Last week, the Riigikogu passed the Churches and Congregations Act without any amendments and sent it to President Alar Karis for signing. The president has already sent this document back to the Riigikogu twice on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

This situation prompts reflection not only on the content of the bill — about which many are quick to voice their opinions on social media and in the press — but also on how the bill was drafted and debated. Discussions have been ongoing for nearly a year, and throughout this time, our church has faced unfounded and unproven accusations.

Our matter discussed without our presence

In a democratic state, where power belongs to the people by definition, those entrusted with decision-making authority must not abuse that power. When decisions concern a significant portion of society, they must not only be preceded by thorough discussions involving all interested parties before reaching the Riigikogu in the form of draft legislation, but also by a substantive investigation and analysis of the issue at hand, in order to avoid superficial and incompetent solutions.

Unfortunately, many important decisions are often made without meaningful or extended debate and without careful consideration of potential consequences and risks. This is what happened with the bill to amend the Churches and Congregations Act. Decisions that affect religious organizations — and more broadly, the sensitive issue of freedom of conscience and religion — should, without a doubt, be made with the involvement of those most directly affected.

For nearly a year, our issue has been discussed and decisions made without us. Throughout the entire process of preparing these legal amendments, neither the Ministry of the Interior nor the Riigikogu reached out to our church, even though the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (formerly the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate – ed.) was repeatedly mentioned during parliamentary debates.

We have offered to meet, we are prepared to explain our positions and we are ready to restore constructive dialogue — dialogue that was unilaterally cut off by the former minister of the interior when he initiated the process of amending the Churches and Congregations Act.

In the interest of fairness, I should note that I once participated in a public meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee, but I was not originally invited and had to request special permission to attend. On the topic of Orthodoxy, the invited expert was instead a representative of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church. In this context, he cannot be considered impartial, as issues concerning the relationship between our organizations in Estonia remain unresolved.

It is clear to everyone which church these legislative changes are aimed at. But in a state governed by the rule of law, lawmaking cannot be based on the principle of "everyone knows who we're talking about." The law must be universal and fair to all, and most importantly, in accordance with the Constitution.

What took place in the media a week before and after the parliamentary debate on the amendments was telling: once again, the same familiar talking points about this issue were repeated in public discourse and the press. Another revealing example was the panel discussion titled "Challenges for the Orthodox Church," held in August at the Opinion Festival and organized by the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAOC). The panel featured theologian Tauri Tölpt, deputy head of the Faculty of Theology and Associate Professor of Church History at the University of Tartu Priit Rohtments and Ringo Ringvee, advisor at the Ministry of the Interior's Department of Religious Affairs.

According to the program, the discussion was supposed to address our church, yet for some inexplicable reason, the EAOC did not consider it necessary to inform us — let alone invite us to participate. We found out about it completely by chance and only through personal initiative was I able to join the discussion at the last moment to present our church's position. This was a telling example. An opinion had already been announced in advance and the entire discussion was seemingly intended only to reinforce it.

A year ago, amid the campaign launched against our church by the Alexander Orthodox Brotherhood, we organized an international academic-practical conference titled "The Orthodox Church in Estonia – Independence: Opportunities, Risks, Consequences," dedicated to analyzing the state of Orthodoxy in Estonia and exploring opportunities for improving the relationship between our church and the state. Our hope was that, through joint discussion, we could evaluate the next steps together.

We invited state representatives as well as representatives of member churches of the Estonian Council of Churches. Most of all, we had hoped Metropolitan Stephanos, head of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, would attend so that we could address shared questions in an academic and cooperative setting. But he declined the invitation.

The Estonian Christian Orthodox Church is a religious organization officially registered in Estonia. Our faithful live in Estonia and are part of Estonian society, and it seems self-evident that we should be heard on matters that directly affect us.

You don't just change churches

We share the state's concern for national security and consider it a very important issue. However, when it comes to the amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act, it cannot be said that these changes will enhance security, as the public is being led to believe.

On the contrary, the amendment process and the way it has been handled have created additional tension and division in society. We cannot accept that the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (ECOC), its clergy and laity are being treated as a potential threat.

We have repeatedly emphasized that we are an independent church operating in full accordance with the laws of the Republic of Estonia. This was stated in the ECOC Synod's declaration on April 2, 2024, reiterated at our press conference on April 9, 2024 and has since been consistently emphasized in our publications and public statements.

As President Alar Karis rightly noted, the current legislation already contains the necessary mechanisms to ensure national security.

Canonical ties to the Moscow Patriarchate do not compel us to act against our country or state. Quite the opposite — we see our contribution to the spiritual care of the people of Estonia as strengthening social cohesion and thus improving security. By contrast, persecuting a segment of society based on their faith weakens that cohesion and increases security risks. And yet, despite our arguments and the absence of any legal violations, the state — through the Ministry of the Interior and much of the Riigikogu — refuses to hear us or engage in dialogue.

It is true that our church primarily serves Estonia's Russian-speaking population, but our doors are open to all. Several of our congregations include a significant number of Estonians and we also offer spiritual support to refugees from Ukraine, many of whom have become members of our church.

Despite Russia's military aggression against Ukraine, our parishioners understand the profound significance of religious affiliation. One does not simply switch churches — this is a conscious decision for every believer, independent of geopolitical circumstances or even armed conflict.

It is important to stress that comparing our church's activities in Estonia to those of the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia is inappropriate. Our statutes explicitly state that our activities in Estonia are conducted within the bounds of Estonian law. Anything that falls outside those bounds is not acceptable within our operations.

We were fully prepared to support the inclusion of this principle in the proposed legislation, as we see no contradiction with our position. The highest governing body of our church is the Council of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, and portraying our church primarily as a conduit of foreign influence in Estonia is a deliberate act of manipulation.

The debate in the Riigikogu last week over the proposed amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act showed that government representatives — with few exceptions — not only do not wish to listen to our church, but also show little regard for each other's opinions or for the position of the president.

We hope the head of state will remain principled and refuse to sign the bill into law. It is likely that we will also have to await a decision from the Supreme Court.

This October will mark a full year since our church began living in uncertainty about its future. We pray that in these difficult times, reason and justice will prevail and that dialogue will replace confrontation. May God help us all find the path to mutual understanding!

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!