Editorial
Welcome to our second and final JG. Once again we've jammed it full enough to leave only a small space for editorial chatter, despite fearing only yesterday that we'd require several pages of it and perhaps some more random pictures of prettiness around Daniel's backyard to make up for the fact that he won't be doing another cover. But at the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour, a veritable torrent of brilliance engulfed our inbox and we also found a few bits that we'd completely forgotten. Thanks and congratulations to everyone who has submitted the creative and thought-provoking articles that have graced our two issues; and be sure to wish us luck as we notch up our University workloads by tackling an Honours year and a year in a foreign language, respectively. Oh, and yes, this writing is itty-bitty because we couldn't fit it all onto the page otherwise. "Plenty of room here!", says the webweaver
Katie Weir & Daniel Robinson
Spong: An Outsider's Viewpoint
(with bonus personal rant)
On 21st October, 2003, members of ANU-SCM attended a lecture given by Bishop John Shelby Spong at St. Paul’s Anglican Church, Griffith, ACT. Bishop Spong has received both criticism and praise within the global Christian community because of his radical views about Christianity and how he thinks the Christian faith should develop in the future. Whilst I do not identify as a Christian myself, I nonetheless found Spong’s ideas very interesting. This was mainly because of how they contrasted with thoughts expressed by my Christian friends but also due to their relationship to my own (rather stereotyped) beliefs about Christianity. In this article I intend to give a summarised description and discussion of Spong’s lecture, aided by his books Liberating the Gospels and A New Christianity for a New World, and then briefly mention one or two issues raised by his standpoint that have come up in conversations I have had with friends. Hopefully the fact that I lack ‘insider’ Christian knowledge will be an aid to objectivity rather than a hindrance to understanding.
The driving force behind Spong’s lecture was his desire for the Christian community to discard commonly held interpretations of the Bible. Spong claims that our current cultural climate, particularly the emphasis our scientific world view places on ‘truth’ (whatever that means), causes people to take up one of two polarised positions in answer to the question ‘Did the major events described in the Bible, particularly in the Greek Scriptures1, actually occur?’. Some take the rather fundamentalist view that the Bible is literally true: that the stories it contains and the miracles it describes are historical facts. Others take a more modern, somewhat scientific standpoint and flatly answer ‘No, it’s impossible that the events could have occurred.’ The second group tend to place little stock in the Bible, treating it as a minor source of inspiration if they are Christian or else generally ignoring it.
At this point I would like to go off on a bit of a tangent and add that there are also Christians who refuse to acknowledge or deal with the question; however, such people would be seen by many as having their ‘heads in the sand’. I have even heard some say that if a Christian refuses to wrestle with the question of whether the Bible is literally true then their faith lacks substance and value. Personally, I think that if people wish to believe that the miraculous events in the Bible literally happened without in any way reconciling this belief with their acceptance of certain scientific ‘facts’ that deny such events could have occurred, then no one else has the right to be critical or think that their own faith is superior. Who is to say that our modern perception of ‘truth’ actually corresponds with reality? I think religion should be very personal and that no matter how bizarre, inconsistent or unsubstantiated someone’s spiritual beliefs may seem, if they are not trying to change other people’s beliefs or affecting other people’s way of life then everyone should let them be.
Returning from my tangential rant, I have the impression that Spong broadly agrees with my view. However, he is definitely not one to leave his head in the sand because he is concerned that the dichotomy between literal fundamentalists and those who hold that the Bible’s content is somewhat fallacious will eventually destroy Christianity altogether. He believes this is the case because in our modern age of scientific ‘truth’, neither of the two options are palatable to young people growing up or those wishing to become a Christian later in life.
To alleviate his concern about the ongoing existence of Christianity, Spong offers an alternative response to the question ‘Is the Bible literally true?’. His opinion is that this is the wrong question to ask. While his own answer to the question is ‘No’ and he does not believe, for example, that Christ physically rose from the dead, Spong thinks that the whole approach of determining whether the Bible is valuable by asking if it is historically accurate is flawed. Instead, he prefers to see the Gospels as a collection of stories written by the Jewish people in an ‘attempt … to enter into and to interpret the God experience encountered in Jesus of Nazareth.’2 Rather than treating the Bible as a set of facts or rules by which we must live our lives, Spong values the Bible because its stories convey the awesome experiences of early Jewish people who had met heroic individuals in whom God was manifest.3 Note that Spong does not deny that such individuals existed; indeed, the existence of a Jesus in whom God was witnessed and continues to be witnessed is central to Spong’s faith.
Despite his strong belief in the Godliness of Jesus, as previously mentioned, Spong does not regard the details of Jesus’ life as described in the Bible to be historically accurate. His justification for this opinion is based on the fact that the Bible is a Jewish book, written in the Jewish tradition. All the books of the Bible save one were written by Jews. Importantly for Spong, early Judaism was rooted in a tradition of story telling and legends, hence he claims that the Jews who wrote the books of the Bible would have had no qualms with inventing stories about their heroes. This was the nature of the religious culture they lived in and they knew everyone would understand that the stories were only meant to be representative of how Godly their heroes had been. Indeed, stories were often repeated with their protagonists changed to indicate that the God experience present in one hero had also been witnessed in the next.
Hence we are told that Moses parted the Red Sea as a display of God’s blessing on him and then, in the stories of Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, we find that each of these later heroes comes to a body of water which is duly parted so that they may cross on dry land. Spong claims that this is an instance of the ancient Jewish tradition of midrash where old stories are wrapped around new heroes and that, importantly, at their time of writing these stories would not have been interpreted as literal fact. Furthermore, Spong believes the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus are also instances of midrash: for example, the sermon on the mount parallels Moses receiving the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai, Moses’ forty years in the ‘wilderness’ during Exodus parallels Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness, the three wise men came to visit baby Jesus in the same way that kings were said to have come to the brightness of God’s dawn in Isaiah 60:4, … the list goes on.4
So Spong thinks we are supposed to take the Bible to be a collection of stories that relate the awesome spectacle of real-life Godly people, particularly Jesus, in a legendary, non-literal setting. He believes we should do this because that was the way in which the books of the Bible were intended to be read when they were written. Hence, the question of which events in the Bible literally occurred is irrelevant, because no matter which parts of the Bible are factual, the stories still have the same powerful message: the spirit of God exists and we should allow Him to have an impact in our lives by seeking the God experience that was present in particular historical figures.
