From the Will of God to the Will of Hauge: Institutionalization of Beliefs and Practices in the Norwegian Haugian Movement

ABSTRACT

This article traces the informal institutionalization of the Norwegian Haugian revival during the first decades of the nineteenth century. The revival was the first nationwide popular movement in Norway and flourished in the footsteps of its protagonist Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771–1824). Lay preaching in religious assemblies was a core activity among the Haugians from the inception of the revival. As part of the institutionalization process, beliefs and practices related to lay ministry were both established and adapted. Although the institutionalization involved a significant break with previous teaching and practice, the Haugians themselves saw the adaptation of beliefs and practices mainly as a story of continuity, maintaining that the revival essentially remained the same. I argue that acknowledging both the changes in beliefs and practices, on the one hand, and the Haugians’ claim to remaining the same, on the other hand, are key to understanding the development of the revival.

KEYWORDS:

• Hans Nielsen Hauge
• lay preaching
• trial
• dilemma
• authority

Introduction

During the last few years, the Norwegian Haugian revival has become the object of renewed scholarly attention.¹ The revival has its name from its protagonist, Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771–1824), who for eight years travelled around the country with a pietistic message of conversion. This gave rise to Norway’s first nationwide movement, which flourished until Hauge was apprehended and put on trial by government authorities.² A widely accepted narrative, in both previous and recent scholarship, is to see the trial against Hauge as, in effect, the end of the revival, despite the Haugians picking up much of their activity again afterwards.³ There are, however, good reasons for seeing the development post-trial not primarily as a break, but also as a process involving substantial continuity with the original revival.

At a glance, both change and continuity were clearly part of the development of the movement. Limiting the discussion to the lay ministry of the Haugians, considerable change admittedly did take place in connection with the trial. While lay preaching in religious assemblies in violation of the Conventicle Act of 1741 had been characteristic of the early years, after the trial, the Haugians avoided public assemblies and adapted their religious activity to conform with legal regulations. As a result, open conflict with authorities became a thing of the past, and ‘the friends’⁴ became the faithful core of local congregations around the country.⁵ To government authorities, therefore, the Haugians appeared to have come to their senses.⁶

Continuity, however, is equally visible. For one thing, religious assemblies and lay preaching did actually carry on after the trial, even though adaptations to avoid confrontations were made. Additionally, strategic change was not something entirely new to the revival, which had already undergone several adaptations.⁷ From this perspective, the trial was not unique in altering the revival; it was part of a continuous process of change. Finally, when Hauge and the Haugians set about rekindling the movement after the trial, they themselves understood it as a continuation and even improvement of the original revival. In other words, the Haugians’ self-perception as awakened Christians persisted. There are, therefore, valid reasons for seeing the development of the revival as a story of both continuity and change. An adequate analysis of the Haugian revival must be able to account for both these aspects.

A much used way of accounting for both continuity and change in a revival is to see it as undergoing a process of institutionalization.⁸ In general, institutionalization involves both continuity and change: the installation of structures is an act of change, while perpetuation of structures entails continuity. Considering the Haugian revival from the perspective of institutionalization may at first thought seem counter-intuitive, as the Haugian movement was never formally organized.⁹ However, institutionalization does not necessarily involve establishing a formalized organization; it is fundamentally about installing and adapting structures, also informal ones such as beliefs and practices.¹⁰

Such an informal institutionalization of beliefs and practices took place in the case of the Haugian revival, which is what I aim to demonstrate in this article. I shall do this by tracing beliefs and practices in quite some detail from the beginning of the revival until after the death of Hauge. The study centres on the practice of lay preaching in religious assemblies. I argue that the process of institutionalization involved both continuity and change of beliefs and practices related to the religious activity. Significantly, I also hold that the development of the revival was understood by most Haugians to be, and in part was, a matter of continuity. This takes seriously the Haugian self-perception and discusses how this could live on, despite the substantial changes taking place.

The study is limited to Norway, from the start of the revival in 1796 to the annulment of the Conventicle Act in 1842.¹¹ The main sources are contemporary writings, letters and court proceedings from within and without the Haugian movement.¹² Hauge’s own writings and letters are given particular prominence, as his beliefs and practices were largely considered normative among the Haugians. To what degree his teachings and guidelines were followed up by the Haugians is not always easy to say; there clearly were both local differences and conflicting opinions within the revival, especially after Hauge’s death.¹³ Nevertheless, it seems fair to say that, for most Haugians, they served as a legitimating framework of how religious assemblies ought to be carried out. Hauge’s trial and death were major influential factors during the process. Therefore, the inquiry is further subdivided into three main periods: before the trial (1796–1804), during and after the trial (1805–1824) and after the death of Hauge (1825–1842).

Institutionalization

In general, institutionalization can be understood as a process of installation and adaptation of structures to address critical dilemmas.¹⁴ Concentrating on structures of beliefs and practices related to lay preaching and assemblies, the question in this article is how Haugians established and adapted beliefs and practices to solve dilemmas in their ministry. Sociologists Pamela S. Tolbert and Lynne G. Zucker offer relevant concepts for discussing the development of the revival. According to them, an institutionalization process in general comprises three stages: pre-, semi- and full institutionalization. Each of these stages have distinct characteristics, namely habitualization, objectification and sedimentation, respectively.¹⁵

Habitualization refers to the initial creation of structured patterns of behaviour that are developed in response to specific obstacles. Habitualized behaviour motivates future action. Objectification is the further development of social consensus regarding the value of habitualized structures. This endows the structure with normative legitimacy independent of its original context or function. Sedimentation is the final spread and perpetuation of structures across generations and groups of actors. While habitualization generally implies high variance in the implementation of structures and puts little emphasis on ideological legitimation, a move towards objectification and sedimentation suggests lower variance in structures and a more normative ideological foundation.¹⁶ In this way, the process of institutionalization gradually creates habitualized practices and endows these with objectified social beliefs. Eventually, both beliefs and practices are sedimented independently of individuals.

Naturally, the actual process of institutionalization of the Haugian revival does not necessarily conform in every detail to this schematic. Based on the above-mentioned concepts, however, the three periods (before the trial, during and after the trial and after the death of Hauge) can roughly be said to correspond to the pre-, semi- and fully institutionalized stages. They can, therefore, largely be seen as periods of habitualization, objectification and sedimentation, respectively.¹⁷ From this perspective, the institutionalization process can be described as an effort to solve critical dilemmas related to lay preaching and assemblies through cumulative installation and adaptation of structures. Both general beliefs about ideals, conflict and time and more particular beliefs and practices related to preaching, assemblies, venues and terminology were affected by this process, and will be discussed. What follows is therefore a description of Haugian beliefs and practices related to lay preaching and religious assemblies, and an analysis of how these developed during the three periods in response to dilemmas.

Before the trial (1796–1804): habitualization

How did the revival start, and why? The Haugians’ lay ministry marked a significant divergence from the religious traditions in the absolute monarchy of Denmark-Norway.¹⁸ Briefly speaking, the church and state were inseparable. The king was the head of the church, the ministers of the church were the king’s men, and the Evangelical-Lutheran church was the only legally permitted religious institution.¹⁹ It accompanied the population from crib to grave, administering baptism, education, confirmation, marriage and burial. The church was also solely in charge of all public religious practices. In particular, the Conventicle Act of 1741 placed all private religious worship beyond the gathering of core household members under the supervision of the local vicar.²⁰ In theory, therefore, all inhabitants of the kingdom were Evangelical-Lutheran (with a few authorized exceptions), the church was in charge of all public worship, and all religious needs were adequately catered to by the appointed ministers of the church.²¹

As is evident, lay preaching in public religious assemblies, such as those which came to be practised by the Haugians, was in violation of these traditions. Three main sources are usually highlighted to explain Hauge’s initial deviation from the religious traditions of the time. First, the pietistic inheritance transmitted most poignantly through Erik Pontoppidan’s Truth unto godliness, a question-and-answer introduction to Luther’s small catechism.²² Second, Hauge’s involvement with the Seebergian revival in his hometown.²³ Third, an ecstatic experience while working outside in a field.²⁴ Together, these influences seem to have created an urgent understanding in Hauge that he and his fellow human beings were living sinful lives, that conversion was a matter of utmost urgency and that, having been awakened to this truth, he was obliged to let others know about this.

However, Hauge’s new understanding clearly constituted a dilemma. As talking publicly about religious matters was the minister’s responsibility and privilege, how could Hauge as a lay person legitimate his ministry?²⁵ Haugian beliefs and practices, as described below, played a central role in this legitimation. Already in this first, eruptive phase of the revival, therefore, habitualization of beliefs and practices can clearly be observed, albeit with a considerable degree of variance among the adherents: lay men and women started emulating Hauge by travelling and preaching; religious assemblies were conducted in multiple regions of the country, often in combination with trade or financial enterprises; and slogans and terminology from the Bible and Pontoppidan were diffused among the Haugians. Moreover, even in this early phase of the revival, beginnings of objectification were already present, as in an attempt by Hauge to organize the friends into communities with local leaders.²⁶

Obeying the will of God

Habitualized beliefs about ideals, authorities, time and conflict contributed to a framework for and legitimation of the lay activity. The overall ideal of Hauge and the Haugians was to obey the will of God.²⁷ Ultimately, God’s will was taken to be that human beings be revived from the slumber of their sinful lives and be shown the narrow path leading to salvation. To promote this, every awakened Christian had an obligation to encourage and admonish others towards the true faith.²⁸ In this sense, every believer was co-responsible for the final destination of others, believers and non-believers alike.²⁹ If this obligation conflicted with civil regulations, the will of God must prevail. Common Haugian slogans expressing this ideal were, for instance: ‘We must obey God rather than men’, ‘Exalted is the command of kings; superior is the command of God’, ‘We should both hear from others and teach others’ and ‘Authorities should be obeyed in all good things’.³⁰

The authoritative source of God’s will was the text of the Bible. The teachings of Jesus, some of the writings of Paul and Old Testament prophets had a particular appeal to the Haugians. Luther’s small catechism and Pontoppidan’s explanation were also seen as normative.³¹ The importance of Pontoppidan to the Haugians can hardly be overstated, as his explanation served to filter and emphasize aspects of the Bible and Luther’s catechism. The fact that several of the above-mentioned slogans of the Haugians gained popularity precisely through their appearance in Pontoppidan, although originating in the catechism or the Bible, is a case in point.³²

The conception of time was biblical-eschatological, with a strong emphasis on living in ‘the last days’.³³ This had several consequences. For one thing, it served as a legitimation for female preachers, with reference to an Old Testament prophecy about ‘sons and daughters’ prophesying in the last days.³⁴ Another implication was a feeling of urgency, which contributed to prioritizing the ‘higher calling’ of travelling and preaching instead of settling down and getting married.³⁵ The urgency was further amplified by an understanding of society being in an extraordinary religious crisis at the end of time, which the ordained ministers of the church were uncapable or unwilling to address adequately. Desperate times called for desperate measures; hence, lay preaching was deemed necessary.³⁶

The Haugians showed some ambivalence with regards to conflict, such as confrontations with civil and religious authorities arising from lay preaching. On the one hand, they would not pursue or strive for confrontations, but rather shy away from direct encounters with authorities.³⁷ Furthermore, in the case of open conflict, the habitualized response would be to obey and go willingly along. On the other hand, confrontations were, to a certain degree, approved of, as they were seen to spur zealousness and devotion to the good cause.³⁸ Furthermore, life in ‘this world’ for true Christians was understood as necessarily involving trials and tribulations.³⁹ Essentially, all failures, conflicts and resistance were understood as stemming from the true enemy Satan and were taken as a sign of the Haugians being on the narrow path.⁴⁰ Hence, although the Haugians did not aim for conflict, it was seen as an expected and required part of living a true, Christian life.

Religious assemblies

The practice of lay preaching and assemblies was habitualized with respect to purpose, preachers, venues and terminology. Lay assemblies were understood to serve a dual purpose, being both arenas for mutual Christian encouragement and opportunities for outreach.⁴¹ As arenas for encouragement, the assemblies functioned as Weberian ‘signs of salvation’⁴²: Participating in assemblies meant that one took the question of salvation seriously through confessing, encouraging and admonishing others. As opportunities for outreach, the assemblies were potentially in conflict with the law, as only ministers were allowed to preach publicly. However, the Haugians did not see their assemblies as really being against the will of the king. Rather, they attributed the resulting arrests and conflicts to a number of other reasons: that civil servants misinterpreted the law, that the law was unreasonable or invalid, that they were just preaching the ‘childhood curriculum’ or that, since the ministers did not do their job properly, they had to do it themselves.⁴³

Qualifications for lay preaching were also habitualized. Although all Christians had a duty to encourage and exhort each other, only some were considered qualified for public preaching. Hauge once boasted that there were more than a hundred people gifted to preach, ‘conducting public speeches and assemblies’.⁴⁴ The main criteria for speaking in public was never programmatically expressed but seems to have been a combination of the preacher being gifted to speak publicly and exhibiting religious maturity.⁴⁵ If anyone qualified as a public speaker, it was considered a sin to refrain from using this ability, as it was a Christian duty to ‘invest one’s entrusted pound’.⁴⁶ This was, for example, made explicit to a female believer, ‘sister C’, who apparently had qualms about speaking in public: ‘If it can lead to encouragement and admonition, then [we should] not refuse. Otherwise, Christ will refuse us’.⁴⁷ The same expectation formed the basis for the Haugian attitude towards the cobbler Peder Hansen Roer, who was released from penitentiary after having conceded never to preach publicly again. His concession was considered by other Haugians as a betrayal of his Christian duty and commitment.⁴⁸

The choice of venues for the religious assemblies varied considerably, but there was a system to the variation. The crucial criterion for true worship was the biblical phrase that ‘2 or 3 are gathered in Jesus’ name’. In the Haugians’ opinion, church worship was often about custom and idolatry.⁴⁹ This was further corroborated by the argument that as Jesus had not lived in the temple, neither did God dwell in church buildings.⁵⁰ Claiming Jesus as their example, the Haugians, therefore, almost came to consider anywhere but the church as the best place for true, Christian worship. The lay preacher Niels Iversen Riis put it this way:

It should not be a custom to teach solely in the church. For Jesus stood in the boat, and the people stood on the shore. He was also in the house of Zacchaeus; and he ascended a mountain and sat down and taught his followers. So, there was no fixed place where he taught. Although in wisdom and deed we cannot equal the son of God, we must emulate him in our life and conduct, to be perfect as the Father in heaven is.⁵¹

Finally, Haugian terminology related to lay preaching further corroborated its alleged biblical foundation. The Haugians were encouraged to ‘preach’ (forkynne), ‘exhort’ (oppmuntre), ‘confess’ (bekjenne), ‘encourage’ (oppbygge), ‘remind’ (påminne), ‘admonish’ (formane), ‘sermonize’ (preke), ‘prophecy’ (profetere), ‘speak’ (tale), ‘comfort (trøste), witness (vitne), ‘teach’ (lære), etc.⁵² The terminology used for the act of getting together showed less diversity and was only, in part, biblically inspired. The Haugians had ‘gatherings’ (Samlinger) and ‘assemblies’ (Forsamlinger) or simply ‘came together’ (kom sammen).⁵³ Although the terminology, overall, exhibited great diversity, it is a sign of habitualization of the revival that the same terminology was used throughout.

During and after the trial (1805–1824): objectification

Conflicts between Haugians and authorities culminated in 1804, when the central government had Hauge arrested and put him on trial. The intervention inaugurated the second period of the revival and precipitated significant institutionalization of beliefs and practices related to lay preaching and religious assemblies. The arrest of Hauge and implementation of several measures against the Haugians effectively repressed the revival, and Haugian religious assemblies practically came to a halt.⁵⁴ In 1814, the 10-year-long trial was concluded, as Hauge was convicted and fined for violation of the Conventicle Act.⁵⁵ However, the final conviction was considerably milder than the original accusations, which opened the way for a fresh start.

In the course of the trial, both the Haugians and society underwent considerable changes. Hauge and many Haugians made friends with ministers of the church and society and settled down. At the same time, largely due to the cessation of public assemblies, Haugians generally went from being objects of suspicion and ridicule to being admired for hard work and high morale. Additionally, the year 1814 saw some major political events: Norway’s union with Denmark was dissolved, a Norwegian constitution was crafted and a new union with Sweden commenced. All of this suggested more favourable conditions for the Haugians if they were willing to adjust their practices.

The years of the trial also influenced Hauge personally. As he had been punished for trespassing the Conventicle Act, there could be no doubt any longer that this was a law to be reckoned with.⁵⁶ Moreover, perhaps more than many Haugians, he was adamant that the friends should not provoke the government to intervene again. Therefore, a new and weighty conviction of Hauge’s was that the Haugians must conform to the regulations of the Conventicle Act. As he later explained it, ‘I wanted to obey the laws of the state. I especially considered in what way we could combine a Christian confession with the laws […] so that it happened with order and a godly mind’.⁵⁷ In other words, Hauge’s dilemma was how the Haugians were to live and practice as true Christians while conforming to the law. More than anything, this dilemma guided the subsequent adaptation and redefinition of Haugian beliefs and practices related to lay preaching and assemblies.

After the trial, Hauge did not resume public preaching again himself. However, he actively participated in rekindling the movement and shaping it according to his convictions.⁵⁸ In 1817, with Haugian preaching and assemblies picking up again, the gatherings threatened to get out of hand. In letters to friends, he therefore proposed a set of guidelines. He advised them on how their religious practice now ought to be carried out in order to stay within the limits of the law.⁵⁹ These guidelines came to set a new norm for preaching and assemblies among the Haugians after the trial. They, therefore, serve as the basis for the description of the adapted beliefs and practices below.

Hauge’s guidelines are indicative of increasing objectification within the movement after the trial. Not only is regulation of action in itself an important indicator of increased institutionalization; Hauge’s guidelines became objects of social consensus and were taken as normative instructions among the majority of the adherents of the movement. To legitimate the new practices, they were further invested with adapted beliefs about ideals, authorities, conflict and time, as shown below. This confirmed them as fitting for a true Christian life. Although beliefs and practices underwent considerable change, they were largely taken as a continuity of the early revival through standardization of liturgy and terminology, and theological reflection.⁶⁰

Maintaining order

While the overall ideal was still expressed as submission to God’s will, this was now always set within the framework of maintaining order (Orden). In the words of Hauge, ‘Whatever we do in the service of good, admonishing and encouraging our neighbours: this will certainly be pleasing to everyone, as long as order, attentiveness and care is ensured according to the law (my italics)’.⁶¹ A recurring argument for maintaining order was that large, public assemblies often caused disturbance and commotion instead of the intended, true Christian encouragement.⁶² As encouragement remained one of the ultimate purposes of the assemblies, the Haugians had to confine themselves to assemblies that maintained order. Moreover, maintaining order was also understood in a theological sense as subordination to church hierarchy. Because only clergy were allowed to preach publicly according to the constitutional Lutheran confession, the Haugians now primarily aimed at activities which were allowed for laymen.⁶³

Although the Haugians still claimed the Bible as their highest authority, its interpretation was now heavily guided by adherence to religious regulations. Through references to Scripture, the new, more compliant, approach was explained to be more in line with the overall message of the Bible. For instance, during the trial, Hauge admitted to ‘having interpreted the prophets too literally’, and subsequently, cautioned his friends against making the same mistake.⁶⁴ Defending himself against accusations that he himself now refrained from public assemblies and speeches, he argued with explicit reference to the Bible that quietly witnessing through an exemplary lifestyle was more effective:

You ought to consider how multitudes of people used to gather around for the assemblies, with which I also wasted my time. I did not have the strength to continue this way, see Ezekiel 33.⁶⁵ The Word of God amply witnesses that a good example is more effective [i.e. than large assemblies]. And it more quickly promotes the good for believers to seek to intermingle with unbelievers in daily practical work. Besides, the government has forbidden it [i.e. conducting religious assemblies].⁶⁶

The Haugians’ conceptions of time also underwent change. A biblical-eschatological view of history was still the main reference, but for many, everyday life had changed for the better. It was almost as if the troubles of ‘the last days’ had been cancelled, or at least delayed. Hauge even bought a farm and got married, as many Haugians by then also had done.⁶⁷ Feelings of living at a better time comes to the surface in Haugian letters of the period, where the age is frequently characterized by the use of optimistic biblical designations, emphasizing a new start or a postponed judgement. Hauge, for instance, admonished his friends to appreciate the ‘lovely spiritual springtime’ which they were experiencing.⁶⁸ The lay preacher Lars Kyllingen called the age a ‘honeymoon’. In addition, Lars Bakke, clearly expressing the continuity with the past, encouraged the Haugians to return to their ‘first deeds’, as they were ‘once more called to the vineyard’.⁶⁹

While conflict with authorities before the trial had partly been considered a sign of being on the right track, open conflict involved disorder and was now explicitly unwanted. The well-known three enemies of Pietism (the world, the flesh and the devil) had in a sense undergone change. As a true Christian life was understood as necessarily involving trials and tribulations, ‘the world’ was increasingly interpreted as a spiritual enemy. As a result, Haugian reports of spiritual temptations and prayer battles abounded during the period. In this way, ‘the world’ continued to be an enemy, although mostly in a changed form. This transformation of ‘the world’ from a physical to a spiritual enemy was explained by Samson Traae in a letter to fellow Haugians: ‘In our age there seems not to be any serious trials as in previous times, with the death of martyrs, etc., but we have the delicate trials of the heart (my italics)’.⁷⁰

