In 2011 I spoke at the national interfaith forum on State and Church. Four years on, these comments seem even more relevant today than they were back then.
Part 1 is a response to a paper presented by Professor Paul Morris from Victoria University. (It should be clear what points are being rebutted).
Part 2 is a response to the 5 key questions being addressed at the forum:
Should the state observe religious rituals?
Should parliament open with a Christian prayer, other prayer, or any prayer at all?
Should public events acknowledge the diversity of religion and belief?
Should the state recognise and support religious activities?
Should the state promote interfaith dialogue?
But for those who just want the ‘bottom line’, let me open with my conclusion:
I do not say there should be Christian prayer in parliament because
Christianity is the largest religious group, even though this is true
And not because it’s unfair that secularists have already squeezed Christianity out of 99.9% of the public square
Not because of tradition, although tradition is important and should not be changed lightly
Nor because of our history, although Christianity has played an important role and it’s reasonable that it should be reflected
Nor because of its symbolism, although this is not insignificant
And certainly not because the church needs it. The church has seen many political leaders and regimes come and go over 2,000 years
I say there should be Christian prayer because it’s right that parliament should begin its work each day by acknowledging the sovereignty of God
Part 1
I want to thank Professor Paul Morris for the work which went into preparing his paper. The survey of nation states and their religions, and the summary of history and trends in this issue, are useful in themselves. And I am sure the paper overall will achieve well its purpose of provoking debate and discussion.
Before I share some thoughts of my own on state and church, I would just like to touch briefly on a few points in Paul’s paper:
It’s good to have you record that there are no exclusively secular states, because there are many in New Zealand who try to maintain that New Zealand is totally secular as a basis for various other arguments.
You make the point that in the various ways that states interact with religions “it is the majority faith that benefits from these arrangements”. I think the picture is actually more complex than that.The fact that in NZ three statutory holidays are based on the Christian calendar, or that a state funeral is held in a Christian cathedral, is probably not as significant as the fact that minority religions are free to practise their beliefs including building places of worship. This is sadly not true in some regimes around the world. As this discussion progresses, it would be useful to have some research into what combination of state and religion offers the greatest level of protection and freedom for minorities.
The three new political models you outline are very useful. Church leaders are continually looking at how churches can engage more effectively and positively in their communities and this section will help in those discussions.With possibly a very small number of exceptions, no church leader wants to see a return to a Christendom model where the church ruled the state. At the same time, few if any church leaders probably think that a state ruled by secularists will be ultimately beneficial for society.As you say in your closing “the failure of liberalism to sustain values is a growing concern”. What we need is a discussion about what sort of model will be in NZ’s best interests long-term, and that’s what today is all about.
Your fourth factor regarding the growing concern with social cohesion is especially pertinent, and possibly the real starting point for this whole discussion.Numerous incidents including the London riots, the global financial crisis, the News Corp phone hacking, the growing gaps between rich and poor, and the inability of western governments to balance their budgets, highlight this problem.
When you move to New Zealand the description of Christianity as a “minority religion” because it might fall below 50% will certainly raise a few eyebrows. People think of Christianity in Turkey as a minority religion, or Buddhism in New Zealand. But to describe the largest religious group in a country as a “minority religion” is unusual to say the least.
You point out that the church’s influence has been declining since the 1950s which is true. It’s also true that NZ has seen a corresponding and dramatic increase in many negative social indicators over that same time period. Although direct causation is hard to prove, this is something that people should seriously reflect on.
Singling out churches for failing to honour the Treaty is a bit harsh. While their record is not perfect, the fact is that church leaders spoke out often against the government and others for treaty abuses for nearly 20 years after the treaty – as they continue to do today. And to a large extent it was the work of Christian missionaries, and the high regard in which they were held by Maori that almost certainly led to the Treaty even being signed.
What I appreciate most about this paper is that it is descriptive of what is happening, which leaves the discussion wide open as to what should happen.
Part 2
The brochure for this forum asked 5 questions:
Should the state observe religious rituals?
Should parliament open with a Christian prayer, other prayer, or any prayer at all?
Should public events acknowledge the diversity of religion and belief?
Should the state recognise and support religious activities?
Should the state promote interfaith dialogue?
I don’t have time to address all of these questions in detail, so let me say my answer to all questions is ‘yes’, and on question 2, I believe parliament should open specifically with Christian prayer.
“It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.”
This is not something I said. It is a quotation in a book called Civilisation by historian Nial Ferguson, from a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who was part of a team tasked with discovering why it was that Europe having lagged behind China until the 17th century, overtook it, rising to prominence & dominance.
“At first, [the scientist] said, we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion, Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.
