Dan, since we do refer to the Bible, it might be worthwhile noting how many biblical households are not just husband and wife, and ‘family’ is not just husband and wife and children. Household/family are often a multi-generational, multi-bloodline association of people who form a kind of mini-economy** together, with a distinct leadership/deference structure.
(**Please note that I don’t want to reduce the analysis to economic terms!!)
Our current obsession with the ‘nuclear’ family as the cultural icon of ‘traditional family values’ should be challenged by Christians, not unthinkingly supported by them.
It would be nice to see the government encouraging people to livein ways that are cohesive, communal and familial.
Familial is something which has a tendency to occur within a particular family. For instance, Down syndrome which has occurred more than once within a family because of an inherited chromosome translocation, can be said to be familial in that family. Hope this helps
After reading the policies on Destiny’s website, I find myself agreeing with them. They sound very positive, very biblical. However, I’m still very wary of anything to do with the Destiny Church and Brian Tamariki…
Sorry Aaron, my intention was that there are certain family structures that, by their very structure, are more constructive and conducive to a healthy society than are others.
>Dan & David, I think you want a Chrisitan-with-a-capital-C
>party so that you get a shortcut to ‘faithful’ voting and don’t
>have to critically evaluate the various party’s policies. Fair?
Matt, not quite fair no. I’d like to think I have read through a number of parties policies and compared and checked them. Sure, I could do more research, but it seems the little I have done is more than most people do.
What I want is a party that believes in God and wants to proclaim his restoring Word in their policies. They will also know they are answerable to God as to how they carry out their leadership. However what we want is not always available in this world.
At least with CHP and Destiny they proclaim God and His Word as their political ‘manual’. Sure, their policies are not all perfect, but at least I see them striving to be faithful in how they carry out their role.
re. 30, what do I mean by a ‘better’ leader? Strong, decisive, experienced, incisive, independent, successful… flipping the bird to the USA and Israel… going 6 years without facing any threat to her leadership…
From my perspective, a lot of what I like about this country can be attributed to its liberal-ness and its eco-ness (i.e. Labour & Greens). I mean, I couldn’t care less if the economy had 10% growth next year as a result of a National government. That is to say, the things that would be improved by a liberal party are of more interest to me than the things that would be improved by a conservative party.
Also, it must be about time to allocate some points.
Kathy – 17 points for being hysterical and hilarious and often right.
Dan – 27 points for expressing views antithetical to mine without making me dislike you.
Anonymous2 – I don’t care for what you have to say, but your name is a clever oxymoron. I don’t know how that translates into my points system, as I haven’t decided if you are or are not lame.
What a lot of you people seem to forget is that the majority of politicians are genuinely trying their hardest to do what is best for the country.
Anonymous2, your nit picking in this conversation is just as useful as your ass scratching in this conversation. Also, Kathy could take you.
I think what Matthew means in terms of packing up is that if leaders like Capill are going to be the political face of Christianity in New Zealand, what does that do to the image of Christianity in New Zealand? Will the secular public and media take everything at face value and one part of the political body as the majority? Yes. They bloody well will.
I stress my earlier point which was easily ignored. Would Jesus run for prime minister in New Zealand?
Thank you for your positive and insightful contribution. “ass scratching” – simply brilliant! Where do you learn stuff like that…? (BTW – how might Jesus have responded?)
I’m also wondering where you’re going with the “would Jesus run for prime minister?”. I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say. So we’re speculating. Based on what He did and said in His time here on earth, I’d guess not. His was not an earthly kingdom.
But this is getting us nowhere. What’s your point?
Joining this discussion a little late, but here goes…
Richard, what exactly do you like that Labour has done? When I look back over the last few years, I see the Prostitution Reform Bill, the Civil Union Bill (or the Relationship Act), the Care of Children Bill, the Families Commission Bill, the Charities Bill,the increasing political correctness, etc. I see a goverment who has decided that it knows best. I see a government who does not support the traditional family unit, but is actively trying to erode it. All this “liberal-ness” adds up to some scary social engineering which is going to be very difficult to reverse.
Sure, Helen is a successful leader – if you measure success by the ability to stay in power. I think Don Brash would make a refreshing change.
Personally, I like a lot of the Green policies. I actually voted for them last time. But I don’t know if I can agree with their underlying ideology.
One of my big concerns was GE. Of the 1300 or so submissions, over 90% were against. This didn’t stop mother-government, in it’s all-knowing wisdom, to railroad it through. As they did with the Civil Union Bill, or any other contentious issue. That worries me, the blatant disregard for what the nation is telling them.
Rudy, I was thinking about those bills today, on a different train of thought; actually, the civil union and prostitution bills in particular. I believe they create some coherence between real life and legislation. That is, in a secular society, why shouldn’t someone be allowed to sell themselves, or marry a goat? None of my business.
For all the references to ‘social engineering’ in the past 6 years, I haven’t really noticed the country falling apart.
And for what its worth, I don’t specifically support the ‘traditional family unit’ either. I think the emphasis on ‘family’ in the current election is almost entirely meaningless. I live with two siblings and a niece and a friend. We are not a traditional family. So what?
I don’t particularly like any one specific thing Labour has done (I don’t think I am contradicting myself here – and I don’t much care if I am). What I do like is the liberal attitude. It seems coherent to me, in a secular society.
Tim, it is a shame you have quit, I would love for you to explain to me why you posted comment no. 37. That is the most baffling thing you’ve done on this blog in a while.
Richard, it’s one thing to describe New Zealand society as secular.
It’s quite another to speak as if we should have no desire to change that. Do we work and hope for the calling of our neighbours to wholeness/healing under God, or not? Do we aspire to one day live in a nation that does genuinely honour God, or not? Do we think that ‘secular’ is just the name for yet another (currently dominant) religion – or not?
While dealing with New Zealand as it actually is, we must surely aim to move it on from there. Yes? No?
I think yes. So I find it hard to accept that the proposals of ‘secularism’ (“marry a goat”) should be those that we deliberately entrench and protect in legislation.
I don’t think Tim should give up either. I still want to hear a thoughtful response to Matt’s point about ‘moral issues’ (#20).
In the end, every issues becomes a moral issue. Decisions cannot be made in a “neutral vacuum”, in any other context than a moral one. Nobody is morally neutral, not even governments.
So Matt is correct by suggesting issues regarding the environment, war, education, social welfare, or the economy are all moral issues too – on equal par with issues such as sexuality. It is unfair to try and make a distinction.
In the not too distant past, Christianity influenced society. Indivuduals had dignity (created in the image of God), there was a clear right and wrong, and people respected the law.
These days relativism and pragmatism rule the roost. The State decides what is good for us and what constitutes morality. Everyone’s views are morally nuetral and of equal value.
Except those annoying views that disagree… :)
It’s absurd really. “Tolerance” – sure, but only of views that agree with you. “Don’t judge” really means judge only dissenting views. It’s almost comical.
I agree with Aaron. We should try and change our secular society. I don’t like it’s “liberal-ness” (I mean, how could you, as a Christian?).
It took evangelical Christians over 50 years to abolish the slave trade in England. They didn’t point to their society’s “cohesion”, or revel in its liberal attitude. No, they saw a great evil, and did something about it. They came up against a lot of opposition, both from non-christians (whose social and economic lives were being affected) and even from amongst their own brethren. But they persevered, thankfully.
A vote is a shout of support. I argue that we should support those parties and individuals whose policies we, as Christians who are trying to bring our neighbours back into fellowship with God, agree with.
Labour is becoming so very anti-Christian, and therefore will not get my vote.
Thanks Matt, for the Andrew Basden’s article – most enjoyable reading. I find myself agreeing with him more and more:
Community versus individuality. Sustainability versus short-term planning. Responsibility for the creation. Good stuff.
I just worry that the Green Party here is tacking all sorts of other things onto their Greenery – the whole gay and lesbian “rights” thing for example.
I mean “Rainbow” communities – they actually paid someone to come up with an exciting term like that?
And in the grand colour scheme of things, what does that make boring old heterosexual me – grey!?
My point from no.37 has been made by Rudy above.
Aaron, if you’d like to hear my response to 20 you can talk to me.
I also find it interesting, Matt, that you don’t know about Destiny (23) but you’re willing to accuse others of unthinkingly casting their vote (34) and then throw your vote Green’s way.
Briefly returning to the CHP issue. I believe at the very least they must rebrand. Capill was the CHP to pretty much everyone who wasn’t involved with the party. It doesn’t really matter that he had left CHP before his life was exposed, to the general public, even Christians, when he fell CHP fell with him. I don’t see a way for the party to politically dig itself out of the pit it has been pulled into. Only rebranding may give them a ladder.
Richard, darling – neither do I! But that doesn’t mean we cannot have Christians in government, using their conscience votes to serve God, and try to influence policy makers. Like I said, decisions are never made in a moral vacuum. So I guess the question you have to ask is which religion would you rather have influencing our laws. I choose christianity.
Richard, I didn’t talk about ‘replacement’, I talked about ‘moving on’. I want an incremental organic improvement, not a revolution. Your extremes creates a straw man.
quote “Dan & David, I think you want a Chrisitan-with-a-capital -C party so that you get a shortcut to ‘faithful’ voting and don’t have to critically evaluate the various party’s policies. Fair?”
maybe you should find out about Destiny and critically evaluate their policies before you go for your ‘faithful’ vote of the Greens?
David, I don’t think Destiny have a chance in hell. And I don’t know why “strengthing the family” (where family = “a legally married husband (man born a male) and wife (woman born a female) – and their children (and/or legally adopted children) – to at least the fourth generation.”) will magically fix everything wrong with NZ. And I don’t know why my living situation (Richard, Kathy, Isis & me) is bad enough for society that it should be penalised.
I think Mammon is a/the key idol of our age and that Labour+Greens are less enamoured of it than National+whoever.
A change from Christian Heritage Party to Christian Heritage New Zealand will do nothing to change the associations between Capill and the party. A more drastic change would be needed I reckon.
the trouble is, Rudy and Azan, I don’t see the point of the Christian influence. From what I understand of comments 79 and 80, you want a party that will stick up for the particular interests of we Christians? Some kind of a watchdog party (this seems to be what United Future are trying to be, going by the Peter Dunne interview in Prism).
In an explicitly secular country, it doesn’t make sense, to me, to have a Christian watchdog party nipping at the heels of whichever big party is in power. That is, unless you have a Muslim party and a gay party and…
I mean, what is this influential Christian party going to do about gay people? Why should a gay person living in a secular country be bothered by a bunch of Christians who don’t dig their lifestyle? There are already plenty of Christian countries that they are not welcome in!
I am really boethered by your continual invocation of New Zealand’s ‘secular’ status as if this description is the equivalent of a prescription – particularly for the way Christians vote, but generally for New Zealand’s future.
Aaron I don’t really know what you are saying, so I will explain what I mean by ‘secular’. I think ‘secular’ is the bit that I have in common with my Muslim friend, with my gay friend. So a secular government is concerned with those issues that are common to all its citizens.
The crux of the issue I take with any explicitly non-secular (e.g. religious) party is, what do you do about the people from a different religion? So what would a Christian party do? Outlaw homosexuality? And what will that achieve? I just don’t get how this is supposed to work.
Richard has a gay friend. That’s really cute. I can see a rainbow over brooklyn. Now I understand his apparent apathy for any party promoting Christian values.
It might be worth noting that you are all able to “publicly” discuss your voting privilege (courtesy of mhjb) & preferences and on election day will have an automatic right to cast your vote however you each see fit. Lots of folks in lots of countries do not get that choice – so no need to hound each other into defending/swaying your preferences, its your vote – use it anyway you wish – the point is, it counts!
Good article Matt. That’s kinda where I’m coming from.
Richard, you’re dealing in extremes again. I dare you to show me one “christian country” where gays are not openly welcome. Go on.
Richard, if you’re really interested in reading about how Christians could, and should, get involved in politics, here is another good article
I particularly like Charles Colson’s ideas on Christian politics.
Colson: “Politics is not the church’s first calling. Evangelism, . . . providing discipleship, fellowship, teaching the Word . . . are the heartbeat of the church. When it addresses political issues, the church must not do so at the risk of weakening its primary mission”
“On an individual level, political involvement for the Christian entails not only voting and other basic responsibilities of citizenship, but dealing directly with political issues, particularly where justice and human dignity are at stake.”
“But . . . others are called to make a Christian witness from positions within government itself. After all, as men like (Wilberforce and Shaftesbury) illustrate, Christians who are politicians can bear a biblical witness on political structures, just as they do in medicine, law, business, labor, education, the arts, or any other walk of life . . . They exhibit this in their moral witness and their willingness to stand up for unpopular causes, even if such causes benefit society more than their own political careers.”
“In a pluralistic society it is not only wrong but unwise for Christians to shake their Bibles and arrogantly assert that ‘God says . . . ‘ That is the quickest way for Christians, a distinct minority in civil affairs, to lose their case altogether. Instead, positions should be argued on their merits. If the case is sound, a majority can be persuaded; that’s the way democracies and free nations are supposed to work.”
(Charles W. Colson, “Kingdoms in Conflict” – William Morrow & Zondervan Publishing House, 1987)
Richard says :“I think ’secular’ is the bit that I have in common with my Muslim friend, with my gay friend. So a secular government is concerned with those issues that are common to all its citizens.”
Richard, you still seem to think that a “secular” government is a neutral one. It’s not. It is humanistic – and even humanists admit that they’re just as religious as Muslims or Christians (see Kurtz in the preface to the Humanist Manifestoes 1, 2).
Humanism’s greatest victory to date is the acceptance of the myth that it is neutral, when it is in fact standing on top of the mountain of pluralism, looking down on all other backward little religions.
As a humanistic institution, the government will do all it can to spread its beliefs in atheism, naturalism and evolution through the education system (in fact, the reason they’re allowed to teach this to our kids is precisely because everyone believes them to be “neutral” as opposed to those old-fashioned, biased views of creation etc…).
These atheistic beliefs are also increasingly becoming the foundation on which new laws are based.
Since there is no absolute moral code to adhere to, the State is the ultimate authority for creating law and human rights. For example, instead of holding to God’s code on sexuality, the NZ government can make deviant sexual orientation a “human right” (Human Rights Act 1993) – and in its desire for equalization, actively encourage it. Rainbow communities will flourish.
Law becomes arbitrary, and subject to the whims of whoever’s in power. In effect, the State is given the authority of a god – Big Brother if you will.
A side effect is that this system discourages obedience because why obey laws with no other foundation than the state? That’s why people don’t see smoking cannabis as a big deal – the law’s obviously wrong, so why bother to obey it?
Another area humanism is active in is spreading the myth of “tolerance”. We must all compromise our ideologies to create a more harmonious society. Agree to start agreeing. Great stuff.
But in doing so, humanism sets itself up as the best ideology to foster in democratic peace. Huxley claims that a peaceful democracy can only flourish when everyone abandons their old-fashioned ideas and embraces humanism. So much for neutrality.
And I could go on and on. But what’s the point. It’s been discussed so many times already. Noebel summarises it nicely in “Mind Siege”, or “The Battle for Truth”.
I think Peter Dunne is on the right track. I’d much rather prefer Christian politicians than a Christian party – mainly because parties often try and railroad their narrow agenda through and easily succumb to “eclectic idealism” (crass generalisation perhaps).
And anyway, Richard why can’t Christian politics be concerned with social issues common to all? Because they’re biased?! Show me somenone who isn’t. In fact, a truly Christian government would protect the rights of homosexuals from harassment.
I suspect Richard simply has a skewed view of Christian politics (and definitely a wrong view about secularism’s neutral status).
Re: 94. I have a gay friend who is a teacher in the States. If she ever came out she would be fired without question and her wider family would be subjected to the shame of the whole community.
And as for secularism, as to my definition, an example: take a Mormon and a Hasidic Jew. These two men have different convictions on a lot of things, but they have things in common, or things they should have in common. All men should be concerned for the poor. All men should pay taxes. All men should care for the earth. All men want to be safe.
Those are issues common to everyone, and that is what I think a ‘secular’ government should be addressing.
Richard, I understand you concerns, and I’m sympathetic to them. In my view, any respectable Christian vision for politics must address them.
But forget for a moment the issue of how fit any particular ‘Christian’ group is to govern.
What I’d like to know is whether or not you think that politics should be done in a Christ-centric way. In other words, what place does our God have in politics?
I’m not sure of the place God has in politics. I now things can work without God being in politics, otherwise Jesus would have made more of an effort on that front.
Generally, I’m content with putting my effort into living right, and I don’t have to think about politics. When it comes to election time, suddenly everyone has to figure out what is best and who should be in power and how to get them there and… ! I’m not qualified to vote. Democracy is lame.
RDB says: “p.s. I don’t much care if I’m wrong”.
And you wonder why people find you so incredibly infuriating and give up trying to communicate with you. Arrogant prick.
Man comments flying here –> there <– This is talkback on steroids
And then this comment box tears off my punchline. How lame is that?
Dan, since we do refer to the Bible, it might be worthwhile noting how many biblical households are not just husband and wife, and ‘family’ is not just husband and wife and children. Household/family are often a multi-generational, multi-bloodline association of people who form a kind of mini-economy** together, with a distinct leadership/deference structure.
(**Please note that I don’t want to reduce the analysis to economic terms!!)
Our current obsession with the ‘nuclear’ family as the cultural icon of ‘traditional family values’ should be challenged by Christians, not unthinkingly supported by them.
It would be nice to see the government encouraging people to livein ways that are cohesive, communal and familial.
Not that I’m accusing you of unthinking support, Dan :)
Familial is something which has a tendency to occur within a particular family. For instance, Down syndrome which has occurred more than once within a family because of an inherited chromosome translocation, can be said to be familial in that family. Hope this helps
To be familial is to to have the attitudes and bonds of family.
After reading the policies on Destiny’s website, I find myself agreeing with them. They sound very positive, very biblical. However, I’m still very wary of anything to do with the Destiny Church and Brian Tamariki…
Matt, why should CHNZ pack up and go home because Of Capills’s actions? Your attitude surprises me.
Sorry Aaron, my intention was that there are certain family structures that, by their very structure, are more constructive and conducive to a healthy society than are others.
>Dan & David, I think you want a Chrisitan-with-a-capital-C
>party so that you get a shortcut to ‘faithful’ voting and don’t
>have to critically evaluate the various party’s policies. Fair?
Matt, not quite fair no. I’d like to think I have read through a number of parties policies and compared and checked them. Sure, I could do more research, but it seems the little I have done is more than most people do.
What I want is a party that believes in God and wants to proclaim his restoring Word in their policies. They will also know they are answerable to God as to how they carry out their leadership. However what we want is not always available in this world.
At least with CHP and Destiny they proclaim God and His Word as their political ‘manual’. Sure, their policies are not all perfect, but at least I see them striving to be faithful in how they carry out their role.
re. 30, what do I mean by a ‘better’ leader? Strong, decisive, experienced, incisive, independent, successful… flipping the bird to the USA and Israel… going 6 years without facing any threat to her leadership…
From my perspective, a lot of what I like about this country can be attributed to its liberal-ness and its eco-ness (i.e. Labour & Greens). I mean, I couldn’t care less if the economy had 10% growth next year as a result of a National government. That is to say, the things that would be improved by a liberal party are of more interest to me than the things that would be improved by a conservative party.
Also, it must be about time to allocate some points.
Kathy – 17 points for being hysterical and hilarious and often right.
Dan – 27 points for expressing views antithetical to mine without making me dislike you.
Anonymous2 – I don’t care for what you have to say, but your name is a clever oxymoron. I don’t know how that translates into my points system, as I haven’t decided if you are or are not lame.
What a lot of you people seem to forget is that the majority of politicians are genuinely trying their hardest to do what is best for the country.
Anonymous2, your nit picking in this conversation is just as useful as your ass scratching in this conversation. Also, Kathy could take you.
I think what Matthew means in terms of packing up is that if leaders like Capill are going to be the political face of Christianity in New Zealand, what does that do to the image of Christianity in New Zealand? Will the secular public and media take everything at face value and one part of the political body as the majority? Yes. They bloody well will.
I stress my earlier point which was easily ignored. Would Jesus run for prime minister in New Zealand?
Sambo:
Thank you for your positive and insightful contribution. “ass scratching” – simply brilliant! Where do you learn stuff like that…? (BTW – how might Jesus have responded?)
I’m also wondering where you’re going with the “would Jesus run for prime minister?”. I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say. So we’re speculating. Based on what He did and said in His time here on earth, I’d guess not. His was not an earthly kingdom.
But this is getting us nowhere. What’s your point?
Joining this discussion a little late, but here goes…
Richard, what exactly do you like that Labour has done? When I look back over the last few years, I see the Prostitution Reform Bill, the Civil Union Bill (or the Relationship Act), the Care of Children Bill, the Families Commission Bill, the Charities Bill,the increasing political correctness, etc. I see a goverment who has decided that it knows best. I see a government who does not support the traditional family unit, but is actively trying to erode it. All this “liberal-ness” adds up to some scary social engineering which is going to be very difficult to reverse.
Sure, Helen is a successful leader – if you measure success by the ability to stay in power. I think Don Brash would make a refreshing change.
Personally, I like a lot of the Green policies. I actually voted for them last time. But I don’t know if I can agree with their underlying ideology.
One of my big concerns was GE. Of the 1300 or so submissions, over 90% were against. This didn’t stop mother-government, in it’s all-knowing wisdom, to railroad it through. As they did with the Civil Union Bill, or any other contentious issue. That worries me, the blatant disregard for what the nation is telling them.
‘nuf said
Sambo, would Jesus have voted?
Actually, don’t bother answering that Sambo cos I’m officially giving up.
some points:
Rudy, I was thinking about those bills today, on a different train of thought; actually, the civil union and prostitution bills in particular. I believe they create some coherence between real life and legislation. That is, in a secular society, why shouldn’t someone be allowed to sell themselves, or marry a goat? None of my business.
For all the references to ‘social engineering’ in the past 6 years, I haven’t really noticed the country falling apart.
And for what its worth, I don’t specifically support the ‘traditional family unit’ either. I think the emphasis on ‘family’ in the current election is almost entirely meaningless. I live with two siblings and a niece and a friend. We are not a traditional family. So what?
