Following my last post...

http://www.indwes.edu/Faculty/bcupp/things/metrictm.htm

http://zapatopi.net/metrictime/

Note especially the difference between 10 and 25 metric hours in a day.

And finally to reference the Simpsons,

Principal Skinner: Not only are the trains now running on time, they’re running on metric time.

I think it is time to start a strong campaign for metric time. Metric time, for those of you not living inside my head, makes a lot of sense. Taking the day and dividing it into smaller units (for the sake of argument, hours, minutes, second) is fairly easily done. It has none of the drawbacks of seasons and orbits which makes a metric year so fiddly.

Simply put metric time would divide the day into 10 hours. Now these hours would be over twice as long as current hours. But that is OK. We would just go to work for 3-4 hours a day (say). Things that are currently about 1 hour long would become a half an hour long etc. The beauty of the system then is that you divide each hour into 100 minutes – each of which is slightly longer, but comparable to a current minute. Each minute is then divided into 100 seconds, again comparable to a ‘traditional’ second.

The advantages of metric time is of course the ease of calculation. 5 minutes = 500 seconds. If a train, say, left London at 4:67 and arrived at Norwich at 5:87 it took 120 minutes to get there - simple. Nifty isn’t it? By the way we would no longer need the am/pm divide. 5:00 = midday.

Now I am fairly certain this has been put forward before; probably by some French guy. Those Europeans are metric tragics, don’t you know. But I thought I would virtually put my pen to paper prior to looking around the net for what I am sure must be out there – a large dysfunctional group of net-heads who agree that we should have metric time, but can’t agree enough amongst themselves to actually get organised.

But then again, I could be wrong – perhaps I am simply a lone nutcase.

Hello there. This is a post which has been sitting half-baked for some time. This blog has been dry as the uni term finished. Let's hope (for Mell's sake) that things pick up...

Is post-modernity just a wank? I mean, I was talking to a learned and well-read colleague of mine who felt that post-modernity is both unnecessary (there are other modes of thinking which address the concerns of post-modernity more simply) and failing the test of academic philosophy departments (no western philosphy school worth its salt teaches it seriously - apparently).

Now my friend is no intellectual slouch, and he appears most aware of the limits of modernity. The 'progress' myth, the problems of 'absolute' statements and the fuzzy edges of grand narrative.
Yet he is unsure whether post-modernity, or at least post-structural reading theory, are helpful ways to 'move forward' (if you'll excuse the weasel word/term).

Up until last week I was searching for a school of philosophy or idea-organisation that might begin to cover these concerns - until critical realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism) seemed to fit. While not perfect (but what is?), a trust in the external ‘realness’ of an object held together with an awareness that ‘knowing’ involves the subject is nice – if it isn’t a cop out. Actually it IS a cop out from an empirical point of view, because it involves trust. Just like Descartes, it takes faith to believe that what is, is.

So I guess a Christian perspective can draw upon some bits of critical realism to acknowledge that,

i) the universe exists (God created something)

ii) that our knowledge of it is inseparable from our interaction with it (we are creatures too)

This doesn’t get us to the ‘goodness’ of God’s creation or the ordering of our actions within it – you gotta go read the Genesis and gospels for those – but it does help us to ground ourselves.

OK, ‘nuff said. Played soccer yesterday and some guy kicked my foot out from under me. It feels a bit stiff – though I guess that could be all part of the illusion. If so I am off to apply some imaginary ice anyway.

I was chatting to a bunch of my colleagues this morning. They had all been to a 'renewing the church' kind of conference with Tom Bandy (no wiki link so try http://easumbandy.com/) and seemed to be feeling a little tense. On the one hand they were faced with the somewhat idealistic ideas of 'missional congregation' - and on the other the stark stodginess of traditional congregations. I wasn't at the conference so I am not aware of the specific issues - but what was clear was the gut-wrenching struggle between 'vision' and 'reality'.

My conference was a few weeks ago, and the North American mission-dude I was listening to was Brian McLaren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_McLaren). Tom Bandy seems to be coming from a fairly liberal, politically progressive denomination, while Brian McLaren comes from an independent evangelical background (though there is, of course, far more to his history). The thing is; they both seem to be pointing to the same thing, a third way, perhaps ill-defined at the moment, but popping up in strange and unforseen ways. Because they come from different starting points the direction which they point is not parallel, which seems reasonable. If you are going to help a liberal, social justice focused, liturgically bound congregation discover new ways of being, you are going to ask them to different things to head in the same direction as a conservative, personal experience focused congregation. And so it is. Tom Bandy asks churches with a liberal heritage (amongst other things) to rediscover the passion of the gospel and personal (not individualistic) relationships with Jesus which underpin Christian practices of justice and truth-telling. Brian McLaren, on the other hand, asks churches of a conservative heritage to explore the justice and community-laden imperatives of the gospel in a counter to a highly individualised faith. A movement from the Christianity of modernity is a movement away from taking sides and a movement to restitution and learning... I hope.

So where does this leave my colleagues? Well I was reminded of something else listening to Brian McLaren. Namely, that the 'new' never replaces the 'old' entirely. In that sense, for the foreseeable future there will be room for traditional groups who do 'old' forms of church really well (whether high or low, conservative or liberal). And so not all congregations need to be forced kicking and screaming in the 21st century - because it can be damaging and it is often impossible (as I have learned recently). But, and this is a big but, there needs to be a huge amount of space for the new ways of doing things. And there needs to be a celebration of these new things. And there needs to be a strong sense of commissioning/blessing of the new activities - because whatever 'emerges' it must be linked 'apostolically' with what has come before. Not everyone needs to change, and the new is not intrinsically better than the old, but the new must have space to grow, to learn and to fail, to witness to the gospel and confess the murky reality of life before our holy God.

I am 30 years old and one of the younger clergy in my denomination. And yet I do not feel like I ‘belong’ to the new church completely. It will probably be far more 'relevant' for my children or my younger brothers. My job is to try and make space for the new, encourage it and infuse in it, in whatever way possible, the great witness to the gospel of the church which is dear to me. Perhaps this makes me one of the 'midwives' of a new generation? If so, a grumpy, dead, white male of a midwife.

Mark 5
He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"

"Fear God", screeched the preacher-man, "or else he will torture you for all eternity!"

It is possible that my blog entries recently might suggest that I am a re-constituted conservative - one who has experienced the excesses of liberal Christianity and is now in fear retreating into a nice safe conservative hole. Far from it, gentle reader. Let me correct
any misconceptions you might have.

I am liberal enough that I cannot bring myself to believe that God's 'default' approach to creation is the agony of all that exists in it. I try my hardest... but I can't. There is nothing about Jesus that would back up this theology. Heck, he even has mercy on the evil spirit of a strong man (but not, perhaps, the poor porkers). The kind of God Jesus introduces us to is holy and just and powerful but also (and far more importantly) gracious and forgiving and ultimately loving. So I part company with my hardnut conservative friends when it comes to the hellish fate of all who avoid intellectual assent to a five step dogma.

It is scary how often the words of the evil spirit come out of the mouths of believers. 'Dear Jesus, swear to me you won't torture me! Let's make a deal so that I will not have to suffer. Let me sell my soul to the devil... er, I mean Jesus; so that my power and comfort is secure.' Though it pops up in evangelising crusades and finds its particularility in the question 'if you die tonight do you know that you are going to heaven?', in truth it is the language of evil spirits. It recognises that Jesus holds God's power and authority, but is incapable of seeing God's grace and forgiveness. It cries out for mercy, but only because Jesus refuses to make a deal.

Let's not be so arrogant as to assume we can 'make a deal' with God. Let's not be so self-centred as to believe that God is 'just like us' and wants us to suffer because we annoy him. Most importantly, let's not get so worried about what happens when we die that we forget to follow Jesus while we are alive. For eternal life begins now.

My first O(rientation) Week as chaplain has now come to a close. Because of it I haven’t posted anything for a while. But now I’m back! Went to a Brian McLaren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_McLaren) conference yesterday which was quite helpful – helpful enough, in fact to prompt me to buy a couple of his books. I hope to say more about it in future posts – but not today.

Today I want to talk a little bit about the groundedness of (Christian) faith and practice which is inextricably woven into lives of leaders and followers. Recently I talked about the inadequacy of trying to distil an timeless ‘essence’ of Jesus’ person and ministry out from the Gospel accounts. And I think we tend to try and do the same thing with contemporary ‘heroes’ in our world. Take for example Martin Luther King Junior, Mother Theresa, Archbishop Romero and Archbishop Tutu. The actions and change these people brought about is almost universally acclaimed amongst those who hold justice and equality dear, Christian or not. These were great people who did great things.

Unfortunately many admirers fail to make the connection between an ‘orthodox’ (or even conservative) and deeply personal faith that inspired and undergirded the actions of these people. The four saints were not regarded as heretical or super-liberal in theology. Though they annoyed political and religious authorities, this was not because their God-words were heretical. It was rather that they truly tried to put the Gospel into practice. These guys were not Spongs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spong), nor Foxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fox_%28priest%29)

nor even Funks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Funk).

And so I get a bit narky when I come upon the idea that the next great transformers of the world will certainly be secular or spiritual humanists – people who have ‘progressed’ from primitive and pre-modern faith. There are some wonderful people in this boat who do wonderful things – but I do not think they have a stranglehold on the future of the world. And for us Christians: rather than finding a ‘new’ Gospel let's work a bit harder on being a people of the ‘old’ one.

I have three CDs on which Dave Brubeck and his quartet play their signature tune ‘Take Five’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Five). Two of them have exactly the same version, but the third is a live account at almost double time. Being familiar with the music and a big Brubeck fan, the first time I heard this ‘Take Five’ I was surprised and inspired – but I really wasn’t sure why. Was it the cognitive harmony (if you’ll excuse the pun) of recognising something familiar in something strange? Was it some evolutionary resonance with the faster, almost jungle-esque beat? Or was it just the idea that I now had another titbit of interesting trivia to slip into a conversation somehow, somewhen? I mean there was nothing intrinsically ‘new’ or ‘better’ about the quick ‘Take Five’. Its solos were different I suppose, but the instrumentation and structure were almost identical to the original. This was no scatty interpretation by Al Jarreau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jarreau) but simply a new version of an old thing.

The fact that interpretation is so central to jazz – that the new ‘Take Five’ works – is one of the things that fascinates me about it. Though some pop/rock bands (U2 springs to mind) make a mint by re-recording previously released songs, for the most part this doesn’t do it for me. And though I love the novelty value of covers, it is rare for a cover to become a ‘classic’(the notable exceptions would be covers which are supremely though subjectively ‘better’ than the original; like ‘Superman’ by REM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rem). But jazz is different. In jazz a cover band is often superior to the original composer. In jazz the sugary sweet show-tune can become multi-faceted and sophisticated expedition (Rodgers and Hammerstein versus John Coltrane and their Favorite Things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Favorite_Things_%28song%29). In jazz the art of creating is frenetically and frantically immediate.

At least I think so.

Which is why I enjoy jazz.

Classical purists be damned!

Matt 24

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Is it possible for the great historical mainline of Christianity to reclaim the apocalypse? We have so de-mythologised the content of the Gospels that it now seems to belong to the fundamentalists and right wing nut jobs. We are so educated and wed to modern historiography that we consign the apocalypse, and indeed most unmediated revelation, to the bin of crackpots and idiots. Bugger me, we can be arrogant sometimes!

I wonder whether the Church’s centrality in Christendom for so many centuries has contributed to our failure to embrace the rough edges of the Gospel? Having elegant, systematic notions of God, where consistency and beauty are paramount means that the urgency and immediacy and inelegance of the good news has been pared away. The existentialists (perhaps beginning as early as Kierkegaard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard?) began to show that forever seeking the ‘essence’ of reality could only ever be an ivory tower enterprise.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that we sit with our numeracy tables and timelines calculating the day or the hour or the order of things come judgement time. I think Tim LaHaye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Lahaye) is a bit of a dick. Yet there is an unsubtle, urgent, chaotic, unsettling, disturbing and amazingly hopeful thing about the second coming. There is something humbling and uplifting about the fact that the future of history has been placed in Christ’s hands. As my brother Murray quotes, “Jesus is coming, look busy!”

Matt 20

Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

I had a teacher in high school who did a bit of this and a bit of that. She took health and social sciences, occasionally filled in for English and generally wandered around the school. Mrs W had a few theories which she seemed to appropriate from textbooks and seminars and radio talkback. One of her theories was that there is no intrinsically ‘bad’ human emotion (she was one of ‘those’ teachers) – it was how you act on the emotion that is important. The exception to this rule, perhaps, is jealousy. This exception may be similar, biblically speaking, to the commandment to cease and desist coveting thine neighbour's ass!

Whatever the case I think there is a thread running through many western Christians which causes them to do a double take when they think of ‘those more fortunate than them’ – because there are always those less so. It seems to me that this is a good thing – the call to humility is the call of the rich man (and his young rulers). And yet the flip slide of the equation is that western Christians are fearful of any call to justice and the righting of wrongs – because we do not want to be perceived as envious.

The liberation theologians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology) tell us that, while enough is enough, when you do not have enough you may well be envious, you may struggle for justice and you may seek restitution on the way to reconciliation.

I don’t know what to make of this, but I hope that the web of envy and justice and retribution and reconciliation and new life are dependent on God’s generosity and not the foibles of humanity.

OK, sorry I haven’t posted in a while but have been moving into our new place. Had a win yesterday when my brother Murray helped me put in a network cable (patch to patch!) which worked first time. There is no sweeter thing than a successfully replied ping!

We are now in Newcastle and trying to avoid work as much as possible – but it seems to fill up the available space. If nothing else I need to get my diary for February into some sort of semblance, especially when people like Glen Powell keep nagging me about the Brian McLaren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_McLaren) conference thingo coming up in Sydney. For those who don’t know Brian has some interesting things to say about the church emergent – at the very least he strikes me as a gracious, generous and risk-taking kind of person. We need more of them!

Went for a spin around Newcastle Uni and will probably book into the pool in the next few weeks.

Well, it’s Saturday and I fell a bit lazy. We’re in the middle of packing boxes for our move on Wednesday, so I thought I would just leave you with this snippet from Jostein Gaarder. This comes from Maya but many will be more familiar with Sophie’s World.

Verana was a beautiful woman who was so spoilt for suitors that she couldn’t choose between them. As a result, she was forever bewailing the fact that she hadn’t time enough to decide. One day she was given a magic elixir by a sorcerer. If she drank half of it, the sorcerer explained, she would live for ever. Then she’d have ample time to find the man she wanted to live with. Once she’d met Mr Right, all she needed to do was give him the rest of the potion, and her husband would then have eternal life as well. Verana drank her part of the elixir and lived for many years without being able to settle on any particular man. A hundred years passed, and Verana was still as young and beautiful as ever, but as time went by it got more and more difficult for her to choose who she’d give herself to. She realised that the magic elixir had made it even harder for her to make up her mind. It wasn’t just that there were too many men to pick from now, but she’d also got so much more time to make her selection, and the decision wasn’t made any easier by the knowledge that her ultimate choice would remain by her side, not just for a lifetime, but for all eternity. After two hundred years Verana had met so many admirers that she could no longer love any man. Nevertheless, she’d been condemned to live on earth for all eternity. She still roams the world to this day. When a man falls in love with a woman who can’t make up her mind, he should be on his guard, because it may be cold, unappeasable Verana he’s fallen for. Many a man has lost his heart and his youth to Verana, but none will ever win her.

Matthew 9

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?

I saw a T shirt once which had three labelled images with some text above. The text said something like, “Great Masters of irony”, and had a picture of Socrates, Jesus and Alanis Morrisette. It was like rain on my wedding day.

I have heard that (United States of) Americans have no sense of irony and lack the ability to embrace self-deprecating humour. This is why, apparently, British comedy goes straight over their head. Now I don’t believe that Americans do not appreciate irony. From their great modernist poets, to the beatniks, to Woody Allen and some of their better film makers, to the Violent Femmes and other musicians, Americans can and do appreciate irony – they certainly show a degree of self-deprecation.

The problem is, or so it would seem, is that too much of America is squashed by a monolithic mythology – a mythology which is very good at blanketing micro-myths. This monolithic mythology is as overpowering in the neo-liberal commercialism of Hollywood as it is in the neo-conservative ‘us-and-them’ rhetoric of the religious right or the pentagon. It would be inaccurate to suggest that other nations and regions do not have their monolithic myths, most of them do (just look at France’s romantic myth surrounding its language and culture!). Yet the spin machines of other myth-holders are not as skilled, or powerful, or profitable, as the spin machine of the US mono-myth. It is so big that sitting here in Australia I am unsure just how much of the sun is blocked by it on this side of the globe.

Which brings me back to Jesus. Jesus was and is ironic and subversive. He was no ancient Superman from Smallville (Darren Wright who runs http://digitalorthodoxy.com/ has more to say about this), and his defence was never of the powers and principalities of this world. When Jesus asks, “Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?” our immediate response may well be that forgiveness is far easier than miracle. Yet I believe here Jesus is both ironic and obvious. Forgiveness is of God and far more ‘powerful’ than healing a paralytic, and yet where there is forgiveness there also must be healing. Masters of irony move our camera to record reality from wacky new angles.

On another note, if you will excuse the pun, I have probably been talking way too much about 'things religious' and not enough about 'things jazz'. I will try and remedy this soon (though I am no expert in either). For today let me say that when I play jazz, and it's really happening, this is as close as I've been to what my Pentecostal friends describe they feel when they fall over and mumble and writhe. Is jazz a gift of the Spirit?

Matthew 8

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralysed and in terrible suffering."

Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished…

I love the bits in the bible where Jesus or God are astonished, or surprised, or change their mind. Though theologians like Thomas Weinandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Weinandy) and others give some strong arguments against the notion of a mutable or emotional God (or at least the inadequacy of such language to describe God), I am a bit more mainline and warm to thinkers like Jurgen Moltmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurgen_Moltmann), and suspect that the surprised and suffering God is the most real one we can know. Perhaps this is simply because of the practical impossibility (for me at least) of believing that free will is an illusion, whatever the logical or philosophical arguments. Free will means that the actions of humanity and creation must be able to affect the creator.

A word of caution. Being able to ‘affect’ God does not mean we can control God – that would imply both a power and an understanding we simply do not have. However because the God of Christianity is most fully known in relationship, vulnerability is implied. Perhaps God’s greatest gift, made pretty darn clear in Jesus of Nazareth, is the gift of vulnerability – the gift of allowing creation to affect the creator. Perhaps.

OK enough theologising. My friend Mell sent me a link to a comic which she enjoys, I am just computer nerdy enough to enjoy it!

http://www.ucomics.com/foxtrot

In Mell’s words,

peace.out.

Matthew 7

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Is it possible to recognise a false prophet? On the one hand they look like a sheep, all white and furry and a bit stupid – and yet on the inside they are nasty pieces of work. In an age of pastiche and simulacra, where all meaning surfaces, do hypocrites exist?

Salman Rushdie, of Satanic Verses fame, wrote a piece on ‘ugly language with uglier consequences’ (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/ugly-phrase-conceals-an-uglier-
truth/2006/01/09/1136771496819.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1). It’s not the most eloquent piece of writing, and I have to say I don’t think ‘ugly-ness’ is an adequate term to describe what is going on. Yet in general Rushdie is spot on. The invention of language is a wonderful and terrible thing. Good poetry and metaphoric relationships can trigger those old synapses in startling ways – unveiling a new slant on reality. ‘Weasel words’, ‘corporate speak’ and military propaganda numb our minds and our senses tricking us into believing the easy connotations rather than the scarier meaning. The thing about it is, this kind of language is not ‘false’. If it were it would be so much more easy to deal with. When the Pentagon talks about ‘mortality response’ they are talking about killing people, but because they use the word ‘response’ they can, if we are lazy, shift the discussion to that which they are responding to. And so the conversation is always about ‘them’ and what ‘they did’ instead of about ‘us’ and ‘our culpability’.

The thing about wolves in sheep’s clothing is that it is only laziness or wilfulness that allows us to ‘buy the lie’. The only reason a conjurer’s tricks work is that the audience wants to believe in magic. I know I want to all the time. But perhaps I should be believing in the world of God’s reality – where an allegiance to the prince of peace means that the lies of war can never take hold. Living in Australia, the 50-something-est state of the US of A, this seems more immediately necessary than ever.

On a different tack, I have a confession to make – which I hope will be absolved. I have now a mobile phone. I know I am a bit of a tech-head but I have never been a gadget-man like some of my friends. But starting chaplaincy this year has meant getting a mobile. I now have a Treo which is a glorified diary and ebook reader as well – so I guess there might be some kind of justification for it; or maybe not. I just hope I don’t lose the infernal thing...

Matthew 6

When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

--

My grandfather was born into a life of Brylcreem, the hair oil of the 20th century. Up until the last time I saw him, a couple of years before he died, his hair was set and shiny. Over the years he became more weary and distracted and saggy but his hair was the same. They talk a lot about the stoicism of the ‘depression generation’ people who grew up through the depression years between the two great European wars. Maybe my grandfather was a stoic - always cheerful - a whistler.

His first wife, my grandmother, died when I was young. His second, a bizarre woman with high heels, believed she saw bears. Luckily, perhaps, she didn’t last long. He was a POW in North Africa and Italy before escaping to hide in the country; a six foot blonde South African surrounded by, shall we say, less tall, less blonde Italians. Man, what a life. I may get some the notes of his experiences and put them on the blog.

I used to fast, but having children threw out my schedule. Perhaps it is time to start again. I probably shouldn’t be telling you all this, seeing as the whole of Matthew 6 seems to be about doing ‘spiritual stuff’ in private – and not public. I guess I will avoid putting prayers on the blog. We’ll see.

By the way, my professional drug administering friend didn’t know the origins of the URL for this blog (freddiefreeloader). For more info see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_davis

and do a search for Freddie. (Ain’t Wiki great?) If you are really interested look for So What.

Must go funeralise.