What do I need to do in order to enter heaven?

This might dissapoint you, but there is no qualification criteria for admittance to heaven. There is no "You have to be this virtous to ride"-sign in front of the pearly gates. That's because it ain't about admittance in the first place. It's about mending the brokenness of this world, and our relationship with our fellow man. Just as the immensity of our suffering defies easy analysis, so does the immensity of faith and salvation.

God is not a celestial santa that rewards the virtous and punishes the wicked. God isn't angry, and doesn't need to be appeased through right behavior. God desires to be with us. In fact, he desires us so bad that he bent low enough to take on your flesh and mine in Jesus Christ. As Christ, God showed how much he cares for us, and how little he cares of our need to measure ourselves. He showed that he'd rather die than be in the sin acounting business anymore! 

God is already here, with us. The question is if we can stand the intense and vulnerable intimacy of this strangely beautiful promise. If we can't stay in the community that God created with us, then where will we go but to the outer darkness? 

Because that's what heaven is. It's not a final station that we can reach individually in splendid isolation. It's a community forged in water and spirit, a kingdom of grace.

Grand stories.

The Bible often faces criticism for being a contradictory collection of texts that are not accurate when it comes to history and natural science. Not only is those claims mostly false, but I think that critics who approach the Bible in that manner has often completely missed something about the nature of the Bible in the lives of Christians.

I have five volumes of the Bible in three different languages in my bookshelves, and I can tell you that they are as silent as the grave. They're not saying anything to me if I don't apply myself to reading the texts. The reading of anything is an interpretive act. The texts have meaning only if I read them, and as I read them I will interpret them. I am condition by my culture and by my experiences, so will I undeniably understand them in a different way than anyone else. A 40-year-old woman who has lost her child will have a different take on the story of the death of King David's son Absalom than a 16-year-old boy. 

The life of faith is messy and complicated, and I think that you will never understand us if you keep demanding that we should be simple and clear-cut. As if life ever was simple and clear-cut.

My God is not the God of the Gaps, but the God of Life. And if you ask for the Bible to be a font of scientific fact, or Christianity to be some neat and tidy philosophy that can be generalised, then you will face constant dissapointment. Christianity exists only as a way of life, and the biblical stories are illustrations of human life, of love and hate, of suffering and horror, of mercy and forgiveness, of loyalty, of faith, and of a loving but sometimes frightening God that is present in all that, who loves his creation and will never abandon it. The stories have meaning as our own life experiences engages in the biblical stories. That's what we Christians do, when we re-tell to eachothers these sometimes wonderful and affirming, and at other times alarming and challenging stories. The Bible can only be understood in the context of worship.

We Christians are not biblical archeologists that are trying to mine the text for a simple answer (an answer to what exactly?). But we are pilgrims who have experienced something of a divine wisdom in the person of Jesus Christ, for God did not reveal himself in a collection of texts, but in a person. And so, in the many different stories of the Bible, something in our own life's story becomes illuminated. Be relating our personal story to the grand story of the people of Israel, and of the disciples of Jesus, we gain a point of view of who we are, and who this strange and merciful God is. Reading the Bible is not a one-way street of information flow, but rather a meeting between my own story and the grand story.

Why I love going to church.

I love going to church because it brings me closer to God. I love church because there I can be who I am without posturing or hiding parts of me. I love it because of the beauty of the liturgy. I love it because then I participate in a sacred tradition that has far more integrity than what I can do by myself.  There I can meet God in almost insultingly ordinary things like the bread and the wine of the Eucharist.

I love that I am part of a community which I have not chosen because it's charming or because it suits me, but a community that has been given to me. I love that this community extends over the entire world, throughout the ages, and even into the Kingdom of Heaven itself.

I love that there I am forgiven and raised up. There I learn that it's not all about me. There I get sustenance for my spirit. In church my own views gets challanged and I myself am allowed to challenge. In church things become illuminated for me. I love that in church the story of my own life becomes part of a greater story, and of the stories of the Bible. I love that in church the deep and raw and messy parts of the human condition are not swept under the rug, but acknowledged and adressed. People do not shy away from what is difficult or uncomfortable there.

In defence of the doctrine of original sin.

Even when I was not a Christian, the idea of original sin appealed to me. It just took a quick look into my own heart to realise that, yeah, it's kind of dark in there. And when saint Paul says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God all I could do was to nod in grim agreement.

When Jesus came, as God who walked among us, he didn't came to make us comfortable. Sure, he came to comfort us, but not to make us comfortable. He came to say the truth, to be the Truth. And part of that truth is our own vulnerability and, yes, our sin.

Original sin does not mean that a bloke did something wrong thousands of years ago, and that we've somehow inherited that "wrongness". Adam and Eve, the first sinners (and the first saints) represent the entirety of humanity, and in many ways the creation story explains the present more than it explains the past.

I think that many of us believe that sin is the opposite of virtue, but I'm not entirely sure that is true. Sin is the opposite of freedom. Original sin posits that we are not completely free people. In many ways we are captives of our situations. When we are born we are born into patterns and contexts, some of which are loving and just, some of which are violent and hateful. As I am born I immediately become a participant in these patterns of violence, hate or indifference.  I did not choose it. I definately don't want it, but no matter how I try I can not isolate myself from my surroundings or my relationships. I am a captive of a fallen reality.

Think for example, of a palestinian baby boy born in the Gaza strip. He is born into a pattern of conflict and anger which he has little control over, and he will probably be marked by these patterns of conflict his entire life. He did not choose it, yet he is trapped by it.

People are not islands that float in a void. People are inherntly part of a world that is good and beautiful, but also fallen and sinful. We are also part of relationships to other people, that far too often are broken and destroyed. As a component, and as a participator in this fallen creation, so am I too a fallen creation. So, acknowledging sin means acknowledging ones involvement, ones one-ness with the world. When we in the Church confess our sins, we are asking God to free us from these chains that bind us. These chains that hinder us to be our true selves, a perfect and beautiful image of God.

So, how can you deny sin, something all of us have experienced? How can you deny the patterns of loneliness, addiction, opression, violence, physical and psychological abuse that have marked us all in some fashion? Our collective experience of horror and suffering shows that there is something deeply wrong with our existance. To deny original sin, is to deny a crucial and fundamental part of the human condition. And doing so is frighteningly inhumane.

I believe in organised religion.

Some people say they are not really into organised religion. Or that people follow organised religion not out of piety but for the sense of community. Or that organised religion in general is corrupt and not genuine spirituality.

Well, I think that's terribly harsh.

When it comes to Christianity I think that it's very hard to be a Christian by yourself. Only in relationships to others and to our creation can we really know who we are, and if we are Christians then that has less to do with what dogma we choose to ascribe to and more to do with that we belong to Christ. Some say that people belong to organised religion for the community side of it as if that was a weakness. It's not. It's a strength, and only makes it more beautiful. After all, Jesus did not come in order to make us into perfect little individual saints, but to forge a community, a community where we are simultaneously sinners and saints. And I think it is only in this community that we can really see what Christianity is about, when we together tell the crazy beautiful stories about God to each other, and when we share a simple meal of bread and wine. 

Because as I look around my own parish I see families with young children, proper old ladies, old men with suits and ties, homeless persons, professors and doctors, punk rockers and preps, and I have a really hard time seeing what they all have in common. I would never choose to be in community with many of these people, but like a miracle we have been called by God to be his chosen community. And together we are that broken and blessed body of Christ that has been given to the world to be the sustenance of all. 

