Pages

Thursday, July 17, 2025

Barrie Davis: New Zealand is Christian


In The Post, 6 July, reporter Sapeer Mayron answers the question: “Was Aotearoa ever a ‘Christian nation’? Short answer: No.” That presupposes that there is something called ‘Aotearoa’ and The Post reporter seeks to realize it by naming it. So, it is propaganda which may be discounted and dismissed.

However, considering the question further reveals how establishing Christianity in New Zealand achieved “the deliberate lifting of a people of lower culture to full equality in political, social, and moral communion with one of the most advanced races in the world.” (Sir Apirana Ngata, 1928)

Christian Religion and Maori Literacy Before the Treaty

Christianity was initially brought to New Zealand by the Church Missionary Society (CMS). The Anglican CMS began operations in New Zealand at Rangihoua in the Bay of Islands where Samuel Marsden preached his first sermon to a largely Maori congregation on Christmas Day 1814. Thomas Kendall, a schoolmaster of the CMS, arrived with Marsden and founded the first mission at Rangihoua with William Hall and John King.

The missionaries believed that their first task was to civilize the Maoris by education in literacy and religion. Kendall prepared the first book in Maori at Sydney in 1815, A Korao no New Zealand, which was an attempt to write some lessons for the instruction of the Maoris. The CMS concentrated first on schools and Kendall started the first mission school in 1816, teaching only in Maori.

Kendall took two chiefs to London in 1820, Hongi Hika and Waikato. With their help, Professor Samuel Lee, who was sponsored at Cambridge University by the CMS, wrote A Grammar and Vocabulary of the New Zealand Language (1820) which laid the foundations of written Maori. Wesleyan missionaries arrived in New Zealand during 1822 and, with help from the Anglicans, also established a missionary station at Whangaroa.

After lobbying by Marsden, Reverend Henry Williams, a naval officer, began a mission at Paihia in 1823 and in 1826 he was joined by his brother William Williams, who was proficient in Maori. From 1835, William Colenso, who was employed by the CMS as a printer, published William Williams’ translation of the New Testament into Maori. From 1838, the Old Testament was translated and published incrementally, and in 1839, the Book of Common Prayer.

The Maoris were interested both in the Christian religion and learning to read, and stocks commonly ran out soon after each print run. Maori interest in the Christian faith grew as they considered and debated Christian teachings.

As a result of the largely Anglican effort, spiritual belief in atua was transitioned to the Christian monotheistic God. Maori interest in religious practice was relocated into Christianity and Maori karakia were increasingly replaced by missionary prayer, a trend which we are now irrationally reversing.

Maori evangelists increased the Church activity during the 1830s and after 1834 new missions were established at Kaitaia, Whangaroa, Manukau, Waikato, Matamata, Rotorua, Tauranga and Poverty Bay.

Bishop Jean-Baptiste Pompallier and his Catholic Marist workers set up their headquarters in the Bay of Islands in 1839. From there they established further stations in the Bay of Plenty, the central North Island and the south-east coast of the South Island.

So, by 1840, there were three missionary groups for the Maoris to choose from: the Anglicans, represented by the CMS, the Wesleyans and the Roman Catholics. From the late 1830s large numbers of Maoris were being baptized into one of these denominations.

By 1838 a fourth of the natives had been baptized and thousands more were influenced by Christianity and benefited from their schools. By 1839, the Anglicans had ten stations that were run by 34 Europeans and 23 Maori missionaries and teachers. In 1840, the Wesleyans had 16 men on eleven stations. By 1841 Pompallier reported that he had set up twelve stations throughout the country and baptized 1000 Maoris, fewer than the CMS but more than the Wesleyans. All of these stations were in the North Island, which the Maoris called Ao tea roa, the South Island comprising only about 2,000 Maoris.

By 1842 there were over 3,000 Christian Maoris in the Bay of Islands region, and others elsewhere with the opening of still more CMS stations at Waimate, Maraetai, Kauaeranga, Puriri, Mangapopuri, Rotorua, Otaki and Waikanae.

In summary, the Church played a leading role in establishing New Zealand, including for the Maoris. By 1840 a significant proportion of the Maori population were baptized Christians and a further portion were informally Christian. By the time of the Treaty, the North Island (Ao tea roa) was already a Christian place.

Christianity is of Evolutionary Significance

Many Maori chiefs signed the Treaty in part due to their trust in missionaries, who were seen as moral guides. The Treaty itself was framed in Christian moral language, and the missionaries viewed it as a covenant; a concept derived from Christian theology which enhanced previous Maori beliefs. Whereas last century Maoris tended to disparage the treaty, today there are some Maoris have reclaimed the idea that the Treaty is sacred.

The religious development which the Maoris experienced in the nineteenth century was similar to the Romans introducing Christianity to Britain during the second to fourth centuries AD. Christianity was a development of Greek philosophy as all of the New Testament writers had been trained in Greek Universities, which is why the NT was written in Greek. The story of Jesus first brought Greek rationalism to Jewish peasants, then to Celtic tribes, and later to Maori ones.

Christianity is about development of the conscious human rational faculty with Christ – aka the Word, language being the centre of consciousness – as its principle, as evidenced in the writings of St Paul and St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). That is, the Christian theologians, after Plato, believed that the rational mind is a procession in God as Creator or principle of the cosmos. If you substitute the theory of evolution in nature for the notion of procession in God, they were not far wrong.

Something similar to the British development also happened to the Maoris except that they were 1,200 years or more behind the British. The persistent Maori claims to beliefs in ‘celestial entities’ is an indication that the Maoris still have some catching up to do. And the inclusion of Maori spiritual beliefs into advice to Parliament (Gary Judd, here) is an indication of how readily Europeans will regress into a primitive state.

The European rational faculty is not yet strong, yet a rational approach is of essence if we are to have a viable democratic country.

The Colonists Built NZ to Christian Norms

The Constitutional Charter of New Zealand 1840 (aka Letters Patent, 16 November 1840) did not mention the Treaty of Waitangi. Nevertheless, it made New Zealand a British Colony incorporating the North and South Islands and Stewart Island, with its own political, legal and justice systems. The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 laid the foundation for New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy and introduced representative government; and the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 gave full legislative independence. None of those Acts were dependent on the Treaty of Waitangi which wasn’t recognized in New Zealand law until the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

Whereas Christianity is fundamental to the constitution and creation of New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi was not. The Treaty is not New Zealand’s founding document. Instead, the Bible is the founding document of the West, including New Zealand. If they had stopped with the Treaty there would be no New Zealand; New Zealand was founded by Royal Charters written from a British Christian tradition based on the Bible. While it may not be fashionable to say so now, those are nevertheless the historical facts of the matter.

The New Zealanders, as the British called them, had enquiring minds and were interested in all things British. You might call it the pakeha taonga, which included not only material goods but also European culture, knowledge and language. The missionaries helped to preserve the Maori language by putting it into print and making translations of the Bible, Prayer Book and hymns. Furthermore, early colonial education laws often included provisions for religious instruction including Christian values. Literacy was a great cultural advance, but before 1840 it did not give access to European literature and technology.

To encourage assimilation through language and religious values, the Education Ordinance of 1847 issued by Governor George Grey stipulated that religious instruction, industrial training, and English language education were compulsory in schools, which was a significant change for CMS schools. In the 1870s Maori leaders petitioned Parliament that Maori children should be taught in English only in the CMS schools. I have given a fulsome quote in an Appendix as it is quite enlightening if you have not read it before.

The push by Maoris for European education continued well into the twentieth century. Peter Fraser, the Minister of Education, wrote to Sir Apirana Ngata in 1936 asking him to “let me know what your people would expect of our school system.” Ngata replied: “the question you pose is one that I have raised with my people of the Tairawhiti [Eastern electorate] and the reply has always been the same – we send our children to school to learn the ways of the Pakeha.”

It is disappointing that a coterie of capricious Maoris and their quixotic supporters have recently reversed that position and it is a folly to indulge them.

The people who discovered New Zealand in the 18th century and built it in the 19th century identified as Christians at a time when religion was the basis of civil society. They were fundamentally Christian by virtue of their European culture which was based on the Bible, the foundational book of Europe, and structured by the Church, which was largely tied to the political and legal system. Hence, Christianity was the ‘soul’ of England which served to develop and structure the nation over the last 1,400 years (Ackroyd). The colonists brought their Christian culture and practices to New Zealand in the nineteenth century and created the country accordingly.

New Zealand’s constitution and its institutions, including the Westminster Parliament and the Christian Church, were copies of the British system, secular and sacred. Britain’s apparatus was developed within a tradition which has the Bible as its central foundational document.

The products of that apparatus were the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment. The British brought those advances to New Zealand and made them available to the Maoris who needed to become literate in English to participate them. The first task of the missionaries, then, was to teach the Maoris literacy in English, followed by British science and technology, which are a product of the British Christian tradition.

So, not only did the British colonists create New Zealand according to their Christian culture, but they also taught the Maoris how to participate its benefits, thereby lifting a people of lower culture to equality in political, social, and moral communion with the most advanced race in the world.

Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.

References

William Pember Reeves, The Long White Cloud: Ao Tea Roa, Fourth Revised Edition, 1950, pp. 99-104.

Judith Binney, “The Coming of the Pakeha, 1820-1840”, in Tangata Whenua: A History, 2015, pp. 167-177.

Paul Moon and Peter Biggs, The Treaty and its Times, 2004, pp. 31-5.

Michael King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 2003, pp. 140-52.

The Oxford History of New Zealand, Second Edition, ed. G.W. Rice, 1992, pp. 36-41.

Peter Ackroyd, The English Soul: Faith of a Nation, 2024, pp. 9, 242-249.

Appendix: English Only in CMS Schools

Wiremu Parker says in a chapter essay “The Substance that Remains” (in Wards, Thirteen Facets, 1978, p. 187):

Maori Language

Those who say that the suppression of Maori culture in schools was a deliberate pakeha device to do away with Maori culture would be well advised to do a little research. The truth is that well-intentioned, but as we now know misguided, Maoris and pakehas were convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the Maori people. Mr Takamoana, one of the first newly elected Maori members of Parliament said in Parliament in 1871 ‘that the whole of the Maoris in this Island request that the Government should give instruction that the Maoris should be taught in English only.’9 Another petition by Renata Kawepo and 790 others, and also one from Piri Ropata and 200 others asked for every endeavour to have schools established throughout the country so that Maori children could learn the English language.

As early as 1876 a petition to Parliament from We Te Hakiro and 316 others, asked that all children of two years of age, when just able to speak, should be taught the English language, so that their first language should be English. The petition also asked that not a word of Maori be allowed to be spoken in the school, and that the schoolmaster, his wife, and children be altogether ignorant of the Maori language.

For years the leaders of the Young Maori Party preached up and down the country what both A. T. Ngata and Dr Maui Pomare believed that ‘the first subject in order of priority in the school curriculum was English, the second most important subject was English, the third most important subject was English and then arithmetic and other subjects.’

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Barrie for an easy to understand and truthful article, but it remains that Luxon and Māori radicals prefer to lay the blame on the here and now. That they seem intent on allowing an apartheid system and fraudulently claiming land, money and resources at the expense of all NZ’ers is frankly unbelievable.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

>"From the late 1830s large numbers of Maoris were being baptized into one of these denominations."
Primitive peoples are henotheistic - they acknowledge the existence of the gods of other tribes as well as their own. How powerful a god is is reflected by the military and economic prowess of its followers. It pays to get on the right side of such gods. Hence we see mass baptisms wrongly referred to as 'conversions' because those being baptised have not, on the whole, ditched their traditional gods but have widened their circle of gods to include powerful deities from outside their own tribe.
>"If you substitute the theory of evolution in nature for the notion of procession in God, they were not far wrong."
I'm a bit lost here. Is he talking about cosmological evolution or biological evolution? (He's probably not thinking of geological evolution...." There is no evolutionary theory that covers both as each one is characterised by its own processes. Like so many commentators, the writer seems to be unsure what the words he uses actually mean.
>"Britain’s apparatus was developed within a tradition which has the Bible as its central foundational document."
Highly debatable. The Bible (is he thinking of the 66-book compendium or 73-book compendium?) has the lowest of profiles (in some cases zero) in 'foundational documents' such as Magna Carta or the Statute of Marlborough. The founding of the Common Law by Henry II was despite the Church's opposition.

Peter said...

Yes, thanks Barrie for the research and your endeavours. I've learnt not to trust The Post on anything regarding Maori, and a very good telltale of the forthcoming BS they print is the use of the term "Aotearoa" - yes, I know, they almost invariably use that term. To which I'd respond, Q.E.D.

For other reasons, the people that should also acquaint themselves with your article are, Erica Stanford, and those on the Select Committee who are currently reviewing the ETA Bill (2). More especially, they should think long and hard about your final paragraph, given the current misguided direction of our education legislation.


Barrie Davis said...

Mr Vlaardingerbroek, how often do you read the Magna Carta quoted compared to the Bible? Never, right? So, Gen 1:28 to you, pal.

glan011 said...

Thank you Barrie for your outline of Christianity in NZ. Spot on, and worth obliging younger uninformed vocals/activists to study. However, it fails to note the increasing secularity of NZ today. There is a huge swathe of population with NO IDEA AT ALL of things "spiritual" but a nevertheless a natural need thereof. And no DISCERNMENT. Thus they are at the mercy of Maori playing their primitive games... gullible.

Gaynor said...

In 2015, the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta , it became apparent there was a determination , in the media and other writings, to air-brush out of history any Judeo-Christian influence , at all , in this momentous document. However this has been the agenda of secular academia throughout the 20th Century , whether the topic be the Enlightenment or Christianity's contribution to anti -slavery. Surely this bias requires a reevaluation.
In the Cambridge University Press 2015 , entitled "The Great Covenant of Liberties :biblical principles and Magna Carta", Lord Sachs writes "Magna Carta can be read as a historical, constitutional , or legal document .But it was first and foremost a religious document ". It was sealed by King John 'from reverence for God.......for the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy Church......" King John was advised by 11 clergy and the document was mainly the work of Archbishop Langton , a famous lecturer of Old Testament ( OT) bible studies . Inspired by the OT book Deuteronomy which had laws which prevented the king from demanding more power than had been agreed . Langton was trying in his contributions to the charter, to realise a biblical covenantal kingship. It was a form of covenant of liberties : a covenant between God , the King and the people.
Similarly the other claims made by Barend need in depth scrutiny , bearing in mind his anti -Christian stance . Some study of medieval historical and general theological scholarship can provide counter views to his.

Anonymous said...

Barrie, a slight addition to the priorities of the first NZ missionaries of the CMS:
originally a part of the "civilizing" process was developing a Maori economy by way of establishing various industries and trades. One of my girlfriend's English ancestors worked in the flax industry in the UK. Flax is the raw material for linen cloth. He was sent to New Zealand in the 1830's to start production of linen and teach the Maori how to do it. Unfortunately, NZ flax was not suitable for making linen and in any case, the CMS quickly decided to concentrate on saving Maori souls rather than giving them trades that would help them integrate into the existing world economy. My girlfriend has her ancestor's diary which is a day to day description of his life. The CMS treated him very badly, moving him from place to place over a period of 50 years and never allowing him to settle in one place. He became a fluent Maori speaker and his descriptions of the Maori are quite different from the "everything Maori is wonderful and Maori are oh so spiritual" B.S. indoctrination our children are getting with their supposedly secular education

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Mr Davis, I have passed plenty of exams in both English law and Religious Studies, which gives me a great deal more credibility than most believers. Not that that has, or should have, anything to do with the correctness or otherwise of what I wrote in my comment above; but, typically of believers, you will duck and weave and do everything you can to avoid the issue where you can see that you are on the back foot - which I imagine is most of the time. So drop the ad hominem and focus on issues raised - if you are man enough.

glan011 said...

Oooooh, do I discern toes being trampled upon???

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Yeah - Mr Davis's. He seems to have a problem with anyone calmly and rationally commenting on a topic he appears to regard himself as having expertise in. I just don't accept that attitude from an ostensibly educated, thinking person. So let's see the expertise and not the 'attitude'.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Gaynor, your respectful tone is appreciated.
Just a couple of pointers for the benefit of readers.
Lord Jonathan Sacks was the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth. Looks like I'm not the only one who is a wee bit biased in relation to this topic.
Hey, if it takes 800 years to reveal the 'true' nature of MC, one can only wonder why so long..........
Of course most of John's advisers were priests - the priesthood was the main reservoir of literate people in those days!
And of course John had to take the Church into account when making decisions - it was such a great political force.
Reading up on the man's character, 'pious' would be one of the last words that comes to mind!

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Further to my last comment above, re: "He seems to have a problem with anyone calmly and rationally commenting on a topic he appears to regard himself as having expertise in."
Expertise is usually measured by qualifications. When I Google "PhD in psychology of Christian beliefs", I see lots of Yank fundamentalist shyster pseudocolleges offering Mickey Mouse 'degrees'.
When a supposedly highly educated person responds to an innocuous comment with a smart-alec teenager tantrum, it makes one wonder whether the quals are kosher....... I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong.