In a parliamentary miracle, all be it only slight on the scale of miracles, our Parliament put aside its differences  recently to give us a piece of legislation aimed at recognising Australia’s indigenous population as the “first” Australians and the “original” inhabitants. This show of unity even included talk of a referendum in order to change the Constitution so as to reflect this new approach. (The enthusiasm for this measure seems to have waned somewhat in the days since the announcement.)

Anyone who has lived in Australia for a reasonable amount of time will be aware that the issue of “land rights” and that the fight for the recognition of Aboriginal peoples has been an ongoing saga. It is an issue that cripples this nation. It is a constant blight on this nation. It is an issue that continually tears at the fabric of this nation. It is indeed an issue that must be addressed forthwith for the sake of all who call this nation home.

However, as with so many issues in our day, if we address it on the basis of Humanism, we will fail. If we address it from a Postmodern view, we will fail. If we seek to bring some great Evolutionary answer, we will fail. The answer to the questions posed must come from God and from His Word.

1. The Evolutionist Speaks.

            A. Survival of the Fittest:

As a good consistent evolutionist, my approach to the issue of the aboriginal peoples is easy. It is as simple as saying, “Let them die!” After all, is not the major tenet of the evolutionary system, “the survival of the fittest”? In this scheme, the weak are conquered. They deserve no mercy. All spoils belong to the victor.

This is no different to us allowing for the mugging of grannies. They are weak. They do not deserve to hang on to their handbags and valuables. If they want to keep their things, let them go to the gym and bulk up on protein shakes. Next, we can pick on people in wheelchairs. More easy targets? Kids! They are always ripe for the plucking – the downside is that they do not have much. The Aboriginal peoples are the cultural equivalent of the weak and infirmed.

Given this fact, I must ask, “Why should the aboriginal peoples be any different?” What makes them so special that the rules and principles of evolution do not apply to them? After all, do you not remember the full title of Mr Darwin’s work? Mr Darwin’s magnum opus was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” On the basis of this, it is easy to see that the Aboriginal people of Australia have been “selected” as a non-favoured race. Thus, we may accurately say, that the Aboriginal peoples, from an evolutionary stand point, have been deselected for preservation.

I am simply bemused by all the fuss. It is totally ridiculous. Evolution is taught in our schools and universities as an indisputable fact. Therefore, I cannot see why we are making such a fuss over this cultural minority who obviously belong to an outdated civilization that the evolutionary process has observably condemned to extinction.

Why should we care? Climate change is upon us. The quicker the aboriginals are snuffed out the quicker we find ourselves in a stronger position. In fact, we should be pushing to get rid of all the infirmed and weak. We are just wasting resources on them that could be put toward ensuring that we, the fit, survive the looming disaster!

            B. The First People:

Then I must scrutinise the statement that these people are the first, original, dinkum inhabitants of this land. Once more, as a consistent evolutionist, I am not sure how these claims are substantiated. Evolution believes in long periods. Some suggest that the earth is three billion years old.  Evolution also posits that things generally move from the simple to the complex. So, in the current case, the aboriginal peoples have no written literature to back up their claims. They rely on “oral tradition” and the interpretation of old paintings left on cave walls. (This suggests a high degree on unevolvedness when placed beside computers and satellites. This takes us back to the previous point.)

Given these facts, “How can we categorically assert, in consonant with evolutionary theory, that these peoples were the first inhabitants?” There are many questions to be raised here. One, there is the theory known as “Continental Drift”, replaced by the more modern view of “Plate Tectonics” (Illustration found at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html). This theory posits that at one point in the Earth’s history, 250 million years ago as indicated by the graphic, the landmasses were as one. This then begs the question, “Are we positive that no one else occupied this land?” As an ardent evolutionist, one must assert that man did not exist at these early times. I try to comfort myself with this. Yet, I am confronted with a nagging doubt – if evolution is true, it is possible that other life forms, similar to what we now call ‘man’, developed at an earlier stage but were subsequently eradicated by some genetic fault or catastrophe.

