Europe as a Frame of Reference

It is true, for many people Europe is not a frame of reference for their reflection and action. Lectures on European issues do not attract big audiences. We can see that clearly in the number of participants in seminars on Europe in Christian Academies all over Europe. It also becomes evident, when we look on the declining participation in elections to the European Parliament, though the legislative powers of the European Parliament increased. And I remember in the Hungarian referendum prior to Hungary becoming member of the EU in 2004 an overwhelming majority of voters voted in favour, but only about 44% of the Hungarians have participated in the referendum.

For many the European Institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg are just far away and seem to have little to do with the everyday life. This might be a feeling out of ignorance, not knowing how important the European Institutions have become for the everyday life of the people. This feeling might have its origins in a feeling of powerlessness: the decisions seem to be taken so far away, that ordinary people as well as Christians and churches anyhow have no chance of influencing them. Since there is no chance, we should not even attempt to try. And in the eyes of some, “Brussels” even seems to be such a superpower, that I have heard in some central and eastern European countries language such as: ‘Thus far we have received the orders from Moscow, now we are receiving them from Brussels’. “Mistrust” towards the Institutions, which the European states have given themselves and to which they have transferred certain competences, is a very modest word to describe this approach of people.

Such approaches do not do justice to the European integration process and to the importance of the European organisations, such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and, most important, the European Union. As my elderly friend, Prof Papaderos from Crete always reminds me, according to Greek mythology, Europe is a beautiful woman. And we should honour her.

After WWII, what is now the European Union began as a peace and reconciliation project – making the European economies so dependent on each other, that European states can never afford again to go to war with each other. And it turned out to be a very successful project, which did not only bring about peace, but also prosperity and freedom. But yes, these developments also went along with member states transferring numerous competences to the European Institutions in Brussels and in Strasbourg. The former German President and judge of the Constitutional Court, Roman Herzog, a few years ago went as far as to estimate that more than 80% of the national legislation in EU member countries is either pre-decided or prepared in the European Institutions.

Many of today’s problems cannot be solved within the nation state. Environmental damages do not stop at national borders. The recent financial and economic crisis made it evident how important the trans-national cooperation is. In a time of globalisation, we need our own identities, but we also need the global cooperation for the well-being of the people and of God’s creation.

Now, why should we as churches be involved in all of this? Well, if it is true that the future of the people in Europe (not only in the European Union) is determined by the European Institutions, we as churches have to be there, we have to be present and we have to raise our voice as advocates for the people and for God’s creation. To say it with the Barmen Theological Declaration from 1934: “As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. … We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him”. As Christians we have to proclaim the word of the gospel also where the political and the legal framework of Europe is decided.

When the churches in Europe, in 2001, adopted the Charta Oecumenica, they said; “We are convinced that the spiritual heritage of Christianity constitutes an empowering source of inspiration and enrichment for Europe. On the basis of our faith, we work towards a humane, socially conscious Europe, in which human rights and the basic values of peace, justice, freedom, tolerance, participation and solidarity prevail. We likewise insist on the reverence for life, the value of marriage and the family, the preferential option for the poor, the readiness to forgive, and in all things compassion.” As churches we have to be advocates for a just, participatory and sustainable Europe in the world.

From this basis, Christians and churches have something to say to Europe. We should be advocates of the achievements of the European integration process thus far, but we also have many critical things to say. Let me just give but some examples, which will be issues during the Hungarian EU Presidency.

As churches we have always advocated that economic growth has to be in balance with social cohesion and social justice. The recent financial and economic crisis has revealed that we cannot just continue with business as usual and a few cosmetic corrections. The financial and economic crisis is a challenge to our underlying values and our lifestyles. As the European Union is now starting to implement its strategy for the years until 2020, it is high time to highlight social justice and social cohesion as part of its strategy. In 2006, at a church leaders’ meeting, which the Church and Society Commission of CEC had organised, Bishop Bölcskei said: “It has been clearly proven in recent times that citizens expect stronger social commitment from the European Union. The implementation of social tasks, however, is clearly a duty of member states, and due to the subsidiarity principle, that of regions and settlements too. … Through the role in education and social care, churches may improve Europe’s role in social matters and may contribute to people considering the European Union as a community that deems socil care an important issue.” This reads already like a manifesto for the forthcoming Hungarian EU Presidency.

The above mentioned frustrations in dealing with European issues to a large extend have their root cause in the decisions taken too far away from the people and in a largely in-transparent manner. I am therefore very happy that the Hungarian government has made it one of its priorities to “bring Europe closer to its citizens”. We need institutions that listen to the voices of the people, which take up their concerns. We need institutions that are transparent and involve the people in the decision-making process.

Europe is bigger than the European Union. As Conference of European Churches we have been always proud not to just bring the voice of the churches in EU member states to the Institutions, but from the churches from all over Europe. I am therefore very grateful for the churches in Hungary to approach the Hungarian EU Presidency from a regional perspective. The Visegrad countries might be a frame of reference, the Carpathian basis or the Danube region. With this a much broader perspective immediately comes into play, taking up the fears that still exist among neighbours and the need for reconciliation and inter-cultural dialogue among formerly conflicting parties. During the Hungarian Presidency, a Danube Strategy will be put into action. Thus far it is dominated by economic and environmental issues, but with entry points for concrete action on inter-cultural dialogue and processes of reconciliation.

I could mention many more issues which are at stake during the Hungarian EU Presidency; issues such as the role of volunteering in out societies, family life, a Roma strategy, combating climate change on a global scale. In all of these issues, churches have important contributions to make.

And there are many open doors for the churches to make a difference. In the basic Treaty of the European Union (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the “Lisbon Treaty”, there is now a legally binding article, in which recognizes the identity of the churches and religious communities and their special contribution. In this article (17.3), the European Union is committing itself to an “open, transparent and regular dialogue” with the churches and the religious communities.

Discussions with the Hungarian government thus far give reason to believe, that the Hungarian EU Presidency is very interested in this dialogue with the churches and is looking forward to the churches’ contribution.

But let’s also remain realistic. There are limits to what an EU Presidency can do under the new EU Treaty and in view of a new permanent President of the European Council. There will be hundreds of legal acts to be pursued, which the Hungarian Presidency will have to deal with, whether it likes it or not. On top of that, there is only a little space to set own priorities. All the more, we should be happy that the Hungarian government has committed itself to a Presidency with a “human face” and wanting to be an “honest broker”. Among its four priorities one is “to bring Europe closer to the people”.

It seems to be that the Hungarian churches have a special opportunity here, but also a special challenge, that is to make a meaningful contribution not only on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of all the churches in Europe and even in the world. This is why I am looking forward to a fruitful cooperation between the churches in Hungary and the Conference of European Churches. Preparations make me very hopeful. As Conference of European Churches we want to support the Hungarian churches as much as possible in their efforts.

One thing should be clear to all of us, though: we will only be able to make a difference as churches, if we speak in as much as possible with a common voice to the European Institutions, including the Hungarian Presidency. In the Charta Oecumenica from 2001, the churches in Europe commit themselves to “to seek agreement with one another on the substance and goals of our social responsibility, and to represent in concert, as far as possible, the concerns and visions of the churches vis-à-vis the secular European institutions”. This is why I am so happy to that besides preparations in individual churches, the Ecumenical Council of Churches in Hungary will serve as a focal point for the churches’ efforts for the Presidency.

There is a long-standing history of churches engaging with EU Presidencies. In almost all cases in the recent past, CEC and COMECE together with the churches of the respective country visited government assuming the Presidency. There is a long record of meetings with Prime Ministers or Foreign Ministers and their staff. There is also an established series of government organised conferences, in which the churches participated. And many churches developed their own programmes and relations according to their priorities.

It seems to me important, however, that from the outset the churches are clear on their aims. Why do we engage with a Presidency? There were several aims during previous years:

• to use a Presidency to highlight special issues of concern for the churches in order to use the Presidency to make a difference;
• to make European issues more visible to people in the churches’ congregations in order to show how Europe can be useful for them and to engage them;
• to make the churches visible in society in their advocacy role for the good of the people;
• to re-strengthen the dialogue between the churches and the respective government;
• to support a government in its efforts to promote justice, sustainability and the participation of the people;
• to promote the European integration process.

These are not exclusive aims. But the churches should be clear about their priority aims and the means to achieve them. Perhaps, one can roughly distinguish between two sets of aims: those that rather aim at making a difference vis-à-vis the government and those that want to make the churches visible and strengthen them in relation to the public and European agenda. Both are not exclusive and the latter set of aims should by no means lead us to become defensive and protective of our own ambitions. In relation to the EU Presidency, we should present ourselves as advocates for the common good from a Christian perspective – a church for others.

