enduring and trusting relationships
resistant to colonialistic attitudes and dependency. The danger: we may tire of learning from and move
into the telling mode; that is, I have the answers.
• Learning with others yields authentic partnerships where each probes deeply the mind and heart of the
other, bringing interdependent growth and culturally sensitive ministry. “We-they” categories are
replaced with “us” categories. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 137)
 Page 20 of 55
5 – UNDERSTANDING: Seeing Through Others’ Eyes
The key for successful personal relationships and ministry is to understand and accept others
as having a viewpoint as worthy of consideration as our own.”
SHERWOOD G. LINGENFELTER AND MARVIN K. MAYERS (Quoted in Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 164)
Elmer’s Definition of Understanding
Understanding is the ability to see patterns of behavior and values that reveal the integrity of a people. Let
me say it another way: understanding another culture is the ability to see how the pieces of the cultural
puzzle fit together and make sense to them and you. Life in another culture is frustrating at first because we
do not see the bigger picture, but the wonder of eventually seeing the pieces fit and the picture of
understanding appear is exhilarating. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 164)
We must discipline ourselves to see the patterns of the new culture. Cultural understanding emerges slowly,
over time. Occasionally we get a peek at the front side of the tapestry, where bits of pattern emerge.
Eventually we are no longer overwhelmed by of the back of the tapestry because we see more and more the
pattern on the front. Most of us want this to happen quickly. Actually, it takes months and years to see
clearly, because cultures are complex and varied. Nevertheless, we must continually work at it even if our
stay is short. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 167)
Check Your Motives
Getting the other’s perspective is not easy—and it’s not easy because of our ethnocentrism. When we
enter another culture and stay bound to our ethnocentrism, local people notice we aren’t there to learn from
them but to teach them; we won’t ask questions but will give answers; we aren’t there to be with them but
to train them; we won’t build trust but will attempt to transform them; we’re not there to dialogue but to
lecture. Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator, calls this a “subject-object relationship.” Unchecked
ethnocentrism turns human beings into objects to be manipulated. Freire also says that such relationships are
not to exchange ideas, but to dictate them; not to debate or discuss themes, but to give lectures; not to
work with the student but to work on him, imposing an order to which he has had to accommodate. By
giving the student formulas to receive and store, we have not offered him the means for authentic thought.
When people are treated as having no dignity, the image of God they bear is profaned even further. Thus
in our zeal to do the work of God, we may in fact be working against God’s purposes. The ultimate
perspective is God’s perspective—we should try to see things as he sees them. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 187)
6 – SERVING: Becoming Like Christ to Others
“You are my servant; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.”
ISAIAH 41:9
Elmer’s Definition of Serving
Serving is the ability to relate to people in such a way that their dignity as human beings is affirmed, and
they are more empowered to live God-glorifying lives. First, serving always includes relationships, even if
brief. Second, the servant respects those served because of their God-given dignity. Third, the persons
served feel empowered because they have encountered Jesus, whether they consciously recognize him or
not. They may feel respected, challenged or even confronted. Whatever the case, they feel empowered to
replicate the good brought to them. Anytime we relate to others in a way that leads them to sense Jesus’
presence or consider his claims, God is pleased. Jesus’ followers are called to be Jesus to every human
being—to serve as he served. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 193)
Going Backwards Makes the Most Sense
The servanthood model has progressed along the following steps: openness, acceptance, trust,
learning, understanding, serving. The model has evolved over a decade of talks with church leaders around
the world, reading the Scriptures with special attention to the life of Jesus and careful examination of God’s
truth as found in the social science and cross-cultural communications literature. The model has been field
tested in about twenty countries, and you are reading the insights of hundreds of people who have
contributed to it. Now, we look at the model backwards because, as you will see, it makes the most sense
that way. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 199)
Serving. You can’t serve someone you don’t understand. At best you can only be a benevolent oppressor—
like forcing someone to say “I’m sorry” when that is an unnatural way to apologize.
 Page 21 of 55
Understanding. You can’t understand another person until you have learned from them and, eventually, with
them. A learning attitude signals humility and a willingness to identify with the people.
Learning. You can’t learn from another person until you have built trust with them. People won’t
share important information with someone they don’t trust, especially cross-culturally.
Trust. You can’t build trust with another person until they feel like they have been accepted by you—until
they feel that you value them as human beings.
Acceptance. You can’t communicate value and esteem to others unless they feel welcomed into your
presence and find themselves feeling safe.
Openness. Openness with people of another culture requires that you are willing to step out of your
comfort zone to initiate and sustain relationships in a context of cultural differences. While requiring some
risk, it launches you on the wonderful and fruitful pilgrimage to servanthood. (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 200)

Part Two – Hospitality: Welcoming the Stranger

WELCOMING THE STRANGER

If there is any concept worth restoring to its original depth and evocative potential,
it is the concept of hospitality.
HENRI NOUWEN, quoted in Pohl Christine (1999), p. 3
Henri Nouwen: Learning God’s Love by Serving Others
Catholic priest-theologian-philosopher-psychologist Henri Nouwen dedicated his life to practicing what he
believed. In his mature writing, reflecting on the twists and turns of his career, he insists that his ministry with
the profoundly disabled members of the L’Arche Daybreak Community in Toronto was the most rewarding of his
many assignments. Christian author-journalist Philip Yancey interviewed him on a day when the community
celebrated the 26th birthday of Adam, whose care was Nouwen’s personal responsibility every morning. Yancey’s
words touch the heart:
I once visited Nouwen, sharing lunch with him in his small room. It had a single bed, one bookshelf, and a
few pieces of Shaker-style furniture. . . After lunch we celebrated a special Eucharist for Adam, the young
man Nouwen looked after. With solemnity, but also a twinkle in his eye, Nouwen led the liturgy in honor of
Adam's twenty-sixth birthday. Unable to talk, walk, or dress himself, profoundly retarded, Adam gave no sign
of comprehension. He seemed to recognize, at least, that his family had come. He drooled throughout the
ceremony and grunted loudly a few times. . . Later Nouwen told me it took him nearly two hours to prepare
Adam each day. Bathing and shaving him, brushing his teeth, combing his hair, guiding his hand as he tried
to eat breakfast-these simple, repetitive acts had become for him almost like an hour of meditation.
I must admit I had a fleeting doubt as to whether this was the best use of the busy priest's time. Could not
someone else take over the manual chores? When I cautiously broached the subject with Nouwen himself, he
informed me that I had completely misinterpreted him. "I am not giving up anything," he insisted. "It is I, not
Adam, who gets the main benefit from our friendship."
All day Nouwen kept circling back to my question, bringing up various ways he had benefitted from his
relationship with Adam. It had been difficult for him at first, he said. Physical touch, affection, and the
messiness of caring for an uncoordinated person did not come easily. But he had learned to love Adam, truly
to love him. In the process he had learned what it must be like for God to love us—spiritually uncoordinated,
retarded, able to respond with what must seem to God like inarticulate grunts and groans. Indeed, working
with Adam had taught him the humility and "emptiness" achieved by desert monks only after much discipline.
(Yancey, Philip, 1996).
Nouwen’s daily encounters with Adam show us his extraordinary devotion to the personal care of this
disabled young man, whom he learned to love deeply while placing Adam’s needs before his own, day after day.
Perhaps we share Yancey’s “fleeting doubt” about whether this was “the best use of the priest’s time.” But when
we take into account that Nouwen was truly blessed through his encounters with Adam, we can begin to
understand why Nouwen would write, “If there is any concept worth restoring to its original depth and evocative
potential, it is the concept of hospitality.”
 Page 22 of 55
Christine Pohl: God Initiates our Relationships
In the earthly ministry of Jesus, we meet God as our host who accepts us as we are, without condition. When
we interact with others, we are sometimes called to host another person; and on other occasions we are invited
to be another person’s valued guest. Because God initiates our relationships, He empowers us as hosts and as
valued guests. Christine Pohl writes,
The role of host is empowering because it is an acknowledgment that one has rightful access to a place of
meaning and value, and that one has the authority to welcome other persons into it. The host role affirms
that what you have and what you offer are valuable. An important transformation occurs when people
without power or status can be more than guests, when they, too, can be hosts. It is a time when their
contribution can be recognized and when they are not defined first by their need.
We see a wonderful example of this in the story of Zacchaeus’ encounter with Jesus (Luke 9:1-10). Jesus
calls out to Zacchaeus the tax collector and informs him, “I must stay at your house today.” Jesus chooses
Zacchaeus from the crowd to be his host and Zacchaeus, welcoming him joyfully, is transformed. (Pohl,
Christine, 1999, p. 121)
John Bodley’s Victims of Progress: Rejecting Blind Spots, Responding with Embrace
Living on the margins of American society, our Indigenous neighbors see our narcissistic and ethnocentric
tendencies more clearly than we do. To further describe our contrasting cultural perceptions of each other, I
quote from a modern anthropologist’s assessment written in the early 1980’s:
Industrial civilization is a culture of consumption, and in this respect, it differs most strikingly from tribal
cultures. Industrial economies are founded on the principle that consumption must be ever expanded, and
complex systems of mass marketing and advertising have been developed for that specific purpose. Social
stratification in industrial societies is based primarily on inequalities in material wealth and is both supported
and reflected by differential access to resources. . . Tribal cultures contrast strikingly in all these aspects.
Their economies are geared to the satisfaction of basic subsistence needs, which are assumed to be fixed,
while a variety of cultural mechanisms serve to limit material acquisitiveness and to redistribute wealth.
Wealth itself is rarely the basis of social stratification, and there is generally free access to natural resources
for all. . . The most obvious consequences of tribal consumption patterns are that these cultures tend to be
highly stable, make but light demands on their environments, and can easily support themselves within their
own boundaries. The opposite situation prevails for the culture of consumption. Almost overnight the
industrialized nations quite literally ate up their own local resources and outgrew their boundaries. . . It
should not be surprising that the ‘underdeveloped’ resources controlled by the world’s self-sufficient tribal
peoples were quickly appropriated by outsiders to support their own industrial progress. (Bodley, John, 1982,
Victims of Progress, p. 4)
How can we Western Christians communicate effectively with Indigenous people? I suggest that we must
“dig deeply” into ourselves and into the mindset of an Indigenous person to find a way. David Smith wonders,
“What if the other does not receive us with open arms? What if the encounter is overshadowed by the history of
past abuses of power, or by present resentments? What if the other responds to us with accusations, or with cold
indifference? These are real possibilities” (Smith, David, 2009, p. 121). David Smith insists in a Vimeo interview
that “tolerance is not enough. . . We need to intend the other’s good. To practice this intention, we must ask the
other to tell his/her life story so that we can better understand their worldview. . . Colonialism needs to be
redirected” (Smith, David, 2016).
Volf insists that the accusations and cold indifference of others must not change the Christian’s responsibility
to respond with embrace, for the decisive point of reference is the cross of Christ:
The cross is the giving up of God’s self in order not to give up on humanity; it is the consequence of God’s
desire to break the power of human enmity without violence and receive human beings into divine
communion. . . Forgiveness is therefore not the culmination of Christ’s relationship to the offending other; it
is a passage leading to embrace. The arms of the crucified are open—a sign of a space in God’s self and an
invitation for the enemy to come in.” (Volf, quoted in Smith, David, 2009, p. 121).

