Art and Identity - Canvas As Country

A Portrait of Australia - With Important Bits Missing - Glenn Loughrey, 2017

Matthew 28:16-20

 

Today is the Sunday closest to Ascension Day and also National Reconciliation Sunday. An interesting juxtaposition maybe, but one I would suggest, poses some interesting questions for us individually, as a church and as a society.

Colonisation of Australia, as it did through out the world, brought with it the evangelical fervour to convert those who lived in the colonised countries to the state religion.  In the case of Australia this was, initially at least, Christianity as promoted by the Church of England. And this was essentially predicated on the verses we read in today’s Gospel.

The impact of such fervour continues to reverberate down through the ages in the experience of indigenous people. In conversation indigenous people often ask me why they should trust the church? Desmond Tutu writes, “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.” This was the experience indigenous peoples on all continents shared.

 

Matthew’s Gospel is a powerful passage, a passage that brings power, and promises power through the giving of the Holy Spirit. Like all power, it is a double-edged sword. It all depends on how it is used. Way too often it has been used to damage people, places and creatures in the urge for control.  Having everyone believe what you do ensures that you bring him or her in under your control. Belief systems are powerful moderators of peoples behaviour and the inappropriate or literal interpretation of these words from Matthew’s Gospel have been responsible for the justification of poor behaviour by the church.

 

Not only by the church, but by those whose sensibilities have been influenced and informed by the church. Present policies of paternalistic politics in this country continue the conversion of indigenous people, not to a specific faith, but to a specific religion – that of secular capitalism and consumerism. Much of the policies governments and others follow are designed to assimilate indigenous people into the world of individual work, consumption and home ownership. Policies such as the Northern Territory Intervention, the subsequent Closing the Gap policy and individual items such as the indue debit card quarantining income and limiting individual responsibility and the drive to include indigenous people in the constitution have continued the idea of conversion. This time the conversion is to consumerism and making disciples for the corporations to continue to rack up profits.

 

Now these are harsh words for a passage of scripture empowering the disciples to go into the world and engage with those whose worldview is different to theirs. They are harsh words as we consider the significance of the Ascension of Jesus as the releasing of the power of the Holy Spirit into the world. And we must remember that the damage done by literal and colonial interpretations of these words have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

 

These words challenge us to receive the Holy Spirit and to listen to her activity in the world. It is about walking abroad in the world and listening to creation in all its various forms and responding out of compassion and respect to bring about wholeness in our lives, the lives of others and in creation.

 

The baptism we read about is not a branding as in the branding of cattle, of ownership and control, but a baptism into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the wholeness of the Godhead. It is a baptism of unity with all that exists for all that exists finds it beginning and end in the Source of all being – God. This baptism we are asked to conduct is the shared inclusion in the forward whole-ing of all that is, was and ever will be.

 

Baptism is a partnership with the Spirit of the Christ set loose in the world, whole-d up in places, peoples and events we do not expect or cannot imagine as her dwelling place. In the lives and practices of indigenous people whose understanding of the spirit have been honed and experienced over many centuries before we in the western world encountered the incarnated Christ.

 

Too often we have demanded that people who have been baptised turn their backs on their own traditions and spiritual experiences without consideration of the impact of such an action. Other times we have attempted to appropriate ideas from ancient spiritualties and redefine them within our own faith traditions and understanding. Neither is appropriate and neither is the call of Mathew’s Jesus. He is calling for a deep and respectful dialogue which brings about people who are disciples committed to the core tenets of his teachings – unconditional love and respect for all that is, was, and ever will be – the love which respects others and joins in the process of whole-ing for all.

 

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

This passage is one of the most difficult statements Jesus is given to say. It is all open to interpretation and is often reduced to a legal and theoretical framework designed to ensure people remain faithful to a particular world view depending upon which tradition of faith you belong. It is why we struggle with equality of gender and marriage, of poverty and riches, of race and culture, of faith and religion. Our interpretations of Jesus teachings defines what we believe this should all look like and results in a simple tick sheet of who is in and who is out.

Yet this is one of the most inclusive statements in the Gospels. Go into the world, listen to the Spirit and join with others in the journey into wholeness for all through mutual love and respect. This is the sense of the aboriginal concept of deep listening to country which Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr calls dadirri (and other mobs have different names for) – the deep mutuality of dialogue with all that exists.

This passage challenges us to stop our incessant urge to convert people to our world view and begin the difficult but necessary task of listening deeply to others, people, places and creatures, so that all as the off spring of the Godhead can live in harmonious wholeness.

How do we do that here, in this place? Is it our expectation that all who enter into this place must share our own particular view of faith, liturgy, music and worship? Is it our view that all who enter here must fit the model that we have been comfortable with? Are we indeed listening to hear what the spirit is saying to the church or have already decided what is being said and we do not need to listen anymore? Do we actually go out into the world surrounding our beloved church and actually engage with those who are in such a way that we begin the journey wholeness with them or are we just happy to meet here once a week for our own personal benefit?

I suspect there was some of this in Jesus’s statement to the disciples. I also suggest that the coming of the spirit is not just for our sake, but for the whole world. You know, God so loved the world, and all that stuff. Amen 

Treaty, Sovereignty and Self-Determination

The Road To Treaty - Glenn Loughrey - 2017

There is much discussion in the media about the proposal to recognise first nation peoples in the Australian Constitution. This was a project commenced in 2011 by a government headed by Prime Minister John Howard.  The proposal was to add a suitable clause in the preamble and at other points within the constitution with the stated outcome of removing race from the constitution. Once suitable statements are agreed upon, the suggestions will be put to a referendum and if successful will see the appropriate clauses being changed.

So is recognition in the constitution an appropriate option? Only if it is meaningful and provides not just a nod and a wink but a true devolution of the power of self determination to those recognised. In the suggestions we have at present this seems unlikely.  What is proposed is basically adding recognition to a colonial document with no mechanisms for the proper empowerment of those who have never been included in the colonial project.,

In response to this project there is a groundswell of, primarily, First Nations People calling not for recognition in the constitution but for a treaty or treaties recognising sovereignty and enabling full self-determination. For many FNP recognition continues the colonial project of assimilation and fails to address the question of invasions, land wars and the subsequent trauma and racism that continue today. For these people, these questions must be addressed on equal terms by people who possess sovereignty in their particular areas of governance; the Federal government for the well being of Australia as a while and the various clans and tribes for the governance of their specific country and peoples.

It is correct, to a point, to say State governments cannot by reason of their existence enact and enforce a treaty with anyone, only agreements or contracts. The only seat of power capable of enacting a treaty is the Federal government and only then after it is agreed to by the Queens representative. Once again, as we have seen in the recent American experience, this can and will change depending upon the focus of the government in power.

Yet as Michael Anderson states: "State Governments can negotiate treaties with their First Nations, but can only negotiate on matters that are within their powers to do under their respective State constitutions. On matters that are shared between them, like water, and natural resources the Commonwealth would have to enjoin with the Treaty negotiations to agree on these matters which overlap." He goes on: "As a Peoples, First nations Peoples who negotiate agreements of any kind can under international law have that agreement/Treaty registered with the UN under International law. Moreover, any Treaty that may be negotiated will have to be guided by all the Human Rights and the terms of the Decolonalisation Committee process under the UN.”

In terms of concerns regarding the enforceability of treaty (ies), retired judge of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson suggests "it is true that the only way that any treaty can be made binding upon a future Parliament is that it is supported by some Constitutional guarantee and even then there are provisions to amend a Constitution, albeit with difficulty in the Australian context.”

He goes on to suggest several possible ways in which a constitutional guarantee could be achieved. 

"One could be that the negotiation of a treaty, enforced by legislation, could be a precursor to an acceptance of the need for constitutional change. This could be strengthened by the inclusion of a fixed time provided in the legislation for the holding of a referendum to introduce such constitutional change.

Another would be if the Constitution was to be amended to authorise the Federal Government to enter into such a treaty, which would be binding on all parties and the States and Territories and could not be changed by legislation without the agreement of all parties and/or by a referendum in accordance with the Constitution. The proposal is not new. It appears to have been first made in the early 1980s, and in 1983 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended the insertion of such a provision in the Constitution.

It is based upon a model that is already in s105A of the Constitution in relation to State Government debt. This model could constitutionally bind Federal and State and Territory Parliaments to act consistently in accordance with the terms of the treaty."

So what is it that we need to do? It has been suggested cultural respect is the place to meet, a place where people from both camps can applaud the others achievements, in other words, pat each other on the back, grab a stubby and a sausage and watch the footy together? If this is the way forward then I suggest we have trivialised the situation into absurdity.

The answer is indeed hard work but it is the hard work of sovereign respect, the respect due to equals in a process honouring of the history and story of both and their respected places in the fabric of our society. The idea of any form of permanent agreement is impossible while ever one side holds all the aces in the pack and continues to treat the others as losers.

It will involve the hard work of acknowledgement -the acknowledgement of country and the ancestors and the fact that one party stole it and has no intention of returning it any time soon. It is the hard work of sitting in deep silence with one another and discovering what we share and how we share it with equity and justice. The hard work of recognising our own complicity, black and white, in the ongoing injustice indigenous people experience and finding pathways forward. 

It is the hard work of a long time as there is no easy or quick fix to the hurt and tragedy, the mistakes and missteps and the communal failure to face the truth about our shared past. It will take a level of honesty and openness hitherto unseen in this struggle but it must occur if we are to find a lasting solution, be it recognition, treaty or a third way no one has thought of yet.

As one who comes from an area where tribal people where all but exterminated by mid 1800's the remainder moved out in 1900, I understand this issue is emotive, painful and embedded in the indigenous psyche and can not be resolved according to a western timetable or legal framework.

It can only be resolved by time, deep listening and a willingness to stay with the process for as long as it needs. Then and only then can a treaty be possible.