Praying with St Augustine

A PERSONAL PRAYER

O God, the Light of the heart that sees You,
The Life of the soul that loves You,
The Strength of the mind that seeks You:
May I ever continue to be steadfast in Your love.
Be the joy of my heart;
Take all of me to Yourself, and abide therein.

The house of my soul is, I confess, too narrow for You.
Enlarge it that You may enter.
It is ruinous, but do repair it.
It has within it what must offend Your eyes;
I confess and know it,
But whose help shall I seek in cleansing it but Yours alone?

To You, O God, I cry urgently.
Cleanse me from secret faults.
Keep me from false pride and sensuality
That they not get dominion over me.

"Vatican 'cashes in' by putting price on the Pope's copyright"

Saw this article just recently and was perplexed. I don´t like pope-bashing, but this is simply ridiculous!

The pope is just about to release an encyclical which is hugely anticipated in catolic countries. Only problem is one has to pay in order to quote it! I know the pope is treated as a popstar sometimes, but surely spreading his message must supercede filling his purse. No chance of me paying 15.000 Euro for the privilege of quoting him...

Forgive me for saying...

...it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Acts 9:5

Sometimes I ask myself if I write as an ideal self. Understandably, comparing yourself to an ideal self can give anyone a bad conscience. That goes for me the writer, who´s just as messed up as most other humans, and it goes for the reader, invariably a flesh and blood creature, no matter his or hers state spiritwise. Ideal selves have it so much easier than us real people, who are confronted by real problems, not ideal ones. We live messy lives in a messy world. So for anyone who has read whatever on this blog, and felt a sting of guilt, you´re not alone. I probably felt that same sting writing it. But I did something with that guilt, which is bringing it up to the great Redeemer and say: Lord, I´m sorry, but this I just can´t handle, it is above me, I´m not able and not worthy, but will you forgive me?

Does this make me a better person? Some may feel I got off the hook all to easy, running to mummy´s apron as it were, rather than dealing with it myself. “Be a man and sort out your own stuff!” No, I´m not a better person, but I am redeemed. Saved. What an awfully pretentious thing to say, you think. That´s right, the christian faith has huge pretentions, beyond the wildest dreams and worst acid hallucinations you can think of. And it´s not cheap, it was and will be, for time eternal, paid by blood on the hill of the Skull. And forgiveness is not just a negation of something bad or a comfort, it´s a healing force that enables us to take up our beds and walk, that breaks the bond of evil and clears the path for living in the right with God.

I like putting things bluntly, because paradoxically then the word as a sword gets sharper. The sword, which as we remember, has two edges. As does all writing that´s worth a damn, it does it´s work both on the reader and the writer. What is that work? If I were a moralist, I´d want to get rid of all the ugly blemishes on the skin of me and others. Truth to be told, spiritually even our churches often appear to be leper colonies. So many confuse the word-sword with one of those polishing devices you use to freshen up tarnished floors, or the Hells Angels use to remove their tattoo from deserters from that organisation. When it´s really a sword that pierces to the very soul of those who hear it.

I will not say sorry for any guilt anyone has felt reading what I´ve written. At least not to that person. But I will gladly join you in saying sorry to God, who we burden daily with our failure to love and be true, to him, our fellow man and ourselves.

He´s my man, but I´ve been doing him wrong. “God song” Beth Orton

Dogma

There´s a recent trend in contemporary christianity to shy away from dogma. For those ignorant of what the term means, let the Merriam-Webster Dictionary enlighten you:
“a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.”

Strictly speaking, what your church of choice defines as dogma, you shall believe. But there´s little need to worry about that, just recollect the last time you heard someone shout “Heresy!” in church. In a history book, most probably...

