POLITICAL RHETORIC OF THE NORWEGIAN HOME MISSION IN THE 1920’s1
ArneBuggeAmundsen
DepartmentofCulturalStudies,UniversityofOslo Postbooks1010,Blindem,N-0315,Oslo,Norway
Abstract:ThepaperdiscussesthestrategiesandtherhetoricalelementsoftheNorwegianIn- nerMissionduringaperiodofpoliticalandculturalconflict-the1920’sand1930’s.Special atten- tionispaidtounderstandingtheambivalencebetweenpremodernvaluesandmodernstrategiesas theywereexpressedbyoneoftheleadersofoneoftheinnermissionorganisations, professorof theologyOleHallesby(1879-1961).Inhisthinking,theexplicitaimoftheinnermissionactivities wastherechristianizationofNorway,the meanswereactionsorganisedaccordingto themodern society,buttheculturalandsocialidealwasthenon-secularized,premodemNorway-asopposed tourbanpluralism.Probably,thisambivalencemadetheinnermissionstrategyapoliticalfailure.
Keywords: pietism, religious organisations, inner mission, national revival, secularization, modernityandpremodernity
Norwayhasneverbeen dominatedbystrong,aggressive freechurches. Instead, the Norwegian Lutheran State Church - established in its present shape by the Constitution of1814-became thefundamentfor moststrategiesin orderto expli- catereligiousvalues, formulatereligiousprotest orsecularize thecivilsociety.Even today,mostNorwegiansbelongtotheLutheranStateChurch.2
However, during the 19th century, several autonomous religious organisations were established within the State Church. These organisations for the most part were dominated by different kinds ofpietist ideology and puritan models for reli- giouslife. Theiraimscouldbemultiple, andcoverforinstancebothforeignmission, homemission andsocialwork.AnationalForeignMission Societywas establishedin 1842,and in 1868aparallelsocietyaimingatnationalhomemissionwasorganised, theso-calledLutherFoundation.
Duringmost ofthe 19th century, these religious organisationswithin the State Church were interesting combinations of working strategies and social structures thatwerebothmodern andpremodern.Evidently,theveryfactthatthetwonational
1Thisarticleisbasedonmypaper“Venneneogvekkelsen.HallesbysSignalementavindremisjons- kulturen”(1999,inpress).
2There are, unfortunately, veryfew general presentations oftheNorwegian church and religious historyinforeignlanguages.Informationofacertainrelevanceandvaluefortheperioddescribedinthis articleis,however,tobefoundinGJESSING1911, DieKirchevonNorwegen1936,andHASS1NG1980 (on Methodism and popular revivals in the 19th century). Certain aspects are also dealt with in THORKJLDSEN1996.AshortsurveyispresentedinMOLLAND1957.
FOLK
Fig1.Thispictureshowswhatiscalled“ChristianYouth”marchingforanout-doormeeting-probably inthelate1930’s.Notalltheparticipantslookspeciallyyoung,buttheyarecorrectlymarching-under
theslogan“TheNorwegianPeopleforChrist”(Repro:ArthurSand,Oslo)
societies were organisations, was a modern phenomenon. So was the fact that they were founded by non-experts, laymen and laywomen as opposed to the ministers and formally educated religious experts. But at the same time they settled in local socie- ties, and were restrictive as to the participation of women preachers, and this made clear that the organisations also referred to premodern values and standards.3
THE NORWEGIAN HOME MISSION OF THE 1850’s
This rather strange combination of modern and premodern elements also in several ways was decisive when the leaders of the Norwegian home mission, the Luther Foundation, formulated their views on contemporary society and the aims of 3A recent and very broadinvestigation on the religious movements in Norway c. 1780-1920 is FURSETH1999.
LAN DSM0TET
15.-18.FEBRUAR1920 IANXEDNINGAV
.
KIRKESTRIDEN
KRISTIAN1A1920 Л Л .% FORLAGTAV LUTHKR8TIFTKL8EN8BOOHANDEL ш в*ви**i: ...mu.
Fig2.Thisisactuallythecoverofthebookpresentingtheofficialreportsfromtheimportantmeetingin 1920,when OleFlallesbywas amongthe spokesmen for anon-cooperation policyagainst the liberal amongtheNorwegianclergy.Thepictureshowsthedimensionsofthemeeting.Hallesby’sportraitisin
theupperleftcorner(Repro:ArthurSand,Oslo)
AVX
the inner mission as such. The explicit argument put in favour of establishing a for- mal home mission organisation was that a religious crisis had developed. During the 1850’s and 1860’s, Norway was dominated by several religious revivals, and it was the leaders of these revivals who actually became the leaders of the new organisation.
But what was the content of this alleged religious crisis? It seems that many of the religious leaders thought that the effect of the growing Norwegian industrialism, capitalism and migration was that the moral and religious standards of the old soci- ety were seriously threatened. The obedience to God, to the Ten Commandments, to the authority of the Bible, so established in previous times, no longer was a com- monly accepted fact in society. And why was that so? The spokesmen of the early home mission argued that one main point simply was that modern people did not accept authority as such, they wanted to decide for themselves, to make more money, have better lives and personal freedom. This was the cultural and social content of the postulated religious crisis. And how could this crisis be overcome
accordingto thiscriticalreligiousview?Theassumptionoftheinnermission leaders wasthatacrisislikethisonlycouldbeneutralizedbyusingtheweaponsofthemod- ern societyitself. Onehad to usemodern media like newspapersandpublic discus- sions,itwas necessarytoorganisethe InnerMissionactivities, and to do itjust like the expandingworkersandburghersdidwhentheyexpandedorsoughttohavesup- portin favouroftheirdemandsand interests.Theproblemwas, ofcourse, thatthe use ofmodern strategiesin orderto establish themoral and religiouscodes ofthe premodern society could easily turn out to be both ambiguous and arbitrary. This was fully understood by the Norwegian home mission leaders of the 1850’s and 1860’s, and they triedto establishtheirsocietyassomesortofanadinterimorgani- sation.Weneedthisorganisationjustnow,theysaid,butitis notmeantasanykind ofapermanentstructure.Letususe TheLutherFoundation,the innermissionsoci- etyasaninstrument fordistributingbiblesandnewtestaments,letus also use itfor administrationoflaypreachers allaround thecountry, forcollectingmoneyandfor controllingandcentralizingpublicdiscussion-as longas itisneeded. Butwhenwe havereachedouraimsandtheNorwegianpeoplehasonceagainreturnedto theold standardsofmoralandreligion,thisorganisationactuallywillnolongerbeneeded.
Ofcourse, neitherasastrategynoras anideologythiswasacceptable andreal- istic.ButIfinditveryinterestingasastartingpointfortheorganisation:Theorgan- isedNorwegianinnermissionwasfromitsbeginninginthe 1850’sand1860’sidenti- fied bywhat one perhaps might call an intrinsic ambivalence: Itwas aiming at re- establishing old, premodern values by using modern strategies, and was left with somekindofascepticismtowardsitsownmethods.
A REORGANISED SOCIETY IN 1891
TheNorwegiansocietychangeddramaticallyduringthe secondhalfofthe 19th century.4 Industrialism,capitalism and migration had come to stay.The citieswere rapidlygrowing, the social differencesbetween theclassesbecame more clear, and political conflicts threatened the stability ofthe society. In 1884, parliamentarism wasintroduced asthe onlywayofstabilisingthegrowingpoliticalconflicts.Asseen bythehomemissionleaders,however, thereligiouscrisisbecame moreofaperma- nentcrisis than couldhavebeenforeseen twentyyears earlier. So, in 1891, theLu- therFoundation was reorganised and made a permanent, modern, nationwide or- ganisationunderthenameofTheNorwegianHomeMission Societyandwiththeaim ofmakingNorway a Christian society. The instruments ofthis reorganised society were asfollows: Anational network ofprofessional lay preacherswas established, and thenew organisationwasinstalledwith threelevels-the centralcommittee in the capital,the regionalboards, and the local boards. Thefundamentofthewhole organisation, however,stillwas the local assembliesofwhatusuallywascalled “the
4Asurveyon19thcenturyNorwaycouldbefoundinHUBBARDetal.1995,esp.Chs.6-7.
friends” or“the spiritualfriends”.Thesesmallgroupswere formallyorganised, and manyof thembuilttheirown houses, usuallycalled “housesofprayer” (in Norwe- gian: “bedehus”), where the meetings and assemblies of the friendswere situated two,threeormoredaysoftheweek.
And theworkwent on.There were quite a few revivals on local, regional and nationallevel,buttheNorwegiansocietykeptchanging.Evenmorepeoplemovedto the cities, the rehgious movements did not grow as fast as planned, while other popular movements expanded - both socialists, unions and teetotalists established themselvesascentralpoliticalforces.
A NEW GENERATION OF HOME MISSION LEADERS
In this situationa newgenerationofleaders tookovertheHome MissionSoci- ety.Bothweretheologians, andoneofthemwasalsoaminister. In1912, theminis- terJohanMartinWisl0jf(1873-1944)was appointed secretarygeneral, orexecuting leaderoftheorganisation,whiledr.OleHallesby (1879-1961),professoroftheology at the recently (1907) establishedFree Faculty ofTheology in Oslo, was appointed headoftheboard.Incooperation, thetwonewleadersimmediatelystartedtopoint outnewdirectionsfortheorganisation.
In aseriesofarticlesin theHomeMission’s periodical,professorHallesbydur- ingtheautumnof1912made somemainstatementsofhispolicy. Wehaveone cen- tralaim,hedeclared,and thatis torechristianizewholeNorway.Secularisation, athe- ism, godless propagandaand modern heathendom are all threatening to make our country a new spiritual wilderness, and our people a people without culture and values. In asituationlikethiswecannotjust sit downand observeorregretwhatis happening; we haveto act, and actaccording toan explicit and consciousstrategy.
Whatis,then, thehopeofNorway? HowisNorwaytoberechristianized? Ouraims canonlybe achievedbymeansofatotalrenewal,anationalrevival.Andhowcoulda nationalrevivalbeorganized?ProfessorHallesbyherelaunchedasloganthatwasto be heard for severalyears to come, at thatwas: “Fill the institutions!” By this, he meantthatthebestwaytoopenupforanationalrevival, afullrechristianizationof theNorwegiansociety,wastoplacesevereChristianbelieversincentralpositionsall overthesociety.
Butthiswasnotall.ProfessorHallesbyalsothoughtthattheHomeMissionhad to show the way, by establishing its own institutions, especially schools, for young people, for teachers, for lay preachers, for craftsmen, for farmers. Furthermore, Hallesby suggested that the new timeswere in need ofChristian hospitals, charity institutions,educatedandfull-timelaypreachersemployedbytheInnerMissionand new“housesofprayer”wheredifferentkinds ofactivities could takeplace. During the followingyears, the Home Mission spent alot ofmoney founding and funding these kinds of schools, institutions and houses all over the country. Another point was, accordingto Hallesby, thatthe internal strategies had to berefined. The local Home Missiongroups, “the friends”, had to modernize, to become more effective
Fig3. ProfessorOleHallesbyin hislateryears,probably the 1940’sor1950’s. Bewareofthegolden crosshangingonachain:Thecrossassignofvictory-andrepentance(Repro:ArthurSand,Oslo)
and expansive. He invited the local “friends” to establish Sunday schools, clubs and choirs for young boys and girls, family groups for the young, Christian couples and so on. Within a few years, the Home Mission organisation had become highly differen- tiated both on central and on local level.
This very expansive strategy was in fact not stopped until the Second World War. And the success was remarkable and astonishing. There is no doubt that the Inner Mission became a vital and central cultural, social and political power in the Norwegian society, a position clearly demonstrated by the rebuilding of its head- quarters in the Norwegian Capital. In the 1930’s, the Home Mission built a modern complex of hotel, offices, administration centre and assembly hall close to the Royal Castle in Oslo.
POLITICAL AIMS WITHOUT POLITICS?
How is this to be characterized, this far? Beyond doubt, the new Inner Mission strategy conceived by professor Ole Hallesby represented a further modernization not only of the organisation but of the strategical thinking. Provoked and threatened by the emerging political and moral popular organisations of socialist and teetotalist
origin, and obviously inspired by their effectivity and success, the Home Mission leadersbothwantedtostandupagainstthesegodlesstendenciesandtriedtoimitate their strategy and ways ofworking. While the socialist organisations tried to take over the established social organisations and to win national and local elections, Hallesby tried to establish alternative, Christian institutions. Onlybypublicly dem- onstratingthattheHomeMissionorganisationwascapableofcompetingwithrival- ling, non-Christian organisations, therewouldbe possibilitiesofthegreatnational awakening or revival to come. Hence, itis not hard to see thatHallesby’s strategy wasapoliticalstrategyand astrategyofcompetition:Thefightwasoverthesoulsof allNorwegians,andthefighthadtobewonbyeithergodlesspoliticalpartiesorbya Christianorganisation.
Itis,however, interestingto observethatprofessorHallesbyand the homemis- sionleadersveryseldomweretalkingaboutpoliticsindirectterms. Onthecontrary, Hallesby most often speaks about politics and politicians in terms of contempt or marginalization. Thereis, heoften says,asafewayto goifone is to destroythein- nocence and deeper culture ofa people, and that is theway ofpolitics. Politics is conflict,hatredanddestructionputintosystem.Ontheotherhand,Christianfaith- as expressed through the inner mission ideals-puts togetherwhat a degenerated, godlessandrestlesssocietyhastakenapart.Christianfaithmakestheindividualfree and restores the god-willed institutions in society based on the authority of God’s ownword.Asaconsequence, Hallesbyisvery scepticalabouttrue Christiansbeing politicians or engagingfor instance in workers unions. There is, he says, only one importantthinginlife,andthatisthestruggleforThe KingdomofGod tocome,to maketheold andwell testedvaluesofChristianityaccepted asthefundamentals of society - in short: The struggle for full rechristianization, not political parties or higherwages,isthefirstandonlyobligationfortrueChristians.
THE REVIVAL OF IDEOLOGIES
Hallesby’s and the Home Mission’s great era, in fact, became the mid-war period, the 1920’sand 1930’s.Thiswasaperiod, eveninNorway,ofextensivepoliti- cal rhetoric. It is, then,verytemptingtounderlineonlythis dimension ofwhatwas said and what was done. Indirectly, the Inner Mission made puritan and pietist Christian culture a question ofpolitical alternatives orexclusive choices, and - for instance - created effective barriers between religion and socialism, or a rather negativeattitudeamongHomeMissionmemberstopoliticalactivity.Andfurther,it is quiteeasyto understandwhythe HomeMissionstrategy had to turnproblemati- cal: Itwas-after all-not linked to distinct and common social or culturalvalues thatcouldbeacceptedbyothersthantheHomeMission’sownmembers.Therefore, the rechristianization rhetoric created a dividing line between believers and non- believers. Only Home Mission members themselves dreamed about The Great National Awakening; to others, this awakening seemed the purest night-mare.
Second, comparedwith for instance the Socialist Party, the workers’ unions or the
TeetotalistMovement, theInnerMissionSocietywasoflimitedforcebotheconomi- cally,sociallyandrhetorically.Thepubliccompetition-ifthereeverwasone atall- was between David and Goliat, and thepoint here is that David might have had a justcaseand allheavensblessings,buthestillwastheyoungsterand Goliatstayeda giant.
- OR THE IDEOLOGY OF REVIVALS?
But this is not all. Until this point, I have mostlybeen concernedwith leader- ship,publicstrategy,officialrhetoricanddirect politicalimplications oftheworkof the InnerMission and professor Hallesbyin the 1920’s. Butsince this is a Confer- ence on ethnologyofreligion, there should ofcourse alsobea questionofculture andpeoplehere.ProfessorHallesbywasnottheonlymemberoftheHomeMission, althoughhewasconceivedas-andindeedheunderstoodhimselfas-theeloquent andundisputedleaderandchiefoftheorganisation.Hallesby,however,wasinmany ways awise and experienced man. Since earlyin the century, he hadhimselfbeen travellingasalaypreacher(hewasinfactneverordainedasaminister),hopingfor revival and awakening. Heknewhissupporters, and hewas avery intelligent inter- preteroftheircultureand waysofthinking. In avery interestingbookfrom 1928 - published as a celebration of the Inner Mission’s 60th anniversary - professor Hallesby addresses the ordinary members of his organisation. The book is called FromtheWorkingFields.AFewWordstotheFriendsoftheInnerMission.5
Ofcourse, Hallesbyhasto makestatementsofhis ambitiousstrategyhere, too.
But in a strangeway, these ambitions seemto fade away, and instead, he starts to talkabouttheindividualsoul,thelocalcommunitiesof“spiritual friends”-without money, withno eloquence orstrongorganisation, leftonlywith confusion, despair, and asmallhope ofthegrace ofGod. Thebook assuchis less a selfsufficientpre- sentation ofthe rechristianizationprogram than a modestand sympathetic sermon totroubledindividuals.6
What “the friends” actually long for, Hallesby says, is not necessarily obvious successorexternalaccept,butalocalrevivaland awarm,friendlyacceptance atthe local“houseofprayers”.Andhegiveslengthydescriptionsnotonlyofhownice and fruitfulthesecloseandwarmreligiouscommunitiescouldbe,but alsoofthe simple and severereligiouscommunities offormer days, atthe countryside,when thepre- modern innocencestill dominated people’sbodies and minds.7 The warmth of the friendsand thefireoftherevivalisalsothefireandthewarmthofthepast. Whydo we need all these organisations, educated preachers and effective administrators?
Hallesbyasks. In fact,hecontinues,thestrengthand thecenterofgenuinereligious
5TheNorwegiantitleofthebookisFraarbeidsmarken.Etordtilindremissionsvenner.
6Itispossibleto getat leastacertain impression ofHallesby’swayofthinking on thesematters throughsomeofhistranslatedbooks,e.g.Hall esby 1934andHall esby 1996.
7Oncentraltraitsin19thcenturyconservativeNorwegianpietism,cf.AMUNDSEN1997(a).
Fig4.TheheadquartersoftheNorwegianInner MissionSocietyasitwaspresentedafteramajorre- buildingin1935-inthecenteroftheNorwegiancapital,Oslo(Repro:ArthurSand,Oslo)
life is the local community of friends. If this community is well-functioning, pure and without conflicts, a mild and quiet revival will come. How it starts, will be unknown to us, and whereto it will take us, is impossible to guess, Hallesby further says. In these passages, Hallesby’s rhetoric is of another kind than in the public speeches and debates. Actually, it almost seems as if the “friend”-rhetoric is contra-factual to the modernized “Great-National-Awakening”-rhetoric. The “friend”-rhetoric is both nostalgic and, partly pre-modern, but it is hardly occupied with the new movement strategy at all.8
THE PROBLEM OF THE ‘REMOVED CANDLESTICK’
And there is even more to it. Having placed the centre of all religious life in Norway among the local group of friends, who actually needed no organisation to experience revival, Hallesby goes even further. Why does this quiet, serious, local awakening still not appear? he asks his readers. Is it perhaps because you have not repented - every one of you? Does the community of friends, the “house of prayer”, house hidden sins? In this central passage he is kind enough to quote a very impor-
OnthenostalgiccharacteroftheChurch’sviewonitsownhistory,cf.AMUNDSEN1997(b).
