“God in Indian Country:  Traditional and Contemporary Approaches to the Holy”

Thomas J. Hoffman
St. Mary’s University
San Antonio, Texas

Abstract

I shall initially elaborate on Vine Deloria’s and Bob Thomas’ insights with regard to American Indian approaches to the Holy. Following this, I shall explore how some native scholars and community members articulate current approaches among American Indians to the Holy.  Within this context (of both traditional and contemporary approaches) I shall discuss the notion of Indian orthodoxy. To conclude I shall present some contemporary survey results on how self-identified Indians in the United States conceptualize God.

Vine Deloria, Jr.

I’ve reread some of his earlier works, and have recently read his book on Medicine men, and his unpublished manuscript on Jung and the Sioux.  In his God is Red he wrote the following regarding the notions of religion and God:

There are serious questions whether Indian tribes actually had any conception of religion or of a deity at all.  Wherever we find Indians and whenever we inquire about their idea of God, they tell us that beneath the surface of the physical universe is a mysterious spiritual power which cannot be described in human images that must remain always the ‘Great Mystery.’

There are, on the other hand, many other entities with spiritual powers comparable to those generally attributed to one deity alone.  So many in fact that they must simply be encountered and appeased, they cannot be counted.  In addition all inanimate entities have spirit and personality so that the mountains, rivers, waterfalls, even the continents and the earth itself have intelligence, knowledge, and the ability to communicate ideas. [1]  

All is interconnected in Deloria’s spiritual universe.  

“One thing seems certain:  dreams, daytime encounters, and visions all consist of communications from higher powers who already know much about us and who have a specific purpose in revealing themselves to us and, at least for American Indians, appear in the form of birds and animals. …  Sometimes this phenomenon occurs to teach the human that in spite of different shapes and talents, the universe is a unified tapestry and no a collection of isolated, unrelated entities.” [2]

Deloria felt that the notion of “God” was a Western European one.  He elaborates on this in his book on Jung:  “Indians generally do not stress divinity because it does not make sense to them.  A ‘mixture’ of divine and animal qualities would be absurd in the Indian context because all entities have this mixture as a matter of course.  While there are many spirits found in the Indian experience, divinity in the Western sense is glaringly absent.” [3]   He would put it this way with regard to his own people:  “Although they did not use the concept of ‘god’, the Sioux base all their beliefs on the overwhelming presence of Wakan tanka in everything.” [4]  

…the Sioux had sixteen different concepts describing distinctive demonstrations of energy that they experienced. The most familiar idea was that of Wakantanka and it implied a sense of family relatedness and intimacy, a caring intelligence. The physical energy that gave locomotion to physical things, they called skan or Taku skan skan. This concept is usually translated as "something that moves"- akin to the energy fields of quantum physics. Skan seems closer to some of the Jungian ideas that suggest the unity of mind and matter, spirit and instinct, in a certain kind of intelligent existence. [5]

According to Deloria, experiencing the holy, rather than belief, is what characterizes the American Indian experience (in contrast to belief in doctrine or dogmas as in Western Christianity).  “… tribal peoples, taking a purely empirical approach to the world and their experiences in it, reached the conclusion that the ultimate entity in the world was the mysterious energy they could perceive and occasionally apprehend.” [6]   Perhaps his notion of the Holy can be summed up in these words: 

We can begin with the recognition that the fundamental reality in our physical world is a strange kind of energy that is found within everything – stars to humans to stones to quantum energy fields.  This energy is personal or can be experienced personally.  It is mysterious but so potent that it is useless to explore all the possible ways to define it.  If we say anything about this power or energy, we say that the world we live in is sustained by this power, is ultimately spiritual and not physical. [7]

Bob Thomas  

For this presentation I’ve gone back over notes from a course I took from Bob Thomas at the University of Arizona in 1981, and I’d like to go over some of the content that Bob Thomas had passed on to us, his students.  Although the course was entitled “American Indian Religion” in retrospect it should have been entitled “The religion of North American Indians as observed by Bob Thomas.”