What is even more interesting is that this story was told in an article by Lord Jonathan Sachs, Chief Rabbi to the Commonwealth in The Times 12 May 2011.
Sachs went on to say “While Christianity is in decline in Britain and most of Europe it is growing and thriving in China where the number of people in church on Sunday is greater than the total membership of the Communist Party – and this in the land that in 1958 Chairman Mao had declared ‘religion-free’.
“As a non-Christian” he says,” I find this fascinating. Europe is losing the very thing that once made it great, while China the world’s fastest-growing economy, is discovering it. China – the home of Confucianism, Taoism and its own brand of communism. That is something no one could have foreseen.
What has China realised that the West is rapidly forgetting? That a civilisation is as strong as its faith … Societies start growing old when they lose faith in the transcendent. They then lose faith in an objective moral order and end by losing faith in themselves”.
Sounds vaguely like a description of Western liberal democracies.
//
God created the Church and God created government. Each has a different function. Each is accountable to God. Apart from anything else, opening parliament each day with prayer is a reminder that politicians do not have ultimate power.
Governments which make no reference to God fall into two errors: they miss out on the provision and guidance which come from God, and they begin to think and act as if they were God. A former NZ Prime Minister is on record saying that government can do anything it wants to.
But this is not true. States are not the final arbiter of right and wrong. As one example, we expect governments everywhere to uphold human rights. These rights transcend governments. In fact it’s easy to show they even transcend the United Nations. Where do they come from?
Christians say they are visible in many belief systems but they are most clearly displayed in the person of Jesus Christ.
Cardinal George Pell in the 2009 Sir John Graham lecture said “Concern for the weak and unfortunate was considered foolishness in the Roman world. It was Christianity which made it a virtue. While freedom was greatly extolled in the ancient world, it was only for the aristocratic and powerful few and was explicitly linked to domination of the many, including the many slaves; sometimes 40% of the population. It was Christianity which eventually set the slaves free, which taught that freedom is not just a privilege of the strong …”
//
I do not say there should be Christian prayer in parliament because
Christianity is the largest religious group, even though this is true
And not because it’s unfair that secularists have already squeezed Christianity out of 99.9% of the public square
Not because of tradition, although tradition is important and should not be changed lightly
Nor because of our history, although Christianity has played an important role and it’s reasonable that it should be reflected
Nor because of its symbolism, although this is not insignificant
And certainly not because the church needs it. The church has seen many political leaders and regimes come and go over 2,000 years
I say there should be Christian prayer because it’s right that parliament should begin its work each day by acknowledging the sovereignty of God
NZ Christian Network’s sister organisation in UK has just published the results of a research project described as the “first of its kind”. The research was conducted by Barna Group on behalf of the EAUK (Evangelical Alliance UK), the Church of England, and HOPE.
When I was with EAUK director Steve Clifford in June, the research project called “Talking Jesus – Perceptions of Jesus, Christians, and evangelism in England”, was still underway, but there was already a strong sense of excitement building.
Click on the link button below to access the report, Powerpoints, and video presentations of the results.
This week I received a copy of the findings in the post, and when I checked on EAUK’s website I found that everything I’d received – AND MORE – is available online.
And it’s well worth a look!
It’s possible that the similarities between UK and NZ will mean that the research can be reasonably applied to our context without needing to run a similar survey in NZ.
NZ Christian Network is involved with the CRA (Christian Research Association) which runs the CLS (Church Life Survey), so this is a question we will discuss at our next meeting.
In the meantime, here’s a snapshot of what EAUK found:
57% of people in England identify as Christians (9% are practising)
41% of practising Christians attribute their faith to growing up in a Christian home
40% of people do not realise Jesus was a real person who actually lived
One in four 18 to 34-year-olds thinks Jesus was a mythical or fictional character
43% of people believe in the resurrection
66% of practising Christians have talked about Jesus to a non-Christian in the past month
72% of practising Christians feel comfortable talking to non-Christians about Jesus
31% of 18 to 34-year-olds felt more positive about Jesus after such a conversation
44% of practising Christians credit their friends for introducing them to Jesus
17% of practising Christians said a spiritual experience they could not explain was a key factor in them coming to faith.
Spiritual, loving and peaceful are the words most commonly used to describe Jesus
36% of practising Christians say talking to a Christian about Jesus was important in their coming to faith
Christian faith is not a part-time activity. It is to be lived out 24-7-52. For many Christians this involves living out our faith at home, in our communities, and in our workplaces. But several myths about faith and work can prevent us from being effective witnesses in this area of life.
Kara Martin is Associate Dean of the Marketplace Institute at Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia.
