revealed unto babes

I read of Simon...

2007-11-24T21:07:00.000+01:00

Imagine walking down the street, going about your business, disturbing no one. That´s not too hard is it, it´s a sunny day and all is well? Now imagine a gang of skinheads singling you out for a good kicking, chasing you across town, and man, they get hold of you, they will put a boot in your face...

Why? Because you, a young teenage boy, likes other boys. This is the life of Simon in a small town not very far from where I grew up once, not very long ago. Could have been me, chased down street by street and being swallowed up by panic, or suffering from depression of being an outcast, thinking about ending it all in front of some train. It could have, but it´s not. Or maybe it could have been me doing the chasing, but then again it´s not. It´s Simon who walks around with a bodyguard and I just can´t understand what his life must be like. I can´t put myself in his position even if I´d like too.

Reading of Simon and his kind of stories, there are many such stories in the little towns where the Pride festival train never stopped, I can´t help but wonder. Why is there such hate? And is there a connection between the skinheads chasing Simon and the (self-appointed or anointed?) godly persons saying same-sex relations are not in accordance with the will of God? I don´t want to be the voice of a boot in the face. Because does God and devil have mutual enemies? No! But the devil is enemy to all...

It´s true what a local priest said, we can´t talk naturally about sex, we put on our fig leaves and hide our true faces when it comes to sex. To begin with Simon, we must first state the obvious, what will Christ do? Stand between him and his persecutors...

There´s little else of loving kindness to do for Simon, but stand between him and his persecutors and say that this is not right. God will bleed when one of his children are hurt. And He weeps for the suffering and evil of His humanity.

The reason to talk about homosexuality isn´t condemnation of Simon, it´s because it´s a contested topic within the church, whether or not it´s a sin. The Bible name it as such (and yes, that´s including the new testament).

I once thought the solution was to say it´s all choice, you choose gay-ness or not, you choose to do as the Bible says or not. But it´s simply not that simple... If gay people say it´s how they are and they always been such, then that´s the way it is, they should know, I don´t. So being what I am must be OK, doesn´t it? Well, that´s the buzz-word of contemporary kind thinking, it´s what you say, isn´t it? Be who you are! It sounds nice, it´s tolerant, it´s a god-awful cliché! I for one can´t remember reading it in the Bible...

No, what Jesus says, repeatedly and to many different kinds of people, is Be with me! Follow me! Do as I! This he said to everyone. Because he was with the people unwanted, he sought out those who everyone thought was lost to the godly cause, the contempted and out-of-place. And he shared everything unto death...

There´s this passage of the Bible that hit me recently, a leper comes to Christ, kneels, begs of Him, Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean. And Jesus says, very bluntly, I am willing, be clean! And the leper is healed immediately and told to be silent about it. And this is to be his testimony! (Matthew 8)

How difficult it is for us to simply fall back on that voice! We soooo like to give reasons, explain, paint the picture with all the nuances. We don´t like to sound like American hillbillys who wave around the Bible to justify hating fags, supporting the death penalty and war in Iraq. We don´t like to say, God says so, and then be silent...

To know Him is to love Him. To love Him is to be transformed into His likeness. If you want to stay what you are, stay away! But to be with Him is the Truth of what you are, it´s the Way to God, and it´s Life.

PS. Tomorrow we celebrate Judgement day in our church, not because we particularly like Judgement. Because we await Jesus, and He said he return a Judge. A just and loving judge, therefore bringing both condemnation and redemption. It´s what Jesus says, and I trust Him. So it´s for Him to judge, not us...

PPS. I speak to much. I find it very hard to just let my thoughts wander godly and holy paths, I am too often a law unto myself. I understand the key to walking with Christ is walking; thinking, considering, talking will get me nowhere! So this is the last post in this blog, in time I´ll take it away. Not because talking is bad in itself, but my tounge has gotten ahead of me, I´ve read too much and too many good spiritual teachers, I´ve become unsure what is parrot talk and what is true witness. I hope and pray it did some good to someone out there. If not, disregard it and peace be with you!

The reformation polka

2007-11-10T20:09:00.000+01:00

This protestant gem on Youtube I found on Fredrik Norbergs blog.

Indulge! (clicking on the title helps...)

Allow me to re-introduce the Christ!

2007-10-27T17:49:00.000+02:00

This is a must-see! I don´t know who Blair Wingo is, but she really does some spirit-filled Spoken word...

Flip a coin

2007-07-22T15:06:00.000+02:00

The Church is many things. Some are bad, some are very good. The papers write of some of it, some of it are never mentioned in the public realm. Not everything is meant to be talked about, we have the sacraments, we have the mysteries, we have the lover´s secrets, they are not meant for propaganda. The Bible prophesies and promises a world that will ever throw all kinds of shit against the Church, rumours, accusations, gossip, some true, most false.

Truth fades with the distance, rumours increase with it. Take the christians of the United States of America. Surely they are all bigoted, all voting Bush, all have guns and like to shoot muslims? Expect the black christians who do some pretty funky gospelsinging...

What´s not all there is to it, of course, but it´s the public image. Recently the Swedish magazine Ordfront wrote of the Christian left (as in socialistically inclined...) and included a piece on the president contender Barack Obama, who very much comes from a Christian American context (actually muslim as well on his father´s side), founded on social concern and commitment. The civil rights movement of the sixties is unthinkable without the Church. Doctor Martin Luther King Jr was not only a doctor (of systematic theology) but also a baptist pastor and founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference which was a major force in the struggle for equality and liberty in the U.S.

But that´s not the first thing that comes to mind, is it? When we talk of Christian America, we mean the bigots, the hipocrats, the men in power who like to keep themselves there. And some of that is true. And I think some of what went on in places like Moral Majority (but oh, the double standards..) has a place in the Church, as a reaction to a time what just doesn´t give a fuck about God, sin or saintliness. I thought about calling this piece, “The other church”, but really there is only one Church of Jesus Christ. If I have any problem with the people that God has included in that Church, maybe I should consider God could have a serious problem with me hanging about in it. He decided to go for grace, so should I...

For a whiff of that other side of the coin, check out this video of Mavis Staples from YouTube. It´s all there, the freedom marchers, the protesters, the police and the rubber batons, the mob beating a black man for being a black man who think he´s a man. The burning crosses of Ku Klux Clan...

Is the Church doing anything like this today, marching for freedom, going like sheep into the pack of wolves? Not that I can think of, not in Sweden anyway, but then we live in different times. The fight for tolerance is largely won, but there is a greater battle against ignorance still to be fought. How many people today are lonely and not seen by anyone? How many suffer and no one gives a damn? How many humiliate themselves for a few moldy breadcrumbs of attention? For to be seen is the great bliss of our time...

To be a Church is to be struggling in the world. Yet we don´t seem to know what we´re fighting, for, against, with, we see through a glass darkly. And no answers here, just this one question: What are we fighting for?

PS. I love Mavis recent version of this traditional song, but you can also watch it as performed in the heat of the battle. A version with Len Chandler, Joan Baez and Bob Dylan (though his contribution is looking uncomfortable...)

A somewhat reply - excerpts from a letter to a friend

2007-06-18T21:48:00.000+02:00

Dear friend, it seems a lot has passed during the time we have known each other. It seems ages since we met for dinners, bible study and prayer. I remember less of the person I was then, than of you and the person you were then. It´s strange to think that, but of course other people change as well. We often like to think that persons stay the same, from the point we last met them. ...you always seem to have a plan and every intent to realize it. That´s good for you, but I don`t think that`s the direction I should be heading in now. I´m overzealous in planning my time, I need more space and airyness to allow myself to breath and give God some room to manouvre in my life. I need to be more able to let my own plans go when God calls me somewhere else, or when someone needs me and I´m otherwise occupied. I need to learn a bit about acting on the spur of the moment, and that I learn by practising, doing it, letting go.

Undoubtedly it´s good to examine oneself from time to time. Pay heed to the course I´m taking and where it will take me. However, I would like to begin with clarifying a difference in our spiritual traditions, yours from a Pentecostal-style African
church and me from a Lutheran evangelical church in a Nordic country. I do not think the Nordic way of seeing things is superior, we grapple with severe problems of wordly thinking creeping in to our church. But it would help for you to see clearly these differences, I think.

Luther rightly objected to the phariseic tendencies of his time, that salvation can be earned by becoming a nun or a monk or making pilgrimages etcetera, when really it´s the magnificient gift of God through the death and resurrection of Christ, Grace as we call it.
Grace isn´t cheap, it´s paid for by the blood of Christ. All to often we simplify Grace to become an excuse for spiritual laziness, when we´re really called upon to be “workers in the vineyard”. We don´t talk that much in our church about spiritual progress, or ask each other: So, what have you done for Christ lately? Perhaps all too seldom. But with Luther I must also warn of the other side of the ditch, relying on our own spiritual accomplishments rather than the loving grace of God. You know as well as I do about Martha and Mary, and what counts highest in the presence of the Lord. The name of our church is actually quite beautiful, The church of the two sisters. That´s a good balance to strive for!

The expected pattern of conduct in a Lutheran church is to mourn the original sin inside, that we (in this life) never completely conquer. In your church it seems to be to give praise for that new life within that tastes of Heaven. Any Christian life contains both, well at least my life contains both. It´s good, but also sometimes a bit uncomfortable, to be confronted with your spiritual tradition, because it exposes when tradition become cliché rather than life lived true. We get caught up in what´s expected, the usual words, customs, empty rites, rather than receive humbly what God gives us, joy, freedom, work, blessings, responsibilties, maybe even suffering. You know, as the children in the marketplace, calling to each other: We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. (Luke 7:32)

A word from you that has touched me? Pass it onward... The best support you ever gave is just that, that I have gifts from God for the purpose of sharing them. I´m not just a recipient of spiritual concern, I have a part to act out in God´s plan somewhere, somehow, sometime. Most probably just now even as we speak even though it´s hard to see what good I´m doing being Emil here in Kalmar at my job, in my family, among my friends, in Två Systrars church.

Be specific, mention date and place... That´s just like you... It´s a very good quality, you know. Abstraction is a first rate soulkiller. No better way of keeping one´s life at arms length. But I don´t have the memory to answer such questions, I´m afraid. Luther was right in being extra harsh with the little teeny-weeny sins that seem to banale to mention. It sounds ridiculous to confess feeling a sting of jealousy when a little bit of glory falls upon anyone else than the big Me. But oh yes it sets me apart from God and fellow man. You would say, be specific. I would say, it´s just ridiculous, too little to mention. But sin is littleminded, and as we architects like to say, God is in the details. Be specific, that´s probably the supreme rule of spiritual councelling! You would say I´m evading the question, so OK, here it goes. I´m yealous when noone asks me to sing solo in church (though I´d probably say no anyway). I´m vain when I notice people being all sucked in about themselves and then think I´m better (though I´m not, I´m as egocentric as the next man). I´m coward then I see someone go the wrong direction and I know it but don´t say it, because I don´t feel that much better myself.

Righteousness? I try to put my life before God as simply and wholly as I can. You say be specific, I guess... OK, I wrote a letter at the office recently to some people very critical of my work, where I explained some sections of Swedish building laws. It was indeed tempting to twist the words a bit to better suit my side of the story, but I didn´t, I just plain wrote it as truthfully as I could. That doesn´t make me a saint, but such a little thing is none the less a spiritual victory. We should be grateful for every little thing, for to God is the glory...

I struggle a bit with this evaluation. It reminds me a bit too much of the ones we were given after University courses. Does it mean you see yourself as a teacher and me as a pupil? You should know I value your advice, it´s always sound spiritual guidance. But you also know advice can only accomplish so much. Christian life isn´t primarily about following the manual, it´s life with Christ. Letting love in and putting it highest. Obeying the will of God when reluctant to let go of my self, or not understanding the why-so of that will. Advice does NOT solve the problem. I do believe there is such a thing as original sin that guidance, however good, will not remove. I can only trust in the simple fact that for God all things are possible. For God being willing is being able, and He doesn´t want the death of any one of His people. I have no problem with submitting myself in a hierarchy, I see you as a mentor, someone who has gone before where I am now and wiser for it. But my pastors are here where I am, in the church which I belong to now. It is one flock in a sense, all over the world in many different churches, but all acting out the presence of Jesus Christ in our time and age, and Jesus is the true pastor of this great flock. But in the small context, I belong to the local flock here in my part of this city, with its own peculiar habits and manners of saying and doing things. I belong here, my pastors are here, I cannot and should not belong to multiple flocks.

I have a confessionary father here in this church, I don´t talk to him that often, maybe a bit too seldom. But it´s someone in flesh and blood who listens and then tells me what the sacrifice of Jesus is worth in my life. That is why I´m sometimes reluctant nowadays to speak to you about these things. If I confess when I have gone astray and put that before God in the earnest trust that he will have mercy upon me, it is forgiven. It is wiped away, nailed upon the cross, dead with our saviour. It´s not good to repeat a confession. And I don´t think it´s good to remind another about his past sins, when he has taken them before God for forgiveness. God no longer holds that person responsible, neither should we. Psychologically it all too easily leads to a guilt which binds us to our sins rather than set us free, which is what Jesus Christ REALLY aims at with his walk to Golgotha. To distrust the completeness of the forgiveness of sins is to make that sacrifice void. Correction, it´s an attempt to make it void, that will inevitably fail.

I want to be righteous in front of God. Righteousness based on self esteem, social control by family, friends or society is worth very little in the eyes of God. A disciple needs support from others, but his goal must be in heaven, not any earthly reward. My life can never be about looking Christian, rather it´s about seeing Christ and showing, pointing with my life to Him. A mentor who thinks surveillance will help anyone to God is sorely mistaken. I sometimes feel you want to keep me from sin with your presence in my life, and this is not good. Maybe it´s just my feeling, but it´s a bad feeling. To abstain from sin for the sake of God is virtue, to abstain for the sake of another person is just foolishness.

I want to say things as correctly as I can. Sometimes it becomes too abstract, too longwinded. But this is something close to a true reply to your questions. May God bless you and bless our friendship. I truly value it. For when I was down and out, you brought Christ near, and he pulled me up.

W.W.J.D.

2007-01-20T22:03:00.000+01:00

If you´re somewhat acquainted with christian affairs I´m sure you´ve bumped into four letters, W.W.J.D., the abbreviation of “What Would Jesus Do?” Now, that´s a good question. But there´s a better question (handily fitting the same abbreviation): “What Will Jesus Do?”

Why is that better? Because the body of Christ is us, we´re supposed to, called upon, to do His work in this world we live in. Together, that is. The idea is, for anyone taking a look at the Church, they should get a pretty clear picture of what Jesus Christ is all about, between Jesus and his church there should be a striking likeness. So at the end of the day, maybe I should be able to say: “Now that was a Christ-like day!”

Has this ever happened? Nope. Not one single day of my life have I been able to say such a thing, for I´m not completely ruthless with the truth, you know. Then again, neither was a toenail on Jesus feet quite the same thing as the man himself. The point is that the toenail should be a toenail every day of the week, in every particle, and should be quite proud of being a toenail on the feet of the Lord. Ultimately, it´s all about it being Jesus toenail. There´s some degree of comfort in this, though I´m not quite sure what I´m supposed to be or where I fit in on Corpus Christi. At times I seem more busy sawing myself off that body than anything else, but there´s little point in telling you about such things.

Back to the big picture. Is the Church a good image of Christ these days? No. And hard to say any time and place there this has been so. In a particular city hit by spiritual awakening, in a specially blessed monastery, a holy hermit´s cave, some of that glory reflected, but otherwise so much of hipocrisy and self-anointment. So much uglyness.

But there is one instance where the image of Christ and Church match somewhat, where at least I can see the resemblance. We´re in the garden of Gethsemane with Jesus (Matthew 26 and Mark 14, please do read it!). Where we truly share his agony, and I dare say victory. Abandoned, struggling, fearing. Yet refusing to bow under the pressure, trusting in our good Father and putting it all in his hands. This is being done everywhere and in every time in the church of Christ, a prayer never silenced in even the most corrupt parts of the spiritual enterprise we´re never sure whether to call Zion or Babylon, the Church. We´re in the garden. W.W.J.D.?

Pray. And persevere.

PS. There´s this line in a Swedish psalm that goes roughly: “He entered your struggle on earth.” That is Christ entering your struggle. But it could equally justified be said that we enter into Christ´s struggle on earth, or in Gethsemane. There is this together-ness in the church which we need, and shall need. There be some that imagine themselves powerful enough to cope being christians without the aid of the church. That can only be because they have not entered that struggle, for it is one where together-ness is our supreme weapon. Together in Gethsemane, with the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Peter, James and John, all the saints, and the not-so-holy but still redeemed. It can seem like a lonely place, but that´s just because we´re huddled up so close together it´s hard to tell where I stop and the other begin. And finally, how do I go about becoming a part of all this? By becoming a member, sharing in that together-ness. And letting no one tell you that it´s just a social club. We´re the body of Christ.

2007 – a somewhat new yet vaguely familiar year

2007-01-04T22:34:00.000+01:00

Me thinks next year will be one of spontaneous singing and humming, regardless the circumstances and consequences. A happy new year and now bring us some figgy pudding. Or this little gem from the red, red lips of Doris Day:

When I was just a little girl
I asked my mother, what will I be
Will I be pretty, will I be rich
Here's what she said to me.

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.

When I was young, I fell in love
I asked my sweetheart what lies ahead
Will we have rainbows, day after day
Here's what my sweetheart said.

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.

Now I have children of my own
They ask their mother, what will I be
Will I be handsome, will I be rich
I tell them tenderly.

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.

Joy is a good word for the year of our Lord, 2007. Oh, they´ll murder and rape and steal and lie, like every other year since Adam and Eve adopted a new father and left their old one behind. But for me, 2007 will be the year of the Lord. Hands off, get thee behind me, whoever tries to steal it away from Him.

The future's not ours, to see

I don´t know what´s in the sack for the next year, good things, bad things, but I know who´s giving it to me, and that´s what counts. It´s not in the gift, but in the giver, and me being the given.

Whatever will be, will be

I´ll try to keep my calendar white as a virgin next year. Oh, it´ll fill up of course, but let´s pray, with less of mine and more of His this time around.

Que Sera, Sera

I don´t want to be famous next year. I don´t want to get rich, I don´t want to be brilliant, neither amusing nor witty. I want to be just the person God so loved, so valued that it was worth every and any sacrifice. I want to understand next year, whatever Christ saw in me and saw in you and saw in God to do that with me, you and God. And if that´s one “why” too many for a feeble little year, a mere 365 days of it, then learn me to obey and do what love commands anyway.

I tell them tenderly

I´ll sport less next year. Don´t like hamstrings, they make me walk funny.

Will we have rainbows, day after day

I already know my work matters, I´ll work with understanding my life matters too, and living it as if that´s a fact. That it´s a matter of fact.

Will I be handsome, will I be rich

Less of fun, excitement and self fulfillment next year. Hail, blissful boredom!

What will be, will be

I´m no one in particular. Just completely freaking unique.

When I was young, I fell in love

If, perchance, I´d accidentally fall in love with someone, it´ll be with her and no one else. If, if such miracles do occur in our time, she´d happen to fall in love with me, it´ll be with me and no one else. Or else, let be.

Que Sera

Every time has a purpose. There´s a time for everything under the sun. There´s the great Filofax in the sky. Little need then for me to organize every moment in the calendar of my own. Next year, look out! I´ll guard the blanks in my calendar with my life. They´re not mine, they´re not yours, they´re divine property.

The future's not ours

I won´t pray just for the sake of praying, or read Bible just on account of reading Bible. It´s quality time with the Lord. But if it comes to that, I´ll pray just for praying and read Bible just for reading Bible. It´s time with the Lord.

Whatever will be

Every new year need have a slogan. Mine is: Relax! You´re in the service of a good Lord.

Will be

I will not read twenty volumes of Kierkegaards collected works next year. I´m not an intellectual project, you know, or a librarian´s wet dream. I do hope to hug at least twenty people for next year, I´m a human being, being human we do together.

When I was young

I utterly refuse to learn any new languages for this year, Inshallah...

Here's what my sweetheart said

I´ll write more love poems next year, and less essays on theology. Maybe even some of those loving poems won´t be exclusively to God, but who have need for such distictions?

Sera!

Two quotes

2006-11-25T19:27:00.000+01:00

Mae West in her prime

To err is human, but it feels divine. Mae West

...For God doth know that in the day ye eat [of the fruit], then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil
The serpent in paradise

The connection between sin and playing at god goes way back, so it should come as no surprise that things of the dark has a special taste for dressing up as religion, using its symbols and language for self-justification and provocation. But more of that later.

I´m not completely illiterate then it comes to black-and-white cinema, but Mae West has thus far escaped my attention. She´s interesting in being one of the first sex symbols in Hollywood of the “blonde and bosoms”-variety, in fact with so much of the latter that she coined her own word in popular culture. The American fliers during the Second World War called their life vests “Mae Wests” in reference to their bell-shaped form (and that is quite clever...).

Now ms West had brains as well, beyond looks and sex appeal. With a certain amount of rethorical force she popped quotes like the one earlier mentioned, often appearing as the prophet of hedonism. At the time they must have felt as kicks in the groin of the decency ideals of the time, but also a tad tickling in their indiscretion, for she certainly drew in the crowds to her pictures. I´m not too keen on moralizing over this, really I guess it put the searchlight on the hypocrisy of a society in irretrievable decline. But surely now all this must be yesterdays news, yet we still hear comments like hers all the time. I can´t really see what is to be gained with mocking Christian morals and ideals. You don´t speak ill of the dead, as they say. Yet it´s absolutely abundant and overwhelming in the present day, though seldom done with the sofistication of early cinema, when one had to fly under the radar of censors and guardians of moral standards. What could be more harmless today than the glamourized (should I say deified) pleasure culture, in music, literature and cinema? Harmless that is with regard to social sanctions (such as Mae West experienced), what it does to the soul I know not.

Or? Let us briefly state that Christianity no longer lives in Western public and popular culture. But really the corpse may not be Christianity as such, rather public and popular culture itself? I´m speaking of the kind of culture that is a ritualized lifeform based on mutual and complete participation, a participation one is born into, of grace if you will, or compulsion at the other end of the scale. There´s nothing like it today. There are ritualized lifeforms, some for participation even, but mostly for consumption and spectacle. All are options, one of many. Our culture is a smorgasbord, we choose what tastes best for the moment, define good and evil at pleasure. The advantage of smorgasbord is that when you tire of one particular dish, there´s always something new, which feels exciting for a time before it too lose its flavour. And then the next dish, and another after that. You´re hungry and you´re eating, but never satisfied. Or eating though you´re full, but can´t stop though you´re sick of it. Maybe next time will be better, if you try another dish?

Christian faith is about resurrecting people, not cultural systems. In that regard we´ve lost nothing and have little to mourn. There is this very moment gospel being preached and listened to all over the world. The forms of faith are worse than nothing, when the content is missing. It´s an empty egg shell that will break at the very first touch. But as we can see the house is never left empty for long, when faith has left the building pretty soon the rats are dancing on the table. As Dylan sings, “You gotta serve somebody / Well it might be the devil or it might be the Lord / But you gotta serve somebody”

Lord and servants

2006-10-18T23:01:00.000+02:00

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.
The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

...

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
John 13:1-17

How great a part of all human social interactions really boil down to one great pyramid game? We accept subjection in one sphere of our lives in order to get that feeling of collective identity we seemingly can´t live without; in another sphere we put ourselves in a position to subdue others so we maintain a feeling of control of our existence, also something that seems like a primal human need. When it comes to friends, we allow ourselves to be dominated by the rich and beautiful so some of the glamour rubs off on our own not-so-humble selves. When no one else watches we have relationships with the local geeks and nerds who willingly accept to be dominated.

Am I being cynic? Well, anyway, Jesus calls us away from this great pyramid game, basically puts it on it´s tip, and lo and behold, it stands up and won´t fall over anytime soon (though the church often makes it wobble quite a bit). We´re called upon to serve the down-and-out, and let the great of this world be. They don´t need us, they need God, and us admiring them deceives them into thinking they´re really their own gods, because really, admiration should be reserved for gods and other deitys. (One in number...) And this is not just a moral command from our leader, He did it, worthy of all praise and admiration he came to serve all with his own life and death, sparing nothing for himself, subjected under not just those who loved him, but his enemies as well. For the cool and un-cool.

But why does the church have hierarchy? Because it has, and according to the Bible what´s the way it should be. That doesn´t seem very democratic or egalitarian or twentyfirst century? In fact, the very word “hierarchy” means priestly rule and is derived from Christianity. Just as God is lord, brother and friend, so the church both demands obedience and offers obedience. It´s a fellowship of brothers and sisters, but also the body of Christ and Jesus is the head of that body. What he says goes.

That obedience of the believer is not restricted to the direct words of Christ, but also those who in his likeness are shepherds to the flock (that´s us and me!) For instance, we in the diocese of Växjö this very week welcome a new bishop, Sven Thidevall. So we in this little part of the world are actually obliged to pray for him and be obedient and support his leadership, no matter what feelings contemporary society have about authority.

In general though, the church have greater need of friends and companions than leaders, and that´s quite comforting. We´re doing an Alpha course in our church where I help out a bit. If I had any images of this making me some kind of guru, those where quickly dispelled. Thank God, I can say in retrospect (it might have felt a wee bit attractive before the course started). It´s so much greater to walk together and share a journey and experiences, than walking in front and hoping your ass will lead the way for those behind you. And a lot funnier...

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Mark 10:35-45

My work is my service

2006-09-23T21:32:00.000+02:00

Do you see a man skilled in his work?
He will serve before kings;
he will not serve before obscure men.
Proverbs 22:29

I not so humbly confess to applying this little proverb to myself. God being the royal one, me being the skilled on. Boasting? I think not, and show me where in the Bible demeaning oneself is encouraged. On the other hand, it tells us to use our gifts wisely, and strive and struggle and endure. To work. An absolute prerequisite to me doing my job is self-consciousness, that I claim knowledge and know-how in my profession. No one else is likely to do it for me, rather it´s a common tactic in negotiations and other social games to belittle your opponent. If I let that get to me, those things I´m set as an architect to defend and safeguard will suffer. Hail banality and ugliness!

Through Adam labour is divinely appointed and part of the human condition, just as the labour of Eve. Not always glamorous, but it needs be done none the less. There is a deep fulfillment in store for anyone who choose to take this seriously, a lifetime in the coal mine for those who see it as wage slavery and a mere interruption of leisure.

There are doubts of course. There are, God knows, days when it seems absolutely obvious I´m serving nothing but superficiality and speculative commercial interest. The question whether my labour bears good fruit is highly relevant and can´t be brushed aside. Not all work is good work. Some destroy the worker, body and soul, some destroy this world we live in or our fellow man. Some work is more pointless than digging a pit and filling it up again. What I deal with as an architect is giving aesthetical form to practical realities. Humans have in effect transcended the natural godgiven environment. We have become dependent on artificial environments, co-creators with God. It may sound like hybris, but that´s the way things are nowadays. As an architect my job is to see to it that man´s creation strives for the same qualities as God´s: order, complexity, beauty and power. This is of course impossible given man´s present condition. Try achieving order when disobedience rules the day, complexity when stubborn and lazy single-mindedness abounds, beauty when image is advertising and mind-meddling, power when half the population glorifies sheer force and the other half has a serious authority problem.

Everytime I see a beautiful church or a luscious garden or the ultimate work of art, a vibrant city, I´m inspired to get at it again, this Mission Impossible. Some degree of success is clearly possible. I also know that we humans will more and more make this earth our own, leave our marks everywhere. And a world without beauty is a foretaste of hell, a world where beauty still glimmer gives a taste for heaven. I believe all beauty is in the end a witness to the glory of God. And at the other end, ugliness and banality does violence against the human soul, giving the idea that we´re as crappy as our surroundings. We´re not, we´re meant to inhabit the heavenly Jerusalem, where God is the architect, hence my colleague! If the work is good enough for him, it´s good enough for me...

Soul sale

2006-09-05T22:51:00.000+02:00

- everything must go

Nothing was delivered
and I tell this truth to you
not out of spite nor anger
but simply because it´s true

Now I hope you won´t object to giving
giving back all of what you owe
the fewer words you have to waste on this
the sooner you can go
“Nothing was delivered”, B Dylan

Modern advertising is all about flattering the consumer, rather than the product. For we both know that it´s the stuff we don´t need, that are in need of advertising. Modern advertising is the friend you don´t need and barely stand, but who flatters your vanity.

What´s the problem? If we ignore the obvious economic and ecological disaster? That we become dependant upon lies, that we base our selfesteem on illusions. I shop, therefore I am; I am a consumer, advertising produces me. A sports car makes me a racing driver, an aeroplane ticket a vagabond. Applauses from government and das Kapital.

All this is easily said, yet how do I live it or not live it? I have dreams of how my apartment becomes The Apartment, and that will require cash and perhaps even a small investment of my soul into the whole project. I travel, is that to meet friends and “broaden my mind”, or simply a status symbol and topic of conversation at work and parties? Consuming is not in itself suspect, not any more so than producing. The early economists had a tendency to consider production the moral part of economy, consumption the immoral, but this is clearly absurd. The only measure I can think of is that of Jesus, if it was your beloved friend who bought the couch or took a trip to Rio, would you be happy for him or feel envy? Or be afraid he´d gone materialistic?

Heard of zeitgeist? That means “spirit of the times”, and there´s no need to feel embarrased if you´re unfamiliar with the concept, it was thrown on the garbage heap of philosophy a long time ago, along with the German system builders who conceived it. But let´s salvage it just for this occasion, and while we´re probing around in the trash let´s pick up some evil as well. I mean, evil as a real and present menace to human existence. Let´s ask, what is the evil at work in our time? I´ll wager on consumerism. Not the empowerment of the consumer, if any, but the simultaneous seduction of the consumer and producer. Meaning, advertising manipulates the buyer, focus groups and consumer polls the maker. Through this, one could destroy the natural environment and waste precious resources on bogus needs. One could destroy the cultural fabric of human societies by making them sellable and marketable rather than livable (can be seen in the tourist resort of your choice). One could pervert the church into falling into the spiritual marketplace, selling ideas and rituals designed for maximum demand, rather than simply handing onwards what it has been given by grace. One could kill a soul by turning it into a commodity, given a price by external valuation (switch on your telly and most likely it´s being done on Big Brother).

If I was one of the lesser demons, and a bit lazy, that´s certainly the way I´d go about killing, destroying and maiming God´s creation in one neat blow. Blatant manipulation and deception under the guise of freedom...

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:...
That in the ages to come [God] might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:2,7

Spiritual cocooning

2006-08-14T22:26:00.000+02:00

I'll be floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. Muhammad Ali

Recently there was this meeting in a parish hall here in Kalmar, me being the youngest person present (being 28!). There was the usual lamentations on the state of the church, you know the score, worldliness creeping in and bishops folding over to outside pressure. Basically the pastors are failing to keep the wolves from the flock and the flock from the wolves. All perfectly true, but this time I couldn´t help hearing scratches in the record, like it had been played once too many (metaphor lost on the CD generation).

The subject was twofold, living in the world and rulership of the church. For those of you who know your Luther, that translates to the worldly and spiritual regiment, though our basis of discussion was the Confessio Augustana written by his disciple, Philip Melanchton. But I´ll stop here before I start delving into interesting but overly deep waters. What struck me was that the twofold subject turned into a onesided discussion, on who rules the church and how that power is exercised. Living in the world appearantly didn´t merit questions or argument. I really couldn´t understand how that is, since my experience is that it´s quite simple being a Christian in the church where one after all has plenty of support and back-up, despite some feral presence where it really shouldn´t be. Now, being a Christian in the world, that´s a different matter altogether, there being little or none fellowship with other believers, in a culture where belief is sanctioned socially (oh, yes it is...). Not to mention that distractions are more or less what the “experience economy” is about, temptations being the engine of a consumerist society. You might say a snowball in hell has better chance of survival. Then again, for God being willing is being able...

We´re also faced with a new political situation, where everyone is empowered, but power has become invisible. Who works it, and where does it go? What is a Christian agenda in our secular society? Material welfare, or spiritual (how that can be accomplished using worldly means)? All utopias are dead by the way, they just seem ridiculous in a society where all we have is means, all goals being compromised or banale. Never before have we been confronted with so many choices, yet they all feel like same shit, different colour. You can put your soul into your work, but how many workplaces really do something for the benefit of the Kingdom, let alone your fellow man? We work more, in order to be able to consume more, because there is a whole industry geared to manipulate our desires to dead things, preferably killing our souls in the process (souls having no money and being a bit of a nuisance economy-wise), get sick of it and realize that if I stop consuming, we need work less, hang on a minute, must work less, and that spells unemployment and maybe even economic collapse.

In short, a spiritual cocoon can look mighty attractive on the streets of Babylon. But then again a cocoon is by nature a temporary residence, and we´re supposed to leave it different, freer, better than we entered it. It´s warm and snuggly, but it´s for preparation, not hibernation. I have no problem with caterpillars, but you must admit butterflies are more beautiful and have a sensible amount of legs.

I´m a bit unsure about cocooning in the church, because it´s perfectly obvious we need it. I did a retreat this summer for one thing, and it was necessary, that´s all I can say about it. But should I make it a yearly tradition? Maybe not. That conference with mr. Holyone and ms. Devoted sounds awfully interesting, but does it take me in a direction of my own design, spiritual or not, or on the path that God has cleared for me? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn´t. The point is, we can´t just look for comfort and kicks, we need to realize at some point that we´re actually equipped for all occasions, clothed for any weather. That we can float like butterflies, sting like bees, and truly are both beautiful and loved. Even loving. Then we´re ready to answer the question of the psalmist:
How shall we sing the Lord´s song in a strange land? Ps 137:4

PS. By the way, the word “mass”, as in service with the holy communion, means “sending out”, as out into the world, as into service. Faithful preparation is faithful service, as a friend of mine would say. It´s full of faith, so to speak, and faith is a driving force, able to move mountains and warm, snuggly believers.

Two takes on death

2006-08-05T20:25:00.000+02:00

I just spent an evening listening to a new Johnny Cash record, “American V: A hundred highways”, well and truly his swan song, since we sadly no longer have him with us. But I guess God must be mighty happy having him singing by the throne...

