Vedestä vai Hengestä? : Uuras Saarnivaaran kasteteologia

Of water or the Spirit? Uuras Saarnivaara s theology of baptism The aim of the study was to investigate PhD and ThD Uuras Saarnivaara s views on baptism as well as their possible changes and the reasons for them. Dr Saarnivaara said himself that he searched for the truth about the relationship between baptism and faith for decades, and had faltered in his views. The method of this research is systematic analysis. A close study of the source material shows that Dr Saarnivaara s views on baptism have most likely changed several times. Therefore, special attention was paid to the time periods defined by when his literary works were published. This resulted in revealing the different perspectives he had on baptism. The fact that Dr Saarnivaara worked on two continents Europe and North America added a challenge to the research process. At the beginning of the research, I described Dr Saarnivaara s phases of life and mapped out his vast literary production as well as presented his theological basis. Saarnivaara s theological view on the means of grace and their interrelation in the church was influenced by the Laestadian movement, which caused him to adopt the view that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the means of grace, but in the believers. Thus the real presence of Christ in the means of grace is denied. God s word is divided into Biblical revelation and proclamation by believers through the means of grace. Also, the sacraments are overshadowed by the preached word. Because grace is received through the word of the gospel preached publicly or privately by a believer, the preacher s status gains importance at the expense of the actual means of grace. Saarnivaara was intrigued by the content of baptism from the time he was a student until the end of his life. As a young theologian, he would adopt the opinions of his teachers as well as the view of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, which at the time was dominated by the pietistic movement and the teachings of J. T. Beck. After Saarnivaara had converted to the Laestadian movement, moved to the United States and started his Luther research, he adopted a view on baptism which was to a great extent in accordance with Luther and the Lutheran Symbolical Books. Saarnivaara considered his former views on baptism unbiblical and publicly apologised for them. In the 1950s, after starting his ministry within the Finnish neopietistic movements, Saarnivaara adopted a Laestadian-neopietistic doctrine of baptism. During his Beckian-pietistic era, Saarnivaara based his baptism theology on the event of the disciples of Jesus being baptised by John the Baptist, the revival of Samaria in the Book of Acts and the conversion of Cornelius and his family, all cases where the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the baptism were two separate events in time. In order to defend the theological unity of the Bible, Saarnivaara had to interpret Jesus teachings on baptism in the Gospels and the teachings of the Apostles in the New Testament letters from a viewpoint based on the three events mentioned above. During his Beckian-pietistic era, the abovementioned basic hermeneutic choice caused Saarnivaara to separate baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit in his salvation theology. Simultaneously, the faith of a small child is denied, and rebirth is divided into two parts, the objective and the subjective, the latter being moved from the moment of baptism to a possible spiritual break-through at an age when the person possesses a more mature understanding. During his Laestadian-Lutheran era, Saarnivaara s theology of baptism was biblically consistent and the same for all people regardless of the person s age. Small children receive faith in baptism through the presence of Christ. The task of other people s faith is limited to the act of bringing the child to the baptism so that the child may receive his/her own faith from Christ and be born again as a child of God. The doctrine of baptism during Saarnivaara s Laestadian-neopietistic era represents in many aspects the emphases he presented during his first era, although they were now partly more radical. Baptism offers grace; it is not a means of grace. Justification, rebirth and salvation would take place later on when a person had reached an age with a more mature understanding through the word of God. A small child cannot be born again in baptism because being born again requires personal faith, which is received through hearing and understanding the law and the gospel. Saarnivaara s views on baptism during his first and third era are, unlike during his second era, quite controversial. The question of the salvation of a small child goes unanswered, or it is even denied. The central question during both eras is the demand of conversion and personal faith at a mature age. The background for this demand is in Saarnivaara s anthropology, which accentuates man s relationship to God as an intellectual and mental matter requiring understanding, and which needs no material instruments. The two first theological eras regarding Saarnivaara s doctrine of baptism lasted around ten years. The third era lasted over 40 years until his death.

Evil Gods and Reckless Saviours : Adaptation and Appropriation in Late Twentieth Century Jesus-Novels

Late twentieth century Jesus-novels search after a completely new picture of Jesus. Novels written for instance by Norman Mailer, José Saramago, Michèle Roberts, Marianne Fredriksson, and Ki Longfellow provide an inversive revision of the canonic Gospels. They read the New Testament in terms of the present age. In their adaptation the story turns often into a critique of the whole Christian history. The investigated contrast-novels end up with an appropriation that is based on prototypical rewriting. They aim at the rehabilitation of Judas, and some of them make Mary Magdalane the key figure of Christianity. Saramago describes God as a blood thirsty tyrant, and Mailer makes God combat with the Devil in a manichean sense as with an equal. Such ideas are familiar both from poststructuralist philosophy and post-metaphysical death-of-God theology. The main result of the intertextual analysis is that these scholars have adopted Nietzschean ideas in their writing. Quite unlike earlier Jesus-novels, these more recent novels present a revision that produces discontinuity with the original source text, the New Testament. The intertextual strategy is based on contradiction. The reader wittnesses contesting and challenging, the authors attack Biblical beliefs and attempt to dissolve Christian doctrines. An attack on Biblical slave morality and violent concept of God deprives Jesus of his Jewish Messianic identity, makes Old Testament law a contradiction of life, calls sacrificial soteriology a violent pattern supporting oppression, and presents God as a cruel monster who enslaves people under his commandments and wishes their death. The new Jesus-figure contests Mosaic Law, despises orthodox Judaism, abandons Jewish customs and even questions Old Testament monotheism. In result, the novels intentionally transfer Jesus out of Judaism. Furthermore, Jewish faith appears in a negative light. Such an intertextual move is not open anti-Semitism but it cannot avoid attacking Jewish worship. Why? One reason that explains these attitudes is that Western culture still carries anti-Judaic attitudes beneath the surface covered with sentiments of equality and tolerance. Despite the evident post-holocaust consciousness present in the novels, they actually adopt an arrogant and ironical refutation of Jewish beliefs and Old Testament faith. In these novels, Jesus is made a complete opposite and antithesis to Judaism. Key words: Jesus-novel, intertextuality, adaptation, slave morality, Nietzsche, theodicy, patriarchy.