Chapter 4: ETHNOGRATION – A MODEL FOR A CROSS CULTURAL CHURCH
CHAPTER IV
ETHNOGRATION – A MODEL FOR A CROSS CULTURAL CHURCH
In First Presbyterian Church of Fairbanks, Europe and Asia have come together. People whose ancestors crossed the land bridge in the Bering Straits worship with persons whose ancestors crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower. After a century of living together in Alaska, they remain distinctly different people.
If the typical pattern of the American church had been followed, there would be two churches in Fairbanks where there is now one. First Presbyterian Church would have been mostly white with a few persons of other cultures and races who had been anglicized. In the other section of town, perhaps Eskimo Village (a part of Fairbanks where a number of Eskimo families reside), there would be another Presbyterian Church, this one composed totally of Eskimo people with a white pastor service this “mission” church. But First Presbyterian Church, through a quirk in history, became different. The expected did not happen. Eskimo and Caucasian remained together in the same building and consequently by sharing a common building and a common faith, a model developed that can be used by any church today faced with a be-cultural community.
It has only been in recent years America has recognized that everyone has not been successfully melted into a single culture. “Mainstream” America is still skeptical about accepting pluralism and hangs on to the old theory that integration will work if given time. But the truth of the matter is that integration hasn’t worked. In fact, it has failed miserably, though the fires of the melting pot have been fueled unrelentlessly. Segregation is a continuing reality in our society and in our churches.
The model developed at First Presbyterian church is neither integration nor segregation. It is ethnogration. Ethnogration is a realization of the pluralism which exists, and it offers a way in which we can not only deal with it, but benefit by it.
I will discuss integration, segregation and ethnogration, and then use First Presbyterian Church as an example of how ethnogration works.
Integration
The Church, as well as society, has had a difficult time dealing with racial minorities. There has been, it seems to me, a double standard. For the white ethnic minorities, we have held to the philosophy of integration, but have segregated the racial minorities. For the white ethnic minorities, the concept of the American melting pot is as old as the nation itself. In 1872, M. G. Jean de Crevecoeur wrote, “He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives now ones from the new mode of life he has embraced. . . .Here individuals from all nations are melted into a new race of men.”[1]
Let me illustrate how the melting pot works. I am the product of a white ethnic minority. In the late nineteenth century my grandparents and great grandparents migrated to the Midwestern United States from Ostfriesland in Germany. They came to America because of general social unrest in Germany and because of cheap farmland. In the new country, however, the immigrants were cut off from the church in the Fatherland and the people drifted into a state of “pronounced atheism.”[2] English speaking churches stood helpless before the immense work of evangelizing the mass of German immigrants.
When the Presbyterian Church finally undertook the task, it did not take long for the German immigrants to ask for their own churches where their own language could be preached and taught. Reasons for the request were that the German Speaking church leaders could not participate fully in a church where the English language was the vehicle for communication and that the banding together of German-speaking churches would both encourage the German Presbyterian Christians and enable them to reach out for effectively to the non-church German population.[3]
By 1913, the German Synod of the West, with churches in six Midwestern states, had the official sanction of the Presbyterian Church. They formed three Presbyteries and produced a monthly magazine written in German.
In the local churches, preaching was in the German language and Saturday was set aside for Saturday School. Here, children were sent to learn the German language which they were not being taught in the public schools.
World War I was the first clear indication that the German culture in these churches was in trouble. There was such a ground swell of anti-German feeling that in the Colfax Center Presbyterian Church near Holland, Iowa, the German pastor had to be protected by shotgun-toting members. Yellow paint was splattered on the houses of German people in the community. Immediately after the war, the younger generation started asking for English language services.
At first, German language services were held in the morning and English language services in the evening. As the years passed, the evening services in English were having the greatest attendance. When World War II arrived, with Germany again the enemy, the German language services were dropped. By 1959, the process of the melting pot had completed its work to the point where the German Synod of the West was integrated into the local and national structure of the United Presbyterian Church.
