The Doctrine of Christian Discovery: Johnson V. M'Intosh at 200

Credit: Mitch Randall

Good Faith Media was invited to attend the “Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery” conference in Syracuse, New York. I interviewed several scholars and speakers from the conference, which will be produced as a podcast and scheduled for release in January.

The Doctrine of Christian Discovery is a theological argument for the political strategy of subduing lands, people and cultures based upon the Christian practice of evangelism. In a succession of papal bulls from 1452 to 1493, the Roman Catholic Church used the doctrine to justify conquering lands and their inhabitants if they were not Christian.

Robert P. Jones pointed out that Christopher Columbus, after invading North America, returned to Europe hoping to obtain permission to ravage the “New World” of its resources. A decree by Pope Alexander IV granted permission. 

The Inter Caetera of 1493 asserted the rights of Spain and Portugal to “colonize, covert and enslave.” Therefore, with theological cover, explorers set out for the new world to achieve their mission.

The Doctrine of Christian Discovery has been used in every attempt by Eurocentric Christians to infiltrate lands, murder Indigenous people and destroy cultures. The doctrine assumes the superiority of Christians, therefore justifying the practice of conversion—even if it means stealing lands, killing people, enslaving survivors, destroying cultures and forcibly assimilating children.  

While a lot of attention has been given to the colonization of North America and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, the infiltration of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery cannot be ignored in the founding and governing of the United States.  

Native Americans were considered “untaxed” people within the newly formed United States, thus eliminating them from any rights established by the Constitution. In addition, the Constitution permitted the U.S. government to regulate trade among the “Indian Tribes.” Therefore, the superiority of white culture supplanted any notion of tribal sovereignty.  

In 1823, a case came before the Supreme Court embedding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery into the legal framework of the United States. The case was Johnson v. M’Intosh from the state of Virginia and neither Johnson nor M’Intosh were Native Americans.  

The website Oyez outlines the case:

“In 1775, Thomas Johnson and other British citizens purchased land in Virginia from members of the Piankeshaw Indian tribe under a 1763 proclamation by the King of England. When he died, Thomas Johnson left this land to his heirs. In 1818, William M’Intosh purchased from Congress 11,000 acres of the land originally purchased by Johnson. Johnson’s heirs sued M’Intosh in the United States District Court to recover the land. Ruling that the Piankeshaw tribe did not have the right to convey the land, the federal district court held that Johnson’s initial purchase and the chain of title stemming from it were invalid.”

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion: “Discovery gave title to the government…(and) the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives.”  In other words, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and white supremacy ruled.

While the Christian church and the United States have made great strides in combating the ingrained practices of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, the ripple effects still linger. From stolen lands to boarding schools, Indigenous people have never received the justice due to them. The conference in Syracuse pointed out the numerous injustices Indigenous communities faced throughout history and continue to face today.  

Much of the world still operates out of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. From legal frameworks skewed toward white Christian males to economic disparities, the ripples from the Doctrine of Christian Discovery still wash ashore today. 

For example, the practice of Christian evangelism has been a central tenet in expanding the Christian faith. Repentance, conversion and discipleship are commonplace.  

However, what if those practices were presented against the backdrop of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery? Instead of repentance, conversion and discipleship, we might see discovery, conquest and assimilation. Why does a person have to relinquish their personhood, lands and culture to follow Jesus?

To put it bluntly, they don’t. What is passed off as Christian evangelism has its roots in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery more than the faith of Jesus. Jesus never asked someone to give up their identity and culture just to be a follower. 

Jesus spoke about the consequences of being a person who advocates for inclusion and justice, but forced coercion was never a part of his invitation. He was more concerned about a theology of wholeness, helping followers grow into the best person God created them to be.  

Quotes from the famous Chief Joseph, who fought the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Western expansionism for his entire life, are instructive. The chief said, “Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think, and act for myself – and I will obey every law and submit to (the) penalty.”  

But even more importantly, the tired old chief offered this assessment after so many years of war: “All (humans) are created by the Great Spirit Chief, they are all (siblings) — I believe much trouble would be saved if we opened our hearts more.”  

People who already exist cannot be discovered.  And even if they have not been seen by white eyes before, the Great Spirit has seen them.  Therefore, they have worth and rights just like any person within this great big diverse world God created.