Significant individuals in the early NZ church: Rev. Henry Williams; 1792 – 1867

The arrival of Williams in Aotearoa in 1823 marked a significant turning point for C.M.S. as well as the character of the Anglican Church.[1] Prior to his arrival C.M.S. had not being successful at evangelism, were torn apart by internal strife, and were complicit in the trading of weapons.[2] Williams took charge of the mission station in Paihia. Once there he shifted the ministry focus from civilisation as a precursor to evangelism to the task of evangelism itself. He encouraged missionaries to learn Maori, forbid trading in arms, oversaw the translation of the Scriptures and Prayer Book into Maori, and built a schooner which relieved the missionaries of their dependence upon Maori for trade.[3] Williams also concentrated most of the missionaries into Paihia which meant that they could spend more time visiting nearby Iwi. Due to increased interaction their proficiency in Maori increased which further strengthened their evangelistic efforts.[4]

During the 1830’s, under Williams leadership, C.M.S. saw increased numbers of Maori baptised.[5] The missionaries, now more established and organised due to Williams, began to expand their operations.[6] Williams played a key role here in that he personally surveyed new areas for the establishment of mission stations.[7] He directed and oversaw the establishment of mission stations in a number of places including Turangi, Whanganui, and Waikanae.[8] Therefore, “by 1840 Henry could look with considerable satisfaction on the achievements of the C.M.S. mission since his arrival in 1823.”[9]

Williams was also actively involved in peace making and was known to literally step between warring parties to broker peace. This further increased his mana amongst Maori and subsequently strengthened his missionary endeavours.[10] Therefore I posit that Williams deserves to be considered one of the most significant individual’s within 19^th century Christianity in Aotearoa due to his peace making efforts and visionary leadership of missionary endeavours which resulted in increased numbers of Maori in the Anglican Church.

[1] Davidson, Christianity in Aotearoa, 11.

[2] Robin Fisher, “Williams, Henry,” in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography: Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 30 October 2012, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1w22/williams-henry.

[3] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Henry Williams: Missionary,” 258-259.

[4] Fisher, “Williams, Henry.”

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Henry Williams: Missionary,” 259.

[9] Fisher, “Williams, Henry.”

[10] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Henry Williams: Missionary,” 258.

Significant individuals in the early NZ church: Rt. Rev. Pompallier; 1801 – 1871

Pompallier was the first Catholic Bishop of Aotearoa and Polynesia. He wrote extensively in French, English and Maori.[1] In total Pompallier is recorded as having produced 54 printed works including prayer books which were used by Maori and European congregations.[2] Pompallier also oversaw the establishment of the Catholic Church in Aotearoa. Within eight years of establishment the Catholic Church had grown to a considerable size with over 5,100 Maori regularly attending services.[3] This is thought to have been due, in part, to Pompalliers personality and mana. Evidence of his mana amongst Maori society can be found in the fact that during the sacking of Kororareka all Catholic buildings were spared. Furthermore Maori warriors were posted as sentries in order to ensure the safety of Catholic civilians during the conflict. The sparing of buildings and civilians by the Maori is said to have been a direct consequence of Pompalliers standing amongst local Maori.[4]

Perhaps Pompalliers most influential act was his lobbying of Hobson “that all who should join the Catholic religion should have the protection of the British government.”[5] Pompallier did this as he was concerned that Aotearoa might adopt an ‘established church’ model similar to England and that this state-sanctioned church would be Anglican in nature.[6] This of course would have had huge ramifications for other denominations. Hobson agreed and eventually a statement promising the protection of all adherents regardless of denomination or religious belief was drafted.[7] As such New Zealand to this day does not have an established church – a fact which continues to have significant implications for church-state relationships in contemporary society.

Therefore I posit that Pompallier deserves to be considered one of the most significant individual’s within 19^th century Christianity in Aotearoa due to his sowing the seeds which eventually ensured there was no state-sanctioned established church, his teaching and publication of Christian literature for Maori and European Catholics, his establishment and leadership of the Catholic Church in Aotearoa and Polynesia, and his influence amongst the Maori and Polynesians which saved many lives.[8]

[1] Having taught himself English en route to New Zealand and Maori upon arrival.

[2] E. R. Simmons, “Pompallier, Jean Baptiste François,” in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography: Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 8 January 2014, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1p23/pompallier-jean-baptiste-francois

[3] Allan K. Davidson and Peter J. Lineham, Transplanted Christianity: Documents Illustrating Aspects of New Zealand Church History (Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Limited, 1989), 47.

[4] J. R. Cole, Pompallier: The House and the Mission (Wellington: R. E. Owen Government Printer, 1957), 21-23.

[5] Michael King, The Penguin History of New Zealand (Auckland: Penguin, 2003), 30.

[6] Ibid., 30.

[7] Ibid., 30.

[8] Cole recounts how Pompallier also travelled to Polynesia to calm tensions and avert hostilities between indigenous Chiefs and Catholic missionaries and adherents. He was ultimately successful and thanks to his diplomatic work bloodshed was avoided. Cole, Pompallier, 36-37.

Significant individuals in the early NZ church: Piripi Taumata-a-kura; c. 1800 – ?

“When some members of the Nga Puhi tribe returned to the Bay of Islands after a visit to the East Coast, a chief among them called on William Williams in 1837 and asked why there were no missionaries on the East Coast, especially as the Maori people there met regularly for worship and did no work on Sundays. William Williams of course wanted to know how this had come about. The chief told him that it was due to the dedicated work of Taumata-a-kura, a member of Ngati Porou from Waiapu”.[1]

Piripi Taumata-a-kura was a Christian preacher who spear headed indigenous evangelistic efforts in the East Coast region in the first half of the 19^th century.[2] Upon returning to the East Coast from captivity Taumata-a-kura began to share Christian hymns and Biblical texts which he had copied on to scraps of paper. Eventually a large hall was built for his use where many local Maori attended weekly church services at which Taumata-a-kura preached the gospel message. Due to his preaching many Maori began to observe the Sabbath. In 1836, during inter-tribal fighting, Taumata-a-kura convinced combatants to refrain from cannibalism and the wanton destruction of civilian property. This in turn helped restrain the ever increasing cycle of Utu-based violence. William Williams arrived in the East Coast area in 1838 to find an already thriving church. Williams ensured that nine more Maori were trained by C.M.S. staff regarding theology. These individuals returned to the East Coast and continued on Taumata-a-kura’s important work.[3]

Therefore I posit that Taumata-a-kura deserves to be considered one of the most significant individual’s within 19^th century Christianity in Aotearoa due to his missionary efforts which in turn paved the way for further missionary activity to be conducted in the East Coast region. Furthermore his success in introducing rules for armed combat similar to those of the ‘Geneva Convention’ did much in reducing the impact of inter-tribal warfare.

[1] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Piripi Taumata-a-kura: Missionary in Ngati Porou,” For all the Saints (Hastings, New Zealand: Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, 1996), 168.

[2] Allan Davidson, Christianity in Aotearoa: A History of Church and Society in New Zealand (Wellington: New Zealand Education for Ministry Board, 2004), 17.

[3] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Piripi Taumata-a-kura: Missionary in Ngati Porou,” 168-171.

Significant individuals in the early NZ church: Te Manihera; ? – 1847

Te Manihera was the name adopted by Poutama; an important chieftan from Ngati Ruanui. He worked as a teacher under the leadership of C.M.S. missionary Richard Taylor who remarked that Manihera was a man “conspicuous for piety.”[1] Manihera was a brave individual as evidenced by his diving off a ship mid-voyage to save a missionary’s child.[2] His bravery once again came to the fore when he volunteered on the 24^th December 1846 to travel to his Iwi’s traditional enemies to share the gospel.[3] Prior to his pledge Manihera spoke passionately to a hui of over 2000 about the need to travel to other regions of Aotearoa to spread the gospel. Another teacher, Kereopa, volunteered to travel with Manihera noting that Christ had sent his disciples out in twos and therefore it would be fitting for them to travel together.[4]

They took a round-about route on their travels and in so doing so visited a variety of regions where they preached the gospel message.[5] On the 12^th March 1847 they approached the stronghold of Ngati Tuwharetoa, their enemies whom they felt led to minister to. The two missionaries were ambushed; Kereopa was killed immediately. Manihera died a few hours later having prayed for his enemies and given them his copy of the New Testament.[6] Due to the passionate witness of Manihera and Kereopa amongst their own people Utu was not sought even given Manihera’s status as chief. Taylor travelled to Ngati Tuwharetoa and preached the gospel message on the invitation of the Iwi. Taylor initially baptised 30 individuals and many more were baptised after the building of a church in the area.[7]

Therefore I posit that Manihera, as well as Kereopa, deserves to be considered one of the most significant individual’s within 19^th century Christianity in Aotearoa due to his martyrdom which sowed the seeds of peace and opened up the way for the preaching of the gospel. Furthermore Manihera and Kereopa were the first Christian Maori martyrs.

[1] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Kereopa and Manihera of Taranaki: Martyrs at Turangi,” 85.

[2] Ibid., 85.

[3] Ibid., 85-86.

[4] Rosemary Dewerse, Nga Kai-Rui i Te Rongopai (Rotorua: Te Hui Amorangi ki te Manawa o Te Wheke, 2013), 21.

[5] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Kereopa and Manihera of Taranaki: Martyrs at Turangi,” 86.

[6] Ian Church, “Poutama, Te Manihera,” in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography: Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 30 October 2012, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1p27/poutama-te-manihera.

[7] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Kereopa and Manihera of Taranaki: Martyrs at Turangi,” 87.

Significant individuals in the early NZ church: Rev. Richard Taylor; 1805-1873

Taylor was often present ‘behind the scenes’ mid 19^th century. He discipled the Maori chief-come-missionary Wiremu Te Tauri who played a significant role in the evangelization of various Hapu in the Wanganui region. Taylor also taught and worked alongside Manihera and Kereopa.[1] After their deaths he was instrumental in bringing an end to the cycle of Utu-based violence which was being perpetuated between Ngati Ruanui[2] and their historic enemies Ngati Tuwharetoa. After the killings Taylor personally engaged in missionary endeavours to Ngati Tuwharetoa which resulted in the baptism of numerous Maori.[3]

In fact Taylor was a highly effective evangelist amongst the Maori people. While stationed in Wanganui Taylor became influential amongst local Maori through his peace making efforts.[4] Taylor simultaneously maintained a close working relationship with both Governor Grey and Governor Gore-Brown. The respect shown to him by both the European establishment and Maori allowed him to act as an intermediary between the two parties regarding land ownership rights. Taylor’s work advocating on behalf of Maori in regards to land ownership meant that “he quickly won the Maoris (sic.) trust and exerted a tremendous influence among them.”[5] This in turn further strengthened his role as evangelist amongst the Maori people. Due to his mana and effective evangelistic endeavours Taylor is thought to have being the most effective C.M.S.[6] evangelist in the 19^th century in regards to the number of Maori who became committed Christians as a direct result of his work.[7] This is evidenced by the fact that during the 1850s two thirds of Maori residing in the Wanganui district were baptised by Taylor or his assistants.[8] During this time numerous Maori church buildings were established through Taylor’s encouragement.[9]

Therefore I posit that Taylor deserves to be considered one of the most significant individual’s within 19^th century Christianity in Aotearoa due to his peace making work, evangelism amongst Maori, formational influence upon early Maori missionaries, role as intermediary between the fledging New Zealand government and Maori, encouragement of the establishment of Maori churches, and work advocating on the behalf of Maori regarding land ownership rights.

[1] Aotearoa’s first Christian Maori martyrs – for more information refer to other entry in this assignment.

[2] Manihera and Kereopa’s Iwi.

[3] Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, “Kereopa and Manihera of Taranaki: Martyrs at Turangi,” For all the Saints (Hastings, New Zealand: Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, 1996), 85-89.

[4] J. M. R. Owens. ‘Taylor, Richard,” in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography: Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 4 March 2014, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t22/taylor-richard.

[5] Bernard John Foster, “Taylor, Richard,” in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography: Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 22 April 2009, http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/taylor-richard.

[6] Church Missionary Society

[7] Owens, “Taylor, Richard.”

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

A Brief History of Religious Education in New Zealand State Schools and Associated Sectarian Strife

In 1877 New Zealand’s Parliament passed the Education Act which contained the now infamous secular clause. This clause removed the ability for state primary schools to open the teaching day with Scripture readings or prayers and enjoined that all “teaching shall be entirely of a secular nature.”[1] Part of the reason the Act came into being was the fact that prior to 1876 New Zealand’s education system was run on a provincial basis by local government boards. During this period various Christian denominations took a leading role, particularly amongst Maori, in providing education for primary aged children.[2] However it had become evident over time that the churches did not have sufficient resources to maintain an education system of a high standard.[3] With the abolishment of the provincial governance system in 1876 the school system came under the auspices of the state which had relatively ample resources at its disposal. As there was no established state church no one denomination had a clear exclusive claim to state funding.[4] Furthermore, sectarian squabbles during the provincial period[5] concerning the nature of religious instruction had led to some regions limiting religious education to “Bible reading without comment and in some provinces religious instruction was forbidden altogether.”[6] These factors created a climate which contributed to the amendment of the 1877 secular clause to exclude all religious observance in state schools.[7]

Information regarding the Parliamentary debates concerning the 1877 Act indicate that for some members of Parliament the issue of Christian sectarian rivalry in particular was a contributing factor to the passing of the Act.[8] It should be said that Parliament consisted of supporters of both religious instruction in state schools as well as advocates for financially supporting Church operated schools. Furthermore there were avowed secularists in favour of establishing a secular education system.[9] Interestingly while secularists were a minority group within Parliament they managed to succeed in their goal of making New Zealand’s new state schooling system secular in nature. This was because their opponents were too busy fighting amongst themselves.[10] Supporters, predominately Catholic, of state aid for church schools sided with secularists to thwart Protestant moves to secure a place for religious instruction in state schools[11] and vice versa.[12] “Thus the final form of the Act made no provision for aid to church schools and section 84(2) [decreed that teaching in state schools]… shall be entirely of a secular nature”.[13] As such sectarian rivalry seriously impeded the ability of concerned Christians in securing a meaningful place within the Act for religious education in state schools.

Turley and Martin comment that “broadly speaking there [were] four major patterns of response to the Act by those concerned about religious observances and instruction in state schools. Many recognised that if state schools no longer offered religious instruction special responsibilities [arguably] fell to Churches and their educational programmes… Another option for some was to encourage Church school[s] which could not only foster denominational teaching but preserve a special religious character in the school… A third response to the 1877 Act centred on efforts to repeal or modify the secular clause… A fourth strategy emerged out of Nelson province and capitalised on a loophole in the law to offer religious instruction in state schools during normal hours.”[14]

The first response to the Act as identified by Turley and Martin materialised in the form of established Sunday School education programmes which took place predominately within Protestant denominations.[15] Sunday School programmes did not simply develop in response to the Act itself. Prior to the passing of 1877 Act Sunday School Unions had been established in Auckland (1865) and in Wellington (1880) and other individual Protestant denominational-based Sunday Schools established throughout the country.[16] However it is interesting to note that the establishment of formal Sunday Schools became increasingly popular post the passing of the Education Act.[17] Church goers in particular who supported the ideal of secular education showed support for the Sunday School response.[18] It is also interesting to note that the establishment, resourcing and maintenance of these Sunday School programmes actually cost proportionally as much as the second response to the Act. This financial cost of the Sunday School response does not take into account the establishment and resourcing of the various private Protestant schools.[19]

It would be prudent to note that while there is little evidence of sectarian rivalry within the Sunday School movement itself following the passing of the 1877 Act, these aforementioned factors when combined further fuelled Protestant resentment regarding state financial support for Catholic schools.[20] As highlighted above, Turley and Martin identified the establishment of Church schools as another response to the Act. Interestingly the Catholic Church played a significant role in regards to the establishment of private church schools.[21] This in turn further fuelled the ongoing persistence of the more radical Protestant lobbyists who were concerned with state funding of Catholic education.[22] Turley and Martin note that the financial burden of maintaining private Church schools has historically been immense and that “consequently state aid has prove[n] to be one the most persistent issues surrounding [these] schools.”[23] The fact that Protestant denominations were unable to receive state assistance for their Sunday School programmes arguably played, albeit a minor, role in perpetuating the debate surrounding state aid for private Church schools. As such the growth of the Sunday School movement helped fuel, to some degree, the sectarian rivalry regarding state aid which had been present during the passing of the Act.

The Catholic Church itself, “rejecting as ‘godless’ the education system established by the state” in the wake of the 1877 Education Act, “set up the most extensive network of religious education in the country” to the extent that Bishop Cleary proclaimed that the Catholic schooling system was “easily the most spectacular fact in the religious history of this Dominion.”[24] Cleary’s claims were not without foundation given that within a century of the 1877 Act being passed over 75% of private primary schools in New Zealand were operated by the Catholic Church.[25] While it is true that the Catholic Church were a dominate player in the private school system post the passing of the Education Act it is not to say that other denominations did not also attempt to establish denominational based schools. For example the Anglican Church sought to establish diocesan schools throughout the country as did the Presbyterians albeit at a slower rate of expansion.[26]

Whilst the Catholic Church proactively engaged in political lobbying aimed at curtailing Protestant influence in state schools it did welcome “indications that other denominations were also interested in establishing schools, seeing in this a vindication of their own policy [course].”[27] However it would be prudent to note that while this did encourage an element of sectarian co-operation it is interesting that it did little to temper the fierce lobbying by the Catholic Church regarding religious instruction in state schools. The establishment of private Catholic schools fuelled the opposition of the Roman Church against Protestant based religious instruction taking place within state schools. This was because, even with their impressive statistics regarding Catholic dominance in private schooling, there was an understanding amongst the Catholic hierarchy that many Catholic children would be unable to attend a Catholic school and as such would need to enrol in the public schooling system.[28] Some Bible in Schools advocates, in an attempt to make their agenda palatable with the wide variety of Protestant denominations, were in favour of introducing religious instruction based around the reading of scripture with minimal doctrinal teaching or comment (ref?). As such the Catholic Church feared that Catholic children who attended state schools would be forced to attend religious instruction centred upon scripture without an emphasis upon right doctrine. As one Catholic devotee asked, “‘is that not Protestantism pure and simple?’ Catholic children who could not have a Catholic education should not have to suffer a Protestant one and hence Catholics opposed religious instruction in state schools.”[29] As such this second response to the Act was marred by sectarian strife and further perpetuated the sectarian rivalry which had been present during the passing of the Act. Furthermore, this debate was directly interwoven with the failure of the third response to the 1877 Act identified by Turley and Martin.

The third response to the 1877 Act centred on efforts to repeal or modify the infamous secular clause. In the wake of the Act’s passing Bible in Schools campaigners organised numerous petitions regarding the repealing of the infamous secular clause. They printed and distributed pamphlets, organised public forums and lobbied sympathetic Members of Parliament but to no avail.[30] Worthy of note is the fact that, in regards to repealing or amending the secular clause of the Act, Bible in Schools advocates “on more than one occasion came very close to success, a casting vote by the Chairman of Committees causing defeat on the third reading on one occasion.” Interestingly sectarian rivalry was not always the leading cause in subverting the Protestant agenda for religious instruction. As Blamires comments: “Against the wish of the organisations responsible for [private member’s Bills] Parliament would tend to view them through Party spectacles and, [with] one Party always deciding its attitude in caucus, a free vote was never recorded… On one occasion a Government Education Bill was withdrawn rather than risk a free vote on the secular clause.”[31] Given the heated nature of the issue many Members of Parliament were loath to pass amendments to the Act given its divisive potential for society.[32] As such political expedience often played a role in defeating attempts by both state school religious instruction advocates and the Catholic Church. This is not to say however that sectarian rivalry did not play a large part in undermining efforts to secure a meaningful approach to religious teaching in the state schooling system.

For decades the Catholic Church and Bible in School supporters sought to have the Act amended in their favour however neither group managed to gain the upper hand. “Catholics continued to oppose the introduction of essentially Protestant observances into the state schools and the more zealous Protestants opposed any aid to ‘Popery’ even if it meant having to withhold support from Bible in Schools campaigns lest these support the Catholic case for equitable financial treatment.”[33] Interestingly, at times the resources some Protestant church leaders put into fighting the Catholic Church over the introduction of religious instruction into state schools even came at the expense of other significant causes to which they were committed. For example the prohibition movement was gathering momentum in the early 20^th century and in 1911 it recorded 55.8% of the vote. However by 1914 this support had dropped to below 50% of the population. Guy suggests that this was due, at least in part, to Protestant energy being “diverted from the prohibition cause to a more sectarian struggle against the Roman Catholic Church over its blocking the introduction of religious instruction in schools.”[34] As such it is clear that sectarian rivalry seriously hampered efforts by both Protestants and Catholics to have the secular clause of the 1877 Act amended or repealed.[35]

The fourth response as identified by Turley and Martin was the capitalisation of a loophole in the 1877 Act to offer religious instruction in state schools during normal hours.[36] This approach was labelled the ‘Nelson System’ although it is interesting to note that a similar method was attempted in Canterbury prior to Nelson but it was not successful.[37] The loophole in question hinged upon the fact that Section 84(2) of the Act required a minimum of four hours of secular teaching in a given school day, “two of which in the forenoon and two in the afternoon shall be consecutive.”[38] Given that the average school was open for three hours each morning the school board had the ability to “declare the school closed for the first or last of those three hours and religious instruction could be given.”[39] However while this response long term was to be the most fruitful in terms of securing a place for religious instruction within the state education system[40] it was once again not without its fair share of sectarian strife. Interestingly this sectarian strife occurred predominately between Protestant denominations.

As outlined previously, the Catholic Church was opposed to religious instruction in state schools due to its overt Protestant character. However even within Protestant circles there was a marked lack of unity regarding the push for religious instruction within state schools.[41] Bible in Schools advocates in particular were unimpressed with the Nelson System approach, viewing it as second best arrangement. “They would settle for nothing less than timetabled religious instruction… But the Nelson System persisted and slowly spread and it gave opponents of the strict Bible in Schools position another argument against amending the Act.”[42] Having been met with defeat regardless of their efforts the Bible in Schools campaigners drew back from their public lobbying for a brief period before reorganising themselves and emerging as the new Bible-in-State-Schools League in 1912.[43] The League officially gained the support of the Anglican Synod, Presbyterian General Assembly and the Methodist Conference with its suggestion that the state education system embrace the successful Australian scheme of religious instruction in schools. However despite its apparent support the League was opposed by a number of smaller Protestant denominations who feared that, given their respective numerical sizes, they would be at a disadvantage in comparison to the larger denominations in regards to extolling their beliefs and practices.[44] Opposition to the League was also present amongst the major denominations which had pledged to support it with some commentators suggesting that the League enjoyed the support of a minority of clergy within the mainline Protestant denominations.[45] The Catholic Church also acted as a well organised opponent to the group, opposing the Australian scheme initiative for the same reasons it opposed previous attempts to introduce what it interpreted as Protestant based religious instruction into the schooling system.[46]

Despite its formal support amongst the mainline denominations the League was unsuccessful throughout the 1920’s in passing any Bill aimed at amending or repealing the 1877 Act. This was due predominately to well organised Catholic opposition and as such the League attempted to sate Catholic concerns regarding religious instruction and in the 1930’s success finally seemed assured.[47] However the League were once again unsuccessful with their April 1930 Bill which failed due to Catholic opposition even though the Catholic Church had originally indicated that it would support the Bill.[48] The League once again withdrew and re-emerged as the Council for Christian Education.[49] The Council focussed upon building up the Nelson System, a notable change given the groups origins in the League.[50] It capitalised upon the post-war spirit of co-operation and produced “an agreed syllabus acceptable to most Protestant denominations and in due course Catholics… In 1930 10% of state primary schools were covered by the Nelson System. By 1960 the [Council] claimed that 80% of schools were involved and it was claimed that over 90% of pupils in Otago and Southland were covered by the Nelson System.”[51]

Even with prolonged and well organised lobbying by both Catholic and Protestant interest groups the “secular clause duly appeared in the Education Act 1914 and [in the]… Education Act 1964… In the 1964 Act however the ‘secular clause’ [was] immediately followed by sections which permit voluntary instructors approved by a school board to give a limited amount of religious instruction during school hours while parents [were given] the right to withdraw their children from [these classes].”[52] It would be prudent to note that given its popularity by the 1960’s the Nelson System arguably played a pivotal role in making this addition to the 1964 Act a reality.[53] As such it is possible to state that the despite sectarian rivalry religious teaching in state schools was eventually secured in a manner which did not impede upon the secular nature of the education system. However the fact of the matter remains that sectarian strife played a significant role in impeding well intentioned attempts by Christians from a variety of denominations to secure a meaningful place within the state schooling system for religious instruction.

[1] As quoted in Colin McGeorge and Ivan Snook, Church, State, and New Zealand Education (Wellington: Price Milburn and Company Limited, 1981), 9.

[2] Tim Cooper, CHTX 304 Course Reader: New Zealand Christianity (Dunedin: Department of Theoly and Religion University of Otago, 2014), 93.

[3] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 7.

[4] This was arguably a direct outcome of Bishop Pompallier’s lobbying of Hobson “that all who should join the Catholic religion should have the protection of the British government.” Michael King, The Penguin History of New Zealand (Auckland: Penguin, 2003), 30.

[5] Ian Breward, Godless Schools? A Study of Protestant Reactions to Secular Education in New Zealand (Christchurch: Presbyterian Bookroom, 1967), 2-4 and Bruce Turley and Margaret Reid Martin, Religion in Education: Outlines and Reflections on the History of New Zealand Developments (?: Churches Education Commission, 1981), 4-5.

[6] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 7-8.

[7] Breward, Godless Schools, 7.

[8] Allan K. Davidson and Peter J. Lineham, Transplanted Christianity (Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Limited, 1987), 219 and J. C. Dakin, ‘Contemporary Public Opinion and the Secular Provision of the Education Act,’ New Zealand Journal of Education Studies 21 (1986): 193.

[9] Richard Davis, Irish Issues in New Zealand Politics (Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1974), 78-79.

[10] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 8.

[11] Breward, Godless Schools, 4.

[12] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 10.

[13] Ibid., 8-9.

[14] Turley and Martin, Religion in Education, 8-11.

[15] Ibid., 8-9 and E. O. Blamines, A Christian Core for New Zealand Education (Auckland: Whitcombe and Tombs Limited, 1960), 43.

[16] Turley and Martin, Religion in Education, 8.

[17] Blamines, A Christian Core, 44 provides data concerning the eventual numerical growth of the Sunday School movement.

[18] Turley and Martin, Religion in Education, 9.

[19] Blamines, A Christian Core, 43-44.

[20] Ibid., 43-44

[21] Bryan Gilling, Godly Schools? Some Approaches to Christian Education in New Zealand (Hamilton: University of Waikato and Colcom Press, 1993), 17.

[22] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 10.

[23] Turley and Martin, Religion in Education, 9.

[24] Gilling, Godly Schools?, 17 and see also the following article which highlights the Catholic concern over ‘godless schools,’ The Church Chronicle, “The Synod: The Bishops Opening Address,” The Church Chronicle, 1^st Nov 1878, 164.

[25] Turley & Martin, Religion in Education, 9.

[26] Ibid., 9.

[27] Gilling, Godly Schools?, 28.

[28] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 8-9.

[29] Ibid., 8-9.

[30] Gilling 1

[31] Blamires 42-43

[32] Davidson & Lineham, Transplanted Christianity, 219-221 and Dakin, ‘Contemporary Public Opinion,’ 193.

[33] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 10.

[34] Laurie Guy, Shaping Godzone: Public Issues and Church Voices in New Zealand 1840-2000 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2011), 145.

[35] The following reference highlights the prevalence of sectarian strife at the time amongst the different Christian denominations: The Church Chronicle, “Can Religious Education be Given in Our State Schools?,” The Church Chronicle, 1^st March 1910, 43. It is also worthy of note is the fact that examples of sectarian strife from the period are not simply restricted to the realm of political lobbying and include the throwing of hot tar at Catholic school children as well as the organised boycotting and exclusion of private Church School pupils from participation in inter-school sporting competitions. See Gilling, Godly Schools?, 28.

[36] Turley and Martin, Religion in Education, 11. See also chapter three in Breward for further information pertaining to the loophole: Breward, Godless Schools?, 37-46.

[37] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 12.

[38] Ibid., as quoted on page 9.

[39] Ibid., 11.

[40] Gilling, Godly Schools?, 1-9.

[41] For an example taken from a primary source see The Waiapu Church Gazette, “Bible in State Schools League,” The Waiapu Church Gazette, 1^st March 1914, 118.

[42] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 12.

[43] Ibid., 12.

[44] Ibid., 12-13.

[45] Evening Post, “Editorial,” Evening Post, 7^th December, 1914

[46] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 11-15.

[47] Ibid., 15.

[48] Ibid., 15.

[49] Ibid., 15

[50] Ibid., 15-16.

[51] Ibid., 15-16.

[52] Gilling, Godly Schools?, 1.

[53] McGeorge and Snook, Church, 15-18.

Policy Submission Regarding Anthropogenic Climate Change

NB: This is a fictional policy submission. It was not actually submitted. It was produced as part of an internal assessment while I was a student at Otago University.

In writing this submission on behalf of Otago University’s Centre for Theology and Public Issues I cannot help but approach the issue of climate change from a distinctly Christian theological standpoint. As such I come to the discussion surrounding climate change believing that the Christian faith has much to offer contemporary public discourse concerning “the most serious problem facing humanity in the 21^st century”[1] which is unique as well as distinctive. It is in this spirit that I make the following constructive proposals concerning New Zealand’s policy regarding our collective ongoing response to anthropogenic climate change.

It has been said that “however much we might think of ourselves as post-agricultural beings or disembodied minds, the fact of [the] matter is that we are inextricably tied to the land through our bodies… and so our culture must always be sympathetic to the responsibilities of agriculture.”[2] Agriculture is an integral part of contemporary society, even more so in New Zealand as the agricultural sector generates approximately 70% of the country’s export earnings and 12% of our Gross Domestic Product.[3] This makes agriculture a key source of not only food and sustenance but also employment and social wellbeing.[4] However New Zealand’s agricultural sector is also a significant consumer of the country’s land, water and biological resources and produces high levels of pollution.[5] As such it would seem pertinent to situate New Zealand’s agricultural sector in the wider context of global climate change.

Climate change is an area currently undergoing intensive debate and research within the public arena. Human activities are partly responsible for an abundance of greenhouse gases[6] in the earth’s atmosphere. Increased levels of GHG have resulted in the ‘trapping’ of solar radiation which would usually be reflected into space by the earth system therein causing an increase in mean earth temperatures.[7] Of all the anthropogenic GHG, carbon dioxide[8] is considered the most important in regards to global climate change due, in part, to its abundance.[9] Global atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ have increased dramatically since the dawn of the industrial era, as shown by ice-core samples.[10] In the last century as the modern day international industry-led economy has grown rapidly so too has its consumption of fossil fuels. As a result CO₂ emissions have also increased dramatically during this time period.[11] It is this sudden and rapid increase in GHG emissions that is responsible for the anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate.[12]

Anthropogenic climate change is expected to result in a number of environmental changes on a global scale. These changes will materialise in a range of physical climatic ways including the rising of the mean global sea level which will have the potential to adversely impact human and natural systems.[13] Global mean sea level rise is a product of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and currently threatens the health and well being of an estimated 46 million people.[14] A global sea level rise will negatively impact coastal populations by decreasing the total available amount of subsistence resources, such as fish, due to the disruption of marine habitats and aquatic species reproduction rates.[15]

Returning to the New Zealand agricultural sector it would be prudent to note that livestock agriculture accounts for approximately 18% of global GHG emissions and is the single largest industry user of land.[16] Agricultural livestock production is also the primary source of global methane emissions. Methane[17] is over 20 times as powerful as CO₂ in regards to influencing anthropogenic climate change as it is extremely effective at trapping solar radiation in our atmosphere.[18] 49% of New Zealand’s GHG emissions come from the livestock sector [19] and CH₄ makes up the majority of New Zealand’s GHG emissions in this sector.[20] New Zealand’s high level of emissions from the agricultural sector compares with an average of 12% in other developed countries.[21] It should also be noted that nitrous oxide[22] is a GHG with an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 120 years. N₂O is significantly more effective in trapping solar radiation in our atmosphere than CO₂. This is pertinent given that the agricultural sector is the chief anthropogenic source of N₂O and accounts for 65% of global N₂O emissions.[23] N₂O also poses a considerable risk to human health[24] and plays a significant role in the ongoing perpetuation of anthropogenic climate change.

It is within this wider context that the New Zealand Government should be recognised and congratulated for its commitment to reduce the country’s GHG emissions via the utilisation of the Emissions Trading Scheme.[25] The effectiveness of the ETS in reducing New Zealand’s GHG emissions is exemplified by the fact that New Zealand is on track to achieve its emission target as outlined by the Kyoto Protocol. In fact New Zealand is likely to surpass its formal emissions target. This in turn is predicted to result in a slight financial surplus of NZD$27 million for New Zealand as the Government will be able to sell off its Kyoto accredited carbon credits to other nations who fail to reach their assigned GHG emission targets. However despite this relatively positive state of affairs there is still room for potential policy suggestions in regards to the current manner in which the ETS is being utilised.

While the ETS has been relatively successful at reducing New Zealand’s GHG emissions it would be prudent to note that currently the agricultural sector is not required to pay for its share of biological emissions. As highlighted previously the New Zealand agricultural sector is a significant source of CH₄, much of which is produced by dairy and beef cattle. Despite this “the Government has indicated that biological emissions from agriculture will have surrender obligations [under the ETS] only if:

1. a) There are economically viable and practical technologies available to reduce emissions and
2. b) New Zealand’s trading partners make more progress on tackling their emissions in general.”[26]

Interestingly the former point is acknowledged by the Government as not being a viable reality in the near future. Furthermore some of New Zealand’s trading partners are not currently required under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their GHG emissions therein nullifying the latter point. Given that the agricultural sector produces a large proportion of New Zealand’s GHG emissions it seems remiss that the sector is effectively not covered by the ETS. As such it would seem prudent to investigate ways in which the Government could supplement the ETS to reduce the GHG emissions of the New Zealand agricultural sector.

As highlighted above while the agricultural sector, particularly livestock farming, is harmful for the environment and human wellbeing the dairy and beef industry also has numerous benefits for New Zealand society. As such it would not seem advisable to act in a manner which would result in sudden increases in operational expenditure for the industry as this could result in increased unemployment and reduced social wellbeing. It would also run the risk of negatively impacting New Zealand’s Gross Domestic Product during a precarious period in the international financial markets. However to continue business as usual for fear of causing harm to the economy is short sighted and ignores the fact that dairy commodity prices have been falling for the past few years and that the payouts for dairy products are currently 42.2% lower than this time last year.[27] Conservative estimates indicate that these lower commodity prices could result in an estimated NZD$5 billion reduction in revenue for New Zealand.[28] Furthermore the downward trend of dairy commodity prices is expected to continue for at least the foreseeable future.[29] As such there is an economically pragmatic reason to add to the ethical rationale for exploring ways in which the Government could supplement the ETS to reduce the GHG emissions of the New Zealand agricultural sector.

In light of the above I would suggest that the Government investigate viable incentives to encourage dairy and beef farmers to switch to less polluting land use types such as grain and vegetable production. Such a switch would have the long term benefit of decreasing New Zealand’s agricultural GHG emissions and would decrease the country’s financial dependence upon the beef and dairy sector. It would not require an amendment of the ETS but would supplement the scheme. At the outset of this submission I noted that as I am writing on behalf of Otago University’s Centre for Theology and Public Issues I cannot help but approach the issue of climate change from a distinctly Christian theological standpoint. Therefore it would seem pertinent to note that I believe that this policy proposal has its roots in the Biblical witness of agrarian farming practices as exemplified in the Old Testament.

It may seem strange to suggest that agriculture has theological significance let alone that the Christian scriptures may provide contemporary society with guidance as “we seek a healthy and sustainable relationship with the soil and other natural systems on which all terrestrial life depends.”[30] However this may be “because contemporary industrialised culture is unique in world history for its failure to draw any connection between food production practices and our relationship with God. That very failure may itself lie at the root of a global food system that… is uniquely destructive of the created order.”[31] Furthermore, the Holocene era of climate stability has structured human society “in such a way as to make possible a set of religious traditions that sustain… [society’s] memory across thousands of years far beyond the capacity of intergenerational memory to sustain storytelling in oral form.”[32] As such it would seem wise, at least at a pragmatic level, to pay regard to the prophetic witness of scripture given its ancient roots. Additionally Christians believe that through the witness of scripture communities can come to know what it means to live in a manner which is pleasing to God and in keeping with God’s plan for creation.

“Although it is neither an ecological tract nor a farmer’s almanac, the Bible consistently represents the care of arable land as a primary religious obligation.” Worthy of note here is the second chapter of the Book of Genesis “which sums up the origins of humankind and the world as we know it in terms that are distinctly agricultural.”[33] Genesis 2:5 in particular highlights the interwoven reality of the relationship between humanity and creation. In fact this relationship between the two is seen as being an essential reality for both and humanity and creation are in fact said to have been created for each other.[34] It is important to note that a correct theological rendering of the opening chapters of Genesis understands the world as belonging to God. As such the role of humanity is to care for the earth rather than abuse it. Furthermore the Christian mandate for environmental stewardship has its roots in the incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

Through the incarnation and resurrection Jesus becomes the basis of redemption and renewal for not just humanity but all of creation.[35] Through the incarnation Christ became flesh and lived amongst humanity[36] and, as Jonathan Boston so aptly states, “in so doing, God embraced, experienced and endorsed the material world; [and yet] also transformed it. The self-giving of Christ and his bodily resurrection not only confirm God’s deep concern for the material world but also signal his commitment to its eventual renewal and transformation.”[37] It is this eventual renewal and transformation of the cosmos that creation in general[38] looks forward to in hope, a process which has already been inaugurated by the resurrection.[39] It is within this context of Christ’s commitment to the eventual renewal and transformation of creation, as well as the commissioning of humanity to care for creation in Genesis, that the Christian mandate for environmental stewardship is rooted. It is also within this wider setting of the Christian mandate for environmental stewardship that the theological rationale of the Biblical witness to agrarian farming practices is situated.

“As the Bible tells the story of human origins and culture, there was no moment when we could obtain our food safely without observing limits… As the Biblical story implies, the limits most essential for our survival [and wellbeing] are determined by a finite reality whose full dimensions elude our comprehension and do not necessarily meet with our approval.”[40] Contemporary society, with its industry-led economy, is historically unique “for the extent to which it has ignored or deliberately flouted the limits of the finite world.” [41] Furthermore, of all global industries agriculture is the largest and most indispensable.[42] The concept of agrarianism alluded to previously is an ancient mindset and, interestingly, “Israel’s scriptures may well include the oldest agrarian literature in the world.” [43] As such some commentators consider them to be “the richest body of agrarian literature in existence.”[44]

A key agrarian insight to be gleaned from scripture is that the wellbeing of the environment and humanity are inseparable phenomena and that in order for contemporary society to become sustainable we must accept this reality. [45] “Agrarianism [consists of] a set of commitments… and fundamental to them all is the conviction that everyone must have a liveable share in the real wealth that is built into the created order. In order to preserve that wealth in perpetuity… humans must now choose to live… within the limits of our particular time and place on earth.”[46] As mentioned previously, New Zealand’s agricultural sector is increasingly having a negative impact upon the environment as it pushes beyond the ability of local ecosystems to cope with increased nitrate runoff and land use conversion. Furthermore the increasing amount of anthropogenic GHG emissions is also pushing the limits of the global ecosystem. As such it seems that we as a country could learn from the agrarian insights available to us in the Bible.

It would also be prudent to note that within the context of the adverse impacts of climate change upon vulnerable human communities the witness of the Christian scriptures has much to say regarding an issue which is at its root an issue of injustice. Social justice encompasses the active seeking by Christians to address the unjust societal structures which perpetuate and exacerbate the plight of those whom Jesus commanded his followers to care for.[47] The Christian mandate for social justice is itself rooted in the Biblical witness of Gods concern for those upon the fringes of society.[48] This concern of Gods for the dispossessed can also be seen in the life of Christ, for Jesus made a point of spending time with those whom society deemed worthless. Accordingly when Jesus commissioned the ‘body of Christ’ to proclaim the gospel message and serve others he did so with the expectation that those who wish to follow him will show mercy to those on the fringes just as he did.[49] Therefore it is clear that Christians are charged with acting justly and fairly in all their interactions and relationships with others[50] and this strengthens the call for Christians to be involved in actively caring for God’s creation given the adverse impacts of climate change upon those who are the most vulnerable in the global community.

As such a potential second policy proposal revolves around the Government’s commitment to reducing New Zealand’s GHG emissions as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol. The Clean Development Mechanism[51] is a tool provided by the Kyoto Protocol which assists developed countries and companies to reduce their GHG emissions. Those in need of reducing their GHG emissions are able to invest in environmentally friendly infrastructure projects in developing countries. “CDM projects generate carbon credits called Certified Emission Reductions.[52] The CERs are transferred to the investing developed country or company and are used to help meet greenhouse gas emission targets.”[53] As stated previously New Zealand is currently on track to earn a modest financial surplus due to its earning of Kyoto accredited carbon credits. One policy suggestion would be for New Zealand to invest any money gained from the selling of these carbon credits in clean development initiatives in the Pacific Islands. From here any further CERs or carbon credits earned could be sold on to other developed countries and the money earned reinvested in further clean development initiatives in the Pacific region.

Such a move would not only help offset international carbon emissions but would also improve the lives and wellbeing of some of the Pacific regions most vulnerable people. Such a move would be in keeping with the Biblical imperative of social justice and being actively involved in addressing issues of inequality and injustice. It would also serve as an additional way in which the Government could supplement the ETS to reduce New Zealand’s GHG emissions as a whole.

[1] Andre Muller, “Tackling Climate Change,” in CHTX 303 Course Reader: Public Theology and Global Issues (Dunedin: Department of Theology and Religion Otago University, 2014), 21.

[2] Norman Wirzba, The Essential Agrarian Reader (Washington: Shoemaker and Hoard, 2004), 5.

[3] Ministry of Primary Industries, “Agriculture,” New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries, April 2013, http://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture.aspx (September 2014).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Hereafter referred to as GHG.

[7] Lee R. Kump, James F. Kasting, Robert G. Crane, The Earth System: 2^nd Edition (Sydney: Pearson Education Australia Pty. Ltd., 2004), 50-52.

[8] Hereafter referred to as CO_2.

[9] Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 AR4, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 2.

[10] Ibid., 2-3.

[11] Ibid., 2.

[12] T. R. Karl and K. E, Trenberth, “Modern Global Climate Change,” Science 302 (2003): 1719-23.

[13] W. J. M. Martens, R. Slooff, and E. K. Jackson, “Climate change, human health, and sustainable development,” World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 75 (1997), 583 – 88.

[14] Ibid., 583 – 88.

[15] G. Sanderson, “Climate Change: The Threat to Human Health,” The Futurist 26 (1992), 34 – 38.

[16] E. Stehfest, L. Bouwman, D. P. van Vuuren, M. G. J. den Elzen, B. Eickhout, and P. Kabat, “Climate Benefits of Changing Diet,” Climatic Change 95 (2009): 83-102 & Henning Steinfield, Pierre Gerber, T. D. Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Cees de Haan, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2006).

[17] Hereafter referred to as CH4.

[18] United States of America Environmental Protection Agency, “Overview of Greenhouse Gases,” USAEPA, May 2013, Section: Methane, http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html (September 2014).

[19] Ministry of Primary Industries, “Agriculture and Emissions Trading Scheme,” New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries, June 2013, http://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/agriculture-ets (September 2014).

[20] Greenpeace, “Agriculture and Climate Change,” Greenpeace, March 2008, http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/climate-change/smart-farming/agriculture-and-climate-change/ (September 2014).

[21] Dylan Muggeridge, Alice Ryan, Olia Glade, Tanya Roth, Fionna Cumming, Dan Zwartz, Andrea Stewart, Roger Dungan, Jochen Schmidt,  New Zealand’s Sixth National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol (Wellington: Ministry For the Environment, 2013), 12.

[22] Hereafter referred to as N₂O.

[23] Greenpeace, “Agriculture and Climate Change.”

[24] T. Aditama, “Impact of haze from forest fire to respiratory health: Indonesian experience,” Respirology 5 (2000): 169 – 74 & W. Burns, “Climate Change and Human Health: The Critical Policy Agenda,” JAMA 287 (2002): 2287.

[25] Hereafter referred to as ETS.

[26] Ministry For the Environment, “Agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme,” New Zealand Ministry For the Environment, April 2013, http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/participating/agriculture/index.html (September 2014).

[27] Jamie Grey, “Dairy Prices Drop to New Two-Year Low,” NZHerald, September 2014, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11318178 (September 2014).

[28] Radio New Zealand, “Falling Milk Payout May Mean $5b Hit,” Radio New Zealand, September 2014, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/253728/falling-milk-payout-may-mean-$5b-hit (September 2014).

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ellen F. Davis, “Just Food: A Biblical Perspective,” in Creation in Crisis: Christian Perspectives on Sustainability, ed. Robert S. White (London: SPCK, 2009), 123.

[31] Ibid., 123.

[32] Michael Northcott, “Sustaining Ethical Life in the Anthropocene,” in Creation in Crisis: Christian Perspectives on Sustainability, ed. Robert S. White (London: SPCK, 2009), 228.

[33] Davis, “Just Food,” 123.

[34] Ibid., 123.

[35] C. E. Gunton, Christ and Creation (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1992), 64 & Serving in Mission, “A Biblical Basis for Social Justice,” ed. Yvonne Mildred and Fiona Hahn (2010), 5.

[36] John 1:14.

[37] Jonathan Boston, “Hope in the Face of Ecological Disaster,” Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal of Christian Thought and Practice 20 (April, 2013): 6.

[38] Romans 8:19-22.

[39] Murray Rae, “Justice for the Earth,” Victoria University of Wellington Anglican Chaplaincy, August 2007, http://www.victoria.ac.nz/chaplains/issues/eco2-1.html, accessed May 2013.

[40] Davis, “Just Food,” 126-127.

[41] Ibid., 126-127.

[42] Ibid., 126-127.

[43] Ibid., 128.

[44] Ibid., 128.

[45] Ibid., 126-127.

[46] Ibid., 126-127.

[47] Matthew 25:31-40.

[48] Deuteronomy 10:17-18.

[49] Tom Wright, The Crown and the Fire: Meditations on the Cross and the Life of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 68-69.

[50] Romans 13:1-10.

[51] Hereafter referred to as CDM.

[52] Hereafter referred to as CERs.

[53] Ministry For the Environment, “Clean Development Mechanism,” New Zealand Ministry For the Environment, February 2010, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/international/clean-development-mechanism.html (September 2014).

Does the notion of fairness exhaust the biblical conception of justice?

In order to comment upon whether the notion of fairness exhausts the biblical conception of justice there is first a marked need to define and understand the biblical idea of justice itself.[1] By defining justice it should be possible to ascertain whether it equates to justice. However such a task is by no means easy given the complexities of the biblical witness regarding ‘justice’ in general.  For example the amount of data to peruse and critically evaluate is immense[2] and there are continuing debates concerning the sources and validity of the varying versions of a number of Old Testament books. Furthermore, the data itself is diverse which has at times resulted in various theological commentators interpreting the concept of justice in very different terms.[3] The debate within the Roman Catholic Church post Vatican II serves as an apt example of the potential for theologians to interpret ‘justice’ in quite different ways, even within a relatively homogenous denominational setting.[4] It should also be noted that “biblical reflection on justice takes place within a larger cultural and religious worldview that is, in many respects, quite unlike that of contemporary secular society.”[5] On top of the numerous considerations such as these which need to be taken into account there are also other complexities which surround the basic ‘secular’ concept of justice itself such as, what Marshall has coined, the ‘justice paradox.’[6]

In regards to the justice paradox Marshall comments that “justice is one of those ideas that combines tremendous emotional potency with a great deal of semantic ambiguity. It is both a self-evident reality and, at the same time, a highly disputed one.”[7] The self-evident reality of justice is apparent when one observes young children appealing to their parents regarding a dispute. Often one will hear ‘that’s not fair’ or some similar statement used in such circumstances. “To declare some action or state of affairs to be unfair or unjust is to make one of the strongest moral condemnations available. And when individuals make this complaint, they usually assume that the injustice in question will be patently obvious to anyone who cares to look.”[8] However, just because a state of affairs seems unfair or unjust to an individual does not mean that others will necessarily agree thus highlighting the disputable nature of justice and by extension fairness. This was arguably evidenced recently in the New Zealand general election during which the Green Party adopted an abortion policy which aimed to make society more ‘just’ by giving women greater control over decisions concerning their own bodies. However their vision of a ‘just’ or ‘fair’ society appears to have been at odds with a number of voters and political commentators who interpreted such a policy as being an affront to the rights of unborn children and therein deeply unjust. As such “we have a paradoxical situation. We all know that justice is important, we all feel obligated towards the demands of justice… But we cannot say exactly what justice is, or how best to define it, or why standards of justice vary so much.”[9]

Outside of a biblical context justice, in a similar fashion to love, is a term which embraces “a variety of meanings and applications.”[10] As such any attempt to define justice in a simple manner is inherently difficult and complex. However Marshall posits that many contemporary Western understandings of justice incorporate, to some degree, four key elements: distribution, power, equity or fairness, and rights.[11] In regards to equity Marshall notes that within many secular articulations of ‘justice’ there is an inherent belief that justice requires both fairness and balance.[12] This is especially evident in the court of law in which disputes are expected to be dealt with in a manner which does not unfairly favour one party over another due to class, wealth, or race. All four elements are often at work to varying degrees within secular attempts to define and enforce justice. As such justice, in its broadest secular sense, incorporates the “exercise of legitimate power to ensure that benefits and penalties are distributed fairly and equitably in society, thus meeting the rights and enforcing the obligations of all parties.”[13] However the utilisation of authority in making just decisions, either inside or outside of a court of law, within the context of disputes is often difficult especially in light of the aforementioned reality that one individual’s conception of what is fair may vary remarkably with another’s.

The ability to exercise authority or power in order to reach a ‘just’ conclusion is characterised by the ability to engage in careful consideration of all facts, factors, and circumstances relevant to the particular context in question. However, how factors such as these are interpreted or weighed up depends in large part upon the socio-cultural context within which the one charged with making a decision operates. Humanity’s “understanding of justice is unavoidably contextual [and] historical in character. This need not mean that justice itself is merely the product of human reflection, that it has no objective transcendent existence. It simply means that our knowledge of actual justice is always going to be limited and partial.”[14] It is within this context that religion becomes pertinent. “From a Christian perspective, justice must have a real objective existence, because justice derives from God, and God exists apart from human speculation. Justice is real because God is real. But our capacity to know God’s universal justice is unavoidably conditioned by the ways of looking at life and the world which we receive from the particular historical and religious traditions to which we belong.”[15] A Christian perspective of the world is built, albeit in part, around the witness of scripture and it is within this vein of thought that the Bible comes into play.

Earlier in this article whilst briefly discussing a basic Western secular conception of justice the notion of fairness was touched upon as being one of its four key elements. It would seem prudent to note that fairness is also a key element of the biblical conception of justice.[16] In fact, some commentators have even gone as far as to declare that the two are synonymous.[17] Interestingly the idea of ‘fairness’ is arguably evident throughout the biblical articulation of justice[18] especially in regards to the plight of the socially marginalised and poor.[19] More will be said presently regarding God’s special concern for the poor and the relationship of this concern with the notion of fairness. Suffice to say presently that it should be noted that the biblical conception of justice arguably goes beyond simple ‘fairness’ and is in fact a complex multifaceted entity.[20]

In seeking to define the biblical conception of justice is would be prudent to note that justice is a central theme throughout scripture. The Hebraic and Greek words for justice occur in excess of 1,000 times throughout the Bible.[21] However contemporary readers of both the Old and New Testaments often do not realise just how prevalent the concept of justice is throughout scripture due, in part, to the fact that the aforementioned Hebraic and Greek words are often translated in a manner which obscure their relationship with justice.[22] Marshall provides an apt example regarding the term ‘righteousness’:

“The biblical language of righteousness refers broadly to ‘doing, being, declaring, or bringing about what is right.’ When it is used in contexts that deal with conflict, coercion, or social distribution, it often has the force of justice or justice-making. But in modern English usage… righteousness carries the sense of personal moral purity and religious piety whereas justice relates to public judicial fairness and equality of rights… But in biblical usage, righteousness includes what we mean by justice.”[23]

Mafico highlights the fact that within the Old Testament righteousness and justice are often used synonymously.[24] This is highlighted by texts such as Amos 5:24, Isaiah 32:1, and Psalm 72:1-2. Interestingly it is in light of this close association between these two terms that “righteousness in the Bible incorporates the idea of doing justice, and doing justice in the Bible conveys the idea of righting what has gone wrong, of restoring things to a condition of ‘rightness’ or righteousness.”[25]

In keeping with this theme of restoring things into a condition of ‘rightness’ it would seem prudent to pay brief regard to a few of the numerous interconnected concepts that need to be held in mind when one is seeking to define justice from a biblical standpoint. Foremost amongst these concepts, in regards to the context of this article, is the Hebrew idea of shalom. Shalom is a state of “flourishing in all dimensions of existence – in [one’s] relationship with God, [one’s] relationship with [others], [and one’s] relationship with nature… Shalom is when everything is as it ought to be. In this sense, shalom encapsulates God’s basic intention for humanity: that people live in a condition of all rightness in every department of life.”[26] Furthermore, shalom incorporates the meaning of both justice and peace.[27] Linked into this concept of shalom is the idea of covenant.[28] Central to the Old Testament narrative is the covenant made between God and the people of Israel.[29] The conditions of this covenant are articulated in the Torah which enables Israel to experience shalom.[30] Pertinent to this context is Marshall’s observation that the Torah “requires all covenant members to act with justice and mercy towards each other. Biblical justice is therefore covenant justice. It is the practical outworking of Israel’s special relationship with God. Justice flows from a life of obedience to the law of God, a law that derives its character from a larger vision of shalom, of God’s intentions for human life.”[31] In sum, it is possible to assert that the biblical conception of justice is derived from a unique worldview which draws heavily upon the biblical theme of shalom and the importance of the covenant between Israel and God.

It should be noted that the numerous authors of scripture considered “justice to be, before all else, a personal quality or virtue of God.”[32] This further underscores why the theme of justice is so prevalent throughout scripture. Justice is not only intricately intertwined with the holy covenant but “belongs to the very being of God. Justice is not something God aspires to; it is the heart of who God is and what God does.”[33] Now it should be noted that another particular insight that gives biblical teaching on justice its distinctive shape is that of relational reality. “If justice is a personal attribute of God, and if human beings… are called to emulate God’s justice in the way they live with one another in community, it follows that justice is all about relationships. It has to do with God’s relationship with humanity and the world, and with the relationship of human beings to each other and to the larger created order.”[34] In fact it is here that Marshall makes the bold claim that a biblical conception of justice is that justice is comprehensively relational.[35] For Marshall, justice is not a collection of “abstract norms about balance or equity or fairness. Justice mean doing all that is necessary to create and sustain healthy, constant, and life-giving relationships between persons. Justice is to be measured by the extent to which people honour their obligation to live in relationships that uphold the equal dignity and rights of the other.”[36] It would also seem prudent to highlight the fact that the relational reality of the biblical conception of justice echoes the aforementioned idea of shalom.

It should be noted that throughout scripture “God is portrayed as having a special concern for the poor.”[37] God’s concern regarding fair treatment of the poor is highlighted in numerous passages. An apt example can be found in the words of the prophet Amos who stated that God hates worship if it is not grounded in a commitment to justice.[38] This concern is also highlighted by Christ in his scathing critique on the Pharisaic love for rituals which superseded any concern for the poor.[39] Mafico highlights the fact that in scripture when the poor call upon the Lord for justice they do “not expect him to reward them with material benefits beyond those they were normally entitled to in order to lead a normal good life.”[40] It is fair in the eyes of God that all people have the ability to maintain their basic human rights and that their value as children of God is upheld.[41] Interestingly, “one aspect of the covenant was that Israel would obey God’s stipulation to protect the poor… and dispense justice equitably.”[42] Throughout scripture oppression of the poor is denounced as contrary to the will of God and subsequently as a sign of disobedience to God.[43] As such, it is clear from scripture that the poor are to be treated in ‘fair’ manner which enables them to live without their worth as children of God being diminished.[44] It is interesting to note however that this ‘fairness’ stems from an individual or community living in right relationship with God.[45]

The idea of fairness as being a central part of the biblical conception of justice is made all the more apparent when one observes the current environmental crisis being faced by contemporary society. In an interconnected world the environmentally detrimental actions of one individual or community have the potential to disproportionately adversely impact others.[46] Often, those who are the most impacted by changing climatic features are poor individuals and communities who are already economically vulnerable.[47] These groups often have an ecological footprint far smaller than their wealthy counterparts. As such these poor communities, the very ones who God shows a particular concern for throughout scripture, are unfairly paying the price for the unsustainable lifestyles of the world’s most affluent citizens. This serves as a pressing contemporary example of the unfair, or unjust, nature of the world’s current state of affairs. As such, it would seem fair for rich nations to take on more of the financial burden of dealing with the negative ecological outcomes of their corporate lifestyles.[48] However as articulated previously the biblical conception of justice contains far more than simply an appeal to the arbitrary notion of fairness. Fairness, it could be argued, is a state of affairs made real within a particular temporal and spatial setting. Justice on the other hand is more of an ongoing verb; it incorporates fairness but also includes an ongoing focus upon the upholding of right relationships. Interestingly the fact that the biblical conception of justice is wider in scope than simply ‘fairness’ is arguably further exemplified in the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus.

Marshall notes that for the authors of the New Testament “Jesus is ‘the just one’ whose life, death, and resurrection constitute the definitive revelation of God’s justice on earth… Christians, therefore, can [arguably learn a lot] about justice from examining the life, teaching, and activity of Jesus.”[49] There was a longstanding expectation within ancient Judaism that God would raise up for David a righteous branch to execute justice and righteousness in the land.[50] As a first century Jew bought up within the socio-religious culture of the day Jesus would have been well aware of this expectation. As such it is interesting to note that Jesus began his ministry by declaring that he was acting in fulfilment of this prophecy.[51] Jesus defined “his own ministry in terms of bringing justice to the oppressed… [and] in his ensuring ministry, Jesus enacted this mission statement. He went about proclaiming that the kingdom of God, the long-awaited reign of divine justice on earth,”[52] had arrived. Interestingly, while understandings of what the Kingdom would look like in practice varied within first century Judaism, one key unifying feature of expectations regarding God’s coming reign appears to have been the experience of God’s shalom.[53] That Jesus was heralding in a Kingdom of justice is therefore made apparent in his actions throughout the Gospel of Mark.[54] For example Jesus healed the sick,[55] possessed authority over unclean spirits[56] and restored people into right relationship both with society and God.[57] Given the close relationship between the Judaic understanding of shalom and biblical justice it is evident that during his life and ministry Jesus was not acting in random historical isolation but in continuity with God’s just and gracious intention for humanity; namely that humans should live in right relationship with each other, God, and creation.

Therefore in closing it is evident that the biblical conception of justice is complex and rooted in a particular socio-historical view of the world. The biblical articulation of justice does indeed include fairness but also goes beyond this simple term due in large part to the covenantal relationship between God and God’s people. As such it could be argued that while justice is a complex and multifaceted entity within scripture it is also inherently relational.

[1] Michelle Tooley, “Just, Justice,” in The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 757.

[2] Chris Marshall, The Little Book of Biblical Justice: A Fresh Approach to the Bible’s Teachings on Justice (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1989), 3.

[3] Ibid., 3.

[4] John Haughey, Faith that does justice: Examining the Christian Sources for Social Change, (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 207-231 which serves as a excellent overview regarding various Roman Catholic attempts to define ‘justice’ post Vatican II. Also, the use of ‘homogenous’ in this context does not ignore the fact that there are marked differences of opinion from across the theological spectrum within Catholicism. Suffice to say that the Catholic Church consistently endeavours to remain faithful to its doctrinal beliefs.

[5] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 4.

[6] Ibid., 3-4.

[7] Ibid., 4.

[8] Ibid., 5.

[9] Ibid., 5-6.

[10] Ibid., 6.

[11] Ibid., 6-7.

[12] Ibid., 7.

[13] Ibid., 7.

[14] Ibid., 8.

[15] Ibid., 6-8.

[16] Temba Mafico, “Just, Justice” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, D-G: Vol 2, ed. David Noel Freedman (Yale: Yale University Press, 1992), 1128.

[17] Walter J. Houston, Justice: The Biblical Challenge (London: Equinox, 2010), 1.

[18] Tooley, “Just, Justice,” 757.

[19] Mafico, “Just, Justice,” 1128.

[20] Tooley, “Just, Justice,” 757.

[21] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 10.

[22] Mafico, “Just, Justice,” 1127-1128.

[23] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 11-12.

[24] Mafico, “Just, Justice,” 1128 & a similar point is highlighted in David Mcllroy, Christian Perspectives on Law: A Biblical View of Law and Justice (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004), 11 & the same point is touched on in Stanley Hauerwas, “Jesus: The Justice of God” in Bible and Justice: Ancient Texts, Modern Challenges (London: Equinox, 2011), 75.

[25] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 12.

[26] Ibid., 12-13.

[27] Ibid., 12-15.

[28] Mafico, “Just, Justice,” 1128.

[29] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 14.

[30] Ibid., 20.

[31] Ibid., 14-15.

[32] Ibid., 22.

[33] Ibid., 23 & the same point is expounded upon further in Hauerwas, “Jesus: The Justice of God,” 72-74.

[34] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 35.

[35] Ibid., 35.

[36] Ibid., 36.

[37] Mafico, “Just, Justice,” 1128.

[38] Amos 5:21-24.

[39] Luke 11:42.

[40] Mafico, “Just, Justice,” 1128.

[41] Ibid., 1129 & Andrew Bradstock, “Economic Inequality: A Serious Theological Issue?,” Candour 3 (April 2009): 7.

[42] Andrew Muller, CHTX 303 Course Reader: Public Theology and Global Issues (Dunedin: Department of Theology and Religion University of Otago, 2013), 39.

[43] Ibid., 39.

[44] Bradstock, “Economic Inequality,” 6.

[45] Muller, CHTX 303, 39.

[46] Joanne Green, “Let Justice Roll Down Like a Never Ending Stream,” in When Enough is Enough: A Christian Framework for Environmental Sustainability, ed. R. J. Berry (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 137-139.

[47] Ronald J. Sider, “Poverty, Sin and Social Structures: A Biblical Perspective,” in Micah’s Challenge: The Church’s Responsibility to the Global Poor, ed. Marijke Hoek and Justin Thacker (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 111-113.

[48] Ibid., 113-115.

[49] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 49.

[50] Jeremiah 23:5 NRSV

[51] Luke 4:18-21

[52] Marshall, Biblical Justice, 50.

[53] Chris Marshall, Kingdom Come: The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Auckland: Impetus Publications, 1993), 27-29.

[54] Mark 1:14-15.

[55] i.e.: Mark 5:21-43: dead girl and bleeding woman; 6:53-56 & 1:29-34: general mass healings; 8:22-25 & 10:46-52: blind men; 7:31-35: deaf man;  3:1-5: withered hand; 2:1-12: paralytic

[56] i.e.: Mark 9:14-27: boy with unclean spirit; 1:21-26: man with unclean spirit; 5:1-15: man with demon

[57] i.e.: Mark 2:15-17: Jesus’ dining with sinners and therein signalling God’s acceptance of them; 1:40-45: Jesus’ healing of the leper which resulted in his acceptance back into society

Offer an outline and critical assessment of the argument set forth in Hick’s article ‘What does this mean for the Churches?’

Hick begins his article, entitled “what does this mean for the churches,” by stating that Jesus most likely understood himself as fulfilling a prophetic role prior to the full inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. As such Hick appears to assume that Jesus viewed the arrival of God’s reign as an entirely future reality; that is, he upheld a consistent eschatological standpoint.[1] Such a view is arguably untenable given that one interpretation of Matthew 11:12b[2] would suggest that the kingdom is not solely a futuristic affair.[3] In the wider context of the passage[4] Jesus labels John the Baptist as Elijah and links his ministry in direct sequence to John’s, thereby leaving his astute Jewish listeners a stark choice: “either he is an imposter, or indeed he is inaugurating the kingdom” [5] in the here and now. However one is unable to respond to Hick by simply referencing scripture given that he believes the New Testament is an unreliable source for information pertaining to the Christological identity of Christ. Hick in fact contends that Jesus was simply a mortal prophet; most likely in keeping with the historic Judaic prophetic tradition. Hick comments that “accepting his eschatological vision, the early church waited in a state of urgent anticipation for [Jesus] to come again as God’s agent on the last day… However, with the gradual fading of this expectation their faith in the lord Jesus transformed him from a prophet into a semi-divine Son of God and then ultimately into the fully divine God the Son, [the] second person of the triune Deity.”[6] It is within this alleged context of shifting interpretations of Jesus’ divine status that Hick contends the New Testament was written.[7]

As such Hick continues his article by dismissing the witness of New Testament scripture regarding the divinity of Christ as unreliable. He further contends that the:

“New Testament’s mixture of… memory and projection can thus be used, according [to whether] one focuses on its more historical or its more doctrinal strands, to criticise or to support the developed belief in Jesus as God incarnate. Whether one sees the doctrine of the incarnation as already revealed implicitly in the words and actions of Jesus or as the gradual creation of the church, thus depends upon one’s selection from the New Testament material. The most important single element guiding this selection if probably one’s attitude to the church itself.”[8]

He continues on to state that the “unique superiority of Christianity as embodied in the church and in Western civilisation”[9] is the core issue underlying the insistence of doctrinally orthodox Christians that Jesus was and is divine. Hick believes that the various religions of the world, including Christianity, are all valuable forms of response to a Transcendent reality. However Hick maintains that “the alternative to traditional orthodoxy need not be to renounce Christianity”[10] but instead to continue to develop Christian self-understanding in a manner which encourages the faithful to simply see “Christianity as one among several authentic ways of conceiving, experiencing and responding to the Transcendent.”[11] Hand in hand with this approach is the eventual acceptance that Jesus was no more than a good man who was extraordinarily open to “the divine presence and who thus incarnated to a high degree the ideal of human life lived in response to the Real.”[12] From here Hick continues on to question the legitimacy of the Trinity, given his assertion that Jesus was not divine, and consider whether there is any value in the concept of the incarnation which justifies retaining it within an extreme pluralist theological framework.[13]

However before continuing on to outline and assess the remainder of Hick’s article it would seem prudent to respond, albeit briefly, to his dismissal of the validity of the New Testament witness to the divinity of Christ. The traditional view that the fourth Gospel was written by an eye-witness of Jesus’ ministry is worthy of note. Hick’s contention that “the earlier understanding of the New Testament, according to which Jesus himself clearly claimed a divine status, has been abandoned by responsible scholarship, and belief in the deity of Jesus has had to fall back upon the idea of an implicit claim”[14] is far from agreed upon within contemporary academia. While it is true that many of the self references by Jesus regarding his divine identity are inherently implicit there are instances within the New Testament, particularly within the Gospel of John, that Christ does explicitly refer to his own divinity. Michaels notes that while serious questions need to be asked concerning the traditional view that the Gospel of John was written by one of the twelve disciples there is much to warrant such a position.[15] In similar vein of thought Bauckham considers it likely that the fourth Gospel was written by an eye-witness.[16] Assuming for a moment that the Gospel was written by an eye-witness it would seem prudent to note John 10:30 in which Jesus states that “I and the Father are one.” Such a claim would seem scandalous, to say the least, to a first century Jew so its inclusion in Gospel would arguably only make sense if Jesus had actually said it. Therefore for Hick to simply state that all “responsible scholarship” has dismissed Jesus as making any clear claims of divine status is a potential weakness in his article given his lack of discussion surrounding his statement. As such his article arguably could have benefitted from further discussion in this regard.

Furthermore it is worth mentioning that Bauckham appears to be at odds with Hick in regards to his view of sources for the New Testament. Hick’s asserts that the New Testament is a reflection of “memories of memories of Jesus.”[17] Buackham does not deny that oral transmission takes place but contends that the transmission was explicitly connected with the testimony of eye-witnesses. For Bauckham, the naming of these eye-witnesses within the various Gospel accounts suggest that they were actual members of the early church who’s stories had been collected and included in the telling of Jesus’ life and ministry.[18] As such to dismiss the Gospel accounts of Christ as “memories of memories” not only fails to take into account the potential for the author of the fourth Gospel being an eye-witness but also runs the risk of appearing flippant and lacking depth. While there are significant debates concerning the dating and sources of the New Testament scriptures Hick’s article may have benefitted from a brief comment regarding opposing views regarding eye-witness testimony; even if only in the form of a brief footnote.

In building up to his discussion regarding whether there is any value in the concept of the incarnation which justifies retaining it within an extreme pluralist theological framework Hick pays brief regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Hick posits that the Trinity is reliant upon Jesus being God incarnate and that if one removes Christ’s deity then Trinitarian doctrine ceases to have legitimacy.[19] Interestingly, Hick also later states that Trinitarian theology is complex and difficult to grasp and that as such pluralist Christianity would benefit from discarding this cumbersome doctrine.[20] To advocate for such a course of action seems bereft of any critical thought and is akin to suggesting that academia cease striving to understand complex areas of inquiry simply due to their difficulty. Also, for an orthodox Christian the doctrine of the Trinity is important in this context because it has immense implications Christologically speaking. Without the Trinity Jesus cannot be divine as this would separate the Godhead and Christians would no longer be monotheists but instead would be tritheist. Furthermore it is not possible for a doctrinally orthodox Christian to state that Jesus is not divine due to stereological considerations. However, regardless of the various orthodox concerns regarding Hick’s assertions, one cannot respond to Hicks from a doctrinally orthodox position as he does not accept the authority of Christian scripture or the divinity of Christ. To respond to Hick assumes that you have a shared framework which facilitates your discussion. However his dismissal of scripture and Jesus’ divine identity mean that this shared framework does not exist. Regardless though, there is arguably still room for comment from a distinctly pluralist theological standpoint regarding Hick’s view concerning the Trinity.

Interestingly Hick contends that for a non-traditional pluralist “form of Christianity the Trinitarian symbol does not refer to three centres of consciousness and will but to three ways in which the one God is humanly known – as creator, as transformer, and as inner spirit. We do not need to reify these ways as three distinct persons.”[21] However other pluralist leaning theologians disagree and instead attempt to utilise Trinitarian doctrine in order to explore whether salvation might be meditated to non-Christians through their respective religious traditions. Theologians such as Dupuis “pursue the question further by asking: What place do the other religions have in God’s overall plan of salvation? Dupuis’s exploration focuses on a Trinitarian doctrine of the Spirit.”[22] As such, theologians such as Dupuis point to the need for the distinction of persons within the Triune Godhead.[23] Interestingly Dupuis “contends that the Holy Spirit is active not only in the lives of individuals of other religious traditions but also in these religious traditions themselves. The Spirit of God is universally present and active, both anticipating the event of Jesus Christ and subsequently extending his salvific work beyond the church.”[24] However Dupuis’s disagreements with Hick do not stop there as Dupuis is “committed to the uniqueness of God’s work of salvation in Jesus.”[25] Evidently however Hick does not agree given his contention that one cannot state that salvation is available through Christ alone. Within the context of this article his rational for this position draws upon his rejection of the divinity of Jesus as well as his belief that it is highly arrogant to claim that Christ alone is the author of salvation.[26]

During his discussion concerning whether there is any value in the concept of the incarnation which justifies retaining it within an extreme pluralist theological framework Hick’s makes the assertion that “exclusivism was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican II and is mainly confined now to Protestant theological fundamentalists. For the large majority of Christian theologians, who today are inclusivists or pluralists, there is no basis for such an argument.[27] However such a claim does not take into account the fact that defining an inclusive Christian theological stance regarding the place of other religions is inherently difficult.[28] Furthermore Hick’s previous comment, as cited above, suggests a lack of acknowledgement that there is often considerable overlap between different Christian theological stances concerning the plurality of religion. Hick pays regard to ‘inclusive,’ ‘exclusive,’ and ‘pluralist’ approaches to the issue of the place of other religions within Christian theological discourse however he does not pay regard to other, perhaps more nuanced, positions as articulated by Migliore. For example Hick’s appears to insinuate that, post Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has adopted a clearly inclusivist understanding of the place of other religions regarding salvation.[29] Interestingly however Migliore comments that “whether Vatican II teaches that salvation is possible through the other religions, or whether its statements can at least bear that interpretation, is a matter of continuing dispute.”[30] As such it would seem that, unlike Hick’s apparent understanding of the situation, it is far from clear as to whether the Roman Catholic Church accepts that salvation is available outside of Christianity.[31]

During his discussion about the value of the incarnation within pluralist theology Hick suggests that a “great religious value of the incarnation… would be that it reveals God as sharing, through Jesus’ life and death, in our human suffering. Of course… if God is ‘passible’… then God is… ‘the fellow sufferer who understands.’”[32]Hick highlights that such an understanding of Jesus as God incarnate is increasingly popular amongst mainstream Christians.[33] However, in an apparent attempt to undermine the validity of orthodox doctrine by turning its logic upon itself, Hick’s cites the Council of Chalcedon’s emphatic denial of the passibility of God as an example of how such an understanding of Jesus is not compatible with doctrinally orthodox Christians.[34] Hick is correct in his assertion that Chalcedonian understanding of God means that the Triune Godhead cannot suffer, either physically or emotionally. Culver comments that, in regards to the Church fathers who played an intricate role in defining doctrinal orthodoxy:

“Their arguments were based mainly on the usual biblical texts we still today cite to teach God’s immutability… Simplicity, that is, God is not composed of parts, was then as now, established logically. Anything composed of parts is the sum of the parts, each of course less than infinite. Any number of finite parts do not add up to infinity. Since God is infinite, as established by scripture and demonstrated by reason, God is simple, not compound or complex. The three members of the Trinity each possesses [sic.] the Godhead fully. They are not three thirds – they are a trinity of God not three gods.”[35]

However Hick’s argument fails to pay regard to the doctrine of communication idiomatum. This doctrine advances in keeping with the Chalcedon assertion that in Jesus the divine and human natures are perfectly united and that as such “there is a ‘communication’ or ‘exchange’ of properties… Hence it is possible to say ‘the Son of God suffered;’ that is, while suffering is an attribute that belongs to the human nature, because of the communication of properties, it can also be ascribed to the incarnate Son of God.”[36] Therefore while such an observation by Hick appears commendable at the outset the reality is that his apparent attempt to undermine the validity of orthodox doctrine by turning it upon itself is flawed as it exhibits a marked lack of engagement with patristic Christology.

Following on from here Hick goes on to cite examples from other faiths of a God who is present within human suffering. Such an observation is not only interesting but is also loosely in keeping with the Roman Catholic understanding that “rays of truth and some measure of divine grace are present in non-Christian religions.”[37] Hick then moves towards his conclusion in which he reiterates his earlier point that Christianity needs to let go of Jesus as divine and accept that he was simply a good man who was extraordinarily open to the divine.[38] Hick suggests that the Christian faith can continue on in a new form and in due course Christians will realise that in Jesus they have found their “principal guide for living.”[39] Coupled with this would be the acceptance of “Christianity as one authentic context of salvation/liberation amongst others.”[40] Such an outcome would be agreeable with Hick as it would steer clear of the offense of Christianity seeing itself as unique and therefore superior to other faiths in pluralistic world. However one major flaw with his argument is that it hinges upon calling his pluralistic-faith ‘Christianity’ whilst removing the object which led to the eventual formation of the Christian church in the first place – Christ. Migliore comments that “a theology of the religions [should] recognise that there are real and not merely surface differences among the world religions and [should] avoid abstract definitions of an essence common to all religion. The distinctive truths and values of [various religions] are obscured by the common essence approach.”[41] Furthermore “Knitter emphasises that… we all speak from some particular perspective, and that it is therefore unavoidable that Christians will relate to other religions with unabashedly Christian convictions. All [faiths] bring to religious dialogue certain ‘non-negotiables.’”[42] As such it is indeed possible to retain the divinity of Christ within a pluralist leaning theology.

In summary then, whilst doctrinally orthodox Christianity may have issues with a number of Hick’s assertions, the ability for said Christians to engage with such an extreme pluralist approach is difficult given the lack of intersection of their shared frameworks. That said however there are still a number of aspects of Hick’s article which are subject to critique and there are a few things he could have expounded on further to strengthen his argument. However it should be noted that this article should realistically be read within the wider context of Hick’s other writings concerning pluralist theology. As such, while the critiques offered in this article do arguably have merit within their own context, wider reading may provide further food for thought concerning the authors’ assertions and methodology.

[1] Chris Marshall, Kingdom Come: The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Auckland: Impetus Publications, 1998), 48.

[2] Matthew 11:12b “the kingdom of heaven has been coming violently” – alternative interpretation as provided in footnotes of NRSV

[3] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 468.

[4] vv.11-15

[5] Wright, Victory, 468

[6] John Hick, “What does it mean for the churches?’ in The Metaphor of God Incarnate (London: SCM Press, 1993), 150.

[7] Ibid., 150.

[8] Ibid., 151.

[9] Ibid., 151.

[10] Ibid., 152.

[11] Ibid., 152.

[12] Ibid., 152.

[13] Ibid., 152-153.

[14] Ibid., 151.

[15] J. Ramsey Michaels, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 5-23.

[16] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 358-383.

[17] Hick, “What does it mean for the churches?,” 151.

[18] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 39-66.

[19] Hick, “What does it mean for the churches?,”152.

[20] Ibid., 163.

[21] Ibid., 153.

[22] Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 316.

[23] Ibid., 316-317.

[24] Ibid., 316.

[25] Ibid., 316.

[26] Hick, “What does it mean for the churches?,” 158-159.

[27] Ibid., 154.

[28] Migliore, Faith Seeking, 306-307.

[29] Hick, “What does it mean for the churches?,” 154.

[30] Migliore, Faith Seeking, 309.

[31] Worthy of especial note in this context is the Catholic doctrinal belief that God the Son is part of the Triune Godhead and that as such Jesus really is divine.

[32] Hick, “What does it mean for the churches?,” 155.

[33] Ibid., 155.

[34] Ibid., 155. Pay particular regard to his footnote on this page as well as his brief comment in the text itself.

[35] Robert Duncan Culver, “The Impassibility of God:

Cyril of Alexandria to Moltmann,” Christian Apologetics Journal vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1-2.

[36] Migliore, Faith Seeking, 173.

[37] Ibid., 309.

[38] Hick, “What does this mean for the churches?,” 163.

[39] Ibid., 163.

[40] Ibid., 163.

[41] Migliore, Faith Seeking, 304.

[42] Ibid., 315.

Describe the ‘from below’ approach to Christology and offer a critical assessment of its strengths and weaknesses

This article will seek to describe, albeit briefly, the ‘from below’ approach to Christology. It will also attempt to provide a brief survey of the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach to the study of Jesus’ identity.

McGrath states that Christology is the part of Christian theological discourse which deals with the identity of Jesus.[1] However it is interesting to note that there is more than one way of approaching the topic of Christology, one of which being ‘from below.’ “A Christology ‘from below’… starts with the historical Jesus, insofar as he can be accessed by historical enquiry, and asks questions about the significance of his teaching, actions, and self-image.”[2] Christology ‘from below’ is therefore concerned primarily with the humanness of Jesus rather than his divinity.[3] One should bear in mind that any “Christology ‘from below’ implies its counterpart, a Christology ‘from above,’”[4] that is, a Christological approach which presupposes the full divinity of Christ.[5] Such an approach utilises the “classical incarnational language of the divine Word of Son of God becoming flesh and dwelling among us.”[6] Therefore in making the humanness of Christ its main concern, a low-ascending approach to Christology does not presuppose the divinity of Christ. Such an approach’s “central concern is to not bypass the concrete historicality of the Jew from Nazareth.”[7] Interestingly, a low-ascending Christology has at times been referred to as “Antiochene, because the school of Antioch… [also] emphasized the full humanity of Christ.”[8] Conversely, a high-descending Christology is sometimes said to be in keeping with the “style of theology [which] began in Alexandria… towards the end of the second century AD [as it had a particular focus upon]… the eternal Word being made flesh.”[9]

In seeking to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the ‘from below’ approach to Christology one should bear in mind that in contemporary western society the existence of God is not taken for granted.  Interestingly, Loewe posits that the roots of a low-ascending Christological approach are situated within the rise of modernity with its emphasis upon historical consciousness and the later emergence of the post-modern rejection of meta-narratives.[10] It would seem prudent to note that a key characteristic of modernity is the faith in human capabilities to address society’s ills and fully understand the created order through the utilisation of empirical scientific methods.[11] Another key characteristic of modernity is the rejection of meta-narratives which can explain or give meaning to the world.[12] This rejection of meta-narratives translated into postmodernism albeit with a subtle difference made apparent by the rejection of there being one single meta-narrative with universal application. [13]

It is within this shifting cultural context that Loewe locates the roots of the ‘from below’ approach to Christology[14] hence the fact that the low-ascending Christological approach has only gained scholarly favour relatively recently.[15] Therefore such an approach to Christology arguably has the potential to provide data concerning how and why people have historically come to see Jesus as divine in a manner which is accessible to contemporary academia.[16] As Loewe states: “while the [from above] approach takes Jesus’ divinity for granted, this is [arguably] inappropriate in today’s culture. Rather than taking this belief for granted, a contemporary Christology needs to give some account of it.”[17] By enquiring as to how Jesus’ interactions with his immediate context led to his being recognised as being divine those in favour of the ‘from below’ approach contend that it has the potential to present Christ in a manner which is coherent to a post-modern world.[18]

It should also be noted that scholars engaged in research concerning the historicity of Christ have shed light on significant areas of worth. It would be prudent at this point to comment that, whilst the quest for the historical Jesus and low-ascending Christology are two independently identifiable areas of academic enquiry, given the role of historical investigation in a ‘from below’ approach to Christology it would seem relevant to pay regard to the positive outcomes of scholarly research pertaining to Jesus the first century Jew. In fact, said scholarly research has provided modern biblical scholarship with a rich reservoir of previously unanalysed information concerning Jesus and his first century context. For example, research regarding the historical Jesus has shed much light on the complex relationships between Jesus and his contemporaries within the context of the socio-political realities of the day.

As such Pannenberg highlights the fact that “the specific complexion of these relationships loses its significance if one knows from the beginning that Jesus is the Son of God. A Christology ‘from above’ can afford little or no constitutive significance to the historical particularity of Jesus, except perhaps to his death as an atonement for sins.”[19]  It is in highlighting this weakness of a ‘from above’ Christological approach that one unearths a significant benefit of a low-ascending approach, mainly that the latter pays regard to the life of Christ and in doing so it uncovers how Jesus’ actions played a role in precipitating his death.[20] Therefore not only does a ‘from above’ approach to Christology provide useful and important information concerning Jesus’ immediate context, it also helps provide depth to an otherwise two dimensional biblical figure. However there are other positive aspects of a low-ascending approach to Christology. Pannenberg offers another apt example in that he highlights the fact that humanity undertakes all its thinking within a historically and culturally determined context.[21]  Therefore by paying regard to this fact the ‘from below’ approach is strengthened in that it encourages the individual engaging in Christological discourse to remain aware of their own contextual limitations. Nevertheless one would be mistaken in assuming that a ‘from below’ approach to Christology is without its limitations or weaknesses.

A significant issue with Christology ‘from below’ is that one runs the risk of placing too much emphasis on the human nature of Jesus and in so doing so undermining his divinity. However there is an even greater potential danger inherent in a low-ascending approach to Christology, namely that one runs the risk of coming to the conclusion that Jesus is little more than a moral teacher or mystic.[22] The reason for this is that, as alluded to previously, a ‘from below’ approach, “in working backwards from the human career of Jesus, … may… content itself with saying Jesus is little more than a remarkable human being.”[23] Interestingly Thompson highlights a number of biblical scholars who themselves reach a similar conclusion.[24] As such, the ‘from below’ approach to Christology arguably runs the risk of entertaining thoughts or views concerning Jesus with ebionitisic leanings.[25] Indeed the early Christological heresy of ebionitism is incompatible with orthodox Christianity for the Christian faith cannot compromise on the full divinity of Christ; if Jesus is not divine then he cannot be the saviour of humanity because he is without divine authority to forgive sin.[26]

However, while there is indeed a very real risk that such an approach to Christology could result in one not reaching the conclusion that Jesus is divine, it would be prudent to note that not all who subscribe to a Christology ‘from below’ deny the divinity of Christ. For example Haight, an ordained member of the Catholic Society of Jesus, subscribes to a low-ascending Christological approach and yet still contends that “Jesus must be considered divine,”[27] and that “Jesus Christ… must be true God.”[28] O’Collins also has a tendency to utilise research methods synonymous with a ‘from below’ approach to Christology and yet still concludes that Christ is indeed divine.[29] That said however, Haight, in light of his findings, also refers to Jesus as a finite individual who is a “human being like all others.”[30] Such a stance perhaps underscores Henry’s comment that “those who do not begin with the fundamental Christian assumption that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ but . . . attempt to show how . . . a complete man as they suppose Christ to have been was united to God”[31] run the risk of reaching confused and self-contradictory conclusions concerning Jesus’ identity.

It would be prudent to note that the fact that some proponents of the ‘from below’ Christological approach run the risk of reaching the conclusion that Jesus is not God incarnate is significant.[32] In order to reach such a conclusion said proponents would arguably need to ignore parts of the New Testament which lay overt claims to the deity of Christ. [33] As McGrath so aptly contends, “the affirmation that Jesus is divine is the climax of the New Testament witness to the person of Christ.”[34] A clear example of this affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity can be found in the opening section of the Gospel of John[35] in which the author makes it clear that Jesus “can only be identified in relation to God, the God of Israel.”[36] Towards the end of the same Gospel the divinity of Jesus is again stated in the disciple Thomas’ confession of faith.[37] Another clear indication of Jesus’ close affinity with God the Father can be found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to Titus in which Paul states that he waits in anticipation “for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”.[38]

The exclusion of such texts from a low-ascending Christological approach may be explained, in part, by Dunn who suggests that it would be irresponsible to use the Fourth Gospel’s attestation regarding Jesus’ divine identity when attempting to engage in Christology ‘from below’[39] as this would presuppose the divinity of Christ; a central plank of the ‘from above’ approach. Another related reason for this avoidance of scriptural references to Jesus’ divinity arguably stems from the fact that “Christology from below is allegedly the ‘scientific’ approach of modern criticism, allowing the documents to speak once the faith of the Church has been stripped out, which in turn means no supernaturalism.”[40] Thompson comments that for some scholars “who pursue historical reconstructions of Jesus the goal… is to strip away the… affirmations of faith that have shaped the gospels and subsequent Christian belief in order to discover the ‘genuine’ historical figure of Jesus beneath the layers of confession.”[41] As such, to include any reference to Christ’s divine identity would not only be irresponsible but also unhelpful. In light of this one could be potentially forgiven for labelling Christology ‘from below’ as ‘un-biblical’ given its avoidance of the numerous New Testament references to Jesus’ divinity. However to do so would not only be unfair it would also ignore the aforementioned meticulous survey of scripture undertaken by those who have attempted to engage in thorough enquiry regarding the historical Jesus.

Whilst spatial considerations place constraints on how much can be covered in the context of this article it would arguably be beneficial to pay regard, if only in passing, to the thoughts of Bonhoeffer concerning Christology. For Bonhoeffer Christology “begins in silence”[42] by which he means that true Christological discourse can only take place “in the humble willingness of faith to let Jesus do the speaking, without preconditions of our own.”[43] For Bonhoeffer Christology “is not just historical investigation into a past figure, but the engagement of a personal relationship with this figure today.”[44] It may seem unfair to some but one could posit that Christology ‘from below’ runs the risk of becoming a solely academic affair. As stated previously, a strength of the ‘from below’ approach is that it has the potential to present Christ in a manner which is coherent to a post-modern world.[45] However this also serves as a point of weakness for a low-ascending Christology in that it allows those who do not know God to engage in scholarly discourse concerning Jesus’ identity. But, as Bonhoeffer contends, conversion “is the prerequisite for a due apprehension of Jesus’ identity. Christology exists in this context; it does its thinking in the environment of a relationship that God initiates and sustains… Only this can it avoid the charge of being merely a projection of our personal ideas, images, and agendas onto Jesus.”[46] Therefore, in closing, whilst it is clear that a ‘from below’ approach to Christology has its strengths it is not without its weaknesses.

[1] Alister E. McGrath, Theology the Basics (Chischester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 203.

[2] Murray Rae, CHTX 211 Course Reader: Christology (Dunedin: Department of Theology and Religion University of Otago, 2014), 17.

[3] Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 16-18.

[4] Ibid., 17.

[5] Rae, Course Reader, 16.

[6] Ibid., 16.

[7] Ibid., 17.

[8] O’Collins, Christology, 17.

[9] Ibid., 17.

[10] William P. Loewe, The College Student’s Introduction to Christology (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 9-13.

[11] Ibid., 9-13 & Jim Kitchens, The Postmodern Parish: New Ministry for a New Era (Washington: The Alban Institute, 2003), 9

[12] Michael W. Goheen and Craig G. Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 109-110 & Brian Carrell, Moving Between Times: Modernity and Postmodernity, a Christian View (Auckland: The Deep Sight Trust, 1998), 80-87

[13] Kitchens, The Postmodern Parish, 5 & Carrell, Moving Between, 81

[14] Loewe, The College Student’s Introduction, 12-13.

[15] Nicholas Lash, “Up and Down in Christology,” in New Studies in Theology 1, ed. Stephen Sykes and Derek Holmes (London: Duckworth, 1980), 31-32.

[16] Loewe, The College Student’s Introduction, 8.

[17] Ibid., 8.

[18] Ibid., 8-13.

[19] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man, translated by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane E. Priebe (London: SCM Press, 1968), 34-35, as cited in Rae, Course Reader, 17.

[20] Loewe, The College Student’s Introduction, 8.

[21] Pannenberg, “Jesus – God and Man,” 34-35, as cited in Rae, Course Reader, 17.

[22] Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and His God,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, ed. Markus Bockmuehl (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 41-42.

[23] Rae, Course Reader, 17.

[24] Thompson, “Jesus and His God,” 41-42.

[25] McGrath, Theology the Basic, 204.

[26] Daniel L. Migilore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 177-179.

[27] Roger Haight, Jesus Symbol of God (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), 283

[28] Ibid., 284.

[29] O’Collins, Christology, 15-16.

[30] Haight, Jesus Symbol of God, 295.

[31] Carl F. H. Henry, The Identity of Jesus of Nazareth (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), p. 20

[32] CR 17

[33] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 280-281 and McGrath, Theology the Basics, 65.

[34] Ibid., 65.

[35] John 1:1

[36] Ramsey J. Michaels, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John .(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010),  47

[37] John 20:28

[38] Titus 2:13

[39] James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1989), 31.

[40] Curtis Crenshaw, “Christology from Below vs. Christology from Above,” Cranmer House Communique, September 2007, http://cranmerhouse.blogspot.co.nz/2007/09/christology-from-below-vs-christology.html (July, 2014).

[41] Thompson, “Jesus and His God,” 41.

[42] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christology, translated by John Bowden (London: Collins, 1966), 27-28.

[43] Rae, Course Reader, 5.

[44] Ibid., 5.

[45] Loewe, The College Student’s Introduction, 8-13.

[46] Rae, Course Reader, 5.