1 Introduction: The Entanglement Between Secularity and the Bible

There are many things we know about the entanglement between secularity¹ and the Bible. We know that certain perceptions and interpretations of the Bible underpin the notion of a divide between the religious and secular. Conversely, we know that perceptions of the relationship between the religious and secular – and, of course, actual secularization processes – encourage certain perceptions about what the Bible is and therefore should be used or translated, as can be seen in the introduction to this special issue.

Sherwood (2012), for instance, identifies a contemporary discourse that assumes an implicit alliance between the Bible and values, such as human rights and tolerance. Sherwood traces this phenomenon back to 17th-century English political theology, where the perception of a “Liberal Bible” emerged, grounded in ideas of equality and individual freedom under God. According to Sherwood, this perception set boundaries for valid interpretations in a way that “reduces the Bible to a few benign and vague axiomatic politico-theological principles” that allowed it to become a source of legitimacy for political modernity and helped shape theories of secularization and democratization in the 20th century (Sherwood 2012, 325–329, quote p. 329).

In the Scandinavian context, the entanglement between secularity and the Bible is still being uncovered. What we do already know is that in this highly secularized region (Lemos and Puga-Gonzalez 2021), the Bible continues to hold significance in contemporary cultural and political discourse, construed as part of national heritage (Neutel 2025), or as “a Secular Bible” of common knowledge to draw on rhetorically (Stenström 2023), or as “a Civilizational Bible” fundamental to national identity in contrast to the religious Other of Islam (Strømmen 2023). Yet, we know relatively little about how these entanglements emerged historically.

This article aims to contribute by ‘digging for the roots’ in the Scandinavian country that is sometimes referred to as the most secular country in the world, Sweden. To achieve this, I will analyze the 1957–1958 public debate on women’s ordination in the (former) Lutheran state-church, the Church of Sweden (CofS), to examine how perceptions of secularity and the Bible were articulated, how they intersected, and how they were mutually constitutive. In doing so, the article will contribute to illuminating some of the roots of the entanglement of secularity and the Bible in Sweden.

The 1950s were key transitional years in the country’s secularization process. Christianity’s institutional role was shrinking, and with the 1951 religious freedom legislation, the conditions for secularization were in place (Kasselstrand et al. 2023, 22–28). That religious freedom was combined with a state church system – compatible since it was seen as freedom to religion in accordance with one’s conscience, not a freedom from religion (Sigurdson 2009, 40–44). Although we know relatively much about the significance of religion, in particular CofS, in this societal process (cf. Barrling 2024), we know relatively little about the role of the Bible. Accounts of the development of Swedish secularity are generally content with citing a few significant biblical passages or just referring to ‘the Bible’ (c.f. Ewert 2023, 72–74, 162, 182; Barrling 2024, 147–149). The intriguing entanglement between secularity and the Bible thus remains to be explored in more depth, in particular because the ideas of what secularity and the Bible are have been far from unified.

That diversity becomes markedly visible in public debate. For example, as biblical scholar Richard Pleijel shows in his article “Responding to secularization” in this special issue, what the Bible is and should be has been highly contested in the Swedish public media debate (Pleijel 2026). Similarly, in her analysis of religious education in public schools between 1920 and 1969, Hellström (2025) identifies a shift from an ecclesial Christianity to a more generalized ‘folkhome Christianity.’ Anchored in a Protestant reading of the Bible, particularly the ethical imperatives of the Sermon on the Mount, folkhome Christianity emphasized immanent ethics as a moral resource for forming responsible citizens in a cohesive society. Its values of compassion, equality, and civic duty aligned with the Social Democratic vision of the state as the ‘People’s Home’ and with a conception of the ‘folk church’ as a church for all citizens, adapting to societal change.²

While initially grounded in faith and practice, folkhome Christianity progressively lost that foundation, with a decisive change in the late 1950s. The shift was reflected and partly shaped through continuous public debates over what religion is and should be. According to Hellström, three positions dominated public debate in the early 20th Century: Lutheran confessionalism defending the use of Luther’s Small Catechism in schools, secularism, and a mediating stance advocating a general, Bible-based Christianity. Hellström also traces a gradual transformation of positions in the public debate. Over time, the boundaries between confessionalism and the middle position blurred, concealing the internal diversity of theological reasoning within each camp (Hellström 2025, 15–32, 87–109, 273–282).

To accomplish the aim of the article, I will therefore analyze the public debate in newspapers during the 1950s. This is a particularly fitting source, not only because it gives access to a plurality of perceptions of secularity and the Bible, but also because the media in themselves are significant in the development of secularity. Newspapers have long been sites for an “imagined community of secularism” (Nash 2019) and thus instrumental in promoting secular views. Moreover, the process of secularization is intertwined with the process of mediatization of religion, in which religious institutions lose influence, and the media assume the role of public arbiter of religious knowledge and values, shaping the discourse according to media logic (Hjarvard 2013; Lundby 2016).

Liljefors (2025) expands on this dynamic in her study of how the Hebrew Bible featured in Swedish public debates from 1987 to 2017. Liljefors found that the Hebrew Bible was frequently portrayed in contrast to the New Testament, as legalistic, patriarchal, violent, and incompatible with secular views, whereas the New Testament, or Jesus, was associated with compassion, equality, and peace. The debates thus reproduced anti-Jewish notions grounded in the Christian history of ideas. Liljefors relates this to mediatization theory, arguing that this contrast is fuelled by media logic that promotes certain topics and actors. The debates all were deemed newsworthy because they centered on controversial topics such as gender and state-church relations and involved actors that were newsworthy – cultural celebrities rather than biblical scholars or religious actors. Another contributing cause is that media logic delimits and conditions how biblical texts, interpretations, and interpreters are represented. The result is ‘the Mediatized Bible,’ based on the assumption of a singular, unified biblical text represented through a narrow selection of passages, vaguely and briefly referenced, that are assumed to capture the “obvious” message of the Bible (Liljefors 2025).

2 Materials and Methods

The 1957–1958 public debate on women’s ordination in Sweden serves as a revealing case for exploring how perceptions of secularity and the Bible intersected in a moment of accelerated societal change. The controversy was consistently framed in newspapers both as a question of biblical interpretation and as part of a broader negotiation of the boundaries of religion and secularity in church-state relations (cf. Stenström 2008; Mannerfelt and Maurits 2026).

The legal background dates back to the introduction of universal suffrage in 1921. While women gained full political rights, including the right to hold state offices in 1923, an exception was made for offices involving force and for the priesthood. Postwar efforts to challenge this exception culminated in a government proposal on August 2, 1957, to open the priesthood to women. As ecclesiastical matters fell under the church’s authority, the legislation required approval by the CofS General Synod. On October 3, 1957, the Synod voted ‘no,’ citing the need for further reflection. The decision’s rationale diverged from the preparatory committee majority, which instead had opposed the reform on theological grounds.

The committee’s argument leaned heavily on academic biblical scholarship, particularly on the so-called “Exegete’s Declaration” from 1951 (Mannerfelt and Maurits 2026, 70–71, 136–137). It was signed by nearly all active New Testament scholars in Sweden’s leading universities, who declared “as our firm opinion, based on careful research, that the introduction of so-called women priests into the church would be incompatible with New Testament beliefs and would constitute a departure from fidelity to Holy Scripture” (cited in Mannerfelt and Maurits 2026, 137).³ As Stenström (2008) has noted, the combination of the Bible’s premodern authority as the Word of God and the modern scientific authority of academic exegetes proved rhetorically potent.

Yet not all church leaders agreed. Archbishop Yngve Brilioth (1891–1959), among others, opposed the reform not on biblical but pragmatic and ecumenical grounds, fearing internal division and strained relations with the Church of England (Brilioth 1957). Consequently, the nay-sayers’ motive was changed to “we need time for further reflection” and “the time is not yet ripe.” Synod’s 1957 rejection sparked public outrage. Just weeks later, the government introduced a new proposal. On September 28, 1958, the Synod reversed its decision and voted “yes” by a significant majority (Mannerfelt and Maurits 2026, 70–71).

Both synods prompted intense debate, as reflected in my analysis of editorials⁴ and opinion pieces⁵ on this topic in nine of the largest Swedish newspapers from August 1957 to December 1958.⁶ The corpus consists of 70 editorials and 133 opinion pieces, in sum, 203 articles (Figure 1).⁷

View Full Size

Inventory of articles and newspapers. The figure shows the distribution of editorials and opinion pieces in the Sigtuna Foundation Archive. A significant number of editorials and opinion pieces appeared in Stockholms-Tidningen (ST) and Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) which served as important arenas for this particular debate. Numerous contributions also appeared in Morgonbladet (MB, formerly Svenska Morgonbladet) and Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten (SDS). Regarding the former, the numbers likely relates to the fact that MB was Sweden’s first explicitly Christian newspaper, and although the ownership shifted to the liberal party Folkpartiet in 1956, the readers remained engaged with ecclesiastical and theological issues. The number of contributions in published in SDS likely relates to the fact that Lund University, Sweden’s second largest university and a key intellectual hub, is located in that region, and the academics evidently chose SDS as their forum for public engagement. Finally, Aftonbladet (AB) can be characterized as both independent liberal and social democrat. Here, I follow the characterization in the Swedish Audit Bureau of Circulation’s TS-boken 1959, where AB is stated as social democrat (TS Boken 1959).

Citation: Biblical Interpretation 34, 1 (2026) ; 10.1163/15685152-20262002

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The debate engaged a wide range of voices, 105 individual contributors, of whom 30 were women. Among the 62 identifiable contributors were numerous clergy, including priests, deans, bishops, and vicars, as well as professors (mainly in theology), journalists, editors, authors, and educators affiliated with church institutions.⁸

The newspaper articles were analyzed with regard to perceptions of “secularity” and “the Bible.” The concept of religionization proved useful for analyzing perceptions of secularity. According to Marcus Dressler, religionization is “the signification of certain spaces, practices, narratives, and languages as religious (as opposed to things marked as secular)” (Dressler 2024, 144). Perceptions of “religion” and “secularity” are thus interdependent and continuously negotiated in relation to each other, which means that perceptions of secularity may be explored through processes of religionization. In her book Christian Imaginations of the Religious Other: A History of Religionization, Moyaert (2024) explores the concept further in her analysis of how Christianity in Western Europe has constructed religion and, by extension, secularity through repeated discursive contrasts between “true/good religion” and “false/bad religion.” Drawing on theological texts, legislative frameworks, and historical developments, Moyaert maps how Christian identity formation relied on various imagined religious Others, including ‘the Jew,’ ‘the Heretic,’ ‘the Muslim,’ and ‘the Pagan’ (Moyaert 2024, 2–11).

From the 16th century, Moyaert identifies a turning point in the configuration of religion, whereby ‘good religion’ began to be defined in relation to secularity as interiorized, non-ritualistic, peaceful, tolerant, and apolitical. In contrast, ‘bad religion’ was increasingly associated with intolerance, dogmatism, ritualism, political ambition, and violence. These distinctions often rested on specific counter-images: ‘the Jew’ symbolized legalism and obsolescence; ‘the Muslim’ embodied political religiosity; and ‘the Papist’ was cast as ritualistic, carnal, and authoritarian. In this discourse, secularity is not positioned as the enemy of religion, but rather as a necessary force to restrain and regulate ‘bad religion’ (Moyaert 2024, 211–245).

Drawing on Dressler’s and Moyaert’s approaches to religionization, the following questions guided the analysis: How are the categories of secularity and good/bad religion (self/other) construed? What image is being drawn, and how is it contrasted? For what purpose and by whom?

The analysis also explored perceptions of the Bible operating in these religio-secular negotiations. Drawing on Hannah M. Strømmen’s work, I used the concept of ‘biblical assemblages’ for the analysis. The term refers to the way biblical texts are activated in public discourse through constellations of citations, bodies, institutions, material practices, and narrative tropes. Assemblages emphasize the situated, mutable character of Bible use and invite us to trace what “bits of Bible” are used, in what configurations, and with what resonances from past usages (Strømmen 2024, 39–60; Strømmen 2023, 55–59). Following Strømmen, additional analytical questions were: what “bits of biblical texts” are used? What other components do they work with? Are there connections and continuity with previous forms of Bible use?⁹

3 Results

In the 1957–1958 debate on women’s ordination in CofS, three distinct perceptions of secularity emerge: secularity as a threat but possible prerequisite for good religion, secularity as a protector from bad religion, and secularity as rooted in good religion. Each perception of secularity functions primarily – but not exclusively – in conjunction with one of three distinct biblical assemblages: The Trustworthy and Coherent Bible assemblage, The Absurd Bible assemblage, and The Swedish Lutheran-Evangelical Bible assemblage.

4 Secularity as a Threat But Possible Prerequisite of Good Religion

The first perception of secularity identified in the debate is primarily found among opponents of the reform within the CofS, but also among representatives from the Free Churches, particularly the Baptist and Mission Covenant Churches. This perception of secularity is found exclusively in opinion pieces, with no editorials adopting this stance.

Secularity is consistently portrayed as a symptom of cultural and spiritual decay, threatening both the church and society. Women’s ordination is framed as a product of modern, secular ideology – referred to as “a political opinion” (Sjögren 1957; Waller 1957a), “human ideas,” (Hamacher 1957) “echoes of contemporary times” (Hartman 1957b; Waller 1957a, 1957b, 1957c), “ the secularized people's opinion” (Rosendal 1957), and is perceived by several actors to have destabilizing consequences, especially for women.

Quite a few actors refer to Bishop Anders Nygren’s (1890–1978) widely circulated 1957 synod speech, in which he argued that while modern developments appeared to advance women’s rights, they ultimately undermined women’s true nature and burdened them with double work. The church, Nygren claimed, alone stood as a protector of women (Allmänna kyrkomötets protokoll 1957). Echoing this, other authors insist that their opposition to women’s ordination is motivated by care for women (c.f. Waller 1957b; Lewin 1958; Werner 1957). Nygren’s ideal of a “renaissance of the home” recurs as a vision for counteracting secularity, social disintegration, and youth crime.

Rosendal thus argues that good religion is supported by biblical scholarship and entails fidelity to the Word of God and apostolic church order, not secularized public opinion. It may also call its followers to suffer for the truth.

Conversely, in this perception of secularity, bad religion is presented as superficial and overly accommodating to secular ideologies. Its advocates are described as “impatient” (Hartman 1957b), “fearful” (Waller 1957b), “ignorant” (Danell 1957). These dynamics align with the hermeneutical figures of the religious Other that Moyaert identifies in the religionization processes, the heretic who is a threat from within. The language in the newspapers is relatively mild, but in other fora it seems to have been harsher. For example, proponents testify to having been “branded as a denier and apostle of Satan” (Johansson 1957a) or called “heretic” (Rodhe 1958) in the Synod’s debate.

Paradoxically, secularity may be seen as a condition for preserving good religion. Free Church actors highlight this in terms of religious freedom, while some of the CofS opponents of the reform reluctantly view it as an unfortunate political reality. They would prefer to keep the state church, but as long as the church remains tied to the state, it is vulnerable to secular influence. Particularly after the government’s second legislative initiative, when the state’s actions are interpreted as a form of “foolish, irresponsible provocation” (Sjögren 1957), “coercion” (Turén 1957), driven by “state absolutist tendency” (Agardh 1957; Thorén 1958), and “moral blackmail” (Thorén 1958). In this view, the church is pressured, constrained, and ultimately suffering for its convictions in a secularizing society, and in the light of that, “one longs for a divorce between state and church” (Sjögren 1957).

5 The Trustworthy and Coherent Bible

Since the trustworthiness of the Bible is connected to coherence, deviance is problematic. Or as Licentiate of Theology and vicar Ragnar Redelius (1895–1975) puts it: “The Bible is, for all time, what God from eternity willed it to be. A Christian cannot deviate from this divine manifesto. If one begins to dismantle it, one begins to saw off the branch on which one sits” (Redelius 1957).

A core element of the coherent message of the Bible – and the theological logic for opposing women’s ordination – is the concept of a Creation order, in which men and women may hold equal value in the eyes of God but, by divine design, different roles. Within this framework, the most frequently cited verses of the Bible are 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34. In longer opinion pieces, they are paired with other passages from the Bible that explicate the Creation order, such as Genesis 1–3, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Ephesians 5, and the household codes to affirm differentiated roles for men and women, and women’s subordination. For example, priest and theologian Olov Hartman (1906–1982), director of the influential Sigtuna Foundation and theological expert in the preparations for the 1957 synod, underlines that Paul prohibits women from speaking as a consequence of the order of creation, which is part of God’s plan for the salvation of humankind and a theme that runs through the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelations (Hartman 1957b). However, in most opinion pieces, 1 Tim. 2:12 or 1 Cor. 14:34 stands alone as a representative ‘shorthand’ for the entire argument, obscuring nuances and variation in the argument.

However, to some actors, the Bible is not entirely coherent. Particularly high-church-affiliated contributors differ between ecclesial and societal norms. While gender equality is valid in broader society, it is not the order God intended for the church. To the previously mentioned Hartman, for example, Jesus’ exclusive appointment of male apostles is a deliberate act, precisely because Jesus had a generally inclusive stance toward women. Notably, this position rests on a stated contrast between the Jewish perception of women in the Hebrew Bible (“the Old Testament”) and the equality brought forth by Christ in the New Testament (Hartman 1957a, 1957b). In a similar contrasting vein, journalist Gunnar D. Kumlien ((1911–2001), 1958), notes the Catholic Church’s surprise that Sweden equates male-only priesthood with oppression. Compared to Islam, he argues, Christianity is uniquely beneficial to women. Or ‘S-m’ (1957), who points out that Christianity breaks off “radically” from the Jewish view of women.

