Democracy as a basic structure in organisational life is a given in most Western NGOs. However, church doctrine challenges the Montesquieuan principle that the body of the people possess the supreme power. Still, with reference to the Norwegian case, Helge Nylenna argues that churches, like other NGOs, can be democratic
The Loop's series on the Science of Democracy seeks to describe marginalised concepts of democracy. As part of this mission, it's relevant to discuss the theological and philosophical foundations of democracy within the Church of Norway (CoN).
All organisations, including churches, operate in a context. Each is the product of a society that influences the way the organisation unfolds. Though many churches and denominations are transnational, both geographical and cultural elements vary and create distinct practices. Lutheran churches in India and Ethiopia operate in different cultures to Nordic ones.
Until the disestablishment of the state church in 2012, CoN was officially an organisational expression of the religion of the Norwegian state. The Constitution of 1814 named the Evangelical-Lutheran faith as the official religion of the country. As a state church in the Nordic tradition, it can trace the linkage between church and state back to the christening of Norway in the 11th century.
Through the 20th century, the Church of Norway has developed a range of democratic elected bodies
However, since the latter half of the 19th century, Norway has seen an increased emphasis on freedom of religion and the secularisation of society. Migration has also contributed to greater cultural and religious diversity.
As a result, while remaining a traditional state church, CoN developed official democratic church bodies. Thus, the church organisation, to a large extent, became responsible for handling its own affairs. Previously, it operated within a reality in which the King and his ministers, in cooperation with the clergy, ran the church. But by the end of the 20th century, there were established local, regional, and national democratic elected bodies.
In the church elections of autumn 2019, roughly 8,000 persons were elected to 1,200 parochial church councils. Meanwhile, just under 100 were elected to 11 diocesan councils, which combined constitute the General Synod.
What, then, is the basis for a church democracy? CoN traces the ideological basis for democracy to the teachings of Martin Luther and the idea of universal priesthood. Luther argued against the notion of clergy as mediators of God’s grace. Instead, baptism restored the broken bonds between God and man.
Thus, every baptised person is a priest, called to serve God in their way. Through this Lutheran doctrine, all lay people are equipped to contribute to the governing of the church. However, CoN was not democratic from the moment of the Reformation onwards. Instead, when democratic ideals became prominent in society during the mid-19th century, they also made an impact within the church.
When the people were given a voice in the political sphere, it felt strange to be governed from above by church and/or state church authorities
Church commission, 1987
Writing about the cooperation between clergy and lay society in 1987, a church commission wrote that, 'When the people were given a voice in the political sphere, it felt strange to be governed from above by church and/or state church authorities'. At the same time, God and Scripture remain the absolute authorities within the church. Therefore, one cannot just transfer political democratic ideals into the church.
The commission noted that the principles of natural law, wherein the sum of each individual constitutes the supreme power, could lead the church astray in a worst-case scenario. However, they connected the notion of ‘God’s people’ as an expression not of ethnicity or heritage, but of all baptised people carrying out the mission provided by Jesus, to the workings of democracy.
The commission also related the participation of lay people in the governing of the church to the Lutheran doctrine of clergy, as given in Confessio Augustana article V. The democratic bodies within CoN have from the very beginning included representatives of the ministry of teaching the gospel and administrating the sacraments. For instance, when the parochial church councils were established in 1920, they used structures known from local democracy in the municipalities. The exception was that the local pastor would be a permanent member of the council.
This combination of lay and clerical representation has since formed the structure of all democratic bodies within CoN. It reflects two key perspectives. Firstly, that the clergy are a constitutive element of the church order. Secondly, that a separation of one dominion for the democracy and one for the clergy is neither possible nor desirable.
The Church of Norway justifies its democracy using specific theological arguments, including lay empowerment through baptism and the principle of universal priesthood
With the empowerment of the laity through baptism, the principle of universal priesthood, and the cooperation between lay and clergy through the councils, CoN uses specific theological arguments to justify its democracy. These ideas are broadly accepted, and form the basis of church democracy. They give it a distinct characteristic, separating it from a traditional western political democracy. However, when applied to organisational structures, the theological and sociological implications of these ideas are still contested.
It is, therefore, worth emphasising two historical positions within the democracy of CoN. One is organisational democracy. This emphasises the congregation, wherein the gospel is preached and sacraments administered, as the basic unit of the church. As a result, this perspective holds that indirect elections to the regional and national democratic bodies are the best way to organise church democracy.
The other position emphasises more clearly baptism as the decisive factor. It therefore advocates direct elections at all levels of the church – more in line with a political democracy.
To summarise, CoN adopts ideas from both Montesquieu and Luther. The former has a strong influence, through the adoption of democratic ideals in society. But the latter provides an ecclesiastical legitimacy to the church order. The organisation of the church in a Lutheran tradition is an adiaphoron, meaning that there is no 'correct' theological democratic order. Therefore, the church's democracy continues to develop in dialogue with society, Scripture, and the traditions that compose it and in which it unfolds.
No.101 in a Loop thread on the science of democracy. Look out for the 🦋 to read more in our series
