A pastor reflects on "Fifty shades of grey" - since everyone else does...

Yes, pastors think about sex. Heck, some even have kids! Yes, it is shocking but it is nevertheless true. Pastors are real people who watch movies, go to restaurants, buy cars and engage in extra-curricular activities. To many, pastors make up this "mystical" group of people who resemble the witch-doctors of old, although they look normal (for the most part). It is interesting to me that pastors are still seen as different or special or at least that they should be different or special. I can remember the woman who bowed her head low when she greeted me. I mean, seriously?

That was just weird...but it symbolizes what many people still think. Somehow, pastors are still seen as different or strange, even as our society is more and more secularized. Maybe people just humor us and see us as a little weird (but harmless) but I think it is because we don't fit into any of the current categories. I have noticed that when I am asked to fill out a form on the internet or in the mail about "occupation", "Pastor/Religious worker" is (nowadays) always absent. I have to select "other"...and "other" easily becomes "unknown". We are the unknowns.

Then again, it is hard to miss or forget that pastors exist. Churches are everywhere and the tradition and heritage of Christianity is strong in Scandinavia, mainly due to the influence of the state churches. Pastors still perform the overwhelming majority of the major "rites of passage" such as weddings and funerals and thus still occupy a place in the mind of the masses. We exist but only on special occasions, like Christmas decorations or our finest suits and dresses. Pastors are like jeans, everyday but unnoticed. Most people don't know a pastor personally and even fewer have a pastor for a personal friend. Perhaps that is why many have very outdated views of pastors...they haven't met any.

Add sex to this aura of "mystic" and you have a volatile combination. Most people, I believe, consider the Church, and therefore her pastors, to be against sex and sexuality. I appeared on television one time regarding an art-exhibit in the town where I was a pastor. It was profoundly sexual and pornographic in nature and I had commented online that it was inappropriate. I can't say whether I succeeded in my attempt to explain sex and its proper place, but I do remember that while I tried to show that sex does have a proper place in the order of things it was very clear that everybody thought that I had a very naive view of sex. I remember the look of disdain on the face of the man responsible for the exhibit when he talked about the "outdated" and "prudish" views of the church/me and how our society had evolved into a more refined and mature view of sex and sexuality. 

Basically, he argued that our society can "handle" sex and sexuality better now and should let all bonds of old be set loose. It is a new time, he argued, and sexuality should be free from everything that hinders it no matter time, place or method. If he wanted to show pictures of bestiality or sado-masochism in a public forum...why not? To argue against his idea was deemed silly and the people laughed at the pastor once again. More porn to the people!

Here is the reason why the Church always seems to say "stop" when the world says "more" concerning sex. The Church, resting on the Bible, has a better understanding of sex than the world. Period.

The Bible talks about sex (and sometimes extremely vividly) and it does so in a much broader sense than the world. The Bible knows where sex comes from, why it is so good and what it is for. The Bible claims that sex and sexuality comes from God, that it feels good because God is good and is for pleasure as well as the creation of new life. (If you really want to discover the depths of the Church's teachings on sex you will find that it sometimes talks about sex and the ecstasy of sex, the standing-outside-of-yourself, i.e. the orgasm, to be an inkling...a small sliver of the divine life itself.)  But let us move on.

The world doesn't know either one any more. It thinks it has purely a biological source, has no clue why it feels good and has divorced it from its purpose, to make children (by introducing different birthcontrol methods and abortion-on-demand). 

So, the world is awash in sex but clueless to where it comes from or what it is supposed to do or why it has such power over us. It just wants more of it. The Church understands its power, knows where it comes from and what it is for and especially why it has such power over us...and as such the Church says that it should only be allowed within certain limits. 

Now, some of you make the connection that that means that the church wants to "boring-fy" sex, to make it something dull or lifeless. To stifle the imagination and never enjoy it or experiment with it. Wrong.

The Bible doesn't talk about what is appropriate when it comes to sex within a marriage. Not even once. It is amazingly quiet and leaves that (supposedly difficult) topic blank. It seems that God is fine with a husband and a wife enjoying all the different pleasures of sex but within the marriage vows. Live it up! It is very clear about where sex is supposed to happen and it gives very good reasons for this. It recognizes the incredible power sex has and as such it makes it very clear what boundaries sex must have, otherwise it takes over...and I think that is the main difference between the Church and the World. 