The Alaskan Natives, however, are persons of color and thus the melting pot does not work for them. S. Hall Young, the early Presbyterian missionary who had so much influence on Alaska mission policy, notes that the Indians in Southeast Alaska had a growing sense of pride in being “Boston men,” and “they were anxious to be recognized as on the side of the whites.”[4]
Though Alaskan Natives tried (and some are still trying) to become “Boston men,” they never succeeded, at least in the eyes of the real “Boston men.” Nor have they ever been fully accepted into the whites’ churches. Such a statement comes as a shock to most white Alaskan Christians. Some churches have Native American members, but in those churches it has meant “melting diversity into conformity with Anglo-Saxon characteristics.”[5] The worship services are in the English language and there is a moticeable lack of Native leadership in the governing structures of the congregations. The same is true in the public sector. “Natives seldom appear in positions involving high visibility to the public.”[6]
It is for this reason, I believe, that integration is a greater evil for the Alaskan Native, at the present time, than is segregation. Integration is “based on the superordination-subordination principle”[7] of whites over Natives. The principle is that of “the slave-master, servant-boss, inferior-superior mentality. . . .in which whites write the agenda.”[8]
A good illustration of this comes from the white view of the Alaska Eskimo’s future. Harmon Helmericks, who has lived in the Arctic for years, says,
The reindeer herds over which there was such a to-do to help the starving Eskimos have all but vanished, because it seems to be an uphill fight all the way to get these people to be constant herders and not kill their own animals for human and dog feed. They do not understand that a considerable public and world sacrifice was made to give them the entire reindeer industry, which might have been developing today in the hands of a more enterprising people. Indians and Eskimos in Alaska must turn to agriculture wherever agriculture is possible. . . .They must turn to herding, . . .to harvest of the sea, to their own native crafts, . . .Eventually, to some extent, the natives must turn to industry as Alaska develops. That is, Alaskan natives should in the future begin to participatein American life like everyone else. How to find employment for thousands of laborers – how to make them even like it at once – is a big order, considering the employment problems which face the rest of the world.[9]
Helmericks has stated what, in one way or another, many American believe. The American way of life is something every person in this country must accept because it is right. Agriculture and industry are the gateways to the promised land of the “American dream.”
It is the same in the churches where integration is used as a model. The whites write the agenda. James Cone, a prominent black liberation theologian says,
When white people say integration they mean come and do it like we do it. And what I am saying is, the worst thing you can do to people is to deny that they are a people, to deny their culture, their history, their way of living and expressing life. I am against integration because integration has meant becoming white, denying my culture, denying my history.[10]
Cone believes “Whether we like it or not, the days of integration are over.”[11]
Segregation
It has been argued that segregation is not a manifestation of prejudice but rather it happens because of natural separation into groups of similar people. That is not entirely true. Many members of racial minority groups have left predominantly white churches because in one way or another they have not felt welcome.
Carol V. George sites St. George’s Methodist Church in Philadelphia. “The blacks were made to stand when the pews filled up and when a new church was built, they were required to sit in the galleries.”[12] In addition, he notes other problems. “Virtually all religious groups, including Quakers, refused to be buried in the same part of the cemetery that included the mortal remains of black people.”[13]
There are still problems at First Presbyterian Church in Fairbanks because Eskimo people do not feel welcome. One Eskimo commented, “Instead of being accepted, I just feel like a stone wall or a stone just being there to be there.”[14] Another replied, “I don’t hardly attend the church services due to the fact I feel the frictions among the Eskimos and white people. I kind of feel let down by the white people.”[15]
Carol V. George concludes that the universality of the Christian gospel is not as comprehensive as most whites proclaim it to be.
If in fact they believed that “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bod nor free, but all are one,” then there would be no need for segregated worship facilities. The Churches, however, were segregated and black members were denied full participation in ways that reflected the racial attitudes of their social environment.[16]
For many people the result is simple: “Separation is a fact of life.”[17]
A Solution to the Problem – Ethnogration
Perhaps there is another answer, another way, another model, which can deal with cultural pluralism in a more positive way. I call this new model ethnogration. Ethnogration occupies the middle ground between integration and segregation. It allows racial minorities to be a part of a predominantly white church with the dominant culture writing the agenda for their participation. It is a way of dealing with pluralism, allowing two or more cultures to be a part of one church so that each can learn from the other. It is the concept of the salad bowl as opposed to the melting pot, permitting the tomatoes and lettuce to be separate and distinct, but together, instead of insisting that the various groups melt into a common culture where everyone thinks, acts, dresses and worships alike. Ethnogration is a model of church life which can bring racial minorities and white Christians into a setting where reconciliation can take place, where understanding and insight can become a way of life.
Ethnogration is built on the premise that “as Christians. . . .we know that separation, however rewarding. . . .cannot be an ultimate Christian goal. . . .Separation is at best a temporary solution. . . .Separation must give way to reconciliation. The Gospel is a reconciling as well as liberating gospel.”[18]
Ethnogration is not built on the concept of superordination-subordination where the minority group can be maneuvered into a dependent role. It is built, rather, on the concept of equity. “Equity assumes that all men are naturally equal. Human dignity is a birthright. . . .Equity implies the natural and God-given; it is rooted in both nature and grace and is shared by all men. Thus what is equitable cannot be given or taken away by whites.”[19]
Ethnogration is built on the premise that integration is dehumanizing in that racial minorities are “admitted to white society with everything to receive, with little if anything to give.”[20] Ethnogration insists that all persons are equal and every culture has its own value. It enables racial minorities “to appreciate their own heritage to the extent that they can consider it a worthy commodity to be shared with others. In this manner, liberation leads to reconciliation between equals. This position is productive of the psychological and sociological health”[21] of racial minorities, as well as the dominant culture.
In the April, 1976 issue of Dimensions, the newspaper of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church, a byline reads, “Church within a Church” for Koreans in Kenosha. Dr. George Morris, pastor of the First United Methodist Church in Kenosha says,
They (the foreign born) don’t have to melt into any melting pot. Their own heritage, history and language are important. More and more the church has to move in that direction. People can be a part of American culture and have their own background affirmed. The Christian Church needs to take leadership in that matter.[22]
When I shared my concept of ethnogration with James Cone, he was skeptical. He responded,
What I would be suspicious of is people who have been in power or who have identified with that power really knowing what justice and equity is. I have not met a white group that could deal with that. They interpret justice with them having the power. . . .Usually people who have been in power don’t know how to act, they don’t know how to give respect to other people’s culture and other people’s history. . . .The people in power. . . .find it difficult to listen, to really hear, because they don’t know what pain is, they don’t know what suffering is, they don’t know what really another culture is because they haven’t had to know.[23]
I differ with Cone because I believe this theological position is polarized. He has retreated to what he calls separation. But I do not think this was a choice which considered every alternative. His anger over what white society has done to blacks, has kept him from seeing other possibilities. At the close of my interview he said, “What I am really for is. . . .the empowerment of all.”[24] I believe ethnogration can make that happen, not overnight, but it can get a racial minority and the dominant culture together so that equity can become a reality.
Ethnogration at First Presbyterian Church
I’d like to share how ethnogration has been developed and given flesh at First Presbyterian Church in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Getting Them Into theChurch There can be no cross-cultural church if no invitation is ever given to another culture to participate in a congregation. This is always a difficult step. In light of past history, it is easy to logically conclude that racial minority groups should have their own churches. Their culture is different, and we assume that they want to be with their own kind. Communication is difficult because often there is a different language which creates a barrier. There is usually an economic problem. Many of the racial minorities are poor, whereas many of our white churches are wealthy and have big, beautiful, immaculately clean buildings. Consequently the natural assumption is that if they come to our church, they have to become like us. Therefore, it is easier to let them be by themselves. Margaret Mead says this may be “a thin disguise for our unwillingness to let Natives into full participation in the dominant society.”[25]
In Denver, the Rev. Robert Lutz, pastor of the Corona Presbyterian Church, noticed the Koreans moving into the area of his church so he “established friendships and went to call on them.”[26] In Nome, Alaska, the Rev. John Schafer, pastor of the Methodist Church, offered his church and pastoral services to a group of Presbyterian Eskimos. It was the invitation to the Eskimo people to be a part of the First Presbyterian Church in Fairbanks that allowed the growth to begin between whites and Eskimos which is continuing today.
No doubt, at the time, the church was not intending for the relationship between Eskimos and whites to work out as it has today. They were responding to what they saw as a human and spiritual need of people who had been thrust into an alien culture. I doubt whether the leaders of First Presbyterian Church ever set any goals for the relationship between Eskimos and whites 25 years from 1943. But they welcomed them into the church, and they had the beginnings of a cross-cultural church.
A Separate Worship Service. A racial or cultural minority should have a separate worship service in their own language, if wanted and needed, even if they can understand the English language.
