MetaCatholic

I find it almost impossible to describe my taste in music, classical or rock. So here’s one of my iTunes playlists (my rule is no more than one song by each artist) to fill in what I mean by eclectic (although it’s not exhaustive of my taste). Should you be interested. And if you want to compare tastes.

If you’re in Berlin before October 5, or in London between November 13 and March 15, then catch the exhibition Babylon – Mythos und Wahrheit, at the Pergamonmuseum and the British Museum respectively. It is a fantastic display of Babylonian history, followed by its Western reception history, remade as a symbol of power and destruction. The history is a mix of artefact (and some replicas of other museum’s artefacts, and reconstruction, which display you enter through the Ishtar gate. I found myself wondering (this has never seemed obvious in pictures) about the phallic design of the famous Codex Hammurabi stele. I’m sure someone somewhere must have commented on this, but it’s not my area of expertise.

The exploration of the myth is equally fascinating, embracing everything from Revelation via William Blake to Bob Marley.

Unfortunately, while photography is allowed in the permanent collection, it wasn’t allowed in this exhibition. There are however some good photos and illustrations on the Pergamonmuseum website.

It’s meant to be a virtue, even a biblical and traditional one, and not just the gentle advice of dubiously gay-friendly popsters Take That, but it does seem to have got lost. Arguably a lack of patience was a significant failing, even sin, in TEC when it consecrated Gene Robinson. But currently it seems to be characterising the other side. There seem to be an army of bloggers out there ready to storm the comments section of any post they don’t like.

But sometimes the lack of patience comes back to bite you. According to this report Greg Venables, for one, is quite annoyed that a report he’s not seen or discussed has gone out over his “signature”. But it gets worse. GAFCON issued a sharp critique of the covenant proposals, including a comparison with what they called the Nassau draft. Their executive summary said

The St Andrews Draft is not a conservative revision of the Nassau Draft. Its changes are so significant theologically and practically that they completely recast both the grounds of common life together and the process by which the assault upon that common life by TEC and ACoC is to be addressed. The Nassau Draft is a much better document than its successor.

They’ve now taken that document down. Why? Oh, because they’d actually compared it with proposals they themselves had put forward before the idea of a covenant was even on the table, and not with the Nassau Draft Covenant at all. We all make mistakes, and that’s why patience is a virtue.

Like I say, a little patience. It may not save the Anglican Communion, but (did I mention?) it’s still a virtue. At the very least it saves you getting egg all over your face.

If you are remotely interested in Dr Who, sound effects, dance or electronica, then check out this “illustrated” (I have no idea what the equivalent word should be for aural examples) story about Delia Derbyshire’s work for the BBC’s Radiophonic Workshop in the 1960s.

You’ve probably heard about the man who designed a Christian aeroplane. It couldn’t actually fly, but did have John 3.16 painted on the wings. Now in a serious volte-face Nick Norelli decides to (at least for a time) give up listening to secular music because he wants to take Paul’s advice seriously. While I can commend him wanting to do what’s right for him, I think Christians make a mistake of Brobdinagian proportions when they equate excellence, truth and so on with being Christian, or assume that what is secular can’t share in those qualities. (Nick may not have intended to say this, but it’s certainly how his post comes over.)

It seems to me that starting from the perception that God is a God of truth and beauty, we can go in one of two ways.

1. We can say that therefore unless God is explicitly (and no doubt biblically) referred to, what is being spoken about cant really be true or beautiful.
2. Or we can say that therefore God is to be encountered in and praised through and for anything that is true and beautiful.

Again, it seems to me that the former position has a frighteningly low doctrine of creation and heads off towards Manichean territory. While I wouldn’t want to reduce truth to aesthetic perception or personal taste, and recognise that the second position needs both nuancing and disciplining within a theological framework, nonetheless, it’s where I pitch my tent.

(PS. Nick, nothing in this post should be read as a criticism of any spiritual discipline you want to undertake, nor as an endorsement of your hitherto execrable taste in rap music.)

I’d forgotten about this until some idle browsing reminded me. A few years back, this advert got banned from UK TV.

It was held to be offensive to the feelings of pregnant women and the bereaved. What’s interesting is that no-one seems to have objected to the message that we should “play more”. Instead they objected to the idea that “life is short” when it was portrayed so graphically (and, I think, humorously). Was this censored because the advert was offensive, or because reality is offensive?

Eddie has a go at exploring the metaphor of software localization as a way of exploring what happens in cross-cultural mission, and where it might differ from translation. It’s all worth reading, but here is his conclusion:

After all, in Translation, the language changes, but the core message does not change. However, I think that the localisation concept is more helpful in that it highlights the difference between the unchanging core code and the translated interface, capturing some of the complexity of what happens when the Gospel moves into a new home.

I’m going to take some time pondering this, but I find myself with some big questions. Having recently made the switch from Windows to a Mac, I’ve become acutely aware of just how different, for example, Word is on another platform. There are some features it’s Windows counterpart can do that Word for Mac can’t, most noticeably the handling of right-to-left text. This suggests to me that under some apparent similarity, there are significant differences in the code base, and even when they look alike, and share the same format, some serous underlying differences still exist. Then again, the Mac version has publishing and notebook layouts, and Mac Powerpoint has 3D transitions like the cube effect completely lacking from it’s Windows counterpart. These changes may be enabled by the OS, and they have certainly been encouraged by the lively competition of iWork. The different platform has encouraged different abilities and developments, not all of which could have been forseen, or perhaps even been likely if Word only existed on Windows.

Now, like Eddie, I’m well aware of the limitations of this metaphor, but taking it this one stage further suggest ways in which new contexts not only reframe the core, but may contribute to the core’s development. For example, there are many evangelicals (at least) who would argue that some form of substitutionary atonement is part of the “core” of the gospel. Yet, without Anselm reflecting on the gospel in the light of European feudal culture and developing his theory of satisfaction, could substitutionary atonement ever have got going? There are other examples, equally core, like the homoousion that one could tease out.

This suggest to me, at least, that the interplay between gospel and culture is always complex, and each will influence the other. I am uncertain just how much, if any, core code there actually is.

Church is strange. I know there are people who make heavy use of nearly contemporary music in worship who level this accusation at people who prefer more traditional patterns, but, truth to tell, just about everything Christians do when they meet together is either going to be exceedingly strange or reduced to entertainment. Corporate singing, talking to an invisible person (sometimes together), and reading out loud to adults are all decidedly weird activities.

There are people who talk about making it all accessible. The problem is, everyone has their own different idea of that. The church I was visiting today seemed to think that you made your worship booklets accessible by printing them in Comic Sans. (Ugh!) Shame they forgot to give the booklet any page numbers. 

Personally I think we just need to accept that church is strange, and people will need to be acculturated to it, especially while it’s evolving through a time of rapid social change. What we need are better relationships outside the liturgy, good opportunities for “halfway-houses” (on Sundays or weekdays, and in homes, cafés, pubs or churches) and, when someone does venture into a liturgy ancient or modern, a warm but non-patronizing welcome.

The complete confusion we have about the beginning of life in our society has been forcefully brought home to me today. Last night the UK Parliament voted to keep the legal limit for abortion at 24 weeks. This morning I buried with appropriate prayers the remains of a miscarried foetus which terminated spontaneously at 19 weeks. The family were distraught, not least because he looked so like a baby when he was stillborn (I hesitated at the pronouns in that sentence, having unthinkingly first written “it”.) Their grief this morning was that of parents who have lost a child, and that is how they thought of it. How long, however, can we, as a society, live with this kind of moral and emotional double-mindedness about where life begins?

Today’s chattering class news from the Westminster politico-media village was that Tony Blair thought Gordon Brown would lose the next election. A spokesperson for Blair has denied this. I wonder though, how many people will believe the denial. Either they will want Blair to have said this, or believe that it sounds all too plausible, or simply follow the basic political rule: “Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.”

Thinking about this I recalled a recent post on Windows Vista. Responding to this comment: “Microsoft, of course, has fumbled the launch of Windows Vista” Paul Thurrott points out:

I do not agree that Microsoft has “fumbled” the launch of Windows Vista, however. That is all perception that was driven by the media. Windows Vista has sold at a rate higher than its predecessor, and it has done so without any mathematical gymnastics: After one year on the market, 10 percent of the installed base was running Vista. That’s higher than was the case with XP. So much for perception.

There is the same issue of perception trumping reality, and it is one that crops up everywhere. Consider the ways in which the debate over recent days about Expelled has fuelled the (already common) perception that religion and science are enemies. Those of us who feel compelled to make the opposite case sometimes feel as if we are pissing into the wind.

No doubt the modern media world has intensified this phenomenon. Once something becomes the established story, it is hard to shift perception, whether by denial, argument or the production of facts. I suspect this is similar to what military strategists mean by “the initiative”. When you feel things are running your way they start running your way even more strongly. Somehow your own mistakes cease to mater as much, and your enemies mistakes are magnified. You are running the show and they are reacting.

Historically, I find myself wondering if this wasn’t also the case with the rise of Christianity. The really big persecutions, the Decian and Valerian in the mid third century, and the Great Persecution at the start of the fourth, are perhaps reactions to the growing sense that pagan Rome is on its way down, and the initiative is with the Great Church.

If this is so, then I suspect that the challenges to the Church today are far deeper and more devastating than we are generally prepared to think. Remember this is not about truth and reality, this is about perception. Where is “the initiative” in today’s world, and who has it? I suggest it is with those who trumpet the free untrammelled individual, and see State and Church alike as potential enemies of that freedom to live an unconstrained and fulfilled life.