Finland's Policy on Church and Religion in the European Context

The Rev. Dr. Juha Seppo

Professor of Finnish and Scandinavian Church History, Helsinki University

l. Introduction

By way of introduction, let me first define some concepts and outline the range of my topic. First of all, in this presentation the term 'Finland's policy on church and religion' refers to the relationship between the State, on the one hand, and the Church, churches and religious communities, on the other. In other words, this broad term is not limited to the relations between the State and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church. Obviously, those particular relations are the most salient part of Finland's ecclesio-political situation, but the situation also involves other elements.

Nor is the question of Finland's policy on church and religion limited to how the relationship between churches and the State is mirrored in our country's legislation, government and economy, but it also reflects the status given to legislation concerning the position of religion in Finnish politics in general. Observations and conclusions concerning that status cannot be made directly, but their significance should not be underestimated. Such observations and conclusions may, after all, give essential information about the role and position of the Church in society.

Secondly, in this paper the term 'European context' refers only to Western Europe, the Member States of the European Union. It is the deepening integration of the European Union and the development of legislation related to this integration process that have raised the issue of the status and position of churches and religious communities in the Europe of the future in the first place. It is no secret that many churches and religious communities operating in EU Member States have pursued a clearer recognition of their position and significance at the EU's foundation treaty level. Concerning the European context however, my focus will not only be on the relationship between churches and the European Union, but also on the question of what the challenges faced by churches and religious communities in Europe in general mean for Finland's policy on church and religion.

2. The Church-State relationship : background and the current situation

It follows from what was said above that it would not be appropriate to focus exclusively on the Finnish Church-State relationship in this presentation. However, in order to be able to place the Finnish system in a wider European framework, it is necessary to give a brief outline of the starting points and main features of our local Church-State problematics at first.

One of the peculiar characteristics of Finland's ecclesio-political situation is the fact that two churches, Lutheran and Orthodox, have a legal and economic status which differs from that of our country's other churches and religious communities. The legal status of these two churches is based on separate provisions, whereas other religious communities must be registered in the manner prescribed in the Freedom of Religion Act. In Finnish legislation concerning the juridical status of religious denominations, prevailing religiopolitical realities have thus also been taken into account, besides considering religious freedom. The distribution of Finnish people's religious affiliations and factors related to historical tradition are the most important of those realities. Formerly, almost all Finns were members of the Lutheran Church - and the Orthodox Church, in turn, used to have a solid base in Karelia; thus, these two churches were granted special status in the relation to the State.

In order to understand the current Finnish situation, it is important to remember that the Finnish tradition is strongly that of a state church. Not only was a strict state church system characteristic of the legal relationship between Church and State, but it also used to determine the nature of the State itself. In Finland, just as in many other countries with a state church system, the religious uniformity of the people was regarded as an essential condition for the success of the State's internal integration policy as a whole.

Nowadays Finland is no longer a country with a strict state church system. The old system has been gradually slackened, and the internal independence of the Lutheran Church has increased correspondingly. The most critical impetus for the dismantling of the old state church system was given by the Ecclesiastical Law of 1869. The provisions of this law concerning the Synod and its powers, in particular, meant an obvious turning point in the relation of Church to State. The Church gained a decisive and very independent role with regard to legislation concerning itself, that is, ecclesiastical law.

Since then, a special legislative procedure, peculiar to this law alone, has been followed in enacting ecclesiastical law. One of the peculiarities of this procedure is the fact that only the Synod, the Church's own organ, has authority to make initiatives in the enacting and changing of ecclesiastical law. Parliament, which finally enacts this law, can only approve or reject the bill en bloc.

Another regulation which was made in order to protect the Lutheran Church was one according to which only Evangelical Lutheran members of Parliament were allowed to participate in parliamentary discussions concerning ecclesiastical law. This regulation was abolished in 1993, when ecclesiastical law was divided into two parts. Now all MP:s can participate in parliamentary discussions concerning the Church Act, which contains, among other things, the provisions governing the Church-State relationship. By contrast, the Church Order, which contains the provisions concerning the Church's own functions and internal affairs, is approved by the Synod.

In spite of the existence of the Synod, the supreme government of the Church was tied to the State for a long time. This situation did not change even in 1944, when the Lutheran Church got its own Church Council. The formulation of the old Ecclesiastical Law according to which "the supreme government of the Church in the whole country is the concern of the government of the State" was only erased in the Church Act which took effect at the beginning of 1994. Nowadays the Church's own organs are the supreme government of the Church, and which ecclesiastical organ is the ultimate decision-maker in each case depends on the subject matter.

In drafting the Church Act currently in force, care was taken not to accelerate the rate of modifying Church-State relations in a manner that could have been interpreted as the Church's willingness to separate itself from the State totally. However, the Church took a step in the direction of greater independence in that it now makes its own decisions concerning the founding of new dioceses, the changing of diocesan boundaries and the abolishing of dioceses. As for the local parishes, the Church Act prescribes that parish boundaries shall ultimately be decided upon by the Church Council.

Administratively speaking, the Church's policy of taking small steps towards a more independent Church has also continued after the reform of ecclesiastical law. In its autumn 1995 session, the Synod decided to transfer the entire administration of the Church's diocesan chapters to the Church itself. Thus, diocesan chapters ceased to be State authorities as the law concerning this matter became effective at the beginning of I 997. The Church took on the expenses caused by the maintenance of diocesan chapters, including the expenses of the salaries of the chapters' office-holders and other workers.

The State will reimburse the Church for the expenses caused by the transfer of diocesan chapters during a four-year changeover period. Furthermore, in spring 1997 the committee set up by the Ministry of Education proposed that from the year 2000 onwards the Church should be compensated for the costs caused by the maintenance of the chapters through a permanent reduction in the social security costs paid by the Church.

It has not been the aim of the Lutheran Church, however, to untie all administrative Church-State bonds originating from the old state church system. This can be best seen in the fact that the President of the Republic still appoints diocesan bishops, even though bishops' salaries have been paid by the Church ever since the transfer of diocesan chapters from State to Church.

The administrative level is, however, only one part of the broad overall plane of Church-State relations. Another essential part consists of guarantees of the Church's economic position. By virtue of its position under public law based on State legislation, the Church has the right to levy taxes. Church tax is paid not only by church members, but also by many kinds of organizations and companies, excluding registered religious communities and freethinkers' organizations. Although the Church Act contains certain provisions on Church taxation, laws concerning the Church's economy have usually been enacted as ordinary parliamentary laws. Thus Parliament (rather than the Synod) can ultimately decide on the content of many laws which directly or indirectly affect the economy of the Church.

The State's indirect economic support for the Church makes itself felt, among other things, in the fact that pastors working in the defence forces and prisons are paid by the State. Until 1997, the State also paid the costs of pastoral care for the deaf. The share of direct State support in the Lutheran Church's total budget is very small. Much more important to the Church's economy as a whole is the Church's right to levy taxes on the broad basis described above. This right, for its part, is a manifestation not only of ties existing between Church and State but also of the Church's social significance in our country.

In addition to administrative and economic links, points of contact between Church and State can also be seen at other levels. Most clearly, traces of the old state church system can be discerned in certain economically insignificant traditional customs: the Government of the Republic still issues the proclamation of the days of prayer, and the opening ceremonies of Parliament's session period still include a service of worship.

With some of its social services, the Church itself also keeps up close relations with the State. The most obvious examples of these services are, firstly, the responsibility of the parishes to keep an official population register of their members, and secondly, the responsibility carried by the parishes for almost all funerals and graveyards. In the near future, the population registration system will possibly remain unaltered. Parish graveyards will most likely continue to function, with minor exceptions, as burial grounds for both members and non-members of the Lutheran Church.

The Church-State relationship, for its part, has laid a favourable foundation for certain other religio-political decisions in Finnish society. The most significant of these is the provision on religious education (RE) in schools affirming the pupils's right to RE based on his or her religious affiliation. Even very small minority groups with just a few pupils are entitled to religious or ethical instruction of their own conviction. Non-religious ethical instruction is available only for those who are not members of any religious community.

Furthermore, it would be difficult to think of the right to get married in church if a positive relationship did not prevail between Church and State. Also, the weekly rhythm of society still follows the church calendar, and the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts ecclesiastical and religious programmes. These decisions should not, however, be regarded as signs of a state church system, for they are primarily based on practical conclusions drawn from the distribution of Finnish people's religious affiliations.

All in all, Church and State still have numerous contacts on many different levels.

The most important of these contacts have to do with the linkage between the Church's administrative structure and the State (which has now become even looser than it used to be), the Church's special legal and economic position, and those services provided by the Church which ultimately should be taken care of either by the State or by municipalities.

In spite of many multilevel contacts between Church and State, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland cannot justifiedly be considered a 'state church' in the traditional sense of the word. The most important reason for this is the great extent of the Lutheran Church's internal independence. State authorities cannot interfere in the Church's internal decision-making, and the Church enjoys extensive economic independence and self administration both on the national level and on the level of local parishes.

One guarantee of the Church's internal freedom is the authority of the Synod to alone decide on the functions and activities of the Church and on the Church Order, which contains provisions concerning the internal affairs of the Church. The Synod can also issue statements, make initiatives and express wishes concerning matters related to the common interests of Church and State.

The Finnish ecclesio-political model is different from actual state church systems not only because of the Church's internal independence, but also owing to the fact that the Church can exercise an active influence on State authorities, as was mentioned above. One of the peculiarities of the system is that the Church does not have the final say in all matters concerning itself. On the other hand, however, it is difficult to imagine that Church-State relations could be changed essentially without the cooperation of the Church (or at least such an action would result in a deep crisis). Thus, while the functioning of this Church-State relationship requires a wide-ranging mutual agreement between the two parties, the same also applies to this relationship's development and change.

3. Evaluating the Finnish model in the European context

Within the European framework, it has traditionally been thought that Western Europe is home to three different ecclesio-political models. Firstly, there are countries where Church and State are clearly separate from each other. Secondly, there are countries- with a system based on an agreement between State and Church - and the third model consists of national state church systems, with a certain degree of variation. If we wish to remain within the framework of these categories, Finland falls into the third category, although the degree to which the state church system prevails here is nowadays very low.

A more important task than focusing on degrees or nuances of state church systems, however, is to ask whether the threefold model described above is any longer able to give an accurate picture of the true condition of Church-State relations in today's Europe. From churches' point of view, it may also be relevant to ask whether the threefold model does justice to churches' attempts to evaluate their relations to State and society as realistically as possible. This kind of evaluation may be very important - especially since it provides tools which are needed for responding to common challenges arising from Europe's religious and ecclesio-political situation. Churches must, in any case, face these challenges and take a stand in relation to them, regardless of their present legal positions in the nation states where they operate.

Some experts on West European policies on church and religion consider the abovementioned threefold model to be outdated, or at least unfruitful for the evaluation of the real condition of Church-State relations. They feel that the threefold model places too much emphasis on the formal aspect of Church-State relations, on the one hand, and too little stress on what actually happens between the partners, on the other. Therefore, they say, the model fails to provide the best possible instruments for analysis of the truly prevailing religious and ecclesio-political situation, and for analysis of the basic questions which that situation makes churches face. Some are even ready to ignore the entire question of Church-State relations, wishing to change it into analysis of the relationship between State and religion.

As a result of the expansion and deepening integration of the European Union, many experts on West European policies on church and religion have found themselves strengthening their efforts to find the fundamental and typical characteristics of the West European Church-State system, rather than clinging to the categories mentioned above. Their starting point is the assumption that different national legal solutions to the problem of Church-State relations do not nullify certain general religio-political principles followed by these nations. According to this assumption, such common principles exist, although it has been (and still is) possible to interpret them in ways which, in practice, vary to some degree. The same thing can also be expressed by asking how freedom of religion has been understood and applied in West European countries.

On both the individual and community levels, modern European policies on church and religion are generally understood as being based upon religious freedom, which is interpreted positively. One of the EU's leading experts on the legal status of churches, Silvio Ferrari from Milan, has said that as far as individuals are concerned, the States have a neutral attitude towards citizens representing different creeds or having no creed at all. Everyone has the right to profess the religion of his or her choice, or to remain outside all religious communities. This principle is implemented impeccably both in legislation and in practice on the European level. ln accordance with international human rights conventions, Finland, of course, also acknowledges the total freedom of religion of all individuals residing in this country, be their citizenship Finnish or foreign.

