tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63747616586461858742024-03-16T14:09:44.801+13:00Mark KeownThe blog of Mark Keown, New Testament lecturer at Laidlaw College, Auckland, New Zealand. It involves comments on theology, life, sport and whatever comes into Mark's random mind.Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.comBlogger577125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-78097229062290103642023-07-04T10:21:00.000+12:002023-07-04T10:21:01.508+12:00A New Role: Director of Evangelistic Leadership<p>In 1974,
while living in the Cook Islands with my teaching parents and two sisters, I
first met Jesus. A friend, Bobby (Rangi) Moekaa, invited me to a Christian group
that was run in the school by Brian Chitty (who happened to work with my
parents in education). Brian shared the gospel based on the amazing prophetic
statue in Daniel 7. Being a logical young lad, I reasoned that if God could
predict through the OT prophets the world's empires up to Jesus, I should believe
in him. I did and gave my heart to Jesus.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Things turned
sour at home after this. My parents were not impressed, particularly my Dad. It
didn’t help that I immediately tried to evangelise them. When your thirteen-year-old son shares the gospel with you, and you are fiercely antichristian as my
Father was at that stage of life, it never goes well for the evangelizer. Long
story short, my relationship with my Dad was wrecked, and, in tears, on my bed, I
told God I could not follow him as I wanted in such a home and that I would
follow him when I left home. Of course, I could have done so, but I did not have
the capacity at that point. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For the
next ten years, I lived a typical Kiwi boy’s life, seeking glory in sport, desperately
wanting a girlfriend and failing, and getting into booze and other recreational
drugs. When I was twenty-three, some ten years after my experience with Jesus, I began
to experience deep disillusionment and uncertainty about the world and life. I
lived with my girlfriend, had a flourishing sports career, and was a school
teacher. But I began to feel lost. Looking back, I now know God was summoning me to honour my commitment to follow him when I left home. After several
spiritual experiences, one night, it hit me like a lightning bolt—it’s God! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As that
year progressed, I asked my girlfriend Emma to buy me a Bible for Christmas. We
went away for the usual Boxing Day—New Year binge. Then, on New Year’s Day,
1985, I announced to my mates I was following Jesus. They were shocked, but I followed my nose (the Spirit would be more accurate). I found a Church
where I felt God’s presence, St Columbus Presbyterian Church. Emma came along
too, and we both gave our lives to Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">We then
went on the journey that continues today. We got heavily involved in evangelism
with others in the church. We formed a band, Streetlight, which had over thirty people in it at one point. I wrote songs and dramas. We performed and preached in
all sorts of places. We worked for our church in full-time evangelism from
1987–89.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Then, in
1990, painfully aware of how little we knew about Christianity, we followed God’s
lead and went to study at Bible College of NZ (now Laidlaw College). We both got
degrees and loved our studies. During our time at College, we had another
evangelistic band, Won by One. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Then we went
on a ministry journey and further training to be ordained. Since then, we
have ministered in churches together. In 2004 I was offered a job at BCNZ in evangelism and worship, but I did not feel the time was right. Then, in 2005, I left church ministry in the
formal sense and became a NT lecturer at Laidlaw. I have taught the NT always
with the same evangelistic passion I had from the beginning. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A few years
ago, I preached in the Journey Church. Terry Calkin approached me after the
service offering the idea of the Kimberly Trust funding a position at Laidlaw College
in evangelism. We formed a friendship and discussed ideas. He saw in
me the person that would fill it. Over the last few years, Laidlaw and the
Trust have worked together and made this a reality. Now, thanks to the
Kimberley Trust, a position has been established at Laidlaw, which is named “Director
of Evangelistic Leadership.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As a result,
as of July 1, 2023, I am in this role. It is fascinating to see the journey God
has sent me on. In the eighteen years of biblical study and teaching, I believe
God has equipped me to understand far better than I knew when I came to Laidlaw
what it means to do evangelism in God’s way. I now understand better than I did
the need to preserve the one true Gospel (found in Scripture and in the persons
of our One Triune God) and yet share it in intelligent, imaginative, clear, and simple ways. I feel like God is saying to me, “You are now ready” to
do such a role.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As such, I
am uber-excited about the future. My job will involve establishing a centre for
evangelistic leadership that will work in partnership with the Centre for Church
Leadership. I get to help shape a curriculum that puts evangelism, apologetics,
church planting, and church renewal at the center of the college. I get to research in this space, finishing some books I am writing on evangelism in the
Scriptures and other things. With Emma and other great Christians, we have put together a new band, "Already Not Yet," and I get to rekindle my music career. Other potential ideas include a peer-reviewed yet
accessible journal, podcasts, writings, and new resources in the evangelistic
space. I get to network with other Kiwis doing amazing work and see further
things develop. I am super passionate about NZ’s cultural diversity and rethinking
evangelism for the nation's diverse people. I get to join other Kiwi
Christians pondering how we engage with a world that is less and less
interested in Christian ethics—how do we respond? Then there is the AI future
that is now looming over us! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">These are
massive questions, and the church must do its best thinking while continuing the
work of sharing the gospel to the world. And I get to be involved. What an
honour! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This work
will require great support. We need prayer warriors who will make it a priority
to pray for the NZ church to become evangelistically renewed both in a passion
for the gospel and new converts. We require financial support to ensure this is not just a short phase in Laidlaw’s history. We want evangelism,
apologetics, church planting, and the renewal of churches in our DNA! I am
looking for those who are already working in this space to make contact so we
can talk and we can be mutually encouraged by one another and share spiritual
gifts and thoughts together. Hallelujah! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If you want
to be involved in some way, you can contact me through my email <a href="mailto:mkeown@laidlaw.ac.nz">mkeown@laidlaw.ac.nz</a>. The Lord bless and
keep you. <o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-66768408278578482062023-03-07T10:33:00.006+13:002023-03-07T10:33:45.012+13:00Should Churches With "Saint" in their Name Change their Church Names?<p>For a long time, I have been pondering whether it is appropriate to have the name "Saint" applied to a church or Christian-based organization. My answer is, "no, it should not be." </p><p>The word "saint" has its origins in the idea of holiness. For Israel, God is the Holy One. In the Old Testament, it is also applied to God's people as "holy people" or "saints" (e.g., Ps 16:3; Isa 62:12; 63:18). It is applied to the collective and not individuals.</p><p>By the time we come to the New Testament, the term is applied to Jesus as "the Holy One" a few times (Mark 1:24 and parallels; John 6:69: Acts 2:27; 13:25; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7) and God (Rev 16:5). Otherwise, where people are concerned, it is used for God's holy people as a collective about sixty times (e.g., Matt 27:52; Acts 9:13; Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 3:13; 1 Tim 5:10; Phlm 1:5; Heb 6:10; Jude 3; Rev 5:8). So, the term "saint" in Christian thought applies to all Christians, without exception. </p><p>However, over time, it became customary to apply the term "saint" to particular individuals who have done amazing things for God. Indeed, there is a strict process in the Roman Catholic Church to be canonized as a saint (e.g., https://catholiceducation.org/resources/the-process-of-becoming-a-saint). Where "saint" language is used in this elitist way, it divides Christians into two groups: the great (the saints) and the rest (the non-saints). It creates elitism in the church.</p><p>Now the NT equally rejects elitism. This is seen in the memorable Galatians 3:28, where Paul declares an end to the great social elitisms of race (Jew over gentile, racism), gender (male over female, patriarch), and social status (master over slave, and any other form of elitism). There is simply no room for elitism in the church.<br /><br />Jesus, too, was not interested in elitism. He verbally challenged the Jewish elite for their oppression and hypocrisy. He was the friend of sinners, hung out at the margins, healed the sick, exorcized the demonized, fed the poor, and welcomed those rejected from high society. He summoned us to a new world in which all Christians are one and on the same level. He set the agenda for modern western egalitarianism.</p><p>Sadly, the church perpetuates elitism. Not only do we have the clergy-laity split in many churches, but we perpetuate the nonsense of the sainthood of the special in the names of many of our churches. This is unbiblical and an affront to the gospel. </p><p>Strangely and ironically, the only church that uses Saint correctly is a church considered heretical by most Christians, the Mormons, "The Church of the Latter-Day Saints." In the NT, the latter days began at the resurrection of Jesus, and we are in them until Christ's return. They also recognize all in the church are saints. </p><p>So, with all of this in mind, I would urge all leaders of churches with the name "Saint ..." to change the name of the church to something that reflects Jesus our Lord and his inclusion of all people regardless of status. I believe if the Apostles, Paul, and other writers of the NT were here to observe our flawed us of sainthood, they would join me. The church is about God, Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus is our Lord. The Spirit is in all believers without prejudice. We are all equal before God. All are saints. Is it not time for us to reflect the gospel appropriately as we present ourselves to the world?</p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-16227572236405001752021-12-17T11:15:00.002+13:002021-12-17T11:15:22.291+13:00 Jesus is My Vaccine?<p>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 (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MthVGsirxhM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MthVGsirxhM</a>).
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Instead, they preached, “If you become a
Christian, you will go through the same sufferings all humans go through (for
we are all subject to decay, death, and sinful tendencies), and you will sometimes
go through more (persecution and the struggle of being a Christian). But as you
go through the suffering, God will be with you! He will be in you. You will be
in him. He will strengthen you! And, in the life to come, you will live forever
free of suffering. Jesus died to save us, but not to magically protect us, as
if he is an antidote to the normal suffering of life. Jesus is our vaccine, but
not in the sense these people say.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Indeed, the failure of the fundamentalist or
health and wealth “gospel” is evidenced by the billions of Christians who litter
the graveyards of the world since Jesus and the apostles walked the earth. They
died from all the same things other humans died from (and many from persecution, including Jesus and some first Christians).
These Christians adopt and preach</span> a hideous false gospel that
distorts the faith. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians against such people, and he spends
large parts of the letter, boasting of his sufferings! In them, he
identified with Christ, and he experienced God’s power sustaining him and empowering
him in his ministry. I encourage all captured by these false ideas to read 2
Corinthians, memorize it, and apply it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Yet even though “Jesus is my vaccine” is
utterly mangled by some today, the idea is not stupid at one level. It helps us
understand the Christian message in broad terms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Christian story tells of God creating the
first humans and placing them in a garden where they had access to eternal life
and to be free of suffering. The fruit of the “Tree of life” would function
effectively as a vaccine against their decaying and dying. They would be immune
to decay and death.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Of course, the first humans, we read in
Genesis 3, rejected God’s injunctions and chose the path of self-determination,
and were shut out from the “vaccine” that is the fruit of the Tree. They were
infected with sin, corruption, decay, and death (the universal condition).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">After this, all people, as we descended from
these first people, as Paul puts it, are subject to decay and destined for
death. There is no way this can be avoided. Humans are born; they live to a
point at which they begin to die. We call the process aging. Then, we all die
(fundies and prosperity gospel people included). Paul attributes this problem
to a blend of Adam and our own sin and sees it as a universal problem. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In other words, we are fatally sick as
humans, most of us declining from those heady days of being in our
early-mid-twenties (for some earlier!) until we shuffle off this mortal coil.
This is a universal problem, including fundamentalists and prosperity teachers,
millions of whom died in times past when their bodies gave up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Christian message is that <i>Jesus <b>is</b>
our vaccine</i> (but not in the way these people say). At Christmas, we
celebrate Jesus’ coming. He was born a vulnerable wee boy, placed in an animal’s
feeding trough. He grew to adulthood and lived a life free from sin, utterly
fulfilling God’s law given to Israel, and he, too, died. He died a horrible death.
Even though he was not infected with the virus of his own personal sin, he allowed
himself to be infected with the human condition and with the sins of humankind
(metaphorically speaking), and his body decayed and died. This expiry was
quick, as his body gave up the ghost, and he died as he was crucified.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The early Christians had experiences of him
appearing after this death and became fully convinced that he had overcome
death (see the resurrection accounts in the NT). This means he defeated the
virus of death, rose to life, appeared, ascended to the right hand of God in
our Creator’s realm, heaven, and now reigns the universe as Lord. He became the
vaccine or antidote to sin, where faith in God and his Son is found in the
human heart.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Where people believe in this Jesus, the
vaccine or antidote for sin, God, through Christ, sends his Spirit into the beings
of believers. Put another way by Paul, believers are swept up into Christ, and
his death becomes our death, and we are promised eternal life.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Spirit functions as a vaccine in a sense.
Where the fundamentalists and prosperity people go wrong is they think the Spirit
is in us to the point of completely protecting us from Covid or any other
illness for that matter (and poverty, etc.)—if we just have enough faith. Yet,
the NT is clear, believers receive the Spirit as a kind of seal, guarantee, birth certificate, or first-fruit of a harvest. The Spirit does not magically protect us from decay and death, but the Spirit strengthens us in
our inner beings as we decay and death. The Spirit enables us to persevere, develops our character, enhances
our abilities and gives us new gifts and skills, gives us hope, and fills us
with love, as we live our mortal lives. The Spirit enables us to live the life
God wants for us, despite the virus of sin, decay, and death still eventually
killing us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Paul also explains at different points that
while the Spirit is not the vaccine that stops us from decaying and dying in this
life, when we die, by this same Spirit, God, through his Son, will raise us
from the death. He becomes our vaccine in the most total sense of completely protecting
us from decay and death, enabling us never to die again. We will experience the
fullness of the Spirit and the gift of resurrected immortal, imperishable life.
