Grundtvig, an Introduction

Grundtvig, en introduktionAf Kaj Thanin

Ejvind Larsen: Grundtvig - om noget om Marx

Grundtvig and MarxEjvind Larsen: Grundtvig - og noget om Marx. Studenterkredsen, ÅrhusReviewed by Kaj ThaningEjvind Larsen has put a considerable amount of work into his book. It is obvious that he not only knows his Grundtvig and his Marx, but he has also studied the sociology of Grundtvigianism and is thoroughly conversant with the research work on Grundtvig. But above all, what he writes is based on strong personal commitment, which leads to criticism of both Grundtvig and Marx, but at the same time to a synthesis of both, since, to Ejvind Larsen, between them they indicate solutions to the social problems of today.The starting-point for both of them is a clash with German idealism on the one hand and the materialistic conception of man on the other. To Grundtvig man is a »Divine Experiment« of dust and spirit, to Marx man is the creator of history, while he is also a product of history, of production. Ejvind Larsen asserts emphatically that Marx is no economic determinist. The two great rebels can also be compared in that they oppose the dissociation of manual and spiritual work and are against all elites, hierarchies and bureaucracies. The people must be liberated from all this, but they must liberate themselves.Ejvind Larsen stresses, however, the influence that Grundtvig had on the emancipation of the Danish peasants and in connection with this gives the quotation, »Åndens løsen er bedrifter« (The watchword of the Spirit is deeds). It is in the significance of the spirit and in Grundtvig’s emphasis on dialogue as a basis for any emancipation of the people that he finds the explanation of the fact that the Danish peasantry was made free »despite the economic conditions« and »even though the prevailing tendencies should have reduced it to a powerless pettybourgeoisie and reactionary proletariat.«Ejvind Larsen emphasizes Grundtvig’s dissociation of his work in the Church and his work for the people, and is himself opposed to any mingling of religious and political activity. He rejoices in the fact that Grundtvig does not talk of »original sin« in a historical and political context, as opposed to the Church, which makes use of this concept to stop political progress. But he has not noticed that Grundtvig has, in a sense, secularized original sin, and as a mythologian and a historian talks of the »great calamity«, which »very early on« befell man, making his existence one of conflict and predicament. In Ejvind Larsen’s book there is a discrepancy, in that his reduction of the obvious conflicts of existence to historical calamities (in the plural), which can and should be overcome by mankind (as opposed to the sin that faith alone reveals in man and which can only be overcome through the grace of God), is at variance with his constant emphasis on the »principle of contradiction« and on the fight for man being considered a living person placed between absolute contradictions. Ejvind Larsen will, however, undoubtedly continue his work - and will deal with this inner contradiction in his book, which, despite its lack of clarity on various other points, is an inspiring achievement

To årstal. Replik

Two Years. A ReplyBy Kaj ThaningRecently a collection of essays by Anders Pontoppidan Thyssen has been under the title ‘Grundtvig and the Grundtvigian Heritage’. One of the articles is a reprint of A.P. Thyssen’s critical examination of K. Thaning’s thesis .Menneske f.rst Grundtvigs opg.r med sig selv., (1963). In his article Thyssen has opposed Thaning’s views that the year 1832 should be seen as the decisive turning point in Grundtvig’s life. This view caused an extensive debate, in the course of which Thaning also wrote a rejoinder to Thyssen and other critics. In the present short contribution Kaj Thaning reconsiders his point of view

