Resist! Object! Insist!

What you know, I also know;
I am not inferior to you.
But I desire to speak to the Almighty
and to argue my case with God.
...
Will you speak wickedly on God's behalf?
Will you speak deceitfully for him?
Will you show him partiality?
Will you argue the case for God?
...
Keep silent and let me speak;
then let come to me what may.
Job 13:2-13

We often feel the need to speak out against things and people we disagree with. As often as not we remain silent and unconfrontational, so as to avoid disagreement. There often seems to be more of silence directed upwards in the social hierarchy, and more words of dispute directed downwards to people below our station in life. And there is one particular case when it becomes exceedingly difficult to speak out, when people we consider holier than ourselves say something we disagree with. I´m not speaking primarily about the “Holier-than-Thou” characters that we usually see through as hypocrites, but to our actual role-models in faith. And there will be such occasions, one, because they are just as fallible as you are, two, because you are just as fallible as they are. And truly, if they are role-models, they ought to be ahead of you in the walk of faith, not behind. Still I would say: Object, for Heaven´s sake! Because if they are wrong, it´s a christian duty to correct them, and if you´re wrong and remain silent you will secretely believe you´re right and nothing changes. If there´s an argument, and one remains silent, both lose. I may think my counter-arguments crush the opposition as long as I keep them to myself. When I put them forward in public however, they often distinctly fail to make any kind of impact. And there´s often the case when both are mistaken, and it becomes appearant to everyone but themselves.

The real reason to object is of far greater importance than winning an argument. For the christian church is not a talk show or a discussion club. It´s a community of saints and a communion with God. To be silent when you´re heart and mind objects is to refuse the encounter with the other person´s heart and mind. It is to hold back and introduce a distance inbetween each other. It sounds completely impossible, but we are actually called to be of one mind. Often we hear the expression: “Let´s agree to disagree” used to patch things up after a quarrel. But let´s not! We can stand some dissension among us on the way towards unity, but it has to be acknowledged that it is and will remain an open wound until such a time and such a place we are of one mind. Naturally we all know that sometimes arguments become blatantly improductive, with no prospect of change. What I want to say is that we can never settle for a permanent cease-fire as a cheap substitute for real peace. Sometimes the peace talks have to be postponed until conditions improve. But if we truly love each other then peace is possible. We´ll not want to settle for less.

This goes for our relationship to God as well. In christian mystique the bride and her groom is often used as a metaphor of the relation between believer and creator/sustainer/redeemer. And we must acknowledge that often we drag ourselves kicking and screaming to the altar. What a strange God to not walk out on us then. What a mystery that Job got out of his quarrel with God a richer man. What patient ears, what an encourager, what a friend, we have in Jesus. And let´s pray, also in each other.

We are one in the Spirit [mp3]

-1-
We are One in The Spirit,
We are One in The Lord.
We are One in The Spirit,
We are One in The Lord.
And we pray that all unity may one day be restored.

Chorus
And they'll know we are Christians by our love,
By our Love,
Yes they'll know we are Christians by our love.

-2-
We will work with each other,
We will work side by side.
We will work with each other,
We will work side by side.
And we'll guard each man's dignity
And save each man's pride.

Chorus

-3-
We will walk with each other,
We will walk hand in hand.
We will walk with each other,
We will walk hand in hand.
And together we'll spread the News
that God is in our land.

Idle hands – Devil´s hands

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
Genesis 3:17-19

I´ve spent a couple of months lost to the labour of Adam (i e I´m unemployed), and never will experience the labour of Eve (i e I´m a man). So maybe the original sin has lost it´s sting on me? No such luck I´m afraid, unemployment sucks in every department, including the spiritual ones. Idleness is not good for spiritual health, it drains the soul worse than the purse. That this should somewhat darken the usually gay and merry tone of speech in this blog (irony, get thee behind me!) is only to be expected.

A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest-
and poverty will come on you like a bandit
and scarcity like an armed man.
Proverbs 6:10-11

Why is this so, one may ask? If I was into Greek philosophy, idleness is next to bliss, for now would be the time to excavate the mysteries of the universe. A handful of Eastern religions would count me lucky not participating in the illusion that work is actually productive. As a christian however, along comes Luther, Weber and the protestant work ethic and gets me down. Or should get me down maybe, but the problem isn´t so much guilt of not being productive, as it is boredom. And boredom is very far from the peace and quiet of the saints. It might be said to be the Devil´s anti-image of inner peace. If I were to “retreat” in search of spiritual emptiness and silence in prayer, that´s a space for the Lord´s presence, and I´m his temple. If I´m forced to inactivity or fall into it unawares, that´s on the contrary an invitation to all kinds of nastiness to my inner sanctum. Who leaves the house in pretty bad shape as Jesus tells us.

