We have to do the weirdest assignment for oral history and autobiography... we have to write about ourselves as if we’re not ourselves. Pretend to be our own biographer. Only a very short biography – could be an obituary, a job reference, a magazine article... yeah. It’s a weird exercise. Then we have to analyse it, why they choose certain things, why they left out others... but we wrote the damn thing! We have to write about whether we consider biography truth or fiction. Well, in this case it’s obviously fiction.
All my footnotes get mangled when I cut and paste I’ll just stick them at the end and you can try and work out where they come from.
Portrait of a Homosexual
What sort of person would be standing up against our church? What happens to make a person hate the church so much that they would violently oppose the work of God in this land? This profile will help you to get inside the minds of the few disturbed individuals who run the homosexual lobby.
If you passed Fionnaigh McKenzie in the street, you might not realise the sort of person she is. She might come across as a typical university student, outgoing and a bit liberal. But really Fionnaigh is a prominent member of the homosexual lobby. She writes and distributes homosexual propaganda, and she recruits vulnerable young children into the homosexual lifestyle. How did Fionnaigh come to be such a dangerous opponent to the word of God?
Even early in her life there were some worrying signs. Fionnaigh’s parents were both atheist, and they did not attend church. Fionnaigh was not baptised as a child. Instead, her parents sent her to a kindergarten run by the occultist sect of Anthroposophy. Then, when Fionnaigh started attending a state primary school, her parents wrote a letter to the school demanding that she not attend the religious instruction classes. Instead she went to the school library with a group of Jehovah’s witnesses.
During high school Fionnaigh befriended several Christian students, and started attending a number of churches. Perhaps at the time part of her was searching for a deeper meaning in her life. She became a regular attendee at one church, even singing in the worship team. She deceived many people into believing that she was a Christian, when in fact she was just using the church environment for her own means. She told her friends that she was a lesbian, and tried to brainwash them into thinking that this was ok with God. When some of her friends tried to object she accused them of homophobia, and used distorted intellectual arguments to support her position and confuse the young people of the church. Several of the people she befriended at that time are now hurt and confused, and no longer attend church.
When she faced strong opposition to her extreme views Fionnaigh stopped attending church, and her unchristian parents took little persuading to make the long drive to Auckland so that she could attend the homosexual group Rainbow Youth, which recruits and brainwashes confused young people. Then Fionnaigh went to Costa Rica as an exchange student. While she was there she met a pastor who tried to drive out the spirit of homosexuality in her life, but Fionnaigh resisted and fled the country.
Fionnaigh then moved to Wellington, where she joined another homosexual group, School’s Out. With this group Fionnaigh went into schools with the aim of brainwashing students with her homosexual agenda, trying to convince them that homosexuality was a normal, even preferable, behaviour. She also joined a homosexual club at the university, which gave her the opportunity to learn and spread more propaganda.
Two years ago Fionnaigh was given the job of teaching the children at St Andrew’s on the Terrace. Homosexual supporters claim that this group is a church, but do not be deceived. It is not legitimate. It is run by homosexuals who wish to recruit vulnerable young people, and spread their message of hate. What kind of church would let a known homosexual corrupt the minds and bodies of its children?
Fionnaigh now works for the homosexual lobby, trying to legitimise by law sexual perversions that God has condemned. This group is a very small minority who are trying to impose their views on our nation. They seek to normalise unnatural acts. Prostitution and sodomy have already been legalised, and now they are trying to legitimise gay marriage. These are very dangerous laws that undermine family values and give the Devil a foothold in this nation.
Fionnaigh also runs a website, where she promotes homosexual laws, endorses abominable practices such as homosexuality, prostitution and the occult. Imagine if a child were to stumble onto this website. People like this are trying to pervert our own children. But God has said “Enough is Enough”.
Remember, here at Destiny, we do not hate people like Fionnaigh, but we do hate the spirit behind them. God condemns this spirit of homosexuality, and it is our duty to stamp it out. But there is hope, this condition is recoverable.
For other young people, there may still be time. If a good neighbour had taken Fionnaigh to church when she was young, she might have been saved. As a church we should develop training programmes to help our members reach out to young people who are at risk, in their neighbourhood or amongst friends or family.
God’s vision in this nation is for His word and His laws to reign in our schools. Imagine if there was a Destiny in schools programme! God could bless his children in new and wonderful ways. If there had been a strong Destiny presence at her school, perhaps Fionnaigh would not have turned out the way she did. It is our duty, as the people of God, to intervene in cases such as this. A child’s soul may be at risk.
In is vital that we continue to minister to people like Fionnaigh. This spirit can be driven out, and these people can be saved. With God all things are possible… but only if we are willing to turn to Him.
Analysis
I had originally started this assignment from a different angle, but I decided to invent a biographer who was part of Destiny church. This exercise would be a useful way of evaluating whether I am putting out information that I may later regret. When I first came out, during high school, my parents cautioned me that although I was living in a reasonably tolerant environment at the time, it might not always be safe to be open about my sexuality. At the time I dismissed their concerns. Recently, however, when I took part in the counter protest at the “Enough is Enough” rally, their words came rushing back to me. I was separated from my friends, surrounded by people who were shouting angrily and punching the air with their fists. The men who had control of the microphone were dehumanising and demonising people like me, and, as I had wandered away from the bulk of the counter protest, I was part of a very small minority. I began to wonder if wearing a bright orange t-shirt and a bag that said “with perfect love and infinite wisdom, God made me QUEER”, was such a great idea after all.
The autobiography component of this exercise is edited from a page on my website. I decided to use information that really would be easily accessible to a biographer, as I wanted to keep this exercise as “real” as possible.
Selecting what to write about in the biography was easy. A few internet searches for my name combined with words like “lesbian” “queer” and “sex” turned up enough results to write a small book. I ignored any other information that came up about myself such as volunteer work, art and poetry, and concern for peace, justice and environmental issues. The leaders of churches like Destiny seem to have an unhealthy obsession with anything to do with sex. The way that my imaginary biographer has treated my life is similar to the way that many fundamentalist Christians treat the bible. They focus on the parts that mention homosexuality and ignore the parts condoning polygamy, slavery and condemning those who eat fish without scales (kina, crays and pipi) . To give the biography a ring of authenticity, I personalised phrases from interviews with Brian Tamaki, and used words from comments that members of Destiny have posted on my website.
The biography that I have ended up with is a very narrow portrait. It focuses exclusively on one aspect of my life, ignoring all the other interests, beliefs and activities that make me who I am.
This exercise has made me realise that there is a lot of personal information about me available to anyone with an internet connection. I do not, however, regret putting any of it out there. Although recent events have caused me to wonder if the tides may change, I cannot live in fear of what may or may not happen in the future. I am open about who I am so that others may know they are not alone. Also, I believe the best cure for homophobia is interaction and community. It’s easy to say “God hates fags” when one doesn’t know of anyone who is openly queer. It becomes harder when one realises that Sue and Mere or Dave and Paolo down the road are real people, with families, with hopes and dreams, with mortgages and grocery bills.
Biographies may provide useful insights that the person themselves may not be able to see, or may choose not to write about. However, biographies can also discredit people or provide narrow false views - such as the biography that I created about myself. It is interesting to consider how a person could deal with a bad biography about themselves – or if they are dead, how would their friends, family, or descendents deal with it.
My great aunt, Chris Cole Catley, spoke about a concept she called “the compassionate truth.” Michael King links this idea to a principle expressed by Voltaire: “To the living one owes respect; to the dead one owes the truth.” He also maintains that if the subject of the biography is still living, then the biographer owes them truth and respect. Not everyone agrees with this idea, however. Harry Ricketts , for example, feels that King’s biography of Janet Frame suffers due to King adhering so conscientiously to the “compassionate truth”.
Although many aspects of my life would not be recorded in a Destiny-style biography, they would not be lost, as I have published my own side of the story on my website. Oscar Wilde said that “every great man has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography.” Perhaps one way to deal with this is to tell all before Judas gets a chance. But autobiographies can also show a narrow view, as the autobiographer is choosing which elements of their life they wish to share with the world, and which they will conceal. They also make choices about what biographers may write about them. Sometimes, as in the case of Katherine Mansfield, these wishes are not respected. Through the ages there have been countless examples of bonfires fuelled by letters, manuscripts and other papers. This is an extreme way of altering the biography. Now there are options, such as placing embargoes on work in public collections, which protect the subjects, without resorting to such destructive means.
In my opinion there is a very thin line between truth and fiction. Novelists and short story writers often draw on real events or people. Non-fiction writers may make guesses when there are gaps in factual information, may choose to leave out less interesting information, or may make some events seem more important than they were. Michael Holroyd writes that “Children are sometimes told not to tell ‘stories’ – by which adults mean telling lies. But when we grow up we go on telling stories, hoping that they are metaphors which will show our lives as having significant patterns, some moral foundation, and even a purpose.”
