Some new books

I received a sum of money from the Tax Adm, since I haid paid a little too much last year. Which is great, so then I can buy some more books. Ok, so my pile of unread books is growing larger and larger, but I don't worry too much about that. I'll get around to it bit by bit. Also, life is so short, so if I can get hold of books with important knowledge, it's important that I do. Here are the books I orderered, with a brief comment alongside:

Lynne Rudder Baker: Saving Belief. A critique of physicalism.
- This is an oldie, but a goodie. Baker was frequently referenced by Cunningham. Her "Metaphysics of everyday life" should also be interesting, if/when I get around to reading it. Anyway - physicalism and ontological naturalism really need to be dealt with, at least by uncovering their weaknesses (which are quite glaring, if one only looks closer at things).


"A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law" Michael Cromartie.
- This is a collection of essays. Recommended by Michael Banner, and the essays were written by able scholars. So perhaps this will present differing viewpoints on this matter, which is often an asset.



"Christianity and Contemporary Politics: The Conditions and Possibilites of Faithful Witness" by Luke Bretherton.
- This one is supposed to be quite good. Don't quite know what to expect here, though.


"Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality: Contemporary Essays" ed. Robert George.
- More essays on natural law. Seemed interesting because of the essays on whether natural law or libertarian politics foster or inhibit growth of the state. Man, the more I think of it, the more I understand how powerful the state is, and how much it influences contemporary society, including Christianity. It's so...against the spirit of Christianity, though it's hard to get that message through in these times.


"Truce of God", Rowan Williams.
- I read that this book contains important and valuable reflections on violence in popular culture. Which I...frequently think of as an omen. So it should be interesting.


"BIBLICAL FAITH AND NATURAL THEOLOGY" by James Barr. 
- Found out about this one by reading Davies' anthology on philosophy of religion. Well, I really could need this kind of book, I think. In the lutheran tradition where I was brought up, there was quite a Barthian influence on the subject of natural theology. So to find about these things, I at least need to think some more about what the Bible might say on the subject.




Real Essentialism by David Oderberg
- Hm. Wonder how much I'll gain by reading this. I think it's an important book, it's just that because of my pietist-lutheran-Norwegian background, I don't really have the necessary resources to get a good grasp on, and appraise, the metaphysical ideas here. Yet, that is :) So perhaps it's a little bit over my head just yet. 



Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature and Culture by Louis Dupre
- Hope it's good, think it is.


Natural law in Judaism by David Novak
-Also important for my quest of ascertaining what to think about natural law.


The Idea of Natural Rights, Natural Law and Church Law, 1150-1625, by Brian Tierney.
- Ditto, of course.


How to Go from Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic in Ninety-Five Difficult Steps by Christian Smith
- Ok, this...will be an extremely interesting book, I think. I respect Smith, and I will feel quite a lot of congeniality with him in these issues, I gather. I think a lot about these things. The Norwegian Lutheran church is in a deep crisis, and in a sense lies in ruins. (The whole of Norwegian Christendom is in a crisis, for that matter). And how should we get out of it? I think...by reclaiming our tradition, our roots, which is to say: Both the understanding of the Bible, but also a philosophically informed view of reality. But I definitely think there's also an institutional side to it; as long as the state controls the major institutions, and the ideology that is espoused in them, and Christians are being influenced by this, then things are...problematic, to say the least. Well, anyway - as Christians in Norway we are quite a long way from these goals, mostly, I think, because we are not mentally prepared to think like that. So, what has Smith's book to do with anything? Hm. It'll be really interesting to see his arguments in a little more detail. I'll probably agree with most of them(!) So, even if I cannot become a Catholic, at least his arguments may help out to give a general direction in how and where we should go as evangelicals.

Bonds of Imperfection: Christian Politics, Past and Present by Oliver O'Donovan
- If there's one thing I've learned, it is that it is, on average, a lot more profitable to read books by dedicated experts in a single field, instead of reading books by "half-experts", "jacks of all trades" etc., if you know what I mean. O'Donovan is a wise man with lots of knowledge, I think, so I'm looking forward to this one.

The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology by Oliver O'Donovan
- Yup, one more book by O'Donovan.

From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought 100-1625
- My historical understanding of Christian political thought isn't too deep. So this should help things out a bit.

The Enlightenment and the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Culture by Louis Dupre.
- REALLY looking forward to this one. Expect it to help me understand our culture I little more than I already do. It's also important to thoroughly understand one's culture if one wants to change it.







 I sometimes wonder how I would have been as a person if I were living in a different culture. I mean...I love to read. Though I also feel a pressure from the culture, since it's quite indifferent/hostile towards Christian faith. That means that my obligation as a Christian becomes defending the faith, or at least I am impelled to think it through, both to test my own faith commitments, but also to test the dominant ideologies and worldviews in contemporary society. Hm. So...I sometimes wonder if this is how it should be, too. It's ok for now.

GOD - debate between McGinn and Feser

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Edward Feser (his blog is definitely worth your time). He is a roman-catholic professor of philosophy with a specialty in...many things...well especially Aquinas, early-modern metaphysics, philosophy of religion and the mind-body problem. Anyway, the latest issue of the journal "Theoretical and Applied Ethics" contains articles discussing (a-)theism and war. So Colin McGinn has an article aptly called "Why I am an atheist", and Ed Feser responds in his "Why McGinn is a pre-Theist." Now, for all the links to the articles (which are online), click here, and for Feser's follow-up discussion, click here.

A couple of reflections. McGinn is a professor of philosophy. I find his article quite interesting and surprising. Mostly because of the way he describes his atheism. In short, he finds the debate about theism quite dull, and he thinks his atheistic point of view is virtually certain in terms of justification, at least as certain as his belief that Santa Claus does not exist:

"I used to be a serious engaged atheist, when I was thinking systematically and passionately about religion, some forty years ago, when I was in the heated process of rejecting religious claims. But since then my atheism has become merely reactive; where once the lava was hot, now it is cool. I used to believe in ghosts and goblins too, as well as Santa, but once the process of rejecting these entities was over, my state of belief became one mainly of indifference. (...) I am post-theist, or I would be if I were not placed in a social context in which I need to defend my settled beliefs (hence this essay). I no longer debate the issue with myself or wonder whether I might be making a serious mistake (though I concede, as a good fallibilist, that it is logically possible that I am wrong, as it is about almost everything I believe).

(...) I simply take it for granted that there is no God, instead of constantly asserting it to myself. The state of mind I am in while composing this essay is not, then, my habitual state of mind, and even to be explicitly denying the existence of God strikes me as taking the issue a little too seriously, as it would be to write an essay making explicit my negative implicit beliefs about Santa Claus.

(...) Theism for me is a dead issue, which is why it is misleading to call me an atheist, though it is of course strictly true that I am. (...) Many other difficult issues engage my mind and remain unresolved, or at least open to serious question, but not my disbelief in God. I have also reached the point (I reached it long ago) that the issue of God's existence no longer strikes me as an interesting issue. I mean, when it comes up I tend to glaze over, because all the moves are so familiar, and the debate seems so antiquated. I find it hard to get fired up about it. It just seems dull. No intellectual sparks fly off it. 

The question has important political and cultural significance, to be sure, but as an intellectual issue in its own right, it lacks vitality. By contrast, my belief in ethical objectivism, or in natural mysteries, or in conceptual analysis, seems relevant and alive, as does my rejection of the contrary positions. My rejection of theism is more like my rejection of monarchy as a good political system: a bit of a yawn. When I was young, I saw through both ideas and have found no reason over the decades to question my earlier conclusions, so the belief is like an old relative I take for granted rather than a lively new acquaintance (I am by no means in love with atheism, as I am with other intellectual ideas). The thrill of atheism has gone, along with fear of it; now it is just an uninteresting fact about me, hardly worth mentioning."

Well, McGinn states repeatedly that his atheism isn't really tenaciously held, nor frequently thought about; he found the answers to the question of God 40 years ago, and hasn't been convinced of anything else later on. Now, if that was all there is to the question of God - that is: as much as McGinn gives the impression that there is - then of course we should probably all be atheists. But, there is lively debate in the philosophical community about the question of God (as indeed the issue in question is an indication of); here one may mention names like Brian Davies, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and Herbert McCabe.

I'll refer briefly to Feser's critique of McGinn below. I just think that McGinn's way of posing the debate about God says a whole lot about Western culture's view on this question. As Dupré said in the interview quoted below: "We have all become atheists." Yes (though see also Ch. Taylor's argument that Western views on transcendence are becoming more and more spread out and dissimilar, like a nova), and why? Well, everyone's favourite punchingbag is Occam's nominalism, and, to a perhaps somewhat lesser extent, the early-modern metaphysical materialism.

Anyway, that's some of the crucial groundwork for later brands of liberalism that in our times have developed as to almost completely deny God or Christian ideas a rightful place in the public square. And this denial has been accompanied by a quite vigorous anti-Christian bias (depicting Christianity as anti-science, anti-peace, anti-progress, anti-philosophy - when the truth is actually a lot closer to the opposite. Don't expect anyone to believe you; the powers that be have -arguably - insulated the population against clear thinking in these matters, even thinking that they are doing the population a favour just therein. Hart's "Atheist Delusions" is a great place to start if you want to learn a little more on these things).

So...I mean, this goes some way to explain why our society is so indifferent to the question of God. Not only the nominalism, materialism etc. But also that these ideas to some extent have been cemented into our political constitutions. But these liberal constitutions are themselves designed to "cover over" the predicaments; that's of course necessary to maintain power and to fuel the ideological projects of liberation, change etc. So do we need God at all to ground moral judgments? Well, even if it could be shown that we did, government will make sure that we do not believe it. God (or at least the Christian God) cannot be allowed to get a foot in the door. Is Christianity needed for a society to function properly? Well, even if it could be shown to be so, government will work against it; government, schools etc. need to be "neutral" on these matters. Etc. So our contemporary liberalism actually produces and feeds on indifference in existential questions.

All of this might sound a bit "conspiratorial", but that's not my point. The point is that this all goes on without people thinking of it. It is what prof. Skirbekk has referred to as "the self-immunization of ideology." That is to say; the state comes into the business of crafting a world-view, giving judgments about what is true, what is probable, what is moral, what is the meaning and order of things etc. And the answers generally amount to something like natural science, utility, market and welfare-state. So well, a large aside this is, the point is that McGinn's article shows a little something of what we are up against, as Christians, in today's society. As Macintyre pointed out, the fact that Christians have been away from the philosophical and academic scene for so long, and to a large extent have failed to really engage deeply with metaphysical and existential issues (this is at least the case in a protestant country like Norway), means that the presuppositions, ideas, beliefs etc. have grown quite alien or even hostile to a Christian worldview. So it is quite a task to try to turn these things around.

Just how large, appears when Feser responds to McGinn. When Feser refers to "classical theism", "act and potency", "pure actuality", chances are that even professional philosophers hardly follow him and know how to understand, much less to decide on, these things. Didn't we leave all of that metaphysical stuff behind in the last century? (Well, philosophers will hopefully at least be a little more aware of the problems at hand, most other, however, will probably not, at least not in Norway.) So, well, I'm thinking that Christians should first and foremost take care of their faith, of course, stay close to God and church. But some of us really need to go deep into philosophy and challenge some commonly held views and ideas, since they are more or less detrimental to Christian faith. As it is now, the problem is rather that some/most Christians instead have bought into distinctly modern metaphysical ideas even without knowing it. Oh well, here's Feser:

"...this misunderstands classical theism, viz. the theism of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and much Protestant theology, of the Aristotelian, Neo- Platonic, and Thomistic traditions in philosophical theology, and of thinkers like the ones I cited at the beginning of this essay. For Aristotelians, to change is to go from potential to actual, and that any change occurs in the world at all is intelligible only if there is something which actualizes everything else without the need (or indeed even the possibility) of having to be actualized itself, precisely because it is already “Pure Actuality”: an Unchangeable Changer or Unmovable Mover.

For Neo- Platonists, whatever is composite or made up of parts of any kind requires explanation by reference to something which combines the parts. Accordingly, the ultimate explanation of things must be utterly simple or noncomposite, and thus without the need (or, again, even the possibility) of something’s bringing it into being: what Plotinus called The One.

For Thomists, whatever is composed of an essence together with a distinct “act of existence” must ultimately derive its being from something whose essence just is existence: that which is Subsistent Being Itself. In general, classical philosophical theology argues for the existence of a First Cause of the world which does not merely happen not to have a cause of its own, but which (unlike everything else that exists) cannot even in principle have required one. Anything less would fail to provide an ultimate explanation of the world.

Now, a critic might intelligibly question whether the arguments for such a divine Cause succeed. (I defend some of them at length in Feser, 2009 and Feser, 2011.) But to suggest that belief in the God of classical theism is relevantly comparable to believing in Zeus, werewolves, ghosts, or Santa Claus is to miss the whole point. Each of these beings would be an instance of a kind: “a being” among other beings, “a cause” among other causes, and thus (given general Thomistic metaphysics) something with an essence distinct from its act of existence. Each would be composite in some way: made up of parts, whether physical or metaphysical. Each would be a mixture of actuality and potentiality, and thus in various ways in need of being actualized. In short, each is, like the ordinary objects of our experience, the sort of thing that for the Aristotelian, Neo-Platonist, and Thomist would require an explanation outside itself.

The very point of classical theism, as developed within these traditions, is to argue for the necessity of there being something that is not at all like that. God is not an instance of a kind, not even a unique instance; he is not in any way composite; he not only has no need of being actualized or caused, but could not even intelligibly be described as having been actualized or caused. (...)

McGinn’s mistake is a very common one among contemporary atheists. Nor is it entirely his fault. Ever since William Paley presented his feeble “design argument,” with its crudely anthropomorphic description of God as a kind of cosmic tinkerer, pop apologetics and pop atheism alike have tended to characterize God as if he were more or less like us, only smarter, stronger, and invisible. By the late twentieth century the tendency had even crept into academic philosophy of religion, leading to the partial displacement of the classical theistic conception of God by what Brian Davies (2004) has called a “theistic personalist” conception. This anthropomorphic conception of God is often read back into the arguments of older writers like Aquinas and the others mentioned above (who would have had no truck with it), severely distorting contemporary readers’ understanding of those arguments.

Until one sees that it is a distortion, though, one has not really understood classical theism and the arguments for it, much less refuted them. One has not earned the right to be a “post-theist.” One is better described as a pre-theist."

Etc

A nice and interesting video about a couple of American tourists in Oslo, here. Gives sort of an outsider's look on the city.

- Well, yesterday I went to Bø to visit my good friend Nobu, who's a leader on CHRISC's youth camp (Action). About 700 teenagers gathered together to have fun, engage in sports-activities, go to meetings, get strengthened in their faith etc. Looked like they were really enjoying themselves. Also, I knew quite a lot of the leaders there, and they're good people. So Action is highly recommended, especially since it's a type of Christian work/ministry that also appeals to guys.

- Perhaps you're familiar with CS Lewis' "Trilemma". Either Jesus was "lunatic, liar or Lord." Or: He was "mad, bad or God". I used to be a little impressed by the stock criticism of this line of argument. Like: Well, perhaps the evangelists are wrong - perhaps the real Jesus really didn't want to be Lord, or God. Perhaps he was just another Messianic pretender, and then the stories about him have been embellished by his followers.  Well, the more I learn about the Gospels and the NT and Second Temple Judaism, the more I think that Lewis' trilemma actually is sound. Jesus really did say those things, they really were that shocking, he really must have been severely deluded - that is to say: quite crazy - to say the things he did, if it wasn't true. In Lewis' own words:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

Yes, and this line of reasoning then presupposes that the Gospels really are quite historically reliable, which I think they really are, and faithful in their renderings of Jesus' words and deeds (well, the Gospel of John is a whole other story; I'm emphatically not saying it's unreliable, unhistorical etc., rather that it's...different...in its depiction of Jesus.) So, well, Jesus continues to be an enticing and challenging enigma, both to Jews of the first century and to us. So it's up to each and every one of us to give a response. Well - it of course depends on the church giving a faithful witness to the message of the Gospels to the world, like John explicitly does (ch. 20-21).

That's it for now.

General thoughts, Wolterstorff's "Justice" etc.

Some random thoughts::

Well, oh well, what's going on? Mostly working, reading and the occasional game of football on TV. So, uh, I'm reading Isaiah 40ff, verse by verse, which is very gratifying. I think it would've been really fun to attend a course in modern Hebrew. Perhaps next summer? Who knows. Anyway, my long-term goal for the next few years is getting a good grasp of both the OT and NT in resp. Hebrew and Greek, and also getting a good grasp of the history of - and the main debates in - philosophy. So, I'm well on my way towards that, though I really wonder what I'm gonna do with my life and what I'm really capable of. Kind of...unsettled, in many ways. So that's a really exciting situation to be in, getting new insight each and every day, changing and nuancing my view of life each and every day. I actually like that very much. Though I hope I'll be able to put it to good use, and (shudder) that I won't look back a few years from now and think: "Man, why did I choose that way? Why didn't I rather...? Why didn't I take the chance to...?" I sometimes feel it's kind of a race to be where I'm supposed to be before my 30-year-crisis kicks in. ... :) ... Yeah.

Aaaaaaaaanyway. Side by side with Socrates, Plato and Isaiah I also read Wolterstorffs "Justice: Rights and wrongs." ...which turned out to be a bit more challenging and interesting than I had thought. Well, no secret that I've been majorly influenced by catholic philosophy the last years, think Feser, George, Macintyre. Of course, these are "hot names" among Christians these days, so I guess it's wise to have a certain reflective distance towards them. Anyway, these writers emphasize the "teloi" - the goals and purposes - of human nature, which also influences their views on how contemporary society is to be arranged, and what "justice" actually amounts to. Sometimes, there's an implicit or explicit polemic against the idea of individual "rights", which by some is seen as a modern (nominalist) deviance from a pure realist/teleological understanding of reality. Some will link "rights-talk" with individualistic liberalism which has no room for a common good - or any objective good, for that matter (think Rawls).

So, well, of course "rights-language" is used in this way in modern secular societies; new "rights" are being invented by the day, it seems; right to marry for homosexuals, right not to be treated by a doctor who does not share common opinions on abortion, right not to be circumcised etc. Is the idea of "natural rights" still worth while - biblically, historically, intellectually, philosophically? Nicholas Wolterstorff emphatically thinks so! His book is influenced by his first-hand experience with apartheid in South-Afr, and the oppression of Palestinians in the Middle-East. So his book aims to "set the record straight", and show that the idea of natural, inherent rights - rights flowing from our worth, which is bestowed by our Creator - really is there "in nuce" in the Bible, and really is present also in the thinking of the Middle Ages. Actually, Wolterstorff is really explicit that one fundamental aim of his book is to (in an amicable way, of course) limit/challenge the influence of thinkers like Macintyre and Strauss in Christian circles! So that makes for an interesting book, I can tell you.

Anyway, looking forward to getting through it. Also because the Journal of Religious Ethics has made a "special issue" discussing Wolterstorff's book, with contributions from several heavyweights, not least Oliver O'Donovan, who challenges Wolterstorff rendering of the history of the idea of rights. An overview of the issue may be found here. The really informative and interesting introductory article may be found here. Well, I should mention that this debate - about the extent of, and the idea of, rights and justice - is really at the heart of our society's present, deepest problems, and also at the heart of its future. But I've personally got a lot of reading left to do.

A sermon on following Jesus

Here follows the sermon I held today (Norwegian below). The text was Matt 16,23-27:


24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life? 27 "For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done.

Christian life in Norway - easy peasy?
Is it easy to live as a Christian in Norway today? Is Norwegian society a good place to be a Christian? Some will instantly concur; in the news we often hear about what’s going on Nigeria, for instance. Churches are being bombed by islamic insurgents, even in the Christian holidays. In North-Korea, Christians are being put in horrible concentration camps. In the Middle-East, Egypt for instance, Christians are having a really hard time following the US intervention in Iraq. We are obligated to help and pray for our brothers and sisters in these tough situations around the world. – In the light of these persecutions around the globe, it might seem that it’s easy to live as a Christian in Norway today. We can gather freely, we have – it seems – freedom to use our time, our strength and our money any way we please.

Forces that work against faith
On closer inspection, however, we find that we have our troubles here in Norway also. Though our challenges are perhaps not as immediately visible and clear as in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Yes, we are free citizens – but today, when the particular theme of the service is following Jesus, we should remind ourselves that there are forces that work against this kind of faithful following. Not a few Christian have close family or friends who do not believe in Jesus. It can be a real challenge when one does not receive support for one’s wish to gather at church, to spend time praying or reading the Bible, or to make an effort to help the poor, the lonely or weak. Those who live close to family or friends who do not share the faith, will have to go through special trials – but they also have an opportunity to be a great blessing for those around them.

The insidious state
In Norway we have a social democracy and a welfare state. That means that the state tries to take care of the unemployed, the poor, the ill and so on. And one could say much positive about this kind of state conception. On the other hand, our arrangement means that the state is very large in Norway, and it has a great influence on our lives. State demands tax money; the state influence the church and the academic institutions; the state influences our wages and our work; the state influences the mass media, both TV and radio; the state chooses what children should be taught in school etc. Earlier, Norway has explicitly been a Christian state. This is on its way out, but the state power remains large. And this means that Christians increasingly will be challenged. What is it like for Christian children in school, when the official religious education has a distinct relativistic flavour, and no one is allowed to say that one worldview is more true than another? What is it like to be a doctor, when the ministry of health is forcing them to accommodate abortions? Christians will need to continuously assess whether to withdraw from areas of state influence, or even to engage in civil disobedience, if demanded by adherence to the lordship of Jesus.

Morality of the market
A third, enormous source of influence is the mass media and the market. Every day newspapers like VG, Dagbladet and Aftenposten are distributed to every store and many homes in Norway. These papers have articles and comments with opinions on a lot of things. How often do they write about Jesus? How often do they give a reasoned defense of Christian belief, or urge us to pray, or give alms to the poor? Not often, if at all. But they occasionally do the opposite. Also, in almost every home there is a TV, where one may see TV-series, movies etc. And everyone has their own computer, with access to the internet. In and by themselves, these things are not “evil” or “bad”. But we should think about what kind of message mass media feeds us; a lot of the time the main point is at “life here and now” is what counts. One should “find oneself”, buy and use things, go on exotic vacations, and try to enjoy life as much as possible. This is the meaning of life, it seems.

So, on a closer inspection it seems that living as a wholehearted follower of Jesus isn’t as easy as it seems in Norway. We don’t get a lot of help from the “powers that be” of society. A learned and devout professor of philosophy at Yale puts it this way: “We have all become atheists, not in the hostile, antireligious sense of an earlier age, but in the sense that God no longer matters absolutely in our closed world, if God matters at all.”

Radical following
Following Jesus in today’s society has become quite a radical thing. For, in many ways Jesus asks us to do the exact opposite of what our surrounding culture asks us to do. The most central and important things in life are not “self-realization,” not luxurious vacations, not expensive food and fashionable clothes and hip electronics, not the lust for honour and recognition, not a cozy cabin in the mountain and expensive cabin-cruisers and lots of money. Today’s text is a radical call to let the most important things really be most important also to us: Self-sacrifice and obedient following of Jesus and his kingdom-plan: “"If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”

Being a disciple
In his great commission, Jesus says: ”Go and make disciples of all the nations.” This is what Jesus calls us to be: Disciples. Our role models are Peter, John and Mary Magdalene. They followed Jesus day by day. They were not perfect; they often stumbled. But they were close to Jesus, and they learned from him how to live how to please God. They saw that Jesus had surrendered his life to God and his kingdom. They saw how he met people with mercy and forgiveness, so that those who had fallen could stand up again. They heard how Jesus rebuked exploitation of the poor, and they understood that Jesus had a special concern for the weak and the defenseless. And they experienced what is was like to belong to a community of disciples living close to each other and close to God.

Meaningful and satisfying to follow Jesus
”Follow me,” Jesus said, ”the kingdom has drawn near.” Those who are not Christians, will perhaps feel these exhortations as somewhat threatening and exaggerated, almost as a calling to give up one’s freedom. Seen from within, however, most Christians will feel it as deeply meaningful and satisfying to follow Jesus and work for the kingdom in this way, even if it may cost. Jesus himself put it in this way: “"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." The apostle Paul was there not sorrowful, but rather filled with deep hoy when he described his Christian identity in the following way: “I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Effort
God is love. He sacrifices himself for others and forgives those who trespass against him. Therefore we who are his children must act and be in the same way. This is the reason why the road to the kingdom is one of self-sacrifice, cross and forgiveness. Jesus several times warned his disciples that whoever followed him in this manner, would have to struggle and persevere in order to reach their glorification. This is the point of Jesus words about the Son of Man coming as judge to repay each according to his deeds. Whenever we hear about “judgment”, we most often think of this as frightening punishment. And – we should have “fear and trembling” before God. However, I believe we may have lost some important nuances to the idea of judgment as we find it in the Scriptures.

The Biblical idea of judgment is like a ”payback”. He who does evil, rejects God an lives selfishly, will be paid back in the same manner. But he who does good, follows Jesus and lives for others, will also be paid back in the same manner. Jesus repeatedly emphasized this. “What will we receive”, the disciples asked, “who have sacrificed so much for the kingdom’s cause?” “You will be paid back richly”, Jesus assured them, “both in this life and in the coming.” Therefore, the notion of judgment in today’s text may paradoxically also be read as a text of comfort. As it is said in Hebrews: “For God is not unjust; he will not overlook your work and the love that you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Jesus exhorts us to follow him wholeheartedly, and to live for our neighbor. This is a good and worthy task, but it is demanding. We will need a lot of forgivness, and Jesus knew this. Therefore he comforted his disciples and told the to pray: “Forgive us our trespasses.” Also, we will richly need help and support from our brothers and sisters in faith. Therefore Paul enjoins the faithful: “Carry each other’s burden, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.”

Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, who was, is now, and shall be, one true God forevermore. Amen.

























Enkelt å vere kristen i Noreg?

Er det enkelt å leve som ein kristen i Noreg i dag? Er det norske samfunnet ein god stad å vere ein kristen? Reint umiddelbart vil nok mange svare ja på dette. I nyhenda høyrer vi om kva som skjer i Nigeria, til dømes. Der blir kyrkje etter kyrkje bomba av islamistar, jamvel på høgtidsdagar. I Nord-Korea blir kristne sett i forferdelege fangeleirar. I midt-austen, til dømes Egypt, har kristne fått det veldig vanskeleg etter at USA gjekk til krig i Irak. Så desse syskena våre i trua er vi forplikta til å hjelpe, og be for. Men ja, sett i ljos av forfylgjinga i andre delar av verda, kan det synast enkelt å vere ein kristen i Noreg. Vi kan samlast fritt, vi har fridom til å bruke tid, krefter og pengar slik vi ynskjer.

Krefter som verkar imot trua

Men ved nærare augesyn har vi ein del store vanskar her i Noreg, vi også, bortsett frå at dei ikkje er så synlege og tydelege som i midtausten og andre stader. Jo, vi er frie borgarar – men i dag, når temaet for gudstenesta dreier seg om å fylgje heilhjarta etter Jesus, så kan det vere verdt å minne kvarandre om at det også finst krefter som faktisk motarbeider ei slik etterfylgjing. Nokre kan ha familie eller nære vener som ikkje trur på Jesus. Det kan vere vanskeleg å ikkje oppleve å få støtte for at ein ynskjer å samlast med kyrkjelyden, eller setje av tid til bøn og bibellesing, eller å bruke tid på arbeid for fattige, einsame og sjuke. Dei som slik lever nær på familie eller vener som ikkje delar trua, får møte på særlege prøvingar, men dei blir også til stor velsigning for dei næraste.

Staten; ikkje så uskuldig som vi trur

I Noreg har vi eit sosialdemokrati og ein velferdsstat. Det betyr at staten skal ta seg særleg av arbeidslause, fattige, sjuke og andre. Og det kan ein seie veldig mykje godt om. Samstundes inneber det at vi har ein veldig stor stat i Noreg, som har stor påverknad på liva våre. Staten krev skatt av oss; staten påverkar kyrkje og utdanningsinstitusjonar; staten har innverknad på arbeidstida og arbeidsoppgåvene våre; staten legg opp læreplanar og pensum for elevane i skulen osv. I tidlegare tider har Noreg vore ein kristen stat. Men det er på veg bort no, sjølv om statsmakta forblir like stor. Og det byr på utfordringar for oss som kristne. Korleis er det for unge elevar å vere tydelege om at dei trur på Jesus og fylgjer han, når den offentlege skulen berre underviser i religionar, og læraren ikkje har lov til å seie at noko livssyn er sant? Eller korleis er det for fastlegar i norsk helsevesen, når dei blir forsøkt tvinga til å leggje til rette for abort når pasientar bed om det?

Frie marknadskrefter+massemedia

Ein tredje enorm påverknadskjelde er medier og marknadskrefter. Kvar dag vert VG, Dagbladet og Aftenposten sendt ut til alle butikkar i heile Noreg, og her les vi artiklar, kommentarar, kronikkar med meiningar om mangt og mykje. Nær sagt alle har ein TV der dei kan sjå filmar, TV-seriar, reklamar osb. Og vi har internett, med sine nettavisar, musikktenester, facebook, filmtenester etc. Det er ikkje noko gale, i utgangspunktet, med aviser og TV og filmar og internett. Men det set verkeleg oss kristne på store prøver. For kor ofte skriv eigentleg aviskommentatorane tydeleg om at det er rett å tru på Jesus, å fylgje han, og gjere hans vilje? Nesten aldri, men det hender stadig at dei skriv det motsette. Og på TV er det mange som freistar  å overtyde oss om at det som gjeld, det er livet her og nå. Det gjeld å finne sin egen veg i livet, å kjøpe og forbruke varer, reise på eksotiske feriar og elles prøve å ha det så bra som mogleg. Dette er nær sagt meininga med livet, synest det som.

Så ved nærare augesyn så er det ikkje så heilt enkelt å leve som ein heilhjarta Jesusetterfylgjar i Noreg heller. Vi får ikkje mykje drahjelp av dei store kreftene som opererer i samfunnet. Ein katolsk professor i filosofi ved Yale-universitetet i USA seier det litt dramatisk på denne måten (Louis Dupré): ”Vi har alle blitt ateistar. Ikkje slik å forstå at vi er fiendtlege og anti-religiøse. Det eg meiner er, at Gud ikkje lenger har nokon absolutt betydning i vår lukka verd, dersom Gud då har noko å seie i det heile teke.”

Radikalt å fylgje Jesus

Det har altså etter kvart blitt ganske radikalt å fylgje etter Jesus i dagens samfunn. For Jesus bed oss på mange måtar om å gjere det motsette av det kulturen set høgast. Det største og viktigaste i livet er ikkje sjølv-realisering og opplevingar og eksotiske feriar, ikkje forbruk av dyr mat og klede og elektronikk, ikkje streben etter ære og heider og popularitet, ikkje stor hytte på fjellet og ein dyr båt og masse pengar. Preiketeksten i dag er eit radikalt kall til å la det viktigaste vere viktigast: Sjølvoppofring for andre menneske og etterfylgjing av Jesus og hans gudsrikeplan. ”Vil nokon koma etter meg, må han fornekta seg sjølv, ta opp krossen sin og fylgja etter meg.”

Å vere læresvein

I misjonsbefalinga seier Jesus: Gå ut og gjer alle folkeslag til læresveinar. Det er det Jesus kallar oss til å vere - læresveinar. Då har vi Peter, Johannes, Maria Magdalena og dei andre som våre førebilete. Dei fylgte etter Jesus dag for dag og lærte av han. Dei var ikkje perfekte, og dei snubla stadig. Men dei heldt seg nær til Jesus, etterligna han, og lot seg forme av han. Dei fekk sjå at Jesus hadde overgjeve livet sitt til teneste for Guds rike. Dei fekk sjå korleis han møtte menneske med tilgjeving og miskunn, slik at dei kunne reise seg opp att etter nederlag. Dei fekk sjå at han tala tydeleg mot undertrykking av fattige, og at han hadde eit særleg hjarta for dei svakaste og forsvarslause. Og dei fekk oppleve at han kalla læresveinar til å leve i fellesskap med Gud og kvarandre.

”Følg meg”, sa Jesus. ”Vend om, for Guds rike er nær.” ”Den som vil koma etter meg, må fornekta seg sjølv, og ta opp krossen.” Folk som ikkje er kristne, kan nok fort oppleve slike formaningar som litt overdrivne og kanskje litt trugande. Sett utanfrå verkar det nesten som ei slags fridomsberøving. Men sett innanfrå vil nok dei fleste kristne oppleve det å fylgje Jesus og arbeide for Guds rike som noko djupt meiningsfullt og godt, sjølv om det kan koste. Jesus sjølv sa: ”Kom til meg, alle som strevar og ber tunge byrder, og eg vil gje dykk kvile. Ta mitt åk på dykk, og lær av meg, for eg er mild og mjuk av hjarta. Så skal de finna kvile for sjelene dykkar. For mitt åk er godt, og mi bør er gagnleg.” Difor er det ikkje med sorg, men heller med glede Paulus i Galatarbrevet seier det på fylgjande måte: ”Eg er krossfesta med Kristus. Eg lever ikkje lenger sjølv, men Kristus lever i meg. Det livet eg no lever, det lever eg i trua på Jesus, han som elska meg og gav seg sjølv for meg.”

Gud er kjærleik - det må også vi vere

Gud er kjærleik, han ofrar seg for andre og tilgjev den som gjer urett. Slik må også vi vere som er hans born. Difor går vegen til Guds rike gjennom sjølvoppofring, kross og tilgjeving. Jesus åtvara mange gonger sine læresveinar om den som fylgte han på denne måten, ville måtte kjempe og halde ut for å nå fram til herlegdomen. Dette er poenget når Jesus i slutten av dagens preiketekst viser til at Menneskesonen skal kome som domar og gje einkvar attende for det han har gjort. Når vi høyrer ordet ”dom”, så ser vi fort på dette som noko utelukkande negativt og skremmande. Og det er rett å ha ærefrykt for Gud, det er klart. Samstundes har vi noko gått glipp av noko viktig i den bibelske forståinga av domen.

Domen; meir enn vi trur

Den bibelske domstanken er som ein slags tilbakebetaling. Den som har gjort det vonde, avvist Gud og levd egoistisk, vil bli betalt tilbake med same mynt. Men den som har gjort det gode, og fylgt Jesus og levd for andre, vil også få tilbake med same mynt, altså få stor løn. Det var noko Jesus understreka mange gonger. ”Kva skal vi få”, spurde læresveinane, ”vi som har ofra så mykje for å fylgje din sak?” De skal få det mangedobbelt attende i Guds rike, svara Jesus. Difor kan faktisk paradoksalt nok domsteksten i dagens preiketekst lesast som ein trøystetekst. For å sitere Hebrearbrevet: ”Gud er ikkje urettferdig, så han skulle gløyma arbeidet dykkar og den kjærleiken de har vist til hans namn, ved at de tener dei heilage, og held fram med å tene.”

I dagens preiketekst kallar Jesus til å fylgje etter han med eit heilt hjarta, og til å leve til beste for vår neste. Det er ei god oppgåve, men også ei krevjande oppgåve. Vi kjem til å trenge mykje tilgjeving, og difor lærte også Jesus oss å be: ”Forlat oss vår skuld, slik vi også forlet våre skuldmenn.” Og ikkje minst treng vi kvarandre som sysken i trua, til støtte og hjelp på vegen. ”Ber kvarandres byrder, og oppfyll på den måten Kristi lov.”

Ære vere Faderen og Sonen og Den Heilage Ande, som var og er og vere skal, ein sann Gud frå æve og til æve. Amen.

Blah-blah about politics and Christianity

[An excerpt from this article by Milbank. Which I find really interesting, and very relevant. Although I can't yet decide what to think about this problem. Should one endorse Augustine's solution or not? "City of God" is the key, I guess. This is...well...an extremely important question in our times, and I personally feel that almost no one in Norway has thought these things through well. Phew. Well, I might mention another relevant book on this subject; Peter Leithart's Defending Constantine. A highly politically incorrect book, I should say, but a very enlightening and interesting book, I think. Hm. This calls for more thorough exegesis, too - exactly how does the Bible "think" about power and authority? A super-thorny and muddled issue for today's Christians (and most don't even know it :-S ). Well, Wink's book is on its way, that ought to help out somewhat.]


It is here, however, that I find the avowed anti-Constantinianism associated with the Mennonite tradition - through John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas - both politically disingenuous and theologically dangerous.

For, does not sheer anti-Constantinianism actually risk Marcionism? As Augustine argued in Book V of The City of God, the gospel transcends and fulfils, yet does not abolish, the political level of the Old Testament [A very interesting and surprising suggestion!], just as charity fulfils and surpasses yet does not abolish the need to pass laws and administer justice.

Of course, the danger is always that the church will be submerged in state-power. And yet remember that the state also gets redeemed, as it were, by the church [Also a very interesting suggestion, which I very seldomly encounter. What the exegetical basis for this claim?? Perhaps Eph 1, 1 Cor 15?]. So, the Justinian code really did make laws more humane, the codes of warfare really did become more constrained, and state and social welfare really did expand within Byzantium later in the West.

And further, without the addition of power to charity would the church have survived at all? To refuse this addition is in a way to refuse the resurrection, and the fact that in the end it is Christ's kingly role which is eternal, and not his mediating priestly role [Ok, does this follow from Hebrews?].

Here I would suggest that perhaps the most uncomfortable historical fact for contemporary Christians is the debt that they owe to kings. Should Charles Martel in the face of the Muslims or Alfred of Wessex in the face of the pagans simply have laid down their swords?

If one feels that that would have ensured their salvation then one has to add that it would also have apparently rendered impossible our own within the course of historical time.

For the survival of Christianity was enabled by acts of military defiance and its survival otherwise would have been either marginal or non-existent - the religious pluralism of the American polity being nowhere yet in sight. [A true, though - yes - uncomfortable fact which we need to deal with. I actually had a discussion with an historian just recently about this. He was on Milbank's side, both theologically and politically, I was somewhat more reserved.]

To suggest that absolute purity is what matters here and otherwise a leaving of the fate of future generation to providence would somehow seem to "iconoclastically" devalue the fact that physical bodies and historical time mediate the Spirit.

Shocking as it may seem, because God creates us as hybrid material-spiritual creatures, the church includes certain physical spaces that one may have physically to defend. This defence would be in the name of secular justice rather than some "defence of the holy," and yet without the space secured through justice the offer of the sacred cannot really be made. [Makes things a little more acceptable, I guess.]

In this respect I find it impossible to agree with John Howard Yoder's view that coercive resistance to evil does more damage than original evil itself. This can indeed in many instances be the case, but there are surely too many counter-examples for this to hold as a general rule.

King Alfred was able to defeat the pagan Danes precisely because he was fighting wars for the sake of peace, whereas the Danes were fighting a war because that was what male heroes did. Thus Alfred called their bluff by offering a peace treaty which awarded them minor kingships on condition of conversion.

It is therefore clear that Alfred won his military victory in highly Augustinian terms and that an unqualified coercion grounded on violence was defeated by a qualified use of coercion grounded upon an eschatology of peace. [!]

To say this is not in any way to deny the Mennonite attempt to incarnate a peace-seeking process that passes through non-resistance, suffering and forgiveness.

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings expresses with genius just how the Christian strategy is double and paradoxical. Gandalf coordinates a military campaign while Frodo self-sacrificially seeks to destroy forever the idol of absolute power. Both tactics are cooperatively necessary, and yet Frodo's tactic is more than a tactic. It is rather at one with the ultimate goal itself which is of peace and the renunciation of power for its own sake.

The same combination of tactic and goal can be seen in the practice of political non-resistance by Martin Luther King Jr. Such a practice, like practices of penance and reconciliation within the church, are at once means to the end and already the end itself."

Meanwhile, in a not too far away country...

So I'm reading Hebrew, little by little, and actually I'm making real progress, and that's a good feeling. It's really hard to get a real "feel" for the language without knowing modern Hebrew, though. Anyway, for anyone in a similar situation as me, I stumbled across this document with an overview of different accents and markings in the BHS-text. That was a real revelation to me :-) Things got a lot more understandable after reading this.

Thank God for pentecostals. I actually feel that without the "free churches" of Norway, things would've been a bit dark.





(Also awesome)

Louis Dupré from DharmaCafe.com on Vimeo.

Etc

Well, I must tell you, this right here is something out of this world. Astoundingly beautiful and, well, interesting music. Actually, Tavener describes this piece as a "musical ikon", at least that was his express intention when writing it. It's a piece about the Virgin mother, so, well, I can't say I'm prepared to follow him all the way concerning the message. But, anyway.

And then I've bought some more books.

Wicclair's book on conscientious objection, which I need for my work on Norwegian doctors' right to conscientious obj.

Walter Wink: "Naming the powers". Well, u bet I'm looking forward to this one. I actually hadn't heard about Wink before, but then I noticed him referenced in a book about evolution and original sin. Well, anyway, this book is about an underfocused topic, namely the idea of "principalities and powers" in NT. Wink's theses here are a bit controversial, I think, but ought to be very stimulating anyway. The only other book I've read about this subject is Cairds "Principalities and powers", which is good, but short. I read that book on the top of the mountain Lauvvikfjell :) So, if Wink convinces me of his ideas, it ought to be a little earthquake in my understanding of reality.


"Christianity, Democracy, and the Radical Ordinary: Conversations Between a Radical Democrat and a Christian" Hauerwas/Coles. Well, someone recommended that I read Hauerwas, and I didn't pay much attention to the advice. But Cavanaugh, who actually had Hauerwas as his doctoral advisor, writes a lot about this book in his "Migrations of the holy". And it seems fruitful and interesting. Actually, I am beginning to think that the topic of Christianity and politics is bound to be...permanently unsettled, because of the inherent tensions the Christian faith, tensions that will only find their solution in the perfect kingdom. (I am talking about: Jesus renounced the use of violent power, ok. But then again, he preached a highly "political" message about him being king over Israel, and thus over creation. Which is to say that Christianity actually is "imperialistic", though without use of violence. The kingdom gains ground with the power of the Spirit - in weakness and sacrifice.

"Theopolitical imaginations", Cavanaugh again. Well, better just plow through it. An expensive book, but ought to be interesting and increase my knowledge. Must say, I've already learned a lot from Cavanaugh's thinking on political theology. However, his knowledge of the Bible is...somewhat lacking, I should say.

"On conscience", by our dear friend the pope.

"The Frege Reader." Don't really know what to expect here. Feser has many times referenced Frege, especially concerning materialism etc. (See e. g. his book on philosophy of mind, or, of course, Last Superstition). So I guess I hope I may learn a lot from Frege's reasoning on this.

"Christian ethics and contemporary moral problems." I read that this book is really good, and at a high level, too. So I'm really looking forward to learning how he solves the "problem" of Christian ethics.

"After Macintyre". Well, of course, I'm a big fan of AM, as every other thinking evangelical Christian is. So I am in the process of reading his most important book, but this one ought to deepen my understanding of him, by contributing some critical perspectives.

"The word made strange: Theology, language, and culture." Milbank is almost indispensible reading for anyone interested in the future of Christianity in the west. He also packs a lot of punch, both rhetorically and intellectually. Well, at least when it is possible to actually understand him. Haven't read his Theology and Social Theory yet, but it ought to be a feast.


So, yes, this post is in English. Figured I was gonna try it for a while, got inspired by this blog and thought "what the heck, let's give it a go" :) If I don't get any new readers, perhaps I'll return to writing in Norwegian.

Ein fin film som vart posta på Facebook.



Eg hadde ei interessant oppleving for nokre dagar sidan, på reunion på Kvitsund. Ei gamal klasseveninne hadde ein liten baby liggjande på fanget, på ryggen. Og så såg ho ned på han og smilte, og strauk han på magen. Og når babyen fekk blikk-kontakt, smilte han. Men veninna mi var liksom i ein samtale med nokon andre ved bordet, så av og til snudde ho seg opp mot samtalepartneren. Og då var det veldig interessant å merke blikket til babyen. Med ein gong ho snudde seg bort, fekk babyen eit litt bekymra blikk. Så snudde ho seg etter kvart ned og heldt fram med å stryke han på magen, og då var det rolege smilet attende. That's nature for you.

Vel, eg skal på ferie i sumar, i fem dagar. Det skal bli fint. Turen skulle eigentleg gått til London, men vi fann ut at det var for crowded der, før OL. Eg må uansett attende dit, sannsynlegvis, og ha eit møte med ein tenketank der borte. Vel, vi får sjå kva det blir av det. Uansett, turen går til Praha :-) Langt billegare enn London, vi får ein flott ferie med super-hotell, frokost, fly etc. for 3500 kr. I Praha er det mykje flott arkitektur, historie, klassisk musikk, ikon, kyrkjer etc. Så eg trur det kan bli fint.


Denne.

It is a thing most wonderful, Almost too wonderful to be, 
That God's own Son should come from heaven, 
And die to save a child like me. 
And yet I know that it is true: He chose a poor and humble lot, 
And wept, and toiled and mourned and died, 
For love of those who loved him not. 
I sometimes think about the Cross, And shut my eyes, 
and try to see The cruel nails and crown of thorns, And Jesus crucified for me. 
But even could I see him die, I should but see a little part 
Of that great love, which, like a fire, Is always burning in his heart. 
And yet I want to love thee, Lord; O light the flame within my heart, 
And I will love thee more and more, Until I see thee as thou art. 

Det er 91 700 000 000 000 kilometer frå toppen til botnen av denne skya.




The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF) is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003, through to January 16, 2004. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken,^[1] looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang), and it will be used to search for galaxies that existed at that time. The HUDF image was taken in a section of the sky with a low density of bright stars in the near-field, allowing much better viewing of dimmer, more distant objects. The image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.

Little Lamb, who made thee?

Dost thou know who made thee?

Gave thee life, and bid thee feed

By the stream and o’er the mead;

Gave thee clothing of delight,

Softest clothing, woolly, bright;

Gave thee such a tender voice,

Making all the vales rejoice?

Little Lamb, who made thee?

Dost thou know who made thee?

Little Lamb, I’ll tell thee,

Little Lamb, I’ll tell thee:

He is called by thy name,

For he calls himself a Lamb.

He is meek, and he is mild;

He became a little child.

I, a child, and thou a lamb,

We are called by his name.

Little Lamb, God bless thee!

Little Lamb, God bless thee!

Litt om ekteskap

Eg har skrive eit innlegg om ekteskap etc. på Nye Meninger, som ein respons til ein kronikk som stod i Dagsavisen. Kronikken kan lesast her, mitt tilsvar her.

Eg tenker vel at mange av dei argumenta som eg peikar på i mitt innlegg, bør gje litt kontur og bakgrunn for kva desse innad i kyrkja som arbeider for å avvikle det klassiske ekteskapet, faktisk arbeider for.

Etc

Ja, det var litt Cavanaugh, ja. Ja, kva skal eg seie. Eg skal gje eit kort resyme av fyrste kapittel:

Mange kristne har "ideal" om korleis staten skal fungere, kva som er statens "oppgåve" så å seie. Det kan vere til dømes å seie at staten er naturleg, at samfunnet byggjer staten nedanfrå og ikkje vice versa, at staten er ein avgrensa del av samfunnet, at staten har som mål å fremje eit "felles gode" for borgarane etc. C. meiner vi bør utsetje slike ideal for empirisk testing. Fungerer staten verkeleg på denne måten?

Fyrst:
Er staten noko naturleg, noko som "alltid har vore der"? Svar: Nei. Staten vaks fram i sein-renessansen og reformasjonen. Staten dreier seg då om at makt vart sentralisert, innanfor territoriale grenser. Dette var noko anna enn det som hadde vore før, då folk politiske lojalitet ikke var knytt til slike grenser, men til føydale band, til familie, til religiøse eller stammemessige band. Politiske styremakter kan seiast å alltid ha vore der; staten er noko nytt.

Nasjonalstaten er då eit endå nyare påfunn; dvs. at staten med sitt sentraliserte, politiske apparat, vert sameina med "folkets" kulturelle attributtar - etnisitet, språk, historie, mytar. Mange tenker at det typisk norske er bunadar, folkeeventyr, nasjonalsongar, flagg etc. Men dette er ein konstruert, nasjonalromantisk identitet - konstruert, that is, på 1800-talet. Det var ganske overraskande for meg då eg fyrst innsåg dette. Det betyr ikkje at elementa er "unorske", men det betyr at identiteten til dels var kunstig då han vart fremja, med politiske siktemål.

C. held fram med å seie noko om korleis staten vaks fram. Prosessen har røter på 1100-talet, då kongelege rettsinstansar fekk meir makt, krig gjorde skattleggjing nødvendig, land vart konfiskert og lagt under sentrale styremakter etc. C. understrekar veldig sterkt at det var KRIG som dreiv fram denne utviklinga. Der den politiske eliten effektivt klarte å utnytte ressursar frå befolkninga og byggje eit effektivt apparat, vart krigsmakta betre. "War made the state, and the state made war." C. peikar på at krig også var den fundamentale drivkrafta i å byggje nasjonalidentitetar på 1700-talet og utover.

Men det betyr at framveksten av staten ikkje betyr framvekst av "felles gode", av fleire rettar etc. "In the crucial period of state formation, the state either absorbed rights previously resident in other bodies (guilds, manors, provinces, estates) or eliminated them altogether, as in the enclosure of common lands... Popular resistance to statebuilding was deep, broadly based, frequent, and violent." C. nemner mange døme frå England, mellom 14- og 1500-talet. Staten var eigentleg eit biprodukt av at dei politiske elitane pressa mannskap, avlingar, arbeidskraft, pengar og land frå befolkninga.

Sitat frå forskar Charles Tilly:

"a portrait of war makers and state makers as coercive and self-seeking entrepeneurs bears a far greater resemblance to the facts than do its chief alternatives: the idea of a social contract, the idea of an open market in which operators of armies and states offer services to willing customers, the idea of a society whose shared norms and expectations call forth a certain kind of government."

C. held fram med å vise at denne forståinga av statsframveksten har brei stønad i forskinga. "The entire apparatus of the state primarily came into being to enable princes to wage war." (Michael Howard). Det fanst også andre viktige faktorar, men krig var den viktigaste.


For det andre:
Staten er ikkje eit produkt av samfunnet, men skaper samfunnet. Som nemnt, før statsframveksten, var det komplekse samfunnslag og komplekse lojalitetar. Etterpå vart makta samla sentralt - og staten fekk makt over "valdsmidla", og makt til å lage lover som alle innanfor territoriet må rette seg etter. "The state creates society be replacing the complex overlapping loyalties of medieval societas with one society, bounded by borders and ruled by one sovereign to whom allegiance is owed in a way that trumps all other allegiances." Det er rein makt som gjeld, dvs. den øvstes vilje.

Hjå Hobbes er dette veldig uttala, i det borgarane må overgje sjølvråderetten til den styrande, for å unngå at kampen av alle mot alle, der ein raskt døyr. Men "the sovereign" har her full makt, han styrer med jernhand, så å seie, og held på den måten ro i befolkninga. Locke valte ein annan, og meir komplisert, framgangsmåte. Poenget er i alle fall at han så å seie privatiserer kyrkja og teologien. Staten garanterer rettar og ting som har å gjere med eigedom og fridom. Kyrkja kan drive med andre ting.

Dei samfunnssidene som er basert på "biology, locality, common blood, common tasks, or common calling" blir i praksis privatisert og gjort til frivillige "social contracts." Dei kan ikkje få ein grunnleggjande normativ, "før-statleg" status. Difor, seier C., var den amerikanske øydeleggjinga av indianarstammar "inscribed in the very nature of state sovereignty. Simple space (d. e. Lockean rettstenking) cannot accommodate the tribal structure. The formal equality of individuals before the law pits individual rights against the traditional tribal sense that the tribe, not the individual, is the bearer of rights."

Lockean liberalisme har difor ein sterkt individualiserande tendens. Ein talar ikkje om mennesket som grunnleggjande og "a priori" ein del av eit familieband, eller som ein del av ei kyrkje eller liknande. Mennesket er grunnleggjande ein fri skapning med visse rettar, som kan søke "happiness". Og staten vil forsvare denne menneskekonsepsjonen med nebb og klør. Det er også denne dynamikken som ligg under når vår norske, liberalistiske stat, nektar å anerkjenne fastlegars tradisjonsbunde eller livssynsbunde rasjonalitet, som ikkje tillet dei å vere med på å ta liv; pasientars individuelle autonomi, fridom og "rettar" veg tyngst uansett. Eller: Staten vil (moglegvis) ikkje akseptere omskjering av born; bornets individuelle "rettar" veg tyngre enn familieband eller livssynsband. Etc.

Men resultatet av dette, blir at staten påfører individualiserande og homogeniserande einskap på befolkninga, og at staten nesten endelaust må gå meir og meir detaljert til verks for å regulere fridomen hjå individa, så dei ikkje "grip over i kvarandre", så å seie, og hindrar kvarandre. Meir og meir av tilveret blir "økonomisert" og "legalisert"; du får så og så mykje, du kan gjere det og det. I staden for at livssyn, familie, tradisjonar etc. representerer "naturlege band", blir befolkninga individualisert og ribba for slike djupare identitetstruktarar.

Dette er for øvrig eit tema som går att om igjen og om igjen i Hollywoodkulturen; du må finne din eigen veg, bryte med normer, bryte med familie, bryte med samfunn, finne din egen veg, vere original, finne di eiga meining, eat, pray, love, forkast din stand og gå i staden under dekk med Jack Dawson, fyll ut di eiga "bucket list" etc. etc. Men kva blir igjen? Eigenviljen, valet som øvste norm. Sikra av staten, sjølvsagt.






- Ja. Eg debatterte elles nyleg med ein prestekollega om spørsmålet om sk. felles ekteskapslov skal innførast i kyrkja. Det var ein relativt konstruktiv debatt, tør eg seie. Her er eitt av innlegga mine på tråden der, som ein respons til ei utfordring til å signere oppropet for kyrkjelege vigselsrituale for sk. samkjønna ekteskap:

Det er verdt å nemne at forslaget det talast for her, går imot nær sagt universell ekteskapspraksis i heile menneskeheita si oppskrivne historie, imot klassisk metafysikk, imot skapingssoga, imot Jesu forkynning, imot den felleskyrkjelege og apostoliske forkynninga, imot 2000 års kyrkjeleg tradisjon, imot den verdsvide økumeniske fellesskapen.

Og kva har ein på "for"-sida? Moderne (eg meiner: utdatert) mekanistisk/materialistisk metafysikk, ideologisk politisk liberalisme som ikkje anerkjenner objektiv moral, kjenslebasert utilitaristisk intuisjonisme. Men alle desse faktorane kan det førast djup kritikk mot.

Så eg kjem ikkje til å signere oppropet. Eg tykkjer også det er vanskeleg å sjå korleis dei som faktisk signerer det, kan ha eit koherent livssyn. Dvs. eg meiner at aksept av sk. likekjønna ekteskap inneber å akseptere (høgst tvilsomme) premiss som står i djup motsetning til vesentlege premiss i ei kristen og klassisk røyndomsforståing.

No vart det naturlegvis ein debatt om det eg skildrar på "for"-sida her. Eg freistar berre å peike på det eg meiner er den mest vesentlege idemessige bakgrunnen for utviklinga - ein bakgrunn som også dei "teologisk liberale" overtek, noko som eg meiner er djupt problematisk, fyrst og fremst fordi det er usanningar om røyndomen - slik han er, og slik han er meint å vere i Guds rike. Og då er det eit vesentleg poeng i kristen teologi at røyndomen, d. e. kjønnsdifferensieringa og ekteskapet, reflekterer sjølve Guds vesen.

Vel, ok. Noko eg har tenkt ganske mykje på, er det fylgjande: For å forsvare eit klassisk ekteskapssyn på ein koherent måte, kan ein bruke ei lang rekke argument, naturlegvis. Men eitt av dei mest sentrale dreier seg om at menneskenaturen er grunnleggjande innretta som mann og kvinne; dette er normalt i det det fullfører kroppsleg-påviselege intensjonar, dette resulterer i born. I tillegg har dette vore universelt anerkjent som ekteskapsforståing; det vernar om borna etc.

Ok. Det eg har tenkt på, er dette: Også konservative kristne i Noreg har overteke ei lang rekke premiss bort frå ei klassisk forståing av kjønn. Sagt med andre ord: Det sk. kjønnsnøytrale ekteskapet er (ei ganske ekstrem) fylgjeslutning, ei "utarbeiding" av gjevne premiss, som altså er djupt problematiske. Men også konservative kristne har teke ein del viktige steg i den same retninga, berre ikkje like ekstremt.

Og det får ein jo til å tenke litt. Det blir eit spørsmål om også konservative kristne kan vere koherente med dei standpunkta dei har akseptert, medan dei samstundes er tydelege mot sk. felles ekteskapslov. Kva standpunkt er det så eg talar om? Vel; aksept av kvinnelege prestar, til dømes. Avvisning av "hustavlene" i NT. Aksept av prevensjon. Aksept av onani. Aksept av assistert befruktning etc.

Spørsmålet er om konservative kristne ved å akseptere desse tinga har innført "inkoherente" premiss i livssynet sitt, som etter kvart vil tvinge dei i meir "liberale" retningar. Det er i stor grad dette som har skjedd med kyrkje-Noreg som heilskap, kan ein nok seie. Men vel, eg stiller spørsmålet, og eg meiner det er viktig å tenke gjennom. Eg har ikkje tydelege svar her enno. Eg tenker berre at det er viktig å spore endringane i folks tenking attende til "fyrste prinsipp"; kva er det eigentleg desse tinga dreier seg om, sånn djupast sett?

Her er det så fint, altså. Deo volente får eg reise hit ein gong.

Eg driv og les ei fenomenal bok no. Det var gode Haram som anbefalte denne forfattaren til meg fyrste gong, og det var ikkje eit dårleg råd. Han er heilt i toppen når det gjeld å tenke rett kristeleg om politikk. Boka er "Migrations of the holy." Eit par sitat.

In important ways, the United States has not really secularized at all. What has happened instead is that in the modern era the holy has migrated from the church to the state. By this I do not mean that Christian evangelicals have an inordinate influence in the current administration. I mean that faith in the United States and in “secular” Western values can take on the status of a religious conviction, and the United States has assembled the largest military in history to propagate it.

Dette er ei gullbok, med masse gode tankar. Djupt informert og veldig anbefalt. 

Yep, (litt for) travelt for tida. No ber det attende til Kviteseid. Så er det arbeid i fire veker. Sånn er det. Eg ser elles at ein del ivrar for at sk. kjønnsnøytralt ekteskap skal innførast i Dnk. Det inneber å ta eit (endå meir) fundamentalt oppgjer med grunnstrukturen i NT-leg teologi. Så vel...det handlar for ein stor del om sanning, d. e. sanninga om Guds rike, slik det blir presentert i NT.

Ok. No ser eg fram til litt fri i Kviteseid, med litt natur, avslapping etc.

Etc

- Attende frå ei veldig fin helg i Sandefjord. Storsalen-weekend er verkeleg å anbefale. Mange interessante og hyggelege samtalar, tankevekkande bibeltimar, god song og musikk, god mat, natur, avslapping etc. Så dette har eg lyst til å bli med på fleire gonger, tenker eg, dvs. om eg kan. Også veldig interessant at folk der stort sett var eldre enn meg. Det var litt uventa, må eg innrømme. Men det var berre å bra å få utvida perspektiva sine litt. Vart kjent med mange nye.

- Javel, ja. Så har eg gjort ferdig ein liten kronikk om Prometheus, som eg håpar vi kan få på trykk ein stad. Ikkje nett rocket science, men eg tippar folk vil tykkje han er interessant å lese.

- Louis Dupre er ein veldig interessant filosof. Her er eit intervju med han. Eg skal gje nokre utdrag som du kanskje bør lese:

Christianity has become an historical factor subservient to a secular culture rather than functioning as the creative power it once was. The new attitude of benign atheism was, I think, prepared in the late 19^th and the early 20^th centuries by the three most prominent secularizers of the time, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche.

Moving further in that direction, contemporary secular culture, especially in its communications media, shows a surprising openness toward religion. But little suggests that this interest surpasses the purely horizontal cultural level. Culture itself has become the real religion of our time, and it has absorbed all other religion as a subordinate part of itself. It even offers some of the emotional benefits of religion, without exacting the high price faith demands. We have all become atheists, not in the hostile, antireligious sense of an earlier age, but in the sense that God no longer matters absolutely in our closed world, if God matters at all.

Why should the secularism of our time pose a more serious challenge to Christianity than the determined antitheism of the past?
Because religion in the 20^th century has ceased to integrate public life altogether. By its very nature faith must integrate all other elements of life if it is to survive. Faith cannot simply remain one discrete part of life. My own writing about religion grew out of the fundamental question raised by the new situation: Is religion something that may or may not be very important to humans, or must it in some way integrate all other aspects of existence? I came to the conclusion that if it isn’t somehow everything, it’s nothing.

What then ought the Christian to do to survive as a genuine religious believer? I see no alternative but that he or she must now personally integrate what tradition did in the past. Nothing in culture today compels our contemporaries to embrace a religious faith. If they do, they alone are responsible for allowing their faith to incorporate all aspects of their existence. Hence the vital importance of a spiritual life.  

To attain the religious life the believer must be alert to the inner voice. How essential such an attitude has become is evident in light of the massive apostasies that occurred in the 1970s and ‘80s (and continue in Western Europe) when the social pressure in support of religion suddenly seemed to have lifted. Because it lacks roots either in society or the self, people have simply abandoned the faith.

Many Christians (I am one of them) may feel nostalgic for a culture that is more God-oriented than ours, but this religious nostalgia must not be allowed to fly us on a magic carpet to a mystical fata morgana. Nor must the need for integration seduce us to reinvent a Christian "tradition" (mostly intended for "the masses") for social or political purposes, as some social theorists do today in America. They consider religion essential to cultural integration, but their primary concern is not with the truth of faith but with the order of society. 

But Christianity was a new religious force in Augustine’s day. Today, as you say, its power to integrate culture has all but disappeared. Does Christianity still have the capacity to renew?
On a personal level, yes, and through a personal renewal it may spread to small communities which in turn could affect the entire culture. But the time of the res publica christiana—of what some would call Christendom—is past. Both the secularization of the West and the revolution in communications have converted our society into an intrinsically pluralist one. I expect it to remain so for any foreseeable time. But Christianity has always started with a personal conversion of the heart.

Spiritual life, as Bishop Joseph Butler knew, rests entirely on analogies. The Bible provides the analogies that enable the believer to convey meaning to private experience. But the Word will extend religious comfort only if we allow it to speak in its own name. The first lesson to learn in a time of need is that of listening. Only when we attentively heed the Word can it lift us beyond ourselves and convey divine meaning to private sorrows.  

- Så fekk eg høyre at bror Haram brått døydde i dag. Veldig trist, må eg seie. Han var ein solid kristen som det "ikkje fanst svik i." Veldig grei å tale med, imøtekomande og reflektert og venleg. Samstundes var han litt som ei søyle som ein visste kvar ein hadde, ikkje minst i samfunnsdebatten. Det er eit stort tap for kristen-Noreg - og for tankesmia.

Lyrics	Original texts	Source
Alleluia. May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.	Horatio: Now cracks a noble heart. – Good night, sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!	Hamlet, Act V Scene ii[8], c. f.In paradisum
Alleluia. Remember me, O Lord, when you come into your kingdom.	O thou who reignest over life and death, in the courts of thy Saints grant rest unto him [her] whom thou hast removed from temporal things. And remember me also, when thou comest into thy kingdom.	Orthodox funeral service,[9] Luke 23:42
Alleluia. Give rest, O Lord, to your handmaid, who has fallen asleep.	Where the choirs of the Saints, O Lord, and of the Just, shine like the stars of heaven, give rest to thy servant who hath fallen asleep, regarding not all his [her] transgressions.	Orthodox funeral service
Alleluia. The Choir of Saints have found the well-spring of life and door of Paradise.	The Choir of the Saints have found the Fountain of Life and the Door of Paradise. May I also find the right way, through repentance. I am a lost sheep. Call me, O Saviour, and save me.	Orthodox funeral service
Alleluia. Life: a shadow and a dream.	Guildenstern: Which dreams, indeed, are ambition; for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. Hamlet: A dream itself is but a shadow.	Hamlet, Act II scene ii
Alleluia. Weeping at the grave creates the song: Alleluia. Come, enjoy rewards and crowns I have prepared for you.	Thou only art immortal, who hast created and fashioned man. For out of the earth were we mortals made, and unto the earth shall we return again, as thou didst command when thou madest me, saying unto me: For earth thou art, and unto the earth shalt thou return. Whither, also, all we mortals wend our way, making of our funeral dirge the song: Alleluia. ... Ye who have trod the narrow way most sad; all ye who, in life, have taken upon you the Cross as a yoke, and have followed Me through faith, draw near: Enjoy ye the honours and the crowns which I have prepared for you.	Orthodox funeral service
Alleluia.