Christian missions of dubious nature

An emeritus professor at the University of Tehran once told us an interesting story about the history of missionaries in Iran. During the Pahlavi regime, there was an effort to handle the situation of the lepers by settling them in a town in northeastern Khorasan Province. A group of French missionaries, mostly nuns, who had come to Iran at that time asked to be deployed there to help the lepers, which they did until the revolution in 1979.

The revolutionaries, however, were not particularly fond of Western missionaries mainly due to the cooperation of American and British ones with the overthrown regime. Therefore, they thanked the French missionaries for their services and asked them to leave the country.

Having been in the service of the lepers for some dozen years, they were disheartened by the order to leave. They requested the authorities to let them stay in their place.

“Some of them wept, saying that they had dedicated their lives to a noble, charitable cause,” the professor recalled. Perhaps to test their sincerity, the authorities told them they could stay only if they renounced their nationality and

You observe that the ‘older strategy’ of American missionaries “emphasized modernization and Westernization.” Quite in that spirit, any discussion of the modern presence of American missionaries in Iran would be inevitably intertwined with the modernization project which Mohammad Reza Shah undertook. Then, let’s start with your diagnosis of that project.

The problem with Iran’s modernization process was that it went too far, too fast. This can be seen clearest in the ‘White Revolution’. During the White Revolution, while it was advertised as a series of reforms that helped modernize Iran with land, educational, and medical reform, the White Revolution was more political: It helped Mohammad Reza Shah gain and maintain power. Grand Ayatollah Hossein Borujerdi, the highest ranking Iranian theologian at the time, was against the White Revolution on Islamic grounds, but he was willing to compromise on certain parts and work with the Shah. The Shah, however, was not willing to work with him because he wanted the modernization process to go fast. The Shah wanted Iran to modernize quickly because, in part, he had a ‘savior complex.’

How did American missionaries become involved in that project?

Mohammad Reza Shah was willing to work with whomever would help increase the modernization of Iran quickest (and therefore his control over Iran), including American missionaries.

Some argue that as contentious as the ideas of Westernization and (to a lesser extent) modernization were in Iran at the time, they were far more bearable for the public than any intimation of converting into Christianity. In other words, that emphasis by American missionaries on “modernization and Westernization” principally damaged the project of modernization in Iran rather than the other way around. How do you see that argument?

Given my above explanations, I do not think one can state that missionaries hurt Iran’s modernization process. Samuel M. Jordan, an American Presbyterian missionary to Iran, is considered by some as the father of Iran’s modern day educational system. Whether he was that or only an influential figure, it shows how important American missionaries were in Iran’s educational system. Even today, the educational system in Iran is the American form over the British.

Was converting to Christianity – a Western form of it – unbearable in the minds of Iranians? vowed to do what they had been doing. They did both and remained in Iran. The last one of them died a dozen years ago.

That story highlights the complicated, sometimes tortured, and always politically charged history of modern Western missions, who have found their way into Iran since the 18th century, which is in sharp contrast with the historically long presence of Christians – mostly Armenians and Assyrians – in Iran, which, despite its occasional ebbs and flows, can be essentially characterized by a peaceful coexistence with the followers of other religions.

“Mohammad Reza Shah gave missionaries many liberties, but they came with the understanding that the missionaries would support him. The missionaries were willing to pay that price,” said Philip Hopkins, associate professor of church history, who holds Phds in Iranian history and applied theology, in an exclusive interview with Iran Daily about his book, ‘American Missionaries in Iran during the 1960s and 1970s,’ published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2020.

His genial attitude, fair explanations, and intimate knowledge of the subject matter made talking about a controversial issue much easier and delightful.

*Mohammad Memarian is a staff writer at Iran Daily.

Before the Islamic Revolution, only 100 to 500 Iranian Muslims converted to Christianity, so in a very real sense, yes. Iranians from Muslim backgrounds did not seem to want anything to do with Christianity during Pahlavi times. I do not think that was because of modernization. I think it was because church services in Iran were rarely conducted in Persian.

This question is meant to put the whole discussion into some theological context from a Christian perspective: Is there a pure version of Christianity, which the missionaries could have promoted?

I do not think there is a ‘pure version of Christianity’. It does not matter if the Christian is American or Angolan. There is a concept in Christianity called ‘original sin’. The idea of original sin is not in Islam, but original sin states that each person is a sinner by nature and by choice. In other words, unlike the Islamic belief, ever since Adam and Eve sinned (sin is defined in Christianity as disobedience to God) in the Garden of Eden (which by the way Oxford University did a study a few years ago and surmised that the Garden of Eden could have been in Tabriz) that sin has been passed down from generation to generation. So, babies, when they are born, inherit a ‘sin nature’ from their parents. That sin nature manifests itself in willful sinful choices. Those sinful choices call for punishment from God – separation from God for all eternity in hell. The only remedy for that is Christ who became the substitute – Christ took the punishment for all the sins of all the people who put their faith in him and seek forgiveness and repentance. For those who have placed their faith in Christ – ‘Christians’ – while it makes them right (declared not guilty) in God’s eyes, it does not alleviate or stop them from sinning. Therefore, because Christians still sin, there is no form of pure Christianity.

