Details

Volume 19, No. 3

Book Review

Raber, Mary and Peter F. Penner, eds. History and Mission in Europe: Continuing the Conversation. Schwarzenfeld, Germany: Neufeld Verlag, 2011. Reviewed by Michael Bourdeaux.

Only modestly—on the back cover—does this fine book proclaim itself as a festschrift produced in honor of the outstanding Mennonite scholar and activist, Walter Sawatsky. At least he deserves a full-page color photo, rather than the four unobtrusive black and white ones set out in a strip along the middle of the back cover.

That grouse stated, one is able to welcome this book not only as a deserved tribute, but also as a many-sided work of interest to anyone who follows the destiny of Protestants in the former Communist countries of Europe. Walter Sawatsky is a Canadian Mennonite, well known to readers of this journal, but his interests have always spread far beyond the confines of his own denomination. Walter, it is stated (p. 12), visited the USSR 22 times before its collapse. For three years in the early 1970s he was my colleague at Keston College, Kent, after his secondment there by the Mennonite Central Committee. I was its founder and director, and this invitation to review History and Mission in Europe gives me the opportunity to add my tribute to a cool, calm colleague. Walter’s personal knowledge and impeccable judgment, in an atmosphere often riven by conflict of the KGB’s making, was an example to us all.

The 21 chapters go well beyond strictly Mennonite perspectives and discuss many practical as well as theoretical issues. The contributors include several who are not Mennonites, though the editors are. Dr. Mark R. Elliott, editor of this journal, writes a telling article on the uncoordinated burgeoning of Protestant theological educational institutions after 60 years of total suppression in the USSR (Ch.12). He provides wise counsel of how this training needs to be less diffuse, less exclusive, and more ready to abandon theory in favor of adapting “to the unique complexities of the post-Soviet environment” (p. 235).

One practical and selfless scheme in which Walter Sawatsky was involved as project coordinator was the production over nine years of a Russian translation of William Barclay’s 15 volumes of New Testament Bible commentaries. This was an immense team effort and the story is movingly told by one of the editors, Mary Raber (Ch. 16). How did the choice fall on Barclay? How was it practically coordinated? How was a text produced for an Anglo-Saxon reader culturally transformed into one whose allusions and quotes of poetic sources would be comprehensible to a Soviet reader? The answers are all here. During the long years of production the Soviet Union was transformed from a closed to an open society (at least temporarily), and soon after its completion in 1986 an official message came through from Moscow in February 1987, “Approval granted, send all commentaries.” There were some grumbles at the text from more conservative-minded Russian believers, but here was something which had cost countless hours of painstaking work and financial sacrifice in the West and bridged the immense gap until Russians could produce their own systematic commentaries.

How refreshing it is to read contributions by young Russians and Ukrainians. Here, though, we come across a problem. Three of the chapters are in Russian, two in German, albeit prefaced by adequate summaries. One of the contributions, “History of the Baptist-Initsiativnik Movement” (Ch. 7), is of great interest, but is in Russian only, thus inevitably cutting off the detail of its insights from many readers of the book. Tatiana Nikolskaia (St. Petersburg) has gained access to state archives and retrieved documentation about the origins of the devastating schism among Russian Baptists which originated in the early 1960s and persists to this day. She uses these sources to tell a moving story of resistance to persecution and of the indomitability of human nature. Yet one curious fact emerges. Ms. Nikolskaia mentions Walter Sawatsky’s comprehensive book of 1981 on Russian Baptists, but does not quote it. Indeed, her sole sources appear to be the state archives of the Russian Federation. The story she tells—with the excitement of uncovering something new—was first recounted in my own book, Religious Ferment in Russia, published in 1969. She has no knowledge of the immense wealth of the Keston Archive, now housed at Baylor University, Texas, which tells the story, but with a hundred times more detail. One waits for the day when Russians will know of the sources often richly existent in the West and Western scholars will have unrestricted access to Soviet archives.

The text is well edited, but nestling among the many interesting chapters of rich interest there are a few contentious points. For example, William Yoder’s acerbic piece, “Correct Losers—but the Wrong Winners” (Ch. 17), focuses on the dissolution of East Germany. Perhaps one who lives in Belarus and commutes weekly to Moscow might be expected to hold unconventional opinions, but I leave it to others to agree—or disagree—with his eulogy of President Alexander Lukashenko, the dictator of Minsk, for his social policies supporting his country’s poorest (p. 340). However, I cannot let pass his incidental remark criticizing the unbalanced reporting of Forum 18, a news service which emphatically does not inherit a mandate from “Britain’s erstwhile Keston College.”

Every reader of this journal would be stimulated and enriched by reading this book. Could we have a second edition with the entire text in English? F

Canon Dr. Michael Bourdeaux is the founder and president of Keston Institute, Oxford.

Book Review

Puzynin, Andrey P. The Tradition of the Gospel Christians: A Study of Their Identity and Theology during the Russian, Soviet, and Post-Soviet Periods. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Reviewed by Matthew Miller.

Andrey P. Puzynin serves as adjunct lecturer of Nyack College/Alliance Theological Seminary at its extension site in Kyiv, Ukraine. This book, which draws on his University of Wales doctoral dissertation, analyzes shifts in the self-understanding and doctrinal positions of the Gospel Christian movement. This is a very significant book, since few scholarly works systematically explore the history of Russia’s Evangelical Christians, as they are more frequently identified. (In 1944, the Union of Evangelical Christians merged with the Russian Baptist Union to form the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists.) Since the end of the Soviet Union many believers have chosen to identify with the Evangelical Christian heritage rather than with the organization formed in the 1940s.

Puzynin breaks down his comprehensive study of the movement into five periods, each marked by a key leader: Lord Radstock, Vasily Aleksandrovich Pashkov, Ivan Sergeevich Prokhanov (two periods), and Aleksander Vasilevich Karev. For each period Puzynin highlights the formative experiences, doctrinal trends, and dominant themes of self-identification. One theme that runs through the book is how the identity of Gospel Christians has been shaped by contemporary geopolitical forces. For the first period (1873-1878) Puzynin describes the St. Petersburg ministry of Radstock, his Keswick holiness and premillenial beliefs, and Radstock’s hope for the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church. During the second period (1878-1902) Pashkov expanded the ministry of his English mentor, developed restorationist views, and built stronger connections with Western Protestants after his exile from Russia in 1884. After the establishment of limited religious freedom in 1905 Prokhanov emerged as a leader and continued until he left Russia in 1928. He led ventures in publishing and education, organized a Russian branch of the ecumenical Evangelical Alliance, championed adult baptism, and expressed an optimistic postmillennial eschatology. After 1944, Karev, a Gospel Christian, provided leadership for the merged denomination. He operated under limitations enforced by the Soviet regime and did not openly challenge the discrimination and persecution faced by believers in the USSR. Under Karev dispensational premillennialism grew in influence and overshadowed the postmillennialism expressed by Prokhanov. Denominational leaders began to exert strict controls over local congregations.

This reviewer welcomes the publication of a volume which addresses so many significant questions. Puzynin provides a critical evaluation of many valuable sources; footnotes and an extensive bibliography point readers to primary works and secondary literature. The author’s evaluations of recent research will doubtlessly produce the most discussion among readers. Puzynin rigorously criticizes the recent historical and theological writings of Russian and Ukrainian writers such as Marina S. Karetnikova, Sergei V. Sannikov, and Mikhail N. Cherenkov.

This book raises a number of concerns, which can be categorized as identification and interaction. First, the author does not clearly define the Gospel Christian movement and seems to assume that readers have a prior understanding of the basic historical narrative. He also does not adequately explain the current status (location, membership, leadership) of Gospel Christian churches today. He mentions that several groups use the label, but he briefly focuses on only one current leader. When discussing major events in the life of the movement, he pays little attention to the evangelistic growth of the 1920s or the repression of the 1930s—these broader developments deeply influenced the self-understanding of the group. Also, he provides little context on developments in society or the Russian Orthodox Church. He mentions the Russian YMCA and the Living Church movement more than once—but his footnotes do not direct the reader to the most significant secondary literature. Finally, Puzynin does not clearly explain or justify his methods of historical and theological interpretation. He discusses post-liberal theology as a way to develop a better understanding of Gospel Christians, but he does not adequately define or evaluate this recent American movement.

Second, a more significant concern is Puzynin’s interaction with other scholars. Hopefully, in future works he will demonstrate a more gracious attitude toward other writers while energetically critiquing their writing. He shows little respect for more experienced authors who had fewer educational opportunities. It is possible to provide rigorous criticism of research without calling authors’ professional training and competence into question. Puzynin’s comments create the impression that he alone has adequately analyzed his topic. He is a talented scholar who will make significant contributions—if he is able to serve in a civil and collegial manner with fellow writers.

The bottom line? Buy the book, evaluate his arguments, and welcome the gradual growth of scholarship on the history of Christianity in Slavic lands. F

Matthew Miller is assistant professor of history at Northwestern College, St. Paul, Minnesota. From 2005 to 2008 he taught church history and biblical studies at the Russian-American Christian University in Moscow.

Details

Volume 19, No. 3

American Evangelical Missionaries in Romania:

Overcoming Ignorance and Ethnocentrism

Andrew LaBreche

Editor’s Note: Previous portions of this article were published in the East-West Church and Ministry Report 18 (Fall 2010): 19; (Winter 2011): 13-15; and 19 (Spring 2011): 12-14.

Overcoming Ethnocentrism and Differing Values

In order for Americans to overcome their ethnocentrism, it is crucial for them to recognize the strong contrast between their preference for direct communication and the Romanian preference for indirect communication. Because Romanians are very adept at indirect communication, they tend to “read into” what is said, thereby deciphering what the speaker is “really saying.” When they do this with “straight-talking” Americans, they often miss the mark by assuming something was said that was not intended. From the American perspective, the indirect allusions and inferences, if caught, are seen as deceptive at best and dishonest at worst.

Obviously, lack of fluency in the Romanian language is also a huge problem for some American missionaries. It is unacceptable for a missionary in a country almost seven years to report only a 10 percent comprehension of sermons, and another in a country eight years with only a 40 percent comprehension level.

The American ideal of social equality is another major source of conflict. Although varying levels of respect and deference exercised by Romanians “above” and “below” them grate on American egalitarian sensibilities, American missionaries must concede that the existence of high context cultures is not necessarily evil. Democracy and social equality are not to be found in the Bible. If practicing some formality in addressing people of higher social classes promotes the cause of the gospel, is that such a huge price to pay?

A practical way for Americans to implement the Romanian value of formality would be first to learn the language and to use it properly, using formal pronouns when needed, as well as formal titles for people who possess them. In meeting new people, the Romanian equivalent of “hi” is inappropriate. Especially when first meeting someone, formal verb forms and pronouns and formal titles are best. The American tendency to hug, shake hands vigorously, and slap people on the back also can grate on Romanian nerves. Americans enter Romania with an ample portion of “social credit,” but they often squander it quickly with their informality.

Trust and Suspicion

Surveys indicated lack of trust or suspicion was also a common underlying cause of conflict. Americans as a whole are a very trusting people, whereas, in contrast, Romanians are a very suspicious people. Much of this difference undoubtedly has to do with very different historical contexts. For Romanians, foreigners who historically have been the oppressors are typically regarded with suspicion. Being cautious of others is not necessarily a negative trait, especially if naivety is the alternative. It is also clear, however, that Romanian Evangelicals need help in this area, and that suspicion of others is not something Americans need adopt—perhaps more cautious at times, but not suspicious.

In Romania lack of trust is a very serious problem. One European Values Study ranked Romania last (31st out of 31 European states) in level of trust (Tom van Schak, “Social Capital in the European Values Study Surveys,” 27 September 2002, 19; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/22/2381883.pdf). In another survey Romania ranked 13th most cynical out of 47 cultures studied. In contrast, the United States ranked the 46th least cynical out of 47 cultures studied, with only Norway being less cynical. (Michael Harris Bond et al., “Culture-Level Dimensions of Social Axioms and Their Correlatives across 41 Countries,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35 [September 2004], 563.) This lack of trust among Romanians has important spiritual ramifications. Romanian Evangelicals not only often distrust church leaders, they also, in my opinion, distrust God Himself, which feeds a Romanian proclivity toward fatalism.

Coping with Change and the Pace of Change

Americans value change as a means to progress and a better future. Romanians, on the other hand, are much less future-oriented and place much less emphasis upon planning and organization. It is very difficult for Romanians to plan for the future and to set goals. For the sake of both parties, the issue of expectations needs to be addressed. American evangelical missionaries, at the very least, need to adjust their expectations of the degree and speed in which change can and should take place in Romania.

Miscommunication

Honesty is a very important value for both parties yet, surprisingly, both consider the other to be dishonest. The problem in this case appears to be primarily an issue of misinterpreted communications. Americans interpret the indirect style of Romanian communication as deceitfulness, whereas Romanians tend to read what they want to hear into what Americans are saying. Then when what Romanians “heard” does not come to pass, having heard a promise rather than a suggestion, they accuse Americans of not keeping their word.

Weighing the Value of Possessions and People

Because of contrasting cultural norms, Americans and Romanians hold different views of private property. In Romania, for example, borrowing a tool indefinitely is not stealing. The length of the loan is simply indefinite. The Romanian assumption is that the lender will ask for it back when it is needed. What difference does it make who is storing the item in their garage if neither is using it? However, because of the strong American attachment to private property, not returning the tool is thought to be dishonest, if not outright theft. For American evangelical missionaries the issue of biblical stewardship can come into play. The problem is that Americans can confuse taking care of property entrusted to them by God with jealously holding on to material possessions and placing greater value on them than on relationships with people. Ultimately treasures are supposed to be in heaven, not hanging on a nail in a garage.

Valuing Hospitality

Hospitality is one value that is extremely important to Romanians but very unimportant to many Americans working in Romania. Almost 20 percent of American respondents did not even consider “lacking in hospitality” as a sin. American evangelical missionaries must make a conscious decision to “practice hospitality,” following the biblical injunction in Romans. Too often missionaries tend to see their homes as an oasis where they can close the doors and “get away” from nationals. Understandably, everyone needs periodic breaks from ministry, but the home-as-oasis mentality signals to Romanians that at best hospitality is not important to Americans, and at worst, Americans do not really care for the people with whom they are working.

Valuing Reverence

Another specific value that American evangelical missionaries need to respect is the high value Romanians place on reverence in church. In order not to offend, American missionaries need to regain a greater sense of reserve and respect in worship. American informality has little place in a high context culture like Romania in general, let alone in church. For the sake of the gospel, greater decorum and formality is a small price to pay. Included are such practical matters as dress, with Americans, for example, being willing to return to the past American custom of wearing “Sunday best.” As a matter of respect, Americans should also refrain from humor in the pulpit and should keep their children under control in church.

Valuing Humility

One final very important Romanian value is humility, which American evangelical missionaries need to take into account. The simple fact that Romanian Evangelicals cited “arrogance” and “superior attitude” as the second most common cause of conflict with American missionaries clearly reveals a significant problem to be addressed. All missionaries would agree that humility is an important value for Christians, but it does seem to be a particularly difficult spiritual quality for Americans. The response should be to acknowledge the sin of pride, become a learner, empathize, and as the Bible clearly commands, “consider others better than yourself.”