Key bits of this assemblage also include biblical texts affirming the Self’s principles for interpretation, such as scriptural authority and divine truth, while highlighting the negative consequences of the Other’s principles, namely divine judgment. For example, Dean of Växjö Cathedral, G.A. Danell (1908–2000), argues from Gal. 1:1 that Paul, as apostle, wields divine authority. According to Danell, it is clear from 1 Cor. 14:34 that the prohibition for women to speak concerns the priesthood, and from 14:37 that Paul is commanding on behalf of Christ. Proud to be called a literalist, Danell responds to the critique of not being consistent in following all Paul’s commandments in 1 Corinthians 14 by stating that “the best Christian women he knows” actually do. Likewise, even if it is difficult to live up to God’s commandments – such as the priestly ideals in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 – one must never give up. Finally, Danell responds to a proponent of the reform by referring to Rom. 3:8 (“their judgment is deserved!”) (Danell 1957).

Finally, as seen in the quote from Rosendal above, the perceived legitimacy of this biblical assemblage is bolstered by support from modern biblical scholars at Sweden’s major theological faculties.

6 Secularity as a Protector from Bad Religion

The second perception of secularity, secularity as a protector from bad religion, is primarily found in editorials published in DN, AB, MT, Exp, and GHT, newspapers known for their critical stance toward religion. In this view, all religion is considered bad religion, and the CofS’s ‘no’ to women’s ordination is cited as evidence of religion’s incompatibility with modern democratic values. In contrast, secularity is framed as a guarantor of democracy.

These actors explicitly reject, as, for example, DN (Aug 27, 1958), the notion that democracy, gender equality, and other modern values are somehow products of Christianity. The editorial dismisses such claims, sarcastically noting that “it apparently took some two thousand years for people to understand this – and for many clergymen it remains incomprehensible.”

Yet distinctions are made between bad and worse religions. A Christianity that supports women’s ordination is acknowledged with a measure of respect. An Exp editorial (March 20, 1958), for example, praises Christian arguments for reform as “worthy of respect even to non-believers,” while more traditionalist views are labeled as “Pharisaic” in the negative sense. Again, religionization tropes come into play. Opponents are portrayed as the religious Other, as slaves to the letter of the text and high-church ritualists defending a corrupted cause that implicitly threatens the secular societal body.

As this quote shows, the political consequences are clear: disestablishment. If the state church no longer reflects the democratic values of its people, it cannot remain.

7 The Absurd Bible Assemblage

The perception of secularity as a protector from (bad) religion is primarily paired with a biblical assemblage that, drawing on Liljefors’ (forthcoming 2026) concept of “The Bible is absurd and outdated” discourse, may be termed “The Absurd Bible” assemblage. Within this framework, the Bible is framed as having no authority whatsoever. Biblical arguments are described as vague, laughable, or incomprehensible, and bits of the Bible are used rhetorically to illustrate the absurdity of religious influence in public debate and state legislative matters.

It is also noteworthy that, for example, AB (December 27, 1958) points out that there are two groups of opponents to ordained women, traditional Lutherans anchored in rural areas, and high-church ritualists who are “products of fashionable currents in university theology.”

Some bits of biblical texts also serve to point out that the state church is corrupt and not following the biblical ideals since it is funded by the state. For example, editorials in Exp cite or allude to Matt. 10:8-9 (Exp August 5, 1957; March 20, 1958). Finally, some parts may function as purely rhetorical devices, in the manner described by Stenström (2023) as “the Secular Bible.” For instance, in AB (Sep 25, 1957), the story of “shibboleth” (Judges 12) is used to discuss how biblical interpretation had become a boundary marker in ecclesial politics.

8 Secularity as Rooted in Good Religion

The third perception of secularity, secularity as rooted in Good Religion, is the most prevalent across the material examined. In this view, the secular and the religious are seen as complementary, grounded in collaboration and shared values. Secularity, in this case, is not a safeguard from religion but a consequence of good religion. Aligning with what Moyaert terms “the reconfiguration of true religion in terms of tolerance,” Christianity is not at odds with the modern democratic state, but its very foundation, and the demands of the women’s movement are consistent with core religious beliefs of equality and love.

Consequently, women’s ordination is linked to a larger struggle against oppression and discrimination, such as slavery, apartheid, racism, and antisemitism. As an editorial in ST (September 26, 1957) states: “In light of the Christian commandment of love, all attempts to theologically justify human discrimination will ultimately fail – whether that discrimination concerns race or gender, and whether it occurs in South Africa, Little Rock, or the Swedish Church Synod.”