Hungary is not the first country to assume the EU Presidency from the countries formerly east of the Iron curtain. Slovenia already assumed the EU Presidency and last year, the Czech Republic hold the Presidency. And the churches in the Czech Republic, having had not the easiest of all relations to their government, used the occasion under the guidance of the Ecumenical Council to make their viewpoints visible on may issues. They published a booklet with a presentation of the churches and their concerns, accompanied with a CD which compiled the basic texts of the churches and of CEC on these issues.

The church leaders of the Czech Republic together visited Brussels and were received by the Czech Commissioner and Czech parliamentarians, which created quite a clout for the churches’ commitment.

Let me use this occasion of my presentation to express an invitation also to a delegation of the Churches from Hungary to visit Brussels during the Presidency to make their concerns visible and heard; and perhaps, also to learn more about the functioning of the European institutions.

The experience with the Czech Presidency makes me ask for one possible aim to be added to the list of potential aims for the churches in Hungary. At the time of the Czech Presidency, the time did not seem ripe for Europe to listen to a specific voice from a new EU member country. But may be the time is ripe now. Therefore, may express a wish and add one aim to the list of potential aims for the Hungarian Presidency:

to bring a genuine voice of the churches from Central Europe into the European debate. What are the specific concerns of the churches in central Europe. What are their hopes and expectations towards Europe, what are their fears and anxieties?

This might be an aim to pursued especially together with the Polish churches, whose country will assume the EU Presidency after Hungary. The Visegrad, the Danube, the Carpathian regions might serve as frames of reference for a regional approach.

There were other Presidencies before and around the Czech Presidency. Let me just mention as an example the Swedish EU Presidency. The churches in Sweden, again with a working group under the Christian Council (much resources by the biggest church: the Church of Sweden) worked in both directions. They selected four priorities to be pursued with the government during the Presidency. They published a book with their priorities, which we formally handed over at a meeting with the then Swedish Europe Minster, Cecilia Malmström, who is today the Swedish Commissioner in Brussels for Justice and Home Affairs. (One always meets twice in life, they say. And good connections stay on!) The priorities of the Swedish churches were accompanied by an extensive media campaign, which ensured that people got to know about the churches’ priorities and articles appeared in important newspaper on the priorities selected for each month. At the same time, the churches in Sweden published a bigger book with information and educational material for church congregations, which was widely used and did raise the awareness about the churches’ involvement in European affairs and the backing for it considerably. We worked closely together between Brussels and Uppsala in order to ensure the same emphasis on the national and on the European level. Many of my colleagues were speakers and resource persons in events of the Swedish churches.

At the CEC Assembly in Lyon in 2009, we formally handed over from the Swedish churches to the Czech churches with regard to the EU Presidency. A moment marked by publications, good wishes, good advice and Becherovka and sweets. Cooperation and mutual support serves all well.

Equally to the Swedes, churches in other countries were also very active and used the EU Presidency of their countries to intensify their relations with the government, to raise awareness and to engage in numerous initiatives on their priorities. And usually, the respective governments were very receptive. The present Belgium EU Presidency, for instance, involves NGOs in an almost unprecedented way. The concluding conference to the “European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion”, for instance, also involved people being effected by poverty and social exclusion themselves.

To conclude: the experience shows that the churches can make a difference when it comes to EU Presidencies. And that is an important contribution.

But it might be, however, that someone would say: it is putting too much energy into a one-off period of time. Well, my hope would be that investing in an EU Presidency would pay off in the long run. Our preparations and our involvement should therefore also take into account, how we will continue in the long-run. Which middle-term and long-term effects do we want to achieve in investing so much in the first half of 2011?

In this regard, the cooperation with churches in other countries seems to me to be important. Poland is assuming the EU Presidency after Hungary, and the churches in Poland have already started with their considerations and are very willing to cooperate through their Ecumenical Council with the churches in Hungary. Looking on middle-term and long-term effects, the regional approach to an EU Presidency might be of help. What’s about using the Visegrad concept for establishing a central European churches’ agenda?

As we have said, it is high time that Europe listens to the voice and the experiences of the churches in central and eastern Europe. It is high time that the ecumenical movement engages in a new way with the churches in this region. As CEC, being committed to a pan-European vision of Europe, we would want to do our utmost to support the churches on this journey.