We looked at a gospel response to Indigenous Australians on Sunday. The sermon should be on the website to listen to by now if you missed it. Likewise (on the PBC website) there should be a link to Peter Adam's excellent lecture on this topic at Morling College back in August. I'd recommend reading this first too.
We looked at Luke 19: 1-10 (Zacchaeus demonstrated his repentance by making recompense - saying sorry is not enough) and 1 Peter 2: 21-25 (the only hope for Australia is found in the cross).
However, the question is 'what should we do?' Several people at PBC have expressed my own feeling in preparation - this is such a huge issue, where do we start? We feel paralysed by the enormity of it.
So this post is an open invitation to think through some practical suggestions. It is incredibly tempting to simply ignore the issue - to feel a bit better that we've talked about it but then just move on having done nothing.
Right, here are a few brief reflections and then some practical proposals:
a) There is no need (anymore) for us to feel personally guilty for the past - Christ has dealt with that, once and for all, on the cross.
b) However, just because we have been forgiven (both individually and collectively) does not minimise our need to seek to make restitution. If we believe in a God of justice we will seek to do so. This is not instead of the cross but rather because of it. (Ephesians 2: 8-10)
c) We are only accountable for our response to the gospel. It is not our job to force Indigenous Australians to forgive the past (in Christ Jesus), our job is to demonstrate our repentance.
d) Following on from c) - different cultures will apply the gospel to their own culture. On the one hand we must not place culture above scripture (and thus beyond critique) but on the other we must not assume that an Aboriginal (or Torres Islander) response to the gospel of Jesus Christ will look exactly like ours. Hence one key aspect here is dialogue with Indigenous Australians. We may think we are helping them when we are not; we may think we are making restitution but may be doing so on our terms.
e) The gospel is the only way we can escape the natural human cycle of injustice. As Australians are treated as both villains and victims so we are able to draw a line under the past and move on. This means that all of us must stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for our own lives and our own communities.
So, here are some practical suggestions for PBC to get the ball rolling:
1. Flags - I've bought an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag for the church. Could we have them up often in church simply to symbolise that Christ is for all Australians - Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I know a flag is another gesture, rather than an action, but it is at least a start. Equally, I realise that the Australian flag itself is supposed to unite all Australians, but I still think that the symbolism of an Aboriginal flag says something about PBC welcoming Indigenous Australians.
(BTW I tried to buy an Aboriginal flag in a local mall. When I asked the shop assistant if they had any she replied, "Nah, only Australian ones." I knew what she meant, but the irony was not lost on me!)
2. Acknowledgement - is it worth putting something on the outline each week (quoting Psalm 24) ... that the earth is the Lord and so no one nation can claim rights to the land? Everyone who has lived in Petersham has done so dependent on the Lord's grace - first the Gadigal people and later immigrants from many nations. The wording would have to be carefully scripted but there must be some way to acknowledge the original inhabitants of Australia.
3. Church connections - we need to support gospel ministry amongst Aboriginals. Is there some project in Redfern or in the Northern Territories with which we can partner? Alongside the obvious gospel partnership this would surely develop our understanding and appreciation of Indigenous culture.
4. Campaigning - I haven't had time to read it all carefully but the website ANTar seems to have plenty of sensible campaigns and ideas how to help and support Indigenous Australians.
Right. Over to you...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is a test!
Hi John,
Thanks for having the courage to broach what is a very difficult and sensitive topic. I think you’ve come up with some really interesting and thought provoking suggestions.
Re Peter Adam’s speech: he is to be congratulated for bringing the plight of Aborigines, and our responsibility to act, so forcefully to our attention. I think some of what he says makes a lot of sense; other things not so much. it would take an essay to respond adequately, but I’ll restrict myself to a few comments on each of his main points.
1) “Australia is God’s land, given to the original peoples of this land.”
I think Adam runs into difficulties right at the start by (as I see it) misunderstanding Paul’s meaning in Acts 17 somewhat. It is problematic to see God as having explicitly decreed that each nation should inhabit a particular region of the earth. I think it makes more sense to see the fact that nations occupy, and have occupied, certain parts of the earth as the outworking of God’s sovereign purposes in history. To read Acts 17:26 too prescriptively seems to lead to the conclusion that whole peoples are now living contrary to God’s will, in terms of the place where they live. Furthermore, Adam misses the point that we cannot be absolutely certain that the Aborigines were the first inhabitants of what we know as Australia: some 40,000 years ago, their ancestors might have dispossessed the “true” recipients of God’s original blessing! There have been such movements of peoples throughout history, in most parts of the earth, and it is often difficult, in the absence of conclusive evidence, to make definitive pronouncements on such a subject. To cite one example I know of: most people would probably think of the Maoris as the indigenous people of New Zealand. Some centuries before the Maoris came to New Zealand, it was inhabited by a people called the Moriori. There is debate as to whether the Maoris dispossessed the Moriori, or whether the latter left of their own accord. Either way, the Maori were not the original inhabitants.
On the other hand (!), it is interesting to speculate that perhaps peoples (as racial groups) are intended by God to live in certain parts of the earth. Are fair-skinned people of European descent really meant to be living in a continent like Australia, with the associated high risk of skin cancer, for instance?
