1
Preliminary version
Please do not quote
Association for the Study of Religion, Economics and Culture,
1st European conference, 5th -6th September, 2014,
St. John’s College, University of Durham,
A debate between Denmark’s most prominent bishops about market economy
by
Professor Niels Kærgård,
Department of Food and Resource Economics,
University of Copenhagen,
E-mail: nik@ifro.ku.dk
A remarkable discussion of the ethics of a capitalistic market economy took place in the
1870s. The main contributors were the two bishops H.L.Martensen and D.G.Monrad,
two of the most prominent people in the ecclesiastical history of Denmark. Martensen
published a small pamphlet called “Socialism and Christianity” in 1874 where he
argued against capitalism, individualism and liberalism. He includes the text almost
unchanged in his official “Christian Ethics” from 1878. Bishop Monrad reply in a book
called “The reply of the liberalism to bishop Martensen”. Even today this debate can be
read as perhaps the most serious Danish analysis of the ethics of the market economy
ever.
Introduction
In the 1870s there was a remarkable debate about the ethics of the market economy between the
most prominent bishops in the Danish public church, Hans Lassen Martensen (1808-1884) and
Ditlev Gothardt Monrad (1811-1887). They are as close in age that they must had known each other
already when studying theology in the early 1830s (Martensen became master in theology in 1832
and Monrad in 1836). Monrad was an opponent at Martensen’s ph.d.-defense in 1837.
Both became among the most influential and estimated persons in the ecclesiastical history of
Denmark in the 19th century; only the religious reformers Søren Kierkegaard and Nikolai Frederik
Severin Grundtvig has a more prominent place in the history.
Martensen was professor in theology at University of Copenhagen in 1840-1854; from 1845
furthermore the clergyman of the royal family. In 1854 he became bishop at Zealand (including
2
Copenhagen), which he was in 30 years before he applied for retirement, but died before his
retirement was effected1) . He contributed with a considerable theological production. His best
known publication is perhaps “Den christelige dogmatic” (The Christian Dogmatics) from 1849,
reprinted in the 5th edition in 1905. He was member of the absolute upper class in Copenhagen.
Denmark’s most famous actress of all time, Johanne Luise Heiberg, and her husband, Johan Ludvig
Heiberg head of the Royal Theater, were close friends. 2) Martensen vas in many relations (femal
emancipation, monarchy, universal suffrage etc.) seen as a right wing conservative.
Where Martensen is known as theologian, D.G. Monrad is mainly known as politician. He continued after his master degree studying Middle East language but came in contact with circles of
young liberals and was active in these circles in the late 1930s but leave policy in 1846 to be priest
in the Danish province (Lolland). In the hectic year 1848 he came back to politics and became
cabinet minister of culture and was the main author of the draft to Denmark first democratic
constitution3) . But because of disagreement about the relation to the German parts of the monarchy
(Slesvig) in the government he retired and became bishop 1849 in Lolland-Falster and at the same
time member of the 1st chamber of the parliament.
He was a rather controversial person and because of disagreement with the government he was
forced to retire as bishop already in 1854. He became once again member of the government in
1859 and a few months before the war with Preussen and Austria in 1864 he became prime
minister. 4) The war was a disaster and Denmark lost a considerable part of the country to Germany.
Monrad feel the responsibility strongly and immigrate to New Zealand where he was with his
family 1865-1869. Coming home to Denmark he became priest again and in 1871 once again
bishop in Lolland-Falster which he was until his death in 1887.
The debate between these two about the market economy started in 1874 where Martensen
published a pamphlet “Socialisme og Christendom” (Socialism and Christianity) all included 55
pages where he was positive in relation to an “ethical socialism”.
1874 was not a year where it was uncontroversial to talk positive about socialism. A small Danish
socialist movement was started and had arranged a demonstration in 1872, but the leaders were sent
1)
The Lutheran-Evangelical church is the official church of Denmark with a place in the constitution and financial
supported by the state. There is no archbishop in this church, but the bishop of Zealand (later Copenhagen) is in some
sense the first among equals among the Danish bishops.
