For those who are interested, Justin Duckworth has been elected as the Anglican Bishop for the Wellington Diocese (I’m moving to Wellington).

Yesterday on Saturday the 3rd of September 2011, the Auckland Synod of the Anglican Church in New Zealand passed a motion that people involved in sexual relationships outside of marriage but within committed same-sex relationships would not be impeded from being ordained into ministry.

The mover of the motion was Glynn Cardy, notorious for his parish (St Matthews in the City) displaying billboards openly mocking historic Christian belief (I mentioned this a whole ago). Not terribly surprising I suppose!

Here is the motion:

That this Synod
[1] Holds that sexual orientation should not be an impediment to the discernment, ordination, and licensing of gay and lesbian members to any lay and ordained offices of the Church; and further
[2] persons in committed same-sex relationships likewise should not be excluded from being considered for discernment, ordination, and licensing to any lay and ordained offices of the Church.
[3] commits to an intentional process of listening to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, organized by the Archdeacons in consultation with the gay and lesbian community.
[4] commits to an ongoing discussion with the ministry units, asks the Archdeacons to facilitate this, and invites responses to those discussions to be submitted to Diocesan Council by 31st March 2012; and
[5] commits to support the process and work of the Commission to be appointed by General Synod Standing Committee, as resolved at its meeting in July 2011.

It’s absolutely crucial to state: Prior to this motion being passed, there was no ban on homosexuals becoming ordained. None whatsoever. This is not about the church’s willingness to include people who identify as homosexual (some popular misrepresentations notwithstanding). This is about whether or not the church is right to refuse to ordain people who are living in a sexual union outside of marriage, something that the Christian faith has always disapproved of, regardless of anyone’s sexual orientation.
Read the rest of the entry »

On the afternoon of Friday the 19th of November 2010 there was an explosion in Pike River coal mine, 50km north-east of Greymouth, on the west coast of New Zealand’s South Island. Initially I heard mixed reports about how many men were trapped inside. Two managed to crawl out, and eventually it became clear that there were twenty-nine still underground, about two and a half kilometres inside the mine. Nobody yet knows what actually triggered the explosion, but in deep coal mines there’s a lot of methane gas and coal dust, so any source of ignition is a real danger. Tests were done indicating that presence of toxic and flammable gas was still high, and there was a risk of further explosions, so no rescue team was able to be sent in for a number of days.

On Wednesday the 24th November, even as the time frame for when a rescue effort could be made was being discussed, there was a second, enormously larger explosion, certainly ruling out the possibility that these men could have survived. Twenty nine miners lost their lives. Thirteen children are now without a father.

Since then there has been a third blast, but this is more or less irrelevant as far as the fate of these men is concerned. This is a national tragedy and the thoughts and prayers of the nation – and certainly mine – are with the families of those involved.

When I say that it’s a national tragedy, I’m not just talking about the fact that it really is an awful loss for our nation (although of course it is), I’m also talking about the very public phenomenon of treating this like a tragedy. It made front pages everywhere. Outpourings of grief and support are coming from all quarters. The news broadcasts were saturated with the story – and still are. Parliament observed silence to mark the terrible event. It’s appropriate to mourn over this and to make it a tragedy that will be remembered.

I cannot begrudge those who mourn when tragedy strikes. They have a right to mourn. At the same time, it eats away at my respect for our status as a nation of humane people that as a nation we don’t bat an eyelid over the fact that on the day of the first explosion at Pike River, approximately forty-eight babies were killed. By the end of the day of the second explosion, that total had risen to about two hundred and eighty-eight. These were not accidents or workplace hazards. These were mothers who had made the choice to end the life of their unborn children rather than allow them to emerge.

Imagine a mine in New Zealand in which nearly fifty men entered every day, never to emerge alive again. Then imagine that they didn’t emerge because the mine owner made the choice that they wouldn’t. If you have a hard time trying to understand why pro-lifers make such a big deal over abortion, look at what our entire nation did when we lost twenty nine men. Last year abortion claimed over seventeen and a half thousand in New Zealand. The average was just over forty eight per day.

Yes we should mourn for those who are tragically lost – but we shouldn’t leave any out. Every single day is Pike River, and nobody mourns.

UPDATE: Shortly after posting this I became aware of Andy Moore’s excellent blog post on this same theme.

You’d think that people with an interest in producing studies with a statistical basis would understand simple principles like this one: Correlation does not show causation.

However, researchers in Southampton, England, have thrown such fundamentals to the wind, and as a result we now know that “What a person does for a living could play a role in how they die, according to new research.” But that’s obvious, right? I mean, people who work at sea have a higher risk of drowning, electricians have a higher risk of electrocution, fire fighters might die from burns and so on. But no, that’s not the sort of obvious risk these researchers have in mind:

After analyzing 1.6 million deaths over a decade, British scientists found that painters, bricklayers and roofers had about twice the average rate of death from drug abuse, while merchant seamen, cooks and bar staff had a higher risk of alcohol-related deaths.
And dressmakers and hairdressers had nine times the average risk of death from HIV/Aids.

And

They found merchant seamen had a high risk for death from cirrhosis and other alcohol related illnesses such as cancer of the liver and oral cavity and from accidents like falling down stairs.
Higher than average risk of death from HIV/Aids was found among male tailors and dressmakers and male hairdressers, while accidental poisoning by drug was high among male painters, decorators, bricklayers, plasterers and roofers.
SOURCE

Here, of course is the question: Does any of this tell us that the job played a role in the way a person dies? Or does it instead tell us that the same sort of person who is likely to take up a certain type of job is also subject to a higher risk of a certain type of disease or death?

Take bricklayers, painters and roofers. Let’s not try to smooth things over: These are relatively low-skilled labour oriented jobs, likely held (in general, not as an absolute rule) by people who aren’t terribly sophisticated. People like this with drug habits are likely to seek employment where such offending is less likely to present barriers to work and employment. Take people who work at sea or in a restaurant. Have you never heard beer referred to as the “champagne of the working class”? As it turns out, roles like these are also likely to be held by that same working class. And as for “ male tailors and dressmakers and male hairdressers,” don’t you think it’s at least possible that men of a certain background are more likely than others to go into such roles – a background that might also make them more likely candidates for HIV/Aids? I’d ask you to use your imagination, but I suspect you probably already are.

Does this research really show that these jobs play a role in the kinds of deaths described? More importantly, is this the sort of stuff that research money needed to be spent on in order to show us what a lot of people already suspected?

Here in New Zealand we have a thing called the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA).

Their mission statement is that they will “Support fairness and freedom in broadcasting through impartial complaints determination, effective research and informing stakeholders.” I don’t know why they call it supporting freedom – perhaps it sounds nice – but basically what they do is hear complaints about things that have been broadcast on television and radio and decide whether or not to uphold the complaint. Their functions are:

(a) To receive and determine complaints…
…
(c) To publicise its procedures in relation to complaints; and
(d) To issue to any or all broadcasters, advisory opinions relating to broadcasting standards and ethical conduct in broadcasting; and
(e) To encourage the development and observance by broadcasters of codes of broadcasting practice appropriate to the type of broadcasting undertaken by such broadcasters in relation to -
(i) The protection of children:
(ii) The portrayal of violence:
(iii) Fair and accurate programmes and procedures for correcting factual errors and redressing unfairness:
(iv) Safeguards against the portrayal of persons in programmes in a manner that encourages the denigration of, or the discrimination against, sections of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability or occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs:
(v) Restrictions on the promotion of liquor:
(vi) Presentation of appropriate warnings in respect of programmes that have been classified as suitable only for particular audiences:
(vii) The privacy of the individual
…
(h) To conduct research and publish findings on matters relating to standards in broadcasting.

Recently the BSA upheld a complaint about a TV show called 7 days, a show with a reputation for being a bit on the crass side. In short, there’s a show segment called “my kid could draw that,” where children (in a pre-recorded clip) present a drawing they have made of a recent news item, and show guests have to figure out what the news item is. I think that’s how it works, but the detail of that don’t matter now. A girl showed a picture of some men in a bunk, and it was then explained (after the guests failed to guess the news item) that the picture referred to a proposal – one that had gained some publicity – to double bunk inmates in prisons to save money. The girl explained that the picture read, “No money, plus a lot of prisoners, equals a lot of grossness up ahead.” You can guess the kind of humour that this might prompt, and sure enough a few wise cracks were then made by those taking part in the game about sexual antics between men in prisons.

