This was week one of my Lenten sermon series "The Church in the World" and it was one of the two that I had the most misgivings about. The other is the third in the series where the tag is "IN but not OF the World" (the other two tags are "Witness & Testimony" and "Wealth & Poverty").
To start off the series I thought I would reflect on Karl Barth's dictum that theology needs to be done with the Gospel in one hand and the Newspaper in the other (mind you I think the current formulation of that dictum would talk about browser windows rather than documents--and include alternate media sources as well as recognized news sources). You can read where I thought I would go at this link.
Up until late in the week I was not entirely sure there was a sermon in this topic, a talk/lecture for sure but a sermon? What would really happen on Sunday? (The sermon was recorded and assuming the recorder worked properly the podcast will be posted tomorrow or Tuesday).
As it turned out I think it went quite well. Maybe not a masterpiece but not terrible either. It helped that when I asked why it was important to do what Barth suggests the three answers that were called out were "because they connect" "vision" and "relevance" -- which was exactly where I was planning on going.
We need to keep the two hands (or two browser windows) so that we keep our faith grounded in, speaking to, and connected with the world in which we live and serve. Even more, one of the Barth quotes I found said that we need to interpret the world's stories through the lens of the Gospel. [For the record I think that in the end the interpretive task goes both ways--world through Gospel and Gospel through world.] This gave me the link to vision. We read the stories of the world, (from a variety of sources, preferably both sources we agree with and ones we find troublesome) and ask where the Gospel is present or missing. Then we ask where/how God is speaking to those stories and how God would have us respond. Filling in that last question gives us our vision, our calling, the place we apply/live out our faith. I think it all came together.
A final thought, one I also mused about this morning. I think the task Barth sets out was in some ways easier in his context. Barth lived and worked long before the advent of the 24 hour news cycle. Journalism was different then, stories were often more complete before they were broken, journalists had more time to fact-check (with some notable exceptions--"Dewey Defeats Truman" comes to mind). And also there was not the plethora of sources, mixed blessing that that is. More sources now means we get more chances to have different points of view. It also means it is harder to have a clear sense of what the news is.
What do you think? Was Barth right? How do you live out his challenge?
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Change Management
Would be a good definition of ministry. Or maybe SHOULD be a major part of ministry.
I was just reading this blog. Gary Paterson, the writer, is the current Moderator of the United Church of Canada. THe Comprehensive Review of which he writes was set up as a result of decisions made at (although personally I believe the real decision was made before the meeting with the vote at the meeting a way of making it formal) last summer's meeting of General Council. The panel is charged with charting a path forward for our denomination.
Churches, on the whole, do not do change well. In fact I would say that humans as a species generally don't do change all that well. Even when we can handle it fairly well as individuals when we get into groups and organizational structures we start to become less-changeable. But churches are, in my opinion, one of the most conservative (in the sense of being change-resistant, not as a political/social/economic classification) classes of organizations we have.
Which is why ministry needs to be about change management. Because change is inevitable. Sometimes it is drastic, sometimes it is glacial, but it is inevitable. And some members of the congregation want to embrace some changes (but shun others). Some want to keep change away as long as possible. And some want to march off into the unknown ready to chance whatever happens. Ministry means finding the balance [not keeping everyone happy (that is often not a realistic thing) but finding the way to change that matches who and how God is calling us to be in the world] and stickhandling through those inevitable changes inside and outside the church.
The challenge though is that to be faithful to who and how God is calling us to be we need to have a vision. And I am not convinced that the church really does have a vision. Sometimes we come close. But too often we don't go all the way. And that won't work. As Gary points out in his blog, a zero in the mathematics of change (of which I have written before) ends up with a product of zero. SO we need the vision. AS congregations, as denominations, as communities of faith of any size we need a vision.
And just for the record, I don't count "keeping the doors open" or "survival" as a real vision.
I was just reading this blog. Gary Paterson, the writer, is the current Moderator of the United Church of Canada. THe Comprehensive Review of which he writes was set up as a result of decisions made at (although personally I believe the real decision was made before the meeting with the vote at the meeting a way of making it formal) last summer's meeting of General Council. The panel is charged with charting a path forward for our denomination.
Churches, on the whole, do not do change well. In fact I would say that humans as a species generally don't do change all that well. Even when we can handle it fairly well as individuals when we get into groups and organizational structures we start to become less-changeable. But churches are, in my opinion, one of the most conservative (in the sense of being change-resistant, not as a political/social/economic classification) classes of organizations we have.
Which is why ministry needs to be about change management. Because change is inevitable. Sometimes it is drastic, sometimes it is glacial, but it is inevitable. And some members of the congregation want to embrace some changes (but shun others). Some want to keep change away as long as possible. And some want to march off into the unknown ready to chance whatever happens. Ministry means finding the balance [not keeping everyone happy (that is often not a realistic thing) but finding the way to change that matches who and how God is calling us to be in the world] and stickhandling through those inevitable changes inside and outside the church.
The challenge though is that to be faithful to who and how God is calling us to be we need to have a vision. And I am not convinced that the church really does have a vision. Sometimes we come close. But too often we don't go all the way. And that won't work. As Gary points out in his blog, a zero in the mathematics of change (of which I have written before) ends up with a product of zero. SO we need the vision. AS congregations, as denominations, as communities of faith of any size we need a vision.
And just for the record, I don't count "keeping the doors open" or "survival" as a real vision.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Friday Five
For Lent this year I have resolved to blog more. And so doing the Friday Five for the first time in a LOOOOOONG time fits that goal...
1. Oddly this year, the second day of Lent was Valentine's Day. How was this for you? Was Valentine's Day any different being in Lent? Truthfully made no difference either way.
2. Did you celebrate Mardi Gras/Shrove Tuesday this year? Any memories of memorable celebrations past? this congregation always has a Pancake supper co-planned/hosted by the Men's Breakfast group and the Outreach committee. This year the proceeds are going to support the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. When I was young the United Church building was shared with the local Anglican congregation. The one event a year that was shared between the two congregations was the Shrove Tuesday pancake supper.
3. How about Ash Wednesday, past and/or present? Never have done much for Ash Wednesday. In fact I remember exactly once (outside of seminary) where I was at a service on that day, and that was because it was the year we were experimenting with an evening service the last Wednesday of the month in a year when Ash Wednesday happened to be the last Wednesday of February.
4. Do you have a personal plan of give-ups, take-ons, special ministries, and/or a special focus for your own spiritual growth between now and Easter? I have signed up for this (but have yet to read about any of the acts), and I have committed to try to blog much more frequently.
5. Do you have a book or a website you are reading often during Lent? Nothing yet, although I would like to get much farther through Saving Paradise before Easter
1. Oddly this year, the second day of Lent was Valentine's Day. How was this for you? Was Valentine's Day any different being in Lent? Truthfully made no difference either way.
2. Did you celebrate Mardi Gras/Shrove Tuesday this year? Any memories of memorable celebrations past? this congregation always has a Pancake supper co-planned/hosted by the Men's Breakfast group and the Outreach committee. This year the proceeds are going to support the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. When I was young the United Church building was shared with the local Anglican congregation. The one event a year that was shared between the two congregations was the Shrove Tuesday pancake supper.
3. How about Ash Wednesday, past and/or present? Never have done much for Ash Wednesday. In fact I remember exactly once (outside of seminary) where I was at a service on that day, and that was because it was the year we were experimenting with an evening service the last Wednesday of the month in a year when Ash Wednesday happened to be the last Wednesday of February.
4. Do you have a personal plan of give-ups, take-ons, special ministries, and/or a special focus for your own spiritual growth between now and Easter? I have signed up for this (but have yet to read about any of the acts), and I have committed to try to blog much more frequently.
5. Do you have a book or a website you are reading often during Lent? Nothing yet, although I would like to get much farther through Saving Paradise before Easter
Thursday, February 14, 2013
One Billion Rising
2 weeks ago I got a phone call at the office. The caller was arranging an event as part of the global movement One Billion Rising.
This movement is a response to the estimated reality that one in three women will someday be the victim of gender-based violence. One in THREE!
SO who do you know? WE all know many women. Who do you know who has been the victim of violence, of rape, of domestic abuse, of sexual harassment.....?
It is sobering isn't it?
