Author: Ian Harris

The majority of the movie is a conversation among three characters: a Norwegian scientist, Sonia Hoffman, “the only woman in my department, the first in Norway doing quantum field theory”; an American politician and former presidential candidate, Jack Edwards; and poet Thomas Harriman, a former political speechwriter, as they wander around Mont Saint-Michel, France. The setting therefore makes this a little different than just three talking heads.

The Discussion is wide ranging starting with Descartes mechanistic view of the world and people’s behaviour which suggests that everything can be broken down into their component parts.  Problems can be solved by addressing the issues of each part.  But the discussion revolves around the concept that everything at from a macro to sub-atomic particle level, is inextricably interconnected.  Fixing the bits only addressing the symptoms – not the underlying causes. However taking a holistic view is almost impossible in today’s partisan, take-no-prisoners, political environment where firm, visionary leadership with an eye on the wellbeing of future generations not just the present one, is seen as unacceptably autocratic.

However such political circumstances don’t change the truth of the underlying issues – you can’t do deals with nature as one of our members observed.  Scientists are not held accountable for their discoveries eg nuclear bomb, but lose control when discoveries are handed over to the paymasters.  How can we justify the aspiration for continual economic growth and increase in standards of living beyond that which the planet can sustain?

Not a very dynamic film with some heavy dialogue, but raised some fundamental issues which we are unwilling or unable to face up to.

The Progressive community in the Bible Belt was very clear about where they stood without being exclusive.  While such statements will not satisfy everyone and some may disagree to such an extent that they leave, such statements do provide a sense of what that community stands for.  Trying to satisfy everyone can mean standing  for nothing.  Having clear objectives/mission and then executing accordingly provides focus and motivation.  Interestingly the largest church group is the Peacemaking Committee – ie addressing environmental, justice and peace issues – suggesting a group of highly motivated people trying to make a difference.  They challenged local strip mining, hold an Evolution Sunday/Weekend close to Darwin’s birthday, hold equinox and solstice celebrations, use drumming, dancing and blogging extensively with a un-apologetic viewpoint.  Two quotes of their situation ” Spiritual bullying is a reality wherever you go.” and “Being progressive … is about being human and being in community.”  Amen to that.

In the last few weeks, as we have delved further into this publication, it has proven to be a very interesting collection of short essays, sayings and thought pieces.  Some will make you laugh, some cry, some cause to muse over and most will cause you to pause and think.  It’s not a book one reads from cover to cover, but to dip into read a few, pause for reflection, consider application and move onto something else.  Highly recommended.

We lead the worship service at 9:30am on ‘Believing or Doing – that’s the question’ which outlined the development of the Apostle’s and particularly the Nicene, Creeds.  The service included a dialogue discussion and a time for reflection via pictures and music.

We attended a presentation and discussion on a regional launch of the Living Wage Campaign hosted by the Wellington Anglican diocese and Tawa Baptists in the Tawa College Hall.  The evening was introduced with a video about how individuals in the US had been assisted back into the workplace and the impact his had had on their lives.

Then there was then a presentation on how the Living Wage of $18.41 for Wellington and $23.11 in Auckland had been devised. The Living Wage assumes 1.5 fulltime employment for a family of 4.   33% of wage earners earn less than the Living Wage.  This compares with the minimum wage of $13.75 (and from 1 May a youth rate of 80% of that ie $11.00).  Attendees were encouraged to ask retailers if they were prepared to pay, or move towards, the Living Wage and give our support or otherwise to those businesses.

Two contrasting thought pieces on the difficult topic of writing what one should or does, believe.   The Nicene Creed was established in 325 CE and amended 381 CE as a kind of test for potential members to join the Christian church increasingly aligning itself with the fading Roman Empire.   It’s aim was to ensure a particular viewpoint/belief (in this case that Jesus was equal in standing with the Father) was regarded as ‘correct’ and therefore all other views were wrong.  The resulting legacy for the church has, at least at times, shown that an emphasis on orthodoxy stifles orthopraxy!  We doubt that there is any need for the Nicene or the Apostle’s Creed nor any benefit in trying to develop one for today.  Beliefs are very diverse and we don’t need to develop ‘hurdles’ to ‘test’ people’s commitment.  As we’ve noted before, actions display the true self not giving abeyance to a set of doctrinal claims.

Rex Hunt puts forward the Canberra Declaration as an attempt to record what progressive Christianity can affirm.  It’s quite wordy but steers clear of definitive statements of belief. We also considered other modern affirmations of faith which some of us could ascribe to parts thereof!  This just illustrates the difficulties in writing such statements compared with letting one’s living make the statement.  May our living be the expression of our affirmation of faith!

We started with a discussion on our understanding of the concept of Feminism? Words such as ‘equal’, ‘no discrimination’, ‘not just a women’s movement’, ‘women with equal opportunities’ were suggested.  Val Webb suggests that its more akin to ‘a personal experience to infer the divine’. [This contrasts with male-created doctrines imposed on women especially ‘sin’ and its remedy of self giving love, ignoring one’s own interests and seeking only other’s good. In Webb’s view women are too submissive, rather than asserting their own personhood. ]

Paul, as expressed in the biblical writings, had a very negative attitude towards women and this has been reflected in Church structures and theologies.  We noted that women are much more open about their feelings and relationships compared with men who tend to focus on more impersonal, practical aspects.

The Bible contains many stories of powerful and influential women; many of Jesus’s friends and followers were women. We agreed that to be a credible voice in today’s society, we need to be much more aware of gender neutrality and avoid stereo-typing the sexes.

Holy Communion.  What was the origin of this ‘celebration’? Unlikely to be have been a formal last meal of Jesus with his disciples, though they ate together often and there would have been a last time – whether anticipated or not.  A common thought is that the last supper is based on either the Passover meal or the traditional Friday evening family meal prior to the Sabbath.  John explored these options in some depth and noted that there are elements of both in the Gospel accounts (blessing of the wine and then bread from Friday; singing of Ps 136 from the Passover) as well as inconsistencies (the Passover lamb was not a sacrifice for sin – that was wheat).  Overall John thought the Last Supper was closer in form to the Friday evening meal.  We appreciated the ‘Take, Bless, Break, Give’ as a summary of Communion and as a celebration of the whole of life put forward by Hunt.

Dubious Doctrines and Suspicious Scriptures.  This is only a short piece. We accept most of the ‘heresies’ identified.  Our understanding is that orthodoxy is less important than orthopraxis.  The purpose of the Gospel is to disturb and motivate people into action for a more just, compassionate world for all – not to stimulate academic discussions!

This section of the book starts with an introduction What is Heresy?  In short the answer appears to be ‘views which challenge the established ‘authority’s’ view in some way’.  This reflects an apparent need to protect the accepted orthodoxy of the church body that feels its core beliefs are under attack.  For the thinker, judgement needs to be applied as to one’s perception of the criticality of the orthodoxy being challenged or whether the alternative interpretation opens a door to some greater truth or understanding.

Conservatives would usually wish to defend (whatever the contrary view being put forward); liberals might say ‘that’s interesting, what are the implications if I accept that view?”  Hersey originally also had a less contentious meaning as in an ‘alternative opinion’.  Encouraging people to work through issues for themselves is a good way for new ideas to be introduced and further refined, and allows the organisation they belong to grow and evolve.  Defending ‘truths’ however apparently critical, is not a way to increased understanding or commitment.

We recognised that there is no obvious path to change established beliefs and doctrines.  Most church organisations shy away from discussion on such matters.  At least in this way they avoid any potentially damaging internal conflicts and ‘splits’!

We then went on to briefly consider 5 of the 10 ‘heretics’ each identified by the author with a short sketch of their life and heresy.  These were Marcion (founded the first Canon which excluded the Jewish testament); Arius, (denied the equality of God and Jesus, leading the church to eventually develop the doctrine of The Trinity); Meister Eckhart (saw God not as an anthropomorphic father figure but in all things); Servetus (denied the Trinity and was killed for his beliefs) and Galileo Galilei (proposed a heliocentric universe – finally recognised by the Catholic Church in 1992).

Contrary views, logically and sensitivity expressed, are the lifeblood of any dynamic and forward thinking organisation.  This is what the Church needs to become and modern day heretics have key a role to play.

The full title is even more intriguing and gives a hint of the author’s intent: ‘What They Told Us in Seminary but We Never Got to Preach About’.  Leaves’ theology training in seminary included exploration of the latest thinkers, knowledge and interpretation.  Class mates included women and gay ordinands.   His vision was to contribute to a church that was “open, inclusive and life giving”.

This was not to be.  The church was light years away from such concepts, with senior clergy and most congregational members wanting to preserve the status quo.  How could contemporary ideas of inclusive language, sexual identity, liberation from patriarchy be progressed when there was an insistence on retaining the use of the 1622 Book of Common Prayer?   Leaves contents that this gap between what is taught and what the ‘Church’ wants, is still very much apparent.

This is the experience of our group as well.  Many regular church members would regard our discussion and contemplation to be way too far from the established and unchanging position of their Sunday School days.

Leaves rounds up this short essay with a plea that only ‘good theology’ will save religions and even maybe save the Church.  It was a pity that this term was not defined.  Good theology also needs to be accompanied by strong imagery, stories and emotion to communicate fully to people and encourage their participation in exploration of the ‘good news that can transform their situation and the world at large.’