Aila Lauha Perspectives on the Effect of ’s and on the Theological Discussion in

Abstract: This essay traces the influence of Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros among Finnish theologians. The essay argues that Nygren’s book was initially received with disinterest in Finland, but that sentiments shifted after World War II. Eventually, Nygren and the Lun- densian School came to exert significant influence on Finnish .

Anders Theodor Samuel Nygren (1890–1978) was a professor of systematic the­ ology at University, , from 1924 to 1948. After that he was the bishop of Lund until 1958, and he was also the first president of the Lutheran World Federa- tion, serving from 1947–1952.1 Nygren has been known as one of the key figures of the Lundensian School of Theology, along with Gustaf Aulén (1879–1977) and Ragnar Bring (1895–1988). Together, they wanted to rediscover the major motifs of Christian theology and to discover how such motifs had been employed throughout history. Nygren was particularly interested in the motif of . According to some scholars, strong religious conservatism combined with respect for the Lutheran heritage and individual religious experience had been characteristic of the Swedish Lutheran piety. The Lundensian theology is said to have been a kind of attempt to combine this older Swedish theological heritage with the new impulses from the theological liberalism of the twentieth century. Nygren’s most important scientific contribution was the two-volume work Eros och Agape (Agape and Eros), first published in Swedish between 1930–1936.2 In this work, consisting of more than 750 pages, Nygren analyzed the connotations of two , eros and agape. According to Nygren, eros is a need- and desire-based, egocentric, and acquisitive love, while agape is the only truly Christian kind of love that can be found in the New Testament texts. In his major work, Nygren traces the historical roots of what he perceives as the loss of this original concept of love. According to him, the focus on agape had been blurred

1 Anders Jarlert, ‘Nygren, Anders Theodor Samuel’, in Göran Nilzén (ed.), Svenskt bio- grafiskt lexikon, vol. 27, Stockholm 1992, pp. 692–698. 2 Anders Nygren, Den kristna kärlekstanken genom tiderna: Eros och Agape, Stockholm 1930–1936. 200 Aila Lauha throughout the Middle Ages. It was Luther who finally rediscovered and refined the original Christian agape conception of love. Nygren’s Agape and Eros has been considered the most influential Protestant account of love in the twentieth century. It has been translated into various lan- guages, and a complete English translation was first published in 1953, with the title Agape and Eros: The Christian Idea of Love.3 In Finland, the book became an ecclesiastical ‘classic,’ and its impact on Finnish theological research and education has continued up to present day.

Foreign Theological Impulses in Finland International impulses and cooperation have always been crucial in the history of Finnish theology. As early as the Middle Ages, young Finnish theologians studied at Central European universities. Later on, in the wake of the , the University of Wittenberg was especially popular. In 1640, the Turku Academy and the Faculty of Theology were founded. Nevertheless, studying abroad, especially for doctoral degrees, continued. From the late nineteenth century on, many new theological impulses from the neighbouring countries began to reach Finland, especially via the Swedish universities in Uppsala and Lund. In the twentieth century, the importance of Swedish contacts became increasingly prominent.4 When tracing international influence on the history of Finnish theology during the last 120 years, one must familiarize oneself with the oldest and most important Finnish theological review, the bilingual Teologinen Aikakauskirja – Teologisk Tidskrift (TA), founded in 1896.5 This review also offers an illuminating window into the appearance of Lundensian theology in Finland and the ensuing lively discussions, especially in connection to Nygren’s Agape and Eros.

3 Parts of the work had already been translated to English in the 1930s. Cf. Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, London 1932; Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros: The History of the Christian Idea of Love, London 1938; Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros: The Christian Idea of Love, London 1953. In the following, the English title Agape and Eros will be used. 4 Simo Heininen & Markku Heikkilä, Kirchengeschichte Finnlands, Göttingen 2002, pp. 42–45, 94–98. The university moved from Turku to the new capital Helsinki in 1928 and is today called the University of Helsinki. Heininen & Heikkilä 2002, 160–161. 5 During the first decades the number of Swedish articles was considerable, but the situation changed in the late 1920s. Since 1930, the Finnish formulation of the title Teo­ loginen Aikakauskirja has preceded the Swedish Teologisk Tidskrift. Matti Ijäs, Jaakko Gummerus kirkkohistoriantutkijana, Jyväskylä 1993, p. 142. Nevertheless, the bilingual nature of the journal remains. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 201

Teologinen Aikakauskirja was run mainly by professors at the University of Hel- sinki and aimed to serve as a high level special journal for Finnish theologians. The first editor in chief from 1896–1915 and the founder of TA was G. G. Rosenqvist (1855–1931), professor of dogmatics and ethics. In 1916, he was succeeded by the leading church historian of the time, Jaakko Gummerus (1870–1933), who later became bishop of Porvoo. He in turn was followed by A. F. Puukko (1875–1954), professor of Old Testament exegesis. Understandably, the theological discipline of the editor in chief was reflected in the editorial policy. Nevertheless, TA endeav- oured to offer a balanced forum for all fields of theological study, and this was also valid for the introduction of new research from abroad. In addition to academic ambitions, societal aspirations were also characteristic of TA, especially during the inter-war era. There was a certain willingness to give positive impulses and support to develop the Lutheran Church of Finland − the ‘folk church’ – and to strengthen the morals and values of the young Finnish state; this was openly expressed in many articles. The patriotic undertone typical of Finnish culture and society at the time was thus evident.6 TA eagerly followed theological and ecclesiastical life in other Lutheran coun- tries. In order to gather correct topical information, TA created a network of per- manent foreign correspondents in the Nordic countries. In addition, the editorial board received relevant information from Sweden via numerous professors at the new Swedish-language Faculty of Theology at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, which was founded in 1924. Many of the early professors in Turku were Swedish, and they later returned to Sweden. In the early phase, one of the most visible Swedish TA correspondents was Hjalmar Holmquist (1873–1945), a professor of church history at Lund Univer- sity. He was highly valued by his colleague and friend Jaakko Gummerus. It is therefore no wonder that Holmquist’s three-volume Church History was added to the curriculum at the Faculty of Theology as early as 1915, and for more than 50 years after that, all students of theology had to become familiar with it. Finnish translations by A. E. Jokipii (1893–1968), published between 1928–1932, helped the laborious study.7 Holmquist and Gummerus were forerunners of cooperation between the professors of church history at the universities in Lund and Helsinki.

6 Leena Isotalo, ‘Kirkko ja Teologinen Aikakauskirja 1896–1915’, Teologinen Aikakauskir- ja 102 (1997), pp. 412–414; Aila Lauha, ‘Teologinen Aikakauskirja sotien välisenä ai- kana 1917–1939’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 452–455. 7 Hjalmar Holmquist, Gamla kyrkans historia till sjunde århundradets början, Uppsala 1907; Hjalmar Holmquist, Medeltidens kyrkohistoria till XIV:de århundradets början, 202 Aila Lauha

Besides Holmquist, Torsten Bohlin (1889–1950) and Ragnar Bring were the Swedish researchers who most influenced the course of Teologinen Aikakauskirja in the 1920s and 1930s.8 Partly because of their efforts, but also due to the amic­ able personal contacts between many other Finnish and Swedish professors, it is pertinent to say that besides Germany, Sweden was the country that Finland had to thank for providing new theological impulses during the inter-war era.

Nygren and the Luther Boom In the 1920s and 1930s, a keen interest in studying Luther and the Lutheran heri­ tage became characteristic of many European theological faculties, and this trend soon spread globally.9 Teologinen Aikakauskirja followed this boom. The tendency at first was rather historical, not least due to Jaakko Gummerus, who throughout his whole career emphasized the importance and value of the Protestant heritage and especially the great findings of Luther. In TA, Gummerus continually recommended the writings of the leading German Luther scholar Karl Holl (1866–1926), whom he knew personally.10 In addition to the historical interest in Luther, systematic theological Luther research became influential in Finland around 1930. The names of the German Luther scholars now repeatedly appeared in articles and book reviews in TA, often written by Eino Sormunen (1893–1972) and Yrjö J. E. Alanen (1890–1960).11 Both writers were successful academically: Sormunen became a professor of dogmatics

Stockholm 1910; Hjalmar Holmquist, Den senare medeltidens kyrkohistoria, Stockholm 1914; Hjalmar Holmquist, Kirkkohistoria, Helsinki 1928–1932. 8 Torsten Bohlin was a professor of systematic theology at Åbo Akademi University in 1925–1929 and a professor of dogmatics and moral theology at in 1929–1934. In 1934–1950 he was the bishop of Härnösand, Sweden. Ragnar Bring was a professor of systematic theology at Åbo Akademi University in 1930–1934 (first as an acting professor) and at from 1934–1962. Gustaf Aulén, ‘Bohlin, Torsten Bernhard’, in Bertil Boëthius (ed.), Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, vol. 5, Stockholm 1925, pp. 189–190; ‘Bring, A. E. Ragnar’, in Sten Lagerström (ed.), Vem är det? Svensk biografisk handbok 1969, Stockholm 1968, p. 139. 9 Harold J. Grimm, ‘Luther Research since 1920’, The Journal of Modern History 32:2 (1960), pp. 105–118. 10 Aila Lauha, Suomen kirkon ulkomaansuhteet ja ekumeeninen osallistuminen 1917–1922, Jyväskylä 1990, pp. 368–369, 380–381; Ijäs 1993, pp. 110, 122, 165, 330–331; Lauha 1997, p. 458. 11 Ijäs 1993, p. 165; Lauha 1997, pp. 473–474. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 203 and ethics in 1934, and Alanen became a professor of systematic theology in 1938, both at the University of Helsinki.12 The new and promising Swedish Luther study was first introduced to the read- ers of Teologinen Aikakauskirja as early as 1928. From the beginning, discussion centred around the writings of Nygren. G. O. Rosenqvist (1893–1961), eventually a professor of practical theology and Chancellor at Åbo Akademi University, and from 1954 bishop of Porvoo, who wrote an article in TA on the topical and much discussed ‘Reich Gottes Theology.’ In his article ‘Gudsrikes-idén och förkunnelsen,’ Rosenqvist gave abundant information on Nygren’s ethical findings. According to Rosenqvist, Nygren’s argumentation differed from the fashionable ethical prin­ ciples characteristic of the Reich Gottes Theology. For instance, Rosenqvist saw that Nygren denied man’s ability to truly love God. In addition, Nygren did not believe that it was possible for Christians to create an immanent Reich Gottes on earth by ethical endeavours. Rosenqvist’s comments on Nygren were neutral and not totally of an approving nature. G. O. Rosenqvist himself – like his famous father G. G. Rosenqvist – predominantly emphasized the socio-ethical responsibility of Christian people. Thus, he may have well understood and shared some of the eth­ ical arguments of Reich Gottes Theology. Interestingly, however, his article seems to stress that Nygren’s love obviously included some social dimensions that could encourage socio-ethical activity.13 The next person to familiarize Finns with Nygren was Ragnar Bring, who in the early 1930s occupied the chair of systematic theology at Åbo Akademi Uni- versity after Bohlin. In 1931, he wrote an extensive article in TA – 73 pages long – dealing with the increase in Swedish Luther research concentrating on Nygren. The first volume of Agape and Eros had just been published in Sweden. In addi- tion to Nygren, Bring also presented the studies of Gustaf Aulén. The tone of this article was enthusiastic. Bring himself has since been counted as a central figure

12 Sormunen was later bishop of , Finland (1939–1962). Kalevi Toiviainen, Kirkon kaapin päällä: Sata vuotta – 50 vaikuttajaa, Helsinki 2000, pp. 229–233; Kari Mäkinen, ‘Sormunen, Eino’, in Matti Klinge & Aulikki Litzen (eds.), Suomen kansallisbiografia, vol. 9, Helsinki 2007, pp. 201–204. From 1948–1958, Alanen was a professor of theo- logical ethics and philosophy of religion. ‘Alanen, Yrjö Jaakko Edvin’: Iisakki Laati et al. (eds.), Kuka kukin oli: Henkilötietoja 1900-luvulla kuolleista julkisuuden suomalaisista, Helsinki 1961, pp. 20–21. 13 Georg Olof Rosenqvist, ‘Gudsrikes-idén och förkunnelsen’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 33 (1928), pp. 26–27; Lauha 1997, p. 474. 204 Aila Lauha of the Lundensian School.14 His article in TA certainly had some effect on Finnish Theology; at least it is known that the editor in chief of TA, Jaakko Gummerus, was rather fascinated by the article.15 Over the following years, a few Finnish scholars, among them at least Rafael Gyllenberg (1893–1982)16 and Luther specialist Eino Sormunen, commented on Nygren’s book. Sormunen had studied in Lund and knew the Swedish theologic­ al atmosphere well, including its tensions. Encouraged by Jaakko Gummerus to concentrate on Lundensian theology, Sormunen wrote several articles dealing with Luther studies for TA between 1931–1932.17 In addition, in 1933 he wrote a very positive review of Nygren’s new book Försoningen: En gudsgärning (The Atonement: A Work of God).18 Despite many expressions of interest and respect, it must be noted that the Lundensian School was not met with marked attention or general enthusiasm in Finland during the inter-war era. Even Nygren’s opus magnum, Agape and Eros, was, surprisingly, scarcely discussed. Soon after the second volume of this work had been published in 1936, an extensive review of it appeared in Teologinen Aikakauskirja – but it was written by Professor Hjalmar Lindroth (1893–1979) from Uppsala, not by a Finnish scholar.19

14 Ragnar Bring, ‘Den svenska Lutherforskningen under de sista tre decennierna i dess samband med den systematiska teologien’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 36 (1931), pp. 67–87, 143–155, 202–225, 286–304; Jyrki Jormakka, Lundilaisen teologian tulo Suomeen 1930–1946, University of Helsinki pro gradu thesis, 1997, p. 27; Lauha 1997, pp. 474–475. On the influence of Bring on Finnish Luther studies, see Hans-Olof Kvist, ‘Systematisk teologi’, in Solveig Widén (ed.). Åbo Akademi 1918–1993: Forskning och in- stitutioner: 2. Humanistiska fakulteten – Teologiska fakulteten, Turku 1993, pp. 341–343. 15 Ijäs 1993, p. 166. 16 Rafael Gyllenberg, ‘Ritschls uppfattning av mystik och pietism’, Teologinen Aikakauskir- ja 37 (1932), p. 369; Rafael Gyllenberg, ‘Tro och lydnad hos Paulus’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 42 (1937), pp. 44–45. 17 Eino Sormunen, ‘Uusinta Luther-tutkimusta’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 36 (1931), pp. 304–316, 363–371; Eino Sormunen, ‘Uusinta Luther-tutkimusta’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 37 (1932), pp. 89–99; Ijäs 1993, pp. 166–167; Lauha 1997, p. 474. 18 Eino Sormunen, [Review of] Anders Nygren, Försoningen: En gudsgärning, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 38 (1933), pp. 134–137; Eino Sormunen, ‘Teologian nykyinen käänne ruotsalaisen teologian valossa’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 40 (1935), pp. 6–18; Jormakka 1997, pp. 37–40; Lauha 1997, p. 474. Cf. Anders Nygren, Försoningen: En gudsgärning, Stockholm 1932. 19 Hjalmar Lindroth, [Review of] Anders Nygren, Den kristna kärlekstanken genom tiderna: Eros och agape, vol. 2, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 42 (1937), pp. 420–430; Lauha 1997, p. 475; Jormakka 1997, pp. 40–42. Lindroth was a professor of dogmatics and Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 205