The caller wanted to use the church space for a time to do this dance:
Now congregational policy is that non-congregational events need to provide proof of insurance and that would likely sink something like this. But congregational sponsored events are under our umbrella. And it struck me that this was a very good event for the congregation to sponsor. SO I contacted the decision makers in the congregation to see if there were any objections to making this a congregation-sponsored event.
To tell the truth, had people objected I would have been both very surprised and very disappointed. This is the sort of issue that churches need to be making statements about. So I was pleased when the primary response I got back was basically "how can we NOT do this". (Also one of the goals our Council has set for the year is to increase visibility/build connections with the wider community so this fit right in)
Today was the event. At first the plan was to use the basement (better space for dancing) but the technical requirements for viewing video and hearing music pushed it up to the sanctuary. And I am so glad we did that. It makes a much different statement to use the worship space for this event, a much more powerful statement in my opinion. We gathered and the first thing we did was watch this video:
Then one of teh local dance instructors taught us the dance and we danced. They even videoed it:
IT went well. I am glad we did it.
But really. 1 in 3 women! We all know them. They are our neighbours, our friends, our co=workers, our family. As we danced today I thought of the woman I knew who had been raped once and then had a series of bad relationships (which included more than one date-rape). I thought of the women I worked with who had been sexually harassed by other people with whom we worked.
1 in 3. Far too many. It needs to stop. God help us, and it will.
This movement is a response to the estimated reality that one in three women will someday be the victim of gender-based violence. One in THREE!
SO who do you know? WE all know many women. Who do you know who has been the victim of violence, of rape, of domestic abuse, of sexual harassment.....?
It is sobering isn't it?
The caller wanted to use the church space for a time to do this dance:
Now congregational policy is that non-congregational events need to provide proof of insurance and that would likely sink something like this. But congregational sponsored events are under our umbrella. And it struck me that this was a very good event for the congregation to sponsor. SO I contacted the decision makers in the congregation to see if there were any objections to making this a congregation-sponsored event.
To tell the truth, had people objected I would have been both very surprised and very disappointed. This is the sort of issue that churches need to be making statements about. So I was pleased when the primary response I got back was basically "how can we NOT do this". (Also one of the goals our Council has set for the year is to increase visibility/build connections with the wider community so this fit right in)
Today was the event. At first the plan was to use the basement (better space for dancing) but the technical requirements for viewing video and hearing music pushed it up to the sanctuary. And I am so glad we did that. It makes a much different statement to use the worship space for this event, a much more powerful statement in my opinion. We gathered and the first thing we did was watch this video:
Then one of teh local dance instructors taught us the dance and we danced. They even videoed it:
IT went well. I am glad we did it.
But really. 1 in 3 women! We all know them. They are our neighbours, our friends, our co=workers, our family. As we danced today I thought of the woman I knew who had been raped once and then had a series of bad relationships (which included more than one date-rape). I thought of the women I worked with who had been sexually harassed by other people with whom we worked.
1 in 3. Far too many. It needs to stop. God help us, and it will.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Canada's Dirty Little Secret
It is one of those things we don't like to admit. It is one of those things that goes directly against our self-definition as a national people. But it is a truth that needs to be said.
Prejudice and discrimination is rampant in Canada.
WE are a country that prides itself, as a whole, on being tolerant and inclusive. But that self-understanding really is not as true as it should be. A couple of things have shown this to me over the last few weeks.
One was the Idle No More movement. INM was sparked by a protest against changes made to environmental protections in an (terribly non-democratic) omnibus bill in the Canadian Parliament and grew to be a rallying point around the flawed relationship between First Nations and "settler" peoples in Canada. Enter the racism.
As the INM protests continued and escalated the racist reaction did too. First Nations were portrayed as leeches off the government teat, as people who were incapable of running their own affairs, people who were simply trying to get money for nothing. Sometimes the racism was blatant, sometimes it was more subtle. But as with every other time in my memory that First Nations people have protested their place in Canadian society there is a large portion of the society that reacts with prejudged assumptions. Sad but true.
The next one was in the response to the resignation of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Undoubtedly there are places where the decisions and actions of the Vatican can be challenged. Many Roman Catholics are among the challengers. But in some of the discussions online I have read there is a recognizable rearing of anti-Catholicism. Anti-Catholicism is a big, though often un-named part, of Canadian history. For many years it was subsumed into the larger prejudice and discrimination against the French/Quebecois but there has always been a religious side to these debates. Indeed one of the reasons the United Church of Canada was formed was because there were those who felt that we needed a strong national Protestant bulwark against the Papists. And still there is that tendency to move from honest open criticism into language that borders on hate speech.
And then there are those other stories. The person I was talking to recently about the local street people and how to support them. The news that RCMP officers are accused of assaulting aboriginal women in Northern BC. The knowledge that some people's disappearances are considered more important than others--and if you are homeless, or Aboriginal, or in the sex-trade, or drug addicted you are likely to be in the less important category--in the eyes not only of the general public but of the people entrusted to investigate and prosecute. Or the gender divide that, while lessening, continues to exist. Or the reality that sexual orientation is still a cause for discriminatory assumptions and treatment. Or the transgendered individual I spoke with last year who had people threatening to make it difficult for him to visit his child--because he did not dress "properly".
Yes, inclusive and tolerant multicultural Canada has bastions of prejudice, sexism, heterosexism, racism...
We may not want it to be true. but it is.
Today, as people of faith are encouraged to remember that we are dust, and to dust we shall return, as we enter into that liturgical season where we are called to examine our lives, I call upon the people of Canada to seriously look at our society. Where do we fall short of our own self-understanding? What needs to happen if we can live up to those worlds of tolerant, accepting, inclusive that we like to use about ourselves?
Prejudice and discrimination is rampant in Canada.
WE are a country that prides itself, as a whole, on being tolerant and inclusive. But that self-understanding really is not as true as it should be. A couple of things have shown this to me over the last few weeks.
One was the Idle No More movement. INM was sparked by a protest against changes made to environmental protections in an (terribly non-democratic) omnibus bill in the Canadian Parliament and grew to be a rallying point around the flawed relationship between First Nations and "settler" peoples in Canada. Enter the racism.
As the INM protests continued and escalated the racist reaction did too. First Nations were portrayed as leeches off the government teat, as people who were incapable of running their own affairs, people who were simply trying to get money for nothing. Sometimes the racism was blatant, sometimes it was more subtle. But as with every other time in my memory that First Nations people have protested their place in Canadian society there is a large portion of the society that reacts with prejudged assumptions. Sad but true.
The next one was in the response to the resignation of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Undoubtedly there are places where the decisions and actions of the Vatican can be challenged. Many Roman Catholics are among the challengers. But in some of the discussions online I have read there is a recognizable rearing of anti-Catholicism. Anti-Catholicism is a big, though often un-named part, of Canadian history. For many years it was subsumed into the larger prejudice and discrimination against the French/Quebecois but there has always been a religious side to these debates. Indeed one of the reasons the United Church of Canada was formed was because there were those who felt that we needed a strong national Protestant bulwark against the Papists. And still there is that tendency to move from honest open criticism into language that borders on hate speech.
And then there are those other stories. The person I was talking to recently about the local street people and how to support them. The news that RCMP officers are accused of assaulting aboriginal women in Northern BC. The knowledge that some people's disappearances are considered more important than others--and if you are homeless, or Aboriginal, or in the sex-trade, or drug addicted you are likely to be in the less important category--in the eyes not only of the general public but of the people entrusted to investigate and prosecute. Or the gender divide that, while lessening, continues to exist. Or the reality that sexual orientation is still a cause for discriminatory assumptions and treatment. Or the transgendered individual I spoke with last year who had people threatening to make it difficult for him to visit his child--because he did not dress "properly".
Yes, inclusive and tolerant multicultural Canada has bastions of prejudice, sexism, heterosexism, racism...
We may not want it to be true. but it is.
Today, as people of faith are encouraged to remember that we are dust, and to dust we shall return, as we enter into that liturgical season where we are called to examine our lives, I call upon the people of Canada to seriously look at our society. Where do we fall short of our own self-understanding? What needs to happen if we can live up to those worlds of tolerant, accepting, inclusive that we like to use about ourselves?
Monday, February 04, 2013
Book 3 of 2013 -- Still Alice
It is suggested that with the increase in our life-span (and the Baby Boomer bulge heading into their senior years) helping families and individuals touched by dementia is going to be one of the key issues churches will need to develop knowledge about in the next generation. This may be true, certainly it makes statistical sense, and it may not--only time will tell. But novels such as this are arguably a very good part of how we can gain that knowledge.
Yes there will be a place for "how to" books and articles around caring for families and individuals dealing with dementia. Yes there will be discussions about how to gently move the church elder out of office when she/he can no longer function. But a novel like this allows us into the mind and heart of the patient, we see the struggle of a very intelligent, very accomplished woman who is literally watching as her brain fails her.
I encourage folk to read this book. It is well written. It grips you. It is a quick read. But more importantly, it teaches us.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Chocolate Choices... (A letter to the editor)
In two weeks it will be Valentine's
Day. Roughly 6 weeks after that it will be Easter. What food comes
to mind for those two celebrations? If you are anything like me it
is chocolate (the more the better).
But chocolate comes with a cost. And I
don't mean the extra waistline.
Were you aware that a large percentage
of the world's chocolate production relies on slave labour in the
growing and harvesting of the cocoa beans? If you had a choice would
you buy chocolate that came from sources that paid their labour a
fair, living wage?
Such a choice is possible. Rather than
tell you what to buy I ask that you Google “fair trade chocolate”
and read for yourself about the issue. If we continue to support
companies that do not pay attention to how their raw materials are produced then
we enable them to continue to profit off the lives of others. It can
even be said that we ourselves are accomplices in the modern slave
trade.
This year, as we feed our chocaholism
(and I am definitely an addict) may we all pause and consider where
our chocolate comes from. And maybe we have the power to choose to
support fair labour practices and fair prices. Who is in it with me?
Monday, January 28, 2013
Book 2 of 2013 The Inconvenient Indian
This book is sort of a history. In that it talks about, review, and interprets historic events. But it is not an academic history book by any means. It is sort of an alternative history I would say. Remember that old truth "history is written by the winners". Most of the history of First Nations in North America is written from a point of view that is (to one extent or another) pro-European. [Not only history, I was flipping through a copy of Little House on the Prairie the other day and found a discussion between Laura and Pa which has an assumption that as the Whites move in the Indians automatically have to move out, which pretty much captures the general USan attitude of the time, Canada didn't move Indians out, we just penned them on reserves] This book tells stories from a First Nations point of view.
I think this is the sort of book that needs to be written and read. We need to have a variety of points of view on these difficult issues. We need to know the history if we are to find a path forward. I am still unsure what the "right" path forward is, but I know I need to be ready to absorb more information as we as a society try to find it.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Book 17 of 2012/1 of 2013 Wait: The Art and Science of Delay
The whole premise of the book is about knowing when and how long to delay. Whether it be an elite athlete delaying in the area of microseconds to choose when to swing at a ball, or a comedian knowing just when to spring the punch line, or a public figure knowing when to apologize in the midst of scandal, it is all about the proper amount of delay.
I really like this book. I should probably read it again to absorb it better. In a world where so often we (as individuals and as organizations) are pushed to make a decisions NOW it is good to remind ourselves that sometimes, or even most of the time, taking time to allow the decision to be made well is a better thing. I heartily endorse this book as a way to improve our decision making ability.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Best Way Forward????
THe big news in Canada this week has been a meeting that might not even have happened (I have not been following the news closely enough today to know what the final result was) between the Prime Minister, the Governor-General and various First Nations Chiefs. This is the culmination (thus far) of a movement called Idle No More and following quite directly from a hunger strike that Chief Theresa Spence of the Attawapiskat First Nation began a month ago.
In essence the Idle No More movement is about the relationship between Canadians whose ancestors arrived from Europe (and Asia and Africa but let us be honest and admit that mainstream Canadian [and USan] Culture is Eurocentrically based) in the last half-millenium and those people whose ancestors were here to greet them. And of course this is a question that has been bubbling away for most of that half-millenium. And more to the point there is NO easy (or single) way to describe what that relationship is, what it could be or what it possibly should be. I would even tend to believe there is, at present, no complicated or difficult way to answer those questions ether.
The most basic way these questions have been raised in recent years has been t ask how we live out the reality that we are treaty people. Some talk about most Canadians living on "stolen" land -- which is one approach to those treaties. Some suggest that the descendants of those who signed away their land need to "grow up" and "get with the program" and realize what the realities are [except that reality is a very fluid thing based on your viewpoint].
