page 2

Munz & co: superstars or supermyths?

Last Friday, a large audience attended a debate/forum on the subject, "Jesus Christ: Superstar or Supermyth" in the Union Hal).

The audience may have felt that they were witnessing neither debate nor forum, but a combined lecture from Professors Pouwer (Anthropology), Munz (History), Geering (Religious Studies) and Mr lorns (of the Philosophy Department).

Pouwer spoke first, but his contribution, couched in anthropological jargon, was probably too esoteric for most of the audience. One point, discernible in an otherwise aimless speech was that myth was the means by which man can know the unknowable.

Professor Munz (whose earlier announcement of his resignation as Head of the History Department had evoked uninhibited applause, from someone in the audience) although purporting to have viewed the subject in its simplest form, clarified nothing. Speaking on the interpretation of the resurrection, he said the pivotal question was; the resurrection, myth or fact? While unwilling to commit himself to a definite answer, Munz did conclude that in resolving this question, in historical terms, the Gospels were of no use. (Jolly good point, old chap)

The third speaker was Professor Geering, whose main point appeared to be that Jesus Christ, Superstar and Supermyth (for to be the first he also had to fulfil the requirements of the second) had, throughout history, few serious rivals. Geering identified these as: Buddha, Mohammed, and Karl Marx. He countered Munz's questioning of the resurrection by saying that this 'pure' myth, was outside the scope of an historian

At this point the first in a series of interjections and questions that disrupted the sterile lecture format the "debate/forum" had assumed, was made by Roger Steele. He angrily denounced the speakers academic approach as being irrelevant sophistry. His question was: what is the relevance of Christianity, its myth or superstardom, or whatever, to the present social situation.

Geering, continued, only after prompting from Munz, in vague terms about the 'myth' of Marxism.

John lorns had little to say except to criticise the other speakers. Not surprisingly then, his response to a later question, was that he was still having difficulty deciding the reality of objects around him.

During question time, Roger Steele repeated his question concerning Christianity today. Steele's claim of motivation by the the 'class struggle' was adequate provocation to Munz. Blandly he trotted out the" tired old jokes: if Steele is concerned with class struggle, why is he sitting around smoking cigarettes, etc. The audience tittered. However David Tripe's "boring" speech, to illustrate the shallowness of what the panel had said was not so well received. The forum concluded, having degenerated into an erudite discussion of reality and truth. Roger Steele's question remained unanswered, by the evasive panel.

The speakers would have departed further entrenched in their apparent belief that dialogue with the "impolite" student left is impossible. The majority of the audience would have gone away with similar sentiments.

I left, feeling pessimistic, about the apathy of the students present. It seems members of the academic staff, when lecturing or condescending to attend a "debate" or "forum" are expected to be listened to attentively. However if what they are pontificating on is challenged, as Roger Steele and David Tripe "dared" to do, the interjector is not accorded the same treatment.

It might be cosy for ivory tower academics to sit around debating the ins and outs of the ressurrection, in a atmosphere of self-indulgent back patting.

However if they must discuss Christ then surely the most pressing topic is his pertinence to today's social problems.

Graeme Simpson