The TV show was broadcast at 10pm and was preceded by a verbal warning that some content may offend. However, the Authority upheld part of the complaint on the grounds that this was sexually lewd material that was shown to be connected in some way to a drawing made by a specific child. Accordingly the show segment was deemed to have violated standards of decency and good taste. Read the decision here.
Read the rest of the entry »

Today there was a small protest outside Parliament. No big deal in my books, people protest about stuff all the time. On this occasion, a New Zealand flag was burned. The protestors were pro-republican, and they believe that we should not have a monarch as head of state (hence the burning of the flag, which contains a Union Jack because of our ties to the British Empire, now the British Commonwealth). The protestors also had photos of New Zealand politicians including the current and former Prime Minister, and cut their heads off. Tasteless but harmless.

This is what the news story says: “Parliamentary Service said the protest was unauthorised and police were investigating.”

Police? Unauthorised? Am I to understand that this protest would need to be authorised by the people at whom it was directed?

Discuss.

A group of zealous atheists in New Zealand have been raising money to run an advertisement campaign: advertisement for – well nothing, really (quite literally). The campaign was a spinoff from an identical one in the UK where signs declaring the (probable) non-existence of God.

They’ve hit a snag. The company that the group would like to peddle its advertisements has decided that they don’t want to do so. “The company has defended the decision, saying it has the right to decline ads that it sees as controversial or divisive.” As a spokesperson for NZ Bus said,

“NZ Bus has the right to decline advertising that may, in its perception, be considered controversial or divisive,” she said.

“We have said ‘no thank you’ to Mr Fisher and have wished him well in his endeavours to secure a bus company to work with.”

Ah well, it’s a free world and we live in a free market economy. If the ads have merit, surely someone will want to promote them, right?

Somehow, this line of thinking doesn’t seem to be popular with the atheists in question, and certainly not with their spokesperson Simon Fisher. In fact, not only is this just an unfortunate reality of the free market, but it’s a violation of their human rights, the group maintains. “The group was considering taking the case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Mr Fisher said.”

It’s an interesting world where someone thinks they have a basic human right to the use of someone else’s advertising space to promote their beliefs. I can only wonder what these very same atheists would have said if a bus company decided not to run ads encouraging people to become Muslims – and the Muslims started talking about legal action. I’ll let your imagination run wild with the sort of descriptions that would be applied. In fact, feel free to offer your on wild speculation in the comments section!

Just recently I blogged on the billboard erected by St Matthew-in-the-city. I said at the time that it was an act of desperation from a brand of religion that wants to effectively give up its religious nature but still retain its spot in the church, jettisoning anything that might connect it to (eeeew) Christianity, and trying to be hip and risque by poking crass fun at Christianity itself.

Although whoever comes up with ideas like this is apparently in the bizarre headspace where he/she thinks that the non-Christian world will admire this, the reality is somewhat different. For quite some time now I have consistently noticed that such tactics never achieve the stated (although probably false) goal of “getting people to think” or “encouraging serious dialogue” about faith in the modern world. Claiming Christianity while rejecting God and virtually everything that the Christian faith teaches does not make people look credible. It makes them look ridiculous. Genuine sceptics toward Christianity simply see straight through these attempts to be relevant as a way of selling out and living a ruse.

While I don’t share her take on the meaning of Christmas (largely because it sounds like she attributes no theological importance to it at all – and because of her heretical comment about guitars in church), I did appreciate the comments of the ever lovely Kerre Woodham in the New Zealand Herald:

I do wish churches would get back to core business and start laying down the moral law, delivering thundering nightmare-inducing sermons and ministering to the poor.

My dad always said no good would come of allowing guitars and folk songs into services, and he was right. All this faffing around trying to be edgy and relevant is embarrassing. It’s like watching your parents dance.