Perhaps there is no such thing as absolute truth. Any human statement is shaped by that person’s point of view and underlying assumptions. Even writing in disciplines that we consider firmly in the domain of non-fiction, physics for example, is only guesses (albeit educated ones) that have not yet been disproved. However, some truths are truer. The biographer walks a thin line; holding the interest of the audience while respecting the feelings of friends and family; allowing the subject a voice while acknowledging that even our own views of ourselves are not always balanced and accurate.
There are, of course, different definitions of “truth”. In once sense it can mean “conformity to fact or actuality” . However, there is another usage of the word: “that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence”. Whether a biographical work has the power to reveal some element of truth about ourselves or about life is not necessarily related to the degree to which it adheres to fact or reality.
I do not regard the discipline of biography to be either truth or fiction. Rather, I believe that some biographies are closer to the concept of factual truth than others. And some have the power to reveal something of human nature, or of life. Picasso is supposed to have said that “art is the lies that tell us the truth.” Holroyd expresses a similar sentiment when he says that “…the lies we tell are part of the truth we live.” I would like to suggest that biography can be composed of lies, but has the potential to show us truth.
References
Marsh, Terry. Gospel Messages. Letter, New Zealand Listener. September 18, 2004.
King, Michael. Tread Softly For You Tread On My Life. Auckland: Cape Catley, 2001, p13.
Ricketts, Harry, Pers. com., Wellington, 2003.
BBC entertainment (Wilde)
Holroyd, Michael. Works on Paper: The Craft of Biography and Autobiography. London: Little, Brown and Company, 2002.
dictionary.com
hey, is this a third year WISC course? I think I took the same course.
Nice writing :)
Posted by: Jenni at September 15, 2004 08:35 AMHi Fionnaigh. I enjoyed your essay!
"Whether a biographical work has the power to reveal some element of truth about ourselves or about life is not necessarily related to the degree to which it adheres to fact or reality."
If only we could live with this concept more comfortably. It leaves no room for literalist interpretations of literature and tradition, setting free the healing power of myth and metaphor.
This then allows us to create the experience that we want to have - to author our lives.
Once, earlier this year, I wrote a poem that I didn't like, about a relationship that I did. I stood in the lounge of my parents' house on the farm with two typed copies in my hand. As I looked out the window into the winter garden, sunlight streamed through. Feeling like I had just taken off a pile of wet heavy clothes, I picked up a box of matches, walked outside to the burner drum in the paddock around the house, and lit the pages. They burned down to sheets of grey ash, the crumpled shape of the paper still preserved. Then I walked inside again and deleted the computer files.
This was a first for me - letting go of a poem instead of preserving it like Ming Dynasty earthenware - and it meant that I could get rid of a lot of other flotsam and jetsam before moving overseas to Japan.
But the other point of this story is that by burning a poem which created feelings in me that I didn't like, I consciously chose to create those that I did...at least in the mini kingdom of my writing. All art is biography - what else have people ever done on earth but tell each other stories?
Deleting my poem shows a refusal to adhere slavishly to the "fact or reality" of its existence. This adherence is made by those who see religious writings as divine dicatation, immutable and inerrant. And it rules out the divinely human power of co-creation.
Of course there is a need at times for accurate reportage, but always with a compassionate objective in mind. Why do we report things? Only to sell papers? Call me idealistic if you like but idealism is necessary.
Just like every other necessary heresy that prods our feet in the morning and tells us to wake up to the spark of divinity in us all!
Kia ora, kia kaha
Gareth
Some people on this site have a real problem with the concept of authentic truth.
Gareth:
"Deleting my poem shows a refusal to adhere slavishly to the "fact or reality" of its existence"
Do you intend to burn books, because they make you feel bad?
Fionnagh:
"Perhaps there is no such thing as absolute truth"
A typical statement from a confused humanities student. Two postulates to consider:
1. absolute truth exists
2. absolute truth does not exist
Can you understand the inherent self-contradiction of (2)!?!!? You are using absolute logic and true/false dichotomies to deny the existence of same! (Excuse the extra punctuation, I am so tired of all this woolly thinking posturing as logic in the liberal mind).
Solzhenitsyn wrote of such mental decay in Communist Russia: Live not by Lies [ref:1]
Furthermore, Romans 1 [ref:2] may not make for pleasant reading but accurately portrays the orthodox christian perspective on contemporary Western society:
"21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ..."
Yet again Fionnagh repeats a superficial argument against biblical teaching regarding homosexuality, refuted time and time again. I tried to expound some biblical teaching back here [ref:3], but the thread got old. The last post speaks directly to your ridiculous assertion:
"They focus on the parts that mention homosexuality and ignore the parts condoning polygamy, slavery and condemning those who eat fish without scales (kina, crays and pipi)"
For goodness sake!! I guess when there is no such thing as absolute truth you are free to take any liberties you like...
