What I do know is that in the Christian church there is only one sacred text. It’s called the Bible.
That’s why it’s somewhat staggering to find out that in 2024 many Christians view the Treaty of Waitangi as a sacred document. Actually that’s wrong. According to these more than 400 church leaders, presumably all of them Christian although this isn’t stated in reports, it’s Te Tiriti which is sacred and covenantal.
As we know by now, the difference between the Treaty and Te Tiriti is more than subtle.
The 400 church leaders have waded into a political discussion and want to stop the Act Party’s Treaty of Waitangi Treaty Principles Bill from even going before the Parliament.
It’s not the first time the Christian church has waded into the political realm, and it’s not without rationale to do so.
Christianity is based on love for all of God’s children, a love that is shared equally. So the church’s involvement in the apartheid and associated rugby tour issues of 45 years ago was completely understandable.
What staggers me with this initiative is that these church leaders now appear to believe that all of God’s children are not created equal and that some deserve more love than others. That’s not Christian, is it?
Although the Treaty Principles Bill is not yet completed and not publicly available in its full draft form, we know the basics of what Act will propose:
(1) The Government of New Zealand has the right to govern all New Zealanders.
(2) Everybody in this country has chieftainship over their land and property.
(3) Everybody in New Zealand is equal before the law.
If we understand the basic tenet of Christianity, that is love for all of God’s children, what’s not to like about any of those principles?
The most extraordinary aspect of this Open Letter to all MPs is this: “we affirm that Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects the Tino Rangatiratanga of hapu and iwi. That rangatiratanga over land and taonga is to be upheld.”
The second of the principles that Act are proposing does just that. Sure, in deference to the most widely spoken language in this nation, the second principle mentions the chieftainship of all New Zealanders over their land and property.
Call me stupid, but as a non-scholar of te reo, isn’t Tino Rangatiratanga best translated as chieftainship? Essentially the proposed bill is saying if you own property, whether it be land or any other asset, you have the right to use, alter, invest in or divest that property or asset as you see fit, within the confines of the law – including for now the restrictions of the Resource Management Act.
The Open Letter then dives deep into generalisations. For example “The Treaty Principles Bill may destabilise and harm Aotearoa New Zealand. We believe the Bill will lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.”
It is supposition at best. They can believe what they want, but how can a bill which stresses equality before the law for all lead to division between the peoples?
The letter does acknowledge the work of early missionaries in the signing of the Treaty in 1840. The Williams father and son, Henry and Edward, translated the words of Busby and Hobson then presented and explained them to the chiefs in a form that the prospective signatories could understand.
So the New Zealand Christian church of 1840, through the Church Missionary Society, was a key driver of the Treaty. Henry Williams and most missionaries actively supported British annexation believing, according to official New Zealand government history, that it was necessary to protect Maori from lawless Europeans.
Williams and his son were given one night to translate the English text into what was then a very immature and restricted written Maori language. The translation, and the arguments about what means what, have been the source of endless discussion, argument and legal battles ever since, especially since the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975 and its infamous phrase “the Principles of the Treaty.”
What David Seymour and Act are trying to do is to bring some legislative direction to the ever moving and ever evolving principles as decreed by a variety of judges, academics, activists and the Waitangi Tribunal. Surely that is no bad thing?
After all, the very first principle of the Bill lays out in plain English – the government of New Zealand is sovereign and has the right to govern the country. We don’t want anyone else doing that do we?
But therein lies the problem. Too many people DO want some body other than the government running the show, our at least sharing in the process. And have those proposing this ever thought it through? Ever thought of the potential chaos that could eventuate?
How can Christian church leaders, the ones who preach God’s love to all his children, suggest that some are more equal than others?
Seymour’s bill is brave, probably destined to failure, but it is creating a public discussion through the democratic process of the Parliamentary Select Committee – which will be chaired by a young Maori in Rangitata MP James Meagher.
Yet the penultimate paragraph of this Open Letter from the 400 Church leaders calls on all members of Parliament to “do everything in their power to not take this Bill to Select Committee to work towards the ongoing restoration of the Tiriti relationship.”
Apart from that sentence being oxymoronic in the extreme, the Church leaders appear to have relinquished their belief in democracy and free speech.
That is not Christian in the slightest. Maybe they should all take a deep breath and remember the vows they took.
And remember that there is just the one sacred Christian text.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
The 400 church leaders have waded into a political discussion and want to stop the Act Party’s Treaty of Waitangi Treaty Principles Bill from even going before the Parliament.
It’s not the first time the Christian church has waded into the political realm, and it’s not without rationale to do so.
Christianity is based on love for all of God’s children, a love that is shared equally. So the church’s involvement in the apartheid and associated rugby tour issues of 45 years ago was completely understandable.
What staggers me with this initiative is that these church leaders now appear to believe that all of God’s children are not created equal and that some deserve more love than others. That’s not Christian, is it?
Although the Treaty Principles Bill is not yet completed and not publicly available in its full draft form, we know the basics of what Act will propose:
(1) The Government of New Zealand has the right to govern all New Zealanders.
(2) Everybody in this country has chieftainship over their land and property.
(3) Everybody in New Zealand is equal before the law.
If we understand the basic tenet of Christianity, that is love for all of God’s children, what’s not to like about any of those principles?
The most extraordinary aspect of this Open Letter to all MPs is this: “we affirm that Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects the Tino Rangatiratanga of hapu and iwi. That rangatiratanga over land and taonga is to be upheld.”
The second of the principles that Act are proposing does just that. Sure, in deference to the most widely spoken language in this nation, the second principle mentions the chieftainship of all New Zealanders over their land and property.
Call me stupid, but as a non-scholar of te reo, isn’t Tino Rangatiratanga best translated as chieftainship? Essentially the proposed bill is saying if you own property, whether it be land or any other asset, you have the right to use, alter, invest in or divest that property or asset as you see fit, within the confines of the law – including for now the restrictions of the Resource Management Act.
The Open Letter then dives deep into generalisations. For example “The Treaty Principles Bill may destabilise and harm Aotearoa New Zealand. We believe the Bill will lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.”
It is supposition at best. They can believe what they want, but how can a bill which stresses equality before the law for all lead to division between the peoples?
The letter does acknowledge the work of early missionaries in the signing of the Treaty in 1840. The Williams father and son, Henry and Edward, translated the words of Busby and Hobson then presented and explained them to the chiefs in a form that the prospective signatories could understand.
So the New Zealand Christian church of 1840, through the Church Missionary Society, was a key driver of the Treaty. Henry Williams and most missionaries actively supported British annexation believing, according to official New Zealand government history, that it was necessary to protect Maori from lawless Europeans.
Williams and his son were given one night to translate the English text into what was then a very immature and restricted written Maori language. The translation, and the arguments about what means what, have been the source of endless discussion, argument and legal battles ever since, especially since the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975 and its infamous phrase “the Principles of the Treaty.”
What David Seymour and Act are trying to do is to bring some legislative direction to the ever moving and ever evolving principles as decreed by a variety of judges, academics, activists and the Waitangi Tribunal. Surely that is no bad thing?
After all, the very first principle of the Bill lays out in plain English – the government of New Zealand is sovereign and has the right to govern the country. We don’t want anyone else doing that do we?
But therein lies the problem. Too many people DO want some body other than the government running the show, our at least sharing in the process. And have those proposing this ever thought it through? Ever thought of the potential chaos that could eventuate?
How can Christian church leaders, the ones who preach God’s love to all his children, suggest that some are more equal than others?
Seymour’s bill is brave, probably destined to failure, but it is creating a public discussion through the democratic process of the Parliamentary Select Committee – which will be chaired by a young Maori in Rangitata MP James Meagher.
Yet the penultimate paragraph of this Open Letter from the 400 Church leaders calls on all members of Parliament to “do everything in their power to not take this Bill to Select Committee to work towards the ongoing restoration of the Tiriti relationship.”
Apart from that sentence being oxymoronic in the extreme, the Church leaders appear to have relinquished their belief in democracy and free speech.
That is not Christian in the slightest. Maybe they should all take a deep breath and remember the vows they took.
And remember that there is just the one sacred Christian text.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
16 comments:
>"So the New Zealand Christian church of 1840, through the Church Missionary Society, was a key driver of the Treaty. Henry Williams and most missionaries actively supported British annexation..."
Missionary organisations, especially the London Missionary Society and the Church Missionary Society, were very active in promoting the British cause in the as yet unclaimed parts of the world. The rush was on for imperial possessions and colonies (not the same thing) and the British had to fend off competition from other imperial powers, mainly the the French and the Germans, as the 19th century neared its end (the Treaty of Berlin 1885 settled the matter for Africa). Hundreds upon hundreds of 'treaties' were concluded with tribal 'strong men'. (The International Court of Justice held in 2002 that these 'treaties' had no standing in international law then or now.) The LMS and CMS were both outreaches of the Anglican Church of which, of course, the British monarch is the head as well as being the Head of State. So it is not surprising to see Christianity playing a very prominent role in the colonisation of NZ.
Readers kindly note that I am not anti-colonial as I regard the colonial era to have been an inevitable one and one that mostly brought benefits to indigenous peoples, especially those of minor tribes who were protected from the larger tribes by the colonial authorities. I am merely contextualising the statement I have extracted from this article.
The Church has its time in history trying to run the show.
It was called the dark ages.
Completely with you Peter. Thank you for making this public. I am appalled at the vacuousness of this response from the churches - some. Jesus was not a stupid man - quite wrong to equate 'love' with 'anything goes'. I think Jesus would have taken account of the big picture.
It just goes to show how big and well the lie has circulated. Nearly half of Parliament now believe Maori didn't cede sovereignty, which all essentially pivots on this tino rangatiratanga nonsense, which Peter's article rightly points out applied not only to the Chiefs and their tribes, but ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND. Does that mean that anyone owning a property, much less just a citizen, should now be in partnership or a co-governance arrangement with the Crown? Of course, IT DOESN"T!
But obviously these 400 Church leaders are dutiful, Treaty ignorant wokesters (like many of our politicians, especially it seems those on the 'left') that are clearly out of their depth. They ought to bring themselves up to speed with what Te Tirirti actually says before preaching about it, but first, a good start might be learning the name of our country, which is, New Zealand!
It seems some members of the Christian community are operating under the same modus operandi as the Supreme elite of Maoridom, believing themselves to speak for all.
Hasn't it all become just so predictable. If it weren't so serious we could all have a good laugh.
Of course your absolutely right Peter, but the minds of many have been corrupted as the Marxist, post modern circus marches on.
I can see it, you can too.
Lets just hope we have the numbers on our side.
David Seymours bill must be supported, if we can make enough noise, Mr Luxon will have no option but to listen.
Agree by and large Peter. Wading into social and political issues, to the degree this has happened, has partly contributed to the decline in membership/ attendance of the above churches. While it is right for the church to speak on social issues, alignment with politcal causes (and movements) is not strictly biblical and will lead to the continuing undermining of the core misison of the church ... rebirth in Christ.
The Church really doesn't have the moral high ground anymore.
These are the institutions that required tithe from the poorest, while priests adorned themselves with gold. Who excommunicated or cast out from society those who questioned them. Who punished women for adultery while keeping mistresses. Who burned witches at the stake because they didn't understand them. Who abused boys entrusted to their care.
And who have never been held to proper account for any of that
As a committed Christian, I can categorically state that these "church leaders" do not speak for me. I do not attend a physical church, as many of them no longer follow the teaching of Christ or the Word of God but have climbed on the woke band-wagon, starting from the very top down - for example, the pope, archbishop of Canterbury and archbishop of York (deliberate use of the lower case).
Are we, the Christian public of New Zealand, able to know the names of these 400.? Are they all ordained ministers of the church or are they people on the committee's who run the parishes or something else? Who are these people who presume they talk for me and others like me?
-'dutiful treaty-ignorant wokesters' Yeah!
Who asked them for their worthless opinions?
Did they ask their congregations if they agree with them?
If they want to become political parties will they then start paying taxes?
Why should we be interested in the opinions of a bunch of proven kiddie fidllers in the first place?
Seymours bill has not been seen yet so how can they possibly object to it?
How much arrogance and hubris can 400 unelected nobodys have?
Jesus will judge them if thats what they want ,harshly I would think.
This " Epistle to The Prime Minister", is not a printed document, thought overnight. It has taken time, resources and " arm bending" to attain 400 signatures. So who was behind it. That means that the " Epistle" is a Political Document, from Church to Govt, to which the 400 have indicated " they have overstepped ecclesiastical boundaries, to impose a will upon the Govt'. Supposedly, the last person who orchestrated that, King Henry 8th, had him sorted out.
The question I would put to the 400 hundred,-
1.- why now, why not 180 years ago?
2. - how are you going to handle the " kickback" from your congregations - some comments already posted (here) suggest dissatisfaction
3. - do you understand that this "Epistle" has now placed the
Church fairly into the Political Arena - once there, you can not turn back and seek "penitence" for a wrong doing.
Mind you within the United Kingdom, The Church of England has already crossed " the Rubicon" and they have issues with why the congregation numbers are down. Reason - " sticking your nose into matters Political" when and where they are not required, is a major reason.
I also see, TVNZ 1, News 9th Sept, has their reporters seeking comment from a " selection of the 400". I look at this as being - "it is better to be silent (on a subject), than open your mouth and be thought a fool". Such statements can only come back to bite you!
Peter correctly states that the second basic of what Act will propose is that: (2) Everybody in this country has chieftain-ship over their land and property. Well, that was true but if what was on both MSM news broadcasts tonight was correct (and it must be because it is the MSM!), Cabinet have seemingly convinced David to water down that principle such that it will ONLY apply to iwi and hapu. If this is true, then the vast majority of us will continue (as we apparently are at the moment) to be second class citizens in our own Country who will not have the right of chieftain-ship over our own property. If that second principle does not apply to us ALL, then who hell does have the right of control over our property - it must logically end up being the first class citizens. Welcome to the second iteration of Orwell's Animal Farm where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Peter also says: "public discussion through the democratic process of the Parliamentary Select Committee – which will be chaired by a young Maori in Rangitata MP James Meagher." Forgive me if I am wrong but James also chaired the Select Committee for the Maori Wards Bill and that has ended up as something of a dog's breakfast full of inertia - patently because calls by submitters to speed up the referendums in a way commensurate with the speed Mahuta killed them off were overlooked in favour of kicking the can down the road to 2025. It is obvious that much of our Parliament, its processes, our local government entities and much more have systematically been subjected to regulatory capture - no-one can possibly convince me otherwise.
To anon@8.47, that chieftainship only ever went so far. You still had to pay rates on that property and comply with certain Council building and health & safety requirements. Of course those building requirements and rating liabilities have been watered down for Maori in some situations, but most of us are our own "King of the Castle." But if you are right, that there's an intention for this objective to only apply to Maori, then the majority really will be second class citizens and I can't imagine Seymour ever acquiescing to that, for he has said as much in his regular 'third principle' pronouncement: "the same rights and duties." But, I suppose, the truth will out - soon enough.
anon@8.47 again. Thanks Peter, I hope against hope that my ears deceived me but hearing it on both channels gave me a migraine. Yes I know, listening to the MSM is self flagellation and not to be recommended but it is like my wife watching Te Karere to understand all sides to any argument, it is painful, particularly when they do bits without subtitles so few will understand what is going on. Most of it is IMHO utter bollocks. All that aside, assuming Cabinet have wreaked this havoc to item 2 in the proposed bill, they deserve severe admonishment. Why? Well simply because they appear to be perpetuating a gross lie. What lie? That Article 2 only applies to iwi/hapu and not ALL New Zealanders. I subscribe to the chronology that Hobson's draft (the Littlewood draft) was translated to the Maori language and so, since the Littlewood draft came to light, some subsequent translations such as the junk Freeman one are rendered redundant. The closest IMHO is that by Sir Apirana Ngata (brilliant man by the way) because he said in his 1922 explanation (penned in Te Reo and accurately translated by MR Jones) that Article 2 "confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions, ..." He further described the disparity in the then official English version (Freeman?), mainly the erroneous specification of "Forests and Fisheries" but also the clear omission of the "all", because we do count and should not be summarily dismissed as victims of blatant apartheid. I hope I am not alone in wishing for this government to sort all this out. We had our malevolent dictatorship with Ardern and latterly Mahuta pulling the strings. Maybe we need a benevolent dictatorship - only kidding - democracy is the best option - take that from someone who has lived behind the iron curtain and seen what that means first hand.
P.S. Went back and found the remark. It was Jenna Lynch at the end of her bit saying that Seymour has made a concession to specifically mention iwi/hapu in the 2nd part of the bill. That may be her conjecture/extrapolation as leaking from Cabinet is supposed to be 'verbotten' (forbidden - sorry iwi - reverted to German for a moment) We await the actual draft - as Peter says "the truth will out" - let's hope it is the right truth.
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.