I have visited Waitangi twice before - the place that is - but never for 6 February celebrations and commemorations. This year I targeted being at Waitangi for 6 February and was able to be there by 2 pm on Thursday 5 February, in time for a powhiri [formal welcome] for church leaders. Ideally one would be at Waitangi two or three days out from 6 February itself as various meetings and events take place, including a hui [forum] with leading politicians. This year's politicians hui was taking place as I arrived at Waitangi.
On Waitangi Day itself there is a lot going on, from events involving waka (canoes), food stalls, events/meetings focusing on specific themes or issues, a traditional naval parade around the middle of the day with 21 gun salute from a naval vessel moored out in the bay, and generally a fun and festive day with thousands of people. Most importantly, from a spiritual perspective, there is a well attended Dawn Service at 5 am and another service (similar but not exactly the same) at 9 am. I took part in both services (being invited to share in leading prayers in each service) and it was a privilege to do so.
A key figure in the preparation and leading of these services is Bishop Kito Pikaahu, Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau. I was glad to support Bishop Kito this year.
There are many things to be said each Waitangi Day and there is no shortage of news articles and opinion pieces to look up, read and reflect on, with this year being no exception. In what I offer as my reflection here I am attempting to say something I have not seen others say. I see no need to either repeat or to comment on what others have said, especially about the political "temperature" of this year's events, meetings and services.
Is Waitangi a "thin" place?
I am a sucker for natural beauty and ona previous visit to the Waitangi treaty grounds, I was blown away by the immense beauty of the location and its buildings. On any reckoning, it is a place of beauty: land meets sea meets trees meets historica houses. On Friday morning, sitting through two services, as part of wider celebrations of Te Tiriti, I was struck by the "thinness" of the place - a sense that heaven meets earth there as much as land meets sea. Althought it is 186 years since the signing in 1840, it felt like the signing was only last year, and somewhere nearby were the missionaries and chiefs, the Busbys and Hobsons who signed the treaty. Might we call the Waitangi treaty grounds one of NZ's "sacred spaces"? Can we properly deem that on 6 February 1840 a spiritual compact was formed between two peoples, even though the language is focused on more material matters of land, sea and sky, and governship and chieftainship?
Te Tiriti matters, not only as a document but as a cultural pivot
Moving through the remainder of the day, which was literally moving through throngs of many groups of friends and families as (I suppose) more than 10,000 people flocked to Waitangi, Maori and Pakeha, I was struck by the thought of how - notwithstanding many shortfalls and significant work-ons - we happily mingle, Maori and Pakeha, in a cultural, social, relational mixing which flows from 6 February 1840. Our history is different because of 1840. Different from the histories of, say, Australia, Canada, the United States of America, as well as of New Caledonia and Tahiti. Even though we have had long periods of neglect of Te Teriti and continue to have raging controversies over its active meaning for us in present times, nevertheless, Maori and Pakeha relationships have always been on a different footing to relationships in other countries between first peoples and new settlers. We might have been different as a nation but we are not, and that is due to Te Tiriti. Whatever we make of the wording of Te Tiriti, its signing is a pivotal moment in the development of our distinctive Kiwi culture.
Church-state relationships in NZ are ambiguous but the church was "there" when Te Tiriti was signed
Part of Bishop Stephen Lowe's sermon emphasised the role Bishop Pompallier played as one of the religious overseers to the process of Te Tiriti's wording being finalised and signed off. Indeed, if I have my facts correct, it was Pompallier as much as anyone whose influence pushed for the "Article 4" (verbalised but not written into the Treaty) which promised protection for differing religions in NZ. Other missionaries were involved, notably the Williams' brothers from CMS. What might the Treaty have been if the missionaries, Anglican, Catholic and Wesleyan had not been around? Perhaps more importantly, what might the Treaty have been without some specifically evangelical Christian minds at work in the British government and bureaucracy? We have never been a church-state and there is no formally defined state-church, yet our history records the church as being present for and in the background to this pivotal moment. As Christians we can be proud of that presence, and we can and should celebrate God at work on 6 February 1840. We also need to continue to assert the importance and appropriateness of the Dawn Service (and any later services) as vital to celebrations of Te Tiriti as anchored into the historical fact of the missionaries' role.
27 comments:
Thanks for this post, +Peter! It's wonderful to see the photo, and read about your visit and participation ~ngā mihi
We haven't reflected much on article four in our history, have we? Given our history and struggles, it is unsurprising that most of our attention and debate have been on the first three articles.
As someone born in India, I find article four intriguing. Because in India, great mention is made of India being a "secular" state - not at all in the sense of being irreligious or anti-religious (one couldn't possibly, in India, even if you tried very hard). But more in the sense of there being many significant religious communities in India, and for the sake of fairness and peace, no one religion will dominate government. This is a break from the past when India was ruled by Buddhist, "Hindu", and Muslim rulers. Secularism has been under fire for the past two decades or more in India as the Hindu majority - under BJP led governments - flex their muscles and want to render, or recreate, or reapropriate perhaps (in a Machivellian way) India's supposedly glorious Hindu past.
Thoughts now scatter to the coming of toleration England, and how many Quakers -and Catholics - suffered during "Anglican" rule. Quakers and English Catholics don't put much store in the concept of "Anglican moderation". Nevertheless, toleration won out.
Thoughts scatter to the rise of Christian nationalism in the US right now.
But New Zealand, Aotearoa. What is the relevance of article four today, if any?
"The Governor says the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also the Māori custom, shall alike be protected by him."
Oh, and India being ruled by English Christians also.
Two further thoughts:
Is the religious intolerance/bigotry and Cheostian nationalism espousedby Destiny Church a violation of article four?
Is the practice of using katakia to begin and end public meetings, Parliament etc a violation of article four (foisting "Māori custom" onto others), a protection of Māori custom under article four, or...?
I am glad you got to go + Peter, I saw last years dawn service on line and it was incredibly moving.
You open up a cultural can of worms Mark : ) …. It does seem article 4 came largely into more light with discussions prior to the Treaty Principles Bill debate.
I do like the phrase, Te Tangata te Tiriti, the people of the treaty being all who legally reside in New Zealand automatically becoming part of the covenant which is related to article four.
In regards to politics and religion combined in a global context there is no doubt it has repercussions and not all of them pretty as soon as ‘force’ or ‘exclusion’ or ‘persecution’ enter the equation. In regards to culture in general I think it is unfortunate in NZ that in an effort (okay perhaps Destiny Church aside) to be all inclusive somehow in mainstream society religious festivals are embraced to a high degree by most including corporates and schools from Chinese New Year to Dewali and even Hanukkah while schools and pre-schools opt not to include Christmas and Easter so as not to offend others of a different faiths - despite others from different faiths not minding. However, there is a spiritual battle also so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
On a personal viewpoint while I wouldn’t go to a Dewali festival say because I know it is about worshipping a Hindu goddess, and while I wouldn’t go to a Māori ceremony regarding offerings to the stars at Matariki, I respect people’s choices and I am comfortable with Karakia and Powhiri’s and would attend the aspects of events of other faiths that don’t encompass ceremonies or worship.
There is no such thing as "Article 4". There is no such thing as a treaty with an invisible article that was never written down. The historian Professor Paul Moon is clear about this.
Jean may be "comfortable" with karakia invoking Maori gods and mythology that no educated person actually believes in - and certainly not the elected representative of councils in New Zealand. Would she feel the same if these prayers were in English?
Would a NZer of European descent feel comfortable with council meetings beginning by invoking Germanic gods or the Greco-Roman pantheon? Or to the gods and faeries of Celtic mythology? If not, why not?
When and why did Maori mythology become the State Religion of New Zealand?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
On a personal note, too, when Māori culture and customs have been so forcibly, systemically excluded and oppressed, I do understand a swing the other way (though sometimes it can seem a bit ridiculous - like naming the new hospital car park, "Tu-Waka Wapapa").
And when the church has been so scandalously negligent in its treatment of vulnerable peoples, and the ongoing pain and hypocrisy that we all live with - hundreds of millions being spent on a new/old cathedral,rather than the poor, for example; when our religious leaders in Canterbury are so appallingly silent around the continued use of the name "Crusaders" for our local rugby team, even after 50 Muslims were murdered by a white supremacist down the road - I also get why the general public are so turned off. Why, for example, at the early childhood centres my wife has worked at, they celebrate important Māori occasions, like Matariki, but are extra careful to not mention any religious stuff around Easter (as that would offend people of other religions). Logically, it's ridiculous, but I get it. I wish our churches would too.
"Reese originally made this petition, along with two kaumātua who have since died - Patrick Nicholas (Pirirakau, Ngāti Hangarau) and Hukikakahu Kawe (Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Rangi).
The three argued that for the Māori who signed the Treaty it was an oral undertaking. (It was not read by them, but read out to them.) Further, they point out that an oral contract is equally binding. Therefore this other undertaking, which was also read to them, should have equal status and should be included within our understanding of the Treaty.
"They heard the Treaty, the preamble, articles one, two and three," says Reese. "They didn't read it. They heard it, and then they heard this, and they responded with their tohu or their signatures as a response of what they heard."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/thehouse/532013/treaty-of-waitangi-addition-petitioned-at-parliament
Alistair Reese, "Waitangi: an oral covenant"
https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/waitangi-an-oral-covenant/
"When two documents conflict in international law where there is any ambiguity:
1. The *contra proferentem* principle applies, which means that a decision is made against the party that drafts the document, and
2. the indigenous language text takes preference.
In oral cultures such as Māori, verbal agreements take preference over what is written."
https://nwo.org.nz/2020/03/26/myth-the-treaty-cant-be-enforced-because-there-are-two-different-versions/
William, why not invoke Maori, Germanic or Greco Roman gods - many of the teachings are far more believable. Regards Thomas
Hi William, you make a point, most of the Karakia I have experienced has been Christian centric. Likely with non-christian prayers or incantations I would be more uncomfortable if it was obligatory to participate.
Mark, there is much the church and any organisation involving people are guilty of. The cathedral well I will let +Peter answer that one if he wishes to as he has more inside info. As I watched it unfold from a distance it seemed civil people/entities initial enthusiasm meant money over and above what was an insurance pay out was necessary, unless the church wanted an indefinite legal battle.
In regards to understanding the public’s reaction to Christianity in public spaces, I would argue it is the NZ public’s perception of Christianity rather than the reality that is central to attitudes. Certainly the church is not squeaky clean in all areas (e.g. the abuse scandals - acknowledging this was/is not only a church issue but happened in many secular institutions also and unfortunately the majority within family units, not that it happening in any place justifies the other). Firstly the media will focus on the church happenings that are dramatic, as they do for most topics, which means Destiny Church and the blessing of same sex couples gets far more press than the wider influence of the Christian faith. Secondly churches aren’t PR vehicles so most of what churches and Christian’s do goes under the radar - https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/without-churches-nz-would-plunge-poverty-and-chaos. Thirdly we have this odd kiwi tendency to downplay our own multi-country european cultural heritage while being keen to adopt practices from other countries, why would we not ‘own’ the christian origins of say hospitals and health-care, the rule of law and the equal worth of all people alongside our European ancestors? Acknowledgement here that Maori are doing well at regaining their sense of cultural identity despite many obstacles.
I repeat the straightforward statement by AUT historian Professor Paul Moon: 'There is no "Article 4" in the Treaty of Waitangi.' Zilch. Nada. Unless you believe that "oral traditions" are just as true as written documents, in which case I ask the Protestants here: Why don't you agree with the great majority of Christendom, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, in their Marian teachings (immaculate conception, sinless life, perpetual virginity, co-redemptrix, chief intercessory role), which are based on the oral tradition of the Church, alongside the Bible? If you think there was an 'Article 4' in the Treaty, why are you sola-scripturalists in religion?
I repeat my next question: why are elected councils in New Zealand invoking Maori gods and mythology that nobody believes in? Do Anglicans here think this is a breach of the First Commandment? Any thoughts, Peter? Has Maori mythology become the State religion of New Zealand? Is this political play-acting by people who are really atheists?
A second question to ground our thoughts in reality: why does New Zealand have one of the highest levels of child abuse in the developed world? Why are so many children presenting at the Starship Hospital with broken limbs? Why are youth suicide rates so high in New Zealand? What is going wrong at the basic family level? Delving into an unrecoverable past is often a way of avoiding the intractable truths of the present. If people really care about justice - as many claim to - here is the most basic place to start: justice for small children. But to do so, you may have to give up some political shibboleths.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
The fourth article is not like Christian oral traditions. We have clear and accurate historical knowledge that the fourth article was verbally stated on 6 February 1840. We do not have clear and accurate historical knowledge about matters of Christian "oral tradition."
The fourth article has no legal basis/impact re the Treaty-in-law, but it is a helpful reminder that (a) the churches were represented at the signing, and that some cognisance was taken of Pompallier's view that something should be said about tolerance for different faiths, especially the Catholic faith in a land to that point dominated by Protestant missions: +Stephen Lowe brought this out, surely you are not disputing a Catholic bishop? (b) we have historical background, associated with the Treaty in a direct manner, for tolerance of all faiths in this country.
You would need to ask Councils what they are up to re karakia.
You have raved before about social need among Maori. Please take care that you are not asserting a perspective that is racist: I won't publish your comments if I discern that. there are many social needs among Kiwis, and many presenting causes. It is not appropriate to single one race out for attention. Right now, in court, the white supremacist is making a play to have his guilty plea reversed ... perhaps we should wonder what went wrong in his childhood ...?
Thank you Jean for your contribution. I agree with much of what you say. Regarding the cathedral, I don't need Peter to say anymore on this. He has clearly stated his position and dilemma before, which I do respect and do not envy, even if I disagree with it in some part. I do have a habit of being a hothead so I want to say I really respect Peter as a person, a thinker, a host of a thought provoking blog which allows commentators a good degree of freedom - in the best of Anglican tradition - to voice diverse views, and as a bishop with many challenges in terms of building/rebuilding the church in a post-earthquake, secular age! Basically, I understand his/the diocese's dilemma to be that of wanting to get on with a rebuild - for the sake of church and city - and not spend the rest of their lives and pennies in the courts. And I will probably be one of those hypocrites who rails against the project then enjoys inspecting the completed masonry. However...
It just doesn't square with the Gospel for me. To spend hundreds of millions on this. Not when there are so many unmet material needs in our city. To use a political cliché: the "optics" aren't good. Whether true or not, it sends the message of a church more interested in self-aggrandizement than taking a radical preferential option for the poor, as Jesus announced at the start of Luke, opening the scroll of Isaiah. Easy for me to say, right, but I would have loved the church to say: no, we're not going to bullied by people who hardly set foot in this building, and who believe the cathedral is basically a temple to civic religion. We're going to fight to say: we don't want to spend hundreds of millions in this way. We'd rather spend most of it on the poor.
Because I think the wider world is crying out for this sort of witness: a Pope Francis, as it were, rather than a Benedict. After crucifixion, things don't just go back in the same place. We don't just rebuild in the same way.
And I do take your point: perhaps the church is often harshly and unfairly treated in the media and public opinion. Last Saturday I took my daughter to "Messy Church" at St Ambrose's, Aranui. I had the pleasure of talking to one parishioner there, Adrian, who told me about the amazing food bank and dry firewood service that operates out of St Ambrose's every week. That never really makes the headlines. But keeps so many families and individuals fed and warm.
William, I really think you need article four!! Or thank you for clearly showing to me why we need article four. Because it seems to me you are in danger of muddling politics and religion. You rail against prayers to mythological beings that no one can believe in etc. Well, even if your simplistic and highly pejorative characterization of Māori spirituality is correct, it is not the job of the state to say what we can or can't believe in. Once upon a time, Catholics were viciously persecuted for believing in such rank supersitution as the virgin birth and the healing femur of St Oswin. That was wrong of course - and let's give the English and Anglicanism credit for enshrining religious toleration at the heart of the state.
We have religious freedom in our bill of rights, of course, as well as article four. Māori customs are protected - as well as other faiths. It's a theological matter if such and such gods exist or not, but not a political one. Māori should be free to believe and practices how they want to. And others, Pākeha and Māori etc., should be free to not be part of such practices, or regulate how much they participate in such practices when they are included/offered in public spaces, according to their individual consciences.
Juliet Chevalier-Watts, "Without churches, NZ would plunge into poverty and chaos":
"Unfortunately, because churches tend to go about helping people in need quietly, avoiding publicity or attention, there is little research into the value churches provide to New Zealand.
We don’t hear too many stories about the lives that are changed as a result.
Our ongoing research is hoping to change that, and I can share that we recently found religious charities — the vast majority of which are churches and/or christian organisations— contributed an enormous $6.1 billion to New Zealand in 2018 alone.
That is worth more to GDP than entire industries such as commercial fishing and forestry combined, and this excludes numerous indirect benefits and flow-on effects across health and wellbeing, life-expectancy, employment, finances, education, social cohesion and pro-social behaviour.
....Church volunteers provide companionship, transportation, and practical support to the isolated, poor and elderly, for example taking them shopping, to medical appointments, or covering funeral expenses.
Despite this immense social impact, churches continue to face public scrutiny and now potential tax reform threats....
You know it is dire when atheists are sticking up for churches."
https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/without-churches-nz-would-plunge-poverty-and-chaos
Peter, why should I not dissent from the beliefs of a Catholic bishop? I don't believe in the infallibility of individual bishops. I do have a fair level of confidence in Paul Moon's scholarship as an academic historian.
I see you avoided answering my question about the rightness of mythological karakia. Have you ever asked your own city council yourself? Ah, well, at least I know what St Paul would say about prayer to non-gods.
At no point did I refer to race or single one out - but you drew a particular conclusion. Why was that? It is NOT "racist" to ask why certain bad things are happening in society - did it not occur you that there are sociological and political explanations for these things that point to bad public policy?
I have to say that describing my objective and factual comments about New Zealand's appalling levels of child abuse (among the worst in the OECD) as "raving" is rather abusive. Of course, it's your blog and you can say what you like. You may not choose to publish this, but the questions don't go away.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Mark, it was you who raised the question in your comment on February 11 whether council meetings with karakia was "foisting Maori custom on to others" and I agree with you. When you state "it is not the job of the state to say what we can or can't believe in", you contradict yourself if you support prayers to Maori gods (or the Christian God for that matter) before council meetings when everyoneis seated in the chamber. I thought Quakers were against oaths and religious compulsion? If you start a council meeting with such a religious exercise (often pronounced badly by someone who doesn't know any Maori either) you are not giving people a choice.
Of course the origin of the practice was the original British custom of starting town council meetings with Christian prayers (in English), reflecting the established churches in Britain. These customs naturally spread to New Zealand (notwithstanding the absence of an established church in New Zealand). As Christianity has vanished from public consciousness in New Zealand, the practice remained without people understanding its purpose or origin. Into this vacuum enters the notion of using this a vehicle for "Maori culture", a clear political programme.
Pax et bonum,
William Greenhalgh
With thanks to Jean for the article reference above, and St Ambrose's where I first read the article (it is on the wall of their coffee lounge).
William, indeed I did raise it. So I am glad we can discuss it. So far, the "public services" I have attended or remotely participated in (national psychotherapy associations, Waitangi dawn services), haven't involved a sense of me feeling compelled to believe things I don't, or aren't sure about. So far. But sometimes it has felt odd that, in relation to our psychotherapy association, no acknowledgement is made of other religious beliefs, or those who wish to have a silent space etc. And it had felt a bit weird to me to see other colleagues heartily entering into *some* karakia, without fully one wing what they are saying.
I was being a bit provocative in saying "foisted" :)
Even the Māori spirituality workshop series I once attended never demanded we believe or participate in things we didn't feel comfortable with.
To be honest, I would feel quite uncomfortable about formal Christian prayers being used to open public spaces. I felt that before joining the Society of Friends.
The Dawn Service at Waitangi is a great example of many Christians trafitii s and Māori praying together, in a spirit of unity and respect for difference.
At least we are no longer fined or thrown into prison for refusing to pay tithes or attend the established church!
Our tīpuna speaks:
https://youtu.be/a9DHOnUngxQ?si=lzepzkc_iA8M5avQ
Incidentally, for anyone be following me down this rabbit hole, Cromwell seems to have been much more tolerant of Catholicism than is the usual view:
"Essex University professor John Walter, an expert on early modern history, said the “exciting” documents Morrill has unearthed suggest Cromwell was actually an extraordinarily tolerant leader by the standards of the time: “Morrill is absolutely right to pose this representation of Cromwell as a complex and godly man who – not least for political reasons – wants to readmit Jews to England and produce stability in Ireland, by offering religious freedom to Catholics,” he said."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/31/has-history-got-it-wrong-about-oliver-cromwells-persecution-of-catholics
I think this adds to the view that religious tolerance isn't intrinsic to the established church of England, to Anglicanism, but something that has evolved in terms of "the many faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, and of Rome" to use the words of the fourth article.
That is, it took a French Catholic to prompt this at Waitangi, where, crucially, "Māori custom" was also included for state protection.
Permit me to extend this discussion of tolerance and diversity from denomination and ethnicity to gender and sexuality for a moment. The Church of England is currently meeting in General Synod and has considered and decided upon the recent "Living in Love and Faith" (LLF) process. That is, as I understand it: an Anglican minister in England can currently bless same sex couples during a regular service; LLF was (it has been stopped) about exploring blessings for same sex couples in *stand alone* church services. I hope I have got that right.
My question for Peter, or anyone else who can answer this, is: in the Anglican Church here there is now provision, dependent on episcopal approval, for a same sex couple to receive a relationship blessing in an Anglican Church and by an Anglican minister. Have I got that right? And my question is: Can this happen here in a regular service, a stand alone service, or both? Thank you
Hello Anonymous
I am loathe to publish comments by those who do not give a name, but I am prepared to answer this question:
In the ACANZP a priest or bishop may bless the civil marriage of a same sex couple, with episcopal approval, within an Anglican church building (but a priest or bishop may not conduct the marriage of a same-sex couple). The blessing service may be a stand alone service on any day of the week or could occur in the context of a regular Sunday service.
Sorry, it was me Mark Murphy using an anonymous computer. Thank you!
Post a Comment