Religion of state in Finland [PDF]

In this paper I study briefly the concept of a state in a Finnish revival movement called Conservative. Laestadianism. M

0 downloads 4 Views 351KB Size

Recommend Stories


Forthcoming in Religion, State and Society Co-opting religion
Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself. Rumi

religion, society and the state in arabia
The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. Rabindranath Tagore

Implementation of RFID in Finland
Love only grows by sharing. You can only have more for yourself by giving it away to others. Brian

[PDF] Beyond Religion
Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it. Mich

Epidemiology of Candidemia in Finland
So many books, so little time. Frank Zappa

(Philosophy Religion) pdf
You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks

Birch breeding in Finland
Where there is ruin, there is hope for a treasure. Rumi

settings in Finland
No matter how you feel: Get Up, Dress Up, Show Up, and Never Give Up! Anonymous

habitat banking in finland
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. Isaac Asimov

Bottleneck Vacancies in Finland
Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought. Matsuo Basho

Idea Transcript


ECPR / REYKJAVIK Research paper PhD. Student Tapio Nykänen / Lapland University, Rovaniemi

RULERS DO NOT BEAR THE SWORD FOR NO REASON - STATE AS A GOD’S ORDER IN CONSERVATIVE LAESTADIANISM In this paper I study briefly the concept of a state in a Finnish revival movement called Conservative Laestadianism. My preliminary argument is that Laestadians see state as a God’s order, which gets its legitimacy and power from God, though more or less indirectly. In theology’s language Conservative Laestadianism follows Tomas Aquinas’ and Martin Luther’s idea of two regiments, which means practically that power in kingdom or nowadays in state belongs to the political or secular leaders, not to the religious bodies. Despite of this the authorities are part of God’s order: secular kingdom is governed by men but it is anyhow part of God’s plan of how societies should be organized. For Conservative Laestadians state thus is a positive value, which offers protection for true Church. Thus harmony and status quo in political system should be conserved. This also means that Laestadians should not support powers and parties which are openly rebellious or “destructive”. To put it briefly Conservative Laestadian’s are traditionally conservative in their political thinking and all this is argued with religious reasons. As such they want to be good citizens of not only heavenly but also secular state. Theme of this paper is part of my doctor’s thesis called CITIZENS OF TWO KINGDOMS – CONSERVATIVE LAESTADIANISM AS A POLITICAL COMMUNITY. Thesis is a monograph and will be written in Finnish. Interviews and other research material in this paper represent wider material, which I have collected in two years for my thesis.

Conservative Laestadianism Conservative Laestadianism (later also CL) is a Christian revival movement named after Swedish priest and scientist Lars Levi Laestadius (1800 – 1861). Name of the movement implies that movement is founded by Laestadius, but himself he seems not to have thought he created something totally new. Instead he considered himself as a revisionist, who wanted to return the “true Christianity” in Swedish Church. For Laestadius true Christianity was based solely on faith and

explicitly not on reason, which is corrupted by sin and can only lead away from God’s will. According Laestadius many of the priests (especially at southern Sweden) had forgotten the teachings of Luther and trusted instead on reason and faith based on it. These people Laestadius called “thiefs of mercy”. According him true faith cannot be rationalized but can only be based on true spiritual awakening and experience of God’s “order of mercy”. On his fundamental ideas Laestadius explicitly followed German Pietism and Hernnhut-movements, though he also added many elements from local northern culture on his sermons and writings. His teachings could be described as a mystical northern version of Lutheran Pietism. (see Laestadius 1970; Wallman 1997.) Revival started by Laestadius spread quickly through northern Sweden and Finland. There were many reasons for this: Laestadius was powerful and original preacher and had ability to touch people’s feelings. He also fought strongly against abuse of alcohol, which was a big problem in northern Sweden and Finland at his time. Laestadius’s message was needed, which helped also his religious message to spread. At beginning Laestadius’s followers were mainly Sami reindeer herders, but soon revival spread also amongst Swedish and especially Finns. Strongest Laestadian areas are still at northern Finland and northernmost Sweden, though there are Laestadian communities also for example at United States. (see for example Lohi 1989; 1997; 2007.) One characteristic of Laestadian movement has since its beginning been its tendency to face crisis and split in to the smaller sections from time to time. First big crisis appeared at the end of the 19th century, when leaders from different areas couldn’t agree on certain religious issues1 and also matters concerning on authority in community. Despite of negotiations situation lead to the first big disruption and movement was divided in three sections: Firstborn Laestadianism, New Revival and Conservative Laestadianism. Conservative Laestadianism remained biggest of the groups, like it still is. However all sections considered themselves as true Christians and only righteous followers of the heritage of Lars Levi Laestadius. This has been characteristic for all the later disruptions as well: because of the strict interpretation of Bible and seemingly strong trust on own consideration and faith all the sections have had bottomless trust that they are only ones who are right and will be saved. Nowadays Conservative Laestadianism is a community of more than 100 000 people. Most of them are children, since birth control is forbidden and many families are thus very big. Conservative Laestadianism is mainly Finnish movement, which is so partly because movement didn’t do mission abroad at all until 1980’s. Social structure has changed from movements beginning really much:

