Learning from Secular Nations | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Posted using ShareThis
Today I came across a review of a book, “Society without God” by Phil Zuckerman, describing the Scandinavian (particularly Sweden and Denmark) way of life in relation to religion and faith in God. The review puts forth the question on what good life really is, questioning the some of the conclusions the author of the book makes.
Although she makes some valid points she there are points where she misses the mark. First of all, I think the values of the welfare states of Scandinavia is religious. The heritage of Scandinavia is very much a Lutheran and pietistic one, meaning that the values that forms the basis of the welfare state have a lot in common with Christian (and humanistic) values. I would go as far to say that it is a secularised attempt to utilise Christian values in a modern society. The pietistic heritage institutionalised Christian care and founded diaconal institutions that are still around today, and the modern welfare state of the Scandinavian type evolved out of this institutionalised system. Recently, the Danish philosopher and theologian Knud E. Løgstrup provided a theoretical basis for the welfare state, in his ontological-ethical phenomenology.
Many stones ...
The second point is one that Zuckerman makes. There is a difference between religious faith and a particular type of faith in God. As most Danes, Swedes and Norwegians see themselves as Christians, it is not a traditional form of Christian religion. It is more a more secularised faith, and the very devout variety is not the favoured. The Scandinavian God is culturally important, but personally it is a very private matter. But, as the review also makes clear, if you ask the average Scandinavian what the meaning of being is, you probably wouldn’t get an answer that points to something transcendent and beyond their life. Family matter, job matter, friends matter, – as they do all over the created earth. The transcendent is taken care of by the Church (that in most Scandinavian countries enjoys a close relationship to the state). You baptise your child, you participate in the confirmation, you marry in a church and you are laid to rest by a minister. And some even go to Church during Christmas. The church represents the liminal in people’s life; they choose to become members of it, because they feel it represents something they are. When facing the liminal in their lives, Scandinavians also tend to ponder what the meaning of all is. They may not be aware of their soul all the time, but it does not mean it is totally lost for them.
Zuckerman’s main thesis is that societies do not have to be religious to function well. I think he is right about this (and nod if you think religion played too great a part in say, the recent American general election), but I think he comes up short when it comes to people. People with a mature and realistic faith live enriched lives. And religious faith can play a positive role in a society and politics, the protest of Church in both Germany and Norway during WWII shows that Christian faith at times responds to the duty to oppose inhumanity and injustice. Something that is very much in line with Scripture.
(Richard Dawkins also seem to have discovered this book, but not read it yet).
I have a few things I would like to add and one thing to correct.
In some of the Scandinavian countries you are automatically a member of the church once you are born, they do not choose to be a member of it.
You mention that “People with a mature and realistic faith live enriched lives” and I just wanted to say that the faithless can also have enriched lives.
The Church helped the Nazis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7337748.stm
It would be somewhat nicer if you could elaborate on your comments.
E.g. saying that “In some of the Scandinavian countries you are automatically a member of the church once you are born, they do not choose to be a member of it”, without substantiating it, does not throw any light on why so many people in the Scandinavian countries are members of the national church.
It is a widespread myth, that in my home country you are automatically a member of the Church of Norway when you are born. You become a member if you are baptised/christened. Although, the Act regarding the Church of Norway, states that “Children are seen as belonging to the Church of Norway from birth, as long as one of the parents are member of the Church” (§ 3, section 2). This means that the Church may contact the parent(s) to ask if they wish their child to become a member through baptism.
In the Danish National Church and Church of Sweden you also become a member of the church through baptism. I don’t know how it works in Finland or Iceland, but I would guess it is about the same.
Anyway, my point is that a great majority of the population in these countries choose to carry their child to the baptismal font (Norway: 77,3 % in 2004, i.e. ab. 45.000 children) – and most of them stay faithful members for the rest of their lives (but who knows for future generations). The question is why, and I guess the motivations may vary (they do in my family), although statistics don’t give us the answer to that riddle, it shows there is a relation between the people and the church in Scandinavia.
I do believe that people with no faith can have rich lives, although I guess the meaning and purpose of life means different things for one with no faith and one who has faith.
And to your last brief comment, I see that it is link to a story on the catholic church. I was rather thinking of the “Bekenntniskirche” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekennende_Kirche). Among them were Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a martyr for freedom, justice and faith.