A Critique of the Proposed Preamble

The Proposed Preamble to the Constitution of the UCA: A Critique

The critical paragraph in the proposal is the third:
The First Peoples had already encountered the Creator God before the arrival of the colonizers; the Spirit was already in the land revealing God to the people through law, custom and ceremony. The same love and grace that was finally and fully revealed in Jesus Christ sustained the First peoples and gave them particular insights into God's ways.

One is forced to wonder why this statement is at all necessary. It seems that the aboriginal people must take their stand along with the rest of the Gentile world as those who were ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world' (Ephesians 2:12). Among the indigenous peoples of the world , what is unique about our aborigines? And if we are able to say this about them, then the Church in every land (or at least in many)is bound to make the same declaration about their indiginees.

It seems to me that the statement fails on five grounds:

It is patronizing.
It is revisionist.
It is simply unbiblical and therefore untrue.
It assumes a homogeneity across the First Peoples which is quite unwarranted.
It neglects to take account of elements in their religions/spiritualities that are quite foreign to the religion and derived ethics of ancient Israel

These points will be dealt with specifically below but let me return to the question of why this statement is at all necessary. There are at least three possibilities:

A soteriological concern;
An anti-discrimination agenda;
A sense of corporate guilt which has produced a sociological-masquerading-as-theological resolution of the psychological conflict.

If the aboriginal community is concerned about what happened to their ancestors who had no chance to hear the Gospel, i.e. who of them will be saved, then they must be encouraged to depend, like the rest of the world in similar case, simply on the grace of God.

Regarding discrimination, that is rooted in the scriptures: ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.'

And as our UCA patriarchs reminded us, it is also an inescapable element in the Gospel (Appendix B of the Minutes of the Second Assembly). We all have to live with that theological reality; why not the aborigines?
Regarding the sense of corporate guilt, it is something that we live with penitentially and in the grace of God, not something that we try to deal with by way of falsifying the theological reality of the uniqueness of Israel in the history of salvation.

Patronizing

Despite the fact that the Aboriginal Congress was represented in the discussions that led to this form of words, the preamble patronizes aborigines by subtly encouraging the pretence that there is the sense of some (albeit qualified) ‘equivalence' between aboriginal culture and its mythology (e.g. with the ambiguous reference to the ‘law') , on the one hand, and, on the other, the Hebrew/Israelite religion which was the specific and unique preparation for the advent of the Incarnate Son. .......

Revisionist

Until this point, there has never been any suggestion by theologians or historians that aboriginal ‘spirituality' was any more significant than the religious ‘creations' of other indigenous peoples. Only now, in this post-post-modern context, is there the attempt to read back into what is simply aboriginal mythology, something akin to biblical revelation (e.g. ‘gave them particular insights into God's ways').

Unbiblical

Clearly there is a pleading in this statement for the acceptance of some analogy with the preparation for the Advent of the Messiah in the Old Testament. The biblical fact is that God was ‘known' (i.e. experienced in relationship) only in the context of ‘covenant' in which the initiative lay with God. It was within this framework that the giving of the Law was of such unique significance. The ‘law' of ‘First Peoples' in the continents of the world can only be related, biblically speaking, to the first chapter of Romans 1:18ff. It is to draw a very long bow to suggest that more can be inferred in terms of the connection with the Hebrew-Christian revelation. As has been said above, the First Peoples of Australia must take their place with the rest of us in terms of Ephesians 2. They were by nature the ‘children of wrath' ....

The same point is made in Colossians 1:21 -

And you who once were estranged and hostile in mind doing evil deeds ....

The New Testament stresses the uniqueness of Israel in salvation history. In Romans 3, Paul reminds his readers of the advantage which was enjoyed by the Jews: they were entrusted with the oracles of God. In Romans 9, he affirms that they are indeed privileged as no other race on earth.

"They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the

Law, the worship and the promises ...."

Then there is the graphic image of the olive tree with wild olive branches (including the First Peoples!) grafted into it ......

The fourth and fifth points need no elaboration.

A more general criticism is this: there seems to be no reason why any such statement should appear as a preamble to the whole Constitution. I would have no problem in accepting a preface to that section of the Constitution that deals with the UAICC , a statement which acknowledges that we are the ‘invaders' and recognizes our responsibility for the present condition of indigenous peoples - or words to that effect. But as soon as erroneous theological rationalizations come into the equation as in the proposed Preamble, we are on indefensible territory and rightly incur the critical dismay of commentators like Christopher Pearson (Weekend Australian, immediately after the last Assembly).

Conclusion

The attempt to include this in the preamble seems to me to have its origins in the liberal, left wing of the UCA which wants to homogenize the contents of the Hebrew-Christian stockpot*, creating a smooth mush of vague religiosity in place of the solid diet of biblical faith. As a reasonably well educated and experienced minister of the UCA, and certainly not a fundamentalist, I find this to be yet another public theological embarrassment.
So I plead for its rejection as it stands but, as I have indicated, some penitential preface to the section of the Constitution dealing specifically with the UAICC would be appropriate. I would like to think that the UAICC itself has sufficient theological integrity to lead the way in the action I propose.

Peter Banney, Minister of the UCA (Retd.).

*For the 'stockpot' reference see J.S. Whale, Christian Doctrine - Eight Lectures Delivered in the University of Cambridge.