Confrontation Versus Third-Party Mediation

As opposed to the direct confrontational approach of Americans, conflict is dealt with in the Romanian context primarily through third-party mediation. On one occasion I was explaining this Romanian cultural pattern to a fellow American evangelical missionary. Shortly into the conversation the missionary interrupted me and with some disgust said, “Why don’t they just read the Bible? The Bible is very clear we are to go to our brother alone!” (Matthew 18). This American seemed totally unaware of the many examples of third party mediation in Scripture: The interaction of David and Abigail (1 Samuel 25), Jacob’s pacification of Esau (Genesis 32), Esther’s intervention, the high priest’s role as mediator, and, of course, Christ as mediator between God and His fallen creation. Nathan’s approach to David regarding his sin (2 Samuel 12), although not third-party mediation, is a very good example of indirect confrontation.

This ethnocentric tendency to interpret even the Bible’s “culture” through American eyes obviously can have serious missiological consequences. The danger is that missionaries will judge behavior different from their own not only as improper but also, as unbiblical. Not only can such an approach harm relationships, but it adds to the difficulty of conflict resolution when one party not only considers the other wrong, but also less spiritually mature.

Just as direct confrontation in American culture has its shortcomings, so too, mediation can have its pitfalls. In Romania the ideal of third-party mediation can degenerate to gossip and backbiting as offended parties seek out mediators. Neither direct nor indirect communication is foolproof. They both have their place, depending upon the situation.

Coupling Bible Knowledge and People Skills

American evangelical missionaries working in Romania must be competent in many fields besides biblical knowledge. An effective missionary must have at least practical competence in basic cultural anthropology, cross-cultural communication, and cross-cultural psychology. To be effective, missionaries do not have to be professional cultural anthropologists and psychologists, but they do have the responsibility to be the best at whatever God has called them to be. Social, interpersonal skills are very important ingredients in effective missionary work because knowledge is simply not enough. If a missionary couple knows the Bible from cover to cover but is so deficient in social skills that no one ever wants to be near them to hear the message, what good is that? F

Edited excerpts published with permission from Andrew LaBreche, “Ethnocentrism. U.S.-American Evangelical Missionaries in Romania: Qualitative Missiological Research into Representative Cross-Cultural Value Based Conflicts,” Ph.D. dissertation, Evangelical Theological Faculty of Leuven, Belgium, 2007.

Andrew LaBreche is an American missionary who has served with Greater Europe Mission in Romania since 1997.

Details

Volume 19, No. 3

Religious Trends in Southeastern Europe

Felix Corley

The Favoring of “Traditional Faiths”

With the surge of nationalism amid the breakup of the old Yugoslavia, religious freedom in southeastern Europe has become even more hostage to the desires of governments and ruling elites to support what they regard as “traditional” faiths. Croatian authorities favor the Catholic Church, while Orthodox-majority Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania favor their national Orthodox churches and restrict the rights of minority faiths; Bosnia remains divided into areas largely dominated by one faith—Muslim, Serbian Orthodox, or Catholic.

The end of fighting in Bosnia brought about by the 1995 Dayton Agreement led to renewed attempts by governments across the region to consolidate their societies around national faiths. New religion laws enshrined differential treatment for favored faiths in Bulgaria in 2002, Kosovo in 2006, Serbia in 2006, and Romania in 2007. Many countries retain openly partisan and secretive government religious affairs offices to oversee implementation of these laws.

Although these laws often replaced harsh Communist-era religion laws and thus formally abolished Communist bans on a wide range of religious activities, they are deficient in their support of religious freedom. Many are based on a hierarchy of rights, with the dominant faith holding the greatest rights, other “traditional” faiths—usually an undefined concept—having lesser rights, and all other faiths left out in the cold.

Legal Restrictions on Minority Faiths

Religion laws enacted since 2000 have made life difficult for minority faiths. Macedonia’s 1997 law recognized five faiths—Methodists were the only Protestant denomination recognized, largely because the then president, Boris Trajkovski, was Methodist. Serbia’s 2006 religion law recognizes seven “traditional” denominations, as the government sees them—all of them Christian except for Islam and Judaism—while among Christians, only three Protestant denominations are recognized (two Lutheran and one Reformed, all representing ethnic minorities), not Baptists, Nazarenes, Adventists, or others. Thus, the only recognized faith for ethnic Serbs is the Orthodox Church. Kosovo’s 2006 law recognized ”traditional” faiths, though the region’s international overseers required it to specify Muslims, Serbian Orthodox, Jews, Catholics, and Evangelical churches.

Romania’s new law recognized 18 denominations, but with few rights for smaller faiths, who would need about 22,000 members and 12 years of legally recognized existence to even apply for top-ranking status. Indeed, Romania is merely echoing the position in Slovakia, where, in 2007, the law was tightened even further to require not merely 20,000 adults, but 20,000 adult members to sign an application for a denomination to gain legal status. Those who cannot gather such numbers cannot gain legal recognition as a religion, although some may have a legal status as nongovernmental organizations. Even Slovenia, the most westward-looking of the former Yugoslav republics, barred legal recognition of all new faiths between 1999 and 2003, a restriction fiercely opposed by the Tibetan Buddhist community, Hindus, and a number of small Protestant churches.

Restrictions on “Traditional Faiths” in Minority Settings

Ironically, some of the major victims of these restrictions have been “traditional” faiths, especially in countries with minority Orthodox groups. Under pressure from the powerful Serbian Orthodox Church, the Serbian government has restricted the rights of the Romanian patriarchate even though it is an ancient Orthodox patriarchate that has mutual recognition with the Serbian Orthodox. Serbia has also restricted the newer Macedonian and Montenegrin Orthodox churches, which are not widely recognized in the rest of the Orthodox world. In contrast, Macedonia recognizes the Macedonian Church while seeking to crush the local branch of the Serbian patriarchate. Meanwhile, the Bulgarian government has taken sides in an internal split in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

“Suspect” Minority Faiths

The denial of top-ranking legal status to smaller Protestant churches, Hare Krishna communities, Baha’is, Ahmadi Muslims, and others goes hand-in-hand with a widespread popular opinion that such faiths are “sects” and thus possibly dangerous. Adherence to them is interpreted as a betrayal of one’s cultural heritage, while denial of legal status reinforces these perceptions. School textbooks, official versions of history, and media coverage often reinforce popular suspicions and prejudices, possibly leading to a denial of rights. In Serbia and Bulgaria minority faithful have faced difficulty retaining jobs in sensitive areas, such as teaching school. When members of minority religions are in institutions, including prisons, hospitals, or the army, they find it difficult to invite their spiritual leaders to minister to them.

Such attitudes at the official and popular levels also allow religious minorities to be attacked with near impunity. Officials who dislike particular religious communities have an array of tools to use against them. Bulgaria’s prosecutors and courts have repeatedly tried to prosecute leading bishops of the Alternative Orthodox Synod as impostors, as well as running a long legal battle to strip the tiny Ahmadi Muslim community of its legal status. Meanwhile, Macedonian authorities have demolished a Serbian Orthodox monastery, claiming it was built without due permission. Serbia also has threatened to demolish a Romanian Orthodox Church, and serious physical attacks on minority places of worship and individuals have occurred in Serbia and Kosovo. More than 140 Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo have been destroyed or badly damaged since 1999, including a spate of attacks in 2004

Property Rights Infringed

In addition to attacks on individuals and property, one of the thorniest issues has related to building or extending places of worship. The denial of full legal rights to religious minorities, combined with official and popular prejudice against them, has made building or expanding facilities all but impossible in many states. In practice, Macedonia almost never allows religious minorities to build places of worship, while Bosnia’s local authorities generally obstruct building places of worship other than those of the dominant local faith, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Muslim. Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses have also suffered. Croatia has failed to return confiscated churches to the Serbian Orthodox, neither permitting the rebuilding of destroyed churches, nor protecting existing churches from attack. In Slovenia, the Muslim community has complained for many years of official foot-dragging over its attempts to build a mosque in the capital, Ljubljana. In Serbia and elsewhere religious minorities also find it hard to recover property confiscated during the Communist period.

International Protection of Religious Freedom—In Theory

All the states of the region are members of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), while several are also members of the European Union (EU), which should in theory require them to respect full religious freedom. Although these bodies have intermittently tried to press for or encourage improvement in these countries’ laws and practices, local ruling elites have been adept at avoiding the changes needed to meet these commitments. When OSCE and Council of Europe experts assess new draft religion laws, for example, governments often ignore their recommendations. In an apparently successful bid to avoid close international scrutiny, religion laws have often been rushed through parliaments at awkward times of the year. Bulgaria adopted its law around Christmas 2002, Serbia adopted its 2006 law during Orthodox Holy Week, and Romania adopted its law around Christmas 2006.

Although nowhere in the region are religious communities persecuted to the extent they are in Uzbekistan or Belarus, let alone Saudi Arabia, the continuing denial of rights is very real. Of all the intergovernmental bodies, the Council of Europe has proved to have the most teeth in promoting religious freedom, primarily because of the existence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Through a growing number of judgments and despite a few erratic ones, a strong case law is developing to uphold rights to religious freedom.

Additional Threats to Religious Freedom

Europe is still settling down from the upheavals of the 1990s, including the ending of Communist rule, and the Yugoslav Civil War. These upheavals, coupled with the challenges of European integration and mass migration, coexist with religious freedom held hostage to nationalist insecurities and competition for adherents and property. Rights continue to be seen in communal rather than individual terms. Hope remains that a more stable future will allow religious communities to have a place in society based on their own merits rather than due to state backing or state prejudice. It also is to be hoped that individual rights will be protected regardless of the way powerful sectors of society regard minority faiths, and that atheists, secularists, and agnostics will be allowed to reject the dominant faith of their ethnic group. To that end, of necessity, undemocratic rule and growing nationalism in much of southeastern Europe will require ongoing close scrutiny of threats to religious freedom. F

Edited excerpts reprinted with permission of the author and Paul A. Marshall, ed., Religious Freedom in the World (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).

Felix Corley is a correspondent for Forum 18, a Norwegian-based religious rights news service focused on the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and China.

Details

Volume 19, No. 3

Developing and Promoting Rule of Law

Many countries that repress religious freedom do not have a well-developed legal system and tradition of rule of law. As a result, laws and treaties protecting religious freedom are sometimes ignored or arbitrarily interpreted in whatever way officials choose. When religious freedom violations occur, victims rarely have access to legal representation, and if they do, they cannot be guaranteed a fair trial. As a result, strengthening countries’ legal systems and providing legal assistance is important to improving religious freedom in the long term as a right that is firmly upheld in law.

One common strategy is filing lawsuits on behalf of victims in international tribunals or the domestic courts of offending countries. These lawsuits provide expert legal representation to victims who might otherwise not have access. They also raise the profile of such cases, leveraging popular opinion against the government and thus indirectly applying pressure. Another strategy is to work from within to develop the legal system’s capacity. Activities may include assisting in curriculum development at local law schools, providing training for lawyers and judges, or working with national lawmakers to develop religious freedom laws that are in accordance with international standards. Examples of this kind of NGO include the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Advocates International.

 H. Knox Thames, Chris Seiple, and Amy Rowe, International Religious Freedom Advocacy; A Guide to Organizations, Law, and NGOs (Waco, TX: Baylor Unversity Press, 2009).

H. Knox Thames is Director of Policy and Research for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Washington, DC. Chris Seiple is President of the Institute for Global Engagement, Arlington, Virginia. Amy Rowe served as Director of Country Programs at the Institute for Global Engagement, Arlington, Virginia, until 2007.