There are some things which are basic in our Christian lives – things like prayer, Bible reading, worship, witness.
NZ Christian Network organised two major discussions recently – one on marriage and one on secularism, involving regional leaders, members of our focus discussion groups, theologians, and some national church leaders, And the common theme at the conclusion of these discussions is that we need to be praying more and we need to be reading our Bibles better.
So I was delighted when I followed up these discussions with Tim Bulkeley, former lecturer at Carey Baptist College and now roving Bible teacher and scholar, and Tim expressed a passionate interest in seeing something done about the Bible reading part of that equation.
Tim had (rather helpfully) already prepared a 5 minute video clip to introduce what he had in mind (see video link). It is similar to a course he has taught many times in New Zealand and continues to teach internationally.
The church I attend is running the introduction session in a couple of weeks time, and we will then be working with some other Bible lecturers to figure out how best to structure this for NZ churches and what would be the best delivery mechanisms.
If you are interested in staying informed, please leave your name and details on our office number (09) 525 0949
Pew Research Center’s 2014 Landscape Study on religion in America contains some interesting findings.
Among them, and relevant to NZ in the context of ongoing debates about same-sex marriage, is that “nearly all major religious groups have become significantly more accepting of homosexuality in recent years – even groups, such as evangelicals and Mormons, that traditionally have expressed strong opposition to same-sex relationships”.
The report says “changing attitudes about homosexuality are linked to the same generational forces helping to reshape religious identity and practice in the United States, with Millennials expressing far more acceptance of homosexuality than older adults do. Fully half of Millennials who identify as evangelical Protestants, for instance, now say homosexuality should be accepted by society”.
There is no reason to imagine that similar trends might not also be happening here in New Zealand. So what does this mean for us in New Zealand? How do we – how should we – engage on the issue?
One thing is for sure – Whatever our view of the ‘truth’ is on this matter, we should speak it with grace and love and gentleness and respect. If we fail to do that, then we will almost certainly be communicating something very different from the ‘truth’ we think we are.
One of the biggest obstacles to the biblical call to unity is the shallow or superficial reading of scripture. There’s still plenty of scope for disagreement even among specialists who are adept at plumbing the depths of a text in the original languages.
But many disagreements are not at that level. They occur because verses are plucked out of context and used to mean something they were not intended to.
Tim Bulkeley is not only a member of NZ Christian Network’s discussion group on marriage. He is also an Old Testament scholar, and one of the small number of bloggers I follow. I particularly like his 5 minute Bible series
I recently used two of his podcasts to shed some light in a group where discussion had got quite prickly over the topic of women in the church.
Quoting from Tim’s text introducing Part 1 ….
Perhaps no Bible text illustrates the dangers of a simplistic reading of Scripture than 1 Cor 14:34.
If we tear this verse from its cotext,1 and then read it as if the Bible were “God’s instruction manual for life” and even worse read it also literally then we are in trouble! The verse (in the fairly literal NET)2 reads:
the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.
The verse is full of oddities.3 Not the least of which is that in 1 Cor 11:4-6 Paul assumes that both women and men will pray and prophesy, and in this same chapter 1 Cor 14:4-5 suggests the same thing, and that this is indeed in the public meeting (cf. v.4). Paul seems to be contradicting himself!
What is going on, and how should we interpret such passages?
Click on the links following to hear Tim’s two 5 minute messages
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
It was good to read the following report from the Global Christian Forum about a significant gathering of Latin American Pentecostal leaders to discuss the issue of Christian Unity. There are clearly some parallels with the New Zealand scene although the small size of our country and our particular history, mean that there are inevitably differences also.
NZ Pentecostal leaders and others might appreciate the chance to use the full report in the following link or the summary below as a starting point in their own reflections on Christian unity.
NZ Christian Network is connected with the Global Christian Forum through our membership of the WEA (World Evangelical Alliance). NZCN national director Glyn Carpenter was one of the official WEA representatives at the 2nd Global Forum held in 2011.
Ipiranga Statement, São Paolo 2015 A group of Latin American Pentecostal leaders – pastors (men and women) of different Pentecostal churches of Brazil, young people, women and scholars of Pentecostalism in Latin America – met from 27 to 29 May 2015 in Ipiranga, São Paolo, Brazil. The meeting was held at the initiative of the Pentecostal Forum of Latin America and the Caribbean (FPLC), under the auspices of the Global Christian Forum and some Brazilian Pentecostal denominations. The theme of the meeting was Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Institutional, Theological and Social Challenges.
Based on the presentations and the discussions, the forum affirmed the following:
On institutional challenges:
To oppose the tendency in religious institutions to concentrate on self-preservation which leads them to be held back (closed) by their own limitations;
To rethink the relationships of power and hierarchical ecclesial structures, and move towards greater participation in church decision making;
To take positions on contemporary issues, such as gender, ethnic and racial questions;
To invest in leadership formation of new generations to effect change – going beyond ‘apparent reforms’ and investing more in the cooperation with other churches.
On theological challenges:
To develop a Pentecostal theology that values the hallmarks of Pentecostal experience and is able to be in dialogue with other schools of thought;
To bring advances in academic theological insights closer to the life of the churches;
To foster Latin American theological publication and production initiatives;
To promote the sense of belonging of the Pentecostal churches to the fellowship of Christians around the world.
On social challenges:
To see Pentecostals as a part of society who have their peculiar demands like any other group, which need to be understood and discussed in the wider society;
To search for theoretical frameworks which awaken the social responsibility of Pentecostals in different contexts;
To create opportunities for dialogue with other social movements on questions of gender, youth, poverty, violence, politics, corruption, public health etc.;
To open up new spaces for youth and women in the church, building communities of faith based upon participation and openness to the society, and so able to hear the voices of our time and to contribute to the formation of citizenship.
