Ten Reasons Why Christians Shouldn’t Use Indigenous Protocols

2 December 2019

3.6 MINS

Both Welcome to Country—said by an indigenous person—and Acknowledgement of Country—which is said by someone who is not indigenous—have become a popular practice in the media, government and even in business. What’s more, Aboriginal smoking ceremonies to ward off evil spirits have become an integral part in opening the Australian parliament for the past decade.

Significantly, there is no evidence that “Welcome to Country” and Acknowledgement of Country” ceremonies were part of traditional Aboriginal culture. Instead, The Australian reports that they were created in the mid-1970s by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley. According to Dingo, it also had a spiritual goal of protecting someone from the demonic:

… it had been a custom for Aboriginal people to “get the sweat from under their arms and rub down the side of your shoulders so any spirits around can smell the perspiration or the odour of the local, and say, he’s right, leave him alone”.

A range of these ‘indigenous protocols’ is also being increasingly conducted at the opening of church services, ecclesiastical synods, graduation ceremonies, school assemblies, etc. But while the motivation behind it is well-intentioned, I believe that the rationale for doing so is fundamentally flawed.

What follows are ten reasons why I believe Christians should abstain from such practices:

First, it takes away from the worship of God. The Bible declares that “The earth is the LORD’s and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1) and that He says “I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isa. 42:8). Hence, the practice of things such as “smoking ceremonies” to ward off evil spirits is completely at odds with Christian theology.

Second, it leads to syncretism. Following on from this, because Aboriginal cosmology is pantheistic—God and the creation are one—there is a tendency for the traditional religious beliefs to be fused together with Biblical truth. Once again, this is incompatible with the exclusive claims of Scripture which teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).

In contrast, note the recent article in Eternity by Aboriginal Christian Brooke Prentis, where she refers to Uluru as the “most sacred and holy place”, which gives to a part of God’s creation an idolatrous status and spiritual significance (i.e., Rom 1:18-25).

Third, the parallel to ancestor worship. Official indigenous protocols insist that words like ‘Elder’ should be capitalised to acknowledge the continuing real presence of those who have died. (This is also why there is a warning on television programs which show images of deceased aboriginal people). However, acknowledging aboriginal ‘Elders’ past, past and emerging is not simply honouring the memory of the departed—like many Australians do on ANZAC Day—but is more akin to the ancestor worship still practised by many people today.

Fourth, Biblical peacemaking principles of forgiveness teach that past sins should not be continually re-raised once they have been repented of. However, these prescribed ‘politically-correct’ statements do precisely that. They have the practical effect of perpetuating guilt, while allowing no final resolution or real reconciliation to occur.

Fifth, the political nature of language. The secular form of language used in Indigenous protocols (such as ‘Traditional Custodians’, and ‘Respect to Elders’) is neither politically nor theologically neutral. As such, if we are serious about reconciliation, then we ought to use biblical language to express theological truths of sin, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Sixth, it implies guilt by association. There is a growing pressure in our country to conform to a progressive social agenda involving identity politics. As such, to what extent are Christian denominations—or their individual members—responsible for historic crimes committed during the colonial period of Australia? Whereas injustices have tragically occurred, we should be careful of condemning our own spiritual forebears or of implicating the church today through guilt by association.

Seventh, ‘theft’ must involve full financial reparation. While many regularly acknowledge their guilt of dispossessing aboriginals of their land, very few are willing to make financial restitution. But if one truly believes that they are in possession of ‘stolen property’, then they should give it back and not, simply engage in disingenuous displays of virtue-signalling. What’s more, this should be done by the individuals most concerned, and not merely projected onto their own particular religious institution.

Eighth, it undermines Gospel reconciliation. As the Gospel goes out to the ends of the earth, the redemptive power of the cross will continue to deliver God’s chosen people from enslaving idolatries and unite us together in Christ. But Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country protocols support a worldview that privileges aboriginal culture within our society and thereby hinders—rather than promotes—the work of reconciliation.

Ninth, it harms Christian unity. Our doctrine of the unity of the body of Christ is harmed since it perpetuates an unnecessary distinction between Aboriginal and all other Christians who live in Australia. In short, it rebuilds the dividing wall which previously existed before the cross (Eph. 2:14-18; Gal. 3:28).

Tenth, because the current Aborigines were probably not the original inhabitants. This is a position historically held by many Australian anthropologists, scientists, and academics. For example, Professor Manning Clark (1915-1991), originally argued that the modern Aboriginal was a descendant of a racially distinct, third wave of immigrants, who had themselves invaded and conquered those living here before them.

In conclusion, it is important to remember that the arrival of Europeans brought the light of the Gospel to those in darkness and that it was in fulfilment of the sovereign plan of Almighty God (Acts 17:26-27). And while traditional aboriginal smoking ceremonies were powerless to ward off evil spirits, the Lord Jesus Christ has bound the strongman once and for all (Matt. 12:29; Col. 1:13).


Photo by Holger Link on Unsplash.

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.


  1. Dave Forsyth 2 December 2019 at 10:45 am - Reply

    Well said Mark. The church of Jesus Christ MUST separate itself from what is basically paganism. We have to be different. We must break the shackles of the tyranny of “political correctness”.

  2. John coverdale 2 December 2019 at 4:56 pm - Reply

    I have been working my way through an excellent 12 part series entitled ” Two Religions” by Dr Peter Jones, which deals with Paganism and how it is influencing western thought at many levels, not just through aboriginal traditions. German psychologist Carl Jung who was heavily into the occult has been a big influence. Paganism is not new it has its roots in Genesis at the Tower of Babel,ie Cush & Nimrod the, Babylonian era and its influence throughout history via many lines and flavours of thinking. The big player in seducing the west is Indian philosophy. By way of introduction to Peter Jones there a few you tube clips to view , simply google. The full 12 part series can be purchased via Ligonier Ministries online.
    I really believe it pays to get a handle on this stuff. The progressive spirituality as Peter Jones calls it is overtaking secular thinking!
    Paganism is nothing more than holding the creation/creature in higher esteem than the Creator. Romans 1: 25-26 is the foundation of Peter Jones lectures. Valuable info to equip the saints. Thanks for the article.

    • Bruce 27 January 2020 at 5:27 pm - Reply

      John coverdale. Thank you so much for the reference to Peter Jones. Looks fascinating. Another angle is being taken by Neil Shenvi in his analysis of the insidious affects of Critical Race Theory, especially in the Church. Be interesting to compare. https://shenviapologetics.com/

  3. pchatty 2 December 2019 at 5:44 pm - Reply

    Thanks Mark. You have made some very good points & answered some of my current questions. Why do the Aborigines continually live in victimhood? Why do they continually blame me for something I did not do? What is it I can do to end this blame game?

  4. […] from this community, Anderson George shares how the Holy Spirit has convicted him about sacred and smoking ceremonies, particularly those he sees as involving the worship of other […]

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles:

Use your voice today to protect

Faith · Family · Freedom · Life



The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of The Daily Declaration. Read More.