Category Archives: Uncategorized

Parliament votes unanimously to hail decadence

In New Zealand’s Parliament earlier this week, the following resolution was passed

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that this House apologise to those homosexual New Zealanders who were convicted for consensual adult activity, and recognise the tremendous hurt and suffering those men and their families have gone through, and the continued effects the convictions have had on them.

Motion agreed to.

Until 1986, homosexual practice between consenting males was illegal – it was a criminal offence.  (Female homosexual practice wasn’t illegal, following the English lead.)    Repeal of those criminal provisions occasioned a vigorous – at times vicious – public debate.

Even among evangelical churches at the time there was a range of views.  At the time, probably not many openly looked with favour on homosexual practice.  But reasonable people could differ on to what extent what was sinful should also be unlawful.   On the one hand, the law is a teacher, and homosexuality has long been shunned – not just on narrowly Christian grounds, but as something inconsistent with the fundamental need for societies to reproduce themselves.  On the other hand, plenty of things that were and are sinful are not criminal offences.   Adultery, for example, although still illegal even in some places in the United States, is not a criminal offence in New Zealand.  One could imagine an arguable case that adultery was more of an offence against society than homosexual practice.  It is, after all, specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.  Then again, the Bible seems to treat homosexual practice at least as severely as adultery, or rape for that matter.     They are crimes against God, and against society, even if they consensual.

I honestly can’t remember my own views at the time. I do recall going to a public meeting in 1985, in the Wellington Town Hall, held by the opponents of decriminalisation (I was young and single, and went to lots of such things).   I think I was moderately sympathetic to reform, but recall being shocked at the aggressive attempts of a large group of homosexual activists to disrupt the meeting (I found myself seated in the middle of them).

Perhaps what no one could envisage back then –   perhaps some of the champions of reform hoped for it, but even if so wisely kept quiet about their hopes –  was how quickly society has moved from decriminalising behaviour to celebrating it, to becoming almost intolerant of anyone dissenting from the new orthodoxy, in only a few decades.     We have legal provision for something called “marriage” between people of the same-sex.  In the US, tradespeople find themselves penalised, their livelihoods destroyed, if they refuse to assist in the celebration of such “weddings”.   Fortunately – and I’m not quite sure why –  we haven’t yet fallen quite that far in New Zealand.

But this week, the government introduced to Parliament a bill to allow people who had been convicted of homosexual activities up to 1986 to have those convictions expunged.   And with that bill came the motion reproduced at the start of this post.   Perhaps the offences never should have been part of the criminal law –  they apparently weren’t in modern England until 1885 –  but the laws were put in place through a democratic process and were generally accepted as part of our law for many decades.  Even as matter of public policy process, it seems like the height of arrogance, and historical revisionism, for today’s Parliament to retrospectively decriminalise behaviour.   People rightly object to retrospective legislation, and I’m not sure it is any less offensive to criminalise retrospectively something that wasn’t illegal at the time the act was done than (as now) vice versa.    It isn’t as if the law was unknown at the time – people caught unawares.  It isn’t as if there is any evidence that the Court process was abused, or people were denied access to a fair legal hearing and representation.   They committed acts they knew were illegal and risked the consequences.  It was a conscious choice.

There must be many other things over the years that were once offences and are no longer.  Just as many things that are now offences once were not.    How many of those things that are no longer offences is Parliament offering expungement for?  As far as I’m aware, none at all.    Adultery was formerly an offence is many places (still is in some, including many US states).  Abortion was, generally, illegal.

So what makes homosexual practice different?  Well, an effective lobby for one.  But the total number of homosexuals is small, and the number directly affected by this legislation is tiny.   What seems to be different is the determination of our societies –  particularly their elites, but with little real resistance now from the populace  – to not just normalise but to celebrate behaviour that, across cultures and across time, has long been seen as debauched and threatening to society.  Use the word or not, it was sinful, or taboo.   It happened, of course.  Homosexual attraction or desire are real.  The urge to sloth, to gluttony, or to lie, to cheat, to steal, to lust after a woman not one’s wife are real too.

But society today –  at least in the West – seems determined to force people to accept that homosexuality is not of this category: a illicit and damaging desire to be resisted and, where that failed, repented.  It isn’t just a message that homosexuality is no more serious an offence, or sin, than other things –  something that is surely largely true –  but a determination to de-sin it altogether.  To call clean behaviour that God has called unclean.  Sadly, the decadence has made its way into the church –  not just the mainline liberal churches –  but increasingly into the evangelical church, a cancer eating away at the faithfulness to the gospel of the church, as it marries the spirit of the age.   Here is a recent US poll –  not just on tolerance of homosexual practice, but endorsement of same-sex “marriage”.

same sex marriage

I’d be surprised if the New Zealand numbers were much difference.

And so the Minister of Justice came to Parliament the other day and speaking to the bill/motion said

Today we are putting on the record that this House deeply regrets the hurt and stigma suffered by the many hundreds of New Zealand men who were turned into criminals by a law that was profoundly wrong, and for that we are sorry. We are acknowledging that these men should never have been burdened with criminal convictions, and we are recognising the continued effects that the convictions have had on their lives and the lives of their families. New Zealand has a proud reputation for fairness, freedom, and diversity. It is unimaginable today that we would criminalise consensual sexual activity between adults.

Calling right what society for millenia called profoundly wrong.   No doubt the Minister’s statement in that final section is descriptively accurate, but it is a telling reflection of how far New Zealand society has decayed.  A society that no longer recognises that potency and fundamental importance of sex, and the need to channel and discipline those impulses through a committed life of marriage between one man and one woman.

The Minister’s speech was relatively moderate.  She had technocratic details of the bill to get through.    The following speakers were positively celebratory.     Grant Robertson (a leading Labour Party figure, himself gay) ended noting that things still hadn’t gone far enough

Even today the shame and hurt of being different from the majority still exists. Young people are still given the message that being who they are, simply being in love, is something that the rest of society is tolerating, putting up with, allowing. That is not good enough. Today not just gay men but lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and all the colours of the rainbow need to know that we love them for who they are and the rich and amazing contributions that they make. Today is a day to celebrate progress, but if there is change to make right that wrong of the past, we must give the ultimate legacy of a country that includes embraces and cares for all our people.

Not enough people in society yet celebrate sin and depravity.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I don’t think –  as the traditional churches don’t –  that homosexual desire is itself sinful.   What matters is what people do with those impulses and desire.   For a man to look at a woman with lust in his heart as at least as serious –  Jesus names it as sin.  For a man to regard a beautiful women isn’t.   For a person to admire a fancy house in a wealthy seaside suburb is no sin. To covet it, to take actions to try to obtain it is.     Actions matter.  Temptation comes, and we are called to resist.  Many times we will fail –  sin is a part of our experience all through life –  but the response to failure isn’t celebration but repentance, and through repentance and forgiveness, restoration.

Perhaps the only slightly surprising thing about the debate is that apparenly not a single member of Parliament believes the expungement legislation is wrong, or that the apology is wrong.    There are Christian MPs.   What of them?  Can they really all have gone over to the decadent side?     The speaker for our one sometimes-conservative party, NZ First declared

Convictions for homosexual offences…… were based on bad law—law that was contrary to natural reason, law that was contrary to natural law.

Unwise? Impractical?  I could see arguments for those stances, but no the stance that was in our criminal law, reflected the practice of the ages, was according to NZ First “contrary to natural law”.  Wow.  One wonders if these people could have imagined 30 years ago what they’d be saying now.

Perhaps some MPs are quietly uneasy, and were simply afraid to speak out – it is, after all only three months until an election.  But even if so, that surely is a mark of how far our society has fallen away, into the path of decadence.  It is no longer even a matter of open debate; there is apparently only one right and publicly acceptable way.  Listening to mainstream media (Radio NZ for example) it was all with a tone of “at last”,  with no reflection on whether there was any wisdom  at all in the stance of thousands of years.  Just the presumption that at this late date, having thrown off the shackles that once constrained, new wisdom is upon us.  Recency errors are no less errors for being modern.

Rarely, if ever, have I heard sin celebrated so openly by our political leaders.  Sometimes, apparently good stuff comes from bad acts –  greed can be part of what leads people to build great companies –  but even then it is usually the outcomes that are celebrated in the open, not the impulses.    It was a day of shame for the New Zealand Parliament, encapsulated in the contributions to the debate and in the favourable vote, without dissent.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reflecting further on the Christchurch cathedral

A few days ago, on my economics and public policy blog, I wrote a post responding to a newspaper columnist who, responding to a recent column by the Bishop of Christchurch, argued that the fate of the severely earthquake-damaged Anglican cathedral in Christchurch wasn’t really a matter for Christchurch’s Anglicans.   The building should be restored and rebuilt as it was, regardless of the perspectives, needs, and budgetary constraints of the community  –  the church, diocese and congregation – whose building it is or was.  The proposed disregard for property rights was quite breathtaking.    A commenter on that post, himself a member of the diocesan synod, indicated his assessment was that if synod members had a free choice, most or all would vote not to restore the building, but to replace it (with something both cheaper and perhaps more aligned to today’s conceptions of worship and ministry).

Having said all that, I’ve also gone back and read the bishop’s article in the Christchurch Press, and listened to an extensive interview with her on Radio New Zealand yesterday.    She was quite clear that, while the decision will be taken at the diocesan synod in September, she herself would not favour restoring/rebuilding the old building.  But, if so, I have to say that she makes a spectacularly weak case in support of her preferred position.  At the end of the interview, half of me couldn’t help sympathising with the Jim Anderton/Philip Burdon position in favour of rebuild.

I know she was talking, largely, to a secular audience, in both her column and her interview.   But the absence of God was striking.  And the dominance of a therapeutic dimension was equally striking, and odd.

In the bishop’s column, the words “God”, and “worship” didn’t appear at all.   There was nothing at all about beauty.  They crept in towards the end of the radio interview, but as if she was a bit embarrassed to mention them.  No doubt, worship does seen strange to a modern secular audience –  and social work resonates easily –  but the encounter with the divine, revealed in a crucified, risen and ascended Lord, is what we do.  We confront sin, in our own lives in particular, and hear the words of forgiveness and absolution.   In worship, we orient our lives towards God and his purposes.

But instead, there is endless talk about the “pain” of people in Christchurch, in the continuing aftermath of the earthquakes, the need for mental health support.  Even housing shortages and domestic violence are thrown into the mix.  I’m sure they are all real issues.  And perhaps they always will be, in Christchurch and elsewhere –  it was Jesus, after all, who observed that “the poor you will always have with you”.     But is there a shred of evidence to suggest that money that might be raised privately, or even granted by governments, would otherwise be spent on those other pressing needs the bishop highlights?  Frankly, it seems unlikely.   Perhaps that is unfortunate, perhaps not.  But it is almost certainly the reality.  I don’t favour governments (central or local) chipping in for rebuilding the cathedral, but if they did the chances of it making any material difference to the subsequent year’s mental health budget is passsingly small.

The Bishop goes on

Imagine, if you will, the population of the city of Christchurch coming together once again in an effort to help one another, as we experienced immediately after the earthquakes.

Why can we not return to that heroic phase when caring for neighbour was not only what was being done across the city, it was actually what we wanted to do – that is, to help one another.

Perhaps it sounded noble and even prophetic when she penned it.  But to many readers –  Christian or not –   it will simply sound unrealistic, perhaps even out of her depth, as if the bishop doesn’t recognise the difference between periods of immediate crisis and those of simple ongoing need. People behave differently.  Sure, in many respects the gospel to supposed to look “unrealistic” –  the crucified Saviour and all that  –  but that doesn’t mean every unrealistic conception is of God.

Never mentioned either, in all the talk of mental health needs, is the distinction between post-earthquake traumas, which will be with us for time, but which for most –  but not all –  will fade.  There might well be a case for more government and private spending on such services in the next decade.  But in considering what sort of cathedral building to put up, the church faces a choice about a building that it probably hopes will last for 100 years or more (most church buildings do).    If you don’t think you want a Gothic Revival cathedral for the next 100 years –  including perhaps because of the construction and maintenance costs –  say so.   But don’t try to justify a preference for a different sort of (long-lived) building by a current community spending pressure that will have substantially abated a decade hence.  Apart from anything else, even if the church synod decides to restore the previous building, it would surely be the best part of a decade until the building was open for worship again?

People can, and do, worship God on beaches, in wartime trenches, in home churches, in converted warehouses.  In the strand of the church in which I was raised there is almost an unspoken preference for such places.  Every single church building from my childhood was, and is, austere –  and generally, not just austere but utilitarian and even ugly.  We worshipped.  Godliness doesn’t depend on place.

But that has never been the main stream of church architecture and thinking about spaces for worship, whether it is the tabernacle, or Solomon’s Temple, or countless churches and cathedrals across Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox (and other) traditions. Yesterday marked the anniversary of the fall of Constantinople, and the loss as a place of Christian worship, of the Hagia Sophia, one of the most beautiful places of worship ever.

As Vladimir of Kiev’s ambassadors wrote, more than 1000 years ago

Upon attending a service at the glorious Hagia Sophia cathedral in Constantinople, they report:

And we went into the Greek lands, and we were led into a place where they serve their God, and we did not know where we were, on heaven or on earth; and do not know how to tell about this. All we know is that God lives there with people and their service is better than in any other country. We cannot forget that beauty since each person, if he eats something sweet, will not take something bitter afterwards; so we cannot remain any more in paganism.

Not every parish church, not every cathedral, can have the full beauties of the leading church of a wealthy and powerful empire.  But then, rarely are places built specifically for worship cheap.  And probably nor should they be –  this is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords whom we worship.  I recall reading once that Salisbury Cathedral, completed quite quickly for its day, took all the economic surplus from the surrounding area for decades.  Simple but beautiful local parish churches can be as much of an offering for a small worshipping community.

There is a lot of pushback, especially among evangelicals, against this sort of spending.  It is asserted that much of it is about social prestige, and rivalry between cities and leaders, as about worship of Almighty God. No doubt.   But is anything we humans do done from totally pure motives?    But there is no hint that Solomon’s temple, in all its glory, erected at vast cost, was something of which God disapproved.  I struggled with these issues for years, until at last I read (well, noticed, probably for the first time) of Bezalel, in Exodus 31.   When it came time to construct the tabernacle

“Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, or the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts –  to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship.”

It wasn’t just a human offering –  although that too – but omeone actively “filled with the Spirit of God”, and equipped to create something of great beauty.

Yesterday’s style of architecture aren’t necessarily today’s.  Much as I love the choral worship of traditional Anglican cathedrals, it isn’t the only –  or necessarily the best –  way to worship, then or now.  So it seems quite legitimate for Christchurch’s Anglicans to make choices about what sort of building will best serve as seat for the bishop, mother church of the diocese, and forum for congregational worship, that reflects the best of today.

What saddens me is that the bishop seems to have so little confidence in the importance of worship, in the place of beauty in the worship of God creater of all things, that she can’t speak that language when she articulates to a wider audience what the church is about.  I don’t know much about her so this isn’t a reflection on her specifically, but often these days mainline church leaders seem to have confidence in the language of political action and social spending –  bureaucrats of an NGO sector –  than in talking about the God who has visited and redeemed his people, the God who calls us to worship, to repentance, praise, thanksgiving, eucharistic celebration, and the teaching, encouragement and rebuke, in the exposition of Scripture.

When that happens it is a shame.  It subtly diminishes the glory of the living God, and speaks of any old gathering place or forum for the administration of good deeds rather than the glory of Christian worship.  Of course, plenty of worship is mundane, but surely we look to leaders –  bishops for example –  to bear witness to the best of what do in churches or cathedrals, not to be (ever so slightly) embarrased by it.  Jesus wasn’t embarrassed to have the penitent woman pour expensive perfume over his feet.  It could have been used for mental health services  –  something of the sort was suggested at the time –  but it was an expensive act of pure worship.  When we build places for the worship of God, there is something fit and right about it being an expensive offering.  That proposition doesn’t tell me –  or the Christchurch –  which way they should go, or how much they should spend.   And the realism of a declining church, potential torn in two before too long, isn’t something it is wrong to take account of.  But we worship the King of Kings.  And we hold before us – and those to whom we bear witness –  the vision of the John

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Brides can marry in jeans and t-shirtm but when they have the choice few do.  The church isn’t the building, but all the way back to Bezalel, people have honoured God through their buildings, their art, their music, as well as attempting to live the teaching of Matthew 25.   Creation is good.  And the very best of created things, we offer to God.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is safety a Christian value?

In this week’s church newsletter, the pastor informs us that the “leadership team” has settled on a new set of “values”.    I wasn’t quite sure what was wrong with, say,

“love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself”

but perhaps it didn’t look corporate/organisational enough.

Anyway, the first of the four new values was “everyone safe”, which was elaborated on as follows

We desire to be a church where people are safe physically, emotionally and spiritually.

It sounds all very therapeutic –  perhaps it wouldn’t seem out of place in a counsellor’s office –  but is it the gospel?

C S Lewis didn’t write Scripture either, and had no formal teaching authority in the church.   I was late to his fiction –  scared by the White Witch as a young child, it took me 30 years to finish The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – but for as long as I’ve known it this extract has made a powerful impression.   Learning of Aslan from Mr and Mrs Beaver, Lucy asks

“Is he a man?” asked Lucy.

“Aslan a man!” said Mr Beaver sternly. Certainly not. I tell you he is King of the wood and the son of the great emperor-beyond- the-sea. Don’t you know who is the King of the Beasts? Aslan is a lion – the Lion, the great lion.”

“ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”

“That you will, dearie, and no mistake” said Mrs Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mr Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

He isn’t safe, but he is good.    There is a profound difference.  Aslan, for Lewis, is an image of the Christ who died a wrenching death for us.

We aren’t Christ of course.   And yet, we  –  Christian believers collectively – are called the body of Christ, the bride of Christ.   We are adopted as children of God.   And Jesus himself described the path of discipleship as a costly one

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Doesn’t sound very safe to me.    It wasn’t for the disciples, most of whom died as martyrs.  It wasn’t for Stephen, or Paul….or for Polycarp, St Lawrence, Felicity and Perpetua, or the countless other Christian martyrs from that day to this.

