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.
34 comments:
Christ is already the unity of everything (John 1:1-5) - sometimes the only thing we have in common. And then the world we live in does not even begin to look like the reign of God as described by Jesus.
In the huge gap between the two, I guess, Christ suffers.
It is not just that politics is going "from left to right" and 'right to left', but that left is becoming right and right is becoming left. I am old enough to remember when the watchwords of the left were personal freedom, opposition to censorship, and hostility to war as an instrument of public policy. Those were the culture wars of the 70s, which focused on sexual freedom, abortion, pornography, drugs and Vietnam. Eventually the left triumphed, the birthrate collapsed, house prices soared, and a massive new cycle of immigration began as old patterns of employment ended and information became the new economy.
Today, with the cultural left regnant (through the appropriation of identity politics) in the west, it is the right that speaks up for free speech and other personal freedoms and the use of war to advance politics (in Ukraine) and the left that supports ever greater state control over speech and movement, and the monitoring of how citizens live. A very strange inversion.that will not end well - as the British Government's draconian response to the recent riots there forebodes,
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
The notion of 'isonomia' (equality of political rights) was enunciated in the 6th century BC by Cleisthenes, 1800 years before any human being set foot on the Notth Island, and became the foundation of Athenian democracy. Eventually the notion took hold in the west that all citizens have a fundamental equality before the law, which takes precedence before an individual's religious beliefs, ancestry or DNA. This is good news in a political economy where an individual has the wherewithal to achieve personal and economic success, and nobody really cares who your parents were, much less your great-great grandparents.
This is why able and hardworking Chinese and Indian immigrants to New Zealand have a good chance of success (but a lot more in Australia), provided no legal obstacles are put in their way towards succeeding in education and employment (such as Malaysia tries to do with its ethnic minorities).
Who is a Maori? Winston Peters is, so is David Seymour, and John Tamihere. Why does a person's remote ancestry give him or her more or fewer rights than another citizen? I recall my amazement when a university friend told me she had a Maori education scholarship. How did you get that?, I asked. "Because I'm one sixteenth Maori." Now she has a grandchild who is half-Korean and one sixty-fourth Maori. Nana is checking out to see if that scholarship is still available ...
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William! back in the day there were some special things as you describe. I remember my dad talking about a christian couple we knew who were able to get special terms on their mortgage due to a similarly low connection in % terms. However, the lady's father treasured an occasional illegal native pigeon for kai! and their girls happily participated in the school's Maori culture group. The connections were there. I'm not peeved at people being able to *legally* access something that gives them a little boost in their life journey. Other people may also get a helping hand due to being a particularly promising student, coping with disability, their sports ability, or having wealthy parents. For various reasons some people are more likely to get a helping hand than others, and my perspective is that it's a good thing to try and balance things out a bit, and widen access to opportunity. This is *good* for our community in the long run!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"left is becoming right and right is becoming left"
So this is from Judge J. Michael Luttig who famously advised Mike Pence prior to J6, and has decided to endorse Harris - it'll be his first ever Dem vote!
"The first thing all of us are taught is right from wrong. We're not taught right from left"
Source: CNN article (quote is from in the video at the top)
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/19/politics/conservative-republican-endorses-harris-calls-trump-a-threat-to-democracy
Kind regards ~Liz
Liz, you have just made my point that laws that give some people more or fewer rights based on who their great-grandparents were are fundamentally racist and aristocratic. Equality under the law means equal protection and treatment, and equal access to the goods of government, regardless of your ancestry. No individual or group owns the nation's rivers, foreshore or seabed. These resources belong to the Crown as the embodiment of all the citizenry.
Of course, actual equality will never be realised because brains, diligence, health and morals aare not distributed equally. The Pareto Principle hold that in any organisation or agglomeration of people, 50% of the wealth or productivity is generated by the square root of the members of that group. This means that in New Zealand about 22 000 people generate half the national wealth, and there are similar ratios of productivity in academia, medicine etc.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
William, people have certain rights dependent on ancestry but I don't agree this is racist. Maori have rights in accordance with The Treaty and from Treaty Negotiations necessary because the Crown failed to honour Treaty rights.
"...and what we agreed in 1840 was that certain Taonga or treasures would be protected in relation to land and forestry and so on, and the tragedy of this country is that those agreements were not honoured" (Chris Finlayson, March 2024).
