SUNDAY 6 FEBRUARY 2005
Waitangi Day ?± 2005
In a couple of weeks' time I??m taking part in a workshop with students from the Eastern Mennonite University of Pennsylvania, who are doing cross-cultural studies here. I was interested to read the description of their programme, which outlined their reason for choosing to come to New Zealand:
?´NZ conjures up for many people images of flocks of sheep dotting green hillsides and plains, surrounding quaint villages and modern towns that serve as home to its 3 million people. However, what escapes the world??s attention is that this small nation flung, as it were, into the far reaches of the South Pacific stands as a beacon for the rest of the world for the creation of a culture of peace. The seminar will explore how New Zealand evolved from a remote British frontier colony in the early 1800s?ñ.. into a modern society seeking justice to repair past harms?ñ?ñ?ñ.. We will study New Zealand guided by questions: What is a culture of peace?, and, How does New Zealand create and maintain a culture of peace?
I wondered at first if they had got the wrong country ?ñ New Zealand a beacon for the rest of the world? ?ñ?ñcreating a culture of peace? The workshop I??m involved in is on the role of the Churches in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. And so in case I was specifically asked, I wanted to get some background on the relationship between Pakeha and M?ѬÅori over the history of our Presbyterian Church. As you know our denomination??s entry into this country was different from that of the other mainline Churches such as Anglican and Methodist. Their missionaries came essentially to establish a Church with a M?ѬÅori membership - a M?ѬÅori liturgy in te Reo. The Presbyterian Church came essentially with a Church of Pakeha settlers ?± a Scottish liturgy in English. It was not until nearly 50 years after its arrival that our Church really began a ministry to M?ѬÅori. And then for the 60 years following 1895, there was considerable activity. I??ll briefly run down the dates and places.
1895 - Taupo
1902 - Taumarunui
1905 - Turakina Girls College
1914 - Nuhaka
1917 - Ruatahuna
1918 - Maungapohatu
1918 - Waiohau
1921 - Waikaremoana
1921 - Matahi
1926 - Te Teko
1929 - Kawerau
1929 - Opotiki
1934 - Tokaanu
1937 - Te Whaiti: Farm Training School
1942 - Reporoa
1945 - Pentland Ave, Mt Eden, Girls Hostel for Teacher
trainees
1947 - Whakatane, David Hogg Secondary School Boys Hostel
1950 - Auckland Pastorate, Edinburgh St, Newton
1951 - Waimana
1952 - Dominion Rd, Mt Eden, Boys Trade Training Hostel
1953 - Ponsonby Rd, Girls Hostel
1954 ?± Whakatane, School of Theology (Te Waananga a
rangi)
And we mustn??t forget that standing alongside these facts and figures are the names and personalities of the many, many men and women, lay and clergy who often ministered in circumstances I would not agree to, if asked today.
All this work took place under various forms of the M?ѬÅori Missions Committee of the General Assembly. It??s interesting to note that although the Assembly in 1945 established Te Hinota M?ѬÅori - the M?ѬÅori Synod, it would not ?´exercise any independent administrative initiative or control???ñthese duties were to continue under the Assembly??s Mission Committee. In 1954 Te Hinota M?ѬÅori was granted full Presbyterial status and powers, but a joint Assembly Committee continued to sit alongside the Synod for the next couple of decades.
By the beginning of the 1960s there began a decline in the level of involvement by the Pakeha Church with M?ѬÅori. Into the 1970s significant events in our wider society were beginning to waken the country??s attention to things M?ѬÅori; The Land March lead by Whina Cooper, the Bastion Point occupation, the Springbok tour, growing protests at Waitangi Day celebrations. I??m sure there were many individuals in the Church wondering about new directions. But collectively, it seems to me, in the absence of knowing what to do next, in good Presbyterian fashion the Church formed committees and issued statements. But the hard work done by concerned and committed members of such groups seems to have been largely ignored by the wider Church. I think we conveniently gave priority to other issues.
This I believe is highlighted in 1990 when our Church celebrated its 150th Anniversary and Assembly submitted to the Church a change of name to the ?¨Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand?Æ. Sixteen Presbyteries were in favour of the addition of the word ?¨Aotearoa?Æ ?± nine were against, whilst 70 parishes were for it (including St Lukes I believe) and 144 against. Two to one against. It??s amazing how one word can contain so much fear for so many people.
Other committees were established. Following a Bicultural Consultation held at Ohope Marae in January 1993 a ?´Commission on Principles of Biculturalism?? was established by the Assembly. Its work was to develop and promote bicultural commitments within the Church, to recommend to the Church appropriate use of resources of the Church in the light of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to review the Constitution and regulations of the Church in order to reflect our bicultural commitment... At the 1995 Assembly this Commission was renamed Te Komiti Takawaenga o Te Haahi: The Treaty Partnership Committee.
What has been the result? I think, in reality, partnership has not made it outside of the Committee room.
