#churchlandback Canada: Part 3
giving land when church is closed and sold
Today’s #churchlandback model comes to you from areas in Canada where treaties exist but have not been honoured. What can a local faith community do in such a situation? I hope you are inspired and encouraged to begin imagining a path of repair in your community. I encourage you to leave your thoughts and comments below.
A quick overview of treaties and why they matter in landback situations. The region we are looking at below was a part of various wampum treaties initiated by Six Nations with the Dutch and later the English settlers who first came to these territories in the area now known as Ontario. The wampum involved commitments made on both sides about how they would live together on these lands but also included a commitment to revisit these commitments as the parties were now tied to one another in a covenant relationship. The dynamics of which were not assumed to be static, but the relationship of which was intended to be respected.
The dynamics of the Haldimand Tract story play out against this background. It is important to hear that Indigenous leadership's call is to return to a covenant relationship.
Haldimand Tract
“A new solution to an old land problem.”1 So reads the opening to a 2022 document by Adrian Jacobs of the Cayuga Nation laying out the principles of a spiritual covenant commitment between churches and First Nations communities. In the document, Jacobs recounts the origins of this covenant renewal in a conversation with Rick Hill, a Tuscarora man and Haudenosaunee knowledge keeper in 2007 who imagined a spiritual covenant between churches and Six Nations, a new solution to an old land problem.
The Haldimand Tract is a boot-shaped tract of land that runs six miles on either side of the Grand River in Ontario, Six Nations Territory. Nine hundred fifty thousand acres were set aside by the Haldimand Proclamation in 1784. This proclamation granted land to the Mohawks for fighting on the side of the British in the Revolutionary War and provided land for Mohawks who had been displaced from their lands on the U.S. side of the border. However, only five percent of this area has been protected for Six Nations.2
A lawsuit was initiated in 1995 asking not for a return of the lands but for an accounting from the government for the monies held in trust by the government of Canada regarding these lands.3 As of the time of writing, the government has acknowledged “deficiencies in Canada’s fiduciary duties.” There has been no action to resolve the issue. This extremely long legal battle is typical for land claim processes, which are bound by separate rules, burdensome bureaucracy and opaque restrictions (like the fact that only six land claims can be in the court system at any one time).4
Within the original 950,000 acres are more than seventy Lutheran and Mennonite churches. A handful of these churches have responded so far to Rick Hill’s idea of a spiritual covenant. Under current Canadian tax laws, churches do not pay property tax. Since churches do not pay property taxes, this covenant recommends they pay a small lease payment annually to Six Nations. This payment acknowledges Six Nations’ jurisdiction and authority over the lands. In addition, the Mennonites and Lutherans committed that if their buildings were to be closed down, those properties would be turned over to Six Nations. Six Nations, in turn, committed that the land would be kept in perpetuity for spiritual purposes.
Jacobs, who belongs to Six Nations but also served with the Mennonite Central Committee at the time of the original conversations around this covenant possibility, has been an essential bridge between the church and the leadership at Six Nations. More importantly, in becoming good neighbours and healing the relationship, there has also been a shift in alliance. In the words of Jacobs, “The church could lead the way in a courageous act of justice and be the conscience of Canada to pressure the government to follow suit for more fulsome reparation.”5
Strengths
This model is an invitation into a relationship. Relationships are a powerful starting point and point of orientation when complications arise.
Initiated by Indigenous leadership related to resolutions of issues on their lands.
Brings the church into alliance with the Indigenous community in areas of justice.
Not unilateral. There are commitments made on both sides, and they are not coercive.
Weaknesses
Settler folks have a hard time with relational models. We have much to learn.
The uptake has not been nearly as great as the interest. Settler folks like this model and get excited, but few have committed.
This model does not fit everywhere, and this is particular to the region's covenant/treaty commitments. However, there may be takeaway principles that could be applied in other places, but those would need to be carefully explored. Local Indigenous leadership is paramount.
Adrian Jacobs, “A Spiritual Covenant with Churches and First Nations”, nd, Manitoba, 1, 2022. https://mcc.org/resources/spiritual-covenant-churches-and-first-nations
Six Nations of the Grand, “Land Rights,” accessed on July 2, 2024, https://www.sixnations.ca/key-issues/land-rights
ibid
Justice Laws Website, “Specific Claims Tribunal Act",” accessed on July 2, 2024 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.36/FullText.html
Jacobs, Adrian pubic lecture for “Reimagining Church, Land and Community” March 12, 2024.
I love this idea where treaty's have been made and over time been ignored or reneged on. Seems like grace and truth in action in the example from Ontario.