Accordingly, the 1957 ‘no’ vote is framed by several actors as a failure of the church’s mission. Saying ‘no’ is “offensive to contemporary Christians” (MB September 29, 1958), it “damages the church’s credibility” (SDS September 22, 1957), and “undermines its position in Swedish society” (Nilsson 1957). An illustrative example is Gerdner (1957), who states that if the CofS complains about members’ growing indifference and secularization, then it is paradoxical – and self-defeating – that it would reject its most devoted believers with such a decision. Priest and theologian Ludvig Jönsson (1923–1985) even argues that the church risks falling behind as the secular world advances aspects of the gospel’s ethical vision. He warns that the church might become like ancient Israel, left behind as “the lampstand is being moved onward, to those we call secularized, but who in fact are realizing aspects of the gospel’s way of life.” The issue of women’s equality, he argues, is a particularly clear example (Jönsson 1957b).

Because of the perceived connection between secularity and good religion, the primary contrast is between good and bad religion. Good religion is linked to Lutheran theology. It is evangelical, protestant, and Reformation-based, and consistent with mainstream Lutheran theology and the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Good religion can also be linked to folkhome Christianity and the idea of a democratic church that represents the majority of the people in Sweden. It should reflect “the opinion of the people,” the “laypeople,” or the “folk church,” as argued by several actors. As Elof Åkesson (1892–1979), docent in philosophy and author, put it: women priests are not something the state is imposing on the church, “since all citizens are members of the church” (Åkesson 1957).

This framing relies on classic religionization tropes: good religion is healthy, rational, and modern (cf. ST, September 26, 1957), whereas bad religion is seen as “irrational” (Schultz-Eklund 1957) “childish” (Nilsson 1957), “arbitrary” (Jönsson 1957b), and “regressive” (SDS September 26, 1957; Nilsson 1957b), “fundamentalist,” “enslaved to the letter,” and “pre-modern” (ST, September 29, 1957). Bad religion is portrayed as “alien to the folk church” (ST October 3, 1957) and as “a form of religion foreign to our entire people” (ST October 6, 1957) It is described as a “socially hostile theology that separates the church from civil and social life” (ST November 10, 1957). In one instance, it is even pathologized, referred to as a “rabies theologorum” (‘Å.M.’ 1957).

This framing also draws on imagery of the religious Other. The primary figure is the heretic Catholic, as bad religion is described as “hierarchical” (cf. SDS October 3, 1957; ST April 10, 1958; Åkesson 1957) and associated with “un-evangelical ritualism” (Dahlbäck 1957), and “sacramentalism” (ST April 10, 1958; Dahlbäck 1957). Its advocates are said to promote, according to several actors, a “catholicizing view of the priesthood” to be “Jesuitical” (ST April 27, 1958), “scholastic” (SDS September 28, 1958), and “gazing longingly toward Rome” (ST, September 29, 1957). As Eckerdal (2018, 114, 254) points out, this was a common trope in public debate in 20th-century Sweden.

The figure of the Jew also appears as a rhetorical trope, again associated with the idea that subordination of women is inherited from Judaism. In defending the Evangelical Lutheran position, proponents emphasize that “we of course seek guidance in this matter from the Bible and tradition, but we are not ’as bound to them as the Jews were to their Levitical ordinances’ (a direct quote from Laurentius Petri’s Church Ordinance of 1571)” (Johansson 1957b). Occasionally, Islam also serves as a contrast, as in ‘Stintzing’ (1957) who states that the opponents “execute us women as responsible actors. We are told to return to the stadium of the Arab women.”

The appearances of these tropes are paradoxical, in light of the above-mentioned rejection of oppression in the form of antisemitism, but from the perspective of religionization theory, it can be understood as a recycling of established tropes used to construct identity through selfing and othering. There is, however, a notable difference. In this material, the religious Other is not feminized, but recurringly associated with patriarchy, “priestly masculine arrogance” (Dahlbäck 1957), and “exegetical masculinity” (Johansson 1957a), and the ‘no’ position is cast as an effort to preserve “ancient and medieval male-dominated societies” (Holmström 1957).

The conclusions drawn from these representations vary. A few actors express that, out of conscience, they are now compelled, regretfully, to leave the church since it no longer represents good religion. Nevertheless, the idea that church and state should be separated appears only rarely as a proposed solution. For example, Åke Zetterberg (1908–1985), priest, Social Democratic MP, and chair of the Christian Brotherhood Movement, in MT (Oct 9, 1957) warns that disestablishment could hand power to aggressive religious factions (Zetterberg 1957). In a similar vein, ‘Moa’ (1957) warns that separating church and state might allow discriminatory groups to operate unchecked and urges laypeople to stay in the church to “retain the right to speak out and help curb the clergy’s lust for power when it concerns our collective well-being.”

