Christian belief and political culture
in Europe
* Bishop Wolfgang Huber
Chairman of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD)
ASIA
EUROPE
JOURNAL
Springer-Verlag 2004 Asia Europe Journal (2004) 2: 327–336
DOI: 10.1007/s10308-004-0110-z
current Treaty on the European Union in Article 6 contains the strong
commitment to basic political values, which are the common ground of the
member states’ individual constitutions: ‘‘The Union is founded on the
principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member
States’’. The Convent’s draft for the constitutional treaty enlarges this catalogue
of values in Article 2 by adding the term ‘‘equality’’ and emphasising that
‘‘these values are common to the Member States in a society of pluralism,
tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination‘‘. This catalogue of core
values and the Charter of Fundamental Rights are an essential part of the
future constitution; this is a good basis for Europe’s political culture and for
The European Union is in any case a political community. Although one
cannot say that a real European public exists – processes of opinion making
still are mostly national – the European Parliament participates in democratic
ways in the creation of European legislation. To these elements of representative
democracy the convent added those of participatory democracy. The
dialogue with civil society and the churches now has a constitutional mandate;
the political culture of the Union develops. Even though some continue to
complain about a deficit of democracy within European institutions, important
decisions have already been made: the Union is a political entity defined by
core principles of democracy such as pluralism and reciprocal independence of
church and state. For us, this has become usual to the extent that we don’t even
talk about it; but compared to Islamic states these principles come back to our
minds, and facing our communist and fascist past they clearly show before our
eyes. All processes of discussion and opinion-making involve pluralistic and
diverse groups and organisations of society. And, of course, religious affiliation
is no longer a prerequisite for public officers in the Union’s institutions or for
civic rights within the member states. Cultural and religious diversity are a
matter of course in the Union. European integration means unity in diversity.
The Christian contribution to pluralism
and secularity in Europe
Yet, cultural and religious diversity, the principles of pluralism, have never
been self-evident elements of the political culture in Europe – they are
Christian heritage. Christianity has immensely contributed to the pluralism in
Europe and still guarantees and influences the political culture in the Union.
The Christian dowry of Europe is at the same time an important pledge for our
times as well as the future. Christian influences are an important basis of
today’s political culture in the Union, independent of whether or not the
politicians and agents on the European level are conscious at all of that fact,
whether or not they ignore or negate it, and whether or not they reinforce it or
are willing to ban it from the European Constitution.
Besides the economic role of a united Europe, the fundaments and
predispositions of its political culture increasingly have to be emphasised and
renewed. From the churches’ point of view there should also be a stronger
consideration of the fact that the European Union has to be seen as a common
328 B. W. Huber
spiritual and cultural ground, which aims to be more than a political jointventure
reduced to mainly commercial interests. As a cultural ground,
however, Europe has not only been influenced by Christianity: Athens, Rome
and Jerusalem are symbolic names for the pluralism of cultures – for the
freedom of science and the arts, for the legal definition of political power and
for Jewish and Christian religion.
Even when we consider the circumstances under which some parts of the
continent had been Christianised as problematic, we are still unable to ignore
that there is no European country, which did not convert to Christianity at
least one thousand years ago. This bond to Christianity inescapably constitutes
an important part of European identity. The face of Europe is partly defined
through Christianity. The continent is covered with milestones of Christian
presence, with churches and monasteries, with schools and hospitals, crucifixes
and chapels. The course of time bears a Christian face, from the seven-day
week, which starts with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to the liturgical
calendar, which sets the course of the year. And most of all: the image of
mankind is defined here – the image of human beings, who from facing the
Lord receive their inviolable dignity.
Yet, Christian belief has always been bound to the various regional cultures
in Europe. It was embedded in the worlds of peoples, Romans or Celts,
Germans or Slaws, who together formed the continent. In the West developed
what Peter Brown called a mosaic of neighbouring yet parted micro-
Christianities.
The development of Western Christianity was at the same time influenced
over the centuries by an ongoing conflict between an increasingly hierarchical
church and opposing forces of innovation and renewal. What Petrus Waldus,
forefather of the contemporary protestant Church of the Waldensers, or Jan
Hus had tried earlier, became world history with the Reformation in the 16
th century. It was part of the political constellations at the time that the
Reformatory movement was not stricken down as heresy like all other
movements had been in the Middle Ages. Exactly 475 years ago, when at the
Reichstag
of the political rulers questioning their believes, they gave another push
towards the occidental differentiation between secular and clerical power and
to the development of the modern democratic state. They demanded for full
recognition of freedom of conscience and for self-restriction of the authorities
in questions of religion; they paved the way to the Enlightenment as well as to
the recognition of religious plurality. Thus at this transition point to modern
times, more fundamentals were added to the Christian contribution towards
the canon of European values.
While saying this, one critical remark seems due: Christian belief has never
been limited to cultural values. The core of our belief is the relationship to
God and thus ‘‘value-less’’ by itself. When asked for the contribution of
Christian tradition to the Christian values in Europe, we have to make sure
that the relationship between the truths of belief and the values which derive
from them do not inverse. If this happened, belief in itself would seem to be
superfluous; and the values represented in our belief would lose their basis as
well. The moral impact of Christian belief is tied inseparably to its trans-moral
core.
in Speyer, the ‘‘Protestants’’ had boycotted a legally binding decision Christian belief and political culture in Europe 329
What values am I referring to? Which are the values and moral standards
taken into consideration when for example the German Federal Constitutional
Court says that we have to acknowledge also today the ‘‘outstanding formative
power’’ of Christian belief and the Christian churches on the political system?
At the top of these values stands the dignity of the human being, which is
founded on God’s creation of man and their ability and mission to use His
words in response. This most divine form of address applies to everybody in
the same way; hence universal equality in legal status is resultant for any
individual. That no human being must be deprived of the right to have rights is
based on this equality, as is the definition of human rights in which individual
freedom and equality are intertwined. Human rights in the course of history,
however, have mainly been articulated and enforced in opposition or in
distance to the churches; nevertheless, they owe their existence to impulses,
which have their roots in the Christian image of humanity.
The same applies for the principle of tolerance. In the Christian
understanding, this principle originates from the idea of His divine tolerance.
This means that the Lord bears with or in other words tolerates even the
godless individuals who turn their backs on him and doesn’t leave them in
their state of impiousness. As nobody is excluded from this divine tolerance,
Christian belief is provided with a genuine approach to tolerance founded in
the conviction that any humen being –independent of his or her individual or
religious predispositions – exists in the sphere of His divine love. However, it is
true that this principle had to be fought for in a history of intra-Christian
conflicts and that it had to be positioned against intolerance practised in the
name of the church; few individuals and Christian minorities were the
precursors. Advocates of tolerance could rightly so rely on the Christian
reformationist movement, including Reformation itself in the 16
Luther’s thesis of freedom of the conscience bound in God’s word therefore has
had significant impact on the development of modern times’ political culture.
Nevertheless, Luther’s own words were not always the most tolerant ones,
especially regarding what he said about Jews, Papists, or farmers; and
Reformation on the whole led to acts of extreme intolerance such as the
burning of dissidents. Yet the basic approach of Reformation not only includes
the possibility of but also demands the commitment to tolerance. This results
from the ways and means in which Luther knitted together the formation of
conscience with the freedom of conscience, in a way excluding any form of
external coercion on the individual conscience. The church is assigned to
preach the Gospel without any means of coercion whatsoever. And in view of
the political system Luther makes it clear that the legitimate power of the state
ends where the individual is bound to their conscience; should the state try to
exert its power on questions of faith individuals are free to disobey. ‘‘Here I
stand, I cannot do otherwise’’: It is not illegitimate that these words of Luther
have been declared a connecting factor for a culture of tolerance and the
freedom of conscience.
Looking at the later evolvement of the principle of tolerance, it can be
divided systematically into three areas: individual, societal and political
tolerance.
Individual tolerance has to be seen as a tolerance of conviction, not of
indifference. It is a tolerance originating from freedom of conscience; it is a
matter of freedom to form a personal conviction to commit oneself to. Societal
th century. 330 B. W. Huber
tolerance results from there and aims at an interdependent and reciprocal
respect for convictions and lifestyles, not at their abandonment. Finally, it is
the raison d’eˆtre of political tolerance to make societal tolerance possible, i.e. to
create a social space wherein convictions can develop and evolve. The
guarantee of religious freedom serves this purpose, meaning not only freedom
from religion in a negative but also freedom to religion in a positive sense.
Such a concept of tolerance suggests a relationship of state and church that
– to put it carefully – cannot adequately be defined by laicism alone. Generally
spoken, it is more a relationship of reciprocal independence and religious
neutrality of the state that includes state recognition of beliefs brought to life
and of their relevance to society. This demands the non-identification of the
state with any beliefs and obliges state officials to be self-restraining in their
execution and in the presentation of their individual religious predisposition.
This relationship between the positive freedom to religion and the imperative
to moderation is currently subject to discussion in some European states,
exemplified in the debates on the veils of Muslim teachers – in a very specific
way the future of tolerance is at stake.
The ways and means in which freedom and obligation, or in modern words,
freedom and responsibility had been intertwined through Reformation in
terms of conscience have contributed to society in the way that individual
responsibility has been tied up with solidarity and justice as well. The concept
of marriage and family, with all its changes, has been impacted by this, as has
the idea of a ‘‘social market economy’’, whose development is mostly due to
Christian thinkers. Thus, the churches have a special affinity to the duty of
developing and supporting a social community and a social state. Besides this
orientation towards the task of social justice, the responsibility for peace and
the preservation of nature have gained important momentum in the Christian
social ethos of the last decades.
In this idea of man, freedom and responsibility go together; this
togetherness is also a basic principle of democracy. With the end of the
communist dictatorships in Europe having proven the collectivist concept to
be wrong, it is our new task to develop and foster a concept that acknowledges
this togetherness of freedom and responsibility. Leaving collectivism behind
does not inevitably give way to isolated individualism – because a concept of
freedom, which understands the very nature of freedom to be arbitrary and atwill,
ignores the Christian definition of freedom as well as European tradition
on the whole. The movement of Enlightenment, for example, professed that the
reasonable use of individual freedom is not contrary to living in a community;
it is just in this freedom that human beings are bound to living together with
others. That is why the concept of the autonomous and self-determined
individual does not nullify our responsibility towards society but does instead
constitute it. In this sense, responsibility emerges from freedom.
Finally, Christian belief also brings forward the motive of charity into the
worlds of law, of execution of power, and of pursuit of happiness. Within this
motive, the ethos of The Ten Commandments found its Christian context. It is
one of its basic impulses to ask for understanding of others, of inferiors, of the
weak. The Golden Rule – to treat others the way we want to be treated
ourselves (Matthew 7, 12) – has become the most effective moral principle that,
not alone of Christian origin but through Christianity has been promoted. The
culture of helping, which has mostly been furthered by charitable organisations
Christian belief and political culture in Europe 331
of the Christian churches and which is represented to a great extent by them,
forms an indispensable pillar for humanity in society.
Regarding these supporting and formative elements of Christian social
ethos, it is important not to forget about the fights and conflicts that were
typical for the development of Christianity, especially in Europe. The wars
about religious predominance in post-Reformation times compelled the
adversaries to the construction of a new European peace that was meant to
endure even under the assumption of the non-existence of God. Insofar, the
irreconcilability of the opposing parties’ religious denominations led to a peace
arrangement, which stood above matters of religion and could thus be
enforced.
This proves wrong the thesis that peace among the peoples in the world
demands peace among the different religions (Hans Ku¨ng: ‘‘No world peace
without religious peace’’). If necessary, peace has to be enforced against
religious denominations and beliefs, this also is a lesson learnt from European
history. It should be in the interest of the churches themselves that peace is
maintained and enforced against those, who put it at risk – even if those have
religious motivations. Northern Ireland is an example for this, so is the Balkan,
and it is especially true for 9/11 and the aftermath. European experiences show
that the relevance of religion for society and the secular character of the legal
system have to be differentiated. In the future, this understanding will have to
affect the dialogue between Christianity and Islam much more than it did in
the past.
Acknowledging the importance of Christianity for Europe means to accept
European plurality, because in its own ways Christianity has helped to create a
pluralist environment. Tolerance towards those with different beliefs, first
guaranteed in protestant states, had been an important step in that direction,
which helped to separate civic rights from religious denomination. This
important ‘‘breach’’, as French historian Rene´ Re´mond calls it in his brilliant
analysis on ‘‘Religion and Society in Europe’’, was fought for during the French
Revolution. ‘‘No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including
his religious views‘‘ states the Declaration Of The Rights Of Man And Of The
Citizen from 1789 in a surprisingly low-key approach. The insight, however,
that differences in religious denomination must not be a reason for
discrimination was ranging far. This understanding gradually became accepted
in the whole of Europe. The exclusion of Jews from citizenship in Nazi
Germany – but as well under the Vichy government in France – was a tragic
renunciation of the achieved principle. Thus, whoever today sees Europe as a
community of values will rank this principle among the values from which
Europe cannot desist. As Reformation did with freedom of conscience, the
French Revolution made equality of citizens a basic European principle. In my
opinion, approaching the European canon of values is impossible without
knowing about these important turning points in history.
The churches have never enforced the separation of civic rights from
religious denomination on their own impetus. That is in part why this epoch
making development has led to an impulse of secularisation, which shaped the
19
strong churchly commitment but also within catholic regions the interpretative
monopoly of the churches dissolved – so did their direct access to the
individuals’ beliefs and orientations. Anti-dogmatic ideologies have thus
th and 20th century. Not only in protestant areas with a traditionally less 332 B. W. Huber
furthered the decline of church influence and importance in wide areas of
Europe. This decline of church influence, however, does not result in a decline
of Christian influence offhand. As J. Weiler stated in a remarkable script,
discussing ,,Christian Europe‘‘ has not become irrelevant.
Meanwhile, secularisation and religious plurality intertwine. The migrations
in the second half of the 20
Christian religions in Europe, predominantly Islam. That freedom of religion
also is the freedom of the dissenter or the disbeliever has become a daily
experience. Yet there is evidence that the 21
religion, since various forms of religion are on the increase and not all of them
believe in secularism, which has been a main constituent of Europe’s
development in modern times. It is thus all the more important to preserve
fundamental elements of European political culture and to look after the
sources they originate from, including the Christian ones.
For even under changing circumstances equality in rights, independent
from religious denomination, has to be guaranteed. If a state were to disclaim
this principle, it would be accused of violating the canon of European values.
Europe as a community of values is based on the concept of the constitutional
state, which respects the dignity of each and every individual and their equality
in terms of law, independent from religious affiliation – this is part of the
unconditional character of human dignity. As much as this is due to Christian
impulses, it can only be legally ensured in a secular constitutional state.
th century led to an increasing presence of non-st century will bring the return of The permanent formative power of Christianity
The formative power of Christianity on Europe’s political culture is reflected in
the norms and values, which – developed by Christians and from Christian
religious principles – are and shall be effective common property in the
democratic state and its society. As mentioned above, these norms and values
are: The dignity of the human being as the limit to the execution of state
powers and economic enforcements; the basic human rights, which irrespective
of their origin are not limited to Europe but with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights have become fundamental elements of a universal legal ethos;
the culture of mutual esteem, which guarantees that differences in opinions
and beliefs are dealt with in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect instead of
using force and violence; the general conditions of economic action matching
the basic principles of a social market economy; the atmosphere of civil and
civic engagement, which shows in the participation and involvement in the
construction and development of democracy.
