Danut Manastireanu
Editor’s note: The first part of this article was published in the East-West Church and Ministry Report 22 (Winter 2014): 5-8 .
No Clear Vision of the Future
The fall of communism as a political and economic system in Eastern Europe did not mean, unfortunately, the demise of communism as a way of thinking and as a pattern of behavior for people living in postcommunist contexts. People just emerging from oppression do not have a clear understanding of the kind of society toward which they are in transition. This is similar to what happened to the Old Testament Israelites in the desert. They knew Egypt all too well, but had no clear idea what life in the Promised Land would be like. This kind of situation can lead to a deep-seated hopelessness, one of the most common “diseases” in post-dictatorial societies. People who have been part of a centralized economy all their lives find it very hard to understand the mechanisms of the free market economy and of democracy. Again, it will be easier for younger people to learn and adapt to these mechanisms.
Nationalism versus Globalism
Post-communist societies are quite polarized between traditionalists and modernists. Traditionalists look to the past, to ethnicity, and to religion as sources of identity, while modernists oppose these as outdated and look ahead to modern globalist concepts. After the fall of dictatorship, the artificially constructed identity of ethnic groups that had been part of such states entered a major crisis. People were confronted with a critical need to define a new identity. In this, ethnicity came to play a central role.
Another aspect that further complicates matters is the religious dimension of people’s identity, a dimension whose importance was rediscovered after atheistic propaganda ceased and governments stopped exercising control over society. When people’s identity was redefined, merging ethnicity and religion (technically known as philetism, a heresy condemned by a Christian council in the 19th century), this combination became truly explosive. In former Yugoslavia, from a philetist perspective, to be a Serb is to be Eastern Orthodox, to be a Croat is to be Catholic, and to be Bosnian is to be Muslim. When such sharply defined identities collided, the terrible result caused tens of thousands of deaths.
At the other end of the world-view spectrum, in post-communist societies we also find those who argue that looking to the past as a source of individual and corporate identity is detrimental to the establishment of a modern, developed society. These people are usually strong believers in alleged virtues of secularism (radical separation of religion from the public sphere) and globalization (a present-day tendency towards creation of cultural and economic uniformity across the whole world). It is again obvious that such polarization of the public arena has a negative effect on social cohesion in post-communist societies and slows transition to democracy.
Lack of Models
One critical situation in periods of transition is an inability of older generations to offer a viable model to younger generations. Because of compromises or tacit acceptance of the former oppressive regime, most people in older generations lack moral authority in the eyes of new generations seeking spiritual guides. In spite of acknowledged limitations and of baggage carried from the former regime, these older generations have no moral choice today other than to engage in the effort of shaping the future of their churches and of their countries. There simply is no one else to step into the gap. In humility and by the grace of God, they can succeed—against all odds.
Money Talks
An extremely serious risk confronting communities, the church, and Christians who have been freed from oppressive regimes is that of letting themselves be controlled by the power of money. Christians often hold a dualistic world view in which prayer is spiritual while money is a worldly matter. Such believers never learn to handle money intelligently or to view their finances in the light of their faith in God.
Most practicing Christians living under oppression tend to be poor because they and their families are denied access to privileges of the ruling class. When freedom comes, some Christians who have business skills become active and start accumulating wealth. At this point they discover, to their surprise, that other members of their Christian community believed the communist lie that wealth (rather than “love of wealth,” as the Bible distinguishes) is the source of all evils. These perhaps well-meaning but ignorant Christians become envious and start slandering their business-minded brothers and sisters, accusing them of being worldly and of obtaining wealth by theft and dishonesty. As a result, the whole community loses, both in resources and in cohesion.
Clearly, from a biblical point of view, there is nothing sinister about wealth, so long as it results from honesty, integrity, and fair dealings. Yet the Bible addresses numerous warnings to wealthy people because they are exposed to serious risks of putting their trust in their resources rather than in God. These risks increase when Christians naïvely underestimate the corrupting power of money.
This same flawed and naïve understanding leads some Christians, including church leaders, to “sell themselves cheap” to competing foreign agencies and interests in the name of the allegedly higher interest of the Christian community. A number of Christian leaders in Eastern Europe have brought their churches into disrepute by their thirst for power, prompting them to engage their churches in projects and initiatives that made them dependent on external help—particularly financial—which then turns out to be debilitating to the local congregation. Such debilitating dependence is dishonoring to God.
Obsession with Buildings
One particular effect of underestimating the corrupting power of money can be observed in the current obsession with putting up church buildings, occurring in many Christian communities of all denominations in former communist countries. Under some authoritarian regimes it was/is indeed often very difficult, if not impossible, for churches to put up suitable buildings. Under freedom, congregations have a legitimate desire to provide themselves with accommodations for all their activities.
Yet not everything about this tendency is right. Frantic and compulsive building activity often leads to a neglect of the building up of the living congregation, which after many years of oppression, needs at least as much attention as external walls. These demanding building projects frequently exhaust the congregation, with very little, if any, spiritual benefit.
Some years ago, the church in which I worshipped started a new building project, in spite of the fact that its existing building was adequate and that the 60 members of the church were mainly elderly pensioners or students without income and, as a result, the congregation did not have the financial resources to sustain such a project. Yet a start was made on the building in the hope that money would somehow materialize, most probably from the United States. The building was wildly out of proportion to the size of the existing congregation, designed to hold more than 400 people. Today, after years of demanding effort, the building is still not finished, the church has been through crisis after crisis, and the number of congregants is smaller than it was when the project started.
On what basis do churches embark upon such huge projects? They are most often based on promises (or hopes of promises) from congregations in the West. Besides the irresponsibility of this conduct, on both sides of the equation, few count the cost of economic dependency that eventually must be paid. As the secularized “Golden Rule” goes, “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” Consequently, indigenous congregations are in danger of losing their independence and may be pushed unwillingly in directions its members would never have accepted under other circumstances.
The Price of Freedom
Any given community is as valuable as the price we are prepared to pay for it. If people and communities really want to enjoy freedom, they must consider the price freedom demands. Following are some possible prices we may need to pay.
Slower Growth
To keep intact the precious gift of freedom, Christians need to make the wise decision to accept a pace of personal and ministry growth that aligns with God’s reality, including financial reality, in our context and congregation. Otherwise we risk becoming dependent on external funding rather than God, and such dependent funding alliances will prove the archenemy of freedom. Saying this, we do not intend to promote the idea of isolating local and national churches from the church universal. That also would be contrary to the New Testament’s portrait of the church. At the same time, we cannot accept that one part of the ecclesiastical body (the one that has more money) should dictate to other, poorer parts of the body. This is not biblical partnership but ecclesiastical imperialism.
Biblical Interdependence versus Financial Dependence on Aid
Jesus Christ promised the apostles, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Biblically taught Christians believe genuinely and sincerely that it is Christ, through the Holy Spirit—not us, through the help of Western money—who will build the Church. Thus, communities need to learn to depend on God, rather than money, in determining ministry direction and to steward all resources according to biblical principles of justice and generosity.
Giving churches, individuals, governments, or organizations from many wealthy lands possess a financial power that can easily be abused through domination and control, both of which are incompatible with Christian understanding of partnership and financial giving. Strangely enough, it is often churches experiencing serious problems with members’ giving which are most tempted to engage in projects that exceed their financial capabilities and, as a result, end up in financial dependence. This is proof not only of ecclesiastical pride but also of irresponsible leadership, with grave consequences for the spiritual health of the church concerned. Christian leaders bear a responsibility to teach churches about the biblical disciplines of giving and to be models to church members in this area of the life of faith. Christian leaders must also prove wise and persuasive in making sure the church preserves its freedom and does not let itself become financially dependent.
Quite negative experiences of Christian churches in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe (unrealistic hopes, disappointment, nostalgia for the past) should alert us to the possibility and the danger of not being ready for freedom. Truly it often seems hard to learn from history. Yet with a little bit of help, and insights gained through reflection, such depressing experiences can be mitigated.
The Way Forward
All promise for our shared futures resides in investing in children and youth. They have been less damaged than adults by totalitarian systems, or for that matter by the flaws in free-market systems in the West. By mentoring them into becoming wise and good as discerning and fully engaged citizens of our communities and countries, we nurture hope. Seeds planted in them can bear fruit into eternity.
Danut Manastireanu, based in Romania, is director for faith and development for the Middle East and Eastern Europe for World Vision.
Edited excerpts reprinted with permission from Danut Manastireanu, After Liberation, Then What? Enabling and Protecting Communities in Post-Authoritarian Contexts (Monrovia, CA: World Vision International, 2012).