Well, listening to all those songs about caskets going down into the grave and children left weeping for their dead, I couldn´t help comparing it to Bob Dylan´s first record, from when he was just 21 years old. Also filled with songs about death and dying, yet radically different. It´s actually possible to sing an album´s worth of songs about death whilst being utterly confident about one´s immortality. That´s the Bob variant by the way, and it´s an absolutely brilliant display of youthful arrogance. Johnny is a bit different, naturally. He comes at you doing what he´s always done, singing about life and living as he sees it, correction, lives it. When asked about his new companion, he´ll simply say, “Oh him, don´t worry about him, that´s just Death. Can´t seem to get rid of him, but then again, what can he do to anyone?”

Indeed.

School´s out

2006-06-16T22:05:00.000+02:00

Yes, like Alice Cooper says, school´s out for summer. But not for ever, hopefully, fingers crossed and hope to die.

This blog will take a summer break, for as long as is necessary. I will watch some soccer, go to the beach, take a retreat, do some walking, and let the brain take a rest. Live a little without the need to evaluate if events or people around me are worthy of being written about. And I think this is the proper season to shut up and let nature do the talking. But I would like to leave you with two freebies, so you have a positive memory of the blog and maybe, come autumn chill and dying leaves, return for more. The first is a Celtic blessing:

Blessing on setting forth

May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face.
The rains fall soft upon your fields;
And, until we meet again, may
God hold you in the palm of his hand.

Writing is not a liberal art, it´s in fact surrounded by many commandments, do´s and don´t´s. The first and foremost of them is never to let anyone into your writer´s study. However, as the second handout I thought I´d close with a short behind-the-scenes reportage that I´d like to call:

The art of turning a post-it note into a spiritual essay

Some of you may have read the last piece on this blog: Darwin, Alien scientists and the three revelations of God. Like most things I write, it is excruiciatingly long and lengthy. It´s written in one go at the computer, but I had a scetch from the night before (thoughts tend to come when one should really go to bed and sleep). This scetch, the content if you will, was in fact a post-it note. A couple of diversions, a u-turn, some elaborations and decorations and, voilá, an essay. For your reference I give this scetch so you can see for yourselves this incredible transformation or maybe horrendous inflation.

The three revelations
tangible
From concrete to abstract
not the other way around
[None is good but God] (in Swedish)
We know, love, truth and
goodness by God, not
God by speculating on
abstractions.
earthly
Alien scientist and fauna
[Unpreconceived before the revelation] (in Swedish)

It could be modern poetry, come to think of it...

Darwin, alien scientists and the three revelations of God

2006-06-04T22:16:00.000+02:00

Let´s say we believe there is the great Someone. Let´s say we´re not content with keeping this or that at arm´s length as an unnamed impotent deity, but rather want to get to know a personal, mighty, loving God. How do we go about a crash course in learning of this God?

A Christian, say myself, will say it´s all about the Lord revealing himself to us, not us peeking behind the veil of the temple, incidentally the same veil reft apart at the death of Jesus. The Church is founded, guided and sustained by the revelation of God. The most obvious revelation in the Christian faith is the Bible, which we divide in two parts: the Old and New testament. At the risk of doing some extremely banale theology, one can say the Old is the revelation of the Law of a true and just God, and the New of the Grace of a loving God. It´s simplified and far be it from me to say that the Law is made void by Grace, rather Jesus Christ is also the whole fulfillment of the demands of the Law. Jesus is also very much more than a revelation, he is true God and man as we state in the Nicean Creed. But for now, more out of rethorical clarity than theological, let´s be a bit categorical about the issue and put the OT and NT up as two separate revelations. The third, or the first maybe, is the Creation, Cosmos, the Universe, the revelation of the might of God. As with the two first this one too reflects and is a precursor of the two other. For is it not also a tender mercy in willing into existence, as the love of a parent to a child yet unborn and even unconceived? It´s one God, three revelations.

So what do we do with these three outstretched hands of the All-mighty? Basically we read them and study them, hopefully “under the influence” of Holy Spirit... But we read them as revelations, that is, we let them speak to us before we try to put words in their mouths. This is very hard to do, as we carry an awesome load of prejudice and preconceptions, as do the rest of humanity, if ours look a bit different.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God.
St Luke 18:18-19

It must be said that the only valid measure of goodness, of right and wrong, is the Lord. We know love, truth, and goodness by God, we don´t know God by speculating on our own feeble notions of love, truth, etcetera. I don´t mean to say we´re unable to be good and kind, true, just and loving, there is good within us, there is a friend of the Gospel within us. However, it´s always mixed up and confronted with an inner and outer enemy, we can´t defeat on our own. The mistake is that we assume God to be abstract, and that we have to construct him out of our ethical and aesthetical standards. The reality is that God is concrete indeed, and we have him before us as Jesus Christ, prophesied about in the Old testament, described in detail in four gospels, followed as Lord in the epistles and the tradition of the Church, and furthermore revealed and made manifest by the working of the Holy Spirit within us (who should be named especially today, since it´s Pentecost). What more do we need? But as a certain rich man in hell asked of Abraham, to send the beggar Lazarus to his brothers to warn them and testify of the judgement: Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
St Luke 16:29-31

This approach also goes for the scientific pursuit of knowledge on the Creation, the natural sciences´ study of the world around us. In fact, the proper direction of our thinking should be from the concrete and tangible to the abstract, not the other way around. It´s always more fruitful to generalize and draw patterns out of the seemingly chaotic phenomena that make up our reality, than to expect truthful prediction from our constructed explanations, systems and models of this reality. If a hypothetical alien scientist were given our collected wisdom on the life-world, what we know of ecology, biology and organic chemistry, and out of this was asked to guess at a fauna and flora for planet Earth, I doubt very much the result would resemble anything near a horse or a bird or a flower that we could recognize from God´s creation. And this not because our understanding of nature is flawed (which it of course is to a degree), but it would simply be the wrong direction of thinking.

Often the revelation of God doesn´t appeal to us, seem to be ruthless or even evil. It could be one of the juicier parts of the Old testament, Jesus talking dirty about taking up one´s cross and giving the world the finger. It could be the workings of the natural world, an ugly little HIV virus, a Swedish winter, or the evolution as put forth by Darwin. I´ve heard it said a couple of times, that evolution is incompatible with a loving God. I don´t actually feel very strongly about the subject, I´m not a biologist, what do I know about the origin of species? But I can´t help suspecting that preconceptions are taking the better out of truth.

I believe a scientist, Christian or not, should approach her scientific study just as any Christian should approach God. Completely open to what is to be revealed. Not figuring to know God better than Himself. Humble to the fact that we can´t understand everything yet. Absolutely reluctant and unwilling to ever in any way whatsoever construct a god more to our liking than the real God who created us to be, along with the rest of this beautiful earth, the sun, moon, stars - and an HIV virus or two.

Water cup dispenser-talk of the gods

2006-05-21T22:21:00.000+02:00

There are drawbacks to being a Christian, God knows. People tend to judge the quality of a faith by its believers, and are entirely justified in doing so. It would seem then that I might do more harm than good to Jesus´ name. Publicity-wise, wouldn´t it be prudent sometimes being a bit quiet about the whole Christian tag on my person, so when I act the dirtbag, the dirt sticks on me rather than the cross? I don´t mind a bad rep, it´s well earned, but Christ should be praised and glorified, not humiliated by my thoughts, words and actions. Why should he be praised and glorified? Because he´s willing to be humiliated on mine and your´s account. Appearantly, God values us higher than publicity and and religious prestige. Maybe God has a lousy PR-manager?

I imagine the gods having a conference on some current topic, and when it´s time for the tea and biscuits, mighty JHWH gets teased by the other big names. Buddha got those monks in their orange outfit, living on ridiculous altitudes in the Himalayas, Muhammad´s Allah has devotees getting trampled underfoot every year at his shrine in Meccah, and let´s not even begin with the Hindu gurus, there we can talk of some serious religious fervor. And what does God have to show up, let´s say in a completely ordinary, fantastic little church in a little, nondescript though beautiful, Swedish town by the Baltic Sea? A church where it´s hard to tell the sinner from the saint, a church still entirely dependant of pure, unadultered, uncalled for, Charity. With little other choice than to beg and pray constantly, in fact encouraged to be annoyingly incessant in prayer. Luckily God doesn´t have a conference of other gods to impress, he´s the Man and knows it.

The greatness of Christian faith is not to be found in the believer, it´s in the in-between. The covenant, the bond between God and man, between God and me and me and you. It´s a love of a magnitude this world has never known, nor ever will know. Little need then to cast golden calves, gods of our own design, “become-god-in-ten-easy-steps” on late afternoon teve talkshows. Shut it off and tune in: God loves you.

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Ephesians 3:14-21

Could you be you in a place like this?

2006-05-13T22:03:00.000+02:00

"Architecture of Density" by Michael Wolf

I guess if you´re not an architect your soul trembles at the prospect of living in the city of these images, the poor and hyperexploited part of Hong Kong. Even myself is somewhat ambivalent to Michael Wolf´s splendid photos, they have a definite chilling beauty to them, but also to a Western mind an absolutely grotesque denial of individuality in dwelling. I like houses that also express collective identity, such as the medieval town-house, and don´t overly pamper the Paris Hilton-extrovert egomaniacs of our modern age. Still I think if it was my individuality living in one of these houses I ´d despair pretty soon.

Because when a house becomes a home it also becomes a part of you yourself. Not very different from the clothes you´re wearing, and just as with those clothes you´re probably equally concerned about imagineering qualities, keeping you hip, as well as the purely functional aspect, keeping you warm and dry.

I put no moral aspect on any of this. The mask, dressing up, is probably as old as human civilization, and I guess life would be more fun-less without it. Besides, I would pretty much be job-less if aesthetic considerations were removed from the act of building and dwelling. Indeed the whole oppositional polarity between depth and surface is quite banale, at least in a spiritual sense. Wholly holy, as Marvin Gaye sung it, that´s the Christian ideal, not just the surface, wearing the right clothes and speaking religiously, and not just the inner sanctum of the soul, meditating on things holy but treating yourself and others like dirt.

With that said, I think most of us Westerners could probably benefit from a prolonged stay in a housing estate like one of these. I know I would, but Hong-Kong is a bit too far away. Because it´s very easy to fall in the pit of buying one´s value at other´s expense, which is what the whole “I´m uniquer than thou!”-thing is about. I imagine staying in a place like this would confront me with the question if I´m any different from any of my neighbours. I imagine if I stayed long enough I´d be confronted with the answer that they´re just as unique as I am. And we´re created in that fashion and don´t need clothes, houses or even words to prove it.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked?
Genesis 3:7-11

Lies, damned lies and statistics

2006-04-30T12:58:00.000+02:00

The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.
God looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Ps 53:1-3

It´s just a number, but there is a reality behind the number. It´s a percentage, but there are human souls counted in that percentage. That´s why I winced when I saw it, in the lower left corner of the front page of a magazine, 14 % of all Swedes believe that God created Earth. 14 % of all Swedes agree with the second line of the Apostles Creed, “creator of Heaven and Earth”. How many fall off by the third line, the fourth, the fifth, how many stick by to the end of the Creed? Probably not that many, probably a single figure percentage.

More numbers, in 1947 80 % believed in God, in 2001 46 %. In two generations practically halfed. If a marketing guru saw these figures, he would probably say to the Church: “What the fuck are you doing wrong?” I don´t honestly know what to reply, other than Kyrie eleison. Lord have mercy.

The difference between 46 and 14 is not that we have lost another third in just a couple of years, it´s the difference between God being a name and God actually being a person doing stuff. That difference is bloody important. That difference mean we pray to God, rather than just talk about, over, around, concerning God.

Does these numbers mean I´m a dinosaur, antiquated, a relic from past ages? Not so, I have no intention of becoming extinct any time soon. But neither did the dinosaurs, I guess. So what strategy should we devise in order to survive in a hostile new environment? Adapt, become leaner and meaner, change our diet and take smaller prey?