Two, I am also troubled by this “first inhabitant” language. As an ardent evolutionist, I am not sure how we can define the respective concepts of “first” and “habitation”? Evolution, being a process, means by definition, that we went through several stages in our development. At which of these stages do we declare that we had reached a sufficient level of cognisance or rationality to be able to say that we “inhabited” this land before anyone else?

Three, there is the distinct possibility that in another three billion years, those beings that evolve from us may look back at us and wonder why such primitives thought that they had the right to make such a claim. I must also consider the possibility that Climate Change may wipe out all traces of our evolution, feats, and civilisation, and that should intelligent life re-emerge at some stage in the future that there may not be a single footprint left to alert them to our prior existence and habitation. Therefore, it may not be prudent to make substantial claims when we simply do not have all the data needed to make such a declaration. This is especially so given that my worldview is based on flux, change, and chaos.

            C. Sovereignty and Ownership:

Of necessity, I feel it only right to raise the question of ownership from an evolutionary point of view. My thinking on this was shunted into gear when I was introduced to a couple of films by my daughters. The film, Cats and Dogs, plus it sequel, well, quite frankly, they startled me. Here is a movie about a secret society of Dogs that is looking after humans. I realise that this was intended as a joke, but it started me thinking. I had noticed that my pet schnauzer, Einstein, had been acting differently. I have been noticing that rather than brining the paper to me with slobber on it, it was neatly folded, and upon opening seemed to have been perused already – the crossword having been completed was telling! Then, the other day, he seemed somewhat angry and would not let the paper go. In the end, the paper was torn and my reading experience somewhat diminished. However, the disturbing aspect of this encounter was that as he walked away, Einstein glanced back at me, and I swear that I heard him mutter, “I wish you would subscribe to the Wall Street Journal rather than that rag!”

So of course, I am now a little edgy, to say the least. You see, Einstein came with the house. The previous owner, an old lady, passed away, leaving the dog behind. We had been in the process of purchasing the house when this happened so we decided to adopt the dog. As you can well understand, I am now very much concerned that should Einstein evolve sufficiently, he may be able to lodge a prior claim to this property. If Einstein is successful, I would then be out of house, home, and pocket, regardless of everything I have put into both Einstein and the property. Then I must also consider the possibility that any others who have lived at this address prior to my arrival may come forward with similar claims.

As a paid-up member of “Evolutionists for Autonomous and Spontaneous Change”, I am concerned that this radical change may be happening in my lifetime. There are serious repercussions. So it would seem best that we not make any hasty laws that may become precedence for any similar challenges.

Now I will hand over to my Postmodern Humanist friend for the last comment in this section.

2. The Postmodernist Speaks.

            A. Subjective Objectives:

As a Humanist and a Postmodernist, I welcome the opportunity to add to this debate and discussion. However, as I began to think through what I should write, I found myself at an impasse. As a Humanist I am greatly enamoured with the indefatigable and indomitable spirit found within man and the ability of his reason to triumph in any situation. Yet, as I thought about this subject, I was confronted by man’s cruelty to man and his seeming lack of compassion to his fellows. As I pondered further, I thought, “Surely, there is one example, one precedence, one principle, one piece of teaching to fall back upon?” Then it dawned on me, that there was not a one! My heart cried, “Alas, the subjective and transient cannot ever cure the objective and real!”

Here I was, attempting to deal with another person’s situation in time and space. Any advice given would have consequences for this person. I was not dealing with a subjective notion, but with flesh and blood. The consequence of my ideas would impact upon the vulnerable, the mortal, and the exploitable. This was not a case of firing arrows at the incorporeal spectre. No, it was a far more serious.

Then the penny dropped. How could I think this way? Postmodernism gives us no belief in the real. All is transient. Without any belief in an absolute, how can comment be passed upon “the first”, “the inhabited”, and questions of worth, ownership, compensation, and future? Unlike Existentialism that posited some semblance of truth and the absolute, even if it was only known and realised in the subjective, Postmodern thought does not even allow such a luxury. There simply is no truth. There simply are no absolutes. Consequently, meaning, purpose, justice, and infamy are all terms without definition and qualification.

Therefore, there is nothing that such a one as I can contribute to this conversation?

3. The Aboriginal / Indigenous Speaks.

            A. Cultural Confusion:

“It is time to right the wrongs! As an Aboriginal elder, I speak for my people. It is shameful that until 1967 we were classified as ‘Flora and Fauna’! It is appalling that the oppression from white supremacists has been allowed to continue for so long and to the detriment of my people. It should never have taken so long for Mabo to be handed down and for our claim to “Native Title” to be recognised. We are the traditional owners of this land and our rights in this matter should never have been walked upon. We have every right to be recognised as the “First Australians” although we will continue to call ‘Australia Day’ ‘Invasion Day’!”

After this rousing speech, the elder sat down with another indigenous Australian to talk about matters. The second fellow says to the elder, “Look, could you please clear some things up, as I am a little confused?” Receiving the ‘nod’ of approval, the man continues, “Well, I once heard that great Australian and champion of our people, Mick Dundee, describe the situation thusly: ‘Well, you see, Aborigines don’t own the land. They belong to it. It’s like their mother. See those rocks? Been standing there for 600 million years. Still be there when you and I are gone. So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on.’ “He is right, is he not? Do we not believe that we belong to the land? If this is so, why do we pursue native title and speak about “land rights” and being the “traditional owners”? It seems to me that being classified as ‘Flora and Fauna’ sits far better with our belief system. We come from the earth. The earth is our mother.”

He continues, “Whilst it is also true that the ‘white man’ has treated us poorly at times, should we not also recognise what he has done for us? It is widely accepted that when these people settled here, we aborigines numbered around 300,000 and that after an occupancy of some 40,000 years. Now we number around 500,000 and that after only another 250 years.”

The elder simply sat in silence. The only gesture was that of a furrowed brow and a stern look of indignation aimed at his fellow.

4. The Christian Speaks.

We have begun our discussion in a very different way. The purpose of this beginning is to show a number of inconsistencies when it comes to the discussion of land rights and ownership. It is by no means an overstatement to posit that this debate has been bogged down for too long in political speak and faulty agendas. This has happened precisely because all the cultures involved in this debate have abandoned God and have therefore tried to use their own subjective arguments to posit one right over another.

            A. God Created:

So let us cut to the chase. God created the heavens and the earth and all they contain! Full stop! End of story!

As a Christian I am constantly annoyed by the fact that we are subjected to political nonsense because some people have a guilty conscience or seek to appease a minority group. In the current context, this is the bowing to the constant refrain that the Aboriginal peoples were the traditional land owners of what is today called Australia. As an example, it has become de rigueur here, in our part of the woods, for local councillors on official duty to open speeches by recognising the “traditional owners of the land”.

My annoyance stems from the following facts:

• In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
• The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it (Psalm 24:1).
• For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.  I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine (Psalm 50:10-11).
• Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created (Revelation 4:11).

I am offended and indignant that God, my God, the Bible’s God, is treated so very poorly by His creatures. Not only are they content to rebel, but they are eager to rewrite history in order to affirm their revisionist view. From Genesis to Revelation, God Almighty is declared to be the Creator and Owner of this world. How dare we insult Him by claiming that we as men have right and title to this earth before and instead of God! This truly is a case, as the Oracle Dundee spoke, of ‘fleas fighting over the ownership of the dog they are upon.’

Why is it that the Aboriginals receive recognition as the traditional owners, but this same council would not allow the name of Jesus on a table? How is it that this council can build a pavilion in a local park and dedicate it to the Aboriginals, but we cannot open a function with prayer to and in the name of the One True and Living God?

Is it not telling that in the world of PC, the revelation of the One True God (WCF 2:1) can be relegated to legend and myth while the myths of a cultural minority are elevated to fact! God Almighty cannot open parliament, welcome foreign dignitaries, or be invoked before sporting matches. However, it seems more than acceptable to invite loin-cloth clad men to dance, blow into hollow sticks, and to give expression to their religion as this will impart some magic or blessing to the event in question.

            B. God Spoke and God Wrote:

Then there is the fact that the God of the Bible revealed Himself to His creation:

• The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29).
• The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations (Psalm 98:2).
• The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Psalm 19:1).
• Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him.  And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding. It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him. To Thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, For Thou hast given me wisdom and power; Even now Thou hast made known to me what we requested of Thee, For Thou hast made known to us the king’s matter (Daniel 2:19-23).
• And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
• Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy? (Amos 3:7-8)
• But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

This is a substantial point. Consider the basic fact that there was not a time when this earth did not know of the revelation of God. Contra evolution, man was made a rational and fully functioning man with speech and the ability to communicate (Genesis 2:19-25). He did not grunt and procure women by hitting them on the head with a club. Man was able to communicate with God from the start. Adam could name the animals. Adam could name his wife. Adam could woo Eve with soothing words, love poems and sonnets – no clubs necessary! Man was able to receive God’s thoughts and hear His voice (Deuteronomy 5:22-27).

Again, it is very interesting that in our modern scientific age, we willingly scorn the written record of God for myths and cave paintings. How can this be? We do not believe in Captain Cook because of a cave painting or a legend. We believe in him because we have written records that attest to him. If I appeared anywhere today to give evidence and I merely pointed to a cave painting or an oral tradition, I would be a laughingstock. My research would be ridiculed because I did not refer to source documents and the like. My statements are not verifiable; therefore they are unacceptable to modern science. Well, at least until you begin to talk about the God of the Bible. Then source documentation means nothing. At that point, myth is acceptable and, indeed, preferable to the revelation of God. (Note the subtlety. The creation account of Genesis is considered “myth” and is therefore dismissed, even though it is codified. On the other hand, a non-codified oral tradition which is myth, whilst not being wholly accepted, is not ridiculed and dismissed, but is courted and given credence. )

It does not matter that archaeology has found the Bible accurate. It does not matter that there are peoples alive today that can attest to genealogies and trace unbroken lines back for many generations. No, this means nothing. All of this rational, verifiable, source material is unacceptable because it not only proves that God exists, but it proves that God exists and that He speaks to His creation!

Therefore, we will accept myth and cave painting over and above Revelation, History, and the Verifiable.

            C. Conquered Peoples:

Although it is not popular to speak about “conquered peoples” today, the simple reality is that unless we do, we will never make sense of the conundrum before us.

At the heart of the debate over the ownership of this nation has been the Latin term terra nullius. This term is used to express the idea that the land was unoccupied, had no organised system of government, title registration, or deeds of ownership – or concepts of this nature. At the very least it means the ‘land of no one’. (Note the similarity with the Nullarbor Plain. Null / Arbor = The No Tree plain.)

Argument has raged over whether Australia was or was not terra nullius at the time of settlement. Most legal rulings upheld this concept until the “Mabo” decision in 1992. The key element of that ruling was that Australia was not terra nullius and that “interests in land and water survived the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown” (Macquarie Concise Dictionary).

However, what we must see is that the whole concept of terra nullius is a ginormous red herring. In Australian parlance, it is a “furphy”! Where did this principle come from? What made it the universal norm? If this is indeed the sole principle, then let us apply it equally all over the globe.

If we do this, there will be only two results.

The first result is positive. God must be recognised as the owner of the earth and the One to Whom homage is due. Why? For God alone has a documented right and title to the earth. His covenant Law-Word (the Bible) attests that He is the owner. It states unequivocally: “The earth is the Lords!”

The second result is negative. Because fallen man will not accept God as owner, the only other possibility is that terra nullius is pursued until utter confusion and devastation are realised throughout the world. Think this through. Who are the original owners? How far back do we go in trying to uncover the original owners? What system of substantiation are we going to invoke? Will we accept only written documents whether they be deeds or histories? Will oral traditions be accepted?

Let me give a few examples:

                        (i) The Biblical: When we look at the conquest narratives in Deuteronomy and Joshua, we are introduced to a number of conquered or displaced people. To whom should the land of Israel be returned if we set out to apply terra nullius? We are familiar with the modern claims, but as stated, there are ancient claims to be reckoned with from the pages of Scripture.

Now, I need to summarise, as to quote the texts would be too extensive. So, look at Joshua 10:3-5. There five kings are mentioned and they are defeated. Then in the verses 29-40 another six cities and various kings are defeated. In chapter 11:1-5 we see that “Jabin king of Hazor” rallies some other kings to come and fight against Israel. These too were defeated. In fact, Joshua 12:23 states that 31 kings in all were defeated.

Here is our conundrum. We dispossess Israel acknowledging the original inhabitant’s prior rights in accordance with the terra nullius principle – that is to say that these peoples had kings, structure, organisation, and settled in towns. Compared with the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, they were much more organised. Who then do we acknowledge as the traditional and rightful owners? To whom shall this land be returned?

It is absurdity to believe that of these thirty–one kings, none had come to power without conquest. In fact, the Bible tells us as much. Joshua 11:10 states: “Then Joshua turned back at that time, and captured Hazor and struck its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all these kingdoms.” How is it that Hazor is no longer head? Did a generous king wake up one morning and divide his kingdom; parcelling out portions to his friends? Highly unlikely!

So our conundrum becomes more difficult. Which cities and territories are returned to Hazor? Then we need to look for further evidence of how this rule came about. Was that by conquest or inheritance?

                        (ii) England: Let us bring the argument up to date and make it a little more relevant. England is the original source for the predominant culture in Australia today. If we look back to her history, to whom do we assign ownership rights? Do we look to the Angles, the Saxons, or the Normans? What do we make of Viking visits? How do we factor into this the Roman conquest? We could then look at people like Queen Boudica’s uprising against the Romans to reclaim her father’s kingdom. (It is an aside, but the mention of the Romans begs the same question concerning all their conquests.)

We must of course ask, Which of these do we see as the legitimate title owners of England?

                        (iii) Oral Tradition: Last, we need to consider oral tradition and its accuracy. There was a time in history where oral tradition was used and it was accurate. However, as we have developed culturally and access to writing instruments has become more readily available, we have become less attuned to remembering histories in this manner. Equally, we must also consider that, in some cases, the ‘oral tradition’ has clashed with ‘Chinese whispers’ – which I guess is now un-PC and racist!??!

Recently, I saw a part of that television show, Who Do You Think You Are? The guest that day was actor John Hurt. He explained a part of his family history, regarding a male ancestor, and the stories that had been passed down within the family. The man was supposedly successful. He was meant to have certain ties. You know; all the things that would stand you in good stead in the England of that day. However, as the story unfolded, this person turned out to be an absolute shonk! He had been involved in shady deals. He had been dismissed from his position as a consequence of this corruption and so forth.

In the end, it seems that some alternate history had been invented to paint the family in its best light and this revision now became fact to the descendants of this man.

In terms of our discussion, we are forced to reiterate the question, ‘What substantiation methods will be employed?”

What is clear from this discussion is that this whole concept of terra nullius is pure bunkum. We have no legitimate way of researching what cultures were or were not “no man’s land”, if you will. We have no way of arriving at an absolutely concrete solution, other than adopting option one. This whole idea of trying to define who was or was not an organised culture with any type of right and legitimacy prior to this or that incursion is the prerogative of God alone; for He alone in omniscient! We as men could never work through all the possibilities. This is especially so considering the verity that we simply do not have all the facts at our disposal.

Like it or not, as far as history and ancient history is concerned, the only reasonable measure to apply is the concept of “conquered peoples”. Many in our day will reject this, but on what basis? The evolutionist thrives on such concepts. You have the fit versus the weak. Evolution says nothing of morality. It is the fit versus the weak. If you conquer, then you were meant to do so by the divine appointment of evolutionary principle. If you are conquered, then you have been, as stated by Mr Darwin, deselected for survival. Consequently, the evolutionist can have no quarrel with this concept as it is the only one that fits his worldview.

One could say that there was no war declared, but what does that prove? Many people have been invaded without a declaration of war. Equally, the Aboriginal peoples are exactly that, peoples, tribal groups. With whom would a treaty or declaration of war been made? Many emotive arguments are put forward, but in the end, none are effective.

The simple reality, which can stick in the craw, is that if we do not accept the “conquered people” standard, then we open ourselves up to confusion and devastation. It is that simple.

            D. Confusion, Devastation, and Disintegration:

Some may wonder at this point, but it is necessary so that we understand what is at stake in this argument.

If we reject the “conquered peoples” perspective and try to force twenty-first century ideas and constructs into an eighteenth century event, we will end with turmoil and cultural disintegration that will help no one. By rejecting the “conquered peoples” theory and giving into the culture of “guilt” so prevalent in our day, we are setting all concerned with this matter on a path to destruction.

Look at how our society is being torn apart today. We have people talking about reconciliation, but their actions tear and rend. We have a situation where we are paying out huge sums of money to lease back part of our country from the Aboriginal population. We speak of the loss of freedom in countries like Russia and North Korea, yet here in our country you need permits to enter certain tribal lands. We have begun to have two standards at law. Our television can blaspheme the One True and Living God, but other programmes carry warnings so as not to offend the Aboriginal peoples. There are places some Australians are not free to go because they are deemed sacred to the Aboriginal peoples. Yet for a Christian to turn a homosexual away on genuine Biblical grounds, well that is sketchy and wrong!

However, this is but the tip of the iceberg. The Aboriginals of this land, whilst wronged in certain circumstances, have also benefitted and prospered under the new regime, if you will. Whilst news media carry stories and reports of death rates in indigenous populations, they fail to carry the stories that show how health care and access to health care has benefitted these people greatly.

I once remember a show featuring an Aboriginal elder in a wheel chair. Now we are mocked and harangued, but the truth is that in her culture she would not have been cared for at all. If she slowed down, she would have been left to die.

Here we come to the crux. If the Aboriginal peoples want out, then let them out, completely and utterly. If they despise the “white man” and his “invasion”, then let them forsake the white–man’s money, medicine, and culture in every way! Do not come to play Aussie rules, for that would be hypocrisy. Do not agitate to open Parliament, for that would be a compromise of the worst kind – celebrating the warlords that enslaved! Do not ask for housing or complain about living standards in Aboriginal communities where you are autonomous. Why seek help from the invaders.

People will criticise these sentiments. Yet, they are truth. Underneath everything, the Aboriginal peoples will lose more than they gain, if this current foolishness is pursued to its logical conclusion. This issue will tear this country apart. It will destabilise. The writing is already on the wall. We will have at least two law codes. We will have two sets of standard for conduct. We will create and fuel animosity. Guilt will be our motive and guide; and guilt is a terrible motive and an even worse guide! Decisions will be made by those in charge based not in right and wrong and a moral code, but by popularity vote, point scoring, and the typical smoke and mirrors routine of our parliamentarians.

The current course of action will solve nothing precisely because it is a political solution designed by politicians. Every time the politicians make one of these ridiculous decisions the average Aussie, the taxpayer, comes to resent the Aboriginal people all the more. It is wrong, yes, but it is understandable. The resentment comes not from a racist tendency, contrary to popular media, but because the average Aussie is tired of being squeezed, blamed, and manipulated. I tend to think that the Aboriginal peoples of this land feel a bit the same. They have soaked up the attention because it has given them some gain. However, the sooner they realise that they are political toys, the sooner we can sit down and work out a real solution.

            E. God and Morality:

In the end, the only solution to this problem is God and His revealed morality in Scripture.

I have shunned all the attempts and requests to say “Sorry!” I have done so because, for the most part, they are political stunts that achieve very little. What is “sorry” when we are talking at the level which is necessary for this conversation? It is akin to the trite, “Now, shake hands. Good. Now we’re friends again!” deal employed in the schoolyard. As such I resent that this issue, as important as it is, has been turned into a politician’s play thing and made, thereby, into a trite spectacle.

What we need is a model, based in the Lord Jesus Christ, and called, Redemption! When we understand this, the trite “sorry” will give way to true heartfelt grief and genuine repentance at what has been perpetrated, covered, and justified.

I will not apologise that my ancestors came to this country. Despite the common rhetoric, these people did not come in a Man o’ War or bearing arms, as such. They came, many of them in irons. They came as prisoners. These people were displaced from their homeland, never to see kith and kin again. Some were deserving of this. Others were not. Then there were the free settlers who came simply looking for a better life or the opportunity to make something for themselves.

What I am ashamed of and what I grieve over; that for which I would readily apologise and seek true repentance, is the fact that my ancestors treated the Aboriginals, at times, in a heinous manner. There were conflicts in which people died. In these instances there was, on occasion no doubt, guilt on the part of both. However, it is simply inexcusable that permits were issued to allow the hunting (cold blooded murder) of Aboriginals. Equally, to have them classified as “flora and fauna” was reprehensible.

Whilst there is debate about the extent of massacres on the part of settlers and reprisal killings on both sides, the simple reality is that they happened. Numbers are irrelevant to some extent. That Aboriginals were hunted, poisoned, and driven off cliffs is the true shame. That it took far too long for settlers to be held accountable at law is shameful.

To try and surround or cover these happenings with the dust of a thousand political barrows being pushed in earnest is to make a mockery of the situation. Yet this is what happens. The murder of Aboriginals then was wrong. The murder of Aboriginals now is wrong. Just as the murder of infants today is wrong. Just as the slaying of the elderly is wrong and the taking of any life is wrong.

Welcome to the real issue, Morality. When we try to cover these instances and atrocities, whether then or now, against black or white, we show that we do not have a moral compass. Because of the lack of a moral compass, the proposed solutions by political means are inept, inadequate, and more likely to do harm than good.

We opened this article in the manner we did precisely to highlight the inability of the prominent worldviews of our day to actually say anything constructive, helpful, or reconciling in regard to this situation. We continue to dig the hole deeper, precisely because the dominant worldviews have no answer. What does Secular Humanism know of sin? What does Evolution know of forgiveness? What does Postmodernism know of reconciliation? What do any of these know of grace, love, atonement, and justification?

These terms are found only in Scripture. There alone are they defined. There alone are they given meaning, expression, and function. Therefore, it is to God and His morality as it is revealed by Him in the Bible and in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ that we must turn for any concrete answers.

5. Cultural Suicide.

At this point, we need to pull these various threads together and make a sound application using the Biblical data.

            A. No Culture Without Christ:

The first point that must be made is that both the cultures at the centre of this argument are doomed to destruction if they continue on their current paths. This is a bit hard to swallow for autonomous man, but it is nonetheless the truth. You see, despite man’s group delusion, God made culture, not man! God, in Jesus Christ, therefore stands as judge over all cultures. A culture rises and falls at Yahweh’s command. A culture is sustained by its obedience to God or it is brought low by its rebellion from God.

• And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; (Daniel 2:21)
• Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me … Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown. (Jonah 1:2 & 3:4)
• Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord … Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground … Now Abraham arose early … and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 13:13; 19:24-28)
• But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

The complete irony of the situation is that we superior, white, Europeans are trying to save – culturally from a Humanistic perspective – these poor Aboriginal savages, and many other cultures beside, but with what? I am reminded of a cartoon that I saw years ago. It was aimed at the Christians and was a challenge to people’s faith in God. It depicted the Ark, if I remember correctly. It is a small, crowded, wooden vessel drifting aimlessly. In the next frame a modern ocean liner, sleek and powerful, pulls alongside. People disembark from the Ark and board this modern wonder, captivated by its size and majesty. In the last frame you see these people sailing off into the sunset, pleased at their decision to abandon God’s method for that of the moderns. However, as the ship steams away, her stern comes into view for the first time, and we see that these hopefuls have boarded the SS Titanic.

This is the reality of our day. What do we think we are going to offer the Aboriginals? Electric toasters! A brand new energy saving air conditioner! Please, what they needed from us was the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation for man or culture. They needed to be called out of darkness. They needed to be told to forsake their dark ways that only angered God and brought His wrath upon them. Our failure at this point, is one more of our shameful disappointments. (Please do not write. I know there were and are Christian missions. My point is that they have been and are ineffective.)

So what is it that we hope to impart to the Aboriginal peoples of this land and other migrants that are coming to our shores? Aids, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, genocide, hopelessness, political exploitation, tyranny, divorce, fornication, suicide, godlessness, murder, theft, covetousness, adultery, poverty, blasphemy, alcoholism, drug abuse, road rage, fraud, spam, hacking, rape, familial destruction, rebellion, sloth, high taxation, injustice, or something else from the cornucopia of evils?

You see, as it stands at this very point in time, the hand of the Lord is against this nation in totality, as much as it is against any one particular ethnic group that may make up this nation. The abandonment of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ, on the part of this nation has in essence doomed every ethnicity that makes up our culture. As the Apostle says, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,”  “The poison of asps is under their lips”; “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; “Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known.”  “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

In fact, it is fair to say that the current political attempt to gather all together into one under the banner of Humanism, labelled as “multiculturalism”, will only brings God’s judgement upon us more swiftly and harshly. Therefore, without Christ as the centrepiece of our culture we in fact have nothing to offer the Aboriginals or any others who come to our shores. We, like they of yester year, are ripe for the plucking. Our culture is one of death precisely because we have turned away from Jesus Christ the source of life. Consequently, we will reap the consequences of what we have sown.

            B. We too are in line to be Conquered Peoples:

We spoke previously of the Aboriginal peoples as being “conquered peoples”. This term is unpopular in our day because of the evil bent on equality. However, the reader must understand that when this term is used here it is not based upon a racist belief that we have something in ourselves that makes us superior or better. It is used in the Biblical sense in which God prospers those who obey His word and He judges those who disobey. In His judgements, God is always just and He often uses other nations as the instrument of that judgement.

Earlier, we made reference to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Why was that conquest possible? Well, there are a number of reasons, but one prominent one was the sin of the peoples in that land. Says Yahweh to Abraham, “Then in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete (Genesis 15:16).” Further commentary is given in Leviticus 18:24-30: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.”

What we learn from these texts is that there is no room for racism or some superior attitude based in man. Israel deposed the nations before them at God’s biding precisely because of the evil and wickedness committed by those nations. However, note very well, that Israel was warned not to practice the abominations of those nations and cultures lest they too be ejected from (spewed out) of the land.

The practical application of this is that the Lord God Almighty judged the Aboriginal peoples of this land for their sin and abominable practices. Contrary to popular opinion, the Aboriginal peoples were not pleasant, peace-loving, people who dwelt in animistic harmony with nature and each other, á la Pocahontas! These people were in part cannibalistic. They warred with each other. They knew both abortion and euthanasia. They could be at times very cruel to their own. Then there was the bigger issue, God! The peoples did not worship the One True and Living God. They had turned their back on the knowledge of the One True and Living God. As Paul says in Romans 1:22, 23 & 25: “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

Thus, the Aboriginal peoples were, by God’s standard, ripe for the plucking.

Now look to Australia at large today. Are we any different from the Aboriginal culture of 200 years ago? No, not in the slightest! We have forsaken God and Jesus Christ His Son in order to worship the “creature”. Look at the list of sins given above. Our nation is guilty of them all and then some! So what is it that we think that we can do today for the Aboriginal peoples of this land or for any others? Yes, we can feed and clothe them. Yes, we can give them medicines. However, is it of any real advantage to be ushered into either the dining room or the medical bay of the SS Titanic!!

The very simple reality is that Australia today is ripe for the plucking. We are on the list of ‘to be a conquered people’. Sadly, the more we acquiesce to false religions, whether it be the Animism of the Aboriginal, the Koran of the Muslim, the “all roads to Rome” of the Universalist, the doctrines of the Evolutionist, or the idols of Humanism, the more we hasten both the day and severity of God’ judgement.

If we would help our fellows in this nation, regardless of their ethnicity, skin colour, locality, size, shape, or appearance, we must proclaim to them these things:

• I am the Lord your God … You shall have no other gods before Me.
• You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
• I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
• For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.”  And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”  It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
• It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
• And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

6. Conclusion.

The cut and thrust of this article can be summed up in Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” All the political flurry in the world will avail us naught if we will not turn back to God, seek His face, and pledge as a people to live in obedience to His will and law. If we continue on our current course, we will simply continue to be a “disgrace” in the eyes of God.

We cannot save others when we are in our own cultural ‘death throws’ and in need of salvation ourselves. We cannot help the Aboriginal peoples of this nation to move forward in a positive way, when we once again offer them a poisoned chalice. What we need, what we all need, is to drink the living water found only in Jesus Christ.

God alone, through His Son Jesus Christ, gives life to men, nations, and cultures. Our help and our hope are in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth!