SHOULD WE BE LEADING THE WAY?
Last week I attended a pastor's meeting where Larry Baldock came to speak to us about his petition in regards to the current legislation to repeal section 59 of the crimes act. Whilst many people may be frustrated at what seems to be the govt legislating how people should parent, I was very confused when I was told that churches should be "leading the way" in getting this petition signed. Apparently we should be getting our people to go out into shopping malls etc on weekends and get signatures for this petition. I left the meeting a little troubled. Why should churches be leading the way on this petition (getting people to oppose the bill that would repeal section 59)? As I write this post I have just received another e-mail from people attached to this petition demanding that our church should be arranging people to take to the streets to get signatures for this petition! I can understand our people signing this petition as concerned citizens, but what is so gospel about petitioning the govt to allow us to smack our children that churches should "lead the way"? I left the meeting wondering why should churches be "leading the way" on this petition? Jesus NEVER spoke about smacking. In fact it didn't even register on his Richter scale. Jesus' self definition was the Prince of Peace. Jesus ALWAYS sided with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed and the least. What is so gospel about this petition that churches should "lead the way" as if the very gospel itself is being threatened by this bill? I can understand people in our church signing this petition as concerned citizens but for us as a church to "lead the way" it has to be a specific threat to the gospel Jesus proclaimed and I just don't think it is. Why do we want to "lead the way" on this petition about smacking (something Jesus NEVER spoke about) instead of leading the way on petitioning our govt to be more involved and concerned about global poverty and injustice (something that Jesus spoke about A LOT)?
To be sure, my issue isn't with concerned citizens in our church signing the petition (and I am not opposing Christians signing this petition as concerned citizens) my issue is that I have been told that our church should "lead the way" on this petition and recruit our people to get signatures but I just don't see it as a gospel imperative (compared to issues like poverty and injustice). We seem to be picky and choosy about what we protest about. For example, churches were at the forefront of protesting against the Civil Unions Bill, which is fine (even though homosexuality is something Jesus never spoke about in a culture where it was rampant). But, at exactly the same time our NZ cricket team were leaving to tour Zimbabwe, a country being oppressed by an evil leader and suffering chronic injustices (something Jesus spoke a lot about) and churches never battered an eyelid or considered protesting! I don't oppose anyone being involved in signing petitions or protesting, nor am I suggesting Christians shouldn't be involved in the debate about homosexuality. My cry is that our churches "lead the way" on the things that were priorities for Jesus Christ.
If I have missed something here can someone please help me out...
9:20 PM
excellent comments andrew. excellent comments. it was hard for me when there was encouragement in the church newsletter for people to sign the petition. it doesn't give people (like me for example) who are living by not smacking children a heck of a lot of endorsement for our choice in parenting.
larry seems to have been strongarming jesus into supporting his own agenda...
9:20 AM
Great article Andrew. Got me fired up. Far too often I've had to put up with Christian leadership and church organisations pushing a political agenda sourced from the minority of sripture, whilst ignoring some fairly significant elements of the entire Christian message.
12:41 PM
So then who decides how much a particular issue has to be discussed in the bible to make it worth standing up for? Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should be doing more about poverty and injustice. It's just I wonder where we draw the line between what Christians can let slide and what we should be jumping up and down about.
1:50 PM
Hey BAndy, I think you're asking "so, what mountains should Christians die on?" It's a good question. Are we just jellyfish who bow down to everything? Obviously not. My point is that we stand up for the things that mattered a lot to Jesus (beliving that he fully reveals God to us). Luke 4:16ff is probably a good place to start because it's Jesus' first public message in his ministry and is central to Luke's understanding of Jesus and his gospel.
At the same time, I genuinely don't oppose Christians who're fired up about this bill (even though Margaret and I have tried to make a conscious decision not to smack our children) and want to protest. The petition is at the back of our church and can be signed by concerned citizens. My issue is when churches (as opposed to Christians as concerned citizens) are told they must lead the way on protesting against this bill. The church is the community of the Kingdom and before we protest or march about anything we need to be damn sure it's a Kingdom issue (i.e. what mattered to Jesus). Who sets the agenda of what's a Kingdom issue? The King - Jesus!
4:09 AM
I think by taking this stance is kind of legalistic. Jesus didn't mention a lot of things, by saying that what is in the Bible dictates everything is a form of legalism.
