Rose, a young Kiwi, is on a working holiday in the UK, to discover her roots. When in Scotland, she is subjected to a brutal assault by a local man, Tommy.
Their lives will never be the same again, While Rose fights to recover from her emotional trauma, Tommy, a victim of lifetime abuse, struggles with guilt. The choices they make will ultimately determine whether they live life as victims or rise above it.
Inspired by true events A Skylark Flies is a poignant story of forgiveness. It gives the reader a window into the souls of two very different characters whose stories converge at critical points.
The assailant has power over the victim, induced by fear – and the victim has power to release him from his guilt and shame.
Excerpt from Focus Magazine
By Millie Freeman
While on her OE in 1981, Robyn Cotton was enjoying a walk in the hills above the village of Lesmahagow in Scotland when she was brutally attacked from behind and strangled. So tight was the attacker’s grip, Robyn struggled for breath and felt herself drifting into unconsciousness. A rush of adrenalin urged her to fight back and the man let go, giving her a chance to break free. Issuing a threat on her life if she went to the police, the attacker took off, leaving Robyn bewildered and traumatised.
Now living in Tauranga, Robyn recently published her first novel as a way to finally put an end to this episode in her life. She has returned to the town several times and the spot where the incident took place, and while it no longer has any hold on her, she wanted an ending to this unfinished story.
A Skylark Flies tells the story of Rose, a fictional character who shares Robyn’s experiences. It also tells the story of Tommy, a young man who attacks Rose. Robyn knew nothing about her attacker, yet wrote the story to make sense of why he did it, and in doing so has created a novel offering hope, strength and positivity.
“I had the freedom to write the ending I never had,” says Robyn. “Through the book I could say things to my attacker that I never had the opportunity to say face to face, which was a really positive experience.
Inspired by true events, A Skylark Flies is the story of two fictitious individuals from totally different worlds. Rose, a single Kiwi on her OE in the UK, travels to Scotland to trace her family roots. On a deserted track outside the village of Lesmahagow, she meets Tommy, a local dropout with multiple problems, who brutally attacks and almost kills her. From this horrific encounter, both Rose and Tommy become victims and the trauma of this incident dogs them for the next 10 years.
The novel is a poignant story concerning the power of true forgiveness. When the two finally meet again in fortuitous circumstances, Rose is prepared to forgive Tommy, and with that act, both are freed from their overwhelming fear, guilt and shame of the past. Like skylarks, they are no longer weighed down by anything and are free to move on.
As Rose concludes: ‘Each life is a story, and we’re constantly colliding and bouncing off others, for good and for bad. These encounters can change the course of our lives, but we can control how we respond to them.’
This novel is well written and researched and the author has dedicated it to those who have experienced terror at the hands of another. I believe its message is capable of inspiring courage, determination and forgiveness in anyone struggling with fear and guilt from circumstances in the past. An excellent first novel and we look forward to another.
MISSION: Connecting Christian writers in New Zealand.
VISION: To cultivate, encourage and inspire a vibrant community of Christian writers throughout New Zealand.
VALUES: Christian faith, God’s Word, professionalism, quality and social outreach.
NZ CHRISTIAN WRITERSis a nationwide collective of authors, bloggers, editors, lyricists, poets, publishers, songwriters, storytellers, and writers throughout New Zealand. Along with our bi-monthly magazines and competitions we offer inspiring seminars and writers retreats to encourage, inspire and upskill people in their writing. NZ Christian Writers’ vision is to cultivate a vibrant community of Christian writers by connecting them to other like-minded writers in New Zealand. We welcome both beginner and experienced writers.
On Wednesday, after 23 years and one month of work, head translator Ioane Teao and Bible Society Translations Director Dr Stephen Pattemore performed the final check of the final verse of the brand-new Tokelauan Bible translation.
“We’re very pleased we’ve come to this part of the project! Yes, we had some fun – we celebrated with some sandwiches, a date scone and some bananas and oranges,” Ioane said.
The project, which has been a joint effort of all Tokelau churches and community groups, had its genesis nearly 30 years ago. Ioane and others consulted with the wider Tokelauan community for six years before the project could officially start. Ioane was the secretary of the team trying to get the project off the ground and support whoever would do the job. To Ioane’s surprise, it was he who would be asked to spend more than 23 years of his life working on the translation.
“One of the interesting things is that the Tokelau language never used to be a written language,” Dr Pattemore says. “Ioane’s generation were never taught at school how to write the language. They were taught English grammar, but not Tokelauan grammar.”
Ioane recalls having to learn how to write down the oral language before the translation work could begin. “I remember struggling to put a paragraph together in Tokelauan. In English, I had no problem, but it was a struggle to write in Tokelauan.” Ioane spent hours writing short columns in Tokelauan for a local Porirua newspaper to practice.
Initially reluctant to do the job, Ioane now recalls some farewell words his father said to him as Ioane left Tokelau for New Zealand when he was a boy. “As I was leaving Tokelau, my Dad was still talking to me as the boat was moving. He was saying to me, ‘You know you are going away to school. You must remember, you’re not going for yourself. You’re not going for your family. You’re going for the people. You’re going for Tokelau. Whatever you learn, you’re going to use to benefit the people of Tokelau.’ Those were his lasting words that I keep hearing everyday!”
When the first ever Bible in Tokelauan is published, it will be a major benchmark not just for Tokelauan Christians, but for the Tokelau language as well. “I think this book will be the foundation of the language. As in many cultures, the Bible became the mainstay for the language. I think it’s going to be quite valuable for Tokelau, not only from the point of the spiritual life of the people but also for sustaining the language.”
There is still more work to do though. The whole Bible must be checked for style and consistency, a glossary produced and maps for the back of the book translated. Once these are done, the lengthy typesetting and publishing process will begin, which could take up to a year.
