JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.
Vieraskieliset / In-english

Blog: Amid storms

Vieraskieliset / In-english
3.7.2020 12.49

Juttua muokattu:

3.7. 13:49

Few to­pics rai­se such strong emo­ti­ons in the Con­ser­va­ti­ve La­es­ta­di­an com­mu­ni­ty as do the ca­re­ta­king mee­tings. All those who grew up wit­hin this com­mu­ni­ty have he­ard the word – and I dare to say that most have he­ard it in a ne­ga­ti­ve sen­se. How many of them, ho­we­ver, re­al­ly know what this exp­res­si­on me­ans? Do you know, for ins­tan­ce, why the ca­re­ta­king prac­ti­ce star­ted? I did not know be­fo­re the sum­mer of 2017, when I was ab­le to dis­cuss this to­pic with pe­op­le who had per­so­nal ex­pe­rien­ce of them.

These dis­cus­si­ons were part of my very spe­ci­al sum­mer job. I had the ho­nor of par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the col­lec­ti­on of ma­te­ri­al for the re­cent­ly comp­le­ted his­to­ry book of SRK. My job con­sis­ted of in­ter­vie­wing pe­op­le who had been wor­king for SRK in the 1960s and 1970s or had been ot­her­wi­se in­vol­ved. The his­to­ry book pub­lis­hed in Oc­to­ber 2019 de­als with this pe­ri­od and is apt­ly tit­led Myrs­ky­jen kes­kel­lä – Suo­men Rau­ha­nyh­dis­tys­ten Kes­ku­syh­dis­tyk­sen his­to­ria 3 (Amid storms – his­to­ry of Suo­men Rau­ha­nyh­dis­tys­ten Kes­ku­syh­dis­tys 3). The word storm ref­lects well both the in­ter­nal con­di­ti­on of the Con­ser­va­ti­ve La­es­ta­di­an mo­ve­ment at that time and Fin­nish so­cie­ty more ge­ne­ral­ly.

Du­ring that pe­ri­od, Fin­land chan­ged in ir­re­ver­sib­le ways. The old ag­ra­ri­an so­cie­ty gave way to ur­ba­ni­za­ti­on. Mas­ses of pe­op­le mo­ved to towns and to Swe­den. Hou­ses and farms were left emp­ty and fields lying fal­low. We speak about a ma­jor struc­tu­ral chan­ge. The va­lu­es of so­cie­ty al­so chan­ged. Left-wing ide­as be­ca­me pre­va­lent. A new po­pu­list par­ty was foun­ded. Along with the se­cu­la­ri­za­ti­on of so­cie­ty, Chris­ti­an va­lu­es lost their sig­ni­fi­can­ce. Fa­mi­ly plan­ning was mar­ke­ted by ma­ter­ni­ty cli­nics, and low-al­co­hol beer was int­ro­du­ced in­to gro­ce­ry sto­res. Po­pu­lar cul­tu­re was spread by te­le­vi­si­on, films and light mu­sic for pe­op­le who be­gan to have more mo­ney and more free time. Fin­land has ne­ver chan­ged so tho­rough­ly in such a short time.

These big chan­ges were ine­vi­tab­ly al­so vi­sib­le in Con­ser­va­ti­ve La­es­ta­di­a­nism. There was a need to de­fi­ne the at­ti­tu­des of be­lie­vers to­ward the new phe­no­me­na. There was si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly al­so con­cern for the se­cu­lar li­fes­ty­le and va­lu­es that many pe­op­le adop­ted along with the rest of so­cie­ty. I was told by many in­ter­vie­wees that mem­bers of lo­cal rau­ha­nyh­dis­tys as­so­ci­a­ti­ons in dif­fe­rent parts of Fin­land had a real need to dis­cuss these chan­ges.

Cong­re­ga­ti­on eve­nings that fo­cu­sed on ge­ne­ral dis­cus­si­on be­ca­me more and more com­mon. Dis­cus­si­ons were found ne­ces­sa­ry, but es­pe­ci­al­ly du­ring the lat­ter half of the 1970s, many er­rors and over­re­ac­ti­ons were made. Many pe­op­le were jud­ged wrong­ly. The his­to­ry book dis­cus­ses these events qui­te ex­ten­si­ve­ly, so I will not com­ment on them here.

But I will com­ment on my job as an in­ter­vie­wer, which was ext­re­me­ly inst­ruc­ti­ve. It was not ea­sy to go in­to pe­op­le’s ho­mes and ask them qu­es­ti­ons about such to­pics and the 1970s ca­re­ta­king mee­tings. Many of the dis­cus­si­ons touc­hed on ext­re­me­ly sen­si­ti­ve ma­te­ri­al. I vi­si­ted some of my in­for­mants se­ve­ral ti­mes. I as­ked qu­es­ti­ons and I lis­te­ned. Hours upon hours of con­ver­sa­ti­on were re­cor­ded. We took a cof­fee break and then con­ti­nu­ed. Af­ter­wards I transc­ri­bed the re­cor­dings and stu­died the his­to­ry. I del­ved dee­per, pon­de­red, and in­ter­vie­wed.

It was chal­len­ging work, but ext­re­me­ly in­te­res­ting. I did not un­ders­tand eve­ryt­hing, and some things see­med in­comp­re­hen­sib­le, some even cont­ra­dic­to­ry. It did not help that I knew this is ty­pi­cal of me­mo­ri­zed in­for­ma­ti­on, and that each in­ter­vie­wee in­terp­rets past events through his or her own backg­round ex­pe­rien­ce. The things that I he­ard so­me­ti­mes dist­res­sed me.

This work made me test the foun­da­ti­on of my per­so­nal faith. I un­ders­tood that even while doing re­se­arch, I must be clear about what I be­lie­ve and how. Yet I had to keep my own views se­pa­ra­te from the events dis­cus­sed du­ring the in­ter­views. I un­ders­tood that it would be qui­te use­less for me to feel dist­ress about things that had hap­pe­ned de­ca­des ear­lier. I thought that the fal­li­bi­li­ty of pe­op­le and the stor­my ti­mes in the past should not be an obs­tac­le to faith to­day. When I had fi­gu­red out this in my mind, I was ab­le to con­ti­nue my work free­ly.

I al­so found that it is ext­re­me­ly use­ful to get to know about the dif­fi­cul­ties en­coun­te­red in our Chris­ti­a­ni­ty. We le­arn a lot about them. We need not pon­der and won­der if we know. It al­so helps us to talk about dif­fi­cult to­pics. And at the same time we can exa­mi­ne the foun­da­ti­on of our own faith and the re­a­sons for why we be­lie­ve.

Text: Sau­li Ter­va­nie­mi

Trans­la­ti­on: Sirk­ka-Lii­sa Lei­no­nen

You will find the ori­gi­nal blog post here.


Jeesus sanoi Simonille: ”Tämä nainen sai paljot syntinsä anteeksi, sen vuoksi hän rakasti paljon. Mutta joka saa anteeksi vähän, se myös rakastaa vähän.” Luuk. 7:47

Viikon kysymys