We already have a strategy, and a promise that the Church will prevail. One day, every knee will bow, every tounge will confess that the Lord is King. It will be so. But today we have a problem, or rather, they have a problem and we can help. We´re not the solution, but we are given heavenly bread for the purpose of sharing it. The strategy is simple, let the kingdom of God become real and present in us and among us. I´ll be damned if a kingdom in my soul and in my church doesn´t impress someone. The kingdom of God will not perish by sword, power or wealth, by Big Brother marathons on the telly or page three girls in the evening newspaper. Not even by mindblowing poets or soultouching master painters. It will be so.

My priest wrote something about the demon of comparison, that the success of the church cannot be measured by numbers. Indeed, Jesus, measured by numbers, wasn´t much of a pastor. He had thousands who listened to him, media coverage, good will and buzz in the community. At the way up to Golgotha, how many disciples remained? Not many, but two thousand years later those disciples are counted in billons. There is a world outside Swedish borders, thankfully, and the Church prosper in quite a few places around this beautiful globe. And that success belongs to Jesus. None other.

Because Thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise Thee.
Ps 63:3

The shroud of Turin

2006-04-19T22:09:00.000+02:00

- Grounds of faith
- or maybe even Did Jesus have a ponytail?

Negative image of the shroud

I like Kierkegaard as much as the next person. Basically I agree that faith at the root is an absurd phenomenon, we believe in spite of a world that mocks and laughs at faith. That´s the way it´s always been, and I´m not going to complain about it. It´s in fact one of the clear promises of the Bible, if one of the more unpleasant. Don´t say it didn´t warn you!

I consider it blasphemy to claim empirical evidence creates or sustains faith, that´s something that´s the unique prerogative of the Holy Spirit. With that said, I would like to take you on a little journey to the mundane and worldly. I guess mostly because I sometimes feel very “harmless” in delivering this or that week´s spiritual essay, as in “to each man a faith of his own”. Because the points I put up here are available to public scrutiny, it´s possible to determine them as correct or incorrect. If it´s bullshit, then it´s at least in theory ascertainable bullshit. But if it´s not, I think it´s intellectually dishonest to just ignore it.

I guess most people have heard about the shroud in Turin, maybe even seen the eerie face in some magazine article from the recent Olympics. Allegedly, it is the face of Christ, exhibiting bleeding from the skull (as from a crown of thorns), from the back (as from flailing), from the side (as from a spear piercing the heart) and from the root of the hands as well as the feet (as from nail wounds).

During my time in catholic Spain I always cringed a bit at the religious bric-a-brac you find in churches there. A tooth of St John here, a pelvis from St Augustine there. Sure. Until I saw a quite morbid medieval painting with some saint having his limbs sawed off post-mortem and sent off as relics to churches. So at least some of them have to be real, I guess...

The Catholics, God bless them!, don´t mind mixing science and religion. For instance, miracles in the Catholic church are carefully scrutinized and documented by scholars. Seems far better than the other variety: “A friend of my sister was at a Bible camp were they healed a blind man!” - “If you say so...” The shroud has actually spawned it´s own scientifical field, sindonology. Forensic teams have examined the shroud of Turin, as well as another legendary item, the sudarium of Oviedo in Spain, which is believed to be the wrapping for the head, referred to in the gospel of John. The sudarium in Oviedo shows signs of death by asfyxiation, consistent with crucifixion. Interestingly (and at the risk of starting a Christian fashion trend) the corpse had a pony tail! But back to the shroud in Turin, what does it actually show? The very detailed outline of a man whose characteristics match those of Jesus, and is also quite similar to the arche type of early Christian icons. How this outline in the textile has come into existence is unknown, however it was not painted. There was definitely a real body which caused it, but the mechanism of representation is not known. Biological residue gives the corpse´s blood type, but also shows no sign of decomposure, meaning the wrapping was in contact with the body but for a short while. It was a dead body exhibiting rigor mortis. Analysis of pollen residue matches the alleged history of the ramblings of the shroud, from Palestine, through Edessa and Istamboul in Turkey, France and then Turin, Italy. The sudarium in Oviedo is better traced and further back, and a similar pollen analysis has corrobated the history of that shroud.

4% of all human beings have the blood type AB, which is found on both the shroud in Turin and Oviedo. The chance of that being a fluke coincidence is 0.16 %. That means it takes 99.84 % rational assumption and 0.16 % faith to believe the two stem from the same body. Far from demanding a knight of faith, a mere squire can believe that. Admittedly, that body needn´t be that of Jesus, but I´d say it´s the rational assumption given the evidence, both place and time checks out, as well as medical data corresponding to the Gospel account. And the fact that there are historical accounts of the shroud being in existence from 325 AD should be worth something.

In the year of 1988 it seemed the shroud was suddenly “killed” as an object of historical importance, when a carbon dating indicated it was vowen in medieval time. Various imaginative explanations to this were put forward, but in the public eye, it was a done deal it was all hoax. Until just last year, when it was shown that the fabric had been mended in the medieval period, and in fact the sample that was age-tested was one of the “new” pieces. A bit clumsy they didn´t discover it the first time around, but there you go. The debate rages on...

So what gives if the shrouds in Turin and Oviedo are legit? It shows that the detailed account of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels is correct, and undeniably strengthens the New Testament as an historical source. It shows that the garments which Jesus were buried in did not see his physical decomposure. Forensic experts suggests they could not have been removed from his body without visible signs of tampering. Does that prove a resurrection? Of course not, but it provides us with a mystery that science has not been able to solve. Beyond this point, we´re in the realm of faith. Basically in the same position the populace of Jerusalem were in, they had seen Jesus crucified, laid in a grave sealed with a stone. And now the grave was empty, those who murdered Jesus said his disciples stole the body, his disciples that he was resurrected. They gladly suffered death for that belief.

Naturally people disagree with these points I´ve put forward. I willingly provide a link to the Sceptic Site where they have a piece on the shroud. Some of what I´ve written here is to be read in the the Danish book Mirakler. Møder mellem Himmel og Jord, by Niels Christian Hvidt, a Catholic theologian. Another site you can look into, you can judge for yourselves which of the two sites is the more serious. I found it great fun and fascinating reading about this whole subject, so put down your copy of “The Da Vinci Code“ for a couple of minutes and get the real thing!

An Easter meditation

2006-04-14T22:51:00.000+02:00

There´s a grave, and there´s a dead man in the grave. This is the Good Friday, and today there is no resurrection. We rolled the stone on him together. It was heavy, and when it was done, we went home in silence, each on our own to our own home and family. The light of my life – is now darkness. The word of my life – is utter silence.

I´ve said to others: Trust in this man, for he have never failed me. Look at me, what am I without him? Everything I have, I have in him. And now it´s all gone. I am reduced to nothing, I´ve followed a dream, I´ve waken up, and I´m dead.

It is true I needed him, for there´s a hole and an absence where my heart should be, and was until he left us. It is true I needed him, for he was not done with me yet, and there is no one that can do what he did for me, and yet he didn´t finish it and I blame him. You´re not done, finish it and be gone, if it be your will, but finish it.

Every little darkness and each ray of sunshine which has passed through my life, I´ve told him about it. And now it is as the dead talking to the dead, and I´d rather be silent. Some don´t see it that way, they don´t mind talking to the dead, because the dead don´t talk back. They are indeed the most pitiable of creatures. Let the dead bury the dead, your time will come.

We stood a while before the stone. We said nothing, we sang nothing, we didn´t even pray. To whom? Go home, there´s nothing to see here. There´s a grave, and there´s a dead man in the grave. And yet his death – gives me life. This is the Good Friday, and today, today there is no resurrection.

“Wir sind Bettler. Das ist wahr.”

2006-04-02T12:58:00.000+02:00

Martin Luther dies in the year 1546, leaving a note behind with a few words that could sum up his theology: “We´re beggars. That´s the truth.”

460 years later I walk down a street in central Malmö with a couple of colleagues. We´ve been to a conference, unclear which, and while away the hour until our train leaves with some window-shopping in fancy furniture stores. In front of a cinema-turned-fashion-shop there stands a beggar, or rather kneels, hands outstretched, no note, no words, just hands outstretched, which in universal language means “Give me!”

The rational Swede thinks, we´re in the welfare state, no one should need beg. There´s social services, charity organizations (I gave plenty last Christmas!) and employment to be had for willing hands. The rational Swede walks on by, just like all the rest of the street. Comes home, and is reminded of the Luther note. And of the Church that´s the mother of faith, how we all support each other in loving-kindness, how we pray for each other, sing praise together and strengthen our brothers and sisters with words of reassurance and maybe even the odd word of reprovement. We go on retreats, we have priests who hear our confession, saints write books to guide us and inspire us, we have the Bible and maybe read it with fervour. We have an environment solely dedicated to our spiritual welfare. We should be OK. Still we´re beggars. That´s the truth.

So I guess we´re quite alike, me and the kneeling man in Malmö, but there´s a difference. The people he begged of walked on by, some ignoring him, some tossing him a coin that wouldn´t buy him even a cup of coffee, some feeling a sting of bad conscience, maybe even returning home writing a spiritual meditation on the subject. But no one really acting out true mercy. The difference is a merciful God.

Begging sounds humiliating, as weakness and to be in need has always been contempted. But I´m proud to be a beggar at the throne of Christ. This is what matters. Others may enjoy having their photos taken with a rifle in arms and a foot on the prey, thinking themselves a Hemingway of sorts. He shot himself eventually, and what they´re chasing after is just as empty. They´d rather conquer and steal pointless, worthless and meaningless death, than pray for, beg, and receive life abundant and free.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:19-23

Why beg? I agree with Pauls diagnosis of the sinful nature, I have seen plenty of it in mine own life. Not all, but that´s not much of an excuse. I could take comfort in (I don´t) that most everyone I know fail in at least a couple of these departments. Frankly, dear friend and reader, I doubt you´re an exception.

Why beg? Because it´s rewarded. Sure, when I hear the whole list of the fruits of the Spirit, it sounds distant. But take them one at a time, and examine myself, and I can honestly say there´s been a change. Not in all of them, to lesser and greater degrees, but then God´s not finished with me yet either. Ultimately, even that is of a lesser interest. I´d rather be a sinner with Christ in heaven, than a saint with the devil in hell. He says: “Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven.” Luther says: “Wir sind Bettler. Das ist wahr.”

Let it be!

2006-03-26T19:00:00.000+02:00

Today´s service I carried the virgin Mary (or her statue to be more specific) in our procession to the altar. I must confess I was a bit nervous about the whole affair, being a fiery Lutheran and all. Isn´t it a bit, well, too Catholic for comfort?

Not so at all! As our hard-core-rites-and-incense priest in our little parish said in his sermon, “Our love for mother Mary should be boundless”. Why so? Because if she had failed when God called, there wouldn´t be any Christians, there wouldn´t be any church, there wouldn´t be any parish. We would still be heathens, the Jews would still be (failing) under the yoke of the Law, the love of God would still be like rain falling on barren earth evaporating quickly. God so trusted Mary he put everything on her shoulders (or in her womb to be more specific). It would be easy to imagine her terrified at that responsibility, but not Mary, she simply says her: Let it be!

When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
there will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see,
there will be an answer. let it be.

Let it be, let it be, .....

And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on me,
shine until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Let it be, let it be, .....

That´s the Beatles talking, most likely Paul, hard to imagine John writing this...

