Spirit of the Rainforest

rainforest.jpgJungle Mom recommended to me the book Spirit of the Rainforest: A Yanomamo Shaman’s Story by Mark Ritchie. If I understand correctly, the Yanomamo territory bordered the Yekwana Indians that the Vernoys worked with, and the Vernoys knew many Yanomamo and their ways and some of the people in this book.

This book is not for the faint of heart, however. It is not gratuitous, but it is very frank in its dealings with demonism, violence, and the treatment of women. It is told through the eyes of “Jungleman,” a powerful shaman. It is interesting to see things through his perspective (told by him to the author, who wrote them down and confirmed the incidents with others).

He tells first of all of the Yanomamo policy of revenge. Any incident calls for revenge from the family or village sinned against, which usually involves a raid on the offending village, clubbings, and capture and group rape of women. The extent of the raid can vary — in some cases two opposing warriors take turns clubbing each other over the head or across the chest. In more serious offenses every male is killed and the remaining women are assaulted multiple times and then carried off to become wives of the raiding village. If a captured woman tries to run away, she is beaten or killed. Children of the raided village are often brutally killed, occasionally captured.

Such raids did not satisfy the revenge, however: it sparked more revenge. Any remaining men or any relatives who lived in other villages were then expected to exact revenge on the raiding village. A war once begun never stopped. In between raids, villages were afraid to go out into their gardens or out to find food, always fearful of an ambush. Sometimes they broke up camp and wandered in the jungle looking for food. Sometimes mighty warriors woke up with nightmares, haunted by the cries of those that they killed. Yet they could never admit this: fierceness was the most valued characteristic in a Yanamamo male.

Gradually white nabas (their word for non-Yanomamo) began to appear in the jungle. They “talked like babies” but sometimes had useful things to trade. The Indians quickly learned, however, through hard trial and error, that all nabas were not the same. Some were interested in trading, some were interested in helping, but some were evil and interested in exploiting (they knew some earned money by taking and selling pictures of them [one even told them to take off their clothes so the pictures he took and sold would be more “authentic”] and stories about them, but there were others whose exploitation was much, much worse). There were a few, however, who said they were followers of the one the Yanomamo regarded as the great enemy spirit. They said the Indians misunderstood Him, that He loved them and had a better way to live. The Yanomamo were naturally suspicious, but they kept interacting with them because of the items they would trade or because of the medical help, and later because of the peace they exhibited. Jungleman and others’ spirits became troubled every time they were near the village where the nabas lived and begged the shamans not to ‘throw them away.”

To me there were several major benefits to this book. One was the fascinating look into Yanomamo culture. One was the immense power of the gospel to miraculously change lives in those who receive it. It was thrilling to read of those who came to believe and how they changed and grew and began to understand the ways in which they had been deceived.

Another major value of this book is the truth that these “primitive” peoples are not living happy lives frolicking in an idyllic Eden. I don’t know if you realize this, but there is a large and growing segment of the population who believes that such people should be left alone to Western influence all together and especially that Christians shouldn’t “force” the gospel on them or cause them to change their ways. Most Christians don’t “force” the gospel, however — they just offer it (and I wonder if the detractors would say the same about Muslim forced conversions).

The following is an interview between “Doesn’t Miss” (their name for the author), Keleewa, the missionary who interpreted, and a Yanomamo called Hairy on pages 180-183:

“The naba wants to know why you want to change the way you live out here in the jungle,” Keleewa said to Hairy after Doesn’tMiss talked.

Hairy was surprised at the question. “Because we’re miserable out here. We are miserable all the time. The people from Honey [predominantly Christian village] came here and made peace with us many seasons ago and their village keeps getting better. We want that for us. If it means throwing spirits away and getting new ones, we will do it. [This is not something said lightly. Many were under the impression that they would be killed if they tried to get rid of their spirits.] But we need someone to teach us these new ways.”

Hairy didn’t have spirits because he was not a shaman. But he followed everything the spirits told his shaman. I knew my spirits would be very irritated if Hairy quit following the spirits. No one who has killed as often and as long s Hairy could ever stop it…

Doesn’t Miss talked with Keleewa for a while. Keleewa paused and thought how to say what the naba said. Then he told Hairy, “He says there are many people in his land that don’t think that he, or any of us, should be here helping you at all. They say that you’re happy here and that we should leave you alone. He wants to know what an experienced killer like you would say to them.”

Hairy grew even more serious. “I say to you, please don’t listen to the people who say that. We need help so bad. We are so miserable here and out misery never stops. Night and day it goes on. Do those people think we don’t suffer when bugs bite us? If they think this is such a happy place out here in the jungle, why aren’t they moving here to enjoy this beautiful life with us?”