Johanne Luise Heiberg, as most of the upper class, was very skeptical in relation to the King’s wife, the lower class
girl Louise Rasmussen (“Countess Danner”) who had a child before she met the king. And this fact and Martensen’s
close friendship with Johanne Luise Heiberg was so well known, that the king was against his appointment as bishop in
1854.
2)
3)
Denmark changed from absolutism to a form of democracy in 1848-49.
This government is sometime called the “Million” because it includes nine members, one of a kind (Monrad) and 6
zeros.
4)
3
to prison for 4-6 years. The Revolutionary government in Paris 1871 was considered with dismay
among the established circle also in Denmark and connection to international socialist movements
were forbidden. The socialist leaders were released in 1875 and were in 1877 offered a one-way
ticket to USA which they accepted given threats of new periods of prison.
Martensen do, however, not consider his pamphlet as a political action but as a discussion of
Christian ethics, which can be seen by the fact that he includes this 55 pages almost unchanged in
his “Den Christelige Ethik” (The Christian ethics) in 1878. He was working with a profound
Christian ethics in three big volumes. The first volume, the general part, was published in 1871 and
in 1878 it was followed by the two last volumes. One of them deals with social ethics; this was
itself a book of 475 pages and it was in this volume that his 1874-pamphlet was included almost
word-for-word.
This time Monrad respond. He was as mention at that time one of the other Danish bishops (there
were totally seven bishops at the top of the hierarchy of the Danish church). He participated in the
public debate among other thing publishing some “political letters”. In 1878 he published “Politiske
breve Nr. 14-18: Liberalismens Gjenmæle til Biskop Martensen” (Political letters no. 14-18: The
reply of the liberalism to bishop Martensen). It is a book with a commercial publisher as responsible
editor. It is formed as 5 letters with number and date and some of them addressed to an “old friend”.
The book starts without introduction “You ask me, dear friend, whether I have read the two last
parts of Bishop Martensen's Ethics” (translated from Danish). Monrad is clearly against Martensen's
socialism and for a market economy and he do not like Martensen's mixture of ethics and
Martensen's “individual opinions”.
Martensen’s critical view upon the market
As already mentioned Martensen did not see his contributions to the debate about the market
economy as a political point of view separate from his theological studies, but as a part of his
Christianity:
The claim that Christianity is unrelated to the wealth of nations and to political economy is the
same as saying that ethics is unrelated to political economy, that the concepts of wealth and
poverty, labour and wages have only physical and not ethical significance, and that the political
economics for understanding the measures of the wealth of nations only have to examine the natural
laws of society without relating these laws to moral laws. On the contrary, placing the natural law
under ethical laws is precisely what must be done. (Translated from Martensen 1878, pp. 163-164).
Martensen’s point of view is that individualism and liberalism are the curse of the modern
capitalistic society:
In social relations, in the interrelations between human beings and in the relations between man
and man, it is seen in an uncountable number of ways that individuals, instead of considering
4
themselves as connected to one another in solidarity, and as being limbs of the same social body,
and instead of using the apostolic words: when one limb suffers then they all suffer, they consider
each other as free, “independent” personalities, where “one is closest to one self”; …… Social
egoism has in our time, behind the shield of Liberalism, grown strong through the progress of
science and the associated control of nature, and through the ever-growing advance of industry and
capital. More and more widespread has become that which is, to all higher interests, the destructive
mentality which places earthly mammon and earthly pleasures at the top; and the people of our
time compete for these in restless, anxious and feverish aspiration. They want to be rich and to fall
into many foolish and hurtful lusts (1 Timothy Ch 6 v 9). (Translated from Martensen 1878, pp.
127-28)
From this starting point Martensen considered economics and especially Adam Smith, and he did
not like what he read:
The common good thus results from the egoism of all. But this shows the problem with this system.