And I guess that's why I believe in organised religion, and that's why I believe in the Church. What we do together, as participators in a sacred tradition, has far more integrity than what I could have done by myself. By myself I can not heal the wounds of this world, and I can't even heal my own wounds. But when we gather together to become one body in Christ, then, at least for a moment, we are a sign of healing and community in a fallen world that far too often succeeds in driving us apart.

Andlig klarsyn

15Akta er för de falska profeterna, som kommer till er förklädda till får men i sitt inre är rovlystna vargar. 16På deras frukt skall ni känna igen dem. Plockar man kanske druvor på törnen eller fikon på tistlar? 17Så bär varje gott träd bra frukt, men ett uselt träd bär dålig frukt. 18Ett gott träd kan inte bära dålig frukt, inte heller kan ett uselt träd bära bra frukt. 19Varje träd som inte bär bra frukt huggs ner och kastas i elden. 20På deras frukt skall ni alltså känna igen dem.
21Inte alla som säger ’Herre, herre’ till mig skall komma in i himmelriket, utan bara de som gör min himmelske faders vilja. Matteus 7:15-21

Jesus bildspråk i söndagens evangelietext är inte särskilt hjälpsamt, eller hur? Hans poetiska bilder är ju inte särskilt konkreta. Vad som hade varit hjälpsamt är om Jesus gick efter det snärtiga format som används i damtidningar som t.ex Cosmopolitan, "12 sätt att känna igen en falsk profet!" eller "7 sorters andliga frukter och hur man odlar dem!", "6 knep som avslöjar om din pojkvän är ett uselt träd!", "Testa dig själv! Hur sann är du?". Om vi hade fått enkla listor med kännetecken, helst illustrerade och med stödjande statistik, så hade det varit mycket lättare, och betydligt mer användbart än det som Jesus ger oss nu. För jag tycker fortfarande att det är lika dunkelt med att skilja mellan falska och sanna profeter nu, som det var innan jag visste om den här bibelberättelsen. För guess what? Jag hittade ingen bibelavkodare i mitt flingpaket imorse, och det finns ingen lätt nyckel som låser upp betydelsen av allt det som Jesus säger.
Så Jesu avsikt är ganska dunkel. Är det verkligen att förvandla oss till de bästa vaktposterna, som lätt kan se vem av oss som är bra eller usel, sann eller falsk? För om det var så, då måste jag erkänna att jag själv ligger ganska uselt till.För det första jag tänkte på när jag läste den här evangelietexten var om jag själv var en sann eller falsk profet, ett gott eller ont träd. Jag började tänka på det som jag ansåg var mina frukter, och om de var bra eller dåliga, och om min förkunnelse i dagens gudstjänst var sann eller falsk. Jesus är ju så hård i den här texten, och jag vill ju så gärna vara ett gott träd. Ett ståtligt träd som bär många vackra frukter, till Guds ära. Fromt, va?
Njae, jag är inte helt hundra på om det är fromt att tänka så. För om vi börjar utvärdera oss själva, så börjar vi också snart att utvärdera våra medmänniskor. Han där, är han verkligen ett gott träd? Han både super och svär! Och hon där, en mer grälsjuk kyrkoherde har jag aldrig träffat. Hon kan omöjligen vara en sann profet!

Det låter ju, ärligt talat, som ett rent helvete! Dagens text är farlig, för det är så oerhört lätt att man läser den och sen börjar fokusera på sig själv. Och det som händer då, är att antingen blir man nedslagen och ångestfylld. Jag är ett uselt träd, jag bär ingen god frukt, jag tillhör inte Guds rike. Eller, så blir man stolt och självgod, och börjar upphöja sig själv genom att utvärdera och underkänna andra. Men det är ju just det som är grejjen. Guds rike handlar inte bara om mig. Det handlar inte bara om dig.
För vem är det som ansvarar för trädgården? Är det trädet, eller är det trädgårdsmästaren? Så använd inte Jesus som en ursäkt till att utvärdera varandra, utan lyssna också på det han säger i Joh "Bli kvar i mig, så blir jag kvar i er. Liksom grenen inte kan bära frukt av sig själv om den inte sitter kvar i vinstocken, kan inte heller ni göra det om ni inte är kvar i mig" (Joh 15:4). Kristus kom inte för att beordra oss att syna varandra och andra, utan att befria oss från det. Befria oss från vår vilja att alltid mäta och bli mätta. Befria oss från vår vilja att jämföra det bästa i oss själva med det sämsta i andra. Befria oss från idén att man måste göra stordåd om man skall få vara Guds barn. Nej, det enda som behövs är att vara kvar i Kristus. Att vara del av hans kropp som är Kyrkan. Att samlas kring det här bordet, återigen få berätta Guds berättelser och dela en måltid tillsammans. Det är alldagligt. Det är enkelt. Och det räcker, ändå in i himmelriket.

Faith is...

Faith is not about having the right answers to the right questions. Faith is not about being correct. Faith is not ticking in the right boxes in the multiple-choice test of beliefs. Faith is not about agreeing with facts. Faith is not about knowing how things are. Faith is not about saying certain words or phrases. Faith is not a certain pattern of behavior.

Faith is a hunger and a thirst. Faith is a craving for that which can fill us. Faith is the emptiness of our being that calls out to be filled by God. Faith is the poverty of the heart, which leaves room for God to enter. Faith is like the hart that longs for streams of life-giving waters. Faith is like the burning desire of the bride for the bridegroom on her wedding night. Faith is the trembling of the soul before emptiness, desiring contact at any price.

Efterföljelse

I preached something from this blog a week ago on the sixth sunday after Trinity. It's in swedish, so I thought I should post it even though it's similar to another article here.

 20Jag säger er att om inte er rättfärdighet överträffar de skriftlärdas och fariseernas, så kommer ni inte in i himmelriket. 

21Ni har hört att det blev sagt till fäderna: Du skall inte dräpa; den som dräper undgår inte sin dom. 22Men jag säger er: den som blir vred på sin broder undgår inte sin dom, och den som okvädar sin broder undgår inte att ställas inför rådet, och den som förbannar honom undgår inte helvetets eld. 23Om du bär fram din gåva till offeraltaret och där kommer ihåg att din broder har något otalt med dig, 24så låt din gåva ligga framför altaret och gå först och försona dig med honom; kom sedan tillbaka och bär fram din gåva. 25Skynda dig att komma överens med din motpart medan ni ännu är på väg, så att han inte överlämnar dig åt domaren och domaren lämnar dig åt vakten och du sätts i fängelse. 26Sannerligen, du slipper inte ut förrän du har betalt till sista öret. Matteus 5:20-26

Det händer att när jag talar med någon som inte är troende, så hör jag ofta att de tycker mycket om den etik och moral som finns i Bibeln. De älskar bibelversen som handlar om att "älska och förlåta även sina fiender" och tycker det är uppenbart att älska sin nästa som sig själv. De har oerhörd respekt för Jesus och hans moraliska lära och de försöker verkligen vara goda älskande människor.

"Jag är inte särskilt religiös" kan de säga, "men jag tror att det viktigaste är att vara en god människa, och jag tror att det räcker om man försöker göra sitt bästa för att vara god."

Mmmm,.. säger jag. Det är det inte.

Men vi försöker, eller hur? Vi försöker alla vara goda älskande människor. Vi försöker bära andra människors bördor, vi försöker hela den här världens sår så gott vi kan. Men, jag är säker på att många av oss församlade här delar erfarenhen av att vara otillräcklig, när de egna bördorna är för tunga för att man själv skall kunna hjälpa sin nästa. När har någon av oss varit en tillräckligt bra helare och hjälpare? När har någon av oss kunnat till fullo uppfylla Bibelns kärleksbud? Om du har lyckats med det kraftprov som det är att med hela sin kraft, och hela sin själ älska Gud, och att älska sin nästa på samma sätt som man älskar sig själv, så får du gärna vittna om det, för då är du nog den enda människan i historian som gjort det.

För till varje person som känner sig fullgod i sin dyg så kommer Jesu ord i dagens evangelium som en smäll på käften. Till de som känner sig fullgoda i sin trofasthet till sin hustru eller make så säger Jesus "Verkligen? Men jag säger att den som överhuvudtaget har sett på en annan gift människa med åtrå har redan varit otrogen, i deras hjärta". Till den som känner sig fullgod i sin fredliga läggning, som aldrig slagit någon, knappt ens en mygga, så säger Jesus "Okej, men om du i ditt inre tänkt något ont om din broder har i sitt inre misshandlat och dödat honom, och du kommer inte undgå din dom". Till den som känner sig fullgod i sin givmildhet när de ger rikligt av både tid och pengar till välgörenhet, så säger Jesus "Dåså, du är det väl dags att du ger allt du äger till de fattiga!".

Varje gång, vi försöker bocka av något på den stora Dygdighetslistan se kommer Jesus och sabbar. Han uppmanar oss till en mer ärlig syn på oss själva, så att vi genast stryker vad det nu var för moralisk överlägsenhet vi uppnått. Guds lag och Guds krav är för radikala, de är för krävande. Så vad händer? Blir vi stolta och självgoda i tro på vår egen falska rättfärdighet? Eller faller vi in i ångest och depression, över vår egen otillräcklighet?

För när det kommer till frälsningsplaner, så är avkastandet av synder och odlandet av dygder en ganska dålig sådan.Och det är inte bara för att det är omöjligt utan för att det är en fullständigt själv-centrerad lösning på syndens och lidandets problem. För den här världens brustenhet, handlar inte bara om mig. Den handlar inte bara om dig.

Den handlar inte bara om dig, för att du har inte förmågan att läka den här världens sår genom din egen moral. För tusan, har du förmågan att ens läka dina egna sår? Så vem är du att vara andra människors Messias, räddare? I slutändan, så är behandlandet av religion och tro som något sorts självhjälpsprogram eller självförverkligande som resulterar i personlig berikning, tillväxt eller vad det nu är för belöning som vi vill ha i vårt andliga sökande, ytlig och tom. Det som är kvar är insikten om vårt totala behov av Gud och en Messias som faktiskt betyder något, som faktiskt gör skillnad.

Den messias som gör skillnad är den som satte sig emot tanken om hemsnickrad moralisk självgodhet och följande av regler. Den nya ordning som Jesus kommer med, såsom Gud som vandrar mitt ibland oss, är inte en bättre och mer hjälpsam samling lagar och regler, eller vackra läror som är mer effektiva i att förvandla människor till helgon. Jesus är inte här, för att jämföra oss med en ännu högre moralisk standard och fördömma oss för vårt oundvikliga misslyckande. Jesus kommer men en helt ny deal, genom att han inte kommer för att skapa helgon, utan för att förlåta syndare! Det är min identitet som kristen, en förlåten syndare.

Den rättfärdighet som vi kristna har är inte vår egen. Det är Kristi rättfärdighet, som har getts till oss av en barmhärtig Gud, som kommer till oss klädd i sårbarhet och lidande, som en bruten kropp på ett kors. Och jag tänker att för oss, vi som är hemlösa, drogberoende och fattiga. Vi som är utstötta, vi som är bögar och transor, vi som är skattesmitare och profitörer, vi som är stolta och välanpassade med volvo, villa och vovve, Vi som är förtryckta och förtryckande, negligerade och negligerande, för oss som är Kyrkan, så är den nedbrutna kroppen på korset det Eviga Livet. Bara den korsfäste Guden som slank in i människoskinn kan rädda oss från vår själv-upphöjande ambition att klättra upp på helighetsstegen till en alldeles för helig Gud. Han är redan här, här nere, bland oss. Och han har tagit allt vårt lidande, och all vår synd på sin korsfästna kropp i utbyte mot sin egen heliga och intima välsignelse.

The Truth will set you free.

Goethe once said that there was no crime of which he could not concieve himself guilty. Let's think about that for a moment.  This includes genocide. This includes rape. This includes infanticide. It includes all imaginable evil, and Goethe could imagine himself comitting all of it.

Damn, that's harsh.

I'm not sure what he meant exactly with this statement, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a self-deprication made in order to get sympathy. I once heard a reading of this statement, which went along the lines of this. Goethe is acknowledging his oneness with mankind. He is acknowledging that he is intimately connected to the world to an extent that it is impossible to tell where the world ends and Goethe begins, and that this world that he is a part of is full of suffering and evil. He has not escaped sin, for merely by being born he has become part of patterns of violence and hatred which he can not control. He is continually involved with this world, which we can well call wicked in parts. It is not his fault. He did not choose this. It is very unfair, and he did not want it.

And that is what we express in the Church when we confess our sins. We say that "I am part of the world, part of the good and the bad alike. But I want to be free from the  bad, and only be part of the good". We do not want to be trapped in the cruelty of a fallen world, for we want to be free. Be free of patterns of violence. Free of slavery to our own egos.

What then, can set us free? Is it to be kind to all people? Is that what it is to be free? Is it to be a generous person, giving lots of money away to charitable foundations? Is it to have pot-luck dinners with your church? Is that freedom? Is to protest against political opression and the unfair parts of society? Is that what it means to be free? Is it perhaps freedom to buy organic grocieries and reduce carbon emissions? Is being polite and friendly to all people you meet freedom? All those things, are good things. But they do not make you free. For if your freedom rests upon your personal righteousness, then you will never be free. You would just become trapped in prideful self-righteousness or fall into despair at your short-comings.

Not goodness, kindness, not even love, sets you free. Truth, sets you free. The truth of where you come from and where you are going. The truth of how things are, straight up. During Jesus' trial, Pontius Pilate asks "What is truth?". unawares that the Truth was standing before him, battered, dirty and bruised. The revealed Truth of the conditions of human existance. In the person of Jesus we see what true humanity is like, and what true godhood is like. By embracing him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, we can have Truth live in us, and the Truth will set us free. But not before pissing us off.

A confession to the moral flaws of Christians.

Sometimes I tend to find myself in the position of representing everything that Christians have done wrong. Ever. Which is quite strange, really, as if people expect Christians, who believes that the world is fallen and people sinful by nature, to be some sort of moral paragons. What do I say to this?


Many of us do try our best to be loving, really, we try our best to do what is righteous in the eyes of the Lord. The thing is, it is obviously, painfully not enough. Even our best efforts att loving-kindness towards God and our fellow man is not enough to heal the bleeding wounds of this world. It is not even enough to heal our own wounds, and we walk bleeding through life. At least we are still walking.

I know I can't speak for everyone, but as I draw on my experiences together with other brothers and sisters in faith I can say that many are acutely aware of their shortcomings. No matter how hard we have tried to be the mildest and meekest, no matter how much time and money we have given away, no matter how intense our prayer is for others well-being are. The meek one turns his meekness into a thing of pride, and still has wrath in his heart for those who abuse his good nature or mock his faith. The charitable one gives away, how much was it again? If 10%, why not 20%? If 20%, why not 30%? Why not give everything you own to the poor? And the prayerful one, when he honestly reviews his prayer, finds that he prays far more for himself than for others.

Do you know what happends next? We despair. We despair at our shortcomings, and that even when we exert ourselves, we are still part in the fallenness and suffering of this world.  What do you want us to say for our deficiency in the virtue-department? For whatever we can be accused of, our hearts have already put forward that accusation. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

What can the poor soul do then, strained of the burden of striving for moral excellence with certainty of an inevitable failure? To who would we go, if not to the one who has the words of eternal life? (John 6:68) For he who speaks those words of eternal life is also bleeding and broken, and with blood does he seal his community with poor sinners, who he welcomes into his body as a place of repose. And he does not accuse us when we come to him, he does not reject us for failing to uphold the high standards of virtue, for "the sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God." (Ps. 51:17). And there we are. Still sinning. Still believing. Still walking.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30)

The Strangeness of God

What is more strange than God? What is more strange than the one who defies all expectations, and crosses all boundaries? When God reveals himself, it is almost always in something that is provocative, strange, frightening even. When Jakob met God, it was in a mad wrestling match. When Moses met God, it was in an impossible flame that burns but doesn't consume. When the prophet Eliah met God, he first encountered an earthquake, then a storm, and then found God's presence in the soft breeze that followed. When the prophet Ezekiel met God, it was in a blazing inferno held aloft by angels who looked like rings within rings, covered with eyes. When St. Peter met God, it was in the broken and bleeding body of Jesus Christ.

The strangeness of God is challenging, it is provoking, it shatters expectations, it doesn't conform to patterns which we are used to, it is transforming and revealing and it is also true. The wisdom of God looks like foolishness for those of the world, but when challanged by that strangeness and that foolishness reveals something within us, something about who we truly are. Who are you, my God? Who am I?

The Kingdom of God is not of this world, and it shows.

Kristendomens nya ansikte

This is an article that I wrote on the changing demographics of Christianity. It is in Swedish... So, use google translate or something, if you're really that interested. Pax et bonum!

Kristendomens kulturella hemvist kommer inte att vara Europa och Nordamerika om det geografiska och demografiska skiftet från det globala nord till det globala syd fortsätter. Det menar religionshistorikern Philip Jenkins

The Faith is Europe and Europe is the faith, tron är Europa och Europa är tron, sa den romersk-katolske poeten Hilaire Belloc. Detta orakel från den obrutet nitiske Belloc är både ett teologiskt som kulturellt uttalande om kristendomens historiskt sett täta anknytning med europeisk och västerländsk kultur. Den europeiska konsten, filosofien och politik är omöjlig att separeras från den kristna tron som genomsyrat kontinenten i tusende år. Det går inte att tala om Europeisk kultur utan kristendom. Frågan är om det motsatta gäller.

Kristendomen, med sitt tilltal om evigt liv som uppstår ur död och en medkännande Gud, verkar födas på nytt i mötet med nya kulturer. En allt större del av troende kristna koncentreras i Afrika, Latinamerika och Asien, och de sydliga kyrkorna växer och florerar med en styrka som motsäger alla tankar på religiös kolonialism. Philip Jenkins, religionshistoriker vid Pennsylvania State University har spenderat en stor del av sin akademiska gärning med att kartlägga kristendomens geografiska, demografiska och kulturella metamorfos. Ett av hans främsta bidrag till ämnet är hans verk The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity där han med klarhet redogör hur kristendomens hjärta flyttar söderut. Det är ej heller en framtida händelse som vi blott kan skönja vid horisonten. Det har redan hänt.

Jenkins har kartlagt kristendomens demografiska förflyttning i modern tid, och konstaterar att de senaste hundra åren har inneburit att de största delarna av kristendomen ligger utanför Europa och Nordamerika. Av de 558 miljoner kristna i världen vid år 1900, så var 450 miljoner av dem bosatta i Europa och Nordamerika. Vid år 2010 så var det, av 3,188 miljoner kristna, endast 863 som var européer eller nordamerikaner, en gedigen majoritet av kristna bor alltså i den övriga världen, i Afrika, Asien och Latinamerika.¹ När kolonialmakternas grepp om världen vittrade bort förväntades de kyrkor som som slagit rot i de forna koloniernas territorier gå samma öde till mötes, men istället så upplevde de en explosionsartad tillväxt, som i många fall har fortsatt in i modern tid. Det är tydligt att en genomsnittlig kristen inte är en välmående vit medelålders man i Rom, utan snarare en utfattig svart ung kvinna i Kinshasa.

Vilken sanningshalt finns det då att tala om kristendomen som sammanflätad med västerländsk kultur? Inte så mycket, då Jenkins menar att den kristendom som framträder i mötet med kulturerna i Afrika och Asien är en ny sorts kristendom, som skiljer sig från den traditionella uppdelningen av kristendomen i en västlig tradition bestående av de romersk-katolska och protestantiska kyrkorna, och en östlig tradition bestående av de östliga och orientaliska ortodoxa kyrkorna.² Denna ”tredje kyrka” i den tredje världen representerar en kristen tradition i vår tid som är av lika stor vikt, om inte större, som de historiska traditionerna.

Det skifte som sker inom kristendomen, där dess hjärta flyttas från Europa till det globala syd, har en klar parallell till dess första fyra århundraden, då kristendomens hjärta på ett självklart sett var i Främre orienten, i Syrien, Nordafrika och Mesopotamien. Jenkins målar upp en bild där några högvördiga biskopar samlas i ett av kristendomens högsäten, Damaskus, för att höra om hur kyrkan ter sig i det fjärran barbariets Europa. Efter förundring över kyrkans starka framväxt bland germanerna så frågar biskoparna ivrigt ”Denna nya kristendom, är den av den Alexandrinska eller Antiokianska traditionen? Är den ikonoklastisk? Är den monotheletisk eller diatheletisk?”. Budbäraren måste då säga att ingen av dessa frågor är aktuell i den Europeiska kyrkan, utan det religiösa livet tar sig helt nya former.³ De högvördiga är såklart fullkomligt förskräckta över detta.

På samma sätt som en germansk kristen på 400-talet inte brydde sig om ikonoklasm eller visste vad monotheleism var, så är inte den globala kristendomen i syd en spegelbild av de euro-amerikanska kyrkorna Kampen mellan liberaler och konservativa i sociala och sexuella frågor som utmärker kristendomen i norr är inte aktuell i söder. Den kommande kristendomen kommer kanske inte föra en befrielseteologisk kamp som vissa teologer skulle önska. De kommer kanske inte heller nå upp till de konservativa evangelikala samfundens förväntan i trosfrågor. Den kommer med allra största säkerhet fortsätta vara traditionalistisk med stark tro på det övernaturligas roll i det vardagliga livet. Den är något nytt, men igenkännbart och uråldrigt.

Det är ännu osäkert vilken roll den kommande kristendomen kommer att spela i det världspolitiska spelet. Jenkins påpekar, inte utan viss oro, hur mötet med en växande kristendom och en växande islam i Afrikas bräckliga hjärta verkar ofrånkomlig. I motsatts till sekularismens profeter så pekar dessa massiva demografiska skiften, som sker i de mest instabila och krigshärjade delarna av världen, på att de stora konfliktlinjerna i framtiden kommer att dras inte mellan de som har och inte har, inte mellan politiska ideologier, utan mellan rivaliserande trossatser som kämpar om konvertiter.⁴

Vägarna ligger fortfarande öppna för den kommande kristendomen. Det paradigmskifte som nu sker, där kristendomen förlöses från rollen som en falang av den europeiska kulturen till att vara en ännu bredare mångkulturell religion, är kanske lika stor som när kristendomen som i ett trollslag gick från förtryck och förföljelse till statsreligion i Romarriket. Vi återgår till Bellocs storslagna uttlande. Är Europa tron? Nej, för om kristendomen har något högsäte så är det inte i Rom eller Chartres, utan i Braziliens favelas och Sydafrikas kåkstäder.

1Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011. s. 3

2Jenkins, s.5

3Jenkins, s. 19

4Jenkins, s. 201

References to Jesus outside of the Bible

Here's just a quick summation of historical references to Jesus outside of the Bible.


First and foremost I wish to stress that the New Testament is a historically reliable collection of documents, and that it in itself testifies of the existance of Jesus, and is the most corroborated piece of ancient history that we have. In the NT we have contemporary history (which is vastly more than other historical figures at that time).


However, even if we ignore the (compelling) relevance of the NT we still have non-Christians writing about Christians as early as the beginning of the second century. Graeco-roman historians such as Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus all reference Jesus. These historians lived mostly from around the year 50 AD to the early second century. The most interesting of these is Suitonius for his acerbic attack on Christians, which I find amusing enough to post in full: 


"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite torture on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular" (Tacitus, Annals 15.44)




Then there is Josephus who wrote an account of Jesus in his Histories. Of course, most of it is an obvious fabrication, but I am convinced that he had an original reference to Jesus in in the original document that was altered by over-zealous Christians. Also, a citation from Julius Africanus of a Greek historian called Thallus, who describes the darkness as it ocurred at the crucifixion that mesh well together chronologically with the same account in the NT. And then, after taking into account that Jesus and his followers were far-off and politically unimportant in the grand scheme of the Empire, and that many documents from that time have, in one way or another, been unavailable to us we realise that Jesus is well documented. 


In the end, the idea that we don't have any viable historical records of Jesus is void, since the New Testament is historically reliable, and that there is plenty of references to Jesus and early Christians outside of the Bible.

History vs Poetry: Let's talk about genre.

I think that for people unaccustomed to the Biblical text, there is a lack of understanding for the varying genres that are found in the Bible. A common charge from critics of religion is that believers are just picking and choosing what to believe in the Bible by saying that the creation narratives in the Book of Genesis is poetic in nature, while the Gospels are historical accounts. I would say that such a position is not picking and choosing at all, it is simply a sound and literary-minded evaluation of the texts in questions. So, let's talk about about genre.


It is clear that, for example, the authors of the Books of Chronicles were trying to write historical works, and depicts historical events as the israelite authors understood them. You can't take the entirety of the Bible and say it's either "pure metaphor" or purely literal. It's like saying that the historical drama like Pearl Harbour is either pure metaphor or literally an account of what happened historically. You have to take the different books on their own terms, but that actually demands that you read them and use proper literary criticism, and I guess that's too much work for every Tom, Dick and Harry with an opinion.


Intent in authorship and style are both good indicators to what genre a text is. 

9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa became king of Judah, 10 and he reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years. His grandmother’s name was Maakah daughter of Abishalom.
11 Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. 12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made. 13 He even deposed his grandmother Maakah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah. Asa cut it down and burned it in the Kidron Valley. 14 Although he did not remove the high places, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life. 15 He brought into the temple of the LORD the silver and gold and the articles that he and his father had dedicated.

16 There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel throughout their reigns. 17 Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah. (1 Kings 15:9-16

This is a historical text, because the intent of the author seems to be to actually tell what happened in the reign of King Jerobeam of Israel and King Asa of Judah, there are also theological motivation which makes things complicated, of course, but you will have to be hard pressed if you wish to say that this text is not a historical document. However, just because it's a historical document does not mean that it is factually correct, the author could for example be wrong, just like the authors of texts about Julius Ceaser or Charlemagne. That does not mean that it is not a historical document, or that it's metaphor all of a sudden, it simply means that it's a historical document that is partly erronous.

1 Praise the LORD, all you nations;
extol him, all you peoples.
2 For great is his love toward us,
and the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever.
Praise the LORD.[a] (Psalm 117)

This is a hymn. It is so because it's part of a collection of similar poems, often with titles like "A song". It has poetic metre and express emotions. Of course, in the books of the Bible it is not always so clear cut that a certain passage is a historical chronicle or a poem, most often because there are many more literary genres than chronicles and poems, there are also prophecies, books of wisdom, proverbs, hagiographies and sermons. These also often overlap. I'm definately not saying it is simple to do literary criticism in the Bible, but the opposite. It's complicated and often ambigous, but that does not mean that we can discuss it. But we must realise that trying to analyse the Bible outside of the context of faith is often vain and meaningless. When speaking of the Bible we first and foremost must recognise its theological nature. Even after that, our academic squabbles are rarely meaningful even in that respect and all our words, no matter how clever or entertaining, will melt away in an instance before the compassion and the presence that is the faith in the hearts of believers.

Kyrka utan väggar

Kolla in den här facebookgruppen:   http://www.facebook.com/groups/281334775285502/

Jag har genom grubblerier och snåriga tankegångar kommit fram till något som jag gärna skulle vilja prova. Detta är ett förslag på ett sätt att missionera i vår tid.

FÖRSLAGET

Att starta och bygga upp en gudstjänstgemenskap som varannan vecka firar friluftsgudstjänster på allmänna platser i Uppsala stad och som kan följa följande principer:

• Vi firar gudstjänst med syftet att evangelisera och missionera på ett konkret sätt i vårt lokala samhälle.
• Gudstjänstens liturgi är den främste förkunnaren.
• Liturgin utformar vi tillsammans enligt principer av radikalt egenskapande i dialog med kyrkans tradition. Liturgin formas också som ett redskap för mission.
• Vi gör detta med stor medvetenhet om vilka vi gudstjänstfirare är och vilken kultur vi är en del av. Vi vill fira gudstjänst med våra egna ord och vår egen kultur utan att anamma ett särskilt ”kyrkspråk” eller ”kyrkkultur”.
• Vi organiserar oss informellt via sociala medier som facebook och personlig kontakt. 

TEOLOGIN BAKOM FÖRSLAGET (alt. En massa knasiga tankar)

Ni är världens ljus. Inte kan en stad döljas, som ligger på ett berg. Inte heller tänder man ett ljus och sätter det under skäppan, utan man sätter det på ljushållaren, så att det lyser för alla i huset. (Matt 5:13-15)

Du dukar ett bord för mig i mina fienders åsyn. Du smörjer mitt huvud med olja och fyller min bägare till bredden. (Ps. 23:5)

Kristendomen är en universell religion. Under en lång tid var kristendomen nästan synonymt med europeisk/nordamerikansk kultur, men under den senmoderna tiden så har kristendomen explosionsartat växt över hela världen. I mötet med olika kulturer så har kristendomen genomgått förnyelse. Missionärer i alla tider har förstått att ifall man missionerar i en östasiatisk kultur, så kan man inte skapa germanska lärjungar till Kristus, utan östasiatiska lärjungar till Kristus. Likadant kan inte Svenska kyrkan förvänta sig att vi kan skapa moderna (läs: modernistiska) lärjungar till Kristus i en postkristen och postmodern kultur. Jag vill här ge förslag på vad den postkristna och postmoderna kulturen innebär:

För det första så är inte den postkristna och postmoderna kulturen en ateistisk kultur utan gudar, utan det är en sorts hednisk kultur med falska gudar. Människor upphör inte att vara kristna för att de slutar tillbe Gud, utan för att de börjar tillbe falska gudar, såsom självförverkligande, konsumism, politiska ideologier etc. Detta är hämtat från missionsteologen Leslie Newbigin.

