2.1 Fundamental features and orientations

Three names stand forth as important for understanding the intellectual context of Nordic theology after 1945: Martin Luther, Søren Kierkegaard, and Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig. They each provide essential resources and points of orientation for most of the major influential figures in present-day Nordic theology. The work of these three foundational theologians cannot be presented in detail here, but some of their influence can be traced in many theologians that still contribute to Nordic theology.

Martin Luther’s theology has been influential in all the Nordic countries. The fact that the established churches have been Lutheran has, of course, contributed to Luther’s lasting impact. The elements in Luther that more recent theologians have developed have nevertheless varied considerably: the notion of theosis (the deification of the human being) in Finnish interpretations of Luther are somewhat different from receptions of Luther that emphasize his theology of creation; the strongly German-influenced Luther scholarship in Denmark and Norway; or the uses of Luther to solidify a strong confessionalist position expressing Lutheran orthodoxy in Finland, Norway, and Iceland. Regardless of these differences, references to Luther continue to play an important role in Nordic theology, and often, his normative authority for theological claims goes more or less unquestioned. Nevertheless, Luther scholarship is more rarely found today, with the exception of Denmark and Helsinki, where it still continues to flourish. This may partly be due to the decreasing knowledge of German and Latin among students.

Søren Kierkegaard’s influence on Nordic theology started not long after his death in 1855. Kierkegaard’s impact is especially strong in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The establishment of the Søren Kierkegaard Research Center in Copenhagen in 1998 has contributed to the enduring influence and internationalization of Kierkegaard research, thereby continuing his role as a major influence on Protestant theology in the twentieth century. Kierkegaard’s criticism of the religious establishment, as well as his profound analyses of human existence, are among the elements of his thought that have proved to be important sources for different religious groups and discourses in the Nordic countries – from the more pietist groups to contemporary discussions in the international context of the philosophy of religion. Unlike Luther, Kierkegaard is not an authority for everyone – but he remains an essential source for the theologians who recognize his contributions and engage in research on his work.

Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig (1783−1872), theologian, educator, politician, and hymn composer, is among the forebears for what will be discussed below under the heading of Scandinavian Creation Theology (see section 3). Grundtvig’s dictum, ‘Human first – then a Christian’, captures his affirmation of ordinary human life as the basis and context for Christian life. Grundtvig served as an important mediator between Luther and modernity because of his appreciation of human capacity, societal development, and nation building. His life-affirming attitude and universal intellect made him open to various Christian denominations as well as people with other beliefs. His theology was based on a trinitarian approach that had an incarnational focus. His affirmation of creation as good and his recognition of humanity made him see divine redemption in the light of God’s work in creation. Thus, his theology is a vital alternative to the pietist trends that have dominated Nordic church life, and his positive assessment of culture and broad education has made him an ally for those theologians who could not identify with the pietist or revivalist movements. Like Kierkegaard, Grundtvig is not held as an authority for everyone, but he remains an essential source for the theologians who recognize his contributions. Grundtvig has not had the same international reception as Kierkegaard, but he has been very influential in his home country, far beyond the church context.

If we move from these three influential ancestors of Nordic theology to influences closer to the present time, a nuanced picture emerges: Nordic theology was somewhat impacted by the emergence of dialectical theology in the first half of the twentieth century. Although Rudolf Bultmann did not find a large audience in the Nordic countries, he was widely read and discussed among New Testament scholars and systematic theologians. The direct and indirect influence of Karl Barth can be traced more clearly in systematic theology; in Denmark, Regin Prenter (see section 2.4) went through a Barthian period, and the professor of dogmatics in Oslo in the 1960s, Reidar Hauge, was also influenced by Barth. Traces of dialectical (or diastatic) thinking that seem structurally similar to traits in Barthian theology can also be identified in the theologically conservative Leiv Aalen and Aksel Valen-Sendstad, both active in the post-war period.

The ‘father’ of the ecumenical orientation in Nordic theology was Nathan Söderblom, whose work proved crucial for the legitimacy of such engagement in all the Nordic countries. Söderblom’s call on Christian leaders to work for peace and justice and church unity was built on the conviction that Christianity can remain a vital influence on modern social life. As leader of the ‘Life and Work’ movement in the 1920s, he was one of the founders of the ecumenical movement. Many followed in his footsteps as ecumenically engaged, such as Per Erik Persson (Lund), Anna Marie Aagaard (Aarhus, also vice-president of the World Council of Churches), Carl-Henric Grenholm (Uppsala), Risto Saarinen (Helsinki), and Torleiv Austad (Oslo), to mention only a few. Moreover, Olav Fykse Tveit, who holds a doctorate in ecumenical theology from MF/Oslo, served as the General Secretary of WCC in the period 2012–2020.