The free competition, when it is unrestricted by higher considerations, is actually only a naturalistic
and physical principle. It is the right of the strongest which is introduced; an indirect right of the
man who is handy with his fists, a war of all against all; as we see in the animal kingdom, where
free competition for all resources is found on full scale, and the weak creation is suppressed by the
stronger. The ethical effect which should be caused by free competition is the restoration and
strengthening of personal moral force. But then it must be restricted. It ought for instance only to
take place between equals. To let a cripple compete with a sprinter, a poor retailer with a big
capitalist, a small landowner with a great one, does not serve to strengthen moral force, but only to
let the strong rule and have victory in the name of freedom. Adam Smith’s statement that the
optimal for social wealth follows from the axiom of Laissez aller, that everybody by following their
own interests promotes the common interest, that the common good is the result of everybody’s
egoism, is not true. It is an untenable opinion that one can construct a just state simply by following
one’s natural desires, because justice is defined in a completely other world and must come from a
completely different place than nature and human beings who are driven purely by nature.
(Translated from Martensen 1878, pp. 168-169)
Martensen is not blind to the benefits of the market economy in form of economic growth and
international development, but he considered the costs of it to be greater. For him, the poor member
of the society was more important than the large companies:
It is not possible to deny, that the free competition has contributed to developing much power and
given wealth to many people; neither is it possible to deny that capital is important for society, for
the great companies and a universal economic togetherness, a world economy in contrast to an only
national economy; but neither is it possible to deny that the free competition has made many more
miserable and poor, that thousands upon thousands have fought a desperate battle for their daily
bread in which they finally succumbed to the stronger. (Translated from Martensen 1878, pp. 172173)
While Martensen looked with sympathy on the great masses of poor workers, he was very sceptical
concerning the capitalists and the nouveau riche. Without doubt Martensen was himself a part of the
5
most upper class, but he and probably many others in his ecclesiastical and aristocratic circles
considered the modern capitalist with scepticism.
But in political economy it was not only Adam Smith and the market economy that Martensen
fought against. Malthus and his followers were another of his targets. Martensen accepted the
Malthusian problem according to which it is impossible to give permanent higher wages because the
result of higher income is overpopulation and excess-supply of labour, but to him it was mostly an
ethical and social problem for society, and a problem which the ethical society had to solve. Many
of the Malthusian solutions, where a high death rate among the poor was accepted as unavoidable,
were completely unethical and unacceptable to Martensen:
We do not deny that the Malthusian imbalance between foodstuff and population, between the
amount of bread and the number of mouths to be fed, has often been sadly confirmed by experience.
But we cannot ignore the assumption that this imbalance is more the fault of mankind than of
nature, and that it should be controlled and defeated by moral means not only by individuals but
also by society through better social structure, better use of uncultivated land and better
distribution of the resources. (Translated from Martensen 1878, p. 180)
Martensen describes the miserable conditions of life of the poor in modern society, and gives
support to the classical Marxist authors:
The liberalists and the capitalists on their side claims that the descriptions which can be read in the
socialist literature (among others the one by Engels which, as it dates from 1848, is now rather old,
but not obsolete, and which is confirmed and continued by K. Marx, Das Capital, 1872) are onesided and exaggerated. Nevertheless, the facts presented by these authors have not been disproved,
and men (whose moderate and impartial attitude cannot be denied) have declared that no matter
how much has been done with the aim of improving the conditions of the working class, how much
has been done by noble men and by employers with human feelings, nevertheless the great evil is
still intact and needs to be dispelled in the name of humanity (Translated from Martensen 1878, p.
176)
However, Martensen was not a classic socialist. After having described the problem of modern
capitalism, he gives a critical description of the socialist movement, too. He considered himself a
kind of socialist, but not a revolutionary socialist of the Marxian type. For him there was a third
road, “ethical socialism”. Martensen’s ethical socialism was not blind to the material living
conditions of society. The spiritual and material go hand in hand in Martensen’s writings:
One has to go into the material interests of the workers. They must be supported both by spiritual
guidance and by material support for the improvement of their circumstances. When our Lord and
Saviour fed the 5,000 men in the desert, he fed them not only spiritually by his words, but he
satisfied them materially too. It is this double feeding which is needed by the poor. (Translated from
Martensen, 1878 p.)
