A Christian government: Jeremiah
The book of the Prophet Jeremiah is also concerned with government, particularly in an uncertain world. While Jeremiah spoke into the specific situation of the Kingdom of Judah as it faced international crises and exile, I think that there are still many lessons that can be learned. And I think that they would also be important for any government that would seek to lead according to Christian principles.
In Jeremiah 22:13-17 the Prophet confronts King Jehoahaz, the son of King Josiah, about his rule.
13 ‘Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,
his upper rooms by injustice,
making his own people work for nothing,
not paying them for their labour.
14 He says, “I will build myself a great palace
with spacious upper rooms.”
So he makes large windows in it,
panels it with cedar
and decorates it in red.
15 ‘Does it make you a king
to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink?
He did what was right and just,
so all went well with him.
16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?’
declares the Lord.
17 ‘But your eyes and your heart
are set only on dishonest gain,
on shedding innocent blood
and on oppression and extortion.’
It probably should go without saying that a government like that of Jehoahaz should be unacceptable, whether in ancient times or today. The problem is that rulers like that have occurred throughout history, and certainly also today. While Donald Trump’s ball room immediately springs to mind when we hear about palace building projects, the urge to build monuments is a temptation that many governments succumb to. It is something that needs to be guarded against. Also, of course it should be clear that dishonest gain, shedding innocent blood, oppression and extortion should be a no-go area for governments. Yet, all too often governments still resort to those means, particularly when building some greater utopia. So, what is positively the role of government? It is to defend the cause of the poor and needy. This is a repeated theme in the Old Testament. In particular that also means that the great disparities of wealth have to be reduced and that safeguards are put in place so that the rich cannot exploit the poor. It also means that political influence should not depend on wealth. Justice also needs to be accessible to all, so that the legal system cannot be instrumentalised by the wealthy. And in today’s world that necessarily includes wealthy corporations.
A theme that is evident throughout the book is that kings need to listen and accept advice. In particular, the kings of Judah did not listen to the prophets, but rather went ahead to implement their disastrous policies, especially in international relations. Governments need to be self-critical, able to listen and change their minds when confronted with evidence that they are going in the wrong direction. It requires the humility to not always be right and to admit error. That is something incredibly hard and not often found in today’s polarised politics.
A major theme in the Book of Jeremiah is that Judah at this time needs to accept the yoke of Babylon. It needs to swallow national pride and for a time suffer the consequences of being a vassal state. It should not build up its military to keep the Babylonians out; it should not enter an alliance with Egypt against Babylon. At this time, Jeremiah says, it needs to co-operate with Babylon and through that be obedient to God.
Of course that was a very specific situation. I’m not sure that it can always be applied in its wider form in the modern context. However, I think in the international sphere giving more weight to realpolitik over national pride is important, just as the long-term welfare of the people is more important than questions of national honour.
Sometimes the application in the modern context may be a lot clearer. For example, Germany is endangering itself by becoming a military nation due to imagined Russian threats. But through that militarisation does it not invite conflict? And even if such militarisation does deter attacks, is it really worth becoming a war-like nation for a few years of independence? What would be worse: two decades of Russian occupation or a society that for half a century accepts war, trains people for war, and rejects peace? For me, the spiritual harm of war preparation is far worse than the interference of a foreign power.
Overall, for Jeremiah humility is the main mark of a good government. That is both on the national and international dimension. A good government needs to be aware when it is wrong. A good government should not think first of itself, but rather about the people. That also includes that its most important consideration should not be to remain in power, but rather for the welfare of the people, in particular the poor and needy. Not even the preservation of the nation state or the current political system is as important as the welfare of the people.
Readers’ Digest Version: A good government is humble and leads its people to humility.
A Christian government: Judges and Romans
Towards the end of the Book of Judges there’s a phrase that occurs four times to put that history into perspective, to prepare readers for the next step in Israel’s history and to a certain extent to pass judgment. It is the phrase: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” It sits alongside the narrative of the increasingly destructive ways in which the various tribes tried to do justice, and which every time results in even more injustice. In a society that gave such prominence to tribal allegiance, dealing with individual justice quickly blew out to major conflicts. In addition, cultic activity had become infused with idolatry and tribes were fighting each other for land. Also, there were some powerful enemies along the borders of the alliance of the tribes of Israel. By fighting amongst themselves, Israel had no way to respond to any external threat, and one tribe could even be manipulated to work against another by those external parties. Clearly, no peaceful existence between the tribes could exist in such a society. They needed someone to unite the tribes, to set rules and to bring justice. They needed a government of some form. And the primary model of government available to Israel at that time was kingship. That’s what other more peaceful people around them had. Therefore, the need to have a king also became obvious for Israel.
This focus on justice and unity became a hallmark of kingship in Israel. It is still an essential part of the role of government: governments need to protect individuals from violence in particularly by enforcing justice. Not only does such justice deter people from harming their neighbour, but possibly more importantly, it removes a sense of grievance and revenge that can quickly spiral from one harmful action to involve not just a few people to continuous conflict between families and whole groups of people.
In today’s world, tribalism is less based on kinship and more on ideologies and identities. Such division into competing groups that feel aggrieved has grown significantly. It is the role of government to bring unity, rather than increasing such division. Unfortunately, in our time many governments have tried to bring justice and unity in ways that have caused reactions, which in turn only increased the divisions and generated a sense of grievance.
The importance of the role to administer justice can be seen in a slightly controversial example from New Zealand’s history. There is evidence that Māori rangatira (chiefs) accepted colonial government to bring unity amidst tribal conflict and justice in a tribal landscape that was rife with injustice and in which one misdeed could quickly spread to hostility between iwi (tribes) and hapu (clans).
Many Māori expected the government to provide lawcodes that addressed Māori custom, and laws that provided for clearer interaction between Māori and settlers. In addition, they expected justice to be done. The failure by the government to provide for clear Māori law and to bring justice was seen as one of the key reasons for the beginning of hostilities between Māori and settlers and were at least in part at the root of the land wars.
As Māori saw that justice was not done, in particular that often settlers got away with violence towards Māori, they turned against the government and sought their own structures, such as the kingitanga.
If a government does not administer justice, does not provide for some unity between rival groups in society, then it has failed. Of course, a government will never be perfect. There will always be mistakes and shortcomings, but these are some of the basics.
In Israel the role of the king was closely joined with ensuring covenant faithfulness and leading the people of God. That is not the case in the modern world, not even from a Christian viewpoint.
According to Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 13:1-6), these core functions of government to provide justice and to protect against violence have not changed, whether that government is carried out by a king from amidst God’s people or a government established not on covenantal principles, but by the custom or law of the people, even when it is guaranteed by such an exploitative empire as the Roman Empire.
It is still God who establishes that authority, who has brought down rulers from their thrones and has lifted up the humble. God is at work in establishing rulers, even when those rulers have corrupted their duty, even when they abuse the role they have been called to. There is no perfect government, none that administers justice fully, none that brings peace as it should.
And yet, we need to remember that the role of government still is to ensure justice, and to protect people from violence. It is there to hinder evil and to bring external peace to the inhabitants. And for that the government can threaten violence – carries the sword. In other words, punishment such as imprisonment and restraint and even in extreme cases immobilization and injury are justified if they are done by the state in order to keep the peace. Of course, Paul implies that such state violence should be proportionate and related to the threat. That is clearly the case in Old Testament description of royal power and continues to be the case with regard to a Christian position on the role of the state.
I think we sometimes need to remind ourselves that these are some of the primary roles of government. After all, we argue so much about other things that we may forget about some of those core functions and even be grateful for them.
Remembering that justice is one of the key roles of government, Christians should respect it and abide by its laws. This is not only because breaking laws may have severe consequences, but also because our conscience demands it and our obedience to God.
Of course, that is the default position, and in extreme circumstances disobedience to the government may be the more Christian thing to do, not as rebels, but rather as dissenters in specific situations. An example may be a dictatorial government commanding spying on one’s neighbour or compelling actions that indicate that the government is Lord of our lives and not Jesus. Obedience to the law and the government should be the default position, but doing something else after clear reflection and in obedience to God always is part of Christian life.
That respect for the government also involves paying our taxes. Of course, there will always be government expenditure that goes against God’s will; but that does not absolve us from the general rule to pay taxes. And yes, the tax system itself may be grossly unjust. That does not absolve us from paying our taxes. There may be situations in which a Christian should not pay taxes, for example, if the government is disputed or if those taxes would threaten the survival of the family, or if taxes have clearly been demanded by mistake. But not paying tax is an extreme situation and in our current society it normally involves resorting to the relevant dispute resolution bodies first.
Now, all that does not mean that we can’t disagree with government decisions and the direction of government. As Christians we can be politically involved and I think that it even is the role of some Christians to do that. We do need to ensure that in some way the laws that govern our society are closer to God’s commands. And we are called to bring our unique perspective to the governing of the nation. We cannot leave the area to those who do not know God. But this is not the role of all Christians. Those who are called to this role, hopefully will do it in a way that is faithful and discerning. Unfortunately, we all know that too often Christians have not been involved with grace in the political process and have come to grief as they entered the political sphere.
Any engagement in the political sphere requires deep anchoring in prayer and a Christian community, constant reflection and humility, as well as a willingness to both stand apart from the world and at the same time cooperate with others to work for the common good.
A Christian government: Psalm 72
As they should, Christians have long cared for good government. It was probably in the 1990s as the neo-liberal order seemed to have swept away all other schools of government that particularly Christian concerns receded. But in recent years they have exploded again, with some Christians equating their faith with social action of a quite progressive persuasion, while other Christians proclaimed reactive right-wing politics as consistent with the Christian worldview. Both of those directions seem troubling to me and not Biblically or theologically grounded.
But it is not only a general concern with the political support of Christians; it is also my own conversations both in a parish setting and in the family, which has highlighted a disconnect between principles proclaimed in a faith setting and political comments. And so I decided to explore myself what it might mean to have a government informed by Christian principles. Initially I want to consider just a few Biblical passages without going into much commentary, church history or other proposals. I can get to that later on.
The best place to start is probably a quite general description of the role of government. That is probably best expressed in Psalm 72:
1 Give the king Your judgments, O God,
And Your righteousness to the king’s Son.
2 He will judge Your people with righteousness,
And Your poor with justice.
3 The mountains will bring peace to the people,
And the little hills, by righteousness.
4 He will bring justice to the poor of the people;
He will save the children of the needy,
And will break in pieces the oppressor.
5 They shall fear You
As long as the sun and moon endure,
Throughout all generations.
6 He shall come down like rain upon the grass before mowing,
Like showers that water the earth.
7 In His days the righteous shall flourish,
And abundance of peace,
Until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.
9 Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him,
And His enemies will lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles
Will bring presents;
The kings of Sheba and Seba
Will offer gifts.
11 Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him;
All nations shall serve Him.
12 For He will deliver the needy when he cries,
The poor also, and him who has no helper.
13 He will spare the poor and needy,
And will save the souls of the needy.
14 He will redeem their life from oppression and violence;
And precious shall be their blood in His sight.
15 And He shall live;
And the gold of Sheba will be given to Him;
Prayer also will be made for Him continually,
And daily He shall be praised.
16 There will be an abundance of grain in the earth,
On the top of the mountains;
Its fruit shall wave like Lebanon;
And those of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth.
17 His name shall endure forever;
His name shall continue as long as the sun.
And men shall be blessed in Him;
All nations shall call Him blessed.
18 Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,
Who only does wondrous things!
19 And blessed be His glorious name forever!
And let the whole earth be filled with His glory.
Amen and Amen.
I think that we can summarise that in a few points:
1. The government should ensure justice—in particular, legal justice. Courts need to be accessible, impartial and the law clear and understandable, based on justice. That means that rich and poor have equal access to justice and the rich and influential cannot pervert the course of justice.
In modern terms a government needs to ensure the independence of the judiciary with strict ethical rules. The court system needs to be adequately resourced, and an appeals process should be available on clearly defined questions. Legal aid should be available. That applies to criminal as well as civil law, as well as to administrative review and most importantly also to resource management law, so that the law cannot be weaponised by the wealthy and influential.
