This occasional weekend column called ‘Pondering:…’ is where people from within the ‘Team of 40,000 Baptists’ can share issues they are thinking about in a way that opens up a topic from a particular perspective. Feel free to comment on these pieces on Facebook or our new Mailbox or contribute your own pondering. Opinion pieces are the views of individuals and need to be considered within the context of the diversity of our union of Baptist churches in New Zealand. When commenting or contributing, please follow our Guidelines for articles, opinion pieces and online comments.
This “pondering” comes from Robert Jensen, LL.B., Dip. Theol. He has pastored two New Zealand Baptist Churches. During 21 years with Arotahi (NZBMS) in Bangladesh, he worked with local Baptist churches at a time when their national body grew from 7 to over 250 churches. This work involved Bible teaching, translation and literature production as well as economic development. He is long-retired and a member of Snells Beach Baptist Church.
The Bible alone governs what Baptists believe and how we behave; “your word is a lamp to guide me and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105). Over the last decade, the Baptist Union, its College and Missionary Society have begun a “bicultural journey.” It is also known as “Tiriti Hikoi” (Treaty step) because its guiding light is the Treaty of Waitangi. Are we sure the Treaty is guiding our steps along the same path as the Bible? The answer is confused by those claiming the Treaty lens is broken in translation and shines in opposite directions.
The Problem
The problem is the modern interpretation of just two words in Article 2 of the Treaty, “tino rangatiratanga.” Modern commentators insist these words mean “sovereignty.” They claim that “kawanatanga” is something less, and using it to translate “sovereignty” in Article 1 was incompetent and even devious, confusing the Chiefs about the real purpose of the Treaty. They claim that while the English version hands over sovereignty to the Crown, the te reo Māori version does not. There is no historical evidence supporting these claims, but plenty to the contrary. See “One Sun in the Sky, The untold story of Sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi” by Ewen McQueen (Galatas NZ Ltd, 2020).
Commentators who claim international law favours the Māori translation either ignore or are unaware of other rules of legal interpretation. One of these would make the Treaty null and void if a court were to find that the Treaty contradicts itself on a crucial issue. Another rule requires the court to consider the circumstances in which the Treaty was signedbefore making its decision.
When read in its historical context, using the historical meanings of its words, the te reo Māori translation does not contradict the English original. The meanings of “rangatiratanga” and “tino” have substantially changed over the last few decades. Definitions given in the 1971 (7th) edition of the Williams Māori Dictionary are materially different from those in the present online Te Aka Māori Dictionary.
The problem is aggravated by assuming words like “tangata whenua,” “Indigenous”, “principles of the Treaty”, and “partnership” are part of the Treaty. None are used in the Treaty. They have modern socio-political connotations, which are improperly imputed to the Treaty.
The problem is inspired by Pākehā, like Rousseau, Freud, Darwin, and Marx, wanting to re-imagine human identity without God. Linguistic philosophies, secular liberalism and captive media give them impetus. They fester grim divisions in society between genders and races. This is widely documented by writers such as Carl R Trueman in “Strange New World, How Thinkers & Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked a Sexual Revolution” (Crossway, 2022).
Even a cursory review of Baptist Union and College websites reveals revisionist voices are being given more credence than those of our ancestors. One statement in Baptist Union policy misrepresents not only the Treaty but the law and the Bible as well: “the development of systems within our churches, ministries and mission, appropriate to Tangata Whenua. Treaty issues involve special legal status for Māori as indigenous people with ‘Treaty Rights’. . .”
There is no legal obligation for private citizens to implement “the principles of the Treaty”; only government departments. Nor does any individual or race have any “rights” or “special legal status” in the family of God. We are members of the body of Christ only because of God’s grace in Jesus. Our place and roles in the church are determined by the gifts of His Spirit, not by what human laws and treaties demand. Early Baptists chose to follow Scripture to the death rather than allow the State to dictate their beliefs.
Is Tiriti Hikoi on track, or is it going along with the crowd on Broad Way? (Matthew 7:13-14).
The Solution
Honour those who wrote, discussed and signed the Treaty. Start by reading the speeches of over 150 Chiefs who met at Kohimarama in 1860 to review the Treaty. For example -
Wiremu Tipene, (Te Uriohau,) Kaipara:— I will explain the speech of the old man (who has just sat down). I will speak about the Māori mana. The Ngapuhis have their mana, the Ngatimaru have their mana, the Ngatiwhatua, and the Ngatiwhakaue, have their mana, as their protection; but the mana to protect me is broken. The day of my salvation was the preaching of the Gospel. I will cleave to the Word of God as a parent for me. When the law of the Queen came as a protector for my body then all were warmly clad. The laws of God and of the Queen guard the gates of death. I beheld and thought this is a sign of salvation for all men threatened with death in this Island. I said, Christianity will guard the soul and the law of the Queen will improve our temporal condition: there will I take refuge. I will have nothing to do with the Māori mana. I will abide in the laws of God and of the Queen for ever and ever. These are the best laws I recognise; you, the Europeans, shall be parents to us the Māori people. I will not acknowledge the Māori mana. The people of the Ngatiwhatua tribe intend to embrace and rest upon the law.
Tragically, all Pākehā, as well as Māori, committed to “the laws of God and of the Queen” were “cancelled” by early Governments. (Aureretanga: The Groans of the Maoris, 1888.) Their pain continues as a distant generation walks back their words, re-imagines their actions and blurs their vision.
If we make an effort to see the Treaty through the eyes of those who signed it, we discover that it was not just a Treaty to give only one race the “rights and privileges of British subjects” (Article 3). It was birthed in a desire to honour an earlier Treaty made at Calvary, to give every person of every race “the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). This is our real identity. Our whakapapa may define what we are, but our Lord determines what we can be!
Endless changes to the laws of our country (or to our Baptist Union constitution) will never implement the Treaty. What was birthed in the promise of God’s kingdom coming on earth (Matthew 6:10) will never grow under human control (John 6:63, 1 Corinthians 1:25). We must pray and try to persuade our national and church leaders to honour the Treaty in spirit, not law; focussing on serving not controlling (Mark 10:42-45). The Treaty is based on grace, not racial one-upmanship.
Our Lord has shown us the right path (Psalm 16:11, Proverbs 12:28, Micah 6:8). He asks us to build God’s rangatiratanga (kingdom), not our own (Mat 6:33). We do it as he did, by giving all it takes (even our lives) to dissolve all the barriers that separate us from him and each other (2 Corinthians 17:21). Just as many believers and churches are doing now. Just as Jesus prayed for us -
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity (ki te kotahitanga) to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:23)
---------------------------------
Before the publication of this piece by Robert Jensen, a response was sought that shares another opinion on the bicultural journey of the Baptist Churches of New Zealand. Rather than waiting a week, this was published on Wednesday 23 October as Pondering: Whether we are legally obliged to honour the Treaty or not is not the point.
More opinion pieces
Read other contributions to our ‘Pondering…’ column here.
Photo credit: War canoes and mission boat by Henry Williams, CMS Missionary, from The life of Henry Williams, Archdeacon of Waimate by Hugh Carleton, 1874-1877, pg 110.