Martensen’s contributions were widely debated, both in 1874 in relation to the publishing of
“Socialisme og Christendom” and in 1878 when his “Den Christelige Ethik” was published.
Martensen himself did not seem to be affected by the criticisms of his analysis. As already
6
mentioned, he included in his 1878 book all the parts of his pamphlet that were criticized in 1874,
and in a letter to one of his friends, the fêted Danish actress Johanne Luise Heiberg, he wrote:
It must not be said, at the end of time, that the church has been mute and neglected to speak about
what the Christianity ought to say; for in spite of all contradictions, the Christian truth is that
industry is for the service of human beings, and not human beings for the service of industry.
(Martensen, 1874; see Rahbek, 1955, p.105)
Monrad’s defence of the market
As mentioned D.G. Monrad published a long “reply from the liberalism to bishop Martensen” in
1878. On the surface the reply was very friendly but the content is never the less highly critical:
Bishop Martensen has been impelled to comment on a multitude of things and sentiments which
stand in a very loose relation or are completely independent of the Christian ethic. By this his work
become very entertaining; by the varied content one is let around in many passages in human life.
You never grow tired of hearing such a clever and brilliant human voice, although he takes us far
away from the sphere of ethics. I would much like to see Bishop Martensen distinguishing his Ethik
in two works: one containing only what relates to ethics; an another containing his individual
opinions of a multiplicity of various things (Monrad, 1878, page 6-8).
Monrad is not impressed by Martensen's knowledge of society and economy laws.
It is with a strange mixture of feelings one read Bishop Martensen's opinions on the labour
question and Socialism. Who do not be happy reading such a brilliant thinker warm sympathy with
the suffering mankind? But for one who know something about policy, this feeling is combined with
displeasure over his unjust and ignorant evaluation of liberalism. And for a person who has some
knowledge to political economics it is accompanied with the grief for the fact that such a clear
spirit may have such a wrong conception of the economic laws (Monrad, 1878, pages 102-103).
Monrad considered the economy as governed by inexorable laws that are as strong as the laws of
nature. Even if there are sin and ethics, there are inexorable, God-given, economic laws:
It is perfectly true that men following their egoism do not always promote the common goods. The
sin had disturbed the God-given natural economic laws. But God has given not only the physical
nature, but also the economic world. These laws seek science to discover. But it does not in any
sense followed that man absolutely must follow the laws of nature and economics; as the guideline
for human actions, God has given the ten commandment, moral and ethics (Monrad, 1878, page
109).
7
To Monrad is understanding of the economic laws absolutely central, and he uses a lot of space to
explain and elaborate on them:
From the North and South Poles cold air flow to the equator and produces North-Eastern and
South-East trade winds. From the Equator flows the hot air up, flows north and south, falls down
and produces the west wind. There is a similar circulation among the powerful economic forces
and they determine the price. The production cost seems in the first moment to be completely
insignificant. It seems as if the price is fully determined by the relation between supply and demand
independent of whether the production costs is large or small. But then an effect from the price
goes back to production, determined this variable and bring the production cost to its right and
dignity by bringing equilibrium between supply and demand. Has the price been too low, the
production is reduced, has it been too high, then production is expanded, and by such reductions
and expansions is established an equilibrium in relation to production costs and a balance between
supply and demand. If you go and will stop with your hand an approaching train you are doing
wrongly, but even worser if you believe with your acting to be able to stop the powerful forces
determined by the economic laws (Monrad, 1878, pages 127-128).
This means according to Monrad, that Martensen's proposed intervention do not have the desired
effect:
No doubt that the wage in the author's system must be very high, for it is the author's nice intention
to bring the labour class up to the position of the third estate. But then comes the economic power:
the price law, whose importance we have analysed. Increases wage means that the number of jobs
are reduced, and the number of workers are increased. - - - Thus arises a mismatch between the
number of jobs and the number of workers. The price law cannot come to function because the
wages are fixed. The wage is high. Excellent! But there are a large crowd of workers who cannot
find any job (Monrad, 1878, page 138).
