On Eskimos

Eskimo: ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’
Priest: ‘No, not if you did not know.’
Eskimo: ‘Then why did you tell me?’"

The quote above by Annie Dillard has been puzzling me for quite some time.

It is commonly heard in the Christian faith that to spread the Christian faith and knowledge of God is one of the most important things you can do. We must save souls by gifting those who are in the dark precious information concerning the ‘true’ religion. Knowledge is power, after all.

Yet return to the story of Adam and Eve. They were somewhat like children; pure, innocent beings, content in their lives under a God they did not question. They did not know of sin or evil, simply that there was God, and He had made them. As it states in Genesis (2:15—3:7):

“Then the Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and guard it. He told him, ‘You may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.’ …Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, He took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him...The man and the woman were both naked but they were not embarrassed.

Now the snake was the most cunning animal that the Lord God had made. The snake asked the woman, ‘Did God really tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?’

‘We may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden,’ the woman answered, ‘except the tree in the middle of it. God told us not to eat the fruit of that tree or even touch it; if we do, we will die.’

The snake replied, ‘That’s not true; you will not die. God said that because He knows that when you eat it, you will be like God and know what is good and what is bad.’

The woman saw how beautiful the tree was and how good its fruit would be to eat, and she thought how wonderful it would be to become wise. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it. As soon as they had eaten it, they were given understanding and realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and covered themselves.”

I return once again to the original quote. Was the priest so different from the snake? Offering fruits that bare heavy, heavy knowledge and responsibility on to the Eskimo, a mere child? The Eskimo must now constantly watch his back for sin which he was previously both unaware of and untouched by, all because he now knows.

It is my belief that God is already with all, despite religious or cultural origin (An idea which shall be discussed later). He is, after all, the creator of all men. So why is living under the influence of purely God such a crime versus living under the knowledge of God and sin and salvation and hell?

So why did the priest ‘educate’ the Eskimo if it only inundates someone previously so pure with something so heartbreakingly heavy?

I still cannot make sense of it, and I apologize for the confusion in my words. If you have any thoughts, I beg of you to share them. Perhaps we can figure this out.

---

“…Curtis and his daughter spent sixteen pleasant days on Nunivak Island among the Noatak Eskimos, people he described as happy and content. He was pleased to have finally ‘found a place where no missionary has worked’ and wasn’t shy about saying he hoped things stayed that way: ‘Should any misguided missionary start for this island, I trust the sea will do its duty.’” ~ Gulbrandsen and Youngblood in Edward S. Curtis: The Collection

---

For Further Reading:

1) Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard

---



---

Comments, questions, and discussions are appreciated and encouraged. Peace!