tirsdag 21. juli 2015

Goodbye, Theotokos


I have been interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church tradition for some time, and I value much of the worshipful and humble attitude toward God and to life, which I meet there. I fully thrive in the grandeur of God, of the positive outlook on lived Christian life, of the depth of the Incarnation.  I treasure the prayers and the liturgy of John Chrysostom and St. Basil. I have a small blue pocket prayer book and I pull it up in different occasions. It is a small treasure. The only things I omit are the references to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.
Theotokos means God-bearer, and since Jesus is God, the Son, in the Trinity, she is referred to as the ‘Mother of God’.  Personally I have an issue with this glide: from being the earthly mother of Jesus Christ to be called the Mother of God. In the triune understanding of the Christian God, there is God, the Father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Spirit. They are one. And lady Mary is not ‘mother’ to the complete concept. She is not in any sense a ‘mother’ to God, the Father. Neither is she in any sense mother in relations to God as Father.
Theotokos of the Seven Arrows
In his explanation to the Orthodox understanding of Mary, Theotokos, St. John Maximovitch, the late archbishop of Shanghai and San Fransisco, asserts in his book ”The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God” that she is an active intercessor for the Christians, that she is a comforter, one who bestows grace and mercy on people. She was chosen at an early age for her task, and according to tradition lived a pure life. The Orthodox teaching admits that she as born in the same state as all humans: fallen away from God, but that she was brought up by God-fearing parents and led an immaculate life. In connection with this, the bishop also stresses the importance of Mary being a virgin for life; not only at the conception of Jesus, but that she never married, but dedicated her life to God. She had no other children.
In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary was born sinless, without the ability to sin: her immaculate conception. Both traditions see the ever-virginity of Mary as a dogma. This focus on continuing virginity baffles me. Not only is it counter to clear passages in the New Testament where there is a clear reference to Jesus’ siblings, but I also see no point in further childlessness as saintly. To have many children is a sign of honour, a great blessing, a treasure. Barrenness is a curse. She is no less venerated for her role as the mother of Jesus because of further children.
Mary is no co-redemptress in the Orthodox Church tradition, as she has become in many Roman Catholic circles. Only Jesus is the Saviour.  Still, when it comes to the veneration, the prayers and supplications made to her, for instance in the service Akathist, the practice has become one of worship. She is titled the Queen of Heaven, Defender of our souls, one who has delivered the faithful from dangers, and has invincible powers…the unwedded Bride…
One of our friends who prays in the Syrian Orthodox church, explained the attitude to Mary and the saints as follows: If I asked you to pray for me, would you do it? And we would say: Yes. In the same way he would ask the saints that had gone before us to pray for him, for they are also alive, and in heaven. I see the reasoning, but my main issue with this is: We do not interact with the dead. The only one we can pray to is the One who rose from the dead: Jesus. And he teaches us to pray to God. There is no precedence in the New Testament for addressing the dead. This is a later tradition which does not have Christian roots.
         
Icon of Mother and Child
  
There are many traditions around the life and death of Mary. Where they come from, I am not the right one to say – Archbishop Maximovitch lists references to her birth, childhood, family line, dedication to God, her departure from this life and entry into Heaven. I have no need to give heed to any of this, for to me she is a servant of the Lord a sister in the faith, and I believe I will see her in heaven. Until then, I may honour her humble and willing example, but she only points me to Jesus Christ. That is her role, as is anyone’s role in the testimony of the living Lord.  So, I say: Goodbye, Theotokos, and ‘au revoir’, Miriam.



søndag 19. juli 2015

Idealene og en kristen livsstil


             Ungdommelig idealisme er byttet ut med mer pragmatiske løsninger, men grunnspørsmålene holder seg likevel levende: hva betyr det å leve som kristen i samfunnet? På hvilken måte bidrar jeg til det gode? Hva er verdifullt? Hvilke filosofier driver meg i mine valg? Hva blir konsekvensene av min kristne livs- og verdensanskuelse?

             Ungdommelig idealisme er sunt og utfordrende, og jeg lurer på om modereringen er nødvendig eller ei. ”Ja til pedalkraft!” var en button jeg hadde på jakkeslaget og var rimelig motstander av privatbilisme, spesielt når det fantes kollektiv transport, og når det dreide seg om meg som enkeltindivid.  Jeg bodde i 10 år i ei hytte uten innlagt vann i studietida. Det var flott og billig. Deler av tida bodde jeg sammen med en venninne. Når hun giftet seg og flyttet ut, fikk jeg være forvert for hundeklubbens digreste hund, Angisoq i flere år. 
            Så fikk jeg etterhvert bil via mine foreldre – dels av praktiske grunner. Hva skjedde med idealet? Er det mer eller mindre kristelig å kjøre bil eller sykkel?