When we met at Ridley a year ago I asked Kara if she could condense some of the most important messages she had learned that would help Christians be more effective witnesses in their workplaces. Kara’s response has been published by NZ Christian Network in our series of |Notes (one-page resources), and forms the first part of this publication.
One of the discussion groups hosted by NZ Christian Network is focused on ‘missional living’ – what does it mean to be a witness and follower of Jesus in every area of life. The group includes a number of locally and internationally respected leaders. As we were discussing Kara’s |Note, we realised that many people interested in this topic might find it useful to ‘eavesdrop’ on our conversation.
So, five of the group members agreed to write a brief comment on Kara’s original |Note (hence ‘6 views’). Once completed these were circulated to the group, and everyone then wrote a brief reflection on each other’s comments. Kara Martin added a conclusion.
The interaction between the six authors not only acts as a refining process – enabling you to see more clearly God’s intention for how faith and work are connected. Hopefully it will also serve as an example of how Christians can discuss different ideas in a way which is honouring to God.
One of the biggest potential shortcomings of this project and of the individual contributions is the strict word limits we imposed on the authors. We did this so that the final publication would be more accessible to a wider audience. It does mean though that the authors have not been able to explain themselves as fully as they would have liked.
We trust that they have each managed to communicate enough to help stimulate your own thinking, and that you the reader will extend to them all the same grace they have shown to each other.
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
We were sent a link to this opinion piece by Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Although it relates specifically to the situation in America and the recent decision of the Supreme Court, it nevertheless contains some useful thoughts for Christians in New Zealand to consider. [Glyn Carpenter]
As I write this, the Supreme Court has handed down what will be the “Roe v. Wade” of marriage, redefining marriage in all 50 states. This is a sober moment, and I am a conscientious dissenter from this ruling. The Court now has disregarded thousands of years of definition of the most foundational unit of society, and the cultural changes here will be broad and deep. So how should the church respond?
First of all, the church should not panic. The Supreme Court can do many things, but the Supreme Court cannot get Jesus back in that tomb. Jesus of Nazareth is still alive. He is still calling the universe toward his kingdom.
Moreover, while this decision will, I believe, ultimately hurt many people and families and civilization itself, the gospel doesn’t need “family values” to flourish. In fact, the church often thrives when it is in sharp contrast to the cultures around it. That was the case in Ephesus and Philippi and Corinth and Rome, which held to marriage views out of step with the Scriptures.
The church will need in the years ahead to articulate what we believe about marriage; we cannot assume that people agree with us, or even understand us. Let’s not simply talk about marriage in terms of values or culture or human flourishing. Let’s talk about marriage the way Jesus and the apostles taught us to — as bound up with the gospel itself, a picture of the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:32).
As we do so, we must not just articulate our views of marriage, we must embody a gospel marriage culture. We have done a poor job of that in the past. Too many of our marriages have been ravaged by divorce.
Too often we’ve neglected church discipline in the cases of those who have unrepentantly destroyed their marriages. We must repent of our failings and picture to the world what marriage is meant to be, and keep the light lit to the old paths.
This gives the church an opportunity to do what Jesus called us to do with our marriages in the first place: to serve as a light in a dark place. Permanent, stable marriages with families with both a mother and a father may well make us seem freakish in 21st-century culture.
We should not fear that. We believe stranger things than that. We believe a previously dead man is alive, and will show up in the Eastern skies on a horse. We believe that the gospel can forgive sinners like us and make us sons and daughters. Let’s embrace the sort of freakishness that saves.
Let’s also recognize that if we’re right about marriage, and I believe we are, many people will be disappointed in getting what they want. Many of our neighbors believe that a redefined concept of marriage will simply expand the institution (and, let’s be honest, many will want it to keep on expanding). This will not do so, because sexual complementarity is not ancillary to marriage. The church must prepare for the refugees from the sexual revolution.
We must prepare for those, like the sexually wayward Woman at the Well of Samaria, who will be thirsting for water of which they don’t even know.
There are two sorts of churches that will not be able to reach the sexual revolution’s refugees. A church that has given up on the truth of the Scriptures, including on marriage and sexuality, and has nothing to say to a fallen world. And a church that screams with outrage at those who disagree will have nothing to say to those who are looking for a new birth.
We must stand with conviction and with kindness, with truth and with grace. We must hold to our views and love those who hate us for them. We must not only speak Christian truths; we must speak with a Christian accent. We must say what Jesus has revealed, and we must say those things the way Jesus does — with mercy and with an invitation to new life.
Some Christians will be tempted to anger, lashing out at the world around us with a narrative of decline. That temptation is wrong. God decided when we would be born, and when we would be born again. We have the Spirit and the gospel. To think that we deserve to live in different times is to tell God that we deserve a better mission field than the one he has given us. Let’s joyfully march to Zion.
