The existence of different faiths has been a feature of New Zealand society since the early 19th century when indigenous Maori spirituality encountered Christianity. The so-called fourth article of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, prompted by Catholic Bishop Pompallier, protected the "several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom".

A debate over prayer at the very first sitting of Parliament on 26 May 1854 led to a resolution which asserted "the privilege of a perfect political equality in all religious denominations, and that, whoever may be called upon to perform this duty for the House, it is not thereby intended to confer or admit any pre-eminence to that Church or religious body to which he may belong".

It is worth noting that this "perfect political equality" was within a clear Christian context, even what Ahdar has called a "de facto establishment of a generic Christianity". 1

The arrival of Chinese immigrants in the 1860s to work in the Otago minefields began the gradual introduction of other religions into New Zealand. This has continued to the present time, when 203, 934 people (5.1%) described themselves in the 2006 national census as belonging to a religious group other than Christian or Maori Christian, up from 91,999 (2.5%) in 1996. The largest of these is Hindu (64,392), followed by Buddhist (52, 362), and Islam (36, 072).

Over a half-million people (535,584 or 13.3%) objected to answering or said they did not fit into one of the categories offered. The total number of people indicating "no religion" increased from 24% in 1996 to 32.2% in 2006, while the total number indicating "Christian" dropped from 59.3% to 50.3% over the same period.

Early Interfaith Dialogue In New Zealand

There have been a number of discussion groups in New Zealand involving people of different faiths. Interfaith groups have been operating in Auckland (since 1986), Wellington (1988), Christchurch (2007), as well as Bay of Plenty/Rotorua, Hibiscus Coast, Waikato, Gisborne, New Plymouth, Kapati, Wanaka, and Nelson.

There are also dual-religion groups. The Council of Christians and Jews (NZ) was established in 1997, the Auckland Council of Christians and Jews (1986), Wellington Council of Christian and Jews (1988), and the Council of Christians and Muslims NZ (1997). A Dunedin Abrahamic Interfaith Group has also been running since 2001.

These groups are usually very small, and it could be reasonably asked how representative of their respective faith communities are the people who participate. However, these groups are active at local and central government levels in promoting a level religious playing field in New Zealand.

Another group called the NZ Interfaith Group says on its website it has "evolved from a variety of interfaith groups that have been active in Wellington over the past 15 years, such as the World Conference on Religion and Peace, and Faith and Community Week. It is in the process of becoming an umbrella group for interfaith groups in other centres around Aotearoa New Zealand".

Religious Violence And National Interfaith Forums

With 9/11, the London underground bombings, the Madrid bombings, and the Paris riots, governments around the world have been talking about how to deal with religiously-inspired violence. The war on terror is one response, although some argue this was wrongly motivated and is more likely to increase religious violence than reduce it.

No less controversial has been the direct involvement by governments such as New Zealand's in organising and supporting interfaith dialogues or forums. In 2003, the first New Zealand National Interfaith Forum (NIF) was held in Parliament. This was followed by NIFs in Auckland (2004), Wellington (2005 and 2006), and Hamilton (2007). At the 2004 NIF in Auckland, Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres brought a message from the Minister of Social Development Steve Maharey, that the government would be keen for interfaith groups to get organized and form a single national body with which the government could dialogue about policy. There have also been four Diversity Forums organized by the Human Rights Commission starting in 2004 with the citizen's forum at Parliament following the desecration of the Jewish cemeteries in Wellington. The last three of these (2005, 2006, 2007) have had specific strands dealing with interfaith topics.

Although many inside and outside the Church have questioned why the government is involved in supporting interfaith dialogues, it does not seem unreasonable that a government concerned for the safety and welfare of its citizens would attempt to reduce possible religious tensions by establishing a forum for leaders of faith communities to meet and build relationships.

Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue

In our geographic region, the October 2002 bombing of a Bali nightclub by members of Jemaah Islamiyah, a violent Islamist group, resulted in the deaths of 202 people. This led to a dialogue between the Australian and Indonesian governments, followed up by the First Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue which New Zealand attended in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in December 2004.

A second regional dialogue was held in Cebu, Philippines in March 2006, which addressed, among other matters, media issues in the wake of the Mohammed cartoon controversy, and the importance of education about religions. The third dialogue took place in Waitangi, New Zealand, 28-31 May 2007, with the theme "Building Bridges" (discussed further below).

Each dialogue is made up of national delegations of 10 people representing government and major faith groups. There were 15 nations represented at Waitangi (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam).

The New Zealand delegation was led by Dr Manuka Henare (Auckland University, Catholic) and comprised Rehanna Ali (Muslim), Dr Ashraf Choudhary (Muslim), Archbishop John Dew (Catholic), Joris de Bres (Human Rights Commission), Javed Khan (Muslim), Professor Paul Morris (Victoria University, Jewish), Bishop Richard Randerson (Anglican), Rev Feiloaiga Taule'ale'ausumai (Presbyterian), Dr Pushpa Wood (Hindu), and Ven Amala Wrightson (Buddhist).

Because the conference was being held in New Zealand, it was also possible to include an observer group which worked closely with the official delegation. They were Glyn Carpenter (Vision Network, Christian), Mustafa Farouk (Muslim), Rabbi Johanna Hershensen (Jewish), Dr Upala Manukulasuriya (Buddhist), Rohit Sharma (Hindu), Prithipal Singh (Sikh), and Keith Thompson (Mormon).

The make-up of the official delegation raised questions among some church leaders about the selection process and balance of representation. With Hindus and Buddhists being the two largest faith groups after Christianity, the presence of three Muslims in a delegation of eleven people was clearly disproportionate. Questions were also raised as to whether the Christian delegates were fairly reflective of positions in the church.

In informal discussion between Professor Morris and this author around these sorts of questions, Professor Morris commented that delegates were not so much representing their faith communities, as reflective of positions within them.

The Religious Diversity Statement Of 2007

After the First Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue in Yogyakarta, three members of the delegation (Morris, Randerson, and de Bres) began talking about producing a national religious diversity statement. A draft statement was developed by Professor Morris and presented to an interfaith session at the Diversity Forum held in Wellington 21 August 2006. This draft statement was discussed at the National Church leaders meeting in September 2006, and this author was invited to join a working group set up by Joris de Bres and Paul Morris to consider the statement, along with Dean of the Auckland (Anglican) Cathedral, Richard Randerson, Archbishop John Dew (Catholic), Jenny te Paa (St Johns College), and others from the major faith groups.

The first meeting of the group took place in October 2006 at which this author made three main points: (a) it was difficult to see why such a statement was needed when all the key protections, rights, and responsibilities, were already contained in New Zealand laws, (b) there were concerns about how such a statement might be used to push particular agendas, and (c) the statement did not fairly reflect the special significance of Christian faith to New Zealand.

The only answer given to the first question was that it was difficult for immigrant people of different faiths to know what rights they had. The simplest solution to this, which would have avoided other potential concerns, would have been to prepare a brief summary of the relevant sections of New Zealand's Human Rights and Bill of Rights Acts.

Despite making this point in the meeting and in our written submission (Vision Network of New Zealand submission, December 2006), the Statement organizers seemed intent on pushing ahead with the statement. A request for feedback on the statement was issued to faith and interfaith groups, City Councils, and other interested parties. 39 group and 51 individual submissions were received by December with about half of each being from Christians. The feedback showed some support but also a significant level of concern about the statement, both generally and also about specific points.

A further meeting of the working group took place in January 2007 to consider the feedback. Given the scale of the issues raised in the feedback, De Bres and Morris agreed that the statement would not be finalized for the Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue scheduled for May 2007. Some questions had also been raised within small parts of the Church about whether there was political pressure from the Prime Minister's office for the Religious Diversity Statement to be finalized to present to the May Dialogue. Professor Morris said there had not been, and the most the Prime Minister would be likely to be able to do would be to report on the progress and direction of the discussions taking place.

Professor Morris set off to work on a third draft incorporating comments from the meeting, which he presented at the National Interfaith Forum in Hamilton (19 February 2007). At the Forum, significant concerns were again raised by a number of people in the audience. Towards the end of the day, when it looked as if the discussion might stall, Joris de Bres put a motion to the Forum that the statement be endorsed "as a basis for ongoing dialogue".

This motion received general, but not unanimous, consensus from Forum attendees. (As an aside, the Forum organisers received and granted requests from both the Exclusive Brethren and the Destiny Church to speak briefly to the Forum. The Destiny member spoke about New Zealand's Christian heritage and the importance for New Zealand of maintaining a distinctly Christian future. The Exclusive Brethren member spoke about freedom of speech, saying that their group had been vilified on more than 330 occasions by government MPs in parliament under parliamentary privilege, and warned people in the audience that if one group could be targeted in this way, then everyone's freedom was at risk. Both messages were received positively by Forum attendees).

After some minor wording changes, the statement was posted on 2 March 2007 on the Human Rights Commission website, where it was labeled the "Final version of the National Statement on Religious Diversity" (note, "Final") and no mention was made of the basis on which it had been endorsed at the February forum (that being "a basis for ongoing dialogue").

After further correspondence, the word "National" was dropped out of the name, and the statement was published in a booklet under the name Religious Diversity Statement (RDS) with a review scheduled for 2009. While it is still difficult to see the need for the RDS, the process of consultation has at least ensured that the contents are fair. Some denominations have indicated their support for the RDS.

The 3rd Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue (Waitangi 28-31 May 2007)

Peace and tolerance were at the fore in the speeches from political leaders at the Dialogue which followed on directly from the Alliance of Civilizations Conference in Auckland, itself a response to Samuel Huntingdon's mid-1990s thesis of a Clash of Civilizations. The AoC seeks in particular to reduce the polarization between Islam and the West. Professor Morris presented a discussion paper at the Dialogue entitled Building Bridges: Faith Communities And Governments Working Together For The Common Good. This paper discussed three phases of interfaith dialogue. (1) The natural interaction between people of different faiths, (2) more recently the dialogues between religious leaders emphasizing cooperation and joint action between religions on topics (eg. environment, terrorism, security, sustainable growth, justice and peace) rather than theological or philosophical matters, and (3) the most recent phase where governments, realizing the significance and role of religion in the contemporary world, have initiated discussions with interfaith groups.

Morris then went on to talk about "three levels" and "three tasks" of third phase dialogue. Third phase dialogue operates "between faiths, and between them and governments, at the local, national and regional or international levels". It also focuses on three discrete tasks to be undertaken at each of the three levels. These are (1) the building of relationships between faith communities and between faith communities and government, (2) government responsibilities for coordinating, supporting and promoting positive interfaith relationships at the local, national and regional levels, and (3) mapping, public visibility, and communications. Copies of this paper can be obtained from Professor Paul Morris, Religious Studies, Victoria University, Wellington.

The paper put forward three recommendations for discussion:

1. That governments commit to extending their support for regional interfaith dialogue to fostering positive relationships between faith communities at the local, national and regional levels and that faith communities take initiatives to work together at the local, national and regional levels with each other and governments.
2. That governments take the responsibility to designate faith and interfaith points of contact with government at the local, national and regional levels.
3. That a regional digital database be established with web page access mapping the range of religious activities in our region, including the faith and interfaith groups, faith-based organizations, charities and NGOs.

The Waitangi Declaration is included as an Appendix to this chapter.

Part 2 of this chapter by Dr. Bob Robinson includes the following headings:

Practical And Theological Issues
1 Remember Our ‘Alien' And ‘Powerless' Status
2 The Bible Is More Generous
3 Dialogue Is A Biblical Idea
4 Dialogue Is A Biblical Word
5 The Personal Example Of Jesus
6 Dialogue Helps Increase Understanding
7 Dialogue As Common Social Concern
8 Common Humanity And Community
9 Dialogue Is A Means Of Mission
10 Personal Examples
11 Loving Friendship The Place To Start

The 3rd Asia Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue at Waitangi New Zealand (May 2007)

Education
• We support education about religions in the public curricula of all schools, including religious schools.
• We encourage governments in the region to ensure through curriculum review that curricula meet guidelines for fairness, accuracy, and balance in discussing religious beliefs and that they do not denigrate any faith or its adherents.
• We recommend that schools should promote non-formal interfaith education such as community service, twinning projects and community immersion.
• We request interested governments to implement pilot projects in religious education, to be trialed in more than one country in the region.
• We encourage religious leaders, education policy makers, and interfaith civic organizations to work together to develop consensus guidelines for teaching about religions.
• We support the inclusion of education about religions in the training of faith leaders.
• We call for support for research projects exploring any nexus between religion and conflict; perceptions of security among different faith groups; and religious education in the region.
Note - Visionnetwork national director Glyn Carpenter was only present as an official observer at the Waitangi forum.

Footnote

1 God and Government, ed. Rex Ahdar and John Stenhouse, chapter 3 "New Zealand and the Idea of a Christian State", page 75, Ahdar, Otago University Press, 2000. 

To purchase a full copy of this vital book, New Vision New Zealand, Vol III (2008), This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . If you order through this link, we offer a special discounted price of $25.95 (+ $3.00 each P&P). Also ask about special rates for bulk delivery of 10+ copies.

Share this page.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Email this page to a friend.

Add Comment