Liberalism and Religious Freedom in the South Caucasus

Since 2008, Hans-Joachim Kiderlen has lived in Tbilisi and been the bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Georgia (ELCG). The ELCG was founded in the early 19th century by immigrants from Württemberg and presently has 750 members, organized into seven parishes - from Baku by the Caspian Sea to Sukhumi on the Black Sea coast. Bishop Kiderlen can look back on a long and successful career as a jurist, theologian and diplomat. From 1990 to 1994, the Hamburg-born clergyman was head of the Evangelical Church in Germany (ECD) liaison-office to the European Community in Brussels. For the next six years, Bishop Kiderlen took over the leadership of the church administration in Magdeburg. However, for the longest period of his career, Hans-Joachim Kiderlen was as a diplomat in the Foreign Service of the Federal Republic of Germany; his final posting before retirement in June 2008 was as Consul General in Karachi. The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom spoke with Mr Kiderlen about the relationship between liberalism and religious freedom, the role of religion and its institutions in the three South Caucasian states and the relationship between the state, the public and the church in this post-Soviet region.

Liberalism and religion – do they go together?

First we need a definition: What is liberalism? Is liberalism a translation of the German word for free thought? Is it a version of the term “liberal”? There is a tradition in liberalism to express anticlerical views. But this anticlerical criticism is perhaps not directed so much at Protestant churches as at the Roman Catholic Church and its legal entities. Within political liberalism, there are also appeals to be generally detached from religion, especially organized religion. This includes our church as well, of course. In this respect there is also some hostility on our part, from the Protestant church, towards liberalism.

And freedom and religion?

Regarding freedom as such, there are certainly sizeable overlapping areas. Christianity has its own freedom ethos, established in its theology, the Bible and the Christian message. A burden is taken off the individual through the deliverance, granted to us by God through Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, his resurrection, as well as through the liberation from sin and exemption from punishment. The conscience of the individual is freed. This should encourage and empower us to do things that are justified solely by our own integrity, by our faith alone, by our humanity and our character. And this is directly related to freedom, but it is a freedom set within certain bounds, it is not an unlimited freedom, that defends or promotes everything - but in its core it is a freedom par excellence. The Bible tells us in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians: “to the faithful everything is permissible, but not everything is expedient.” This means that there is a difference between what is theoretically possible and practically allowed. There are at least such things as manners, customs, and the rules of human cohabitation, which cannot merely be thrown overboard, but must be observed - also in the name of the Gospel’s commandment of love. In particular cases, the Christian faith can even justify an interpretation of freedom that is not beneficial in itself and can be in fact destructive for a society, and of course for its political order as well - protest, criticism, resistance may even be called for.

How do you assess the position of the individual churches and religions in the three South Caucasus countries?

There is a dominant religious majority in all three states; Islam in Azerbaijan, the Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia and the Georgian Orthodox Church in Georgia. Each claims an estimated 80 to 90 per cent of their country’s population. In all three countries these churches and religions claim that it is precisely this majority that needs special consideration, even by the government. We know that in Azerbaijan, religion in general, and Islam in particular, are strongly controlled by the state.
The Armenians have a church that claims to embody Armenian history, tradition, culture and identity. But the Armenian Church is neither as demanding nor as pervasive in these areas as is the Georgian Orthodox Church. The latter’s claim to embody its country’s identity is far more profound, to the extent that to be a Georgian, you must naturally be a Georgian-Orthodox, that this is an integral part of your national identity. This of course makes it difficult for other churches in the country - some of which have been here for a very long time - to live harmoniously with the Orthodox Church, because they also maintain they are churches of and for Georgians. This is true for our church, for the Baptists and the Catholics, even if these so-called "historic" churches were founded with the help of immigrants. For example, German immigrants from Wuerttemberg founded the first Evangelical-Lutheran congregations in Georgia 200 years ago.
Following earlier, traditional perceptions, the Orthodox recognize that yes, they allow and tolerate national minorities on their territory, who may practice their own religion, but, as mentioned earlier, real Georgians must be Georgian-Orthodox. However in today's world, it is no longer so easy to impose that view, so tensions result. Even as a small church, and especially as Lutherans, we do not undertake much missionary activity, we still want to be recognized and treated by the Orthodox Church as brothers and sisters. And sometimes this leads to difficulties.

How free are the churches in each country?

As I said, in Azerbaijan there is a strong government control but it is far weaker in the other two countries. There our churches exist in an environment that is liberal in every way. We are able to work and our activities are not restricted or impeded by the state, in fact, we even have the option of gaining legal recognition.

Is even more (religious) freedom feasible on the part of the government?

As a part of its religious legislation, Georgia should certainly grant more rights to the other churches and religious communities besides the Orthodox Church. This is not yet the case though, basically, the state does not limit our freedoms. That is, I suppose, also the case in Armenia, despite the religious legislation there. There are always two sides to such legislation. On the one hand it grants rights, but it also provides the state with the power to control. Some new religious communities, especially in Georgia, say in this respect that they don’t want any new legislation and that they are satisfied with the current state of affairs, where everything is allowed and not much is regulated. We Lutherans are a so-called traditional church and would like to see legislation that defines our rights and access to public life. Of course, within the framework of a constitution that guarantees religious freedom, the state has the right to legislate what is lawful for religious communities.

Some time ago, a new law was passed in Georgia, which now covers non-Orthodox religious communities as well. What was its effect on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Georgia?

Actually it is not a new law but a small addition to the Civil Code of Georgia. What is new is an addition that creates a new legal category for religious communities and churches that are, needless to say, outside the Georgian Orthodox Church, which is granted special privileges through a state contract. According to this legislative addition, these other churches now have the right to register as churches – although this is only a title without content. Their status is still defined as before by the legal provisions applicable for any association. So this is just a label change. However a certain symbolic recognition of churches as legal entities is attached to it. As for the content, the same rights and obligations apply to sports clubs or women's organizations. I see this as a deficiency, which is by no means solved through the new legislation. For example, tax advantages, government support for social events, monument conservation, access to prisons, schools and hospitals - all that has not been codified. We are dependent on the benevolence of the state without having any entitlements. In this respect, this law is not a law, but only an addition to the association law that governs the rights of private associations and nothing more. We are now registered as a church, which I think was the right thing to do because it embodies a display of respect by the state towards other religious communities in the country beside the Orthodox Church.

There was massive criticism by the Georgian Orthodox Church of this legislation or legislative addition...

This criticism is perhaps understandable, considering the haste that this little addition took - three readings were pushed through Parliament in three days then the President signed it. This is not due process. But beyond this, we naturally don’t see the Orthodox Church’s opposition as justified. Because a few years ago, when the Orthodox Church’s own contract was under review by the government, it confirmed to us - the other churches - even in writing, that it backed our recognition as legal entities. But once the Orthodox Church’s contract was finished, it stopped backing recognition for other churches. So after many attempts by other churches to gain recognition, the state took the matter in its own hands and sought to settle the issue permanently. But it is probably not only the process that enrages the Orthodox Church, it may be the fact they simply don’t welcome legal recognition of any other religious communities outside of the Orthodox Church.

It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that religion regained a strong role in the consciousness of the people in the three South Caucasian states. Why is that? Have people found their way back to faith?

Faith focuses on the centre of a religion, in Christianity - on Jesus Christ. Social necessity is another aspect of it. The state is not always able to meet the needs of the population. Politics do not always offer an attractive aspect. The presence of the Orthodox Church in Georgia is everywhere and growing. Sensing the shortcomings of politics, one turns towards it. The state leaves many poor people behind on the side of the road. Consequently the church has a mission to provide social assistance. The Orthodox Church does this in some ways. It is also there to give consolation for all the shortcomings of daily life. Religion is a term that can be a dike for all possible things - from material needs and the need for authority and leadership, to faith and identification. The Orthodox Church has positioned itself carefully in this whole complex context.

Is a return to religion, the confession of faith, an expression of the newly won freedom of the people in the post-Soviet countries?

That certainly played a role – as a use and exploitation of the new freedom. But the situation is very different between the various ex-socialist countries. In the former GDR and also for example in Estonia and Latvia, one cannot speak of a big boom. In other post-socialist states, there are different trends in the revival of religion. Not everywhere has freedom led to a present rediscovery of religious consciousness by the people, to their return to faith or their visiting a church or mosque. The Soviet Union put a lid on the religious feelings of entire nations and peoples. But beneath this cover, there was variable amount of pressure, in the South Caucasus perhaps more than in other places. However a lot of the religious feeling has only just emerged.

Bishop Kiderlen, we thank you for this interview.

Götz-Martin Rosin conducted the interview on behalf of FNF.
Images: Stefan Filsinger

Interview originally published in February 2012 as part of the FNF CESE newsletter