We now live in a world of multi-media. But if we really look
at it we have two types of media: mass media which edited for public
consumption by big media companies and community/alternative media which is
created by individuals and shared without any form of editorial control. There
are problems with both. In the mass media market, the key problem centres around
two factors: 1) it has to make money to stay in production and 2) where the
source of this funding comes from can create bias. In the community/alternative
media market, anyone can have an opinion and lies can quickly become truth with
the right twist. In community/alternative media opinions drive the medium; in
the mass media market the sustainable funding through either advertising or
sponsorship drives how and what news is shared.
Mass media has always published opinion. We have seen this
in editorials and cartoons. However, what I have observed this year, particularly
in Stuff, but yesterday in the Otago Daily Times is the increased use of opinion pieces
to drive sales. When this occurs opinion pieces are often provocative and set
up in such a way to put one group of people up against another. In the Stuff
example, we have had two sets of opinion pieces this year. One regarding the uplifting
of a Māori
child which resulted in several opinion pieces from unnamed social workers
saying that this type of practice had justification. The other, and more recent,
regarding generations and who is really the greedy generation – baby boomers or
millennials? Both have been divisive. I personally have been caught up in the
second one as a generation sitting in between both the young and old, I can see
the hints of truth in the millennial argument but I also see inequality in the
boomer generation and I see an older generation that is not prepared to
acknowledge that their very name ‘boomer’ hints at a time in which they were
born and a period that we will most probably never see again – a time of boom.
Yesterday, the featured opinion-based cartoon in the Otago
Daily Times really was a sign of how opinion pieces hurt and offend people. It
is not okay to associate the spots we see in the virus called measles with
tourist spots. But, unfortunately, it is understandable how this cartoon
slipped through. It was an opinion piece after all. And this morning on
National Radio, we could really hear the unconscious bias of the cartoonist as
he defended his work. Further to this, Aotearoa – this is a wake-up call. If
you are white and middle-class and reading this very opinion-piece and you are
now saying in your head: this woman is PC-Gone-Made. I want to wake you up to a
very real fact. For over a century, Māori and other minorities (including Pākehā poor) have been at the forefront of your jokes and they have been very politically
correct by taking these jokes as a slap on the face and not for what they are –
full of isms and a reality of shame that we should all feel.
So back to my original question: what needs to change?
I will argue that what needs to change is the approach that
mass media takes to opinion pieces. There needs to be a targeted and focused
plan from our big mass media outlets focusing on Aoteaora NZ news – Stuff,
NZME, APL, TVNZ and RNZ – to lead the way and ensure that opinion pieces move
from being divisive putting the majority worldview (which is full of isms)
against minority peoples in the aim of being provocative to being politically
correct (yes I will use these terms in the positive) and ensuring that the most
vulnerable and marginalised are not scape-goated for sales. We need our senior
editors (who are often white middle-class) to be culturally competent, to be
prepared to challenge the isms within themselves so that change can occur.
Our mass media can be something different in this age of
opinion. It can be focused on telling the ‘news’ through mechanisms of truth.
We do live in a world where some people have the skills to turn an opinion
piece into something that looks like a truth by falsifying it through claims to
truth that have been disclaimed by good solid research. Our mass media can be a
bastion against this miss-information. It can tell the news as it is and reduce
the reliance on opinion pieces written and drawn by those who are clearly drawn
to creating discussion through their own bias. It can be at the forefront of challenging the isms that have become so entrenched in Aotearoa NZ.
Today, I call the mass media to account. It is time that a
shift occurs. Build your cultural capacity within your editorial rooms.
Understand that opinions might matter but opinions also hurt and they reinforce inequity and inequality. Strengthen your
editorial practices around opinion pieces. This is not just a review of policies,
but a hard and very real question – when we can find opinions all around us through
community/alternative media, should mass media hold up a different light? In
the face of so much opinion, can mass media stand strong and true and aim to do
something different – aim to tell the truth, rather than sharing opinions, even if it means being politically
correct?
Last week Phil spoke into our presence a truly profound
statement. Many of us clapped when he said it, repeated it and talked into it.
But did we really know what he was saying. The statement Phil gave was:
“God loves me as I am.
God saves us as we are.
Therefore, I can stay as I am.”
Hear it again: “God loves me as I am. God saves us as we
are. Therefore, I can stay as I am.” When Phil said this, he challenged us on
the last part of his statement, the “Therefore, I can say as I am.” He said
this was wrong, that in our belief and faith in Jesus we had to let go of our
sinful nature. Last week, we all agreed. And if this is right – we should be in
agreement that change has to occur. But I think the change that is required is profound.
It is a whole change in lifestyle. And it is required of all of us.
Just to give you an illustration of how profound this change
can be for us. Imagine if you lost the use of your dominant hand overnight. The
next day, your world is profoundly different. You have to write, tie
shoe-lacers, cut your meat and just live life with dependence on your ability to
make use of something that you are not used to depending on. Think of the
difficulty here. Even right now, start to take notes with your pen or on your
phone with your dominant hand behind your back. I can pretty much guarantee
that only a handful of us could stand the course of this sermon without returning
to our dominant hand because it is just so so hard.
When we come to God, we have to change the way in which we
see the world. We have to see it through his eyes and heart and not through our
sinful human nature. But really, is this really that easy? If you are so used
to doing things one way and thinking in one way is it really that easy to
completely change the way that you see the world? And if it is not that easy,
then what do we need to do so that we can stay on track as we work out the
story God has for us?
I am going to say, that it may be easy for some, but for
many it is quite difficult. Even if we have had a profound experience of knowing
Jesus personally. Even if our name reflects our calling – even if our name in
Greek (Petros) or Peter translates into the word rock. You see, the key is, the
barrier is, the hardest but most necessary thing to do is, even when we are
given a new name, the hardest thing to do is unlearn the old way of seeing the
world, our comfort zone world, to relearn a new way of living.
And we see this in the life of Simon, also known as Simon
Peter and as Peter. We first meet the Rock, or Peter, in Matthew Chapter 4,
verses 18-20:
One day as Jesus was walking along
the shore of the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers--Simon, also called Peter,
and Andrew--throwing a net into the water, for they fished for a living. Jesus
called out to them, "Come, follow Me, and I will show you how to fish for
people!" And they left their nets at once and followed Him.(Mat 4:18-20)
Now I do not know about you. But reading this in retrospect,
when some of us know the story already, doesn’t really allow us to grapple with
some of the weird things the Bible throws up at us. I can understand the
metaphoric idea Jesus is using saying that brothers will fish for people. But
really? Think about how hard this would be for both brothers. Both brothers are
used to the hard labour (not to mention smell) of the fishing industry; the
fishing industry is not known for its people skills. I was personally raised in
a fishing seaport on the West Coast, and the biggest people skill fishermen
have there is the ability to raise a pint at the local pub after a good catch.
So, Simon, later called Peter, the fisherman was going to
have to change his whole profession. He was going to have to unlearn what it
meant to fish in a human sense and relearn this skill in a Kingdom sense. This
is not an easy thing to do and he would be bound to make mistakes. He was so use
to using his dominant hands for physical fishing, that using his hands for
something else would cause him to struggle at times.
The NIV Student Bible describes Peter well:
You can’t miss Peter in the four
Gospels. He stands out like a bumpkin, pushing to the head of the line and
blurting out loud, outrageous assertions. Every list of disciples has Peter as
the first name, and Peter is often seen elbowing his way to centre stage.
He was likable enough, with a big
heart and unlimited enthusiasm. He just had too many rough edges. He swung like
a pendulum, bold and courageous at one moment yet, cowardly when it really
counted.
With a description like this, you got to wonder what was in
Jesus’s head when he gave Simon a new name especially as the flip-flop nature
of Simon would see him hearing from God but giving into his human nature within
the same conversation. He definitely doesn’t come across as a rock in any way
shape or form:
Mathew 16: 13-23: When Jesus came
to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people
say that the Son of Man is?" "Well," they replied, "some
say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the
other prophets." Then He asked them, "But who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living
God." Jesus replied, "You are blessed, Simon son of John, because My
Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any
human being. Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon
this rock I will build My church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer
it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid
on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be
permitted in heaven." Then He sternly warned the disciples not to tell
anyone that He was the Messiah. From then on Jesus began to tell His disciples
plainly that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem, and that He would
suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests,
and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day He
would be raised from the dead. But Peter took Him aside and began to reprimand
Him for saying such things. "Heaven forbid, Lord," he said.
"This will never happen to You!" Jesus turned to Peter and said,
"Get away from Me, Satan! You are a dangerous trap to Me. You are seeing
things merely from a human point of view, not from God's."
Here is another set of verses with great irony. Jesus speaks
to Simon and tells him that he is blessed because he has listened to the Father
in heaven. And as such, he will be given the name Rock. It will be on this rock
that the church is built. Jesus then goes onto a conversation he has often with
his disciples – that of his own death. Peter or the Rock, pulls Jesus aside to
tell him off and correct him. Now Jesus is calling him Satan because he is
seeing things from a human point of view. You see Peter here in the real moment
of slipping slowly into his learnt comfort zone. Peter’s ability to see Jesus
through the eyes of the Father has meant he has unlearnt the way that he sees
the world. But it is hard for Peter to stay in this place and he slowly reverts
back to his learnt comfort zone of seeing the world through his own eyes.
The Rock was no perfect disciple. And this plays out right
until the Cross itself when the Rock stands solid and tells his master Jesus, I
will not deny you by any means. But what happens, the Rock crumbles, not one
but three times and denies having any relationship whatsoever with Christ. Then,
in his last act in the Gospel, he takes up a sword to protect Jesus, cutting
off a soldier’s ear. Jesus is quick to correct him – those that live by the
sword die by the sword. Simon has yet to learn how to let go of his rough and
tough fisherman ways to really follow his Lord and Saviour. Peter has yet to
unlearn the ways of Simon and relearn his destined role of being Peter.
The story of the Rock, of Peter, is a story that most, if
not all of us can relate to. Peter is not perfect. At times he comes across as
an idiot. Those of us as outsiders reading the story find ourselves saying – why
did you say that? Why did you lose faith here? Why did you do that? Peter you
had Jesus with you! Gees you are a bumpkin aren’t you!But we are all bumpkins. We all do the Peter
and say one thing but find ourselves doing another. It is so hard to follow
Jesus especially when we have to unlearn our comfort zone of understanding and
habits.
There is a reason why following Jesus is hard. It is not
because of the things we have to do but in that the simple act of following
Jesus requires one thing from us. We have to step outside of our learnt comfort
zones, our human nature. This was the first act that Jesus required of Peter –
Peter follow me, and I will make you fish men. Following Jesus is discomforting
to us all at times because it requires us to say no to our human point of view
and see the world through God’s point of view. We have to see ourselves through
God’s point of view and see others through God’s point of view.
I really want to dig in here to this concept of learnt comfort
zone and give you some real physical examples. One of which is this valley. The
valley of Wainuiomata is a comfort zone to many of us. Some of us dread going
over the hill, even if we have to. It feels more secure, not safer, but secure
and certain in the valley because we know what to expect and we have our homes
here. We have learnt an aspect of security in our comfort zone which needs to
be challenged.
A second example, which relates to Peter, is work. Our
professions create learnt comfort zones for us. I loved it a few weeks ago
listening to a testimony being shared here on this as I too are going through a
season of change in work. Ron talked to us about being a trained accountant and
the challenge he got from God to move from being a back-office worker to a
person who worked directly with people in the real estate industry. He had to
unlearn his ability to work with, and for, people. That move required a
challenge to Ron to move outside of his comfort zone into another job; he had
to relearn a new way of living. For some, like my mining friends on the West
Coast, often a loss of job really throws you as every aspect of who you think
you are is thrown up in the air.
Biblically we find two strong examples of learnt comfort
zones. The first is in the story of Israel and their failure to truly step into
the promise God had for them. We read stories in which the people cry out to
return to Egypt. We read prophecies in which the people are warned to repent
and follow their God. But again, and again we read about a “stiff-necked”
people who refuse to change and unlearn their traditional understandings and
ways. They always want to hold onto something of the past as it gives them
comfort and assurance. In fact, the words “stiff-necked” feature 19 times in
the Bible. 18 of which in the Hebrew books with the outliner being used in Acts
to talk about the people of Israel.
The second is in an understanding of the concept of
learning. Throughout the Gospels and later in the Revelation of John there is a
common phrase “those who have ears, let him hear”. Now you might think that
this phrase has nothing to do with learnt comfort zones. But a keyway we keep
ourselves comfortable is in only allowing ourselves to be challenged by the
things that align with our own personal feelings and perspectives.
To really listen is to have our hearts and ears open for
messages that make us uncomfortable. It is not to treat everything we hear as
equal and as truth, but it is allowing the voices and perspectives of others to
truly challenge ourselves. It is to know that we are not always right and that
maybe, just maybe, the story, the parable, the testimony has a challenge for us
that will make us uncomfortable to the point that we are prepared to unlearn our
traditional understandings and ways.
So to walk with Jesus requires us to step outside of our
comfort zone and unlearn to relearn. And
to do this, requires us to do something that Jesus encourages us to do. We must
humble ourselves as children. And if you think about it – children are very
good at stepping outside of comfort zones sometimes to terrifying levels as we
try to hold them back to protect them from the world. It seems that as we get
older, our comfort zone is tighter and more confined. It is probably not too
bold for me to say, but as we get older the drive over the hill gets harder and
harder. This is the comfort zone effect.
It is also a natural effect of getting older. We do become
more stiff-necked; we do become more selective in the knowledge that we hold as
truth outside of the Bible. And we need to challenge this. We need to be
prepared to unlearn the comfortable in order to relearn God’s story for us.
You see, I don’t want to get too technical here, but it
might give some real sense as to where this message is heading. You see, we all
have these things called brains. And the science of brains has been able to
tell some key lessons. One of which is that we have two periods of time when
the brain experiences significant growth – the first is in the first two years,
and the second is during adolescence. Knowing this alone can help us know why
it is important to ensure that our babies are exposed to the right foods and
environments. It can also explain why we get up to so much mischief as
teenagers – always testing boundaries and challenging the status quo. Brain
scientists talk about the young brain being elastic and flexible in its
learning capabilities. You hear this in worlds like ‘neuro-plasticity’ and
‘plastic’.
Compared to the young brain, for us oldies, the brain slowly
becomes less and less elastic. It becomes more rigid in fact as we enter into
our 30s. So, we do become set in our ways. And, we do run the risk of becoming
stiff-necked and close-minded. But we don’t have to.
But understanding the story of the brain can help us
understand some key underpinnings in the Bible. If you look at the stories that
we love to teach our children – they are often of young people who are prepared
to challenge the status quo and the comfort zone of Israel and unlearn to reset
their ways or they are of people who God has clearly had a hand on them since
birth and are prepared to challenge others to unlearn their comfort zone to
relearn another way. It is as if God needs the elastic brain of youth to bring
radical change.
But we do have stories of adults as well who take the
challenge to completing change their lives. We have the radical conversion of
Paul (who talks about his own thorn in his side) and we have the bumbling
disciples. Peter is one of these. If you take the brief science lesson of brain
development and then Peter’s story, the bumbles along the way make more sense. He
has been set in his ways as a fisherman. The picking up of his own cross to
follow Jesus has difficulties because he has to learn new things and unlearn
the old. And as Phil noted last week, Peter struggled later on to understand
fully the grace of God in place of the Torah or law of God. Peter struggled,
but Peter would also accept a challenge.
And this is key. Peter is a real learner when it comes to being
a disciple. He is not afraid to give things ago and unlearn the past. He is not
afraid to walk on water, even if fear cripples him at a point; even then he
asks Christ for help. He is not afraid to ask Jesus what a parable means, even
if it means that 200 years later people with hindsight wonder why he didn’t get
it in the first place. He is not afraid to admit it when he gets something
wrong.
These are key lessons for us here today. If we feel the call
of God to do something different, something radical, are we prepared to give it
a go, unlearn to relearn? Are we prepared to ask for help when we need it from
each other and from the Father? If we sit in confusion, are we prepared to ask
for meaning even if others think us a fool? Most of all are we prepared to admit
it to others that we mucked up and got something wrong.
Believe it or not, if Peter as an adult was to have a brain
scan. Scientists would remark on how elastic his brain was for his age. We know
now, thanks to brain science, that the keyway to keep our brain outside of a
comfort zone mentality is to keep it unlearning and relearning. Peter knew that
he had the knowledge of the truth of Jesus but he did not have full
understanding and this would take an unlearning of his world.
For Peter like for many of us, when we try to walk in the
knowledge of the gospel truth, but we don’t have a full understanding of what
it means and stay limited to our own comfort zones then it feels like this:
Okay, bringing this back to this space and place. When we
are called to follow Jesus, we are called to get out of our learnt comfort
zone. This requires us to change the way that we see ourselves, each other and
the world. It requires us to change the way we interact with ourselves, each
other and the world. This is true. To follow Jesus means you have to see and do
things differently; you have to be prepared to feel at times that you are using
your less dominant hand or are using a backwards bicycle. You have to be
prepared to go back to the key message Jesus gave Peter in Mathew 16:23 we have
to stop seeing things “merely from a human point of view” and start seeing
things from God’s point of view.
To give you a bit of a story. Years ago, as a teenager I had
to leave my home permanently because my life was at risk. I had become a
Christian and so the church supported me by finding homes for me to stay in. I
felt that my childhood, which was not a happy one, was what defined me, and I
carried it.
And I mean I carried it. I remember one place that I lived
in, I was challenged. A good friend of my said to me – do you realise that you
carry a darkness around you and that every time you walk into a room you bring
the room down. I didn’t realise this. I had thought that it was my story of
rejection which meant that others in the church would love me. I was scared
that if I let that story go, then the church would reject me. Fortunately, I
was a teenager then, so it was a lot quicker to take the cloak of darkness off
my back. I could unlearn and relearn how to relate to others just because of my
age.
However, as an adult, and as many of you know, I experienced
crippling PTSD and major depressive disorder. I was very suicidal and was an
absolute mess. I had years of therapy. And, years ago, I even tried to heal
myself by returning to worship but I didn’t last a month in the worship team, I
was so lost. I was in the worst of places. During this time, a therapist said
to me that I did not need to be in therapy forever. That some people would
struggle with mental illness all their lives, but I had a choice. I couldn’t
find this choice, even as a Christian. As things were so bad, I accepted the
fact that God had created me as a victim. It was the story I had learnt to
live.
Later, I was in church and Carl Dickson was preaching about
healing. He had been going through his own journey and had not received the
healing that he originally asked for. He later asked the church for testimonies
of healing. It was the first time in years that I was sitting in the
auditorium. At that point, the spirit prompted me to declare that I had been
healed from my illness. I did that and realised right then that God does not
create victims. He creates opportunities for victims to become overcomers. From
that point I had to relearn my story through God’s eyes. It has been a hard
journey, and even this year, with dramas at work and home I have had moments
when my old story and worldview were tempting to grasp onto again.
Those of you who know me, will know that this has not been a
perfect journey. But when I compare my journey to Peter’s. I am thankful that
God walked alongside Peter. He did become the rock on which the church was
built. His letters testify to this. He did enable the church to stand strong
under persecution. He would die at the cross as well. Hung upside down on a
cross in Rome – martyred for his faith.
Over the last few weeks we have heard a lot about stepping
into the promise that God has for us and challenging the views that we have of
ourselves. God used Peter. The first words Jesus spoke to Peter were “Come,
follow me” (Mark 1:17). The last words he spoke to Mark were “You must follow
me” (John 21:22). Are we each prepared to follow Jesus, even if it requires us
to step out of our learnt comfort zones unlearn out understandings of ourselves
and others and our habits and relearn a new way of living and seeing ourselves
each other? Are we prepared to elastify our brains for God?
Most years I actively choose not to celebrate or commemorate
Guy Fawkes (I let you choose the appropriate C). As a festival, it seems so out
of place in the Aotearoa New Zealand.Guy
Fawkes is no NZ folklore demon and to claim that we should remember him, but not
remember our own history is a misguided judgement. After all, the 5th
of November has national significance here in Aotearoa NZ. But definitely not
one worth of fireworks and burning guys; rather if we are true to tradition it is worth more - way much more.
So let’s get into a conversation with a very famous verse
written in the 1800s
Remember, remember! The fifth of November,
But why should I remember, tell me?
The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason,
Why the Gunpowder treason should ever be forgot!
But what happened, tell me?
Guy Fawkes and his companions; Did the scheme contrive, to
blow the King and Parliament; All up
alive.
How did they do it?
Threescore barrels, laid below, To prove old England's
overthrow. But, by God's providence, him
they catch, With a dark lantern,
lighting a match!A stick and a stake For
King James's sake!
How did the Crown (King) react?
If you won't give me one, I'll take two, The better for me, And
the worse for you.
Who did the Crown really want to do
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope, A penn'orth of cheese to
choke him, A pint of beer to wash it
down, And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring! Holloa,
boys! holloa boys! God save the King! Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!
This verse really does highlight that the events surrounding
Guy Fawkes and November 5th have very little to do with Aotearoa NZ.
Nor do they really reflect an event that did happen on this day in 1881. On
that day 1600 Government Troops (Agents of the Crown (Queen Victoria)) invaded
the peaceful settlement of Parihaka. The troops were welcomed by singing children
and greeted with baskets of food. But the innocence of children did not stop
the violence that followed. Men of Parihaka were arrested and sent to Dunedin
(much of the early buildings were built with their hands). The prophets were
detained for 16 months without trial. The women of Parihaka raped. Whare
(buildings) were burned to the ground and the land seized.
There is no connection between Guy Fawkes and Parihaka at
all; but is there? While I will continue to put my feet firmly into the ground
and refuse to set off fireworks I will acknowledge that there are connecting
threads between the two histories. One deep thread concerns the misuse of power
by the English Crown over the centuries. It is recognised that, even in Aotearoa New Zealand,
the Magna Carta (the founding document of human rights and our own constitional framework) was created in response
to the abuse of powers by the crown before even Guy Fawkes occurred. But I would argue that the events of Guy
Fawkes and of Parihaka recognise a Crown power stepping out of its boundaries.
The advent of Protestantism in England was not a progressive move of the
Church, but the actions of one King, Henry Tutor (King Henry the 8th)
to divorce his wife. When the Catholic church denied this right, Henry created
his own version of the Church with the King (himself) as the divine ruler.
King James the 1st (connected to Henry the 8th
through Mary, Queen of Scots) was the target of the gunpowder plot in a deeply
divided Kingdom where Catholics were being oppressed and wanted to restore the land
of England to the Catholic Faith. The capture of Guy Fawkes and his companions
before the event occurred enabled the Protestant faith to assert that God had
his will behind the Anglican church and the Catholics were evil. Guy Fawkes was
originally called Thanksgiving Evening and features in the English Anglican Calendar.
But really to the Catholics, Guy Fawkes saw the beginning of violent oppression
where Catholic followers were beaten and killed for their faith. In some towns
in England, the commemorations continue today with large models and symbols of Catholicism
(including the Pope) being burned in marches down the street.
The actions on Parihaka were indeed Crown actions and they
too were actions that were based on an idea that the practice of Christianity
at Parihaka was not congruent to the practices of the deeply Protestant faith of
the English settlers (although it is doubtful as to whether that faith was
followed as records show a stronger observance of Christianity amongst indigenous
peoples in the 1800s than white settlers). Just as Guy Fawkes would be seen as
a freedom fighter for the Catholic faith, Te Whiti and Tohu were freedom fighters
for a peaceful Christian faith. Added to this is the demonisation of peoples. The events of the Protestant revolution has seen the Catholic church demonised. Even I as a young Christian was taught that Catholics go to hell; there is no Truth in this at all. The events of colonisation in Aotearoa New Zealand have seen Maori peoples (and others) demonised and there is no better way to say this. Natives in early colonial New Zealand were framed in the same way Native American Indians were in the history of colonisation in America. The 'natives' were seen as being in the wrong in the New Zealand wars - but come on - who was taking the land unlawfuling, and just because a fence is not on it does not mean it is up for grabs?
There are very real differences as well with the actions of
Guy Fawkes being based on a violent uprising and a symbolic burning of a
building of power. At Parihaka, the people strove to follow peaceful but active
resistance, welcoming their invaders as guests and believing deeply in the
words of Te Whiti and Tohu who sought council from the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
It is interesting what we choose to remember and what we choose
to forget.
Remember, remember! The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason,
Why the Gunpowder treason should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions; Did the scheme contrive, to blow the King and
Parliament; All up alive.
The plot failed, the freedom fighters were hanged and the
people of England would torture the Catholic Faith.
Remember, remember! The fifth of November,
The invasion of Parihaka on high; I know of no reason,
Why Parihaka should ever be forgot!
Native Minister John Bryce and his companions; Did the scheme contrive, to seize
the land of Parihaka and take its men and rape its women; All up alive.
The plot went ahead, but the people stand strong and
Parihaka remains under the Mountain today, but its story is unsaid often.
I am writing to you to share with you a story about a garden, a guitar, an old-skool movie and a ghost-town. Well really, I could share with you four separate stories, but I know that you don’t have a lot of time these days. Our world has got so busy that reading stories and making links is so much harder than it used to be. Instead, we have become reactive as a people, we hear a story and we see it in isolation, we do not see the connections. And as such we are blind between the links between our own story and the stories of others.
So, in order to bring these stories together for you, I need to give you a beginning. And that beginning is – of course, you know me – on the West Coast. The West Coast of the South Island is one of the most isolated regions in New Zealand. It is also one of the most resource-rich areas and it is one region that is stigmatized with the dirty word ‘mining’. I ask you to put that issue slightly aside; it is for another letter. However, I will share with you a deeply known fact on the Coast, the money that is dug from the ground is not profit for the Coast, it is profit for the rest of New Zealand. The profit from the mines goes into Wellington, West Coasters see little of it. Added to this, the working-class nature of my brothers and sisters on the West Coast is both admired and see as ‘backward’. Helen Clark once called us ‘feral’ and some bloggers continue to. So, we know and feel what it is like to be seen as different to mainstream Pākeha New Zealand and we feel ripped off. It is a real feeling and it has real meaning.
But this is just my beginning, like you might as well, I know what it is like to be raised on the feeling that New Zealand is not just. But, my friend, recently I felt alarmed, and ashamed, at the response of Pākeha New Zealand to the injustice of our tangatawhēnua (people of the land; it is important to know that whēnua also means placenta). This happened where our story of the garden starts. On the West Coast, we honour our history and many old-skoolers can whakapapa (directly connect) back to original settlers, spaces, places, communities and water ways (rivers and seas). As such we keep areas preserved and protected. Because many of us are still directly connected and even hold positions of authority (mayor, business owners, etc) we can assert our privilege and claim these spaces - just look at the protectors around Buller Hospital and, in the 1980s, Reefton Hospital. We know that our historical areas like Denniston, Reefton Powerhouse, Waiuta, Millerton (and many others) are important to keep for future generations. I know friend, that you have your areas as well.
But earlier this year, the main-stream news talked about a group of people wanting to protect their historical gardens (Ihumātao). These gardens are hundreds of years old. They are one of the oldest historical sites in New Zealand. They sit on land that was stolen, no one argues this. The land was stolen from Māori and given (yes, given) to a settler family who owned it for over 100 years. Recently the family decided to sell it. The original owners jumped up and argued this is a chance for this historical site to be returned. The City Council advised to Government that the land should be returned due both to its historical nature and to the recognised fact that it was stolen. Central Government jumped up and down and said to the Council, due to the housing crisis, it must be sold and developed. A small group of people did negotiate with the new owners some recognition. But it wasn’t a table discussion and people were excluded. You have to believe me I have been to this site. The land cries out to me just as the Denniston Incline does on the Coast. If you take five minutes to pop by as you go out to Auckland airport, you will find the same feeling hit you – especially when you see the extent of the size of the gardens, you see the rich soil and you remember the head-lines hitting us now in the news that a concern is now arising of the fertile soils of Auckland being developed at the cost of our food source – Auckland has volcanic soils that enable our tables to be adorned with the most amazing veges.
You must know that I am not going to go into the history here. I will give you some links below if you are interested. I want to share with you my concern though – it is a real cry of injustice coming from this site and all I heard back from many Pākeha was – get over the past, what do you want – haven’t we said sorry enough?, all these Māori …
This concerned me as I saw a lack of the most important need in this space. If we want to resolve our past we need to reconcile (come to terms and heal) our past and our relationship with each other. This involves a conversation and the conversation involves listening with your heart. It involves parking the ‘get over it’ at the door and realising that Māori have had to be PC for over a century. It is time that those of us who are Pākeha realise that the rising generation of Māori have a right for a voice. Most of all they have a right to be authentically heard.
But some of you, some of my real close friends, didn’t feel this way – get over it, bloody Māoris (sic), when is this going to stop? So, I tried something else, I pulled from the pages of the Bible where King David had done wrong but didn’t see it and Nathan the prophet came to him and told a story. Nowhere through the story did he say – this is an allegory. So, David took it hook, line and sinker and his heart (not his head) reacted – in an injustice like this, something must be done. You can read about this story in the Bible, 2 Samuel, Chapter 12. It is powerful. So, I decided, how to I get to the hearts of my friends. I will tell them an allegory but won’t spring this fact on them until the end. I told a story about a guitar I inherited from Uncle Harry (one of my dads). I talked about how it was stolen and was now on sale, but because I did not have Uncle Harry’s will proving I owned it, I would not be able to claim it from the shop selling it. Just as the rightful inheritors of the ancient garden have been doing (but were being condemned for), I was encouraged to follow suite – go to the media, go to the government, claim it back. It is your’s Fiona. I even had a local MP offer to support me and another Black Power friend offer to steal it back. My friends responded with their hearts, no one told me to get over it. And in fact, I had these words in my post, so many people were angered by the words themselves (how dare you be told this Fiona, it is not okay). You see the garden and my guitar had a link.
And friend, you know how we love to watch movies that speak to our hearts. Over the week that followed I watched movies on the very aspect of having land taken unfairly – Braveheart and the story of Scotland (and yes the Scots and the Irish are still fighting for independence ('You can take my land but you can't take my FREEDOM'); many have not got over it), Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (a tear jerker about Native Americans) and our favourite, the Castle “The number 1. Australian comedy that sticks it up the big guys” (tag line). The last being an all-time favourite of many West Coasters – after all just like the protectors of our falling-down hospitals and historic gardens – we don’t like having our rights taken away and we sure as hell don’t like our land seized.
Sorry, I realised that I have missed out on telling you about the final story that links these together my friend. This story takes us back to my mining history; but the Fountaine family have no claim here only a story. There is a famous historic ghost-town on the Coast. It is called Charleston. It was one of New Zealand’s largest gold rush towns. It was so big that the Wellington post-master received a promotion to work there and Hannah’s Shoes started there. It had over 30 pubs and this is not counting the tent pubs on the shore line. But today it is a tiny haven with an adventure tour company and a couple of houses. It is also a space where sections once bought have been abandoned as the seekers moved North for more gold or to Quartzopolies (Reefton) for the richest gold around. The irony of this letter is, my friend, is that as protectors stand on the land their ancestors now; back in my home region, the Council is searching for the descendants of the original owners so that they can take what is rightfully theirs. If they can’t find the ‘original’ owners, the Council will have the right to sell the land (which it desires to do). This land was not stolen in the same way as the garden in the North Island but it was purchased back in the mining days. However, if it is sold, it will be seen as injustly acquired land as the Council did not attempt to reconcile first with the original owners. It seems ironic that all these stories are connected through a concept of justice. Three deeply speak of injustice where as one speaks of justice. Inviting people to the table so that they can share their claim and reconciliation can take place.
You see I don’t want to persuade you to take one side of the fence my friend. I want to encourage you to come to the table and be prepared to listen with your heart. Your heart knows injustice deeply. We will never be able to resolve our broken history, but we can reconcile it. This begins with a conversation around a table, some food and some open ears. It also begins with learning your own history and if you are a recent arrival learning the history of this nation. Knowing our history means we come to the table wiser and ready to engage. Do you know the history of Ihumãtao?
So, my friend, please, are you ready to listen with your heart – the story of our nation is not okay, it is broken, it is very broken. Are you prepared to come to the table? If you are broken are you prepared not to wound the people you feel wounded by so that you can heal? If you are part of the brokenness of your 'brother or sister' are you prepared to listen instead of laying down an excuse without hearing the pain? This is the lesson of Ihumātao. The land is truly a garden to start the healing the process. The protectors here are open to speaking their story with love - not condemnation. The spirit of Tohu and Te Whiti is strong. Ihumātao has been made a land of peace by the protectors through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a table that works as a bridge - cross the bridge, come to the table and into the conversation; after all healing might hurt but it leads to better outcomes for all of us.
Peace be upon you
Dr Phi
Resources
I haven’t put these in APA as I want you to be able to access them easily and not have to worrying about how us academics do a reference list.
Article on the protest of fertile land occurring at the same time as Ihumātao