Doesn’t-Miss was quiet. Then he got out of his hammock and walked down the trail…When he was too far away to hear, Hairy said to Keleewa, “Is he stupid? Doesn’t he have eyes? Can’t he see these lean-tos we call houses? Can’t he see us roam the jungle every day, searching for food that isn’t here, so we can starve slower? Can’t he see that our village is almost gone, that this move we are making now is our last hope to stay alive?”

Keleewa was slow to answer. He knew Hairy wouldn’t understand what he was about to say. “Most nabas think just like him,” Keleewa told Hairy, and shook his head because he knew he couldn’t explain why.

“Nobody’s that stupid,” Hairy snapped. “They must hate us. They think we’re animals.”

Later Hairy asked Keleewa what they had to do to get a white naba to come to their village and live with them and teach them about Yai Pada (God), offering to clear an airstrip. Kelweewa promised that if they cleared an airstrip someone would come. That day Hairy and his people began clearing the jungle, and Hairy “remembered the wife he had killed. ‘I don’t want to treat women like that any more,’ he thought. ‘I don’t want my children to be killers like me. I want them to follow the spirit of this man of peace. I want us all to be free of our past. I want to sleep again’” (p. 230).

Another time (page 202) an antro (Yanomamo word for the kind of naba who took pictures of them and wrote about them) scolded an Indian named Shortman:

“Don’t you ever speak to me in Spanish! You are a Yanomamo and will always be a Yanomamo. You have no business throwing away your true ways and trying to copy nabas with their clothes, watches, motors, and now even changing to Spanish! Don’t ever speak to me in Spanish again! You want to talk to me? Use Yanomamo.”

“What’s that in your lower lip there?” Shortman asked…

“That’s my wad of tobacco,” the antro answered.

“Where did you learn to chew tobacco that way?” asked Shortman.

“I learned it from your people.”

“You saw us chew tobacco that way and you tried it and you liked it. So you copied us, didn’t you?”

“That’s right,” the antro said, with some pride in his Indian ways.

Shortman shrugged. “If you can copy us,” he paused with a puzzled look, ”then we can copy you.”

Somehow the shamans could “see” when another person had spirits, and they had identified some of the evil nabas as having spirits that the nabas themselves didn’t know about. At one point when Shoefoot, leader of Honey village, came to America with the author, he “identified the signs and symbols of many of the spirits right here in our ‘civilized’ culture. He has no problem understanding the Columbine High School massacre or any other killing spree. The spirits of anger and hatred that own and drive a person are spirits he has known personally. He knows what it means to kill under the influence of something or someone. So when a student asks…”Why can’t you get rid of your spirits without converting to Christianity?’ his answer is simple. ‘I don’t know any other way to get rid of the spirits that are destroying us. And no other shaman does, either’” (p. 251).

As I said in another post months ago, these people deserve as much chance as anyone else has to hear the gospel and have the choice to change their ways.

November Christian Book Fair at Chrysalis
Want this button?

Another reason Ms. Griffin is wrong

I don’t know comedienne Kathy Griffin. I don’t think I have ever seen her act, but somehow I can connect her face to her name. Maybe I have seen her on another show.

But evidently when receiving a Creative Arts Emmy award, she chose the opportunity to not only express her lack of belief that Jesus Christ helped her at all, but to basically insult Him and offend those who believe in Him, and then she proclaimed her little man-made statuette her god.

If it was just a matter of her not believing in God, I would consider that sad, but that is her choice. But why in the world choose that moment to speak so negatively about Him? What ever happened to toleration and live and let live? Imagine what the world reaction would have been if she had said what she did about Allah? Why is Jesus the only One whom it is permissible to treat with disrespect?

FOXNews correspondent Lauren Green wrote an excellent response here (HT to blestwithsons). You can read Ms. Griffin’s remarks in full there. Ms. Green proposes that Kathy Griffin is wrong in her belief that Christ did not help her with her achievements, and she outlines her reasons there.

While I agree with Ms. Green, there is yet another reason Ms. Griffin is wrong. The apostle Paul told the men of Athens on Mars Hill in Acts 17:28a, “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” He is the reason we have life and even our very breath: without Him we could do nothing. He gives us life and talent and gifts and then gives us the choice whether to acknowledge Him or not.

I do pray Ms. Griffin has a change of heart.

It’s not over til God says it’s over

I don’t know if I have said this in so many words here, but I am a strong believer in the fact that life is God’s gift and man shouldn’t be ending it either at the beginning by abortion or at the end by euthanasia.

I just saw a news article about a Polish man who “woke up” from a 19 year coma. His faithful wife took care of him at home for most of those years and said she would “fly into a rage” at the suggestion that he should be euthanized. She believed he would recover — and he did! And he remembers many of the family things that happened during his coma.

We never know what purposes God may have in store. We shouldn’t be too quick to “pull the plug.”

During my father’s last hospitalization about six months before he died, he had to be put on a ventilator for several days. One family member’s significant other was strongly opposed to the use of any “machines.” Thankfully because she was not a relative she had no say with the medical staff. My father was on a ventilator for maybe 10 days, then left the hospital to live with my brother for his remaining months. Some might feel that, “It was only 6 months more life.” But I saw God do a lot of good during that last six months that I don’t feel I should include here for the privacy of those involved.

There is a book I read years ago called Charlie’s Victory about a coach named Charlie Wedemeyer who had Lou Gehrig’s disease. When he began having trouble breathing, his wife was advised to “let him go.” Someone told his wife about portable ventilators, and the health professional was actually angry that she wanted to use one! I don’t know why these people are so determined to end life. What are they so afraid of? He lived many years on a portable vent and even had a ministry traveling and speaking, his wife interpreting for him.

Joni Eareckson Tada wrote an excellent book addressing this issue years ago called When Is It Right to Die?: Suicide, Euthanasia, Suffering, Mercy.

Beware of pop rocks

This afternoon a friend forwarded an e-mail to me warning about drugs that look like strawberry “pop rocks.” I am usually skeptical of those kinds of e-mail warnings and checked, as always, Snopes.com — and was surprised to find that it is true. You can read the whole entry at snopes here. It comes not only in strawberry, but also in chocolate, peanut butter, cola, cherry, and orange versions.

Children should know not to accept candy from strangers anyway, but it would be good not to accept anything that looks like pop rocks even from friends for now.

(Clarification: This isn’t talking about the Pop Rocks candy you buy at the store — just the kind that someone else might offer you.)

Fundamentalism and separatism

Normally I try to keep this blog pretty controversy-free. It’s not that I don’t have strong opinions on certain subjects, but there are plenty of places on the Internet to discuss and debate issues, and I didn’t want this to be one of them.

However, I do see a lot of misconceptions about these two subjects pretty often. A few weeks ago someone was blogging about a religious leader who took a Biblical principle far beyond what the Bible meant, and someone in the comments wrote a disparaging remark about “those fundamentalists.” The man was hardly a fundamentalist, but that term seems to be applied to anyone who is religiously unreasonable and excessive. In one Christian forum I often saw fundamentalists referred to as “KJV-only and dresses-only.” Not so. 🙂 And then somewhere else I saw separatists referred to in a negative way as a stumblingblock or a hindrance. I would have to say some separatists may be so, but there is certainly a principle of separation in the Bible (more on that later). I am not linking back to those posts because I don’t want to send controversy back to those sites, and I am not really writing this to answer them back. I just want to talk about what these words actually do mean.

I thought about writing a post about fundamentalism right after starting my blog, but just hadn’t yet sat down to do it. This will not be a great theological essay but rather a simple homemaker’s viewpoint. I have been a fundamentalist for 30+ years, before I ever knew there was a word for it. I didn’t grow up in a fundamentalist home, so this isn’t something I was raised with. The church where I was saved was an independent, fundamental Baptist church. I wrote in my testimony how I was saved and led to this church. It was at this church I was first encouraged to read the Bible through and to study the Scriptures for myself. My own studied confirmed to me that what I was taught at that church was Biblical. I attended a fundamentalist Christian college and have been in fundamental independent Baptist churches ever since.

A fundamentalist basically means someone who holds to the “fundamentals” or essentials of the faith, and these would be: that the Bible is inspired from God and is our standard of faith and practice, that God created man, that Christ was born of a virgin, That Jesus is the sinless, holy, only begotten Son of God the Father, that Jesus’ death was the atonement for our sins, that He rose again from the grave, that people are saved, born again, by repenting of their sins and believing on Him as Lord and Savior, and that the Holy Spirit is the comes to live in the hearts of believers when they are saved.

Beyond that, it is hard to paint all fundamentalists with the same brush strokes. Some are KJO; some are not (the ESV seems to be pretty popular right now. I’m currently using the NASB for devotions). Some are dresses-only for ladies; some are not. Some are Calvinistic; some are not. Some use only the old-standard hymns; some use Southern gospel; a few use CCM. Some homeschool; some do not. Not all Baptists are fundamentalists and not all fundamentalists are Baptists. The two times we have moved to a new town as a family and began the process of visiting independent fundamental churches, though they have essentially the same statement of faith and very similar church constitutions, their practice, standards, and personality run the gamut. Fundamentalists generally, historically are more conservative than New Evangelicals (or Evangelicals — the “New” seems to have been dropped), but that’s not always so in every respect.

Fundamentalists are often accused of being legalistic and Pharisaical. I think that partly comes from a misunderstanding of what legalism is. True legalism is a depending on what one does either for salvation or, after salvation, for a right standing with God, rather than depending on His grace. But these days often if Christian A has a stricter standard that Christian B, Christian B accuses Christian A of legalism. And that’s just faulty. (More on that in another post later.)

One of the major differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals is the doctrine of separation. Yes, some people carry it way too far and separate themselves into a corner, and that’s wrong. But the basic doctrine is rooted in Scripture. Here are a few of the passages indicating it:

II Thess. 3: 6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

II Thess. 3: 14-15: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

I Cor. 5:9-11: I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

In the I Corinthians passage, Paul says in the verses above and below that one in chapter 5 that he does not mean that we should never interact with “fornicators, coveters, extortioners, idolators,” etc., because if we did we would pretty much have to leave this world (and in other Bible passages, particularly in the example of Christ’s ministry, we’re shown that we are here to minister to them and show them His love). But Paul says when a person is a professing believer and yet engages in these activities, we’re not to fellowship with them. In the first verse in that chapter he refers to one in the church who was living in an incestuous relationship, and in v. 2, he says, “And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.” He tells them in v. 4-5, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” This would be the end result of a church discipline situation outlined in Matthew 18: 15-20 (interestingly, the promise “That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” is in this context.) The purpose has to do not only with the purity of the church and the need to shelter believers from being led astray, but it is also restoration. In II Corinthians this man did repent, and Paul had to tell the Corinthians that they needed to accept him back.

Those passages all deal with disobedient brethren, with those who are professing believers but are not walking in obedience to God’s Word. There are other passages that talk about separation from unbelievers. Here’s the man one:

II Cor. 6: 14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Again, that doesn’t mean we don’t interact at all with the people mentioned here, but we’re to avoid an “unequal yoke” (which includes marriage between an unbeliever and a believer but includes other types of “yokes” too.)

The doctrine of separation is clearly there. The trouble comes in two areas: what we separate over and how we do it. As I mentioned earlier, some separate over many things other than the fundamentals and go way overboard (I was kicked off a Christian ladies’ message board once for talking about how going to a Christian college had blessed my life. These ladies believed that a Christian woman should not go to college, that remaining under her father’s authority meant remaining physically at home until she married. I had never heard of such at the time. When I tried to convey why I felt that was wrong, I was removed for “causing people to sin.” Yes, that was extreme. But that’s not true of most fundamentalists — and I don’t even know if those women would have called themselves fundamentalists anyway). Separation over homeschooling vs. Christian schools vs. public schools, courtship vs. marriage, use of birth control or not, Bible translations, dresses or pants, and all other secondary issues ought not to be: we need to practice grace and allow that people can have different opinions on these things and still love God and be right with Him. It’s not that these issues are not important — we need to prayerfully consider what God would have us do in each instance and study any Scriptural principles involved. But in issues where the Bible doesn’t clearly speak or convey an issue to consider, we need to allow for grace.

As far as how we separate, separation doesn’t mean that when we see someone like this coming down the sidewalk toward us, we walk across the street and avoid them. It doesn’t mean we treat them hatefully. Paul said in II Thess. 3: 15 “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. In all honesty I struggle some times with exactly what it does mean. But I am pretty sure that it at least applies in a ministry related setting. For instance, years ago a famous evangelist had someone open his meeting in prayer who had previously publicly denounced the virgin birth. Personally I think that was wrong. I head up our ladies’ ministry at church, and if I had a neighbor with whom I had serious doctrinal differences, I could befriend her, talk together over the fence, have yard sales together or whatever, but I would not ask her to speak at our ladies meeting. I hope that makes sense.

The Bible does teach that believers should be unified, but it also teaches separation over disobedience to the clear teaching of the Word. That may sound contradictory, but if we remember that one of the purposes of separation is restoration, it makes more sense. Perhaps we can understand it this way: we want unity within our own families — that won’t mean agreement over every little thing, but in our hearts and in major things we want to be unified, to not have disagreements. But if one member of the family decides to go off and do something wrong, that unity is disturbed until they get that thing right. It doesn’t mean we don’t love them any less when they are rebellious, but like the father of the prodigal son, we’re waiting and watching for them to return and run out to meet them and embrace them when they do.

I was going to write a bit more about secondary issues, but this post is way long already, so I will save that for another time.

One of the saddest anniversaries

I hadn’t realized until late yesterday afternoon while reading Cindy’s blog at Notes In the Key of Life that yesterday was the 34th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision that led to legal abortions.

I think this is one of our greatest national tragedies. It makes me unfathomably sad.

Every year at the Wed. night prayer meeting before or after this date, the man who leads our prayer time asks everyone who has been born since that date to come and sit on the first few rows. Those were the ones who were spared, who were allowed to live (I can hardly fathom that phrase, allowed to live. If it were in any other context there would be national outrage). Then to think of how much greater that number would be, to think of all the missing faces of our population due to abortion — 47,282,923, according to Carmon — it is just mind-boggling.

LaShawn Barber has an excellent blog post for that day as does Crystal at Bibilcal Womanhood.