Lars Levi's Cousin, Mor Greta

I stumbled across this fascinating article about Mor Greta, a cousin and contemporary of Lars Levi Laestadius. It helps contextualize the distrust of authority in the North.

Margareta Sophia better known as "Mor Greta" (1804-1883) . . . took part in the movement against the Swedish state church. Mor Greta and the group the “New Readers” protested against usage of the new church books that were introduced in 1819. These manuals gave the priests monopoly on preaching and other church ceremonies, something that was very impractical when emergency baptism was sometimes needed in the north of Sweden and the priest could be miles away. Those who did not obey the law were persecuted; and if it was repeated they were banished for two years. 

Mor Greta and the New Readers protested against that . . .​ were punished, and the police force tried to imprison them. Mor Greta, being a woman, was not imprisoned, but taken to Umeå hospital for the insane as punishment. But the doctor at the hospital did not find anything wrong with her, refused to hospitalize her, and released her immediately.
​
How did a woman in the north of Sweden dare to oppose the powerful Swedish state church in the 1830s? 

One explanation is that Mor Greta and Nils had eleven children, but five died before the age of one. That must have been a trauma and the family had need for emergency baptism. Before they had been able to do that without a priest present, but after the new churchbooks, that became illegal. The families had to take the newborn from the mother and go (by ski in winter) 10 kilometers to the church and then back for the baptism. Not many newborns survived those journeys.

Read the rest of the article here, and another, in Swedish, here.

Is Laestadianism really Lutheran?

FinnForge got me thinking about this question. While FinnForge seems very certain that true Laestadianism is Lutheran, I'm not so sure.

When I was looking to leave Laestadianism, the first places I checked out were the LCMS, WELS, ELCA, and other branches of Lutheranism. They seemed very strange and alien, having little in common with my childhood church.

The biggest difference that was most immediately apparent was liturgy. Lutheran churches had it, and Laestadian churches didn't have it. As far as style of worship was concerned, I always felt much more comfortable in Baptist churches than Lutheran ones.

Differences in worship style often reflect different theological convictions. I think a liturgical style underscores the communal aspects of faith. Churches that don't have liturgy often emphasize a more individualistic approach. Both Baptists and Laestadians (at least back in the beginnings of the movement) emphasize a very individualistic "new birth" as essential.

Maybe that's why Laestadians don't have liturgy, and seem so ambivalent about infant baptism (gotta do it, but don't ever say that it actually accomplishes anything.) I personally think that it's hard to understand what infant baptism is supposed to accomplish without an appreciation for liturgy. In the liturgy, the church corporately acts out the story of Christian faith; in baptism the participants are bearing witness to and making manifest what God has already done.

Another way that Laestadianism seems really different from Lutheranism is the emphasis on the total depravity of human beings. Maybe this comes from all the amped-up rhetoric in Laestadius' sermons --he needed to get people to the breaking point by any means possible so that they would experience "the awakened state" or "new birth." Whereas more Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran notions of humanity would see them as created good by God but fallen and in need of redemption. A Laestadian view of human nature seems more similiar to Calvinism or the Baptists than Lutheranism.

What are some other things about Laestadianism that make it very different than other branches of Lutheranism?

See also: Pietism, Baptism, and Laestadianism

Tomte's thoughts on Baptism

Pietism, Baptism, and Laestadianism

Yesterday at church a new baby was baptized. The sermon leading up to the baptism tied in well, discussing the meaning of the sacrament from a mainline protestant/Episcopalian perspective.

Without getting into too much detail on the theology, we believe that in baptism we bear witness to and make manifest God's action, washing the baptized from sin and welcoming him or her into God's beloved community. We make promises, "with God's help" to support the family and the newly baptized so that they can grow and mature in their faith journey, a life-long process.

As I sat in my pew, I couldn't help but be struck by how opposite this was from the pietism I grew up with in the Laestadian tradition. Sure, we baptized babies in the ALC as well, but it never really made much sense to me there and seemed to be in conflict with the rest of Laestadian theology, such as it was, which to me seemed to take all the emphasis off of what God has done or is doing, and put all the onus on what individuals must do, under fear of losing ones salvation.

Of course, if you corner a Laestadian pastor and put the question baldly, they'll say that salvation is by grace through faith and certainly not through works. But the pietism in Laestadianism belies this. Without the outward marks of piety, one's faith was called into question. If one didn't dress properly, speak properly, greet properly, act properly, think properly, or feel properly you were skating on thin ice at the very least, and probably headed down the road to hell.

Yesterday's baptism was the joyful expectation of another child starting down life's path, a journey of possibilities and adventure, full of wonder about life, God, and other people. It seemed such a contrast to Laestadian baptisms, where the feeling was much more somber, full of fear and trepidation about whether the child would be "saved" when he or she got older, and the dangers and temptations of the world.

I, for one, am sick and tired of fear based religion. Any religion or religious sales-pitch that preys on people's insecurities or fears is not worth following, in my opinion.

Tomte's thoughts on Baptism

Back in October, p3 said,

Baptism has been a thought as related to our new little one. When/how/where/why? Baptism vs dedication? Any particular scriptures or thoughts out there? With the others we did the expected OALC baptism; we know that's not the route we want this time, but it feels that something should be done...

I never had a clear idea about why we baptized babies in the ALC. I suspect that there really wasn't much of a rationale behind infant baptism other than:

• The Bible commanded us to baptize. At most of the baptisms I attended this was the main theological rationale. It was an "ordinance." In other words, we baptize because God commands it; now shut up and pass the holy water.
  
• All the Laestadianisms baptize infants because they come out of the Lutheran tradition, which also baptizes infants. However unlike much of Lutheranism, the Laestadians emphasize pietism, which in a nutshell means that you're always looking for some kind of sign that yourself and others are really holy and holding up their end of the Christian bargain instead of relying on God's grace.
  

I've given this some thought. Even though I am no longer Laestadian, I still believe in baptism, and especially infant baptism. No, I don't think that un-baptized babies go to hell. NO, I don't believe that baptism saves.

So what does it do, and what is it good for?

For me, all of the sacraments (including baptism) are what St. Augustine called an "outward and visible sign of inward and invisible grace." That's a fancy way of saying that mysterious things happen in the spiritual realm. God does stuff like confer grace and love upon us.

I think that when a child is born God's love and grace is lavished upon that child. In this sense there are no unloved children and no unloved human beings. God loves us all, for we are all God's children, and what parent worthy of the name fails to love their children?

As we all know, however, the world is often an unloving, cruel and unforgiving place. I believe that everything good comes from God, and that as human beings we are called to be God's hands and feet in the world. We turn the spiritual reality of God's goodness into physical reality.

The same thing happens in baptism.

What is already true on the spiritual plane is "made manifest," focused, given flesh in the ritual of baptism. When the water is poured over the infant's head, when the parents and godparents and congregation make promises, personally guaranteeing that the child will be brought up within the beloved community of faith, what is true in the spirit becomes true in the flesh as well.

It's a beautiful thing to behold. And it encapsulates all you ever really need to know about being a Christian. Love God, and love each other.

-ttg