A DIFFICULT JOURNEY
Few events in the cross-cultural encounters of Western European settlers and North American Indigenous
peoples since the 15th century have greater significance in setting the pattern of untenable relations between
them than the Doctrine of Discovery, the Wounded Knee Massacre, and the organization of Residential Boarding
 Page 23 of 55
Schools. My reflections in this section will zero in on what Westerners and Indigenous peoples might learn about
and form each other when they share their memories of these events. Duane Elmer writes,
Learning about helps us check and better adjust our expectations against reality. Learning about
should generate questions that will help us probe more deeply into the culture once we arrive. . . When we
learn from someone, it is one of the great honors we bestow on them. When we ask questions, seek
understanding and probe their thoughts, we are saying, in effect: I need you to teach me. I cannot do this
alone. I may even fail unless you help me with your knowledge and insights. The act of listening
shows respect for the speaker and helps build a sense of community. (Elmer, 2006, p. 121, 127)
Considering the depth of the cultural divide being bridged in this part of the encounter, and considering the
500-year-long history of two incompatible worldviews, both the Westerner and the Indigenous person must delay
judgment, trust the process, and pray for an outcome that, as they enter into dialogue, appears to them both to
be an impossible dream. But, difficult as it may be, dialogue must take place—everyone’s wellbeing is at stake.
The Doctrine of Discovery
The “Doctrine of Discovery” is based on a series of papal decrees, with the first issued in 1455 by Pope
Nicholas V, in which he “authorized the conquest and enslavement of non-Christian Indigenous Peoples for the
purposes of land acquisition and profit from natural resources” (Herbert, Richard, 2015, p. 2). At first glance, it
might seem odd to us that the Vatican was recognized throughout Western Europe during the fifteenth century
for its authority in an area we would call “international law” half a millennium before establishment of the United
Nations. The decree was initially directed towards Portugal and Spain, but subsequently France and England
asserted the same sovereign authority over the lands they colonized. After the American War of Independence,
the U.S. did the same. According to Indigenous historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz,
In 1792, not long after the US founding, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Doctrine of
Discovery developed by European states was international law applicable to the new US government as well.
In 1823 the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. McIntosh. Writing for the majority, Chief
Justice John Marshall held that the Doctrine of Discovery had been an established principle of European law
and of English law in effect in Britain’s North American colonies and was also the law of the United States. . .
The Doctrine of Discovery is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned in historical or legal texts
published in the Americas. . . (Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne, 2014, p. 199-200, italics added for emphasis).
It is well known that the treaties signed by the Canadian and U.S. governments with the various Indigenous
tribes recognized sovereign tribal authority within reservation boundaries. How can that be? The United States
had fought a war against Great Britain to gain its independence, objecting with violence against treatment by the
British crown they considered unjust. Yet it seemed to the new U.S. government that they should control the
affairs of the Indigenous people in spite of affirming their sovereign nation status by treaty. Roxanne Dunbar-
Ortiz describes this situation as a tangled contradiction (Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne, 2014, p. 201).
In 2016, the Doctrine of Discovery became the subject of heated debate in my church denomination (The
Christian Reformed Churches of North America) when a “Doctrine of Christian Discovery Task Force” reported to
its annual general synod in Grand Rapids, Michigan (CRC Resources, 2016, Creating a New Family). While
preparing this essay, this Report reminded me several times that the Doctrine of Discovery has deeply influenced
the biases, practices, and policies of missionaries, settlers and governments to the present day.
I share below a few excerpts from the Creating a New Family Report explaining the Task Force’s rationale for
recommending that the churches disassociate themselves from the Doctrine of Discovery:
One area in which the DOCD went horribly wrong was in how the papal bulls assumed that any human being
not in Christ Jesus could be seen as less than fully human. This false belief created a power imbalance in the
relationship between European settlers and First Peoples of the lands they sought to inhabit. . . In both
Canada and the United States, our study of the DOCD has shown a power struggle between the First Peoples
of the land and the dominant culture enveloped in a greedy arrogance. . . When European settlers entered
this new land of North America (Turtle Island), it was with the promise of great freedom and riches compared
to a life they left behind. Upon entering the land, they were greeted in peace by the local inhabitants, and
many settlers were taught how to live from the land and receive its bounty. The DOCD provided a mechanism
by which the new arrivals began to see themselves as a superior culture and proceeded to articulate a white
European gospel. . . The Doctrine of Discovery comes out of the myth of scarcity and empowers the church
and kings and queens to justify the pursuit of more wealth. This pursuit of more stuff created around the
world a “false need,” which was contrary to creation’s abundance that is still here today, as God promised it
would be. (CRC Resources, 2016, Creating a New Family, p. 18-20)
 Page 24 of 55
Memories have a powerful way of growing in importance to us in our imagination—especially when the
events we recall were experienced by our ancestors centuries ago. When the time is right for us, we seek out
contemporary protagonists, build trust with them, and find comfort in the stories we share. In 2016, the Christian
Reformed Churches reached this point in their history. They felt it was time to act on a deepening conviction that
the DOCD represents a great injustice to the Indigenous peoples of North America.
The Wounded Knee Massacre
The Legends of America Website at https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-indianwartimeline/3/ has a
comprehensive timeline of Indian wars from the 16th to the late 19th century. This timeline is book-ended by the
Jamestown massacre in which 347 English settlers were killed, and the Wounded Knee Massacre, in which over
200 Sioux Indians were killed. [The 1898 Leech Lake Uprising hardly counts as a war. RK]. We might add to the
list of grievances the many Indian casualties to European diseases, the many enslavements, and the many
legislated reductions in freedom of movement and behavior that, together, threatened the integrity of Indigenous
culture in the Americas, but clearly the brutal massacre of people—whether of Indian or settlers, is remembered
by the descendants on both sides as inhumane treatment by enemies in war who might have chosen to negotiate
in good faith. Huey Aaron, though a white Westerner, speaks of pain and suffering on behalf of all Indigenous
peoples in his recent TedTalks presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv7n5jhrHGQ&t=217s
During my research, I discovered the insightful Sioux ethnohistorical writings of Charles A. Eastman (Legends
of America, 2020, Charles Eastman bio), who, born of Santee Dakota, English, and French ancestry on a
reservation near Redwood Falls, Minnesota, often crossed cultural boundaries in personal encounters with
Westerners. His father, who had converted to Christianity, strongly encouraged him to get a “white education.” At
Christmas in 1890, Eastman, now 32 years old, recently graduated from Boston University’s medical school and
accompanied by his fiancée Elaine Goodman, was the first Indigenous doctor to serve at the Pine Ridge
Reservation. His memories of, and reflection on, the Wounded Knee Massacre, are recorded in chapters VII and
VIII of his book From the Deep Woods (1916/2003). Below I have excerpted a couple of memories and a
reflection that occurred to him after the event:
An Indian called Little had been guilty of some minor offense on the reservation and had hitherto evaded
arrest. Suddenly he appeared at the agency on an issue day, for the express purpose, as it seemed, of
defying the authorities. The assembly room of the Indian police, used also as a council room, opened out of
my dispensary, and on this particular morning a council was in progress. I heard some loud talking, but was
too busy to pay particular attention, though my assistant had gone in to listen to the speeches. Suddenly the
place was in an uproar, and George burst into the inner office, crying excitedly “Look out for yourself, friend!
They are going to fight!” (Eastman Charles, 1916/2003, p. 76)
Fully three miles from the scene of the massacre we found the body of a woman completely covered with a
blanket of snow, and from this point on we found them scattered along as they had been relentlessly hunted
down and slaughtered while fleeing for their lives. Some of our people discovered relatives or friends among
the dead, and there was much wailing and mourning. When we reached the spot where the Indian camp had
stood, among the fragments of burned tents and other belongings we saw the frozen bodies lying close
together or piled one upon another. I counted eighty bodies of men who had been in the council and who
were almost as helpless as the women and babes when the deadly fire began, for nearly all their guns had
been taken from them. A reckless and desperate young Indian fired the first shot when the search for
weapons was well under way, and immediately the troops opened fire from all sides, killing not only unarmed
men, women, and children, but their own comrades who stood opposite them, for the camp was entirely
surrounded. (Eastman, Charles, 1916/2003, p. 91)
It took all of my nerve to keep my composure in the face of this spectacle, and of the excitement and grief of
my Indian companions, nearly every one of whom was crying aloud or singing his death song. The white
men became very nervous, but I set them to examining and uncovering everybody to see if one were living.
Although they had been lying untended in the snow and cold for two days and nights, a number had
survived. Among them I found a baby of about a year old warmly wrapped and entirely unhurt. I brought her
in, and she was afterward adopted and educated by an army officer. One man who was severely wounded
begged me to fill his pipe. When we brought him into the chapel he was welcomed by his wife and daughters
with cries of joy, but he died a day or two later. (Eastman, Charles, 1916/2003, p. 91)
I have tried to make it clear that there was no “Indian outbreak” in 1890–91, and that such trouble as we
had may justly be charged to the dishonest politicians, who through unfit appointees first robbed the
Indians, then bullied them, and finally in a panic called for troops to suppress them. From my first days at
Pine Ridge, certain Indians and white people had taken every occasion to whisper into my reluctant ears the
tale of wrongs, real or fancied, committed by responsible officials on the reservation, or by their connivance.
 Page 25 of 55
To me these stories were unbelievable, from the point of view of common decency. I held that a great
government such as ours would never condone or permit any such practices, while administering large
trust funds and standing in the relation of guardian to a race made helpless by lack of education and of legal
safeguards. At that time, I had not dreamed what American politics really is, and I had the most exalted
admiration for our noted public men. Accordingly, I dismissed these reports as mere gossip or the inventions
of mischief-makers. (Eastman, Charles, 1916/2003, p. 94)
I encourage you to read the brief report of the details of this skirmish between the U.S. Army and the Sioux
Indians on the Legends of America Website at https://www.legendsofamerica.com/sd-woundedknee/ . Below I
quote two statements from this website to repeat, in summary, how many Indigenous people reflect on their own
memory of the event:
The event was precipitated by individual indiscretion and was not organized premeditation, and although the
majority of the participants on both sides had not intended to use their arms, the tense and confusing
situation ended tragically. After the haze of gun smoke that hung over the battlefield was cleared, some of
the facts have been obscured; but the action more resembles a massacre than a battle. Today, it serves as
an example of national guilt for the mistreatment of the Indians. . .
In addition to the many who were killed in the massacre, the Sioux Nation, as it was known, died there too.
By that time, its people fully realized the totality of the white conquest. Before, despite more than a decade
of restricted reservation life, they had dreamed of liberation and of a return to the life mode of their fathers
— a sentiment strongly manifested in the Ghost Dance religion. But, the nightmare of Wounded Knee forced
reality upon them. They and all the other Indians knew that the end had finally come and that conformance
to the white men’s ways was the price of survival.
Agreeing with this assessment in 1970, author Dee Brown quoted the words of Black Elk, one of the Indian
fighters, at the conclusion of his book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee:
I did not know then how much was ended.
When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying
heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young.
And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard.
A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream … the nation’s hoop is broken and scattered.
There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead.
—BLACK ELK (quoted in Brown, Dee, 1970, p. 599)

On April 18, 2015—over 500 years after the papal

decree we know as the Doctrine of Discovery and 125
years after the Wounded Knee Massacre--historian
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz presented a paper to the
Organization of American Historians at their at annual
meeting on the topic Yes, Native Americans Were the
Victims of Genocide (Dunbar-Ortiz Roxanne, 2015). The
published version of this address is appropriately
illustrated with a picture of the mass grave in which many
victims of the massacre were buried. Dunbar-Ortiz minces
no words in her attempt to convince any doubters among
America’s historians that the spirit of the Doctrine of
Discovery continues to haunt the memories of North
America’s Indigenous people:
The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from
the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas,
with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native
nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the
beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern
forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every
instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. (Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne, 2015)
The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random
individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme
 Page 26 of 55
violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is
a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are
societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and
histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples. (Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne,
2015)
The Creating a New Family Report of the Christian Reformed Church Task Force points out that in 1887,
three years before the Wounded Knee Massacre, “the Dawes Act parceled out land to Native American individuals
in a Western model of land ownership, with the remainder being made available for sale to non-Natives. The
result was devastating: tribes lost two-thirds of their land and found themselves relegated to a largely non-arable
remnant. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has labeled these actions cultural genocide
because they threatened the very existence of Indigenous nations and caused immeasurable generational
traumas” (CRC Resources, 2016, Creating a New Family, p. 13). Modern genocide, indeed!
David Treuer, like Charles Eastman a century ago, presents a more positive picture of Indigenous history
since the Wounded Knee Massacre. He insists that since 1890 many Indigenous people have defied the odds and
thrived in spite of obstacles. His writing is a voice of encouragement to Indigenous people everywhere:
The usual story told about us—or rather, about “the Indian”—is one of diminution and death, beginning in
untrammeled freedom and communion with the earth and ending on reservations, which are seen as nothing
more than basins of perpetual suffering. Wounded Knee has come to stand in for much of that history. In the
American imagination and, as a result, in the written record, the massacre at Wounded Knee almost
overnight assumed a significance far beyond the sheer number of lives lost. It became a touchstone of Indian
suffering, a benchmark of American brutality, and a symbol of the end of Indian life, the end of the frontier,
and the beginning of modern America. Wounded Knee, in other words, stands for an end, and a beginning.
(Treuer, David, 2019, p. 1)
It pains me to think about Wounded Knee. It also pains me, for different reasons, to read about it in books
like Dee Brown’s. What hurts is not just that 150 people were cruelly and viciously killed. It is that our sense
of their lives—died with them. . . And they are lost again and again when we paint over them with the
tragedy of “the Indian.” In this sense, the victims of Wounded Knee died twice—once at the end of a gun,
and again at the end of a pen.” . . . We die, too, in our own minds. And this is perhaps the saddest death of
all. We are so used to telling the stories of our lives, and those of our tribes, as a tragedy, as a necessarily
diminishing line--once we were great, once we ruled everything, and now we rule nothing, now we are
merely ghosts that haunt the American mind—that we deprive ourselves of the very life we yearn for.
(Treuer, David, 2019, p. 451)
And while Wounded Knee was the last major armed conflict between Indian tribes and the U.S. government,
there have been many battles since 1890: battles found by Indian parents to keep their children, and by the
children far away at boarding schools to remember and keep their families and, by extension, their tribes,
close to their hearts; battles of Indian leaders to defeat allotment and other destructive legislation; battles of
activists to make good on the promises their leaders couldn’t or wouldn’t honor; battles of millions of present-
day Indians to be Indian and modern at the same time. (Treuer, David, 2019, p. 453)
We are, for better or worse, the body of our republic. And we need to listen to it, to hear—beyond the pain
and anger and fear, beyond the decrees and policies and the eddying of public sentiments and resentments,
beyond the bombast and rhetoric—the sound (faint at times, stronger at others) of a heartbeat going on.
(Treuer, David, 2019, p. 454)
The Residential Boarding Schools
In 2016 Dr. Denise K. Lajimodiere wrote in the Minnesota Historical Society’s magazine, MinnPost, that the
story of Minnesota’s Residential Boarding Schools is a “sad legacy”:
American Indian boarding schools. . . represent a dark chapter in U.S. history. Also called industrial schools,
these institutions prepared boys for manual labor and farming and girls for domestic work. The boarding
school, whether on or off a reservation, carried out the government’s mission to restructure Indians’ minds
and personalities by severing children’s physical, cultural, and spiritual connections to their tribes.
(Lajimodiere Denise, 2016)
On March 3, 1891, Congress authorized the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to create legal rules that required
Indian children to attend boarding schools. It also authorized the Indian Office to withhold rations, clothing,
and other annuities from Indian parents or guardians who would not send and keep their children in school.
Indian Agents forcibly abducted children as young as four from their homes and enrolled them in Christian-
 Page 27 of 55
and government-run boarding schools beginning in the mid-1800s and continuing into the 1970s.
(Lajimodiere Denise, 2016)
When the Christian Reformed Board of Heathen Mission officially opened Rehoboth Christian School in New
Mexico in 1903, residential boarding schools for Indigenous children had already been in operation throughout
North America for two decades. One might assume that, considering so much experience with educating
Indigenous children, the US and Canadian governments might have responded to feedback and complaints from
Indigenous parents, but that was not the case. The Creating a New Family Report describes the travesty of life in
Residential Board Schools as follows:
From 1820 to the 1970s, Christian missionaries and churches established schools as an outreach to Natives
not only in an attempt to facilitate their conversion to Christianity but also to “civilize” Indian children and
thus enable their survival in the larger society. In 1879, the U.S. government formally established Indian
boarding schools designed to strip Native children of their culture and educate them according to Western
values. Captain Richard Henry Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, succinctly described the
goal of these schools when he said, “All the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him,
and save the man.” Canada followed with amendments to the Indian Act of 1876 that mandated native
children to attend Indian Residential Schools run by churches. Native peoples were the first to speak out
against the abuses in these schools. In 1900-1902, Zitkala-Ša (Lakota) recounted in a series of articles for the
Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s Monthly the shocking abuse she and other students experienced as a result of
assimilationist policies at the Carlisle School. Their experiences are echoed in contemporary stories of
survivors of Indian boarding schools. (CRC Resources, 2016, Creating a New Family, p. 12)
The Creating a New Family Report linked the long history of abuse of Indigenous children and their forced
separation from their families to the Doctrine of Discovery. The school’s missionaries and teachers struggled with
attendance issues, but they didn’t see how this problem related to the policy of forced assimilation; rather, they
saw it as a “spiritual problem” that could only be solved by forcing the children and their parents to adopt their
European religious and cultural ways.
One of the earliest and most persistent problems encountered by the bilagáana missionaries was the inability
to secure significant attendance at the boarding school. And once students were enrolled in the school, they
frequently ran away. Missionaries would travel in “the bush” for days in an effort to recruit students. . .
Securing pupils for the school apparently involved coercion: in 1910, when the Indian Agent from Gallup
required parental consent for children to attend the school, Rev. Brink complained that this “entirely
overthrew our plans” . . . Rev. Bosscher, who served at Rehoboth from 1909 to 1950, was especially troubled
by the problem of runaways and absenteeism. In 1921 he complained that retrieving runaways had forced
him to cover 500 miles. (CRC Resources, 2016, Creating a New Family, p. 30)
Issues in the Residential Boarding Schools were universal throughout North America. Following the model of
forced assimilation and removal of children from their families, teachers cut children’s hair, dressed them in
Western clothes, and gave them European names. It was felt that this program would re-make Indigenous
families into “civilized” European families. As we well know from the stories of survivors, this program had the
effect of disorienting children as well as their parents, and their ability to serve the wellbeing of their communities
was severely compromised. David Treuer reflects on the even more egregious complaint about school gravesites
and on the Meriam Report of 1928:
They also went there to die. Perhaps no other aspect of Indian education during the sixty years of the
boarding school era is more tragic than the fact that the school grounds at Carlisle and Haskell and all the
other schools included graveyards. At Haskell, a forlorn cemetery is tucked behind the power plant and
marked by more than a hundred small white tombstones. Many of the children who died there didn’t even get
a marker. At Carlisle, hundreds of students were buried. (Treuer David 2019, p. 139)
In 1928 the government decided to conduct its own investigation of Indian administration, health, and
education. The Meriam Report was nothing if not thorough. It ran to more than eight hundred pages and
included detailed statistical analysis. The section on Indian education was particularly alarming. It noted that
the boarding schools hired unqualified and underqualified staff and paid them poorly. Turnover was high. In
one classroom ten teachers had passed through in the course of a single semester. Most schools ran largely
on Indian child labor. Students milked the cows and killed the chickens and split the wood and mowed the
fields and whitewashed the walls and cooked the food in the kitchens. The report cautioned that “if the labor
of the boarding school is to be done by the pupils, it is essential that the pupils be old enough and strong
enough to do institutional work.” (Treuer David, 2019, p. 141)
 Page 28 of 55
The report was equally scathing about the schools’ teaching and teacher training methods, curriculum, and
sensitivity to the individual academic, practical, and emotional needs of Indian children. This disregard for the
children as individuals extended even to the uniforms they were forced to wear. In one sad footnote the
writers observed that “there is no individuality in clothes in most schools, and suits are apparently passed on
interminably, necessitating repeated repair.” A single pair of trousers had been worn, for example, by twelve
boys successively. (Treuer David, 2019, p. 141)
But the report saved most of its indignation for the health conditions at the schools. In a survey of more than
seventy schools, the authors noted insufficient ventilation, rampant overcrowding, frequently nonoperational
toilets and sinks, and an almost complete absence of “modern” laundry facilities. In one school very small
children were discovered working behind piles of laundry that dwarfed them because the superintendent
found they folded more when confronted by big piles. At another, the children were too malnourished to play.
Even where they had the energy, they were often required to “maintain a pathetic degree of quietness.”
Some authorities did not allow them to speak at all. Most schools at the time of the survey included a sort of
jail used to discipline children. School buildings in general were decrepit, often to the point of being fire risks,
dorms were crowded, sanitation was substandard, and boilers and machinery were out-of-date and
sometimes unsafe. (Treuer David, 2019, p. 141)
Such were the ways in which the U.S. government tried to “kill the Indian” to “save the man.” From 1879 to
the late 1930s, when the last compulsory boarding school programs were suspended (though some schools
continue to this day), tens of thousands of Indian children were torn away from their families, forced to
abandon their cultures and religions, and indoctrinated in federally funded religious schools. The effects of
this attempt to break a people—and the aim of the boarding schools, albeit guided by “progressive” ideology,
was unquestionably that—are still being felt today. (Treuer David, 2019, p. 142)
Conditions in Canadian Residential Boarding Schools paralleled those in the U.S., as shown in the “Timeline of
Events” issued by the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2020, Timeline of Events).
In 2008, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008, Misconceptions) published a
poster summarizing responses to several “misconceptions” about Canada’s Boarding Schools [Note that I have
excerpted only key sentences; check the website for complete statements. RK]
• Residential Schools happened a long time ago. It’s history now. Aboriginal people would be better off if
they stopped dwelling on the past and got on with their lives--There are approximately 75,000 former
students alive today. . .
• The schools were well-intentioned. Everyone believed at the time that assimilation was a good policy.
Many good people worked in the schools. The schools produced good as well as bad--The system. . . was
designed “to educate & colonize a people against their will,” as the missionary Hugh McKay admitted in
1903. . .
• Aboriginal people asked for residential schools--Aboriginal people did not request cultural assimilation,
nor did they request for their children physical and sexual abuse, deprivation, and humiliation. . .
• No one knew at the time about the conditions of residential schools--There is ample evidence that the
church and government worked together to keep known abuses from public view. Their efforts however
failed.
• Hardly any Indian children actually attended the schools--Geoffrey York reports that by the 1940s, about
8,000 Indian children – half the Indian student population – were enrolled in 76 residential schools across
the country.
No less critical of the U.S. and Canadian governments is Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, who contends that they
contributed significantly to the plight of today’s Indigenous people:
The experience of generations of Native Americans in on- and off-reservation boarding schools, run by the
federal government or Christian missions, contributed significantly to the family and social dysfunction still
found in Native communities. (Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne, 2014, p. 212)
Finally, we hear from Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, Chair of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, speaking in 2010 to the United Nations:
For roughly seven generations nearly every Indigenous child in Canada was sent to a residential school. They
were taken from their families, tribes and communities, and forced to live in those institutions of assimilation.
The results while unintended have been devastating. We witness it first in the loss of Indigenous languages
and traditional beliefs. We see it more tragically in the loss of parenting skills, and, ironically, in unacceptably
poor education results. We see the despair that results in runaway rates of suicide, family violence, substance
 Page 29 of 55
abuse, high rates of incarceration, street gang influence, child welfare apprehensions, homelessness, poverty,
and family breakdowns. Yet while the government achieved such unintended devastation, it failed in its
intended result. Indians never assimilated. (Quoted in Pulling Together Foundations Guide, 2020, Residential
Schools, ebook).
Truth and Reconciliation
Before we proceed, let’s recall the lesson to be learned from Andrew Walls, Larry Vanderaa and the world-
wide Christian cross-cultural missionary movement of the past century. Many Christian missionaries led the way in
recognizing that all human beings, including Indigenous people, are created in the image of God and deserve the
full respect of missionaries and migrants who visit them or settle in their lands. Westerners who seek to have
fruitful cross-cultural encounters with Indigenous peoples ought to approach them as guests following the
example of Larry Vanderaa and others who “exchanged glasses” with them so they might, perhaps for the first
time, see the world from each other’s eyes. Just as Christian missionaries learned to leave to their hosts the
initiative of contextualizing the gospel in cultures other than their own, so must every Westerner respect the
cultural integrity of an Indigenous person. After learning about and from each other, we seek truth and
reconciliation by learning with each other. Duane Elmer writes,
This wonderful form of learning assumes that the best learning happens in relationship, in mutuality,
in partnership where neither side is above or beneath. . . Respectful interaction between two people benefits
both. Each depends on the other. This interdependence produces a kind of life together that regularly
mediates Christ, each to the other. Each is, at the same time, teacher and learner, without either person
knowing or caring that those roles are being played out. A strong, resilient trust bonds their relationship. This
solidarity fosters the deepest sharing, the joy of authenticity and the wonder of mutually discovering the path
of God. Both parties quickly admit that their respective cultures have been affected deeply by sin and that
both cultures have redemptive qualities.
The Son of God entered human culture and learned about its bondage to sin and its inability to
reconnect with its Creator apart from divine intervention. Unless we too connect deeply with the people of
our host culture, we will neither see nor interpret their situation accurately: their pain, their values, their
structures, their social limitations, their dreams, their ethos and pathos. Until we can interpret their situation
accurately, we will be like the monkey and the fish; our well-meaning help won’t fit their reality. The Christ
we show them will be more North American than the true Christ, who can naturally address their culture.
(Elmer, 2006, p. 134)
Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission
In 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Harper Stephen, 2008, Government apologizes) extended to
Canada’s Indigenous peoples the government’s public apology for the “sad legacy” of Residential Boarding
Schools in Canada, the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was already underway. The
Commission’s final report was issued in December 2015. The excerpt from Wikipedia below briefly summarizes its
outcome and establishment of the National Center for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR):
The report noted that an estimated 150,000 children attended residential schools during its 120-year history
and an estimated 3200 of those children died in the residential schools. From the 70,000 former IRS students
still alive, there were 31,970 sexual or serious sexual assault cases resolved by Independent Assessment
Process, and 5,995 claims were still in progress as of the report's release.
The TRC concluded that the removal of children from the influence of their own culture with the intent of
assimilating them into the dominant Canadian culture amounted to cultural genocide. . .
The NCTR was established at the University of Manitoba, as an archive to hold the research, documents, and
testimony collected by the TRC during its operation, opening to the public in November 2015. The Center
holds more than five million documents relating to the legacy of residential schools in Canada. (Wikipedia,
2020, Truth and Reconciliation Commission)
Judge Murray Sinclair, Commission Chairman, spoke often to the public about the work of his team. In 2011
he released a 3-minute vimeo, distributed by the BC Teachers Federation: Sinclair Murray (2011). What Is
Reconciliation? BCTF Project of Heart Vimeo. Published 2011 Accessed at https://vimeo.com/25389165
The Commission’s Final Report opens with ten Principles of Reconciliation, which guided the Commission in
developing “the Commission’s central conclusions about the history and legacy of residential schools and identify
both the barriers to reconciliation and the opportunities for constructive action that currently exist.” Below is the
final paragraph of this Report’s Introduction:
 Page 30 of 55
Despite the coercive measures that the government adopted, it failed to achieve its policy goals. Although
Aboriginal peoples and cultures have been badly damaged, they continue to exist. Aboriginal people have
refused to surrender their identity. It was the former students, the Survivors of Canada’s residential schools,
who placed the residential school issue on the public agenda. Their efforts led to the negotiation of the Indian
Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that mandated the establishment of a residential school Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada. In response to their efforts, the federal government and the churches
also issued public apologies for their involvement in the operation of the residential school system. (Truth &
Reconciliation Commission, 2015, What We Have Learned, p. 8).
It should be noted that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, launched in 2008, was part of the Indian
Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA). Tabitha Marshall, writing in the Canadian Encyclopedia,
described the IRSSA as “the largest class action settlement in Canadian history to date.” This agreement
“recognized the damage inflicted on Indigenous peoples by residential schools, and established a multi-billion-
dollar fund to help former students in their recovery” (Marshall, Tabitha, 2013, Canadian Residential Schools
Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement also included $125 million for the Aboriginal Healing
Foundation. This organization’s mission is to “provide resources which will promote reconciliation and encourage
and support Aboriginal people and their communities in building and reinforcing sustainable healing processes
that address the legacy of physical, sexual, mental, cultural, and spiritual abuses in the residential school system,
including intergenerational impacts” (Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2020, About Us). What a huge task!
The stories told by the Residential School Survivors are heart-breaking. No Westerner parent would approve
of the treatment and the quality of the education at Residential Boarding Schools for their children, yet the
system was maintained for three generations. In my view, no amount of money can make up for the loss to the
Indigenous peoples. Yet, I would argue that the stories needed to be told, so we might understand one another
more deeply, grieve together, pray together, heal together. Below is an excerpt from the Commission’s “The
Survivors Speak” Report.
Peter Nakogee
When he first went to the Fort Albany, Ontario, school, Peter Nakogee could speak no English. it’s where I
had the most difficulty in school because I didn’t understand English. My hand was hit because I wrote on my
scribblers, the scribblers that were given on starting school, pencils, erasers, rulers and that, scribblers, and
textbooks that were given. “Write your names,” she said, so they don’t get lost. But I wrote on my scribblers
in Cree syllabics. And so I got the nun really mad that I was writing in Cree. And then I only knew my name
was Ministik from the first time I heard my name, my name was Ministik. So I was whipped again because I
didn’t know my name was Peter Nakogee. (Truth & Reconciliation Commission, 2015, The Survivors Speak
Report, p. 48).
I wonder if the Survivors’ stories might, in time, contribute to the eventual resolution of current political
debates in Canada about whether the Canadian government should pass a law that commits the country to all the
provisions of the 2007 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Persons. That was the hope of Cree
MP Romeo Saganash when he proposed private member’s bill C-262. Regrettably, this bill didn’t make it into law
in June 2019 when it failed to garner enough support from Conservative Party members.
Progress with the development of law can be slow, especially when a minority government is in charge. In
February, 2018, while Bill C-262 was still under consideration, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, addressing
Parliament, promised a “long overdue” “Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework” (Trudeau Justin,
2018). Today, Indigenous people in Canada continue to seek full recognition, on many fronts, as equal partners
in Canadian society.

Part Three – Learning With: Discerning and Celebrating Indigenous Gifts

A BRIEF PAUSE TO REFLECT: MODERNISM VS. POSTMODERNISM

(1) Why does Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz call American settler colonialism “modern genocide?”
(2) How might a postmodern mindset encourage us to bridge the Westerner-Indigenous cultural divide?
Dunbar-Ortiz compares modern genocide to “premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the
goal of extinction,” and argues against fellow historians who insist that the term genocide should only be used to
 Page 31 of 55
describe ethnic cleansings, such as the Nazi Holocaust, in which there are few survivors. She thinks of “genocide”
as a specific kind of crime that was defined by the 1951 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988. According to the Convention, a punishable act
of genocide is “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,”
What does Dunbar-Ortiz mean by the term modern? When she writes about “premodern instances of extreme
violence that did not have the goal of extinction,” she doesn’t offer specific events or dates, so it’s unclear
whether she is thinking about any particular historical era when violence wasn’t intended to annihilate an
opponent. To clarify, In this essay I have been treating modernism as a 500-year-long period from about 1450 to
about 1950 during which Western Europeans exerted their influence over the rest of the world through
colonization and forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples into their cultural lifestyles. David Stannard draws our
attention to the severity of the Indigenous cultural devastation during the modern period by naming it the
American Holocaust.
Beginning in the 20th century and into the 21st century, we have witnessed a significant shift in international
relations, in which the global reach and influence of international corporations as well as everyone’s increasing
exposure to, and awareness of, other cultures, gives rise to a flatter, more egalitarian network of interdependent
nations and cultural groups. At the same time, the world’s major cities are experiencing increasing cultural
diversity while global society is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan. I call this new understanding of our place in
our changing international community postmodernism. According to James Tully, the current changes in our
global society have important implications for the world’s indigenous peoples: he argues that in the postmodern
age, our world is more than ready for a new international “constitution” which protects the rights and integrity of
Indigenous cultural groups within settler nations (Tully, James, 2006). I will reflect on his proposal in the Forum
Introduction.
We learn from Andrew Walls and others that many world-wide Christian missions have, during the 20th
century and into the 21st century, shifted the approach of their evangelistic efforts from imposing their home
cultural ways on new converts to one of listening and learning, building trust, and encouraging the development
of local leadership in new worship communities. This shift in approach is not adopted uniformly by all Western
missionaries, but with encouragement of a postmodern mindset that tends to recognize and appreciate cultural
differences, its long-term impact will be a broadening of what it means to be a Christian as the gospel is
contextualized in new places around the world.
Will the winds of change we call postmodernism influence us to practice hospitality in new ways in our cross-
cultural encounters, or will they drive us further apart? This question is of central concern to missionaries, and it
should give pause to every educator.

PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS
Below I share several preliminary definitions of terms that are of special interest as we consider the challenge
of cross-cultural communication in the classroom. Note that with these definitions I have often crossed cultural
boundaries by presenting two perspectives that must be taken into account in a cross-cultural encounter. We do
not inhabit a perfect world in which we all see eye-to-eye. Rather, in our efforts to communicate with one
another, we often find that we must listen to one another, accept one another, suspend judgement, and accept
the possibility that our personal stories are unique and that our search for common ground will be a long journey.
The challenge is, can we be hospitable to one another?
• I take the term culture to mean ways of being and living that give members of a community a sense of
belonging together while also setting it apart from other communities. Culture includes “everything that is a
part of one’s everyday life experience, including (a) Tangibles such as food, shelter, clothing, literature, art,
music, etc., (b) Intangibles such as hopes, dreams, values, rules, space relationships, language, body
movements, etc.” (Mayers Marvin, 1987, p. xi).
• I take the term religion to mean ways in which people, in their interpersonal encounters with others and in
their interactions with the rest of creation, acknowledge the Creator of the universe as the Host who brings
them together in mutual embrace. St Augustine speaks for many Christians when he writes in his
Confessions, “You are great, Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is your power, and infinite in your
wisdom. . . You have made us for yourself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in you.” (Quoted in
Haack, Denis, 2018). Anton Treuer (2012, p. 78) speaks for many Indigenous peoples when he writes, “For
many participants in Indian spirituality, there is no dogmatic set of principles to govern their knowledge of
the Creator. It is far more likely that someone would go fasting to obtain a vision and rely upon that vision
for their deeper understanding of the Creator and their relationship with the Almighty. There is much less
 Page 32 of 55
power placed in the hands of a native spiritual leader than in a pope, bishop, priest, or other religious official.
Indian religious leaders do have status and often receive a high degree of respect from people in their
community. But if somebody does not like what they hear or the substance of any particular religious form in
Indian country, they are free to disassociate without significantly diminishing their access to their religion or
their status as a religious person among their peers” (Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 78).
• I take the term Indigenous to refer to the peoples who occupied a given geographical area prior to the arrival
of foreign missionaries, migrants, or invaders, and I argue that their philosophy of power and nature is
dramatically opposed to the Western philosophy of power and nature. Alfred Taiaiake (1999, p. 60)
articulates this contrast as follows: “Nowhere is the contrast between indigenous and Western traditions
sharper than in their philosophical approaches to the fundamental issues of power and nature. In indigenous
philosophies, power flows from respect for nature and the natural order. In the dominant Western
philosophy, power derives from coercion and artifice—in effect, alienation from nature.”
• As I understand them, the roles of leader and educator have similar purposes. As a Westerner, I agree with
Blanchard & Hodges (2005, p. 4), who write, “Leadership is a process of influence. Anytime you seek to
influence the thinking, behavior, or development of people in their personal or professional lives, you are
taking on the role of a leader.” However, I consider the processes of leadership and education to be a
community-building, collaborative effort. I am deeply concerned--like Alfred Taiaiake, David Stannard, Larry
Vanderaa and Anton Treuer--about Western Christianity’s reputation for using “coercion and artifice” to assert
power over others. As a follower of Jesus, I advocate servant leadership which builds community at home
and abroad by placing the welfare of others before my own, beginning with serving the needs of the “least of
these” (Matthew 25:31-46).

REFLECTIONS ON TWO INTERVIEWS

The purpose of my reflections in this final section can best be described by Elmer’s notion of learning with:
“Learning with others yields authentic partnerships where each probes deeply the mind and heart of the other,
bringing interdependent growth and culturally sensitive ministry. We-they categories are replaced with us
categories” (Elmer Duane, 2006, p. 137).
My reflections will be presented under the sub-headings I gave to the five parts of each interview:
Preparation, Focus on Culture, Focus on Religion, Leadership and Change, and Advice for Educators. In my
reflections, I also comment on selected OTHER INDIGENOUS VOICES, responding to Anton Treuer’s reluctance to
be called an “ambassador” for his cultural community and to his insistence that every person is unique.
 Page 33 of 55
1 - Preparation

“Cultural Diversity: Embracing and Excluding Others”

INTERVIEW WITH LARRY VANDERAA
Conducted 2/5/20
PREPARATION
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/200205-1-vanderaa-interview
My friend Larry Vanderaa and his wife Ann have been
missionaries in Mali, West Africa, for about 40 years. They
prepared for their work with the Fulani people by learning
much about them and about their ways of knowing and
believing, and they committed themselves to living among
the Fulani people as an honored guest of their community,
always being careful to empower them while remaining in
the background. R. Ray Klapwyk, Ph.D.

INTERVIEW WITH ANTON TREUER

Transcript of Interview conducted 2/25/20
PREPARATION
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/1-treuer-interview-preparation
While reading Anton Treuer’s books and interviewing him, I
developed a deep appreciation for his work as “ambassador”
of the Ojibwe people. He and his people have many
obstacles to overcome, not the least of which is a dearth of
educational materials and opportunities for supporting the
preparation of the next generation of Indigenous people as
a small minority culture in a Eurocentric environment.
Interestingly, Treuer was quick to emphasize the centrality
of interdependent relationships among all parts of creation,
and of seeing everything whole. Like the Fulani people with
whom Larry Vanderaa worked, Treuer and his people insist
that what people do in any part of life has important
ramifications for all other parts. R. Ray Klapwyk, Ph.D.

2 – Focus on Culture
INTERVIEW WITH LARRY VANDERAA
Conducted 2/5/20
FOCUS ON CULTURE
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200205-2-vanderaa-interview
Defining Culture
Above I proposed a “preliminary” definition of culture to encourage reflection about what’s included, what’s
not included, and how we might distinguish culture from religion. Lingenfelter and Mayers (2016, p. 5) write,
“Culture is the anthropologist’s label for the sum of the distinctive characteristics of a people’s way of life. All
human behavior occurs within particular cultures, within socially defined contexts.” They also stress the
importance of recognizing that we human beings create culture whereas God transcends culture. While on earth,
Jesus was a 100% cultural creature, but He was also 100% divine, making Him the only “200 Percent Person”
who ever lived (cf. Lingenfelter and Mayers, 2016, p. 3). Lingenfelter and Mayers extend this metaphor about
God’s essence by arguing that we human beings might aim at becoming 150% persons, but unlike Jesus, none of
us will ever become God in this life.
This difference between culture and religion has huge implications for all the “Cultural Values Orientations”
which we are discussing in our survey of cultural differences. Lingenfelter and Mayers caution us to “recognize
that our way with time [or with goals] is not God’s way. In fact, no culture has God’s priorities, for in God’s
 Page 34 of 55
scheme the emphases on time and event exist together in complete harmony” (Lingenfelter and Mayers, 2016, p.
36, italics added). Just as we stand as equal persons under God in relating to one another, so too the different
priorities of different cultures are merely different, and God expects us to respectfully accept one another’s
differences as different ways of contributing to the good of all.
In cross-cultural ministry, it is especially important for members of different cultural groups to become
attuned and sensitive to each other’s cultural value orientations. In a cross-cultural encounter, the guest (foreign
missionary, leader, teacher) must adjust to the values of the host (local community, follower, student) in order to
be an effective servant leader in their midst.
St. Paul’s urges missionaries, leaders and teachers to follow his example when he writes, “As apostles of
Christ we could have asserted our authority. Instead, we were like young children among you. Just as a nursing
mother cares for her little children, so we cared for you. Because we loved you so much, we were delighted to
share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well” (1 Thess. 2:6–8). (Quoted in Lingenfelter &
Mayers, 2016, p. 75).
An illustration
Larry Vanderaa really impressed me with his complete adjustment to the cultural values of the Fulani
community. He and his wife Ann both became “one of them” to serve them well. When I asked about Fulani
cultural values that stood out in his mind, he didn’t hesitate to describe their “person-orientation.” I imagine the
Fulani people wouldn’t fit in well in my Minnesota neighborhood—my neighbors and I would need to discipline
ourselves and spend much time socializing with them before being able to learning from and with them to be able
to communicate effectively with them!
If you teach in a Western country, you have met a student who is more people-oriented and event-oriented
than you are. Perhaps Larry Vanderaa’s story will suggest new ways of treating such a student with patience and
respect in order to find a way to motivate him/her.

INTERVIEW WITH ANTON TREUER

Transcript of Interview conducted 2/25/20
FOCUS ON CULTURE
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/2-treuer-interview-culture

OTHER INDIGENOUS VOICES

Cheryl Bear, Nadleh Whut’en First Nation speaker, teacher, songwriter—
The most important value of Indigenous people is the land. One of my favourite elders, the late Cecile Ketlo,
said in 2008 at a Nadleh youth meeting in British Columbia, “It’s about the land. It’s always about the land.” I
have felt the truth of those words deep in my heart because I have always loved Nadleh (an area in north
central B.C.). My grandpa’s house is right beside the river, looking toward our mountain. I am connected to
this land in a way I cannot explain, except that the land has spoken with me my whole life. And I have been
listening.
Oral history tells us that Creator placed us on our land and we have been here for as long as anyone can
remember. Because my people have been here in Nadleh since time immemorial, then the land, in a scientific
sense, is literally made of my ancestors. One day when I cross over to the spirit world, I too will be buried in
Nadleh, and the land will do its work. Then I will become a part of the land. From dust we were created and
to dust we shall return. This is one of the many reasons we are so driven to watch over and protect this land.
We believe it is sacred ground. (Bear, Cheryl, 2020, It’s all about the land)
Richard Rohr, Fransiscan Priest, Founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
For the first three hundred years after Jesus’ death, Christians were the oppressed minority. But by the year
400 C.E., Christians had changed places. We moved from hiding in the catacombs to presiding in the
basilicas. That is when we started reading the Bible not as subversive literature, the story of the
oppressed, but as establishment literature to justify the status quo of people in power.
When Christians began to gain positions of power and privilege, they also began to ignore segments of
Scriptures, especially the Sermon on the Mount. Our position in society determines what we pay attention to
and what systems we are willing to “go along with.” This is what allowed “Christian” empires throughout
history to brutalize and oppress others in the name of God. Sadly, this is still the case today.
 Page 35 of 55
But when the Bible is read through the eyes of solidarity—what we call the “preferential option for the poor”
or the “bias from the margins”—it will always be liberating, transformative, and empowering in a completely
different way. Read this way, Scripture cannot be used by those with power to oppress or impress. The
question is no longer “How can I maintain my special and secure status?” It is “How can we all grow and
change together?” I think the acceptance of that invitation to solidarity with the larger pain of the world is
what it means to be a “Christian.” (Rohr Richard, 2020, Invitation to Solidarity)

Jeanet Sybinga, Director of the Indian Family Centre in

Winnipeg, leads worship circles on Friday & Saturday
mornings—
[The Indigenous Gift of the Circle: with no beginning or
end, and thus no hierarchy, each person has an equal
place, an equal voice.]
What’s shared in the circle is expected to stay there, so
it’s a safe place to say what is in your heart. . . The
circle is also the place where theology occurs. When we
read scripture together, each person has an opportunity
to say, ‘What does that mean for my life? How does that
impact me?’ It’s a place of healing, of learning, of
teaching.
It’s a gift we’d like to bring to the Christian Reformed community. It’s one thing to talk about it; let’s get a
sense of what it means, how it feels. (CRCNA, 2000, p. 16)
REFLECTION:
Now that my church has repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery, what stands between me and Anton Treuer?
In the opening paragraphs of Part 2, I quoted the words of David Smith: “What if the other does not receive us
with open arms? What if the encounter is overshadowed by the history of past abuses of power, or by present
resentments? What if the other responds to us with accusations, or with cold indifference?” Smith encourages us
“intend the other’s good,” to share life stories so that we might better understand one another. But, where to
begin? To be frank, I was a bit anxious before we met. I’m truly grateful to Anton for his gracious reception and
also for his frankness in sharing. When you listen to our interview, I ask you to put yourself in our shoes and
judge whether our meeting was productive. . .
Since the European colonization of the Americas, the colonists and their political leaders (such as Thomas
Jefferson, who rated American Indigenous cultures of his time from the most primitive in the West to the most
advanced in the East) envisioned the goal of making their nation the most advanced civilization on earth, at any
cost, including the plundering of resources and the annihilation of people who stood in their way. From the start,
this goal threatened the very existence of the Indigenous way of life, and it continues to do so today. This goal
also stands in the way of the general wellbeing of all inhabitants, as many world-wide Christian missionaries
began to see more clearly early in the 20th century. These missionaries learned from the Indigenous peoples they
evangelized that everyone’s wellbeing depends on the nurturing and care of “the least of these” (Matthew 25: 40-
45). That was the personal mission of Christ on earth. That is also the mission of today’s Christianity if it is to live
up to its reputation of being “the soul of the world.”
What does this mission have to do with land? It means, first of all, that our land is alive for us no less than it
is for Indigenous people, and that it ought to receive from us the kind of respect and appreciation we can learn
from Indigenous people who call her Mother Earth. Secondly, it means that all parts of creation—its people,
animals, plants, and earth’s natural resources--relate to us as equals. As Paul in Philippians 2:1-11, St. Augustine,
Chuck DeGroat and their spiritual kin tell us Westerners over and over again, this calls for humility on the part of
members of the dominant culture, and an attitude of openness to everyone’s stories. That certainly includes the
stories told by Indigenous peoples.
I agree with Jeanet Sybinga that the Circle is the Indigenous people’s gift to the whole world. That’s why I
agree with Leroy Little Bear and James K.A. Smith that my values develop in me when I learn them from my
community and practice them in community—they’re not just words on a poster. I also agree with Chelsea Vowel
that my efforts to recognize and respect Indigenous gifts must go beyond acknowledging that I inhabit territory
previously inhabited for millennia by Indigenous people.
 Page 36 of 55
The Indigenous gift of the circle applies to all our conversations—especially our cross-cultural conversations--
about the ecological wellbeing of our land and its resources. When we fully utilize the potential of the Indigenous
Circle for developing, in us and others, a sense of ecological justice, we will look beyond the power-seeking
manipulations of our society’s lobbying, marches, and protests and take seriously our inner spiritual growth as
human beings.
I applaud Richard Rohr’s succinct statement affirming the “discovery” of Andrew Walls and many world-wide
missionaries in the past century—that being a Christian during the first three centuries after Pentecost meant
being a member of an oppressed cultural minority in the Roman Empire, until the dramatic changes in their status
under Emperor Constantine, when they gained positions of power and prestige. Since colonization of the
Americas, Western Christians have joined their surrounding culture in building the most economically unequal
civilization in world history. Have today’s Western Christians forgotten their mission to follow Jesus? Rohr argues
strongly, “Scripture cannot be used by those with power to oppress or impress. . . acceptance of the invitation to
solidarity with the larger pain is what it means to be a Christian” (Rohr Richard, 2020, Invitation to Solidarity).
What are the tendencies of today’s Christians? I suggest that in reality we sometimes tend to adopt
“Western” behaviors and sometimes we act like “Indigenous” people. I’m personally not comfortable being
identified as a Westerner if that means that I support the privileged and powerful in my society at the expense of
the poor and the Indigenous populations. I find that the list of “tendencies” that identify Indigenous people are,
for the most part, consistent with the teachings and ministry of Jesus. This gives me a new way of looking at
myself. Does being a Christian mean agreeing with my surrounding culture about the goals it sets, or does it
mean paying special attention to my relationships to others? I have good reason for celebrating the Indigenous
gift of Relationships and the Circle!

3 – Focus on Religion
INTERVIEW WITH LARRY VANDERAA
Conducted 2/5/20
FOCUS ON RELIGION
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200205-3-vanderaa-interview
Defining Religion
I suggested two “preliminary definitions” of religion, quoting both St. Augustine and Anton Treuer, to
demonstrate how our cultural value orientation influences our understanding of religion and its role in our lives. I
also wanted to encourage us to take seriously Lingenfelter and Mayers’ word of caution about our cultural
differences. They write, “One of the biggest problems in our families, churches, and missions is that we often
insist that others think and judge in the same way we do. We do not accept one another in love; rather, we try to
remake those around us into our own image. This tendency is the negation of the principle of radical discipleship,
which requires that we learn to think in the style of our neighbor” (Lingenfelter & Mayers, 2016, p. 51).
Consider a fundamental characteristic all human beings have in common: we are all cultural creatures; none
of us can claim that we have a God’s-eye view of everything, so we must exercise caution when we feel inclined
to impose our personal views of who God is, and of who we are, on another person. As Duane Elmer argues, we
ought to learn about, learn from, and learn with others to communicate effectively with them, especially in our
conversations about religion, which can so easily separate us rather than bringing us together.
A student shared with me that she was an Indigenous person. She wondered what I thought of her email
signature, which read, “A Native American elder once described his own inner struggles in this manner: 'Inside of
me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good
dog all the time.' When asked which dog wins, he reflected for a moment and replied, 'The one I feed the most.”
Thinking to myself that this notion of good and evil is pretty much what St. Augustine had in mind when he
formalized the theological concept of “original sin,” I encouraged her to continue identifying with the Indigenous
elder who taught her this truth about every human being.
So, what do Lingenfelter and Mayers have in mind when they write: “We do not accept one another in love;
rather, we try to remake those around us into our own image. This tendency is the negation of the principle of
radical discipleship, which requires that we learn to think in the style of our neighbor”? To put it simply, when we
recognize that our neighbor is also created in the image of the Creator, we are feeding the “good dog” in us, not
the “mean dog.” As we read in Micah 6:8: He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD
require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
 Page 37 of 55
This approach to defining religion suggests an emphasis on its moral practices and a de-emphasis of its belief
systems. Christian theologians call this an emphasis on orthopraxis [right practice] and a de-emphasis of
orthodoxy [right belief]. St. Francis of Assisi stands out in the Christian tradition as an exemplar of this way of
understanding religion and its place in human culture. He was a commoner who didn’t impress Pope III when he
pleaded for recognition to become a Jesus-follower in a world held together by powerful elites who despise the
poor and the stranger (Kirkpatrick, 2013). Today’s Pope Francis, who proudly embraces a Franciscan view of life,
also stands out as a leader who wishes to serve the “least of these” in the world community.
I trust you notice the influence of Western dichotomistic thinking in the distinctions we Christians make
between orthopraxis and orthodoxy. Similarly, we tend to divide our world into sacred and secular realms and
debate the validity of a scientific or a religious explanation of an event. Indeed, 21st century postmodernity, which
Charles Taylor (2007) describes as a secular age, defies the predictions of secularists who were convinced that
religion would no longer be relevant when humans begin to use rational, scientific approaches to solving society’s
problems. Indigenous people will have none of that—being holists, they insist that our universe is a single
network of relationships among all peoples and the natural and inanimate world.
The same can be said of our tendency to hide our own vulnerabilities in a world full of accomplishments as
well as failures, good fortune as well as disappointment. Lingenfelter and Mayers write, “As we reflect on Yapese
or Asian or African attitudes regarding competition and failure, we must be sensitive to the vulnerability of these
people and not force our values on them.” Our tendency to conceal our own vulnerabilities blinds us from
understanding others who are more ready to admit culpability, weakness, and shortcomings. Lingenfelter and
Mayers remind us that Jesus is the world’s only 200% person; our prayer is that we might become 75% human
and 75% inspired.
An illustration
We might think that since Larry Vanderaa is a Christian missionary, he would be very critical of his Fulani
neighbors’ singular devotion to Allah while minimizing the significance of Jesus as Savior of mankind. To the
contrary, his focus is on learning from and with them who God is. After painstakingly adjusting to life in a Fulani
Islamic community for several years, he finds that there is so much to talk about because there is so much that
they have in common—beginning with “a keen sense of taking care of the world, of nature around them, of what
God has created.” Also, he finds that he “and the Fulani could agree almost completely on what’s right and what’s
wrong before Allah, before God.” Clearly, Larry discovered that by emphasizing orthopraxy and de-emphasizing
orthodoxy, he was able to communicate effectively with the Fulani. Also, Larry demonstrated his understanding of
the Fulani [=Indigenous] tendency to consider the “sin” of a person who drives others away from each other as
the chief sin, no less grievous than the sin of blasphemy.
I was also impressed by Larry Vanderaa’s willingness to see life from an Indigenous perspective when relating
to his Fulani friends when it came to a willingness to expose vulnerability. He notices the “dignified, joyful”
demeanour of Inowel, in spite of having endured the grief of losing nine of her eleven children through the
disease of cholera. He also pays special attention to the “pulaaku stoicism” of the Fulani chief who announced the
death of a member of his village: “When Allah decides it’s your time, even if you have the tiniest thorn in your
finger, it’s your time.”