In his course on American Indian Religion, Bob Thomas focused on four general topics:  tribal societies, cultural areas, European religions and their impact, and modern Indian religious patterns.  For today, I will try to summarize what he taught us regarding religion in tribal societies and American Indian religious patterns that have developed since contact.  (Although he went into great detail about differences among tribes in the culture areas portion of the course, that is beyond the scope of today’s presentation).  All credit for the insights in this discussion of North American Indian religion should go to Bob Thomas; all blame for any failure to communicate clearly his thought is mine alone.

There are two primary criteria to judge the bases on what a tribal religion was founded:  native language and native cures.  The native language contains a view of the world and the native cures are rooted in a philosophical/religious system of thought.  Why would one want to study North American Indian Religions?  Although Bob presented several reasons, the one he put forth that seems most compelling to me is that they express what North American Indians are all about.

Before examining religion in tribal societies, it is appropriate to examine the characteristics of a tribal society.  Tribal societies are small and kin-based.  Relationships are primary.  These societies are sacred societies.  Everything in the world is supernaturally meaningful.  Tribal societies are traditional; i.e., the group has had experiences which tell them the nature of the world and how to live in it.  Tribal societies are responsive to the natural world.  If the environment changes, the social organization changes (in contrast, Bob said, Anglos keep recreating England everywhere.).  The longer people live in a place the more they learn.  Their religion stores knowledge about the environment.  Also, a tribal society is closed and bounded both socially and conceptually. Summing up, tribal societies are 1. small and kin-based, 2. sacred, 3. traditional, 4. responsive to the natural world, and 5. closed and bounded.

Religion in tribal societies has certain general characteristics, and a particular approach to life and the sacred.  It is traditional, sees the world as natural, and is local.  The general characteristics of religion in tribal societies described by Bob Thomas are as follows:  first, it involves the supernatural.  The supernatural is made up of discrete beings seen as persons who are addressed with kin terms.  Second, the world of religion is structured and ordered.  The world is not chaotic.  The Universe has parts which have fixed relationships with each other.  Third, the universe is not developmental, it is fixed at creation.  Fourth, the universe is predictable and unalterable.  Bob pointed out that tribal religion does not include a capricious creator who will subject humans to tests like those that Job had to go through.  The focus of religion in tribal societies is on harmony.  Only man can foul it up.  Curing is a reestablishment of harmony by reestablishing law. These are the general characteristics of religion in tribal societies.

Religion in tribal societies involves a particular approach to life and the sacred.  All acts are religious acts; there is no separation between “sacred” and “secular”.  Religion integrates everything.  Even one’s thoughts can have effects:  if you think bad thoughts about someone, you can get them sick.  Religion is also traditional.   This means that rules and experiences are seen as sacred and as law.  There is no notion of consciously formulated secular law.  Rather law is of the nature of the universe, sanctioned by the sacred.   Tribal religions see the natural world as full of religious meaning.  Further, religions of tribal groups are local religions tied to the destiny of the people.  One is born into a religion, a way of life.     

To sum up this section, religion in tribal societies has four general characteristics:  the supernatural is made up of discrete beings addressed as kin, the world of religion is structured and ordered, the universe was fixed at creation, the universe is predictable and unalterable (and curing helps restore its order when humans foul it up).  Further, in tribal religion everything is sacred, religion integrates everything. Tribal religion is traditional, natural, and local.

Several characteristics distinguish tribal religions from the so-called “world religions”.  First of all, tribal religions are not focused on the individual or individual salvation, they are focused on relationships.  There is not a concern with life after death, because the group lives on.  (Some tribes have a stronger notion of life after death with rewards and punishments, but this is not the primary concern.)  There is an earthly focus; i.e., the primary focus is on now, on relationships among the living.  A second distinction is the lack of concern with dogma or belief.  People don’t “believe” in certain maxims about the sacred or the world, they acknowledge what is.  A third distinction is the lack of a universal “high god”.  Some tribes have a notion of a high god, a “Great Mystery”, but Bob Thomas suspects that this may be a reaction to Christianity.

What made tribal religions vulnerable to Christianity upon contact and further experience with Europeans?  First, European technology was impressive.  Technology was seen as spiritual power.  Thus, the Europeans had spiritual power which was to be respected.  Second, sometimes Christianity moved in as the native religion began to get in trouble; if there was destabilization in the native religion, Christianity was able to make inroads.  Third, often there was not a conflict between the Indian religion and Christianity.  Since tribal religion did not have a notion of the individual self, there was no need to look to others for confirmation that becoming Christian was okay or not.  (Bob Thomas pointed out that there are exceptions to this lack of a notion of an individual self, especially among the Hopis and Pueblos.  They have a sense of individual self.  One can behave impersonally for a “good” beyond.  This allowed them to trade, do business, and basically have a European approach to life.)

What American Indian religious patterns have developed since contact?  In his course Bob described seven different patterns which exist today.  Along with each of these patterns, he mentioned different tribes as examples of each pattern.  (I mention these examples at my own peril, because I cannot defend how he categorized the tribes, I can only report what he told us.  Further, he did not claim that his examples were comprehensive.  After all, they are just examples.)

First, among some tribes native religions have continued and remained fairly unaltered.  Examples are the Navajo, Ute, Teton Sioux, Cheyenne, and Creek.

Second, some have developed what Bob called “evolved native religions.”  These are religions that have evolved from older forms. Examples are Yakima, the Pomo, the Salish, and the medicine lodge among the Ojibwa.

Third, he spoke of “reformed native religions.”  Native religions that became more like European religions, incorporating notions such as personal choice, individual conscience, reverence, and religious purposefulness, i.e., activities distinct from the day to day.  The Iroquois are an example of a tribe that has consciously done this, and the Hopi have done this unconsciously.

Fourth, Bob referred to “new combinations” [8] or cults.  Some of these started and then faded out, like the Ghost Dance.  Others arose and continue, such as the Shakers in Washington and the Peyote religion (which is a majority religion among the Crow, Kiowa, Comanche, Osage, Navajo, and Southern Ute).

Fifth, “Native Christianity” developed both in the southwest and southeast among the Papago, Pueblo tribes, five tribes, and Yaquis.  Native Christianity is a Christianity which has been integrated into the philosophical and ritual system of the tribe.  (Among the Pueblos there are three patterns:  aboriginal Catholicism, orthodox Catholicism, and folk Catholicism).

Sixth, among some tribes there has been a pattern of “fragmentation.”  Competing religious patterns exist. This has developed where the reservation system in its classic form has existed for a long period, such as the Great Lakes, Northern Plains, and the Dakotas.  There has been a history of church colonialism, and you also have young folks reviving native religion.  You basically end up with young folks who are ant-Christian and anti-white; and adults who think everyone has to be some brand of Christian (depending on what brand of missionary was on the reservation).  So you have Christian bigots versus Native aboriginal bigots.  

Seventh, you have had some tribes that have become completely acculturated, such as the East Coast Tribes.

Some Contemporary Insights

For the past year I have been conducting interviews of American Indians with regard to conceptions of God and the holy.  I would like to briefly share some of the insights I have gained:

1. Traditional ceremonies are alive and well in Indian country.

2. Religious patterns have changed in the course of the twentieth century:

1. Up until the 1950s there was a huge gulf between those who held traditional beliefs and practiced traditional ceremonies, and those who had joined Christian denominations.  One had to be either one or the other.  In fact, the divide in the Indian community was even between Christian denominations (Vine was not allowed to visit with his cousins, because his Aunts and Uncles were afraid the little Episcopalian would somehow or another corrupt their Catholic children).

2. Today, among some peoples, there are people who literally do both Christian things and Indian ceremony. 

                                                               i.      Some are clearly doing two separate things;

                                                             ii.      Others have a real blend between Christian and Indian traditions.

                                                            iii.      Some pick and choose – looking for what works:  if there’s an illness, they may get a medicine man, and then if that doesn’t work, they’ll try Native American Church.  One interviewee quoted an old Medicine woman:  “Religion is like taking a bus, you take one bus that takes you to one place you want to go to, and then you get on another bus that takes you to another place you want to go to, and get on another bus that takes you to another place you want to go to.”

3. Some folks have had integrated Christianity and their beliefs for a very long time.  The Yaqui for example feel that the missionaries merely helped them complete their story of the worlds.  Before the missionaries, they knew of the three worlds, and from them they learned about the world of the flowers, the fourth world.