AS I see it, based on my limited understanding and information, one of the first things that needs to be nailed down is how many nations we are talking about. Are we talking about ethnic Canadians whose heritage happens to be Aboriginal or are we talking about nation-to-nation negotiations? Did the signing of those old treaties extinguish the nations that were here and bring them all under the aegis of the Canadian Government under the British Crown (the treaties are formally with the Crown but in practice they are with the governing authority [either the British for early ones or the Colonial Office or the Canadian Government for later treaties] or so those nations continue to exist as separate national entities? ANd the language used in the discussions does not make it clear. Neither does the history of the relationship. But unless that very basic starting point is clarified we can not move forward. Because the discussions look very different if it is citizens of Canada we are talking about or nation-to-nation discussions. {to be totally honest I think that in the end we are talking about some sort of a hybrid of those two options based on the history and the political realities}
What is undeniable (IMO) is that the old treaties were not then and have not worked out as good deals
for the non-European side. Partly that is because the game was rigged from the beginning in the Europeans favour, particularly when you get to the 19th Century treaties. Partly that is because the governing powers have not done a spectacular job of living up to the obligations that were understood in those treaties. And partly it is because the unspoken intent of those treaties was (in the opinion of some of us) to extinguish the "savages" and bring them into the realm of the "civilized". Certainly a main focus of those treaties was to allow Europeans to have access to the land and its resources -- mainly by removing it from the control of those who were already on it (which is why the talk of "stolen" land can be a legitimate point of discussion).
But how do we go forward? First Nation rights and treaty right were enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1982 (although many federal politicians of various stripes over the years have wanted to continue towards extinguishing any special status for First Nation peoples). And yet what exactly those rights are remains terribly uncertain. We live in a reality where First Nations people are heavily over represented in the Canadian underclass, where entire First Nation communities live in Third World conditions. But how do we change this?
THat is the question that the Canadian body politic has steadfastly avoided for generations. We may tinker with the system from time to time (the current government is doing lots of tinkering) and some of that tinkering has positive effects while some of it is not so positive. But a wholesale reworking of the system has not happened. But it seems that the time is coming soon when it can not be avoided.
So what is our relationship? I would suggest that although First Nations talk about nation-to-nation status that is not going to serve them best. Unless, that is, the old treaties are revisited and heavily renegotiated to meet modern needs and to be more an agreement between equals (I tend to believe that the old treaties failed on this latter point, and that the European negotiators never saw them as such anyway). ANd I am not sure, based on what is being said, that First Nations folk want to be seen as non-Canadian anyway. When it comes right down to it, much of what is being asked for is that they have the same rights and freedoms and possibilities as all other Canadian citizens. And yet are we to see First NAtions folk as merely another form of Ethnic Canadians? Given the damage (intentional and "accidental") that has been done to them over the past decades that seems setting them up for a failure as well.
I would suggest that a whole new understanding and describing of the relationship is needed. The old treaties and the structures/assumptions (such as the Indian Act) that came from them have and are not working. Unfortunately, I do not see that this is going to happen, at least not in the short term. So we are stuck with a situation that is going to be getting worse. The options of either tinkering, divide and conquer, or talk with little action to follow which have so often been used in Canada are starting to fail as more and more people (both First Nation and European-heritage) are willing to name that the "Emperor has no clothes". Thus far the Idle No More movement has been peaceful and law-abiding. But how long will that last if no progress is apparent? How long will non First Nation folk put up with blockades and travel disruptions (recognizing that some people never have put up with them and the comments sections of some stories over the last month have been full of what can only be called overt racism)?
I don't know. But I think we may be headed to live out the old curse "May you live in interesting times". ANd our neighbours to the South would do well to take notice. Because many of the same issues are present there too.....
Then there is the question of how the church should respond, and possibly even take a leadership role, in this discussions.....
In essence the Idle No More movement is about the relationship between Canadians whose ancestors arrived from Europe (and Asia and Africa but let us be honest and admit that mainstream Canadian [and USan] Culture is Eurocentrically based) in the last half-millenium and those people whose ancestors were here to greet them. And of course this is a question that has been bubbling away for most of that half-millenium. And more to the point there is NO easy (or single) way to describe what that relationship is, what it could be or what it possibly should be. I would even tend to believe there is, at present, no complicated or difficult way to answer those questions ether.
