25 Comments:

what it'll take? like ive said in the past, only having one Christian party...

By  Priscilla, at 9:14 am, September 12, 2005  

We've had that in the past- CHP- it didn't work. The emphasis is 'getting Christians to vote for the same party'

By  Anita, at 9:17 am, September 12, 2005  

eeek, i guess i should vote too... and i don't feel like i've done enough research!!! Who are most christians voting for? ;)
Alana.

By  Anonymous, at 12:23 pm, September 12, 2005  

Hmmm

It is such a shame that we have many Christians encouraging their brethren to vote for secular (anti-Christian) parties.

I agree that (1) you can't change hearts through politics.
On the other hand, I believe that (2) we do need Christian voices in parliament.

So we attack on two fronts:

A. Challenging those who are of the (1) persuasion to vote for a Christian party anyway, since they'll be able to do so with a clear conscience, and won't be endorsing tens of thousands of abortions (as one example), and

B. Challenge those of the (2) persuasion to continue in their quest for Christians in politics, but also look at how they are personally impacting hearts for Christ.

These two desires are not mutually exclusive, or diametrically opposed. We can balance our evengelistic involvment in our local church/community with our support and involvement in Christ-founded politics.
We are to go out into all the world. And I don't believe that this mandate simply means "go to all geographical corners of the world and preach the gospel to people". I believe it is also a command to "go out into every aspect of society and live the gospel".

As each has been given different gifts, we should support Christians who have a heart to go door-knocking, but also and equally, we should support Christians who have a heart for politics.

By  Dan, at 12:36 pm, September 12, 2005  

Great comment Dan!

Alana- Destiny, CHNZ (Christian Parties) or United Future (12 out of top 15 on List committed Christians but isn't a christian party)

By  Anita, at 12:51 pm, September 12, 2005  

Anita:

Well if splitting the Christian vote at least 2 (but like you said probably 3) ways isnt working and neither is just having one Christian party, then we obviously dont have much hope of gettin a Christian party into politics do we?

From my perspective: just to reiterate, the more the Christian vote gets broken down the less chance we'll have of a Christian party getting into parliament. What do Destiny believe that CHNZ doesnt? They should just combine... and as we all know, we dont have enough committed actual Christians to see 1 let alone 2 Christian parties getting into parliament with the way things are going...

but you know what really annoys me? Christians who are thinkin of voting for LABOUR!! post coming soon on that...

By  Priscilla, at 5:55 pm, September 12, 2005  

Shall we vote for evil that good may come of it?

slight variation of Rom 3:8 Let us do evil, that good may come?

That's my view of Christian party vs secular party. True the Christian partys can have secular policies too... but at least they are putting themselves forward based on scripture.

I think Christians should vote for the most Godly party/person. Reguardless of who they personally like running the country.

By  Anonymous, at 7:24 pm, September 12, 2005  

shot allan.. another tui billboard maybe "just a slight variation"

By  Jonathan, at 8:26 am, September 13, 2005  

I don't think Destiny should join CHNZ. I think there was talk of it but Destiny pulled out, just as well for them or they would have be tainted by the Capill scandal.
We have also tried the christian parties joining as well -the Christain Coliation in the first MMP election- they came close but didn't break the 5%.

Personally I voted for United Future. I feel that I have the best of both world- voting for christians in parliament and my vote won't be wasted at this critical election.

By  Anita, at 8:27 am, September 13, 2005  

If Christians acted like Christians, they wouldn't taint people with the sin of someone else!

By  Scotty, at 11:01 am, September 13, 2005  

People are so unfair. The media is pretty picky about who they target too. How come all ACT members aren't being tarred with the Awatere Brush.

CHNZ will most likely be tainted by Non-Christians because of Grahan Capill. However, Christians are called to forgive!.. even forgive Graham Capill!

It's disapointing that Christians would not Vote for a party which is working so hard for a Christian Voice in Parliment Soley because of what Graham Capill has done.

By  Jonathan, at 11:15 am, September 13, 2005  

Anita, It is entirely up to you to decide whom you voted for, and in all honesty, you don't need to justify it to anyone other than yourself and God. I realise that you didn't have to reveal to us who you voted for.

Although I recognise they have made some positive contributions in the last term, I personally could not vote for UF, as they only gained their seats in parliament through supporting perhaps the most ungodly party this country has yet seen. Their positive steps have largely been stifled and rendered ineffective (ie: Families Commission) due to the fact that they need to pander to a ultra-PC, humanistic and immoral Labour party.

What bothers me considerably more than how you vote, however, is your continued tainting of CHNZ as if they had anything to do with Mr Capill's offending.
You simply must realise that they are only tainted because you taint them.

Mr Capill did not involve any CHNZ member in his offending, nor was his offending made public until he had well and truly left the party.

Anita, as I have pleaded on many occassions previous, I again implore you to at least examine the facts rationally, and I sincerely wish that you'd have even just an iota of support for your brothers and sisters in Christ who have the guts to make an uncompromised stand for Christ in the filthy hell-hole that is New Zealand politics.

We are the agents of God's grace in this world - we need to actively redeem our society for Him.
Treating our brothers and sisters with scorn is outright anti-Christian, is at cross-purposes with our mission on earth, and we should have no part in it.

By  Dan, at 11:22 am, September 13, 2005  

Amen.

By  Scotty, at 11:26 am, September 13, 2005  

Who said I was trying to justify my vote? I was just giving my opinion as others had done and offering a different perpective.

Dan- They gained their seat because they won 6.7% of the vote not because they shacked up with Labour. Please give examples of how they pandered to Labour so I can understand what you mean.

About the tainting of CHNZ- I am just pointing out what I see to be an obvious fact- the image and name of CHNZ has been tainted whether you like it or not. Non-christians and christian look at it much differently now. Is it fair? NO WAY! Is it reality? Yes Unfortunately.

When have I said or done anything that is scornful or Anti-Christian? If you are implying that it what I was doing then that is a massive call Dan.

By  Anita, at 11:52 am, September 13, 2005  

Jono- I think you are right - the media are picky. But in the world's eyes the Capill offending was worst the Donna offending. Most people held Mr Capill in higher regard because he is a christian- the fall from grace was higher and therefore the thud when he hit the ground was bigger. The Act party isn't doing that great in the poll either.

By  Anita, at 11:58 am, September 13, 2005  

You have been scornful about CHNZ in the past Anita.

You said:-
Yes you are right- it would be a shame to see Graham Capills hard work down the drain....

By Anita, at 4:39 PM

In reply to me saying that voting for CHNZ was worthwhile because it was supporting brothers in sisters in Christ who were working hard in this area.

That is clear scorn, and displays an negative and unhelpful attitude. So you shouldn't be surprised that Dan took what you said this way.

By  Scotty, at 12:01 pm, September 13, 2005  

Ok well fair enough I asked for that- but it was more sarcastic than scornful. Scornful and anti-christian seems a bit intense.
I am kinda annoyed at Mr Capill to be perfectly honest with you- I am really disappointed. I just want him to get what he deserves (very bad I know). Please don't jump all over me for that- I am being honest with how I feel about the situation. Try to have compassion rather than anger with me.

By  Anita, at 12:27 pm, September 13, 2005  

'I sincerely wish that you'd have even just an iota of support for your brothers and sisters in Christ'- that is way harsh Dan. I am voting/supporting as I feel convicted to and I don't think you should knock that. I am not the only person not voting for CHNZ you know!!!

By  Anita, at 12:40 pm, September 13, 2005  

Sorry for the confusion, Anita. I was in fact asserting the fact that you didn't need to justify your vote, not accusing you of trying to justify it.

UF maintained a supply and confidence agreement with Labour, which bound them to support Labour on all but conscience votes. 'Do not be yoked with unbelievers' comes to mind, but then UF don't claim to be a Christian party, so I guess I shouldn't have any expectation that they would behave like one.

I don't want to be pedantic (which means I'm about to be pedantic) but whether something has been tainted or not is usually determined by how it appears. See this definition.
I challenge you to find a single black mark on CHNZ principles, policy, or persons as a result of Mr Capill's offending.

So I continue to assert that any perceived tainting is not a tainting of CH itself, but rather a tainting of the attitude of the person who perceives it.
The only tainting is in your perception, and it is almost as if your desire is that CHNZ is tainted by Mr Capill's offending.

"When have I said or done anything that is scornful or Anti-Christian? If you are implying that it what I was doing then that is a massive call Dan."

I stand by what I said; "Treating our brothers and sisters with scorn is outright anti-Christian, is at cross-purposes with our mission on earth, and we should have no part in it." True, this may be a massive call, but I believe it is a true, biblical call.

And yes, I have percieved many of your comments as being decidedly scornful of CHNZ. Perhaps my perceptions are incorrect - I'd like to believe they are incorrect, but there isn't anything else that indicates that you may feel otherwise.

By  Dan, at 12:49 pm, September 13, 2005  

Anita,

Firstly, please be careful not to quote me out of context; I said "...and I sincerely wish that you'd have even just an iota of support for your brothers and sisters in Christ who have the guts to make an uncompromised stand for Christ in the filthy hell-hole that is New Zealand politics."

I know that there are may ways in which you most generously and sincerely support the work of Christ in our community, and I don't want you to think - or lead others to think - for one second that I was making a blanket statement. I was referring specifically to your attitude to CHNZ.

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated already, my problem was not with who you voted for, but with your disparaging remarks against CHNZ. Perhaps it was unwise of me to have voiced my opinion of UF in my comment, and I realise that this may have confused my intent.

Scorning the efforts of your fellow workers in the kingdom is, in actuality, one member of the Body scorning another member; the Body being Christ. Hence I cannot see how this is not anti-Christian.
I also invite you to examine a thesaurus; scorn and sarcasm are close cousins.

By  Dan, at 1:41 pm, September 13, 2005  

Well I don't know where to start. Firstly I have no desire for CHNZ to be tainted by Mr Capill offending. I am just saying that it is- and Dan you know it is. And of course it is people perception that are tainted- why else would it be? One thing that stands out to me is that only 6 people are willing to run as candidates this election- I am sure there were many more last election. The Capill thing may have nothing to so with it- but then again it might. Personally I think the comment 'Treating our brothers and sisters with scorn is outright anti-Christian etc etc' sounds judgemental and mean. And if you are trying to point out I am sarcastic and scornful- then you have scored yourself a point at my expense. I feel fantastic- thanks But you are entitled to your view.

I didn't take you out of context with the 'iota of support' comment. The sentence after it I defending my self based on how I was voting not how I lived my life- I did not take you out of context I just didn't copy on whole sentence - people can read it for themselves.

Again- Scott pulled me up on the previous comment but apart from that I still don't think I have may any disparaging remarks against CHNZ, except to give my views I how I see the party. And I would like to point out that you have made many negative commentes about UF and criticsed my voting decision. I never said scorning the efforts of you fellow workers etc wasn't anti christian- I just said it was an intense and overly dramatic thing to say.

By  Anita, at 2:26 pm, September 13, 2005  

Of course I know that many people have reacted against CHNZ as a result of Capill's offending.

That doesn't mean that their reaction is rationally justifiable, nor should it be perpetuated, especially not by Christians who should know much better.

I repeat and maintain that CHNZ is a much more viable voting option since it is no longer under the leadership of a paedophile. That is undeniable. If people are willing to resign their support of CHNZ based solely on Capill's offending, then they are willing to buy into a lie.

If I recall correctly, at the last election CHNZ had candidates in most, if not all, electorates.
You're right, and I know this is a fact in a number of cases; Capill's offending has affected the willingness of people to stand as candidates in this coming election.
But another significant factor is that the six people selected represent a more solid prospect as MPs, rather than simply putting bums in seats.
And yet another factor is that having more candidates equals significantly more campaign spending. Previously, the party has put itself into debt to fund election campaigns, and this is not something we have been willing to do this time; we are to be wise stewards of what we are have been called to administer.

In response to you statement: "And if you are trying to point out I am sarcastic and scornful- then you have scored yourself a point at my expense. I feel fantastic- thanks But you are entitled to your view.", I wasn't out to score points, I was just trying to address and respond to your sarcastic (or scornful) attitude toward CHNZ. I actually had in mind the words of Christ in Matthew 5:21-23.
And here you respond to a claim of sarcasm with yet more sarcasm?

I apologise for any offense you may have taken, and now realise that despite the public nature of your comments regarding CHNZ, perhaps I should have responded either privately, or not at all.

By  Dan, at 3:37 pm, September 13, 2005  

Forget it- I can't be bothered with it or your clouded view anymore Daniel. Let me know when you get off your high horse and stop judging me.

By  Anita, at 4:08 pm, September 13, 2005  

Is that the sound of dummy-spitting I hear?

By  Anonymous, at 7:46 pm, September 13, 2005  

I had been trying to keep this discussion objective, but it is patently obvious that it is objective no longer.

The direction this discussion has taken has rendered it unsuitable for the public forum - Anita and I are resolving this issue by private email.

I would implore that there be no further comments of the immaturity that 'Anonymous' here is displaying, and hope that we can try to be gracious and Christlike toward one another, as I have failed to be.

By  Dan, at 7:45 am, September 14, 2005  

Post a Comment