Before discussing lessons from attention to Native American religions, let us start with a reflection on the ethics of race relations. Perform with me this mental experiment:

Imagine, once upon a time, there was a certain associate professor teaching Christian ethics at the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.

Imagine this professor was a black man, an African-American, and imagine that when this black professor received papers from his students, he would sort the papers into two groups:
(1) those papers written by black students, and
(2) those papers written by all other students.

Now imagine that this black professor was in the habit of finding those papers written by black students to be fully adequate, and finding those papers written by all other students to be inadequate or wrong.

Moreover, imagine this black professor believed as a matter of principle, he should and would always necessarily find the papers written by black students to be more adequate than papers written by other students.

How should we describe this black associate professor's philosophy?

Most of us agree, this is a "black supremacist" philosophy. Furthermore, most of us agree this kind of black supremacist philosophy is an unethical "prejudice." And we call this professor's behavior "prejudiced" because the professor can judge the papers written by non-black students to be inadequate prior to reading the papers. This prior judgment, judgment prior to consulting the facts or relevant evidence is a prejudice. To be prejudice is to be in the habit of passing judgment prior to looking at the evidence, prior to reading the papers. Because this associate professor knew or thought he knew the papers written by non-blacks were inadequate prior to reading those papers, and because this professor knew or thought he knew the papers written by black students to be fully adequate prior to reading them, we describe him as prejudiced. And, most of us agree, this kind of black supremacist prejudice is unethical. We agree. This is not a virtue. It is a vice.

Now imagine, on the other hand, there were a white associate professor who was in the habit of prejudging papers written by white and non-white students. Imagine a white professor who believed, as a matter of principle, prior to reading the papers, that papers written by white students are always necessarily superior to papers written by non-white students. Again, most of us would recognize this as a racial prejudice consistent with a philosophy of white supremacy. And, most of us would agree that such white supremacist prejudice is unethical. With regard to racial prejudice, with regard to black supremacy and white supremacy, we tend to agree, supremacist prejudice is unethical. Again, we agree. White supremacist prejudice, like black supremacist prejudice, is a vice, not a virtue.

Now, another similar mental experiment:
Imagine, once upon a time, there was a certain associate professor teaching Christian ethics at the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.

Imagine this professor was a Christian,
and imagine when this Christian professor looked at religious scriptures, he would divide all religious scriptures into two groups:
(1) those scriptures which are Judeo-Christian, and
(2) those scriptures which are from all other religions.

Now imagine this Christian professor was in the habit of finding Christian scriptures to be fully adequate, and all other scriptures to be inadequate or wrong.

Moreover, imagine this Christian professor believed as a matter of principle, he should and would always necessarily find Judeo-Christian religion more adequate than all other religions.

How should we describe this Christian philosophy of religions?

If we are consistent with the way in which we described black and white supremacist philosophies, we must agree this is a "Christian supremacist" philosophy. Furthermore, if we are consistent with the way in which we described black and white supremacist philosophies, we must agree this Christian supremacist philosophy is a "prejudice."

The problem for us Christians is this: where we readily condemn black supremacist prejudice and white supremacist prejudice as unethical; we resist condemning Christian supremacist prejudice. More than this, we Christians habitually think of Christian supremacist prejudice as a praiseworthy virtue.

Where on the one hand, we think it is a vice to be a racial supremacist and to be racially prejudiced; on the other hand, we think it is a virtue to hold Christian religion is in principle and forever superior to all other religions, and we think it is a virtue to hold we know this prior to serious study of other religions.

And like our imaginary black supremacist professor,
and like our imaginary white supremacist professor,
when we Christian supremacists consult the literature of other religions, we always find what our prejudicial supremacist principles predispose us to find----that all other religions are inferior to our own uniquely superior fully adequate one and only "one true religion."

Where we Christians habitually condemn prejudiced supremacist philosophies in matters of race; nonetheless, we Christians habitually praise ourselves, and only ourselves, for holding a prejudiced supremacist philosophy in matters of religion.

The logic of ethical consistency challenges us to reconsider and then to repent of this seriously problematic Christian habit.

Lessons Christians Should Learn From Attention to Native American Religions

When we drop our supremacist prejudices, Native American religions can teach us some important ethical lessons:

• Other creatures are made in the image of the Creator, not just humans.
• Other creatures have intrinsic value, not just instrumental value.
• Service to other life counts as service to the Creator, not just service to human neighbors.
• Humans are not the only morally significant creatures on earth.
• There is no reason to suspect God loves human life more than other life.
• Righteous social ethical reflection needs to include attention to future life, including the seventh generation.
• Righteous religion needs to be more about the behavior of social groups, tribes, nations, and international affairs.
• Our Christian religion is not in all respects necessarily and forever superior to all other religions.
• Attention to Native American religions calls contemporary Christian religions to repentance.

Without repentance of this kind, Christian religion is reduced to idolatry--we idolize humans and human individuals as being the only earthly life intrinctly valuable to God.

Our vision of the kingdom to come, our vision of an alternative more righteous future is inadequate and unrighteous because it is a vision that includes only God, angels, and a few chosen humans--us Christians.

All other humans, all other religions, and all other creatures are deemed inferior, and they are excluded from our visions of eternal life.

With regard to other life, including future and other than human life, and with regard to other religions; we Christians need to repent.

Christian theology and Christian ethics must be concerned with these questions:

1. Is it Christian?
2. Is it meaningful?
3. Is it true? or, Is it righteous?
4. Is it adequate?

When we think an affirmative answer to the first question is in principle always and forever an affirmative answer to the other questions; then we are probably Christian supremacists.

Being a Christian supremacist is a violation of the rules of academic engagement, and it is, at best, morally problematic, and at worse, a gravely serious sin.

And this brings us finally to the title of this lecture: "Are you a Christian supremacist?" If so, you should consider repentance.