![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines the theological idea of reconciliation and what this entails, including repentance as mind change, honest confession of wrong, lament for the hurt caused by the wrong, apology, restitution as concrete action to make right, and a mutual trust or unification to build a new, harmonious relationship. However, it also recognizes the potential danger of a purely colonial approach and draws on the Indigenous concept of Makarrata to inform and augment the Christian notion of reconciliation so that it is more relevant to the Australian context. Second, the article briefly considers potential constitutional change which is compatible with Australia’s legal system and could reflect and build upon a new relationship. The article argues that, as Makarrata exhorts, reconciliation is not merely symbolic but must be facilitated by active and tangible change which brings all Australians, Indigenous or otherwise, together – and that this is also a fundamentally Christian imperative.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Gunton, “Introduction,” 1.
2 See generally Aroney, Constitution of a Federal Commonwealth.
3 See e.g. Young, Nielsen, and Patrick, Constitutional Recognition of First Peoples.
4 Davis and Langton, “Introduction,” 3–4.
5 Ibid., 7.
6 Robert French, ‘Book Forum on Dylan Lino’s Constitutional Recognition: First Peoples and the Australian Settler State’ on AUSPUBLAW (14 August 2019): https://auspublaw.org/2019/08/book-forum-the-hon-robert-french-ac/.
7 cf. Freeman and Morris, The Forgotten People. See generally http://www.upholdandrecognize.com/publications, which has resources discussing recognition from a conservative perspective.
8 Milbank, “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism,” 274.
9 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 367.
10 Ibid., 332–333.
11 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 6–7.
12 Ibid., 81.
13 See Milbank, “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism,” 266–268.
14 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 143.
15 Milbank, Being Reconciled, 100.
16 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 159.
17 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 394.
18 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 175.
19 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 423.
20 Ibid., 424.
21 Ibid., 422, 428; Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 185–186.
22 See Milbank, The Word Made Strange, 164.
23 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 193–194; Milbank, Being Reconciled, 57.
24 Carney and Johnston, “Introduction,” 3.
25 Ibid., 6. See de Gruchy, Reconciliation, who argues that reconciliation is primarily about restoring justice, founded upon our restoration to God in Christ and extending to the renewal of interpersonal relations and the transformation of society.
26 See e.g. Smith, “Early Monastic Practices”; Fleming, “Three Lessons.”
27 Carney and Johnston, “Introduction,” 7; See Stegman, “A Pauline Foundation”; Martin, Reconciliation.
28 See Stegman, “A Pauline Foundation,” 17–19. See also Schwobel, “Reconciliation”.
29 See Stegman, “A Pauline Foundation,” 20–30.
30 See e.g. Buti, “Removal of Aboriginal Children”; Harris, “Hiding the Bodies”.
32 Rademaker, Found in Translation.
33 Ibid., 11.
34 Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks, 17–24.
35 Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus, 6–7.
36 Simpson, “The Ruse of Consent,” 20.
37 Ibid., 29.
38 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 243–244.
39 Ibid., 244–245. After the 1967 referendum, Indigenous Australians were included in the Constitution by an amendment bringing them within the scope of the race power, and enabling them to be counted. See the discussion in Attwood and Markus, The 1967 Referendum; Morris, “Constitutional Procedure,”167–168. See also Brennan, No Small Change.
40 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 243–244. See also Davis and Williams, Referendum.
41 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 247–248. See Maddison, Clark, and de Costa, The Limits of Settler Colonial Reconciliation.
42 See generally Lino, Constitutional Recognition, Ch 7. C.f. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 29 (Brennan J).
43 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 247–249. See also the essays in Davis and Langton, It’s Our Country; Morris, “Lessons from New Zealand”; Morris and Pearson, “Indigenous Constitutional Recognition.”
44 For some Indigenous scholars and advocates, I acknowledge the Christian perspective in this article may not be acceptable if they view it as intrinsically colonial and therefore part of the problem. Even so, we can accept the flaws and limitations of the colonial apparatus while also recognizing that using it in some way is a pragmatic necessity if substantive legal and systemic change is to be realistically achieved.
45 See e.g. Riches, “Can Australia Create Space for Theological Makarrata”, and the other articles in that special issue.
46 See Tinker, American Indian Liberation.
47 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 250. See also Lino, “What is Constitutional Recognition?”. See generally Brennan, “Contours and Prospects.”
48 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 250–252. See McAnearney, “Indigenous Recognition,” 90–94 for a concise summary of options.
49 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 253–254. See Dylan Lino, Constitutional Recognition, Ch 3; Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition.”
50 Pearson, “A Rightful Place,” 14. See also Pearson, “A Rightful Place.”
51 See e.g. McHugh, “What a Difference”; Morris, “Lessons from New Zealand.”
52 Gussen, “A Comparative Analysis,” 868.
53 Ibid., 872.
54 Ibid., 902.
55 Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 261–262.
56 Ibid. See e.g. Lino, “Towards Indigenous-Settler Federalism”; Aroney, Constitution of a Federal Commonwealth. See also Hobbs, “Multinational Federalism in Australia.”
57 See eg Hirschl, Constitutional Theocracy, 185 on the liberal state’s resentment toward alternative sources of authority or competing systems of collective identity; Milbank, Word Made Strange, 276–284: The affirmation of different kinds of communities and associations within the “state” is what Milbank calls “complex space”, in contrast to the “simple space” of liberalism with a centralised state controlling individuals. See also Ivison, Liberal States; Aroney and Parkinson, “Associational Freedom.” One might quibble here with the linking of secularism and liberalism to monist conceptions of authority. After all, two secular liberal democracies that existed before the Australian Constitution (the United States and Canada) are federal states that each have at least some pluralist recognition of Indigenous peoples’ legal sovereignty through treaty guarantees. However, as explained in Part V, the very notions of federalism and plural authority stem from Christian foundations rather than secular ones, which implies there is a significant Christian influence underpinning the constitutionalism of the US and Canada. See e.g. Zimmermann, Christian Foundations Volume II; Sossin, “Supremacy of God”; Oakley, Watershed of Modern Politics.
58 Davis, “Makarrata,” 7–8: Available at http://www.upholdandrecognize.com/publications.
59 Davis and Langton, “Introduction,” 5.
60 Little, “The Politics of Makarrata,” 36.
61 Ibid., 42.
62 Yunupingu, “Foreword,” 2–3.
63 Little, “The Politics of Makarrata,” 45–46.
64 Naden and Havea, “Colonization Has Many Names,” 6–7.
65 Ibid., 3.
66 Ibid., 7.
67 Kidwell et al., A Native American Theology, 2.
68 See e.g. Deagon, “A Christian Framework for Religious Diversity in Political Discourse.”
69 Tolliday and Thomson, Speaking Differently. For further resources which specifically analyse reconciliation with Indigenous peoples from a theological perspective, see e.g. various essays in Brett and Havea, Colonial Contexts and Postcolonial Theologies and Havea, Unfinished Business of Theology.
70 Elvey, “Acknowledging Traditional Owners: A Theological Inquiry.”
71 Schreiter, “Witness and Practice of Living Memory,” 205.
72 Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology, 2; Wolfe, “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” 388.
73 See Andraos, In Between Reconciliation and Decolonisation.
74 O’Sullivan, “Reconciliation.”
75 O’Sullivan, “Reconciliation as Public Theology.”
76 O’Sullivan, Sharing the Sovereign, 75–105.
77 See Chavura, Gascoigne and Tregenza, A Secular State?, 243–244.
78 Chavura, A Secular State?, 243–244. For a penetrating discussion on reconciliation as an expression of biblical Christianity in Australia, see Lake, The Bible in Australia, 340–345.
79 Chavura. A Secular State?, 244.
80 Phillips, “Aboriginal Reconciliation as Religious Politics,” 111.
81 Davis, “Makarrata,” 5 (my emphasis): Available at http://www.upholdandrecognize.com/publications. In addition, Zimmermann notes that the famous Mabo decision, a step towards reconciliation, was arguably influenced by Catholic natural law teachings, and then Prime Minister Paul Keating’s speech which followed that decision was infused with Christian themes. This further indicates the significant Christian influence on the reconciliation process. See Zimmermann, Christian Foundations Volume III, 42.
