Dadaisms

First off let me start off by saying that I subscribe to the core Christian doctrines - I find that it is a peaceful, loving way of life that (when interpreted in the ways suggested) helps one become a better person and find meaning in life. I, however, find myself having to clarify my beliefs and specify my religious attitudes: the label of “Christian” in today’s society has unfortunately become associated with prejudice, radical “saving” and being “reborn” (it worked fine the first time for me, thanks), and isolation from the world. Christianity has become a term associated with cultism and extremities - which is a far cry from what the set of principles truly (in my interpretations) stands for.

Although there are many contradictions in contemporary beliefs, trends and ideas, I shall not delve into them all. That would take pages and pages. What I wish to address is the much-debated issue of “gayness” and “homosexuality”. Having a number of openly gay friends, I find the hostility and prejudice against Christianity disturbing - isn’t it sad that a religion that preaches love and universal acceptance isolates such a large portion of humanity? I do not wish to condemn those so-called Christian’s who believe that “homosexuality” is wrong - I just wish to open their minds to other possibilities.

The premise for my analysis lies on the idea that there are so many versions of the Bible, so many denominations, so many interpretations that ALL believe that they are “right”. We need to understand that the Bible IS man-made - although writings may be by holy men and women or inspired by God (which is not what I am arguing here), the Bible was compiled by man. Certain texts were left out completely - refer to E Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985) for the Gospels that are not included in the popular Bible.

Combine this with hundreds of translations through many languages over many generations and you’re bound to have a few misinterpretations and incorrect assumptions. Yes, we can trust that the Bible contains the will of God. But we need to remember that MAN is not trustworthy - interpretations and translations contain the prejudices of those doing the translations.

Similarly, many ministers and preachers are NOT trained in interpretation and translation. Those who are our religious anchors are often no more educated in reading texts than the average congregation member.

So all of these elements form the basis of my interpretations. I am not trying to convince anyone in this note - merely open your minds. Bare in mind that I am not an expert - I do not speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I am not skilled in translation. I have merely exposed myself to those who DO, and have formed my own opinions. I do not blindly accept that which is taught to me: people have their own motives, and so to argue “But the Bible says…” is reflecting ignorance.

I shall now briefly look at some Bible verses used to condemn “homosexuality”. In this note I consider “homosexuality” from today’s context. This context includes a liberal constitution, whereby “gay” people have emotional feelings for members of the same sex, and their sexual “preferences” are perspectives of normality. I am not simply referring to sexual acts. We also need to remember that what defines ‘homosexuality’ is also a highly contentious issue. Several scholars argue that the term and concept of ‘homosexuality’ only arose in the 19^th century. In his article “How to do the history of male homosexuality”, Halperin illustrates how our contemporary understanding of “gayness” is drastically different to historically documented forms of sexual behaviour. Baring in mind that we cannot infer any contemporary concepts onto completely different contexts, allow me to explore some ‘alternative’ interpretations to the Bible.

Genesis 19:1-11
This verse has caused much debate and argument. Lot, living in the city of Sodom, offers two strangers hospitality for the night. The enraged men of Sodom demand that Lot “Bring them out to us so that we may know them.” The problem lies in the word know. Modern interpretations have translated this word to have sexual meaning - the Good News Bible translates it to “The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them.” Immediately we see a huge difference in meaning. The city immediately becomes immoral because of the men’s desire to “have sex” with other men.

However, Jesus himself says that Sodom was not destroyed because of “homosexual” tendencies:

• Matthew 10:14-15: “And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake dust off your feet. I assure you that on the Judgement Day God will show mercy to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than to the people of that Town!”

• Luke 10:10-12: “But whenever you go into a town and are not welcomed, go out in the streets and say, ‘Even the dust from your town sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. But remember that the Kingdom of God has come near you!’ I assure you that on Judgement Day God will show more mercy to Sodom that to that town!”

Now place this into the context of Genesis: custom of the time dictated that strangers in cities could not be hosted or entertained after nightfall without the permission of the elders. Lot thus entertains the men without permission, and subsequently violates custom. Surely then “know” simply can mean KNOW, and have no sexual connotations in the traditional text? Similarly, no further reference is made to Sodom as a place of “homosexuality” in the Bible.

Leviticus

Let us place this book in context. Male priests of the time were clearly defining Jewish cultural practices and customs in order to distinguish them from surrounding “pagan” practices in the new region. We thus need to constantly refer to each verse in this book in relation to previous verses and overall context. Please note: all Greek and Latin translations are courtesy of the University of KZN, Classics Department.

• Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”.

This word “abomination” is problematic - look at other versions of the bible to see what it has been translated to. In Hebrew this word is TOEVAH, the version of the original Greek word BDELUCMA. These words translate to English as “Ritually unclean”.

In context of 18:21 (”You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.”), one can see that the verse relates to idolatry practices of surrounding groups.

Thus, verse 22 is a highly probable reference to temple prostitution and male prostitution as part of idolatry worship of the time. The verse does not refer to “gay” behaviour in a modern sense - it does not refer to today’s notions of “homosexuality”. The verse basically says, “We are Jews - we do not behave like pagans and follow their ritual practices”.

• Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” Again the context of this verse is idolatry: refer to 20:1-5. The verse is referring to the popular Molech (also known as Baal) cult. Referring to other commands, all aspects of the book refer to “ritually unclean” practices - such as eating pork, or sleeping with a woman during her period. It has been strongly suggested that “homosexual” references refer to curbing male temple prostitution as seen by Molech followers.

Thus, Leviticus does not refer to “homosexuality” as being inherently evil as many people have tried to suggest. Again, we simply cannot impose Biblical understandings of same-sex-sexual encounters onto a contemporary context.

Let us now turn our attention to the New Testament. Referring to letters of the St Paul, which were written in Greek, we need to understand that they were being written from the perspective of a Hellenised Jew - Paul was combining elements of the Greek and Jewish tradition.

1 Corinthians 9-11
This letter is addressed to the people of Corinth, a city well-known for its mixture of cultures, races, and competing religious systems. These verses refer to those who will not “inherit the kingdom of God”. The first on the list is the “immoral” (Greek pornoi). This is followed by:

• Idolaters
• Adulterers
• Homosexuals
• Thieves
• Drunkards
• Revilers
• Robbers

Referring to “homosexuals”, let us look at the Greek that Paul uses. Paul uses two Greek words here - MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI. These two words have caused much confusion in terms of translation: there are no agreed upon meanings as to what the words mean.

• Malakoi: In Greek this word means “soft” or “gentle”. In relation to pornoi, Paul probably means someone with “loose morals” or a “lack of self control”. Before modern interpretations, the word was used for both men and woman, completely independent of sexuality. Thus, Paul is using it as a general term for those with loose morals.

• Arsenokoitai: This word is highly problematic. Paul created this word as a direct translation of the Hebrew words found in Leviticus. As we know even from Afrikaans or French to English, direct translations do not accurately reflect the meaning behind the original words. The direct meaning of the word can be broken into “arseno” (male) and “koitai” (lying with; going to bed with). However, we need to consider the context behind the Hebrew word. Is Paul referring to male prostitution in general? He cannot be referring to today’s conception of “homosexuality”, as that word was - in fact - only coined in 1892.

We thus need to be careful of using Corinthians to condemn “homosexuality”. Understanding that the word “homosexual” is a very modern construct, the ideologies and discourses surrounding Paul’s context simply cannot be placed alongside contemporary ideas and attitudes.

1 Timothy 8-10
Here the law is being laid down for the lawless and disobedient, the “ungodly and sinners”. Another list is given, including: murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, immoral persons sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers. Again, immoral persons refers to the Greek word “pornoi”, and Paul uses “arsenokoitai” again for “sodomites”. We need to reflect on the contexts discussed above, and whether the modern term “sodomites” is an accurate translation for the Greek word and Hebrew context.

