.Letters for the week of March 3-9, 2004

Comments on gender and racial biases; and a plethora of reactions to Malcolm Gay's article about queer theologians.

“Japanese Story,” Movies A to Z, 2/4

Weinkauf’s Gender Bias
I’m writing to express my disgust over one of your movie reviewers’ blatantly sexist and uneducated style of writing. After being shocked by Gregory Weinkauf’s review of Japanese Story, I studied his other reviews to find a startling pattern emerging. Most movies reviewed by G.W. seem to be more likely to garner a favorable review if they star a hot woman.

While he trips over himself to find enough disparaging terms to describe the females responsible for writing, directing, and scoring Japanese Story, he refers to the female character in Gloomy Sunday simply as “a pair of boobies” or just simply “the boobies.” He loved the “sultry” and “sensuous” women in Secret Things even though he’s willing to admit the script was probably conceived in a locker room. Yet, with his closing statement that the film is “like getting absurd male fantasies and sly female strategies in one hot dose,” he assures us that he’s more than happy to spend an inordinate amount of time in locker rooms.

The only things he can think to say about Toni Collette in Japanese Story is that she is “not-so-pretty” and the victim of several “unflattering” camera angles. Even with all this, however, I wouldn’t have taken the time to write. But G.W. reaches new heights of vileness when he says that the characters “skirt the edge of retardation” and, worse yet, that the movie exists not to be “enjoyed or appreciated so much as to be coddled and patronized as one would a retarded child.” It’s disgusting and inhumane to say you would “coddle and patronize” a “retarded” child. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject knows that the main focus of modern day care and treatment of such individuals focuses on raising each one up to the highest level he or she can achieve, so that he or she might be able to enjoy life as any other human being. I hope someone at your paper understands how insensitive and immature this review — and I have to assume this reviewer — is and encourages him to overcome this handicap and strive to find some real things to talk about in future reviews.
Andrea Hart, Berkeley

“Class struggle,” Bottom Feeder, 1/21

RE: Your one-sided rant
Mr. Harper’s inability to find little positive in Oakland’s School of Social Justice displayed an obvious bias. I was appalled at his lack of journalistic integrity. The examples of problems at the school Mr. Harper cited were devoid of any context. Not a mention was made of what it means to an alternative school in southeast Oakland, let alone a school in Oakland, California, or any other money-deprived metropolis. The challenges our communities of color face in this “starve the beast” age, whereby budget cuts are the answer to failing schools, and increases in prison spending are the answer to our troubled communities, were not once entertained by Mr. Harper.

To call the line written by Mr. Harper: “Sanctimonious minorities who want to use taxpayer dollars to run a Maoist re-education camp disguised as a high school,” offensive would be a gross understatement. To equate that line to the language used on the school’s Web site is also offensive and absurd. A constructive critique would be welcome, but this kind of one-sided rant serves no purpose.

The school was established to help create a template to resist the very bias Mr. Harper reflects. Maybe this is what upset Mr. Harper. I can only speculate. I am disappointed with the Express for running this offensive drivel.
Karl MacRae, Oakland

“Outing The Bible,” Feature, 2/11

Seeing What They Want
Malcolm Gay’s article on the new queer theologians was a more balanced piece than I would have expected from the East Bay Express. Cheers to him for including the views of sympathetic critics and not relying solely on stereotypical “conservatives” as easy foils. A few comments:

As a student at the Graduate Theological Union, I can assure you that what goes on here is not proof that Christianity is changing. New forms of it are perhaps being created (as has been happening since the earliest centuries), but Christianity is not going to be changed by queer theologians. Berkeley seems always to need reminding that it’s not the center of the universe.

Jay Johnson typifies the arrogance of these so-called theologians. He takes it for granted that the only conclusion a thinking, reflective, intelligent, educated person can reach on these matters is the gospel according to queer theology. It mystifies him that “in the 21st century intelligent people still have these arguments” over queer interpretations of Scripture. But perhaps it doesn’t take a Ph.D to see these interpretations for what they are: shallow, irrational, highly politicized and sexualized distortions having nothing at all to do with Christ. Is it open and tolerant to imply that those who reach conclusions different from Johnson’s are ignorant, homophobic, sexually-repressed buffoons? That doesn’t sound like dialogue, but then the article makes it clear that these folks are no longer interested in dialogue.

Mary Tolbert, referring to St. Paul’s letters, says it all: “I think I’m right, and he’s wrong.” That’s basically what the arguments of queer theologians boil down to. Tolbert insists that the Bible is not clear on issues of sexual morality, which is not a surprising attitude considering her social agenda. The best way to make your case when you have no historical or theological ground to stand on is to question the true meaning of the text. We like a good conspiracy, no matter how ridiculous it might be — witness the success of The Da Vinci Code. Ultimately what Tolbert and Johnson are doing is nothing more than rewriting Scripture and creating a god in their own image, and it doesn’t take a theologian to recognize that.

“Mary” (the United Church of Christ minister) is absolutely right to be put off by the obsession with sex among queer theologians. It’s an epidemic in Western society, regardless of sexual orientation. The Johnson/Tolbert litany is beyond tiresome: King David must have been gay, St. Paul must have been gay, Jesus must have been gay. And of course they all had sexual hang-ups and were repressed. One of the great failings of the wider gay rights movement is its insistence on equating identity with sexuality. It’s an extremely limited and degrading view of human beings.

Though it may not have been intended, Gabriel Hermelin (the Unitarian student) provides an accurate summary of the value of queer theology: “I think we’ll find whatever we want to find.” Clearly that’s already happening at the GTU. The gospel according to queer theologians will never be widely accepted or relevant because it has no substance. Isn’t it amazing that the Jesus being “discovered” by these theologians looks remarkably like a contemporary Bay Area queer advocate? It’s arrogant to think that a small, misfit group of Berkeley theologians has suddenly uncovered the true nature of Christianity after all this time — how did we ever get along without them? I’ll continue to trust in many centuries of thorough, prayerful Scriptural exegesis and tradition over the queer version of Christianity. Johnson and Tolbert should gather up their colleagues and students and go see “The Passion of the Christ” for a reminder of what Christianity is about — they may not recognize that Jesus, but they should get to know Him.
Stuart Wallace, Berkeley

Here’s To Fresh Thinking
I enjoyed reading Malcolm Gay’s article. It seemed to be about people claiming and reclaiming religion in various ways rather than just reacting to it or defending one’s self from rigid dogmatic belief systems. It’s refreshing to hear people’s fresh thinking about Christianity, something many lay people are discouraged to do. However, I think it’s a sad part of the internalized homophobia that we all carry that has us believing that men holding hands and crying together and loving each other is exclusively the domain of gay people.

Al Hernandez, San Francisco

Three Kinds of Love
As a Christian, I must admit that the Church has, to its fault, failed to recognize the importance and value of human sexuality, as God has created us to be sexual creatures, but rather has placed a taboo on all matters sexual as sin. On the other hand, to the standard audience reading this piece, the suggestions made in this article by some of the “queer theologians” might seem reasonable, or at least feasible.

However, I was shocked by the complete misinterpretation of God’s word that many of these so-called “theologians” have suggested. They fail to recognize that the word “love” in the Bible has three distinct meanings in the Greek language, and that not every instance of the word “love” refers to the eros. When the Bible speaks of God’s love, or the love between David and Jonathan, generally they are not referring to the eros, but rather the agape (unconditional) and philia (brotherly) love, respectively. I am not a Bible scholar by any means, but it would be wise to suggest that they look carefully before they make claims such as that, especially if they are going to challenge, as it mentioned, “two thousand years of tradition.” It’s no wonder that most of these people, as Armstrong mentioned, have been widely discredited. They don’t care about being approved because that would require for them to be accurate and founded on truth. Rather, they would speak to those who know not what the Scriptures talk about and hope to convince them of these untruths.

David Yi, Berkeley

Imagine No Theology
While minister Justin Tanis’ “stand for the principle that you have the right to define your erotic life in ways that are pleasing … to you” is a great pitch for child molesters seeking religion, the idea that gratification of personal lust is a basis for holiness is in direct opposition to sacred Christian text.

Ms. Tolbert’s idea that “two thousand years … might have led us to a … better moral sense … than the authors of the Bible” is silent on how we can determine what’s “better” and arbitrarily abandons the Bible as a basis for moral sense, in the name of convenience and modernity.

Your author’s assertion that Leviticus is “antiquated” is as persuasive as the notion that yesterday’s unimaginatively profane gangsta rap is “better” or “more relevant” than Ovid or Shakespeare solely because it’s newer.

Finally, Jay Johnson’s attempt to discredit biblical quotations because they’re cited by people in mixed-fabric shirts is Jesuitical in the worst sense. If nobody who lied, stole, or coveted could discuss theology, we’d all have to limit ourselves to other topics.
David Altschul, Berkeley

The Fringe Is Growing
In an otherwise excellent article on “Queer Theology,” there is one statement I feel it necessary to correct. Donald Armstrong of the Anglican Communion Institute, which is a small break-away conservative Anglican group, is quoted as saying that there is “really nobody credible” among the biblical scholars working on LGBTQ issues. That assessment is simply wrong.

In the first place, Armstrong himself does not stand within the “mainstream” of American Christianity or even U.S. Anglicanism, as the article seems to suggest. He is among the hard-line, evangelical fringe who refuse for the most part to accept the work of modern academic biblical scholarship, which most “mainstream theologians and pastors” actually do accept. For such people as Armstrong, the Bible is a book without history, context, authors, or cultural baggage; it is pure revelation. That is not in any way a “mainstream” position.

In the second place, let me name a few of my “peers” whom Armstrong asserts are “widely discredited.” These would include people like Bernadette Brooten, the Robert and Myra Kraft and Jacob Hiatt professor of Christian Studies at Brandeis University (and past recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship — the “genius awards”); Professor Dale Martin, chair of the Department of Religion at Yale University; Professor Saul Olyan, Dorot professor of Judaic Studies and chair of the program in Judaic Studies at Brown University; Professor Daniel Boyarin, the Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman professor of Talmudic Culture in the Near Eastern Studies Department of UCB; and Professor Mark Jordan, the Asa Griggs Candler professor of Religion at Emory University. And the list goes on and on. Each of these scholars has published major books or articles on the Bible and “Queer Theory” or LGBTQ issues, and there is not a “discredited” fringe person among them.

In biblical studies, the “queer” raft may still be small, but it is growing more crowded every day. And it sails far closer to the “mainstream” of biblical scholarship and Christian tradition than anyone among the hard-line evangelicals would like to admit.
Mary Tolbert, George H. Atkinson, Professor of Biblical Studies and executive director, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, Pacific School of Religion

Been There, Done That
I found the thrust of the attempts of re-sexualizing Christian theology to a queer bent interesting, even compelling, but I happened to be reading William James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience” and found he was rebutting similar efforts to sex the canon over 100 years ago:

“It is true that in the vast collection of religious phenomena, some are undisguisedly amatory — e.g., sex-deities and obscene rites in polytheism, and ecstatic feelings of union with the Savior in a few Christian mystics. But then why not equally call religion an aberration of the digestive function, and prove one’s point by the worship of Bacchus and Ceres, or by the ecstatic feelings of some other saints about the Eucharist? Religious language clothes itself in such poor symbols as our life affords, and the whole organism (emphasis added) gives overtones of comment whenever the mind is strongly stirred to expression. Language drawn from eating and drinking is probably as common in religious literature as is language drawn from the sexual life. We ‘hunger and thirst’ after righteousness; we ‘find the Lord a sweet savor;’ we ‘taste and see that he is good.’ ‘Spiritual milk for American babes, drawn from the breasts of both testaments,’ is a subtitle of the once famous New England Primer, and Christian devotional literature indeed quite floats in milk, thought of from the point of view, not of the mother, but of the greedy babe.”
Ryan Young, El Cerrito

Inspirational Story
I am just visiting but am originally from the Bay Area and well aware of the politics and issues surrounding sexuality and the Bible. So I admit (sorry) to rolling my eyes a bit at the cover story this week. I was expecting, but did not get, a stunted diatribe that ignores the deeper issues and does not take into account a whole range of questions that go far beyond sex (like hermeneutics, cultural issues, relationship, context, use of texts that are possibly spurious, etc.)

But you just did an outstanding job of it! I learned a lot. It was very balanced, fair and explored in depth (given space constraints). As a former journalist (I left because it was so hard to write anything honest anymore), I appreciate the depth and care you brought to the piece. You also managed to educate on deeper readings of Old and New Testament passages. You have obviously studied quite a bit yourself.
Christopher C. MacDonald, soon to be of San Francisco

“A Gift from Big, Bad CBS,” Cityside, 2/4

30 Seconds isn’t Enough
What an overinflated ego MoveOn.org must have of itself. After reading the article “A Gift from Big Bad CBS,” one is left with a feeling that MoveOn.org must suffer from a psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation and or excessive love or admiration of oneself.

One would think that the most effective way for the liberal left to debate the upcoming election is to do so with a well-thought-out agenda (an agenda that shows what they would do differently from President Bush vs. their constant whining and or personal attacks on him). So far this is something the liberal left seems unable to do at any level. I know what Bush has done, but what I and millions of others want to know is “what would those who aspire to have his job actually do.” I want to be able to understand the depth of their points of view and ask detailed questions and get detailed non-Bush-hating answers — thus allowing us all to make an informed voting decision.

Petty thirty-second ads made by people who just hate anything or anyone that does not share their opinion won’t actually further the political process in this country or their cause. Until they do start to debate the issues with reasoned points that can sustain more than one exchange, we are going to be stuck with Bush.
Gordon Loudon, Alameda

“Powered by Veggies and Idealism,” Cityside, 2/11

This Mercedes Burns Corn
As someone who is striving to minimize my impact on the planet, I recently took up the task of investigating how to stop using gasoline to fuel my transportation. I checked into compressed natural gas, electricity, biodiesel, and vegetable oil. When I found out about vegetable oil, all the others options were rejected. Why would I want to take vegetable oil and mix it up with nasty chemicals such as lye to fuel a car when I could use straight vegetable oil? Anyway, I found out for approximately $800 a diesel car can be converted to run on vegetable oil. I can pick up waste vegetable oil from a nearby restaurant and filter it myself or I can purchase non-food-grade unused oil for $1 a gallon. To make a long story short, I purchased a car that was already converted to vegetable oil. It’s been running on SVO for over a year and is in excellent shape. I’m very happy with my purchase. So if you see me driving around in a Mercedes, please don’t think I’m part of the establishment!

Indigo, Berkeley

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

East Bay Express E-edition East Bay Express E-edition
19,045FansLike
14,592FollowersFollow
61,790FollowersFollow
spot_img