Ioane says he keeps praying that God will give him one more day. “This is all I live for, to finish this job.” He is looking forward to the launch of the published Bible, most likely to take place early in 2021.
Bible helping save the Tokelauan language
More than 7,000 Tokelauans live in New Zealand, with 50% living in Wellington as well as Tokelauan communities in Auckland, Taupō, and Rotorua. There are only 1,400 Tokelauans living on the island of Tokelau.
The 2006 Census reported that the Tokelauan language is one of the most-at-risk Pacific languages in New Zealand, along with Niuean and Cook Island Maori. Today only 34% of Tokelauans speak their heritage language.This is why our Tokelau Bible translation project is so important. Not only does it mean Tokelauans can read the Bible in their own tongue but it will also lead to the preservation of their language and, as part of that, their culture.
The completion of the Tokelauan Bible next year will be end of a 21-year project for head translator Ionae Teao. Ioane has dedicated his life to this project, which was initiated by the Tokelauan Society for the Translation of the Bible and supported by Bible Society New Zealand.
The Tokelauan New Testament was launched in June in 2009 with great celebrations and accolades. Now as the finishing touches are made to the Tokelauan Old Testament next year, and publication set for early 2019, the Tokelauan community in New Zealand will again have cause for celebration.
A scene from the launch of the Tokelauan New Testament at Pahina O Tokelaua, Porirua, in 2009.Listen to Dr Stephen Pattemore speaking on Radio New Zealand about the Tokelauan translation project (click on the logo)
When there is change ahead we need to seek God’s guidance and ask Him to reveal a new sense of calling for the next chapter of life.
How?
This is something you need to find time to consider, probably over a period of time. It’s a process not an event. Be patient! It’s likely that some things that develop may be a surprise, others will be more obvious.
Be intentional, don’t end up with activities by default. Be ready to say no or not yet, give yourself time to consider offers and invitations to new activities and responsibilities.
You may like to take a morning or afternoon (or several) to focus on this: sat in a chair in your home or garden, going for a walk, talking it through over coffee with a spouse or friend.
You may like to go away on retreat. See signposts below.
If it’s helpful use a journal to jot down thoughts, ideas and questions that come to you.
What?
I’m not expecting you to do all of these, they are suggestions from which you can pick…
Reflect on your past and how you may have discerned your calling/made decisions about your future before
What have you enjoyed at work and outside work?
What motivates you at work and outside work?
How did you decide what and where to study, what career to take up, a change in career?
Was there a previous sense of calling or vocation? Were there any Bible verses or other phrases connected with that? Is this still relevant for your future?
What gifts, skills and experience do you have that you could continue to use and/or share?
What blessings in your life do you most want to carry with you into this new chapter?
What new contexts might there be for using your experience?
What are your dreams, the things you’ve never had time to do, hobbies you’d like to develop?
Are there new skills you’d like to learn?
Take time to pray, tell God your desires & ask Him to reveal His purposes to you for your next chapter
Ask your spouse, a prayer partner, your home group to pray for you over the coming weeks and months
What do you think God may be saying to you in this time of transition?
Ask your spouse or a longstanding friend what they could see you doing?
What would you realistically like your life to be like in 2, 5, 10, 15 years?
What might be the first steps to reaching those aspirations?
Is there anything you need to lay down or give up as you move forward?
What feels difficult to let go of: Responsibility? Status? People? Income level?
What would you like your life legacy to be? That is things that will continue to have an effect beyond the end of your earthly life
Try writing an epitaph.
Using a journal
This isn’t definitive, you may well have other ideas, but here are some suggestions:
A section which records anything you think God might be prompting you to consider as a result of your thoughts or devotional time. This could include a picture that comes to you or that someone else gives you, a Bible verse or strong impression in a sermon or talk or home group Bible study, an event that happens.
section on practical things to do/next steps
List current unresolved questions
List people you might use as sounding boards
Lists of possible activities for this new stage of life eg leisure, voluntary (including organisations you might like to volunteer with), paid.
Set some criteria for evaluating the possibilities
Evaluate some key options:
Pros & cons,
Questions and actions to pursue further.
Investigating a possibility further (eg starting a To-do list for the next steps) is often a good way to determine whether you should pursue it.
END OF LIFE CHOICE BILL – SECOND READING, now imminent
Wednesday 26 June will be the critical second reading of the ‘End of Life Choice Bill’ in Parliament. This is a very important decision for New Zealand. Well over 90% of those making submissions to Parliament’s Justice Committee on this matter expressed opposition to the bill, on such grounds as the risks to vulnerable groups such as elderly and disabled people, the implications for suicide prevention, the compromise of the medical profession, and the lack of truly adequate safeguards. There are, of course, also major spiritual and cultural reasons why the State should not be legislating for euthanasia and assisted suicide.
What can we do?
(1) We can pray, that the Spirit of God will move in the hearts and consciences of many MP’s, and make them alert to the dangers of this proposal.
(2) We can still (if we act very quickly) speak to or email our MP, and perhaps some other MPs, briefly and respectfully stating our concern and urging MPs to vote according to their conscience (rather than on any party lines). For many MPs, “religious” arguments are less likely to be persuasive, and can even be counter-productive. You’ll find the details to contact your MP here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament/
FREEDOMS OF BELIEF AND EXPRESSION
Every day, in various media, there are opinions publicly expressed on the ongoing Israel Folau story, which from many angles is unfortunate. We have published on this earlier.
We believe some issues remain foremost…
How can Christians faithfully hold to God’s truth as revealed in Christ and the Word of God, while also making sure we are wise, respectful, and compassionate in how we express God’s truth, especially in a society which shows increasingly less tolerance for Christian perspectives?
How can our society carefully and fairly protect the freedoms and belief and expression (and freedoms from discrimination) of all faith communities, and of those of no faith?
SEASONS
While summer is often seen as a time to get out and explore, winter is a good time to come together and share our resources and prepare for the seasons ahead. This is especially true the further away you live to the equator, where seasons are distinct – both physically, and spiritually.
This newsletter contains links to stories and event listings on our website that will encourage and help you winter well. Keep reading to the end. There is a special entry to a draw to receive a free copy of Aurora Wonder, by David Lyle Morris to help you through the season.
‘Morality and the human being‘ is the second part in the Atheism is not all it’s cracked up to be series by Gavan O’ Farrell, who works as a public sector lawyer.
Atheists say that Christians often accuse them of being wicked. Such an accusation (which I’ve personally never heard in New Zealand) is not only rude but false: it is quite apparent that many atheists are very moral people.
However, this is despite their atheism. I say this because I suggest that atheists cannot explain their morals. The morals of virtually all atheists are inherited from Christianity – especially the very basic ideas that human beings are highly (and equally) significant.
After all, New Zealand’s secularism is post-Christian: it didn’t arrive out of the blue, like a baby delivered by a stork. Like a real baby, it was generated organically and possesses inherited traits.
Moral relativism
Most atheists say they are moral relativists, who believe there are no “objective” moral requirements that apply to everyone. For them, what we think is an objective morality is just the set of moral constructs developed by our society. Other societies have theirs too and it is impossible to judge another society, no matter what it does, because there is no objective global standard. Many moral relativists go further and say that relativism operates at the individual level: “my morality and my right/wrong” vs “your morality etc”.
As I understand it, moral relativism has long been discredited in philosophical circles. For example, when they promote “tolerance” of other views as being immune from criticism, they insist on this tolerance as an absolute requirement – which contradicts their whole position.
In addition, relativism doesn’t capture the reality of moral discourse. When two people disagree about a moral question, their views are in conflict. However, if two relativists “disagree”, their views don’t conflict because they’re describing their respective moral feelings about the topic, not the moral character of the topic itself (because it has no objective moral character). Their “disagreement” is like A and B discussing headaches, with A saying “I have a headache” and B replying “Well, I don’t have a headache”.
Anyhow, I have found that people who call themselves relativists don’t really seem to mean it. They use it to ward off criticism directed at them: “That’s just your right and wrong (etc)”. But, when they criticise others, they tend to speak very dogmatically, as though there is an objective standard (which they don’t explain).
It is tempting to disdain relativism, but it remains important because a large number of people nominally subscribe to it.
Objective secular morality
Some atheists do acknowledge that morality consists of objective rules, or at least principles, that apply to every individual and every society.
Evolved morality:
Some atheists believe that basic “moral” behaviours (eg altruism) evolved in order for societies (or humanity itself) to survive.
I accept evolution, but it just “happens”, it doesn’t give value and has no authority. We don’t obey moral rules (eg behave altruistically) just because we find them in our midst. We need a reason to obey them.
If we are urged to obey for the sake of the survival of humanity, we can still ask why humanity “should” survive. There is an epic urge to survive, but this is different from “should”. Especially nowadays, when some say we shouldn’t survive because of the harm we’ve caused to the environment.
Deduced morality:
Other atheists try to develop an objective secular morality from the ground up.
Consequentialism:
This approach to morality says an action is right or wrong according to its consequences. However –
By speaking of good and bad consequences, this approach again assumes certain values (eg survival or well-being) and just imposes them. Besides, whose well-being are we supposed to value, and why? Just humans? All humans?
Consequentialism rests on the idea that the ends justify the means, and we all know how ruthless and dangerous that can be.
A consequentialist moral rule is only a rule-of-thumb. If lying is morally wrong because it usually does more harm than good, I must still decide what my specific intended lie will cause.
I can only consider the foreseeable consequences: the actual consequences are yet to occur. A consequentialist can’t judge an action until afterwards. We need to know beforehand!
And my decision could take ages. Every action has myriad consequences that go forever. This is unworkable.
Workable or not, any rules emerging from consequentialism are made by human beings. I end up being completely subject to majority rule. We know the majority can be wrong, which reminds us that the majority has power, not moral authority.
Consideration of consequences is an important element of moral decision-making, but it’s not all there is to it.
Positivism:
The alternative approach is “positivism”: the rules identify behaviour that is considered to be inherently right or wrong. EG lying is inherently wrong, wrong by its nature, no calculations are needed. This is more realistic and workable as it relies on an intuitive repugnance for lying rather than a remote sense that the lie might do more harm than good.
However, secular positivism also assumes values and also subjects us to the dubious moral authority of the majority.
The human being:
When all the theorising about morality is done, nothing beats a rich definition of the human being as a reason for us behaving well towards each other.
However, relying on “the evidence”, the atheist tells us that human beings are no more than the latest gorilla upgrade, the planet’s most complex organism and top predator and that each of us is a mixed bag of kindness and malice. If this is all a human is, it makes equal sense to hate them as to love them.
Atheists talk about justice because they believe in equality. Good, but the evidence says people are not equal: many differences are socially constructed, but there are also real inherent superiorities (eg intelligence, strength, agility, prowess, disposition).
We Christians believe each human being to be extremely significant and equally so, regardless of other characteristics, because we are made in God’s image and likeness. This Imago Dei is the trump card. Loving people and giving them justice makes immediate sense because of what they are: a human being demands love and justice simply by being a human being.
Secularists reject all this, of course, and have not yet identified (or even imagined) anything lovable to replace it. The basics of post-Christian secular morality are really a memory of Christianity.
Afterthought
It may be that the atheists’ difficulty in explaining the value of the individual human being has helped give rise to the new ethos, identity politics. While this ethos pays lip-service to “human rights”, it has actually moved well away from the idea of valuing each person individually. Identity politics sees only groups.
