The responses show that our Church has at least three different attitudes to the Covenant as a solution to the Communion’s difficulties:
1. The Anglican Communion does not have machinery that allows us to discern the validity or otherwise of differing points of view and the Covenant may be a way of creating such a mechanism. We should be able to trust the international process to resolve any detailed difficulties we may have.
2. The nature of this Draft Covenant, and the underlying assumptions make it an unsatisfactory solution to our difficulties as a Communion, and runs the danger of exacerbating them. We therefore need to keep searching for a different way forward.
3. For Tikanga Maori tino rangatiratanga (self determination), Christian and ethnic identity are of foundational importance. Tangata whenua (the indigenous people) have a rootedness that precedes the Anglican Communion, and would not lightly cede their autonomy.
[blockquote][i]None of our respondents, whatever their theological or ecclesial perspective, showed enthusiasm for any provision that could allow for the expulsion or ex-communication of a member church.[/i][/blockquote]
A statement of this nature is decidedly unsurprising from New Zealand, and does reinforce the sense that the ‘Canterbury Church’ will in the end consist primarily of mainly white, rapidly aging, post-modern reminiscences of Anglicanism.
Stewardship of a solid, dynamic Anglican faith, however, seems increasingly to be passing from the decadent and theologically flaccid ‘West’ towards a much darker-skinned, rapidly growing expression of a faith that actually changes lives and that people, even in our times, are willing to die for.
I was sorry to read this document. May God defend the faithful remnant in New Zealand!
Cutting through the verbiage and the pc allusions to the Maori language, what it boils down to is: the church is an ethnic social club. It has one constitutional principal: the social club makes its own rules and is accountable to no one except its duly elected officers. Many of us are beginning to believe that such is the essence of what is sometimes referred to as the “Anglican Communion”.
I wonder if provincial attitudes such as this are not part of the reason why Archbishop Venables and other orthodox primates have lost their taste for the processes of the ‘Instruments of Communion.’
As John Donne famously put it, “No man is an island,” however, New Zealand is . . . geographically, theologically and ecclesiastically speaking.
Apparently, they are ignoring the fact that it’s impossible to embrace “the faith once given to the saints” if you stubbornly insist on deferring to contradictory indigenous precepts, especially as they advocate “Tikanga Maori tino rangatiratanga (self determination).”
What they are holding as virtuous flies in the face of the Gospels bidding that we “place our complete trust in the Lord.”
The ill-fated covenant process is an attempt to instrumentalize four church offices as a means to unity. It’s the same mistake as the instrumentalization of reason. The church offices are the ends of unity not the means.
Am I right in understanding they are in favor of [i] tikanga Maori tino rangatiratanga [/i] but for some reason would not approve [i] tikanga Sanjoaquini tino rangatiratanga [/i] ? [i] Cowabunga, [/i] I am confused.
“Tangata whenua (the indigenous people) have a rootedness that precedes the Anglican Communion, and would not lightly cede their autonomy”
American exceptionalism needed company.
Let’s enable a generic process of Exceptionalist Inclusion:
“We _________ have a special identity that precedes the Anglican Communion, and we would not lightly cede our autonomy”
Now we fill in the blanks:
—Americans
—Texans
—Alaskans
—New Yorkers
—Scots
—Members of the Trinity Wall Street Clown Chorus
—Members of the St. Wilbert’s altar guild
—Tax collectors and sinners
One free pass to the Laffin Place for Wilfred.
Heh . . . Irenaeus, very nice.
You forgot to list Southern Females. ; > )
The New Zealand Anglican Church follows a doctrine of racial segregation, rather like the Dutch Reformed Church did in South Africa under apartheid. Maoris and Pacific Islanders are allocated to their own section or ‘tikanga’, as are the whites.
I welcome this thoughtful contribution to the critique of the draft, some of which I fully endorse, as is clear from my comment on the Scot’s response. Acroterea and New Zealand is certainly not part of the GS, despite the geography. Is it not a point to consider that those provinces most critical and hesitant about the draft covenant are among the oldest in the Anglican Communion?
Gordian, the so-called “segregation” that you point to is cultural, not racial. And unless I am mistaken, the current setup arose largely due to the concerns of the Maori. The Maori and British cultural dioceses overlap one another, and one can choose to belong to either one.
On the other hand, the Polynesian dioceses are geographical. If you are an Anglican, you have one choice only on those islands, so there is no “segregation” at all. The “racial segregation” implications of your comment are simply misleading.
#12 Of course, you would Bob. We have come to except this kind of unexceptional and shallow response from you. I have been to New Zealand man times. The Anglican Church there is just simply dead and the NZ Prayer Book, so lauded by liberal TEC’ers, is regarded as a very costly joke by the laity down under. Anglican after Anglican that I have talked to in my many journeys to that absolutely gorgeous land have said they don’t go to the Anglican church anymore. It is described by the young and the old as too liberal and too out of touch. This missive from the South Pacific is the all too predictable response of a “church leadership” that is no longer leading anyone. If you don’t believe it…go and see for yourself.
# 13: “The Maori and British cultural dioceses overlap one another, and one can choose to belong to either one.”
They’re not ‘British’, they’re white. And the leadership is racially determined. Maoris and Polynesians are broadly the same culture, but the growth in numbers of Polynesians has upset the Maoris; so too has the growth in Chinese numbers.
#14: you’re right – the church has been declining both nominally and in terms of attendance for many years. NZ will probably be majority ‘non-religious’ in 5 years. The Anglican leadership is shallow and pc to the core. Witness the silly mystical racial stuff that Jenny Te Paa peddles around the world, which is quite bogus about the Maori past (the pre-European Maoris practiced cannibalism, slavery and inter-tribal warfare, as well as exterminating the Moriori race) and can give no reason why anyone should join them – why indeed if we’re already ‘saved’?
This sounds like something Jenny Te Paa would say.
#16: ‘rootedness … Christian and ethnic identity … autonomy’.
Exactly so. It’s called ‘Blut und Boden’. The Deutsche Christen would have understood.
To understand more fully the Tikanga Maori perspective it would pay to look at the wikipedia page on tino rangatiratanga found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
It begins:
“The most contentious phrase from the Treaty of Waitangi, tino rangatiratanga has become something of a rallying cry for proponents of MÄori sovereignty.” and continues “Such a concept embraces the spiritual link MÄori have with Papatuanuku (Earthmother) and is a part of the international drive by indigenous people for self determination.”
It is not some bland phrase but rather it is a highly contentious political statement of ethnic supremacy — and neither is a concept derived from Christianity.
Thank you, Margaret – I suspected the idea was really soft-focus racism.
Actually, this response is fairly surprising. The Maori component of the Church in Aoteoroa is quite conservative theologically (as is the Polynesian component), while the Pakeka Church in New Zealand is quite liberal. I would have expected a response divided along ethnic lines. Instead, we see opposition to the Covenant idea from all three components (albeit for different reasons).
The whites oppose it because it would abandon the synodical principles championed by Bishop George Augustus Selwyn, of saintly memory, who established the province in 1857 (NZ was the first British colony to establish its own self-governing Anglican church, even before Canada). Those principles were endorsed by Lambeth 1867 and enshrined in the catchphrase, “Anglican bishops lead, but synodical authorities govern.” The laity and clergy have had a leading role in governing the province for 150 years and would regard it as a major step back to submit to a body composed entirely of bishops. This is particularly true when there is some possibility that the Global South bishops would roll back some of the prior actions of the New Zealand church, besides constraining their future freedom. This applies to all 38 provinces, of course, but New Zealand/Aoteoroa has perhaps the most to lose.
The Maori oppose it because it would reverse the progress they have recently made towards self-determination within a fairly complex system of mutual responsibility and interdependence. The Instruments of Communion have made it clear that they do not favor overlapping jurisdictions. However, rejecting the system of purely geographical dioceses is precisely what makes Maori (and Polynesian) autonomy within the Church of Aoteoroa possible. The Maori are highly sensitive to any system that seems “colonialist,” and would not be happy at having to take orders from any authority outside their islands.
All politics are local politics, even when speaking of ecclesiastical politics.
Very perspicacious remarks Dale, thankyou. Tikanga Maori leadership has changed rapidly since the death of Archbishop Hui Hui Vercoe. Jenny te Paa now seems to be a pretty good guide to their thinking. There is however, opposition to this statement, more I think than the leadership in our church realises .. please pray folks.