The most basic way these questions have been raised in recent years has been t ask how we live out the reality that we are treaty people. Some talk about most Canadians living on "stolen" land -- which is one approach to those treaties. Some suggest that the descendants of those who signed away their land need to "grow up" and "get with the program" and realize what the realities are [except that reality is a very fluid thing based on your viewpoint].
AS I see it, based on my limited understanding and information, one of the first things that needs to be nailed down is how many nations we are talking about. Are we talking about ethnic Canadians whose heritage happens to be Aboriginal or are we talking about nation-to-nation negotiations? Did the signing of those old treaties extinguish the nations that were here and bring them all under the aegis of the Canadian Government under the British Crown (the treaties are formally with the Crown but in practice they are with the governing authority [either the British for early ones or the Colonial Office or the Canadian Government for later treaties] or so those nations continue to exist as separate national entities? ANd the language used in the discussions does not make it clear. Neither does the history of the relationship. But unless that very basic starting point is clarified we can not move forward. Because the discussions look very different if it is citizens of Canada we are talking about or nation-to-nation discussions. {to be totally honest I think that in the end we are talking about some sort of a hybrid of those two options based on the history and the political realities}
What is undeniable (IMO) is that the old treaties were not then and have not worked out as good deals
for the non-European side. Partly that is because the game was rigged from the beginning in the Europeans favour, particularly when you get to the 19th Century treaties. Partly that is because the governing powers have not done a spectacular job of living up to the obligations that were understood in those treaties. And partly it is because the unspoken intent of those treaties was (in the opinion of some of us) to extinguish the "savages" and bring them into the realm of the "civilized". Certainly a main focus of those treaties was to allow Europeans to have access to the land and its resources -- mainly by removing it from the control of those who were already on it (which is why the talk of "stolen" land can be a legitimate point of discussion).
But how do we go forward? First Nation rights and treaty right were enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1982 (although many federal politicians of various stripes over the years have wanted to continue towards extinguishing any special status for First Nation peoples). And yet what exactly those rights are remains terribly uncertain. We live in a reality where First Nations people are heavily over represented in the Canadian underclass, where entire First Nation communities live in Third World conditions. But how do we change this?
THat is the question that the Canadian body politic has steadfastly avoided for generations. We may tinker with the system from time to time (the current government is doing lots of tinkering) and some of that tinkering has positive effects while some of it is not so positive. But a wholesale reworking of the system has not happened. But it seems that the time is coming soon when it can not be avoided.
So what is our relationship? I would suggest that although First Nations talk about nation-to-nation status that is not going to serve them best. Unless, that is, the old treaties are revisited and heavily renegotiated to meet modern needs and to be more an agreement between equals (I tend to believe that the old treaties failed on this latter point, and that the European negotiators never saw them as such anyway). ANd I am not sure, based on what is being said, that First Nations folk want to be seen as non-Canadian anyway. When it comes right down to it, much of what is being asked for is that they have the same rights and freedoms and possibilities as all other Canadian citizens. And yet are we to see First NAtions folk as merely another form of Ethnic Canadians? Given the damage (intentional and "accidental") that has been done to them over the past decades that seems setting them up for a failure as well.
I would suggest that a whole new understanding and describing of the relationship is needed. The old treaties and the structures/assumptions (such as the Indian Act) that came from them have and are not working. Unfortunately, I do not see that this is going to happen, at least not in the short term. So we are stuck with a situation that is going to be getting worse. The options of either tinkering, divide and conquer, or talk with little action to follow which have so often been used in Canada are starting to fail as more and more people (both First Nation and European-heritage) are willing to name that the "Emperor has no clothes". Thus far the Idle No More movement has been peaceful and law-abiding. But how long will that last if no progress is apparent? How long will non First Nation folk put up with blockades and travel disruptions (recognizing that some people never have put up with them and the comments sections of some stories over the last month have been full of what can only be called overt racism)?
I don't know. But I think we may be headed to live out the old curse "May you live in interesting times". ANd our neighbours to the South would do well to take notice. Because many of the same issues are present there too.....
Then there is the question of how the church should respond, and possibly even take a leadership role, in this discussions.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)