State and Religion in Norway in Times of Change

STATE AND RELIGION IN NORWAY IN TIMES OF CHANGE

INGVILL THORSON PLESNER1

A committee, appointed by the National Council of The Church of Norway (the state church) finalised its evaluation of the State/Church system in 2001. The majority of the committee (16 out of 17 members) suggested “new relations” between the state and this church in which 85% of the population are members. The recommendations of the “Church/State Committee” have been highly debated after the presentation of the final report2, both inside the Church of Norway and in broader public debate. Also, the recommendations of the committee led to the appointment in 2003 of a public commission by the government. The commission shall make recommendations within the year 2005 on whether the state church system should continue, be reformed or abolished. The main focus in this article will be on the recommendations and arguments made by the majority of the Church appointed committee, focusing on the legal implications of the suggestions. However, to understand these recommendations and scenarios first a brief presentation of the present religio-political system in Norway is necessary3.

I. THE TWO MAIN PILLARS OF THE NORWEGIAN RELIGIO- POLITICAL SYSTEM The core provisions of the Norwegian state church system are the articles 2, 4, 12, 16 and 27 of the Norwegian Constitution of 1814. Article 2, first

1 Research Fellow (Ph.D. candidate) at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, working on a dissertation on “Religio-political Models and Principles”. 2 The report was called “Same church – New relations” (“Samme kirke – ny ordning”), and is published by The Church Council (2002). 3 For a more in-depth presentation of the constitutional and other legal provisions in this field, see the article on Norway in the previous volume of this European Journal on Church and State Research (2001). 264 I. T. PLESNER paragraph, states that the “Evangelical-Lutheran Confession remains the public religion of the state”. However, in its second paragraph, article 2 underlines that “All inhabitants should enjoy the right to free exercise of religion”4. This article hence states the two main pillars of the Norwegian religio-political system; a) the state church and b) freedom of religion or belief. As we shall see below, the possible tensions between these two pillars were among the main concerns of the Church/State Committee. The particular responsibility of “the King” (in practice the members of the government who are also members of the state church, cf. article 12 and 27)5 for the state church laid out in the constitution also has implications for the Parliament who shall see to the financial support for this church out of the state budget, and establishes laws concerning the organisation of the Church of Norway, for instance the Church of Norway Act of 1996. In addition to the funding out of the state budget, the municipal authorities are obliged by the1996 Church Act (article 15) to provide the funding e.g. for the restoration and use of the church buildings, for the administration and for certain employees at the local level of the church. There has been a development in the legislation for the Church of Norway during the last decades, granting more autonomy to the elected church bodies like the Parish Council on the local level, the regional Diocesan Council and the National Church Synod. The 1996 Church of Norway Act, which replaced the 1953 Act on the Organisation of the Church of Norway has so far marked the peak of this development, stat- ing e.g. that the local parishes have the status of legal persons (cf. article 2 of the Act) which is a status that the church representative organ at the national level (the Church Synod) does not yet have. However, the 1996 Act gave more competence to the National Church Synod (cf. article 24)

4 This also includes the right not to have a religious conviction (Andenæs 1991). 5 The article 12 states that at least half of the Government should “confess” the Evan- gelical-Lutheran religion”, which is in practice interpreted as demanding that they should be members of the Evangelical Lutheran state church, The Church of Norway. In con- nection with the making of some of the recent Governments, especially representatives of the Social Democratic Party have expressed that this quest makes it more difficult for them to establish a government. Since the Social Democratic governments often consist of exactly 50% or a little more members of the Church of Norway, it has sometimes proved difficult to get the church affairs that should be treated by the government (like appointing bishops and deans) treated by the Government in due time, as this then demands that nearly all the church members of the Government are present at the weekly Friday meeting at the Royal Palace where such decisions are made. Due to travels and other obligations, it is not so rare that some of the ministers that are also church members are not present, and hence that no decision concerning the church affairs can be make. STATE AND RELIGION IN NORWAY IN TIMES OF CHANGE 265 than it had before, for instance the legal competence to make plans and programmes for the diaconal activities and the religious education of the church and to develop qualification criteria and determine the main tasks for the positions as deacons, teachers and musicians in the church. The Diocesan Council has been empowered by the increased delegation of legal competence from the Ministry of Church Affairs on behalf of “the King”, e.g. the power to employ and dismiss pastors within the diocese. However, the appointment of bishops and deans and hence the main responsibility for the clergy still remains a task of the King/the Govern- ment. Also the basic financial premises for the church activities are set by the Government in making decisions about the allocations to the regional and national church bodies. Since 1969 there has been an Act on Faith Communities that applies for The Church of Norway as well as all other faith communities in Norway. By the very inclusion of the Church of Norway in this act, the double identity of the church is underlined: It is a state church, but still should be respected as a faith community. As we shall see later in this article, the tensions related to this two-fold identity of the majority church – and the implications of these tensions both for the Church of Norway and for other faith communities – were among the main concerns addressed by the Church/State Committee. The 1969 Faith Communities Act says in article 19 that – upon request – other faith communities should be provided with the same economic support per member a year that the Church of Norway receives per member a year, both at the state and municipal level. Since 1981 a similar Act on Financial Support to Life Stance Communities has stated the right of secular communities (in practice so far only the Humanist Ethical Union) to receive such support. This right to economic support might be seen as a result of the aim of securing equal treatment for other faith and life stance communities. The same regard is underlying other rights given in the same act to all faith communities, registered as well as non-registered. Some rights are limited to those who are registered, like the right to have a grave- yard of their own (cf. article 18). In addition to these provisions granting certain corporate rights to faith communities, the 1969 Act underlines the individual dimension of freedom of religion or belief, e.g. the right to take part in religious activities (article 1) and the freedom from religious coercion by means of forced membership in any religious community (article 2) is underlined. In this way the Act further outlines the general provision on freedom of religion or belief given by the Constitution in article 2. 266 I. T. PLESNER

II. THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE’S MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS The suggestion of the majority of the committee (16 out of 17) was to change all the constitutional provision regarding the Church of Norway (§§2, 4, 12, 16, 21, 22, 27) and establish “new relations” between Church and State. They agreed that there should be a constitutional provision outlining the responsibility of the state in supporting all faith and life stance communities to secure good conditions for their activities. Also, the first part of article 2 of the Constitution about freedom of religion or belief for all should be prevalent6. The majority was, however, divided on the question on whether the Church of Norway should be mentioned in particular in such a paragraph7. Eleven members wanted a particular reference to the majority church because of its “particular position in the Norwegian society, in history, and today”, and argued that this was not necessarily in conflict with the equal treatment principle. Rather, mentioning the majority church in particular would underline that this church should be treated on the same level as other faith communities from now on, while at the same time expressing “continuity” with the past. The other five members – the “minority in the majority” of the committee – did not want such a particular reference to the Church of Norway since they thought this would be more in line with the principle of equal treatment. On the question of what should replace the 1996 Church of Norway Act, the group was divided along more or less the same lines, although everybody agreed that the Act could not be kept in its present form8. Ten of the committee members argued for a new Church of Norway Act, at least in a transition period, that should outline the main characteristics of the Church as an “Evangelical Lutheran Folk Church” (some also would include the term “Democratic”). This should help preserve the identity of the Church and hence underline the “continuity” despite the changed relations to the state. Six of the committee members argued that any legislation after the changed relations with the state should only entail what is legally required to define the new relations, and that there should be only one Act relating to Faith Communities, that should, of course, include the Church of Norway9. They argued that this would be most in accordance

6 Report p 85. 7 Report p 87. 8 Report p 89 9 One of these 6 members argued that instead of letting the Parliament become a kind of “watch dog” for the “autonomous church”, there should be a process of reforms and STATE AND RELIGION IN NORWAY IN TIMES OF CHANGE 267 with the principle of equal treatment that was motivating the whole reform and that it would be the best means to protect also the autonomy of the majority Church. The church bodies should make decisions about the church doctrine, constitution and organisations when new relations to the church are established, – not the Norwegian Parliament. One of the committee members wanted to keep the basic elements of the present state church system, but was positive towards some reforms within this system, mainly in the internal church organisation10. For instance she agreed with the rest of the committee that there was a need for a more coherent financial system instead of the present double structure with funding both out of the state and the municipal budget. She wanted, however, to keep up the tradition of state funding of the Church out of the state budget instead of the alternative models suggested by the majority of the committee members who wanted to introduce the system of church tax collected by the regular tax system (with possibility also for other faith communities to use this opportunity, as for instance in Sweden and Iceland)11. All the members of the committee agreed that the state should support financially the religious and moral education provided by the Church of Norway and by other faith communities for their members. This suggestion was related to the changes that have taken place in the public school system over the last decades where the religious education is no longer the subject of the Church but is supposed to be an ordinary school subject giv- ing orientation about different religions and world views, although still with a main focus on the Christian traditions12. The committee underlined that a state support to the internal education in the different faith communities should not replace but rather be a necessary supplement to the orientation given by the school during the regular school hours. Also, the committee agreed that the tradition in public institutions like the prisons, the army and certain hospitals of making religious service available to the people should be upheld, and that the service for religious minorities in these kinds of institutions should be improved13. For preparations within the present state church system leading towards a future separation of church and state where the church would rely upon its own church bodies in the definition and upholding of the church identity, see the report pp 89-90. 10 Report pp 109-113. 11 Report pp 100-108. 12 See report pp 75 – 79, and Aadnanes, Plesner et. al 2000 (“Evaluation of the new RE subject”, Diaforsk Report no. 3/2000) on these changes and the different interpretations of the new subject called “Christianity, Religion and Life Stance”. 13 Report pp 79-81. 268 I. T. PLESNER instance, all inmates should have the right to see a representative (religious leader) of their faith community while in prison.

III. THE MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS The growing religious plurality of the last decades can be seen as one of several factors leading to the appointment of the committee in 1998, and was one of the factors referred to by the committee in its arguments for changing the relationship between Church and State14. Religious plurality was also one of the factors referred to by some political parties that changed their positions on the Church/State issue the same year, recommending “new relations” in some way or the other15. At the core of the discussion about State and Church relations in Norway is also the reference to freedom of religion or belief as a human right. Particular reference is made to the principle of non-discrimina- tion, to its quest for a more equal treatment of minorities as well as to the quest for more self-determination for the majority church. An argu- ment behind the Church/State Committee’s call for so-called “new relations” between Church and State was hence the quest for more autonomy as well as less privileges for the Church of Norway. Among the concerns that were common to all members of the committee were the wish to secure good conditions for all faith communities, as well as the belief that this presupposed an active support from and cooperation with the public authorities. Two main principles that the committee hence chose as guidelines for its recommendations were: a) Equal treatment of different faith and life stance communities, and b) Active state support to the different faith and life stance communities16. While all members of the committee agreed on these main religio-political principles, they came to quite different conclusions on what their implications would be for the future

14 In the year 2001 still 85% of the Norwegian population were members of The Church of Norway, which is – according to the constitution – the state church of Norway. Still, the number of persons belonging to other faith communities continued to increase with about 12 000 more members in 2001 than in 2000. In total now about 350 000 persons – or 8% of a population of 4.5 millions – belong to faith and life stance communities outside the majority church. The growing religious plurality can to a certain extent be explained by an increasing number of persons with background from non-western countries, especially within the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and Catholic faith communities. 15 Among these were the Conservative Party that had up until then argued in favour of the state church system. 16 See the report, p 61. STATE AND RELIGION IN NORWAY IN TIMES OF CHANGE 269

State/Church relations, and not least on how they should be weighed in relation to other factors, as we shall see below. Although arguing for “new relations” between Church and State, the majority of the committee avoided, however, to use the word “disestab- lish” or “abolish” the state church system, nor did they describe its suggestions as a call for “separation” between State and Church. This can be understood as an attempt to avoid criticism from those who want to keep up close relations between Church and State while still satisfying those who want to abolish the state church system, and by this secure broad support for the committee’s suggestions. Also, the majority of the committee (11) suggested a revision in the election system and the internal structure of the church17. One of the main changes suggested was to have a direct election for the National Church Synod instead of the indirect election system where the Synod mainly consists of those already elected to the diocesan councils by the representatives in the parish councils. In the public debates about this issue, which is very contro- versial within the Church of Norway, the main arguments for such a change are that it might increase the impact of the church elections and hence make more people use their vote in the election. This would give the Synod more “democratic” legitimacy, as now only 3% of the church members use their vote in the parish council elections. Also, this might lead to a less “conservative” and more “representative” profile of the members of the Synod. This same effect might be one of the reasons why many of the theologians in the church who are taking a more conservative position in doctrinal issues are opposing the suggestion of direct election to the National Synod. Four members of the committee wanted to uphold the present indirect voting system, and one member wanted a model combining direct and indirect voting. All of the committee agreed, however, that the National Synod should continue to be the supreme body of the Church when it gets its independence from the State. When looking at the arguments for keeping some of the legal and practical bonds between Church and State (cf. the majority positions on the new constitutional provision and the new Church of Norway Act) and the arguments for some of the internal church reforms (like the revisions of the internal election system), a main factor for the majority of the committee seems to be the wish to preserve the character of the Church as a “folk church” although the relation to the state changes. This term is often used in the report, although it is not quite clear to what it refers18. In the report it seem to be a symbolically loaded word

17 Report pp134-138. 18 The content and use of this term is at the core of the debates about reforms within the Church of Norway and also in the public debate about the future state relations to religion. 270 I. T. PLESNER that refers to both the broad, quantitative support or membership basis of the majority church and to the open, inclusive profile that the church aims to express, in order to preserve its broad support among the inhabitants. Although not clearly stated as a main normative regard underlying the suggestions in the report, along with the regard to equal treatment and an active state support to religion, the wish to maintain a “folk church profile” along with new relations to the state hence can be seen as one of the main concerns of the committee. The one member of the committee who did not recommend “new relations” between Church and State argued that freedom of religion or belief as a human right does not necessarily prohibit a state church system. On the contrary, such rights and freedoms might well be supported by “Christian values and traditions”, and hence there is no conflict between the two pillars of the present religio-political system. Also, the open and inclusive profile of the “folk church” might be better protected if the state continued appointing bishops, she argued19. According to the Constitution article 112 any Constitutional changes requires a 2/3 majority. Also, it is a requirement that a suggestion for changes should be presented by some parliamentarians in due time before an election so that the people can take a stand on it before any decision might be made during the next period of the Parliament (cf. article 112). A proposition for abolishing the state church system has already been made by some parliamentarians (representatives of the Socialist Party) during the present period. The next parliamentary elections are in 2005. This means that 2005 is the earliest possible time for any decisions for constitutional changes in this matter. It would be unlikely, however, that the Parliament makes such decisions before receiving the final report of the public commission now working with these questions as a follow-up of the suggestions of the Church/State committee.

19 In the hearing later organised by the Church Council after the presentation of the committee’s recommendations (in 2002), the majority of the parish councils supported the position of the minority of the committee (cf. the one member arguing for the state church system).