Opposite Martensen it is Monrads opinion that the church and the Christianity should not interfere
into political and social questions:
The church and the state should not in relation to the labour question behave like Adam and Eve in
Paradise, as one shoots the blame over to the other. The kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and
when therefore Christian servants speak, not in their own name as simple individuals, as ordinary
citizens, but in the name of Christ, they should not go too much into politics, not make judgments in
relation to governments and constitutions, or try to transform the civil society and change it to a
new, presumably Christian-ethical form of state (Monrad, 1878, page 144).
8
Martensen, Monrad and the division of labour
It is a basic point of view in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations that division of labor is the main
reason to economic growth and increased productivity. A famous example in Wealth of Nations is
how huge amounts of pins can be produced with low cost by division of labour among different
types of workers and machinery. But it also means that the individual worker are unable to
understand the real meaning of what he is doing. This leads according to Karl Marx to "alienation"
and "reification". Martensen have read Smith but maybe not Marx. There is no doubt, however, that
his views are closer to Marx:
But even if this is excellent, nevertheless the moral question of whether it is humane to use your
time, in fact most of your life, to produce pinheads comes up. This is the ethical malpractice by the
advanced division of labour. The growing production is done with human costs; for how is a man's
soul, when he during a long series of years spend the day, perhaps also some of the nights, doing
an absolutely inane production, which for the spiritual part of his character is completely futile and
because of which he himself become like a part of a machine? (Martensen, 1878, page 167)
But this view is fare from that of Monrad. Production of pinhead is of course not spiritual or
brilliant, but it's a normal situation in relation to much work:
I admitted that the work is not in itself brilliant, even sometimes spiritless. But the same can be said
about almost all physical labor. Only the craftsmanship that comes close to art makes an
exception: there is nothing spiritual in ploughing, harrowing, digging, sewing pairs of boots and
trousers, planeing, building, trading etc. In itself such work are as spiritless as to make pinheads;
in itself is all physical labor spiritlessly. But if the work is carried out in a dignified way, some
happy powers are step in and inspire the spiritless. (Monrad, 1878, page 106)
It is for Monrad something else than the character of the actual work that is crucial:
He who with faithfulness guardian geese or makes pinheads, standing in the eyes of God far above
him who preaches well, but without faithfulness. This is the real democratic conception of human
life and its multitude of jobs. To my opinion is this attitude in accordance with the gracious will of
God because it links all men together in a common brotherhood. It is the faithfulness in doing the
job God has given you which counts when your life is judged (Monrad, 1878, page 107).
9
Monrad is not worried about the pinhead maker's spiritual situation. He goes into more sentimental
pictures to describe the positive aspects of routine work:
What is the barrier for pinhead producer, whose hands are become like a piece of the machine, to
let his thoughts go to the dear at home, to let his childs' smile stand out on his mind, that he in his
mind go through what last Sunday was said in the church, that he prays to God? Do you believe
that the apostle Paul had spiritless thoughts when he sat and sewed tents? (Monrad, 1878, page
115)
Attitude to the new rich capitalists and the Jews
Also with regard to the new rich capitalists do the two bishops had different views. The new class
of wealthy financiers is by Martensen considered with great skepticism:
The liberal state, which admire active life and competing forces, follows faithfully Adam Smith
advice not to interfere in the society, but only to take care of the private property rights and that
the personal safety is not violated. As expressed by Lassalle only do "night watchman's duty" and
follow the axiom about laizzez faire and laissez aller. "Everybody have the change to become
millionaire". And a completely new class, the millionaires or the money nobility, in which modern
Judaism has a important position, is seen. Like the Midgard Serpent they make a crushing pressure
on both the people and the rulers. (Martensen, 1874, pages 22-23, and 1878, page 172)
This view result in two debates, partly on "millionaires" and partly on the "anti-Jewish", and
Monrad has the opposite view in both cases. He has a positive evaluation of the millionaires. He
found largely positive effects of their work:
How is a city happy if a millionaire is moving to the town! I promised Bishop Martensen that he
should be appointed honorary citizen of Nykjøbing Falster (where Monrad lives) if he can get us a
couple of those Midgard Serpents to our city. A man began to buy grain by weight which caused
agricultural progress and secure the farmers higher income and he himself became a millionaire.
How sad! A second began to sell sweet Butter with effects on the dairy sector securing the milk
producers higher profits and Danish Butter a top place among all countries on the world market;
but even he becomes a millionaire. What a misfortune! Another improve the beer production; his
beer become sold not only on the domestic market market, but also internationally all over the
world and makes him a millionaire. A Midgards Serpent, A Midgards Serpent! (Monrad, 1878,
pages 117-118).
10
Martensen's attitude to "modern Judaism" result in a heated debate including both a long section of
Monrad's book, a book of the President of the Mosaic Religious Community and several other
contributions. But before going into this debate it seems important to stress that the debate at that
time were very different from today. Today we see anti-semitism in the light of Holocaust, but
before Nazism and Fascism religion and race were discussed in a far more outspoken manner in
social science. It is well-known have Max Weber found the reason to the rich western market
economies in the Calvinistic belief and parallel Werner Sombart found it in the Jewish religion. It
was parts of this scientific debate which degenerated and went berserk in Nazism and Fascism. It
was also more obvious - as in the quotation of Martensen - to link the financial sector and the Jews
together. The Jews had earlier in many countries not right to own land, which means that where
local citizens place their fortune in land and real estate, the Jews place it in money and securities. It
meant that many of those who, like Martensen, were critical in relation to the modern monetary
economy also had a critical relationship to the Jews. This is e.g. very obvious in relation to the
Danish professor in economics L.V Birck, see Kærgård (1997). D.G. Monrad goes to the opposite
extreme:
When you consider the very low number of Jews and compared with how many of them had
reach influence and important positions in the society, one can only admire the Jewish
people superiority. - - - It is now more than eighteen hundred years ago since Jerusalem
was captured, the Jewish state destroyed and the Jews scattered around the world, but still
a Jewish people exists. Is it not strange? When we see it, do we not with our own eyes see a
miracle? How does it come? Because the Jews were God's chosen people. When God's
only begotten Son put on human shape, he also put on a nationality. Which nationality?
The Jewish. Therefore I put the Jewish nationality so high (Monrad, 1878, page 160).
Monarchy and universal suffrage
Outside the economic sphere the two bishops also collided in relation to democracy. We are at a
time with constitutional struggles in Denmark. The absolute monarchy has at that time been
abolished for only a bit more than a couple of decades and it was still highly controversial whether
the king or the parliament have the right to appoint the government. Martensen was inclined to see
democracy as another manifestation of the individualism and liberalism, which he considered with
so much skepticism:
The universal suffrage goes out from the assumption that the state is only a collection of atomistic
individuals, instead it is a organic system of divergences. When the individuals are voting, it is
completely random whether the elected is the best and most well-informed or whether they belong
to the ignorant mass. It is completely by chance whether all the interests in the people - not only
11
those who deals with the different classes material well-being, but also in relation to art, science,
church, or the poor's and the unskilled workers' interests - are being taken care of (Martensen,
1878, pages 235-236).
For Martensen's monarchy is the ideal form of government:
It is completely different if one starts from principle of an organism, from a system of corporative
divergences with a total organization of up and down coordinations. Here is the monarch the final
point of unification not belonging to any specific class. But exactly because his superior and
exalted position he can handle and protect all groups of society,and take care of all the interests of
the classes in the society (Martensen, 1878, page 242).
As the father of Denmark's first democratic and liberal constitution Monrad is of course warmly
advocating democracy. Monrad's point of view is an early version of the later formulation "Split up
after attitude". There is for him something more important than rank and class:
Merchants disappears, coffee and sugar trading is gone, the councillor of the state becomes
invisible, back is only political opinions. We become lifted up from the civic social life with all its
classes and corporations, with its business, to the political world where there is a completely
different organization (Monrad 1878, pages 91-92).
The two great personalities presented - as explained above - their views profound and clearly, but
they had a position where it must have be felt too simple to be engage in a continuing public debate.
Martensen never responded to the objections to his books. Both men were at the end of their
careers, so public debate was something they hand over to their students and followers. But in fact
there was a important and interesting debate in the following years.
Other participants in the debate
Besides Monrads book, there were a number of other contributions and a long run effects of
Martensen’s contributions. Almost all the big newspapers and a number of journal and magazines
have reviews and comments. More profound comments are furthermore published as books and
pamphlets.
At that time there were only two professors in economics in Denmark, N.C. Frederiksen (18401905) and William Scharling (1837-1911) both at University of Copenhagen. Both were liberal,
market oriented economists and both had a political career as members of the parliament
representing liberal or conservative parties.
12
N.C. Frederiksen published already in 1875 a “donner und blitz” review of Martensen’s pamphlet in
the Danish economic journal (Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift). While Frederiksen is the most
liberalistic of all the Danish economists in the 19th century there are nothing surprising in this 20
pages long article. The arguments are very similar to Monrad’s from 1878, and it seems reasonable
to assume that Monrad and Frederiksen have discussed the topic. N.C. Frederiksen was Monrad’s
son of law.
William Scharling published his review in the Danish conservative party’s main newspaper
“Dagbladet”; the newspaper of the upper class in Copenhagen and also he was as one will expect
critical.
More interesting is a review of the young economist Marcus Rubin (1854-1923). He became later
head of both Statistics Denmark (1869-1902), the Danish tax system (1902-1913) and the Danish
Central Bank (1913-1923) and the first economist to become member of the Royal Danish
Academy of Science. He was in 1874 a left wing oriented young Jewish economist and his review
was rather positive. We know his exchange of letters with another young Jewish intellectual David
Simonsen (1853-1932), chief rabbi of Denmark 1892-1902. They had a very unprejudiced
discussion of among many other ting Martensen’s discussion of the Jews role in the economy, and
Simonens suggest that Rubin write an doctor dissitation about the Jews and the world economy.
Among the other reviews is worth mentioning one of Frederik Nielsen (1846-1907) in a Danish
church magazine (“Dansk Kirketidende”). A few years later Frederik Nielsen became professor in
ecclesiastical history at University of Copenhagen and later (1900) bishop in Aalborg. He is rather
positive and he’s research as professor deals among other things with social ethics of the Catholic
Church, where attitude similar to Martensen’s is found.
Later were more profound contributions. The theologian Frederik Vilhelm Andersen (1820-1910),
priest, external examinator in theology at University of Copenhagen and ph.d. in theology,
published a 200 pages long book in 1879 about Martensen’s social ethics. He was a faithful
follower of Martensen and his support was unconditional. Another of Martensens pupils, Johannes
G. E. Kok (1821-1887), priest and linguist, publish also a book with 21 letters about Martensen’s
ethics and replies to his opponents.
The chief rabbi of Denmark A.A. Woeff (1801-1891) published on the other side a big book with a
reply to the latest attack on the Jews and Judaism.
Others of the most prominent members of the Danish society do participate in the debate. The
politician and poet Carl Ploug (1813-1894) write in the main national-liberal newspaper
“Fædrelandet”. The philosopher Harald Høffding (1843-1931), already a star in his discipline and
later a dominating professor with a unique career in Danish science and society write in the
magazine “Nær og Fjern” (The same magazine where Rubin published his review).
13
There were clearly an intensive debate in connection with the publication of Martensen’s 1874pamphlet and his 1878-social ethics. But another topic is the long-run effects of the publications.