St Matthew-in-the-City is the latest culprit, with its Saatchi & Saatchi-generated billboard depicting a dejected looking Joseph and a disappointed Mary in bed. The caption read: “Poor Joseph. God is a hard act to follow.” Implying, of course, that God is the Man – capital “M” – in the sack and Joseph is a poor second.

The billboard has generated much debate, with some saying it’s offensive and others saying religious maniacs need to lighten up. Predictably, Family First is in the offended camp.

But really, Bob McCroskrie’s great-great-grandfather was probably the first man to cover the legs of pianos in Victorian England, so as not to offend the sensibilities of the ladies. The Catholic Church had a milder response, saying the billboard was inappropriate and disrespectful.

On the other hand, archdeacon Glynn Cardy is beside himself with excitement, saying the agency has fulfilled the brief. He says the church wanted to get people to think more about the meaning of Christmas. Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst, as seen in Jesus?

Although I don’t think the billboard was especially offensive, I think it was probably just a bit too arch. I don’t know about you, but Christmas has never been about God and sperm. It’s a time to be with people you love, sharing what you have with those who might need a bit of help and for me, it’s about doing a moral stock take. How much have I done for others this year, and what more could I do? Not wondering whether bodily fluids were ever mingled between God and Mary – or for that matter, Joseph and Mary. St Matthew-in-the-City prides itself on being “at the progressive end of the Christian continuum”, but the way it’s promoting itself, its future seems more assured as a venue for fashion shows rather than a place of worship.

[Emphasis added]

As one person said on St Matthew’s website: “Glynn Cardy, As one atheist to another, take my advice: get yourself out of the Church and try working for a living.” People can see straight through the absurdity of rejecting everything that makes Christianity distinctively Christian while trying to retain a position among its ranks (and even drawing a paycheck from it!). In spite of the claims about encouraging thought and discussion, the stunt has not worked. It has caused a lot of people to notice how antithetical to Christianity the action was, it has caused umbrage among plenty of Christians, and it has sent the liberal defenders of such messages to become extremely defensive, disappointed that the outcome – amazingly – was not in their favour. In a word, “duh.” This self-serving publicity gimmick failed to get anyone talking seriously about the meaning of christmas. It failied to stir up any genuine theological discussion of any kind, as far as I can tell. All it did (as was probably the plan all along) was to get people talking about Glynn Cardy and his church. Well, he got it, in spite of the fact that he might not have liked the way it turned out. That anyone at St Matthews might have hoped for anything other than what they got just demonstrates how painfully out of touch with reality they really are.

Glenn Peoples

OK, this guy is officially awesome:

Sue Bradford has been one of the worst politicians that this nation has ever had the misfortune of enduring in Parliament. She was the architect – if you can call her that – of the now infamous and incredibly unpopular “anti-smacking” legislation. The reality is that her grasp of law, its meaning, implications and its structure is such that she almost certainly didn’t write it. On the other hand, the lack of clarity and apparent conflict within the law also suggests that she had input, so who knows?

I still vividly recall when she came down to Dunedin to discuss the anti-smacking Bill at public meetings. As people explained the legal ramifications of the Bill, her blank stares and bizarre replies made quite a few people freeze in a moment of terror with one common thought in their minds: This law maker has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about.

Today she anounced her departure from the House. Thank God. It’s a time when people feel obliged to flatter her, lie, and tell the media that she made great contributions and that she acted in the best interests of families and those she cared about. There is no such obligation. Mrs Bradford made no such positive contributions, she did not act in the best interests of families, and the fact that she believed otherwise does not make things better. It is not a redeeming fact that “at least she was doing what she thought was best for people.” No. The fact that she believed in mammoth power transfers from the family to the nanny state, the fact that she entertained the view that it is best for everyone to slaughter the economy in the interests of meeting environmental protocols  that larger economies themselves do not meet is evidence of just how confused, morally unwell, and unfit she really was to serve in the first place.

I am very pleased that she is leaving. The only regret in her departure is that it isn’t retroactive, which leaves us with the mess she created while in Parliament.