A second level of analysis is collective. Those who profess and practice religion are not only individual citizens, but also (and especially) members of churches and religious communities. As members of such communities, they may be in a privileged position compared to non-religious citizens. Furthermore, the rights of those belonging to different religious communities may differ from each other, depending on whether the individual is a member of a majority church or of a religious minority group. Thus, on the practical level, Church-State relations can result in granting different rights to members of different religious communities, depending on one's religious affiliation.

On both individual and collective levels, the State has the right to intervene in the domain of religion in the sense that the State makes the rules and defines the limits of the "field." In addition to safeguarding external conditions for the implementation of religious freedom, the State also sees to it that the set limits of this freedom are respected. The rules and limits of the field that are defined in either the constitutional or the religious legislation of the EU's Member States do not allow public morals and order or personal health, safety or security to be violated under the pretence of religious practice. It is important to note, however, that ultimately neither religious freedom nor any other fundamental right is given or granted to the citizens by the State. All the documents on human rights that have served as guidelines for the Western civilization speak about the rights (including freedom of religion) fundamental to the realization of human worth and dignity in a manner which makes it perfectly clear that these rights are inherent and irreversible. The State can only acknowledge them and safeguard their implementation.

Today's basic West European ecclesio- and religio-political model thus expects State authorities to be active, but at the same time it also expects them to have a positive and neutral attitude towards questions of religious freedom. According to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to profess any religion. Most West European constitutions contain a provision safeguarding this right, their intent being to forbid discrimination based on religion. It should he noted, however, that even though constitutional provisions concerning religious freedom place all people on the same footing on the individual level, the external conditions and internal autonomy of a certain denomination (or certain denominations) are often obviously better protected by these provisions than the autonomy of non-religious communities.

Finland can be considered a clear example of a state which safeguards the legal status of its majority church more effectively than it protects that of other religious communities. Although small steps have been taken in the 1990s towards an administratively more independent Church, the Lutheran Church's legal status and relation to the State have not been changed essentially. The Finnish Constitution currently in force - as well as the new Constitution, which is now almost ready - contains a provision affirming the procedure of enactment of the Evangelical Lutheran Church's ecclesiastical law, which is a procedure of enactment peculiar to this law alone. As such, this provision is in no way extraordinary or inappropriate when looked at from a wider European perspective, because it is not unusual at all in Europe to mention churches or religious communities in national Constitutions.

What is difficult to understand, however, is the fact that besides the Lutheran Church no other church or religious community will be mentioned in the new Finnish Constitution. This solution is so exceptional that such a policy could not probably be accepted in any other Member State of the European Union nowadays. National policies on church and religion have taken a general course in several Member States in the past two decades which seems very different from the planned Finnish model. If we think about the ecclesio- and religio-political decisions made, for example, in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Sweden, their basic solutions have been totally different. In all these countries, the trend of development has been that of enhancing equality of different religious communities. At same time, another concern has been that of taking the positive dimension of religious freedom sufficiently into account in legislation.

For the sake of clarity, I wish to emphasize that the Lutheran Church's Synod says in its statement - thus opposing the State Committee proposal - that a provision (or provisions) concerning the status of all churches and religious communities should be included in the Constitution. Among the reasons given by the Synod for its opinion is the fact that such a solution would promote the acknowledging of the principle of collective religious freedom on the constitutional level. The Lutheran Church has thus made it clear that it does not support the kind of formal strengthening of its own status that could be interpreted as leading to a further consolidation of the privileged position of one particular church.

The legislative bodies of the Finnish State naturally have the authority to write any kind of Constitution they wish. If, however, one of the main objectives of the whole reform has been not to change the foundations of the Finnish Constitution but to update it and make it more harmonious and consistent, then the chosen ecclesio-political solution fits in poorly. Although the "Church Article" is, from the politicians' point of view, just a tiny detail in the whole Constitution, for churches and other religious communities its content is far from insignificant. Placed in a wider European ecclesio-political context, the chosen policy seems rather backward.

It is true of the European practice, however, that such codes as the legislation of the European Union do not oblige the European states to standardize their policies on religion. On the contrary, the declaration on churches and other religious communities appended to the Amsterdam Treaty of last summer emphasizes the right of each Member State to make its own ecclesio-political decisions independently. Although this declaration is not legally binding, its signiflcance as a political guideline should not be underestimated. However, to think that this declaration affirms, and at the same time freezes, the prevailing religio- and ecclesio-political situation in each Member State is hardly the only correct way of interpreting the declaration's content. Even less does the declaration support the idea of turning back the clock, though that seems to be happening in the Finnish constitutional reform.

However, the basic ecclesio-political solution of the Finnish constitutional reform should not make one draw the conclusion that Finnish State authorities now have a more favourable attitude towards the Lutheran Church than they used to. Besides, the mere legal status of the Church does not tell the whole story of the relationship between Church and State, nor does it not reveal what is thought of religious values in society as a whole. For example, the message of the recent decisions to extend the opening hours of shops on Sundays - which were made in spite of the fact that church leaders were against these extensions - is discomforting, and not only for the Lutheran Church, but for all who would like to preserve the traditional custom of a day of rest. Rather than being just a Finnish phenomenon, however, the erosion of this custom results from international competition.

It is obvious that globalization and internationalization will affect the values of Finland's future policy on religion in other ways as well. To what extent our country will really become multicultural in terms of religious values depends very much on our country's refugee and immigration policy, which will have direct effect especially on the number of adherents of Islam in Finland. In any case, Finland's religious life is already now characterized by certain diversity. This diversity, however, primarily manifests itself as an increase in the number of small religious communities, rather than in the number of their adherents.

The arrival of new religious communities can, however, also lead to problems. In Finland, too, the question of what kinds of values a community should be based on, in order to meet the criteria of a religious community, may call for reconsideration in the future. Some West European countries are already stricter in this respect than they used to be, in order to prevent groups based on tax evasion or self-destructive behaviour from misleadingly taking advantage of religious freedom. In terms financial benefits, however, current Finnish laws are not considerably more favourable to religious communities than they are to other kinds of associations; therefore, there should be very little temptation for any group to register as a religious community without actually being one.

4. Conclusion

The nature of a State's policy on church and religion is usually determined by two main factors: interpretation of religious freedom and the distribution of the citizens' religious affiliations. In the past, the fact that these things were ignored in some European countries led to solutions which created hostile relations between Church and State there. Such a trend, however, is a thing of the past. Indeed, Cole Durham, a well-known specialist on Church-State relations, even says that the Church-State models presently operative within the European Union range from friendly separation to cooperation.

In Finland, no difficult conflicts have emerged between Church and State, although there have been times when such conflicts have seemed possible. The Lutheran Church continues to have a large membership, which is one of the factors behind the fact that this Church's legal position has remained so strong. Although the proportion of Lutherans (approximately 86 % ) in the entire population has been slowly declining, the most recent trend suggests that the number of those entering the Church is increasing and the number of those leaving it is declining. This is such a new trend, however, that it is too early to say anything conclusive about its effects yet.

From the point of view of the Church, the essential point at issue in Church-State relations is, ultimately, the relationship between the Church and the people. As implied by this aspect, criteria of evaluation also include theological premises that emphasize the essence and mission of the Church. Even today, many Finnish theologians still like to use the term 'folk church' (or, 'the church of the people') when they speak about the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. This term is, of course, justified sociologically, because the majority of Finns still belong to the Lutheran Church.

Theologically, the 'folk church' ideology is linked to the view that the Lutheran Church has a special responsibility not only for some individuals or groups of the Finnish people, but for this nation as a whole. Whatever one thinks about this view, it is nevertheless obvious that theologically the Church has no solid foundation for its relationship with the State other than its tradition dating back to the early Church. According to this tradition, the Church is something fundamentally different from the State. Precisely therefore, a relationship has always existed between Church and State, and continues to do so.