For some time I have been considering developing a career as a performance artist in the medium of university bureaucracies. I have been working on some small pieces which I think true aficionados of the art will appreciate. In one continuing work, I am both staff member and student simultaneously in two different universities in entirely different parts of the country. This is not fully developed yet, as I have only managed to collect three of the relevant ID cards.

I am prouder of the conceptual piece I performed earlier this year, in which I was a stage three student tutoring a stage four course in the same subject. Granted there were two different departments involved, but they were both teaching computer science. And about half of my class of students were also taking the papers in which I was myself a student. I am hoping one day to achieve the holy grail of university performance: lecturing a course in which I am my own student. Some have said this is an impossible dream, but I say it’s so crazy it might just happen. Crazy like a fox. A fox tied in a knot. With no beginning and no end, just an endless foxy ouroboros.

This is by way of building up to the special honour granted to me by the University of Auckland today. I asked for a transcript showing that I have been awarded a graduate diploma as part of my application for a PhD. The said I didn’t have a Graduate Diploma because I didn’t have enough points. It seems they have neglected to cross-credit courses, because they have lost the transcript I gave them two years ago showing that I have been awarded an MSc, as part of my application for a Graduate Diploma.

What especially pleased me, however, was learning how many points they have recorded for me. I require 107 points. I have 98.56 points. I need hardly point out that this number is not an integer. Due to changes in regulations partway through the year, it was apparently determined that some of my courses were worth slightly more than the normal fifteen points, and a figure of 17.14 was arrived at. Assuming that this mess is eventually sorted out, and I am awarded a diploma based on a whole number of points, I hope the decimals do still remain on my record. I would like one day to see whether I can have 0.56 points credited to some new degree. I would insist that it not be rounded up. That would be entirely unfair to all the other students, who worked hard for the extra 0.44 of a point I would be getting for free.

My thoughtful Catholic friend Muerk has provided a link to the full text of the speech recently given by Pope Benedict XVI, in which he is reported to have said terrible things about Muslims. Most reports I’ve seen included only the briefest section, in which the Pope is himself quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

In sharp contrast with much of the news media, the Pope carefully puts the quote into context. It was spoken probably around 1391, in a barracks in Ankara. The Holy Roman Empire was in imminent threat of being destroyed by Muslim armies. And yet, the Emperor had invited a learned Muslim from Persia to discuss the theological differences between Christianity and Islam. The Pope further points out that the record of the conversation is somewhat one sided, as it was probably written down by the Emperor himself a few years later. And he also acknowledges that the Emperor must surely have known of the famous instruction in the Koran “There is no compulsion in religion”, and that he spoke “somewhat brusquely”. This is perhaps understandable given that it must have seemed to him that his entire civilisation was being destroyed as he spoke.

Expanding the context further, by the simple action of reading the next paragraph, it becomes apparent that the controversial quote was not the Pope’s point. In fact, it seems to have been included only to give context to what the Emperor said next, which is really closer to the heart of the speech.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (“syn logo”) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats…. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….

The Pope goes on to discuss the relationship between faith and reason, defending the absorption of Greek philosophy into Christian theology and reminding his audience that the empirical questions of science are not the only ideas that can be subjected to rational enquiry. Which makes sense, given that he was speaking to an audience of scientists. It’s good, thought-provoking reading.

I do think the question of context is crucial in understanding religion, and most especially so with respect to Islam. The verses of the Koran were collected immediately after the death of Muhammad and are, beyond reasonable doubt, complete. They were not selected to remove passages that related directly to events occurring at the time they were spoken, and they are not filtered through several translations aimed at presenting their message favourably to a different culture. The purity of the text is a good thing, but it also places an onus on the reader to understand the context of history and culture in which it was originally presented, and without which it cannot be read with a fair mind.

The concept of jihad is a good example: it was presented in the context of a tiny Muslim community beset by enemies who were not prepared to enter into rational debate before attacking, nor to make a distinction between those who had freely chosen Islam and those who happened to be married to Muslims, or their children, or otherwise fell within the Muslim camp for reasons separate from religious belief. While it may be praiseworthy to choose martyrdom for your own beliefs, it is not acceptable to inflict it upon others. There is no compulsion in religion.
Again, it is understandable that this distinction would not have been obvious to Emperor Manuel II. It was, after all, apparently lost on many Muslims, a goodly number of whom were about to destroy what he knew of civilisation. But it should not be acceptable for us to assume that jihad is nothing but an irrational attempt to force people to convert, nor that a theologian as learned as Pope Benedict XVI would share in that assumption.

Lest anyone miss the point of his speech, the Pope did summarise with a nice pithy quotation, also from Manuel II, and highly suitable for reproduction as a soundbite. It’s a terrible shame that it couldn’t have been this message that was broadcast to the world.

Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God.

I’m not sure how long they’ve been up, but it seems National Radio finally has podcasts.

Opening night went well, all things considered. I mean, traditionally a daytime meteor large enough to create a sonic boom heard all over the province is considered an inauspicious omen in theatrical circles. But nobody mentioned the Scottish Play, so we got away with nothing more than me saying “Majesty” when I meant “Highness” in one scene, and accidentally kicking in the only backstage light in an attempt to perform a stretching exercise. But neither these minor mishaps, nor the fact that the set was still being completed behind the curtain well after the audience were seated, did not seem to significantly mar the production.

People often ask me where they would go to see a play in with a Chancellor in it. Usually they don’t seem to mind if there are also some kings and queens and robbers and dukes and ladies in waiting. If there were plots and intrigue and mistaken identity, that would be all to the good, and they would be quite content if there was an excellent script with many fine comic moments, just as long as they get to see some chancelling.

I can now report that such a play exists. As it goes by the name of Courting Temptation, and not by my suggested title Here Comes the Chancellor!, I feel it necessary to inform the public that it does indeed have a Chancellor in it. So if that is your main criterion for an enjoyable night of theatre, this is the play for you.

7.30pm, 12-15 and 18-22 September
Cloud Nine (this is what they currently call the Upper Common Room)
UCSA Building
90 Ilam Road

Tickets are $5 for the unwaged, $8 for the waged, and they can be booked ahead at bookings@dramasoc.org