tantversefromtheNewTestament, averse thatbelongs tothecentraltopoi in the revivalistculture,i.e.TheBookofRevelation,chapter2,verse5: “Rememberthere- fore fromwhence thou artfallen, and repent, and do the firstworks; or else Iwill comeuntotheequickly,andwillremovethycandlestickoutofthisplace,exceptyou repent.”
This, Ithink,is theultimate, innerbox, therhetoricofthe rhetoricinthe inner missionculture.Stillintheprocessofbuildingupaneffectiveandpowerfulreligious organisation, professor Hallesby also reveals the weakest - and perhaps also the most sympathetic - element of this culture: its almost immense introspection and individualism.
Asseenfromoutside, thisistheweakestpointofthewholeprojectinthe 1920’s and 1930’s: notthelackoffunds, membersorpoliticalsupport,butthereligiouside- ology itself. What Hallesby actually was saying - and I think that thiswas a point sharedbymostofhishomemission“friends”-wasthattherewillbenorechristiani- zation,nocommonsuccess,noGreatNationalAwakening-unlesseveryoneofyou show upacleanheart, apuremind, awarmhand. InnerMissionmaynotneedfor- mal organisation or educated preachers, but it cannot do without every single
“friend”- “repenting, and doing the first works”. If there were no “friends” with thesegenuinequalities, Godhimselfmay“removethe candlestickfromthisplace”.
PerhapsNorwaywascondemned?Perhaps thedarknessofgodlessness,politics and conflictswastheactualfuture-becauseofthe“friends”themselves?
THE IRONY OF THE ‘SECULARIZED CANDLESTICK’
IfIamrightininterpretingprofessorOleHallesbylikethis-and,infact,Ithink I amrighthere-Iwouldliketopointoutthatthisis aconclusion ofacertainrele- vancetothemainthemeofthisConference,“PoliticsandFolkReligion”.
Ihavetriedbrieflytodescribethehistoricalandrhetoricalconditionsand tradi- tionsina specificEuropeancountryintheinter-warperiod. Itwasaperiodwhenin manycountriespoliticalandreligiousmovementswereinseriousconflictoversocial values, political power and control of public institutions. In a Lutheran and even pietist tradition as theNorwegian, there seemto havebeen madestrong efforts to make local, popular religion a fundament for strong revival movements aiming at taking spiritual control over the whole country. In one perspective, professor Ole Hallesbyis asignificantcasehere.Localpietismand communitiesof“friends”were partsofastrongpopularreligiosityalmostalloverNorwayatthetime,andHallesby andtheHomeMissionleaderstriedtomakethemstandup againstsocialism,politi- calconflictsandgodlessness.
Ontheotherhand, therearecentralelements in theverypietisticandrevivalis- ticideology thatmakesuchpoliticaland culturalefforts difficultto sustain. Pietism is, indeed, expansive and authoritarian, but it is also extremely individualistic and self-critical.ProfessorOleHallesbywaswell awareofthis, and heexplicates itquite clearly in dialoguewith all hisinnermission “friends”. Thus, he also openlyshows
thatpietistic strategiesfor rechristianization in apluralisticcommunityhave to fail, atleastwhencomparedwithuni-linear,power-seekingmovementsofamoredistinct secularorigin. Whilethepietistic“spiritualfriends”ofthe20th centuryalwayshave feared that “thecandlestick” mightbe taken awayfrom them, thesecular, political movementshavegraspedthe“candlestick”andtakenittotheirplace.
LITERATURE9
Amun dsen ,AmeBugge
1992: “‘Vekkelsensansikter’-Frabedehus-ogforeningsmilj0imellomkrigstidensRakkestad”,Bor- garsysselMuseum.Ärboknr.31985-90,Sarpsborg,72-122.