It seems we as laymen don´t really need theology, other than the completely basic stuff (or even that). We should talk more about down-to-earth issues such as love, compassion and fair trade coffee. Which is all mighty fine stuff to think about, or even better do it and live it. The problem with this view is that it´s not the one down-to-earth issue to conquer all other that we talk about.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Dogmas are often viewed as difficult or trivial: “I believe in God, but the virginbirth/miracles/resurrection of Christ are simply un-believable and absurd”. Kierkegaard has a very interesting opinion on this, that it´s actually the absurd that make any faith whatsoever possible:
“On this the knight of faith is just as clear: all that can save him is the absurd; and this he grasps by faith. Accordingly he admits the impossibility and at the same time believes the absurd.” Fear and Trembling (yes, that´s the second time I quote it, but it´s such a good one. And I like to think of myself as a knight in a bloodsmeared, dirty, rusted armour!)

What really gets me cooking with christians who dismiss all miracles and supernatural events in the Bible, is the strange sense of proportion. Walking on water is a no-no, but God becoming man, that´s appearantly a piece of cake. And the forgiveness of sins because of him, why does that go down as yummy for the tummy, but a virgin-birth is a so much harder pill to swallow? Because they like to leave the spiritual realm to God, but has serious problems with him intervening in earthly matters, such as, for example, themselves. For in any walk of faith one is bound to come to a point where it´s obvious that I´m simply not equipped for heaven, and have no merit of my own to get me there. It´s strictly speaking impossible. Just as impossible as walking on water, if not more. This will inevitably involve some despair, and it should rightly lead to some despair. But the choice is where do I take that feeling of insufficency, and what do I do with it? The knight of faith says: For God, all things are possible!

Actually it´s the most ancient enemy of christian faith. The impossibility of our minds to grasp that God really has chosen to deal with us, to share in our existence. Nearly all major heretic versions of christianity stem from this one root: gnosticism, dualism, self-mutilators and law-christians. They may seem to come from vastly different directions, but it´s all one and the same hydra, chop off a head and another will crop up immediately. Nowadays the more common version is materialistic: Jesus as just man, just teacher and just history. But it´s the same mechanism with those who say, true god and not man. We´re in fact guaranteed that the gospel will always be a bone of contention. The value of being intellectually clear and straight in one´s faith is thus not to remove the bone, but to make it bleeding obvious that it´s the gospel that´s the “problem” (and its solution), and not flawed or superfluous thinking derived or added to that.

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:41-44

So next time you want to duck for a dogma, try letting it wallop you in the face for a change. Who knows, there might be a knight of faith in you, just waiting to ride into battle?

Have ears for a Gospel?

He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. Luke 24:46-48

I got halted in the street yesterday. “Do you want to hear about God? We´re from 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'. Have a minute?” [Translated from Swedish] Where they came from I already knew, since they had their Mormon uniform on, impeccable suit and tie. Anyway, I stopped and talked for a while. And did not convert. I do not want to amuse myself over other people´s creeds and beliefs, let it just be said that the Book of Mormon lack historical credentials that might lead me to give it any significant attention. Jesus Christ visiting North America? Written on that same continent 600 BC on golden plates? I don´t think so.

But at least they´re doing the gospel thing, trying to convert people. A difficult thing these days, because everyone is already right and got it all figured out. God forbid telling anyone anything presented as a truth to conquer all lies. Getting teached is for the young and gullible, preferably at schools with a curriculum on the safe side of completely harmless. Intellectual transactions have to be on a “tit-for-tat” basis; I´ll read your Bible if you´ll read my Indian guru. But the Gospel is ill-suited for the Marketplace of Ideas, being the Word of God made flesh, and not just another can of peas sitting on the shelf until you take pity on it. Nevertheless the Marketplace is real and to be dealt with, there´s no longer a privileged position for teaching the christian message. Actually, this is only important to a degree, I think. When someone has an earnest desire to know God, the show is on the road. When God has been allowed to start a work in someone, that will also come to fruition and completion. There´s more of a risk of a spiritual mentor put on a pedestal getting in the way, than of one of the new lambs in the flock getting seriously astray. Anyway, that mentor isn´t the real shepherd of this flock, just in a provisional fashion as a stand-in for you-know-whom.