At that point, Jesus becomes the full dose of the vaccine that these deluded so-called
Christians believe they have received now (when they have only received “a small
dose”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, Jesus <i>is</i> our vaccine, as <i>is</i>
the Spirit (who is God and Christ in us). However, he is not our vaccine in the
magical sense that these people suggest. He is our vaccine in the sense of
strengthening us to go on believing and living the life God has for us, despite
suffering and eventually death. At our death, or when Jesus returns (whichever
comes first), Jesus by his Spirit will become our eternal vaccine by the Spirit
by which we live forever with God—and it will be good! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The final two chapters of Revelation speak
of this. The world is renewed, freed from the illness caused by sin, corruption,
decay, and death, and people again have access to the Tree of Life that lines
the banks of the River of Life that flows from the throne of God. The leaves of
this Tree are the healing of the nations. The faithful given the gift of continued
life in this renewed world are free to eat of the trees and will live forever
(immune to the virus caused by sin).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In sum, the people I have referenced who
claim the name Christian should stop preaching a false gospel that “Jesus is my
vaccine” in the sense that he will save us in the present from all manner of
illnesses, including Covid-19. They can reject the vaccine because they don’t
need it. This is rubbish. Covid-19 is real and has taken at the point of
writing some six million lives (including many who believed, “Jesus is my
vaccine and will save me from Covid”). This kind of thinking is not a biblical
understanding. Instead, IMHO, unless they are medically exempt, Christians should take
the Covid vaccine just as they have received God’s ultimate vaccine, the
Spirit. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">However, let us remember that Jesus <i>is</i>
my vaccine in the sense that he is the answer to the problem of the sickness caused
by sin that manifests in people with all manner of selfishness, greed, idolatries, disruptive,
and malicious behavior—and other horrible things we humans do (even the best of
us). When we believe, he does send into us the Spirit of God and Christ—the
Vaccine of God. He comes into our inner beings—and he dwells in us, and we dwell
in him. While he will not magically protect us from sickness (although
sometimes he chooses to intervene and do so as he wills), he will be with us
strengthening us through our suffering (which is inevitable). He will sustain
us if we get Covid, and if it kills us, as it may, he will be there waiting on
the other side and will fill us with the Vaccine of God, Christ’s Spirit, and
we will live eternally. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hence, we can get through this pandemic. We
don’t have to preach a fake version of the biblical gospel. We can preach the
one we find across the NT. It tells us that when humans were blighted by the virus of
sin, decay, death, and destruction, God sent Jesus to save us. He never sinned.
He died, rose, and is now Lord. He sends his Spirit, the ultimate Vaccine, to deal
with the problem of sin and its consequences once and for all. We receive it. We
experience his power to strengthen us, even as the virus of sin, decay, and
death eventually takes us. And then, glory be!, we live forever filled with the
vaccine that is God, in Christ, by the Spirit forever and ever, Amen. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Have a blessed Christmas as we remember
that day when Jesus became one of us to save us from the virus of sin and
death. He became a vulnerable baby. He took onto himself all that we
experience, and in his short life, overcame the virus of sin with which we are infected. He died and rose, and
yes, Jesus is our Vaccine. I do hope you dare to believe in him. I fully believe
him to be true! Why not taste and see that the Vaccine is good? <o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-47803881864286450452021-11-24T12:20:00.000+13:002021-11-24T12:20:00.729+13:00Christian “Freedom” in a Pandemic<p>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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The New Testament is clear in its
theology—those who sincerely believe in Jesus <i>are</i> 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 is this freedom? Well, it is not a
freedom to do what we want, when we want, in whatever way we want. It is not
anything to do with a government allowing us this or that freedom—to do what we
like, when we like, with whom we like, and in whatever way we like. It is not
the freedom to protest. It is nothing to do with the freedom not to have a
vaccine, or to have a vaccine. These are all more like the kinds of ways Romans
defined freedom, and the way the word is used today by people outside of the
Christian faith (or people within who totally misunderstand the idea). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is, in fact, a corruption of the gospel
found in Corinth. In Corinth, they had a slogan which Paul quotes twice, “everything
is lawful (or permissible)” (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). In other words, do what you
like. The Corinthians felt that now that they were Christians and God’s
children, they were set free to do what they wanted when they wanted. They
could engage in sexual immorality (1 Cor 6), they could attend idolatrous pagan
feasts and participate at their leisure (1 Cor 10). Paul repudiates this arguing
that they misunderstand Christianity and summoning them to the “most excellent
way”—the way of love (1 Cor 13).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So then, what is Christian freedom? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Freedom involves being liberated from some
kind of bondage. In the Roman world, it was most commonly used in terms of emancipation
from slavery (one was born a slave if one’s parents were slaves, slaves were
everywhere, and gaining freedom was an aspirational goal for most). So, when
Paul uses it, he has slavery in mind. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The slavery he is referring to is not
enslavement to government regulations or the limitation of freedoms by a
government! The government at the time of the writing of the New Testament was the
Roman Caesars—emperors who ruled with an iron fist. None of our western
governments are remotely like them! Citizens had more freedoms. Slaves had few.
Yet, there is nothing about freedom from Caesar in the NT. Rather, people lived
within God’s kingdom under his reign and were encouraged to submit to the
Caesars (Rom 13; Tit 3:1). The only exceptions would be extreme situations like
that envisaged in Revelation 13 where people would defy the government. And to
be fair, and this Covid situation is nothing like that. The vaccine is NOT the
mark of the beast! (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MK-1exVWI&t=6s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MK-1exVWI&t=6s</a>)
The western governments are not the beast of Revelation 13, that is fanciful. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">What the NT has in mind is freedom from
being in bondage the Jewish law, sin, and its consequences. Where the Jewish
law is concerned, new gentile (non-Jewish) converts did not have to adhere to circumcision
and the other Jewish laws (especially those things that demark a Jew from a gentile,
like Sabbath observance and Kosher food, see Galatians and Acts 15). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">More importantly, Christian freedom is liberation
from bondage to sin, the desires of the flesh, and the eternal consequences of sin
(eternal destruction). This is possible because Jesus has stood in their place,
taken the consequences for sin on a cross in his atoning death, and believers
are now children of God. They are no longer slaves. God’s Spirit is in them.
They are free from guilt and self-condemnation and from shame. They will still
be prone to sin, but they are assured of God’s forgiveness because they believe
in the one who died for them. So, a Christian is free in the sense that they
are free from sin and its eternal consequences.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">How are they to exercise that freedom? This
is where some Christians are going wrong at the moment. Believers are not free
to do what they want, to expect eternal wealth in the present if they are
obedient, to never get sick, to be free not to take a vaccine, to be free to
travel, go to restaurants, to protest, to keep their job if they are
unvaccinated, or anything like this. Rather, they are free to step into what
God created them to be as his image bearers (Gen 1:26–27), with their specific vocational
callings in God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And towering over all such personal
vocations is the common call for all Christians to live out their freedom, and
it is exquisitely described by Paul in Galatians 5:13. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Remember that Galatians 5 begins with the
aforementioned declaration that Christians are “free” (Gal 5:1). So, what are
they to do with that freedom from the Jewish law, sin, and its consequences? Here is Galatians
5:13–14:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">13 For you are called to freedom, brothers, and sisters. Only, do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but
rather, <i>through love</i>, <i>serve one another</i>! 14 For the whole law is fulfilled
in one sentence (literally, word): “<i>Love your neighbor as yourself</i>.”
(italics mine).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, we are free, and our freedom is to step
into the character of God and of his Son who came to us—love and service of
others. Jesus showed us what freedom looks like. Jesus is the “freest creature”
in the universe. He is God’s Son, creator, sustainer of the universe, he can do
what he likes, for he is God the Son. It is his world and he is the Free One! He
had/has the freedom to turn up on earth at any time and demand our allegiance,
after all, he is our creator. He could blow the world up in a moment if he
chose. He can do what he likes, for He <i>Is</i> Freedom! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Yet what did he do? He came to earth in a
totally different way, renouncing all ideas of demanding our allegiance through
rapacious force, even though he has equality with God the Father as his Son. He
did not attack governments, protest the Romans, demand his own way. Rather, he emptied
himself, pouring himself out in service to the world. He died to save all
people from rulers to paupers. He washed dirty feet. He was friends with the
sinners of the world, pronounced forgiveness over them, touched the
untouchable, healed them, and fed them. He served them! He is the Servant Isaiah
pictured in his great servant songs found in Isaiah chs. 40, 49, 50, and 52–53.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And supremely, rather than assert his
rights to do as he wanted to dominate others into submission (which he easily
could have), he allowed humankind to kill him, and in so doing, became the one,
unblemished by sin, who fulfilled Israel’s sacrifice system as the once-for-all
final sacrifice for sins. He, the Free One, gave up his freedoms to save a world.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In so doing, he showed us the character of
God—giving up personal freedoms, wants, and desires—living service and self-giving.
Indeed, we see God the Father’s Servant Ontology by his preparedness to send
his one and only son to die for the world, to save it. He gave up his Son for
us, when he was free not to do so. He did it because he loves us and did it as
a demonstration of that love. Although free not to do this, he freely gave up
his son and freely offers us all salvation in him. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">When the Free Son Jesus came, he showed us
what we were created to be—those who serve others in love. He served to the
point of death; and not any death, but the most humiliating death known for a
Roman, used for slaves and criminals—the public humiliation of torture and crucifixion.
He hung naked on a cross, showing how far he was prepared to go to become the
vaccine for sin in a “sindemic” world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And as if that is not enough, after rising
from the dead, he ascended to his rightful place as the Free One, and now without
ceasing, Jesus prays for us to stand strong in our faith (Rom 8:34). Yet, wait,
there is more. Now, through the Son, God the Father sends his Spirit into the inner
beings of believers and the Spirit serves them from within. He gently and
patiently transforms us to be more and more like Jesus (Rom 8:29). He changes
us from selfish people, who feel what matters most is our own freedoms and
wants, and not the freedom of others, to be like the Free One who came and gave
himself in the service of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, our freedom is the freedom to be what
we are created to be—those who are shaped by and who emit God’s love to others.
Galatians 5:19–25 then further defines this freedom. It does not include us
doing what we want when we want with whom we want as we want, that is living by
the flesh from which we have been set free (Gal 5:19–21). Instead, we are to be
charactised by the fruit of the Spirit: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness (or humility), and self-control. We can add
innumerable more things which can be summed up with us living to serve others so
that they may flourish in this life, and hopefully, eternal life!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">By the way, John agrees with this. He who
wrote, “if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed” in John 8 goes on to
declare that believers are to live by the new commandment, “that you love one
another.” Indeed, the thing that demonstrates to the world that we are God’s
children is our “love for one another!” (John 13:34–35). This is because, as he
says elsewhere, God is love, and we love because he first loved us (1 John 4:8,
18). And the great chapter, John 13, includes in it one of the greatest
demonstrations of what we are created to be as Jesus, the king of the universe,
did the work of a slave girl in that time—he washed the gnarled, dirty feet of
his disciples. He then summoned them to do the same (John 13:15). Interestingly,
one of those whose feet he washed was Judas, who after the meal that followed, went
out and betrayed him. Jesus knew this was going to happen (John 6:70–71), and
yet he washed his feet. He ate with him, showing hospitality to his enemies.
Then Judas betrayed him to death. This love we are to embody is love even for
our enemies (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:35).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, if we see a so-called Christian
demanding their freedoms from the government and vaccines, know that this has
nothing to do with biblical freedom. This is them exercising their own desires.
One might argue that it is more an expression of the fleshly living they have
supposedly been saved from. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On a personal note, I would add that the
ideas in this blog are what led me to go and get vaccinated as quickly as I
could. While initially, I had some concerns about a vaccine that seems so
quickly being used, these were speedily assuaged as I read around the medical
and scientific data I could get my hands on and understand. It quickly became blindingly obvious that the best way for
me to live out my freedom to love and serve others in emulation of Christ was
to get vaccinated asap. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Of course, there was some risk in doing so,
however, getting vaccinated meant that I would be far less likely to become
seriously ill with the virus, clog up the hospital on a ventilator, and be contagious
to the many vulnerable people around me. As such, love compelled me to get vaccinated.
I knew there was a risk, vaccinations always carry risk. But what was glaringly
obvious from multiple news sources was that the virus is way more dangerous
than the vaccine. Now, nearly 8 billion jabs have been given, and while there
are some adverse reactions, the vaccine is clearly way preferable to the virus.
Hence, as one who loves Jesus, who gave up his freedoms to save me, and who
showed me that true humanity is serving one another in love, I got the vaccine.
If it had killed me that would be a small price to pay to save others. I did so
willingly and joyfully, seeing it as a right denial of self, a small cross to
take up, so that others may have life.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">There is another aspect to this some
forget. While I have freedoms, so has everyone around me. I am free to not take
the vaccine. No one has told me I must take it. Yet, if I say no to the vaccine,
the people of NZ and its government also have freedoms they can exercise in light
of my decision. Their freedom to be concerned for their own health and those
they love or who are under their care not surprisingly will lead them to
constrain me and others who choose not to get vaccinated. That is their right,
just as it is my right to get vaccinated or not. Freedoms cut in different and multiple
ways. It is not just about me. There is individual freedom for me, there is the
freedom of the other millions of Kiwis around me, and the freedom of a
government elected to govern (and the freedoms of the rest of the world). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Put another way, there are both freedoms
and consequences. There are rights and responsibilities to others. No one has
to get vaccinated, it is not forced nor mandated. That is our choice. Yet, as
with all choices, there will be consequences. In the case of the vaccine, aside
from those who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons (and they should get
exemptions, and children at this point), not taking it will lead to the consequence
of being marginalized for the good of others. And rightly so with the current
data, for we have to limit the spread of the virus to ensure people’s health,
the hospital system is sustainable, and to kill off the virus as it can no
longer replicate. If we do get vaccinated, that too will have consequences. It
will mean I can move freely among others who now feel safe. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, in summary. Christian freedom is not a
freedom from tyrannical governments (as if this one is really tyrannical), freedom to do what I like when I like (that is Corinthian false freedom), or freedom to protest, and so on. it is a freedom to serve one another in love. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I suggest the best way to do that is to be
vaccinated. If, however, a Christian does not, and that is their prerogative, then
that person should live freely, accepting the consequences. They should recognise
the rights and freedoms of others to respond for the safety of those they love.
As for us, where we differ on these matters, we who are vaccinated and we who
are unvaccinated, must continue to serve and love one another across the
differences. Shalom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-80365063876241702952021-11-23T08:15:00.001+13:002021-11-23T08:15:37.343+13:00 Is It Time for Kiwi Churches to Disobey the Government? Short Answer for Me: No.<p>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 deal with evil and promote
goodness. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Still, there is clear
evidence throughout the Bible that this injunction to submit is not unlimited
obedience. There are times when believers will refuse the government, usually
when it asks believers or the church to violate the core of the gospel,
especially placing submission to a government above God himself. So, in the
book of Daniel, despite being a very important official in the
Babylonian government, Daniel refused to bow to an idol and was thrown into a lion’s
den. <span lang="EN-US">Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego</span>, similarly, were thrown into a fire for the
same. Many were martyred in Israel’s history for such refusals, especially in
the Maccabean revolt. Revelation 13 suggests that there is a time to say no to
a government asking believers to violate the exclusive worship of God. Romans,
Titus, and 1 Peter exhort believers to worship God and his Son, and as such,
while they are to obey the government, there is a limit on this.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, where are we at
here in NZ? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The government has
introduced vaccine mandates whereby when we go into the so-called traffic light
system, under red (the harshest level), churches are allowed up to 100 people
present if all people present vaccination certificates. If not, the limit is 10
people. Hence, if we have mixed gatherings, the limit is ten people in a room
worshiping together. When we move to orange, the limit on numbers is removed if
the attendees all have the certificates, whereas groups including those without
the certificates are limited to 50 people. The third level is green where
again there is no limit for those with the vaccination certificates while if
the uncertificated are included, the limit is 100. (See for this, <a href="https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-levels-and-updates/covid-19-protection/">https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-levels-and-updates/covid-19-protection/</a>).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, churches have a
choice when we move into the red light system on December 3. They can obey the government and
reopen with the limit of 100 as long as people have the certificates. If not,
the limit is 10. I imagine some churches will simply reject this and meet with
as many as they want to. They may include those who
believe “enough is enough,” perhaps including those who are currently
protesting across the country. Others will choose not to reopen at all rather
than doing this, continuing zoom, youtube, or videoed services to avoid the
problem (this is of course an example of compliance). Some might get creative
and join together in groups of varying sizes across a geographical area (again,
an example of compliance). Others will obey the government and meet with groups of up to 100 people with vaccination certificates. They might use multiple
services. Some of these will broadcast their services live so that the unvaccinated
and the extremely vulnerable who are not ready to risk attending such a
gathering, can participate virtually. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for me, I think that
I fall into the latter category. This is why. On the one hand, I hate the idea
of a government telling us as God’s children when and how we can meet. Something
inside me really struggles with this. However, as with all contagious pandemics,
this is a very unique situation and I think compliance is appropriate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, I am pro-life to
the core, and as a pro-life person, the safety of the vulnerable is paramount in
my thinking. As I read the situation, the best way to keep people safe is
to be vaccinated and where people in their wisdom choose not to be vaccinated, I
want to protect them. I also want to protect the vulnerable for whom Covid-19
is lethal. It is irresponsible in my view, to allow anyone into a room to
worship together without doing all we can to protect each other. I want those
who regularly attend to know that we are concerned for their protection and so
they can come to church knowing that those there are vaccinated. There are also
children present, and I want to protect them and their families, and the best
way to do this is to endorse the mandate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly, the intent
of our government is not to limit people’s religious freedom, they are limiting
the freedom of everyone and every group to protect people. In fact, this
includes the unvaccinated who, in the view of most scientists in the fields,
are much more vulnerable to hospitalisation and death. They are also trying to
protect the health system so hospitals are not clogged up with Covid patients
meaning people with other issues cannot get treatment. As such, their purpose
is <i>not</i> anti-God, anti-Christian, or anti-religion, it is to stop people from getting together and spreading the virus to protect people and our health
system. Hence, this is not like Revelation where a beastly ruler is forcing
people into submission; our government is motivated for good and not ill.
Hence, even if do quibble about aspects of the government’s response quite
often, I feel constrained to “in principle,” support them. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third, this is not
forever. Their own regulations indicate that we will move through red to orange
and then to green, and hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we will be back
living with pre-pandemic freedoms. As such, by yielding to their requirements I
do so knowing that this is for a time, for the common good, and that by doing
so, I/we are doing our bit to ensure that as few Kiwis as possible die from the
pandemic. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fourth, for Christians
to be Christians they do not need to meet in large groups. There are many ways
to meet. We can meet in small groups, outdoors, virtually—in fact, with modern
technology, we have more ways of meeting available to us than any generation before
us. We don’t need to sing; we can pray to God with masks on. We don’t have to
hug. We don’t have to eat meals. At least, for a season. We can find ways to
meet, protect each other, and not needlessly antagonise the government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As such, I believe the
church should obey the government concerning gatherings and vaccination
certificates.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, I also
believe passionately that we need to do everything we can to make worship
available to the unvaccinated. We can perhaps do this by encouraging people to
meet in homes or other venues and join the service, or even in an outside setting
where they can meet in greater numbers. Perhaps, if the weather is good, we can
have our services outside to allow all people to attend evenly. We can stay with
zoom gatherings. We can have multiple gatherings throughout the day. There are lots
of creative things we can do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It may be that the
time will come in this pandemic when Christians should stand against the
government’s regulations. But for me, it is not yet; in fact, it is not even
close. I do hope that day never comes. </p><p class="MsoNormal">I also know that some Christians and
churches will disagree with me in this. I acknowledge your right to do so and
encourage you to live to the Lord by your own conscience(s). I will not judge you
for that and will love you as a brother or sister in Christ. I will support you. I will be praying for you and all Christians as we find our way through these times. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also encourage us
all to remain united as God’s people through this crisis. We are one people and we must continue to walk together as such. Getting
vaccinated is not a command of God, it is something we all decide on. We can disagree on this and remain people who love one another and retain our unity.
Christians have done this for centuries. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">All in all then, while we are all being severely tested in this time, I don't believe this is the time to resist the government and defy the vaccine passport gathering system. </p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-17637235986618801022021-11-21T11:33:00.004+13:002021-11-21T11:33:18.639+13:00 Let There Be No Division Among You<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">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. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">How should the church respond? Do we allow this division to take hold?
Or is there a better way? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">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 split with the formation of the Catholic
Church. There was the reformation. Since the reformation, there have been multiple divisions so that now there are many thousands of Christian
denominations and independent entities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">We learn from history that sometimes Christians divide. However, they
should only ever contemplate this when the essentials of the faith in view. It
is tragic when Christians divide over matters that are not essential to the
faith. I would argue that being vaccinated or not vaccinated is not an essential
doctrine of the Christian faith. While we all have views on the matter, and
sometimes these are strong, a person’s salvation is not determined by whether we
get a vaccine or not. That is a personal choice. As such, I say that we must
not allow a person’s vaccine status to divide us. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">The New Testament has a number of passages that help us here. I wrote
my earlier blog on Galatians 3:28, arguing that in God’s people, there is
neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated, we are one in Christ. I mentioned the
great axiom, “God does not show favoritism” and we must not be prejudiced
toward others on matters that are not essential to the faith (Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6;
Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; 1 Tim 5:21; Jas 2:1–9). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">2 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14–15 give living examples of how believers
with differences of opinion should live according to their consciences, not
judge one another, accept one another, and be bound together in love. I
encourage all believers at this time to read them carefully and think about
them. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">We must remember too that Satan’s modus operandi is to divide people
and God’s church. In John 10:10, he is described as a thief who comes only to steal,
kill, and destroy. In </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">1 Peter 5:8, the apostle reminds his
readers that “Your enemy the devil prowls around<sup> </sup>like a roaring lion<sup>
</sup>looking for someone to devour.” It is critical that believers do not fall
prey to this false division by giving space to the devil to rip us apart (Eph
4:27). He seeks to ensnare us and trap us in this false dichotomy (cf. 2 Tim
2:26). We must resist him, and he will flee (Jas 4:7).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">His desire is to split the church, to
divide and conquer. In that regard, Jesus warned that “Every kingdom divided
against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against
itself will not stand” (Matt 12:25). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">As such, I urge us to listen to Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal
to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of
you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in
the same mind and the same judgment.” As 1 Corinthians unfolds, it becomes
clear that the unity he has in mind is not based on uniformity of opinion on
non-essential matters, but on love (1 Cor 13). Love binds us together.
Christian unity is not uniformity, it is seen as Christians with different views
on non-essential matters of life and faith come together in love.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">One of my favourite sayings sums up our attitude: “</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">In Essentials
Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Love (charity).” In that
getting a vaccination or not is not an essential of the faith, we must allow
each other liberty and show love to one another. Doing this does not solve the
dilemma of how we meet together as churches, but it must be the dominant
guiding principle as we work out what to do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Of course, we will all continue to have our views on vaccinations, and
we should continue to find constructive ways of discussing these things. Yet,
something greater binds us, and that is God’s love. Let us not allow ourselves
to be destroyed by a jab. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">So, as we all grapple with how “to do church” best, let us work super
hard to retain our unity as one people allowing differences of opinion on how
to respond to this virus. Let us make our decisions ensuring that our love and
unity is not compromised. Let us conduct the conversations with love and mercy toward
one another. Amen.</span><o:p></o:p></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-58978683884786350122021-11-09T15:52:00.001+13:002021-11-09T15:52:12.131+13:00 Neither Vaccinated nor Unvaccinated?<p>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.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 became submissive to the Jewish Law, and particularly
what scholars call “boundary markers” including circumcision, the observance of
the Sabbath and other important days in the Jewish calendar, and eating kosher
food. The pressing issue in Galatians is whether new gentile Christians needed
to be circumcised, become Jews. The “Greeks” in this text do not refer to the
Greek people as opposed to say, Romans, or Germans, but, all non-Jews;
equivalent to “gentiles.” Paul is declaring here that now that Christ has come,
such racial and ethnic divisions are secondary, they are subsumed in Christ. The
gentiles of Galatia do not need to Judaize (become Jews) to be in God’s people.
Such racial distinctions are no basis for status differentiation in God’s
people—for God does not show favoritism or prejudice (Gal 2:6). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Now, this can be applied to all races and
ethnicities. In Christ Jesus there is neither Māori nor Pakeha, there is no English
nor Irish, there is no North Korean or South Korean, etc. This envisages all
people who believe welcomed together wherever they are from. All races can come
and gather together and worship God. The final NT book, Revelation, is full of glorious
pictures of God’s people from all over the world worshiping God in unity and
without division and social differentiation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The second category focuses on the two
categories, slave and free. The Roman world had millions of slaves who served
the citizens. The honor of citizenship was conferred by the Roman authorities
as a privilege and it could be purchased. Citizenship gave a person certain
rights that slaves and other non-citizens did not have. People were born into slavery
or citizenship, depending on the status of their parents. As such, the world
was divided along the lines of social class. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Here, Paul is announcing that in Christ and
God’s people, no such divisions exist. Slaves can attend church and participate
fully as can citizens. In fact, in Philippians 1:27 and 3:20, he tells the
Philippians that they are all citizens of God’s Kingdom. Indeed, one slave,
Onesimus, was one of Paul’s coworkers. Slavery continued among Christians for
many centuries until eventually, the church worked through the implications of
such passages and slavery itself was challenged. Still, whatever such
boundaries exist in societies, in the church, no such divisions are to exist.
We are one and without status differentiation. This includes leaders who are
called to lead, but not to enslave; rather, they are to serve. All are one in
Christ and on a level social playing field.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The third neither … nor sequence speaks of
the breaking down of status on the lines of gender. The ancient world was
patriarchal to the core with women in submission to men across every area of
society except specifically female concerns, e.g., childbirth. Here, Paul is
not advocating the removal of gender differentiation found in passages like Gen
1:26–27, but he is wiping away any notion of patriarchy and dominance. We see
this in the many women who worked with Paul in his mission (e.g., Romans 16;
Philippians 4:2–3). Like slavery, it has taken the church far too long to work
through the implications of this. Now, many churches and denominations, while
celebrating the complementarity and distinctives of being male and female, have
moved to ensure men and women are treated equally and have the same opportunities
in the people of God. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">All in all, then, Paul is imagining a
church and churches that have no such status distinctions in them. All who
believe are welcome, whoever they are: men, women, slaves, the free, and people
from any nationality and culture. There is no room for divisions along these
lines in God’s people. They can all serve God in the church, they are not to
look down on each other, no group is to dominate the other. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Now we have a new social boundary forming
in the world: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The vaccinated have chosen
to be injected with a vaccine to protect themselves from COVID-19, convinced it
is the right thing to do (I am one of those people). Others are not so sure and
are hesitant or anti-vax for a number of reasons and to varying degrees. Governments
in places like NZ are siding strongly with the vaccinated and moving to limit
the movements and freedoms of those who are not vaccinated. Soon, some will
lose jobs and be severely limited in their ability to participate in portions
of society. We have a new status differentiation forming in which the
vaccinated will dominate and potentially oppress the unvaccinated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">What is the church to do?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Perhaps Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 are
helpful. While the world around us divides itself along vaccinated/unvaccinated,
the church can choose a different path. It can choose to live by the slogan, “neither
vaccinated nor unvaccinated.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">One’s race, gender, and social status in
the Roman world do not define a person. What defines them is their humanity,
and, where Christ is concerned, their faith. Similarly, one’s vaccinated status
does not define a person. What defines us is our common humanity, and in the church,
our common faith.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Still, there is a difference between the
three categories and the contemporary issue. One’s vaccinated case (unless one
is not able to be vaccinated) is a personal choice, unlike one’s gender, race,
and social status at the time of Paul. So, one might argue that “neither
vaccinated nor unvaccinated” does not quite apply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Still, there are other passages where Paul
discusses how to resolve differences of opinion on matters that are <i>not</i>
essential to the faith. These can be found in Romans 14–15 and 1 Corinthians 8–10.
In these passages, such things as what a person eats and their view of holy
days are in view. Paul sides with those who say that a Christian can eat any
food, and holy days are neither here nor there. However, he does not stop
there, he urges those with a view like his to be supportive of others with
different views, to be non-judgmental, to do everything they can not to cause
that brother or sister to fall—to love them. He urges love over liberty. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">We can apply that to the vaccinated and
unvaccinated. We who are vaccinated should love the unvaccinated, and vice
versa. We can respect each other’s differences. We work hard to find ways to be
one people, without prejudice, but also ensuring the safety of all people.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, perhaps the right response in churches
to the great divide beginning to emerge is to say, “neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated,”
i.e., we determine that we will not let this new division divide us. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is not an essential of the faith to be
vaccinated, nor is it to be unvaccinated. We can allow differences of opinion,
liberty to disagree, and love one another. We can live by the saying, “In
Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity!” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This may put the church at odds with the
desires of the government. Still, the commands of Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:13–17;
and Titus 3 to be submissive to the governing authorities is not absolute. We
yield to God and his Son first, and then the government. So, there is a time to
resist, without the use of violent force. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Perhaps the way ahead is to start with the
premise, “there is neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated.” At the same time, we
agree that we are pro-life, and want to do all we can to ensure the protection
of those who are vulnerable to death through this virus. So, considering all
the government is asking, we get together as denominations, churches, and
leadership teams and work out how we can “do church” in ways that allow all to
attend and yet all to be safe. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I think this would be done in different ways
depending on the size of the church, the possibilities of its layout and
seating options, the use of technologies, using different venues simultaneously,
and so on. Each Christian group will have to work it out. We put our best
thinking to ensuring “neither the vaccinated nor the unvaccinated,” and
determine to find ways of meeting that as far as it depends on us, fits with
the government requirements (which are designed to keep us safe).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Still, I do wonder, in whatever ways we
deal with the present challenge, a great starting point is to apply Galatians
3:28 to our context declaring that, “in Christ Jesus, there is neither vaccinated
nor unvaccinated.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-6418229110090669932021-07-26T13:22:00.006+12:002021-07-26T13:22:30.184+12:00 Is the Sexuality Issue Comparable to Slavery and Women?<p>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Slavery<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, when we look
a bit closer, we see that there are a number of hints that slavery should be
rejected as an institution. First, prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve, slavery
did not exist. Male and female were to live in harmony as God’s image bearers
without domination. Domination of people by others is a <i>result</i> of the introduction
of Sin. Christians should seek to undo the consequences of the Fall, hence,
domination in any form should be challenged. Secondly, unlike many of the
nations before and at the time (e.g., Rome), slavery was rejected in Jewish
law. Israelites who were in desperate straits could sell themselves into
slavery to another Israelite, but they were not to be treated as slaves and were
to be released from that after seven years or the year of Jubilee (Exod 21:2, also
Lev 25:39–46). Thirdly, there are hints in the NT of the end of slavery. In the
first place, Paul tells Christian masters to treat slaves identically to the
way slaves are to respond to masters (Eph 6:9). The second instance is where
Paul urges Philemon to take his runaway slave back not merely as a slave, but as
a brother and treat him as if he were Paul himself (who was a citizen, Phlm
16–17). For some scholars, this hints at his emancipation. So, there are good indications
in the Bible that slavery is not God’s ideal, and the church is biblical
faithful to reject it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Women<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A number of passages
in the NT suggest that women are to be subordinate in the home and are not take
up leadership positions in churches (esp. 1 Cor 14:34–35; Eph 5:22; 1 Tim 2:12–15).
However, as with slavery, there are many indications that the gospel advocates
an egalitarian perspective on gender. First, prior to the Fall, there was no indication
of man’s dominance over women; rather, domination came as a result of human sin
(Gen 3:16). Christians would then seek to undo patriarchal domination not endorse
it. Second, the OT does not prohibit women leading or endorse their subordination
to their husbands. Deborah was a Judge and prophetess (Judges 4), and there are
other prophetesses in Israel (Exod 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14; Neh 6:14; Isa 8:3).
Third, Jesus did not limit women in any way. Some disciples were women,
including Mary who sat at his feet learning (Matt 12:50; Luke 10:38–42). Mary Magdalene
and women were sent to announce the resurrection to the men in some
Gospels (Mark 16:7; John 20:18). Fourth, there are many women mentioned in Acts
and the letters who had significant roles including the deacon Phoebe (Rom
16:1–2), the church hostess and minister Prisca/Priscilla (Rom 16:3–5), the
apostle Junia (Rom 16:7), and a number of other co-workers like Euodia and Syntyche
(Phil 4:2–3), Lydia (Acts 16), Nympha (Col 4:10), Mary (Rom 16:6), Tryphena,
Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom 16:12). Fifth, the two passages which appear to limit
women in church life are read by many scholars as particular instructions to
specific churches, not to every church in the world or to come in history. The
women of Corinth and Ephesus needed to be reigned in, but where women were
faithful to the gospel, its ethics, and unity, they were free to express their
spiritual gifts as with all Christians (noting that no spiritual gift list
forbids women from exercising them). With such things in mind, while there are
a few limiting texts, they are overwhelmed by the many other passages pointing
toward an egalitarian view. Paul says it nicely in Galatians 3:28: In Christ
Jesus, “there is neither male and female.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Matters of Sexuality
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here we come to the
significant difference between same-sex relationships, slavery, and women. There
are many biblical passages that state that same-sex relationships are not God’s
ideal. His ideal is monogamous, faithful, loving, heterosexual marriage or
celibate singleness. However, unlike the indicators that we should reject
slavery and patriarchy, there are no biblical indications that the church
should shift its position on same-sex relationships. Same-sex relationships did
not exist in the pre-Fall world. In Genesis 1 and 2, marriage is endorsed (Gen
1:26–28; 2:24). Sexual immorality (any sexual relationships outside the ideal) comes
about as a result of the Fall. Hence, sexual immorality is a result of sin and
Christians should seek to challenge it. Jewish law forbids a range of sexual
alternatives (Exod 20:14; Lev 18, 20). Jesus endorsed the primary marriage texts
of Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:24, as does Paul twice (Mark 10:8; 1 Cor 6:16; Eph
5:29). The NT unanimously and unequivocally rejects same-sex relationships
along with anything else that wavers from the ideal (esp. Rom 1:26–28; 1 Cor
6:9–10). There are simply no hints in the direction of approval of same-sex sexual
relationships in the Biblical material. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>In Conclusion<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Galatians 3:28
outlines the Christian view of an egalitarian society on race (neither Jew nor
Greek), slavery (neither slave nor free), and gender (neither male and female).
It is flawed to assume we can add “neither gay nor straight” because the writer
of this text, condemns sexual immorality regularly throughout his letters including
Galatians 5:19–21. It is my view, contentious though it is, that Christians who
believe in the authority of Scripture should continue to hold to the biblical
understanding of sexuality. However, we should do so with grace and humility,
recognizing that we are all sexual sinners in need of God’s mercy. We should
encounter others with love, grace, dignity, and humility.<o:p></o:p></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-63049736173541433212021-06-08T08:55:00.000+12:002021-06-08T08:55:00.184+12:00 “Eunuchs from Birth” and Same Sex Relationships (Matthew 19:12)<p>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.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ʿěr·wā(h)</i>
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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ʿěr·wā(h)</i> could mean something morally
repugnant, this is not implausible. However, this interpretation led to some considering
that a man can divorce his women for insignificant “indecencies,” like burning
the dinner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In Mark’s account, Jesus takes a harsher
view than either school, stating that a man and woman should not divorce at
all, and if either partner remarries, they commit adultery (Mark 10).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Matthew’s version is similar. Jesus refers
to the creation narrative, where God created humankind as male and female. This
draws on the important passage, Gen 1:26–27, where God created people in his
own image, both men and women. This is followed by an injunction to
multiply and fill the earth (which brings heterosexual relationships producing children
into view). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Matthew’s Jesus follows this up by citing Gen
2:24, where a man will leave his family home and join a wife and the two will
become one flesh. This is the foundational marriage text in the biblical
narrative cited here by Jesus and twice by Paul (1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Both texts affirm heterosexual marriage
relationships as central to God’s purposes for humankind. Nothing in Genesis
suggests a same-sex relationship having the same kind of place in God’s
purposes. Jesus affirms the creational stance, as does Paul in the texts
mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Jesus then states that what God has joined
together in marriage, no one should separate. He is asked about Deuteronomy
24:1. He states that this injunction was given because of the human hardness of the heart. However, this is not God’s ideal (“from the beginning, it was not so.”). Matthew,
then, affirms Mark’s strong stance. Ideally speaking, men marry women and do
not divorce. Sadly, humans have and will always have hard hearts, and this does
not always work out. Hence, there is permission for divorce. Even Mark does not
describe divorce as a sin, it is subsequent sexual relationships that become
sin (adultery).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Unlike Mark’s account, Matthew’s Jesus
states emphatically that anyone who remarries commits adultery, except where
there has been sexual immorality. Hence, he sides with the Shammai in this
regard. For Matthew, there is only one ground for divorce and remarriage,
sexual immorality. This seems clear, although <i>porneia</i> can have a broader
meaning than merely sexual immorality, seen in its use in the Greek versions of
Hosea and elsewhere—there, it can mean idolatry. Hence, some see here Jesus
opening up the possibility of divorce where extreme violations of the marriage
are in view, e.g., abuse. Still, Matthew’s Jesus certainly appears to allow
divorce and remarriage where there is sexual immorality (and perhaps other
analogous things), although as Jesus makes clear in v. 8, this is not God’s
idea. Paul, similarly, appears to allow divorce and perhaps remarriage in 1
Corinthians 7—where a believer is divorced by an unbeliever.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Likely realizing that marriage is not then
always easy, the disciples then ask him whether it is better not to marry.
(Paul seemed to think so, see 1 Cor 7). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Then Jesus responds referring to eunuchs.
He notes that not all will accept this saying, probably referring to other Jews
at the time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In v. 12, he speaks of three types of
eunuchs. First, there “eunuchs who have been so from birth.” Second, “there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men.” Third, there are those “who have made
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A eunuch was a castrated male. The second
group is clearly those who were castrated and superintended a royal harem (such
a person is no sexual threat). An example is the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 9.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In that the second group is clearly someone
castrated, it is likely Jesus is using the term <i>eunouchos</i> in the same
way in each use, although some scholars find the third group to be figurative of celibacy. If so, the third group
then would be someone who castrates themselves or lives a celibate life for the
sake of the Kingdom of heaven. This sounds ludicrous, but in the ancient world,
there were people like the Galli of Galatia who castrated themselves as part of
their initiation into the priesthood of Cybele. Indeed, circumcision is an
essential part of the Jewish religious ritual.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If a literal castration is in view,
this would then be someone who takes literally Jesus’ teaching to cut off
any parts of the body causing sin (Matt 5:30; 18:8), in this case, the
genitals. They are so determined to please God with sexual purity, that they do
so. If we take “eunuchs” here figuratively, it may refer to celibacy (as
in the Roman Catholic priesthood). These, then, would be people Jesus himself
and Paul who renounced sexual relationships and marriage for the work of God. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">What about the first group? The first group
would likely be those born with variations in the usual human genitals, what we
might call “intersex” people. Matthew shows that he was aware of this in his
time. Or, if non-literal, these are people born without a sexual drive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Now, returning to the initial question. Does
this support same-sex relationships or marriage in any way? The short answer is
no. The passage actually affirms what the whole biblical narrative states from
start to finish; sexual relationships are legitimate within heterosexual, monogamous,
marriage (which should be loving and faithful). There is absolutely nothing in
the passage about these eunuchs marrying and the church legitimating a same-sex
union. There are just eunuchs in existence (literally castrated people or celibate
people). Jesus does not go on to add anything about them forming sexual unions.
In fact, it is a rather strange idea because a eunuch has no sexual organ and a
celibate person is just that, celibate. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">We should also note that the term <i>porneia</i>,
used in v. 9, was at the time of Jesus, a general term for any sexual
relationship <i>outside such a marriage</i>. Matthew uses it two other times.
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus states that sexual immorality (<i>porneia</i>) is
committed when a man looks with lust at a woman. It seems reasonable that the
same would apply if a man looks at another man in such a way; or, if a woman
looks at a man or woman with sexual desire. To do this is to commit adultery.
Jesus is setting a high standard here for people of the Kingdom—they are to be
self-controlled in terms of objectifying others sexually and engaging in sexual
relationships, same-sex, or heterosexual. This would apply to eunuchs and those
with genitals. We are to “cut off” lust at its source. Within a heterosexual marriage,
sexual relationships are legitimate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The other use is equally important, Matthew
15:19. Jesus is countering the idea that
things people eat make a person unclean. Rather, what makes us unclean is the
evil that comes from peoples’ hearts. He lists a range of such things: evil
thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (<i>porneia</i>), theft, bearing
false witness, and slander. They defile a person. The inclusion of sexual
immorality here reinforces Matt 5:32 and anticipates Matt 19:9. Whether
believers are orientated toward people of the same sex, are bi-sexual, or
heterosexual, they are to grow in self-control in regards to the lusts of the
heart. They are also to control their evil thoughts, their desire to harm
others and kill them, any proneness to theft, bearing false witness, and
slandering others. These are equally wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, there is nothing in this passage that
can be used to support same-sex sexual relationships or marriages. In fact, to
do so inverts aspects of the text including the endorsement of the biblical
view on marriage (heterosexual, monogamous) and takes what Jesus clearly describes
as evil (<i>porneia</i>, sexual immorality), and seeks to argue its
acceptability. The reason this is not discussed in many commentaries as a
possibility is that to read same-sex relationships or marriage into the text,
violates its essence. To read into the text an endorsement of or a basis on
which to argue for the legitimacy of same-sex relationships is to read into the
text contemporary preference. To do so opens the way for reading all manner of
contemporary predilections into Scripture. For those of us who believe that the
Scriptures are the foundation of Christian theology and practice, this is to go
beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-55982414040080155832021-06-08T08:31:00.002+12:002021-06-08T08:31:22.918+12:00The Solution to Transgender Athletics--Two Sets of MedalsThe 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. <div><br /></div><div>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 will be fair. </div><div><br /></div><div>Different solutions are possible. The answer can be an outright no with transgender athletes in their own category. This is problematic as these transwomen identify as women (or men) and there are not enough to form good competition. Another answer is to say yes with controls of the hormone level to ensure fair competition. However, science seems to suggest that if a person transitions from a man to a woman after puberty, they retain a lot of their developmental advantages. I am not sure this is true just after puberty for even as little kids at sports like cross-country running, the boys usually dominate the girls (usually with some exceptions like my daughters!). The third possibility is a separate category, but that is seen to reinforce stereotypes and there aren't enough athletes for this.</div><div><br /></div><div>I want to propose a fourth solution for individual non-contact sports at least. Transgender athletes are clearly identified. They compete with those in their identified gender, transmen with men, transwomen with women. Then, two sets of medals are handed out at the end of the event. The top the transathletes get a medal, the top three women/men get a medal. </div><div><br /></div><div>This kind of thing is not uncommon in club sports where you have multiple categories, such as a cross-country event when Masters, Seniors, and some junior groups race in the same race. This will mean that those born women can race those born women and may the best women win. The same with trans athletes. That means, you may come second in the race, but win gold.</div><div><br /></div><div>Where you have team sports, this is a challenge as you will have transathletes mixed in with others born to their gender. I think where this is concerned, sports with a high contact aspect (e.g., boxing, rugby), there should be new categories created, and only when there are enough athletes, can transathletes compete. In team contact sports, teams could be allowed a limited number of transathletes, e.g., in rugby, a maximum of two per team. However, this would have to be trialed at lower levels of the game to ensure it is safe.</div><div><br /></div><div>Still, the best solution to me, at least in individual non-contact sports, is for transwomen and women to compete in the same event. The athletes know who is in their category. They compete. Then, at the conclusion, medals given out to different categories. Just a thought. </div>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-55186566749078430732021-05-05T08:38:00.003+12:002021-05-05T08:38:36.581+12:00Why Christians Should Stop Using "Post-Christian" of Today's World<p></p><p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Forty days later, 120 of his followers had an
astonishing experience in which they were filled with the same power Jesus had
displayed in his life (Pentecost). From that moment, with amazing commitment
and courage, they went into the surrounding world to declare that God had
entered history in Jesus and was establishing his reign throughout the world.
They were persecuted, and many died sharing this message in word and deed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Still, the faith spread. It reached Antioch
in Syria, and the believers were then called Christians. Over a period of
around 280 years, the people of the Roman Empire were converted to this faith
until the Emperor, Constantine, shifted the central religious conviction of the
Empire to Christianity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Since then, this faith has spread
throughout the world, and now, there are around 2.382 billion adherents to the
Christian religion in the world, just under a third of the world’s population. While
Christianity has declined in some nations (often European), it is still growing
and expanding throughout the world. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, clearly, we are not in a
post-Christian world. It never will be!<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In fact, we never will be because when
Christ came, ministered, died, and rose, the world was forever changed. Jesus had
come and died and risen and is forever the Savior of the World. He is the
supreme Lord of the world for all eternity. He is the Christ, and so,
Christ-ianity will never end now that he has come. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hence, there is no such thing as a post-Christ
situation or a post-Christian world. Even where Christianity has declined, it
is not post-Christian for there is no such thing as post-Christ or post-Christian.
Christ has come and the world has changed!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sure, a person can turn away from
Christianity; a lot of people can abandon the faith (something that was
happening even in the New Testament period, e.g., Hebrews, 1 John); but it is <i>not</i>
post-Christian. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If we take this from the perspective of the
church, Jesus declared that the gates of Hades will not prevail against his
church. Indeed, if there is one Christian in a given geopolitical setting, it
is not -post-Christian. From what I see in western countries, there remain many
Christians in these nations and many churches.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, Christian brothers and sisters, please
stop naively using this ridiculous term. Post-Christian, rubbish! As Paul would
say, <i>mē genoito</i>,” “may it never be!” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In truth, the term is being used mainly in
the west by Eurocentric Christians trying to describe their experience of living
in cultures which were formerly peopled by many people and in which Christian
influence was strong, but in which, now, it has receded. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Well, find any way to describe it you like,
but it is <i>not</i> post-Christian. Using this term is theological naïve, and
some who are using it should know better. To use it is to demonstrate a low Christology
whereby we do not acknowledge the Lordship of Christ over all situations. It is
also a low ecclesiology, for nothing will destroy or stop God’s church (it may
be driven underground but will reemerge as it has in communist nations). It
shows a low pneumatology whereby it demonstrates no faith in the Holy Spirit
and God’s gospel, which cannot be bound (as Paul says in 2 Tim 2:18). It is
simply wrong, wrong, wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It also assumes that these nations were
once “Christian.” Well, they were not. There is no such thing as a Christian
country; there is only God’s church and Christian people living among people of
other faiths and no faith at all. There were always places with some
Christians among non-Christians having varying degrees of influence in the
given culture. However, they were not and are not “Christian.” Hence, they
are not “post-Christian.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is also naïve to use it in that while
the Christian faith may be receding where white people hang out, it is
expanding at an astonishing rate outside of the western world and has been for
a long time. Furthermore, in these so-called western post-Christian settings,
through immigration, Christians are flooding into these places, and unbeknown
to many, Christianity is again growing. We see this in Auckland, NZ, where
there are multitudes of small ethnic churches scattered across the city. What
were once white churches are being transformed by the influx of Christian
immigrants. Others who have come into the west are becoming Christians. When we
live in white ethnic enclaves, we do not notice this shift. But, mark my
words; it is happening, and praise God! He is re-evangelizing the west.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, please stop using “post-Christian. It is
false. Find another way to describe the phenomenon of westerners rejecting
Christianity. Please stop using this epithet. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-64232801915445162982021-04-05T10:43:00.004+12:002021-04-05T10:44:01.914+12:00Should Wives Submit to Their Husbands? (Eph 5:22)<p>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.</p><p>In the original
Greek, which is the original language of the NT (not English), the command
comes in v. 21 as a participle (<i>hyptassomenoi</i>), “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<i>ing</i>) 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 Lord).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So the command to
the Ephesians is actually, “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Hence, the real point Paul is making, which is radically counter-cultural, is that all
Christians are to be in submission to one another. This clearly includes wives to
husbands (which Paul will specify in the next verses) and husbands to wives and
everyone to everyone. </p><p class="MsoNormal">This kind of pattern of relationship is consistent with a Christianity patterned on the
example of Christ. He is the Lord, with complete authority. Yet, he did not command people's allegiance or dominate them, rather, he loved and served all humankind in his wonderful ministry. </p><p class="MsoNormal">In fact, Paul draws attention to this in Ephesians 5:1–2 where the Ephesians are <i>all </i>to imitate God as his loved
children. They do so by walking in love as Christ loves his people, and giving themselves up for others as Jesus presented himself as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. In other words, we serve the hell out of one another. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, Ephesians
5:22–6:9, which forms one section that is called a “household code” (found all
over ancient literature and this is Paul’s one), and it is to be read in the light of Eph 5:21 where all Christians submit to one another. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p>The section tells </o:p></span>all
members of the ancient household how they are all to submit to one another? It answers the questions of how wives submit to their husbands, how husbands submit to their wives, how children submit to their
parents, how parents submit to their children, how slaves submit to their masters (in the ancient
society, slaves were family members), and how masters to their slaves. Paul fleshes
this out.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wives are to submit to
their husbands, children are to obey their parents, and slaves obey their masters (all
consistent with the culture of the day and which do not need elaboration—these
are just what is expected). We should note that Paul uses a different verb for wives--they are not to obey, they are to submit. This is carefully chosen to ensure they realise that their obedience goes first to Christ, as they are yielding in their relationship with the Lord. (When a husband demand a wife do something that violates her relationship with Christ, she should not obey, and vice versa.)</p><p class="MsoNormal">Then, in each of the three parts (marriage, parenting, masters-slaves), Paul turns each
command on its head with stunning counter-cultural commands. First, he tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the
church, i.e., serve her to the point of death. This is another way of saying
what is said in 5:21, submit to one another. It is an astonishing command because in the ancient world, generally speaking, husbands were not expected to love their wives in such a way. Such love was expected of wives. This is counter-cultural.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then, stunningly,
husbands are to raise children in the Lord. That is another amazing statement in a world where women were expected to raise children. Rather, it is the fathers who do so! Some argue that "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" conditions this away from simply nurturing children. Yet, all Paul is saying is what one would expect of any Christian parent. When you nurture a child (<i>ektrephete), </i>do it without provoking them and do it in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. They are still to raise them, these other aspects point out how. A woman raising a child would be expected to do the same.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Knowing women in the main raised children in the ancient world, Paul is effectively saying, share the
parenting, as women were already expected to do this. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Practically it
says nothing about who stays at home with the kids, who should go to work, who does the dishes, who vacuums, etc. Obviously, God
created women to breastfeed. Beyond that, it is open as to who is the primary carer. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly, the NT does not really say anything much
about who stays at home and raises the kids. Many assume it is the women, but the
NT is pretty well silent on it. The closest we get is 1 Tim 2:15, which is a very
difficult text to interpret as it seems to suggest a woman is saved through
bearing children. If Paul wrote this, he is clearly not saying a woman is saved through having and raising kids because, for Paul, we are not saved by works
but by faith (Eph 2:8-9). As such, scholars discuss what he means here and generally take it in a non-literal way (those who believe Paul wrote the letter, as I do).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Then, the most
amazing of Paul's commands here, in my view, is Eph 6:9 where Paul tells master to treat their slaves in the
same way as they are to treat their masters. He has just told slaves to obey masters </span>with fear and trembling, sincerely, not merely to please them, but to please Christ, knowing he/she will be rewarded. Then, masters are to do the same to them without threat. Some ancient and modern
interpreters think this points to the end of slavery (something Christians
failed to realise until the Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln movements).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is really cool
about this whole section is that the person being addressed in the second half of each
part is the same person--the man, the father of the house--as the man in the ancient house
was husband, father, and master of the slaves. The real emphasis in the passage
is the man of the house who is addressed three times (while wives, children, and slaves are addressed once).</p><p class="MsoNormal">Paul is giving a new vision of how to be a man. Married men with children in the Ephesus church (or wider church if it is a circular letter) were to submit to their wives by loving them with
total self-sacrifice. They were to be fully involved in the nurture and raising of children as disciples without provocation. They were treating slaves with equality as on a par with them.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In other words, Paul paints a countercultural picture of an egalitarian society in
which, yes, there are leaders, but they lead in a totally new way, as Jesus
showed the world in his sacrifice. </p><p class="MsoNormal">It has taken the church centuries to work out what this looks like in real terms. The big issue in the early church was race and culture. Did new gentile converts need to become Jews to follow the Jew Jesus? The NT deals with this across its pages. The answer, "no." All are one in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal 3:28). </p><p class="MsoNormal">Over the centuries it came to realise that slavery itself was flawed and that in passages like this (and Philemon), we should have seen the end of slavery as a flawed system. Thankfully the likes of Wilberforce and Lincoln fought for this. Since then, we have come to realise that the NT is not calling not only for wives to submit to their husbands but for husbands to submit to their wives with self-sacrificial love. This is a picture of an egalitarian relationship in which Christ is Lord and husbands and wives serve one another. We have come to realise that while it is obvious that it is best for a child to be breastfed in its earliest days, the nurture of the child can come from the father and the mother. </p><p class="MsoNormal">So, should a wife submit to her husband. Yes! And with self-sacrificial love. Equally, one should ask, should a husband submit to his wife? I would say, yes, through self-sacrificial love.</p><p class="MsoNormal">I have never heard a preacher stand up and tell the fathers of a church that they must raise their children. I have heard many Christians demand that a wife submits to her husband. Both sermons would miss Paul's point in the passage which is a stunning vision of an egalitarian family structure for God's people. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the strange anomalies in interpretation is that many single out "wives submit to your husbands" but fail to apply the same approach to "fathers bring up your children." If we read the passage consistently, we would do so. By doing such things, we are picking and choosing this and that verse to enforce our own biases. However, I do not advocate picking both verses out, for if we do, we miss what is
being demanded of us, we distort the message, and miss Paul’s point. The whole thrust of the passage is "submit to <i>one another </i>out of reverence for Christ" and we do this with radical sacrificial service of one another, no matter what our so-called "place" is in the household. We miss the passage's extraordinary summons to a new society.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, in sum, yes,
wives are to submit to their husbands by serving them. But, equally, a husband is to submit to his wife by serving her with the same self-sacrificial service. </p><p class="MsoNormal">We are all to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.</p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-49987819843725056202021-03-25T09:54:00.008+13:002021-03-25T09:56:11.475+13:00Christopher Luxon and Religion<p>Good on Christopher Luxon
for speaking about his Christian faith in his maiden parliamentary speech.
Clips can be heard here: <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018788962/luxon-highlights-faith-in-maiden-speech">https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018788962/luxon-highlights-faith-in-maiden-speech</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">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 less fortunate. He
states that in their contributions to public life, William Wilberforce, Martin
Luther King, and Kate Sheppard (<a href="https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2s20/sheppard-katherine-wilson">https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2s20/sheppard-katherine-wilson</a>)
made the world a better place. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He notes that his
faith is personal to him and is not itself a political agenda. He says, “I
believe that no religion should dictate to the state and no politician should use
the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He suggests that MPs
serve the common cause of all New Zealanders, not one religion, not one group,
not one interest. He believes a person should not be elected because of their
faith, nor rejected because of it. For him, democracy thrives on diverse
thinking and different worldviews.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">As a fellow Christian,
I applaud Luxon’s preparedness to bring his faith into the public arena and push
back against the false idea that it is extreme to hold the Christian faith. There
are actually more extreme belief systems that are imposing their will on our
lives in the current political scene (see alsohttp://drmarkk.blogspot.com/2020/12/everyone-has-religion.html). These are not religions per se in the
technical sense of the term but are “religious” ideologies commanding this or
that view on culture, gender, family, marriage, sexuality, the environment,
politics, economics, globalization, drugs, morality, social ethics, and so on.
Indeed, our political environment, mainstream media, social media, and public
discourse are in the midst of a culture(s) war that sees a range of ideologies
crashing into each other causing great angst, pain, and suffering. The
traditional religions are part of this but the faith of Luxon is merely one.
While people are distracted critiquing religions, they miss the enormous
influence being wielded by even more extreme “religious” ideologies pushing their
agenda. They are in danger of being taken over and do not even know it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Luxon is bang-on to claim
that Christians have been central to the life and story of the western world
and many other nations for 2000 years and that it is hardly extreme. Indeed, as
he says so well, in western nations like NZ are concerned, the Christian faith
has shaped our story to an enormous degree. It still does, it is just that many
today want to rewrite history and build a future supposedly free of the
Christian faith. Yet, to a large degree, it is because of Jesus and the Christian
faith that the values Luxon mentions (compassion, tolerance, care,
non-discrimination, and unconditional love) and others, that New Zealand is
what it is. He highlights two enormous figures from western history (Wilberforce,
King) and one of NZ’s true champions of woman’s rights, Kate Sheppard, and
their influence. He could have gone on and listed thousands of less-known kiwis
who have shaped our nation at a macro-level, and in smaller ways, in local
communities. Today, many councils, public community boards, institutions, and vocations
are influenced by Christians who live out of their faith in the public context.
The social value of Christianity remains enormous; if only our governments
would see and acknowledge it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">I like where Luxon is
going but want him and others to push harder. We need to expose the “religious”
agendas of many that bring with them the dangers of extreme leftist
perspectives (e.g., communism, Marxism that spawned the disasters of the 20<sup>th</sup>
century across the Communist world that saw the deaths of millions) and
extremist right perspectives (e.g., right-wing fascism, which gave birth to Nazism
and led to the holocaust and world wars). Both agendas in various forms (and
others) are forcing their way into our lives and homes. These need to be
exposed reasonably and appropriately, without Christianity being forced upon
anyone. There are neo-expressions of these extremes that are threatening the stability
of our nations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">I also suggest that
Luxon is not quite right to say there is no political agenda in his faith. The
central notion Jesus taught on was the Kingdom of God. He declared boldly that
he had come to inaugurate God’s reign on earth. He declared himself King over
the world. That is the most outrageous political statement one can make. He drew
to himself disciples, men and women, and continues to do so, including Christopher
Luxon and myself. We carry his agenda with us. Christ’s kingdom agenda is not
to conquer the kingdoms of the world through any coercive and violent agenda.
Rather, it is for the Kingdom to grow within the various political arrangements
of the nations of the world through the “weapons” or love, compassion, care, mercy,
sacrifice, suffering, to the point of death, and all the while sharing the message of Jesus: “come,” says Jesus, “turn from self-aggrandizement and join
me in my kingdom and change the world from the inside out through love in
action and word.” Join with others in forming redemptive communities of faith, hope,
and love and through them, he will change the world, not by taking over nations
politically, but through a different kind of politic—an inside-out “take over”
of the world—always allowing others the freedom to live differently (tolerance,
for want of a better term). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Luxon carries this
with him into the political arena. I see no reason he should be shy of
admitting that he comes with the values of God’s politics and that these things
influence how he functions in the public arena. After all, an extreme left-wing
politician is often heavily influenced by Marx and other socialist
perspectives. Similarly, a right-wing politician is often influenced by Adam
Smith and others. Why not be heavily influenced by Jesus and admit you believe
he is King of the world who all kings, queens, presidents, PMs, and MPs serve
(even if they do not realise it)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Then again, maybe he
has it right to avoid going into such arguments. We do not often hear non-Christian
politicians admit their political and philosophical influences and their allegiance
to this or that ideology. They push on, hoping not to be exposed because then
they will be labelled.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Whatever, I am
impressed with Christopher Luxon’s maiden speech. Good on him. Still, none of
that tells me I should vote for him. He is right, we should not vote for people
on whether they are Christians or not. We vote for them because they have what
is required to lead us well and have a team with a vision that we are drawn to
in prayer and values and have the capacities to lead the nation well. We vote
prayerfully asking God’s guidance in what is best for our nation for the next
three years. Anyway, it is great to hear a Christian openly stand strong in the
public arena with reason and thoughtfulness. I also do hope he and all
Christians in parliament stand in the tradition of those he mentioned who have
shaped history and do great things for NZ and the world. May he and the other
leaders of our nation lead us well as God shapes history. Amen. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-84676264048138900562020-12-21T15:55:00.001+13:002020-12-21T15:55:59.348+13:00This Christmas, May the Lord Bless You and Keep You <p>What an amazing year!
COVID-19 has dominated, of course, we all know about that and have been
affected one way or another. America has a new president, although the current
one is not giving up without a fight. And so we come to another Christmas.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Christmas tells the
story of God’s Son entering human history in a young woman's womb in an insignificant
ancient town, Bethlehem. He was raised in the even more insignificant
Nazareth. Such things show that God is prepared to come in undramatic
circumstances, away from the glitz and glamour of those in power, and grow his
kingdom from a small seed into the largest tree in the garden.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He came through the
miraculous conception of a virgin, showing that God is a God of miracles. He is
an interventionist, God, entering creation at his will, to work out his purposes—we
are comforted that God can if he wills.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was conceived in a
womb and born in the usual human way, not in a blaze of heavenly glory with
angels and fire, showing God’s preparedness to make himself utterly vulnerable
and dependent on a young woman and her husband for his safety and nurture. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He became flesh,
showing God’s willingness to take on mortal animal and human form to make
himself known and be saved. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">By coming as flesh, he
came into bodily mortality and vulnerability, showing God is not afraid to die
to save his world (later he would, on a cross, and so his salvation was worked
out).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">By coming as a baby, God
showed he is not a distant, angry creator and overlord. He is prepared to come
to us as one of us to summon us to him and to launch a new humanity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He is a God who is unafraid
to enter the world, full of pandemics and other natural disasters, empires, and
war, to save those with ears to hear and eyes to see. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was born amidst
animals, showing God’s preparedness to hang out among the creatures of his
world in their space. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was found by
shepherds, anticipating him becoming the Great Shepherd who would gather God’s
lost sheep from around the world. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was laid in a
feeding trough, showing that even though God is holy to the core, he is
unafraid of the messy, dirty world of animal saliva and grime. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Celebrated wise men
from the east recognised his coming and came to offer him gifts, showing how eventually
the small and the great would bow before him and give him their lives and
kingdoms. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was born into
terror as the local client king Herod “the Great” sought to kill him
as a threat. God is prepared to enter the corruption of world politics to
establish his reign. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was taken away to
Egypt for his protection, showing that this God knows what it is to be an
outsider and immigrant and so that this boy would live the Exodus story of Israel,
his people. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was born into the
home of Joseph, a descendant of David, in the city of David, Bethlehem—he was
raised to be Israel’s Davidic Messiah and Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">On the face of it, he
was born illegitimately, a ‘bastard’—God identifies with outsiders and the socially
maligned.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">As seen by his parents
being only able to provide the ‘cheap’ sacrifice for his circumcision, he was
born into poverty. He made himself poor that we might become rich.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">He was named Jesus, the
Greek for the Hebrew <i>Jeshua</i> (Joshua), meaning “God is our salvation”—he is
the Savior of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">What is left but to
join the shepherds, angels, and wise men, and come bearing gifts to God with
Us, Immanuel? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Wherever you are—May the
Lord bless you and keep you for what is left of 2020 and into 2021.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-20021142971566953922020-12-20T07:18:00.002+13:002020-12-20T07:19:45.317+13:00Everyone Has A Religion<p> It is common in our western
cultures to speak of “religion” to describe an entity of people who believe in God
or gods or who adhere to a particular religious group. It is fair to call such
groups religions, we have to call them something. It helps in analysing the
differences across humankind.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">However, what then happens
is that others can use this label to make gross generalisations such as blaming
religion for ills in the world, like war. They can put people down who do
believe in God or gods as inferior because they submit themselves to the said
religion’s creeds and ideas. It can become politicised, stigmatised, and
weaponised. This has happened in western cultures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Such putting down and labelling
is naïve as all humans are religious and submit to something or someone. For
some people, it is the government. They look to the government to solve the
ills of the world and believe in it. When there is a problem in society, they
expect governments to fix it. We see this in NZ with homelessness, global
warming, poverty, and so on. Legislation and funding will fix everything. In
extreme forms, this is socialism or even communism. The government is Lord. In
fact, this is one of NZs leading religions seen in the recent election of a
government delighted to step into that space and be the god of this nation.
However, before we get too critical, there are right-wing variants where
governments will maintain and protect the established culture, totalitarianism.
Such governments espouse freedom but oppress those who fall outside the
mainstream culture. There are plenty on the right of politics who long for such
governments. They, too, should be careful what they wish for. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">There are capitalists
who worship at the altar of money and independence. They do not realise that their
gods are those enormously rich and powerful people who know how to manipulate
our deep desire to consume to become rich and control the world. Capitalism and
consumerism is one of the world’s leading religions and we all blindly continue
to spend and consume, worshiping at what Jesus described as Mammon and said, “you
cannot serve both God and money.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Many rail against
socialism and claim to be independent, free thinkers, reliant on no one, putting
down socialists and the religious. They see the problem that comes from reliance
on the government, dependency. They see submission to religious creeds as weakness.
Yet, they too are religious. Their god becomes themselves, their view, and their
wants. They actually deify themselves, claiming to know all and to know better.
They become gods to themselves and they don’t even know it. This easily becomes
narcissism. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">In the age of the
internet and social media, alongside the religion of consumerism, the religion
of narcissism is exploding. The algorithms of the capitalist gods and conglomerates
Google, Facebook, and others feed the rampant individualism of such people and
they live in an echo chamber of others who believe the same. Their views are
reinforced and get more and more deeply entrenched. They become so certain of
their view that they have little time for others, locked in loveless bitterness
and contention. They do not realise that they have joined a cult and are brainwashed.
This religion is as dangerous as them all as it warps the soul, breeds
bitterness, and things are said that should never be said. Such people can be
used by the giants of the left and right of politics in their quests for power.
That is why the world is teetering at the moment. The masses are being
polarised in their “religions” at right and left, and a “religious” war is an
ever-approaching reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Scientism is also a
major religion today. Some worship at the altar of mainstream science that is
endorsed by the media. They believe blindly in evolution, accept mainstream epidemiologists
on Covid, endorse vaccines, accept global warming is caused by people. Others
push back against mainstream science and find other voices rejecting evolution,
repudiate vaccines, see global warming as something natural, and so on. They find their own gurus or priest who say what they want to hear. In reality,
most of us have nowhere near the scientific knowledge to know the real truth
and are forced to decide. Others with certainty, despite their scientific ignorance,
are evangelists for their perspective. They are surprised when others avoid
them—people don’t like evangelists, they threaten their certainties. I know
this from trying to tell people about Jesus for years. It goes with the
territory. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Atheism is as religious
as any organised religion. Atheists worship themselves and the priests of atheism
like Richard Dawkins who write deeply flawed books that become bibles. Others claim
to avoid all religion other than sport or some form of entertainment. They too
are worshiping their gods to please their own souls—hedonism and self as god.
Their other gods may be celebrities, pop-idols, artists, sports stars, or
teams. Some avoid all information and conversations about religion. They think
they are keeping religion at bay. In actual fact, they are yielding to their
own religion of self and the gods of their “common sense” and don’t even know
it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Many who reject
mainstream religions claim not to have one but in fact worship a hybrid of gods
including capitalistic ideals, socialism, hedonism, science, culturalism, and
so on. At the heart of their religion though, as in most religions, is self. We
elevate ourselves and our view of the world so highly we become enslaved to our
own perspective. We lose sight of the world. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">For me, this Christmas,
I am going to continue to joyfully worship God, Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus
came to us as God with us to show us God. He did not show us organised
religion, with all its flawed expressions of his original intent. No, he pushed
back against the religions of his day in Israel—their denominations with their flawed
hopes and beliefs. He pushes back against all forms of religion today,
including Christianity and all its demoninations (woops, I meant denominations,
LOL), and those people don’t realise they are in. He showed us that true
religion is to acknowledge God and most importantly, to love others. It is not to
worship self, governments, sports, science, people, ideas, or the religious
creeds of religions (useful though those things are, they all have their place).
It is not about pushing our religions on others. What matters is love. Denying
self and wanting the best for others. Humility, grace, mercy, compassion, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, and love. These are the things that matter. Such old
ideas he promoted as “love your neighbour as yourself.” “Love one another.” “Do
to others what you have them do to you.” And doing so across differences of
opinion and gods. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">When we realise who
Jesus is and what he has shown the world and say yes to God’s offer of
salvation in him, he floods us with his presence, his Spirit. We then have a renewed
power to lay aside all other religions and love others. Doing so is true
religion. Happy Christmas.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-30954332189977620582020-11-18T16:06:00.003+13:002020-11-18T16:06:17.700+13:00COVID-19--It's Just a Flu--Yeah, Nah!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">So, COVID-19 is just a flu? Yeah, nah (as we say in New Zealand). COVID-19 didn't exist in humans until the end of last year. Since then, 1,343,153 have died (3.39 pm, 8/22/20 Worldometer). That is, 1,343,153 people who may or may not have died in the interim, but have been lost because COVID-19 hastened their death. At the moment, about one person dies every minute in the US. And this pandemic is still going strong and on the increase in many nations. Who knows what the final death toll will be? </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">We all know what kind of outcry there is when one horrific event occurs that takes lives. In NZ, we have had a few disasters in the last few years. Twenty-one people died on 9 Dec 2019 in an eruption on White Island. Fifty-one people died on 15 March 2019 in the mosque attack in Christchurch. Earlier, 185 died in an earthquake in Christchurch, 22 February 2011. And we all remember 9/11 when 2977 people died in 2001. The previous worst disaster in the 21st century was the 2010 Haiti Earthquake, 12 January 2010, when 316,000 people died.<span style="color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f8f9fa; font-size: 14px; white-space: nowrap;"> </span></span>I could go on listing all sorts of horrific events in NZ or the world where all of us were overwhelmed and we had wall to wall coverage on the media for weeks and months.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Well, COVID-19 is the equivalent of 63,960 White Island eruptions; 26,336 mosque attacks; 7,260 Christchurch earthquakes; 451 9/11 attacks; and 4.25 Haiti earthquakes and counting. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Yet, we have a good number of people who write the Corona virus off as merely the flu and consider society should just get on as normal, albeit with common sense. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Sorry, that doesn't cut it. We have to take it seriously, do whatever we have to do to stop this disaster that is taking the lives of so many. If that means more lockdowns, wearing masks, social distancing, signing in with our apps as we move around the place, and washing hands, let's just do it. We have the power to limit this thing, so let's do what we have to do. </div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-19631412954429374872020-03-20T14:43:00.004+13:002020-03-20T14:43:59.452+13:00Some Thoughts on Covid<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Here is a video expressing some thoughts on Covid.<div>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWCPIy1J7s">Responding to Covid-19</a></div>
</div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-65853391185148534092019-12-01T18:52:00.003+13:002019-12-01T18:52:48.177+13:00What a Thrill<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDrHFHi_LKcwqH8izjbfq7-ktysnX8_nzq5lk8S-Tra1kJQjYcF4lNYAOe7jZzpJNlb_eZAdtRoXmkdoynR2N6ehznJq53lzKR2xghoo53ornuMXqQG8U55w-TK8W9EwWYWxeen0drRrg/s1600/Me+and+Brian+Chitty+at+the+Journey+1+12+19.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1203" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDrHFHi_LKcwqH8izjbfq7-ktysnX8_nzq5lk8S-Tra1kJQjYcF4lNYAOe7jZzpJNlb_eZAdtRoXmkdoynR2N6ehznJq53lzKR2xghoo53ornuMXqQG8U55w-TK8W9EwWYWxeen0drRrg/s320/Me+and+Brian+Chitty+at+the+Journey+1+12+19.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">In October, I preached
at a new church plant in Newmarket, the Journey. It was a pleasure to have an
opportunity to speak to an enthusiastic group of believers there. As a part of
my message encouraging people to share their faith, I told the story of my
conversion. I shared how I had grown up in a home where neither of my parents
was involved in church life. I attended Tereora College in Rarotonga and was
in the fourth form. One of my friends invited me to come with him to an afterschool
Christian group run by a man by the name of Brian Chitty (that is him in the
photo above). I explained how I had come to faith, found it hard to maintain
that faith through my teens and early twenties, but then recommitted my life to
Christ in my mid-twenties some ten years later. I went on with the message which
was well received.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">I was stunned after
the service to be approached by a woman, Rhema, who told me that she was Brian’s
daughter. Unbeknown to me she attended this church and was equally shocked to hear
that her father had led me to Christ some forty-five years prior. She shared
with me that her dad was well and living in Auckland and that she had invited him
to church that day, but he had not come. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">Anyway, I returned again
to preach in the Journey again yesterday and I did a quick summary of my former
message and further encouraged the church with ideas as to how they could share
their faith into the community more effectively. I mentioned Brian in passing
and a voice called out from the congregation. It was Brian’s daughter Rhema who
called out, “he’s here today.” At that moment, I noticed for the first time the
man sitting beside her and it was Brian! I was thrilled. I could not help
myself and left the lectern in the middle of my message causing rapturous applause
and hugged him with much <i>agapē</i> love. It was an amazing and emotional moment.
I felt a little like the prodigal in some way. Brian and I had connected a few
years ago, but this was a moment that transcended that. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">I am deeply grateful
to Brian. He is an example of one of those evangelisers the world does not
notice but who for years has planted the seed of God’s word in the hearts of
many people in the Cook Islands and beyond. I am a Christian because of him. Any
good I do in the wold in my ministry of teaching and writing is a credit to him
and his faithfulness. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">This is how
Christianity works. Humble, <i>seemingly</i> non-descript people, share the
gospel faithfully in small groups around the world, and some like me believe
it, and we pass it on. That is why there are over 2 billion of us and
Christianity is the world’s biggest religion. It is still growing at an extraordinary
rate in many parts of the world, even if not in our western contexts. It is
because of people like Brian.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">I pay tribute to Brian
and the millions like him who are good people, who pass on their faith, and people’s
lives are transformed as a result. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-298964250838877552019-08-02T09:27:00.001+12:002019-08-02T09:31:46.762+12:00Our Bottom Line is You! The Naivety of National<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I haven't blogged on politics for a while. I have had all sorts of thoughts but it is National's latest slogan that has led me to break my silence. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I see with interest
that National has a new slogan: “our bottom line is you” (<span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12253263">https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12253263</a>).
Here is a brilliant example of the naivety of this National Party leadership.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">First, it is naff! It is insipid. It is
sickly. Get me a bucket. “Our bottom line is you”—what does that mean? It's kind of a reworking of “its all about you.” None of us can take that seriously because
it is weak and puerile to the core. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Second, be real National! The bottom line
is winning the next election. It is either getting over 50% of the votes that
count to win. Or, getting a coalition partner and together getting over
the line! There is no coalition partner. Hence, you are destined to wallow in
the opposition for another round. Get on with making that happen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Third, I suppose the bottom line from out
here looking in is, “its all about you Simon.” It's about you doing an Andrew
Little and stepping down and </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;">you</span>
<span lang="EN-US">doing your homework as a party to find a leader who can
connect with New Zealanders through the media and who is highly regarded in the
party as a leader. Clearly, Simon is the latter, but the former, the bottom line
is, “no!” He doesn’t get us and we don’t get him. Your bottom line really is, “even
with your polling in the mid-40s without a coalition partner and with a leader
who can’t connect, you’re toast whatever your slogan is.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Fourth, it is popularist, pragmatic politics.
If we really are your bottom line, everything, including things like the euthanasia
bill, etc., would be decided by referenda. Indeed, your bottom line is us, and
we are showing in the polls what we think.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Fifth, who is “you”? The poor? The rich?
The business owner? The leftie? The rightie? The farmer? The greenie? It is
nonsense and meaningless. As “you” includes the full range of, I presume, New Zealanders,
which “you” are you after?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Sixth, further to the previous point—be honest
National. Your bottom line is getting encouraging your core constituents of farmers,
business people, and so on to continue to vote with you and grabbing enough of
middle-NZ to get over the line. So, it is not really “you,” I mean “us.” It is “those
among you who have previously voted for us and more from the middle than we
have had last time around.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Finally, and this is a biggie—think about
what a bottom line is. Yes, it can mean that the fundamental and most important
factor. But “bottom” has other meanings and so, in reality, it can also mean what
some would call “your butt-crack.” I know it’s a bit crass, but are we really
the butt-crack to national? “Our butt-crack is you!” Nice! So we are the butt-crack of national?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Goodness, gracious me! Who in their right
minds would use “bottom line” in a political slogan? What naivety! Love to
know how much some marketing guru was paid to come up with this stupid line.
Come on! “Make NZ great again” would be better than this drivel capable of a ridiculous
range of meanings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So, we see why this group of National
leaders are in trouble. The last lot was politically savvy, really clever. Labour and
their friends are holding their levels whatever you think of them. This lot is
simply put, naïve. </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-47315806149922651902019-07-18T14:16:00.001+12:002019-07-18T14:16:40.738+12:00Cycling and Cruciformity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In recent years, Emma and I have become cyclists joining NZ
Cyclist (<a href="http://nz-cyclist.spruz.com/">http://nz-cyclist.spruz.com/</a>)
to get fitter and make some new friends. The group is full of great guys and
gals, real salt of the earth kiwis, all of varying abilities. Four or five
times a week different groups career around the streets of the Shore and into
the countryside. It is hard work but great for fitness and friendship. Aside from
being uber-frustrated at the moment at being way too busy to get out often, we
have fallen in love with cycling and the people we ride with. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When you join a group like this and get into group riding, you
learn that there is a real art to cycling, including the idea of drafting. This
is when you cycle very close to the rear wheel of the person in front of you, to
a degree you get sucked along by those leading you. Drafting is highly
advantageous as you use far less energy than the person on the front, although
there is some gain for the lead rider as well (<a href="http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics2.html">http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics2.html</a>).
Indeed, riding in an echelon or peloton one can save up to forty percent of the
energy exerted. Aside from getting a reputation of being a wheel-sucker, it is
great sitting there using little effort behind others slogging along. Drafting
a very strategic element of seeking to gain an advantage. It is also very exciting
(some would say terrifying and dangerous) as you fly along at high speeds
inches from the wheel in front, as the closer you get the better the gain.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Drafting is massively important in races especially on tours
like the Tour De France. While road cycling looks like other individual sports
like running, the value of drafting means that it is very much a team sport.
Whole teams are put together with the purpose of trying to get one rider over
the line. Depending on the type of course, rider after rider sit on the front
and drive those behind, sacrificing themselves, using their energy to help a
great climber or sprinter over the line. The lead rider drafts, saving as much
energy as possible for the final climb or sprint. The quality of a non-leader’s
ride is measured by the performance of the lead rider, not where they come in
the race. A victory for the lead rider whether a sprinter seeking a stage victory
or someone trying to win one of the key classifications is a victory for the
team. So, while there may be 200 in a field, it may be only 20 who are trying
to win each stage and the race overall. In each team, the others are trying to
give themselves to help the one win.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All this has made me think that road cycling has a kind of
christological or cruciform pattern. In Christian thought, Christ gave his life
on the cross to ensure others “win,” that they are saved. He gave himself to
save others. He spent himself as the lead rider so that other riders can reach
the prize for which they press on (Phil 3:14). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The essence of the Christian life is to embody this pattern of
self-giving for others as we go about our lives, even to the point of
self-denial and suffering – we live to serve others (a cruciform life). This is what cruciformity is--being conformed to the pattern of life Jesus exhibited when giving his life on the cross. Jesus
stated it in this way: “Take up your cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34 and parr.).
Paul urged people to “imitate Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In cycling, although sometimes a rider will be given the opportunity to go for a stage win if it opens up on a certain day, in a team of
ten, in each race or stage, nine give up their “lives” for one. They give every
bit of their energy to carry one person to victory. They “die” so that the
other will “live.” They destroy themselves that one can have the energy to win
the race. They deny themselves and sacrifice themselves for the glory of the
other. They measure their greatness not by winning (indeed they may end up at
the back of the field), but if their leader gains a great place. So, where a
winner is found, there are many “insignificant” contributors who are the real
heroes. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In most team sports, everyone in the team gets a trophy or
medal if the team wins (e.g. RWC). In cycling, however, even if a team might
win the team’s prize, only one person from the successful team gets the medal despite
the massive effort of those who gave themselves for the victory. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Team road cycling is truly a team sport which embodies
cruciformity and helps us understand what Christ and the Christian life is all
about. It is not about fame and significance, but about self-giving, service,
humility, and sacrifice even with suffering to see the other “win.” This parallel
I find fascinating and most intriguing. Keep living the cruciform life and
maybe go cycling.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br /></div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-26141745146550589322019-07-18T13:49:00.001+12:002019-07-18T13:49:17.389+12:00Is Colossians 1:29 an Example of Hyperbole?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="text-align: justify;">Paul says Colossians 1:23 that the gospel which
the Colossians heard through Epaphras and which is spreading through the world (Col
1:6–7) has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven. Scholars deal with it
in different ways. </span><span style="text-align: justify;">Hendriksen and Kistemaker understand by this that as
the gospel has reached Rome, “it had actually invaded every large center of the
then-known world” (</span><i style="text-align: justify;">Exposition</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, 85). This is patently incorrect as there
were centers north, south, and to the east that were both known and a part of
the world. Ernest Martin suggests that we should not push this statistically,
but it speaks of the gospel’s universal application (</span><i style="text-align: justify;">Colossians, Philemon</i><span style="text-align: justify;">,
83), a view others hold to (e.g. Ash). Osborne considers that the gospel is
being proclaimed in every part of the world and so there is hope for all of
creation to be brought back into harmony with God (</span><i style="text-align: justify;">Verse by Verse</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, 50).
Pao similarly sees here not hyperbole, but the universal scope of the gospel and
“cosmic submission to God” (ZECNT, 110). A large number of scholars see here
hyperbole. For example, Bird writes,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The phrase <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">all of creation</b> is certainly <i>hyperbolic</i>,
since Paul’s missionary endeavors only encompassed selected regions in the
eastern Mediterranean from “Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum” (Rom
15:19). Nonetheless, through the work of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Paul,</b>
God and God’s Son were being proclaimed to peoples who knew only the domain of
darkness. Indeed, Paul’s service has a unique role in the unfolding of the
mystery of God, which has recently been made known. (NCC, 62–63, italics mine).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Wright in the TNTC commentary (pp. 88–90) suggests there are three ways
to take this statement: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(a) Either Paul is referring to a proclamation of the gospel which takes
place in and through a revelation in the world of created ‘nature’ itself: or
(b) he could be thinking of a single proclamation of the gospel (in the sense
of an announcement of Christ’s Lordship) which, made in advance of its verbal
declaration to human beings, was somehow made known to the other orders of
creation: or (c) he intended this claim to be taken in an anticipatory sense;
that, in Christ himself and in the fact of the Gentile mission, the gospel had <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in principle</i> already been preached
world-wide.</span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">He opts for the third option, seeing here that the gospel had been
preached to the world in principle. He rejects the second option because <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nor does the idea of an independent proclamation to the non-human
creation find any echoes elsewhere in his writings. Nor would it be clear how
he, Paul, could become a minister of such a proclamation, as he says in the
next phrase. Romans 10:18, though sometimes read in this way, refers in context
to Paul’s own Gentile mission, seen from God’s point of view as a single
world-wide proclamation.</span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In my view,
Wright writes off (b) too quickly as there is another angle to this. Wright
suggests that it could speak of “its verbal declaration to human beings” of “Christ’s
Lordship.” There is another possibility. That is, it speaks not of some verbal
moment, but of Christ’s coming per se and his whole ministry which was a
proclamation of the gospel. That is, Christ himself is the gospel declared by
God in the world climaxing in his declaration of Christ as Son of God by his resurrection
from the dead. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My starting
point is Paul’s understanding of the coming of Christ. For Paul, God sent his Son,
born of a woman (Gal 4:4, cf. Rom 8:3). He is the Theomorph (God in Form One)
who was “born in the likeness of humankind” and “found in appearance as a man”
(Phil 2:6–8, cf. Col 1:15). In Col 1:15–16, “he is the image of the invisible
God, the firstborn of all creation” and creator of the cosmos who holds
together the universe. His entry into the world and his ministry to death and
resurrection, then ascension and exaltation to Lordship, is the gospel. This is
way bigger than some “verbal declaration” or “a single proclamation of the
gospel;” the gospel is Christ. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, it is
the event which we proclaim that is being pointed to, not the moment of
proclamation. Jesus is his own proclamation; he is the Word (as John puts it).
He has been declared to the world because he declared himself by entering and
living without sin, dying as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and rising from
the dead. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Second, if
we are looking for a moment of declaration, it is found in Romans 1:4: “who was
declared the son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” His resurrection is the
point of God’s declaration of Christ in history over and for all creation. His
resurrection was declared to a range of people in the early church (e.g. 1 Cor
15:5–8). Since Mary’s first witness, this has been declared throughout the
world. By the time of Christ, it had penetrated some areas of the Roman Empire
and not much more. It certainly had not yet been proclaimed to all creation. However,
in a sense it had. Christ has come. He is risen! He is declared. God’s final
word has been spoken. As the writer of Hebrews puts it: “in these last days he
[God] has spoken to us by his Son” (cf. Heb 1:2). Or, as John writes: “In the
beginning was the Word … and the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A third
angle is found in points where Paul describes the preaching of the gospel as the
preaching of Christ. So, in Phil 1:12–18a Paul speaks of the gospel’s advance
(v. 13), the word proclaimed (v. 14), those who preach Christ (vv. 15, 17,
18). Christ is the gospel. He has been proclaimed in that he has come into
creation in the once-for-all event that was his birth, baptism, life of service,
death, and resurrection. He will never be declared in this way again until he
comes and declares himself for a second time. He is the Word, the Gospel, the
Message of God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I believe
this is what Paul means in Col 1:23 and it fits with the beginning of the body
of the letter. He can, on the one hand, say of the gospel that it has been
proclaimed to all creation, yet is still expanding and spreading into the world
(1:6–7). So it is today, but the gospel has been proclaimed because Christ has
been. This idea fits with the heavy emphasis on Jesus whose kingdom is
established (v. 13). He launches the body of the letter with a magnificent “hymn”
of Christ’s supremacy (vv. 15–20). </span><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So, I do
not believe we need to try and find ways to explain what Paul means here other
than to recognize what the gospel is. It is Jesus Christ Lord and Savior. We
simply tell the story of the inbreaking of God into the world once for all. That
moment was a historical period where Jesus, the gospel of God, walked the land
of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, with a jaunt outside very infrequently, and was
the gospel. He is God’s proclamation to the world. Hence, the gospel has been
proclaimed in all of creation. Our job is to let others know.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-42728028231104538462019-07-18T11:17:00.003+12:002019-07-18T11:18:12.515+12:00Considering Paul's Understanding of the Church as Family<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
When we talk about Paul’s view of the church, often we emphasize the ideas of “the body of Christ” and “the temple of the Spirit.” These ideas are to be sure very important to Paul. The body of Christ motif is found in passages focused on spiritual gifts whereby the community of believers who make up the church brings their diverse gifts together in unity in service of God (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:12, 27; Eph 3:6; 4:12, cf. Col 3:15). The church is also considered by Paul to be the Temple of the Spirit meaning that the dwelling place of God on earth is believers and the people of the church as a community (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). In Ephesians 2:20–22, the church is founded on Christ, the apostles, and prophets, with all believers built into the one building. There is a shift from the idea of the Jerusalem Temple as the palace of God—we become this individually and corporately.<br />
<br />
Yet, clearly, Paul’s primary understanding of church is the family of God. He uses the notion explicitly on occasion speaking of the household of God in Eph 2:19—promptly shifting to the temple notion in what follows (see above). In 1 Tim 3:15 he refers to “the household of God, which is the church of the living God.”<br />
<br />
More implicitly we see the idea of the church as the family of God punctuate his letters. First, God is Father some seventy times in his letters. Jesus is the Son around fifty times. Believers are children of God some sixteen times. Furthermore, Paul uses “brothers and sisters” as his customary form of address just over sixty times, implying that he and they are all members of the one family of God on earth. Among the other references to believers are brothers, Paul also writes that the intention of God is that through Christ, many other brothers and sisters would be added to God’s family (Rom 8:29).<br />
<br />
Although Paul may be referring to families in some passages, knowing the early churches met in homes, his use of household language in probably implies not only a physical family but a church gathering (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15; 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19, cf. Rom 16:10, 11).<br />
<br />
One of the key ideas in Paul is adoption (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). New Christians are adopted member of God’s family. Adoption was a Roman idea whereby in Roman culture, a person could be adopted into a family with the same legal rights as a child. Indeed, a huge number of the Roman Emperors were not natural born heirs, they were adopted (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus). For Paul to use the metaphor would convey to reader that they are sons and daughters of God with full rights.<br />
<br />
As such, the fundamental descriptor of the church in Paul’s letters is as the “family of God.” It is important we grasp this because it has a number of implications.<br />
<br />
First, if we are the family of God it is a tremendous honor to be thus described. We are members of God’s royal family; our status and identity is astonishing. We are adopted as his children and that means whether we are Jew or Gentile, male and female, elite or downtrodden, we have full access to God and his Son and within the work of the kingdom, the world is our oyster.<br />
<br />
Second, this should not lead us to arrogance as if we are better than others (sadly the holier than thou attitude is still found across the church). Conversely, it should lead us to want to emulate the character of God and our “big bro” Jesus. Indeed, Christian ethics is emulation of God and his Son. Perhaps Eph 5:1–2 says it best: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and mgave himself up for us, a fragrant ooffering and sacrifice to God.” If only every Christian fully grasped this and sought to live as children of God without bringing the name of Jesus into disrepute!<br />
<br />
Third, it speaks of the way we are to relate to one another in the church—good families live in unity, loving each other, resolving conflicts amicably, repudiating character attributes that sow discord. The whole letter of 1 Corinthians is summoning the Corinthians away from their fractious behavior to a oneness based on love. Perhaps if we lived like this people would stop maligning us as is often the case. Rather, they would see in us the love that should characterize us.<br />
<br />
Finally, one of the dangers of a family culture is that it becomes cliquey and inward looking. The kind of family we are to be is one with open doors to anyone that wants to be a part of this. As I said to a person visiting us on Sunday at church, “you come once, you are family.” Our family is open. Our meal is the word of God, which anyone can come and dine on. We gather together at the communion table as family, dining with God and his Son, enjoying the fellowship of the Spirit.<br />
All in all, we are summoned to be children of God that truly represent God our Father and Jesus our big brother.<br />
<br />
As Paul puts it in Philippians 2:12–18a (my translation):<br />
12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I come to you but now all the more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For God is the one working in you, both to will and to act for his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling and arguing 15 so that you might be blameless and pure, <b><i>children of God without blemish in the midst of a corrupt and perverse generation</i></b>, in which you shine as stars in the universe, 16 holding forth the word of life<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-2742683309905581342019-07-17T13:28:00.002+12:002019-07-17T13:39:03.394+12:00I've got nothing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It is two days since that harrowing moment when we realized we had lost the Cricket World Cup. Many NZers are still in grief. Ex-cricketers like myself are lost in a sea of deep anguish, tossed hither and thither by waves of anger, sorrow, pain, and turmoil. I was asked on Facebook to give hope. In effect, I can't give hope, because I've got nothing.<br />
<br />
Yet, I suppose there are different ways to console ourselves.<br />
<br />
1. Drink copious alcohol--helps in the short term, but bad for your skin.<br />
2. Pray NZ votes for the legalization of dope and spend the next ten years stoned. Problem is, you might end up worse with paranoia. It would just lead to more conspiracy theories which will deepen our funk.<br />
3. Take it out on others--make sure they too are not kiwis, or you may bite off more than you can chew, they may be angrier than you. Also, don't take it out on Ben Stokes, we know what he can do in a brawl.<br />
4. Make up excuses like the umpires missed the overthrow moment should have been 5 not 6; they missed lbws, etc. The problem is that we should still have won because we had ample opportunities like when Trent stood on the boundary rope. Furthermore, we really can't do to anyone what we did to Wayne Barnes. Poor guy. We all make mistakes. BUT NOT THAT BIG WAYNE!<br />
5. Pretend it didn't happen. But it did.<br />
6. Pray for Ground Hog Day. But, who can really go through that again?<br />
7. Pretend it was a tie and simply forget the boundary rule. We shared the game and tournament. Never mind England ended up above us in pool play and spanked us when we played them first time.<br />
8. Take it out on the law-makers who came up with the dumb boundary rule. But we were part of the lawmaking and agreed to it. Dang.<br />
9. Take heart that Stokes is a Kiwi. Well, he isn't, he lost that claim a while ago.<br />
10. Take it out on Ben Stokes because he is a traitor. Problem is, a few kiwis in recent years originated elsewhere--anyone remember Grant Elliot, the Hairy Javelin.<br />
11. Tell yourself "it's only a game." Problem is, no matter how many times I say it, I know I am wrong. It is bigger than life.<br />
12. Give up supporting the Black Caps and start supporting England. Yeah right! Something about hell freezing over comes to mind. That would be almost as bad as supporting the Aussies.<br />
13. Speaking of the Aussies, remind yourself that they did not make the final--hahahahahaha! That does soften the blow a little.<br />
14. See a counselor. Problem is, I want to feel angry! I don't want to let it go!<br />
15. Concede England were the better team and good on them. What! As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!"<br />
16. Have a victory parade after a draw! No way. Remember when the English rugby team did a victory lap at Twickenham. That went down well. Not!<br />
<br />
Nah, there's nothing we can do. We have to take it. We have to live in terror that the same thing might happen in Japan in November; as Paul would say in Greek, <i>mē genoito</i>, "may it never be!" Or better, live in hope we avenge this defeat by an extra-time win or penalty goal shoot out win over England in the final!<br />
<br />
Nah, we just have to suck it up and like Gallipoli where we got spanked by the Turks and make it a national day of mourning/celebration. So close, no cigar.<br />
<br />
So, I have nothing . </div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-39880545236582046502019-07-17T10:43:00.000+12:002019-07-17T10:43:01.101+12:00The Sign of the Cross: Why did we do away with it?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: .9pt; mso-border-alt: dotted windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt dotted windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt dotted windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 642px;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;">
<td style="border: dotted windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: dotted windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 67.5pt;" valign="top" width="90"><div class="MsoNormal">
I was at a worship gathering recently and we took
communion. I observed a woman take the emblems and then make the sign of the cross. I found it a beautiful and poignant moment as she in deep sincerity, honored
God in this way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It then took my mind to the myriad of times I have seen
others do the same in different settings. In silence, a person using the
right hand (because Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father) touches the
forehead, the center of the chest (the heart), and the two shoulders saying: “in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.” (See
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autaIzGDcy8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autaIzGDcy8</a>).
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is used across a range of churches including the Orthodox,
Catholic Churches, Anglicanism, and some Lutherans and Methodists. The idea is
a very early one, found in Tertullian (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ;">De
corona</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ;"> 3) who in the late second century says it was used on every journey, leaving the home, and at meals and bedtime (<i>ISBE</i> 1:287). </span><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-NZ;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I thought on this profound act of worship by the woman,
I pondered my own experience of the church which is largely Presbyterian and
Baptist and wondered, “why on earth did we drop this?” It can hardly be seen as idolatrous. I suppose it could be seen as superstitious, but, then, is it any different from looking upward, raising hands, bowing in submission, or verbalizing a prayer? Not really, indeed, it is a lovely way to say a prayer non-verbally.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some apparently don’t like the idea of invoking the full
three-fold name of God, Father, Son, and Spirit, preferring “in the name of
Jesus.” Yet, that seems downright weird considering that we are sent into the
world to baptize people “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). Probably, it is mainly rejected in many Protestant traditions because it is too Roman Catholic. While there are some ways in which I differ in my understanding from my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in the faith, this is rubbish at many levels.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hence, I suggest that we Protestants not familiar with using the
sign of the cross should consider doing so. It is a beautiful and succinct way to express one’s worship. It identifies us as a Christian and hence it becomes an act of witness. It also invokes something in others. We shouldn’t do it pretentiously or to draw attention. It must be genuine, directed to
God. When it is done from a sincere heart, it is a haunting and exquisite gesture of reverence. <o:p></o:p></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374761658646185874.post-57518952239839511232019-07-17T10:12:00.000+12:002019-07-17T10:12:09.066+12:00You Give them Something to Eat<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: .9pt; mso-border-alt: dotted windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt dotted windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt dotted windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 642px;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;"><td style="border: dotted windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: dotted windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 67.5pt;" valign="top" width="90">
<div class="MsoNormal">
So often Christians passionate for evangelism downplay
social justice. They see things like caring for the poor and other good works as secondary to telling someone the good news of Jesus. For a range of reasons,
I find this unsatisfactory. Social engagement can never be limited to the words we speak. Sharing Christ is found in a holistic encounter where our attitudes and actions sit alongside and give meaning to the words we speak. If we speak without loving good works our words are dead. If we show love and never speak the gospel, no one is saved. The two are intertwined.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the verses that I find helpful in this regard is in
the context of the feeding of the 5000 in Mark 6:30–44. The disciples have
just come back from their first mission in which they proclaimed to people
that they must repent of their sins, cast out demons, and healed the sick
(Mark 6:12–13). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then they return to Jesus (Mark 6:30). Jesus takes them by
boat to a desolate place for a bit of r & r. However, they were seen by the crowds who raced ahead and met them as they got off their boats. The crowd was immense including at least 5000
men along with women and children. The story is well known. The day comes to an end and his disciples suggest that Jesus dismiss the crowd to go and buy themselves food from nearby towns. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jesus’ response is: “you give them something to eat.” The
disciples find this baffling as it would cost 200 denarii. That is 200 days wages for a laborer. In NZ terms, that would be about $28,000 NZD (based on the minimum wage of $17.70/hr & 8 hr days). All they have is five loaves and two fish. Jesus then performs the miracle, feeding the immense crowd.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What strikes me is the relationship between the feeding
and the return from the mission. In the mission, they do the classic things of
evangelism: preach the gospel, cast out demons, and lay on hands to heal.
This pattern of evangelistic mission is found across the NT. Yet, it is as if
Jesus in this command, “you give them something to eat,” is summoning them to
another facet of their mission: social concern for the needy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They now know that as they engage in the mission of God,
they will come across people in desperate need. When they do, always with the goal of sharing the gospel so that they may come to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, they are to minister to their needs. They are to care for the material needs of those they meet. They are to preach the gospel with godly attitudes, acts of mercy and compassion, and graciously sharing the gospel. This is the fullness of our mission. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Interestingly, in Galatians 2 when Paul’s commission to take
the gospel to the world was endorsed by the Jerusalem apostolic core, they
also gave him this command: “All they asked was that we should continue to
remember the poor.” For the Jerusalem apostles, care for the poor and needy was concomitant with the call to share the gospel of God. Paul’s response is
ideal—he writes that doing this was “the very thing I had been eager to do
all along.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we take this to heart, perhaps people who are sick of Christians bleating on about the need to repent and believe to be saved may have cause to reconsider as we genuinely care for those in need as we invite them into God's glorious salvation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Mark J. Keownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15790396917682891386noreply@blogger.com0