God loves ALL his children
To the extent that I’m not Muslim or Hindu or a Buddhist or a Sikh, when I’m asked what my religion is I answer Christian. That doesn’t mean I’m a practicing church-going Christian or a devout one. But I know about being a Christian because I’ve been one all my life.
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 somebody other than the government running the show, or 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.
Writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Subscribe to Peter William's Substack here
No comment box on latest post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This site is buggered.
All the hype leading up to the ACT proposed Principiles Bill, one would think the three you have listed were paramount. Not according to National. National have proposed amendments that will enshrine what these activist want.. one country, two peoples with separation embraced. There are elite Maori that crave returning to pre treaty days. My answer is ‘no’. If National don’t listen to the room, they will pay a price in two and a half years.
Does anyone know how the venerable Brian Tamaki [self appointed Bishop] feels about this issue, of if his signature was amongst the 400?
It's all a bit vague. The Treaty is a document of history cobbled together for a number of urgent reasons -=- to block the French, to protect some Maori from some other Maori and to ensure a relatively peaceful opportunity for European civilisation to elevate the future lot of people who were still mostly savage. It was a short document, and its intentions have been most lucidly explained by Sir Apirana Ngata.
It did not include any "principles". These have been "invented" more recently by those who wish to use that document to feather their own nests, in the main. While the Treaty has no principles, it is to be hoped that intelligent humans do. These recognise rights and o…