I know we are all getting heartily sick of Darwin, but he will not go away. Neither can we make some minor modification to our theology (e.g. the day age theory) and go on as though nothing had happened. The evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming and we must be honest about what it exposes regarding our assumptions about the Scriptures.

Our thinking about the Genesis story owes more to Augustine and Milton than it does to the Bible itself. As we read the first three chapters we often imagine a back story where the whole earth is perfect, there is no death, no suffering, no carnivores, no viruses, no bacteria. Sin creates a spectacular fall where all is changed to what we see now. Unfortunately, the text does not support this. The man and woman are in a garden that is part of the world, not the whole world, and is in fact identifiable by the rivers as being in our world. There is a snake in the garden – where did he come from? If one reads wider, one finds out that God created animals in a state that looks very carnivorous (see Isaiah 39). The Old Testament does not shy away from saying that God created what was “very good” and yet was “red in tooth and claw”. Time to reread the text I think. And whether we like it or not, we have Darwin to thank for making us do the reread.

As we know, Darwin’s followers did not stop at biological evolution and an evolutionary fundamentalism has grown up that attempts to explain all of life. Duncan Roper examines this evolutionary orthodoxy through the eyes of one of its proponents, Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog. Duncan develops the implied four institutes of an evolutionary confession of faith (a nice play on the other anniversary this year).

Neil Broom gives us an alternative view of the evolutionary mechanisms. It is not all about the genome – there’s lots of other stuff going on, as is increasingly acknowledged among the evolutionary orthodox.

Nicola Hoggard Creegan takes us to the core of the evolutionary theology issue as she considers evil and fallenness. Many of the Christian treatments of evolution written by scientists skirt around this issue, much as those written by theologians often do not honestly grapple with the science. What happened at the fall? Did God create suffering? If evolution is all about competition, what does this mean for God’s good creation? Where is the creator now in the creation?

Geoff New wants us to read the Scriptures and in his article, Lectio Divina rides again. Geoff wants us to retain intellectual integrity as we grapple with the text, but avoiding the lament of “The exegetes have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” Imagination, Lectio Divina, and Ignatius contemplation will help us encounter Mystery and together face this world with its many valleys of dry bones.

Kevin Ward wonders whether what is “emerging” is actually church. Like Geoff, he goes back to the future for inspiration, using the Nicene Creed to see whether what is emerging is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

As followers of Jesus we continue in this life as pilgrims. How ever we may understand the details of the grand narrative, whether we are “emerging” or not, we know that whereas our first parents were in a garden, one day we will be in a city. While there was a snake in the garden and death must have been part of the wider ecology, there will be no suffering in the future city. Humility continues to be called for as we learn from the works of the creator and as we seek to interpret and apply together the Scriptures. Biologists are often far more certain and dogmatic about their core theory than for example physicists, philosophers, or mathematicians (compare the writings of Richard Dawkins with Roger Penrose or John Leslie). Biologists are cushioned in the apparent comfortable certainty of chemistry and physics. Those who work in those fields and push up against the uncertainty of the big questions and the unnerving fine tuning of the universe are less dogmatic. There are lessons there for us. May God preserve us too from fundamentalism – taking part of the truth and treating it as the whole truth.

David Cashmore

for the editorial committee

As I pen this text preparations are underway in Old St Paul’s Wellington to receive and process a select group of Kiwi men and women, cham­pions of our realm, into Knights and Ladies. The choice of Old St Paul’s as the venue for this is particularly fitting. Apart from it being extremely handy to the parliamentary precinct, it is gor­geous to be in a space that was created several cultural time-zones away from the world in which we now live. The difference of the interior from familiar workaday environments helps visitors put their preoccupations on hold and simply enjoy the feast of trusses hewn from our native forests and the sparkle of coloured light that tumbles through the glass into the space. Under the influence of such beauty, one must resist the temptation to over romanticise the past. This is probably how some also view the reinstatement of Knighthoods. 

Old St Paul’s has many qualities that generate strong feelings of familiarity and reverence – a powerful combination. This “Ministry of Architecture” has made the asset a national taonga for all New Zealanders. What makes Old St Paul’s perfect for the occasion is that she is a de-consecrated church. She has the outer form and val­ues of Ecclesiastical Gothic, done well, but without the machinations of vestry meetings or salvoes of torment from the pulpit to sully the acoustics of the timber panelling. Perfectly groomed, placid, and demure – she is a Stepford Wife of the state, cinched into a Victo­rian dress. She is a place where those who practise religion, of whatever type, and those who practise resisting religion can come together in a hall of unity. As the recipients kneel, are tapped on the shoulders with a sword  of dominion, and arise, somewhere in the rafters the spirit of the forests and the light of the stars will be looking down on the proceedings and will see that everything is going perfectly to plan.

