Sadly this only proves that these churches are peddling false religion....most good people have a hunger and thirst for righteousness an̈d they wan̈t this treaty put right....and we want this matter settled by open democracy...and for democracy.....man's wisdom leads into a maze and error grows in bypath ways
Brilliant Peter. Having previously been academically engaged with the various denominations,I can attest that already in the late 90s they were going woke. This latest Letter shows just how far they have been captured by lefty idealism. Michael Laws did a brilliant job today comparing their justification to that of German Churches during the war. Bonhoeffer would be rather dismayed at the political activism dressed up as Christian morality. Jesus’ exhortation to ‘render unto Caesar’ was a clear lesson in the importance of separating Church & State. The Church should only cross that line with clear moral cause. This case was not even close. More like a pack of sanctimonious f***wits thinking ‘be kind’ means appeasing all victims by affirming their self-imposed victimhood.
A well written commentary by Peter. Lets see if any Christians have any comments. I am starting to think that democracy can only be diluted so far, before people abandon it.
I felt very much the same thing when I read what the church leaders had to say.
I also wondered how much effect it may have, given that Christianity is a waning player in society, and justifiably so in light of the well documented behaviour of many clergy, and also as science unravels what have been the mysteries of life, and we are not so dominated by the myth and superstition of past ages which is all that Christianity really is.
However I fear that the woke brigade and the pandering to all things Maori which dominates NZ currently will probably win the day, and the courage and common sense of David Seymour will not be sufficient to bring about the change so desperately needed. If only Luxton had some balls!
How many of the assembled chieves at Waitangi could read, write or understand English in 1840? Probably NONE. How many of those same chieves could even read or write their own MAORI language in 1840? Probably none. The entire understanding of the treaty and the implications of it were conducted VERBALLY, hence the heated discussions, so all arguments as to which copy preceded which are somewhat moot. The treaty was flawed in several ways. There was no recognised Maori king or paramount chief to sign on behalf of all Maori. Some chieves signed, some didn't. Those that didn't and have been bleating about it ever since have been fraudulently benefitting (pun intended) from citizenry they now deny. Pay back the benefits you have been paid since 1840. Sovereignty from the treaty was all the British wanted. They already had Australia (much bigger, much richer, and the natives easier to quell). So they would have been quite happy to leave the troublesome chieves to the French, who were clamouring for colonisation rights, except they didn't want the French to have another colony close nearby (look at the troublesome nature of the lot on the other side of the English channel).
I’m confused as to where these church leaders were in 2020 and 2021 when their congregation were unjustifiably attacked and could not come together due to lockdown mandates, yet the brothels (amongst other activities) could still be open? I was unable to attend my church due to trusting my God given innate immune system and refusing the experimental mRNA injection.
This rings alarm bells for me and I would avoid these churches personally.
Thank you Peter for the insights and challenges you have presented. Aged 82, I am very grateful that we can still share and debate our concerns. I can still learn from others and change my stance if needed.
How Christian are the 400 leaders? A very good question . Has the media grabbed this topic because it suits their narrative? Normally anything touching Christianity is scorned. Five denominations are the signees. I doubt that would cover half of adherents in our land. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
I agree with …..This group is now so bold to put forth a stand when the silence from most Christian leaders supporting far more vital moral stands has been deafening in recent times.
How Christian are they?
A false premise is that you can be a Christian by saying it, doing kind deeds, attending a church sometimes, reading a Bible. WRONG!
I think the next question is, Are they born-again? A peculiar idea?
It is described by Jesus in John3:5. “Except a man be born again of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Simply, if I haven’t admitted that I don’t and can’t match up to God’s perfect standards, deeply regret past sins and want to change my direction, I will not be accepted into heaven. This requires following not just the 10 commandments but all Jesus’ teachings and commands. I can’t do that without taking His Spirit within me. The process is simple.
Sadly, many churches have stopped or rarely mention these points.
