The following comes to you as one of a series of papers drawing from the chapters of the recently published Vision Congress ‘08 book New Vision New Zealand Volume III.

I am drafting these for use in the Baptist pastors clusters, New Zealand wide. 

I have obtained permission for this from Vision Network.

They are freely available for use in other contexts also.

                        Lindsay Jones

                        Baptist National Consultant

                        March 2008

You will need to obtain a copy of the book to read the whole chapter for background.

Baptist churches can do so at a subsidised rate through This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Otherwise: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

New Vision NEW ZEALAND Volume III (2008) 

Chapter 6 pgs 79-92

Secular New Zealand or God's own Country?

        by John Stenhouse Assoc. professor, Dept. of History, Otago University.

What is the place of faith, specifically Christian faith, in New Zealand society today?

Does it matter that faith has been pushed out of the public arena and into the confines of private life?

What should we make of the rise of religious faiths other than historic Christianity?

These and other questions are leading to the rise of religious debate in ‘secular' New Zealand.

John Stenhouse begins his chapter with the following story:

In February 2002, Queen Elizabeth II visited New Zealand.  At the state banquet held in her honour, Prime Minister Helen Clark decided not to say grace.  Clark justified this break with tradition by declaring that "the practice (of saying grace) had little relevance in our increasingly secular society, but if anyone at the banquet wanted to say grace he or she was more than welcome to do so individually." The Reverend Dr George Armstrong, an Auckland theologian and social activist prominent in the anti-nuclear campaign, objected to the language with which the Prime Minister justified this decision "I think it very unnecessary for Helen to stick to her own secular guns and claim the whole of New Zealand is secular" wrote Armstrong. "She doesn't want Christians to force their religion on everyone else, but why should she be able to force her views on us?" To Armstrong, the Prime Minister, a self-described agnostic, appeared to be making claims about the secular character and identity of twenty-first century New Zealand that turned Christians into second-class citizens.[1]

Stenhouse then backs up Armstrong's comment with statistical reference:

The 2001 census revealed that slightly over half of all New Zealanders identified as adherents of a Christian denomination. While around 13 percent of the population went regularly to church, over 70 percent did so at least occasionally. Was New Zealand really a "secular" country? What did "secular" mean?[2]

On its return from the 2004 Asia Pacific Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation, the Labour government delegation recommended drawing up a national statement on religious tolerance designed to "increase the inclusiveness of New Zealand society and to develop robust relationships between faiths and between them and government."[3]

Professor Paul Morris of the Victoria University Religious Studies Programme undertook to develop a New Zealand Statement on Religious Diversity by consulting widely, in a series of regional forums, with local government bodies, faith communities and other interested parties.

A number of Christians took exception to the draft statement's claim that New Zealand has no established state religion. Vision Network's website became a place for discussion on this. The issue centered around the technical use of the word ‘established'. Glyn Carpenter posted this response:

"establishment" is related to Acts of parliament, a term familiar to lawyers, politicians, and the like (eg the 1707 and 1711 Acts in UK, and later in Canada.  America has no established religion - just like NZ)

"The Church of England is an Established Church. This is a technical term, meaning that the Church has a special legal position within the state and is not simply a voluntary society in the eyes of the law."[4]

Stenhouse describes the history of this in the N.Z. context:

New Zealand has never had a state Church, or an official established religion. In that specific sense, the New Zealand state has always been secular. In order to understand why, we must return to the countries from which most of New Zealand's settlers came.

For centuries, the United Church of England and Ireland(Anglican), enjoyed many legal, financial and political priviledges.

In colonial New Zealand...not even the largest of the old national churches had enough followers to set itself up as a national or established Church, whether de jure or de facto. Every religious majority in England, Ireland and Scotland became a minority in New Zealand.

Moreover, transplanted Outsiders (Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, many Presbyterians, Roman Catholics and Unbelievers), fought to smash early Anglican attempts to operate as a religious establishment, whether formal or informal.

... they co-operated to separate Church and state during the opening decades of settlement, secure complete civil equality for all religious bodies, and in 1877, to secure an officially "secular" system of state-funded primary education.[5]

So many pioneer Christians wanted no official ‘established' religion. But those Christians who dominated the campaigns to establish a "secular" state and primary school system had no intention of creating a secular society and culture.  Yet historians have latched on to this and painted a picture of N.Z. as being significantly secular from the beginning and the influence of Christians being minimal.

"In 1979, Ian Breward noted that ‘many histories' of New Zealand had ‘seriously under-estimated' the role of religion and identified ‘a certain conviction among academics that religion is socially irrelevant'. In a 1991 survey Peter Lineham also observed that New Zealand historians continued to ‘downplay the significance of religious belief', which remained ‘poorly integrated into New Zealand history...[6]"

This has carried on until today; e.g. James Dakin, who last year wrote the following

"New Zealand is one of the most secular countries in the world. Significant numbers of people are not churchgoers and the census reveals interesting new trends towards citizens indicating they follow no religion at all. Why New Zealand is so secular poses an interesting question. Even more so is whether secularism has a future with the raising of Maori spirituality influencing decision-making of some governmental departments.[7]"

Stenhouse goes on to make two main points.

I contend, first, that influential New Zealand historians writing during the last half century, often secular and left-liberal in outlook themselves, have often dismissed or denigrated, and sometimes even demonized Christianity's role and influence in New Zealand society, culture and history. Second, I argue that the dominant historiography contains too many omissions, misinterpretations and self-contradictions to be regarded as acceptable.[8]

He defines and discusses three ‘theses' that historians use to justify their positions: "secular New Zealand", "lapsed masses" and "bad religion".

He concludes with these words:

Those today who appeal to history to "prove" that New Zealand has always been a secular (i.e. non-religious) society are on shaky ground. I have argued that for most of our history Christianity has been more widespread and influential than many historians, especially in recent years, have acknowledged. Arguments to the contrary should probably be understood as, in large part, attempts to use history to marginalize or silence religious believers, especially conservative Christians, from contributing to public debate. Insofar as secular (and religious) left-liberals are prepared significantly to distort history to advance contemporary agendas (however worthy) they fall prey to the fanaticism they dislike in their right-wing opponents.[9]

Matters for discussion:

1. What difference does the historical significance of Christianity in New Zealand society and culture make to today's debates on secularism?
2. What should we make of the rise of religious faiths other than historic Christianity?
3. In what ways has the privatisation of faith in this country affected our churches, our personal lives, our witness and mission?
4. Is the separation of church and state a good thing?
5. Should we enter into inter-faith dialogues?
6. How might we apply the biblical injunction to be ‘salt and light' in N.Z. today?
7. In what public arenas should Christians ‘take up the cause'? e.g. political, media...

[1] Pg 79

[2] Pg 79

[3] Pg 80

[4] http://www.visionnetwork.org.nz/

[5] Pp 85-86

[6] New Zealand Journal of History, 38, 1 (2004) God's Own Silence: Secular Nationalism, Christianity and the writing of New Zealand History  by John Stenhouse

[7] Secular Trends in New Zealand by James Dakin, Published June 2007

[8] Pg 82

[9] Pg 90

Share this page.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Email this page to a friend.

Add Comment