            Jeg var motstander av TV. Det er jeg enda. Jeg vil ikke bli slavisk påvirket og ikke bli utsatt for livsholdninger jeg ikke vil videreføre. Men avskjærer jeg meg dermed kontaktpunkter? TV tar mye tid, og jeg vil heller bruke tiden på å lese, lage ting, være kreativ. TV titting er passiviserende. Det er kan hende ikke så mye det en ser som er saken her, men å sitte foran en skjerm og bli underholdt i timesvis. Det samme kan forsåvidt være sant i henhold til hvordan man bruker en PC. Jeg har ikke noe imot å lese ting på internett, google ditt og datt.  Men hvilke livsholdninger ligger til grunn, og i hvilen grad kan jeg bygge opp under mine valg fra et kristent ståsted?

            I ungdommelig idealisme var jeg skeptisk til materialismens grunnprinsipper. Og i dag? Vel, jeg vil ikke skryte, men jeg er ingen shopper, må ikke ha alt nytt; jeg er stor-fan av brukt-butikker for veldedige formål, av finn.no, av å gi bort ting, av bytte varer og tjenester – gjøre gode ting for hverandre og leve enkelt. Jeg liker å lage ting, å sy egne klær, lage egne duker og gardiner osv. Jeg liker å skape, for jeg er et kreativt vesen; men i mange tilfelle er det ikke økonomisk lønnsomt, og motivasjonen daler. Da kommer naturlig nok spørsmålet: hvorfor skal det være lønnsomheten som er det drivende prinsipp?

Jeg liker å kjøre rundt i en gammel bil. Den blir 20 år til neste år, og den bruker lite drivstoff.  For øvrig bor vi slik til at jeg går til jobben. Jeg har ikke noen kvaler i dette henseendet – og for så vidt ikke når det gjelder å reise for å besøke en av sønnene mine som studerer i USA. Jeg reiser med fly. Men her veier meningen med å besøke sønnen min og hans kone mye tyngre enn generelle idealer om drivstoff-forbruk og forurensning.  Hadde jeg trumfet igjennom en ideologi som sier at jeg ikke skal bruke fly, og dermed ikke kan reise for å ta del i deres liv og hverdag, ville jeg si at jeg sviktet mitt kall som mor og min kristenplikt i å vise dem omsorg og kjærlighet. Et prinsipp veier ikke mer enn et menneskes verd.

Hva med klima-problematikken? Jeg må innrømme at jeg forstår anliggendet, men at jeg samtidig ser en horde av kirkeledere som hiver seg over den som om den er det mest presserende tema i våre dager. Jeg er mye mer opptatt av kristenforfølgelsene. Det behøver ikke være noe enten-eller, men jeg synes klima-problematikken får uforholdsmessig mye oppmerksomhet.  Det er blitt en motesak. Hva skal vi gjøre? Jeg tror på en Gud som er den som opprettholder verden; han er en skapende, dynamisk, virkekraftig Gud.  Naturligvis har vi ansvar i henhold til forurensning. Mye har blitt gjort i den siste generasjonen for å forbedre ting, og den utviklingen vil fortsette. Hysteriet omkring klima og endringer i klimaet overbeviser ikke meg. Saken har aktualitet, ja, men prognosene er apokalyptiske. Forresten registrerte jeg en ny prognose: om 30 år får vi en ny istid igjen (hm, ja, det var skremselspropaganda om en istid for ca 30 år siden også…)

Kristne har politisk ansvar. Kristne er absolutt kalt til å bidra i politikken, i diskusjoner om det gode samfunn, om verdier, om ideologier. Likevel er jeg mindre begeistret for flagrende geistlige gevanter i mote-saker som klima. Det virker avledende på mer presserende saker. Det er ufarlig å sitte og være sint på stor-industri, kapitalisme, på ting som egentlig ikke angår dem selv. 
Vi kan legge ned oljeindustrien, og vi kan gi bort hele oljefondet til de fattige.  Kan hende bidrar det ikke stort til å løse problemene i den fattige verden, men det er i og for seg ikke poenget. Jeg har til dags dato ikke fått noen positiv respons på forslaget.

