Reading: John 10:22-30 It was the Festival of The Dedication, the time when they remembered how the Jewish people, under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus, threw the Greek oppressors out of Palestine and rededicated the Temple. They had to rededicate the temple because the Greek ruler had put a statue of Zeus in the Temple grounds. The Jews, now under the heel of the Roman oppression, ask of Jesus on this day, `Are you the long awaited deliverer? Tell us plainly!`

It reminds me of the question the lawyer asked of the accused, `Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?` If the guy says `yes` he is admitting he had been beating her. If he says `no` he is admitting he is still beating her. Yes /no questions can be very misleading

It`s a similar position here. `Are you the Messiah?` A yes or no answer will not do. If Jesus says `Yes` they will assume he is a messiah of power and violence. If he says `No` he will be denying his calling to be a Messiah of love. So what does Jesus do, what does Jesus say? He says, `My disciples know who I am. They have seen my approach to life as being a journey to life in all its fullness. They know that God and I are at one.` The place explodes when he talks about being at one with God and they take up stones to kill him. Jesus calmly asks, `For which of my deeds are you killing me?` `It isn`t because of your deeds but because you are claiming to be God.` `Hold on,` says Jesus. `What I am claiming is to know the purpose of God and to act accordingly.` The incident finishes with the words `They made an attempt to seize him but he escaped from their clutches`.

Jesus was no slouch in tackling dualistic thinking like Yes and No. Again and again he answers a question by asking a question. The question about whether or not the Jews should pay taxes is a classic example of how he approached simplistic dualistic thinking.

I wish we were as astute! My oft quoted theological friend Bruce maintains that we are plagued by a world that thinks in dualistic terms: subject/object; mind/matter; private/public; religion/science and so on. We think, for example, in terms of rational/irrational without a thought for the non rational. Acts of heroism are neither rational nor irrational. They are non rational, as, for example, is loving one`s enemy.

Why are we so hooked on dualistic thinking? I would suggest that is because our culture is so computerised and digitised. Most of you will be aware that the computer is but a machine asking yes/no questions at a very fast rate. We used to play the game of twenty questions. The computer plays the game of 200,000 questions at the flicker of an eyelid. The problem is that this binary system, so called, leaves out so much. It can only ever be an approximation.

One of the world`s great computer geeks, Jaron Lanier, (1) is concerned about this and gives the example of the digitising of music so it could be played on ipods etc. It was an important breakthrough – but as he points out, there is not just a note but a huge number of variations, which we miss in digitised music. We miss as he says, `The water-colour world of the violin`. He maintains that `what happened to musical notes could happen soon to the definition of a human being`, `that humankind is in danger of `being reduced to bits`. (Take either meaning of the word `bits`). On/off, yes/no, 0/1, dualistic thinking - it`s all much the same. It is the dumbing down of human potential - the human potential seen in Jesus of Nazareth.

Let me give two examples of limited dualistic thinking.

(1) Being or doing. What comes first - being or doing? A person does a good deed. Is it because he/she is a good person, or is it the deed that makes the person good? I was given a book last week in which there were these words, `Prayer and divine attendance is the most important thing in the world. This is where the real business of life is determined,` Jesus speaks of it in terms of `I and the Father are one`. But he also says that deeds done in my Father`s name are my credentials. Which comes first? Being or doing? It is a question that philosophers have been discussing for centuries, and it is a question in which I have no interest whatsoever! Gordon Cosby summed it up for me when he said there is an inward journey and an outward journey. Both are to be undertaken and you neglect one at the peril of the other. It isn`t a case of either/or. It is a case of both/and.

(2) In 1964 I was involved with a group called the Chicago Ecumenical Institute. Led by a guy called Joe Matthews, its aim was `to rediscover the meaning and relevance of the Christian Faith in the modern world`. On one occasion I went to one of their weekend conferences. In the centre of the room was a table with a number of objects on it, one of which was an olive wood carving of a man. By chance or otherwise I happened to notice that at the beginning of the conference it was facing one way. At the end of the conference it had turned completely around and was facing the other way. I mentioned this to one of the leaders and was ushered into the holy of holies to meet Joe Matthews. Evidently the observation of the turning around of the wooden statue was one of their psychological tests which I had passed. We talked at length with the conversation and our relationship finishing when Joe Matthews said, `We have no place for Yes/but men` and I said, `Then you have no place for me` and our conversation and our relationship ended.

I have no time for simplistic dualistic thinking, because it leaves out so much. I would suggest that in this I am in accord with the way Jesus thought and talked.

Stones are available at the door!

(1) Some notes from Lanier`s book `You are not a gadget`

`Lock-in` occurs when many software programs are designed to work with an existing one. The process of significantly changing software in a situation in which a lot of other software is dependent on it is the hardest thing to do. So it almost never happens.

Occasionally a digital Eden appears. In the early 1980s a Dave Smith invented a way to digitize musical notes in a `key down`/ `key up` pattern. MIDI as it was called became the standard scheme. It cannot describe the curvy, transient expressions a singer or a saxophone player can produce. It could only describe the tile mosaic world of the keyboardist. MIDI as it was called became the standard and despite attempts to change it, it remains so. MIDI has become too hard to change so the culture has changed to make it seem fuller than it was initially intended to be.

`Lock in` turns Philosophy into Reality. What happened to musical notes could happen soon to the definition of a human being. The future of religion will be determined by the quirks of the software that gets locked in during the coming decades. Spirituality is committing suicide. Technology criticism shouldn`t be left to the Luddites!

All of these examples are really just different aspects of one, singular, big mistake. The meaning of personhood is being reduced by illusions of bits.

We have to think about the digital layers we are laying down now in order to benefit future generations. We should put some effort into creating the best possible world for those who will inherit our efforts. As long as you are not defined by software, you are helping to broaden the identity of idea that will get locked in for future generations. It`s fine for a person to love the medium they are given to work in, but don`t be defined by it.

I sometimes think of cybernetic totalist culture as a new religion since it includes a new kind of quest for an afterlife. It`s so weird to me that Ray Kurzwill wants the global computing cloud to scoop up the contents of our brains so we can live forever in virtual reality. When my friends and I built the first virtual reality machines, the whole point was to make this world more creative, expressive, empathic and interesting. It was not to escape it!