En julhälsning från prästen - 2014

Det har varit ett ganska vanligt år i Metodistkyrkan på Mysen. Vi har redan börjat ett nytt kyrkoår och vi håller på att avsluta ett kalenderår. Att se framåt men också blicka tillbaka.

Som präst handlar det ofta om att blicka tillbaka för att kunna se framåt. Jag studerar min Bibel för att kunna se Gud idag och för att kunna visa andra var och vem han är. I vardagslivet är det inte alltid en lätt uppgift. Vår tid är radikalt annorlunda och vårt samhälle är också väsentligt annorlunda. Bara en sådan sak som att alla i våra omgiving är rika jämfört med de som levde på Jesus tid, vilket ger oss ett intressant dilemma eftersom Jesus sa att det var riktigt, riktigt svårt för rika människor att komma in i Guds rike. Hur påverkar det oss idag? Vad betyder det för våra liv?

Ja, det där med livet. Måste det alltid vara så allvarligt eller så djupa saker med att vara präst, eller kristen för den delen? Handlar det alltid om allvarliga saker? Finns det utrymme för att vara en seriös och trogen kristen men samtidigt skratta, skoja och spendera tid på spel och underhållning?

Ibland känns det tveksamt om man kan vara präst och vara lättsam och skoja samtidigt. Det är allvarliga saker vi präster håller på med. Gör andra människor det också? Kanske är det bara präster som sitter på en vanlig gudstjänst på semestern och reflekterar över varför man är på gudstjänst för att så komma fram till att den enda anledningen är att man vill lära känna Jesus så att Jesus lär känna oss och således släpper in oss i Himlen. Är det en yrkesskada att jag tänker på människors evighet varje dag?

Så kanske ligger det alltid ett stråk av allvar under även de dagar och tillfällen som det är trevligt och skoj och humor. Kanske är det omöjligt att leva som om allt är frid och fröjd och samtidigt vara medveten om allvaret i att leva. Jag vet inte, men för min del känns det oansvarigt att glömma bort hur verkligheten egentligen ser ut, att vi alla lever på övertid och att detta livet är trots allt är en förberedelse för evigheten, en gympasal där jag fortfarande inte tycker om att hoppa bock eller göra "ljushopp" på trampolinen. Gud är, tack och lov, inte precis så som jag hade designat honom.

Nu är det fullt möjligt att det är bara jag som med mitt lite melankoliska drag tänker så här men det är vad det är och vår värld ser ut som den gör. Världen på Mysen och i Metodistkirken på Mysen har präglats av detta, så klart. Under våren vad det predikningar om vad man egentligen tror och varför och på hösten var det en lång serie predikningar om "Hur blir man kjent med Gud?". Det har varit allvarliga gudstjänster men det har också funnits roliga och nödvändigt ungdomliga inslag. Min höjdpunkt är när jag delade ut godispåsar till alla i gudstjänsten under temat "Smaka och se att Gud är god" och skulle smaka en bit godis för att illustrera min poäng...och godiset var så hårt att jag knappt kunde bita i det. Eller varför inte gudstjänsten som ungdomarna hade ansvaret för...den var häftig. Gud är kanske inte bara allvar...

För min del handlar det om att jag finner Gud väldigt avslappnande samtidigt som han är väldigt allvarlig. I min Gud har jag min styrka, som sången går. Det låter fromt men jag tänker inte riktigt så. Den Gud som Bibeln berättar om och vittnar om är inte en Gud som är mysig eller trevlig eller som jag hade tänkt. Han är som ingen hade tänkt och som ingen hade designat. Kanske är det därför jag har så lite tid över människor, oftast präster/"experter", som ändrar Bibelns Gud till en Gud de hade kunnat designa själva. Det är både fegt, att vara lat och oärligt.

Vem av oss hade designat eller kommit på en Gud som ödelägger hela världen i en syndaflod? Jag såg filmen "Noah" och fick en ny förståelse för Noa och varför han drack sig full efter vattnen hade sjunkit. Han hade precis varit vittne till miljontals människors död och säkert hade han hört många av dem genom Arkens väggar. Det lämnade spår. 

Det är bara ett exempel på hur annorlunda Gud är mot vad skulle tänkt oss. Exemplen är legion men för min del finner jag både frid och fröjd över att Gud inte är konservativ eller liberal eller republikan eller demokrat eller moderat eller socialdemokrat eller kvinna eller man. Vår tid håller på att drukna i olika maktspel eller ovilja/oförmåga att leva med olikheter. Nietsczhe sa en gång att när Gud är död återstår det bara maktspel, och det är precis det vi ser i världen...och ibland i kyrkan. Och det är fel.

Så jag finner mig ofta hos Gud, även om jag har haft det svårt med disciplinen att spendera året till att lära mig att be. Men Gud är och det är en grund som är oberoende av mig eller dig eller oss. Oavsett vad vi tror eller tycker så är han den han är. Det är en befriande tanke. Han är det som är objektivt när vi famlar omkring i vår subjektivitet. Han är det som allting förhåller sig till. Han är oföränderlig och i en värld som inte ens vet eller förstår biologiska självklarheter som "man" och "kvinna" eller som ger apor "mänskliga rättigheter" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/11307205/Sandra-the-orangutan-granted-limited-human-rights.html) är det befriande att Gud är utanför oss.

Så...jag är präst i en liten kyrka i ett litet samfund i ett litet land (men ett väldigt sekulärt land där Humanist/Ateist förbundet har minst 6 gånger så många medlemmar som vi). Gud är men ingen bryr sig. Gud är men vi måste locka människor till kyrkan med arrangemang av olika slag. Gud är men ofta är vi någon annanstans. Gud är men ofta är han allvarlig och lite långt bort. Men det kan vara annorlunda.

Min mormor sa en gång att livet och Gud alltid är tillsammans...utan att vara så poetisk. Mormor var inte poetisk men hon visste vem Gud var. Hon sjöng "Bered en väg för Herran" varje advent när hon tvättade fönstrena inför Julens ankomst. Det är väldigt bra teologi och en hälsning till oss alla från bortom graven men inifrån evigheten. Gud är genom sin Ande alltid här och händer alltid...till och med i oss när vi önskar det. Jag skulle tro att en prästs vardag och funderingar om Gud passar väldigt gott in i ditt liv för vi är alla människor som längtar efter Gud och som behöver lära oss att Gud alltid händer och söker oss genom sin Ande (en anledning till att Jesus sa att det var bättre att Anden kom än att han stannade kvar. Tänk så lång tid det skulle ta om fysiska Jesus skulle resa runt hela jorden för att hälsa på alla). 

Det är en god jul hälsning från prästen. Gud är alltid tillsammans med din verklighet och ditt liv och önskar att vara tillsammans med dig...om han får. Sök honom medans tid finns. God Jul!

A trip to Rome

In recent years there have been several instances where protestant church leaders and whole churches have travelled to Rome (in one case it was Italy), figuratively and/or literally. There is a movement back to the Roman Church, in some sense, and I think that it has both theological and practical reasons.

The basic problem for the Protestant church, regardless of name, is authority. The Catholic/Roman church does not have this problem as it has in its very DNA the dual authority of the (infallible) Bible and the teaching Magistrate of the Church (with the Pope as the head). From Luther and onward we find an increasing struggle for authority among the up-and-coming churches and/or leaders. Luther didn't agree with Calvin who in turn didn't agree with Zwingli, not to mention the second generation leaders such as Melanchton and Beza. Just consider the Eucharist/Communion issue, which for 1500 years had kept the church together. All of a sudden it was up for debate and questions arose as to what the Eucharist actually was. Was it the Real Presence of Christ, merely a symbol of Christ or a "means of rememberance"? Opinions and ideas were legion...and they still are.

This is to many modern Christians "business as usual". The plethora of views and truths have intrinsically and inevitably made the truth an illusion. There is simply no way to know which is the right or true way to understand Christianity.
For others, however, it is an outrage, especially living in the aftermath of modernism and in the mid-life crisis of the post-modernistic worldview (The notion currently being held is that there is no objective anything. We make it up as we go and subjectivism and personal preference, coupled with power struggles and nihilism, are normative). Many hold that it simply can't be that logical contradictions are allowed to co-exist. It is also a slap in the face to the Lord and Savior of the church who specifically said that unity in mind and spirit would be a sign that the Church was from God (and in fact, that actual unity would be perhaps its most effective evangelistic tool).

The solution to the two conundrums is usually the meme "let's agree to disagree". Nice.

Let me simply state that I don't like that little saying. It has its place, say in a marriage or among friends debating issues of relative minor importance. It most certainly doesn't belong in the Church of Christ who linked the unity of the Church to the Unity between the Son and the Father. Do we sincerely believe that the Son and the Father agree to disagree about major issues (or any issues)?
Ah, that is unfair, you say. We are fallible humans and as such are prone to mistakes and failure. I couldn't agree more but that doesn't mean that we should lower the bar/expectation to such a level that failure/disagreement becomes the norm. Why would Christ call us to such a level of unity if it was impossible? It also limits God to whatever we think humans are capable of....where in fact the Biblical testimony is crystal clear that this trinitarian unity is a gift/work/miracle of God in men and women.

Thus, after 500 years of literal and figurative fighting some are making the trip to Rome. It usually involves a very long time of consideration and struggle. It most certainly involves theological issues, such as "What about...?" Mary, Purgatory, the Eucharist, the Pope, Veneration of Relics and Saints, and other popular "barnacles" as us Protestants call them. Additions to the Faith.
It is usually helped by the socially conservative beliefs (of the Roman Church), its Unity and Historical memory, its unwavering bravery to be "different" in the face of secular powers, its ridiculously well-thought out and cross-referenced theology and other factors.

Some take the step and convert, which is an interesting little tidbit of information. Why would a protestant Christian need to Convert to a Roman Catholic Church? But anyway, some "jump ship". However, others don't. They stay put in the protestant church and work for unity through other means and ways. The word is ecumenism.
One such move happened in Sweden a couple of years ago when three protestant churches merged into a new church. The official reasons included the unity of the christian Church even as the un-official reasons cited far less holy reasons and pointed to more practical and pragmatic reasons. The jury is still out although I think I know what happened.
The key point to look at is theological, as it always is when it comes to the Church. What does the church believe? For instance, the Roman church is incredibly varied throughout the world but it is nonetheless one  church in what it believes. In the case of the Swedish (protestant) merger between three churches we saw that the theological aspect played a very small role. In truth, it was not a formation of a theological unity at all but rather a re-structuring of existing churches that would allow for a fairly radical and shallow understanding of its theological mission while keeping the official facade of unity intact. There, I said it.

As it were, I am going to Rome this weekend. (It was a gift for my 40th birthday from my wife and parents and family and friends. A great gift, indeed!). It is not a trip to Rome in the sense that I am looking to become Catholic (as far as I know), but it does remind me of the necessity for all of us to reflect on what we believe about God, Man and the World and why we believe it. Who or what is our authority for what we believe and subsequently, how sure can we be that we are correct in our beliefs?
The Bible? Great, but whose interpretation? Yours? Your pastor's? Your church's?

The hour is late and most of us do not believe with any level of sincerity that Jesus is coming back or that when he does he will judge "the living and the dead". It's understandable. We usually determine if something is important based on probability and right now it looks rather improbable that Jesus is coming back.
Even if he did we reason that surely, trying as hard as we can and doing the best we can should be enough, right? God wouldn't judge anyone for just being wrong about the nature of the Eucharist, would he?
That may be true, but we know for a fact that he will judge us depending upon if we know him or not and the shocking but true reality of that is then...on what authority can we know that?

That special day at the house of Obed-Edom

I don't know what special days you have at your house. Perhaps Christmas or some other religious holiday. Birthdays, for sure, but maybe the last day before school starts or maybe the last day of school in the spring. I know many people who have "Fredags mys", which means Friday-night-with-movie-and-chips. In Sweden we even have "name" days where someone decided to give certain names certain days to be celebrated on. Few do this and I can see why.