Mary is quite gifted with words also, as in the Magnificat we recite on occasions (such as this):

And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
Luke 1:46-54

In Swedish we say blissful rather than blessed, which I like better. Mary is happiest among women! But, as Bengt (our liturgy-liking priest) remarked, Mary is also a problem, for many people and for many different reasons. For the feminists, she´s the very image of dualistic “woman-thinking”, the Madonna and the Whore. For the Lutheran faith police, she should be revered with moderation, lest we become Mary-worshippers (fat chance of that happening...). For the materialists, she´s too supernatural with that whole immaculate conception affair. As an aside in this regard it could be mentioned that ancient people weren´t fools, already before I Newton, A Kinsey and K G Hammar (the Swedish arch-bishop, God bless him) it was common wisdom how babies were conceived. Let´s face it, apart from Mary and Joseph, who on earth could believe such a story? The neighbours surely didn´t. Joseph´s family, probably not. The religious establishment in the town temple being kind and understanding? Think again. Yet Mary calls herself happiest of women, and expects generations after her to tell about that joy she felt, when she said to the Lord: May it be to me as you have said. Let it be! Words of wisdom.

The prodigal parable

2006-03-24T21:32:00.000+01:00

This one will be good. Sure you have to bear with me on a bit of my usual ramblings, but the centerpiece is a beautiful little story from first century Palestine. Light a candle, find a comfy-chair and find out what all the fuss is about.

Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.
"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "
Luke 15:11-

We owe St Luke quite a lot, not the least due to that he alone of the Gospel writers recorded this parable of Jesus for posterity. If we had to choose but one parable to keep and the others to be forgotten, my money is on this one.

It is found in a section where Jesus adresses the different fractions of his audience, beginning with lecturing the already-all-too-righteous Pharisees (who weren´t overly keen on being lectured), then scares away the hang-arounds (just in it for the ride) with some hard talk of bearing one´s cross, and with the disciples he puts an awesome responsibility on their shoulders. In short, he makes himself unpopular and uncomfortable. In between comes the sinners and the publicans (Roman tax collectors), and surprisingly Jesus comforts them. As in com-fort, strong-with, if I may dare some ethymological guesswork. If you don´t find this surprising, imagine yourself in the Pharisees situation and think again. The sinners had certainly in some way earned their name, and the tax collectors were the Quislings of their day.

Now we get into why this parable is currently prodigal, or squandered, wasted and driven away from the truth. The banale variant of interpretation is that the sinners were really better than the Pharisees, because they weren´t hypocritical, rather than take pride in righteousness they accepted they were corrupt people. This is actually worse than banale, it subverts the meaning of the parable in an utterly diabolical fashion. Because the difference between the two groups is one of pride vs shame. And what they have in common is that both pride and shame hinders them from pleading their cause with their Father. Both religious pride and worldly shame are thus obstacles to “coming to one´s senses”. But to take pride in sin is worse than all the rest.

Another popular slant of interpretation is that the son (i e me-in-debt-to-God) can safely remain where I am, and the father (God-the-giver-and-forgiver) will run quite a distance to help me, into the very brothel where I reside. He will indeed, but you have to turn, turn and turn again. The prodigal son is aware of his condition and confesses to it readily. He has wasted, and is wasted away. Why else would he need help? If you´re doing fine, why ask for help, and why give it if it´s not wanted? This is quite simply what´s called repentance, for those of you who wonder, and it´s a mighty fine thing. Greater still...

This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

At the end of the parable the religious professionals get a slight kick on the buttocks. In a very mild voice (who wouldn´t want to be reproved in this fashion?), God explains what the self-appointed saint can´t understand. How immensly cheap his salvation is, bought at such a price (the fattened calf...). And the moral for him is that for all those years of slaving, they didn´t even earn him a lousy goat. Why? Because he never asked. Because everything was his all along.

Heaven as the new Iceland?

2006-03-09T12:40:00.000+01:00

-not necessarily so!

Iceland is a beautiful country. At least that´s what they tell me, those who are in the know of these things. And the pictures seem nice, it seems like the sort of place I´d like if I went there. Lava fields, hot geysers, green grass and archaic language, almost like a fairy-tale still absolutely authentic. Very different from my new everyday surroundings here in Kalmar in south-western Sweden.

But there´s something rotten in the state of Iceland. Those who live there seem to like to keep everyone away. It´s OK to admire from a distance, but Iceland is for the Icelandic people, not strangers with different customs, colour of skin and so on. Their culture has survived for millenia, but they still consider it very fragile, and every little word needs protection or else decay and chaos will be upon them. They used to be Vikings who sailed down to Constantinopel and back again, now if they see a Turk they go running for helpur at the nearest polisur stationur.

By now you realize this is a metaphor, because even the Icelandics aren´t that xenophobic, isolationist and overly protective. Where then am I heading with all this (got to stop giving it all away in the headline...)? I recently got a mail from a dear, though somewhat absent, friend of mine where he mentioned this blog as “interesting – and very religious”. And it struck me how exclusive that “very religious”-talk can be to some, notably those who should be most included, the children, the deprave, deprived and depressed people, sinners who see themselves as just sin and nothing more. To ordinary folk who haven´t heard of sin and Heaven since Sunday school a lifetime ago. For Jesus it seemed so easy, he is the personification of righteousness and didn´t budge one millimetre to the hedonists and talibans of his day, still those who didn´t fit in then current standards liked him. They even fled to him, like it was their only hope. They didn´t feel diminished, but strengthened, by his greatness and purity.

So I would just like to apologize for being overly Icelandic at times. It´s a beautiful country, and sometimes I get too keen to prove my citizenry. The truth is I got it for no effort of my own.

Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum I obtained this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
Acts 22:27-28

Resist! Object! Insist!

2006-02-24T22:35:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-10T22:19:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-02-08T09:57:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-05T00:16:00.001+01:00

- 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

2006-02-03T19:07:00.000+01:00

"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

Praying with St Augustine

2006-01-30T18:19:00.000+01:00

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"

2006-01-28T11:43:00.000+01:00

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...

2006-01-26T00:50:00.000+01:00

...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

2006-01-20T15:02:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-01-15T00:18:00.000+01:00

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

2006-01-05T22:52:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-01-04T21:31:00.000+01:00

-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.

Birthday thoughts

2005-12-22T23:10:00.000+01:00

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?

2005-12-13T11:24:00.000+01:00

[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

2005-12-09T18:18:00.000+01:00

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

2005-12-03T13:57:00.000+01:00

[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.

The church as a spiritual gas stop

2005-11-15T12:28:00.000+01:00

And he charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod”.
Mark 8:15

Anyone interested in Swedish church affairs may have noted the recent stirrup caused by two new liturgical innovations, one just approved and the other waiting in the wings. The first is an act of public blessing of gay partnerships, the other some kind of blessing for divorcees, also public. Since I know nothing of their exact liturgical content, I won´t say anything either for or against them. It would be a bit too cumbersome to discuss such complex issues as one single package, so I´ll leave it aside for now. Rather, what I want to adress is the “demand” for church rites, more than whether the church should “supply” them. It´s a fair assumtion that it´s not the approval of the church that is asked for. After all, the days of it´s moral authority are long gone. But something still draws the crowd in, when there´s anything to really celebrate.

“Rites of passage” is a universal phenomena, and I think quite an uncontroversial concept from cultural anthropology. All human cultures have certain outward signs or rites indicating a passage from one state to another; when we finish school, move, retire, die, there are celebrations with very characteristic forms. Some of these have a religious tendency, others don´t. As a believer, it´s natural to handle such “passages” by thanking for the old and asking for blessing upon the new from the Lord. But how should we interpret the desire for church rites, from people who spend 99% of their time in complete ignorance of things godly? And I´m talking about the state of affairs now, and the use of “regular” rites such as baptism and burial as simply a “moody setting”. Of course, most who want a church rite of some kind, have a belief of some kind, but often not a christian faith, even by own admission. Still, there seems to be nothing to beat the church for ritualistic grandeur, the selling argument for an organization counting something like 80% of the population as members, including yours truly. So why is the church better than the competition?

Rites of faith are spiritual chargers; something mundane, an object, a word, a motion, becomes “more”. Through faith? Yes and no. There can be nothing arbitrary about a rite. It is us reaching out for God, but it must also be God reaching inward for us. Therefore the supreme rites of the church are those instituted by Christ, the “sacraments”. Namely, baptism and the holy supper.
Thus, rites are also spiritual signs, escapees from a transcendent reality. And, appearantly people have spiritual needs. The material world is not enough. Transcendent reality is appreciated. Of course, demands posed by faith and obedience are not appreciated, neither sacrifices of things worldly to follow Christ. Because such sacrifices are called for, make no mistake.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel´s, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?Mark 8:35-36

Transcendence is nice, if it stays transcendent. If it starts meddling with this mundane existence we call our own, making all kind of tricky demands, it´s suddenly Get thee behind me! [Mark 8:33]
Which is the leaven of Herod, who when challenged by God´s prophet, John the Baptist, for his marriage to his brother´s wife, simply put said prophet in prison, later to be executed. For Herod (and wife) that was an untolerable demand, to refrain from the wife of his brother. He had the desire for her, took her, and wanted no one to tell him otherwise.

For me as a believer, it´s completely unacceptable for the church to be a convenience store, supplying whatever comes in handy with spiritual garments. Those garments are for people and they´re for anyone who wants to be clothed in them. But as for rites, what the church celebrates, is the gifts of God. The church only stock, what God in his mercy provides.

I could end there, or make a cautious remark. Caution is a bit boring, but sometimes also necessary. Admittedly, for an outsider liturgical rows are just nonsense and a waste of time. Particularly if one considers that a gay person is murdered because of his sexuality (yes, it´s a he) in Sweden every year, one homosexual human being assaulted in Sweden every day because some feel their male identity is threatened by that human being. There´s “christians” in that wonderful country of America running around with signs at Aids burials written “No tears for queers” and “Another fag dies, God smiles”.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20:7 (And that´s one of the ten commandments!)

Let´s be honest about it, anyone who calls homosexuality a disease is playing the same game nazis did with jews, gypsies, and actually quite a lot of homosexuals. It´s painfully obvious that the rhethoric is exactly the same: they´re a cancer thumour, they are weak and weaken us, they need to be eliminated. And that is said in Sweden of today, we need go no farther. So caution is called for, and timing, and sense of priorities. Still for me liturgy also matters. And I think it´s a bit sad watching the church just go with the flow, and really not asking the question what God wants in all this shouting that´s hurled about. With that I´ll hold my peace...

The glorification of success and failure in world and church

2005-10-22T13:46:00.000+02:00

- or where´s a catchy title when needed

So most of you have heard the gossip. The church is really a refuge for losers, scared little beasts on the “endangered list”, unfit for the big real-awesome world outside. I won´t really argue with that position. It´s perfectly true, actually. Mankind has been losers since way back, ever since Adam´s times. The first fruit of knowledge, is the bitter taste of getting screwed. So what else is new? I´ll simply say that my belief is, the soul is a sitting duck in this world. It can´t last long. Everything it turns to, crumbles. Like a black hole, it absorbs everything without discrimination, until it implodes of the accumulated weight of nothingness. So, thank God, the church is a refuge for losers, always with room to spare for plenty more.

And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of customs: and he said unto him, Follow me.
And he left all, rose up, and followed him.

The nature of the invitation to this refuge poses certain problems to our mindset. If some unemployed, understimulated kid calls out “Loser!”, as I pass him by on the sidewalk, I don´t turn my head. Or if I did, I instantly regret it (“You´re talking to me?”). Why and how this is so, I´ll leave aside. For a full and clear treatment of the issue, read Harald Ofstad´s book “Our contempt for weakness”. Simply put, we don´t like losers, we don´t like being losers. Yet there´s no other way to go about it. Do you need God, or are you managing just fine by yourself, thank you?