I don’t particularly like any one specific thing Labour has done (I don’t think I am contradicting myself here – and I don’t much care if I am). What I do like is the liberal attitude. It seems coherent to me, in a secular society.
Tim, it is a shame you have quit, I would love for you to explain to me why you posted comment no. 37. That is the most baffling thing you’ve done on this blog in a while.
Richard:
Why the apathy, the stoic indifference?
Correct, you’re not a traditional family unit. What’s your point?
Luther: “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian”
Question is, which Turks are really competent?
Richard, it’s one thing to describe New Zealand society as secular.
It’s quite another to speak as if we should have no desire to change that. Do we work and hope for the calling of our neighbours to wholeness/healing under God, or not? Do we aspire to one day live in a nation that does genuinely honour God, or not? Do we think that ‘secular’ is just the name for yet another (currently dominant) religion – or not?
While dealing with New Zealand as it actually is, we must surely aim to move it on from there. Yes? No?
I think yes. So I find it hard to accept that the proposals of ‘secularism’ (“marry a goat”) should be those that we deliberately entrench and protect in legislation.
I don’t think Tim should give up either. I still want to hear a thoughtful response to Matt’s point about ‘moral issues’ (#20).
Thank you Aaron.
re:20
In the end, every issues becomes a moral issue. Decisions cannot be made in a “neutral vacuum”, in any other context than a moral one. Nobody is morally neutral, not even governments.
So Matt is correct by suggesting issues regarding the environment, war, education, social welfare, or the economy are all moral issues too – on equal par with issues such as sexuality. It is unfair to try and make a distinction.
In the not too distant past, Christianity influenced society. Indivuduals had dignity (created in the image of God), there was a clear right and wrong, and people respected the law.
These days relativism and pragmatism rule the roost. The State decides what is good for us and what constitutes morality. Everyone’s views are morally nuetral and of equal value.
Except those annoying views that disagree… :)
It’s absurd really. “Tolerance” – sure, but only of views that agree with you. “Don’t judge” really means judge only dissenting views. It’s almost comical.
I agree with Aaron. We should try and change our secular society. I don’t like it’s “liberal-ness” (I mean, how could you, as a Christian?).
It took evangelical Christians over 50 years to abolish the slave trade in England. They didn’t point to their society’s “cohesion”, or revel in its liberal attitude. No, they saw a great evil, and did something about it. They came up against a lot of opposition, both from non-christians (whose social and economic lives were being affected) and even from amongst their own brethren. But they persevered, thankfully.
A vote is a shout of support. I argue that we should support those parties and individuals whose policies we, as Christians who are trying to bring our neighbours back into fellowship with God, agree with.
Labour is becoming so very anti-Christian, and therefore will not get my vote.
Thanks Matt, for the Andrew Basden’s article – most enjoyable reading. I find myself agreeing with him more and more:
Community versus individuality. Sustainability versus short-term planning. Responsibility for the creation. Good stuff.
I just worry that the Green Party here is tacking all sorts of other things onto their Greenery – the whole gay and lesbian “rights” thing for example.
I mean “Rainbow” communities – they actually paid someone to come up with an exciting term like that?
And in the grand colour scheme of things, what does that make boring old heterosexual me – grey!?
My point from no.37 has been made by Rudy above.
Aaron, if you’d like to hear my response to 20 you can talk to me.
I also find it interesting, Matt, that you don’t know about Destiny (23) but you’re willing to accuse others of unthinkingly casting their vote (34) and then throw your vote Green’s way.
Briefly returning to the CHP issue. I believe at the very least they must rebrand. Capill was the CHP to pretty much everyone who wasn’t involved with the party. It doesn’t really matter that he had left CHP before his life was exposed, to the general public, even Christians, when he fell CHP fell with him. I don’t see a way for the party to politically dig itself out of the pit it has been pulled into. Only rebranding may give them a ladder.
I guess Destiny are just under the radar for me.
‘Under the radar’ means what exactly?
Rudy and Aaron, realistically, what is going to happen if we replace the national religion of secularism with Christianity?
Let’s put it this way darlings, I don’t want my church ruling the country!
Tim, so your point is that they chose a silly word? gosh…
Richard, darling – neither do I! But that doesn’t mean we cannot have Christians in government, using their conscience votes to serve God, and try to influence policy makers. Like I said, decisions are never made in a moral vacuum. So I guess the question you have to ask is which religion would you rather have influencing our laws. I choose christianity.
Exactly, Rudy.
