The state of the faith: NZ

So this week as I write (which is a while ago now) we had a news item I just couldn't ignore (for some reason) from the Herald, confirming what we always knew - that people who are richer are likely to be less religious in New Zealand.

here

The interactive map from statistics New Zealand was a lot of fun, and was interesting, but really wasn't too surprising. Apparently the 11 facts on another of the herald reports on the same subject are 'eye-opening', and of course they are true, but 'eye-opening', really? It would have been stretching it even over a year ago when the data came out, not that I can talk, since I've left this article in the editing phase for almost 2 months, exams and travel will do that to you.

As to the reporters' conclusions from interviewing Dr Nick Thompson from the University of Auckland. I think perhaps less flippancy is called for with conclusions especially from an expert in the field.

"The trendy vicar who tried to get down with the kids in the 1960s has now become a figure of fun, most of the radical thinkers in the mainstream churches are now receiving pensions."

I don't even know anything of his vicar archetype ( a quick google search - "Trendy Vicar, Kids" gave an article about a vicar making public that increased child beheading in the middle east is a trend, I think it's more important to be aware of kids being beheaded, than being cool) so clearly it's outdated and doesn't really exist any more even as a figure of fun, maybe it's amusing... who knows. As to 'radical thinkers' in the mainstream churches; firstly it doesn't matter if they are receiving pensions they are still radical, actually what does radical even mean? Most Christians would say that Jesus was radical, or perhaps William Wilberforce or, Kate Shepherd, or James K Baxter, or Bishop Justin Duckworth, or Pope Francis, all of whom are still influential.
As I am writing Pope Francis has most recently posted the following on his twitter account (@pontifex)

It is better to have a Church which is wounded but out in the streets than a church which is sick because it is closed in on itself.

I would posit, and the pontifex agrees, that the most radical thing isn't thinking at all, but doing. I am glad that the Christian faith still continues to be collectively the largest charitable institution on the planet.

As to Pentecostal religions having high turnovers- this is a Statistics NZ survey remember, so those who ticked the box for 'Pentecostal' ticked the box, and those who are turned over aren't measured, so to clarify we are talking about the 'current attendance metric' whereby many Pentecostal/Charismatic churches (often also classified as 'protestant, not affiliated') are growing as stipulated by the census (2013) and by Dr Thompson.

On the other hand I do think it true that it is useless for the church to continue to 'modernize itself' if they mean what I think they mean - sure being engaging is great, the Pope now has twitter (with more followers than the population of NZ), but at the end of the day, honestly, Christians follow a roughly 2000 yr old teaching because we think it's still relevant. Modernising Jesus' teachings and example beyond recognition would mean that churches will no longer actually be Christian.

Speaking of beyond recognition, now to the prosperity gospel and Businessman Ron Clark's ideas. The prosperity gospel is a contradiction in itself, never relevant, and should always be treated with the suspicion it deserves (asking for money in exchange for blessings... this is simply medieval). His comments are out of line with mainstream Christian thinking, and for good reason. Mainstream churches are places where the rich can network too, there's no reason why they shouldn't be, it's simply that they should also make people uncomfortable about wealth that is not given to those in need - Pope Francis has said much on getting to know the poor and has phrased assisting people in poverty as an obligation for Catholics (Evangelii gaudium) . This at least will always be relevant while there is still impoverished people. Moreover Jesus said:

...Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Matt 19:24 (NIV)

Also relevant, especially while people starve.
Perhaps this is why a successful businessman would leave the Catholic Church for one that makes him feel good about himself. As an aside, those church subgroups reported as having grown (esp. Evangelical, and protestant non-affiliated) by and large don't "target the rich" in this way.

As to the article in general - here is what I would write (from the so called Godless capital of NZ), if I got the chance to have my own little subheading along with all the other opinionated people: Jesus spoke to the poor, and I suspect His message will always be more relevant to those on the margins than to those in power. Love for the poor is what Jesus intended, so it's not an 'eye-opener' at all that, in general, there are more Christians in poorer suburbs. I hope that Christianity continues to be most relevant to those who physically need it the most.

What's in the name?

the image source in the blog title is www.shutterstock.com

Hi, I don't like to beat around the bush with introductions and whatnot if you want to know who I am, well that isn't the subject of the blog, but you should get some idea eventually after a few posts.
The relevant details are;
I'm Christian, non-denominational, I study maths and physics and have interests in... a whole lot of things.
That's all.

The blog  has got some explanations, some thoughts and some interpretations. It's not the gospel, and not all of it is going to be true all the time. Nor is it going to please all of the people. Those things are difficult and impossible respectively, but it is written for everyone.
Quotes will be in italics, bold is emphasis.

Now the name of the blog itself;
A few scriptural references are included for the Christians among my readership for whom the notion of my approach to faith, in general, may be new in some sense, or just not the way it's talked about most of the time.
The context of the name is the oft quoted bible verse; 2 Corinthians 5:7 (NRSV)

For we walk by faith, not by sight

Which has always rather disturbed me. For one it implies that faith is predominantly the absence of sight, and in many instances the doubt that observing the world brings is set up in opposition to faith; in the walking on water story; the feeling Peter gets when he looks at the rough seas after stepping out of the boat is admonished by Jesus, Thomas gets told that those who don't see and yet believe are to be blessed, and Paul in his letters says;

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen

Hebrews 11:1 (NRSV)

But while these verses are true in their context I think it leaves us still open to a different interpretation for what faith is about. To the verses in question then. The first is about leaving behind our bodily desires and instead living 'in our heavenly dwelling' and so in this verse 'sight' is the things we see that take us away from our conviction and longing 'to be clothed more fully' (see verses 4-7). This is not necessarily all that we observe, but clearly some of the things we see can/will/should disturb out convictions.

Anybody who is convinced something is going to happen in the future - such as one who believes the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, or one who believes the world will end next time some of the planets align, has conviction of things not yet seen. The evidence thereof is variable, and so having faith about something doesn't presuppose having no evidence. In the story of Peter, I see him as a great empiricist - he sees Jesus walking on water, he wants to know if his data is reproducible for non deities so he gives it a go. It is when he doubts the evidence in front of him that he begins to sink. We would suppose that if Thomas retained his state of little faith, then the rest of his life would be unremarkable compared to the rest of the apostles, but on the contrary he declares 'my Lord and my God', and acts accordingly in future years - many of the stories about his deeds as an apostle to the Parthians and Indians are recorded in multiple traditions.

So this blog is not really so much about faith as about sight, having a faith of sorts that doesn't exist for lack of evidence. I don't accept that faith is blind - indeed to have a mature faith I think it should be the exact opposite - hence 'sighted faith'. I accept the definition of faith in it's broader sense where having faith is holding fast to previously established convictions hence 'faithfulness' refers to ongoing commitment, on the other hand, in a personal sense of faith there is room to grow it and to create new convictions - we do this any time we learn something new.

I hope that the things I see or 'look at', and write about will be enough to at least audit my worldview and perhaps some other's views as well.