"...Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!"

The issue that I was assigned for my blog post this week was the area of ‘difference’ and particularly in relation to disability. At first I decided I would write about the negative connotations and consequences of having disabilities or disorders in New Zealand. But the other day I came across an article from 2004, which asked the question; “Is homosexuality a disability?” Now I think that the Western World has changed considerably in their perception of homosexuality since then. But there is still a negative stigma associated with it, especially in the church. It is one of the taboo topics which is frequently thought about, but infrequently taught about in church circles. For that reason I’ve decided to thrust it into the Christian community.

Up until 2009, New Zealand applied the “Gay panic defence” in a court of law, when the law was abolished after being used in the defence of Clayton Weatherston. Prior to that case it had been used in Ferdinand Ambach’s defence, after he brutally killed a gay man Ronald Brown (aged 69) who apparently made sexual advances towards him. Although there was substantial evidence against Ambach he was found guilty of manslaughter and not murder. The gay panic defence was also used in 1964 after 6 teenagers kicked to death a gay gentleman called Charles Aberhart. Although those prosecuting had proof that the youth were at Hagley Park (the crime scene) for a “spot of queer bashing”, they were nonetheless found not guilty after alleging that Mr Aberhart had provoked them by making a sexual advance.

I am glad that this ‘get out of jail free card’ policy has been rightfully removed. The issue is that it was Christian values which were at the core of law and society which supported this law. This was at a time where there was no separation between church and state. But now that there is separation, and both state and society have shifted in their values, we need to ask “What went wrong?” This is the easy part as the public have no issue in being brutally honest in pointing out our failings. The hardest part is convincing them to give us a second chance, to prove ourselves as relevant in today’s society. 

Ironically it is the Christian homosexuals who are our saving grace through saving face in this issue. We need to love and support our fellow brothers and sisters, as they maintain a Christian faith while being ostracized on numerous fronts. We need to disregard our outdated outlook and remember that Christianity convictions aren't perfect. The slave trade was endorsed by generations of Christians before a conscience developed against it. Antisemitism was accepted for centuries before people developed a heart after Hitler's Holocaust. The point being that even Christian's consciences are fallible. 

I would like us all to recognise that we are all made in God's image and how can we call anything 'unnatural' which God has made. I have to wonder whether we are guilty like Peter of calling something impure which God has made clean through the death of Christ. Since God is not capable of creating or committing sin and if homosexuality is genetic in nature (which I acknowledge is debatable) then how can we say that God created a person who is unnatural. Also since all people are sinful, why should homosexuals be given less grace that the rest of us?  

A Trio in Crime, May Mean Jail Time

We are all too used to a joke involving a pilot walking into a bar, but what about someone walking into an airport masquerading as a pilot. Thinking of this scenario reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in “Catch Me If You Can”. The film in question is based on a true story where Frank Abagnale Jr. cons millions of dollars as a Pan Am pilot, doctor and legal prosecutor. Not only did he impersonate all three of these rather prestigious positions, but he acted them out in the work environments respectively.

Similarly Bryce Casey (DJ at the radio station, The Rock) impersonated a pilot at Auckland Domestic Airport, last Saturday at 2:30pm attempted to access a restricted area. The incident at the airport was a television stunt done for the TV program WANNA-BEn. WANNA-BEn has a reputation for pulling such stunts, and has successfully pulled them off in several venues, including cinemas, concerts, and stadiums. However, this time far more serious action was taken out against them.

To their credit men involved got in touch with the authorities on Sunday, as soon as they became aware of the hunt for the pilot perpetrator. Bryce Casey (32), Ben Boyce (33, WANNA-BEn star) and their producer, Andrew Robinson (26) were arrested and charged for breaching Section 56A of the Civil Aviation Act. On the 20^th a further 3 men were arrested in the morning and charged at the Counties Manakau District Court later on that afternoon. If found guilty those involved could be fined $10,000 or face up to 12 months prison time.

The idea of incarceration has been endorsed by the Airline Pilots Association and Paul Lyons (Aviation Security Co-ordinator) who stated that “incarceration for a short time, for a time of reflection, would be appropriate”. Lyon’s was satisfied that Casey was unsuccessful in his efforts to access the airport’s restricted area. Although Glen Kenny (President of the Pilot’s Association), did voice concern at how closely Casey’s uniform resembled a real pilots uniform.

Boyce acknowledged that “there was never any intention to cause trouble at the airport. Nor was it our intention for Bryce to breach security.”  In an interview with TV3, Boyce noted that Casey “doesn’t look like a pilot, he’s unshaven, he’s got tattoos” and “didn’t have any ID”. In attempt at damage control, Boyce apologised on Facebook and Twitter last Tuesday, but for many it seemed too little, too late. It certainly didn’t placate John Key, who labelled the trio as an irresponsible “bunch of clowns who should know better”. The trio’s poor timing has been especially criticized, due to the stunt’s proximity to September 11 and the Rugby World Cup.

My thoughts on this stunt echo the criticisms of the authorities. But I would also like to say that New Zealand has a terrible reputation of hanging, drawing and quartering anyone who falls from grace. The public eye is ravenous for gossip and speculation and has an unsatisfying thirst for anyone who enters the crossfire. I think it is time to start building up the people who represent our country, rather than tearing them down. No other time is this witnessed so obviously and copiously than prior to an election. So I would like to encourage all New Zealanders and especially anyone who shares in the media traffic, via whatever channel from Facebook to broadcasting to the tabloids to show a little grace. After all what makes us human being’s is our incessant failings and every human being shares two common ties, we are fallen and we have been forgiven.

London Riots

Often media in the form of gaming and motion pictures provide us with a mirror into the issues of our own society. Increasingly we are seeing that the scenes which were once projected onto a screen are being projected into our very reality. The West has often labelled the Third World as the source and setting of violence and has used the media to maintain this image. However, from the 6^th to the 10^th of August it wasn’t the Middle-East or Africa where violence made the news, but in Great Britain itself. The London Riots, which were not just isolated to London, also broke out in several other areas, namely Bristol, Midlands and North West England. This incident lead to shock and surprise as the British tried to figure out how they had gone from once having the world’s largest empire to stealing and squabbling amongst themselves.

A line from the Dark Knight’s antagonist; the Joker, that when you, “Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos...Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!” rings true here. As if there is one thing about chaos it’s impartial in who gets targeted, this was certainly the case in the London Riots. But in terms of our understanding of fairness, it is not fair that the young and the old are exploited due to being unable to defend themselves. 

The concept of fairness is one that is often used in Western Society. Religious ideas of fairness, such as karma and “reaping what you sow” are often embraced as they connect with our worldly wisdom. Likewise when life presents us with challenges, we begin to question what we have done to deserve this. Our views of justice are influenced by our perceptions of equality and equity. But frequently we use the terms interchangeably, when they have very different ramifications. Equity refers to the qualities of justness, fairness, impartiality, while equality is about equal sharing and exact division between people. Or in other words equality equals quantity, whereas equity equals quality.

The relevance of equity and equality is evident in the London Riots, as Zygmunt Bauman states in his article, that "these are not hunger or bread riots. These are riots of defective and disqualified consumers." He alludes to the great divide between the wealthy and the poor which has stimulated social inequality. The footage that was taken of the riots echoes his earlier statement, as luxury goods were looted instead of the most basic ones. Zygmunt claims that “looting shops and setting them on fire derive from the same impulsion and gratify the same longing”, which is to be equal citizens in the consumerist culture. 

Likewise anthropologist, Rene Girard has attributed “mimetic rivalry” as the cause of these acts. Mimetic rivalry has resulted from a “consumerist culture in which self-worth is measured by material gain and identities express through brands”. Through this belief a fallacy has formed that “the fullness of consumer enjoyment means fullness of life”. Instead of the truth that being part of a consumerist culture means that you too become a commodity to be consumed.

Luke Bretherton’s mentions in his article that “we are a society that rewards one “pocket” of self-interested risk takers for privatising profit and socialising the cost but is busy incarcerated another “pocket” for the same actions”. His point being that we encourage ingenuity when it comes to maximising profit, but we don’t recognise that this has the same impact as stealing. The old proverb that ‘one man’s loss is another man’s is used to justify the richer get richer, while the poorer get poorer. Can we really blame the people for acting their frustration when the justice system fails to recognise the victims? Why don’t we point the finger at the grand puppet masters; the “bankers, politicians, the police and journalists who think they can bend and break the law, acting with impunity and with no regard for the common life we all share and on which themselves depend”?  Have we forgotten that the Pharisee’s were at the brunt of Jesus’ condemnation and not those who were marginalised by them?

Bretherton notes that “Scapegoating seems to shape the government’s whole response to the riots. But in scapegoating particular groups, we see to avoid taking responsibility.” We need to first take responsibility for our own actions before we can change anyone else’s. As Confucius once said, “To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right”.

It’s Time to Rebuild the Church

Although Martin Van Beynen has a reputation of infamy due to sticking his nose often in very sensitive areas, I have to admit that he does have some valid points in his article “Save Space Just One Church Should Cover it”. That being said many of them would be near impossible to implement. Propositions such as the churches should “pool their money to build one building to serve all...their parishioners” are unrealistic at best.  Each congregation get attached to their church, as it’s their spiritual home, it has a special significance in their soul. It is often hard for congregations to determine what makes church, however, we need to remember that the church is “the body of Christ”, and we, the people make up the church and the building is merely for comfort and convenience. 

One area where the church is constantly in catch up mode is communication. Communication isn’t limited to verbal dialogue but to any aspect of church which conveys a message. What the congregation wears to church services conveys a message, what ethnicity is most dominate in a congregation conveys a message, who is in leadership conveys a message, but one that we so often forget is the building itself which also conveys a message. The design of a church gives an impression of its function and relevance to the wider community, likewise how regularly the complex is used and for what function also communicates an idea about that church congregation itself.

All of the buildings which Beynen mentioned in his article, were out of date with modern architecture, not just in style but also in their functional design. For this reason I hope that Beynen’s “nightmare scenario” never happens and churches adopt a more stylistic and systematic approach in their future designs. In this regard I think that the Christchurch Cathedrals congregation are on the right track in their brief “to design a building that would be sustainable, environmentally friendly, safe, durable, beautiful, innovative and versatile”. However, their temporary complex the “Cardboard Cathdredal” will cost $4 000 000 and therefore isn’t cost effective and is a waste of the congregations money and a waste of the potential resources that could be devoted to community earthquake victims. A point made in the comments section by “Bill” mentioned that “if Christians mean what they preach they should build modestly or share premises and use their insurance payouts to benefit the need”.

I think that Bill makes a great point; these churches should build modestly and ensure that the community will also benefit from the complex. This also is highlighted in the plans of the Cardboard Cathedral which wish to “carry on the Cathedral’s tradition of open hospitality and would [want it to] be a focus for a number of community ventures” and purposes, such as concerts, exhibitions, memorial services. However, does this miss the point of the church? Shouldn’t the church be actively living out Christ’s ministry, rather than providing an entertainment venue for the city? Now is the time to define the church as Christ’s body, by meeting the needs of the community and not meeting behind closed doors discussing the future of the church building. Why does the general populace see the church as beyond its expiry date? It’s because of the Christianity of judgementalism and exclusivism, that we are seen as flogging a dead horse. Let’s show them that the church is alive and kicking, let’s show them that the church is relevant to this day and has a desire to help rather than hinder, to encourage rather than judge. Therefore let’s cast aside our differences and denominations and practice what we preach.

Oscar Wilde once said, that “When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her”. The events of July 22^nd in Norway demonstrated how one person’s liberty can impinge on so many others exercising their most fundamental liberty, the right to live. Anders Behring Breivk (32) was responsible for the car bomb in downtown Oslo which killed 8 and the massacre of 69 victims on the nearby island of Utøya.

After such an event, the first question on everyone’s lips is always why? Breivk’s motivation was revealed in a 1500 page manifesto which he published hours before the events of the 22^nd, where he elaborated of a “Muslim invasion” and a “cultural Marxism” which he believed was threatening Norway and the rest of Europe. It has also established through this text that the basis for his beliefs were a form of Christian fundamentalism. When I first head of this at this I cringed and thought how could someone have missed the point of Christ’s ministry so extremely? How could they align themselves in a belief which is supposed to supersede racial, cultural and political boundaries not widen them?


However Henry Thomas Buckle’s statement that “Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it” puts an interesting spin on the Norway killings. Although it was Breivk who committed these atrocious crimes, it was society’s discontent of Muslims which motivated him to commit them in the first place. Now don’t get me wrong, it was his choice to enact out this bloody solution, but this discontent has been fostered by the negative publicity of Muslims.


The West has adopted an ‘us and them’ approach to Muslims, the challenge for this world and particularly the church is to rethink racial issues and remember that we are not in a religious war. We need to keep in mind what Ephesians 6:12 says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rules, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. I bring this up as some have begun to speculate that the events of Norway were a part of God’s judgement on the country. I think that these people are missing the point that we aren’t in a battle between religions or between cultures, but in a battle against the demonic realm.


If we want to share the good news then public opinion is not going to assist us, if that was the case then Christ had no reason to come 2000 years ago. His insights transcended any life style or frame of mind which humanity had ever come up with. Human understanding can so easily be influenced from ungodly sources. Breivk is a great example of this; he was so devoted to his beliefs that he was willing to put them into practice in the most direct and way possible. There is evidence to show that these operations took years to plan. But it seems such a shame that someone can be so devoted to such a destructive cause and so determined to inflict damage on fellow human beings. What we need to remember is that if one person can achieve so much for a negative cause, then imagine what we can achieve in the name of the 'good news'?

Rose March in Central Oslo