För det andra så sker det ett flertal paradigmskiften, där modernismens synsätt ersätts av andra i det allmänna livet. Dessa skiften består av:

• att organiserade och institutionella sociala gemenskapers roll i samhället minskar, och sociala gemenskaper som bygger på personliga relationer får ökad roll i en ”network culture”. Ett sympton till detta är att institutionella kyrkor internationellt sett upplever minskad tillhörighet, medan kyrkor som bygger på frivilliga sammanslutningar, som pentekostala kyrkor, upplever explosionsartad internationell tillväxt.
• att upplysningstidens rationalism ersätts av upplevelser som grund för världsåskådningar. Tron på förnuftet och objektiva argument blir mindre viktiga för vår världssyn och självförståelse medan sinnliga upplevelser blir mer viktiga. Den högkyrkliga rörelsens stora genombrott i senmodern tid och den fortfarande pågående nattvardsväckelsen är ett tecken på detta.

Precis såsom kristendomens mission inkulturerades i den kinesiska kulturen, så bör kristendomens mission inkultureras i den postkristna och postmoderna kulturen. I USA församlingar som formats på gräsrotsnivån medveten försökt bygga en kristen gemenskap som medvetet arbetar med att vara kristna på ett postmodernt sätt (Lästips: Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures av Eddie Gibbs). Finns det en möjlighet att göra detta inom ramen av en institutionell kyrka som Svenska kyrkan? Vad händer ifall vi anammar en missionsmodell som bygger på ett radikalt erkännande av en postmodern och postkristen kultur och vad det innebär?

En sådan missionsmodell är att se liturgi som profetisk dialog. Furst Vladimir av Kiev blev omvänd när han såg liturgin firas av bysantinska präster. Vad händer om man ser gudstjänsten i sig som en förkunnare? Kan det vara så att genom att konkret gestalta vår gemenskap i gudstjänst så gör vi Kristus synligare i vår omvärld än vad det mest sofistikerade gudsbevis kan? Genom att fira gudstjänst på allmän plats accepterar vi inte bara gudstjänstens centrala del i vårt liv, utan också Guds uppdrag att göra alla folk till lärjungar. Det finns många sätt att beskriva detta sätt att se på gudstjänsten. Vi gör Kristi kropp närvarande mitt i världen. Vi dukar till fest i och bland de mest osannolika ställen. Vi utöver vårt uppdrag som Guds rikes ambassadörer. Vi visar på en gemenskap som övergår gränser. Vi gör också detta på ett mycket konkret sätt. Likt en gammaltestamentlig profet blir gudstjänstens firande ett vittne inför de otroende folken om Guds verk och väsen. Då är vi en stad på ett berg, Guds stad som inte kan eller bör döljas. Detta är hämtat från liturgiteologen Gordon Lathrop.

I ljus av detta så är det bisarrt att anse att syftet med mission är att locka folk till en särskild byggnad vid ett särskilt klockslag och fira gudstjänst på ett särskilt sätt. I mötet med den postmoderna kulturen måste vår gemenskap bli mer flytande och mer synlig. Jag tror att ifall vi antar utmaningen som det sekulära samhället och den postkristna kulturen utgör, så kan vi med framgång vara kyrka utan väggar, både bildligt och bokstavligt, kan vi vara en evangeliserande kraft i vår stad där våra kroppar och personliga relationer blir byggstenarna för vår mission. Detta är ett förslag på hur man kan göra det.

FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/groups/281334775285502/

Gibbs, Eddie. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures.

Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity

Bevans, Stephen. Constants in Contexts: A Theology of Mission for Today

Why Lutheran?

There is only one true faith, and that is the Swedish branch of Evangelical-Lutheran Christianity as it is described in the unchanged Augsburg Confession of 1530 and ratified in the Synod of Uppsala in 1593. All who believe otherwise will rot in hell... Ok, maybe not.

Like all other Christians, the Lutheran tradition doesn't have a monopoly on truth, but is a vessel for pilgrims searching longingly for the New Jerusalem, and if we have a hope for salvation, that lies not in our precious sectarianism, but in Jesus only. However, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I cherish the Lutheran tradition and the gifts that we bring, and in this post I'll try to explain why.

I'll make this clear from the beginning: I love my church and I love Lutheranism, but the continous existance of Lutheranism today is not self-evident, as the reasons and conflicts that formed this tradition are no longer burning issues. Therefore I think that in order to say something about what sets Lutheranism apart (in a good way!) from other traditions I think we need to look past Martin Luther, the history of the Reformation, and the detail of Lutheran doctrine. All these are important in their own right, but you can easily find out about it on wikipedia. This is a more personal take on what it means to be a Lutheran.

Lutheranism for me means choosing to live a life of faith where there is room for ambiguity. A theology of the cross means automatically a theology of ambiguity. For when God revealed himself to us without holding back, it was in a shocking and disarming vulnerability. And we crucified him, because we could not bear the intense intimacy of a God who approaches us clad in vulnerability and suffering. Like Bishop Mark Hanson of the ELCA would say, that is the inherent paradox of the cross which marks our faith, and that choosing to stay with this puzzling and strange God that confronts our expectations means that we faithfully must live with ambiguity and paradox. It means to accept that Jesus is both God and man, that we are condemned by the Law and forgiven by the Gospel, that I am both saint and sinner, that this world is both good and fallen, that God judges us in order to free us, that I as a Christian is subservient to no one and at the same time subservient to all and that I must die in order to live. Just as Jesus lives and conquers through the paradox of the empty grave, so can I live with the paradoxes of faith and the ambiguity of existence.

Lutheranism is also a theology of questions. It means never settling of quick fixes and simple solutions when faced with the longing and hunger of a humanity starved of God. That there is nothing we can do to earn our way to paradise, and that there is nothing we can buy and nothing we can sacrifice that will earn us God's favor.  It means that while we may be unable to satisfy that hunger and overwhelmed by our pride or sense of inadequacy we can still ask the crucial question: "Where is that gracious God?" and accept no substitutes. In many ways, Lutheranism means engaging in frequent excercises of frustration and futility. But that's the kind of faith Lutheranism is, it's the kind of faith that makes you think that even "if the world goes to pieces tomorrow, we should still plant our apple trees today" (Martin Luther).

Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda

That the church is reforming is obvious when seeing how churches around the globe are revising their stances on the topics of homosexuality, female clergy and sexual health. Some people say that this is a betrayal of orthodox christian teachings, and that these churches are merely following social norms in a sycophantic manner. I don't believe this. I don't believe that genuine christian faith, or even orthodoxy, is static and unchanging. The church both can and should reform.


I will first make a few clarifications. I am not arguing for following social norms only for the sake of following social norms. I am saying that the church should be constantly evaluate its doctrine so that it more and more aligns itself with God's will. I am not saying that parts of Scripture is "false". I am saying that church doctrine can be false, and has proven to be so in the past. I am saying that the church doctrine should try to align itself with the teachings of Jesus as much as possible. This demands constant reformation. 

I have four reasons for why I believe the church should be constantly reforming. They are as follows:

1. The Bible is a complex collection of texts that can only be read in the light of Christ.
2. Our knowledge of history, the natural world and of the Bible changes, therefore our understanding of God and what God wants changes. Also, our personal experiences demand different readings and acceptance of biblical texts. This is a good thing.
3. The Biblical texts are distant to us in some ways, which demand that we reinterpret them from a distant cultural milieu into our own. 
4. The Church has been corrupted in the past and reformed, therefore we must continue reforming in order to combat Satan and his lies.