Replik

A ReplyBy Kaj ThaningIn this article the writer protests against what he calls »two attacks on his thesis »Man First - «« (1963). First, against Regin Prenter’s review of this book, which is quoted in J.H. Schjørring’s obituary of Prenter, then against W.Michelsen’s article »The Way from Force to Freedom in Grundtvig’s Life and Works«, both printed in Grundtvig Studier 1991. Thaning claims that the word .conversion. can be used both about turning to God and about turning to His Creation, which Grundtvig did in »Norse Mythology«, 1832. According to Thaning, Prenter has not rendered it probable that this conversion was provoked in Grundtvig by »the unshakable fact of the Church«.In his article, W. Michelsen refers to »Handbook on World History« I (1833), in which Grundtvig states that for »school use« he now prefers the Greek view of human life and history to the mosaic-Christian, because the Greek view lends itself more easily to being »practised scientifically«, but that he still considers the Mosaic-Christian view »the only divine, true, and eternal one«. Thaning claims, however, that from 1832 the word .view. denotes a contrast to the Christian »faith«. The Biblical view was of no avail on Greek soil, Thaning claims. In 1833 Grundtvig went over to »Polybius’s heathen view of history«, which built on the contrast between the truth and the lie. As he could not employ simultaneously the three concepts, a Greek view of history, a Biblical view, and the Christian faith, »the Biblical view now slips over to the side of the Church and becomes identical with faith (divine, true, and eternal)«. In 1832, it is true, it was called divine because of its historical effects, but not eternal. It became so, however, in 1833. According to Thaning it was on this background that Grundtvig spoke about the contrast between church and school, faith and science, the temporal and the eternal.In 1833 - unlike in 1832 - the Mosaic-Christian view has moved on to the side of the Church, faith and eternity, and is thus not entitled to impose ecclesiastical forms on state and school. Here, according to Thaning’s understanding of Grundtvig, the Greek view must prevail, and it thus becomes clear that Grundtvig now »has a changed view of life«, which further appears from his enthusiastic outbursts at »thus escaping from the chaos of the thought-world that we have found ourselves in through many centuries«. It is this constant consideration for life which is the need of the time, Grundtvig says. And this is what Thaning calls a »conversion«.Thaning also finds that Michelsen’s reference to the small pamphlet .On the Clausen Libel Case. is misunderstood, as is also his conjecture about the influence of Clara Bolton on Grundtvig’s view of freedom. According to Thaning, it was in the pamphlet .On the Baptismal Covenant. that the idea arose that it would be possible for Grundtvig and his opponents to be in the state church together, if only it was made legal for the individual churchgoer to frequent a church of his own choice. Later this thought leads to the church being renamed, in Grundtvig’s usage, »a social institution« (1834).There should be a generous competition, not a struggle in the church, Thaning writes, »....the thought of the Biblical view as common to people of spirit, among them the naturalists (H.N. Clausen) means that Grundtvig can offer them reconciliation and cultural cooperation«, he says. »It is a manifestation of a new view in Grundtvig,« he claims, »and of the new view of freedom which is proclaimed in the dedicatory poem of Norse Mythology which ... is a far cry from the small pamphlet against Clausen from 1831«