9 The Swedish Lutheran-Evangelical Bible Assemblage

The perception of secularity as rooted in good religion is primarily paired with a biblical assemblage I refer to as “The Swedish Lutheran-Evangelical Bible.” While this assemblage could be considered a variant of Sherwood’s Liberal Bible, it is, in this theo-political landscape, understood as a Lutheran-Evangelical Bible or, by some actors, the gospel as received by the Swedish people.

In this biblical assemblage, there is a distinction between the timeless core message of Christ and the historically contingent elements of early Christianity. Thus, the key term is not “the Word of God” but “the gospel” or “Jesus/Christ.” As earlier mentioned, a core element of this message is equality. It is described as “Christianity’s great religious core idea, long cherished as the evangelical church’s most precious heritage” (Holmström 1957). In a few instances, the message of Jesus is contrasted with “the Old Testament stories of a God who annihilates” (Leijonhufvud 1957) or the return of “Old Testament legalism and priestly sacrifice” (Dahlbäck 1957), a precursor of the contrast between the Hebrew Bible and the New Liljefors (2025) found in the 1980’s and onwards.

Again, a few bits of the Bible are used as ‘shorthand’ for the entire argument. Most prevalent is Gal. 3:28. This verse is the most cited in this assemblage (in 24 articles). An alternative ‘shorthand’ is 1 Corinthians 13 and the commandment of love (in 9 articles). These core themes of equality and love are sometimes interwoven, as in an editorial in MB (October 7, 1957), which celebrates “words that have shone like a beacon over Christian Europe for centuries” in Gal. 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 13, the gospel that “the Swedish people have received.”

In longer opinion pieces, theologians and church leaders elaborate on the argument. For example, theologian Sten Rodhe (1915–2014), outlines three hermeneutical principles: (1) the Bible must be read as a whole, through its core message of God’s grace and salvation, in which Gal. 3:28 is a crucial part; (2) its parts must be understood within their historical context; and (3) it offers no fixed blueprint for social structures (Rodhe 1958). Similarly, Bishop Gert Borgenstierna (1911–1989) contends that Paul’s injunction for women to remain silent reflected his context-bound attempt to express the gospel’s ethic of self-giving love, an approach Paul himself would likely revise in the 1950s (Borgenstierna 1958). In a few cases, actors frame this perception of the Bible in explicit contrast to the Trustworthy and Coherent Bible assemblage’s core idea of a Creation order. For instance, “C. von S” (1957) argues that female subordination stems from the fall but that Christ’s atonement restores the original creation order – equality – and the church’s leadership should reflect that.

A typical example of this biblical assemblage is the opinion piece by retired vicar Gustaf Ankar (1877–1968), who alludes to John 4:35 by saying that the harvest is rotting in the fields since the church prohibits women from contributing to collecting it. However, the Swedish folk church has a unique opportunity to cast off the yoke of literalist slavery by realizing that not all passages in the Bible have the same timeless value. While John 3:16 concerns salvation, 1 Cor. 14:34 concerns only order, and in matters of order, Lutherans act in freedom and are not bound by Scripture as the Jews are. The Bible needs to be interpreted with the humility of 1 Cor. 13:12 and the “liberating gospel” of Gal 3:28 in mind (Ankar 1957).

As seen in this example, this assemblage also employs bits of biblical texts to affirm its interpretive principles: humility, tolerance, and the continuous guidance of the holy Spirit, such as 1 Cor. 13:12, Matt. 7:1, John 16:13, 2 Cor. 3:6, and John 4:24. Again, this is sometimes framed as typical of Lutheran Sweden. As an editorial in SvD (September 26, 1957) states, “Exegetical schools come and go,” but the CofS has consistently upheld “broad doctrinal freedom and tolerance toward dissent.”

This assemblage expresses strong skepticism toward the leading exegetes who support the ‘no’ position. For example, headmaster and journalist Bernhard J. (1887–1986) sarcastically remarks that instead of a pope, Sweden has biblical scholars deciding doctrine and ridicules the “exegetically infected” synod committee report (Ernestam 1958). The previously cited Åkesson (1957) states that “Exegesis […] has no authority whatsoever to prescribe norms for churches or for individuals” and that it is a “gross misconception that exegesis is a normative science or that the modern exegete is some sort of authority on religious, social, or legal questions.” To a majority in the Swedish 1950s context, then, exegetes are not regarded as representatives of a scientific secular approach to the Bible, a fact that supports Pleijel’s (2025) thesis that the scientific rigor emphasized in the 1960s–70s Swedish Bible translation project was, in part, a strategic response to this critique.

Finally, exceptions exist. Although perceptions of secularity are often linked to a specific biblical assemblage, this is not always the case. In her opinion piece, Margareta Malmgren (1913–1997), director of studies for the Swedish evangelical mission [Evangeliska fosterlandsstiftelsen], interprets secularization as “an emergency,” requiring ecclesial response. However, her biblical assemblage reflects typical traits of the Swedish Lutheran-Evangelical Bible. She criticizes opponents’ inconsistent use of the Bible. Ironically citing Rom. 16:13, she remarks on the absence of kisses at the Synod and argues that strict adherence to 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2 would preclude women’s preaching, something she herself practiced. For Malmgren, Acts. 1:8 alone mandates preaching. She warns that the Church of Sweden risks losing its Protestant heritage, adopting a Catholic priestly model contrary to Christ’s vision of “worship in Spirit and truth” (John 4) instead (Malmgren 1957).

This example thus also features two other common elements of this biblical assemblage. First, 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12 appear as a way of summarizing the opposition’s argument. These two passages are often framed as ‘Paul’s view’ in contrast to ‘the gospel’s view.’ Secondly, rhetorical strategies are borrowed from The Absurd Bible assemblage to expose the inconsistency of The Trustworthy and Coherent Bible logic.

10 Final Discussion

What have we learned about the roots of the entanglement of secularity and the Bible in Sweden by digging into the context of the 1950s public debate? The analysis demonstrates that in this period of transition in the Swedish society, there were multiple perceptions of secularity, each primarily – but not exclusively – paired with distinct biblical assemblages. Secularity as a threat but possible prerequisite for good religion is associated with The Trustworthy and Coherent Bible assemblage; secularity as a protector from bad religion, paired with The Absurd Bible assemblage; and secularity as rooted in good religion, paired with The Swedish Evangelical-Lutheran Bible assemblage.

Crucially, these various perceptions of secularity did not develop in isolation but emerged in dialogue and tension with one another, in dynamic processes of religionization where ‘selfing’ is done through ‘othering.’ Biblical assemblages functioned as part of these processes, not only to confirm the Self but also to point to the errors of the Other. In particular, The Trustworthy and Coherent Bible and The Swedish Lutheran-Evangelical Bible assemblages lend themselves to classical religionization tropes of the religious Other. Unlike with the later Civilization Bible (Strømmen 2023), it is not Islam that is positioned as the contrasting Other. Here, it is the heretic – either the secularized Christian or the Catholic – and the Jew, who serve that role. However, there is one difference from the religionization tropes identified by Moyaert (2024): while the image of the religious other is usually feminized, here it can be associated with patriarchy.

A contributing reason for this highly problematic antithetical ideology is likely the fact that all these biblical assemblages could be considered Mediatized Bibles, adjusted to media logics that emphasize controversy and delimit the scope of texts and interpretations (Liljefors 2025). When mediatized, the biblical assemblages tend to become simplified constructions, where single passages such as 1 Cor. 14:34 and Gal. 3:28 are used as shorthand for the Bible’s ‘obvious’ message, which obscures nuances. Arguably, the perceptions of religion and secularity are affected by mediatization, too. Just as Hellström (2025: 273–282) noted in the debates on religious education, this debate also tends to conceal the variety of theological reasoning underpinning each position.

However, the bits of biblical texts and interpretive strategies in use during this period are far less limited than what Liljefors (2025) found in the 1980s onwards. This relative complexity likely reflects the fact that a wide array of religious authorities and biblical scholars joined the cultural celebrities in the debate. This finding supports Liljefors’ conclusion that the presence of trained biblical interpreters in public discourse actually makes a difference.

Finally, we have also seen how Sherwood’s (2012) Liberal Bible operates when mediatized and in this particular theo-political landscape. Here, it takes the shape of a Swedish Lutheran-Evangelical Bible, an assemblage that partly draws on Lutheran theology and practice as explicated by prominent religious leaders, partly on the folkhome Christianity of the public school curriculum (Hellström 2025). The Civilization Bible identified by Strømmen (2023), the idea of the Bible as part of a national heritage identified by Neutel (2025), and the Secular Bible identified by Stenström (2023) likely have parts of their roots here, as the kind of Bibles that emerge when the ‘Lutheran-Evangelical’ element rooted in belief and practice is lost and only the ‘Swedish’ element remains. Interestingly, unlike in the context studied by Sherwood, the association between the Liberal Bible and academic exegetes is not self-evident in 1950s Sweden. On the contrary, in this debate, university-based biblical scholars were often positioned as advocates of the Trustworthy and Coherent Bible assemblage and questioned whether their work held up to secular scientific standards.