What matters is the "spirit" and the issue here is that fundamentally Sue Bradford is against the family unit and the authority of parents. Bradford also detests Christianity. As a hardcore socialist and one time communist, Bradford has a clear and obvious agenda.
5:29 AM
Mr P-style
I notice there is nothing in your profile that identifies any kind of Christian belief.
Do you sincerely believe Christians should keep out of politics. If you believe there is no place for any beliefs in politics maybe Labour should be out of government as they believe in socialism.
6:03 AM
1. Why should churches be leading the way? Churches should be speaking against evil. The proponents of this Bill seek to impose evil by undermining the family unit as the basis of society, by taking away parental authority. Also, persecuting Christians who are the main opponents of this Bill. Notice the politicians saying all opposition is being whipped up by the Christian community - clearly lies.
2. There are lots of things Jesus didn't explicitly mention. Does that mean we shouldn't use the internet because Jesus didn't mention it? We have the whole gospels and the OT as well for our guide. Whoops, Jesus didn't mention vegetarianism did he. (To paraphrase from another post)
3. Where is peace defined exactly in the Bible for the definition of "Prince of Peace". One could easily point out that peace happens when your enemies are defeated, in fact that would be true in a lot of places in the Bible.
4. Lots of Christians are not "the poor, opressed etc" that doesn't make them any less as Christians. Jesus sides with anyone who is a believer regardless of circumstances and the gospel message is for anyone who is not a believer regardless.
5. Global injustice starts locally. I know many people who go on missions and campaign in those countries they are working in. They achieve a lot more than pontificating from afar. There's no reason why it should be any different for anyone in NZ to campaign against injustice, in this case the government's anti Christian agenda.
N.B. Jesus didn't explicitly say "global" anywhere.
6. The gospel imperative is to speak against evil. Evil has many forms. Global injustice is about oppression. In our country the government foments opposition to Christian beliefs. That happens in numerous overseas countries in a much more extreme form and Christians are often killed for their beliefs. Don't let that sort of idea get a foothold in the door here. If you don't agree with that then look at how many times the government has attacked the Exclusive Brethren, how they oppose Christian schooling etc.
7. Jesus didn't speak about homosexuality, well he didn't speak about vegetarianism either :)
He didn't speak about sustainability or saving whales or 101000 things that churches are involved in.
8. Did your church say anything about the Zimbabwe tour? If not, then why aren't you putting your money where your mouth is. If you did, then obviously some churches did comment about the Zimbabwean tour. Did the Anglican or Catholic bishops put out any statements - I don't know. Why doesn't your church stop having meetings or sending people on overseas missions so they can spend all their time and money on protesting about the Zimbabwean tour or whatever, because that must be more important than anything else. The majority of churches do not maintain PR firms or secretaries solely charged with putting out press statements on every issue of the day. The church is its members and the members are free to protest on whatever they please at any time.
9. NZ is close to being a country oppressed by an evil leader or leaders. Is that less important than what's happening in Zimbabwe? There's plenty of injustice in NZ. Should churches not speak about it because Zimbabwe is more important?
10. Jesus spoke about the issues of his day. Our churches speak about the issues of our day. The issues mentioned in the Gospels are allegorical to the issues we face in society. The issues we face are not necessarily exactly the same as in the Bible but they fit under such categorisations as Jesus used. If we stuck to exactly what the Gospel said we'd be ignoring a lot of bad things happening in society. For example nuclear bombs are not mentioned as they did not exist, yet lots of people think nuclear bombs are evil.
11. The church should be leading the way on what is happening in New Zealand foremost, who else is doing it? In Zimbabwe their first priority is opposing their own government. The first priority for the Christian church in NZ should be what is happening in NZ, to use a scriptural allegory, our own flesh and blood, our own neighbours etc.
12. I'm no theologian but it seems to me the theology in the original post is rather lacking, either that or our theological institutions these days don't really know what it is any more.
10:42 AM
PD, I think you missed a few things in Andrew's post. The bible calls us to be like Jesus. Jesus was more concerned about poverty and injustice than he was about lots of the issues that many churches put emphasis on today. I wonder how Christlike we can call ourselves if we aren't similarly concerned with the things that Jesus was concerned about. Just imagine if Jesus put as much emphasis on the issues that some churches do. He had three years to spell out what really mattered. To quote from the original post:
"We seem to be picky and choosy about what we protest about. For example, churches were at the forefront of protesting against the Civil Unions Bill, which is fine... But, at exactly the same time our NZ cricket team were leaving to tour Zimbabwe, a country being oppressed by an evil leader and suffering chronic injustices"
It's not saying that we shouldn't protest about things. It is saying that churches today are far too focused on things that Jesus obviously didn't feel the need to emphasis.
