Does Anyone See Anything Coming? (Reflection on the Treaty of Waitangi)

In another world of conversation recently, the question came up, in my words, Why didn't evangelical historians see ahead and predict the emergence of Trump and evangelical support for him? There are some obvious answers about that: historians look back not forward; history never repeats itself exactly; since when was it a moral indictment on an historian to not also be a clairvoyant?!

A simple case in point involves Trump himself in the past month or so: suppose you had predicted ten or twenty years ago that a Trump would burst onto the US political scene and [many] evangelicals would swoon at his anti-abortionist feet. Well done you! But would you have predicted this year's turn of events in which Trump has suddenly and (as far as I can tell) unexpectedly changed tunes on abortion, stating a position closer to the centre of US politics, and pretty obviously designed to pick up (if possible) a bunch of votes otherwise likely unavailable to him in November. Cue angst and dilemma for a section of US Christian (Protestant and Catholic) pro-life voters: where does the lesser of two "evils" now lie when going into the polling booth?

Down Under, have we ever seen what is coming in respect of relations between Maori and Pakeha?

Marsden in 1814 could have foreseen the arrival of European settlers. He would not have foreseen the Treaty of Waitangi in the form it actually took.

The Treaty itself was the outcome of a variety of hugely interesting factors, from the local (the role of the likes of Bushby, Hobson, the Williams' family, Maori chiefs) to the wider movement of people (the interests of and interests by British, French, American settlers, sailors and sealers in carving out better lives through farming and trading), to the distantly international considerations of the British offices of state overseeing colonial developments and how they were, in their view, often a deeply evangelical Christian view, best shaped and supported by agreements such as the Treaty of Waitangi - all admirably told in various histories of our Treaty, most recently in respect of "big books" by Ned Fletcher, The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, and in terms of "small books" by Alistair Reese in He Tatou Pounamu .

I think I am right in saying that on 6 February 1840, no one signing the Treaty in with the English or Maori versions could see coming some 135 years later [1975], through till the present, and, no doubt beyond today, that having the Treaty in two versions would be highly controversial!

Also on that day, I assume that what the signers assumed was that the Treaty would be a document acknowledged appropriately as European settlement of Aotearoa developed through the decades ahead. Not so. Fairly quickly the Treaty was ignored. Its relevance to the settlement of our country died away as the document settled into a comfortable (for the settlers and their political leaders) existence in the bottom of the bottom drawer of the Premier's desk!

At the lowest point in the general fortunes of Maori (when illness decimated numbers of Maori in the late 19th century), no one foresaw the reviving of the relevance of the Treaty in 1975, let alone the revival of the number of Maori in our society (so that the general reckoning now is that 1 million of 5 million NZers identify as Maori).

And that initial reviving of the fortunes of the Treaty as a foundation document of our nation, through the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, was not in 1975 a predictor of how as a society, including churches, educational institutions, local and central government, and departments of such governments, we would develop principles of the Treaty to guide us in giving effect to the Treaty. Or, more simply, that we would make actual big strides as a bicultural nation. We are far from becoming what the Treaty envisaged we might be; but we have moved on a long way from days when Maori were refused entry to some pubs and public facilities, and when we would go along with South African requests not to bring "coloured" players on All Black tours to that country. 

We do, of course, see that in 2040 we have opportunity to celebrate 200 years of the Treaty. Sixteen years to make further progress? Sixteen years to wind back the clock (per current machinations by the ACT Party)? While I am committed to not winding the clock of history backwards, I am not going to make a prediction about where we will be in 2040. (I would be 80 by then, so I am not even predicting I will be alive to ruminate on the state of Aotearoa New Zealand in that year!!)

Although last week's ADU post was not directly about the Treaty, a long string of comments were about the Treaty and related matters of relationship between Maori and Pakeha. The following are some ruminations on such matters (but not intended to be a point by point response to points made in the thread of comments).

There is no definitive understanding of the Treaty, there may never be, but there is a definitive state of affairs, namely, the present situation we face as a nation, as a society, as a series of community and whanau networks, and we have a choice to face the present with the Treaty informing us and influencing us, or to sideline it, to put it back into the bottom of the bottom drawer of the Prime Minister's desk. Like many - I suggest most - Kiwis, I think it better to keep on working out the meaning of the Treaty for life today, than to give up, to seek some other basis for how we honour and respect one another as the mix of indigenous and non-indigenous people that we are.

Nevertheless, even if there is no single definitive understanding of the Treaty, there are claims as understandings which are at best unhelpful and at worst injurious to our moving forward as a nation to a better state of affairs than we currently experience.

One such claim is the notion that the Treaty makes us all "equal" with the consequence that there should be no special advantage to Maori as measured by, say, some medical treatments being available to Maori ahead of Pakeha, or some other forms of material assistance in life. This is an odd claim to make when on a bunch of significant statistics, from prison population to academic achievement to life expectancy, it is very clear that in the warp and woof of life and how it unfolds for each NZer, Maori are not treated equally. Perhaps when we are statistically equal we could propose that everyone, irrespective of racial/cultural identity, is treated "equally." In the meantime we have a long way to go and we are only just beginning to understand the effects of colonization on Maori - let alone how those effects might be undone.

Another claim being advanced today is that the Treaty amounts to nothing more than property rights: I as a Pakeha have rights as to how I use and what I do on my suburban city property; a Maori (individual, whanau, hapu, iwi) also have property rights for lands and waterways to which there is clear title. But - the kicker - that is all: stay out of attempts to co-govern, say, the quality of water in the rivers of Canterbury; do not aspire to have specific Maori representation on city and district councils; and so forth. There is a lot to discuss about the meaning of the Treaty, and we may never settle on one single, agreed definition of what the Treaty means for each nook and cranny of these islands, but there is agreement by most scholars - historians, legal boffins - that the Treaty is not reducible to property rights. We need - I suggest - an approach to the Treaty which respects and assists Maori seeking to be Maori.

On Saturday I was at a bicultural event in one of the pa of the Canterbury district. A Maori leader made the simple point about this particular place (calling it a "reservation" - reserved from being for sale to settlors): It has allowed Maori to be Maori. How might our approach to understanding and applying the Treaty do this across our nation?

There are lots of questions to ask, discuss and find answers to. There are and will be proposals that need testing. For instance, also over the weekend, I saw a social media post along these lines: In institution X, a law professor teaches that there are and always have been two legal systems, Maori and Pakeha; this is a bad thing because there must be one law for all, and only one law for all. This sounds like something that needs testing: there can be two legal systems within one nation (the church has canons!!!!!!!), but can there be two wholly parallel systems without one system being available to appeal to when within either system a matter needs a final arbitration? (Even the church operates within its constitution and canons on the basis that potentially an appeal can be made to the secular legal system.)

Similarly, as we discuss concepts of sovereignty/rangitiratanga/kawanatanga, can we find a way to a single parliament within which are two houses, Maori and Pakeha, with all important decisions being agreed by both houses? The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has something to offer on this possibility.

Yesterday I spoke at a service on Micah 6:6-8, the threefold summary (in my view) of all the teaching in the OT: do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with your God.

At the heart of all debates on the Treaty, can we Christians engaging in the quest for the meaning and application of the Treaty today press for justice to be done and kindness to be shown? To do otherwise is incompatible with walking humbly with our God, is it not?

Might we be open to futures we cannot yet see which fulfil intentions in the Treaty and requirements of Scripture?

Postscript: a different topic

Also in the thread of comments to last week's post, this comment was made:

"People don’t go to Church anymore because they simply do not believe in the supernatural - outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. People need to be taught the deeper meanings within scripture if any form of Christianity is to survive. Science has beaten back the grey haired man in the sky that parts seas and raises the dead."

No doubt this is so for many people, even though I hardly ever hear people frankly express such explanation for non-involvement in church. People are polite!

Yes, there is "deeper meaning" within Scripture to find and to expound. John himself ensures this is so when he takes the kinds of miracles we now apparently object to (Feeding the 5000, Walking on Water, 6:1-21) and makes them the occasion for Jesus to offer "deeper meaning" about himself as the bread from heaven.

But may we so deftly set aside all testimonies to the supernatural within Scripture, whether Parting the Red Sea or Walking on Water, Healing the Sick or Raising the Dead?

On the one side of this question is the fact that "something(s) happened" which in OT times fuelled Israel's conviction that the "god" of Israel was like no other "gods" and in NT times fuelled Christian conviction that Jesus was more than another itinerant rabbi. Miracles, supernatural acts, call them what you will, were critical to the case advanced, whether in preaching the gospel to Jews or to Gentiles, that God's acts of power in and through Jesus, and supremely in raising him from the dead underscored the claim that Jesus was both son of David and son of God.

On the other side of this question is the result of "deeper meaning" as we engage with Scripture: that God is Being (not just a Supreme Being, or the Supreme Being), the very life and power of the universe able to work within the universe to do marvellous things. The distinction between "nature" and "supernature" can be argued to fade away when we dig deep into the meaning of God as Being itself.

And then, perhaps as a third side of this question, is the matter of many Christians' own testimonies: that the Jesus we have met and who has met us, is precisely the powerful Son of God as well as the vulnerable, mocked, humiliated, executed son of Mary.

A is for Apokatastasis - you knew that!

Quite a bit is going on in my world. Yes, everyone kindly asks me about how I am in the midst of the newest chapter in the story of our Cathedral's Reinstatement (title of the current chapter, "How the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Hit A Large Block On the Way to Completion aka Lack of Funds Underlined By the NZ Government Saying No"). See here for latest Press article and there will be more media interest this Tuesday. But this is a hugely interesting time to be alive, as a citizen of the world and as a theologically-interested citizen of heaven.

For instance, in a world falling apart with climate change, wars and threats of war, economic challenges, Mpox runs around the world, socio-political tensions in some societies and disruption as political winds change - including Aotearoa New Zealand - "from left to right" and "right to left," where are we heading according to the divine plan for the universe? Creation sure is groaning (Romans 8), anti-God forces prevail in too many dicatorships and, some say, in democracies too (Revelation), injustice abounds (Amos), and, in contrast to the sunny gospel-optimism of Acts (the gospel spreads further and further despite setbacks here and there), the gospel is on retreat in parts of the world which not so long ago could glorify in the description "Christendom."

Yet, God's plan, Ephesians 1:10, is for the union of all things in Christ. The 21st century cynic might say, "So, how's that going?" A 21st century Christian might, picking up words from Sunday's epistle, cry to God, "How can we live carefully, making the most of the opportunities of this time, not as wunwise people but as wise?" (riffing on Ephesians 5:15-16).

Such a search for wisdom could take us to X/Twitter, where we find a continuing debate (among many unedifying debates!! And that's just talking about the Christian ones ... :),) about "DBH" or David Bentley Hart, doyen of current Orthodox theologians. In turn, reading there opened up for me a lovely, long (you deserve fair warning) essay by Fr Aidan Kimel on a specific aspect of ancient debate about the union of all things: vitriol over Origen and his reputed errors, including that relating to aspects of the union of everything and everyone in Christ. As Fr Kimel opens up for his readers there was a lot going on in the centuries after Origen did his voluminous theological work.

Fr Aidan Kimel's fascinating exploration of ancient opposition to Origen (my ancient theologian of special interest currently) is found in an article entitled, "Apokatastasis, Origenism, Fifth Ecumenical Council - with a Dash of Theophilus."

It begins with this citation from St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"By uniting us to himself, Christ is our unity; and having become one body with us through all things, he looks after us all. Subjection to God is our chief good when all creation resounds as one voice, when everything in heaven, on earth and under the earth bends the knee to him, and when every tongue will confess that has become one body and is joined in Christ through obedience to one another, he will bring into subjection his own body to the Father.

St Gregory of Nyssa

“The Father of Fathers”"

If this was all apokatastasis refers to, then no particular problems, but apokastasis tends to refer to a specific understanding that this union of all things includes the union of all (or ALL) sinful beings, i.e. universal salvation. Thus Wikipedia:

"In theology, apokatastasis (Greek: ἀποκατάστασις, /æpoʊkəˈtæstəsɪs/, also spelled apocatastasis) is the restoration of creation to a condition of perfection.^[1][2] In Christianity, the term refers to a form of Christian universalism, often associated with Origen, that includes the ultimate salvation of everyone—including the damned and the Devil.^[3][4][5] The New Testament (Acts 3:21) speaks of the "apokatastasis of all things," although this passage is not usually understood to teach universal salvation.^[6] The dogmatic status of apokatastasis is disputed,^[7] and some orthodox fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa taught apokatastasis and were never condemned.^[8]"