The Holy Bible , revealing God’s plans and purposes, the history and the future prophecies, penned by 40 different writers over centuries contains a clear direction.
In our life time it has been severely undermined with many new English translations prepared by non believing scholars who remove words/verses, altering what they decide does not suit today’s readers. Each new translation is required to change by 10%!
Finally, is Christianity a waning player in our society? (Re gusimond).
It may appear like that in NZ. But no regime, however cruel, has been able to defeat God’s purposes. Look at China now with its millions of vibrant Christians. Oh yes, the death rate is considerable too, but that is a basic requirement of a follower of Jesus Christ…to be ready to lay down one’s own life. Thousands are doing that daily around the world today.
This century has seen more Christians slaughtered for their faith than any other century. And it will go on until Jesus returns to this earth for a season.
Do not believe me, but please check it out.
The surest way is to ask Jesus personally so there can be no mistakes.
Do those 400 Church leaders actually represent the rest of the congregation, or are they just collectively virtue signaling to the public to show how virtuous they are ? Virtue signaling seems entirely appropriate for Church leaders, and more likely than any convictions they actually hold. I think they are mostly Christians of convenience now.
1. The 1840 Treaty says that Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, will be 'Sovereign.' And this is attested in the Constitution Act 1986, clause 2 (1): "The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time." Thus, the ACT Party's proposed Bill would in essence usurp the Sovereign's position. That's really quite dangerous. The idea of fundamentally changing our Constitution like that through a mere select committee process is so amateurish as to be wholly laughable, despite the fact that all MPs either swore or affirmed their allegiance to the Sovereign (a human person) as Head of State, in accord with the said Constitution Act.
2. Not one single 'iwi' signed that Treaty in 1840. The Rangatira signed it as representatives of their individual hapu. Ok, there were groups of nga hapu that held a general understanding of common ancestry or common history, but the 'iwi' was not actually a political unit at that time. And even in the conflicts of the 1860s, there were hapu that took up weapons against other hapu, regardless of their shared origin stories.
3. The idea of reviving chieftainship is perhaps quite absurd. Maori people themselves have moved on from that. Today we are witnesses to a newly re-created Maori monarchy. That's quite a new development, and of course, sorry to say, in many ways it's an 'imported concept.'
4. The idea of upholding the second clause of the Treaty is perhaps problematic. Since it allowed sales of Maori land only to the Government Land Commissioner, it immediately took away the vendors' negotiating power, and the sale prices were most likely significantly depressed.
5. Legal equality is of course an important democratic principle to uphold, but it's a little problematic to link that with the choices of Divinity. Even the New Testament says that 'The Lord loved Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus;' and 'the disciple whom Jesus loved lay upon His breast.' And from the book of Prophet Daniel, we read that, 'You are greatly loved...'
6. The third of ACT's proposed principles is already established in law and statute. Thus the whole exercise is superfluous, and for the reasons stated above, it can validly be said that it's mischievous. Mere political drama. But the other two members of the Coalition Government have already said that they won't support it beyond the first reading, so it's difficult to see why anyone would want to get excited about it.
Well you’ve managed to confuse me with your 6 points, that’s for sure. No idea how the Bill is ‘unconstitutional’ but what’s the harm in laying out some principles we should all be happy to live by? Better would be to confirm the Treaty as a now irrelevant ‘nullity’ but sorting the Principles out and stopping their perpetually increasing malleability would be helpful at least.
Helpful reads in this discussion, Claudia Orange’s writings on Te Tiriti, Jay Ruka’s Huia Come Home, Alastair Reese’s newly published book, He Tatau Pounamu.
I will be attending a meeting addressed by Alistair, here in Tauranga. I happen to agree that the ToW is a scared covenant, and that to mis-interpret it as delivering political and legal 'partnership' is an insult to the mana of those who signed and framed the treaty.
These "Christian leader" seem to have joined the ranks of the other politically correct, social justice warriors that do not understand the Logical Fallacy of PRESENTISM.
Presentism is the normal inclination to judge people and events past the past by todays beliefs and standards.
Almost everyone does this including academic intellectuals, government authorities and clerics.
Very few understand it because we only know and understand what we have experienced in our own lives.
We only like to think we understand what happenned in the past we never experienced by living in.
The most basic untrue fallacy about the Treaty of Waitangi is that it was an agreement between two Sovereign Nation States.
Wrong.
There was no Maori Nation, just more than 500 different tribal groups that had their own ideas, rules and leaders and did not get along well with others.
The inter tribal conflicts became rather chaotic and the only way of reacting was to KILL EACH OTHER. Some of the more intelligent chiefs of the more powerful tribes decided that a system of government and laws was required and asked for the British system.
Hobson was sent to represent a civilized nation and try to help.
Hobson offered the assembled chiefs 3 solutions.
1. A system of government and laws that would be an alternative to tribal division and ongoing violence. An end to the musket wars that were decimating the native people, Good idea but the price was the loss of tribal sovereignty. It was debated and agreed,
2. Legal ownership that protected property from being taken by the current occupants by invasion and force. The members of each tribal group finally got to own the territory they occupied and did not have to fight to defend it. Good idea and agreed.
3. The equal rights and responsibilities of British subjects. Same for everyone and a much better alternative to :might is right".
Had there been a Sovereign Maori Nation with one agreed system of government and laws as Presentism influences us to assume, there would have been no Treaty of Waitangi.
The unification of the tribes had been attempted in 1835.
A declaration of independence was drafted, probably by Busby.
A governing Council of Chiefs was proposed.
Unfortunately or fortunately that alternative failed to result in the formation of a Maori Nation.
Students of history should know about the Age of Enlightenment in which the ideas of Natural Law and Natural Rights were proposed and gained acceptance.
Christians ought to understand that the EQUAL Natural Rights were basic Christian principles of that time.
According to Natural Law, everyone has the same INALIENABLE, EQUAL RIGHTS to life, freedom, property and ownership of their own bodies, regardless of differences like race, ethnicity, ancestry, gender or religion.
Only a complete fool does not understand that the real principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are those of Natural Law and equal Natural Rights derived from Christianity.
The inherited ANCESTRAL PRIVILEGE these deluded clerics seem to approve of is a violation of Natural Law, which just happens to be God's Law.
Do they really believe that Jesus was influenced by "WHO'S YOUR DADDY"?
Did the Son of God discriminate on the basis of ancestry and GO WOKE as these pandering pc clerics seem to have become?
I suspect that they might be more concerned with their tax free status than the souls of their dwindling congregations.
Christianity is failing and dying and WOKE is replacing it as the new Western Religion of the Neo-Marxist academic "intellectuals" that totally deny the existence of God or any higher power than themselves.
I guess these Church Leaders have converted as well and are now preachers of WOKE instead of of fashioned Christianity.
I dont think believing that the crown should hold its end of the bargain on guaranteeing Maori rights in return for what they surrendered in the treaty means that churches now “don’t believe gods children are equal”. Just like them running soup kitchens but not delivering it to your work doesn’t mean they think you’re less god’s child.
At least some of those Bishops claiming to represent the Catholic Church are in fact undeclared public heretics and thus not able to hold offices in the Church. They loose their jurisdiction and offices ispo facto (by the very fact) of their public heresy which separates them from the mystical body of Christ and causes them to loose membership in the Church. Public manifest heretics are not permitted to hold offices in the Church or practice as clerics even after they abjure their errors but must return to a life of penance in a position of no responsibility for others.
Sadly this only proves that these churches are peddling false religion....most good people have a hunger and thirst for righteousness an̈d they wan̈t this treaty put right....and we want this matter settled by open democracy...and for democracy.....man's wisdom leads into a maze and error grows in bypath ways
Brilliant Peter. Having previously been academically engaged with the various denominations,I can attest that already in the late 90s they were going woke. This latest Letter shows just how far they have been captured by lefty idealism. Michael Laws did a brilliant job today comparing their justification to that of German Churches during the war. Bonhoeffer would be rather dismayed at the political activism dressed up as Christian morality. Jesus’ exhortation to ‘render unto Caesar’ was a clear lesson in the importance of separating Church & State. The Church should only cross that line with clear moral cause. This case was not even close. More like a pack of sanctimonious f***wits thinking ‘be kind’ means appeasing all victims by affirming their self-imposed victimhood.
A well written commentary by Peter. Lets see if any Christians have any comments. I am starting to think that democracy can only be diluted so far, before people abandon it.
The days of total respect for the views of the clergy are well over.
I will be interested to see if those of the cloth who have a different view come out with a counter public statement.
I felt very much the same thing when I read what the church leaders had to say.
I also wondered how much effect it may have, given that Christianity is a waning player in society, and justifiably so in light of the well documented behaviour of many clergy, and also as science unravels what have been the mysteries of life, and we are not so dominated by the myth and superstition of past ages which is all that Christianity really is.
However I fear that the woke brigade and the pandering to all things Maori which dominates NZ currently will probably win the day, and the courage and common sense of David Seymour will not be sufficient to bring about the change so desperately needed. If only Luxton had some balls!
Covid times showed me who the true Christians were.
You are 100% right there, Peter.
How many of the assembled chieves at Waitangi could read, write or understand English in 1840? Probably NONE. How many of those same chieves could even read or write their own MAORI language in 1840? Probably none. The entire understanding of the treaty and the implications of it were conducted VERBALLY, hence the heated discussions, so all arguments as to which copy preceded which are somewhat moot. The treaty was flawed in several ways. There was no recognised Maori king or paramount chief to sign on behalf of all Maori. Some chieves signed, some didn't. Those that didn't and have been bleating about it ever since have been fraudulently benefitting (pun intended) from citizenry they now deny. Pay back the benefits you have been paid since 1840. Sovereignty from the treaty was all the British wanted. They already had Australia (much bigger, much richer, and the natives easier to quell). So they would have been quite happy to leave the troublesome chieves to the French, who were clamouring for colonisation rights, except they didn't want the French to have another colony close nearby (look at the troublesome nature of the lot on the other side of the English channel).
I’m confused as to where these church leaders were in 2020 and 2021 when their congregation were unjustifiably attacked and could not come together due to lockdown mandates, yet the brothels (amongst other activities) could still be open? I was unable to attend my church due to trusting my God given innate immune system and refusing the experimental mRNA injection.
This rings alarm bells for me and I would avoid these churches personally.
Also, where is the petition signed by these leaders to stop the indoctrination of vulnerable children in regards to the sex ed in schools?
Thank you Peter for the insights and challenges you have presented. Aged 82, I am very grateful that we can still share and debate our concerns. I can still learn from others and change my stance if needed.
How Christian are the 400 leaders? A very good question . Has the media grabbed this topic because it suits their narrative? Normally anything touching Christianity is scorned. Five denominations are the signees. I doubt that would cover half of adherents in our land. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
I agree with …..This group is now so bold to put forth a stand when the silence from most Christian leaders supporting far more vital moral stands has been deafening in recent times.
How Christian are they?
A false premise is that you can be a Christian by saying it, doing kind deeds, attending a church sometimes, reading a Bible. WRONG!
I think the next question is, Are they born-again? A peculiar idea?
It is described by Jesus in John3:5. “Except a man be born again of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Simply, if I haven’t admitted that I don’t and can’t match up to God’s perfect standards, deeply regret past sins and want to change my direction, I will not be accepted into heaven. This requires following not just the 10 commandments but all Jesus’ teachings and commands. I can’t do that without taking His Spirit within me. The process is simple.
Sadly, many churches have stopped or rarely mention these points.
The Holy Bible , revealing God’s plans and purposes, the history and the future prophecies, penned by 40 different writers over centuries contains a clear direction.
In our life time it has been severely undermined with many new English translations prepared by non believing scholars who remove words/verses, altering what they decide does not suit today’s readers. Each new translation is required to change by 10%!
Finally, is Christianity a waning player in our society? (Re gusimond).
It may appear like that in NZ. But no regime, however cruel, has been able to defeat God’s purposes. Look at China now with its millions of vibrant Christians. Oh yes, the death rate is considerable too, but that is a basic requirement of a follower of Jesus Christ…to be ready to lay down one’s own life. Thousands are doing that daily around the world today.
This century has seen more Christians slaughtered for their faith than any other century. And it will go on until Jesus returns to this earth for a season.
Do not believe me, but please check it out.
The surest way is to ask Jesus personally so there can be no mistakes.
A desperate attempt to expand the flock! Labour does this by giving false promises and bribery money for votes.
Do those 400 Church leaders actually represent the rest of the congregation, or are they just collectively virtue signaling to the public to show how virtuous they are ? Virtue signaling seems entirely appropriate for Church leaders, and more likely than any convictions they actually hold. I think they are mostly Christians of convenience now.
Hang on a minute there mate,
1. The 1840 Treaty says that Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, will be 'Sovereign.' And this is attested in the Constitution Act 1986, clause 2 (1): "The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time." Thus, the ACT Party's proposed Bill would in essence usurp the Sovereign's position. That's really quite dangerous. The idea of fundamentally changing our Constitution like that through a mere select committee process is so amateurish as to be wholly laughable, despite the fact that all MPs either swore or affirmed their allegiance to the Sovereign (a human person) as Head of State, in accord with the said Constitution Act.
2. Not one single 'iwi' signed that Treaty in 1840. The Rangatira signed it as representatives of their individual hapu. Ok, there were groups of nga hapu that held a general understanding of common ancestry or common history, but the 'iwi' was not actually a political unit at that time. And even in the conflicts of the 1860s, there were hapu that took up weapons against other hapu, regardless of their shared origin stories.
3. The idea of reviving chieftainship is perhaps quite absurd. Maori people themselves have moved on from that. Today we are witnesses to a newly re-created Maori monarchy. That's quite a new development, and of course, sorry to say, in many ways it's an 'imported concept.'
4. The idea of upholding the second clause of the Treaty is perhaps problematic. Since it allowed sales of Maori land only to the Government Land Commissioner, it immediately took away the vendors' negotiating power, and the sale prices were most likely significantly depressed.
5. Legal equality is of course an important democratic principle to uphold, but it's a little problematic to link that with the choices of Divinity. Even the New Testament says that 'The Lord loved Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus;' and 'the disciple whom Jesus loved lay upon His breast.' And from the book of Prophet Daniel, we read that, 'You are greatly loved...'
6. The third of ACT's proposed principles is already established in law and statute. Thus the whole exercise is superfluous, and for the reasons stated above, it can validly be said that it's mischievous. Mere political drama. But the other two members of the Coalition Government have already said that they won't support it beyond the first reading, so it's difficult to see why anyone would want to get excited about it.
Well you’ve managed to confuse me with your 6 points, that’s for sure. No idea how the Bill is ‘unconstitutional’ but what’s the harm in laying out some principles we should all be happy to live by? Better would be to confirm the Treaty as a now irrelevant ‘nullity’ but sorting the Principles out and stopping their perpetually increasing malleability would be helpful at least.
Helpful reads in this discussion, Claudia Orange’s writings on Te Tiriti, Jay Ruka’s Huia Come Home, Alastair Reese’s newly published book, He Tatau Pounamu.
I will be attending a meeting addressed by Alistair, here in Tauranga. I happen to agree that the ToW is a scared covenant, and that to mis-interpret it as delivering political and legal 'partnership' is an insult to the mana of those who signed and framed the treaty.
These "Christian leader" seem to have joined the ranks of the other politically correct, social justice warriors that do not understand the Logical Fallacy of PRESENTISM.
Presentism is the normal inclination to judge people and events past the past by todays beliefs and standards.
Almost everyone does this including academic intellectuals, government authorities and clerics.
Very few understand it because we only know and understand what we have experienced in our own lives.
We only like to think we understand what happenned in the past we never experienced by living in.
The most basic untrue fallacy about the Treaty of Waitangi is that it was an agreement between two Sovereign Nation States.
Wrong.
There was no Maori Nation, just more than 500 different tribal groups that had their own ideas, rules and leaders and did not get along well with others.
The inter tribal conflicts became rather chaotic and the only way of reacting was to KILL EACH OTHER. Some of the more intelligent chiefs of the more powerful tribes decided that a system of government and laws was required and asked for the British system.
Hobson was sent to represent a civilized nation and try to help.
Hobson offered the assembled chiefs 3 solutions.
1. A system of government and laws that would be an alternative to tribal division and ongoing violence. An end to the musket wars that were decimating the native people, Good idea but the price was the loss of tribal sovereignty. It was debated and agreed,
2. Legal ownership that protected property from being taken by the current occupants by invasion and force. The members of each tribal group finally got to own the territory they occupied and did not have to fight to defend it. Good idea and agreed.
3. The equal rights and responsibilities of British subjects. Same for everyone and a much better alternative to :might is right".
Had there been a Sovereign Maori Nation with one agreed system of government and laws as Presentism influences us to assume, there would have been no Treaty of Waitangi.
The unification of the tribes had been attempted in 1835.
A declaration of independence was drafted, probably by Busby.
A governing Council of Chiefs was proposed.
Unfortunately or fortunately that alternative failed to result in the formation of a Maori Nation.
Students of history should know about the Age of Enlightenment in which the ideas of Natural Law and Natural Rights were proposed and gained acceptance.
Christians ought to understand that the EQUAL Natural Rights were basic Christian principles of that time.
According to Natural Law, everyone has the same INALIENABLE, EQUAL RIGHTS to life, freedom, property and ownership of their own bodies, regardless of differences like race, ethnicity, ancestry, gender or religion.
Only a complete fool does not understand that the real principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are those of Natural Law and equal Natural Rights derived from Christianity.
The inherited ANCESTRAL PRIVILEGE these deluded clerics seem to approve of is a violation of Natural Law, which just happens to be God's Law.
Do they really believe that Jesus was influenced by "WHO'S YOUR DADDY"?
Did the Son of God discriminate on the basis of ancestry and GO WOKE as these pandering pc clerics seem to have become?
I suspect that they might be more concerned with their tax free status than the souls of their dwindling congregations.
Christianity is failing and dying and WOKE is replacing it as the new Western Religion of the Neo-Marxist academic "intellectuals" that totally deny the existence of God or any higher power than themselves.
I guess these Church Leaders have converted as well and are now preachers of WOKE instead of of fashioned Christianity.
I dont think believing that the crown should hold its end of the bargain on guaranteeing Maori rights in return for what they surrendered in the treaty means that churches now “don’t believe gods children are equal”. Just like them running soup kitchens but not delivering it to your work doesn’t mean they think you’re less god’s child.
But interesting victim complex you’ve got.
At least some of those Bishops claiming to represent the Catholic Church are in fact undeclared public heretics and thus not able to hold offices in the Church. They loose their jurisdiction and offices ispo facto (by the very fact) of their public heresy which separates them from the mystical body of Christ and causes them to loose membership in the Church. Public manifest heretics are not permitted to hold offices in the Church or practice as clerics even after they abjure their errors but must return to a life of penance in a position of no responsibility for others.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-zealand-bishops-push-lgbtqia-ideology-in-catholic-school-guidelines/