The other pilgrimage is to Tokaanu, about 300km south of Auckland — and St Paul’s Anglican Church.  It is the burial place of two young Māori missionaries, Te Manihera and Kereopa — martyred for their faith in 1847, as they expressed their commitment to forgiveness, peace and reconciliation. 

Tokaanu

With Barby’s Dad and brother, Jonny

I am indebted to Keith Newman for helping me appreciate the historical background to these pilgrimages.  In the months before we moved to India, back in 2013, I read his Bible & Treaty (see a post here) as well as his Ratana: the prophet (see a post here).  Soon after our return to New Zealand, I saw that he had written another book, Beyond Betrayal.  Keen to renew my journey with his writings, it was purchased straightaway, and I finished reading it this past weekend.  

The Amazing

Standing between Māori and European. [Used by Peter Lineham in his talk in the Eden Community Church’s series on  The Story of God in New Zealand (link here), also featuring the likes of Jay Ruka and Val Animoa Goold].

The Awful

I feel sad.  ‘Betrayal’ is a strong word, but it is the right word.  It makes me think of Judas, but it is used elsewhere in the Gospels with the sense of “handed over”.  Yep, that works as well!  Nine years after it was first written, Newman’s final chapter — “Beyond Betrayal” — is very moving.  He refers to the way the promises in the Treaty ‘had leaked away like tears gathered in a bucket full of holes’ (291).

I feel annoyed.  I don’t really understand the logic of a ‘State Church’.  Sorry!  The Church tends to be at its worst when it becomes entangled with the State’s political power.  The bishop at the head of the troops on the road to war?  Yikes.  That really affected me.  It takes me back to Amos 7.10-17 and the reminder of how a prophet is needed whenever priest and king become too close and chummy.  This story is filled with prophets, mostly Māori ones, doing the best they can…

I feel sobered.  Where would I find myself in this story?  Shades of Grace, or shades of Grey?  On what side would I have been at Parihaka?  A bit like with the parables of Jesus over the years, we humans have this incredible capacity to line up with the good guys in an old story.  Really?!  The only way that could be projected back on the past is if we look at ourselves now.  Do I demonstrate now the strong independent mind that can stand for truth against a cultural flow?  Do I demonstrate now the compassionate heart that draws near to the downtrodden whatever the cost?  My hunch is that if we parachuted into Parihaka in 1881, there might be a fair bit of shock and shame to spread around.

I feel sceptical.  I don’t doubt that a new History curriculum is needed in our schools.  But if its architects have an anti-Christian bent, will Christianity, together with its missionaries, always be synonymous with colonialism and the Crown?  Is not the issue more subtle?  Sadly, Christianity has not always been synonymous with the gospel!  That is for sure.  But is the story of the gospel spreading among Māori before 1850 going to be told?  Probably not.  Is the non-violent protest led by the Parihaka prophets going to be divorced from the gospel that shaped these men?  Probably.  Oh well, I hope Keith Newman’s books make it into the bibliography and that education includes encouraging students to weigh the argument for themselves.

I feel energized.  These stories, these people need to find their way into my teaching and preaching.

I feel hopeful.  One of the big changes in Aotearoa New Zealand in the decade in which we’ve been focused overseas is the prominence given to learning Te Reo (the Māori language).  That has to be an encouraging step forward.

I feel intrigued.  In the last few years I’ve loved reading stuff out of West Africa — Lamin Sanneh (The Gambia), Jehu Hanciles (Sierra Leone) and Kwame Bediako (Ghana).  I wonder how much of their stuff travels across times and time zones?  It was Bediako’s conviction that ‘missionaries did not bring Christ to Africa; Christ brought them’.  Hmmm.  It is Hanciles’ conviction that too much is made of what he calls ‘the empire argument’ — afterall  ‘mundane events, marginalized persons, and commonplace experiences shape historical development (and this is) deeply subversive of master narratives and constructs centered on the use of power’.  Hmmm.  It was Sanneh’s conviction that ‘Christianity is a form of indigenous empowerment by virtue of vernacular translation’.  Hmmm.

I feel another pilgrimage coming on… to all those (many!) places I visited on Google Maps while reading this book.