(This is a talk I gave at a conference last week entitled “Kiwi
Christianity: The People, The Land and the Kingdom of God”. The conference was framed
as “Let’s
together explore our New Zealand heritage, our identity, our future in Christ
and our unique call to God’s Kingdom.” It was primarily concerned
with recovering the story of the gospel in New Zealand, particularly the story
of gospel and missionary witness among Maori, perspectives of local Christian Maori
on the church and mission in our city, stories of churches wrestling with the bicultural journey and the unique
possibilities and challenges in the New Zealand context. Half of the speakers were
Maori. The opening speaker was Keith Newman author and passionate advocate for telling
the story of mission in New Zealand particularly Maori mission to Maori. I was
asked to provide some theological input).
I have been asked to bring some theological reflection on
the issues we are considering today. There
are many theological themes that we could consider – things like land, culture,
justice, and peace. However I want to approach this at a different level. As we
consider issues of Maori culture, New Zealand history, the Treaty of Waitangi, tino
rangatiratanga and biculturalism, this raises the big picture question of what
are we doing theologically when we do this, why do we do this and how should we
think about the overall relationship between the faith of the Bible “once
delivered” and local culture and place?
I want to suggest an image from the Bible that helps portray the theology
behind such an engagement with culture, history and land - the image of the
Dove and the Olive Branch
This is an almost universally recognised image of reconciliation,
restoration, peace, hope and new beginnings. The picture embodies the coming
together of two elements: the dove and the olive branch. Now good theology normally
involves holding in tension two truths. Error normally comes from taking one
part of the truth out of balance.
This image of the dove and the olive branch is a symbol that can illustrate the
coming together of two different elements of a theology of God’s presence in
our world and it is precisely at the point of intersection of these two elements that we find real
power, truth and life.
The image comes from the story of Noah, shown below:
Back to the central image though – how should we think about
these two elements?
Now it is normal to consider the dove as the symbol of the
Holy Spirit but I want to suggest both elements are representative of the work
of God and thus of the Holy Spirit’s work in our world. They represent
different dimensions of the work of God in our world and it is when those two
meet that something special occurs.
You see the budding branch is also a symbol of God’s life
giving Spirit at work.
In the story behind the image of the dove and the olive
branch, this was not a miraculous budding of a cut branch but the budding of new
life out of the soil of that place – but still the lifegiving work of God.
I had always assumed that the dove found some fresh new
shoots coming out of the ground. However I discovered that older Jewish
commentators assumed this was fresh budding from old olive trees that survived
the inundation of the flood. Olive trees are renowned for being ancient, hardy
and resilient. The sign of life was that the ancient tree was budding again.
Below is a picture of a Mediterranean olive tree purported to be 1500 years
old.
So I want to suggest these two elements are two poles of a
theology of God at work in our world. Yes the dove as from above, from the hand of the father. But also the ancient olive tree, battered and bruised,
but earthed in the soil of the land and still standing after all the calamity,
now budding again with new life – that is a great picture of spirituality
emerging from the people of this land and in particular Christian life among Maori.
Now I am not claiming that what I am saying is the intended
message of this passage. I am saying it is a good picture or metaphor that can
communicate simply quite profound theological truths.
I might also dare to hope that the story might be prophetic
about where we find ourselves standing. The story actually has three comings of
the dove:
If we think of these two elements as two dimensions of God
at work in our world, then I want to
suggest the dove has in our recent past found nowhere to land but been left
hovering. I hope the dove might be finding in meetings precisely like this one
signs of the budding of the ancient olive trees of this land. My hope is that
soon the dove might find a resting place in the land as we discover what it
means to live at the intersection of these two ways God is at work in our land.
In terms of theology this is the tension of general revelation
and special revelation. Special revelation is the story of the nation of Israel,
reaching its defining moment in the death and resurrection of Jesus, as
recorded in Scripture – the record of a particular story to a particular people
in a particular place and time. However Scripture also affirms general
revelation: God’s truth revealed to all people at all places in all times. Good
theology should hold these two together.
Evangelical and Charismatics have tended to be strong on
special revelation and have a weak theology of general revelation. This is similar to another tension between
creation and redemption. Again evangelicals and charismatics tend to have a
strong theology of redemption and a weak theology of creation.
It is also the tension between the immanent presence of God
in our world and the transcendent presence of God from above.
There is a parallel in our theology of the person of Jesus.
An orthodox theology holds together claims that Jesus is fully divine and fully
human. Orthodox theology is traditionally preoccupied with defending the fully
divine side of the tension (against for example the Arian heresy). However it
is also possible to be in error on the other side and let go of the full
humanity of Jesus. This heresy is Docetism from the Greek word dokeo, “it seems”, meaning Jesus only
seemed to be human.
This is the Jesus who floated six inches off the earth. In
the language of the dove, and the olive branch, the dove was never allowed to
fully land.
I would suggest that in Evangelical/ Charismatic/Pentecostal
Christianity in New Zealand we have been enraptured with the hovering dove. And
it is beautiful! Who would not desire this?
But we have not let the dove land on the sprouting life of
God within our culture.
I want to give three examples of the dove landing.
The first is Don Richardson. He was a missionary in what is
now called Irian Jaya.
In his early books he records stunning examples of truths he
found within these cultures that provided landing points (analogies and points
of contact) for the story of God’s special revelation in Christ. You see what
may sound radical in a New Zealand context is actually just taken as a given in
cross-cultural mission. It is not radical theology but normal cross-cultural
mission practice. When we were missionaries there was a saying that the
missionary does not take God to the people, but rather God calls the missionary
to the people and God was there first. That’s just good theology holding
together general and special revelation.
Later Don Richardson wrote a more historical and biblical
reflection on the principles behind such encounters, called “Eternity in Their
Hearts”. He gives examples from the history of non-Christian people groups who
had a knowledge of God and of times where missionaries either missed their
opportunity or accelerated their mission by appropriately connecting with
culture e.g. choosing (or not) the right name for God within the culture so
that people said “Oh you have come with a message about this God whom we know
of, rather than being perceived as bringing a message about a foreign God”. He
also illustrates his principles from Scripture.
Don Richardson discusses what he calls the Melchizedek
factor and the Abraham factor.
This comes from the story in Genesis 14 shown below:
Here the person of God Abraham encounters this mysterious figure Melchizedek. Because of how he is dealt with in Hebrews it is often assumed he is some kind of theophany or pre-incarnate Christ. The other option is that he actually is a pagan king and priest. In which case there is a curious encounter where the great father of biblical faith acknowledges this priest and king, receives a blessing from him, gives an offering to him and above all uses the name of God that this pagan uses. I don’t want to explore this today but Richardson contrasts this attitude with Abraham’s response to the other pagan king the king of Sodom – Abraham will have nothing to do with him. These two responses represent two possible stances towards other cultures and actually two streams within Scripture. Evangelicals and Charismatics are so deeply immersed in the second stream, that we are largely blind to this other way of relating to culture, this other stream within Scripture. What is significant is this is more than just adopting cultural forms but actually connecting with the knowledge of God and the work of God found there. The balance is obviously a discerning engagement but unpacking that is probably for another time in New Zealand. The immediate challenge is to acknowledge the alternative Biblical model of a positive engagement with the revelation and presence of God in and through culture– the dove lands on the olive branch of God’s revelation in culture.
Here the person of God Abraham encounters this mysterious figure Melchizedek. Because of how he is dealt with in Hebrews it is often assumed he is some kind of theophany or pre-incarnate Christ. The other option is that he actually is a pagan king and priest. In which case there is a curious encounter where the great father of biblical faith acknowledges this priest and king, receives a blessing from him, gives an offering to him and above all uses the name of God that this pagan uses. I don’t want to explore this today but Richardson contrasts this attitude with Abraham’s response to the other pagan king the king of Sodom – Abraham will have nothing to do with him. These two responses represent two possible stances towards other cultures and actually two streams within Scripture. Evangelicals and Charismatics are so deeply immersed in the second stream, that we are largely blind to this other way of relating to culture, this other stream within Scripture. What is significant is this is more than just adopting cultural forms but actually connecting with the knowledge of God and the work of God found there. The balance is obviously a discerning engagement but unpacking that is probably for another time in New Zealand. The immediate challenge is to acknowledge the alternative Biblical model of a positive engagement with the revelation and presence of God in and through culture– the dove lands on the olive branch of God’s revelation in culture.
This can be illustrated by Moses and his relationship with his
father-in-law, Jethro, a pagan priest. We know the Moses who denounces foreign
religion but we do not know the Moses who will worship with this pagan priest, and
receive his advice:
The climactic and humorous example is of the conversion of
Cornelius. Notice it is the pagan who has the angel appear to him, whose
spirituality is affirmed but who then is told he needs to hear the story of
special revelation from Peter. It is Peter who needs the radical encounter with
God to convert him - to the fact that
God is at work among gentiles. But (and as I have said good theology is about
the tension or balance) the Holy Spirit falling still depends on the witness of
Peter. It is a curious interplay of general and special revelation!
This positive attitude to culture is not just illustrated by
Scripture but deeply engrained in the Judeo-Christian attitude to Scripture as
a whole. You see Jews and Christians have always translated Scripture. This
contrasts with an Islamic theology of revelation where the Qur’an is deeply honoured
as the very words of Allah in Arabic and cannot be translated but only
interpreted in another language. In contrast the Jews translated their Scriptures
from Hebrew to Greek. As soon as you do that you have to use words of that
language and words have a context and a story and a worldview… and according to
Jews and Christians that is ok, it is legitimate; in fact it is necessary. So
YHWH can be announced as theos (just a note Richardson again here notes the
discernment required – Christians felt they could use the concept of theos but
not Zeus). Now what this means is that the gospel is announced as “this theos
you have known of we now tell you of his revelation in Jesus Christ.” There is
contact - the dove and the olive branch
meet, gospel and culture, special revelation and general revelation.
The second brief example is Chuck Smith who died recently but
was involved through Calvary Chapel is a move of God in the Jesus Movement of
the 60s and 70s.
The thing that strikes me is that this was not about the
church trying to be relevant and trendy. Rather this was about a move where
hippies came to Jesus and just as they sat naturally around singing folk songs with
guitars now they naturally sang folk music to Jesus … and so was born
contemporary Christian music.
A move of God happened where culture met gospel,
where the dove was loosed to alight on what sprang up among the people.
The third example is from the life of Jesus. The baptism of
Jesus is surely one of the most perplexing stories of the gospels.
Note the appearance of the dove again, and specifically as
the Holy Spirit. However Jesus had been born of the Spirit so like the dove and
the olive branch both elements represent the work of God and of the Holy Spirit
and it is the intersection that matters.
Matthew in particular brings out the perplexity of the story:
The perplexity is because baptism was about identifying with
sin and repentance. Jesus was precisely the one person who did not need to be
baptised but he choose to. Why?
Much of the art representing Jesus’ baptism focuses on the
private revelation of his identity as below:
I love this contrasting picture that shows Jesus in the
midst of crowds of people:
Because the essence of his baptism was an act of identification
with his people.
The point is that it is precisely at the moment of identification
with his people, their story, their plight, their brokenness, and their hopes, that
the dove comes and Jesus is propelled into a great move of God among his
people. I wonder if today what God is looking for is such an identification, the
trigger for a move of God as not so much a call for the falling of the dove but
a radical act of identification with our people and land.
Epilogue:
I presented this talk twice at the recent conference on
“Kiwi Christianity: the People, the Land and the Kingdom of God” in
Christchurch, hosted by New Wine NZ and North City Church. At the end of my talk
I shared how apprehensive I had been about sharing at this conference precisely
because I felt I was a living parable of what the church was doing wrong! I had
felt deeply connected to land and place in Taranaki where I grew up. I knew the
walkways, beaches, parks and monuments. I knew the local history. As adults, my
wife and I had been missionaries. We had entered into the culture, language and
worldview of Asian urban poor squatters and then of a Muslim people group. We
had learned to express our faith from within their world and thinking and
language. Fifteen years ago we moved to Christchurch and I have often said to
my wife I felt like I hit the ground running and never really connected with
this place – I was like the dove that never landed. I shared this at the end of
my talk. I also shared that as I sat waiting for the second day to begin I was
aware of those around me: Keith Newman, author of “Bible and Treaty” and
“Beyond Betrayal”; Ngaire Button former deputy mayor of Christchurch of Maori
decent; Donald Scott pastor and champion of the journey towards indigineity of
expression; Daryl Gregory our cultural advisor at Laidlaw College. As I sat
there I heard a voice whisper in my spirit “You have come home”. It was very
emotional sharing this. Our Maori cultural advisor, Daryl Gregory was the next
speaker. He spontaneously invited local Maori to gather around me to pray and
welcome me home. It was one of those powerful moments where you say I am not
sure what just happened there but it was really significant. I know it was significant
for me but I think it was also a prophetic act about the dove landing.
Later that day two kaumatua of Southwest Baptist church
shared about the journey of their church developing a kowhaiwhai panel for the
front of their church that represented the story of their church. They spoke of
the powerful service when this was unveiled. The service involved a singing of
the Dave Dobbyn’s song, “Welcome Home” – bridging into a welcome call from a Maori
woman. When they talked about this service they used similar language - of
something powerful happening that was hard to put into words but shown in many
tears and in people saying they had never really felt at home until then.
There seems to be something powerful in tangata whenua
welcoming others home to this place. There is a restlessness in the souls of tangata
whenua and of pakeha that seems to be released when tangata whenua are given
the mana of welcoming visitors to their place and pakeha are given the dignity
of being received - the dove lands not
on the ancient Mediterranean olive tree but on the totara or the kauri of this
land. And maybe it is not the form of a dove that lands but it is a native pigeon
or kereru that lands and - finally - finds
a place to rest.
May God bless you as discover the dove who seeks the budding
olive branch.