You argue that American missionaries had a “predisposition towards their own culture” which “confused their message of the gospel,” adding to “the negative perception of Christianity among Iranians.” My impression is that American missionaries tried to promote an Americanized version of Christianity, right?

Christians, both positively and negatively, are affected by their culture and interpret Christianity through their culture. And when Christians leave their culture and live in other cultures, this changes, but then other cultures affect their view of Christianity, too, both positively and negatively. With that in mind, I think that many (not all) American missionaries were trying to promote an American form of Christianity in Iran during the time of the Pahlavis, and this was not good. Focusing on education and health care, while it improved Iran, distracted from the gospel. I also think not focusing on church services being in the Persian language (as opposed to Armenian, Assyrian, and English [among expats]) was detrimental to the American missionary cause in Iran.

The American missionaries in the Pahlavi era managed to establish close relations with the monarchy. Before the revolution, how, if at all, did they come to understand it had been a mistake, perhaps trying to dissociate themselves from the monarchy?

I think a few of the American missionaries began to see the connection with any government as a mistake, but I am not sure the majority of American missionaries came to that conclusion. I think that they were going in that direction, especially as Mohammad Reza Shah was becoming increasingly brutal with the use of the SAVAK, but with the Islamic Revolution rising, no one knew what might have happened. Mohammad Reza Shah gave missionaries many liberties, but they came with the understanding that the missionaries would support him. The missionaries were willing to pay that price.

In specific regard to the official domestic relationships of American missionaries, you observe that “there is no evidence to suggest

the American mission agencies examined in this book were under the absolute control of” the US government.

‘Absolute control’ is a high bar, but to accuse missionaries as agents of government (US or Iran) is a serious allegation, and could cause irreparable harm, something I did not want to do unless I had clear evidence to support those claims.

In more practical terms, some observe that American missionaries worked with the American government. For example, Conroykrutz, author of ‘Christian Imperialism’, argues that American missionaries, from the very beginning of their work, “undertook political work for parts of American diplomatic and intelligence networks.” Have you come across any such role for American missionaries in Iran?

The American government, of course, influenced the American mission agencies mentioned in my book. There is documented correspondence between some of the mission agencies and the US government regarding missionary presence in Iran. There is at least one case where a mission agency asked the US government to intervene and encourage the Iranian government to help secure visas for its missionaries. Regarding Conroy-krutz, she is right that there has been a direct connection between missionary and government in the past. Often one would come to a country first and the other would follow. Who came first, missionary or government? It was not always the same.

What about their contemporary roles?

To be fair to the missionary organizations, I know that currently at least one of the mission organizations mentioned in my book has put into their policy that missionaries participating with any intelligence agency are not allowed and will lead to immediate dismissal. Their missionaries must stay politically neutral and not be involved in politics at any level, local, national, or international. That said, if Iran were to allow American Christian missionaries into Iran, because of the past history between government and missionary in general, the Iranian government would be wise to vet American missionaries. That could help the mission organizations as well as the Iranian government.

Howard Baskerville, sometimes called “American Martyr of Iran’s Constitutional Movement,” is perhaps one of the most honored American missionaries who ever worked in Iran. But the event that led to his idolized status was indeed deeply political: Standing with the constitutionalist forces against monarchists and finally getting fatally shot in the early 1900s. In your knowledge (of the facts) or estimation (of general attitudes), how did the Presbyterian Church view his decision: indifference, approval, or rejecting him as a rogue agent?

You are correct. Baskerville’s support of the Constitutional Revolution was one thing. Baskerville deciding to take part in the armed conflict was quite another. Baskerville had to resign his post as a missionary to be able to do so. His immediate supervisor, if I recall reading the documents correctly, was not in favor of Baskerville’s decision to become part of the armed conflict. The Presbyterians in Iran – or at least their leadership – wanted to be neutral. Neutrality toward Iran at that time was, by and large, US policy, so one could argue the Presbyterians were following governmental procedure, but that is a bit of a stretch. If anything, the Presbyterians were playing both sides, so whoever won, they could stay in the country, but I have no documentary evidence for that thought either. This brings up an interesting theological question: When is it permissible for the local populace to rebel against their government? Was the American Revolution anti-biblical? Christians have different answers to these questions, some from even the same theological sect.

These are good questions for another talk! Thank you.