Private ‘encouragements’

In accordance with the abovementioned beliefs, Hauge’s guidelines more specifically regulated and redefined several aspects of the Haugians’ religious assemblies, thereby motivating further objectification within the movement. The Haugians were no longer to actively invite people to the assemblies. Furthermore, it was preferable that they read aloud from an approved postil instead of speaking freely. If anyone was to speak freely, then it should be no more than one person per assembly. The guidelines were quickly circulated among the Haugians, and Hauge led by example: In 1817, he wrote enthusiastically to his friends that ‘I arrived home the other day from Brag[er]nes. Last Sunday, many of us were gathered there, without invitation (my italics)’.⁷¹

Most importantly, the guidelines regulated assembly venues, and a clearer distinction between public, private and secret assemblies was introduced among the Haugians. As both public and secret assemblies were explicitly prohibited by the Conventicle Act, a middle course of private in-house assemblies (Huus-Andagt/Opbyggelse) became the new norm.⁷² In addition to the legal argument, private assemblies were also seen as maintaining order, which was deemed favourable for true, Christian encouragement.⁷³ In contrast, convergence of crowds of people was now considered counter-productive.⁷⁴ Whenever large or public assemblies did occur, the Haugians were careful to quickly stress to one another in their letters how devoted and sincere the participants had been.⁷⁵

The qualification for speaking in assemblies was further restricted by the endorsement of preachers by Hauge. This was implemented through personal correspondence or by Hauge taking visits from would-be preachers at home.⁷⁶ The preachers’ role was increasingly confined to reading aloud from an approved postil and rounding it off with an exhortation to live accordingly, rather than preaching freely. While the preachers before the trial had typically been young and single, both male and female, there was now a generation of ‘elders', mostly married men, from whom the young were admonished to learn.⁷⁷ While Hauge still encouraged female preachers, his argument for this had changed. From previously reasoning that women could preach as it was ‘the last days’, Hauge now reasoned that women could speak in assemblies as they were just ‘speaking encouragement’, not really preaching or teaching.⁷⁸ In this way, Hauge attempted to align the Haugian preaching practice with the country’s Evangelical-Lutheran confession.

By the same logic, the great variety of terminology pertaining to lay preaching, which had characterized the revival in the early years, was considerably reduced. The Haugians were now mainly reminded to ‘confess’ (bekjenne), ‘encourage’ (opbygge/opmuntre) and ‘admonish’ (paaminne/formane) each other.⁷⁹ These activities were explicitly referred to in the Bible as obligations for every Christian and were, therefore, argued to be legitimate for lay people.⁸⁰ Terminology considered to be problematic, such as ‘preach’ and ‘teach’, was more seldomly used, and interestingly, no Haugian term for itinerant preacher was ever coined.⁸¹ In the same spirit, Hauge’s guidelines also explicitly coined a new term for assemblies—Opbyggelser—which literally translates as ‘encouragements’. The word quickly caught on as the common Haugian term for religious assemblies.⁸² As with other elements of Hauge’s guidelines, the terminological standardization expressed a dual purpose: on the one hand, the Haugians fulfilled their Christian duty of encouraging each other; on the other hand, they abided by the law and did not intervene with the preaching monopoly of the church.

The death and Will of Hauge (1825–1842): sedimentation

The rekindling of the movement by balancing the concerns of faith and society through redefined beliefs and practices was a success, at least in terms of numbers.⁸³ In just a few years, the movement expanded to comprise copious interconnected groups of Haugians. More importantly, the Haugians, according to Hauge, now had ‘a more thorough perception and wiser leadership’.⁸⁴ He, therefore, considered the new push to not just be a continuation of the early revival but even an improved version of it.⁸⁵ During the last years of his life, though, the question of how the movement would fare after his death became his main concern.⁸⁶ He particularly worried about schism within the movement and sought a way to avert it.⁸⁷ As Weber has argued, the death of a charismatic leader is a critical moment for any religious movement, raising the issue of succession of authority.⁸⁸ Whether Hauge can be said to have been the movement’s leader or not is debatable.⁸⁹ However, he certainly acted as its leader when addressing the situation.

When he died in 1824, the question of what would happen after his death had, in effect, already been settled- by Hauge himself. He had written a will—Testamente— to be published posthumously. Therefore, although Hauge’s death meant that the uniting figure of the movement was gone, his will ensured that his authority persisted. In the will, he drew up his wishes for his friends: how they should worship, how they ought to be organized, what books they were to read, who were to preach, etc.⁹⁰ In short, it specified how the Haugians were to continue to live as true Christians by remaining united and staying the same under the supervision of ‘elders’. The contents of the will were partly in accordance with Hauge’s previous guidelines, and partly expansions on these. Thus, through issuing the will, the ideal of obeying God’s will, to which the ideal of maintaining order had been added, was given yet another addition: The Haugians must abide by the will of Hauge.

The will’s message of remaining united and staying the same soon became a real dilemma for the Haugians, as Hauge’s worries about schism were not without cause. Just a few months after his death, the divorce and remarriage of one of the Haugian elders almost split the friends into two groups.⁹¹ In the years to come, numerous issues in less dramatic but similar ways threatened to change and tear the ever-growing Haugian movement into factions: the matter of revising Hauge’s books; the question of producing and selling spirits; the Haugians’ relation to the Moravian brothers, the Danish minister N. F. S. Grundtvig and other revivals; the issue of integration into society; urban versus rural Haugians, eastern versus western and young versus old.⁹² The movement during this period was, therefore, in a more or less constant tug-of-war between Hauge’s final will of remaining united and staying the same, and ever new impulses towards change and fragmentation. Although there were minor schisms, overall, the will proved to be stronger.⁹³ Not only did it keep the Haugians united; so successful was the will that any deviation from it generally met with loud Haugian protests.

The single most important factor, therefore, in the sedimentation of the Haugian movement in the years after Hauge’s death was his will. In accordance with the will, convictions became conventions, beliefs and practices related to preaching and assemblies were streamlined, new generations of the Haugians adopted the Haugian way of worship, assembly venues became increasingly fixed and the Haugians generally resisted any kind of change or revision in liturgical and devotional books.⁹⁴ However, the many tensions mentioned above also left their mark. Not only did they generate local differences between Haugian communities. As society became more accepting towards Haugian demands for freedom of worship, some Haugians eased up the overly strict implementation of Hauge’s will.⁹⁵ Included in the process of sedimentation was, therefore, also considerable change. However, as the ideal of the will was to remain united and staying the same, changes were generally incorporated through terminology and adapted beliefs under what was now increasingly understood as an uninterrupted Haugian revival and heritage.

Remaining united and staying the same

The ideal of remaining united and staying the same meant that many Haugians became sceptical of change altogether, even in church. As one critic put it, the Haugians had become ‘pharisaic’ about church ceremony.⁹⁶ Additionally, actual changes in Haugian practices often went unnoticed, as new developments were subsumed under existing terminology. Such was, for instance, the case when so-called ‘private encouragements’ at times, in reality, had become public assemblies. Alternatively, change was explained by ascribing it to others. As one of the friends put it: ‘Now the world has changed face (my italics)’.⁹⁷ In other words, the Haugians were the same, the others had changed.

Hauge’s will was now increasingly appealed to as authority for regulating devotional practice: Elders acknowledged each other as leaders of the movement according to the will.⁹⁸ Young would-be itinerant preachers were checked and corrected in keeping with the will.⁹⁹ Friends rebuked each other for admitting uncensored books into assemblies in reference to the will.¹⁰⁰ Public defences of Hauge were stopped with reference to the will, if they did not meet the standards of the elders.¹⁰¹ Reading of the will even became part of Haugian assemblies in some places.¹⁰²So united did the Haugians stand against external attacks on the Haugian way that even sympathetic outsiders would be appalled by the seeming infallibility of Hauge and the ‘worship’ of his writings.¹⁰³

This strict keeping of the will also marked the beginning of what might be called an objectification, or a theology, of Hauge. This started to appear in letters and published defences of his life and ministry, and portrayed him as a suffering but faithful servant of God.¹⁰⁴ This emerging theology was later in the century to appear as claims of Hauge’s historical significance for Christianity in Norway.¹⁰⁵ Central beliefs were Hauge’s divine calling, his unwavering faithfulness and the orthodoxy of his teachings.¹⁰⁶ The significance and logic of this theology was the understanding that as long as the Haugians and later generations remained loyal to Hauge’s precepts, they were encompassed by the same divine calling as Hauge. This was summed up by Hauge in the will: ‘May that Holy Spirit of Grace, which has rested on me and which you have received, still rest over you and over all those who hereafter receive it and believe the Holy Word of God’.¹⁰⁷

The conception of time in this period was a continuation and amplification of the previous one. While the years after the trial had resembled springtime, Haugians were now experiencing ‘summertime’.¹⁰⁸ In 1826, O. A. Moe in Trondheim called it a ‘time of grace’, when writing to his uncle.¹⁰⁹ A couple of years later, Helene Nesterud exclaimed, ‘We are living in a blessed age!’¹¹⁰ The experience of living in an exceptionally good time even moved some Haugians to let go of some of the self-regulations imposed by Hauge. The elder Ole T. Svanøe, for instance, encouraged a brother to take up public preaching as he was a gifted speaker, and it was ‘a convenient time for the sowing of God’s word’.¹¹¹

Even so, the avoidance of open conflict continued to be a main concern for the Haugians. In Kristiansand, for instance, an assembly hall was built by a local Haugian, with the windows facing the courtyard instead of the street. In this way, it was hoped that the assemblies would give less rise to disturbances from people outside.¹¹² By and large, however, Haugian assemblies were tolerated in most parts of the country, only occasionally leading to encounters with authorities.¹¹³ This further contributed to sedimentation of the movement, as its beliefs and practices proved successful in reaching aspired goals.¹¹⁴

From private to public ‘encouragements’

Although ‘encouragements’ were firmly sedimented in this period as a distinct Haugian practice, their actual conduction underwent change. For example, they increasingly became more public than private events. People were openly invited, and the number of attendands could be well over what might reasonably be called a private gathering.¹¹⁵ Most places there were regular Haugian assemblies every Sunday afternoon, usually after church service (so as not to interfere with the ministers’ work). On special occasions, though, such as holidays, market days or whenever an itinerant preacher was visiting, additional assemblies would be held. These assemblies would often be much larger events than usual, such as a market day assembly described by Ole T. Svanøe in 1832:

I arrived in Stavanger after four days at 5 pm on a Sunday afternoon. Everyone had by then arrived at the market. The friends were gone to the encouragement, so I also went. But in the first place, it was impossible to enter. In the second place, I finally managed to get inside the door after a lot of shoving, and I stayed there until it was finished. They told me afterwards that there were more than 300 people in each place.¹¹⁶

Regular assemblies were tacitly, albeit sometimes grudgingly, tolerated by local ministers.¹¹⁷ Only on rare occasions, and hardly even then, would assemblies explicitly be announced, as the law demanded. Tellingly, the Danish lay preacher Claus L. Clausen travelled around Norway for four months in 1841, preaching in Haugian assemblies almost every single day. Only on two occasions was the local minister notified.¹¹⁸

The private nature of Haugian assemblies was still crucial to the friends. However, with the number of attendants increasing, the understanding of ‘private’ came to expand to acquire the meaning of ‘with only Haugians present’. This was the case, for instance, with the emergence of private assembly halls. The most common venue for assemblies was still the home of the local Haugian elder, but in cities and places with large Haugian communities, the rising number of attendants required more space than Haugian homes could provide. In many places, the solution became privately owned assembly halls. Such halls popped up in for instance Kristiansand, Trondheim, Kongsberg, Bergen, Stavanger, Kopervik and Egersund.¹¹⁹ Although large enough to accommodate hundreds of people, these halls were privately owned, and were intended for Haugian use only. They were therefore understood by the Haugians to be venues for ‘private encouragement’.

The strong understanding of the private character of Haugian worship is also exemplified by how troubled the rash Haugian lay preacher Elling Eielsen became in 1834 by an invitation to conduct a lay religious assembly in a public town hall. As he was convinced that an ‘encouragement’ in a public place could not be in accordance with the will of God, he was initially intent on declining the invitation. However, through seeking guidance from the Bible, he was ultimately convinced that ‘God has not consigned [the preaching of] his word to certain places’. He, therefore, proceeded to conduct the ‘encouragement’ in the town hall with more than 600 people present.¹²⁰

In the case of itinerant preachers, control would be executed by the elders either through correspondence or by accompanying the preacher to the next assembly place and discussing their qualification with other elders there.¹²¹ With reference to Hauge’s will, there was an understanding among the Haugians that itinerant preachers would be seen by outsiders as representative of the movement as a whole, and therefore, must not give occasion for accusations. Consequently, the main concern of the elders was that the preachers must convey a true Christian message inwards, while being reputable representatives of the Haugians outwards. Those who were considered too young, spiritually immature, morally blameworthy or of uncertain Christian derivation might accordingly be permitted to talk only privately (i.e. with only Haugians present), or restrained altogether.¹²² However, the control of the elders was not absolute, and in the 1830s, it was increasingly challenged by young and eager next-generation preachers, such as Eielsen and the 16-year-old Mads Wefring.¹²³

Despite the above-mentioned changes in preaching and assembly practices, the terminology of Haugian ‘encouragements’ remained the same as in the previous period. In fact, ‘encouragement’ became a trademark for Haugian worship for the duration of the century, and confirmed the Haugian perspective of staying the same.¹²⁴ A growing discrepancy between terminology and content caught the attention of at least one Haugian critic, though, who ridiculed the so-called Haugian encouragements, ‘which their assemblies are always called, however depressing they may be’.¹²⁵ In the 1840’s, Haugian ‘encouragements’ took the last step to once more becoming public assemblies, as the first public ‘encouragement-houses’ were built.¹²⁶ These were the first of a whole generation of public lay assembly houses (later called ‘prayer houses’) to be built round and about in Norway later in the century.

The will of Hauge had yet a final role to play for the Haugians, albeit a more paradoxical one, as it also paved the way for the gradual dissolution of the Haugian movement. In 1842, the Conventicle Act was annulled. This event, which the Haugians themselves initiated and regarded as a great political victory, ironically also marked the beginning of the end of the Haugian movement. Although Hauge’s will had been the principal unifying element of the friends, it also explicitly charged them with remaining within the church, a principle which had become firmly sedimented within the movement. This meant that, after the annulment of the act, the Haugians never endeavoured to become formally organized as Haugians, in the form of a lay organization or denomination.¹²⁷ Instead, they went on to be organized in other lay Christian organizations, such as outer and inner missions and the temperance movement. Eventually, these formal organizations took prominence over the informal Haugian movement, which all but disappeared from history in the second half of the 19th century.

Conclusion

As this study has shown, the process of institutionalization of Haugian beliefs and practices related to lay preaching and assemblies involved both change and continuity. The change was clearly manifested in how expressions of Haugian worship after the trial were streamlined, objectified and later sedimented. From multifarious small and large, in-house and outside gatherings, Haugian assemblies were channelled into ‘private encouragements’. As part of this process, beliefs about authority, time and conflict were adapted to correspond with and legitimate the necessity of abiding by the Conventicle Act.

However, the institutionalization of the revival after the trial also bore witness to continuity. Encouraging, confessing and exhorting remained core Haugian ideals and practices, itinerant preachers still travelled between local Haugian groups, and Hauge’s guidance and authority presided over the movement, even after his death. Although the element of change is most easily visible, it is therefore not the whole story. The later development of the Haugian movement was not so different from the pre-trial revival, as has sometimes been made out.

Hauge and the Haugians saw the revived revival as a story of continuity. Certainly, a narrative of continuity and of staying the same was what they preferred to see, as it made the Haugian movement both meaningful and comprehensible. Nevertheless, the narrative had substance to it, and the Haugian self-perception of still being part of the revival must in itself be recognized as a significant element of continuity. Also, Hauge played a central role in rekindling the movement after the trial, guiding its institutionalization with instructions and a final will. Therefore, from the perspective that mattered most to the Haugians, namely that of encouraging people towards a true Christian life under Hauge’s guidance, it is not strange that they experienced the revival living on.

In the years leading up to the annulment of the Conventicle Act, Haugians had become more sedimented than ever before in their lay ministry. However, as the informal nature of the institutionalization allowed for substantial local variation, and as the Haugian assemblies attracted larger numbers than ever before, the sedimentation also meant a return, at least in some ways, to the first days of the revival with its large assemblies and broad appeal. Paradoxically, therefore, the institutionalization process also involved a return in some ways to the pre-institutionalized period of the revival.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jostein Garcia de Presno

Jostein Garcia de Presno (b. 1975), is lecturer at Volda University College. He is currently pursuing PhD on the Haugian movement at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society. His latest publication is ‘Transnational Revival? An Attempted Haugian Expansion into Sweden’ in Historisk tidsskrift, 2023.

Notes

1. Significant recent publications are Dørum and Sødal, Hans Nielsen Hauge; Riiser Gundersen, Haugianerne; Farstad and Nymark, Nye perspektiv, and Dørum and Sødal, “Hauge som samfunnsfornyer”.

2. In the literature about the Haugian mobilization, both ‘revival’ and ‘movement’ are commonly used, ‘revival’ more of the early years, while ‘movement’ more of the later years. In the article, the terms are used interchangeably, as one of the issues being discussed is precisely whether the later movement was a continuation of the initial revival, or not.

3. See for instance Norderval, “Hauges siste år”; Hermansen, “Hauge og historien”.

4. ‘The friends’ was the preferred self-designation of the Haugians.

5. For instance, Sejersted, Den vanskelige frihet, 255; Rian, Sensuren i Danmark-Norge, 441.

6. See reports presented by the defence during the trial, The National Archives of Norway, RA/S-1151/D/L0001/08.

7. Such as the establishment of a Haugian business network from 1801, and the appointment of local leaders in 1802.

8. For further discussions on institutionalization of revivals and sects, see, for instance, Whitam, “Revivalism as Institutionalized Behavior”; Robertson, Sociological Interpretation, 121–40.

9. Religious organizing was made legal when the Conventicle Act was annulled in 1842.

10. Brady, “Institutionalization,” 7559.

11. For the development of Haugianism among US emigrants, see Gulliksen, “Haugerørsla i Midtvesten”.

12. The four primary sources of the Haugian movement are the writings of Hauge (Ording, Hauges skrifter 1–8), the letters of Hauge (Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1–4), Haugian letters (RA/EA-6834/L0001–4) and the trial proceedings (RA/S-1151/D/L0001–5).

13. See, for instance, the study of local Haugian devotional practices in Rogaland in Langhelle, Haugianismen i Rogaland.

14. Similar understandings of institutionalization can be found in Knudten, Sociology of Religion, 285–6; O’Dea, “Five Dilemmas,” 32; Brady, “Institutionalization”; Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality, 37–8.

15. Tolbert and Zucker, “Institutional Theory,” 175–8. The idea of degrees of institutionalization was first developed in Zucker, “Role of Institutionalization”. The theory is an adaptation and development of concepts first developed by Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality.

16. Tolbert and Zucker, “Institutional Theory,” 179.

17. Admitting, however, that there may be patterns of behaviour at varying levels of institutionalization in institutions, cf. Tolbert and Zucker, “Institutional Theory,” 174–5.

18. A comprehensive introduction to the religious regulations of the period (which, for the main part, were the same for Norway and Denmark) is given in Sanders, Bondevækkelse og sekularisering, 31–58.

19. Oftestad, Den norske statsreligionen, 70–4.

20. There were potentially several illegal aspects of conventicle activity, such as unregistered travelling, gathering of people without permission, men and women assembling together, as well as the actual lay preaching, cf. Supphellen, Konventikkelplakatens historie 1741–1842, 122–30.

21. Amundsen and Laugerud, Norsk fritenkerhistorie, 36–7.

22. Pontoppidan, Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed.

23. Thrap, “Seeberg og Hauge”.

24. In an early letter, Hauge describes his experience with the words ‘God called me to be his servant, to confess his name’. Letter from Hauge, 30th of August 1800, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 45. For a critical appraisal of the sources describing Hauge’s ecstatic experience, see Koch, “Hauges religiøse udvikling.”

25. Hauge himself gives us a glimpse of the process: ‘I set about searching diligently in the Holy Scriptures for guidance about what to do. I could not believe my feeling, my inward light, if it did not correspond with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles’. Ording, Hauges skrifter 6, 140.

26. Letter from Hauge to friends, 8th of February 1802, in Ording, Hauges skrifter 5, 284–8.

27. As expressed, for instance, already in one of the first letters from Hauge, 11th August 1798, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 3. This was also made explicit in Hauge’s first published writing Betragtning over Verdens Daarlighed (1796), Ording, Hauges skrifter 1, 80.