Romans 1:26-27

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Paul here is speaking about how the ancients knew about God, but did not honour Him - they created images and idols. As a result, they surrendered to idolatry passions:

• Women: Exchanged natural relations for unnatural
• Men: Gave up natural relations with women for each other - they committed “shameless acts”

It is clear that Paul is condemning “homosexual” acts committed by previous “heterosexuals” - this passage refers not to “gay” people as we understand it today and “homosexuals” in general, but to the behaviours of deviant heterosexuals.

Conclusions?

As can be seen, there are huge problems in translation: it is essential to go back to the original text and context. Sadly, many modern Christians are not aware of this, and many spiritual leaders are uneducated and narrow-minded. The Bible is not a text that can simply be translated for modern reading - images and context constantly change.

Similarly, there was not concept of modern “homosexuality” in the ancient world. Paul’s words he created contain ambiguous meanings, and it is wrong to just assume that “the bible says being gay is wrong”. Although the bible condemns male-same-sex-sexual-relations in Leviticus and Romans, this needs to be understood in a context of idolatry, male prostitution, and temple prostitution.

And what about “lesbianism” we must ask?

Let us turn to Jesus Christ’s teachings: surely if “homosexuality” in modern terms was an issue Jesus would have said something? And if “homosexuality” was such a sin and big issue, the bible would deal with the subject in depth and clearly?

We need to understand that sexuality is culturally constructed: we cannot transfer modern beliefs and understanding to an ancient context. We are too dependent on literal, direct translations of the bible. As Christians we need to remember that our beliefs command love, acceptance, tolerance and understanding. God loves all and is not narrow-minded: you believe He created the world, and so everything and everyone exists for a reason.

Remember that nothing is cast in stone, and that as a “Christian” people should follow your example and admire you. Judgement and condemnation of the way some people are in their very being does not, in my opinion, seem like a very Christian attitude.

Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the ability to speak in tongues, or be “slain” by the spirit. It seems to me that we’ve lost sight of what it means to be a Christian. Certainly we can preach against promiscuity, but I have a feeling that Paul would be condemning such hypocrisy and superficiality as opposed to condemning “homosexuals”.

I believe that in a world with so much blatant evil, the Christian “community” should be focusing on love, acceptance and peace. Far too much energy is being spent on the condemnation of homosexuals - the condemnation of people who often are gay and simply cannot ‘do’ anything about it. If religious leaders like Desmond Tutu believe that homosexuality is not a sin (he has written the introductions to many books on homosexuality and it’s acceptability in terms of religion), and that we should be focusing our energy on more relevant and tangible issues, then perhaps fundamentalists and followers of TV-Evangelism should take a step back and realise what harm that are doing in the name of ‘Christianity’.

[All information from University of KwaZulu Natal]

Share on Facebook

Here is a piece I wrote at the start of last year. As February approaches, registration is on the minds of all students. My prayers are with you all.

Registration Day: two words that strike fear into the heart of even the most determined and disciplined UKZN student. If the term does not conjure images of torment, torture and numerous collapsed bodies, then you must be either a first year student; a stranger to the Premier University of African Scholarship; or a total lack-wit. A combination of these, of course, is also possible. First year students tend to have this absurd notion that their induction into the University system will be “exciting”, “maturing”, or (even worse) “fun”. We should pity such students, not wish them ill. To those students returning from their vacations, the mention of “registration” is likely to result in the need for another three months of intensive psychotherapy. As such, the mention of “registration” on campus during February and March is highly unadvised. That is unless you have a wish for death-by-student of course.

2007 marked the entry into the final year of my degree – my final registration day ever. First year registration was a mess of emotions ranging from depression, to excitement (remember to pity the first years), to hopelessness, to satisfaction. And that was just the walk from Main Campus to Golf Road. As for second year registration: let’s just say that some of us are still recovering from being locked inside the Law School due to the strike action. As a result I didn’t get my hopes up for this year to be any better. I wasn’t disappointed.

For some reason, unknown to any rational person, UKZN squeezes all returning students’ registration into one day. This invariably means that you have all the second years, all the third years, all the backlogged first years and all those doing third year for the fifth time registering on the same day. Why doesn’t the University spread it out over a week? Why doesn’t the University employ more people to hand out the forms? Why doesn’t the University invest in industrial-strength fans?! As a result, the day consists of students scurrying, crawling, galloping and swinging from queue to queue to queue.

My day began with an effort to beat the masses of the great unwashed by arriving at the demarcated pick-up point at 6:30. I was twentieth in the single-file queue. By 8:00 I was fiftieth in the triple-file queue. So much for my attempt at beating the crowds. After a minor temper tantrum I was able to get in front of those who had arrived an hour and a half after me, and eventually pick up my registration form. The next step (as indicated by the massive, idiot-proof signs splayed across every second wall) was to get signatures from my lecturers. As I crossed the threshold into the air-conditioned lecture rooms where the academics were situated, I noticed several students huddled up in the foetal position. They were rocking back and forth, murmuring something about “The queue!” ‘The queue’ was the massive concertinaed line of psychology students spewing forth from the room. I looked to the heavens and thanked myself for not choosing psych as a subject. After beating my way through the poor souls and crossing the swamp that had arisen from the leaking air-cons, I found my head-of-department, looking thoroughly harassed. When he saw me, all I could read on his face was, “Oh no, not him! Please not him! He’s going to ask more questions - he always does!” And that I did.

Signatures obtained, I swam out of the room, and stood in yet another queue (surprised?), this time for the Dean’s signature. To pass the time, I watched other people. Those other people included students who had finished their registration – many of whom (mysteriously) were about fifty places behind me in the first queue. I must have missed that time warp. After standing for 45 minutes in 37 degree heat I was told by the person next to me that I was, of course, in the wrong line. How silly of me. I mean, who can’t tell the difference between a commerce queue and a humanities queue? My mistake. After breathing deeply and singing Abba to myself to keep calm, I reached the Dean. I still fail to understand why everyone else required a twenty minute consultation period.

The administration personnel who completed the next step of the never-ending process were little bundles of joy and enthusiasm. I have always thought that if one is employed in a position that requires constant interaction with students, then one should be tolerant and –dare I say – even friendly with students. Obviously UKZN missed that memo. The administration step required careful maneuvering as not to stomp on any tails of the various dragons positioned throughout the room. I had to hold my breath, as the smell of fire and brimstone was overpowering.

The final leg required an exodus down the road, across the lawns and to the Risk Management Services queue to activate my student card. This was a step that not everyone survived: many became despondent and left to rejuvenate their energies. Others were not so lucky with the dragons. I, however, had packed my box of sausage rolls. Combined with Abba, I had my elixir to last me through the final stages of torment. The road to RMS was riddled with dangers: Christian fundamentalists handing out juice; representatives from every bank in South Africa trying to convince one to join their ranks; and, worst of all, recruiters from various varsity sports clubs. I was lucky – my singing of Voulez-Vous (uh-huh!) and averted eye contact managed to keep the scavengers at bay. The queue was made bearable by the sketches of shade, though the sweat-drenched, booty-short-wearing masses diminished this positive ever so slightly. And so I began counting down the hours.

And then with a swipe of a card, it was all over. Rater anticlimactic I thought: I was expecting applauding crowds.

Nonetheless, after seven hours, my registration was finished. Yes, it was painful. Yes, I was soaked in other peoples’ sweat. Yes, I lost part of my remaining sanity on the journey. But at least I can say that my last-ever registration day is over.

To those having to register next year, I have some advice: wear an extended belt, high heels and a very revealing top. You will be guaranteed a place at the front of every queue. For those who are not able to do so, try not to fail anything. The thought of having to go through another registration day should be motivation enough to pass all your courses.

Share on Facebook

I recently applied for the “Mandela Rhodes Foundation Scholarship”, and I was fortunate enough to be shortlisted for an interview. One of the requirements from the foundation was an original essay on:

“What do you see as your own purposes as a leader of the future, and what do the lives of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Cecil John Rhodes mean to you in this context?”

Below you can read my essay. I’m very interested to see what opinions people may have.

South Africa is often described as a land of possibility, a place with overwhelming potential. Our unique history of colonialism, imperialism and apartheid has culminated in the smelting pot of vibrancy and multiculturalism that one can see daily. Our position as a country cannot be equated to any other, despite frequent attempts at the importation of systems and values. The revolutionary progression from an autocratic regime of oppression to a young and energetic democracy is something of which to be proud. However, the climate of global existence is one of constant change, adaptation and negotiation. South Africa can no longer be led under past strategies of unification; to be guided by strained notions of similarity; to be inspired by foreign concepts of identification. Change is needed: people who realise the nature of difference need to be celebrated as future leaders. It is here that I see my purpose.

I have extracted two very significant ideologies from the lives of Messrs Mandela and Rhodes that I apply to my own core beliefs. Mr Mandela has taught me that despite our perceived differences, a common goal of peace and acceptance – not dismissal – of such differences ultimately benefits all. Leaders are not necessarily born into aristocracy, nor is leadership a road that is easy to travel. Mr Rhodes has taught me that it is a mistake to spend one’s life attempting to unify diverse people under one common banner of identity. I have extracted from his life the knowledge that change is a process that happens over time, and that respect and understanding for those around one will propel one further than hostility and irrationality. I take the liberty of weaving my purpose with an expansion on these two ideologies:

I do not subscribe to the belief system that the group is more important than the individual. Until now, the leaders of our country have been following the example of others in attempts to unite the citizens and identities of South Africa under the unified banner of “Proudly South African”. The context of this unification is to set aside our differences and reflect on our similarities. Such a strategy can no longer apply: to be proud of our achievements is one thing, but to be proud of our lack of difference enters the domain of the nonsensical for many South Africans. It is human nature to define oneself in comparison to another, and thus it is nearly impossible to simply “ignore” that which helps form one’s own identity. The meta-narratives of life that defined the past can no longer be applied: an age of pride in one’s unique identity is upon us as a people, and it is necessary for leaders who subscribe to a pluralistic worldview to be in positions of power.

As a future leader of South Africa, I believe that what unites us is our differences: we can find unity through acceptance of the fact that we are not same, and the South African public can take pride in the knowledge that they have set aside attempts to be the same, have acknowledged difference, and managed to live in harmony despite such differences. As opposed to viewing our differences as “dangerous” and tools to isolate, it is my belief that acceptance, honour and respect need to be emphasised to help pursue human freedoms and facilitate both a universal social development and, ultimately, peace and stability.

Education gives one the power to guide, rule and inspire – the power to be a leader. It is through education that one can follow in the footsteps of Mandela and Rhodes and make changes that benefit all. I have been privileged enough to receive Education on many levels. Having been raised in a family of Educators has opened my eyes to the needs of the country, and having studied the influence of the Media has given me insight into the extraordinary power that words, symbols and ideas can hold. My exposure and interaction with so many subgroups, cultures, religions and belief-systems has made me aware of our deep-set differences, yet simultaneously made me proud in the knowledge that I understand how others see the world. It is my goal to extend this maturity and knowledge to a National level: using the power of the Media and the influence of authority I believe it is possible to educate others about the diversity of our country; to instil a sense of pride in their uniqueness; to impress a concept of reconciliation without the need to change one’s own beliefs (but rather negotiate one’s understanding); and to unite the people under a banner of difference, not similarity.

As Mandela and Rhodes illustrate, the path to acceptance and a better future is one filled with many challenges. I believe that it is my purpose to learn from past mistakes, adapt to a changing global environment and show the world how my peers and I exist on a day-to-day basis: in acceptance, difference, tolerance and love. As a leader, I envision this country laying the road for a tolerant and unified human race to mature from the potential that is Africa. Although this road is exceptionally long, Mandela has made it clear that the results and the improvements that follow far surpass the wait and the work put into leading.

Share on Facebook