MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Churches working together

Filed under: General — Julie @ 9:44 pm Sat 9th June 2007

Last Sunday, I attended a church service. I guess I just felt like it. It was huge. Not just the building but the amount of people that attended. When I was a young Catholic, churches were anti each other as if which ever church you belonged to was right and all the rest were wrong. You were saved in the mind of the church you went to and your neighbour next door was going to hell because they had it wrong. And over the years it seemed that many turned on Catholics which I suppose was them challenging the old school way.

In THIS church, I saw congregations from all different church groups come together and bond in their praise to God and for some, their respect for the sabbath. There was not one leader as in a paster but 11 of them. 11 leaders all able to work together. I got the chance to talk to 2 of them and ask questions. How much do they know about feminism and the UN and the elite? What are they doing to stand against the evil doing in the world? The answer to the first question was, “not much” and the answer to the second question was that churches have their own callings. Church as a representation of people means that each has their own department. Destiny church is one department fighting for God and good through politics. Others teach the news to new comers, others work in the community like the Salvation Army and so forth. I personally think it is remarkable how well this is working and how they are an enemy to feminists who want to destroy the Patriarchy without really knowing it and other players that want to destroy religion. They are a movement themselves to fight for families and against the state.

Mind you I have also spoken to an elder of Jehovah Witness and am aware that not all christian churches are accepting of becoming one congregation under God. Infact some church goers will not attend any other church other than their own. Back to the idea that one is saved and the other are not. lol

However the ones that are working together do make a huge difference. Somehow, someway they banded and still respect each other and give each other space. One paster told me that they all dabble in politics sometimes and they all teach new comers but they understand each other and support each other. He also told me that each person has their own calling from God which decides what they will do in the work.

I guess that is like … finding what you are good at and using those abilities for the good work of the movement and finding where you feel comfortable. I know they weren’t always like this but they work so well together now. One paster is incharge of youth and another is for something else and so on.

I believe this is what the men’s movement is doing gradually and for sure the feminist movement did the same.


  1. Yea Julie,
    As a practicing Christian (Anglican) you may as well have described our service a couple of Sunday’s ago. Our Vicar is supportive of Men. We are having a group called “Not the 5 o’clock swill” In a sympathetic pub, men only, with challenging speakers. Numbers are increasing.


    P.S. Pauls-news has another active Christian on it

    Comment by Alastair — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 10:33 pm

  2. The issues of conflict are the same with the church as they are with any form of power that is set against another. The administrators have a requirement to be stronger than others because that is how they do their work by being the central platform. The problems that mature are inherently the same within such institutions where the social protocols become established to protect the event of effective maintenance and there by the continuation of whatever it is that is to be maintained. If the general practice of good will is corroded at any stage in these proceedings and the momentum is maintained then the good will is slowly deflated and (in general) the natural market takes its hold to maintain any such primary variation.

    The Christian church (I too am Anglican) have the same interpretation that stabilises its control over other influences which for the orthodox is baptism. Baptism is the licence of access to Jesus Christ. This is the same with evangalism. To be born again the convert must undergo their baptism. This isn’t to denote or denegrate baptism it is an observation. Jesus’ words, however, were somewhat more primary for those who would believe as before he was killed he gave mankind a universal licence by which to remember Him which is communion: being His body and his blood. The question I have raised in other forums and I hope to get some answer from those forums rather than this one necessarily is which should mankind hold in the stronger priority; baptism or communion? The issue of parental rights is somewhat identical. The conflict that is presently disaffecting the church is homosexuality. The broken priorities are discrimination against homosexuals or functionality. By functionality I mean how we exist. We exist by procreating. I percive in this forum that child rearing is more important than wanting to have sex with another of the same sex. So like with the religious debate you come back to the same principle of setting your priority to protect the more fundamental as specific to the cause.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 10th June 2007 @ 2:20 pm

  3. Alistair, the church I was talking about in my post also has a men’s group. I am so glad to hear that your church has one also.

    When I first started here a group that do relationship counselling at the Baptist Church encouraged me to stay. They said I was lucky that men were talking to me and they gave me a list of things to ask. “Why do the men beat their women and why do the men not father their children?”

    Wow, did I want to run away but JohnP (bless his soul) also helped me stay and now I can honestly say that, “What you are about and what other males like you are about” is nothing that any of us could have ever imagined.

    Please use your group. Things are changing so much in our community. BTW, what area of NZ are you?

    Comment by julie — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 4:28 pm

  4. You Julie Are a NUTTER.
    Always finding a way to screw up others.
    Put more Effort into your kids…God help them

    Comment by Happy Lady — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 8:50 pm

  5. Hey, happy Lady.

    Do you have something worthwhile or are you just having fun digging at me?

    Comment by julie — Wed 13th June 2007 @ 9:06 pm

  6. Julie,

    you are in danger here of not recognising what is being said. The point is, for your energy, and you have a lot, that it may be the thing that drives you rather than the thing it is that you say you champion. It is easy to find a distraction if the emphasis on ones functionality becomes critical – Happy Lady’s submission offered you such a retreat. You want to know what Happy Lady was saying – not how you could rebuff it – or at least this has been the posture of your comments so far – that you are dedicated to challenging the problem of separations after they have occured. It is easy to brush off others when they exercise less energy than yourself. In this, I am still interested in your reply to whether or not you would write to Mark Burton and ask him the questions I suggested, especially as inconsistent to your other posts you have not answered this specific post immediately. Off line you asked me to whom you could write to and I have replied in answering your question. The point here as it is obvious that I am challenging the energy of those who say they are energetic supporting fathers and the alienation they suffer from their children after a separation – as to just how far they are prepared to act against talk.

    I appreciate the comment you made in your last reply to me that there are some dudes out there who will protect what they have established to any end. This is the point of my basic principle in reply. Our politicians would send men from the national flock to the slaughter of war in order to defend their rights to rule. Once they are ruling, does that give them the right to put the fear of God into them so to obey the next string of corruption in practice?

    The point in this is that if the people with the energy to challenge the administration are going to back off when the going gets tough then there is litelarrly no point in them taking part in the challenge as Happy Lady may be saying – you can do more damage to those you are allegedly supporting because the tax against them just gets bigger.


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 10:29 am

  7. I know Mark Burton and I know his wife. I lived in Taupo for may years. You need to give me something that I can comprehend. I am not into law as well as you. I am reading what Bevan says but it is new to me.

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 10:39 am

  8. I appreciate that personal aquintances make the challenge on the administration of which they are a part difficult. I can be, if not am alienated from a considerable section of my teenage peers where two (more I am sure) are directly in the administrations of control that is inflicting the carnage. If you had to comprehend the situation in order to ask the question and that protocol was shifted into the House of Representatives under a Speakers Order then I doubt there would be many patsy questions asked in parliament from the backbenching government MP’s.

    Digression apart: I would get you to ask the Office of the Ombudsmen instead but we haven’t (as a movement) advanced quite that far yet although we are not far off.

    (I digress again: It is good that you are listening and reading what Bevan has to say, where in the maturity of the issue if my interpretation is sound and held what Bevan has to say is of extraordinary value and demands critical excellence. It is that he hasn’t yet directed on which foot masters the accelarator against how he would use the clutch that brakes nearly everything -)

    In order to qualify the strength of my points and not lose these values if you are hesitant to challenge the damage directly at its source, I will need to change the question and the task into something a little more simple and less abrasive. However, there is no loss in value in asking a different question it just means that we (the public interest) haven’t yet gained the ground that we need to achieve in order to progress into reconstituting the country into the fairness of any one common document.

    So why not write to the Prime Minister. Ask her: “will the present review onthe justice system not include family law and court practices and proceedures”.

    If not going for Mark Burton on the Bill of Rights and the DVA’s primary inconsistencies with that legislation you remove the urgency of the Official Informations Act.

    I ask you to take something on board in this: if you do it it is because you want to, because you can see the sense behind directly challenging the injustice. You lose nothing if it is not what you would want to do.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 11:03 am

  9. Benjamin,

    I have no beef with Mark Burton or his wife. They are down to earth people and do care about families. Why do you think he has been in office for so long. lol

    Comment by julie — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 12:34 pm

  10. You’ve missed the question again Julie.

    In answer to yours – because he is an efficient politician.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 1:12 pm

  11. I have just discovered this thread.

    I am an Anglican lay minister and I wsa interested to read Ben’s question over which has priority, baptism or Holy Communion.

    While baptism comes first, both are sacraments commanded by Christ himself, in my view, what alone is essential is faith:

    16yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (Galatians 2:16).

    Faith is our priority and all else must follow.

    Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 10:35 pm

  12. The law is that which is employed by the Church but the blood and body of Christ is man or woman’s direct access to his remeberance. Remebering Christ through his sacrifice has nothing at all to do with whether or not the Church will let you partake of that sacrifice. The Church by controlling the value of baptism establish themselves as the law and comman in the love of Jesus. Your quote therefore, as specific to the thread if the Church is prepared to recognise that it in such a sense is the law is profound. If the Church is not prepared to recognise that it is administering rules around Jesus’ love and access sets itself up into the kind of body that we have learned over some years require a good protest to assist them to figure it out.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 16th June 2007 @ 1:26 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar