N athan Söderblom (1866-1931)

by D ie t z L ange

ars O lo f Jonathan Söderblom, called N athan since childhood,

L was born in the tiny village o f Trönö, in the province o f
Hälsingland, N o rth ern Sweden, on January 15, 1866. His father
Jonas, son o f a farmer, was the minister there. H e was a follower o f
the Lutheran revival m ovem ent o f Carl O lo f Rosenius. Jonas was
highly educated but theologically very conservative. H e was
extremely self-disciplined. Possessing a strong interest in foreign
missions, he was an effective preacher and a dutiful servant o f his
congregation. H e was equally devoted to his family, yet somewhat
harsh and very strict w ith regard to educating his children. N athan’s
m other Sophia, nee Blume, was the daughter o f a Danish doctor
w ho had come to Sweden in order to help out w ith a cholera
epidemic in the 1860s and had stayed on. She was interested in
poetry, a gentle, somewhat passive personality w ith a good sense o f
humor. She frequently had to compensate for the sometimes weird,
Spartan ideas about childrearing that her husband held. However, an
early onset o f deafoess on Sophias part and the great difference o f
character between the spouses led to their gradual estrangement,
and she more and more retreated to her ow n rooms.
N athan was the second o f seven siblings, two o f w hom had died
in infancy. Sweden was a poor country at the time, w ith a high rate
o f em igration to the U nited States. Salaries for pastors were low.
M ost o f those in rural areas had some agriculture on the side, w hich
m eant that their children had to help in the field from an early age.
N athan got his first schooling at hom e until the age o f nine. His
father, w ho had soon discovered his son’s intellectual gifts, even
taught him Latin. However, his m other was by far the better teacher,
as N athan gratefully rem em bered all his life. H e was himself a
fortunate blend o f his parents’ heritage: a relentless worker, able to
concentrate on several things simultaneously w ith a quick grasp
even o f highly sophisticated and abstract subjects. Y et he was always
dow m to-earth in his thinking. His particular forte was empathy

33

LUTHERAN QUARTERLY Volume XXIX (2‫ ه‬1‫رئ‬

 4 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

w ith people. H e could converse w ith the king as well as w ith a

peasant on an equal footing and thus was predestined for pastoral
care.
N athan received a solid classical education, w ith G erm an and
French as m odern languages, and he developed a special interest in
Scripture and church history early on. At the age o f 17 he enrolled
at Uppsala University for the three-year liberal arts course leading to
the degree 0 ffilosofie kandidat, roughly the equivalent o f a B. A. His
grades were particularly good in classical languages and Arabic.
T he young man then w ent on to study theology. In those years
the faculty was not very attractive. The religious scene in the country
was immersed in controversies between a rigidly orthodox state
church, rapidly growing revival movements, and radical philosophical
monism intruding from the European continent. B ut the professors
o f th e o l o ^ tended to insulate themselves from outside influences,
in particular from historical criticism w hich carried the day in
Germany. This was exactly w hat instigated the curiosity o f the
brighter students. O ne o f these w ho had spent a term or two at a
G erm an university brought hom e W ellhausen’s volume on the
history o f Israel. Söderblom borrow ed and devoured it. Likewise, he
became an avid reader o f G erm an N ew Testament exegesis, especially
the G öttingen-based H istory o f Religions School, A dolf H arnack’s
history o f dogma, Aferecht Rftschl’s works, s ^ l e f e r ^ c h e r , O tto
Pfleiderer, W ilhelm H errm ann, and others. H e discussed all these
things w ith a couple o f friends: Nils Johan Gdransson (later professor
o f dogmatics) and Samuel Fries, a gifted O ld Testament scholar.
They also read m odern novels and poetry on an international scale.
All this fascinated Stiderblom but also plunged him into a deep
personal crisis, since it stood in stark contrast to the religious
orientation he had received back home. It took him two separate
steps to solve the problem. T he first step came in the fall o f 1889.
That was the discovery that G od had n ot revealed him self in a book
or a doctrine but in history, most clearly in the person o f Jesus
Christ. This chimed in w ith the thought o f the great nineteenth-
century Swedish ^ i l o ^ h e r - h i ^ r i a n Erik Gustaf Geijer, a prim e
representative o f R om anticism w hom Sdderblom admired all his
hfe-
 NA T H A N SÖ D ER B LO M (1866-1931) 35

B ut that was only a solution on the Intelleetual level. W hat

troubled him on the truly rehgious, existential level was that he
seemed to lack the consciousness o f sin which was so essential to
revivalist piety O n the other hand, at times even his longing for
certainty o f faith appeared to him as selfish and therefore sinful. So
he was caught in a quagmire that reminds one o f M artin Luther’s
repeated inner struggles, as well as o f Soren Kierkegaard’s dialectical
philosophy, both o f w hich Stiderblom knew well already. Help was
provided a couple o f months later by a little booklet by foe Scottish
revivahst preacher ٧ . p. Mackay, “Grace and Truth,” w hich was
widely read at the time and warmly recom m ended by the American
D w ight L. M oody M ackay’s point was that a Christian had to turn
his gaze away from self-analysis and toward C hrist’s redemptive
suffering on foe cross. This new orientation was supplemented
several years later by yet another deep religious experience that
rem inded him o f the fact that foe G od o f love c o n tin u e d to be foe
stern judge, and that his grace can only be understood and valued
against this somber background.
Through this development, Stiderblom had gained inner freedom.
H e continued to adhere to the type o f piety he had grown up in, but
it was stripped o f its inherent narrowness. The liberal conviction
that Scripture and the history o f dogma must be interpreted by
m odern historical methods, w ith no strings attached, was here to
stay. B ut it received a counterweight in a growing appreciation o f
M artin Luther w hich actually became a major guideline o f his later
thought, at first strongly influenced by Albrecht Ritschl, but quite
independent later on from R itschl’s rather one-sided interpretation
o f the reformer. T he liberal streak o f his thought caused a deep
conflict w ith his father; w hich seems to have been resolved no
sooner than at the deathbed o fth e old pastor,even though Stiderblom
was unswerving in his reverence for him.
A further boost towards a w ider perspective in religion and in life
as a w hole was Söderblom ’s tw o-m onth stay in the U nited States, in
particular his participation as a delegate to the Student Christian
M ovem ent’s conference in N orthfield, Massachusetts, in 1890. H e
was impressed both by the personality o f its leader, D w ight L.
M oody and by foe fact that members o f the most different
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

denominations, conserYative as well· as liberal, were able to diseuss

the Christian faith without the slightest attempt at proselytizing.
This was the first formative ecumenical experience for him.
In 1891, Sdderblom m et Anna Forsell, daughter o f a sea captain
and a student o f history. They quickly fell in love w ith each other,
and they got engaged the following year, the day after Söderblom
had taken his exam as teologie kandidat (roughly corresponding to a
master’s degree). D octoral studies in the field o f history o f religions
followed. This decision was motivated by his early interest in foreign
missions as well as in the question o f the essence o f religion itself
and the place o f Christianity w ithin it. His doctoral thesis treated
the eschatology o f the ancient Persian religion o f Mazdeism.
In 18‫ ﻗ ﻮ‬he was ordained. His professional life began w ith an
appointm ent as chaplain at a psychiatric ward in a suburb ofuppsala.
O nly a year on, he was inform ed that there was to be an opening at
the pastorate for the Scandinavian congregation in Paris in 1894. H e
applied and got foe post. Anna and he got m arried soon after that.
T he new development also m eant that he had to rush his doctoral
thesis through the necessary steps. H e did submit ft in the nick o f
ti m e - a n d was refused. So he had to rework and enlarge it in Paris.
T he pastoral tasks in France included both the congregation in
Paris w hich was quite a mixed lot: some diplomats, many domestic
servants and manual workers, some artists; and care for Scandinavian
sailors in Calais during the summertime. In both places, Söderblom
encountered severe problems o f poverty and exploitation. B ut w ith
his active support o f foe needy and natural charm he easily w on the
trust o f the people. Participation in a conference o f the “Evangelic
Social Congress” around Friedrich N aum ann in Erfurt in 1896
helped him view the social problems in a larger perspective. These
experiences found their literary echo in a book on “T he Serm on on
the M ount in O u rT im e,” as well as in an interesting hule treatise on
“R eligion and Social Developm ent.”*In the latter, he turned against
both M anchester capitalism and M areist revolutionary ideas and
pleaded for a reformist stance. Apart from these issues, there was one
m ore thing that particularly aroused his interest and wrath. That was
the infamous Dreyfus affair and foe ugly face o f anti-Semitism. In
addition to all this, Söderblom had to take care o f a rapidly growing
 N A T H A N S Ö D E R B L O M (1 8 6 6 - 1 9 3 1

family. The first five out o f twelve children were b orn in Paris— one
o f w hom died in infancy during these years. T he parents also
extended generous hospitality to artists and many others and took a
lively interest in the great city’s cultural life.
Last but not least, Söderblom underw ent a hefty program o f
academic studies at the Sorbonne. P e heard lectures by historians o f
religion like A ntoine M eihet and Aibert Réville, famous theologians
like Auguste Sabatier, and philosophers like Emile Boutroux and
H enri Bergson. O f these, Sabatier, co-founder o f the school o f
tyïrrbolo-fideism, became his most in r ^ r ta n t teacher. Sabatier’s
basic tenet that all religious statements are tymbolic in nature became
part o f the groundw ork o f Söderblom ’s own theological concept.
Finally, the friendship w ith the renow ned R om an Catholic scholar
Alfred Loisy should be m entioned. Loisy was later excom municated
as a modernist. Through discussions w ith him, w ith Paul Sabatier,
biographer o f St. Francis o f Assisi, as well as w ith mainstream
Catholics Söderblom gained a many-faceted picture o f R om an
Catholicism w hich was o f great im portance for his later ecumenical
work.
Small w onder that finishing his doctoral thesis in the midst o f all
these activities took its time, all the more since he extended it from
a very specialized study on Persian religion into a comparative study
in the eschatology o f all those major religions that have developed
one.2 H e thus laid the ground for his scholarly life-work o f a
phenom enolo^f o f religion w hich covered the w hole world o f
religions. He submitted his thesis in time and passed his doctoral
exam with flying c o lo rs in 1901.
T hen two vastly different but equally incisive events happened in
rapid succession. First, his father died— thankfully not before
reconciliation betw een the tw o m en had occurred. Second,
Söderblom ’s application for a professor’s chair in the history o f
religions at the theological faculty o f U ppsala U niversity was
accepted. So now he had to start academic teaching. H e was already
remembered in Uppsala for two lectures he had given earlier as part
o f the application process: one on Schleiermacher’s famous Speeches
on Religion ; foe other a comparative study o f temptation: Buddha,
Zoroaster, and Jesus. Yet the reception he received was quite mixed.
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

The students were enthusiastie, whereas the cunserYative faculty was

pretty reserved because uf the new professur’s liberal outlook.
Söderblom ’s inaugural lecture and his introductory speech to the
students became a milestone in the history o f the faculty Theology
was not a very attractive field o f study in Sweden in those years.
Stiderblom’s vigorous plea for reconciliation between genuine
Christian piety and m odern theology, w ith the express inclusion o f
the history o f religions as an integral part o f it, did a lot to change
that. T he two fields were to be united by a com m on respect for
reality, he said. General history o f religion served to sharpen the eyes
both for the Unship o f Christianity w ith other religions and also for
its very essence. For useful studies in this field some religious
experience o f o ne’s own is an indispensable prerequisite, but that
must not lead to partisan judgm ent on any religion. Söderblom
conceded that such an unprejudiced approach did not preclude
severe religious crises for the students, such as the one he him self
had gone through. Nonetheless, he congratulated them on their
choice o f study and profession.
As the field o f history o f religion had been rapidly expanding
since the latter half o f the nineteenth century, the n ew jo b m eant an
enorm ous workload. Furtherm ore, given that the chair Söderblom
occupied had foe nebulous name o f teologiska prenotioner och
encyklopedi (roughly: “encyclopedic preconceptions o f theology”),
his scholarly focus could also be understood as a free-for-all.
Söderblom did consider it his prim ary task to plow through foe
w hole o f world religions both empirically and ^ilo so p h ically (with
a particular emphasis on primitive religions and on Buddhism). But
as he consistently viewed Christianity as part o f the general history
o f religion, he felt free to include such subjects as R om an Catholic
m odernism, Luther, and Swedish church history.3All o f these were
very m uch in need o f fresh insights. T he subject o f Catholicism
became particularly urgent w hen the Vatican excom m unicated the
rebellious m odernists/ His lecture on these became the basis o f a
book on “T he ?roblem o f R eligion w ithin Catholicism and
Protestantism,” probably still the best treatm ent o f m odernism but
unfortunately never translated . ‫ ؤ‬T he likes o f Loisy, John H en ty
N ew m an, and Friedrich von H ügel are viewed as more or less
 N A T H A N SO D ER B LO M (1866-1931) 39

radical in many respects, such as their use o f historical criticism to

investigate Scripture, yet also as arch-Catholic, in that all o f them
continued to cling to the R o m an church as the ultimate authority.
O ne more book should be m entioned in particular^ust because
it has rarely received the attention it deserves, namely, The Study o f
Religion .6It is an overview o fth at entire scholarly discipline, intended
as an introduction for students, one that systematically exposes the
relationships am ong its different parts. As such it stands in the
tradition o f Schleierm acher’s famous K urze Darstellung des
theologischen Studiums , yet is distinguished from it in three im portant
aspects. A lthough C h ris tia n ^ is the first and most extensively
treated rehgion, because it is the most im portant one in the W estern
world, it is not the exclusive subject but is incorporated into the
w orld o f religions in general. Second, a philosophical definition is
not offered at the beginning, since such a definition is the goal o f
the project, following empirical descriptions, comparisons, and
evaluations w ithin the philosophy o f religion. Third, church
governm ent (both as shaping its organization and as free theological
reflection) is not the one purpose o f studying religion, as w ith
Schleiermacher, but rather a by-product. Nonetheless Söderblom
thinks that this by-product is even more effectively served by his
approach than by the conventional exclusiveness o f Christian
theology
Stiderblom’s standing in the faculty as well as in his church was
not free o f conflict. O ne example was his old friend Samuel Fries,
whose application for foe chair o f N ew Testament exegesis fell
through in 1902 because o f his liberal views, whereas a decidedly less
qualified candidate was preferred. Even more disturbing was the
case ofTorgny Segerstedt, one o f his disciples, foe following year.
His doctoral thesis on the origin o f polytheism, though excellent
from a scholarly point o f view, was rejected by the majority o f the
faculty on foe ground that it lacked “Christian substance.”^ That
created a veritable public scandal‫ ־‬to no avail. Söderblom then for
a while even thought o f resigning from his post.
O ne particular interest o f Söderblom during his period as an
Uppsala professor was to shake up the faculty’s provincialism by
broadening relations w ith other countries. His most obvious
40 LUTH ERAN QUARTERLY

achievement in this respect is setting up the Olaus ?etri Foundation.

This outfit was meant as an equivalent to the Gifford- and H ibbert
Lectures in Britain. A wealthy lady had donated a considerable sum
o f m oney for the purpose. T he foundation, w hich is still in existence,
has indeed lived up to its goal. Luminaries such as Franz C um ont,
Ignaz Goldziher, A dolf Harnack, Friedrich Heiler, and R u d o lf O tto
have delivered lectures there. In addition, gifted students were to be
given scholarships for a year o f study abroad.
Söderblom did not limit his activities to his duties as an academic
teacher. H e also served as a part-tim e pastor at Trefaldighetskyrkan
(Trinity Church), and he took an active part in the ungkyrkorörelse
^ o u n g Church Movement). That was a movement for church reform
w ith an emphasis on lay activity and striving to deliver foe state church
from its widespread staleness and supefociahty to counter atheistic
tendencies in the fotellectual world, to appeal to the younger
generation, and to w in back the class o f laborers. It turned out to be
the most significant such movement in the twentieth century. It
harbored pretty strong nationalistic undercurrents during its first years,
but since the beginning o f WorldW ar I it moved towards Söderblom’s
more international course. Far more wholehearted was Stiderblom’s
support o f the movements social policies. The most obvious case in
point was his very exphcit vote for more social justice during the
Great Strike o f 1909. That secured him foe attention o f many a trade
union representative later on w hen he had become archbishop.
Domestic reform would not suffice, Stiderblom felt. T he Swedish
church had to open its eyes to foe outside world. There had already
been talk o f a rapprochem ent betw een the Anglican and the Swedish
churches, on foe ground that both had bishops and the apostohc
succession. B ut these talks had been lingering for some time. That
changed w hen Stiderblom invited an Anglican delegation to Uppsala
in 1909. They agreed w ith foe Swedes on many things in principle,
despite the fact that Söderblom had unequivocally stated that the
apostolic succession was a good thing but not essential for foe goal
o f church unity. However, it took until 2‫ل‬9 ‫ ق‬until the two churches
formally agreed on inter-com m union. All o f these activities created
an im portant platform for those larger ecumenical plans w hich had
been launched by then.
 N A T H A N SO D ER B LO M (1866-1931) 41

In order to introduce his ow n church to the Anglican com m unity

as a whole, Sdderblom w rote two longer essays in an American
journal.* The form er o f these describes the origin o f the Swedish
state church, how it was able to retain Its independent adn^nistration
w hen virtuaUy all bishops converted to the R eform ation, how all
those traditions wem carefully preserved that did n o t contradict
the Lutheran interpretation o f the faith, and how it defended its
independence against state efforts to meddle w ith its internal affairs,
most notably at the synod o f 1593 against foe machinations o f the
Swedish-Polish king Sigismund 111 to force it back into R om an
Catholicism. The second essay contains the nucleus o f Söderblom’s
ecumenical theory: Since the time o f a m onolithic church
organization has irrevocably gone by, the goal must be a new corpus
evangelicorum. Such a body should not be uniform but preserve the
different traditions o f the various Protestant churches. They were to
be united in both “contest” and “cooperation.”‫؟‬
T he year 1912 brought foe next im portant change in Söderblom’s
life. H e had received a call to foe new chair o f history o f religions at
the Unwersity o f Leipzig in Germany. H e simultaneously kept his
professorship in Uppsala since he considered foe new assignment as
only tem porary B ut inevitably he was more removed from his
manifold activities back home. So this period turned out to be the
pinnacle o f Söderblom ’s scholarly career.
Leipzig was a boom ing industrial and commercial city o f 600,000
inhabitants w ith an extremely attractive cultural life. It was the
presentations o f Bach’s music, for one, w hich particularly appealed
to the Söderbloms. There were interesting members o f the faculty
like the church historian Albert H auck and foe systematic theologian
Ludwig Ihmels. O n the other hand, this was also foe time ofbrash
militaristic nationalism on the eve o f the Great War. So for all his
considerable success in teaching and his love for G erm an culture,
Söderblom never felt quite at hom e in the country.
O f his teaching program, it is the lectures on Comparative
Eschatology and on Holiness that stand out. B oth subjects were
carried through the w hole history o f religions. T he lecture on
eschatology was m uch more than a rehash o f his doctoral thesis. It
included, for instance, a thoroughgoing critique o f m odern
4 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

philosophers ofhistory such as Friedrich Nietzsche. However, more

im portant, even in Sdderblom ’s own estimation, was the lecture on
the idea o f holiness. H ere special attention was given to the
“p r i^ ti v e ” religions. These were thought by contem porary
researchers to provide the key to the essence o f religion itself.
Sdderblom did not share this view, w hich to a large extent was a
romantic reaction o f nineteenth century scholars to an increasingly
mechanistic and positivistic view on life. But he did consider the
notions o f mana and taboo as im portant keys to that problem. This
lecture became the basis o f his most im portant book in the field,
Gudstrons uppkomst, w hich appeared in Swedish in 1914 and in
G erm an in 1916 (as Das Werden des Gottesglaubens).10 M ore on that
below.
May 2 0 ,1914, produced a great surprise: Stiderblom’s nom ination
as archbishop o f Sweden. O nly weeks later, the First W orld War
broke out. This was more than just coincidence. It m eant that from
now on, Söderblom ’s church activities were inseparably ^ te rtw in e d
w ith his untiring efforts to help restore peace. H e rightly interpreted
the new turn o f world events as the most devastating catastrophe o f
m odern times, w hich marked the definitive end to the cultural
optimism o f the preceding perio d .”
Stiderblom was installed in his new office on N ovem ber 8, 1914.
His first official action was the publication o f a voluminous pastoral
letter.‘* In it he aimed at three things in particular. O ne, he stretched
out a hand o f dialogue to the strong conservative forces in his church
w ho were extremely skeptical o f his nom ination, w ithout however
compromising on his liberal convictions. Second, he praised social
reforms by the state as an indirect effect o f Christian ethics and tried
to w in over the estranged working class from their hostile attitude
towards religion. Third, and most importantly, he spoke o f the
daunting tasks that the new world situation posed to his country and
also his church. This part o f the letter was reinforced by the serm on
o f September 6 on “T he Two Gods” w hich belongs to the most
lucid texts we have o f him. H ere he severely criticizes the national
“gods” or idols, holding sway even in the churches o f the w arring
nations. Later, he chided the self-righteousness o f the neutral nations
as equally doom ed.13
 N A T H A N SO D ER B LO M (1866-1931) 43

In his new funetion Söderblom proved to be equally gifted for

pastoral eare and the administration o f a large organization. Probably
his most outstanding achievements were the thorough inspections
o f the congregations. H e had an excellent rapport w ith people o f all
walks o f life, and he could rem em ber for years the details o f many a
person he had m et only once. Equally im portant were his great
strides at opening up the rather stuffy church life both toward a
m ore natural relationship to the Free Churches and to the churches
o f the world.
This leads us to Sdderblom ’s ecumenical activities. The outbreak
o f the war had dem onstrated to him the necessity for the churches
in the neutral countries o f taking on the task o f mediation. This
concerned not only the peace appeals w hich they repeatedly issued
under Sdderblom ’s leadership. M ore immediately these churches
strove to bring together to the conference table church leaders from
the w arring countries. These activities m et w ith fierce resistance in
the w arring nations, not only during the war, but even afterwards.
M any people saw Stiderblom as part o f the problem because he had
criticized the war crimes o f both sides w ith equal severity. Y et it is
mostly due to his stubbornly following through w ith his plans that
finally, in 1925, some seven years after the war ended, that the first
world conference o f churches could take place in Stockholm.
That conference was the first big i^ ern atio n al m eeting o f the
“Life and W ork” branch o f the ecumenical movement. Söderblom
considered the other branch, “Faith and Order,” as quite useful; in
fact, he served as one o f its vice-presidents for several years. B ut
since he was convinced that the major differences between the
churches in theology and church constitution would be here to stay,
having a centuries-old development behind them, “Life and W ork”
always had priority for him. From this fact his adversaries w ithin
both R om an Catholicism and con serv a tiv e Protestantism derived
foe critical jibe that the conference lacked a theological foundation.
W e shall see that this is utterly wrong. B ut indeed, its prim ary goal
was to establish a basis for cooperation in coping with the tremendous
misery, both material and spiritual, that foe war had left behind.
Wisely, Söderblom had reached an agreement beforehand that the
hot question o f w ho was guilty o f the war was excluded from the
44 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

conference’s agenda, th e re fo re the conversations occurred in a

u p ris in g ly amiable atmosphere. This in itself can be counted as a
great success.
Understandably, though, tensions were not entirely absent. T he
situation was confounded by the fact that not only was the
o n fro n ta tio n o f nationalities a source o f irritation, but there was
also a deep chasm between two main theological traditions w ithin
Protestantism. This concerned the very principles for approaching
social and political problems. O n one side there was conservative
Lutheranism w ith its doctrine o f the orders o f creation. According
to that, governm ent was foe executor o f G od’s will and had to be
obeyed, almost regardless o f w hat it decreed. The Kingdom o f G od
w ould then have direct relevance only for the personal life o f
Christians, whereas worldly institutions had to follow their own
rules dictated by practical reason. The Anglo-Saxon line o f thought,
w hich was guided both by Calvinism and the American Social
Gospel, differed radically from that approach. C hurchm en o f this
school believed that foe K ingdom o f G od was a goal to be brought
about by social action. Stiderblom, a Lutheran but open to Calvinist
ideas, took an interm ediate position. For him, it w ent w ithout saying
that foe Kingdom o f God can only be brought about by G od
himself. However, Christianity proclaims that believers inspired by
the love o f G od will extend that love, not only to their personal
relationships, but also to society at large. Social and political
institutions as such cannot be regarded as foe w ork o f God but are
steeped in sinfulness and therefore in constant need o f being
improved. T he conference neither yielded a solution to the
theological problems, nor did it produce m uch in foe way o f tangible
results concerning the urgent practical needs. Y et it had laid foe
foundation for a more peaceful cooperation in foe future.
However, hopes for progress in this area were subdued considerably
during the com ing years. Nationalism increasingly grew in strength
once again and it finaliy led to the rise o f Fascism and National
Socialism w h ich for m any years b ro u g h t foe ecum enical
a o m p lis h m e n ts to nil. T he ecumenical m ovem ent itself also ricked
the necessary drive, particularly since Stiderblom,its energetic leader,
increasingly suffered poor health and was less and less able to
 N A T H A N SO DERB LO M (1866-1931 45

shoulder his enorm ous workload. The follow-up C ontinuation

Com m ittee did not work effieiently. And the next big conferenee in
Lausanne in 1927, in w hich Stiderblom took part, this time o f the
Faith and O rder branch, was a flop. It foundered because foe Anglo-
Catholic w ing o f the Anglican Church, w hich was strongly
represented there, had insisted on episcopacy as the d isp e n s a b le
presupposition for any kind o f church unity. In addition, the Vatican,
w hich had already refused to take part in foe Stockholm Conference,
u ^ ^ iv o c a lly doom ed the ecumenical m ovem ent as heretical in the
encyclical “^ r t a l i u m ánimos” in 1928 and prohibited Catholics in
no uncertain terms from participating in any o f its activities . ‫ب‬
As there was no significant success to be expected in foe field o f
ecumenism for the foreseeable future, Söderblom to a certain extent
was able again to turn to his scholarly interests. Even before
Stockholm, he had managed to produce a remarkable book on
Luther, based on life-long study o f foe R efo rm er’s writings. It
contains lectures delivered in Swedish churches mostly on the
occasion o f foe 400 ‫ ﻃ ﺄ‬anniversary o f the R eform ation in 1917.
Aiready its title arouses curiosity: Humor and Melancholy and Other
Studies in Luther .15 It is not, as one m ight surmise from that, a
psychological i^erp retatio n in foe strict sense. However, as
Stiderblom was convinced that religion is basically a personal
relationship to the holy, w ith all institutional aspects including
doctrine being only secondary, his aim was to locate the new
understanding o f the Christian faith firmly in L uther’s personal life.
So he made hearty use o f the sermons, the table talks and foe letters.
H um or represents Luther’s distance from him self and melancholy
represents his frequent tribulations. His central concern, Stiderblom
claimed, is w ith foe problem o f certainty o f faith w ithout the
mediation o f the church’s authority.
D uring his tenure as archbishop Sdderblom only infrequently
reverted to his proper field o f history o f religion. H ere he only was
able to publish a couple o f articles, maybe because he felt that he had
not been able to participate in foe ongoing debates for too long. H e
did find the time to summarize his life w ork in the Gifford Lectures
on “T he Living God,” w hich he delivered toward the very end o f
his life in 1931. However, he could only conceive and deliver the
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

form er half o f it before he died; o f the seeond half only an outline

and a few notes are extant in his reeords.^
B ut foe lull in foe eeumenical deYelopment seems to haYe
suggested to Sdderblom that he should devote some time to the
very core o f theology This he did in w riting a book on foe passion
o f Christ, Kristi pinas historia (“H istory o f C hrists Suffering”). It is
an interpretation o f the passion story for laity.17 O ne can also call it
a hterary w ork o f art. O n the face o f it, the book offers “only” an
interpretation o fth e Biblical narrative on the basis o f a sohd historical
exegesis. But it is conceived as a drama, a bit like a passion play, w ith
“acts” and “scenes.” There is a compilation o f texts ffom the Gospels
at the head o f each part w hich is assigned the function o fth e choir
in a Greek tragedy: announcing w hat is going to happen next. T he
text is interspersed w ith references to different views o f the passion
in the history o f devotional life and in literature and art, as well as
w ith comparisons to other religions, thus opening a w orld-w ide
perspective. In addition the author constantly refers to foe church’s
life today. There is a long passage on our participation in foe Lord’s
Supper. So foe “congregation” finds itself on foe “stage” too, as it
were. It is also represented by the many stanzas from hymns and
poems at foe end o f many passages. All o f this serves to express the
basic tenet o fth e book: the purpose o f C hrist’s vicarious suffering is
our salvation and that o f all hum ankind. It sets an end to all ritual
sacrifice as it actually is G od’s own love w hich sacrifices itself on the
Cross.
A fitting reward for an extraordinary career was the conferm ent
o f the N obel Peace Prize upon him in 1930. Söderblom probably
was foe only laureate in history w ho had know n Alfred N obel
personally H e had talked over the latter’s idea o f foe foundation
w ith him in Paris and buried him in San R em o in 1896. H e could
rem ind his listeners in his official speech that even N obel had
thought o f an international court o f arbitration and o f sanctions
against war.‘*
T he final years o f Söderblom ’s life were increasingly marked by
illnesses. H e had already had bleeding stomach ulcers in foe period
o f 1906— 1908, and he had a heart attack in ‫ل‬9 ‫ ﻗ ﻖ‬, wifo frequent
bouts o f angina pectoris in the following years. In July 1931, he
 N A T H A N SÖ DERB LO M (1866-1931) 47

suffered an onslaught o f intestinal obstruetion. Because o f the acute

danger to his life, the doctors had to decide for immediate surgery,
in spite o f the risk posed by the poor condition o f the patient’s
heart. The operation was successful, but two massive heart attacks
followed. Söderblom died on July 1 2 ,1931, w hen he was only sixty-
five years old. B ut he left a truly remarkable literary heritage.

Söderblom’s Works

Revelation

Söderblom ’s first im portant publication after his installment as

professor was a booklet on the nature o f revelation.19It was occasioned
by two lectures o f the G erm an orientalist Friedrich Delitzsch on
Babylon and the Bible, w ho asserted the moral and religious
superiority o f Babylonian culture over ancient Israel. H e concluded
that the O ld Testament could not lay claim to be based on divine
revelation because o f its many moral shortcomings/‫ ״‬This publication
had caused quite a stir in Germany and beyond. Söderblom replied
briefly on two points. First, there is no exact correspondence
betw een the development o f culture and o f religion, since a
m pernatural origin can be claimed only for the latter. Second,
revelation must not be identified w ith the verbal inspiration o f the
Bible or inform ation about a doctrine, as Delitzsch had done.
Rather, it is the divine itself w hich is revealed to the believer.
From this starting point Söderblom went on to unfold a theory o f
revelation w ith the aim o f determining Christianity’s locus in foe
world o f religions. For him the most plausible explanation o f the
existence o f religions is that they are not based on hum an invention
but on some kind o f divine initiative. However, as revelation enters a
cultural context, it takes on different shapes. Söderblom distinguished
between general and special revelation. General revelation is not what
o rth o d o x took foe term to mean, nor has it anything to do w ith the
abstract “natural religion” o f the Enlightenment. Rather, it takes on a
peculiar individuality in evety single historical religious collective.
Nonetheless, general revelation is represented by a specific type o f
religion that is characterized by foe contrast between nature and spirit.
48 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

Söderblom called these the rehgions o f culture and o f nature. Such

religions belong to clans, tribes, and nations. They are bound up w ith
tangible objects,such as holy locations,rites and customs,organizations
and their representatives, holy books and so on. O ne can therefore
also speak o ^ s titu tio n a l rehgions.
B ut there is a tendency in this type o f religion to radicalize the
contrast o f nature and spirit into the “dualism” o f finite and infinite.
It then becomes a “mysticism o f infinity” w hich is marked by an
essentially negative evaluation o f the world. Therefore its goal is to
redeem foe individual from suffering by dissolving it in infinity. The
most obvious example is foe nirvana o f Buddhism. T he goal here is
to be achieved by asceticism and exercises o f meditation. Such
religions are thus based on a mysticism o f exercise.
T hus far this seems to be a pretty clear description. However,
the term inology is not w ithout certain flaws. For example, the
classification o f Buddhism, o f all religions, as a religion o f culture,
even though its objective is to leave the w hole world behind it,
including culture, seems unfortunate.^ This is probably why
Sdderblom later abandoned that term inology O n foe other hand,
we have those religions w hich are based on special revelation. That
term is not to be identified w ith the biblical religions, nor is it a
term o f dogmatics, but one o f the phenom enology o f religions. It
denotes a kind o f revelation that occurs through a particular person,
foe founder o f a religion, at a particular time and place in history,
and entails something essentially new. Söderblom called these
religions prophetic or personal religions, such as Zoroastrianism,
Judaism, and Christianity. T heir godhead is not a nondescript
infinity but a “living G od” w ho acts in history and turns directly to
the heart o f the hum an person. T he guiding principle o f such
religions is the “dualism” o f good and evil. Therefore they put a
strong emphasis on ethics and foe conscience o f the behever. This
implies a positive attitude to the world as a good creation w hich is
entrusted to hum ankind for cultivating.
T he contrast between the two kinds o f religion is stark but not
absolute. So the institutional religions also are to some extent
personal in that they require w holehearted support. O n the other
hand, even personal religions cannot do w ithout an im titutional
 N A T H A N SO DERB LO M (1866-1931) 49

framework like tradition, symbolic actions, and the like. It is the

priorities that count. A case in point is the relationship between
R om an Catholicism and Protestantism. For the former, adherence
to the church as an institution is the prerequisite for participation in
salvation, whereas for Protestantism it is personal faith w hich is
primary. This faith does create a church institution, too, w hich is
indispensable for its social life in this world, but for the Protestant it
is secondary to foe com m unity o f believers and, like all hum an
products, o f only prelimfoary duration. Similarly, there are mom ents
o f m editation and o f “exercise” even in prophetic religions, but they
are to be strictly subordinated to the immediacy o f personal certainty.
O ne m ight add that foe relative right thus accorded even to a
mysticism o f infinity implies foe insight that a rigidly exclusive
preference o f prophetic religion w ould fore us into the trap o f
anthropom orphism . This is probably w hat Söderblom had in m ind
w hen he indicated a certain relativity to his distinction. Y et to my
knowledge he did not explicitly state that anywhere. So predom inant
was his orientation by the philosophy o f personality o f his great
m entor Erik Gustaf Geijer that he contented him self w ith just that
hint.
A further criterion for the distinction between types o f religions
is their view o f suffering. It is at this point that Buddhism and
Christianity come to represent foe exemplary opposites w ithin the
history o f religions. W hile foe Buddhist seeks to escape suffering,
aiming at a state o f infinite harmony, the Christian expressly
integrates it in foe road to salvation. Söderblom illustrates this point
w ith Luther’s tribulations, thereby implicitiy criticizing even some
te n d e n c ie s in contem porary P rotestan t liberal th e o lo g y

Holiness

Söderblom ’s most im portant feat in foe field o f history o f religion

is his discovery o f the idea o f holiness as basic to all religions, years
before R u d o lf O tto ’s famous book on The Idea ofthe Holy (1917). If
religion is based on revelation, not on hum an cunning, then its
origin is supernatural. This origin ought to be foe same for all
religions. It then cannot be equated w ith the notion o f God, since
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

n eith er B uddhism n o r prim itive religions w orship a G od.

Sdderblom ’s name for this supernatural origin is holiness. The
notion o f holiness thus is even more basie than the idea o f God. It
is that w hieh inspires utter fear and trembling as well as u ^ m ite d
trust and certainty. Söderblom stated this double character o f all
religion early on, almost in passing, in a book review, at that time still
w ithout using the very term o f holiness: “T he sentiments o f trust
and fear, accompanied by a cult and exerting a powerful influence
on all o f life, foe total o f feelings, actions, and concepts, w hich we
call religion . . .”22 Söderblom had flrst hit upon the notion o f
holiness in foe O ld Testament, o f course. In his first lecture on the
subject in Uppsala 1912, he still devoted more than half o f his time
to that source.23 O th er elements contributing to his understanding
o f holiness were his deep religious experiences that solved foe crisis
he had been suffering in his student days, as well as his intensive
study o f M artin Luther.
These facts notwithstanding, it is not appropriate to say that
Söderblom had tried to force a notion from the Judeo-C hristian
tradition on the w hole world o f religion. It was, as we have already
m entioned, particularly his thorough study o f the ^ im ltiv e religions
that provided him w ith plenty o f other pertinent samples. This
subject was attractive for him n o tju st because it was so predom inant
in contem porary research, but also because it was closely related to
Christian m issfons. It was missionaries to w hom the bulk o f the
knowledge o f those religions was still owed. For a scholar in
comparative religions whose goal it was to discover the very essence
o f religion as such, that entailed an enticem ent to inquire for
similarities despite foe vast cultural differences. However, Söderblom
w ent far beyond that and searched the w hole world o f religions in
order to be sure o f the result.
For that purpose, Söderblom also had to examine critically foe
many com peting theories o f his day w hich claimed to define foe
essence o f all religions by one single scheme: animism, totemism,
and others. I cannot here reproduce this highly complex debate.**
Suffice it to say that Söderblom found a grain o f truth in all o f them
but deem ed them deficient altogether in their single-cause simplicity:
N o key opens all doors, as he often said.
 N A T H A N SÖ D E R B L O M (1866-1931

For his own solution he claimed two basic presuppositions. O ne

is revelation. This is directed not only against David H u m e’s theory
o f religion and, even more so, against Ludwig Feuerbachs scathing
criticism, but m ore specifically against a very successful author o f his
ow n time, the French sociologist Émile D urkheim . This scholar
derived religion from the desire o f primitive society to establish a
basis for m inim um moral authority. In effect, religion was for him
the self-deification o f hum an society.^ In the excessive nationalism
o f his day, Stiderblom may have seen the practical consequences o f
D u r k h e im ’‫ ؟‬view .
It has been concluded from Söderblom’s criticism ofD urkheim that
he was not interested in the social aspect o f religion. N othing could be
farther from the truth. Religious rites and customs played a significant
role in his teaching, let alone his lively interest in the imtitutional shape
o f the Christian church.26 H e did insist, however, that though religion
certainly does have important social functions, it cannot be defined by
these but exceeds all fonctions it might perchance be serving.
T he second presupposition is that religion, in spite o f its close
relation to ethics, by all means is more than just the foundation o f
morals or a sort o f meta-ethics. Rather, Stiderblom reminds us o f
Schleiermacher’s injunction that religion is a realm all o f itself,
neither separated f r o m ‫ ﻛ ﻤ ﺂ آ ا‬$ or rationality, nor identical to either
o f them. In this respect, he has gone through a process o f development.
At the onset o f his earliest article on holiness, he at first stressed the
genuinely religious character o f the notion. But as he w ent on, he
so m uch emphasized religion’s function o f reinforcing foe ‫ا ^ ﻣ ﺂ أ ل‬
imperative, that in the end it appears to be some kind o f meta-ethics
after all.^ This was very m uch in hne w ith contem porary N eo -
Kantian philosophy o f religion.^ B ut in the following years he
gradually elaborated more clearly foe specifically religious character
o f hohness and established it as the one concept that defines all
religion. In a book w ritten in 1910 one characteristic sentence can
be found w hich he frequently repeated: “A pious person is the one
w ho seriously considers something as holy.’’^ H ere he differentiates
betw een a m ore ethically-oriented (Kant) and a m ore esthetically-
oriented approach (Goethe); above these, he places Luther w ho is
said to represent a truly existential religious attitude.
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

Definite clarity on this point was, howeYer, not reached before

foe Leipzig years. This was w hen Sdderblom not only w rote his
fundamental article on Holiness for foe renow ned Encyclopedia of
Religion and Ethics, but also presented his lecture on holiness in a
completely new version.30 H e now made more extensive use than
before o f the terms taboo and mana. H um an religion is nothing but
unconditional submission to the mysterious power o f holiness. This
pow er consists o f the threat o f annihilation and at foe same time the
source o f life. T he basic feeling it incites in humans is awe.3‫؛‬
Ultimately there is a tendency in the history o f religions to overcome
the ubiquitous distinction between “holy” ‫“ س‬profane” in the
direction ofom ctification o f the w hole world. Sdderblom illustrated
all this w ith an overwhelming wealth o f examples. H e thereby
showed that his concept had definitely grown beyond being just a
synthesis o f O ld Testament and primitive religions.
There still is a certain one‫־‬sidedness in this lecture which is already
indicated in its heading: it works primarily w ith the notion o f taboo
(9 out o f 20 paragraphs), much less with mana, so that holiness appears
to be inspiring primarily fear. “Mercy” is declared to be only secondary
in this context (pp. 105—109). This is corrected in the book Gudstrons
uppkomst, w hich contains the definitive version o f Söderblom’s theory
o f holiness. N ow it is the positive power o f mana w hich takes the
lead.^ The aspect o f fear by no means disappears. O n the contrary, it
continues to serve as a strong defense against any bland religion o f
culture or naive complacency. But this latest turn did enable Söderblom
to w ork out the creative capacity o f holiness which in the final analysis
supercedes its destructive capacity.
It may be instructive to add a short com parison w ith R u d o lf
O tto ’s book The Idea o f the H olyJ 3This book obviously came after
Söderblom ’s main contributions to the subject; O tto had already
reviewed Gudstrons uppkomst in its Swedish version, and in some
ways he built upon the ideas elaborated there. However, he had
been inquiring on foe same track even earlier. Apart from the
question o f priority there is also a difference in content. W hat O tto
called the H oly is a synthesis o f the irrational N um inous (divine)
w ith rationality (this term taken in a very wide sense). It is this
synthesis w hich aroused O tto ’s interest (compare the books subtitle).
 N A T H A N SÖ D ER B LO M (1866-1931)

a synthesis w hich deveiops along w ith culture in the course o f

history until it reaches its peak in Christianity So the decisive
m otivation obviously comes from Christian theology, not so m uch
from comparative religion. For Söderblom on the other hand, the
holy is that w hich O tto called the “N m ^ o u C ’ Therefore, in his
view the holy can be subject neither to any kind o f synthesis or
development, because it is the supernatural itself. It is foe hum an
beings confrontation w ith this destructive and creative transcendent
power w hich attracted Söderblom ’s attention. H e was thereby better
able than O tto to avoid any domestication o f the idea o f the holy.
This is why Gustaf Aulén was probably right in considering
Söderblom ’s concept superior to that o f his Germ an colleague.34

Mediation

T he holy must be mediated in some way if it is to be understood

by humans. Having excluded synthesis as a means to that end,
Stiderblom suggested a dialectical process o f contest and cooperation
between foe various religions w hich keeps occurring throughout all
o f history. W hen and how this process reaches its goal must be left
to God, even though Christians are personally convinced that their
religion will be vindicated in the end. This basic openness
recommends Söderblom ’s concept as conform ing to the reality o f a
pluralistic world o f religions.
This idea o f “contest” and “cooperation” was originally taken not
from the science o f religions but from social science. Söderblom
borrow ed foe form er term from foe British social philosopher
Benjamin Kidd.33 It had been Kidd’s contention that in foe general
struggle for survival the race w ith foe best religiously-based moral
system would survive, and that was to his m ind foe Anglo-Saxons’
system. Söderblom did not buy foe Darwinist and racist implications
o f this treatise, and he added foe idea o f cooperation for good
measure. H e did, however, use the term o f “contest” as one o f the
key notions o f his social theory.
Söderblom first applied that idea to foe social problems o f his day,
as indicated above. Clearly in accord w ith foe G erm an N aum ann
group, he directed it against both exploitative capitalism and the
54 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

ideology o f reYolutionary elass struggle. Instead he pleaded for

peaceful, non-violent negotiations between labor and management
(later to he called cooperation), for union power and gradual
elimination o f paternalism, better housing and working conditions.
This does not preclude strikes which are sometimes unavoidable.
But the negotiating table should be preferred if possible.^
In the following years he extended the use o f the term to cover
all kinds o f social relationships: to religions (especially in the context
o f missions), to Christian denominations, to nations. In all those
cases, he com bined it w ith “cooperation” or one o f its synonyms . ‫ال‬
By this extension Sdderblom made several im portant implications
w hich must be pointed out exphcidy. For one thing, he made rehgion
a subject not only o f the science o f rehgion but also o f his social
philosophy. That means that religion in spite o f its indispensable base
in personal experience also is a social phenom enon as a collective
individuality. It is in this latter respect that it is involved in contest and
cooperation. Second, foe connotations o f contest or competition are
not, as Sdderblom’s biographer Sundkler would have it, limited to
something as harmless as a sporting contest.^ Rather, they include
even violent conflicts such as war. The point here is that such conflicts
must be defosed as quickly and effectively as possible, so that
competition can really be coupled w ith cooperation.
A few more remarks are necessary on contest and cooperation in
the ecumenical context. It is here that these notions have come to
play their most im portant role. N o t surprisingly, it is also in this area
that foe most grievous misunderstandings o f Sdderblom ’s theory
have occurred, w ith consequences that in part influence even
current debates on church unity. It is a w ell-know n fact that
Söderblom often lam ented the separations and disunity o f the
Christian church and w orked hard for decades to overcome th em .
However, the question is w hat sort o f unity it is that he wanted to
be installed.
It may be taken for granted that in criticizing disunity, it was very
m uch the polemics and even dow nright hatred so com m on between
R o m an Catholics and Protestants at the time that provoked
Sdderblom ’s criticism, as well as the sometimes strained relations
betw een foe Lutheran state church and foe “free churches” (Baptists,
 N A T H A N SO D ER B LO M (1866-1931)

Pentecostals, etc.) in his own country. It does not follow from this,
however, that his goal was one single uniform super-church the
world over. O n the contrary, that is the R om an Catholic ideal o f
church unity For Söderblom, his basic notions o f contest and
cooperation clearly show that in his vision o f unity the different
denom inations w ould continue to exist. It is not variety as such
w hich constituted the problem; separations o f different church
bodies sometimes even tu rn out to be inevitable, as in the case o f the
R eform ation, even though Luther had never actually w anted to
found a new church institution. Besides, as a historian o f religion
Söderblom knew very well that no large world religion has ever
been able to maintain a m onolithic organization in foe long run. So
w hat he aimed at was a “unity in variety.”^
Söderblom ’s earliest m odel o f such a unity may have been the
Massachusetts conference that he had attended as a young student.
A nother link is an essay by the G erm an church historian A dolf
Harnack. It uses the picture o f a garden where there is a residence
for each o f the Christian denominations. These have their different
accommodations but share com m on responsibility for foe garden/‫״‬
Similarly, Söderblom stated that the unity o f the churches consisted
in their com m on faith in Christ, whereas foeir jo in t re^onsibility
m eant confronting the misery in the world. In this way, Protestantism
could justly claim its own kind o f universality or catholicity, w ith
equal legitimacy as foe Greek O rthodox and the R o m an churches.
This is w hat Söderblom called “evangelic catholicity.”**Those three
large representatives o f foe Christian tradition must be able to
coexist peacefully^ The only adequate organizational structure for
church unity then is some sort o f federation, something like the
Federal Council ofC hurches in the U nited States. In d e e d Söderblom
as early as in 1919 launched foe idea ofaW orld Council ofC hurches.43
U niform ity o f doctrine and organization, on the other hand, could
only be achieved by either force or hypocrisy. N either o f these is an
option to w hich Protestants could or should agree. However,
Söderblom strongly emphasized that the com bination o f contest
and cooperation must be im bued w ith love.44
The great test o f these ideas was the Conference o f Life and W ork
in Stockholm in 1925. Söderblom had conceived o f it all along as
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

the ehurehes beeom ing the Yanguard o f reconciliation betw een the
nations. H e even thought o f the Christian faith as the “soul” o f the
League o f Nations. This organization had to establish an international
order oflaw. Such an order was, to Stiderblom’s mind, a continuation
o fG o d ’s creation. In order to be that,it needed a religious foundation.
It appears that church unity (o fth e k in d ju st described) was to him
no less than a continuation o f G ods revelation in Christ. This
parallelism between the League and ecumenism does not entail,
however, that it is the church w hich should be the Leagues soul, as
a Swedish churchm an has suggested.4s Söderblom had thought o f a
religious, not an ecclesiastical basis for international law. W hether or
not there was any chance o f the Christian faith to be accepted as
such by the League is, o f course, open to debate, to say the least. For
the League consisted not only o f (nominally) Christian nations and
its dependencies but also o f non-C hristian ones such as Persia,
China, and Japan. But before discarding this asjust a relic o f the age-
old dream o f a “ Christian world,” one should rem em ber that
Stiderblom had, in an interesting little booltiet o f 1919, uttered the
hope that religion m ight undergo a thorough renew al.^The world
catastrophe o f the war had caused immense suffering and thereby
destroyed the previous century’s illusion o f infinite progress towards
a better world. So it was the religion o f the Cross that Söderblom
hoped could serve as a m ore adequate basis for m odern life than
o ld -tim e liberalism .

Söderblom’s Legacy

Söderblom was, like everyone else, a child o f his time. But he was
also one o f those geniuses able to glimpse beyond the confines o f
their immediate present. Therefore it does not appear futile to raise
the question w hat legacy this m an’s w ork may have for our own
time. First, Söderblom understood his phenomenology o f religion as a
comparative study o f religions w ith foe aim o f getting a clear picture
not only o f w hat distinguishes them but also o f w hat they have in
com m on, in order to get an idea o f w hat religion as such really is.
This search appears to have largely been abandoned in the field o f
history o f religion. This is due to foe pervasive suspicion that it is
 N A T H A N SO DERB LO M (1866-1931) 57

guided by an illegitimate interest o f Cbristian theology. Therefore

many seholars in foe field have reverted to the nineteenth-eentury
ideal o f “pure” or “objeetive” seience. However, foe ideal o f absolute
objeetivity has been shown to be an epistemologieal mirage by
nineteenth-century philosophers like W ilhelm Dilthey and by
^ n tie f o - c e n tu r y sociology o f knowledge. The subconscious
romanticism o f the frantic search for the essence o f religion in
primitive religions is a vivid illustration o f the point. T he insistence
o f some researchers that religion has to be understood e^lusively as
a stratagem o f humans for reaching mundane ends is no pro o f o f
objectivity. Söderblom seems to me to be right in com paring that
sort o ^ n ‫؛‬mtrality” to an unmusical person w ho sets out to judge a
piece o f music. Instead he claims that any historian o f religion must
have some kind o f religious experience. Besides, m odern empiricism
tends to make religion nothing but a part o f psychology, sociology, or
ethnology W hat kind o f part? W hat is religion as such? For all the
wealth o f empirical d a ta -w h ic h has increased tremendously since
Söderblom ’s day, making some o f his findings obsolete— one often
looks in vain for a clear-cut answer to such simple questions.
Söderblom ’s own description o f religion as being gripped by foe
holy and proclaiming it in w ord and deed is, to my mind, as true
today as w hen it was first stated. In addition, it is a timely antidote
against the blandness and superficiality o f m uch that calls itself
religion in the W estern world today.
In Söderblom’s time, European societies were not really pluralistic
in religious terms. Yet his advice, secondly, to treat religious pluralism
by means o f a com bination o f contest and cooperation seems
astonishingly appropriate, even today. It is threatened, however, ftom
two quarters. O ne is F u d ^ e n ta lis m , w hich at Söderblom’s time was
pretty much limited te the U nited States (?rinceton theology) and
not yet prone to use pressure or even force in order to fhrther its
agenda. But even here, Söderblom’s idea still defines the desirable
m ethod o f inter-religious dialogue. To be sure, foere are instances in
w hich worldly authorities will have to intervene w ith some sort o f
coercion in order to preserve rehgious fteedom. The other threat
comes from secularism, which has spread so much more widely in foe
Western world since Söderblom’s time. Here foe problem is that o f
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

engaging people in a dialogue and eooperation that they do not seem

to haYe any interest in T ^ s may turn out to he just as diffieult as
inducing fundamentalists to a measure o f tolerance However, even
this phenom enon does not speak against Soderblom’s overall view
W hat has been said about the relationship betw een religions
analogously applies to that betw een the Christian denom inations It
IS m uch to be regretted that Soderblom ’s ingenious idea o f evangelic

catholicity, thirdly, has been either forgotten or distorted to mean a

synthesis o f Protestant “freedom o f Christian people” w ith R om an
Catholic belief in church authority This IS w hat Friedrich H eller
once construed Soderblom ’s idea to mean 47 Today all too many
Protestants o f different persuasions seem to adhere to that kind o f
o ^ m o ro n It seems to me particularly obvious m the talks conducted
betw een foe Lutheran W orld Federation and the R o m an C hurch It
does not take prophetic inspiration to predict that such talks will not
get anywhere as long as this problem IS not tackled M eanwhile It IS
w orth rem em bering that It IS the W orld Council o f Churches w hich
thus far has followed Soderblom ’s concept fairly closely, and has
fared far better m this respect
As for foe “Christian soul” that Soderblom dem anded for foe
League ofN ations, finally It seems obvious that fois idea IS definitely
dated Instead, foe pairing o f contest and cooperation should be
applied to the different world views guiding foe members o f the
U nited Nations Y et recourse to some basic ideas com m on to all
major religions like foe obligation to procure peace certainly IS the
remaining grain o f truth o f Soderblom ’s proposal
In sum, there IS still a lot to be learned from the great Swedish
scholar and churchman, and I hope that w ith improving accessibility
o f the sources he will be read more widely m foe future 48

NOTES
1 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , J e su bergspredikan och vàr tld ( S t o e k h o lm p A N o r s t e d t ,
1 8 9 8 ), R elig io n e n och den sociala utvecklingen ( S t o c k h o lm B o h le n a n d C o , 1 8 9 8 ), G e r -
m a n tr a n s la tto n D ie R elig io n u n d die s o zia le E n tw ic k lu n g ( F r e ^ u r g 1 B J C B M ohr,
18 9 8 )
2 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , L a P iefu tu re d ’apres le M a zd é ism e a la lumière des croyances
paralleles des autres religions E tu d e d'eschatologie comparee (Paris E L e r o u x , 1901)
3 B e n g t S u n d k ler , N a th a n Soderblom H is Life and W ork (L u n d G le e ru p , 1 9 6 8 ), 6 1 ff
 N A T H A N SO D ER B LO M (1866-1931)

4 Papal e n c y c lic a l b y P iu s X , Pascendi dom im ci gregts (T h e V atican, S e p te m b e r 8,

7 ‫ل‬9 ‫ ) ه‬D e n z in g e r 3 4 7 5 -3 5 0 0
5 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , Religionsproblem et m om katohcism och protestantism (S to c k -
h o lm H G e b e r s, 1910)
6 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , S tu d iet av religionen (S to c k h o lm L jus, 1 9 0 8 ,2 n d an d 3rd e d
1916) R e p r in t e d m E E h n m a rk , e d , O m stu diet av religionen (L u n d G le e r u p s, 1951), 4 9 —
152 G e r m a n tra n sla tio n in D L a n g e, e d , N a th a n Soderblom, A usgew ahlte W erke, v o l I ( G o t -
t in g e n V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t, 2 0 1 1 ), 1 6 5 - 2 5 2 N o t ava ilab le m E n g lish
7 E v a S to h la n d e r -A x e ls so n , E tt brannglasfor tldens stràlar, P h D d i s s , L u n d U n iv e r -
sity (2 0 0 1 ), esp 2 1 0 iT ,a n d 2 2 2
8 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m ,“ O n th e C h a ra cter o f th e C h u r c h o f S w e d e n ” an d “ O n th e
S o u l o f th e C h u r c h o f S w e d e n , ” The C onstructive Q uarterly 3 (1915), 2 8 1 -3 1 0 an d 5 0 6 -4 5
S w e d is h v e r s io n Svenska kyrkans kropp och sjal (S to c k h o lm P A N o r s te d t , 1916)
9 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m ,“ O n th e S o u l o f th e C h u r c h o f S w e d e n ,” 5 4 4 F or m o r e o n
th e se te r m s, see b e lo w
10 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , G udstrons uppkom st (S to c k h o lm H u g o G erb ers, 1914) G e r -
m a n tra n sla tio n D a s Werden des G ottesglaubens (L e ip z ig H in r ic h s , 1916)
11 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , Varldskatastrofens inverkan (1 9 2 4 ), m his Tal och skrifter, v o l 4
(S to c k h o lm Á h le n & S o n er , 1933), 2 4 9 - 2 6 1
12 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , H erdabref (U p p sa la F C A sk er b e r g , 1914)
13 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , D e tvâ gudarne, in N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , N a r stunderna vaxla
och strida, v o l 2 (S to c k h o lm 1935), G e r m a n tra n sla tio n A usgew ahlte W erke B d I , 1 2 7 -3 7 ,
id e m , N eu tra l egenrattfardighet m K ristendom en och vàr tld 12 (1916), 1 1 6 -1 2 2 E n g lis h “ O u r
S p iritu a l P e r il as N e u tr a ls,” T he C onstructive Q uarterly 5 (1917, 9 1 -9 6
14 Papal e n c y c h c a l, M ortalium am m os (T h e V atican , 1928) in A cta A postolicae Sedis
2 0 (1 9 2 8 ), 5 - 1 6
15 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , H u m o r och melankoli och andra Lutherstudier (S to c k h o lm
S v e r ig e s k ristlig a stu d en tro relses, 1919) A G e r m a n tra n sla tio n IS m p rep a ra tio n as part o f a
4 - v o lu m e e d itio n o f Selected W orks N o t available m E n g lish
16 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , D e n levande G u den grundform er av personlig religion (S to c k -
h o lm S v en sk a K yrkans D ia k o n isty r e lse s B o k fb r la g , 1932), E n g lis h The L ivin g G o d (L o n -
d o n O x fo r d U n iv e r s ity Press, 1933)
17 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , K ris ti p in a s historia Var H erres Jesu K risti lidande E n p a s ‫־‬
sionsbok f o r stilla veckan och andra veckor (S to c k h o lm , 1928) G e r m a n tran slation in N s ,
A u sgew ah lte W erke, v o l 3 (G o t tin g e n V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t, 2 0 1 3 )
18 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , K yrk a n sfred sp lik t, dess vagar och m âl (S to c k h o lm 1931), 3
19 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , Uppenbarelsereligion (S to c k h o lm S v en sk a K yrkans D ia k o m -
styrelses B o k fo r la g , 19 0 3 , 2 d e d , ‫ل‬9 3 ‫ ) م‬E n g lis h tra n sla tio n The N atu re o fR e v e la tio n ( N e w
¥ o r k O x fo r d U n iv e r s ity P ress, 1933)
20 F r ie d r ic h D e litz s c h , B abel und B ibel (S tu ttg a rt D e u ts c h e V e rlags-A n stalt, ‫ل‬9 ‫ ه‬3 ‫م‬
2 d e d , 1904) F r ie d r ic h D e litz s c h (1 8 5 0 -1 9 2 2 ) w a s th e s o n o f th e O ld T esta m en t sch o la r
Franz D e litz s c h (1 8 1 3 -9 0 )
21 T h is has b e e n p o in te d o u t b y th e D u tc h a u th o r j M v a n V e e n , N athan Soderblom
L even en denken van e e n godsdiensthistoncus (A m ste r d a m H j P a n s, 72 ‫ ل‬9 4 ‫ه‬ 169 (, ‫ل‬
22 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , r e v ie w o f E S ie c k e , D ie Urreligion der G erm anen in R e v u e de
Vhistoire des religions 4 2 ( 2 7 8 5 ‫ل‬9 ‫ه‬
- 2 7,(0 F r e n c h m th e o r ig in a l H e r e 2 7 7
23 C a r l-M a r tin E d sm a n , M an n iskan och det heliga (S to c k h o lm C arlsson , 1995), 236
 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

24 F o r a fuUer p r e se n ta tio n , se e m y b io g ra p h y , N a th a n Soderblom und seine Z e it

(G o ttin g e n V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t, 2 0 1 1 ), 2 2 7 - 2 4 3 , o r th e m o n o g ra p h ic treatm ents b y
E ric j S h a rp e, C om parative R eligion (L aSalle o p e n C o u r t, ‫ل‬9 7 ‫)ق‬, an d H a n s G K ip p e n b e r g ,
D ie E ntdeckung der Religionsgeschichte (M u n ic h c H B eck , 1997)
25 É m ile D u r k h e im , L esfo rm es élémentaires de la vie religieuse, 5 th e d (Paris P resses
U n iv e r sita ir es d e F ran ce, 1 9 6 8 ), 2 4 , 5 0 - 6 8 T h is w o r k w as o r ig in a lly p u b lis h e d m 1912 m
Paris The Elem entary Forms o fR elig io u s Life A S tu d y in Religious Sociology (L o n d o n A lle n &
U n w m , 1912)
26 S e e th e list o f le c t u r e s c o m p ile d b y B e n g t S u n d k ler, N a th a n Soderblom, 62
27 S e e N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , “ H e lig , H e lig h e t,” m N ordisk fam iljebok, konversations
lexikon (S to c k h o lm A k tie b o la g e t F a m ilje b o k en s fo r la g , 1 9 0 9 ), I I 3 1 0 -1 4
28 S e e , fo r e x a m p le , W ilh e lm W in d e lb a n d , D a s H eilige S k iz z e z u r R eligionsphiloso-
p h ie (T u b in g e n J C B M o h r [Paul S ie b e c k ], 1911)
29 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , R eligionsproblem et (1910), 388 S e e also N a th a n S o d e r b lo m ,
D e r evangelische B egriffeines H eiligen (G reifsw a ld L B a m b e r g , 1925)
30 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , “ H o lin ess,” Encyclopedia ofR ehgion and Ethics ( 73 6,( 3 ‫ل‬9 ‫ل‬Ï - 4 L
lec tu r e m a n u scrip t, “ H e ilig k e it” - L ectu re m a n u srip t, e m s c h lie ß h c h T abu, u n rein , rein, etc
(L eip zig , su m m e r te r m 1913) · u n p u b lish ed , N S S c , M S 1913, b o x 4 2 , U m v Library U p p sala
31 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m ,“ H o lin e s s ,” E R E (1913), 6 731
32 S e e th e G e r m a n v e r s io n , N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , D a s Werden des G ottesglaubens
(1916), 3 3 -1 1 3
33 R u d o l f O tto , The Idea o f the H o ly A n Inquiry into the N on-ration al Factor in the
Idea o fth e D iv in e in R ela tio n to the R a tio n a l ( N e w Y o r k O x fo r d U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , ‫ل‬9 5 ‫ ) ه‬T h e
G e r m a n o r ig in a l w a s p u b lis h e d m 1917
34 G u s ta f A u lé n , D e t teologiska nutidslaget in Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift 5 (1 9 2 9 ),
1 1 9 -1 4 6 (h ere 127)
35 B K id d , Social E volution (L o n d o n M a c m illa n and C o , 1894) S o d e r b lo m w r o te
a lo n g r e v ie w o f It m F r e n c h (32 p a g e s‫ )؛‬w h ic h , h o w e v e r , w as n e v e r p u b lis h e d , p r o b a b ly
b e c a u s e o f Its le n g th T h e draft su rv iv es m his reco rd s, N S S M S 1897
36 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , R eligionen och den sociala utveckhngen (1 8 9 8 ), 1 2 6 -1 2 9 , G e r -
m a n v e r s io n 7 4 - 7 6
37 F o r r e lig io n s N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , R eligionsproblem et (1910), 453,M tf5i0«e«5 m otiv
och kulturvarde, in N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , U r religionens historia (S to c k h o lm 1915), 1 7 0 -1 9 9
(h ere 197), fo r C h r istia n d e n o m in a tio n s O n the Soul o fth e Church o f Sw eden (1915), 5 4 4 f f ,
fo r n a tio n s D e tvâ gudarne, in N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , N a r stunderna vaxla och strida, v o l 2
(S to c k h o lm 1935), 1 0 3 -1 1 2 (h ere 1 0 6 ,1 0 9 )
38 S u n d k ler , N a th a n Soderblom, 6 9
39 N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , C hristian F ellowship or the U n ited Life and W ork o f C hristen-
dom ( N e w Y o r k R e v e l, 19 2 3 ), 21
40 A d o lf H a r n a c k , “ P ro testa n tism u s u n d K a th o liz ism u s in D e u ts c h k in d ,” m A d o lf
v o n H a r n a c k , R ed en u n d A u fsa tze , N F 1 (G iesse n , 1911), 2 2 5 - 2 5 0
41 N a t h a n S o d e r b lo m , “ E v a n g e lis c h e K a th o liz ita t,” m F estschrift A D e issm a n n
(T u b in g e n J C B M o h r [Paul S ie b e c k ], 1 9 2 7 ), 3 2 7 -3 3 4
42 T h is has n o t h in g to d o w it h th e s o -c a lle d b r a n c h th e o r y T h a t IS an id e a d e -
s ig n e d b y th e A n g lic a n W ih ia m p‫؛‬d m e r in 1833, th e p o in t o f w h ic h w as th at th e “b r a n c h e s ”
w e r e th e o ld e p is c o p a l c h u r c h e s T h e c r ite r io n fo r u n ity th u s w as an in s titu tio n a l o n e ,
w h ic h S o d e r b lo m alw ays r o u n d ly r e je c te d C f O D C C 2 32 ,9 9 7 ‫آل‬
 N A T H A N SO DERB LO M (1866-1931)

43. T h e first in sta n c e 1 k n o w o f IS a le tte r to J o h a n n e s K o lm o d in o n M a rc h 8 , 1919

(N .S . e c u m e n ic a l c o lle c t io n , U n iv . L ibrary U p p sa la ); th e first p r e se n ta tio n in p r in t w as in
Evangelisk katohcitet in: E . L e h m a n a n d o th e r s, E m g knstendom , K yrkan s enhet 7 (1919), 6 5 -
126; h e r ep ea ted It m “ T h e C h u r c h a n d In te r n a tio n a l G o o d w ill,” m : T he C ontem porary
R e v ie w 116 (1919), 3 0 9 -3 1 3 .
44. N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , C hristian F ellowship (1 9 2 3 ), 1 5 5 -1 8 0 .
45. S v e n -E r ik B ro d d , ،،T h e C h u r c h as th e S o u l o fE u r o p e a n C ivilization . A rch b ish op
N . S o d e r b lo m o n C h u r c h a n d S o c ie ty , in K irchliche Zeitgeschichte 4 (1 9 9 1 ), 1 2 8 -1 3 8 . T h is
IS h ig h -c h u r c h w is h fu l th in k in g .

46. N a th a n S o d e r b lo m , G â VI m o t religionens fo rn y e lse ? ( S to c k h o lm : S v e r ig e s

K risth g a S tu d e n tr o r e lse s, 1919). G e r m a n translation : A usgew ahite W erke B d. 2 ,1 3 9 - 6 3 .
47. F r ie d r ic h H e lle r , Evangelische K a th o liz ita t (M u n ic h : R e in h a r d t, 192 6 ), 152, 163,
172- 175·
48. 1 have m r e c e n t years m a d e s o m e strides to m e n d th e so rr y state o f affairs s o m e -
w h a t, a lth o u g h o n ly p a rtly m E n g lish . S e e N . Soderblom, B rev— Lettres— Briefe— Letters
(G o ttin g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t, 2 0 0 6 ), a c o lle c t io n fr o m his c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b o t h
in th e o r ig in a l la n g u a g es a n d an E n g lish translation; th e b io g r a p h y o f 2 0 1 1 (n o te 2 4 ab ove),
w h ic h is b a se d o n a w id e array o f o r ig in a l so u r ce s, in c lu d in g u n p u b lish e d o n e s , an d fin a lly
an o n g o in g series o f s e le c te d so u rces in G e r m a n tra n sla tio n , A usgew ahite W erke (G o ttin g e n :
V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t).
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.