INTERVIEW WITH ANTON TREUER

Transcript of Interview conducted 2/25/20
FOCUS ON RELIGION
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/3-treuer-interview-religion
OTHER INDIGENOUS VOICES
Dave & Kathy Alexander, producers of the website, “Legends of America”—
Often referred to as religion, most Native Americans did not consider their spirituality, ceremonies, and rituals
as religion in the way that Christians do. Rather, their beliefs and practices form an integral and seamless
part of their very being. Like other aboriginal peoples around the world, their beliefs were heavily influenced
by their methods of acquiring food, – from hunting to agriculture. They also embraced ceremonies and rituals
that provided power to conquer the difficulties of life, as wells as events and milestones, such as puberty,
marriage, and death. Over the years, practices and ceremonies changed with tribes‘ needs.
The arrival of European settlers marked a major change in Native American culture. Some of the first
Europeans that the Indians would meet were often missionaries who looked upon Native American Spirituality
 Page 38 of 55
practices as worthless superstition inspired by the Christian devil. These early missionaries then determined
to convert the Native Americans to Christianity. (Legends of America, 2020, Native American Rituals and
Ceremonies)
Charles Eastman [Ahiyesa], Santee Dakota Physician at Wounded Knee Massacre, author--
From the time I first accepted the Christ ideal it has grown upon me steadily, but I also see more and
more plainly our modern divergence from that ideal. I confess I have wondered much that Christianity is not
practiced by the very people who vouch for that wonderful conception of exemplary living. It appears that
they are anxious to pass on their religion to all races of men, but keep very little of it themselves. I have not
yet seen the meek inherit the earth, or the peacemakers receive high honor. (Eastman Charles, 1916/2003,
p. 144)
James Tully, Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Victoria, BC
The Spirit of Haida Gwaii is a symbol of the age of cultural diversity. . . The sculpture is a black bronze canoe,
over nineteen feet in length, eleven feet wide, and twelve feet high, containing thirteen passengers. . . The
spirit of Haida Gwaii came into being between 1984 and 1991. . . The sculpture was transported to
Washington DC and placed in the courtyard of the Canadian Chancery on 19 November 1991. Sitting directly
across the street from the National Gallery, it is destined to become one of the major artistic landmarks of the
Americas. A second bronze canoe in jade green patina was cast in 1994 and placed on the Vancouver
Museum. The spirit of Haida Gwaii thus now sits on both shores of its Great Turtle Island home as a symbol
of the strange multiplicity of cultural diversity that existed millennia ago and wants to be again. (Tully James,
2006, p. 18) [Virtual Museum.ca, 2004, The Spirit of Haida Gwaii, Retrieved 1/20/20 from
https://150ans150oeuvres.uqam.ca/en/artwork/2004-the-spirit-of-haida-gwaii-by-bill-reid/#description ]
Since the early twentieth century, and especially since World War II, the Haida and other Aboriginal nations,
in the face of appalling social and economic conditions, have found not only to resist and interact, but to
rebuild and reimagine their cultures, to ‘celebrate their survival.’ The spirit of Haida Gwaii is both a symbol
and an inspiration of this revival and ‘world reversal,’ as the Aboriginal peoples call it: to refuse to regard
Aboriginal cultures as passive objects in an Eurocentric story of historical progress and to regard them from
Aboriginal viewpoints, in interaction with European and other cultures. (Tully James, 2006, p. 21)
Approaching The Spirit of Haida Gwaii in the right spirit does not consist in recognizing it as something
already familiar to us and in terms drawn from our own traditions and forms of thought. This imperial attitude
is to be abjured. Rather, recognition involves acknowledging it in its own terms and traditions, as it wants to
be and as it speaks to us. (Tully James, 2006, p. 23)
REFLECTION:
Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. . .
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you may faith by what I do.
JAMES 2:17-18 NIV
I consider myself a keen observer of culture, more interested in the practices of a person’s basic values than
in the theories that name and categorize them. In conversations with theologians about faith, I often explain that
I’m more interested in orthopraxis (right practices) than in orthodoxy (right beliefs). As I read in the book of
James, people will respect my honesty if I practice what I preach.
To understand Indigenous peoples’ religions, let’s use our historical imagination and travel back to the time
before colonial contact. Before they left Europe, the colonists and their ancestors had experienced 3000 years of
ecclesiastical history, from early origins as Hebrews in Palestine to membership in small and large church
institutions. They were well aware of the ministry and death of Jesus, Pentecost, the missionary journeys of Paul,
the compilation of the Pentateuch and the creeds that summarized the Christian faith in a Triune God, the growth
of the papacy, the schism of 1054 and, during their own lifetimes, the religious wars that resulted in the growth
of nation-states as well as national churches in Europe. The Indigenous peoples of the New World had
experienced none of these historical events prior to their contact with European colonists . Indeed, being holists in
their way of seeing things, they considered culture to encompass all of human experience, including that part of
life which Western European missionaries introduced to them as “religion.” For them, all parts of creation were
already spiritually very much alive, being completely interdependent.
This image of cultural life in prehistoric times helps us make sense of the simple definition of Indigenous
religion offered on the Legends of America website: “. . . most Native Americans did not consider their spirituality,
ceremonies, and rituals as religion, in the way that Christians do. Rather, their beliefs and practices form an
 Page 39 of 55
integral and seamless part of their very being” (Legends of America, 2020, Native American Rituals and
Ceremonies).
As a European-Canadian, I find that I relate to this very issue every time I struggle, within myself, with the
question, When we talk about who God is, aren’t we at the same talking about who we are? That’s the kind of
question that cultural anthropologists might well ask, because the subject of their research, culture, doesn’t
permit them to separate their research findings into profane and sacred categories of investigation. Even when
they borrow insights from theologians and holy people, the evidence they analyze and draw conclusions from will
be human voices and practices that inform human development.
Indigenous people are haunted by memories of continuing oppressive treatment at the hands of their colonial
neighbors and of the U.S. government—in spite of promises of a better life. Consider, for example, that the U.S.
government until the end of the 19th century enticed missions with grants of land and funds to build missions and
schools where Indigenous people would be both Christianized and “civilized” into European culture. This practice
offended Charles Easton, even though he took full advantage of a U.S. education, including college and medical
school. He shares in his autobiographical writing that his misgivings about Christianity as a moral guide kept him
from renouncing his Indigenous heritage. I couldn’t agree more strongly! Isn’t God’s love unconditional? How
could the Indigenous people’s treatment be an expression of love to them?
You will notice that in my argument about values-in-action I “dichotomize” two different categories when I
describe the Westerner’s tendency to focus on beliefs while minimizing the importance of acting on them. [I
understand the term “dichotomy” to be an antonym of the term “paradox;” the former term contrasts two
incompatible ideas, whereas the latter term associates two ideas that can both be true. RK] This was precisely
Charles Eastman’s complaint about his father’s weekly habit of attending church—“. . . he [my father] gave me
a totally new vision of the white man, as a religious man and a kindly. But when he related how he had set apart
every seventh day for religious duties and the worship of God, laying aside every other occupation on that day, I
could not forbear exclaiming, ‘Father! and does he then forget God during the six days and do as he pleases?”
(Eastman Charles, 1916/2003, p. 12). Reflecting on my own experience as a cultural and religious being, I felt a
strong voice of confirmation that I was in good company when learning from the writings of the Indigenous
people about the primacy of active interpersonal relations as well as spiritual wholeness in their value systems.
Both James Tully and Anton Treuer stress the uniqueness of every individual; they insist that the personal
views of the members of any cultural group vary considerably. For that reason, James Tully draws on the Haida
Gwaii sculpture for an illustration of cultural life in every community on earth. Perhaps the “chief” has a better
idea of the direction in which the tribe is going than most individual members do, so his prestige in the group
gives him/her the authority to speak for the group. I’d say that’s a fair description of life in any cultural group—
even after consensus is reached on group decisions, personal opinions of individuals members will vary. Tully’s
review of Haida history summarizes effectively, however, ways in which their leaders have kept their culture alive,
so that, after surviving many ordeals they can now look forward to a brighter future: “Since the early twentieth
century, and especially since World War II, the Haida and other Aboriginal nations, in the face of appalling social
and economic conditions, have found not only to resist and interact, but to rebuild and reimagine their cultures,
to celebrate their survival.”
Anton Treuer’s statement about the spiritual significance, in the minds of many Indigenous people, of the
length of boys’ and men’s hair, brings me back to where I started my argument about the Indigenous habit of
treating all cultural practices holistically as integral to their identity as human beings. Recall that all children
entering the Residential Boarding Schools had their hair cut and deloused, their clothing replaced with European
garb, and they were punished for speaking their native languages—all these limitations were viewed by
missionaries and white teachers as minor “cultural” restrictions when they were, in reality, threats to the very
identity of Indigenous children as religious beings. Moreover, Indigenous peoples across the continent are
concerned about the desecration of burial sites that become exposed when new development sites are
excavated. Only in recent years have burial sites been protected by legislation, but today’s Indigenous people
often find that they must draw public attention to this issue. (McCue Duncan, 2019, CBC News, Discovery of
Ancient Burial Grounds)
I question the ways in which we Western Europeans, throughout the 500-year period we call modernism,
have put into practice Christianity’s notions about a global worship community looking forward, with Andrew
Walls, Mark Noll, and the world-wide missionary movement, to eternal life before the throne of God together with
“all tribes and nations” (Rev. 7:9). Early in the 20th century, and especially after the two world wars, the waves of
historical change have moved us into a new paradigm we call postmodernism. Today, more than ever, we
express our gratitude to Indigenous peoples for the gift of wholeness, the sense of spiritual wellbeing we humans
derive from extending a heartfelt welcome to others, especially “the least of these.”
 Page 40 of 55
How do we move forward? This brings my reflection back to where I started when I underscored the
importance of orthopraxis. Considering contemporary Christianity’s reputation for often preaching one thing and
practicing another, I certainly don’t recommend another Christian revival unless it takes the form of a new
recognition that a person’s practices determine the direction of his/her life no less than his/her intentions do.
What good will come from Christians “vouching for a wonderful conception of exemplary living” when they “keep
very little of it themselves?” (Eastman Charles, 1916/2003, p. 144). On the other hand, I sincerely hope that
during this postmodern age more Christians will learn from and with Indigenous people how we, together, can
grieve the past and nudge one another into hoping for a brighter future. So little is forgotten. There’s so much to
forgive. . .

4 – Leadership and Change

INTERVIEW WITH LARRY VANDERAA

Conducted 2/5/20
LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200205-4-vanderaa-interview
Defining Leadership and Change
In my “preliminary definition” of leadership, I offered two ways of thinking about leadership: (a) “a process of
influence” and (b) “servant leadership. . . beginning with serving the least of these.” Perhaps these two
definitions contradict each other, because the first appears to be about power and the second is about caring for
others. Following my review of Stannard, I’m concerned that we Western Christians are regarded by Indigenous
peoples as people who seek to influence others by overwhelming them with power rather than as people who
seek the best interests of others.
To clear up the confusion that arises when we wonder whether leadership is influence or service, I propose
that we consider how leadership relates to change. Any definition of leadership must answer two questions about
change: A typical Westerner, who sees his/her leadership as influence, asks “Who and what must change in
response to leadership?” A typical Indigenous person, who sees his/her leadership as a consensual activity, asks
“What changes must leaders and followers make to ensure that the leader-follower interaction builds
community?” Or, to put it differently, perhaps we are thinking about the consequence of a leadership practice
when we call it “influence”? Are we perhaps thinking about the process of a leadership practice when we call it
“servant leadership”?
When I first read Taiaiake Alfred’s book Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto on the
Indigenous understanding of leadership, I became convinced that Western Christians would do well to learn
about, from, and with Indigenous persons about the purpose and process of our leadership practices. I highly
recommend this book! Alfred distinguishes between transactional leadership and transformational leadership—
two modes of leadership described in James MacGregor Burns, 2002, Transforming Leadership. Alfred associates
transactional leadership with the influence of power over weakness and he associates transforming leadership
with collaborative, consensual, community-building activity among equals. It should not surprise us to notice that
Duane Elmer strongly favors a consensual leadership style following the ways of a typical tribal chief (Elmer
Duane, 2006, p. 208).
An illustration
Prestige in the Fulani village tended to be ascribed. For example, there was no doubt about the authority of
Allah and the Imam. Larry Vanderaa was well aware that the local Imam was well respected in the Fulani
community before moving to Mali: He consulted the Imam before establishing his household and setting up an
area where his cattle might graze. He also took seriously his role as guest of the Fulani: he and Ann both
adjusted to the herder lifestyle of their hosts, and took great care to follow the proper protocol for greetings
before beginning any conversation with them. There was one time when he did something that was against local
custom—he brought a chair to Ann and the women she was meeting with because they needed one more. Larry
made light of this faux pas—he sensed that their Fulani friends were surprised to see him break their rules but
they were not offended.

In my interview with him, I was interested in Larry’s perception of his role as an agent of change—he denied
that that was his role; rather, if the Fulani were to make changes because of his presentations to them, that
would be completely up to them. On the other hand, Larry pointed out that he and Ann had themselves made
many changes that would help them become fully accepted by their hosts. Larry convinced me that he had
hospitality in mind when he said to me: “Our goal [was]not to push the Fulani believers into leadership but to
 Page 41 of 55
create a leadership vacuum, and hopefully they would step forward and fill that vacuum.” Additionally, they
“modeled as little as possible,” and they declined the villagers’ request to become a marabou. I have no doubt
that their hosts honored Larry and Ann as honored guests.

The Fulani villagers tend to be noncrisis oriented. Their support for one another and especially for those with
special needs was simply the way to ensure that “when we all do well, we all do well.” They found ways to care
for a blind woman and a mentally challenged boy and, above all, they placed their full trust in Allah, confident
that their future was in good hands.