We usually have special days to celebrate or highlight something special that has happened, even if it is as trivial as having "survived" another week with an empty/fun weekend to look forward to. When I was younger I always said that it was the "normal" days that were important to enjoy since there were lots more of those compared to "special" days...and I still think that is a good idea. That is why I think it is really stupid for commercial radio hosts in Sweden to perpetuate the dreariness of work and the joys of the weekend with "Friday afternoon blast!" or "How to survive Mondays". That means that 5 out of 7 days of your whole life were just a boring transport to the remaining 2. That makes for a lousy life, I think.

However, special days are fun days to enjoy and there is nothing wrong in celebrating special events. Usually, that means being with people that we care about and love. We don't want to celebrate special days alone, if we have a choice. We want to be loved, appreciated or valued by someone else than ourselves. We want to matter and we want someone else to think that we matter. We want them to enjoy us, surprise us or think of us.

In my devotion time today I read about a guy named "Obed-Edom". He is not a well-known character. Chronicles mentions him twice in the Bible. He lived during the time of king David and was (probably) a gatekeeper who had many children and relatives work with him. He was also the man who had to take care of the Ark of the Covenant when king David was too scared to bring it in to Jerusalem.

Think about it. There is a knock on your door and when you open it you see a huge amount of people with King David front and center. You see an enormous amount of people in the middle of a festival, a celebration of something wonderful for the whole nation. The holy Ark of the Covenant was coming home to Israel, to the recently conquered Jerusalem...except the mood has for some reason turned somber. You wonder what the heck is going on because it is not making any sense. Why have they stopped in front of your house?
Then you see it. There is a dead man lying on the ground. This is not good.
Then you see the king, looking serious and troubled, making his way to you. You bow to the ground and wonder what. is. happening. The king declares, solemnly, that the ark is to be taken to your house for safe keeping.

What?!?

And so it is. The Levites quickly bring the ark to the front of the mass of people and make their way to your front door...as you scramble to figure out exactly how and what and why this is happening. Is the house clean? Where is the ark gonna be? Do I have room for it remembering that it. can't. be- touched!!!
You run back to your house just in time for your wife to come of out the doorway, wondering what is going on...just in time to see your panicked face and the most holy of Holies, the Ark, following closely behind you, carried by the most holy Levites. The panic spreads to her face too. Cleaning day is tomorrow, oh, the irony!

The king and his followers have left. The Levites have put the Ark in the corner of your house, carefully, and left just as quickly as they came. The dust has settled and you are sitting/reclining with your wife at the kitchen table, looking at it. "-Well, that went well.", you think to yourselves. Your wife's face tells a different story. What are we gonna do with the Ark. Of. The. Covenant. in our living room? Good question. Why did the king leave it here? Another good question...but you suspect it has something to do with the dead guy. Better have some more tea (or whatever they drank those days).

By all accounts, this was a special day in the life of Obed-Edom. For all intents and purposes, God had just moved into their living room and I wonder what they thought and did right after it was placed in their house and the king had left. What did they think? Did the Ark shine in the dark? Did it look any different than a normal box? Was there a certain smell? Could you tell if there were blood discoloring or something still there on the mercy seat in the middle right in between the two angels from all those "Day of Atonement" celebrations?

There had been a great number of people there that day but that hadn't come for his sake. Heck, they probably hadn't even come to his house on purpose, as far as he knew. They had come to his house because it was the first house available to get rid of the Ark...or had they maybe heard of his devout service as a gate keeper and sought him out? We will never know.

But we do know that for three months the Ark stayed at his house and that God greatly blessed his household. Seemingly, they managed not to touch it although we can be sure there were lots of changes in that household. I also find it hilarious that we often hear that "God is bigger" or that we must not put "God in a box", yet there he was, blessing this family for three months all due to a box.
You can be sure that the friends of Obed-Edom all came by his house, looking and asking and wondering about the Ark. You can be sure that Obed-Edom's life was never the same again. You can be sure that his faith and his relationship with God was forever altered.

So, we think of the New Testament and Jesus when we think of people meeting God. We are asked if we have a personal relationship with Jesus, although we struggle with having a personal relationship with someone we can't see or hear or touch (although how many Facebook friends have you see, heard or touched this year?). We are stuck in two worlds, solidly stuck in this world of matter and stuff, while also longing and looking for those unseen things in life, like love, respect, worth, honor...those things we associate with special days and celebrations. Would we rather have a friend visit us or send us a gift in the mail?

In conclusion, we often say that God lives, or should live, in our hearts. Do we even know what that means? Where is the heart, exactly? How does God get there and how do we know that He is there? How do we know that He knows us?
True, Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit being "in" us after His ascension, and I believe that. God living in us, our hope of glory, as the Scripture says.
But perhaps we should not forget that God likes matter. I'm not saying that we should start building boxes and making them out to be altars or Arks or something. But I think we should consider ways to make God move into our living rooms, visibly, to help us alter our lives around the simple fact that God is indeed in those who have surrendered to him and seek to live according to the Spirit.

The conclusion is this. Does God live in your house? I assure you that no one who ever visited Obed-Edom's house ever doubted that.

Efter konferensen...kanske en bok

Så är ännu en årskonferens över, denna gång i norska Drammen. En bra konferens på många sätt och med några intressanta nya tag. Personligen hoppas jag att inslaget med journalist från Dagen som frågar ut kabinettet fortsätter, gärna med fler inlägg från människor "utifrån" kyrkan.
Visst hade det också varit trevligt att få ökat fokus på teologi och andlighet, men för många är det ett årsmöte...vilket på ett sätt stämmer.

Efter en årskonferens är det alltid lite lugnare tempo, inte minst för att sommaren är på ingång med semester och allt. Det ska göras klart inför höstterminens start men i stort sätt all kyrkor tar det lugnt på sommaren.

Själv har jag funderat på att börja skriva på en bok jag har tänkt på länge. Det kan vara nyttigt att få ur sig orden om kyrka och tro sett i ett sekulärt och skandinaviskt perspektiv. Varför är det så få som faktiskt tror på Gud?

Vidare sitter jag också och väntar på om jag ska få jobbet som brandman här i Mysen/Eidsberg. Intervjun gick bra men det fanns säkert andra som också gjorde bra ifrån sig. Men jag tror det går vägen.

Låt detta vara ett "mellan" inlägg för att hålla ångan och intresse uppe. Och ta vara på tiden att läsa, studera, reflektera eller ringa en vän.

Where is your breaking point?

There is a famous movie from the 80's or early 90's called Point Break. It's about surfers who also rob banks and the FBI agent who finds them but gets seduced into the "surfing" way of life. Point Break refers to the point where the wave breaks and you can surf it...or something like that. The epic surf of a giant wave in the end is classic.

It is a movie about two paradigms colliding. One is the laidback and careless/illegal world of surfing and bankrobbery to support it. The other is the strict and law abiding world of the FBI. In some ways it is the classic tale of conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, Reagan vs. Clinton, bohemianism vs. yuppyism.

The clash of two paradigms usually brings pain and a lot of head-scratching. In the movie we see the FBI agent, played by Keanu Reeves, struggling to keep his paradigm intact while also embracing its complete opposite. He begins to question why he is doing what he is doing and what he gets out of it. Eventually he is converted while undercover with the surfers. In the end, when it becomes clear that the surfers are going down, Reeves lets the leader of the surfers loose to go and surf the wave of a lifetime (that will kill him) instead of prison time. He holds on to his sense of justice before the law but he does so in a different way. In a surfer way.

As a pastor my paradigm is an unusual one. As a free-church pastor it is even more unusual (here in Scandinavia where I live). Add my fairly conservative beliefs to the mix and it becomes even more unusual. I will never get many "likes" on my FB wall because the paradigm that I am surrounded by is very different. Sometimes these two paradigms collide and it is unpleasant but it can be rather profound. I guess I would be the "FBI" agent and the world around me the "surfer culture". I don't know. But as soon as we ask whether or not people believe in Jesus we see two paradigms emerge very clearly and they don't mix so well. Anymore.

Paradigms are interesting. They cross boundaries we people set up all the time, sometimes for the explicit purpose of keeping one paradigm alive/safe/pure. Take your pick of a Christian denomination. It is supposed to have one paradigm (otherwise it wouldn't be one church but several). Funny thing, it usually doesn't have one paradigm. This is why we have all these different churches.
Paradigms often have statements of belief that summarize what the paradigm stands for. However, over time that statement is interpreted in different ways and eventually two paradigms arise. When that happens people often experience what I call a "breaking point", a point when they feel/believe that their paradigm is either good and true and rational...or not. When they switch sides...or not. One obvious example within the paradigm of the Christian church is the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther's role in it.

At its foundation it is about identity and where we feel at home, although I would also add that it is about why we feel at home in a certain paradigm. After all, we all have our reasons for belonging where we do and "just because" is not good enough.
I think that a lot of people within the Christian church are dealing with this issue right now and I think it is a very important question. I recently saw a guy post on Facebook that "I want the heritage of Jesus, not the church". It's kind of like saying that we belong "in Jesus" when we share our stories or paradigms (read churches or denominations). Of course we do! The point is, which Jesus paradigm do we belong in? Do you feel at home in the paradigm that makes up Westboro Baptist? Methodist? Catholic? Quaker? Greek Orthodox? Faith movement home church? Missional? Organic? Seeker sensitive? State church?

We all belong in and with Jesus but we all belong in and with Jesus through his church whether we like it or not. The question is, to be very practical (my wife would be so proud!) which church? Which paradigm?

But wait a minute. I just said that paradigms can vary widely even within churches. So is it possible to pick a paradigm and a church or do we have to pick one but not the other?
This is the crux of the matter, the breaking point that can cause profound disillusionment. What do you do when you find that your church and your paradigm aren't "jiving" although they absolutely should?
I read many articles that talk about this within my own church, the worldwide United Methodist Church. Currently, it is the LBGT proponents that struggle with where they belong and what to do about the clash they perceive between their church and their paradigm, especially now that the possibility of changing the official church position seems small. That is usually what happens when somebody perceives that the church and their personal paradigm start to clash. You start to fight the clash and bring harmony to the two (and it is a lot easier to change an institution than it is your own beliefs/paradigm) but it is tricky. It didn't work for Luther and it doesn't seem to work in the UMC (although it has, intriguingly, worked in many less global churches).

It seems to me that many people are reaching a breaking point within the UMC over this clash between their paradigms and their church. People aren't necessarily leaving the church (or its rosters) but the passion and the involvement slowly fade away. The LGBT paradigm is so radically different on so many important points than the opposite paradigm (let's call it the traditional paradigm) that the disharmony and ensuing struggle seems inevitable, unless radical compromises are put in place (but how can either paradigm compromise how it perceives truth?).

Personally, it isn't about the LGBT question even as I understand how important and wide-ranging that is. It is more about about this point-break thing and when paradigms and institutions clash. I'm guessing that most of you who read this may not actually worry about this and feel quite comfortable with the paradigm and church that you are in even if they don't jive perfectly. Does that ever happen?
I, on the other hand, can't help but wonder if it has to be this way or if there is a way to keep my paradigm of faith and my church together without clashing. Without political strife. Without ever-lasting arguments over what we believe (our paradigm). Without the theological equivalent of Verdun (the Image of futility). Without wasting our time with our internal struggles while the world slips away.

I hope so. I pray so.

Vad är Kyrkan för?

Om man läser diverse undersökningar om kyrkan och samhället så träder en tydlig bild fram. Vi blir mer och mer definierade av vad vi är emot, inte vad vi är för. Frågan om homosexualiteten är utan tvekan den fråga som tar mest plats och som formar mycket av utomståendes syn på kyrkan.

Tveklöst är det också så att majoriteten i våra mer eller mindre sekulära länder ser kyrkans kamp med detta som i bästa fall "för sent ute" och i värsta fall som ett direkt hån mot människor av icke-traditionell sexuell läggning. Kort sagt, det ligger kyrkan, och således alla kristna, i fatet att det över huvudtaget finns en kamp kring frågan. Samhället ser hur vi vi vänder oss fram och tillbaka och tänker att det är pinsamt och löjligt. Har inte kyrkan predikat "kärlek" i alla tider? Är inte Gud kärlek? Vad är då problemet?

Samhället, och de människor som befinner sig utanför Gud och kyrka, missar så klart en mängd poänger. Men det är inte konstigt. De har allt mindre kunskap och förståelse för hur någon människa på 2000-talet över huvudtaget kan tänka tanken att det finns en osynlig Gud. Att denna Guden skulle ha en åsikt t.ex. om vad kärlek är och hur den ska "regleras" anses (tror jag) som löjeväckande och bortom rationellt tänkande.
Så står där en människa och söker efter Gud, en Gud som hon eller han har hört är kärlek och för människor, och funderar hur Kyrkan kan vara emot så många olika saker som man var så van vid...för vi kan utgå från att de flesta har en negativ bild av kyrkan, och frikyrkan i synnerhet. Vi har blivit så förknippade med vad vi är emot. Gud är mer populär, helt klart, men var ska man finna Gud om inte i kyrkan...tror jag många tänker. Det blir en paradox...man vill ha Gud men måste anmäla kyrkan till Konsumentombudsmannen för missvisande reklam. Jag tror att många tycker att Kyrkan har en dålig PR byrå...även om de flesta skulle förvånas över vad Jesus egentligen sa.

Jag menar att detta inte är så allvarligt och till och med bra. Kyrkan ska vara emot mycket av vad denna världen tycker om. Guds rike är något annat än vad som finns runt omkring oss. Att missa det, att missa att Jesus kom för att grunda/instifta/ sitt rike, är att missa nästan allt. Då blir mycket svårt att förstå, vilket ofta leder till s.k. selektiv Bibelläsning. Men det är ingen väg framåt för vems Bibeln ska man tro på då?

Men här är en viktigt poäng. En otroligt viktig poäng.

När Jesus kom och utmanade det rike som redan fanns här så blev resultatet att det riket som fanns här dödade honom. Det gick inte så bra, kan man säga. Förvisso, han återuppstod och vann seger över döden och jordens rikes Herre, Den Onde.
MEN, det som är intressant för oss här är något annat. Om vi antar att Jesus dog för att han var emot så mycket som var viktigt för så många (vi gör oss en björntjänst om vi tror att det bara var onda Fariséer som ville döda Jesus) så kan vi anta att det måsta ha varit något speciellt som han var för, eller hur? Det måste ha varit någonting med Jesus som gjorde att trots att han var emot så mycket att han blev mördad så var det mycket mer eller bättre som han var för.

Jag tror att Kyrkan har varit väldigt bra på att visa (på 100 olika sätt) vad Hon är emot. Detta är en del av att vara Jesus kyrka för om kyrkan och världens rike ser likadana ut så är det ingen kyrka. Såsom Kyrkan liknar världen så lite är den Jesus kyrka. Om Jesus blev mördad men Kyrkan bara får framgång kan man börja undra.
MEN, Hon har inte varit lika bra på att, som Jesus, vara och visa att det Hon är för är värt så mycket mer.

Det är enkel logik. Ingen människa vid sina sinnes fulla bruk väljer något så radikalt som att tro på Gud om det uppfattas som sämre än vad hon har.
Jag tror förvisso att det som Kyrkan historiskt varit emot är av sådan karaktär att det automatiskt ger en människa ett sämre liv. På kristendomska tror jag att synd "by default" ger ett negativt liv och negativa upplevelser. Ett gift är aldrig bra även om det smakar sött.
Men för många människor har syndens gift blivit något man har vant sig vid. T.ex. hur Gud skapade människan för ett socialt liv men 70% lever ensamma i våra storstäder (jag menar inte att det är en synd att leva singel utan vill visa att det som de flesta önskar inte är som det är). Man tolererar det som skadar eller som inte är bra för var ska man hitta ett lockande alternativ? Hos en emot-Kyrka?

Här kommer kyrkan in i bilden. Hon borde vara den som visar att allt som hon, genom Jesus, är emot är mycket mindre värt än allt som hon är för. På kristendomska heter det att frälsning och helgelse är bättre än synd. Uppgiften är att visa det i ord och handling för det verkar inte så. Synd verkar alltid bättre, förutom i dess mest absurda förklädnader.

Problemet är alltså inte att kyrkan är emot x, y eller z. Det ska hon vara och hon tappar respekt (och medlemmar) om hon inte är det. Problemet är att Kyrkan inte har kommunicerat vad hon är för.

Förhoppningsvis har Hon (kyrkan) inte glömt vad hon är emot och vad hon är för...men det finns tendenser som visar på att risken är stor att just så har hänt...och därför sitter människor hemma och ser en irrelevant gammal koloss som slits itu av en politisk maktkamp...och undrar vad skillnaden är på världens och Guds rike.

The favor of God - what is it and can it be lost? (sorry, på engelska igen)

I heard the phrase a couple of weeks ago. My wife read it from a book. 

The Favor of God.

It sounds nice. 

I like how it reminds me of the word "flavor", which is a word I like. I have never heard of anyone asking for less flavor. But I digress, the Favor of God is obviously something more than that, even if the comparison sort of works (although plenty of people have asked for less of God). However, it is said that God makes everything better. He is all good and all wise and Holy love. How bad can that be? What could be bad about having the favor or an all-good God? 

But let's focus on the concept itself. The Favor of God. What is it?

I think it has something to do with the ancient blessing usually called the "Aaronitic blessing". In that blessing we have the phrase "May His [God's] face shine upon you". I don't know if we need to decode that as much as we need to picture it. When my wife's face shines it is a good thing. When my wife's face doesn't shine...well, that is a bad thing. I know it ever if I can't explain exactly how I know it and I bet you can, too. There is something about happiness and something about being pleased. It involves two parties where one is expressing goodness towards the other party, usually for some reason. Fortune favors the bold, perhaps, the but God favors everyone and there is a connecting to be made between his favor and our fortune.

Simply put, the Bible says that God's favor rests on those who please him. Isaiah the prophet writes that God is displeased when people offer him lipservice and empty rituals and pleased when they release the bond of the oppressed, for instance. It is almost as simple as it sounds. Live according to him and his favor rests on you...his face smiles upon you. Live according to what he doesn't want and his favor doesn't rest upon you. This is a theme of the Old Testament where following the law of God meant the favor of God. We see it in the invasion of Canaan and we see it in the life of the nation Israel. The Exile to Babylon was due to idol-worship, neglecting and oppressing the poor and other sins. It was cut and dried.

In the New Testament it seems as if the picture gets murkier. Seems. Less "cause and effect" and less Law. The current and common understanding would argue that now is the time of Grace. Our actions are less connected with God's pleasure and favor because Jesus came to soften the hard and impossible Law. Taken to its conclusion most people's understanding of the NT would conclude that God finally realized that the Law was a bad idea and threw in Jesus to see if that solution would "stick". 

Now God's favor is available to all and more or less disconnected from our (ever failing) actions. Now he loved (and loves) us for who we are and since we are all born this way, according to our modern prophet Lady Ga-Ga, it is all good. God can finally show us all his favor and we can finally enjoy both the good life and his favor. It's a win-win.

I am painting a picture of how I think things are, or have become, but I don't agree with it. See, I believe that it is still possible to lose the favor of God...and I can hardly think of a greater loss than that. I mean, how would one get it back? What can we offer God in return? A promise of "doing better next time? Ha!

Take for instance the much-hyped demise of the Swedish free-church movement. This includes the Equmenia church, the Alliance church, the Evangelical Freechurch, the Pentecostal church, the Faith movement church, the Salvation Army, the Swedish church and some others. They are all losing members and fast and have been losing members for a long time. Statistics show that most of them will be gone within a few decades if nothing changes. 

The most troubling fact is that is has been a steady decline for decades and no one knows why. The church I am familiar with the most, the former Methodist church, can't be blamed for not trying. I think that it tried a lot of stuff to turn the trend, but in the end nothing helped. In the end it had become a shell of a church, a paper tiger, and was rescued from ending up as a dead church in the history books by joining the Mission church and the Baptist church...but that was just statistical cosmetics. 

We can, all of us, experience a similar condition as a denomination can. We can experience a decline in the matters of religion and faith for a long time. We can leave God out...just look at the masses of people in churches on the first of advent and the empty pews in January or July or October. For goodness sake, the weather is the still the determining factor for many people in whether or not they should go to church.

Some would argue that the Church is the problem, and perhaps that is true in some cases, but there is simply no way that there is not a single church in your town that doesn't at least read the Bible, prays, sing songs about Jesus and preaches about God and life...every Sunday.

But can a church's decline or a person's decline be traced to losing the favor of God?

Not once have I heard that suggested. Not once have I even heard that option considered.

Instead, all is good. God is with us. We are following Jesus. God loves us. Everything is alright.

But what if it isn't? What if the very simple explanation for extensive spiritual decline is simply that we have lost the favor of God? (It has happened before)

How do we know? Is it true?

What do we do? Can we get it back?

How?

I am starting to entertain the possibility that this is actually the case...here and there. 

It is a terrifying thought but it does offer hope because if we know the disease we can find the cure. 

When I met a demon - what I believe about prayer (sorry, den är på engelska denna gången)

This year I have decided to learn more about prayer and become a better prayer-er.

I have started by reading some books, "Becoming a man of prayer", "Too busy not to pray" and "A mighty prayer". I am also doing the prayer circling that is based on a book by the same name together with Laurie. 

The next step after that will be to mine the depths of the church fathers and the rich history and tradition of prayer within the historical church. 

But I would like to tell you what I have found to be one of the key features of prayer. I learned it one night when I met a demon. 

No, really. 

I did.

I was in bed at my home in Norway. It was in the middle of the night and I was sound asleep. At some point in the night I started to dream and it was fairly vivid. Considering I can still remember it after several months, I would argue that is was very vivid. 

I was in a small room that looked very much like a room monks or nuns use in medieval monasteries. Bare and whitewashed walls, a bed up against a wall and perhaps a cross on the wall above the bed. My son David was in the bed and he was asleep. I was sitting next to the bed and I believe my wife was also there, but in the background, perhaps by the foot of the bed.

All of sudden my son started moving in the bed. That in and of itself is very common as he always moves in real life. This, however, was different. It seemed as if something was bothering him. 

(I didn't think of it in the dream but when David first came home to us from China he would sometimes sit straight up in bed in the middle of the night and literally fight something. He would punch in the air, still asleep, and make noises that sounded like he was struggling. That has a dramatic story to it as well.)

I tried to comfort him and gently touch his arm but he kept struggling. In my dream, I knew that something really bad was trying to cause him harm and/or scare him. Suddenly I heard my wife's voice tell me to look behind me on the wall by the foot-end of the bed. I turned and saw what appeared to be letters of fire being written on the wall. One by one letters appeared but before they could make up a word I woke up. 

And that is when the strangest thing happened.

I knew without a shadow of a doubt that:

a) I was wide awake in my bed in my house in Norway.

b) What had been happening in my dream still kept going. The events of my dream "carried over" into reality...and by the events I mean the clear and present reality that something, in reality, wanted to hurt my son. In the middle of secular Norway.

I was in the middle of an unseen struggle and although I am sure that it sounds crazy I know that it was real. I could hear my wife breathing and I could see the familiar sights in my room when I opened my eyes. (The reason I had opened my eyes was to see if there was actually something visible in my room. There wasn't.)

But I didn't have time to dwell on whether or not something was going on. I knew it was and I knew that it was extremely real and very, very dangerous and that my son was in danger.

On a side note, I have a long history of horrific and demonic nightmares and I know what it is like to have very vivid dreams. It was always very strange to my parents because I had a very "benign" childhood and was never exposed to violence or horror movies and the like. Even the church I attended regularly didn't exactly instil the fear of God in me and it never brought up hell, demons or anything like that.

To make a long story short I was delivered from those dreams by God on Holy Saturday night at the Wilmore Free Methodist Church, easter of 2001 (if I recall correctly). 

However, back to my story. One of the things I have learned about my dreams is that I can actually decide what I want to do in them...and what I wanted this time was to pray. What else could I do against an unseen opponent? How do you struggle against what is unseen?

So I did the equivalent of what any father would do when their child was in danger. I went to war and prayed for my son as if I was charging to defend him against a roaring lion and it sends chills down my body just to tell you the story.

I had never experience anything like what happened. Two things became incredibly clear from the beginning:

1. Whatever it was that was opposing me was not only real but it also had a will. It felt as if it (almost) talked to me and it changed tactics and methods continually, looking for a weak spot. Also, it was entirely evil and had absolutely no compassion or patience. It wanted to do "von Klausewitz" no-mercy war. 

2. My prayers were the only thing that stood in its way of achieving what it wanted to achieve.

I prayed my heart out because I was not going to lose.

Picture a city with a high defense wall and a ferocious and furious attacker outside, looking for a way to break down the wall and come in to bring his horror. That's what it was like...and I learned something incredibly important during this battle or whatever we want to call it.

Now, as you can imagine, as a pastor I know something about prayer. I know theology. I know pious phrases. I can string pretty words together to make a point look good. Pastors and prayer go together like peanut butter and jelly. They just fit.

But what I learned was something I knew in my mind but all too often had forgotten in real life. I call it disconnected praying. In my struggle for my son's well-being I found out that the instant my prayers stopped coming from my Jesus soaked heart (which is just a pretty word for "the middle of my soul and being) the enemy seized the opportunity and came raging around that defense wall to break it down. He just kept looking for a way in and I just kept building a defense wall around my son.

It didn't matter if they were prayers I had learned from other people, Bible verses or just my own words. If whatever I was praying was not out of a "heart" of absolute faith in God and a complete and total abandon to His power it was 100% meaningless. I might as well have prayed my grocery list. I had nothing.

The struggle went on for quite a long time and every time my prayers would slip into auto-pilot or, you know, just leave my mind without going by my heart (Jesus called this rambling words) the enemy was right there and I had an immediate and terrifying reason to shape up and get my act together and pray as if Jesus was real, as if I meant it and as if my son's well being depended on it.

The intensity and the sincerity of what was going on made the whole experience extremely clear. There was no grey. There was no "maybe". I remember that I knew exactly what was going on and exactly what needed to be done. So I kept fighting and the battle kept raging on.

I don't know how much time passed but I know it was several minutes, perhaps 15, and I sensed that the enemy wasn't as ferocious as before. My words had subsided and I was now fully dependant on God. Jesus was all I had and all I needed. I simply wasn't gonna lose the fight.

The rage and the evil that had tried to hurt my son, and might I add had been extremely upset that I had stepped in to defend my son, was slowly subsiding. Soon it was only a annoying remnant that knew it was defeated but didn't really want to leave. I had learned to pray in an unseen battle arena and I had learned my lesson well. For all intents and purposes the battle was over and the entity that wanted to hurt my son was on his/her/its way to leave. I had been powerless and was almost defeated, and surely and resoundly, would have been if I hadn't remembered the words of Jesus. 

Don't. 

Just. 

Say. 

Words. 

Pray in my/Jesus's name (which is not the same as saying "-In Jesus name, Amen" after you pray. The key word is in.)

At that point I quietly woke my wife and told her what was going on. As you can imagine, she wanted to check on her son. I knew that he was out of danger and told her so, but she went to his room anyway. Of course.

When she returned she told me the strangest thing. My son was born with a huge cleft lip and palate that even though it has been fixed through surgery makes him quite loud when he sleeps. My wife told me that when she went into his room he was all quiet...quiet enough that she had to put her hand under his nose to see if he was breathing. She couldn't tell so she put her hand on his chest...and at that point he let out this semi-gutteral, semi-snoring sound and resumed his normal breathing.

Now, I tell you this story to tell you what I have learned about prayer so far. 

Prayer is incredibly powerful and perhaps our only offensive "weapon" in our Biblical struggle against the dark powers of the Enemy of everything good.

Prayer is only effective when it is coming from and out of the heart of a person completely and utterly dependent on God.

Words matter but again, they are absolutely meaningless unless they belong to someone who believe them as fully as they believe that gravity is real. Even the word "Jesus" meant nothing if I didn't attach the true meaning of the word to the letters. There is nothing magical about stringing letters together. The power is in the name, not in the letter, and by that I mean that the power is in the real but unseen person Jesus, the second divine person of the Trinity.

I, and we, have nothing and no power. We live in an age when human power is everything and sometimes the church get caught up in this way of thinking. Successful pastors are those with big churches. We can do God's work and save the world. We have Powerpoint and world-class business models to follow. It just takes hard work and ingenuity.

I say no. We have no power. We have nothing...and only then are we able to enter into God and his kingdom where his power is without limit. Even to the point of keeping a feeble pastor and his son safe from an attack from the dark side.

Bortom homosexualitet - ett nådens år?

Det är ett nytt år och vi delar alla en känsla av nystart och "nya möjligheter!" som det så populärt heter. Egentligen är det ju bara en vanlig tisdag precis som alla andra tisdagar, men nu ska vi inte haka upp oss på detaljer.

Vi ska tänka på "hopp". Vi lever trots allt i en land med en kristen historia och då tänker vi omedvetet linjärt, dvs. från nu till då. Det ska bli bättre, snabbare, starkare och så vidare. (För jämförelsens skull tänker en hinduisk tradition cirkulärt, det vill säga att man inte är på väg någonstans alls så varför skulle det bli bättre imorgon om vi ändå hamnar på samma plats).

Jag vet inte vad du hoppas på men är du en troende kristen har ordet en annan betydelse än om du är vanlig sekulär svensk. För en kristen betyder ordet "hopp" en förvissning, en säkerhet. För en sekulär svensk betyder det en chans eller en slump...en förhoppning som inte är baserad på annat än positivt tänkande eller viljestyrka.
Som kristna är vårt hopp inte baserat på något annat än Gud själv, vilket är ganska logiskt. Vad annars skulle kunna tjäna som grund för att hoppas eftersom hopp i grund och botten handlar om att man önskar att det ska bli bättre än vad det är just nu och Gud är ju den enda som vet hur det ska bli.

Jag är till min natur positivt lagd. Jag tror alltid att det ska bli bättre i framtiden och att allt löser sig. Förvisso naivt ibland men ändå ganska trevligt. Men jag är också ganska melankolisk av mig, och det är med melankoli jag ser på framtiden inom det som har med kyrka att göra...och då tänker jag på min kyrka.

Protestantiska kyrkor har från början hävdat att de är "Bibelns folk". Det var på Bibliska grunder som Luther gjorde revolt och det var på Bibliska grunder som Wesley oavsiktligt startade Metodistkyrkan. Men idag är det inte så.
När Metodistkyrkan i Sverige röstade om "diskriminering av homosexuella" så angavs inte ett enda Bibelord och det är sällan jag hör röster som anger Bibeln som skäl för sin sak. Bibeln har istället, ofta, blivit något negativt och tungt, något som man inte vill ange som grund för sin sak eftersom man möts så fort av hundra andra tolkningar och synsätt. Det finns inte längre en överenskommen grund för hur Bibeln ska förstås och det gör att Bibeln splittrar mer än den bygger upp...vilket är djupt tragiskt.

Som jag ser det kommer frågan om homosexualitet att splittra the UMC. Det är för många som är för oense om något de tycker är för viktigt...och i sann protestantisk anda så är det högst troligt att man väljer att gå sin egen väg. Trohet eller lojalitet mot en kyrka är inte starka nog skäl för har man en gång lämnat en kyrka, på 1500-talet, finns det ju inget som säger att "de andra" inom UMC har rätt och jag fel idag, eller hur?

Det som i mina ögon är riktigt farligt är att man har bytt skäl till varför man väljer att gå sin egen väg. Man väljer att gå sin egen väg för att man, inte tror att Bibeln menar det, utan för att man själv menar det. Uppenbarligen kommer de som inte delar min tolkning av Bibelns syn på homosexualitet inte att hålla med mig om detta, men tillåt mig att förklara.
När jag följer debatten om pastor Schaeffer i USA så tycker jag mig se att man har lyft Gud och Jesus ut ur Bibeln. Det är inte kapitel och vers, det är "Radikal kärlek" och "Jesus kärlek". Man formar argument i termer som mänskliga rättigheter och jämställdhet och rättvisa. Det är ju inte så konstigt när UMC för länge sedan gjorde samma sak när det gäller vanliga äktenskap och skilsmässa. Jesus ord är glasklara men ändå "lyckades" man komma fram till att det ibland är ok med skilsmässa även där otrohet inte finns på kartan. Det finns fler exempel (abort, sex innan äktenskapet/otukt) som märkligt nog ofta har att göra med sex och samlevnad.

Således skulle man kunna hävda att UMC för länge sedan slutade låta sig ledas av Bibeln när det gäller åtminstone sex och samlevnad. Förvisso, det finns dom som hävdar att både abort och skilsmässa och homosexuella äktenskap är Bibliska, men jag har fortfarande aldrig stött på någon som kan visa mig hur det skulle kunna gå till. Det skulle vara intressant att höra.
Men problematiken ligger i att kyrkan har hamnat på en hal kulle/slippery slope. Hur kan hon hävda någonting över huvudtaget om hon hela tiden ändrar sig? Hur kan en människa utanför kyrkan som upplever syndens förtryckande makt komma på tanken att hon ska vända sig till kyrkan för att bli befriad av henne, kyrkan som agerar på Jesu uppdrag att förlåta synder, när kyrkan inte vet vad som är synd eller fel enligt vad Gud har sagt i Bibeln? När kyrkans uppdrag att ge Guds förlåtande nåd, att låta Guds nåd flöda genom henne, beror på vilket datum det är?

Vilken grund står kyrkan på när den grunden förändrar sig med varje generalkonferens? Visst, hon står på Jesus...men samtidigt proklamerar hon en Jesus som är både splittrad i 100 bitar eller går åt 5 olika håll. Det är inte hållbart. Kyrkan har bara en grund, Jesus, och han är bara en. Han går åt ett håll. Han har en "åsikt"...och han är densamme igår, idag och i evighet. Han förändrar sig inte. Det är Han vi vill ha.

Ja, det ser dystert ut bortom frågan om homosexualitet. Jag tror den frågan har visat på vår största svaghet och jag är skeptisk till att Bibeln kan hålla oss samman framöver...och vad annars skulle det kunna vara? Jag hoppas jag har fel, men det är väldigt tryggt att veta att detta nya år, och alla nya år, är år av nåd från Gud tills dess han kommer tillbaka. Nåd att finna den rätta grunden, Jesus, i denna uppsjö av kyrkor och samfund som alla påstår att just dom står på den grunden (mer eller mindre enigt).
Det är kanske detta som är det värsta...att vi gör det så svårt för människor (inklusive oss själva) att finna Jesus förlåtande nåd eftersom vi inte ens är överens om vad eller vem som faktiskt behöver den. Jag skulle önska att vi kunde ställa tillbaka klockan, teologiskt, och ställa fram den, praktiskt, så att vi kunde bli en kyrka som stod på den historiska och trygga grunden rent teologiskt, men samtidigt möter människor i dagens samhälle med ett budskap som är modernt och relevantgjort och som är lika aktuellt idag som förr.
Det finns nåd för dina och mina synder och dess namn är Jesus.