2. The government should ensure “social” justice—in particular govern in a way that the rich cannot exploit the poor or use wealth to buy political influence. I realise that the term has been somewhat overused and has been applied to playing different groups off against each other.
Maybe it could also be called “redistributive” justice, so that wealth does not become a weapon.
In modern terms a government needs to control political donations, restrict lobbying and limit electoral finance so that influence cannot be bought. It also means that tax is actively used to redistribute wealth, so that the wealth gap does not grow too large and the rich oppress the poor.
A government should develop economic policy that does not support wealth acquisition, particularly not the extracting of rent, but rather should encourage the productive sector.
3. The government should put justice before profit—prosperity comes through justice. Economic development is secondary to justice. Only if society is as just as possible can it flourish and also enjoy a measure of economic success.
4. The government needs to ensure good international relations—peace, trade, goodwill between nations. This includes working for the country to have a good name and ensure that trade increases the welfare of all (or at least the majority). It also should work for peace and security. Importantly, a government should not only consider the national interest in international relations, but rather the welfare of all nations, so that it is a blessing to others.
That is the government that is seen as blessed by God. I think this is a good starting point for a Biblical reflection on a Christian government.
Abolishing the military
Recently I read the book “Abolishing the military” by Griffin Manawaroa and others, which argues that New Zealand should cease to have armed forces. The book outlines how New Zealand can be quite effective in the world without armed forces. Yes, some of the functions, such as search and rescue assistance, natural disaster relief and fisheries patrol would have to continue, but for a fraction of the military budget these services could be extremely well financed.
While the authors make the point that normally military operations do not fulfil their objectives and are as such questionable ways of resolving conflicts and protecting national interests, the main argument is that certainly the military is not required in a small nation like New Zealand. It would be a far better international citizen if it did not have to maintain a military and would be recognised around the world as an independent peace-maker.
The authors acknowledge that having a military changes a nation’s perception of itself. In order to use military force, a society has to build weapons, train people to kill, develop ethical rules which sanction killing, maintain categories of friends and enemies and those who can be killed without compunction, and provide cultural practices which provide meaning to those who lose their lives in war.
Despite that, the authors make it clear that their criticism is not targeted at individual members of the New Zealand Defence Force. They say that the New Zealand Defence Force is staffed by many fine people who, like all of us, hope that their work will support their family and make positive contributions to our communities.
But in my experience that is exactly the issue. Let me explain. When I went into church ministry, I thought hard about where I would draw lines in some of my duties. For example, I decided not to baptise children just because their parents want to send them to Anglican schools. I would not conduct marriage ceremonies that clearly are against the Christian understanding of marriage. But I resolved that I could lead the funeral or internment of anyone, as long as the funeral service follows the prescribed form or only deviates from it in a clearly Christian way. I could commend anyone to God’s judgment and mercy, to God’s forgiveness and love. That’s essentially what ministers are doing at a funeral service.
And so I have also held funerals and internments of soldiers. A few months ago I held a somewhat elaborate internment of a soldier. As I listened to the speakers I realised that the army is a world in itself, a world that has its own language and its own meaning. For many of these people the army is everything. It is their life. At times this runs through the generations. They derive purpose and meaning from the army. And so they are utterly convinced that the army is good and necessary. They see threats everywhere that can only be countered by military force. The more prominence the army is given in a society, the more it is seen as necessary. It is self-evidently good to those people. Having a large well-funded army invariably leads to people that advocate responding to crises by military force.
Yes, there are many others outside the army who are convinced of the necessity of military forces, but to a certain extent it is the people who are in the army, who are conditioned to see their work as necessary. They do influence society as a whole by this. And so to a certain extent these members of the defence force, decent they may be, contribute to a world in which the use of military force is expected.
A new ferry
This last weekend we did a short family trip to Diamond Harbour, Canterbury. As expected, we got to ride on the brand new ferry operating across Lyttelton Harbour. The Black Pearl was built locally by Icon Custom Boats in Rangiora and entered service in September 2024. It seems there was a community event on 1 September at the Diamond Harbour Wharf to welcome the new vessel; on 13 September there was another launch event with officials.
