Report to the October 2015 Dunedin Sea of Faith meeting on the

2015 Sea of Faith conference, St Cuthbert’s College, Auck.

Micawber vs Cassandra: Responding to an increasingly uncertain future

Lloyd Geering introduced the theme by recalling how he came to write his 1999 book ‘The World to Come’, which was prescient about our increasingly uncertain future. He brought his scenarios up to date: there are a few changes, and some have become more pressing.

As we’ve heard from Lloyd before, only we humans can solve the problems threatening the world. ‘For the first time in human history, the human species is being forced to become one global community – one in which all nations, races, cultures and religions are becoming intermingled, with each influencing the others’.

Anjum Rahman, a lively and impressive Muslim woman from Hamilton, spoke about the increasing diversity and the increasing divisiveness (power, wealth, poverty) in New Zealand: ‘we still don’t do well at recognising that the make-up of our country has changed or, at the very least, accept that other people do things differently and that our structures and institutions don’t serve them well’.

‘My contention is that it is time to move beyond these divisions to the realities of commonality. It is imperative that we do so, and in doing so, we build movements for change’. She says this applies to the future of the world, as well as of New Zealand.

Kennedy Graham, Green MP with an education and UN experience in international politics: ‘There is a new knowledge of the cosmos itself, spawning a new sense of infinite wonder. There is a dawning recognition that we are personally responsible for the degradation of the planet. And we are taking the identity and direction of our species into our own hands. The magnitude and impact of these developments are unprecedented and cannot be under-stated. We require ‘a change of mind-set – a sense of planetary responsibility, a new global political mentality’.

Although it wasn’t his main thesis, I found the insights Kennedy gave us into the working of the UN to be very encouraging. For all its flaws, it is doing much good work and it is the bones of a global government. But how to get there? It will take major change. First, we all need to encourage a ‘spiritual revolution’ in ourselves, our communities, and our species. Then ‘we need education, we need new political thinking, and a new form of transcendent thought’.

What sort of person might lead a global government? Kennedy suggested a Churchill, ‘for his stern and resolute good cheer’, and says Dag Hammarskjold came close to ‘speaking for the world’. Current thinkers he recommends are Joachim Schellnhuber (Germany) and Johan Rockstrom (Sweden).

Rod Oram, talking on The Theology of Economics, discussed ‘how our care of creation will enliven our theology and legitimise our economics’. From his opening contention that ‘economic is value-free’ he then used a remarkable array of slides to highlight planetary issues from an economics viewpoint. One slide (using a doughnut shape) showed all the issues to be addressed to provide a ‘safe and just space for humanity, with inclusive and sustainable economic development’.

He then demonstrated that, while the ‘issues are increasingly global, the solutions are increasingly local’. For every individual, our world encompasses

Ecology (home)

Economy (stewardship of a household)

Ethics (moral principle).

These matters define how we look after ourselves, our place and our planet, and also our relationships with each other and the planet.

These four papers are available at www.sof.org.nz/doclist.htm

On the Saturday afternoon David Hines (former Chair of Auckland SoF and Christian Atheist & Public relations officer, Secular Education Network) gave a talk:

Bible in Schools, no: Teaching about all beliefs, yes

He is very concerned that teaching the bible in schools is

• Allowed in our secular country
• Anyone can do it (including an increasing number of fundamentalists)
• There is no control over what is taught
• Children have to ‘opt out’ – which children are known to be reluctant to do

Gretchen Kivell

Frances Smithson

20 October 2015

Politics – Marjorie Spittle

I would never have thought that I would be speaking about politics at a Sea of Faith meeting. However, mindful of our promise that Sea of Faith is a “safe place to talk about unsafe things” here I go. I will not be delving into dirty politics except to quote from Colin James who wrote in his article earlier this week: “In a well-functioning democracy ends do not justify the means. The means are what defines a democracy. And good democratic practice is the foundation of good government.” I’m sure we all at times feel disenchanted, even disgusted with politics. We listen to the revelations of the last two weeks or maybe when parliament is in session we tune in to the debating chamber and think “there must be a better way than this”. Yet we are grateful that we live in a democracy, that we do have the right to vote and that the potential for bringing about change is there.

What I propose to do is to offer 3 questions that I hope will be relevant to our Sea of Faith group with a comment on each and hope that it will lead to some discussion.

Question number one: How will I decide to vote?

Sea of Faith members will no doubt have some common values they will draw on as they decide where to give their support.

We all believe that we need to do far more than look at which party will give us the best deal as an individual and be looking at the wider view of creating the best society we can. Many of us come from a Christian background or at least we have grown up in a society in which the Christian influence was strong. I personally come from a Methodist background that emphasised social responsibility. When I offered to do this one of our members suggested we could ask – What would Jesus do? That’s a good starting point I thought. After all I have always tried to follow the teachings in the Gospels as a sounding board for forming my opinions and setting values. Jesus’ examples of caring for the outcast, feeding the hungry, valuing children, his advice to the rich young man to “sell all you have and give to the poor” all resonate well. However while trying to follow Christian teachings may be helpful there are a growing number of new and complex issues we face today that hit the political arena where we have to think things through for ourselves and where there is no directive from biblical sources. Here are a few examples; Euthanasia. What would Jesus think about making it legal to take someone’s life when there is little quality left? In his day life expectancy was probably half what it is today and his society did not have the advantages of modern medicine. Again what would be Jesus’ view on legalising marijuana? We have a political party totally devoted to that cause. I’m sure there were herbal highs around in his day but no guidelines there. What would be his view on immigration? Should all be welcomed to enjoy the advantages and safety of living in New Zealand or are we putting too much stress on poor people in our largest city who cannot afford to put a roof over their heads. ? What would Jesus approach be to climate change and the preservation of the planet? Who would Jesus vote for? The very idea would be strange to a person living in an occupied country where universal suffrage would be at best a very distant prospect and probably not even dreamed of. Some of these questions we have debated in Sea of Faith and will continue to do so. It may be naïve but it has always surprised me, and still does, that people who would appear to have similar values and ideals can be so at variance in their political leanings.

Among my own close friends I have one who organised and hosted a Garden party for John Key in the Bay of Plenty and others at the other end of the spectrum. I look back with some fondness at the time when we were at school together and as teenagers had quite heated discussions about politics. Now we tread so much more carefully and keep to safe topics like grandchildren. No we will not find a common party that all caring people support. I will say no more on this as David is going to give us some insight into why this is the case.

What helps you in deciding how to vote?

. Question 2: What are the major issues to consider in this election?

A major issue that is continually in the forefront of Sea of Faith thinking is climate change, the preservation of planet earth and how we conserve life. The charge is ably led by Lloyd Geering who speaks with urgency of the need for action now if we are to ensure future life on planet earth for our not too distant descendants. We have had conferences devoted to this topic. Many will have this uppermost in their minds as election day approaches.

I do not in the least wish to undermine the importance of this issue. Yet I confess what I feel even more passionate about is the ever growing gap between rich and poor. Yes I want a planet earth for my descendants but I also want them to enjoy a quality of life that is denied to so many at the moment. It saddens me greatly that our own country has slipped so far away from an egalitarian society to the extent that we now come near the top of the pole for child poverty, domestic violence and diseases like rheumatic fever. From such inequality comes increased crime, violence, ill health, lack of self respect, jealousy and despair. I look back to the post war years in New Zealand. Following after a very lean period of depression and war, the late 40s and 50s were a time of optimism, hope and a building together of communities where people looked out for each other and by in large had a very similar standard of living. I grew up in a small town in a working class family. There were never luxuries but there was always enough food, a home, an annual holiday, and access to low cost health care and, if one aspired to it, tertiary education. We never locked our doors. Of course there have always been people who have found it hard to make ends meet but the big difference is that there were very few rich people. Now there are many more of both rich and poor.

It is easy to look back on the past with rose tinted glasses and we can never go back. Yet I can’t help but feel there were political things happening there that worked in establishing healthy communities where people had the dignity of work , the ability to feed and clothe their families and where a “man’s home was his castle”. Maybe we should be trying to reinvent that kind of society.

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level recently spoke in Dunedin. They emphasise both sustainable living and closing the gap between rich and poor. They suggested this could be done either by raising taxes for the rich or by not having such a difference in income in the first place.

I am somewhat encouraged that some polices are now emerging that do touch on the issue of poverty and the growing gap between rich and poor.

What are the major issues for you?

Question 3: Do I vote for the party of my choice regardless of how it is likely to poll?

This may be a hypothetical question as the minor party I was attracted to seems to have dropped off the radar but I would like to hear what you think about it.

If I find a Party in my study of policies that I want to support but it does not look as if it will win an electorate seat or reach the 5% threshold do I still vote for it or do I go for the closest to it that is likely to be represented in parliament. I don’t want to waste my vote. I guess it is a question of should I vote for my preferred party or tactically?

In conclusion Geoffrey Palmer, speaking on the Nigel Latta show on alcoholism recently said that we needed a politician with the intestinal fortitude to challenge big international companies. He was addressing the issue of why the government had not followed the recommendations of the committee set up to curb the out of control drinking patterns in the country by taking measures to limit access to alcohol. In a recent Time magazine Barack Obama is quoted as saying: “ Around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be…. We need a new order that’s based on a different set of principles … on a sense of common humanity.” Great words but Obama has not found it possible to put what he sees is needed into reality.

I like those phrases “intestinal fortitude” and “new order.” They speak to me of courage to be different, to work for change. What I would really like to see is a true statesman or woman who will inspire and lead a party that is not afraid to really turn things around, who will not be influenced by the monied companies but will be concerned for the welfare of its citizens, even the weakest, who will speak up for justice and equality for all, who will take action to close the gap and will expect the rich to contribute more of their wealth so that others do not live in abject poverty. A party that demonstrates that it genuinely cares for all people and for the world we live in and will create in New Zealand a country that I would be happy to bequeath to my grandchildren.

I do not see any person or party offering real change but there are some signs of movement in that direction. It may take longer than this election but I am cautiously optimistic.

So just repeating the 3 questions:

1. How do you decide to vote?
2. What are the main issues for you this election?
3. Should I vote for my preferred party regardless of whether it will have representation or tactically?

Sea of Faith Odyssey
When I was a child growing up in a Brethren family living in a provincial NZ town the Bible was the ultimate and only guide for belief and practise. It was seen as the inerrant Word of God and the study of it was taken very seriously. Miracles were largely seen as literal historical events as was the creation story, Noah’s ark, and the physical return of Jesus ‘as a thief in the night’ to take the true Christians to heaven and leave all the sinners behind. God was a real entity with whom you could converse and Jesus was his sinless son. My abiding memories of church as a child was being forced to sit quietly for hours listening to how sinful I was and the need to be ‘saved’ reinforced with stories of Christ’s second coming and the glories of heaven contrasted with the eternal torments of hell and the ‘lake of fire’. It was always a relief to get up in the morning and find that my parents were still there. I would quite like now to have a word or two with those preachers as such fears and scars take a long time to go away. Interestingly, even at this early stage doubts about the truth of such teaching were beginning with thoughts as – ‘It seems hard to believe that the queen is going to hell but she can’t be saved – she is Anglican and not a real Christian’.
School life was again influenced by the views of my parents and while it was certainly not an unhappy time things such as not being permitted to attend social activities such as school dances and formals and a tight restriction on Sunday activities tended to separate you from your peers. This idea of separation I suspect came from Paul’s admonition to ‘Come out from among them and be ye separate…’. Your peers were of course all going to hell if the church’s teaching was to be believed.
Unfortunately unless you could claim to have had some form of conversion experience you were also in the same boat and this feeling of exclusion and sinfulness was reinforced by the seating arrangements at the weekly communion service. This focussed on a table holding bread and wine with the seating for those accepted into the fellowship (the ‘saved’) arranged around it and with seating for the sinners at the back. Having a number of unsupervised and ‘sinful’ children and young people in the back rows was of course not a clever idea and there were often painful repercussions later for misbehaving during this time. My father held the biblical view that to spare the rod was to spoil the child and he was not going to have spoilt children.
To offset to some extent this social deprivation there was school Crusaders and a Youth for Christ group which both had an enthusiastic following and which I enjoyed and participated in. It was really nice to be part of a group with commonly held beliefs and the feeling of solidarity that goes with that especially if the group is seen as being slightly different.
Moving to the city at the start of an engineering career and having no connections other than Brethren ones it was logical that I continued my association and this time with a more open Assembly. This turned out to be a very generous and friendly community with a vibrant youth group and subsequently a very supportive ‘young marrieds’ group and over the years I became fully involved in the various activities. My wife and I met and were married there, I ran the Every Boys Rally for several years, played the organ, taught bible class, sat on the deacons court and was an elder for a number of years. Little by little however the disconnect between what was understood to be inspired truth and what I was reading from other sources started to become an issue and I took the view that since this was my church I had the right to express my increasingly liberal views on such things as evolution, virgin births and the interpretation of scripture even if these differed from what others thought. This latter period proved extremely stressful as there were so few people with whom you could discuss such things without being accused of ‘causing your brother to stumble’. There was also the associated imagery of drowning with a millstone around your neck. This growing divide was compounded by my discovery of a liberal church bookshop and being introduced to the writings of Lloyd Geering and others who were free in their criticism of a fundamentalist view of scripture and who promoted a non-realist understanding of god. This was exciting and liberating because here were people openly saying things which made so much sense but were at odds with what was considered to be the ‘truth’. In addition to this was Lloyd’s formation of a local Sea of Faith group and my enthusiastic involvement. Here was a group of people who discussed a wide range of theological and ethical issues freely and honestly and I felt at long last to be in a place where I could be truthful to myself. It was great.
Unfortunately this didn’t make for a comfortable existence at the Assembly and their concern over maintaining correct teaching led to a revision of their Statement of Faith reinforcing its very conservative bias to which I could not conform. This led to my wife and me taking leave of them and joining with our local suburban co-operating parish church.
This period was special in lots of ways as it was a community church with a warm heart and a spectrum of theological views with the Bible seen by most as being interesting rather than the inerrant Word of God. We were fortunate also to have outstanding Presbyterian and Methodist ministers who allowed room for differing views although the need to continually translate personal god talk into a much broader understanding of what the god idea could be was often a struggle. However the involvement with music, the youth group, the shared meals, the fundraising and the numerous social occasions made the effort worthwhile and was a very enjoyable few years. Unfortunately small community churches were on the decline and eventually it closed with most members moving to a variety of city churches depending on their personal preferences.
I have to confess that while I no longer agreed with much of what was traditionally believed and had embraced a non-realist understanding of god, being part of a community which made time for a weekly meeting with teaching, liturgy and music (worship if you prefer) was something I was reluctant to give away. So we still have an association with a large city church with exceptional music, a magnificent building and a kind and generous membership. Translating god talk is however ongoing.
It is clear to me now in the latter stage of life that there is no evidence for a realist personal god who can be interacted with or who interferes in any way with the events of life but it is also my experience that such beliefs are able to underpin generous and loving communities. The danger of course is that the stories and myths of our sacred texts are seen as literal truth rather than simply being the bearer of truth and that our personal beliefs come to be seen as God given truths to be defended with rules and dogma and which can easily slide into extremist ideologies.
So for me today an authentic world view should be based on reality with our mythologies seen simply for what they are. To find a coherent way of seeing life in the context of millions of years of biological evolution, to sense our place in this vast universe, and to marvel at the immense complexity of life and this collection of cells and chemicals and stuff which comprise me – this is my on-going odyssey.
Andrew Meek . October 2014

THE JESUS SEMINAR

(Address by Colin Gibson at Open Education Session, Mornington Methodist Church, 17 April 2013, and represented on his behalf by David Kitchingman at the Dunedin Sea of Faith Group meeting)

preface

Once upon a time it was very, very simple.

Continue Reading »

A Talk by Retiring Librarian Peter Wishart

1. The Library has more than doubled in size Continue Reading »

WHO DID JESUS THINK HE (REALLY) WAS?i

James Veitch

Centre for Defence and Security Studies

Massey University

Wellington

Introduction

The question came out of the blue.

Would I like to talk to the Dunedin Sea of Faith group about a question that lies at the heart of all theology, Continue Reading »

Sea of Faith, Dunedin

The Future of the Sea of Faith

On the future of the Sea of Faith Network, it seems to me entirely appropriate at this time to start by Continue Reading »

Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (Hardcover) or Why Equality Is Better For Everyone (Paperback)

Profs Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (Penguin paperback, $31)

The book deals with data from 23 rich countries (p275), published by the World Bank in 2004 and shows… Continue Reading »

The Rise and Fall of Fossil Fuels – Physical and Spiritual

The latest edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary published last month featured among its new entries “sexting” and “cyberbullying”. Cyberspace and the Internet, that began with great promise and positivity, have taken on a troublesome downside. Just one example of how good things can lose their lustre and become equivocal or worse.

Fossil fuels may be among the worst examples of all – beginning as the foundation of modern civilization but now perhaps the villain of the piece. I should probably deal with them alone, such is their significance, but later I want to raise a question on the spiritual side of things – whether it’s possible that some primal energy sources of Christianity might in some respects be likened to fossil fuels. But I begin with:

Part 1: Fossil fuels – the physical variety

Continue Reading »

Religion and Violence : What is the connection ?

“All these crimes and sins committed by Americans are a clear declaration of War of God”.

[Osama bin Laden – 23 February 1998]

“These events have divided the entire world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels. May God shield us and you from them.”

[Osama bin Laden – 10 July 2001]

“In this struggle, God is not neutral”

[George W. Bush – 20 September 2001]

“Every nation, in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. … May God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America”.

[George W. Bush – 20 September 2001]

Continue Reading »

Slide 1

Slide 2a

Continue Reading »