82 Davis, “Makarrata,” 7–8 (my emphasis). See e.g. Romans 2:15, where conscience can “bear witness” to inform us what is good and evil without explicit moral precepts.
83 See e.g. Burn, Land and Reconciliation in Australia.
84 Colossians 1:19–20. References are to the English Standard Version unless otherwise indicated.
85 2 Corinthians 5:18–19.
86 Ephesians 2:13–18.
87 Thayer and Smith, Katallage (8/10/2020) The New Testament Greek Lexicon https://www.studylight.org/desk/interlinear.cgi?t1=nas&q1=2±Corinthians±5%3A18-19&x=6&y=4.
88 Milbank, Being Reconciled, 79.
89 Ibid., 79. See also Ibid., 26–43.
90 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 190–191.
91 Ibid., 143–144.
92 Milbank, Being Reconciled, 102–103.
93 See Stegman, “A Pauline Foundation,” 30–33.
94 Furnish, “Ephesians,” 319–320.
95 Ephesians 2:13–14.
96 Milbank, Being Reconciled, 61; Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 184–185.
97 Milbank, Being Reconciled, 61–62.
98 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 184–185.
99 In this articulation I will focus on Scripture, but all these different elements of theological reconciliation are discussed in Carney and Johnston, Reconciliation; De Gruchy, Reconciliation; Martin, Reconciliation; Gunton, Reconciliation, and many other sources.
100 See Thayer and Smith, “Metanoia”; Walden, The Great Meaning of Metanoia.
101 1 John 8:9.
102 Gunton, “Introduction,” 1.
103 Little, “The Politics of Makarrata,” 39.
104 Tinker, Spirit and Resistance, 5.
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid., 6–7.
107 Gunton, Reconciliation, 1.
108 See e.g. Psalm 51.
110 Luke 19:1–10.
111 Matthew 18: 21–35.
112 Milbank and Pabst, Politics of Virtue, 7.
113 Luke 19:1–10.
114 Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 164, 275.
115 The “four times” is reminiscent of the Old Testament requirement to return four sheep for one which is stolen (Exodus 22:1).
116 Carney and Johnston, “Introduction,” 10; Fleming, “Three Lessons.” See also Schaap, Political Reconciliation.
117 Gibson, “The Contributions of Truth to Reconciliation.”
118 Beach, “Christians Call to Share Land Profits with Aboriginal People,” Eternity News, February 21, 2018: https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/christians-call-to-share-land-profits-with-aboriginal-people/. Many churches and church-related groups have been at the forefront of initiatives for reconciliation since the colony began, including the Uniting Church, other parts of the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and more broadly the National Council of Churches. Such initiatives have occurred at local, regional and national level. See e.g. Chavura, A Secular State?, 243–244; Lake, The Bible in Australia, 340–345.
119 Mark Payne, Standing Committee Report on Indigenous Peoples” Ministry Funding 2003: http://enit-syd.sds.asn.au/Site/103646.asp?a=a&ph=sy. Admittedly, the relative inadequacy of this approach emphasises why issues of true financial restitution are so difficult, because their extent could be enormous.
120 Galatians 5:13–15, 22–23; Colossians 5:12–15.
121 John 13:34–35.
123 Morris and Pearson, “Indigenous Constitutional Recognition,” 350–351. Cf Stubbs, “Substantive Recognition.”
124 See Deagon, “Name of God.”
125 Ibid., 474.
126 There are some lines of argument that claim ambiguous provisions can be interpreted in light of preambular statements. However, the amendment could be guaranteed to prevent this by also inserting a clause prohibiting the use of the new preamble in constitutional interpretation. See McKenna, Simpson, and Williams, “First Words”; Twomey, “The Preamble and Indigenous Recognition”; Twomey, “Constitutional Preambles.”
127 See Buckles, “Public Policy and Public Service,” 834.
128 Ibid., 834.
129 Ibid., 847.
130 Ibid., 846.
131 See Deagon, “Name of God,” 483.
132 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 723–724, 747–749.
133 Davis and Langton, “Introduction,” 7.
134 Morris and Pearson, “Indigenous Constitutional Recognition,” 350–351. See also Stubbs, “Substantive Recognition.” Twomey also raises potential legal and political barriers to amendment of the preamble: see Twomey, “A Revised Proposal,” 388–394.
135 See generally “Report of the Expert Panel”, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012); “Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”, Final Report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015); Final Report of the Referendum Council (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017).
136 McAnearney, “Indigenous Recognition,” 88–89; Twomey, “A Revised Proposal,” 385–387. See also Pritchard, “The ‘Race’ Power.”
137 Twomey, “Race Power,” 442. This approach would also minimise the possibility of paternalist abuses of a race power amended to specify that laws are only to be beneficial.
138 McAnearney, “Indigenous Recognition,” 90–91.
139 Twomey, “A Revised Proposal,” 397–398. See also Dixon and Williams, “Drafting a Replacement.”
140 Galatians 3:28.
141 See Lino, “Indigenous Recognition,” 253–254. See also Dylan Lino, Constitutional Recognition, Ch 3; Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition.”
142 See Massam, “Sacramental Imagination and Political Rites.”
143 Lino, “Australian Constitutional Values,” 261. For an articulation and proposed response to some of the practical problems posed by incorporating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples into our federal system, see Crowe, “The Race Power”; Breen, “Federalism.”
144 Zimmermann, Christian Foundations Volume II, 125.
145 Bruyneel, The Third Space of Sovereignty, 25.
146 Ibid., xvii.
147 Ibid., 125–129. See e.g. Aroney, “Subsidiarity”; Hall, “Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos,” 34–63, especially 53. Aroney demonstrates how the framers of the Australian constitution drew heavily on the American system (which was in turn grounded in Christian principles): see Aroney, Federal Commonwealth, 65–130.
148 Elazar, Exploring Federalism, 5.
149 Ibid., 5.
150 Hobbs and Young, “Modern Treaty Making.” See generally Williams and Hobbs, Treaty.
151 See Deagon, From Violence to Peace, Ch 7; Deagon, “Name of God.”
152 See Lino, Constitutional Recognition, Ch 2.
153 First Nations Constitutional Convention, “Uluru Statement from the Heart” [2017] Indigenous Law Resources 1; Referendum Council, Final Report of the Referendum Council (Report, 30 June 2017) https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf; Little, “The Politics of Makarrata,” 33–34. For a general discussion of the Uluru Statement, see Larkin and Galloway, “Uluru Statement.” For a more detailed discussion see Morris, “‘The Torment of our Powerlessness’.”
154 Pearson, “Only Recognition.” See Pearson, “A Rightful Place.”
155 For an overview of the options and issues, see Appleby, “Indigenous Voice.” See also Appleby and Synot, “A First Nations Voice,” where the authors articulate five principles for effective constitutionalised institutional listening and suggest these can be adopted as conventions or practices. See Morris, “Constitutional Procedure,” 183–186 for discussion of how the proposal could be non-binding, non-justiciable, and would not disturb Parliamentary supremacy.
156 See e.g. Morris and Pearson, “Indigenous Constitutional Recognition.”
157 Lino, “Replacing the Race Power,” 59.
158 See e.g. Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70.
159 Deagon, From Violence to Peace, 188–193.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Alex Deagon
Dr Alex Deagon is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology. His research focuses on jurisprudence, law and theology, and freedom of religion. His PhD, “Using Christian Theology and Philosophy to Construct a Jurisprudence of Truth,” received the Chancellor’s Medal for outstanding excellence. The PhD was subsequently published as a book in 2017: From Violence to Peace: Theology, Law and Community with Hart Publishing, Oxford. Alex has been published in prestigious national and international journals including Law, Culture and the Humanities, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, and the Melbourne University Law Review. Alex has been cited extensively by Parliamentary Committees and Inquiries on religious freedom, including in the proceedings of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament. He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and teaches in Theories of Law, Constitutional Law, and Evidence.