The Commitment to Indigenous Self-Determination in the Anglican Church of Canada, 1967–2020

The Elusive Goal: The Commitment to Indigenous Self-Determination in the Anglican Church of Canada, 1967–2020 ALAN L. HAYES In1967 the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) committed itself to support Indigenous peoples whowere callingonthe Cana- dian governmenttorecognize theirright to self-determination, andin1995 it resolved to move to recognizeIndigenous self- determination within thechurch itself. Nevertheless,inthe ACC, as in the countryatlarge, Indigenousself-determination hasremained an elusivegoal. To saysoisnot to deny theprogress that theACC has made in developingIndigenous leadership, governance, ministry, and advocacy. But with afew partial excep- tions, IndigenousAnglicansremain under the oversight of asettler-dominated churchwith its Eurocentric constitution, canons, policies, budgets, liturgical norms, assumptions, andadmin- istrativeprocedures.1 Whyhas the goalofIndigenous self- determinationprovensoelusive? Iintend to argue herethat colonialassumptions andstructures haveproven tenacious,and that, although Indigenous self-determination is consistent with historical patternsofChristian mission andorganization, the 1 The terms‘‘settler’’and ‘‘Indigenous’’are both problematic, but the nature of this discussion requires,atleast provisionally,abinaryterminology,and these terms are currently widelyused. The Rev.Canon Dr.AlanL.Hayes is BishopsFrederickand Heber Wilkinson Professor of the historyofChristianity at Wycliffe College and the Toronto SchoolofTheology at theUniversity of Toronto. Anglicanand EpiscopalHistory Volume 89, No.3,September 2020 255 hsec.us 256 ANGLICAN AND EPISCOPAL HISTORY theological, constitutional,and financialobstacles to decoloni- zationhave defied solution.2 INDIGENOUS ROLES IN THE ACC, 1967–2019 In the centennialyearofCanadianConfederation, 1967,Indige- nous claimsfor justicefinally gainedtractioninthe countryatlarge andinthe ACC. In thatyear the reformistHawthornReportwas com- pleted; this wasastudybysocial scientists, commissionedbythe fed- eral government, of theeconomic disadvantages andoppressive conditions experienced by Indigenous peoples. Thereport particularly notedsomeofthe damaging results of theIndian residential schools that wereadministered (until 1969) by variousChristian de- nominations andentities,includingthe ACC.3 An international ex- position in Montreal,called Expo 67,which attracted fifty million visitors, featured acontroversial ‘‘Indians of Canada’’pavilion,which vividly presented ahistory of violationsoftreaties and Indigenous humanrights.4 Chief Dan George,awell known actor whowould laterbenominated foranAcademy Award, protested thesubjuga- tion of his people in amomentous speech entitled‘‘Lament forConfederation,’’delivered to over thirty thousand people in Vancouver’s Empire Stadium, andwidely reprinted.5 ANisga’a elder named Frank Calder,who wasamong other things agraduate of the 2 Acommon definitionofcolonialism is that it is acontinuing situationof domination, originally economic, created when aforeignnation has entered a territory, takenauthority over the land, and subjected the original peoplesto their control.InCanada aprincipal vehicleofcolonialism is the Indian Act, with its many controls and repressions. 3 H. B. Hawthorn, ed., ASurvey of the ContemporaryIndians of Canada: AReport on Economic, Political, Educational Needsand Policies,2vols. (Ottawa,1966–1967). Available on-line at http://caid.ca/DHawthorn.html. Allreferenced webpages in this article were accessed 3July 2019. Most Indian residential schools were administered by what the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA)of2006 called ‘‘entities’’ofthe Roman Catholic Church, such as reli- gious societiesand episcopal corporations. 4 Jane Griffith, ‘‘One Little, TwoLittle, Three Canadians: The Indians of Canada Pavilion and Public Pedagogy, Expo 67,’’ Journal of Canadian Studies d Revue d’etudes canadiennes 49 (2015): 171–204. 5 An on-line location for the text is at the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network,https://aptnnews.ca/2017/07/01/a-lament-for-confederation-a-speech- by-chief-dan-george-in-1967/. hsec.us INDIGENOUSSELF-DETERMINATION 257 AnglicanTheological CollegeinVancouver, launched alawsuit that would result in theepoch-making declaration bythe Supreme CourtofCanada that Aboriginalland titlepredated colonization.6 TheNationalIndian Council dissolvedamid criticismsofits inef- fectiveness, leading to thefoundingoftwo more militant organiza- tions, the predecessorsoftoday’sAssembly of First Nations andthe Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.7 Before this watershed the ACC had seen itself as asettler organiza- tion and treated Indigenous Anglicans not as members but as wards. In 1967 its ‘‘Joint Interdepartmental Committee on Indian /Eskimo Affairs’’(which had no ‘‘Indian’’or‘‘Eskimo’’members) expressed repentance forits paternalismand patterns of control. In areport to General Synod,the chief governing body of the ACC, it wrote, ‘‘We, as Christians,’’meaning settler Christians, ‘‘must plead forgiveness for our participation in the perpetuation of injustices to Indians.’’8 On its recommendation GeneralSynod resolved to ‘‘give its full support to and become actively involved in projects enabling Indians to discuss their own proposals forself-determination’’within Canada.9 Before the endofthat year,the ACC commissioned Charles Hendry, aprofessorofsocialwork, to research FirstNations issues and ‘‘the church’s attitudes towardsNativePeoples.’’Whenhis report wasreleasedtwo years laterfor discussion by Anglican groups across thecountry,many were shockedand ashamedtodiscoverthe destructiveness of ‘‘our past ‘apartheid’policies.’’ 10 In 1969 General Synod gave its‘‘general approval’’tothe recommendations which Hendry’sreport presented, including that ‘‘the Church mustlisten to theNative peoples’’ and‘‘the role of theChurchmustberede- fined.’’ It also gave direction for concrete action.11 6 Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia,[1973]S.C.R.313,decided 31 January1973. 7 Howard Ramos, ‘‘DivergentPaths: Aboriginal Mobilization in Canada, 1950–2000’’(Ph.D. dissertation McGill University,2004):87. 8 ACC, General Synod Journal of Proceedings [GSJ] (1967): 79–80, 331. 9 Resolution moved by G. Beardy,seconded by J. Cruickshank, ACC, GSJ (1995): 97. 10 Charles E. Hendry, BeyondTraplines: Does the Church Really Care? Towards an Assessment of the Work of the Anglican Church of Canada with Canada’sNative Peoples (Toronto, 1969). ‘‘Apartheid’’appears on 12. 11 ACC, GSJ (1969): 35–36,190–92. hsec.us 258 ANGLICAN AND EPISCOPAL HISTORY True to its resolution, the ACC began making considerable progress towards respect, healing, and inclusion. It supported Indigenous land claims and other issues of justice, participated energetically in an ecumenical Aboriginal Rights Coalition, in- creased the numbers of ordained Indigenous clergy and (in 1989) began consecrating Indigenous bishops, established the Council of Native Ministries (the forerunner of today’sAnglican Council of Indigenous Peoples, or ACIP), held regular national Indigenous consultations(which in 1988 were formalized as meetings of an entity called ‘‘Sacred Circle’’), and publicized In- digenous issues through educational and advocacy programs and materials, presentations at church synods and parish meetings, and coverage in the Anglican Journal (until 1989 called the Cana- dian Churchman), the monthly denominational newspaper.12 These were important achievements and changes. But the church had not yet named and confronted its continuing colonial character,orthe full extent of the intergenerational damage it had inflicted on Indigenouspeoples, particularly in its Indian residential schools. Nor had it yet formulated the goal of Indigenous self- determination within the church. As in the 1960s, so in the 1990s, these next steps were prepared by external developments. In 1988 there appeared the first draft of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peo- ples (UNDRIP), which affirmed Indigenous self-determination as aright. (UNDRIP would finally be ratified in 2007 with only four dissenting votes: Canada,United States,Australia,and NewZea- land.)13 Indigenousself-determination wasthe main theme of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1991–1996) [RCAP],the country’smost comprehensiveinvestigation ever of the issuesof Indigenous peoples andthe negative consequences of colonialism. RCAP quickly publicized its view that themany problemsofIndig- enous communities could be solved onlybythe communities 12 Auseful overview is Donna Bomberry, ‘‘Justice and Healing: AJourney toward Reconciliation of Relationships in the AnglicanChurch of Canada,’’ A New Agape: The Resource Binder (ACC, [2001]), Book E, https://www.anglican.ca/ wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BookE.pdf. 13 In 2016 Canada declared its support for UNDRIP and its intention to implement it by law. hsec.us INDIGENOUSSELF-DETERMINATION 259 themselves, andonly if they were empowered to be self-determin- ing.14 RCAP’smost telling exposeo fthe damage done by the colonial denialofIndigenousself-determination was its report of the physical, sexual, and psychologicalabuse inflicted on First Nations children (as well as Inuit and Met is children) at the churches’ In- dian residential schools.The full extent of this historical outrage was just coming to light as RCAP was beginning is work.15 The ACChad administered about thirty-fiveofthe schools,16 whichweredesigned to assimilate pupils into Britishcultural norms of behavior,values, and outlook. Some Anglicans even yetdefended

Load more