I am sure readers will have their own varied reactions to Spong’s ideas and there are many issues that could be discussed at this point. Let me mention just two reactions that Christian friends of mine have had to Spong’s interpretation of Bible. Firstly, a common view is that a God who is not able to perform the miracles described in the Bible is not worth worshipping. Hence to not believe in any of the supernatural occurrences in the Bible (as indeed Spong does not) is to refute the power of the Christian God and thus the point of being a Christian. Spong is therefore seen by many as attempting to destroy Christianity, which is exactly what he claims he is trying to avoid. I think that Spong would argue that his ideas will merely change Christianity, not destroy it. However, note that Spong has stated that ‘I am deeply aware that I seek to walk the razor’s edge of both faith and practice by searching for a solution to Christianity’s sickness that may be itself a fatal cure.’5 So he admits that his radical ideas might cause the downfall of Christianity, but that he thinks they are the only hope.
Perhaps more interesting is the fundamental problem one specific friend of mine has with Spong: my friend believes that the most important part of Christianity is that God has the power to resurrect each and every one of us when we die, so that we may be with God in heaven for ever. In order for this to happen, however, my friend believes that the sinful nature of mankind must be forgiven, and that (perhaps problematically for Spong) in accordance with ancient Jewish eye-for-an-eye type notions, a bodily sacrifice must be made for this purpose. Hence my friend believes that the ‘reality’ of Jesus dying for our sins is crucial. Even more importantly my friend thinks that Jesus must in some sense be continuously physically sacrificed due to our continuing sinfulness. This leads to the idea that without a literal physical resurrection there can not be the constant divine forgiveness that my friend believes to be crucial to our everlasting existence. As a result, my friend refuses to classify Spong as a ‘proper’ Christian because he necessarily must have a very different notion of sin. This is true: Spong does not believe that human beings are born in sin.6 So it seems that Spong is indeed proposing a new form of Christianity that many might not label as Christian at all. Due to lack of personal background knowledge, I will not attempt to debate the above topics any further, but I must admit that from my non-Christian point of view, what Bishop Spong has to say seems very reasonable. However, this might be because I have not previously made a leap of faith that I am now being required to make again - in the opposite direction.
Bibliography
- Spong, J. S., Liberating the Gospels, HarperCollins, New York, 1997.
- Spong, J. S., A New Christianity for a New World, HarperCollins, New York, 2001.
Footnotes
- e.g. The immaculate conception, Jesus walking on water, Jesus’ physical resurrection at the dawn of Easter, etc.
- Spong, John Shelby, Liberating the Gospels, p.325.
- e.g. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, … Jesus.
- See Liberating the Gospels, ch. 11 for more information.
- Spong, John Shelby, A New Christianity for a New World, p.18.
- For a long list of other things Spong does not believe, see A New Christianity for a New World, pp.3-7.
Hey, God
This is a collection of responses to a question posed on Internet message boards (one Christian and one general philosophy), and to the ASCM email chat list.
‘If you were given the chance to ask God one question, right now, and be guaranteed a clear and unambiguous verbal answer, what would you ask?’
‘Why me?’
‘What should I do now?’
‘What actions should I take in my life to become successful and happy?’
‘Why do I have hair on my feet?’
‘What must I do to get into Heaven?’
I’m not sure I want a clear answer to any of my questions, because it would take away all my excuses and avenues for hedging bets. For example, what came to mind was: ‘God, what practical actions can I take to find a way to live together with institutional religion and love the people within it as equally valid and beloved members of the Body of Christ?’ But then God might tell me, and I might not want to do the things that God lays out!
‘Do you exist?’ Trouble is, though, I couldn’t ask him, nor expect to receive an answer, unless the answer was yes.
‘Why are we here? After we die, nothing that we do here matters, so why cant we just skip this horrible world and go straight to You?’
‘Do you mind if I ask you a question? ACK! BLAST! I WASTED IT!’
‘Do you love me?’ His death on the cross was a great example of love, but that was history. I didn’t experience that. To hear him answer this audibly would give me all the motivation I need in life.
‘No, really man, what the fuck?’
‘Is it more sickening or entertaining to see people banter back and forth about you?’
‘How much longer ’till faith becomes sight?’
‘Hey, do you purposely limit your foreknowledge in order to give us free will?’
‘Why do good people suffer?’
Plainly and simply, ‘Why?’ He’d understand.
I would ask Him whether or not our actions and thoughts had any relevance or importance outside of our lives and outside of our ‘world’. Basically, are we being judged?
‘What do you expect of me?’
‘Where did you come from?’
‘Boxers or briefs?’
I would ask him how I could finally put the myth of his existence to rest.
‘How can I live a good and just life?’
‘Can I have your wisdom and knowledge like you gave Solomon?’
I would ask God, ‘If you were in my position, what question would you ask?’ (Someone later commented, ‘Obviously he would ask exactly the same question.’)
I think that asking questions of ‘God’ and asking questions of yourself are one and the same thing.
I’d ask him if he could spare a dollar; and if he gave it up, I’d laugh, stomp on it, and tell him, ‘I don’t need your lame handouts, God!’
‘When are you coming back?’
‘Who am I?’
‘Where is my cat?’
I would ask Him whether or not He wants to do lunch.
‘How do you feel about all the ignorant worshipping and things done in your name?’
I’d ask him, ‘How ya doin’?’ I wouldn’t hassle him about anything. He’s God. He’s in control. Enough said.
I’d ask it (feeling silly while doing so), ‘What will be the exact manner, date and time of my death, and the effects my demise will have on others - or history (if any)?’
I would of course ask God, ‘What will be the exact manner, date and time of [previous respondent]’s death, and the effects his demise will have on others - or history (if any)?’ Then I would freak him out with late night phone calls.
‘How can I keep my heart continually open to You?’
I would ask if we could swap places.
I would ask if he (or she) could create a stone heavier than he (or she) could lift, thus ridding mankind of that damned question once and for all!
‘Can I come back as a bonobo? That looks like more fun than being human.’
