KEY POINTS:
Have others noticed the increasing incidence of blaming those "fundamentalist Christians" for the ills of society and opposing the suggested cures?
They were blamed for making trouble during the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act and the Civil Unions Act. And before the political deal cut between John Key and Helen Clark over the anti-smacking bill, the Prime Minister asserted that it was "extreme-right-wing fundamentalist groups" who were spreading misinformation to incite the population to opposition.
The Deputy Prime Minister labelled the vanguard of opponents as religious fanatics and extremists "as well as other various forms of strange people".
The media seems to have used the term "fundamentalist Christians" regularly lately to describe those strange people who protest social legislation on the basis of biblical principles.
These comments betray a ready willingness to blame social and legislative problems on a small, vulnerable and only vaguely identifiable minority group - paradoxical given that the party of the Prime Minister claims to have a particular concern for minority groups.
There is probably no better target than the straw man of fundamentalist Christians when a diversion from one's own political failures is needed, for they are far too numerically weak to be electorally important, too fragmented to be a coherent intellectual force, and sufficiently vaguely defined to enable just about everyone except Brian Tamaki to escape personal identification.
The 2006 census reports that there were just 14,000 "evangelical, born gain and fundamentalist Christians", which is much less than half a per cent of the national population.
Even if "extremists" in other denominations are added, it is safe to say that less than 1 per cent of the population can be labelled as fundamentalist.
Poll after poll found that an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders (80 to 85 per cent) opposed the anti-smacking legislation - more than there are Christians in New Zealand and at least 82 per cent more than there are "fundamentalist Christians". The group really to be pitied is those 82 per cent of people who were implicitly accused of being too easily swayed by "religious fanatics and other strange people".
The concomitant implication was that they are fortunate to have political leaders to keep them safe, if only they'd pay attention.
From a Christian perspective, however, the word fundamentalist has been hijacked to conjure up negative images of militant, hateful and law-trampling people who will stop at nothing to get their own way.
According to the proponents of this view, the message is clear - New Zealanders should be afraid, be very afraid. History and statistics will testify that the truth, even if imperfectly lived out, is somewhat different.
Christians are some of the most pacific, selfless and law-respecting people in society. Few, if any, of the high-profile child-bashing cases in the past few years appear to have been living in Christian families.
In the Roman Empire in the first century Nero began the tradition of blaming Christians for the empire's problems. Today, the empire's problems are, once again, being blamed on Christians. The empire is no longer Roman but it is imperial all the same.
It is the empire of secular humanism, in which humans are considered to be merely advanced animals. This outlook manifests in a belief that there is no higher law than our own, in desire being the primary guide for ethics, and in comfort being more important than truth.
History and scholarship attest to the contribution of Christianity through the ages. The sovereignty of God, the value of human life, the wonder of creation, the love of the Saviour and the sanctity of the family are the principles upon which Western civilisation was largely based.
Those who hold to these principles are the true fundamentalists. When lived out, these principles produce citizens who work diligently, pay their taxes, do jury service, donate money to good works, run charities, volunteer their services to city missions, look after the sick, and a multitude of other socially valuable functions.
These are not things to be ashamed of. How unfortunate, therefore, that the word "fundamental", when applied to Christians, has been distorted to mean something so negative.
* David Lindsey is a fundamentalist Christian, working on a PhD in NZ politics. His thesis is on how Parliament handles moral issues.