If I put myself in the place of the leadership team, perhaps I could put a constructive interpretation on the words (protection from abuses within a church community), but one shouldn’t have to.  Words have meaning, and these words encourage us to think of the church as a refuge, a place of comfort and rest.   They aren’t words which speak of a gospel that is intensely counter-cultural (all the more so as our culture moves away again from its Christian roots), or of a call to be rid of sin, or even one that encourages the outward move of evangelism, where all too often what we would face is rejection, indifference, or scoffing.  Safety?  I think not.  We are soldiers of the army of salvation.  And while no serious army spends the lives of soldiers lightly, “safety” won’t be one of the highest values.

The writer of Hebrews put it thus

Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.

We are to be resident aliens, never fully at home, never fully comfortable or safe.

It is all too easy to be “safe”.  I know it.  I’ve probably spent too much of my life there.  But it isn’t what God calls as to.  It is a call to be up-ended, to turn aside from the things of the world that so easily ensnare, to grow in holiness, and to be formed in the likeness of Christ, despised and rejected as he was.  In many ways, it doesn’t seem very attractive.  But very few worthwhile things come through “safe” paths.

Isaiah put it thus

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.

Of course, we can look forward to the glorious hope at the end of our journey.    And even then, Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress portrays an imagery of an arduous journey, until at least we find ourselves safe home.  still needing to step in faith.

Then the pilgrims, especially Christian, began to despair in their minds. They looked this way and that, but no way could be found to escape the river.

Then they asked the men if the waters were deep everywhere all the time. They told them that sometimes the water was shallow, but that they could not guide them in that matter since the waters were deep or shallow depending upon their faith in the King of the place.

Then they waded into the water, and upon entering, Christian began to sink. He cried out to his good friend Hopeful, saying, “I am sinking in deep waters; the billows are going over my head, all his waves go over me! Selah.”

Then Hopeful said, “Be of good cheer, my brother. I feel the bottom, and it is good.”

Then Christian cried out, “Ah! My friend! ‘The sorrows of death have compassed me about.’m I shall not see the land that flows with milk and honey.”

With that a great darkness and horror fell upon Christian, so that he could not see ahead. It was then that Christian lost his senses, and his memory failed him, and he could not talk in an orderly fashion of any of those sweet refreshments that he had met with in the way of his pilgrimage. All the words that he spoke were filled with horror, and he feared that he should die in that river and never obtain entrance at the gate. He was greatly troubled by thoughts of his past sins, committed before and during his pilgrimage. It was also observed that he was troubled with apparitions of hobgoblins and evil spirits, which he continually spoke about.

It was everything that Hopeful could do to keep his brother’s head above water. Sometimes Christian, despite all Hopeful’s help, would slip down into the waters and rise up again half-dead. Hopeful continually tried to comfort him, saying, “Brother, I see the gate, and men standing by to receive us.”

But Christian would answer, “It is you, it is you they wait for. You have been Hopeful ever since I knew you.”

“And so have you,” Hopeful said to Christian.

Christian answered, “If things were right with me, He would now come to help me, but because of my sin He has brought me to this snare, and He will leave me here.”

Then said Hopeful, “My brother, you have forgotten the text where it is said of the wicked, ‘There are no bands in their death; but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like other men.’ These troubles and distresses that you are going through in these waters are not a sign that God has forsaken you but are sent to try you, to see if you will call to mind all the goodness that you have received from Him. You are being tested to see if you will rely on Him in your distress.”

Then I saw in my dream that Christian was in a bewildered stupor for a while. Hopeful spoke to Christian, encouraging him to “Be of good cheer,” reminding him that Jesus Christ would make him whole. With that Christian shouted out with a loud voice, “Oh, I see Him again, and He tells me, ‘When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not overflow you.’”

Then they both took courage and crossed the river, and the enemy was as still as a stone. Christian soon found solid ground to stand on, and the rest of the river was shallow. So Christian and Hopeful crossed over the river and arrived on the other side. As soon as they came out of the river, they saw the two shining men again waiting for them. The men saluted the two pilgrims saying, “We are ministering spirits, sent here to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation.” Then they all went they along together toward the gate.

Perhaps I often wish it were otherwise, but isn’t the path Jesus calls us to.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Advent and Dr Suess

You might regard that title as somewhat incongruous.  But when I heard that our pastor was planning to organise his services for the four Sundays of Advent around the stories of Dr Suess, I was staggered.   Advent: the quasi-penitential season, focused on preparation for celebrating the first coming of Jesus (the Christmas season itself), and on preparing ourselves in consciousness and confidence that Christ is coming back.  And that at the consummation of all things, we will stand before the judgement seat of God.  Traditionally, Advent was a season for the contemplation of the Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell.

In less liturgical churches, much of that sort of emphasis (if it ever existed) has long since been lost.  Perhaps it is even  more so in the southern hemisphere, where December is absorbed not just in preparing to celebrate Christmas, but in end-of-year celebrations and events, perhaps especially for schools.  Christmas trees appear in church early, Christmas carols appear at odd times (for some reason we sang “O little town of Bethlehem” last Sunday), and suddenly the focus has shifted to the celebration, and off our own unworthiness; in the twee phrase, the reason for the season.  Sin –  our sin – is the harsh reality that religion seeks to deal with: that God, in Christ, came for.  Our hope, and prospect for rejoicing, is that at the Second Coming of Christ, sin will be no more.  Our world will no longer be scarred by sin; our own lives, sometimes despite our best endeavours, no longer marred by the taint of our own wrongdoing –  acts, thoughts, and of commission or omission.

But sure enough, we arrived at church last Sunday, the first Sunday of Advent, to find the church decked out as a scene from The Lorax.  Despite the heavy-handed environmental focus of the story, cheap plastic poles, decked with cheap plastic toppings were apparently supposed to resemble the truffula trees in the story –  abundant until the evil capitalists began milling them, and then kept going until there were no more.  The pastor had to point out –  I’d missed out –  that only one half of the church had the “trees” and the other was bare.

As part of the service, we listened to British actor Ric Mayall read the entire story.    Were we six I wondered?    By the end of the service, I finally understood the (tenuous) connection to Advent.  Hope was the theme of the service, and at the end of The Lorax, the last seed for a truffula plant is given to the small child listening to the story, raising the possibility that if planted and suitably tended in time the forest might one day return.  This, we were told, was “hope”.

But hope –  in the Bible –  isn’t desperate wishful thinking, some million to one longshot that just might happen.  It is about a confident expectation in the God who made heaven and earth, and who (in Christ) visits and redeems his people.  It is God, all powerful and all wise, who acts, and whose promise to act is the thing on which we stake our faith.

In truth, using The Lorax seemed as much about the pastor’s own Green politics and predilections, in a suburb with a substantial Green Party vote, as about the gospel. It seems a drift that is all too typical.   There was a time when the Church of England was caricatured as the “Tory party at prayer”.  These days the drift, even in hitherto evangelical churches, is towards something that risks being caricatured as the “Labour or Green parties at prayer”.

For all the cutesy rhymes –  of which, no doubt, Dr Suess was a master –  The Lorax was conceived in anger, and in its execution simply reveals a degree of ignorance of how markets and firms work and resources are managed.  Of the anger

The Lorax,” he once explained, “came out of me being angry. In The Lorax I was out to attack what I think are evil things and let the chips fall where they might.”[2]

And of the ignorance, in The Lorax, there seem to be no property rights, and thus no incentives to manage and sustainably harvest the resource.  And there are no prices either –  so no incentives for anyone to change behaviour, and switch to alternative products.  Can pillage of the sort Suess describes in his story happen?  Sure, when there are no property rights established.  Thus, the cod fisheries off the east coast of North America was fished almost to exhaustion.   When everyone is free to use an asset, no one has an interest in sustainably managing the resource –  everyone’s incentive is to get in before the other person does.

But with private property rights (formal or informal), and mechanisms for allocating harvesting rights of things like fisheries, there are strong incentives to sustainably manage the resource.  Thus, commercial fishermen in New Zealand operate within a system of transferable quotas, governing how much they can each take, within an overall assessment of the sustainability of the resource.  In the United States, there is more land in forests (natural and tended) than was the case 100 years ago.  Advanced economies are not polluted wastelands –  although there will always be aspects that could be improved –  but some of the most pleasant and liveable places mankind has ever known, for hundreds of millions of people.  Are there outstanding issues? No doubt.  To the extent that climate change is a concern, the need to find sustainable mechanisms to allocate the available resource –  capacity to pollute –  remains real.

But to turn the first Sunday of Advent into something focused on something so wrongheaded as The Lorax is to trivialise the season. Perhaps worse, it is to suggest that the big issues –  those from which “salvation” might be needed-  are the actions of other people.  Here in suburbia we don’t pillage forests –  in this particular suburb we are surrounded by (lots of) regenerating native bush, far more of it than was around 100 years ago.  But we do all sin, we do all fall short of the glory of God. We –  and our world –  still need a Saviour and Redeemer, who broke into the world that first Christmas, and who will return and put an end to suffering, sickness, disease and death – all the concomitants of sin.

The Book of Common Prayer’s Collect for the 1st Sunday of Advent, while perhaps little known in non-liturgical churches, remains as vivid, and humbling, as ever.

Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Christians and the Trump and Clinton options

A rugby-playing local pastor, himself so left-leaning that I’m surprised he doesn’t topple over,  decided to tackle the issue of Donald Trump in his newsletter this week.

But what has floored me is the backing by many people in American Evangelical Churches of Donald Trump as “The morally good choice”. This came to a head over the past couple of weeks as a recording surfaced where Trump bragged about sexually abusing women. In his half-hearted apologies, he has tried to minimise it by claiming it to be locker room talk.

I have played rugby for over 35 seasons. I have sat in locker rooms, and it is true that the talk, especially regarding women can be sexually explicit and vulgar. But I can never remember anyone ever bragging about sexually abusing women. I find Trump’s behaviour and attitude incomprehensible. And while there are massive questions regarding the integrity of Hillary Clinton, I am flabbergasted by the ongoing support of Trump from within Christianity. to me, Donald Trump and Morality are opposing forces.

This week, we look at how to respond to authority (including government) even when they are corrupt. I hope we are able to apply God’s scripture to our own political worldviews.

Perhaps there are people who regard Donald Trump as “the morally good choice”, in a year of pretty unattractive choices, but I suspect (a) their numbers are pretty small, and (b) if indeed they used such words, most probably meant it largely as something about the causes they believe Trump supports/opposes.   Moral issues should matter a lot to Christian voters.   Leading evangelical scholar Wayne Grudem did use the “morally good” words a few momths ago, but in the wake of the revelations of the last week has now withdrawn that statement, stating a few days ago:

There is no morally good presidential candidate in this election.

I’d agree with that, even while wondering quite what “morally good” means in such a context –  all, after all, have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.  I guess it must mean some combination of actions, intentions,  and that amorphous –  but vital –  concept character.

Of course, deeply flawed characters have held the office of President of the United States in the past.  John F Kennedy comes to mind, on numerous scores including the treatment of young women.  I’ve read Robert Caro’s life of Lyndon Johnson –  not a man whose business or personal dealings made him remotely qualified by character to be President.  In office, like most Presidents, their record was a mixed bag –  but to many, for all his faults and mixed motivations, Johnson was one of the great reforming Presidents.

Sadly perhaps, in decades past the media treated key political figures with much greater deference.  Vital information as to the character of these men was simply kept from the public.

Perhaps this year the choice is uniquely awful?  Or perhaps I just don’t know enough US history.  Either way, I rather liked Janet Albrechtsen’s line in The Australian:

two deeply flawed candidates — one nutty, unpredictable and gross; the other a morally corrupt contender for House of Cards

Character counts. I’m not always sure how –  there is no easy or reliable crossover from virtuous leaders to good policies, and deeply flawed leaders have at times been instruments of great good. But it counts.  There are minimal standards of decency, integrity, honesty, humility that I expect from anyone who asks my vote.  The United States isn’t my country –  but two of my kids will be eligible to vote in the 2024 presidential election –  but, each in their own ways, neither Trump nor Clinton cross that threshold.  Were I American, I could not imagine voting for either of them.  There are third – or tenth –  party candidates whom I might vote for, knowing all the limitations of any human leader.

There are still things I wish I knew about Trump. Whatever his actual wealth, he has had some sort of business success.  For all the questions about his temperament, there must be something there –  if only, perhaps, the ability to identify and retain key executives.  In someone seeking to be President, that is not an irrelevant quality.  And some of his instincts –  around the problems which afflict the US –  are probably sound, if often uttered in an untutored, at times even boorish, way.

But the issue here is character.  A succession of three wives, the boastfulness around sexual conquests, the lack of any sense of humility about anything, a business that once included large scale casino holdings were all among the factors that disqualified him in my mind from an early stage of the campaign.  And yet, this was scarcely a pariah figure in American society –  but instead someone who exemplified much of what was popular, but worst, about modern depraved Western society.  Did anyone suppose that he “respected” women?  I’d have thought not.  But then, was there any evidence that he respected anyone much?   Relationships seemed transactional –  all that matters is what is in it for me, and what I can get away with.  It is deplorable, but scarcely news.

And so I’ve been a bit surprised at quite how much attention last week’s tapes got.  What sort of things did anyone with half a brain suppose that someone like Trump would have been saying in a environment like that?  City Journal’s Heather McDonald sums it up well.  Did he actually sexually assault a woman?  Perhaps, and there is form.  But had he done no more than talk, it would hardly meet a standard I would look for from a national leader.  Consent is not unimportant, especially in the criminal law, but something approximating virtue might be more what we should look for.  Modesty, chastity, a respect for his own marriage vows, a recognition of words of Jesus

27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 

God offers forgiveness, and restoration, to penitent sinners.  But Trump is on record as suggesting that he had never asked God for forgiveness.

But then modesty, self-control, chastity and virtue don’t seem to rate highly in today’s America (or New Zealand).

What of Clinton?  To take only the last few years, responding to a Congressional subpoena by wiping tens of thousands of emails (many no doubt innocuous) must rank with some of the more brazen acts of politicians in the West in recent decades.  Missing segments in Richard Nixon’s tapes anyone?   Whatever the legalities of the situation, it is hardly the character of someone I’d want leading my country.  Benghazi was a muddled mess, but the refusal to acknowledge any mistakes, is similarly disqualifying.

But we could go back further, and think about the large profits made trading cattle futures, the White House travel office scandal, Whitewater.  And then there is her husband –  recall this was the couple who in 1992 were advertised as “two for the price of one”.   Whatever the details of the individual allegations by various woman against Bill Clinton, no one seriously questions his record of abusing positions of trust, and abusing women.  That was Bill, not Hillary.  And I’m not going to criticize anyone for not leaving a marriage.  But sticking to your marriage vows is not the same as slandering the accusers.  Sticking by your marriage vows is not the same as using your deeply flawed husband to campaign for you in election after election.  And sticking by your marriage vows is not the same as seeking to bring that same flawed, unrepentant, individual back to the White House as First Man.  Retirement to Westchester for a low key life of doing good, rather than doing well, would have commanded my respect.  Her record –  hand in hand with her husband –  simply doesn’t.  A recent piece 200 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should not be President is a mixed bag –  some about character, some about policy, some ringing true, and some not –  but it captures many reasons, different in nature from those for Trump, why Clinton is not fit to be President, and would debase the office if she were elected.

And all this is before taking account of some of Clinton’s policy positions.  As a strongly pro-abortion candidate (“rare” has disappeared from the old “safe, legal and rare” formulation from the earlier Clinton administration) now championing the use of public money to finance the murder of the most vulnerable, as a (belated) champion of same-sex marriage, and as someone who poses a direct threat to the religious liberty of Christian believers (in respect of their freedom to openly teach and practice traditional Christian morality) I struggle to see how any orthodox Christian could positively endorse Clinton.  And yet some d0 –  a recently-resigned board member of the National Association of Evangelicals did so just recently, making her case here.  She comes very close to calling Hillary Clinton a “morally good choice”.  That astonishes me.

I can’t see how any Christian leader could enthusiastically endorse either candidate –  and no religious leaders need to endorse either candidate if it isn’t with enthusiasm.  Almost certainly, one of the two of them will be President –  although if there really were enough moral revulsion there are alternatives on the ballot.

But, although I could not imagine voting for either of them, I can more easily understand how Christians could vote, albeit reluctantly, for either candidate.  I don’t suppose for a moment that Donald Trump really cares about anti-abortion issues, or even religious liberty for that matter.  And yet I can see why some orthodox Christians might nonetheless vote for him.  There is no hope that the Clinton administration would do anything against abortion or for religious freedom –  the situation is only likely to worsen.  There is perhaps little hope that a Trump administration would, but some have taken hope from his possible list of Supreme Court nominees.  It is harder to imagine good reasons why a Christian might choose to vote for Clinton. but perhaps, thinking prudentially, stability (even around flawed causes by flawed people) might win favour over the sheer unpredictability (perhaps especially in foreign affairs) of a Trump administration.

Perhaps individual policy planks of either side might matter enough.  The economist in me finds the gist of Trump’s corporate tax policy appealing, and likely to be in the wider public interest. Perhaps there are such policies on the other side.  Each voter must make his or her own choice –  to opt out, staying home is an option, a third party vote is an option, but so must be a careful prayerful reflection on possibility of a lesser of two evils.  Perhaps it is a bit like participation in or association with any evil regime –  touched on in my previous post.The Hitler regime was objectively and foreseeably evil, and yet was the only option for a Christian to resign any position in the German public sector on the first day of the new regime?  I suspect not, and yet not to do so then makes it very hard later to identify any defining issue that is finally too much. Participation can make us complicit with evil, but is total withdrawal the only Christian option? Rod Dreher argues persuasively for something along those lines –  with more a focus on strengthening the church, than reforming the world (essentially a lost cause now he argues).

Ideally, the United States would not be in this position, facing a choice (mostly) between two such deeply flawed characters. But it is, and in fact they became the respective nominees through a drawn out, democratic, process, with extensive public participation.  Perhaps it tells us about western democracy and society, that none of the minor party candidates is scoring in double figures, despite the apparent awfulness of the two main candidates: on current polling, Gary Johnson will be lucky to beat John Anderson’s vote share in 1980, and will fall far short of Ross Perot’s vote in 1992.  The debauchery of our societies must be far gone –  and sadly the political leaders we get are often more or less a reflection of what societies now accept as tolerable (or even embrace).

As Matthew Lee Anderson, at the excellent Mere Orthodoxy site recently put it (and his article on evangelicals and the Clinton/Trump choice is well worth reading)

It is a cruel feature of this election that we must choose between a degradation that is swift, obvious and painful and that which is silent but still lethal.

So yes, we need to let the Scriptures shine in and help shape our individual political judgements, but it is by no means obvious to me that doing so puts either or the two main candidates in a better light than the other. Neither, for me, remotely come close to an acceptable standard, or character, for a national leader.  Then again, Christianity in the West is in steep decline – levelling out towards total irrelevance in countries like New Zealand –  so while we lament the choices the US voters face, why should we be very surprised?

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dietrich von Hildebrand and the dangers of being lulled by evil

I’ve recently been reading My Battle Against Hitler, extracts from the memoirs and essays of German Catholic philosopher and theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand.  Von Hildebrand was born and raised in a comfortable German family, but one in which there was only the faintest shadow of nominal religion.  But God’s call on his life found its way anyway, and von Hildebrand and his wife were adult converts to Catholicism in their 20s.  He spotted the perils of Nazism early –  living in Munich, the location of the abortive putsch attempted by Hilter and von Ludendorf in November 1923 (the middle of the great hyperinflation), probably helped.

Von Hildebrand and his wife fled Germany in March 1933, settling in Austria where with initial financial support from the Austrian government he established a weekly articulating a Christian social philosophy, with a particular focus on staunch opposition to Nazism.  The Austrian Chancellor, Dollfuss –  who had supported von Hildebrand  – was killed in an abortive Nazi coup in 1938.  Although an academic philosopher by training and occutation, von Hildrebrand became a considerable thorn in the side of the German efforts in Austria. The editors of the book cite documentary evidence of German plans to assassinate von Hildebrand, and it was only because he also held a Swiss passport that von Hildebrand and his wife were able to escape Austria on the day of the Nazi takeover in March 1938 (hours ahead of a Gestapo raid on their apartment).  They eventually made their way to the United States after the fall of France, where von Hildebrand taught at a Catholic university, dying in 1977.  He wrote many books in the course of his career, but although my pile of them has been growing this is the first book of von Hildebrand’s that I’ve read.

Much of von Hildebrand’s efforts in the 1930s were dedicated to trying to establish and communicate the fundamental incompatibility of National Socialism with Christianity, and with Catholicism in particular.  He was particularly forthright in eschewing anti-Semitism, arguing that in face of the Nazi advances it was more important than ever that Christians not have a bar of a philosophy that judges people of one race better than others.  Even though he must have had a strong sense that Austria was lost –  it was perhaps never likely that little Austria would resist the advances of (Austrian born and raised) Hitler and his pan-German nationalism –  he continued to put his life on the line to help steel the resolve of faithful Christians in Austria to oppose what was coming.  In a sense, his task got harder not easier once the Nazis had taken office, and then consolidated that power of the following 12-18 months, culminating in the Night of Long Knives in June 1934.

By then, the Nazis were no longer a disreputable populist rabble.  They were the established government, wielding power pretty ruthlessly, and with little prospect of being ousted in the foreseeable future.  Against that backdrop, it was all too easy for people to decide to “make their peace” with the regime –  perhaps reserving any dissent to the quiet of their own hearts.  Fearing imprisonment, loss of office or reputation and –  as time when on –  even death, so many made excuses.  They drew distinctions between the ideologues and apparent “pragmatists” or “realists”, put much more weight than was ever-warranted on occasional soothing words (or the presence of Catholics like von Papen, the former Chancellor, in office), or allowed longstanding, perhaps quite mild, social anti-Semitism to make allowances for the increased legal persecution of the Jews. Perhaps too some focused on the economic rebound –  and associated lift in the national mood –  after the awfulness of the Depression (which hit both Germany and Austria particularly hard).  Whatever the motivation, whatever the straw that was grasped at, von Hildebrand urged people not to be fooled, not to lulled by the day-to-day mundane reality of life going on, but to recognize evil for what it was.  As he noted, even if the regime had largely left the church alone, nothing changed the intrinsic evil of the philosophy Hitler and his regime propounded.

It was a brave and perceptive stance –  occurring before any shots in Hitler’s wars of aggression had been fired, and before the Final Solution of mass extermination of the Jews (something that really only unfolded after 1941).

It is easy to look back, with the benefit of all that hindsight, and feel vaguely superior to those who made their peace –  men and women who perhaps never took any active part in the regime, but kept quiet and went along.  But I’ve become increasingly intrigued by the Nazi period over recent years as I’ve been prompted to wonder how modern Christians –  how I –  would react and respond in the face of evil in our own day.  Perhaps if mass extermination had been announced in January 1993 there would have been a rebellion, but it wasn’t.  Arguably there was no single decisive day which self-evidently marked the line that just could not be crossed, where Christian people could no longer keep quiet or just go along.  And because there was no such day, each person had to make his or own choice, often enough almost alone, unsure who they could trust, or who would even sympathise –  rather than feel threatened by the willingness of a erstwhile friend or colleague to take a stand.

At the end of the book, the editors reproduce selections from some of the essays Von Hildrebrand wrote in his Austrian periodical.  One of these in “The Danger of Quietism” and another “The Danger of Becoming Morally Blunted” –  in the latter in particular he urges his readers not to “get used” to the evil that was around them, but to foster a consciousness of good and evil, to avoid ever becoming so dulled to the evil, that it no longer really strikes them as such.  To become used to evil is to drawn, ineluctably, away from the awe-ful holiness that God calls us to.

