E. G. Gulinin ekumeeninen työ ja ajattelu

This study explores ecumenical activity of professor and bishop E. G. Gulin (1893 1975). Gulin was one of the key figures in the Finland s Evangelical Lutheran Church during the twentieth century. He was also one of the leading persons who imported ecumenical influences from abroad. However, unlike other churches, the Church of Finland did not recognise his importance. For example, in the 1950s Gulin was seen by the Anglicans as a future archbishop for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Gulin s career as an ecumenist can be divided to three parts. Between 1917 and 1929, Gulin learned ecumenical working methods in Finland s World Student Christian Federation. He had a background in the revivalist movement, and his parents supported him in his studies. The Evangelical Lutheran Church did not originally play a major role for Gulin, although he was a member. Between 1930 and 1944, Gulin had more and more responsibility as a leading ecumenist in Finland. He became a member of Finland s ecumenical board, Yleiskirkollinen toimikunta. During the Second World War Gulin tried to solicit assistance for Finland s war effort at theological conferences, where Finnish theologians often discussed cooperation among Christians. A third period started in 1945, when Gulin became the bishop of Tampere. His new status in the Evangelical Lutheran Church placed him in a challenging position in ecumenical questions. He had responsibility for inter-church aid in Finland. He also participated in the World Council of Churches (WCC) assemblies in Evanston in 1954 and in New Delhi in 1961. Gulin s role was quite insignificant in those meetings. Closely related to Gulin s texts about ecumenism is kokemus, experience. Gulin wrote about his ecumenical experience or ekumeeninen kokemus. He believed that it was vital for the churches to appreciate their own experiences, since experience was the basis for further development. Yet Gulin mentioned very little about Christian dogma. The main reason seems to have been that he did not believe that a union between churches could be built on dogma.