Anyway, the future is now looking up, the clouds are disappearing towards the horizon, the waters are calmed and the storm is stilled. Since I got a job in Kalmar from next month onwards! Now, one could say that´s not very spiritual, letting my state of mind be influenced by such trivial concerns as having or lacking a job. So be it, I was a bit down and out at being unemployed, and now am cheerful about getting a job. I don´t imagine this makes me more or less in the eyes of God, and a working title is certainly not the heavenly new name written on a smooth white stone. But I am a whole person, with relations, activities, thoughts and body thrown in for good measure, and that whole person now says: Thanks be to God! The giver of all things worth receiving.

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Matt 6:28-34

Is the spiritual world smaller these days?

Conventional wisdom:
All we do not understand scientifically, as yet, is open to spiritual assumptions. So beyond the horizon of what we can see, there may be God.

But:
Is not God near and ever constant? Can we grapple things away from God in understanding them? Is God not God of natural and supernatural alike?

Quite obviously, the distinction between natural and supernatural is one of human understanding, not one of what is God´s doing and what is other than God. There is a certain sense of Christians fearing and shying away from scientific explanations of the world. I would say that that stems from a confusion between spiritual and supernatural, which is not really something you can blame the Bible for. Admittedly, there are supernatural miracles in the Bible, I believe them, but they are spiritual interventions, not the real length, breadth and depth of the spiritual as such. The spiritual reality is a cornerstone of the Christian faith: eternal life, judgement and the rest of the package is an eschatological realm apart from earthly existence. The last things, truly beyond any and all horizons. There can be no gradual process of getting there and moving closer to it, when it comes it will be like a thief in the night. Without it, we Christians are indeed the most pitiable creatures upon this earth.

Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.
"Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."
The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies."
Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live."
The man took Jesus at his word and departed.
John 4:46-50

Leo Tolstoy (I think...) once said of miracles, that Christ has radiance without them. Indeed he does. Jesus often remarks, in something that strikes me as a sad note, that unless we see action and miracles we don´t believe. But it could also be argued that it´s a matter-of-fact observation, that unless we see action and miracles, we don´t believe. They are vital for us to understand that for God all things are possible, that the spiritual realm has dominion over the natural. The sadness in Jesus voice is there, confronted with our constant blindness to see him for what he is, the Son of God. That our eyes are, not blind, but turned away from his radiance.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Genesis 1:27-28

Superstition is the belief in spiritual explanations for phenomena in the natural world. The Bible is not too concerned with explaining the natural world, but is all about revealing the spiritual world, namely the Kingdom of God, and putting a piece of that spiritual reality into the lives of people who are in this natural world, we know as described by scientists and human experience. Now the one piece of the Bible which lends itself to allegations of superstition is the description of the creation of the world in Genesis 1, which could be taken either literally or metaphorically. Both ways the revelation of God always has a purpose and intent. To be truthful, we must acknowledge both literal and metaphorical elements in Genesis. The descriptions of the creation of plants and animals hardly refers to anything other than plants and animals. But as for “there was evening, and there was morning”; these two are created no sooner than day four along with the sun and moon (logically correct), which would lead us to say that the seven days timeline is, and was intended as, metaphorical. We have a naïve tendency to imagine people were uncapable of logical thinking in ancient times and just accepted extraordinary events uncritically. So in my humble opinion the creation of the universe is God´s supreme doing, but Genesis shouldn´t be read as a science book, but as always for the purpose of salvation and instruction.

Just some pointers to interesting things in Genesis: The “be fruitful”-command is repeated twice, first to the animals, secondly to the human, but with an important addition. We know ourselves to be biologically programmed to survive and multiply, as well as the animals, in that there is no difference, but God adds: rule over all this that I´ve created. It is ours. Because we are created in the image of God, and hence worthy and capable to rule over it as in his place. This is the basic pre-condition to human existence on earth, a blessed existence if there ever was one, however things eventually go horribly wrong. Let´s remember that all is allowed, there are no rules or laws, no, we humans are our own rulers and are doing a fine job of it. But there is one possibility of spite, to disobey God, and the knowledge and possibity of good and evil comes into the human existence, and it is taken. The material grace of creation is rejected and corrupted, but the giver of grace remains. And the last things will be far better even than the first.

But let´s not preoccupy us with material and spiritual overly, for God it is a trivial distinction. The difference was trivial before the origin of sin when corrupted was separated from incorruptible, and it will once again become trivial when Christ returns. What we can say is that there are material and spiritual “senses”, the material ( for example scientific exploration) will show you the world in its present glory and corruption, aiming for the outer world´s representation; the spiritual “sense”, prayer and praise, will show you the glory of God, aiming for the inner man´s redemption.

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
John 4:21-24

The difference between booze and babies

- or Why alcohol and abortion aren´t the same thing

This will not be a Christian argument, other than as in parenthesis (disregard them if you´re hell-bent on keeping it prophane). This will be as secular a discussion in political ethics that I can manage. Why do I want to keep it secular? Because as a believer you´re allowed to think whatever you please, and people will just pat you on the head, saying “Oh how charming with these archaic religious types, especially when they don´t kill, maim or condemn people.” But as what I want to say concerns the political realm, or to be blunt, other people, I´ll try to avoid religious talk as a courtesy to atheists and agnostics.

We humans regulate our societal affairs along two main lines: Law, which follows the ethics of principle, and Politics, which follows the ethics of consequence. “Thou shalt not kill”, is an ethic of principle, it is simply wrong to do so. A characteristic of this ethical approach is the emphasis put on intent, for instance most cultures have heavier punishment on pre-meditated murder than on accidentally killing someone in a roadcrash. We feel less upset by collateral damages when the Americans bomb an alleged bomb factory (as is their custom) than of a terrorist blasting a double-decker in the streets of London. We can discuss if it´s right or not, nevertheless it´s an emotional fact.

In politics however you´re judged by the outcome. If you win an election on promising tax cuts which will give an economical boost and more jobs, and it fails to happen, you´ll get kicked out of office the next term despite your assurances you were right in principle. In ethics of consequence what matters is that the action is just and called for, if it´s results are beneficial. The perennial problem with this view is the inevitable uncertainty of what other possible actions would result in, and by what measure they are beneficial or harmful, also inevitably something quite arbitrary. Those deficiencies come with the political territory, yet we have throughout history found it a useful manner of regulating the complexities of human affairs. It´s better than nothing, at least.

I´d like to put up for comparison two ethical matters we have recently taken out of the realm of Law, and now treat in the realm of Politics: alcohol and abortions. I ´d argue that we were right to do so in one instance, and wrong in the other.

First alcohol. As we know there is a sliding scale between alcohol and narcotics, they cannot be said to be essentially different. Most narcotics have far more impact on the human body and mind than alcohol, but the main reason narcotics are treated with Law and alcohol with Politics is cultural. One could argue that since alcohol have damaging effects, we should banish it, as indeed have been done, and to bad effect also. It didn´t work out in inter-war mafia-stricken USA, nor as rationing in Sweden up to 1955 (the infamous “Motboken”). But maybe the principle is more important than the consequences? No not really, because the effects of alcohol are just as complex and ambiguous as other political affairs. Drink a little, and you´re the king of the world, everything´s bright and sunny. Which is a good thing, let´s not be moralists here. Drink a lot, maybe you go berserk on your wife, crash your car, do something you´ll regret. Which is a bad thing, let´s not be romantics here. Not many drink with the intent of doing the damages alcohol inflicts upon our society, which is why we must try to battle alcohol with political means, rather than prohibiting it by law. And we´ll get the society we as a whole deserve, it´s not more complicated than that.

(Is drinking sin? Not in itself, lest we call Jesus a sinner. He drank it and he made it. A moderate amount of alcohol can be drunk and it might have an uplifting effect, one will feel at ease, socialize and generally feel good about it. And we also hold that nothing good can be of the devil, he can just pervert things into sin that were originally blessings from God. Yet I choose not to drink, because for me, it would be sin. I know that here and now in Sweden there is an alcoholic culture that destroys people´s lives. I no longer want to take part in it, to do so would be to recklessly inflict damages upon these people. Anyway, Jesus is not Moses, we as Christians don´t follow him in a banale impersonating fashion, but in a far more profound sense practice Imitatio Christi.)

Second abortion. The argument for allowing abortions goes that if it were prohibited people would do it illegally and under dangerous circumstances. Let the state handle it, so it´s done with the minimum amount of pain and in a dignified fashion. Which is basically the same argument you can hear for legalising drugs, such as alcohol, which I just recently approved of. So where´s the problem? Well, actually, there is a difference. When someone has an abortion, is allowed to do so by the laws we´ve jointly decided upon and helped to do it by the medical institutions we jointly fund, the intent is to have a human fetus aborted. None other. There are no great mysticalities in this. The intent and effect of abortion is one and the same thing. Therefore it´s appropriate realm is Law, not Politics.

I hold that when the fetus is life, i e is a child, the interests of that child weigh just as heavily as the mother´s in the eyes of the law. I don´t see how that can be honestly disputed (though of course plenty do dispute it). That weighing of interests can then become a “political thing”, for instance if giving birth to the baby will put the mother in severe jeopardy. But we must first establish when that baby is a child, and again I hold that that is not something to be decided according to what´s politically convenient for the season (a better term in this case than “politically correct”). I see little reason for me in guessing weeks or constructing elaborate definitions of life. In the finishing stages of life, we define the end of life as the cessation of brain activity, which is the legal and medical definition of death. It´s appropriate to use the same definition of life for it´s beginning, and not stumble into the murky idea of autonomy, which seems to be the currently convenient definition of the beginning of life. “We can save early-born babies from such-and-such week, hence the fetus is life from that time onwards.” Really? So if we can bring forth babies ex-utero, in-vitrio in the distant future, abortion becomes a total no-no? The idea of defining life according to extrinsic advances in medical science rather than intrinsic qualities in the child appear to be absurd and disturbing.

- “Doctor, doctor, is my husband alive?!”
- “The bad news is that he doesn´t have a pulse. The good news is that yesterday I had a similar patient and he made it allright. So technically your husband is potentially alive.”

Brain activity can be detected in babies from the eighth week and onwards. In Sweden we freely allow abortions up to week eighteen. 35.000 abortions are made in Sweden every year, compared to circa 100.000 completed births. That is the highest ratio of abortions to births in Western Europe.

(What I put forth here is a political ethical view on abortion, not saying anything whether it´s sinful or not. The catholic church, for instance, believes that since the fetal process is continuos, the full potentiality of the child is there from conception.)


Fetus at eighth week

ex utero ante luciferum genui te
Ps 110:3

PS. To read about the development of the child in the mummy´s tummy: http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml
For a catholic perspective on abortion:
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/cherishinglife/cl38.htm
And a tidbit on alcohol in the churches: http://www.christianity.ca/church/life/2003/09.001.html

Why religious folks get angry

"How sweet to hold a new-born baby
And feel the pride and joy he gives;
But greater still the calm assurance:
This child can face uncertain days because Christ lives."
Because He lives, Gloria and William J. Gaither

Things are getting global these days, as the Nordic countries have discovered. The Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten publishes some caricatures of the prophet Muhammed, and suddenly (well, four months later) the Nordic dairy company Arla Foods have to suspend their operations in the Middle East, Danes and Norwegians are warned against travelling in certain Muslim countries, threats of suicide bombings abound. It´s a bit like “The butterfly effect” in chaos theory, only not quite so charming and without the butterflies.

Of course Muslims have a right to boycott Danish products, even Nordic or indeed Western products as a whole. That´s exercising their consumer rights, to not buy. They don´t even need a reason to do so. And actually the publishing of the cartoons was provocation, i e it was an act of protest against the repercussions that the publishing would eventually cause, but was not prior to publishing. It´s circular logic and not a very nice thing to do to someone, for instance, it is forbidden conduct for the Swedish police.

All of this however pinpoints a major difference between Islam and Christendom, at least in ideality. Islam is at the root a Law religion, whereas Christianity is at the root the faith in Grace. Of course there are christians who believe more in law than grace, but that is the exception and an error on their part, as it was when the Church (sadly) held supremacy in medieval times. How does this express itself? Sharia (muslim law) will among fundamentalist muslims be seen as a global law (and thus it´s perfectly logical to blast Nordic people to smithereens for breaking it), or for the more moderate elements it´s a law restricted to muslim countries or even the individual believer. In all these cases there is still the assumption that god needs an earthly sword for his judgement. That is not a Christian thought, and anyone who think the Kingdom of God can be brought along with swords, bombs or law paragraphs are sadly mistaken.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
declares the LORD.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9

The main reason people burn Danish flags, smash up embassies etcetera, is not really theology, it´s psychology. And psychology is common to all man; muslims, christians, yes, even atheists have to deal with the phenomenology of the soul. We need to be aware of those mechanisms and not confuse them with faith. When someone attacks religious beliefs, slanders the God we believe in, we get somewhat upset. Part may be a just concern that God is worthy of all praise and glory, like we would feel if someone calls our mother a whore. This is OK to feel faithwise, just as long as I don´t return the favour and try to conquer evil with evil. But another part of the emotion which we never really can escape is the feeling of our foundation being threatened, and us rushing out to defend it. We go crusading or fall into extremism when we see what we base our lives upon being put in question. In order to silence the very nasty and uncomfortable suspiscion that I´m living a lie. Paradoxically, fundamentalism is often due to lack of faith, not “calm assurance” in Christ. That animosity is an enemy of faith, not a friend.

Let´s not pray this happens, but if a christian finds herself the very last believer in the world, her city or church, she should in no way let that diminish her hope in God, who will not fail to deliver even one single soul of his flock. We can find such examples in the Bible, Lot in the doomed town of Sodom, and Moses when the Jews were doing their golden-calf-worshipping. Did they burn flags? Smash up things? Kill the infidels? No, they cried to God, “Please have mercy upon them, spare them, let your judgement be mild”. And God did listen, not as in obeying, but he did show restraint and mercy in his judgement.

As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of.
Genesis 19:17-21