Has the Archbishop overstepped the line?

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world

John 18:36, King James Bible

TO MANY, the distribution of political propaganda in churches last Sunday was unmistakable further evidence that Archbishop Chrysostomos II is ratcheting up his ‘No’ campaign against the current peace talks.

Along with a brochure explaining the Gospel in simple terms, churchgoers were handed leaflets calling on them to say ‘No’ to the rotating presidency and to the weighted vote, two proposed elements of a reunified state that have been discussed as part of the on-going talks between President Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat. Employing near-apocalyptic language, the leaflets warned, among other things, of the ultimate danger of having a mainland Turk elected to Presidency of the Republic.

Chrysostomos admitted he had given the go-ahead for the pamphlets to be handed out, adding that while he agreed with the sentiments expressed in them, he was uncomfortable with some of the words used, which he thought were slightly extreme.

Chrysostomos’ intervention has again raised the question of the separation of Church and state. Should the Church finance a public campaign? And, perhaps more importantly, how much power does the Church wield? Could it influence the outcome of a possible new referendum?

“If the Archbishop wishes to express an opinion on political matters, it is his right but he should take the cloth off and speak as a private citizen – not purport to represent the Church,” said Nikos Trimikliniotis, an Assistant Professor of Law and Sociology at the University of Nicosia and director of the Cyprus National Focal Point for Racism and Xenophobia.

“The mission of the Church is religious and humanitarian. But what’s happening today is that the Church is seeking to play the role of Ethnarch. Now we might have looked the other way if the Church, through its political messages, at least played a role that was positive or constructive – for example by advocating co-operation and harmony with the other side. That would be in line with its Christian character. But the opposite is true. And I’ll say it outright: the Archbishop today is inciting hatred and separation.”

Trimiklionitis called it “shocking” that the Church was using its funds to promote propaganda:

“There’s an institutional issue here. Has the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus authorised the use of funds for these purposes? My guess is that it hasn’t.”

In a telephone interview, Metropolitan Bishop Isaias of Tamassos confirmed the Holy Synod has taken no decision to release funds for an information campaign.

“The matter has not even been discussed within the Synod,” Isaias told the Sunday Mail.

But he qualified: “It is up to the individual bishoprics to decide whether to use funds for various projects, for example raising awareness. It’s my understanding therefore that the Archbishop was acting in this narrower capacity, that is, as the head of the Archbishopric, which covers the district of Nicosia. He was not acting on behalf of the whole Church of Cyprus.”

Pressed as to whether such awareness campaigns were commensurate with the spiritual role of the Church, Isaias said:

“Of course the Church must offer guidance in spiritual and intellectual matters…and our country’s political situation falls under that category. There’s a fine line: yes, the Church should have a say in political affairs, but at the same time it should not be political. By that I mean it should not be partisan or reflect the views of certain quarters. The Church must cater to all of its flock, not a part of it.”

While alarmed about the Archbishop’s tactics and the increasing mobilisation to oppose the ongoing peace talks, Trimikliniotis said the jury was still out on how much influence the Church could wield.

“Personally I don’t think the Church can change people’s minds. But it can have an impact in indirect ways, for example by financing advertising campaigns if and when it comes down to a referendum. It’s hard to tell. Everyone knows where the Church – and especially Chrysostomos – stood during the referenda of 2004.

“But remember also that Chrysostomos got the least number of popular votes when he was elected Archbishop. So it’s not as if he has a broad following among the Christian flock.”

Recent research in Cyprus has suggested a link between religion and political attitudes. A 2007 joint academic project by the University of Cyprus and the University of Oxford revealed that people who identify themselves as religious tend also to be more conservative or nationalistic in their political views.

The social-psychological research explored the quality of the relationship between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Respondents from both communities were first asked a series of questions, such as “How important is religion to you?” and “How often do you go to church?”, and then quizzed on how they personally relate to the other community.

“We found a statistically significant correlation between frequent churchgoers (or mosque goers) and people who have feelings of mistrust or fear of the other side,” said Charis Psaltis, Assistant Professor of Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of Cyprus’ Department of Psychology.

Greek Cypriots who saw themselves as religious were more likely to have negative feelings about crossing to the north for the first time after the opening of the checkpoints, or about meeting Turkish Cypriots, Psaltis explained.

“They also tended to be more Greco-centric, in that they regarded Greece as their mother country. Moreover, the same people said they felt threatened by the Turkish Cypriots, both politically and economically. We detected a similar association in the Turkish Cypriot community, although here the correlation between religion and political mindset was less pronounced than among Greek Cypriots, whose religious fervour was slightly higher by comparison.”