As an educated Baby Boomer (but not an American history major), I found much of the narrative informative. For instance, at the pivotal Battle of Kings Mountain, there was only one British officer present who led Loyalist regiments against the Patriots. Throughout the series the Loyalists were presented fairly, as persons who followed their conscience, not as fools or villains, although some, like Colonel Tarlton, were.

George Washington is highlighted as man of tact and courage, indispensable in keeping the poorly supplied Continental Army and its untrained militias together. The series stressed that the American victory ultimately came because the Americans wore the British out, not that they had won many battles.

Washington’s choice of resisting being crowned after the war and retiring to Mt. Vernon, plus his refusal to run for a third term, were shown as pivotal for the democratic development of our nation. We can be especially thankful of this in view of the tragedies and tyrannical governments that followed the 1960s era of independence from French and British colonial governments where insurgent generals often became cruel and long-lasting tyrants.

On the other hand, The American Revolution made a frank presentation of Washington’s involvement in land speculation of Indian-owned territory and his order for the destruction of towns and crops of the Indians in Western New York. The description of that campaign was especially difficult to watch, as it must have been for many of my Baby Boomer contemporaries. We were not normally taught these negative aspects about Washington, even though such things are now routinely taught in practically every American history course. Washington’s role as slave owner was also clearly shown, including how he meticulously administered the return of runaway slaves to their owners at the end of hostilities.

This differs with the traditional versions we Baby Boomers learned as high-school and college students. You can find such a perspective in the video, “The First American” (2015) put out by the Gingrich Foundation and hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich along with a roster of conservative luminaries. In this presentation, the only reference to Washington’s relationship with slavery was about his will, in which he freed his slaves. Also not mentioned were the campaigns against the Indians. However, to be fair about the latter, some sort of military action was necessary to secure the New York and Pennsylvania fronts from constant Indian raids.

But conservative critics do have real reasons for their claim that Burn’s The American Revolution was partly a “hatchet job” (pun intended). A detailed review by Dan McLaughlin in the National Review, “No, Ken Burns, the United States Is Not an Iroquois Nation” (Nov 22, 2025), cites several historical errors including a big ideological misinterpretation.

Most disturbing was the absence of any description of English constitutional history in forming the opinions and attitudes of the Colonists. All but the most uneducated Colonists were aware that their “rights as Englishmen” were related to the Magna Carta and its interpretive development. They also knew that the English Civil War overthrew and executed one King, and later the “Glorious Revolution,” idolized by most colonists as a triumph of Protestantism, deposed another. All of this makes the colonial attitude towards their rights and their King historically located and understandable. None of this was mentioned in The American Revolution. This reflects a Leftist disdain of constitutional history as “bourgeois” and irrelevant. Indeed, this is the most serious error and omission of the series.

Despite these flaws, I would affirm that The American Revolution reflects in a major degree the biblical perspective of history. That is, that heroes have serious flaws, but are still providentially used by God. In the Bible the real hero of the Old Testament is God, with multiple “supporting characters” who are imperfect and sometimes disreputable. Moses sinned by destroying the tablet of the Ten Commandments. His brother Aaron, first High Priest, lied about his role in forming the golden calf. In fact, the heroes in the Book of Judges, who were chosen by God to save the Israelites from destruction and oppression, had major flaws, as in Samson and his inability to keep his pants up. David, certainly Israel’s best king, is not spared narrative criticism. His adultery and murder of Uriah was exposed by the prophet Nathan and detailed in the book of Second Kings (chapter 12). And although David repented (Psalm 51) he could not avoid the consequences of his sins. These included a rebellion against him by his son Absalom and ultimately a divided kingdom.

In the New Testament, we see Peter denying Christ three times. After Pentecost, when he was indeed strengthened by the Holy Spirit, he slid away from the freedom of the Gospel and cowardly appeased the “men from Jerusalem” (Galatians 2:11-14).

So perhaps the “heroes” of the Bible were mostly like our Washington. He was the Father of a nation, hero in battle, master of fortitude and resiliency in the midst of setbacks But he also had the flaws of accepting slavery even though he knew it was evil, and perpetuating injustices towards the Indians.