Meanwhile, back at the keyboard, an altogether different group of Kiwi men and women have been putting finishing touches on the architecture generated by the conflict between the world in which they live and the world that has been progressively revealed through prophets, psalms and histo­ries. As we grind tectonicly through a period of changing fortunes, exemplified by the global systemic crisis, the differences between those worlds are becoming sharper, the pressures greater. The value of perspectives that have been steeped in the bath of biblical wisdom would seem to be self-evident. The alternative is merely to receive sto­ries generated by a media with a short history and a shorter attention span. Stories about “green shoots of recovery”, may soon be followed by “khaki shirts of war”.

Appropriate to our transitional times, this issue of Stimulus kicks off with David Cashmore’s essay on apocalyptic and millenarianism in the Thessalonian church, tensions in the fledgling church under the apparatus of the Roman State, and the problem of the delayed parousia. Len Hjalmarson explores the concept of liminality – the space between the familiar and the unknown, uncomfortable spaces that churches seem increasingly to inhabit. Kevin Ward applies various stress tests to “Evangelicalism” and watches it wriggle under his microscope. Is it still worth identifying with Evangelicalism or is the price too high? Nicola Hoggard Creegan takes up a telescope and gazes toward the Sasha-Malia horizon of 2110. Spurred into print by recent events in financial realms, Chris Pinfield follows the money (that avoided the gigantic bubble machine), into the little ecologies of micro-credit.

Consideration of the entangle­ment of the religious and the economic continues in two further articles. Bruce Hamill considers worship as mission and the problem of its commodification within the dominant consumer culture. The issue concludes with Part One of Gavin Drew’s gritty analysis of Jesus as the delaminator of political and religious hegemony, not just of his time but of all time. The centrality of money to the Temple and to Rome has obvious echoes for NZ Christians in 2009. As we wriggle and squirm on the Petri dish of the dilemmas of the world that we face, the spirit of the forests and the light of the stars will see that everything is going perfectly to plan. Read on…

Paul Marcroft
for the editorial committee

Douglas Maclachlan
Publisher

2009 and 2009? What do these numbers have in common. Well, interestingly enough there are two celebrations occurring this year. It is five hundred years since the birth of John Calvin in Noyon Picardy. It is also two hundred years since the birth of Charles Darwin. One might think that these two august personages represent polar opposites – Calvin the rigid adherence to dogma over common sense, and Darwin the brave triumph of scientific inquiry over outdated superstitions. As you probably know, gentle reader, things are not that simple.

The key work that Calvin remains known for (apart from his biblical commentaries) is of course The Institutes of the Christian Religion, a work that grew from what was essentially a discussion of the Apostle’s creed, the ten commandments, and the sacraments in 1536 to a sprawling biblical theology in the last edition of 1559. Book One starts with how we know about God the creator. Calvin carefully explains how knowledge about God is “… displayed in the fabric and constant government of the universe” (Book I ch. V) but that Scripture is required “…as a guide and teacher in coming to God as creator” (Book 1 ch. VI). Of course, this “two book” theology was hardly new – Aquinas and Augustine had said more or less the same thing, and all three believed that this concept was firmly embedded in the Scriptures themselves. After all, did not the Psalmist say, “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” The fact that the three tier concept of the universe that the Psalmist clearly accepted (e.g. the idea of a dome/firmament over the earth) had been disproved by the time of Calvin did not dent his conclusions about the place of natural theology and the revelation of Scripture.

In our own time we see the battle of these two books. Standing in one corner is our first group of fundamentalists, the self-styled disciples of Charles Darwin. God is an unnecessary if not dangerous hypothesis, and the scientific method must logically lead to atheism. This is undoubtedly true as the scientific method assumes only natural causes, and therefore cannot consider any intervention by a supernatural creator. It is unfortunate that the logic is a little circular when this is used to prove the absence of a god.