Svar til tre kritikere

Answer to tree critics from parish priest Kaj Thanin

Den »mageløse opdagelse«s tilblivelse

The Origin of the “Incomparable Discovery”By Kaj ThaningWhat has been called Grundtvig’s “ incomparable discovery” was that it is not the Bible but the Apostolic Creed which expresses true Christianity.In 1824 Grundtvig saw it as his task to answer two questions that must be kept separate:1) What is true Christianity, and 2) Is Christianity credible? The first question is historical, and must be answered by the apostles and the early Christians. The second will always be a matter o f conscience. In 1825 he says, “None but God knows how many or how few will come to possess the Christian faith, but we shall find out when its voice becomes clear and we cannot help but hear it, but not before” . (Theologisk Maanedsskrift, Theological Monthly I p. 33). In the first three parts of the dissertation On True Christianity in the same journal he defends Luther’s faith and his Little Catechism as the expression of true Christianity, in contrast to the false Christianity o f Grundtvig’s own times. He speaks o f “God’s Word in Holy Writ” and distinguishes between the “ general creed” o f the Lutheran fathers, which is “ particularly evangelical” , and the “Confessio Augustana” , which accords with the New Testament, but is intended for “ teachers” . But in the 4th Part of On True Christianity the Apostolic Creed appears by way o f answer to the question as to the nature of true Christianity, an answer that the ordinary man can grasp and believe. This “ incomparable” discovery (the expression is not Grundtvig’s own) is not proclaimed publicly until the sermon for the 9th Sunday in Trinity on July 31st 1825. But in his study Grundtvig has solved the problem during his work on the essay O m the Credibility of Christianity. A number o f drafts for this are to be found in Fasc. 97, the last two o f which were written after the discovery. Before these, however, we find Fasc. 106, published in Danish Church Times (Dansk Kirketidende) 1876 under the heading “True and False Christianity” . It is here that he makes his discovery. But it is remarkable that he does so while at work on proving Christianity’s credibility. However, as he himself says, one must first know what Christianity is before one can prove its credibility.These drafts are so closely linked that they must have been written in close connection with one another. And they must have been written after July 24th, for in his sermon on that date he maintains several times that “diligent reading o f God’s Word” is the only means by which false teachers can be repudiated. The discovery was therefore made between July 24th and 31st. But in two stages. The actual discovery of the Apostolic Creed as the criterion for Christianity presupposes a prior discovery that did not necessarily involve the second. He discovers that the church came before the book. His starting-point is that the history of Christianity proves what the church must profess. Christianity is a “ recognisable” faith - or it wouldn’t be distinguishable from Judaism, Paganism and Islam. One must therefore follow the Bible’s teaching. Grundtvig is moving on to the Christianity “which is believed in the world and has the proof o f experience” , and he rejects the “new” Christianity, rationalism. Rationalism, on the other side, claims that the Christian’s Creed conflicts with the Bible and must therefore be false.This claim by the enemy sets Grundtvig o ff on a new track: if his opponents were right, then the faith that the first Christians professed must be the true Christianity! It is not the letter of the Bible but the spirit o f faith that has been at work in the world, and it has been passed on “by word of mouth” . Grundtvig draws this conclusion: “The greater the difference to be found between the Bible and Christianity, the more sharply we must distinguish them from one another” . And he insists that it is only a denial o f the original creed that brings exclusion from the Christian community, not the denial of the Bible, even though the apostles wrote as they spoke. In contrast, Christianity cannot be destroyed so long as there is a single person left “who openly dares to profess (deleted: the second article of faith) the three articles of faith” . It is natural that at first he should name the second article of faith, since it is still the content o f that article that he uses to oppose the “new” faith. But then via a correction the whole of the creed appears - without him realising what he has discovered! As yet he does not call the creed “ apostolic” . But as a result of the first discovery - that the Church came before the Bible - Grundtvig’s previous scripture-based apologetic begins to crumble, and he produces a powerful document o f self-knowledge (F) in which he attacks the injustices he may have committed as an apologist with the Bible in his hand. He will now strive to emulate Irenaeus, Augustine and Luther in their belief that the spirit is o f Christ, and the Word is the guardian o f the spirit in the Church. He has recognised “ the links in the altar-chain” , the oral continuity in the Church from the apostles onwards. Later he places Polycarp between Irenaeus and John - the oral chain is closed. He regrets his former blindness to the fact that it was the spirit and not written words that made us Christians: he forgot that it was to the Church that he owed the spirit he received at baptism together with the bond that through the eucharist united him with the body o f Christ, his Church and Himself. He had been striving in vain to “ speak according to his mother’s heart” . He has previously discussed baptism and communion, but not until now does he perceive their meaning.Grundtvig wishes to remain an apologist, but no longer on the old foundations o f the Bible. Now it is the Church’s word he will bear witness to, but he also wishes to defend “ the rights o f the heart” against rationalism’s cultivation o f reason - precisely as he has done in the essay On Nature and Revelation (Th. M.) that he has just finished.In a new draft (G), where the feeling o f relief in Grundtvig comes across very clearly, the tone is playful, and lines appear from Ludvig Holberg’s poetry. At the same time the expression “ common sense” has begun to play a role (as it did in On Nature and Revelation, where feeling and intellect are contrasted with “ reason” ). Both leave their mark on the two following drafts, written in dialogue form as a debate between “ common sense” and “ theology” : the “ intellect” a cheeky servant-girl (Holberg’s Pernille) and her former mistress, who represents rationalism, the “new” faith or the “ true” protestantism.The dialogue is in fact a veiled attack on the young professor H. N. Clausen, whose major work on Catholicism and protestantism Grundtvig had subscribed to. It appeared in August, to be met by Grundtvig’s bull of excommunication The Church’s Reply (Kirkens Gienmæle), a work that builds on the triumphant discovery of the Apostolicum as the criterion for Christianity. The discovery takes place between the two dialogues mentioned. There is a strange disparity between the broad, Holbergian comic style and the central question that Grundtvig is discussing. In the first dialogue he goes no further than demonstrating that the “new” Christianity is different from the old. On the last page of the draft the writing is tired and careless. Does he want to sleep after his futile work?An account has been handed down of Grundtvig working away in the desperate hope o f finding the final weapon against his opponents and dreaming one night that he is playing a game of chess that he is about to lose. He looks up at his opponent and sees that it is the devil. But a bright figure is standing by Grundtvig’s side making a move for him, so he wins the game. He has told a friend that it was this that made him realise that he should look to the baptismal creed.At any rate, he begins a new dialogue and the writing is far more single-minded. The beginning corresponds to the start o f the first dialogue, but gradually the intellect – the servant-girl - starts to raise her voice, and when she talks about “ the Christianity of old times and I know where to find it” , the theologian - her mistress - grows suspicious and suggests a compromise, which is rejected. Finally the hallmark of “ the Christian religion” is revealed: the Apostolic Creed and its means of grace: baptism and Holy Communion.In Grundtvig Studies 1957 Kaj Baagø demonstrated that Grundtvig’s discovery of the creed took place after a discussion on the need for symbols in the Church had been going on in Copenhagen for some time. Rudelbach (who took Grundtvig on to the staff of Th. M.) was particularly active. He knew the Berlin theologians Marheinicke and Neander personally and almost certainly gave Grundtvig the latter’s book Antignostikus. Geist des Tertullianus for review. We must assume that Grundtvig read the 525 pages before his great discovery, even though the review did not appear until December 1825. This may be why in the various drafts mentioned above Grundtvig begins to place the New Testament and the history o f the Church side by side as witnesses to true Christianity. And what he gradually clarifies for himself as he is writing can all be found in Neander’s book - with the exception o f the connection between the creed and baptism, which Grundtvig immediately emphasizes. Neander may well be the inspiration for both discoveries - even though Grundtvig surrenders only very slowly. Nor does he lay any particular claim to originality in his review. He refers the people who refuse to believe him to the Berlin professors.The two discoveries had two completely different consequences for Grundtvig. From the first sprang his hymns - without it they would simply not have been possible. But they would have been all the better without the second discovery, as would his preaching of baptism and communion and “the Word from the Lord’s own mouth” . His discovery o f the creed as the criterion for Christianity and “ the Word o f Faith” served to narrow Grundtvig’s thought and cloud his other discoveries. But it must be added that looking back later in life Grundtvig declared that a lifetime ago he had expected wonders o f the discovery o f the division between true Christianity and Christianity’s truth, but that had proved itself o f no use. For its “ authenticity and truth stand and fall with each other”

Holdt tesen?

Did the Thesis Hold? By Kaj Thaning A. Pontoppidan Thyssen, D. D. - like K. E. Bugge, D. D. in his thesis Skolen for livet - has taken up a critical attitude towards my work Menneske først -Grundtvigs opgør med sig selv. P. Th.’s criticism appeared in print in Kirke historiske samlinger V, 3, 1965. He attacks my main thesis according to which the year 1832 marked the turning point in Grundtvig’s life, because it saw his conversion to “life and human nature” resulting in a clash with his earlier outlook on Christianity and a gradually advancing clarification in all fields as he came to devote his energy to the various tasks confronting him. P. Th. maintains that the development was more gradual, that much was anticipated before 1832, and that decisive matters were not clarified until later, just as self-contradictions still occur in his outlook. Further, I am supposed to have made use of modem concepts in such a way as to smooth out contradictions. As regards the objections to my treatment of the period before 1832 my answer will have to be deferred to a later work. Of course it is true that everything before 1832 conditions the clarification of that year. Without this basis there would have been no problem. But the solution to the problem manifested itself in 1832. Bugge’s thesis confirms my view of the outlook characteristic of Grundtvig’s home (the Lutheran Christianity of repentance or “a kind of pietism” ), and he documents what I have inferred from the (later) heart-searchings of Grundtvig. I agree with P. Th. that Grundtvig is still marked by this outlook, but one might well ask whether the accents of a Christianity of repentance in his preaching are not due to his dependence on the Bible (the literature of St. John; St. Paul). Grundtvig was faithful to the Bible. P. Th. will not accept that a “profane” discovery of human life (the impressions from England) may have a positive influence on a view of Christianity, but this is a theological prejudice in him. The fact is that in this way a false view of Christianity may be divested of demonism. It will then serve and not rule, because Christianity is no longer the great heavenly example to be followed in our management of the world (this was Grundtvig’s earlier view), but a defenceless Gospel. By Christianity in Lutheran dress Grundtvig’s problem (the relation between Christianity and human life) was raised, and strictly speaking it would be biographically correct in his case to say “first a Christian”. But it was the solution to the problem that conditioned as a matter of principle his “motto” : “first a human being” . P. Th. will not be convinced that Mrs. Clara Bolton was the original cause of clarification, but the evidence as presented in my book may receive further substantiation. P. Th. criticizes my use of the word “secularization” as a means of interpretation with regard to Grundtvig’s work— the mythology, the world history, the church history, and the chief treatise on church politics: “Den danske Statskirke” . But nowhere did I use the word in the modern sense equivalent to a wiping out of the importance of Christianity or the Church (“secularism” ). It is only a means to interpret Grundtvig’s own intention, since he now consciously wants to give up his earlier inclination to christianize culture, politics, enlightenment etc. which made Christianity rule and not serve. Thus he now secularizes his view of the “spirit” (as distinct from the Holy Ghost), the writting of history, his view of society, poetry, and the church institution which is now something different from the Holy Universal Church, namely a thing of this world. Accordingly, when writing ecclesiastical history he points out the purely human basis of the church. The history of the Word of God itself is obviously not secularized: it is not considered a human phenomenon. P. Th. is right, however, in finding less than sufficient comment in my book on some passages in “Den danske Statskirke” concerning certain statements about the necessity of Christianity to culture. By juxtaposing a series of quotations from the treatise on the continuation of the Lutheran reformation (1831), from the treatise on the State church, and from an unprinted draft: “Om statsmæssig Oplysning” (both from 1834) I try to throw light on the gulf between Grundtvig’s outlook in 1831 and 1834 respectively, and upon the continuity between 1832 and 1834. Before, the preacher saw in a normative Christianity the necessary means to the preservation of culture; now, with arguments of statesmanship the historian urges that the ancestral faith should remain within the State church as long as this is not made impossible by the introduction and enforcement of new, modernized rituals. That is to say, the arguments have become secularized. And freedom is now a condition if the ancestral faith is to give inspiration to cultural life. Culture is no longer to be reformed according to a lofty Christian ideal. Rather, the State should just see to it that faith is left alone to work its wonders, little or great. The essential thing is really for a free and competitive spirit within the State church to promote enlightenment and influence culture in a decisive way. Of course Grundtvig does not pursue his line of thought without some deviations, but these are more fortuitous than P. Th. is willing to admit. Throughout I have tried to find Grundtvig’s real aim and thus to emphasize what seems to me essential in his work. In my opinion his separation of human and Christian makes it possible for him as a clergyman to preach the unity of God and man: God’s salvation concerns human life, but human life is there before being addressed by the word of salvation. That is why the dissociation receives emphasis. To maintain, as P. Th. does, that Grundtvig wants to assert “at the same time” the connection and the distinction between human and Christian is therefore an abstraction. The separation is the condition of any talk of connection or “interaction” . P. Th. maintains that I interpret Grundtvig by modem concepts (secularizaiotion, existentialist philosophy, “de-mythicization” ) to arrive at a “living” Grundtvig; he would rather have a correct picture of the “historical” Grundtvig. That is just what I meant to give, however, partly by understanding his ideology in comparison with Irenæus, Schelling, and others, partly by not bringing modem concepts into his view but explaining how he “secularizes” (what other word is there?), how he reflects on the human condition (as distinct from the present) and places such an understanding of life “before” the hearing of the Gospel. And how he distinguishes between letter and spirit in this connection. If we do not keep the historical distance, he will cease to be a challenge. His heart-searchings still concern us. The historical Grundtvig is the living Grundtvig