The first reason has to do with Gods revelation and the Bible. The Bible is a collection of the holy texts of Christianity. There is a popular misconception that the Bible is a long list of commandments from God, but that is not the case. The numerous books of the Bible has different authors with varying agendas and vary wildly between a range of genres. It is pure literary idiocy to read a love poem like the Song of Songs in the same manner as you read a gospel narrative. Therefore one cannot say that the Bible is the “inerrant revelation of the Word of God”, because it simply ain’t the Word of God, but human accounts on the relationship between God and mankind, and how God has acted in history and human lives. Reading the Bible is unerrant revelation is called fundamentalism, and very few Christians read the Bible in such a manner, and for good reason. Now, you might say “Hold your horses! How can you say the Bible isn’t the Word of God?” I can say so confidently because I know that we Christians should only acknowledge one Word of God, and that is Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is through Jesus Christ which God reveals himself and his will fully. Jesus is the inerrant revelation. As Scripture is the only reliable witness, then the Bible should be the sole source of church doctrine and that all that is required of salvation is contained therein. This is called Sola Scriptura.

A healthy comparison to understand this is to compare Jesus to the Koran. Muslims believe that the Koran is Gods perfect revelation and Muhammed the witness to the revelation. I, and many Christians with me, believe that Jesus is the perfect revelation and that the Bible is the witness to that revelation. We need to think hard about the historical and societal context that the biblical texts were written, and grapple with the parts that condone things we see as obviously immoral and inhumane. With Jesus Christ as our guiding light, we are able to navigate Scripture in a faithful manner, and as our spiritual journey intensifies see what relation there is between the different books of the bible and the person and teachings of Jesus. It is my hope that we Christians can read Scripture with literary minds, in their context and with always seeing Jesus Christ as the star and kernel of Scripture. 

The second reason for why the church should constantly be reforming is that our knowledge of the natural world, of history and of the books of the Bible changes, so must doctrine. God’s will is eternal, and truth is not subject to majority opinion. However, the understanding and knowledge of man is under constant flux. What was considered gospel truth one day, may after an increase in knowledge and understanding to be wrong. After intense study of scripture I might find that my beliefs are not in accord with God’s will as it is revealed in Jesus Christ, so I must revise them. There is no believer who has never changed his mind, for as we grow as people we acquire new knowledge which drives us to revise previously held convictions, or disregard them completely as erroneous. So too must church doctrine change as our societies progress and we as a specie acquire a deeper understanding of our world and of God. This is not adapting to societal norms. This is gaining new and deeper knowledge of things, and revising previous held beliefs that in light of new findings are completely unreasonable. How are we to view the Creation narrative in Genesis, when we know that the world was probably not created in seven days but took billions of years? How are we to view the account of Joshua’s swift conquest of Canaan, when archeological excavations show that no such conquest seems to have taken place? How should we read the book of the Prophet Jesiah, when a deeper literary analysis of the book shows that there probably was no single prophet Jesiah, but in fact three different prophetical texts that have been edited together over a longer time span? Life experiences may also give us deeper insight into how you should live your life. How should the victim of domestic abuse read “turn the other cheek” (Luke 6:29)? How should a human rights activist read “slaves, obey your masters” (Colossians 3:22)? The Christian faith is ultimately about a personal relationship with God and the person and teachings of Jesus, but new knowledge obviously challenges us Christians. What is reasonable faith, and what is unreasonable? How does the Word of God translate into my own life? Obviously, our knowledge will change, and so will our idea of what is reasonable and unreasonable. Therefore doctrines that the church has held in the past and then abandoned were abandoned for good cause. They were simply wrong, as in unreasonable and not in accordance with reality, untruth. This is a good attitude, and only serves to deepen our understanding of God as he acts and speaks into our own lives and in our own time.

Some may also say that this position waters down the Biblical texts. I do not think so, as only the historicity of the gospels is critical for the Christian. What matters about the biblical narratives is that they say something about God, man and their relationship. They are illustrations of human life, of love and hate, of suffering and horror, and forgiveness and friendship, of loyalty, of faith, and of a loving God that is present in all that, who loves his creation and will never abandon it. The Bible is after all mainly a collection of theological books.

The third reason is that the times of the biblical texts if distant to us in some ways. The language and the society that existed in those times and that created the biblical texts is in some parts foreign to us. More so, the entire framework of culture and language has shifted, and the past and the present cannot communicate with each other. Did even the concept of homosexuality as we understand it exist in the graeco-roman milieu of Paul’s time? What did Paul really mean when he said that “effeminates” are evil? Did he mean male temple prostitutes? Did he mean the institutionalized ephebophilia of the Greeks? Did he mean loving monogamous homosexual couples? What was a slave in that time? Was the slavery of the Israelites and the Romans the same thing as the slavery of modern times? How should we handle wage-slavery with regards to these passages? The questions keep coming, and they are hard to answer. I think that with deeper understanding we might see what our ancestors really meant with their words, and then we might find the need to revise the doctrine that we have inherited from them, as the thing that doctrine aims to forbid or promote no longer exists, or has become something completely different altogether. Nonetheless, this presents us with great uncertainty when it comes to reading Scripture, but Jesus will still be shedding his light upon the past and present alike, and maybe in that light we can find the answers we seek and no longer then we might take the words from the withered lips of our ancestors and make them our own, for our God is not God of the dead, but of the living (Mark 12:27).

Finally, we Christians know we have an enemy, and that is Satan. His lies are always aiming to lead Christians astray in not heeding God’s will. Therefore we must be alert and of sober mind as our enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). The lies of Satan has corrupted the church before with numerous heresies and other ungodly behavior. Therefore we must put our doctrine and our past under great scrutiny, in constant reference to Scripture in the light of its star, Jesus. Then we might weed out corruption and serve God better. That was the reason for the Reformation, as numerous people saw how the church was filled with corruption and lies, and tried to reform doctrine so it was closer to God’s will. The Reformation was a historical event, but it is ongoing, as we always rid the church of things that stand in the way of Christ, promote the things that make Christ clearer and brighter, and squabble about the things that does neither.

In conclusion, I have presented four reasons for why we christians should be a church reformed and constantly reforming. Doctrine must always be examined as new knowledge, personal experiences and changing cultural framework may render them useless or unintelligible. If we do not do this then the church will be stagnant and stray from God's will. If in revising doctrine in accordance to Scripture, which should always be read in the light of Christ, we might be able to do God's will. Through reason we must see that a church that wish to do God's will is a church that is reformed and constantly reforming. 

Christianity is not about ethics or morals

When I talk to unbelievers about matters of faith I always hear that they agree with the teachings of Jesus. They love the phrase "forgive your enemies", and think it's obvious that one should love ones neighbour as yourself. They have lots of respect for the ethical teachings of Jesus, and they try to be a good and loving persons.

"I'm not really into organised religion", they say, "but I believe that what's most important is trying to be a good person, and I just hope that being a good person is enough. "

Yeah... It's not.

We try really hard though. We really do. We try to bear the burdens of our fellow man and heal the wounds of this world as best we can. I'm sure many of you share the experience of your own inadequacy, when your own wounds are to great for you to start healing your fellow man. For when have you actually succeeded in being an adequate healer and helper? When have you been able to fullfill the criteria of goodness, like upholding the Ten Commandments? If you have, then do tell, but then you'd be the first person in the entirety of human existance to have succeeded at that staggering feat.

