“Justpeace-Diaconia” and the Challenges of Reconciliation in the Canadian Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent article.  It discusses an key theological/pastoral theme, relates it to a current situation, and leads to clearly expressed ouitcomes.  I have no hesitation in giving it the highest assessment.

Author Response

Thank you for your response.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well researched and well written paper. Its conclusions are solid but a little vague. Settlers need to participate in work towards right relationships in partnership with Indigenous people, and to be guided in this work by the Indigenous people they are cooperating with. It might have been more concrete in this regard. However, it does provide an important contribution to defining what diaconal ministry should look like in the Canadian context, as it engages with Indigenous/settler issues. It deserves publication as is. 

Author Response

Thank you for your response. I have revised the conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting and well-written article regarding the justpeace diaconia and its relation to the past and present injustices experienced by Indigenous Peoples in Canada. I have a few thoughts for the authors to consider. They argue that part of justpeace diaconia is critical reflection on action (p.5 line120). I agree, but what I find missing in their argument is any critical engagement of scripture itself. I am more familiar with the U.S. context, but settlers in the U.S. were largely Christian and used scripture in their aspiration of freedom (Exodus) and in their exploitation of scripture. Yes, the authors mention Augustine’s work “reimaging some classic elements of Christian theology” (p.13). But I think it is not simply some elements, but a critical stance toward foundations of scripture, such as the sovereignty of God evident in the metaphor the authors use (kingdom of God). It is not an accident that scripture has been used by Christian imperialists and colonizers. Ideas of God’s and human dominion, along with exceptionalism and beliefs/illusions of superiority and inferiority permeate scripture and Western political philosophies and political theologies. Consider that Derrida, Agamben, Latour and others point to the epistemologies of Western philosophical and religious thought function as apparatuses producing the ontological rift between human beings and other species. Indeed, Western Christian colonizers created an ontological rift in their constructions of Indigenous Peoples, which served to legitimate exploitation and the creation of zones of non-justice—the idea of justice does not apply. This, it seems to me, raises a question regarding the project of reconciliation itself—as admirable as that is. Can Western Christian really expect to work toward reconciliation when the very scriptures they rely on function as apparatuses producing the ontological rift? I need only mention just how destructive this rift has become when we consider the effects of global warming, which Western Christianity is partially to blame given imperialism, capitalism, etc. From a different angle: having read hundreds of indigenous stories, I have not come across in their philosophies and practical wisdoms any expression of the ontological rift, indicating that their epistemologies are radically different from Western religious epistemologies. This reminds me of a comment Frank Linderman made. Linderman chronicled the life of the Crow chief, Plenty Coups. Plenty Coups (1848-1932), a famous leader of the Crow people, remarked: “With all his wonderful powers, the white man is not wise. He is smart, but not wise.”[1] Frank Linderman, who was a friend of Plenty Coups, said, “I am convinced that no white man has ever thoroughly known the Indian, and such a work as this must suffer because of the widely different views of life held by the two races…I have studied the Indian for more than forty years, not coldly, but with sympathy; yet even now I do not feel that I know much about him.”[2] This is a man who spent four decades of his life trying to understand indigenous people he encountered, but in the end felt distant or had the sense of alienation between them. My interpretation is that his lack of understanding manifests civilization’s ontological rift with its attending alienation. Linderman, despite his commendable sympathy, remained alienated from indigenous people, because he was unconsciously operating out of the ontological rift.

I am not suggesting the authors consider major changes, but at least some incorporation of a critical stance toward scripture other than a brief sidebar about reimaging some classic elements of theology.

 

[1] Lear, Radical Hope, 139.

[2] Lear, Radical Hope, 1—2.

Author Response

Thank you for your response. Your comments raise some very significant questions that are beyond the scope of this paper. I have, however, given a nod to the issue your raise, with an additional note: "reimagining some classic elements of Christian theology, including biblical paradigms, that continue to justify colonial activities"... This paper is designed less as a diagnosis of what has legitimized/motivated colonialism as trying to see a way forward in the midst of the trauma. My own view is that the Bible itself has multiple potentialities; and while you are right to name some destructive aspects, here I'm mostly using the Bible in its potentiality as a resource (as do Augustine, Derrida, and Agamben).

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very compelling and solidly researched essay. It clearly analyzes the Canadian context of Indigenous peoples and the social trauma they experience, especially in relation to boarding schools. The article makes constructive use of method in liberation theologies, with attention to upholding the agency of those affected by oppression.

Organization of the article is clear. The argument leads toward possible implementation in the everyday.

In the discussion of truth and reconciliation processes, the article helpfully deals with the problem of attaining genuine reconciliation. This has led some to more modestly aim toward truth and healing. Healing as a desired outcome may or may not lead to reconciliation. The article rightly addresses the matter of reparations as belonging to reconciliation, although does not stress the matter of “land back.”

One suggestion for editing would be more clarity and consistency about the use of three terms: peace diaconia, Justpeace diaconia, and justpeace diaconia.

Author Response

Thank you for your generous comments. About the terms: I have tried to add a bit more consistency to the use of these terms (justpeace-diaconia, etc.), but I'm mostly seeking the evocative potential of another way of casting diaconia, not in precisely defining it. I have tried to let the use of the terms evolve in the flow of the paper.