 |
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. Matthew 7:1-2 |
FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY men and women professing the Christian faith would appear to have imperilled their immortal souls. The second of the Ten Commandments could hardly be clearer: Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image. And yet, in their open letter to the nation’s legislators, these 440 clerics have made it equally clear that, by their adoration of te Tiriti o Waitangi, idolatry is precisely what they are guilty of. Worse still, by publicly bowing down before te Tiriti, and serving it so aggressively, they have called down upon their heads the wrath of a self-confessed “Jealous God”, whose punishments extend – even unto the fourth generation.
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.
This sermon was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 13 September 2024.
16 comments:
Don't know about this. What about doing a running check on things without a weight of holy writ or whatever blanketing the matter, just asking simply whether it is kindly and practical and matters to considerable numbers of people, could that cut through the hyperbole. We need to do things differently in the 21st century - maybe the last one that the modern 'civilised' world will know.
The 20th century passed with a bang and a groan. A neighbour and I agreed in conversation that manners are not being taught or perhaps modelled to the young. Are we to be unthinking organic actors without ideas of our own, respect for most others and understanding of the rest; disagreement only allowed amongst a few in a strictly controlled manner?
I don't find numbers of the comfortably-off setting time aside to sit in warmth and ponder in a well-fed way. We cannot start quarrelling about sticking rigidly to old tenets. They might have been thought up when people lived in tents in ancient times. The tents we have now are for refugees from neoliberalism which the 20th century has nurtured. I think the Christian input, and I am supposing they all are as it has become a brand name for go-getting males, should spark positive comment not the opposite.
Nothing worse than those that take biblical quotes out of context to reinforce a power position. Graven is limited to carved or sculptured idols. It is as ridiculous to suggest te Tiriti is a graven image as it would be the USA constitution or Magna Carta. Indeed, more ridiculous as the great Eddie Durie stated te Tiriti is a living document. Graven, by its definition (and in accordance with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek equivalence) fixed. This is reflected in the comment "its meaning has proved as difficult to pin down as quicksilver", which is incompatible with the earlier use of graven. Of course, the meaning has been defined by the Courts, the Crown and by Maori, that it has the capacity to be adhered to changing circumstances, is exactly why it has covenant.
Te Tiriti as a “sacred covenant” seems dismissed. Yet, it was the Missionaries that had petitioned the Crown for such a Treaty. It was Williams that translated it. Colenso that reported on it. It was Bishop Pompallier that controlled the perspectives of the Hokianga hapu. In deference to him, there was the verbal article 4 promise "the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected". While not written in the Waitangi copy, it was written into many of the versions that were taken around NZ for rangatira to sign. In the south, article four is very much a sacred covenant.
Like the 'hikoi of hope' tried to express, it is the role of the Churches to promote social justice. As a non-Christian, I can respect New Testament extrapolation to feed the poor and heal the sick - the applied Christianity of Michael Joseph Savage. Previously, this blog has evoked the 19th century Presbyterian minister, Rutherford Waddell and his public sermon "On the sin of cheapness", and the relentless campaign against sweat shops. That hypocrisy and religion go together should surprise no-one. But the use in this posting is rather crass.
Just to make another quick point. Outside the religious connotation, there is no legal difference between a treaty, and convention or a covenant. That the Treaty is a covenant is a simple truth.
To continue the religiosity thread ... " For Chrissake " let's get the debate over Te Tiriti Principles back ... well ... down to earth.
Surely the media and now the 400 "odd" ... yes distinctly "odd " signatories miss the essential debating point at issue which is this...
An intension, at long last, to define in workable terms (operationalise) the current meaningless "Principles".
This omission of process is analogous to Wilber and Orville launching at Kittyhawk an airplane without first gaining a good understanding of the Principles of what could make the craft ... well ..."fly"!
So let's get on with doing something similar. It's that basic ehh!
How do treaties become permanent sacred texts? I see many that are temporal attempts to reduce immediate deaths by the more powerful or to sort out why it’s time to stop. And they last whilst all the parties reckon they should. The treaty of Versailles ? Belgium neutrality ? Ukraine Russia…
I recall as a 5 year old at Sunday School (followed by church), signing "the wise man built his houses upon the rock..." I took that as a good metaphor, not so much about belief but in things like creating an artificial hierarchy based on ancestry.
Just what are they smoking?
Of course, the meaning has been defined by the Courts, the Crown and by Maori, that it has the capacity to be adhered to changing circumstances, is exactly why it has covenant.
You slipped the people in there, as though they are the sheep, and the "crown", is farm manager?
Aside from the wooly thinking and a liberal sprinkling of magic words the open letter does seem to have the facts wrong. A deliberate deception?
To quote: “The proposed bill is inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi in that it does not recognise the collective rights of iwi Māori or guarantee their relationship with the Crown."
Yet the proposed bill says:
Clause 2: "Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown".
No mention of the principle of equality before the law? Perhaps they don't like clause 3 either? : Right to Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.
Or clause one? 1/ Civil Government: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Always idiosyncratic in response John.
The Treay / te Tiriti was signed by the chosen ir appointed representatives of the people on both sides. Maori leadership is a consensus model (mana tangata), the British representatives "the Crown", which stands as a byword for constitutional democracy (or at least as it was evolving in Britain).
The descendants of those under the authority of those representatives, and those that later came under the auspice of the Crown (with the power now transfered to the settler government, and onto the democratic Parliament). Those descended rights include individual rights and collective.
I am not sure how you equate representative democracy with sheep herding as I have never seen the sheep caucus to choose a Shepard. Still, one day it maybe four legs good.
Oh David. You answer your own points.
"...when they are specified in legislation ", this immediately puts a qualifier that reduces and subsumed Maori rights.
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.
When writing on the covenant nature of te Tiriti, most seem focused on western concepts of the sacred. Many rangatira signed te Titiri by drawing their facial ta moko. Few things expressed tapu and mana more than this.
The missionaries and Busby were well aware of this and knew well that the Maori signatories viewed this as a spiritual compact.
Speaking as an atheist, I find it deeply disturbing to witness church leaders in lockstep with neo-Nazis.
https://tinyurl.com/wtan9cjr
People who have forgotten their Christian principles to the point where they are willing to support not only a neo-Nazi authoritarian, but someone whose personal life is pretty much the antithesis of Christianity. And people such as yourself David who have completely abandoned Christ's teachings on the poor. Indeed you look pretty well fed for someone who has done as Mark suggested.
Mark 10:21-22
I suspect that the neo-Marxism here exists only in your head, but then you do tend to label anything you disagree with as Marxist or leftist. I had a quick look at their website, I can't find any mention of Marx at all.
On the other hand, Hitler's greatest support came from those less-developed but more religious areas of Germany, and the Catholic Church in particular did help many war criminals escape to South America.
Mussolini's rise was pretty much fuelled by the Catholic Church, as was Franco's and various dictators in the western hemisphere.
I also find it deeply disturbing to find Christians both physically and sexually abusing young people. And in the US at least trying to negate the separation of church and state. But there you go, Christianity is often a blight on society, whereas these people at common grace seem to me to be a damn sight more Christian than most – and certainly more Christian than you – who would condemn anyone who doesn't have money to a life of grinding servitude.
Rights without limits, but only for some?
Part of the reason for addressing this is that there are some among us that really believe that and are willing to lie and manipulate to implement their racist ends.
Well said Brendan. "Sacred covenant" now becomes whatever agrees with their chosen ideological point of view.
It looks to me like these "church leaders" are in the process of replacing their religion with concepts of oppressor/oppressed; so yes, very Neo Marxist. The prospect of assigning rights based on ethnicity should terrify them if they had any sense of history, if they weren't completely clueless.
The intended consequence of clause two is the extension of rights to all New Zealanders regardless of who your great great grandparents were.
"Everyone has the same rights, including hapu and iwi. The rights of hapu and iwi differ… only when...specified. It acknowledges that the Treaty was signed by hapu and iwi to protect their rights, and makes clear all people in New Zealand now have the same rights. It also accepts that future Governments can, and probably will, make policies that give hapu and iwi some rights that are different. The critical thing is they won’t be able to rely on the Treaty to do that.
For example, there will be Treaty settlements in the future. The real meaning of this paragraph is that it will be the conscious choice, and political responsibility, of future politicians. They won’t be able to say ‘we’re doing it to honour the principles of the Treaty’ because these principles give all people the same rights." ACT party.
Post a Comment