Editorial

As we identify the underlying themes of articles in this issue of Religion, State and Society, it may seem a bit peculiar to invoke the New Testament adage ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. Yet, although these contributions present quite different cases – the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in India, Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) in the Philippines and the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (ROC MP) in Russia and China – in one way or another, they all tell the story of how religions’ attempts to make a difference in their respective societies engage them in power relations that, ultimately, are regulated by the state and its agencies. These articles thus make valuable contributions to the theme of religious diversity and its management by the state, which is of paramount importance for understanding changes in contemporary religions and societies. From this perspective, issues of religious diversity are not simply about the coexistence of various religious phenomena within given societies but about the whole gamut of the ways in which people motivated by beliefs, values and affiliations work through social conventions, regulations and structures to reshape their lives and those of others. Such issues are also about the indirect and unintended effects that these efforts can yield.

The first two papers, by Samta P. Pandya and Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, follow the trajectories of two religious movements that play an increasingly prominent role in public services. While motivated by their devotional callings, their members also become involved in national politics and relationships with the state that can pose questions about the integrity of their original theologies and the motives of their leaders. While at their inception, these movements, ISKCON in India and INC in the Philippines, raised controversies around their beliefs, practices and memberships, their eventual high-profile public service gained them social acceptability and respect. Yet this newly acquired social capital and respectability would, ironically, provide new opportunities for their leaderships to engage in mainstream politics in problematic ways: in the form of new nationalism in the case of ISKCON in India or in a triumphalist assertiveness in the case of the INC leadership in the Philippines.

These articles can enliven current debates about the place and role of ‘faith-based’ organisations and, more broadly, about the role of religion in contemporary societies by calling us to look with a more discerning eye into religious motivations for civic engagement (Dinham 2009; Bretherton 2011) and the ways these motivations are shaped, modified and aligned with political contingencies and expediencies (Beckford 2012; Hjelm 2014). Pandya points out the significance of theological roots and devotional impetuses in the Krishna devotees’ impressive work for the Food for Life programme in India (and elsewhere in the world, we might add) while also drawing attention to their elective affinities and political friendships with the Hindutva nationalism of the country’s current regime. In the context of the Philippines, Jayeel Serrano Cornelio describes the INC members’ courageous work in disaster relief operations and charitable work while at the same time posing vexing questions about the movement leadership’s ability and willingness to be publicly accountable to the extent that befits any prominent public organisation. These cases point to the need for much more sophisticated approaches to the relationship between theology, religious practice, politics and society than a straightforward ‘cause–effect’ analysis.

Alexander Agadjanian’s and Alexander Lukin’s papers on the Russian Orthodox Church in the markedly different contexts of Russia and China also present opportunities to explore how practical theologies and organisational policies shape and are shaped by political environments, interests and alliances. Agadjanian draws on the recent official pronouncements by the ROC Moscow Patriarchate leadership to demonstrate its ambition to reshape the post-Soviet society on the basis of ‘traditional values’ and make Russia their bulwark and guardian vis-à-vis the presumed moral bankruptcy of the West. Yet, rather than being rooted exclusively in its ‘authentic’ theology, the Moscow Patriarchate’s stance on, and politics of, ‘traditionalism’ has been shaped by the sociocultural context of imperial and late Soviet Russia. Agadjanian’s paper suggests that the politics of elective affinity is at work here too, as this new traditionalism gained momentum alongside the formation of the country’s current political regime with its official traditionalist ideology and in tune with the rise of the transnational politics of conservatism elsewhere in the world.

While in Russia the Moscow Patriarchate has been successful in reasserting the Church’s dominance after decades of Soviet repression, in China it finds itself facing the challenge of defending the right of its sister church, the Chinese Autonomous Orthodox Church (CAOC) to follow its tradition and enable the freedom of religious practice for its adherents. Lukin’s study reveals how an intricate politics of international relations and the restrictive domestic regulation of religion play against each other to shape Russian Orthodoxy as a minority religion in China. Although the Chinese government has to take into account the Moscow Patriarchate’s alliance with the Russian State and the respective support it enjoys in Russia’s foreign policy, the CAOC’s official status is still in limbo, reflecting the general reluctance of Chinese officials to recognise minority rights. Lukin predicts that an expedient realpolitik will prevail and the Chinese government will take a creative approach to forging a status for CAOC that is acceptable to both Russian and Chinese sides.

We round out this issue of Religion, State and Society with a pair of book reviews. Michael Munnik reviews Sadek Hamid’s Sufis, Salafis and Islamists: The Contested Ground of British Islamic Activism, a book that gives view into a range of British Muslim theological and political trends. These trends – Sufi neo-traditionalism, Salafism and two types of Islamism (reformist and radical) – were especially competitive with each other in the vibrant decade of British Muslim activism following the Rushdie Affair of 1989. In his review, Munnik reminds us that in times when Muslims can be lazily broad-brushed as a monolithic group, it is important not only to understand their complex array of orientations but also to recognise the inwardly contested nature of these orientations themselves.

The other book review is from Joanna Rak, assessing Brent Nelsen and James Guth’s book Religion and the Struggle for European Union: Confessional Culture and the Limits of Integration. Rak explains the authors’ notion of ‘confessional cultures’ as being deeply ingrained attitudes and ways being in European states that have been fostered by centuries of Protestant or Catholic cultural dominance. Differences between confessional cultures, the book argues, have meant that historically Catholic states have tended to support greater European integration, while states influenced by Protestantism such as Britain, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries have been more sceptical. The British referendum outcome last June to ‘Brexit’ from the European Union makes this analytical discussion all the more urgent. If this book’s argument is correct and the British public’s EU scepticism has religious roots, then some readers may be tempted to wish that the decisions of Caesar had simply been left to Caesar.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.