The World doesn't recognize or realize the incredible power sex has and treats it as a treat, something harmless, something fun to spice up our lives..."as long as it is ok with both (or more) partners", as the saying goes. That is naive and the results are catastrophic.

For one thing, it confuses love and sex and makes a mess of both. That is why in the movies you always see people having sex before the say "I love you". See, love as the world understands it is not a strong enough bond to keep sex in place. Love is not a feeling or primarily something sexual. Sex isn't even the highest form of love. Love is a choice, first and foremost, and feelings are simply not strong enough to keep sex in place. Only holy matrimony is, which is why God made marriage the holiest of human bonds and forbade divorce except allowing it for adultery. God knows the power of sex in humans and understands that if it is not kept holy and sacred within a marriage where both the man and the woman live under God...it will more than likely ruin everything. Sex is like fire, it either destroys or refines. 

So, 50 shades. Why would the Church or a pastor care what the world does with that? Because a pastor is supposed to care about people and what happens to them. Sure, by all means, see whatever movie you want. Read whatever book you want. Do whatever you want...but don't complain when it all comes crashing down around you, and it will. That is the nature of sex run rampant. 

The one thing that "50 Shades" will do is bring you disappointment and disillusionment. Sex outside its proper boundaries always does...and it will always take you farther than you want to, or should, go. When you leave the movie theater you will have all these images and feelings inside you. However, your real life will bring you disappointment because all those images you saw in the movie and the deep desire you will have for such things can't be fulfilled in real life. None of us live like that. How then can you fulfill your desires if the illusion from the movie can't be achieved in real life? Enter problems. 

Sex is by its very nature insatiable. If it is let out of its "bag" then it will demand more and different and crazier. It is like a drug and it won't stop until you are waaaay out there with a trail of destruction and disappointments behind you. And yet people try.

That is why you currently see the media refer to the porn industry in much more civil terms, much like any other industry. 

That is why you currently see classes for teen-age girls in "pole-dancing".

That is why you see media refer to the  "50 Shades of Grey"-effect in what items people buy and what people do.

That is why you have a brothel in the Berlin Schönefeld airport.

That is why Miles Cyrus "twerking" is a big deal and is emulated everywhere.

That is why you see divorces and unhappy marriages everywhere. 

That is why human trafficking is increasing and girls are seen as goods in many places.

So, when a pastor reflects on "50 Shades of Grey" he does it much like any other man. Sure, I realize the draw and attraction of such movies. Sure, the ever-present lure of of "forbidden fruits" is tempting. I'm a man. Sure, I understand that many argue that such movies should not be allowed because they encourage mistreatment of women or disrespect women or some such, but I don't see that. Isn't a consensual contract a big deal in the movie?  But...

I know that eating the so-called forbidden fruit is a bad idea. It doesn't give me what it promises. It's a trick, a lie. It will take over and eventually destroy us.

As a pastor I don't abstain from typing "s-e-x" in Google because I am a prude. I don't abstain from watching "50 shades of Grey" because I am against sex in all its various forms. I don't protest the proliferation and prevalence of sexual innuendo, pictures or movies in our society because I want sex to go away.

I abstain from looking up sex online, watch sexual movies and/or protest the industry promoting sex because I truly understand sex, respect sex and love sex and as such know that I must keep it in its proper and God ordained place lest I be destroyed. Lest society be destroyed. Not because I am a genius but because I have heard from the creator of sex and he obviously knows best.  I must (and do) keep God higher and am therefore able to enjoy sex without fear of disappointment or corruption or destruction. 

Yes, you just read that a pastor enjoys sex. Big deal. God made it and he is a good God. I'm happy to belong to him and praise him for his creation and care over me. My question to you is, who or rather what do you belong to?

A friend died

It has happened again.

A friend of mine died and I was surprised. I wasn't ready and my thinking was on other things. I was caught off-guard and now I find myself thinking, yet again, that everything comes into its proper light in light of death. Nothing gives perspective like death.

It wasn't a particularly good friend nor had I given him much, if any, thought the last couple of years. But I worked with this man for several years a while back and we shared life together. You know, small talk over coffee, banter and discussions while sorting clothes or carrying furniture (it was a second hand store). Normal work stuff, with the occasional after-work meal.
We talked about faith and God. We talked about politics and workplace concerns. We were very different, him and I. My life has always been pretty well put together. In many ways I am the conservative middle class. Stable upbringing. Church on Sundays. Well educated. Conservative views. Strong family values and life.
His was a much different story. Many struggles. Lots of bad decisions and lots of damage. We were from two different worlds and sometimes it really showed. We didn't always agree, the pastor and the grown-up delinquent, but we were friends.

Pastors many times don't get to meet and get to know people on the side-lines. It is not intentional, it just happens. There is a certain automatic distance between people who have strayed from the narrow path and pastors. Jesus was pretty upset about that, especially with pastors who didn't mind the distance and even worked at keeping it as large as possible.
I enjoyed meeting people like my friend. It was the first time I had really gotten to know people whom I never would have met otherwise. As a pastor I knew that I should know more "down and outs" but I must confess that I didn't know how to. How does one get to know people that are radically different? Where do we meet?

So I enjoyed my friendship and now I am sad that he died. I don't like the saying "passed away" because I feel like it diminishes him. He is not a mist or a shadow. Neither has he "gone away from us". He has stepped into eternity and my mind is full of questions. Which eternity did he step into?

This is the ultimate question, I think. Salvation, Redemption, Justification, Righteousness...these are all questions of a means to an end. What are we saved, redeemed, justified, made righteous to and from? What is it all for?

All to often I don't think about these things and I feel like I should. It is what a pastor should do, right? We of all people should be eternity-minded at all times. What else is there? Global warming? Ecological food? Clean water to poor people? Equal rights for all people? Peace on earth?

All these are important things and some are even very important. But I don't think you need The Church for any of it. Who thinks that we should pollute the earth, spray toxins into the atmosphere, eat dirty food or close our eyes to the effects and problems of poverty and war? Does anyone really need to wait for the Church of Christ to speak up about these issues before acting? I don't think so.
I think the Church can and should be a voice of divine reason in our world today on a host of different topics. God cares about all of life and so should the Church.

BUT...

...our primary task is to bring souls to Christ for eternal salvation. Death is the reminder. We must all die and at that point nothing else matters. This is simply a fact. When a loved one dies it is an appalling tragedy that shouldn't be allowed to exist. We rage against the dying of the light. The tragedy does exist, but it shouldn't. We were not created for death but for eternal life...that's why it seems so wrong and hurts so much when we are faced with a loved one's death.

A pastor should at all times keep this in mind and direct all his work towards this end. It may sound a bit morbid but I don't know what else could be more important. A pastor should always keep death in mind and never be surprised by it. It is an enemy and it has been overcome.
Thus, a pastor shouldn't despair or be all grim and dour. A pastor should be acutely aware (and sensitive) of the darkness of the world with all its brokenness but he/she should also be acutely aware of the hope that is found in Christ and his salvation to eternal glory.

I don't know where my friend is now but I do know and believe that he is awaiting Judgement Day. It is possible that his soul is in a state of waiting in "Paradise" but that is not for sure. Nevertheless, his life is over and at one point he will stand before the Great White Throne. His name and his life will be for all to see. I know this is true and will happen for all. How can anything compare to the importance of having your name written in the Book of Life at that point?

I pray for comfort and peace for those left behind after my friend. I will do what I can to help out. I will also renew my efforts to keep eternity in mind in all matter of conversations. All of us could do with a little more eternity in our minds and hearts. What path do we tread on our way to death and where will it take us? That is the question.

A pastor reflects on the terror acts in Paris

A few days have passed since the horrible and despicable acts of terror took place in Paris. 17 people died, many more got hurt and the hunt continues for those involved. It was an attack on normal people and it was an attack on a worldview. Normal people died for what they said and wrote, called satire. A worldview was attacked for what it allowed and even cherished, free speech.

The horrific events prevent most of us from speaking out. We are afraid that our words will hurt the wrong people or upset the wrong people. The situation is volatile...and yet, it is important that we do speak out. The attacks were designed to, in the basest of ways, shut us up. Obviously, we can't allow that. True, words and especially satire has consequences but that should never include being murdered. 

We must speak up. We can not quietly go into the night that is radical Islamic terror (or any other type of radical -ism). We should fight against the dying of the light no matter where or when the darkness is falling. 

But there is more. 

Alongside the slogan "Je suis Charlie" we see another quote, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" (Voltaire). Free speech has become the rallying cry and it is a noble saying although I wonder how many would actually go through with it. Would you die for the right of these terrorists to threaten Jewish children? Would you die for the right of right-wing lunatics to spread hate against Muslims? I wonder. 

I don't think I would because the right to say something is not the most fundamental right, in my mind. Important? Yes. Vital? Yes. Of utmost importance? No.

While I don't condone in any shape or form what happened in Paris I do not feel that such satire in itself is a respectable or worthwhile endeavor. I don't think that everything should be made fun of "irreverently". I don't think that upsetting people just for the reason of upsetting people is a good idea. I once went on television to protest a local art exhibit that was intrinsically pornographic. I was told that its purpose was to "instigate" and "provoke". That is not a reason for an art exhibit. There is no intrinsic value in insulting people. 

There is intrinsic value in waking people up, in helping people question even dearly held values and beliefs. It is good to challenge the status quo and conventions. I find it very helpful to listen to people who disagree with me. I enjoy reading articles or cartoonists who poke fun at my religion or my faith, especially if they are making me aware of how foolish or silly we are and look sometimes. It is good to rock the boat but it is not good to throw people into the water. It is also not very smart. 

Common sense would dictate that it is not always a good idea to make angry and well-armed thugs upset, especially for no apparent reason other than making them a laughing stock. To witness to them about the love of Jesus? Yes, that is a good thing. To debate with them that they are crazy and wrong? Yes, that is a good idea. To make fun of the one thing that they would go nuts over? Not such a good idea. What did the publishers hope to accomplish by publishing all those images except rage?

There is also the issue of hypocrisy. Would Charlie Hebdo be revered as a national "saint" if they had made fun of gay people? Women with disabilities? Children with Down's syndrome? I doubt it, and that makes the publication a hypocrite, or at best "selectively irreverent". If they did make fun of even these things, I take that back. 

It is lack of respect for the holy that bothers me with such publications. Granted, my exposure to them is limited so I will not claim to know exactly what they have said or printed in the past. However, by calling themselves "irreverent" alongside the many publications I have seen I find it plausible that they lack a sense of the holy. Everything is fair game, except for what they deem off limits, and that it just not cool. There is no love in what they do, only a sneer. That makes free speech base and meaningless. Vital? Yes. Of utmost importance? No. There is Holy.

Yes, they should be able to print whatever they want without being killed. But I don't think I want to hold them up as the standard bearer of free speech and what we should be all about. I mourn their loss and their suffering. Terrible wrongs were committed against them and their families. However, I would not die for their right to say all those things they said. 

I would hope that if I had had a chance to die to protect their lives, I would have. The muslim police that tried to do that had incredible courage. Jesus said that greater love has no one than the one who lays it down for a friend. The courage to protect someone's life is much greater than the courage of writing satire with a sneer because it it understands that some things are to be revered. There is holiness.

As a Christian my perspective always has to be Eternity. That is the goal and the means we have to achieve that goal is Holiness and Love, God's version. His holiness is not up for discussion. It can't be "turned down" so that it is more bearable. It is a fire. It is passion. It is purity hating impurity and it is innately unable to become what we are or want it to be. It is "Other". It demands reverence. A bowed knee. Radical satire is the middle finger of indifference.

God's Love, further, is not an emotion. It is not a feeling.  It is ragingly alive. It is "the other" fully alive. It is giving your life for a hater. It is Jesus on a Cross. It fights every enemy that hinders those beloved ones to find it. It is not a sneer. It is not indifferent. It is a war fought with sacrifice, surrender and a heart on fire for God. It is of utmost importance.

It does not benefit us to gain the whole world if our souls are lost even if that would include free speech for all. There are more important things...and as weird as it sounds I must ponder that those who called themselves "irreverent" and those who called themselves "Avengers of Allah" might have suffered the same eternal fate. I don't know, perhaps they secretly loved the living mystery that is God, but the possibility is staggering and that is the truly important fight to fight. 

It seems that they both forgot that the foundation for reality is not human ingenuity, creativity, violence or power but the holy and loving face of God...whom I believe cried for those who perished one cold January day. They were all loved and had homes being made ready for them in Heaven. 

Crying seems to be a integral part of who God is and the tears of Jesus hanging on the cross is one of the ultimate images of reality. It is one I understand better now. Does it have to be?

The tears of God is also, however, the hope of mankind. Without them we would all perish in a flash We can dry them up by seeking His Holy Love and embracing it before it is too late, walking in this shadow of the valley of death. 

Lord, have mercy on us sinners. 

Make us holy and loving, like you, 

by your Spirit. 

Amen.

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.