Groups are certainly important, but only because they are groups of individual human beings: the value of the group is the result of simple arithmetic.
Identity politics doesn’t get this. After all, it creates the groups – herds, really. Identity politics displays the astonishing arrogance of beholding a spectacularly complex and unique human being and allocating them to a herd by reference to a handful of characteristics (sex, “gender”, sexual orientation, race). So much about each person is simply ignored! Then the herders tell us which herd is “good” and which is “bad”.
Identity politics is spurious, of course, but it must be taken seriously because it has become so powerful (and dangerous). While many atheists are on the political Left, the more serious among them may have to break ranks from identity politics in due course, for the sake of intellectual integrity.
Jesus’ prayer for unity among his disciples has rung out down through the generations. Nigel Irwin believes this prayer remains in effect to this day. He tells us about an international movement that encourages churches in every city and town to function as one to advance gospel transformation.
I cannot think of too many endeavours more exciting and inspiring than to be part of God’s answer to the prayer of Jesus in John 17. As he turned his face toward Golgotha and the cross, Jesus earnestly prayed to his Father that his followers would be one—that they would walk in unity, so that the world would know that the Father sent the Son, and loved them even as he loved Jesus.
As we know, God answered Jesus’ prayer through his death and resurrection, making us one, which was his ‘manifold wisdom’ from the beginning (Ephesians 2:14 and 3:10).
Followers of Jesus are subsequently commanded to maintain this unity, established through Christ by the Spirit, in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). New Zealand’s inaugural Movement Day event last month was coordinated in obedience to this command.
Movement Day in New Zealand
Following in the footsteps of 30 other global cities in 2019, Wellington hosted New Zealand’s own expression of Movement Day on the 14th and 15th of May at the Salvation Army Citadel in Vivian Street.
Leaders from throughout the nation came together to celebrate all that God is doing, and to accelerate the advance of the gospel in Aotearoa. We heard powerful transformation stories from 14 cities and towns, from Northland to Invercargill. We also heard specialist perspectives on unity and collaboration from key speakers such as Tak Bhana (Church Unlimited), Dave Mann (The Hope Project), Stuart Lange (NZ Christian Network), and Mark Powell (NZ Christian Network).
Additionally, our international guests Roger Sutton (GATHER, United Kingdom), Ian Shelton (OneHeart Australia) and Craig Sider, (President of Movement.org, New York) helped us to see that we are part of a truly global move of the Holy Spirit to promote and strategise unity for the sake of Christ.
Multiplying impact
The key principle behind Movement Day is the call of God for his church in every city and town to function as one. As stated on Movement Day’s website,
The goal of a MD expression…is to accelerate a gospel movement—catalyzing highly trained, motivated and committed leaders determined to find solutions to the “stubborn facts” plaguing a city or region. We define “stubborn facts,” as crime, poverty, spiritual apathy, struggling educational systems, unemployment, etc. Our approach: multiply the impact of one, through the unity of many.
We can see the dysfunction and pain in our towns and cities. As we are moved to weep over these things, I believe God is calling us to collaborate as churches with each other, and with Christian leaders in the marketplace, para-church, and civic government spheres, to address the pain and felt needs of our town or city, for the sake of Jesus.
When our communities see the church working together and with leaders from other spheres, they see the unifying power of the gospel, where it is Jesus Christ alone who is glorified, rather than any one church or denomination. A divided church contradicts the unifying principle weaved throughout Scripture, of God bringing his people together as one with Christ and each other.
Building God’s Kingdom
Critical to unity is an absolute commitment to ensuring that we are primarily interested in building God’s Kingdom, not our own empire. As church leaders, there is a temptation to build our own particular congregation in prominence and influence. Pride is a subtle but powerful obstacle to unity because we can often struggle with the blurring of boundaries around our church congregations, as our churches come together and work as one.
Movement Day is not an advocate of dissolving denominations. On the contrary, we believe our denominations bring vital strengths to the one church in the city/town. However, the Apostle Paul’s epistles were written not to denominations, but to cities.
Consequently, when we read his exhortation for the church to be one, we must read that firstly in the context of the one church in the city, rather than individual churches isolated from one another.
Paul’s teaching to the church in Corinth was that we need every member of the body to bring their unique gift, combining it with all of the others to present a cohesive and powerful whole in our pursuit of gospel transformation in the town or city in which we’re placed.
We can tend to assume this teaching relates primarily to our local congregation, however Paul began his letter with the words, “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2). It is clear then that when Paul speaks of the Body of Christ in its diversity, he is calling us to unity at a broader level than just the congregation.
Our Movement Day expression was focused on setting aside our own agendas, telling the stories of God at work, and seeking him for leading and strategy as we headed home to our towns and cities to accelerate the advance of gospel transformation. No one speaker or region was given preference or prominence; rather, everything was done for the glory of God alone. Following Paul’s exhortation to the Colossian church, we were intentional about ensuring that everything we did, in word or deed, was done in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17)
The next Movement Day
This will not be a one-off event. As we gather the leadership team together in the coming months, we will be seeking God for guidance on when to plan for the next Movement Day event.
I encourage you to keep an eye out for news of the next one. In the meantime, I welcome your contact if you’re interested in talking further about how we as Baptists might be champions for unity in the many places we’re called to lead throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.
Nigel has been senior pastor at Whanganui Central Baptist Church for almost seven years. He is also director of City by City and executive director of Movement Day New Zealand. Nigel is married to Suzanna and they have a 10-year-old foster daughter and two impossibly cute dogs. Nigel can be contacted about Movement Day here.
This article was originally published by the Baptist Magazine and has been reposted with their permission.
Interned in a Japanese concentration camp—then finding peace at last… at the bottom of the world.
You will be moved beyond words, even to tears—a true story of heartaches and triumphs…
As a young child in Holland, Ingrid’s uncle offered her another slice of bread. “Two slices of bread?” she asked, never having been allowed that many before! Her memory jumped to the starvation and cruelty her family had experienced at the hands of extremely cruel captors.
This memoir traces Ingrid’s background and growing-up years, revealing the secret of her successful life in her country of adoption (New Zealand); and how she overcame the hurts and hurdles of the past
INGRID COLES is a survivor. Born in Java, Indonesia, in November 1942 she and her family endured incarceration at the hands of the Japanese invaders in separate prisoner-of-war camps. They were starved and treated abominably. Her father died in prison camp aged 43 and her younger brother died from starvation and pneumonia aged 6.
After liberation from the Japanese in August 1945, she and her family faced the Indonesian War of Independence. In May 1946 it became so dangerous for European civilians they were evacuated to their motherland, the Netherlands.
Life changed drastically for Ingrid and her three siblings, who had to learn how to cope with their mother’s physical and post-traumatic-stress related illness, and their own war-time experiences. However, Ingrid, orphaned when barely 16 years of age, immigrated to New Zealand where she eventually found the peace she longed for.
Book review by Julia Martin – NZ Christian Writers
The author was only three months old in 1942 when her Dutch parents and four older siblings were rounded up by the Japanese in Dutch East Indies (Indonesia today) and incarcerated in prison-of-war camps. Ingrid gives a harrowing account of their three years of brutality, starvation, disease and appalling living conditions at the hands of their cruel captors.
Her father, aged 43, died in a prison camp and her disabled little brother died en route to Holland when the rest of the family was evacuated during the Indonesian War of Independence. Back in the Netherlands, the family sought to pick up the pieces of their lives in a different and often unwelcoming environment. They all suffered physically and psychologically from the horrors of the war, especially the mother, and this added a huge burden of care on her children.
Ingrid’s honest but gruelling autobiography gives valuable insights into the enormous disruption and suffering war causes on the lives of innocent people. It also shows their courage and fortitude to battle on and overcome the deprivation and traumas of the past.
In 1958 at age 16, Ingrid immigrated to New Zealand alone to train as a nurse. There she made a new life for herself. With a strong faith in God she testifies: “It seems hard to do, but for our own good and with God’s help, we can rid ourselves of hate and forgive those who treated us badly.”
It’s a captivating and unforgettable story and I recommend it to all readers.
MISSION: Connecting Christian writers in New Zealand.
VISION: To cultivate, encourage and inspire a vibrant community of Christian writers throughout New Zealand.
VALUES: Christian faith, God’s Word, professionalism, quality and social outreach.
NZ CHRISTIAN WRITERSis a nationwide collective of authors, bloggers, editors, lyricists, poets, publishers, songwriters, storytellers, and writers throughout New Zealand. Along with our bi-monthly magazines and competitions we offer inspiring seminars and writers retreats to encourage, inspire and upskill people in their writing. NZ Christian Writers’ vision is to cultivate a vibrant community of Christian writers by connecting them to other like-minded writers in New Zealand. We welcome both beginner and experienced writers.
by Helen Calder peer-reviewed by Glyn Carpenter, former National Director of NZ Christian Network
A level of stress that gets adrenaline and cortisol going and brings out our best performance is healthy. However, in our 21st-century world, many of us experience undue levels of stress and pressure that make us feel overwhelmed and which need alleviating. It can be unhealthy and unhelpful if stress becomes chronic. The impact can be physical, mental, emotional, behavioural, psychosomatic and spiritual.
Our attitudes and responses to stress and how we address it will be influenced, amongst other factors, by our personality type and our cultural background as well as our age and gender.
Recipe for addressing stress
Once we recognise that we’re overly stressed there are several things we can do:
Identify what’s causing the stress and where possible take action to deal with stressors and make ourselves less vulnerable. Some are self-induced while others are unavoidable. The latter may be reduced by pinpointing the root cause of the strain.
Find support for the situations faced. Studies show those with good support are less vulnerable to the effects of stress.
Find and practice some techniques to help relieve the physical, mental and emotional symptoms. This is the main focus of this resource.
Techniques to help alleviate stress
Many people have their favourite techniques to help relieve stress. Here are some I’ve collected from friends and colleagues, many of which I’ve used myself.
1. Quick fix in a stressful situation
Pray, asking God to help you cope with the immediate situation.
Four by four breathing, also known as box breathing and by various other names. It’s a great way to calm both body and mind.
Breathe in to a slow count to 4 (or 5)
Hold breath to a slow count of 4 (or 5)
Breathe out to a slow count of 4 (or 5)
Pause to a slow count of (4 or 5) before repeating several times.
Remind yourself of the FEAR acronym: False Expectations Appear Real (sometimes presented as false evidence appears real). Often if we pause to think, the matter that’s stressing us is based on a false assumption or on expectations that we’ve assumed others have on us which are not necessarily true.
Stand back: what would be the implications if you didn’t do something (today? at all?). Can you defer the task to another day when you have more time? This can be so releasing.
How do you eat an elephant? Break it down into bite sized chunks! We are often threatened by the enormity of a task. However, if you can break it down into manageable tasks it becomes much more do-able and you may be able to take the first step.
Do the next thing: doing something is better than doing nothing. It will give you a sense of achievement and confidence to do the next thing.
If necessary ask for help right away from a trusted friend, colleague or family member. They have probably experienced considerable stress too at some time.
2. Introduce or reinforce in daily living
Make daily devotional times a priority: ask God to fill you with his Holy Spirit and equip you for the coming day.
Take moderate daily physical exercise as part of improving health and fitness.
Keep lists and regularly review priorities: what’s important and urgent, what’s important but not urgent, what’s urgent but not important and which is neither.
