And Ye Shall Be As Gods

Ever since the fall of Adam into sin, the temptation to assume godlike abilities has been a natural part of fallen human nature. We think we can determine right and wrong. We think by better controlling our environments we can determine the outcome we desire. Nowhere is this temptation seen so clearly
as when a man or woman assumes political authority.

Enter statists and those who hold socialistic doctrine. Rather than allowing God to be sovereign, these men and women full of arrogance and hubris believe they can rule in place of God. They deny God and idolise the wisdom of man (usually their own) to solve problems. They take from their fellow man with greedy and envious hearts. They render to Caesar what they should render to God. 

In our age, those who aspire to leadership often cite their desire to do good to their fellow man. This always frightens me. These leaders often have an overinflated opinion of themselves and their ability to ensure good for their fellow man. For one, they assume that they know what is good for others. And secondly, they assume they know the best possible way of achieving that good. Unfortunately, the results speak for themselves. They would do better to leave us alone.

Let’s look at one example of their grasping at divinity. Consider poverty. These would be gods see poverty in some sectors of society. Denying the King’s maxim that the poor will always be with us, they try to end poverty. So they forcibly remove blessings from some elements of society so they can distribute those blessings to another. To the rescue of poor single women raising children these benevolent deities ride. Surely this is good we think. We don’t want children to grow up in poverty. Then a few generations later, there is an explosion of children being born out of wedlock and women raising children alone on a measly benefit. Consequently, there is a rise in child poverty, mental health disorders soar, more fatherless young men are attracted to gangs and crime stalks our streets. Rather than admit that their foolish pretension to the throne of God has caused these problems they dig in. More tax, more interference, more carnage. 

Whatever these men and women who have attempted to usurp Christ do, fails miserably. They are not god, and when they attempt to ascend to his throne, they demonstrate to all with open eyes that they are no gods. They cannot dispense blessing and order God’s world in such a way that sinning against the fabric of his universe bears no consequences. They did not create it, they did not redeem it and they do not rule it.

What do we the people do? We should smash our false idol of state and turn back to Christ the king. His yoke is easy and his burden light. Government was never given to us by God to fix everything. It cannot bear that weight. Government was ordained by God to punish the wicked doer, not pontificate about climate change, redistribute the blessings God has given to the slothful, or ‘educate’ our children. When we expect the government to do things God has not designed it to do, we should expect it to do these things poorly, and we should expect it to grow more and more tyrannical and swallow up the other earthly authorities that God has ordained such as fathers, churches and employers.

Politics and Religion

I read with interest a report into Christopher Luxon’s maiden speech in Parliament. Luxon shows concern that people who are Christians are seen as extreme. He seems keen to show the positives of his faith. He is quoted saying, “It [Christianity] has anchored me, given my life purpose and shaped my values – and it puts me in the context of something bigger than myself,” This is noble and helpful. If more politicians understood that there was something bigger than themselves we would be in a far better position. Anyone who acknowledges there is a king above them to whom they must give an account is on far safer ground than those who deny God and cosmic justice.

However, he seems to misunderstand other aspects of the Christian faith. He says, “I see Jesus showing compassion, tolerance and care for others. He doesn’t judge, discriminate or reject people. He loves unconditionally.” While there is an element of truth here, in that Jesus said, “I did not come to judge the world but to save the world,” he also said, “The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.”

Furthermore, he seems greatly confused about the role of faith in politics. On the one hand, he highlights the role of Christianity in fighting injustice when he acknowledges William Wilberforce, but he goes on to claim that his faith is personal. He says of his faith, “It is not in itself a political agenda. I believe no religion should dictate to the state. And no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others.” Well, which is it? Will your faith impact the decisions and actions you take as one of the leaders of our country, or will they have no influence? How can our worldview and faith not impact our politics? Do you think the religious beliefs of men like Stalin and Hitler had no bearing on their political actions? Do you think that our current government does not let their godless beliefs impact their agenda in issues like euthanasia, child sacrifice abortion and the economy? Of course, your faith beliefs and presuppositions are going to impact your politics. If Christ is indeed king, own that and have the courage to say that you will act in a way that acknowledges his kingship and do all in your power to see him honoured for who he is. Otherwise, you are living as a member of another religion.

Government and Incompetence

It was recently revealed that the government (or should I say we the taxpayer) forked out $50 million on a Maori Trades and Training Fund which since June 2020 has had the effect of providing 4 jobs. That works out at 12.5 million dollars per job. Admittedly, only $11.4m has been committed to approved projects and just $1.8m has been paid out. Nonetheless, this excels even the usual incompetence we see from the state.

National’s answer is to do a better job of spending the money. Well, I guess that’s a step in the right direction. Achieving some good that is not your responsibility while wasting less of someone else’s money is better than wasting that money and achieving next to nothing. But why should we settle for this?

When will we as a people stop worshipping this false idol of state? It cannot do what it promises to do. It cannot save us. It is given to us by God not so that it can create jobs, or educate our children. It is given to us by God to protect us from the evildoer and punish him. How many times do we have to see a government step outside its God-given role and make a complete cock-up of things before we throw down our idol and advocate for limited government? I can guarantee that an entrepreneur with $50 million could have provided a lot more than 4 jobs.

We should not give god-like powers to the State

In Defending Marriage, Anthony Esolen lays out 12 arguments defending marriage. The final argument is that we should not give god-like powers to the State. A great quote from this chapter follows.

‘What the State essentially does, when it requires us to be parties to the lie that a man can marry a man, is to deny the anterior reality of marriage itself. It says, “Marriage is what we say it shall be,” and that implies, “Families are what we say they are,” and that implies, “There are no zones of natural authority outside the supervision and regulation and management of the State.” We’ve given up on the foolish notion of the Divine Right of Kings, dreamed up by totalizing monarchs of the late Renaissance. Now we have the Divine Right of Bureaucratic States. The old kings used to make common cause with smaller zones of authority, guilds and towns, for example, in order to check the ambitions of the noblemen. The new kings have obliterated those smaller zones of authority in principle, and seek to do so in reality also. That is in large part what public schools are now for; the education of children against the authority and direction of their own parents.’

Why the Big Hooha About Conversion Therapy?

In a recent post we looked at media misquotes from Parliament’s Justice Select Committee report into conversion therapy. The mainstream media in typical fashion seems to be stirring the pot and trying to make this an issue to garner support for the change in law. Younger friends have informed me that Instagram was flooded with people posting their support for a law change. Typically our one-sided media does not seem to be giving a fair hearing to all viewpoints and is painting the law change as only positive.

Greens party spokesperson for Rainbow Communities Dr Elizabeth Kerekere is quoted as saying, “There is no place for conversion therapy in Aotearoa,” and “Aotearoa should be a place where no matter who you love or how you identify, you are accepted, and no one should be allowed to force people to change who they are through this harmful and traumatising practice.”

Now whether banning coercive practices is what the law is actually trying to achieve is questionable, and perhaps the subject of another post. But the question we should ask is, “How widespread are these traumatic conversation therapy practices in New Zealand?” Answer: Not very.

Family First made a request under the Official Information Act to find out how many complaints about this practice had been made to the Human Rights Commission in the last 10 years.

The Human Rights Commission in response to an Official Information Act request from Family First NZ has admitted that there were no formal complaints and only one informal one. Hardly a huge problem in New Zealand.

This issue is in fact a Trojan Horse. The media is playing up horrific practices which have been perpetrated by the state in the past to ban Christians and people who disagree with the LGBTQ+ agenda from speaking against it. According to Family First, this ban could lead to people being “prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose – if that lifestyle is heterosexual or based on their biological sex. While gender and sexuality are supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve.”

Ardern’s Leadership

Prime Minister Ardern has pulled out of her weekly appearance on the Mike Hosking breakfast show. The reason given is that she is rearranging her interview schedule. Yet one can’t help wondering whether she was tired of being asked difficult questions. As many are now pointing out, Ardern seems more at home with patsy questions and friendly interviewers. She’s loved overseas, and her daily performance during COVID rallied many New Zealanders, despite feeling a little patronizing at times. Unfortunately, she struggles when facing a more seasoned interviewer who pushes back.

In his explanation of the situation, Hosking said, “The number of times she’s fronted on this programme with no knowledge around the questions I’m asking is frightening. Reports I read, she hadn’t. The time I asked whether they’re replacing the Tauranga City Council, she replied they didn’t do such things. Clearly, not having the slightest clue, in a month or so, they were going to do exactly that. Those occasions are too many to be comfortable.”

To anyone who has heard Ardern and Hosking spar, it’s clearly an uncomfortable experience for Ardern. She seems to be struggling. She might be able to present well at the daily COVID briefings. She might be good at spouting platitudes, but despite promising us transparency, she doesn’t seem to deal well with grown-up questions pertaining to her government’s performance. She seems to feel much more at home with fawning and sycophantic supporters who would never dream of asking a question of their hero. Is this true leadership?

Barry Soper, one of the few decent journalists we have in New Zealand, observed, “The questions were too direct, they got under her thin skin but, more importantly, she didn’t know the answer to many of them. She was exposed on a weekly basis and it simply all became too much for her.” His final line in his editorial, “She’s treading water.” is about right.

It seems she’s fallen into leadership before she was ready. Without COVID, she’d probably be gone. To ensure a third term, one would imagine she will have to deliver on some of the grandiose promises she’s made. Unless COVID saves her again.

Monopoly Education is Poor Education

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Truth Education may be looking at introducing or amending 135 school enrolment zones in Auckland. The plan is designed to save the Ministry millions of dollars by forcing parents to send their children to undersubscribed schools rather than oversubscribed ones which would require expensive expansion projects to keep up with demand. Having more enrolment zones gives the MOE more ability to manage this demand.

Obviously this is going to rub many parents up the wrong way. There is a reason parents try at all costs to avoid a local school and instead elect to send their child to a school further away. Why would parents make their lives more difficult? Quite simply, parents are closer to understanding their child’s needs, and have more skin in the game than faceless bureaucrats drawing lines on a map. Perhaps it would be better to consider why some schools are unpopular and why others are full. Perhaps instead of continuing to restrict choice we could increase choice and make schools more responsible for attracting students to their area by providing a service that parents actually want. Maybe, just maybe, leaders in unpopular schools could consider what it is that makes them unpopular and figure out how to turn the ship around.

Monopolies do not tend to provide excellent customer service, and we have a near-monopoly situation with education in New Zealand. Being in education, I am aware of independent schools in areas of Auckland that offer a basic no-frills education. These schools charge fees and still are bursting at the seams. You have to ask yourself why. Seriously. If these schools can attract people away from free schools charging thousands of dollars per year while simultaneously offering no optional extras – just a basic traditional education – how bad must the local schools be?

Could it be possible that most parents might know more about what good education looks like than the MOE and government bureaucracy? Yes. Would we be better off if the government retreated from its overly controlling approach to all things education and allowed parents more choice? Without a doubt. Would more choice lead to healthy competition? Certainly. Would educational standards rise? Of course. Would the unions and many teachers complain? Naturally, why would the turkey vote for Christmas? Should we do it anyway? Imagine the fun! Will this government do anything that will increase educational outcomes? Can the blind lead the blind?

The State Is My Shepherd

The state is my shepherd; I shall not want.

She maketh me lie down on the couch: she leadeth me besides the still waters of self-indulgence and irresponsibility

She removeth my soul.

She stealeth my children and leadeth them in the paths of social justice for her name’s sake.

Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy public healthcare system and cradle to grave welfare system they comfort me.

Thou prepareth a table of confiscated goodies before me in the presence of mine enemies who would have kept what belonged to them; my greed and avarice runneth over.

Surely pampering and apathy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of slavery until I die.