References:
[ref:1]
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/livenotbylies.html
[ref:2]
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=rom+1%3A18-32
[ref:3]
http://www.stonesoup.co.nz/ecoqueer/archives/003748.html
Thanks for your comments Robert.
You quoted me:
"Deleting my poem shows a refusal to adhere slavishly to the "fact or reality" of its existence"
and asked:
"Do you intend to burn books, because they make you feel bad?"
Unfortunately, this misses the point of my argument and replaces it with somewhat inflamatory rhetoric. Of course I don't intend to burn books if they make me feel bad, but I don't intend to write ones that do.
I told this story because it illustrates how we can create the experience we want to have. I could have kept the poem but it wasn't helping me to achieve what I wanted - feelings of calm, a sense of celebrating the relationship I was writing about, and artistic pleasure in writing a good poem. Why then should I keep it?
Those who burn books are not trying to create an experience but to limit one, or to deny it. I write the poems, they don't write me. But they do write me. In this way, I write myself. We are books, and we are our own authors. As I said, what else have people done throughout history but tell each other stories?
As far as the book of Romans is concerned, we should never place literature, no matter how sacred, above the value of loving people. Fionnaigh's essay personalises the intolerance, and the hurt it causes, created by taking the Bible literally, selectively and out of context.
"Some people on this site have a real problem with the concept of authentic truth."
The only authentic truth is love. Which is patient, kind, slow to anger, and unprepared to keep a record of wrongs, whatever they may be. Reference 1 Corinthians 13 (also by the author of Romans).
Kia Ora. Gareth.
Posted by: Gareth at September 16, 2004 02:25 PMkia ora Gareth
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It pains me that biblical Christians are so often accused of "intolerance, and the hurt it causes by taking the Bible literally, selectively and out of context". Just keep repeating that mantra, and more people will believe you. If people actually read the bible your claims would have no traction. Evangelical & Catholic Christians read & teach the Bible with faith, in context, using standard exegetical techniques.
Do you not think that it also hurts to be labelled with the prejucial language so common in this debate? ie Nazis, fundamentalists, intolerant, unbiblical(?!!), hypocrites, cultish
I stand by everything I wrote. Read further in 1 Corinthians 13 and you will find that "love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth".
Intolerance:
Why is it that in Sweden, a preacher has been jailed for preaching against homosexual sin, in Canada a publisher has been fined for refusing to publish gay pamphlets, and a Catholic charity faces legal action for refusing to hire a practicing homosexual? The gay lobby has every intention of using the coercive power of the State to tell everybody what to think.
If the civil unions bill succeeds, Gay crusaders will use it as leverage to confuse vulnerable children, by teaching from kindergarten level up that it is normal to have 2 dads, 2 mums, and to experiment with their undeveloped sexuality.
Evangelical & Catholic Christians are concerned that our country is sinking into a moral quagmire, that our children are being targeted, that more lives are headed for tragedy, because of the current vogue for sexuality without boundaries, the normalization of deviancy, and our government's impetuous pursuit of radical social change without a clear mandate from the people.
All symptoms of the human will to power, and a nation that has rejected God.
Posted by: robertp at September 17, 2004 11:21 AMPS: Nice allegory about books & people. I write as I do because of who I am, and I have a story to tell. And I don't want people to get messed up like I once was.
Rangimarie, Robert
Posted by: robertp at September 17, 2004 11:36 AMKia Ora Robert
I'm not what you call a Biblical Christian. By the term Biblical Christian, I assume that you mean someone who accepts the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, ie
1. People are born sinful (not Biblical, but a concept of St Augustine)
2. God sent Jesus and killed him as a substitute (a horrific concept)
3. People can get a life raft on the sinking ship of the earth by admitting this.
I have been sufficiently hurt by the idea of untold numbers of people suffering forever in the hell that is always a corollory to such fall/redemption theology to recognise it as the mechanism for controlling people that it is.
Also, this theology allows us to exploit the earth shockingly, since it is only seen as a cosmic train station enroute to "heaven".
Perhaps because of this you wouldn't like to call me a Christian. Well, I don't mind. I am what I am - someone who cares deeply about people and society, as you clearly do as well.
"If the civil unions bill succeeds, Gay crusaders will use it as leverage to confuse vulnerable children, by teaching from kindergarten level up that it is normal to have 2 dads, 2 mums, and to experiment with their undeveloped sexuality."
I don't think that this will happen. The issue is not education but equal rights for an oppressed group in society. Jesus identified very strongly with the oppressed in his society - women, foreigners, children, prostitutes, the mentally ill, leppers, no doubt gay and lesbian people too. These are the poor to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven (ref Sermon on the Mount).
And who are these "gay crusaders"? Most homosexual people are those you already know but don't realise are gay. Nearly all peadophiles are heterosexual. And since being gay is not a choice, how can crusaders possibly convert anyone?
PS. It's rather regrettable for Christians of any kind to talk in accusatory tones about crusaders, since the historical Christian crusaders committed rape, torture and murder across Europe and the Middle East, in the name of God, with the imperalistic aim of ridding Israel of Muslims. Something which the Israeli-American alliance perpetuates today.
Kia Ora, Gareth
Posted by: Gareth at September 17, 2004 01:14 PMHey Gareth, your comment made for entertaining reading! Fiction can be quite enjoyable. For a dose of reality, and the true nature of homosexual activism:
http://www.vigilancematters.com/archives/000143.html
And now I must correct your trollish mistakes:
1. Original sin is a doctrine that needs no justification (pun intended), if you ever see the news. The most eloquent expression of it is Psalm 51. It's reiterated throughout the Bible, especially clearly in Paul's letters. See Romans 5. The heresy of Gnosticism denies this most elementary biblical precept.
2. Horrific yes, the innocent life slain on behalf of humanity. Your implication that it was a barbaric act of cruelty perpetrated by God is totally false. Jesus was/is God, and he volunteered to do it. Satan incited the crucifixion, Death took his life, yet Jesus' divine nature is greater than all the sins of the world, and death itself. To me the atonement story highlights the gravity of our sins, and the extreme measures needed to save us from them.
3. "People can get a life raft on the sinking ship of the earth by admitting this." It's not so easy as all that. God requires more than intellectual assent to the gospel: what is more important is a repentant **heart**, one that asks for God's forgiveness and accepts His sovereignty over your life. Hosea 14. Psalm 32. Jeremiah 31. Romans 4,5.
Your other complaints:
"suffering forever in hell is always a corrollary of this theology" Often a corollary; hell is a biblical doctrine, but its true nature is debatable. Eternal torment is one theory. Slowly fading out of existence is another. Annihilation is another. I don't love the idea of hell either, but by a lifelong rejection of God, people willingly choose to go there. Romans 1. Isaiah 65.
"Jesus identified very strongly with the oppressed in his society" The homosexual community likes to portray itself as poor and oppressed whereas the reality is it is comprised of urbane professionals with a lot of political clout and spare cash. Just count the gay membership of the Labour Party. The proportion of gays in Parliament is hardly a representative sample of the population at large. Jesus came to the downtrodden of society to help them out of their disordered state, not to leave them wallowing in their misery with empty words of "affirmation"
"Being gay is not a choice" Just like being an alcoholic. Some people are born with inherent weaknesses (God bless them, this reiterates my point about original sin). Just because you love alcohol, does that mean just are powerless to resist it? NO! It may be incredibly tough, but just like AA there are programmes that help people to overcome (homo)sexual addictions. With about equal success rates.
PS: The Crusades were not necessarily as unjustified as you make out. They were a response to some kind of Islamic Jihad, not unlike the one civilized societies are facing every day. They did not ask for hundreds of children to be blown up, jumbo jets to be landed in skyscrapers, or embassies & tourist spots to be bombed in supposedly "friendly" countries!!
PPS: Seldom do I encounter someone with whom I disagree about everything!! :o) I should buy you a beer sometime. Should be a lively chat.
Posted by: robertp at September 17, 2004 07:44 PMOne more: "this theology allows us to exploit the earth shockingly, since it is only seen as a cosmic train station enroute to "heaven""
The idea that this life is the only chance you get, makes our existence here much more poignant and meaningful. The idea that what we do on Earth has an eternal effect humbles me when I think about it.
It is true that Christians are "strangers and aliens", somewhat homeless on Earth (Hebrews 11), yet we ought to recognise our responsibility to leave the place in a better condition than we found it. We are custodians of the Earth. Much like Adam, the first gardener (that's the oldest profession).
I think the Culdees (or "Cele-De", early converts to Christianity from the ranks of the Druids) just about had it right. They once worshipped trees and rocks, but they came to recognize them as fellow creatures, to be respected.
Interesting link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/idr/idr33.htm
I also recommend just about anything written by Stephen Lawhead, his recent novel "Patrick", gives life to these ancient folk.
That's all for today. I think I am a frustrated preacher! Have a good weekend.
Rob
About the Crusades:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Does this mean I win? Or did I just bore everybody off the thread!!? ;ob
Posted by: robertp at September 20, 2004 06:03 PM