Adam’s notions of culpability and guilt also seem difficult to justify. He speaks of “we Europeans” having “coveted space for a penal colony, new land, new opportunities, and great wealth. We coveted, and so we stole, and we stole, and so we murdered…”. Clearly, no contemporary Australians did any such thing; and for many of us, not even our ancestors were involved. The point he makes about later generations taking advantage of crimes committed earlier (we do live on stolen land) is, I believe, correct – however, they are different issues.
2) “It is right to apologise”
I’m not sure he really makes his point. As far as I can see, an apology can only be meaningful when it comes from one responsible for the wrongdoing concerned i.e. the perpetrators(s). If, to use his example, I discovered that my grandfather had wronged someone terribly, I would probably feel ashamed, and might well try to make recompense – especially if I had somehow benefited from the crime (see below). An apology, however, would not be meaningful coming from me – at least, not for things I had not done personally. What I ought to apologise to the Aboriginal people for is that fact that, personally, I have been quite appallingly inactive in seeking justice for them all my adult life, or even helping them in any practical way. Inaction and indifference to suffering and injustice are also sins.
continued...
Continued from previous...
3) “It is time to repent”
Similar to the last point: I perceive my own need for repentance in terms of my inaction as outlined above – not due to crimes committed (largely) by earlier generations of Australians.
4) “It is time to make recompense”
Agreed. We are living on stolen land, enjoying the proceeds of crime, including mass murder. We must act. The question is (and always has been), how?
5) “Recompense: a practical proposal”
Firstly, the notion of non-Aboriginal Australians leaving en masse is not only utterly unworkable, but quite unjust. I don’t think Adam makes a convincing case that it would be any more just for “us Europeans” to leave Australia than for the status quo to continue. The examples Adam draws from countries such as India, Indonesia and various African nations simply don’t hold water. In most of the countries concerned it was a case of the passing of government and bureaucratic authority from a colonial power to an indigenous one, with the associated exit of a large number of nationals and ex-pats, often at the end of a long national struggle for independence.
The situation in Australia is, and would be (if it happened), very different. In fact, I suspect the results would be calamitous, for various reasons: for instance, the degradation or urbanisation of much of the coastal strip since 1788, with catastrophic implications for traditional aboriginal ways of life, especially food gathering; cultural and geographical dislocation of many thousands of Aborigines; the fact that the majority of Aborigines no longer live a traditional lifestyle, but rather are urbanised to a greater or lesser degree, and, willy-nilly, are dependent on mainstream (non-Aboriginal) society.
Apart from that, I think most of Adam’s suggestions are good ones, but we need to be clear about what would be a) helpful b) just and c) workable. So, what can we do? We can’t go back (to a pre-1788 Australia). The idea of a treaty is an excellent one, but it is hard to see how it could be practically achieved, given factors such as geography and cultural diversity. Perhaps there are examples from other countries of how it could be done here (Canada? USA?).
We Christians are few in number. Perhaps the best we can do is to shine a light – the light of Christ – that is of a luminosity out of all proportion to our numbers. May God lay on our hearts the burden of care we have for all of our fellow Australians, especially those in need, and guide us by his Spirit so that we “love (not) with words or tongue but with actions and in truth”.
Greg
Thanks for your thoughts Greg.
As you can see from my post I agree with most of your observations. I too think that offering to leave would just create more injustice.
However, Peter Adam does make an interesting point in that Australia is a fairly unique case due to our isolation as an island.
Something that Adam doesn't make much of but has occurred to me is the OT teaching about national responsibility. The Lord did not feel it was unjust to send one generation of Israelites into exile for the sins of their forefathers. And likewise the 'innocent' Israelites went off to exile too. The same pattern is seen in how God treated the surrounding nations in the OT.
In other words the scriptures do seem to speak of corporate national responsibility for past sins. I'm not personally guilty (and should not feel so) but I share in the corporate responsibility for trying to put right what 'my people' did wrong.
What did you think about my practical suggestions? (The one about the flags was not meant as a permanent fixture but just an 'every now and then' thing.)
John,
Re the idea of corporate national responsibility: how does that tie in with Deuteronomy 24:16, etc (“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin”)?
I think the flag idea might have some merit. We must beware of tokenism, but it could constitute a statement of our corporate recognition that injustice has been done and must be made good.
Greg
Thanks Greg.
The quote from Deuteronomy is to do with the penalties of the Law. This is precisely what Ezekiel and Jeremiah wrestle with. It is not fair to punish the children for their parent's sins but it is a simple matter of fact they do bear the consequences.
Hence we should not be punished for our forefathers' sins but we do bear the responsibility for putting it right.
John,
I accept the distinction between punishment and responsibility. What is not yet clear to me is how we can (justly and workably) apply the principle of corporate national responsibility in a country like Australia circa 2009, with a population vastly more heterogeneous than that of ancient Israel. How is the principle of carrying the responsibility for the actions of forebears applicable in a country where something like 40% of the population are either first- or second-generation Australians, and who had forebears who (unlike ancient Israel) had no involvement in the crimes concerned? This does not mean that the principle is wrong: merely that the concept of “my people” or “our forefathers” can’t mean the same for many contemporary Australians as it did for the Israelites.
This is why I tend to see our responsibility in terms of the fact that we are enjoying the benefits of those crimes (albeit unwillingly), and also the simple notion that as Christians we ought to be attempting to redress and combat injustice wherever we find it, as we are frequently reminded in scripture.
Greg
Post a Comment