Assignment | Lesson Two | The Development of the Modern Missionary Movement and Its Relation to “Manifest Destiny” (18th-19th Centuries)

Reflecting on this weeks readings and videos has been a gut punch for me. Growing up in a Bible-only-legalistic-evangelical-fundamentalist-one-way-to-heaven-missions-based church, our Sunday evening Youth Group activity was to go door to door at the section 8 housing complex across the street from our church. What a ripe field to harvest! 

Carriage House Apartments was land to “discover” and it was our destiny to “invade and conquer”. The Church sent many missionaries across the globe and sent their youth across the street. We felt sorry for “those people” as they were living in darkness. Kathryn Gin Lum could have been describing my church, even though we no longer used the term “heathen” (well, not often). Our church had embraced the tenets of forefathers- we were ordained to expand our boarders.  

It’s easy to see why missionaries from the 18th-19th-century believed that "civilizing" indigenous peoples was necessary for converting them to Christianity. The Doctrine of Discovery and the Manifest Destiny (and the Great Commission) paved the way for this system- a system of gross power imbalance favoring White European ideology tied into salvation. Those called believed this to be the true way. Missionaries, while bring the good news, often moved indigenous people off their land (embracing the Doctrine of Discovery) or used them for profit and in the process, indigenous behavior (culture, values, and norms) had to be abandoned, as only Western culture meant true salvation.

As missionaries moved beyond the coastal cities to the interiors of the continents, governments were then called on to protect them. They were citizens working legitimately in foreign lands. Thus bringing in more Western presence in terms of oversight. Missionaries believed that they had the right to be there.

To be fair, some appeared to have pure motivations. The Congregationalist advocated for the indigenous peoples living in Georgia without success. William Carey pushed for schools to teach both Western and Indian values as well as having Indian preachers. The Disciples, in the Congo, integrated leadership and representation with the Congolese, a behavior still exhibited in Disciples Leadership. However, the overall movement of the time wasn’t so generous.

I’m not confident of the possibility of separating missions from cultural identity during that time. There was no wavering of knowing that one is acting in God’s favor, and that God is truly on your side. Missionaries left their homes, traveled across the globe and risks death for their convictions. Their convictions made them “right” and thus others were “wrong”. Those “wrong” were sub-human or “heathen”. To be right they had to become like us. This was happening still in the late 1970’s with my youth group. To be saved one had to accept Jesus and denounce everything to become like us, and maybe be able to move out of Section 8 housing.  

It was interesting in this lesson how complicated the web between imperialism and missionaries became over time. It seemed that since the governments and countries weren’t as involved during the 18th-19th century and missionaries had to rely on the support of the actual church, there seemed to be a shift in the approach to converting the “heathens” or “others” to Christianity. I found William Carey to be fascinating in that he took the time to really try to learn the languages of the area he was in and translate the Bible (as much as he could) into some of those languages, he hid from the local government in India that he was a missionary, he did his best to put an end to some cultural practics that were harmful to people, and yet, he also was a proponent of Western imperialism as a way to spread the word and work of his missionary work.

I am quite struck by the story of Hawai’i. My ex-mother-in-law was born and raised there. She was there for Pearl Harbor, and she was the first Hula Bowl queen. In all the time that I spent with her when she passed, I never heard the stories of how Hawai’i became a part ot the U.S. Many parts of their culture were completely erased. And we DON’T talk about it. But we will go to a luau, drink a mai tai, dance the hula, and slap on a Hawaiian shirt to partake in the “culture” of the islands while we are there. 

One think that I want to name, is that it was in the third video where they finally call out heathenism and atheism as being racist. To me, that’s at the core of all of it. Someone doesn’t look or sound like you? They must be an undeveloped savage! I spent the week at National Convocation and I couldn’t help but hear stories of people still living like under the conditions those “savages” and being told that they need to do things like a certain group of people in order to succeed. It saddens me how far we have not come.. 

It does seem that there was a proposed “necessity” in “civilizing” indigenous people as not a prerequsitie for Christianity, but as a prerequisite for colonization and control. The conflation was real, damaging, but not always intentional. Even Carey had good intentions, but those intentions didn’t automatically overcome cultural blindspots. Nobody can be truly “culture agnostic” because it is so ingrained into our experience. I think the most damaging end of the spectrum comes from requiring other cultures to adopt a western way of life in order to fully access Christianity. Where there is more focus on translating into local languages, or equipping local churches with opportunities to thrive independently, it is likely less harmful, but the impact is still real and changes the community. 

It does seem that there was a proposed “necessity” in “civilizing” indigenous people as not a prerequsitie for Christianity, but as a prerequisite for colonization and control. The conflation was real, damaging, but not always intentional. Even Carey had good intentions, but those intentions didn’t automatically overcome cultural blindspots. Nobody can be truly “culture agnostic” because it is so ingrained into our experience. I think the most damaging end of the spectrum comes from requiring other cultures to adopt a western way of life in order to fully access Christianity. Where there is more focus on translating into local languages, or equipping local churches with opportunities to thrive independently, it is likely less harmful, but the impact is still real and changes the community. 

It does seem that there was a proposed “necessity” in “civilizing” indigenous people as not a prerequsitie for Christianity, but as a prerequisite for colonization and control. The conflation was real, damaging, but not always intentional. Even Carey had good intentions, but those intentions didn’t automatically overcome cultural blindspots. Nobody can be truly “culture agnostic” because it is so ingrained into our experience. I think the most damaging end of the spectrum comes from requiring other cultures to adopt a western way of life in order to fully access Christianity. Where there is more focus on translating into local languages, or equipping local churches with opportunities to thrive independently, it is likely less harmful, but the impact is still real and changes the community.

I really loved the interview with Kathryn Gin Lum about her book Heathen. It really lifted up the power dynamics in North American missionary movements and the understanding that ‘we’ are the ones who have knowledge, authority, and set the norms, while ‘they’ need us to save them, teach them what is right, and give them an opportunity to become civilized. I think this is probably true of most of the imperial missionary projects, but I certainly recognize the dynamic in American Christianity.

It also names that uncomfortable trope of ‘White Saviorism’ that persists when the idea of heathenism is so intertwined with racial identity and otherness. The interviewer ended the conversation with such a powerful observation - that the problematic systemic issues in the missionary movements were born of White Supremacy. While some individual missionaries or even mission groups might have good intentions and do well to support the true needs of indigenous peoples, the whole dynamic was rooted in racial hierarchy and power imbalances.

Carey was an interesting figure. He was inspired by his commitment to the gospel more than seeing himself as better than the Indians he served. He worked to learn languages, teach within the context of Indian culture, translated the Bible but also read the Hindu texts to understand them better. But even with these softer approaches he still worked to anglicize Indian culture through the presses he ran, the schools and education he provided and the ways he worked with the East India Company to make changes in the communities he served. It seems like there was continuous struggle to maintain local support and cooperation with the project of proselytizing. Either the local groups saw it as problematic or the colonial powers thought it would undermine the hierarchies that supported their rule.

In reading Livingstone’s speech about Christianity and Commerce, I could understand what he was trying to accomplish in ‘opening up’ central African communities to broader interaction with other communities through commerce. But it wasn’t clear why that seemed so important to him. Was it simply because that’s how it worked back home and he was trying to impose those practices? There was an underlying assumption that “Christianity and commerce must go on together” but I wanted to hear the thoughts that led him to that understanding.

It’s worth noting that the ABCFM advocated for the property rights of American Indigenous peoples, opposing the Indian removals. This is a great example of working against the imperial movement to harm and disempower the colonized people. The missionaries stood in solidarity with those who were being harmed even if they couldn’t ultimately stop the removals.