On Nelson’s Lutheranism and the Nordic Spirit of Social Democracy
American Economist, Robert Nelson, approaches the intersection of economics, history, religion, and politics taking a path previously uncharted to reveal an alternate history underscoring the development of the social sector in the Nordic countries. The Nordic model has often been touted as the utopian ideal having ascended quickly beyond premodern stagnation to offer an example of a thriving, peaceful and profitable region. Progressive politicians in the United States, such as presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, find support for an increased public sector in Scandinavian examples. Nelson offers to this conversation a comparative historical analysis wherein he suggests the continued foundation of the “Nordic Spirit” derived out of Lutheranism to become embedded outside of theological discourse to take on a different shape in the public sector. Drawing its title from Max Weber’s influential tome, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Nelson’s text attempts to address pitfalls to Weber’s broad characterizations of Protestantism and separates that which is Calvinist from Lutheran. The utility of this approach becomes clear as Nelson’s theological insight guides a historical and economic investigation wherein a Lutheran distinctiveness materializes amongst the unique conditions of the Nordic countries in ways wholly unlike those of pluralist Germany and the Calvinist melting pot of the United States. This investigation offers a new suggestion for theories of secularization, which has posited that with modernity societies will become increasingly secular and erode the authority and influence of religion. Robert Nelson suggests that “modernity does not necessarily entail the displacement of religion, but is more likely to mean a change in its form, function and content” seeing, as others have, a weak theory of secularization in the change of form of religious materials (Nelson, p. 40). In fact, for Nelson, the very concept of Nordic Social Democracy is simply a modern form of “secular Lutheranism” (Nelson, p. 12).
Nelson suggests in Lutheranism several core theological connections to be translated into evaluation of the secular formation we see upheld in the Nordics today. Luther’s fundamental (yet revolutionary) tenet of a “priesthood of all believers” offers egalitarian hope and shifts fundamental power away from the expansive Catholic Church of his time, which in Germany was depicted as having undermined the political authority of the Princes to fulfill their role and Christian duty. Nelson explores this conceptualization of “two kingdoms” and suggests a culmination of consequences resulting in “one kingdom” wherein secular authority is enforced to the effect of religious conformity in territories. “The idea of ‘two kingdoms’ may have become more relevant in a modern context as another way of describing the idea of the separation of church and state”, a concept considered to be indispensable in the American political sphere (p. 89, p. 91). To many scholars Luther is seen as having incidentally “sanctified secular power”(p. 85) suggesting almost limitless authority in On Temporal Authority (p. 88). The high trust and compliance with authority in the Nordics as well as the unified state Church, with the Church of Sweden functioning as a state instrument officially until 2000, links to the history and development of fundamentally Lutheran concepts.
Another fundamental concept of Lutheranism that finds its reflection within Nelson’s conceptualization of social democracy, relates to work and prosperity. Protestantism fundamentally divorces the necessity of good works from Christian salvation with Luther moving beyond to suggest that genuine faith motivates good works that do not have utilitarian impact toward God’s predestined will for an individual. Without a salvational reward for charitable work, the alms giving of Catholicism (p. 127) gave way to motivate an idea of an earthly “calling” wherein hard work would have earthly reward and those favored by God would see success (p. 108). Weber depicted themes within Calvinist thought as pivotal toward the functions of capitalism, however, Lutheran themes developed a differing reflection of Luther’s distaste for personal gain and self-interest (p. 118). “In individual actions, Luther maintains that ‘one must exist wholly for one’s neighbor’s benefit’... Even earning a living is to be done so one can benefit others” (p. 119) such is the underlying intent of the strong Nordic welfare state unlike the Calvinist realization of an economic sphere focused on business success.
Responding solely to these foundational theological concepts, it is perhaps appropriate to theorize an alternate perspective in critique of the direct causal relationship that Nelson elucidates in his text. An egalitarian ideology meeting the description of an individual sacrificing personal rewards to fulfill a role (with little impact on their personal outcome) in favor of common societal good with strong deference to authority that is largely responsible for both religious and societal administration may coincide more closely with a picture of communism than that of the representative government and free-market business sector of, for instance, Sweden. One would suggest that the lack of a national minimum wage in Sweden as well as the low corporate tax rate (lower than the U.S.) is indicative of a much more capitalist economic climate than Bernie Sanders would be comfortable with. Nelson makes a strong case that connects these fundamental theological concepts to the social fabric that makes up the Nordic conscious, however, in their literal translations these catalyze a different outcome than a hegemonic upholding of Lutheran theological ideals would suggest even in secularized forms. This is to be expected in retrospective endeavors that reveal themselves through analysis and application of concepts that have already transpired. I would suggest that these roots do not suggest a causal relationship but rather draw correlations between religious discourse and the public sphere. Drawing conclusions about mechanisms for change may not be sufficiently supported by this form of investigation, however, they unquestionably support Nelson’s point that reilluminates religious processes within academic social science that has been largely overlooked and devalued in favor of empirical and “rational” thought especially within Economics.
When analyzing the strength of Nelson’s perspectives on secularization of Lutheran religiosity which he finds embedded in all aspects of Nordic society, it is perhaps useful to explore definitions and the utility of the terminology used in the text. Wherein Nelson conflates religion and ideology (suggesting Marxism as a religion) as well as positioning social democracy outside of the political sphere and “returning” it to the religious sphere he neglects to provide any elucidation of precisely what he sees as “religion” altogether. This becomes problematic when investigating mechanisms and transitions between the religious and the secular. Traditionally, we may take this to mean that Nelson is signaling a disenchantment or removal of the supernatural element from Lutheran origin toward secular spheres. However, this is neither expressly clear especially so when he discusses his versions of ideology as a “faith in secular religion” later in the text (p. 271). Moreover, drawing a linear progression between a hegemonic religion prevailing in the Nordics to yield a secular Lutheranism draws the conclusion that social democracy would be an inevitable outcome despite opposition political trends and modern privatization through liberal reforms. If Lutheranism translates in its secular formation in social democracy to a collective understanding of social responsibility and a strong welfare state, how does it account for political formations that challenge the suggested cultural privilege of the social democrats?
A second reformation is suggested toward further reinforcement and elucidation of social democracy and the Lutheran spirit in the Nordic countries. With new problems taking root in society, Nelson examines the nature of the responsive modern landscape and some of the pitfalls arising from obedient trust in civil authority and prioritization of secular scientific values removed from religious origin. Pekka Sulkunen writes of the Temperance movement that “sobriety was only one element in a new total way of life steered by rationality and self-control. Its function was to ensure progress, merging the public and the private good” (p. 238). Nelson explores heightened scientific rationale while continuing to draw connections to culturally embedded Protestantism in the ways in which the Temperance movement manifested differently in the U.S. context and within the ideals of “enlightened modern working-class life” (p. 246). Nelson sees eugenics as another consequential outcome of secular modernity proliferating primarily in a secularizing Protestant context with the scientific drive to create a better society. Nelson’s analysis depicts a small number of sterilizations in the Nordic sphere and does link political success of the movements in the Nordic countries to the social democratic party. However, this analysis is negligent of opposition perspectives that characterize religious opposition to the scientific regime and are not inclusive of Swedish examples wherein the state established an institute at Uppsala for “Race Biology” being amongst the first European nations to lead in this area despite its frequent connections to Germany (which are included in Nelson’s analysis). Does this example characterize a failure of the Nordic Spirit to keep Lutheranism alive but changed from its religious formation? It is unclear as to how Nelson maintains a theoretical basis for weak secularization within this problematization. Perhaps history is a less equipped analytic tool when approaching complex social processes such as this one, wherein a poststructural understanding of a multidirectional power apparatus may better serve to elucidate the discourses wherein certain knowledges become privileged and take up roots within institutions.
So, does Robert Nelson’s research regarding the Nordic Model and the Lutheran Spirit have anything to offer Mr. Bernie Sanders and the American Progressives? Unfortunately, it suggests cultural implications deeply rooted within Lutheran religious heritage that comparatively differs in its outcomes from the United States Calvinist determinism and other pluralist societies. Thus, speaking scientifically, the variables that may account for successful outcomes are fixed to the Nordic experience in a way that Nelson finds historically contingent rather than simply a product of industrialized, enlightened modernity. However, the rapid transformation of the Nordic countries from rural societies to the thriving economic democracies of today does suggest that policies have the ability to take effect and show progress within small isolated populations within unprecedented time frames. Taken into consideration, this does supply hope for the United States and a path to create a more amenable groundwork for the adoption and implementation of social democratic principles. Nelson’s text suggests a fundamental shift from the influence of prosperity doctrine (Calvinist principles) as necessary for building a societal consciousness toward common good. This is achievable despite historical hurdles and, perhaps, taking place as we speak as the United States responds to the problems of income equality. As for a collective trust and dependence on secular, governmental authority the United States may have quite a way to go.
Lutheranism and the Nordic Spirit of Social Democracy reaffirms the contribution of religion to the formation of culture, economics, government, societal organization, values and more by challenging the widely held assumption that social scientific methods held the only keys to understanding the way things are and the processes that underscored their formation. For better or worse, the fabric of Western Society is indisputably Christian woven from a tapestry of movements, literature, and ideas that can not be separated from their historical roots and projected untouched as we progress into the challenges of our modern future. Nelson’s fresh perspective draws on comparative methods and brings new light to a Northern European “utopian” society that through globalization will undoubtedly shape the visions of politics as well as spread the ideas of the revolutionary Martin Luther into the future that is to come.
Nelson, R. (2017) Lutheranism and the Nordic Spirit of Social Democracy: A Different Protestant Ethic. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
