Santa Trikkes!

... well, nearly. Watch out for a Trikke just in front of the Reindeer in the Santa Parade on Sunday.

Why Genesis?

We’ve been working through the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis recently. It’s got me wondering as to who this story and the others in Genesis were originally written for and why? I don’t think the answer is too complicated when you think about it, but it is certainly revealing.

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy come as a package that formed the backbone of the Hebrew Bible – they called it the “Torah” meaning law. This is possibly a little deceptive as these books are much more story than law. Any laws laid down in them are in context of the story. They were also laid down at a specific time in the life of Israel that was necessary for Israel’s survival. I believe that time was just before they crossed the Jordan to take possession of the promised land. Certainly, the book of Deuteronomy is written as a sermon by Moses to the people shortly before they crossed the Jordan. The emphasis of Deuteronomy is on what the Israelites had to do to keep a right relationship with God. Similarly, the book of Leviticus is attributed to Moses – this book is about the work of the Levites who were to be the priest who were to lead the people in living a holy life as God’s holy people. Numbers, also attributed as the work of Moses, is a census of the people during their journey in the desert and a continuation of the story of the people as they prepared for entering the promised land. Exodus is, obviously, the story of Moses and God’s rescuing the people from Egypt and taking them through the desert.

So, these four books can all be attributed to Moses as, at least, receiver and conveyor of the messages from God. Scholars may argue whether he was the actual scribe or not, of if the material has been edited at some other stage or not, but it seems clear to me that the first people that these books were intended for were the people who were ready to cross the Jordan and enter the promised land. As I intimated earlier, Genesis has always been part of this group of books. I think it is a very reasonable conclusion that it was also intended first for this same audience – the generation of Jews who had been born in the desert and were about to cross the Jordan. The way Genesis is written is such that it is probably all based on oral tradition passed down the generations. Whilst it is possible that it was not first written down till long after Moses’s day, I believe the stories were ones being told and retold to those desert born children of the Exodus.

So, why were the stories of Genesis important to this generation? I think the answer becomes obvious when we consider where those people had come from and what they were facing. This, in turn, helps us to concentrate on the real messages that come from Genesis, rather than some we “read into” the book ourselves – more on this later. First, who were these people?

They were a generation born to parents who had once been slaves in Egypt. In fact, their ancestors for many many generations had been slaves in Egypt. As such, they no doubt were still familiar with Egyptian ways of doing things, stories, customs, and possibly even language. It is hard to imagine that over 400 years of living in Egyptian culture working to the calendar of the Egyptian people – preparing the soil as they prepared the soil, sewing when they sewed, reaping when they reaped that they were not thoroughly imbued in the Egpytian ways. This is similar for refugee and migrant cultures today. We probably all know second and third generation migrants who are thoroughly familiar with “Kiwi” ways and are obviously Kiwi, yet they still also Vietnamese or Dutch and still maintain contact with that culture. As a slave race they were not integrated with the Egyptians through marriage or by becoming upwardly mobile – there was still a separateness. If there hadn’t been Moses would hardly have been able to identify them to lead them out of the country! In their separateness they would have maintained some customs from long ago and, like many cultures, they would have passed down the stories – stories that helped identify who they were.

I’m intrigued that through these stories they were apparently not strongly monotheistic – ie not strongly tied to one God. I say this because of the experience of the people in the desert. First, they did not readily identify with Moses’s God - “Yahweh.” That is the name of God that God himself gave to Moses (in English meaning “I am who I am”). They trusted him only in that they had seen his action with the plagues, so they reasoned he could get them out from under the thumb of Pharaoh. Once out of danger they began complaining to Moses – so your God can get us out of Egypt, but can he feed us? And, then, when Moses went away for a few days they apparently slipped into some old Egyptian habits and built themselves a god.

A generation later, the children of these obstinate people were facing some of the same questions. So, this God of the old man (and Moses was very old by then!) had apparently helped their parents escaped Egypt (though they hadn’t witnessed that first hand). Supposedly he dwelt in the tent – though only spoke to Moses. Supposedly, the few times we’d travelled it had been Yahweh in the cloud. Supposedly, he was the source of the manna and quail, though this was just a normal everyday occurrence that it wasn’t really all that special. Now, the old man was on the way out. Would is God go with him? We had to find somewhere to live and settle down and farm the land and raise families. Certainly, the fertile land across the Jordan looked good. But, we had to fight for it. Can Yahweh fight battles as well as deliver manna? Can he defeat the gods of these people sitting behind their fortified city walls? Then, again, what does Yahweh know about farming – don’t these fertility gods who have it sussed? Aren’t they responsible for the fantastic grape harvests in this land of milk and honey?

The answer to these questions are given by Moses in the stories of Genesis and what follows. Interestingly it is first in Genesis (in chapter 2) that the name “Yahweh” first appears. In English translations this usually is written as “the Lord” or “the Lord God” or sometimes, as in the Message translation, as a capitalised GOD. This contrasts to the term “el” which is a generic term for any god and, when referring to God, is usually written as God (ie in contrast to the Lord). What this all means is that at or around this time the stories the Israelites knew had something additional added to them … namely, the name of God – Yahweh. Thus, linking Yahweh who saved them from the Pharaoh and fed them in the desert to the Yahweh who created the world and everything in it, who wants to have a relationship with them, who made a promise to their ancestor Abraham about this land they were about to enter, who by saving Joseph and giving him dreams also saved his family from starvation – his family who were the originators of the thirteen tribes of Israel and the heirs apparent of the promised land.

What this means is that Genesis is an answer to the question “Who is this Yahweh?” “What can he do?” “Can he really give us this land and help us to live there?” The answer is a resounding “YES.” Yes, because he is the source of all life – the creator of all the crops and the animals, of the water that gives life. Yes, because he is not some capricious god that needs mollifying in the hope that he won’t do us in, rather, he is our creator who desires a relationship with us. Yes, because what we though of as other gods – like “Ra” the sun god, are mere creations – mere “lamps of the day and lamps of the night.” All this is in the first couple of chapters of Genesis. What follows is the story of Yahweh’s relationship with his people – most importantly it shows he is in charge and can be trusted.

For us today I believe this has a very important message when we come to read Genesis, especially the first few chapters. We must approach it as a book that is answering “Who?” and “Why?” questions as it was written originally to answer just such questions. The tragedy in many churches and with many Christians today is that Genesis is approached as an answer to “How?” questions. It is thought of as a piece of scientific literature that answers How God made the world. ie it is thought of as much like a book that says “Water freezes at 0 Celsius and boils at 100 C.” That is, it is thought of as giving scientific fact. I believe it is very misleading, indeed foolish, to try and read Genesis this way. For a start, such writing of scientific “fact” did not appear until about 3000 years until after Genesis was written (ie about 300-400 years ago). For Genesis to be a statement of scientific fact it would also have to be an invention of a genre of writing 3000 years ahead of when the genre next appeared. This means, that when someone says that Genesis supports the theory of the Big Bang because it separates dark from light, meaning the creation of photons, they are quite wrong. Similarly, when someone says that Genesis tells them that God made the world in seven (literal) days, in contrast to millions of years, they are similarly quite wrong. Genesis makes no claim as to “How” God made the world and that includes how long it took.

The tragedy is the wasted time and energy debating “How” claims when we should be rejoicing in all we can learn about “Who” and “Why.”

The tragedy is even greater in that it has resulted in us building a great barrier to the gospel. For many non-Christians when they hear of Christians proclaiming a young earth and literal 7day creation based on Genesis the message these Christians proclaim immediately looses credibility. The only stumbling block we should be putting in place is the Christ and Christ crucified – anything else is sinful. This includes all the misinterpretations of Genesis as a book of Hows.

As the Israelites stood on the bank of the Jordan asking “Who is this God?” “Can he help us where we are going?” “Why would he want to?”, so to are people asking Who, and Why questions that Christians have the answers to. These are questions of Who can help me, Why are things the way they are and why should I trust God when it is so tough? Genesis helps in answering these questions… let us get back to reading it as it was first intended to be read..

What's it all about?

Instead of moaning about Halloween or demonising (:)) anyone who has anything to do with it, why don't we ask some questions and engage with others... it could open up some fascinating conversations. Here's a couple of questions you could use to kick things off...

1. What's Halloween all about?
2. Why do you think it is worth celebrating?
________
From the Archives of Engage New Zealand: The Curious Church, T Scott and J Pickering (c) 2007

God loves Trikkists!

Why else would he give me a brisk Nor'wester behind me on the way to work and then change it around to a Southerly (without rain!) just in time to help push me home!

Trikke like the wind

It's 10 days now since I got my trikke. I've already made several trips to work (5.3km one way on cycle paths and footpaths). Today, a real test, I headed into a Nor'wester coming home. I must admit, looking out the office window I nearly decided to take the bus (easy with the trikke, 'cause it folds up!). However, the challenge was laid down and I took it. A little more energy was required, but I got home in about 35 mins, only 5 more than on the way in! Pleasant surprise....

Trikke, the new temptation

Do you know what a Trikke is? Do you realise that it has the potential to be the next great addiction for kiwis - any age, any gender, anybody. I must admit that I am one of the early converts. Hence, I shall be a witness in Papanui, Merivale, Hagley Park and to the ends of Christchurch.
Publish Post
Want to know more? Have a chat to Mark at www.trikkeNZ.co.nz (and, no, I don't get a commission! Huh! skeptics!!)

Quotes from the Rugby Bible

"Now you are the body of the Nation and each one of you is a part of it. All in the team the coach appointed first of all captains and co-captains, second sports psychologists, third specialist coaches, then kickers of drop goals, also those having gifts of healing, those able to sponsor others,those with gifts of administration and those who can spin any message to the media." 1 Counties 12:27-28

"In the beginning the coach created the backs and the forward. Now the forwards were formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the field. And the coach said, let there be a rotation policy and there was. Coach saw that this was good" Rebuilding Phase 1:1-2

Creed of our times

The poem "Creed" by Steve Turner says it all... http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/creed/

Heaven, Hell and Hitler

Hell's Pizza have just taken down a billboard with a saluting picture of Hitler and the words "It is possible to make people believe Heaven is HELL (Adolf Hitler)." Apparently they removed it after a complaint by a Jewish group.

Where are the churches? They should all be up in arms about this and calling for a boycott on Hell's pizzas. Here we have a commercial company trying to make money by disparaging what we believe.

They should also be pointing to the bill board and saying "Hitler was right." Look at what has happened since Hitler ....

In the name of freedom the joy of sex in the arms of a life long spouse has been replaced by the gratuitous lust of strangers of any number, any gender, any age.

In the name of freedom thousands die before they are born

The right to hold an opinion has become the right to do what every one wants

The freedom to worship has sprouted malls and mega-stars

The joy of worshiping one's creator has been transformed into entertainment with a Christian label.

Information has obliterated wisdom

The image has displaced the word

The uniqueness of Christ is at best an embarrassment, at worse intolerant

In the name of diversity Allah, Buddah, Jesus, Hare Krishna and David Beckham are all considered equals.

It is a sin now to claim to know the truth for everything is relative

It is sinful to proclaim the truth, for thou shalt not be intolerant

Gluttony is no longer a sin, one has a right to over eat

Violence is a sickness, not an evil

Humans are resources, not neighbours

Values are private and morals can't be taught

One parent is as good as two

The right to own has displaced the responsibility to budget

"Because you deserve it," is believed

Children are only loaned by the State to the parents

and the Church charged with proclaiming to the world "here is the light" has switched off the power and is huddled in a corner playing charades hoping the world will go away and let them be.

Orangutan And Grim Reaper Protest Outside ANZ

The Green party have just posted a press release entitled "Orangutan And Grim Reaper Protest Outside ANZ"

Does that make them a "deadly bunch of chimps?"

Seriously - good on people for taking a stand on what they believe. Unfortunately, this kind of protest by a political party makes it less credible to working in parliament (can you imagine a Green member as minister of Finance when they are trying to publicly humiliate banks?).

It is right and proper for groups to "have their say." Political parties, though, should have their say in parliament and be engaging in dialog with the public.

Choices

If you choose to serve you can help people clean up themselves and the mess when stuff happens or you can choose to improve the sanitation system. Of course, most people choose to do nothing, be nothing, and expect everything.

God, sort us out, but please be merciful.

Sharing God's Anger

I've been reading Deuteronomy and Joshua lately. The violence with which Israel entered the promised land is sickening - I've a real hard time understanding it. One thing, though, is obvious and that is God's abhorrence of false religions and what they may do to his people. The practices of the people of the land Israel is to enter are detestable to God (Deut 18:9-13) and destruction is the price to pay for becoming corrupted and following other gods and worshiping them. The story of Aachen in Joshua 7 makes the telling point that the failure of one to obey God's injunctions can lead to all of Israel having sinned with disastrous consequences.

For me, as a Father, this raises the question once more .... what do I bring into my house that may be abominable to God and a threat to my family? I'm not necessarily talking about obvious things such as a different religion or some immoral practices, but ideas like striving for wealth without fulfilling obligations to the poor and the sick and the widowed, or a "live and let live" attitude about unbelieving neighbours.

Similarly, what have I and my church let in? Have we corrupted the gospel by allowing the form in which it is presented to convey an additional message that this form of behaviour outside of the church is OK. I'm thinking here that with the attempt to reach youth we have sometimes adopted the outward trappings of youth culture to the extent that the form dominates the message. Alternatively, we may have compromised on the uniqueness of the gospel because we fear losing the respect of friends.

When I read at just how strongly God abhors this kind of syncretism I am compelled to inspect my own life to ensure that I am not an offender.

Simply Christian: Tom Wright.

Simply Christian
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006

This book has been touted as the most thrilling attempt to re-express the heart of the Christian faith since CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. I can't say I was thrilled, I was certainly fascinated. The difficulty for Tom Wright is that the audience is much more diverse in their presuppositions and attitudes than it was when Lewis wrote. I got the feeling that the book is such that few would follow and nod in agreement with all the premises and arguments throughout. However, there is much that would ring bells for many. The difficulty is, in an age of image and sound bite, would they persevere through the parts of the book that seem somehow foreign to them.

In Part I Wright looks to connect with his audience through what he calls "Echoes of a voice." In an age where traditional concepts of sin, salvation, authority of the bible are but echoes of a bygone era, I think Wright does very well to find what I call a "point of engagement" with his audience. These are, simply: A shared passion for justice, a hidden spring of spirituality, an ache for right relationships, and an appreciation of beauty. Through each of these he paints a picture of seeing what is right, but having it so often slip through our fingers - justice not given in full, beauty marred by carelessness or greed. Both his points of engagement and the development of his argument are worth of study and imitation. The proof will be if they lead to a more in depth look at the claims of Christianity.

Wright goes on to place today's beliefs and believers in historical context. This is refreshing to see as so often the gospel has been presented out of context of God's story. He also introduces three options which he continually refers to as options 1, 2, and 3 as a way to avoid mentioning "isms" too much. I wish he'd come up with some more descriptive labels, though he is right to avoid the more academic, thought meaningless to most, pan(en)theism and deism labels. Perhaps "All God", "Distant God", and "Engaged God" would have served his purpose better.

This book is likely to be of benefit to many Christians who are lacking in seeking their faith in relationship with other faiths and with history. It is less likely to be understandable by the non-Christian unless they have some prior understanding of Christianity and the Christian language (despite Wright's efforts to minimize these). As such it will serve a very good purpose for many, but it is unlikely to be revelationary for the masses.

Mainly Music and much much more

I was thrilled on Sunday to hear and read a little more about an initiative in our church called "Mainly Music" that involved an hour or so during the week where parents and children can gather for music, stories, and a chat. I have witnessed many similar initiatives before that are aimed to reach out to certain sectors of the community. Many of them are very worthwhile, but given the way they are set up and portrayed I believe they should not be functions of the church. I say this, because they fail to identify who they are and what they do with the fundamental message of the gospel - the unique salvation available to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What impressed me about Mainly Music (other than the enthusiasm and competence of those involved) was that it was deliberately "Jesus with skin on" with the intention for people to connect to the local church. Furthermore, it was using methods and points of contact appropriate and meaningful to the people being reached out to.

"Jesus with skin on" is an interesting concept. I like it more than "What would Jesus do" because that tends to turn Jesus into some kind of superhero to be mimicked. "Jesus with skin on" seems to me to strike an important note - namely that we are not merely the representatives of Jesus Christ on earth, but that his Spirit lives in us - not merely for our own sake, but for the sake off all. When Jesus prays for us (John 17:20ff) it is for us to be in the Godhead so that the world may believe. This being only possible through the gift of the Spirit and only properly shown in our lives by our mission focus.

In the material I read on Mainly Music it spoke of speaking about God. In the past I have heard the argument that all we need to do is to "act Christianly" and it will attract people to the church. Unfortunately, this is a failed method in this country and it is a little naive. It also, is a little lazy. Biblically, the gospel is always communicated by words and demonstrated by actions. There can not be one without the other. I commend the Mainly Music team for recognizing this.

I believe that churches need to be very careful to test their ministries to see that they have a mission focus. Everything that the church does - from its fund raising, to its ministries to the bereaved, ill, young, parents etc MUST be focussed on conveying the gospel - not just parts of it, all of it. Necessarily they must contain an element of spoken word about Jesus Christ. I recognise that for many Christians the "speaking part" is harder to do than the "service part" - it is up to churches everywhere to equip their members to do the speaking part.

Aims of mainly music

• To ensure that all those who attend mainly music hear a clear, concise, loving and balanced Gospel message
• To nurture parents by giving them practical support, encouraging the parent/child bond through our music time and providing an environment of networking for parents

Mainly Music's web site: http://www.mainlymusic.org.nz/

"Stop the violence" and other bad tactics

The problem: Children abused

The current trendy solutions: (1) stand still and keep quiet for two minutes
(2) send an email asking people to sign a petition to say "stop the violence" (all the more effective if there are some gruesome autopsy photos)

My take: Pathetic. This is like the story of the good samaritan. The people who do 1 or 2 are like those that walked past the hurt man and went "tut tut" took a photo on their cell phone to share with friends who also say "how awful."

Who are the emails for? What will silence achieve?

There isn't a politician (local or national) who doesn't want to stop the violence - so the message can't be for them. If you are convinced that there are things politicians should be doing then go and see your local MP and/or join a party and give some practical input.

Is the message for those who commit the violence? Possibly, yet they have plenty of evidence already that society doesn't like what they do.

The real answers are community based and attitudinal. Neighbours have to be nosy. More than that, they have to care - care enough to befriend a young couple and show them how to parent. The people signing these positions need to get off their butts and dig into their pockets. There are numerous groups calling out for volunteers and money so that they are able to provide the support and training for those families most at risk. Samaritans act.

(ps anyone sending those autopsy photos should be ashamed)

Of Mosques and Miracles and Malls

On Monday evening I went to a public meeting put on by the Mosques and Miracles crowd. It was well attended - 600 or so. Interestingly, unlike most Christian gatherings there were mainly men.

Mosques and Miracles has stirred up some comment in Christchurch by some who see it as intolerant. That is not what I want to talk about.

Prior to it coming I raised the issue as to why we should put time and effort into learning about Muslims when there are only 35000 in the country compared to 1.3Million who claim no religion? The session on Monday evening has done nothing to answer that question.

The speaker, Daniel, had a fascinating story to tell. Unfortunately, there were times when I wasn't sure whether he was speaking in the past or present or about whom he was speaking. His main message seemed to be that Islam was a religion that laid unique claims to the world and all in it and we better be aware of that. Frankly, Christians have known about that for many hundreds of years. The message was not new. Why then, do some think we should hear about it now in New Zealand?

The sceptic in me says that we are hearing about it because some in the church have bought into the political agenda of some in the West that have made much of the muslim world into the "enemy" (axis of evil). It is because Christians in NZ have bought into the "War on terror" without putting it into the greater context of God's plan for the world. New Zealand has had only one terrorist attack and that was the French 20 odd years ago. We are not particularly threatened by Muslim extremists as a country. As Christians - Muslims are not converting large parts of the population that we should be concerned. We have much more to be concerned about those in Malls on a Sunday rather than those in Mosques.

Over those 600 people on Monday night I wonder ...
How many had a Muslim friend?
How many prayed for a muslim they knew?
How many had spoken to the veiled woman who dropped her children off at school at the same time that they dropped their own children off?
How many had showed some hospitality to the new muslim immigrants or refugees?
How many had talked about Jesus with a Muslim?

I ask these questions because I suspect the answer is "precious few."

We should not be attending Mosques and Miracles out of fear, but because we seek the tools and information that will help us show love and proclaim the gospel to these people. This is the approach Archbiship Akinola takes in Nigeria - and he lives in a country where large parts of it are under Sharia law. Evangelism, not the sword, is how he is winning over the country for the glory of God. We should take a leaf out of his book.

While we are at it, we need a conference on Malls and Miracles to put the evangelism of the millions of unchurched, unsaved New Zealanders back front and centre of the churchs' agendas.

A story: Choosing the best insurance

Following the end of their lives there were three men approaching the Great Underwriter and at the door of his Office they were met by the Chief claims inspector, Chief Peter.

The first man approached Chief Peter and he handed over not one, but one hundred and one life insurance policies. It appeared that he had been to every life insurance broker on the planet. He had taken out a policy with anyone and everyone who had said they were underwritten by the Great Underwriter. He was supremely confident that at least one of his claims would be validated by Chief Peter and he’d be allowed able to live forever in comfort. Chief Peter took a handful of his policies and began to leaf through them, tut-tutting as he did. The man began to get nervous and asked Peter – “What’s wrong?” Peter said – “I’m sorry but these policies are not valid.” “But the brokers all told me that they were valid. OK, so I had to fulfil a few conditions for some of them whilst I was alive, like not eating meat or praying five times a day, but surely at least one of them I did all right,” replied the man. “Oh, you certainly did Ok according to what the brokers said,” said Chief Peter, “but the Great Underwriter doesn’t use brokers and doesn’t underwrite any of these policies, so I’m afraid you can’t enter.”

The second man approached Chief Peter. He had nothing to hand over, but he did have a very confident look about him. He said to Chief Peter, “Gidday Chief, how’re ya going? I’m sure you’ve got me somewhere on file.” Chief Peter, who was used to people turning up without their policy documents, took down his details and pulled out his latest techno-wizz, handheld computer (he’s always been one for the latest gadgets). After a few moments he turned to the man and said, “I’m sorry but you are not listed as a policy holder?” “What do you mean not listed?” said the man, “I’ve paid my dues – I’ve been a good man, always prepared to give someone a helping hand, not ripping anyone off, trying to tell the truth.” Chief Peter had another look at his computer and replied – “Yes, I can see you tried pretty hard, but frankly you fell well short of the perfection required by the Great Underwriter. You know, the Great Underwriter wanted you to succeed but you never accepted the message that it is not something you can do on your own – you could never do enough to pay the premium– you did need to take out the policy on offer.” The man’s self-confidence burst like a bubble and he turned and slowly walked away.

The third man approached Chief Peter. He shuffled a bit, and wouldn’t look the Chief in the eye. He handed over a scruffy looking piece of paper and said – “I couldn’t pay for the premium myself so I signed up with this bloke who said he’d pay the premium for me – I think he lives here.” Chief Peter, thought ‘Here we go again – someone else who’s great uncle Herbert is meant to have the inner line an short cut to the Office.’ But when he looked at the piece of paper and checked on his computer he nearly jumped for joy and his face broke into a big smile and he said to the man – “Come in, come in, you are most welcome.” The man hesitated, “Are you sure?” Chief Peter said, “Of course I’m sure – the Great Underwriter himself paid for your premium – the cost was huge, but worth it. As you know you could never have paid for it yourself – all you did was to recognise that and accept the gift. Well done.”

John Pickering, December 2004

The Castle in the Forest

A Book Review

"The Castle in the Forest" by Norman Mailer

Little Brown, London, 2007

Frightening, sickening, compelling, brilliant, vulgar are all adjectives that apply to "The Castle in the Forest." Mailer has taken Screwtape and made him the ugly, voyeuristic, devious, devil he really is. If you find reading CS Lewis's Screwtape letters a difficult experience, as I do, then expect this to be ten-fold worse.

The story follows the early few years of a young Austrian boy in the late 1890s. One is alternately sympathetic towards and sickened by the boy and his family. The knowledge of the monster, Adolf Hitler, that he grew into is always there in the background.

The story is told through the eyes of a devil who had responsibility in the region. That sounds as though it is mere fantasy and easily dismissed. But, it is the shear realism Mailer brings to this devil and his works that is frightening. How the devil uses sex (not his - that going on between family members) for his own ends is both vulgar and all too honest and very very hard to read.

What is really compelling is the monologues of the devil ... they peel back the layers of defensive "good feelings" about humans we try and build up around ourselves and expose us without mercy. Like Lewis's Screwtape, one is never sure, though, how much truth there is in these monologues. Here are some samples ....

p76 [speaking about humans] "The seek to be free. They often remark ...'I want to discover who I am.' All the while we devils guide the people we have attracted (we call them clients), the cudgels [this is the devils' name for Angels] contest us and many a particular individual does his or her best to fight off both sides. Humans have become so vain (through technology) that more than a number expect by now to become independent of the Lord and the Devil."

p99 "... we do look for the lowest common denominator to any truth"

pp215-6 "Injustice was a yeast to inspire hatred, envy, and the loss of love. For rare was the man or woman who did not possess an intense sense of the injustice done to them each day. It was our taproot to every adult. It was a fury in every child. Our work would fall apart if humans ever came to brood as intensely upon the injustice others might be suffering."

p394 "There is a good reason why it is difficult for any man or woman to picture their own death. The soul, I would offer, does expect to be immortal."

p398 "... self pity is the lubricant we use most often to smooth the entrance of the heart into the uglier emotions."

Nagorno-Karabakh: A forgoten country

Nagorno-Karabakh is a small Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. The people are mainly Christian and were the subject of attempted "Ethnic cleansing" by Azerbaijan. In fact, the term "Ethnic cleansing" was first used about them. The Armenians, are, of course, one of the first Christian "people-groups."

The international community seems to have largely forgotten them.

They are now trying to hold elections - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6905670.stm for a report.

Statements of the week

Theological insight of the week
"People aren't enjoying the All Blacks anymore and that is a sin!" Tony Veitch, CloseUp 16 July 2007

Duh! of the week
"I hope politicians will stop playing politics ..." Dr Pippa Mackay, Morning Report 17 July 2007

Logic of the week
"This one is way more smaller than that one, because that one is way more bigger" K, aged 5.

Anglicanism in New Zealand - can it survive?

Below is a letter from David Pickering in response to other letters by JS Fisher, an Anglican Priest, in the Christchurch Press. The point of putting it here is that it clearly states the foundations of Anglicanism and suggests that they are being radically challenged by some. The question I have is are there those in the younger generations who really care anymore about the foundations of the church who will stand up and say so? Has the modern propensity of living for the now with scant regard for the past so infused the church, that Anglicanism as it has been for generations is all but dead in the water and at the mercy of those with the most political power to push it where they will?


Dear Sir,

The Christian church has from its inception been firmly based on the revelation given in Scripture. The doctrines enshrined in Scripture have eternal verity that may not be twisted to meet the convenience of a later age. This is firmly entrenched in Anglican Canon Law. The unhappiness that the Anglican Church is experiencing at present is not, as J S Fisher claims, the result of a small group of questionably loyal church members who want to impose their will on the church. The unhappiness is because some Anglican Church authorities have wilfully moved outside the church’s mandate. Latimer Fellowship, which Mr(s) Fisher vilifies, is but one of many voices calling the church to order.

The declaration by Anglican clergy of their willingness to obey their appointed superior is dependent on that superior acting within the generally recognised regulations of the church. What do loyal Anglican congregations and clergy do when their bishop or diocese moves outside the church’s heritage? They try to call these authorities back to the church’s orthodoxy. Which is precisely what many of us are trying to do.


Yours faithfully,

David Pickering.


my PS -some useful links:
39 Articles of the Anglican Church
NZ Canon Law

The heavens declare the glory of the Lord

"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

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.

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

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?

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.

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)

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?

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!!!)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.