AUDIO
![]() |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
The Gruen Transfer should be compulsory viewing for professional communicators. And that means you, preachers!
If you haven't seen it, then you may want to pray for a third series. The show bowed out on a high this week with 1.3 million viewers.
The show's most brilliant segment is The Pitch, where two advertising companies battle it out to sell the unsellable: invading New Zealand, plastic surgery for kids, and cancelling all Australia's public holidays. And perhaps most memorably for me: that Shane Warne was a far better human being than Don Bradman.
Earlier this week, this segment hit the headlines when Adam Hunt from The Foundry produced an advert that attempted to equate the pain caused by punchlines aimed at fat women to the damage caused by jokes that vilify other minority groups.
While the ABC banned the advert from our TV screens because it included anti-Semitic and homophobic jokes, the ensuing controversy drove the advert's point home even more strongly.
For those not easily offended, the advert can be viewed elsewhere on the web.
Christians and persecution
I was reflecting on the Gruen Transfer controversy after being asked to give testimony at a Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission hearing this week.
HREOC is examining whether Australia should introduce anti-vilification legislation amongst other potential measures to curb 'religious hate'.
How do we explain to the wider community that the abuse and discrimination Christians sometimes experience can actually be persecution?
One truth the Australian community must get its head around is 'power' and the way it shifts depending on the context, and how this impacts the reality of vilification and persecution.
Christianity is seen as 'fair game' because it is perceived as the most powerful religious force in our society. There is (somewhat understandably) far more empathy for the abuses suffered by minority groups such as Muslims and Jews.
As Christians we find it difficult to understand why other religious groups perceive Christians as being so powerful. But taken together, the various Christian churches do present a very loud and dominant voice in public debate.
And yet within the Christian community there are minority groups - such as evangelicals - who are ruthlessly maligned and face genuine discrimination in the secular West (as catalogued by Russell Powell yesterday).
'Proselytism' is a particular sore point and the right to evangelise is set to come under sustained attack. And yet people are free to evangelise and seek to change people's beliefs when it comes to other value systems - political parties being a case in point.
So in order to untangle these threads, is satire a technique that may work for Christians?
Satire changes lives
Back at the Gruen Transfer we saw a different kind of conversion.
For his part, Adam Hunt, who has made a fortune from selling obnoxious 'comic' T-shirts (including one that read 'police targetting fat chicks') told the Herald that the experience of making the advert was a 'genuine epiphany' claiming that he has repented of his 'crass and tasteless' ways.
Satire is a powerful tool for both challenging people's assumptions and imparting wisdom and knowledge.
This is a point made endlessly by the expert advertising panel on the Gruen Transfer.
The ongoing 'little pinkie' anti-speeding adverts in NSW are an excellent case in point. Apparently the evidence shows that this cheeky approach has made progess in changing attitudes where decades of 'hail and brimstone' fear campaigns have crashed and burned.
In my view this is a point that HREOC must also take on board. If they really want to change negative Australian attitudes to certain minority religious groups then education (especially satirical advertising) would be a smarter approach than anti-vilification legislation.
Humourless Sydney Anglicans?
Sometimes Sydney Anglicans can come across as an earnest and humourless lot.
OK. There is one high-profile exception. But he only serves to prove the rule.
Indeed the Grumpy Old Bishop's career goes a long way to proving my point.
The infamous poster war between his Barneys ministry and their neighbouring pub is one of Sydney Anglicanism's finest moments: where our message genuinely entered the popular consciousness.
Given that the gospel is so utterly counter-cultural, satire should be a natural ally as we confront the powers and principalities.
That we find satire so difficult probably indicates that we are far less counter-cultural than we imagine.
We can't all be funny. I for one don't claim to be a comic writer.
But the point is that we don't really value those who are, and struggle to harness them effectively for communicating with the wider world.
In this regard the Muslim and gay communities have put Christians to shame in recent years.
But there is a flip side. I have an important question for my comedian friends, like Four Horsemen of the Apocryphal.
Do you have your satirical guns pointing in the right direction?


In my view it would make more sense to tackle aggressive behaviour through criminal laws and hateful attitudes through guidelines (for the media) and education/adverts (for the public).
Given the apoplexy from net-libertarians about porn filtering it is ironic (but no surprise) that this issue has no traction in left wing blogosphere. Such laws would aim to restrict their freedom of speech on the net far more than my freedom of speech in print given that journos already operate under media guidelines about fairness etc. (ie The atheists will potentially no longer be able to call Christians 'stupid' and 'dangerous' for trusting in an 'imaginary friend in the sky')
What do other think about religious anti-vilification laws?
first up, great piece on an important topic!
second, as someone who is being forced to look closely at church history while studying at a Bible College, it seems that in the first 1500 years of the church, the more that the state or legal system protected Christianity (as an institution), the greater the risk was for Christian leadership and laity to become corrupted.
Also, my personal perspective is that the Bible does not call for us to glorify God by gaining people's respect for the Christian faith through the support of the government or the kudos of the worldly wise. I believe 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 affirms this view.
Rather, it is our biblical preaching and sincere godly living (love, generosity, forgiveness, etc.) that will make the church an effective witness.
So, in my opinion, anti-discrimination laws will only serve to make Christians feel better about themselves this side of heaven (like when you find out some celebrity is a Christian) and will also confirm the view that Christians need earthly law and institutions to strengthen the church.
Thirdly, and lastly, as a member of the team producing Sydneyanglicans.NOT we really want Christians to be living sincere, godly lives (ourselves included!) and to be holding onto the things that matter and shedding the things that don't. Our podcasts aim to expose those moments when Christians seem to miss the point by valuing the periphery while losing what is central.
The proposed law is about 'vilification' not 'discrimination', so it won't do anything to protect Christian institutions (but maybe I've misunderstood your argument.)
In affect the laws will mean that you can not say something that might offend Muslims, Jews, Buddhists (or potentially Christians).
If it looks anything like the existing religious anti-vilification law in Victoria then there will probably be a clause allowing artistic freedom which means the stuff that usually upsets many Christians will not be included.
Have you ever thought about targeting issues outside the church gate where Christians are in a position of powerlessness against secular forces such as the media etc???
RE: Christians who are in a position of powerlessness against secular forces such as the media...
At this stage we have no plans to target issues outside the church of that nature. At this stage we want SydneyAnglicans.NOT to be focusing on where Christians get it wrong. At the risk of committing some dodgy exegesis, I would say we are taking a 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 approach to our satire: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."
My feeling, and I think I speak for the whole writing team, is that the secular world believes Christians spend too much time judging outsiders while not fixing up their own body of believers. I am often inclined to agree...
So, while the mistaken views of Christians held by the secular world are worthy of satire - and we may do such a piece one day - at the moment we are more interested in exposing the blindspots of Christians (and especially evangelical Christians such as ourselves).
Only Christians will want to lovingly (if sometimes cheekily, as in our case) expose faults in the Christian church for the sake of reorienting our behaviour and practice to what the Bible teaches.
SMS Church, for example, intended to expose the often-consumerist attitude of Christians. We think that is important, because it's fundamentally sin.
Agree with you on vilification laws. Here is an extract from a submission I am planning to put to AHRC supporting a right to freedom of religion but opposing such laws.
In addition of course we have the spectacle of courts poring over the details of religious debate as in the Catch the Fire case.
What you are saying is that as satirists you have a 'prophetic' role in calling the people of God to repent.
But a prophet can speaks to the 'nations' too surely.
@ Neil. Thanks. agree with you.
I'm loathe to esteem myself and my fellow horsemen to such a status.
I would rather think of us as 'fellow brothers in Christ offering a gentle, humour-coated rebuke'. With that as a given, I do not feel we have the same authority to rebuke those who would not call themselves 'brothers'.
That said, I do understand where you are coming from, but I would rather start work on my patch first then work outward...
off the bat:
1. Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal saying their God had gone to take a leak
2. Paul telling those of the circumcision view to emasculate themselves
3. the healing of the blind man in John 9 - the response of the Pharisees is priceless
c'mon there are plenty more
In short they want any non-ordained church job open to all.
You couldn't ensure that the editor of SC is a Christian or the principal of an Anglican school.
It is really bizarre thinking