Anders Nygren and Gustaf Aulén both belonged to the Lundensian school of theology (see section 6.3). They were important theologians in the middle of the twentieth century. Internationally, Aulén’s work is better known than Nygren’s, as Aulén became internationally recognized with the books Christus Victor (English, 1931) and The Faith of the Christian Church (English, 1948). Nygren’s influence was mainly by his Agape and Eros (English, 1932–1939). Few of his books have been translated into English. Nygren’s work is wide-ranging, however, and includes contributions to the philosophy of religion. Aulén and Nygren both served as bishops in the Church of Sweden after their academic careers but continued their theological work nevertheless. They were also involved in ecumenical work.

The so-called Lundensian school had a shared focus on the typological approach to religions, emphasizing the uniqueness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, the view of history as God’s continuous revelation, and the rejection of the possibility of metaphysics. Its main method, developed predominantly by Nygren, was searching for enduring motifs in Christianity. By determining such motifs, the specific character of the religion can be determined. A motif represents

the basic conception, the driving and unifying force of a religion […] Although these basic conceptions are historically given, the task of determining them is not only a genetic-historical question, but also and primarily a systematic issue of showing the driving and unifying motifs of, in this case, Christianity. (Rasmusson 2007: 134)

The emphasis on determining the specific character of Christianity compared to other religions corresponded with the central role of ecclesiology. Moreover, the Lundensian school was part of the renewal of Luther studies influenced by Ritschl and his followers, due significantly to the fact that in Sweden, Luther’s theological authority went unquestioned. Some influence of dialectical theology can also be traced, for example, in Nygren’s contrasting of the twin concepts of eros and agape (self-oriented and unconditional love, respectively). One element in the Lundensian approach to theology is an important backdrop to the development of Swedish theology after the First World War: for both Aulén and Nygren, the object of theology is not God, but the Christian idea of God. It entails a critical stance against idealist metaphysics and focuses instead on the systematic study of the idea of God in Christianity’s history.

2.2 Knud E. Løgstrup – a past presence

After the Second World War, one of the most original theologians in the Nordic countries was the Danish theologian and philosopher of religion, Knud E. Løgstrup. Løgstrup has influenced all the traditional branches of systematic theology. However, his impact can be traced especially in ethics and the philosophy of religion. He is usually considered one of the founding fathers of the so-called Scandinavian theology of creation (see section 3). Løgstrup studied phenomenology in the 1930s and became a professor at the new Aarhus University in 1943. Here he worked until his retirement in 1975. The influence of phenomenology on his thinking can be seen in how he analyses different traits and features in human existence and relates them to what he sees as the fundamental condition of the Christian message. Sometimes the emphasis he put on phenomenological analysis made him appear more secular in tone than other theologians of his times, and these analyses also sometimes led to creative tensions with theology. However, they also helped ‘facilitate a broad reception of his ideas both within and outside theology’ (Gregersen 2017: 37). A main element in his work is the distinction between the universal and the particular dimensions of the Christian faith, which he developed due to his fundamental phenomenological orientation. Løgstrup has inspired theologians in all the Nordic countries, and his work has, and continues to be, received by philosophers and ethicists as well. Løgstrup inspired Ole Jensen, who wrote the first contributions to ecotheology in the Nordic countries. Later on, several other Nordic scholars have followed suit in terms of developing ecological theology (including Sigurd Bergmann, Roald Kristiansen, et al.).

Løgstrup’s main theological influences were Grundtvig and Luther, and his theological front was directed against Kant and Kierkegaard. His philosophical debts were to phenomenology philosophers Martin Heidegger and Hans Lipps.

Løgstrup’s public breakthrough – something not every theologian experiences – came with the publication of The Ethical Demand (1956). The book interprets the religious and ethical teachings of Jesus in ‘strictly human terms’, based on an analysis of the phenomenon of trust. This work was followed up by other works that contributed further to Løgstrup’s coining of his ethics as ontological, that is, as grounded in and receiving its content from the fact that humans are embedded in conditions existing prior to themselves, given their coexistence with other humans. Thereby, he criticizes Kant’s understanding of practical reason as the source of ethics and freedom, as well as existentialist and teleological versions of ethics. He also levels criticism against Kierkegaard, for whom the ethical situation is constituted ‘only by virtue of the human decision to follow the divine command’ (Gregersen 2017: 42). Consequently, a person never has anything to do with another person without holding something of the other person’s life in his or her hand (cf. Løgstrup 1997: 22). Human flourishing is dependent on our interaction with others, and this dynamic ontological situation is the source of ethical responsibility. Moreover, responsibility cannot be adequately understood unless one considers fundamental phenomena such as vulnerability and power. Accordingly, it is not possible to maintain a sharp distinction between the normative and the descriptive dimension. Løgstrup finds a theological ally in Luther for substantiating his interpretation of the ethical demand. By relying on an interpretation of Luther as an advocate of the natural law, he argues that the divine law is not based on conscience only but also on the inter-human situation in which humans find themselves.

Løgstrup’s views on ethics stirred opposition from conservative theologians who held firmly that the main source of ethics was the Bible. Although their criticism on this point appears misguided in light of Løgstrup’s arguments, it testifies to how Løgstrup’s thinking represented an alternative to dialectic theology’s negative view of human existence, which could also be found in biblicist and revival-based conservative theology in the Nordic countries. Løgstrup’s more positive understanding of the human condition sees it as not determined exclusively by human sinfulness. His work in the 1960s followed the initial phenomenological approach in The Ethical Demand, and he coined the expression ‘sovereign life-expressions’ to describe phenomena that manifests life and impacts humans prior to their reflection and agency. Examples of such life expressions are trust, the openness of speech, and mercy. These appear prior to any reflection or decision, and provide the actual content of the ethical demand. Løgstrup sees these as a result of God’s continuous creation that breaks through and counters the innate human tendencies to selfishness and sin. The moral dimension of sin is linked to how humans ignore the innate call in these life expressions.

An indication of how phenomenological analysis and theological interpretation work together in Løgstrup’s thought is found in his mature formulation of the ethical demand. Here, he develops the complex intertwinement of theological notions about God’s work in creation and sin with the phenomenological analysis of the sovereign life expressions:

The demand is unfillable, the sovereign expression of life is not produced by the will’s exerting itself to obey the demand. The sovereign expression of life is indeed realized, but spontaneously, without being demanded. The demand makes itself felt when the sovereign expression of life fails, but without endangering the latter; the demand demands that it be itself superfluous. The demand is the correlate of sin; the sovereign expression of life is that of freedom. (Løgstrup 2007: 69)

Løgstrup’s analysis of the sovereign life expressions allows him to argue that they suggest a religious interpretation. This move makes visible that Løgstrup’s line of reasoning goes from analysis of shared or universal phenomena contained in human existence (utilizing phenomenology) via an argument for their inherent openness to a religious interpretation, and ending in a specific interpretation developed by employing resources in the Christian tradition, especially as these are accessible in Luther and Grundtvig. The phenomena on which the religious interpretation relies and to which they are related do not depend upon this interpretation for their existence and they do not disappear if the interpretation is rejected.

Løgstrup’s active use of Luther and other theological thinkers makes it hard to substantiate a criticism of his work as mere natural theology: instead, it is giving the contents of Christian faith a more comprehensive grounding than one has when it is only based on faith in the proclamation of the gospel. Perhaps the main contribution of Løgstrup is that he makes it possible to realize that Christianity is a fundamental interpretation of the conditions for human existence and experience.

Løgstrup’s influence on Nordic theology in the twentieth century onwards cannot be underestimated. His influence is due to the creativity and originality of his work, which entails a vital rejection of a mere secularist understanding of human existence. But his impact has also restricted the appropriation of other positions that have been dominant in contemporary theology. Only recently are there traces that show how his work corresponds with, or can be related to, the international discourse.

2.3 Gustaf Wingren – the alternative to the Lundensian school

Gustaf Wingren (1910–2000, professor in Lund 1951–1977) followed Anders Nygren as professor of systematic theology. His theology draws on different sources, including biblical texts, Luther’s theology, and the work of Irenaeus of Lyon. In his work, Wingren does not occupy himself with philosophical questions but is concerned with how the Christian message can be given a contemporary and relevant interpretation. Like Løgstrup, he was often involved in theological controversies. His work is marked by existential rigour, and he did not have much positive to say about mere historical work. Accordingly, he also departed from the Lundensian school of theology by basing theology on contextual, dynamic, and changeable elements that stood in sharp contrast to the historical descriptions in Lundensian motif research, which Nygren had hoped could determine the unchangeable and pure nature of Christianity (cf. Uggla 2017a: 50).