Take frequent breaks during the working day and book regular holidays in advance.
Tackle the complicated tasks when you are fresh and at the time of day that works best for you.
Flag potential problems in advance so that alleviating action can be taken by you and others.
Journal your concerns and thoughts.
It may be helpful at the end of the day to reflect in God’s presence on what’s gone well during the day and what concerns you about tomorrow. It may help to journal this. Then commit it to God in prayer. I’ve found it amazing how often yesterday evening’s concerns have not been realised! This is borrowed from the Ignatian Spirituality Examen exercise.
Review your sleep pattern and make changes if appropriate.
Develop a mutually supportive friendship where you can share life’s joys and concerns and prayer together. Introduce some “me” time on a daily and weekly basis where you can relax and choose what you think and/do. It could be as simple as doing in your walk to work, an evening soak in the bath or watching sporting highlights on TV.
Investigate whether the Alexander Technique may help you relax by adopting better posture: see https://www.alextechexpress.com/stress/ especially audio interview with Carolyn Nicholls and Sharon Jakubecy video
3. When you can take a step back
Consider asking for professional help: be clear in advance what you hope the outcome of the help will be.
Take a short retreat (morning, day, overnight) to reflect on your situation and build this into your schedule two or three (or more) times a year.
Take a step back and consider your purpose and your priorities. Over time you may find it helpful to develop a personal mission statement (eg see Purpose Driven Life book signposted below).
Our self-worth affects our susceptibility to stress. Take the time (ideally on more than one occasion) to reflect on God’s sovereignty, your true worth to Him and ask Him to bring to mind any forgiveness that needs to be given or received in your life.
Consider how you can manage others’ expectations better.
Identify what’s causing you stress and make a plan to address those stressors.
Over the years, I have found abortion to be by far the most divisive and heated moral, legal and political issue of all. Perhaps this is not remarkable. Euthanasia is also divisive, reminding us that matters of life and death have always been regarded as significant. In fact, to say “It’s a matter of life and death!” is a familiar way of indicating just how important an issue is.
Of course, the heat of the abortion issue is also due to the fact that many women feel that women have been imposed upon by a man-led system for a very long time and that any prohibition of abortion is one of the most intrusive impositions of all.
We wouldn’t need to discuss abortion if a pregnant woman were the only person involved in the procedure. If the embryo or foetus were just a “mass” – say, a tumour or infected tissue – out it would go as soon as possible, no questions asked. However, as soon as it becomes apparent, or even just possible, that the woman is not the only person involved, the scenario changes entirely and the subject must be paused for consideration.
I’ve been on the Pro-life side of the fence for some time, though not a signed-up member of any organisation. A while back, I came to realise that the focus of the Pro-life movement was too narrow. It tended to be so preoccupied with the issue of killing the human embryo/foetus that it ignored other considerations. I can’t think of anything more significant than killing an innocent human being, but there is still more to the abortion issue than this. In particular, there is the pregnant woman (or girl), another human being no less important than her unborn child.
Coming at this from a Christian perspective and what I think is the preferred secular perspective, I say that the Pro-life movement and the community generally owe the pregnant woman love, and there is a great deal more to love than judging, even you manage to judge correctly.
For some time, the battle-lines were drawn between one side that promoted the interests of the unborn child with little or no regard to the woman, unless her life was threatened, and the other side that promoted the interests of the woman with no regard to the unborn child. We all took a side.
I’m relieved that the Pro-life movement no longer sees itself playing a partisan role in a zero-sum game. It has realised that the woman and child are each infinitely precious and that the community’s role is to protect and support them both.
As far as I can tell, the Pro-choice movement shows no corresponding sign of maturing: it remains steadfastly dedicated to promoting the interests of the woman without regard to the unborn child. In fact, the unborn child is seldom mentioned – is, rather, the subject of a silent but determined denialism. It has become the tiny “elephant in the room” in abortion discourse.
I see this denialism as the main reason why it is so difficult to converse with Pro-choice advocates. For a discussion to be potentially fruitful, there usually needs to be a shared understanding about who is involved in the issue under discussion. Perhaps the Pro-choicers are genuinely afraid that the pregnant woman will be sacrificed or overlooked for the sake of the child, which would be unfair. If so, their minds need to be put at ease about this: the woman matters just as much as the child does. Of course, although discussion with Pro-choice is very difficult, we should always be willing to attempt it.
“Health issue” and the human being
Rebranding abortion as a ‘health issue’ is the latest attempt to avoid recognising that there are, or might be, two people involved and not just one. According to this view, the unborn child is just a “mass” so that the woman is the only person involved.
My impression is that Pro-choicers see the health sector as a refuge from moral responsibility, another “safe space”, in which the moral character of the decision to terminate does not arise. Indeed, a place in which the woman presents as a patient – not necessarily a victim, but still someone who is needy and an object of sympathy and tenderness, someone frequently asked “Are you comfortable?”. A space in which moral abdication is permitted. It is unfortunate that a significant proportion of the community likes to resort to such a “space”, for one reason or another.
I suspect that refuge in the health sector is sought because questions about the unborn child have proved awkward and “uncomfortable” for Pro-choicers: after all, it is always tempting to avoid feelings of guilt or even misgivings about possible guilt. Arguments that the unborn child is not a human being, and not even a potential human being in any significant sense, have not fared well.
Pro-choice usually try to justify abortions by constricting the definition of “human being” – for example, by saying the embryo/foetus must have a heartbeat, or lung function, or brain function, or even awareness, before claiming the coveted title. This approach exposes Pro-choicers to the problem that many children and adults are occasionally without these functions and capacities for a time, relying on drugs or machinery, and yet we still regard them as human beings. Even when life-support is turned off, it is seen as having supported the life of a human being.
When a person is deliberately killed, even with justification, they are usually given the courtesy of being acknowledged as a person, and the killing is regarded as morally significant – as justified in spite of the fact that a human being is killed. This is true in all situations (including war, capital punishment, euthanasia) except abortion, which has been placed in a kind of moral blind-spot by those promoting it.
A minority of Pro-choicers are more honest about abortion – recognising what it involves but justifying it in the interests of population control. It’s a poor rationale, even in number-crunching terms, as abortion on demand clearly won’t end the world’s population crisis. Those who wish to cull the human race will have to look elsewhere – euthanasia, I suppose, especially by extending “eligibility”. That may not be sufficient either, so we should perhaps regard a cull as not the best approach to managing population and as a shabby justification for abortion.
Returning to the denialism of the majority, I would be surprised if an open discussion about the status of the embryo/foetus produced resolution. We are more likely to be left with a dilemma: As we don’t “know” (or can’t agree) about the status of the embryo/foetus, we will have to decide on which side to err.
Do we err on the side of including it in the “human being” category or on the side of excluding it? Which is the better error?
I suggest that, as a matter of principle, we should err on the side of being generous about this, if only because of the awful consequences of the opposite error. Throughout history, the device of “dehumanising” some group of people or other – women, non-whites, slaves, enemies – has been used for great evil and has done great harm. Let’s not repeat it. It may not be long before clones want access to the category of human being, and also the products of AI will have to be considered (for “person”, at least, if not “human being”). Already, a river or two has been given the deemed status of legal “person” in New Zealand legislation. It seems strange to include all these in the Human or Person category, while a naturally generated human embryo/foetus continues to be excluded.
And why is it excluded? Because it is not wanted, nothing more than that.
It makes very good sense to focus on conception as the time when a human comes into being:
The DNA – the blueprint of a brand new, extremely complex and unique person – is already in place, along with all the building materials. It’s not like any other blueprint or design: construction is underway, nothing has to be done but watch and wait.
Later stages of development seem arbitrary and, as mentioned above, have terrible ramifications for other people.
From a hypothetically neutral point-of-view, this is the better “error” in an environment of uncertainty.
Whatever the status of the embryo/foetus while in utero, there is also the argument about it being a potential human life. Even this is resisted by Pro-choice, though it seems to me that to argue against the human potential of the “mass” is barely even sincere. After all, the only reason the embryo/foetus is terminated is because of its potential to develop into an obvious human being.
The sooner we all come to an understanding about the embryo/foetus, the sooner we can plan for what happens to the child once born and how to support the woman (if she needs support) in the meantime. Of course, she can adopt the child out: there is a ready market of couples who are struggling with IVF or with adopting overseas. Beforehand, the community’s focus should be on the well-being of the pregnant woman or girl because some are in dire straits, sometimes through no fault of their own.
I shouldn’t close without saying something about the “backyard abortion” argument and the scenario in which the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
The “backyard abortion”
It is true that an abortion performed in unhygienic circumstances by someone who is not a highly trained professional is dangerous to the pregnant woman.
However, I would say this risk of harm to a woman from a backyard abortion is not relevant to the issue of abortion on demand.
When abortion is legally available on demand, the pregnant woman who wishes to terminate the embryo/foetus asks the Government to help her do it in a way that makes things safe for her, so only the embryo/foetus dies. If the embryo/foetus is just a mass, no problem, the request is morally neutral. However, if the embryo/foetus is a human being, or at least “human enough” to be worth protecting, the request made of the Government is very different as it now has a significant moral component.
It is perhaps easier to make the point by analogy. Consider this reasoning:
Person A intends to kill Person B;
in fact, A is definitely going to kill B, no matter what;
this inevitable killing would be safer for A if A knew where B was at the appointed time (so A could surprise B with a bullet and not be shot in return);
due to the availability of comprehensive surveillance, the State could tell A where B is at any given time;
to ensure that only one person is killed, rather than two, the State should let A know where B is.
Who in their right mind would ask the State to do this?! The State is obliged to protect both A and B. The same is true when it comes to abortion.The backyard abortion is dramatic and emotive, but provides no justification for abortion on demand.
The worst scenarios
Surprisingly, the scenario in which the pregnant woman or girl was raped is a red herring. Not because it isn’t important: her plight is terrible to contemplate (or even attempt to contemplate). Rather, because Pro-choice introduce it into the discussion cynically.
I could imagine a compromise outcome being to allow abortion only in cases of rape, incest and, as now, risk to the life of the pregnant woman or girl. It would be a compromise, of course, not quite satisfactory to Pro-life but far better than abortion on demand. However, it turns out to be academic because, if ever this idea is put to Pro-choice, they say “No way, we want abortion on demand”. So, these terrible scenarios are actually not relevant to what must be decided, they are just introduced to manipulate the discussion.
Even so, it wouldn’t hurt Pro-lifers to be mindful of what some women and girls will have to endure if we had our way and abortion was generally prohibited. We should take the trouble to hear, if we can, a full account of the nightmarish 9 months that awaits someone who takes the product of a rape to term. And of what she endures afterwards: the rape may have long-term adverse effects and carrying the child to term might exacerbate these effects.
For all I know, a secular discussion (not premised on the infinitely precious status of a human life) might conclude that there is a certain degree of suffering that somehow outweighs the value of a human life. Once the embryo/foetus is recognised, perhaps that’s the terrible discussion that must take place.
Whether or not any such discussion takes place, I think we owe some empathic understanding to the women and girls concerned. Having said that, though, these terrible scenarios are not relevant to the topic of abortion on demand. They are only relevant to the possible compromise result, which Pro-choice will not accept. The Pro-life side might accept it (I don’t know) on the basis that it greatly reduces the number of abortions and therefore saves many lives.
