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).

Questions I get from drunk people at parties, part 1: Do you really believe that everything described in the Bible is true?

Being a candidate for the priesthood, I usually get lots of attention at parties by people who wish to ask questions of a more theological nature. To say the least, this is not always enjoyable. However, one of the most common questions I get is "Do you really believe that the historical events in the Bible are true?". 

Now this is quite a mouthful, seeing as the Old Testament (and the New Testament, and indeed the entirety of the Bible) are multiple books with different origin and genre, and attest to different events which arguably may or may not be described as historical. You may just compare obviously non-historical books, such as the Song of Songs, to those with obvious historical claims such as the Book of Judges and the Book of Kings, and those who are historically ambiguous, such as Jonah and Genesis (!). A fast answer to the questions is that while the New Testament present fairly accurate history, the Old Testament is a bit more historically ambigous. I do not believe that the detailed events as they appear written in the OT correspond exactly with what actually happened. I believe that many of the historical accounts that are found in the Bible are historically accurate, such as the Gospels, but there are things, mainly in the OT that probably did not occur as it is described. One reason for why I believe this is that archaeological findings suggest that events in the OT did not happen as described, such as the Great Deluge, and the rapid conquest of Canaan by Joshua. I am far too ignorant in this issue to make judgement on the historicity of the major corpus in the OT, but then we are sort of missing the point!


Scripture was written by fallible people who were inspired by God, and they describe their experience of that God. If we wish to read the OT open-mindedly and attentively, we need to don the theological glasses. For the aim of the biblical texts are rarely to present accurate history, but to present a theology. It describes the nature of God and the nature of the relationship of God and man.  Basically, the OT are theological texts more so than historical texts (and I wish to say that for the entire Bible), and we therefore need to treat them that way. So, instead of looking for congruence of history in the OT, we need try to understand the view of God which is present there, in light of the person Jesus Christ. Only then can we gain a valuable experience that is applicable to Christian and Sceptic alike. It is so for the Christian, because such an approach is more pertinent to her worship and to her faith, and it is so for the Sceptic because such an approach produce a vastly superior quality of criticism than does the historical-critical perspective, at least in my opinion.

Family values

The nuclear family unit as we know it did not exist at the time of Jesus and therefore neither he nor his apostles speak of it in any meaningful term. When Jesus spoke of family he said this:


46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”


Matt 12:46-50


Jesus means here that meaning that the community of believers is as deep and as important as the family. All Christians are siblings in very real terms, not just metaphorical ones. For we are all born again in baptism by Father God and Mother Church, and we are all brothers and sisters through Christ. That bond is just as strong, if not stronger, than blood-bonds. A Christian has two families, one in blood, and one in Christ. 


Historically, Christianity has promoted alternative forms of living outside of the family unit in brotherhoods and sisterhoods, such as monasteries. Also, celibacy is put forward as an equally valuable way of life as forming a family.


I do not think that "Christian values" as they are found in Scripture in any way point toward the nuclear family as an ideal. They rather point that spiritual relations to God and other believers are more important than blood relations. If you have social-conservative values and are a Christian, than you have a problem in justifying it with Scripture (which imo, you have to). At the very least you have to admit that there are plenty passages in the New Testament that support other views such as the one formulated above.