The whole life of the new people, the faithful people, the spiritual people, is nothing else but prayer, seeking, and begging by the sighing of the heart, the voice of their works, and the labor of their bodies, always seeking and striving to be made righteous, even to the hour of death, never standing still, never possessing, never in any work putting an end to the achievement of righteousness, but always awaiting it as something which still dwells beyond them, and always as people who still live and exist in their sins.

—Martin Luther, from Luther on Conversion

In addition to the relief Evangelicals find from structure, they seem to have, as I came to appreciate, a kind of bottomless spring that keeps their happiness lush. I started to believe it was perfectly authentic, and I wanted some for myself.

—Gina Welch, In the Land of Believers

† “and the victories that ensue of it, of which we knew nothing in our sorrowless condition, is a sure witness that such a traveler possesses Jesus by faith unto salvation. The world may rage, and the devil torment through our corruption, but Jesus increases peace and we have one victory after another in order that we may know the true God in Zion” (Matti Suo, Siionin Lähetyslehti [1917], from Kulla 1985, 202).

The theme of struggle against sin and personal unworthiness is evident in these quotes from the next several decades:

† “Battling in this world with sin, our own weaknesses and shortcomings[,] we often feel worried and realize that this world is not the place for our soul. The Children of God often feel like a lonely bird perched on the branch of a tree because this world can give them no pleasure or peace. But to live with Christ! That means to the Children of God the end of all sorrows, sighs, tears, relief from sin, full brightness, living with souls that are saved, meeting our Saviour face to face and praising Him forever and ever. Indeed, it would be much better!” (O.H. Jussila, Siionin Lähetyslehti [1919], from Greetings of Peace, 8/1949).

† “The feelings of poverty, coldness, and defileness cause one to look tremblingly to the author and finisher of our faith; the man of sorrows who carried all of our grief. Therefore, even you, who are burdened with your ailing body, try to learn to believe that the thorn in your flesh is a heaven sent gift and as precious as the most sweet feelings of revelations and openings of grace, and perhaps more wholesome. It detaches you from the earthly and attaches you to heavenly things” (Havas [1937], 65).

† “Come now, all you who are poor! All who feel that sin has deprived your soul of all its eternal treasures. You who feel that you have no merit before Almighty God to enjoy His favor and to hope for His Heaven as the eternal abode of your immortal soul. Come, you who find yourself lacking everything, you are poor in faith, poor in love, your repentance has been shallow, your walk as a Christian so faltering, the confession of your faith so timid. Your heart so cold and sinful. Your watching in prayer has been so sluggish. Often you have found yourself head over heels engrossed by the worldly temporal interests. Come, you ragged, miserable pauper to behold your Christmas Present. For He lies poor in the manger to make you rich” (Paul Heideman, Greetings of Peace, 12/1949).

† “Oh how I have reason to praise Him that He has drawn me, a fallen sinner, into that fellowship of faith, love and hope with His blessed children and heirs. This christian love, my dear ones, is the most precious thing in all our life. And if it has been soul-happiness here on this sinful earth, how unspeakably great it will be when at the end of our journey in this vale of tears, we tread on the shore of that new earth and heaven, where righteousness dwelleth, and where love reigns supreme” (Paul Heideman, Greetings of Peace, 9/1952).

† “God’s kingdom is also a kingdom of joy, although many in the world may think it to be a house of sorrow, a convent, or a monastery. They may think that a person in faith cannot nor must he be joyous. If anyone should have a reason for joy it is the one whose name is recorded in the Book of Life in Heaven. Who else can be as cheerful as he whose conscience is not burdened!” (Taskila 1961, 2)

Peter Nevala talks about individual wretchedness, but also offers comfort to the discouraged in the March 1971 Greetings of Peace:

† “If there should be anyone who is wounded, sinful, hopeless and discouraged, be encouraged! You have the permission to believe even when sinful, even when walking with wounded conscience, for it is only through faith that you will or can receive power to put away those things from your life which can eventually separate you from God. Be therefore comforted, dear friend, through the grace of God.”

The following quotes balance all the negativity with the joy of salvation:

† “Does it seem to us that we have been able to run with patience, or can we recall that there have been times when our patience has been short, when we may have at least in our innermost, grumbled–perhaps murmured–concerning this portion that the father has put before us. How good [this is], when we must recall that our running has not always been with patience, we can believe all those moments of impatience forgiven in the name and blood of Jesus” (John Waaraniemi, sermon given 1974).

† “In the trials of our journey we have even questioned the Lord that why do I have this heavy cross as my lot in life. We may even look at the lot in life of other Christians and see it to be much lighter. Sometimes we can even become envious of them. The Apostle Peter encourages the cross bearers; he wants to lead us to look at the inheritance which is reserved in heaven” for us (VOZ, 4/1978).

† “It is true happiness that we can be near God. God is in His kingdom and is cause for joy and happiness for us, and the difficulties we experience belong to Christianity and to the life of a Christian. Under these difficulties we battle and God will give strength to His children; we need not fight fearfully” (Voitto Savela, sermon given 1980).

† “We are thankful and praise God that we have been blessed so abundantly in this kingdom. We have received to our souls that life which is in Jesus. We have also been blessed with abundant goodness in life, both temporally and spiritually. The Heavenly Father has granted us power through His grace to follow the footsteps of our dear Savior Jesus. When these matters open to us, we realize what a great blessing it is that we can be children of God” (Alajoki [1989], 217).

† “Sorrows surround the endeavorer, but not one needs to remain under sorrows and be wearied to hopelessness. The exhortation belongs to a child of God to lift up one’s eyes upward from this land of sorrow. One feeling sorrow because of sin can turn his gaze unto the Savior of sinners, the Lord Jesus. Through His suffering, death and resurrection we have access from death to life and from sorrow to joy. Even though we feel distress and pain here in time, our portion through living faith is the joy of the heart” (Siionin Lähetyslehti, 1989).

† “[B]elieving itself is and brings righteousness, peace, and joy to one’s heart. In this righteousness we are happy and rejoice of all the gifts which God grants us according to His will. There certainly are a lot of them: There is the home and parents, brothers and sisters, love and care of the home, unity and fellowship of the family members–don’t let the [strife] for money destroy this source of joy in our Christian homes–There is the possibility of learning and going back to school, there is the beautiful nature, free and independent fatherland–we may pray for the good of our country. We may rejoice for being able to work for our country– there is daily bread–there is enough money even to give some of it to those who are in need. There is the fellowship of the Christians–I have seen many of you joyously meeting each other here in these days [during the national Summer Services]–There is the treasure of righteousness in Jesus in the kingdom of God. There is the joy of a good conscience. There is the joy of the hope of a better future. The Bible exhorts us to rejoice even in trials, in sorrow, and under ridicule. There is the work of the kingdom of God–we may do it willingly and with joy like the disciples of Jesus did–There will be the fulfillment of joy in Heaven.”

† “God strengthens our faith with [trials] and teaches us patience. If we did not have patience, we would become discouraged encountering our first adversity and our endeavor would remain unfinished. Patience is especially necessary when we stumble and notice that we haven’t become good and exemplary endeavorers. We continue to be weak, and corruption affects and lives in us. Patience is required when it becomes clear that our endeavor is not the reason and basis for our salvation. We must return again and again to the place where our journey of endeavor began. To the place where the Lord Jesus is the only reason for our salvation and that we, although unsuccessful, have the right to believe our sins forgiven in His name and blood” (Uljas 2000, 83).

† “Having joy and living hope are characteristic of a believer, and the basis for joy is in the manger of Bethlehem where our Savior was born. . . . Among many other reasons, we can be joyful for believing escorts to help us on our journey. Through them, we hear the gospel of the forgiveness of sins preached to us when sin troubles the conscience. This gospel message restores freedom and joy to the heart of a child of God” (VOZ, 5/2000).

Patriotism is a part of life that is emphasized in youth camps and in July issues of the Voice of Zion, like this one from 2000:

† “Living during a time of peace and prosperity, we too often forget to thank God. There are many reasons to thank; an important one among them is the God-gift of a free temporal homeland. We need to pause and consider this treasure and give credit to whom it is due. National holidays provide individuals the opportunity to mark their country’s independence and also remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for the freedoms we enjoy.”

† “We live in a time when we see both the results of the work of the enemy of souls in this world and the great blessings of God in His kingdom. Today we are blessed with many sincerely believing young parents, youth and children. God’s Kingdom has experienced growth from within. We have also experienced how the Good Shepherd yet seeks lost sheep in this world. It is truly a blessed time that we are living in God’s kingdom” (Jim Frantti, presentation given 2001).

† “A believing friend is truly a gift from God. Being united by the same spirit believing friends are able to share their true joys and sorrows, and most importantly preach the gospel of the forgiveness of sins to each other” (James Jurmu, presentation given 2003).

† “There are many sorrows in life such as illness, loss of loved ones to death or unbelief, the trials and cares of rearing children, as well as the struggle each of us face with the threefold enemy. We are reminded through these experiences that we are yet on the journey of Faith” (VOZ, 7/2004).

† “David felt the joy and peace that one feels when a sin-burdened conscience is freed. Have you, dear brothers and sisters, also owned this feeling of joy when you have been able to be freed from the sins on your conscience? We all sin every day–in word, in thought, and in deed. But God has blessed us with an endless supply of forgiveness” (VOZ, 7/2008).

have a lot in common and we get along. I don’t get shunned. And I am often treated like as a fellow believer, who just happens to not be a member of their denomination. I know this is impossible when compared to Laustadian [sic.] theology, but the fact is that when I’m around my friends and family, I feel so loved.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of support in the New Testament for inflicting the pain these people have experienced:

I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. [1 Cor 5:13]

[M]en shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. [2 Tim 3:2-5]

Have you ever heard someone praying in church as if he or she were giving God a theology lesson? . . . After a while, you open your eyes and mutter, “Does he think God doesn’t know this stuff? Why’s he chewing God’s ear with it?”

—Robert M. Price, The Reason-Driven Life

† In prayer, the “child of God can speak to the Father about all of his lackings and needs. The all-knowing God gives gifts which are for the best of His children” (By Faith, 93).

† “We pray to God that we would always treasure in our hearts the great gift we have received from Him, and that we would, through His power and strength, make known this most precious gift to those on the outside of His kingdom” (VOZ, 7/1998).

† “Prayer is conversation between God and man. Man does not speak alone; God answers also.” Sometimes it may seem that “our message does not reach its destination,” but the lack of an answer “is not caused by God’s poor hearing or our quiet or unclear speech. God truly hears and understands, and difficulties of language are not an obstacle. He is interested in us and our matters. He also answers, although it may be in a different way than we expected. Sometimes, we only later understand God’s answer to our prayer” (Uljas 2000, 73).

† In prayer, the believer has a “secure and trusting discussion of a child with a Father who loves him” (Uljas 2000, 76).

† In Psalm 86, “David is confident in praying to God for he knows that God is good, forgiving and merciful. David had experienced that God hears the prayers of His own and cares for them. David says that the joy of a believing person is in the knowledge that God hears and answers his prayers” (VOZ, 9/2003).

† “Scripture does not teach us to present demands to God or command Him to act according to our desires. Jesus taught us to pray in humbleness, in spirit, and in truth. Prayer is not to emphasize outward matters, for praying does not require certain customs or rituals. Prayer is the simple speech of the heart to God” (VOZ, 5/2005).

† “Even when one cannot understand why difficult things have to happen, or why things haven’t gone as one would expect or hope they would go, it is still good and important to remember to pray. God listens and hears the prayers that rise from a sincere heart. He still works miracles of healing and grants living faith when one believes the proclaimed gospel message of salvation” (VOZ, 2/2008).

We are told that God has foreordained our salvation (according to some Bible passages at least), the bounds of our habitation, and the number of our days. So we can hardly expect that he will hear a message (typically self-centered) from a puny human and decide that, no, maybe he’d better do this or that a bit differently after all. The unavoidable fact is that “prayers are not truly answerable by an omniscient god because he would have already envisioned the concrete results of the future” (Long 2005, 198). In a 2009 presentation, Matti Kontkanen acknowledges that issue as well as God’s omnipotence. But, for some reason, we are still asked to “let him know of our needs” even though he already knows them:

† “Although God is high and holy, in Jesus’ name we are allowed to approach Him. Although God knows what we need we are encouraged to let him know of our needs. Although God is almighty and decides what he does and what not, we are asked to pray for our matters, the matters of other people and those of the authorities in our country.”

For me, the issue is not just an intellectual one. My outlook on prayer was dramatically diminished in one traumatic moment a few years ago, when I helplessly prayed out loud while a tragic death proceeded right before my eyes, unhindered by my pleas. There is just no evidence whatsoever that prayer has ever changed an outcome, even if it made any sense for the omniscient and omnipotent God to change his perfect will about the course of the universe by pleading our case to him.

There are only two sacraments in the church of God: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. For only in these is there both a sign instituted by God and the promise of the forgiveness of sins.

—Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther

It appears to be an attempt by Paulinists to claim autonomous independent possession of the Eucharistic material, to deny their dependence on other quarters of Christianity for it, much in the vein of Gal 1:11-12. Just as Paul had insisted he derived his gospel from no man but directly from Jesus Christ, so is he depicted here as having received the [Markan] Last Supper material directly from Christ. [Price 2003b, 301]

At any rate, according to “Paul,” Jesus gave thanks, broke the bread, and said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The familiar phrase “blood of the new testament” in the KJV comes from manuscripts where the word “new” was added. Without that embellishment, notice how much the original language seems to be taken from Moses’ “pouring out” the blood of young bulls in Exodus 24:8: “So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (NASB). “Jesus, in his coming death, will be doing the same thing Moses did, only with his own blood” (Price 2003b, 300).

John does not describe Jesus instituting the sacrament, but substitutes the story of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet instead. His Gospel has Jesus saying that people have to “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood” (Jn 6:53), not in the Last Supper but “as part of a synagogue sermon or debate in Capernaum” (Price 2003b, 302). Both Price and one of the pioneers of biblical “higher criticism,” Rudolf Bultmann, believe those words were not written by the original author of John but by a later “Ecclesiastical Redactor.” John’s disinterest in describing Jesus breaking bread and offering wine at his last meal with the disciples leaves no place for the words there. So they are found in a narrative of an unrelated earlier event, having been “added to the gospel . . . to restore an implicit sacramentalism [the] earlier writer had omitted” (p. 302).

But in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin refers to “the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks” (Ch. 70). Here it is a meal of remembrance, with no hint of any transmutation of the bread and wine.

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood”; describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. [Book 1, Ch. 6, emphasis added]

bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. [Ch. 65]

† “Some unworthy supper-guests say: ‘I am not worthy to go to the Lord’s supper, for I am a great sinner.’ But when someone inquires as to what sin troubles their conscience, they answer: ‘it’s not necessary to confess.’ Finally it becomes apparent that it is not unworthiness that hinders them from coming to the Lord’s supper, but a secret pride. Partially it is hatred toward the pastor who does not admit them to the supper without an examination, partially a fear of the scourge of the Holy Spirit, for if they make promises of repentance at the Lord’s Supper, a knot would come upon the conscience when they become bound by that promise” (Laestadius, Palm Sunday sermon; Fourth Postilla, 47-48).

† “Jesus deepened and clarified the meaning and substance of the Passover meal. He, himself, is the Paschal Lamb. The wine [he and the disciples] drank during the meal is His blood, which soon was to be shed for the remission of sins. The unleavened bread, which He broke to give each one his own portion, is His Body. He is the Bread of Life, which is owned by faith. The Passover meal changed into the Lord’s Holy Supper. The Word of the Lord was joined to visible elements, bread and wine, and made them and the partaking of them a Sacrament. . . . As believers in the Lord’s Supper, we can eat the body of Christ and drink His blood and thus enjoy the fruit of His work of atonement. Although we do not fully understand the mystery of the Lord’s Supper, we still go” to it (Uljas 2000, 67-68).

Given that Jesus is the “Bread of Life,” this next quote from the March 2007 Voice of Zion seems to disclaim the Real Presence:

† “Through faith we understand that the Bread of Life is not in our daily bread, nor is it in the sacrament of Holy Communion. Rather, it is in that perfect sacrifice which Jesus gave on Good Friday on the Middle Cross of Golgotha.”

† “Jesus has established His congregation here on earth where He offers the forgiveness of sins to all men. In his congregation, little children and those who receive the grace of repentance are able to enter into the covenant of Holy Baptism. ‘Baptism does not signify new birth, but it is a covenant of a good conscience with God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (Manual of Sacred Acts)” (VOZ, 1/2007).

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. [First Apology, Ch. 61, emphasis added]

He notes that penitents “are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting,” for the remission of their past sins, doing so along with those already in the faith. But the regeneration occurs where there is water, and Justin’s next paragraph emphasizes the washing that occurs there: The sinner “may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed” (Ch. 61, emphasis added). In his Dialogue With Trypho, he says the Christians “have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life” (Ch. 14, emphasis added).

† “If an unbelieving child from a Christian home leaves, to live common-law, his/her common-law partner will not be accepted into the child’s home. If this type are accepted into the home it means the parents accept this type of life and become guilty of the same sin as those who live in it. Common-law is not a bond in any respect according to the Word of God and God’s Word does not respect such a union” (Päivämies, 1977)

After over two decades of marriage to a wonderful person with no end in sight, I am very thankful for the purity and strength of this teaching. Unfortunately for some, the simplicity and rigidity of the rules can lead to a lifetime of grief. When one person leaves both the church and the marriage, the remaining spouse is faced with essentially a lifetime of being alone.

† the fallen one in penitence begs for grace and ceases from sin, to such a one sins are to be forgiven and this one cannot be rejected. . . . When Jesus says for the cause of adultery, he means a continuous life lived in sin; for such a one, who does not cease sinning, is one who is dead in life. Such a spouse Jesus permits one to put away, but not forever; for God does not forsake forever. The rejection is for the condemnation of the flesh and to shame. The rejecter can take him or her again for their spouse if the same repents and ceases from sin; that is acceptable to God.

Now, those who for adultery or other causes, have rejected their spouse, and have married another one while the former one is still living, if they do not undo their wrong deeds, refuse to part, they are living in adultery, and not one of adultery is saved. But now, if according to law, one cannot undo their evil deeds because they are confirmed by the earthly laws, even then one is to cease from sin and carry their bed and not to lay in it anymore; for no adulterer who commits adultery in the law, or without the law, shall inherit the Kingdom of God and Christ.

† “[T]here is no other reason for separation then faithlessness[,] that is, fornication. One can claim, when the characters of husband and wife are so opposite, so that marriage becomes hell on earth, then it is better to separate. But is it any better before God, to exchange sin for sin? Impatience is exchanged for fornication. Would it not be better in such cases as well as all other cases, that we would remember first of all the holiness of marriage, and the vow which has been made before God and men . . .” (Siionin Lähetyslehti [1949], from Greetings of Peace, 2/1950).

The outcome of an eventual meeting of SRK preachers on the subject was that the exception really didn’t count:

† “According to Matthew, in Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees, He allowed divorce because of adultery,” but when “divorce was discussed at length at a speakers’ meeting . . . the speaker-brothers held to” the Gospel of Mark which has no adultery exception. “Marriage is lifelong: what God has joined, let not man put asunder. This does not lessen the seriousness of the sin of adultery, but provides an opportunity for a person to return, repent, and receive forgiveness for a grievous transgression” (Uljas 2000, 103-104).

† “In these days it is especially noticeable, that the boundary between the world and God’s children does not remain clear. Those who profess Christianity enter bonds of matrimony with unbelievers. There are many sad results. Many, led by their unbelieving companion, become unbeliever[s]. . . . Many a man who during courtship, professed to favor Christianity, has after marriage turned out to be an enemy of the Christians, a drunkard and cruel. Who knows all the suffering, that has come to those who have stepped on that road of disobedience!”