Close
Returning to the main issue, we should make sure we promote the well-being of both mother and child. Pro-choice tries to present abortion as a zero-sum game and force everyone into taking sides. It is very important to resist this manipulation.
The real choice is between the following two ways of understanding the abortion issue:
Pentecost is a good moment to take a reality check concerning any lurking idolatry of nationalism in our hearts.
The events described by Luke in the opening chapters of The Acts of the Apostles remind us that the end goal of God’s purposes in human history is the ingathering of a multi-ethnic global church: ‘from every tribe, language, people and nation’, as John writes in his Revelation (5:9).
The outpouring of the Spirit birthed this ‘rainbow’ church when Jews and converts, including Cretans and Arabs, from ‘every nation under heaven’, heard the disciples praising God in the languages of their lands of residence. So Peter stood up to explain that what everyone was witnessing was what the prophet Joel had foretold would happen in ‘the last days’.
Clearly we have been in the last days therefore ever since Pentecost. Also clearly, this was only the start of the fulfilment of this prophecy. The Spirit is yet to be poured out on all flesh. There is still much more to come–something that should excite us.
It should also caution us against the sort of religious nationalism being preached from political platforms on both sides of the Atlantic these days. We live somewhere between Acts chapter 2 and Revelation chapter 5, as part of the process of a church becoming increasingly multi-cultural. The New Jerusalem will be multi-racial and multi-lingual, all focused on the One who will reconcile all things under heaven and on earth.
Inclusive
Yet too often we see believers making the same mistake for which Israel was rebuked by the prophets and by Jesus himself: ethno-centrism. Instead of embracing God’s purposes for all peoples, Israel focused too often on being the Chosen. Too often they adopted an ‘Israel first’ policy. But they forgot what they had been chosen for: to bless all the peoples of the world, and be a light to the peoples.
Here is a sober warning for those tempted to embrace a religious nationalism ‘to preserve our Christian heritage’. The gospel is inclusive, intended for all peoples. It is not the exclusive right of westerners. We are better people when we commit to the welfare of others, that is to ‘loving our neighbours’. We are better nations when we promote the common good of the community of nations, not an ethnic nationalism which places one nation over others as a political goal.
As Christians, we strive to follow the exclusive claims of the gospel. Yet those of us living in countries shaped by Christianity–Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant–often assume that the marriage of faith and nationalism is good and biblical. For ‘Christian nationalism’ has roots back in the Constantinian conversion of Rome to Christianity, or even further to the Old Testament covenant between God and Israel. At different stages of history, Christians have claimed a ‘divine instrument’, ‘manifest destiny’, or ‘light to the nations’ calling–from Constantine’s Roman Empire through to Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire, Holy Orthodox Russia, Britain versus Spain, Afrikaners in South Africa and the United States.
Catholics are generally less vulnerable than Protestants to the temptations of a ‘God and country’ mentality, being conscious of belonging to a ‘catholic’ (meaning ‘universal’) Church, rather than identifying with one particular nation like the Church of England or the Dutch Reformed Church. And yet today in Catholic nations like Hungary, Poland and Italy, religious nationalism threatens to further undermine the foundations of free and open society in the name of ‘preserving our Christian heritage’.
Chaplain
Eastern Orthodox Churches however tend to closely identify with their ethnic nationalities: Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, and so on. Church-state relations in the Orthodox world have
always be based on the concept of symphonia or harmony, which often meant the church became the chaplain rather than prophet to the state.
Too often we assume nations have always been around and are the God-designed unit of human community. We quote Acts 17:26 about God having ‘made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands.’ But nation-states as we see them on our world map today are recent developments, as opposed to ethne (peoples), the word used in Acts 17. The French Revolution set off a wave of nationalism across Europe sparking revolutions which still continue to affect this continent. The twentieth century has been described as ‘a century of nations and nationalism’, a ‘bloody religion whose victims dwarf in number the casualties of the crusades’, ‘a reaction against historic Christianity, against the universal mission of Christ’.
Pentecost emboldened the disciples to declare to the authorities: ‘We must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29). May the Spirit embolden us also to stand for truth, love and justice, and for God’s purposes for all peoples.
Jeff Fountain is director of the Schuman Centre for European Studies, affiliated with the University of the Nations. Originally from New Zealand, Jeff has lived in Europe for 38 years and carries a Dutch passport. He was director of Youth With A Mission Europe for 20 years and chairs the Hope For Europe Round Table. Jeff writes an email column called Weekly Word and has written several books including Living as People of Hope and Deeply Rooted.
Moral relativism
We wouldn’t need to discuss abortion if a pregnant woman were the only person involved in the procedure. If the embryo or foetus were just a “mass” – say, a tumour or infected tissue – out it would go as soon as possible, no questions asked. However, as soon as it becomes apparent, or even just possible, that the woman is not the only person involved, the scenario changes entirely and the subject must be paused for consideration.
I’m relieved that the Pro-life movement no longer sees itself playing a partisan role in a zero-sum game. It has realised that the woman and child are each infinitely precious and that the community’s role is to protect and support them both.
Pro-choice usually try to justify abortions by constricting the definition of “human being” – for example, by saying the embryo/foetus must have a heartbeat, or lung function, or brain function, or even awareness, before claiming the coveted title. This approach exposes Pro-choicers to the problem that many children and adults are occasionally without these functions and capacities for a time, relying on drugs or machinery, and yet we still regard them as human beings. Even when life-support is turned off, it is seen as having supported the life of a human being.
Whatever the status of the embryo/foetus while in utero, there is also the argument about it being a potential human life. Even this is resisted by Pro-choice, though it seems to me that to argue against the human potential of the “mass” is barely even sincere. After all, the only reason the embryo/foetus is terminated is because of its potential to develop into an obvious human being.
