Jón Helgaon (1866-1942)  was one of the most interesting  theological thinkers in Iceland in the twentieth century. He was a proponent of a post-kantian and liberalistic theology. He was bishop of the evangelical lutheran church in Iceland in 1919-39. The following is chapter 9 in my book Limits and Life: Meaning and Metaphors in the Religious Language of Iceland. It was published by Peter Lang Inc. and may be bought on Amazon and found in academic libraries:

Jürgen Moltmann once remarked that in writing two of his books, he had the experience of suddenly seeing the whole of theology in one focus.[1] The same may be said of Jón Helgason (1866-1942), one of the most important and influential theologians of the Icelandic Church in the twentieth century.[2] Throughout his entire career, his thought focused on the person of Christ and the relationship of Christ with the human person. All of his works on theological topics may be viewed from this perspective. His thought did develop through the years, but primarily in the sense that his theological lens became more clearly focused. Two issues are emphasized in Jón Helgason’s thought: the inner life of the human being and the centrality of Jesus.[3]

Theological issues were issues of life. From the early childhood theological questioning were the most natural approach of life. Jón Helgason’s father, Helgi Hálfdánarson, was a pastor, lecturer and later the dean of the Pastoral seminary. Jón finished his cand. theol. examination at University of Copenhagen in 1892. After some study in Germany and serving as an assistant pastor in Denmark, he became a teaching assistant to his father at the seminary, which finally lead to his appointment as a „first instructor,“ i.e., professor, in 1894. As a young and industrious instructor, he soon found himself writing on all kinds of ecclesiastical and theological topics, wrestling with persons and issues he considered threatening to the life of the church. From the beginning of his career to the very end of his life, he remained a prolific writer. His career as an academic may be characterized by his polemical writings on theology, aiming at primarily enhancing the vitality of the church. He was not content with writing only for existing periodicals, but from 1896-1904 he published his own periodical Verði Ljós (Let there be light). He also co-edited Nýtt Kirkjublað with Þórhallur Bjarnason in 1906-07. These early years were only the beginning of a career as the author of a great many books and articles, many of which were published in foreign languages, primarily in Scandinavia. In addition to writing and teaching, Jón worked as a part-time pastor at Reykjavík’s cathedral. From 1908 on he was the dean of the seminary, he was a professor at the University of Iceland from 1911, rector of the University during the 1914-15 term. Jón Helgason served as bishop of the Icelandic National Church from 1916-1938 (ordained in 1917). As a bishop he devoted his spare time to writing on subjects of church history. That was partly due to his wish not to endanger the unity of the church with debatable theology.

In the following I seek to describe the constitutive dualism foundational to Jón Helgason’s elaboration of most topics and to decide in what sense limitation is reinterpreted. First, I will delineate the roots in the liberal tradition. That section primarily deals with methodological issues, but also gives some background to the succeeding discussion. Second, I will deal with how Jón Helgason discusses issues of limit. Then his model of God will be considered. Finally, Jón Helgason’s understanding of the Christian life will be portrayed.

The question of Jón Helgason’s theological mentors is complicated and will not be dealt with in detail here. A trip to Germany in 1894 gave him insight into changes in German theology and had a lifelong impact on him. Already at that time he became aware of changes of theological emphases and became acquainted with the literature of the Ritschlian scholars. Through the work of the Copenhagen professor, Frantz Buhl, later a professor in Leipzig, Jón had already become acquainted with the new biblical criticism. In Erlangen he attended lectures by von Harnack’s successor in Berlin, Reinhold Seeberg, to whose teaching and books Jón was attracted. He also read Albrecht Ritschl, a theologian Jón did not find as dangerous as he had heard him to be. From Erlangen, because of Luthart’s personal advice, he went to Greifswald. There he attended courses with Hermann Cremer and Otto Zöckler. He later used the works of all these scholars in his teaching. The impact from Adolf von Harnack and Wilhelm Herrmann is seen in Jón Helgason’s emphasis on the primary function of Christ as disclosing the Father. He also used texts by these authors for classroom teaching.[4] In addition to his indebtedness to these writers, he himself points out the importance Jathos and Campell.[5] Jón Helgason kept close contact with theological liberals in Scandinavia and used some of their books in the classroom. In his early articles he expresses some fondness for Kierkegaard, both for his content and style.[6] The Kierkegaardian influence disappeared in his mature years.

The neo-Kantian turn

In 1894, shortly after having finished his studies in Copenhagen, Jón Helgason had the opportunity to visit Germany. There he became acquainted with the theological trends of the time. The group of theologians informed by Ritschl became the major influence on his early career. Garvie has summed up the essentials of that tradition, which also apply rather nicely to Jón Helgason’s theology on most issues:

1. The exclusion of metaphysics from theology;
2. the resulting rejection of speculative theism;
3. the condemnation of ecclesiastical dogma as an illegitimate mixture of theology and metaphysics;
4. the antagonism shown to religious mysticism as a metaphysical type of piety;
5. the practical conception of religion;
6. the consequent contrast between religious and theoretical knowledge;
7. the emphasis laid on the historical revelation of God in Christ as opposed to any natural revelation;
8. the use of the idea of the kingdom of God as the regulative principle of Christian dogmatics;
9. the tendency to limit theological investigation to the content of the religious consciousness.[7]

The description fits Jón Helgason’s theology with the exception of the hostility toward mysticism. As will be revealed below, he emphasized the devotion to Christ, which borders on mysticism. The practical aspect of religion focuses on the relationship of the individual with Christ. Only as a result will there be any practical implications for human life and the society. His thought is rather weak on issues of society, due to his preference for individualistic theology. In addition, the program of the tradition included an interest in the function of reason, the scope of sciences, the structure or nature of the human being, revelation and the meaning of Christianity, and the nature of theology as a discipline. Neo-Kantianism was of special importance, with its reinterpretation of Kantian themes. Jón went one step beyond Kant’s program by restricting reason and separating morality and “personal” issues from reason.

In the years around 1900, when the churches and theology schools of Scandinavia struggled with all sorts of critique, the neo-Kantian program was developed with the intent of safeguarding the possibility of faith. Knowing already some of the problems and theological trends in Germany, the Danish theological liberals provided Jón Helgason with the methodological means for his own elaboration of theology, but also the literature important for his sermons.[8] Of primary importance was the Dane, Krarup, who had proceeded from the neo-Kantian program to a personalistic version of that thought.[9] Krarup made a sharp distinction between theoretical and practical reason. The distinction is sharper than Kant would have allowed. The theologians of the Ritschlian school tended towards this sharp distinction, especially Ritschl and Herrmann. Behind this approach is Lotze’s interpretation or modification of Kant’s theory of how sensations are received. Lotze developed a kind of double impression theory. On the one hand, the mind makes judgments about objective causality or the relations of nature, which allows for scientific knowledge. On the other hand, the ego makes judgments of value that relates to pleasure and pain. Judgments of these two types must not be confused. What the approach amounts to is a kind of justification of both science and the dimensions of human life, which may be related to what transcends the objective, scientific world. The aim is to justify the religious and also ethical dimensions about which science cannot make judgments.

In concert with Kant, Jón Helgason renounced abstract or speculative philosophical rationalism and therefore metaphysics. But the Kantian attempt to assert the unity of reason is modified or even renounced.[10] A different version of personhood, of reason, and finally of truth was developed. At the basis of the new program was the limitation of reason and disruption of the Kantian connection between speculative and practical reason. Simultaneously, concepts of value and feeling were incorporated and viewed as independent of theoretical knowledge, what science presupposes without being able to express an opinion on it. Feeling presupposes the existence of the world independent of our knowledge of it. Feeling also presupposes nature not only as material, system, and processes but also as that, which carries life and consciousness. Feeling relates to these dimensions. With the help of judgments of value, based on experiences of pleasure and pain, feeling gets a direction. Hence, will is closely related to feeling. These two amount to the practical side of the human being. Theoretical or purely conceptual thought not related to these dimensions of the human life is cut off from the depth dimensions of the human being. Only self-awareness or consciousness, which is rooted in feeling and will, can provide an authentic ego, one that feels infinite and absolute value.

Life is everything

On the basis of this late version of neo-Kantianism, Jón Helgason made his basic, vitalistic distinction between “heart” and reason. In his writings, an actual antithesis is developed, with some far-reaching consequences. He firmly maintains the antithesis of heart and reason.[11] Teaching is nothing, life is everything – hence the antithesis between life and theories.[12] In his theological elaboration, the antithesis is brought to bear on most issues. He makes, for instance, a sharp distinction between objective and subjective soteriological features, the awareness of redemption and the doctrine of redemption.[13] He deems all the classical doctrines on the issue to be intellectual-theoretical. The only thing that counts is the personal relationship of the heart with Christ. Even when he discusses the teaching of Christ, the emphasis is on the basic content of the relationship of the heart with God through the image of Christ. All doctrines that do not serve the purpose of bringing about this relationship should be thrown away.[14] The doctrine of Christ, that he discloses the loving God relating to the human being, is the norm for thinking. Hence metaphysics is invalid on Christological grounds. Revelation does not reveal metaphysical realities.[15] He maintains that a major flaw exists in mixing up Christianity and theology and points out the error in this regard of seventeenth century orthodoxy.[16] Christianity, and all religions, consists of a “heart-relationship” to the invisible God.[17] Dogmatics as a system is subject to time and is as such nonessential.[18] What is important is the essence of the human heart, namely feeling the dimension of depth or what is authentically religious. Everything else can be judged on the basis of the priority of the heart.

Because of the control exerted by the middle axiom of hierarchy or “othering” everything that is temporal must be placed on a lower scale than the issues of the heart. He relates theological systems to temporal process. They are subject to change.[19] Therefore theology is nonessential. Theology is a human production and as such does not reach the heart of religion, is not an expression or outgrowth of what qualifies as essential.[20] The past authorities, the Bible, creeds, and dogmas, cannot exercise any final authority in the explication of matters of faith. This is of course some tenets of the Enlightenment, the Kantian sapere aude.[21] The only real authority is the believer’s experience of the Father through the image of Christ in the Christ event.[22] The Trinitarian formula, for example, is not important compared to faith. The concept of sin is theoretical, whereas the experience of being defiled is an experience of religious faith. He bluntly and rhetorically maintains that more theology means less of the essential image of God, more Christology means less awareness of the glorious image of Christ in the Gospels. In fact, he thinks that speculative thinking leads to a view of God as a strict judge and lofty being, distant from the needy sinner.[23]

Method and content

 Jón Helgason’s aim is not to do away with theology altogether. He emphasizes the importance of using modern canons of thought, free from the tutelage of past traditions and free for positive change: 1. modern epistemology, 2. modern means of research, 3. logic, and 4. modern language. These refer to the whole theological development and direct his exclusion of metaphysical or speculative theories, like the notion of original sin and the whole conception of a devil, hell, and damnation.[24] The use of these canons of thought is submitted to his emphasis on progress and hierarchy. Time is inferior to eternity, and issues of history have to be submitted to the test of eternity.

Like most other theologians informed and shaped by the liberal tradition, Jón Helgason finally offers a theological position about history. His position emphasizes the uniqueness of Christ. In contrast to all his critical comments about reason, authorities, and history, Jesus Christ stands firm as the Christ.[25] The personalistic presupposition, empowered by essentialist thinking, leads somewhat naturally to this fundamental dictum. In spite of temporal distance and the intellectual problem of how past history may affect the present, a person’s heart can relate to the perfect person who has actualized the essences of the human self. The gap of history is bridged by a personal relationship.

One searches in vain in Jón Helgason’s writings for specific treatises devoted only to issues of nature and human being. He actually never wrote on these topics per se. And indeed, the world and the nature of human being are only discussed with reference to his theological focus, namely the person of Jesus Christ and his relationship with the human heart. His “anthropology” is therefore occasional. A close look reveals, however, some important features that make up part of Jón Helgason’s theological profile. First of all, the world and the human being are always in some sense related to what is most important, namely God, through the person of Jesus Christ. Hence cosmology and anthropology are correlated to the main theological issues. As such they are indicative of how Jón Helgason’s model of God is structured. Second, and conversely, because of the absolute priority of everything eternal and divine, the human being and the world are depicted as extremely limited. Nothing in the world has any real or positive value, not human talents, body, society, religions or nature, unless it is rightly placed in the hierarchy of values. Nature is dealt with only with reference to human life. The few metaphors from nature are used only in regard to human life.

Limited humans

 Only a few metaphors are used to portray the human predicament, and then always in the style of Jón Vídalín. The human being is like a straw, merely a short breath, and a worm.[26] The awareness of God’s majesty will create this awareness similar to the sensation of the child staring at the sky on a clear winter night. This language is naturally closely related to biblical passages about transience. Human life is like a sparrow flying through a warm house before disappearing again out on the other side.[27]Probably the best image disclosing Jón Helgason’s approach is his metaphor of a field waiting to be tilled.[28] The field has no real use or authentic meaning until it is worked on with the specific goal of bringing forth growth. Other metaphors from nature he uses are related to the change of seasons and the features of light and darkness. Summer symbolizes the eternal and divine. But winter is used to symbolize human life apart from the Father in and through Jesus.[29] Similarly, cold is whatever is devoid of the divine warmth.[30] Night applies to the features related to fear and the loss of peace.[31] The human being is also a desert waiting for nourishment.[32]

Given this general view of the human predicament, the talents or gifts of the human being are naturally limited. The heart, will, and flesh are weak from the time of conception.[33] Reason, as well, cannot hope to provide more than stones where bread is needed. Although good for its limited tasks, it can never fulfill the basic needs of the human being.[34]Freedom is limited and may be used, like reason, rather badly.[35] Jón speaks of the individual use of freedom. Given his general individualistic approach, he believes that the loss of the divine center among human beings will lead to social catastrophes. In this he was in line with the „individual socialism“ of Martensen and Adolf von Harnack. In Jón Helgason’s thought, human life, is limited by place, birth, and time. In addition, sin, desires, temptations, and worries only amplify the limitation.[36] All human joy in the temporal world is wrought with limitation.[37] Societies are constantly threatened.[38] Even religions are only superficial, they are like containers without content. They are without any power over or impact on moral or social growth. They only engender misery, darkness, ignorance, and human injustice.[39]Everything is bound by transience.[40]

The human being is a traveler through a world of struggle.[41] All around and within us are sorrows, misery, fear, and a lack of peace, grief, diseases, misfortune, hardship, poverty, injustice, inequality, envy, disbelief, war, and corruption.[42]As a result, the human, if not totally blind, strongly feels the groundlessness these negative experiences convey.[43] Jón speaks of storms with reference to feeling, storms of doubt, of temporal worries.[44] In the pilgrimage through darkness and cold the human being is in constant danger of stumbling and falling. It is unstable and in desperate need of support and grounding.[45] All kinds of beasts of sin attack and attempt to deceive. The human should not serve what is worldly because that is bestiality. In this image Jón makes use of the older meaning-structure in his discussion, rather than maintaining that some evil devil is attacking. Sin is not simply something static, but rather follows the temporal flow of the human process.[46] Finally death must be met, in what Jón calls the duel, prior to the grand transition.[47]

Human life is summarized by the metaphor of the school, a testing ground meant for progress or growth.[48] In the test one should not evade difficulties. They are tests provided by God. The wise and faithful God, for the purpose of testing people and maturing them into a closer communion, allows even wars. In the end we will discover that out of love God did actively participate in what seemed to be miserable, unjust, and awful.[49] Life in this limited world, therefore, should lead us toward an examination of our whole being. That examination will disclose to us our true wants and needs.[50] It will show that the whole of human life is an advent, a time of waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ.[51]

The need of the human is interpreted in Jón’s thought primarily individually and spiritually. As a whole, human life is an advent, a waiting for God.[52] In one sense he seems to argue that human life is a kind of question, already leading toward an answer but not really answered. What fulfills it is the divine counterpart; the answer of God fulfills the need of the human in a complete sense. The description of human need is structured from the perspective of Jón Helgason’s view of the limited world. In a world of struggle, the human being first of all craves peace, not only peace of mind but also peace of heart. Conscience attacks the soul and worries about worldly affairs or loved ones haunt the heart.[53] But most basically, the human being is structured in such a way that it is not at rest until related to God.[54] Closely related to the search for peace, the human being needs support. As fundamentally unfinished and powerless, the human searches for a strength or power that counters the forces of attack, fragility, and the forces of the world in her temporal process.[55] Jón Helgason maintains, that the fundamental need for and consequent search for peace and power is the essence of religions. All of them express the craving for these eternal essences.[56] God’s answer does not come as a solution to the problems of the world, such as the improvement of social conditions and help for the poor. That would be a materialist understanding fundamentally opposed to the Christian approach, which concerns the truly basic needs, the spiritual needs.[57] He maintains that only God in the image of father can possibly provide the answer to that basic need.[58] The human being as needy is perceived in the image of a child consoled only by a father figure.[59] In Jón Helgason’s discussion this also provides a kind of an experiential proof for God’s existence.[60]

An important aspect of the human being, which is related to this basic need, is the capacity for faith. By itself this ability is no solution, but it must be understood in connection with other metaphors for the human situation, like the metaphor of a field. The capacity for faith is like a piece of earth, waiting to be worked on by God for the sake of bringing forth growth. We human beings thirst and starve for God, the feeding and cultivation of the Father.[61] We need God’s work, his helping hand in daily growth, but also we need the divine power to make that growth possible and engender progress toward that final goal of perfection.[62] As the human relates to God, the essences of God’s eternity will be brought to fulfillment in the human, resulting in peace, joy, power, justice, etc. Summer has arrived, and no hardship, sorrow or fear will linger.[63] The metaphors of summer, warmth, and light are symbolic of what will come to be, i.e. they are proleptic.

God models

Due to his antagonism toward speculative theology, Jón Helgason’s discussion of the first person of the Trinity is not complicated. In fact, he aims at postulating no more than the revelation of God in Christ allows. In spite of this dividing line, he does not escape a hybrid notion of God. His God-talk is heavily reduced in comparison with speculative theology, but nevertheless is a mixture of features disclosed by the Christ revelation on the one hand, and traditional God-talk on the other. The metaphor of a loving father is basic. He is depicted in the image of an earthly father who addresses the basic need of his children, all humans, for security, care, and love. The love of God is primarily expressed and approached through Christ, who is the interpretative and actual door to God.[64] The essence of the Christ-disclosure is his awareness of a loving Father.[65] The father image is interpreted primarily through the image of a father tending to the child who craves the security, care, peace, and love a good father provides.[66] Christ’s coming changed the basis of religion from fear to tenderness and love.[67] Finally, God pierces through the surface, looking only at the human heart.

The model of the father is developed in Jón Helgason’s thought with the help of two supporting metaphors. The teleological architect makes plans and has his aims for the world. The aim of God is primarily to bring all things to him.[68] Jón does at times talk of fatherly providence with reference to these dimensions.[69] God reveals God self to the world, individuals, and cultures, in accordance with their maturity. The more religious maturity there is, the more there will be revealed.[70] Underlying this view is an emphasis on progress and the call for all Christians to mature. Mission to non-Christians is justified on two accounts. Because of missions, a way to God the Father is opened to those who do not have right faith. The second legitimization is social implications. The Christian religion enhances social maturity. Jón relates cultural maturity to relationship with Christ.[71] Non-Christian religion is by definition a religion of fear, diametrically opposed to the religion of love that characterizes only Christianity. Here one of Jón’s dogmatic presuppositions is disclosed. It is fundamentally rooted in the concept of God he has postulated, the concept of truth he advocates, and in general his dualistic theoretical framework.

