In my mind, NZ political leadership is under the microscope. First, we have the business of MP's housing expenses. MP's like deputy PM Bill English were exposed for rorting the system. Then, we have the problem of travel expenses with MP's like Chris Carter, Roger Douglas, Hone Harawira and Rodney Hide. These MP's and others have been exposed for taking spouses and partners on trips and turning them into junkets. The whole things smacks of corruption, even if it supposedly legitimised. Finally, we have the problem of Hone Harawira's email.
This email speaks of "white man bull****"; "white mother *******" who "have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries". It describes the rules of government expenses as "puritanical bull****." He defends his right to take his wife with him on the basis of her years of support. Those of us who know our history, know that Maori have suffered greatly through colonisation. However, is this necessary?
Essentially we have on display in these MP's corruption and racist abuse.
Going further back we have a government that defies the majority of NZers over the anti-smacking legislation. Whatever you think about smacking, it is an arrogant and defiant government who, in a supposed democracy, flicks the bird at over 80% of its citizens.
If this is the standard of our politicians at the moment, we are in serious trouble. What we need is a new generation of NZ leaders who will lead with honesty and integrity. People who are statesmen and women, and can rise above such anger, abuse and who are determined not to rort the system. We need people who lead with grace, truth and wisdom.
The challenge for training institutions like Laidlaw College is to continue to increasingly become environments that equip people for the challenge. We have the greatest role models in Scripture to draw on: Jesus of course, Paul, Priscilla and Aquila, Timothy, Deborah, Moses, Abraham, David and more. In the history of God's people there have been many role models like Wilberforce and others. We must be inspired to take seriously the patterns of leadership laid down for us, take them into our churches, into our schools, into our communities, into our social clubs and into our parliament. We have to learn the art of servant-leadership and, taking up our crosses and towels, go into these hard places, and lead.
We have to do so humbly, without assumption of power, without resorting to the patterns of corruption and power-abuse which dominate our world. Sadly, our churches are not uncommonly led in false ways. Some have been in the news recently. We must go into a new era of determination to lead as Jesus' led.
I don't think NZ will change quickly. I think it will take years of faithful service from ministers in church and state (cf. Rom 13). It will be hard, as Christians learn how to be political while remaining principled. It might take a few generations. Some will be crucified along the way. Some will fall and fail. However, some will show the way. Let's not slip back into Christian ghettoism like "Christian" political parties, and get in amongst the big players in NZ politics. We must have generations of NZ Christians who, without resorting to moralism, bring true humanity into the public realm.
To be successful will take brilliance and much much more importantly, character. Character is the missing link in all of this. Character not to rort the system, even when it is "legal" to do so. Character not to resort to anger and abuse when one is challenged. Character to stand firm in one's faith, yet work with others of different views for the desired goal. Character to learn the art of debate without being defensive and retreating. Character to die for Jesus in the public realm. Character to lead not for popularity and pragmatism, but with humility and principle.
It is a supreme challenge, it is the narrow road. But with God, all things are possible.
Monday, November 9, 2009
All Blacks Starting to Look Good
Having flogged Graham Henry and his team for he last 2 years, I am getting really encouraged about the direction they are taking. They lost the last world cup in my view, because they had the wrong game plan for the top level. They continued to believe NZ could outrun every other nation with pace and flair. When they hit the finals stage of the World Cup, that style did not work. They lost an arm wrestle with France.
What I am seeing is that they are now starting to play the right game to win the tough ones. To win the big ones the All Blacks won't win with the free flowing game that we are used to. The fitness of the modern players and the rules mean that it is a kicking, forward and defence game. They thus need a ruthless, uncompromising pack that plays 80 minutes game after game relentlessly. They need to win the breakdown and have great set pieces. They need an inside back combination that can control the game. They need brilliant destructive defence. They need a great kicking game, especially goal kicking.
All the signs are there that they are getting it. The last three games have been excellent. We out muscled the Australians, and on Sunday morning, the Welsh. The Welsh can moan all they like, but they were lucky to get as close as they did. The disallowed tries could easily have been awarded, and the All Blacks would have won by 21 points. The second half was all the All Blacks and they were dominant. The pitch evened the teams out. The Welsh were pathetically negative when it came to kicking goals in the second half. They were not even trying to win, seeming to be satisfied with a draw. They completely over-rate themselves.
The All Blacks are tracking well. The weak spots to me are Tialata who lacks mobility. If Hayman comes back, or MacIntosh succeeds as a tighthead, this will strengthen us at tighthead. We are blessed at hooker and loosehead, Crockett was great. We have locks everywhere with Williams, Borich and Ross at home. Our loosies are a good unit now with Read and Kaino complementing McCaw, the best in the business, really well. I am not a Leonard fan, but Cowan and Carter are a great combination. Smith is now the best centre in the world. Guilford adds the sort of pace we need and should retain his spot. Muliaina is great and Jane is very good.
At home and not on tour there are a host of All Blacks like Mealamu, Borich, Mackintosh, Hosea Gear, Whitelock, Ali Williams, Weepu, de Malmanche, Lauaki, Elliot, Evans, Wulf, Masaga, Ross and Toeava. There are also some amazing players emerging like Sean Maitland, Granger, Heskith, I. Thompson, Cruden, Israel Dagg, Colin Bourke, Colin Slade, the Waldrons, Stephen Brett, Tim Bateman, Ryan Crotty, Bekhuis and David Smith among others.
So, things are looking good. The South Africans are peaking now, doing and AB's. We are building. If they get the selections right, a blend of the old and the new. And they peak right. And they get some luck... who knows, perhaps they have a chance in 2011.
One more thing. The attitude of the Welsh before the game talking themselves up, and then after the game whinging about the referee - when rubbish refereeing kept them in the game (3 disallowed tries, 2 of which should have been awarded) - is pathetic. They need humility. They are not as good as they think. You would imagine, after 56 years, they might have found humility and what it means to be a good loser. They are not good losers and they lack humility. When they find it, they might go to the next level.
What I am seeing is that they are now starting to play the right game to win the tough ones. To win the big ones the All Blacks won't win with the free flowing game that we are used to. The fitness of the modern players and the rules mean that it is a kicking, forward and defence game. They thus need a ruthless, uncompromising pack that plays 80 minutes game after game relentlessly. They need to win the breakdown and have great set pieces. They need an inside back combination that can control the game. They need brilliant destructive defence. They need a great kicking game, especially goal kicking.
All the signs are there that they are getting it. The last three games have been excellent. We out muscled the Australians, and on Sunday morning, the Welsh. The Welsh can moan all they like, but they were lucky to get as close as they did. The disallowed tries could easily have been awarded, and the All Blacks would have won by 21 points. The second half was all the All Blacks and they were dominant. The pitch evened the teams out. The Welsh were pathetically negative when it came to kicking goals in the second half. They were not even trying to win, seeming to be satisfied with a draw. They completely over-rate themselves.
The All Blacks are tracking well. The weak spots to me are Tialata who lacks mobility. If Hayman comes back, or MacIntosh succeeds as a tighthead, this will strengthen us at tighthead. We are blessed at hooker and loosehead, Crockett was great. We have locks everywhere with Williams, Borich and Ross at home. Our loosies are a good unit now with Read and Kaino complementing McCaw, the best in the business, really well. I am not a Leonard fan, but Cowan and Carter are a great combination. Smith is now the best centre in the world. Guilford adds the sort of pace we need and should retain his spot. Muliaina is great and Jane is very good.
At home and not on tour there are a host of All Blacks like Mealamu, Borich, Mackintosh, Hosea Gear, Whitelock, Ali Williams, Weepu, de Malmanche, Lauaki, Elliot, Evans, Wulf, Masaga, Ross and Toeava. There are also some amazing players emerging like Sean Maitland, Granger, Heskith, I. Thompson, Cruden, Israel Dagg, Colin Bourke, Colin Slade, the Waldrons, Stephen Brett, Tim Bateman, Ryan Crotty, Bekhuis and David Smith among others.
So, things are looking good. The South Africans are peaking now, doing and AB's. We are building. If they get the selections right, a blend of the old and the new. And they peak right. And they get some luck... who knows, perhaps they have a chance in 2011.
One more thing. The attitude of the Welsh before the game talking themselves up, and then after the game whinging about the referee - when rubbish refereeing kept them in the game (3 disallowed tries, 2 of which should have been awarded) - is pathetic. They need humility. They are not as good as they think. You would imagine, after 56 years, they might have found humility and what it means to be a good loser. They are not good losers and they lack humility. When they find it, they might go to the next level.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Destiny
So, what should we make of the Destiny phenomenon in the news this week? There is a lot of talk about them being a cult (see Garth George in http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605962). The first thing we have to do is define "cult". According to Webster there are five meanings of cult: 1) Formal religious veneration: worship; 2) A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents; 3) A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents; 4) A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5) A great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion. Clearly, the one in in mind is meaning 3), a religion seen as unorthodox or spurious. The question is this then, is Tamaki's church drifting out of orthodox Christianity?
This is a difficult question for a brother to answer. I am always very wary of judging another Christian and their work. In 1 Corinthians Paul gets rather upset when the Corinthians break into factions and stand in judgement over he and others. The sin against the Holy Spirit in Matthew comes at the end of a dispute between Jesus and some of the Jewish leaders. They accuse Jesus of being an emissary of Satan. He retorts with the warning. My reading of that text then is, that to reject the works of the Spirit as Satan's work could see one sin against the Spirit. As such, my standing in judgement over Brian and his church is something we all as Christians should be very careful about. Having said that, history is replete with points at which God's people identifying a false teaching, teacher of movement (e.g. Paul and Judaisers in Galatians; Luther and the Reformation). So, what do we make of this phenomenon?
The first thing to say, is that the covenant signed by some of the men of Destiny is nothing new. It is a very visible expression of something that is common among some Pentecostal and other churches. That is, the people of the Church are to offer honour to their leader, to now question them. The verses "do not speak against the Lord's anointed" is often quoted in this regard (e.g. 2 Sam 19:21). It is also common to see this attitude in Polynesia and other cultures. Ministers are venerated and honoured. It is expected that they eat first at meals. Emma and I had this experience at a former church. We would be given a seat of honour and the people would wait for us to eat first. This is hard for westerners with their radical egalitarianism and especially to European Kiwi's who absolutely despite tall poppies. What has happened here, is that it has gone very public.
The second thought I have is on tithing. As Brian Tamaki said on TV, this is nothing new. Many churches call for the tithe.
Thirdly, we need to be very careful to view Destiny with balance and see the good they are doing. Many people are being reached and their lives turned around through the church. Many of these people would never be reached through other churches. I am delighted that people are being saved. Paul helps us with this in Phil 1:14-18. Paul is in prison in Rome (others say Ephesus). He is about to face Caesar Nero. Nero is in his peak of lunacy, killing off his enemies, ruthless and dangerous. Paul is delighted that some soldiers are being saved through his proclamation in the prison. Many of the Romans are getting into evangelism, inspired in the Lord by Paul's chains; they are full of courage. Some believe these people are false teachers, but they are not, they are all preaching "Christ" indicating that they are preaching the genuine gospel. However, they are differently motivated. Some are motivated out of goodwill, love and sincerity, knowing that Paul is appointed by God. Others however, are not so motivated; concerned for rivalry, envy and selfish ambition. Paul is not delighted with this. He might die as a result. The whole letter to the Philippians is seeking to stop them doing the same. So deep down he is hurt and upset. Yet he states, "what matters is that in every way, whether through pretense or truth, Christ is proclaimed." Despite flaws in the preachers, his passion is the gospel and he rejoices.
Now, contrast Paul's attitude with his attitude when he hits false teachers. Check out 2 Cor 11; Phil 3 and Galatians. He flips his lid when he hits those preaching a false gospel. He calls them emissaries of Satan, dogs, mutilators of the flesh; telling some of them to cut off their penises! Yet he never talks to Christians like this. Check out his letters. When he hits Christians who are out of balance like the Corinthians he repeatedly calls them brothers and sisters and addresses the whole letter to the "holy ones". In other words, he is careful to reinforce that they are God's people, then he critiques them. Through the letter he speaks as a father to his children, strongly challenging them, urging them to come back to the cross and its patterns of living.
That being the case, the question is, is Destiny a false expression of the faith? Is it a cult? Is it preaching heresy? Should Brian Tamaki be attacked as a false teacher and his church as a cult?
To me the answer is emphatically, no. The evidence is that they preach Christ for salvation. They urge people to give their lives to Jesus. They call for faith. They lay hands on the sick. They urge people to live their whole lives for Jesus. They are open to the public. You can attend their meetings. His preaching is there for all to see and hear on public TV.
So is everything perfect in the church? No. Neither is everything perfect in my church? I have been a Baptist pastor and a Presbyterian minister. Let me tell you, all is not well in any church and in every denomination. In fact, I could tell you things that would make your hair curl!
I would however say, that my years of study in the NT do give me concerns about many modern churches. I am not going to single out Brian Tamaki and his church. My concerns are these:
1) I get worried when any person, pastor, leader, lecturer, teacher etc, becomes a really strong focus of people's focus. What happens is that Jesus can get obscured. The teacher's view becomes dominant over the Scriptures. This happens at Laidlaw College where I teach. This is something we can all slip into. The Corinthians did this big time. Chloe tells Paul that the church is divided over those who follow Paul, Apollos and Cephas (Peter). The church was split in adulation of different teachers and leaders. Some believe there was also a Christ-group, "I follow Christ" (see 1 Cor 1:10-11). However, I believe "I follow Christ" is Paul's answer. I love John the Baptist who says, "He must increase, I must decrease" (Jn 3:30). He then lays out four chapters to tell them to stop. Whether it is Brian T or any leader, we must always divert people's attention to Christ. This concerns me in the contemporary charismatic and Pentecostal church.
2) I am worried about money in the contemporary charismatic and Pentecostal church. There are a number of issues here. First, having studied very closely tithing in the Bible, it is debatable that tithing is to be practised by NT Christians. I have blogged on this http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/search?q=tithing. Suffice to say here, tithing is mentioned 4x in the NT. Three times Jesus challenges false understandings of tithing. He exhorts Christians to go beyond the tithe. It is also mentioned in Heb 7 not to tell people to do so, but to prove Jesus is a superior high priest. The tithe is not mentioned in Acts, Paul's letters, Peter's letters or the writings of John, James and Jude. Rather, the Christian is to give all they have. They are to care for their family and basic needs, and the rest is to be invested in the work of the kingdom from the church, to mission, to the poor.
Secondly, I am concerned about the way we appeal for money in the church. We often ask people to give so that they can be blessed. It is true that the NT endorses that those who give to God will be blessed (see 2 Cor 9 for example). However, this must not be used as a motivation. As a motivation, it means we give to gain. This is the antithesis of Christian giving. Christian giving is "no strings attached." It is a response to God who has given us everything from creation, to provision and salvation. Check out 1 Cor 13:3 where Paul says giving all we possess to the poor without love profits us nothing. Check out Luke's Gospel e.g. Luke 12:32-33. Yes, God will bless, but this is not our motivation.
Thirdly, I freak out at the idea that if we give we will be prosperous. Jesus gave his all; becoming poor that we might become rich; and he died a poor man without even a robe (2 Cor 8:9). Paul knew what it was to give, he worked himself to the bone, knowing poverty sometimes, knowing plenty. There is no formula to prosperity (see Phil 4:10-14; 2 Cor 11:23-28). Ultimately we will all be loaded. When we reach eternity we will experience glorious plenty. That is our hope and prize, that is what we run for (Phil 3:12-14). In the present, we are called to take up our crosses and live as Christ did. This will involve sacrifice, suffering, service. I call this the pattern of the cross. Paul in 1 and 2 Corinthians is arguing against a bunch of Christians who effectively had a prosperity teaching view believing a true apostle would not suffer, would do miracles, would be wealthy and prosperous. He hammers it into touch. Read the letters, he hammers them going on and on about present suffering. Christian life in the present is the life of suffering. It is the life of experiencing Friday.
Fourthly, I am concerned that what is happening about money in these churches is really a form of syncretism. Syncretism is when the gospel gets distorted or imbalanced by accommodating it to culture. Prosperity teaching is very popular in the west because it feeds our greatest sin, greed and materialism. It uses the culture to win the culture. In my view however, it is a selling out of one portion of the gospel. It is not a heresy, but an imbalance.
So how do we go about asking for money. I have no problem with church's asking for money. As Brian says on TV we need money. I suggest we encourage people to give freely, according to their means and radically (check out the principles in 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8-9). We tell them God will bless them but urge them to give not to be rich or get yet more, we ask them to give to bless God and further the mission. We ask them to give as they can to see God's great mission furthered, the poor fed, injustice removed. It is a subtle but important difference.
My final issue with such churches is leadership. The model of leadership in the NT is one of servanthood (see Mark 10:39-45). In Mark 10:39-45 James and John have just come asking for the primary leadership positions in the Kingdom to come. Jesus responds telling them to renounce the leadership methods of the world, and serve. He tells them that he came not to be served but to serve. He tells them the greatest in the Kingdom are the greatest servants. Specifically, they are to renounce autocratic leadership. They are to renounce the use of power and domination of any sort. This runs through the whole NT. When Jesus is recognised as Messiah by Peter the first thing Jesus says to him is that he will suffer and die. He then tells them that they must do the same, take up their crosses and follow him (Mark 8:27-38). This is an appeal to serve. We are to die serving God, the church and the world. Philippians 2:5-11 lays out the Christ pattern, whereby Christ though God, came in self-emptying, humility, as a slave. The whole of Philippians lays out examples to the Philippians to make the same point. Read Philippians and note the examples, note the use of service, sacrifice and suffering language. The pattern of the cross is to live in service, sacrifice, suffering even to the point of death! Leaders are to be the greatest servants. This will cost them wealth. It will cost them prestige. It will cost them glory in the present. It will hurt. They will sometimes be destroyed by churches.
In the world of Paul leadership was enforced with status through social class, through military and political power. Ceasar is the number one example. Jesus and Paul offer a different model completely. It is this: take up your cross and your towel and follow me. Renounce autocracy and dominance. Power is found not in the power of charisma, brilliant speech and intelligence; it is found in love and service.
This is the same today. We love the talented, the articulate. We seek prestige and honour through wealth and power. Christianity turns this upside down. Read through 1 Corinthians. It is about wealthy strong leaders lording it, divided, putting others down. 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 speak of spiritual gifts and talents. 1 Corinthians 13 sits in between, the centrepiece of the letter and section. It declares, all that matters is love. Spiritual fruit and Christian attitudes are more important than worldly power, talent and charisma.
So, to me, churches that venerate the leaders like this and emphasise charisma make an error. it is not a cult or a heresy, but it is an imbalance. It is a syncretism to contemporary models of power and culture. However, this is not a new mistake or phenomenon. It gets things done actually. I am concerned, but we must take care not to go too far and fall into the same trap ourselves, of standing in judgement over our brother, writing them off and over-reacting.
In conclusion, to me Destiny has some weaknesses (as do all churches). They are not alone but part of a movement which to me has these weaknesses. I write from the Presbyterian church and Brian Tamaki and others would have plenty to criticise in our churches. Fair enough, we deserve it. We are nominal, liberal and lack the sort of passion for mission that they have. We are so egalitarian that hardly anything ever gets done. Our people don't tithe, many don't give at all. We have terrible weaknesses.
I was deeply upset by the Cult Watch speaker on TV One Close Up the other night. He likened Destiny to a suicide cult, that was most unwise. He went too far. I felt that Brian Tamaki and Richard Lewis handled themselves with grace.
What I am saying is this, people in glass houses should not throw stones. We need to take the logs out of our own eyes. We need to be very careful what we say. I love Brian Tamaki, he is a brother. I pray for his church that it continues to see people won to Christ. I pray that they continue to pursue Christ in the Scriptures and God brings correction in these areas (I say this humbly because this is my view). I pray they never lose their passion and edge. I pray that many come to Christ through the movement. I pray that they remain open to fellowship with others, not standing in judgement over them, not allowing the criticism to isolate them. God, pour out your Spirit on them and on all of us.
A final thought. The church in NZ cannot afford to be divided over differences. We have a huge challenge to reach this nation. Let's do it in unity!
This is a difficult question for a brother to answer. I am always very wary of judging another Christian and their work. In 1 Corinthians Paul gets rather upset when the Corinthians break into factions and stand in judgement over he and others. The sin against the Holy Spirit in Matthew comes at the end of a dispute between Jesus and some of the Jewish leaders. They accuse Jesus of being an emissary of Satan. He retorts with the warning. My reading of that text then is, that to reject the works of the Spirit as Satan's work could see one sin against the Spirit. As such, my standing in judgement over Brian and his church is something we all as Christians should be very careful about. Having said that, history is replete with points at which God's people identifying a false teaching, teacher of movement (e.g. Paul and Judaisers in Galatians; Luther and the Reformation). So, what do we make of this phenomenon?
The first thing to say, is that the covenant signed by some of the men of Destiny is nothing new. It is a very visible expression of something that is common among some Pentecostal and other churches. That is, the people of the Church are to offer honour to their leader, to now question them. The verses "do not speak against the Lord's anointed" is often quoted in this regard (e.g. 2 Sam 19:21). It is also common to see this attitude in Polynesia and other cultures. Ministers are venerated and honoured. It is expected that they eat first at meals. Emma and I had this experience at a former church. We would be given a seat of honour and the people would wait for us to eat first. This is hard for westerners with their radical egalitarianism and especially to European Kiwi's who absolutely despite tall poppies. What has happened here, is that it has gone very public.
The second thought I have is on tithing. As Brian Tamaki said on TV, this is nothing new. Many churches call for the tithe.
Thirdly, we need to be very careful to view Destiny with balance and see the good they are doing. Many people are being reached and their lives turned around through the church. Many of these people would never be reached through other churches. I am delighted that people are being saved. Paul helps us with this in Phil 1:14-18. Paul is in prison in Rome (others say Ephesus). He is about to face Caesar Nero. Nero is in his peak of lunacy, killing off his enemies, ruthless and dangerous. Paul is delighted that some soldiers are being saved through his proclamation in the prison. Many of the Romans are getting into evangelism, inspired in the Lord by Paul's chains; they are full of courage. Some believe these people are false teachers, but they are not, they are all preaching "Christ" indicating that they are preaching the genuine gospel. However, they are differently motivated. Some are motivated out of goodwill, love and sincerity, knowing that Paul is appointed by God. Others however, are not so motivated; concerned for rivalry, envy and selfish ambition. Paul is not delighted with this. He might die as a result. The whole letter to the Philippians is seeking to stop them doing the same. So deep down he is hurt and upset. Yet he states, "what matters is that in every way, whether through pretense or truth, Christ is proclaimed." Despite flaws in the preachers, his passion is the gospel and he rejoices.
Now, contrast Paul's attitude with his attitude when he hits false teachers. Check out 2 Cor 11; Phil 3 and Galatians. He flips his lid when he hits those preaching a false gospel. He calls them emissaries of Satan, dogs, mutilators of the flesh; telling some of them to cut off their penises! Yet he never talks to Christians like this. Check out his letters. When he hits Christians who are out of balance like the Corinthians he repeatedly calls them brothers and sisters and addresses the whole letter to the "holy ones". In other words, he is careful to reinforce that they are God's people, then he critiques them. Through the letter he speaks as a father to his children, strongly challenging them, urging them to come back to the cross and its patterns of living.
That being the case, the question is, is Destiny a false expression of the faith? Is it a cult? Is it preaching heresy? Should Brian Tamaki be attacked as a false teacher and his church as a cult?
To me the answer is emphatically, no. The evidence is that they preach Christ for salvation. They urge people to give their lives to Jesus. They call for faith. They lay hands on the sick. They urge people to live their whole lives for Jesus. They are open to the public. You can attend their meetings. His preaching is there for all to see and hear on public TV.
So is everything perfect in the church? No. Neither is everything perfect in my church? I have been a Baptist pastor and a Presbyterian minister. Let me tell you, all is not well in any church and in every denomination. In fact, I could tell you things that would make your hair curl!
I would however say, that my years of study in the NT do give me concerns about many modern churches. I am not going to single out Brian Tamaki and his church. My concerns are these:
1) I get worried when any person, pastor, leader, lecturer, teacher etc, becomes a really strong focus of people's focus. What happens is that Jesus can get obscured. The teacher's view becomes dominant over the Scriptures. This happens at Laidlaw College where I teach. This is something we can all slip into. The Corinthians did this big time. Chloe tells Paul that the church is divided over those who follow Paul, Apollos and Cephas (Peter). The church was split in adulation of different teachers and leaders. Some believe there was also a Christ-group, "I follow Christ" (see 1 Cor 1:10-11). However, I believe "I follow Christ" is Paul's answer. I love John the Baptist who says, "He must increase, I must decrease" (Jn 3:30). He then lays out four chapters to tell them to stop. Whether it is Brian T or any leader, we must always divert people's attention to Christ. This concerns me in the contemporary charismatic and Pentecostal church.
2) I am worried about money in the contemporary charismatic and Pentecostal church. There are a number of issues here. First, having studied very closely tithing in the Bible, it is debatable that tithing is to be practised by NT Christians. I have blogged on this http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/search?q=tithing. Suffice to say here, tithing is mentioned 4x in the NT. Three times Jesus challenges false understandings of tithing. He exhorts Christians to go beyond the tithe. It is also mentioned in Heb 7 not to tell people to do so, but to prove Jesus is a superior high priest. The tithe is not mentioned in Acts, Paul's letters, Peter's letters or the writings of John, James and Jude. Rather, the Christian is to give all they have. They are to care for their family and basic needs, and the rest is to be invested in the work of the kingdom from the church, to mission, to the poor.
Secondly, I am concerned about the way we appeal for money in the church. We often ask people to give so that they can be blessed. It is true that the NT endorses that those who give to God will be blessed (see 2 Cor 9 for example). However, this must not be used as a motivation. As a motivation, it means we give to gain. This is the antithesis of Christian giving. Christian giving is "no strings attached." It is a response to God who has given us everything from creation, to provision and salvation. Check out 1 Cor 13:3 where Paul says giving all we possess to the poor without love profits us nothing. Check out Luke's Gospel e.g. Luke 12:32-33. Yes, God will bless, but this is not our motivation.
Thirdly, I freak out at the idea that if we give we will be prosperous. Jesus gave his all; becoming poor that we might become rich; and he died a poor man without even a robe (2 Cor 8:9). Paul knew what it was to give, he worked himself to the bone, knowing poverty sometimes, knowing plenty. There is no formula to prosperity (see Phil 4:10-14; 2 Cor 11:23-28). Ultimately we will all be loaded. When we reach eternity we will experience glorious plenty. That is our hope and prize, that is what we run for (Phil 3:12-14). In the present, we are called to take up our crosses and live as Christ did. This will involve sacrifice, suffering, service. I call this the pattern of the cross. Paul in 1 and 2 Corinthians is arguing against a bunch of Christians who effectively had a prosperity teaching view believing a true apostle would not suffer, would do miracles, would be wealthy and prosperous. He hammers it into touch. Read the letters, he hammers them going on and on about present suffering. Christian life in the present is the life of suffering. It is the life of experiencing Friday.