First Presbyterian Church started a separate service almost immediately because of the language problem, and some people saw this as segregation. The Nazarene Church also had a separate service for Eskimos and the minister tells how a Christian worker of another denomination said, “We are surprised that your church is fostering race prejudice. We understand you do no allow natives in your regular church worship services. . . .”[27]
Allowing the Eskimos to have a worship service in their own language was the single most important factor, I believe, in keeping them interested in the church. The traditional Presbyterian worship service doesn’t do a lot for many Native people.
Carol George says the Methodist Church failed in its attempt to hold blacks “because basically it’s low-church but formal services and polished sermons were designed to meet the needs of the socially elite.”[28]
Clarence Irigoo, a Presbyterian Eskimo elder from St. Lawrence Island, says that when he moved to Nome, he was told to go to the Methodist Church because that was the church most like the Presbyterian. But when he went to worship with the Methodists, the service was formal and structured. “I felt like I was in a college classroom when the minister delivered the sermon.”[29] So, he went to the Assembly of God Church where he was better able to understand the sermons and where the less formal service was more like the style of worship at the all-Eskimo Presbyterian Church at Gambell.
The Eskimos at First Presbyterian Church enjoy a loosely structured worship service where they have plenty of opportunity for participation. They enjoy giving and hearing testimonies, which might be the singing of the favorite hymn by the whole congregation or sharing a Bible verse that is meaningful, or letting everyone know of a joy or sorrow which has come to them. They like to sing the hymns they know which are not sung in most Presbyterian services. They enjoy the guitar, the accordion, violin and even a musical saw as accompaniment to their singing.
An important part of the afternoon service is the fellowship hour which follows Those who attend take turns making coffee and tea and bringing something to eat, usually Eskimo donuts. The Eskimo people have always kept their culture alive by oral tradition. It has only been in recent years that they have had a written language, so that the story-telling-way of passing on their heritage is still a very real part of their culture. At the fellowship hour, after the worship service, Eskimos from all over the Northern part of Alaska have time to share what has been happening in their villages. They tell about the sheep and caribou hunts at Anaktuvuk Pass, the whaling at Barrow and Barter Island, seal hunting at Wainwright, and a new, but important story, hunting moose and fishing in the Fairbanks area.
The fellowship hour also becomes a place to transmit news about family and friends in the distant villages. In effect, the afternoon service is a place where Eskimos can be with their people and share their concerns and worship according to their custom. It is an affirming, strengthening experience for them.
Integration posed the only serious threat to the separate Eskimo service. When the movement towards integration began in the late 50’s in our nation, the church was affected. At First Presbyterian Church, the integration of the two worship services became a goal. But it was one-way integration. The integrated worship service was to be at 11 o’clock and the traditional Presbyterian liturgy was to be used.
Mable Rasmussen says she was against having the two worship services combined into one, but the whites were feeling that the Eskimos were understanding English well enough and that they wanted “the Eskimo people to feel more at home among the white people and feel more integrated.”[30] But Mable says it didn’t really work out. There were too many people who came from the villages who didn’t feel comfortable in an all white service.
They wouldn’t have the feeling of being at home, and it’s such a good feeling if you have the feeling of being at home. It’s such a good feeling if you have been raised among German or Norwegian people to hear those languages spoken, even when you don’t understand them, because it means home to you and so I felt that way about the Eskimo people.[31]
So, the Eskimo afternoon service survived the integration effort.
In 1970, the Eskimo service was re-emphasized as being an important part of the church program. The two most important ways of doing that were to have the white pastor attend the Eskimo service and to emphasize to the whole congregation that the church had two worship services, not just one. Communion is now served at both services and new Eskimo members are given the choice to be received publicly during the morning or afternoon service. Children can be baptized at either service. Presently there is some English at every Eskimo service and some Eskimo at every English service.
Getting a Minister From Their Own Group. Everything possible should be done to have one of their own race and culture minister to them.. Whites usually think white, and white ministers usually think in terms of the white culture. Because racial minority groups do not always have a large number of seminary trained ministers waiting for calls, the person who is called to initiate and carry on a ministry will probably be a trained professional. Consequently, Presbyterians need to learn that ministry can be done by those who do not have formal training.
It is very important for leaders in ministry to come from the cultural group being served. “Leaders selected from the ethnic minority communities, who know the language and cultural tradition, can identify and communicate with persons in that community better than from outside that community.”[32]
This is not an easy step for most main-line churches because there is a long history of theological training for professional clergy. But many of the newer, growing, evangelical churches have used untrained clergy to great advantage.
