Religion and Identity in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Festschrift for Paul Bushkovitch

The Reformation in Finland- A Historiography of Continuities

Religion and Identity in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Festschrift for Paul Bushkovitch. Nikolaos A. Chrissidis, Cathy J. Potter, David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, and Jennifer B. Spock, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2011, 127–43.       The Reformation in Finland—A Historiography of Continuities Jason Lavery A  steady  and  substantial  stream  of  scholarship  on  the  Reformation  in  Finland   has  been  produced  since  the  late  19th  century.  Nonetheless,  substantially  dif-­‐‑ fering  schools  of  interpretation  have  not  arisen,  even  between  scholarly  gen-­‐‑ erations.   Several   factors   have   contributed   to   this.   The   first   is   institutional   uniformity—the  overwhelming  majority  of  research  on  Finland’s  Reformation   has  been  produced  by  those  trained  and  employed  by  the  Faculty  of  Theology   at   Helsinki   University.   Scholars   of   16th-­‐‑century   Finland   from   other   institu-­‐‑ tions  have  largely  ceded  the  Reformation  to  these  church  historians  and  theo-­‐‑ logians.   Second,   the   Reformation   does   not   represent   a   divisive   moment   in   Finland’s  past.  The  Reformation  in  Finland  and  Scandinavia  as  a  whole  did   not  create  large  religious  minorities  and  protracted  confessional  strife.  Third,   more  recent  ideological  conflict  has  not  influenced  the  scholarship.  There  has   been  no  serious  clash,  for  example,  between  theological  and/or  political  liber-­‐‑ als,  on  the  one  hand,  and  their  conservative  counterparts,  on  the  other.  In  the   absence  of  conflict,  a  strong  consensus  has  developed  that  emphasizes  conti-­‐‑ nuity  over  discontinuity  with  the  medieval  Catholic  era,  slow  change,  and  a   lack  of  conflict.   The  attention  to  continuity  is  revealed  by  the  very  word  used  to  describe   the  changes  in  the  church  in  the  16th  and  early  17th  centuries.  In  Finnish,  the   events   understood   elsewhere   as   “the   Reformation”   have   been   called   uskon-­‐‑ puhdistus,   literally,   “the   cleansing   of   the   faith.”   Such   a   term   connotes   a   less   comprehensive  process  than  a  reform  or   re-­‐‑formation  of  a  church.  In  recent   times,  scholars  have  sought  to  advance  the  term  reformaatio  as  a  less  partisan   substitute.  In  addition,  the  term  more  easily  connects  events  in  Finland  with   developments   elsewhere   in   Europe.   Interestingly,   the   term   reformaatio   was   first   used   in   Finnish   as   early   as   1732,   while   uskonpuhdistus   entered   the   lan-­‐‑ guage  in  1847.1  The  re-­‐‑introduction  of  reformaatio  to  both  a  scholarly  and  more   widely  educated  audience  has  encountered  two  problems.  The  first  is  linguis-­‐‑ tic:  uskonpuhdistus  is  a  concrete  word  with  Finnish  roots,  while  reformaatio  is  a   more  abstract,   slightly  Finnicized  loan  word.  The   second  is  tradition:  uskon-­‐‑ puhdistus  has  been  used  since  the  mid-­‐‑19th  century,  from  about  the  time  when   Finnish   became   a   language   of   scholarship.   Moreover,   generations   of   Finns                                                                                                                             1  Juhani  Holma,  Sangen  ialo  rucous:  Schwenckfeldiläisten  rukouskirja  Mikael  Agricolan  läh-­‐‑ teenä  (Helsinki:  Yliopistopaino,  2008),  45.   128 JASON LAVERY have  learned  the  term  in  history  and  religion  classes  in  school.  Scholars  writ-­‐‑ ing  about  the  Reformation  era  in  Swedish,  Finland’s  other  official  language,   use   the   term   used   in   Sweden—reformation.   Nonetheless,   Swedish-­‐‑language   scholarship  still  adheres  to  the  same  ideas  of  continuity  and  slow  change  that   Finnish-­‐‑language  scholarship  does.   Many  influences   outside  the  field   of  church  history   have  reinforced   the   consensus  of  continuity.  Since  the  19th  century,  scholars  of  medieval  Finland   have  assumed  primary  ownership  over  the  16th  century—a  period  that  else-­‐‑ where  they,  at  best,  share  with  early  modernists.  As  a  result,  scholars  tend  to   see  the  16th  century  more  as  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages  than  the  beginning  of   the  early  modern  era.2  Going  farther  afield,  one  encounters  yet  another  rein-­‐‑ forcement  of  continuity  in  the  form  of  Finnish  Luther  studies.  For  example,  in   systematic   theology,   the   so-­‐‑called   Finnish   interpretation   of   Luther   or   the   Mannermaa   School   uses,   as   one   of   its   underpinnings,   an   understanding   of   Luther   as   a   product   of   the   medieval   world   rather   than   an   initiator   of   the   modern.  This  emphasis  on  continuity  has  also  flourished  in  the  spirit  of  ecu-­‐‑ menism  that  has  prevailed  in  all  of  the  Scandinavian  Lutheran  churches  since   World  War  II.3   In the Shadows of Russia and Sweden: Place and Visibility in Finland’s History Continuity   has   played   a   major   role   in   the   long-­‐‑standing   preoccupation   of   Finnish   historical   scholarship   in   locating   and   making   the   country   a   histori-­‐‑ cally  distinct  and  visible  entity.  Unlike  their  larger  neighbors,  the  Swedes  and   Russians,  Finns  have  not  been  able  to  build  a  national  historical  consciousness   based  on  centuries  as  a  visible  independent  entity  on  the  map  of  Europe.  The   national  tradition  in  Finland’s  historiography  that  was  particularly  prevalent   before   World   War   II   has   sought   to   define   Finland   as   a   distinct   part   of   the   Swedish  kingdom...