By 1976 marrying an outsider was considered sin:

† “Remember, also, when you seek a life’s companion, do not look outside of God’s kingdom. This is sin” (VOZ, 3/1976).

† Concerning “the young and marriage matters, . . . one need not be anxious and take these matters into his own hands. . . . Even here there should be that correct foundation so that we would, first of all, ask of God that He would direct and lead and would grant that life’s companion whom He has foreseen. One should await God’s time and if God has not foreseen a marriage partner, to be satisfied to remain single . . . Above all one should not unite with unbelievers” (Ruben Alajoki, sermon given 1979).

My sample does not include any quotes on the topic of intermarriage beyond this. That does not indicate any softening or looking the other way about the issue, however. Perhaps some issues like this are considered so settled and well understood within Conservative Laestadianism that little need is felt to devote extensive discussion to them in church publications and sermons, or perhaps this is just a case where my sampling of those discussions was flawed. In any event, there is no longer just a concern that one might be led by his or her “unbelieving companion” to become an unbeliever. Rather, it is now considered tantamount to giving up one’s faith to marry someone outside the church.

Why the ban? The Christian getting emotionally close to the nonbeliever would be risking eroding the illusion that only one’s co-sectarians are loving and noble. One would soon get the impression that morality and character are not the property of any one faith, and that they are not necessarily dependent on faith at all. No, the church wants her children to stay within the tribe, so as to keep the walls up high. [2006b, 109]

For Conservative Laestadian youth in the U.S. and Canada, the ban can pose a major challenge. Unless he or she travels to Finland or perhaps Africa, the single LLC member’s marriage prospects must come from a group of about 7,000 people. There were 209 LLC confirmation students (9th grade) in 2011. It seems like a reasonable guess that a young person seeking a spouse within the LLC will have about 1,200 possible peers whose ages are within the few years of mismatch that are not exceeded between most husbands and wives. Half of those are of the oppposite sex and, for most young people in the LLC, many of the 600 remaining are cousins.

What kind of a social system limits its next generation’s possibilities for marriage (or romance of any kind, for that matter) to a pool of 400 or so candidates in two countries with a combined population of 340,000,000 people, a dozen times more prospects who speak a foreign language in a country on the other side of the Atlantic, and a handful of others in a few third world countries?

† “It doesn’t pay to extinguish the voice of reason in matters of courtship. It pays to be realistic and not superspiritual. One shouldn’t think, for example, that two individuals who are mentally immature without a career or job will be ‘taken care of’ by God when they get married. This is a question of tempting God, similar to that with which Jesus was tempted. But on the other hand, fears about future financial needs do not need to become insurmountable so that one doesn’t dare to get married” (John Lehtola, presentation given 1995).

† “Courtship is a serious matter, and yet a joyful one. Enter prayerfully not playfully. Share the gospel and God’s word as a courting couple, pray for one another and for the blessing of God and of His congregation” (Tomm Stewart, presentation given 1996).

† “Courting is directed toward marriage, so light-minded ‘flirting’ is not appropriate for a believer. In such there is no question of love, or even of infatuation, but of selfish momentary pleasure, which causes sorrow and tears to the courting companion. The matter in consideration is serious enough, that a person who has fallen into this has reason to examine his heart and the foundations of his faith” (Uljas 2000, 101).

To experience the knowledge of Jesus Christ, we didn’t need to be born again; we simply needed to be born. Our parents, our teachers, and our favorite theologians took it from there, providing us with all the answers before we ever had time to really wrestle with the questions.

—Rachel Held Evans, Evolving in Monkey Town

Conservative Laestadians use the term “God’s Children” for themselves, and demographically speaking the term is pretty accurate. With vanishingly few conversions from the outside (at least from my observation in the LLC), the membership is almost entirely sustained by “growth from within.” Children by far outnumber the adults sitting in the pews on any given Sunday. The life of an average married couple is kept busy with their many children, the church camps and activities provided for those children, and a slew of cousins and friends coming and going.

three main scriptural bases: Psalm 127; the Genesis command to “be fruitful and multiply”; and the biblical story of Onan, slain by God for spilling his seed on the ground. This story is seen by Provan [1989, The Bible and Birth Control] and the Protestant forefathers–Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley–whose commentaries he drew on, as a form of birth control. (Castigating the “contraceptive mentality” among the elites of his own day, Luther called birth control an “inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous,” and lamented, “How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God!”) [Joyce 2009, 146]

Conservative Laestadian attention to the topic appeared not long after the birth control pill did, and has never waned as new generations of married couples confront the challenge of welcoming double-digit numbers of children into their homes and marriages. (For my own part, I have eleven.) Besides the official writings and preachings, there is a great deal of private discussion going on. Comparing notes about the challenges of raising large families, dealing with rude comments by outsiders, etc. is a favorite topic between believing couples. It’s a natural form of mutual support. The same kinds of discussions occur among outsiders (who, for all their Christian fundamentalism and rejection of birth control, are still considered “unbelievers” without any possible connection to those in “living faith”):

There are . . . commonalities, traded among Quiverfull comrades as badges of honor: the frequency with which they’re stopped in line at the grocery store by someone asking if “they’re feeding an army,” if they know “what causes that,” if they know “there’s a pill for that”? Are they Catholic? Are they Mormon? Do they know God gave us brains to use them? They’re also frequently met with a host of assumptions about their beliefs, economic status, ethnicity, and possible welfare reliance. [Joyce 2009, 138]

These are not just a few isolated observations. YLE News recently reported in Finland, “Some young Laestadians in Finland secretly use contraception”:

† “According to the Bible, God Himself, with His own words and without any mediators, gives this command to multiply and fill the earth. The importance of the matter is stressed by the fact that the command is given twice, both to the first human pair and to Noah. Believers receive perhaps the most ridicule for keeping this commandment of God, in a time when it would be, even in this matter, possible to live an easier life. . . . No matter how ridiculous it sounds in the ears of present-day unbelieving people, we believe that only the Almighty Living God shall set limits and numbers to mankind, He alone shall decide when the earth is full enough, and He has methods for keeping a balance when the Earth is ‘full,’ as nature as a whole is in an incomprehensibly complicated balanced system, at least in its natural state” (Päivämies No. 32, 1975).

† A “lenient mind sometimes puts pity for the mother before having love in the truth concerning family planning, especially then when humanly speaking, the birth could appear dangerous. We so easily forget that God has already before our birth ordained the number of our days and the form of our death” (VOZ, 8/1976).

† “Never in any form does the prevention of human life come into question for God’s children. As God’s children, we know that life is a holy matter, and the possibility for life is hidden in the seed. Therefore, no form of contraception is acceptable. Even if it were to happen that a believing mother or child would die in childbirth, or during pregnancy, they would go to heaven” (Päivämies, Internet, 1979)

The uncompromising tone of these statements would soften somewhat in the years ahead, but the message remained. You just do not interfere with God’s (pro)creation work:

† “We know that one would not think of rejecting or destroying a gift at Christmas. Those who use birth control or abortion are rejecting the gifts God gives” (VOZ, 5/1990).

† “Scripture does not teach family planning, but it guides us to regard children as God’s gifts” (Uljas 2000, 106).

Another consequence of the rigid rejection of contraception (whether you view it as a “ban” or a viewpoint held in miraculous unanimity by all believers) is the lack of accounting for the unique challenges of individual families. Although Conservative Laestadianism forms a remarkably cohesive social group, with large and intertwined families usually providing wonderful opportunities for mutual support and reliable friendships, there are cases where things aren’t so rosy. Those parents unfortunate enough to have bad combinations of genes are faced with a seemingly endless sequence of children with physical or mental challenges. Parents (especially mothers) with fragile mental dispositions can have their lives and marriages clouded by the effects of repeated pregnancies and child-rearing stresses. In one case of which I have first-hand knowledge, a couple has been depriving their marriage of sexual relations for several years because they are no better equipped to deal with the mental health consequences of another pregnancy and child than with the guilt of using contraception.

† “[M]ay there always sound this blessing of Jesus’ blood. Even for example when the Christian parents feel that, ‘I have fallen into sin’ and come to you Christian children and say, ‘Will you forgive me, Child?’ May God always fill your hearts and lips with the word of forgiveness in Jesus’ precious blood. . . . Not only that the parents bless the children, but even that the children can in this way bless the parents with that heaven-sent good word, that in Jesus’ blood all sins are forgiven.”

† “My dear children whom I have carried in my lap, and lulled to sleep, I have often prayed that the heavenly Father would preserve you from all evil. Even now you are on my heart. The ones who are believing are easy to carry, but you unbelievers are especially heavy, that it feels my heart will break. Mother even worries over the believing children, but I depend on God, that He will keep you together in the congregation of His saints, where there are many fathers and many mothers, brothers and sisters, many blessing hands, and where the blood of Jesus flows freely.”

The worldly influences of secular education were of great concern in the 1970s. Here are some fairly hysterical warnings by Peter Nevala:

† “Today we are faced with an ever worsening situation in our schools. . . . I am sure that most of you have believed, even as I believed until a few years ago, that our schools were places where our children were being educated and prepared for a wholesome, useful life as future citizens in our country. Many of you have been shocked, even as I have, when we have discovered that our schools have been slowly changing for the worse. We have discovered that most of the new textbooks now being used in our schools contain objectionable language, revolutionary philosophies and immoral teachings. . . . [W]e are being subjected to a trend of thought in our country which believes that our children actually belong to the state! Our school system has been taken over by people who are known as ‘humanists.’. . . Now we are witnessing psychological conditioning, drugs, sensitivity sessions, primitive religions, witchcraft, Satanism, death education, tribal moralities (Netsilik Eskimos in MACOS program) being forced on students. . . . We must warn our little ones about the godlessness they will be exposed to in school. They must be told the teachers are still to be respected but not believed in anything they say that is contrary to our Christian ethics and beliefs” (VOZ, 1/1977).

† “There are very serious consequences that result from neglecting the temporal needs of children. Such neglect is an indication of spiritual neglect. It is a much more serious issue. Spiritual responsibility is the duty given by God. If a parent falls into spiritual neglect it has eternal consequences.”

At the tender age this process usually begins . . . children habitually give benefit of the doubt to their parents and role models. As time goes by, the vast Christian American environment consistently pounds the imperative system into their heads day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. By their teenage years, most Christians couldn’t possibly consider the presence of an error in the Bible, much less a completely erroneous foundation, because it’s unquestionably the perfect word of God to them. They believe this notion because they’re lifelong members of a society that has continually reinforced the “special” nature of Christianity. [Long 2005, 14]

† “In God’s kingdom the seed of the Word is sown with many different gifts. The sowing begins at home. Believing parents have the precious task of helping children and adolescents become rooted in God’s kingdom. The main purpose of all activities in Zion is to proclaim God’s Word” (Siionin Lähetyslehti, 9/2007).

If Eve had persisted in the truth, she would not only not have been subjected to the rule of her husband, but she herself would also have been a partner in the rule which is now entirely the concern of males.

—Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis

† “Another thing that comes into our lives from the world is the so-called liberation of women. Women are made to feel discontent with their God-given lot as mothers and homemakers. It seems that our young women would need encouragement to submit themselves unto the will of God even in these matters” (VOZ, 1/1975).

But the reactionary efforts of fundamentalists “are attempting to stem an inexorable movement of the human spirit whose hour has come” (Cox 2009, 223). The women’s liberation movement became uncomfortably prominent for American Conservatives in the 1970s, and their desire to stem it is apparent in this next quote from the July 1979 Voice of Zion:

† “When we take notice of what kinds of results the modern-time upbringing has brought about, we surely cannot rejoice in it. . . . Even the struggle for the equality of both sexes is not affirmative. The women have achieved equality many times in sorrowful matters, as drunkenness, and smoking, obscenity, and even in brutality. When women, as mothers and as partakers in much of the upbringing, lose hold of their own lives and of the objectives of upbringing, the consequences are frightening.”

The male author quoted in that article uses the word “we” like he expects his female readers to join in his lament. Conservative Laestadianism has toned down such rhetoric, but it is still surprisingly common for American fundamentalists to tout the “benefits” of submission in women and try to make it seem like the best arrangement for all concerned. Joyce cites the Reformed Baptist theologian John Piper for some extreme examples of such Orwellian doublethink. Piper argues “for the urgency of leading ‘Christian women back to a joyous embrace of godly male leadership in the church’” (2009, 15). He asks women to exchange their freedom “to work, to vote, to drive, to control their bodies and sexual lives” (yes, he’s talking about the U.S., not Saudi Arabia) for “a dubious freedom from, from the dangers and sexual threats of independent life in the world.” He “suggests that women discover their true ‘path of freedom’ in God’s good design of femininity” (p. 17). Another gem cited by Joyce is from two other authors who offer a “fresh vision” for women that “emphasizes gratitude to their husbands for helping relieve them of the burden of decision-making or the busywork that they would focus on if left to their own devices to prioritize their days: ‘slaves’ to their ‘own whims and wishes’” (p. 97).

Statements touting the joys of repression may be especially effective when they come from the repressed themselves, as do these inspiring words of Mary Pride in her book The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality:

Childbearing sums up all our special biological and domestic functions. . . . God intended women to spend their lives serving other people. Young women serve their children, their mothers, their husbands, and the community at large. Older women train and assist the younger women, and in some cases become church helpers. . . . We are responsible for keeping society healthy and human. And for this, we get respect. [from Joyce 2009, 135]

† “[T]he Scripture gives clear teaching about the role God has ordained for the Christian wife: ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body’ (Eph 5:22-23). When this God-given order is violated, whether it be by an overbearing and shameless wife who disdains the Word of God, or results from the cowardice and lenience of the henpecked husband, it brings disorderliness and strife into the family and also into the church! This has never failed! We cannot violate any of God’s clearly expressed wishes in these or other matters with impunity.”

Eve has been placed under the power of her husband, she who previously was very free and, as the sharer of all the gifts of God, was in no respect inferior to her husband. This punishment, too, springs from original sin; and the woman bears it just as unwillingly as she bears those pains and inconveniences that have been placed upon her flesh. The rule remains with the husband, and the wife is compelled to obey him by God’s command. He rules the home and the state, wages wars, defends his possessions, tills the soil, builds, plants, etc. The woman, on the other hand, is like a nail driven into the wall. She sits at home . . . [Lectures on Genesis, Ch. 3, §16]

The following Conservative writer confidently expounds on biology and sociology:

† “Men and women are inherently different” and “have their unique masculine and feminine drives. Men have a need to protect and provide and solve problems, whereas women have a need to nurture and ‘nest.’ These differences are God’s blessings, and a reason for celebration. However, the post-feminist era wants to reverse these traditional roles, and devalue the roles played in the home” (VOZ, 11/2004).

I know a fair number of strong-willed, intelligent women in Conservative Laestadianism who don’t hesitate to “protect and provide and solve problems” and snort in derision at sexist generalizations like those. To me, that quote is yet another example of how the preachers tend to put their foot in their mouth whenever they venture to say anything outside their bubble of theological abstraction. The next one is from a man who is a bit more circumspect:

† “Spouses should carry the burdens, as well as the joys, together. [Eph 5:22-25 cited] . . . [T]he husband is the head of the household and that means that he is responsible for spiritual leadership and for sowing the seed of faith in the family. He does not function as a dictator” (VOZ, 8/2006).

One grey area in recent Conservative Laestadian practice has been whether women should serve on the various congregations’ boards of trustees. The minutes of the LLC’s 2010 annual meeting reveal that the question was raised from one congregation whether “it is against God’s teachings to have a woman on the local Board.” The response from pastoral director Keith Waaraniemi was “that it is not contrary to Scriptures for women to serve in this way. It should be a question of God’s calling and not equality. There are congregations in both North America and Finland that have women on the Church Boards.”

† “Motherhood, however, is not always honored in society. A career in the workplace can be seen as more honorable than being ‘just a mother.’ The believing mother is sometimes ridiculed, especially those whom God has blessed with many children” (VOZ, 3/2008).

[T]he effects on the health of these mothers and on their families, often living in poverty, can be tragic–lives of quiet scarcity and unceasing labor, housework, and births. Elder daughters are required to pick up a great deal of household responsibilities early on in life while their mothers recover from pregnancies or . . . die early. “They’re workhorses,” says Dr. Singer [a doctor working in a women’s clinic]. “Their lives, looking from the outside, look like a form of slavery, never-ending. Sometimes I’m incredibly admiring of their stamina, what they’re able to do day after day, after so many children.” [p. 185]

When the system works, it seems to work well. There are many genuinely happy mothers of large families in Conservative Laestadianism who enjoy “God’s favor upon them” both financially and with a great deal of social support from like-minded friends and extended family. Sometimes, though, it comes to seem that God has indeed given the believing mother “more children than she can handle.” When and if that realization finally hits a desperate parent, it’s too late to do anything about it but try to cope and keep from spiraling any further into pain or poverty, or both.

Even if the birth control issue should not be decided freely, the ultimate decision has always been made by two adults, mother and father. [Conservative Laestadian] Christians have made their choices as matters of faith, based on their God-directed conscience. This means that God’s word has bound their conscience also in those decisions where the secular law would have allowed free decisions and own choices.

Conservative Laestadians, including the women who privately suffer and complain exactly like the Orthodox Jews we just encountered, are making these choices from their consciences! If your conscience tells you that enough is enough already, however, then it’s not correct. In other words, there’s no ban against contraception, but you still can’t use it. The only people I know of who can say two opposite things in a single sentence are politicians, economists, and theologians.

In Christendom, birth control was widely considered to stand against the Bible and the Christian tradition. In Christianity, the predominant view of humanity dictated that a new life was wholly God’s act of Creation, which shall not be controlled by man. New life is a fundamental task of marriage, arising from God’s command: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28).” Also Luther, in his time, reinforced this conception and said: “Therefore, the word of God, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply,’ is not a command, but more than a mere command, namely a Divine Act, not being in our power to hinder or neglect.”

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. [Psa 138:16, NASB]

Leviticus 27 places monetary valuations on human life. Boys from one month to five years of age were worth five shekels of silver, with the price going up to 20 shekels between the ages of 5-20 years. Men between the ages of 20 to 60 years had the highest price of all, 50 shekels, after which price the old duffers dropped to a mere 15 shekels in value. (Women, of course, had lower values at every age, usually 3/5 that of a comparable male.) No value at all was assigned to newborn infants.

Conservative Laestadians’ negative attitude to birth control can be summarized as follows: (1) According to God’s order of Creation, marriage is a union between man and woman, and reproduction its principal task. God invites mother and father to collaborate with this act of Creation. (2) Because a child is an act of Creation, a gift from God, and its value absolute according to Jesus, the birth of a new life is from the very beginning a holy event, in which man must not intervene.

Nothing emerged after that to cause Conservatives to re-evalutate their attitude, Lohi said. He cited approvingly this statement from the SRK’s annual meeting of 1974: “Birth control in all its forms requires abandonment of the Christian Church’s First Article of Faith.” And then we learn just what we’re supposed to think about that scientific stuff I mentioned a few paragraphs ago:

If I have faith, this means that Man has not appeared by chance. Unlike animals, a human is created in the image of God, as uniquely valuable. Therefore, the life of a human is sacred. At its deepest, the holiness of life opens perspectives for the core issue of the whole Christian Faith. God did not give His Son to die for beings evolved by a process of chance, but for uniquely valuable humans created in the image of God. The message of the Cross is mindless, if the value of a human is not absolute. This should be acknowledged even now, in the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth.

So much for science, including evolution. Once again we have arrived back in Eden, a place that Christian theology just cannot seem to leave.