It is tempting to treat the latest protests by Bishop Brian Tamaki and his Destiny Church followers with the contempt of silence. By not commenting. By not giving them the media and conversation profile they desire. And instead focus on celebrating Pride week and all the good it stands for. As I suspect the majority of New Zealanders do, proud that our country is now, in legislation and in much practice, inclusive of those identifying as queer.

And yet, ignoring acts of intimidation and violence, including in this case threatening behaviour in front of children, doesn’t make those acts go away. Ignoring the Bishop’s statement that such acts are part of his ‘war on woke’ (read: war on anyone who doesn’t fit their toxic brew of masculinity, heterosexism, and Christianity), won’t make those comments go away or cease to appear on newsfeeds. Bad behaviour, and the myths used to support it, needs to be named, and goodness needs to be reclaimed.

The acts I’m referring to happened last weekend. A group of men, dressed in black with T-shirts carrying their slogans (like ‘Man-Up’), disrupted the annual Pride parade down Ponsonby Road by performing a haka. The haka was not chanted in support of the courage and kaupapa (principles) of Pride, but in opposition to it. Indeed their protest seemingly, purposefully, was meant to intimidate. And that certainly was its effect on some in the parade and some watching it.

The other act, and one that is much more difficult to defend as ‘the right to protest,’ is the disruption of a children’s show in the public library at Te Atatū Community Centre. A show put on by the drag king Hugo Grrrl. News reports say some 50 people entered the building and refused to leave. There were allegations of assault and a physical injury at least to one person. And, of course, this all occurred in front of children attending the show. The deliberate instilling of fear in children by the aggressive actions of adults is something I hoped never to see in New Zealand.

There has been significant condemnation of these acts, particularly the latter, from political and civic leaders. And I, as a religious leader, add my voice to theirs.

Religion, and certainly Christianity, has a history of being adopted and used by groups who wish to bolster their sense of identity, self-worth, and importance by denigrating the identity, self-worth, and importance of others. Lines of demarcation are drawn. These groups construct, using biblical texts to bolster their argument, boundaries and methods to expedite who should be included and who excluded.

Unfortunately it is not difficult to find biblical texts which seemingly exclude women, migrants, those who identify as queer, and those of other religions. In large part the Bible reflects the attitudes and understandings of tribal groups within the overarching mythology of patriarchy – a mythology that, like Tamaki’s, used the concept of God to bolster it. But the Bible, in small part, also reflects the attitudes and understandings of dissidents who sought to challenge that mythology by deed or story. The Bible contains many voices, and they are not all in unison. The Bible for example contains divergent understandings of God and morality.

The problem for Bishop Tamaki, and others of a fundamentalist ilk within the umbrella of Christianity, is that our exemplar Jesus of Nazareth is more of a dissenter from rather than a supporter of that Biblical mainstream. By telling stories that crossed boundaries (think ‘the Parable of the Good Samaritan’) and by reaching out to include, dine with, and value those who weren’t (think of his actions towards women and tax-collectors), he subverted patriarchal and tribal exclusivity.

In short, it’s difficult to imagine Jesus condoning anything that intimidated children or other vulnerable groups, let alone joining a ‘war on woke’.

‘Woke’ comes from the word ‘awake,’ and was used in the 1930s by African-Americans to refer to those with an awareness of social and political issues. So ‘stay woke’ meant ‘stay aware.’ However by 2019, the term was being used sarcastically by the political right to target various progressive inclusive movements. It’s used as a synonym for insincere or superficial. And, of course, in the maelstrom of US politics ‘woke’ has been weaponised to attack anyone who disagrees with the current regime. Which is probably close to Bishop Brian’s use of it too.

I think if ‘woke’ means being supportive of those who are queer, and being committed to dismantling policies, structures, and attitudes that exclude and stigmatise, then sign me up. If ‘woke’ means solidarity with children and others who feel vulnerable, and a commitment to stand against the destructive understanding of masculinity and heterosexism that Destiny and other religious types foment, then sign me up. Today I’ll proudly wear the badge of ‘woke.’

‍