Tuesday 11th August saw Christian leaders from Auckland and beyond attend the event ‘Christian Women Connecting for Global Impact’ at AUT. They met to share their stories and hear from Amanda Jackson about the experiences of women around the world. In her role as Executive Director of the Womens Commission, World Evangelical Alliance, Amanda sees firsthand the challenges faced by women across many nations as they seek to understand and live out their lives as women of faith.
The evening was also the launch of Women as One, the NZ and South Pacific Women’s Commission, recently established under the umbrella of the NZCN. The Commission has a vision to provide a platform to Connect, Equip and provide an opportunity to hear the Voices of Christian Women in New Zealand and the South Pacific.
Leaders Janet Tuck and Rachel Afeaki-Taumoepeau shared their hopes and aspirations for the Commission. They see a real opportunity to connect Christian women across New Zealand and the Pacific region from different denominations and ethnic backgrounds.
Attendees shared their stories in relation to four key words: Leadership, Opportunity, Woman and Church. The journey has been hard for some, with the stories quite ‘gritty’ and honest. However the evening was one of real warmth and connection. There was a lot of laughter, and some new friendships established. The few brave men who attended were provided with women’s wigs in order to ‘blend in’ more easily. Glyn Carpenter sporting a long white wig almost looked the part!
Feedback from the night has been very positive, with several telling of a sense of God calling them to be there, and a real excitement about what might come next.
Special thanks go to:
Agnes Naera and Chantelle Lincoln from AUT for the wonderful hospitality and opportunity to run this event as part of their diversity week
Amanda Jackson for visiting and inspiring us with her vision for women around the globe, and to husband Lewis for his wit and wisdom
The wonderful women who attended the evening and participated so honestly and graciously
To our God who continues to inspire, equip, empower and guide us on our journeys
We look forward to the NZ & South Pacific Women’s Commission “ Women as One” developing a range of activities and opportunities for engagement. Watch this space.
Amanda Jackson, leader of the WEA Women’s Commission, was interviewed by John Peachey on Radio Rhema this morning (11/08/2015). Amanda is currently visiting New Zealand to help us launch Women As One in the NZ and Pacific region.
Listen to Amanda and John discuss the imbalance between men and women represented in society and the church among other topics.
An interesting observation that Amanda makes about women mentioned in the Bible is that even though commentaries would describe Ruth, for instance, as beautiful, not once in the book of Ruth is what she looked like mentioned.
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.
Easter seems a long time ago. But many people have spoken about British Prime Minister David Cameron’s Easter message. So we decided to re-post it here for your easy reference, and also for any who haven’t seen it or read it yet.
Referring to the comfort he has found in his own Christian faith, he asks the nation to “speak out about the persecution of Christians around the world”.
In what could be seen as a bid to reaffirm his Christian credentials ahead of the General Election on May 7, Mr Cameron declares: “Across Britain, Christians don’t just talk about ‘loving thy neighbour’, they live it out… in faith schools, in prisons, in community groups.
“And it’s for all these reasons that we should feel proud to say, ‘This is a Christian country.’
“Yes, we are a nation that embraces, welcomes and accepts all faiths and none but we are still a Christian country.
“And as a Christian country,” he asserts.
“Our responsibilities don’t end there.
We are a nation that embraces, welcomes and accepts all faiths and none but we are still a Christian country
David Cameron
“We have a duty to speak out about the persecution of Christians around the world too.”It is truly shocking to know that in 2015 there are still Christians being threatened, tortured, even killed, because of their faith from Egypt to Nigeria, Libya to North Korea.
“Across the Middle East, Christians have been hounded out of their homes, forced to flee from village to village, many of them forced to renounce their faith or be brutally murdered.
“To all those brave Christians in Iraq and Syria who are practising their faith, or sheltering others, we must say, ‘We stand with you’.”
Mr Cameron’s message comes days after almost 150 Kenyan Christians were massacred by Al Shabaab gunmen.
He adds: “The church is not just a collection of beautiful old buildings.
“It is a living, active force doing great works across our country.”