1

For example the question of forgiving sins and question of the role of the law in the life of believer.

Laestadianism started as the revival of relatively poor nomads and farmers of north, but nowadays Conservative Laestadianism is clearly a movement of a mid-class2.

Rules in religious community In my thesis and also in this paper I create my argumentation on theory of rules and language games, which I have constructed based on ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Peter Winch. To put it briefly I understand rules not necessary (or only) as written or explicit rules but as a structures of community’s world-constructing. Rules are shared beliefs of what the structure of world is what is right way to think and act in different situations. Concept is wide: some rules can be seen as transcendent and thus implicit pre-conditions of community’s understanding, but also written rules are rules which define people’s thinking and actions. Like said, my whole idea is based on Ludwig Wittgenstein philosophy, though my goals are different compared to Wittgenstein’s. I am studying power and politics through rules, while Wittgenstein is interested purely in principles; this is foundation of community’s understanding of world and language as a forum of human knowledge and world-constructing. Wittgenstein’s student Peter Winch is little bit more practice-oriented: he claims that different cultures are ethically and in general equal and independent. According Winch what is truth and what is right are inner questions of language system and there is no universal possibilities to define best culture, best system of knowledge, right kind of ethics or for example best religion. Thus also rules are independent and should be understood in a light of the system they are part of. I accept this partly: Winch’s relativism is useful attitude when studying different ways of living but this doesn’t need to mean that everything is ethically equal or acceptable. Anyhow I don’t concentrate on ethics on my book, while I need to say something on this topic as well. (see Wittgenstein 1981; Winch 1984.) Instead of ethics I study politics and power in CL. I am interested on rules through this theme: what rules can tell about the use of power in CL? My preliminary argument is that there are at least two answers: at first (1) there are rules which define CLs thinking, attitude and actions concerning on state and politics seen in traditional way, i.e. as a system of parties and governing mechanisms. Briefly this means that CLs have somehow shared concepts of state and political system and that they also have certain shared opinions about political questions. Second (2) aspect is that inside CL 2

Many Laestadians act as company owners or work for other Laestadian-owned companies, especially at house constructing business. Also professions like teacher are popular. Good economical situation is clearly visible at Conservative Laestadians summer festival Suviseurat: along with big white festival tent most dominant view in the festival area is parking place filled by thousands and thousands of expensive mobile homes and mid-class cars.

community there are plenty of rules which can be seen as political and which express the use of power. Briefly there are rules which define the actions of believers – for example rules concerning sexual moral – and then rules which can be seen as meta-rules: these are rules which explain why other rules are legitimate and why Church (and its leaders and preachers) can define what is wrong and what is right. Both kinds of rules are political: both are questioned by critical believers (and sometimes outsiders) and both affect in the lives of believers despite of their opinions. Issue of this paper – the concept of state – belongs mainly in first group of rules. It seems not to be an item of a political struggle inside the community, but it is political rule since it governs openly political issue; the form and justification of a state.