INTERVIEW WITH ANTON TREUER

Transcript of Interview conducted 2/25/20
LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200225-4-treuer-interview-leadership-
change
OTHER INDIGENOUS VOICES
James Tully, Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Victoria, British Columbia
The claim that human motivation is transformed by the introduction of a market system of private property
so that any person will desire the goods it produces was established as conventional wisdom by Adam Smith
[author of The Wealth of Nations]. However, there is little evidence that the world commercial system
causally homogenizes the cultural diversity of lower societies that come into its orbit. Aboriginal peoples have
interacted with and adapted to commercial trade with Europeans for hundreds of years without desiring to
abandon their cultural ways or to identify with Europeans’ uniform institutions of private property and
commodity production. The additional coercion of armies, missionaries, and governments has not caused
them to accept this feature of modern constitutionalism as their own. (Tully James, 2006, p. 76-77, in
chapter entitled “The Empire of Uniformity”)
Constitutions are not fixed and unchangeable agreements reached at some foundational moment, but claims
of continual intercultural negotiations and agreements in accord with, and violation of the conventions of
mutual recognition, continuity and consent. (Tully James, 2006, p. 183-184, in chapter entitled
“Constitutionalism in an Age of Cultural Diversity)
I have sought to outline both the philosophy and practice of constitutionalism informed by the spirit of mutual
recognition and accommodation of cultural diversity. Both the philosophy and practice consist in the
negotiation and mediation of claims to recognition in a dialogue governed by the conventions of mutual
recognition, continuity and consent. (Tully James, 2006, p. 209)
Taiaiake Alfred, Kahnewake Mohawk educator, author, activist, Director of the University of Victoria School of
Indigenous Governance
At the core of the crisis facing our nations is the fact that we are being led away from our traditional ideals by
people with the authority to control our lives. Some of these people—lawyers, advisers, consultants,
managers, government agents—are not Native and cannot be expected to share our ideals. Others, however,
are the very people we count on to provide leadership and embody the values at the heart of our societies—
to love and sacrifice for their people. . . the key to surviving and overcoming this crisis is leadership. Our
teachings tell us that it is essential to sustain an ideal of leadership and to bring (ritually and ceremoniously)
special individuals into the culture of leadership so that they can play their crucial role in achieving peace,
power, and righteousness on the collective level. Yet the traditional culture of leadership has become just
another artifact, and the people who dominate in most Native communities and organizations today model
themselves on the most vulgar European-style power wielders. The kind of revival we need cannot be
accomplished under Robert’s Rules of Order. (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. xv)
The challenge before us today is to recognize the common elements in the indigenous tradition of
governance and develop them into a coherent philosophy—a bulwark against assimilation to foreign values.
(Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. xvi)
 Page 42 of 55
Peace
At their core, European states and their colonial offspring still embody the same destructive and disrespectful
impulses that they did 500 years ago. For this reason, questions of justice—social, political, and
environmental—are best considered outside the framework of classical European thought and legal traditions.
. . Understanding leadership means understanding Indigenous political philosophy. . . and the primary values
that created legitimacy and allow governments to function appropriately and effectively. . . The Native
concept of governance is based on. . . the primacy of conscience. . . There is no central or coercive authority,
and decision-making is collective. Leaders rely on their persuasive abilities to achieve a consensus that
respects the autonomy of individuals, each of whom is free to dissent from and remain unaffected by the
collective decision. . . By contrast, in the European tradition power is surrendered to the representatives of
the majority, whose decisions on what they think is the collective good are then imposed on all citizens. . . In
the Indigenous tradition, the idea of self-determination truly starts with the self; political identity. . . is not
surrendered to any external entity. . . It is the erosion of this traditional power relationship and the forced
dependence on a central government for provision or sustenance that lie at the root of injustice in the
Indigenous mind. (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 21-25)
Power
The challenge before us is to detach the notion of sovereignty from its current legal meaning and use in the
context of the Western understanding of power and relationships. We need to create a meaning for
‘sovereignty’ that respects the understanding of power in indigenous cultures, one that reflects more of the
sense embodied in such Western notions as ‘personal sovereignty’ and ‘popular sovereignty.’ Until then,
‘sovereignty’ can never be part of the language of liberation. (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 54)
Righteousness
Young people are becoming increasingly alienated, and our communities are in real danger of losing the next
generation of leaders. Some self-destruct, through suicide or substance abuse. Others, disillusioned by the
hypocrisy of older people, especially politicians, simply turn their backs on their communities and drift
towards mainstream society, where racism still prevents their participation as full human beings. (p. 129)
Today our survival depends on the emergence of new Native leaders who embody traditionalism as a
personal identity and at the same time have the knowledge and skills required to bring traditional objectives
forward as the basic agenda of the political and social institutions they work within. (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p.
137)
These themes—respect, honour, pride, courage—are the same themes that run throughout this essay as both
values and goals. I have argued for renewed communities, renewed activism, and a renewed leadership
ethos to bring an end to a harmful way of life imposed on us by history and to restore balance, respect and
harmony to our lives. My guiding vision is of a retraditionalized politics, and the re-establishment of our
nations and relationships on the basis of the sacred teachings given to us by our ancestors. (Alfred Taiaiake,
1999, p. 144)
Jackson Smith and Terry Mitchell of Wilfred Laurier University in the International Indigenous Policy Journal--
The area of most concern for Canada pertains to consultation about resource extraction and development on
Indigenous territories. This is not surprising given the central role resource extraction and development,
domestically and extraterritorially, plays in the Canadian economy. Large improvements need to be made in
the process of consulting with Indigenous Peoples with regards to proposed developments that may affect
traditional lands. First and foremost, the most glaring insufficiency with the current duty to consult is the fact
that Indigenous Peoples are not imbued with veto power; thus, governments and businesses do not have
clear, consistent, or mandated processes for seeking consent. The fact that Indigenous communities’ rights to
FPIC continue to be violated indicates limitations to their self-determination, which is an important right set
out in Articles 3 and 4 in the UNDRIP. (Smith Jackson A & Mitchell Terry L, 2020)
Charles Eastman [Ahiyesa], Santee Dakota Physician at Wounded Knee Massacre, author--
My last work under the auspices of the Government was the revision of the Sioux allotment rolls, including
the determination of family groups, and the assignment of surnames when these were lacking. Originally, the
Indians had no family names, and confusion has been worse confounded by the admission to the official rolls
of vulgar nicknames, incorrect translations, and English cognomens injudiciously bestowed upon children in
the various schools. . . I was directed not to recognize a plurality of wives, such as still existed among a few
of the older men. Old White Bull was a fine example of the old type, and I well remember his answer when I
reluctantly informed him that each man must choose one wife who should bear his name. . . My method was
 Page 43 of 55
to select from the personal names of a family, one which should be reasonably short. . . All the brothers,
their wives and children were then grouped under this as a family name, provided their consent could be
obtained to the arrangement. . . The older men would sit in my office and watch my work, day after day,
before being convinced that the undertaking was really intended for their benefit and that of their heirs. Once
satisfied, they were of great assistance. (Eastman Charles 1916/2003, p. 138)
REFLECTION:
When reflecting about culture and religion, I highlighted two special Indigenous Gifts we are encouraged to
celebrate in our cross-cultural encounters: Relationships and Wholeness. For Indigenous peoples, these two ways
of orienting their lives have always been the right way to live in an egalitarian world community, while for many
Westerners these tendencies are viewed, in practice, as hindrances to achieving their goals of success and
satisfaction in a society controlled by power and privilege.
During the past two centuries, many Christian missionaries have taken a new approach in their cross-cultural
encounters in their overseas ministries, trusting the people they evangelized to take greater initiative in deciding
what it means to be a Christian in their own cultures. This new approach required the missionaries to “trade
glasses” with foreigners and learn their cultural values. Will our leaders follow their example?
Leadership as practiced and taught by Indigenous peoples deserves our special attention because, as we
move from a modern global climate of cultural ethnocentrism to a postmodern global climate of greater openness
to alternative cultural ways of thinking and living, we can look to Indigenous notions of leadership for guidance in
shaping our future. Indeed, Indigenous leadership is a gift to be appreciated as we seek a new international
order.
Since the middle of the 20th century the entire global community has been moving towards an international
climate of mutual understanding which is increasingly open to competing alternatives. I applaud the efforts to
move all members of the global community of nations into a postmodern appreciation for the gifts of each unique
cultural group, especially those that previously have been oppressed or marginalized. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
argues, recognizing the sovereignty of Indigenous people but at the same time signing treaties with them that
subject them to domination by others creates a tangled contradiction.
The problem we all face is well documented by James Tully and Taiaiake Alfred. Their books review a 500-
year-old legacy of modern legislative and leadership actions regulating religious, moral, political, and economic
behavior in North America, all of which affirm mainstream biases favoring Western Europeans while marginalizing
other perspectives.
James Tully
In Strange Multiplicity, Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity James Tully calls for a new form of
internationalism in which sovereign states respect the unique cultural expressions of all groups residing within
their borders, especially those that have traditionally been oppressed and marginalized.
Tully observes that in the modern era the world’s nation states have experienced two waves of constitutional
development: During the first wave, European nation states defined themselves in opposition to the papacy, the
Holy Roman Empire, and the previous feudal organization of internal politics. During the second wave, former
colonies freed themselves from domination by imperial governments or oppressive internal regimes—beginning
with US independence from Britain in 1774 and, more recently, the dismantling of South African apartheid regime
in the early 1990s.
He argues that during our time, the world is experiencing a third wave of constitutional development, in
which the agents of change are “the people and cultures who have been excluded and suppressed by the first
two movements of decolonization and constitutional state-building—Indigenous peoples, women, linguistic and
ethnic minorities, intercultural groups, and others. . .” (Tully James, 2006, p. 16) These groups are numerous and
promote a variety of cultural interests, much like the thirteen rowers on the Haida Gwaii canoe.
In defense of all the groups actively involved in the third movement of constitutional development, Tully
argues that “constitutions are not fixed, and unchangeable agreements reached at some foundational moment.”
Rather, they are merely claiming that basic rules of “mutual recognition, continuity, and consent” have been
violated in the past and are now changed through intercultural negotiation. (Tully James, 2006, p. 183). He sees
the modern period of the past five centuries as a time of “Empires of Uniformity” dominated by skilled power
brokers intent on maintaining the status quo. For him, Bill Reid’s Haida Gwaii sculpture helps us imagine
constitution-development during the postmodern era—the “Age of Cultural Diversity”—which he envisions as a
time of growing recognition of the rights of previously marginalized cultures.
 Page 44 of 55
Taiaiake Alfred
Considering what I learned in previous research about the current state of affairs among Indigenous peoples
in North America, I expected to read Alfred’s critique of Western politicians who continue to undermine the
existence of Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada, but I was hardly prepared to read his critique of many of
his own people. He is concerned about “Indigenous representatives who claim to speak for their people yet agree
to resolutions based on the state’s premises and policies” (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 128). More shocking to me is
his observation that young Indigenous people “are becoming increasingly alienated. . . some self-destruct
through suicide or substance abuse; others, disillusioned by the hypocrisy of older people. . . turn their backs on
their communities” (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 129).
Having read Man’s Search for Meaning by Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl, I can relate to Taiaiake’s rationale
for the high incidence of substance abuse and suicide among Indigenous young people. He writes, “The real
tragedy is [that] many Native people are left to sink for want of hope that a healthy, supportive and cohesive
community could provide. . . Long-term subjugation has a series of effects on both the mind and the soul” (Alfred
Taiaiake, 1999, p. 34). He quotes the psychologist Eduardo Duran:
Once a group of people have been assaulted in a genocidal fashion, there are psychological ramifications.
With the victim’s complete loss of power comes despair, and the psyche reacts by internalizing what appears
to be genuine power—the power of the oppressor. The internalizing process begins when Native American
people internalize the oppressor, which is merely a caricature of the power actually taken from Native
American people. At this point, the self-worth of the individual and/or group has sunk to a level of despair
tantamount to self-hatred. This self-hatred can be either internalized or externalized (Eduardo Duran, quoted
in Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 34).
Reflecting on this issue while reading Alfred’s book, I concluded from his eloquent and sensitive description of
the Rotinonshonni Condolence ritual for “transforming loss into strength,” that this ritual has great potential for
empowering Indigenous persons in need of psychological uplift.
Alfred’s book was especially helpful to me in highlighting a fundamental difference between Indigenous and
Western understandings of the purpose and process of leadership. He insists that only an Indigenous person is
well qualified to explain the purpose and process of Indigenous leadership because of its origin in an Indigenous
worldview. He writes,
At their core, European states and their colonial offspring still embody the same destructive and disrespectful
impulses that they did 500 years ago. For this reason, questions of justice—social, political, and
environmental—are best considered outside the framework of classical European thought and legal traditions.
. . Understanding leadership means understanding Indigenous political philosophy. . . The Native concept of
governance is based on. . . the primacy of conscience. . . There is no central or coercive authority, and
decision-making is collective. Leaders rely on their persuasive abilities to achieve a consensus that respects
the autonomy of individuals, each of whom is free to dissent from and remain unaffected by the collective
decision. . . By contrast, in the European tradition power is surrendered to the representatives of the
majority, whose decisions on what they think is the collective good are then imposed on all citizens. . . In the
Indigenous tradition, the idea of self-determination truly starts with the self; political identity. . . is not
surrendered to any external entity. . . It is the erosion of this traditional power relationship and the forced
dependence on a central government for provision or sustenance that lie at the root of injustice in the
Indigenous mind. (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 21-25)
I drew these sentences from five pages of Alfred’s book to condense a long argument into one paragraph.
Clearly, Alfred recognizes that a person’s conscience is centered in an individual’s mind but that it is developed
and matures through interpersonal encounters with others, especially in the family, the extended family and close
community during childhood and then in larger social settings during adolescence and adulthood. I conclude from
his writing that Alfred has in mind two entirely different consciences—the Indigenous conscience thrives in an
egalitarian social environment while, in contrast, the Western conscience thrives in an hierarchically ordered
social environment.
In Alfred’s view, only Indigenous political philosophy with its non-coercive respect for individual autonomy
and freedom, with its processes of consensual decision-making among equals under the leadership of a chief who
is trusted to speak for the group, and with its ultimate goal of lasting peace and justice for all, can provide a
fruitful environment for the development of an Indigenous conscience which consistently imagines the whole
society as an egalitarian one in which no single cultural perspective dominates. In his view, an Indigenous
conscience is completely different from the destructive, coercive and disrespectful Classical European conscience,
with its ultimate goal of establishing and exercising final authority in its territory over all alternative cultures. He
 Page 45 of 55
argues that the concept moral leadership, promoted by James MacGregor Burns, is complementary to leadership
based on Indigenous ideals, agreeing with Burns that “the manipulation of resources to effect the personal will or
interest of the manipulator is not leadership at all,” adding, “’leaders’ who are actually nothing more than
politicians resembles the criticism expressed by many Indigenous people with respect to their own leaders”
(Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 45).
Alfred is also critical of the portrayal of “successful leadership” by Indigenous women which defines success
in terms of Western understandings. He writes, “But what does it mean to reclaim traditional ways? One kind of
‘retraditionalized’ leadership has been defined with reference to indigenous women who have extended
‘traditional caretaking and cultural transmission roles to include activities vital to the community of Indian
communities within a predominantly non-Indian society.’ What the authors of this passage would term a Native
‘leader’ is actually a person who has become successful in European/American society by mastering the skills,
knowledge, and behaviours required for white success. . . It is the duty of Native leaders to satisfy not
mainstream but indigenous cultural criteria” (Alfred Taiaiake, 1999, p. 61). I wonder if he has in mind Indigenous
leaders such as the Mohawk midwife, Katsi Cook (Cook Katsi, 2020, Wikipedia) and many other Indigenous
women, including women educational leaders, who encounter two klnds of discrimination when navigating
Western culture’s biases—Western gender inequity as well as Western cultural ethnocentrism.
So, is some kind of compromise possible, or is bridging this cultural divide an impossible dream? Considering
the enormity of the issues separating these two perspectives, it may be wise to at least acknowledge the
fundamental differences in these two approaches to leadership. In my view, the Western worldview is in danger
of losing its grip on a society that is increasingly culturally diverse at the beginning of the 21 st century. As a
Christian committed to the wellbeing of all people, especially the “least of these,” I Propose that we celebrate the
Indigenous Gift of Leadership, which is built on healthy relationships! What do you think?
Free Prior Informed Consent
Whenever Indigenous people protest the encroachment of their lands by developers and pipeline builders,
the main argument that seems to get in the way is the 500-year-old Doctrine of Discovery. As Jackson Smith and
Terry Mitchell of Wilfred Laurier University point out, Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination may be a
treaty right, but they are denied the right of being consulted before development of any treaty lands. Articles 3
and 4 of the 2007 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stipulate that these all states
ought to confer this right to Indigenous peoples within every sovereign nation state. I mentioned earlier that Bill
C-282 indirectly dealt with this issue by committing the Canadian government to all the provisions of the UN
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Smith and Mitchell acknowledge that the fact that “Indigenous
communities’ rights to FPIC continue to be violated indicates limitations to their self-determination.” Will the
impasse between the Canadian government and Canada’s Indigenous people in regard to ecological justice be
resolved in our time?
Charles Eastman
We may have misgivings about the government’s inability to treat Indigenous peoples justly, but we do well
to applaud individuals who have over the years successfully crossed the Westerner-Indigenous cultural divide. In
his position as physician at Pine Ridge Reservation and later in his work for the US Government in re-organizing
the Sioux allotment roles, Charles Eastman genuinely displayed his humanity and sensitivity as a relationship- and
wholeness-oriented servant leader by caring for both Westerners and Indigenous people at times of high mutual
distrust. His life story is welcome affirmation that the cultural divide can be effectively bridged by empathy and
gestures of goodwill. He tended to injuries of both US soldiers and Sioux fighters, and at nightfall after an
exhausting day, he drove off on horseback to search for survivors in the midst of a cold December blizzard. Years
later, when assigning surnames in his government job, he took care to respect family ties and patiently waited for
those who suspected the government’s intentions to come around before working with them. In fact, reading the
book From the Deep Woods to Civilization was a delightful experience for me. I admired his tactful and
understanding treatment of everyone he met. If I had lived in the early part of the 20 th century, I would have
been pleased to interview him!
 Page 46 of 55
5 – Advice for Educators

INTERVIEW WITH LARRY VANDERAA

Conducted 2/5/20
ADVICE FOR EDUCATORS
To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200205-5-vanderaa-interview

The tendencies of Indigenous people to value an event over the time needed to complete it and to value
ascribed prestige are both based on their long tradition of placing a high priority on their intimate connections to
each other and to the rest of creation. Since their first priority is to ensure the wellbeing and safety of all the
members of their village—which, for them, includes not just the people in it but also the land they occupy and the
natural resources that keep them alive—they deeply respect the village chief, their religious teacher, and any
other person who has authority in their village, recognizing their authority as God-given. This sense of loyalty to
the authority figures in their midst carries over into a focus on formal greetings and spending time in
conversation with each other—at the expense of devotion to a job that needs to be done.
These strong interpersonal connections have huge implications for Indigenous peoples’ attitudes towards
education and discipline of young people. Unlike Western educators, who tend to be “pushed” by politicians and
often by the children’s own parents to ensure that children compete for the highest scores on academic tests,
Indigenous parents and educators hope that the children in their care will develop a more collaborative mindset.
Perhaps Mayers exaggerates a bit when he writes, “The teacher-student model, practiced increasingly in the
Western world, has two positions: teacher and student. The student provides response but seldom feedback to
the teacher. The teacher simply needs to know that the student has learned what the teacher has taught. This is
generally done in the examination process. The teacher seldom calls for feedback that is potential for changing
the message of the teacher, the teaching style, or the educational philosophy” (Mayers, 1987, p. 276).
Mayers contrasts the teacher-student model with the facilitator-apprentice or master-apprentice model, which
“calls for feedback to make the communication of the message more accurately targeted to each apprentice. The
master must know that the apprentice is not only grasping the principles being dealt with but also is applying
those principles effectively in ever-expanding aspects of life. . . The apprentice is expected to have learned so
well that in certain areas of application. . . he becomes master to the master himself” (Mayers, 1987, p. 276). He
calls this model “the ultimate expression of the learning experience.” This model, it seems to me, would be more
acceptable in an Indigenous cultural setting.
Mayers does not comment on the need for a classroom teacher to accommodate students who are dyslexic,
learn differently, or exhibit unique areas of giftedness. It seems that me that any classroom teacher will want to
accommodate such differences as well, especially in a setting that includes children from Indigenous families
whose focus is more people-oriented and less task-oriented.
Finally, let me stress the three kinds of learning that, according to Duane Elmer, will build community in a
classroom and help everyone grow together: learning about. . . learning from. . .learning with. . . Especially the
last of these, which he calls “the rarest form of learning.” This kind of learning depends on the spirit of mutuality
that arises from the Indigenous mindset, which is more people-oriented than the Western mindset.
Now we turn our attention to the rarest form of learning: learning with. This wonderful form of learning
assumes that the best learning happens in relationship, in mutuality, in partnership where neither side is
above or beneath. Proverbs 27:17 may best express this type of learning: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man
sharpens another.” Respectful interaction between two people benefits both. Each depends on the other.
This interdependence produces a kind of life together that regularly mediates Christ, each to the other. Each
is, at the same time, teacher and learner, without either person knowing or caring that those roles are being
played out. A strong, resilient trust bonds their relationship. This solidarity fosters the deepest sharing, the
joy of authenticity and the wonder of mutually discovering the path of God. Both parties quickly admit that
their respective cultures have been affected deeply by sin and that both cultures have redemptive qualities.
By learning from and with each other, we sharpen our vision and practice in ways that could never happen
alone. We need each other. Our connected lives (and cultures) make us better people. (Elmer Duane, 2006,
p. 134)
An Illustration
I pondered the possibility that a multicultural classroom might outperform a single-culture classroom in
generating new ideas and creative solutions to problems when Larry Vanderaa said, “We as Americans are quite
good at strategizing, planning, and following the steps of a plan, but we are weaker in terms of relationships. We
 Page 47 of 55
want to get the task done. The Nigerians were a little weaker at strategizing, and following a plan, but they
brought strong relationship skills. Put that together, and you have a team that can strategize and can also relate.
In our work together, we had to create space for these different strengths to flourish. That’s an example of the
ways people from different cultural backgrounds can work well together for the benefit of everyone.”

This picture of people from different cultural backgrounds collaborating on projects that make our world a
better place for everyone bring to mind Mark Noll’s dream of “Every Nation and Tribe. . .”—

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count,
from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.
They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Revelation 7:9, NIV)

INTERVIEW WITH ANTON TREUER

Transcript of Interview conducted 2/25/20
ADVICE FOR EDUCATORS

To listen to audio, click https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200225-5-treuer-interview-advice-for-

educators

OTHER INDIGENOUS VOICES

Malcolm X, Black American activist, advocate of black empowerment
We cannot teach what we don’t know. We cannot lead where we don’t go. . . (Quoted in Treuer Anton, 2017,
Thriving in Indian Country)
Senator Paul Wellstone, leader of the progressive wing of the national Democratic Party
We all do better when we all do better. . . (Quoted in Treuer Anton, 2017, Thriving in Indian Country)
Charles Eastman [Ahiyesa], Santee Dakota Physician at Wounded Knee Massacre, author--
I was trained thoroughly for an all-round out-door life and for all natural emergencies. I was a good rider and
a good shot with the bow and arrow, alert and alive to everything that came within my ken. I had never
known nor ever expected to know any life but this. (Eastman Charles, 1916/2003, p. 9)
“’Will going to that place make a man brave and strong?” I asked myself. “I must tell my father that I cannot
stay here. I must go back to my uncle in Canada, who taught me to hunt and shoot and to be a brave man.
They might as well try to make a buffalo build houses like a beaver as to teach me to be a white man,’ I
thought.” (Eastman Charles, 1916/2003, p. 25)
It appears remarkable to me now that my father, thorough Indian as he was, should have had such deep and
sound conceptions of a true civilization. But there is the contrast—my father’s mother! whose faith in her
people’s philosophy and training could not be superseded by any other allegiance. (Eastman Charles,
1916/2003, p. 28)
Leroy Little Bear, Blackfoot researcher, professor emeritus at the University of Lethbridge—
For the most part, education and socialization are achieved through praise, reward, recognition, and renewal
ceremonies and by example, actual experience, and storytelling. Children are greatly valued and are
considered gifts from the Creator. From the moment of birth, children are the objects of love and kindness
from a large circle of relatives and friends. They are strictly trained but in a “sea” of love and kindness. As
they grow, children are given praise and recognition for their achievements both by the extended family and
by the group as a whole.
Group recognition manifests itself in public ceremonies performed for a child, giveaways in a child’s honour,
and songs created and sung in a child’s honour. Children are seldom physically punished, but they are sternly
lectured about the implications of wrongful and unacceptable behaviour. . . Teaching through actual
experience is done by relatives: for example, aunts teaching girls and uncles teaching boys. One relative
usually takes a young child under his or her wing, assuming responsibility for teaching the child all she or he
knows about the culture and survival.
This person makes ongoing progress reports to the group, friends, relatives, and parents, resulting in praise
and recognition for the child. There are many people involved in the education and socialization of a child.
 Page 48 of 55
Anyone can participate in educating a child because education is a collective responsibility. (Little Bear, Leroy,
2000, Jagged Worldviews)
Alesha Jane Breckenridge, Teacher of Environmental Studies at Adult City Learning Center, Toronto—
Practically speaking, I would like to propose a new vision for education in Ontario—a vision for social change
in light of the ecological crisis and the need to live sustainably for the sake of future generations. . . (Hele
Karl S. Editor, 2013, p. 87)
Anton Treuer, Professor of Ojibwe Language and Culture, Bemidji State University--
Here in the United States, very little effort has been made to voice formal apologies, make reparations, or
pass political mandates about education. Yet this country was founded in part by genocidal policies
directed at Native Americans and the enslavement of black people. Both of those things are
morally repugnant. Still, I love my country. In fact, it is because I love my country that I want to make sure
that the mistakes of our past, our dark chapters, do not get repeated. We cannot afford to sugarcoat the
dark chapters of our history, as we have for decades upon decades. It is time for that to stop. (Treuer
Anton, 2012, p. 53)
Native Americans changed the world with the introduction of many different types of food, medicine, obsidian
scalpels still used in modern surgery today—all kinds of things—and the rest of the world changed Indians,
and some of those changes were positive. Examining these gifts is a better entry point for discussion of
this part of the historical narrative than glorifying the beginning of a colonial regime that killed millions.
(Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 54)
The opportunity to learn about one’s self is not the only gap that negatively affects the performance of native
kids in school. The skill sets emphasized in modern education (math and reading) are great for some things
and from some perspectives—but not all. Native people often have different values, different skill sets
of emphasis, different learning styles, and different cultures. None of those differences are well supported in
the modern educational system. All of these factors contribute to the opportunity gap for native youth.
(Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 187)
To me, the answer is quite simple. We need to transform the schools that educate Indian youth from schools
designed to assimilate (and to teach curricula designed to assimilate) into schools that enable people to learn
about themselves and the rest of the world. This approach is a big part of the success for tribal schools that
are making the grade on state-mandated tests. In Wisconsin, an Ojibwe language immersion school called
Waadookodaading has had a 100 percent pass rate on state-mandated tests in English administered in
English for ten years in a row. But the teachers there never instruct native youth in anything other than the
tribal language until the highest grades. That says a lot. And we should all pay attention. Assimilation does
not engender educational achievement, but access to tribal language and culture for Indian youth does.
(Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 187)
REFLECTION:
Our conversations about education bring us full circle to where we began in our reflections about Westerner-
Indigenous peoples’ cross-cultural encounters. The question for today’s Western educators is: Will we, in our
cross-cultural encounters with Indigenous people, reject the voices of power and privilege in our culture, and
treat our Indigenous neighbors with hospitality and respect? The question for today’s Indigenous educators is:
Will we, in our cross-cultural encounters with Westerners, perhaps for the first time in our long history of
disappointments, find openness, comfort, encouragement, and healing for everyone in the sharing of our stories?
I consider these two questions to be important for educators today because each of us is encultured by a
family and a community with unique traditions until, in adolescence, we find that we must break away from our
childhood cultural roots and “spread our wings” to experience how others see the world. As Rogoff and Frankl tell
us, life from our early childhood is about relationship and a deep sense of spiritual oneness, and as we mature we
learn by experience that we inhabit a world networked with many inter-dependencies and, ironically, we often
find that we must separate ourselves from others in our search for inner peace. My review of Indigenous
statements about the purpose and process of education in Indigenous cultural settings led me to Leroy Little
Bear’s words. They comport well, I think, with the First People’s Principles of Learning located on the FNESC
website. I encourage you to examine the key role of relationships, holism, and leadership when viewed from an
Indigenous perspective in both Leroy Little Bear’s statement and in the FNESC poster. Below I will summarize
Leroy Little Bear’s words in terms of these three key orienting ideas—
 Page 49 of 55
• Relationships—There are many people involved
in the education and socialization of a child. Anyone
can participate in educating a child because
education is a collective responsibility. Group
recognition manifests itself in public ceremonies
performed for a child, giveaways in a child’s honour,
and songs created and sung in a child’s honour.
• Holism—Children are greatly valued and are
considered gifts from the Creator. . . For the most
part, education and socialization are achieved
through praise, reward, recognition, and renewal
ceremonies and by example, actual experience, and
storytelling. As they grow, children are given praise
and recognition for their achievements both by the
extended family and by the group as a whole.
• Leadership—One relative usually takes a young
child under his or her wing, assuming responsibility
for teaching the child all she or he knows about the
culture and survival. . . This person makes ongoing
progress reports to the group, friends, relatives, and
parents, resulting in praise and recognition for the
child. . . [Children] are strictly trained but in a “sea”
of love and kindness. . . Teaching through actual
experience is done by relatives: for example, aunts
teaching girls and uncles teaching boys. (Leroy Little
Bear, 2000)
Leroy Little Bear would no doubt agree with the
First Nations Educational Steering Committee that
the principles of learning compiled by any single
Indigenous educator, or by any group of Indigenous
educators is, at best, “an attempt to identify common elements of varied teaching and learning approaches that
prevail in First Peoples societies. . . it does not capture the full reality of the approach used in any single First
Peoples society” (cf. First Peoples Principles of Learning, 2020, pdf). This is important! Since we are speaking
about “appreciative inquiry” that recognizes the autonomy of each individual person, no single Indigenous
educator in any tribal community wishes to identify his/her own curriculum or instructional technique as typical of
all Indigenous education.
Anton Treuer’s writing about education in his book Everything You Wanted to Know about Indians But Were
Afraid to Ask provides Indigenous insights for bridging the Westerner-Indigenous cultural divide. For example, in
my experience, the idea of focusing on provision of adequate opportunities rather than on testing academic
achievement [and, presumably, punishing low achievers by limiting the learning resources made available to
them] had occurred to me in past years as a school leader responsible for the performance of students who face
learning challenges or learn differently. What I learned from Anton Treuer with new clarity was the need to treat
every child with kindness and trust, but especially those who feel alienated in cultural environments where they
do not feel “at home” because of cultural differences between their home-lives and their school-lives. Barbara
Rogoff identifies this issue clearly, based on her research with children in culturally diverse school communities:
Youngsters who grow up in a family with several cultural heritages, as is increasingly common, have some
insider and some outsider understandings of each of their communities. Overlaps across communities also
come from the media, daily contacts, and shared endeavors— collaborative, complementary, or contested. . .
I argue that we need to go beyond thinking solely of membership in a single static group and instead focus
on people’s participation in cultural practices of dynamically related communities whose salience to
participants may vary.
Anton Treuer strongly advocates for Indigenous schools in which the primary language of instruction is the
community’s Indigenous language. He considers a person’s “mother tongue” to be the chief conveyor of cultural
and religious knowledge, skills and traditions that give a child as well as his/her community a sense of long-term
stability. He counters arguments that in the U.S. every child’s first language should be English by insisting that
neglecting a child’s mother at school will lead to alienation and low self-esteem:
 Page 50 of 55
In fact, tribal languages do give Indians a leg up in the modern world. The Waadookodaading Ojibwe
Immersion Charter School in Reserve, Wisconsin, [Note: A brief YouTube video on this school’s program is
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk5uETec9x8 RK] has for ten years garnered a 100 percent
pass rate on state-mandated tests administered in English, and the teachers do not speak to the kids in
English until the higher grades. Even wealthy, predominantly white suburban school districts don’t usually
score so consistently high. Tribal language education is a powerful tool for the development of everything
from cognitive function to basic self-esteem. (Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 115)

Indian people value their languages for many other reasons as well. They are cornerstones of identity, and
their use keeps us recognizable to our ancestors. They are defining features of nationhood. The retention of
tribal languages tells the world that we have not been assimilated, in spite of five hundred years of concerted
effort to achieve that. They are the only customary languages for many ceremonies, a gateway to spiritual
understanding. (Treuer, Anton, p. 115)
In US and Canadian schools, the academic performance of Indigenous students lags behind the performance
of white students. Anton Treuer argues that there is a simple solution to this problem:
To me, the answer is quite simple. We need to transform the schools that educate Indian youth from schools
designed to assimilate (and to teach curricula designed to assimilate) into schools that enable people to learn
about themselves and the rest of the world. This approach is a big part of the success for tribal schools that
are making the grade on state-mandated tests. (Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 187)
It is not the intent of those who develop state curriculum guidelines to alienate anyone or limit their
opportunities, but that is exactly what happens in Indian country. An Indian student in the modern
educational system will navigate many curricular strands before high school, but the teaching about the
people who made America great (not them), the heroes, presidents, and cultural icons (not theirs), the
success stories (not theirs), the culture and history of great civilizations (not theirs) serves to engineer a blow
to self-esteem. The omission of Indians from the curriculum means that Indian children can go to school and
learn all about the rest of the world but nothing about themselves. (Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 187)
The opportunity to learn about one’s self is not the only gap that negatively affects the performance of native
kids in school. The skill sets emphasized in modern education (math and reading) are great for some things
and from some perspectives—but not all. Native people often have different values, different skill sets
of emphasis, different learning styles, and different cultures. None of those differences are well supported in
the modern educational system. All of these factors contribute to the opportunity gap for native youth.
(Treuer Anton, 2012, p. 187)
I wonder if you agree with Anton Treuer that the problem of the “opportunity gap” for Indigenous students
can easily be solved. If your own class or your own school enrolls one or more Indigenous students, what
changes will you and your school make in the instructional program to respond to the needs of those students?
Would your school hire an Indigenous teacher or classroom aide? Would you encourage students to do research
in their mother tongue? Would you re-arrange activities and projects for some students so that their instruction
follows the relation-centered pattern of communal learning that the child is used to in his/her tribal community?
Would you encourage other students to join with Indigenous students in projects having an alternative
instructional design? I could ask many more questions, but I hope you understand my concern for doing justice
to the educational needs of all students who come to school.
We do well to celebrate three Indigenous Gifts in our cross-cultural encounters with them: Relationships,
Wholeness and Leadership—all three viewed from an Indigenous perspective, because their ultimate goal is to
ensure the wellbeing of every member of the global society. For Indigenous peoples, these ways of orienting their
lives have always been the right way to live in an egalitarian world community , while for many Westerners they
are viewed, in practice, as hindrances to achieving their goals of success and satisfaction in a society controlled
by power and privilege.
I’m reminded, finally, of Aleshia Breckenridge’s “vision for social change in light of the ecological crisis and
the need to live sustainably for the sake of future generations” (Hele Karl Editor, 2013, p. 87). Her vision
suggests an emphasis on practical, hands-on learning experience for students in the school community’s
ecological environment. The purpose, of course, is to nurture in students attitudes and practices that focus on
responsible use of the world’s resources.
A related curriculum recently featured in a new publication of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, The Power of Place: Authentic Learning Through Place-Based Education, by Vander Ark, Liebtag
and McClennan (2020) is an excellent resource. You may already be familiar with the work of the Center for
 Page 51 of 55
Place-Based Education at Antioch University (Center for Place-Based Education, 2020). I highly recommend this
type of curriculum, consisting of multi-disciplinary activities and consensus-building group projects, which
reinforce in students’ minds their close link and interdependence with the communities they call “home” until their
adolescent years. Anton Treuer would likely respond by making a case for being especially sensitive, in our
curriculum planning, to the needs of students of color and from minority cultures that have too long been
neglected in the past. I wonder if all Ojibwe parents would, if they had the opportunity, send their children to
Waadookodaading Ojibwe Language Immersion School in Hayward, Wisconsin, or to a school like it.
As Leroy Little Bear writes, every child is a gift to us from the Creator. Each child deserves the love and care
of a culturally sensitive and responsive teacher, and also an instructional program that instills the same sense of
belonging and self-worth that was begun in the child’s family and community. That’s a tall order for any teacher
and school in our postmodern multi-cultural society. Let’s celebrate this vision as a gift to our world from our
Indigenous friends!

Conclusion - Participating in the Community of Truth

In conclusion, I reflect on the wisdom and advice of Parker Palmer that I shared in the Introduction of this
essay:
The model of community we seek is one that can embrace, guide, and refine the core mission of education—the
mission of knowing, teaching, and learning. We find clues to its dimensions at the heart of the image of teaching
that most challenges me: to teach is to create a space in which the community of truth is practiced. . . The
community of truth. . . reaches into the assumptions about the nature of reality and how we know it. The
hallmark of a community of truth is in its claim that reality is a web of communal relationships, and we can know
reality only by being in community with it. PARKER J. PALMER, 1998, p. 94-95
When I began interviewing and reading in preparation for this essay, I saw behind these words of Parker
Palmer a vision of all humanity as a community of many cultural and subcultural groups, each empowered by a
deep sense of identity and integrity but at the same time open to, and accepting of, the different cultural
identities of others. In Palmer’s community of truth every member is a subject, and, being a subject, every
member is available for relationship. When we know the other as a subject, we welcome him/her into the mutual
embrace of truth-seeking conversation.
In contrast, as Marvin Mayers warns us, when we know the other as an object, our withdrawal from each
other harms us both. As I write these reflections during the hot summer of 2020, I recognize the current threat of
Covid19 and the anti-racism protests on our streets to be a time of trial as well as opportunity for us all. I
consider it unconscionable that many North Americans choose to risk the health of others by not following the
advice of public health experts and, in many situations, the orders of their elected officials to wear a mask and to
practice social distancing. I’m also concerned about the unjust treatment of people in our society who are
systematically marginalized by those who have power to control their lives.
The image of hospitable treatment of others in our cross-cultural encounters with them is clearly conveyed in
the writing of Duane Elmer, and demonstrated in the work of Larry Vanderaa and most Christian missionaries
since the beginning of the 19th century, who have empowered converts in South America, Africa, and the Orient
to give new vitality to the message of the Christian gospel around the world. This same image is also consistently
portrayed in the writings and life-stories of Charles Easton, Anton Treuer and many Indigenous people in North
America.
I encourage educators who read this essay to learn from Parker Palmer, from Christian missionaries of the
past two centuries, and from their Indigenous neighbors, to create spaces in which the community of truth is
practiced. Parker Palmer, in his book Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of
the Human Spirit (2011), recommends five habits of the heart:
• Understand that we are all in this together. We must embrace the simple fact that we are dependent on and
accountable to one another, and that includes the stranger, the ‘alien other.’
• Develop an appreciation of the value of ‘otherness.’ Hospitality rightly understood is premised on the notion
that the stranger has much to teach us.
• Cultivate the ability to hold tension in life-giving ways. The genius of the human heart lies in its capacity to
use these tensions to generate insight, energy, and new life.
 Page 52 of 55
• Generate a sense of personal voice and agency. It remains possible for us, young and old alike, to find our
voices, learn how to use them, and know the satisfaction that comes from contributing to positive change—if
we have the support of a community.
• Strengthen our capacity to create community. The steady companionship of two or three kindred spirits can
kindle the courage we need to speak and act as citizens. (Pamer Parker, 2011, p. 44-46)
When Western Europeans settled America, they brought with them the vision of endless economic growth
and opportunity in a society with a healthy middle class that is open to all. Parker Palmer cautions us--with
support from our Indigenous neighbors, who insist that the Creator’s abundant gifts of land and resources are
plentiful--that this dream of endless progress is quickly fading, and “it can be revived only by radically rethinking
our economic assumptions and altering our personal and collective approaches to consumption” (Palmer Parker,
2011, p. 183).
The vision of E pluribus unum, the notion that out of human diversity can come one people, “does not mean
suppressing diversity. It means transcending the fear that leads to suppression so that we can celebrate the
creative potentials inherent in the ‘many’ who come together as ‘one,’ honoring uniqueness as well as
commonality” (Palmer parker, 2011, p. 183).
May you, as an educator, honor both uniqueness and commonality in your work with colleagues, with your
community, and with your students.

REFERENCES

Aboriginal Healing Foundation (2008). A Condensed Timeline of Events. AHF Publications. Retrieved May 8 2020
http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/condensed-timline.pdf
Aboriginal Healing Foundation (2008). Misconceptions of Canadas Indian Residential School System. AHF
Publications. Retrieved May 8 2020 http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/misconceptions.pdf
Aboriginal Healing Foundation (2020) Website - About Us. Retrieved 3/5/20 from http://www.ahf.ca/about-
us/mission
Bear, Cheryl (2020). It's all about the land. Christian Courier, Jan. 13, 2020. Retrieved 1/22/20 from
http://www.christiancourier.ca/news/entry/its-always-about-the-land
Blanchard, Ken & Hodges, Phil (2005). Lead Like Jesus: Lessons for Everyone from the Greatest Leadership Role
Model of All Time. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Bodley, John H. (1982). Victims of Progress, 2nd Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Brown, Dee (1970). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: Indian History of the American West. New York, NY: Open
Road Media.
Center for Place-Based Education (2020) Website, Antioch University https://www.antioch.edu/new-
england/resources/centers-institutes/center-place-based-
education/#:~:text=The%20Center%20for%20Place-
Based%20Education%20promotes%20learning%20locally,and%20a%20healthy%20environment.%20What
%20is%20Place-based%20Education%3F
Cook Katsi (2020) Bio. Wikipedia, retrieved June 3 2020 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katsi_Cook
CRC Resources (2016). Creating a New Family: A Circle of Conversation on the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.
Retrieved 11/19/19 from https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/doctrine_of_discovery.pdf
DeGroat Chuck (2020). When Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community From Emotional and
Spiritual Abuse. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Dunbar-Ortiz Roxanne (2014) An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Dunbar-Ortiz Roxanne (2015) Yes Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide, History News Network.
Retrieved 2/29/20 from http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804
Eastman, Charles A (1916-2003). From the Deep Woods to Civilization. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
 Page 53 of 55
Elmer Duane (2006). Cross-Cultural Servanthood Serving the World in Christlike Humility. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Elmer Duane & Sveen David (2018) The 5 Styles of Communication. Forum of Christian Leaders, 20 May 2018.
Retrieved 28 April 2020 from https://foclonline.org/talk/5-styles-communication
First Peoples Principles of Learning (2020) Resource from FNESC. Retrieved 3/5/20 from
http://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PUB-LFP-POSTER-Principles-of-Learning-First-
Peoples-poster-11x17.pdf
Haack, Denis (2018). On Reading Augustine's Confessions. Ransom Fellowship, June 18, 2018. Retrieved 3/15/19
from https://ransomfellowship.org/article/on-reading-augustines-confessions/
Harper Stephen (2008) Government apologizes for residential schools in 2008. CBC News, June 25 2018.
Retrieved 5/20/20 from https://www.cbc.ca/archives/government-apologizes-for-residential-schools-in-2008-
1.4666041
Hele, Karl S., Editor (2013). The Nature of Empires and the Empires of Nature: Indigenous People and the Great
Lakes Environment. Waterloo, ON Wilfred Laurier University Press
Herbert Richard H (2015) Curriculum Vitae - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments CAID Retrieved
May 8 2020 http://caid.ca/RickCV010308.pdf
Huey, Aaron (2010). America's native prisoners of war - TedTalks on YouTube. Accessed 12/13/19 at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv7n5jhrHGQ&t=217s
Jenkins, Philip (2006) The New Faces of Christianity: Believing in the Bible in the Global South . New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Anton Treuer Interview #1 Preparation. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/1-treuer-interview-preparation
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Anton Treuer Interview #2 Culture. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-
307793991/2-treuer-interview-culture
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Anton Treuer Interview #3 Religion. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-
307793991/3-treuer-interview-religion
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Anton Treuer Interview #4 Leadership & Change. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/200225-4-treuer-interview-leadership-change
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Anton Treuer Interview #5 Advice for Educators. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/200225-5-treuer-interview-advice-for-educators
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Larry Vanderaa Interview #1 Preparation. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/200205-1-vanderaa-interview
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Larry Vanderaa Interview #2 Focus on Culture. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/200205-2-vanderaa-interview
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Larry Vanderaa Interview #3 Focus on Religion. Access at https://soundcloud.com/ray-
klapwyk-307793991/200205-3-vanderaa-interview
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Larry Vanderaa Interview #4 Leadership and Change. Access at
https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200205-4-vanderaa-interview
Klapwyk, R. Ray (2020). Larry Vanderaa Interview #5 Advice for Educators. Access at
https://soundcloud.com/ray-klapwyk-307793991/200205-5-vanderaa-interview
Lajimodiere, Denise (2014) The sad legacy of American Indian boarding schools in Minnesota and the US.
MinnPost, June 14 2016. https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2016/06/sad-legacy-american-indian-
boarding-schools-minnesota-and-us/
Legends of America (2020) Charles Eastman Ohiye S'a Biography. Retrieved 4/15/20 from
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-charleseastman/
Legends of America (2020) Native American Rituals and Ceremonies. Accessed May 24 2020 at
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-ceremonies/
Legends of America (2020) Timeline of Indian Wars. Retrieved May 12 2020 from
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-indianwartimeline/3/
 Page 54 of 55
Legends of America (2020) Wounded Knee Massacre. Retrieved 4/15/20 from
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/sd-woundedknee/
Lewis, C.S. (1952). Mere Christianity. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co.
Lingenfelter, Sherwood G & Mayers, Marvin (2016) Ministering Cross-Culturally: A Model for Effective Personal
Relationships. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Marshall Tabitha (2013) Canadian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement The Canadian Encyclopedia, July 11
2013. Retrieved 5/20/20 from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-residential-schools-
settlement-agreement
Mayers, Marvin K. (1987). Christianity Confronts Cultures. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
McCue Duncan (2019) Discovery of Ancient Burial Mounds. CBC News, Mar 30 2019
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/national-burial-mounds-property-dispute-chilliwack-bc-
1.4979118
Noll Mark A (2014). From Every Tribe and Nation: A Historian's Discovery of the Global Christian Story. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Palmer, Parker J. (1998). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Palmer, Parker J. (2011). Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human
Spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pohl, Christine D. (1999). Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Pulling Together Foundations Guide (2020). Residential Schools, ebook. Retrieved 4/15/20 from
https://opentextbc.ca/indigenizationfoundations/chapter/residential-schools/
Rogoff Barbara (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ Press.
Rogoff Barbara (2020) Bio. Center for Innovations in Teaching and Learning. Accessed 7/1/20 at
https://citl.ucsc.edu/team_mf/barbara-rogoff/
Rohr Richard (2020) Invitation to Solidarity Center for Action and Contemplation Accessed May 30 2020. Retrieve
5/20/20 from https://cac.org/invitation-to-solidarity-2020-05-24/
Sinclair Murray (2011). What Is Reconciliation. BCTF Project of Heart Vimeo. Retrieved 5/20/20 from
https://vimeo.com/25389165
Smethurst Matt (2020). CS Lewis on the Coronavirus. The Gospel Coalition, Mar 12 2020. Retrieved 4/13/20 from
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/cs-lewis-coronavirus/
Smith, David I. (2009). Learning from the Stranger: Christian Faith and Cultural Diversity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing.
Smith, David I. (2016). Learning from the Stranger. Interview on Vimeo. Retrieved 2/3/20 from
https://vimeo.com/144300860
Smith Jackson A & Mitchell Terry L (2020). Development of an UNDRIP Compliance Assessment Tool. The
International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol 11 Issue 2 May 2020
Smith, James K.A. (2016). You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press,
a division of Baker Publishing.
Stannard, David E. (1992). American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Stewart Dante (2020). The Shadow of Memory. Comment, Apr 23 2020. Retrieved 4/23/20 from
https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/in-the-shadow-of-memory/
Taiaiake Alfred (2009). Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. Don Mills, ON: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Tennent, Timothy C. (2007). Theology in the Context of World Christianity: how the global church influences how
we think about and discuss theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Treuer, Anton (2012). Everything You Wanted to Know about Indians but were afraid to ask. Minneapolis, MN:
Borealis Books, Minnesota Historical Society.
 Page 55 of 55
Treuer, David (2019). The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Trudeau Justin (2018). Remarks in the House of Commons on the Recognition and Implementation of Rights
Framework. Published Feb 14 2018. Retrieved May 8 2020 from
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/speeches/2018/02/14/remarks-prime-minister-house-commons-recognition-and-
implementation-rights
Truth & Reconciliation Commission (2015) The Survivors Speak Report. Retrieved 5/1/20 from
http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Survivors_Speak_English_Web.pdf
Truth & Reconciliation Commission (2015) What We Have Learned Final Report. Retrieved 5/1/20 from
http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Principles_English_Web.pdf
Tully, James (2006). Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
VanderArk Tom, Liebtag Emily & McClennen (2020). The Power of Place: Authentic Learning Through Place-Based
Education. Alexandria, VA: Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Virtual Museum.ca (2004) The Spirit of Haida Gwaii. Retrieved 1/20/20 from
https://150ans150oeuvres.uqam.ca/en/artwork/2004-the-spirit-of-haida-gwaii-by-bill-reid/#description
Waadookodaading Ojibwe Language Immersion School (2020). The Ways. YouTube Video, Feb. 11 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk5uETec9x8
Walls Andrew F. (2002). The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History Studies in the Transmission and
Appropriation of Faith. Maryknowll, NY: Orbis Books.
Wikipedia (2020). Mere Christianity. Accessed July 1, 2020 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
Wikipedia (2020). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada TRC. Retrieved 11/20/20 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_of_Canada
Yancey, Philip (1996) The Holy Inefficiency of Henri Nouwen. Christianity Today Dec 9 1996. Retrieved 4/14/20
from https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1996/december9/6te080.html