"The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker"

An art exhibition in Glasgow, in which the artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone presented an open Bible, plenty of writing utensils, and the following permission “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it” has seen a wide range of the usual suspects outraged, because a wide range of the usual suspects responded to the invitation in what anyone could have predicted would be their usual way, but has (despite it's seeming one-liner quality) raised some truly interesting issues, in my opinion. The London Times explains [via artinfo.com]:

The open Bible is a central part of Made in God’s Image, an exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma) in Glasgow. By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

The exhibit, Untitled 2009, was proposed by the Metropolitan Community Church, which said that the idea was to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text. But to the horror of many Christians, including the community church, visitors have daubed its pages with comments such as “This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all.” A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this.”

The Church of Scotland expressed concern, the Roman Catholic Church called the exhibit infantile, and a Christian lawyers’ group said that the exhibition was symptomatic of a broken and lawless society.

The exhibition has been created by the artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone, in association with organisations representing gay Christians and Muslims. Mr Schrag, the gallery’s artist in residence, said that he did not believe in God, but that his research for the £7,000 show had underlined his respect for people of faith.

The community church, which celebrates “racial, cultural, linguistic, sexual, gender and theological diversity”, had suggested the “interactive” Bible and pens and Mr Schrag, 34, said he had been intrigued.

“Any offensive things that have been written are not the point of the work,” he said. “It was an open gesture. Are those who say they are upset offended by the things that people write, or just by the very notion that someone should write on a Bible?”

Where to begin?

First and foremost, I see no connection between taking someone up on their permission to write in a Bible and "lawlessness." As far as I know, there is no law in Great Britain or Scotland against writing in a Bible or any other text. The Christian Legal Centre ought to be far more precise with its language. I mean, surely the suggestion that this is a "legal" problem might bring more attention and/or funding to their organization, but if that's the quality of the logic they represent, the good Christians of the UK would do well to consider more secular counsel when truly in need of good legal advice.

Secondly, the Times article is rather sloppily edited in that it makes no distinction between comments like "This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all" (which is a mindless oversimplification of what at some level might be a worthwhile critique, but which as presented is simply offensive noise) and one like "I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this" (which seems to be exactly the sort of inclusion-seeking comment the project was designed to elicit). Surely the MCC had comments like the second one in mind when it proposed the exhibition. Not that I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to admit they see the difference in these comments at this juncture (although hope springs eternal), but for the Times to lump them together under the umbrella of a response of "horror" without offering another opinion is highly disappointing journalism.

Third, the comment I quote in the title for this piece falls into that category of topics that really begin to open up possibilities for any religious thinker not hellbent on regurgitating the same old line and truly interested in seeing Christianity reach a new generation:

One writer has altered the first line of the Old Testament from “In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth” to “In the beginning, God (me) I created religion.” Another has written “The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker”.

Whether the Church likes it or not, these sentiments (that man created religion and that morality lessons come to us via Pop culture more these days than via the Bible, and perhaps that's OK) are the context in which the Church must today demonstrate its relevance. Those genies are out of the bottle, and only through the most draconian of measures could the Church get them back in again without addressing and discussing them openly.

Fourth, the sponsors of the exhibition are indicating they plan a highly disturbing response to the criticism:

Last night the producers of the exhibition indicated that the most offensive pages would be removed....

Really? Who decides what's offensive? Some would say the entire concept is offensive, others would say censorship is even more offensive. This is a very bad idea in my opinion. If you can't take the heat, close the show. Don't edit it on the fly. You're never going to find that happy middle ground in this.

Fifth, some just couldn't resist the opportunity to bash Muslims in their response:

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said: “One wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced.”

The quality of the logic in that objection suggests this spokesman is programmed to connect any controversy to Islam on autopilot. The implied assertion is that should the artists have presented the Koran for comments, the response would have been more violent, even possibly deadly. The conclusion you're presumably meant to take away from that is that you can write in a Bible and only get a tongue-lashing, therefore this exhibition, which the Church condemns (meaning it's a bad thing) is actually evidence of the Church's relative benevolence (because they're not calling for the death of the artists, which is a good thing), which means that even though they are offended by it, they're not so offended as to not find something positive to point out about it. Can you say "opportunisitic"?

All together, this exhibition has sparked a far more interesting dialog than I would have imagined had I read only its proposal. How refreshing and worth while.