Church Resistance to Nazism in Norway, 1940–1945 by Arne Hassing (review)

Whereas the German churches under Nazism have received considerable scholarly attention, English-language studies on the churches in the Nazi-occupied territories remain scarcer. This is just one reason why Arne Hassing’s excellent study of the Church of Norway under German occupation constitutes such a welcome contribution.

Hassing argues that the Church of Norway is “deserving of its reputation as an exemplar of non-violent resistance” to Nazism, albeit with qualifications (p. 269). The author situates his discussion within the context of the German church struggle. He writes that the different outcome of the Norwegian church struggle was by no means predetermined because, like the German Evangelical Church, the Church of Norway exhibited the “classic Lutheran pattern of state submission and state servility,” perhaps to an even greater degree than its German counterpart (p. 17). It therefore seemed quite likely that the Norwegian Lutheran Church, too, would opt to collaborate rather than confront.

In the first weeks of the occupation, the bishop of Oslo and primate of the Church of Norway, Eivind Berggrav (1884–1959), indeed chose the path of what the author calls “administrative collaboration” with the occupiers, which quickly earned him the label of traitor (p. 44). More than anyone else, the not uncontroversial Berggrav came to embody the Norwegian church struggle, and he figures prominently in Hassing’s narrative. Within a year of the occupation, however, in February 1941, Berggrav led his bishops in the composition of a pastoral letter that “confronted the state with the Church’s rejection of its governing values and with the threat of future non-cooperation” (p. 77). But after this bold start to the conflict, the bishops retreated and only sparred cautiously with the occupiers over narrowly defined Church-related issues. In February 1942, however, they moved from mild resistance to opposition with their audacious joint resignation. By May 1943, Norwegian church leaders “had established an autonomous church, disentangled the church from the state, undermined the NS (Nasjonal Samling) state church, and [belatedly] protested the deportation of Jews and compulsory labor service” (p. 229).

Hassing’s detailed analysis reveals that the most important reason why the paths of the German and Norwegian Lutheran churches under Nazism diverged was not theological but political. Whereas the German Church had to confront “its own popularly supported, elected, and legal government . . . the Church of Norway confronted an unwelcome foreign occupant” (p. 271). Although, by and large, Norwegians adjusted easily to the occupation and even profited from it, they still resented their occupiers and the unpopular Vidkun Quisling (1887–1945). Norwegians began to express their discontent by starting to go to church, and church attendance soon became a popular expression of patriotism.

Supported by public opinion that viewed opposition to the occupiers as patriotism, not treason, Berggrav aligned the Church of Norway’s theological response with the new political reality. In particular, the Church had to overcome the “traditional interpretation of Luther’s doctrine of the two realms,” which “separated the spiritual and temporal so sharply that the Church had no theological grounds on which to confront the state” (p. 79). Berggrav solved this vexing problem in part by drawing on the work of Bishop Gustaf Aulén (1879–1977), who “argued that Luther had distinguished the two realms without separating them” (p. 80).

Berrgrav also succeeded in uniting the various factions within the Church when he formed the Christian Consultative Council (CCC) in October 1940. Insisting on the Hague Convention of 1907, he stipulated that “the Church would continue to function as a state church, but the relationship had legal parameters within which the Church could challenge the state” (p. 55). The CCC therefore refrained from all political speech and actions and challenged the state only on strictly clerical concerns such as religious instruction in schools or the confiscation of church bells for the war effort.

Hassing asserts that, despite its own extreme caution, the CCC galvanized the laity...