Redemption on the Rocks

My family are all atheists, so it’s no surprise that I am too. My interaction with religion has been limited to weddings, funerals, or the occasional school play. A friend took me to a crowded Mass last year, but we were separated upon arrival, leaving me to sneak peeks at other churchgoers who knew what to do. With that in mind, it is fair to say that I was slightly surprised to find myself at St Mark’s on Friday 21 November for the 8pm start of Bible and Baileys. 

Upstairs, the School of Divinity’s St Mary’s Society had prepared a room for debate. I queued for a token snifter of Baileys (as is only right) only to find that most people were going for wine. This was the first sign that the crowd meant business when it came to booze. 

Robert Rayner, the society’s Academic Rep and fourth-year student, chaired the debates. After two opening speeches and points from the floor, each speaker would respond and close; this was followed by a vote and a quick break to refill our mugs before the next motion. We settled down for the first.

"This house believes capital punishment is against Christian principles."

For the proposition, second year student Ella Prieto, discussed criminal intent, judicial authority, and the idea that being made in God’s image gives us inherent worth. Citing God’s mercy toward David and Abel, she argued that we must follow His example, closing her statement with John 8:7, “Let the one without sin throw the first stone.”

Post-grad Matthew Taylor, for opposition, invoked the Mosaic Code — drawing audible objections from the floor — and God’s command to Noah in Genesis 9. He flipped Prieto’s argument, claiming that bearing God’s image demands that we enforce the death penalty as a reflection of His justice.

The crowd, evidently well versed in theology, followed the arguments with ease. The proposition carried the vote, and after a quick refill break, we were on to the second motion.

"This house believes the University chaplaincy is detrimental to the University’s religious life."

After a few mugs of wine, the house began its descent into silliness. During the points from the floor, a slip of the tongue referred to God as “herself,” causing quite the commotion!

During the next break, I spoke to the society’s President, fourth-year student Mathilda Singer. I asked her how the fledgling event — only on its fifth meeting — first emerged. “It started as a rival to Port & Policy that STAUCA runs,” she said. “We realised people love the debate format, but they don’t like STAUCA.”

When I pressed on their relation to STAUCA, Singer spoke candidly. “Let’s not conflate outrage with entertainment […] STAUCA forget that when you debate something, you give it airtime. We’re just here for a bit of a laugh on a Friday!”

Running over our break, we made it back in time for the third motion.

"This house believes present giving at Christmas is unchristian."

By now, the silliness was in full swing. The opening statements began with proposition, Vice-President and third-year Luke Robinson’s token party hat and ended with his opponent and friend, fourth-year George W.K. Stevens, gifting him a can of Febreze. This was later found out to have been stolen from Robinson’s bathroom.

The points from the floor ended with a spontaneous rendition of ‘Jerusalem’, the room buzzing with a drunken cheer. Chair Rayner brought the evening to a close with a near-unanimous vote for the opposition. 

A flying two hours had gone by, and I was sorry to see Bible and Baileys come to an end. Instead of being swayed by religious zeal, I had caught a glimpse of Divinity at its most playful. Maintaining my reservations about both God and STAUCA, I was more than delighted to spend a jovial evening among lovers of comedy and debate. In Singer’s words, there was “too much booze” for anything else.

Photo by Mali Delargy