Paul Mundey

Paul Mundey

Were you confused earlier this month? Was Oct. 11 Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples’ Day? It was both. Though only Columbus Day is a federal holiday, several cities and states, such as Boston and South Dakota, celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the same date.

In doing so, they recognize that some associate Columbus with the displacement of Native American people. As the Wall Street Journal reported, people “associate the explorer with atrocities brought against indigenous people and the emergence of the transatlantic slave trade.”

Others disagree. As Robert Allegrini, president of the National Italian American Foundation, noted in the same WSJ article, “Columbus represented [the Italians’] assimilation into … the American dream.” Thus, Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the same day as Columbus Day dilutes the explorer’s legacy.

The Columbus Day/Indigenous Peoples’ Day debate will continue to be argued. But is there a “shadow side” to state and church that’s clearly problematic? And if so, what’s the role of God’s people in speaking “the truth to one another, [rendering] ... judgments that are true and make for peace” (Zechariah 8:16)?

A mentor once remarked: “Few of us tell the last 10 percent. Oh, we’ll reveal up to 90 percent of the truth but seldom risk 100 percent.” Of course, there are times when a full revelation is best voiced only for God’s “ears.” But when it comes to life together, risky confession is good for the soul, including the soul of country and church. Regarding the nation, Jon Meacham remarks: “The message of Martin Luther King Jr. — that we should be judged on the content of our character, not on the color of our skin — dwells in the American soul; so does the menace of the Ku Klux Klan. … Our fate is contingent upon which element — that of hope or that of fear — emerges triumphant.”

But the KKK is only a small part of the confession needed to tell the last 10 percent. Other realities overshadow the narrative of both nation and state. For example, Martin Luther spoke barbed, anti-Semitic speech against the Jewish people. Abraham Lincoln ordered the hanging of 38 Dakota Indians, the largest mass execution in U.S. history. And Catholic clergy in France abused over 200,000 minors over the past seven decades.

Naming such offenses is not meant to vilify either nation or church. Please hear this. Instead, it’s to continue the biblical tradition of telling whole-truth history. Have you noticed: Scripture doesn’t whitewash the people of God? Rather, it readily reports that David committed adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:1-5), that Saul was complicit in the murder of Stephen (Acts 22:20), and that Rahab the prostitute was a member of Jesus’ family tree (Matthew 1:1-17). Just as the Bible tells whole-truth history, we need to tell whole-truth history.

A difficult truth is confessing that racism is not just personal prejudice but a deep, systemic, far-reaching sin. My elementary school growing up held minstrel shows as fundraisers. The shows featured white people smeared with blackface who performed skits and musical acts that represented African Americans as dimwitted, lazy, buffoonish folk. In the 1950s, we thought such portrayal was fine, and so I grew up with a distorted picture of Black people as comical, “less than” individuals.

Though minstrel shows have waned, people of color are still perceived and treated as “less than.” The violence against George Floyd and others attests to that. However, people are still in denial, most prominently the church. As Robert P. Jones notes, surveys conducted in 2018 found that “white Christians — including evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics — are nearly twice as likely as religiously unaffiliated whites to say the killings of Black [people] by police are isolated incidents rather than part of a [systemic] pattern of how police treat African Americans.” Christ’s church must face such denial.

The need to preach the Gospel is more urgent than ever. But as Raymond Fung underscores, the Gospel is not just good news for sinners; it’s also good news for those sinned against. Thus, a new honesty about the angst of “the sinned against” is needed, telling the whole truth about the injustices we’ve tolerated and fueled as a nation.

Whole-truth history is such an awkward, upsetting topic. However, its intent is not to rile or offend but to liberate. As Jesus proclaimed in his first sermon, he came “to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18-19). Not just freedom for those suffering injustice but freedom for those denying that injustice exists. For as Jesus notes in John 8, it’s in reckoning with the truth that we’re truly set free!

Paul Mundey is a minister, consultant and writer. He recently completed two years of service as moderator of the Church of the Brethren, the denomination’s highest elective office. For 20 years, he served as senior pastor of the Frederick Church of the Brethren.

(6) comments




Hit a little too close to home?


You can preach the gospel and you can speak truthfully. It you can't do both simultaneously.


The author is guilty of the very thing he writes about. While 38 Sioux warriors were hanged, Lincoln actually pardoned over 100 others. They had tortured & killed hundreds of people in a few areas in Minnesota, including many women & children. Today it would be called a Mass Murder & Hate Crimes. Lincoln only let stand the convictions of the worst of the bunch who had led the atrocities. As Paul Harvey used to say, "and now, the rest of the story."


What you cite is largely accurate. Unfortunately, space was not available (due to my word count limit) for additional elaboration; there was no intent to hide the context for Lincoln’s decision – or – the context for the other examples cited.

What I did cite is historically accurate and still reason for repentance: yes, Lincoln showed clemency, but Lincoln still ordered mass execution, an action far from laudable for any national or church leader. In addition, Lincoln’s action was not consistent with other leadership decisions for similar crimes during the Civil War. As Jon Wiener notes in The Nation: “Lincoln’s treatment of defeated Indian rebels against the United States stood in sharp contrast to his treatment of Confederate rebels. He never ordered the executions of any Confederate officials or generals after the Civil War, even though they killed more than 400,000 Union soldiers. The only Confederate executed was the commander of Andersonville Prison—and for what we would call war crimes, not rebellion.

Any acknowledgment of the ‘shadow side’ of any historical figure is not to denigrate or eliminate the value of that person. It is only to point out the theme of my article that there is a

‘shadow side’ to both the history of nation and state that must be ‘owned,’ and in many cases, told – in order to convey the whole truth.


Thank you, Pastor Paul. I appreciate your clear and direct words on this.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!