The effective participation of countless Christians and active clergymen in
the development of democracy in many European countries reflects their
positive relationship towards the democratic state, based on theological and
ethical reasons, and the adjacency of democratic ideals to the Christian image
of man. Christians and churches have contributed – and still do – a whole lot to
forming a peaceful community of citizens in the democratic state.
Pious living in obedience to the Gospel and the religious obligations that
come with it have kept many people from submission to totalitarian claims. To
defend democracy against the evil of totalitarianism today still is an
indispensable precept. These experiences led to the inclusion of the reference
Christian belief and political culture in Europe 333
to God in the preamble of the German Basic Law, which Germans ‘‘conscious
of their responsibility before God and man’’ added after the shock from the
terrors of the totalitarian Nazi regime and its insane delusions of omnipotence.
This preamble therewith mentions the concrete historical responsibility of the
constitutional assembly – it does not enjoin a certain parochial dogma or
religion on the citizens. Therefore, the formative power of Christianity does not
mean a monopoly of the churches for the interpretation of basic norms and
values in the political culture and the state. However, it reminds the churches
of their commitment to common good and obliges the political agents to take
good care of the preconditions, which the state is in need of without being able
to create by itself.
The obligation to be neutral in terms of religion and beliefs should not
result in a state, which is indifferent towards its relationship with the churches.
The formative power of Christianity is of importance to the democratic state
because Christianity as a religion emphasises the separation of church and
state and respects it on its own behalf. In the protestant understanding, there is
no such thing as theocracy; the state is limited to worldly powers and has no
religious authority whatsoever and no direct influence on society’s cultural
values. This understanding of secularity of the state demands that the state
examines his relations with different religious beliefs and verifies their
acceptance of this principle.
Citizens, who want to take public office, are therefore required to
thoroughly differentiate between their personal religious beliefs and their
official practice while acting in the name of the state. This differentiation is not
‘‘neutral’’ by itself, since it originates from an individual understanding of
religion and state, and thus can hardly be determined by means of general
legislation. Notwithstanding the state must expect from his citizens to respect
the secularity of the legal system when they are appointed to serve the public.
The preamble of the constitutional treaty
The Convent’s results contain landmark decisions for the design of the
European Union’s relationship with the churches and religious associations.
Very important is Article 51, which in paragraph 1 recognises the diversity of
state-church relations in the different member states. This diversity results
from a wide variety of different social, cultural and religious environments,
which all together create and influence a member state’s political culture and
are an important pillar of national identity. Paragraph 3 of the same article
gives institutional recognition to the churches and states, that the European
institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with
these churches and organisations. Thus it is recognized that the Christian
churches make valuable contributions to social understanding.
The convent offered a reference to religious decent for the preamble. This
is positive, but unspecific. The abstract notice of religious tradition,
emphatically followed by humanistic ideas, puts the Christian imprint too
much out of perspective and gives the impression that Europe’s cultural
memory is reduced to the Enlightenment and its Greek ancestry. On the one
hand, this demands a specification of the preamble. On the other hand, the
question has to be answered if there is an appropriate place for a reference to
334 B. W. Huber
God Himself in the preamble. Not as an
the responsibility from which Europe has grown and taken shape. The
preamble should equally respect the ones, who find themselves accountable
to God and see their execution of powers limited by Him as well as the
others, who do not acknowledge such relation to God for themselves or
before others.
respect to the freedom of conscience
this. The way, in which the Polish constitution relies on ‘‘God as the source
of truth’’ and refers to those not sharing such faith but respecting those
universal values as arising from other sources is another good formulation,
which could serve as an example.
Without going much into detail, France usually answers suggestions like
these with demands to recognise the principle of laicity in the preamble,
arguing they had already accepted a reference to ‘‘religious inheritance’’. Still,
it does not make sense to thwart efforts to being more precise with a general
demand for laicity, because the question of laicity is referring to institutional
and formal dispositions, which are not dealt with in the preamble – the
preamble refers to the basic norms and values, to the ‘‘soul’’ of Europe. A
reference to Christianity in the preamble in the way I suggested earlier would
in no way give more power to the churches, but recognise in itself the claim for
a separation of clerical and state functions; it would not bind the state to
religion, but show the limits of human power; it would not canonise
paternalism, but stand for the freedom of conscience; it would not claim
religious exclusiveness, but recognise cultural and religious diversity.
One important question for the future of Europe is if a reference to
Christianity were compatible with the presence of Islam in the European
Union. The crucial European task that lies ahead is to integrate the Muslim
communities into our society. 15 million Muslims do already live in the Union:
Could they identify with a constitution referring to Christian inheritance?
Christians cannot expect Muslims to confess to the God of Christianity; but
they can expect them to recognise Europe’s Christian inheritance. The
derogatory remarks about the Union being a ‘‘Christian club’’ show that still a
long way lies ahead. The process of integration needs the commitment on both
sides. Given the ambivalent developments in Islamic states and Islam itself,
Europe needs to make clear that a distinction has to be drawn between state
and religion. In times of growing fundamentalism and religious terrorism this
is more important than ever before.
Christians serve society by supporting political, legislative, administrative,
educational and economical structures in a way that fosters the holistic
development of man. Where they feel especially called on by the Lord, they do
not act under avoidance of universal norms (there is no suspension of ethics
through religion), but will go beyond the legally and humanly necessary with
full competence and devotion. Abuse of religion for nationalist and ideological
claims cannot be averted for good, but this abuse would be contrary to the
basic principles, which Christianity in its European enculturation is built upon.
On the other hand, the state is not immune against aberrations as well. Both,
religion and state, together face the evil powers of terrorism and fanaticism
that strive to break down the walls of our values in order to gain power and
influence.
invocatio Dei, but as a description ofConscious of their responsibility before God and men and withwould be a good formulation to achieve Christian belief and political culture in Europe 335
Western Christianity has gone a long and painful way to learn that divine
‘‘orders’’, inconsistent with basic principles of ethics and humanity, have
become unthinkable. This process of learning should also be reflected in the
European constitution.
336 B. W. Huber The situation today
European Union 2004 faces a year of various changes and challenges. With
regard to the debate on a reference to God or to the Christian heritage in the
preamble of the future
like to discuss the fundamental question of the relationship between Christian
belief and political culture in Europe. I consider this basic approach not only
warrantable but also necessary at this very moment, just a few days before the
European summit, which under the Irish presidency is committed to come up
with a final decision on the treaty and hopefully will succeed in bringing the
negotiations to a good end.
Since its establishment, European integration has always developed in a
community, which was defined in terms of economical, political and legal
action. This could last be seen during the negotiations on the admission of the
Union’s ten new member states: the decision on admission mainly depends on
the ability of a candidate to meet political and economical criteria – the
Copenhagen Criteria – and to accept the EU’s legislative framework as a whole
– the Acquis Communautaire. Besides other mere geographical criteria these
define the essential scale, the admissibility of a candidate is assessed by. The
important legal band between the old and the new member states thus is the
positive law.
However, the European Union is not only an entity defined by economy,
politics and legislation, but has always been aware of the fact that it is a
community sharing the same values. In the preamble of the first integrative
treaty, the Treaty on the European Coal and Steel Community from 18 April
1951, the ratifying states reiterate their commitment ‘‘to substitute for age-old
rivalries the merging of their essential interests; to create, by establishing an
economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among
peoples long divided by bloody conflicts; and to lay the foundations for
institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforth shared’’. The
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar