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.

Global capitalism meets national spirit: Discourses in media texts on a cross-border acquisition

In this article, the authors explore media coverage of a recent acquisition across national borders. Their starting point is that the media represent a key arena of “discursive strategizing” for actors such as corporate managers. They illustrate and specify how global capitalism, as discourse relying on economic and financial rationale and exemplified here by the acquiring firm’s attempts to expand, meets national spirit, exemplified here by the complexity in selling the acquisition target to foreigners. The main contribution of this study lies in identifying how key actors draw on and mobilize rationalistic and nationalistic discourses in public discussion. The analysis illustrates that the same actors can draw on different—even contradictory—discourses at different points in time. Furthermore, different actors—even with opposing objectives—may draw on the same discourse in legitimizing their positions and pursuing specific ends.

Monologeista dialogiksi : Keskustelua koulusta käytävien ohipuhumisten muuttamisesta neuvotteluksi sosiaalisen konstruktionismin hengessä.

From monologues to dialogue. A discussion about changing the fragmented character of the debate concerning schools to one of negotiation, in the spirit of social constructionism. The starting point for the study is the assumption that the interested parties concerning schools such as teachers, students, public servants within school administration or politics construct the idea of the school in disparate ways. It looks as if the representatives of the various interested parties perceive the school in distinctive ways or with particular emphases. Additionally, there are not many discussion forums where these different interested parties have an equal right to speak and be heard. It seems that the lack of dialogue characterizes the debate about school. At the centre of the study are negotiations concerning schools, and the conditions that promote changing the fragmented character of this school debate in a more promising and collectively responsible process of negotiation. The aims of the study are to find both an empirical and theoretical basis for more equal ways to negotiate about school, and to increase cultural self reflection. Social constructionism plays a key role in aspiring to meet these research aims. The research questions are (1) How do the informants of the study construct the idea of school in their texts, and (2) What kind of prospects does social constructionism bring to the negotiations about school. The research informants construct the idea of school in their texts in several ways. To sum up: school is constructed as a place for learning, a place for building the future, a place where ethical education is lived out, a place for social education and Bildung, and a place where the students well-being is ensured. The previously presented assumption that the interested parties of a school construct the idea of a school in disparate ways or with various emphases seems to have support in the informants texts. Based on that, a condition can be put forward: different perspectives should have an equal opportunity to be heard in negotiations about school. It would also be helpful if there was a chance for different perspectives to be documented and/or in some way, visualized. This ensures that different constructions of school are within reach of all the participants. Additionally, while making the process of negotiation transparent, this documentation becomes an important medium for self reflection. On one hand it visualizes the complexity of the school. On the other hand it protects the school and education from serving as the spokesman of any single truth that is presented as objective or universal. Social constructionism seems to offer a stable theoretical basis for changing the fragmented character of the school debate in one of negotiation. More equal and collectively responsible school negotiation presumes that certain aspects or conditions drawn from postmodernism and social constructionism have been studied. In the study, six conditions are presented that can be seen as mediums for changing the fragmented character of the school debate into one of more equal negotiation. Keywords: social constructionism, Kenneth J. Gergen, school negotiation, education policy, dialogue.