At first I thought that since I’m rather curious about what sort of form we exist in after death (if any) I might ask something about that. But the whole idea of having one question of God and asking something which is about mere facts seems to me to cheapen the whole possibility. Mere information in the face of the Divine? I don’t think I would have the courage to ask God a question at all, but would rather remain in silence.
Queering the SCM
Since my first meeting with the Sydney SCMers in mid 2003 it was clear to me that collaboration with the SCM would be a wonderful thing. The recent executive meeting in Melbourne was where we decided what this collaboration would look like and it was where we decided that I would serve the SCM as its new Queer Officer. Although Queer Campus Christians still exists as an autonomous entity in reality I see its ministry and that of the Queer project as one. The following article presents some information about the history of Queer Campus Christians and how the Queer Project of the SCM came to re-evolve.
Queer Campus Christians began at Sydney University in the first semester of 2002. One of the aims of the ministry was to foster a sense of queer spiritual solidarity on campus and provide a queer spiritual presence at Sydney Uni for queer students who had been estranged from their churches and who were looking for a place to find God.
Our early activities were guided by a number of goals, many of which have been achieved in the two years since the ministry began.
Prior to our first meeting in April 2002 I had been in contact with the Uniting Church in Australia Tertiary Students’ Association (UCATSA) who were a great source of moral and practical support. They offered prayers for our group and helped us with some of the administrative requirements relating to our application for official registration with the union. Once our first meeting was held we created an e-group and poster which we put up in the queerspace. I also began to liase with the other queer groups to inform them of our ministry and it wasn’t long before we were recognised as part of the university’s queer student community with support from the SRC and a visible presence on the high volume queer e-groups.
In addition to a number of meetings that we organised throughout first semester, one of the most successful parts of our ministry that year was a workshop we organised at the 2002 Queer Collaborations Conference in Canberra. This conference is a national political conference for queer students from all over Australia and is an integral part of the queer university experience for many students. The workshop that we presented that year was called ‘Queering The Divine’ and was a meditative and reflective type experience. It was one of that day’s most successful workshops and attracted over 30 queer students from a wide variety of faith backgrounds who had come together to explore their queer spirituality. The liturgy of the workshop included non gender specific language and was particularly well received by the women, one of whom said she was encouraged in the experience by the reference to God as mother.
Towards the end of this semester we also made our presence felt in the student media with a letter published in the student newspaper, Honi Soit, about queer Christians being part of the Body of Christ. This letter also received a response the following week from another student who wrote back in support of it. Since our first publication that year we have had numerous articles and letters published including several written in 2003 on behalf of Queer Campus Christians by our chaplain, Rev. Johnathan Jones, one of which was entitled ‘Jesus is Queer’.
In the second semester of 2002 we also participated in a direct action at the Commonwealth government offices in Sydney. This was organised to protest against the Nelson Review and show our solidarity with our indigenous brothers and sisters who were the subject of the ‘Crossroads Higher Education Review Consultative Forum’. This action was an important part of the stand that Queer Campus Christians is, like the SCM, for social justice in the world and on our campuses. We commenced 2003 with a strong presence at O-Week where we were part of the queer stall and publicised a series of forums that we had planned from weeks four to six. Despite the publicity these forums were only attended by a small number of people, although we had some interesting discussion amongst the people that were there.
Our main event for first semester was a forum that we held for Pride Week on Queer Spirituality. We obtained funding from the Union for some catering and came together in the Queerspace for an open discussion about queer spiritual issues.
Semester 2 saw the publication of Rev. Johnathan’s article ‘Jesus is Queer’ in the Union Recorder. This sparked a heated exchange in the letters column for about the next two months with letters being written from the Evangelical Union and replies from Rev. Johnathan being published. I also received many emails from students, some supportive and others less so.
We also organised a ‘Q&A’ session early on in the semester where we invited Rev. Johnathan to be our guest and answer questions from the people about queer spirituality and theology. This forum was a great success with about thirteen people in attendance and some really important discussion happening. At the end of the forum there was a feeling that people had really been ministered to, with an alternative viewpoint offered to those questions that had been troubling people about being queer and Christian.
Second semester 2003 was also the semester in which we made contact with the SCM. During this time I exchanged emails with Claire Vincent from Victoria and Edwina Hunter from NSW about collaborating with the SCM. I also met some Sydney SCMers on a couple of occasions for social gatherings. These meetings left me with no doubt that it would be a wonderful thing to work together with the SCM. The Melbourne executive meeting was also a turning point for me. I left this meeting with the profound experience of what it means to be an SCMer. The privilege of being part of this community is one that excites me and is what I will bring with me to the work of the Queer project which lies ahead.
Film Review: ‘Goodbye Lenin’
When the walls came down
Not much to say
Too few good friends
Too many thoughts
Too far away.
So you gather up the past
Whatever remains
Parcels of love
Parcels of faith
Parcels of pain.Walk on ice
You learn to walk on fire
Keep following the heart
And the desire …Shane Howard
An oft-repeated sentence of certain generations is (apparently): ‘I remember where I was when JFK was shot.’ As an Australian growing up in the eighties I cannot claim that the events of October 1989 in Berlin had such a direct personal impact, but I can say: ‘I remember when the wall came down.’ The fall of the wall came at the close of a decade that had been characterised partly by high anxiety about WW III and living with nuclear devastation; October ‘89 became an important symbol of hope for our generation. I have strong memories, through television footage, of the crowd’s excitement at the Brandenburg Gate as East Germans climbed over to join their western compatriots; my best friend is proud of the prize he won in a German radio competition - a piece of the Berlin wall. I also link the event with a song by an Australian artist that did fairly well in the charts the following year. I don’t know if the opening line was partly inspired by the television images of October ‘89, so far away in Europe, but it rekindled my memory of the hope of that time.
Of course, the collapse of European communism brought pain as well as joy, and Shane Howard’s Walk on Fire also seems to speak of this legacy. Within a year, the economic implications of the event for East Germans (and for the new Germany in general) began to hit hard. Many East Germans must have begun to ask, just as ordinary Russians have, whether life hadn’t been better under a communist government. This bitter-sweetness, this paradox of October ‘89, is powerfully conveyed in a new German film, Goodbye Lenin.
The film’s central characters are a young East German, Alex, and his strongly socialist mother, Christiane. They live in a small apartment in East Berlin with Christiane’s daughter (Alex’s sister) and her baby daughter. The film opens with scenes in East Germany just prior to the resignation of the East German (communist) leader and the fall of the wall. Both Alex and Christiane are soon carried up in these unfolding events and, for reasons that neither of them could have foreseen, Christiane ends up in hospital in a deep coma. While Christiane’s life is essentially on hold, events take on a new momentum around her. East Germany rapidly embraces the West and capitalism; the past - and even East Germany itself - is swept away; and Alex’s life is dramatically changed. Six months pass and Christiane wakes at last from her coma. Although she has sustained no brain damage, the doctor tells Alex and his sister, her heart is weak and she will not survive any excitement - including news of the events since her collapse. Alex, with the help of his sister and others, must attempt to recreate the communist East Germany in order to save his mother’s life. He tries as best he can to ‘gather up the past’, or the little that remains of it. It is this scenario that forms the basis of the film.
The necessity of the pretence gives rise to some humourous and heart-warming scenes, such as Alex’s hunting far and wide for brands of coffee and other foods that had disappeared from supermarket shelves to make way for superior brands from the West. Yet the pretence also has its moral implications - how long can and should Alex continue with the lie? Writer-director Wolfgang Becker seems to see this as the central issue of the film: ‘I was fascinated by the idea of a son trying to save his mother’s life, trying to keep death at bay with a lie, and getting more and more entangled in his lie. … The best way to describe Alex is as a sailor in a leaky boat and he’s busily trying to stop up one leak with another.’ The lie creates new opportunities for some, such as one friend of Alex: an aspiring film-maker with the equipment and the know-how to make fake East German news bulletins. But for Alex, his sister, and his girl friend, continuing the pretence demands more and more personal sacrifices. One wonders if Alex is taking the role of the dutiful son too far, and with too little regard to the detrimental effects his expectations place on those around him. Alex seems to ‘walk on ice, walk on fire’ as the song suggests. I recall some years ago encountering one writer’s suggestion that even a white lie, when you just don’t tell the whole truth, can become a betrayal if you don’t eventually reveal the untold details. The question remains: what is the truly loving thing to do for Christiane? The most poignant moment of the film is a kind of response to this notion. It is, I suspect, a moment of personal transformation for those involved and it is all about ‘the heart’. But watch carefully, pay attention, or you may miss it!
Can Our Churches Have a Different Kind of Conversation about Sex?
Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’
John 8:10It is God who justifies. Who then will condemn?
Romans 8:34
Over the past decade many of us have had the unhappy experience of witnessing denominational ‘deliberations’ on the question of whether to allow gay and lesbian Christians to serve the church as ordained ministers (bisexual and transgendered persons rarely make the agenda at all), or even to be welcomed as full members of the community. The recent ordination of an out gay bishop in the Episcopal Church has intensified the struggle, which has spared no denomination or tradition.
De-liberation - such an appropriate double entendre! The politics and posturing, the texts and subtexts, the machinations of the cons and the pros. It would all be merely wearisome if not for the fact that we must watch sisters and brothers stand in the dock while they are talked over, defamed and run out. Such treatment of church members would, on any other subject, be intolerable. But the matter of sex seems to do that to church folk. There’s a long history at work here.
The patterns of polarisation have become utterly pro forma, conforming predictably to the ideological battle lines of the wider culture wars. Thoughtful people on either side sense at this point that the church may well lose no matter who ‘wins’ the ecclesial plebiscites. They suspect that it is the discourse itself that is dysfunctional. They are right. What is happening is neither conversation nor discernment.
What Would Jesus Do?
I believe that the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) says something to the sorry state of our current debates about what constitutes sexual sin. While this text has second class status canonically, being widely regarded as a later addition to the gospel tradition, it is surely ancient enough to reflect the early church’s thinking on such matters. In fact, the Jesus of this story sounds every bit like the one portrayed in the undisputed gospel tradition. And it deserves attention from those of us who wish to find our way to a different kind of discourse.
For the woman’s accusers - institutional officials all - her fate is already scripturally settled; their questioning of Jesus is really just a litmus test (John 8:1-6a). They aren’t just after the ‘sinner,’ they’re after anyone who might stand in solidarity as well. Sound familiar? It could be a Presbyterian plebiscite, a Methodist conference floor fight, or a Catholic pronuncamiento.
I love what happens next. Jesus says nothing, bending down to write something on the ground (8:6b). When the prosecutors persist in pressing him to reveal his ‘position,’ Jesus stands up and invites those ‘without sin’ to commence distributing ‘justice’ (in this case, capital execution). Then he bends down again and resumes writing on the ground (8:7f).
The bending down, standing up, bending down is so dramatic, so evocative. And what is he writing? We are neither shown nor told. It is a delicious, mysterious, and wry moment. One by one, the crowd dissipates - not jurors recusing themselves here, but judges (8:9)! The social point having been made, the story now makes the moral point.
Here is the moment that any church in moral quandary and debate forever longs for. In bumper sticker parlance: WWJD? After all, he is according to orthodoxy the One who was without sin. So it’s really up to Jesus to give us unequivocal guidance on this thorny issue of sexual boundaries, to make clear God’s opinion on the matter (free of cultural static), to adjudicate this issue truly and decisively, once and for all.
What do we learn? First, he looks up and engages the woman in question directly. (Rarely do the ecclesial witch-hunters bother to talk directly to those whose behavior is in question.) Second, he refuses to condemn her. (On this, more below.) And third, he offers her the grace of a fresh start: ‘From now on…’ (Gk apo tou nun; 8:11). This story is about redemption, not about what one critic called ‘ethic cleansing.’
The verb ‘to condemn’ (Gk katakrinoo) is also used by Paul in his great argument for grace in Romans. The apostle anchors his case in the universality of human culpability, sounding very much like Jesus’ ultimatum to the woman’s accusers: ‘You are without excuse, whoever you are who would judge, for in passing judgment on the other, you condemn yourself, because you are practicing the very same things!’ (Romans 2:1). Paul’s manifesto of salvation culminates with that famous evangelical declaration: ‘There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8:1).
