Christians' Thoughts & Church & Culture ali | 15 Dec 2009 09:07 pm
What should non-indigenous Australians do for Aboriginal peoples?
Can anyone give biblical reasons why the following steps should not be taken by non-indigenous Australians? Because the whole article these steps are taken from has excellent reasons why they should.
- i. …recognize that recompense is a duty and responsibility, that we owe it to the indigenous peoples of this land, out of respect for them as our brothers and sisters made in God’s image, and out of awareness of the vileness of the crimes which have been committed against them and their ancestors.
- ii. …recognize that recompense is based on our duty, not the needs of indigenous people. I am not saying that we should not care, but that we must act with integrity and justice.
- iii. …recognize that no recompense could ever be satisfactory, because what was done was so vile, so immense, so universal, so pervasive, so destructive, so devastating, and so irreparable.
- iv. …ask the indigenous people if they wanted those of us who have arrived since 1788 to leave …, or to provide an equivalent recompense… . Leaving would be a drastic and complicated action, but, as I have pointed out, it has happened in India, Africa, and Indonesia in the last sixty years.
- v. If we do not leave, then we would need to ask each of the indigenous peoples of this land what kind of recompense would be appropriate for them. This would be an extremely complicated and extensive task, but must be done.
- vi. …be prepared to give costly recompense, lest it trivialize what has happened.
- vii. …then…adopt a national recompense policy, in the form of a Treaty. It would need to be implemented locally, according to the wishes of each indigenous tribe.
- viii. By negotiation, it could be a one-off act of recompense, or it could be a constant and long-term series of acts of recompense.
- ix. We could also implement voluntary recompense by churches in a coordinated way, and should include support of indigenous Christian ministry and training, as negotiated by the leaders of Christ’s indigenous people. Christian churches should lead the way in this, not least in supporting indigenous Christians and their ministries. For churches too have benefited from the land they use, and from income from those who have usurped the land.
on 20 Dec 2009 at 3:27 pm 1.Doug said …
It seems to me that political action (political recompense, exile of non-aboriginals, and a treaty) ought not to be linked to the actions of the Church.
The decisions of the government of Australia are a matter that God will guide through the rulers he brings to power.
The actions of the Church should occur as He guides his children in love and recognition of the gospel.
Blurring the lines between the two seems inappropriate to me.
Those who act in love towards Aboriginals within the Church ought to do so whatever their view of politics and not tethered to a sense of guilt as there is neither Jew no Greek in Christ.
Those who wish to give Aboriginals the option to exile other Australians (or give political recompense) ought to pursue that political goal regardless of religion.
I’m not an Australian so I’d not intrude into the question of what should be done politically. I’m only pointing out that this seems to be blurring the two Kingdoms that God works through (the Church and the Government).
on 21 Dec 2009 at 2:55 pm 2.Ali said …
The problem is, Doug, that in a democracy the Christian citizen is part of the government via the vote and, as such, has a responsibility to think through and support action based on Christian truth. I’m not sure that the two kingdoms can be so easily divided in our lives.
on 27 Dec 2009 at 8:13 am 3.Doug said …
Let me make an attempt at separating Church from government here.
Within Christ there is no Jew or Greek. Ethnic guilt is meaningless. So within the Church recompense can only be personal.
What have you personally done to an Aboriginal requiring you to make recompense to him?
Well go and do it.
Besides that we must do good to all people.
Now the Australian government can recognize ethnicity and place guilt or merit to whole groups of people. The government has the right to use force to exile non-Aboriginal men, women and children turning them into refugees.
Whether this is in keeping with the duties of government (justice and order) is something Christians would have to determine.
My opinion is that the ethnic guilt this scheme is based off has no application within the Church. It can only have an application if the Australian government determines to hold everyone within an ethnic groups responsible for the crimes of individuals in that ethnic group.
on 03 Jan 2010 at 11:07 pm 4.Ali said …
Hey Doug,
I’m not convinced that you’re argument has it right, i.e…
Within Christ there is no Jew or Greek. Ethnic guilt is meaningless. So within the Church recompense can only be personal.
1. You are referencing Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 (and perhaps others such as Romans 10:12). But, to take one example, what about the reference to “male and female” in Gal 3:28? Clearly in the Church a distinction remains (as seen in 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2 etc), even though the Galatian verse declares the genders are one in Christ.
Suppose, then, that I had a disdain for women - all women. In my repentance am I to go to each individual woman I know and ask forgiveness, or can I do it to them as a group since the sin was committed against them as a group because they were part of that group?
Or does Gal 3:28 absolve me from that and free me to approach each female individually? (Of course, the repentance for attitude is different for actions, but can you see my point?)
2. As a Lutheran, you believe in infant baptism. Does that not, then, allow at least some kind of forgiveness based on corporate (familial) identity?
3. Does not Revelations 2 & 3 have the Lord pronouncing judgment on Churches as a whole, calling on geographically defined Churches to repent and not just individuals? Yes, Jesus speaks of innocent individuals, but is it too much to believe, for example, that if the Church as a geographical entity had ripped of the poor in the city that the Lord would require the Church as an entity to pay recompense?
4. In Acts 15, the whole Church in Jerusalem agreed to send a letter to the Gentile Churches about the decision made by the Apostles and Elders (and the Holy Spirit). In other words, the Apostles and Elders decided on behalf of the Church, the Church agreed to send the message of the Apostles and Elders and so a letter was sent by the Church, i.e. not by each individual in the Church.
Imagine that the Church in the New Testament was in the political position of oppressor, as it was in many sad instances in Australia and other places in the world and in history. Considering that the Church in the NT acted as a whole in encouragement, is it not also possible for it to act as a whole in repentance?
Other situations come to mind, such as the treatment of the poor by the rich in 1 Cor 11 and James (both treated as groups) and so on. Admitedly, all these are quick points and open to pushbacks, but I see your ultra brief argument as needing greater support before it gains traction. While individuals need to deal with their personal sin, there is a place biblically for corporate action and recognition of sin in the Church as an entity.
(I appreciate your comments, so feel free to pushback at will).
on 10 Jan 2010 at 2:45 pm 5.Doug said …
You’ve raised many points. I’d have preferred to respond a bit more quickly.
1. You are referencing Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 (and perhaps others such as Romans 10:12). But, to take one example, what about the reference to “male and female” in Gal 3:28? Clearly in the Church a distinction remains (as seen in 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2 etc), even though the Galatian verse declares the genders are one in Christ.
Yes a distinction remains between the sexes. You didn’t quote verses that indicate a distinction remains between ethnic groups within the Church. I think the Bible points to us being called out from the nations and ethnic groups to be part of God’s Kingdom instead. Our identity and loyalty rest with God, while we act as ambassadors of Christ to those we remain with. It would take me a bit of time to string together the Old and New testament verses that have given me this impression.
2. As a Lutheran, you believe in infant baptism. Does that not, then, allow at least some kind of forgiveness based on corporate (familial) identity?
I don’t think you’d find many Lutherans that would accept the idea of forgiveness based on family identity. We believe forgiveness is through faith alone.
4. In Acts 15, the whole Church in Jerusalem agreed to send a letter to the Gentile Churches about the decision made by the Apostles and Elders (and the Holy Spirit). In other words, the Apostles and Elders decided on behalf of the Church, the Church agreed to send the message of the Apostles and Elders and so a letter was sent by the Church, i.e. not by each individual in the Church.
I don’t have a problem with the Church acting corporately. If particular denominations have done harm to Aboriginals they ought to feel even more motivation to do good to them. I wasn’t aware that Australian denominations played much of a role in harm done to Aboriginals.
Other situations come to mind, such as the treatment of the poor by the rich in 1 Cor 11 and James (both treated as groups) and so on.
I’m not able to discern that in 1 Cor 11. In fact I’d point to 1 Cor 11:18-22 as attacking distinctions between poor and rich when all should be together joined in Communion to our Lord.
Within James I see two verses that are unambiguously referring to the poor and wealthy within the Church but they seem to be condemning partiality based on those worldly criteria. I think Leviticus 19:15 is a useful lens through which to read some of James.