Open letter to Ogonna, beloved friend and brother

Sometimes I feel as we're standing on the opposite sides of a great mountain. I'm still straggling in the foothills while you're making steady progress towards the summit, not yet there, but with eyes firmly set above. You're shouting encouragements to me, "But look, ain't it wonderful as the sun sets on this world! everything's dissolving up here, like there's no matter anymore, just light and air". It sure is, even I can see it now, there's something beautiful up there, waiting, calling for me, almost there any day now...

But there's the other words also, "Look out so you don't stumble! those rocks are sure slippery! that stream might pull you under, lest you're careful". And then I wonder if you know the pitfalls on this face of the mountain, 'cause it IS a difficult path, but seemingly with other dangers, the diversions doesn't quite smell the same, the bruises and aches in this body hit me elsewhere. Like even the flowers on your side have another brilliance, clear colours fit for the day, and time, and place. Like the sun hits the rock at a different angle, producing stark shadows, darkness, light, that in no way mix or intermingle. It must seem greyish-brown from above, this land I walk; were ever you here, leaving stone stacked upon stone to guide me, in the true manner of pilgrims? And what for me to give now, when even humility plays tricks on me, being the only pride left to the weak?

And I wonder if you're not too strong, if you're not pulling single, a harness meant for two. Your words about the children and the chocolate and candy received for free, was there not some trace of contempt in them? As if they had not deserved the gift given unto them? As if it was possible to deserve anything of true value? It's hard for me to see the stumbling blocks on your side, sometimes you're almost lost in the mid-day haze, far up sillhouetted against the sun, and besides there is that mountain of deep rock from the beginnings of earth between us. What can I say but what you told me, that sometimes you need to, you should, lay down your head to rest on a steady heartbeat, that beats for you, listening, and be sufficient in that.

So we are not yet the same, but we will stand in a great crowd one day, surely meeting casually in the happy streets while singing the same song to Him we both love. The old words on God and salvation, sin and grace. Renewed in Christ. In Whom the river within us, draws its water to the three-armed delta by the sea.

On economy new and old

Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Matthew 20:13-14

Adam Smith began his essay “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” with stressing the connection between labour and wealth, his theories and those of his followers being mainly aimed then at increasing production, while the value and purpose of consumption seems to be a lesser matter indeed. One of the first to disagree with this one-sided view was John Ruskin, victorian pre-eminent, devoting himself to the problems of consumption, perhaps in particular those of distribution. For some the problem of distribution of wealth is of course not a problem, being distributed amply themselves; while others may overvalue the power of distribution, as the utopian communists who overthrew the Tsar, imagining housing the entire Russian populace in evacuated mansions and palaces. But the problems of consumption does not end there, for it is a matter of some consideration what the fruits of our labour eventually shall be: a meal on our table, a wide-screen telly with Surround-Sound, or maybe just the thorns and thistles promised of old.

Ruskin is interesting in this regard, because he doesn´t concern himself overly with present political correctness, but rather bluntly states that the purpose of both work and consumption is happiness AND nobility among humanity, nobility then not understood as counts and barons, but a dignified manner of life. Some may say that nobility is an elitist concept, based on the assumption that some walks of life are better than others. I can only reply that such an assumption must be made nonetheless. The demand this places on our political economy is then one of providing constant quality rather than excess quantity, both for the dignity of the worker as well as the consumer´s. This suggestion to a large extent fell outside conventional concepts of Left and Right in politics, even might one say fell by the wayside and therefore perished. His view on accomplishing this ubiquitous sense of quality, is that it should be the only factor in the market`s competition, everything else such as wages and prices set at fixed and equal values. In effect, the good and bad worker are paid alike, the price of a tasty meal doesn´t differ from a lousy one. Consequentally, the industrious worker is employed, the lazy starves at home; food of quality is enjoyed on tables everywhere, the worm-ridden is thrown in the waste bin. A story that comes to mind is of the native of one island in South East Asia, who asked if they had any Art on the island replied: No – we just try to make everything as good as we possibly can. An attitude very foreign to the Western world of trash food and Michelin guides happily (or miserably as one could see it) co-existing. For Ruskin quality was joy in labour made manifest, so in this sense to desire quality is to wish joy upon your fellow man. And THAT´S nobility!

To retrace a few steps in economic history, Joseph, sold for twenty pieces of silver by his brothers, is the first economist of the Bible, so shrewd in fact, that he on Pharao´s behalf buys all of Egypt in a time of continual drought in the land; in exchange for bread he first aquires all money from the people, then their cattle, and lastly the land and themselves (Genesis 47:13ff). Which is also the economical hierarchy we're accustomed to, money deriving their value from goods, all founded on the means of production. Now God wasn't too pleased with this state of affairs, and prohibits both the interest economy and squeezing the poor in exchange for bread (Leviticus 25:37). This law even precedes the commandment of tithe in Deuteronomy 14:22, meaning that it's no use giving to God, if it be booty stolen from another man. Even the high priests that condemned Jesus refused to accept Judas Iscariot´s money, when he wanted to return his thirty silver pieces, claiming it be blood money even though they themselves gave it to him in the first place.

It appears that nowadays this order is reversed, we´re told to consume in plenty, blood money or otherwise, lest economic collapse be upon us, followed or preceded by unemployment and due social collapse. In commerce, the company closest to the consumers is the king of the hill. Who cares about steel companies these days, when IKEA and Marks & Spencers sets the agenda? The real shakers and movers are perhaps not so appearant as Ingvar Kamprad, but do their business in sunny office studios in the high and quiet parts of the city. It is the advertising guru who sustains the economy of supra-consumption and the society of the superfluous. We´ve become so efficient in production that needs must be invented, or else the wheat rot in the siloes. Or maybe we should solve the problem of distribution first, for as Ruskin said: “There is no wealth but life”?

Is then property theft, as some would have it, only to steal it back again? Maybe God disapproves of the whole concept of money? Well, I don't understand it such; Jesus often uses money in his parables, to signify the kingdom of Heaven and gifts of God, because He know money to be precious to us, but also that what God offers is even more so precious. Money is the least, and if we're not faithful in these little things, how could we then be faithful in those great things entrusted to us? He also says that one with riches enters hardly into the kingdom of God, yes, that even a camel will sooner pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man enter Heaven (Mark 10:23-25). There's the story of poor Lazarus and the certain rich man, the first recompensed by God for the miseries of his life, lying outside the palace gate in wait for help that never appeared, listening to the parties and merriments behind the closed door; the rich man made to pay heavily for his lack of mercy and wallowing in luxury. And there is great beauty in Jesus naming the beggar, Lazarus, and leaving the rich man anonymous, he that always was greeted in the streets, whose name opened doors and was mentioned with utmost respect. Who knows him now?

Which leads us to the one rebellion possible, effective, plausible: be content with such things as ye have, for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Be content, that´s quite provocative these days, what on earth is there to be content about? I could get a better job, a faster car, a more winning personality and cooler friends. Still, be content is the only real rebellion I can see on the horizon, though it costs very much, and very little.

But what of Attac, anti-WTO rallies or whatever, you may ask? By all means go, if you feel it´s appropriate. I certainly agree with most of their agenda, but I feel they´re one-sided in one respect, both based on the teachings of Jesus and everyday experience: They seem not to grasp that greed is a part of each and every one of us, naturally differing quite substantially from person to person, but it is an evil within us all. No, greed is NOT good, but it´s just as prevalent in the lower as the upper classes. At least where I come from, where most people are guaranteed a standard of living which objectively speaking is materially sufficient. Yes, there is real poverty in Sweden as well, but mostly just simultaneous seduction and envy of the rich. Incidentally, that´s the only power money has, and it´s mighty indeed. However, there is always a choice involved, we cannot JUST blame it on the ad guru. So if there´s to be rebellion, better make it an inward one.

The joys and sorrows of life

Of course I'd rather be happy. Set tears and laughter before me for my choosing, I'd pick laughter each and every time. But such is never the choice is it? Life steers us that-a-way and we pull this-a-way and somewhere in the middle we end up with either of the two, even sometimes both. But if you'd ask me what my problem is on one of the dark days, it wouldn't be tears, nor would it be sorrow. It would be that something in my my life is amiss, and I can't find it again as much as I try or plead or struggle for it.

St. Augustine expressed it thus: For he cannot be free from infelicity who worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of Felicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loaf of bread, and does not buy it from the man who has a real one.” People in his day seems to have got the absurd idea of praising as god Felicity, which in modern tounge translates to Happiness. Strange crowd, them ancients...

Now ask me again how I wish to feel. Ask me if christians are happier, more at peace in and with themselves. If they on average laugh more times than the next person, obviously bound for hell. I'll say - it´s irrelevant. Feelings are but symptoms of life; yes, you can play tricks with them, silence them or magnify them, conjure them out of nothingness with what appears as wisdom of living. People have made fortunes on selling the recipes. But why would you?

The joys and sorrows of christian life are then not a matter of feelings, to feel blessed, good, righteous and /or saved. It's about being saved, not because I felt a certain something, but because Christ has promised it, that knowing God and Jesus Christ is life eternal (John 17:3).
So you know a lot of things and persons and places, and aren't much different for it? Well, know can mean a lot of things, from hearing a little fact on the radio or in the newspapers which sound plausible enough to believe in, through to by way of long arduous research proving a hypothesis beyond any reasonable doubt or discussion (you wish...). In fact, in the Bible it even extends to the sexual act and relation. Anyways, to sum it up in a few words: To know him, is to love him.

Still, as with Job, definitely a most righteous fellow, we're stuck with flesh upon us that shall have pain, and souls within us that shall mourn. As with Job, this gets us down and out sometimes. Far be it from me to dangle a future promise in the face of one afflicted by present ills, but I'll simply say it in order that we may know something of where we are today. God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:4) Why? Because God shall dwell with them. Observe, God shall do the wiping, not well-meaning christians on a comfort crusade, death, sorrow, crying and pain, all very real and present are with us, for better and for worse, til we have some real changes on this earth. The sooner the better...

I'm afraid I sound like a teacher, which certainly would be a case of the blind leading the blind. I'm new in the block, so go ask another for directions. Don't take my word for anything, go seek the Book for yourself (which is what Bible means, but of course someone deemed a “religious” word necessary). And, lastly, primarily, shortly, go walk a few steps with Jesus. Know him.