Maori-Pakeha relationship's improved enormously since I was a child; it's really encouraging how much progress has been made since then, through finding or negotiating a way forward together.
"Other countries have problems but we've got a project, and we've got a really exciting project, and without being, sort of, some kind of misguided optimist, I think we can be very confident about the future of our country.. (Chris Finlayson from the same interview).
I sincerely hope we remain committed to working together positively and in partnership.
Liz, there are only three articles in the Treaty of Waitangi.
1. The Chiefs of the United Tribes cede total sovereignty to the Queen of England.
2. The Queen of England guarantees the tribes' possession of their lands, forests and fisheries unless they decide to sell them to the Crown.
3. The Queen of England extends her protection to all the inhabitants of New Zealand.
That's all it said. It's not a constitution or basic law, it has no "principles". Where Mori lands
Only 39 Chiefs signed the English version (out of 540 signers). The others signed the version written in Maori.
Te Tiriti is open to dispute and discussion of course, but my understanding is that it was an attempt by believers, (in the Colonial Office and the missionaries), to bring about a partnership between the two parties, in order to protect the Māori from settler unlawful behaviour. It was seen as a covenant in Biblical terms, and the wording in te reo (the one most chiefs signed), was the best they could manage at the time.
We need to see it as a blessing to be worked with, not as an object for dispute.
Law is not from nowhere - and certainly not purely from God. It arises from a particular human culture and society. This isn't a bad thing, but all cultures create things in their own image - including law. To argue all should be equal before "the law" is not a bad thing, but already it skews things in favour of the cultural values inherent in that "law". "Indigenous rights", acknowledmemt of Māori "social goods" ("taonga) and "sovereignty" ("rangatiratanga") under the Treaty of Waitangi are imperfect, culturally fraught, pragmatically necessary ways of achieving justice for an ingenous cultural group that have been manifestly worse off and oppressed by another people.
Jesus makes little mention of indigenous rights and equality before the law, but is very concerned with justice and liberation for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). It is very hard to argue, as Judith Collins and David Seymour has attempted to from time to time, and as Trump supporters regularly feel, that white people are generally oppressed in this world.
William is quoting the worst examples of affirmative action while ignoring the important cultural improvements that have been made (modest though they are), and are in danger of being lost under this present unholy alliance/coalition.
I found an interesting article on sovereignty by Jack Vowles of Victoria University:
https://theconversation.com/the-idea-of-sovereignty-is-central-to-the-treaty-debate-why-is-it-so-hard-to-define-220201
I found it very helpful.
He’s been organising Waitangi Day services for more than 20 years...
From my bookmarks.. a Stuff article (Jan 2023) in which the Rt Rev Te Kitohi Pikaahu, Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau shared his perspective - very enjoyablle read with an emphasis on hope. Two paragraphs...
Pikaahu says much of the language in Te Tiriti not only aligned with Christian values, but “universal human values” which everyone was on board with.
“I think those who composed the Treaty had a wonderful vision in mind of equality, of fairness.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/130834976/why-is-the-anglican-faith-the-dominant-religion-at-waitangi
Beautiful, Moya. That, in a nutshell, is Alistair Rees' argument is He Tatau Pounamu - the Treaty as a Covenant of Reconciliation..
https://www.venn.org.nz/events-courses/he-tatau-pounamu/
Awesome references, thanks Moya and Mark!
Following up on Alistair Reese, I found an article by him in E-Tangata
Restoring the mana of the Treaty (02-Apr-23). Interesting.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/restoring-the-mana-of-the-treaty/
There may be a little bit of historical amnesia as well as some creative "re-imagining" of the past (= fiction) going on. First, there was no "nation" of New Zealand in February 1840. Instead, there were many Maori tribes and sub-units with the same language and East Polynesian cultural customs and beliefs but certainly no political or territorial unity. Quite the reverse: for over twenty years the tribes had been engaged in the internecine Musket Wars which probably killed about 30,000 people (by far the worst bloodshed in New Zealand history), the enslavement of many thousands, and the conquest of one tribe's land by another, throughout New Zealand and the Chatham Islands. The Treaty of Waitangi actually created New Zealand as a political entity, and put an end to the Musket Wars and the intertribal slavery. Imagine that: the British Empire actually stopped slavery! - which it did throughout the world in the Victorian era. (Of course, the Treaty also saw off French ambitions in that part of the Pacific. Looking at New Caledonia, who cannot be glad about that?) The average lifespan of Maori increased from about 30 to 45, and there were other significant health improvements (as we know from examining pre-colonial Maori skeletons). Of course there were downsides, but all life is a trade-off, especially in times of rapid cultural and social change. None of this would have been possible, of course, without the heroic work and sacrifice of British missionaries. Talk about an anarthrous "Maori" as if the tribes of the islands constituted a social and political unity prior to 1840 is historical nonsense. There was a shared culture and language but no sense that all the tribes constituted "one people"; how can there be that, when there is constant warfare and enslavement of the other tribe? The notion of "Maoriness" is really a late Victorian way of thinking, reflected in the developing discipline then of cultural anthropology (when Hegelianism prevailed in Anglo-American academia).
Second, as I said above, the Treaty was in no sense a constitution or a "covenant", but a brief three clause accession to British sovereignty by the chiefs of many (not all) of the tribes of the North Island. It has no "principles " (like the US Constitution) and makes no reference to "social goods" or other abstract ideas: it is about protecting tribal property rights over lands, forests and fisheries, giving the Crown first option to buy, and extending Crown protection ( = British law and forces) over the islands. It's much more like a business contract than anything else, and all done very peacefully.
Third, equality before the law is not just "not a bad thing" (Mark, above), it is a positively *good thing! It is the veritable foundation of *any concept of a just society, and protects each of us from the whims and caprices of any powerful person, whether King or rangatira. Nobody should dismiss it lightly, unless he prefers life in China or North Korea.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
The article by Alistair Reese led me to another by Ned Fletcher, historian and lawyer, which is super-interesting, especially the insight into how "sovereignty" was understood by the British back then, and also their aspirations for the Treaty.
The article discusses various things we've (all) mentioned in this thread, a perspective that may help reconcile our differences, and offers fresh insights.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/ned-fletcher-theres-no-clash-between-te-tiriti-and-the-treaty/
We seem to have reached, rather quickly, a polarized place in our conversation, where further talk is unlikely to change each side. Apokatastasis be damned!
Changing tack slightly: I attended a Quaker workshop last night where I argued, at one point, that the greatest Christian mystics made space (from beliefs, texts, words, thoughts) for divine encounter (which the Quaker way, at its best, prioritizes), but *also* participated in the textual, intellectual, and liturgical elements of their tradition. That there is a creative tension between word (as text or song) and silent presence, between the letter and the spirit, and perhaps modern Quakers are at risk of losing that tension and going floppy. Early Quakers were soaked in the bible *and* put it aside for direct, transformative experience - and for an experience that imparted *new* information/revelation (though that was always subject to *discernment* in terms of community conversation and normative texts - most 'weighty Friends' understood the dangers of Montanism). Thank goodness for that - for Quakers have done much *new* good things in the world, that many other churches weren't doing (antislavery, prison reform, religious freedom, sexual freedom, war relief, peace activism) through this method.
I think the article Peter points us to at the end of his post - Kate Keefe on marriage metaphors - points us to another danger. Not just the use of scripture in dehistoricized ways - e.g. assuming the Bible teaches one thing on marriage and that is a marriage that looks like romantic liberal notions or romantic Betty Crocker notions. But that the Bible's words and images get (idolatrously) divinized, projected onto the heavens, and we lose the sense of *the flow of divine encounter through time* ("continuing revelation", Spirit showing us new things). That Paul's writings on Christ are - in principle - no better than Peter, Paul or Mary's, although they are very important because they were so historically close to the life of Jesus, and show us this great wrestling with how a Jewish religious experience becomes more like the universal "Christian" faith we have now. That the Bible is a book of testimonies showing people's encounters with the eternal God, rather than a book of timeless doctrines - it shows us our own predicament in this. That Christ is speaking now, and in new ways - because we are new and he makes all things new - and if he isn't, Apokatastasis is off the menu.
"....as I said above, the Treaty was in no sense a constitution or a "covenant", but a brief three clause accession to British sovereignty by the chiefs..."
