Wednesday, October 26, 2005

What if....

What if... Sometimes that phrase is stuck in my mind. What if... what if... what if...

In "What if" there's a strong element of wanting change, longing for a world where every child can wake up surrounded by family and friends, with enough food and material goods, without terror and war. Where every single person finds someone to love, and where the word "loneliness" is out of the vocabulary. Maybe childish dreams, but what if another world is possible?

WHAT IF IT'S UP TO US?

WHAT IF IT'S UP TO ME?

Friday, October 14, 2005

A friendly face

I’ve been thinking of faces today. What is a face, and how are our faces our foremost tool of communication? A lot of our communication comes through our faces. Through our faces we’re able to show our sadness, our joy and how we perceive others.

In my life I have experienced several times how a human face and its expressions can change my day. When I was younger I spent a lot of time in one of the churches of Oslo. Sometimes I participated in the service in doing worship, at communion or in leading the service. When I was looking at a big group of people knowing that they looked at me, I was amazed to see how “closed” a lot of their faces were, but there – in the middle of the church was a smiling, open face of an older woman with white hair. I will never forget her face – showing with every part of her face that she appreciated me taking part and showing me that she wanted me to do my best. More than ten years later I still feel the positive energy of her smiling eyes and her positive attitude.

Another experience was three years ago. For months I’d been taking part in the preparation of a conference for Church of Norway. For the conference we invited, as the main speaker, the founder of the movement L’Arche, Jean Vanier. I’d read some of his work, and listened to a couple of his sermons and was a little nervous when I knocked at the door of his room at the conference center. He was sitting at the couch, and when I came into the room I looked into a face that broke into a wonderful, open smile. I had never met him before, but it felt like meeting a father that hadn’t seen his son for years. He rose up from the coach with a big smile and shook my hand while giving me 100 % of his attention.

In 1993 one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen, Nelson Mandela, participated in a service in Oslo Cathedral. He was in Oslo as a laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize, and I was there to experience this legendary man. After the service Nelson Mandela walked down the aisle, and for just a couple of seconds his eyes met mine and I looked into this smiling, open face where every part of it tells a story of how love conquers hate, and how forgiveness suppress evil.

My inner image of these three faces will forever be with me and I wonder why. I guess we all long for the feeling of being seen, accepted and embraced. Our faces are our main communicative tools, and through it we can “read” the acceptance or rejection of others. In a world of words our faces “gives us away”. We can try to conceal what we feel, and often we do, but what if we dare to do like the woman in church, like Jean Vanier and Nelson Mandela. To let our faces and our bodies be the frame from where our souls might shine? I don’t know how these people are able to meet thousands and to be able to see them all, but I suspect it has something to do with a sense of being seen. By focusing on something outside of themselves, because they know that they are loved and that their contribution makes a difference in the life of their fellow man, to dare to think and know that every person, every creature is created and loved, worthy to be met through our faces, with openness and honesty. Wow, I’ve got such a long way to go, but I would have loved to be able to grasp only a little of what these three people have understood and made a part of their interaction with others.

Friday, October 07, 2005

The Man from Canterbury

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams at the University of Oslo, October 7, 2005 (Photo: Norwegianblogger)

During the last weeks I've been a part of a group that has been preparing the visit of The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams in Norway. I like that kind of work, and when I've been working on a project for awhile it makes me curious about the person. Today I was able to take part in one of the many parts of his program here in Norway, namely his lecture at the University of Oslo. Afterwards I was able to exchange a few words with him and have a couple of photos of course, before he went on with his program. At his lecture he talked about "Christian thought and the Threat to Earth". The scarcity of resources represents a moral question. When people fight for resources, injustice happens. Every person has a fundamental right to have his or her vital needs met. The Church must answer these questions through actions, but also by finding theological answers. The Archbishop elaborated four different approaches. The first approach is relational / creational. The material world was brought into existence by a word from God. The LOGOS (the word) is basic for all encounters. LOGOS is God, and everything is brought into relationship with God by being created. Secondly is the contemplative approach with its emphasis on poverty. It's possible to think of poverty as a cleared vision of the world. When we free ourselves from all our attachments, we are able to get a clearer vision. In that way, poverty is a challenge to all addictive behavior. Thirdly there is the sacramental approach, that all things are related before it relates to us or me. Fourth he talked about the approach of justice. As is said in the book of Leviticus, we don't own the land, it is only lend to us. Our possessions are not ours, but are only there to be used for awhile. Care for the environment is decisive for the future of this planet. Access to clean water and unpolluted food is important for all of us, and shouldn't be of access to only a few. The challenge for us is to understand that even though one person can't change the world, every person can change one thing.
I felt privileged to be able to listen to this leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans in 160 countries. I didn’t understand everything. I’m not a theologian, and I guess my British English understanding is a little corrupted after staying a year in the US, but Dr. Williams seems to care for the world, and has found a way to make theology into action. We need that, and we need leaders that show us the challenges for the church and the world today.


Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams in Oslo, October 7, 2005 (Photo: Norwegianblogger)

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

A theology of change?

Does that sound like a contradiction? Is it impossible to think of theology as vibrant, alive and both an agent for change and changeable in itself?

Theology (and faith) can be a guarantee for conservatism. What's been there has been proven by time, and is therefore truth. What's in the tradition is safe and shouldn't be changed in any way. In some ways this is a respectable position. Some of us long for clear answers and a feeling of knowing the truth. In clear-cut words and theological positions we find a sense of belonging and trust. When we're saying the right words and are fighting for the right positions we are right with God and on the safe side. The community that comes out of defending this kind of truth is often strong, and when it is under attack it's even stronger. Nothing wrong about that. You find this position in every society; in political parties (ideology), in religious communities (faith / theology), sometimes even in sports or music (fan-base of a team or an artist). As human beings we constantly look for ways to be accepted, included and loved. Defending a position is often about defending our belonging to a certain group or community.

Sometimes I've been thinking a lot of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus. What a terrible threat that man must have been for their sense of belonging, for their dignity and their power. They said all the right words, they held strongly to the traditional sayings of the Scripture, they defended what they considered to be the truth with their lives, and they thought that God was on their side and that he loved their faithfulness and seal for his word. Jesus walked up to them and challenged all of their authority, their sense of truth and their understanding of the word. He put another interpretation on the words that they had learned and that had been interpreted by their group for centuries. This carpenter from Nazareth undermined all their wisdom, authority and power, and he revealed a totally new approach to theology and life.

A few years ago I talked to a person that was frustrated about Jesus and his approach to the word, especially was it difficult for him to understand why Jesus didn’t approve of the stoning of the woman that was caught in adultery. He had read in the Old Testament about the law and how people should be punished for what they did wrong, and he found it difficult to understand why God would change his mind. The Pharisees and the people probably thought the same. What did Jesus do? He challenged all of them to the core, because he puts the attention on us instead of the clear-cut words. He emphasizes our humanness instead of our righteousness, and shows us another image of God. He reveals a God that sees every human being, and sees her as unique and special. At the same time he reveals us as people in need of grace. This dual message is very important because it shows us as loved, but at the same time weak and in need of others. Jesus challenges our position of righteousness and our need of affirmation from a group or from God and calls us to be humble and unique persons free from peer pressure.

What does this have to say for a theology of change? How are we to read Paul and the gospels and how are we to interpret the word? I’ve been reading a document from Church of Sweden lately, and it’s interesting to read how they look at Paul and his approach to circumcision. Against all his co-religionists in Jerusalem – who had a preferential right of interpretation, he stated what he called the truth of the Gospel, that there was no need to make a detour via the law in order to become a Christian. This was a great and brave new interpretation – and something that almost ripped the ancient church apart. Church of Sweden concludes in this document that Paul and the other New Testament theologians accepted active new interpretations and that this implies that one states in a new way what is central and already given, but without the meaning as understood being lost. The point is that we sometimes should do as Paul does and not just repeat what he says. In this way the Bible can function as an example of how our faith and ethics are formed, not only of what faith and ethics contain. Just as those who were responsible for the Bible texts, we have to discover together what it means today to live close to God and in the imitation of Christ.

For me this is very much in accordance to Jesus and his life, and it explains why he was so controversial and scary for the religious leaders of the day. He made theology into something vibrant and alive, and not into a set of rules to make us feel comfortable or righteous. He challenges us because he makes theology into something that draws us closer to God AND to ourselves, and he makes us look inside and to him instead of drawing lines. May we all LIVE theology instead of letting it be a tool for building walls to keep our fellow human beings in or out. The in or out is not dependent on regulations, but in letting ourselves fall into the arms of a God that loves, cares and wants us to find our way. Our righteousness is not in living in accordance to principles, but in being filled by a love that covers us, reveals us, leaves us in need of others and lifts us to a place of relationship – to God, to others and to ourselves. That, I believe, is a theology of change!