In my model, however, the untrained lay person from the cultural group does not work in isolation, but with a professionally trained pastor. An essential part of the model is that the pastor and lay person work very closely and spend a great deal of time together getting to know one another and learning how the other thinks and feels.
In the case of First Presbyterian Church, we were able to hire James Nageak, a full time youth worker at the Utkeavik Presbyterian Church in Barrow. To give him status with our congregation, and to get him involved in Presbytery, we asked that he be commissioned as a lay preacher. A lay preacher in the Presbyterian Church is commissioned by the Presbytery to “teach and preach. . . .(but not to) administer the sacraments, nor in any capacity perform a marriage.”[33] The Presbytery is responsible for providing a lay preacher with “resources for the person’s spiritual and intellectual development.”[34] In the case of Mr. Nageak, he enrolled at the University of Alaska and was a full time student while working 20 hours a week at the church.
During James Nageak’s two years of service at First Presbyterian Church, Rex Okakok felt the call to the ministry and subsequently became our lay preacher when James left for seminary. When Rex went to seminary, we hired Curtis Karns, A University of Alaska Senior who is considering the ministry. He is white and was hired for a year to give us time to set up a search committee for a new Eskimo lay preacher.
A second advantage in having pastoral leadership from the group is that it makes it easier to deal with paternalistic attitudes and tendencies. Our Eskimo lay preachers have been outspoken in their feelings about paternalism.
First Presbyterian Church has had a continuing problem with the paternalistic attitudes of the whites. In the 1957 Annual Report to the congregation, the all-white staff of the Afternoon Sunday School was thanked for their “sacrifice of time and effort. . . .Without our wonderful staff of teachers, this missionary project would be impossible.”[35]
This attitude was still present when I came to Fairbanks to be interviewed for the position of pastor in the church. When I asked the pastor-seeking committee what was the reason for First Presbyterian Church’s existence, someone responded, “We have a mission to the Eskimo people of Fairbanks.” As Roberts has pointed out, this is an indication of the philosophy of integration where racial minorities are on the receiving end but it isn’t believed that they have anything of significance to contribute.
A few people, however, were able to see the contribution of the Eskimo people. Mable Rasmussen says,
Spiritually speaking, I do know what they contributed. They were steady all the time and they had a Christ-like spirit. I don’t mean no one ever drank – the whites drank too – or got into trouble. That’s true, they did. But how would anyone else do with a new culture? But one of the things I think was so wonderful was their humility in going to church in wanting to give a testimony. They would say they had trouble and ask us to pray for them. It was never, “Well, we’ll just pray for ourselves.” And they came to everything, sometimes even to Wednesday night prayer meetings.[36]
Another positive contribution they have made to the church is thir singing. They love to sing and Mable Rasmussen says,
“I remember Mary Riley and a few of the other women singing in church and Mary not being able to read or write and Mary sang every verse of the song. And they sang those songs all the way through in English. They tried to sing it in English so the white people would feel at home.”[37]
Emphasize the Culture. The culture of the minority group should be emphasized. The Eskimos have tended to look down on their heritage after having lived in the white culture for a period of time. They saw their previous way of life as inferior; they saw themselves as inferior. When I first became pastor of the church, I heard the phrase often, “I’m just a dumb Eskimo.”
We introduced the traditional feasts of Thanksgiving and Christmas with the emphasis on traditional foods. At Thanksgiving, the center of attention is not turkey, but the whale meat and frozen fish (quaq) sent by Eskimos at Barter Island, Barrow and Wainwright. The expressions of “delicious” do not go to the maker of the dressing, but to the cook who brought the kettle of caribou soup. The dessert is not pumpkin pie, but Eskimo ice cream (the fat of animals whipped and frozen with wild berries).
We stressed that it was all right to wear typical Eskimo clothing to church on Sunday – to both services. An interesting note is that a group of non-denominational Christians, working with Natives in Fairbanks, does not allow Eskimo women to wear slacks. They may wear only dresses, because they believe that is the way Christian women should be attired. When one lives near the Arctic Circle, it doesn’t take much intelligence to understand how absurd that concept is.
We allowed Eskimo dancing to take place in the church fellowship hall. This was most difficult because early missionaries considered the dancing pagan and though they never outlawed it, the Presbyterian Eskimos were conditioned never to dance in the church building or on Sunday.
Other Eskimo Christians living in the Fairbanks area have looked down on First Presbyterian Church for having Eskimo dances in the church. As late as 1972, the Quakers tried to keep Eskimo dancing from being taught in the Kotzebue school system. The Assembly of God Church also forbids it. Therefore, Eskimo Christians from these and other groups feel Fairbanks Presbyterians are permitting something which belongs to the old, pagan, Eskimo way, not the new Christian way. Our feeling is that it no longer holds religious significance, but that it does have strong cultural identification.
Dr. Cecil Corbett, A Nez Perce Indian, and head of Cook Christian Training School in Tempe, Arizona, was a guest at our 1976 Thanksgiving feast. After the sumptuous fare of Eskimo food, the Eskimo drummers started pounding out the dance and there was lively participation. Dr. Corbett was very surprised and asked how such a custom had survived the onslaught of the missionaries. First Presbyterian Church in Fairbanks remains the only Presbyterian Church in Alaska where Eskimo dancing is permitted in the church building.
It has been good for the people. The whole process of dancing in their traditional way seems to be a purging, a purification rite for the Eskimos living in the urban culture of a mostly white city.
Empowerment of the Group. Empowering a minority group is what gives life to their participation with the dominant culture. For us, this was a dramatic step, but without it the other changes would not have meant much.
We empowered the Eskimos by establishing an Eskimo Committee which works as a part of the church’s governing body, the Session.
Prior to the Eskimo Committee, the Eskimo people had nominal representation on the Session. Wilbur Itchoak was the first Eskimo elder elected in 1946, but upon his death a year later, a white persona was selected to fill his position. It took ten years before another Eskimo, Kava Riley, was elected as an elder. From 1957 on, one Eskimo served on the Session until 1972 when two were elected and now three of the fifteen Session members are Eskimos.
The absence of Eskimo input at the decision making level of the church was an area where change was needed. Even during the years when one Eskimo was represented on the Session, such “token” representation was not adequate because the Eskimo, by nature, is quiet, unassuming and not aggressive. Very little was said by the Eskimo elders unless they were asked to express an opinion and then they were often hesitant to do so.
The Eskimo Committee, it was decided, would be chosen by those who attended the Afternoon Worship Service. Seven at-large members were selected and all Eskimo elders and deacons were automatically placed on the Committee. They were given the status of a Session Committee, that is, they could make recommendations directly to the Session, and the Session would act upon their recommendations.
Part of the success of the committee was that it was given responsibility for the program of the whole church, not just that which related to the Eskimo people. This allowed them to make recommendations about various parts of the church program which they felt needed changing.
The eleven o’clock worship service was one of the areas where they wanted change. They felt the service was much too formal and it didn’t allow adequate time for them to participate and express themselves. A time when the congregation shared concerns was included in the service and the whole tone of the service became less formal at their suggestion.
Their committee meets once a month, usually for a potluck dinner before the Session meeting. At first they conducted the meetings in their own language, but now conduct them in English and Eskimo. Eskimo is used especially for clarification of ideas and thoughts.
Once they were given responsibility for the program of the church, lay leadership developed rapidly, and they began to expand their horizons. They requested and received, a yearly set amount in the church budget for their committee. This, according to budgeted amounts for other committees, is quite a substantial sum. The main purpose for the budget at the present time is to support an Eskimo language radio broadcast to reach the North Slope of Alaska and Canada. They produce the program weekly during the dark Alaskan months and it is now broadcast over KJNP, North Pole, Alaska; KICY, Nome, Alaska and KBRW, Barrow, Alaska.
Underlying this whole model is the philosophy of self-development. Prior to 1971, First Presbyterian Church was thinking of purchasing a bus, which would mostly be used to transport Eskimo people to church on Sundays and home again. When James Nageak was hired, and the idea of a bus was shared with him, he immediately put an end to the project. He said the Eskimo people could get where they wanted to go, and we shouldn’t give them any special privileges when it comes to church. He suggested they should find their own way to church and thus, it would be more meaningful for those who came.
The same held true for leadership development. Our new philosophy was to have a ministry with Eskimo people, not toEskimo people. Now, Eskimo elders are much more visible and verbal since they are in greater number on the church Session. They tend, also, to be more faithful in their responsibilities than do some white Session members.
With more responsibility given to the Eskimo elders, they have branched out and been active in Presbytery as well. Since 1974, First Presbyterian Church has had two pastors and so now one white and one Eskimo elder attend Presbytery.