Fourthly, I am concerned that what is happening about money in these churches is really a form of syncretism. Syncretism is when the gospel gets distorted or imbalanced by accommodating it to culture. Prosperity teaching is very popular in the west because it feeds our greatest sin, greed and materialism. It uses the culture to win the culture. In my view however, it is a selling out of one portion of the gospel. It is not a heresy, but an imbalance.
So how do we go about asking for money. I have no problem with church's asking for money. As Brian says on TV we need money. I suggest we encourage people to give freely, according to their means and radically (check out the principles in 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8-9). We tell them God will bless them but urge them to give not to be rich or get yet more, we ask them to give to bless God and further the mission. We ask them to give as they can to see God's great mission furthered, the poor fed, injustice removed. It is a subtle but important difference.
My final issue with such churches is leadership. The model of leadership in the NT is one of servanthood (see Mark 10:39-45). In Mark 10:39-45 James and John have just come asking for the primary leadership positions in the Kingdom to come. Jesus responds telling them to renounce the leadership methods of the world, and serve. He tells them that he came not to be served but to serve. He tells them the greatest in the Kingdom are the greatest servants. Specifically, they are to renounce autocratic leadership. They are to renounce the use of power and domination of any sort. This runs through the whole NT. When Jesus is recognised as Messiah by Peter the first thing Jesus says to him is that he will suffer and die. He then tells them that they must do the same, take up their crosses and follow him (Mark 8:27-38). This is an appeal to serve. We are to die serving God, the church and the world. Philippians 2:5-11 lays out the Christ pattern, whereby Christ though God, came in self-emptying, humility, as a slave. The whole of Philippians lays out examples to the Philippians to make the same point. Read Philippians and note the examples, note the use of service, sacrifice and suffering language. The pattern of the cross is to live in service, sacrifice, suffering even to the point of death! Leaders are to be the greatest servants. This will cost them wealth. It will cost them prestige. It will cost them glory in the present. It will hurt. They will sometimes be destroyed by churches.
In the world of Paul leadership was enforced with status through social class, through military and political power. Ceasar is the number one example. Jesus and Paul offer a different model completely. It is this: take up your cross and your towel and follow me. Renounce autocracy and dominance. Power is found not in the power of charisma, brilliant speech and intelligence; it is found in love and service.
This is the same today. We love the talented, the articulate. We seek prestige and honour through wealth and power. Christianity turns this upside down. Read through 1 Corinthians. It is about wealthy strong leaders lording it, divided, putting others down. 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 speak of spiritual gifts and talents. 1 Corinthians 13 sits in between, the centrepiece of the letter and section. It declares, all that matters is love. Spiritual fruit and Christian attitudes are more important than worldly power, talent and charisma.
So, to me, churches that venerate the leaders like this and emphasise charisma make an error. it is not a cult or a heresy, but it is an imbalance. It is a syncretism to contemporary models of power and culture. However, this is not a new mistake or phenomenon. It gets things done actually. I am concerned, but we must take care not to go too far and fall into the same trap ourselves, of standing in judgement over our brother, writing them off and over-reacting.
In conclusion, to me Destiny has some weaknesses (as do all churches). They are not alone but part of a movement which to me has these weaknesses. I write from the Presbyterian church and Brian Tamaki and others would have plenty to criticise in our churches. Fair enough, we deserve it. We are nominal, liberal and lack the sort of passion for mission that they have. We are so egalitarian that hardly anything ever gets done. Our people don't tithe, many don't give at all. We have terrible weaknesses.
I was deeply upset by the Cult Watch speaker on TV One Close Up the other night. He likened Destiny to a suicide cult, that was most unwise. He went too far. I felt that Brian Tamaki and Richard Lewis handled themselves with grace.
What I am saying is this, people in glass houses should not throw stones. We need to take the logs out of our own eyes. We need to be very careful what we say. I love Brian Tamaki, he is a brother. I pray for his church that it continues to see people won to Christ. I pray that they continue to pursue Christ in the Scriptures and God brings correction in these areas (I say this humbly because this is my view). I pray they never lose their passion and edge. I pray that many come to Christ through the movement. I pray that they remain open to fellowship with others, not standing in judgement over them, not allowing the criticism to isolate them. God, pour out your Spirit on them and on all of us.
A final thought. The church in NZ cannot afford to be divided over differences. We have a huge challenge to reach this nation. Let's do it in unity!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Hermaphrodite? What is the Right Response?
There is a great deal of interest in Caster Semenya, the person who won the 800m at the recent world champs. Word is out that she is an hermaphrodite or 'intersex' as some call it. This means she has both male and female reproductive organs. In some animal groups like slugs, creatures do not have separate sexes and they reproduce with both partners acting as 'male' or 'female.' The term is drawn from the Greek god Hermaphrotus, the son of Hermes and Aphrodite. In the case of Caster, what should happen? What is the right response to this situation?
First, on a human level, Caster should be afforded complete integrity. She (using this for want of a better term) should be respected. She is human, made in the image of God, and to be shown grace and love. This has already been violated with her situation all over the public eye. Mind you in this world, this is unavoidable. The IAAF is naive if they think that the situation would not break. It would have been better to do the tests and release the results in a controlled manner. They should make their decision in the public eye.
Second, as an athlete she needs to be tested to assess whether she fits biologically into male or female categories. This will have to be based on her hormone levels and genitalia etc. It seems from the information leaking that she fits more into the male category. On the basis of the data she should be informed that she must in the future run as a man or can run as a woman. If, as is being reported, she has 3x the testosterone levels of a 'normal' woman, and has internal testes, has no ovaries and can produce sperm, it would seem that she can no longer run as a woman but must run as a man. It makes a mockery of the sport to allow her to run putting other middle distance female runners at a complete disadvantage.
Third, that being said, she deserves grace and compassion. I think she should keep her gold medal from the Worlds. Perhaps the woman who finished 2nd in the race should receive a gold as well, with the 3rd and 4th runners receiving silver and bronze as well. She should be honoured for her victory. However, as I see it, she can't keep running in women's races. This would be utterly unfair to every other female athlete.
Fourth, I suggest we pray for Caster. I feel for her and all connected to the situation. She is a human being.
First, on a human level, Caster should be afforded complete integrity. She (using this for want of a better term) should be respected. She is human, made in the image of God, and to be shown grace and love. This has already been violated with her situation all over the public eye. Mind you in this world, this is unavoidable. The IAAF is naive if they think that the situation would not break. It would have been better to do the tests and release the results in a controlled manner. They should make their decision in the public eye.
Second, as an athlete she needs to be tested to assess whether she fits biologically into male or female categories. This will have to be based on her hormone levels and genitalia etc. It seems from the information leaking that she fits more into the male category. On the basis of the data she should be informed that she must in the future run as a man or can run as a woman. If, as is being reported, she has 3x the testosterone levels of a 'normal' woman, and has internal testes, has no ovaries and can produce sperm, it would seem that she can no longer run as a woman but must run as a man. It makes a mockery of the sport to allow her to run putting other middle distance female runners at a complete disadvantage.
Third, that being said, she deserves grace and compassion. I think she should keep her gold medal from the Worlds. Perhaps the woman who finished 2nd in the race should receive a gold as well, with the 3rd and 4th runners receiving silver and bronze as well. She should be honoured for her victory. However, as I see it, she can't keep running in women's races. This would be utterly unfair to every other female athlete.
Fourth, I suggest we pray for Caster. I feel for her and all connected to the situation. She is a human being.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
NZ Morality
The results of a very interesting study have just been released. The study has interviewed 750 NZers on their morality. The question was this: 'I'm going to read you a list of issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about...?' The margin of error for the sample size of 750 for a 50% figure at the ‘95% confidence level’ is ± 3.6%.
The results are fascinating. Asked whether certain things were morally acceptable here is a list of the outcomes:
Divorce:81% (Men 78%/Women 83%)
Sex Between and Unmarried Man and Woman: 77% (Men 79%/ Women 75%)
Having a Baby Outside of Marriage: 71%
Medical Research Using Stem Cells Obtained From Human Embryos: 63% (Men 69%/Women 57%)
Homosexual Relations: 61% (Men 53%/Women 69%)
Doctor Assisted Suicide: 55%
Abortion: 55% (Men 54%/Women 56%)
Gambling: 52% (Men 61%/Women 43%)
Medical Testing on Animals: 52% (Men 63%/Women 42%)
Buying and Wearing Clothing made of animal fur: 48% (Men 59%/Women 38%)
The death penalty: 43% (Men 47%/Women 39%)
Cloning Animals: 27% (Men 37%/women 18%)
Married men and women having an affair: 13% (Men 19%/Women 8%)
Polygamy, one man has more than one wife at the same time: 11% (Men 17%/Women 5%) Cloning Humans: 7% (Men 11%/Women 4%)
The press release does not indicate the breakdown of age. However, on Radio this morning, a spokesperson indicated that on the whole, younger people were more liberal and permissive than older. This indicates a trend toward a more liberal morality.
So what do we make of this as believers? First, I have to say I am a little surprised at how liberal we are becoming. I kind of naively hoped that NZ still had a Judaeo-Christian heart. This reveals that it does not and we are moving at pace toward a new NZ with a liberal ethic.
10 NZ
Secondly, as a Christian who bases his moral ethics on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as revealed through Scripture I find myself increasingly out of kilter with NZ.
As far as I see it, divorce is not morally permissable in Scripture except in cases of sexual infidelity (and analagous contexts like violence), and when an unbeliever seeks to leave. The emphasis does fall on remarriage in the teachings of Christ. So, while I would want to nuance it, I am out of kilter with witih 81% of NZers on this one. Sex outside of marriage of any sort between a man and a woman is clearly not gospel morality; this puts me in with 1 in four NZers whereas 3 out of 4 will disagree with me. Similarly, homosexuality is not endorsed in the Biblical data, so I am now in a 40% minority which is dropping fast. Having a baby outside of marriage is now permissable for 7/10 Kiwis; I am in a 30% minority. Apart from exceptional circumstances to me abortion and the use of embryonic stems cells form aborted children is utterly reprehensible; I am in the minority on this one (63% of NZers disagree on stem cells and 53% on abortion). The same goes for euthanasia, I am out of kilter with 45% of Kiwis. On the death penalty, which I oppose, I am still in the majority, yay! Thankfully NZers are rejecting Polygamy, affairs and cloning! There is hope!
One stunning point is that people reject gambling, medical testing on animals and the buying and wearing of clothing made of animal fur at about the same level as abortion and euthanasia. That grieves me deeply. We are losing our sense of the value of human life as sacred. The unborn child and the elderly and infirm are now on a par with animals. That is so very sad it is tragic.
It is clear, I am in the minority on most moral issues, and the rejection of traditional Judaeo-Christian moral values is growing. The question then becomes, how do I now live? Here are some thoughts and observations.
First, I am now in a situation like that of the first Christians in the Graeco-Roman world. They lived in a world with a very different moral compass to that of Christ and the gospel. This informs me. So to the ideas.
1. I do not compromise or soften the biblical ethic to accommodate that of the world. This is tempting, to get soft at the edges and allow certain things to reach them. If we take sexual immorality as case in point; the first Christians did not soften their stance on this. We must not either. I have seen this in the church in protestant liberalism and sense it growing among some in the church today. We must not go there; it will lead to an erosion of the gospel not only in the nation, but the church.
2. I need to take account of this in my proclamation and social relationships outside the church. I need to be full of grace and conviction. I need to hold my ground with good sound reason. But I need to do so in a non-judgemental way. I must not moralise, but recognise that my gospel is going to clash with that of the world. I must continue to share Christ, the full gospel, and allow for rejection. I must do so with 'gentleness and respect', with humility, with patience, with grace, showing the grace of Christ as I do so. I must not back off the world, but engage; but do so without compromising the truth and grace of the gospel. Jesus walked among sinners with grace and truth, I must find a way to do this in this 'crooked and depraved generation.' I must shine like a star in the universe among them.
3. I need to be ready to be rejected for Christ, to suffer. I should expect that, while I might find and interested person, in the main the ethics of the gospel will suffer. I should expect this increasingly as I engage with society standing against libertinism. Christ showed us the way, as he emptied himself, humbled himself and served. They killed him, but his blood is the seed of all life.
4. My witness needs to demonstrate a new ethic. I need to live the ethic of the gospel and not trumpet it in their faces, arrogantly. After all, Christians are in the main, little better than the world. We are simply forgiven and have a fresh power to overcome. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Where we do, we don't trumpet our superiority but are humble. Where we don't we demonstrate humility and repentance. But, I need to be determined through my attitudes, relationships, family, integrity, purity, grace and love, to demonstrate that the way of Christ is a better way.
5. I should expect to see social problems in NZ continue to increase as brokenness increases. I need to model a different way. I need to graciously and non-coercively hold forth the gospel in its fullness as a way forward, in hope that they will begin to see the futility of this way.
6. As Church communities we will increasingly look wooden and ethically out of touch. We need to stand by the gospel, uphold its morality. However, we must do so in love and grace and openness; or they will never come. We need to allow people room to grow in their understanding. We need to be inclusive. We need to model the values of the kingdom so that they see the difference. We need to be the community of love that will transcend such moral questions, they being absorbed in a community of love, grace, joy and hope. This will take time, perhaps generations. We need to take the long term approach.
7. We need to go out into the world and work to use all our resources not to stand in judgement over them, but be salt and light among them, sowing the ethics of the gospel in our leadership, relationships and lives. We need to show them a new way on the sports field, in schools and universities, in workplaces, in parliament, in every part of God's great world.
8. We need to keep bringing things back to Christ and what it means to be truly human. He is the centre of what we say and do, not morality (although that will follow). As we do, hopefully they will meet Christ, encounter him through his Word, and be transformed from the inside out by the Spirit. This means mission and engagement with the world will be messy as people get it to varying degrees at different speeds. We must allow room for failure, bring back authencity, and grace more and more.
So, I now know more clearly that I am out of kilter with NZ in a moral sense. I need to be shaped by the gospel, its truth and grace, and go among them and show them Christ. This tells me it will be hard and that we will struggle and suffer. We may find our churches shrink where we uphold the gospel. All we can do is pray and be faithful!
The results are fascinating. Asked whether certain things were morally acceptable here is a list of the outcomes:
Divorce:81% (Men 78%/Women 83%)
Sex Between and Unmarried Man and Woman: 77% (Men 79%/ Women 75%)
Having a Baby Outside of Marriage: 71%
Medical Research Using Stem Cells Obtained From Human Embryos: 63% (Men 69%/Women 57%)
Homosexual Relations: 61% (Men 53%/Women 69%)
Doctor Assisted Suicide: 55%
Abortion: 55% (Men 54%/Women 56%)
Gambling: 52% (Men 61%/Women 43%)
Medical Testing on Animals: 52% (Men 63%/Women 42%)
Buying and Wearing Clothing made of animal fur: 48% (Men 59%/Women 38%)
The death penalty: 43% (Men 47%/Women 39%)
Cloning Animals: 27% (Men 37%/women 18%)
Married men and women having an affair: 13% (Men 19%/Women 8%)
Polygamy, one man has more than one wife at the same time: 11% (Men 17%/Women 5%) Cloning Humans: 7% (Men 11%/Women 4%)
The press release does not indicate the breakdown of age. However, on Radio this morning, a spokesperson indicated that on the whole, younger people were more liberal and permissive than older. This indicates a trend toward a more liberal morality.
So what do we make of this as believers? First, I have to say I am a little surprised at how liberal we are becoming. I kind of naively hoped that NZ still had a Judaeo-Christian heart. This reveals that it does not and we are moving at pace toward a new NZ with a liberal ethic.
10 NZ
Secondly, as a Christian who bases his moral ethics on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as revealed through Scripture I find myself increasingly out of kilter with NZ.
As far as I see it, divorce is not morally permissable in Scripture except in cases of sexual infidelity (and analagous contexts like violence), and when an unbeliever seeks to leave. The emphasis does fall on remarriage in the teachings of Christ. So, while I would want to nuance it, I am out of kilter with witih 81% of NZers on this one. Sex outside of marriage of any sort between a man and a woman is clearly not gospel morality; this puts me in with 1 in four NZers whereas 3 out of 4 will disagree with me. Similarly, homosexuality is not endorsed in the Biblical data, so I am now in a 40% minority which is dropping fast. Having a baby outside of marriage is now permissable for 7/10 Kiwis; I am in a 30% minority. Apart from exceptional circumstances to me abortion and the use of embryonic stems cells form aborted children is utterly reprehensible; I am in the minority on this one (63% of NZers disagree on stem cells and 53% on abortion). The same goes for euthanasia, I am out of kilter with 45% of Kiwis. On the death penalty, which I oppose, I am still in the majority, yay! Thankfully NZers are rejecting Polygamy, affairs and cloning! There is hope!
One stunning point is that people reject gambling, medical testing on animals and the buying and wearing of clothing made of animal fur at about the same level as abortion and euthanasia. That grieves me deeply. We are losing our sense of the value of human life as sacred. The unborn child and the elderly and infirm are now on a par with animals. That is so very sad it is tragic.
It is clear, I am in the minority on most moral issues, and the rejection of traditional Judaeo-Christian moral values is growing. The question then becomes, how do I now live? Here are some thoughts and observations.
First, I am now in a situation like that of the first Christians in the Graeco-Roman world. They lived in a world with a very different moral compass to that of Christ and the gospel. This informs me. So to the ideas.
1. I do not compromise or soften the biblical ethic to accommodate that of the world. This is tempting, to get soft at the edges and allow certain things to reach them. If we take sexual immorality as case in point; the first Christians did not soften their stance on this. We must not either. I have seen this in the church in protestant liberalism and sense it growing among some in the church today. We must not go there; it will lead to an erosion of the gospel not only in the nation, but the church.
2. I need to take account of this in my proclamation and social relationships outside the church. I need to be full of grace and conviction. I need to hold my ground with good sound reason. But I need to do so in a non-judgemental way. I must not moralise, but recognise that my gospel is going to clash with that of the world. I must continue to share Christ, the full gospel, and allow for rejection. I must do so with 'gentleness and respect', with humility, with patience, with grace, showing the grace of Christ as I do so. I must not back off the world, but engage; but do so without compromising the truth and grace of the gospel. Jesus walked among sinners with grace and truth, I must find a way to do this in this 'crooked and depraved generation.' I must shine like a star in the universe among them.
3. I need to be ready to be rejected for Christ, to suffer. I should expect that, while I might find and interested person, in the main the ethics of the gospel will suffer. I should expect this increasingly as I engage with society standing against libertinism. Christ showed us the way, as he emptied himself, humbled himself and served. They killed him, but his blood is the seed of all life.
4. My witness needs to demonstrate a new ethic. I need to live the ethic of the gospel and not trumpet it in their faces, arrogantly. After all, Christians are in the main, little better than the world. We are simply forgiven and have a fresh power to overcome. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Where we do, we don't trumpet our superiority but are humble. Where we don't we demonstrate humility and repentance. But, I need to be determined through my attitudes, relationships, family, integrity, purity, grace and love, to demonstrate that the way of Christ is a better way.
5. I should expect to see social problems in NZ continue to increase as brokenness increases. I need to model a different way. I need to graciously and non-coercively hold forth the gospel in its fullness as a way forward, in hope that they will begin to see the futility of this way.
6. As Church communities we will increasingly look wooden and ethically out of touch. We need to stand by the gospel, uphold its morality. However, we must do so in love and grace and openness; or they will never come. We need to allow people room to grow in their understanding. We need to be inclusive. We need to model the values of the kingdom so that they see the difference. We need to be the community of love that will transcend such moral questions, they being absorbed in a community of love, grace, joy and hope. This will take time, perhaps generations. We need to take the long term approach.
7. We need to go out into the world and work to use all our resources not to stand in judgement over them, but be salt and light among them, sowing the ethics of the gospel in our leadership, relationships and lives. We need to show them a new way on the sports field, in schools and universities, in workplaces, in parliament, in every part of God's great world.
8. We need to keep bringing things back to Christ and what it means to be truly human. He is the centre of what we say and do, not morality (although that will follow). As we do, hopefully they will meet Christ, encounter him through his Word, and be transformed from the inside out by the Spirit. This means mission and engagement with the world will be messy as people get it to varying degrees at different speeds. We must allow room for failure, bring back authencity, and grace more and more.
So, I now know more clearly that I am out of kilter with NZ in a moral sense. I need to be shaped by the gospel, its truth and grace, and go among them and show them Christ. This tells me it will be hard and that we will struggle and suffer. We may find our churches shrink where we uphold the gospel. All we can do is pray and be faithful!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Smacking and Maori Seats; National Hubris!
Man Oh Man I am stunned at John Key and National after the smacking legislation was pulled out of the ballot at parliament yesterday. Here was a chance to do something really good. The new legislation seeks to define smacking, what is appropriate, what is not? I think it is a great idea. This is where the philosophical debate lies. What is violence toward a child? When is a smack legitimate, if it ever is? Etc. Yet with utter contempt John Key simply wrote it off. I am stunned at his attitude.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, he throws contempt on NZ. He shows he is no better as a leader than Helen Clark, who despite her many strengths, imposed her social liberalism on NZ despite NZ not liking it. It is to a large degree middle NZ's fault; we sit passively in our lazo-boys and girls and watch TV and do not get involved. We are apathetic and passive. Yet, I am certain NZ is not happy. They are not happy with legalised prostitution. They are uncomfortable about the number of abortions, homosexual relationships, de facto relationships and civil unions. They struggle with what NZ is becoming, caught up in it, not sure what to do, and living with it. They don't say it out loud, but they are restless and deep down, in many cases, unhappy. They do need to get active. Well, actually, in this case they have, telling the Government that they don't want this legislation as it stands.
Yet John Key can simply say, there will be no change. Why? Because John knows best! Rubbish! This is a disgrace John Key. You do not know better, and you are being politically naiive.
I believe you are being idealistic and unrealistic about Maori seats in the Auckland council as well. For sure, ideally we will have no race favoured as we forge our identity into our history. That is ahead of us at some point. However, we will never get there unless we move with grace, partnership and good sense. Pakeha NZ of which I am a part are too impatient on this. We need to be prepared to walk the long walk in hui with Maori, doing all we can to right wrongs, helping them to raise themselves up. Middle NZ won't help on this one. But I suspect Maori are going to make his life very uncomfortable. So, he started off so well, embracing the Maoris, the right wing NZer. Yet now he is alienating people at pace. Why? It seems to me, because of a certain arrogance and political naiivity.
I suspect he believes he needs to be a strong leader. Helen was and she killed of a string of National Party leaders who were, as Muldoon said of Rowling, shivers looking for spine to sliver up (or words to that effect). But a good leader thinks carefully and does not simply ignore people, especially when 87% of NZers believe something. They read situations carefully, and sometimes shift positions (carefully), make adjustments etc. This was one such time John. You missed it.
I am deeply perturbed at the loss of genuine democratic process. Sure, the Referendum was not a great question, but it got the point across. Here was a chance to seek to refine the legislation with clear definitions. It was not going back to the old, it was a middle ground. John, you missed it. As I have said in previous blogs, it is looking like you won't be PM for as long as I thought. Mind you, the lack of an alternative is obvious. Phil Goff is hardly going to worry you. But don't think NZ is happy John. Some will be, most definitely aren't.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, he throws contempt on NZ. He shows he is no better as a leader than Helen Clark, who despite her many strengths, imposed her social liberalism on NZ despite NZ not liking it. It is to a large degree middle NZ's fault; we sit passively in our lazo-boys and girls and watch TV and do not get involved. We are apathetic and passive. Yet, I am certain NZ is not happy. They are not happy with legalised prostitution. They are uncomfortable about the number of abortions, homosexual relationships, de facto relationships and civil unions. They struggle with what NZ is becoming, caught up in it, not sure what to do, and living with it. They don't say it out loud, but they are restless and deep down, in many cases, unhappy. They do need to get active. Well, actually, in this case they have, telling the Government that they don't want this legislation as it stands.
Yet John Key can simply say, there will be no change. Why? Because John knows best! Rubbish! This is a disgrace John Key. You do not know better, and you are being politically naiive.
I believe you are being idealistic and unrealistic about Maori seats in the Auckland council as well. For sure, ideally we will have no race favoured as we forge our identity into our history. That is ahead of us at some point. However, we will never get there unless we move with grace, partnership and good sense. Pakeha NZ of which I am a part are too impatient on this. We need to be prepared to walk the long walk in hui with Maori, doing all we can to right wrongs, helping them to raise themselves up. Middle NZ won't help on this one. But I suspect Maori are going to make his life very uncomfortable. So, he started off so well, embracing the Maoris, the right wing NZer. Yet now he is alienating people at pace. Why? It seems to me, because of a certain arrogance and political naiivity.
I suspect he believes he needs to be a strong leader. Helen was and she killed of a string of National Party leaders who were, as Muldoon said of Rowling, shivers looking for spine to sliver up (or words to that effect). But a good leader thinks carefully and does not simply ignore people, especially when 87% of NZers believe something. They read situations carefully, and sometimes shift positions (carefully), make adjustments etc. This was one such time John. You missed it.
I am deeply perturbed at the loss of genuine democratic process. Sure, the Referendum was not a great question, but it got the point across. Here was a chance to seek to refine the legislation with clear definitions. It was not going back to the old, it was a middle ground. John, you missed it. As I have said in previous blogs, it is looking like you won't be PM for as long as I thought. Mind you, the lack of an alternative is obvious. Phil Goff is hardly going to worry you. But don't think NZ is happy John. Some will be, most definitely aren't.
What's the Story
This blog relates to my world at Laidlaw College. At College we love now to talk about the Bible as 'one story' starting at creation, centred on Christ, and ending in the renewed earth. This was a great idea when it really started to take off because it pulled together the disparate parts of the Bible into one flowing narrative. This is good. It is important. It is one important element in biblical interpretation.
The problem is with the term 'story.' I am so sick of it! Everytime I hear it I groan. A few years ago the same thing happened with the word 'journey.' So, I have been thinking. How else can we say it. Here are some ideas: a narrative; an epic; a symphony; a drama; a saga; an account; a chronicle; a tale; a record; a history; a movie. So people of God, try and be creative. I am not sure all these work as well as the other, but surely we can speak in different ways.
There is another problem with 'story'. I tested this with a few friends recently and they all agreed that 'story' can have the sense of 'fiction', 'fairy-tale', not true. That being said, we need to really take care here.
So, to the 7 people who read this blog, let's get creative and use a variety of means to describe the oneness of the Scriptures... please! Cause its driving me up the wall!
The problem is with the term 'story.' I am so sick of it! Everytime I hear it I groan. A few years ago the same thing happened with the word 'journey.' So, I have been thinking. How else can we say it. Here are some ideas: a narrative; an epic; a symphony; a drama; a saga; an account; a chronicle; a tale; a record; a history; a movie. So people of God, try and be creative. I am not sure all these work as well as the other, but surely we can speak in different ways.
There is another problem with 'story'. I tested this with a few friends recently and they all agreed that 'story' can have the sense of 'fiction', 'fairy-tale', not true. That being said, we need to really take care here.
So, to the 7 people who read this blog, let's get creative and use a variety of means to describe the oneness of the Scriptures... please! Cause its driving me up the wall!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