Well, brother Paul, such does not appear to be the faith of our churches, where amendments and resolutions and threatened splits are flying like stones, with intent to kill. All protests to the contrary, the current debate about homosexuality has little to do with concern about character and everything to do with what we might call ‘hamartography’: the compulsion to categorize sins. Are we to believe that denominations that throughout their long histories have embraced without shame robber barons, misogynists and militarists are now suddenly concerned to draw the line for the sake of their purity?
Very well. The crowd is gathered, awaiting the outcome of pious and complicated wrangling of canon law and polity politicking. Jesus, meanwhile, is noodling in the dust with his finger, the only finger not pointing in this scenario. I imagine he might be making a suggestion for how we ought to handle such matters: a simple invitation to self-examination.
Sticking to Our Own Stories
What a concept! Imagine if the discourse on sexual standards and mores in our churches followed one of the most basic rules of conflict mediation, enjoining all participants to speak only in ‘I’ statements?! What might happen if, as a modest spiritual discipline, we declared a moratorium in church on addressing other people’s sexuality, and spoke only of our own struggles?
Frankly, my own feeling is that our churches’ obsession with sexuality morality represents a convenient way to avoid talking about truly pressing social, economic and foreign policy issues that confuse and intimidate us. I’d prefer that our churches declare a moratorium on all discussion of sex for a decade or so, during which time we commit to addressing issues that are really threatening our humanity and faith. But no one’s asking me. So if the church is going to fixate on sexuality, the second best option is to change how we talk about it.
We must demand a genuine gospel conversation, in which each participant talks honestly about his or her own sexual experience, confesses his or her own sexual confusion and brokenness, and intimates his or her own sexual aspirations and disciplines. And everyone is allowed at the table. Cold demands for conformity tend to melt before the flames of honest life-sharing and empathy. It’s not that issues of sexual ethics aren’t at stake here; it is about how we get to really wrestling with them.
If these issues are really so important to our churches, we dare not talk about them in any other way. Given the difficult, predatory, deluded, and compulsive environment in which people of faith must try to discover sexual integrity and wholeness today, I suspect none of us, like the accusers in the gospel story, would truly think we are qualified to stand before Jesus presuming to be ‘without sin.’ And even if we were, Jesus’ own example suggests we would be all the more obliged to suspend our judgments in the interests of redemption.
There’s much more to say about the struggle for a just and inclusive church, of course. But John’s little story is brilliantly didactic, allowing no wriggle room for condemnation, much less schism. In its light perhaps we might be more willing instead to talk together about healing, forgiveness and our common struggle for sexual wholeness. That would be a conversation worth having.
This is a slightly edited and updated version of an article originally published in The Witness magazine in May, 1998. For more conversation in this vein, visit The Witness website.
Film Review: ‘In This World’
When the United States and its coalition allies began bombing Afghanistan soon after September 11, 2001, tens of thousands of Afghanis fled across the border into Pakistan. Although this may seem like a huge number in itself, the refugee camps near the Afghani border were already established settlements, home to the two million refugees who fled the Russian invasion of Afghanistan 1979, and successive unsavoury regimes. Some young people were born, and have spent their entire lives, in these refugee camps. In This World follows two such young men on their search for asylum in the UK.
Although one is aware of the hardship faced by many refugees fleeing their country, like many things, the true reality of the situation is far more traumatic, and nothing captures this better than In this World. When our ‘hero’ Jamal embarks upon this awesome journey with his fellow traveler Enayatullah, we are taken on a journey of fear, uncertainty, danger and possible death, all in the pursuit of a better life. The power of the smugglers themselves could not be more real, with agreed costs of the journey and safety of the refugees continually compromised, leaving little choice to the boys themselves.
So convincing is the portrayal of this journey by the young actors, and the harsh realities that they face, that one is never quite sure that this is entirely fictional, and by the end, one is still left wondering. Of course, the truth is that the story of these two young men is just one of many refugee stories. Many like them risk the uncertain and dangerous journey which by no means ensures a safe arrival, believing that this is their best and only chance. Whether they are political refugees, fleeing a war torn country, or economic refugees, seeking a better life, they are both driven by a common hope and face a common outcome.
At the end of the film what is most striking to me is that after this long traumatic journey, instead of reaching this ‘promised land’, the refugees that reach their destination (in this case, the UK) are locked up in detention centres, forgotten, and then sent back. There truly is no justice in this world
After this film was made, the actor who played Jamal made his own journey for asylum in the UK. For a fascinating interview with Michael Winterbottom on the making of In This World, visit the Guardian Unlimited (UK) site.
Mythology of the Matrix
This article is a follow-up to the Mythology of The Matrix published in the Winter 2003 edition of JG, reviewing the first two films.
I absolutely loved Matrix Revolution, the just-released third movie in the trilogy. Revolution provides a brilliant and intriguing climax to the theological themes raised in Matrix and Matrix Reloaded. The visuals are totally stunning, but for me the essence of the movie is its treatment of the apocalyptic archetype and its message for the Christian vision of history. The theology emerges in the final twist of the plot, so if you plan to see the movie I recommend you do so before reading this review.
To recap, the matrix is a future world where machines have taken over and exploit humans by creating a world of total illusion. Like a sick culmination of Saint Paul’s critique of Rome in Romans 1:25, ‘they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.’ There are only two gaps in the matrix vision of a purely materialist machine world - the beleaguered human remnant of Zion at the centre of the earth, which is under massive attack from the machine army, and a bug in the machine in the form of Agent Smith, played by Hugo Weaving, who has replicated himself out of control throughout the matrix.
In Matrix Revolution, all hope seems lost for Zion as the tunnelling monsters and their myriad mechanical minions move to extinguish the last bastion of free humanity. Neo, the chosen one, played by Keanu Reaves, has gone with his lover Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) to the great machine city to try to save Zion. Described by the oracle (an old poor black woman - Mary Alice) as ‘our connection to the source’, Neo is like Jesus Christ, destined by God to save humanity through the power of grace. The military commanders dismiss his mission as insane, but of course he succeeds (by the grace of God).
The twist in the plot is that the matrix needs to ally with Zion to overcome the rogue program Smith. In an awesome scene (reminiscent of Dorothy and the emerald wizard of oz) Neo meets the mechanical mind of the matrix, surrounded by the immense array of machine city. The mind has been described somewhere as the ‘Deus ex machina’ or God in the machine, in a pun on both the traditional theatrical device and the Cartesian dualist picture of the ghost in the machine. Neo strikes an almost Faustian bargain with the matrix, pointing out that the Smith bug threatens to destroy the matrix, and arguing that only he (Neo) can beat Smith. Deus agrees, and calls off the minions besieging the citadel of Zion while sending Neo into the illusion world of the matrix one last time for a final battle with Smith. Like the apocalyptic showdown between the archangel Michael and Satan at the end of time, Neo and Smith rage through the heavens, with final victory going to Neo. Free human creativity, connected to the ultimate source of truth through a messianic saviour, has squished the bug and triumphed over the evils of corruption and illusion.
To explain why I think this is all so profound, I need to explain my own theological position. I have always thought the USA was the inheritor of the mantle of world leadership held in Jesus’ day by Rome, and along this line I have explored how the Biblical critique of Rome in the Epistles and the Apocalypse might apply to America. The interesting thing about the Matrix is the way it provides such a powerful critique of American mass culture, especially of how advertising and the media have poisoned people’s minds into precisely the sort of ‘worship of the creature rather than the Creator’ that Paul saw as the source of Roman failure. Just as the matrix blinds people to reality, the illusory world offered by commerce blinds our society to the realities of poverty, ecology and God.
My way of understanding this has been to interpret the United States Dollar as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of the 666 in Revelation 13:18. Just like the 666, the US dollar has six letters in each of its three names, and its role in our world financial system means that ‘no one can buy or sell without … the number of its name’ (Rev 13:17). Now, I know that suggesting Jesus Christ miraculously predicted the structure of human society 2000 years in advance is highly implausible, but he was meant to be Son of God after all. Whatever you may think of it, I have found this interpretation helpful as a way of understanding the problems of our world and what is needed to overcome them. Please don’t laugh, just think of it as an intriguing possibility, and explore for yourself how well it fits with the Gospel vision.
The really interesting thing about Matrix Revolution is the suggestion of the alliance between Neo and the Matrix against Smith. Applied to the interpretation of the USA as the beast of the apocalypse, and our world financial system as the symbol of the matrix, this would suggest the final judgement of God on the world at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will involve the redemption of America, not its damnation. As Jesus said in John 3:17, ‘I came to save the world not to condemn it.’ The alliance between Neo and the Matrix against Smith implies that God will ally with the 666 (the United States Dollar) against all the evil spin-offs that America has accidentally created, and which threaten to destroy the world.
And another thing. I also interpret this biblical framework in terms of astrological cosmology, which I consider provides an amazingly compelling and fertile integration of the worldviews of science and Christianity, showing how the essence of the Bible is fully compatible with modern thought. The key is the description of the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:19-20, which scholars such as William Barclay say are a coded reference to the twelve signs of the zodiac in reverse. I know this is all rather cryptic, but I believe it points to a coherent and rational interpretation of the Biblical vision of the new age in the framework of the precession of the equinox, with the Second Coming equated to the dawn of the Age of Aquarius. In terms of the matrix, the new age as predicted by these apocalyptic symbols would involve the integration of the matrix of capitalism within the trinitarian cosmology of the loving rule of God.
Perhaps the movie should have been called Matrix Redemption, but maybe that isn’t as engaging as Revolution, and would have given away the plot.
Queer Beginnings
Initially appropriated in the early nineties by pioneering queer theorists with a brave political agenda of empowerment, the term queer has entered widespread use and is now seen throughout contemporary media and popular culture. You only have to switch to SBS at 10pm on a Monday night to see this queer resignification in process through shows like Queer as Folk or the latest queer, pop-culture incarnation, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Yet while we are bombarded daily with these new queer representations, we are often not bombarded with the broader political implications of this word or the knowledge of how it came to be.
At its most basic level, queer is an umbrella term for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and intersexed identities. It evolved from the counter-discourses of identity politics to encompass the fluidity of post modern identities that refused to be confined by a single and arbitrary identity category like gay, lesbian or straight. Queer was seen as an empowering alternative to the conflict that was created by identity politics when people tried to live their lives outside of the fixed identity categories that the gay and lesbian liberation movement had created. Queer began to blur the boundaries of gender and sexual identity so that your identity was defined more by your gender and sexual politics rather than who you sleep with or what sex you were at birth. If you’re a lesbian woman who likes to sleep with men, you can be queer. If you’re a straight man who likes to sleep with men, you can be queer, as you can if you’re a heterosexual, transgendered woman who has grown up against a lifetime of homophobia.
When the queer theorist, Judith Butler wrote that that ‘identity categories tend to be instruments of regulatory regimes’ she was referring to the ways in which these categories can work to oppress us by fixing the boundaries of what it means to be straight, gay or a man or a woman. Queer was a way of sidestepping this oppression and allowing for the diversity of human experience that would often not fit into neat categories such as gay or lesbian, man or woman.
So while queer is fluid it is also deeply political. When appropriating the word queer, early theorists and activists were profoundly aware of its power as a form of insult and shaming. By identifying as queer we can take this power away from those who would use it against us and transform it into something to celebrate and be proud of rather than hide. History has shown the impact of this intention on the way we now use the term queer. Queer is used today throughout the media and popular culture as a powerfully positive representation of alternative sexualities and identities. In the space of almost 10 years, the word queer has been transformed from an insult and put-down into something positive, to be celebrated and enjoyed.
To be queer is to view the world, including our spirituality, through queer eyes. It is this perspective that I hope to share with the ASCM through my work as Queer Officer in the months ahead. To give you an idea of our immediate plans, we are currently in negotiation with the University of Sydney Union to hold a Pride Week Forum on 5th April called ‘Queering Christ’. This event will be part of the official Debates and Public Issues Program for 2004 and will be an important venue for queering our understanding of Christ. We were also successful at the recent executive meeting in Melbourne at queering the ASCM Sexual Harassment Policy which previously had no specific provisions for the handling of same-sex related sexual harassment. I also hope to continue the work of the Queer project at the next national conference in Perth through workshops centred on inclusivity within the church and homosexuality and the scriptures and some social events to build queer solidarity within the movement. I look forward to a great future as Queer Officer of the ASCM and would love to hear from anyone who would like to get in touch.
timn@student.usyd.edu.auNational Executive News
I thought you all might like to know a bit about the Executive Committee meeting… it was great! Here are a few of the exciting highlights:
New National Co-ordinator!
Bronwyn Hatwell, an SCMer from WA who has just completed her Honours in Agriculture (1st class, for those who haven’t heard) and will soon complete the Business part of her degree, has been elected to take over from me as National Co-ordinator. She and I will do a lot of talking and handing over during this semester, and she’ll formally take over in July 2004. Thanks Bronwyn!
WSCF General Assembly 2004
Bronwyn will also be representing ASCM at the WSCF Regional Committee Meeting and the General Assembly, to be held in early August in Thailand.
Nominee for WSCF Regional Women’s Committee
Not only is our Women’s Project not languishing (as it seemed to be a couple of years ago), but our national Women’s Project Officer, Kate Watts, is now our nominee for the Regional Women’s Committee. We’ll need to reach an understanding with SCM Aotearoa (who might feel it’s their turn within our subregion, following on from Sophia W), but if all is well Kate will be attending the pre-RCM women’s meeting to meet other women leaders and get elected. Go Kate!
Revived Queer/Sexuality Project
We are absolutely thrilled to have developed a brand new partnership with the Queer Campus Christians group at Sydney Uni., several of whose members are also very keen on joining ASCM. Tim Ngui, their co-ordinator, came along to the Exec. meeting and has volunteered to rekindle our Queer/Sexuality Project. He’ll kick off with an article in this Jubilee Grapevine on a revised understanding of the term ‘Queer,’ which will lead us in a discussion on what exactly to call this project! Whatever we choose to call the project, there’s no doubt that this is one area where ASCM can continue to lead the churches in ecumenical discussion.
EASYNet Australia
Johnathan Jones, Youth Secretary of the NCCA, also visited the Exec. and inspired us all with his vision for extending our ecumenical partnerships - to include St. Vincent’s Youth, L’Arche, and several other groups. Meanwhile, our relationship with the NCCA (through Jonathan) is at a high water mark, and we’re looking at jointly organising a Leadership conference for young women later this year. Thanks JJ for your enthusiasm for SCM!
There’s lots of other news - Leni (from SCMP) is planning to visit other states this semester; finances are looking good; a school branch in QLD is going strong; the transition to an Incorporated Association has been completed without a hitch; and much more, which you can read about in the minutes.
At the same time, we acknowledged that we’re still a very small movement, and that our precious human resources are fragile. It’s often hard to find the energy to do all the great things we wish we could do. So let’s keep encouraging and supporting each other, rebuilding tentative relationships, and praying for the inspiration of the Spirit, as we did throughout the Exec. meeting (and watch the website for Roger Horton’s excellent Australia Day liturgy!).
Congratulations to Shawn Whelan, our National Co-ordinator, and his wife Natalie, on the birth of their son Daniel Thomas Whelan. Daniel made his appearance in Melbourne on 17th December, weighing 2.8kg (6lbs 2oz).
Branch Reports
Western Australia
The year has gone well for ASCM-WA, with our various activities continuing to be popular and new faces joining the group. In December 2002 Trudi Bennett resigned from her position as Community Development Worker and Bronwyn Hatwell was appointed her replacement. Bronwyn’s focus is solely SCM, with the SCM Staff Worker position being separated from the UWA Anglican Chaplaincy role. Bronwyn worked one day a week over the year and her hours have just increased to 10 per week.
The Ecumenical Youth Network (EYN) began the year slowly, with second semester being very busy. The year began with a ‘Pilgrim’s Picnic’ involving a barbecue and games at the South Perth foreshore to expand our network and welcome anyone new who would be interested in joining our pilgrimage. On Palm Sunday we attended the Syrian Orthodox ‘Prayers of the Ten Virgins’ service and held a fascinating discussion on the traditions of the Syrian Orthodox Church afterwards over baklava. During second semester the group visited the Lockridge Baptist Outreach Community, Northbridge Lutheran Church, Church of Christ in Wembley Downs and Northbridge Salvation Army Fortress. Following each visit the group was able to discuss with members of the congregation their views and opinions regarding their faith and faith life.
Shared Space has continued each month this year, offering members of SCM-WA from each campus and recent graduates a chance to meet casually and discuss topical issues. Discussions this year have included the role of the Church in our faith, what lent means to us, paradoxes in the Bible and how I am a sinner and a saint. Shared Space is planned to continue over the summer university break, due to the high level of member support.
The retreat held in first semester had a bumpy beginning with the resignation of Glenn Stenton, who was responsible for organising it. At the last moment the group pulled together and had a wonderful weekend away. The theme was ‘Finding Peace’ and workshops included massage, a worry based bible study, a session on the meaning of forgiveness and, of course, games. In second semester retreat was again organised by the group, with the theme of exploring ecumenism. Being held at a beach house in Singleton, the atmosphere was very relaxed and the workshops very informal.
A fundraising dinner was held in May to raise money for Force 10 to supply fresh water in Zambia, with Zambian SCMer Martha as guest speaker. The African food and discussion was enjoyed by a large group of students and friends, who donated a total of $265 on the night.
The World Student Day of Prayer was celebrated with an ecumenical service held at St Margaret’s Anglican Church in Nedlands, followed by afternoon tea. The service was based on the liturgy prepared by the Canadian SCM for the event, with students choosing the visual and musical pieces.
The year has gone well with Bronwyn settling into her new position and developing her strengths. Next year again offers many opportunities for our small group, as we grow as a community.
Australian Capital Territory
The discussion of signs continued into a branch Reflection Day, held in October in the mid-semester break. The theme for the day was ‘Celebrating Spring’s Rejuvenation’ and we had some terrific discussion on experiencing God - including ‘signs of God’ in the world. We also reflected with a Leunig poem/prayer on Spring, a reflection of Hildegard of Bingen’s (suggested by Heather Thomson) and a guided meditation based on a passage from Isaiah. Peter Bailey led a ‘2004 ANU branch visioning’ session near the end of the day. The purpose of the day, which was to provide some reflective and renewing space at a very busy time of the academic year, seemed to have been achieved.
Our major task this term was to organise the local service for the World Day of Prayer for Students in August. We decided to depart from the usual traditional church service and instead hosted an agape meal shaped around an adapted WSCF liturgy. We had a lunch of international food with many of the local SCM Friends and prayed for peace in the various regions of the world. It was a great way to combine worship and fellowship in the lovely home of Peter Bailey, Area Council Chair.
In September we also bade farewell to one of our members, Anastasia Dalziell, who will be studying at Oxford University for the next year. The year ended with an end-of-year branch dinner at the Blue Elephant, a local Indian/Sri-Lankan restaurant to which Anastasia had introduced us!
A critical issue for the Area Council this year will be finding a source of funding for the ACT Development Worker position. At this stage Area Council can only fund the position until June, 2004. ACT Area Council is very grateful for the support of the City Uniting Church congregation, which enabled the Worker position to be funded from 2000 to 2003 - generously extending its agreed three-year grant by a further year. Area Council has been seeking the support of other local churches to jointly fund the position, but thus far has been unsuccessful. Ruth Dunnicliff-Hagan has agreed to continue on as Development Worker until at least June.
In 2004 we hope to continue to maintain and build up the ANU-Branch community, especially as some members of the branch complete their studies at the ANU or continue them overseas. At Branch and Area Council level we will continue to explore how we can best make an impact on the local scene - both university and church.
Queensland
Australian Catholic University - Banyo
With the efforts of key SCMers at the Australian Catholic University at Banyo, SCM met each Wednesday lunchtime. Thanks are due to James Andrew SSF (who is doing a Master of Theology at ACU), and fellow SCMers Jimmy Johnson, Chris Jeffery and Georgia Cassidy for the ongoing life in this branch. SCM has established a webpage for its identity and activities at ACU - to access it follow the Links on this site. Chris will be able to give a fuller picture of the year’s activities at ACU.
Other meetings have been: praying with the songs of Taize; Rosie’s youth mission, and Christian-Muslim relations. Attendance has been small (usually 4-5) but constant. Together with campus ministry we have started midday prayer on Fridays, which is contemplative prayer using the songs and prayers of Taize.
At our last meeting, with Dr. Nasir Butrous, an ACU lecturer, on Christian-Muslim relations, had 15 people. It was a great talk and question and answer session, and we in fact ran out of time. We are planning one more meeting this year, next week, with Andrew Beiers, to talk about our plan for 2004. The rest of the meetings were informal lunch gatherings.
St Margaret’s School - Albion, Brisbane
The SCM branch at St Margaret’s School which the chaplain, Michael Kelly, launched last year, now meets weekly (instead of fortnightly). Some 15 or so girls attend, ranging across Grades 8 to 12. They call themselves the ‘SMS - St Margaret’s Sisters’ with a subtitle indicating that they are the SCM Group at St Margaret’s School. Michael is happy with how the group is developing. The suggestion that SCM university students visit and talk with the Grade 12 members about life at university could not be fitted in this year.
Ray has explored the possibility of an SCM branch being established at another Anglican school in Brisbane. He hopes that a branch will be established at St Aiden’s School (an Anglican girls’ school at Corinda). He has made enquiries at two other schools: Forest Lake (Anglican & UCA) School and the Anglican Church Grammar School - ‘Churchie’ but it is early days with these two.
SCM Salon
Last year we held a regular SCM Dinner Party. This year it has become the SCM Salon. Toni and Camilla Cagnoni hosted the first Salon in March with nine of us enjoying the evening and a discussion on Christian views on the forthcoming war in Iraq.
At the Salon on 2nd May, Shawn Whelan, the National Coordinator of ASCM, was our special guest. He reported on national SCM and international WSCF as regards SCM groups in the Asia/Pacific region. Those present (Shawn, Georgia, Helen, Clare, Chris, Jimmy, Br James, Ray and Dorothy) also made decisions as regards finalizing the conference program, conference brochure and other arrangements eg. billeting, chairing of sessions, meals, day trip, etc. The evening was rounded out with a discussion about the position of the Governor-General.
The final SCM Salon for the year was held at the home of Charlie and Melissa Murry on Saturday, 20 September. It was a good evening with James, Clare, Ray, Charlie and Melissa present. ‘Faith and politics’ was the focus for the discussion.
The annual appeal to Queensland Friends of SCM for financial support for SCM within Queensland was posted on the 27 May. The response was $1,395 for the Area Council’s General Fund and $10 for billeting for the National Conference. We are grateful for the response.
Looking Ahead
A planning meeting was held at 7:30pm on Friday, 5 December, at the Barraclough’s home to ‘brainstorm’ about SCM for 2004 on various university campuses. James had responsibility for the ACU activity. Among a number of matters discussed it was resolved to
- regularly put up posters at the University of Qld advertising SCM (and its webpage contact)
- meet with key members of the Anglican Society at UQ to explore the UQ landscape
- continue with the SCM Salon
Here in Brisbane we have the vision of endeavouring to start a new branch each year. Our resources are thin but this year has seen some encouraging signs. It will be beaut if next year’s report can announce that the number of our school and university branches have doubled.
Jubilee Grapevine is a publication for students across Australia, and friends of the Australian Student Christian Movement, to provide a forum for discussion, stimulation and challenge in a Christian context, encouraging a student voice with an emphasis on being open, ecumenical, active and critical. This document is the web version of that publication.
Opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or of the movement as a whole.
To subscribe to Jubilee Grapevine, please fill in the subscription form, print it and send it to us. The magazine is produced three times each year, and annual subscriptions are $15. Jubilee Grapevine is free for students. Back issues are available online.
Please send submissions and comments to the editor. All submissions are to be respectful of all persons and opinions. They will be accepted at the editor’s discretion and may be edited for reasons of space or clarity. Submissions need not be related to the theme of a particular issue to be considered for publication.
As requested by the Council of Christians and Jews, JG uses the terms Hebrew and Greek Scriptures instead of Old and New Testaments.
This page is maintained by the webweaver and hosted by Ilisys.
