"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord ...." Psalm 19.
Click on this link for a slideshow of some of my favourite Hubble photos: http://www.photomax.com/web/mem_album_photo_slide_show.php?TrackId=1440596&RandomId=221267817
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
STATE OF THE NATION
This is an appendix to a report produced for RZIM staff unfamiliar with New Zealand.
New Zealand has a number of unique features in its demographics, culture and sub-cultures, and dominant worldview.
Demographically New Zealand is still dominated by those of European (Anglo Saxon) heritage. Having said that, many identify themselves simply as “New Zealanders” rather than European New Zealanders. There are also a strong and growing Maori. Polynesian, and Asian populations. Maori are, of course, the Tangita te whenua (people of the land). Being Maori is more than having as part of your “blood” some Maori blood it is also the self-identification as Maori (sometimes over and above that of a European blood-line). Usually, there is a sense of belonging to a particular iwi or iwis (tribes).
Changing Demographics in New Zealand
(numbers from 2001 and 2006 census on www.stats.govt.nz)
Also important is that the distribution of ethnicities is not evenly spread throughout the country. Auckland is much more “multi-cultural” than, for example, Dunedin.
From an apologetics point of view the re-emergence of Maori beliefs into the public sphere over the past 20 years and the growth in “Asian” numbers has provided some new challenges.
New Zealand, like most western countries, also has an ageing population.
A significant marker of the change in thinking of the New Zealand population is the rise in numbers of those who signify “No Religion” in the official Census. This number now stands at 1.3 Million out of a population of 4.1 Million (ie 31.1%). The percentages are much higher for the younger age groups.
(numbers from census data on www.stats.govt.nz and also some older reports and census prior to when "no religion" was an official option on the census)
Some other statistics that help paint the picture of New Zealand are:
1. Suicides: 4th highest rate for females in the OECD, 6th highest for Males. The highest rate of teen suicide in the OECD. But, in the 15-24 age group New Zealand has the highest rate of suicides.
2. Teen pregnancies: Third highest rate of Teenage pregnancies in the OECD
3. Abortions: Second highest rate in the OECD
4. Income per capita : 21st in OECD
(This data has been gleaned from reports by Statistic NZ and the OECD health data reports - the latest being 2006)
Dominant Philosophies
Here are a few that come to mind…
Radical Individualism – in particular the relegation of religion to the private sphere.
Aggressive secularisation – a long history of separation of Church and State and of a secular education system. Some recent political debates have resulted in the use of the term “[right wing] fundamentalists” as a derogatory term. Furthermore, it has been used as a label for all who oppose certain proposals (such as the bill to “ban smacking” of children) despite much of the opposition as not coming from Christians at all.
Multi-culturalism and Pluralism - perhaps the worst “insult” for a New Zealander is to be labelled a “racist.” Passive “tolerance” of other cultures and belief systems is considered a “must have” value. More recently, “celebrating diversity” is required (I recently saw in the position description for a research position in the Health Sciences division of a University the following as the first “personal characteristic” that was required “Tolerance – acceptance, indeed celebration of diversity in relation to ethnicity, culture, values, religion and life choices.”). Pluralism has worked to maintain the public-private divide by reinforcing individualism
A Peculiar History
(this is paraphrased from some research I undertook about 10 years ago on the private nature of belief in New Zealand)
New Zealand is not merely a product of a few dominant philosophies, but is a society influenced by a past. New Zealand’s past is dominated by a complex weave of cultures, especially British colonial (Pakeha) and resident Maori cultures. Polynesians and Asian cultures have exerted an influence in recent times.
The Pakeha Influence
New Zealand was one of the last British colonies to be settled. The early settlers were predominantly male, from lower social classes, and, less likely to be church attendees than the British population as a whole. The male domination lasted till after the first world war and contributed to the “Kiwi bloke” ideal – which included the idea that anything that touched the emotions, including religion, was very much kept to oneself. The “Kiwi bloke” ideal is still aspired to by many New Zealand males and the “privatisation” of emotions is still the norm.
Out of necessity there was a tendency for different religious groups to mix much more in New Zealand than they did in Europe. This appears to have led to a more pluralistic Christianity where there was more tolerance of beliefs than in Europe.
As a frontier society it proved difficult to establish churches. Two attempts were made to establish religious settlements, Dunedin (Church of Scotland) and Christchurch (Church of England). Both failed due to small numbers, distances to Britain too far for support, and the need for people of all religious persuasions to work together to make the settlements viable. Also, NZ was predominantly rural and communities widespread. The building of churches and presence of clergy had to wait until farms had been established.
The first political structures established a clear separation between church and state. The very first debate of the NZ House of Representatives concerned the question of whether or not there should be prayers to open parliament. Some members were concerned that this would suggest an established state church. The compromise was that the speaker of the house, not a clergyman, stated the prayer. The House’s first resolution was to “… assert the privilege of a perfect political equality of all religious denominations.” Thus, New Zealand was established as a pluralistic society.
In 1877 a secular clause was put in the Education Act to prevent any one denomination pushing its own barrow in the schools. Later this was interpreted as religious neutrality.
Also in the 1870s the right to object to the question concerning religious profession was introduced into the census.
World War One was particularly harsh on New Zealanders with proportionally more men killed or wounded than any other country (25% of men under 45). In recent years commemoration of the soldiers sacrifice has taken on a strong significance on one day a year (ANZAC day).
Following the baby boom after WW II there has been a significant drop in adherence of Christian denominations. Church attendance rates dropped from about 20% to about 10% during the 1960s and 70s. This drop was mitigated somewhat by a rise in Polynesian immigration from strong Christian island nations. The 1960s and 70s was also one of the most prosperous times for the country.
