In his theses The Doctrine of the Church in Norway in the Nineteenth Century, Harris E. Kaasa wrote of Marcus Jacob Monrad:

Professor Marcus J. Monrad’s principal work in the Philosophy of Religion appeared relatively late in the Century (1885), at a time when Hegelianism had long been regarded as a spent force on the Continent. Reaction to the book was varied. An anonymous reviewer in Morgenbladet found Monrad’s conclusions “in good harmony with the teaching of the Church”, and regarded the book as a powerful defence against Positivism.”¹ On the other hand, Pastor M. J. Faerden, while he found Monrad’s work “very valuable”, made it clear that Monrad was not always orthodox and that he had departed in some respects from the Biblical realism.²

Faerden’s assessment v/as undoubtedly correct. The book strikes the present-day reader as strange and unrealistic. Koppang maintains that one of Monrad’s greatest weaknesses was his lack of contact (INNLEVELSE) with historical reality.³ Religion, Religioner, Christendommen gives the Impression of being altogether too theoretical and speculative a work. It is often in sharp conflict with the Biblical dualism of the Lutheran tradition. Moreover, many of the views expressed in it were in diametrical opposition to the currents running in the 1880’s. These are no doubt the reasons why Monrad failed to exert any significant influence upon the Norway of his day.

Nevertheless, this large (504pp.) book was an important work. Monrad is clear, consistent, and sometimes profound. He is a Hegelian who not only maintained the metaphysical Idealism but also consistently used the Hegelian dialectic triad. The outline of the book is embodied in its title: the first section deals with “The Universal Idea of Religion” (the thesis), the second with the various forms religion has taken in history, up to and including Judaism (the antithesis), the third with Christianity as the “Absolute” religion, the goal and realization of the idea (the synthesis). Like Hegel, Monrad regarded religion and philosophy, faith and knowledge, as one. Consequently, the book actually includes the rudiments of a dogmatic system, in which Monrad consistently upholds the orthodox Christian dogmas, though not without distortion. Before we examine what Monrad has to say about the Church, we must look briefly at the first section of the book.

“RELIGIONENS IDEE” is again divided into three sections: 1) The Object of Religion (thesis); 2) The religious subject (antithesis); And 3) Their union in “the true, subjective-objective religion” (synthesis).

The Object of religion is, of course, God, whose existence is posited “PER DUPLICEM NEGATIONEM”. Since “the knowledge of the limit removes the limit,” the finite presupposes the infinite just as the relative implies the Absolute. In harmony with this starting point, Monrad, while accepting the cosmological and teleological arguments as well, maintained that there is “complete truth in the ontological proof” as formulated by Descartes.⁴ God is the Absolute Spirit, the Absolute Idea, and He realizes Himself by giving existence to that which before its existence was in Him. This process includes Creation and Revelation. The Idea thus proceeds from and returns to itself eternally, and in this procession and return develops its full essence and life. God is thus the CAUSA FINALIS of the world, as well as its CAUSA EFFICIENS. Monrad quotes with approval the opinion of Bishop Martensen that every genuinely religious view must contain a pantheistic element.⁵ Although he agrees with Schleirmacher that religion is a feeling of absolute dependence, he holds that our conception of God is independent of this.

Monrad at this point seems to adopt the objective approach. He begins with God, and the Absolute Idea realizes itself in Creation and Revelation. But an element of subjectivity enters into his system through the fact that God is virtually regarded as the object of human reflection. It is precisely this which provoked Luther’s objection to the “Sophists” of his day and which lies at the root of the Lutheran distrust of philosophical speculation, which must proceed from man to God. Here Monrad seems to depart radically from the classical Lutheran tradition.

Monrad’s fundamental Monism is also illustrated by his Anthropology and Soteriology. Man, as well as all that exists, just have his origin and goal in the Eternal. Since man is a rational creature, his relationship to the Eternal must take a rational form. He is both one with God and in opposition to Him. He realizes his unity with God only through first realizing his separation from God, and being reconciled to God.⁶ Man, creation, and history all share in the cosmos, the ordered, harmonious system of Idea originating from the same creative Wisdom.⁷ We may depict Monrad’s conception of history as an hourglass, in which the race gradually narrowed to a “central people” and “a central individual,” thereafter to widen again. Thus, (in common with all Monistic thinkers), Monrad strongly emphasizes the collective in opposition to the individual. Individual man has both the ability and the duty to emancipate himself from his individuality and to realize the universal human Idea.⁸ “In and through Jesus Christ, the true, divine community-spirit as universal-human and as the spirit of the individual has come to consciousness in mankind.”⁹ So Jesus is not merely and individual, but the “ideal Christ, which is identical with the ideal humanity” (p. 324). In other words, He realizes the Idea of the race, a goal which has not become the object of the conscious striving of the human individual.¹⁰

Monrad stresses the “Objective Atonement.” Through all of history runs the divine atoning principle; It is perfected and consciously realized in Christ. His spirit of self-sacrifice must now permeate the whole of the race, so that it gives up its individuality in favor of the collective.

Yet for all his insistence upon the fact of the Atonement, it becomes interpreted as the self-realization of a principle and as the assertion of the collective over the individual. Indeed, it is not difficult to see that for Monrad not only Revelation and the Incarnation, but also man, sin, and the Atonement all become something other than what they are in traditional Lutheran theology.

With his tremendous emphasis on the collective, Monrad had perhaps a deeper appreciation of the Church than any of his contemporaries. Notwithstanding the subjective element in his idea of God, he had the decided merit of emphasizing the objective approach. He repudiates all vestiges of “subjectivism.” Moreover, he understood the necessity of maintaining the connection between religion and culture. These advantages were, however, more than outweighed by the fatal weaknesses of his system, and by the fact that he inevitably held an intellectualistic concept of revelation. For Monrad religion was primarily a matter of the intellect, in contrast to the fundamental Lutheran emphasis upon the will, and Christianity was essentially a “doctrine,” with certain “basic propositions.”

In examining Monrad’s ecclesiology, we must first return to his hourglass conception of history. In the providence of God, it was the special mission of the pre-Christian community to evolve the “personal Ideal.” Then began a new development, in which the insemination (FORPLANTING) of the true spirit of community is carried out in a free society, not bound by nature. Monrad repeatedly emphasizes the difference between the pre-Christian “natural” community and the Christian “spiritual” community. “The Christian faith is essentially participation in the development of the race…first and last a community of faith, a community consciousness.” Christian faith is “appropriation of the most profound idea of the community.” The universal human community must be reflected temporarily in a narrower community (until it “abolishes itself in the great common humanity”), the Christian Church, in which Christ’s Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God dwells.¹¹

According to Monrad, “Church” (KIRKE) and “Congregation” (MENIGHED) are essentially the same. But he then proceeds to contradict himself by distinguishing decisively between them: KIRKE denotes the community as an objective institution, and MENIGHED the gathering of individuals.¹² These constitute the thesis and antithesis of Church history. In the Apostolic Church they were identical. The Medieval Roman Church overemphasized the “Church.” Protestantism is in constant danger of overemphasizing the “congregation.” “We see the same laws of development…the one-sidedness and errors, repeated everywhere.”¹³ The synthesis between them has not yet been attained. Here, there are superficial similarities with the thought of Luther, but while Monrad’s synthesis lies historically in the future, Luther’s approach is fundamentally eschatological and his synthesis is not so much future as “hidden.”

The Holy Spirit is active in the Church. The Church contains essentially FIDES QUAE CREDITUR, “faith from its objective side,” and is the “preserved” and “continued” divine revelation.¹⁴ Here the absence of stress upon the FIDES QUA CREDITUR may be significant of Monrad’s intellectualism and his lack of interest in the individual and subjective.

The Holy Spirit is active in the Church. The Church contains essentially FIDES QUAE CREDITUR, “faith from its objective side,” and is the “preserved” and “continued” divine revelation. Here the absence of stress upon the FIDES QUA CREDITUR may be significant of Monrad’s intellectualism and his lack of interest in the individual and subjective.

Of all the attributes of the Church, Monrad naturally stresses the unity and catholicity of the Church, independent of “temporal barriers.” Monrad found the apostolicity of the Church in Holy Scripture. He had great respect for the historical tradition (“a spiritual treasure”); But tradition must always be subject to “God’s changeless Word,” which he found in Scripture. The Church must have and preserve an authoritative doctrine, a confession, but this must be tested in Scripture. In this section, Monrad quoted Luther, the Augsburg Confession, and Pontoppidan’s Catechism.

