Reading Kwantlen’s student paper The Runner today, I came across an interesting debate regarding the
possibility of mandatory courses in indigenous studies. The Runner often has this feature: two columnists each have a short
piece about a particular issue from a different perspective.
The writer in favour of adding mandatory indigenous studies
courses suggested that it is a continuing form of oppression to exclude the
history of indigenous peoples. Too long, he says, has the “settler” narrative
of European immigrants dominated our approach to Canadian history, neglecting
the culture and subsequent oppression of those indigenous communities who
inhabited the land hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived. The
university is a perfect place to explore this alternative and rather dark side
of Canadian history. Recognizing the supreme importance of this story is an
important step of reconciliation that moves past mere apology to concrete
action.
On the other hand, the columnist against such mandatory courses
basically wants to protect the freedom of the student to focus on what
interests them and is important for their degree and/or career. He complains
about the fact that Kwantlen has mandatory courses that are already frustrating
enough, like arts students needing to take a hard science course that doesn’t
really fall within the field of “philosophy” or “English” or other arts programs.
By all means, he says, we should have courses on indigenous studies available, but it is a step too far to
make them mandatory. “Let the people who are interested in that learn about it,”
he writes. “Just don’t force it on the rest of us who are doing something else
with our lives”.
What is a Christian response this debate? I won’t go so far
as to try and provide a “middle way,” since I am far more sympathetic to the
first position than the second. However, Christians probably should take a
discerning third way that provides a strong foundation for the first position
in God’s love for creation and for humanity. Two points can be made.
First of all, there is
something to be said for following ones passions in study, as our second
columnist points out. God has given individual people unique passions, gifts,
and resources, and those passions need to be freed from too much constraint so
that individuals can flourish in their God-given calling. However, Christianity
does not allow those gifts to operate outside of community. The Christian
community is also concerned with directing and shaping our love, desire, and
energy towards God, people, and creation. Christians should have a hard time
saying to each other “I’m doing something else with my life,” since our lives
are not our own but belong to God’s kingdom of reconciliation and justice. This
is not to say that the Christian community should absolutely dictate what an
individual does with their life, but just to caution against an individualism
that ignores all context of community and history. While we celebrate individuality, that celebration also means giving oneself to interest in and love of others. This might mean offering ourselves to learning about a subject that isn't really in our area of interest. In fact, through love, perhaps we do make it our interest. My individuality with all its gifts and uniqueness is tied up in celebrating that same individuality in others.
Which leads me to claim that, secondly, as Christians we
ought to honor and celebrate the specificity of our place, our history.
Christians in Canada live on land marked by a history of indigenous peoples. In
order to own that history and the painful role that the church played in
oppression we need to listen and pay attention to the past. God’s revelation in
Jesus of Nazareth reveals a God concerned with specificity, with concrete place
and location, with particular people and their particular stories. The
incarnational task of the church is to enter into its own particular time and
place informed and shaped by the way Jesus inhabited his time and place.
Now, is it the government’s job to make this encounter with
indigenous history and culture’s mandatory? Is it up to the university (perhaps
apt given that Kwantlen is named after a local indigenous nation)? I would
probably support such moves since I think this history is very important for
understanding the roots of our Canadian society and for enacting Christian reconciliation.
But, in a society that has abandoned belief in the God of love, I would say
that the second columnist is probably right: without God, it may be that this
kind of individualism is all that is left. The Christian church needs to own and
explore this history itself, not depend on other people or political structures to
encourage it. Make use of those structures for the purposes of the kingdom,
certainly. But don’t make the mistake of abdicating responsibility. Through
Christ we have been given the gift/task of bringing reconciliation and shalom
when and where we can. Whether or not others are interested in understanding
the history and struggles of indigenous peoples, Christians as individuals and
communities are called by the Spirit to understand how God’s reconciliation to
the world in Christ can be enacted here and now. And for Christians in Canada,
indigenous history and culture is crucial to that task.
