Mark Keown

The Parable of the Tenants and “Ownership” of Israel/Palestine

2012-01-24T14:27:00.000+13:00

Over summer I have been reading Matthew inGreek as part of reading the whole NT in its original language. I have found anumber of interesting things. One is the implications of the parable of thetenants in Matt 21:33–46 for the status of the land of Israel. Of course, theland of Israel is an area of massive debate. Some Christians and Jews considerthat land the possession of the Jews by divine prerogative based on God’sgranting the land to the people of Abraham back in the Pentateuch. Others claimthat that this is a false reading of what Jesus was all about, that the landdoes not figure prominently in the NT and that Jesus is the locus of God’s work;the “land” if there is any, is the world, and that the contemporary Jewishclaims to divine prerogative are an anachronism at best. I have found myselfpondering this again and again as I watch news items about Palestine/Israel; asI hear speakers from one side or the other; as I read on these issues. I findmyself more and more coming down on the side of the latter view, that the Christianmessage of a Kingdom is not about a piece of dirt, a building like a temple orchurch, but about Christ, the completion of all God’s promises. Now God is notfocused on one nation, but on all of humanity, and hope is found in the livingtemple, Jesus.

This wasconfirmed to me as I read the Parable of the Tenants. In the parable Jesuslaunches a direct attack on the leaders of Israel—they get that in the end,wanting to arrest him (v.45). In the parable he speaks of a master of a house,who plants a vineyard. In the Biblical tradition, this is definitely God theFather (cf. Isa 5). He sets it up well fencing it, setting up a winepress, andbuilding a tower i.e. the loving care of God setting up the people in the landof Canaan. It then speaks of servants coming to the vineyard. The allegoricalanalogies are not tight, but likely these servants who came to get fruit referto the prophets God raised up who preached that Israel would produce “fruit ofrighteousness” i.e. lives conformed to Torah (cf. Phil 1:11; Prov 11:30; Amos6:12). Those in the possession of the vineyard are not the owners who havepossession of the land as of some divine right, but are tenants. According toBDAG the tenant or geōrgos is a farmer, a vine-dresser, or a tenantfarmer i.e. “one who does agricultural work on a contractual basis.” These arenot owners of the vineyard, but are employed by the owner (God) to care for it.Verse 40 describes the owner as Lord (kyrios) of the vineyard, clearlyalluding to Yahweh in the biblical story. Clearly, in beating, killing, andstoning the servants of the owner, the tenants violated their contract to lookafter the vineyard and produce fruit for its owner. This history of killing God’sprophets is clearly articulated in Matt 23:29–36 where Jesus rebukes theleaders of Israel for honoring the prophets in their death but in reality rejectingthem and killing them.

The parablethen anticipates the coming of the son of the owner, clearly alluding to Jesus(v.37), only for the tenants to state “this is the heir. Come, let us kill himand have his inheritance” and then throwing him out of the vineyard and killinghim (vv.36–39). Jesus is heir of all things, namely the world, includingIsrael. They were doing what all despotic false claimants to power do, seekingto take power by force—the antithesis of the revealed son of God who renounced harpagmos(violent force, robbery) to take his world (Phil 2:6). The parable endshorrifically with a warning that the owner of the vineyard will come and take vengeanceon the tenants, killing them. This can anticipate the destruction of Judea andJerusalem in a.d. 70 or theeschatological destruction of those who reject God and his word—likely both arein mind.

All thispoints to the people of Israel not being “owners” of any part of God’s worldwhether the land variously called Palestine or Israel, or any other part.Rather, they, like us all, were tenants of that particular piece of land. Dueto their failure, their right of ownership was taken by God. It would seem tome then that it is a false claim to argue for privilege over the land in themodern conflicts. Indeed, it is a false claim for any people to claim ownershipover any land. All land is owned by God, and we are his tenants. We areexpected to produce fruit. I suspect all lands are subject to God’s visitationand the same expectation of bearing fruit. I suspect he will act when he findsthat people are failing to do so. What do you think?

Jesus and Female Disciples

2012-01-24T14:25:00.003+13:00

Here is a blog on women disciples I recently posted on the Laidlaw website, a result of working through Matthew over summer
ttp://www.laidlaw.ac.nz/_blog/Our_Blog/post/Women_Disciples_of_Jesus,_Another_Thought/

A New Years Thought or Three

2011-12-30T14:17:00.003+13:00

So begins a New Year, 2012. 2011 was a tough one for many in NZ, most notably Christchurch residents who experienced the pain of loss and destruction. None of us know what 2012 will hold. That is the thing about life, it is tenuous. As Isaiah says, “the grass withers and the flower fade.” We humans are always a heart-beat from life’s cessation. New Years are great times to pause and reflect. While New Years resolution’s are perhaps not the answer, because they are legalistic and often serve to bring guilt, restating one’s core commitments at the beginning of a new year is not a bad thing.

Perhaps the core question is whether we are living for God? Have other things crept in, things that deflect us from service of the King? The really dangerous things are the idols of the more subtle variety. Usually, they are connected to our strengths. For example, one is a great thinker—so often it is one’s own hubris and love of thought and one’s own ideas (or those of another venerated thinker) that can become snares. Paul knew this, stating that all frames of thought must be brought into subjection to Christ. Another danger is devotion itself, whereby one become so consumed with devotion to the divine, that one isolates oneself, and falls prey to the hubris of spiritual narcissism, an obsession with God alone. In actual fact, it is one’s subjugation to one’s own view of the divine, which is a snare—we tend to be cynical and rejecting of other’s perspectives. Of course there is the danger of spiritual fatigue and despair. It comes to those in ministry who give it all for a sustained period of time. They find that they are not as effective as they long to be. The church doesn’t grow. Their ministries are not as effective as they want. People simply don’t take up the challenges and opportunity given. Then they become self-critical and fall into despair and disillusionment with themselves, their people, the world and even God. Of course, they are really demonstrating spiritual narcissism in another form. They are in fact arrogant, believing in their own self-importance as if they are the answer, or have the answer, if only others would listen. Things are always way more complex than this.

As I face the New Year, I don’t want to be a hyper-Calvinist who sees things as all God’s work, this would make God responsible for my failures—that is too easy an out, and the ultimate idolatry. But, I do want to defer to God more and more, to his sovereignty. I want him to empower me to be utterly devoted with all my being—in devotion, holiness, service, love, faith, fidelity and commitment. Yet, I want then to live in contentment, accepting the outcome, knowing I did what I can do, and God did what he is doing. I trust he is in control, and moving things towards his purposes. It may not look that sensational, I may achieve little, but I can rest in the certainty he is at work. I want to be more God-reliant. I want to be more God-confident. I want to be more God-aware. I want to be more God-assured. That is, I know that he is doing his thing. That means I can rest and recreate as I live out his life for me—it is not all up to me!

What I don’t want though, is to fall into fatalism, quietism, retreatism with a ‘let go, let God’ attitude. Rather, I want to hold on, and let God. It is easy when one tips the theological balance of sovereignty and freedom to fall prey to passivity. That I don’t want. On the other hand tipping the balance the other way, dethrones God, and enthrones self, in another example of spiritual narcissism. I don’t want that. I want to give it my all, but in God’s strength, that his glory will flow.

All else is skubala, excrement. It is the Paul of Philippians 3 I suppose that encapsulates this. He turns aside from prior glories, whether Jewish or otherwise, and focuses ever on the prize. He races on for the prize, a marathon runner, refusing to relent, struggling to the 42.2km mark. He knows it will bring suffering, something he embraces; even death to be ‘with Christ,’ something that he knows will be better than life “in Christ” in the present; but he runs on. That is the attitude. It is running even sometimes staggering, with a cross over the shoulder, with a towel in hand, gospel in mouth, love in heart, Spirit thrumming through one’s being, pursuing the one thing that really matters. And as one runs, it is ‘knowing Christ Jesus my Lord’ with a righteousness not of one’s own through any law or ‘ought’ or ‘should’, but a righteousness from God through faith—faith of/in Christ, and my faith, which fuses me to the faithful one, the object of faith. That is enough resolutions; to be one of the joint-imitators of Paul and others who reflect the Christ-pattern. So, whether it is my last year on earth, or there are many to come, my resolution for 2012 is the ‘one thing’ of Paul, ‘to press on to win the prize,’ to be ‘found in him,’ to ‘somehow attain to the resurrection from the dead’ when my saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, comes from heaven, and my body of humiliation becomes a body of glory—that is the life of the heavenly citizen, may it be so.

Remembering "Our" First Christmas, 1814

2011-12-24T15:34:00.001+13:00

This is a Christmas message I wrote on behalf of the Auckland Church Leaders which was published in the NZ Herald on pages A6-7 Dec 24 2011.

A Christmas message from Auckland Church Leaders

Remembering “Our” First Christmas, 1814

Christmas is a unique time. For some it is a time for family and friends, festive cheer, gifts and a good excuse for a holiday. For others, it is a time of sadness as they remember lost loved ones, or face deprivation and abuse. For yet others, it is regarded as just a fairytale. For Christians, Jesus is the reason for the season—a precious time when believers all over the world pause, remember and celebrate the birth of Jesus who we believe to be the saviour of the world.

Not many at the time of Christ’s birth realised its significance or anticipated its impact. The story is set in obscurity far from the seats of ancient power. It is shrouded in mystery with accounts of prophetic predictions, angelic visitations, a pregnant unmarried virgin, a child placed in a humble manger, local shepherds and wise men from afar paying homage, a massacre of children, and more—this just begins the amazing story of Jesus. Thirty years later Jesus began his ministry preaching stunning words of wisdom, healing the sick, calling people to follow him to experience God’s salvation and urging a radical ethic of love without prejudice for all people, even one’s enemies. Finally, he was crucified, buried, and then came even more mystery—claims of his resurrection from the dead.

Such claims were taken seriously by his followers, many of whom gave their lives to spread the message, setting ablaze a movement unprecedented in human history. Some 280 years later, the most powerful Empire in the world adopted the Christian story as its own.

As time went on, the gospel message penetrated through and beyond the Roman world, eastward through Asia, westward into northern Europe and south into Africa. Christian faith became the dominant factor in shaping European history. At its best, it is a glorious story of sacrificial love and service, as many followers of Jesus contributed powerfully and positively to build the world we live in today. At its worst, Christianity became implicated in the political intrigue and oppression of the secular powers it allied itself with. So it is that some people find the Christian story something to be reviled, while others find in Christianity the very meaning of their existence.

For 2000 years, the story of Jesus has been going global. In the 15–16th centuries the scope of Europe expanded greatly as they discovered the Americas, Australia and Oceania. They chose a variety of ways to interact with these new worlds. Some wished to trade, others to settle and make a new life for themselves, and some to exploit. Yet others with high ideals and missionary enthusiasm sought to share Christianity with the peoples of these nations.

As New Zealanders we remember too, that Christmas is a very special time in our history—for it was on Christmas Day 1814 that the Christian message came to the shores of Aotearoa and became an intrinsic element of our country’s story.

In that year, some 197 years ago, Rev Samuel Marsden of the Church Mission Society, in response to an invitation from Māori, arrived in Rangihoua on his waka the Active. On Christmas Day, he led the first on-land Christian missionary service. The congregation was made up of hundreds of local Ngapuhi and members of the mission party. The hymn was Psalm 100, a song of praise urging all people of all lands to sing joyfully with gratitude for God goodness, everlasting mercy and truth—a wonderful psalm to reflect on each Christmas. Marsden wrote of this moment that he felt his very soul melt within him as he viewed his congregation. Luke 2:10 was read—“Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” Marsden then preached. A Māori translation was given by local chief Ruatara. We have little knowledge of the content of his sermon, but one can imagine him joyfully declaring for the first time on New Zealand shores the story of Jesus’ birth, his ministry, his death and resurrection and his invitation to follow God for salvation—an invitation that remains for us all to this day.

It took a number of years for Māori to be convinced by the Christian message. It wasn’t until the 1830’s that they began to convert in numbers. Ultimately however, as the Bible was translated into Māori, and Māori themselves began to take the message to their own people, the message rapidly spread throughout their people. By 1842 there were over 3000 Christian Māori in the northern region alone.

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed, in part inspired by the missionaries, in the hope of a positive partnership of Māori and Pakeha under God based on equality under the law. In 1876 our national anthem, “God defend New Zealand,” was written by Thomas Bracken, a heart-felt hymn to God to make our nation great. Sadly, only a few years later there were the tragic events of Parihaka where Māori (inspired by the Christian message of peace) stood in unified non-violence while being plundered by colonial forces. Parihaka is a blot on our history as a nation, and a symbol of some of our ongoing struggles.

So it is that the story of New Zealand goes on, shaped by many stories whether Māori or Pakeha, not the least of which is the Christian story which we can trace back to Christmas Day 1814, and beyond that to Bethlehem some 2000 years ago.

Approaching Christmas 2011, we live in a nation which has had a tough year; we live in a world which is struggling and confused and faces many uncertainties. The message of Christmas is that God has intervened in the messiness of our world to walk with us in love and peace. As God-with-us (Emmanuel), we are invited to accept God’s invitation into this new life, through the person of Jesus Christ.

As we move toward the bicentenary celebration of the first New Zealand Christmas in 2014, we urge you to consider the Christmas story afresh—whether the first Bethlehem story or the genesis of the Christian faith in this nation. We humbly ask you to join us in forgiving those who have misrepresented and abused the name of Jesus in this land and to consider the many great things done in Jesus’ name, which have helped make this nation great. It is a time to imagine and pray for the kingdom Jesus spoke of—one nation under God in a land shaped by service, compassion, sacrifice, justice, truth and grace. This is the dream of God for Aotearoa New Zealand. The path toward this is to believe in Jesus—the power of his love shaping our future. Finally, we wish you all a very Happy Christmas and pray that you may know and experience the joy, hope and peace of Jesus Christ.

See: www.gospel2014.org & www.biblesociety.org.nz

List of Auckland Church Leaders for NZ Herald Christmas feature

- Rev Dr Neville Bartle, National Superintendent, Church of the Nazarene.

- Rt Rev Ross Bay, Anglican Bishop of Auckland.

- Pastor Tak Bhana, Senior Pastor, Church Unlimited.

- Rev Norman Brookes, Auckland District Superintendent, Methodist Church of New Zealand.

- Pastor Terry Calkin, Senior Pastor, Greenlane Christian Centre.

- Rev Murray Cottle, Regional Consultant, Auckland Baptist Churches.

- Pastor Paul de Jong, Senior Pastor, LIFE.

- Most Rev Patrick Dunn, Catholic Bishop of Auckland.

- Mr Peter Eccles, Auckland District Chairman, Congregational Union of New Zealand.

- Mr David Goold, on behalf of Open Brethren churches.

- Pastor Mike Griffiths, National Leader, Elim Churches of New Zealand.

- Pastor Ken Harrison, Senior Pastor, Harvest Christian Church, Papakura AOGNZ.

- Pastor Dr Brian Hughes, Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel.

- Rev Fakaofo Kaia, Moderator Northern Presbytery, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.

- Very Rev Jo Kelly-Moore, Dean, Auckland Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.

- Rev Andrew Marshall, National Director, Alliance Churches of New Zealand.

- Pastor Bruce Monk, National Leader, Acts Churches NZ.

- Pastor Sam Monk, Senior Pastor, Equippers Church.

- Pastor Peter Mortlock, Senior Pastor, City Impact Church.

- Pastor Lloyd Rankin, National Director, Vineyard Churches Aotearoa New Zealand.

- Major Heather Rodwell, Divisional Commander, The Salvation Army.

- Bishop Brian Tamaki, Destiny Churches.

- Pastor Eddie Tupa’i, President, North New Zealand Conference, Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

- Rev Dr Richard Waugh, National Superintendent, Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand.

- Mr Glyn Carpenter, National Director, NZ Christian Network.

Just Wondering About Asset Sales

2011-11-29T08:44:00.001+13:00

NZers are freaking out about asset sales. I can understand why. While we have financial challenges, do we want to sell our assets to get out of trouble?

Yet, at the same time, one of the counter-arguments is that the floating of a portion of the assets is at least to an extent a good thing for NZ, giving NZers something to invest in. This would move investments away from our incessant obsession with investment in property, or off shore. Iwi and others may find this helpful. I find this a good argument to a point. That said, do we need to sell off 49% of an asset at all?

My question then is this, why sell so much of any state owned asset? Why not place a limit on the amount of an asset that we float, say 25% or 33%, and why not limit the amount one investor can own at even lower than 10%, say 5%? We could float far more assets then, retain control, put the money to use to pay down debt to safeguard us against the effects of global recession etc. Then, if the situation permits, we can buy them back if need be?

Perhaps this would allow NZers to feel secure in NZ control and ownership, while allowing NZers to invest in their own country, but with safeguards.

Of course, I would also agree with the right’s desire to strip down government as far as possible, without of course gutting the care for the really poor and marginalised. I would also support ensuring that the money from the government for alleviation of poverty and need, actually gets to those in need, and not down the loo on drugs and booze etc.

I would also agree though with a tax system that ensured that the really wealthy pay their way in terms of taxation.

But would this alleviate some of the asset sales concern?

Perhaps there is some problem with this economically, that I am too dumb to see—that is not unlikely. I can see this could lower the market value of the sale, as it could put some off, and lower demand.

Still, maybe it is a good middle way. Just wondering? Any thoughts out there on this?

Election 2011: As the Dust Settles

2011-11-28T07:01:00.001+13:00

So the dust is settling on another election. The people have spoken, the right rules for another three years. A few things stand out to me.

First, there is the obvious surprise at the success of NZ First, no doubt in no small part due to the Epsom Tea Party which gave him a platform. Winston appeals to the floating voter who wants neither party, cares for the elderly, and is attracted to his style—which is very winsome (Winsome Winston). As a Christian, I have some sympathy, especially for Winston’s concern for the elderly. One sign of the health of a nation is how we look after the elderly. Perhaps the move from 65 to 67 for retirement cost Labour a few votes here. After all, there are other options, like a graded system where you can take retirement earlier, but receive less, or take it later, and receive more. Raising the retirement age works for people like me who sit in an office all day, but it is a tough call for those do manual work. I wonder if this policy is a popular as some people think.

Secondly, there is the dominance of the centre-right in NZ politics. It seems to me that Conservative and NZ First are more right than left, although they will go either way if required. As such, there is a dominance of the centre-right in NZ politics with 60% of the vote. The distincly left side of the vote, Greens, makes up only 40% split between Labour, Green, and the Maori parties. This reflects the move right in the nation since the Clarke era, which has not run its course.

Of course, we could still have had a left wing government with the help of NZ First and UNF, but this was always a long shot, especially since Peters has said he would not go into government either way (of course he has changed his mind before!). So, while pundits are saying it was a close election, it was not so really. It is hard to imagine Labour on 27% getting support to cobble together a stable government.

As Christians, we need to think about this dominance of the right. One thing we should believe in is the care of the poor. We need to watch this government closely to ensure that they are held accountable for the marginalised and poor. I know that we are in a phase where we need to stimulate business and get through this economic crunch, but it is the poor who will hurt the most if things turn sour. We need to watch closely how this plays out. It may be that we will need a swing left next time around if the “right-solution” is not effective or the problem gets worse.

Third, there is the decline of Labour. They are in a bit of trouble it seems to me. Greens are on the rise, with real appeal to younger voters. Labour looks tired and needs to renew itself, and quickly, to recapture a younger generation of lefties. They need to bring through the likes of Jacinda Adern who has real appeal. This may be easier said than done, with the Greens fresh appeal—I know from younger people in our church that some were really impressed with them. Still, if Greens and Labour play it shrewd, with Green’s focussing on environmental issues and Labour the full agenda, they could easily turn the tide in 2014. Especially so if we hit harder economic times which is likely in light of the world economy.

This may be a great time for Christians with a heart for the left to get involved in the Labour party. They will be going through a lot of soul-searching and looking for solutions. Perhaps this is a good time to be salt and light in the NZ political scene.

Fourth, there is the rise of the Conservatives. Getting 2.8% of the vote is no small feat in its first election. I know from my church, that a number were attracted to them. There was a bit of false hope here, with news spreading that Colin Craig might win Rodney. This was based on flawed systems like Horizon and was a bit over played, as the the 10,000 or so National majority indicated. There seems to be a rump of Christians floating around searching for a right/Christian option. It has never gained traction to the point of getting into parliament. Perhaps Colin Craig has the ability to pull this off over time. Conservatives will have to either find a way to win a seat, or do a Winston and forget the seats, and send Colin Craig over the nation to try and raise the 5%. It is a tall call, as all these small parties, Greens alone, have been based around a big MP and figure who has left a major party (Anderton, Hyde, Douglas, Prebble, Peters etc). Then there is the question of whether this is the best approach for Christians in politics. There is a shortage of volunteers in all parts of our culture, if we get in and do the hard yards in the mainstream parties, perhaps we can achieve more. Time will tell, because Conservatives will be very hopeful from here. To do it, they will have to inpire people, prove an ability to be a "wide church", keep unity, and get the right strategy.

Finally, there is the terribly low turn-out of voters. According to today's Herald, it was the lowest percentage turn out since 1887 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10769246). Perhaps it is due to the polls which indicated a foregone conclusion.

I hope Christians did not stand back, but voted. We should lead the nation in caring who rules over this part of God’s world. It is a privilege to be able to help shape our nation through casting our vote. Let’s hope for something better in 2014.

Now that the election is over, it is back to the real work on which a nation is formed, the people working hard, living ethically and well, building strong families, communities, businesses and giving it their all. This is where the real work must be done for NZ to get through the next three years, which everyone is saying, will be tough.

Election 2011: 4) Which System?

2011-10-31T07:22:00.001+13:00

At the election we get a vote on what electoral system we want. We will be asked two questions: 1) Do we want to keep MMP or not? 2) If not, which system: MMP, FPP, PV, STV, SM.

We all know what MMP is: 120 MPs, 70 electoral MPs we vote in with one vote—the most votes wins; 50 who get in on the list depending on proportion of the vote. This yields coalition government, compromise, moderate consultative governments. It gives room for more voices. It forces NZ politics always to the middle. It has been around now for about twenty years and while we have had some fun and games forming governments, it has yielded stable government and NZ. Its weakness is that the minor parties can wield disproportionate power.

First Past the Post (FPP) is well known to older kiwis, one vote per person, 120 electoral MPs, winner takes all. This tends to polarize politics like the US Republican—Democratic system. The voices at the margins tend to get consumed in the huge party machines. It can get a government elected with less votes than the opposition. It is simple but does not require the same level of consultation and compromise.

Preferential Voting (PV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) are systems whereby, when we go into vote, we get one vote and it is not picking a candidate, we rank the candidates by preference, 1, 2, 3, etc. We use this in local body elections for some positions in Auckland. It means you need to know all the candidates really well, something I found hard when I voted in Auckland recently. The differences between PV and STV come down to how the votes are processed.

In PV if a candidate has over 50% of the 1's, they are in. If not, the person with the least 1's is removed, and the 2's come into play added to their 1's. This goes on until someone cracks 50%, and they take the seat.

In STV, people are ranked as with PV. However there are less electorates (24–30) and multiple MPs from each electorate (3–7). A quota is worked out which a person must cross to get voted. Then the same system in PV is used to work out who cracks the quota. It seems rather complicated to me.

SM is similar to MMP except there are way fewer list MPs (30) and they are worked out differently. There are 90 electorates, and we get to vote for a local MP. The other 30 MPs are from lists decided by the percentage of the party vote. So 10% of the vote will not yield 12 MPs overall as in MMP's but 3 MP's. This means we get a bit of a MMP and coalition feel, but the minor parties has less of a say in the system. It kind of brings together FPP and MMP.

Which is more 'Christian?' Well, that is hard to say, and perhaps impossible. One could argue systems that force consultation reflect the Christian ideal of working together in partnership, but they also lead to compromise. So, I suggest you pray, think and vote—when the dust has settled, get on working for restoration within whatever system NZ decides.

In yesterday's Sunday Herald 30/10/2011 a poll made it look like MMP is here to stay: 57.2% said yes to MMP. Only 27.6% said no to MMP. While 26.9% said not sure/do not know. For me, I think I will go either MMP or SM. What about you?

Election 2011: 3) What to Think About When Voting

2011-10-31T07:03:00.001+13:00

So we come to vote, how to go about it? First, we all need to pray. Christians across the churches should be gathering in these weeks leading to the election and praying that God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven (esp. 1 Tim 2:1–2). We want the right people in power, that our nation will be well led, safe, protected and provided for. This is a tough time in the world, and it will take some seriously good leadership to get us through the economic and political challenges we face.

Secondly, we need to think in regards to the gospel. Here are some elements:

We get two votes of course and so we need to be strategic with them. Where the local candidate is concerned, I think we should vote on two main fronts: 1) The person, who will be the best local politician and represent the electorate well; 2) The party they represent. That person will get to vote with the government so the policies of their party are critical (see below).

So, get to know your local electorate candidates. Look out for meetings and go and listen to them. Email them, ask them questions. They are desperate for your vote so they will answer if they have a brain.

With our party vote, we need to vote for what our hearts and minds informed by the Spirit and thinking about the gospel and world leads us to vote.

How?

Get to know the political parties and their policies. Because of MMP, this is a far more complicated thing than in the first-past-the-post days of two clear parties right and left. Then it was easier to know where they stood. Now it is a cluttered political scene with small parties and their various policies. This is further complicated in that they don't release their policies in one big lot, a kind of manifesto approach as in the old days; rather, they leak them out. They spin them through the media too. So we need to try and get through the red tape and get inside their minds. We can also observe our local MP, are they active for our concerns?

Get to know the leaders and what they stand for. We need to observe the main party leaders closely. Who will give us good leadership? As Christians, character is of as much importance as skill—who has both?

Thirdly, we need to think about voting from the point of view of what God dreams of for his world. I imagine he wants a nation with:

Stable non-corrupt united Government—who will best give us this? Look for signs of unity and strong by fair leadership at the top of the party. Clearly, we need to think about the major parties here, and their coalition parties. Which party(s) will give us stability?
Economic prudence and wisdom, the generation of wealth through policies that encourage business and innovation etc, the distribution of wealth so that the needs of all are met—who has the policies for the dangerous struggles of the time where we are simultaneously trying to maintain our economy in a failing market, incentive to businesses and people to be innovative and employ, yet ensuring that there is a safety net for the poor i.e. their tax policies, their policies that encourage business, how do they balance this? Do they appear to have the capacity to manage the economy well? In a sense this is always the number one question, because everything else flows from this.
Asset Sales: This is a bit of an issue with National wanting to sell 49% of Air NZ and some power companies. Others repudiate this. What are the implications of selling part of or all of assets. It yield money, but is it selling our soul?
Justice: safety, protection and justice for all—who are committed to protection of NZers, concerned too for the victims, committed to restorative justice where appropriate, but protective justice (e.g. no parole) where appropriate, making a priority of protection of the nation.
Education: where our young, regardless of race and 'class,' can get a good education that opens up options of them as adults whether tertiary education, a trade or other occupation. One big issue here is student loans, who is thinking of creative ways to pay for tertiary education, yet at the same time, ways to pay them off e.g. assistance to students who stay and work in NZ.
Primary health care for all: where all NZers have access to primary health care, affordable GP's, access to hospital services.
Family: where a government empowers families as the basic care unit of the nation. My sense is that all the main parties focus on schools rather than families. The school should not be the first point of citizen-formation, rather, the family unit. What is the parties approach, is if family centric? As I see it, of the 'bigger' parties, United Future and Maori (Whanau) seem the most on to it here.
Moral goodness and social ethics: to what extent does the government embody and encourage a Judeo-Christian morality and ethic? To what extent does the government encourage egalitarianism ensuring that whatever people's personal opinions are, all are protected and not marginalised or oppressed on the basis of their world-view, gender, age, culture etc. Western human rights may overstate individualism over society, rights over responsibilities, but is still a good thing. For example, in the past abortion, decriminalisation of prostitution, civil unions, etc might have been election issues. Some issues around might be the decriminalisation of marijuana, gay adoption etc. I get the sense that while these issues are always around, this election there are no real major ones on the horizon that might rally Christians in one direction or the other. Most of the mainstream parties are liberal-minded, so it makes little difference at a social ethical or moral sense who we vote for. They are all much the same, socially liberal.
Environmental concern: Is the party focussed on sustainability, but in a common sense manner which does not crumple economic growth. Clearly the Greens lead the way here, but are their policies sensible?
Religious and personal freedom: While I am a Christian with strong convictions, I need to allow others the same freedom I wish to believe what I believe and live life without oppressive imposition on others. This is hard to grasp for some Christians who want a Theocratic nation. Thankfully in NZ, all the main contenders seem to me to hold these values.
Social justice—care for the poor: Two real solutions seem to exist: 1) That government is the best means of redistribution of wealth from those with to those without; so a lack of trust in the wealthy redistributing their wealth, greed, so the left tend to support taxation of the wealthy e.g. those in Wall Street, those in Queen Street; 2) That government has become too big and unwieldy, that we need to reduce government, retain the safety net at the very bottom, stronger means testing etc, force people into work, and encourage personal charity and generosity through government policies. Some hold to tax the wealthy will crumple growth with more business and personal costs, and we need growth. So one side tends to demonise the wealthy and believe in the government as the best means of distribution. The other side tends to demonise big business and the wealthy and believe they should be taxed less to generate jobs through business. We need to seriously think about this as we go to vote, who has it right? Or is the answer somewhere in the middle?

So what are the really big issues this election. To me there is one major issue at this election, the economy. The globe is on the brink. We need to vote thinking of who can get us through whatever is coming. Who will give best leadership to stimulate business in a struggling market, and yet ensures the care for those who are struggling—the unemployed etc? That is, reducing government debt, stimulating the economy, ensuring the safety net is there. Not easy! This does not necessarily mean voting Labour or National, but it means thinking of the implications of coalitions and on economics for whoever we vote for.

The Madness of Student Loans: Starting Adult Life with a Noose Around Your Neck

2011-10-31T06:13:00.001+13:00

It is not easy starting working life. I remember entering the work force as a young teacher back in the day. While it was great to get paid at last, the challenges were many as I came to terms with "real life." As I read today's NZ Herald Article "Hundreds of Students in Debt for $140k-plus" by Elizabeth Binning (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10762805) my heart sank. According to the article there are:

270,040 with loans up to $10,000.
209,071 with loans of $10,000–25,000.
110,186 with loans of $25,000–50,000.
29,203 with loans of $50,000–100,000.
1500 with loans of $100,000–120,000.
617 with loans of $120,000–140,000.
541 with loans of $140,000.

That is over half a million NZers, not only starting their working life with the many challenges of finding their way in the workforce, but with a financial noose around their neck. I have always questioned this system. Living in Auckland and going through the struggle of trying to raise enough to buy our own home, I can't imagine what it is like trying to make your way with a huge debt around the neck.

Sure, it is a huge cost to a nation to pay for tertiary education. Perhaps, it is too great a cost, and we need a loans system. But, if we are going to have a loan system, we need some way to help people pay down the debt. Something has to change.

The thing is that we need an educated workforce. We are isolated and need young people who are creative, innovative and able to be productive and creative in a competitive world. Being competitive in the world demands that we help our young people get well educated, so the money spent on educating our young is effectively an investment in our nation's future. It is crazy to have a system that sets them back before starting.

I see this issue at Laidlaw College where I work. Young people come to Laidlaw, borrow to study, and then go out to work, often in lowly paid ministry positions. They often pay the price as life goes on, and it is not easy.

Going into the election, I think this is an important issue to consider for us all. It is great to see some parties confronting this. The Green party is proposing a debt write-off scheme whereby if a graduate stays in NZ and works and contributes to the scheme, a year's worth of debt is wiped off. They and the Maori Party propose a universal student allowance at the level of the unemployment benefit for all full-time students. The Maori party is also proposing bonding students, and writing off student loans. They suggest repayments should start when one is earning 150% of the average wage and a five year period of grace. United Future proposes a zero-fees policy for tertiary education in place of the student allowance meaning students can only borrow living costs. NZ First is suggesting match a dollar for dollar on repayments. I like the Maori policy. While I am not sure how we can pay for any of it, it is worth finding a way to do it.

There is an oppressive sense to the loans system. It is designed to level the playing field so all can do tertiary education, yet it is not working in this way, with Maori and it further marginalising the poor. Those who want to study know that if they do, they will likely carry a massive burden into their working lives—something they may never overcome.

I encourage all to consider this as they vote this election.

Election 2011: 2) How Can Christians Be Involved in Politics?

2011-10-29T08:39:00.001+13:00

In the last blog post I suggested that Christianity is at its essence, in a sense, political.

Life is political in fact, with someone having to run the show across its every part, families, schools, communities, social groups, sports clubs, local governments, churches, cities, nations and international politics. Christianity imagines 'political' rule in all these contexts as being about leaders who take people with them with processes that are collaborative, participative, egalitarian, with decisions made that accord with the values of God seen in the gospel.

So, we are to be 'political' first in those parts of the world we find ourselves having a leadership role. Husbands and wives are to lead well in partnership, mutual service and collaborative decision making. While some define these leadership roles on the basis of gender with the man as the leader, I am not of that view. I think each home should be run based on the call and gifts of the marriage partners. This has to be worked out together in love.

Outside of the home, the level of a Christian involvement will depend on their call and gift. Some will be motivated and given opportunity to participate in the leadership structures of social contexts like clubs, businesses, schools, governmental departments and the government itself. Some will not have leadership positions, and the Scriptures are quite clear—short of violating the command of the ultimate Lord, we are to be subject to the authorities under whom we are placed. This is a recognition of God's providence in the structures of the world, and also to model God's way to the world.

Where we find ourselves in a position of leadership at any level we are to do so God's way—humility, partnership, compassion, justice, goodness, etc; renunciation of personal ambition at another's expense, one-upmanship, violence, coercion, manipulation, deceit etc. We can seek to persuade and influence and with passion, but not using power to force situations. We are to allow God to raise us up rather than force the issue too. Christians do not go seeking power, they allow God to raise them to it. Conversely, they are not to be afraid of it either and back off—we are to humbly take up the opportunities if they come. We are to lead positively, patiently and humbly, and not force our desires on others.

Where politics at the highest level is concerned, Christians can be as involved as anyone, as led, gifted and inspired by God's Spirit. If so, we need to really know our stuff not only the Christian gospel and its implications and limits, not only to be Spirit-led people, but to learn the art of politics by being the most informed of people in terms of the things of the world like political systems, economics, justice, etc. This applies in every sphere of course i.e. we need to be best we can be and deserve leadership in our own right, not just because we are Christians.

One of the cool things about our political system is that we can all be involved. This is in fact the result of the blend of Greek democracy and Judeo-Christian egalitarianism which has developed over the centuries—for which we can be truly thankful. It is sure better than an Iraq under Hussein, a Libya under Gadhafi, a Zimbabwe, nations under despotic corrupt rule. Every Christian should vote, take their place in the system. We should be prayerful and very thoughtful. We should think about how we vote, what principles we should employ as we come to vote. For example, do we vote on social justice i.e. which political party will care for the marginalised best? Or should we vote on a moral issue like abortion? Or should we vote for the party that has the best looking leader? Etc. We should think about the gospel and what God would want us to vote on. We should watch, read and listen to understand what the policies of the parties are and think. We should get to know the local candidates and think which one will represent us best. Voting is not easy, but we should take it seriously. It is not enough to stab in the dark on election day.

We can also join parties. If we hold strong convictions and feel led by God, we can join a party and influence at the level of the selection of candidates and formation of policy. We can pressure politicians through writing to them and seek to challenge them and influence them in a particular direction. If we do, we need to do it in Christ's way. We can protest when the cause is worthy. We can be very politically active should of using coercion, corruption and violent force. And this can work at any level of life—where two or three are gathered, there is power, there is politics. We can get involved and move through a party and become a politician—as led and given opportunity by God. Wherever we are, at whatever level, we are to serve—this is essential to being Christian. After all, if Jesus King of the world came to serve and not be served, that is good enough for us.

So, as we come to the election, we need to pray and think. Who will lead us best in accordance with the values of the Kingdom? Which party? What policies? We can't assume because a person is a Christian they will do a better job, they may not have the skills and wisdom required. So, this election, make sure you do you homework and work for NZ to be an even greater country—go the All Blacks (couldn't help myself).

Election 2011: 1) Is Christianity Political?

2011-10-29T08:10:00.001+13:00

What has Christianity to do with politics? Some Christians see Christianity is apolitical. Some reject Christian engagement in politics. Some imagine that Jesus is about spiritual transformation, not engagement in the messy world of politics. There was a time when I kind of thought this. However, now I see a deeper story.

In Genesis the world was created and humanity given dominion—right from the start, a political idea. They were to fill the world and rule over it (Gen 1:28)—again, political. Of course they were also to care for it as they did as Genesis 2 makes clear—that is, there were limits to political rule, it is not domination and plundering the world—sadly, this is not what has played out. To rule is a political idea.

After the Fall of humanity in Gen 3, as human society formed, it was politically corrupt from the start—even Adam and Eve contended for power in the home. Contention filled God's world with people across its every part contending for power and authority. This is the corruption of world politics. They built cities (in Greek, polis from which politics comes). Kings built empires and dynasties dominating through military force; people like Nimrod in Gen 10, Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar etc. The story of the nations is people vying for power with governments coming and going. The story of the world is empires, nations with their armies and religious systems contending to rule over each other.

Israel was chosen by God from among the nations and he was their king ruling over it. They signed an agreement to this effect, the covenant. Initially they had a political system with them living in tribes with leaders under God as king. This broke down as we read in Judges. Israel cried out for a king like the nations and God allowed them one, warning them through Samuel that they would go the way of the nations with the King taking the good looking young women for his harem, and the young men for his armies. They relied on armies rather than God. God became a pawn in their quests for power. This played out with David establishing peace, the golden age of Solomon, and then division and decline. Israel and its political leaders were like all the nations, corrupted. After the political division of 1 Kings 12, they became swept up in world politics, they were destroyed and exiled by Assyria in the north and Babylon in the south and came under foreign political rule.

The Persians then smashed the Babylonians and Judah returned home, and rebuilt the nation. This time they had no king. For 300 years or so they were under Persian and then Greek rule. In the Maccabean period, they broke free for a period, and were ruled by the leaders of the rebellion. However, then the Romans came and conquered the world. By the time of Jesus, Rome ruled with force and by giving a certain autonomy to the nations. In Israel a puppet King Herod had some sway on behalf of Rome, as did priests (Sanhedrin) and Pharisees. The dream of a different world grew, with a leader of Israel (Messiah, Christ, anointed one) who would come and establish God's reign. There were different conceptions of this figure, some very political, some more spiritual.

Jesus entered into this world declaring, "the Kingdom of God is near, repent and believe the Good news." To cry out "the Kingdom of God is near" is very political. It declares that God has entered time to assume control. Jesus was misunderstood by his followers in this regard, they expecting him to assume military and political control, first over the nation, and then leading them to political dominance of the world. Jesus' teaching and approach however was political, but in an utterly different sense to what was expected. He taught of and demonstrated an approach to politics that revolved around subversion and service. His people would certainly be involved at every level of life, but would not resort to corrupt approaches to gain political power—deceit, manipulation, corruption, bribery, force, violence, etc. His approach did not require people to try and take over Israel or Rome, they would work within the systems of the world inviting people into this kingdom, and transforming by the Kingdoms values which revolved around love, compassion, justice and service.

The vision of Jesus and God is then a new world political system under Christ's reign planted in the world and infiltrating it over time. In this vision, subjects of God the King go to serve the world, giving leadership not with political force as we see it in the political mess of many parts of our world, but through engaging in every part of God's work in Christ's way—service, humility, persuasion, goodness, justice, grace, mercy, compassion, resistance of evil and so on. As we look over the last 2000 years we can see the infiltration of this political dream across many parts of God's world. While there are many nations which look like the world of colliding empires Jesus entered where despots and dynasties justified by religious constructs, we also see many nations which have been influenced by the Kingdom of God with safeguards against the rise of such systems. Not that Christians are immune from political corruption—the period of Christendom saw God's political way terribly corrupted as the "Christian" faith become a justification for political force and violence. Some Christians today still cannot shed this kind of theocratic imperialism—it is flawed! Yet, in many parts of the world we see the influence of both Greek democratic ideas and Judeo-Christian egalitarianism and values. No system is perfect, but the Kingdom of God has helped in many instances shape a better world.

Paul has this sort of vision for the world. He called the Kingdom a politeuma (from the Greek polis), with its centre in heaven, from where Jesus came to establish God's commonwealth, and from where he will return (Phil 3:20). Christians are to live as citizens (politeuomai) of heaven on earth in the context of the nations e.g. Rome, the US, or NZ (Phil 1:27). They are to engage with the world for its transformation. This will involve politics, engaging with the structures of the world from politics of a family, the smallest club (e.g. a rugby club), to the governments of the world. As they engage in God's way led by God's Spirit, God transforms. They are to be involved, not only trying to win people to God, but to be 'political' in a transformative sense by the Spirit. There are clearly limits on the use of power in this engagement—no deceit, corruption, bribery, violent force, and domination from these Christians at a personal level. But this does not mean we can't be actively engaged. It means we have to work with people who are not believers and do not have the restraint of the gospel and that will be difficult at times. It will lead to persecution, suffering and marginalisation at times. It will also lead to transformation at others.

The thing is that Christianity is about the restoration of Gen 1:28. Christians are co-heirs with Christ. We are being transformed into his image. We are going to rule the world to come. Some Christians imagine we sit back and wait for Jesus to return before getting into this. However, this is not the mission. We are to be transformed, and then engage for the transformation of the world. We are to take our position as God's image bearers 'ruling' over his world, but with the ethics of the gospel—this was the original plan of God anyway. We are to function out of service, love, justice, mercy and so on.

So, Christianity in a sense is apolitical—we reject the corrupt politics of the world. At another level it is very very political! There is no dualism as if we are about spiritual things, and the world political. Where two or three are gathered in the world, there is politics. We are not to shirk this but engage. We are to be involved given opportunity by God according to our own call. Some will become 'politicians' within the structures. Others will give leadership to God's people, a kind of commonwealth on earth, the 'politics' of the church. Most will be in the hurly burly of life, being 'political' at their level, leading, working with others, serving, taking their part in the glorious story of 'Ho Theos who made a world.'

So, as we come to the election, let's not be naive as if Christianity is apolitical—it is not, it about a King, a Kingdom, and subjects of the King working in his world with the people of the world for its transformation. The key thing is that we do it God's way at every level.

Reflections on the RWC Final

2011-10-24T08:59:00.001+13:00

Easily, the greatest day in NZ sports history winning with our fourth choice first five and R. McCaw injured. Has there been a gutsier display from an All Black team. More like the halcyon days of NZ rugby than the airy-fairy recent years of expansive back play. This is real rugby. Fantastic.

The choice to retain Graham Henry and his team was correct. You can't beat experience! I repent of my belief he should have been dumped four years ago. Let's don't forget Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen.

Against my better judgment (as if I would know), Graham Henry's rotation policy was vindicated. Stephen Donald came on and was ready, he knew the calls, he was confident. Same with Cruden a week or so earlier. Without the rotation policy, they would not have been ready.

The AB fitness coach Nick Gill is a legend!

The AB's peaked against Australia which we had to do to get to the final. They looked jaded in the second half. Who cares, one point or one hundred, a win is a win is a win.

Rugby is as much a game of defence as attack, this proves it.

Why give player of the match to a losing Frenchman? They lost. It should have gone to the NZer who made the most tackles when the game was won by tackling.

The ref was awesome! Sensational, a World Cup Final decided by the players and not the ref. He was only 33, and maybe it is time to have more younger refs, they can keep up.

My previous blog about the French was right; they are dangerous, play their best rugby against us when they are written off. Thankfully the AB's clearly understood this and were ready—just.

Nice to hear a European All Black giving glory to God—go Brad Thorn. We should get him to Laidlaw to speak.

Is there a greater sports achiever in our history than Brad Thorn? Winner of Aussie League Comps 1997, 1998, 2000, 2006; State of Origin 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005; he played eight games for the Kangaroos. He was a part of the Crusaders Super-comp winning sides in 2001, 2008; the Canterbury team that won the NPC in 2004, the tri-nations in 2003, 2008, 2010. He was named as one of the twenty best players to play for the Broncos in 2007. Now he is world champion. Seventeen years as a rugby professional, and now off to Japan—his body will need some serious TLC as he ages.

Rugby at a world cup is a different beast to all other rugby. It is far more intense, physical, and won by power, force and guts. We now know what it is about and how to win. We should be able to plan better for the future.

Richie McCaw is a great leader. He has learned from adversity. He leads humbly, from the front, and with calmness in the fire.

A lot of players will now move on, but it is not as if the world should be thrilled as if the AB's will now get weaker. Richie is only 30. Kieran Read is brilliant. The Franks, Whitelock, Thompson, Cruden, Kahui, Jane, and Dagg; not to mention the waves of youngsters coming through, all suggests to me that the world's pain at the hands of the AB's will go on.

We need to win an off-shore world cup now to show the world that we can win it away from Eden Park.

I am so pleased for Christchurch—enjoy it people.

Does Growth Indicate a Healthy Church?

2011-10-22T09:51:00.001+13:00

I was asked the other day by a ministry-colleague whether growth is a necessary sign of health i.e. if a church is healthy, then it is growing? Or again, if a church is growing, does it mean it is necessarily healthy?

This is a great question. First, we have to ask what growth is. Is growth numerical? Is growth something deeper? Well, in biblical terms, both are growth (nice rhyme). Ideally, the church overall and an individual church is adding numbers to it, the growth of the body in quantitative terms—through converts of course, while not losing believers out the back door. Ideally too, a church is growing through the maturation of its people, qualitative growth. Eph 4:11–16 seems to me to speak of both types of growth, as the leaders of the church including pastors, evangelists and others, equip the body which grows to maturity, likely both qualitative and quantitative. So, you could have a church that is really growing qualitatively, but there are no new people coming in. That is, the people are growing in maturity in Christ, becoming more solid in their faith, more committed disciples, more prayerful, more loving, more worshipful, more holy or even more evangelistic, etc, i.e. more committed to the things of God, but not growing numerically. This does not mean it is an unhealthy church, it may be a very healthy church, and more healthy than the one down the road that is growing quickly. Hopefully, part of this growth will be a passion to share the faith. But this does not guarantee converts—it may lead to resistance, persecution and even the breaking up of the church in some contexts.

Secondly, what about numerical growth, is it a sign of health, and conversely, a sign of lack of health. Well, I would say it depends. For example, is it a sign of health that a church is growing when the people are coming because of the great light show, music, entertainment and preaching, even if the preaching is pop-preaching that is more like spiritual junk-food than a real hearty spiritual meal? Is it healthy when a church is growing quickly, but when you dig deep there are great issues of spiritual immaturity, lack of unity, contention, spiritual abuse from autocratic leaders? Is it healthy when the people have left the church down the road because of a split and have come because they like the style of the new one? Is it healthy if many are going to move on again within a few years, going to the next 'cool' church out there? Is it healthy when a church is growing but heresy is being preached? Or not even heresy, but an imbalanced gospel say, preaching health, wealth, and prosperity if you follow Jesus. I don't think it is. Not all growth is good growth. On the other hand, if people in the church are out preaching the gospel and people are coming to Christ, and the church is growing through new converts, then it is a sign of health.

Thirdly, a church can be static numerically despite great efforts. There are churches where people are active in prayer, evangelism, discipleship and worship, and yet there is little numerical growth. One of the flaws in many Christians thinking is that if we do a, b, c, and d, then growth will necessarily occur. I disagree. The gospel when preached can often repel. It can lead to persecution, rejection and hatred. It is the aroma of death to the perishing. If we are in an environment which is resistant, and many people today and over history are and have been, proactive and authentic Christianity can be offensive and can even dwindle, recede, or be driven under-ground.

So, growth is not necessarily a mark of growth. It may be, it may not be. It all depends. We seek growth and seek to nurture, but the work is God's. Paul puts it best when he says, one plants, another waters, but God makes it grow. In my thinking, growth involves human volitional response and we cannot control this. What we seek to do is be faithful to the best of our ability to the gospel and pray for growth, qualitative and quantitative. Then it is up to God. We need to stop judging one another and ourselves on the basis of growth—be faithful and let the Lord of the harvest be the judge.

Why the World Cup Final is not a Done Deal

2011-10-22T09:39:00.001+13:00

My head and heart say we should win. The French have shown little capacity for quality rugby aside from 7 minutes against the All Blacks, and holding out England and Wales. So, all the form books say we win.

But rugby history tells us that this proves nothing with the French. In 1953 (3–0), in 1973 (15–3), in 1977 (18–13), in 1979 on Bastille Day at Eden Park (24–19—totally unexpected), in 1986 (16–3), 1994 twice (22–8 and at Eden Park, 23–20), in 1995 (22–15), in 1999 at the RWC (43–31), in 2000 (42–33), in 2007 at the RWC (20–18), and two years ago at Carisbrook (27–22), where we rarely lose to anyone, they beat us. In all of these, except perhaps 1973 on that ill-fated British tour, in 1986 after the Cavaliers-Baby Blacks etc fiasco, and 2000 after 1999, we were overwhelming favourites.

Of particular interest are their victories over us are victories at times when we appeared dominant. For example, in 1979 we were coming off a Grand Slam tour and had won the first test well. In 2000, they could beat us despite us wanting to avenge 1999. Then there are the two RWC losses to them. In 1999 we had beaten them in the same year 54–7 and two years previously in France, 37–12. In 2007 we had beaten them four times in succession over the previous two years, 47–3, 23–11 in France in 2006, and 42–11 and 61–10 in NZ. With those results, who would ever have imagined we would lose in 2007 in particular? Finally, there is 2009, only two years ago, in NZ, again at a time when we would want to right the ledger after 2007. This recent win demonstrates the danger more than any other. They seem to be most dangerous when we are favourites and they are not expected to win. This is exactly one of those occasions, with us beating them by twenty points just a few weeks ago (37–17). This suggests that they will be very very dangerous this weekend.

So, it is clear it is not a done deal. All the form books say an All Blacks win, but the French aren't just any team and with almost everyone writing them off, they are more dangerous than ever. I think anything could happen tomorrow night. I hope it is a win to the AB's—not for me, but for Graham Henry, the coaching staff, Richie McCaw and the senior players, and for the people of Christchurch in particular. Canterbury is the heart-beat of NZ rugby and it would be a fitting climax to a great era and give them something to smile about after all the suffering of the last year or so. If the French win, it won't be a surprise, nor will it mean that we choked. It will be just another one of those days.

Head Versus Heart, All Blacks Vs Wallabies

2011-10-13T14:55:00.001+13:00

My heart says the All Blacks will win this week's RWC semi at Eden Park. My heart can never do anything else, I am Kiwi across every cell of my body. My head however is saying something else. I can't shake off the feeling that the Wallabies have the upper hand. Here's why:

Australian teams are dominant this year over the All Blacks, the Reds winning the Super Fifteen, and the Wallabies caning the All Blacks recently in Brisbane, and last year in Hong Kong (luckily perhaps). There is a sense of 1991 here, with the tide swinging their way.
They are a young side on the up, and while we have some great young players, there are many who are rather long in the tooth. Woodcock, Mealamu, Thorne, A. Williams, McCaw—the heart of the pack, are all old. We clearly need to renew the side, can they hang on for two more games?
Add to that the injuries. First, we have lost Carter our playmaker, and the best player I have ever seen (Murray Deaker and Fred Allen agree with that so I am in good company). Secondly, there is the problem of Richie M, the best openside of all time in my mind (or Jones?), who is hanging on by a thread. Three, there is Read who is the best number eight in the world when fit, but at the moment looks a shadow of himself. We are very vulnerable generally, and especially around the fringes with these injuries. Then there is the injury to Dagg—we need him as we lack penetration otherwise. Who knows how Cruden will front up, although he is a better player than a year ago.
Then there is the brilliance of Genea and Pocock who can target the weakness we have in pace and fitness around the fringes and getting to breakdowns. It will take an enormous effort to keep these two people from taking control.
Then there is the Quade factor—he is due for a big one. If he sparks, we are in big trouble.
The 'choke factor.' I hate the idea of us as chokers, but we haven't managed to win these games for a few decades now—can we do it this time?

I am not writing us off though. I think there is a chance we may win this game, but the odds are against us.

We are at home, at Eden Park. A team has to be a heck of a lot better than the AB's to beat us there. Even the great 1971 Lions side could only draw at Eden Park back in the day. The 1978 Aussies, 1979 French, 1994 French sides all did it. But, they were one offs and it is years since it has happened. It is a huge advantage. It could tip the balance. We can beat a better side on Eden Park.
The injuries and problems can work to bring the AB's together. While it weakens us at one level, it will drive out any complacency and bring a fierce determination. The truth is, the AB's are always at their most dangerous when they are on the ropes like this. Remember the Baby Blacks, the second test in 1970, 1971, 1976, and so on. We are fighters, Kiwi battlers. The very fact that there is every reason that Aussie should win says, there is hope. These guys will not die trying.
Then there is the sense of a nation behind the AB's like I have not seen for decades. I wonder if it was a little like this in 1956 when we faced the mighty Boks after losing 4-0 to them in 1949. The combination of the AB's struggles with injuries, the natural disasters especially the earthquakes, and a 24 year hunger for another world cup, will make these guys play above anything we have seen. I hope the crowd are behind them big time, chanting, singing, and really rarking them up. That could carry them through.
The South African game last week may help us. First, Pocock is unlikely to be allowed to get away with that much nonsense in the rucks again after that fiasco. Secondly, the Wallabies will possibly struggle to back up. That was a monumental game and they must be knackered.
Then there is the Quade factor. Quade can win the game, or lose it. If the AB forwards can pull out one of their great vintage performances, and pressure can be placed on Genea and Cooper, then there is hope. If Beale is out, then that will also take a lot of attacking dynamism out. They don't look anything like the same danger without him.
The one time we didn't choke was at home in 1987. We won, and we won well. Can we two-peat?

So, there is hope. My heart says, we will win, my head says, mmmm.

Ten Reasons Why A.J. Miller is NOT Jesus!

2011-10-08T08:09:00.003+13:00

Note: Forgive me for the long blog, but this one really got me going!
Last Sunday night on TV One's Sunday aired the report A.J. The Messiah. The program was the story of A.J. Miller in Queensland in Australia, who, unlike most of us, genuinely believes that he is Jesus. Miller appears at one level to be a normal Aussie bloke, in his early thirties, longish brown hair, unshaven, good looking, articulate and charismatic. Yet, unlike anyone I know but in the manner of other Messiah-claimants, he says without inhibition, "I am actually Jesus." He claims to remember vividly his former life and death including his experience of crucifixion. The memories supposedly began when he was 2 years old and realised later that he was Jesus around 33. In the program he writes on a white-board, "I am Jesus. Deal with it"—to applause from his congregation. He has disciples, some of whom claim to have been with him 2000 years ago including Mary Magdalene who is his "soul-mate' and remembers vividly watching his "annihilation." Her family too thinks she is mad. Then there is Cornelius the soldier who claims to remember Jesus healing his servant (Luke 7) and recalls being asked to execute Jesus but not being able to nail him to the cross because of the love in his eyes—this was his death sentence in his "first life." A.J. is most definitely an attractive and dynamic man. When asked whether he did certain the miracles in Scripture, he says he did some like the healings and raising Lazarus. He did not walk on water apparently, nor turn water into wine. Helpful, because this sort of thing is observable. His mum tried to commit him to a psychiatric work. Miller writes this off as the same as his family in the first century who all thought he was mad—there is evidence of this in the Scriptures of course. He has no nail marks in his hands because, "it's not the same body."
This Miller does not appear mad. He genuinely believes his own story. If anything, he is deluded. In the story, we see him helping people find release from their addictions, get in touch with their pain, and having powerful emotional experiences. Rev David Millikan, a cult specialist and the reporter in the program, describes what he does as, "rehab, new-age, pop psychology." Millikan goes on, "he sets up as sort of spiral where people get dragged down and down and down and people are asked to plumb the depth of emotions from which many of them can never escape... One of his techniques is to help them find emotional trauma in their family." The people lap his stuff up with deep emotional experiences as he speaks. Miller genuinely believes he holds the salvation of the world in his hands. He spreads the word through You Tube and the web. There are 100,000 of his DVD's in circulation. He calls his message the "the Divine Love path" which offers oneness with God through his teachings. His community is called "God's way of love community" with disciples who have left businesses, family and everything to follow him. He has an inner core of thirty or so and a special thirteen, reincarnated to spread his message. Some are giving money, and he is buying land around the world, and setting up communities which he calls sanctuaries.
His message is tearing marriages and families apart. The program featured one Dhughaighn MacMurirch who spoke of losing his wife to the movement, and the pain it has caused. MacMurirch said he would like to "tear his throat right out!"— that would not faze A.J, they did something like this the first time around. Another woman testified in his meeting without any qualms at all, "yesterday I left my husband of thirty years!" She had decided on the basis of his teaching, that her husband was not her "soul-mate" because of his teaching. Miller is into soul-mates, God reveals whether our spouses are or are not ours, and if not, we can leave our present one and God will help us find the true one. As with any prophets and self-proclaimed Messiahs, any challenge to his teaching has little effect on him because of his claim to divine authority. He said to Millikan when challenged, "now now, David, you engage, read your bible, what was said about me in the first century, what does it say Jesus did in the first century"" When challenged further by Millikan that he is dangerous, A.J. simply resorted to the argument that people in the first century treated him the same way and challenged Millikan that he will come back for a deeper discussion in the future.
His teaching is classically apocalyptic, good vs. evil. Evil spirits are the explanation for the struggles of life. One disciple admits being overrun with demons and going on drinking binges. He believes a horrendous cataclysm is about to engulf the world and his communities are to prepare for this. He will emerge a saviour from the chaos. Some of the things he has said are that a continent is going to rise next to Hawaii, a 100m tsunami will hit Australia and other events such devastating earthquakes. Countries will disappear, others will change completely, and some emerge. One of the most troubling things in the program is Miller interacting with children! He is great with them and they clearly they love him. He answers their questions. When asked whether God has a mum and dad, he says that is the hardest question to answer, "I have lived now for 2000 years and I don't know the answer."
So, is this guy the Messiah? Jesus back at last? Has the second coming occurred, quietly and unobtrusively in Australia? Aside from jokes about Jesus being and Aussie, what can we say? From the documentary there are clear reasons that we can be certain he is not on the basis of the Scriptures:

His bodily form is wrong: If A.J. were Jesus, he would indeed show the scars on his hands and feet. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus remains the same guy he was when he died and rose on earth. As such, he will be a first century Jewish male, not a tall lean Caucasian Aussie born man.
His seeming return is wrong: Christ's return in the Scriptures will be a dynamic visible event in "the same way" as his departure (Acts 1:11). He will not be in the form of a baby born of a woman in Australia and live in seclusion in the outback starting another movement. He has done that. He is coming back full on to bring about the final restoration of his world, the resurrection, the judgment, and the eternal state. This guy is just another false messiah; one of the many Jesus predicted would come (Mark 13).
His attitude to Scripture is wrong: A.J. appeals to Scripture in the story when it suits such as, his division of families, his own family's accusations of madness and rejection. He says he did certain miracles, but not others. He distorts it.
His ministry is wrong: Jesus was not a pop-psychologist helping people get in touch with their emotions to be released from addictions. Jesus healed people with word and touch, powerfully releasing them from emotional and physical trauma through miracle. This guy does no miracles; he simply uses emotional manipulation, which causes people to attach to him. Jesus was not interested in attachment to him, but healing to become truly human and to go and engage in the mission of the kingdom.
His sexuality is wrong: A.J. is clearly not celibate. He left the Jehovah's Witness church for a problem with a hooker. He is now clearly involved with "Mary Magdalene" and she is not the first he has told is Mary. The real Jesus was never in a sexual relationship with Mary on his first coming, he was celibate. A.J.'s behaviour is more akin to a guy who has worked out how to get women through the manipulation of the mind and emotions—he is a great con man, but he believes his own rhetoric.
His interpretation of the world is wrong: A.J. is another of these people who reads the world totally apocalyptically, with evil spirits everywhere who invade the body and lead us to sin. A good look at Scripture sees that the world has evil, and there are spirits mentioned, but not everything is a direct result of evil spirits. In fact, the Scriptures see the world both as fallen, but also as a good place. It is classic cult-leader apocalyptic making people opt completely out and join his band.
His attitude to mission is completely wrong: Jesus never behaved like this, gathering money, building isolated communities to avoid the disaster to come. He told his disciples to go into the world and engage; to witness in the context of the world sharing the message of God's love and acceptance. Yes, he called for the establishment of communities of faith, but these were to be mission centres as much as points of gathering. They weren't hiding places from a scary world, they were centres from which disciples went out and shared the message. This is classic apocalyptic withdrawal behaviour, hardly Jesus at all.
His attitude to money is wrong: He is clearly seeking money to build his "empire." He is drawing it in from all over the world to set himself up. Jesus did nothing like this. He had no "place to lay his head." He died naked and poor. He lived through the generosity of women who travelled with him. He did not go looking for money but rebuked anyone who sought wealth at the expense of others. This guy is a classic empire building apocalyptic false prophet.
His prophesies are wrong: A.J. claims that continents will emerge from the sea, tsunamis will engulf Australia, and earthquakes will split the world. As a good Aussie would say, "Yeah right." He is another doomsday madman who will be revealed as a false prophet rather quickly.
His attitude to marriage and family is wrong: There is no evidence Jesus went out of his way to break up marriages and families, or that he had a theology of "soul-mates." Rather, Jesus preached the kingdom and people followed him. He did not set up to do so. He did not endorse such things. He stated that he split families, but there is no evidence of his splitting marriages. So, Peter travelled with his wife (1 Cor 9). Other family members travelled with Jesus, like James and John's mother the wife of Zebedee. When there is talk of "leaving families" it is not about the complete dissolution of relationships, these are mission engagement trips, with a good follower of God caring for their family and children. This is nonsense. Jesus wants us to love our wives and kids, and within the framework of the kingdom, that is our first priority.

All in all, A.J. is not Jesus and people should not be fooled! He is another fake. To me, he is downright dangerous. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry in fact. He is at one level, as the reporter said, a buffoon. At another level he is dangerous. His level of delusion and confidence, his charm and charisma, make him lethal. We need to pray that his movement will get broken up, and quick. Pray too for people who are trapped to be set free! God help them all. What do you think?

What We Now Know About the AB’s 2 Games In

2011-09-17T08:50:00.001+12:00

Two games, two easy wins. Three good halves of football, the second against Tonga not so good. What do we know?

We know first that the World Cup will first be decided by the All Blacks intensity, in the front five, but more importantly across the field at the breakdown—intensity. We have the backs (man do we have the backs out wide!), we need good go-forward ball all through the game, every game, for 80 minutes. If we do that, we will have a regular supply of quality ball.

Secondly, we know that to win the Cup, they can't lose Carter! Slade is struggling big time, looks out of his depth. Mind you, if we lose Carter, I suspect they will rush Cruden in, and he will start, or Weepu. I hope they have a message out to him to keep real fit, kick heaps, and spend 80 minutes a week running into people to keep sharp!

Thirdly, we have backs to slay anyone. Kahui has sown up one wing. Some are surprised, I am not. The only thing holding Kahui back has been injuries, he is a great athlete. Sonny Bill has to be on the bench, and will bring edge. The Smith-Nonu combination is awesome. Add to last night Dagg, sorry Mils, it is Dagg's time, Jane on the wing, Carter, lethal! Then there is Toeava and Muliaina to back up, excellent cover. On the outer is Guilford who, with Slade, is not measuring up at this level. They should have picked Cruden and Gear, but hindsight is a glorious thing. I am sure if they had picked the team after the final Tri-Nations game, they would have gone with Gear, maybe Cruden?

Fourthly, they need to pick the best half-back to get the ball crisply and sweetly to the backs a la Graeme Bachop. To me, Ellis is definitely the one who should start. With backs like that outside him, who needs a half who is going to muck around, having a look around, assessing options, being combative, taking a couple of steps as he passes etc. The only plus with Cowan is that he is tough and stronger defensively. But, he is not on his game at the moment, and Ellis was superb last night, as he has been in the Super 15 when not injured. Weepu then comes off the bench.

Fifthly, the forwards pick themselves. I would start with last night's forward pack, and add McCaw obviously, and Read when he is fit. Otherwise, that is the pack. They need to be super-intense in every game, and that will be the challenge for the older guys. I think Williams is not quite there, and Whitelock should start—it is his time, and we can't have too many old dudes in the front five.

Finally, there is the bench. I think they will have to stick with Slade, as Weepu adds so much at half when he comes on, and he can cover full-back and wing if needed. This means you can have Sonny-Bill. Otherwise we could be badly exposed if we lose two from the midfield and back three, Weepu and Cowan on the bench can hardly cover any of those positions. Also, Sonny-Bill is still not proven at wing. That was a great performance last night. Sure, the Japanese were weak, especially in the physical part of the game, but it was the intensity, the attitude, the excitement, the passion, the relentless pressure—that is what can win the cup.

RWC The First Week, What We Have Learnt.

2011-09-15T21:10:00.001+12:00

So, we are nearly a week into the RWC, what have we learnt?

The first thing is not a new thing, but a reinforcement of what we already knew—Auckland's traffic system is a joke. Personally, I don't know why people are upset about the train and bus fiasco last week, we all knew it would happen— this is Auckland after all. What is really surprising is how dumb Aucklanders are; as if things would be different to what they always have been. I mean, why would the Auckland public transport system suddenly be ok on the busiest night of the year? If it ain't fixed, it is broke!

The second thing confirmed, is that the Auckland Council couldn't organise a prayer meeting in a church. Why would a council cobbled together from the previous set of councils, which has historically been rife with disunity, and trying to work with central government and the ARC etc, get things right? Why would they think that something like 200,000 people would come into town for the night? Why would they have the sort of vision that any average person would have? Why wouldn't they throw their effort into a venue for 12,000 down on Queen's Wharf when there would be 188,000+ more people on the waterfront?

The third thing we could rely on is that Wayne Barnes would make a questionable decision at a crucial time in a match. Last time it was a forward pass which went a long way to helping the French beat the AB's at the 2007 World Cup—not that the match was decided by this of course. This time, it was a dubious shot at goal by the Welsh which looked like it might have gone over but was ruled out. Why would he not make a controversial decision?

The fourth thing we should have relied on is that the All Blacks would not settle on their number one team and rather play all sorts teams in the lead up to the French match. After all, combinations are over-rated, what matters is that everyone gets a run so that everyone is ready to come on. Who cares if they hardly know the guys they are playing with. In the crunch games, combinations aren't really important—what matters is depth. I would have thought we would have realised that only fifteen can play at any one time, and the key thing is that they are a hardened proven combination. Robbie Deans must be mad playing the same team week in and week out.

As for the rugby we learnt one new thing—that the Samoans are the real deal, and there must be some seriously worried teams in their pool. Watch out Wales and South Africa. I reckon this Samoan team can go all the way! Whether they will remains to be seen.

Aside from that, the top five teams NZ, Australia, South Africa, France and England were all pretty unimpressive aside from patches and so we are no closer to knowing the outcome. The only other team that looks dangerous are the Samoans and perhaps the Welsh, but only one of those teams is likely to get through now that Wales lost to South Africa. What is pretty certain is that the Irish and Scottish haven't a hope—incredibly average.

Surely, the most astonishing thing this week is the McCully serious party performance of taking over the Cup from the Auckland Council and not telling Len Brown! While it might have been the best thing to do, what a stupid way of doing it! This will come back to seriously haunt him—National will have to sacrifice him after the RWC to keep the peace with Auckland, whose leaders will not forget this moment. From a political point of view, it was a shocker. Not that it will affect the election, at least, not unless things go awry again. It certainly gives Labour a sliver of hope—a sliver mind you!

The other and very best thing we have learnt is that having a RWC in NZ is cool—don't you love it?

A Glimpse of Heaven – Sort of...

2011-09-10T19:46:00.001+12:00

Last night Emma and myself went into the viaduct to enjoy the launch of the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Things went our way. We got to the Constellation Park and Ride and squeezed last onto a bus saving us anything up to an hour. We then squeezed last into the line up to get into Queen's Wharf just before they sorted out the queuing – the name is not Keown (Queuin) for nothing. We got front row seats at the stage and settled for the afternoon – evening. What a blast. We saw the waka come in on the big screen, the hakas. Then Dave Dobbyn performed, he was brilliant. The Finn's followed, and they were even better. Then the opening ceremony was breathtaking, and the fireworks unbelievable. Then we watched the start of the game, the hakas and the singing of the National Anthem. We then headed for the bus because we thought we would never make it home. It was a great decision, we watched the game at home. We got home around 10, absolutely tired out, but buzzing. What a celebration of humanity in oneness, weapons laid down, gathered for games.

I loved the celebration of Maori culture. Something is changing in NZ in this regard. We are really embracing Maori culture as our culture. There is a long way to go, but we are beginning to truly be one. Everytime a Maori came on the screen and the tongue came out etc, the crowd roared. I sense a new generation who are moving out of pakeha patriarchy to a truly bi-cultural mode of thinking. There is a long way to go, but the signs are promising as NZ finds its identity.

I thought it was fantastic that the Waka was welcomed to a song written by Dobbyn dedicated to God after his coming to faith, 'Welcome Home.' How appropriate, not that the crowd knew it. The singing of the national anthem was stunning – 'God of Nations...' Yeah baby. Again, not that people really know what they are singing. I love the Anthem, it is a prayer.

International sports events like the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, and world cups in my view, give us a glimpse of the dream of the Kingdom of God. The dream of the Kingdom is of all humanity, from every nation and tongue, united as one. That was the feeling at Queens Wharf as Oscar Kightly got the people of all the nations represented to call out and as the whole array of flags were waved joyously. There was no tension, just unbridled celebration and joy.

The song 'World In Union' by Charlie Skarbek captures this:

There's a dream,I feel, So rare, so real. All the world in union. The world as one.

Gathering together. One mind, one heart. Every creed, every colour. Once joined, never apart.

Searching for the best in me I will find what I can be. If I win, lose or draw, It's a victory for all

It's the world in union, the world as one. As we climb to reach our destiny. A new age has begun.

We face high mountains. Must cross rough seas. We must take our place in history. And live with dignity

Just to be the best I can. Sets the goal for everyman. If I win lose or draw. It's a victory for all.

It speaks of a dream, the world as one, gathered together, one in heart and mind, all races, in bonds that are never broken, a new age begun – sounds very like the vision of God for the Kingdom.

Of course there are vital missing components in this dream, the God-dynamic and sin-problem dealt with. History tells us that while such events give us glimpses of the dream of God, they fall short. The fulfilment of the dream requires the transformation of the human heart through the work of Christ actualised by faith, and the key is God. The sad fact for us in NZ is that the dominant culture is now abandoning the God-dynamic and moving away from feeling any need for Jesus. The dream is corrupted by an idolatry of self, excessive competitiveness, the dogma of the dollar and more. There is the problem of alcohol and the consequent issues that flow. When we left to head home and walked up Queen Street to head to the bus, it was rather intimidating, walking among bands of drunken youth – it felt like it would not take much to turn the situation into a riot. I hope it doesn't turn to this if things go awry for the AB's or something else triggers it. The dream of the Kingdom is far from a reality despite the songs and celebration.

That said, I gave a wry smile at the singing of Welcome Home and the passionate singing of the Anthem – if only we could bring the dream to its fullest expression loving God and loving each other.

All that said, it is good to reflect on how such moments give a taster of the dream of God. The celebration to come when Jesus returns and all of humanity gathers to rejoice and party like they never have before, will sure be something. The challenge for us is to work for it now.

As for the rugby – the All Blacks will have to a heck of a lot better if they want to win. The tight five were unconvincing, as was Cowan. Carter and McCaw were quiet. Kaino was great, as were Dagg and Kahui, while Nonu was his usual self. But the All Blacks look strangely lacking to me. Here's hoping that this is just getting the rust out.

‘Death’s Door’ the Documentary: A Response

2011-09-05T07:45:00.001+12:00

So it seems that science is getting interested afresh in life-after-death. In last night's doco (4/09/2011), Rod Vaughan did a story on life after death with testimonies, interviews with several scientists studying the phenomenon in NZ and the USA, and with a sceptic (see http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-Life-After-Death/tabid/59/articleID/4028/MCat/22/Default.aspx 'Death's Door.' Rod Vaughan reports on 'A Matter of Life and Death' – Producer Chris Wilks).

He interviewed three people who had experienced similar things. Trevor James, a 71 year old Manawatu man, described 'the experience of his life' in which he 'died', left his body, floated over the bed observing himself, and of seeing his deceased relatives. As he floated, he remembers saying 'there's two of me.' He described hurtling down a tunnel toward a vivid and welcoming light. He says, 'It was so bright. It was brighter than the sun, brighter than an arc welder, yet it didn't hurt my eyes. And I was captivated by it. I wanted to go into the light and I felt so cheated that I hadn't been allowed to go into the light.' He went on, 'It was no hallucination. This thing actually happens to people. It's been happening to people from the year one and beyond. It is a preview to the read death. It is a picture of what is going to happen when we finally go through the light.' Trevor James gave his theological perspective about what happens after death: 'you go to a spirit world, to another dimension, which is somewhere upstairs, somewhere up there, I don't know whereabouts, somewhere up there.'

Another Kiwi, Maiata Clark (not sure of spelling) has had five such experiences, having been resuscitated from asthma attacks. She describes one 1998 experience: 'It may have lasted a moment. It may have lasted for ever. Time ceases to have meaning when you are in that space... an incredibly beautiful space... myriad of signs and sights... stunning colours.' She tearfully and hesitantly spoke of encountering a 'god-like' figure – something she rarely talked about because so many make such claims. This figure was dimly visible, robbed against 'blazing white light.' She described it as the 'most singularly beautiful experience' she has had. Although it happened 13 years ago she said, 'it might as well have happened today.' Rod Vaughan asked, 'do you really think the encounter was God?' She replied, 'I have no doubt that it was.'

Massey University psychologist Dr Natasha Tassell, one of the Kiwi researchers, shared something of her own experience as a teenager. She too went through a tunnel at high speed to a bright light with a silhouette of a being in the light. She felt scared and uncertain. She remembers saying to herself 'I am not ready' and communicating this to the being, and being instantly propelled back. Interestingly, perhaps because of her scientific scepticism, she doesn't now believe in life after death, she hasn't made up her mind, but is now 'open to the possibility that there could be' and the possibility that consciousness existing outside the body. She noted reports of people able to accurately recall things that have gone on when unconscious such as surgery details. She admitted it was a big call.

Of course not all are convinced. Vaughan interviewed Vicky Hyde of the NZ Skeptics who naturally rejected this likening it to reports in the 1980's of people being abducted by aliens or in the 1500-1600's of being visited by demons – 'exactly the same kind of experience.' She believes that there is a rational explanation for this due to peculiar neurological activities under stress at the point of death e.g. oxygen deprivation. It is thus similar to phantom limbs of amputees etc. She claims such experiences can be simulated in the lab with stimulation of the temporal lobes etc. She demands 'extraordinary proof' and remains an unbeliever.

However, the researchers note that this can explain some of it, but not all of the experiences people have. For example, as noted above, some can describe events in detail when unconscious and such recall should be impossible. Dr Bradley Long in the US, author of Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences, has become convinced by the evidence that there is life after death. For example, some who are totally blind can recall experiences of 'seeing light', yet never having experienced it. Dr Tassell notes that some have this experience after sudden experiences of near-death, removing the idea of a 'prepared-for-experience.' Long has studied 1600 people in coming to his conclusion. He says, 'I finally reached the point where I just simply had to admit to myself and then the world that near death experiences are for real along with their message of an afterlife, a wonderful afterlife for all of us. Vaughan then asked, 'you are convinced that there is life after death?' Long responds, 'I am absolutely convinced, based on the evidence, that there is life after death.'

What can we make of it all? First, we should not get too excited and jump to the conclusion that this proves that there is life-after death. However, when you have 1600 people sharing the same experience, and scientists moving from scepticism to openness or belief, it is more than suggestive of something. The commonality of experience is also suggestive, including: leaving the body and observing oneself, meeting loved ones, a tunnel, a vivid bright light, a 'god-like' figure, and an encounter with them, and being sent back. We need to be sober about such things, but surely when there is such a wide number of them with such commonality, we can share them as one small part of sharing Christ and challenging people with the idea that there is more to life that what is seen. It is not surprising to me that God would not leave us such signs as part of his self-revelation to his world, as he calls people to him. It is consistent with God revealing himself to us, but with ambiguity. He is never totally open to the point of coercion and domination. He leaves us with the choice as to how to respond – are we with the sceptic, or are we going to believe in the light?

Secondly, the experience does have some resonances with the biblical visions of God, Christ, and angels experienced by people in the bible (theophany, christophany, angelophany) such as that of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1), Jesus at the Transfiguration (Mark 9), the angels at the resurrection (e.g. Mark 16), and John of the resurrected Jesus in Revelation 1. In each, God, Christ, and the angels are resplendent in glorious light. It thus aligns with the testimony of Scripture. This kind of research can be used as part of our gospel proclamation, but not at its centre. It is a piece of interesting data that can be used to provoke and challenge.

Thirdly, we should not assume, as does Trevor James, that such experiences guarantee us life after death in the light as if by some divine right. If this experience is a pointer to the real thing, then what happens as one meets the light is unclear. The Scriptures fill this in for us. Consistently they state that we will meet this glorious God of light and be called to give account of our lives and eternal life in the light is not guaranteed. Faith is the critical issue, and where faith is found, life in the light will be our eternal experience.

Fourthly, the doco was interesting in the way that Vicky Hyde the sceptic came across. She is profoundly modernist, rational to the core. As with all such people, Christian and otherwise, she sounds increasingly out of date, a throwback to the era I grew up in when proof was demanded. Such people are totally materialistic and naturalistic, unopen to the mystery of the universe – there is so much stuff unexplainable, yet they naively limit their minds, demanding evidence. One wonders what it would take to convince her. Dr Long has interviewed some 1600 people with the same story, that's quite a few I would think. At what point does it become 'evidence?' I am not saying it is conclusive, it is clearly ambiguous – something the Kiwi research Dr Tassell admitted. However, when does it become convincing? What will convince? I would say that it fits nicely with the Christian story.

Finally, our faith as Christians does not rest on such things anyway. It rests on the event of the resurrection and the relational encounter we have with God when we yield to his invitation to abide with him. However, the resurrection does make complete sense of this sort of testimony. Jesus has broken the barriers between the 'natural' and 'supernatural', and these are further signs of this. He has made a 'tunnel' by which we can be united with 'the Light.' He is 'the way, the truth, and the life.' The key is how do we respond? The answer is to explore his word, seek him and respond by accepting him and placing our trust in him. Then we can be completely confident that we will pass into that light as we die, and we will be with him forever. What do you think?

Who Should Pay for the Harbour Bridge Pedestrian and Bike Crossing?

2011-08-26T12:19:00.001+12:00

It is great that the Harbour Bridge pedestrian and cycle crossing looks like it will happen. At last! Good on you Leigh Hopper, you go guy! However, the question remains, who should pay? It seems a toll of up to $5 each way will pay for it. In tough economic times, this seems the only way and makes a certain sense. It is user pays, which is the way things should be, one can argue at least.

Yet, it all seems bizarre to me. On the one hand, there is a huge movement toward ecological sustainability in our times. We are desperate to get people out of cars and other fossil fuel-using vehicles, into public transport and other means of transport like bikes and walking. Then there is the cry that we are getting fat, we are overweight or obese. We are called to get off our couches, put the chips, chocolate and remotes down, and get onto our feet and bikes and get moving. This will save millions right, as obesity is a huge cause of medical issues which clog up our hospitals.

The crossing is a brilliant way of making progress toward both these goals – reducing fossil fuel production and people lose weight. What a great idea to have a crossing. Heaps of people will now be able to walk and bike to work.

But then who should pay? Those who want to use the bridge, or the city? Here's a few ideas:

How about getting those who use vehicles to pay? Put a cent on every litre of gas purchased in the Auckland region, or even in those in central Auckland and the Shore within a twenty kilometre radius. Slap some tolls on people who want to drive into the centre of the city as they do in other cities like London. This would pay for a whole range of such things. Or how about divert a little health budget toward it, as it will potentially improve our health? Or how about some tourism dollars, as it will be a glorious tourist attraction as people get to walk the bridge in one of the world's most beautiful harbours. This will form part of the cycle-way I have heard. Well, tourists will be coming to use it won't they? Add a dollar to airport tax for foreign visitors. I remember walking the Sydney Harbour Bridge a year or five ago, it was glorious. It would have been worth paying a dollar arriving in Australia for this. Or put small tax on every big packet of chips, or on every bar of chocolate. Or hit the fast food restaurants with a levy on every burger, packet of fries, pizzas etc sold.

Don't get me wrong, it s a GREAT idea – sensational, wonderful, overdue, and all that. But, come on, make those who should pay pay?

Team for World Cup

2011-08-21T14:13:00.005+12:00

Two days out from the picking of the World Cup team it is time to commit to the team I think they will pick. I think it is pretty easy if you take 3 hookers and 3 half-backs after last night's loss to South Africa. There are a few points of interest.

The first is who will miss out in the wings. After Toeava showed he is back, I think Gear and Guilford will be the unlucky two. I think they will go for the multi-skilled/position type players over the genuine hard out wingers like Guilford and Gear, despite their talent. Kahui could miss out I suppose if Toeava is picked to cover centre and this would make room for Gear. Or even SBW could sensationally be left out with Kahui and Toeava as back up midfielders?

Then there is the first five, and I have gone for Slade but there may be a surprise with Cruden after his brilliant performance for Manawatu and Slade's decidedly average game against the Boks. But that was only Manawatu against Waikato. Slade will have learnt heaps like, kick the ball deep boy! Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they go that way, or even Weepu as back up.

The fifth loosie is tricky with Thompson, Messam, Vito and as a bolter, Todd, a possibility. Personally I would have Todd because we need another genuine 7. But, we can always bring him in if Richie goes down for the whole cup. So, I think they will stick with Messam. Hoeata is an outside chance as the fourth lock, and he can cover blindside meaning Boric would miss out I suppose.

Lock is interesting with Whitelock, Williams, Boric and Donnelly fighting out for the final locking position. I am sure Whitelock will get in even if he was not great against the Boks, he is a rising superstar. While I am still not convinced about Williams after his comeback, they obviously like him, so I think he will get in. If Boric is fit, he will be in. But Donnelly stands ready. So I will go for Boric.

Then there is loosehead prop. I would go for Crockett as his workrate is amazing, but his scrummaging still has a question mark, so I am sure Woodcock is in. The only wild card is if they take Weepu as back up first five, and Ofoa as back up hooker. This would create space for more options like Gear and/or Todd or Vito. With the cup in NZ, they can bring people in, so who knows. So, here is my team. What do you think?

Fullback/Wing

M. Muliaina

I. Dagg

C. Jane

S. Sivivatu

I. Toeava

Midfield

C.Smith

R. Kahui

M. Nonu

S.B.Willams

First Five

D. Carter

C. Slade

Half Back

P. Weepu

J. Cowan

A. Ellis

Loosies

K. Read

L. Messam

R. McCaw (Capt)

J. Kaino

A. Thompson

Locks

A. Williams

B. Thorn

S. Whitelock

A. Boric

Props

O. Franks

B. Franks

J. Afoa

T. Woodcock

Hookers

K. Mealamu

A. Hore

C. Flynn

Sources for Nero and the Reliability of the Gospels

2011-08-21T07:15:00.002+12:00

I have been doing some research on Nero looking for data that might help in the interpretation of Philippians, which I believe should be placed in Rome in the early 60's when Nero was on fire. One interesting offshoot has been comparing the sources we have for Nero with those we have for the Gospels. The three main sources we have for Nero are Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius. The first, Tacitus or Publius/Gaius Cornelius Tacitus lived from AD 56-117. So he was born 2 years after Nero came to power and was 10 when Nero died. So he did not experience Nero first hand, although he might have seen him. He was a senator and historian, at one point Governor of Asia (AD 112/113). He was a part of the scene when Domitian was at his peak of despotic mania. He drew on earlier sources like Pliny the Elder which are lost. The work of most interest to study of Nero, Annals (Annales), was written sometime in the period AD 110-120, likely at the latter end of the decade. This is some 50-60 years after the event. We have only two incomplete manuscripts, one from AD 850, nearly 8 centuries after the event (Ch. 1-6), the other from the eleventh century (Ch. 11-16). We do not have the material on Nero's childhood and youth, nor the final two years of his life.

Suetonius or Gaius Suetonius Tranquillis lived from around AD 70 to 130. He worked mostly as Hadrian's palace librarian. He wrote Lives of the Twelve Caesars (De Vita Caesarum or Casares) which has a section on Nero. It is thematic rather than chronological. It was likely written at the end of the same decade as Tacitus' Annals, around 119 – so also around 50 years after Nero.

The third main source is Cassius Dio who wrote a Roman History from its origins to AD 229 indicating that it was completed in the early 3^rd century, some 160 years after Nero. Dio was a senator, consul in AD 204, 229 proculsul of Africa, and at various points governor of Dalmatia and Upper Pannonia. The section on Nero is found in 11^th-12^th Century Byzantium material, some 1000 years after Nero. Further, the manuscripts have not been copied with care and have a lot of comments from the scribes making interpretation difficult.

We have a bit of data in Flavius Josephus who joined the Romans in the rebellion of AD 66-73 and has scattered references to Nero which tell us little of real detail.

The three sources have a lot of similar material but deviate at points. One can put together a good life of Nero from it, but at points of detail one has to try and reach a conclusion with some variance from the sources. We don't have historians questioning the existence of Nero, or many of the elements of his life – but we do have debates about whether the history casts him in too bad a light, and over detail.

If we come to the Gospels we have four works about Jesus, and scattered details of his life through the 25 Epistles and Revelation. There are also many writings about Jesus in the centuries that followed, based in the main on the records in what is now called the NT. We have to remember when we read the NT that it was originally separate documents not a book as we have it, and brought together as as unit. This is important because each part needs its own analysis, rather than the whole thing. When we look at the sources for Jesus as compared for Nero, the data comes out at least comparably if not better.

Mark is likely dated in the 60's. We have one testimony that he drew on first hand evidence from Peter (Papias). He may also be an eye-witness if he is the 'nude-guy' in the garden in Mark 15 which cannot be verified. If he is not mind you, one wonders what on earth that little piece is doing in Mark's Gospel? So, it is some 27-37 yrs after Christ. Unlike Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, we cannot verify that he had written sources, although it cannot be ruled out that the disciples took down material and/or that Mark or a proto-Mark existed in Aramaic.

The date of the other three Gospels are debated. Luke is dated at 62-63 by some, including myself on the basis that it ends with Paul in Roman prison and says nothing about a set of major events in the 60's (James death in Jerusalem, Paul leaving Rome and further ministry (if it occurred), Paul and Peter's death, Paul's letters, the Fall of Jerusalem). Luke uses Mark, which would mean Mark should be dated before this, maybe at 60-61. This is not an issue because using Luke and the letters, Mark and Luke are in Rome together in the early 60's. Other scholars would date Luke in the 70-80's. If so, it is some 40-50 yrs after Christ, still less than the gap between Nero and Tacitus or Suetonius. Luke also refers to written sources in his prologue. One of these written sources may be the mysterious and unverifiable Q (Quelle – source), the common material in Luke and Matthew. He must have drawn on others because he has a lot of unique material. So, we have at least three sources. Like a good ancient historian, he also refers to speaking to eye-witness testimony from those who worked with Christ (Lk 1:1-4). As such, Luke should be considered at least as reliable as Tacitus and Suetonius, even more so perhaps, if the earlier date is to be trusted.

Matthew is usually dated at a similar point to the later Luke date, but gives no evidence of written sources. We can deduce two, Mark and Q, and probably at least one other as he has substantial independent material. As such, Matthew too can be considered a reliable record compared to the material for Nero.

Then we have John. John seems to be dated later, 80-100, although some argue for a pre-70 date because of the temple. Still, even if we date it in the 90's in Domitian's reign as would seem the latest it should be dated to me, it is still less than 70 years after the event. This would place it alongside Suetonius and well ahead of Cassius Dio as a source. If John is the apostle, and this is heavily disputed, then we have an eye-witness and friend of Jesus writing, enhancing its authenticity.

Then there is the material in Paul written earliest (c. AD 48-66) and the other letters and Revelation, all in the first century, about the same time distance from Jesus as Nero.

Further, we have fragments of mss and many mss from much closer than the 9^th-12^th century compared to the one or two incomplete mss we have on the three sources for Nero. We can trace carefully through Textual Criticism what is likely the original text. While we can't finally get there, we are close to the original of each NT document.

The only real advantage one can argue for the records of Nero over Jesus is that the Romans were very much a literary culture took down substantial material, but much of the earlier material is lost to us. Still, the Christians demonstrated quickly that they too were a literary culture.
Putting it together, surely we have as much reason to trust the Gospels as we do for the historical records of Nero. Apologists can use this material as they contend against those who say that the Gospels and NT are unreliable. What do you think?

Abstain for the Game: Have Saachi and Saachi Found Jesus?

2011-08-19T08:11:00.001+12:00

I thought it was far too religious an idea that people in NZ would choose to 'abstain for the game.' I thought for a minute that Saachi and Saachi and Telecom had been reading their Bibles and misread it, like Harold Camping who after doing his maths wrong and falsely predicting the end of the world in May 21, now knows the end of the world is about to happen on Oct 21.

After all, abstinence is a highly biblical idea. Whereas the surrounding nations were into anything except abstinence even getting it on to please their gods, the Jews were into abstinence big time. They basically said nothing goes, except when a man and a woman get hitched. Even then, for one week a month, things were all off. In a world where the Greeks and Romans had little time for abstinence, Christians followed the Jewish way, effectively endorsing that abstinence rules, except of course in a marriage between two heterosexual married adults when it is all on.

Despite speculation from people that Jesus was into it like the rest of humanity, all evidence suggests that Jesus was into abstinence. He was single and despite being the object of attention from any number of hot women, some who were prostitutes (e.g. Luke 7), he abstained for the game – the game being saving the world. He did have the advantage of living in a culture that liked to beat up those who didn't abstain from the game, but still, it was an impressive effort to manage to abstain. As a result he won, he saved the world – go Jesus! So, sometimes it works to abstain for the game. Mind you, that he hung out with people who clearly did not abstain for the game, shows that while he endorsed abstaining outside the game of marriage, he was no prude.

In Corinth at the time of Paul (mid first century), the Greek Christians had differing views on what was ok. Some of them thought that now that they were Christians, they could do what they liked with their bodies, so were joining their fellow country men and women and going for it with prostitutes at the local temple feasts, and after-dinner orgies. One of them didn't even abstain with his step-mum, not a good look even for the raunchy Corinthians. Paul was not impressed, he told them to kick him out unless he would abstain for the game. The Corinthians saw little value in abstinence because there was no value in doing so, or in the human body – and it felt good, so why not 'eat drink and be (with) Mary, for tomorrow we die.' Paul had to put them right with a Saachi and Saachi approach, 'abstain for the game' – the game being life and life eternal.

Then there were other Corinthians who took the opposite view. You read about them in the first part of 1 Cor 7. They thought that even though they had got hitched, they should abstain for the game. They likely thought that they should live the ascetic life like a Stoic, subduing the body; that abstaining for the game of life would make them more spiritual, religious, and impress their God – after all, he had abstained for the game.

Paul put them right – don't you dare abstain for the game, it just makes you more randy. That's the problem with getting too fired up over abstaining for the game. It can actually have the reverse effect by making life all about one thing, sex – you lose perspective. This is the problem with the abstinence ring movement. It sounds a good noble idea as young people pledge virginity. The problem is that it is abstracting sex as the thing that really matters and inadvertently locks a person's faith into this one decision. Why not an anti-materialism ring, or a anti-individualism ring, or an anti-violence ring, an anti-pride ring, an anti-drugs, alcohol, white collar crime ring? Christians are far too uptight about sex. Sure, they are meant to abstain for the game unless they have tied the knot, but they also need to relax and live. Sex is cool, God came up with the idea. He just wants us to get it into perspective, wait until we are married. Anyone who will let a book like the Song of Songs into his holy book can't be a prude! When we fail to abstain for the game as he would like, it is not the end of the world – as with all mistakes, he will forgive.

By the way, kiwis are into abstain for the game. Everyone who has had an affair and been caught knows that the should have abstained for the game. It really messes up lives when we don't. That's the point of God's way, it actually makes the world tick if done right. Still, if you fail to there is life after failing to abstain for the game. Jesus himself came from a line of people who had messed up like Judah who had it off with his HERE and David who had an affair with Bathsheba and then knocked her husband off. There is hope even if you mess up.

Back to 1 Cor 7. There Paul does endorse a right time to 'abstain for the game.' It was definitely not when the ancient Corinthian Games were on – their kind of RWC. Yes, every four years in Corinth (and other places like Olympia and later Rome), there was a huge athletics festival. Greeks came from all over the Empire and raced, threw, rode, and more naked for huge crowds – not a pretty thought for the sprints! There were also dramas, poetry, music and other elements to the festival. Now let me tell you that at these festivals, as at the modern Olympic Games, the athletes did not abstain for the game! The place was heaving and the pimps and hookers made a mint. It was a time of good old Greco-Roman debauchery. The wine-makers and everyone got loaded. Bacchus and Dionysus were the man.

What Paul did say was that the Corinthian Christians should abstain for prayer and fasting, and only when the marriage partners mutually agreed, and only for a short time – sounds like he had in mind that for a day or two, they would get into some serious prayer and stop eating and drinking, and devote themselves to praying. Aside from that, married couples should not hold back. Paul says that a wife's body belongs to her husband, and a husband's body belongs to his wife. The first part of that is standard; everyone in the ancient world knew that a wife's body belonged to her husband. She was a possession to be discarded if need be. She was effectively his servant and lived to please him. If Paul had stopped with the first half of the saying, the world would have nodded – you are onto it. By saying the opposite that a husband's body belongs to his wife, Paul would have blown their ancient minds – mutual ownership was totally counter-cultural. The point of course is that when married we kind of 'own' each other, which really means we live to serve each other like Christ served the world – sexually I suppose it means we can get it on, explore, have fun with each other. We don't have to abstain for the game, at least, not if we are married.

So, I feel for Saachi and Saachi. Perhaps they, like the Corinthians, have found Jesus. Perhaps they think that the path to spirituality and releasing the power of God is to be found in abstinence. Such thoughts have a rich tradition. Of course, they misunderstand Jesus if they do, like most people in NZ's culture these days. Paul would have put them right. They shouldn't abstain for the game because it avails nothing, it just makes you hornier and want it more.

I feel also for Telecom because they not only found Jesus it seems, but they have backslidden! Just when it looked like they were finding salvation, they pulled the ad campaign. Of course when they or Saachi and Saachi read what Jesus said about money, they, like the Rich Ruler, would have walked away anyway. They would have realised that they are camels and that a needles eye is very very small. Mind you, it is possible to get a camel through a needles eye, but it takes an extraordinary effort to blend the camel to the point that it can be squeezed through!

Then again, perhaps if they had both read 1 Cor 7 they could have changed it to 'abstain to pray for the game.' Now that makes sense. Husbands and wives and lovers could have abstained for the next two months and spent their time on their knees to pray for the game. They could pray for the whole game, the world of course! But I suggest, they should pray for the game that matters to us Kiwis more than any other, the RWC. After all, it is 24 years since we first and last won the RWC. The RWC of course is ours by right. We all know it. The Jews knew that they were Godzone and that they should rule the world. We know it too; we are Godzone as the National Anthem proves, as does this ad campaign – the RWC is ours! So, let's get religious and pray for what really matters, that we win the game! We could abstain and fast and pray and the AB's will win!

Of course the problem with this is that it assumes God cares who wins. Does he?

The New Generation Looking For A Movement

2011-08-15T15:31:00.001+12:00

I am intrigued by the movements we are seeing all over the world. For a number of years now we have seen the Green Movement reflected in Green political parties, concern over climate change, reactions against globalization, love of whales, and socialism. Then there is the movement of extreme Islamic terrorism which is now on the wane after its zenith in the early 2000's with 9/11, the London and Bali bombings and other terrorist attacks. There are also the clashes seen at IMF and G8 Summits with people railing against globalization. More recently we have had the Middle Eastern revolutions as people across the Middle East are rising up to overthrow dictatorships. Some have succeeded as in Egypt, but in Libya, Syria and elsewhere, they go on. Now there are the London riots, with a totally out of proportion response to the killing of Mark Duggan and London and other British cities the scene of mob-violence and destruction. Everywhere we look people are looking for a movement, what is going on?

I get the sense that all over the world there is a deep sense of dissatisfaction with the world and its systems. In some parts of the world the target is dictatorships which are obviously corrupt and power is held at the end of a sword – hence the Middle Eastern revolutions. In western countries the 'enemy' is more subtle found in the structures of western society. The rise of western dominance has been built on centuries of incessant growth. This growth came from a combination of intellectual 'superiority' seen in industrialisation and new technologies, the plundering of other nations for their wealth, the comparative weakness of other economies, the growth of the 'new nations' like the US, Australia and NZ. Things have changed. The west is now in decline with the European culture dying on its own low birth rate. It now relies on immigration but this is proving difficult culturally as immigrants bring different cultures and values into European culture. No longer do Europeans have an intellectual, technological and industrial advantage, and if they do, it is on the decline. Our egalitarianism which is a great and commendable value, is now becoming a disadvantage when competing against nations that can constantly outdo us in terms of the low cost of labour, they being unhampered by labour laws. At the same time the great western work ethic is now failing as new generations grow up with a dependency and entitlement mindset, and simply won't put in the hard yards that prosperity is built on. The west is now going to the emerging nations China and India for labour and to prop up their economies, and these nations are growing in strength. The net result is that the west is now weakening and fast. They are borrowing like crazy to prop up the lifestyle to which they feel entitled.

At the same time, the wealthy in the west who have control over the nations are doing all they can, working their legal, economic and political systems to retain their wealth. They employ people in the emerging nations and continue to produce. However, this is serving to empower the weaker nations and power is shifting from west to east. Within western nations, the greed of the rich seeking to hold on to their privileged lives is producing a growing disparity of rich and poor. The answer we are told is more production, so taxes can't be raised. Yet equally the great social welfare systems of the west are backfiring as multiple generations of welfare dependency has created a underbelly of western countries that has a dependency mentality. Left-leaning thinkers see this as propaganda of the right, whereas the right seem to think western nations are full of 'dole-bludgers.' So we have growing movements in the west screaming for lower taxes and encouragement to business. Others cry out for more tax, and even more welfare. The truth is that we are in a hole because there is not enough money around to keep the rich rich, and to maintain the welfare systems we have created. Our problem is that, due to our decline, and the rise of other nations with a fierce work ethic which puts westerners to shame, we are going to find it hard to stop the rot. For me the bubble has burst for the west.

Now having said all this, it is the quest for a movement that intrigues me and it strikes me that we Christians have an opportunity now we have not had for a while. This deepening dissatisfaction with the state of the world is an opening in which we can proclaim Christ. Christ came to inaugurate a movement, a new humanity, a new creation. He came to call people out of the ways of the world that get us into this sort of mess into the reign of God. It is a movement of restoration. It is the coming together of the people of the world to live the values of God, of love, of service, of grace, of mercy, of compassion, of sacrifice, of humility, to suffer to bring in a new world. It is the Kingdom of God. The gospel is about God and what he is doing. Jesus came to restore every part of God's world. When we become a Christian we are not merely plucked out of the horror of hell and redeemed from this fallen world to heaven – we are saved into a movement of reconciliation, of redemption, of restoration. We are called to join Christ and his people, and with his Spirit surging through our veins, to work for the transformation of God's world. This is the movement that we can now proclaim. It doesn't involve revolution, riots, bombing, violence and mob-anger. It involves an army of people committing to take up towels and crosses and serve. It is not so much interested in all the power play of the world, but living out the values of God in the world.

I think we have an unprecedented opportunity, to invite people into the movement of God. They are looking for a movement, a cause. They are dissatisfied in the extreme with the status quo. We can tell them the story of God and what he is up to. We can tell them of the vision of God for a world of love, freedom, joy, unity, creativity, hope, fun, work, play as we create using the resources of God, building human society in a world of love. We can speak of what has gone wrong, the corruption of human sin which has defiled it shattering the dream and causing the mess we find ourselves in. We can preach Jesus who came to restore, beginning with each human heart restored through the power of the cross and resurrection, and then with marriages, families, communities, cities, nations, even the world restored as people hear the call and join Christ in his movement to restore his world. We can preach that the Kingdom has come and that they are called to join a movement, not of revolt and violence, but of mercy, compassion, love, restoration and hope.

We must move beyond the vision of God as holy and angry judge who is preparing to smite each sinner and humanity. We must move beyond an individualistic anthropocentric gospel to a corporate cosmic Christ-centred Gospel, inviting people into the movement of God. This is what they are looking for, they just don't know it. Of course not all will respond and some will be antagonistic. We won't see this dream realised in this age. But that should not stop us.

Anders Behring Breivik: Some Thoughts

2011-07-27T20:46:00.001+12:00

My first response to the massacre in Norway is grief and sorrow. My heart goes out to the survivors, to the families of those killed, and to the nation. I have no comprehension of what it must be like to be one of those people and to have lived through this. I pray that somehow those deeply wounded by this can find it in their hearts to forgive and go on, I'm not sure I could.

It seems that Anders Breivik, baptised at 15, claims to be a Christian of sorts, and whether he is one or not (it is disputed), as a Christian myself, I want to disassociate myself from everything he stands for. What he has done is repugnant and a complete reversal and corruption what Jesus came to do on planet earth. Jesus came in non-violence to bring peace, to show that the path of God's Kingdom is non-violence, urging his followers to turn the other cheek. Sadly, too many of his followers have not heard this and since the adoption of Christianity as the 'state-religion' of the Roman Empire in the early fourth century, have been engaged in violence whether State sponsored or otherwise. This act is a violation of everything Christ came to do – it is evil. I would ask that people who see this not to judge Jesus, Christianity and Christians on the basis of what he has done. I would say that we should also not blame Norwegians or Freemasons (he claimed to be one). He was clearly deeply troubled, calling for a revolution led by the Knight's Templar, a Medieval military group who wore white mantles with red crosses who were involved in the Crusades!

My grief is compounded by more than a nagging feeling that this is not the last of such events from so-called Christians and other right wing extremists. The rapid growth of Islam in Western Europe and other European nations, the continuing problem of a small number of extremist Muslim acts of terrorism, and out-of-proportion Islamophobia will no doubt lead others to join Breivik's crusade. God help the world if any of these sort of people get near power, we never want to see the likes of Hitler again (of course we have in other nations of the world and no doubt will again).

Breivik represents one of the differing responses to Islamization of Norway and Europe. He sees himself inaugurating a crusade against Islam and left-wing liberal ideology which he believes is corrupting his nation and Europe. His hope is that others will join him in his crusade. His approach is utilitarian, genuinely believing that the deaths of those he killed is justified for the greater good. The sad thing is that there will be others who will act in the same way. He will inspire others to attempt the same. His patient preparation and inability of the authorities to stop him is a warning to other nations, the threat is not merely from some Muslim extremists, but from so-called 'Christian' fundamentalists. We who are Christian need to stand up and shout loudly against such actions supposedly in the name of Christ. Christ would completely and utterly renounce him and his views, and so do I.

The answer we find in the New Testament is not such attitudes or acts. It is to reach out to others in love and reconciliation. It is not to live out of fear and judgmentalism, but in freedom and grace. While living among people of other cultures is a challenge to all of us in our limited cultural worlds, the gospel calls for unity at the cross. And where others do not live out of the cross, but adopt false ways of living including violence as in extreme Islam, ours is not to respond in kind, but to follow Jesus' way and pray for our persecutors and bless them, to heap coals on their heads by living of out of love. It is a much harder path than the path of revenge and meeting kind with kind. But Jesus came to end an 'eye for an eye', hard though it always is. Indeed, it is as we respond out of grace, mercy and love that they will see that we are Christ's disciples (John 13:34-35).

The shift in the cultural make up of the west is inevitable in a world where European birth rates are in decline and the world is increasingly 'coloured' and culturally diverse. We have to remember that colour is only skin deep, and underneath every one of us is equal, an image bearer, granted freedom and volition to live out our humanity in different cultures. Sure, we need to expect immigrants to live by the laws of our land, based on rights, responsibilities, respect and dignity. But what people wear, what they eat, the colour of their skin, the languages they speak, their cultural expressions, are all to be celebrated rather than feared. After all, eternity will be made up with people from every nation joined in Christ as one. The first Christians stood against the demarcation Gentile-Jew, and so must we stand against that of Arab-European/Indian-European/etc etc. There is no room for cultural supremacy in the Kingdom of God.

I have heard a number of people critique moderate Islamists for not speaking up loudly against Muslim extremists. Here is our chance to speak loudly against one who shows any inclination to suggest that Christianity should be associated with something like this. Please join me in making sure that people hear loud and clear that this is not what we are about.

Jesus the Cold Case: A Response

2011-07-25T13:05:00.003+12:00

This morning I watched 'Jesus the Cold Case' which aired on TV One last night. The program involved Bryan Bruce exploring the question of who killed Jesus and why? The agenda was to challenge the idea that the Jews were behind the killing of Jesus as this has led to blaming Jews for his death, to anti-Semitism and to horrors such as the Holocaust. Here are some thoughts in response.

Positively, the program did unmask a whole range of Christian traditions that have accumulated over time such as Jesus looking like a western man with long hair, when in fact he was a short man, with rounded face, cropped hair and tanned skin. It showed how many of the supposed sites in Israel where Jesus supposedly did this and that and upon which churches are now found are likely bogus. I like some of the drawing out of the political implications of Jesus, with Jerusalem a tinder box and Jesus killed by the Romans in the end for being a political danger. I like the recognition that his actions in the temple were decisive for his death. It also rightly brought to the fore that to whatever extent some Jews played a part in Jesus' death, Pilate and the Romans did the deed. He was sentenced by Pilate, and was crucified by Roman soldiers. It also rightly challenged anti-Semitism and the Holocaust – like all racism and atrocities against humanity, these are abhorrent, repugnant and to be rejected out of hand.

With all that in mind, as a NT biblical scholar and a part of the academy Bryan Bruce drew on for the program, the whole thing was unbelievably poorly conceived and put together, it was subjective and imbalanced in the extreme. If this reflects on the quality of Bryan Bruce's work in other 'cold-cases', I would suggest that he has little if anything to offer.

Why do I make this claim? Here are the reasons.

1. Imbalance
Through the program Bryan Bruce drew on a range of scholars like NZ's own Lloyd Gering, Bishop Spong, Dominic Crossan and others. Without exception, the scholars drawn on are a particular breed of liberals (e.g. Jesus Seminar) with a particular viewpoint and agenda i.e. they reject the Scriptures and revision them radically reinterpreting Christianity through a liberal sceptical lens. They pick and choose which bits of the Bible they prefer, rejecting others. Now, unbeknown to Bruce and many others, there are a vast array of biblical scholars and theologians out there who find their views incorrect at many levels. Some names that did not feature in this are N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Craig Blomberg, Don Carson and Richard Bauckham, among many others. Most if not all the things discussed in the program have been discussed in biblical scholarship. Through the program we hear 'most/some/all biblical scholars' again and again – let the reader know, his confidence is misplaced and arrogant. He does not have any idea what 'most, some and all' biblical scholars think, he has not done his homework. It is absolutely unacceptable to present such a biased perspective when there is mountains of scholarship that can be brought alongside what he put together to critique it.

2. Bias
This imbalance leads to biased perspectives. For example, he draws on one or two scholars who argue that John the Baptist did not die as the Gospels say. They suggest John did not die for challenging Herod's adultery, but for political reasons. Perhaps there were political reasons lurking in his death, but there is simply no evidence to back it up except the opinion of a couple of radical thinkers. This would not hold up in any court! There is the view that Pilate could not have given the crowds an alternative at the Passover to choose Barabbas or Jesus. Why? There is no evidence of such a possible decree and it is inconsistent with the picture of Pilate in Josephus etc. There is the view that when Jesus cleared the temple it was insignificant, that he did not come into Israel on an ass but walked in. All such things, and there were many others we could pick apart one by one, are mere conjecture and opinion based on absolutely no evidence – just machinations of some scholar's minds. This is inadequate. Take the authorship and dating of the gospels for example. He dates Matthew and Luke in the 75-80 region, and John in the 90-100's. He states none were written by apostles. While many would agree, many would not. Many date Luke at the point Luke's work in his second volume Acts ends, AD 61-62. Many believe Matthew the apostle wrote Matthew and John wrote John. The early church from the early second century at least, holds that Peter was instrumental to Mark's Gospel. Luke writes plainly that he drew on eye-witness testimony to write his gospel. Many scholars believe that Luke was an excellent first century historian, with almost all geographical, political, historical and other references easily cross-referenced to secular literature. He says things like, Jesus never had a tomb or used Joseph of Arimathea. Who says? On what basis? It is simply speculation. He argues that Jesus was likely crucified on an olive tree in seclusion, and his body disposed of. As Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura would say, 'Reheally!' Why not argue that Martians took the body after he was crucified upside down in a latrine? There is no basis for such claims. On the other hand we have four Gospels each saying much the same things, but with differences one might expect from genuine accounts based on recollection. It seems a big deal to the makers that the Gospels were 30+ years after the event. Interview someone who was involved in Watergate in the early 1970's or the American Space program, and see if their recollections are accurate. You will find that they are if not perfect. The program was arrogant, it is as if these views do not exist. Sure, we can't be certain of any of these thing, but strong cases can be made. This was not well balanced forensics, it is bringing an a priori viewpoint to something, and then seeking to prove it.

3. Inconsistency

It is amazing how Bruce at time accepts what the bible says but at other times doesn't. Surprisingly he does not question Jesus as a miracle worker, one would have thought he would. Those in the know recognise why he doesn't, all sources for Jesus accept him as a miracle worker. He accepts that Mark wrote Mark on the basis of the ascription, but rejects that John and Matthew wrote their gospels, yet they have an ascription likely written at the same times when the four gospels was becoming a collection for circulation. Hengel would say in the early 2^nd century this happened. Bruce notes that aside from the Gospel writers, we have no other witnesses to draw on to check their work. That argument cuts both ways. If we use its logic, we have nothing to critique the gospels on at all, and so we should take them as read and decide what to do with them. Yet he does a remarkable job tearing them down with nothing. All he really has is some radical scholars opinions and his own weakly researched one. Another inconsistency is to prefer Paul's letters because of their early dating (which he gets wrong saying 50-55, when Spong rightly in the same program says 50-64 – I would say 48-64/66). He rejects the idea that Jews were ascribed the blame in the NT for killing Jesus, yet Paul in 1 Thess 2:13-16 directly attributes the killing of Jesus to the Jews. Of course, as you can imagine, a whole range of scholars consider this an interpolation – yet, using the art of Textual Evidence as practised by the serious, there is NO evidence that it is an interpolation except scholars being uncomfortable over the so-called anti-Semitism in this text. Remember Paul is a Jew writing this, hardly anti-Semitism, just a Jew critiquing his own country-men. He quotes Joseph Zias and 'expert on crucifixion' who says there are many ways to crucify in the ancient world, but then surmises Jesus must have been crucified in any way other than the one recorded. But, if there are many ways for the Romans to crucify someone, why not the way we read in the Gospels?

4. Assumptions

He makes assumptions like 'Jesus of Nazareth' must mean that Jesus was from Nazareth and not Bethlehem, so the idea he is from Bethlehem is a construct. Yet Matthew explains this, Joseph took Jesus away from Bethlehem when his life was threatened, and then left for Nazareth via Egypt. It says in Luke and Matthew that he grew up in Nazareth. As such, when emerged on the scene, he was to all intents and purposes 'a Nazarene.' Why assume this is incorrect? Bizarre. Pure speculation. Then there is the way he deals with Joseph, Jesus' father. He thinks Joseph never existed. Yet he refers regularly to Jesus' father, a carpenter. Why not Joseph? In Mark 6 there is mention of Jesus' brothers, one being Joseph? Perhaps he was named after his dad? There are sisters? Can't for the life of me work out why he wastes his time speculating and assuming such things? Another assumption is that Herod did not kill the babies in Bethlehem on two grounds, one is that he wouldn't have bothered as his control was unquestioned; secondly, that it is not mentioned in secular sources. Well, neither argument is compelling. Herod was despised by his own people as a non-Jew and sell-out to Rome. He was likely paranoid. In the ancient world, there is nothing more dangerous than someone people think is king, and the best thing to do is wipe that kid out early to remove any threat. Further, the absence of reference to it in secular sources proves nothing. Why would one small massacre in a small non-descript town (note he admits through the program that Bethlehem was tiny, a few hundred people) in the backblocks of a tiny nation Israel, get into the writings of historians? Note how he deals with the raising of Lazarus. He discusses the 'saved by the bell' tradition and then simply decides that the Lazarus account never happened. Whether it did or not cannot be decided on the whim of some dude without anything. Man this guy annoys me – how dare he call himself a forensic scientist. He is an embarrassment. There is also the statement that Palm Sunday never happened, this despite scholars he quoted believing that it did. Whatever. There is the idea that Jesus when he went into the temple and courts to clear it and debate, that 'he expected to get away with it.' Come on. The Synoptics are shaped around three passion predictions in which Jesus clearly stated that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:31; 9:30; 10:32). There is Mark 10:52-45 where Jesus speaks of his ministry as patterned after the servant who dies for the nation, and as a 'ransom for many.' There is the garden scene in Gethsemane whereby he pleads with God for deliverance from his cup of suffering – the cross (Mark 14:32-42). These and other references to his forthcoming death all suggest he had no expectation of getting away with it, but expected to die. Sure, we can write these things off, but it is selective reading, choosing the bits we want, with no real basis other than the agenda.

5. Confusion over Christian History

One of the problems in the presentation is the way in which later Christian history is fused into his rejection of the bible. So for example, the date of Jesus' birth. Jesus can't have been born as per the Gospels because he was born before 4 BC under Herod the Great. Now, the current calendar was put together centuries later by people who did not know this. We have known this for years. It proves nothing about the factuality of the narrative, because no date is given in the narratives at all! Look at any bible dictionary, encyclopedia, commentary and they will say Jesus was likely born between 8BC and 4BC, not sure what it proves. I have mentioned Jesus' looks above. Biblical scholars for years have critiqued western art and its depiction of Jesus and the Last Supper etc. Again, one can believe everything in Scripture and be unaffected by later Church tradition. We know that the stories of Jesus we embellished over time, and in the period of relics and indulgences, badly distorted. Holy sites are almost all questionable. None of this says anything about the Scriptures. Irenaeus and others in the mid to late second century accepted four gospels rejecting the others, they were set well before these corruptions of the Christian story began to fully proliferate. There is a real misunderstanding of Christian history. Further, there is reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls as a cave full of 'biblical documents'. That is nonsense. It was full of OT and other Jewish documents, there is nothing from the NT in the documents. Aside from radical speculation without a hint of scholarship, there is no evidence established of a link between Christianity, the NT, and the Essene Qumran community. This is a naive and ill-informed.

6. Speculations

I could put the whole program in this section. A couple of further examples are of note. It is assumed and speculated that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist because he was baptised by him. Was he? There is no evidence of this. It seems rather, that they were related, that John was in the Wilderness with a knowledge that he was a prophet of the coming Messiah. Jesus came to him for baptism. Then John recognised him and told some or all of his disciples to follow Jesus, which some including Andrew did. Maybe John was Jesus' mentor, maybe he wasn't, it proves nothing and is pure speculation. He draws on Crossan's idea that Jesus saw that John's approach to the Kingdom was wrong after John died, and so came up with another idea based on a non-violent kingdom. Maybe, but again, speculation. Maybe God told him of another way? There are arguments that Jesus went to visit family in Bethany i.e. Martha, Mary. Again, maybe, but irrelevant. Proves little. There is the idea that Judas is a construct, that he did not betray Jesus. There is the idea that there was no trial, but the Romans took him and killed him. There is the idea that he did not die as said, or carry his cross – these are all later additions to the text. May the reader know, there is no basis for this except pure opinion. There is the idea that just because Judas' name sounds like Judah, it is a construct. There is an assumption that wherever there is an OT prophecy mentioned or alluded to in the passion, it is a creation based on the prophecy, not a fulfilment of the prophecy. Well, yes, one could argue this if one liked. But one could equally argue the converse, that there was an explicit attempt by Jesus to fulfil prophecy, and that the events were shaped by God in history to fulfil prophecy. A balanced argument would hear both sides and let the reader/hearer make up their own mind. That is what Christianity is all about. There is nothing historical, balanced, forensic, academic or anything to any of his analysis in the program.

7. Factual Errors

There are factual errors like his saying that Luke records the wise men coming to Bethlehem to follow the star – that was Matthew's Gospel Bryan. Lloyd Gering is interviewed early in the program stating that the accounts of the crucifixion are constructs as none of Jesus' followers were at the cross. Wrong. There were women at the cross in every gospel and in John, one of the men 'the disciple Jesus' loved' who is given care over Mary (John 19:26). The traditional view is that this is John, while some argue it is Lazarus or another disciple. Whoever it is, it is a disciple who may have passed on the material. So the argument that there are no sources for what happened is spurious. It is also sexist, Gering showing no respect for the women that were there. Many scholars believe that Mary Jesus' mother was one of Luke's sources for his gospel based on the material found in the Infancy Narrative. The women would have been a perfect source for the material in Luke's Passion Narrative (e.g. Luke 23:26-31). John may well have been the disciple mentioned at the cross. A classic error was the comment on the Lukan Census in Luke 2:1-3. He states that it was impossible for the descendents of David to come to Bethlehem to be counted as per the narrative. He says there were 50 generations, David had 300 wives, this would leave potentially 10 billion descendants. Yeah right! There still are not 10billion in the world today! There were 200,000 to 300,000 in Galilee at the time of Christ and some 1-2 million in Palestine at best. So, using such ridiculous stats is of little use and skews the discussion irrationally. He states that the Election of Israel, Torah, and Law were given 2000 years before Jesus was born. This is inaccurate, with the call of Abraham perhaps 2000 years before Christ, but the Exodus/Sinai event in the 1400-1200 region, depending on which chronology of the OT you follow. He follows Crossan who argues that Jesus could not read, of course he could read. He knew reams of Scripture, as did Paul. He should have stuck with Vermes. There is the statement that Christians were fed to the lions in the Coliseum. This is incorrect. They were killed at Nero's Circus the site of St Peters Basilica.

8. The Bible is Anti-Semitic

There is this claim that the Bible is anti-Semitic that lurks behind all this. There is a fear of anything in Scripture that paints Jews in a bad light. This is due to a phobia amongst westerners to give any credence to the Holocaust. There is an attempt to discredit. I too am disgusted by all oppression and violence against peoples on any basis, let alone race. All genocide is revolting and abhorrent. However, it is a complete misreading of the Scriptures to find this in the NT. The NT was written in a time of great clashes between Judaism and Christianity. There are statements that are strong such as John's use of the term 'the Jews' in terms of Jesus' opponents; there is Matthew's statement in Matt 27:25 'And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"' There is Paul's comment that the Jews killed Jesus in 1 Thess 2:15. Yet these need to be read in the full perspective of the NT. The first Christians until Cornelius were all Jews or converts to Judaism! The critique of Paul is a Jew writing of his own people and says nothing justifying the Holocaust. Matthew's comment too, is placed in a Gospel that advocates non-violence and gives no grounds for any racism. John clearly does not mean 'all the Jews' when he uses 'the Jews', rather, it means 'all the Jews who reject Jesus.' After all, all followers of Jesus in John are Jews! At one point in the program, it was even said that John's Gospel is a 'Gospel of hate'. What? Love is the dominant theme in John! Its theme is that God loves the world (e.g. Jn 3:16). It is because of our love that all people will see that we are followers of Jesus, who is love. My goodness, what a corruption. The Bible affirms all humanity as created in God's image and Jesus came to end such bigotry. We do not need to revision the NT in this way.

Conclusion
So why did Jesus die? Jesus died because he really upset many of the rulers of his nation, the Jews. Not all felt the same, there are two Jewish leaders at least who turned to him, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. The reason he upset them was he challenged their thinking and power. He claimed to be the Son of Man. He claimed the power of God to forgive. He claimed to be the one interpreter of Law, the 'Lord of the Sabbath', repeatedly challenging their views on law. He was accused of threatening to destroy the temple. He hung out with the wrong people, sinners, the marginalised, the unclean. He flouted the externals of the law. He refused to play the game of power and lead and assault on the Romans. He threatened their power. The crowds loved him. He entered Jerusalem arrogantly on a donkey, as if he was Messiah. He assaulted the temple. He incited debate. He was a threat. So they went to work to get rid of him.

The Romans are equally culpable. When the Jews brought Jesus to them, they sought to convince Pilate that Jesus was a political threat, a revolutionary, an agitator, a threat to Rome. Pilate wasn't really interested as he was no threat. Yet, to appease the Jews at the volatile time of Passover with Jerusalem full of pilgrims, he condemned Jesus to death. It was political expediency that led him to do it.

The coming together of Jew and Roman to kill Jesus does not implicate all Jews, or all Romans for that matter. It theologically speaks of us all rejecting God again, and killing him. No one race is to blame. There is no justification for anti-Romanism or anti-Semitism. Jesus came to draw people to God and love, not to hatred and violence.

The whole program claims that the early Christians 'rewrote history to suit their purpose.' The real truth is that Bryan Bruce has joined a whole lot of other revisionists to rewrite history to suit his own purposes. His purpose is to destroy Christianity, and westerners are buying it. There is the claim that the early Christians had one of the greatest PR campaigns of history. I would argue rather, that they simply went out and told what they had seen and heard. That the differences in the Gospels are a result of authentic honest attempts to record the story of Jesus honestly as they recalled it. I would argue that the Gospels are linked to the end of the lives of Apostles, they recording the stories before lost in time. They believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and died for that belief. They went about living not out of anti-Semitism, but out of non-violence and love, and even though many were killed for their faith, eventually saw the whole Roman Empire 'taken over' by this belief. Sure, after this point the stories became embellished and the faith corrupted. But that does not do anything to remove the power of the story as it is written.

I would say that we are now living in the midst of another PR claim much more insidious. Western thinkers since the Enlightenment and up to the present day have been seeking to tear down the edifice that made such a huge contribution to why western culture has blossomed so much, Christianity. As we look around, we see Westerners abandoning Christianity. As they do, we see the Judeo-Christian ethic in decline. We see greater and greater social problems around the breakup of the family. We ponder how to deal with the problems of alcohol, drug abuse, family violence and other issues. At a global level, we see its dominance receding. Well, that is what will come from this counter PR campaign, and it is based on the most biased, uncritical, assumptive, speculative, reading of the world ever conceived.

The Media is tied up nicely in this. I ask, why was I not interviewed for the show, or better, why was N.T. Wright or others who deal with this stuff in a more specialist way interviewed? Because it would have muddied the drama and reduced its effect. It would have brought to the public arena the converse voice. Those who defend Christianity are marginalised in NZ. We no longer hear balanced debate. The goal is demolition of Christianity. The Media is out of control in many ways (e.g. Murdoch), this is another example. TV One, when are you going to give a balanced view?

We need to wake up and rediscover the story.

The Burqa: Should NZ Ban It?

2011-07-13T16:15:00.001+12:00

This is a longer version of a column published in the Challenge Weekly July 2011

The Burqa has been in the news since two women were banned from Auckland buses recently. As most readers will know, burqa is the black outer garment worn by women of some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public. It includes the head-covering (hijab) and face veil (niqab). It is likely that such clothing was worn by Arab and Persian women even at the time of Christ and before, as indicated by the Greek historian Strabo (64 BC – AD 24). The early Christian leader Tertullian (c. AD 200) praised the modesty of the 'pagan women of Arabia.' Islam itself is divided on the necessity of wearing the burqa with some believing such modesty in public is obligatory in the Qur'an, and others. For those who consider it necessary, the face is considered the most tempting part of the body; hence, the veil.

Many westerners believe that the burqa should be banned. The usual reasons are security concerns resulting from recent suicide bombings – women can conceal bombs in their clothing; identity issues especially in places like banks – how can one be identified when one's face is covered almost completely?; cultural perspectives whereby it is seen as non-kiwi behaviour – New Zealanders do not like the sight of people completely adorned in black with their eyes only showing, this smacks of the sort of thing one sees in movies where the bad guys or girls dress thus; consistency with the banning of other head coverings like hoodies in malls and other places – if it not ok for others to wear hoodies, helmets etc in public, for consistencies sake we should not allow the Muslims who do this either; feminist concerns seeing it as demeaning to women – especially in a nation with rich history of women's freedom; and freedom concerns. What can we as Christians say in response?

A case can be made for expecting people to expose their faces where their identity is required such as when a police officer needs to identify someone or in a bank where people are withdrawing money etc. However, in consultation with the Muslim community, it is likely that ways of achieving this without public shame can be agreed. For example, one could have someone in the bank and a room specially prepared for identification with another Muslim worker. Similarly, there must be discrete ways of dealing with other security situations with sensitivity and care.

Beyond that, as a Christian, I find it hard to find a theological reason to ban the burqa in NZ. Our Muslim community has never threatened New Zealanders as in other nations. Indeed, the small number of Muslims in NZ are peace-loving citizens. As such, we can hardly make the case that we should ban it on security grounds. Further, we can't really challenge it in terms of women's freedom, as many Muslims believe it is 'freeing' to wear the burqa as it removes the threat of becoming a sexual object, it allows them to freely go about their work. Studies have shown that many Muslim women enjoy the 'freedom' it brings. In terms of it being foreign to NZ culture, there are two issues. First, what is NZ culture in terms of dress? We have no agreed statement in this regard, and NZ had always respected religious and cultural diversity. Think of Maori moko etc. While it is different, we have no real cultural grounds to remove it. Secondly, we need to get over our aversion to wearing black as if it is 'evil.' After all, the All Blacks wear black and intimidate with the haka. And we love it. So, aside from our prejudice, there is no real case against it. Indeed, if I admit it, I am always taken aback when I see a women in a burqa, and I have to admit it, it is my prejudice. I am seeking to challenge this attitude – it I believe, is false!

One of the interesting off-shoots of this issue is the issue of dressing modestly vs. provocatively. Christians are encouraged to dress modestly. The 'head-coverings' controversy in Corinth was likely an issue of women dressing with their hair hanging free which was seen as highly sexual, causing offence to husbands and others. Paul exhorts modesty and cultural accommodation in their clothing (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-22). In 1 Peter 3 women are urged to dress modestly in line with their culture as they seek to win their husbands to faith. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the clothing of many people in our culture who flaunt their bodies and dress provocatively than those who dress modestly, even if it is in a way we are not used to – the recent 'slut-march' being case in point? What is the bigger issue we face, provocative clothing that entices sexual promiscuity, the porn industry, the soft-porn of mainstream media, the booze culture in which women and men dress scantily and provocatively. There are men who provocatively touch themselves in rap and other music forms. There are 6-packs all over advertising. Aren't these much more of an issue than women choosing to dress as these Muslims do? While I personally believe there is no need to dress to this extreme, struggle with it myself, and would never expect that a woman must cover herself to this extreme, I wonder if we need to consider how we dress and how it looks. No wonder many in the Muslim world scoff at us on this sort of thing, we live in the defiled west. I am not targeting women with this either, it is men and women who need to consider this. However, where men are concerned, women need to know that we are often visually stimulated, so perhaps there is more of an issue with the way women dress than men.

My strongest interest in this is how Jesus would respond to a Muslim in a burqa, despite all the arguments. Well, we kind of know already what he would do. After all, his world was full of women dressed in black with their heads covered, dressed very modestly with little flesh to be seen. They were limited greatly in what they could do publically, who they could speak to, and how to dress. We see in John 8 how they are treated if they violate culture, they were in danger of stoning – as in some parts of the Muslim world under Sharia Law.

We don't not find Jesus rebuking them or even challenging the culture in a direct sense over their clothing. Rather, we find Jesus accepting and affirming women, loving them, showing them utter respect, weeping for them, allowing them to anoint his feet, speaking gently to them, showing them tremendous care and concern. We find no rebuke of them. Rather, he reached out to them as with all people, including the worst of all sinners. He didn't live in fear and suspicion; he loved them as they were, seeing past their clothing into their hearts. The Christian faith calls for Jesus' followers to accept people despite their sin, let alone their clothing. We are to look at the heart not the externals (1 Sam 16:7). We are to emulate Jesus in this regard. As such, rather than us living out of fear and condemnation of our Muslim neighbours, when we see someone in a burqa we should catch our own prejudice and respond with Christian grace, love and hospitality. Perhaps we should greet them warmly. Men need to be careful in this regard of course, we need to show cultural sensitivity and respect and not embarrass a woman in public. Perhaps a small nod and a hello will do. Christian women however, can engage with them relationally, greeting them, talking to them and reaching out to them in love. They can show them the hospitality of the gospel. They can cross boundaries. We used to live in Mt Roskill where there were many dressed in this way. Perhaps the Christian women of Mt Roskill especially can show real warmth and love to these people. They can make them feel warmly welcomed and not ostracised. This was the experience of the two women from TV3 who went out and about dressed in burqa's recently found themselves marginalised – one woman in a shop even barred them! We must not make the same mistake, these are God's blessed women to be loved and cherished, as all his people.

I believe we Christians should see these Muslims who dress in this way not as something to fear, but something to embrace as an opportunity. Christian women can cross the cultural divide and show love and hospitality to them. Indeed, for the Muslim as for the Jew, such hospitality is part and parcel of their culture. Such efforts might lead to amazing opportunities of reciprocity and chances to dialogue over the things of the gospel. After all, Muslims are deeply religious people, they do not have the barriers of the secular western mind. Often, it is in such contexts, that the power of God is seen as such people are open. We do not need to join the islamophobia of the broader western world.

The gospel calls us not to stand in judgment over people who are different, but to accept them, love them, and draw them to Christ through love – Go deeper.

First All Black Squad, thoughts

2011-07-10T21:41:00.001+12:00

The All Blacks squad is pretty predictable in most ways. The fullbacks are what one would expect, Mils M, Israel D, Isaia T. There are really only two wings. I am disappointed Maitland missed out, and surprised Sivivatu is excluded. Only two specialist wings is a surprise. The midfield is entirely as expected, Fruean has not done enough despite his power. Only Slade has the full set of skills for the first five back up, despite the improvements in Cruden. The half backs were as expected.

In the forwards Read was a certainty as was McCaw, Kaino and Thomson. I really think they need another genuine open side flanker. That being said, it is clear that they are going for a more power-based side, and are not going to play the speed-go wide all the time game. That is the Aussie approach. As I see the team, there is actually no genuine open sider, McCaw plays like a number 6 now.

The locks are as one might expect, with Hoeata forcing his way in. I think our lineout is vulnerable without real tall timber, and I can see the South Africans in particular, targeting their lineout very closely. We are vulnerable here.

I am disappointed Crockett is not in, but aside from this the front row is still very strong – despite Flynn's lineout throwing in the Final. His form was irresistible though.

So, I would have preferred Todd for Messam, Sivivatu for Guildford, and Crockett perhaps for Woodcock (not sure on that). Aside from that, it is what one might expect.

I think we are clearly going for a power game as opposed to a pace-wide game. This is clear from the selection of the outside backs with three fullbacks, along with the selection of the loosies. Expect a conservative approach.

Whether this can contain the Australians I am not sure. We can beat everyone else.

The Scourge of Gambling Grows

2011-07-10T16:22:00.003+12:00

I have just read an article in the Sunday Star Times suggesting that soon Lotto players will be able to buy their instant scratchies online, to increase the size of Big Wednesday prizes, to decrease the size of counters so smaller shops can sell tickets, and that lotto tickets can be sold at the supermarket checkout (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5261862/Gambling-itch-may-get-more-scratch).

As McEnroe might say, 'you can't be serious!'

Aside from the inconvenience of waiting minutes longer at already understaffed supermarkets' checkouts while the checkout operators have to process this nonsense, this is not good for NZ in any way whatsoever (IMHO).

The explicit goal of the new policy is, to quote the article, 'to get casual customers to gamble more often.' What the! This is from the NZ Lotteries 'Statement of Intent' for the next two years, the work of their CEO, a certain Todd McLeay. He openly states that his goal is to 'encourage the 86% of New Zealanders who play the lottery to spend more.' He states, 'We know many of them have intentions to buy but for various reasons they don't get round to it. If we can improve the convenience of purchase then we'll go some of the way to helping attract them to play more frequently.' They are also replacing billboards with 600 digital signs, to get into sync with consumer behaviour. It is insidious, intentional, and corrupt.

Little wonder that the Problem Gambling Foundation see the sale of Instant Kiwi online as a 'ticking timebomb!'

I cannot believe this. In an age where more and more people are struggling, jobs are hard to get, the gap between rich and poor grows, and gambling figures are on the rise, this is stunningly dumb! This is about seducing more and more people seeking to make it rich quick into wasting their money on something they are never likely to win. It feeds our consumerist lust, luring us with the fake dream of prosperity! It will see more and more lives wrecked. Online gambling is uncontrolled, one can fritter away all one has without anyone else knowing, it is without restraint.

I find it especially distasteful the way that gambling is run as a business with a CEO and driven by the profit motive. Todd McLeay is clearly motivated as with any CEO with the bottom line. So we have the fusion of the problems of consumerism with the motive of personal greed, it is greed upon greed. It is sick in my view. It is enough that we make gambling easier and easier, but we buttress it with the power of consumerism to seduce New Zealanders to part with their hard earned money with the myth that they will get rich. It is the god of mammon at its very best. It is abhorrent and evil.

We should be encouraging people to save, invest wisely, avoid debt, and spend their money on good wholesome things like family, education, health, their future, and of course, the care of others in need! Not to seduce them into something that is as likely as being hit by lightening 4 times in succession!

The whole thing is dumb, further evidence of a society self-destructing. Just as putting alcohol into supermarkets and recreational drugs into dairies has further fuelled our nation's problems with these things, this will further fuel our problems with gambling.

It will be the poor that are abused most by it of course – it always is. The article claims 71% of lotto players come from poor areas and that Maori spend more than the rest of the population on Lotto. It will be their children who go without. It will be their marriages that are torn apart. It will be their wives and kids beaten. It will fuel crime as people get desperate. It is disgusting!

As I write this too I ponder the oft-discussed question of whether churches and church-established trusts should take money from gambling for their ministries. I have always felt uncomfortable in that the church has historically (as it should have), given leadership against the scourge of gambling. I ask, how can the church continue to speak out with a clear untainted voice while on the other hand taking its profits? Sure, you can justify it by saying, better that we get it than the crowd down the road. The truth is however, in taking the money, you are giving tacit support to the enterprise. It seems contradictory to me, despite recognising that one can mount an ethical argument – I just don't think it is a strong one.

Are we getting to the stage where churches and Christian Trusts need to rethink and, despite the cost, refuse to take that money, so that we can stand against it with our full force and might? Our voice should be the loudest against gambling and its abuse of the poor. We should be there to support those who are in its evil grip. Now more than ever, we cannot be compromised as this scourge deepens. The whole system is driven by greed, self-aggrandisement, injustice, and oppression. It oppresses, and leads to indebtedness and can result in crime as people get desperate. I think it is.

I pray that this will be stopped, and indeed, gambling laws will tighten rather than loosen.

Why Australia Are Now Favourites to Win the World Cup

2011-07-10T15:57:00.001+12:00

In the wake of the Crusaders losing to the Reds, things from a NZ perspective smell a bit like 1990-1991 again. In 1987-1990 the All Blacks were brilliant. They won the World Cup, and swept all before them, until the Sydney test of 1990, where they were thrashed by the Wallabies. They then won the return test against the Wallabies 6-3 at Eden Park, but the truth was there, they were on the decline and the Wallabies were on the rise. This was followed by the Wallabies thrashing the All Blacks in the semi-final of the cup in Britain, inspired by the dynamic David Campese. The Wallabies then had a good pack, and some of the greatest backs to play the game including Farr-Jones, Lynagh, Horan, Little, and the mercurial Campese. These guys were game breakers. Our backs looked pedestrian in comparison. While our forwards may have had the edge, they tore us apart.

Are we seeing the same thing emerging. For a few years we have smashed the Wallabies, their forwards simply not up to it. Now however, as we saw last night in the final of the Super 15 and at Hong Kong last year, they are gaining some degree of parity. At least enough to allow their backs to do their thing. Then there are their backs. They have a brilliant half-back, Genia, far superior to anyone in NZ. Cooper is brilliant! Behind a badly losing pack he may be a problem, but with Genia feeding him and a pack that can now compete, he is lethal – a Benji Marshall type character. Then there are the brilliant Kurtley Beale, James O'Connor to go alongside other really good footballers like Matt Giteau, Rod Davies, Mark Gerrard, Digby Ione, and Lachie Turner among others. As a set of backs, that is something really special. While they might still not be able to match the All Black Tight Five, they have some great forwards particularly in the loosies; men like Rocky Elsom, Scott Higginbotham, James Horwill, David Pocock, Beau Robinson, Benn Robinson, Nathan Sharpe, Dan Vickerman and others. This is the basis of a forward pack that can get enough ball.

Considering the All Blacks we have a tired look about us, kind of like the 1991 side which was full of people at the ends of their great careers. McCaw looked slow last night, not at all a 7, more of a 6. Is Brad Thorn one year past it? Mealamu and Woodcock are now aging. Is Ali Williams really back to the level required to win a World Cup Final? Of the current crop of forwards, the Frank's brothers, Crockett, Sam Whitelock, and Read stand out. Read is a great! Kaino is solid. But, is that enough to demolish the Wallabies to the point that we can stifle their flair for eighty full minutes of a final? I now have serious doubts. While we have reasonable half backs, none of the current crop are brilliant and in that upper echelon of the likes of Loveridge, Farr-Jones, Genia, Kirk, Van Der Westhuizen. Commonly, a great half-back is a critical component of World Cup wins. Carter at the moment looks slow, and lacking in direction, and his kicking is not great, at the moment. While the mid-fielders Nonu and Smith are competent and perhaps better, they are well known and predictable. Sonny-Bill Williams has talent, but will it break open defences at the very highest level of a world cup final. He struggled last night to me. Can Sivivatu avoid injury and reach his peak? Is he past it? There are other wingers and fullbacks like Maitland, Jane, Guilford, Smith, Dagg and Toeava, but are they really able to tear open the Wallabies? Is Mils now past it? When I compare the two backlines we seem down on pace, flair, and shear brilliance. They are on the rise, we are on the wane.

Of course it is too late now to make wholesale changes and renew the team. There are many young hot shots coming through. But, unlike the Wallabies who have been rebuilding, we have tended to retain the nucleus of 2007.

I also noted last night how much the game felt like Cardiff 2007. When the heat came on, McCaw and Carter did not respond well as leaders. Where was the leadership to take control, and systematically drive to victory? As in Cardiff, it was more like panic.

Then there is the path to the Final. We will have to knock over the French (then a light week, Canada), then Argentina/England or Scotland, the Springboks and the Aussies in the final over three weeks! That is a huge schedule. No room for an aging team in this.

So all in all, I suggest that the Wallabies are now the favourites to win the cup. Our best asset is that we are at home and that evens it out a bit. But to me, all in all, the Wallabies are definitely the team to beat.

Two things give me hope despite this.

One is that, unlike 1991, we have a united coaching team. The Wylie-Hart thing was a shocker, whereas the Henry-Smith-Hansen combo is seasoned. On the other hand, they have Deans who I thought should have taken over the AB's after 2007.

Secondly, the last time we won the cup was when it was at home and the Wallabies were the favourite. Here's hoping. But for me, the Wallabies are the favourites.

Let’s Get Real About Obesity: The Problem is Gluttony, Greed and Laziness

2011-07-10T15:18:00.001+12:00

I see in the Sunday Star Times yet another article stating that obesity is on the rise (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/5261735/Startling-rise-in-levels-of-obesity).

Well, we all know this. There are a plethora of shows on TV about the obese (I love Biggest Loser, but am sick of them generally), and you only have to walk the Mall to see it to be true.

Otago University Prof Jim Mann has noted the huge increase in the fatness rate, especially among the young. It is suggested that 15 years ago 3200 kiwis die a year through obesity – still only about 20% of the number of babies aborted but 10x the road toll – so it is pretty bad. Now, according to BMI, 1 out of 5 kids are overweight, and 1 out of 12 obese.

According to the article, half of the adult population is overweight or obese. Even with knowing that the BMI is not that great a measure, especially for guys who are heavily muscled (at one stage I had 8% body fat and was overweight), it is bad. As a result, a heap of Kiwis have Type 2 diabetes, asthma, sleep problems, heart-disease, get strokes and cancers. It is costing us a fortune as a nation. It is another symptom along with our other addictions, of our spiritual poverty and decline. As Mann suggests in the article, it is the new 'normal.' Houston, we have a problem.

Dealing with it is tricky. The converse problem is eating disorders like anorexia or bulimia. Indeed, when you confront a young women especially about her weight, you are likely to set her spiralling toward a new problem, which can be equally if not more, insidious. As such, one must approach such things very carefully and in love – the article suggests talking about health rather than obesity, that makes sense.

The usual solution is education, ad campaigns like anti-smoking or anti-speeding, school programs, bans on junk-food, more programs on the box about eating healthy and the terrors of fatness, and so on. These have a place of course.

However, perhaps the best place to start as a Christian is to recognise its real root, gluttony and laziness – as Dr Phil says, 'you can't change what you don't acknowledge.' People get fat because they eat more than they expend. The excess eating then turns to fat, and they become overweight and obese. It is quite simple really. It is worse when you eat the wrong foods, too much sugar is converted to fat, too much fat becomes – well – fat! (Saying all this, it is a bummer that all the nicest foods seem bad for you! – remember though, you can train your palette to like other food).

We have two problems occurring at the same time: we are gluttons, and we are lazy. We are gluttons because consumption makes us feel good. It feeds our idolatry of self, narcissism. This driven culture is producing empty people with a spiritual and emotional emptiness. When they eat, they feel better, that sense of fullness fills the void. I know that, I am a good old fashioned comfort eater, on a bad day. The eating-to-fill-the-void solution is not long-term though, and as with all addictions, you need more and more to get the same desired result. Advertising and junk food are not the problem in a direct sense, but they feed our lust. It is greed.

The Bible condemns gluttony and greed. A rebellious son who is a glutton and drunkard deserves the death penalty in ancient Israel (Deut 21:20) – not in the NT thankfully! The Proverbs say 'put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony' (Prov 23:2), 'for the drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes then in rags' (Prov 23: 21). Readers are warned to avoid the companionship of gluttons (Prov 28:7). Israel was condemned for their greed by the Prophets (Isa 57:17; Ezek 16:27). Jesus condemned greed (Matt 23:25; Mark 7:22; Luke 12:15), but still hung out with those who indulged condemned by others as a glutton (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34). Paul condemned greed and gluttony which of course were an essential component of Greco-Roman licentiousness and feasting (Rom 1:29; Eph 4:19; 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 2:5; Tit 1:12). Peter too condemned false teachers who lived out of greed (2 Pet 2:3, 14).

With this in mind, the first half of the solution is to stop eating so much and living out of greed. We need to stop consuming as much. And what we consume, needs to be good food – God's unprocessed stuff like fruit, veges etc, is the best. We need to get the portion sizes right too, that is key. My weakness is here, I eat well, but I like to eat a lot!

The other problem is our laziness. In our western society in particular, we simply do not move about enough. We sit in front of screens grazing or pigging out. We travel by car in the main, to work, to school, to almost everywhere. We sit at desks. We pay people to do the lawns. We are, to put it bluntly, lazy. Laziness is also condemned in the Bible. The writer of Proverbs tells the sluggard that it is wise to observe and emulate the business of the ant (Prov 6:6). It condemns those who sleep in as 'sluggards' or 'lazybones' (Prov 6:9). Laziness drowsiness and produces poverty (Prov 10:4; 15:19; 19:15; 20:4; 21:25; 26:14-16; Eccl 10:18; 11:6), hard work the converse (Prov 12:24, 27; 31:27). In Prov 13:4 is written, 'a sluggard's appetite is never filled'; summing up our societies essential problem. The lazy person is written off as stupid (Prov 24:30). The NT also condemns laziness (Matt 25:26; 1 Thess 5;14; 2 Thess 3:6-7, 11; Tit 1:12; 1 Tim 5:13; Heb 6:12).

As we know we live in this sort of environment, and our society isn't likely to change much for a while, we have to fake the exercise that once was etched into our normal lives. We need to take time out for a walk, a ride, a run, a swim, a gym session, a dance session, a kayak, a tramp – whatever it is that gets us moving. We need to make space every day preferably (or perhaps 6/7 and preserve the Sabbath principle).

The solution then would appear obvious. We eat less and we exercise more.

Of course, it is more complex that this. First, it is not just eating less, it is eating healthy. The cost of healthy foods is far too expensive relatively speaking. We all know this. Secondly, often we do not have that much time to exercise as we are so busy working.

That being said, the solution remains the same and for the good of ourselves, our families, our nations, our world, we need to work it out knowing the problems. If we shop clever and do our own cooking and don't buy our food already cooked or from junk food outfits, we can manage the portion sizes and quality and we can eat well. And if we resolve to turn off the box, get up off our bottoms and away from our screens, we can exercise as we go about our lives. It is possible.

The answer is not really found in schools and education programs, although these have a place and I think we have no choice in a nation where parents are failing their children (the school has to do these things because of parental failure!).

The answer really is found in every home in NZ. Parents need to set an example to their kids by cooking well, and demonstrating their commitment to good health.

I was advised by an old guy as a young dad to ensure my kids saw me exercising and competing. He believed that was critical to teach them the values of exercise, and how to win and lose. So I did. They would come and watch me compete in indoor rowing competitions, and I would in turn support them as they raced and played. They saw their mum running in races and triathlons. It was part of life. We went tramping in summer. We went to playgrounds and parks more than the TV, not that they didn't enjoy that as well. It is fun to come home from a day of exercise and fun and sit around and watch a good movie or program. It is when all we do is that, that we have a problem.

So, let's face the real issue – it is not advertising, junk food outlets, etc etc. It is our gluttony and laziness. It is a part of our consumerism, fed by its spiritual poverty, and exhorted by its spokespeople. If we get off our butts, cook well, eat less, and get active, the problem will be solved. So, come on NZ, get off your fat butts and get moving. And let's eat well, and in proportion. Enough, time for a coffee and a piece of chocolate – ok, I will have an orange instead, lol.

A Reflection on Being Fifty – Old Man Saggy Fat Face

2011-07-09T05:53:00.001+12:00

This was a song I wrote in 2002 which went down very well among the boys of St Kents when I was doing a short fill-in stint as a chaplain. It reflects on the absolute truth of what happens to men as they get old. Look into the face of an older man, you will understand. It sums up what it means to be fifty.

Old Man Saggy Fat Face (1)

Copyright: Mark Keown, 2002

Verse One

I want a nice six-pack, yeah washboard abs

But all I've got, are squashboard flabs

I want a small prostate, so I can pee like Niagara

But it's all gone bung, thank God for Viagara

Chorus

I've got…

Old man saggy fat face

The curse of the male race

I've got…

Old man saggy fat face

I'm drooping all over the place (2x)

Verse Two

I want a full head of hair, full of body and sway

But my toupees slipped back, and it's all going grey

I want rippling muscles, bulging mounds of steel

But it's turning to mush, I can't even turn the wheel

Chorus

I've got…

Old man saggy fat face

The curse of the male race

I've got…

Old man saggy fat face

I'm drooping all over the place

Bridge Spoken

And it's all because of Adam and Eve

And entropy plus gravity

Yeah who is there to save me?

Botox or plastic surgery?

Or I am stuck with the saggy fat-face

My body drooping all over the place

Expanding gut and greying hair

From mesomorph to the body of a pear

Yeah is there any hope for me?

Or will I droop for eternity?

Chorus

I've got…

Old man saggy fat face

The curse of the male race

I'm drooping all over the place (2x)

The Greg Laurie Event: Some Thoughts

2011-07-08T07:42:00.001+12:00

It is popular in today's NZ Christian context to hear people demean mass-evangelism. It is not uncommon to critique this approach as flawed, an anachronism, as not appropriate as a means of sharing the gospel in these times. I have to say that I have had my own questions over these sorts of things. The last one I attended was Luis Palau late last century.

Well, as I see it, the recent Greg Laurie event should lead us first to rejoice rather than critique. Yes, we should always assess, critique and evaluate, but first let's rejoice, and keep on rejoicing even as we ponder how to do things better on behalf of our Saviour.

In the NT, aside from general appeals to rejoice always and continually (e.g. Phil 4:5; 1 Thess 5:16), there are two particular times where there is mention of partying and celebrating. The first is the glorious eschatological feast where the people of God gather together, evil defeated, suffering ended, corruption righted, and we party. We party like its 1999! Isaiah mentions this some 800 years before Christ in Isa 25:6-9:

On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feastof rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine— the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up deathforever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people's disgrace from all the earth. The Lord has spoken. In that day they will say, "Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the Lord, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation" (NIV).

I love the sound of the 'aged wine', 'the best of meats and the finest of wines'. The vision of 'he will swallow up death forever' is powerful, God, like a giant T-Rex, swallowing death, bring it on. The Empty Tomb represents his doing so. Glorious. Luke refers to this party in Luke 14, the great banquet. Revelation is all about this – what a party.

The second time a party like this mentioned is twice in Luke 15. First, in Luke 15:7 of the shepherd who joyfully celebrates after saving his lost sheep: 'I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent'; and again in Luke 15:10 in the parable of the women rejoicing over finding her lost coin: 'In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.'

God, his angels, and whatever strange and wacky creatures and beings people his dimension heaven (Check out Rev 4-7; Ezek 1), party outrageously when one person comes to Christ. Well, at the Greg Laurie event, something near 3000 lost sheep and lost coins were found. If that is so, then we should too be celebrating. This is a glorious time. Where else in NZ, in the last few decades, in one weekend, did this many turn to Christ? I am not aware of any other place in recent times. To put it into context, it is about the same number who came to Christ at Pentecost, the launch of the Church (Acts 2).

I want to pay homage to Graeme Lee, Bruce Patrick and others who gave so much to make this event happen. Similarly, hats off to Greg Laurie and his team. They put up some $200,000 of their own church's money for this. They took no money home with them. That is amazing. That is service, the koinōnia of the gospel, people partnering to share the gospel. I am stunned and blessed by them. There were thousands who poured themselves out for this event!

At a theological level, I do have some questions concerning aspects of such events. For example, I was surprised at how 'Christian' and full of Christianese the music, speaking and presentation was. I wondered if it could have been a little more seeker-friendly. I wondered whether a thirteen or so minute appeal for money at the event was appropriate on night 2. Still, it was made clear that unbelievers and visitors did not need to contribute, and things like this cost a lot. I wonder at the packaging of the gospel in entertainment, gloss, powerful music etc. That can be double-edged sword where people come to Christ not for the preaching of Christ-crucified, but the power of the experience, music, entertainment and so on. Paul himself took great care in Corinth not to play the games of the rhetoricians and Sophists, presenting Christ in a manner that obscured the message of a crucified Messiah. He brought the message clearly and unadorned to ensure that people came to Christ for the right reason (1 Cor 2:1-5).

Yet I can also hear more loudly Paul's voice from Phil 1:18 echoing, 'what counts, is that in every way, Christ is preached' and so, like him in Phil 1:18, 'I rejoice! Actually, that is what is left for me. I prefer a gospel message that speaks as much about life on earth and the gospel as the invitation of God not just to eternal life when we die, but life in service of him now. When we come to Christ we are swept up into the purposes of God to transform his world, to work for good, to restore his world, to work for reconciliation, to share the gospel in witness, word, deed, and attitude, to see a whole world transformed – to take up our crosses and follow Jesus. It is more than an after-death insurance policy, we are caught up in God's kosmission, his mission to his world. But, hey, Christ was preached – and in this, I rejoice. And I will continue to rejoice, because it is a day of true miracle when so many come to Christ. I join the hosts of angels in the heavenlies, rocking and rolling. It all anticipates the great day when we will drink the best wine, converted from water by our savior, and we will eat the best food one can imagine, when he returns – maranatha, our Lord come.

So, join with me in rejoicing for the lost sheep who have come home. I pray for every convert that these converts, every one, will be swept up in the love of God and his people, and will grow to full maturity in Christ. I pray that they will find the joy of serving Christ as I have. I pray that they will stand firm to the end. Amen.

A Bizarre Encounter with BBC World: Alisdair Thompson

2011-07-08T07:12:00.003+12:00

I was quite stunned last night to receive a phone call at around 9.45pm from, of all people, the BBC. It was a producer on the BBC World Service asking if I would join a discussion concerning Alisdair Thompson's recent radio interview and his sacking. Apparently, they had read my blog on the issue and wanted me to make a contribution. That is all good, and I entered the conversation, said a few sound bites amidst others, and that was that. Not sure I did very well, such situations are nerve-wracking and you second guess what you say.
My interest in the event is not that it happened, but how it happened. I got into blogging a year or three ago and thought nothing much of it. Blogging is really an extension of me working out what I think about stuff. I find blogging one way of doing it. If I had time, I would do it a lot more, even if no one was listening – I don't usually have time. Truth is, I think I enjoy just putting my thoughts down. I have never really cared much if anyone took any notice, who read it, etc. I figure, in a world with excessive available communication, where there are a million bloggers, twitter, facebook etc, well, I will just say stuff and if anyone cares, good for them.
This has kind of woken me up a little. It shows that you never know who is listening. I mean, I would never have expected someone in Britain to: 1) find my blog; 2) Show an interest; 3) Let alone invite me on a show. Far out.
We definitely live in a world where you can speak to others through the Net, and with search engines, you never know who is listening. It is a means of sharing Christ and getting a point across. I would have preferred it if someone had read something I had written about Jesus and wanted to engage over that.
I actually feel sorry for Alisdair Thompson. He has a government medal for services to the nation, he has served his nation well across a long career, he was the deputy president of a political party and a mayor for some ten years. What a guy. I feel for him. But, in this world, you can't cross certain lines, and he did unwittingly, and then kept digging. God bless him.
Anyway, the upshot is, that there is power in the electronic word. It is not incarnational, but it still has power. People are listening, and with the power of the search engine, who knows who will notice. Who knows what effect it might have? Who knows who will come to Christ through it.
It shows that there is a ministry of e-evangelism and it is possible to be an e-evangelist.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all book-evangelists, writing the Gospels for the world to read. Many have followed in their footsteps like C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright and others. I myself have dabbled and will continue to do so with my book What's God Up To On Planet Earth.
Paul was a letter-evangelist, letters a primary medium of his day.
In recent years there have been radio-evangelists, TV-evangelists and Video or DVD evangelists (especially Alpha).
In a world where we communicate in many means, e-evangelism is definitely another way. The power of the word in all sorts of forms (language) to communicate the story of the Living Word is amazing, in a myriad of forms.
God has chosen language as his medium of self-revelation and is likely not fussed whether it is written, spoken and in what medium, face to face, book, letter, email, website, blog, a film, a cartoon, art, drama, poetry or whatever. 'What matters, is that in every way, Christ is proclaimed' (Phil 1:18).
'In every way' is developed in context in Phil 1 in terms of motive, whether by false motives or true. A search of the type of Greek construction Paul uses, the eite – eite ('either, or') constructs, shows that his intent is broader. He always uses the construct with a stand-alone axiom or premise, and then develops it with an 'either-or' construct for the purpose in the context (see my chapter on Phil 1:12-18 in my book Congregational Evangelism in Philippians (https://wipfandstock.com/store/Congregational_Evangelism_in_Philippians_The_Centrality_of_an_Appeal_for_Gospel_Proclamation_to_the_Fabric_of_Philippians). 'In every way' then expresses Pauls' delight that the gospel is being preached, whatever the way. Even if it is done so by people who are hoping they can increase his personal suffering in Roman prison, he is delighted. All that matters is that Christ is proclaimed. That is why, whatever we think of the form of evangelism at, say like the recent Greg Laurie Harvest event, we should delight that the gospel is preached. Especially when 2700 people are converted!
As for blogging, who knows who googles searching for God. We have a great opportunity, we must take it well.
The upshot is that I must do better.
I will remember that next time I blog there really are people possibly listening!

By the way, here is the link: BBC World Service, World Have Your Say.

Happy Feet: Is it Just Me?

2011-06-28T13:34:00.001+12:00

I am all for the care of animals and conservation, ecology etc, but sometimes you have to wonder. So an Emperor Penguin washes up on a NZ beach, it begins to eat sand as if it is snow, and it looks like it will die. So, then a full scale salvation operation is on to save the penguin with surgery and then supposedly, on recovery, taken back to Antarctica. Now, forgive me but, is all this warranted in a nation where we have people in Christchurch suffering immensely, where the economic downturn still causes problems, and where we struggle to find money to recover the Pike River miners? Wouldn't this money better spent on reducing waiting lists for surgery? If we think globally, I can think of a billion better ways of spending the money – the poor. Doctors in our hospitals are making medical calls every day because money is limited and we are spending money on this – bizarre.

Now, if an emperor penguin washes up on shore somewhere in NZ at this time of year, 3000 km from where it should be, there is likely something wrong with its internal programming. So, it may well be, that the penguin will be returned and do the same thing again. Or perhaps, its fate is sealed by what it has been through. Shouldn't the money be better spent on something else? Animals die like this every day through such natural events; that is the real world. Is it really worth all the money and effort in a world where suffering is so extreme? Why not send the money to Haiti? Or use it in the Christchurch recovery? Or put it into one of the many conservation programs which are desperately short of money at present.

This comes as a result of distorted values. Yes, we have not cared for creation and the animal world over the last centuries and we feel guilty. The green movement prays on people's guilt and fear of the worst-case scenario. But this is going to ridiculous lengths in my view. It's also because it's a feel-good story too. The media have made such a thing of it that those with the power to help feel they have no option. They should have put it down, but the public outcry would be so great that it is not worth it. I sometimes wonder too whether the impact of animated films has been to distort people's perspective as if such animals are pretty much on a par with humanity. I remember the Jungle Book when I was a kid and I think I would have walked up and patted a panther if I had had the chance straight after it. But animals are not humans! This penguin does not dance!

In a perfect world, where there is no limit on resources, I would say this is a great thing that is being done – another of God's creatures saved. But it is not that world, resources are limited, very much so. So, in my view it would have been well justified to put the animal down. It would have been a little sad for some, but it is simply not worth the money or the effort, not when a world struggles so much. Perhaps I am a heartless guy, ruining a feel-good story, but it seems to me to right option.

Or is it just me?

Alisdair Thompson – What To Make of Him?

2011-06-23T20:02:00.002+12:00

I watched the news tonight and didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Emma certainly wasn't laughing!

Alistair Thompson, the CEO of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (would you believe it!), says that a women's monthly 'sick problem' and maternity leave etc, causes women to take more sick leave than men. Then he was interviewed on TV3 and I have to say, aside from Monty Python, it was the best comedy I have seen in the last twenty years, magnificent! Check it out at http://www.3news.co.nz/Alasdair-Thompson-Sorry-but-its-true/tabid/369/articleID/216242/Default.aspx. If I may say so, what a plonka, a plank, a twat! The interview is a classic, 'don't interrupt me!' Classic! What about the 'cut!' What an utter loon.

He also showed how to give an apology, not! He had the gall to claim that he believes in equal pay – that would make a good Tooheys ad. He said he didn't mean to upset anyone – even better! He then apologised saying he did not want to cause offense – what was he trying to do then? As one women put it, he is a dinosaur – but actually that is dinosaurism, they are better than that. After all that he stuck to his guns, why, because it is true! When asked to back it up with data, he couldn't, except he just knows it is true. We once knew that the world is flat.

TV One checked out with the government departments that matter and they had no stats to back up his claim. Their own human resources department found that men took a bit more time off than women. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/action-demanded-over-sexist-comments-4258057/video.

I am not surprised that TVNZ men need to take more time off than men, we have sport like the good football games and the US Open final day to watch.

Here are some thoughts for him. Perhaps men should be paid less because they think about sex every 7 seconds (supposedly), and so they must be less productive. Or perhaps men should be paid less because they can't multi-task, one of our sicknesses. We also have to play Virtual Rugby. We need to pee more often, because of our wonky prostates. I mean, come on. We have lower threshold for pain, so we need more time off. We have more heart disease, so we need more time off. The guy needs some serious sorting out.

As for women's periods being a 'sickness', far out! He sounds like he has been reading Leviticus.

If Paul Henry was essentially fired for his comments, how long does he now have? While I am not sure he should lose his job, I will be surprised if he is around long – watch the pressure on him grow.

The Income of Ralph Norris

2011-06-23T06:40:00.001+12:00

I heard on a news show the other day that Ralph Norris, the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank in Australia earns a tidy $22m NZ. I thought I would check out whether that is indeed the case, because I was stunned. And it most certainly is, this link telling us he is the best paid CEO in this region, getting $16m Aus a year (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/city-beat/cba-chief-executive-ralph-norris-sees-pay-packet-soar-to-162m/story-fn4xq4zx-1225925367015).

At one level we may think that this is an Australian issue, but it is not, as NZ banks are in the main owned overseas. So for example, the Australia New Zealand Bank (ANZ) owns the National Bank and the NZ ANZ, which are now merged. The National Australia Bank (NAB) owns the BNZ (Bank of NZ). According to Allan Bollard, now, 85% of NZ banks are owned by Australian banks (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/speeches/0155840.html). The Commonwealth Bank owns the ASB, where Emma and I do our banking. So, what the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank gets is an important issue, as he runs 'our' bank.

One can argue that the income is justified as that is the market. He is paid to ensure a profit and we benefit as bankers with his bank by the quality of his leadership. The bank will say, well he is worth it. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys, bla bla bla. Yeah right.

Perhaps I am naive, but it is an abomination and makes me feel sick. How on earth can a $22m income be justified for anyone? He leads an organisation that takes money from good hard working Kiwis and Aussies. These people get some return, but not a lot. And the boss creams off $22m. At the same time, the gap between the rich and poor grows. There are people all over Queensland, Victoria, and NZ suffering in the aftermath of the horror of natural events. There are good people working for the minimum wage in NZ of $13 and in Aus $15 and hour. Many of these people simply did not have the advantages that come with wealth and opportunity. Yet, a guy who runs a bank gets this – and from other people's money. Ridiculous!

What about Ralph taking a cool $1mill a year (that's plenty for anyone), and the rest distributed to those who invest in the bank. The banking system is a mess.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not picking on the guy personally, good on him. It is the system he is embedded in and serving that is screwed. I shouldn't pick him out as this is a problem all over our nation. In my view almost everything is overpriced. Call anyone to fix something in your house, it's a hundred bucks gone. Go the dentist, take out a mortgage. Buy petrol, make sure the credit card limit is massive. When someone is creaming this sort of level of income, it keeps forcing up all incomes, as 'that is the market.' How long can this go on?

Perhaps this is the real centre of the answer to the essential problem of the west. Jesus said you cannot serve God and money, our culture serves money. Amos would have had a few things to say about this I should think were he here. I think it will all come crashing down. It almost did a year or so ago. One can feel it coming, because this cannot go on.

A Guy Called Grant

2011-06-21T13:12:00.001+12:00

Just met a guy today. He came around our house to install a cat door for our new moggy, 'Squid'. He was a nice guy, got about his work. His name is Grant, about my age, European around 50. He asked me if I had the day off, I said I was working from home. He asked what I did, and I said I was a lecturer. He asked where I worked, I said Laidlaw, and he asked what we teach. I said, theology, bible stuff, and he said, 'ah, I know about that.' He then asked me whether the earthquakes in Christchurch were the tribulation. Then, as you can imagine, a most interesting conversation ensued.

His story is this. He grew up in a strong Christian home with a mum who was full on. He said that he grew up 'shit-scared' of God, who was a wrathful God, 'hell, fire, and brimstone.' He hated it. He mentioned his distaste for the story of Lot's wife and Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son (I mentioned that God didn't get him to follow through, but he still wasn't impressed – can't blame him). He talked of growing up living in fear of the rapture, of being 'left behind.' Clearly those preaching in his church were full on Dispensationalists, preaching that any moment, China, Russia and the world would converge on Jerusalem, and all hell would break loose. We talked about the end times, tribulations (I was pretty sober on this as you might expect), the nature of God, religion, Muslims (he really doesn't have much time for them), reincarnation (he likes it), and karma (he is into it). Every four word was the f-bomb (doesn't faze me as that was me and mates until I got saved – the odd one still slips out under pressure, don't tell anyone). I kept thinking, this is the sort of guy who Jesus would really love to hang out with – a kind of Peter bloke. He admitted a degree of faith, but complete disillusionment with Christianity. He now has a syncretistic personal faith in God, no heaven and hell, reincarnation, with Christianity as a short-cut. He was into the idea of the bible as written sometime around the 800's AD, so I told him gently about the dating of the NT and textual criticism. He was really interested and intrigued – not sure he quite believed me, but I think he thought I seemed to know something about what I was talking about (more fool him, lol).

So I thought, why not, and I asked him if he was a reader. He said he was, just read The Source by Mitchener, obviously he is into reading! So I said would you like a book I have recently written, and he said yes. So I gave him my book What's God Up To, and said he would read it and maybe give me a call and have a chat.

To me Grant is so typical of the Kiwi European. Grew up sort of familiar with the story, but with a distorted view of it, with a wrathful God who would return anytime soon and met out the punishment. Such a God turns him off, who can blame him? He hates religious zealotism (who doesn't), and his Mum's 'obsession' worries him.

Herein lies the challenge. How to connect with guys like Grant, and to hang out with him, and help him see that God is not so much about that, as he is about all of life, relationships, love, and hanging out with guys like him?

It is funny that this encounter happened when I am in the midst of a Facebook conversation about evangelicalism and the gospel. We have been discussing the need for a full gospel, but still with a call for conversion. Here is a guy who has heard a corrupted flawed imbalanced gospel and it now makes him so hard to reach. We have to think deeply about what the gospel is and share it and live it well!

I will pray for Grant, that when he reads the book, God opens his heart... Come Holy Spirit.

Abu Bashir and Shappelle Corby

2011-06-17T08:27:00.002+12:00

As is well known, in 2004, Shappelle Corby, a young Australian tourist, was arrested with 4.2kg of cannabis in her boogie board bag. She was sentenced in Bali to twenty years in Indonesian prison. She is due for release 12 April, 2024.

Today we hear that Abu Bashir, the Muslim cleric who was party to the Bali bombings has got 15 years for his role. In the Bali Bombings, 202 people were killed, including 88 Australians and 38 Indonesians. This involved bags too, a bombs in the pack of a suicide bomber and two others. Several people have been executed for their roles in the bombing.

Now forgive me is I am wrong, but there seems to be something rather wrong here. How is it that a young Australian woman at the bottom of the drug 'food chain' gets 20 years for her role, whereas one of the masterminds behind Islamic extremist terrorism gets 15 years? That is nonsense and a travesty of justice. Need I say more?

What’s God Up To On Planet Earth: Author Interview

2011-06-15T10:21:00.001+12:00

Listen here to a comprehensive interview on NZ's Radio Rhema with Mark J. Keown, author of the Book What's God Up To On Planet Earth: A No-Strings Attached Explanation of the Christian Message: http://www.rhema.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10083:one-2-one-chuck-missler-and-difficult-questions&catid=86:one-2-one&Itemid=430

The book explains the Christian message to unbelievers clearly and based around an easy to remember structure of five R's: Relationship, Rupture, Restoration, Return, and Response. It is also a very useful tool for discipleship of young Christians. For those who want to be better equipped for evangelism, it is a very helpful resource. It is not too heavy, but gives a compelling vision of what God is up to in this world.

The book can be purchased in NZ from Castle Publishing: http://www.castlepublishing.co.nz/whats-God-up-to-on-planet-earth.html. Or, you can request the book from a NZ Christian book shop like Manna.

The book can be purchased from Koorong in Australia: http://www.koorong.com.au/search/product/view.jhtml?code=9780986462108.

The book has just been published and about to be released in the US: (https://wipfandstock.com/store/What_Gods_Up_To_on_Planet_Earth_A_NoStringsAttached_Explanation_of_the_Christian_Message).

It can be purchased internationally from Amazon Books: http://www.amazon.com/Whats-God-Planet-Earth-explanation/dp/0986462101.

Happy Birthday Nina

2011-05-21T16:08:00.001+12:00

Today is not only the supposed end of the world, it is the commemoration of the death of my little sister Nina, who would have turned 40 today. I remember her vividly. She was born in Rarotonga this day, 40 years ago. She grew up in the Cooks and we returned home when she was around 5. I was 10 years older, the proud big brother. I remember looking after her, changing her nappies, baby sitting, reading books endlessly to her. She taught me to love in many ways. She went to Pigeon Mountain Primary, Bucklands Beach Intermediate, and McLeans College. She was not sporty, but she was bright. She was also beautiful. She went off to University and did zoology. She had a tough time, lost her way, and her life went downhill. She had an ectopic pregnancy after and was damaged permanently. This caused her to spiral downhill. She got into drinking. Ultimately, she died some 17 years ago from an alcohol binge sadly – aged 23. The 6 day period of her coma was horrendous, death is never good; it is horrid.

Thankfully in the year leading up to her death we reconnected as brother and sister. I was able to share Christ with her through a letter and in person. In hospital, before being put into a coma and life-support, she confessed faith Christ as Lord with me. I live in hope that she is with the Lord.

Today, I am sad, as you can imagine. Those of who have lost loved ones will know the emptiness, it fades, but is never filled. She was robbed of many years – sure, it was because of her own self-destructive behaviour, but she was a lovely woman who would have got through it and contributed greatly to the world. She reminds us that we need to take care of ourselves, watch that we don't allow us to spiral down with life's challenges, and turn to alcohol and drugs. There but for the grace of God go I if truth be known – on a number of occasions I did similar things in my youth.

It also tells us that, as in the parable of the workers in the vineyard, there is always hope. She is with the Lord and I look forward to our reunion – what a great and glorious day that will be.

For me I saw firsthand that day 17 years ago why the gospel is so important. Death is ours and God's final and most horrible enemy. Jesus came to deliver us from it. Thank God he has, for there is nothing that makes death lovely – I hate it. I will stand for life, will preach life, will believe for life – because Jesus has come and the resurrection of the death comes ever closer, made certain by the first-fruits Jesus, the first born from the dead. And life will win!

So, happy birthday Nina. I love you and miss you. I will never forget you. I can't pray to her, but God may you pass on my love – tell her she is never forgotten... until we meet again – stay gold!

May 21 the End of the World? Why you should enjoy the day and not worry, Part 3

2011-05-21T15:51:00.001+12:00

I have had yet another thought of the return. One of the things that I ponder on a regular basis when thinking of the Second Coming is the way in which the Jews of the time envisaged the first coming of Messiah. Anyone who has looked into it even to a cursory level knows that the Jews at the time were divided over what to expect. Some anticipated God's direct intervention with no Messiah involvement (e.g. Sadducees). Others expected two Messiahs (Qumran), a priestly and a political. Some envisaged a warrior Messiah (Zealots), a political Messiah (Pharisees), others more spiritual and apocalyptic. It is hard to be sure what dominated, there were multiple expectations.

It all came down to interpretation of interpretation of the texts of Judaism. When Jesus did turn up, most Jews didn't recognise him at all. Most saw him as a prophet at best (e.g. Mark 6, 8). When he didn't forge an alliance with the Jewish leaders and lead them in a revolt against Rome, but focussed on polemic against Israel's leaders and acts of grace and mercy rather than power signs to impress the Jewish elite, they didn't understand him at all. In fact they sought to kill him. By his death he was even rejected as Messiah by his followers. The only two who got it at the cross were a Roman soldier and a mercenary killed at his side. Take for example the travelling disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 who spoke of Jesus or Nazareth a prophet mighty in deed and power. Even in Acts 1:6 they were still anticipating him leading a revolt to restore the kingdom of Israel, they had no idea of the scope of what Jesus was about. They didn't see that a crucified Messiah was essential to save the world and show it how to live – if only we would! The idea of a crucified Messiah was a stumbling block to them, they didn't understand God's regent coming in weakness, suffering, and death. The truth is that it is only looking back over the Scriptures of the OT that we can see Jesus in its texts, especially the Servant Songs of Isaiah, 42, 49, 50 and particularly, 53 (cf. Ps 22). They had glimpses of the Messiah like his birthplace and Davidic descent, but they were in the main veiled, found scattered over their Scriptures hard to find and interpret. Now we can see how he fulfilled them looking back – nothing like the 20/20 vision of looking back.

So we come to the Second Coming. We have the sacred Scriptures of both testaments, and we seek to interpret them. We come up with a range of alternatives from pre-millennialism whereby Jesus returns before a thousand year period of rule on earth before the climax – or some unspecified time. Or we come up with a post-millennial construct with the current age moving positively to the point where God's kingdom reigns supreme. Or we adopt amilliennialism whereby this age is the millennium (figuratively) and Jesus returns at its end, and all comes to a climax. Then there is the tribulation; for pre-millenialists a seven year period of suffering which Jesus will return before (pre-trib), at its midpoint (mid-trib), or afterward (post-trib). For the first of these two trib positions, add the rapture based supposedly on 1 Thess 4; Matt 24; Rev 4, whereby Jesus returns and whisks his people to be with him, leaving carnage on earth. Then there are the signs, anti-Christs, the preaching of the gospel across all nations, earthquakes, wars, persecutions, false Messiahs, etc. We pour over the texts of both testaments and seek to work out a timetable. The truth is, that there is so much apocalyptic layering and uncertainty about which texts apply to what period if at all, that it is all like looking through a mirror dimly at best (1 Cor 13).

I suspect we in reality will be like the Jews at the time of Christ. We will look back after his coming, in whatever way and form, and we will see it all there. We will say, 'wow, I never saw that, never applied that, got that wrong.' What matters is that Jesus will come back and we are to be ready (cf. Matt 25). It seems on the one hand to be very surprising and unexpected, like a thief in the night (e.g. 1 Thess 5). On the other hand it will be glorious, the world will see, it will be climactic and mighty (e.g. 2 Thess 1). I think wisdom suggests not to get too locked into much more than, Jesus is returning. Sure, there are signs, and as I have written in Chapter Four of my short book What's God Up To, I think we can know some things about it on the basis of the signs, but in reality we need to hang lightly to these. I ponder whether I should have said as much as I did in that chapter, I would hate to mislead God's chosen.

What we mustn't do is what Harold Camping has done. He thinks he has it all sorted. Like others with an apocalyptic bent and arrogant confidence in their ability to interpret Scripture above others, he has it all sorted. There have been over a 100 predictions of the return of Christ in the last century alone. As my last post notes, even in 50AD it was expected and misreported. I urge all Christians everywhere to consider Israel at the time of Christ. The tragedy was that Israel, generally speaking, rejected Jesus because they misread the hopes. Let's not do the same.

May 21 the End of the World? Why you should enjoy the day and not worry, Part 2

2011-05-21T13:35:00.001+12:00

As I sat at the gym rowing a nice 15k, a passage came to mind from 2 Thess 2:1-11, it seemed kind of relevant. I thought I would quote it in full:

'Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,² not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. ³ Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, ⁴ who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. ⁵ Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? ⁶ And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. ⁷ For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. ⁸ And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. ⁹ The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, ¹⁰ and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ¹¹ Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, ¹² in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.'

This verse tells us a number of things, relevant to what is going on:

At the time of the writing of 2 Thessalonians around AD 50, some two decades after Christ, people were speculating on the return of Christ; specifically, that he has come already, or is about to come a la the predictions of today. The clause 'either by a spirit' suggests some were claiming prophetically to that effect i.e. claiming through the Spirit. Such claims are 2000 years old! Seems some might have been forging letters from Paul claiming so, interesting.
Paul's advice is not to be freaked out about it, 'shaken in mind, alarmed.' We shouldn't be either, not that I am. Not sure why I am wasting my time writing this actually. The truth is, I am stunned at the foolishness out there; that anyone would show the slightest degree of interest.
Paul states emphatically, don't be deceived in any way e.g. today! Sounds a good idea. Not that I am. You?
Paul talks of a massive rebellion, the revelation of some horrendous figure who will be the converse of everything Christ was and is; full of hubris, self-exalted, and who sees himself above all religious claims. Kind of an out-of-control Roman Emperor figure. This raises an interesting question. If indeed today is the day, then who has been this figure in the last years? Who is the anti-Christ, as if we accept this passage as true, he is alive and kicking and doing his thing right now (assuming today is the day)? Has anyone see the powerful signs and wonders from this figure? I must have missed something here.
It seems in v.8 Jesus will destroy this person at his appearance, with his breath – sounds like some serious Spiritual halitotis (joking). Sounds the converse of creation where God breathed on Adam, and at John's version of the Great Commission where Jesus breathed on the disciples sending them with the Spirit in John 20:21 i.e. destruction rather than life-giving breath. So then, who is this figure? Can't be Osama, he is deceased. Kind of doesn't leave many options as I see the world, Obama? John Key? Julia Gillard? Putin? Keown? Joking. As Jim Carrey might say in Ace Ventura, Reheally!

Funny how this Camping doesn't read these verses. That the problem, convenient threading together of texts to come up with 2+2=5. The truth is today is not the day of reckoning. It is 1.28pm as I write this – in 4 and a half hours all will be revealed.

May 21 the End of the World? Why you should enjoy the day and not worry

2011-05-21T10:41:00.001+12:00

So it's all over the news, even the secular media, the world is ending on May 21. Here I will give reasons why this is nonsense responding to the information behind the idea at http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/:

Jesus didn't even know the day or the hour. Despite his claims, we can't take this guy seriously! When he appeals to Dan 12:4, 9 it is nonsense, Jesus specifically taught we don't know when it will happen, and then gave a series of stories in Matt 25 to tell us to be ready on that basis – no one knows. There will be signs, but it will come as a thief in the night.
His method of working through to the end of the world is nonsense. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUSYbrXplk; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/may-21-2011-harold-campings-calculations-for-the-end-of-the-world/2011/05/18/AFja9b6G_blog.html. It is a form of Gnosticism, so common among Christians. They think they have the secret 'code' which gives them the gnosis ('knowledge'). It is nonsense because:
1. The chronology of the Bible is incomplete and you cannot build anything certain on it. So the date of creation (11,013 BC), date of the flood (4,990 BC) is gloriously humorous and flawed.
2. The specificity of dates is nonsense assuming certainty of the date of the birth of Jesus, 7BC. Who says? We are unsure, sometime 8-4BC likely. The date of Jesus' death is disputed by scholars, might be 33 AD April 1, but could be three years earlier.
3. The idea that 1988 is the end of the church age is even more ridiculous. What is the 'church age'? It is not even mentioned in the Bible. Why are people at church now then? That is, to put it bluntly, wack!
4. Quite why the tribulation has to be then and 23 years long is beyond me. Bizarre! Wonder if there are drugs involved.
5. The idea that 1994, Sept 7 is the end of the tribulation, I have no idea! What tribulation? I am not aware that things were worse in the period he mentions! Then the time of the latter rain began? What is this time, not mentioned in the Bible again. He talks of a great multitude of people being saved? Where? Asia, there has been many, Africa? Christianity continues to decline in the west. This is, as Paul might call it in Phil 3, skubalon.
6. The sequence of thought, 7 days (Gen 7:4)- 7,000 years - 'day is like a thousand years' (2 Pet 3:8) – certain numbers are divine – is abject futility. Who says the world is to last 7,000 years and that we should connect these ideas? Rubbish. On what basis does one connect these verses?
7. Not sure why the world has to end 13,023 years after creation. Sounds random at best.
8. I kind of think the world is a little older than this, even though my 6-day creationist friends will disagree.
9. The idea that Amos 3:7 should mean Harold Camping has the knowledge too, is fanciful.
10. I love that the ark was shut on the 17^th day of the second month of Noah's calendar – one can see the logic then of May 21... Tui Ad!
The whole rapture idea is bunkum in my view:
1. Matt 24 speaks not of believers taking off into the air, but the believers are the ones left behind as in the Flood analogy. None of the other texts give the impression of people leaving other behind.
2. It is likely that Jesus will return, the end will come, and we will live on in this world, and not be whisked away to heaven. The millennium ideas says this, if it is literal (and I am not convinced). Romans 8 says this. The visions of the prophets and Revelation speak of a world with nations and God living with humanity. Sounds like this one renewed to me.
3. Even it if is the way things will go, the dating stuff is classic.
4. The idea of a rolling rapture around the world at a set time is even more stupid – God help us and this man.

So the idea that May 21^st is Judgment Day with the rapture beginning ending a 23 year great tribulation is the most outrageous and non-biblical argument I have ever heard. As one of those biblical scholars who apparently does not have time to study the bible properly, and do not have the inside word, Harold Camping in my view will be proved to be a false teacher and so a dangerous man – people are taking it seriously and selling up etc. I hope to see him come on global television and repent when it doesn't happen. There is nothing to suggest that this is correct. Paul and Jesus warned of people like this man who would lead people astray.

IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, PLEASE RELAX, DON'T SELL UP, DON'T PUT YOUR PETS DOWN, DON'T GIVE YOUR MONEY AWAY, DON'T BE A FOOL! Talk tomorrow.

Please pray for Mindy and Amy

2011-05-21T10:13:00.001+12:00

I have been frustrated lately. Being a lecturer at a bible college, Laidlaw, and having a wife who is a pastor, can become a little inward looking (to say the least). I love my life but I am usually researching or talking with Christians. Not that I have a problem with Christians! They are my family! Trouble is, I love talking to unbelievers and have been really frustrated lately and have been praying about this issue – asking God to lead me to more opportunities.

Anywho, I went shopping today and met up with Amy again. Amy works in the local Foodtown, a lovely Chinese woman. I spoke to her on the day of the Sept Christchurch earthquake when I was shopping and talked about how Esther, our youngest, was in Kaiapoi at the time, right on the epicentre, in a rickety old scout cabin. I told her how thankful I was. She told me of a woman she knew down there. Just a non-descript but real human encounter on a day NZers were kind of at a loss. Anyhow, today I bumped into her again. I often do, and she will ask about Esther, and I will point her out, as she works next door. Enough on that. Well today, I saw her, and we chatted. I asked her whether she believed in God. She said she and her husband want to, but they have seen no evidence. We got talking and I suggested she pray that God reveals himself to her. I told her how I did that years ago and over about 6 months came to that place. I plan to take her a mandarin translation of a little piece of work I am working on which explains the Christian message. She also told me that her brother has liver cancer and I said I would pray for him, but that were no guarantees. We talked about the Chinese underground church and more. Anywhy, please pray! Pray for Amy that she will receive a revelation of God. Pray that God does a miracle for her brother. She is so open. Please join me.

Then I went through the checkout and hooked up with Mindy. She is a loud American, lovely as pie. We got talking about things and I asked her if she was a religious person. She said she was, 'us Americans are God-fearing people,' she said. She then told me that she was brought up a Jew and believed in God and prayed. I told her that I followed a Jew, and that we are not far apart. I told her I thought Jesus was Messiah, she was very open, not at all fazed. Anyway, she then asked me what I thought about the end of the world today, and I told her that even Jesus didn't know the day or the hour, so I don't think we need to worry. It was nice. I did tell her he was coming back soon. When I left I said Shalom, and she was beaming. Such a lovely woman. Anywhen, please pray for her. Ask God to pour into her heart deeper understanding and fill her with desire to follow him.

It all goes to show that if you pray, stuff happens. I was really encouraged. Last weekend I met an old Christian friend, a cop. He told me that he had been experimenting lately about prayer and evangelism. He has been testing out what happens when he prays and when he doesn't. He is finding that when he prays, opportunities open up, when he doesn't they don't. He is a bright guy, not some deluded nut, has a degree in law, his father is the head of post-grad study at Auckland Uni, mum has a masters, sister has a doctorate, pretty full on family. Goes to show that if you ask, he leads. Upshot is, I am going to pray hard for Mindy and Amy, take them something to read, and I am going to pray more for opportunities – come Holy Spirit.

A Karpotic Renewal: It is time

2011-05-18T07:13:00.001+12:00

A while ago I blogged on Philippians and suggested in the final paragraph that what is needed is a karpotic renewal (http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/2010/03/paul-philippians-being-real-man-being.html), let me elaborate.

In the 60's across the world, there was a renewal in the mainline churches in many parts of the world; what is commonly called the charismatic renewal. It involved the outpouring of the Spirit on mainline churches who, in many cases, lacked the spiritual vibrancy of the Pentecostal churches. People had fresh experiences of the Spirit. Many spoke in tongues. There were signs and wonders, and refreshed zeal for the gospel and life. In my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand (PCANZ), many churches experienced growth. Indeed, many of the stronger PCANZ churches in NZ even today, can trace their current strength to this wave that swept them.

Sadly, during this time, there were many churches that experienced division. Many saw the tongues and other manifestations as a cause for concern, and opposition was seen in many churches. This led to conflict and splits. One of the churches I had the privilege of ministering in experienced such a split many years earlier. The renewal began in the youth group away on a camp. The young people came home full of the Spirit and zeal, but met opposition to their experience, and the leadership moved to quench it. Sadly, on one fateful Sunday evening, the whole group left, going to a large Pentecostal Church up the road. This affected the church for many years. Such stories were not uncommon.

This wave of the Spirit was linked to a time of renewal of worship, with the church moving into contemporary worship forms. There was great interest in charismata, the gifts of the Spirit. It was an interesting and exciting time.

I got serious about Christianity in the mid -1980's and started attending a large east Auckland Presbyterian Church. Without doubt this church was still in that wave, with evening services full of glorious freedom, prayer, healings, the word preached, and many people doing great work for God. The morning services too, while perhaps less vibrant, were wonderful enthusiastic family gatherings. This church was still riding the wave of the renewal.

Now, some 25 years later, it is fair to say that this wave has now gone. It has washed out. Some churches continue to worship in the same way, yearning for another fresh outpouring. The songs are still sung, but there is not the same sense of refreshment and zing. Indeed some would say that it is over, and it is time for new forms to grow. Some see the emerging and emergent church in this light.

I have pondered this whole phenomenon and consider that it is time for a new move of the Spirit to refresh the church. However, perhaps this time what is needed is not so much an outpouring of the Spirit bringing gifts released (which would still be great), but an outpouring of the Spirit bringing to bear the fruit of the Spirit. The Greek for 'fruit' is karpos; so I call this a karpotic renewal.

Why do I think this?

Well, it seems to me that if Christianity is to be taken seriously again in the west, it needs to be seen and experienced. While miracles are great, what people need to see is the deepest power of the gospel, love. Western people don't take us seriously in many instances, and why would they? They hear on the news of the failures of Christian leaders. We remain divided between denominations. We preach morality to the world, but are no better. We share the gospel, but they are not impressed as they see our hypocrisy. They have heard the words, they need to see the deeds. What is needed is that Holy Spirit falling afresh upon us, and yes, pouring out a new wave of enthusiasm, gifts, miracles and conversion power; but more, the power for us to love and serve. Indeed, everything we do should come from love.

What is needed first is for churches to experience the power of God to remove divisive behaviour, envy, quarrelling, power-domination, guilt and fear; and see it replaced by a love, service, humility, grace, mercy and kindness – the things we read of in Gal 5:22-24 and other places (cf. Phil 2; 1 Cor 13 etc). We need whole denominations to move past debate over issues and doctrine, to working together for the gospel in love and service. We need the breakdown of division between the many churches into which the church has now fragmented. We need to move to a time where the strong churches help the weak, that all are strong. We need to discover our call to serve the world, to wash its feet, to minister at its point of need, to love, to serve, to care, to be God's hands and feet to the world. What is needed in every community is individual Christians, collectives, families, whole churches, and churches together in unity, working together to bring God's transformation to his world. Jesus said, 'by this all people will know that you are my disciples, that you are divided.' No! 'That you love one another.' Paul wrote that 'the greatest of these is love.' It is even greater and 'faith', and for Paul, it is faith that saves. The two Great Commandments are 'love God with everything you have got' (paraphrase), and 'love your neighbour as you long to be loved' (another paraphrase).

Yes, we need a karpotic revival!

Dear God, I pray on behalf of your people in NZ and indeed, the whole world. You visited us in the 20^th century with a wonderful wave of your Spirit. It brought the rise of the Pentecostal Church, hallelujah. It brought the renewal of many your beloved churches across the world in the charismatic renewal. Lord, we need you again. Forgive us for our 'fruitlessness.' Forgive us for our division. Forgive us that when your Spirit came afresh, we fought over it, and in some cases divided. Forgive us for moralising. Forgive us for our envy, rivalry, power-domination, for believing that charisma is more important than character. Forgive us our legalism, and our licentiousness. Father, pour out your Spirit with a new wave that generates love and the fruit of the Spirit. Fill us with fruit. May that fruit lead us to go out among the lost and serve them, sharing the gospel out of love, and doing wonderful works of service to see every heart and every part of your world restored. Heal the tree that is your church, remove the blight that is rotting us, and restore us. Come Holy Spirit, Come. We need it, for we are divided and broken. We need it, because the world too much sees our hypocrisy and division, and not our love and service. As you pour out your Spirit, may your people weep as they find a new unity, may you bind us together in wonderful harmony, and take up the gospel afresh. May we share it out of love so that the world will see and know that there is a God who loves them.

Bring a karpotic revival.

Amen.

An Idea: What if The Strong Helped the Weak?

2011-05-18T06:42:00.001+12:00

An Article Published in Challenge Weekly in May 2011

I had an idea the other day, and thought I would share it with you. Recently a friend of mine who attends a very large Auckland church shared with me that the church was full of musicians. I asked them whether they were involved in the worship teams of the church. She responded that they weren't; rather, these musicians preferred to get in, enjoy the service, and shoot through, without getting involved. This got me thinking.

In Auckland (and other contexts) there are many churches. Most have a terrible problem with getting musicians together to do a decent job of their worship. Some even use backing tracks as they can't get together a team. Some have musicians that can't handle the changing music forms of today. On the other hand there are big churches with multiple worship teams, musicians and leaders. Here's my idea. How would it look if these big churches made the active choice not to hold onto all these people but to actively send some of them out to these other churches (regardless of denomination) to give leadership to their music? Of course, we could apply this principle to other ministries, like youth and children. We could even do it with money, with wealthier churches giving to the poorer, but that is much more complex.

The natural instinct for big churches would be to do so on the condition that they can control these churches. Let me humbly suggest that the gospel we uphold is not about sending people on condition of control; rather, we send them unconditionally to serve.

How might it look if a senior pastor got up one Sunday and said something like this: 'I know we are overstocked with musicians, children's leaders, and youth leaders (etc).' We have realised we don't want you all here, we are over-resourced. So, I am asking many of you to leave today. Go! Serve in the struggling churches in our area.'

I suppose it comes down to whether the Christian faith is stronger with a few big churches and a whole lot of little ones who are struggling and closing, or with a whole lot of vibrant churches scattered across the city, all reaching their communities with life and vibrancy. Maybe I am wrong, but I kind of think the latter would be better.

Of course, sometimes this idea won't work, because some of the churches have lost the plot completely, and the newbies wouldn't be allowed freedom to express themselves. But let me tell you there are heaps of churches in Auckland and no doubt elsewhere, where leaders would give their right arms to have more to help in worship, youth, children's, and other ministries.

So how about it? Is it time for senior leaders or even the worshipers themselves to make give it a go? Or is this naive idealism? Go deeper.

Additional Note:

Since I published this column, I received from a pastor this (details removed for anonymity):

Hi Mark

I was fascinated, and somewhat amused, to read your recent missive in the Challenge Weekly titled Just an Idea.

I am the pastor of one of those small but growing churches you describe (detail removed) but who struggle to get decent musicians. So we have no option but to use backing CD's. And while it's quite nice to have Hillsong, Chris Tomlin and the like singing in our service each week, it's not the same as the real thing.

And so it was that I wrote, cap in hand, to the senior pastor of a very large (detail removed) church, asking if we could possibly have one or two musicians who couldn't quite get in to their A, B or C worship teams. I suggested it could be considered a mission opportunity, we only wanted them for twelve months and we were prepared to pay travel expenses.

Not getting a reply to my first letter I requested the courtesy of a reply which I did receive. Sadly, it appears this church apparently has problems getting musicians and therefore couldn't possibly help us out!

My response is best summed up, though not particularly gracious, with the words appearing on an advertising billboard ... – "Yeah, right!" (That billboard is not too far away from one advertising the said church).

Thanks for the article (detail removed).

What a brilliant and sad illustration of the need. Christianity is about the strong helping the weak, so that together, we can work to bring God's message to the world. I am deeply saddened by this. I pray and hope for a change to come over the Church in this nation so that the strong recognise their call to help the weak, so that all can be strong, amen.

The Breakfast Beer

2011-05-13T08:07:00.000+12:00

A couple of blog posts ago, I mentioned the Double Burger, and how stupid it was to make such a song and dance about it (http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/2011/05/double-burger.html). All that achieves is that people will go out and try it. On Breakfast (TV1) this morning, there was a discussion of the breakfast beer, something also mentioned in the Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10716825. People are up at arms that there is a beer being marketed for breakfast, which will supposedly cause people to drink more, in an already out of control binge drinking culture. Well, without doubt we have a huge problem with alcohol binging. Twenty people die a week, and innumerable people are victims of alcohol induced violence and accidents. My own family was struck by this a few years ago, when a very close relative died of alcohol poisoning. So, yes, at the one level the breakfast beer is bad news.

But again, the naysayers are wrong to make a big issue of it. If television and the Herald had not brought our attention to it, would anyone know that it existed, apart from those who noticed it through advertising. Someone needs to go out to these sorts of food, alcohol and drug police and give them a lesson, don't make an issue of something and it may not have much effect. I have always thought this of sex education at a young age. I remember hearing of students putting condoms on carrots in sex education classes and thinking, I bet half of the kids had never thought of doing that, and didn't know much about sex. But the education opened them up to a whole range of possibilities. I suspect such sex education, especially at an early teen age had the effect of making a number of kids more sexually active. Such things can be counter-productive.

I also came into contact with this in a short stint as a stand-in chaplain at St Kentigerns College a few years ago. At the time there was an epidemic of teenage suicides on both sides of the Tasman. I attended a conference at which the experts in Aussie had seen a reduction in suicides by a change of policy concerning reporting and responding to a suicide. They shifted from publicizing it, putting up memorials, and making an issue of them. They simply did not make a fuss, a quiet funeral, and no real 'celebration' of it. This was leading at the time to big reduction in teen suicide. The point is similar, make a fuss of something, and it will serve to enhance its appeal.

There is a fine art here isn't there. Agencies whose function is to seek to reduce alcohol abuse or obesity need to think very very carefully about what and how they respond to something. In an age where the media are looking for a good story, they can inadvertently be the cause of increasing what they seek to reduce. Clearly in the case of the double burger, and the breakfast beer, if they had said nothing, these products would remain far less known. As it is, I can imagine a whole swag of people going out and getting some of the beer to celebrate breakfast tomorrow.

It was interesting hearing the argument. The argument for the beer was effectively to challenge its difference to a breakfast champagne etc. And yes, what is the difference? As for me, the last thing I want is beer for breakfast – yuck.

Hone, Don, Kiwi-Saver: Politics Is Getting Exciting Again

2011-05-12T07:35:00.001+12:00

A few weeks ago the election looked like a done deal. The National juggernaut was rolling on, John Key seemed impregnable, labour was in disarray, they would smash Labour and the left. Then Dad's Army conscripts Dr Don Brash, Hone sets up a new party, and national start to do some things that are likely to shift some voters toward labour. Suddenly Labour is back in the game. Without doubt, Act will do better under Don B. He is a better option than Rodney H, and will get back some of Act's traditional supporters, and will draw some new ones; people who are freaked out at NZ's borrowing, who want to reduce the welfare state, want to reduce any favour to Maori, and so on. Don B might also drive a few toward Labour, as people want to avoid any govt with him in it. It also gives Labour a message. Most of its message looked silly because half of what they want to criticise, they set up! Now, they can just tell the world, a vote for National, is a vote for Don B – and vice versa.

Then there is our friend Hone. He is a warrior, and is out of place in politics. He should be leading a rebellion. He is trying to morph himself into a politician, but has both barrels of his guns pointed at his feet, constantly messing up. He is kind of cool in a weird way. Take the bi-election. What a publicity nightmare. It will get him in and more money for the election, but the disaffected numbers will grow. He has also split the Maori vote, and now Labour can come through the middle. Having said that, the fight for the Maori seats will be intense with the three parties going at it tongs and hammer. Again, Labour may well benefit.

Then there are the proposed changes to Kiwi-saver and Working for Families. This will annoy some on the left, and will swing some to Labour.

Suddenly it seems to me that Labour have a window of opportunity. The window is only letting in a sliver of light however, they are still up against it. I think they have a chance now, but likely they won't get there.

Personally I think National should leave Kiwi-saver alone, it is a great idea.

Anywho, politics is getting exciting. I can't wait for the two big sports events of the year, the Rugby World Cup, and the Election. Who to vote for, that is the question? Well, I am in John Key's electorate, so I either vote for him or throw a vote in the loo. As for the party vote, let's see how it pans out.

One thing I will say to Christian voters is that we have to get past voting on 'charisma' and 'appeal;' if we do that John K will romp in. No, we need to get past that shallow nonsense, and we should vote for the party that we believe reflects best the values of the Kingdom.

The Double Burger

2011-05-12T07:20:00.001+12:00

If you don't like the KFC double-burger, and you want it banned, and you go to the media to tell the world, you are dumb. In the history of the world, has there ever been a better publicity program for something. Those who hate the burger have inadvertently employed the media to promote it better than one could imagine. Were I KFC, I would be laughing all the way to the bank. Cracks me up to be honest. The Greek word idiotēs comes to mind. The thing is, that the burger is not any worse from you than some others on the market. Then there is the news today that it is superior for diabetics because it does not have the sugar. Mind you, that is a double-edged sword, as many diabetics (type 2) are in this position because of obesity – so they should partake in something else. The food-police have been given a good spanking on this one. I am planning to head over the local KFC for lunch today to check it out, want to know what all the fuss is about.

Rob Bell and Love Wins: Does it really preserve freedom?

2011-04-28T09:39:00.000+12:00

I am indebted to Aaron Ironside of Radio Rhema who inspired this idea about RB's book this morning, after we had conversed on the show about the book. Aaron spoke of how it would work, if people stood before Christ at his return, and then were sent to destruction, and then had the choice of getting out. Aaron made the excellent point that they would of course want to get out, having met Jesus and wanting out of the horror of the hell (whatever it looks like). I thought it was a very interesting point.

I thought about it a bit more and want to push the idea further. As RB affirms in his book, and I agree in my book What's God Up To (Chapters 1-3), the gospel involves the idea of volition (I prefer this word as there is no such thing as freedom in a sense). That is, God gives 'freedom' to humanity to respond to his desire for relationship. This is an essential component of genuine love, as encapsulated in the old saying, if you love something, Set it free... If it comes back, it's yours, If it doesn't, it never was yours...'

Now one of the key elements of this is that God in a sense veils himself in his works. Creation for example, cries out for a designer, but this is veiled i.e. is it a God or some other thing? Is it the Christian God? What is the power behind the design? That is why we can't reason to the Christian God through creation alone. We can argue God is reasonable, and perhaps the best option, but cannot conclusively prove him. God also sent Jesus, who functioned in a manner avoiding over-riding human volition. Indeed, many of the Jews expected a Messiah who would do just that, enforce his reign over all the earth with power supernatural, political, and military.

Rather, Jesus did miracles based on compassion, love and need, yet refused to do the ones demanded by those who were checking out whether he was really the one they looked for. Jesus refused to take control by coercive force, but invited people to follow him through works of love and mercy, and of a vision of a new world under his reign and marked by love and not human expectations of power. He taught in parables, pithy simple double-barrelled stories which invite people in to consider what he was saying, they resulted in his rejection. Jesus preferred to be crucified to save the world through sacrifice and love, rather than impose himself to force people to bow to him. He rose from the dead, vindicated by God for his flawless service. He was not seen by the powers of the world, he avoided Rome before and after the resurrection. Aside from theological debates with Jewish religious leaders, he generally clashes with political powers. He did not appear to the power holders of the world after he rose. Jesus came in a veiled way.

Now he works in the world through his people. He has placed his Spirit in them, commissioned them to work on his behalf, and sent them out to share that there is a God, a creator, that he is controlling history to a climax, that Jesus Christ is saviour and Lord, and that his reign is being established. They invite people into this reign with the promise of eternal life for those who say yes. This is God's dream, that they will. However, God will not impose by force. That is why humans hear the message and some are convinced, others are not. They are free to receive it, or reject it, yet there are consequences for both. The whole gospel story is carefully framed by God to preserve that volition, so that people come to God willingly and without coercion i.e. drawn by love.

Sadly, followers of Jesus distort this, often resorting to preaching fear of judgment as a means of coercing people into 'belief.' Or they ally with political force, and Christianity is not given freely, it comes with political power. Sometimes parents impose it on their children rather than present it to them, and allow them to find their own faith as they hear the message and its appeal for volitional response.

The principle of volition demands that God does not impose himself and override ambiguity in a sense. He comes and presents himself through his works, through Jesus in his life and ministry and his death and resurrection, through his people and the gospel. His people are ambiguous too, and admixture of good works for which the world is grateful, along with horrendous errors and sin. We are a part of this veiling.

He invites us to join him and the path is through faith in Jesus who died for us to save us. He does not coerce us.

Now RB's construct of the consummation in my view, violates this. I presume he agrees that Jesus will return to his world, and there will be a time of reckoning i.e. judgment day. (Or will people just find themselves there one day????) At this point, all will be judged on their lives. Those with a yes-trust-relationship with God, based on their volitional response, will receive eternal life. Those who have rejected this free offer of relationship are granted what they desire, separation from him. They end up in 'hell'. (By the way RB never defines this, wonder what it looks like for him).

Now at this point the ambiguity and veiling of God in our world and in Christ will be removed. God will be unambiguous. Jesus Christ will be Lord, the whole world will have seen him, seeing his return, and facing his judgment. Further, the person who is separated from God will be in a place of eternal separation. It can't be annihilation, as RB presupposes a second chance. I ponder whether this will be separation from everything that is 'God' i.e. no relationships, no glorious created order, no God i.e. solitary confinement. Who knows? The point is, that this person will now no longer have any doubt about God, the gospel, Jesus and eternal destruction. They will know without a shadow of doubt the truth. There will be no veiling. Their freedom will remain in the sense that they can opt out, but is this genuine freedom? Won't they feel coerced with a no-brainer option; stay in this eternal isolation without the joys that God has formed for humanity, or leave freely. This is not a choice.

Unless they are the ultimate sado masochist, they will be terrified of remaining their forever. They will of course opt out.

I ask then, is this, as RB says, God's love melting the human heart? I don't think so. Or is this a full awareness and fear. Is this not effectively coercion? It is now different from Christians preaching hell, now they know there is one! They are in it. They are effectively not being melted by love, but driven by fear. Is this freedom?

The other views of hell held by contemporary Christians whether literal burning, figurative burning i.e. eternal separation, and annihilation all preserve freedom because after the point of 'knowing' and not 'believing' volition ends, the choice is made.

The question is then; does RB's theology really preserve the 'freedom' he espouses?

Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Response

2011-04-25T08:47:00.002+12:00

I have just read through Love Wins by Rob Bell (RB). For the uninitiated, this book has created a storm of controversy in the US over its universalistic gospel. Rather than giving a complete breakdown of the book with its strengths and weaknesses, here a few responses.
First, good for RB for asking the question about the universality of salvation. There are a range of questions in it like: If God is love, will his love not melt the heart of even the worst of all sinners ultimately? Is death the end of all chances – is there further hope for the lost after death? There is nothing wrong with asking the question and stimulating debate. These are good questions that we must continue to ponder.
Secondly, Rob can really write. The book is compelling and seductive. I enjoyed it and felt myself drawn in by the compelling picture of God, love, life, hope and eternity. Rob has a poetic edge; he is easy to read – pleasing to today's reader who, in the main, does not want complexity.
Thirdly, there is much I can affirm. I agree that love is fundamental to God's character. I agree with RB that eternity is not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new restored world. I agree with him that some presentations of the gospel give a picture of a harsh judging God and that the idea of an eternal hell of pain is tough to take in some ways. I agree with his theology of 'freedom' (don't like the word) in salvation i.e. we choose our eternal destiny, by responding to God's initiative in Christ. I also affirm that the world is to be drawn to God by preaching a gospel based on the love of God, and not on fear and guilt – although that is an unavoidable part of the story.
Fourthly, having said all this, I have to part from Rob at a number of points. Before I begin, let me state that this is not a condemnation of Rob Bell and his ministry; it is not my place to do so. I am discussing the ideas in the book. Here are some of the things I take issue at:

While God is love, he is more than love, or better his love is more than what we today think it is; he is also good and just. God's utter goodness and vision for a creation free from evil and corruption means he will act decisively at a certain point of his choice, when his purposes are complete – the end of the age. He will remove anti-good, acting in justice, out of love. To me, this will occur when the gospel has penetrated his world so that it is known through every nation (Mark 13:10; Matt 14:14). At that point, Jesus will return, he will judge all humanity, and eternal destinies decided. Our eternal state is decided on the basis of relational faith in God i.e. where those who have said 'yes' to God, have bowed the knee willingly, there will be eternal life. RB then, to me, misunderstands and overstates love. God is love, true. But he is equally 'good' and as such, evil and corruption violates his very being and must be dealt with. Because of love he is withholding acting to destroy evil. He could have done so at the first, extinguishing evil at the moment of Adam and Eve's sin. Rather, he allowed humanity out of grace to live on. But the day of reckoning is coming. Love demands justice. We know this, because our hearts yearn for God to act to end suffering and injustice. When we see a crime, our hearts cry for justice. God is gathering a people in history, and out of love for those people, he will ultimately act. His grace is seen in that he has not done so yet, but the day is coming.

While it is a nice thought, there is no indication in the Scriptures in a second chance after death. That is why the Protestant Church, in the main, has never gone there. Rather, we are given the gift of one life, we die and face judgment. This is most clearly put in Heb 9:27: 'and just as itis appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.' It is also implied in many other references to judgment such as the Sheep and Goats (e.g. Matt 12:36-37; 25:31-46; Rom 2:5-16; 14:11-12; 2 Cor 5:10) etc. The notion of eternal judgment is considered by the writer of Hebrews as an 'elementary teaching' (Heb 6:2), a judgment which is harsh (Heb 10:27). RB following others in the 'Christian universalism' or 'evangelical universalism' stream, in essence brings back purgatory, whereby we can get out of eternal destruction if we turn from our resistance. This is not quite the Roman Catholic purgatory where prayers to Jesus, Mary and the Saints can assist a person's release, but it is a variation on the theme. We can get out when we yield to God willingly, presumably having heard the message again in some way??? Aside from reading several texts like 1 Cor 15:29 and 2 Macc 12:43-47 for support, the thrust of the NT story is that we live, we die, we face judgment, and we receive our due from God.
RB's interpretation of the Greek aiōnos is problematic and perhaps the major problem with the book for me. He seems to think 'eternal destruction' does not necessarily imply 'forever' or 'everlasting' but speaks qualitatively, and where attached to punishment or destruction is merely literary, rhetorical warning device, and the possibility of getting out remains. The problem is that a search of the meaning of aiōnos in the Greek OT LXX and the NT shows that, while on occasion it does have the sense of the ages or a long time, it does mean 'forever' a lot of the time. The covenant is a forever covenant (e.g. Gen 9:12; 17:7), God is a forever God (e.g. Gen 21:23; Exod 3:15), eternal life is a forever life (Dan 12:2-3; Matt 19:23; John 3:16; Rom 6:23 etc). These do not merely state that it is a covenant for the ages (it continues in Christ), that God is a great God for ages, that eternal life is great and for a limited time. They are 'forever' concepts. Dan 12:2-3 is a critical text in later apocalyptic and NT texts on eternal life and destruction, it picked up through the narrative to speak of the two fates of humanity. These references to 'eternal' all then speak of 'forever' covenant (Mosaic – Davidic – Christ), a 'forever God' etc i.e. for all of time (whether this age, or the age to come). Is it legitimate then to isolate the 'eternal punishment' verses and give eternal a different meaning, especially when we find eternal life and punishment/destruction in the same text (e.g. Sheep and Goats). Indeed, if we live on a restored earth in continuity with this one as RB says in chapter 2, then this history I presume continues this one and is then necessarily temporal, and so involves 'everlasting' and 'forever.' His own theology betrays him at this point. If then 'eternal life' is 'forever life' (as well as glorious life), then why not destruction/punishment? I wonder whether you can have it both ways – eternal life is forever life without the possibility again of hell and suffering; yet, eternal destruction is not forever, and we can get out of jail anytime we like, by saying yes. Does it mean we can get out of eternal life in the same way or are we transformed so that the possibility and desire is completely gone? I note that there is no tree of knowledge of good and evil referenced in the NT picture of eternity, there are only trees of life.
RB takes the idea of warnings in the Gospel and sees as merely rhetorical devices to make a point. He also at times appears to limit them to the Fall of Jerusalem. Both ideas are flawed. Careful reading of the Olivet Discourse in all three Gospels (Mark 13; Matt 24; Luke 21) indicates that more than the fall of Jerusalem are in mind –despite the likes of Wright. This is particularly clear in Matthew, where Matthew takes Mark's account and reshapes it to make it clear that the 'end of the age' is in mind. Matthew then adds four passages which refer to being ready for the eschaton including the Sheep and the Goats. These are not about being ready for the fall of Jerusalem. To argue that Jesus' teaching is merely rhetorical and literary and to be taken seriously requires careful thought. As noted elsewhere in this post, Jesus' teaching on hell, eternal destruction and punishment and failure to enter life fall amidst a whole range of teaching and parabolic material. It is a flawed and assumptive hermeneutic to take out these bits as rhetorical and not other teaching on things like love, forgiveness etc. While we do have to take care with parables and theology, the parables are theological and do contribute to theology.
RB seems to see the idea of some experiencing eternal destruction in the traditional sense as a problem for God; that God does not win in that 'story', that for him to win, all must be saved. I can't agree with this. God will win no matter how many are saved. Indeed, he has won in history, he won on the cross, with his Son taking all that evil could throw at him and rising as Christus Victor – evil is now collateral damage in his wake. Despite evil continuing to exist (because of God's grace to give freedom illumination, to refine his people, to allow time for all humanity receive salvation), his reign cannot be threatened, for his power is absolute. It never could be actually, God is always the winner because God is God. Further, there is no a priori need for all to be saved for God to win. God seeks to win human hearts through love, goodness and justice. He woos us. He invites us. He has done it all for us in Christ. He wants us. He has won in that he has been true to his love, goodness, and justice and so love wins. Yet, he has also gifted us in our image bearing and the Spirit the capacity to say 'yes' or 'no' to his invitation to live forever in and with him. Where we say 'yes,' we are won to Christ and are gifted eternal life. Where we don't, a time of reckoning is coming where all evil is extinguished and God 'wins' (he has won whatever happens) by removing from his universe all corruption. For God to win does not require all to be saved. What our winning God is doing is placing all enemies under his feet either through voluntary submission, or if need be, through God's action.
RB has an interesting and inconsistent way of interpreting the parables. Where a parable has descriptions of references to hell and destruction he sees it as a literary device not to be taken too seriously but to make the point, we need to live better (e.g. The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Sheep and Goats). But where there is the theme of love, we take it literally as a guide to life. Is this consistent? Can we say that references to love are also figurative, not to be taken literally? I think RB is effectively laying his own interpretative grid on Scripture with a preconceived notion of the story, and accommodating the texts he finds difficult to the metanarrative. This is a common problem, and something we all struggle with (see http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/2007/10/macro-narrative-and-text-hermeneutics.html). The problem for RB, is that his metastory obscures what is a common thread through the NT, those who do not accept Christ will be separated from him eternally – it is found in Jesus, Luke, Paul, Hebrews, Peter, Jude, and Revelation. When something is so etched into the story, can we simply submerge it? This is one of the dangers of contemporary biblical interpretation. We are moving out of an error where people were overly focussed on individual texts, micro-detail, at the expense of the big story, the narrative, the trajectories of the whole story. We are now focussing on the metanarrative, seeing the trends and threads and trajectories of Scripture. That is good. But pushed too far, what RB has done is an example of what happens. We end up distorting the metastory with a metanarrative that does not align with the text! This is the problem in many theological constructs such as hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, even what is considered blatant heresy such as Jehovah Witness readings, etc. While it is good to study trajectories and the metastory, we must not get to the point where close analysis of the detail of the story reveal that the attempt to summarise has in fact left us with another account. We need to hold the meta-reading of Scripture in tension with deep detailed reading of the text and allow a hermeneutical spiral which works between the two to continually form our constructs. Our constructs must be loose and adaptive as we discover new elements in detail and/or the metastory. RB has now settled, and like many great thinkers, he has settled in a flawed space.
RB makes a critical error when he does not look at Paul's use of 'destruction' language (esp. apōleia, apollumi). Paul uses this language frequently of 'destruction', often in parallel with 'being saved' (e.g. Phil 1:28; 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15). These texts speak of those who are sinners and reject Christ ('in Adam'), perishing eternally. In contrast, believers are 'being saved.' Paul is unequivocal on this. The clearest statement is 2 Thess 1:5-10 where Paul speaks unambiguously of Jesus' return with his angels, where those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ 'will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.' This text and others speak not of a post-mortem hope, but of God executing his justice at his appointed time. The time is Christ's return. At that point, the dead will rise and there will be a judgment. RB's failure to deal with Paul is critical. It enables him to paint the picture more positively than the Scriptures really allow. For Paul, humanity outside of Christ is 'in Adam', in and under sin, and destined for eternal destruction unless saved. God acted in Christ to provide the hilastērion (propitiation, mercy seat, expiation, atoning sacrifice) for sin (Rom 3:25) whereby sin, death and wrath are dealt with in Christ. The path to salvation is faith which is reckoned as righteousness. Where the gospel is preached, it is response to Jesus that takes a person out of that state to be 'in Christ.' Where the gospel has not been preached, Abraham is our hope, his faith in God reckoned to him as righteousness. When we die, we are 'lost' in sin – there is no sense of another hope. This inability to deal with Paul is a major flaw in RB's book.
RB rightly asks questions about the common Christian construct of eternal destruction. He asks about babies and others who die without hearing the gospel, he asks about the nature of eternal destruction. Where he falls short to me is that he seeks to resolve these with universalism. There are other places an evangelical can go to have possible answers. There are the stories of Melchizedek and Abraham whose faith is reckoned as righteousness but never heard of Jesus. This opens up a range of possibilities. There is the grace of God who can be trusted to deal with the problem of the child with grace. There is the possibility of conditional mortality whereby those who are in a trust-relationship with are raised to life, but those who reject God simply do not rise or are annihilated. These constructs can work in the Scriptures. I don't quite see why RB and other evangelical universalists feel a need to go to universalism when the New Testament clearly supports that some will be separated from God eternally. Why not work with what is written rather than create a construct which violates what is written? It reveals a detachment from Scripture as first priority in theological decision making toward philosophical speculation and the imposition of reason on the text.
RB seems to me to play down the problem of evil and suffering – he does what many westerners today are doing with the text, deapocalyptising it i.e. playing down the nasty and supernatural bits. There is little in RB's picture of the call to take up the cross and suffer for Christ. Christianity is about enjoyment. That is critical, but it is joy in the midst of suffering, especially in the theology of Paul (e.g. Philippians with 16 references to joy as he waxes lyrical about the suffering of Christ, Epaphroditus, himself, and the Philippians). The world in the Biblical story is a glorious place, but it is terribly flawed as are its people. It is thus a dangerous world. There are spiritual forces seeking to destroy. There are people who want to assume control and do all they can to gain it. Our God acts in this world, and we live in it. The story RB paints lacks the apocalyptic nuance of the real world, although it might reflect the nice cushy world of the west. As such, the picture of the consummation painted is soft, as if love will conquer all. Yes it will, but not voluntarily in many cases. There are forces at work which refuse to yield, and must be 'put under his feet' (Ps 110:1). I complete this on ANZAC day remembering Gallipoli and other conflicts where lunatics have sought to take the world, and huge wars with massive death tolls have occurred. The world is full of such conflict. The book reads like a westerner writing in a nice soft western context without the ruthless suffering and evil of much of the history of God's world. It is a sweet picture. Above all, the cross is placed in the middle of this. We see it all there, evil doing its worst, human depravity in deceit, violence, hubris, hate and power, human incomprehension of what God is really about. Since the cross it goes on. Look at the Middle East today, etc. We are in a dangerous world full of pain, suffering and hate. The picture painted in the book is soft and almost sentimental. Life, God and faith are more robust than this.
RB gets a little confused on salvation. He doesn't like the language of 'entry' into salvation. The problem for him is that Jesus did, and spoke of it frequently (e.g. Matt 5:20; 7:13, 21; 18:8, 9; 19:7, 23-24; 23:12). Humanity needs to enter God's reign, it is not automatic. We are outside God's reign unless we yield, the other NT writers agree. RB rightly notes the diverse answers Jesus gives to questions of entry into salvation. What he does not then do is go through the rest of the NT and show that there is a consistency in the post-resurrection preaching and writing of the church on this question of how to enter. As we do we find two key words, repent and believe. Repent is not always mentioned and 'believe' implies a turning from false beliefs. But the picture is consistent, one turns from sin and false allegiances, and believe in Jesus to be saved. Faith is relational, it is assent (saying yes), submission (coming under his lordship), and trust. The picture is clear in the NT. Jesus in his pre-crucifixion ministry was drawing people away from Torah, boundary markers, covenant presumption, works and self-reliance to himself! This is why his answers are fluid; they are not so to confuse us in terms of salvation. Once Jesus died and rose from the dead, the answer became clear – Jesus is the pathway to salvation. He has done it all, he has fulfilled the law, he is the sinless one, he refused to yield, he completed the work, he has taken the judgment of God on himself on our behalf, he has conquered death, he is the first fruits of the new creation and humanity – he has completed all that needed to be done. All that is required is faith – indeed RB uses this term himself often, trust. We assent to what Jesus, and come under his lordship and live for him i.e. we 'enter.' It is not axiomatic and many will not. Similarly, RB seems to struggle with the idea that most will not receive salvation, but only a few will. Jesus didn't have a problem with this, stating it in the great Sermon on the Mount in Matt 7, 'few will find it' (cf. Luke 13). I am sure that RB would take most of the Sermon on the Mount seriously, especially 'love your enemies' etc? Why not this text as well? We cannot simply choose to treat some of Jesus' teaching as rhetorical or literary devices, and leave the rest, this is a flawed inconsistent hermeneutic. Yes, we do have to read carefully in terms of genre and draw theology judiciously and with good interpretative skills, but we cannot simply write off bits of it which suit our metanarrative, and emphasise others that please it. Most false teaching is not a result of extreme views, but imbalances, distortions, and over-emphases.
RB overstates how universalism has been viewed in the church over the centuries. Yes there have been voices who have proposed it, like Origen etc. Yes, today there are many theologians who flirt with it. However, with a few exceptions, the church has resolutely not accepted this as authentic. It has been condemned as a heresy. It is a very daring thing for a preacher to say that because others have held a view, it is ok to hold it, which RB does. For example, people in the church have denied the divinity of Christ, denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus, denied the Trinity, etc., does this legitimise this as an 'ok' view. Not for me. I believe RB overstates his authority when he claims this. It is not for him to decide this for others. The only true test is the Scriptures. We need to go back to them and test an idea. When we do, we find that there are a few texts that can suggest universal salvation e.g. Matt 19:28; Acts 3:21; Rom 3:24; Phil 2:9-11; Col 1:20; Eph 1:11; 2 Cor 5:19 etc). Yet, to read these universalistically we have to isolate them from their contexts and ignore references to destruction, wrath in the writings of the same author. For example, Matthew is replete with references to destruction and hell including parables of the net, weeds, the Sheep and the Goats, etc etc. Luke-Acts does not emphasise this element but it is there e.g. Luke 13:24-30; Acts 1:25; 13:48). Paul, as noted above, speaks unambiguously of destruction (e.g. Rom 2:5-16; 14:11-12; Phil 1:28; 3:18-19; Col 3:5; Eph 2:3; 5:6). We have a choice to subvert the texts that speak of destruction/salvation beneath these texts, or the converse. Most Christians noting that Jesus, Matthew, Luke, Mark, Peter, John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation all speak of destruction, prefer to read the gospel as being potentially universal in the sense that the goal of the gospel is the reconciliation of all, but that some will resist and will not experience that reconciliation. Part of the reconciliation is indeed the healing of the world by the removal of evil, including resistant humanity. That is, God will remove evil, and his purpose is not to see anyone separated from him, but respects human freedom and so collateral to his dealing with evil will be eternal separation of all humanity who refuse his offer from him. This is our story. At one point RB dares to quote Luther is if Luther supports universalism. This is subtly deceitful, there is no way Luther was a universalist.
I love the way RB goes through the OT listing the Scriptures which demonstrate God is a restoring God. He is, I agree. But he does not go through the Scriptures and list where God acts decisively in justice to remove evil, the list would be a lot longer. There is selectivity in the book that is disturbing.

In conclusion then, it is a well written book. In my view however, it is flawed in that it distorts the Christian story. It even becomes dangerous in the hands of many Christians today that do not have the biblical and theological knowledge to work through it in depth and see it for what it is. Evangelicalism is disintegrating stimulated in no small part by the power of the Internet to allow people to propagate their ideas unopposed and freely. This book is paper thin theologically, there is no referencing, texts are not even properly references, alternative views are not given etc. For the vulnerable Christian who feeds off the Net with all sorts of ideas and thoughts, it becomes a shaper of theology without critique. Today's Christian leaders and thinkers are torn between the insatiable demand for easy to read popularist material which gets ideas out there for consumption; and writing good solid stuff which few can be bothered reading. If we go for the former, we need to do so very very carefully, because of the vulnerability of the this biblically and theologically illiterate generation.

Now, having said all that, I want to be clear. I am not saying Rob Bell is not a Christian and standing in judgment over him. My own writings and theology are open to the same critique. None of us is a perfect teacher, leader and free from false ideas. To be fair to him too, he does not quite in the book emphatically state that he is a universalist, but poses a lot of questions. However, as he does so, he clearly sides with the idea arguing it is a better story. I disagree, the gospel as we have it in the narrative and text is the only story and we need to ensure we handle it carefully and accurately. I am contending with his ideas, I think he is reading the gospel wrongly. I would still encourage people to read the book, but do so with a Bible in hand, and don't just read the texts he refers to. If you do, you might find yourself agreeing too easily. Read the whole NT again and again, pen in hand, notebook at the ready, note what it says about life, death, hope and eternity. Consider the whole story and don't write off the bits you don't like. See if there are ways that you can make sense of the story, but hold all its elements in balance. I think as you do, you will find that you will hear a similar but different story to the one painted by RB, but don't worry, God wins.

The Glorious Cross of Christ

2011-04-23T18:34:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2011

As we come to Easter and we consider the death of Jesus, it is good to ponder what it means.

First, the cross speaks of our salvation. On the cross Jesus, completely without sin, took upon himself the corruption of all humanity, and died in our place for us. Jesus, both our high priest, and the final sacrifice for sin took to himself human depravity and all its consequences. He extinguished it in the seeming humiliation of brutal death by crucifixion. Because of his righteousness, God raised him from the dead on the third day. Now, God offers us in Christ, the ultimate final sacrifice for sins, the gift of salvation. If we accept his completely free offer by saying yes to this Jesus as saviour and Lord, we will experience the power of the resurrection and receive eternal life with God and his people –a life that begins now! The cross then represents our justification, where God's voice booms out over all creation saying 'pardoned, acquitted, not-guilty, right with God, righteous!' It sings of our redemption, our release from slavery to corruption and its effects. It tells of our reconciliation, where we are reconciled to God in Christ. It guarantees us our resurrection as we are crucified with God in Christ, so that the life we now live is in Christ, by faith. The cross averted the wrath of God, it cleansed us from sin, from guilt and shame, it made God's enemies his friends – it saved us. It marks the death of death itself, the resurrection marks the launch of a new humanity and a new creation – glory be to God!

Secondly, the cross speaks of how we should now live. The cross tells of a reversal of the power patterns of the world. For most, power is found in the ability to exert coercive influence over another, whether through armies, intrigue, sheer force of numbers, beauty, wisdom, wealth, charisma, status, or otherwise. The cross subverts this. On the cross Jesus showed us what true divinity looks like. It looks like the creator and rightful king of the world, voluntarily choosing not to use his power, privilege and status to his own advantage to subdue and control, but rather coming among us as one of us, to win the world through serving and laying down his life for it. Jesus refused to meet the expectations of a Davidic Messiah Warrior King or to impress the Caesar and the Romans with brilliant reason and might. Rather, he humbled himself and became obedient to death. He showed us what true humanity looked like as walked the Via Dolorosa to his death to save his world. In so doing he showed that the true power of the universe is found in love and not violent force or intrigue. As such, the cross now lays down for us a pattern of what it means to be truly human. It reveals the cruciform ethic that should characterise God's people as they lead, gather in churches, engage with one another and his world. We do so as servants bearing the marks of suffering with a cross strapped over our backs, with a towel in one hand and the 'sword' of the Spirit in the other, that they would see who God truly is. Go deeper!

Is it the End of the World?

2011-04-23T18:33:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2011

There is some speculation around that current events indicate that the end of the world is nigh. This is no doubt due to Jesus' predictions of wars and earthquakes as the end approaches. It is certainly true that our news is full of earthquakes and Middle Eastern turmoil. So, is this the beginning of the end?

The first thing is to admit that we just don't know. Jesus himself did not know when the end would come. There are texts that point to Jesus returning like a thief in the night, surprising most of the people of the world. So, his return may be imminent. But, a sensible Christian does no claim too much on the basis of a few world events.

Secondly, such events are not really that unusual. Seismologists tell us that the number of earthquakes remains constant. The difference for us in NZ is that one hit us! Further, we are now able to watch their effects dramatically on live TV! The truth is that there have been earthquakes and turmoil since the time of Christ, and they will go on.

Thirdly, while it is true that these are potentially signs, other key signs remain unfulfilled. For example, the gospel is yet to be preached to every known people group on earth. Neither is there any sign of a world-wide economic, political, and spiritual power taking control.

Fourthly, while the world is in many instances a dangerous place, the idea of a rising intensity of evil in the earth is not clear-cut, although one could argue that the conditions are coming into place for such world-wide chaos (e.g. ecology, globalisation, technology, tension). When we think back to last century there were times of great intensity such as the World Wars, the Cuban Missile crisis, and more, yet these did not signal the end. As such, we Christians should always on our guard, but act with sober realism and judgment concerning the return of Christ at a time like this.

Then there is the question of whether when Jesus returns will in fact the end of the world at all. The assumption behind the idea is that Jesus returns, the world is enveloped in a cataclysmic end and believers are whipped off to live in heaven for eternity. In Rom 8:19-23 a very different picture is given. It speaks of the creation (all things) groaning in suffering (e.g. earthquakes), waiting eagerly for the coming of Christ, of the creation subjected to futility, and of the hope that the creation will be liberated from its enslavement to decay and brought into glorious resurrection freedom. This is a thrilling picture not of the end of the world, but the renewal of this one! So, even if it is 'the end,' this should not lead us to despair or fear, but to joy and hope, because our savior is coming and the renewal of God's creation is at hand. Go deeper!

New Zealand Christian Leaders Gather in Waikanae

2011-04-23T18:32:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2011

Over the last week, some 200 Christian leaders from all over the nation came together at El Rancho in Waikanae for the 6^th New Zealand Christian Leader's Congress. The Congress is a significant cutting edge event, a must-do for many of the Christian leaders of the nation. The leaders came from many denominations, parachurch organisations, colleges and the business world. The theme this year was a vision for 2020, 'The Gospel in the Decade Ahead.' The Congress was launched by Rev Dr Stuart Lange and Angelene Goodman from Laidlaw College who spoke on 200 years of the Gospel in NZ. The presentation was brilliant, speaking of the way in which Christianity was fused into the nation from the beginning and formed the basis for the Treaty of Waitangi. This was followed over the next few days by a range of speakers on the gospel from a range of perspectives including its content and proclamation, economics, global issues and mission, creation, justice, family, and the State.

Particularly significant were the overseas speakers. Jeff Fountain, former Director of YWAM Europe and now chair of the Hope for Europe Round Table and Schuman Centre for European Studies, inspired the Congress arguing that the future of Europe is not as bleak as many hold and that the seeds of her renewal are many. Geoff Tunnicluffe the Secretary General of the World Evangelical Alliance spoke of the range of ways that evangelicals are now able to influence global politics and policy making. Of particular note from the other speakers is planning for the 2014 Bicentenary when the gospel was first preached in NZ by Samuel Marsden on Christmas Day 1814 at Oihi Bay. This is a very significant moment in our history and an opportunity for NZ Christians to engage the nation with the gospel. Plans have begun for significant events to commemorate the coming of the gospel to Aotearoa. Glynn Carpenter, the tireless National Director of the NZ Christian Network compared the NZ church to the Sardis Church of Rev 3:2-3, challenging it to wake up. He spoke of his hopes for the decade ahead. Aside from plans for the 2014 bicentennial, other emphases moving ahead include holistic mission engagement across the nation, reducing the rates of abortion, rebuilding a marriage culture, and building Christian unity across cities and regions. The presentations from the Congress will be available through the NZ Christian Network Website (http://www.visionnetwork.org.nz/). David Lyle Morris with a superb team from Meadows Church led the Congress in some times of wonderful worship. While the speaking and worship were excellent, the highlight of the congress was the rich fellowship and the networking of Christians across the many flavours of the faith in NZ. We saw a living out of Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17.

After the shocking news of the Christchurch earthquake was made known early Tuesday afternoon, the quake dominated the thoughts and prayers of the Congress. Many delegates from Christchurch left immediately desperate to get home to family, friends and those in their pastoral care. A press statement was released from the Congress expressing that the Christian leaders stand together with New Zealanders in prayer and thought for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. Much prayer arose from the delegates for the people of the region. This congress will always be remembered as 'the one when the Christchurch quake happened.' The earthquake serves to highlight the urgency of the task the Christian Church has as we move ahead. Christians across the nation must rise from their slumber as the people of God, stand together in the unity in the Spirit, continue to defend and proclaim the gospel, seek to see the transformation of people, churches and the whole nation, with the servant-heart of Christ. The need is huge and we must be relentless in our commitment to the cause.

When Truth and Unity Collide

2011-04-23T18:31:00.003+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2011

The latest controversy over Destiny Church highlights one of the core tensions of Christian faith, truth 'versus' unity. The NT writings make it clear that unity is of critical importance with it being emphasised especially in Jesus' great prayer of John 17, and in many of its letters (e.g. 1 Corinthians; Philippians; Ephesians 4; Romans 14-15; Philemon). One of the gospels great truths is love, the power that holds us together and gives power to our witness (e.g. John 13:34-35). Truth is equally important in the NT with many warnings against false teaching and prophets (e.g. Acts 20; 2 Corinthians 10-12; Galatians; Colossians 2; 1 John; 2 Peter; Jude). Preserving the one gospel is critical to ensure the survival of the faith. The tension occurs when unity comes under threat because of clashes over truth. When this happens, this is the one of the most difficult challenges Christians can face.

Over the history of the church there have been a number of points at the church has split when it is felt that truth of the gospel is violated whether it be over the Spirit, works and faith, baptism, church government structures, resurrection, tradition, music styles, sexuality issues, and more. Such splits are always destructive, messy, and painful. At some points wars were fought over these divisions, with Christians fighting or some put to death for their apostasy. In many cases these Christians were simply standing for what they believed to be the truth. Now we live in a world with a fragmented Christian community which struggles to present a united witness to the world. While breaking up into many denominations, groups and independent churches may have enhanced mission in some cases, in the big picture of things it has done enormous damage to our witness with many people writing us off for our disunity.

With all this in mind, there are a number of things that are critical to us all. First, we need to know the gospel well. Most importantly we need to know the things that are central to the faith (e.g. bodily resurrection, the Trinity) and the things that are not (the way we baptize, music styles). While all things are important to some degree, we need to stop slitting up over things that are not essential to the core of the gospel. When we face a threat to unity we need to ask, is this worth us leaving or splitting over? Secondly, we need to seek to preserve the unity of the Spirit unless we are forced to divide over something really critical, like the bodily resurrection, and even then at last resort. Thirdly, when we see a new problem emerge we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions and divide ourselves yet further. We need to work with all our being, going the extra mile, in service and humility before dividing. Leaving should be a last resort for any Christian considering breaking up a church. Go deeper.

Bishop Tamaki and the Resurrection

2011-04-23T18:31:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly in 2011

The latest controversy which has broken out over Destiny and Brian Tamaki raises important questions. If it is true, as Cult Watch and Garth George have claimed, that Bishop Brian denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus and is asserting that all believers are Christs and divine, this position is not in line with historical evangelical Christian faith.

The first question raised is whether Jesus' resurrection was bodily or spiritual, or in some sense, both. As Garth George demonstrates in his article in this paper, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is central to Christian belief. Late last year I blogged on this myself, going into some detail to demonstrate from the NT writings that the Jesus who entered the tomb killed by the Romans, was the same man who left it (http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/2010/12/bodily-resurrection-of-jesus-and-brian.html). The Jesus who died is the one who was raised with the same body now transformed. In many ways his resurrected body conforms to what it was during his life on earth. He can see, hear, speak, eat, drink and be touched. Yet, the NT also shows that, while he is the same Jesus with the same body, he is transformed into that and more. The raised Jesus is able to move freely in and out of this world, translate across vast distances from place to place, and pass in and out of seemingly secure rooms. Scholars talk about this resurrected Christ being ubiquitous (omnipresent) or able to be in all places at all times. He is thus bodily but not confined to his body. How this works of course is beyond our understanding. To describe the mystery of Christ's resurrected body, Paul calls it a 'spiritual body,' a body animated by the Spirit and with many of the properties of the Spirit. In the resurrection, Jesus' 'body of humiliation' has been transformed to a 'glorious body' that is imperishable, immortal and glorious (1 Cor 15:50-54; Phil 3:20-21).

When we discuss Jesus' resurrection body we can go in one of two directions, we can stress continuity with his pre-resurrection body and highlight the bodily dimensions of it. Alternatively, we can highlight the discontinuity with his earthly body, its spiritual elements, whereby Jesus is a 'life-giving spirit' (1 Cor 15:45) – a phrase Bishop Tamaki uses. However, if Jesus is a 'life-giving spirit,' he is still very much the same Jesus raised from the dead. He remains incarnate (en-fleshed).

All this is very important when it comes to the doctrine of the general resurrection where all believers are raised to eternal life at the consummation of this age. The resurrection of Jesus was the firstfruits of the one great resurrection of the righteous at the conclusion of time (1 Cor 15:20). His resurrection is the pattern for the resurrection of God's people who will be set free from the consequences of the Fall and sin, death, and raised to eternal life. Paul writes that at the return of Christ, believers in full bodily form will rise from their graves and will be with him. Just as Jesus' body was transformed in this way, believers too will go through a process of transformation in the twinkling of an eye, where their 'bodies of humiliation' will be transformed to be like his 'glorious body.' We too will have glorious spiritual bodies, these same bodies we have now, raised to eternal life, now immortal and imperishable.

As such, any denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus would be to step outside of orthodox faith. This was seen in the 1960s when Presbyterians in this nation debated this issue rejecting the radical claims of Lloyd Geering. The question is, does Bishop Tamaki really mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead in bodily form? If so, the wider church would be right to challenge him and his teachings and raise questions about the 'Christian' status of his church. In the Herald article however, (17 Feb, 2011) Bishop Tamaki has clarified his beliefs, stating that he and his church affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ which is good news. However, some questions remain as to what he was trying to say and his claims to revelations from God concerning the resurrection. Such claims of revelation are not unusual in some quarters of the church, but they can be problematical; how can we know for sure that they are from God? I suggest it is better to follow the Scriptures as far as they go and live in the tension of the mystery; or, as Paul puts it, 'do not go beyond what is written' (1 Cor 4:6).

The other main issue raised in the controversy is the idea that all believers are divine, 'the actual same divinity and substance of spirit as God.' I have blogged on this in some detail previously (http://drmarkk.blogspot.com/2010/12/brian-tamaki-and-others-and-abuse-of.html) suggesting that this is a dangerous place to go and potentially crosses the line into a form of idolatry. The Bible affirms that when we become Christians we are joined to Christ and are 'in Christ' (e.g. Rom 3:24; 6:1, 11; 1 Cor 1:30). This means that we are spiritually joined to him, participating in his death, life and salvation. It also means we become one with him in the great body of Christ with Jesus as head (e.g. Rom 12:5; Eph 4:11-16). This is a glorious idea speaking of our identity and status; we are children of God in Christ! However, we have to be really careful with this doctrine. If we push the idea too far we can easily begin to see ourselves as mini-Christ's or 'gods.' Scholars call this divinisation or theosis. The idea is that we are swept up into the God head (Trinity) and have the status and power of God himself. This is going too far as the Bible is very clear that there is one God Yahweh, one Lord Jesus, and that we never cross the line from being the created to the creator (e.g. 1 Cor 8:4-6; Rom 1:18-23). Our status is glorious as resurrected humans, but we are not gods, we are not Christs. There is only one God, and one Christ, Jesus of Nazareth raised, Jesus Christ our Lord, Saviour of the World. We are dependent on him and live for him by the Spirit's leading and power. None of us is his equal, we all in our individuality live out our part in his ongoing mission with the gifts he apportions to us. The crossing of the line to see ourselves as gods is the very mistake Adam and Eve made in the garden (Gen 3:5), and some would say Satan (Isa 14:13). It would be concerning if that is what Bishop Tamaki meant.

We must be careful not to be too hasty to condemn Bishop Tamaki and his church. The theology in them appears questionable, but he deserves a chance to respond as he has begun to do on the resurrection. In the meantime it is important to maintain unity as we move ahead as in these challenging times, we cannot afford as the body of Christ to be divided unless it is clear that the gospel is irrevocably violated. My prayer is that unity is maintained and the gospel upheld by all who name Christ as Lord in this nation.

Time for a Revolution?

2011-04-23T18:30:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly in 2011

Revolutions are in the news. The media is dominated by events in the Middle East and especially Egypt where protestors continue to call for the resignation of Mubarak and the formation of a democratic state. On Waitangi Day Hone Harawira's nephew Wi Popata called for a Maori revolution to overthrow our supposedly 'racist' government.

This got me thinking, do we need a revolution in NZ? The truth is, I think we do. The revolution I am thinking of is not the sort of revolution that we are seeing in Egypt or that which Popata is calling for. The last thing we need is a violent political revolution. As I read the Bible, this is not the stuff of God's people who pattern their lives on the example of Christ who died on a cross rather than call for his angels and people to storm the power of the then world, Rome.

Rather than these flawed alternatives, I am talking about the people of God in this nation rising up not to overthrow the government, not to overthrow their own church leadership, not to use force and the weapons of this world, but out of their apathy to live the faith as they should. Maybe the right word is not revolution, perhaps it is reformation, or revival, or renewal. Perhaps it should not be any re- word, for such words imply going back to something that previously existed. I am talking about an unprecedented arising of God's people in this nation.

While I hate generalisations and know many great Christians, churches, and organisations are giving it their all, it feels to me that we have in many cases lost our edge and have gone to sleep. I think it is time for a change. What might it look like?

It would start with prayer, as God's people gather as never before and plead with God for a new movement of his power in this nation. It would include deep consideration of his Word, not to analyse and critique, but to hear its appeal and respond. It would no doubt include repentance, as we confessed our apathy and selling out to our culture of atheism, pluralism, relativism, love of money, consumerism, individualism, entertainment and more. It would include a new sense of unity, as God's people come together in love, across culture, denominations, and differences, putting them aside and working together as never before. It would involve evangelism, lovingly sharing Christ to the lost. It would overflow in works of love, social justice, compassion and mercy as we reach out to the poor. It would be based on humility, service and sacrifice as we lay down our lives for the gospel 'invading' our communities as Jesus would. It would involve us finding our voice on issues, not in a judgmental moralising coercive way, but with grace standing for the things of God in the face of the dismantling of the Judeo-Christian ethic. What could we achieve if this were to happen? May it come to be! Go deeper!

The Maori Party and Christian Unity

2011-04-23T18:28:00.002+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2011
The current tensions in the Maori Party centred on Hone Harawira has got me thinking. Whatever you think of the Maori Party, it has done amazingly well. Formed in 2004, they have five MPs and sit in coalition with National wielding a disproportionate degree of influence considering they gained only 2.39% of the vote in 2008. Yet now there is evidence of growing divisions with even talk of a new party under Hone Hariwira. Unsurprisingly, it seems much of the problem relates in large part to a desire for power and influence.
Studying Philippians as I am, this has me thinking about unity. Jesus was big on unity. In John 17 he pleads with God that his people would be one as he is one with the Father. That is, that we in our relationships reflect the perfect harmony of the Trinity. Elsewhere, he warned of the dangers of disunity when he said, 'Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.' This principle has stood the test of time across all spheres of life. Jesus taught that we are not to be like the world struggling for power, but we are to be one based on service and love.
Sadly, God's people since the first have struggled to maintain unity. In the New Testament itself there is evidence of a number of struggles for power. It is apparent that the churches of Rome, Galatia, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus and Crete were all beset with contention and power struggles. Paul in particular, challenges his readers to lay down their differences, to live with the attitude of Christ as servants, showing love and living as one in the Spirit.
The existence of denominational divisions is evidence of our ongoing struggle. According to David Barrett there are now something like 34,000 denominations! There are of course times to stand for truth and in these times unity is challenged. The truth is however, over the last 1000 years or so we have done this far too readily. Our local churches and denominations are often split by power struggles, or differences of minutiae. When it happens, whatever the reason, our witness is dimmed, our voice confused, and people have yet another reason to reject the faith. Satan loves our divisions. They are more often as not a result of sin and a desire to control.
One of my prayers in 2011 is that we all work harder than ever for Christian unity. We do not need to try and form one great denomination, this was tried in the ecumenical movement but failed. But, whatever church we go to, each of us must do our part to live in unity honouring others above ourselves. We must not make the mistake that the Maori Party is now making and tear ourselves apart even more. There is too much at stake as we seek the salvation of the world. Go deeper.
Postscript: Since the writing of this Hone H has left the Maori Party and it remains to be seen whether it will weaken Maori influence in politics. Time will tell.

A New Year, A Fresh Start

2011-04-23T18:26:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2011

I love New Years. Genesis 1:14 tells us that the marking of seasons, months and years is part of God's creation. I love the start of a new year because I can take stock, reflect over the year that has gone, and start afresh. It is kind of like a new birth, a resurrection. I love the rhythm of a holiday over summer in which I can laze on the beach, go for a walk, read a few good books, and forget the challenges that are about to restart. I can reflect on 2010, the good, the bad and ugly, close the chapter 2010, and open the chapter, 2011.

New Years are great times to come to God in reflection, examine our lives, and consider where we can grow. In 2010 I had some of the greatest highs and lows I have experienced. I got to see the cities of Paul in Europe, I published a book, my wife and I brought our first home, and my kids did amazing things. I also suffered a terrible disappointment which I have struggled to overcome. After a nice break, I can now close that chapter and open a new one.

As I head into 2011, I am pondering how God would want me to live. I think he would want me to spend more time with him, walking in relationship with him as did Adam and Eve in the garden before the Fall and as did Enoch. I think he would want me, like Paul, not to live in the glories and pain of the past but to press on, not held back, but stretching for the goal of eternal life. I think he would want me to live out of faith, hope and love. This means living in radical trust and dependence on him. It means facing whatever struggles I will have with hope given by the Spirit, and the knowledge of God's love and control. This means never-failing optimism, no matter how bad it seems. It means above all, loving others, forgiving them and serving. He would want me to live the pattern of the cross, living selflesslessy, sacrificially, and humbly using everything I have to serve him and others with all my being. He would want me to take up my towel and my cross, and follow him.

The details are really secondary. Sometimes we are so hung up on working out what we should be doing, that we forget to seize the opportunity before us. That to me is the message of the Samaritan parable. The two Jewish religious leaders were totally preoccupied with what they had to do and missed stopping to help the injured man. The Samaritan, an enemy of the injured man, stopped and despite the danger and sacrifice, helped the man, saving him from certain death. I think that is what God would want us to do in 2010. Go deeper!

Don’t Miss Christ This Christmas

2011-04-23T18:25:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2010

I have mixed feelings about Christmas. On the one hand it annoys me greatly. This is due to the incessant stripping away of almost anything Christian and its replacement with every possible excuse for rampant consumerism, materialism, gluttony, alcohol abuse and even family violence, which peaks at this time. The way most Kiwi's celebrate Christmas demonstrates perhaps more than at any other time, how much we as a nation are rejecting our Christian heritage. Sometimes I think it should be renamed, '-mas,' as there is no Christ in it for most.

On the other hand, for those of us who know and believe the story, it is a glorious time to stop and consider what it means. It tells us that God is a God in control of history. The story is full of fulfilled prophecies with Jesus born in Bethlehem (Mic 5:2), born of a virgin (Is 7:14 Greek Version), a descendent of David (Matt 1:6), from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10) and more. It shows that God acts in history to fulfil. This means we can trust him to do so in the future. It speaks of miracle, with a virgin conception and birth which importantly lays the foundation for Jesus' divine sonship. It tells of the determination of our God to save. When Jesus was conceived, the pre-existent God the Son, creator of the world, emptied himself and took on flesh. He became one with his fallen creation to save it from the effects of sins corruption. Christmas then is the story of the creator God becoming one with his creation, experiencing the fullness of fleshly existence and to ultimately go the way of all flesh, to die, only to rise from death to begin the glorious redemption of his creation.

So for us it is an appropriate time to pause, to tell the story, to marvel in awe, to ponder and to give glory to God. In a nation that continues to forget or recast the story into its dogma of self-gratification, stripping God out of it, we must keep the story alive. Those seemingly nerdy Christmas pageants then are greatly important, re-enacting the good news in this nation. The Carols, while seemingly so trite to many, should be sung with gusto. They are a constant witness that there is more to Christmas than self-gratification and a holiday. It is a holy-day, celebrating the enfleshing of the Holy Son of God. We need to persevere in taking Christ into the community to the schools, the Carol Singing services, and in the media. It is trendy to rev up the faith, modernise, make it relevant and attractive. This is good in one sense, it brings the gospel alive for a new generation. Yet, at times like Christmas, keeping elements of the tradition is vital, as when times are hard it is to those traditional memories that people go. So, this Christmas, tell the story, stop and marvel in awe, and don't miss the Christ who is Christmas. May God bless you and your family as you do so. Go deeper!

Pike River Tragedy

2011-04-23T18:24:00.001+12:00

Published in 2010 in Challenge Weekly

The Pike River Mine tragedy has stunned us all. What a tragic loss of life. May God bless the families who have lost their loved ones! The event raises so many questions doesn't it? It raises the question of why suffering, death and such horror. What can we say?

The first thing to say is that we live in a fallen world where death and suffering remain woven into the fabric of everyday life. Romans 5:12 tells us that suffering and death entered at the Fall and Romans 8:19-23 tells us that, tragically, creation remains in bondage to death and decay. This means that despite our best efforts to prolong life and avoid suffering, we will continue to experience it. This means that, sadly, such things will continue to happen. Yes, God does miracles and believers should pray, hope and believe for them. Yet, the truth is that decay and death remain the last enemy to be defeated and so such things will continue to blight our existences. This is why all people including Christians continue to experience suffering in all its forms, whether disease, broken relationships or death.

The second thing to say is that while suffering is real and unavoidable, there is hope. Romans 8:18-39 is arguably the passage in New Testament which best gathers hope up. Paul here states that the world is groaning under this bondage to suffering. He says that even God's children and heirs are swept up in this, groaning for redemption. However, he also gives a series of reasons to hope. Remember too that these don't come from a theorist sitting in his ivory tower with a big salary, but from a man who knew suffering immensely (2 Cor 11:23-29) who was writing to a pre-industrial world '4^thworld' context with a life expectancy of 40, in which death and suffering was the norm.

These are the reasons Paul gives for hope: 1) The day is coming when creation and God's people will be set free from all death and suffering, the return of Christ. Hallelujah!; 2) The Spirit is with us always to comfort and strengthen us, even praying to Father God for us, so we know we can make it through; 3) Even though it doesn't look like it, human history is being woven together for good for those who have been called and love God; 4) Everything is under God's control from before creation, foreknown and predestined; 5) Even though suffering is real, in an ultimate sense, nothing can stand against us because God is for us; we are more than conquerors!; 6) We know this because Jesus died for us! More, Jesus is also interceding for us joining the Spirit in petitioning Father God on our behalf! Praise God; 7) Nothing in all creation, however heinous, can separate us from the love of God and Christ.

So, whoever is to blame, whatever the cause, how little we understand; God is for us, this is our hope! Go deeper!

NZ a Republic?

2011-04-23T18:23:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly in 2010

Our national anthem begins, 'God of Nations...' This is a great statement theologically, summing up the biblical truth that the world, despite its seeming chaos, is in fact under God's sovereign control as he shapes history toward its glorious climax. As such, NZ being part of the Commonwealth has been one dimension of this. Our participation in the Commonwealth has used by God as he has worked out his purposes over the centuries. Not that it has all been good, the British Empire has been guilty of horrendous injustices. Yet, God has worked in these and through them seeing his gospel go to the ends of the earth.

Today, as I ponder the media circus around the news that Prince William is getting married to Kate Middleton, it is bringing me to the point where I think, 'enough is enough!' Aside from the good news this is to those in their families, who cares? More importantly, should we care? It seems to me it is a royal time for NZ to break from London and forge its own path. Aside from holding an increasingly mediocre sports event every four years where NZ gets a chance to win some soft medals, it is utterly irrelevant. In fact, it is embarrassing especially when one considers the behaviour of the royals over recent decades and aspects of Britain's colonial history. My only concerns about NZ becoming a republic is that it severs an essential part of our history, it gives us no external point of reference in judicial matters and it has seemed good to be Great Britain's friend. Yet we can remain friends with Britain without being tied to them in the commonwealth and we have already broken from the Privy Council. I now see no reason to remain a part of the commonwealth.

So, it seems to me that the time is right for NZ to split from the Commonwealth and do her own thing. It is time for us to work through constitutional matters and find a common basis for moving ahead as a nation. We can work with Australia with whom we are so close in so many ways and where many Kiwis now live.

In the meantime, I will somewhat reluctantly continue to give 'requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving' for 'everyone – for kings (and queens) and all those in authority' (1 Tim 2:1-2) i.e. Queen Elizabeth (sigh!). Yet even as I write this, my heart betrays me. I feel no allegiance to this queen across the sea. She seems so removed and irrelevant. The thought of Charles being 'my king' after all his years of infidelity and the fiasco over Diana's life and death, turns me cold. The thought of William getting married and being my king just seems laughable. For me there is one King, Jesus Christ our Lord, and I am an honoured citizen and ambassador of his heavenly commonwealth (Phil 3:20). That is enough for me. So, is it time to break with London? Go deeper!

The Problem of Abortion

2011-04-23T18:22:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly in 2010

So it seems that, after Sweden, NZ has the second highest abortion rate in the developed world. Last year alone, 4000 NZ teenage girls had abortions. Last week Close Up (Oct 28) told the story of Rachel who, with dreams of being a professional dancer, had an abortion after giving no thought to keeping or adopting out her baby. Such is the world we now live in.

On Close Up Mark Sainsbury described this as shocking; yet in the same breath says, 'the issue is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion, the issue is about why so many teenagers end up in this position.'

With respect to Mark Sainsbury, it is not just about too many teenage abortions, but it is about the rights and wrongs of abortion. Every year in NZ some 18,000 babies are aborted. Globally, in the last 40 years, over a billion abortions have been conducted. Surely the question of the rights and wrongs of abortion remain!

The evidence suggests from a Christian worldview, it is not right. Abortion was a big issue in the Greco-Roman world at the time of Christ, a part of daily life and practiced extensively. Aristotle and Plato approved of abortion. While not explicit, the evidence suggests however, that Judaism rejected intentional abortion.

While the NT does not expressly say so, the church from its inception rejected abortion. The Didache (AD 70-100) states, 'you shall no slay your child by abortion.' Other Christian writers like Tertullian saw it as murder.

Some arguments against abortion include: 1) A person's life and personhood begins at conception when development begins; 2) God's creation and sovereign guidance of the baby in the womb (e.g. Gen 25:23; Jer 1:5; Lk 1:15; Gal 1:15); 3) The incarnation whereby God became flesh in Mary's womb (Matt 1:18, 21; Lk 1:35). It is inconceivable that abortion is acceptable to God after his Son became a zygote to grow and save the world! 4) The commands not to kill (e.g. Exod 20:13); 5) The rights of the weak and defenseless have priority over the strong i.e. the unborn child's rights supersede that of the mother. Theologically, the only time abortion seems arguably defensible is when the child's life is medically non-viable and/or when one has to choose between baby and mother.

Abortion in my view is the greatest social evil in today's world. As upholders of life, we must not flag in zeal to challenge it. Let us work at every level to see this horror ended. We must do so out of grace for those who carry guilt and grieve over abortion. But we must persevere. I see it as parallel to slavery in the 17-18^th century which took centuries to overcome. As with slavery, it may take years, but we need to continue to stand. May God raise up a new generation of those who will determinedly and with grace continue the fight for life. Go deeper!

To Drink or Not To Drink, That is the Question

2011-04-23T18:21:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly in 2010

Alcohol is very much in the news at the moment. One example is the tragic death of James Webster due to binge drinking. Another is the University of Otago study which demonstrates that alcohol in NZ costs around the same price as bottle water! While it is arguable that bottled water is a waste of money and overpriced, this is a sad state of affairs. While our politicians toy with the alcohol laws refusing to make the substantive changes needed, the problem deepens. Alcohol abuse is also very personal to me as many years ago I lost a very close relative to vodka. So how can we Christian's respond to this ongoing problem?

Generally speaking, the Scriptures do not prohibit alcohol drinking. Jesus was criticised for drinking with sinners and also turned water into wine at a wedding (Luke 7:34; John 2:1-10). Paul forbade getting drunk rather than drinking itself (Eph 5:18; 1 Tim 2:8; Tit 2:3) and even once mentioned alcohol's medicinal benefit (1 Tim 5:23). There are individuals like John the Baptist who were directly instructed by God not to drink alcohol as part of their special calling (Luke 1:15). Paul also encouraged believers who were not prone to drunkenness to be prepared to give up drinking alcohol if it would cause their brother or sister to fall (Rom 14:21). What we need to realise too is that all this is written into a world where alcohol was a huge issue with the god of wine Dionysus (also Bacchus) very popular. Getting wasted was not uncommon for many.

Aside from those with a special calling like John, we Christians today are faced with an interesting choice. Do we choose not to drink at all or do we drink in moderation?

I have had an interesting personal journey in this regard. When came to Christ due to my boozing background, for several years I abstained completely. One day I went to visit a colleague who had been charged with a sexual offense. He was an unbeliever and had been completely ostracised. His first words to me were, 'Mark, great to see you, have a beer!' Despite my abstinence, I felt in the Lord I had to say yes or the moment would be lost. I did, and in the next few years was able to share Christ with him and I have great hope that he is now with the Lord. After this, I began to have a drink when among non-believers and found that witnessing opportunities began to open up. I even had the privilege of leading some to the Lord. When my relative died I reviewed this felt it was right to remain a moderate drinker as for me it removed a barrier in witness. I must say, in light of the increasing problems in society in this area, I am beginning to rethink this again. In a society which is increasingly alcohol dependent, should I continue in moderation or should I return to abstinence? Go deeper.

What to do about Paul Henry?

2011-04-23T18:20:00.001+12:00

Published in 2010 in Challenge Weekly

The latest antics of Paul Henry should make us Christians think. First, he intentionally mispronounced the name of Delhi's Chief Minister Sheila Dixit in a crass way which is unrepeatable in Challenge. Secondly, speaking to John Key on air of the replacement for Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand, "Are you going to choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?" This has led to a belated apology for causing offence and a ten day suspension. In my view it raises some interesting questions for us as Christians in a multicultural age.

First, there is the issue of political correctness. Many people, including a number of Christians like myself, are rather fed up with demands for political correctness. It seems we cannot speak in humour without offending someone. The question here is: did Paul Henry cross the line this time? Many would say no and laugh it off. The question then becomes, when does it cross the line? After all, we have take care that in our desire for a good laugh and our reaction against political correctness we do not inadvertently open the door to racism. My feeling here is that Mr Henry crossed a critical line. His problem is that he represents our national network and that our Governor General is every bit a Kiwi, he was even born in NZ.

Secondly, it raises the issue of freedom of speech. One can defend Mr Henry on the basis of his right to express his opinion. In recent times the likes of Hone Harawira have made some rather 'marginal' remarks concerning Pakeha. However, the difference here is that while voters can and will judge Mr Harawira, Mr Henry is speaking on behalf of the national television network and so he represents the network. As such, there are lines then that cannot be crossed. In offending all non-white Kiwis, he went too far.

Thirdly, there is the central question of racism. From this standpoint, even allowing for excessive political correctness, he went too far. The problem for Mr Henry is that his comments while seemingly humorous and reflective of some people's thoughts, were demeaning to all NZ Indians, all who are non-European, and so all of us. After all, we are all immigrants. We or our forebears have travelled on waka from all parts of the world and the face of a New Zealander is now multi-coloured. Jesus came to unite all peoples and end racism. Paul too was vehemently opposed to it. So, Mr Henry was rightly chastised. Should he have been fired rather than suspended? Not in my view. The punishment seems appropriate to the 'crime.' It is not easy speaking off the cuff entertaining the nation as Mr Henry usually does so well. But I do hope he and we too do take care not to cross such lines in the future treating all from every culture with respect and dignity. This is the purpose of God. Go deeper!

Postscript: After this Paul Henry resigned. I think he should have been given another chance. I am sure he will be back.

Presbyterians on the Rise: General Assembly 2010

2011-04-23T18:19:00.001+12:00

Published in Challenge Weekly 2010

Over the last few days I have attended the Presbyterian Affirm conference followed by the Presbyterian General Assembly in Christchurch. For the uninitiated, Presbyterian Affirm is a network for Action, Faith, Fellowship, Intercession, Renewal and Mission (AFFIRM) within the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand (PCANZ). The General Assembly is the bi-annual gathering of ministers and elders from churches across NZ who meet for worship, fellowship, encouragement and to discuss Presbyterian business. The Affirm conferences are always inspiring with like minded evangelicals and charismatics gathering to give glory to God, for ministry, inspirational teaching, and fellowship. This year's conference was no exception. The worship was led by Darryl Tempero of Hornby Presbyterian. The speakers included Murray Robertson formerly senior pastor Spreydon Baptist and Jim Wallace of Bethlehem Presbyterian. Murray Robertson spoke of trends in the NZ church. Of particular note is the growth of large conservative churches and externally focused churches. He spoke of his concern of the problem of conflict in many churches and denominations, challenging us to live out of the cross in unity. He also spoke of the great challenge of the increasingly multi-cultural scene. Jim Wallace told the story of the growth of Bethlehem Presbyterian which is an inspiring story of people coming to Christ and a new church flourishing.

The General Assemblies have often in times past been contentious affairs with evangelicals and liberals locking horns on thorny theological issues such as resurrection and sexuality and leadership. They have often been stuffy, bogged down in business, the worship uninspiring, and more often than not, hard work which has left many a young evangelical despondent and hope-less.

This year's Assembly was far from being this type of experience. It had its moments of contention and at times got bogged down in the detail, but in the main it was inspiring! The worship was led by a team from Calvin Community Church in Gore who led us with a powerful and glorious blend of the old and the new with the whole mood profoundly missional. On the Saturday night worship was led by a team from the Korean Presbyterian Church in Christchurch. It was utterly dynamic with dancers, items, the roof lifted and the room was shaken (no pun intended). The speakers were excellent. The new moderator, the Right Rev Peter Cheyne, launched the Assembly with a most excellent message on the logo of this year's assembly, 'Making disciple-making disciples.' He challenged the Assembly to emulate Jesus and work for evangelism and discipleship so that the gospel will continue to spread. Mick Duncan gave four addresses on discipleship and, as always with Mick, they were inspiring and challenging. These addresses and others can be heard at http://www.presbyterian.org.nz/about-us/general-assembly/general-assembly-2010/news-and-audio-from-ga10.

The Assembly was notable for several critical decisions. First, the Church emphatically reaffirmed the 2006 ruling which rejected de facto and homosexual ministers or elders. Secondly, the Assembly endorsed a new confession of faith, the Kupu Whakapono and its commentary, the culmination of ten years work. This will now function as a subordinate standard of the church after its supreme standard, the Bible. Having adopted this, the Assembly then voted to retain its original founding document, the Westminster Confession alongside the new statement. Along with the Bible, the blend of old and new statements gives the PCANZ a sound doctrinal basis for its future. Several other features of the Assembly were notable including its emphasis on evangelism and discipleship and the 2008 initiative Press Go, a fund for generating mission initiatives. This continues to gain momentum with some exciting projects under development around the country. A truly wonderful moment of grace was the gift of $37,000 from Korean Presbyterian Churches to Christchurch for the earthquake.

I have to say, having at times been a somewhat reluctant Presbyterian, this is all very refreshing. In fact, the last twenty years of the Presbyterian Church is a wonderful testimony to a God who renews. The turn-around in the PCANZ is an almost unprecedented story of God taking a whole denomination from the brink of division and fragmentation to be a gospel-centred and mission-minded church. Just as he can bring flesh to a valley of dry bones, he is bringing it to life day by day. God is raising up new generations of evangelical and charismatic leaders who love the Word, are full of the Spirit, and want to take the gospel to the world. The divisions of the past are fading and the church is pressing on in unity and the gospel.

This all demonstrates the power of God to grow his church. Jesus said he would build it of course, and where people humble themselves and call on his name, he renews. It is a glorious thing when this happens at a denominational level and it is something only God can do. No matter what church you attend I want to encourage you. New Zealand and other western countries can seem spiritually barren. Yet, if we get to our knees and cry out to him, if we take up the gospel and live it and share it, if we work together in unity and love, if we determine to serve in mercy and grace, and if we trust in him, he will bring renewal. He can take the old and make it new.

Father’s Day 2010

2011-04-23T18:17:00.001+12:00

Published in 2010 in Challenge Weekly

So it's Father's Day this Sunday. I believe that Father's Day is an excellent time for the Dad's among us to take stock of what it means to be a husband and Father. I am a Dad. I am blessed with three lovely daughters in their late teens and early twenties, so I have some idea of what is involved. To me, the most challenging and rewarding thing I have done in my life is being a Dad. As I have gone about being a Dad, the Bible has given me great guidance.

The first thing is to consider God as 'Father'. This is the favourite name given to God in the Bible. The ancient picture of manhood and fatherhood was a picture of power and strength. The God of the Bible is strong, but he is more. He is full of love, mercy and gentleness. He protects us, provides for us, nurtures us and comforts us when we are struggling. He disciplines us when we step out of line, but only because he loves us. The supreme way God demonstrates fatherhood is by saving us with the greatest sacrifice that a Father can ever make; by giving his one and only son to save us through his humility and death on a cross. God is truly our 'Abba', our Dad. This lays down the patter of how we are to be with our families.

The second thing I have found most helpful is Ephesians 5:21-6:10. Here instruction is given especially to wives and husbands, fathers and slave masters. People often debate this passage about who should submit to whom, and often miss the radical appeal to men in the passage. Here, Paul looks at fatherhood from three perspectives; the man of the house as husband, as father and as master. This of course relates to the ancient world where the father was the paterfamilias, the supreme all powerful head of the family which included wives, children and slaves. The key is Eph 5:22 where Paul says husbands are not to lord it over their families, but to behave like Christ who gave himself up for us. This takes us to the cross, where Jesus gave his life for humanity. Paul is urging fathers to imitate Christ, living a life of service, sacrifice and love. They are to show this to their children and even to their slaves.

Earlier in Eph 5:1-2 Paul captures this, writing, 'Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.' What should mark us as fathers is love, service and self-giving. Paul is here calling for a complete revolution in manhood; men not dominating with force and power, but like Christ, serving in love and humility.

So, this Father's Day let us Fathers resolve to take up our crosses and give our lives for our families. Go deeper.

The September Christchurch Earthquake

2011-04-23T18:16:00.001+12:00

Published in late 2010 in Challenge Weekly

As I write, it is the day after the Canterbury September earthquake. I want to wish all those in Christchurch whose lives have been so deeply affected all God's blessing and strength.

I have been pondering a theological response to this event. Some might see it as the judgment of God, a warning shot to NZ or even Christchurch itself for her idolatry and sin. While this is possible as the Scriptures do warn of such events, it is a dangerous position to take without revelation to that effect. Usually when God brings such judgment there is a warning with consequences. Whether or not this right on this occasion of which I am dubious, we believers should take time to ponder whether we are truly living full of for God full on, turn from sin and seek to honour him.

Another possible perspective is to see here a pointer to the imminent return of Christ based on the signs of the second coming (Matt 24). This is possible, but seismic studies do not show that earthquakes are on the increase in any significant way. Further, we need to be very wary about excessive speculation concerning the return of Christ as so many people have got this wrong in the past! As above, whether this view is correct or not, we should take time to ask ourselves whether we are ready for Christ's return sold out to the things of God.

Another angle is to see such things as an indirect result of the Fall, a consequence of the corruption let loose in all creation through sin (Rom 8:19-23). We can see this in at least two ways. First, some believe that the world before the Fall was stable without such cataclysm. The first sin caused a rupture that rent the earth itself leading to earthquakes, tsunamis, eruptions etc. This appeals to most Christians who reject the idea of death before the Fall. Secondly, others believe that before the Fall such events happened, but God protected and sustained people through them. This view appeals to some scientifically minded believers who argue that there was death in the animal world before the Fall. While open to other views, I prefer the first of these views longing for the day when Christ returns and the world is restored to its original stability (Rev 21-22).

The final and most important thought is to see this event as a spur to action. First, that we give thanks to God for his goodness to us that no one's life was lost, we pray for those who are so deeply affected and for God's continued protection of our nation. Secondly, that we renew our efforts to give and serve compassionately to alleviate the suffering of others. Finally, that we ponder the difference between this event and the Haiti earthquake in which 230,000 died and become increasingly committed to work for global justice. Go deeper!

Europe and Islam

2011-04-23T18:14:00.002+12:00

Published late in 2010 in Challenge WeeklyHave you noticed what is going on in our world? Almost daily some issue concerning Islam and western relations is in the news. As I write it is the Commonwealth Games in Delhi under threat from the Mujahideen. Before this, it was the threat to burn the Quran in Florida. The Ground Zero mosque remains a burning issue. Recently, France banned the Burqa. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a consequence of this tension. A little further back we have the Bali bombings, 7/7 in London and 9/11 in New York. The threat of Al Qaeda casts a shadow everyday; where and how will they strike next? We live with continuous tension between Islam and the western world. Here in NZ with a small Muslim population, thankfully this is not yet a real issue. But, as we look around, the temperature is rising.
On my recent trip to Europe I felt this tension strongly. In Turkey, the most secular Muslim country, I was taken aback by their nationalism and religious fervor. While there, the Israelis stormed the Gaza Aid Ship. The response was amazing with violent riots and 24/7 television revealing a deep hostility to Israel and the US. One local believed this would swing Turkey away from the US toward Iraq and Iran. Across Europe tension is rising with the growing Islamic population and influence. This is on the rise with ongoing immigration and the high birthrates of Muslims. One senses Europe is a continent heading for crisis as two great civilizations clash.
So where will this all head? The history of Europe and European-Islamic relations suggests to me that there will be a progressive increase of tension and violence as the right of European politics gains momentum. One senses that the future of the world is increased instability and perhaps in Europe, suppression of Islam, ethnic cleansing and dare I say it, ultimately even war.
How can we as Christians respond? First, we should not respond out of fear. Our security is in God and we can have complete trust in him that no matter what happens, all things work for the good of his loved and elect. Secondly, we can pray for the world. Let's pray that the power of God will restrain the forces of evil and lead the west of which we are a part, to respond in God's way. Thirdly, we can seek to understand Islam better with its various shades. This will ensure we do not react wrongly and condemn all Muslims on the basis of the lunacy of a few. Fourthly, we should show relentless and unconditional love to all whatever their worldview. Jesus was all for love for all, even enemies. Where we come into contact with Muslims, let's engage them in openness and not avoid them in fear. Let's reach out to them in love. Finally, let us love one another and show the world there is another way to live, the way of Jesus. Go deeper!

Easter – a time to imagine: Auckland Church Leaders share an Easter message

2011-04-23T16:37:00.001+12:00

Something I wrote which was adapted with input from Richard Waugh in particular, and a few others who contributed minor adjustments. Published in the NZ Herald Saturday 3 April; see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10720638

Imagine there is a God who is loving, just and good. Suppose this God formed the world, full of beauty and with people like us in it. Imagine God's plan is for a world full of goodness, beauty, and love, free of horror, suffering and death.

Consider that this world was corrupted and became flawed, no longer utterly good but a mix of beauty and torment, suffering and joy, life and death. It is now a perplexing place; full of goodness and love, yet broken with the horror of earthquakes, tsunami, war, disease, struggle, and the inevitability of death.

Imagine then, that God resolved to 'save' this world; to deal with the horror and suffering. How might that look? For many, it would look like a revolution with God coming decisively to suppress all opposition with brute force. We know what this looks like. We have seen it in playground bullies and in the likes of dictators who impose 'peace' with ideology and force.

Such a hope was in vogue in Israel two thousand years ago. Empires ruled the world this way. Rome and her Caesars were the current power-holders. Many in Israel longed for release through a coming Messiah, a powerful descendent of David. They hoped he would come and assume control with God's power, leading the overthrow of the ruthless Romans and establishing God's reign and 'peace' across the world.

When understood in this context, the Easter Story is the stunning account of God's Son coming to save his world in a totally unanticipated fashion. The Christian faith is built on the conviction that, in Jesus of Nazareth, God came to earth. Rather than coming in blazing glory, wealth and power, he came in poverty and obscurity, born among animals in the insignificant town of Bethlehem. For thirty years he was a complete unknown.

At age thirty, Jesus began his work. Rather than impose himself with power and call the nation to war, he avoided the mainstream and went out among the poor, marginalised and lost, feeding, healing, and preaching God's love and forgiveness. After three years, without a stain on his character, he was betrayed by a friend and arrested.

Jesus was questioned with evidence supplied by false witnesses, and then handed on to the Roman authorities who had the power to put him to death. The Roman procurator Pilate could find no fault with him, but out of political expediency sentenced him to die. Dressed in purple and crowned with thorns, Jesus was mocked and ruthlessly beaten and flogged by the Roman soldiers. Exhausted, he was forced to walk the path to the cross where he was crucified under the ironical title, 'King of the Jews.'

As with any such crucifixion, the overall point was to warn all would-be revolutionaries "don't mess with Rome!" The crowds abused him mocking him as king, challenging him to come down and prove it himself with power. Between two genuine revolutionaries, completely abandoned, Jesus took it all without retaliation. Ultimately he said his final words, "it is finished," and breathed his last. A soldier pierced his side, and separated blood flowed verifying his death. He was taken down from the cross, placed in the tomb of a follower, blocked with a large stone, and guarded by Roman soldiers. The crowds left; another pretender to power defeated.

On the face of it, the event is insignificant; yet another story of a misguided agitator squashed by forces of the world. Or so it seemed.

On the Passover Sunday, a strange thing happened. Some women followers of Jesus came to the tomb to find the stone rolled away, the soldiers gone, and the tomb empty. They were confused as were his other followers.

Further strange events followed, with a series of appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee, and Syria. These experiences convinced his followers that Jesus had risen from the dead.

They pondered what had happened, remembering his teaching and the ancient prophecies. They realised God had come to save his world not as expected, by imposing himself with military force and suppression, but as a servant to save through humility, selflessness, sacrifice and death. In coming to die for the world, Jesus had become the final sacrifice for sin.

Jesus came to overcome evil, not illegitimately with compulsion, but through his refusal to yield to evil as it did its worst to defeat him. He overcame
the worst enemy of humanity, death, ironically by dying himself, and being raised from the dead to overcome it. He came to invite the world to turn and believe in him so that the world can experience this life, hope and resurrection power.
Jesus came to invite the world to live in a new way, to live not for prestige, power, and wealth but out of the pattern he had laid down in his service.

His death through political intrigue and violent force is the doorway into a new world which should be free of such horror. Sadly, we still have not come to fully understand what Jesus' death and resurrection means. It was the death to end all deaths and a call to bring a reconciling peace to God's world.

Imagine if we were all gripped with this message today. How might the world look if we lived out the ethic of Jesus, whatever the cost? This is what the first Christians did. Despite facing insurmountable odds, rejection, persecution, suffering and martyrdom, they courageously refused to be silenced, and the message of peace spread throughout the Roman world. Within 300 years, without the use of violent force, this story became the religion of the whole Roman world. Now, over one third of the world's population are followers of Jesus in some way or another. Since Marsden's first sermon at Christmas in the Bay of Islands in 1814, our nation has to a large extent been shaped by this ethic.

It is significant this year that Easter falls on the same weekend as ANZAC Day. Gallipoli and the stories of our people giving their lives for freedom and love reveal the struggle our world faces, and remind us of the power of sacrifice and service for others. The challenge of this world goes on.

We,
Christian leaders of Auckland City, invite you this Easter to join the two billion followers of Jesus in the world today,
to spend time acknowledging the meaning of Easter. The events of Easter vividly tell the story of God, who, with arms outstretched, invites us all to find forgiveness and salvation through Christ and to join the global movement to see God's world restored. Imagine what would happen if we all said yes.

Endorsed by:

Rev. Dr Neville Bartle, National Superintendent, Church of the Nazarene

Right Rev. Ross Bay, Anglican Bishop of Auckland

Rev. Norman Brookes, Auckland Superintendent, Methodist Church of New Zealand

Pastor Luke Brough, National Leader, Elim Churches

Pastor Terry Calkin, Senior Pastor, Greenlane Christian Centre

Rev. Murray Cottle, Regional Consultant, Baptist Churches of New Zealand

Pastor Paul de Jong, Senior Pastor, LIFE Church

Bishop Patrick Dunn, Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland

Mr Peter Eccles, Auckland District Chairman, Congregational Union of New Zealand

Pastor Vic Francis, Chairman of the Association of Vineyard Churches Aotearoa New Zealand

Pastor Ken Harrison, Superintendent, Assemblies of God New Zealand

Pastor Brian Hughes, Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel

Rev. Fakaofo Kaio, Moderator, Northern Presbytery, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Rev. Andrew Marshall, Director, Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches

Very Rev. Jo Kelly-Moore, Dean, Holy Trinity Anglican Cathedral

Pastor Bruce Monk, National Leader, Acts Churches NZ

Pastor Sam Monk, Pastor, Equippers Church

Pastor Peter Mortlock, Senior Pastor, City Impact Churches

Major Heather Rodwell, Divisional Commander, The Salvation Army

Pastor Eddie Tupai, President North NZ Conference, Seventh-day Adventist Church

Rev. Dr Richard Waugh, National Superintendent, Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand

Mark Keown

The Parable of the Tenants and “Ownership” of Israel/Palestine

Jesus and Female Disciples

A New Years Thought or Three

Remembering "Our" First Christmas, 1814

Just Wondering About Asset Sales

Election 2011: As the Dust Settles

Election 2011: 4) Which System?

Election 2011: 3) What to Think About When Voting

The Madness of Student Loans: Starting Adult Life with a Noose Around Your Neck

270,040 with loans up to $10,000.

Election 2011: 2) How Can Christians Be Involved in Politics?

Election 2011: 1) Is Christianity Political?

Reflections on the RWC Final

Does Growth Indicate a Healthy Church?

Why the World Cup Final is not a Done Deal

Head Versus Heart, All Blacks Vs Wallabies

Ten Reasons Why A.J. Miller is NOT Jesus!

What We Now Know About the AB’s 2 Games In

RWC The First Week, What We Have Learnt.

A Glimpse of Heaven – Sort of...

‘Death’s Door’ the Documentary: A Response

Who Should Pay for the Harbour Bridge Pedestrian and Bike Crossing?

Team for World Cup

Sources for Nero and the Reliability of the Gospels

Abstain for the Game: Have Saachi and Saachi Found Jesus?

The New Generation Looking For A Movement

Anders Behring Breivik: Some Thoughts

Jesus the Cold Case: A Response

The Burqa: Should NZ Ban It?

First All Black Squad, thoughts

The Scourge of Gambling Grows

Why Australia Are Now Favourites to Win the World Cup

Let’s Get Real About Obesity: The Problem is Gluttony, Greed and Laziness

A Reflection on Being Fifty – Old Man Saggy Fat Face

The Greg Laurie Event: Some Thoughts

A Bizarre Encounter with BBC World: Alisdair Thompson

Happy Feet: Is it Just Me?

Alisdair Thompson – What To Make of Him?

The Income of Ralph Norris

A Guy Called Grant

Abu Bashir and Shappelle Corby

What’s God Up To On Planet Earth: Author Interview

Happy Birthday Nina

May 21 the End of the World? Why you should enjoy the day and not worry, Part 3

May 21 the End of the World? Why you should enjoy the day and not worry, Part 2

May 21 the End of the World? Why you should enjoy the day and not worry

Please pray for Mindy and Amy

A Karpotic Renewal: It is time

An Idea: What if The Strong Helped the Weak?

The Breakfast Beer

Hone, Don, Kiwi-Saver: Politics Is Getting Exciting Again

The Double Burger

Rob Bell and Love Wins: Does it really preserve freedom?

Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Response

The Glorious Cross of Christ

Is it the End of the World?

New Zealand Christian Leaders Gather in Waikanae

When Truth and Unity Collide

Bishop Tamaki and the Resurrection

Time for a Revolution?

The Maori Party and Christian Unity

A New Year, A Fresh Start

Don’t Miss Christ This Christmas

Pike River Tragedy

NZ a Republic?

The Problem of Abortion

To Drink or Not To Drink, That is the Question

What to do about Paul Henry?

Presbyterians on the Rise: General Assembly 2010

Father’s Day 2010

The September Christchurch Earthquake

Europe and Islam

Easter – a time to imagine: Auckland Church Leaders share an Easter message