And that prompted me to think about how I – and Christian church today – need to take to heart the same lesson.  In Western countries we don’t currently have governments of the directly repressive character of the 1930s Nazi type.  Instead, we have a shared secularist consensus that treats so much that is evil as the norm, perhaps even a virtue.  The abortion rate is perhaps the most striking example: in New Zealand alone 14000 babies are year are murdered in their own mothers’ womb, and yet the issue has no political salience at all.  But worse, in most churches (especially perhaps) most Protestant churches, it seems to evoke no concern at all. I can’t recall the last time I heard a sermon –  or even intercessory prayers –  that stood against the evil.  In my city, this mass murder goes on only a mile or two from here.  And what do I  –  or others – do?  Awful as it is, I find it too easy to come to treat it as normal –  to no longer be shocked –  and shrink from taking any sort of stand for fear of being marginalized or shunned.  In the US the issue does still have some political salience –  but we now have two major candidates, one of whom doesn’t seem to care about the issue, and the other of whom leads a part that seems now not just to treat abortion as some sort of regrettable necessity, but as positive good.

Abortion isn’t the only such evil –  albeit perhaps the mostly in human terms.  But we also increasingly come to treat homosexual practice not as the fruit of disordered desire  – as theft, domestic violence, or adultery might still be seen –  but as something normal.  So many of our children are born outside the bounds of marriage, and yet few politicians (or church leaders) or willing to stand for a traditional family.  The legalization of gay (so-called) marriage seems to prompt many of our churches to want to tag along –  as too much of the German Church did in the 1930s.  Perhaps euthanasia will be the next brick to fall?   And when the media was dominated last week by the events surrounding a rugby team and a stripper, where were church leaders in calling people back to standard of modesty and chastity –  a profound respect of men for women, women for men, each made in the image of God.

We are fortunate in New Zealand that direct repression of the church, and practicing Christians, has not yet happened.  Rod Dreher repeatedly warns that it is coming –  at leasr in the US.  But even in New Zealand the zone of acceptable public comment and debate is narrowing all the time.  As the church has gone along quietly, it paves the way for the open articulation of traditional Christian views to, in time, simply be ruled unacceptable –  “hate speech” –  and for those who won’t go along with the prevailing ethos to risk loss of job, livelihood or status.  Our leaders aren’t brutal thugs in the class of Hitler, and perhaps that just makes it easier for us to be lulled by the presence of evil. and to refrain from making a stand for that which is good and holy and of God.  Where is the line?  I don’t know. Perhaps it is something each of us has to find individually, but it might be easier for latter day Christians to avoid just going along, perhaps a little uncomfortably or perhaps enthusiastically, if church leaders provided a more authoritative voice.  Too often it seems, they’ve been willing to accept a place as social service providers and advocates of “progressive” politics, all with a patina of religious terminology.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Christianity in New Zealand: foundations and decline

We came back a few days ago from a family holiday in the Bay of Islands.  My nine year old summed up the trip as “we did too many missionary things”, but it is an area suffused with early New Zealand history, and much of that involved the missionaries and the expansion of the gospel to New Zealand.  Nowhere were the activities of missionaries more interwoven with the political history of modern New Zealand than at Waitangi.

For me, much of the trip involved revisiting places I’d been too before, and the satisfaction of introducing another generation to New Zealand history  There was Christ Church in Russell, where we learned that Charles Darwin was among those who contributed to the cost of erecting the church building.  The simple church near the Stone Store in Kerikeri.  And the Waimate mission station and church,  And the Williams memorial church on the waterfront at Paihia, and the Pakaraka churchyard where Henry Willians and his wife are buried.  There was Pompallier House in Russell, where much of the Catholic mission work in the north was based. And there was my first visit to Oihi, the site where Samuel Marsden conducted the first Christian service on Christmas Day 1814, and where the first mission settlement was established.  It is inspiring history, read against the background of the successful proclamation of the gospel to the Maori in the 19th century.  At the high tide of the evangelical movement –  and mission work more generally –  it was a past one could read of with some pleasure.  The sound had gone out into every land –  now even to New Zealand, the last significant landmass inhabited by humans.

And yet, and yet.   We attended Sunday service at the Anglican church in Paihia.  I’m pretty sure the only people only 60 –  and certainly the only ones under 40  –  were our family visiting from Wellington, and another family visiting from Seattle  It wasn’t a bad service  –  it was Sea Sunday, and we managed some good nautically-themed hymns (to canned music), which seemed fitting in a location where the founders had come by sea from the other end of the earth.  But it was really not much more than a handful of people, and what could only wonder what the future might hold 20 years hence.  At Waimate and Pakaraka, services are held only once every four Sundays, in a rotation with two other locations.  None of the church buildings were large.

Of course, Anglican churches aren’t all there is.  We saw several Baptist churches in our travels, and various independent (Pentecostal?) ones too.  No doubt there were a few Catholic churches around, but they weren’t prominent.  Not one of the church buildings we saw were large. The Bay of Islands area doesn’t have a large population –  and I’m not suggesting the decline of Christianity is any more severe there than in the rest of the country –  but I came away saddened. For all the Christian and missionary history, there was a sense of a receding tide which, before too many more years passed, could leave little of a living faith, and not much more than the tombstones of country churchyards to bear testimony to the power of the living faith that motivated men and women to come from so far away, eke out livings on the margins of a far-away land, all for the proclamation of the gospel.

Over history, the fortunes of the church have waxed and waned in many places. I long for –  and must pray more for –  a revival of faith in New Zealand.  With God nothing is impossible, and we’ve seen revivals in various times and places previously –  even among Maori here in New Zealand.  And yet…..perhaps I’m missing some examples, but I can think of all too many places where the presence of the gospel has been all-but-eliminated (Turkey is only the most prominent example, but increasingly one can think of much of the Middle East as well as most of North Africa) and all too few where the practice of the Christian faith has once waned as much as it has in New Zealand in recent decades, only to revive markedly.  Will the 300th anniversary of that first service at Oihi attract any interest at all?  How will future generations even know what a missionary was, when they learn of Henry Williams’ involvement at Waitangi?

Our hope is in the Lord who made the heavens and the earth.  But among the many lands that urgently needs the reviving work of the Spirit must be New Zealand.  Does the church sense that urgency?   Most of time, do I?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized