"Towards 'a real reunion'?" : Archbishop Aleksi Lehtonen's efforts for closer relations with the Church of England 1945–1951

Mika KT Pajusen väitös "Towards 'a real reunion'?" – Archbishop Aleksi Lehtonen's efforts for closer relations with the Church of England 1945–1951 on yleiseen kirkkohistoriaan lukeutuva tutkimus Englannin kirkon ja Suomen evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon välisistä suhteista Aleksi Lehtosen arkkipiispakaudella 1945–1951. Suhteita on tutkittu kolmesta näkökulmasta: ekumeenisesta, poliittisesta ja kirkkopoliittisesta. Tutkimuskausi alkaa pastori H.M. Waddamsin joulukuussa 1944 Suomeen tekemän vierailun jälkimainingeista ja päättyy arkkipiispa Lehtosen kuolemaan pääsiäisenä 1951. Kirkollisten suhteiden kehitystä rytmittivät lukuisat vierailut, jotka osoittivat Englannin kirkon asenteen muuttumisen sodan aikaisesta neuvostomyönteisyydestä kylmän sodan aikaiseen täysin vastakkaiseen kantaan. Englantilaiset vieraat kohtasivat Suomessa sekä kirkon että yhteiskunnan ylimmän johdon. Molemmat maat olivat valmiita tukemaan hyviä kirkollisia suhteita tilanteen niin salliessa, joskaan eivät kovin suunnitelmallisesti. Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko käytti hyviä suhteita Englannin kirkkoon saadakseen tukea ja ymmärrystä omalle kirkolleen ja yhteiskunnalleen kokemaansa Neuvostoliiton uhkaa vastaan erityisesti vaaran vuosina 1944–1948. Englannin kirkko halusi tukea suomalaista sisarkirkkoaan, mutta varoi, ettei tuottaisi tuellaan enemmän haittaa kuin hyötyä suhteessa Neuvostoliittoon. Sodan jälkeinen ekumeeninen jälleenrakentaminen lähensi kirkkoja toisiinsa. Lehtonen pyrki jatkamaan 1930-luvun kirkkojen välisiä, ehtoollisvieraanvaraisuuden saavuttaneita neuvotteluita kohti täyttä kirkollista yhteyttä. Häntä motivoi sekä evankelis-katolinen teologia että pyrkimys tukea oman maan ja kirkon läntisiä yhteyksiä. Tämä haastoi Englannin kirkon ekumeenisen linjan, joka Suomen kirkon sijasta pyrki jatkamaan neuvotteluja Tanskan, Norjan ja Islannin luterilaisten kirkkojen kanssa, joilla ei vielä ollut virallista ekumeenista sopimusta Englannin kirkon kanssa. Lehtosen pyrkimyksistä huolimatta Englannin kirkko päätyi jättämään Suomen tilanteen hautumaan. Sillä se tarkoitti suhteiden koetinkivenä olleen historiallisen piispuuden leviämistä läpi Suomen kirkon ennen kuin katsoi olevansa valmis jatkamaan kohti täyttä kirkollista yhteyttä. Molemmissa kirkoissa vaikutti pieni, innokkaiden, lähempiä suhteita toivoneiden kirkollisten vaikuttajien ydinjoukko. Englantilaisia Suomen-ystäviä motivoi tarve auttaa Suomea hankalassa poliittisessa tilanteessa. Suomessa arkkipiispa Lehtonen tuki korkeakirkollista liturgista liikettä, jolla oli läheinen yhteys anglikaanisuuteen, mutta joka sai vastaansa vanhoilliset pietistit. Suomen kirkon yleinen mielipide asettui etupäässä pietistiselle kannalle, jolle anglikaanisuus näyttäytyi teologisesti sekä liian katolisena että liian reformoituna. Kirkolliset suhteet tasaantuivat vuoden 1948 Lambeth-konferenssin jälkeen, joka rohkaisi anglikaanisia kirkkoja hyväksymään 1930-luvun neuvottelujen lähempiin kirkollisiin suhteisiin tähtäävät suositukset. Lehtonen näytti tyytyvän tähän. Samaan aikaan lähempää kirkollista kanssakäymistä tukenut ekumeeninen jälleenrakennus tuli tiensä päähän. Lehtonen jatkoi läheisempien suhteiden edistämistä, mutta hänen intonsa hiipui yhdessä heikkenevän terveydentilan kanssa. Osoituksena Lehtosen linjan kapeudesta Suomen evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon piispoista ei löytynyt hänen kuoltuaan ketään, joka olisi jatkanut hänen aktiivista anglikaanimyönteistä linjaansa.

Sangen ialo Rucous : Schwenckfeldiläisten rukouskirja Mikael Agricolan lähteenä

Sangen ialo Rucous. The prayer book of the Schwenckfeldiens as a source for Michael Agricola The significance of the prayer book published by the Finnish reformer Michael Agricola in the year of 1544 has not been comprehended enough among the prayer literature of the Reformation century. Especially in foreign research literature one of the era s most extensive and versatile prayer books has been practically disregarded. According to the prayer book, Agricola appears to be a traditionalist, who derives most of his source material from medieval and old church prayer books. The low number of the prayers from Evangelical prayer books is noteworthy. The study in hand examines Agricola s theology expressed in his translation work of the prayer book of the mystic spiritualistic Schwenckfeldien movement. The prayer book of the Schwenckdeldiens diverged from Lutheranism was called Bekantnus der sünden and it was composed around the year of 1526. Agricola is the only prayer book collector who has regarded it as necessary to add all the 45 prayers of the Schwenckfeldien prayer book and its introduction to his book. In the prayers containing the Schwenckfeldien communion theology and Christology Agricola has not changed the content of the text, apparently because he was not aware of the problems involved in the Schwenckfeldien theology. On a few occasions Agricola added points of view concerning the church, priesthood, preaching the Word and sacraments to his prayers, which the Schwenckfeldiens despised. From the ten additions four Agricola created himself, the rest he borrowed from Wolfgang Capito s prayer book. As a source Agricola used Capito s Latin prayer book together with the German text from Bekantnus. When looking at the studied material, Agricola does not turn out to be a creative translator. Even though he had a model for a less restricted translation in Wolfgang Capito s prayer book, he sticks to his habit of translating word by word. Because not even a good example has had a liberating effect on his translation principles, Agricola cannot be considered a theologically orientated writer. The translation of the Schwenckfeldien prayers Agricola starts with Capito s prayer book. Very soon he takes the Bekantnus alongside Capito s text and abandons the use of Capito s prayer book in the middle of the translation process. Comparing Agricola s translation with the two texts in different languages has made it possible to create the disposition theory described above. On the basis of the disposition theory it can be concluded that Agricola first worked out a precise plan for his prayer book. Then he translated prayers theme by theme using multiple sources at the same time. Later Agricola fixed the disposition, which does not seem to have a direct paragon. From the prayers of the Schwenckfeldien prayer book Agricola translated 26 texts using the Bekantnus as an only base, from Capito s prayer book he translated four texts and 17 texts he translated using the two basic texts simultaneously. In the previous studies, words and texts added by Agricola have been examined as one problem unit. In this study the additions have been placed into three different categories: additions consequential on tautological parataxis, specifying additions and additions significant to the content. Due to Agricola s meticulous translation techniques, there are so few additions. Agricola does not show his own creativity even in the additions significant to the content but uses there some complete sentences or word fragments from the other prayers he has translated. In the translations of the prayers there are some unique appearing words and the analysis of the translation work shed a new light on the background of their first literary appearance in Finnish. Agricola s linguistic abilities turned out to be great. In those prayers where Agricola uses both the German and Latin basic texts at the same time, the translation process is a very intensive twine made on the basis of the two sources.

Vanhurskautta, oikeutta vai uskollisuutta? : ṣdq -sanue vuoden 1992 Kirkkoraamatun Psalmien kirjassa

Righteousness, justice or faithfulness? The Hebrew Root ṣdq in the Psalter of the Finnish Church Bible of 1992 This study attempts to answer three questions. Firstly, what do the derivates of the root ṣdq mean in the Hebrew Psalter? Secondly, with which equivalents are these Hebrew words translated in the Psalter of the Finnish Church Bible of 1992 and why? And thirdly, how is the translation of the root ṣdq in the Psalter placed in comparison with the translations of the root ṣdq in certain ancient and modern Bible translations? The root ṣdq has a very wide semantic field in Biblical Hebrew. The basic meaning of the root ṣdq is ‘right’ or ‘to be in the right’. The traditional English equivalent of the root ṣdq is righteousness. In many European languages the equivalent of the root ṣdq has some connection with the word ‘right’, but this is not the case in Finnish. The Finnish word vanhurskaus has been present since the first Finnish Bible translation by Mikael Agricola in 1548. However, this word has nothing to do with the Finnish word for ‘right’. The word vanhurskaus has become a very specific religious and theological word in Finnish, and it can be a word that is not obvious or at all understandable even to a native Finnish speaker. In the Psalter of the earlier Finnish Church Bible of 1938 almost every derivate of the root ṣdq (132/139) was translated as vanhurskaus. In the Psalter of the Finnish Church Bible of 1992 less than half of these derivates (67/139) are translated as that. Translators have used 20 different equivalents of the Hebrew derivates of the root ṣdq. But this type of translation also has its own problems. The most disputed is the fact that in it the Bible reader finds no connections between many Bible verses that have obvious connections with each other in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in verse Ps. 118, 15 one finds a Finnish word for ‘saved’ and in verse Ps. 142, 8 one finds another Finnish word for ‘friends’, while in the Hebrew Bible the same word is used in both verses, ṣaddîqīm. My study will prove that it is very challenging to compare or fit together the semantics of these two quite different languages. The theoretical framework for the study consists of biblical semantic theories and Bible translation theories. Keywords: religious language, Bible translations, Book of Psalms.

The Church and Its Boundaries : A Study of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC

The relationship between the Orthodox Churches and the World Council of Churches (WCC) became a crisis just before the 8th Assembly of the WCC in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1998. The Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC (SC), inaugurated in Harare, worked during the period 1999 2002 to solve the crisis and to secure the Orthodox participation in the WCC. The purpose of this study is: 1) to clarify the theological motives for the inauguration of the SC and the theological argumentation of the Orthodox criticism; 2) to write a reliable history and analysis of the SC; 3) to outline the theological argumentation, which structures the debate, and 4) to investigate the ecclesiological questions that arise from the SC material. The study spans the years 1998 to 2006, from the WCC Harare Assembly to the Porto Alegre Assembly. Hence, the initiation and immediate reception of the Special Commission are included in the study. The sources of this study are all the material produced by and for the SC. The method employed is systematic analysis. The focus of the study is on theological argumentation; the historical context and political motives that played a part in the Orthodox-WCC relations are not discussed in detail. The study shows how the initial, specific and individual Orthodox concerns developed into a profound ecclesiological discussion and also led to concrete changes in WCC practices, the best known of which is the change to decision-making by consensus. The Final Report of the SC contains five main themes, namely, ecclesiology, decision-making, worship/common prayer, membership and representation, and social and ethical issues. The main achievement of the SC was that it secured the Orthodox membership in the WCC. The ecclesiological conclusions made in the Final Report are twofold. On the one hand, it confirms that the very act of belonging to the WCC means the commitment to discuss the relationship between a church and churches. The SC recommended that baptism should be added as a criterion for membership in the WCC, and the member churches should continue to work towards the mutual recognition of each other s baptism. These elements strengthen the ecclesiological character of the WCC. On the other hand, when the Final Report discusses common prayer, the ecclesiological conclusions are much more cautious, and the ecclesiological neutrality of the WCC is emphasized several times. The SC repeatedly emphasized that the WCC is a fellowship of churches. The concept of koinonia, which has otherwise been important in recent ecclesiological questions, was not much applied by the SC. The comparison of the results of the SC to parallel ecclesiological documents of the WCC (Nature and Mission of the Church, Called to Be the One Church) shows that they all acknowledge the different ecclesiological starting points of the member churches, and, following that, a variety of legitimate views on the relation of the Church to the churches. Despite the change from preserving the koinonia to promises of eschatological koinonia, all the documents affirm that the goal of the ecumenical movement is still full, visible unity.