So why has this relationship in the Church that was very active in its first 50 years, been declining over the last 50 years? As I like to do, I??ve formed an opinion, and it??s this: as long as the Pakeha Church was ?´delivering to M?ѬÅori?? we were happy about this as the purpose of our relationship. But when the ?´delivering to?? nature of the relationship came to an end, and we still could not/would not see the possibilities of another purpose for the relationship, it was inevitable that a decline would happen. Whilst we believed they needed us to receive and grow in the Good News, we didn??t believe they had anything we needed in our journey to becoming a whole and healthy community of God??s people. If that was the case, then such spiritual self-sufficiency and independence is a dangerous place to be. And it??s a place that our Biblical tradition warns us against being in.
In our first reading today the Israelites had escaped from Egypt and camped at Mt Sinai where God gave the Ten Commandments. It tells us of God tenting with Israel. This portable shrine was regarded as the place of rendezvous with Yahweh. Yahweh was worshipped as the transcendent God dwelling in heaven and also as co- dwelling with the people. Apparently in Hebrew a meaning of this word ?´dwell?? is to ?´abide provisionally?? - God??s presence as source of their life could not be taken for granted. But over the succeeding generations they did just that.... they believed they could do as they pleased because they had, in essence, captured God.
By about 760 BCE the Israelites were well established as two kingdoms bonded by a common religious tradition. From the northern kingdom a herdsman stepped onto the scene. The prophet Amos reminded them of their ?´Exodus?? history and the covenant relationship Yahweh had made with them. He reminded them that if they took this ?´presence?? for granted they were going to lose out. ?¨Woe to you who are at ease in Zion and to those who feel secure in the mountains of Samaria?Æ. Well we know how they responded and in due course came the exile to Babylon.
Now it??s my theological theory or heresy that God then decided to have a second go at trying to get through to the ?´Chosen Ones?? that though they were the ?´first?? base of establishing ?´God??s reign?? they weren??t the only ones. Other bases were needed for the kingdom to flourish fully. And so as the Gospel writer John says, ?¨the Word became flesh?Æ?ñ. Jesus arrived, God??s tent was pitched again, and in surprising places. We know the stories well?ñ
A Samaritan women came to draw water from a well and Jesus asked her to pour him a drink The disciples were amazed to find him talking with a woman, who was also a Samaritan, because the Jews had no dealing with the Samaritans. On another occasion Jesus meets up with Zaccheus, the tax gatherer. - ?¨He??s gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner?Æ. And it was an issue the early Church struggled with, as was read to us today in the second reading from Acts 11.
The ?´Chosen Ones?? had great difficulty in accepting that the Good News was being ?´pitched in tents?? outside the circle they had created. If we believe that the Word continues to take flesh and dwell among us, where would the tent be pitched today? On this Waitangi Day where is it pitched? Where we are comfortable, where it's familiar to us, amongst what we know? Or might it be also somewhere else? Amongst the unknown, the unfamiliar and maybe amongst what we fear? And if so how do we respond?
When I look back over the last 30 years or so of my life I know that the times I have grown most spiritually, have not been when all is ?´well with my soul?? nor emerging from a ?´dark night of the soul??. Rather it??s been the times when I have found myself in places where all the familiar signposts, externally and internally, that helped me make sense of things, were of little or no use. Times when I had a strong urge to leave but for unknown reasons hung in with the unfamiliar and unknown. Its been in those times that later, when looking back on them, I??ve realised that taking the risk of hanging in, opened the opportunity for growth (I have to confess as I??ve got older, these times have become less and less. I wrap myself in my security blanket more and more).
Our final hymn today is ?´When the road runs out and the signpost ends??. This Waitangi day I??m choosing to relate this to the ?¨crossroads?Æ I believe the Pakeha Church is in with our relationship with M?ѬÅori in the Church. The road the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has walked on, I suggest, has run out?ñ. I believe that here at St Lukes, we know that we ?´don??t have it all?? ?ñ. but we??re left wondering, maybe even a bit fearful of the what, when and how of becoming ?´receivers?? rather than ?´deliverers?? in a new way together.
Maybe St Lukes can commission the writing of the history of the relationship between M?ѬÅori and Pakeha over the last 50 years. I don??t think it would make pleasant reading but the knowledge may catalyse the wider Church into forging a new and healthy relationship. (Maybe we can persuade Allan Davidson, whose wisdom and scholarship I acknowledge has been such a help to me in preparing this, to head up such a project.) Maybe it means a pilgrimage to Te Maungarongo Marae at Ohope and other places of importance to Te Aka Puaho, to be listeners rather than talkers. Maybe, as I understand, Te Aka Puaho is considering re-establishing a pastorate in Auckland we take the risk of saying to them, with empty hands, ?¨how can we help??Æ
And maybe if the students from the Eastern Mennonite University, USA, return in a few years?? time I can tell them, ?¨St Lukes played a significant part in growing our wider Presbyterian Church's contribution to the wider ecumenical Christian Church's contribution to the wider Pakeha contribution to creating in Aotearoa/New Zealand ,a culture of peace.?Æ ?± Just what I believe was the intention of both parties on this day in 1840. Dare we imagine it so? Dare we commit ourselves to being co-creators of the kingdom of heaven in this small nation, flung as it were in the far reaches of the South Pacific. A beacon to the rest of the world ?