William Chong

This morning I was at a men’s Bible study. We’re currently examining Colossians 2 and what the passage is referring to, and what we can draw out of it into our daily living.

The discussion this morning centered around Col 2:16-17. One person explained that this passage means we shouldn’t therefore judge other Christian’s differences in beliefs and traditions, and seek to promote unity between faith traditions. He gave the example of seeking unity with people who are in the Roman Catholic church.

However, another person in the group countered that purity was more important, and that this verse doesn’t absolve Christians of the responsibility to do things such as “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). He countered that to keep the purity of the church we should separate from other faith traditions that add regulations and rules to what Christ has done, such as the Roman Catholic church.

There were a host of other topics that came out of studying this text together: the sufficiency of Christ, legalism, the role of the Ten Commandments in our life today, Roman Catholics and what they believe, and so on. But we all had to leave and the main question seemed unresolved: what is more important for the Body of Christ, unity or purity? Also, does Colossians 2:16-17 refer to unity/purity or is it in a different context?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Truth and love, thanks!

The New Zealand 2008 General Elections are nearly upon us, and before I throw myself into the democratic process like the rest of the country, I’d like to digress.

At the end of August, I was driving Cheryl and Kim to a Vietnamese restaurant for a spot of dinner. We were searching for a carpark; on driving past a row that was filled up, I turned into the private car park behind the shop fronts to make a three-point turn and get back onto the main road.

I was in the middle of turning my car around and had stopped in the middle of the carpark, when a lady reversed into the front of my car. We exchanged details and I thought that the problem would be easily resolved.

However, she subsequently refused to accept liability, and fabricated (a la Winston Peters) a story that we had both reversed into each other. This is in full knowledge that:

• my car was stationary
• my car was facing forwards
• my car’s damage is not on the bumper but on the side panel where she hit me
• I had two people sitting in the car who can corroborate my version of events

I’m somewhat inclined to “let losses lie”, but I’m aware that the cost of panelbeating the vehicle is quoted at over $1000 – a definite financial strain, since I’m no Owen Glenn. My insurance company can’t cover my damage since I’m on a third party policy, and I’ve got little hope of getting anything from her insurance company since they won’t advise their clients to accept liability.

So the question now is: should I take this through to the disputes tribunal? It’s an unsavoury path but at the same time, the repair would cost a bundle. Thoughts/comments would be appreciated.