As a result of developing Native leadership in the church, a new function has evolved for First Presbyterian Church. It is the only church in Presbytery that has a substantial number of both whites and Eskimos. Therefore, the churches of Presbytery use this church as common ground. Often the white churches look to us for interpretation of Native Church needs and Eskimo Churches look to this church to articulate their needs and programs to white churches. This church’s experience in cross-cultural ministry has placed it in a unique position of leadership in both the Presbytery and Synod of Alaska-Northwest.
The greatest difficulty in putting this model into effect came from the older Eskimo members. During the first two years the model was in operation, they found it difficult to accept pastoral leadership from the Eskimo lay preacher. They were not used to Native leadership at the pastoral level. At first, Native members would try to circumvent Mr. Nageak and go to the pastor concerning decisions which needed to be made. The resistance came from the self-development concept inaugurated by the lay preacher. Prior to the introduction of this model, nearly everything had been done for the Eskimo people. The new model challenged them to do things for themselves.
On one occasion, one of the Native members came to the pastor and asked why the Eskimo people were required to get involved in a project. She said, “All we had to do before was to ask the white people and they gave us everything we wanted.” However, this attitude vanished as they saw the advantages of assuming leadership themselves.
Becoming an Advocate for the Eskimo People. Once we felt our goals of re-emphasizing the Eskimo culture were beginning to bear fruit, we took another step. We worked with Eskimo people in the area of their special problems. We tried to help them deal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Social Services and the Alaska Native Health Service. A special area of concern was for Eskimos who had problems with the law. Regular visits to the jail were started and we provided interpreters for Eskimo people when they went to court. At times the church housed Native people for a month or more while they awaited trial. They were brought to Fairbanks and then let out on bail to wait until their trial or sentencing came. The State provided no place for them to stay, nor did they provide funds for them to exist. If relatives could no longer keep them, or if they had no relatives at all, the church became a hostel for them. To the credit of the State of Alaska, this has changed. Every Eskimo is now entitled to a trial before his peers. Trials and sentencing are now held in the bush.
An attempt was also made to develop a political action group which would be an advocate for the Eskimo people in the community. The Association of Interior Eskimos was born in First Presbyterian Church, but the two groups soon lost any close identification. In debating who should be allowed to be members of the Association, the decision was finally made to allow white mates of Eskimo people to join. This eventually dealt a fatal blow to the effectiveness of the organization when the white husband of an Eskimo woman was elected as chairman. Although the Association of Interior Eskimos has done several things of significance, it has really hindered the development of Eskimo leadership because it has become a secular version of the paternalistic white man attempting to help the Eskimo. When sewer and water were extended to Eskimo Village, the white chairman of the Association of Interior Eskimos asked the church for financial help to provide bathroom facilities for the homes in the village. The request was referred to our Eskimo Committee which recommended that the church not contribute to the project because they felt the people living there should make some contribution to the project since most of them were working. This response angered the white chairman of the Association of Interior Eskimos and there has been no direct communication between the church and the Association since.
The church still plays an advocacy role for the Eskimos today. Along the way the Laubach Literacy Training Program was included which helped Eskimos who were having problems with Basic English. Strangely, though this program was started for the Eskimos, the Korean people are benefiting from it most at the present time.
Interpreting the Eskimo Culture to the Whites. To help the white part of the congregation understand the Eskimo culture the Eskimos continued on the offense. More Eskimo participation in the Eleven O’clock service was stressed. They attended wearing their traditional parkas and mukluks.
This has been a unique part of worshipping at First Presbyterian Church. It is not unusual to attend a church service where people have different colored skins, but the Eskimo dress sets them apart immediately so that one takes notice quickly.
This has been both a threatening and enticing experience for white attendees. Some whites who have come to Fairbanks and have not been used to any other culture than their own have tended to be threatened by the Eskimo people. On the other hand, some whites are intrigued by new experiences and different people, and find worshipping with Eskimo Christians an exciting new dimension to church attendance. With more Eskimos attending the eleven o’clock service, more communication between white and Eskimo members takes place.
To bring the Eskimo culture into the “white” morning service, several things were done. First, the Eskimo lay minister was liturgist most Sundays, and preached the sermon occasionally. Every Sunday, at least one verse of the Scripture lesson, usually the one around which the sermon was built, was read in Eskimo. Whenever possible, Eskimo members sang a “special,” which is a hymn sung in the Eskimo language.
To make the white congregation more aware of the afternoon worship service, a ball for the church’s IBM typewriter was purchased with the Eskimo alphabet, and the order of worship was written in the bulleting in the Iñupiaq language.
Out of the above strategies and experiences, a new one began to develop, the concept of a team ministry. We began to see that in order to have an alive cross cultural church, we had to have the white minister and the lay preacher relating to both groups. Since the white minister had usually been expected to relate to both groups, it was a new experience to have the Eskimo minister see his ministry as including the white people of the congregation. As a result, the present lay preacher has this concept written into his job description. He is not just the minister of the Eskimo people of the congregation. He is the lay preacher for the entire congregation, and has a responsibility to minister to the whole church.
So, here are two congregations, but one church. This is ethnogration, allowing two groups, one a racial and cultural minority and the other of the dominant culture to be together in one congregation. The superior-inferior mentality may still beheld by some members of the church, but it is no longer the official policy of the church. The official stance of the church is that all persons are naturally equal, that every person deserves dignity as a child of God. Both cultures have something to give and something to receive and this lays the foundation for reconciliation, in the truest Christian sense, to take place.
First Presbyterian Church has in no sense “arrived” by using this model. Time is a great teacher. We are far ahead of most congregations, but that is because the two groups have been together nearly 35 years. Growth and understanding is a process. We have reached a point in that process, but we have not reached the end of the process. Eskimos and whites have grown together, but First Presbyterian Church does not believe we have reached the ultimate in that growth. As we continue to share one church our growing together will continue. Our knowledge of one another and experience with one another will broaden and nurture us. As long as we continue in one church we will learn more about each other and the more we learn, the more we will have to share with other Christians.
END NOTES
[1] David Alden Telfer, Sociological and Theological Foundations for Church of God Ministry in Ethnic Minority Communities in the United States, (Denver: Iliff School of Theology), 1975, p. 46.
[2] J. F. Hinkhouse, 100 Years of the Iowa Presbyterian Church, (Cedar Rapids, Ia.; Laurance Press Company), 1932, pp. 299-300.
[3] Ibid.
[4] S. Hall Young, Hall Young of Alaska, (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company), 1927, p. 254.
[5] Telfer, Sociological and Theological Foundations for Church of God Ministry in Ethnic Minority Communities in the United States, pp. 48-49.
[6] Dorothy M. Jones, The Urban Native and the Social Service System, (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Institute of Social, Economic And Government Research), 1974, p. 16.
[7] J. Doetis Roberts, Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press), 1971, p. 176.
[8] Ibid., pp. 176-177.
[9][9] Constance and Harmon Helmericks, We live in the Arctic, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 1947, p. 322.
[10] James Cone, Professor of Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York, Interview with the Author, Jan. 24, 1976.
[11] James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed, (New York: Oxford University Press), 1973, p. 241.
[12] Carol V. R. George, Segregated Sabbaths, (New York: Oxford University Press), 1973, p. 6.
[13] Ibid., p. 49.
[14] Questionnaire to the congregation by author to evaluate the model. See Appendix C.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Roberts, Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology, p. 6.
[17] Cone, God of the Oppressed, p. 241.
[18] Roberts, Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology, p. 6.
[19] Ibid., pp. 10, 178-179.
[20] Ibid., p. 183.
[21] Ibid., pp. 176-177.
[22] Dimensions, The Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church monthly newspaper, April, 1976.
[23] Cone, Interview with the author, January 24, 1976.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Jones, The Urban Native and the Social Service System, p. 15.
[26] Robert Lutz, Pastor of the Corona Presbyterian Church, Denver, Colorado, interview with the author, March 11, 1976.
[27] Bernice Bangs Morgan, The Very Thought of Thee, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), 1952, p. 94.
[28] George, Segregated Sabbaths, p. 38.
[29] Clarence Irigoo, Interview with the author, September 17, 1977.
[30] Mable Rasmussen, Interview with the Author, November, 1976.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Telfer, Sociological and Theological Foundations for Church of God Ministry in Ethnic Minority Communities in the United States, p. 90.
[33] The Book of Order, 1976-77, (New York: The Office of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America), 1976, p. 54.01-.02.
[34] Ibid.
[35] First Presbyterian Church Fairbanks, AK, Annual Report, 1957.
[36] Rasmussen, Interview.
[37] Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment