![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sweet-adelheid.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
50books_pocThis is the book that has held up my other reviews. Which is probably a good thing, because my initial opinion of it is certainly a little different now than it was when I first read the book about six weeks ago.
Summary: Deep beneath the land is the Rainbow Spirit or the Rainbow Snake, the eternal source of life and spiritual power. [The authors] identify God the Creator with the Rainbow Spirit and they see in Christ the incarnation of the Rainbow Spirit in human form, which for them is Aboriginal Australian.
My first comment is related to authorship. I puzzled initially over whether this book "counted", even though my gut feeling is that it does. The people who physically wrote the words down are white: Rob Bos and Norman Habel. But the group who came up with the words, whose work is behind this, and who have (as the introduction states) approved the final version of the words, are all Indigenous Australians: George Rosendale, Nola Archie, Dennis Corowa, William Coolburra, Eddie Law and James Leftwich. Jasmine Corowa was the group's artist. (I know Dennis and James a little, and hugely respect both them and George - of whom I've heard - and have been on a committee with Rob for the past three years.) In the end, I think saying that this *doesn't* count would be infantilising the Rainbow Spirit Elders; essentially saying that they didn't "really" participate in this work.
The model - I love the model they've come up with. The image of the strangler fig, a parasitic plant that eventually entirely replaces the host plant, that introduces the section on "The Necessity of Rainbow Spirit Theology" is vivid and gut-wrenching. And then there's the general model of theology; centering on the land as the heart of indigenous spirituality, and using Indigenous ways of orientation (East being the most important of the compass points, rather than North, as it is for European-originating cultures) in a compass-point organisation of influences and directions.
(The image chosen for the North, for church history and the Bible, is the sheep. As the Elders say, "We were introduced to Jesus as the Good Shepherd, an image that has no meaning for us, as we had no feeling for sheep. Furthermore, the landowners who herded the sheep did not give us a comforting image of shepherds!" An important reminder.
This model of theology really does speak to me. But I need to think about whether I'm able to use it for myself, or whether that would be the dreaded 'appropriation'. I need to read this book again, and particularly closely. And to reflect on it and probably to speak with others about it.
There are parts of this book that pain me deeply, not just that are hard to read, but that are painful because I believe they are untrue: for example, when I read sentences like "Sadly, few in the Christian churches have supported the rights of indigenous people" what I remember is the number of times the UCA has bent over backwards for the Congress, by riding roughshod over queerfolk. However, as I checked the copyright date, this book was published in 1997, and the text was being put together in 1994 and 1995, before the sexuality debate got going in the UCA, and before the many examples I know of where the Congress and their wishes were placed in paramount position. So while the words hurt, my reaction isn't fair.
Ultimately - this book is a way that I can listen to the Elders, and I need to view it in that light. I will benefit greatly from re-reading this book and contemplating it further. Of that I am absolutely certain.
Summary: Deep beneath the land is the Rainbow Spirit or the Rainbow Snake, the eternal source of life and spiritual power. [The authors] identify God the Creator with the Rainbow Spirit and they see in Christ the incarnation of the Rainbow Spirit in human form, which for them is Aboriginal Australian.
My first comment is related to authorship. I puzzled initially over whether this book "counted", even though my gut feeling is that it does. The people who physically wrote the words down are white: Rob Bos and Norman Habel. But the group who came up with the words, whose work is behind this, and who have (as the introduction states) approved the final version of the words, are all Indigenous Australians: George Rosendale, Nola Archie, Dennis Corowa, William Coolburra, Eddie Law and James Leftwich. Jasmine Corowa was the group's artist. (I know Dennis and James a little, and hugely respect both them and George - of whom I've heard - and have been on a committee with Rob for the past three years.) In the end, I think saying that this *doesn't* count would be infantilising the Rainbow Spirit Elders; essentially saying that they didn't "really" participate in this work.
The model - I love the model they've come up with. The image of the strangler fig, a parasitic plant that eventually entirely replaces the host plant, that introduces the section on "The Necessity of Rainbow Spirit Theology" is vivid and gut-wrenching. And then there's the general model of theology; centering on the land as the heart of indigenous spirituality, and using Indigenous ways of orientation (East being the most important of the compass points, rather than North, as it is for European-originating cultures) in a compass-point organisation of influences and directions.
(The image chosen for the North, for church history and the Bible, is the sheep. As the Elders say, "We were introduced to Jesus as the Good Shepherd, an image that has no meaning for us, as we had no feeling for sheep. Furthermore, the landowners who herded the sheep did not give us a comforting image of shepherds!" An important reminder.
This model of theology really does speak to me. But I need to think about whether I'm able to use it for myself, or whether that would be the dreaded 'appropriation'. I need to read this book again, and particularly closely. And to reflect on it and probably to speak with others about it.
There are parts of this book that pain me deeply, not just that are hard to read, but that are painful because I believe they are untrue: for example, when I read sentences like "Sadly, few in the Christian churches have supported the rights of indigenous people" what I remember is the number of times the UCA has bent over backwards for the Congress, by riding roughshod over queerfolk. However, as I checked the copyright date, this book was published in 1997, and the text was being put together in 1994 and 1995, before the sexuality debate got going in the UCA, and before the many examples I know of where the Congress and their wishes were placed in paramount position. So while the words hurt, my reaction isn't fair.
Ultimately - this book is a way that I can listen to the Elders, and I need to view it in that light. I will benefit greatly from re-reading this book and contemplating it further. Of that I am absolutely certain.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}