Mark Keown

The concept “Jesus is my vaccine” gets a lot of bad press. It is a mantra for some with fundamentalists or prosperity Christians who preach the health and wealth gospel. I found this song ridiculing the idea against the backdrop of some song claiming Jesus will keep believers free from harm ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MthVGsirxhM ). And to be fair, I don’t blame the creator of the video; the way “Jesus is my vaccine” is employed is appalling. Some prominent Christians preach such a message, repudiating Covid as a minor threat, and if it is, they assume that because they are Christians, Jesus will protect them from the vaccine. Of course, these so-called Christians are utterly flawed in their theology. They have not realized that the gospel propounded by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the other early Christians, is not a health and wealth gospel. They never said, “if you become a Christian, you will be protected by right by Jesus from the sufferings of life.” Instead, they preached,

I am intrigued at how the word “freedom” is being used by those opposing NZ government regulations concerning Covid-19. The word is being thrown around all over the place with people considering it is a violation of their freedom to have the government bring in Covid vaccination certificates for certain vocations, for travel, and for entry into a range of venues. I thought it would be good to consider this from a biblical point of view to show that the word is being utterly misused and abused when we consider what Christian freedom really is. I will show that the freedom we have has nothing to do with governments, our own wants, and desires, but is all about serving one another in love. The New Testament is clear in its theology—those who sincerely believe in Jesus are free in Christ. So, Paul says in Galatians 5:1, “for freedom, Christ has set us free.” John writes, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32), “If the Son (Jesus) sets you free, you are free indeed” (John 8:36). What

I was asked the other day by a pastor whether it is time for the church to say no to the government requirements concerning vaccine certificates. The pastor spoke of not wanting to be a bouncer and having to find ways to block the unvaccinated from services. I sent off an email later that day, but the question is nagging away at me. I thought I would throw some thoughts down. The injunction to obey the governing authorities is clear in the NT. First, Jesus endorses the payment of taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:17 & parallels). Second, Paul twice urges readers to submit to the government authorities including paying taxes (Rom 13:1–7; Tit 3:1). Third, Peter urges his readers to subject themselves to human authorities including the king. On the whole, this picks up the OT threads of the same including the likes of Joseph, Daniel, and Esther, being obedient (in the main) to the governments of the day. The general view is that governments are used by God as a means to govern his world to d

The world is being divided into two social groups, the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. The rift is growing, with vehemence on both sides. This division is seen in social media where people express their thoughts, friendships are wrecked, families are divided, and society is split. It threatens to leave members of our society marginalised.   In history, things have divided people with tragic consequences—whether it be race, religion, politics, gender, etc. Now we have a new thing dividing us—whether a person has taken the Covid-19 vaccine or not. How should the church respond? Do we allow this division to take hold? Or is there a better way? In the history of the church, many things have divided Christians. In the early church, divisions took hold over whether a new non-Jewish Christian needed to be circumcised and submit to the law of Moses (become a Jew to be a Christian). Christians were divided over the divinity and/or humanity of Christ, and the Trinity. The Orthodox Church

One of the great passages of Scripture is Galatians 3:28. In this verse, Paul tells the Galatian readers (part of modern Turkey), that “in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female.” “In Christ Jesus” is one of Paul’s favorite ways of saying a person is a Christian. A person who believes in Jesus as savior and Lord and who confesses this faith is “in Christ.” They are included in God’s people, sons and daughters of God, part of God’s church, called to serve God in the world and promised eternal life together with all other believers. This statement declares the breaking down of three social boundaries that dominated the Roman world. The first speaks of the breaking down of racial and ethnic boundaries for those who are Christians. Paul speaks of two categories. Jews were those physically descended from Abraham or who had converted to Judaism by becoming a proselyte. Such people, if men, were circumcised. They beca

I was asked recently whether the contemporary sexuality debates in the church can be compared to matters of slavery and women. Where slavery is concerned, the NT documents do not condemn slavery, however, the church in its wisdom a few centuries ago came to realise that slavery is fundamentally wrong in that it demeans people made in the image of God. As such, slavery is condemned by most if not all Christians. Similarly, the church in many instances has shifted its views on women toward an egalitarian stance, which seems to contrast with some parts of the Bible. The question is whether the church should similarly change its position on same-sex relationships. Here are some thoughts. Slavery It is true that the NT does not condemn slavery directly. However, neither does the NT endorse slavery. It is assumed to be something experienced by many in the church and masters and slaves are instructed concerning how to behave in their relationships (esp. Eph 6:4–9; 1 Pet 2:17–25). Howeve

I have been asked to consider whether the category “eunuchs from birth” in Matt 19:12 might open the way for biblically minded Christians accepting same-sex relationships on a par with heterosexual marriage. Here is my answer concerning this verse alone. (The solution to such questions involves interpretation of a wide range of biblical material and this is only one such aspect.) The context of the passage is Jesus being asked by Pharisees his interpretation of Deut 24:1, the core text on divorce in Pharisaic thought. Jesus is being asked where he stands in relation to an ongoing debate between Shammai and Hillel Pharisees. Deuteronomy 24:1 states that a husband can divorce his wife if he finds some indecency in her. Shammai took indecency here to mean sexual immorality. The Shammai view is consistent with the Hebrew ʿěr·wā(h) which at its core, means the genitals. Hillel took it more figuratively, Moses giving grounds for a husband to divorce his wife on any grounds. As the term ʿě

The media is abuzz with questions about whether transgender people should be able to compete in Olympic and other elite sports events with people of their gender, i.e., those who have transitioned to women with women, and those to men with men. The latter is unlikely to happen, as few women would transition to be men and then be capable of competing with them. Then again, you never know, with the use of steroids and many sports do not rely on strength (e.g., lawn bowls). The real question is whether transgender women should compete on the same level with those who are born women and remain so.  At the moment, some sports say no, men who have transitioned to women have an unfair advantage and it will be dangerous in contact sports as women may be hurt by the more powerful transwomen. Some say yes, it is about inclusion, and with the right controls on hormone levels, it will be a fair contest. There is a great pushback from athletes against the latter idea, as they do not agree that it w

I am intrigued by the number of articles, podcasts, videos, and other media using the phrase “post-Christian” in relation to the world or a given context. I will argue that such a descriptor is incorrect and should never be used by anyone who claims to be Christian. In AD 27–30 or 30–33, Jesus Christ entered history. He was God incarnate. He lived an extraordinary life. Imbued with a ridiculous degree of power never before seen in a human, he healed multitudes, walked on water, calmed a storm, turned water to wine, raised the dead, and showed love to people society had utterly marginalized. He was arrested, illegally tried, condemned to death, and died by crucifixion. He never once used his phenomenal power for his own ends, only using it to help others in need. On the third day after his death, his tomb was found empty, and then he appeared around ten times to women, men, and groups. Forty days later, 120 of his followers had an astonishing experience in which they were filled wit

I was asked at church the other day whether wives should submit to their husbands, based on the English translations of Ephesians 5:22-24. My answer confused the hearer as they thought I was saying no a wife need not obey a husband, when in fact I was saying, yes they should, but all Christians are meant to submit to one another (that is the real command in the passage). Let me explain. In the original Greek, which is the original language of the NT (not English), the command comes in v. 21 as a participle ( hyptassomenoi ), “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This is what is known in Greek as an imperatival participle, which is a fancy way of saying a participle (an “ing” word, e.g., submitt ing ) that is actually a command. It is placed in the first position which gives it prominence or as older scholars would say "emphasis." The following verse (22) does not have a command in it. It draws on the participle stating (wives to your own husbands as to the

Good on Christopher Luxon for speaking about his Christian faith in his maiden parliamentary speech. Clips can be heard here: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018788962/luxon-highlights-faith-in-maiden-speech . In his speech, Luxon challenges the stereotyping of people with a Christian faith as extreme. He states that his faith anchors him, gives his life purpose, and shapes his values. It puts him in the context of something bigger than himself. He goes on to say that his faith has a strong influence on who he is and how he relates to people. He speaks of seeing Jesus showing compassion, tolerance, and care for others. For him, Jesus does not judge, discriminate, or reject people, he loves unconditionally. He notes Christians in history who have made a huge difference by entering public life. He singles our Christian abolitionists who fought against slavery, those who educated the poor and challenged the rich to share their wealth to help others les