Church doctrine as a key concept To understand the meaning of the concept of the state in Conservative Laestadianism it is helpful to understand their church doctrine. This key concept explains how other concepts and rules take their place in a social world (and language system) of Conservative Laestadianism. To put it short CL’s church doctrine defines an idea of unanimous and infallible community, where Holy Spirit works and which thus is actual God’s Kingdom on the earth. This true Church works inside Lutheran Church, which is not a true church but barely its shelter and protection. CL’s naturally hope that also Lutheran Church would preach like CL’s do, but if it doesn’t do so, it is still useful and important as a shelter for CL community. According their church doctrine CL’s are also only ones to be saved, which means that the work and preaching of official Lutheran Church and other revival movements are unfaithful and practically useless, though they can “touch consciences”. (see Kurvinen 1980; Ruokanen 1980.) Like said, according CL church doctrine Holy Spirit works in God’s Kingdom, i.e. CL community. God’s revelation thus didn’t end in times of Bible but it continues amongst His true followers. This means that CL Church is able to define what is God’s will in religious issues and also in very specific practical matters. “Advices of the Mother Sara *CL Church+” are thus as important as Bible. Naturally this means that believers are expected to be loyal to the Church: disagreement with the Church is disagreement with God. This rule of unanimity is absolutely central in CL community. It is built in very heart of CL understanding and can be described as presupposition for many other rules. At the same time this rule is also in the heart of contemporary political struggle inside the CL community. In previous struggles situation has been little bit different: there have been disagreements, but all the sides have

shared understanding of the idea of unanimity in Christianity. Resolution of struggles has thus been disruption: movement has been split to the parts which both have thought they are right. Now situation is more complicated: critical believers say that the demand of unanimity itself is wrong and CL Church cannot be equated with God in any matter. These critics don’t want to break away from movement or create a new one; they just want to make existing CL movement to change. For movement’s leaders this is new and difficult situation: they are trying to claim that critic is from devil and critics can leave if they don’t like what they are seeing, but critics don’t speak this language3. Like said, despite of critique most Laestadians seem to share the idea of unanimity. Many of them have grown up with the movement and its world is part of their identity and thinking. It may be that they don’t actually really much think about these rules or their consequences. It is way easier just to do and think like always has been done. Situation would be different if life in movement would be unsatisfactory, but for many members it is not. Vice versa most of the members seem to be somehow satisfied. They don’t necessary agree on everything with official doctrine but at the same time they feel that their life is safe and smooth within community. People may even have different opinions for some important questions – like birth control - but at the same time they accept the demand of unanimity. This is not logical, but people are not always logical. It is also possible to solve these kinds of problems in many original ways: one can for example think that Church is infallible and unanimous but its opinion takes long time to be finished; and that opinion about birth control is still “in process”. This is possible because it is not clearly defined what is needed until some argument is Churches true opinion. It’s always possible that it takes years truly understand what God’s will is. The demand of unanimity doesn’t cover everything. Many things like one’s job, habits and even many political opinions are believers’ private matters. Some things are also “in between”: it may be difficult to evaluate is something good for believer or not; in such situations believers are advised “not to go”. Part of the church doctrine is CL’s concept of reason. Following Laestadius (and Pietist tradition) CL’s claim that reason is not trustworthy. True faith is not reasonable and because of this religious rules and contents should not be evaluated by reason. Informants put it this way: M84: We have kind of a principle that reason must be taken as a prisoner. We don’t want to let it rule; only faith should rule. But reason is used where it is really

3

I analyze this inner political struggle in my book.

necessary. And of course if you think for example about writing a text; of course you need to think what you are doing. M60: No, no, we don’t use reason in this issue of faith, if you would, it may seem totally insain.. Reason is needed to evaluate things but finally one can trust only on faith. This claim is complex and sometimes paradoxical. It also makes real open discussion very difficult: arguments matter only until certain point. After this point faith is stronger than reason and orders of the Bible and CL Church must be followed without questioning. This concept is also powerful weapon for rulers: critics can always be claimed as a wrong trust on reason, which is typical for men and is caused by devil4. Important thing in CL’s church doctrine is that it shows that CL world is relatively homogeneous. Not all believers are the same or believe same way – and there is criticism as well -, but many concepts on the other hand are shared relatively widely. This means that it is reasonable to speak about Laestadians concept of the state: such a concept really exists in the language game and thus CL’s shared imagination or world. Of course human understanding is based on concepts in general, but in CL world many concepts are relatively clear and simple compared to possibly complex postmodern secular world. STATE AS A GOD’S ORDER The question is: what is the concept of the state in CL’s doctrine and actual language world? Question can be answered at first from the point of view of theology or the history of ideas. CL is a Lutheran revival movement and as such it carries on many Lutheran beliefs and concepts of Bible, faith and society. One famous and central concept is the idea about two regimes. According this concept by Martin Luther (and for example Thomas Aquinas) God rules the entire world and he does 4

This argument is strong amongst people who have grown up in culture where reasoning is described as a threat. It is not easy to point that reason is not corrupted, if whole culture believes it is. After all, the question of reason’s limits is complex and difficult also in philosophy. However, if one aims to show how people’s faith is used as a tool of rulers, he could maybe show that despite of rulers arguments reason is used in CL: for example interpretations based on Bible are all made after long discussion. Also many rules concerning believer’s everyday life are argued as well as possible: for example the prohibition of television is explained with its possibly dangerous affect on believer’s religious life. Naturally some rules – like prohibition of homosexuality - are based solemnly on faith and Bible. However it is obvious that reason is used where it is useful and forgot where it fights against movement’s interpretation of Bible or Churches official opinions. This choice is also explained: God tells his children where they need to use their own reason and where they just have to follow His orders and CL Church as a God’s Kingdom is competent to evaluate where this line goes. After all it seems that reason must be partly rejected if one wants to be CL and at the same time this situation is potential source of power for those who define when reason should not be trusted.

this by two ways. The earthly kingdom he rules through secular government and by the means of law. Heavenly or spiritual kingdom he rules through the gospel or grace. This simple concept has been very important is Europe’s history, where it has been used as a spiritual explanation for the separation of the state and church. So, from theological point of view CL is contemporary Lutheran revival movement, which accepts the idea of two regimes. As such it wants to separate the area of state and politics from the area of religion and spiritual life. This goal is not simple to reach, which also can be seen through my research material. Religious opinions and claims often concern earthly issues and they also can be seen in political opinions of CL. For example, believers have been strongly advised not to vote leftist parties because of their atheistic tendencies. Nowadays movement prefers not to give straight orders on what to vote or support, but still message is at least implied: CL’s should not support movements or ideas which threaten peace or stability of society. State should always be supported, even if it doesn’t share CL’s religious opinions. As can be seen, CL’s theology is openly political – it is the question of political struggle if state should be supported or not. Next I analyze briefly the concept of the state in CL’s language games and world. To put it simply, in CL world the authorities form the order of the God (PM 48/ 2010, 32). Anyhow there is no any certain model of how society or state should be organized; instead Christianity can adapt in different kind of states and societies. According CL’s even bad authorities are better than society without authorities. It is for the “common good” that there are authorities (PM 48/ 2010, 32). Since authorities get their legitimacy from God, one should also respect its laws, at least as far they don’t order to sin. Laws are protecting also CL community from sinful powers. In general CL community seems to share the idea of the need of protection: with law and authorities also Lutheran Church is important for CL Church as a shelter. (for example PM 28/ 2010, 16) The order of the God doesn’t cover only state but also the areas of family and Christian Church, i.e. CL Church (PM 30/ 2010, 30). Church obviously is part of God’s order – it is God’s Kingdom – but also emphasis of the family is very important here. According CL’s doctrine family is the basic cell of society: traditional families should be protected for example from the pressure of the working life and changing moral values. From the point of view of the community and society individual is not the most important thing. Individuals form families and homes, which are basic units of human society. This doesn’t mean that individual is not important as a human being: CL’s emphasize also