Why did the leading Finnish theologians not pay more attention to the topic? Naturally, there might have been many reasons arising from differing theologic­ al thinking. Nevertheless, we need to remember that in the 1930s cultural life in Finland, including the universities and partly the church, was affected by the so- called language battle. The Finnish speaking majority protested against certain privileges protecting the use of Swedish in public life, for instance, at the universi- ties. In the wake of the language battle, anti-Sweden views were also sometimes expressed, both politically and culturally. There was a strong tendency to highlight the independence and originality of Finnish culture in relation to Swedish cul- ture. Furthermore, many student organizations, including the Christian Student Association, kept a distance from their Swedish sister organizations.20 On these grounds, one can understand the silence around Nygren, which grew towards the end of the 1930s. It was only Professor Rafael Gyllenberg21 from Åbo Akademi University – a biblical scholar with Swedish as his mother tongue – who in 1937 openly praised Agape and Eros and recommended it as the ‘Book of the Year’ to be studied in every study circle of Finnish pastors.22 None of the professors from the Helsinki faculty offered this kind of praise or recommendation. Nevertheless, the language battle may not have been the main reason for the silence surrounding Nygren. The Lundensian tradition was not the only new for- eign theological orientation rejected in Finland in the 1930s. The narrow and prejudiced nature of Finnish theology became apparent in other similar cases. Likewise, the impact of dialectical theology remained rather limited in Finland. In TA, the writings of Karl Barth (1886–1968) were introduced and evaluated, but his central ideas failed to find much response. The critical way Barth commented on Pietism, as well as the fact that he did not regard historical church institutions very highly, did not please the Finnish audience. Barth’s thinking was felt to contradict

moral theology at Uppsala University from 1936–1938, and from 1938–1960 he held the chair of dogmatics and symbolics. Concerning the rather lukewarm attitude in Finland towards Nygren and the Lundensian School before World War II, see also Juha Seppo, ‘Teologinen Aikakauskirja sodan ja Lundin teologian varjossa 1940–1953’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 532. 20 Jason Lavery, The , London 2006, pp. 100–101. In the case of the Christian Student Association there were also strong theological reasons that affected the relations. Ruth Franzén, Studentekumenik och väckelse: kristliga student- förbund i internationell brytning 1924–1950, Helsinki 1987, pp. 5–6, 437–452. 21 Rafael Gyllenberg had been a professor of Old Testament exegesis at the University of Helsinki from 1929–1934. From 1934–1964 he was a professor of New Testament exegesis at Åbo Akademi University. 22 Gyllenberg 1937, p. 45. 206 Aila Lauha the Finnish folk church ideology and the Finnish understanding of Pietism. Fur- thermore, some older Finnish researchers were unable to combine the impulses of Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) and the so-called Cultural Protestantism of their youth with the ideas of dialectical theology. Thus the reception of Karl Barth and dialectical theology in Finland before World War II can be described with exactly the same words as those used for the Lundensian School: correct but reserved.23

The ‘Lundensian Battles’ of the 1940s and 1950s The oppressive time between 1939 and 1945, with two wars and enormous suf- fering and loss, significantly influenced Finnish religious life. During and soon after the war, there were many expectations regarding the churches and the clergy, and a lively discussion about the topical challenges for Finnish religious life was established. Several books and leaflets were published stressing the responsibility of the Church to find new ways to reach the entire population, including Finnish men. Church newspapers and periodicals, including the academic theological journal Teologinen Aikakauskirja, participated in this discourse. After the war, new forms of social work were developed; these included counselling for famil­ ies, pastoral counselling at hospitals, and work with industrial workers. Many theologians, especially young pastors who had been at the front, realized that in addition to practical church life, theological discussion and education needed to be re-evaluated.24

23 Lauha 1997, pp. 472–473. Jokipii was one of the first Finnish theologians commenting on the theology of Karl Barth. He very much shared the criticism of Torsten Bohlin. Aapeli Erhard Jokipii, ‘Karl Barth ja aikamme dogmaattinen ajattelu’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 31 (1926), pp. 81–106, 141–161, 210–221; Ijäs 1993, p. 277. Concerning Bohlin’s attitude towards Barth see Ola Sigurdson, Karl Barth som den andre: En studie i den svenska teologins Barth-reception, Eslöv 1996, pp. 33, 40–50, 334–335; Mikael Lindfelt, Teologi och kristen humanism: Ett perspektiv på Torsten Bohlins teologiska tänkande, Turku 1996, pp. 10–11, 17–23. 24 Minna Ahola, Ihanteena ykseys. Aarne Siirala, seurakuntaopiston kiistelty johtaja, Jy- väskylä 1996, pp. 23–29; Esko M. Laine, ‘Kulttuuri, politiikka ja yhteiskunta Teologisen Aikakauskirjan lehdillä sotavuosina 1939–1944’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 504–522; Seppo 1997, pp. 526–529, 532; Aila Lauha, ‘Finland: Ansvar för folket förblir kyrkans kallelse’, in Jens Holger Schjørring (ed.), Nordiske Folkekirker i opbrud: National identitet og international nyorientering efter 1945, Aarhus 2001, pp. 53–62; Aila Lauha, ‘Finnish since 1940’, in Björn Ryman et al. (ed.), Nordic Folk Churches: A Contemporary Church History, Grand Rapids 2005, pp. 27–30; Heininen & Heikkilä 2002, p. 210. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 207

International cooperation in the field of theology was revived from 1944 on, primarily due to Nordic cooperation. Contacts with Sweden especially started to flourish. The connections between the two theological faculties in Lund and Helsinki now became crucial for Finnish theology. Young Finnish theologians preparing their doctoral theses – some of them injured in the war – now studied in Lund. Because of their influence, the findings of Nygren and other Lundensian theologians became an object of central interest in Finland. From 1944, Finn- ish academic theology became dominated by discussions and disputes inspired originally by the Swedish Luther research, with its emphasis on finding the major motifs of Lutheran theology. One of the main figures in these disputes was Osmo Tiililä (1904–1972), profes- sor of dogmatics. He had very early on adopted an antipathy towards the search for major theological motifs by Lundensian theologians.25 Tiililä was supported by colleagues Yrjö J. E. Alanen and K. V. L. Jalkanen (1906–1956), as well as fellow theologians Osmo Alaja (1915–2001) and Olavi Tarvainen (1909–1992). These anti-Lundensian scholars were not only theologically conservative, they also op- posed many attempts to develop church life to better correspond to post-war demands. The key figure on the other side of this debate was a well-known Luther scholar, Lennart Pinomaa (1901–1996), who was a professor of systematic theology at the University of Helsinki in 1948–1968. The Pinomaa party saw an important addi- tion in the form of Olavi Castrén (1909–1979), who had been studying in Lund and defended his dissertation there in 1939. The first controversy between Tiililä and Castrén took place in Teologinen Aikakauskirja between 1944–1945, and was heated and colourful. This theological disagreement may have influenced the -ex ceptionally negative official statement Tiililä wrote on Castrén, who had applied for a position as docent at the university. Nevertheless, Castrén was not left alone. He was supported not only by Pinomaa, but by many other prominent scholars who had studied in Lund or who had otherwise become familiar with the main arguments of the Lundensian School and accepted them. Of these, Lauri Haikola (1917–1987) and later on Aarne Siirala (1919–1991) are the most significant. The seriously injured Haikola became a professor of ethics and philosophy of religion in Helsinki in 1958. Siirala, who was for many years an important figure in the renewal process of the Lutheran Church, later moved to Canada, where he pursued

25 Seppo 1997, p. 532. 208 Aila Lauha a respected academic career. Castrén received a permanent teaching position at the faculty as an associate professor of systematic theology in 1958.26 In 1949, the dissertation of Helge Nyman (1910–1987) contributed significantly to the Lundensian battle. In his thesis Den bidande tron hos Paavo Ruotsalainen (The Biding Faith of Paavo Ruotsalainen), Nyman analyzed and compared the differences between the Lutheran and Pietistic understandings of salvation.27 The latter, according to Nyman, was characterized by ego-centred contemplations and endeavours. Here, Nyman clearly shared the views of Nygren. However, Nyman proclaimed that Paavo Ruotsalainen (1777–1852), the respected Pietistic leader of the nineteenth century, constituted an exception, because the teaching of ‘Ukko- Paavo’ had been thoroughly theocentric. Whereas the other Pietistic leaders may have represented religious subjectivism, eudaimonism, and egocentricity, Ruot- salainen opposed these tendencies. Nyman’s thesis gave impulse to a heated and long-lasting and ultimately unresolved dispute on the Lutheran understanding of salvation and the correct interpretation of the Finnish Pietistic heritage. Using tools borrowed from the Lundensian School, Nyman challenged and questioned the pure Lutheran character of the Finnish revival movements, especially that of the Ostrobothnian awakening (körttiläisyys). Osmo Tiililä’s fury now found its main object in Nyman. He started to stress that there was a deep gap between the piety of the Finnish revival movements and Nygren’s teaching on love.28 Lundensian ethical arguments were also discussed and tested in connection with topical societal challenges. Lennart Pinomaa saw that the war had caused the Lutheran churches to be more open to the social responsibilities of the Christian churches; not because they were ‘forced by law,’ but as an expression of love. It is possible to see in Pinomaa’s argumentation the influence of Nygren’s understand- ing of agape. Naturally, Osmo Tiililä commented on this by presenting his own ‘superior’ interpretation of Luther and .29 The early 1950s saw the final big dispute with a clear connection to Nygren. It revolved around the question of theological research as an academic discipline. In 1946, Olavi Castrén expressed some criticism against those systematic theo- logians – like Osmo Tiililä – who confused faith and knowledge and demanded that theology be understood as a function of the Christian Church. Teologinen

26 Ahola 1996, pp. 30–32; Seppo 1997, pp. 529–532. 27 Helge Nyman, Den bidande tron hos Paavo Ruotsalainen, Lund 1949. 28 Seppo 1997, pp. 529–530, 539–542. From 1959–1974, Nyman was a professor of prac­ tical theology at Åbo Akademi University and in 1969 he received an honorary doctorate from Lund University. 29 Seppo 1997, pp. 533–534. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 209

Aikakauskirja again became the main forum for this discussion. Systematic theo- logians Pinomaa, Castrén, Siirala, and several other scholars from the fields of church history and biblical studies earnestly defended the independence and aca- demic nature of theology against Tiililä and his allies. Many in the former group had a positive understanding of the Lundensian School and referenced Nygren openly. Tiililä called his opponents ‘liberal theologians’ and representatives of the neo-Ritschlian school – epithets that were abhorrent, especially in Pietistic circles.30 As a kind of compromise, Pinomaa finally said that he felt the wordtheology was used differently by him and his main opponent Tiililä. Pinomaa saw that Tiililä wanted theological research to serve pastoral care and to have the answers to all the religious questions of human beings, including the mystery of death. Pinomaa himself understood theology as an academic study based on ‘intersub- jective argumentation.’31 Even if Finnish ‘Lundensians’ defended an academic theology that was inde- pendent of the Church, they did not depreciate or condemn practical church life. According to Pinomaa, the Christian sermon and teachings were important, but they were not part of the mission of theological research. Pinomaa stressed that Nygren himself had clarified the true nature of the spirit of the New Testament. Finally, on the ‘Lundensian side,’ there was a general understanding on one prac­ tical thing: it was the duty of universities to take care of the pastors’ education. The integrity and high academic level of theological research was not dangerous; on the contrary, it was for the good of the Church as well.32 All in all, these Finnish discussions of the 1940s and 1950s initiated by or connected with Nygren expanded the gulf between the theological frontlines among university theologians. Unlike the ‘Lundensian type’ of theologians, some professors – such as Osmo Tiililä – sympathized with the Evangelical type of ‘neo- Pietistic’ revival movements and their teaching on salvation, Christian ethics, and sanctification. These in turn were unacceptable to those who sympathized with

30 Among the biblical scholars, Rafael Gyllenberg and Aarre Lauha (1907–1988) em- phasized the importance of truly academic, scientific theological study. The Luther researcher Uuras Saarnivaara (1908–1998) was one of the most critical Finnish op- ponents of the Lundensian School. Uuras Saarnivaara, ‘Lain kolme käyttöä’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 56 (1951), pp. 1–26; Seppo 1997, p. 550. 31 Lennart Pinomaa, ‘Teologiaako vai metafysiikkaa?’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 56 (1951), pp. 231–234; Seppo 1997, pp. 549–550. 32 Olavi Castrén, ‘Tieteellisen teologian käsitteestä’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 56 (1951), pp. 57–59; Seppo 1997, pp. 546–547. 210 Aila Lauha

Nygren’s understanding of love. Another gap manifested itself in the understand- ing of theology: whether it had to be understood as a function of the Church or as a truly academic discipline. As for the disagreements surrounding the value of the Finnish Pietistic heritage, there is actually no real gap to be found. In the Finnish case, an affiliation with Nygren did not lead to secession from the Finnish Pietistic revival movements. In fact, many Lundensian theologians – such as Lauri Haikola – were familiar with the Ostrobothnian revival from early childhood. The role Lennart Pinomaa and Lauri Haikola played in making Nygren’s stud- ies, and especially his book Agape and Eros, understood in Finland was crucial. Through them many impulses were accepted in the new Finnish study of Luther and Lutheran theology. Over the next decades, both of them continued as Luther scholars. Even though they later gained new impetus from outside the Lund circles – Haikola most of all from the Swedish Luther scholar Herbert Olsson (1899–1969) from Uppsala – neither of them broke away from the Lundensian School.33

Later Examples of Nygren’s Legacy The most fervent discussion surrounding Nygren was over by the end of the 1950s. Nevertheless, the heritage of his theology did not disappear – on the contrary, it remained at least within the academic teaching at the Faculty of Theology in Helsinki. As proof, I can offer a personal testimony. I studied theology at the University of Helsinki in the 1970s. There were still professors from the Finnish Lundensian group on the staff: worth mentioning are Lauri Haikola and especially Olavi Cas- trén. At the beginning of their studies all 150 of the new students had to attend a course on the history of philosophy given by Castrén, whom the students normally called ‘Kassu’ behind his back. When Kassu entered the classroom, he brought with him Aristoteles, Descartes, and Kant, among others, but also Nygren. During the lectures, Castrén talked repeatedly about Nygren and his understanding of the Christian heritage, the New Testament, and ‘Love.’ Not a single student could finish the course without some idea of eros and agape. ‘The motif of love has a central – maybe even the most central – place within Christianity, both religiously and ethically!’ stressed Castrén, using Nygren’s own expressions.34

33 Hans-Olof Kvist, ‘Lutheran Ethics and the Common Values of Mankind’, Svensk Teolo- gisk Kvartalskrift 82:1 (2006), pp. 24–26. Herbert Olsson was a professor of ethics and philosophy of religion at Uppsala University from 1954–1966. 34 Lecture notes, 1972. In author’s possession. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 211

Castrén worked hard to make it easier for the students of the 1970s to intern­ alize the world of eros and agape: he translated, and slightly condensed, the first volume of Agape and Eros into Finnish. The book was published by the University Press in 1970 in a rather simple format and was therefore cheap. Many students bought it; in fact, Castrén used to sell the book during lectures. This kind of com- mercial activity was one of the habits of this very original professor – he some- times sold pens as well. Castrén was one of the most eccentric Finnish professors ever, and several stories about him and his classes are still told today. In addition to the course on the history of philosophy, Castrén gave cum laude level lectures dealing exclusively with Nygren and his teaching on eros and agape. During this course, Nygren’s texts were read and analyzed. Castrén explained the philosophical origins of the differing concepts of love, starting from Classical an- tiquity. He gave his comments and stressed the most important findings, such as: ‘Christianity is a thoroughly ethical religion,’ ‘Eros-love is an egocentric longing for immortality,’ and ‘Man cannot love with pure “agape” love, only God can do this.’35 Did this somewhat peculiar teacher succeed in making students interested in Nygren? The answer is affirmative. The early 1970s was a time of student radical- ism – the so-called ‘long 1960s’ – with many new ideas. The fields of theology, social ethics, ecumenism, and global responsibility contained themes of great interest to many theology students. It was generally felt that the world needed to be reformed politically and economically. Some of the students were enthusiastic about the theology of revolution and some were openly leftist-oriented. Many old authorities were questioned. Among those students who wanted to change the world, ethics was naturally actively discussed, but mostly from the societal perspective. There were also other kinds of tendencies that coloured the academic atmos- phere and inspired theological and ethical discourse in Helsinki. Evangelical groupings of the Anglo-American type were popular. Those who belonged to them used to protest against the ‘irreligious’ teaching of theology, particularly in the field of exegetics. For them, it was not essential whether theology was con- sidered science or not. Furthermore, whenever ethics was discussed, the most important topics seemed to be sexual-ethical questions, especially those related to premarital relations and abortion. In this kind of, sometimes rather narrow, learning environment, it was a re- lief for many students to become acquainted with Nygren’s theology and Olavi Castrén’s ethical thinking. Hardly any information on past theological disputes

35 Lecture notes, 1972. In author’s possession. 212 Aila Lauha concerning the Lundensian School – described above – reached or interested the students of the time, nor did they see Nygren as a threat to the Finnish Pietistic heritage. In addition, the idea of Christianity as an ethical religion was well-suited to the topical demands of the 1970s – it was possible to find arguments for the socio-ethical and even political discussions in Nygren’s thinking. In his teaching, Castrén was able to avoid any kind of preaching. He spoke about religion and analyzed the Christian religious heritage, but he did not teach the students how to believe or act. He stressed that Nygren’s thinking was ‘truly academic’ and encouraged the students to be analytical and open. In spite of this positive evaluation of Nygren’s legacy in Finland, one has to admit that the long-standing tension and mutual mistrust that originated in the Lundensian battles of the 1940s and 1950s influenced Finnish academic the­ ology, especially systematic theology, at least throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The aftermath of the old quarrels could sometimes still be perceived in the private discussions of the professors, and after Castrén retired, very little teaching about Lundensian theology was available. It is no wonder, then, that in the recent past, only a few researchers have worked on topics related to the eros and agape motif or to Nygren himself.36 However, in August 2015, a doctoral dissertation titled God Is Love but Love Is Not God: Studies on C. S. Lewis’s Theology of Love, written by Jason Lepojärvi, brought Nygren and his theology to centre stage once again. The book deals with C. S. Lewis’s (1898–1963) theology of love; Lewis, who, according to Lepojärvi, was ‘one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the twentieth century with continuing relevance into the twenty-first.’37 In his thesis, Lepojärvi discusses Nygren and his theological heritage rather critically. It is obvious that Lewis’s understanding of love pleases him more than Nygren’s. Nevertheless, this high level academic thesis can be seen as evidence of the long-lasting and inspiring influence of Nygren and hisAgape and Eros in Finland.

36 A few master’s theses have been written about Lundensian theology, e.g. Jormakka 1997. 37 The book consists of four essays. In three of them, Lewis’s theology is compared to and contrasted with that of Nygren. Lepojärvi indicates that Lewis designed his own ‘theology of Love’ consciously in opposition to Nygren and challenged the most central arguments in Agape and Eros. Lewis saw the Eros type of love much more positively than Nygren, and opposed the attempts to denigrate it and to separate it from the un- selfish agape love. Lepojärvi highlights that Lewis wanted to stress the multiformity of love. Jason Lepojärvi, God Is Love but Love Is Not God: Studies on C. S. Lewis’s Theology of Love, Helsinki 2015. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 213

Conclusion The Lundensian School of Theology at Lund University became an object of keen interest among leading Finnish theologians starting from the late 1920s. This ar- ticle sheds light on the impact of the Lundensian School, and most of all, on the influence of Nygren and his opus magnumAgape and Eros on the theological dis- cussion and education in Finland. Many Finnish theologians became acquainted with Nygren in the early 1930s, many of them via the leading Finnish journal in the field,Teologinen Aikakauskirja. Accordingly, Nygren’s ideas influenced the re- search and teaching in the Faculties of Theology both at the University of Helsinki and Åbo Akademi University. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Nygren’s analysis of the major motifs of Reforma- tion theology and his way of highlighting the motif of love became the object of intense debate and his book divided the leading Finnish Theologians for some time. Those in favour of Nygren were called ‘liberal theologians’ and representa- tives of the neo-Ritschlian school by conservative scholars. They also claimed that there was tension or even conflict between Nygren’s study and the respected Finn- ish Pietistic heritage. On the other side, several scholars from different branches of academic theology – including church history – saw that Nygren and the Lun- densian School offered tools to defend the independence and academic nature of theology. They did not consider the approach and core of findings of Nygren to be in conflict with Finnish Pietism. The most fervent debate aroundAgape and Eros ended in the 1950s. Never­ theless, some Lundensian professors carried his heritage until the end of the century, and even today one can trace the impulses from the Lundensian School and Nygren in Finnish academic theology.

Sources Unpublished sources Personal collection Lecture notes, 1972.

Published sources Ahola, Minna, Ihanteena ykseys. Aarne Siirala, seurakuntaopiston kiistelty johtaja, Jyväskylä 1996. ‘Alanen, Yrjö Jaakko Edvin’: Iisakki Laati et al. (eds.), Kuka kukin oli: Henkilötietoja 1900-luvulla kuolleista julkisuuden suomalaisista, Helsinki 1961, pp. 20–21. 214 Aila Lauha

Aulén, Gustaf, ‘Bohlin, Torsten Bernhard’, in Bertil Boëthius (ed.), Svenskt bio- grafiskt lexikon, vol. 5, Stockholm 1925, pp. 189–190. ‘Bring, A. E. Ragnar’, in Sten Lagerström (ed.), Vem är det? Svensk biografisk hand- bok 1969, Stockholm 1968, p. 139. Bring, Ragnar, ‘Den svenska Lutherforskningen under de sista tre decennierna i dess samband med den systematiska teologien’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 36 (1931), pp. 67–87, 143–155, 202–225, 286–304. Castrén, Olavi, ‘Tieteellisen teologian käsitteestä’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 56 (1951), pp. 57–79. Franzén, Ruth, Studentekumenik och väckelse: Finlands kristliga studentförbund i internationell brytning 1924–1950, Helsinki 1987. Grimm, Harold J., ‘Luther Research since 1920’, The Journal of Modern History 32:2 (1960), pp. 105–118. Gyllenberg, Rafael, ‘Ritschls uppfattning av mystik och pietism’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 37 (1932), pp. 79–89, 139–146, 352–371. —, ‘Tro och lydnad hos Paulus’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 42 (1937), pp. 307–322. Heininen, Simo & Markku Heikkilä, Kirchengeschichte Finnlands, Göttingen 2002. Holmquist, Hjalmar, Gamla kyrkans historia till sjunde århundradets början, Upp- sala 1907. —, Medeltidens kyrkohistoria till XIV:de århundradets början, Stockholm 1910. —, Den senare medeltidens kyrkohistoria, Stockholm 1914. —, Kirkkohistoria, Helsinki 1928–1932. Ijäs, Matti, Jaakko Gummerus kirkkohistoriantutkijana, Jyväskylä 1993. Isotalo, Leena, ‘Kirkko ja Teologinen Aikakauskirja 1896–1915’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 412–422. Jarlert, Anders, ‘Nygren, Anders Theodor Samuel’, in Göran Nilzén (ed.),Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, vol. 27, Stockholm 1992, pp. 692–698. Jokipii, Aapeli Erhard, ‘Karl Barth ja aikamme dogmaattinen ajattelu’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 31 (1926), pp. 81–106, 141–161, 210–221. Jormakka, Jyrki, Lundilaisen teologian tulo Suomeen 1930–1946, University of Helsinki pro gradu thesis, 1997. Kvist, Hans-Olof, ‘Systematisk teologi’, in Solveig Widén (ed.). Åbo Akademi 1918–1993: Forskning och institutioner: 2. Humanistiska fakulteten – Teologiska fakulteten, Turku 1993, pp. 330–350. —, ‘Lutheran Ethics and the Common Values of Mankind’, Svensk Teologisk Kvar- talskrift 82:1 (2006), pp. 24–35. Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros 215

Laine, Esko M., ‘Kulttuuri, politiikka ja yhteiskunta Teologisen Aikakauskirjan lehdillä sotavuosina 1939–1944’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 504– 525. Lauha, Aila, Suomen kirkon ulkomaansuhteet ja ekumeeninen osallistuminen 1917–1922, Jyväskylä 1990. —, ‘Teologinen Aikakauskirja sotien välisenä aikana 1917–1939’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 452–479. —, ‘Finland: Ansvar för folket förblir kyrkans kallelse’, in Jens Holger Schjørring (ed.), Nordiske Folkekirker i opbrud: National identitet og international nyori- entering efter 1945, Aarhus 2001, pp. 53–64. —, ‘Finnish Christianity since 1940’, in Björn Ryman et al. (ed.), Nordic Folk Churches: A Contemporary Church History, Grand Rapids 2005, pp. 27–40. Lavery, Jason, The History of Finland, London 2006. Lepojärvi, Jason, God Is Love but Love Is Not God: Studies on C. S. Lewis’s Theology of Love, Helsinki 2015. Lindfelt, Mikael, Teologi och kristen humanism: Ett perspektiv på Torsten Bohlins teologiska tänkande, Turku 1996. Lindroth, Hjalmar, [Review of] Anders Nygren, Den kristna kärlekstanken genom tiderna: Eros och agape, vol. 2, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 42 (1937), pp. 420–430. Mäkinen, Kari, ‘Sormunen, Eino’, in Matti Klinge & Aulikki Litzen (eds.), Suomen kansallisbiografia, vol. 9, Helsinki 2007, pp. 201–204. Nygren, Anders, Den kristna kärlekstanken genom tiderna: Eros och Agape, Stock- holm 1930–1936. —, Agape and Eros, London 1932. —, Agape and Eros: The History of the Christian Idea of Love, London 1938. —, Agape and Eros: The Christian Idea of Love, London 1953. Nyman, Helge, Den bidande tron hos Paavo Ruotsalainen, Lund 1949. Pinomaa, Lennart, ‘Teologiaako vai metafysiikkaa?’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 56 (1951), pp. 231–234. Rosenqvist, Georg Olof, ‘Gudsrikes-idén och förkunnelsen’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 33 (1928), pp. 23–35, 228–241. Saarnivaara, Uuras, ‘Lain kolme käyttöä’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 56 (1951), pp. 1–26. Seppo, Juha, ‘Teologinen Aikakauskirja sodan ja Lundin teologian varjossa 1940– 1953’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 102 (1997), pp. 526–555. Sigurdson, Ola, Karl Barth som den andre: En studie i den svenska teologins Barth- reception, Eslöv 1996. 216 Aila Lauha

Sormunen, Eino, ‘Uusinta Luther-tutkimusta’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 36 (1931), pp. 304–316. 363–371. —, ‘Uusinta Luther-tutkimusta’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 37 (1932), pp. 89–99. —, [Review of] Anders Nygren, Försoningen: En gudsgärning, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 38 (1933), pp. 134–137. —, ‘Teologian nykyinen käänne ruotsalaisen teologian valossa’, Teologinen Ai- kakauskirja 40 (1935), pp. 6–18. Toiviainen, Kalevi, Kirkon kaapin päällä: Sata vuotta – 50 vaikuttajaa, Helsinki 2000.