26 February 2007 - Bishop Brian Tamaki - Destiny Churches New Zealand

God defend New Zealand
or
God offended by New Zealand

Tapu Misa’s column of 21 February headlines, “Can Brian Tamaki seriously believe the state can impose religion?” I’m not sure where Tapu has been, but since 2002 the Labour led government has been imposing its religion of ‘secular humanism’ on New Zealanders with spectacular success.

I agree that the functions of the church and state should be separate. I also believe that freedom of religious choice and expression are fundamental rights of all New Zealanders.

But there is no such thing as a religiously neutral country. It’s a fallacy to contend that individuals who perform the functions of the state separate their personal belief system from their politics. The prevailing belief system (or religion) of today determines the culture of tomorrow. Hence, our nation is presently experiencing a dramatic increase in social carnage that I believe is proportionate to a major departure from traditional Christian values, though many wouldn’t correlate the two. I’ve been saying for some time that our nation must recapture its Christian heritage. But the government has different ideas.

Which brings me to what I believe is the underlying intent of the proposed National Statement on Religious Diversity (NSORD) that claims ‘New Zealand has no state religion.’

By way of background, the Statement’s architect, Professor Paul Morris (Advisor at the 2006 Labour Party Conference) says the idea of a National Statement on Religious Diversity would not originate with government.  Strangely then, the key agencies underwriting the initiative happen to be the Ministry of Social Development, one of New Zealand’s largest Government Departments under the direction of Hon. David Benson Pope (Sponsor of the Civil Union Act), and the Human Rights Commission, governed by the Ministry of Justice. I am also reminded of a statement made by senior Labour MP Tim Barnett whose goal is to “pioneer a new 21st century expression of commitment free from traditional or religious presumptions.” This goal is entirely consistent with the first principle of the NSORD, which states ‘New Zealand has no state religion.’ Barnett and his colleagues have already achieved a fair level of success by severing New Zealand’s constitutional ties with London’s Privy Council and redefining through law traditional religious presumptions such as male/female marriage and parental responsibility. This NSORD will certainly go a long way to seeing their goal fulfilled.

So then, it is hardly surprising that the Prime Minister intends to present the National Statement on Religious Diversity to an Asia-Pacific interfaith forum at Waitangi in May. According to the forum’s programme, following the Prime Minister’s address will be a contribution from the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, whose dominant national religion is Islam (88 percent of its population identify as Muslims).  I suspect New Zealand’s religious neutrality might well be a magnet to Indonesian Muslims and their global networks.

Ironically, we need only look to our motherland for an example of a nation that has compromised its Christian heritage and opened its borders in pursuit of religious diversity. Today, Londoners live in constant fear of terrorism. Recent investigations are revealing disturbing evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain's leading mosques and Muslim institutions. A 2006 British Sunday Times survey showed widespread gloom about the future, with 87% of respondents expecting further attacks in Britain by Islamic groups on the scale of the July 7 bombings. NOP Research Group conducted a comprehensive survey of Britains Muslim population and found significant numbers exhibit more loyalty to fellow Muslims outside of the U.K. than to their fellow Briton, with 68% supporting the arrest and prosecution of British people who "insult Islam."

Accordingly, I’ve sought to remind the Race Relations Commissioner of the historical significance of Christianity and the vital role it plays in securing a future and hope for the next generation.

In 1858, the Coronation ceremony of the first Maori King, Potatau Te Wherowhero (paramount Chief of the Tainui Tribes) took place at Ngaruawahia. The ceremony was performed with the same Holy Bible that is used to this day. At this great meeting, Ngati Tuwharetoa paramount chief Te Heuheu said, “Potatau, this day I create you King of the Maori people. You and Queen Victoria shall be bound together to be one. The religion of Christ shall be the mantle of your protection; the law shall be the mat of your feet, for ever and ever onward.” To this Potatau, turning to his people, replied, “Yes, I agree, for ever and ever onward. After I am gone, hold fast to love, to the law and to the religion of Christ.”

At the 1953 Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Head of State of the Commonwealth Realms, she was presented with the Bible and admonished with these words, ‘Our gracious Queen: to keep your majesty ever mindful of the law and the gospel of God as the rule for the whole of life and government of Christian princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords…. Here is Wisdom; This is the royal law; These are the very oracles of God.’  We understand that Christian tenets underpin the Crown’s constitutional arrangements and are the foundation base of Commonwealth Nations, of which New Zealand is one. As I’ve said before, I deem it treasonous to sever these covenantal ties considering we are part of the Commonwealth.

It is not necessary to deny our Christian heritage to cohabitate and fully function alongside those of different religious persuasions. Nor should we feel obliged to appease those who hold different religious views by minimising our faith. How can these values be passed on to the next generation if they cannot be openly advocated without fear of causing offence?

Of course, immigrants who come to New Zealand have every right to pursue their religion of choice. But they should come understanding that New Zealand is a Christian nation and that as such, it is their responsibility to respect our nation’s Christian founding values.  Many other countries are perfectly secure and have no problems stating their religious allegiance.

I increasingly perceive that there is a political agenda to totally de-Christianize our culture and our country. Despite what Professor Morris and others might say, the National Statement on Religious Diversity is politically motivated. So then, since they have moved to create a national statement on religion, I propose we take it to one step further and officially recognise what we have always been, a Christian nation.

MEDIA ENQUIRIES

Janine Cardno

(027) 479-9191