It has been argued that Wingren’s work can be divided into two main periods, with his thinking undergoing a significant change from the 1970s onward. His first period of work was primarily undertaken in the academic sphere. However, he later developed theology that more explicitly entailed a critique of the given social context. Against the backdrop of this change, his later works can be interpreted as ‘creative revisitations and recontextualizations of the theological system he had actually completed already by 1960’ (Uggla 2017a: 28). Wingren was a prolific writer, producing historical studies, systematic theology, considerations on methods and hermeneutics, and more. His theology also contains polemics against Lutheran orthodoxy, Sweden’s high-church movement, and resistance to the ordination of women, as well as revivalist movements and Pietism.

Wingren became increasingly critical of his teacher, Nygren. The reasons for his criticism had to do with Nygren’s method (stated as late as 1972 in Meaning and Method: Prolegomena to a Scientific Philosophy of Religion and Scientific Theology), as well as the consequences his theology had by focusing on the distinctiveness of the Christian faith (see Wingren’s Theology in Conflict: Nygren, Barth, Bultmann, 1958). Nygren’s focus separated this faith from the conditions shared by all. In Wingren’s view, this meant a reduction and a deformation of the Christian faith. His alternative, which also shows why he can be considered another father of the Scandinavian Creation theology, aims at overcoming an exclusively christocentric and ecclesiocentric theology, of which he sees Nygren’s agape theology as an exponent.

The basis for Wingren’s theology is his understanding of the universal presence of God’s life and love, creation and law, as they can be experienced in ordinary human conditions. He finds in Luther and Irenaeus sources that help him articulate these fundamental theological concerns. Against this backdrop, he develops his theological alternative, in which the universal presence of God’s love is manifested in various human relationships, and not exclusively in the agapeic love Jesus represents. ‘Christ is, according to Wingren, not recognized as the beginning of God’s relationship with the world, but the continuation of this love affair. The human life which is restored in Christ, is the same human life which Adam lost’ (Uggla 2017b: 92).

Wingren’s theological project articulates Christian faith in a way that includes ‘that which unites the Christian view of life with basic realities shared by all human beings’ (Uggla 2017b: 99). Accordingly, a central element in his project became the need to develop a theological anthropology that interprets how God is at work under the conditions of human existence. This cannot be done if one only points to the original or unique in the Christian message (as Nygren did). But it does not entail that one ignores the darker sides of human existence, either. Wingren’s anthropology confronts both the anthropocentrism and what he saw as self-glorification of liberal theology, and Barth’s ‘anthropoclasm and rejection of human achievement’ (Uggla 2017b: 97). In a summary of Wingren’s theology, Bengt Kristensson Uggla writes:

There are of course unique elements within the Christian faith, but a prerequisite for embracing these elements is that the universally human be articulated and taken seriously first. The relation of the Christian faith to God’s creation is not a matter of an external relationship that must be established outwardly to something outside this faith, but rather of an integral part of Christian faith itself. Against this background, Wingren claimed that any attempt to identify opposite pairs of human versus Christian, anthropology versus Christology, creation versus salvation, the world versus the church, will obscure, if not outright eliminate and destroy, a Christian view of faith and life. (Uggla 2017b: 99)

Wingren’s dissertation on the topic of vocation in Luther’s theology interprets everyday work and tribulations as an expression of the activity of God. God acts anonymously behind creaturely masks. By identifying everyday work as being acts of God, mundane tasks can be interpreted as associated with nomos (law) and eros (self-oriented love), and not exclusively with agape (unconditional love). This interpretation entails an alternative to seeing Luther as a representative of the isolated agape love, which was the centre of Nygren’s Luther interpretation. The anti-pietistic strain present in Wingren’s presentation of Luther points to ‘Luther’s theological delight in everyday labor, dance, beer, sexual intercourse, and children, based on the conviction that the given, ordinary human community in creation, together with nature as well as work, are portions of God’s world’ (Uggla 2017a: 91). Accordingly, a theological understanding of vocation is not tied specifically to spiritual tasks.

In Creation and Law (2003) and Gospel and Church (published in English in 1964), Wingren presents the main elements of his dogmatics. These works present an exposition of the Christian faith as based in the concrete and experienced reality of humans. Wingren underscores that God acts through material bodies and how God is present in the encounters with the ethical demands of the other in everyday life. The titles of these two main works reveal the four organizing concepts that structure Wingren’s systematic theology: creation, law, gospel, and church. In addition to these, the Irenean concept of recapitulation plays a vital role in his systematic thinking.

Wingren’s ethics follows the pattern described above: his ethical work is anchored in concrete human life and avoids theoretization. Uggla states that according to Wingren,

ethics is in general not something that can be retrieved from the Bible but is instead based on the anonymous ‘letter of demand’ containing the concrete needs of the other. Ethics is thus not a matter of some abstract basic motif, but is instead written in the concrete face we encounter in each meeting with the other. (Uggla 2017a: 149)

Moreover,

God’s hidden work in creation is, so to speak, the source of the law – the law is not an effect of ecclesiastic proclamation. Not taking the law seriously, as something already at work before the gospel enters the scene, has devastating consequences: ‘For where it is denied that the world is God’s world, the attempt is soon made to regulate it by some other “religious” standard.’ (Uggla 2017a: 150)

For Wingren, the notion of creation constitutes the necessary horizon for understanding the Christian message. Hence, it is misguided to determine the identity of the Christian faith by concentrating on its uniqueness. This point is strongly articulated in one of his most polemic books, Theology in Conflict. Nygren, Barth, Bultmann (1958). Here, Wingren expands the criticism against Nygren further, claiming that Nygren’s focus on historical description ignores the gospel’s relationship to the issue of guilt, and thereby, the question about redemption. He also argues against Nygren’s interpretation of Marcion and of the Christian faith as timeless and unchanging. Barth and Bultmann are subjected to similar criticism. In Barth, the separation between God and humanity appears problematic and leads to a conception in which God is at war with humanity. Moreover, Barth also turns the question about revelation into a question about knowledge. Wingren’s criticism of Bultmann targets his dependence on Heidegger. This dependence makes Bultmann unable to define death theologically as an enemy foreign to created human nature. All these theologians lack a sufficient understanding of the law and represent a moralistic understanding of the Bible, according to Wingren.

2.4 Regin Prenter – incarnational and sacramental ecumenism

Regin Prenter (1907–1990, professor in Aarhus 1945–1972) was a complex theological figure and perhaps the most influential dogmatics professor in the Nordic countries after the Second World War. He was inspired by Luther, Grundtvig, and Barth (which is a rather complex combination in itself) and engaged in international ecumenical work. Unlike Løgstrup and Wingren, he did not support the participation of women in church ministry and had high-church sympathies. His main dogmatic work, Creation and Redemption (Skabelse og Genløsning; 1998 [first published 1967]) was published in several editions and has served as a textbook in many universities and seminars in the Nordic countries, and was translated into English, German, French, and Japanese. His theology is ecclesiocentric, oriented from liturgy, and thereby sacramental in shape. From a dogmatic point of view, all three articles of faith play a vital role in his theology. However, it was ‘not soteriological particularism but created, experienced life revolving around worship, represents the vital centre of Prenter’s thought’ (Værge-Pöder 2017: 86–87). In sacramental worship, God and humans are reunited, and the self-isolated creature is reconciled with its creator. Christine Svinth Værge-Pöder summarizes Prenter’s position well in this quote about the believer’s appropriation of the reconciling work of Christ:

this reconciliation in sacrament and worship means participating in the reunification of the whole creation and the created life with the creator. And, this is how Prenter can speak of the sacramentality of the physical world. This is no triumphalistic glorification of the world overlooking its vulnerability, but means, to the contrary, integrating and acknowledging the vulnerability of the creaturely. (Værge-Pöder 2017: 87)

Accordingly, Prenter was able to develop an interpretation of how creation in its actual mode is related to the cross of Christ. What makes him related to the Scandinavian creation theology (see section 3) is his emphasis on sacramental realism – a move that affirms the created world as included in and object of God’s work for redemption.

6.1 Denmark

Contemporary Danish theology shows a rich and varied picture. Although the influence of Løgstrup is still detectable, other traits are visible as well. In Aarhus, Svend Andersen, who succeeded Løgstrup as professor of ethics and the philosophy of religion 1989–2019, expanded Løgstrup’s ethical insights by relating them to both Luther and John Rawls. Andersen also worked on the relationship between theology and the natural sciences and was active in public debates in Denmark on various ethical topics. In 2021, Andersen was followed by Claudia Welz, whose work is based mainly on continental phenomenology, including Jewish scholars.

Another expansion of topics can be found in the work of Anders-Christian Jacobsen, the present professor of dogmatics in Aarhus. Jacobsen’s work is based on patristics, but he also addresses contemporary issues. Compared to his previous and contemporary colleagues, Jacobsen seems to have chosen another path. Others seem to continue the paths of Løgstrup and Grundtvig (David Bugge) or Luther studies (Bo Kristian Holm), and some orient themselves towards a more global and ecumenical scene (as formerly Anna Marie Aagaard and presently Else Marie Wiberg Pedersen, who has done extensive work on both Luther and Bernhard de Clairvaux).

The Faculty of Theology at Copenhagen has traditionally been much oriented towards dogmatic theology – as seen, for example, in the work of the late professor of dogmatics, Theodor Jørgensen, who was influenced heavily by Schleiermacher and Grundtvig, and in that of the present professor, Niels Henrik Gregersen. Gregersen’s work is extensive and covers different topics, and he is also firmly located within the context of SCT. Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theology influenced his early work; and Gregersen’s interdisciplinary orientation makes him one of the most internationally sought-after Nordic theologians, especially in the field of theology and science (cf. section 5).

Copenhagen has had a strong tradition of Luther scholars up until the present. Among those who influenced systematic theology considerably was church historian Leif Grane (1928–2000). The profile in Copenhagen theology has also been heavily influenced by the fact that the centres for Kierkegaard Studies and Grundtvig studies are located there. A driving force in Kierkegaard studies was Arne Grøn, professor of ethics and the philosophy of religion 1997–2017. Grøn was very active in international fora and he was an internationally renowned Kierkegaard scholar, although his research interests were by no means restricted to different aspects of Kierkegaard’s work. Other scholars who oriented themselves from continental philosophy of religion include Peter Kemp, Carsten Pallesen (whose work focuses on Ricœur), and Iben Damgaard (who works on hermeneutics as well as theology and literature).

6.2 Sweden

Understanding the landscape of systematic theology in Sweden is difficult without the backdrop provided by philosopher Ingemar Hedenius (1908–1982). Hedenius’ book Tro och vetande (Belief and Knowledge, 1949) sparked a vibrant public debate about the truth of Christian teaching and the established role of the Church of Sweden. Hedenius’ atheist position was based on analytic philosophy and claimed that rational debate about religion is impossible. For him, theology did not convey knowledge, and religious belief is based on metaphysical assumptions that one can neither verify nor falsify. He claimed that religious language is not meaningful for non-believers, and theology is in opposition to knowledge established by the sciences. Consequently, Hedenius argued that theology did not belong in the university and that the study of religions as an academic discipline should be separated from theology.

Hedenius raised the issue of theology’s legitimate place within the university. Much work in the following years, especially in fundamental theology and the philosophy of religion, has centred around his challenges – directly or indirectly. Thus, Hedenius’ work impacted the understanding and development of theology as a university subject. An eminent example of how theology responded to the challenges can be found in Anders Jeffner’s (born 1934) work. He was active as a lecturer and professor in Uppsala from 1966–2000. Instead of accepting that theology should be reduced to a historical and more or less descriptive discipline – a strategy suggested by others to maintain the scholarly status of theology in the university after Hedenius’ attacks – Jeffner entered into concrete discussions about the different topics in question. Among them, the character of religious language and the criteria for assessing Christian doctrine. Jeffner’s thorough philosophical schooling allowed him to expand the notion of knowledge on which Hedenius operated by including mystical, personal, and interpersonal experiences as relevant for the understanding of religion. These experiences must be included in a broader context that covers scientific knowledge.

Jeffner contributed to a position in which Uppsala distinguished itself from main elements in the Lundensian school. He was critical of Nygren’s philosophy and the Lundensian attempt to isolate and purify religion and Christianity. He was concerned about integrating Christianity with science and culture in general. Thus, he was also more favourable towards elements in the Enlightenment and modern versions of theology than the Lundensian position.

During Jeffner’s tenure, the name of his chair changed from ‘Dogmatics’ to what is presently the official English name, ‘Studies in Faith and Ideologies’, to avoid awarding a privileged place to Christianity within a secular university. This made it possible to study other ideologies and worldviews, both in their relationship with Christianity and on their own. Jeffner’s successor, Carl-Reinhold Bråkenhielm, kept this title for the chair, whereas the present professor, Mattias Martinson, renamed it to ‘Systematic Theology’. Nevertheless, the changes initiated by Jeffner have implied that theological studies in Uppsala are presently open to empirical sciences, for example, by having a chair in the sociology of religion, now held by Mia Løvheim. The present chair of Philosophy of Religion, Mikael Stenmark, has taken up other challenges raised by Hedenius, including the role of religion in relation to science, and contemporary issues about religious pluralism that has empirical dimensions (see Stenmark 1995; 2004; 2012).

At Lund University, the situation was not strongly related to the Hedenius challenge – probably much due to Wingren’s strong presence. The professor of dogmatics, Per Erik Persson (1923–2019, professor 1962–1989), carried out his doctoral work on Thomas Aquinas, and hence moved away from the exclusively Lutheran orientation that dominated in Lund until the 1970s. Persson was ecumenically engaged and a strong spokesperson for women in ministry.

Persson was followed by Per Frostin (1943–1992), the first professor in Scandinavia with a strong liberation theology profile. Frostin died after just a few years in his position, but his appointment signalled new international orientations in Nordic theology in general. Frostin was followed by the German Catholic theologian Werner Jeanrond (born 1955). Jeanrond’s Catholic background and his training in hermeneutics (with Paul Ricœur and David Tracy) meant another expansion of systematic theology in Lund, and a further move away from the heritage of the Lundensian school. He was one of several Catholic systematicians who have taken up positions in Lund over the last decades (others include Catharina Stenqvist, Manfred Hoffman and Gösta Hallonsten). Jeanrond was professor in Lund from 1995–2007, when he moved to the University of Glasgow, later to the universities of Oxford and Oslo. Presently, two of his former doctoral students are active in the Swedish public sphere: Ola Sigurdsson, who is a professor at Gothenburg University; and Jayne Svennungsson, who holds the chair for systematic theology in Lund. Both have published on theology and postmodernism – which signals further changes in orientation for Swedish theology (see, e.g. Sigurdsson 2016; Svenungsson 2016).

Gothenburg has no theological faculty but is nevertheless a hub for theology, with several scholars working in systematics. Among them is Arne Rasmusson, who comes from a non-Lutheran background. He introduced Stanley Hauerwas’ work to the Nordic scene in another attempt to overcome the hegemonic position of the Lutheran theologies. His position represents to some degree a criticism of the modern presuppositions on which most university theology in the Nordic countries is based.

6.3 Norway

In Norway, the theological camps have been situated since the early 1900s at the theological faculty at Oslo University (called TF), and the institution presently named MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, also located in Oslo. In addition, the School of Mission and Theology in Stavanger (recently merged into the multi-campus university college, VID) educate clergy. The tensions in Norwegian church life became institutionalized with the establishment of MF in 1907. Although TF and MF both offered education at the university level, their profiles were for a long time somewhat different; TF offered a theology open to culture and society, inspired by both liberal theology and by Grundtvigean traits, whereas MF initially represented a more low-church, pietist style of theology.

However, after the Second World War and the emergence of dialectical theology, significant changes took place at MF. In dogmatics, Lutheran confessionalism dominated, much due to the influence of Leiv Aalen, and a more culturally open approach to ethics and philosophy of religion was provided by John Nome. The alliance with the lay movements nevertheless remained until the turn of the century. In TF, dogmatics were in the 1960s taught by the Barth-influenced Reidar Hauge. The most significant scholars shaping the profile at TF over the last fifty years were nevertheless New Testament scholar Jacob Jervell and systematician Inge Lønning. Lønning did Luther studies largely based on German scholarship. Both Jervell and Lønning were active in the Norwegian public, and although they were based in an institution with a relatively small number of students, they had a significant impact on these and the theological scene in Norway in general. An important voice in theological ethics in the late 1960s onwards was the ethicist Tor Aukrust, whose work Mennesket i samfunnet (The human in society, 1967) provided the theological basis for more active engagement by theologians on issues in politics and society. Aukrust’s social ethics inspired students and teachers in MF and TF alike.

To a large extent, the tensions between MF and TF were based on church politics and alliances with different groups in Norwegian church life. Their alliances with these groups have contributed to perpetuating conflict. After the turn of the century, more ecumenically orientated and pluralist influences have led to changes in MF, and to some extent in TF, as well. In TF, interreligious studies were established; studies of Luther, Kierkegaard, and Løgstrup were continued, presently by Marius T. Mjaaland and Svein Aage Christoffersen. In MF, more interdisciplinary and empirically-based work in theology has increased. This move was initially stimulated by Ivar Asheim (1927–2021, professor 1970–1994), later by Harald Hegstad, currently professor of dogmatics, and Geir Afdal, who holds a chair in pedagogy. The interdisciplinary orientation can also be found in the works of Jan-Olav Henriksen at the intersection of theology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. MF’s expansion of its faculty to include pedagogy, social sciences, and religious studies makes it the most significant research environment for theology and religious studies in Norway today.

Presently, awareness of the need for contextual theology and active contact with international scholarship characterizes theological work in Norway, irrespective of institutions. This fact is reflected in, for example, the hiring of Marion Grau in 2015 at MF, and of Werner Jeanrond at TF (2018–2022). It is also observable in the German-Swedish theologian Sigurd Bergmann, who held a chair in theology at the University of Trondheim for many years. The increasing pluralization of theology seems to weaken both the former impact of a Lutheran hegemony and the orientation towards Danish and German theology.

6.4 Finland

Some traits in Finnish systematic theology have been presented above. Typical for much of the work is the historical grounding of systematic studies. Systematic theology in Finland has traditionally been fairly conservative due to the influences of Pietism and biblicism. Dialectical theology played almost no role in Finnish theology after the Second World War. Osmo Tiililä (1904–1972, professor of dogmatics 1942–1966) represented the Pietist tradition. His scholarship was dominated by Luther studies. His conservativism led him to terminate his membership in the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church, protesting the church’s liberalization.

Seppo A. Teinonen (1924–1995), observer at Vatican II, introduced a more ecumenically oriented systematic theology to Finland. He represented a postliberal theology that took up the challenges of modernity, as well as studies of the history of dogma. Tuomo Mannermaa (discussed above) was among his students, as was Eero Huovinen. Both of the latter have written on central themes in Luther’s theology, being ecumenically active. In the philosophy of religion, Simo Knuuttila’s research on scholasticism was a main element.

Risto Saarinen has held the chair of systematic theology in Helsinki since 2001. Saarinen is an active international scholar, and has led several significant research projects; he has also held a professorial position at the Ecumenical Institute in Strasbourg. His work focuses on historical and contemporary studies from philosophical and systematic perspectives, and is a globally renowned Luther scholar.

In the philosophy of religion, Sami Pihlström holds the chair in Helsinki. Pihlström’s work is based on extensive studies of pragmatism and Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein has also been a main source for the work of the presently retired philosopher of religion in Åbo, Tage Kurtén. Kurtén’s successor, Bjørn Wikstrøm, is influenced by Paul Ricœur.

The combination of historical studies and thorough philosophical training characterizes much of contemporary Finnish theology. Other scholars, such as Aku Visala and Olli-Pekka Vainio, also testify to the increasingly international and interdisciplinary orientation of current constructive theological work.

6.5 Iceland

Due to its small size, the faculty of theology at the University of Iceland has sent its teachers to other places for qualifications – to the US, UK, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Thus, they are the Nordic internationalists. In research, the influence from Sweden is especially apparent. The former professor of dogmatics, Einar Sigurbjörnson (1944–2019, professor 1978–2014), had close ties to the church and studied with Per Erik Persson in Lund. He represented traditional classical Lutheranism. The present professor in dogmatics, Arnfríður Guðmundsdóttir, studied in the US, with George Forell in Iowa, and in Chicago with Carl Braaten. Guðmundsdóttir addresses traditional dogmatic topics from a feminist and contextual perspective. Like many in Iceland, she is also interested in issues related to ecology and climate change. She was a member of the Constitutional Council that rewrote the Icelandic constitution in 2011.

Björn Björnsson (1937–2008, professor 1969–2002) studied in Edinburgh, and was a professor of theological ethics for over thirty years. His focus was on social issues, with an emphasis on marriage and family, but also on bioethics and environmental ethics. The current professor of theological ethics is Sólveig Anna Bóasdóttir, who studied with Carl-Henric Grenholm in Uppsala. She focuses on issues related to theology and the environment, domestic violence, and sexuality.

Theological work in Iceland is closely connected to church life, irrespective of the independence of teaching and research at the university. Like other Nordic countries, Iceland debated the ethical and theological questions related to homosexuality, with a clear outcome in terms of support for a new law on marriage (between two individuals, and not limited to a woman and a man) in 2010. At this point, the church decided to start officiating weddings for homosexual couples, and a majority of pastors supported that decision. Icelandic theology is culturally open, and the influences from different countries and continents create a unique mix which is typically Icelandic.