Richard, I didn’t talk about ‘replacement’, I talked about ‘moving on’. I want an incremental organic improvement, not a revolution. Your extremes creates a straw man.
Matt,
quote “Dan & David, I think you want a Chrisitan-with-a-capital -C party so that you get a shortcut to ‘faithful’ voting and don’t have to critically evaluate the various party’s policies. Fair?”
maybe you should find out about Destiny and critically evaluate their policies before you go for your ‘faithful’ vote of the Greens?
Lynton, funny thing is, CHP rebranded a couple of years ago – they’ve been CHNZ for quite a while. (I know it’s not a big change)
I said some more here.
David, I don’t think Destiny have a chance in hell. And I don’t know why “strengthing the family” (where family = “a legally married husband (man born a male) and wife (woman born a female) – and their children (and/or legally adopted children) – to at least the fourth generation.”) will magically fix everything wrong with NZ. And I don’t know why my living situation (Richard, Kathy, Isis & me) is bad enough for society that it should be penalised.
I think Mammon is a/the key idol of our age and that Labour+Greens are less enamoured of it than National+whoever.
A change from Christian Heritage Party to Christian Heritage New Zealand will do nothing to change the associations between Capill and the party. A more drastic change would be needed I reckon.
the trouble is, Rudy and Azan, I don’t see the point of the Christian influence. From what I understand of comments 79 and 80, you want a party that will stick up for the particular interests of we Christians? Some kind of a watchdog party (this seems to be what United Future are trying to be, going by the Peter Dunne interview in Prism).
In an explicitly secular country, it doesn’t make sense, to me, to have a Christian watchdog party nipping at the heels of whichever big party is in power. That is, unless you have a Muslim party and a gay party and…
I mean, what is this influential Christian party going to do about gay people? Why should a gay person living in a secular country be bothered by a bunch of Christians who don’t dig their lifestyle? There are already plenty of Christian countries that they are not welcome in!
Richard, why relegate the Christian voice to advocacy of ‘particular’ interests?
Does only secularism have an all-embracing vision?
Or do you really think that secularism should set the vision for everybody else?
I am really boethered by your continual invocation of New Zealand’s ‘secular’ status as if this description is the equivalent of a prescription – particularly for the way Christians vote, but generally for New Zealand’s future.
Aaron I don’t really know what you are saying, so I will explain what I mean by ‘secular’. I think ‘secular’ is the bit that I have in common with my Muslim friend, with my gay friend. So a secular government is concerned with those issues that are common to all its citizens.
The crux of the issue I take with any explicitly non-secular (e.g. religious) party is, what do you do about the people from a different religion? So what would a Christian party do? Outlaw homosexuality? And what will that achieve? I just don’t get how this is supposed to work.
Aaron: (re. 86) perhaps this ties in the with idea that the church is the alternative polis, illustrating an alternative all-embracing vision.
RDB, this short article on ‘principled pluralism’ may point to a helpful xn model for politics.
Richard has a gay friend. That’s really cute. I can see a rainbow over brooklyn. Now I understand his apparent apathy for any party promoting Christian values.
It might be worth noting that you are all able to “publicly” discuss your voting privilege (courtesy of mhjb) & preferences and on election day will have an automatic right to cast your vote however you each see fit. Lots of folks in lots of countries do not get that choice – so no need to hound each other into defending/swaying your preferences, its your vote – use it anyway you wish – the point is, it counts!
MENTAL MASTURBATION.
thats all this is right here.
mental masturbation.
Good article Matt. That’s kinda where I’m coming from.
Richard, you’re dealing in extremes again. I dare you to show me one “christian country” where gays are not openly welcome. Go on.
Richard, if you’re really interested in reading about how Christians could, and should, get involved in politics, here is another good article
I particularly like Charles Colson’s ideas on Christian politics.
Colson: “Politics is not the church’s first calling. Evangelism, . . . providing discipleship, fellowship, teaching the Word . . . are the heartbeat of the church. When it addresses political issues, the church must not do so at the risk of weakening its primary mission”
“On an individual level, political involvement for the Christian entails not only voting and other basic responsibilities of citizenship, but dealing directly with political issues, particularly where justice and human dignity are at stake.”
“But . . . others are called to make a Christian witness from positions within government itself. After all, as men like (Wilberforce and Shaftesbury) illustrate, Christians who are politicians can bear a biblical witness on political structures, just as they do in medicine, law, business, labor, education, the arts, or any other walk of life . . . They exhibit this in their moral witness and their willingness to stand up for unpopular causes, even if such causes benefit society more than their own political careers.”
“In a pluralistic society it is not only wrong but unwise for Christians to shake their Bibles and arrogantly assert that ‘God says . . . ‘ That is the quickest way for Christians, a distinct minority in civil affairs, to lose their case altogether. Instead, positions should be argued on their merits. If the case is sound, a majority can be persuaded; that’s the way democracies and free nations are supposed to work.”
(Charles W. Colson, “Kingdoms in Conflict” – William Morrow & Zondervan Publishing House, 1987)
Hurray for cut ‘n paste!
Richard says :“I think ’secular’ is the bit that I have in common with my Muslim friend, with my gay friend. So a secular government is concerned with those issues that are common to all its citizens.”
Richard, you still seem to think that a “secular” government is a neutral one. It’s not. It is humanistic – and even humanists admit that they’re just as religious as Muslims or Christians (see Kurtz in the preface to the Humanist Manifestoes 1, 2).
Humanism’s greatest victory to date is the acceptance of the myth that it is neutral, when it is in fact standing on top of the mountain of pluralism, looking down on all other backward little religions.
As a humanistic institution, the government will do all it can to spread its beliefs in atheism, naturalism and evolution through the education system (in fact, the reason they’re allowed to teach this to our kids is precisely because everyone believes them to be “neutral” as opposed to those old-fashioned, biased views of creation etc…).
These atheistic beliefs are also increasingly becoming the foundation on which new laws are based.
Since there is no absolute moral code to adhere to, the State is the ultimate authority for creating law and human rights. For example, instead of holding to God’s code on sexuality, the NZ government can make deviant sexual orientation a “human right” (Human Rights Act 1993) – and in its desire for equalization, actively encourage it. Rainbow communities will flourish.
Law becomes arbitrary, and subject to the whims of whoever’s in power. In effect, the State is given the authority of a god – Big Brother if you will.
A side effect is that this system discourages obedience because why obey laws with no other foundation than the state? That’s why people don’t see smoking cannabis as a big deal – the law’s obviously wrong, so why bother to obey it?
Another area humanism is active in is spreading the myth of “tolerance”. We must all compromise our ideologies to create a more harmonious society. Agree to start agreeing. Great stuff.
But in doing so, humanism sets itself up as the best ideology to foster in democratic peace. Huxley claims that a peaceful democracy can only flourish when everyone abandons their old-fashioned ideas and embraces humanism. So much for neutrality.
And I could go on and on. But what’s the point. It’s been discussed so many times already. Noebel summarises it nicely in “Mind Siege”, or “The Battle for Truth”.
I think Peter Dunne is on the right track. I’d much rather prefer Christian politicians than a Christian party – mainly because parties often try and railroad their narrow agenda through and easily succumb to “eclectic idealism” (crass generalisation perhaps).
And anyway, Richard why can’t Christian politics be concerned with social issues common to all? Because they’re biased?! Show me somenone who isn’t. In fact, a truly Christian government would protect the rights of homosexuals from harassment.
I suspect Richard simply has a skewed view of Christian politics (and definitely a wrong view about secularism’s neutral status).
Rudy, thanks for the article.
Re: 94. I have a gay friend who is a teacher in the States. If she ever came out she would be fired without question and her wider family would be subjected to the shame of the whole community.
And as for secularism, as to my definition, an example: take a Mormon and a Hasidic Jew. These two men have different convictions on a lot of things, but they have things in common, or things they should have in common. All men should be concerned for the poor. All men should pay taxes. All men should care for the earth. All men want to be safe.
Those are issues common to everyone, and that is what I think a ‘secular’ government should be addressing.
p.s. I don’t much care if I’m wrong.
Richard, I understand you concerns, and I’m sympathetic to them. In my view, any respectable Christian vision for politics must address them.
But forget for a moment the issue of how fit any particular ‘Christian’ group is to govern.
What I’d like to know is whether or not you think that politics should be done in a Christ-centric way. In other words, what place does our God have in politics?
I’m not sure of the place God has in politics. I now things can work without God being in politics, otherwise Jesus would have made more of an effort on that front.
Generally, I’m content with putting my effort into living right, and I don’t have to think about politics. When it comes to election time, suddenly everyone has to figure out what is best and who should be in power and how to get them there and… ! I’m not qualified to vote. Democracy is lame.
Also, re: 91., it may be of interest to you that there is no such thing as anonymity on the web.
Or to put it another way, it took me about 12 seconds to determine your physical address.
So, if you are going to be weak and make bullshit comments, you might as well put your name to them.
RDB says: “p.s. I don’t much care if I’m wrong”.
And you wonder why people find you so incredibly infuriating and give up trying to communicate with you. Arrogant prick.