1997a:“‘TheLivingMustFollowtheDead’.InSearchof‘The ReligiousPerson’in theNineteenth Century”,Arv.NordicYearbookofFolklore1997,vol.53,Uppsala,107-130.
1997b:“‘TheHaugeanHeritage’-aSymbolofNationalHistory”,JensBRAARVlGTThomasKROGH (eds.):InSearchofSymbols.AnExplorativeStudy,(OccasionalPapersfromtheDepartmentof CulturalStudies,UniversityofOslo1),Oslo,214-233.
DieKirchevonNorwegen.(Ekklesia.EineSammlungvonSelbstdarstellungenderchristlichenKirchenII, herausgegebenvonFriedr.SlEGMUND-SCHULTZE),Leipzig1936.
FURSETH,Inger
1999: People,FaithandTransition.AStudyofSocialandReligiousMovementsinNorway,1780s-1905.
(Dr.polit.Thesis,UniversityofOslo),Oslo.
Gjessin g,Marcus
1911: NorwegischeKirchenkunde.(KirchenkundedesevangelischenAuslandesII),Giessen.
HALLESBY,Oie
1934: TheChristianLifeintheLightoftheCross,Minneapolis,Minnesota.
1996: UnsereKraftwächstausderStille.LektioneneinesLebensmitJesus.(R.BrockhausTaschenbuch 361),Wuppertal.
HASSING,Arne
1980: ReligionandPower.TheCaseofMethodisminNorwegianHistory,Wainesville,NorthCarolina.
Hubb ard ,WilliamH.etal.(eds.)
1995: MakingofaHistoricalCulture.HistoriographyinNorway,Oslo/Copenhagen/Stockholm/Boston.
MOLLAND,Einar
1957: ChurchLifeinNorway1800-1950,Minneapolis,Minnesota.
OFTESTAD,BerntT.
1980: “Lekmannsprekenenskirkeligelegitimitet.Fradebattenomden ‘offentlige’lekmannspreken innennorskkirkeliviforrigeärhundre”,TidsskriftforTeologiogKirke51,Oslo,189-206.
1983: “Folkekirken i pietistisk vekkelsesteologi. O. Hallesbys og Ludvig Hopes vurdering av folkekirken”,FolkkyrkoteologiochfolkkyrkotraditioniNordenunder1900-talet,Lund,42-57.
1986: “OleHallesbyogLudvigHopesomkirkeligestrateger”,KirkeogKultur91,Oslo,215-229.
1998: Dennorskestatsreligionen-frapvrighetskirketildemokratiskstatskirke,Oslo.
OFTESTAD,BerntT.-Rasmuss en,Tarald—SCHUMACHER,Jan 1991: Norskkirkehistorie,Oslo.
OUSLAND,Godvin
1982: Gullaldertid.VekkelsesretningeriNorge1900-1940.Hvadeleerteogsiktetpa,Oslo.
REPSTAD,Pál(ed.)
1996: ReligionandModernity-ModesofCo-existence,Oslo.
Rudvin ,Ola
1962: “Indremisjonshpvdingen”,OleHallesby.EnhpvdingiGudsrike,Oslo,89-97.
1970: IndremisjonsselskapetshistorieII,Oslo.
9Inthefootnotes,IhaveonlyreferredtoliteraturethatmightbereadinEnglishor German.The bibliography,ontheotherhand,referstobooksandarticlesthatIhaveactuallyused.
Sverd rup ,Edvard
1918: FraNorges kristenliv. Den norskeLutherstiftelse ogDet norske lutherskeJndremissionsselskab 1868-1918,Kristiania.
THORK1LDSEN,Dag
1996: “ChurchandNationinthe19thCentury.TheCaseofNorway”,IngmarBROHED(ed.):Church andPeopleinBritainandScandinavia.(Bibliothecahistorico-ecclesiasticalundensis36),Lund, 249-266.