Monrad defended Infant Baptism. While he admitted that it was not practiced in the Apostolic Church, he regarded it as the result of a historical development, and held that its rejection would amount to an indefensible retreat. Baptism is the act of reception into the holy community. He could even write of it as a covenant, but emphasized more its character as a covenant between the individual and the Church than between the individual and God.¹⁵ He spoke of Baptismal regeneration, and his distinction between “birth” and “rebirth” represents an application to Baptism of the distinction between natural and spiritual which we have already noted in his treatment of the Church. In this context, he defines the Church as a spiritual community in which “the individual becomes conscious of and realizes himself as spirit.” Monrad declined, however, to speak of the faith of infants and stressed by preference the distinctive character of Christian nurture. It is the family as a unity and not merely the sum total of its individual members which belongs to the Church.¹⁶

Monrad repeatedly emphasizes the nature of the Church as “a living organism” with Christ as its “indwelling principle.” He inveighs against the “opposite” view, that the Church is “an aggregate or association” of individuals “outside” one another, who stand in “an essentially external” relationship to a Christ who is “outside” them.¹⁷ This principle is especially utilized in his treatment of the Eucharist, where he also advocated actual breaking of bread in order to bring the community aspect into greater prominence.¹⁸

Monrad makes no reference whatever to the problem of the Visible and Invisible Church which was so prominent among the 19^th Century theologians. We can only conclude that in a Monistic system like his, the problem did not exist. Where the duality of the Incarnation is ignored, and all humanity regarded as one with God, there will be no sharp distinction between Christian and non-Christian and hence no place for a dichotomy between the Visible and Invisible Church.

In his doctrine of the Ministry, Monrad commits himself definitely to a High-Church Lutheran position.

Because the administration of the means of grace must be done with the Church’s authority, the Church must have a definite order, including an office of the Ministry and a priesthood (Monrad uses the term STAND). The priesthood requires special gifts, learning, and “a spiritual standpoint” in order properly to expound the Church’s doctrine. They must be “The Church’s men and God’s servants, equipped with the Church’s authority.”¹⁹ Independent lay preachers, said Monrad, did more harm than good. The doctrine of Apostolic Succession attaches too much importance to an “external,” but it contains the valuable truth that the office springs from the one, catholic Church. The local congregation cannot make anyone a pastor. Monrad emphasizes the authority of the clergy and of preaching; But he refuses to regard the STAND as a “privileged holy class,” with a monopoly of God’s Word. The teaching office is not infallible. The Authority of the clergy is not that of their persons, but of the Word. Still, the Ministry is not to be deduced from the Universal Priesthood or the charismatic principle. Just as the congregation is not an arbitrary association of individuals, and the Church is not an association of local congregations, where the majority rules, so the Ministry is not the creation of the congregation. “Ecclesiastical democratism” leads to Donatism, “deification of the clergy” (PRESTEFORGUDELSE), and enslavement. Though it presumably proceeds from an attempt to uphold the freedom of the individual, it ends in undue dependence upon person, whether on the part of the clergy or of the congregation.²⁰

Contemporary Norwegian theology stressed the distinction between the two Realms. (Art. XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession). In conformity with the philosophical basis of his teaching, Monrad naturally emphasized their unity. The secular authority is also derived from God, and the Christian cannot “divide himself in two.”²¹ In this connection, Monrad returned to his hourglass view of Church history. Beginning as a small nucleus, the Church was destined to expand. It had an essential missionary purpose. Not only individuals but nations as such (FOLKENE) were to be Christianized. (Matt. 28:19).²² Because the early Church was a self-sacrificing martyr Church, it was able to triumph over the world.²³ After the establishment of the State Church, Christianity was in danger of losing its “super-worldly life principle.” A double reaction then occurred, the Roman Catholic theocracy and an “anchoritism,” an “asceticism.” The true Christian idea of self-sacrifice was lost in both. The Reformation re-united Church and State, a development which, according to Monrad, was true to the Spirit of Christianity. But the new synthesis was different from that of the original State Church. Whereas then the Church had swallowed the State, now the State absorbed the Church, thus giving it the best chance to realize its ideal of self-sacrifice by permeating the State with its spirit and so creating a Christian State. Nevertheless, he denies that the Church is to disappear, to be superseded by the State. God and religion must be absolute, superior to the State. The Church must have an element which raises it above the situation and enables it to feel it is a part of the universal human community, that it is rooted in the Eternal and moving toward the Eternal. The Church may, however, justifiably be subject to the State “outwardly.” He opposes the slogan of Cavour, “A free church in a free State.” The State must have an official religion. It can tolerate other religions, but it cannot be “confessionless.” On these premises, all State officials must confess the State religion. The State is based upon its official religion, and the officials act on the authority of the State. It is not to be expected that all inhabitants will be Christians in a community where Christianity is in process of development; But they must be counted as Christians when they acknowledge the Christian religion as the “reigning principle” in their lives. Monrad holds that only a Christian State and a Christian individual are suited to work for the “civilization” of mankind. But he is opposed to the use of revivalist methods to secure converts.²⁴ It is evident that Monrad’s line of reasoning in this section follows a tortuous path. We can only attribute it to a bold but unsuccessful attempt to fit the fact of Church history into the rigid mould of the Hegelian dialectic system.

Monrad’s ecclesiology, as well as the rest of his dogmatic system, betrays a significant departure from the Lutheran tradition. This is the result of his Monistic metaphysic, which carries with it the tendency to synthesize the dialectic elements which exist in Lutheran ecclesiology but which actually defy all attempts at synthesis in any human system. He correctly begins with the objective elements in the doctrine of the Church. But he had little appreciation of the subjective element, the church as CONGREGATIO SANCTORUM, which appealed so strongly to most contemporary Churchmen. He correctly declined to draw limits to the Church, but his view tends to deny in principle that any limits exist.

Theologically, Monrad was isolated. He found himself inevitably at odds with the reigning Orthodox-Pietism. He had a strong aversion to any kind of party spirit in the Church, and consistently opposed many aspects of the Church-life of his day: The organization of the Inner Mission movement for reform, and the tendency on the part of Pietistic pastors to draw sharp limits to the Church, as evidenced for example by their refusal to marry divorced persons. He seems however never to have clashed directly with Gisle Johnson, although he engaged in controversy with Bishop Grimelund. Monrad was most attracted to the Neo-Lutheranism of Grundtvigianism. In effect, Monrad was a first class exponent of Speculative Idealism. But, despite the many traces of Hegelian influence even among those whose main interests and background lay elsewhere, the Norwegian Church of the 19^th Century was not a fertile seed-plot for the cultivation of such systems and was steadily moving further away from them both in theology and in Church life.

1. Morgenbladet, no. 608, 1885. ↩︎
2. Kirkelig Litteraturtidende for de Skandinaviske Land, II, 1889, pp. 9-15. ↩︎
3. O. Koppang, op. cit., p. 82. ↩︎
4. Religion, Religioner, og Christendommen, p. 10. ↩︎
5. Ibid., pp. 41-50. ↩︎
6. Ibid., p.5. ↩︎
7. Ibid., pp. 17, 19. ↩︎
8. Ibid., p. 53. ↩︎
9. Ibid., p. 426. ↩︎
10. Ibid., pp. 425-426. ↩︎
11. Ibid., pp. 428-9. ↩︎
12. Here Monrad posits the fundamental Lutheran dialectic between the personal and institutional aspects of the Church. But he errs in identifying the two aspects with the terms “Church” and “congregation.” This error was frequently made in Norwegian theology and still persists today. ↩︎
13. Ibid., p. 431. ↩︎
14. Ibid., p. 431. ↩︎
15. Ibid., p. 440. ↩︎
16. Ibid., p. 444. ↩︎
17. Ibid., p. 451; Cf. also p. 473. ↩︎
18. Ibid., p. 456n.Monrad makes no reference whatever to the problem of the Visible and Invisible Church which was so prominent among the 19^th Century theologians. We can only conclude that in a Monistic system like his, the problem did not exist. Where the duality of the Incarnation is ignored, and all humanity regarded as one with God, there will be no sharp distinction between Christian and non-Christian and hence no place for a dichotomy between the Visible and Invisible Church. ↩︎
19. Ibid., p. 469. ↩︎
20. Ibid., p. 474. ↩︎
21. Ibid., pp. 478ff. ↩︎
22. This is in full accord with his treatment of the family in his discussion of Infant Baptism. ↩︎
23. Monrad criticizes the modern “subjectivists” who assume that the secular community is un-Christian and so withdraw from it, but who still expect it to be Christian enough to protect them. This he believes to be in marked contrast to the martyr spirit of the early Church. p. 479. ↩︎
24. Ibid., pp. 476-497. ↩︎