What should the church-state relationships be like?

A round table, The State and the Church: Cooperating or Being Used, took place the Friday before last. Personally I found the title a bit mystifying. It was organized by the Party of the Christian Democratic Union, the Ukrainian volunteer organization called Public Stand, the Institute for Christian Democracy, and Nasha Vira [Our Faith, an independent Orthodox newspaper edited by Yevhen Sverstiuk]. Presiding over the table was People’s Deputy Volodymyr Stretovych. The main topic on the agenda was expected to be the future Concept of State-Church Relations in Ukraine. Without doubt, this country badly needs this. Archbishop Ihor Isichenko said at the table that “both sides, the Church and the State, have no experience in cooperating within a democratic society.” Most of those who took the floor, however, dwelt on other topics, particularly the Soviet policy concerning the Church, history of the Russian Church in the catacombs, and so on. This only stressed the fact that neither the clergy, nor the scholars and politicians were quite prepared to formulate the guidelines of the future concept. Thus, even the well known formula of separating the church from the state still lacks clarity and a consensus on what it means. True, Vasyl Kostytsky, Vice Chairman of the State Judicial Administration, announced that a draft concept had been worked out by someone somewhere but did not specify.

The problem of church-state relations and attempts to find mutually acceptable approaches have been discussed for a number of years under the auspices of the State Committee of Ukraine for Religious Affairs (hereafter referred to as the State Committee). It is an extremely complex task, Ukraine being a multiconfessional country with about a hundred religions, churches, confessions, and denominations, along more than 28,000 parishes. Moreover, the largest, Orthodox, community is currently divided into three, perhaps four church affiliations. A true Gordian knot and there are quite a few enthusiasts willing to undo it, among them the State Committee, lawmakers, Verkhovna Rada committees, Konrad Adenauer Foundation; a tangible contribution has been made by volunteers from international organizations, scholars, and foreign clergymen. All this went for nothing. It is also true, however, that we can be proud about having had no religious wars (fistfights among adherents of different confessions or churches at worst).

Several years ago, it was alleged that all church troubles were caused by the inadequate wording of the law, On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations. And so the World Church Council, including representatives of Ukraine’s largest religious communities, jointly with the State Committee, drafted amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine. After several years of work, when all the changes seemed to have been coordinated, it transpired that adopting the final text of the law had to be preceded by the development of a concept of Ukrainian church-state relations. In addition, certain churches and politicians accused the State Committee of jugging with some clauses, so in November Verkhovna Rada rejected the bill.

What made the situation worse was that some of the ranking clergy in certain churches became convinced that the State Committee was a woithless organization and “rudimentary Soviet vestige” whose very existence and performance contradicted the church-state separation principle (not quite so, as The Day has pointed out that structures such as the State Committee are found in a number of democratic — let alone nondemocratic — countries). Hence the only conclusion is that the church must shape its relationship with the state independently, without any mediators. Indeed, the problem should be solved by duly authorized, competent representatives of all Ukrainian churches dissatisfied with the current freedom of conscience law coming together to work out and agree on a concept of church-state relations. After that they should rely on that concept to draft changes in the existing legislation and submit the draft to Verkhovna Rada (they might as well do it via the State Committee).

This is a good idea, but a long way from being implemented; any church association like the World Council of Churches is not likely to be established in Ukraine at the initiative and through the efforts of Ukrainian churches. As it is, our churches are not prepared (and one can only wonder when they could prepare) to communicate, let alone take a joint stand with regard to important and debatable religious and other issues without being urged, cajoled, and organized by this or that dignitary (a secular one, it is a must!). Evidence of this is the fact that the Ukrainian churches are now trying to have the organizing committee of the project, The State and Church: Cooperating or Being Used, lend them a sympathetic ear. This is a political project, so they are trying to sidestep the State Committee.

Unfortunately, there are few indications that the organizing committee will prove more effective as a curator of joint church legislative efforts, compared to the All-Ukraine Power of Churches together with the State Committee. Evidence of this is that the round table was attended only by leaders of separate Protestant churches (incidentally, the self-sufficient Protestants appear to have considerably fewer problems with the powers that be). All but several Orthodox, Greek Catholic, and Catholic archbishops and bishops were manifestly absent; for them the round table was not sufficiently representative. In addition, each suspected everyone of trying to get him involved in the politicians’ election games.

What, then, is to be done? Suppose the State Committee and/or the round table organizing committee draft articles of the concept, aided by lawyers, theologians, other experts on religion, and send them to the churches and the latter offer their changes and amendments and finally submit them upstairs. Further coordination, however, may prove an even more complicated procedure than looking for the philosopher’s stone. The whole thing could be made simpler only if the churches had their offices or boards manned by certified lawyers within their departments, people equally versed in civil and canon law. Incidentally, the presence of such boards would indeed make the State Committee unnecessary as an arbiter in religious conflicts. Rather than complain to that committee, churches would simply turn to a court of law, as is done in the civilized countries, and have their infringed rights legally remedied. But then perhaps it would be necessary to enact a church criminal code of sorts.

One other point is that the round table gather respectable individuals, mostly Christians and democrats. Still, one could hear proposals that were by no means Christian or democratic as, for example, about closing down the department of religious studies at the National Academy’s Institute of Philosophy. Why? Because religious study is to some people synonymous with atheism. First, this is not so — well, perhaps not quite so; second, under the Constitution, every Ukrainian citizen has a right to choose a religion or remain agnostic, provided he does not impose his views on others. If everyone starts deleting everything one disagrees with, the situation could get out of control.