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

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

Right, so I haven’t blogged in ages. That’s not my fault though. Well technically it IS my fault, but I’m not talking technically here. The 3rd year combination of Media Studies, English and Classics is not particularly conducive to that idea of “free time” (what is this thing “relaxation” that people speak of?!). Nonetheless, I present another of my random thoughts - this time on the wonderful phenomenon that is SRC Elections on Pietermaritzburg Campus.

Yesterday on campus was “election day” for the new SRC (who the old SRC was is anyone’s guess). What this meant was that the campus lawns were covered in arrows pointing to the “polling booths”, discarded flyers and pamphlets, and candidates surrounded by their recruiting minions. It was impossible for one to quietly sit in the shade of a tree and sip one’s Cranberry juice and read short stories - annoying whistling and “hey hey bru”-’s, followed by shouting and raucous laughing, were relatively minor distractions. I was approached no less than 3 times in the space of 30 minutes by different candidates to try and gain my vote. For each I posed the following:

• What effort has your candidate made to make him-/herself known to me before now?

• What does your candidate promise to do for MY departments?

• How do I know that I can trust your candidate if there has been NO information supplied until now?

• Why should I vote for someone I don’t even know?

• Is there equal representation?

I find it bizarre that someone can approach a complete stranger and ask them to vote for a virtual non-entity. Surely it’s common sense that if you want the votes, you need to begin canvassing to a variety of students BEFORE the actual day of election? I also find it unethical to simply vote for the sake of voting - it’s a toss up in the end, I suppose, of exercising your right to vote and having a say, or keeping silent when you don’t vote.

However, in all honesty, the SRC doesn’t seem to DO anything, so whether or not I vote isn’t a particular issue for me.

Share on Facebook

When I left high school I was under the impression that all the petty attitudes would be left behind. That those immature and irritating boys and girls who didn’t pay attention and who just scraped a matric would decide to pursue more fruitful ventures without the need to go to a tertiary institution.

I was wrong.

Perhaps it’s just my class in particular. But I sit in lectures day after day, trying to be a good student and listen to the lecturer, yet I always manage to get distracted by the constant sniggering and whispering and giggling that drifts from the back of the room. It completely boggles me: surely if you’re paying a small fortune to go to University you’ll actually pay attention to make sure you get your money’s worth? Surely if you were going to talk and miss the entire lecture you would opt to miss coming to University that day at all? Surely lecturers should be allowed to lob light/slightly heavy objects at the nearest chattering “student”?

I understand that University life is about freedom and relaxing before hitting the “real world”. But come now, there’s a time and a place for everything. Leave the chattering and socialising for after the lecture. It’s highly distracting - for both the nerds in the front and the lecturer - to have a constant stream of inaudible blah-ing from the far extremities of the room.

Share on Facebook

I often wonder how “people” - our parents, advisers, educators - expect us to know what we want to do with our lives. I wonder how “adults” (even though we now technically fall into that mysterious realm) expect us to know where we want to be in the next 5 years. I wonder how they expect us to be so certain of what career we want to follow. And I wonder how they can say “you can do anything you put your mind to”.

When you leave high school - at the age of 17/18 - you are expected to choose, if you want to study, what University you want to go to, and what Degree you want to pursue. The majority of the time, your choices are limited by finance. So you land up choosing the most affordable option. Great. When you get to University, you are presented with sheets of paper with module names that obscurely hint to what the course really involves. So you choose either those modules that sound mildly interesting or those modules that your best friend (either from high school or the new one that you clung to in the registration line only an hour before) is doing.

During the course of that first year, you chop and change so many times from module to module that you become unsure of what you want to land up having at the end of 3 years. In my case, I went from studying Politics to studying Law, to studying English and Ethics, back to studying Law, and eventually - entirely be default - to studying Media and English. I was lucky - I managed to find Majors that I actually enjoy. Others are not so lucky - they continue to be stuck in the quagmire of intellectual sludge that they are immersed in, yet are simultaneously drowning in cluelessness.

At the age of 20/21, now in 3rd year, many of my peers don’t know what they want to do next year. Yet suddenly, next year is THE year - it’s the year that you can start working full time. Fulfill the rite of passage. Become a grown up. Ditch the student life. Become *gulp* independent.

However, some of us want to do Honours. Yet here again we see that vicious cycle repeating itself : expect to know what you want to do. In a flash of deja vu, our options are again limited by the institution we attend and the undergrad degree we have pursued.

What happens after Honours? How do we know “what’s out there”?? Suddenly, after now 15+ years of education and shelter, we’re being thrust onto the pinboard of society, left to fend for ourselves with - technically speaking - no knowledge of what to expect. Am I the only one that is just SLIGHTLY intimidated?

Of course, we could just continue to study forever…

Share on Facebook