Maori Influence
Maori had no organised religion, but the whole culture was suffused by wairua (spirits) of the gods.
In the 1830s a large proportion of Maori were converted to Christianity. Later in the century Maori numbers were so small it was thought the race would die out. This did not happen, and there is a renaissance in Maori language and culture today. Many are identifying themselves as Maori (first) irrespective of the percentage of Maori DNA they may have. This renaissance has included a renaissance of some of the Maori beliefs about the wairua.
Contemporary society
New Zealand society is a-religious. There are few public vestiges of Christianity. Those that are there are being pushed out.
Religion is not usually discussed in public unless it is in relation to “intolerance of fundamentalists.” The beliefs of public figures are not relevant as long as they are not “pushing them down my throat.”
Churches are very disunited and have been unable to present a united front on public issues. Recently, they have even marched in opposition to each other.
In the last two decades the numbers of those claiming “No religion” have tripled. This does not automatically translate to a disinterest in things spiritual – to the contrast there is a strong interest in things Eastern and New Age where practices are in the privacy of one’s own home.
Interestingly there is some public debate at the moment about prayers in parliament.
New Zealand has a number of unique features in its demographics, culture and sub-cultures, and dominant worldview.
Demographically New Zealand is still dominated by those of European (Anglo Saxon) heritage. Having said that, many identify themselves simply as “New Zealanders” rather than European New Zealanders. There are also a strong and growing Maori. Polynesian, and Asian populations. Maori are, of course, the Tangita te whenua (people of the land). Being Maori is more than having as part of your “blood” some Maori blood it is also the self-identification as Maori (sometimes over and above that of a European blood-line). Usually, there is a sense of belonging to a particular iwi or iwis (tribes).
Changing Demographics in New Zealand
(numbers from 2001 and 2006 census on www.stats.govt.nz)Also important is that the distribution of ethnicities is not evenly spread throughout the country. Auckland is much more “multi-cultural” than, for example, Dunedin.
From an apologetics point of view the re-emergence of Maori beliefs into the public sphere over the past 20 years and the growth in “Asian” numbers has provided some new challenges.
New Zealand, like most western countries, also has an ageing population.
A significant marker of the change in thinking of the New Zealand population is the rise in numbers of those who signify “No Religion” in the official Census. This number now stands at 1.3 Million out of a population of 4.1 Million (ie 31.1%). The percentages are much higher for the younger age groups.
(numbers from census data on www.stats.govt.nz and also some older reports and census prior to when "no religion" was an official option on the census)Some other statistics that help paint the picture of New Zealand are:
1. Suicides: 4th highest rate for females in the OECD, 6th highest for Males. The highest rate of teen suicide in the OECD. But, in the 15-24 age group New Zealand has the highest rate of suicides.
2. Teen pregnancies: Third highest rate of Teenage pregnancies in the OECD
3. Abortions: Second highest rate in the OECD
4. Income per capita : 21st in OECD
(This data has been gleaned from reports by Statistic NZ and the OECD health data reports - the latest being 2006)
Dominant Philosophies
Here are a few that come to mind…
Radical Individualism – in particular the relegation of religion to the private sphere.
Aggressive secularisation – a long history of separation of Church and State and of a secular education system. Some recent political debates have resulted in the use of the term “[right wing] fundamentalists” as a derogatory term. Furthermore, it has been used as a label for all who oppose certain proposals (such as the bill to “ban smacking” of children) despite much of the opposition as not coming from Christians at all.
Multi-culturalism and Pluralism - perhaps the worst “insult” for a New Zealander is to be labelled a “racist.” Passive “tolerance” of other cultures and belief systems is considered a “must have” value. More recently, “celebrating diversity” is required (I recently saw in the position description for a research position in the Health Sciences division of a University the following as the first “personal characteristic” that was required “Tolerance – acceptance, indeed celebration of diversity in relation to ethnicity, culture, values, religion and life choices.”). Pluralism has worked to maintain the public-private divide by reinforcing individualism
A Peculiar History
(this is paraphrased from some research I undertook about 10 years ago on the private nature of belief in New Zealand)
New Zealand is not merely a product of a few dominant philosophies, but is a society influenced by a past. New Zealand’s past is dominated by a complex weave of cultures, especially British colonial (Pakeha) and resident Maori cultures. Polynesians and Asian cultures have exerted an influence in recent times.
The Pakeha Influence
New Zealand was one of the last British colonies to be settled. The early settlers were predominantly male, from lower social classes, and, less likely to be church attendees than the British population as a whole. The male domination lasted till after the first world war and contributed to the “Kiwi bloke” ideal – which included the idea that anything that touched the emotions, including religion, was very much kept to oneself. The “Kiwi bloke” ideal is still aspired to by many New Zealand males and the “privatisation” of emotions is still the norm.
Out of necessity there was a tendency for different religious groups to mix much more in New Zealand than they did in Europe. This appears to have led to a more pluralistic Christianity where there was more tolerance of beliefs than in Europe.
As a frontier society it proved difficult to establish churches. Two attempts were made to establish religious settlements, Dunedin (Church of Scotland) and Christchurch (Church of England). Both failed due to small numbers, distances to Britain too far for support, and the need for people of all religious persuasions to work together to make the settlements viable. Also, NZ was predominantly rural and communities widespread. The building of churches and presence of clergy had to wait until farms had been established.
The first political structures established a clear separation between church and state. The very first debate of the NZ House of Representatives concerned the question of whether or not there should be prayers to open parliament. Some members were concerned that this would suggest an established state church. The compromise was that the speaker of the house, not a clergyman, stated the prayer. The House’s first resolution was to “… assert the privilege of a perfect political equality of all religious denominations.” Thus, New Zealand was established as a pluralistic society.
In 1877 a secular clause was put in the Education Act to prevent any one denomination pushing its own barrow in the schools. Later this was interpreted as religious neutrality.
Also in the 1870s the right to object to the question concerning religious profession was introduced into the census.
World War One was particularly harsh on New Zealanders with proportionally more men killed or wounded than any other country (25% of men under 45). In recent years commemoration of the soldiers sacrifice has taken on a strong significance on one day a year (ANZAC day).
Following the baby boom after WW II there has been a significant drop in adherence of Christian denominations. Church attendance rates dropped from about 20% to about 10% during the 1960s and 70s. This drop was mitigated somewhat by a rise in Polynesian immigration from strong Christian island nations. The 1960s and 70s was also one of the most prosperous times for the country.
Maori Influence
Maori had no organised religion, but the whole culture was suffused by wairua (spirits) of the gods.
In the 1830s a large proportion of Maori were converted to Christianity. Later in the century Maori numbers were so small it was thought the race would die out. This did not happen, and there is a renaissance in Maori language and culture today. Many are identifying themselves as Maori (first) irrespective of the percentage of Maori DNA they may have. This renaissance has included a renaissance of some of the Maori beliefs about the wairua.
Contemporary society
New Zealand society is a-religious. There are few public vestiges of Christianity. Those that are there are being pushed out.
Religion is not usually discussed in public unless it is in relation to “intolerance of fundamentalists.” The beliefs of public figures are not relevant as long as they are not “pushing them down my throat.”
Churches are very disunited and have been unable to present a united front on public issues. Recently, they have even marched in opposition to each other.
In the last two decades the numbers of those claiming “No religion” have tripled. This does not automatically translate to a disinterest in things spiritual – to the contrast there is a strong interest in things Eastern and New Age where practices are in the privacy of one’s own home.
Interestingly there is some public debate at the moment about prayers in parliament.
Monday, June 25, 2007
How should Christians vote? 4. Ten Commandments
1. Thou shalt not vote out of greed
2. Thou shalt not vote out of fear
3. Thou shalt not vote out of laziness and indifference and merely copy thy friends
4. Thou shalt not vote out of spite so as to negate someone else's vote
5. Thou shalt not vote trivially according to thy favourite colour or the looks of a politician
6. Thou shalt not vote merely to be on the "winning" side
7. Thou shalt not dishonour God by seeking a miracle to show you which way to vote at the last minute. Thou shalt use the mind God created thou with.
8. Thou shalt vote for men and women of integrity who are prepared to take the road of a servant
9. Thou shalt prepare to vote by reading policies, speaking to politicians, and understanding the system and the possible outcomes of an election
10. Thou shalt vote for justice
2. Thou shalt not vote out of fear
3. Thou shalt not vote out of laziness and indifference and merely copy thy friends
4. Thou shalt not vote out of spite so as to negate someone else's vote
5. Thou shalt not vote trivially according to thy favourite colour or the looks of a politician
6. Thou shalt not vote merely to be on the "winning" side
7. Thou shalt not dishonour God by seeking a miracle to show you which way to vote at the last minute. Thou shalt use the mind God created thou with.
8. Thou shalt vote for men and women of integrity who are prepared to take the road of a servant
9. Thou shalt prepare to vote by reading policies, speaking to politicians, and understanding the system and the possible outcomes of an election
10. Thou shalt vote for justice
Friday, June 22, 2007
Where is the anger?
I've just read Numbers 31. God asked the Israelites to avenge him against a tribe that had led Israelites away from God. Moses's ordered a battle and there was a lot of brutal blood letting. Frankly, I don't know how much of how Moses acted God was pleased with and how much, if any, he thought "over kill" (literally!). What I do know, is that the Israelites had been led from God by others and God, and Moses, were angry.
The question I think we should all ask our selves is "When did I last get angry because God's holiness was afronted?"
If the answer is "never" or "a long time ago" then we need to take a long look at ourselves. We also need to be aware if we get angry only when we feel personally affronted or when we feel it is the "right thing to do" because everyone else is doing it (eg the anger at Meridian energy following the death of the woman who had her power cut off - That anger was only on the "possibility" that there was a causual link between the cutting of the power and the woman's death. It seemed to sweep the world of talk show and politics, without waiting for the facts to come in).
So.. how do we get a sense of God's holiness and his right to expect it to be defended?
When we feel that anger, the next question is how do we control it and express it to bring about changes in attitude and action?
The question I think we should all ask our selves is "When did I last get angry because God's holiness was afronted?"
If the answer is "never" or "a long time ago" then we need to take a long look at ourselves. We also need to be aware if we get angry only when we feel personally affronted or when we feel it is the "right thing to do" because everyone else is doing it (eg the anger at Meridian energy following the death of the woman who had her power cut off - That anger was only on the "possibility" that there was a causual link between the cutting of the power and the woman's death. It seemed to sweep the world of talk show and politics, without waiting for the facts to come in).
So.. how do we get a sense of God's holiness and his right to expect it to be defended?
When we feel that anger, the next question is how do we control it and express it to bring about changes in attitude and action?
Monday, June 18, 2007
How should Christians vote? 3. Not morally
There appears to me to be a hard core of Christians who vote in the hope of "Trickle down morality" from Politicians. Sorry, but not matter how you vote at the polls it will not usher in the Kingdom of heaven.