You say that Jesus spoke about the issues of his day. True, but it was still only the things that really mattered to him. Like Andrew said, Homosexuality was rampant in Jesus's day (far more so that now it seems). If issues like that are such important kingdom issues, why did Jesus not speak up about them?
"The church should be leading the way on what is happening in New Zealand foremost, who else is doing it? In Zimbabwe their first priority is opposing their own government. The first priority for the Christian church in NZ should be what is happening in NZ, to use a scriptural allegory, our own flesh and blood, our own neighbors etc."
Again, you put far to much emphasis on the wrong thing. Andy's point here was that churches seemed to ignore an issue that Jesus always talked about, it didn't matter where it happened. Somehow I think helping out with poverty in New Zealand will do more for our country than protesting about this particular bill.
Andrew, I don't unnecessarily agree with you about how the church shouldn't lead the way on issues such as these. I do, however, agree that we should focus more on the things that mattered to Jesus.
10:04 AM
Hi PD, I'm not sure how to respond to your post. On the one hand I'm angry that someone who doesn't know me and who professes to know Christ would speak to anyone in the vitriolic rhetoric you do. On the other hand I wonder what it is that you found so threatening about what I said that would inspire you to respond like that. So thanks for your 12 point refutation of my post! Can I pick up on a few points and maybe we can enter into dialogue rather than you shouting at me!
Firstly I understand your concern regarding this piece of legislation intruding into our homes. I have children whom I am trying to raise as best I can and I feel this keenly too. I agree that the division of the family along the lines of "rights" is completely against any Christian view of family. However, I do want to pause to consider seriously the scriptures here. And since this touches on the topic of theology, can I reply a little to your comment of my theology. You say that you're no theologian but that didn't stop you from making some huge judgement calls on what you see as my seriously deficient theology nor did it stop you from making insinuations about the theological college I attended. I can handle you disagreeing with me but to slander the college I trained at without knowing anything about it - come on! That gets me a little angry at your lack of grace!
Every Christian is a theologian as we all think about and try to name who God is and what God has done for us in Christ. Therefore the question isn't do you do theology (we all do), the question is do you have an accurate/adequate theology or do you have an inadequate/inaccurate theology? My theology goes like this: For me as a Christian, my faith is centred in Jesus Christ in whom, as Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, "all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". In other words, if you want to know what God is like then you need to look no further than Jesus - he perfectly reveals God to us because he is God. Therefore, Jesus is the centre of my faith. I interpret scripture in the light of Jesus Christ, who is God. I will happily disagree with some parts of scripture because they have been redefined in Christ (e.g. a woman caught in the act of adultry should be taken outside the city gates and stoned). I want to follow very closely the things that mattered to Jesus Christ - because he is God. Annonymous, thank you for your post, but if this makes me legalistic (I prefer that I'm trying to be Christocentric) then so be it! So for example, I disagree with my friend Steve about vegetarianism because I know that Jesus ate meat at the Passover meal that he used to show his disciples that it found its fulfilment in him. I also think of Acts 10:9ff... but I disgress. This is my theological method. Because Jesus is God (and there is no other hidden God because in Jesus the whole fullness of God dwelt perfectly) I read the scriptures in the light of Christ and try my best to become like Christ, empowered by the Spirit.
Now, on the issue of dividing the family unit, I have some things that I think you need to consider. When you say family what do you mean? When the Bible speaks of family it does NOT mean today's nuclear family! If you want to read a little about this have a look at an article written by Tim Bulkeley here: http://www.visionnetwork.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=118. Also, does it concern you that Jesus seemed at the very least ambivalent about "the family"? That he seemed to divide up the family too? Lk. 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes even life itself - such a person cannot be my disciple"! Mrk 10:28-29 "Then Peter spoke up, "We have left everything to follow you!" "Truly I tell you," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or childrenor fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age" Or finally, Lk. 8:20 "Someone told him, "your mother and brothers are standing outside, waiting to see you." He replied "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice" Wow! Now, I'm not saying that Jesus is against family but it seems that another family takes precedence for him - those who do the will of God - the family of God. I worry that what is driving so much of the Christian talk around this bill are not strong theological views but strong political views. I am no left winger and some of this bill does irritate me - especially the stuff about "rights" - but I don't understand the Christian anger about it. As I said, it seems more politically motivated (e.g. I keep hearing about this social engineering from the Greens and the Labour party) than theologically motivated.
In terms of the other things you struck out at me about, I am sorry that you felt so threatened by my views. Perhaps this sense of feeling threatened by differing views is worth you reflecting on. Why do you feel so threatened that you would throw away all grace and love and attack me - someone you've never met! Yes I did something about Zimbabwe including talking to the National Bank about how happy they were sponsoring the Black Caps tour over there. I also have friends who were in the Black Caps team that toured and have spoken to them about my views. In terms of you linking Mugabe with NZ's leader in terms of evil, I'm sorry but this is a silly extension to make. I don't have time or space to reply to all your 12 points (and in terms of the Prince of Peace, I'd love for you to get a handle on Pax Christi - the peace of Christ in contrast to the Pax Romana of his day - the peace of Rome that said I will have peace even if I have to kill every last on of you! Sounds similar to much peace that is being offered around the world today. How did Jesus overcome evil and war? By a cross. By letting it come and do its worst in him on the cross and responding with love and non-violence. Suffice it to say that I am all for the church to "lead the way on issues" (as you say), as long as they are gospel issues! Please PD, in the future perhaps you could come to talk WITH me on this blog and not shout AT me.
May you know the Pax Christi,
Andrew.
12:02 AM
This is not shouting. It is rational discussion. IF I WANTED TO SHOUT IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The view of the Gospel you appear to espouse is, in a way, quite narrow, almost fundamentalist, but not in a way that is characteristic of what are usually called "fundamentalist" churches. They believe in the whole of the Gospel throughout the New Testament rather than just what Jesus said, because the Christian message is spread through the whole of the New Testament.
The Gospels give us only part of Jesus' life and the things that he did so saying that Jesus was not concerned with other things is misleading because we actually only have the Gospel events, which are certainly incomplete, as a guideline.
I fail to see how the differences of family definition affect the Section 59 Bill debate.
Christians campaigning against this Bill know that the real issue is Sue Bradford's agenda to undermine the God-given roles of parents as carers and nurterers in the family environment. Sue Bradford is a communist, and communism is profoundly anti-Christian in outlook. She wants a communist government in New Zealand which will outlaw Christianity or any of the freedoms that we take for granted today.
Christians are right to oppose the Section 59 Bill because of the increasing breakdown in society as a result of implementing the policies espoused by Sue and others of her kind. Our society was built up to be strong originally by the work of Christians, firstly in NZ the missionaries and church people who settled this country. Just like it was when Britain became democratic, it was a church led movement that laid the foundations of a strong and upright society. As it says somewhere in the Psalms, "Righteousness exalts a nation" and that is a valid part of Scripture because the message of God to Christians is in the whole of Scripture, not just the part that Jesus spoke.
Evangelicals like I am don't restrict ourselves to this idea that only what Jesus said must be valid, because He doesn't mention coming to New Zealand to establish churches here for example. If evangelicals had had such a limited view of the Gospel then many of the great works of Christians would never have taken place.
8:56 AM
Hi PD, I've been accused of many things but it's not often that I'm accused of being a fundamentalist! I'm not sure you have understood my point. When I say the Gospel I don't mean the gospels (as in the synoptic gospels and John's gospel). What I mean is the full revelation of who God is that is found only in Jesus Christ. This is a very evangelical position and develops into a distinctly different theological method than fundamentalism. On the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism can I suggest you read John Stott's book "Evangelical Truth". It succinctly contrasts evangelicalism from fundamentlism. Also, the work of David Bebbington is very helpful in understanding evangelicalism. I think you are defining Christianity according to political wings - the right is Christian, the left is anti-Christian! I think Jesus transcends the political left and the political right. Baptising political sides is a very dangerous stance to take. My favourite quote, given to me at my induction into ministry by my mentor, comes from Herbert Butterfield - "hold fast to Christ and to all else be completely uncommitted" If that makes me a fundamentalist then count me in! I think it makes me evangelical. In terms of rational discussion, I think the interchange of convictions is rational discussion. Angry mud slinging and questioning my integrity as a Christian is a long way from rational discussion. Perhaps some simple rugby rules might help - play the ball and not the man!