Claims based on outdated information

To the Editor

Gary Clover (Touchstone, Nov) is using outdated sources to justify his claim that Israel is not an apartheid state, whereas John Minto (Touchstone, Oct) is quoting Archbishop Desmond Tutu and contemporary authorities that it is.

As John Minto points out, Archbishop Tutu has described Israel's policies towards Palestinians "as worse than that suffered by black South Africans under apartheid".

John Minto also points out that B'Tselm, the largest and most respected human rights organisation in Israel, and US based Nobel Peace prize winning 'Human Rights Watch', have both described Israel's policies towards Palestinians as "organised violence" and constituting “crimes of apartheid and persecution".

Brian Turner, Christchurch.

A Deafening Silence

To the Editor

In the September Touchstone, Adrian Skelton challenged us to see the church ‘As It Is’. He focused particularly on the need for us to face the current model of ‘denominational’ Christianity.

In November he raised the issue of the quality and quantity of church leadership.

These are two of the top three challenges for the church that I’ve had on my own mind.

Adrian notes in November that his September article has been met with a deafening silence. I hope his challenges will not be lost and wonder how the church in New Zealand can face these vital issues.

Perhaps Touchstone readers do not read the monthly UCANZ item because they feel it relates to cooperative ventures only. That would be a mistake as it invariably focuses on the ‘whole church’.

How can we get past silence?

Lyndsay Jacobs, Christchurch

White Ribbon

To the Editor

Congratulations to Dr Lynne Frith on her article in November Touchstone regarding White Ribbon Day. It was good to see the matter of violence against women brought to the forefront in our church paper. At Wesley Broadway Methodist Church in Palmerston North, we have marked White Ribbon Day for many years on the appropriate Sunday.

I represent local Methodist women on National Council of Women Manawatu (NCWM), which speaks out on behalf of women and families. White Ribbon Day is also supported by our 'Let the Children Live' group which functions in a number of areas as we reach our 10th year since inception.

Audrey Jarvis, Palmerston North 

How did the College decide?

To the Editor

I thought long and hard about whether or not to write about the Trinity Methodist Theological College’s submission on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill (Touchstone, October 2021). This is because of my fear (ie cowardice) of being vilified (and cancelled) for daring to ask questions and that asking questions is interpreted as opposition to the submission and the Bill. However, I was encouraged by the submission’s statement ‘as Christians it is our responsibility to participate in public debate conscientiously …”. Therefore, I decided to write. Firstly, I am not opposed to the thrust of the Bill and I support the College’s viewpoint that conversion therapy practices, (and indeed every health therapy practice), should be subject to health professional standards and disciplinary measures.

My questions are to the College which bases its submission on theological considerations, as one might expect. One theological consideration is that “all human beings are created in the image of God” and that “invalidating and demonizing people created in the image of God is a sin against God whose love embraces all of us as we are.” I would agree with this but I also know that not all human behaviours are acceptable. We incarcerate people for some behaviours. We say we love the person but reject the behaviour, and we try to help or encourage the person to change that behaviour.

My question for the College is how did it decide what behaviours are acceptable in a just and inclusive society? In the dim past the church was the authority on moral issues, or at least in the West it thought it was. But how does the church/College now decide: read the zeitgeist, react to pressure groups, use theological principles (which ones)? How has the College discerned God’s will on what is acceptable? Is the outcome different from the church’s viewpoint of 50 years ago, and if so, why? Please provide a response to these questions “to assist our faith communities in their discernment process.”

I am influenced by statements from a 50 year old JAMA* paper: “Our present concepts of normal and deviant behavior cannot be divorced from the value systems of contemporary society.” and “In our culture, a key distinguishing factor between what is regarded as healthy or unhealthy sexual behaviour is whether such behaviour is motivated by feelings of love or whether it becomes a vehicle for the discharge of anxiety, hostility, or guilt.” (Marmor, 1971).

It will be good to hear the thinking of the College on these challenging questions.

* JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 217 (2), pp. 165-170. Marmor J. (1971)

Ian Tucker, Dunedin

The College responds

We appreciate the responses and reflections relating to our statement on the CPPL Bill. Our theological reflections on contemporary ethical issues are developed rigorously by discerning the signs of the times, being informed by scripture, tradition, reason and experience, and by being inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. We are offering courses on different social and ethical issues pertaining to the life and witness of the church in Aotearoa today. Please contact us if you are interested in enrolling in our courses.

Trinity Methodist Theological College

Resourcing Congregations

To the Editor

It was heartening to read Andrew Doubleday's thoughts of where our church is at and his plan to commence the process of restoration.

To summarise, Conference will deal with four questions: being Tauiwi, being Good News, Law Book makeover and resourcing congregations.

Without congregations, there can be no Church and if we have no church, we do not need a Law Book or concern ourselves with how we are perceived or being Good News. But, here is the rub, a failing church has very limited ability to resource its congregations. So the question should be, "How can our congregations better resource themselves and how can the wider church help"?

The answer is two-fold: encouragement and an appreciation of self-worth.

Too often we focus on our weaknesses. This leads to feelings of failure and negative self-worth. We need to turn this around. Instead, focus on what we are good at and utilise the strengths within.

This is not easy and this is where the wider church needs to help.

It can be done.

Graeme Day, Masterton

A Clarification

To the Editor,

I was pleased to see the article from Rev Dr Barbara Peddie, in the October issue of Touchstone. The list of topics which have been addressed by the InterChurch Bioethics Council (ICBC) covers a wide range of important issues, and it is good to see the work done by the ICBC reported in Touchstone.

I would like to add some further details concerning the origin of the ICBC. In 2000, in response to the interest and concern of New Zealanders regarding the work being carried out on genetic modification, the Government set up the ‘Royal Commission on Genetic Modification’. In order to contribute to this, the Methodist, Anglican and Presbyterian churches set up the ‘Interchurch Commission on Genetic Engineering’. This body was established by the churches, and made written and oral submissions to the Royal Commission.

In 2001 the government published the findings of the Royal Commission, following which the churches decided that the Interchurch Commission on Genetic Engineering should continue to explore the implications of matters of ethical and scientific interest in a broader field. It was renamed the InterChurch Bioethics Council.

I chaired the committees for approximately nine years from the inception of the Commission, and I believe it is important to recognise that the Interchurch Commission on Genetic Engineering was independent of the government, as is the ICBC today.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Audrey Jarvis, Palmerston North

Correction

To the Editor

The November issue of Touchstone included an historical article on Alexander Reid, my wife's great-grandfather. Reid was one of the many early ministers in New Zealand who worked hard to become fluent in te reo. This enabled him to befriend many Maori, and also to understand some of their concerns.

Reid was present at the hui in Rangiawhia on 17 June 1858, which confirmed Potatau as the first Maori King. Reid wrote an account of the hui, published in The New Zealander on 3 July 1858, signing himself "Curiosus". In typical Pakeha fashion of the time Reid was somewhat patronising toward Maori. However, towards the end he showed he understood very clearly that the King movement was all about the Maori retention of their land, something most Pakeha were not willing to accept, preferring to see it as a matter of 'sovereignty'.

There is one small error in the article. Of course Reid, born in 1821, did not marry Georgina Darby in 1825, but on 14 December 1848, shortly before they left for New Zealand.

Graham Langton, Wellington