Content provided in partnership with

The Nordic Churches and the Ecumenical Movement

Ecumenical Review, The, April, 2000 by Peter Lodberg

<< Page 1 Continued from page 14. Previous | Next

In the Danish debate, as documented in three volumes of press clippings published by the Council of Inter-Church Relations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, paragraph 53 does not feature. It is never mentioned in any of the arguments put forward by the opponents of signing Porvoo. Rather, they maintained the opposite: that Porvoo would introduce the historic apostolic succession into the Danish church.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Why? One answer might be that Danish theologians and pastors are not used to participating in ecumenical theological discussion. They do not know how to decode ecumenical language, because their own confessional and national codes are all-dominating. Another answer might be that many Danes resist any ecumenical cooperation that includes more that polite talking and visiting. A third answer is perhaps, as Danish church historian P.G. Lindhardt says, that "in Denmark theological issues are resolved by non-doctrinal factors" -- meaning that we have to look elsewhere than in the circles of theologians and pastors to understand why the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark decided not to sign the Porvoo statement.

The Porvoo discussion offered excellent material for studying these non-doctrinal factors. Many congregations welcomed the invitation to respond in writing to the Porvoo common statement in order to help the bishops to make a decision.

The responses from the diocese of Aarhus

In the diocese of Aarhus, 40 percent of the congregational councils (133 of 326) responded to the Porvoo statement; 73 percent opposed signing it, 21 percent favoured it and 6 percent did not give a clear response. Besides several individual responses, there was a common (negative) response from 12 deans in the diocese and from 7 national church organizations, 6 of which were positive (YMCA and YWCA, the Danish Diaconal Council, the Danish Missionary Society, Danish Santalmission, the Ecumenical Centre in Aarhus, the YMCA scouts) and 1 negative (Kirkeligt Samfund).

The responses from the congregational councils vary a great deal in form, length, degree of theological content and church-political point of view. Very few give a long theological rationale, though the general impression is that those in favour of signing submitted the longest and theologically most comprehensive responses -- perhaps because during the debate they felt put on the defensive. It is also likely that those in favour of signing tried to "translate" the theological content of the Porvoo document into a Danish Lutheran context, in order to make it appear less alien.

Many responses -- from supporters and opponents alike -- mention that the Porvoo document was difficult to read. Both pastors and lay members of congregational councils saw the theological presentation of the problem as strange -- because the Danish Lutheran Church differs fundamentally from the Anglican Church -- or unnecessary -- because the communion of churches is already a reality. The theological language was regarded, especially by the opponents, as pompous and patronizing to the laity, confirming the suspicion that Porvoo was seeking to promote a church governed by bishops, at the expense of the laity and the pastors. Where the respondent's view of what the Church of England or the Danish national church stand for does not correspond to the presentation in the Porvoo document, no self-critical questions are asked, nor is satisfaction expressed for the opportunity to formulate new theological knowledge. Instead, the gap between one's own opinion and the content of the Porvoo text is seen as evidence that the document is misleading or disregards the facts.

The Nordic Churches and the Ecumenical Movement

Ecumenical Review, The, April, 2000 by Peter Lodberg

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Health

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference