Many years ago, my wife and I were in Israel. It was beautiful to be there but surprising in many ways, particularly the philosophy of the kibbutzim. The early settlers to Israel were from Marxist Russia and families continued their community and farm practices, in Israel. With both parents working the collective farm, they had little time with their own children, who were brought up by other workers. All the comrades ate communally, and the children of both sexes had joint showers even up to their teens.

Marx, the founder of communism, hated God and admitted, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” The church and the family presented obstacles to his Utopia and the hierarchical society affirmed by Scripture prevented the rise of the proletariat. The Garden of Eden was replaced with “Utopia” and God by the collectivist state. Under communism, all property is communally owned, the state controls all aspects of economic production, and theoretically provides citizens with their necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

However, communism has failed everywhere and since Lenin forced his theory upon the Russians in 1917, communism has been responsible for more deaths than Hitler by a huge margin. One hundred million died in Russia, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, China and other places where Marxist socialism was implemented. One estimate says almost half of all martyred Christians since the time of Christ, were killed by communism.

Thankfully, in New Zealand, we are not ruled by communism, but we are affected by socialism, communisms safer cousin. Marx and Engels themselves did not clearly differentiate communism from socialism and modern communists refer to socialism as the first, necessary phase on the way to communism. Under socialism, individuals can still own property, and their socialist goals are pursued through the democratic processes within existing political structures, not by violent revolution.

World over, citizens in democratic nations generally get to vote for parties that seek less government control (liberal-conservative parties, the right) or ones that seek more government control (socialist/green parties, the left). The socialist left claim the moral high ground, promoting social equality and invoking concern for the “disadvantaged” but in modern western nations, both left and right parties have concern for the poor in society. After the first world war politicians from both sides of the house, informed by the Word of God, socialism and British law, created social welfare legislation which protects and assists the vulnerable. Think Michael Savages “Applied Christianity.” While New Zealand and other nations have adopted social programs (state housing, free education, health care, child care), the thing that makes all these semi-socialist states work, is capitalism. Someone needs to make taxable money to pay for the benefits that the more socialist governments give in their attempt to redistribute wealth. We need the government to promote economic growth for business and individuals and both sides of the house will assure us of their intention to do so.

If parties seem much the same, does it really matter who governs? What we are more voting for, is the philosophy that guides the parties. If humanism has replaced Christian thought within the parties, support for the vulnerable may continue, but the morality that informs social policy to do with marriage, abortion, cannabis, gender issues, justice, euthanasia, will have decreased or totally disappeared.

The biggest problem with socialism is not its social programs but its rejection of God. “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” – Karl Marx. Under humanism (the religion behind socialism) there is no god, so there are no absolutes and no moral rules to govern its decisions. Humanism believes that man is inherently good, therefore if a person acts wrongly, they must not have been given the type of society and support they needed from the government. According to socialists "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."(Bernie Sanders) In other words, all the world problems can be solved just by spreading money around. A totally materialistic worldview based upon the idea that that salvation or even human good is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. Jesus asserted the opposite saying that seeking God, not seeking natural things, was the place to begin. (Matthew 6:31-33). Fortunately, all people can be equally blessed with the most important things in life. Jesus said that a full and abundant life comes not from possessions but from a Person.

The next great curse of socialism is its injustice. It often punishes character when it distributes wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of effort and the reasons for their need. Of course, there are people in genuine need, but the Bible teaches that any able person who refuses to work when it is offered, should be refused aid. Socialism punishes the industrious, taking their “talents” and giving them to those who may never have used the talents that they themselves were given. Socialism spawns from a deep resentment of the bosses and the bourgeois. It does not serve the socialist agenda for a nation to have millions of wealthy people. Only the votes of the people dependent upon the government can be brought by the promise of more benefits. It suits them to grow the needy masses, but we need people who can generate huge amounts of wealth, who own businesses so people have places to work, and we need developers, so we have houses to live in. I notice the ruling socialists have not capped their salary to the level of New Zealand average wage.

Finally, as we ourselves saw in Israel many years ago, socialism from its beginning has sought to destroy marriage and family. Friedrich Engels, the co-author of the "The Communist Manifesto, said that “the society he envisioned would be one where the single-family ceases to be the unit of society and the care and education of the children becomes a public affair.” Essentially, what godless socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family and for the state to decide what religion, philosophy, and morality will be taught our children in our state schools.

It seems obvious to me that we should look for political parties that still honour God, promote wealth in society and protect the family. Surprisingly, a recent Barna poll found that 24% of Americans thought Jesus would prefer socialism and only 12% believed He would prefer capitalism. Probably because Jesus helped and healed the sick and needy but unless you are able to multiply bread from nothing and find money in a fish’s mouth, you will need to have some money if you are going to help your needy neighbour. Two “broke” people cannot help each other. But Jesus is not American, and He does not represent any “ism.” He was not from here and He did not come as a candidate but as the King of Kings. Jesus was inevitably political - He talked about two-kingdoms and asked for allegiance to only one Kingdom - His. His goal was not just to give people bread from the cradle to the grave but to give all people an abundant life now and eternal life beyond the grave.

Around about 1512, the Italian astronomer Copernicus wrote his book shocking the world and the church with the idea that the sun was the centre of our solar system. For the previous 1500 years, since the days of the Greeks, people believed that all celestial bodies revolved around the earth. Both Catholic and Protestants castigated Copernicus as a heretic and Martin Luther even called him a fool but, embarrassingly for the church, Copernicus was proved to be right. It took a while, but it eventually prompted a change of theology with scientific discovery ultimately helping to clarify Scripture.
A few years ago I spoke to a man whose son wanted to study civil engineering but he was told that if his son believed what the church taught him, about the age of the earth, he would never pass the exams. This was relevant to me because I also had studied civil engineering when I left school. It wasn't until I was in my early twenties that I got saved in a Baptist church, and one night saw a movie they were playing about creation, produced by Ken Ham, which I found brilliant and convincing. He regarded the Bible as a factually inerrant record of natural history. He proposed that the earth was about 10000 years old and believed that the earth and life were created in six 24-hour days. (Hebrew word for the day: Yom) It was clear to me then that my lecturers in geology were wrong about the age of the earth. Now I understood how the geological structures of the earth were created in the great flood and that, although the earth appears old, it was created instantly “mature” like Adam. Men and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the proof of this found in the fossils record. The “young earth” adherents believe that there was no death at all on the planet until the fall of man.
What I didn't realize (back then) was that there is another group who believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, but also believe that the earth is as old as scientists say. People like the Christian Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, and many conservative theologians, embrace the old-earth idea. People like Francis Schaeffer, R.A. Torrey, Edward J. Young, John Ankerberg, Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man), Jack Hayford, J.I. Packer, Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Christ ), and Dallas Willard, to name a few.
For them, the word “Yom” need not be a 24hr day but a long period of time, even an “age.” Respected scholar R.A. Torrey says “The use of the word ‘day’ is not limited to twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of entirely undefined length…there is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours long.”
For these “old creation” believers, God created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo) and created life from non-life. He miraculously created the earliest primitive micro-organisms on earth approximately 3.8 billion years ago and then continued to create life through the “days” of creation (long epochs of time), including all plant life, sea and flying creatures, and land animals (including any primitive primates) without any evolution. Finally, God then created humanity’s actual historical parents, Adam and Eve (God’s “crown-jewel” of creation), from whom humanity’s sin originated. (It still could be six to ten thousand years back to Adam.)
Although they believe that Noah’s flood was a judgment on the sins of man, they also believe that the earth’s surface was formed through both rapid catastrophic processes (earthquakes, flash floods) and slow processes (plate tectonics; mountain building; formation of coal, oil, & diamonds; coral reef formation, etc.). Because of the age of the earth “old earthers” believe animal death was part of God’s creation long before Adam fell. Augustine also did not consider animal death to be a direct result of the Fall but that “animals were designed to be the nourishment of other animals. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable”.

A few years later I left the Baptists and joined David McCrackens New Life Church, where he was teaching something different again which would be called the "Gap theory". This "gap" was a huge gap of years between the original creation millions of years ago (Gen 1.1) and the recreation of the earth as described in (Genesis 1.2-31). During this “gap” darkness somehow had come upon the earth but, over six literal 24 hour days, God restored the earth to how we know it today. This idea was very popular in the 1900s and held to by people like Oral Roberts, Cyrus I. Scofield, Arthur Pink, Finis Jennings Dake, and Chuck Missler. For them, the genealogies were complete, and a global flood took place. Earth appears old because it is old and there was death before the fall. By positing such a gap, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, dinosaurs, fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations are allowed to have occurred as outlined by science, without contradicting a literal belief in a seven 24hr day “recreation”.
So there we have it, three versions of creation and they all defend their positions strongly with fairly complex reasoning. They cannot all be right, so who is right, and does it really matter? If you are not going to do engineering at university, a 10000-year-old earth will be just fine, and if you are going to study the sciences you have options!
Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve and the flood of Noah, so we can vouch for history back to the garden. Before Adam, timeframes are a little more debatable. This is not an issue of faith, salvation or orthodoxy but of hermeneutics and interpretation. Augustine once wisely wrote, “In matters that are obscure …in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith. In such a case, we should not so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further truth undermines this position, we too fall with it.” Unlike the Church in Copernicus' day, but as Augustine suggests, we should hold our views lightly. All three views are held by godly men seeking to honour God and the reason this means so much to all sides is that we live in a miraculous and wonderful world.
Have you noticed that people sing about love not about science, about beauty not cause? In his signature song, Louis Armstrong does not sing about how old and fertile the ground is, only that the grass is green, and the sky is an amazing blue. When he sees the beauty of red roses and rainbows, and the awesomeness of a mobile god-like creation being able to say “I love you” to another, how the Grand Canyon was formed seems unimportant. Instead, he sung of the bright blessed day, the dark sacred night and he thought to himself what a wonderful world.
The point of the Bible is not to tell us when or how the world was made but who made it and why. And the answer to that we find in Genesis 3, on the last day of creation where God came down in the cool of the evening to walk with His ultimate creation-mankind. God made the world for people who He wanted to love and with whom He wanted to live forever.
Apparently, Copernicus was wrong. The whole universe revolves around God and His greatest love - us!

For the last few months, we have been given a weekly reminder that our country’s “COVID fight” is commanded by the United Nations. We are told by WHO Director Tedros that we must all obey their edicts to be saved (stay safe). Who is the WHO and how does it have the authority to command our sovereign nation? Tedros was once a member of a terrorist group in Ethiopia before he was nominated by Bill Gates to be the director of the WHO.  

The United Nations was established after Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill held a secret meeting following World War II. The U.N. is now a global diplomatic and political organization which they say is dedicated to international peace and stability. Beginning with 51 member states, today the organization has 193 members. To make the world’s population ready for its secretly growing powers, they have made issues out of overpopulation, global poverty and wealth inequality, manmade global climate change, and apparently rampant environmental destruction.  It has spawned thousands of non-elected, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in every area of life which offer (or buy) themselves influence with regional authorities, often bypassing a nation’s elected governments.  NGO’s such as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, which set themselves up as the world authority and expect all the earth to follow their rules. 

 https://iclei.org/en/members-search.html?region=Oceania

The UN, which is funded by the mega-rich like Bill Gates, and member nations (except USA) has goals similar to the closely linked Club of Rome. Climate problems was an idea started by a group called the Club of Rome who also state that the world is overpopulated, and numbers should be reduced. Founding member Ted Turner said China’s Mau Tse Tung’s reduction of the dissident population was a great achievement. Today they are pressuring all governments to adopt their 2020 Planetary Emergency Plan, which is the same as UN’s Agenda 21, and they are calling for governments and the UN to declare a planetary emergency and to adopt a plan of action.

 https://clubofrome.org/impact-hubs/climate-emergency/

Another powerful group in league with the UN is the World Economic Forum. Since COVID, the World Economic Forum has kicked off the Great Reset initiative. Their idea is that the governments of the world should spend $10 trillion per year and create 37 million nature-positive jobs by 2030. Resetting the environment should not be seen as a cost, but rather an investment that will generate economic activity and employment opportunities.

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset

Affecting every nation today, is the slowly becoming known Agenda 21; or the UNs global blueprint for Sustainable Development. This was signed on your behalf by NZ leaders and 178 other world leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Sustainable Development is the code word they now use for a global New World Order. Agenda 21 calls for a complete re-orientation of the world system of governance in every area in which humans have an impact on the environment.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21

Agenda 21 promotes socialist goals that will erode our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average person’s eyes to glaze over, making it easier to accept by tuned out citizens. In order to keep total control of the world and its people, the UN leaders involved are constantly thinking of euphemism and nice-sounding terms for their intentions. J. Gary Lawrence - Bill Clinton’s Advisor for Sustainable Development said “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many... right-wing conspiracy groups... who would actively work to defeat any elected official...undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we call our process something else, such as “Comprehensive Planning”, “Growth Management” or “Smart Growth.” SDG is often promoted with the environmental message of “going green”, or “being a good steward” but in reality, it has (like Communism or Fascism) a doctrine or philosophy complete with its own agenda, beliefs, and goals. Its three pillars are Ecological Integrity, Economic Prosperity and Social Equity. While these sound-like reasonable goals, their methods are not reasonable. All activity which fails to achieve this perfect balance is considered unsustainable, meaning that traditional western capitalism is an inequitable system that must be replaced with a new financial and governance system. Already many Universities and young people have become indoctrinated with this radical, collectivist philosophy. Agenda 21 goes well beyond environmentalism! Other broad goals include, combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and reducing private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, and privately owned farms. It seeks to cram people into small liveable areas and institute population control. What they call “social justice” is the forced redistribution of wealth. People will be required to surrender individual rights and, in some cases, private ownership of land for the good of the collective.  The ‘environment’ will be used simply as the means to promote a political agenda. A restructuring of the governmental systems of the world’s nations will be made so that every person in the world will become a subject of a global collective where food, water, medicines, travel, and the way children may be raised are all controlled. If it seems to you that there is a lot of migration being encouraged around the world, along with laws to encourage the breakup of families on a global scale, consider this quote from the UN.  “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Brock Adams the Director of the United Nations World Health Organization, SCP Journal, 1991. According to the UN’s special expert on freedom of religion, the views of UN human rights bodies must take precedence over the mainstream beliefs of many leading world religions, when it comes to law and policy.

https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/un-expert-world-religions-should-defer-to-the-authority-of-un-experts

 The United Nations, due to their deceptive use of euphemisms in speeches and on their flashy websites, can make a global commitment to totalitarian world government sound like something we would all want. Certainly, the Gen X,Y and Z’s will think it sounds beautiful. Twenty years ago, all this was hidden because it would be unacceptable to the masses, but now they are quite brazen about their goals due to increased acceptance in people’s minds (particularly young people) and every year have a celebration called “Goalkeepers” hosted by Bill Gates to talk about progress toward the global goals. 

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/

Now if this sounds bad, it gets worse when our Prime Minister Jacinda proudly promised Bill Gates and the rest of the “Goalkeepers” that New Zealand will be the first nation in the world to fully implement Agenda 21. There are two big players in the world at the moment.

One is W.H.O. of which the Bible may well describe.  “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Job 38:2. Their plan is to crush and control the people of the world…...and then there is another “WHO” that loves us and wants us free. “Who is like You, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders? (Exodus 15:11.)

Our future as a globe and as people will depend upon which WHO we follow.

The number of children involved in sport is falling. Recently six sporting codes agreed the reason was that there is too much emphasis on winning. Maybe it's by pushy parents but I also think kids know that games tend to be based on points and someone has to win. Just imagine if my grandson’s hockey team won 6 to 2, but the organisers then equalled out the score to 4 each so the losing team did not feel sad or oppressed. This point redistribution might cover up the fact that one team didn't practice or put any personal effort into the game but, if that was the case, losing as a team was inevitable and what it should do is motivate them to practice more next week. If they tried hard and still lost, it only points out that teamwork is a skill to be learned or that children’s skill levels cannot all be equal. That is the way life has been forever! And point redistribution would be an injustice!

The idea of social justice has come to mean “putting things right in society,” and campaigners work on a variety of issues like ageism, gender wage gap, girls being kept from education, world hunger and global health outcomes etc. Some Christians think we should just preach the Gospel rather than engage in social justice issues, but other believers feel that social justice was the centre of all that Jesus did. The problem is always that people have different definitions of social justice.
A biblical description of social justice is found in Micah 6:8 ..And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
To Do Justice:
Justice means “rendering impartially and proportionally to every one his due.” Aristotle wrote, “the formal principle of justice is that equals should be treated equally and that unequal’s should be treated unequally”. So, if a man and a woman are working for the same company, with the same training, the same experience, the same diligence and work the same hours etc they should be paid the same; that is justice. If anyone of these factors change (i.e. less hours or less skill), to be paid the same would be an injustice. If an able-bodied person down the road was offered the job and refused to work, preferring to play video games, but still receive a similar “universal wage” that would be an injustice.
The biggest challenge, to treating equals equally, is knowing whether they are indeed equal. The criteria for judging whether two people are equals can never be based on eye colour, race, gender, wealth or social position, for none of that matters in true justice. Rather, the criteria of “equalness” is based on merit, behaviour, achievement, need and the effort they put in, and every case must be judged individually.
Justice is essential, whether it's Commercial justice (people actually getting a quarter pound of meat in their burger), Civil justice (where the guilt or innocence of people is truly determined), and Distributive Justice (where the benefits and burdens are equally shared by those responsible or affected).

Since the late 1800s, there is a new brand of distributive justice called Social justice which is mostly about distributing wealth on a national scale (Socialism). For the reasons of criteria above, it's impossible to provide justice by national legislation or social engineering because everybody's personal situation is different. Justice means that people should have equal opportunity to learn and to earn, but the government is not responsible to ensure that the outcomes for everyone will be equal. Everyone is free to decide how they will spend their income, how much they will save, and where they will live. The effects of their own education and economic decisions is something everyone has to live with. If they forgo spending in their youth, they will have more money later in life but if they spend all their income when they are young, they will pay a financial price later in life.
Generally, the Bible teaches individual responsibility where people work to meet their own needs and the needs of those they love, in fact, the Bible condemns laziness. Jesus told a parable about three men given the same amount of money by their boss. All three showed different levels of diligence and the boss commended the man who increased the boss’s money the most and gave him even more. A distinctly un-socialist concept.

Love Mercy:
But Jesus also told another parable of the Good Samaritan who showed voluntary mercy to a stranger just because he was in need. The early Church showed mercy, meeting the needs of the widows, orphans and poor among them with voluntary gifts (Acts 2:42–47). Showing mercy to those infirmed or unable to work is giving them what they are due just because they are fellow human beings. The Salvation Army in New Zealand has a saying “Justice in society and between societies”. This means seeking to end things like hunger, trafficking, and child abuse in our society and it also means showing mercy to those in other nations who are short of food, water and health resources. Charities like World Vision should be supported, and missions can be more than reaching souls. Mercy is often more important than justice. Instead of receiving Gods just judgment (for our rebellion) we can all be glad we were shown undeserved mercy.
Walk Humbly with Your God:
Finally, social justice is not achieved by walking with Karl Marx but with Jesus. The justice He wants cannot be provided by any person or government and it is always more than economic and social justice. He came to bring freedom from all forms of mental, emotional, religious, and spiritual oppression. His greatest victory was not feeding the 5000 but delivering millions from Satan’s power. Jesus' miracles were not a protest against injustice in human society but a demonstration of the power and provision of His heavenly Society. What He did do was offer hope, not only to the poor but also to the rich, because even people with wealth and status still commit suicide. He preached against life draining religions that offered false hope. He loved everyone because being disadvantaged was not the prerequisite for His love. He was moved even by the hunger of people after a 3-day conference, not just those with malnutrition. He never promoted a social justice where everyone has the same outcome in this life. This is the fantasy of those seeking a Marxist utopia. People with no hope of a just eternity will always think it right to even out the available treasures and pleasures of earth. But Gods accounts are not made up on the 20th of the month. The first now may be last in Gods kingdom and vice versa. Let us just be sure we are in His kingdom.

As disciples, we are to do justice, show mercy, and walk humbly with our God. We can start by making sure we “give the full quarter-pound” to our customers and by not passing by the neighbour in need on the other side of the street. Some people are capable and called to make a big difference to a lot of people in society, the rest of us are called to make a difference to a few. We do not need to look for great things to do but to do some small things with great mercy.

Words are amazing; they teach and empower. Sometimes they gleam, fascinate and dance on the page. Alliteration and anagrams fasten thoughts to our memory. Poems and quotes distil the truth and become Proverbs for living. Words can deceive or destroy, they can help or hurt and true words can even set people free. The King and Queen that must preside over the kingdom of words are truth and love, as these common quotes explain:
Truth without love is brutality - Love without truth is hypocrisy. (W. Weisbie)
When you love someone, they deserve to know the truth. (l. Seilstad)
It can’t be true love without the truth. (A. Kontis)
Don’t lie to protect my feelings, I’d rather you speak the truth with love and respect. I’ll be fine. (I. Odiase)
But in the new world of political correctness, these proverbs that are self-evident to most, are apparently not true for some people. Indeed, some would say that telling the truth is not loving or accepting. In the world of fantasy, you can have love without truth and in the world of science we can have truth without love but in the world of humanity, in homes, hospital wards and therapy rooms, people need truth and love.

In the sixties and seventies, as family broke down through relaxed divorce laws and relaxed commitment to character and morality, the numbers of children with broken hearts multiplied. Whether it is the ache in their hearts through some deficit in a parental relationship or an occasion of abuse, something leads to a rare number of children finding affection in a person of the same sex. On the other hand, I know some people that had a “normal” upbringing in a great family and yet profess homosexuality so it would seem that a person’s upbringing and background, as well as their own choices, can have an impact on that person's sexuality.

In Jesus' day, the Pharisees held to the moral law absolutely, while the Sadducees struggled to believe at all. The religious conservatives and liberals disagreed on the cause of man’s condition. But Jesus was not so concerned why a person had a condition, He only thought that God should be glorified by a miraculous change. Today Church liberals have adopted a "theology of inclusion” to embrace LGBTs but fudge the faithful representation of the Word of God. Conservatives make a stand on the high ground of morality but are not sure quite how to love their neighbours. Both sides divorce the King and Queen of love and truth.

Jesus was the embodiment of Truth and Love and transformation happened in the lives of all those He spoke to. An encounter with Love and Truth remains the answer for us all.
First, we all need love and acceptance. Sometimes the Church has allowed a loud minority to become the face of the Church as they picket gay marches and take their protests to parliament. But people cannot be hassled or coerced and feel loved at the same time. And now we wonder why no one listens?
Jesus had scandalous people following Him and today gay people need to find amongst His disciples those who have wrestled with God on these issues and found freedom. They may have had years of rejection because of their sexuality, but unconditional love can heal their hurts and open their hearts to following Jesus in spirit and in truth. The gay community tells them "We accept you" and the Church should do no less. Homosexuals need love without blame, and without reservation. As we all do.

Secondly, everyone needs Truth: It may shock us to see a golf club used as a tomato stake, but someone who doesn’t know the designer or the purpose for the club may not think it a strange use at all. As people lose contact with the Designer or ignore His instruction manual, they can become increasingly confused as to the purpose for His design. The world of nature declares homosexuality abnormal as it takes both male and female to procreate. If rational thinking does not convince us, Gods word tells us that all people live in ways that we were never designed for and that all people can be restored.
Israel Falau’s error was not saying that 'homosexuals need to repent and be saved', but that he did not say that ALL people, whether they be doctors, straights, homosexuals, lawyers, paedophiles, rugby bosses or preachers, they all need to repent and believe in Christ in order to forgiven and cleansed.
George Carneal, who was a homosexual prostitute for decades, shares his testimony in his book 'From Queer to Christ'. He asks Christians to be accepting but never to compromise the truth that all people need to repent and receive Christ into their lives. He said that so many homosexuals eventually “want out” and they are not helped if Christians placate them in their sin. He said they all need to know there is forgiveness and hope of change.
When love and truth do reach their hearts and they chose to believe and follow Christ, we must remember that salvation is a process; some change is instant and some takes a lifetime. We cannot ask them to change completely before they receive Christ. For which of us could change without Christ in our life? All they need is faith in the One who can make them a new creation, and a desire for Him to be their Lord.
Once they are saved, they may still struggle with desires. We do not tell straight men that, once they become a Christian, all lust will be eradicated from their heart. We do not make such promises, and the Bible does not either. That logic denies the brokenness in our hearts and sets a dangerous foundation for condemnation and despair. Some people are instantly changed by an encounter with Jesus, but others are progressively restored. And He is not put off by our failures and weakness.
In John 8 the Pharisees caught a woman in the act of adultery, and they brought her to Jesus for judgment. Instead, he said to the men, “Cast the first stone, if you have no sin” After they all walked away, convicted by their own conscience, He said to her “I don’t condemn you either, go and sin no more”. The Pharisees brought her to the right person but for the wrong reason. They came to get a judgement for her sin, not help for her sin. The best thing that happened to the woman was that she was caught and brought to Jesus. So often, we want the right thing to be done, but the Father wants the right Person to be met. Her encounter with the embodiment of Truth and Love brought transformation to her life.
Like everybody else, members of the LGBT community come in with baggage, and their transformation may or may not be instantaneous. But the gospel is the same for everyone. Sin is wrong and worthy of stones, but no one is worthy to throw them. The only One who is worthy enough to throw stones laid down his life to save us, and now offers us acceptance through His love and freedom through His Truth. Let God Bless Them!

Georges testimony
https://www1.cbn.com/…/former-gay-reveals-truth-of-lgbtq-ag…

A painting was displayed in the Tate Modern gallery of art, by Do Ho Suh. In the painting, stairs came down from the ceiling toward the ground floor, but no-one could step up onto them. Postmodern art doesn’t need to be logical or rational. Postmoderns react to scientific progress or anything called objective truth. They are disenchanted with modernists who think that human reason and science can achieve global happiness. Thirty years ago, Modernists complained that Christianity was unscientific - and consequently, untrue. Today, Christianity is rejected by Postmodernists, merely because it claims to be true.

Post-Modern Relativism is the idea that truth can be different for different people. That what is true, depends upon the situation or culture of the person. They say that moral truth can be true and binding for one person, while for another it is not. Postmodern ideology declares all faiths and ideology untrue, yet strangely claims itself to be true? Even more strangely, relativism claims that two conflicting statements can both be true at the same time. For example, one may claim that Jesus is God and another claim that He is not God, and both statements could be true at the same time. If someone believes it, it is "true for them."
The idea is “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.” But sincerely thinking you can leap off a building, or swim against a rip, will matter a lot, as gravity and physics inevitably work. Postmodernism, like the artwork, may be a novel way to think about life but an irrational way to live. But just believing something to be true, does not make it true. The earth is not flat. As Jesus followers, we believe there are objective truths. Truths that are always true for every person, at any time, not because we said so, but because Jesus said so. Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father, the only Saviour. Buddha said there is no God, Mohammed said he was not God, in Hinduism we don't know which one, is god, but Jesus said he was the divine Son of God, one with the Father. And backed it up with a resurrection! It would be nice to think that every man's god, could provide them forgiveness and eternal life; that the gods of fishing, shopping, or the tribal gods of Papua New Guinea would all be equal at saving us, but Jesus says no. Jesus was not politically correct, just correct.
But before we condemn the idea of relativism completely, are we right to think that everything we believe is objective truth? The tendency for believers is to fight absolute relativism with the opposite, absolute objectivism and perhaps unnecessarily.
There is relative truth in the pages of the Bible. When Paul wrote to the new believers at Corinth about food that was offered to idols, he said that all foods were clean, so it was fine to eat ham! This is the objective truth (Rom. 14:14). But Paul also said there may be a relative situation which determined whether a person should eat ham. “But to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (14:14b). This means that if someone ate ham against their conscience, this was a sin to him. Not because God cares about food but because the new believer could not believe it was right, and God cares about faith.

So how do we know whether things are objectively true or only true in some situations (relatively true)?
Let us imagine that Biblical truth is revealed on a continuum from completely objective on the left, to completely relative on the right, with non-essential objective truth and situationally relative, in between.
On the left hand, we have Essential Objective Truth. These are objective truths that are true regardless of time, culture or whether one believes it. Everything here is either right or wrong and everything essential for salvation and orthodoxy. Such as adultery is always wrong, and Jesus alone is saviour and Lord.
The next step toward the right is Non-Essential Objective truth. This category contains both doctrinal and nondoctrinal issues, which are not necessary for orthodoxy or salvation. A good example might be whether one should have communion each week, or if we should always lift up our hands when praying.
Going right again, the next step we will call Situational Relativity. Women not wearing a head covering is a good example. (1 Cor. 11:5). In that day, women who did not wear a head covering were likely to cause great offence. Today it is not right or wrong so wearing a head covering is relative to time and culture.
And finally, on the far right is Complete Relativity. These are matters for which there is no right or wrong answer. For instance, what are the best worship songs, or what are the best gifts? (1 Corinthians 13).

During the Diocletian persecutions, the Romans were arresting and killing Christians for possessing Scriptures. The Church determined the Canon of Scripture because believers needed to know which parts of Scripture, were dying for. In the postmodern age, we also need to define what truths are worth “dying for” and distinguish between what is essential in the Christian faith and what is non-essential.
We may still be persecuted in some way but let us be persecuted for the right thing. What “hill” is worth dying for? When I was first saved, I was taken by my pastor to visit people in their homes. He said “Agree with people as much as you can. We will save our guns for the “battle’s” worth fighting. When someone says that truth is relative, we will agree but explain only some truth is relative. We will not argue over whether the earth was created in 7 days or millions of years and not get to tell them about Christ. There is nothing wrong with discussing non-essentials, but no one is saved by owning the right translation of the Bible. We must get to the Gospel in every witnessing opportunity we have.” Great advice.

Maybe this Sunday at Church, there will be three new believers in Christ. All have begun their journey to discover Truth as they follow Jesus. Perhaps one will come with her Jerusalem Bible, one may come as a vegan who hates to even drink milk, one may come with his live-in partner of fifteen years and one may be a young postmodern who felt the real touch of a living Saviour. They won’t know what the difference is between relative and objective truth, and they won’t even be sure what they believe. What they do believe will probably change in the weeks ahead, but this Sunday, I will just be glad they believe one objective and essential truth: Jesus is both Saviour and Lord.

Several years ago, we went with my parents in law back to their homeland, the Netherlands. One day we went for a drive to Germany and my father-in-law visibly stiffened as we crossed the border. It had been 60 years since the Germans invaded Holland and took over their farm, stole their food, commandeered their house and shot some of his young friends but he still felt the pain. Of course, since then German politicians have apologised many times for the atrocities of the Nazis, and so they should. However, it is not clear how apologies from current politicians can release the pain of individuals who suffered years before. In other lands, African Americans feel pain from their history of slavery and the Jim Crow laws, and the Maori people feel grieved by the injustices committed by the Government, through the Land Acts in the late 19th century.
In war or in peace human rights are often neglected. Currently, it is estimated that around 7,000 Christians are killed for their faith every year and 260 million Christians face persecution. Open Doors reports that if North Korean Christians are discovered, the government either sends them to labour camps as political criminals or kills them on the spot. Other persecuting nations are Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, and India. In these countries, Christians risk imprisonment, loss of home and assets, torture, rape, and even death because of their faith. Muslims also are not immune from persecution. The UN reports that more than three million Uighurs are in detention in “counter-extremism centres" or “re-education” camps in China, and many Muslims are not safe from other Muslims in their own nations.
Recently the world has been distressed seeing Floyd asphyxiated on the street in Minneapolis and the protests and riots that followed. It has always been true that Black lives matter, Christian lives matter, and Muslim lives matter.

Human rights are about the illegitimate exercise of power upon individuals or groups of people, whether by force or by legislation. In ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy, only men had rights, and in America 100 years ago, some laws recognized the rights of the few; perhaps only men, perhaps only white men, perhaps only landowners.
For a Christian, human rights for everyone is a given. God instituted civil government to protect citizens. Every authority He instituted, whether parent, employer, government or church, have a responsibly to protect those in their care, from abuse and even from other institutions that overreach their God-given limits of authority. For this reason, the rights of people should be protected by law. Unfortunately, human rights abuses have sometimes been sanctioned by the law. This was the case when Dr. Martin Luther King was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama. He couldn’t ask the crowd or the courts for justice; so he appealed to a law which supersedes secular authority, the Word of God.

All basic human rights laws stem from the Bible which teaches that we do not have rights because of our ethnicity or because we deserve them, but because each of us is made in the image of God and therefore we have inherent equal worth and dignity. This was the abolitionists’ argument for the dissolution of slavery and for equal pay and voting rights for women. This is the argument against child labour and the abortion of unborn children. The Bible reveals that God is just, condemns evil, and has compassion for victims, therefore, we cannot accept any type of slavery, torture, or discrimination nor be silent when it is within our power to help. The rights of others are as safe as our responsiveness to Gods laws.

Jesus spoke more about human responsibilities than human rights and almost assumed that some human rights may be denied us, by the godless. All of our rights come from the One to whom we are responsible. As our Creator, God has the ultimate right to our lives. He has the first right to be loved, worshipped, and obeyed. Do believers have human rights? Of course. Not rights to our physical needs being met by the government or equal outcomes in life, or a right to a universal wage, but like all people, the right to be protected from injustice, evil, and violence.
In a marriage, or a nation conflicts between parties occur because of a lack of honour. In the history of engineering, medicine, exploration and national expansion, great mistakes have been made. But the future of that marriage or nation will never be healed if one party seizes every opportunity to promote bitterness or the other party ignores the issue. Instead, by acknowledging error and harm and asking for, and truly offering forgiveness both parties may be able to move on together to a better future. Restitution may be attempted if possible, but, because absolute justice is an unachievable goal, justice will need to be subordinate to humility and forgiveness. Corrie ten Boom found that the only way for her to find freedom from bitterness toward her Nazi captors was to forgive them.

The way back for those trapped in offence and bitterness is in three parts: Reconciliation must be based upon truth-telling, so we need to listen to the stories of the offended. They should be allowed to breathe and be heard. Then we need to own our part as a group or institution and ask for/or offer forgiveness. Then we all need to sow a different attitude of honour and inclusion, to reap a different future. If the whole world, heaving in unrest, seems too big a problem to change or help, we can all choose one oppressed person or one needy family and help them. We need to “know the story, own the story and change the story”, (Josh Clemons)
The Universal Declaration of human rights says, “That no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, degrading punishment or an unfair trial and everyone should be presumed innocent until proved guilty.” When Jesus was arrested and crucified, every one of His rights was trampled. This implies that the abuse of human rights is a manifestation of sin and part of the curse He came to free us from. It also means that His healing love can heal our hearts from the pain of Human rights abuses.
Justice in this world may never be satisfactorily enjoyed by all or even many. For many the pain of offence and abuse of their rights may be so deep it can only be removed by Jesus, who brought our healing on the cross. When injustice makes it hard to breathe, we can come to the only One who can give us breath.

Many years ago, two prostitutes came with a dispute before king Solomon. Both women lived in the same house and gave birth to a baby about the same time. One woman’s child died so she stole the other women’s baby in the night. When the true mother woke her baby was gone and a dead baby had been placed in her arms. She knew she had stolen from and lied to, so they both came to Israel’s wisest king to settle the dispute. After each woman had presented her case to the King of why the child was hers, the king said, “Cut the living child in two, and give half to one and half to the other!” The real mother spoke up to the king, for her motherly instincts were aroused. She said, “My master, give her the living child! Whatever you do, don’t kill him!” But the other woman said, “Neither one of us will have him! Let them cut him in two!” The king responded, “Give the first woman the living child; don’t kill him. She is the mother.” (1 Kings 3: 25-27)

Today there is a dispute over the ownership and the safety of the children of the world. Vaccines for our children, are being offered by some and opposed by others. Both sides say they are right and both sides say they want to keep young people safe. Both sides of the arguments are linked below.

As the UN and the CDC progressively lowers the age at which children are to be given the synthetic shot, (from 30 years old, then 16 years, then 5 years old, to now experimenting on new-borns), they tell us it is safe for all. However, on the other side there is a growing number the world’s top medical scientists who are not engaged by the UN or national governments and are warning of the consequences of taking the shot, for any person, but particularly young people. They cite a growing number of vaccinated 30-year-olds who have resulting heart inflammation, which can cause irreversible damage. They state that because the shot is experimental and long-term studies have not been completed, it should never be given to people younger than 30, due to the unknown long-term side effects on their neurology, fertility and their future children. Early in the rollout, WHO scientists assured the world that the spike will never get into the blood, but they were plainly wrong. It now seems that rather than staying at the injection site, the spike proteins travel to every part of the body including reproductive organs. The serious ramification of this is explained in one of the links below.

So, in this battle of opposing voices, for the young people and the children of the world, who do we believe and do children even need the shot? Statistics show that people below 30 years old and certainly children, are not at risk from the virus. They don't need a shot to be safe and they don’t need to be “vaccinated” for old peoples sakes either, as the shot doesn’t fully stop transmission.

In New Zealand we are ready give the shot to 12 to15-year-olds and eyeing the 11 year olds. In the tests, how many 12-year-olds have had time to grow up, be married and produce children, to see if there are any long-term effects? None. How amazing that Med safe has apparently become omniscient and omnipotent, guaranteeing the safety of all in their future!

As we decide who to believe, perhaps Solomon’s wisdom is instructive. He found out which woman wanted the child’s long-term welfare in spite of any personal cost, versus the one who sought to gain personally yet showed disregard for the child?

In our current global drama, it appears to me that the people showing the greatest concern for the children and paying the greatest price are the courageous scientists who have nothing to gain by opposing the WHO narrative but who are slandered and renounced by the servant media and fact checkers. The people who show less concern for the children but who will gain personally both financially and through medical control of the world’s population, are the global powers and the makers of the vaccine.

To be honest both sides sound convincing and both have their research qualifications to back it up. Only only time will prove which side is right but I think caution is wisdom while the jury is out on the long-term effects.

As a preacher I thought hard about this post because some may think I'm meddling in politics (like telling people to vote for a capitalist or socialist society) but this is not politics; this is Christianity 101. I think Jesus said, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” and while the unknown risks remains, part of loving a neighbour might be suggesting to neighbours to at least investigate both sides before you hand yourself or your children over to the medical authorities. Our government requires us to give informed consent, so we are responsible to research this thoroughly. (Consent presumably means accepting of any subsequent injury.) Because the scientific and chemistry jargon is difficult to understand; because long term tests have not been completed and because most of the opposing views are censored, it is technically impossible for people to be "fully informed" before agreeing to the shot.

Let us all ask for wisdom from above and may the Great King keep the welfare of the world's children in the hands of Him who cares the most.

1. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

2. https://voicesforfreedom.co.nz/new-study-shows-potential-for-serious-harm/

3. https://omny.fm/shows/on-point-with-alex-pierson/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-covid-19-vaccines-sugge?fbclid=IwAR2RMoNKhyluGuTgNwvDh2vLUDMYtoh0HCzD1iHkfAojZ_yrjA8_HylGudQ#description

4. https://www.bitchute.com/video/PaJqTVve8hso/

5. https://thebl.com/opinion/autopsy-of-vaccinated-patient-shows-spike-protein-in-his-organs-as-possible-cause-of-death.html

6. https://thebl.com/us-news/heart-inflammation-in-adolescents-following-covid-19-vaccines-cdc-calls-emergency-meeting.html

7. https://www.bitchute.com/video/ilWq4miJA5U/

8. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

9. https://www.teaomaori.news/whole-truth-prescription-drugs-flu-jabs-and-covid-19-vaccine

10. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-11.asp

11. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2021/05/coronavirus-covid-19-uses-spikes-to-damage-blood-vessels-study-finds-sparking-new-vaccine-conspiracy-theories.html

In lockdown I had time to reflect on places that we can no longer visit. I thought about the motorways in Kazakhstan with missing manhole covers, all stolen and sold for scrap metal. I thought about the meals we enjoyed in Thailand, Slovenia and Croatia. I miss the order of the Netherlands and flash of colours of the trucks and saris of India. In short, I missed the different cultures and I missed the smiling faces of the believers in each place.

Culture is what we live. We wake up in it, we walk in it and we work in it. And all the time were creating culture and consuming culture. How we act and treat people, contributes to a workplace culture. Parents that order family traditions and set a pattern of living, are creating culture. When we logon to twitter or watch television, we are consuming someone else’s culture, and when we post on Facebook, we are creating a small piece of the culture for our readers. The greatest impact on modern global culture, comes through TV, media, and movies. While we are made to feel emotion at movies or the laugh at sitcoms, our values are slightly, sometime imperceptibly changed, but changed they are.