Yes, we should demand of our politicians, along with all leaders, a high moral standard. We should also try and be aware of their likely stand on certain issues.
However, it is abhorrent to me that Christians think that politicians should do the role of the church and be a defender of Christian values. Morals must "bubble up" from the lives of individual Christians attuned to the mind that sets the standard for all morals to be measured against.
Instead of focusing on one or two moral issues these Christians should look at the larger picture and consider if politicians and their parties are pursuing justice in all issues.
Yes, we should demand of our politicians, along with all leaders, a high moral standard. We should also try and be aware of their likely stand on certain issues.
However, it is abhorrent to me that Christians think that politicians should do the role of the church and be a defender of Christian values. Morals must "bubble up" from the lives of individual Christians attuned to the mind that sets the standard for all morals to be measured against.
Instead of focusing on one or two moral issues these Christians should look at the larger picture and consider if politicians and their parties are pursuing justice in all issues.
DotCom 11: Passion, prayer, power in Habakkuk
He sat down, checked BBCnews and CNN - a story about a little girl kidnapped and murdered was the last straw. He let rip - "God - why do you allow this violence. how can you tolerate it any longer, you let the wicked get away with murder!!!!"
At least, that is how I imagine it would be for Habakkuk if he was around today. Read the first 4 verses of chapter 1 and you'll see what I mean.
God's response to Habakkuk's, and potentially our, cry for justice and an end to all that is wrong with the world (and church, and family, and ....) is both frustrating and puzzling. He says that things are going to get worse and I'm the cause of it .... "I'm raising up the Babylonians" (the "social engineers", the "church Liberals", the "drug dealers" who will corrupt your son....).
Frankly, I find this one of the most confusing and frustrating passages of the Bible. I fully understand Habakkuk's response (1:12-2:1) when he says, effectively, "Whoa there God - I can't accept this lying down - I thought you were good and perfect and almighty and just and ....." and "I'm so confident that you are those things I'm going to watch carefully for what you are going to do...."
God's response is very gracious - he gives Habakkuk a revelation - one to write down for all of us. He let's Habakkuk in on his own anguish at the awful sins of the people - their greed, arrogance, infidelity, idol worship etc. He also assures Habakkuk of his own triumph and the sure knowledge that the early will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (2:14). This is awe inspiring for Habakkuk and he then turns to God in fear and trembling, yet with faith acknowledging God's power, and right to act as he so chooses and his position to wait and watch (chapter 3, especially 3:16-19
SOME LESSONS FOR ME
1. We should be indignant at all the evil and injustice in the world. My prayer is that I am never so insensitive to suffering and injustice that I can just watch the news and not be moved by it.
2. We should take this to God and plead for changes. These may be pleas for changes in the world, our city, our church, our family, ourselves. God won't turn around and tell us off for our passionate pursuit of justice - even if we accuse him of doing nothing (for it sure feels that way at times!). Honesty is the best policy!
3. God's answer may be unexpected (I don't like this one, but that's what's in the text!).
4. God makes use of all things - even evil people for his own ends. God is in control is what I can take from this - even when I don't see how.
5. When I don't see how things can get better, or how God is acting I need to focus on God's character - on the things I know about God for certain - his faithfulness, love, mercy, justice, power.
6. I do need to be patient and watch. I think this involves both the "leaving things in God's hands" and the being pro-active in watching for what he will do. I don't believe this is a resignation of defeat or a fatalism ... going to the watch tower and watching and waiting for God's response is a positive hopeful, expectant, action.
7. I must acknowledge God's sovereignty and praise him for who he is, even if I find it scary. I think this is recognising that God has a plan that is bigger - much bigger - than me or indeed anything I can conceive. That he bothers to consider me and my moaning and groaning is a sign of his mercy and his power. However, I need acknowledge his overall wisdom and his right to rule history (mine, the church's, the nation's, the world's)
At least, that is how I imagine it would be for Habakkuk if he was around today. Read the first 4 verses of chapter 1 and you'll see what I mean.
God's response to Habakkuk's, and potentially our, cry for justice and an end to all that is wrong with the world (and church, and family, and ....) is both frustrating and puzzling. He says that things are going to get worse and I'm the cause of it .... "I'm raising up the Babylonians" (the "social engineers", the "church Liberals", the "drug dealers" who will corrupt your son....).
Frankly, I find this one of the most confusing and frustrating passages of the Bible. I fully understand Habakkuk's response (1:12-2:1) when he says, effectively, "Whoa there God - I can't accept this lying down - I thought you were good and perfect and almighty and just and ....." and "I'm so confident that you are those things I'm going to watch carefully for what you are going to do...."
God's response is very gracious - he gives Habakkuk a revelation - one to write down for all of us. He let's Habakkuk in on his own anguish at the awful sins of the people - their greed, arrogance, infidelity, idol worship etc. He also assures Habakkuk of his own triumph and the sure knowledge that the early will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (2:14). This is awe inspiring for Habakkuk and he then turns to God in fear and trembling, yet with faith acknowledging God's power, and right to act as he so chooses and his position to wait and watch (chapter 3, especially 3:16-19
SOME LESSONS FOR ME
1. We should be indignant at all the evil and injustice in the world. My prayer is that I am never so insensitive to suffering and injustice that I can just watch the news and not be moved by it.
2. We should take this to God and plead for changes. These may be pleas for changes in the world, our city, our church, our family, ourselves. God won't turn around and tell us off for our passionate pursuit of justice - even if we accuse him of doing nothing (for it sure feels that way at times!). Honesty is the best policy!
3. God's answer may be unexpected (I don't like this one, but that's what's in the text!).
4. God makes use of all things - even evil people for his own ends. God is in control is what I can take from this - even when I don't see how.
5. When I don't see how things can get better, or how God is acting I need to focus on God's character - on the things I know about God for certain - his faithfulness, love, mercy, justice, power.
6. I do need to be patient and watch. I think this involves both the "leaving things in God's hands" and the being pro-active in watching for what he will do. I don't believe this is a resignation of defeat or a fatalism ... going to the watch tower and watching and waiting for God's response is a positive hopeful, expectant, action.
7. I must acknowledge God's sovereignty and praise him for who he is, even if I find it scary. I think this is recognising that God has a plan that is bigger - much bigger - than me or indeed anything I can conceive. That he bothers to consider me and my moaning and groaning is a sign of his mercy and his power. However, I need acknowledge his overall wisdom and his right to rule history (mine, the church's, the nation's, the world's)
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Pagan spirituality preached in parliament
An interesting press release by Tariana Turia seeks to explain their view of abortion in terms of certain Maori spirituality. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0706/S00274.htm
This raises some interesting questions for Christians, including if you are a Maori Christian, even if you agree on the political position of the Maori party, could you support them given the pagan world-view being espoused - supposedly on behalf of all Maoridom, here?
From an apologetic point of view, is there a need for Christians to look more closely at the world-views of leading Maori academics, politicians and others with the intention of deliberately developing tools to engage with these people in a dialogue to break down the barriers to belief?
This raises some interesting questions for Christians, including if you are a Maori Christian, even if you agree on the political position of the Maori party, could you support them given the pagan world-view being espoused - supposedly on behalf of all Maoridom, here?
From an apologetic point of view, is there a need for Christians to look more closely at the world-views of leading Maori academics, politicians and others with the intention of deliberately developing tools to engage with these people in a dialogue to break down the barriers to belief?
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
How should Christians vote? 2. Understand
There is no excuse not to understand the voting system. If you don't understand the system, you may well find that your vote is wasted or used for something you didn't intend.
Local body elections have their own voting system and this may differ from city to city - Find out what yours is.
The national MMP system has been in place 11 years. Simply:
1. You get two votes.
2. One vote, the electorate vote, is for the person to represent you and your "electorate" (immediate area) in parliament. There are about 63 electorates in New Zealand, meaning that 63 of the Members of Parliament are there because they won the electorate. The individual who wins the electorate is the person who gets the most electorate votes (ie they don't have to get 50% - just more than any other candidate standing in that electorate). Their part affiliation (if any) has absolutely no bearing on the outcome. NOTE: If we wanted we could vote in 63 independent MPs with no party affiliation to represent the interests of our area. For the vast majority of electorates it does not make sense to vote for someone just because they belong to a particular party (although - this may say something about them). Christians should be trying to discern what kind of individuals are standing in their electorate, what their integrity is, what their capabilities are and vote accordingly.
3. The second vote, the party vote, is for a political party that you wish to have representation in parliament. The party vote determines the overall make up of parliament - ie the number of MPs from a particular party is proportional to the total party vote that they get. There are normally 120 MPs in parliament total being made up of the 63 electorate MPs and the 57 who come into parliament via the list. The actual MPs who get in parliament from a particular party will be made up of those who win an electorate seat and, if the party vote is large enough, others who are next on the "list" that every party must publish prior to the election.
4. NOTE: The party vote is NOT a vote for a prime minister. We do not have that kind of system like in the US where they have a vote for a president. There is, in fact, no guarantee that the prime minister will be the leader of the biggest party in parliament. It is almost certain that no one party will get more than 50% of the vote and, therefore, be able to govern alone (the last time a party got more than 50% of the vote in New Zealand was in 1951 following the Waterfront Strikes). This means that there are likely to be some kind of arrangement between parties. Depending on how the numbers fall will determine what kind of arrangements are possible. For example, if, in the next election, National won 59 seats, Labour 50, and the Greens 11 and no one else was in Parliament, then National could not form a government all by itself. However, National + Greens (unlikely) could or Labour + Greens (more likely) could form a government.
5. There are only two ways that a Party can gain representation in parliament - they must either, win an electorate seat OR get more than 5% of the party vote. In the current parliament four parties - Progressive (1MP), United Future (3MPs), Maori (4MPs), and ACT (2MPs) gained their position in parliament because at least one of the MPs won an electorate seat. In the case of Progressive their party vote was not sufficient to gain another MP. In the case of UF and ACT their party vote was sufficient that they gained two and one more MP respectively. The Maori won 4 electorates and have 4 MPs even though their party vote only was the equivalent of 3MPs (that is why this parliament has 121MPs and not 120 - called an overhang).
Greens and NZ First did not gain an electorate seat, but both passed the 5% barrier. Labour and National both passed the 5% barrier and gained electorate seats.
6. NOTE: If you vote for a Party that does not either win an electorate seat or reach the 5% barrier then your vote is not lost - it is redistributed to the parties that do get into parliament. This has the effect of giving some other parties extra seats in parliament (in particular the larger parties). Eg. From memory 0.62% of voters voted for Destiny in the last election (about 12000 votes I think). Of those 12000 votes about 4800 were given to Labour, 4800 to National and the rest to Greens, NZ First, United Future, ACT, and Progressives in that order. The outcome is that Destiny voters most likely contributed to more seats for Labour and National. So, before you cast your party vote, you should make sure that the party you are wanting to vote for is most likely to be in parliament (because it will win an electorate seat OR is polling at least above 3 or 4%) OR you are happy for your vote to be redistributed to other parties (another way of looking at it is that you may be passionately opposed to National, say, and think that Mcgillicuddy serious party is a better alternative. But the McGs won't get into parliament so about 0.4 (40%) of your vote will be given to National whom you oppose if they get 40% of votes cast on the night of the election!!!)
Local body elections have their own voting system and this may differ from city to city - Find out what yours is.
The national MMP system has been in place 11 years. Simply:
1. You get two votes.
2. One vote, the electorate vote, is for the person to represent you and your "electorate" (immediate area) in parliament. There are about 63 electorates in New Zealand, meaning that 63 of the Members of Parliament are there because they won the electorate. The individual who wins the electorate is the person who gets the most electorate votes (ie they don't have to get 50% - just more than any other candidate standing in that electorate). Their part affiliation (if any) has absolutely no bearing on the outcome. NOTE: If we wanted we could vote in 63 independent MPs with no party affiliation to represent the interests of our area. For the vast majority of electorates it does not make sense to vote for someone just because they belong to a particular party (although - this may say something about them). Christians should be trying to discern what kind of individuals are standing in their electorate, what their integrity is, what their capabilities are and vote accordingly.
3. The second vote, the party vote, is for a political party that you wish to have representation in parliament. The party vote determines the overall make up of parliament - ie the number of MPs from a particular party is proportional to the total party vote that they get. There are normally 120 MPs in parliament total being made up of the 63 electorate MPs and the 57 who come into parliament via the list. The actual MPs who get in parliament from a particular party will be made up of those who win an electorate seat and, if the party vote is large enough, others who are next on the "list" that every party must publish prior to the election.
4. NOTE: The party vote is NOT a vote for a prime minister. We do not have that kind of system like in the US where they have a vote for a president. There is, in fact, no guarantee that the prime minister will be the leader of the biggest party in parliament. It is almost certain that no one party will get more than 50% of the vote and, therefore, be able to govern alone (the last time a party got more than 50% of the vote in New Zealand was in 1951 following the Waterfront Strikes). This means that there are likely to be some kind of arrangement between parties. Depending on how the numbers fall will determine what kind of arrangements are possible. For example, if, in the next election, National won 59 seats, Labour 50, and the Greens 11 and no one else was in Parliament, then National could not form a government all by itself. However, National + Greens (unlikely) could or Labour + Greens (more likely) could form a government.
5. There are only two ways that a Party can gain representation in parliament - they must either, win an electorate seat OR get more than 5% of the party vote. In the current parliament four parties - Progressive (1MP), United Future (3MPs), Maori (4MPs), and ACT (2MPs) gained their position in parliament because at least one of the MPs won an electorate seat. In the case of Progressive their party vote was not sufficient to gain another MP. In the case of UF and ACT their party vote was sufficient that they gained two and one more MP respectively. The Maori won 4 electorates and have 4 MPs even though their party vote only was the equivalent of 3MPs (that is why this parliament has 121MPs and not 120 - called an overhang).
Greens and NZ First did not gain an electorate seat, but both passed the 5% barrier. Labour and National both passed the 5% barrier and gained electorate seats.
6. NOTE: If you vote for a Party that does not either win an electorate seat or reach the 5% barrier then your vote is not lost - it is redistributed to the parties that do get into parliament. This has the effect of giving some other parties extra seats in parliament (in particular the larger parties). Eg. From memory 0.62% of voters voted for Destiny in the last election (about 12000 votes I think). Of those 12000 votes about 4800 were given to Labour, 4800 to National and the rest to Greens, NZ First, United Future, ACT, and Progressives in that order. The outcome is that Destiny voters most likely contributed to more seats for Labour and National. So, before you cast your party vote, you should make sure that the party you are wanting to vote for is most likely to be in parliament (because it will win an electorate seat OR is polling at least above 3 or 4%) OR you are happy for your vote to be redistributed to other parties (another way of looking at it is that you may be passionately opposed to National, say, and think that Mcgillicuddy serious party is a better alternative. But the McGs won't get into parliament so about 0.4 (40%) of your vote will be given to National whom you oppose if they get 40% of votes cast on the night of the election!!!)
Monday, June 11, 2007
How should Christians vote? 1. Vote
So - I'm politically minded - please forgive me. I happen to think it important for Christians to be that way. As this is not election year in NZ, I thought I'd blog a little about "How Christian's should vote" (note - not who they should vote for). I'll try to be party politically neutral!
The first decisions Christians should make is that they should vote. In NZ, this means they should vote in both local body and national elections.
What's my reason for saying this? Of course, Jesus didn't vote - there was no democracy for him to vote in. In fact, the Bible gives no direct command to vote. What it does indicate is that political authorities derive their authority from God (Jesus said as much to Pilate). It is clear that we must pray for those in authority. It is also clear that we are to be the salt of the earth - preserving that which is good. I can't see how we can pray, but not participate, or be the salt of the earth - but not even cast a vote. This is like trying to swim without getting wet.
During the last election campaign I had people tell me, proudly, that they wouldn't vote. It was as if they believed they held some higher moral position by doing so. To me, this would be like Jesus saying - I won't talk to Zacchaeus because I'm better than him. By failing to engage with our broader community - and that includes the political one - we fail to be the people God created us to be.
Furthermore, I believe voting is a necessary requirement of citizenship. Anyone who has an opinion about how the government should behave, yet does not exercise their opportunity to shape that government, has, to me, given up their rights to protection by that government beyond the rights that a foreigner has.
So - get out and vote.
The first decisions Christians should make is that they should vote. In NZ, this means they should vote in both local body and national elections.
What's my reason for saying this? Of course, Jesus didn't vote - there was no democracy for him to vote in. In fact, the Bible gives no direct command to vote. What it does indicate is that political authorities derive their authority from God (Jesus said as much to Pilate). It is clear that we must pray for those in authority. It is also clear that we are to be the salt of the earth - preserving that which is good. I can't see how we can pray, but not participate, or be the salt of the earth - but not even cast a vote. This is like trying to swim without getting wet.
During the last election campaign I had people tell me, proudly, that they wouldn't vote. It was as if they believed they held some higher moral position by doing so. To me, this would be like Jesus saying - I won't talk to Zacchaeus because I'm better than him. By failing to engage with our broader community - and that includes the political one - we fail to be the people God created us to be.
Furthermore, I believe voting is a necessary requirement of citizenship. Anyone who has an opinion about how the government should behave, yet does not exercise their opportunity to shape that government, has, to me, given up their rights to protection by that government beyond the rights that a foreigner has.
So - get out and vote.
Friday, June 08, 2007
DotCom 10: Hosea and the Church
We looked at the first chapters of Hosea the other evening. Poor Hosea - imagine being an upright member of your congregation known for speaking out against the corrupt and sex obsessed society and then being told to go out and marry a whore (not a pleasant word - but that is the reality of it). Not surprisingly she wasn't faithful. Then you get to name your children as "Nobody", ""No Mercy" and, after one of the most disgraceful bloody and corrupt episodes in your country's history "Jezreel" ("Soweto", "Rwanda", Auschwitz", "Dresden")
We often look at the world and church and thing "If you are so powerful God why don't you just wave a wand and sort it all out?" Hosea seems to take a look at things from God's side. We see God agonising over Israel - he speaks very harshly and threateningly (some of which came to pass with the invasion of the Assyrians and the Exile) at times, and then he displays incredible compassion as he seeks to court his whore and love her despite everything.
When we read Hosea it is easy to think of the world outside of the church as analogous with Israel/Ephraim. However, we need also to think of the church and about how much God hates when the church "prostitutes herself" with the things of this world.
In Chapter two we see that the Israelites were following the Canaanite Baals - or fertility gods. This was not just about sex, but also about following the gods that they thought most relevant to their needs. Their needs were no longer to be lead through the desert, but for the crops to grow and there be a good harvest - so, thanks YHWH for the help in getting here, but now we are here we'll do what the locals do because it seems to work best.
At the time of Hosea Israel and Judah had been through a golden age - 50-60 years without war, with good harvests, and high commodity prices - much like NZ today!
I think that the church today needs to learn a lesson from Hosea. We too block off whole areas of our life and thinking from God. This is particularly true in the public world of facts. We have allowed the scientists and politicians (and I'm a bit of both!) to shut the church out of public affairs and push it into the private inner realm. We no longer look at the WHOLE world from a teleological perspective - the perspective of God's purpose - we tend only to think about God's purpose for me as an individual or perhaps my congregation.
Also, like the Israelites, we tend to have an obsession with potency, power, success as what life is all about. God seeks faithfulness above all. There is nothing wrong per se with large or small churches, flash or plain buildings as long as they are all put to the use of building God's kingdom and not the petty little personal fiefdoms we all seem to crave.
We often look at the world and church and thing "If you are so powerful God why don't you just wave a wand and sort it all out?" Hosea seems to take a look at things from God's side. We see God agonising over Israel - he speaks very harshly and threateningly (some of which came to pass with the invasion of the Assyrians and the Exile) at times, and then he displays incredible compassion as he seeks to court his whore and love her despite everything.
When we read Hosea it is easy to think of the world outside of the church as analogous with Israel/Ephraim. However, we need also to think of the church and about how much God hates when the church "prostitutes herself" with the things of this world.
In Chapter two we see that the Israelites were following the Canaanite Baals - or fertility gods. This was not just about sex, but also about following the gods that they thought most relevant to their needs. Their needs were no longer to be lead through the desert, but for the crops to grow and there be a good harvest - so, thanks YHWH for the help in getting here, but now we are here we'll do what the locals do because it seems to work best.
At the time of Hosea Israel and Judah had been through a golden age - 50-60 years without war, with good harvests, and high commodity prices - much like NZ today!
I think that the church today needs to learn a lesson from Hosea. We too block off whole areas of our life and thinking from God. This is particularly true in the public world of facts. We have allowed the scientists and politicians (and I'm a bit of both!) to shut the church out of public affairs and push it into the private inner realm. We no longer look at the WHOLE world from a teleological perspective - the perspective of God's purpose - we tend only to think about God's purpose for me as an individual or perhaps my congregation.
Also, like the Israelites, we tend to have an obsession with potency, power, success as what life is all about. God seeks faithfulness above all. There is nothing wrong per se with large or small churches, flash or plain buildings as long as they are all put to the use of building God's kingdom and not the petty little personal fiefdoms we all seem to crave.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
The gene is outed
Good news everyone - being overweight is no longer a sin .... (but did you ever think of it as such?) - microwaves made me do it.."Microwaves may be to blame for kick-starting the obesity epidemic, a UK scientist suggests." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6725775.stm)
A couple of weeks ago the latest excuse for obesity was the "fat gene."
Isn't it amazing how the world is looking to science to give an excuse for the way we are. If we are fat - blame our genes (or a microwave, or socio-economic conditions or...). Whatever you do DO NOT BLAME YOURSELF FOR OVEREATING - to actually take some responsibility would be tragic.
Of course, a gene to excuse gluttony is not the only convenient gene - a gene that produces more testosterone is just the excuse we need for our adultery, or a gene for homosexuality gives us an out!
Or does it?
No No No No ... These gene excuses are no such thing. They are merely saying that certain people are more susceptible (at best) than others to putting on weight (for eg). ie they seem to have more trouble than others to saying "No."
From a pastoral perspective all that means is that some people will need more encouragement than others to say "No" to certain behaviours. ie perhaps some will need a little more compassion. All or us, though, who fail to say "No" to gluttony, lust or giving in to any other temptation are still all equally guilty (though, I suppose, there may be a gene such that some people are more susceptible to guilt feelings than others....). In other words, all these studies looking for scientific answers are worthless unless we take responsibility for our own choices.
A couple of weeks ago the latest excuse for obesity was the "fat gene."
Isn't it amazing how the world is looking to science to give an excuse for the way we are. If we are fat - blame our genes (or a microwave, or socio-economic conditions or...). Whatever you do DO NOT BLAME YOURSELF FOR OVEREATING - to actually take some responsibility would be tragic.
Of course, a gene to excuse gluttony is not the only convenient gene - a gene that produces more testosterone is just the excuse we need for our adultery, or a gene for homosexuality gives us an out!
Or does it?
No No No No ... These gene excuses are no such thing. They are merely saying that certain people are more susceptible (at best) than others to putting on weight (for eg). ie they seem to have more trouble than others to saying "No."
From a pastoral perspective all that means is that some people will need more encouragement than others to say "No" to certain behaviours. ie perhaps some will need a little more compassion. All or us, though, who fail to say "No" to gluttony, lust or giving in to any other temptation are still all equally guilty (though, I suppose, there may be a gene such that some people are more susceptible to guilt feelings than others....). In other words, all these studies looking for scientific answers are worthless unless we take responsibility for our own choices.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Engaging with New Zealanders - Apologetics
Just an add ...
On behalf of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and LT Jeyachandran (who heads RZIM’s ministry in this region) in particularly. I am attempting to put together a list of people involved in apologetic ministry in New Zealand and those who wish to be involved in such a ministry. RZIM’s intention is not to “set up” in New Zealand or, in LT’s words, “import” US apologetics to NZ, rather, they are looking at how they may practically support what is already happening here.
You may know of RZIM through Ravi Zacharias's "Let my people think" radio show on Rhema or through his books. Check them out on http://www.rzim.org/
If you are little unsure about what apologetics means - just think about giving answers to non-christians to the questions they have.
If you want to be on a mailing list about this, please email me at apologia [at] ie-nz.com
On behalf of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and LT Jeyachandran (who heads RZIM’s ministry in this region) in particularly. I am attempting to put together a list of people involved in apologetic ministry in New Zealand and those who wish to be involved in such a ministry. RZIM’s intention is not to “set up” in New Zealand or, in LT’s words, “import” US apologetics to NZ, rather, they are looking at how they may practically support what is already happening here.
You may know of RZIM through Ravi Zacharias's "Let my people think" radio show on Rhema or through his books. Check them out on http://www.rzim.org/
If you are little unsure about what apologetics means - just think about giving answers to non-christians to the questions they have.
If you want to be on a mailing list about this, please email me at apologia [at] ie-nz.com
Prayer in Parliament in 1854
The very first debate in the very first meeting of the House of Representatives in 1854 was about prayer in Parliament. Some members were concerned that this would suggest an established state church. The compromise was that the speaker of the house, not a clergyman, stated the prayer. The House’s first resolution was to “… assert the privilege of a perfect political equality of all religious denominations.” (quotation from the original records – I got it from Davidson and Lineham, 1995, “Transplanted Christianity” published by Massey University)
As if to drive home the point the parliament immediately turned down a request to pay the salary of the Anglican Bishop of New Zealand.
NOTE: Some have tried to re-write NZ history to suggest this, and the Education Act of 1877 with a clause allowing "secular" schools means that these old blokes thought NZ "religiously neutral" or "secular." Far from it, they just didn't want to see the secatrian divides of Europe brought into the NZ political system.
As if to drive home the point the parliament immediately turned down a request to pay the salary of the Anglican Bishop of New Zealand.
NOTE: Some have tried to re-write NZ history to suggest this, and the Education Act of 1877 with a clause allowing "secular" schools means that these old blokes thought NZ "religiously neutral" or "secular." Far from it, they just didn't want to see the secatrian divides of Europe brought into the NZ political system.
Friday, June 01, 2007
DotCom 9: A little about language
I read yesterday the following from Leslie Newbigin (he was a missionary and Bishop in India who returned to Britain after 30 years and deliberately treated Britain as a “mission field” and he applied the same rigour of understanding the culture to Britain as he did to India):
“The language of a people provides the means by which they express their way of perceiving things and of coping with them.”
The challenge for us as Christians is that if we speak in a language that is not understood by those we speak with (and I don’t mean a foreign language, simply different forms of words and meanings of phrases) then we will fail to communicate. At the same time the gospel will inevitably challenge the culture and that means it will challenge the language used because it challenges the way people perceive things and cope with them. We also must be aware of syncretism – that is by adopting the language of the culture around us we also adopt their way of perceiving and coping.
“The language of a people provides the means by which they express their way of perceiving things and of coping with them.”
The challenge for us as Christians is that if we speak in a language that is not understood by those we speak with (and I don’t mean a foreign language, simply different forms of words and meanings of phrases) then we will fail to communicate. At the same time the gospel will inevitably challenge the culture and that means it will challenge the language used because it challenges the way people perceive things and cope with them. We also must be aware of syncretism – that is by adopting the language of the culture around us we also adopt their way of perceiving and coping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
