It has recently been reported in the ABC that Nathan Maynard, a Tasmanian Aboriginal artist, is seeking the body of an Australian of British descent which will ‘speak to sacrifice for past sins’. Maynard placed the ad in a Melbourne newspaper requesting that they ‘donate their future deceased body to an art installation’.

…palawa artist wanting to find an Australian of British descent who is willing to donate their future deceased body to an art installation. The work will speak to sacrifice for past sins perpetrated against the palawa. Potential applicants should see this opportunity as an honour. The body and the memory of the successful applicant will be treated with the utmost respect at all stages of the project…

Strangely, Maynard is not advertising in Tasmania, instead directing the ad to those who live on the mainland. But of even more concern, it has been reported by The Australian that Maynard may be receiving up to $15,000 from Hobart Council to complete the project.

Thankfully, not everyone on Hobart City Council agrees. Councillor Louise Elliot told The Spectator Australia:

‘I view expression through art as being a core part of being human, but when the public’s money is involved, I think there are fair questions that need to be asked. In this case, how “healing” is an artwork like this? I suspect it is more divisive attention-seeking than truly therapeutic and question-inducing as good art should be. And then there’s already a high level of awareness of the atrocities white people had on Aboriginal people when they first arrived, so it’s not serving that purpose either.

‘Our colonial history is full of heartbreak. If I could turn back time, I would, but I can’t. Personally, I think this is more about an artist getting exposure than actually helping the healing and unifying of our diverse community.’

Likewise, the federal Liberal Senator, Jonathon Duniam also told The Spectator Australia:

‘Two wrongs have never made a right, especially when they’re tokenistic. Virtue-signalling will not improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Ratepayers have got better things to invest in, and the Council should know that.’

The Australian wrote in their headline that Maynard wants people to ‘donate your white corpse to atone for colonial sins’ and later added his quote: ‘I want people to ask: What am I prepared to do for Aboriginal Australians?’ The article went on to further quote Maynard:

‘There’s so much tokenism around at the moment. Virtue-signalling is really a trend. It’s trendy to act like you’re on Aboriginal Australians’ side, you’re friends with First Nations people around the world and you want to fight for their cause.

‘But I do suspect a lot of that is for people’s own benefit. They might not put their body on the line for an art installation, but what are they physically prepared to do? Are they prepared to come and march on the streets with us for invasion day? Are they prepared to fight alongside us for more land, for a treaty?’

I wonder, does Maynard see his artwork as inherently ‘tokenistic’? A piece of art – paid for by people who are statistically of majority British descent – will not change the lives of Aboriginal people. Neither will marching in the street or enshrining a ‘Voice to Parliament’. These are all progressive political acts of virtue signally par excellence.

What has become clear in progressive ‘Woke’ politics is that there is no forgiveness, no matter how many times a person says ‘sorry’. And what’s more, even with a literal bodily sacrifice, there can be no true atonement. We are living in an ongoing perpetuation of grievance with the resultant cultural division.

According to the government, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders currently receive approximately $33 billion dollars each year in federally-funded financial assistance and associated benefits. ($6 billion is directly targeted, and the remaining $27 billion includes mainstream services.) As such, it is odd to hear claims that the Australian government is not concerned with the lives of Indigenous peoples.

There is a deeper question: why should current generations seek to atone for the sins of the past? Significantly, this is a sentiment explicitly drawing from the worldview of a Judeo-Christian theology in trying to persuade the public to his position on Indigenous issues. But this is precisely where the argument is at its weakest.

Central to the Bible’s message is that forgiveness for our sins is possible through the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Let me give the following couple of examples:

‘God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.’ 2 Cor. 5:21

‘For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.’ 1 Pet. 3:18

This truth is crucial to the Christian message, and the reason why it works is because Jesus is not only fully God and fully man, but is without sin. Indeed, as the divine Son of God, the Bible teaches that it is we who have sinned against Him.

And yet, and here’s the good news, Jesus takes upon Himself the punishment for the sins which we ourselves deserved! What’s more, in doing so he atoned for the sins for all who believe, for all time, from all peoples; which includes not only those who identify as Aboriginal, but those who are guilty of ‘colonial sins’ against them as well.

However, to argue that a single human being exclusively descended from British ancestry can become a sacrifice of atonement for the ‘sins’ committed against a particular people group is immoral. A key passage from the Bible in this regard is Ezekiel 18 which teaches that the sin of the fathers should not be visited upon their children.

‘You ask, “Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?” Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.’ Ezekiel 18:19-20

Rather than hector the greater public about though, as to what they are prepared to do for Aboriginal Australians, maybe Mr Maynard should be challenging them as to what they’re prepared to do for themselves?

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in