Evaluating #churchlandback

UNDRIP applied to reparations

How are #churchlandback models stacking up as a tool of reconciliation in Canada? Now that we have completed our tour of models we know of across the country, how do we evaluate the strengths and weaknesses, and against what standard?

In the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report, Canadians of all stripes, including specifically, faith communities, were asked to use the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for reconciliation. In other words, we were asked not to create our own sense of what reconciliation meant and looked like. Still, we were asked to base our actions toward reconciliation on these principles, which were hard fought on the United Nations Assembly floor and “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples of the world” (Article 43).

So, as we evaluate the #churchlandback models we have examined over the last couple of months, how do they compare to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

The Declaration consists of 46 Articles, which can be grouped into the following principles:

• the right to self-determination

• the right to participate in decision-making

• the right to cultural and spiritual identity

• the right to land and resources

• the right to free, prior and informed consent

• the right to be free from discrimination.

Over the course of this series, we looked at the following examples of #churchlandback:

1. a “tithe” on church property sales, where a portion of the money made in the sale goes back to Indigenous Peoples. So far, the money stays inside the denominational structure and goes to support Indigenous Ministries within that denomination.

2. Return of land and/or church buildings to host nations once the church has closed.

3. Dying churches entering agreements with local Indigenous groups for re-development projects. In many cases, this agreement might mean redeveloping the former building into housing with access retained in a multi-purpose space for church use.

4. Churches on reserves transferred from diocesan ownership to reserve ownership.

5. Portions of land returned to Indigenous Peoples. In this case, the church or denomination may retain the bulk of the property but return a portion that has historical significance to a nation.

6. Church property is being returned to Indigenous Peoples outright. In this case, the church is not necessarily closing. Perhaps this was land that a church had purchased for future development or some other purpose, and it is returned, no strings attached.

7. Solidarity between churches and Indigenous Peoples in land claims.

8. Various forms of voluntary “lease payments” are made by churches to host nations.

We aren’t necessarily arguing for one particular model for all situations. Each situation has unique histories, personalities, capacities, and desires. I hope these models would instead prime imaginations and start conversations that lead to substantive action.

However, if we run the models through this grid of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as a means of relational accountability, how do the models compare?

Lease or tithe payments are potentially the most robust models mentioned, particularly in areas where there is no treaty or where treaty commitments have not been kept. Indigenous decision-making and sovereignty over the use of payments are assumed in the model. If nations want to buy back land or invest in the well-being of their communities, those are their decisions to make. Lease or tithe payments also have a relational tie. In the case of the Haldimand tract example, there is an invitation to regularly revisit the commitment and strengthen the solidarity bond.

Solidarity in land claims then comes in second in terms of conformity to the principles of UNDRIP. It is also the strongest relational model and, as such, may take the most time to develop. Solidarity must be entirely dependent upon following Indigenous leadership and direction. Potentially, it is the lowest financial commitment on the part of settler/church allies. This, I think, is a detriment rather than a strength. To strengthen this kind of partnership, looking for ways to share the financial burden of legal costs, for example, would strengthen this model further.

Land returned outright would be next on the list of best compliance with UNDRIP principles. Its greatest deficit comes in the potential to be the least relational. That may very well be what is right in a given situation, and it is essential in this model that those returning land do not get to dictate how that land is used, but there is nothing relational built into the model. In some cases, as with the example of the land transfer to White Owl, there was nothing on the land or what was built on the land is seen as useful and suitable for those receiving the land. When a portion of land is being returned, there is often presumed proximity, whereby the church continues to be a neighbour. That dynamic allows for the potential of ongoing relationships that could grow and develop in meaningful ways as long as there are no “strings attached” to how the land is used or not.

Redevelopment has a lot of positives but is also potentially the most tricky. There are not a lot of redevelopment situations where there is autonomy on the part of the Indigenous group. Often, this can fall into various charity models where there might be consultation but not real decision-making power on the part of the recipients of the project. Also, in many cases, the recipients might be brought in late, so free, prior and informed consent are circumvented. Now, it is also possible that a redevelopment project could follow well the UNDRIP principles. Still, it will require being intentional and mindful of those principles from the very start of the project.

Finally, when we think of #churchlandback, we probably think about a situation where a church returns its land and church building and simply hands over keys and titles, whether that land is on reserve or off reserve. This seems the most straightforward and easiest when, for example, a church will close anyway. However, as Randy Woodley, a Cherokee theologian, has pointed out,

Church buildings are part of a Western worldview. They are built according to the principles of chaos, and they will decay and fall down. This is not how creation builds. Creation builds with renewal and sustainability.

We need to ensure that we are not just passing on what has become an albatross around our necks and considering that a gift. We must be reminded that how we see land and resources is a product of our worldview. If we are to build a future together that honours Indigenous Peoples, it will require changing business as usual.

This cursory overview is meant to help us remember new reference points as we consider just actions regarding church properties and spur our imaginations about what might be possible.

What is happening where you are? We would love to hear stories. Thanks for being a part of this series. If you missed parts of the series, they are all linked in the first article here: