Statistics indicate that less than half of adults in New Zealand are married, and the remainder are single, in de facto partnerships, or widowed, separated or divorced. But marriage still matters, and it matters that marriages be loving, healthy, and committed. Such marriages are good for everyone: for those within them, for children, and for our whole society.
There are many strong marriages out there. Tragically, though, many marriages struggle or fail.
Christians cannot presume to tell others New Zealanders how to live their lives. But the Christian faith and the Bible do offer many profound and timeless insights into marriage.
From the outset, and in Jesus’ teaching, the Bible presents marriage as the deep union of a man and a woman, a relationship that is loving, faithful, and life-long.
The Bible also attests to humanity being universally marred by sinfulness. Every marriage (including Christian marriages) involves two flawed people. It follows that a key dynamic in building a loving, stable, and happy marriage is to lean into God and experience his Holy Spirit changing us inwardly, so that we become better marriage partners.
It is good to bear in mind that much of the Bible’s teaching about how Christians should treat other people can also be applied to marriage. Like: loving others as much as ourselves, “love is patient and kind” (1 Cor. 13), speaking the truth in love, and being gentle, forbearing, peace-loving, and willing to forgive. A quick Bible search brings up multiple references to all these things, especially in the New Testament.
Marriage is a great gift of God, and not just for Christians. What matters most in any marriage is not the wedding celebration, but the quality of the marriage over the years ahead, a quality which can either grow or decline.
May God bless marriage in New Zealand, and may loving, flourishing, and enduring marriages – including those of many Christians – be helpful examples to our watching world.
Unquestionably, the state of marriages is a key factor in any society’s wellbeing.
In recent months, six Christian ministries (FamilyLife NZ, Focus on the Family NZ, Alpha NZ, Shining Lights, Family First, and New Zealand Christian Network) have been working together to plan and highlight pro-marriage initiatives in New Zealand.
The convener of the inter-agency steering group, Wynand Jacobs, writes: ‘We are thrilled to see unprecedented collaboration among Christian ministries for Marriage Week NZ (13-19 September). As part of this unified initiative, we are undertaking an ambitious goal: surveying 10,000 New Zealanders to get a true snapshot of relationships in our nation. Taking just 7 minutes, this anonymous survey will identify barriers to finding help and directly guide future support resources. The results will be shared during Marriage Week. Please add your voice today and help families flourish.’
Participate in the survey here, and share the link widely:
The percentage of New Zealanders marrying is decreasing, as a recent report highlighted.
Whether you’re married or single, we’re sure you can agree that strong marriages are very beneficial for those who are married, and for their children, and for wider society. Unfortunately, many marriages are not in great shape.
Of all people, Christians should aim to ensure their marriages are as healthy as possible. It is tragic when any marriage struggles or fails, but arguably even more so when it involves Christians.
Some key elements of a healthy marriage include…
A very strong commitment to each other
Absolute faithfulness, and trustworthiness
Regularly praying together, and ensuring our faith is central rather than peripheral
Continuing to take delight in each other, expressing love in words, manner, actions, and time spent together
Always seeking our spouse’s wellbeing, rather than just our own (loving others as much as we love ourselves, Matt. 12:39)
Doing our best to support and help each other, and to share our burdens
Listening well, and always taking an interest in our spouse
Speaking gently and peaceably with each other, rather than brusquely, irritably, or harshly (1 Cor. 13:4: Love is patient, love is kind)
Respecting and encouraging each other, rather than putting each other down, and continually criticising
Working on our own faults, instead of concentrating on our spouse’s faults
Avoiding destructive behaviours such as bickering, coercion, fits of temper, or fights (Eph. 4:31: Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice)
When we fall short, being quick to give or receive an apology, and then to move on with forgiveness, forbearance, and grace (Eph. 4:32: Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you)
— A few thoughts from the NZCN staff team (all married, and all still learning)
The only perfect father is our heavenly Father, the ultimate source of all life, love, and goodness.
Most human fathers do a reasonably good job of parenting and do their best to support and encourage their children. As flawed human beings, though, none of us gets everything right. All fathers can at times be impatient, irritable, selfish, neglectful, or overly harsh. However, children are wired to trust and love their parents, and generally cope okay with our imperfections.
The high level in our society of part-time or absent fathers is far from ideal.
Tragically, some children are exposed to fathers (or other males living in the home) who may be variously indifferent, demeaning, cruel, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, prone to rage, violent, or committing abuse. Seriously bad fathering causes serious long-term harm.
What can Christian men do to be the best fathers they possibly can?
Here are three things to consider:
In both word and action, profoundly love your children. Give them the loving fatherly attention, affection, and guidance they really need. Don’t neglect them, don’t belittle them, don’t condone unacceptable behaviour, don’t be excessively strict, don’t punish harshly. Be accessible, be gentle but firm, be as calm as you can, be reasonable, be fair, be kind, have fun with them, teach them about God (Deut. 6:6-7), and give them good boundaries. Be determined that you will never do them harm (Ephes. 6:4).
Give your children a credible example of what it means to follow Christ, to love God and love others, to be shaped by God’s values and led by the Spirit, and to be committed to serving God and others in and beyond the church. Read the Bible with them, pray with them and pray for them, and be actively involved with them in a good church.
Give your children a great example of what it means to be a loving, faithful, considerate, gentle, and caring husband (Ephes. 5:25,28), and what it means to be a good father.
There are many indications that – along with marae, countless community organisations, and the general public – many Christian people and churches have been very active in responding to the recent weather disasters with gifts, money, meals, places to stay, and other practical help. Some of this reaches the media, but most of it doesn’t.
Here’s an initiative among Baptists and here’s a brief video clip expressing local appreciation of the work being done by a large group of Destiny Church men with clean-up in Hawkes Bay. Churches such as House of Breakthrough Church (in Gisborne) and Rānui Baptist Church (West Auckland) have provided emergency accommodation. Many churches have sent gifts of food and equipment. In Auckland, City Impact Church bagged six tons of sand and gave it away and provided meals for 10,000 people, and have since sent three truck and trailer units loaded with supplies to Hastings and Gisborne, and hired a helicopter to help with distribution.
Pray As One NZ invited Lance Rickard, associate pastor at House of Breakthrough Gisborne, to share about the flood relief and clean-up in Tairawhiti. Acting as a disaster hub for the area, they are working with other churches to provide food and help where needed.
From Frances Tagaloa:
I just quickly wanted to let you know that our church (Church Northwest) has done several things to help with the flood response. They have:
Organised a church member to saw down a felled tree.
Offered Countdown & Mitre10 vouchers to flood victims.
Offered prayer and emotional support.
Sent out information about Vision West who is helping flood victims work out a plan for their situation.
Arranged for Vision West to talk to us about their programme.
Connected us with Vision West for pastoral care.
From Sasha McPherson, Laidlaw College:
Over the last few days Laidlaw Seaspray House has been opened up to welcome Piha locals for a cuppa & a chat, with crafts for the kids & some yummy treats. A huge thank you to the Titirangi Baptist crew who came out on Sunday with a yummy BBQ and fun activities. Another huge thank you to Jill Shaw for being on the ground over the past week & bringing people together. We also had a Laidlaw BCouns grad & some Counselling faculty available for conversation for anyone who wanted a chat. The Piha community are doing an amazing job supporting each other but it’s going to be a while before things feel normal again. Please keep them in your prayers.
From Jill Shaw, Religious Diversity Centre chaplain:
I, as a chaplain for staff at Laidlaw College, was thrilled to have use of the Laidlaw bach at Piha to use as a drop-in centre for the mental wellbeing of locals who needed a quiet place to stop in and have a chat. Laidlaw sent counsellors as well.
With the help of Andy Shudall’s team at Titirangi Baptist Church (TBC), we hosted a Family Fun Day with over 40 adults participating and too many children to count. TBC’s 24/7 youth worker, youth staff and volunteers created a safe and fun space for stressed families.
This week over 20 people enjoyed the Over 50’s Afternoon Tea, again with a Laidlaw College grad in support.
The above was facilitated by relationships within the community with Restoke Foundation. Working locally at the grassroots level is not always super-efficient but is usually more effective than top-down outsider initiatives.
Shore Community Church donated a pile of gift cards and vouchers from places like Kmart, Briscoes and supermarkets for distribution to anyone in Auckland who lost household goods or have hefty excesses to pay. The church also had volunteers serving in the evac centre at Massey University.
Christianity Today article in the wake of tornadoes that struck Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, and other places in the South and Midwest United States of America in early April 2023.
Auckland Church Network and Convoy of Hope:
Our country is reeling. Churches, homes, businesses and more have been ravaged. Our hearts ache, and we are praying with you.
We have been humbled to hear of Auckland churches wanting to help those worst affected outside our city. To that end, Auckland Church Network is partnering with disaster response org Convoy of Hope who are responding through local Hawke’s Bay churches, empowering them to embody the compassion of Jesus. Amidst all the good being done, we’ve identified a part we can play: the hard mahi of helping people back into their homes.
Can your church help the churches who are helping?
In conversation with the churches on the ground, Convoy of Hope has a confirmed list of urgently-needed items. Can you and your church drop off needed items at the collection points? They are also taking donations so that needed items can be purchased.
We also need your help getting the word out so people can donate goods or finances!
A Christian response to suggested “Hate Speech” law changes, and some proposed re-wording
byDr Stuart Lange, on behalf of the New Zealand Christian Network
Some principles we begin from…
Nobody comes to any issue without some preconceptions, and it can be helpful to state where we are coming from. So, as people of Christian faith…
We are deeply committed to God, to love for all, to God’s truth revealed in Christ and the scriptures, to the intrinsic God-given equality of all people, and to justice, righteousness, grace, mercy, and peace.
We absolutely reject all racism.
We deplore all abusive language, name-calling, hatefulness, and violence – by anyone, and to anyone.
We believe that, ideally, all people should relate to one another with gentleness and respect, even when they strongly disagree. Secular people should respect religious people, and vice versa. People of faith should relate respectfully to people of other faiths.
We believe that, if we are to remain a free society, our freedoms of religious belief (or unbelief) and of expression must be carefully and unequivocally protected.
We believe that a wide diversity of viewpoints and freedom to debate important issues is extremely important, even though it is at the cost of most people sometimes being exposed to views we find objectionable or offensive.
We believe that the State should avoid all attempts to control the thoughts and speech of its citizens, except where the beliefs and opinions of people are unquestionably inciting extreme hatefulness and violence.
What is behind the proposed “hate speech” laws, and why do they matter?
The Government consultation document has presented the proposed “Hate Speech” law changes as a revision of existing legislation to help restrain extreme racism, and as extending protections against “hate speech” to “groups” defined by sex, sexuality, religion, and disability, and thus to build a “greater social cohesion”. But many people see what is proposed as a dangerous limitation of public debate and freedom of expression, in which constant pressure from some groups could lead to a growing censorship of public debate.
A key question is around the precise scope and wording of the proposed changes, particularly in relation to exactly what is meant by the words “hate” and “hatred”. For different people, and in different contexts, these words carry a range of meanings and implications.
In existing legislation it is already a civil offence (see Section 161 (c) of the Human Rights Act 1993) to use “words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting, being matter or words likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons”. This prohibition on incitement only applies to racism. We agree that for the sake of public safety this existing law is appropriate, to help restrain those ranters who spew forth appalling racist rhetoric, stirring up disharmony and violence. We also fully agree that the law should be extended to electronic communication.
Because of the significant risk of the proposed law changes increasingly suppressing freedom of expression, however, we have some caution about the list of groups covered by incitement provisions being extended from just race and nationality to also include groups based on religion, disability, sex, and sexuality. We could accept that, though, if (1) the threshold of criminality remains very high and (2) the nature and limits of “hate speech” are clearly defined.
The key problem with what is proposed
We agree in principle that it should be criminal to stir up extreme animosity and/or incite violence towards any group in society.
The core problem with the wording proposed in the consultation document, however, is that it removes the definitions of incitement that are in the Human Rights Act (see above) and instead substitutes the very elastic term “hatred” – with no adequate definitions.
We believe the word “hatred” is too broad and subjective, and – in the absence of very clear definition – is worryingly vulnerable to freedom-stifling misapplications.
In our societal context of increasingly clamorous identity politics, the word “hatred” is highly loaded. Why not stick with incitement to “hostility”, or change it to “extreme hostility”? Across the western world, the introduction of “hate speech” laws is primarily driven by the desire to restrict the expression of views which disagree with LGBT ideologies. Is that what the Government primarily has in view here?
Our concern grows when we read that it would not only be a crime to incite “hatred”, but also to “maintain or normalise hatred”. This too (especially the “and normalise” phrase) is capable of many interpretations and misapplications, and we believe this proposed wording should be dropped.
Over time, we fear, the wording of the proposed law changes would make it all too easy for various secular, religious, and sexuality activists to hunt down any expression of viewpoint that does not support their own views, or which they find offensive, and to claim that it is “hateful” to their group and therefore unlawful. The police and law courts may end up very busy.
All this poses some significant risks for the freedom of our society, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights:
“13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
“14 Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
The only way to avoid oppressive outcomes with the proposed law change is for there to be included some extremely clear explanations of what inciting “hatred” does and does not mean.
Some sample questions…
Under the proposed law changes, could anyone be prosecuted for denying a core belief or doctrine of any religion, and thus potentially causing offence?
Could it become criminal for anyone to say that they do not believe in sex transitioning for children and adolescents?
Could it become criminal for anyone to say that they do not believe it is fair for “trans” people born as males to compete in women’s sport?
Could it become criminal for someone to say that they do not personally believe that same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages are intended by God? (This is not “hatred”, but just a matter of religious belief and expression)?
Could anyone be prosecuted for reading out or referring to – in public, or even in a religious gathering – any passage or verse in the Bible, Qur’an, or any other sacred religious writing that asserts a doctrinal belief about Allah, Jesus, or salvation, or against unbelief, or against any behaviour, and thus will likely offend someone somewhere?
If the answer to any of those five questions is “yes, or maybe”, then for the sake of everyone’s freedoms the proposed law changes must be worded so as to avoid that.
If the answer is, “no” (or as it says in the consultation document, “only extreme hate speech is criminalised, and that there must be an intention to cause others to develop and strengthen hatred towards a group”), then we need to see that protection clearly reflected in the actual wording of the proposed law changes.
If the answer is, “we don’t know, and we won’t say, but over time we will see how the police and the courts interpret this law in relation to society’s changing thinking”, then we can rightly be very concerned, and may want to ponder what sort of oppressive, thought-controlling Orwellian society our children and mokopuna may inherit.
In our view, the only way for society to protect itself against unjust and tyrannical outcomes through its proposed “hate speech” laws is to state as precisely as possible exactly what “hate speech” is, and exactly what it isn’t.
“In the context of this law, “inciting hatred” means to incite extreme hostility, to deliberately and maliciously vilify with the clear intention of stirring up loathing, hostility, contempt, or violence towards a group; it does not mean to express disagreement, criticism or caution in relation to any of the views of a group, or simply to express beliefs and views which members of any group may consider objectionable or even offensive.”
We believe the Government’s forthcoming Bill must clearly provide some such explicit clarification and balance, and should drop the “maintain and normalise hatred” line. If it does so, these law changes may yet possibly be safe, and may prove acceptable to most people. Nevertheless, whatever our religion (or our lack of it), all New Zealanders need to remain highly vigilant in protecting critically important human freedoms of belief and expression.