Christian politicians in England (largely evangelical Quakers and Anglicans) lobbied the colonial office for a treaty with the Māori, the British monarchy held a deeply Christian/ benevolent (if paternalistic) view on how indigenous peoples should be treated, Christian missionaries were central in drafting a treaty and making it understandable to Māori. Crucially, because they were often trusted, and used a Christian theological language that some key Māori by this stage shared (speaking of the treaty as a "covenant" and an "act of love"), Christian missionaries were critical in convincing Māori to sign the Treaty. Thus Alistair Rees' talks of the Church as a witness to the covenant at Waitangi, in a similar way as a witness to a marriage.
But now we have a broken marriage where many, such as expressed in the above quote, even dispute a marriage even occured! In such circumstances, the offended party would be well within their rights to file for divorce.
It has no "principles" ...
Ned Fletcher: It seems to me that part of the reason why we’ve gone with the idea of having “principles of the Treaty” or reverting to notions of partnership in our law and our politics is possibly because, for so long, we’ve seen the texts as saying different things. Notions of “principles” and “partnership” are techniques to get around that.
"The Māori text simply makes more explicit what was already implicit in the English text and well understood on the British side — that Māori self-government (rangatiratanga) can co-exist with Crown sovereignty (kāwanatanga)." ~Ned Fletcher
https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/ned-fletcher-theres-no-clash-between-te-tiriti-and-the-treaty/
[this article is so worth a read!]
Fleshing out Moya's post (21 Aug 11:26) a little bit, because I'm interested in the Christian influence at the British end, at the Colonial Office:
"In Fletcher’s analysis, the key figure in the genesis of the Treaty project was Sir James Stephen...
"He was a nephew of William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery politician, and the brother-in-law of Henry Venn, the secretary of the Church Missionary Society, on whose committee he served for years. Stephen was also a protégé of the Clapham Community, an evangelical humanitarian group responsible for much of the social reform in 19th-century England.
"Stephen’s New Zealand policy was guided by his faith convictions and his experience in the colonies of Sierra Leone and the Caribbean, locations where he implemented radical new policies for the British Colonial Office. At the risk of oversimplifying his influence, it is accurate to suggest that Stephen’s Treaty formulation, including the concept of limited sovereignty, was influenced by his humanitarian outlook and pragmatic approach to colonialism which insisted on retaining an indigenous autonomy. ~Alistair Reese (re Ned Fletcher's research)
https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/restoring-the-mana-of-the-treaty/
Hi Liz,
Many moons ago I did an M.A. thesis on "the Aborigines Protection Society", which were the "humanitarian" lobby group in London that lobbied for ethical policy towards indigenous peoples in the British Empire, and in particular for a treaty with Māori in NZ (rather than, say, what happened in Australia - sovereignty through conquest or terra nullius).
A treaty is a recognition, in international law, that one is dealing with an equal legal entity to a nation-state, and needs to be treated accordingly.
Secular NZ history had treated the Aboriginal Protection Society as "humanitarians" and, I argued, lost sight of the fact that they were deeply religious, and held a deeply religious vision for their work. They were the inheritors of Wilberforce and the antislavery tradition. The Aborigines Protection Society included many evangelical Anglicans, and, to my surprise at the time, Quakers (I am connected to Quaker spirituality now, and attend a local Quaker Meeting from time to time, but not back then). Two religious ideas were especially important for the APS: a theology and politics of "atonement", and the "peaceable kingdom" of Pennsylvania where William Penn (an early Quaker) had founded an "enlightened" colony based on a treaty with local Native American tribes.
There is indeed a Christian historical path that leads to Waitangi.
Interesting, Mark.. thank you. Any chance you can say a wee bit more about "atonement" in this context? You're probably flat-out busy but.. just something brief to clue me in would be great!
Of course missionaries and other Christians were driving forces behind the Treaty: Christian ideals pervaded Victorian government, both in foreign and colonial policy and domestically. The British government vigorously fought slavery, through the Royal Navy and the mission of David Livingstone, as well as ensuring the abolition of slavery in New Zealand; while at home, the development of the Metropolitan Police, the Civil Service and the National Schools often stipulated Christian character and ideals among those who were to work in these institutions. But Mark's comment misses these points:
1. There was no treaty between the Queen of England and "New Zealand' or Niu Tireni because no such nation as a "legal entity" existed. Rather there were hundreds of local tribes, all self-governing and frequently at war with their neighbours. Each chief signed on behalf of his local tribe. The concept of "Maori identity" is a late Victorian one, only made possible by the colonial era. The sheer size of the New Zealand islands, the dispersion of the tribes and the very late date of their human settlement (13th century) meant that no central government or nationhood had yet evolved when the British arrived.
2. The Treaty has no "principles" because it was not a constitution or anything remotely comparable to one; it was quite simply a freely accepted accession to British government and the promise in return of protection under law of Her Majesty's new subjects. It was never the basis of any subsequent laws.
3. Of course British evangelical missionaries and other Christians were driving forces behind the Treaty. Their goals were to stop the horrors of the Musket Wars that killed 30,000 Maori and enslaved countless others; to stop the exploitation by the white sealers and whalers; and to stop the French establishing a large colony in this corner of the South Pacific east of New South Wales, as they were doing further north. The Treaty was driven by a combination of religious idealism and pragmatic Realpolitik in the generation after the Napoleonic Wars, when France was still a politically tumultuous country.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
"Atonement" referring to both the central evangelical doctrine for understanding the meaning of Jesus' life and death - Christ's death atoning (in the sense of satisfaction and penal substitutionary theories) for the sins of humanity, and also a politics of wanting to atone (by progressive moral action) for the grave ills of the British Empire - i.e. slavery, alcohol, violence etc. One of the early justifications for British intervention in NZ was to protect Māori from lawless and immoral British settlers.
Nobody in the 1830s talked about 'the grave ills of the British Empire' - or even 'the British Empire' (it was Disraeli who came up with that title). Britain after all had just abolished slavery in its realms in 1833 and would go on to spend vast amounts of taxation in physically stopping the Atlantic trade (through the Royal Navy), then stopping the Arab slavers in central Africa and the Indian Ocean (David Livingstone et al). Nigel Biggar's historical study 'Colonialism' is required reading in this amnesiac age, and he comes to a pretty balanced assessment. Don't forget these four historical facts (though all of us want to view the past through our own ideological spectacles):
1. Britain was already planning to extend sovereignty over New Zealand through Letters Patent in 1839, extending control from NSW, and settlement plans from England were already underway.
2. The French were on their way in 1839, intending to establish a colony in Akaroa. Many Maori were anti-French, and Britain needed to curtail French designs in the region.
3. About half of Maori were already (at least nominally) Christian by 1840, thousands had learned to read through missionaries and the New Testament in Maori had already been published. Christian influence was leading to the end of slavery among many Maori tribes. Support for a Treaty was strongest among the Christian chiefs.
4. The Musket Wars (and their unscrupulous enablers) could only be stopped by the imposition of British rule. Utu is a bad thing made worse when assisted by modern firepower.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I'm going to stop talking about the treaty here, William. Partly because you don't even seem to believe it exists. I believe the views you are supporting here are racist - subtly and not so subtly - holding out Western standards (of law, "civilization etc) as superior; selectively representing the worst of Māori history and the best, if one can say that, of British colonialism. No much point in continuing this for these reasons.
I'm fascinated how the Treaty was presented/received.
Dr Alastair Reese preached at the Waitangi Day dawn service this year.
https://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/news/our_heritage/areese_waitangi24
I've copied some parts from it (3):
“This is Queen Victoria’s act of love to you, she wants to ensure that you keep what is yours, your property, your rights and privileges, and those things that you value.” [Henry Williams to the Chiefs the day before the signing]
Framed by Henry Williams who saw something of the divine hand in the Treaty, it was understood by many as a covenant.
For as the first signatory Hone Heke said,
“It is even as the word of God.”
"Love is the hermeneutical portal for understanding the Treaty, it is the interpretative key. Interpretation without love leads to a distorted vision. It leads to an arid legalism." [Dr Reese]
What a bizarre comment, Mark - I was going to let it pass unremarked upon, but feared silence might be mistaken for agreement. May I counsel you not to attempt mind reading and stick to a person's actual words? That will obviate a host of errors, logical and factual. I must have read through the Treaty thirty or forty times - no big deal, it's very brief - and its meaning is pretty clear to me. I know what some people would *like it to mean - but those ideas are simply not there. If anybody wants a new political order in New Zealand based on racial identity, they are free to advocate for this, and indeed there is already a political party doing exactly this.
What you call "Western standards (of law, civilization etc)" have in fact prevailed over the entire former British Empire, throughout Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific, as well as the so-called "white Commonwealth" of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Have you ever wondered why this disparate range of nations across the globe have all adopted the Westminster form of government (even if the practice has sometimes proved chaotic)? And a system of courts with an independent judiciary, modelled on English common law? And compulsory schooling to 16? Perhaps all these different peoples thought it really was a better and fairer and most peaceable way to run nations? Is there a better model: China, Iran, the Taliban?
One can find good things in all cultures (because we are all made in the image of God) and bad things (because we are all the children of Adam). But one thing is clear: whenever Christianity and literacy become endemic in a pre-litrate traditional culture, there is no going back to pre-modern, traditional ways of living. Why? Because the literate Christians become critics and reformers of their own culture, putting it under the spotlight of the Gospel. Marriage, education and economic patterns are profoundly challenged and disrupted.
That is why I reject the lazy and confused charge of "racism": because I don't think there is a biological basis to culture (actual racists do believe this), other than the fact that more melanin gives you greater tolerance of direct sunlight but can also heighten vitamin D deficiency. Any person of any "race" could belong to any culture (because a culture is a set of beliefs and practices, not genes).
I believe it's essential to be honest about the past: affirm what is good but don't efface disturbing truths in the interests of some contemporary political project. History must not be degraded into propaganda. This is one of the key points of Nigel Biggar's "Colonialism", which he wrote as a historian and a professor of moral theology. (I see he is currently a candidate for Chancellor of Oxford.)
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
You are clearly much more knowledgeable than I am, William, but I do wonder if some of the religious idealism that created and implemented the Treaty is required now? It entails a deep reading of Scripture, plus faith and prayer, to enable us to work with what we have received as far as the Treaty is concerned. If God was involved at the beginning, God needs to be involved in the current situation, I guess. A call to prayer and listening to each other!
"I must have read through the Treaty thirty or forty times..."
cf. "As Justice McKay noted in the Court of Appeal in his 1992 judgment on the Broadcasting case: ‘It is the principles of the Treaty which are to be applied, not the literal words. The English and Māori texts in the first schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations the one of the other, and the differences between the texts and shades of meaning are less important than the spirit’.
Moya, I couldn't agree more. The great tragedy of the present is that too many New Zealanders, Maori and European, are disconnected from Christianity in their daily lives, and lack the regenerative power of the Gospel. If religious commitment lies at the heart of a culture and informs its basic values (for good or ill), what commitments shape NZers today? This is a question that could be asked of anyone in the west today as it shucks off Christianity and our basic religious instincts are directed into the false gods of consumerism and neo-tribalism. And things will be worst for the poor, the chief victims of crime, sickness and economic decline.
Child abuse, domestic violence, school failure, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty and dependency, and gang culture are real evils which can only drag a people down. Less dramatically, smoking and obesity harm our life chances as well. A religious culture that tackles these evils directly is more likely to build strong families, both relationally and economically, and confident and capable young people who succeed in school and careers. Yes, there is no substitute for the love of God in Christ as the central animating force in one's life.
That's what I pray for Luxon, Seymour, the atheist Greens, Te Pati Maori - and myself. As I often say, you cannot have the fruit without the root.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
The trouble is William, which Christianity are you talking about? Is it the Trumpistan version (who wants to be involved with that)or Catholicism, the world biggest abuse factory (who wants to be involved with that) or the thousands of other variations on offer that can’t seem to get their stories straight. 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. Regards, Thomas
Hello All
I have been fascinated by this thread.
I am going to respond (more generally than specifically) in my next post (with a note re Thomas' comment at the end of the post).
Yes, Christianity needs to be embodied and interpreted in fresh, Spirit-led ways - and away from images of violence and patriarchy (the Creator and Redeemer of the Universe as male, God as vengeful) that smother and pevert its core message of love. Yes Christian theology is better when speaking in a more dynamic, practical language (of action and purpose) rather than static and unknowable Greek ideas (essence, being, substance). But I don't think that people now-a-days are as resistant to the 'supernatural' as they once were.
Mark
Post a Comment