And such effects seem to be there. Among the active participants in the early creation of the Danish
welfare state were Martensen’s contributions well-known. A person of some importance was
Fernando Linderberg (1854-1914). He came from a poor family (his father was Swedish but died of
cholera before Fernando Linderberg was born). He was educated as a gardener and took a course at
a folk high school. In 1880 he read Martensen’s “Socialisme og Christendom” and this affected him
for his whole life. He himself became teacher at a folk high school in 1880, and from 1888 he tried
to establish a Christian labour union for farm workers, work he continued until 1895. Linderberg
joined the Social Democratic Party at that time and his Christian labour union was also gradually
becoming a part of the ordinary labour movement. In 1898 he worked with the purpose of
establishing an organisation for disseminating information about social problems together with the
economic professor Harald Westergaard but they disagreed and in 1901he started a new
organisation, with a new journal called Samfundets krav (The claim of Society), which continued
after his death. Besides these activities, Fernando Linderberg published a considerable number of
books. These included “Frikonkurrence og Socialisme” (Free Competition and Socialism) (1895),
“Kristendom og den sociale udvikling” (Christianity and the social development) in three volumes
(1903-1908), and his most scientific book, “Biskop Ketteler og Socialismen i Tyskland” (Bishop
Ketteler and Socialism in Germany) (1913).
The perhaps main architect of the Danish welfare state is K.K Steincke (1880-1963). He was
minister in the social democrats government 1924-26 and 1929-1939 and chairman of the 2nd
chamber of the Danish parliament 1948-50 and 1951-52. He is mainly known for the perhaps most
important reform of the Danish social system in 1933 where he was minister of social affairs. If one
man shall be mentioned as father of the modern Danish welfare state he is obvious a serious
candidate. And his relation to Christian socialism is clear. He was strongly inspired by Fernando
Linderberg, see Christiansen (1998 pp. 38-42). Some of his typical remarks were: Has there never
been any Christianity in the world, there would neither have been any socialism. And he openly
said: I have always whatever life has been for me said my Lord’s Prayer and so I intended to
continue; see Bomholt (1963 p. 44).
Conclusion
H.L. Martensen’s and his debate with D.G. Monrad is interesting of at least two reasons. First, it is
the most thorough debate in Denmark among Christians about what the attitude to the social
questions should be. Is it a Christian duty to fight for the weak and poor or do Christianity leave the
social questions open for the politicians? Never before or since have these questions been so
intensively debated among so prominent leaders of the Danish church.
14
Secondly, seems a causal chain from Martensen to the establishing of the modern welfare state to be
traceable. Not a clear and dominating trace, but never the less one of the many threads that were
woven together into the fabric which formed the Danish welfare state. The influence from H.L.
Martensen to Fernando Linderberg and from Linderberg to K.K. Steincke is well documented, and
if one man has to be named as the father of the Danish welfare state K.K. Steincke is among the
absolute favorites.
References
Andersen, Frederik Vilhelm (1879), Nogle Betragtninger og Studier over og i Sammenhæng med Biskop
Martensens "Den Chr. Ethik", C.A. Reitzels Forlag, København.
Frederiksen, N.C. (1875), H. Martensen: "Socialisme og Kristendom" Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift, vol. 5,
side 34-54.
Hauge, Svend (1969), D.G. Monrad Breve, G.E.C. Gad, København.
Martensen, H.L. (1874), Socialisme og Christendom Den Gyldendalske Boghandel, København.
Martensen, H.L. (1878), Den Sociale Ethik, Den Christelige Ethik, Den Specielle Deel, Vol. 2., Gyldendal,
København.
Monrad, D.G. (1878), Liberalismens Gjenmæle, Politiske Breve 14-18, C.A. Reitzel, København.
Petræus (Johannes G.E. Kok) (1878), 21 Breve om Biskop Martensens kristlige Ethik samt om Dr. Wolffs og
Biskop Monrads "Gjenmæler" imod samme, Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag, København.
Ploug, Carl (1874), Anmeldelse Fædrelandet, 10. december.
Ploug, Carl (1879), Social og politisk Ethik, Fædrelandet, 14.-19. august og 27.-30. august.
Rahbek, Just (1955), Breve fra og til Johanne Luise Heiberg II, København.
Rerup, Lorenz (1963), Marcus Rubins brevveksling 1870-1922, vol. I-IV, Rosenkilde og Bagger,
København.
Rubin, Marcus (1874), Nær og Fjern, 29. november.
Scharling William (1875), "Nationaløkonomi og Socialisme" - Et Forsvarsindlæg imod Biskop, Dr. H.
Martensens "Socialisme og Christendom", Dagbladet, 10.-11. februar.