The ferry does look smart and it is really nice and comfortable inside. With large panorama windows, it feels spacious and welcoming. On the outside deck there is a bike rack. However, otherwise the outside aft deck is not really designed for passengers, who are probably more expected to stay inside. The seats are more comfortable than those on the old ferry, the inside is heated and the ride is smoother and quieter. Nevertheless, when sitting alongside the wharf the motor vibrations are also quite noticeable on the Black Pearl.
The Black Pearl is 16.0 m long, 5.45 m wide and has a draft of 1.3 m. It has a capacity for 95 passengers, 53 of those seated. The vessel previously used on the run, the Black Diamond, is 12.0 m long, 4.0 m wide and has a draft of 0.6 m. It has a capacity for 45 passengers. The Black Diamond was launched in 2001. The arrival of the new ferry significantly increases the space available for passengers. This was increasingly becoming a problem, particularly on fine weekend days, when the Black Diamond often could not cope with the many people wanting to go across the harbour. It is after all one of the more affordable recreational activities around Christchurch and that with a regular service. Hopefully, in the near future not quite as many passengers will have to be left behind waiting for the next crossing.
The Black Diamond will remain in Lyttelton for the time being as a back-up vessel. It’s great to get a new ferry for this service. A bigger ship was clearly needed. The Black Diamond was also looking increasingly tired, so a thorough refurbishment or a new ship had to be considered. Welcome, Black Pearl!
I want to consider three aspects raised by this new vessel:
1. Diesel propulsion. Other regional councils, in particular Wellington and Auckland are investing in new electric ferries for their network. Environment Canterbury must have considered an electric ferry as well. I can recall several statements to that effect. However, in the end a diesel ferry was built. This probably came down to the cost of buying an electric ferry. It would be great to see the decision-making matrix on ordering a diesel ferry. It may well be that in 15 years time the ferry will be the last diesel public transport service in Canterbury.
2. Lack of publicity. I am fairly interested in public transport, but I only knew from the Diamond Harbour Ferry facebook page that a new ferry was on the way and then that there would be a welcome in September 2024. Press releases were finally issued on 13 September 2024 and I have not yet seen anything in the newspapers. The Diamond Harbour Ferry is probably the most interesting part of Christchurch public transport. The lack of public exposure of such a new ferry is quite noticeable. That is in stark contrast to countries where public transport is more part of daily life. In Switzerland the arrival of a new vessel or public transport vehicle would have made considerably more waves! The community would have been involved from the design, kept informed on construction progress and the launch would have been widely reported in newspapers. This is even more so the case for ships, which for some reason seem to have more of a personality, so to say.
Part of that may be because overall in New Zealand there is not that fascination with public transport. Most regard it as just a way of reducing congestion in cities, getting commuters to work, or moving the few people who cannot use a car to their appointments. Mobility and access are the main reasons for public transport, but for many people transport also has an emotional aspect. We all know the fascination boyracers and many other car owners have with their cars. They put their life and soul in it. It is their bright, shining possession. At times that can get obsessive and unhelpful. But for most people cars are not only machines, but something that shapes our experiences.
Something similar can also happen with public transport vehicles. Often people have some emotional attachment to them and are fascinated by them. It’s different to car ownership. I often compare car ownership with having a pet and fascination with public transport vehicles to observing wild animals. Emotional appeal can affect transport systems significantly.
When I worked at the Swiss Federal Office for Transport, some of my colleagues thought that in part the Swiss public transport system was not only so good because public transport is an efficient way to move people and facilitates better spaces and ways of life, but rather because so many Swiss like trains. It is because the Swiss are ferrophil (iron-loving) that they have such a great railway and public transport system. This interest with transport technology also extended to other things, such as ships, funiculars, cable cars, trams and even buses. That’s why the arrival of new vehicles as well as the preservation of old ones is such an emotional issue in Switzerland. Maybe the emergence of dedicated bus commuter communities in Auckland and Wellington are a sign that something like this is happening in New Zealand, too. Transport cannot be divorced from emotion. Those wanting to provide better services need to keep that in mind. The arrival of a new ferry should create a splash!
3. Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō ferries. Is there a possibility of using ferries more widely on Lyttelton Harbour to access other communities such as Rapaki, Governors Bay, Charteris Bay, Church Bay and Purau? This could take traffic off the road around the harbour and provide more recreation opportunities.
Readers’ Digest Version: There’s a new ferry on Lyttelton Harbour. Not many people were as excited as I was about it.
Avoiding reality
The other day I was taking the bus to the Port Hills as I often do. On the way I usually read a book and enjoy the trip. But this time it was not possible. There were too many distractions. A young woman loudly discussed her circle of friends on her phone, analysing the tensions between the friends. Soon after she left, a father boarded the bus with his teenage daughter. Hardly were they seated when he received a phone call from the daughter’s social worker. It seemed that he was a solo father with a rebellious teenage daughter. The daughter continually tried to insert herself in the conversation between the father and the social worker.
After that phone call ended, the daughter tried every way possible to denigrate her father publicly. Clearly the behaviour of the girl was very difficult. The father did not seem to come from an educated background, and he definitely had no way of getting through to that girl. I felt sorry for the social worker who has to deal with such cases. With such drama playing out on the bus I had no opportunity to concentrate on my book and the bus ride was not as pleasant as I expected it. But then I thought that this is reality for a lot of families in our country. This is how many people live. And maybe it was good to have that insight.
At that point I wondered whether these unpleasant, but real happenings were the reasons why politicians did not like to go by public bus. I remembered how the Wellington Regional Council had given bus cards to new government ministers last year, so that they could travel between the airport and the parliamentary precinct by public bus. When asked whether he or his ministers would go on the bus, the new prime minister scoffed at the idea. They were a new government getting on with things; travelling on public buses would only distract from that. I wondered whether ministers did not want to travel on public buses exactly because they did not want to witness such scenes as I had seen.
Of course, in many Scandinavian and some central European countries government ministers regularly travel on public transport. Doing that they may also be exposed to social realities. However, here in New Zealand, buses are considered “loser cruisers” and successful people often do not want to associate with those who have not made it.
Some people have suggested that politicians should get appropriately qualified by spending a year on an unemployment benefit and living in rented accommodation. That would allow them to experience the real world of many people. Maybe one small step to getting politicians to experience the reality of life would be by occasionally rubbing shoulders with a variety of people outside of a controlled environment, for example by going by bus.
Readers’ Digest Version: You meet all sort of people on a bus. Politicians are afraid of that and therefore tend to avoid public transport. Many are also very status-conscious and therefore don’t go on buses.
Walking tracks in New Zealand
Just yesterday I walked up Mt Oxford, a relatively low mountain (1364m altitude) in the Canterbury Foothills of New Zealand. It’s not that far from the biggest city in the South Island – Christchurch. In one of the valleys on the slopes of Mt Oxford are the Ryde Falls, a waterfall that impressively rushes down the bush-clad mountain in three leaps. It is particularly this track to the Ryde Falls that is very popular and at times has a lot of walkers on it.
But the track to Mt Oxford is also reasonably popular. As I was walking yesterday I noticed the muddy track in places. Of course, tracks can sometimes get muddy, but here in the Oxford Forest, far too many boots seem to thrash the track, so that if there is some moisture on the track, it soon turns to mud. In a place that has so many walkers, one might expect that some work could be done in the muddiest places, but little money is expended on the track. For the Department of Conservation it is not a priority.
Today, bookings opened for the Great Walks of New Zealand, special walks on well-maintained tracks with nice huts in spectacular scenery. So many locals were trying to book a space for the forthcoming season that the system could not cope and most were left disappointed because they could not book for their preferred time. Overseas tourists had even less of a chance to independently make a booking. That is not good. Because the Great Walks were initially envisaged as a way to direct tourists to certain places so that they wouldn’t flood some of the favourite wild places. Now, they will have to, which will put pressure on many huts and tracks that would not have had such crowds on them.
I have frequently experienced the greater demand for the outdoors personally. Many more huts now have to be booked, and many more of them are now fully booked out on any weekends or holidays. It is very hard to find places to go to that would be appropriate for children. As a family of five, we now often have to go to small six-bed huts, risking that they might be full. So far we’ve been relatively lucky, but how much longer?
I think that there is a pattern here. Visitors and locals alike are putting increased demand on the wild places of New Zealand and the walking infrastructure in New Zealand, especially in places that are spectacular and easy to reach. Currently, there are not enough good tracks and huts to cope with visitor numbers. In addition to that, the budget for the Department of Conservation may be cut, at least not increased. From a tourism perspective that will be detrimental for New Zealand. It also is a shame for the many people who live here, many in part because they love the great outdoors.
It’s not that there aren’t enough wild places in New Zealand – there clearly are many spectacular places. And the many huts and tracks around the mountains are a great asset. But they have not kept up with the demand. I think it is time to put in more tracks and huts, particularly in spectacular places that are easily accessible. And many of the tracks have to be better maintained. That requires some investment. But that investment would be worth it. It would continue New Zealand’s reputation as a great place to visit. People would want to live here. And it would do a lot for improving the mental and physical health of the population. It’s strange that so much money is poured into the health system at the bottom of the cliff, instead of encouraging people to get into nature to do some of the healing at the top of the cliff.
Readers’ Digest Version: The mountains regenerate body and soul. But there are not sufficient easily accessible huts and tracks for the many who seek that recreation.
Public transport in affluent areas
Today, I was riding the bus with my older son to get to the Port Hills. On the return journey my son noted in the early part of the trip: “We are the only passengers on the bus. Why is that?” It was true. And it doesn’t happen too often when we normally catch the bus. I suggested that we were in an area, where more wealthy people lived. We considered that the bus at the moment is normally cheaper than going by car – at least in Christchurch. That meant that rich people were not so much encouraged to use the bus for cost reasons, as other people. Still, why did they not want to save a bit of money? So we wondered why rich people might not want to catch the bus.
We came up with three main reasons:
1. Going by car makes them feel more important. In other words, cars are a status symbol, or even more drastically, going by bus is seen as a lower status – there’s a reason why the bus in New Zealand is called the loser cruiser.
2. They don’t want to be around weird and poor people. Being in a bus can sometimes be uncomfortable. It is a place where you encounter all sort of strange behaviour.
3. Cars are faster. It’s often quicker to go somewhere by car than by bus, particularly in a place like New Zealand where public transport is not given a lot of priority.
There you have it – the societal factors of public transport resistance analysed. One solution for the first and third point may be greater emphasis on rail. Rail transport is generally seen as higher status societally, and since it is often separate from road infrastructure can often be speedier. After all, trains are normally not stuck in traffic.
The silent moon is risen
Strong winds buffet the tussock landscape, roaring across saddles, down river valleys and over barren peaks. Clouds race across the sky, at times compressing into formations, at times ripped apart into ephemeral patches. The last rays of the sun colour them in a pinkish red, as dusk falls on the Southern Alps. In the valleys the sheep huddle together on such a cold night. Beside a swift river a hut stands among the prickly bushes. It has stood the storms of time. Once a musterer’s hut from which sheep were herded together, it now is part of New Zealand’s conservation estate. Here trampers seek refuge after walking hours from the road. Hunters make it a base on their search for prey. Mountain riders bring their horses to this relatively easy country. The wind shakes the hut and as night falls the flickering glimmer of candles shines weakly through the windows. The Southern Alps stand in darkness, the stars only twinkling dimly beyond the clouds. But then a light creeps across these mountains of the South Pacific. The moon rises above the peaks and bathes the valleys and slopes, the rivers and wetlands in an uneven glow.
Even though the wind sends shivers through the hut, a family is sheltered inside. They listen to the wind. Together parents and children sit together on one of the bunks, the shadowy flames of the candles providing little light. Even though drafts occasionally make it through the thin walls, they know that here in this hut they are safe, that they are protected from the weather. And as they notice the moonlight outside, they begin a hymn – “Der Mond ist aufgegangen” – “The moon is risen” they sing in German, a hymn that has been sung in Germany for centuries.
The poem was written by Matthias Claudius, a poet and author, from Lübeck, Northern Germany. He maintained correspondence with several leading figures of German literature and philosophy – including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. But in comparison to those figures he actually did not write as much and certainly did not travel as much. Rather, he worked for a bank in Hamburg, wrote when he had time and inspiration, and looked after his large family. For Matthias Claudius family life and faith were more important than worldly success. He enjoyed time with his family in a small town just outside of Hamburg – Wandsbek. There he also published a magazine for a time – the Wandsbeker Bote. He was critical towards those new enlightenment ideas and trends that tended to destroy family life and a life of prayer.
His poems of simple, yet profound faith resonated across the centuries. Without doubt, his evening hymn is the most famous. And yet in it, he was able to most clearly portray human frailty and to cast doubt on the apparent advances of humanity:
We, poor, frail mortals, groping,
Half fearing and half hoping,
In darkness seek our way;
Our airy cobwebs spinning
With erring and with sinning,
Far from the mark we stray.
Matthias Claudius would never have thought that this hymn would one night be sung far away in a lonely hut in the mountains of New Zealand, that here in a country in which German is not heard that often that hymn is a link through generations to the meadows on the other side of the world out of which the white mists rise. It is even a link across generations that hardly speak any German. But this hymn they know, and as the moon rises in the South Pacific, whether over a busy city or the vast mountain expanse, it is sung. Hopefully they also take to heart some of the strange words that speak of a childlike trust in God, rather than trusting in the fleeting things of this world.
Reader’s Digest Version:
The silent moon is risen,
The golden star-fires glisten
In heaven serene and bright;
The forest sleeps in shadow,
And slowly off the meadow
A mist is curling, silver-white.
Wildflowers
In recent years the Christchurch City Council has trialled wildflower meadows in some parks. An area of the park is prepared, wildflower seeds are then spread, the area roped off and later left unmown for several months while wildflowers grow. In most areas there’s a sign advising the trial:
I was somewhat surprised by the reference to enhancing biodiversity. Yes, of course, by having wildflowers, we are growing more than the few grasses and standard flower varieties normally found in parks. Wildflowers are also providing a habitat and food for more insects. But currently in New Zealand biodiversity only counts if it is native biodiversity. Other forms of biodiversity are often seen as negative. In a sense, biodiversity is seen very narrowly as what is regarded as good biodiversity and bad biodiversity filtered through ideological lenses. Wildflowers break that notion. After all, none of the wildflowers are native. And many of the insects they provide for are not native either. Why then is this acceptable biodiversity? Is it because wildflowers are beautiful? Is it because many of the insects, such as bees, are beneficial? Or is this an imported value system? After all, in other countries, such as the USA, wildflowers are native and planting them in gardens and parks does enhance the native biodiversity. Therefore, this notion of biodiversity may have also jumped continents, so that somehow wildflowers are also considered good in New Zealand. Possibly they are also considered good biodiversity because they break with a dominant gardening tradition imported from England of short-cut lawns and neat flower borders. Is it this challenging of “colonial stereotypes” that makes them acceptable? Possibly. But it must be mentioned that in the early years of the New Zealand colony many gardens had areas of high flowers rather than the neatly trimmed lawns that became so dominant in post-war New Zealand.
I certainly like wildflowers and think that they do enhance biodiversity, apart from being just plain beautiful. But when we consider biodiversity, we have to consider that there are also value judgments and not just scientific enumeration of greater species numbers in a given location.
Readers’ Digest Version: Wildflowers enhance biodiversity and are beautiful. But somehow they break the mold of what is considered acceptable biodiversity.
Latest Posts
-
A Christian government: Jeremiah
The book of the Prophet Jeremiah is also concerned with government, particularly in an uncertain world. While Jeremiah spoke into the specific situation of the…
-
A Christian government: Judges and Romans
Towards the end of the Book of Judges there’s a phrase that occurs four times to put that history into perspective, to prepare readers for…
-
A Christian government: Psalm 72
As they should, Christians have long cared for good government. It was probably in the 1990s as the neo-liberal order seemed to have swept away…
-
Abolishing the military
Recently I read the book “Abolishing the military” by Griffin Manawaroa and others, which argues that New Zealand should cease to have armed forces. The…