In the other corner is our second group of fundamentalists. They believe that the Scriptures must be taken “literally” and therefore the earth is young and evolution cannot have occurred. It is all there in the Bible after all. However, in their defence, they have moved on from believing that the earth is flat and has corners, that there is a dome across the sky, that the sun moves across this dome, that the heart is the centre of thought – not the brain – and that the bowels are the centre of emotions. Whereas the Darwinist fundamentalists are trapped in the circularity of their view of the universe, these fundamentalists are trapped in their supposedly “literal” approach to the Bible. A Calvin redivivus would have had problems with both sets of fundamentalists.

In this issue of Stimulus we contribute to both celebrations. We have articles from Peter Matheson and Graham Redding about Calvin in New Zealand. After all, Otago was settled by Scottish Presbyterians fresh from the troubles of the Great Disruption in Scotland. Calvin and Knox were their old and new testaments so it should not be surprising that Calvin has influenced New Zealand in ways of which we are probably unaware.

Darwin is also acknowledged through Nicola Hoggard Creegan’s column about the vestiges of the trinity in creation. Dennis Gordon presents a review article on Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution by Denis Lamoureux. God does not need to have laboured inside creation like a navvy to make all that we see. He could have equally as well created a universe that would bring forth life “that was good” as part of its very nature.

So enjoy, gentle reader. We also run advertisements for conferences regarding Calvin and Darwin. You will probably need to consult both books at these events.

David Cashmore
for the editorial committee

Douglas Maclachlan
Publisher

I frequently arrive late to church on a Sunday morning. This could be because I’ve become a bit sidetracked on the way (there’s plenty of potential for this, see, since it’s a thirty five minute walk – people you know, things you see, thoughts you have that really have to be written down so you have some proof of your profundity later on), but more often than not it’s actually a calculated lateness on my part, an attempt to skip Worship, or at least the bulk of it. I love a church that doesn’t frown on late arrivals.

 Worship’s boring. That is, Worship as it is in Church, with a capital W, which is singing songs (sometimes hymns) in rows all looking at a large screen (sometimes being watched by a small person looking the other way over a shoulder and not singing, lucky them). If you’re fortunate there’s only a maximum of three songs and they don’t get repeated. I become very much like a badly behaved four year old when Worship lasts more than half an hour. I fidget. I grimace. I become annoyed by the font the lyrics are in (fonts are a very big deal for me). I like singing, and I like the idea of a corporate experience of giving glory to God, but I don’t like Worship.

Once upon a time, if you wanted music in your life you had to produce it yourself. You sang to yourself while you went about your daily life, unless you were rich enough to have musicians at your beck and call. Now you listen, and you sing along, if you feel like it, and usually not from go to whoa, usually only in the good bits. Your average person never sings all the way through a song, I think. Worship in a church service is really a deeply strange experience. You have people up front playing instruments and singing songs, okay this is like a concert, so I’m like an audience member; but the audience members are all standing, okay this is like a good concert, the audience is showing its enthusiastic response to the music; and the audience members are all singing, okay so they’re like devotees, they know all the words; except the words are all projected on a large screen above the musicians and singers, so what’s the occasion? We’re Worshipping God. Yes, but how, if my focal points are either a large screen (with words written in a bad font, with odd line breaks and inconsistencies in layout between verses and spelling mistakes, and bad punctuation, and, and), or musicians and singers, and what I’m hearing is (mostly) augmented voices and instruments from the front and possibly the person standing behind me, and I can’t hear myself (but the person in front of me can, sorry about that), and I don’t even like this song, and I really don’t like the words in this line, and that last word’s only being used to resolve a difficult rhyme (because we really don’t do rhyming any more than we do singing now (apologies to rap artists)). I’m a Worship failure: it isn’t any better when the music is stuff that I love (and the stuff that I love is diverse), because then really all I’m doing is singing for my personal enjoyment. For me, music can be a barrier to worship: I’m too conscious of it and I have tried not to be, but I’m stuck. Give me poetry or art or landscape or music (no words) to listen to and I’m a bit more successful (thank you to my church as you sometimes does this).

I wonder sometimes, when I’m distracted, what a non-churchgoing person (let’s call him Handsome Sam) would be making of the Worship that I am at that very point experiencing. This embarrasses me (I embarrass easily), but I think that this (corporate singing) is exactly what Handsome Sam would expect to be happening in church, because that’s the way it’s always been. So, read Rosemary Dewerse’s interview with Donna Dinsmore, which we have titled “How then should we worship?”

This issue of Stimulus ranges widely. Included are articles that reflect upon matters artistic; others dip into baptism, while yet others reflect upon science, technology, God’s provision, human need, and the hope for justice.

Worship entails our heart response to God’s being and doing – these being bound, in Christ, to God’s self-emptying into, and for, creation. That response inextricably entails our faithful participation in creation and Christ – the response includes our missional participation in God’s activity in the world. Baptism is the formative shape of our personal participation in that mission, the divine undertaking in which our worship – both personal and overtly corporate – is rooted. So too our faith-reflection – upon, the arts, the sciences, technology, upon the needs of human community, etc – is an outworking of, and something sustained by, our conscious declaration of God’s worth-ship.

So indeed, Handsome Sam, how then should we worship?

Bridget Jennings
for the editorial committee

Douglas Maclachlan
Publisher

Today was the day that citizens of New Zealand had the opportunity to influence the make-up of the government. Hence, today, the discussion among the editorial committee over lunch focused around who voted for what, whom, and why, or why the person did not vote. So, how should citizens of the kingdom of heaven operate as citizens of New Zealand? How should they vote? There are, of course, as many opinions in the Church on this question as there are parties on the voting form!

The Christian church started in Palestine and Syria as largely marginal communities known for their inclusion of those whom others would not include. They saw themselves as citizens of another kingdom and their standards of behaviour excluded them from participation in many parts of wider society. Involvement in commerce without sacrificing at guild altars was difficult; participation in public office was almost impossible, and the almost universal pacifist position within the church effectively prevented followers of Jesus from being a soldier.

The Constantinian settlement in the 300s changed these attitudes as the problem of “required” idolatry ceased, thus no longer preventing wider involvement in civic society; the Church now had a stake in earthly affairs that blunted its heavenly focus. We have this position echoed in New Zealand. Our churches are largely middle class affairs with the interests of their members firmly planted in those of wider New Zealand. Conservative values such as law and order, preservation of property, and protection of traditional family structures are often held – not for any “religious” reasons, but purely because we want to hang on to what we have. When we vote, selfinterest reigns; there is little left over “…for the interests of others”, let alone for any kind of self-emptying that Paul has in mind as he describes Jesus in Philippians 2.

The key narratives that the early Christians understood themselves through were, of course, the Gospels and Acts and the irony of these stories was not lost on them. The divine message for the expansion of this community is presented to the leadership (Acts 1:8), but the actual growth occurs through nameless women and men led by the Spirit, while the leadership endlessly plays catch up. When Paul triumphantly reaches Rome, there is already a church there, much as there were already Maori Christians on the east coast of the North Island when the missionaries moved south in the 1830s and 40s.

However, as the Constantinian settlement slowly blunted the kingdom focus of the early Church, so in New Zealand the earthly interests of the settler Church in the 1860s largely undid the work of the nameless Maori Christians. Land was more important than kingdom. Citizenship in New Zealand trumped citizenship in heaven.

The lesson from both Acts and early New Zealand history is that nameless individuals “… who lose their life for my sake …” (Mt 10:39) can make a difference. If we are behaving in a kingdom-centric manner we should be living (whether voting or not voting) so that the kingdom spreads, and this will probably be at odds with our own earthly interests! We trust that this edition of Stimulus will help you lose life where you need to lose it and find life where you need to find it so that you can be numbered among the nameless heroes of the story of stories.

David Cashmore
for the editorial committee

Douglas Maclachlan
Publisher 

Pardon me if I don’t clap my hands and shout for joy. If this is the end of history, then it is a “pretty” bleak place. If this is the terminus of the world-spirit’s evolution, the conclusion must be that the demonic is ubiquitously incarnate. Francis Fukuyama wants us to settle for what he believes to be the completed, final, global, ideological victory of capitalism. But, if the world has arrived, then ever-increasing masses of poor people have found their destination to be an empty table.

Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers and travellers with herds; but Cain killed Abel. Among civilisation’s many blessings were Pharaoh, Solomon, and Caesar. In face of such resplendence at the apex, who could hope for more from the world than might trickle down from such successfulness? Against that obvious brilliance, Yahweh’s little toot on the jubilee trumpet – with its radical rejection of socio-political pyramids and trickle-down economics – sounds like something in a Hicksville hoedown, a socio-economic square dance condemned, by its sheer naivety, to be the joke of the wise, those who know how the world really is. Civilisation’s sophisticates know that the laws of the market are given with the law of gravity; the laws of the market are built into the world-fabric. The civilised are certain that growth and consumption must increase and that the “differentials” between “wages” and capital, “investments” and “returns”, costs and profit, are inseparable from the matrix of wealth. That all do not enjoy wealth, to the same degree as those who create wealth do, is just the way things are.

But those with a mind to live out of the biblical story – the story of the faithful, just, and wise creator of heaven and earth whose covenant with creation and human beings brings liberation – know that Yahweh, not the market, is creator and sustainer of wealth. Ultimately, the creator of all, not the consumer of much, defines wealth and value.

Jesus understood himself to be the end, the telos, the culmination of God’s story in humanity. Jesus understood himself to be the bringer of jubilee liberation and he taught his followers to pray to the Father “… remit us our debts as we have also remitted the debt of our debtors”. Those who seek to follow Jesus have no other option. Those who understand him to be the judge of the world must accept his judgement.

Within this issue of Stimulus, as the general election approaches, Mel Downer gleans, in jubilee, criteria for questioning those who vie for control of the land. In the same vein, Anthony Dancer calls us to consider the reign of God in the realm of human politics. Brian Harris provides an overarching view of spirituality as located, related, timed, and expressed in our context. John George and Hugh Morrison each contribute articles that differently highlight aspects of being the church here, but for the world; the followers of Jesus are a pilgrim people with a different vision of the world, from the world’s view of things. St Imulus writes of global mission and, at Lambeth Conference time, Richard Jennings ponders ecclesiastical power games – Are they really cricket?

Certainly, if cynical power plays, pragmatic, self-interested political games, and iniquitous inequity characterises the end of history, all is hopeless. But we have another vision wherein, in the end, the liberator leads out the world in joy, and all the trees of the field clap their hands for, at last, the creator reigns! Until then, we must live in that hope, demonstrate that faith, question the powers, and act to inaugurate that vision.

Gavin Drew

for the editorial committee

Douglas Maclachlan

Publisher

Our editorial gatherings can get a bit random towards the end of proceedings; such is the evolution of many “carefully-crafted” issues of this publication! So, as we write, David Cashmore practises his Fender chops, while Howlin’ Wolf, distinctively intones the Blues out of Cashmore’s other sound system.

“You wonder why any of those white boys bothered to imitate,” David muses. Our response: Because the likes of the Stones and the Yardbirds were British, and because, in North America, the Blues wasn’t for white boys. It is the same reason, the same need to respond, that has moved David to plug in his own guitar, adjusted his effects, and improvise along.

 A purpose of an editorial is to entice the reader to engage with the offerings, something like the uncovering of a need. An editorial is somewhat like the opening joke of a long lecture. (It is also an opportunity for the editors to put in their fifty cents. Fifty cents doesn’t buy much cheese these days, so it is better invested here.)

Knock, knock.

Who’s there?

Richard Dawkins.

Dawk … who?

Dick Dawkins.

I don’t get it.

 And neither, really, do we. In this issue Dennis Gordon examines Dawkins’ narrow, outmoded, positivistic take on science, God, and the universe. Mike Fouhy weighs in with an analysis contrasting the “Dawkinsians” and “Einsteinians”. He contends that only the logic of the latter’s approach really interfaces fruitfully with the way things are and, therefore, constrained to be – the empirical former approach is misled by the supposition of fundamental randomness.

 Gareth Jones reviews and comments upon discussion, within Reformed theological circles, concerning the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. Jones questions glib analyses that downplay, for what he see as misguided ethical considerations, the potential such research has for life-saving, life enhancing therapies.

 David Kettle enjoins us to sustain our interaction with Lesslie Newbign’s contribution to the development of theologically reflective mission within our post- Christendom contexts. Kettle encourages readers to review Newbigin’s writings without letting the voices of Newbigin’s critics ring so loudly in their ears that they can no longer hear what he has been saying.

 Stimulus, being “the New Zealand journal of Christian thought and practice”, welcomes Maurice Andrew’s efforts in using the formative work of John Inge to assist in recognising the function of located association within the concrete realisation of God’s forgiveness in this land. Chris Carey-Smith and Edmund Little each interpret biblical texts. Carey-Smith digs over the parable of the four soils in light of the hermeneutics of Bernard Lonergan, while Little serves up a fulsome appraisal of the significance of the wine Jesus made available to the wedding at Cana.

 This issue also reprints an article by John Bloom; the editorial team found it to be hilarious. Although written for the North American context, we think that it touches upon trends with which we, in Aotearoa New Zealand, are also all too familiar. Indeed, New Zealand is over-exposed to the influence of North America. “Organic” farmer and teacher, Adi Leeson, will agree, as will the others of the Ploughshares crew whom he recently accompanied (Stanley knives and sickle in hand) onto the Waihopai spy base!

The purpose of an editorial is to entice; therefore, note the subtextual threads we discern weaving through the contributions (science, biblical, theological, cultural, etc) of this issue – together they imply our overexposure to unfruitful foreign gods.

 The universal shape of the gospel is never an excuse for the kind of accommodation that ends in capitulation to the supposed givens of surrounding culture. It is the very incarnational particularity – in Jesus Christ – of God’s story in the world that generates, confirms, and ultimately consummates the all encompassing relatedness of the gospel. Such particularity requires that people everywhere grapple with what it is to be Christian in their place and work out the praxis of that story, with integrity and persuasive power, in their own contexts. This grappling demands that we both recognise what our location gives to us and the possibility of God’s transformation of what is given in the light God’s ultimate gift. The reason we “need to” is both an imperative and a compelling desire – it is the same need to respond viscerally, incarnationally, that moves David to plug in his guitar.

Knock, knock.

Who’s there?

Revelation

Revelation who?

Revelation 3:20.

Gavin Drew and Bridget Jennings

for the editorial committee

It is 2008, and the world is well into a century which looks like being dominated by climate change, by China, and by the challenges of religious pluralism in a religious age. New Zealand is slowly turning its attention to all three. It is ill equipped to understand the third, because it has been ill-equipped to understand religion.

Overall, our small country has shallow intellectual soil – we rely heavily on a few voices canonised by the media to interpret the wider world for us. This is especially true for the wider world of ideas. Generally, we have been shaped by an unreflective pragmatism which has its strengths, but also makes us vulnerable; we can too easily accept the assumptions and confident assertions of others about the state of intellectual play in the rest of the world. Nowhere have we proved more vulnerable to this than in the field of religion.

In the last three decades of the 20th Century, Professor Lloyd Geering came to dominate what religious discourse there was among our chattering classes, and his was also the voice most often chosen by the media to pronounce authoritatively on religious matters to mainstream New Zealand. He did this clearly, articulately, concisely, and honestly. The state recognised his significant role by conferring upon him membership of this country’s “Top Twenty” – the Order of New Zealand. And many of Geering’s perceptions and judgements about religion have fused to become the lens through which the largest growing religious group (those who ticked the “no religion” box in the census box) have tended to view such things. At the height of his public exposure he often became the only academic authority to which it was convenient to appeal, especially by those who wished to believe or disbelieve as he did, but who chose not to do the hard yards of critical reading and thinking. The problem is: that lens was, and remains, defective.

Today, Lloyd Geering is less visible, and less known to a younger generation. Yet, there are many New Zealanders who continue to echo his perceptions and judgments, whether aware of their provenance or not. Such people often continue to have considerable influence in the media, in academia, and in government circles (including education). That influence is inevitably secularist, working from within Geering’s overarching modernist paradigm, rooted in the European Enlightenment. Yet, that paradigm is trebly inadequate.

First, the western intellectual world (at least) has become postmodern and suspicious of overarching narratives.

Second, religion of one tradition or another has become ever more important globally.

And third, the modernist paradigm is only “overarching” where Christian (and other) intellectual critiques of it are ignored, as indeed they have been largely ignored by Geering.

Where the modernist paradigm still rules – as it does in much of this country – it must be challenged. Geering, of course, is not an original thinker, as he himself emphasises. Rather, he is a brilliant populariser who has done a number of us a great service in making accessible the work of a not a few classic scholars in the field of religion. Any critique of Lloyd Geering’s work is thus a critique of many of the Enlightenment challenges to Christianity over the last several centuries upon which he has drawn. This latter critique can be done, and is being done, from within western academia. There, there is a growing conviction that the Enlightenment’s conceptions have failed the tests of intellectual analysis and societal experience, though there is no agreement about what should take their place. It can, however, be salutary (and “enlightening”!) when a non-European, fully conversant with the intellectual conversations within the western world comments, at some cultural distance, on what is going on.

When Raymond Pelly and I were putting together a set of essays critiquing the work of Lloyd Geering1 we asked Professor Kwan Kai Man of Hong Kong Baptist University to contribute a paper on Geering’s thesis that God is no more than a human construct and a projection of human desires. This Kwan did, but he came up with more than that. Kwan wrote a wide-ranging and penetrating critique of Geering’s central intellectual story. Sadly, we could not include Kwan’s work in its entirety in our book we had to be content with several sections of it. Yet, we thought it very important that Kwan’s whole paper should see the light of day. Hence, this issue of Stimulus.

One striking thing about Kwan’s work on Geering is how it reveals the extent to which Geering has failed to acknowledge, let alone engage with, the full range of academic discussion about religion in general (and Christianity in particular) which has been going on for decades, both outside New Zealand and within the growing academy of very well qualified and able New Zealand theologians, biblical scholars, sociologist of religion, etc, who have been, on the whole, much less inclined to court media attention. Kwan’s quotations, footnotes, and bibliography provide a different lens, a very different lens, on that wider world of scholarship. He is conversant with that world in a way which Geering is not, and sometimes expresses his bemusement that Geering has not referred to it or engaged with it.

In addition to this intimate knowledge of western philosophy of religion, Kwan as a Chinese Christian brings a salutary cultural distance into play. Unlike many of us in this country, he knows that the Church lives in many cultures and is thriving in some, and that today its centre of gravity is no longer in the West. He is in bondage neither to our false perceptions of a declining Church, nor to our failing, Enlightenment-soaked culture. There is a cool Chinese head at work here, and we New Zealanders would do well to listen when he speaks.

Kwan’s main targets are Geering’s neo-Feuerbachianism and theological constructivism, as well as Geering’s theological anti-realism of the sort popularised by Don Cupitt (whom Geering greatly admires). Kwan instead takes a “critical realist” approach. Kwan furnishes us with a comprehensive diversity of inputs which stretch from Alvin Plantinga, through Janet Soskice, to N.T. Wright. With respect to the sociology of religion, Kwan draws upon a range of recent and contemporary scholars, particularly Peter Berger and the later Harvey Cox.

This issue of Stimulus may well be of interest to those who have adopted the positions espoused by Geering but are still open to the possibility that these positions are not unchallengeable. However, although the issue presents a specific engagement with the thought of Lloyd Geering, the value of the issue is significantly wider than that – inasmuch as Geering’s views are representative of the modernism that is at odds with orthodox Christian faith, the issue will be a valuable resource to those who seek to think these matters through in their wider context. The issue should be of interest to those New Zealanders of good will who seek to understand better the continuing phenomenon of religious belief and practice, and are willing to probe beneath the sound-bites of the media. It will be of interest to those who are exploring rational grounds for the faith which they already hold or are being drawn towards. And it is necessary reading for those Christians who have themselves ignored the intellectual challenges of the Enlightenment, and thus opened the way for shallow belief and burgeoning unbelief. Such as they need to be made to think – Geering, and now Kwan, make their readers do just that. 

Peter Stuart

Christians in the twenty-first Century need to heed especially the call to a renewed inner relationship with the natural world, and to resist the cultural mandate to control. As one phenomenologist has said, “The idea of a universe that is selfsubsistent – standing entirely on its own, fully operational and intelligible, independent of anything outside itself – is both odd and modern.” If Christians retreat to an other-worldly preoccupation it does no good to ourselves or the world.

The core papers presented in this issue of Stimulus are from a one-day Colloquium on Creation Care at Bible College, Henderson, on May 22nd. This Colloquium was jointly sponsored by A Rocha, an emerging Christian environmental organisation now affiliated with A Rocha International, and TANSA (Theology and the Natural Sciences in Aotearoa), a centre for science and faith dialogue within the Tyndale/ Carey Graduate School, partly funded by Metanexus.net.

Check out the issue here.

The August 2007 issue is being mailed out. Maurice Andrew discusses forgiveness, identity, and Christian witness. Murray Rae continues the theme of forgiveness and considers whether it can be part of foreign policy for a nation. Mike Mawson considers that old chestnut – Christendom – in the works of two seminal writers, John Howard Yoder and Oliver O’Donovan. Edmund Little responds to previous discussions in Stimulus about re-engaging with the Bible. Mike Grimshaw re-reads Romans 1 to 2:16 “after postmodernity”. And we have lots of book reviews… including Chris Marshall on Michael Baigent’s The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-up in History (!) Read the editorial and see a couple of the articles here.

The May issue of Stimulus is out now. The focus of the issue is on the challenge of Islam. Douglas Pratt provides an historical introduction to Islam as it has challenged and is now challenging Christianity. Peter McKenzie provides an expert analysis of Sharia law. Duncan Roper provides an overview of modern Islamic thought regarding the West and society as enunciated by Sayyid Qutb. Chris Beard shares some personal reflections regarding contact and friendship with Muslims in New Zealand. Peter Stuart presents some perspectives on religious freedom in a pluralist world. Tom Smail presents perspectives on trinitarian atonement.

The February 2007 issue is now out. The issue continues several of Stimulus‘ ongoing themes. A number of the articles engage overtly with our increasingly postmodern contexts and sensibilities.

The Bible
A marked ignorance of, and concern to get to grips with, the Scriptures is identified – particularly with respect to the evangelical expression of the Church. Mark Brown presents solid evidence of Bible disengagement in New Zealand. A Bible Society survey showed only 21% of those church attendees surveyed read their Bible daily, 22% read the Bible weekly, while 57% read the Bible occasionally or hardly ever! The text of Chris Marshall’s Clyde Vautier Memorial Lecture considers the matter more broadly and sharpens the focus on the major factors in scholarship and culture that condition Bible disengagement among Christians in postmodernity. Chris’ article is followed by a discussion on the matter between John Crawshaw and Chris Marshall, facilitated for Stimulus by Gavin Drew. Peter Stuart writes about the ministry of preaching, seeing it as core to the life of the Church and part of the wider ministry of the Word. His article is aimed at those who actually open the Scriptures for the edification of others in the Church, seeking to help them better understand and perform their mission.

Faith and science
The science/faith dialogue is critically examined with special attention to strengths and weakness of postmodern approached to knowledge. Sean Devine suggests that Christianity and science are far more compatible bedfellows than Christianity and postmodernism. “…in contrast to postmodernism, science does not exclude an overarching explanation of human existence.” Nicola Hoggard Creegan’s regular column discusses Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. She concludes that it is a combination of the convincing and the outrageous. While Dawkins’ criticisms have validity, they are false in the larger scheme of things.

Global mission
We are reminded of the global context of the Church and her mission as Andrew Butcher reports on his experiences at the Younger Leaders’ Gathering in Port Dickson in 2006, organised by the Lausanne movement. Andrew reminds us that God has “the whole world in his hands” and shares his experiences of meeting, talking, and worshiping with those who follow Jesus in many different countries. Not a few of those with whom Andrew fellowshipped will suffer severe persecution and may die for their faith.

Again Geering
Lloyd Geering, is again topical. In this issue a report and two review articles cover Geering’s autobiography Wrestling with God and the collection of critical essays about him entitled A Religious Atheist? Together the three contributions scrutinise Geering’s thought, as a cultural and intellectual phenomenon, against the backdrop of increasing dissatisfaction with the modernism that shaped him and characterised his life’s work.

Stimulus is currently planning the next issues. February 2007 will include the annual Clyde Vautier lecture. This year it was Chris Marshall talking about re-engaging with the bible in a postmodern world. We also have Peter Stuart sharing some of the theological foundations for the ministry of preaching.

 We are currently proposing that the May 2007 issue be focused on the issues of Islam and Christianity. Further out, we are currently looking to have August 2007 looking at issues of ecology and the gospel. More to come…

Stimulus 14-4 is now available.   In this issue we look behind Dan Brown’s story and its pseudoscholarship at some of the considerations in scholarship implied by The Da Vinci Code. All but one of the “Christianity and the feminine: The Da Vinci Code phenomenon” articles were given as papers at a colloquium of the same name, organised by the Wellington Theological Consortium, on Saturday 8 July 2006, at the Mercy Centre, Wellington.  

Stimulus 14-3 is now available. It presents papers given at the Forum of the Christian Left (FOCaL) Conference 2006. The conference, entitled “Church and Society after Election 2005”, featured papers from a number of New Zealand commentators including: Dr James Harding, FOCaL trustee and Old Testament lecturer at Otago University; Prof. Peter Lineham, Associate Professor of History at Massey University, Albany Campus; and Dr Anthony Dancer, Social Service Commissioner, Anglican Church New Zealand. Enjoy.