Leaders of the mainstream New Zealand churches are confident that their combined social services and church networks can pull together to help people weather the recession.

The leaders have been meeting in Wellington today, at the same time as John Key’s Economic summit was being held in Auckland.

And the message from the church leaders is simple: Together, they say, we can look after each other.

The full text of their statement, which has been released by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, is at: http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/Common-Life/together-we-can

None of this is particularly new. It is a good reminder; but the science is, if not unanimous, of sufficient weight to make inaction an intolerable risk. Even a hope that more efficient practice will be sufficient to allow us to continue business as usual has been unmasked by the Jevons effect. “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” Wise words from William Jevons in 1866. If we increase our fuel efficiency we will simply drive further – or buy another house. [Taken from Hermen Daly in an excerllent article titled Climate Policy: from “know how” to “do now”]

Furthermore, the theology has been affirmed from all camps. We are aware of Gods love for the weak, marginalized and powerless; we have risen up in the past against the powers that threaten the most vulnerable; we have a theology of sacrifice; a God of identification and suffering; and we take communion weekly affirming our participation in one body with believers from the poorest and most vulnerable corners of creation. We have, it would appear, the spiritual resources needed to take the role of moral leadership called for by our Archbishop.

Set against this however… we are comfortable; and we are busy, too busy to do things differently. Oh yes, and we are important. You can tell because of how busy we are.

Which will win out I wonder. Will we forsake our cars for the sake of those who will never own one? Will we turn down our showers for the sake of those who are drowning in the flood waters of a changing climate? Forsaking consumerism will we risk plunging our economy further into recession for the sake of those whose prosperity has never reached the level of our recession? Or will we attend more gatherings, fly to more conferences, drink more cups of tea and await the resolution of a discussion surrounding how many parts per million the atmosphere can stand, and weather a tipping point is 10 years away or 20?

It is time to act, to recapture a theology of ‘enough.’  I suggest in the next few weeks as we ponder the call of our Archbishop we speak to the oldest person we know about their childhood, and ask ourselves the simple and honest question ‘what are our non-negotiables, what are we not prepared to forgo?’ Then we can decide weather we have a wayward Archbishop, or weather we will follow his call.

Archbishop Moxon is in Alexandria, Egypt, for a meeting of the Anglican Primates, or leaders of the 34 Anglican provinces that make up the worldwide Anglican Communion. He had earlier been asked to lead a special session of that gathering to be devoted to the impact of global warming on the environment.
Archbishop Moxon later told a press conference that the gathered Anglican leaders were agreed that the Anglican Communion should offer “moral leadership” in the campaign against climate change. This, he suggested, was significantly a matter of setting an example.

He spoke of the need for Anglicans to embrace lifestyle changes, and to cutback unnecessary or environmentally hazardous modes of travel. He also spoke of the need for Anglican leaders to encourage what he called “eco-friendly congregations and environmental projects.”

Archbishop Moxon told the media that the Primates believed that the church has a “Biblical, theological and practical role to play in every community” on the issue. Anglicans needed to do what they could to prevent carbon emissions, and the “overcooking or choking of the planet.” Such efforts, he said, should be seen as “an act of participation in God’s creation and redemption.”

The above was a release by Lloyd Ashton, Media Officer to the Anglican Church
in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

“It is a matter of grave concern that there is an apparent breakdown of the rule of law within the country, and that the democratic process is being undermined, as shown in the flagrant disregard of the outcome of the democratic elections of March 31st 2008, so that Mr Robert Mugabe illegitimately holds on to power. Even the recent political situation of power sharing, brokered by SADC, may not be long lasting and simply further entrench Mr Mugabe’s regime. There appears to be a total disregard for life, consistently demonstrated by Mr Mugabe through systematic kidnap, torture and the killing of Zimbabwean people. The
economy of Zimbabwe has collapsed, as evidenced by the use of foreign currencies in an independent state.

We therefore call upon President Robert Mugabe to respect the outcome of the elections of 2008 and to step down. We call for the implementation of the rule of law and the restoration of democratic processes.”

Read the entire statement here.

The leaders of New Zealand churches are deeply concerned about the dire situation in Gaza and support the call for an immediate ceasefire in the region

The escalation of violence and associated increase in civilian casualties is intolerable. It is time for concerted action to end the suffering of the 1.5 million people trapped within the 360 square kilometers of Gaza with little food, water and medicine, and under almost continuous attack from the land, sea and air.

Before the collapse of the ceasefire in December, the borders of Gaza were tightly controlled and movement in and out very difficult. Now the conditions are much more lethal. The consequences of this unparalleled pressure cannot be underestimated. Already many innocent civilians have been killed and injured. People are living in perpetual fear and growing numbers of people are in desperate need of food and water as well as medical treatment. The trauma will have a lasting effect on everyone and is undermining any possibility of negotiating a just and sustainable peace.

To date the international community has failed to broker a lasting peace. We urge the New Zealand government to do all that it can through the United Nations and through its own diplomatic efforts to call a halt to Israel’s military offensive and the Hamas attacks. New Zealand has an obligation to uphold the international community’s ‘Responsibility to Protect’ populations from war crimes as agreed at the United Nations’ Millennium Summit.

As followers of Jesus, who exercised his ministry of reconciliation in this troubled region, Christians are deeply concerned about Jewish-Palestinian enmity. While religion is often tragically used to fuel inherited hostilities, it can also be a force for shalom/salaam. It is our hope and prayer that all adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths in that region (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) might truly seek the way of peace and reconciliation to which their scriptures bear witness.

We encourage church members and all people of goodwill to:

- Pray for the victims and perpetrators of violence in Gaza and Israel.
- Pray for the success of diplomatic efforts between Hamas, the Israeli Government and the international community.
- Pray for peace and reconciliation.
- Advocate for the New Zealand government, world leaders and the United Nations to take effective action to renew the ceasefire in Gaza and work towards a just resolution of the conflict in the interests of long term security and peace.
- Support the Christian World Service and Caritas Gaza Appeals providing desperately needed food, fuel, water and medicines in Gaza.

13 January 2009
Jabez Bryce, Bishop of Polynesia
Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia
John A Dew, Archbishop of Wellington
Roman Catholic Church of New Zealand
Rodney Macann, National Leader
Baptist Union of New Zealand
Garth McKenzie, Territorial Commander
The Salvation Army
David Moxon, Senior Bishop of the New Zealand Dioceses
Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia
Graham Redding, Assembly Moderator
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
Mia Tay, Clerk
Quaker Peace and Service Aotearoa New Zealand
Religious Society of Friends
Brown Turei, Bishop of Aotearoa
Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia
Jill van der Geer, President
Methodist Church of New Zealand

Marking 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New Zealand’s Catholic Bishops have called on the government to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007.

One hundred and forty-three nations voted in favour of the indigenous rights Declaration, but New Zealand remains one of only three nations continuing to oppose it, alongside the United States and Canada. Australia voted against the original resolution, but has since indicated its support.

In a statement for Human Rights Day on December 10, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference says New Zealand must better recognise and respect the human rights of the 370 million members of the human family who are indigenous peoples. These first inhabitants of nations have been subject to centuries of dispossession and violence…. Our own nation of Aotearoa New Zealand of course shares that history and we must be part of the work of reconciliation and restoration.

The Bishops say the indigenous rights Declaration applies universally recognised human rights to the particular situations of indigenous peoples. By opposing it, New Zealand representatives “allowed domestic politics to override our country’s usually principled stand on human rights issues.

While some New Zealanders may see the Declaration as primarily or only a Maori issue, the Bishops draw on the universal experience of the Church, saying it is important to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples throughout our region and the world.

We call on the government to enhance our country’s proud record of leadership in human rights by supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they say.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
A Statement from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference 10 December 2008

“The Church will support the cause of all indigenous peoples who seek a just and equitable recognition of their identity and their rights.” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Oceania, 2001)

Today we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, a day Pope John Paul II called a “true milestone on the path of humanity’s moral progress”. The recognition of human rights in the Declaration followed the horrors of World War II.

Catholic respect for human rights is based on the understanding that all rights and responsibilities are founded in the dignity that belongs to every human being because we are created by God. We acknowledge that human rights can only be recognised, they cannot be conferred or taken away. They are inherent in our nature as God’s creation.

Much progress has been made in the past 60 years towards respecting human rights, but there are still many areas of work that need to be undertaken.

One remains the need to better recognise and respect the human rights of the 370 million members of the human family who are indigenous peoples – the first inhabitants of nations. Internationally, this group has been subject to centuries of dispossession and violence, still reflected in their disadvantaged position in many societies of the world. Our own nation of Aotearoa New Zealand of course shares that history and we must be part of the work of reconciliation and restoration.

The Church may have initially been slow to recognise the injustices caused to indigenous peoples as part of colonisation, but Catholic social teaching on the rights of indigenous people is now clear and unequivocal. Ecclesia in Oceania, specifically written for our region, asked for forgiveness for times the Church had been a party to injustices done to indigenous peoples in Oceania, and expressed the support of the regional Bishops for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In statements on the Treaty of Waitangi (1990 and 1995) and Indigenous Peoples (1993), we have affirmed the Church’s commitment to work to resolve historic injustices and to reconcile peoples.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September last year. This is a particular application of universally recognised human rights to the situations of indigenous peoples.

New Zealand is one of four settler nations who voted against the adoption of the Declaration. Alongside the United States, Canada and Australia – countries with very similar colonial histories to our own – our representatives allowed domestic politics to override our country?s usually principled stand on human rights issues.

There may be a temptation for members of the Church in New Zealand to see this primarily or only as a Maori issue. However, the experience of the Church is universal, and through the work of New Zealand Church agencies – from the international development work of Caritas, to the volunteer service of Mahitahi, to the experience of those in Mission outreach – we have personal experience of the importance of recognising the rights of indigenous peoples throughout our region and the world.

On this day of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, we call on the government to enhance our country’s proud record of leadership in human rights by supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

• Denis Browne, Bishop of Hamilton, President, NZCBC
• John Dew, Archbishop of Wellington, Secretary, NZCBC
• Colin Campbell, Bishop of Dunedin
• Peter Cullinane, Bishop of Palmerston North
• Patrick Dunn, Bishop of Auckland
• Barry Jones, Bishop of Christchurch
• Robin Leamy, Bishop Assistant in Auckland

[ See letter: open-letter-to-political-candidates.pdf]

 ”As made clear in our joint Church leaders’ statement in March we believe that issues related to poverty, families and children, older people, housing and essential social services are issues that individual politicians need to take personal leadership on. There is also a clear expectation that they offer the voting public something significant to say on these issues, that can then be part of a process of a honest and open debate,” said Archbishop David Moxon of the Anglican Church.  

The Reverend Brian Turner, Methodist Church, Rodney Macann, Baptist Churches of New Zealand, and the Right Reverend Pamela Tankersley, Presbyterian Church, all described the period before an election as a unique opportunity to intensify discussion about the type of society we live in.  ”The affect that poverty has on vulnerable New Zealanders is an issue we need to bring to the fore as part of the call we have as Christians to serve those on the margins of society,” said Pamela Tankersley.  ”A question that we need to ask ourselves is whether we are striving hard enough as a nation to put aside self-interest and to find a stronger collective social conscience in 2008,” said Brian Turner.  ”When our politicians talk about the policies they plan to introduce we want them to talk about he extent to which those policies can be considered just and compassionate, and we want them to explicitly address the issue of reducing poverty,” said Rodney Macann.

 ”Next week the Catholic Church holds its annual Social Justice Week and the focus is on the latest publication from Caritas, our social justice agency, titled ‘Look and look again: Poverty in an affluent society’,” said Archbishop John Dew of Wellington. “As made clear in the recent statement by Catholic Bishops we are not about to tell people how to vote, but the way in which individual politicians respond to social justice issues, particularly poverty, is obviously an important signal of their integrity and values”. 

Garth McKenzie, Salvation Army Commissioner, said that any investment in addressing poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand is a “socially responsible investment”.  ”In the set of issues and reflections for this year’s election we have just published in our publication ‘A New Journey’, we argue that we all need to have a concern about the structures which marginalise people and leave them in poverty. The message we have for our would-be leaders is that we need to do more as a nation t look for ways of building just structures – locally, nationally and even globally”. 

Earlier this year the Church leaders also endorsed the Council’s information programme titled ‘Aroha tetahi ki tetahi – Let us look after each other’. The programme aims to raise public awareness of social justice and compassion issues and to ensure that the situation of the poor and vulnerable in Aotearoa New Zealand is given a more prominent place on the agenda of public concerns in 2008. Through the programme thousands of posters and brochures, promoting themes such as treasuring our children and valuing older people, have been distributed to Churches and providers of essential social services throughout New Zealand.  

The five “calls” made by the programme are for a more just and compassionate society through the implementation of policies to:

• Utilise our nation’s prosperity to eliminate poverty
• Support families and communites to nurture and portect our children
• Provide older people with a range of choices for their homes, support and lifestyle
• Enable access to good, affordable housing for everyone
• Support community-based partnership-driven solutions to social issues in the community

More information is available at www.justiceandcompassion.org.nz

Faith Communities in a Civil Society – Christian Perspectives

On September 11th, 1906, Mohandas Gandhi addressed a meeting of some 3,000 people in the Empire Theatre in Johannesburg to protest against the introduction of registration and fingerprinting for all Indians in South Africa – part of the first wave in the terrible history of legal racism in South Africa which ended at last in the final decade of the last century. It was a Muslim in the audience, Haji Habib, who first proposed that the decision for non-violent resistance to the legislation should be taken ‘in the name of God’. Gandhi stressed the great solemnity of such a form of words, but the trustworthiness: does this set of assumptions about humanity rest on a fragile human agreement, on the decision of human beings to behave as if they were responsible, or on something deeper and less contingent, something to which any and every human society is finally answerable? Is the social creativity which civil society takes for granted part of a human ‘birthright’?

The second major contribution made by the presence of the Church is what we might in shorthand call universalism – not in the technical theological sense, but simply meaning the conviction that every human agent is involved in either creating or frustrating a common good that relates to the whole human race. In plainer terms, we cannot as Christians settle down with the conclusion that what is lastingly and truly good for any one individual or group is completely different from what is lastingly and truly good for any other. Justice is not local in an exclusive sense or limited by circumstances; there are no classes or subgroups of humanity who are entitled to less of God’s love; and so there are no classes entitled to lower levels of human respect or compassion or service. And since an important aspect of civil society is the assumption that human welfare is not achieved by utilitarian generalities imposed from above but requires active and particularize labour, the fact of the Christian community’ presence once again puts the question of how human society holds together the need for action appropriate to specific and local conditions with the lively awareness of what is due to all people everywhere. This is not only about a vision of universal human justice as we normally think of it, but also applies to how we act justly towards those who are not yet born – how we create a just understanding of our relation to the environment.

In short, the significance of the Church for civil society is in keeping alive a concern both to honour and to justify the absolute and non-negotiable character of the human vision of responsibility and justice that is at work in all human association for the common good. It is about connecting the life of civil society with its deepest roots, acknowledged or not. The conviction of being answerable to God for how we serve and respect God’s human and non-human creation at the very least serves to ensure that the human search for shared welfare and responsible liberty will not be reduced to a matter of human consensus alone. And if the Church – or any other community of faith – asks of society the respect that will allow it to be itself, it does so not because it is anxious about its survival (which is in God’s hands), but because it asks the freedom to remind the society or societies in which it lives of their own vulnerability and their need to stay close to some fundamental questions about the nature of the humanity they seek to nourish. Such a request from Church to society will be heard and responded to, of course, only if the Church genuinely looks as though it were speaking for more than a self-protecting set of ‘religious’ concerns; if it appears as concerned for something more than self-defence. To return to what was said earlier, it needs to establish its credentials as ‘non-violent’ – that is, as not contending against other kinds of human group for a share in ordinary political power. To put it in severely condensed form, the Church is most credible when least preoccupied with its security and most engaged with the human health of its environment; and to say ‘credible’ here is not to say ‘popular’, since engagement with this human health may run sharply against a prevailing consensus. Recent debates on euthanasia offer a case in point; and even here, it is surprisingly often claimed that the churches are concerned here only to sustain their control of human lives – which sadly illustrates what all too many in our society have come to expect of the Church.

I have spoken so far, as I was invited to do, about the Christian understanding of the role of faith in civil society, and have attempted to connect it with some of the most fundamental elements of the Christian revelation – the absolute difference of the power and action of God as against human power (embodied in the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion as the climax of God’s incarnate work), and the universal promise offered in the Resurrection (embodied in the mission of the Church as mediating Christ’s living presence). In doing this, of course, it is impossible not to be aware of the distinct ways in which other religious traditions understand their role in relation to the ambient society. As many have observed, Islam takes as central the conviction that the law and public practice of a society ought ideally to conform to revealed law; Muslims are often puzzled by the Christian insistence on separation between the religious and the political, and it might well be thought that the vision outlined here is so antithetical to the Islamic frame of reference that there is no possible convergence. Yet there are three considerations that should make us hesitate before settling for this conclusion. The first is that, in understanding divine law as universal and equally applicable to all, Islam, like Christianity, refuses to make faith either subservient to the social order or simply an aspect among others of social life: it is something that offers transformation to the entire range of human activity. The second is that Islam itself recognizes the reality of potential conflict between political power and faithful obedience to revealed law; nothing in Islamic tradition suggests that there could be a guarantee of fidelity to God simply through formal allegiance to Islam by the ruling authority, and the legitimacy of passive resistance to unjust authority is acknowledged. And third, the Qur’anic dictum that there is no compulsion in religion is the foundation for any Muslim account of the imperative of non-violence. This stands, of course, alongside the no less significant tradition of the imperative to jihad as the duty to defend the Muslim community wherever its integrity and survival are at risk; but the question which is bound to arise in our day is whether, given the complex realities of today’s world, there would ever now be the kind of situation which would justify the same sort of defensive jihad that was envisaged in the earliest days of Islam – or whether those commentators are right who insist that the only jihad now justifiable is the struggle against evil in the heart and the resistance to a culture of cruelty and indifference to suffering, a struggle which of its nature must be non-violent.

I look forward to hearing reflection on this and related issues; but my chief point is that the convergence that occurred on this day in Johannesburg in 1906 was not an illusory or opportunistic affair. Both our faiths bring to civil society a conviction that what they embody and affirm is not a marginal affair; both claim that their legitimacy rests not on the license of society but on God’s gift. Yet for those very reasons, they carry in them the seeds of a non-violent and non-possessive witness. They cannot be committed to violent struggle to prevail at all costs, because that would suggest a lack of faith in the God who has called them; they cannot be committed to a policy of coercion and oppression because that would again seek to put the power of the human believer or the religious institution in the sovereign place that only God’s reality can occupy. Because both our traditions have a history scarred by terrible betrayals of this, we have to approach our civil society and its institutions with humility and repentance. But I hope that this does not mean we shall surrender what is most important – that we have a gift to offer immeasurably greater than our own words or records, the gift of a divine calling and a renewal of all that is possible form human beings.

Introductory Notes

The reason for the Statement about discussions in Aotearoa New Zealand concerning religious diversity, is due to the current interest of the church, the press and the general public in this subject at this time..

It is important to note that the National Statement on Religious Diversity did not begin as a Labour Party or Government initiative, but originated with concerns voiced by Joris de Bres, the New Zealand Race Relations Conciliator. He was prompted to speak following the desecration of the Jewish graves in Wellington three years ago. Since then the group working on the Diversity Statement have acted as a community of interest, rather than a Government-driven project seeking some kind of legislation.

It is a particular concern of our churches connected with worldwide missionary networks to uphold freedom of religious expression in its diversity in the many countries around the world where we are present. For example, in Islamic countries, the rights of Missionary Societies, or the local Diocese, may depend on a measure of freedom of religious expression and diversity. There is a reciprocity principle here, even if it is not always consistently provided for in Islamic countries.

Our churches have always been keen to encourage mutual respect in inter-faith dialogue both in missionary situations and in political life. This does not mean a denial of the uniqueness of the Christian Gospel in that dialogue.

For example, as the Anglican Catechism for Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia says:

“How does the Anglican Church regard members of other faiths? Anglicans believe that all people are created in God’s image and need to find meaning and purpose beyond themselves. All living faiths witness in some way to the reality of God, but in Jesus Christ God’s revelation is unique.”

And, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:


“All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it. This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person”. It does not contradict a ‘sincere respect’ for different religions with frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.

Catholic and Anglican Bishops’ Statement on the National Statement on Religious Diversity

“We are pleased to support the contributions of the Anglican and Catholic bishops on the National Statement on Religious Diversity for Aotearoa New Zealand and are satisfied with the outcome.

The Statement attempts to describe our realities as a multicultural and diverse community here in these islands. Statements on religious diversity are also statements on cultural diversity, and at a time when cultural diversity is increasing, working to develop a statement of this kind is both forward thinking and mindful of past foundations.

From our own faith position we cherish freedom of thought and freedom of religious expression, both for ourselves and for others. This is inherent in our understanding of the Christian Gospel, as a gift that is freely given, to be freely experienced and freely received in a climate of freedom itself. We refer to the first letter of Peter Chapter 2 v 16: 

Live as free people, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honour all people. Love your faith community. Fear God, Honour the Emperor (meaning the Governing authority)

We also affirm the right of the church and other faith communities to challenge the state in the name of the values, ethics and justice issues that come from a faith based perspective, because of our belief that ruling authorities are also accountable to God ( Revelation 1:5), as are we all.

We celebrate the right to share our faith in this democracy, and we wish to reciprocate that right with other faiths. We believe this right is offered and guaranteed in what is commonly referred to as the fourth article of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840, the founding document of our nation. In response to a question from Bishop Pompallier, Governor Hobson said he would protect and recognise not only major western religions, but also Maori customary beliefs and practices.

We also affirm that there is no state religion in our land and affirm that the protection and recognition outlined in the Treaty document are available to all without prejudice or special status.

Far from denying our Christian heritage, we affirm it and uphold it. We wish to affirm the central role that the Christian Gospel played in the founding of both the Treaty itself and in the religious heritage of this nation. We recognize that a simple majority of New Zealanders identify as Christian from the 2006 census, and note that this reflects the long story of Christian presence and faith sharing here from 1814 onwards within most of the major ethnic groups of our land.

We honor the life passion and commitment of the early missions which sought to witness to the grace and justice of the Christian gospel. We celebrate this heritage and commend this mission and its timeless message to this land we all share and love.”

ANGLICAN BISHOPS

Archbishop David Moxon
Senior Bishop
of the New Zealand Dioceses

Archbishop Brown Turei
Bishop of Aotearoa

The Right Reverend John Bluck
Bishop of Waiapu

The Right Reverend Ngarahu Katene
Te Pihopa Te Manawa O Te Wheke

The Right Reverend Muru Walters
Te Pihopa Te Upoko O Te Ika

The Right Reverend Thomas Brown
Bishop of Wellington

The Right Reverend John Paterson
Bishop of Auckland

The Right Reverend Te Kitohi Wiremu Pikaahu
Te Pihopa Te Tai Tokerau

The Right Reverend Richard Randerson
Assistant Bishop of Auckland

The Right Reverend Dr David Coles
Bishop of Christchurch
(not contacted: overseas)

The Right Reverend John Gray
Te Pihopa O Te Waipounamu
The Right Reverend George Connor
Bishop of Dunedin

The Right Reverend Philip Richardson
Bishop in Taranaki

The Right Reverend Richard Ellena
Bishop of Nelson

The Right Reverend Dr Winston Halapua
Assistant Bishop of Polynesia in New Zealand

CATHOLIC BISHOPS

The Most Reverend Denis Browne
Bishop of Hamilton

The Most Reverend Colin Campbell
Bishop of Dunedin

The Most Reverend Peter Cullinane
Bishop of Palmerston North

The Most Reverend Patrick Dunn
The Bishop of Auckland

The Most Reverend Barry Jones
Bishop of Christchurch

The Most Reverend John Dew
Archbishop of Wellington

Background

The idea of a national statement on religious diversity was raised by the New Zealand multi-faith delegation to the first Asia-Pacific Dialogue on inter-faith co-operation held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in December 2004. It was a response to the challenges of increased religious diversity in New Zealand in the context of regional and global conflicts involving religion.

The Yogyakarta Dialogue was an initiative of the Australian and Indonesian Governments and was held under the aegis of ASEAN, the Association of South East Asian Nations. The New Zealand delegation, nominated by the Government, included Dr Manuka Henare of Auckland University as delegation leader, Dr Ghazala Anwar, Canterbury University, Joris de Bres, Race Relations Commissioner, Dr Ashraf Choudhary MP, Javid Khan, President, Federation of New Zealand Islamic Associations, Paul Morris, Religious Studies Professor at Victoria University, Bishop Richard Randerson, The Reverend Bob Scott, The Reverend Sylvia Tongotongo and Rabbi Michael Weisser.

Plenary sessions and working groups dealt with key challenges facing communities in the region, national case studies on building harmonious communities, empowering the moderates, and the way forward for fostering harmony,

Among the recommendations made by the New Zealand delegation to the Government and faith communities of New Zealand was the establishment of networks to promote inter-faith dialogue and understanding. In considering who could do this, it was noted that the Human Rights Commission has a statutory responsibility to encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society. On that basis, the Commission established an inter-faith network with the aim of promoting religious tolerance, improving and promoting communication between Government (including local Government) and faith communities, affirming the right to freedom of religion and providing a framework for the development and maintenance of harmonious relationships within communities.

The Yogyakarta delegation was impressed by a number of examples within the region where the state has taken an active role in affirming both religions and religious tolerance. They were attracted to the idea of a national statement on religious tolerance such as exists in Indonesia and Singapore, and as a result, recommended that Government and faith communities develop a national statement on religious tolerance, to be widely distributed in the community.

It was envisaged that the statement would also serve as a reminder that more needs to be done to increase the inclusiveness of New Zealand society and to develop robust relationships between faiths and between them and Government.

Progress to Date and Intended Direction

The current version of the National Statement on Religious Diversity was completed in February 2007, taking into account comments made at the Inter-faith Forum and by others subsequently.

The Human Rights Commission will be publishing a small booklet containing the Statement and some accompanying background and commentary to reflect the discussions that have taken place. The New Zealand National Commission for UNESCO has kindly offered to pay for 10,000 of the booklets to be printed, which will be distributed nationally throughout New Zealand in May and will also be provided to delegates to the Alliance of Civilisations Symposium and the Waitangi Regional Inter-faith Dialogue.

It is hoped that the booklet will be a basis for on-going discussion and dialogue around issues of religious diversity in New Zealand.

Statement on Religious Diversity

New Zealand is a country of many faiths with a significant minority who profess no religion. Increasing religious diversity is a significant feature of public life.

At the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Governor Hobson affirmed, in response to a question from Catholic Bishop Pompallier, “the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected”. This foundation creates the opportunity to reaffirm an acknowledgement of the diversity of beliefs in New Zealand.

Christianity has played and continues to play a formative role in the development of New Zealand in terms of the nation’s identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values.

New settlers have always been religiously diverse, but only recently have the numbers of some of their faith communities grown significantly as a result of migration from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. These communities have a positive role to play in our society. It is in this context that we recognise the right to religion and the responsibilities of religious communities.

International treaties including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uphold the right to freedom of religion and belief – the right to hold a belief; the right to change one’s religion or belief; the right to express one’s religion or belief; and the right not to hold a belief. These rights are reflected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act. The right to religion entails affording this right to others and not infringing their human rights.

The following statement provides a framework for the recognition of New Zealand’s diverse faith communities and their harmonious interaction with each other, with Government and with other groups in society:

1. The State and Religion: The State seeks to treat all faith communities and those who profess no religion equally before the law. New Zealand has no official or established religion.
2. The Right to Religion: New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious or other belief.
3. The Right to Safety: Faith communities and their members have a right to safety and security.
4. The Right of Freedom of Expression: The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media are vital for democracy but should be exercised with responsibility.
5. Recognition and Accommodation: Reasonable steps should be taken in educational and work environments and in the delivery of public services to recognise and accommodate diverse religious beliefs and practices.
6. Education: Schools should teach an understanding of different religious and spiritual traditions in a manner that reflects the diversity of their national and local community.
7. Religious Differences: Debate and disagreement about religious beliefs will occur but must be exercised within the rule of law and without resort to violence.
8. Co-operation and Understanding: Government and faith communities have a responsibility to build and maintain positive relationships with each other, and to promote mutual respect and understanding.

Below, is a statement from the Anglican Bishops released today.

To get an understanding of why the Bishops and the Social Justice Commission supported the repeal of Section 59 as a consequence of the official stance of this church, click here.

The Bishops’ Statement

“The current debate concerning the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is a crucial one as we reflect on the kind of society in which we wish to raise our children.

“The proposed changes to section 59 are a further important step down the road of transforming the disproportionately high rates of violence in our country (third highest amongst OECD countries, UNICEF 2003).

“There are a number of disturbing examples of the use of physical objects, belts, hosepipes and fists, which have been regarded as ‘reasonable force’. Removing a loophole that has been used to justify the use of excessive force against children will reinforce the total unacceptability of violence against children. It will help break the cycle of violence, and is therefore in the best interest of our children, and of our society as a whole.

“There is some debate among Christians about the use of corporal punishment and the repeal of section 59. As Christians, our primary role model is Jesus Christ. As fallible humans, we struggle with issues of power and authority, and with their use or misuse. In the face of the abuse of power, Christ brings freedom, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, and ultimately self-sacrifice. The way of Jesus was one of non-violence. He declined to sanction violent punishment against offenders, preferring instead to look to the root causes of ill behaviour and to offer people a new start. This is how we must relate to our children.

“As Christians, our reading of the Bible must always be done through the lens of Christ’s teaching and life. There has been a lot of talk about ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’, an attitude that can be sanctioned by scriptural proof-texts such as Proverbs 13 : 24 — ‘Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them’ (NRSV).

“However, it is inappropriate to take such texts out of their ancient cultural context, and out of the broader context of Scripture, so as to justify modes of behaviour in a modern situation very different from that for which they were given. Such texts need to be read in the light of the way Christ responded to children, placing them in the middle of the group with respect and care, as in Mark 9: 37: ‘Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me’.

“We believe there is a real need to act responsibly, and to repeal section 59. It is vital to recognize that this position is held by most of New Zealand’s child care and child education agencies, who work most closely with those who stand to be most affected by section 59, including: The Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Inc., Barnardos New Zealand, Parents Centre New Zealand Inc., Presbyterian Support New Zealand, and UNICEF.

“It is essential that changes to section 59 go hand in hand with increased access to high quality public educational programmes, which encourage non-violent discipline and child rearing. The Anglican Church is committed to delivering and promoting high quality non-violent education and working with at-risk families through, for example, our Anglican Care Network and Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri.

“This is a moment for our values to shape our laws and the future of our nation. This is a moment to make a positive difference. We believe repeal of section 59 provides an expression of hope, and we wholeheartedly support it.”

Signed:

++Brown Turei Co-presiding Bishop; Pihopa o Aotearoa; Pihopa o Te Tairawhiti
++David Moxon Co-presiding Bishop; Bishop of Waikato

+Ngarahu Katene Pihopa o Te Manawa o Te Wheke
+Kito Pikaahu Pihopa o Te Tai Tokerau
+Muru Walters Pihopa o Te Upoko o Te Ika
+John Grey Pihopa o Te Waipounamu

+John Paterson Bishop of Auckland
+Richard Randerson Assistant Bishop of Auckland
+David Coles Bishop of Christchurch
+George Connor Bishop of Dunedin
+Richard Ellena Bishop of Nelson
+Winston Halapua Bishop of the Diocese of Polynesia in Aotearoa New Zealand.
+John Bluck Bishop of Waiapu
+Philip Richardson Bishop in Taranaki
+Tom Brown Bishop of Wellington

The three Fiji-based bishops in the Diocese of Polynesia were not part of the forming of this statement.