For to every person who feels self-satisfied in their magnamity and loving-kindness the word of Jesus comes like a sucker punch in the face. To those who feel secure in their virtue as a loving spouse who treasures fidelity above all else, Jesus say "Oh yeah? Anyone who has ever looked upon a married person with lust in their heart has committed adultery." To those who think that they are virtuous enough to give of both their time and money to those less fortunate than themselves, Jesus say "Then go ahead and give everything you own to the poor".

Whenever we try to check off the Great List of Virtues we find that Jesus calls us out to a more earnest scrutiny of ourselves so that we immediately uncheck whatever moral excellence we believed we had achieved. The demands of God are too radical, and too harsh. We crumble before it, and either we become despondent or prideful in our non-existant goodness, or we crash into despair.

When it comes to salvation plans, abandoning your vices in order to grow more virtues is actually a fairly crappy one, as the ship that can be built from our virtues is leaking and tattered and unsailable. That's not only because it's impossible to pull off, but because it is a completely self-centred solution to the problems of sin and suffering. Because the brokenness of this world is, after all, not just about you.

It's not about you, for you will never heal the wounds of this world by virtuous action. Hell, you aren't even able to heal your own wounds. So who are you to be others Messiah? In the end, the treatment of religion and faith as some sort of self-help program that will result in personal growth and whatever we desire as reward in our spiritual quest, is completely empty and hollow. What is left is the realisation of our utter need of God and a Messiah that matters.

The Messiah that matters is the one who shunned the idea of self-made virtue and rule-following. The new order that he brings, as God who walks among us, is not a better and more helpful set of laws and rules, or teachings that are more effective in creating saints. Jesus is not here to uphold us to even higher standards and condemn us for our inevitable failure. Jesus brings an entirely different paradigm by coming not to create saints, but to forgive sinners.  That is my identity as a Christian, a forgiven sinner.

As Christians, our righteousness is not our own. It is the righteousness of Christ, given to us by a merciful God who comes clad in vulnerability and suffering as a broken body on a cross. And I think that for us, who are the homeless, the addicts, the diseased and mentally ill, the lonely, the proudful and well-adjusted, the abused, the gays and transexuals, the neglected, the shunned, for us who are the church, that broken body of Christ is Life everlasting. Only the God-in-flesh-and-crucified can stop us in our self-aggrandizing ambition to climb the ladder of holiness to an all too holy God. For he is already down here, among us, and he has taken all our suffering and sin into his body on the cross, and exchange it for his holy intimate blessings.

The Gospel is not a marketable and helpful set of teachings on ethics or morals. That is not what Christianity is about. Not if we preach Christ. Not if we preach Christ crucified.

Is the Old Testament a fair reflection of God’s character?

It is common for people to claim that there is a great difference between God in the Old Testament and God in the New Testament. They say that in the former God is portrayed as jealous and judging, while in the latter as mild and forgiving.  I believe that this is a myth perpetrated by people who are not well versed with the books of the Bible. When I read the Old Testament, I see the same God which I see in the New Testament. A creating, ruling God that demands obedience, a virtuous and righteous God from whom all good things are derived, a wrathful  God who truly hates sin, and a merciful and forgiving God, who offers salvation to those unable to acquire it themselves.

You have wrath and judgement in the NT and likewise mercy and support in the OT. Indeed, I think that the criticism of God’s actions in the OT could be much more effectively applied to his actions in the NT. The problems arise when considering the context in which God is described. In the OT it is in very strict Jewish terms, while in the NT it is in (more understandable to us) mostly mixed Jewish/Hellenistic terms. As God acts in history, he acts in different cultures that may differ in their understanding of him. The actions of God needs to be put in a frame of reference, and that frame of reference is intrinsically tied to a historical and cultural milieu. For a “correct” view of God to be present, we need to take into account all views of God in a specific religious system, in this case Christianity, and then approach it humbly and critically. For me, the view that emerges is that of Jesus Christ, which results in a need to re-evaluate my findings in light of this. The outcome is faith.

Questions I get from drunk people at parties, part 2: Do you, like, believe in hell?

I believe in hell, but if you're a bit too shocked by that, then just relax and listen to the soothing lyrical harmonies of the Louvin brothers:

Just kiddin'. I'll try to explain my beliefs a bit less preachy and a bit more bible-y. First of all, we have to acknowledge that a place of darkness, faithlessness and hatred that is contrasted to the light, faith and love of God is a recurring theology of Jesus' ministry and of his apostles. The former is called such things as "the outer darkness", "the second death, "damnation", "the flesh", "the furnace", "the pit", "the kingdom of this world", "the place where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth". The latter is called such things as "the light","the ressurection", "salvation", "the life","the spirit", "the kingdom of heaven", "the kingdom of God", "the new Jerusalem". There's a prevalent theme of contrasting the realm of righteousness with the realm of sin, which is found throughout the entire Bible, especially in the Gospels. Examples from the Gospels include Matthew 5:29-30, 13:24-50, 18:8-9, 23:37-39, 25:31-46, Mark 9:45-47, Luke 16:19-31, John 5:11-13, 5:26-29, 8:12.


Another theme that goes along with the theme of the contrasting realms of righteousness and sin, is that of judgement. You see, hell is not an isolated doctrine construed from a few bible verses, but must be seen together with doctrine of ressurection of the dead and of Gods judgement of sinners as an eschatological whole. This judgement is shown as not as despotic edicts from a Christ, but a realisation of that which is already inside our hearts. Therefore, out of the dark heart there will come darkness, and of the hateful heart there will come hatred. For the Lord "will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts" (1 Cor 4:3). Judgement means that God shines his light upon sinners (for we are all sinners) in order to reveal everything that previously was unseen, all our basest instincts and hidden evil is layed bare before our own eyes. However, those who trusted God in life, will do so still in the hereafter and not despair when they see their inner darkness. For they will have comfort in the righteousness of Christ and that Christ does not want anyone to perish, but have eternal life (2 Peter 3:9). For the Light of Judgement is also the Light of Christ's Righteousness which cleanses the sin of all those who repent (that is wish for escape from their bondage in sin). Those who long for the Light of God will therefore stay in the light, but there may be those who have hearts as dead and hard as rock, who does not bear to see their dark deeds revealed to them, and therefore prefers the darkness over the light as it hides their true nature. They will flee from the Light of God into the outer darkness, and there they will live with their sin, as they have chosen. As C.S Lewis once said, what seperates the saved from the damned is not the evil of their deeds, for all that can be cleansed by the blood of Christ's sacrifice, it is that the saved are those who say to God "Thy will be done" and the damned are those to whom God says "Thy will be done". For "this is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God" (John 3:19-21).


Not only is the doctrine of hell justified both biblically and morally, it also corresponds to our experiences in this earthly life. How humane is it to deny the existance of hell, when so many of us have experienced it? Far too many of us have already experienced the hell that is famine, desperation and depression, loneliness, addiction, opression, war, physical and psychological abuse. For many people hell is very real and palpable as it is part of this life. Just as Jesus created the kingdom of Heaven here on earth through his death and ressurection, so have we humans created our own hells and imposed it upon eachother. How humane is it to deny our collective experience of horror and sadness and say that it doesn't exist.? It is obvious that it does, and therefore we are in danger of dragging our hells into the life hereafter aswell. That is why it is so important that we combat Satan and hell right here on earth, through the shield that is faith, love and hope, and the sword that is the Word of God. The Word that says that we are not alone and that we are loved. The Word that delivers and frees us from the chains of despair that ties us down. The Word that says "come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).