Birthday thoughts

As a child I had great antecipations for my birthday. The week leading up to the event was spent in daydreams, of awesome presents, of who´d come and what great games we´d play. Inevitably, the reality was less, not due to my parents not being generous for their means or my friends not being kind and funny. It had more to do with the fact that I was a spoiled young brat. But I was also aware that one was supposed to be grateful, and that a decent show of gratitude was called for when opening the presents. Now even though I (sometimes) liked the gifts, it was still hard to display the “proper” set of emotions: surprise, joy and captivation.

It happened more than once that I got a double copy of a book I already had. Any sane and healthy child would simply display the disappointment one invariably feels at such an occasion and explain it: “I already have that book!” No one would think much of it. I however, attempted to hide that disappointment and act grateful. Being a lousy actor, it must have looked very silly and strange, producing a general feeling of unease. Nowadays I´d like to think I´m slightly less neurotic about these things.

Another birthday coming up is of course that of Jesus Christ (I used to think it insolent of him to be born so close to my own birthday, as his celebration then competed with mine...). It´s the current custom among christians to complain how Christmas has become X-mas, or even worse “the winter holidays”. And it is sad to watch how the Gospel has taken a second seat to Coca-Cola´s winter advertising campaign, and commercialism rather than kindness and community is the driving force forming our celebrations. That it is a popular tradition to go to church at least once this time of year is not something to be scoffed at. There should always be a welcoming hand for people outside the church to come inside, if only once per year. “So where were you the rest of year?” is not the question to be asked, lest God should ask something similar from us, and we´d find ourselves short of an answer.

Still it´s fair to say, that a little holiday spirituality in between cakes, candy and carols has yet to save a single soul. Which is why we need Christ, God born as child of Mary and Joseph, so that we may become children of God.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:9-14

In the church calendar the year begins with the advent of Christmas. It is good to remember that it is God who reaches out his “red right hand” to us, first, so that we then by grace and sheer obstinacy may grab hold of it and never ever let go. We´re not required to do anything at Christmas but adore Him, as the shepherds in the field or the magi from the east did. Brains or brawn, whatever your walk of life, adoration or bust! This is the liturgy of the season; God has arrived, and we gratefully acknowledge and praise it, as a gift that is much more than we ever expected. Or deserved.

Christmas is before Easter, but Christmas is not complete without Easter. And Easter demands something of us, as when Jesus commands us to take up our cross and follow him.
And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
“...and whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:25,27
It´s not acceptable to stand on the sidewalk of the road to Golgotha and pity Jesus, rather pity our very own souls.
And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
But Jesus turning unto them said, “ Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children” Luke 23:27-28
For as God was born as man so that we could become sons and daughters of God, he died as man so that we finally could die as gods in and to ourselves, sharing in the cross of Christ, which is communion with the Living God. And death of Man as god.

Wedlock?

[This is actually somewhat of a comment on a piece by Einar Bjorshol, whose English blog can be found here]

There´s a saying in Swedish parlance that describes someone as living off air and love, when they´re down in the first flush of falling in love. The truth is, you may live off air and love for a while, but not for very long, you can´t. So if you´re looking for poetical gibberish on the marital state, look elsewhere, this will be a decidedly unromantic and pragmatic statement on some issues concerning married life. Particularly those under threat in our “experience”-culture where only sensations count.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
And he answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
They say unto him, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”
He saith unto them, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Matt 19:3-9

Some may argue that this is a patriarchal institution, which is obviously an argument completely oblivious to the conditions of an agricultural economy. Jesus´ rule is a safeguard for women without property, so that they may not be throwed out like dirty handkerchiefs when the man has found something new to his fancy. Incidentally, since they don´t own land, thrown out to prostitution or starvation. As the disciples (who were a bit patriarchal in their mindset...) say in response to Jesus, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

The times have changed a bit since then, and the laws and customs with them. Some suggest we should update the marriage vows as well, such as this one: “I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.”

I´d say, for the believer the marriage is very simple (in theory, at least...), “to love and to cherish... until death do us part”. Divorce is something reserved for the very worst cases of abuse of the trust and responsibilities implicit in the wedding vows; Jesus mentions fornication, I´d go out on a limb and say that assault and rape also qualifies. This however can only be a matter between the married couple – and God (who we should remember never asked to be involved, but since the vows (sometimes) are before Him, he is also (then) a party). This “enclosement” is a practical issue; if let´s say a church commision of elders we´re to decide whether there´s ground for divorce, call in witnesses, private investigators, evidence, we´ve transformed the church into a collection of judges, which we on no account can afford to become (by God´s promise we´re beyond redemption as judges).

The line “to love and to cherish... until death do us part” is under serious attack these days, since the ability to affect one´s emotion by will is seen either as impossible or dysfunctional. Any other way as pointless and uncalled for. If they want to struggle in chains they are bound to do so (read Emile Zola´s Therese Raquin for a good account of what this bondage is like. Of course the sentimental impulse to this passion is to embrace it, but it is a demonic desire to lose oneself in another person.). As a christian I value my liberty somewhat higher. I will give my love to a woman some day as a free gift, or not at all, and not for the sake of aesthetical notions of emotional intensity being the highest form of human existense. Or as Nick Cave puts it: “Worse to be love´s lover, than the lover that love has scorned!” So what about the line about life-long love? It should most definitely stay!

Some have suggested that since the law-notion of marriage drifts farther from the christian notion of marriage, at some point we have to ask ourselves the use of getting the law-marriage at all. Probably we´ll see a development where the legal and the religious ceremonies are two separate things. Ultimately though, for me, being the pragmatic sort, I think marriage should entail the idea of economic union as well, since I don´t accept the separation of things sacred and profane. It´s not all about feelings, there is power-politics in love as well!

Holistic is an abused term (please, no crystals!), but fairly adequate to describe what I believe a married relation should be like. Nowadays, some married couples live apart, have separate economies etcetera, i e continue a “dating relationship” in married life. Schmucks! “For better or for worse” is another line we should value, and not continue in a lifelong race trying to impress one another. Don´t we have better things to do? Such as, say, loving and supporting each other? Because life sure isn´t a piece of cake, which diminishes by us sharing it.

If anyone accuses me of conservatism on this issue, so be it. I believe we´re made in this fashion. I believe society´s hedonistic “Every Man Is An Island” gospel doesn´t change anything at the heart of the matter. I also have no interest in forcing anyone else to comply with my views, since that would be to follow me and not God, hence swapping one idol (hedonistic freedom) for another (decency through law).

The unholy testimony

There is a scene in Giovanni Boccaccio´s Decamerone (written in 14th century Italy) where a jew, Abraham, after a visit to Rome talks to his gentile friend, Jehannot, who has tried to persuade him to embrace the christian faith. Jehannot had made some progress earlier, but before Abraham wanted to convert he wanted to see for himself the capital of Christendom. Knowing the spiritual state of said capital in these times, we could expect him to run back crying to the bosom of the other Abraham (as Jehannot expected, who was a noble and God-fearing sort). Instead the jew on his return says that any faith that lives on still, after 1300 years with such scoundrels and decadent people in charge, certainly only lives by the the grace of God. Baptism, here we come! (read it in full in the second novel, first day here)

Now this story, though charming, is theologically just a piece of shite, if you forgive the expression. An admirably cunning way of satirizing the Church without getting the Inquisition upon oneself. I won´t hold this against Boccaccio though, the critique was most deserved and done in such a lovely fashion, we shouldn´t think ill of him because of this. But it gets us on the trail of what I really wanted to talk about, that sometimes the unholy testimony can do more than the holy. As the real-life story I recently heard about the young Russian who went on a road trip with his mates through Western Europe after the fall of the Wall, saw the wonders of our civilization, went home and became a monk in the Orthodox church.

“What?!”, you may ask, “What´s so bad about Western Europe?”. Certainly seems better than communist dictatorship, I´ll agree. But for someone who has dreamt of salvation in the west, come democracy and capitalism we´ll be free. And see that it is not so. Maybe that becomes a testimony of the limitations of humanity, and a calling to God. I really don´t know, but sometimes I get a vague notion of what that monk-to-be must have seen here. I go to the supermarket, and for no specific reason at all wonder why half the magazines have half-naked women on their covers, and the other half evilminded gossip. Why they don´t have vegetables stacked up to the roof by the cash register, instead of candy and ice cream. And it isn´t pretty, but oh so taken for granted. Like it´s simply the way things go, and of necessity must be. Anything else is utopian.

I hold that it´s not a necessity, that something other is possible. I just wish we could take our materialistic society on a collective trip one century forward. Then the monastery. And us one hundred years forward would ask, “What?! What´s so bad about us?”.


I´d like to finish with some words on the holy testimony. Well, not mine, but as I´ve heard them from the mouth of Johnny Cash and now pass them onwards.

The fourth man in the fire
(written by Arthur Smith, recorded by his Cash-ness)

Now the prophet Daniel tells about
Three men who walked with God
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego
Before the wicked king they stood
And the king commanded them bound and thrown
Into the fiery furnace that day
But the fire was so hot that the men were slain
That forced them on their way.

Refrain:
They wouldn't bend
They held on to the will of God so we are told
They wouldn't bow
They would not bow their knees to Idols made of gold
They wouldn't burn
They were protected by the Fourth Man in the fire
They wouldn't bend
They wouldn't bow, they wouldn't burn.

Now when the three were cast in and the king rose up
To witness this awful fate
He began to tremble at what he saw
In astonished tones he spake
Did we not cast three men bound
Into the midst of the fire
Well, Lo, I see four men unhurt
Unbound and walkin' down there;

There's Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego
And the fiery coals they trod
But the form of the Fourth Man that I see
Is like the Son of God

Refrain:

In defense of building

[This question piece is posted at the christian anarchist forum Jesus Radicals, linked here to the title above. So it would be more meaningful to read it there with the response provoked (if any). Coercion means the use of force to make someone comply with any particular intent.]

First a piece of confession: being an architect this is partly written in blatant self-interest. Secondly, I´m no expert on anarchism, christian or otherwise, so if I´m fighting phantoms here, please correct me. My question/critique on anarchism is the onesided analysis of the state, or indeed any empowered organization: Is really coercion and violence all what´s to it? Is there not also a cooperative element of varying strength in the State concept, the idea of the commonwealth? And is it not the sad state of affairs that cooperation and coercion cannot be fully separated?

Particularly if one goes down to a micro-level, leaving Iraq-wars and criminal law aside for a moment. Take city-planning for instance, what would happen without a central body regulating building and weighing the public and private interest against each other? And how could such a body function without coercive powers? Someone may argue that medieval towns worked fine without city-planning offices, and that they made nicer cities than the modern varieties. But then I´d argue back that the medieval town was a product of a tight-knit society which certainly employed coercive powers when necessary, even if those powers were not formalized and institutionalized. So I find a difficulty in believing construction in the broad sense of the word is possible without some measure of coercion. Can there be public amenities without a regulated tax? Yes, but that´s called charity (in the vulgar sense of the word) which has a tendency to become humiliating or even manipulating for those on the receiving end of the stick.

Now I agree that the war in Iraq is a bigger issue than city-planning and building regulations, but I also think there´s a certain advantage in looking at this less dramatic issue. A political philosophy has to deal with the whole spectrum of human affairs, not just the bits which involves killing or not killing ones neighbour. So what I wonder is whether the anarchist position of avoiding coercion taken to its extreme does not mean that cooperative construction becomes impossible?

If cooperative construction is what we want, that is. Again, someone might throw the Tower of Babel at me, saying I´m trying to impersonate God with all this building stuff. But is this not in some sense the christian message, we´re created in the image of God, also creators on a lesser level, building societies, cities and creating cultural knowledge, and from Jesus onwards co-builders of the city of God on earth, as we are clothed with Christ, as Paul has it in Galatians. The city of God “as it still lives by faith in this fleeting course of time, and sojourns as a stranger in the midst of the ungodly”. St Augustine

From the christian perspective, my critique on anarchism is analogous to the critique I would have against those who claim that the main normative message of Christ is non-violence. They´ve added a level of specificity that´s not there. Yes, non-violence is a part of Christs teaching, but if one has to choose a main message I´d go with the summary of the law and the prophets:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
St. Matthew 22:37-39

That this should exclude any and all measure of coercion is not obvious to me.