Details

Volume 17, No. 2

Uneasy Catholic Church-State Relations in Slovenia

Marjan Smrke

In Slovenia in the 1960s and early 1970s, changes wrought by the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and changes in the attitude of the Communist Party towards religion led to noticeable improvements in church-state relations. With Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church finally implicitly recognized separation of state and church, which intern contributed to a détente in relations between proponents of religious and secular ideologies. It is difficult to imagine the 1 March 1971 meeting between Pope Paul VI and Yugoslav President Josef Broz Tito taking place if corresponding ideological changes had not previously occurred within both the Roman Catholic Church and the Marxist regime of Yugoslavia.

Changing Demographics: Changing Faith

Parallel to church-state ideological shifts were substantive demographic shifts in Catholic adherence in Slovenia. Ninety-seven percent of Slovenes considered themselves Catholics in 1931, and 82.8percent defined themselves as Catholics in the 1953census. But while 71.6 percent of Slovenes still defined themselves as Catholics in 1991, that figure had fallen to 57.8 percent by the 2002 census. In urban settlements the share of Catholics has now fallen tobelow half (46.9 percent). The public opinion survey Slovensko javno mnenje, which has a tradition dating back 40 years and has included religious variables since it was founded in 1968, allows us to make reliable estimate of the situation as regards the deeper dimensions of beliefs. Today only a minority of Slovenia’s self-professed Catholics are devout in the manner prescribed by their church. Belief in arrange of fundamental Christian dogmas (a personal God, the resurrection, hell, heaven, life after death)is professed by only around a third of nominal Catholics in Slovenia. The majority of this also express disagreement with a range of behavioral norms imposed on them by the church, such as the ban on contraception, pre-marital sex, and abortion. According to Niko Toš, such traditional believers account for just18.7 percent of Slovenes,1 while Sergej Flere and RudiKlanjšek claim that the faith of Slovene Catholics is a heightened version of the wider European phenomenon of “belonging, not believing.”2

New Religious Communities

Parallel with the fall in the share of self-professed Catholics, there has been a growth in recent decades in the number of new religious communities in Slovenia. Before the Second World War these could be counted on the fingers of one hand. In the 1970s Slovenia was home to nine religious communities, whereas at the end of the 1980s the number was around 15. Today, the government’s Office for Religious Communities lists43 different religious communities.3 There are also a few dozen groups which are not registered as “religious communities,” but which by sociological criteria are at least partially religious phenomena.4 Although as rule newer religious bodies are small, their very existence is making an important contribution to the growing awareness of religion as a choice. Various New Age phenomena have been embraced by aconsiderable number of nominal Catholics, including various opinion leaders and other influential figures.

Here we need only mention Dr. Jane Drnovšek, the former president of Slovenia who died in 2008. In the last years of his life President Drnovšek wrote a number of best-selling books that were New Age inspirit.5 Unlike the centuries-old tradition of Catholic monopoly, which was interrupted only by the culturally fruitful but violently suppressed period of the Lutheran Reformation, Slovenes today live in conditions which are relatively pluralistic in terms of religion. Harangues along the lines of “one nation – one religion – one church,” which are still, or again, to be heard from the mouths of certain Roman Catholic speakers, are in this light not only unconvincing but a sign of ignorance of the age in which we live.

Changing Church and State Attitudes

In 1979 theologian Franc Rode of the faculty of theology in Ljubljana reflected on state confiscation of church lands in 1945:Before the war our Church was too rich. The parish priest was often also a man of note in the economic sense, monasteries were generally too rich, and bishops spent their holidays in castles. The Church had property which was not necessary for the fulfillment of its mission; property deriving from the feudal era. It should have renounced its possessions itself and given them to the poor. But how many times has this happened in the history of the Church? Not very often. And so God intervenes in order to unburden and purify His Church. Those who carried out this operation were certainly not thinking about the purification of the Church, but even so they were a tool in God’s hands and unwittingly carried out His divine plan. And so we became poorer and perhaps less proud.6

Contemporary changes on the secular side were evident in the abandonment of the dogmatic and restrictive attitude of the League of Communists towards religion. The early 1980s saw the abandonment of the view that a Communist party member must not be religious, and subsequently the return of religious holidays (Christmas) to public life. The change in attitude towards religious holidays, particularly Christmas, was debated by Slovenia’s Communists in 1985. In 1986 the president of the Socialist League of Working People (SZDL – its Slovenian acronym), gave a public Christmas greeting, and the archbishop of Ljubljana gave a Christmas radiobroadcast, provoking a great variety of reactions.

The Fall of Socialism and the Revival of Catholic Triumphalism

Nevertheless, the fall of the Communists was understood by the Slovenian Catholic Church as a great historical victory and as an opportunity to return to the advantages of former times. After 1991 a rise in a pre-Vatican II Council spirit could be noted. The triumphant, militant, and immutable Church(ecclesiae triumphans, ecclesiae militans, ecclesiale semper eadem) reappeared, as Croatian sociologist Srđan Vrcan observed.7 Particularly during the archiepiscopate of Dr. Franc Rode (1997–2004), a number of demands were expressed under the banner of re-evangelization which could be understood as tendency towards a reconstituted Catholic hegemony.

The view of the past changed radically in many ways. That which in the 1970s was interpreted as God’s will (as can be seen from the above quotation about the secularization of church estates), now became an expression of intolerable Communist violence, the consequences of which needed to be eliminated without delay. The ownership of 32,000 hectares of land, including a considerable part of today’s Triglav National Park, is no longer a sign of pride which the Church should have rid itself of long ago, but something sacred which must be returned as soon as possible.

Since the fall of Communism there have been strongly expressed calls for a revision of the history of the Second World War, when part of the Roman Catholic Church compromised itself by collaborating with Italian and German occupying forces.8 One of Slovenian Catholicism’s most compromising acts waste oath of the domobranci – quisling military groups supported by and partly organized by the Church. It took place on Hitler’s birthday, 30 April 1944, at Ljubljana’s central stadium in the presence of the German army of occupation.

The expression of such views immediately met with a negative response from public opinion. Religious statistics, in which we note the greatest change in the 1990s, show a fall in trust in the Church and the clergy, an expression of dissatisfaction with the Church’s excessive role in society, and a rejection of Church interference in the political decisions of citizens. Between 1991 and 1998 the share of Slovenes who had total or considerable trust in the Catholic Church and its clergy fell from 36.9 percent to 11.2 percent.

The Re-ordering of Church-State Relations:1992-2004

The re-ordering of relations between church and state in Slovenia’s early post-Communist transition can be divided into two periods: 1) the period from1992 to 2004, which is defined above all by the government of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia(LDS) and its coalitions, and 2) the period beginning in 2004 with the electoral victory of the Slovenia Democratic Party (SDS), which formed a right-wing(or center-right) coalition.

For the most part the LDS advocated consistently for the separation of church and state as required by Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic ofSlovenia.9 The LDS government did away with various restrictions on church activities, while on the other hand it did not undermine the principle of the separation of church and state. In this stance it could rely on public opinion, which showed resistance tore-Catholicizing tendencies. Slovenia did not follow the route of most post-socialist countries, which in the name of eliminating its Communist past, introduced hasty reforms that, in many ways restored conditions of a semi-state church. Still, the expectations and demands of the Slovenian Catholic Church were greater. It appealed to the examples of not yet fullyde-confessionalized states such as Germany and Austria. It is probable that the constant complaints and demands of some of the more pro-church parties caused the various governments led by the LDS to adopt a number of compromise decisions. Here we can include the Vatican Treaty between the Republic of Slovenia and the Holy See which has caused considerable uneasiness. The Constitutional Court reviewed its constitutionality and in 2003 decided that it is not contrary to the constitution, in so far as it is understood that the Catholic Church will respect the laws of the Republic of Slovenia.

Religious Instruction in Schools

One of the most controversial church-state issues was, and is, education. While the Catholic Church wished to enter the public school system with confessional religious instruction, the LDS governing coalition succeeded in passing legislation which defends the autonomy and ideological neutrality of the public school system. Article 72 of the relevant1996 Act prohibits confessional religious instruction in public schools.10

Confessional instruction remains an unfulfilled Catholic Church ambition and a source of anger.11 Archbishop Rode threatened, “We shall destroy this school by democratic means as soon as this is possible!”12 Even in more recent political circumstances, however, confessional instruction in public schools does not appear to be a realistic goal. First and foremost, a Constitutional Court decision in 2002 confirmed the constitutionality of the ban on confession-based activity in public schools. Furthermore, the greater part of the public opposes religious instruction. In public opinion surveys the notion of “religious education in schools” has proved to be very unpopular. In 2003 it was rated “positive “or “very positive” by just 20.4 percent of Slovenes.13

Property Restitution

A second controversial area concerns the return of property to the Roman Catholic Church. In November 1991 (before the LDS came to power), the Denationalization Act was rapidly adopted. This Act regulated the restitution of property nationalized during the socialist period. Property of feudal origin was excluded from denationalization. Was this supposed to mean that the Catholic Church was not entitled to 32,000 hectares of forest and land? After numerous discussions, most of which centered on the suspicious manner in which the Catholic Church came by this property immediately before the Second World War, and following a moratorium of several years on the restitution of property, the Constitutional Court decided, through the Act amending the Denationalization Act (1998), that the Church was entitled, as an “institution serving the public good, “to the disputed estates, even if these were of feudal origin. When delays then occurred in the restitution of property, the Church, like the most conscientious capitalist, claimed compensation for lost income. In the meantime it has succeeded in establishing itself as an important economic player. In banking, the timber industry, catering, and the media, it is strengthening its presence and doing business with everyone – even with five pornographic television channels.Many Slovenes have been greatly disappointed by such Catholic actions and positions during the transition period. Take, for example, the experience of Slovene philosopher Alana Goljevšček, who at the end of the previous regime was, along with her husband, initially enthusiastic about the Catholic Church, and then distanced herself from it: “After a painful period of searching we turned to Christianity and the Catholic Church. Because we didn’t know any better – we are both from liberal families – we believed its words about love, forgiveness, humility, and so on. With enthusiasm and great inner joy we surrendered ourselves to the message of the Gospels. But after 1990 the Catholic Church in Slovenia pushed us away, changed the record and turned into a greedy dictator, and we ran away from it as fast as our legs would carry us – would that we had never entered such a church!”14

The Re-ordering of Church-State Relations:2004-

The second period (2004-) is defined by the government of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS).As regards church-state relations, especially noteworthy has been the adoption of a new law, the Religious Freedom Act, in 2007, but with a parliamentary majority of only a single vote (46/90).The new Act begins by expressing the principle of the neutrality of the state in religious matters(Article 4), but in the same breath, the state defines religious communities as organizations serving the public good (Article 5). From this derive numerous forms of state funding of religious activities, including church involvement in prisons, police, the army, and hospitals. This is supposed to be in accordance with the “friendly separation” of church and state. Owing to the historical differences in size among churches, state funding mainly benefits the Catholic Church. It is mainly Catholic priests for whom the state pays social and health insurance and who now appear in the role of state functionaries in numerous situations. In 2007,in addition, 69.5 percent of Ministry of Culture funds intended for “real estate of cultural heritage” went tithe Roman Catholic Church.

Conditions defined by the new Act for the registration of religious communities are more restrictive than criteria set out by the old “socialist” law (1976). Religious community which wishes to register itself must have been operating in Slovenia for at least ten years and must have at least 100 members. It has been established that more than half of the currently registered religious communities would not have met these conditions at the time they were registered. Ironically, not even Jesus Christ would have been able to register under these criteria, if we consider that he was active for a total of three years and had just 12 disciples.

In short, the impression is that the adopted Act has put into effect a regulated religious market in which the former Catholic monopoly has managed to reassert certain privileges and benefits. As of December 2008the Constitutional Court has not yet rendered a decision on the conformity of the Act with the Constitution.

Conclusion

The fall of Communist, single-party rule in Slovenia in 1989 meant an opportunity for a regulation of relations between the state and churches that would give privileges to no one and discriminate against no one. In the 1990s Slovenia successfully did away with restrictions placed on religions by the previous regime without favoring the Roman Catholic Church over other confessions. Since 2004, however, and in particular with the Act adopted in 2007, the equality of religions, the equality of religious and non-religious citizens, and the separation of church and state have been compromised since the Roman Catholic Church is rapidly making inroads into state institutions. However, in the wake of the September 2008 elections and the confirmation of Borut Pahor, president of the Social Democratic Party, as prime minister (at the head of four-party coalition government), there may be some efforts to assure greater neutrality in church-state relations in Slovenia. F

Notes:

1 Niko Toš, “(Ne)religioznost Slovencev v primerjavi z drugimi srednje in vzhodnoevropskimi narodi” in Niko Toš, ed., Pobede o cerkir in religiji na Slovenskem v 90-ih (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, IDVCJMMK, 1999), 72.

2 Sergej Flere and Rudi Klanjšek, “Ali je vottost značilnost vernosti na Slovenskem?,” Družboslovne razprove 23 (no, 56, 2007), 7-20.

3 See the website of the Office for Religious Communities: http://www.uvs.gov.si/en/religious_ communities/.

4 A. Črnič and Gregor Lesjak, “Religious Freedom and Control in Independent Slovenia,” Sociology of Religion 64 (no. 3, 2003), 349-66. 5 A. Črnič, “Predsednik za novo dobo: religiološka  analiza Drnovškovega obrata,” Družboslovne razprave 23 (no. 56, 2007), 21-37.

6 Franc Rode, “Through Christianity in Slovenia: Today and Tomorrow,” Lecture at the Theological Faculty of Ljubljana, 1979.

7 Sratjan Vrcan, Vjera u vrtlozima tranzicije (Split: Glas Dalmacije-revija Dalmatinske akcije, 2001).

8 Jože and Božo Repe, “O reviziji zgodovine” in Murko Drčar, ed., Pet minut demokracije; podoba Slovenije po letu 2004 (Ljubljana: Liberalna akademija, 2008), 37-54.

9 See: http://www.dz-rs. si/?id=150&docid=28&showdoc=1.

10 Marjan Smrke and Tatjana Rakar, “Religious

Education in Slovenia” in Zorica Kuburić and Christian Moe, eds., Religion and Pluralism in Education: Comparative Approaches in the Western Balkans (Novi Sad: CEIR, 2006), 9-38; http://kotor-network.info/ research/joint/2005/RelPlurEdu.pdf.

11 Izeri življenje (2002), 149-50.

12 France Rode, “Cerkev na pragu tretjega tisočletja,” lecture in the Bishopric Hall in Maribor, 16 March 2000.

13 Slavko Kurdija, “Vrednotne delitve v luči političnih izbir” in Brina Malnar and Igor Bernik, eds., S Slovenkami in Slovenci na štiri oči (Ljubljana: Faculteta za družbene vede, IDV-CJMMK, 2004), 124.

14 Alenka Goljevšček, “Vse življenje za eno ljubezen (intervju),” Ona 10 (No. 20, 2008), 12.

Edited excerpt published with permission of the author from a paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 2008; subsequently published in Separation of Church and State in Europe, ed. by Hagg de Beaufort and Patrick van Shie (Brussels: European Liberal Forum, 2008), 163-73.

Marjan Smrke holds a Ph.D. in sociology. He lectures on sociology of religion and comparative religion and is a researcher at the Center for Cultural and Religious Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Details

Volume 17, No. 2

A Frank Assessment of Church Growth and Missions Today

Rich Correll

Many will agree that the 1990s were a very special time with many conversions, new churches started, theological institutions opened, buildings built, literature published, and multiple ministries of all types launched. This was a period of incredible activity at home and abroad for Slavic evangelicals. Many will also agree that the gospel is no longer on the advance. Conversions and baptismsare declining; new church plants are at a low level. Although some good foreign work is underway, theological institutions are struggling for students, buildings are only partially filled, and we observe widespread indifference, although the needs and opportunities are still tremendous. There has been limited reproduction of churches. The fire seems to have been extinguished. What is needed is an honest discussion about the hindering effects of dependence on outside finances, dependence on buildings and dependence on academic education and professionalism.

Edited excerpt published with the author’s permission from a workshop held at the International Evangelical Mission Forum, Irpen,Ukraine, 24-25 October 2008.

Rich Correll is founder and president of Church Planters’ Training International, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Details

Volume 17, No. 2

Baptists in Romania, Hungary, and Yugoslavia: Surviving Hostile

Authorities and Well-Meaning Missionaries

R. Tandy McConnell

Martyrdom . . .

During the 1960s and 1970s, Richard Wurmbrand, the Romanian expatriate who built a career out of his anti-Communist diatribes, spoke boldly and repeatedly on behalf of the “martyred churches” behind the Iron Curtain. At the same time, he anathematized in the strongest possible terms those Christians in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for whom the cost of discipleship did not include prison, exile, or a life of secrecy. There was for him no room for compromise. Christians who lived under Communist rule were either martyrs or apostates. Christians who cooperated with the Communist authorities, or who avoided conflict simply by remaining quiet, were guilty of denying Christ.

. . . Versus Accommodation

Yet martyrdom was a vocation to which few Christians in Eastern Europe – or elsewhere – appear to have been called. For most, faithfulness to theirreligion and loyalty to the government did not seemaltogether as contradictory as Wurmbrand insisted itought to have been. If Wurmbrand and his sponsors could enjoy a comfortable moral certitude – as well as a comfortable life in the West – most religious people who tried to live out their faith in consistently hostile climates found some compromises unavoidable. Most bishops, pastors, and religious leaders chose their battles carefully. Few followed the uncompromising example of Hungary’s Josef Cardinal Mindszenty. Even Josif Ţon, the Romanian dissident, seems to have made substantial efforts to avoid antagonizing the Ceausescu regime, even as he pushed for greater freedom of religion and church autonomy – issues that put him clearly at odds with the authorities. In an article he wrote for Fundamentalist Journal on “The Christian Church under Communism,” Ţon acknowledged that evening Romania religious oppression, while very real, had not driven the churches underground. The social and political costs of active participation in religion were higher in Romania than in Western Europe, or even in Hungary or Yugoslavia, but not so high that millions of Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants were not willing to pay it. But the editors of Fundamentalist Journal knew, as Ţon perhaps did not, that their readership wanted moral absolutes, not ambiguities: Communists were bad. They oppressed the church, killed the saints, tortured the faithful witnesses. Thus the photo layout that headed Ţon’s article pictured a scene from concentration camp: a Bible thrown casually into the mud lay next to an outstretched hand which was crushed beneath a neatly shined jackboot.

This marked incongruity between the dramatic picture and Ţon’s carefully written article neatly summarizes the disjunction between myths and realities in the religious history of Eastern Europe during the Cold War.1 As the experience of Baptists in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania demonstrates, the governments of these countries made extensive use of concentration camps and jackboots when dealing with religion only in the first years of the Cold War era. In the 1960s and 1970s, all three governments sought to diminish the place of religion in society, but the restrictions they placed on religious activities, while certainly a burden on the faithful, still left substantial room for individual religious belief. Religion was of concern to the government only when it threatened the ideological hegemony of the Communist Party.

Baptists in Yugoslavia were few in number and were further divided among six nationalities, including Slovaks, Romanians, and Germans. As a result, they could never have threatened the government’s ideological hegemony, even if that had been their goal.

Hungary’s Diakonia Theology

In Hungary, Baptists were better organized and much more unified than in Yugoslavia, but went to much greater lengths to avoid even the appearance of offering an ideological alternative to socialism.Diakonia theology, emphasizing Christian service to society in cooperation with, and even under the direction of, the Marxist state, served to align Hungary’s Protestant and Catholic churches with the goals of the state. If Hungarian Christians could not embrace Socialism with a whole heart, they were expected, at the very least, to serve the interests of the Hungarian nation and its government. By adopting Diakonia theology, the Hungarian Baptist Church was able to maintain institutional continuity and autonomy throughout the Cold War era. Butane can only wonder what long-term effect such an ideology will have on the denomination’s life.

Romanian Growth Despite Repression

Romanian Baptists endured a longer period of persecution and a more hostile political climate than did Baptists in either Hungary or Yugoslavia, and the regime seems to have succeeded in its campaign to regulate their affairs and subvert their leadership. In the climate of quiet desperation that Ceausescu’s version of socialism engendered, religion offered one of the few places where an independent culture could flourish.

Romanian Baptist churches grew rapidly under Ceausescu, and it is tempting to relate the existence of an outspoken Baptist dissident movement with the denomination’s growth. But there are many factors that influence a denomination’s growth and decline: the effectiveness and charisma of the leadership, competition from other religious and non-religious institutions, and the perceived social, as well as spiritual, benefits of joining.

Southern Baptist Missions

The influence of Southern Baptist missionaries and mission dollars in all three countries remains problematic. Hungary, because it was the oldest of the Baptist unions and the most institutionally advanced, was relatively less influenced by Southern Baptists in the inter-war era than Romanians, where Southern Baptists established a seminary, or Yugoslavia, where the denominational organization was established under Southern Baptist leadership. Yet it is meaningless to typify relationships between missionaries and natives in Europe in this era, for there were no typical missionaries and no typical relationships. If in the 1920s and 1930s Southern Baptist missionary Everett Gill exhibited proprietary interest in the educational and other activities of the Baptist Unions of Eastern Europe; he also clearly believed he knew what was best for them. He also understood that his ability to influence events in Eastern Europe was exceedingly limited, and that the one tool he did have at his disposal– money from America – could create a sense of dependency he wanted to avoid. Whatever his faults, he did not want the Baptist Unions of Romania, Hungary, or Yugoslavia to become clients of the Southern Baptist Foreign Missions Board. And had that happened, they would likely not have survived the Cold War era when contacts and support becamelimited or non-existent. And if missionary John Allen Moore also felt responsible for the welfare of Baptists in Eastern Europe, he knew, even in1938, that he too would be limited in his ability to influence them. Baptists in Yugoslavia, where Moore worked before the war, accepted Southern Baptist money, but stubbornly resisted any perceived attempts to meddle in their internal affairs. Yet even Slovak Baptist insistence on an unpaid, uneducated clergy, and the consequent difficulty in establishing a centralized Baptist Union, while it frustrated Moore, insulated the denomination from the sort of official meddling that constantly plagued better-organized Romanian Baptists.

In summary, from 1920 until the beginning of World War II, Southern Baptist missionaries to Eastern Europe played a supporting role in the work of indigenous Baptist organizations. After the war, all the Foreign Mission Board had to offer these organizations was friendly advice, an occasional grant of financial aid, and the encouragement that comes from knowing that one’s plight is a matter of concern for people in another part of the world. Ironically, when the Iron Curtain fell in 1989and Southern Baptists could more freely relate to their East European fellow believers, missions no longer served the same role in Southern Baptist life that it had earlier. Professional foreign missionaries came to lose their luster in the late1970s and 1980s. Increasingly, upscale Baptist congregations began sending their own “mission teams” and short-term missionaries to work for several weeks or months on specific projects. The Foreign Mission Board had encouraged the use of volunteers in a number of settings, but in 1990 and1991, thousands of such “missionaries” poured into Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Some of the professional missionaries working with the Foreign Mission Board sought to slow this tide, arguing that traditional missionaries were needed that would spend years learning to speak the language and understand the culture. Nevertheless, their reservations were brushed aside by the increasingly fundamentalist-controlled Board. If long-term missionaries had learned anything in the last 50 years, it was, they argued, that only indigenous Baptist churches, not transplanted Southern Baptist churches, could survive the test of time and political change.2 F

Notes:

1 Josif Ţon, “The Christian Church underCommunism,” Fundamentalist Journal 2 (July-August 1973), 21-28.

2 Keith Parker, interview by author, 28 June 1994,Hendersonville, North Carolina.

Edited excerpts published with permission from R.Tandy McConnell, “Indigenous Baptists and Foreign Missionaries: Baptist Communities in Romania, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, 1872-1980,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1996.

R. Tandy McConnell is the Charles Ezra Daniel Professor of History, Columbia College, Columbia, South Carolina. Dr. McConnell is currently writing book on Romanian Baptists.

Details

Volume 17, No. 2

Romanian Baptist Leadership Training

Ovidiu Cristian Chivu

Baptist churches in Romania experienced growth after the 1989 anti-Communist revolution. However, the number of trained leaders is lagging far behind the number of churches. While Romanian Baptists should explore new domestic and international mission fields and plant many more churches, the most urgent need is training more pastors and church leaders in order to meet current and future ministryneeds.

In 2004 the Baptist Union of Romania reported1,400 churches and 300 mission churches under 20 members, but only 700 pastors. Thus, leadership shortage is critical. I was first exposed to the lack of trained leaders in Romania when God called me into the ministry in 1993. I was working with the Missions Department of the Baptist Union of Romania. As I traveled with different mission teams, I met pastors and missionaries who were serving several mission churches at a time, trying to minister by themselves to each of these congregations. I found this situation present almost everywhere in the country, with very few exceptions. I began to take note of how widespread was the Romanian Baptist leadership shortage. It became evident that one of the greatest needs among Romanian churches was the training of pastors, missionaries, church planters, evangelists, and children’s and youth workers. The pictures of those hard-working pastors and missionaries laboring alone among those congregations captured my mind and never let go.

In researching various approaches to Baptist leadership training, eight formal and informal programs were identified, each of which is briefly described below. In summary, programs include two Baptist institutions with full academic accreditation; Bible Education by Extension (BEE), a training program that has been at the heart of non-formal training since Communism; cooperative training sponsored by a regional Baptist association of churches; three cases of church-based training; and one case of conference and modular training.

Academic Training in Bucharest

The Baptist Theological Institute operates in Bucharest (south Romania) – the capital city With over three million population, which makes the school strategically located. The Institute is fully accredited by the Romanian government and includes a School of Baptist Theology operating in partnership with the University of Bucharest. According to one of the leading professors, the main orientation of the Institute is to train “ministers for practical pastoral ministry, evangelism, andmissions.”1 The Institute is offering a three-year pastoral theology degree (residential and distance programs are offered).2 In the last four years an average of 24 students have graduated per year from The Institute.3

According to its vision statement, the Baptist Theological Institute in Bucharest is training ministers “for the church, and in cooperation with local churches.”4 In order to help students gain practical experience in ministry, the school assigns each student to a church in Bucharest to work under the supervision and evaluation of that church’s pastor.5 In 1991, the Institute opened a double-degree Baptist school in cooperation with the University of Bucharest, which is offering degrees in theology and linguistics, theology and social assistance, and theology and international languages. A missions program was started in1998 as part of the same partnership with the University of Bucharest. This program is strategic, since Romanian Baptist students graduating with a University of Bucharest diploma have their degree recognized internationally and are welcomed to teach in many countries closed to most Western missionaries. The School of Theology, operating in cooperation with the University of Bucharest, offers master’s and a doctoral degree in theology.

Academic Training in Oradea

The training program in Oradea (northwest Romania) started as a Bible institute or seminary and has now evolved into a Christian university fully accredited by the Romanian government.6 Emmanuel University has two schools – the School of Baptist Theology and the School of Management. The School of Theology offers degrees in Baptist pastoral theology, musical pedagogy, and a double degree in Baptist theology and social assistance. Another double degree – Baptist theology and linguistics – is offered in partnership with the University of Oradea. The School of Management offers a degree in organizational management. Several research centers have been started within the university, which conduct research in evangelism, Christian counseling and education, reformation, evangelism, preaching, and social assistance.7

The university “is training ministers for the local church and through the local church, for the society in its entirety.”8 The aim is to train not only pastors, but also other leaders in order to meet the needs of both Romanian churches and society. Emmanuel University has accomplished much during its17 years of existence. The university is working fervently to strengthen its faculty. The majority of the faculty consists of Romanian professors, helped by several visiting professors, mainly from America and England.

Bible Education by Extension

Western missionaries pioneered the Bible Education by Extension (BEE) training programing Eastern Europe among Romanian Baptists. One BEE missionary reported how, before 1989, various missionaries traveled from Western countries to Romania to teach local church leaders. The training was done mostly in homes. Visiting missionaries distributed to their students textbooks printed in Romanian, had them work on lessons ahead of time, and returned to teach short-term seminars and test the students.9 Visiting missionaries have trained both pastors and lay leaders.10 According to one BEE missionary, the training is now done in churches and homes.

The strategy continues to be one of training leaders for the local church. But the process has been much more indigenous, with Romanians themselves assuming teaching responsibility within their own churches and denominations. However, key elements of the ministry continue to be small group training, Socratic dialogue, independent study, and emphasis on knowledge, skills, andcharacter.11

Today, BEE International’s strategy in Romania is “to assist church leaders both in training leaders with BEE courses and in developing their churches as training centers.”12 A Romanian Baptist pastor acknowledged that BEE uses quality textbooks and biblical leadership training methodology. When asked to evaluate BEE training, the same pastor declared that the majority of pastors and lay leaders trained by BEE have “solid biblical and practicaltraining.”13

Training by Baptist Regional Associations

Several Baptist regional associations have started their own training programs.14 Typically, Pastors, missionaries, church planters, and various ministers from churches throughout an association come together to a central location for training. The programs vary in length, the frequency of meetings, and teaching priorities. Some meet several times a year for intense, one-week training programs. Others meet on a more regular basis. Although the programs are administered by local Romanian Baptist associations, in most cases the teaching is done by Western ministers and missionaries from churches omission organizations in partnership with Romanian associations. Some teaching is done by Romanianministers. Several of the organizations involved inthis type of training – for example, Bible Education by Extension (BEE) and Precept Ministries –were present in Romania during the period of Communism, and they had a part in underground training at that time.

Church-Based Training in Comăneşti

A small church-based leadership training program was started in 2003 in Comaneci. The Program is hosted by Victory Baptist Church and led by the pastor of that congregation. The pastor meets once a week with seven Baptist pastors and missionaries from Northeastern Romania in order to better equip them for ministry. Each meeting lasts three to four hours. The program was started with a vision for “fellowship, doctrinal unity, and cooperation among pastors and ministers from churches in the area.”15 Believing that correct practice in ministry is the direct result of correct biblical, doctrinal teaching, they all meet to pray, study the whole counsel of God, and attempt to find the best ways to put Scripture into practice. The trainer prepares a written lesson plan for each meeting, which serves as a guide to the teaching session. The teaching is interactive, with students encouraged to ask questions and discuss what is being studied. Students are also required to complete a list of reading assignments for each major theme studied. The study is practical, with those involved seeking to find the best practical ways for putting the Scripture in action, while taking Into consideration “the specific situations each of them and their churches are in.” Also, the training pastor visits his students in their churches and supports them “every time they need it.”16

Church-Based Training in Constanţa

A church-based leadership training program –Antioch Leadership Training Center – was started in 1995 in Constanta (southeast Romania) by the pastor of Golgotha Baptist Church. The center offers a three-year equipping program. Twenty-nine people are being trained in this center, among whom are people from the hosting local church and other churches in the area. The center uses the church’s facilities for its meetings and operates in close cooperation with Leader Formation International, based in Dallas, Texas. According to the leading trainer, the program is open to pastors and church ministers in order to enhance their ministry skills. The center’s motto is “serving servant leaders.” The program places emphasis on academic (reading, studying, writing papers) and practical training, but the main accent falls on the practical aspect –“how to implement what you have learned.” Three departments operate within the center – pastoral and missionary leadership development, church leadership development, and women’s ministrydevelopment.17

Church-Based Training in Brăila

Another church-based training center was started in 1998 in Brǎila (southeast Romania). The centers hosted by Holy Trinity Baptist Church. It was started through the initiative of the church’s pastor, who caught a vision for leadership training while training leaders during Communism. The center offers a three-year training program, primarily equipping missionaries and church planters. Among those teaching are pastors from Braila, Galati, Talca, and Bucharest, several Romanian missionaries and seminary professors, and visiting teachers from America and England. Since 2001 an average of eight students has graduated each year. Students come from Romania and the Republic of Moldova. A high percentage of graduates have entered the ministry, which is not the norm for most of the non-accredited Baptist training programs in Romania. The center is located close to Moldova, Bulgaria, and Ukraine. Romanian-speaking people live in all these countries. If reached with the gospel and trained for the ministry, they could become admission force among Slavic-speaking peoples.

Conferences and Modular Training

Many Baptist pastors attend three- or four day conferences and intense modular training sessions organized in various parts of the country by churches, mission organizations, and the Baptist Union of Romania. Usually, these training events are led by well-known pastors and professors from America. Hundreds of pastors gather in one location, where they have fellowship and learn new insights from the Word of God and practical ministry skills. Leading Romanian pastors have been used lately to teach in these conferences alongside their American brothers, helping contextualize the teachings to the Romanian and Eastern European context. Various training programs have been started by Baptist churches since 1989, but no indigenous leadership training strategy has been offered. Following is a proposal for church-based leadership training in Romania which, if implemented, could help Baptist congregations in Romania strengthen their leadership training efforts. The proposal contains seven steps:

1. Evaluation: Assess existing church-based leadership training.

2. Vision: Develop and spread a vision for church-based leadership training strategy.

3. Design: Plan the training strategy.

4. Orientation: Share the strategy and organize the process.

5. Cooperation: Pursue and build training networks and partnerships.

6. Implementation: Implement the strategy.

7. Tuning: Evaluate and improve the training process.

This indigenous, church-based strategy includes cooperation with more traditional academic training programs. Western missionaries pioneered Bible Education by Extension in Romania during the period of Communism with good results.18 Nevertheless, the time has come for Romanians to train their own leaders without relying heavily on teachers and trainers from the West. Everything has a starting point, no matter how hard it is, and being determined to put together a training team and program is crucial, no matter how small the beginning or how scarce the resources. In a country where evangelicals are perceived as being a foreign entity of Western origin, Baptist churches should make strong efforts to implement indigenous ministry and leadership training freeform Western influence. An indigenous church grows without outside control.19

Fine Tuning: The Training Process

Evaluation is critical to the entire training process. No strategy is perfect, but in order to improve it continually, regular and continuous evaluation should be implemented. Baptist churches involved in leadership training should set specific times throughout the year for evaluation of the training program and its effectiveness. Evaluation should be carried out in order to assess the training program’s goals, methods, resources, the effectiveness of the training team, and the progress of those being trained. The leadership team could use feedback forms and meet regularly at least twice a year to openly discuss, evaluate, and adjust all elements of the training process calling for improvement. The purpose of the assessment process “is not to demean or control people but to evaluate work.”20 The desire is to see each one involved (discipler and disciple) “grow up in every way into Him who is the Head, into Christ” (Ephesians4:15). Therefore, evaluation should be planned and implemented according to realistically designed means and measurements, and improvements made whenever and wherever necessary.

Conclusion

Church-based leadership training ought to be implemented by Baptists in Romania in a well-planned and strategic manner alongside academic training for the ministry. Having the largest number of Baptists in Eastern Europe and great potential and zeal for local and global ministries, but facing significant shortage in trained leadership, Romanian churches have the responsibility to equip godly leaders for the future. Romanians consider church-based training to have much potential for developing well-equippedleadership.21 Great potential can be realized by preparing and employing an organized strategy. Baptist congregations in Romania would do themselves and their future generations much goodbye making leadership training a priority, adopting plan for developing leaders, and investing in equipping mature leaders. F

Notes:

1 Educator D, interview by author, digital recording, Bucharest, Romania, 21 June 2005. (Missionaries interviewed are identified with code letters to protect their privacy.)

2 Institute Teologic Baptist Bucureşti – Licenţǎ[on-line]; accessed 15 August 2005; available fromhttp://www.itb.ro/licentaid.htm.

3 Institutul Teologic Baptist Bucureşti – CifreŞcolarizare [on-line]; accessed 15 August 2005;available from http://www.itb.ro/saptp.htm.

4 Institutul Teologic Baptist Bucureşti – Viziune[on-line]; accessed 15 August 2005; available fromhttp://www.itb.ro/viziune.htm.

5 Educator D, interview, 21 June 2005.

6 Interview with Rector Paul Negruţ; EmmanuelUniversity website, accessed 15 August 2005;available from http://www.emanuel.ro.

7 Universitatea Emanuel – Viaţa Academicǎ [online];accessed 15 August 2005; available fromhttp://www.emanuel.ro/academic/cercetare.html.

8 Missionary A, who serves in Romania with BEE.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid. Educator F confirmed that BEE trained bothpastors and lay leaders prior to 1989 and continues to be instrumental in training Baptist pastors and leaders for the local church even today.

11 Ibid.

12 Missionary B, who serves in Romania with BEE? He confirmed that “most of the teaching of BEE courses is now done by Romanians.”

13 Educator E, interview by author, e-mail Bucharest, 7 July 2005.

14 The information was confirmed by several pastors who participated in the surveys and interviews.

15 Educator G, interview by author, e-mail, Bucharest, Romania, 5 July 2005.

16 Ibid.

17 Educator E, interview by author, digital recording, Bucharest, Romania, 26 March 2004.

18 Patrick Johnston and Jason Mandryk, Operation World, 21st century ed. (Waynesboro, GA:Paternoster, 2001), 537.

19 Charles Brock, Indigenous Church Planting: APractical Journey (Neosho, MO: Church Growth International, 1994), 89.

20 Edward R. Dayton and David A. Fraser, Planning Strategies for World Evangelism (Monrovia, CA:MARC, 1990), 324.

21 David P. Bohn, “The Perspectives on Theological Education Evident among Evangelical Church Leaders in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Russia,” Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity International University, 1997, 339.

Edited excerpts published with permission from Ovidu Cristian Chivu,“A Strategy for Church-

Based Leadership Training in Romania,” Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,2007.

Ovidiu Cristian Chivu is pastor of evangelism and discipleship, Holy Trinity Baptist Church, and international missions coordinator, Romanian-American Mission, Brǎila, Romania.