Second, and closely related, God is portrayed in the image of a stern pedagogue who rears both the human race and individual humans with a loving but strong hand. As such, God is responsible for the difficulties of the world. God sends suffering and hardship for the sake of the growth of the individual. Later in life or in eternity we will find out that what was the cause of our mourning was indeed established by God in Gods wisdom, mercy, and faithfulness. God always aims at thrusting human beings toward a closer relationship with him, to experience love more fully.[72] The experience of difficulties should not lead to grumbling against God. It should rather engender patience. Jesus remains the paramount example of this patience. Not only did he in patience endure the torture of Good Friday, but he was resurrected on Easter as well. God’s aim is to bring all individuals to peace in the bosom of God.[73] The main features of the royal metaphor for God are still at work in Jón Helgason’s theology, though the terminology may have been altered slightly as compared to earlier theology in Iceland. The image of God in Jón Helgason’s thought is similar to the royal image used by Vídalín. The human reaction to God is also similarly developed, i.e. that of a fearful approach.[74] The characteristics of the Father are holy seriousness, wise control, reasonable patience, and boundless love.[75]

The Disposition of Jesus Christ

The person of Jesus Christ is the focus of Jón Helgason’s theology. The image of Jesus serves a supporting model to the model of the Father. The features of Jón’s Christology are developed in accordance with the Christology of liberal theology. Jón Helgason wanted to develop his Christology “from below” rather than “from above.” An example of this application from below is his treatment of the question of Christ’s sonship. He maintains that Jesus is God’s Son because a spiritual love had become the content of his soul.[76] When discussing the question of preexistence, for instance, he leaves the question unanswered.[77] The question, due to its metaphysical connotations remains outside both the realm of reason and the realm of revelation. In line with the tradition of Hymns of the Passion, he develops a Christology of relationship, in terms of the “I,” i.e. the Lutheran pro me. Jón Helgason found an objective discussion of Christ inappropriate to this issue of paramount importance for human beings.[78] Jesus and the “I” are the two poles of one entity. Christ is ahead, and the “I” behind. The disclosure of God in Christ, the eikon or the totality of the image of Christ concerns the human. The totality of our being has to relate to the totality of Jesus – disposition, thought, and actions.[79] Jesus’ whole being, the image sooths our needs, desire, and assures us about our being, that there is another existence beyond death, that my life is in his hands, that no one has to worry, that there is forgiveness for trespasses, because there is a loving Father. This assurance is the aim of Christ. That total image constitutes the challenge to the reason, heart, and will of the individual. This seems to distinguish personality, disposition, thought and acts. What is unique is the new revelation in a single person, the essence of which is the message, „you are my child, and I am your father.“[80] Jón Helgason was fond of speaking of the human being approaching the image of Jesus. But his elaboration of the image of Jesus has some contours. Basically, he distinguishes three dimensions: 1 The heart or disposition of the person of Jesus Christ. 2. Jesus’ words or teaching, and 3. Jesus’ action.[81]

In line with neo-Kantian approach Jón Helgason delineated the nature and function of disposition. Disposition is the essence of personhood. So, the disposition of Christ is that which is basic to the wholeness of his being. That disposition constitutes the image of Christ for human beings.[82] Jón strongly emphasizes that Jesus was a human being, with all the natural qualities of humans and all the natural conditioning as well, including the worldview of his time.[83] But what made him unique was his openness and obedience to the Father, which finally formed his personal depth with such completeness that his being became divine.[84] This means that his disposition had become divine. There is an emphasis on the duality of Jesus’ openness and obedience to God. The emphasis on openness concerns how the Jesus-model supports the model of the father who demands obedience. This suggests that the monarchic model is still preserved in Icelandic Christianity through Jón Helgason’s thought.[85]

In line with what I have called the middle axioms of growth and hierarchy, Jón Helgason would condition and describe how Jesus matured. Jesus did open himself to the call to inwardness, i.e. the essence of God. And he progressed to the highest possible pitch of growth.[86] He became filled with God. In virtue of that filling, he finally reached the state of being the Son of God. The important questions do not have to do with distinguishing the human and divine natures or determining what self-awareness Jesus had in this developmental progress. What is essential is his approach to the Father. The very essence of Jesus’ disposition is love. He knows a loving Father, who accepts him and all human beings who proceed toward God with a Jesus-like faith and obedience. Total submission to the Father is the very essence of Jesus’ awareness of himself as God’s son. He and the Father have melted into a majestic relationship of mutual love. An approach to the disposition of Jesus finally discloses the loving Father who wants to embrace all of humanity with love.[87] The disposition of Christ is thus transparent in the sense that the Father becomes the essence of Jesus’ being. Jesus becomes thoroughly a proclamation of the Father. Being God’s son entails a specific calling to disclose God’s being as love and to worked for the establishment of relationship between God and human beings, not least the lesser ones of the world. Jesus’ holiness is not that of the drama of Hymns of the Passion or Vídalínspostilla, but rather emphasizes the tender and caring aspects of the father-model. The model here is rooted in the model of the father of a family.[88] In coming to the world Jesus’ goal was not a sacrificial death for us. His task was aimed rather at helping us to mature according to purpose of human life, i.e. of growing in faithful relationship with God.[89] His own development is the prototype for us to imitate.

The loving purpose of God toward humans determines how Jesus’ teaching should be approached.[90] Indeed the whole content of Jesus’ teaching is summed up in the notion of fatherly love. Whatever does not spring from the notion of the love of God may be disregarded or disposed of.[91] For several reasons speculative theology should be abandoned: It is imperfect cosmology. Jesus only proclaims God’s personal relationship to humans. He does not teach any metaphysical theories like the Trinity. Second, it takes the wrong approach to nature. Materialist philosophy or theories of science do not accept spiritual dimensions. Third, it takes the wrong approach to human life. Speculation does not accept the priority of spirit over matter. The image of the total Jesus entails the dimension of teacher.[92] Jesus’ teaching reveals a loving God, rather than theories of redemption. The nature of the disclosure of God is such that it engenders the actual redemption of relating God and humans in a bond of love. Redemption occurs in the reaction of the human being to God. Redemption is a spiritual issue concerning certainty. Jesus discloses the nature of God – God as three persons but one being, one nature.[93] Jón Helgason thinks that the Enlightenment emphasis on Jesus as a teacher was over inflated. One should keep the dimension of the teacher in Christian thought, but not overestimate it. God not only discloses love, but his will as well. Jesus’ action shows how we should live and act. We have to submit to and obey the will of God.[94] The goal is that we may almost touch the love of God.[95]

The purpose of the human being is to see the father in all the glory of his power of love.[96] Following Jesus’ progress upward – in line with the middle axioms – toward perfection, the human being should also struggle upwards. The final good is the perfection of becoming like the Father, where the ideals or essences become real.[97] But that goal cannot be actualized in this world. Hence the progress of the human being does not translate into the temporal fulfillment of either the individual or society. Rather the aim is salvation in eternity. While alive, humans should only trust and have faith in God’s love, which will support us in our struggle.[98]

The structure of the Christ image determines how the human image is portrayed. The essence of the individual is his or her disposition, which has nothing to do with social dimensions.[99] When the human being has accepted God the Father as the essence of life, the life of the Christian begins. First of all, the Christian will receive power to overcome all that stifles and limits. Primarily the reign of sin is overcome, but also fear of death.[100] Second, the gifts of God are bestowed upon the Christian soul: peace, steadfastness, fearlessness, joy, and inner freedom.[101]

In the progression into Christian devotion, the disposition becomes one of humility. The will of the human has become the will of God.[102] This change involves improvements on all levels of life.[103] Peace should never be made with sin, but sins should become less and less powerful in the life of the Christian. The goal should always be to be filled with Christ. In working towards that goal, the Christian needs to remember the importance of using time well, being industrious.[104] Most importantly, one should bring everything to Jesus and let him alleviate one’s burden.[105] Jón emphasizes that the Christian life is not a life of feeling. Jesus brought no sentimental Christianity to the world, but rather a Christianity of power and activity – not doctrine, but life.[106] When difficulties arise the Christian should not grumble, but rather smile through the tears. God only disciplines us from the perspective of love.[107]

Jón Helgason was more of a main-line theologian than Haraldur Níelsson. And he became a bishop in the national church. Haraldur on the other hand was something of a pioneer. He not only was Iceland´s main scholar of the Old Testament, taught in the Seminary, but he also became a leader of the spiritualist movement which became a major force in Iceland for several decades in the twentieth century. To this peculiar and interesting dimension of religion and history of theology in Iceland we now turn. What was common to both and what was dissimilar? What was the structural similarities and to what did their thought lead? These are some of the lurking questions calling for some intelligible answers.

[1] He is referring to his Theology of Hope and The Crucified God. While writing each one, he began to view the whole of theology through a key concept: hope and crucifixion, respectively. Jürgen Moltmann, „An Autobiographical Note,“ trans. Charles White, in A. J. Conyers, God, Hope, and History: Jürgen Moltmann and the Christian Concept of History (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), 206-14.

[2] A biographical overview in Eiríkur Albertsson’s, „Jón Helgason, biskup“ in Merkir Íslendingar: Nýr flokkur (Reykjavík: Bókfellsútgáfan, H.F., 1965), 197-241. See the impressive list of his publications, ibid., and 236-39. Jón Helgason’s unpublished autobiography, Það sem á Dagana Dreif, is preserved in the Archives of the Institute of Theology, University of Iceland.

[3] These issues were already present in his early treatises. On the inner life of the human being, see e.g. Verði Ljós, (1896), 3-4, 17, 53ff, 148, 153, 167; ibid. (1897), 20ff, 40; (1899), 102ff. On devotion to Jesus, i.e. Christocentrism, see ibid. (1896), 17, 68ff; ibid. (1897), 7ff, (1899), 98ff; (1901), 76. See also Nýtt Kirkjublað, (1907), 206, 218ff; (1908), 122.

[4] On his early acquaintance with the Ritschlian school of theology, see Kirkjublaðið, (1894), 119-29.

[5] Jón Helgason, Grundvöllurinn er Kristur: Trúmálahugleiðingar frá Nýguðfræðilegu Sjónarhorni (Reykjavík: Bókaverzlun Guðmundar Gamalíelssonar, 1915), 27. On Campell see Joseph Fort Newton, Some Living Maters of the Pulpit: Studies in Religious Personality (New York: George H. Doran Company), 185-99.

[6] See Verði Ljós, (Reykjavík: Jón Helgason, 1896), 20ff, 68ff.

[7] Quoted by James C. Livingston, Modern Christian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Vatican II, (New York: Macmillan Publishing C., Inc., London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1971), 246.

[8] Jón Helgason, Kristur Vort Líf: Prédikanir á Öllum Sunnu- og Helgidögum Kirkjuársins (Reykjavík: Bjarni J. Jóhannesson, 1922), 4.

[9] He did develop a theology somewhat similar to the older Wilhelm Herrmann, who turned toward vitalism or personalism in his later years. On the development of Herrmann, see Peter Kemp, Teologi og Videnskap: I Anledning af en Teologisk Disputas (Köbenhavn: Vinten, Stjernebögernes Kulturbibliotek, 1977). For an overview I have used the informative and helpful article on Krarup’s thought, Peter Kemp, „F.C. Krarup’s Philosophy of Religion,“ Danish Yearbook of Philosophy (1975).

[10] Kant’s approach relates theoretical reason and practical reason in the sense that, when driven by practical reason, the categories of understanding may be transformed into ideas. Hence the ideas of reason are in a sense justified by morality. Krarup rejects this approach and adds feeling on the ground that scientific knowledge can never arrive at any universality, which qualifies as objective. The path of reason toward universality would finally be merely subjective, i.e. limited. That is where feeling and will step in place of the Kantian notion of the categories by practical reason. This neo-Kantian version limits speculative reason and adds the more or less romantic dimension of feeling. See Peter Kemp, ibid., 170-71.

[11] He aligns himself with Pascal’s notion of the irreconcilable pairs: the heart and reason. See Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 72-3.

[12] Ibid., 73.

[13] Ibid., 90-91.

[14] Ibid., 13.

[15] Ibid., 13.

[16] Ibid., 16.

[17] Ibid., 18.

[18] See Kristur Vort Líf, 280.

[19] Ibid., 280. See also Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 13. He therefore avoids speculative theism, ibid., 9, 11, 56.

[20] Ibid., 15-19.

[21] Ibid., 37-8. See also, ibid., 56-7, 142-44.

[22] Ibid., 34-40, 61. On Christ, see below.

[23] Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 70-1, 80, 84-86.

[24] Ibid., 26-34.

[25] Ibid., 33.

[26] See Kristur Vort Líf, 67ff, 76, 90ff, 97, 378.

[27] Ibid., 314. The reference is to a memorable story told by Bede in his history of the English Church. Sigurður Nordal later used the same story in his Íslensk Menning.

[28] Kristur Vort Líf, 309, 343, 471. See also „Hvað er Kristindómur,“ 6 (1924), 24.

[29] Kristur Vort Líf, 303-4.

[30] Ibid., 486.

[31] Ibid., 12, 285, 498.

[32] Ibid., 342.

[33] Ibid., 15, 106, 297.

[34] Human reason often seeks in wrong directions. Ibid., 14, 42, 201-2; Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 13. The best discussion on the limitation of reason is Kristur Vort Líf, 274-81.

[35] Ibid., 296, 301ff.

[36] Ibid., 31, 106, 208.

[37] Ibid., 28.

[38] The nation of Iceland is on the verge of an abyss in terms of work, business, finance, etc. Ibid., 74.

[39] Jón Helgason defends a progressive view for history of religions with the firm belief that only the spiritual religion of Christianity is perfect. Ibid., 432, 494-5.

[40] Ibid., 65, 67-70, 90ff, 304.

[41] Ibid., 7, 74, 82, 134, 261.

[42] Jón Helgason discusses these issues to some extent. The stress is on the limitation and meaninglessness when the love of the Father through Jesus has not given warmth and light. The following references speak of one or more of these issues. Ibid., 12, 31, 256, 285, 287-8, 297, 498.

[43] We feel imperfection, a lack of stability, or despair on our journey through life. Ibid., 12, 82, 208, 263.

[44] The storm of doubt reaches its peak regarding to the value of Jesus. Ibid., 132. Regarding storms of sin, see ibid., 135. Regarding the storm of temporal worries, like financial worries, sorrow, false hope, deceptive dreams, quarreling, envy, hate, distrust, persecution, and grief, see ibid., 137.

[45] Ibid., 285, 287.

[46] Ibid., 12, 287, 297

[47] Ibid., 290. Death is not the worst enemy of humanity, rather the awareness of having lived in vain. Ibid., 77.

[48] Ibid., 75, 137, 288, 477.

[49] Ibid., 79, 257, 261, 514. The one who evades hardship in life is not necessarily the happiest. Ibid., 307.

[50] Ibid., 12, 45ff, 63, 115, 263.

[51] Ibid., 9.

[52] Ibid., 9.

[53] Ibid., 262, 285.

[54] Ibid., 26. The fundamental search is not for knowledge or understanding, but for peace, i.e. communion with God. Ibid., 334.

[55] Ibid., 6, 12, 534.

[56] Ibid., 366.

[57] Ibid., 207.

[58] Ibid., 13, 26, 285.

[59] Ibid., 11.

[60] Ibid., 187ff.

[61] Ibid., 12, 386ff.

[62] Ibid., 7. We need none to die for us, but we do need someone who can help us in accordance with our calling, i.e. I am with you always.

[63] Ibid., 12.

[64] Kristur Vort Líf, 408. Ibid., 462ff.

[65] Ibid., 54, 368 ff; Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 21, 80.

[66] See, Kristur Vort Líf, 285-290, 307, 371ff, 392ff, 423, 448ff.

[67] Ibid., 314ff.

[68] Ibid., 42, 452ff.

[69] Ibid., 262ff.

[70] Ibid., 420.

[71] Ibid., 431.

[72] Ibid., 65, 67, 75, 79, 307. God also directly intervenes and helps. Ibid., 164. Similarly the Christian should react with patience and hope. Ibid., 255ff, 476ff. For all things, the Christian should be thankful, both for good and for what seems bad. Ibid., 477f, 498.

[73] Ibid., 11, 13, 255.

[74] Ibid., 13. We offend God with disobedience. Ibid., 40. Even though Jón Helgason avoids highly dramatic expressions, he nevertheless underscores some classical features, found in Vídalín’s thought. Vídalín’s awareness of the tremendous majesty of God is also to be found in Helgason’s thought. Ibid., 90ff.

[75] Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 84.

[76] See Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 135.

[77] Ibid., 73

[78] In this sense he is in line with the older tradition of Iceland, such as Hallgrímur Pétursson’s theology in Hymns of the Passion.

[79] See „Sjálfsvitund Jesú,“ Prestafélagsritið 1 (1919), 4., and „Hvað er Kristindómur,“ Prestafélagsritið, 2 (1920), 18ff. Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 74.

[80] „Hvað er kristindómur,“ 31.

[81] Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 74.

[82] Ibid., 61-3.

[83] „Hvað er Kristindómur,“ 30; „Sjálfsvitund Jesú,“ 6-9.

[84] Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 82.

[85] Kristur Vort Líf, 12.

[86] Ibid., 62-3. On one occasion Jón says that Jesus is a special creation of God. Ibid., 73.

[87] On the disposition, self-awareness and disclosure of the loving father to the world, see Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 73-74, 104-5. The notion of God as love is interpreted as the antithesis of a strict judge.

[88] Ibid., 73. See the good article, „Sjálfsvitund Jesú.“

[89] Kristur Vort Líf, 7f.

[90] Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 81, Kristur Vort Líf, 5. „God loves you, turn to him,“ is the summary of Jesus’ teaching.

[91] Grundvöllurinn er Kristur, 13, 81.

[92] Ibid., 74.

[93] Ibid., 90-100.

[94] Ibid., 82.

[95] Kristur Vort Líf, 6.

[96] Ibid., 5.

[97] Ibid., 14-15.

[98] Ibid., 8, 15, 26, 41.

[99] Ibid., 377.

[100] Ibid., 208.

[101] Ibid., 309, 343-44, 453, 497, 534.

[102] Ibid., 35, 42, 476f.

[103] Ibid., 66, 347.

[104] Other similar issues he emphasizes are the importance of serving the family well and guarding the home as the locus of Christian life. Ibid., 84, 89, 102, 438ff, 554.

[105] Ibid., 138.

[106] Ibid., 155. Jón’s approach to social ethics is conditioned but his emphasis on the individual. The benefit for society comes only as individuals accept their spiritual dimensions and then proceed from that perspective to work for the good of the world. The approach is similar to Martensen’s and Herrmann’s.

[107] Ibid., 307, 343, 477ff.