Then again, citing the Old Testament probably cuts little ice with these Christians. They do, after all, introduce their attack on Act leader David Seymour’s, Treaty Principles Bill with a quote from the Gospel of Matthew:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
A fine old Presbyterian once described the Beatitudes (from which the above verse is taken) as “Jesus’s marching orders”. Such a pity, then, that what the clerics put their names to evinces so little in the way of elucidating the paths of peace. Counselling men and women to use their power to silence the voices of others smacks more of violence and repression than peace-making.
Certainly, David Seymour’s epistolary assailants have given him cause to seek solace in the ninth beatitude:
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
For Christ’s sake? Who among the 440 clerics would aver that David Seymour’s Bill is infused with Christian purpose? Not many, if any. Which is disappointing, since the Act leader would appear to have a firmer theological grasp of the issues at stake in this matter than the professors of theology who signed on to the open letter.
“I am not a religious person,” David Seymour tweeted. “However, I do have an enormous respect for the core Christian principle of imago dei – we are each made in the image of God. I like it because it automatically means we all have equal dignity. It is one of the foundations of liberal democracy and whether you are Christian or not, you have to be grateful for the freedom and dignity that idea has given us.”
Well, yes, it does, and we should. The idea that each soul approaches the throne of God naked and alone, no longer cloaked in the pretentions of class, or race, or gender, but only in the artistry of the Creator’s hand, is, perhaps, why the carpenter from Nazareth warned us:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
A beam in the eye of 440 clerics? Surely not?
But what else are we to call a letter which so clearly divides the people of New Zealand into sheep and goats – an exercise in separation considered by most Christians to be the privilege of Jehovah alone.
The letter’s depiction of te Tiriti as a “sacred covenant” is also troubling. No deities of any kind are invoked, or included, in the Treaty’s text. It was a document made on earth, by men, and in the nature of all man-made things its meaning has proved as difficult to pin down as quicksilver.
Is it really such an awful sin to ask the voters of New Zealand to validate, or repudiate, David Seymour’s attempt to define the essence of te Tiriti o Waitangi? After all, God leads us through history towards the future, not the past. It is surely blasphemy to suggest that he has forever bound New Zealanders’ imaginations to the confused deliberations of 6th February 1840.
Is a referendum really so unthinkable? After all, as another wise cleric (not one of the 440) memorably declared: Vox populi, vox dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God.
A fine old Presbyterian once described the Beatitudes (from which the above verse is taken) as “Jesus’s marching orders”. Such a pity, then, that what the clerics put their names to evinces so little in the way of elucidating the paths of peace. Counselling men and women to use their power to silence the voices of others smacks more of violence and repression than peace-making.
Certainly, David Seymour’s epistolary assailants have given him cause to seek solace in the ninth beatitude:
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
For Christ’s sake? Who among the 440 clerics would aver that David Seymour’s Bill is infused with Christian purpose? Not many, if any. Which is disappointing, since the Act leader would appear to have a firmer theological grasp of the issues at stake in this matter than the professors of theology who signed on to the open letter.
“I am not a religious person,” David Seymour tweeted. “However, I do have an enormous respect for the core Christian principle of imago dei – we are each made in the image of God. I like it because it automatically means we all have equal dignity. It is one of the foundations of liberal democracy and whether you are Christian or not, you have to be grateful for the freedom and dignity that idea has given us.”
Well, yes, it does, and we should. The idea that each soul approaches the throne of God naked and alone, no longer cloaked in the pretentions of class, or race, or gender, but only in the artistry of the Creator’s hand, is, perhaps, why the carpenter from Nazareth warned us:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
A beam in the eye of 440 clerics? Surely not?
But what else are we to call a letter which so clearly divides the people of New Zealand into sheep and goats – an exercise in separation considered by most Christians to be the privilege of Jehovah alone.
The letter’s depiction of te Tiriti as a “sacred covenant” is also troubling. No deities of any kind are invoked, or included, in the Treaty’s text. It was a document made on earth, by men, and in the nature of all man-made things its meaning has proved as difficult to pin down as quicksilver.
Is it really such an awful sin to ask the voters of New Zealand to validate, or repudiate, David Seymour’s attempt to define the essence of te Tiriti o Waitangi? After all, God leads us through history towards the future, not the past. It is surely blasphemy to suggest that he has forever bound New Zealanders’ imaginations to the confused deliberations of 6th February 1840.
Is a referendum really so unthinkable? After all, as another wise cleric (not one of the 440) memorably declared: Vox populi, vox dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God.
Chris Trotter is a well known political commentator. This article was published HERE
11 comments:
Very good Chris love the way you write.
Clearly the bill will go not much further, but the debate has been useful, the ridiculous proclamation from the 440 ensures the debate gains airspace.
The risk now is that a referendum is called spontaneously from the people and neither the coalition nor the opposition can stop that.
Chris, this article is extremely well conceived and executed. You have hit on one of the reasons so many have walked from these churches. Social justice is their new gospel, the altar at which they worship, the negation of personal responsibility before God (the central idea of the protestant reformation), in favour of the Marxist idea of competing groups.
I am a (Bible believing) Christian and I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. Scripture, correctly read, calls us to know each other personally, not as members of opposing groups, to build on what we have in common, rather than divide on points of difference. What these church leaders have done, in short, is commit heresy.
I had a look at the website of Common Grace who ran this letter. It is clearly a Neo Marxist 'Charity' that is only a few months old. Sadly I don't think the clergy have considered that decolonisation also means the removal of the Christian faith from this country. The Reserve Bank's Head Office is now a shrine to the God of the Forest. The shift to paganism it seems is fully endorsed by the Churches.
Beautifully and succinctly written, but, more importantly, its content is thoroughly sound. Your batting average is exceedingly high, Mr Trotter,
Where's the petition for a referendum? I want to sign it NOW.
Common Grace ,from my limited knowledge appears to be largely Anglican . During the 2022 parliamentary protest the main Anglican Church in Wellington clearly took a stand against the protestors by putting up signs telling protestors to stay off their land. Not so for some other denominators who attended the protest and sang songs and hymns. An Eastern Orthodox priest was evident in all his regalia. Common Grace also appears to fully support climate change action as well.
Reading the bible book of Revelations you will find Jesus prophesying most of the Christian churches would become apostate and even declaring one was "the seat of Satan!'
This is certainly mixed messages for Christians with a decided conflict of views.
During WW2 only a tiny percentage of Lutheran Church ministers countered Nazis including martyrs like Bonhoeffer and Niemoller who lost their lives. by criticized the Nazi party.
Davis Seymour has to be given kudos for pushing the treaty principles bill forward. I doubt any other minister apart from Winston or Shane Jones might prevail.
The debate must be had, trying to shut it down will not resolve the issue. Everyone who criticises and try’s to shut it down is not a friend of free and open debate.
Look to the harshest critics and ask yourself if they are for free and prosperous NZ.
Wow! Chris Trotter that’s a good article. I’d stopped reading your work. More fool me! A referendum should not be unthinkable. Bill T’s comment re a citizen’s initiated referendum is something I don’t see as a risk. I’d welcome one. Although not a covid protester I feel the vox populi has been suppressed for too long in NZ, particularly since covid. Too many voices have been ignored, squashed, or denigrated and subsumed by radical leftist minorities. It’s about time the “silent majority” had a say.
Yes, well said Mr Trotter. We will have that discussion and I do hope we have that referendum - even better if publicly called.
Can I add "To The Proclamations", both here on this website (more so, than elsewhere)- that one needs to consider -
1/- this "letter was not conceived in haste, and when one reads the Text, study the eloquence of the Maori Language use. That could only have been 'scribed' by a linguist in Te Reo, which would have taken time & proof reading prior to printing into a Document to place before 440 Clerics.
2/ - how as "said "Text" delivered to each Cleric, as it would have required a verbal presentation, discussion, conversations, argument - for the clerics, much "rendering unto God, thru Prayer.
3/ - the letter that was sent , was a copy given to each cleric, add their name, domination and Church status - and no doubt advice when to mail - so 440 letters arrived simultaneously.
4/ - who really is behind this political move, it is not the Church's, they are but a means.
It is not the first time that - the major Churches have 'over stepped the mark', from secular to political, and it is interesting to see that "minor church leaders have added their signatures".
Interesting, that as we have been advised, that said Bill has not been written, only eulogized verbally on - it is progressing through preliminary stages, and will be released later, for consideration by each Political Party and "the adherents on the street", prior to presentation in The House.
Thus are "we not jumping the gun, with inflamed rhetoric, which includes accusations, finger pointing, applying demeaning statements"- to those who would agree with such a move - Yes we are - look at "who the main proponent's are" and who they are trying to drag into the "bullring by association".
Our Prime Minister has already confirmed, it is not going anywhere, so he sits with 440 clerics, and for this me thinks that David Seymour should reconsider his commitment to the coalition. If the PM can not consider this ACT Bill, then he will not consider any other.
Speaking as a Christian I find it deeply disturbing to witness church leaders marching in lockstep with the neo Marxists at Common Grace who sought to silence us for our own good. I defend their right to free speech, particularly speech I don’t agree with, and I would have expected them to extend a similar courtesy to others.
These leaders fail to appreciate that free speech and freedom of religion are opposite sides of the same coin. If you lose the former then you are destined to lose the latter. Examine closely countries ruled by authoritarian governments that censor and control speech and you are unlikely to find anything other than State approved religion, should that exist. Alternatives are harshly persecuted and driven underground.
Ironically, David Seymour has led other initiatives that deserved condemnation by church leadership, in particular the end of life euthanasia bill he promoted through parliament. Where was their joint letter of condemnation opposing a bill that was clearly an abrogation of the fifth commandment?
As long as these leaders are prepared to view people and events through a simplistic extra Biblical lens of power and powerlessness, the oppressed and the oppressor then we can expect more of this, unfortunately.
They really should have known better.
Finally, A problem arises when Christians refer to the Treaty as a ‘covenantal relationship’ between Māori Iwi and the Crown. Technically this is correct in so far as the literal meaning of the word covenant is ‘contract’ or ‘agreement’, however when Christians refer to covenant, they think ‘sacred covenant’ along the same lines as the Abrahamic covenant, Moses delivering the 10 commandments, or Jesus ushering in the New Covenant. However the Treaty of Waitangi is simply an agreement between two peoples, not covenant between God and man.
However, even if it were a sacred covenant what practical difference does it make to either party? They either fulfil their obligations or they don’t. The church has no role as an arbiter between either party, it has no authority in the political realm. It has little to no influence over the hearts and minds of the majority of politicians. It has no seat at the table.
There will be a referendum on Seymours bill, and it is called a general election. Everyone gets to speak then, at least for the time being.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.