So there must be room for both humility and firmness in doing Gospel, evangelizing, inviting to the kingdom of God. Humility, for as we take upon us Christ´s mission, we´re aware of our human limitations and weaknesses. Firmness, for we do truly (re-)present Him to the world. But no fear, since the Holy Spirit in a particular way blesses the word-work. When it´s done, there will also be the equipment to do it. But why do we (since I actually identify myself with mainstream christianity) cringe a bit when we are confronted with religious pushers? It could be that we see an almost mathematical correspondence between sectarianism and outward preaching. It is true that over-emphazising this outreaching work may be a way to hide inward rottenness, as a way of killing the inner man by engaging in external battle. The battle of faith is primarily a an inward one, that must be said before we go rallying for more crusading in the world. That said, isn´t it also a bit of a bad conscience that they´re so committed to what they´re doing, putting oneself to shame? I certainly would be classed as lazy in a Jehovas Witness setting, even though I try to do something for the glory of God.

I do feel a certain respect (challenge you might call it) for the mormons walking about in wintry Umeå with books and ideas. But I do feel they´re more pushing ideas and “become-us”, than the true Gospel, “be-with”, “be-as” and “be-free”. And does it work? I think it works according to spamming-logic: we send out enough persons/e-mails and at least some fools are bound to be taken in with it. But generally it is viewed as imposure, which is not very welcomed in Swedish culture. Personally I think curiosity is almost a pre-condition, the fertile ground if you will, for receiving the Word of God into your life. And the one thing that awakens curiosity is passion. My passion is to let my intellect be overcome by the glory of God, thereby overcoming ball-and-chains worldly thinking. I don´t know what good that does for anyone else, but I do it because it´s a genuinely blessed affair. Gospel done in some stale sense of duty will hardly entice anyone to listen to, and abide, the words: Follow me, and come and see!

How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!" Isaiah 52:7

When talk becomes noise

The Christmas holiday is for me a time to meet up with family and friends, so for the last weeks there´s been quite a lot of talking going on with the people around me. Now, talking is not the same as writing, and for me especially I can feel slow beyond disbelief. I know exactly what to say in any given situation, half an hour after the event in question. More importantly, the subject matter shifts considerably to things mundane and worldly. I wouldn´t want to say this is bad since we do live on this world and have to get along with it, and speaking about things spiritual does not necessarily make anyone one ounce more christian than someone completely obsessed with chatting about, say, curling (which, incidentally, the Swedes are recent world champions in).

But I do notice that those people have widely different attitudes to talking about “important” stuff. Some are only too keen to discuss world poverty, poetry, sexual morals, drugs, religious freedom and such (I guess I myself tend to fall into this pit at times), while someone very dear to me says that such talk is “tiresome” (I asked if he believed in God, which he didn´t, or anything else, which he also didn´t). Now to those that would accuse me to be pain-in-the-ass like Jehovas Witness with cramming my opinions down other peoples´ throats, let me tell you that we had spent an entire evening playing cards with bad telly smack in the background, carefully avoiding basically anything that mattered on any level whatsoever. Which we do always.

It seems to me that generally the people who most like talking are the one whom it affects the least, it just runs right off them like water from a goose in an oil slick. While others cry out: Be still and silent!, when anything in the slightest provocative comes up. So what good is talking? But it must be in some way effective if people fear it. And for those that don´t fear the word, it´s useless. However, I don´t believe one single person is entirely beyond the redemptive reach of God, just that sometimes some avenues are blocked, and others remain open. The way I´ve heard it, what we do then is persist in loving, and keep on praying. I have nothing more intelligent to add to that.

Anyway, it just so happens, that during one of these talks someone said something that actually stuck in my mind. This is a rare occurrence, more due to the fact that I listen badly than to that I should be surrounded by fools and ignorants. It was about existentialism and the fact that we humans have a tendency to “verfallen in das man(n)”, appearantly something from Heidegger. It doesn´t translate well, since the English language doesn´t use the neutral form as a substitute for the first person (she, he, it instead of I) in the germanic way, or indeed the Swedish way. My attempt at translation would be: falling in to “one generally”. One generally dies in the end. One generally doesn´t drink and drive after parties. One generally doesn´t lie, etcetera. This is a tendency to keep things abstract and at a general level, where it doesn´t affect me personally. This is the enemy of existentialist living, or to quote Jean Paul Sartre: “Man is always a teller of tales. But you have to choose, live or tell.”

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. James 1:22
This is existentialism in practice, we are doers of the word, not to please God, but lest we deceive ourselves, i e lead unauthentic lives. Deceiving God is not a relevant option.

It struck me that this is just what christian conversion is about. The point where Jesus Christ didn´t just die for people in general, but for me personally. The point where he also resurrected from out of the clutches of death, not only with his own soul, but with mine as well. And what I really like is what this is something that existentialism, as outlined by Kierkegaard and others after him, help us to get to terms with that awkward thing, righteousness by faith. Forgive me for calling it awkward, for it´s a true gift of grace from God. However it does leave one asking: “But what do I do with this amazing/fascinating/disturbing/boring/painful life that I live now, if everything was accomplished on the cross?” We live it in an authentic manner as it is, we answer with those friends from past ages, who didn´t duck, but fought with man, beast and God, simply because it was incumbent upon them to do so.

That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak."
But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
The man asked him, "What is your name?"
"Jacob," he answered.
Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."
Jacob said, "Please tell me your name."
But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there.
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." Genesis 32:22-30

Sometimes I despair as to the good my words can do. I get the feeling that it takes words of actual spiritual aggression to reach certain human beings in their current state. I want to yell: You´re naked and don´t see it, you´re broken and think you´re standing, you have nothing and think you´re rich. But that would hurt. That must hurt and break down and demolish the walls and towers they´ve constructed around them, or else they´re words in vain. But until such a time comes when I can say those words and see those persons in a love burnt clean with holiness rather than in self-righteousness, there´s little else to do but to speak generally...

Is the iterative method in Sudoku cheating?

-a small discourse in applied ethics

So I´m a tad addicted to Sudoku, the Japanese number puzzle. Not obsessed or anything, but sometimes it seems the hours just fly by with numbers 1 to 9 buzzing about in my head, especially when on vehicles of public transport.

I don´t think I´m more stupid than the next person, but sometimes it just seems like it´s all stuck. You go through it time and again, but the chain of thinking simply gets to long. If you´re not Kasparov you´ll recognize this. I used to go into head ache mode or eventually go amiss and realize it to late. Well, there´s always another one to solve...

Until I realized there´s a shortcut available. No, wait, a friend of mine realized. In any one of the boxes with two possible numbers, he (this other person) simply picks either number and go ahead solving. If you get corrupt results, it was the other number; if you run through the entire Sudoku, congratulation on guessing correctly. He (a distant friend of mine) uses pen and pencil to distinguish between secure numbers and “guessed”. Naturally, if you would need to do a second guessing iteration, things become more complicated. However, it gives the schmucks out there a much needed teeny-weeny bit of an edge.

And all would be well with this, I guess. But then comes the memories from the mathematics in school, of a distinct feeling that iteration was actually cheating. I mean the teachers presented it as correct mathematical method, but for us simple minds in the audience it sure seemed as just trial-and-error. It lacked the sophistication of “real” problem solving with all those nice algebraic and derivative methods. Guessing and hoping for the best was not the image of genius in action, at least not in my head. This is of course is more of an aesthetic view than an ethical. For those of you in to the Sudoku thing, how do you feel about it?

PS. So this is out of character, tough luck. I entertained the thought of elevating the matter to a discussion on the relation between aesthetics and ethics, but decided sleep was more needed. As it stands, this is strictly “un bagatuelle”. Helps keep my intellect down to earth, I guess.