It is said that if we cannot learn from the mistakes we’ve made, we are doomed to repeat them. I wonder what history has to teach us on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the United Church’s apology to Indigenous people.
In 1986 the United Church of ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ formally apologised to the Indigenous people of ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ in general, and to the Indigenous members of the United Church, in particular. Those whose trust we had betrayed, whose lives we had altered forever, whose relationship with God we had denied, denigrated and attempted to remake into an image of our own.
The apology did not spring out of nothingness. It was a response to a request made by Alberta Billy, amember of the Laichwiltach We Wai kai NationÌýwho resides in Cape Mudge, on Vancouver Island. Her 1981 request to our national executive was itself the product of years of determined effort by Aboriginal members of the church. Helping the church admit to its own brokenness and sin was no small task.
Looking back we can see moments when, right from the beginning, some settler descended members of our church stood solidly with Indigenous people. Letters were written, sermons were preached, authorities were called to account. Folk were angry, despairing, inspirational, upset, and sometimes downright disgusted.
These few made little headway against a monolithic cultural, social and religious assumption that the only view that mattered was the triumphant view. Europeans were civilised, especially English Europeans, and everyone else was not. The civilised had rights that trumped any other sensibilities, including, apparently, Christ’s call to the heart of love. For many church elders and most Indigenous people the love espoused by the church and society was tough and harsh and often horrible. We are only now beginning to realise the extent of the harm caused by our insistence on a dominant and dominating world-view.
I wonder what our descendants will say when they look back upon our own triumphalism. It’s easy to predict that some spokespersons for fear and loathing will get their historic just desserts. It’s hard to imagine either of the presidential nominees to the south of us faring well even now, let alone 50 or 100 years hence. But what about less obvious choices? Who will stand out as the voices of reason, sanity and love?
Will it be those trumpeting jobs and the economy over any consideration, or will it be those calling all of us to attend to the plight of the biosphere that sustains all life?
Will it be those promoting the status quo with respect to human effluent and the ocean receiving it, or will it be those calling us to deal with our own ‘stuff’ properly?
Will it be those proclaiming housing prices as ‘the economic boom of the century, the retirement plan of necessity, or those seeking food, shelter and clothing for all?
Will it be those wondering why folk on or off reserve don’t ‘get up, get out and get work’ like the rest of us, or those questioning how it’s possible to steal an entire country from its inhabitants, practice centuries of genocide upon them, and, while blaming them for their losses, surrender the stolen wealth to a tiny, entitled, group that would rather not reside anywhere near it?
Who will be identified as harbingers of reason in a world gone fare-thee-well mad out of its own hubris?
I hope and pray it will be you.
Keith SimmondsÌýA diaconal minister, Keith serves at Duncan United Church, and as President of the BC Conference of the United Church of ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½. Blogging at ,ÌýheÌýcan also be found atÌýViews expressed here are his own, and not necessarily those of the church.Ìý
You can read more articles from our interfaith blog, Spiritually Speaking,
* This article was also published in the print edition of the TImes Colonist on Saturday, June 18 2016