When the culture of a group or individual changes, due to contact with a different culture, it’s called acculturation. Like the way American culture has changed New Zealand culture. Think coke and Mac Ds. Culture shift happens. Just as well, or we would still be cooking on fires and living in Raupo huts. Technologically advanced cultures affecting more agricultural or primitive cultures, is inevitable and, in a few cases, unfortunate. Historic global exploration and modern migration has impacted every culture in varying degrees, changing values, technology, language and food choices. We all love a good curry!

The Bible covers 6000 years of human history, including primitive Aramaic, Egyptian, Israelite, Babylonian, Greek and Roman cultures. Each culture reflected what they understood about the natural world and what they believed about the spiritual world. Their tools, clothes and the food they ate, was determined by the technology of the day, their climate, geography and resources. What was good, evil or moral was determined by their nature of their gods and any contact they had with the spirit realm. Some cultures saw spirits as forces of good and some were fearful of their powers. In Nigeria the Yoruba people once saw twins as an evil occurrence, believing the only way a woman could give birth to twins was for the woman to have had been with two men at the same time. This often resulted in infanticide to cleanse the community. Whereas now we know that twins are caused by the egg being fertilised and then dividing. Ancient cultures often suffered from their lack of scientific knowledge or beliefs in gods that were cruel.

My ancient ancestors were the indigenous inhabitants of Scotland before the Romans invaded. Apparently, they used to run around in skins their faces painted blue and white, and sacrificing children to appease ancient Celtic gods. While it is interesting to know how my ancient forebears lived, I don't want to live like them. I prefer a car to horse, and an insulated house to a pile of rocks. My Scottish ancestors’ ancient beliefs were not helpful or true. It is great that the Scots are trying to keep our ancient language alive and it is important to acknowledge our ancient culture, but to encourage a return to the ancient spiritual beliefs, would be backward step into a world of myths and fear.

Culture is not sacred; people are sacred. Some cultures are repressive, violent and oppress women. Some cultures perpetuate prejudices against others and have attitudes that keep them in poverty. All people deserve to be freed from cultures that don’t lead to actual personal and societal freedom.

Ten years ago, I met a man in Punjab who was an alcoholic. When he was drunk, he terrified his family and abused his neighbours. One day he met Christ and his life was changed. Was he still Indian? Yes. Did he still eat rice and roti? Yes. Did he still speak Punjabi? Yes, but his heart was changed. Was his culture changed completely? No. Was it changed at all? Yes. The way he acted, the way he spoke to people, the way he treated his family, his mental state, was all changed for the better.

Augustine said that culture is not a reflection of a people's ethnicity, politics, language, or heritage but it is an outworking of people's creed. In other words, culture is the manifestation of people’s faith and values. In fact, the word culture comes from the Latin word for reverence “Cultus.” Culture then is formed by what people revere, value, or worship.

When Jesus came to earth, the Roman culture existed alongside the Jewish culture. In Roman culture, the husband had absolute power over his wife and his children; he could punish them at will, abuse them, sell them as slaves, or even put them to death. The culture reflected their beliefs about their gods (which were violent and immoral), and the things they valued - or not. Greek homes had a “gynaecium,” rooms where Greek women were kept secluded from men and visitors to the house. The Jewish culture at the time of Christ, also treated women poorly. Men could have more than one wife and divorce them on most trifling grounds. Jesus teaching of the Kingdom of heaven, was in direct opposition to the culture of the day. Women and children were to be included, valued and given a voice. After modelling heaven’s culture of love and sacrifice for others, He left the Church the task of continuing to reveal heavens culture, to an antagonistic society. Like Jesus, they had no sword, only a servant’s robe. They had no authority to force change; they could only influence. And they did. Over the next three hundred years, by their loving sacrifice, courage under persecution and care for the poor and weak, they influenced the godless, hate filled, sordid culture of Rome for good. Patricide (the killing of new-born babies) was outlawed, hospitals and schools were started. Women were respected, slave were treated justly, and even emperors became believers. It is interesting to visit the Roman ruins but thank God we have moved on from its culture.

The Church is still called to engage with culture, defend culture, and to create culture.

We engage with the culture and people by works, words, wonders, wisdom and worship. With good works, we can model the culture of heaven by serving the city. With words we can tell how Jesus has changed our life. By wonders, as the sick and demonised are delivered by His power. By wisdom like Daniel displayed, through divine insights in the workplace and ultimately by our worship. Worship needs to change us first, for the character of people in any culture, never rises above their view of God.

We are to defend the culture of heaven. As “preserving salt,” in a pre-Post Christian era, we have a prophetic task to call people back to God and his ways. Salt does not just act to preserve but it emphasises the good flavours too, so we affirm culture where we can. With wisdom we honour Christ and seek to change what needs to change, while loving those who think differently.

We are to create culture. At work, in school, in our relationships we are to create culture. Some will have the opportunity to creature culture through music, movies, and business. Christians are not the only people on the planet that are creating good culture. Others go to work to serve others, build bridges, paint art, etc, and all this creates good culture too, and we honour them.

In the final analysis, culture is not something that should be protected from change or critique. Neither is culture mostly a matter of clothes, tools or food but a matter of creed. Dr. Martin Luther King said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character”. To judge our culture, we must do more that look at the contents of our cupboards and wardrobes and look at the content of our hearts. We should act to preserve cultures in respect of their unique language, clothes, food and customs, but more importantly, we should also ask which beliefs and which character values do we want to preserve? People’s lives and people’s culture will only be a free as their beliefs and values allow them to be. Faith in Jesus, and His power to change hearts, brought liberty to the ancient Roman and Jewish people who believed in Him. Jesus freed my friend from addiction in Punjab and has changed the hearts and values, of a few billion others around the globe. So, He will continue to liberate all those that make him King.