28. See, for instance, letter from Hauge to Ole Berg, 20th of February 1801, and to friends, 25th of October 1804, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 64, 298.

29. Langhelle, Modernization of Mentality, 41.

30. Pontoppidan, Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed, 39, 39 and 29.

31. Aarflot, Tro og lydighet, 119–50.

32. The dependency of Pontoppidan is exemplified by the mistranslation of the third of these slogans in some versions, where the original text of Luther’s catechism ‘learn from others’ had been rendered in Pontoppidan as ‘teach others’, which suited the Haugians better; see Seland, “Utilladelige Taler,” 215. The Haugians’ love of Pontoppidan’s explanation was crucial for its institutionalization in Norwegian society, see Horstbøll, “Politics of Catechisms”.

33. Letter from Hauge to his friends, 30th of August 1800, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 46.

34. As in Hauge, Forsøg til en Afhandling om Guds Viisdom (1796), in Ording, Hauges skrifter 1, 242; Ording, Hauges skrifter 2, 74.

35. Letter from Hauge to friends, 27th of March and 29th of May 1801, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 77, 95.

36. Ibid., 8; Hauge, Forsøg til en Afhandling om Guds Viisdom (1796), in Ording, Hauges skrifter 1, 193–4; Hauge, En Sandheds Bekiendelse om Saligheds Sag (1798), in Ording, Hauges skrifter 2, 42; Hauge, De Eenfoldiges Lære og Afmægtiges Styrke (1798), in ibid., 57.

37. Hauge admitted to this strategy in the interrogation during the trial: reply to question 108, RA/S-1151/D/L0002/0001.

38. This served as an argument for not appealing to the king against recurring arrests of Haugians; see letters from Hauge to friends, 24th of December 1799 and 21st of January 1800, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 23, 29.

39. Hauge, Forsøg til en Afhandling om Guds Viisdom (1796), in Ording, Hauges skrifter 1, 175–80.

40. For instance, letter from Hauge to friends, 13th of January 1801 and 17th of April 1802, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 57; Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 148.

41. Ropeid, “Venesamfunn og verksemd”.

42. Cf. Weber, Den protestantiske etikk og kapitalismens ånd, 90.

43. See, for instance, the interrogation of Hauge, reply to question 61, RA/S-1151/D/L0002/0001. Seland, “Utilladelige Taler”, 213–4 distinguishes between a private and public practice in Agder, where the former was more widespread.

44. Letter from Hauge to friends, 17th of April 1802, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 148.

45. Cf. the discussion about the qualification of Sara Oust as a preacher, Heggtveit, Den norske Kirke 1, 229.

46. Letter from Hauge to friends, 19th of October 1803, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 215. The expression is from the parable in Matt 25:14–28. Similar ideas are expressed in the letter from Knudt Kittilsen to friends 25th of December 1804, https://urn.digitalarkivet.no/URN:NBN:no-a1450-db60047756000601.jpg

47. Letter from Hauge to friends, 22nd of June 1804, ibid., 256.

48. Riiser Gundersen, Haugianerne, 618–9.

49. Matt 18:20. Hauge, Den christelige Lære (1800), in Ording, Hauges skrifter 3–2, 603.

50. Ibid., 602.

51. Letter from Niels Iversen Riis to the minister Parelius, 14th of November 1799, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047756000043 (All translations are my own). A similar concern is found in a letter from Poul Gundersen to friends, 22nd of September 1801, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047756000333.

52. See, for instance, the variety of designations in Hauge’s public defence of the Haugian preaching and assembly practice of 10th of April 1799, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 1, 8–9.

53. ‘Religious assembly’ (gudelig Forsamling) was the legal phrase of the Conventicle Act for lay gatherings.

54. A noteworthy exception was John Haugvaldstad from Stavanger, who continued to conduct religious assemblies even during the trial; see Haaland, John Haugvaldstad, 22.

55. He was also convicted of intimidating the clergy but was acquitted of trying to establish a property fellowship among the Haugians; see Garcia de Presno, “Offer for justismord?”.

56. Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 99. After 1814, laws from the union with Denmark were, as a rule, carried over unless they were overruled by the Constitution. The Conventicle Act was, therefore, still considered effective.

57. Letter from Hauge to friends, 11th of December 1817, ibid., 191.

58. Garcia de Presno, “Konfliktskapende eller fredssøkende?”.

59. Hauge’s role in issuing the guidelines fits well with what Tolbert and Zucker refer to as a ‘champion’in their, “Institutional Theory,” 177.

60. Important theological publications by Hauge in the years after the trial where he explicitly positions his teachings with respect to the Evangelical-Lutheran confession, include: Beskrivelse over Hans Nielsen Hauges Reiser, vigtigste Hendelser og Tildragelser (1816), Om religiøse Følelser og deres Værd (1817), Huus-Postil (1822), and Udtog af Kirke-Historien (1822).

61. Letter from Hauge to friends, 4th of November 1817, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 188–9. See also letter from Hauge to friends, 14th of October 1819, ibid., 277.

62. Hauge had already concluded about this early in the trial, cf. interrogation of Hauge, reply to question 198: RA/S-1151/D/L0002/0001.

63. As argued by Hauge in Hauge, Hauges Reiser, in Ording, Hauges skrifter 6, 90–1.

64. Letters from Hauge to friends, 28th of September 1805, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 6.

65. Perhaps referring to Ez 33: 31–33.

66. Letter from Hauge to friends, 17th of April 1809, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 26.

67. Norderval, “Hauges siste år”.

68. Letter from Hauge to friends, 23rd of April 1818 and 12th of February 1819, ibid., 211, 53.

69. Letter from Lars Kyllingen to friends, 19th of February 1817, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047759000233. Letter from Lars Bakke to Ole Aasland, 15th of June 1818, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047759000375.

70. Letter from Samson Traae to friends, 30th of August 1819, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047759000487. See also letter from Ole Bache to friends in Arendal, 14^th of February 1824, https://urn.digitalarkivet.no/URN:NBN:no-a1450-db60047760000243.jpg

71. Letter from Hauge to friends, 18th of September 1817, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 175.

72. Interestingly, in Denmark, outdoor assemblies for a while became the new norm among the revivalists, as home owners were punished for allowing assemblies in their houses, see letter from Jens Fredrichsen to friends in Norway, 31st of May 1821, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047759000607.

73. Letter from Hauge to friends, 23rd of April 1818 and 8th of July 1818, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 213, 222.

74. Letter from Hauge to friends in Kristiansand, 21st of May 1823, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 3, 12.

75. Letter from Henrik Mathisen to friends in Bergen, 21st of September 1820, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047759000549.

76. As exemplified by the letter from Hauge, 4th of November 1817, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 188.

77. Letter from Hauge to friends, 4th of June 1818, ibid., 215, 217.

78. Letter from Hauge to Stener Johannes Stenersen, 2nd of January 1824, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 3, 37–9.

79. For example, in the letter from Hauge to friends in Trondheim, 4th of November 1817, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 188.

80. Hauge, Hauges Reiser, in Ording, Hauges skrifter 6, 85–90.

81. Itinerant preachers were for instance simply referred to as ‘the travelers’ (de omvankende) or by description (‘those who travel and preach’). Only in the lay movement several decades later were terms such as preacher (predikant) and emissary (emissær) applied.

82. Garcia de Presno, “Vekkelsens vokabular,” 192–3 ‘Huus-Andagt’ was also suggested by Hauge, but ‘Opbyggelse’ prevailed.

83. Hauge’s new strategy also met with some protests, see Garcia de Presno, “Konfliktskapende eller fredssøkende?,” 132–35.

84. Letter from Hauge to the friends, 24th of February 1821, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 342.

85. Hauge, Udtog af Kirke-Historien (1822), in Ording, Hauges skrifter 8, 215; ibid. See also the letter from Hauge to friends in Kristiansand, 14th of October 1819, that the second revival was to be greater than the first, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 278; and letter from Hauge to friends 24th of February 1821, that the later years were characterized by a more thorough perception and wiser leadership than from 1800 to 1803, Brev frå Hauge 2, 342.

86. As expressed in a letter from Hauge to friends in Kristiansand, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 382.

87. Hauge’s testament §6, Bang, Hauge og hans samtid, Appendix. Similar concerns were voiced, for instance, in a letter from Hauge to friends, 1st of November 1820, Kvamen, Brev frå Hauge 2, 333.

88. Weber, Economy and Society, 378–82.

89. Hauge never conceded to the view that he was leader of the Haugians, neither before nor after the trial. See the discussion of Hauge as ‘father’ or ‘brother’ in Seland, “Haugebevegelsens organisasjon“.

90. An appraisal of the contents of the will is given in Amundsen, “Konventikler og vekkelser,” 312–4.

91. Heggtveit, Den norske Kirke I – II, 359–66.

92. See, for instance, Nome, Demringstid i Norge, 347–51; Sejersted, Den vanskelige frihet, 255–9, 294–302; Golf, Norgesvennen Grundtvig, 124–38.

93. Followers of Hans Kristofersen Feigum and ‘Vis-Knut’ were not acknowledged by the Haugians as true Christians, Amundsen, “Konventikler og vekkelser,” 314–5.

94. Thorkildsen, “Skandinavisk strid”.

95. Seierstad, Kyrkjelegt reformarbeid i Norig, 282–93.

96. Wexels, “Anhang,” 171.

97. Wefring, Minder fra mit Reiseliv, 29.

98. Regarding the role of Haugian elders, see Ropeid, “Venesamfunn og verksemd”.

99. See, for instance, the anecdote about John Haugvaldstad in Bang, Hauge og hans samtid, 450–2.

100. As in a letter from Tollef Bache to Ole and Gro Mjelva, 21st of February 1831, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000281.

101. See for instance the letter from Andreas Hauge to Daniel Mjelva, 17th of June 1834, stopping the latter’s defence of Hauge, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000393. Similarly, elders tried to stop Tollef Bache’s defence of Hauge, see letter from Ole T. Svanøe to friends in Kristiansand 14th of May 1827, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000055.

102. Seland, ‘Haugebevegelsens organisasjon’, 119.

103. Letter from O. P. Moe to Søren Schiøtz, 13th of February 1826, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047760000539.

104. Bache, Bemærkninger; Bache, Religiøse Breve.

105. Such as in Bang, Hauge og hans samtid, and Hallesby, “Indremisjonens haugianske linje”.

106. Cf. the letter from Andreas Hauge to Daniel Mjelva, 17th of June 1834, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000393; Bache, Religiøse Breve, II. See also the inscription on Hauge’s tombstone, which translates as ‘Until his last breath he remained devoted to the faith, hope and message he had acquiesced in propagating’.

107. Hauge’s testament §1, Bang, Hauge og hans samtid, Appendix.

108. Letter from Ole Larsen Løset to Ole Johnsen Ekren, 12th of May 1827, describing the times as ‘mid-day and summertime’.

109. Letter from O. A. Moe to O. P. Moe, 22nd of July 1826, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047760000605. See also letter from C. Svendsen to Anne Tollevsdatter, 24th of January 1827, calling it ‘the time of grace, the day of salvation’, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000009.

110. Letter from Helene Nesterud to friends in Kristiansand, 12th of February 1828, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000159.

111. Letter from Ole T. Svanøe to a sister, 6th of December 1831, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000323. The quotation is regarding a common friend.

112. Heggtveit, Den norske Kirke I – II, 136. According to the visiting missionary Carlos von Bülow, the design was a success, Thrap, “Norske menigheder,” 551.

113. A rare arrest of an itinerant Haugian preacher is recorded in a letter from Anders Haave to Lars Kjeldmoen, 1st of March 1841, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000731. In Trondheim under the bishop Bugge, several ministers participated in assemblies, letter from Elling Eielsen to friends in Bergen, 12th of April 1836, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000537.

114. Cf. Tolbert and Zucker, “Institutional Theory,” 178.

115. As witnessed by C. Svendsen in a letter to Anne Rønning, 24th of January 1827, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000009.

116. Letter from Ole T. Svanøe to Ole Mjelva, 8th of November 1832, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000343.

117. Farstad, “Nye perspektiv,” 18.

118. Diaries of Claus L. Clausen (1–2) of 1841, Rudkøbing Byhistoriske Arkiv.

119. Heggtveit, Den norske Kirke I – II, 111 (‘Salen’ in Arendal), 36 (‘Noremsalen’ in Kristiansand), 291 (‘Ottesen’s sal’ in Trondheim), 571 (‘Dyremyrsalen’ and ‘Aakersalen’ in Kongsberg). See also Diaries of Claus L. Clausen 2: 25 (‘Altona’ in Bergen), 59 (‘Haugvaldstad’s sal’ in Stavanger), 69 (‘Salen’ in Egersund), Rudkøbing Byhistoriske Arkiv; and Langhelle, Haugianismen i Rogaland, 33 (Kopervik). Public ‘encouragement houses’ started being built from around 1840, Langhelle, “Haugianske møteplasser,” 82–3.

120. Letter from Elling Eielsen to friends in Trondheim, 12th of December 1834: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000427.

121. See, for instance, letter from Samson Traae to Torger Siqveland, 25th of October 1841, regarding Clausen, Heggtveitsamlingen L051/0004/526.

122. Such was, for example, the case with Poul Gundersen, who was constrained by the elders from preaching in assemblies because of his previous addiction to alcohol, cf. letter from Ole Mjelva to O. P. Moe, 20th of July 1826, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047760000601.

123. For instance, both Michel Grendahl in Trondheim and Christen Bredtvet in Christiania tried to restrain Wefring, but to no avail; letter from Christen Dahler to Ole Mjelva, summer of 1835, https://www.digitalarkivet.no/db60047761000481. The same was true for the itinerant preacher Harkel Myhrebøe, Myhrebøe, Oplevelser og Erindringer, 17.

124. As recorded by Furre, Lars Oftedal, 7.

125. Spødervold, Guds Naades Huusholdning, 286.

126. As in Tysvær and Stavanger, Langhelle, Haugianismen i Rogaland, 45, 57.

127. A notable exception was the establishment of ‘Den evangelisk lutherske frikirkelige menighet i Jarlsberg grevskap med flere steder’ in 1872 by a group of Haugians, DELK, DELKs historie.