4. There are those in Indian country who are concerned about non-Indians learning a little about the Indian way and then pushing Indians around, acting like they know it all.   One person who participated in an interview related an experience with a family who had prepared all year for a give away.  They had prepared some 5000 items for the event.  Non-Indians have been allowed to learn, and then participate.  Now they even take on leadership.  When the time came for the give away, the family which had prepared all the items was excluded because the non-Indians decided that the family should be.  The interviewee said:  “When you give the knowledge, the non-Indian takes it and uses it against. … It’s now been claimed by the non-Indians that they know everything about the Indian God … so please quote me on this, ‘Yvonne is pissed.’”

Indian Orthodoxy

Given what I said about some contemporary changes in Indian country, orthodoxy in one sense may be on the decline:  allowing a buffet approach to the Holy – picking and choosing from Christian and traditional approaches would seem to lessen orthodoxy.  On the other hand, if ceremonies must be done in a certain way to work, then it’s not really a matter of orthodoxy, it’s really just a matter of what works.

In terms of Christian orthodoxy, the same notion applies – being able to pick and choose would seem to militate against such orthodoxy and permit much more tolerance.  On the other hand, it’s interesting to note that Indians are the second most likely group  to agree with the statement that “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally” (46% as compared with 55% of African Americans).

I will leave the rest of the discussion of orthodoxy to the other panelists.

Some contemporary survey results

According to the General Social Survey, American Indians are significantly (p<.05) more likely to see God as a Father (73 % very likely) than other people who live in the United States (61% very likely).

Figure One.

Further, American Indians are significantly (p<.05) more likely to believe in an afterlife (79%) than non-Indians in the United States (72%).

Figure Two.

Finally, American Indians are significantly (p<.05) more likely to pray (30% more than once a day) than non Indians in the United States (26%).

Figure Three.

The Indian and the Social Scientist

I would like to conclude my comments with the following story:

A social scientist approached a traditional American Indian and asked him “Do you believe in God?”  The Indian thought a moment, and said “No.”

The social scientist asked then, “Well, how did the world come to be?”  The Indian then proceeded to tell him his tribe’s creation story, mentioning at least one being that the social scientist would consider to be God.

The social scientist, puzzled at this, because of the first answer the Indian had given him, then said, “I have been told that Indians have a great belief in the sacred.  They supposedly see everything as sacred. You told me how the world was created by (here the figure’s name would differ, depending on the tribe).  How can you say you don’t believe in God”?

The Indian paused, and then proceeded to speak slowly, as if to a child.  “First of all, the creator did his creating, then his job was done.  Further, all is full of spirit, if you will: The two-leggeds, the four-leggeds, and the winged peoples.  Places have spirits, even rocks have spirits.  Everything is alive and is connected to each other.  If we have respect and honor the other peoples, they teach us things and may share wisdom and powers with us.”

“For example, some groups have sacred places where they hold ceremonies.  The ceremonies won’t produce the desired results if held elsewhere.  Why?  They have to have the ceremony in a particular place, because it is that place which is alive.  If a people say a mountain is sacred, they are not saying it is special in the same way that Westerners might say that a place is sacred – because of something special that took place there.  The mountain is sacred, because it is alive, it has a spirit.”

“But you say you don’t believe in God?”  “Of course not.  God as you describe him is someone who is separate from us, over and above us.  According to you we are to go and worship him on Sundays.  Some of you say you have the truth and want us to become Baptists, others of you say your truth is better and want us to be Catholics, others say they are right and have different names (Mormons, and Episcopalians, and Methodists).  You all want to convert us to different groups.”

“You won’t find Indians trying to convert other Indians or anyone to do ceremonies the way their people (tribe) do a ceremony.  We may share our stories of creation or of experiences of what you call the holy, but we don’t try to force them upon you.  Our relationships with the other peoples (four-leggeds, wingeds) and all of creation are based on experience, not ‘belief’.

The social scientist countered “But, I know many Indians who are Baptists, or Mormons, or other Christians.  They believe in God, why do you say you do not?”  The Indian stroked his chin.  “Well, many Indians in the past 150 years joined your Christian groups.  They saw it as a way of adapting, of surviving in your world (there were just so many more of you, than of them).  Some, indeed, may believe in your God and have no other experience of the holy (especially those who have little to no experience of traditional life).  But some, I would assure you, will acknowledge your God, but they also experience the aliveness of the universe which is energized by spirit.“

NOTES