Idealismen – er den egentlig død? Er den bare ungdommelig? Hvordan forenes den med ansvar? Er moderasjoner det samme som å spille falitt? Ble jeg en alminnelig ’besteborger’?
Jeg bodde i mange år i USA – den store, forferdelige, den uansvarlige forbruksmaskin i norske øyne – og så naturligvis at der var allerede tradisjonen for gjenbruk mye eldre enn i Norge. For 30 år siden fantes det ikke biler med blybensin i utslippet (Norge lå langt etter her). Gjenvinning av søppel var en ny og interessant industri, med mange kategorier av sortering – gjort i spesialbiler som hentet søppelet. I USA har det vært et kreativt miljø i henhold til forurensning-saker, og det er gjort mye forskning på det. Tilsvarende forskning er gjort i andre deler av verden, i Europa, og resultatene er ulike, og det er også tolkningen av dem. I sedvanlig Europeisk arroganse, tar de sine tall for å være de egentlige, de sanne, de upolitiske – akk, ja.  Hva skal en kristen sjel tenke? Er Amerika (USA) ’den store skjøge’ som forfører verden med sitt ’horeri’? Skjønner du hvorfor jeg er skeptisk til klima-hysteriet?

Tilbake til forbruk og ansvar, til ting vi kan selv gjøre noe med.
En kristen livsstil har mye å gjøre med hvordan jeg lever: det som gjør meg kristen er mitt forhold til Kristus. Det er ydmykhet innfor Gud som gir meg livet. Det er å leve til velsignelse for mine medmennesker. Det er å bry seg, å vise vennlighet, å fortelle enhver som vil høre om det håpet som bor i meg: om forholdet til Gud og om det evig live. Alle kan få det i et liv med Gud.  Mitt sinn fornyes i samvær med Kristus. Jeg får komme i kirken hver gang det er en gudstjeneste der. Jeg får møte Gud hver morgen.
Jeg forholder meg til Jesu ord, hans bud, han leveregler – det gode liv. Det gir et godt familieliv, som er en sentral byggekloss i samfunnet. Det gir meg å finne mine roller i samfunnet, til glede for meg selv og andre. Det er mange ting jeg kan gjøre og være. Men spørsmålene om hva som er verdifullt og hva som er viktig vil alltid utfordre meg som kristen.

onsdag 8. juli 2015

The Golden Muse


Across Washington Park and opposite Music Hall is a mural of a lady, pensive yet inspiring. She is painted with golden hues, and banners of musical notes wave about her. She is the Golden Muse, the muse for music.
The Golden Muse

It makes me ponder art and function. Jon brought up the question of why we think art is contemplative. I found the same issue in Nicholas Wolterstorff’s “ Art in Action”. The Golden Muse is a massive mural on one side of a four story tall building, situated in an area of town, Over-the-Rhine, which for decades have been a slum area with daily murders, prostitution, drug trafficking and hopeless poverty.  The area is under gradual rebuilding, and it is nice to see some of the streets cleaned up.  This is a slow process and not altogether smooth, for the poor and the destructive elements are also gradually removed. The poor cannot afford to live there any longer. The criminal element finds new neighbourhoods to exploit.
            But the Golden Muse is a mural takes no place and no sides in the disagreements. Still, I could not avoid her as I walked in the park. She was like a hovering representation of beauty, emanating from a brick wall. She looks Greek, perhaps. She is not the only mural in town. Many of these painted areas brighten up the street, and it brightens up the soul. 
Cincinnati mural
There is a wall of vegetables. The function of this mural is not contemplative, as such, but it signals healthy food, abundance, - am I turning contemplative again? Is all interpretation, all suggestions of meaning ‘contemplative’? I do not think so. Colours are in themselves cheerful.
            Composition in city landscape has a certain air of sculpture about them. The space between Music Hall and the Golden Muse is a ‘sculptured’ area, in the way that there is a clear connection between the two elements: the building and the mural. It is a thematic connection, a resonating response. Between them is now a nice green lung, Washington Park.
Music Hall in Cincinnati


For centuries murals have decorated internal space, particularly in great cathedrals. Frescos may cover a large part of a wall, ceiling, and various niches. It is contained inside the building, and the outer walls are like demarcation lines for the sacred space. 
I have wondered from time to time if we as Christians, as a local congregation, took our sacred space and time with us out of the building to share it in the open. Many of my fellow villagers never go to church, but they do not mind the message of the Gospel. I would love to have gatherings of believers, with song and liturgy, in the public space! I would love to share our Christian faith, hope, and love more visibly. Perhaps a mural of an outer wall would be able to bring some of that to the passer-bys, as well? The message of peace with God is for all.

mandag 6. juli 2015

A Liturgical Way


A middle-aged cantor was chanting psalms from the Bible as I entered the sanctuary of Holy Trinity -St. Nicholas Greek
Mosaic in the ceiling: Jesus, Pantekrator
Orthodox Church in Finneytown, Cincinnati.  
            The room was wide and large windows with stained glass icons allowed much light.  A great mosaic of the Lord Jesus was hovering over us in the ceiling. The depiction of Jesus gave a comforting and reassuring feeling, for he was strong, but not stern. He was fully grown with beard, the resurrected Jesus, the one who conquered death. It is not the image, the icon, I worship, but the real Jesus Christ, who was, is and will be, the eternal God.  In the niche was there Theotokos: Mother and child; but the Child was already a ruler, and He was central.
            Iconostasis: There is a most holy place, behind the screen, and only the priests and other servants enter in and out of it. I can share what I witnessed, but explanations of it may come at a later time, for I am reading up on it. There are side gates and the main gate. The main gate is under the cross, through Jesus. The icons on the iconostasis pictured Jesus, John the Baptist and Mary. Next to them were angels.
           
Iconostasis, with gates open
The liturgy is full of prayer and praise, and one thing is clear: God is great in His majesty. We become humble in His presence. The room, the incense, the prayers, the chants and songs, the movements and steps of the priests, the drawing of the cross over our bodies, all directed me toward God. The Gospel was read, after a procession in the sanctuary, where the gilded Bible was lifted high and held with deep respect. The young priest held the large book in front of his face, covering himself from sight, and read the passage with a clear and strong voice.  This is deliberate; it is not the priest who is in focus, but the Word of God. Jesus speaks to us.
            The homily, or sermon, was direct, from the text, delivered with authority and conviction. I liked it, but it struck me in the heart.  I knew the truth in my life, as well. It was based on the story where Jesus meets men who were demon possessed, and where the demons recognize Jesus, and he drives them out of the men and into a swineherd, which then runs to its destruction in a ravine. Demons exist, and there are other forms of spiritual opposition. Anyone and anything that does not welcome Christ is a challenge. Jesus is by far stronger than any other spiritual power. He has conquered them all and they await their destruction. God is faithful. He is strong warrior, and I may take refuge in His protection. 
            The respect for God and His Word resonated a longing in me, and I knew again that discussions about the validity of the Bible, in its given form, are futile and must be countered. God is. Jesus is. The Holy Spirit is. All the intellectual energy of this world, all scribes and Sadducees of our day who do not believe in the risen Lord Jesus, fail.

            I felt at home in this church. It was not strange or unnatural to make the sign of the cross over my body, and I have done this for years – the Orthodox way.
            I felt at home, even thought I did not partake in the Eucharist with the rest. I had not gone through the prescribed preparations for receiving the elements, so I made it a time of prayer, as I come before the Lord just as I am.
I did, however, have coffee and baklava with the congregation afterwardsJ




Presently I am reading in the following books: “The Holy Place. Architecture, Ideology, and History in Russia” by Akhinsa & Kozlov; “The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God” by St. John Maximovitch; “ Guide to the Divine Liturgy” by Krantz; “The Orthodox Way” by Kallistos Ware, and a small pocket size blue prayer book called “My Orthodox Prayer BookJ




søndag 5. juli 2015

Quote of the Day:



“Postmodern life could be described as a state in which everything beyond our own personal biography seems vague, blurred and somehow unreal. The world is full of signs and information, which stand for things that no one fully understands because they, too, turn out to be mere signs for other things. Yet the real thing remains hidden. No one ever gets to see it. Nevertheless, I am convinced that real things do exist, however endangered they may be. There are earth and water, the light of the sun, landscapes and vegetation; and there are objects made by man, such as machines, tools or musical instruments, which are what they are, which are not mere vehicles for an artistic message, and whose presence is self-evident”


(Peter Zumthor: “Thinking Architecture”, p.16)
                                                                                           
Jason Marsalis on xylophone
Delfeayo Marsalis
In Washington Park by Music Hall in downtown Cincinnati we happened upon an outdoor concert with two of the Marsalis brothers, a sweet Saturday evening jazz concert in open air. Yes, they were real people playing real instruments.            

The Swiss architect, Peter Zumthor, addresses a vital question in our day and age, and he states the obvious. We have been pushed into confusion about what is real by theorists of language, of relativist thinkers, and lost a grip on the obvious. Without a solid base in language, we have a hard time expressing anything of meaning. It is complex to clearly define values. Words of conviction become mere opinions.  In such a fog there is a cry for a 'strong-man', someone who clearly defines the real. Politically, we may fear despotism. But I believe in one that is stronger: God. Jesus will reign. He judges between us, for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.