New book on political theory/political theology

Dear Colleagues,
Hereby I inform you that the book From Political Theory to Political Theology: Religious Challenges and the Prospects of Democracy (Aakash Singh, Péter Losonczi eds.) has been published by Continuum Publishers:

During the last two decades we have witnessed what José Casanova has characterised as “religion going public”. This has not been a trend exclusive to traditionally religious nations. Rather, it has been visible in as diverse environments as that of the construction of the new Russian political identity or in the “post-9/11” political discourses of the USA.

Surprisingly, important religious manifestations also influenced the political discourses in Britain and, more recently, in France. Partly as a consequence of these phenomena an intensive debate is now evolving about the compatibility of the neutrality of liberal democracy in relation to religiously motivated opinions in public discourses, and the conditions under which such religiously driven contributions could viably “go public”.

This book offers a collection of essays on Religion and Democracy which critically discusses the most important questions that characterize these debates at the points of their intersection within political theory, political theology and the philosophy of religion, and considers both the challenges and the prospects of this new era which, following Habermas, one may call post-secular.

All the best, Péter

Headquarters goes to Oulu

Our project made a little seminar trip to Oulu.

Veli-Pekka Lehtola from the Giellagas Institute kindly hosted the seminar meeting. In the meeting our researchers presented their paper outlines and got feedback from other researchers but also from our supporting/visiting members Marja Tuominen, Samuli Onnela, Erva Niittyvuopio and Anni-Siiri Länsman.

Below Sanna presenting her research ideas. In the picture clockwise Veli-Pekka Lehtola, Marja Tuominen, Mika Luoma-aho, Anni-Siiri Länsman, Samuli Onnela, Sandra Wallenius-Korkalo, Sanna Valkonen, Erva Niittyvuopio and Aini Linjakumpu. Outside the pic Tapio Nykänen and yours truly.



We also made an expedition to the National Archives Service. The archive hosts Laestadiana collection which includes material (letters, pics, books) about Laestadianism and which can be one source for research material.

It was really nice to see all our researchers in one place but also get to know our 'supporters' who hopefully will follow us in the project.

-Mari

Thinking about humanitarian responsibility

I am currently writing a paper/book chapter on humanitarian responsibility, commenting the UN's Millennium Declaration from a politico-theological perspective. There is lots to comment, but I am currently stuck to thinking and writing about the second article:

We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. As leaders we have a duty therefore to all the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs.

The leaders identify two kinds of responsibility here. On the one hand they are responsible to their national "constituency": this one is fairly straightforward. The other kind is trickier: a collective responsibility to uphold human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. How does such a responsibility come about? Is responsibility something we humans must accept as a premise, or rather something we have agreed upon and must now accept on that basis?

The way I look at this we have two options to conceive humanitarian responsibility. We can give human life a "true" meaning, i.e. that human life now is just as precious as it was, say, two thousand years ago. This is the ideal that all the declarations and human rights legislation reflect. If we do not like "true" meaning we have to accept that it is a relative thing: what it means to be human depends on convention, and its meaning can be different in different time and place. Two thousand years ago there were no human rights, so the people then were not human, or they had no rights, or both.

What it boils down to us this: either humanitarian responsibility has an ultimate basis or it does not have such a basis. If we accept true meaning we can do so only from a theistic worldview. If we reject it we must accept the fact that we are no more than what we make of ourselves: biological creatures, who came up with an idea of "humanity". As simple as that.

Mika

Hyvää pääsiäistä!

The whole Laestadian-ism team wishes everyone a peaceful and inspirational holiday period. We would also like to welcome in our team MSocSc Sandra Wallenius, who officially begins her postgraduate research in our project today.

Mika

Laestadianism and charismatic christianity?

At the end of my interesting and increasingly useful excursion to The United States I had a privilege of meeting an English pastor with whom I got a chance to speak (among other things) laestadianism. My friend was interested in charismatic Christianity and was on related trip to the US, visiting a church in Redding, CA.

Laestadianism has its roots firmly in the charismatic tradition, based as it is in the powerful person and preaching of Lars Levi Laestadius in 19th century Lapland. I am no expert in church history, but I do have some doubts about identifying the contemporary movement as charismatic. There are charismatic Christian sects in Finland, like the Nokia Revival, but in the practice of the laestadian religion there is little or no emphasis on spiritual gifts or godly manifestations.

Disagree? Let me know in the comments.

Mika

Two brothers, one atheist and the other Christian

Christopher Hitchens is currently one of the major "evangelists" of (the so-called) new atheism. His brother Peter, another British journalist, used to be an atheist not unlike his brother, but converted to Christianity. The Daily Mail interviews Peter Hitchens in a must-read piece titled How I found God and peace with my atheist brother.

P. Hitchens makes an argument worth thinking about:

Why is there such a fury against religion now? Because religion is the one reliable force that stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. The one reliable force that forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law.
The one reliable force that restrains the hand of the man of power. In an age of powerworship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.

I need to check out his new book The Rage Against God.

(Via Gene Veith.)

Mika

Päivämies day

Wednesday is the day when the Conservative Laestadian newspaper Päivämies comes out. Most of the topics dealt with aren’t very current; however, the editorial refers to some more topical issues and often gives me something to write about. This week the editorial referred to the service that has been a part of the opening to the parliamentary spring session.

Several times I have come across the metaphor of a nestling and an egg which has two shells; one of them representing the authority on earth and the other one the authority in heaven, both making sure that the egg is a safe place to grow. According to the editorial the earthly authority i.e. the state, has to take care that the children of God will make it safely to the kingdom of heaven. The editorial emphasizes that the state should be Christian and follow Christian values.

Seppo Lohi -- a visible person in the movement -- has once said that when proportioned to the size of the movement it has significant religious and social importance. No need to say, that these kinds of statements just underpin our research -- the relationship between the state and the Laestadian movement is quite an explicit one.

Another thing that I noticed whilst reading the paper, which I have come across several times lately is a statement which Conservative Laestadians tend to use when some issues are open to interpretation. In these cases it is common to use the part of the bible where the snake lures Eve to eat the apple – this is an example where too much thinking and pondering didn’t lead to a happy ending. I think that probably quite many people would say that this is just a way to “cover up” the statements or rules which don’t have any ground in the bible -- or at least not explicitly.

So these were the thoughts that I wanted to share with you.
I hope you all have a nice week!

-Mari