Gregory of Nyssa, like some All Blacks scoring their tries on Saturday night, glides his way past potential opposition. Origen not so much. As Fr Kimel points out, there was a very complicated political calculus going on in the ancient opposition to Origen. Try this for a flavour:

"Theophilus’ quick acceptance of the mob’s demand to denounce the writings of Origen raises questions. Did he have a St Paul conversion moment?—not likely, though cowardly duplicity cannot be totally dismissed. Did he always strongly object to Origen and is only now, under the threat of violence, revealing his true colors?—probably not. Theophilus would resume his opposition to anthropomorphism just a few years later. Or is he shrewdly exploiting the crowd’s disdain for Origen to advance his own ecclesial and political agendas?—ding! ding! ding! Now that sounds like the Theophilus we have all come to know and love.

So why was this moment the catalyst for Theophilus’ sudden and intense campaign against Origen? Because, Russell suggests, the leaders of the pro-Origen faction (specifically the Four Tall Brothers, as well as a priest and former confidant of Theophilus named Isidore) had become painful pebbles in the patriarch’s sandals. He shrewdly saw that by methodically attacking the orthodoxy of Origen, he might well strengthen his position in Nitria, effect the departure of Origenists from Egypt, and establish within the monastic communities a theological orthodoxy free from the influence of Origen and Evagrius Ponticus."

Anyway, just to be clear: this post is not arguing for or against universal salvation (it is not something finally settled in my mind). But it is arguing for us humans, especially us Christian humans, to work for the unity of all things, rather than for the disunity of many things.

On the way to a better Christian political outlook, I like this review by Stephen Driscoll on John Sandeman's The Other Cheek of Sydney theologian Rev. Dr. Michael Jensen's latest book, Subjects and Citizens The Politics of the Gospel: Lessons from Romans 12–15. The review is much shorter than Fr Kimel's article!

Finally, for now, looking at disunity in society, and hoping for unity, especially here in Aotearoa New Zealand, Damien Grant has some pertinent things to say about our tortured present re Maori-Pakeha relationships, under the gaze of the Treaty of Waitangi, the torture deepened by the Act Party's attempt to define "principles" of the Treaty.

I like the note he strikes in his concluding paragraph - there is one enduring principle we could perhaps all agree on:

"The enduring principle that we should take from 1840 was the willingness of both parties to seek creative and enduring solutions to what looked to be intractable difficulties. That required courage, wisdom, and a determined focus on what could be rather than an obsessive focus on past grievances."

Postscript: if none of the above draws you into reading and reflection, then try this interesting piece on the limitations of marriage metaphors in Scripture, by Kate Keefe. Not sure that I agree with her - metaphors invite us to think about the meaning of things (in this case our relationship as Christians, as church with God, with Christ) as much as they prompt us to think about the limitations of particular metaphors. 

Back to translations: more to NRSVUE than I thought

 "You be the judge!"

A few posts ago I engaged with a question or two re modern translations - plethora thereof - and upgrades of.

Today I note a post from the wonderful ETC blog - Evangelical Textual Criticism - on the NRSVUE - NRSV Update Edition.

I had thought the NRSVUE was the NRSVUE taken in an even more inclusive direction re language.

There is more going on, as Peter Gurry in this post makes clear.

Excerpt:

"In light of the emphasis on textual criticism, I wondered what changes I could find. This is just from my spot-checking, mind you. I haven’t found a list of changes anywhere yet.

• Matt. 19.9: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The longer reading was in the footnote before along with the reading of B and some others. I’m guessing this change is due to Holmes’s influence given his 1990 JBL article on the subject which you should all read and heed.
• Mark 1.1: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.” To which I can only say, booooo! (The right reading is in the footnote and at least they got Mark 1.41 right.)

"

But is this enough to buy a copy when one has (as I have) some five or six copies of the NRSV?

 "You be the judge!"

What on earth is going on in the CofE and is it an expression of God's will in heaven?

With all the usual caveats about commenting on the affairs of another church (my own church is hardly perfect, what do I know when looking from a distance, that sort of thing) I wonder if some comment is in order about developments in the CofE right now. The reasonable concern from a Down Under perspective being that the CofE is just a tad more important than any other province to the Communion as a whole because the ABC is the Primate of All England AND the Primus Inter Pares among the bishops of the Communion. If England goes ...

This is my potted version of developments:

In recent years the CofE has been discussing and determining that prayers might be offered for same sex partnerships. Arguments back and forth in meetings of the General Synod. Ups and downs re people appointed or resigning from roles in the considered and considerable process of formalising the aforementioned prayers. Statements made by various bodies including conservative evangelical bodies which are both distinct from one another and interconnected which represent a kind of jockeying for position (many would say "power") in whatever may happen as convulsions in the CofE variously look like internal restructuring underway or schism fermenting or something else.

So in recent days a particular development has been not one but two "commissioning services", one in All Souls Langham Place and the other in St Helens Bishopgate (on any reckoning, flagships of the English evangelical fleet), for "overseers" (quasi-bishops, many do think) and seven men to lead, teach, and preside at breaking of bread services which are vowed and declared not to be eucharists, with a further commissioning a year from now (quasi-deacons become quasi-priests, many do think.) (Read more here and then here.)

A formal response from the Diocese of London - issued after some days rather than immediately, so presumably with aforethought and canon lawyer consultation behind and within its words - is here. It has the feel of "nothing much to see here" but that is not what one commentator thinks, the redoubtable Angela Tilby, who writes in the Church Times:

"IN CASE of any doubt, it can now be assumed that the C of E really is in a state of schism. After the commissioning service at All Souls’, Langham Place, on 12 July (Comment, 19 July), a second service took place last week at St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, attended by representatives of the Alliance network, which includes New Wine and Holy Trinity, Brompton."

She goes onto argue that Puritanism has reappeared in the CofE:

"The claim to represent the true voice of the C of E in countering doctrinal infidelity is nothing new. It is the voice of the angry Puritanism that has been channelled down from the Reformation, when it was mostly directed at those who were not thought sufficiently anti-Catholic. It is also the contempt of those who habitually mocked liturgy, bishops, and vestments during the reign of Elizabeth I. It is the rage of the Roundheads in the Civil War, and the bitter disappointment of those ejected from their livings with the return of the Prayer Book in 1662."

From one side of the matters unfolding, Colin Coward is clear and convicted.

From another side of the matters unfolding, Martin Davie races ahead to the possibility of a Third Province (after Canterbury and York) being formed. That is, although Martin does not specifically discuss current manoeuvres, to the extent that they are the advancing a new structure of authority within the CofE, then they may in the future be seen as de facto steps in establishing such a province.

From a Communion perspective, perhaps establishing a "Third Province" would settle those voices within the Global South (though possibly not within Gafcon) who are concerned about where the CofE is heading over same-sex partnerships. A significant development which provided an ecclesial structure for those whose views align with the views of Global South/Gafcon could mean that Global South voices (if not also Gafcon) would need a nuanced approach to the CofE because the CofE could not be dismissed as a faithless, unorthodox church. Instead it would need to be treated as a church in which room had been found for all sides on these matters to remain in one entity. I use "entity" deliberately: it would be interesting to see if a Third Province meant it was in communion with the other two provinces or not.

Therein, of course, lies an ecclesiological rub: would the CofE remain a "church" (an expression of the body of Christ) if it had three provinces, only two of which were in communion with each other? Other questions arise, such as whether a "church" is a church when it divides internally/structurally on theological grounds? Or, is it two churches talking as though they are one for the sake of property, assets and civil law, but not one for the sake of Christ?

My own desire is that we would focus less on describing "the other" as "homophobic" or as "faithless, unorthodox" and more on what it might mean to be "in Christ" but not agreed on a matter. Everyone arguing the various positions, in the CofE, in the Communion, is a follower of Christ. That we do not agree on a matter does not make one side some set of bad Christians or sub Christians or whatever disapproving term we wish to use to justify talk of Third Provinces, schism and so forth.

God's will in heaven is for unity in the church on earth because our heavenly future starts now and not at the End.