individual’s right for total freedom5, though freedom is understood wrong if it is used to sin. (PM 47/ 2010, 2; SL 3/ 2010, 21.) Actually according CL’s for example even the freedom of religion is good for CL’s itself: it guarantees that CL can have their faith and community without any pressure. The concept of the family is in very heart of CL’s language world. Families are basic cells of society but they are also in the heart of CL’s everyday life. CL’s deny birth control, which means that most of the CL families are very big. This rule seems not to be not accepted by all – especially young CL’s – but anyhow it is accepted by many. Empirical evidence is clear: when you go to the CL’s summer festivals, you see tens of thousands of children and young families with even more than 10 children. This means also that the roles of husband and wife are very traditional. Though both go to work, mother spends lots of time in maternity leave while husband brings the money to the house. In general meaning of the family cannot be over-emphasized when trying to understand CL world. For many it is the world of safety, but in world of sexual freedom this is also one of the concepts which creates critics. CL’s value stable society, which is guaranteed by strong state. State is the order of the God and as such it should be protected from powers which threaten it. Logically CL’s have always been and still are very patriotic. For example Finland’s independence is very important for CL’s, and for example stories about CL’s in Second World War are important part of movement’s self-understanding (see for example 48/ 2010, 2). Laestadians have also traditionally voted parties which are patriotic and conservative, though not very radical. In Finland this has meant National Coalition Party and especially Centre Party. In 60’s and 70’s movement even explicitly recommended its members to vote parties and candidates who shared its Christian and patriotic values. Also they openly spoke against leftist parties (because of their atheistic and rebellious goals) and even Finnish Countryside Party, which was too “rebellious”. Nowadays movement doesn’t give straight orders on whom to vote, but still choice for many is clear:

5

It is obvious that the concept of freedom is understood somehow originally in CL’s language game. It means real freedom to speak and act, but not as a believer. One cannot be a real member of CL Church and act or speak at the same time against Churches rules. This means that inside of community there is no real freedom in a sense that one can think differently without consequences. This is the question of choice: one needs to decide whether he wants to be totally free in secular meaning of the world or member of CL Church. This however is not the whole case: to be a member of CL Church means at the same time different kind of freedom, freedom from the power of sin. So when CL claims that he actually is really free, he is right. In CL world this freedom is more important than freedom to do sin if one wants so. Here we see also one key point of my thesis: in a interesting way CL’s are members of two kingdoms. Also here they really support a freedom of religion, thinking and speech in secular society while they think that this is not a real freedom, which is only the freedom from the sin.

M82: Not all the Laestadians vote Centre Party, though maybe it has been strongest. Traditionally we haven’t voted leftist partiest or protest parties, but nowadays also relationship to Social Democrats is different. Co-operation we have done with everybody. W24: I think that religion and politics cannot be separated, they are linked together. One needs to respect the authorities also according the Bible. I am not so interested on party politics but I know that Laestadians are supporting Centre Party and National Coalition Party. M38: I now that many people have voted True Finns or even Green Party, though Centre Party is traditionally most popular. I think that people should vote according their political, not religious opinions. Most of the politicians work considers other than religious or even moral issues. Still believers are anyhow recommended to support candidates and parties which are “constructing, not tearing the society apart” and many believers like to vote other believers. This is natural: many people like to vote candidates who seem to share their values. Anyhow “good candidates” seem not to be chosen by movement or its rulers. To vote other believer seems rather to be a tradition, which could maybe be described as a loose rule in community. According this same rule it is also possible to vote non-believer or to vote believer not because he is one but because he has good political opinions. Important aspect in rule is that one should not support powers which are threat to a stability of society or state. CL’s seem to be very good citizens of both of their Kingdoms; that is God’s Kingdom and secular society. They value state and politics, want to obey rules and want to support even bad government, as long as it lets them to live the life they want. Naturally CL’s would hope that state and society would be built on CL’s values, which, according to them, would also guarantee the success and stability of society. Movement is also somehow active on societal discussion especially concerning important themes for them. These are for example issues concerning sexual moral and marriage, status and well-being of children and families, church politics in general, state’s status in society’s life, party politics and sometimes also discussion concerning CL movement itself. Movement likes to give instructions to others but practically doesn’t admit that it can have problems inside of community: actually all the problems, according movements leaders, are issues of single believers, not the Church6. However in 6

This claim is very problematic and in the heart of most contemporary criticism. Anyhow claim is logical from the point of view of CL church doctrine, which says that Church is infallible and thus cannot do anything wrong as a community.

CL world the society and state are God’s order and thus public and societal issues are part of believer’s life – in practice and in principle. It is another question where CL’s concept of the state comes from. Explicitly it is based straight on the Bible, but it is different question what is the background of this specific interpretation. After all Bible has been understood also differently: radical examples are rebellious millenarist movements of Middle Age (see Cohn 1970). CL’s own answer would be that God guides his Church to understand Him right. If one tries to find another answer, it is possible to mirror CL’s concept of the state to its historical context. This context can be seen from the point of view of Lutheran tradition or actually longer Christian tradition. Like Carl Schmitt put it, sovereign is the one who decides about the state of exception (see Schmitt 1997). In theology it is God and in political system for example state. In Christian tradition kingdoms and later states indeed has been sovereign: they are under God’s regime, but God let’s secular leaders (emperors, presidents, governments) rule as they want and can. This is also the case in CL concept: state is God’s sovereign order in secular life. Another interesting factor behind CL’s thinking is Finnish philosophy and secular thinking. CL movement was born in early 20th century, which was the time when Finland struggled for its independence. Also CL community had to decide where it stood for. Options were Russian Finland and independent Finland. At least after Bolsheviks took power, the choice for the CL’s was easy: they could not tolerate atheistic communism. In Finnish Civil War at 1918 CL’s fought for White troops against socialist Red side. After war CL continued to support legalist Finland: they didn’t accept communism but they also objected far Right, like the fascist Movement of Lapua. (see Palola 2010.) Interesting is that CL’s concept of the state and family has many similarities with G.W.F Hegel’s and Finnish J.V. Snellmans philosophies. Especially Snellman – who was student of Hegel and very influential in early 20th century in Finland – sounds familiar: for him state has positive value over society and basic cell for the system is family. Influence of Snellman in CL thinking would be a topic for another research, but here it is anyhow possible to speculate on possible connection. At least it is reasonable to think that for CL it was easy to adapt in Finnish society, which at early 20th century shared its values concerning society and family and opinions of religion and state. Nowadays situation is different and CL is becoming more and more strange phenomenon in postmodern world, where both state and religion are said to be losing their meaning.

LITERATURE Cohn, Norman (1970) The Pursuit of the Millennium. Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, Chatham: Pimligo. Laestadius, Lars Levi (1970 / 1852 - 1854) Huutavan ääni korvessa. Valikoima kirjoituksia hengellisestä aikakauslehdestä. En ropandes röst i öknen vv. 1852–1854. Käännös J.F. Hellman 1906. Hämeenlinna: Karisto. Lohi, Seppo (1989 / 2000) Sydämen kristillisyys. Lars Levi Laestadius ja lestadiolaisen herätyksen alkuvaiheet. Suomen Rauhanyhdistysten keskusyhdistys. Jyväskylä. Lohi, Seppo (1997) Pohjolan kristillisyys. Lestadiolaisuuden leviäminen Suomessa 1870-1899. Suomen Rauhanyhdistysten keskusyhdistys. Jyväskylä. Lohi, Seppo (2007) Lestadiolaisuuden suuri hajaannus ja sen taustat. Suomen Rauhanyhdistysten keskusyhdistys. Jyväskylä. Palola, Ari-Pekka (2010) Kahden kuoren suojassa. Suomen Rauhanyhdistysten Keskusyhdistyksen historia osa 1. Oulu: SRK. Ruokanen, Miikka (1980) Jumalan valtakunta ja syntien anteeksiantamus. Helsinki: Kirkon tutkimuslaitos. Sarja A N:o 36. Schmitt, Carl (1997) Poliittinen teologia. Helsinki: Tutkijaliitto. Wallman, Johannes (1997) Totinen kääntymys ja maailmanparannus. Pietismi kirkkohistoriallisena ilmiönä, Suom. Esko M. Laine, Helsinki: Kirjaneliö

Winch, Peter (1958 / 1979) Yhteiskuntatieteet ja filosofia. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1981) Filosofisia tutkimuksia. Suom. Heikki Nyman. Juva: WSOY.

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.