And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

Time and time again we see the same pattern in the Bible, great redemption is preceded by great failure. St Peter´s three denials of Christ on the eve of the crucifixion was necessary for him to become the rock of the church, simply because his own “foundation” in himself could not possibly do. St Paul spent his first life persecuting Christians and perfecting his own “religious man”. And started his second life by admitting it was all loss to him, all the zeal, self-righteousness and law-mentality. But still, his past never held him prisoner.In fact, this in no way means escape, rather it leads to facing up to one´s problems, “with God on our side”. Actually, it´s allowing someone mightier than me fighting the life-long battle to it´s conclusion, and ultimate victory.

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. [Luke 5:27-32]

In religious talk this often becomes quite hollow-sounding defeatism. “We´re bad to the core, good for nothing, yet boastful, garbage people”. Often it becomes a mantra to induce apathy and passivism, which is not facing up to any truth whatsoever. Actually, it´s very hard to pinpoint anything specific in such talk, it all seems to be lofty “luxury-sins”, removed from everyday experience.
On the other hand, we have “success theology”. Whether it merits being called theology is open to debate, but in some places it´s a very real, though sub-conscious, attitude. If you look happy and have an air of confident faith about you, you´re surely in the right with God. If you´re on the dole, look miserable, have shy manners, trouble speaking in public, obviously you´re unredeemed and void of the influence of the Holy Spirit. Or so the thinking goes. The trouble with both these misconceptions of what lies behind and ahead of success and failure, is people uncapable of grasping Bible more than one verse at a time.

And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

…so if you´re down and out, you´re either lacking in faith or in prayers. But onwards…

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you. [Luke 17:5-6, 20-21]

In conclusion, my failure is not my salvation. There´s little need to examine the extent and authenticity of my failure. It´s evident, I know it´s there, I know God is greater, the cross won´t fall on account of my sins being pinned to it. Is personal success possible? Yes. I pray for it, in life, love and work. But I must choose, come before God trusting that success, or come before Him trusting in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. I choose grace. My success too, is pinned on that same cross.

Advice for new Bible-readers

2005-10-04T18:31:00.000+02:00

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice; and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
John 10:1-6

Being fairly new in the flock, it´s sometimes hard to know one´s way about. As the promise says, the voice of the Lord can hardly be mistaken. But for a newcomer, it´s hard to tell which instructions are meant for you, and which for my other woolly neighbours. It is indeed one flock, but many sheep, all called by Jesus personally with a personalized agenda. This means that the word of God not only is a statement of things godly, it has a distinct purpose and direction. If philosophical terms help, we can call it “dialectal”. It´s the shepherds staff pushing, shoving and pleading the flock in the right direction. Sometimes it even becomes a sword and spiritual bloodshed ensues.

Now, being one of the newcomers, Bible-reading can become a trying experience, with all the “dialectal swords” flying about in the texts. If I let all of them draw blood, pretty soon I´ll fall to pieces. But one will eventually discover that spiritual warfare isn´t wild carnage (and let´s not use the US spinster euphemism “surgical warfare”), the recipient always has a clear address. Not that some of them aren´t coming my way, but that all of them should be meant for me, now that´s plain silly (and rather egocentric).

One of those 100% crazy, 100% holy desert saints once said that all exaggeration is of the devil. It´s completely true, and quite an exaggeration. Another mark of the devil: He can´t keep two things in his head at once. So let´s not be afraid of dialectism in the Bible, or feel the need to balance it. After all, a blunt sword is of no use to anyone. But let´s be aware it´s there...

The knight of faith -

2005-09-24T21:08:00.000+02:00

and the rest of us...

How can we believe? I could ask “why”, but that always tend to get one into a quagmire of endless doubts, so let´s be practical and simply inquire, How?

“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” S Kierkegaard

God is my reason for believing in him, and none other. The Bible doesn´t concern itself with proving the existence of God, but simply describes the manifestation of his presence, in the old covenant with his people, Israel, and in the new covenant through his son, Jesus Christ. This may be silly-logic in the eyes of the world, even in mine own eyes at times. No proof, no extraneous motives beyond God himself. So I can´t help anyone with the question in the introduction, only God really can. Still being not easily discouraged when it comes to writing, this will be a small and flawed attempt to help somehow for ...my tounge is the pen of a ready writer (Ps 45:1)

The difficulty I find in writing or saying anything helpful to another human being about God, is that chances are they wouldn´t like him. For people who want to retain supreme control of their own lives, the gospel is bad news, not good. Chances are, the few things in their lives they consider worthwhile, are not consistent with christian living. It feels a bit like dragging someone to a surprise party hosted at the IRS (US tax collection agency). They think they´re going to get squeezed to the last penny, when really there´s a party going on in their very honour. Maybe christian life is one of those rooms that has to be kept darkened, from the outside looking in it´s horrible, then you enter, fumble for the light switch, and all is light. And it was very good...

If sin is the reign of death, then becoming a christian is becoming a free person, a son of God. If it isn´t, then there´s really no cause for alarm. That´s how simple it is. If supreme control of my own life is possible, then I don´t need God. But, as the Dylan song goes, “You gotta serve somebody!” This will ALWAYS be a cause of contention between the church and the world. We say it´s death, they say it´s life. I know the experience of sin in my life has been utter depression, void and death, but by what knowledge do I presume someone else to be under the rule of whatever? If people say they like getting wasted, screwing around and trampling other people underfoot, who am I to say it´s bad? No one, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. But I DO know, that even bad kings know how to use both carrots and sticks. And that though techniques of repression can be ever so subtle and cunning, most people will notice they´re getting screwed, even when failing to see where, when and by whom.

Some may feel I speak too confrontational about the relation between the church and the world, “war-talk” as it were. I don´t like using war-metaphors frivolously, especially since I haven´t witnessed or been in one myself. But in this sense it is justified, as an interesting correspondence between Pliny and Trajanus the emperor may illustrate, written somwhere in between 111 and 113 AD.

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded."

Trajan to Pliny
"You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

For being the McCarthys of their age, they seem strangely humanistic while discussing the executions of the trouble-makers. One almost sympathizes with their desire to preserve the order of their society. I mean, all they ask for is a bit of kneeling to the Roman idols, no need to believe in them or anything, just show some good-will to the emperor and they´ll let bygones be bygones. The “repentees” declaration, that the sum and substance of their faith was meeting on a certain day is ample, if unnecessary, proof that mere bench-warming in the church does little to improve one´s character. As for God´s judgement on this, well, it´s supremely His.

But the reality check this correspondence affords, is that there was no “cure” of this particular disease. Because faith is not a dead collection of opinions on facts or myths in the world, spiritual or material, not something I can wield intellectually at my pleasure; it is something that has and wields ME. And He who wields is mightier than Trajanus and the rest of his lot.

Trajanus (Matt 22:15-22)

Conservative and liberal church

2005-08-21T21:08:00.000+02:00

- and the radical faith

I go to church every sunday, as most other christians, in the hope of hearing the Word of God boldly preached, fervently prayed to and gladly praised in hymns and songs. Most of the time that wont happen, maybe some pieces of worldly wisdom of varying quality will be offered, but the Word revealed to His congregation? All too seldom.

So why go there you may ask, aren´t there plenty of “Bible churches” around with empty seats in their benches? There are. But the Church isn´t there for my amusement, it´s a part who I am as much as I am a part of its life and ways. So even if the devil himself preached from the pulpit, I´d go there faithfully every sunday if that should be Gods will, if only to resist. But there is a balance to the argument, that I am in need of the Church MORE than it of me. So had I not another community of saints to fall back on, I´d stay well clear of the wolves den (harshly speaking).

There is without a doubt a sorry state of affairs prevalent in much of contemporary christianity. My congregation is not even closely an exception in Sweden, or in Western Europe as a whole. Which leads many (conservatives) to put an “equal to”-mark between liberal and wordly and between conservative and godly. Which can only be countered with that godly is godly and both liberal and conservative are worldly, labels of this world. Yes, God is ever the same, but also supremely free. The God of liberation AND preservation, ever renewing and reconstituting. So don´t come and try attaching labels to God that are just earthly rags. God wants to dress US in linens of righteousness, not the other way around.

All this is very well, speaking rightly of the Lord, and most believers would agree up to this point. But what of the believer herself, should she count count herself in the “oldie” camp of conservatism, within the walls so to speak, or in the liberationist gang of trailblazers and wallbreachers? A bit more contentious issue, no doubt.

Let´s have a look at St Peter, one of the great disciples, a pillar of the Church even by St Pauls admission. Now it happened that Peter was given quite an assignment by Jesus, maybe a responsibility no human could or should be asked to fulfil. But it was given none the less to Peter to be the rock on which Jesus would build His church. For a rock to be any good as foundation, it must of necessity be unshakeable. Should Peter fall, the Church falls with him. Now Peter took this very seriously, and watched, and prayed, and admonished the Church, down to its very least disciple. One can imagine the anxiety at loosing or adding even the slightest dot or comma in the Gospel of Christ, handed down for his safe keeping. Then one day Peter had a revelation from God to leave behind a huge part not only of his, but Jesus and the rest of the Church´s spiritual heritage, the Jewish laws of purity. These weren´t merely abstract concepts, they were everywhere present in society and everyday life. Any decent person followed them to the letter. Quite naturally, he refused. How could he, little Peter, take such a step? Jesus had not said one word in this direction, and now Peter is asked to not only rock the boat, but overturn it and sail upside down. Still God insisted: it is time to leave those things behind, they are no longer necessary, you´re meant for greater and better things. And Peter eventually assented to the will of God, and put it before the Church. The Bible (Acts, chapters 10 and 11) tells us of this the very first in the long line of discussions/battles between conservatives and liberals, that eventually all accepted Peter´s revelation, invited the gentiles to partake of the Gospel, held their peace and glorified God.

A better word for Peter´s attitude is “radical”, a word whose root (sorry for the pun now) we can trace back to the latin radix, meaning just root. Radical people do get noticed, but not on account of them showing off or especially seeking attention. They´re simply radically different, as a pine growing on exposed rock is different to one growing in rich soil. They do other things, not really because anyone tells them to, but because it´s what´s coming natural to them. It is evident and manifest, simply because it is there. Radical faith then is one that always roots itself on God through the grace and discipleship given by his Son, Jesus Christ. Thereto help us the Lord.

Why the old man with a beard ain´t so bad

2005-08-07T21:42:00.000+02:00

Hockey

“I believe in God alright, but not like an old man with a beard!” Sounds familiar? I have yet to meet someone who actually believes in the bearded deity, still quite a lot of people wants very strongly to disassociate themselves from any belief in Him (with the beard). A more popular confession these days would be: “I believe in Something Very Vague With Bright Tinkling Lights Like In Close Encounter Of The Third Kind”.

Tried chatting to a concept? Not very talkative I´m afraid... Images of God are something we love to disagree on. Some prefer to go with the abstract strategy, with a lot of big words buzzing about; other will have very concrete gods indeed, even to the degree of the girl a friend of mine helped move recently. She had her own altar with idols, which of course no one else was permitted to carry about. We wouldn´t want any gods broken or handled carelessly now, would we?

Jesus and Basketball

“Religious” movies faces similar questions in trying to visualize the spiritual realm. The devil is of course quite photogenique for the cinema, as well as on cathedral walls. The “grotesque” is a bit more fun portraying artistically it seems, in the Middle Ages as in the dream factories by Sunset Boulevard. Incidentally, the best devil portrait in my humble opinion, is Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in Wall Street, rather than whatsoever Exorcist movie have you. I think he´s someone who, if you met him casually on a dinner party, you wouldn´t find wildly disagreeable. An eternity is naturally a different matter altogether...

So I kind of like the Old bearded man, he´s someone I can talk to, maybe with some sense of trepidation in front of such appearant wisdom. Still, I can relate to him, which is the point of the whole execise. It´s not all the truth about God, very limited actually, but as to the time hope will be turned to real “hanging” in the mighty presence of the Lord, you could do worse.

...handling the ball

You think that sounds like an instrumental view on God? I shape the idol I´m most comfortable with? That´s because it is instrumental, the image of God that is, not God per se. Images as objects of worship is forbidden, at least where I´m coming from. There´s nothing anyone could do with a cross or a bible what would shock me. I know this because performance artists love to “push the envelope” a bit with these symbols, in fact knowingly or unknowingly, very much doing the work of God. I´ve heard of prisoners who´ve used the Gideonite´s Bible as toilet paper, when nothing else was available. Good for them, and a whole lot better than catching diarrheas, cholera or typhus. The book in itself is just paper and print, not a sacred object or graven image. I can´t resist sharing a morsel of related ethymology now, just recently acquired from the excellent Swedish pastor Peter Halldorf. Symbols were tokens used by Greek cities, when they made pacts they split a clay disc between them, so whenever they sent ambassadors they would bring their half with them as credentials. If the piece fit, you´re the real McCoy. Symballo, the greek root, signifies ”bind together” or “unify”; it´s opposite is actually diaballo, from which we´ve received the name of you-know-whom.

The images of God in the Bible are always connected to encounter of some kind, it is in the meeting with humanity the form and appearance of God becomes an issue. There´s very little of speculation like: “Exclusive – God: How He Really Looks When No One´s Watching”. Quite a shapeshifter actually: wind, man (bearded or otherwise), cloud and burning bush among others. In fact the only image we´re supposed and encouraged to make in the likeness of God, or more specifically Christ, is our own selves, our very lives and souls. Jesus is very different from all these images and manifestations, He IS the Real McCoy, Man AND God, hence our friend, brother and mediator. He is the reality we can base our image on. Thereto may He help and guide us.

My personal favourite...

Where´s a Christian anarchist when you need her?

2005-07-26T21:54:00.000+02:00

London

Ye have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matt 5:39-40)

Iraq

Many years ago, I did military service for my country, learning among other things to shoot at a cardboard figure of a enemy soldier, aiming for the largest body mass of the human, dead centre in the chest. I knew he was the enemy on account of his vicious appearance, eyes squinting and rifle raised halfway to firing position. Strangely there was no fear depicted in him, just pure undefiled aggression, a machine out to get me.

The peace movement is a quite big thing nowadays, not least in the church. Of course war is still around, with no sign of improvement up ahead. But we may ask, is violence only a forbidden option when it comes to nations, or should we withhold moral rights from individual human beings we would gladly give to abstract organizations such as a nation state. It seems the agenda of the broader peace movement could be summarized as an application of the “law and order society” on the present anarchical state of international affairs. More United Nations, less United States of America. And who wouldn´t agree with such an agenda (at least outside republican America)?

The land is founded on law, as the old Swedish saying goes, and law ultimately in the barrel of the gun. That´s right, the smoothly efficient steel barrel of a gun. The bedrock of our society is a twofold principle, with one positive and one negative face. If we trust one another, we can relax and free up our trigger fingers for some productive work together. Abuse that trust, I´ll take up my gun and shoot you.

Let me say a few formal-sounding words, perhaps seldom in your mouth, seemingly far from the everyday world: Our society, political and economical institutions, criminal and civil law, i e our life form in this context is built on the state´s monopoly of violence. Then let me ask a question for which I´ve got no satisfying answer: Is a life in the likeness of Christ per definition one outside the law, as a stranger and outcast on this world?

On executions by lethal injection in the United States, there will in certain states be multiple executioners, only one of which will actually push the real button killing the condemned (the murder, the capital sin, actually being shared among a number of parties). Which points to a psychological mechanism found in religion as in life in general, that things disallowed as tangible acts, can be allowed when passed through a process of abstraction, so that a murder can take place without there being a murderer. In earthly justice, that is. Now I would not care to restrict the argument to capital punishment, especially since in my particular country none such is practised. Imprisonment and withdrawal of liberties is certainly also a form of violence, the difference being one of degrees, not in species. Do I mean to say that legal punishment is sinful and contrary to the will of God? I don´t know yet, for we must make very clear what our choices are; for if there be no choice, neither is there any sin. So let´s return to the subject briefly.

Looking at the initial biblical message, and how we relate to it, we discover an underlying ambivalence in ourselves. It sounds nice and kind, but is it possible? What Jesus says is at least perceived by his contemparies as radical, and if anyone today would venture to apply it in walk of life, or even worse, politically, what then? Well, an analysis of HOW Jesus expresses himself is crucial for our understanding of what he means. The passage quoted from the Sermon on the Mount is hard to place stilistically, the example given is concrete, but also obviously meant for a wider significance, aiming at universality but carefully avoiding any sense of abstraction. It goes beyond slapping, but it certainly includes that as well. The language is simple, yet hard to follow, which is usually a sign it costs a bit more than we´re willing to give. More than the church is willing to give anyway, for does not the church often pride itself in being a pillar of the community, a humanizing influence in our crass society, critical in details yet accepting the basic principles of law and order? Was the church ever asked of God to fulfil such a role?

The Sermon on the Mount begins with the so called Blessings, in which a rethorical figue is made, the meek shall inherit the earth, the poor in spirit (weak that is) shall receive the Kingdom, and those who are persecuted and suffer for Christ´s sake are indeed blessed by God. Heaven is the reverse image of Earth, where credit and debit will switch places. The blessings end with the encouragement to be the salt of the Earth, the antidote to the putrefaction and corruption we see around us. The salt signifies people who trust the blessings, who receive them gladly, actually receiving God in their lives, a presence over which the world has no dominion. As Mother Theresa said: “We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share that joy with all we come in contact with.”

Let´s have a look at one of the most neglected and hid away messages in the Word of the Lord, a passage to be recited with great fear, on that the intonation be not amiss, the wrong word emphazised or the breathing pause mis-timed:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it. (Luke 14:26-28)
Observe the example given of constructing a tower, the Tower of Babel, a tower for protection, the watch tower in the garden to keep out trespassers. Also some may shout: Self contradiction! Whatever happened to loving your neighbour and all the other kindly stuff? Nothing much actually, it still holds, but as I see it this means to let go of all claims of ownership, on other people, on your own life. Is not this the first premise to be able to resist not evil? The only person left out of this “black list” is God, as if the only demand remaining possible and sanctioned is that of Jacob: I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. (Genesis 32:26)

So how to round this up? Call upon all believers to take it to the streets and crush ordered society? No, maybe just the opposite; don´t go running to society to crush the corruption of these filthy streets. As Jesus when put before the Roman judge did not dignify him with even a word, for his fate was in God´s hands, the real battle was an inwards one, and actually already won in the garden of Gethsemane. The City of God will NOT be founded by human hands, however willing or benevolent, no matter their degree of enlightenment. This means being in some sense lost to this world, in another sense free to act and react within it. There is no manual, no guru to show the way, just the Spirit of love and liberty given by God to all who will receive.

PS. One note of caution, the major difference between first century Palestine and twentyfirst century Western civilization is that they were all practically slaves, we are mostly rulers (at least of our own lives) in a democratic society. With power comes responsibility, as Spidey would have it (such a lousy authority to quote, and probably ripped off from somebody else!).

A bedtime story

2005-07-26T21:53:00.000+02:00

Of course, there´s always an opinion on whatever subject to be found when wanted. I found a tale of sorts on the Internet which relates to the subject of Christian anarchy. I´m not calling it the God-awful truth (and there are some mis-spellings), but it´s kind of cute none the less. “Arky” is a neologism signifying “hierarchichal power” or “worldly might” or some such thing. (From http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/part1.html The site is quite extensive, and actually I would advise to read it with caution, some of it is VERY partisan)

“You see, once upon a time there was this little anarchist church--in fact, the very one we've been talking about--that of Jesus, Paul, and the other New Testament Christians. And it--in its rather weak, unorganized, anarchical way (following the pattern its anarchical apostle)--went bumbling about the empire, evangelizing handfuls of individuals here and there and leaving them in little anarchical house-groups.

Actually, in comparison to some other churches of other eras, its church-growth statistics weren't all that bad. Nevertheless, in time, some strategic planners came along who said, "Folks, this anarchical way of going at things is stupid. We'll never get the world won for Christ this way. Why, people are being born faster than we're set up to convert them (infant baptism not yet having been invented); we'll never catch up. We've got to start thinking big and quit being so leery about using a bit of organization and power. We need to operate from strength. What we really ought to do is go for the Arky--go for the Big One. God wants his church to grow. And just think of how much more good we can accomplish by using arky power rather than shying from it!"

And wouldn't you know, it worked! They went for the emperor and got him--and he brought the whole of the Big Arky over with him. Christianity was proclaimed the official religion of the Roman Empire--and the world was won for Christ. You know, you have to smile a bit at the Old Anarchy, thinking that three thousand in one day was pretty big stuff. I don't know just how long it took to get the changeover recorded; but I do know the Vatican computers were jammed trying to move names across from the PAGAN column to the CHRISTIAN column--until somebody realized it just easier to switch the headings.

At one fell swoop we now had a whole empireful of Christians; as finally in a position to do some real good for humanity and bring in the truly just society. Talk about revolution! The church praised God from whom all blessings flow ... and the empire snickered all the way to the bank. His empire had found the Lord and become "Christian" without having to make any changes at all; Christianity had done all the changing. Indeed, the conversion would probably qualify as "forensic justification": all it took was a word from God (or at least his official representatives) and we now had "The HOLY Roman Empire." Pretty neat, wouldn't you say?”

The second take on economy: The temple metaphor

2005-07-23T22:47:00.000+02:00

You, don´t shy away now, is a temple of God. I´ll say it too, I am a temple of God. More important than the Parthenon, greater in the eyes of God than St. Peter´s in Rome, definitely more original and unique than any of what Gothick Revival church have you. Now, the point of a temple is twin: to be a habitation of God, as in the olden days when no man was allowed therein for fear of His presence, but also as nowadays when we may boldly enter and be welcomed by Him, for: “Come, all is prepared”. The temple is the interface between God and human, and as such your life, your body, your existence may be the dwelling place of the divine. I´m not saying (nor the Bible or any sound Christian doctrine) that this means BEING God, for it is quite appearant that none among us are, at least I would have noted it for my own part. Any book telling me otherwise, I would throw down and get rid of, be it Bible or otherwise. At the end of the day the experience of existence can hardly be refuted.

What does this have to do with economy, you may ask? A great deal actually, namely the ends of economy, the goal of it all. For if we be temples, what is that but a space for God, the worshipper, alone and in communion, and the few essential things needed to make that space functional, durable and beautiful? You don´t clutter a temple with leftovers, or whatever come cheapeast and most convenient. Everything chosen to be there should aim to be worthy the glory of God, to the degree we be reflective and committed, our glory, as planets circling close to the sun may be luminiscent.

Let us not fall for the old enemy of all good religious architecture, “horror vacui”, the fear of emptiness, but rather let God be that emtiness, and our space be Her/His form in our lives. Then we need not fear that God will reject us on account of furnishing we could not dispense with, but rather trust in the mercy and grace which overlooks all our small images, tokens and habits we think go along with a life in nobility. They matter not, not to God, nor to us.

Open letter to Ogonna, beloved friend and brother

2005-06-29T23:23:00.000+02:00

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

2005-06-23T21:41:00.000+02:00

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

2005-06-23T21:38:00.000+02:00

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.