Showing posts with label Maori. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maori. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Reflections on Pita Sharples
Pita Sharples is one of New Zealand's most respected contemporary politicians, he is one of those people who seems able to embody the word irenic and seems to almost glow with wisdom and tranquility even when reporters are shoving cameras in his face and asking their questions. I was glad of the opportunity to go to Carey College and hear him speak last week (7pm, 22nd March) and although he is smaller in real life than on TV he remains an incredibly impressive man.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Unity is bad for Human Health
Whilst sitting in on a lecture on Gen 11, I was struck by Tim's remarks concerning the way human unity is always bad for someone. Unity is always at the expense of someone, usually a minority. For example in Iraq, Sudan and Burma conflict is occuring primarily because some factions are trying to bring unity to a geographical area where other resident factions exist which want to maintain their diversity (or bring a different sort of unity).
In NZ there is a popular polemic against difference that suggests everyone in NZ is simply Kiwi, but of course what they mean is that those in ethnic minorities should simply confrom to the majority (pakeha/european). In conversation with a Maori Christian leader I was told that the churches are always saying to Maori that we should be one in Christ, but the Maori response is "one what?" Because the implicit message they receive is that to have unity they need to become european. And yet Christ's prayer in John 17 was for the unity of his church and in Acts 2, 13, Eph 2-4 and Rev 5, (among many others) we are confronted with a vision of a church where in difference and diversity there is unity around Christ.
And as if that wasn't enough, today we had a Kenyan missionary to NZ speaking and who told us that using other languages and singing the odd song from a different culture wasn't enough but he wanted the church to be interested in the "way" he wanted to worship as an African and that once a year they should let him lead worship. So I had this vision of him stood up front of his Kiwi church exhorting them to be temporarily more African which I just couldn't see going well.
My hunch is that true multicultural church needs to follow the model of Antioch (Acts 13) and have multicultural leadership. Are there any churches out there today that are truly managing to be multicultural? If so what do they look like and how do they do it?
In NZ there is a popular polemic against difference that suggests everyone in NZ is simply Kiwi, but of course what they mean is that those in ethnic minorities should simply confrom to the majority (pakeha/european). In conversation with a Maori Christian leader I was told that the churches are always saying to Maori that we should be one in Christ, but the Maori response is "one what?" Because the implicit message they receive is that to have unity they need to become european. And yet Christ's prayer in John 17 was for the unity of his church and in Acts 2, 13, Eph 2-4 and Rev 5, (among many others) we are confronted with a vision of a church where in difference and diversity there is unity around Christ.
And as if that wasn't enough, today we had a Kenyan missionary to NZ speaking and who told us that using other languages and singing the odd song from a different culture wasn't enough but he wanted the church to be interested in the "way" he wanted to worship as an African and that once a year they should let him lead worship. So I had this vision of him stood up front of his Kiwi church exhorting them to be temporarily more African which I just couldn't see going well.
My hunch is that true multicultural church needs to follow the model of Antioch (Acts 13) and have multicultural leadership. Are there any churches out there today that are truly managing to be multicultural? If so what do they look like and how do they do it?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Why Pakeha dont get Maori
Tena koutou,
Well, it is Maori language week in NZ, and while such things are definately tokenism, they should be used as oportunities to promote and advocate for those things which they are tokens of.
At Carey we took the opportunity to have a couple of speakers to share about the Maori experience of colonisation and of the gospel. As you might expect it was a deeply moving time and something we need to do more than just once a year. But one thing which really hit me yesterday was the way that the Maori approach to history was so at odds with the Pakeha (European-Kiwi). I have know that for a long time, but hadn't applied that knowledge to the way that so many Kiwis react to Maori issues.
For Maori: History is alive, their ancestors live in them
For Pakeha: History is dead, it is written in books
For Maori: History is who you are, it is your identity
For Pakeha: Now is who you are, the past should be left behind
All this means that when the Maori want to address the injustices of the past the Pakeha roll their eyes and say "can't we just move on?" " Why are you dragging up all that history?" "Let's focus on the future." For the Europeans the past is irrelevant and so those lazy Maori's are just trying to get something for nothing. For the Maori the past is not irrelevant, they live with the legacy of the past injustices in their communities and families and know that they cannot move into the future untill the wounds of the past have been healed. The Pakeha who doesn't even know the name of his great grandfather finds it hard to understand how the Maori can still be hurt by what happened to his.
The Pakeha needs to wake up to the history of the nation, the reality of the social legacy colonisation has left the Maori. Until we do that, the Maori will never be healed, and the nation will never be one, and neither will the church.
Well, it is Maori language week in NZ, and while such things are definately tokenism, they should be used as oportunities to promote and advocate for those things which they are tokens of.
At Carey we took the opportunity to have a couple of speakers to share about the Maori experience of colonisation and of the gospel. As you might expect it was a deeply moving time and something we need to do more than just once a year. But one thing which really hit me yesterday was the way that the Maori approach to history was so at odds with the Pakeha (European-Kiwi). I have know that for a long time, but hadn't applied that knowledge to the way that so many Kiwis react to Maori issues.
For Maori: History is alive, their ancestors live in them
For Pakeha: History is dead, it is written in books
For Maori: History is who you are, it is your identity
For Pakeha: Now is who you are, the past should be left behind
All this means that when the Maori want to address the injustices of the past the Pakeha roll their eyes and say "can't we just move on?" " Why are you dragging up all that history?" "Let's focus on the future." For the Europeans the past is irrelevant and so those lazy Maori's are just trying to get something for nothing. For the Maori the past is not irrelevant, they live with the legacy of the past injustices in their communities and families and know that they cannot move into the future untill the wounds of the past have been healed. The Pakeha who doesn't even know the name of his great grandfather finds it hard to understand how the Maori can still be hurt by what happened to his.
The Pakeha needs to wake up to the history of the nation, the reality of the social legacy colonisation has left the Maori. Until we do that, the Maori will never be healed, and the nation will never be one, and neither will the church.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Roundup
The soul of a dead human is apparently worth NZ$1,415, unless the buyer got a discount for buying in bulk?
RCAP has a new feature,"Conversations with Matua," this month managing to mix assault, incest and the prophet Amos. Matua is a rather useful Maori word for parent, not least because it is gender non-specific.
Barnabas Fund reacts to the change in Western Christian perceptions of Islam.
Christian Kiwis get kicked out of Morocco, but claim not to be missionaries. Isn't caring for orphans part of Christian mission? I think what they mean was that they weren't actively proselytising. But shaming Morocco by taking better care of its orphans than its Muslim society does is surely even more provocative.
John Hobbins continues an excellent series on slavery in the OT:
I know it seems like I am stalking Hobbins, but he really does blog a lot of good stuff, and this stuff (above) is really very important.
And perhaps most interestingly, a Zimbabwean tribe, the Lemba, have been genetically proven to share a common ancestor with the priestly Jewish line of Cohen, the ancestor they share dates back to around the time of ... wait for it ... Moses and Aaron! Assuming of course that they existed at all. [HT Chris]
RCAP has a new feature,"Conversations with Matua," this month managing to mix assault, incest and the prophet Amos. Matua is a rather useful Maori word for parent, not least because it is gender non-specific.
Barnabas Fund reacts to the change in Western Christian perceptions of Islam.
Christian Kiwis get kicked out of Morocco, but claim not to be missionaries. Isn't caring for orphans part of Christian mission? I think what they mean was that they weren't actively proselytising. But shaming Morocco by taking better care of its orphans than its Muslim society does is surely even more provocative.
John Hobbins continues an excellent series on slavery in the OT:
- The abolition of slavery in Leviticus 25: some preliminaries
- The abolition of slavery in Leviticus 25: more preliminaries
- The abolition of slavery in Leviticus 25
- Slavery per se is a cruel practice (Leviticus 25)
- Slavery according to the law collections of the Hebrew Bible
I know it seems like I am stalking Hobbins, but he really does blog a lot of good stuff, and this stuff (above) is really very important.
And perhaps most interestingly, a Zimbabwean tribe, the Lemba, have been genetically proven to share a common ancestor with the priestly Jewish line of Cohen, the ancestor they share dates back to around the time of ... wait for it ... Moses and Aaron! Assuming of course that they existed at all. [HT Chris]
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Treaty and the Gospel: Guest Post by Mark Grace
[Pic from here]
The Gospel and the Treaty of Waitangi.
New Zealand is in the midst of a healthy conversation over our identity. This has led many New Zealand Christians to ask ‘what is our identity as Christ followers in these Islands?’ I believe we can turn to two sources, one primary and one secondary, one ancient, one historical, but both incredibly important for our life and mission in NZ.
Paul describes the gospel in Romans 1:1-5. The Gospel is God’s word speaking through the scriptures about Jesus. Just as all roads in New Zealand ultimately lead us to State Highway One all parts of scripture point us ultimately to the person and work on the cross of the Lord Jesus.
Timothy Keller summaries the gospel as: through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.
It is this gospel that is arguably the largest single influence on the content, shape and reception of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Why have we not heard this?
In a 1991 Survey Dr Peter Lineham observed that New Zealand historians continue to ‘downplay the significance of religious belief’ which continues to be poorly integrated into the writing of NZ history.
In 2001 Dr Allan Davidson “wrote with the partial exception of James Belich’s Making Peoples, general histories of NZ have mostly written out, marginalised or trivilialised religion.”
We’ll explore 5 ways this gospel has influenced the Treaty.
1. The gospel contributes to the motivation for the treaty in New Zealand
In the late 1830s the Christian Missionary Society missionaries and Weslyn Missionary Society missionaries are genuinely concerned about the imminent threat of unrestrained immigration on Māori communities. They believe, a formal relationship via a Treaty with the British Crown is needed as a protection for Māori. It is also likely, they are also wanting to retain their own influence and position in the country and can see that that would be diminished if commercial colonization takes off.
2. The gospel contributes to the motivation for treaty in the UK
In the years leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Wiatangi most of the 25 staff of British Colonial Office are members of William Wilberforces, Clapham Sect.
This wide-ranging group of influential evangelical Christian friends include the Colonial Secretary himself, Lord Glenelg. The gospels vision of humanities equality and God’s justice inspire these parliamentarians and civil servants to passionately campaign against slavery and for the rights of indigenous people. This leads them to campaign for the protection and preservation of Maori society.
At the time they form only one voice amongst many competing ones on the issue of colonization. The overall effect of the debate in Brittan is the realization that the Government needs to enter into a formal treaty with Maori that would protect indigenous Maori rights over land, bush, river and seas in exchange for British protection and sovereignty. Lieut-Governor William Hobson is therefore dispatched from Sydney in January 1840 to achieve that end.
3. This gospel has shaped the content of the treaty
James Stephen is the permanent under secretary in the Colonial Office. He is possibly the most influential civil servant of his time. He is profoundly influenced by the gospel. His gospel convictions express themselves in a deep commitment to the abolition of slavery championed by his brother in law William Wilberforce and others. He later becomes concerned about the negative impacts of colonization on indigenous peoples.
Stephen, wanting to avoid a similar pattern in New Zealand drafts the instructions for Lord Normandy which are given to William Hobson when he is sent to New Zealand in 1840. Parts of the instruction are as follows:
All dealings with Maori must be conducted with sincerity, justice, and good faith.
They must not be permitted to enter into any Contracts in which they might be ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves.
You will not, purchase from them any Territory that would be essential, or highly conducive, to their own comfort, safety or subsistence.
The content of the treaty is shaped by these instructions. The instructions themselves are shaped by the biblical gospel.
4. The gospel shaped the nature of the treaty to Maori
Missionaries cultivated an image of the Queen as personally loving towards Maori. Henry Williams would affirm to Maori at Waitangi that the Treaty was an act of love towards them on the part of the Queen.
This thinking led many chiefs, who were by then, either Christian or associated with Christianity, to see the treaty in terms of a spiritual bond. A covenant.
For these chiefs the Treaty was a covenant between the Maori people and the Queen as head of the English Church and state. The Maori name for the Treaty is He Kawenata o Waitangi (‘The Covenant of Waitangi’)
Many Maori at the time perceived the treaty enabled Pakeha and Maori to be one people in both a spiritual and societal sense.
Affirming this was Hobson’s words to each Chief as they completed their signing of the Treaty at Waitangi were “He iwi tahi tatou”- now we are all one people. His words selected by Henry Williams were loosely based on Ephesians 2:13.
The northern tribe Ngapuhi, in particular, understood the treaty as a special kind of covenant with the Queen, a bond with all the spiritual connotations of the biblical covenants; there would be many tribes, including the British, but all would be equal under God.
Claudia Orange argues “For British officials it’s fair to say the perception of covenant, and the missionaries emphasising the humanitarian protection of the British were simply part of securing sovereignty…”
5. This gospel influences the reception of the treaty
On February 6th 43 Chiefs signed the treaty, in all over 500 would sign the treaty over the next 8 months.
The majority of Treaty negotiators where either missionaries or closely associated with them. Missionaries with considerable mana with Maori particularly Henry Williams took the treaty throughout the country to be signed.On many occasions it is the credibility of the missionary themselves and their endorsement which gives the treaty it’s credibility.
In the years before the signing of the Treaty 74,000 copies of Biblical books, New Testaments had been printed and distributed throughout New Zealand. Coupled with the focus on literary the gospel had spread rapidly.
Almost half the Maori population would be influenced by the gospel. Chiefs who had come to faith in Christ or who had been influenced by the gospel were far more likely to be well disposed to the treaty although where the gospel was not strong amongst Senior Chiefs it was a far more difficult process in obtaining signatures.
What are the implications for us today?
1. I want to reclaim the treaty as part of our Christian story
As gospel people the Treaty is part of our history, it’s part our legacy and it’s expression today is apart of our responsibility.
2. I want to understand the nature of the Crowns historical breaches, and the churches complicity in this.
The gospel calls us to be a reconciling people. As we’ve learnt from South Africa, truth comes before reconciliation. Wanting to know the truth compels me to understand the Crowns historical breaches and the church’s complicity in these.
3. I want us to discover how we can apply the Waitangi covenant to our life together as a church.
When we seek to explore what it means to uphold and express the values of the Waitangi Covenant as the people of God I believe it leads us towards a deeper experience of what it means to Christian and a richer experience of what it means to be kiwi. Why, because the Treaty affirms our place on the land together.
As Chief Judge Eddie Durie expressed it in his Waitangi Day address in 1989:
We [Maori] must not forget that the Treaty is not just a Bill of Rights for Maori. It is a Bill of Rights for Pakeha too. It is the Treaty that gives Pakeha the right to be here. Without the Treaty there would be no lawful authority for the Pakeha presence in this part of the South Pacific. The Pakeha here are not like the Indians of Fiji, or the French in New Caledonia. Our Prime Minister can stand proud in Pacific forums, and in international forums too, not in spite of the Treaty but because of it. We must remember that if we are the Tangata Whenua, the original people, then the Pakeha are the Tangata Tiriti, those who belong to the land by right of that Treaty.I believe as we seek to embody the gospel and express the Waitangi covenant bi culturally and multi-culturally over the next 30 years our frail and faltering attempts will show the credibility and authenticity of the gospel to Maori and the rest of New Zealand. It is my prayer Maori would again respond to the gospel. In turn due to the growing prominence and preference given to Maori spirituality in New Zealand society Maori will have the opportunity to take the gospel back to the entire society.
The gospel has had a significant impact on all aspects of the Treaty. As a result, we the people of God in Aoteoroa New Zealand need to reclaim it as part of our story. We need to understand the historical injustices of the past and we need to find ways of expressing with grace and truth the values of the Treaty in our life together into the future.
Mark Grace is a member of the Te Arawa tribe and works for Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship leading their national work to graduates in the workplace, post graduate students and academics. http://www.catalyst.ac.nz Mark attends Fielding Bible Chapel and is happy to speak and lead seminars on this issue. He can be contacted at markg (at) tscf.org.nz. A full footnoted version of the article is available here.
[Let me know what you think, :-)]
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Yet another instance of 2 Chron 7:14 abuse!
I get so tired of hearing 2 Chron 7:14 quoted by western Christians in regard to their own nations. In its context it is quite clearly about ancient Israel and the unique relationship it would enjoy as the site of God's temple. Today the temple site has a mosque built on it and Garth George seems to think that it is actually about New Zealand. So in its literal sense it no longer applies. Quite what modern Christians are supposed to take from it is another matter, but it certainly isn't a promise of national social or religious renewal if enough people pray for it. Don't even get me started on his use of Isaiah 6:9-10, which is apparently a rebuke for a failure to take interest in Maori/Pakeha tensions!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Darryl Gardiner on the Treaty of Waitangi
How should Christians in NZ respond to the history surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi? Here is one attempt at a Biblical response. Let me know what you think :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A Fresh Crop of New Blogs
I've been hearing rumours that blogging is making a comeback. Some of us never went away, but I admit, it's been slim picking round ...
-
James McGrath's blog really is a mighty blog. He is single handedly responsible for sending over 80 readers to this weeks carnival. If y...
-
I know it has been a lean year for my long suffering blog readers, but as a sign i still love you, and that the rivers of xenos have not yet...
-
Just been reading a fun little article with an approach to Jesus' preexistence in Mark's Gospel that I haven't come across befor...

