Avioliiton teologia Englannin kirkossa ja Suomen evankelis-luterilaisessa kirkossa vuosina 1963-2006

The theology of marriage in the Church of England(CofE) and in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland(ELCF)1963–2006 The method of the study is a systematic analysis of the sources. In the CofE marriage stems from creation, but it is also sacramental, grounded in the theology of love and redemption. Man and woman have a connection between them that is a mystical union in character because of the one between Christ and the Church; therefore every marriage is sacramental. The purposes of marriage have been expressed in a different order than earlier. A caring relationship and sexuality are set before childbirth as the causes of marriage. The remedial cause of marriage is also moved to the background and it cannot be found in the recent wedding formulas. A personal relationship and marriage as a school of faith and love have a central place in the theology of marriage. The theology of love unites the love of God and marriage. In the CofE the understanding of divorce and co-habiting has changed, too. Co-habiting can now be understood as a stage towards marriage. Divorce has been understood as a phenomenon that must be taken as a fact after an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Thus the church must concentrate on pastoral care after divorce. Similarly, the ELCF also maintains that the order of creation is the origin of marriage as a lifelong institution. This is also an argument for the solemnization of marriage in the church. Faith and grace are not needed for real marriage because marriage is the culmination of reason and natural law. The society defines marriage and the church gives its blessing to the married couples if so requested. Luther’s view of marriage is different from this because he saw marriage as a school of love and faith, similar to CofE. He saw faith as essential to enable the fullfillment of natural law. Marriage in the ELCF is mostly a matter of natural ethics. An ideal form of life is sought through the Golden Rule. This interpretation of marriage means that it does not presuppose Christian education for children to follow. The doctrine of the two kingdoms is definitely essential as background. It has been impugned by scholars, however, as a permanent foundation of marriage. There is a difference between the marriage formulas and the other sources concerning the purposes of marriage in the ELCF. The formulas do not include sexuality, childbirth or children and their education as purposes of marriage. The formulas include less theological vocabulary than in the CofE. The liturgy indicates the doctrine in CofE. In the Lutheran churches there is not any need to express the doctrine in the wedding formulas. This has resulted in less theology of marriage in the formulas. The theology of Luther is no longer any ruling principle in the theology of marriage. The process of continuing change in society refines the terms for marriage more than the theological arguments do.

Paimen vailla hiippakuntaa : Kenttäpiispan viran synty ja vaikutus sotilaspapiston asemaan Suomen puolustusvoimissa ja kirkossa vuosina 1939 - 1944

The main purpose of this research is to shed light on the factors that gave rise to the office of Field Bishop in the years 1939-1944. How did military bishophood affect the status of the head of military pastoral care and military clergy during these years? The main sources of my research are the collections in the Finnish National Archives, and I use a historical-qualitative method. The position of the military clergy was debated within both the Church and the Defence Forces before 1939. At that stage, Church law did not yet recognize the office of the leading military priest, the Field Dean. There had been a motion in 1932 to introduce the office of a military bishop, but the bishops' synod blocked it. The concept of Field Bishop appeared for the first time in 1927 in a Finnish military document, which dealt with pastoral care in the Polish military. The Field Dean in Finland had regularly proposed improvements to the salary of the military clergy before the Winter War. After the Winter War, arguments were made for strengthening the position of the military clergy: these arguments were based on the increased respect shown towards this clergy, especially due to their role in the care of the fallen, which had become their task during the war. Younger members of the military clergy in particular supported the demands to improve their position within the Church and the army. The creation of a Field Bishop was perceived as strengthening the whole military clergy, as the Field Bishop was envisioned as a bishop within the Church and a general within the Defence Forces. During that time the Field Dean was still without any military rank. The idea of a Field Bishop was recommended to Mannerheim in June 1940, after which the Defence Forces lent their support to the cause. The status of the military clergy, in Church law, made it to the agenda of the Church council in January 1941, thanks largely to the younger priests' group influence and Mannerheim's leverage. The bishops opposed the notion of a Field Bishop mostly on theological grounds but were ready to concede that the position the Field Dean in Church law required further defining. The creation of the office of Field Bishop was blocked in the Church law committee report issued close to the beginning of the Continuation War. The onset of that war, however, changed the course of events, as the President of the Republic appointed Field Dean Johannes Björklund as Field Bishop. Speculation has abounded about Mannerheim's role in the appointment, but the truth of the matter is not clear. The title of Field Bishop was used to put pressure on the Church, and, at the same time, Mannerheim could remain detached from the matter. Later, in September 1941, the Church council approved the use of the Field Bishop title to denote the head of military pastoral care in Church law, and Field Bishops were assigned some of the duties formerly pertaining to bishops. Despite all expectations and hopes, the new office of Field Bishop did not affect the status of the military clergy within the Defence Forces, as no ranks were established for them, and their salary did not improve. However the office of the Field Bishop within Army HQ was transformed from a bureau into a department in the summer of 1942. At the beginning of the Continuation War, the Field Bishop was criticized by certain military and Church clergy for favouring Russian Orthodox Christians in Eastern Karelia. Björklund agreed in principle with most of the Lutheran clergy on the necessity of Lutheranizing East Karelia but had to take into account the realities at Army HQ. As well, at the same time the majority of the younger clergy were serving in the army, and there was a lack of parish priests on the home front. Bishop Lehtonen had actually expressed the wish that more priests could have been released from the front to serve in local parishes. In his notes Lehtonen accused Björklund of trying to achieve the position of Field Bishop by all possible means. However, research has revealed a varied group of people behind the creation of the office of Field Bishop, including in particular younger clergy and the Defence Forces.