What do you think? Is this article helpful or relevant to the situation in New Zealand?
There are two distinct, key issues currently being debated in NZ generally and by VES and EFNZ specifically:
Is active euthanasia (or PAS) ever acceptable?
Is it possible to implement a policy of PAS in some way shape or form that will adequately account for unwanted but predictable secondary consequences?
There are other important issues that are not really in question, that I think should be separated from the current debate. For example:
Is passive euthanasia ever acceptable, and if so in what circumstances?
Are interventions that may hasten death, even predictably hasten death, but are not directly designed to cause death, ever acceptable, and if so in what circumstances?”
Going back to those two key issues, I think they are quite different, in terms of category, and this should be acknowledged.
The first is really a worldview issue. In a sense, one’s position is a fundamental premise that to some extent defies logical examination. One can never “prove” that one’s answer to this issue is right.
The second is a matter of practicality. One can “prove” their case to be better than an alternative.
I believe that in the current debate, both the VES and EFNZ are guilty of eliding the two issues in a manner that is not entirely honest.
Each major player has decided from a worldview perspective what the correct answer to the first issue should be.
VES is closely aligned with the rationalist humanist point of view, one that promotes a very libertarian mind set.
EFNZ is Christian, and believes life is inherently sacred and should not be “taken”.
There is some hesitance to state these worldviews clearly, perhaps because it is so difficult to engage people in debate on that level or maybe it is seen as a turn off. E.g. EFNZ says “We have no affiliation with any church, religion or any other secular organisation.”
Because of the failure to make this distinction, the debate slips and slides between the two major issues.
In any case, I think it is obvious that answering the objections raised by each side would do nothing to budge those whose fundamental convictions have already been made.
It’s the classic story that for those who have faith, no evidence is necessary, and for those who don’t, no evidence is enough.
This is why the debate goes back and forth on issues such as legal safeguards, and undermining trust in the medical profession (see Arguments and Rebuttals on the VES site)
Furthermore, to have the conversation honestly around the second issue, would need a worldview that would allow PAS, which EFNZ cannot do.
EFNZ may suggest that practical objections point to a higher truth, but again, that is an assertion that cannot be “proved”.
A danger for the EFNZ is that if all their practical objections could be accounted for, then one would have to conclude PAS would be acceptable in some circumstances. And most of their objections are those of practicality (8/8 on the pamphlet).
Because of the above points, the arguments from both sides then, are directed at those who do not have a fundamental conviction, and are open to persuasion.
So it does not matter so much if the arguments are valid, so long as they are persuasive.
This is why the arguments for and against PAS can be so weak and illogical, because this is not their primary requirement for each side.
This is akin to telling a children “noble lies” (described by wikipedia as a “myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic).
Three other points:
I think the approach of groups like Euthanasia-Free NZ is doomed to failure
Perhaps EFNZ thinks that as long as people are persuaded by something to vote against any bill or referendum, then it doesn’t matter how valid the arguments are, as they are achieving a good outcome BUT
If their practical objections can be demonstrated to be wrong, this undermines their position
Debate over practical objections has a tendency to get messy and confusing, this undermines their position
They are on the losing side of a general social thrust towards personal rights (prostitution reform bill, marriage equality bill), and their opposition to this makes them seem callous, and this undermines their position
I don’t think it is so much the Christian’s job to stop what society wants, but rather to change what society wants
We need to address the fundamental world view stuff, the rest will follow
I think the most persuasive augments here are examples.
For me, moving towards a position against PAS was due to a combination of seeing palliative services in action, and Victor Frankel’s book, “Man’s search for meaning”.
People need to see that suffering is not something to fear and necessarily to avoid.
If PAS does become legal, then doctors should be excluded from it.
I agree entirely with the NZMC Code of ethics statement: “Doctors should bear in mind always the obligation of preserving life wherever possible and justifiable, while allowing death to occur with dignity and comfort when it appears to be inevitable. In such inevitable terminal situations, treatment applied with the primary aim of relieving patient distress is ethically acceptable, even when it may have the secondary effect of shortening life.”
The writer wished to remain anonymous. But we think he has raised some interesting points and questions.
What do you think? Would it be more honest, perhaps also more effective, to state that we believe there is a God, that life is a gift from God, and that God alone has the right to end life. Further, we believe that everyone will one day come face-to-face with God and have to account for their actions in this life.
“Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Tim. 3:12)
Frank Viola offers in this post some useful and wise teaching from the Bible on the topics of tolerance, persecution, and how we should respond in a world that is increasingly secular, and sometimes even antagonistic towards people who believe that God is relevant in every area of life.