The Founding Fathers’ faults have been routinely taught in American schools for decades now. Most recently, The New York Times’ “The 1619 Project” exaggerated these to the point of mendacity. The ill effects of such a negative focus will be felt in American educations for decades to come. It has resulted in a noticeable, some say catastrophic, decline in patriotism among the younger generation. (What will be the outcome of some future conflict with China fought by a demoralized and unpatriotic draftee Army?)

We can never revert to the traditionalist narrative of neglecting the negative aspects of American history – that would be both impossible in a free society, and more importantly, unbiblical. The Trump administration has begun to undo some of the gross exaggerations by attempting to mold educational textbooks and curriculum to a patriotic position. But American education is largely a state issue, and reversing decades of the exaggerated anti-American narrative and “The 1619 Project,” now embedded in the attitudes of teachers, would be an especially difficult task. Saying this, I commend reasonable attempts, as for example those done in Florida and other conservative states to correct the anti-American narrative with more balanced textbooks and curricula.

Since if we are not likely to get back the traditional patriotism of “The Greatest Generation” which lived through and fought the Second World War, what type of patriotism can come from a biblical perspective? That would be a reasonable love of country that cherishes its good points and achievements, but does not hide its sinful mistakes. St. Augustine, who did not use the term patriotism but rather love of one’s own homeland, noted: “So long as we are in this mortal body, we are away from the Lord… and we love, as is natural, our own land where we live for a time” (The City of God XIX.17).

Augustine also noted that our love of country was to be subordinated to our loyalty and love for the Kingdom of God, and he was especially aware of the temptation to glorify early kingdoms to the point of idolatry. This happened significantly in the Roman Empire when its citizens were required to offer incense to the Emperor – and many Christians were martyred for not doing so.

I talked about Mexico and how God must be pleased with how – after conquest and much injustice to the Indians by the Spaniards – Mexico has developed a largely “mestizo” culture, where their races have been blended and are now living harmoniously. Other countries, like Bolivia, have no done so well. I also noted how successive Mexican governments since the Revolution of 1917, which many Mexicans idolize, had begun a tradition of government corruption that was never effectively confronted. This led to the present danger of having Mexico divided into a collection of drug “principalities” where gangster lawlessness prevailed. Their patriotism and prayers for Mexico must continue in spite of an imperfect home country.

Then I called on them to love and respect their present homeland where they had come to live and work. Here they establish businesses without having to bribe the police or government bureaucrats. America fought wars for freedom which destroyed both Fascism and Communism, something to be immensely proud of.

And yes, American culture has many faults. But again, my congregants had the biblical obligation to pray for the American presidents and state governors and its governments. It was especially important to pray for wisdom in the American presidents with their ability to begin and end wars. At the time, several in my congregation already had children in the Armed Forces (that was fifteen years ago, I wonder if any died in Afghanistan or Iraq).

All of which is to say, there can be an Augustinian-Christian approach to patriotism that takes into account mankind’s universal sinfulness in its different national manifestations, but celebrates one’s national achievements.

PR

The First Nations Version[1] is “An indigenous Translation of the New Testament” that provides an Introduction ([ix]-xiii), including “Why the Name First Nations Version?” (x), “Partnering Organizations,” “Church Engagement,” “The Translation Council” (x-xi), “Other Native People Involved” (xi), “Consultants and Support” (xi-xii), “Community Checking and Feedback” (xii), “Reader Aids” (xii-xiii). These are followed by a “Prologue” that gives an overview of the Old Testament, including introductory sample translations from Genesis, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel ([xv]-xviii).

Throughout the New Testament text, commentary or explanatory notes are inserted and indicated by a left-justified grey vertical bar to the left of each note. For example, “Spear of Great Waters (Pilate) was the local governor representing the People of Iron (Romans). He had the power to decide who would live and who would die.” This note explains to whom Creator Sets Free (Jesus) was taken by “the tribal elders, the scroll keepers, and the Grand Council” (Mark 15:1b). Also, throughout the FNV footnotes are supplied that include Literal translations (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:22) and Old Testament references for 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4). Further, “To Help The Reader with the historical and cultural context” [2] A “Glossary of Biblical Terms” is supplied. For additional information one is invited to visit: www.firstnationsversion.com and www.facebook.com/firstnationsversion.[3]

[From InterVarsity Press] Terry M. Wildman (Ojibwe and Yaqui) is the lead translator, general editor, and project manager of the First Nations Version. He serves as the director of spiritual growth and leadership development for Native InterVarsity. He is also the founder of Rain Ministries and has previously served as a pastor and worship leader. He and his wife, Darlene, live in Arizona.

The Translation Council “was selected from a cross-section of Native North Americans. Elders, pastors, young adults, and men and women from different tribes and diverse geographic locations were chosen to sit on the council” (x-xi). Also, “to minimize bias” the Council included “a diversity of church and denominational traditions” (xi). The “Translation Council humbly submits this new translation of the Sacred Scriptures as our gift to all English-speaking First Nations people and to the entire sacred family, which is the body of the Chosen One” (ix). This translation “is not a word-for-word” rendering, “but rather … a thought-for-thought translation, sometimes referred to as dynamic equivalence” (ix).

Now let us examine a few samples from the First Nation Version and other translations.

The Lord’s Prayer

⁹ Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.^[a]
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,^[b]
on earth as it is in heaven.
¹¹ Give us this day our daily bread,^[c]
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
¹³ And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil^[d]” (Matt. 6:9-13 ESV. [See linked footnotes for additional translation notes]).

The Way to Pray

“9 … when you send your voice to the Great Spirit, here is how you should pray:
‘O Great Spirit, our Father from above, we honor your name as sacred and holy. 10 Bring your good road to us, where the beauty of your ways in the spirit-world above is reflected in the earth below.
11 “Provide for us day by day—the elk, the buffalo, and the salmon. The corn, the squash, and the wild rice. All the things we need for each day.
12 “Release us from the things we have done wrong, in the same way we release others for the things they have done wrong to us.
13 “Guide us away from the things that tempt us to stray from your good road, and set us free from the evil one and his worthless ways. Aho! May it be so (Matt. 6:9-13 FNV)!

“Our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9a ESV) is translated in the First Nations Version as “O Great Spirit, our Father from above.” Besides, “Great Spirit,” other names for God are used in the FNV, such as “… Creator, Great Mystery, Maker of Life, Giver of Breath, One Above Us All, and Most Holy One” (xiii).

For many White North Americans, their staple food is bread. But for Indigenous North Americans traditional basic foods include “the elk, the buffalo, and the salmon. The corn, the squash, and the wild rice” (6:11b-c FNV). Such a rendering of this portion in Matthew 6:11 illustrates an example of the “dynamic equivalence” (ix) principle in operation. Bannock is “a type of bread made with wheat flour, shaped into round, flat cakes and fried or baked” and that was used “(originally in indigenous Canadian cooking).”[4] So, bannock is another staple or basic food that might be considered in Matthew 6:11 (FNV).

Compare:

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to [sic] him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20 ESV).

 “I stand before the entrance of your tipi, asking you to welcome me in, I will sit down with you, and we will share a good meal together” (Rev. 3:20 FNV).

Kudos to everyone involved in producing this unique “dynamic equivalence” translation of the New Testament! To anyone—especially a non-Indigenous person—who takes seriously one’s need to understand and communicate better to First Nations or Indigenous people in North America, the reviewer highly recommends utilizing the First Nations Version of the New Testament.

 PR

Publisher’s page: https://www.ivpress.com/first-nations-version

Dedicated page: https://firstnationsversion.com/book/first-nations-version/

Read an interview with the FNV editor, “Terry Wildman on the Making of First Nations Version, a New Indigenous Bible Translation.”

Notes

[1] First Nations Version: An Indigenous Translation of the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021.
[2]  Op. cit., [475]
[3]  Op. cit., [485]
[4] Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages (Accessed: Nov. 17, 2022).
[5] Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages (Accessed: Nov. 19, 2022).

Christian historian Woodrow Walton continues his investigation into the origins of the modern movements that inspired Christians to go and share the mission and message of Jesus throughout the world.

The Making of the Christian Global Mission

Part 2: Missions to the First Americans

Before proceeding to dealing with the spread and growth of the Christian gospel into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there is also the need to look at the contribution of a lone figure of Norman-French heritage who as a Jesuit missionary opened the pathway for mission and evangelism in North America. In his travels in Canada, he not only spread the gospel among a particular native American people, the Hurons, but also lived among them for several years and penned the lyrics of the first Christmas carol written and composed in North America. This song was later translated from the Huron language by Jesse Edgar Middleton in The United Methodist Hymnal, No. 244 “Twas in the moon of wintertime.”

Huron moccasins (circa 1880 CE) on display at the Bata Shoe Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Image: Wikimedia Commons

I want to introduce the figure of Jean de Brébeuf, whose biography Saint among the Hurons: The Life of Jean de Brébeuf  was first written in 1949 by Francis X. Talbot and published by Harper & Brothers and most recently republished in 2018 by Ignatius Press. Brébeuf was a Norman from the north of France, the descendant of Scandinavians who invaded northern France in the early 1500s. He was born in what is now know as Condé-sur-Vire, March 25, 1593, in the diocese of Bayeux in eastern Normandy. In 1617, at the age of 24, after finishing his schooling and settling family affairs, he applied for entry into the Society of Jesus and thereby became a part of the missionary-minded Jesuits, an independent minded order not initiated by the Church but by Ignatius Loyola and which had gained later recognition as a missionary arm of the church. Even after gaining such authorization, the Jesuits were allowed to function as an independent mission arm of the Roman Catholic Church under its own umbrella, the Society of Jesus. This same independence also affected the relationship of the Jesuits with the different countries in which they operated. In some cases, they were regarded with suspicion from the political realm of the countries in which they served as missionaries of the Gospel. Mexico was one such country as were Brazil and Argentina in South America.

It was in 1625 that Jean de Brébeuf learned that the Jesuits were opening a mission in New France (Canada). This was five years after the founding of the Plymouth Plantation in New England. The year before, in October of 1624, Brébeuf met two Récollet [a Franciscan order] missionaries just returned from the New World.

This article is part of The Gospel in History series by Woodrow Walton.
Image: The Books of Kells by way of Wikimedia Commons.

In March of 1625, with full royal assent, the Viceroy of Quebec issued a decree authorizing the establishment of a residence in Quebec and other parts of New France for the Jesuits and to associate its members with the Récollets in the conversion of the “savages.” On April 24, 1625, after several delays resulting from opposition by the Montmorency Company in both Paris and Rouen to the proposal, the authorization came through, and Brébeuf and the other missionaries crossed over into the open waters of the Atlantic for New France (Canada). They entered into Canada by navigating around Cap Gaspé and through the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to Quebec. From 1625 to 1649, the year of his death at the hand of the Iroquois, de Brébeuf labored among the Huron who lived along the borderlands of the Great Lakes all the way from southern Canada to Michigan’s shoreline to Sault Ste. Marie.

The point of this short excursus is that the Jesuits did not engage in general evangelism among Native Americans but focused their attention on specific people groups, both in Canada and Brazil. The 1986 motion picture The Mission portrayed the Jesuit work and also their conflict with the political regime of the Portuguese which governed Brazil at the time of the Jesuit mission work. The independence of the Jesuits in their missionary evangelism also brought them into an adversarial relationship to the Spanish viceroys which governed out of Mexico City.

John Eliot

Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God, also known as The Algonquian Bible.
Image: Wikimedia Commons

Concurrent with Brébeuf in North America was John Eliot in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the first Puritan missionary to Native Americans who concentrated on the Algonquian language of the local Massachusetts. Helping him learn the language was a young Native American named Cockenoe. The youth had been captured in the Pequot War of 1637 and was a servant of an Englishman named Richard Collicot. Eliot later wrote in his diary that Cockenoe “was the first that I made use of to teach me words, and to be my interpreter.” Cockenoe could not write English but he could speak it as well as he could speak Algonquian. He was able, thereby, to help Eliot translate the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and other portions of the Bible and prayers. His first attempts at sharing the gospel with the Native American in 1646 were meager, if not failures, but eventually met with success. He also became able to produce printed publications for the Indians in their own language. In 1663, Eliot completed a translation of the whole Bible into the Massachusetts language, Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God. The printer who did the printing issued 1000 copies on the first printing press in the American colonies.

Three years later, in 1666, Eliot published The Indian Grammar Begun.

Through the succeeding years, fourteen towns of “praying Indians” grew up in Massachusetts Bay Colony, the best documented of which being the one at Natick, Massachusetts. Other missionaries also established praying Indian towns, one of whom, Samson Occom, was himself half Mohegan.

Eliot and his wife, Hanna, had six children, five sons and one daughter. Two sons, John Eliot, Jr., and Joseph Eliot, both became pastors of churches themselves. Joseph Eliot, a pastor in Guilford, Connecticut, and his wife, were parents of Jared Eliot, who also became a minister of the gospel was also a noted agricultural writer.

David Brainerd is another significant figure, not only in mission among Native Americans but also upon the future development of the missionary enterprise world–wide. Brainerd was born April 20, 1718, in Haddam, Connecticut, the son of a Connecticut legislator, and his wife Dorothy. Although he died young at the early age of 29 from tuberculosis on October 10, 1747, his ministry intersected with that of George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent, James Davenport, and Jonathan Dickinson.

From David Brainerd, the apostle to the North American Indians, published in 1891.
Image: Wikimedia Commons

In 1742, at the age of 24, he was licensed by a group of Presbyterians known as the “New Lights” which included such figures as Barton Warren Stone, Jonathan Dickinson, and the initiators of the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge, the first-known organized missionary society.

Brainerd’s ministry in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Long Island became an inspiration for William Carey, Brainerd’s cousin, James Brainerd Taylor (1801-1829), and the 20^th century’s Jim Elliot who ministered among the Aucas (Huaorani) in Ecuador, South America. Brainerd was the forerunner of the evangelical missionary enterprise[1] which emerged with William Carey in England and the Haystack Prayer Meeting of 1810 in Massachusetts.

Thomas Bray, the founder of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign parts and also the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, supported the ministry of Whitefield both in England and the English colonies which were to become known as the United States of America. Because the focus was upon North America and the British isles, the site of the activities was not global but British North America. A world, or global focused evangelical witness, first became reality with the initiation of the Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Among the Heathen in 1792 in Kettering, England, where 12 ministers signed an agreement to support the missionary work of William Carey and John Thomas in Bengal, India. Carey and Thomas were first sent out in 1793. To this day, William Carey is considered to be the initiator of the Christian world mission with schools and organizations and a book publishing house named after him in both the United States and Canada. This first missionary society is still in operation to this date. In A.D. 2000, its name was changed to the Baptist World Mission and presently supports over 350 workers in 40 countries.

PR

Notes

[1] The reason to not consider George Whitefield and John Wesley as the forerunners of the evangelical missionary enterprise is that both Whitefield and John Wesley were more revivalists than missionaries. Their preaching missions were to revive Christian faith in believers and reinvigorate a Christian witness that would lead others to faith in Christ.

Richard Twiss, One Church Many Tribes: Following Jesus the Way God Made You (Regal Books, 2000), 216 pages.

What can the church of the 21^st Century learn from the mistakes of the past?

Richard Twiss could be a budding new personality in the Christian world. I recently noticed his name on a column in Charisma magazine, and this new book has endorsements by many well known, respected Christians and I was asked to review it for the Pneuma Review.

The book features a photograph of Richard all decked out in his native clothes on its cover. Twiss is an American Indian, which is nomenclature he does not like since it tends to demean his culture. He also does not like native American and instead asks all of us that come from family origins different than his, call Richard and others of his culture First Nations People, an expression which I have adopted but still find difficult to use.

Twiss’ book repeats comments I had earlier heard from Pastors who ministered to the First Nations People, comments that deal with the lack of success the church has experienced as it reached out to our country’s original inhabitants. The book also criticizes many of the political decisions the elected and appointed officials of the US have made about First Nations People. Richard resents that his ancestors openly offered friendship to those who left Europe for the new world, but were instead exploited and ignored by what today’s Americans call our founding fathers.

Richard Twiss (1954-2013).

All of us familiar with early and not so early missionary effort realize that the early missionary often confused piety with the fashion that existed in the culture from which the missionary came. That confusion led to banning many local expressions of praise and worship being offered by the new believer to God on High. In retrospect, we now teach our potential missionary to become part of the culture to which they are sent and not to reform the culture. Careful reading of Paul’s theology and his missiology leads to the conclusion that Paul knew and practiced what we missed. Better results are obtained when we work within a culture and not when we attempt to replace that with things dear and familiar to our ideas. The question “How then shall we live?” has answers that vary from people group to people group. Twiss’ book reads easily and quickly. I would describe much of his discussion as a lament over what could have been, a polemic over what should have been and as a hope over what might now be experienced in his native culture. Twiss has a burden for his people and he needs our help and understanding to undo some of the errors that were made trying to reach the First Nations People. It can be done. We can be one people.